Different Perspectives in Theory Only

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter mikelus
  • Start date Start date
Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion centers on the concept of light speed and its implications in the context of black holes and cosmic events. The participant posits that light travels at a constant speed, influenced by gravitational forces from black holes at the universe's center. They explore the idea that the perception of light from distant stars is tied to the timing of cosmic events, suggesting that our understanding of when a star burns out or erupts is relative to our position in space and time. This leads to philosophical questions about the nature of time and perspective in observing cosmic phenomena.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of the speed of light and its constancy in physics
  • Basic knowledge of black hole physics and gravitational effects
  • Familiarity with concepts of time dilation and relativity
  • Awareness of cosmic events such as star formation and supernovae
NEXT STEPS
  • Research the implications of Einstein's theory of relativity on light speed
  • Explore the effects of black holes on light and time perception
  • Study the lifecycle of stars, including formation and supernova events
  • Investigate philosophical perspectives on time and observation in cosmology
USEFUL FOR

Astronomers, physicists, philosophy enthusiasts, and anyone interested in the complexities of light speed and cosmic phenomena.

mikelus
Messages
90
Reaction score
0
in theory only

I was wondering if their was a speed for light? I always thought of light as something that would change and
bend the rules. How ever if there's a black hole in our center of our universe Pulling the light in at a constant speed then
yes light would have a constant speed. I would think that light would travel as fast as it was turned on, meaning once
the star erupted into a star than that is the speed of the star in (their time, in ours) because we would witness it as fast
as the star erupted in our time since it traveled in their time to ours. This meaning that we are know more close than the next galaxy to the "center" of the universe. Since our time is no greater than the next galaxies. It's all the same. we witness the star erupting at the same rate it is burning or burning out. Say if we wanted to travel to the star and we took
off in our ship, by the time we got there the star could be burned out and we could have witnessed it on the way. say if
we traveled at the speed of light we could be there that much faster and would have seen it burn out that much faster.
But is it true to say it was burned out before or after the trip to the next galaxy? Is it fare to know that it was burned out
on such and such a date of our time according to our caculations. because what if the star wasn't burning out until we
went back in time to discover it, and we discovered it had actually had not been born yet. Say if we instead went into the future to see if it hadn't burned out yet. It's all these different perspectives that makes life so upredictable.
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
Perhaps the spacing between every one and a half sentences is a suggestion for us to read the Philosophy forums?
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
2K
  • · Replies 34 ·
2
Replies
34
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
10K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
2K
  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
7K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
3K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 22 ·
Replies
22
Views
1K
Replies
11
Views
6K