Can light travel faster than itself?

[jonpaulv]

The energy level of the light is errelevent. If the light always weakens as it travels that means that light has life span. And distance from point a to point b is infinite no matter what travels through it. So there is no point a or point b unless something is moving toward it. So that start of some energy to the end of some energy is always equal. no matter its distance. It is only the time spent between the two points that is created by our mind.

 

[rolls]

So over time some photons are going to "Escape" the universe, eg let's say the majority of matter is in a predefined area, and as you move further away from this area there is less and less material. If photons escape the material that means they will be moving further away from the "universe" and will never collide with another atom again.

Would this energy be effectively lost then because the photon will travel for ever and ever and never return?

 

[jonpaulv]

light(medium) - Destination ( death of light) = time and thus time is not real. The only thing that can be calculated is something that isn't real. Because that lights death exists while its still alive.

 

[jonpaulv]

If the light escaped the universe that means there is another destination for the light outside of the materials in it. And it has reached its destination before we even see it move.

 

[Drakkith]

But this would make time irrelevent. If you think about light years in distance, then that would mean I'm able to calculate 30000000000000 light years. And it only takes you a day to calculate the distance of a light source to you, yet that light source took that long to get to you. So how can we measure light in distance if traveling at that distance is observable in an instant. And if something does abosord the light in space then that proves the existence beyond the life span of light. Meaning if light stops because it is effected means that which effects it is there and more.

I'm not quite sure where you are coming from on this Jonpaulv. Light takes a finite time to travel any distance. It does not get there in an instant. Upon interacting with your eye it starts the process for you to "see" it. Also, it is not possible to tell the distance that a single photon has traveled if you only look at that one photon. We have to have a great many to build up an accurate picture of what is happening.

The energy level of the light is errelevent. If the light always weakens as it travels that means that light has life span. And distance from point a to point b is infinite no matter what travels through it. So there is no point a or point b unless something is moving toward it. So that start of some energy to the end of some energy is always equal. no matter its distance. It is only the time spent between the two points that is created by our mind.

I'm having a difficult time figuring out what you are trying to say here, as it doesn't seem to match up with standard science on how light behaves, but I will try to answer what I can.
To our knowledge light does not lose energy as it travels through any means other than the expansion of the universe. But this doesn't mean that it will cease to exist at some point, only that the wavelength continually gets redshifted beyond our capability to detect it.

So over time some photons are going to "Escape" the universe, eg let's say the majority of matter is in a predefined area, and as you move further away from this area there is less and less material. If photons escape the material that means they will be moving further away from the "universe" and will never collide with another atom again.

Would this energy be effectively lost then because the photon will travel for ever and ever and never return?

It is believed that the universe is approximately homogenous on the large scale, not clumped together in a certain area.

 

[Drakkith]

light(medium) - Destination ( death of light) = time and thus time is not real. The only thing that can be calculated is something that isn't real. Because that lights death exists while its still alive.

If the light escaped the universe that means there is another destination for the light outside of the materials in it. And it has reached its destination before we even see it move.

Jonpaulv, you seem to have some serious misunderstandings of basic physics that need to be corrected. Your views don't seem to match up with mainstream science, so please refrain from posting answers to questions unless you know for a fact that your explanation is directly from a reliable source. Remember, this forum is for teaching others about mainstream science, not about personal opinions or theories that haven't been peer reviewed yet.

 

[jonpaulv]

But the death of the light sources time let's say ten oclock. Wont stop existing until after it. Meaning the death of a start dies at ten oclock but we notice its death way after

 

[jonpaulv]

Do you see what I mean.

 

[Drakkith]

But the death of the light sources time let's say ten oclock. Wont stop existing until after it. Meaning the death of a start dies at ten oclock but we notice its death way after

I'm sorry I have no idea what you are trying to explain here. I don't know what "death of the light sources" means at all.

 

[rolls]

But the death of the light sources time let's say ten oclock. Wont stop existing until after it. Meaning the death of a start dies at ten oclock but we notice its death way after

Yes this is very well known, there are many stars that died millions of years ago, but we can still see them in the sky today as they are millions of light years away.

This is why it is reffered to as "light years" eg it takes several years for the light to travel from the star to us, so we have "lag" in our sight.

So if you are looking at something 5 light years away, it means you are seeing what happened there 5 years ago, you aren't seeing what is happening there at this instant.

 

[jonpaulv]

And modern science measures how light travels in years. It can travel only as far as its existing point. When a star dies its no longer there but we still see its rays. So I am moving into time now.

 

[jonpaulv]

And thus lag in our time of constant existence. So there are multiple time realms of existence then.

 

[jonpaulv]

so it takes time to witness something that occord in the past. So light is the present moment of the past?

 

[jonpaulv]

It would be like you finally getting to see color tv years after it was color.

 

[jonpaulv]

So our brains are inferior to that of something that can see that which occurs at its current moment as opposed to our primitive persception of time for us to wait.

 

[jonpaulv]

Yea lag in our sight is like lag on a computer game. I see it faster then you did meaning it took ten seconds for me but twenty for you and your in the same era. Meaning Time is relative to observation. Meaning you can observe faster and the wave length can travel faster.

 

[jonpaulv]

So time isn't relative its subjective

 

[jonpaulv]

So time isn't relative its subjective

Time is subjective

 

[jonpaulv]

Because the same instance can occour at different moments. And exist when dead in another.

 

[jonpaulv]

So time travels then at a speed.
Because my planet blew up but you won't see it do that for a 1000 years.
So time and existence can travel and is irrelevant and subjective.

 

[jonpaulv]

And then you would say no way man Look that star is still there. And i would take you over to it and it won't be there.

 

[Drakkith]

So our brains are inferior to that of something that can see that which occurs at its current moment as opposed to our primitive persception of time for us to wait.

It has nothing to do with our brains being inferior or not. There isn't anything that can observe an event the instant it takes place in that event's rest frame. Information is limited by the speed of light in all cases.

So time isn't relative its subjective

No, time is relative in that the passage of time for one observer doesn't need to match that of another observer. We can relate two observers by performing a lorentz transformation between the two frames, after which each observer will agree with the other in regards to the passage of time, the order events occurred, etc.

So time travels then at a speed.
Because my planet blew up but you won't see it do that for a 1000 years.
So time and existence can travel and is irrelevant and subjective.

Time and existence are not physical objects. Time is what a clock measures, it is how we separate events that occur in the same locations but don't happen at the same time if that makes sense. Time cannot have a velocity or speed any more than distance can. It is far from irrelevant, it is a requirement for accurately describing the universe. Existence is a whole other can of worms that doesn't need to be discussed here, as it's very very easy to get extremely speculative about it, which is generally against PF rules.

 

[jonpaulv]

So existence is time. Even though it takes a kinda sub category of time for us to witness something in time. In other words everything exists at once but takes time to travel to us and occur making two forms of time. The instance that occurs and the instance we see it. Because if you were near the star when it dies and goes away you won't see what another planet will still see of it. It will be gone in that sub category of time

 

[jonpaulv]

and exist in another.

 

[Drakkith]

So existence is time. Even though it takes a kinda sub category of time for us to witness something in time. In other words everything exists at once but takes time to travel to us and occur making two forms of time. The instance that occurs and the instance we see it. Because if you were near the star when it dies and goes away you won't see what another planet will still see of it. It will be gone in that sub category of time

and exist in another.

Again, time is what a clock measures. Events happen and it takes a finite time for the information to reach us, whether it is through light, sound waves, pressure, etc. Just because a photon is in flight and hasn't reached us yet does not mean that it does not exist, or that the emission and absorption of the photon are the only two "instants" that it exists. As for existence, as I said we can't get into that here, as it is off topic and threads on it usually get locked anyways due to people not being able to keep from speculating about it.

 

[jonpaulv]

Can you move the movement of light and thus travel faster then it?

 

[Drakkith]

Can you move the movement of light and thus travel faster then it?

I don't know what you mean by "move the movement of light", but I know for sure that you cannot travel faster than c, which is the speed of light.

 

[jonpaulv]

making it move as far as it wanted so you would move it faster then the photons can weaken it?

 

[Drakkith]

making it move as far as it wanted so you would move it faster then the photons can weaken it?

I have no idea what this means. Move what? Weaken what?

 

[jonpaulv]

Move me ten miles an hour inside of a subway train moving 60. I then am going 70. So move something inside of light. Find something that moves inside of light.