If the speed of light were zero

WillBlake
Messages
7
Reaction score
0
One problem that I have with physics is the notion that we can not go faster than the speed of light. I believe the solution is to consider the speed of light to be zero, and we are traveling at the speed of light and can never slow down completely. This may be considered to be just the same concept but in reverse, however, from this new concept it should be possible to go slower than 0. Please suggest experiments to test this.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
WillBlake said:
One problem that I have with physics is the notion that we can not go faster than the speed of light.

No information or matter can travel faster than the speed of light. Wikipedia: "The equations of relativity show that, for an object traveling faster than c, some physical quantities would be not represented by real numbers."

WillBlake said:
I believe the solution is to consider the speed of light to be zero,

The speed of light is the speed of anything having 0 rest mass. The speed of light itself is 299,792.458 km/s. I'm not sure if you can arbitrarily set the speed of light to zero, because then all subluminal speeds would then be negative. I may be wrong, but I think having c=0 might mess up some equations (E=mc2). Maybe consider c=1? Subluminal speeds would then be fractions, not negative.

WillBlake said:
and we are traveling at the speed of light and can never slow down completely.

Light itself can never slow down. We ( I assume you mean human beings), on the other hand, are traveling far slower than the speed of light. It is impossible for anything with mass to travel at the speed of light.

WillBlake said:
This may be considered to be just the same concept but in reverse, however, from this new concept it should be possible to go slower than 0. Please suggest experiments to test this.

Again, I'm not sure if subluminal speeds can be negative or not. The speed of light has been verified by http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speed_of_light#Measurement_of_the_speed_of_light". If I've made any mistakes in my understanding feel free to correct me.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
But if we all traveled at the speed of light, in which direction would we be traveling in?
 
If a baseball were too heavy to throw would a left-handed pitcher be better than a right-handed one?
 
WillBlake said:
One problem that I have with physics is the notion that we can not go faster than the speed of light. I believe the solution is to consider the speed of light to be zero, and we are traveling at the speed of light and can never slow down completely. This may be considered to be just the same concept but in reverse, however, from this new concept it should be possible to go slower than 0. Please suggest experiments to test this.

What do you mean by "consider" the speed of light to be zero? It is a fact that the speed of light is NOT 0 and I cannot see anything to be gained by "considering" something false.
 
This simply doesn't work. Setting C=1 works, and is done in GR for simplicity, but your idea would cause numerous problems with established physical theories. Most basically of all, we are NOT going faster than light is.
 
In this video I can see a person walking around lines of curvature on a sphere with an arrow strapped to his waist. His task is to keep the arrow pointed in the same direction How does he do this ? Does he use a reference point like the stars? (that only move very slowly) If that is how he keeps the arrow pointing in the same direction, is that equivalent to saying that he orients the arrow wrt the 3d space that the sphere is embedded in? So ,although one refers to intrinsic curvature...
ASSUMPTIONS 1. Two identical clocks A and B in the same inertial frame are stationary relative to each other a fixed distance L apart. Time passes at the same rate for both. 2. Both clocks are able to send/receive light signals and to write/read the send/receive times into signals. 3. The speed of light is anisotropic. METHOD 1. At time t[A1] and time t[B1], clock A sends a light signal to clock B. The clock B time is unknown to A. 2. Clock B receives the signal from A at time t[B2] and...
So, to calculate a proper time of a worldline in SR using an inertial frame is quite easy. But I struggled a bit using a "rotating frame metric" and now I'm not sure whether I'll do it right. Couls someone point me in the right direction? "What have you tried?" Well, trying to help truly absolute layppl with some variation of a "Circular Twin Paradox" not using an inertial frame of reference for whatevere reason. I thought it would be a bit of a challenge so I made a derivation or...

Similar threads

Replies
6
Views
2K
Replies
93
Views
5K
Replies
10
Views
1K
Replies
1
Views
2K
Replies
53
Views
6K
Replies
45
Views
6K
Back
Top