# Is all matter in the universe moving at light speed?

1. Jan 10, 2009

### gabriel4786

First off, for my first post I would like to say Hello to all! Secondly, I am definitely a rookie in the subject that I'm discussing and if any of what I mention has been answered or has an explanation, please follow up on that with me! Again, I'm just a rookie and I am seeking more seasoned advice to the questions in this post! Thanks!

It is understood that time is a 4th dimension, meaning it interacts with the otherknown dimensions and is supposedly an "independent" law of nature, but what I am wondering is perhaps time is just a side effect of traveling the speed of light? Sort of like a lag. If the entire universe is moving at the speed of light, then everything else we can see in the universe will appear to be sitting still, much in the same way as a car going the same speed as you on the highway appears to be stationary, except the fact that it is moving forward. It is still to observers but in reality is actually moving.

So, it is known that if you were to travel the speed of light in a car, and turn on the headlights, that beam of light would travel away from you at the speed of light. At the same time, if we were to travel up to the speed of light, time for us would slow DOWN. Is that not obvious evidence of the idea that time is simply a side effect of traveling the velocity of light to begin with? Why does it have to be an extra dimension, as opposed to an illusion?

Does not the general belief that moving faster away from the speed of light will slow time, prove that time is actually moving backwards, or perhaps in all directions? If it were true the universe was moving light speed? It seems to me that to slow time down in a environment that was already moving light speed, you would have to travel at a NEGATIVE speed, which is impossible because in space what defines direction? You can move forward this way, move forward that way, etc. But there's no stopping and backing up!

Does this not acknowledge the possibility that time is simply a phenomenon and does this also not support the idea that we are already moving light speed, yet have no way to gauge our movement because everything else is traveling the same speed?

Has this been looked in to? My understanding is people have no idea what time is, and there's no solid evidence that time is a dimension instead of a phenomenon

If any of this were true, any speed we travel in life would mean we were traveling ever so slightly faster than light! To turn a flash light on, would mean that beam if light is traveling twice the speed of light. So perhaps light only travels at half of 186,000,000 miles per second? It just appears as if it travels at that speed because when we measure light, we are measuring the speed we are moving + the speed at which it moves away from us!

The universe is a very volatile, alive and chaotic place. It is just too big for us to see, so we have to use our minds to understand how it works. That is the gift we have. It is easy to forget that we really do not know the beginnings of how our universe functions and operates. We have learned a little from telescopes but the majority of enlightenment has been obtained through human thought alone, It's important to remember that no notion is too far out there to be considered a candidate for further investigation! Great minds of times (or light) passed have shown us that the greatest discoveries were due to the greatest dose of modesty and ignorance, as discovery most often is the result of a mistake!

2. Jan 10, 2009

### Chalnoth

Er, the overall motion of the universe is meaningless. If you changed the velocity of every single object in the universe by the exact same amount, nothing whatsoever would change. This is the essence of relativity: without comparing your speed to that of some other object, there is no possible way to determine how fast you are going.

3. Jan 10, 2009

### gabriel4786

It would not change within the universe, but that doesn't mean the universe as a whole wasn't moving forward, right? Another way of looking at it, is the objects in a car appear to be stationary, relative to anyone in the car, but if you zoom out of the car, it's apparent that the car and everything in it just blew past a cop and got a speeding ticket for moving a certain speed. At the same time, in the same car, same speed, if it were to crash into a wall, all of the once stationary items would suddenly continue moving the speed the car was moving. So if our universe is moving any speed, if observed externally, the speed of everything in it would equal the speed of universe + speed of objects moving inside of it.

If you're on a train moving 60 mph, and you run 5mph on that train, are you not actually moving 65mph? Thats why I dont understand what relativity is relative to. Things inside the universe? What about outside the universe? It doesn't hold up then. To be relative, you have to determine what something is relative TO. The theory of relativity is relative to everything in the universe, but what happens if LISA in 2011 suggests the existence of other universes next to ours? Relativity becomes pretty restrictive, doesn't it?

4. Jan 10, 2009

### marcus

What theory of relativity are you talking about? Einstein 1905 special or Einstein 1915 general. They are quite different. Which do you mean?
In either case what you say doesn't sound right. I never heard that either theory was relative to anything. Both theories, SR and GR, apply to lots of alternative styles of world. They certainly aren't tied down to the one we have! So how can they be "relative to everything in the universe?"

GR doesn't even KNOW about our universe. You have to first tell it basic stuff to begin with in order to get it to compute meaningful numbers about our particular universe. So I get the impression you aren't so sure of what you are saying.

A sign of this is where you say LISA would suggest something in 2011. LISA won't even exist in 2011.

How so? But I'm curious, what observational evidence do you imagine coming in that would support the idea of other 4D universes sharing some higherdimensional space with ours?

How about giving us a link to a recent scientific paper, online so we can all look at and judge what it is actually saying and how reliable?

I used to hear a lot about multiverse and other branes and stuff like that back in 2003-2005. Not just in media. Real scientists talked about it at conferences. But it went out of style or something. Maybe it didn't pan out research-wise and there was disillusionment.

Before you can understand the real revolution going on in cosmology today you need to understand the standard accepted version that is being challenged and modified. I invite and urge you to learn some of the basics. I have a link to Einstein-Online in my signature which is great on cosmology. really up to date. How about reading the articles and coming back with some informed questions?

Last edited: Jan 10, 2009
5. Jan 10, 2009

### gabriel4786

It is theorized that dark matter is the result of gravitational forces that are bleeding over into ours. One of LISAs goals is to measure gravitational waves associated with this. As far as scientific papers go, I don't see why you can't google it, seeing as I would have to google it myself. I dont follow the typical process of science based on fact, as imagination is the source of everything we know today. There are some things, many things, that just do not currently have a scientific paper standing behind it. That's the problem with scientists and the scientific approach, they laugh at each others ideas, so all of them are afraid to communicate their ideas for fear of being ostracized. I do not want to think about how much this alone has hindered the growth of scientific knowledge.

What I've said are just thoughts and ideas, and I expected collaboration from other people who have pondered the same questions. Why does their have to be a paper behind it? Why can't I just get a reply from someone who has given thought to what I wrote and in turn use their imagination for a change to give a reply?

I'm sorry if I come across in a negative way, I'm just getting tired of people failing to think for themselves and always assuming that this is possible, or this isn't possible, based off general consensus that some other person came up with and wrote a paper about. Just please read my post and don't feel you need to be so critical. Use your imagination, I promise you'll get much better results than logic alone.

6. Jan 10, 2009

### gabriel4786

You're a real Sherlock Holmes. You single handedly discovered that I was not versed on the fundamentals behind the theory. Your conclusion that what I say doesn't hold water is a real accomplishment, given that I started off my post explaining that I am a rookie. Twice. Congratulations. At least you are under the impression you called me out on something. That's what matters. Hopefully you'll put two and two together again and edit your post to make yourself look like less incompetent.

I'm glad I didn't waste the time of digging up a paper for you to pretend to understand, as it obviously wouldn't have accomplished much.

I'm sorry you took offense to my retort, but that was not my goal. It was simply a second attempt at asking someone with maturity to reply to my post with compassion, and obviously you don't have that. I am proud of my post and I stand by it. I asked good, healthy questions and apparently asking questions around here is a no-no.

Thanks for the tiff.

7. Jan 10, 2009

### gabriel4786

See, now you're coming around. I still don't understand why you are editing your post to reply. I admit I don't know a lot of the fundamentals, but I will also admit that a lot of it is hard to understand. I have a 6th grade education, I am self taught, so my ability lies mostly in the way of asking questions. Cosmology is not the easiest topic to decipher from a technical stand point for me. However, we still share a common interest in WANTING to understand what's around us, regardless of what kind of education or knowledge we have on the topic, right?

From what I gather, you are telling me to read up on those links to obtain the answers to the questions I raised in my first post, correct? I say that because I have still not seen anything regarding what I was talking about :) I'm willing to read up and at least try to understand, but if I am to do that then I expect you to be also willing to take the time to break down my post and give me feedback in a less technical format. Like I said, we share a common interest, so there's no reason to not work with each other

8. Jan 11, 2009

### marcus

Hello gabriel,
I just now saw your posts #5, 6, 7 for the first time. I did not edit my earlier post in response to your later ones, as you seem to think.

I did in fact google LISA earlier to refresh my memory and I didn't find anything supportive of what you were claiming. So I asked you, and I ask you again, to find an online professional source relating LISA to whatever you are talking about (whatever it is, extra dimensions... leaking...)

I imagine there could be something, if you say you saw it, and I'm curious, as I said. I'd like to see. An online source is something we can examine and judge if it's reliable and says what you say etc.

9. Jan 11, 2009

### gabriel4786

http://www.wimp.com/bigtheory/ the guy talking here im sure is more qualified than you? then you can type in google "lisa gravity nasa" without quotes. i ask you, if you don't believe in the existence of a multiverse, what is your reasoning behind that? why is your thinking so restricted? you might know a lot about math and the principles, but your imagination needs work. instead of working to disprove theories why dont you instead work to prove them? i guess i can tell you why - its because thats how you were taught and you dont know how to stray from that. thats what makes people ordinary and thats why you are ordinary. have fun following the footsteps of others.

10. Jan 11, 2009

### marcus

Heh heh, that's not a scientific paper it's a Michio Kaku video!!!

11. Jan 11, 2009

### gabbagabbahey

I haven't seen anything to suggest Marcus' imagination needs work. Perhaps you are simply imagining that his imagination needs work.

Because that's not how science works. You can never prove a scientific theory, the best you can do is repeatedly fail to disprove it.

If i were you, I wouldn't try the lottery anytime soon; your guessing skills need as much work as your manners.

12. Jan 11, 2009

### gabriel4786

Ahhh, you grin as if you have defeated me, and the joke is on me. Again, you have displayed a wonderful example of your lack of comprehension. Explain to me why you were expecting a scientific paper? I already explained my disdain for them, and in your previous post you simply asked for a professional source. It appears as if you are only capable of clicking on links, as you would have found much more information not involving Michio regarding LISA if you had actually followed the instructions of my last post.

Look, if you cant reply to my questions and what I write, why are you here? Your efforts at being above the "stupid guy" are only making you look incompetent. You're a really poor example of what this website should be promoting. I can't imagine how many people you've scared away due to your cocky attitude. You might have the book smarts man but you lack the wisdom and intuition to make the most of it. I hope you come around some time and learn to greet newcomers who show interest in the topic with an open ear and mind. I guess it's obvious how lousy you've made my experience, but I won't let one bad apple ruin the whole sack.

13. Jan 11, 2009

### Staff: Mentor

This is not a research forum or a site to develop speculations and "new theories." It simply isn't part of the mission of PF. Please read the Physics Forums Global Guidelines, in particular the section on Overly Speculative Posts.