Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

Light Fluctuations

  1. Nov 14, 2005 #1
    i don't know for sure if this goes here, so, instead of deleting it, if it doesn't belong here, could someone move it for me or tell me where it does go?

    Light Fluctuations

    After reading an article in the Collier’s Encyclopedia of 1968 (“Phyfe to Reni”-book 19-pages 709-719)-yes, I realize it is a rather VERY old book and is most definitely outdated by now, I have come to gain better understanding of Newtonian Mechanics and Galilean Mechanics and the thoughts thereafter of the Luminiferous Ether and the relative speed of the earth in comparison to this ether. I have also come to see how an ether can not be present (in this view of physics anyways).

    I have, however, come down to an assumption, if you may; a simple hypothesis and a bit of question. It was said that in Newtonian Mechanics that the speed of light was an absolute constant, and that in Relativity the speed of light was an absolute relative. One speaks of Frames of Reference (such as from a point of view from one individual to another in any situation) and how both have some implication of how the speed of light reacts and is effected or not effected by ones reference frame. In Einstein’s Relativity the speed of light is relative depending on one’s reference frame and/or their speed and gravity therein. In Newton’s Principia the speed of light is the same (absolute) in every Inertial Reference Frame.

    In this document () there is a theory/hypothesis (yet to be tested) that the universe of time and/both space are indicated by frames (not in the sense of time “lines”, more like time “bubbles”, in which, when exiting one, another is created-and, when acting upon each other, they interfere due to different reference frames; or changes therein) (like in a video cassette, one frame, then another, then another, etc. until an entire motion picture is made)-except that it’s not explained that way and is explained a bit more directly. Now, if one implies Einstein’s relativity to this hypothesis one could deduct that any change in any inertial reference frame due to velocity or gravity would henceforth change the rate by which these “frames” have effect on each other in order to make this “motion picture”.

    Now, in the document, which I linked for you, it also includes a small hypothesis (probably not exactly true, but interesting at most) about photon dimensions. I will give a basic explanation of this here for better reference. This hypothesis states that, since light is the fastest thing in “our” dimension, it must be the slowest in the next dimension up (dimensions being viewed as “existence planes” rather than “objectile” dimensions [such as 2-D and 3-D]-yes, objectile is a word I made up…b/c I simply can’t think of any other to substitute the word dimension as many people view it as “objectile” yet, some of the new found physicists view it as “existence planes”, much like [for you spiritual persons out there] the spirit’s plane of existence and the physical body’s plane of existence). Thus, making it an intermediate between dimensions. The above linked document raises thought that Einstein’s Time dilation formula and His deduction through it (t=t’/SQRT(1-v^2/C^2). That when one’s velocity is equal or above C, the formula is inconclusive and can not produce any result…thus Einstein stated that because of this, it is impossible to reach C. Of course, that wasn’t his only reason, gravity impression due to speed would crush matter into a black hole if one ever even got remotely near this amount) that the speed of light is possible to reach-one can’t really explain how-and that it is because the formula used was a time dilation formula, and that when one reaches this speed, time no longer exists, or applies in any outer reference frame, and therefore can not be dilated.

    Through this, I have my question: IF, let’s just say IF, such things are possible (interesting at best as I suggested), would not the speed of light fluctuate due to the transfer of these “frames”, all included in a “motion picture”, to one another? A thought that, because of this “fluctuation”, would also cause all other things in the universe to fluctuate at the same exact rate (in a Newtonian View) or fluctuate at relative rates (as viewed in Einstein’s Theories of Relativity) could also be exacted to this question of light fluctuations would indeed be sincere.

    I hope that I have not broken any rules by posting this, as I have recently, oddly enough, been said to have been breaking many rules. This seems to be a perfectly logical question, and I assume it would intrigue many members on this board.

    I have thought on this in depth, rather lengthy actually, but through reading the article described in the first line of my post, I have come up with a list of things I should research and would like to ask other members’ opinions on the list (what I may take off, or what I must add). The list so far goes as follows:

    [blue]James Clerk Maxwell-“electromagnetic theory (of light)”
    Hendrik Antoon Lorentz
    Henri Poincarè
    Hermann Minkowski-“4 dimensional space-time continuum”
    Gregorio Ricci
    Tullio Levi-civita
    “Relativitstic Quantum Theory”
    Paul Adrien Maurice Dirac’s Electron Theory
    “Centrifugal force & Coriolis Force”
    “Luminiferous Ether”
    Albert A. Michelson
    ‘Ether-drift” and “Ether-drag”
    Edward W. Morley “Michleson-Morlet Experiment”
    ‘Stellar Aberration”
    George F. Fitzgerald
    R.J. Kennedy
    E.M. Thorndike
    W. Ritz
    R. Thomaschek[/blue]

    I’ve already studied quite a lot on Albert Einstein, but anything particular would be helpful. I know all about time dilation and gravitational lensing, though the math still lingers above my head, the understanding of the philosophy is rather simple to me, as I am a high school student with at-max math skills of basic Euclidian Geometry (which I suppose is major for Newtonian Mechanics). If I may ask that I get some feedback on both my question and the research list?

  2. jcsd
  3. Nov 14, 2005 #2


    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    I think you must have misread, or simply gotten that backwards.
    No. You have them backwards.
    There is no document there... most of what follows, however, is just idle speculation that doesn't reflect physical reality.
    Neither of those are true. Since one is always stationary in his/her own frame, matter would not crush into a black hole by going too fast.
    Quite frankly, that was mostly gibberish. But hopefully you will use this opportunity to learn what physics really says about those issues. If you are asking honest questions and making an honest effort to learn the real answers, there is nothing wrong with it - if you posted that in order to advertise your personal crackpottery, then there is.
  4. Nov 14, 2005 #3
    well, the basic idea is to learn more about physics as you said. i don't want to "advertise crackpottery", but if i'm wrong, i want to be corrected with it. i'm sorry about the link not being there, i typed that up at home and didn't have the link with me, must have forgotten it. here it is:

    http://www.dkoontz.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=9159&PN=1 [Broken]

    i have them backwards, how? i thought Einstein spoke of relative time and space and absolute speed of light and newton talked about absolute time and space and relative speed of light. that's what i said...right?

    i thought that the faster one went the more gravity seems to impress on that object. i've heard many times and figured that would be yet another reason for Einstein saying that this speed can not be reached. i don't know about the black hole thing, but doesn't gravity increase, thus slowing down the object? or something like it?

    please, tell me more. i am curious of this.

    Last edited by a moderator: May 2, 2017
  5. Nov 14, 2005 #4

    Doc Al

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    That site is just nonsense. You've linked to it before, please stop.
    Why don't you reread what you wrote? You said:
    As Russ said, that's just the opposite.

    Before offering your own "theories", why not spend a little time learning what has been well established? There are plenty of good books (and web sites) to start you off learning special relativity, since you seem to be interested in time dilation.
  6. Nov 14, 2005 #5
    Last edited: Nov 14, 2005
  7. Nov 14, 2005 #6

    Doc Al

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

  8. Nov 15, 2005 #7
    thank you! i will read that.
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook

Similar Discussions: Light Fluctuations
  1. Does light bend light? (Replies: 9)

  2. Light in a light clock (Replies: 13)