# Lightspeed is 0 I will proof that

1. Jun 21, 2004

### rudeonline

Lightspeed is 0....I will proof that..

Hello, I would like to proof that lightspeed should be 0 or 1.
the 1 would mean the slowest movement that can exist.
It is very simple, If time is zero by lightspeed, movement should then be zero also. Time is like a train going 300.000 km/sec. By moving you slow your own speed in time. Moving is slowing down the speed of time and your own time.
If you would move 300.000 km/sec the train stops. If the train would going faster as 0 it would drive backward in time. For people in the train it would look like that the train ( witch is going backward in time) go's faster as 300.000 km/sec. Do I have to proof more? Can it be that simple?
:surprise:

2. Jun 21, 2004

### HallsofIvy

First, the verb is "prove", not "proof". Second, this makes no sense at all. You assert that "lightspeed should be 0 or 1" but don't say in what units. (It's not at all uncommon for texts on relativity to choose unit so that the speed of light IS 1.)

Finally you give a garbled account of (I think) the fact that the time interval perceived by an observer slows as the observer's speed increases (relative to another observer) going to 0 as the first observer's speed goes to lightspeed. That says nothing at all about what lightspeed REALLY is (or in what units- do you even understand that every measurable quantity has to have units?).

3. Jun 21, 2004

### rudeonline

I'm sorry for my English, I'm a dutchman so that can explain something....

4. Jun 21, 2004

### rudeonline

See time as a train. with each railpart as a second. If you slow down the train, are the railpart then geting longer or do you need more time to pass them? If you stop there is only one railpart left.

5. Jun 22, 2004

### Russell E. Rierson

This seems to be an interesting thought experiment since light is defined to have zero rest mass.

Say that if objects of zero rest mass shrank at a slower rate than more massive objects, the zero rest mass entities would appear to be rapidly expanding, the way a sphere of light does.

If two massive objects were "co-shrinking" they would not be able to determine what was happening - whether mass/energy is a fixed constant or if space-time is the fixed constant and matter was shrinking?

6. Jul 18, 2004

### rudeonline

I have my theory written in dutch at www.rudolfhendriques.com[/URL] I will try to explain everything in Inglisch...I think the earth with the sun etc is moving throu time with the speed of light. Imagine that we are moving into the direction of a black hole. What can stop us speeding throu space? I think nothing. Because we are moving with the speed of light we are getting smaller. Each meter forward we become a meter smaller. So we would stay more our less on the same spot all the time just getting smaller. If we switch on a light it would stay there where it was switcht on. We are moving into the direction of time an getting smaaler. It would look like the light is moving, that just how it look like. Also because we think we would go back in time if we travel faster as lightspeed it would mean that at lightspeed the time is zero. Then because speed is distance in time it would mean that if there is no time there is no space. The universe is like a big balloon an we are somewhere in the middle. Not the balloon is getting bigger, we are shrinking. From outside the balloon could be a black hole, light can not escape from our universe.

Last edited by a moderator: Apr 21, 2017
7. Jul 18, 2004

### Alkatran

I think he's talking from the photon's perspective. Something about if we reach lightspeed the time passing is 0 and so is the distance, so the speed is 0. (Which doesn't make much sense, since 0/0 is undefined)

8. Jul 18, 2004

### loseyourname

Staff Emeritus
The speed of light is measured to be c. A photon can't measure its own speed, so this says nothing about what the photon itself experiences.

9. Jul 18, 2004

### Alkatran

Oh I get what he means. He's saying that when you switch a lightbulb on, the light sphere created stays in the same spot, but we are shrinking in such a way that makes it look like the light is expanding at c.

Too bad this all breaks down if you have light moving towards the bulb from other sources.

10. Jul 18, 2004

### rudeonline

That's why I think that the speed could be 1. one stands for the slowest movement possible. If it was really zero it coult not exist. Maybe it's a good point to think in more as 4 dimensions. How this dimension would look like I do not know yet but I'm sure that there will be more as 4 dimensions what we have to find out.

11. Jul 18, 2004

### Guardian01

slow.....speed is not constant........can't be one! HeHe :tongue2:

12. Jul 18, 2004

### Guardian01

eek...zero cannot exist!

13. Jul 18, 2004

### Alkatran

I would argue that 0.75 < 0.8 < 0.9 < 1, thus 1 is not the slowest speed possible.

14. Jul 19, 2004

### rudeonline

That's what I try to tell. If you say the speed is 0.7 or 0.8 whatever 1 is the slowest speed what can exist. 0.7 should be writtenas 1 then. Is there by the way an accelaration speed for light? It could explain why 2 sources of light can reach eachtother.

15. Jul 20, 2004

### Alkatran

That is the one of the most foolish things I've read.

You just said .5 = 1. That's only true if you change units.

16. Jul 20, 2004

### rudeonline

maybe an misunderstand but if one should be taken as the lowest speed possible you can not use 0.5 as something. 1 is the lowest, lower as 1 schould be 0 then. It's not so foolish, just try to use your imagination. Everything start with a first step. Not with a half step.

17. Jul 20, 2004

### ahrkron

Staff Emeritus
I think you need to state clearly what you are doing.

First, it seems you're trying to say that light travels at the lowest possible speed.

Then, you seem to strongly favor the use of time and distance units in which c = 1. An example of such units would be the second for time, and the lightsecond for distance. By definition, c=1 in such scheme.

The first problem I see with this is that there is plenty of evidence for the existence of speeds smaller than that of light. I see no logical necessity for light being the slowest entity.

Second, the use of different units should be inconsequential to your model.

18. Jul 20, 2004

### Lama

"Let us say that I am a photon.

I can be in 0 rest-mass, I am (maybe) forever young, but do I have a 0-size?

If I have a 0-size then I cannot be found as a center of any place, which is not itself a 0-dim_place
".

A real 0-dim_place cannot be observed by any measurement tool and we have no information about it.

Since Light is a measurable phenomena where position and momentum are its complementary properties, we can conclude that time itself is under the laws of Heisenberg uncertainty principle, which is deeply connected to h plank constant.

In short, the speed of light depends on the quantum duality (wave/particle or momentum/position) properties of the photon.

First let us start by examine some today's physics points of view of what is called a field and a particle.

If I am not wrong then the concept of a field is used to describe the common foundation of some particles with particular properties.

Each particle which belongs to some distinguished collection of properties, its existence is first of all based on its interactions with its particular field.

It means that no measurable particle is totally separated from the other measurable particles that share the same field.

If each particle is also its own field, then a collection of particles cannot have more then one particle, which is not the case by today's physics.

"We should mention two possible points of confusion. Firstly, the aforementioned "field" and "particle" descriptions do not refer to wave-particle duality. By "particle", we refer to entities which possess both wave and point-particle properties in the usual quantum mechanical sense; for example, these "particles" are generally not located at a fixed point, but have a certain probability of being found at each position in space. What we refer to as a "field" is an entity existing at every point in space, which regulates the creation and annihilation of the particles" ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_field_theory )

So, quantum particles are described by momentum/position or wave/particle duality.

A Language which is based on excluded-middle reasoning is not (in my opinion) the appropriate language to deal with quantum phenomena.

In an excluded-middle reasoning two opposites are simultaneously contradicting each other, and the result is no middle.

In an included-middle reasoning two opposites are simultaneously preventing/defining each other, and the result is a middle.

The best known example is the duality of a photon, which has both a wave and a particle properties that preventing (the measurement of its accurate place prevents the accurate information about its momentum, and vise versa) and defining (one property cannot exist without the other) each other.

For example, please see this picture: http://www.geocities.com/complementarytheory/comp.jpg

As you see the two black profiles and the white vase are clearly preventing/defining each other.

Please also see http://www.geocities.com/complementarytheory/CompLogic.pdf , which is a short paper of mine on included-middle reasoning.

In short, in my opinion, we cannot ignore QM , if we want to find the accurate speed of light.

Last edited: Jul 20, 2004
19. Jul 20, 2004

### rudeonline

My point of view tells that we are travelling throu space with the speed of light. If you are standing still you have the highest speed. By moving you slow a little bit in time. So how faster you seem to go how closer you will be at point 0. If you finaly reach the speed of light you will see the earth moving with 300.000 km/sec. If you go faster the time would go backwards and you will see people on earth moving back in time. Because the person traveling with lightspeed can know that time on earth is running, we are getting older, he can conclude that he must be standing still in time and space.

20. Jul 20, 2004

### berty

Relative viewpoint

Alkatran: Oh I get what he means. He's saying that when you switch a lightbulb on, the light sphere created stays in the same spot, but we are shrinking in such a way that makes it look like the light is expanding at c.

Doesn't it depend on your viewpoint relative to the event?
You all seem to be viewing it from outside, so you can differentiate between the central area staying still (0) and the light sphere moving away @C (1) and the central area shrinking @C (1) and the light sphere staying still (0) relative to the background.
If you were at the centre or on the light sphere boundary you wouldn’t be able to tell whether the centre or the light sphere were moving @C relative to your viewpoint?

Alkatran: Too bad this all breaks down if you have light moving towards the bulb from other sources.

Again, it depends on your viewpoint relative to the event.
Another thing, wouldn’t ‘0’ equal the state of the Cosmos when entropy/disorder were at maximum ie:- no usable energy available, as every point in the Cosmos had the same temperature (0˚K) as every other point?
:uhh:

Last edited: Jul 20, 2004