I am a laymen. I just thing that if the speed of light is constant then all acceleration should be measured against it. It doesn't move. Everything moves through it. Is that how it works? This has been making me anxious.
I'm not sure what this is supposed to mean. Measuring an acceleration against a speed? It's like comparing the height of your house to the speed limit on the road outside.if the speed of light is constant then all acceleration should be measured against it.
Again, I don't think this makes any sense. Light definitely moves.It doesn't move. Everything moves through it. Is that how it works?
The constancy of the speed of light makes it useless as a tool for measuring the speed of anything else. No matter how fast the "anything else" is moving or how it accelerates, light will always be moving at light speed relative to it.I just thing that if the speed of light is constant then all acceleration should be measured against it.
I am a laymen. I just thing that if the speed of light is constant then all acceleration should be measured against it.
Start by understanding why people say that the speed of light is constant. What they mean is that if you see two objects race past you, and only one of them is a beam of light in a vacuum, then that beam of light will always be the faster of the two. This is true no matter how fast that other object moves! Moreover, to someone co-moving with that object, the beam of light will have the same speed as it does for you. That's what they mean by "constant" in this context.
There are people do indeed measure all speeds relative to the speed of light in a vacuum. They assign it a value of "1" and all other speeds are less than one but greater than or equal to zero.
That makes a lot of sense to me. As though things are slowing down and becoming denser from 1?
Nothing is becoming denser. A car moving at a speed of 60 mi/h is not any less dense than it would be if it were moving at a speed of 30 mi/h.
I guess I just think it should be measured against the speed of light.
There is a big difference between using the speed of light as a unit of measure of velocity versus using any light (going in ?? direction) as a reference frame. You need to be clear regarding what you are talking about. I doubt very much that it would make things simpler.Sorry, that was dumb.
And it's speed is measured in relation to an observer fixed to the earth.
I guess I just think it should be measured against the speed of light. That should be the standard. As though everything is moving through light. It would make things simpler.
it's speed is measured in relation to an observer fixed to the earth
As I understand it, it's not known why the speed of light is constant.
I think that space moves and light doesn't.
Good luck trying to make that into a self consistent framework that can be used to make experimental predictions. Once you have done that, you should easily be able to publish it in a peer reviewed journal. Then we would be glad to discuss it here.I think that space moves and light doesn't. Entertain it as a shift in perspective.
Yes, but not here.I actually can speculate however I wish.
I doubt that there is any scientific study which concludes that allowing students to pursue their own personal speculations is an effective way to teach relativity.Doubt and asking questions actually makes a mind stronger (stranger as well).
Perhaps it will protect you from the poison of arrogance which seems to have prevented you from considering my point.