Speed of light what if question.

[Integral]

cant find the site that showed the experiment that proved that light moved slower through different materials, but from all the sites I looked at. This is understood to be true. Plus you probably just saying C is constant in a vacuum. So yes in a vacuum the speed of light is constant.

This is a frequent topic. Hopefully it will make into our slowly forming FAQ thread.

light ALWAYS propagates at c. In a medium it is periodically adsorbed by the atomic structure. This creates a delay, kind of like driving down a street will lots of stop signs. While you drive at say 25mph, your average speed will be much lower, over several blocks.

 

[Alex Massi]

This topic is difficult enough to comprehend, It becomes even more so if the thread thought process is broken. Why I posted that only one opposing view at a time can be presented than I reply than it can be discussed by all.

Integral I am fully aware you are a forum moderator but I am also requesting that you please also follow my requested procedure. On my part I will post a reply in less than 16 hours.

Integral thank you in advance for your consideration and understanding.

 

[Alex Massi]

To make this more understandable a few shortcuts will be used.

My post above made the statement that Time is the frequency of light relative to where you were. This is really the first point of understanding needed to go forward into Einstein’s Theories. UglyEd has suggested a view that he believes argues against my statement. I use frequency in my real life work but the more generally accepted word used is wavelength. So we are now discussing the validity of the statement:

Time is the wavelength of light relative to you.

The c will be given a value of 1 to 100
100 = the c in a vacuum

Wavelength will be given a value of 1 to 100
50 = the wavelength of light in a vacuum


There are 4 flashlights all lined up exactly above each other all moving in precise unison of 100 MPH due North.

1. A flashlight in a vacuum = vacuum flashlight
2. A flashlight on the nose of the Space Shuttle in space above Earth but not far enough to be in a vacuum = shuttle flashlight
3. A flashlight on the nose of a jet at an altitude of 25,000 feet above sea level = jet flashlight
4. A flashlight on the hood of a car driving on a road at sea level = car flashlight




UglyEd’s Statements from his post.

A. Time is constant, objects just experience times passage at different rates.
B. Light does travel at different speeds through different materials. Light travels fastest through a vacuum.
C. The speed of light is constant is true and false.


Let us first review the results of B using our 4 flashlights. As the light travels through different densities of
Air UglyEd states that the light speed changes. Therefore we have:

Vacuum flashlight c = 100
Shuttle flashlight c = 98
Jet flashlight c = 96
Car flashlight c = 94

Statement C says it is true and false. The above goes over the false so we will look at the results if it were true. That and Einstein said it was true.

Vacuum flashlight c = 100
Shuttle flashlight c = 100
Jet flashlight c = 100
Car flashlight c = 100

Which one is true well I think B and C are both true. I will go further and state UglyEd thinks they are true, I think they are true, and Albert Einstein knew they where true.

For both to be true than these conflicting statements are missing a variable that is not mentioned, not understood mostly, by the posts on the net and in books.

Time is the wavelength of light relative to you.

As you know velocity = distance divided by time

Velocity or c is fixed – distance is fixed they are moving together at the same 100 MPH – that would leave time

My post above explained to you that the concept of time is already set in our minds from our view of using it. The movie starts in ten minutes, I have to be at the meeting in 1 hour, and thousands of others. That should be considered as time not Time.

TIME IS THE WAVELENGTH OF LIGHT RELATIVE TO YOU

For c to remain constant while passing through the air than c which does not change has a wavelength that does

Lets look at the flashlights once again. While knowing that the wavelength of c in a vacuum is 50. To maintain a constant c as the light passes through the air than the wavelength must increase. The c stays the same but the wavelength does not.

Vacuum flashlight c = 100 and wavelength equals 50
Shuttle flashlight c = 100 and wavelength equals 51
Jet flashlight c = 100 and wavelength equals 52
Car flashlight c = 100 and wavelength equals 53

As the wavelength increases so does Time
As the wavelength decreases so does Time

As we discuss this leave clocks, wrist watches, egg timers, and any other such devices out of your post. That is the time till the movie starts. We are discussing what the wavelength of light is doing and that is Time.



As for your question UglyEd:

“Here is my question. If you have 2 clocks set to the same time. One clock remains stationary. Then you fly one around the Earth a at say .5 C. (but any speed will work). After a period of time you compare the times on the 2 clocks. Will the clock that flew show less time has passed than the stationary clock?”

After removing the devices that signal the start of a movie I am assuming your question is dealing with Time. If person A is on Earth and his Time has a wavelength of 53 and person B traveling at .5 c has a Time wavelength of 25 than:

This is not exact my calculator is not close by, Person B has a Time of one half of Person A. So if a year passes for Person A and Person B uses the same calendar than his would indicate the passage of half a year. Year, month, day, hour, and the rest are fine to use. No more talk of clocks or time please.

 

[UglyEd]

Alex, you are saying that Light is Time? I don't fully understand how that is. Is this your theory? Or is this something that has been proven, if it is could you point me to a site I could read more about it? Does that mean there is no Time in complete darkness?

As far as my answer to the speed of light is constant.

This is true and false. It is true in that light always leaves an object at the same speed no matter how fast the object it moving. As in you can't add the objects speed to C to get the speed that light is moving from the object. Also that C doesn't change in a vacuum.Light travels fastest through a vacuum. It is false in that. The speed of light can be slower through different mediums

After reading an article (that I have part of lower on this post) I will have to say this part of my answer is wrong.

Light travels fastest through a vacuum.

Light can travel faster than in a vacuum and has been done.

I would like to also point out that Einstein said specifically that a clock will tick seconds by slower when the clock is in motion.
This is a quote from Albert Eisteins book Relativity: The Special and General Theory.

" As judged from K, the clock is moving with the velocity v; as judged from this reference-body, the time which elapses between two strokes of the clock is not one second, but (I attached the equation, it is at the bottom of this post.)


seconds, i.e. a somewhat larger time. As a consequence of its motion the clock goes more slowly than when at rest. Here also the velocity c plays the part of an unattainable limiting velocity.

I don't see where Light is involved here.

Here is a part of an article about light that I found. That discusses the changing speed of light.

"It’s well known that light can travel slower than 186,000 miles a second, depending on the medium it’s passing through. That medium can be as common as air, water or glass. Or it can be more exotic. For example, researchers at the Rowland Institute for Science and Harvard University say they’ve been able to slow light down to 1 mph, by passing it through a chamber containing supercooled atoms.

SPEEDING UP A LIGHT WAVE
Lijun Wang, Alexander Kuzmich and Arthur Dogariu used a different kind of exotic medium in their experiment: The researchers used lasers to “pump” cesium atoms, contained in a 6-centimeter (2.4-inch) chamber, to an excited state that doesn’t occur naturally.
Then they passed a smooth light pulse, lasting about three-millionths of a second, through the chamber. The atoms in the cesium gas were in just the right state to shift the pattern of peaks and troughs in the many wavelengths that made up the light pulse."popped up on the other side of the chamber far sooner than it should have, based on the speed of light in a vacuum. In fact, the time difference — 62-billionths of a second — meant that the peak of the pulse appeared on the far side of the chamber before it entered the near side of the chamber. That’s an instance of what’s known as “negative delay” or “negative velocity,” a phenomenon that seems paradoxical. It was almost as if the light wave could figure out, on the basis of the very beginning of the pulse, how to reconstruct the full peak on the other side."

Here is a link to the site if you want to check it out more.

Link

About your answer to my question. You didnt exactly say true or false, but I take it that you say yes the clock would show less time. Right?

 

[Alex Massi]

First none of this is my theory. If it were my thoughts than I would start each post clearly stating so. Everything I have written is merely what Albert Einstein wrote. Your question "Does that mean there is no Time in complete darkness" is very astute. I myself have wondered the same. The only instance I KNOW OF where there is complete darkness is the area near a Black Hole where gravity is strong enough to capture light. I have my opinions on the material I have studied but I have zero proof they are valid. So you read the materials and form your own opinion, yours may be right as mine may be wrong.

"As judged from K, the clock is moving with the velocity v; as judged from this reference-body, the time which elapses between two strokes of the clock is not one second, but (I attached the equation, it is at the bottom of this post.)" you base this quote to prove I am wrong. Let me explain something to you. Einstein wrote his theories in the early 20th century. His reference to a clock ticking off two strokes was not meant to be taken literally, it was just his way of conveying his thoughts. Just as I used the flashlight as an example. You do not really think they taped a flashlight to the nose of the Space Shuttle do you. He uses time as I use Time. He uses time because he had already proven mathematically what time when he wrote this. What he had already proven is Time is the wavelength of light relative to you. I in no way claimed I wrote the Theory of Relativity I stated in an earlier post I had studied HIS work and would discuss HIS work.

You do not understand that the test "Speeding Up a Light Wave" PROVES my last post, which in its entirety was based on the works of Albert Einstein. The light wave starts to immediately shorten its wave length to reach the maximum possible speed allowed in our universe that of course is c.

I want to state very clearly that all of the posts I have made on this forum is based solely on the writings of Albert Einstein. I have just read every post I made in the forum and I fail to find any reference to my claiming any statement as my own. For the record I in no way lay claim to any fact on this forum posted by Alex Massi.

UglyEd do not say things like that please. In my 30 years of work I have never plagiarized anyone's efforts.