speed of light

[Gurrb]

what if you're moving toward the clock?

[mental vagrant]

what is the clock?

where is the clock?

does the clock have a velocity?

what is travelling at the speed of light, light?

define the space too.

[Gurrb]

the clock is simply a symbol of perception. ideally, the velocities of the observer and the observed would have to combine to equal the speed of light in a hypothetical space (in a vacuum). if we are moving away from the clock at the speed of light, then light (the clock and its hands) does not seem to change--there is no refreshing. if we are to move toward the clock at the speed of light, time would visibly speed up, but only to a certain extent. it's obviously a difficult thing to imagine, because this would be akin to time travel, in a sense. obviously, the image of the clock would be already travelling to the observer at the speed of light (in a vacuum, remember).

light is a physical phenomenon that doesn't encompass all the exists, but it allows all the exists to be perceived.

another curiosity is that if i were to travel in a circle at the speed of light (with no gradual acceleration), would i see my perceptive self upon my return to the initial starting position, but there would be no tangible presence of myself?

ostensibly, there are many questions that are unanswered in our physical universe and a simple explanation will never suffice on a whole.

[cousinbasil]

another curiosity is that if i were to travel in a circle at the speed of light (with no gradual acceleration), would i see my perceptive self upon my return to the initial starting position, but there would be no tangible presence of myself?

You cannot travel in a circle at the speed of light. That's what particle-colliders try to do - get particles to approach the speed of light as they go around a very large-radius circle. You need to look at the equations of special relativity. An enormous amount of energy is required to get particles in a collider to approach the speed of light. To approach even minutely closer takes a gigantic increase in energy. The equations of special relativity state that to accelerate a finite mass to the speed of light requires infinite energy. That's the whole theoretical reason for assuming photons are massless -that they cannot have a finite mass because they travel at light speed.

You also have to grasp that travelling in a circle even at a constant speed requires acceleration. This acceleration always would be in the direction of the center of the circle. If you drive a car, you know this. When you go around a curve and feel like it is going to get out of control, you do not hit the brakes in the curve - you ease on the accelerator instead.

[mental vagrant]

the clock is simply a symbol of perception. ideally, the velocities of the observer and the observed would have to combine to equal the speed of light in a hypothetical space (in a vacuum). if we are moving away from the clock at the speed of light, then light (the clock and its hands) does not seem to change--there is no refreshing. if we are to move toward the clock at the speed of light, time would visibly speed up, but only to a certain extent. it's obviously a difficult thing to imagine, because this would be akin to time travel, in a sense. obviously, the image of the clock would be already travelling to the observer at the speed of light (in a vacuum, remember).

light is a physical phenomenon that doesn't encompass all the exists, but it allows all the exists to be perceived.

another curiosity is that if i were to travel in a circle at the speed of light (with no gradual acceleration), would i see my perceptive self upon my return to the initial starting position, but there would be no tangible presence of myself?

ostensibly, there are many questions that are unanswered in our physical universe and a simple explanation will never suffice on a whole.

Would this mean an infinite compression of space? Could the laws of optics describe these distortions?

[Gurrb]

another curiosity is that if i were to travel in a circle at the speed of light (with no gradual acceleration), would i see my perceptive self upon my return to the initial starting position, but there would be no tangible presence of myself?

You cannot travel in a circle at the speed of light. That's what particle-colliders try to do - get particles to approach the speed of light as they go around a very large-radius circle. You need to look at the equations of special relativity. An enormous amount of energy is required to get particles in a collider to approach the speed of light. To approach even minutely closer takes a gigantic increase in energy. The equations of special relativity state that to accelerate a finite mass to the speed of light requires infinite energy. That's the whole theoretical reason for assuming photons are massless -that they cannot have a finite mass because they travel at light speed.

You also have to grasp that travelling in a circle even at a constant speed requires acceleration. This acceleration always would be in the direction of the center of the circle. If you drive a car, you know this. When you go around a curve and feel like it is going to get out of control, you do not hit the brakes in the curve - you ease on the accelerator instead.

these are merely hypothetical, thought experiments. i'm quite aware of the implications attached to traveling in a circle. let's say these are devoid of the common physical constraints of our world, except for those that pertain to light (i.e. light can only travel at a certain speed)
.

[mental vagrant]

another curiosity is that if i were to travel in a circle at the speed of light (with no gradual acceleration), would i see my perceptive self upon my return to the initial starting position, but there would be no tangible presence of myself?

You cannot travel in a circle at the speed of light. That's what particle-colliders try to do - get particles to approach the speed of light as they go around a very large-radius circle. You need to look at the equations of special relativity. An enormous amount of energy is required to get particles in a collider to approach the speed of light. To approach even minutely closer takes a gigantic increase in energy. The equations of special relativity state that to accelerate a finite mass to the speed of light requires infinite energy. That's the whole theoretical reason for assuming photons are massless -that they cannot have a finite mass because they travel at light speed.

You also have to grasp that travelling in a circle even at a constant speed requires acceleration. This acceleration always would be in the direction of the center of the circle. If you drive a car, you know this. When you go around a curve and feel like it is going to get out of control, you do not hit the brakes in the curve - you ease on the accelerator instead.

these are merely hypothetical, thought experiments. i'm quite aware of the implications attached to traveling in a circle. let's say these are devoid of the common physical constraints of our world, except for those that pertain to light (i.e. light can only travel at a certain speed)
.

Actually light can be slowed down and bent.

[Firefly]

Here's my two cents..

If one was to travel away from the clock at the speed of light, they would see darkness as the light could not reach the eye. Facing the direction traveled one would see darkness as the light would be to fast for the receptors to pick up with double in speed. What would one see to the sides? A rainbow ring all around the sides? What if you went faster than light? Would there be shock-waves of gamma-radiation?

Light, wavicals, photons.. a curious entity. By its behavior I would say it is another class of electrons, or the other way around, that exists as it does to to the medium which it travels, not due to the energy put into its formation or creation as currently seen. If you look at a firefly, it simply puts atoms together in a way that creates a song we call light. Just as fast and of the same qualities as what the sun sings. Light.

Electrons like to travel along something, i.e. have a guide. Charged particles for lightning, power lines.. But light doesn't seem to need guides. It acts more like thermal radiation where its behavior or action is dictated by the position of atoms rather than their alignment.

One of the interesting things is that electrons 'hop' orbits, it is in one orbit then is suddenly in another with no between. Some say this means it travels outside of time. For me it makes me think that what we are seeing is the peaks and troughs that we can detect of a waveform, currently called a particle, who's harmonics can appear as particles. For this to be true though, means there must be some sub-strait that allows the wave to exist as such. (I don't think the Higgs boson particle is an explanation.) Continuous Matter. If this is true, the model of Continuous matter could open a new paradigm of exploration.. or drive people nuts..

In the following video, the narrator explains the parts of protons as if they and their relation to eachother are what is holding them together.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iEQBhGRkWh8

In continuous matter, you would say that it is they and their complex harmonic relation to eachother in their environment that is holding them in existence. Compared to the Particle model, the protons have to have existence to exist, but the Particle model doesn't need existence. I know this many sound funny to some but the logic does hint at something..

Bose-Einstein condensate is what happens to matter close to or at absolute-zero.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y7xp_hHbDUs

When atoms reach such a state, light passing through it slows to around 35mph and back once it comes out and the atoms seem to change. This doesn't seem to verify which model is more accurate but it does show light getting back up to speed without a boost. This implies what I have described above where light doesn't need energy so much as harmonics in a medium that stabilizes its existence. Since light seems to travel through space most freely, what is the sub-strait that stabilizes it?

Have I gone too far?

[ForbidenRea]

Haha.

Satire: stationary reactions are the preliminaries. If co-existence with outer space has a mode, it is "FDY"

For further enlightenment contact your local previsions.

[Firefly]

Haha.

Satire: stationary reactions are the preliminaries. If co-existence with outer space has a mode, it is "FDY"

For further enlightenment contact your local previsions.

Dummy talk please, and without undefined colloquialisms.

A reaction is dynamic, not static. So what do you mean by stationary? Preliminary? Co-existence? Mode? FDY? Satire?

It can be translated several ways.

For further enlightenment contact your local previsions.

Is this a joke meant as an insult? Did Gurrb do something to you? Did I? Someone else?

Why do you post such a thing?

[ForbidenRea]

No.

I'm a stupid moron from outer space.

[Firefly]

sexy