|
 TheMule73
Stranger
Registered: 08/26/11
Posts: 584
Loc: CT
Last seen: 12 hours, 41 minutes
|
 Maybe I was too high but..(physics related) 
#16186287 - 05/05/12 04:10 PM (1 year, 13 days ago) |
|
|
So back last fall I was deeply getting into some wierd ideas, that I kind of forgot about until now. Looking back, maybe I was just smoking and tripping to much, idk, but I want to share some ideas.
To my understanding:
-Light always travels at C (even the times when it passes a certain medium, where it "slows" down, it doesn't actually, it just takes more time ot be absorbed and shot out again).
-Having a velocity of 0 m/s is equivalent to being at rest.
-There is no such thing as absolute rest
But what I don't get is why does traveling 0 m/s equals being at rest? Shouldn't rest mean that an object is in its slowest possible state of motion?
Basically my thinking was that if an object, ever since it came into existence has only ever traveled at one speed, then why is it considered to be in motion?
To determine if an object is in motion, a prior time of that object traveling at a faster or slower rate must be known. You can't know if something is in motion if you can't ever recall of a time when it was at rest. For example, we know a human running 14 miles per hour is in motion just because we can recall (without realizing) an earlier time where it was not traveling at that speed. We compare the two times and realize the human is not in its slowest possible state of motion and thus is indeed in motion.
Now, light is seen from every frame of reference as traveling at C. If from the time a photon is emitted until the time it is abosorbed, it is seen from ever frame to have traveld at C, then we can not recall a prior time of a different rate of speed. Why say it is in motion then? Light certainly doesn't behave "normally" as we know it has wave and particle like properties.
So my thinking was that, maybe light is in absolute rest because for the entirity of its existence, it is seen from every frame of reference, to be traveling in its slowest possible state of motion.
So light can travel while being at rest.
Thoughts? and thanks for reading.
--------------------
There is no meaning to the end
No reason to the present
No lust for the beginning
|
PatrickKn
Do Easy
Registered: 07/10/11
Posts: 3,900
Last seen: 5 months, 23 days
|
Re: Maybe I was too high but..(physics related) [Re: TheMule73]
#16186307 - 05/05/12 04:14 PM (1 year, 13 days ago) |
|
|
Quote:
TheMule73 said:
But what I don't get is why does traveling 0 m/s equals being at rest? Shouldn't rest mean that an object is in its slowest possible state of motion?
No clue (don't know anything about physics terms), but when animals sleep they are considered to be resting, yet their brain is more active when asleep and resting than when awake and moving around. Resting to me means healing and re-building more than lack of energy.
--------------------
|
 Shill
♋♋♋♋♋♋♋♋♋♋♋
Registered: 11/23/11
Posts: 3,205
|
Re: Maybe I was too high but..(physics related) [Re: TheMule73]
#16186309 - 05/05/12 04:15 PM (1 year, 13 days ago) |
|
|
I bet that the standard physics we are learning today will be found to be incorrect in the years to come.
--------------------
The countdown to the break up of the euro has officially begun.
A great financial crisis is going to erupt in Europe, and it is going to shake the world to the core.
If you were frightened by what happened back in 2008, then you are going to be absolutely horrified by what is coming next.
"You throw the sand against the wind
And the wind blows it back again."
- William Blake
|
TheMule73
Stranger
Registered: 08/26/11
Posts: 584
Loc: CT
Last seen: 12 hours, 41 minutes
|
Re: Maybe I was too high but..(physics related) [Re: Shill]
#16186321 - 05/05/12 04:17 PM (1 year, 13 days ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Shill said:
I bet that the standard physics we are learning today will be found to be incorrect in the years to come.
I hope I'm around when another Einstein comes through.
--------------------
There is no meaning to the end
No reason to the present
No lust for the beginning
|
Shill
♋♋♋♋♋♋♋♋♋♋♋
Registered: 11/23/11
Posts: 3,205
|
Re: Maybe I was too high but..(physics related) [Re: TheMule73]
#16186324 - 05/05/12 04:19 PM (1 year, 13 days ago) |
|
|
It's happening as we speak man
--------------------
The countdown to the break up of the euro has officially begun.
A great financial crisis is going to erupt in Europe, and it is going to shake the world to the core.
If you were frightened by what happened back in 2008, then you are going to be absolutely horrified by what is coming next.
"You throw the sand against the wind
And the wind blows it back again."
- William Blake
|
Midnight_Toker
DFTBA
Registered: 09/26/10
Posts: 6,875
Loc: Canada 
|
Re: Maybe I was too high but..(physics related) [Re: TheMule73]
#16186328 - 05/05/12 04:20 PM (1 year, 13 days ago) |
|
|
It's in motion relative to another frame of reference, aka space. Either that or space is in motion relative to light lol.
|
ninja cat 09
Intergalactic Space Giant
Registered: 10/11/09
Posts: 2,770
Loc: 
Last seen: 2 months, 10 days
|
Re: Maybe I was too high but..(physics related) [Re: TheMule73]
#16186329 - 05/05/12 04:22 PM (1 year, 13 days ago) |
|
|
I imagine it would only be confusing in physics if you were to use those terms. IMHO a particle/object/thingamabob is in rest when it occupies the same place in space, in other words, at 0 m/s. Therefore light cannot be at rest since even if it's at it's lowest possible velocity it is still changing place.
--------------------
|
TheMule73
Stranger
Registered: 08/26/11
Posts: 584
Loc: CT
Last seen: 12 hours, 41 minutes
|
Re: Maybe I was too high but..(physics related) [Re: Midnight_Toker]
#16186331 - 05/05/12 04:22 PM (1 year, 13 days ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Midnight_Toker said:
It's in motion relative to another frame of reference.
Yeah, from every frame of reference, its seen as going C. So it always is seen traveling the same speed. So no one, from any reference frame, has seen it travel any differently. Thus, why is it considered to be in motion?
--------------------
There is no meaning to the end
No reason to the present
No lust for the beginning
|
Shill
♋♋♋♋♋♋♋♋♋♋♋
Registered: 11/23/11
Posts: 3,205
|
Re: Maybe I was too high but..(physics related) [Re: TheMule73]
#16186337 - 05/05/12 04:24 PM (1 year, 13 days ago) |
|
|
All of this 'science fact' is just theory that can change at any given second, or considered irrelevent
--------------------
The countdown to the break up of the euro has officially begun.
A great financial crisis is going to erupt in Europe, and it is going to shake the world to the core.
If you were frightened by what happened back in 2008, then you are going to be absolutely horrified by what is coming next.
"You throw the sand against the wind
And the wind blows it back again."
- William Blake
|
TheMule73
Stranger
Registered: 08/26/11
Posts: 584
Loc: CT
Last seen: 12 hours, 41 minutes
|
Re: Maybe I was too high but..(physics related) [Re: ninja cat 09]
#16186344 - 05/05/12 04:25 PM (1 year, 13 days ago) |
|
|
Quote:
ninja cat 09 said:
I imagine it would only be confusing in physics if you were to use those terms. IMHO a particle/object/thingamabob is in rest when it occupies the same place in space, in other words, at 0 m/s. Therefore light cannot be at rest since even if it's at it's lowest possible velocity it is still changing place.
True, but that was my thinking. That light is able to change place while being at "rest." Since it doesn't seem like you can determine its actually in motion relative to an earlier time from its life.  which we can do with every other object, just by observing it changing speeds.
--------------------
There is no meaning to the end
No reason to the present
No lust for the beginning
|
Midnight_Toker
DFTBA
Registered: 09/26/10
Posts: 6,875
Loc: Canada
|
Re: Maybe I was too high but..(physics related) [Re: TheMule73]
#16186357 - 05/05/12 04:31 PM (1 year, 13 days ago) |
|
|
Am I'm not getting what you're saying? Light has a speed limit. It travels at that speed. Anything that is traveling at a certain speed is said to be in motion.
Could you maybe explain what you're trying to say differently?
|
scoredon
a cabballo vamos pal monte
Registered: 04/28/09
Posts: 481
Last seen: 4 months, 21 days
|
Re: Maybe I was too high but..(physics related) [Re: TheMule73]
#16186361 - 05/05/12 04:33 PM (1 year, 13 days ago) |
|
|
All motion/ velocity is relative to the observer.
From wikipedia:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relative_velocity
Quote:
Joe and Sara are driving in the same direction. Joe’s velocity is 90 km/h and Sara’s 100 km/h.
Joe sees Sara moving at 10 km/h.
Some things are at rest from our viewpoint if we are also at rest. On the earth, we see a rock. We see the rock is not moving because we are not moving. On the other hand, the rock is moving very quickly from an observer's viewpoint not standing on earth. Pretty much everything in physics (and life for that matter) is relative.
Light is not at rest because it is moving, it goes from point a to point b. It would be at rest relative to another beam of light though.
So, its not quite correct to say that from every frame of reference light is traveling at the same speed, and I don't think it can be considered at rest just because it doesn't accelerate...
You can say that light always goes the same speed relative to itself...
But the fact is that, in a vacuum, light has the property of traveling at c.
|
Bodhi of Ankou
Fūrinkazan
Registered: 06/02/09
Posts: 13,781
Loc: Soviet Canuckistan
|
Re: Maybe I was too high but..(physics related) [Re: TheMule73]
#16186367 - 05/05/12 04:34 PM (1 year, 13 days ago) |
|
|
Because it's moving through space. Simple as that.
--------------------
|
TheMule73
Stranger
Registered: 08/26/11
Posts: 584
Loc: CT
Last seen: 12 hours, 41 minutes
|
Re: Maybe I was too high but..(physics related) [Re: Midnight_Toker]
#16186414 - 05/05/12 04:48 PM (1 year, 13 days ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Midnight_Toker said:
Am I'm not getting what you're saying? Light has a speed limit. It travels at that speed. Anything that is traveling at a certain speed is said to be in motion.
Could you maybe explain what you're trying to say differently?
I'm arguing against the definition of motion. An object is in motion if it is traveling at a certain speed (aka, not 0 m/s). So if an object is going 0 m/s then it is is not in motion (this is what I'm calling "slowest possible state of motion")
But if an object always travels at one speed, as seen from every frame,
then you can not compare the object to an earlier time when it wasn't in motion.
Light always goes at C. I can argue that C is its slowest possible state of motion, because it is never seen to go any slower. We can reason that it can not. we have never seen it go faster, we can reason that it can not. If it travels in its slowest state of motion, then it should be considered to be at rest regardless of if it has traveled a certan distance wihtin a certain time
Just becasuse an object travels, we still determine it is in motion by comparing it to another time when it wasn't (we don't even realize we do it). But we can't do this with light.
Idk, I've got like 20 pages of this shit on microsoft word lol, I'm not explaining it too well, I might sift through the word document and copy paste some stuff later.
Becausing it is moving through space? Everyone is defining moving as traveling a distance over a time. i'm defining it as: the act of speeding up or slowing down an object's rate of change of distance/time relative to an earlier time from its existence.
--------------------
There is no meaning to the end
No reason to the present
No lust for the beginning
Edited by TheMule73 (05/05/12 04:49 PM)
|
PatrickKn
Do Easy
Registered: 07/10/11
Posts: 3,900
Last seen: 5 months, 23 days
|
Re: Maybe I was too high but..(physics related) [Re: TheMule73]
#16186424 - 05/05/12 04:49 PM (1 year, 13 days ago) |
|
|
What about light heading towards a black hole? Does it get sucked into the black hole at a rate that is faster than the speed of light?
--------------------
|
TheMule73
Stranger
Registered: 08/26/11
Posts: 584
Loc: CT
Last seen: 12 hours, 41 minutes
|
Re: Maybe I was too high but..(physics related) [Re: TheMule73]
#16186429 - 05/05/12 04:51 PM (1 year, 13 days ago) |
|
|
^No clue, I don't think so?
Say, we say a human run through our field of vision for 10 seconds. Never saw him before or later. He travled a constant 10 miles/hour. We know he is in motion because we recall a time when he was sitting (we don't know him, but we know for a fact he slowed down his speed then what he is at right now).
We can't do that with light.
--------------------
There is no meaning to the end
No reason to the present
No lust for the beginning
|
scoredon
a cabballo vamos pal monte
Registered: 04/28/09
Posts: 481
Last seen: 4 months, 21 days
|
Re: Maybe I was too high but..(physics related) [Re: TheMule73]
#16186436 - 05/05/12 04:55 PM (1 year, 13 days ago) |
|
|
Your saying light doesn't accelerate, and you're right. This doesn't mean it is at rest.
|
TheMule73
Stranger
Registered: 08/26/11
Posts: 584
Loc: CT
Last seen: 12 hours, 41 minutes
|
Re: Maybe I was too high but..(physics related) [Re: TheMule73]
#16186446 - 05/05/12 04:56 PM (1 year, 13 days ago) |
|
|
Quote:
scoredon said:
All motion/ velocity is relative to the observer.
Some things are at rest from our viewpoint if we are also at rest. On the earth, we see a rock. We see the rock is not moving because we are not moving. On the other hand, the rock is moving very quickly from an observer's viewpoint not standing on earth. Pretty much everything in physics (and life for that matter) is relative.
Light is not at rest because it is moving, it goes from point a to point b. It would be at rest relative to another beam of light though.
I'm arguing that traveling distance/time doesn't constitue an object being in motion.
And light doesn't have a frame of reference, so it wouldn't be seen as at rest.
--------------------
There is no meaning to the end
No reason to the present
No lust for the beginning
Edited by TheMule73 (05/05/12 04:58 PM)
|
PatrickKn
Do Easy
Registered: 07/10/11
Posts: 3,900
Last seen: 5 months, 23 days
|
Re: Maybe I was too high but..(physics related) [Re: TheMule73]
#16186459 - 05/05/12 04:59 PM (1 year, 13 days ago) |
|
|
Quote:
TheMule73 said:
^No clue, I don't think so?
Say, we say a human run through our field of vision for 10 seconds. Never saw him before or later. He travled a constant 10 miles/hour. We know he is in motion because we recall a time when he was sitting (we don't know him, but we know for a fact he slowed down his speed then what he is at right now).
We can't do that with light.
Don't we know he is in motion simply because he is moving through space between multiple objects? I don't think we define him as 'in motion' simply because he had been sitting still at one point, that makes no sense.
--------------------
|
Bodhi of Ankou
Fūrinkazan
Registered: 06/02/09
Posts: 13,781
Loc: Soviet Canuckistan
|
Re: Maybe I was too high but..(physics related) [Re: TheMule73]
#16186466 - 05/05/12 05:01 PM (1 year, 13 days ago) |
|
|
Quote:
TheMule73 said:
Quote:
scoredon said:
All motion/ velocity is relative to the observer.
Some things are at rest from our viewpoint if we are also at rest. On the earth, we see a rock. We see the rock is not moving because we are not moving. On the other hand, the rock is moving very quickly from an observer's viewpoint not standing on earth. Pretty much everything in physics (and life for that matter) is relative.
Light is not at rest because it is moving, it goes from point a to point b. It would be at rest relative to another beam of light though.
I'm arguing that traveling distance/time doesn't constitue an object being in motion.
And light doesn't have a frame of reference, so it wouldn't be seen as at rest.
That doesnt make much sense. Whats constitutes being in motion for you?
--------------------
|
|
Images only 
Access 
Threaded
Previous
Index
Next
Reply 
