/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.4930163]

Attention! I am not claiming that I have actually figured anything out. I'm just curious about where I might be wrong or where my idea crumbles.
With that clear, let's talk about light. Two people on two different planets both light a candle in the same instant. Person A has to wait a certain amount of time before the light from person B's candle hits his telescope. That's because light does not travel instantly. If an observer C sits in space exactly between A and B, he would see both candles light up at once.

I have a model stuck in my head: that light would travel instantly, but events further away (even though they would be observed as simultaneous by observer C) happen later. So one second before "A" lights his candle and he sees B dicking around doing something else, that's what's actually happening from A's point of view, and not just caused by the travel of light.

Does this make sense? It would mean that nothing can travel "more instantly" than light, rather than the 3E8 m/s like in the accepted theory. I'm not good with thought experiments so I'm not sure what would happen with a fast moving object to see when this all breaks down.

[Anonymous No.4930237]

>>4930163
Why does time seem to be affected by distance?

It makes more intuitive sense that light has a speed rather than time being different at different places.

Also because I don't care I am not going to crunch the numbers on general relativity, but you probably should before spouting bullshit on /sci/

[Anonymous No.4930254]

>>4930237
I'm seriously not trying to spout bullshit. I'm not claiming that I've overturned relativity or that I actually know anything important.
I don't mind if it makes more intuitive sense or not.

[Anonymous No.4930295]

>>4930163 what's actually happening from A's point of view

If Alice is a lightyear away from Bob and they ignite their candles at the same time it will be a year before Alice sees the light from Bobs candle and a year before Bob sees the light from Alice's candle.

If they can look at a calendar on the wall's of each other's observatory they will both see a calendar one year behind the present date. Neither person is displaced in time in any way, it just takes a year for information to get from one to the other so it's always going to be a year out of date. It's like in the old days where you had to wait a month for a letter to get across the pacific.

If Cecil is in the middle there are six light months between him and Alice and six light months between him and Bob. When he looks at the light that has reached him from either of their calendars it will be six months behind his own.

[Anonymous No.4930297]

>>4930295
Er, yes. Exactly. but my point is
>Neither person is displaced in time in any way, it just takes a year for information to get from one to the other
what if this isn't the case? If just the opposite is true. Would that fuck with any well established principle of the universe aside from relativity itself?

[Anonymous No.4930300]

>>4930297
It's an interesting thought.
Too bad it's wrong.

[Anonymous No.4930302]

>>4930163
>model stuck in my head

You are a dumb fucking moron. Your "model" is complete shit.

[Anonymous No.4930307]

>>4930163
Your head is fully of donkey piss

[Anonymous No.4930305]

>>4930297
So what you're asking is if established principles of the universe were different would established principles of the universe be different?

[Anonymous No.4930308]

>>4930163
>Does this make sense?

Nothing you have posted makes any fucking sense.

\thread

[Anonymous No.4930311]

>>4930297
What exactly is your alternative hypothesis? If your aunt writes you a letter in Alabama on March 1st and it doesn't reach you in Blackpool until March 9th does that mean some time paradox has occurred such that it's still March 1st in Alabama because the delivery time is assumed to be zero?

[Anonymous No.4930313]

>>4930163
When was your car accident? How long were you in a coma?
Do you think you will ever regain proper brain function?

[Anonymous No.4930326]

>>4930300
I -know- it's wrong. I'm not saying it's right. the whole point of this thread is to find out why it's wrong because I'm an idiot and can't into thought experiments.
>>4930305
No tautology here. I'm asking if there are established principles that rely entirely on light having a velocity rather than what's in my first post.
>>4930311
For the analogy, yes. that's pretty much sums it up.

[Anonymous No.4930332]

>>4930326
>I'm asking if there are established principles that rely entirely on light having a velocity
you really aren't making yourself seem any smarter
Your question is similar to "What if gravity didn't exist?" or "What if electricity is actually water going through tiny pipes instead of electrons?"

[Anonymous No.4930341]

>>4930326 established principles that rely entirely on light having a velocity

Pretty much everything beyond the really basic principles like Newton's laws are in some way connected to the speed of light. Just one example is Maxwell's equations. If the speed of light is infinite they don't work, our fundamental understanding of how electromagnetism and atomic structure are gone. We wouldn't even be able to explain 500 year old astronomical observations like those of Ole Römer.

[Anonymous No.4930344]

>>4930332
For a different way of asking the same question:
would this (idiotic, donkeypiss, brain damaged)model make predictions different than those made assuming a finite speed for light and no time paradox bullshit.

asking "what if gravity didn't exist and it's all just intelligent falling due to the FSM" is idiotic because there's no real way to test for it. Is this idiotic for the same reason?

and again, I'm not trying to seem smart.

[Anonymous No.4930345]

>>4930326
> I'm asking if there are established principles that rely entirely on light having a velocity rather than what's in my first post.
E=mc^2
reference frames
relativity in general
Heisenberg uncertainty principle wouldn't work on light
wave-particle duality
age of the universe
black holes wouldn't be black
so many other physics related thing

basically, you don't fuck with the speed of light

[Anonymous No.4930348]

>>4930344
>implying it is possible for you too seem smart at this point

You kinda threw that possibility out the window with your first post

[Anonymous No.4930356]

>>4930163
Your shit is so retarded that it is hard to understand what you are even trying to ask.

Light moves instantly, but time moves in some weird fucked up manner? That is your assumption?

[Anonymous No.4930359]

>>4930163
Your idea is shit OP. But the shit way you post is shittier. It make you come off as retarded.

You need to learn to post better, more understandable.

[Anonymous No.4930363]

>>4930341
>>4930345
Thank you! Finally a bit of help. but I do have to ask about two things.
>age of the universe
As long as the time paradox bullshit delay happens at about one second every 3E8 meters, and redshift isn't affected, then the age of the universe could still be measured, right?
>black holes wouldn't be black
And again, photons are particles with energy, and I don't think I'm addressing anything to do with gravity.

[Anonymous No.4930364]

>>4930356
I point you to
>>4930311
for an analogy. I apologize for not being able to communicate it well.

[Anonymous No.4930399]

>>4930348
>implying it is possible for you too seem smart at this point
I'm not implying anything of the sort. your referenced post says just the same.

[Anonymous No.4930409]

>>4930363
Black holes are black because light cannot escape them because they have a finite speed, this would not be the case if it were infinite.

If the speed of light were infinite every atom in the universe would half a half life of zero seconds. Its not just that we wouldn't be able to tell the age of the universe, there wouldn't even be a universe where matter, energy, and life as we know it could exist. I don't think you grasp just how fundamental the speed of light is to how everything works.

[Anonymous No.4930426]

>>4930409
My impression is that gravity acts on particles with mass and/or energy. Gravitational lensing and event horizons exist because photons still have energy, not because they have a finite speed. I admit I could be wrong on this.
And no, I don't grasp how important the speed of light is to everything. I obviously don't, otherwise I might not have made this thread. But if there's something to account for the apparent speed of light like in
>>4930363
then are there still problems or inconsistencies?

>If the speed of light were infinite every atom in the universe would half a half life of zero seconds.
Could you expand on that?

[Anonymous No.4930448]

If you are sitting in a empty room and the walls are coming closer.

Do you thinck you are growing,
or do you thinck that the Room is shrinking,
or does it even matter?

[Anonymous No.4930458]

>>4930448
>or does it even matter?
>>4930344
>would this make different predictions
if no, then it doesn't matter. if yes, then what may they be and what makes all of this a nonsense?