It would seem we have a communication break down when it comes to linear and non-linear evaluations.
Of course we need linear measurements to engineer anything whether it is an aircraft or a automobile, that is a given, at least I thought it was. Yet there seems to be some confusion in this respect.
All I am saying is that there is a difference between engineering an aircraft and attempting to evaluate universe, as it is impossible to employ the same terms of reference in both instances.
How are we going to understand or comprehend the opportunities available to us if we continue to ignore those self imposed limitations we have set for ourselves.
Many will argue that the apparent or perceived speed of light can be evaluated on the basis of linear terms, yet the argument is somewhat pointless as no one is going to ever travel linearly at the speed of light.
So many must think that if you apply certain terms in one instance you must be able to apply them in many different instances and to a certain point this is true, but the simple concept of light speed being measured in terms of meters per second or a fraction of a second per meter defies logic.
We equate speed with many different things, such as trains, aircraft, bicycles, cars and trucks etc., which is all very fine, but then we jump to the idea that time has a linear speed which is what we are saying when we state that light travels one meter in 1/299,792,458ths of a second.
How useful is this idea?
It might be convenient for an engineer, but it is hardly convenient or even useful to a scientist attempting to comprehend the dynamics of universe.
Yet somehow the scientist and the engineer have to find a way to work together instead of finding themselves in opposition.
Is it really that difficult to grasp the idea that linear terms are required for engineering and non-linear terms are required for the purpose of space navigation?
If there is a road block this is it, because there is no way forward without a solution to this linear/non-linear problem of understanding.
We assume light to be in linear motion in the manner of a train simply because that is our perception of the situation, yet if we gave this some serious thought we might realize our linear perception of light speed might represent a serious error in judgment.
This is not an argument to win points, it is something much more than that, it’s a question of our human survival.
Will we get passed our linear restraints or are we destined to or for extinction?
We as people invented a linear concept of time keeping for our own purpose of convenience, yet no linear duration of time exists in the context of a physical universe. But here we are in the 21st century making reference to billions of light years believing this to be logical, rational and intelligent.
How on earth could we consider the possibility of light traveling anywhere for one year, never mind billions of years?
Ask yourself this; how fast is a linear second? Is it not one second per second?
There is a time differential between atomic clocks in orbiting satellites and ground based clocks, which just might indicate a differential existing between earth based clocks and the outer boundary of universe. Yet, in relation to interstellar space, we assume time to be of equal value regardless of the distance involved or the direction of travel.
Of course we can rationalize the situation to accommodate our assumptions, but such a practice is simply a way of avoiding the reality of universe. We can hide behind a rationalization but we can’t change the reality of universe.
If there are no actual linear durations of time there is no possible manner by which light can be in linear motion.
The validity of light speed, in terms of a linear speed, is the cornerstone of our modern physics and as such a determining factor in our perception of universe.
What we need now is the resolve to determine the truth of the matter.
1 comment so far ↓
What we need to do is devise an experiment that proves that light has no speed. It’s either on or off. We need to prove a way that shows that those trying to measure the speed of light are only measuring a time duration and that light is mostly just not in motion. Light moves from place to place. We can see it bouncing off mirrors. But we must prove light as an effect. How can we prove that light is not in motion when it bounces between mirrors. And the sun in the sky is eight minutes ahead of where we see the light, detected by the sun’s gravity indicating its actual position (meaning gravity travels faster than light?).
If light doesn’t travel and is either on or off, how do we account for those eight minutes from the sun to the earth?
Actually, what we need to prove is that light is a
bi-product of the underlying force.
The question is, how can we prove that light is either on or off? How can we prove that it doesn’t travel from point A to point B in a linear fashion?
If we can do that beyond a shadow of a doubt, it will change science as we know it.
Anybody out there want to help?