The true speed of Light

[ChildOfTheAncientOfDays]

The speed of Light is infinite. Light is the speed limit of reality itself. The Universe expands at the same speed as light, and the speed of Light varies depending on the gravitational forces affecting it, slowing it down tremendously. The speed of Light around our local gravitational field here on earth, our solar system, galaxy, and all gravitational forces in the Universe, slow down Light here on earth to what we know as that common measurement of 300,000,000km/s. True light speed needs to be measured in a vacuum and without any gravitational forces acting upon it, which is impossible, and the actual task of measuring it is simultaneously impossible. The one way speed of Light has never actually been measured, it is too fast to. Only when light is reflected/refracted (which in and of itself is an obstruction) can we measure it’s speed. Light speed varies depending on locale in the Universe, and goes exponentially faster infinitely depending on the lack of gravitational forces.

[Sensei]

38 minutes ago, ChildOfTheAncientOfDays said:

The speed of Light around our local gravitational field here on earth, our solar system, galaxy, and all gravitational forces in the Universe, slow down Light here on earth to what we know as that common measurement of 300,000,000km/s.

C'mon. That's not the speed of light anyone here knows..

38 minutes ago, ChildOfTheAncientOfDays said:

True light speed needs to be measured in a vacuum and without any gravitational forces acting upon it, which is impossible, and the actual task of measuring it is simultaneously impossible.

..it is true.. measurements taken in space may differ slightly from those taken on Earth. that's why scientists fly into space and repeat measurements to see how they differ..

41 minutes ago, ChildOfTheAncientOfDays said:

Only when light is reflected/refracted (which in and of itself is an obstruction) can we measure it’s speed.

..what if you own emitter and detector?

Is the laser rangefinder not working?

44 minutes ago, ChildOfTheAncientOfDays said:

and goes exponentially faster infinitely depending on the lack of gravitational forces.

..do you know the ,meaning of exponential function.. ?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exponential_function

 

[Phi for All]

!

Moderator Note

This can't stay in Relativity, so I'm moving it to Speculations. Please provide supportive evidence for your idea, especially the parts that contradict observation.

 

[ChildOfTheAncientOfDays]

2 hours ago, Sensei said:

C'mon. That's not the speed of light anyone here knows..

..it is true.. measurements taken in space may differ slightly from those taken on Earth. that's why scientists fly into space and repeat measurements to see how they differ..

..what if you own emitter and detector?

Is the laser rangefinder not working?

..do you know the ,meaning of exponential function.. ?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exponential_function

 

Sorry, for the first part, it was an honest mistake. I don’t know why I had written it as 300 million km/s but here we are. Lemme just change that to just under 300 thousand km/s.

As for the second point, the issue is here is that to get an accurate and truly significant reading, you’d actually need to measure on the variation of the speed of Light, you’d need to measure (and physically record the readings at said location) many “light years” (probably thousands) away. This way we would know that Light travels at different speeds according to the locale in the Universe.

3rd point, the ONE WAY SPEED OF LIGHT is IMPOSSIBLE to measure. There is 0 theoretical method to measure it, because by its very nature, Light is INFINITE and ETERNAL (timeless). To be able to actually measure Lightspeed is a theoretical impossibility by its very definition. If we COULD measure Light, it would not be Infinite. Infinity by its literal definition means unlimited, un-finite, in-FINITE. The very antithesis of limitedness (finity?). Check out Veritasium’s YouTube video on this subject.

On the 4th point you pointed out, I meant that light travels exponentially slower depending on the strength and magnitude of the gravitational force being acted upon it. For instance, the gravitational pull of a black hole will obviously have a greater effect on light than the gravitational pull of a star due to its size and mass. On the opposite end of this, the less gravitational forces acting upon Light (and if possible, none or 0), the speed of Light will exponentially approach Infinity (not possible due to the remnant gravitational force from the Big Bang, or rather there is no physical location in the Universe that is unaffected by gravity).

 

My claim is that True Lightspeed is the speed limit of reality itself, not just “matter”. General relativity, and time dilation in the locales of black holes prove this fact. Event Horizons are the point at which black holes distort reality and space time enough to slow Light down just enough, which requires a nigh-eternal amount of time for it to be trapped there in the first place, until another nigh-eternal amount of time passes for that Light to be shot out of that black hole again at near Infinite (or rather, nigh-infinite true Lightspeed) for it to escape again.

[studiot]

5 hours ago, Sensei said:

C'mon. That's not the speed of light anyone here knows..

etc

Very patient answers if you ask me.

+1

 

I was waiting till I cooled down to answer to thanks for saving me possible embarrassment.

2 hours ago, ChildOfTheAncientOfDays said:

My claim is that True Lightspeed is the speed limit of reality itself, not just “matter”. General relativity, and time dilation in the locales of black holes prove this fact. Event Horizons are the point at which black holes distort reality and space time enough to slow Light down just enough, which requires a nigh-eternal amount of time for it to be trapped there in the first place, until another nigh-eternal amount of time passes for that Light to be shot out of that black hole again at near Infinite (or rather, nigh-infinite true Lightspeed) for it to escape again.

This whole thing sounds more like something EE Doc Smith might have written in the early 1950s

[md65536]

6 hours ago, ChildOfTheAncientOfDays said:

The speed of Light is infinite.

I came to that same conclusion a decade ago. In figuring out that it's wrong, I learned the definitions of speed, time, and c. The speed of light doesn't have to be measured, because it is defined.

There are other measures of rate of motion where the rate of (or approaching) light is infinite, such as rapidity and celerity. These also have definitions.

[ChildOfTheAncientOfDays]

16 minutes ago, md65536 said:

I came to that same conclusion a decade ago. In figuring out that it's wrong, I learned the definitions of speed, time, and c. The speed of light doesn't have to be measured, because it is defined.

There are other measures of rate of motion where the rate of (or approaching) light is infinite, such as rapidity and celerity. These also have definitions.

Care to enlighten me a bit more?

[md65536]

1 hour ago, ChildOfTheAncientOfDays said:

Care to enlighten me a bit more?

Look up those things and let me know what you want to discuss. I can't teach it.

[swansont]

3 hours ago, md65536 said:

The speed of light doesn't have to be measured, because it is defined.

But it can still be measured. 

That it is defined means other constants don’t need to depend on the measurement.

—-

If the speed of light is infinite, what is the dependence on various parameters that allegedly slow it down? i.e. how to you get from infinite, to c, in laboratory vacuum and the earth’s gravity or gravitational potential, or whatever the proposed dependence is?

 

[Killtech]

11 hours ago, ChildOfTheAncientOfDays said:

[...] True light speed needs to be measured in a vacuum and without any gravitational forces acting upon it, which is impossible, and the actual task of measuring it is simultaneously impossible. The one way speed of Light has never actually been measured, it is too fast to. Only when light is reflected/refracted (which in and of itself is an obstruction) can we measure it’s speed. Light speed varies depending on locale in the Universe, and goes exponentially faster infinitely depending on the lack of gravitational forces.

The speed of light is defined, not measured. Consequently there is no logic way it can deviate, because the concept of length is defined via the (local) speed of light in vacuum. Or to rephrase it, how is the (local) speed of light measured in units of the (local) speed of light supposed to deviate? Natural units express that even better by simply using \(c=1\).

The value we chose for the speed of light is mostly due to downwards compatibility with older data and measurements, but in principle it can be be set to whatever value.

  

22 minutes ago, swansont said:

But it can still be measured. 

That it is defined means other constants don’t need to depend on the measurement.

Not exactly. You can measure it to check if you implemented the specification of the SI system correctly but other then that it bears no physical meaning. the definition of the SI meter cancels out all physical aspects of the constant and makes it a pure mathematical convention.

Edited November 9, 2023 by Killtech

[Engineeer]

The planck length isn't in dispute the problem is the planck time. Seeing as how time is relative.

[swansont]

11 hours ago, Killtech said:

Not exactly. You can measure it to check if you implemented the specification of the SI system correctly but other then that it bears no physical meaning. the definition of the SI meter cancels out all physical aspects of the constant and makes it a pure mathematical convention.

IOW you can measure it. 

Arguing that it’s a defined quantity is pretty much meaningless in the context of a claim that it has some different value (infinite, in this case) and/or that it’s variable in ways other than ways that mainstream physics says (e.g. in a medium, with an index other than 1). Claims are falsified by experiment. Defining c is a choice, albeit a logical one, not some mandate.

5 hours ago, Engineeer said:

The planck length isn't in dispute the problem is the planck time. Seeing as how time is relative.

Which is irrelevant, seeing as nobody mentioned planck length or time.

[ChildOfTheAncientOfDays]

11 hours ago, Killtech said:

The speed of light is defined, not measured. Consequently there is no logic way it can deviate, because the concept of length is defined via the (local) speed of light in vacuum. Or to rephrase it, how is the (local) speed of light measured in units of the (local) speed of light supposed to deviate? Natural units express that even better by simply using c=1 .

The value we chose for the speed of light is mostly due to downwards compatibility with older data and measurements, but in principle it can be be set to whatever value.

  

Not exactly. You can measure it to check if you implemented the specification of the SI system correctly but other then that it bears no physical meaning. the definition of the SI meter cancels out all physical aspects of the constant and makes it a pure mathematical convention.

The true speed of Light IS constant. My claim is that Light and Reality are co-dependent concepts. They aren’t separate from each other. Perception of reality itself can only be observed with physical mass/matter and energy. “Nothing” cannot be defined without the physical concepts of mass and energy (Light). Time, space, and gravity is derived from physical reality, without matter and energy, space and time cannot exist as ‘physical (anti-physical?) reality’.

Lightspeed is inherently infinite, as it is reality itself. Reality and Light “just happens” or “just exists”. Lightspeed IS constant, and that unchanging speed/velocity or whatever you want to call it, is infinity. That’s what I’m saying.

My argumentation is this: gravity is the warping of Reality itself. It “slows down” Light by warping Reality so much Light can be observed “travelling” from far enough distance away (where gravity is weaker relative to where that Light currently is). This is why “time is relative”, because Reality close to a black hole is so distorted and slow that it seems the rest of the Universe ages faster than the gravitational area and event horizon of a black hole. In other words, Light/Reality is not slow, it’s just that space-time (reality) is so distorted by gravity that makes Light appear slow (just under 300,000 m/s).

[Phi for All]

1 hour ago, ChildOfTheAncientOfDays said:

My claim is that Light and Reality are co-dependent concepts.

You need to define "Reality". And if capital L Light is different from regular light, you need to define that as well. Light is a physical thing, and I've never heard a decent scientific definition of "reality". I don't think science tries to describe "reality", but rather it describes what we observe. Is that reality? How can we be certain? Why do so many disagree about what is "real"?

"Reality", the way you talk about it, seems very subjective, and I try to remove as much subjectivity as possible when considering any explanation.

[swansont]

2 hours ago, ChildOfTheAncientOfDays said:

The true speed of Light IS constant. My claim is that Light and Reality are co-dependent concepts. They aren’t separate from each other. Perception of reality itself can only be observed with physical mass/matter and energy. “Nothing” cannot be defined without the physical concepts of mass and energy (Light). Time, space, and gravity is derived from physical reality, without matter and energy, space and time cannot exist as ‘physical (anti-physical?) reality’.

Lightspeed is inherently infinite, as it is reality itself. Reality and Light “just happens” or “just exists”. Lightspeed IS constant, and that unchanging speed/velocity or whatever you want to call it, is infinity. That’s what I’m saying.

My argumentation is this: gravity is the warping of Reality itself. It “slows down” Light by warping Reality so much Light can be observed “travelling” from far enough distance away (where gravity is weaker relative to where that Light currently is). This is why “time is relative”, because Reality close to a black hole is so distorted and slow that it seems the rest of the Universe ages faster than the gravitational area and event horizon of a black hole. In other words, Light/Reality is not slow, it’s just that space-time (reality) is so distorted by gravity that makes Light appear slow (just under 300,000 m/s).

I will ask again: If the speed of light is infinite, what is the dependence on various parameters that allegedly slow it down? i.e. how to you get from infinite, to c, in laboratory vacuum and the earth’s gravity or gravitational potential, or whatever the proposed dependence is?

It’s not enough to assert that gravity slows light down. You need to quantify this effect, similar to how relativity quantifies time dilation.

[Boltzmannbrain]

I used to have these kinds of wild thoughts before I learnt about this subject.  Either you swallow your pride and learn what has already been discovered, or you will plug away in your own imaginary reality that nobody agrees with.  

[Phi for All]

57 minutes ago, Boltzmannbrain said:

I used to have these kinds of wild thoughts before I learnt about this subject. 

I think this is the way it is with most any subject. Before we learn, we make guesses using only what we know. Those guesses live in the gaps in our knowledge, and get forced out as we learn more and more about a subject.

[Boltzmannbrain]

On 11/10/2023 at 4:16 PM, Phi for All said:

I think this is the way it is with most any subject. Before we learn, we make guesses using only what we know. Those guesses live in the gaps in our knowledge, and get forced out as we learn more and more about a subject.

Yes, I totally agree.  

[ChildOfTheAncientOfDays]

On 11/11/2023 at 12:19 AM, Phi for All said:

You need to define "Reality". And if capital L Light is different from regular light, you need to define that as well. Light is a physical thing, and I've never heard a decent scientific definition of "reality". I don't think science tries to describe "reality", but rather it describes what we observe. Is that reality? How can we be certain? Why do so many disagree about what is "real"?

"Reality", the way you talk about it, seems very subjective, and I try to remove as much subjectivity as possible when considering any explanation.

Reality is defined as physicality, matter and energy. “Nothingness” or “emptiness” is NOT reality because it has no bearing on it, we can’t measure an amount of physical “space” or “time”, because they’re not physical objects, physical “realities”. They’re the absence of such. Literal “space” has no effect on space. Not a surprise that ‘nothingness’ has not effect on nothingness.

On 11/11/2023 at 1:15 AM, swansont said:

I will ask again: If the speed of light is infinite, what is the dependence on various parameters that allegedly slow it down? i.e. how to you get from infinite, to c, in laboratory vacuum and the earth’s gravity or gravitational potential, or whatever the proposed dependence is?

It’s not enough to assert that gravity slows light down. You need to quantify this effect, similar to how relativity quantifies time dilation.

Let me clarify once again: gravity doesn’t literally slow down Light by the way of physically “pulling” on the photon particles or however you might describe it, but rather, distort Reality (I call reality, reality, scientists call it “space-time”, I do not) itself and diverts and “bends” reality, which Light travels through. The space itself is distorted/warped with gravity “pulling” reality itself towards the singularity. Light merely travels in the straightest line possible from its source (think a laser) unless diverted by a material object (reflection) or curved by distortion of Reality (gravity). Non-Euclidean Geometry proves this point. Light travels in a straight line but appears to be curved from an outside observer. This is why black holes have Light discs around their event horizons, Reality being nigh-infinitely distorted, and therefore time, for Light to be able to be perceived as being slow (in reality, their true speed is Infinite). Kind of like when you watch a wheel/rim of a car in motion, sometimes it may appear to be spinning slowly, and sometimes in reverse, but in reality, it is traveling extremely fast. Or a fan spinning around very fast, but sometimes it appears to be going slowly. Same concept.

If black holes bend Reality, then it will bend/curve the path of Light towards the it’s gravitational singularity. This is why spacial objects get slingshot around gravitational singularities, be it planets, stars, or black holes. It is just much more obvious in black holes due to their size and strength of their gravitational pull. All celestial objects bend and curve Light, by means of gravity. It is why the speed of Light (when reflected backwards to the sender) can be measured. The One-way speed of Light cannot be measured accurately within Reality (space-time) due to the Universal effects of ALL gravitational singularities in existence. It needs to be done in a vacuum and with no Reality (space-time) warping done by gravity.

On 11/11/2023 at 7:45 AM, Boltzmannbrain said:

I used to have these kinds of wild thoughts before I learnt about this subject.  Either you swallow your pride and learn what has already been discovered, or you will plug away in your own imaginary reality that nobody agrees with.  

Don’t worry, unlike you I haven’t lost my imagination and conformed myself to false beliefs and “supposed truths” as you probably do. You derive your “objective” truths from whatever the scientific consensus is. I derive mine transcendentally.

On 11/11/2023 at 8:46 AM, Phi for All said:

I think this is the way it is with most any subject. Before we learn, we make guesses using only what we know. Those guesses live in the gaps in our knowledge, and get forced out as we learn more and more about a subject.

Did you just admit to your imagination as being “quashed” due to attainment of more knowledge? I don’t know but I hope to never be like that. Me personally? My imagination is derived from logic and knowledge and is the reason I do and why I ponder these things. I’d argue your imagination is one of if not the most important faculty when it comes to scientific thinking and understanding. Do you really think that all great scientific pioneers simply conformed to the scientific consensus of their times? Be it Galileo against geocentricism, or Einstein’s development of his theory of relativity, these all stemmed from their observations of reality, and their imaginations to expound from their observations.

[Phi for All]

29 minutes ago, ChildOfTheAncientOfDays said:

Reality is defined as physicality, matter and energy. “Nothingness” or “emptiness” is NOT reality because it has no bearing on it, we can’t measure an amount of physical “space” or “time”, because they’re not physical objects, physical “realities”. They’re the absence of such. Literal “space” has no effect on space. Not a surprise that ‘nothingness’ has not effect on nothingness.

I'm not sure why you think this. If I take a cubic meter of space that has no molecules of anything inside of it, you think it's outside reality? Just because a region of space has nothing in it, it still exists. And we can easily measure spacetime, and do it every day (meet me for lunch at noon tomorrow on the 1st level of the Eiffel Tower). They aren't physical objects, but they are real representations of the geometry of our universe (3 spatial dimensions, 1 temporal), so your definition lacks the degree of precision necessary to discuss this meaningfully. Thinking of space as "nothingness" isn't helpful, because it's NOT nothing (energy in any point in space still has a non-zero value). Even if a region of space has no matter in it, matter COULD pass through it, so it has to exist. The laws of physics still exist there.

[swansont]

3 hours ago, ChildOfTheAncientOfDays said:

Let me clarify once again: gravity doesn’t literally slow down Light by the way of physically “pulling” on the photon particles or however you might describe it, but rather, distort Reality (I call reality, reality, scientists call it “space-time”, I do not) itself and diverts and “bends” reality, which Light travels through. The space itself is distorted/warped with gravity “pulling” reality itself towards the singularity. Light merely travels in the straightest line possible from its source (think a laser) unless diverted by a material object (reflection) or curved by distortion of Reality (gravity). Non-Euclidean Geometry proves this point. Light travels in a straight line but appears to be curved from an outside observer. This is why black holes have Light discs around their event horizons, Reality being nigh-infinitely distorted, and therefore time, for Light to be able to be perceived as being slow (in reality, their true speed is Infinite). Kind of like when you watch a wheel/rim of a car in motion, sometimes it may appear to be spinning slowly, and sometimes in reverse, but in reality, it is traveling extremely fast. Or a fan spinning around very fast, but sometimes it appears to be going slowly. Same concept.

If black holes bend Reality, then it will bend/curve the path of Light towards the it’s gravitational singularity. This is why spacial objects get slingshot around gravitational singularities, be it planets, stars, or black holes. It is just much more obvious in black holes due to their size and strength of their gravitational pull. All celestial objects bend and curve Light, by means of gravity. It is why the speed of Light (when reflected backwards to the sender) can be measured. The One-way speed of Light cannot be measured accurately within Reality (space-time) due to the Universal effects of ALL gravitational singularities in existence. It needs to be done in a vacuum and with no Reality (space-time) warping done by gravity.

Is it that you can’t answer the question, or just won’t answer the question?

I didn’t ask for a hand-wave. I want the equation. This is a science forum. If you can’t provide this, you aren’t doing science.