Light Speed Frame Theory

[Mr. Astrophysicist]

Introduction

Are we already travelling at the speed of light; But in frames? For instance, as I move my hand or perhaps walk towards a friend of mine, the future, perhaps me already there with my friend, is actually a frame of reality. Picture this, a flip book, and as you flip through it extremely quickly, but you stop suddenly; and then flip to the end of the book, you would see a future frame; and that is what this theory is about. You can travel at the speed of light but the frames could go haywire and burn out. But perhaps, we already are; this theory has possibly infinite frames, as we are going throughout our lives. For instance, if you're sitting on a chair, there are infinite amount of frames; you can move your arm to the right, or move it to the left; could these frames just mean we're acting a flip book on the largest canvas of the universe; travelling beyond the speed of light, faster, perhaps slower as time follows.

 

Travelling at C/Speed of Light

If we were to travel at the speed of light for an instance, the flip book acting out on a perhaps a cartoon or a book on the largest canvas of space and time or its fabrics, would have to flip all the way to the speed of light. Some of my possible theories is that if we do so, our particles will scatter as light does so as it travels further. So doing so would burn out the frames and you could possibly die. One of the principles of physics may deny this theory of mine, but it is a theory and could be disproven. But one of frame principles is; though we are 3D, and we acting out on a flip book is unlikely, think about it as 3D figurines on a flip book or animation; are we programmed and animated in a computer or on a painting of the canvas in the furthest reach of our cosmos? Some in the comments disregard this theory saying that it is unlikely as we cannot change the past. But what if someone, or a being were to tear the frame of you being born? Frames would be recreated, and you will no longer exist. But another end to our universe is a being may tear of the birth of the universe. (Big Bang Theory, etc.) Once again, a theory. I would call this end: The Frame Singularity.

 

The Death of The Universe

As stated, if a almighty being such as god were to for instance, tear out the frame of the birth of our universe, everything would cease and we would stop existing, so will the universe and the stars, our cosmos particles would all vanish and disappear. But would a frame be recreated? Who knows? Anyways, 'The Frame Singularity' has some flaws, in this logic; (Who is this mighty being, etc.) One has to has its belief. It maybe god, or another life form or human watching this flip book or animation, beyond space and time. While some say the Big Crunch, Big Freeze, etc. might be relevant, let me explain further. What would happen if someone rip the birth of the universe frame out? The Frame Singularity would take place, particles will scatter into infinite abyss and disappear, cells will slowly fade, time and space will stop, and you will too as you disappear into complete oblivion. As a new frame would start, depending on this someone, or the programming of the flip book of this cosmetic canvas. A birth of a new universe will begin. This is a complete possibility, but as to others opinion, is not. I have my own religious beliefs, so I would disregard this theory. But it is completely not impossible. Everything is possible.

Edited February 21, 2015 by Jordyn Rahizel

[ajb]

Can you give me a careful definition of a 'frame' in the sense that you are using? (It sounds more like a Cauchy surface to me)

[Mr. Astrophysicist]

Can you give me a careful definition of a 'frame' in the sense that you are using? (It sounds more like a Cauchy surface to me)

Those 'frames' are somewhat like/similar to those of a flip book.

[swansont]

!

Moderator Note

Moved to speculations. Please review the guidelines for discussion here

[ajb]

Those 'frames' are somewhat like/similar to those of a flip book.

That is not enough to work with. Again, this does sound like Cauchy surfaces where you are able to define in a meaningful way "now". A little more specifically such surfaces are used to formulate initial value problems in general relativity; that is given the data on one Cauchy surface you can 'evolve' it in time to data on another Cauchy surface. Each of these surfaces is similar to your 'frames'. I would avoid the term 'frame' in your context as frame already has a specific meaning in relativity.

[tyme]

Just to note that the average Human eye can see 25-30 FPS. Thats why you see a glimpse of your hand's previous location when you move it, its not the past or future.

Edited February 21, 2015 by Angus Senn

[Mr. Astrophysicist]

Just to note that the average Human eye can see 25-30 FPS. Thats why you see a glimpse of your hand's previous location when you move it, its not the past or future.

But what if beyond the human eye, the frames would be on a standstill, as we are actually acting on out on a flip book on a canvas, beyond the furthest reach of our cosmos, and it may just actually stop; coming to an end of our universe? Possibilities of this theory is actually endless.

[MigL]

This is similar to some ideas about quantized time.

Where each instant in time, or Cauchy surface, does not evolve or transform to the next Cauchy surface, but rather tunnels to the next instant.

[tyme]

But what if beyond the human eye, the frames would be on a standstill, as we are actually acting on out on a flip book on a canvas, beyond the furthest reach of our cosmos, and it may just actually stop; coming to an end of our universe? Possibilities of this theory is actually endless.

 

I understand where you're coming from, but that would make the universe a 13 billion year old GIF. If the universe was made of frames, where would they go? The past is solid, you cannot change or repeat it and you direct the future.

 

This is a simple theory and I like it, but it is unlikely sorry.

Edited February 21, 2015 by tyme

[Mr. Astrophysicist]

 

I understand where you're coming from, but that would make the universe a 13 billion year old GIF. If the universe was made of frames, where would they go? The past is solid, you cannot change or repeat it and you direct the future.

 

This is a simple theory and I like it, but it is unlikely sorry.

This could go beyond space and time itself, but everything is acting out on a flip book, and if a subtle being were to tear out a piece of a frame from the frame of which that already happened, the past would possibly corrupt. Thought this theory is quite rather similar and seems unlikely, it is a possibility and may not actually be proven until, as stated, further advancements in science.

[ajb]

Thought this theory ...

As in other threads, you have not presented a theory as we understand it. You need to be mathematical and define carefully what you mean by 'frames'. The closest is what MigL states, Cauchy surfaces and some quantum\discrete evolution in time.

[Mr. Astrophysicist]

As in other threads, you have not presented a theory as we understand it. You need to be mathematical and define carefully what you mean by 'frames'. The closest is what MigL states, Cauchy surfaces and some quantum\discrete evolution in time.

Have you watched the flash? I'm sure you have, it has all played a part about being one of the most enjoyable moments in our life, (perhaps watching shows, movies or comic books) instead of reminiscing about our great pasts, let me name the example with him. You know how he runs extremely quickly that we could see something like a second him from the back and front of the real flash, one that seems quite translucent. Let's try making use of that. We'll call those frames, and that in Theory, he's running as so quick, may be faster than light, that we can see his second frame, and that the frame that is the past can also be seen. Now applying to real life, we can see our frame as for instance, I walk from point A to B. And with an insight of perhaps powerful cameras of such, or I humane eyes, we can several thousand frames of you walk from A to B. However, the mass of frames are equivalent to their own, but not to you, because in my theory, particles scatter throughout as we walk. Somewhat similar to light as it's particles scatter as it travels over time. But if you were to walk on a weighing scale, it may take effect but it's actually extremely quick that you might not see it.

Mass equivalency Equation:

Fàm 1 = Fám 2 - ∞, ("Fam(s)", being the Frame Mass)

Fam ≠ öms ([öms] being Object's Current Mass)

Edited February 22, 2015 by Mr. Astrophysicist

[ajb]

You know how he runs extremely quickly that we could see something like a second him from the back and front of the real flash, one that seems quite translucent.

You know that he is a fictional character, right?

 

 

Let's try making use of that. We'll call those frames...

Any effect that this is due to the rate at which our brains can process the information entering our eyes. I don't see any fundamental physics here.

 

...and that in Theory, he's running as so quick, may be faster than light, that we can see his second frame, and that the frame that is the past can also be seen.

Maybe faster than light is unphysical and so we have to take care.

 

 

Now applying to real life, we can see our frame as for instance, I walk from point A to B. And with an insight of perhaps powerful cameras of such, or I humane eyes, we can several thousand frames of you walk from A to B.

Okay, but again how is this fundamental physics?

 

However, the mass of frames are equivalent to their own, but not to you...

Mass of the frames? You mean the mass of the objects in that frame? (That I at least have an idea of that.)

 

...because in my theory, particles scatter throughout as we walk.

What theory? Can you present this, or at least part of it?

 

Somewhat similar to light as it's particles scatter as it travels over time. But if you were to walk on a weighing scale, it may take effect but it's actually extremely quick that you might not see it.

Light can scatter, okay...

 

Are you now talking about your mass increase if you absorb the energy of photons?

 

Mass equivalency Equation:

Fàm 1 = Fám 2 - ∞, ("Fam(s)", being the Frame Mass)

Fam ≠ öms ([öms] being Object's Current Mass)

I don't understand this at all.

[sunshaker]

Those 'frames' are somewhat like/similar to those of a flip book.

 

Are you saying these frames move at speed of light, so each frame is the length of a photon? Once something is "framed" it can never be lost, like going back to reread a book.