Big Bang

Actually if you were traveling at the speed of light everything you observed would seem to be moving in the opposite direction at the speed of light, rather than seeming stationary. But James is right regarding the theory, original einstein had the thought experiment where he considered traveling next to a stream of light/photon, and imagened that if he spead up to its speed it would appear to be stationary. But empiriccal data ended up suggesting otherwise: They did laser tests I believe what they did was they had the whole system in movement in the direction of light emission and where it would have been thought that this would result in the light reaching the sensor at a later time, it didn’t the light always reached the sensor at the same time…I’m not sure that is exactly how they measured it but I heard it ws measured and the evidence showed this, so I would assume the test was something like that…If not then maybe they were wrong…IDK

Any measurement of the entirty of the universe cannot be relaivated to anything outside of the universe as the universe contains all things, so the All/universe, can’t be measured as a measurement is a relivation to another thing outside of that thing itself. IN order to attempt any measurement would require measureing by thing inside the universe and thus any result would be the same as saying an apple is 50/50ths of itself, in other words 1. As such the actual size is indeterminate, though one could suppose that the zise is greater than 0 as we are in it…That would be my theory anyways…i think James disagrees with this though.

I would go farther and say everything is a speculation. As inorder to arrive at the idea that empirical data works and was valuable, we speculated. It would be a circumlocution type idea to suggest that empiricle data is proved as valueable by empiricle data itself. While we can say it seems to work, there is no guruntee that it always will.

Stories do change every decade or so and Farsight has a much greater and impressive log of the documented stories (which also change now and then), but from what I have gathered it all started when Einstein was a young professor teaching physics. He taught of how radio waves travel through the aether. If you raise the electric potential on an antenna, it takes time for that change to propagate through space. But the wave doesn’t care from where it came. It travels at a speed determined by the space itself, not the source. Thus a radio wave carrying the changes created by any antenna will travel at the same speed through space regardless of how fast the antenna might have been moving.

Since Einstein believed that light was merely another type of wave, the same must be true of light. His example was that if a man were on a train and shot an arrow, a man at the station would see the arrow traveling at the speed of the train plus the speed of an arrow leaving the man. But with light it wouldn’t be so. If that same man shined a “torch” ahead of him, the man at the station would see the light traveling at the speed of light regardless of the speed of the train.

But then things got complicated when Michelson Morley attempted to prove the existence of aether. Even though their experiment was horribly flawed, they assumed that because they didn’t prove aether, they must have disproved aether. For more interesting reasons, it became excessively important that people not believe in aether. But then if there is no aether, would Einstein’s (and just about everyone at the time) theory of wave speed be right?

As it turned out when they analyzed physics with the Galilean relativity postulate (it doesn’t matter who is moving, the laws have to be the same for all), if they assumed that wave speed was constant but time itself changed for the moving observer, then everything would work out… (almost). If the time (the speed of a clock) held by the man on the train slowed, then the man would perceive (if he could) that the light was traveling away from him at the speed of waves and also the man at the station would see the light traveling at the speed of waves. As it turned out with experiments, sure enough clocks really do slow down when they are moving faster relative to a clock that isn’t. But of course, that got into “who is really moving and who isn’t”. About that time, things got all too complicated for them to keep it all actually straight but none the less, we ended up with Special Relativity due to what must be true if their prior assumptions from observations were true.

So the current popular theory is that if a man were traveling near the speed of light, his clock would be turning so slow, that when he measured the light that seemed to other to be moving near the same speed as he, he would still measure the light to be traveling from him at the same speed it always travels.

But as I have substantial pointed out (FINALLY after over 800 posts) in the Stopped Clock Paradox - page 12, their reasoning is still seriously flawed and in fact, impossible.

And there is your flawed speculation.

I don’t see how we had to speculate that it would work before we could do it. and then proving empirical data by using empirical data itself doesn’t seem to logical. And as long as that is not logical then that suggests that the idea that empirical data is valuable is merely a speculation. that isn’t to say it doesn’t work though, as it does seem to with regards to at least a good many things.

That got me thinking, how could we know that in realty the clock didn’t really slow because the movement just caused a sort of resistance to its normal movement, its gears and all. In other words time didn’t slow down, but maybe inertia increased or something?

That’s pretty much how it works.
Affectance necessarily has a reluctance to change and a maximum rate of that change.
Thus as anything approaches the maximum, it cannot internally change fast enough to compensate for its overall movement into a new space and also relative to its other components. Thus it slows relative to its own other components, hence the clock turns slower (a motion relative to itself).

But that is only half the story.

And what does it mean if some people are really good at speculating with the same knowledge base? Can we infer from that that (scientific) empiricism is not the only way to knowledge? Corporations aim money at some of these people. Are they foolish?

If a law can break down in certain conditions, is it a law? Maybe it is a habit. Most scientists assume that laws are permanent facets of the universe, but perhaps this in not the case - one could bring in Hume’s critique of induction here.

Rupert Sheldrake presents the position that laws and constants change and can change.

sheldrake.org/experiments/constants/

Speculation I would say is good but assuming you can’t be wrong is bad, most likely.

I would say any path can lead to the point. (perhaps the leading is endless…though I don’t know i would think that) Some paths may take longer, perhaps especially those that spend more time on details, but then a wide use of multiple paths can often lead one farther faster, I would think.

You mean those who accept things as “proven” or in other words: not possibly wrong? I don’t know that it would be as fair to call them foolish as much as manipulated, if corporations are using them.

Actually, what would happen is length contraction. The entire universe would contract infinitely such that whatever point the traveller started from would coincide with his destination point, essentially making his trip instantaneous. His clock would slow down to a halt but the trip would have 0 distance and take 0 time anyway. This is what I mean when I say that relative to the traveller, he does not experience the cosmic speed limit of c; his speed can become ‘infinite’.

Wow, huge in-between set of possibilities left out.

Sounds like Feyarabend in Against Method.

I don’t know where the concept of ‘infallible’ entered my post. I didn’t intend it, nor can I see it there. I wasn’t suggesting anyone speculates without error. I merely meant that some speculate better than others, some of these well above chance.

But you can’t say that his speed is infinite for a couple of reasons.

First “infinite” means having no limit, not being ultra fast.
But more significantly, even though his clock stopped making it seem to him that he took zero time to get to his destination, everything else did not stop moving relative to his destination. In fact, his destination wouldn’t be where he first saw it because it didn’t stop and wait for him to get there. So if the universe saw him traveling at c, the universe would have shifted around for the length of time it took for him to travel at c from where he started to his destination. When he got there, the universe would have moved around from when he left.

How would you make yourself stop at a specific point if you were traveling such as to cross any distance instantaneously?

what do you mean?

Oh, i didn’t really have a clear idea of what you meant…I imagine some do speculate better than others…

What he actually had as the content of his science, the science still used today, is that the speed of light is always c in an inertial reference frame. The speed is relative to points in the frame, not to any observer. Observers can use frames other than the one in which they are at rest to make measurements.

These arguments shouldn’t have any bearing on the Big Bang theory, since that doesn’t have a central point.

Since the measurement of the speed of light is constant to a frame, the speed of light can be different relative to objects moving in that frame. If we look at the reference frames in which those objects are at rest, we still find that the speed of light is c in those frames.

PhysB,
If you want to see the final conclusion of that Paradox issue, you can start here… Stopped Clock Paradox - page 12
…and emm… welcome back.

I got to thinking. No mirror like material, completely spectacularly emits light. in other words no matter what some light is always diffused in all directions of an object. Or I believe that is the case. The work I do works on light reflectance of materials and indicates this as being the case. I’m not certain though, I’d have to talk to my boss about it. But If that was the case, if light has a particle nature, then you would think that it would only diffuse so long as the light beam emitted was greater than the width of a single photon. So what would be interesting is to test to see that if a light beam of the width of a photon, would diffuse, if it does that would contradict the idea that the light has any singularity with respect to minimization of beam width, and would thus seem not to be particular…IDK

The other thought I had was i thought we were able to tell a particles size by judging the way light reflects off of it right? If not how else to we tell?

“They” are building optical computers using single photon emitters.
Does that answer your doubt?

Not completely. i mean do they know it is actually emitting a photon or is it just that it is emitting a single photon length beam, and regardless I guess is there diffusion? I mean even if there was diffusion a sensor would still sense the transmition…

And again I would was hoping you might no how we tell what the size of a particle is?

Off subject but this is more of a simple simple answer question then something deserving of a topic thread.