|
|
|
|
Full Member
|
|
Jan 25, 2009, 06:01 PM
|
|
This is my theory.
First thing, I assume that light is time. This theory is based on that.
If light was time, then it is impossible to go faster then light. The reason is, if light was time, then if we go faster then the speed of light, then that means time stops. And if time stops, we are not going anywhere!
Remember, this theory I have is based on the fact that light=time.
|
|
|
-
|
|
Jan 25, 2009, 06:11 PM
|
|
It may be your personal theory, but on what indications do you base such a thesis ?
|
|
|
Senior Member
|
|
Jan 25, 2009, 06:20 PM
|
|
Einstein had a theory involving spacetime. It's the theory of special relativity. Along the same line of thinking, if you're hypothetically moving at an incredibly fast pace, lets say near the speed of light, you can look at a clock you have with you. Looking at your clock, time passes normally.
Now lets say someone else moves in the other direction as you, with the same clock. Lets also say that, hypothetically, when you pass each other, both your clocks read 12:00. You get farther and farther away from him, while still looking at his clock. The light from where he is takes increasingly longer to get to you, as you drift further away. Therefore, his clock appears to be running slower than yours.
While not really time travel, this is called Time Dilation. It's pretty interesting. I REALLY don't know too much about it other than the main principle behind it, but I always thought it was pretty cool.
Compliments of my high school Physics teacher :)
|
|
|
-
|
|
Jan 25, 2009, 06:24 PM
|
|
Light is some sort of moving photons.
Define time.
|
|
|
Senior Member
|
|
Jan 25, 2009, 06:26 PM
|
|
I define time as a constant from which duration and sequence can be defined, as valid from a single frame of reference in any given space.
|
|
|
Full Member
|
|
Jan 25, 2009, 06:29 PM
|
|
Originally Posted by sarnian
It may be your personal theory, but on what indications do you base such a thesis ?
I'm new to theory and stuff, so what do you mean by indications?
|
|
|
-
|
|
Jan 25, 2009, 06:32 PM
|
|
Originally Posted by retsoksirhc
I define time as a constant from which duration and sequence can be defined, as valid from a single frame of reference in any given space.
Then time is a man made measurement of duration, by the way, good definition. So how is light and time equal other than the speed of light is measured in time?
|
|
|
Senior Member
|
|
Jan 25, 2009, 06:40 PM
|
|
Im not saying they're equal, but they are definitely related. That's what the theory of relativity is all about.
I don't quite agree with "Time is a man made measurement" because even if we didn't measure, I'm fairly certain time would pass at a steady interval. The passage of time itself isn't man made, but just our units of measurement, which are based off our position and traversal through space. But that's not how I say they're related.
I was taught that time and space are related by 1 constant: the speed of light. I never really understood that until I learned about time dialation. If you think of observing something far across space, you're observing not the thing itself, but the light that travels to you, from it. Now think of that light in frame, one after another after another. If you move through space away from what you're observing, the closer you get to moving at the speed of light, the slower time will have passed for what you're observing, from your frame of reference. If you could travel the speed of light, you would observe time stopping entirely for what you're looking at, because you would be traveling with a single moment of light that was captured. That's why time is relative to space... because time isn't simply just 'there'... it has to be observed.
|
|
|
Uber Member
|
|
Jan 26, 2009, 06:18 AM
|
|
light = time is certainly not a fact.
And this isn't a theory, it's a hypothesis.
Space and time are interwoven. The universe is carved out of space-time. They're not easily separated. They're manifestations of the same thing.
|
|
|
-
|
|
Jan 26, 2009, 05:00 PM
|
|
Originally Posted by survivorboi
I'm new to theory and stuff, so what do you mean by indications?
Idea --> Claim --> (hypo)Thesis --> Theory
What you posted in your question was an idea. If you provide some explanation to your reasoning and conclusion that idea could develop into a thesis. And with scientific research support a thesis can develop into a theory.
In normal life what we call a theory is in science called a thesis.
In science a scientific theory is a supported thesis, near or equal to reality.
With indications I meant : on what is your suggestion based? Is it just an idea you had?
Or do you have any reasoning to your suggested "light is time"?
So what do you think is light?
And what do you think is time?
What "makes" light into time into light?
|
|
|
Uber Member
|
|
Feb 4, 2009, 05:38 AM
|
|
The best definition of Time that I always believed is, a unit of measure used to measure the movement of space?
|
|
Question Tools |
Search this Question |
|
|
Check out some similar questions!
M theory
[ 1 Answers ]
Can any one tell me what does M theory actually suggests in detail and where can I find the theory in the net..
A theory
[ 13 Answers ]
Here is an interesting theory about why there is big possibility that there is something after death.
We all know that when we drop the book it fells on the ground. We have learned that because of our experinces since a child that this law works 100%.
Now we don't know what was before us but we...
Theory
[ 3 Answers ]
Can anyone give some tips on the best way to learn electrical theory. I have tried a few theory books from my friend who is a electrical engineer, but the books are very complex and I just want to learn the basics.
I am a project engineer for a contractor and do not need to know a lot of theory,...
Bohr theory vs modern theory
[ 2 Answers ]
Can someone explain the differences between the bohr and the modern atomic theories in the description of the electron
Thanks :p
View more questions
Search
|