The speed of light.
- From: "Len Gaasenbeek" <gaasbeek@xxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sun, 29 May 2005 12:59:51 -0400
THE SPEED OF LIGHT C.
It makes sense that the speed of light should be given and constant in a
given Electromagnetic Field/Frame Of Reference or (EFOR).
Given, because nature's laws and constants are the same throughout the
universe. If they were not, it follows that there must be many different
parallel universes. If so, humans would be able to travel to a another
planet where for example, ice is not lighter than water and the force of
gravity isn't a function of the mass of the planet or doesn't exist.
Also, if the laws of physics are dissimilar at different places in the
universe the question becomes, what makes them different? If the chemical
elements are the same etc., what would cause them to interact differently
than the way they interact on earth, under the same physical conditions?
No, the only reasonable assumption we can make is that Mother Nature behaves
the same way throughout the universe. Consequently, since light can't
travel at different speeds in different directions or places, it follows
that it must be of a given magnitude and constant.
It follows from the above that the speed of light must be equal to c in all
directions, as measured by an astronaut inside an evacuated spaceship,
regardless in what direction and how fast the spaceship is traveling through
space.
It further follows that if spaceship A travels towards spaceship B at say
1/4 c, that the light inside spaceship A travels at 1 1/4 c towards B and at
3/4 c away from B, and vice versa.
This is the case because the internal EFOR of spaceship A is traveling at
1/4 c towards the internal EFOR of spaceship B. Which leaves the question,
why should light travel at c in a vacuum rather than at some other speed?
We could reply, that like so many other laws in nature, c happens to be its
given speed. For example, unlike most compounds which contract when they
cool and solidify, water expands when it turns into ice. As a result the ice
that is produced during a cold spell (fortunately) floats on the surface of
a lake instead of sinking to its bottom.
However I feel that there is more to it than that.
Since the laws of physics are given, I propose that light consists of
helical wave photons which spiral through empty space (without the need for
an ether) at a given frequency, wavelength and amplitude.
While each spinning helical wave photon travels along, it changes both the
direction in which it is traveling (its velocity but not its speed) as well
as the direction of its spin axis, at a constant rate.
The interaction of the resultant gyroscopic force (produced by its twisting
spin axis) which forces the photon to follow a helical path, the centrifugal
force which forces it to take off sideways, its inertia (a measure of its
small mass) which forces it to keep travelling as it did and its inability
to take off sideways at a LINEAR VELOCITY in excess of c while its HELICAL
SPEED is greater than c , causes the helical photon wave to progress through
space at c, for the above forces to balance out as they do.
The above system also allows a helical wave photon to lose or absorb energy
by varying its spin, frequency and amplitude, without decaying into a linear
photon and without varying the speed (c) at which the helical wave photon
progresses through empty space; providing that it isn't slowed down to less
than relativistic speed.
So why did Mother Nature decide to do it this way? Why did Mother Nature
decide the laws of physics to be the way they are! They had to be something
as well as consistent, and the way they interact had to make sense; so that
is the way they turned out to be.
Besides who are we to question Mother Nature's intentions anyway? I think
She did a marvellous job of making the system work as it does, including the
miracle of life of which we are the evolutionary outcome.
In this respect, She is the Mother of us all.
Enjoy, Len.
PS.: For a more detailed analysis see my
Selected Papers which you will find at:
http://www2.rideau.net/gaasbeek
.............................................................
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: The speed of light.
- From: *** rD
- Re: The speed of light.
- Prev by Date: Re: relativity of simultaneity - real or perceived?
- Next by Date: The velocity of light.
- Previous by thread: relativistic rotational kinetic energy
- Next by thread: Re: The speed of light.
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
|