Is light possibly instantaneous?

Light

Is light possibly instantaneous?

Posted by Jerry on May 1, 2023 at 2:07 pm

Hi everyone. I’ve developed a theory as to how light is possibly instantaneous. I’ve speculated this for around 30 years. I even have an idea of how to test this through an experiment. Is anyone interested?

Jerry replied 10 months, 3 weeks ago 3 Members · 14 Replies
14 Replies

Jerry

Organizer
May 3, 2023 at 12:13 am

<div>Hi Salih. Thanks for your interest!</div><div>

You wrote,”What do you mean by instantaneous? You know, instant for light means going around the world about 7 times.”

</div><div>

What I mean by “instantaneous” is that light doesn’t travel at all. That when a light source illuminates, it arrives instantly to everything in it’s “way”, whether the distance is a few inches, or a few light years. It is perceived as a presence, that you don’t have to “wait” to see.

</div>
- John-Erik
 
 Member
 May 3, 2023 at 11:20 am
 
 Jerry
 
 Light is moving and infinite speed is absurd magic.
 
 However, gravity can be without aberration, since gravity does not move.
 
 John-Erik
 - Jerry
 
 Organizer
 May 3, 2023 at 3:03 pm
 
 Hi John-Erik. Thanks for your response.
 
 Would you say you accept the idea that the velocity of light is constant? Where it always travels at exactly 186,282 miles per second, regardless of how fast the light source or observer travels relative to each other?
 - Jerry
 
 Organizer
 May 3, 2023 at 7:02 pm
 
 Hi John-Erik. You posted this as an update.
 
 “No, I do not accept magical light speed independent of observer motion. Instead, light speed is constant in relation to the state of motion of the ether.”
 
 I have my extreme doubts regarding the constancy of c myself. The acceptance of this incorrect theory is what at least indirectly led to the also incorrect theory of time dilation.
 
 If the velocity of light is determined relative to the ether, or by the earth’s travel through the ether, would you say the ether is “fixed and stationary” or possibly “unfixed, malleable, or even somewhat swirling around” within all or some areas throughout the universe?
 - Jerry
 
 Organizer
 May 4, 2023 at 1:11 am
 
 To rephrase one of my last sentences.
 
 The acceptance of this highly questionable theory is what at least indirectly led to the highly questionable theory of time dilation.
 
 I want to say that I don’t know with 100% certainty if the constancy of c, or time dilation is incorrect. However, I’d say my “acceptance of them is much less than 1%. 🙂
 
 John-Erik
 
 Member
 May 4, 2023 at 8:30 pm
 
 Jerry
 
 Time dilation with multiple time concepts will ruin physics as Harald Nordenson said in 1922. The problem started when Potier said that light takes a longer way in the reference arm in MMX. However, light takes the same way in the ether frame.
 
 John-Erik
 
 Jerry
 
 Organizer
 May 4, 2023 at 10:38 pm
 
 Hi John-Erik.
 
 Why would light take a longer way in the reference arm in MMX?
 
 Isn’t it said that one of the reference arms shortened, or was “pushed” by the ether?
 
 How could we ever know this is a valid theory, since even if you try to measure the alleged shortened reference arm, the yardstick would shorten with it? Is this shortening visible to our eyesight?
 
 What type of evidence is there for this theory?
 
 John-Erik
 
 Member
 May 5, 2023 at 10:44 pm
 
 Jerry
 
 I said that light did NOT take a longer way and you ask: WHY it takes a longer way. This debate goes in meaningless circles.
 
 Jerry
 
 Organizer
 May 5, 2023 at 11:34 pm
 
 Hi John-Erik.
 
 Actually, it was me who “copied and pasted” the line that you wrote,
 
 “that light takes a longer way in the reference arm in MMX.”
 
 Though I failed to print out the words before that, which stated,
 
 “The problem started when Potier said….”
 
 This was just a careless mistake I made when I tried to express your point.
 
 Sometimes we might misunderstand what the other person had intended.
 
 That’s okay though. So don’t worry.
 
 We could have plenty of meaningfulness to this debate.
 
 We can ask more questions and get further clarification of the ideas.
 
 I plan to express more ideas that involve “instantaneous light”.
 
 I want to edit and expand upon what I’ve already written.
Jerry

Organizer
May 9, 2023 at 9:54 pm

Hi everyone.

I’m currently in the process of editing the material I’ve written regarding this topic.

However, here is something that I wrote the other day at another site.

of how light seems to propagate

The constancy of c has always seemed questionable. The idea that the velocity of light is always the same, regardless of how fast the light source or observer travels, has many inconsistencies. For example, it would seem impossible if a given object or observer were to actually reach c. If the observer travels with the light wave, at the same velocity as the light itself, isn’t the light then “stationary” relative to the observer?

How would “stationary light” even look? What if a person within a spacecraft could accelerate up to the point to where he travels faster than light? Would he find himself within the light which had just previously surpassed him? I’d guess that Einstein had probably realized that others would recognize these discrepancies, so he exclaimed that “nothing may travel as fast or faster than the velocity of light”. That might have seemed a clever way to temporarily escape that puzzling paradox.

It seems the only possible alternatives to “the constancy of c”, is that the velocity of light varies, which is either dependent upon the positions and motions of the light sources and objects relative to each other, or the light sources relative to the alleged “stationary” ether. The only other alternative that I can think of, is that light is instantaneous. However, it seems that all of these theories aren’t without detectable difficulties.
- Marco
 
 Member
 May 10, 2023 at 8:45 pm
 
 Hi @jerry ,
 
 The speed of light is very very high but is not possible it may be istantaneus, it would be magic as wrote @JoP .
 
 I think, as Jop, there is a medium (aether) on wich light travel on, and this medium can change the speed of light if it is moving.
 
 There is a problem: light is a transverse wave, so, the speed summation is not Galileian but Lorentzian.
 
 v(ac) non uguale a v(ab)+v(bc) ma w(ac) =w(ab)+w(bc) 
 
 where v is velocity and w is rapidity (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rapidity)
 
 Transverse mode cause different behaviour from wave on water for example.
 
 The Fizeau experiment (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fizeau_experiment) in 1851, argue how matter generate a partial aether-dragging and change light speed otherwise from supposed in his epoque.
 
 Aberration of starlight may be explained simply considering a 2° order effect of dragging of aether.
 
 Good night at all.
 
 Ing.___mm
 - Marco
 
 Member
 May 10, 2023 at 8:58 pm
 
 Hi @jerry ,
 
 The speed of light is very very high but is not possible it may be istantaneus, it would be magic as wrote @JoP .
 
 I think, as Jop, there is a medium (aether) on wich light travel on, and this medium can change the speed of light if it is moving.
 
 There is a problem: light is a transverse wave, so, the speed summation is not Galileian but Lorentzian.
 
 v(ac) non uguale a v(ab)+v(bc) ma w(ac) =w(ab)+w(bc)
 
 where v is velocity and w is rapidity (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rapidity)
 
 Transverse mode cause different behaviour from wave on water for example.
 
 The Fizeau experiment (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fizeau_experiment) in 1851, argue how matter generate a partial aether-dragging and change light speed otherwise from supposed in his epoque.
 
 Aberration of starlight may be explained simply considering a 2° order effect of dragging of aether.
 
 Good night at all.
 
 Ing.___mm
Jerry

Organizer
June 4, 2023 at 6:59 pm

Hi all! Sorry it took me a while. 🙂

Here’s a question that, of course, seems quite important.

How exactly does light propagate?

I know of at least 4 possible ways.

That the velocity of light is constant.

That the velocity of light is variable.

(And that c may vary either of these two possible ways.)

That c varies with the light source and observer relative to each other.

That c varies with the light source and observer relative to the stationary ether.

And finally,

That light is instantaneous and doesn’t travel at all.

All of these answers seem to have their weakness or inconsistencies.
- Jerry
  
  Organizer
  June 4, 2023 at 7:39 pm
  
  The second postulate of Special Relativity is the constancy of the velocity of light. Where c is always “clocked” at the same 186,282 miles per second, regardless of how fast the observer or light source travels relative to each other.
  
  Here’s a thought experiment. What if a spacecraft were to travel with and in the same direction as a light wave at almost the velocity of light relative to the source, and that also within the spacecraft, another source of light propagates into the same direction? If the velocity of light is actually constant, the spacecraft’s velocity allegedly wouldn’t add to the velocity of the light wave within the spacecraft. That each of these lights would travel at exactly the same velocity of 186,282 m/s. Of course, simple common sense would tell us (and for good reason) that this effect sounds impossible.
  
  What of all that additional distance that seems somehow misplaced within the equation? This paradox was cleverly avoided by exclaiming the “relativity of time and space”. That time dilates (slows or increases its pace), and the distance (or space) compresses or expands (or “warps”) to account for the discrepancy.
  
  If light isn’t constant, and is instead variable, and dependent upon the relative motions of the observer and light source, wouldn’t the light waves (the one within the spacecraft and the one outside) travel at much different velocities? Of almost the full 186,282 m/s of a difference, relative to each other. And that the light within the spacecraft would combine with the actual velocity of the spacecraft itself, to reach almost double the velocity of light?

Light

Organizer:

Is light possibly instantaneous?

Is light possibly instantaneous?