Jonah Ohayv March 11, 2014
1. It seems there is (a) the speed of theoretical light (Einstein's C, in a vacuum) and (b) the speed of actual sunlight from our star (passing through various mediums), measured on our earth-based (gravity influenced) instruments and by our body's imperfect sense of sight and brain's neuron speed.
2. Re. (b), the speed something (f.eks. light) travels at, measured in distance covered per time unit, is not equal to the distance it actually travels. F.ex. sunlight blocked by our clouds, or a car-light refracted by fog, does not reach the distance it would in a vacuum, even if the light's velocity remains the same.
3. The stars we see with the naked eye are mainly from our Milky Way, and the individual light from each will obviously be heavily affected by the gravity of astronomical objects passed on (or nearby) their way toward us. This is just one obvious case of a gravity-wise congested area, no matter how far the individual stars physically are from each other.
Therefore all we see beyond our solar system from our galaxy, will have its light bent this way and that in gravitational pulls of time-space and also refracted by gigantic gas-clouds.
The reason the sky is dark at night is due to the gas-clouds which block the light of stars behind them, not because there isn't light enough to fill the sky.
We only assume, despite knowing better, that these star's light travels in straight lines toward us. So we cannot map their relative distances from us or each other from their light, as we don't know its many actual refracted pathways.
4. If there can be a delay of a couple days from energy burning in the Earth's core area as compared to our planet's surface, and 8 meters GPS difference for the taxi driver in such a local area as our planet...
Then the deviations in our reckonings of assumed distances, speed, and locations of f.eks. far-away galaxies or stars - arising from the multiple interferences of gravitational and time-space detours on their way to us - will be significant, not small and negligable.
5. If C is constant, it can only be used on its own large scale in a vacuum in space. One might reply, that an approximate vacuum exists in areas of ”empty” space, but the further off the astronomical object is, the greater number of neighboring gravitational fields (which we don't see and haven't measured) will twist it around on the way to us.
If the theoretical constant speeds of light C from 2 locations reaches us at the same time - either one has rebounded more than the other (through the individual curvatures of time-space on the way) and thus covered a greater accumulative distance than we assume - or their actual speeds are different (covering those differing curvatures in the same time).
6. All astronomical objects are in various sorts of constant movement: rotation, revolution, pulsation, condensation, expansion, etc. This means that any mapped time-space curves of the light between any individual objects will be constantly changing.
We have in this way dynamic ever-changing pathways of energy, rather than ”empty” unchanging space. So outer space is not static but moving in many currents or directions constantly, as does an ocean's water currents and atmospheric air currents.
7. If space is gradually curved here and there, the light may follow those curves and yet the result be seen by us, without our knowing its pathway. We only see its apparent starting-point, not where it bends on the way, so we cannot know its distance from us or the time that takes to travel.
8. If nothing goes faster than the speed of light, how can one meaningfully add or multiply speeds of light? As one does in E=m x c squared.
If the speed of light is constant, it has no warming-up speed or fading-out speed and travels infinitely. So it turns on all at once and off all at once. Nothing in nature does that. So actual photons dim or gradually fall.
A loose thought: Perhaps at speeds greater than that of C light, the object changes form and is no longer physical. So C might be dealing with the usual, local boundary for leaving our physically-sensed universe.
9. If C however is defined by the breakdown of radioactive atoms, I suppose that breakdown has been measured on our planet with its gravity, or hypothesized f.eks. inside our sun with its particular heat, gravity, and combustion properties.
I know even less of chemistry than physics, but I suppose that the atoms of one element can change into those of another under great pressure, heat, etc. - anyway that isotopes can be formed.
In a blue or white giant star, the gravity, heat, pressure, will be greatly magnified compared to our middle-size fairly-aged yellow sun. So the internal chemical/atomic explosions would be much more powerful, producing f. ex. the shiny blue light that we clearly see from Orion. I see no reason why the resulting light and expelled heat from that vastly hotter furnace would not be more powerful than ours, with different sorts of photons travelling at a more powerful speed than ours – meaning that the speed of light is relative to its formative source.
So even if (a) and (b) light-speeds are valid for our fairly local astronomical areas - we in wishful thinking over-simplify, assuming that the whole universe follows our situation, sensations, and preferred mental behaviour. The same regarding our assumed constants for gravity, the ideal speed of electricity, etc.
10. I'd think that under experiments with accelerating particles in a miles-long vacuum tunnel on/under this Earth's surface, that local gravity, atmospheric pressure, or other forces would still affect both the external links to the tunnel, the tunnel itself (the frame), and the measuring instruments.
Also that the behaviour of nano-particles in the relatively short distances used, might not justify multiplying them up to 186,000 miles a second and assuming that that result is proportionally correct. If that were mathematically so for "reality", we would not have quantum physics, where small particles follow other laws and logic than much bigger ones.
11. Astronomers, physicists, and we others have not yet wanted or tried to integrate specific relativity's shifting time-space into our daily way of thinking, talking, or everyday hypotheses. Thus, we speak of a one-plane distance (straight line), of an equally advancing unit of time, etc. Only in a few circumstances do scientists (and we others) let go of the old speech-patterns, with their ingrown, implied assumptions, which makes thoughtful, open-minded dialogue difficult.