Speed of light is limited by what?

[Bobby]

I don't claim to know any answers, but it seems I've heard some news that may be relevent to gravity being a boson force.

 

“

Total eclipses of the Sun by the Moon reach maximum eclipse about 40 seconds before the Sun and Moon's gravitational forces align. If gravity is a propagating force, this 3-body (Sun-Moon-Earth) test implies that gravity propagates at least 20 times faster than light.

 

The Earth accelerates toward a point 20 arc seconds in front of the visible Sun, where the Sun will appear to be in 8.3 minutes. Thus, the acceleration now is toward the true, instantaneous direction of the Sun now, and is not parallel to the direction of the arriving solar photons now.

” — [The speed of gravity - what the experiments say. T. van Flandern,

Physics Letters A

. vol.250, no.1-3, Page: 1-11 (1998)] (

alternate PDF document

)

 

Found at this site from UncleAl: http://spacescience.spaceref.com/newhome/headlines/ast12oct99_1.htm

 

 

 

 

Does anyone know if the porson writing the paper in the bottom link is reliable?

[Erasmus00]

Does anyone know if the porson writing the paper in the bottom link is reliable?

 

I'm not sure about the guy writing the bottom link, but Van Flandern has been largely refuted and has never put together a mathematical description of his theory. http://www.absoluteastronomy.com/encyclopedia/T/To/Tom_Van_Flandern.htm has the counterarguments.

-Will

[Southtown]

Does anyone know if the porson writing the paper in the bottom link is reliable?

It's an article created by NASA and archived by SpaceRef. Read their archive frontpage, their about page, and the credits at the bottom of the article. UncleAl posted it elsewhere and he's usually quite scrupulous.

 

Q. What force causes objects to move downhill?

A. Gravity.

Q. What is gravity?

A. A downhill slope.

Q. What force causes objects to move downhill?

A. Gravity...

 

Where is the wrong turn in this logic?

 

http://www.metaresearch.org/cosmology/gravity/Does%20Gravity%20Have%20Inertia.asp

(IE strongly suggested)

[tedoniman]

10:58 AM 8/12/05 (Malaysia time)

 

Re: Light speed limited by what?

 

I would sure like to know and wish EWright would give us a hint; because so far, no one seems to as yet have hit the jackpot with a clearcut, straightforward explanation for the layman, such as yours truly. It's getting so bad, I can't sleep any more. I reckon, though, that if I look long enough with Google, there must be an answer somewhere to what appears to be a right fundamental question. However, my comp is so old and my line and account so limited, I might be at it for the next hundred years.

 

But let me take a layman's stab at it anyway here, if I may. Unfortunately this may not fall in line with some of the more powerful reasoning I've already seen here. Indubitably my logic is probably terribly flawed; but then, who can say for 100% sure. So here goes...

 

 

It is said that during the1st few microseconds of the 'big bang' (or was it the 'brane mating' ?), the expansion speed of the so-called primordial mass (or mess? or particles and/or energy, or whatever it was) exceeded 'c', by some amount.

 

This makes sense (in a sense), I think, if we assume, logically, that in order for the 'mess' to expand and ultimately become 'mass' (as we know it), it had to overcome the enormous gravity of the original singularity.

 

That is, the energy in the explosion had to be greater than the energy of the gravity containing it; otherwise, no 'big bang'. In a sense, then, it had to exceed the 'speed of gravity' - and also, that of light (for light to escape the Schwartzschild thing).

 

According to relativity and Stephen Hawkins (hope I spelled that correctly), light or any other kind of EMR, or, for that matter, matter trapped within a singularity can't escape to ultimately push out in a (more or less) straight line because of the Gravity constraint. So light could not have escaped unless the original speed of expansion exceeded the current 'c'.

 

So we had a lot of potential and kinetic energy trapped in that blob - thermodynamic, nuclear, gravitional - you name it.

 

Could it be that the 'fabric' of gravity was momentarily torn or destroyed by the original immense energy (including that of gravity itself) accumulating within the singularity, when the last drops of matter were finally sucked into it, when the previous (I assume) Universe collapsed?. I mean, the force of gravity may have ceased to exist momentarily because the conditions required to create and maintain it may have disappeared, however briefly.

 

Why it (light - and the rest of it) then apparently slowed down, right after the big bang, I'm not sure - but I can guess. To my mind, the re-assertion of Gravity must have had something to do with it.

 

Relativity also says something about mass becoming infinite if moving at or beyond the speed of light (relative to what?). Quantum physics also says light is both 'particular' (mass?) and energy (as apparently proven emperically). That latter would then also seem to imply that gravity should at least have some effect on light speed.

 

The original 'soup' must have been in the form of both mass and energy (no mass, no gravity and, hence, no singularity and - no subsequent big bang).

 

So we have a couple of odd things going on here.

 

For instance, if the expansion started out at greater than 'c', then (although I can't logically imagine it), the resultant mass should have become infinite in size.

 

In a sense, maybe that's what happened - and may still be going on. We're in a 'mass bubble' that's still expanding - and the expansion is apparently accelerating; and mass, as per quantum theory, is being created, at least for brief periods, all of the time. (What a confusing bunch of theories!).

 

Although the resultant mass is not strictly infinity, in a sense, it is maybe continuously striving to attain that state. It is continually expanding outward at great speed from the origin, in a sphere, or, more correctly, in a 'shell'; and that expansion speed is accelerating, ultimately, towards the speed of light, it would seem. And what happens when it reaches 'c' (if it ever can)?

 

That brings up another question. How can the expansion be accelerating? Especially since current theory also implies that nothing can go faster than light? Isn't it a fact that when the bubble burst, everything ejected out of it was already travelling at or near the speed of light? I mean, that's only logical anyway. So what is really happening here?

 

 

In summation, may I speculate that since Gravity is the weakest force and since light consists (ultimately) at least of some mass, however small (string theory?), it seems logical to assume then that the speed of light, at least in part, is limited by Gravity.

 

Perhaps, if there were no gravity, then (possibly as supported by Newton's law on acceleration, if it applies with no Gravity), light and matter in motion might keep on accelerating towards infinite speed. So it seems to me, anyhow, that maybe the real 'constant' (and limit on light speed) ultimately might turn out to be the speed and properties of Gravity itself. Or how . . . ?

 

tedoniman

[EWright]

Scalpel please...

 

10:58 AM 8/12/05 (Malaysia time)

 

Re: Light speed limited by what?

 

I would sure like to know and wish EWright would give us a hint; because so far, no one seems to as yet have hit the jackpot with a clearcut, straightforward explanation for the layman, such as yours truly. It's getting so bad, I can't sleep any more. I reckon, though, that if I look long enough with Google, there must be an answer somewhere to what appears to be a right fundamental question. However, my comp is so old and my line and account so limited, I might be at it for the next hundred years.

 

But let me take a layman's stab at it anyway here, if I may. Unfortunately this may not fall in line with some of the more powerful reasoning I've already seen here. Indubitably my logic is probably terribly flawed; but then, who can say for 100% sure. So here goes...

 

 

It is said that during the1st few microseconds of the 'big bang' (or was it the 'brane mating' ?), the expansion speed of the so-called primordial mass (or mess? or particles and/or energy, or whatever it was) exceeded 'c', by some amount. [/Quote]

 

Yes, Inflationary Theory, proposed by Alan Guth.

 

This makes sense (in a sense), I think, if we assume, logically, that in order for the 'mess' to expand and ultimately become 'mass' (as we know it), it had to overcome the enormous gravity of the original singularity.

[/Quote]

This is why inflation is needed, in order for the force of the Big Bang to overcome the draw of its own gravity. Otherwise one is left to wonder why the matter of the Big Bang wasn't drawn back instantly into a singularity under the attraction of its own emense gravity.

 

That is, the energy in the explosion had to be greater than the energy of the gravity containing it; otherwise, no 'big bang'. In a sense, then, it had to exceed the 'speed of gravity' - and also, that of light (for light to escape the Schwartzschild thing).

[/Quote]

Here your logic goes astray. First, a Schwartzchild radius in relation to what? While many liken the initial singularity to that of a black hold, the general concensus is that the universe did not originate from a black hole or a white hole. A Schwartzchild radius refers to the point of no return FROM a universe into a blackhole (or vice versa) but there was no existing universe relative to the singularity for it to be cut off from or explode into. All space, energy and matter that exists within our universe was (according to BB theory) contained within the initial singularity.

 

Secondly, what is "that light" that you speak of? There was no light in the initial birth of the universe. What existed was a plasma, through which photons could not move or be seen. The Cosmic Microwave Background is the rellic of the moment when visible light began to be able to move freely through space.

 

According to relativity and Stephen Hawkins (hope I spelled that correctly), light or any other kind of EMR, or, for that matter, matter trapped within a singularity can't escape to ultimately push out in a (more or less) straight line because of the Gravity constraint. So light could not have escaped unless the original speed of expansion exceeded the current 'c'.

[/Quote]

Light doesn't dictate the physics of the universe. the physics of the universe dictate the speed of light.

 

 

So we had a lot of potential and kinetic energy trapped in that blob - thermodynamic, nuclear, gravitional - you name it.

 

Could it be that the 'fabric' of gravity was momentarily torn or destroyed by the original immense energy (including that of gravity itself) accumulating within the singularity, when the last drops of matter were finally sucked into it, when the previous (I assume) Universe collapsed?. I mean, the force of gravity may have ceased to exist momentarily because the conditions required to create and maintain it may have disappeared, however briefly.

[/Quote]

The BB model does not require a cyclic model of the universe, and even if there were a previous universe, one must ask where it began.

 

 

Why it (light - and the rest of it) then apparently slowed down, right after the big bang, I'm not sure - but I can guess. To my mind, the re-assertion of Gravity must have had something to do with it.

[/Quote]

Yes, the gravity of the universe would have slowed its initial expansion.

 

Relativity also says something about mass becoming infinite if moving at or beyond the speed of light (relative to what?).

[/Quote]

Good question. Relative to what? In the early universe there was NO LIGHT. Yet the physics of the universe still existed. Clocks would still have measured less time for faster moving objects. Hence, There is simply no physical property of light that causes this to happen.

 

Quantum physics also says light is both 'particular' (mass?) and energy (as apparently proven emperically). That latter would then also seem to imply that gravity should at least have some effect on light speed.

[/Quote]

Light photons are bundles of energy with NO MASS and no electrical charge. In some ways they act as a particle, and other ways, as a wave.

The original 'soup' must have been in the form of both mass and energy (no mass, no gravity and, hence, no singularity and - no subsequent big bang).

[/Quote]

:rant:

So we have a couple of odd things going on here.

 

For instance, if the expansion started out at greater than 'c', then (although I can't logically imagine it), the resultant mass should have become infinite in size.

 

In a sense, maybe that's what happened - and may still be going on. We're in a 'mass bubble' that's still expanding - and the expansion is apparently accelerating; and mass, as per quantum theory, is being created, at least for brief periods, all of the time. (What a confusing bunch of theories!).

 

Although the resultant mass is not strictly infinity, in a sense, it is maybe continuously striving to attain that state. It is continually expanding outward at great speed from the origin, in a sphere, or, more correctly, in a 'shell'; and that expansion speed is accelerating, ultimately, towards the speed of light, it would seem. And what happens when it reaches 'c' (if it ever can)?

[/Quote]

 

Sorry to make your head hurt worse and cause you further lack of sleep; but what would a "mass bubble" that is infinite in size be expanding into? And how does something infinite get bigger... and at a faster rate even? And what's beyond that darn shell? (just putting this one out there to let ya think some more) :eek:

That brings up another question. How can the expansion be accelerating? Especially since current theory also implies that nothing can go faster than light? Isn't it a fact that when the bubble burst, everything ejected out of it was already travelling at or near the speed of light? I mean, that's only logical anyway. So what is really happening here?

[/Quote]

No bubble, no burst. All self contained, all still is.

 

 

In summation, may I speculate that since Gravity is the weakest force and since light consists (ultimately) at least of some mass, however small (string theory?), it seems logical to assume then that the speed of light, at least in part, is limited by Gravity.

[/Quote]

Small bundle of energy with no mass. Gravity can influence the path of light due to a warping of space that the light is traveling through, but it does not change its speed.

 

Perhaps, if there were no gravity, then (possibly as supported by Newton's law on acceleration, if it applies with no Gravity), light and matter in motion might keep on accelerating towards infinite speed. So it seems to me, anyhow, that maybe the real 'constant' (and limit on light speed) ultimately might turn out to be the speed and properties of Gravity itself. Or how . . . ?

 

tedoniman

I'm sure Bobby would agree with you. But that would not be the response I am looking for in the fill in the blank question or the initial question of this thread. My theory (idea?) would attribute the same speed to light and gravity due to the same phenomenon.

[Bobby]

Re: Light speed limited by what?

 

 

It is said that during the 1st few microseconds of the 'big bang' (or was it the 'brane mating' ?), the expansion speed of the so-called primordial mass (or mess? or particles and/or energy, or whatever it was) exceeded 'c', by some amount.

 

At the birth of the Big Bang the amount of energy must have been beyond imagination. If a proton had been created, there was so much energy that the proton would have instantely been destroyed. For all practical purposes the proton never even existed as it would have been destroyed before the characteristics that made it a proton could have had any effect. The same would hold true for an electron, or any other particle.

Electromagnetic energy is caused by vibrating electric charges such as the electron. Since an electron could not have existed during the big bang there could have been no electromagnetic forces. There WAS energy, but it could not have been electromagnetic, it must have been something else. The same logic says that none of the forces now known (Strong, Weak, Gravity) could have existed as individual forces. There COULD, however, have been a force that INCLUDED all the know forces.

If electric charges could not have existed, then neither could electric and magnetic forces. If mass could not have existed, then neither could gravity. Who can say what the very earliest instances of the Big Bang looked like? The only think you can say with any degree of certainty, is that it did not look like today's Universe.

 

 

This makes sense (in a sense), I think, if we assume, logically, that in order for the 'mess' to expand and ultimately become 'mass' (as we know it), it had to overcome the enormous gravity of the original singularity.

According to relativity and Stephen Hawkins (hope I spelled that correctly), light or any other kind of EMR, or, for that matter, matter trapped within a singularity can't escape to ultimately push out in a (more or less) straight line because of the Gravity constraint. So light could not have escaped unless the original speed of expansion exceeded the current 'c'.

 

That is, the energy in the explosion had to be greater than the energy of the gravity containing it; otherwise, no 'big bang'. In a sense, then, it had to exceed the 'speed of gravity' - and also, that of light (for light to escape the Schwartzschild thing).

 

So we had a lot of potential and kinetic energy trapped in that blob - thermodynamic, nuclear, gravitional - you name it.

 

 

See above. Since mass as we know it could not have existed, then neither could gravity. BTW, I think most scientists have given up on the idea of singularities.

 

 

Could it be that the 'fabric' of gravity was momentarily torn or destroyed by the original immense energy (including that of gravity itself) accumulating within the singularity, when the last drops of matter were finally sucked into it, when the previous (I assume) Universe collapsed?. I mean, the force of gravity may have ceased to exist momentarily because the conditions required to create and maintain it may have disappeared, however briefly.

 

 

Or the force of gravity had not yet split off from the unified force.

 

Why it (light - and the rest of it) then apparently slowed down, right after the big bang, I'm not sure - but I can guess. To my mind, the re-assertion of Gravity must have had something to do with it.

 

 

Since light is an electromagnetic wave, it could not have existed until the electric force split off from the unified force.

 

Relativity also says something about mass becoming infinite if moving at or beyond the speed of light (relative to what?).

I assume you are referring to the Lorentz transforms (equations). Mass does not become infinite because velocity can never reach C. Instead of saying V = C, it is more correct to say something like this. As velocity comes closer and closet to the speed of light, the relativistic effects become greater and greater. All relativistic effects are relative to something. This something is called a frame of reference. Normal people would call it a point of view. If two spaceships are moving at the same velocity, say 9/10 the speed of light, relative to the earth, someone on earth would see both ships moving at 9/10 C. Each of the spaceships would say that the other ship isn't moving at all.

 

Quantum physics also says light is both 'particular' (mass?) and energy (as apparently proven emperically). That latter would then also seem to imply that gravity should at least have some effect on light speed.

 

 

And it does. T1 = T2 ( 1 + gh/C^2) is an equation from General Relativity. This equation says that clocks run slow in a gravitational field.

FYI ==> T1 and T2 are two clocks, g is the escape velocity of a mass (7 MPS on the earth), h is the distance away from the source of gravity (top of the ground on Earth, not the center of mass) and C is the speed of light.

 

The original 'soup' must have been in the form of both mass and energy (no mass, no gravity and, hence, no singularity and - no subsequent big bang).

 

OK, then how about a Big Boom?

 

 

So we have a couple of odd things going on here.

 

For instance, if the expansion started out at greater than 'c', then (although I can't logically imagine it), the resultant mass should have become infinite in size.

 

 

I understand that most scientists think of the baby big boom as somehing like a bubbling soup. Prior to about 10^-43 seconds, the baby universe was governed more or less by the laws of quantum mechanics. At 10^-43 seconds, the laws of quantum mechanics was shared with the laws of relativity on a more or less 50 - 50 arrangement. After 10^-43 seconds the laws of relativity ruled. The 10^-43 time unit isn't an arbitrary time, but comes from Planck's constant which says that energy comes in little packets or quantas.

 

 

In a sense, maybe that's what happened - and may still be going on. We're in a 'mass bubble' that's still expanding - and the expansion is apparently accelerating; and mass, as per quantum theory, is being created, at least for brief periods, all of the time. (What a confusing bunch of theories!).

 

I am not a big fan of an accelerating rate of expansion, but as I understand it, some cosmologists think that "empty" space has a sort of dark energy. They say dark energy simply because it can't usually be measured. The idea that "empty" space has an energy potential is not a wild speculation. There is no "empty" space in our universe. All of space is continually being bombarded by electromagnetic fields, gravity, etc. Empty space would mean only that there was not enough energy available to create a particle. Sometimes, due purely by chance, an empty area of space will have enough energy to create a particle.

 

 

Although the resultant mass is not strictly infinity, in a sense, it is maybe continuously striving to attain that state. It is continually expanding outward at great speed from the origin, in a sphere, or, more correctly, in a 'shell'; and that expansion speed is accelerating, ultimately, towards the speed of light, it would seem. And what happens when it reaches 'c' (if it ever can)?

 

 

With the correct amount of energy, you can create an electron positron pair and, with the correct equipment, seperate these two particle to use as you wish. Perhaps you do this then wonder what happens if you crash the two particles back together. When you do this, two photons of light are created. This demonstrates the idea that mass and energy are not two things, but are simply aspects. As light expands, so does the Universe. Since light can become mass, it would be correct to say that energy is causing our universe to expand. It would also be correct to say that mass is causing our universe to expand. IMO the shape of the Universe is the shape of the gravitational field which fills all of space. A popular question is why does gravity travel at the speed of light. General Relativity say a better question would be why does light travel at the speed of gravity? (T1 = T2 ( 1 + gh/C^2)

 

 

That brings up another question. How can the expansion be accelerating? Especially since current theory also implies that nothing can go faster than light? Isn't it a fact that when the bubble burst, everything ejected out of it was already travelling at or near the speed of light? I mean, that's only logical anyway. So what is really happening here?

 

 

As I mentioned earlier, I am not a big fan of an accelerating rate of expansion. If time runs slow in a gravitational field, time must have run exceedingly slow during the early Big Bang due to the intensity of gravity. If the Universe is expanding, time will run faster in the future due to the decrease in the intensity of gravity. If you could stand outside the Universe and watch, the universe would start expanding very, very, slow, then speed up as the universe expanded. This slowing of clocks in a gravitational field would look like the expansion rate is accelerating. But it isn't (IMO). The accelerating expansion rate is due to the speeding up of clocks due to the expanding universe and subsequent thinning out of the gravitational field.

 

In summation, may I speculate that since Gravity is the weakest force and since light consists (ultimately) at least of some mass, however small (string theory?), it seems logical to assume then that the speed of light, at least in part, is limited by Gravity.

 

Agreed.

 

 

Perhaps, if there were no gravity, then (possibly as supported by Newton's law on acceleration, if it applies with no Gravity), light and matter in motion might keep on accelerating towards infinite speed. So it seems to me, anyhow, that maybe the real 'constant' (and limit on light speed) ultimately might turn out to be the speed and properties of Gravity itself. Or how . . . ?

 

 

Tsk!!! Tsk!!! Tsk!!! LOL How could light be a property of gravity if there were no gravity?

[EWright]

Re: Light speed limited by what?

At the birth of the Big Bang the amount of energy must have been beyond imagination. If a proton had been created, there was so much energy that the proton would have instantely been destroyed. For all practical purposes the proton never even existed as it would have been destroyed before the characteristics that made it a proton could have had any effect. The same would hold true for an electron, or any other particle.

Electromagnetic energy is caused by vibrating electric charges such as the electron. Since an electron could not have existed during the big bang there could have been no electromagnetic forces. There WAS energy, but it could not have been electromagnetic, it must have been something else. The same logic says that none of the forces now known (Strong, Weak, Gravity) could have existed as individual forces. There COULD, however, have been a force that INCLUDED all the know forces.

If electric charges could not have existed, then neither could electric and magnetic forces. If mass could not have existed, then neither could gravity. Who can say what the very earliest instances of the Big Bang looked like? The only think you can say with any degree of certainty, is that it did not look like today's Universe.

[/Quote]

 

Whoa, Bobby! Where did your logic escape to here? There may not hyave been matter during this time, but there was most certainly mass! And there was most certainly gravity, as well as en emence battle betwen gravity of that mass and the outwards force of the BB (assuming a BB POV). The mass was made up of particles in a plasma, through which EM energy could not propagate.

 

See above. Since mass as we know it could not have existed, then neither could gravity. BTW, I think most scientists have given up on the idea of singularities.

[/Quote]

 

See above!

 

Since light is an electromagnetic wave, it could not have existed until the electric force split off from the unified force.

[/Quote]

It could not have traveled until the conditions of the universe became permeable to it.

 

I assume you are referring to the Lorentz transforms (equations). Mass does not become infinite because velocity can never reach C. Instead of saying V = C, it is more correct to say something like this. As velocity comes closer and closet to the speed of light, the relativistic effects become greater and greater. All relativistic effects are relative to something. This something is called a frame of reference. Normal people would call it a point of view. If two spaceships are moving at the same velocity, say 9/10 the speed of light, relative to the earth, someone on earth would see both ships moving at 9/10 C. Each of the spaceships would say that the other ship isn't moving at all.

[/Quote]

Not true. SR (if you buy agree with it fully) says either ship can consider itself or the other as stationary... or I would think a combination of the two. Only if they were traveling side by side would they argu the other was actually stationary. Furthermore, they do not need to be traveling at the same speed for SR to work. Their speeds just have to be constant and not accelerated. Relativistic effects become greater because SR uses light speed as a 'zeroing out' point, which leads to its paradoxical and puzzling conclusions.

 

 

I am not a big fan of an accelerating rate of expansion, but as I understand it, some cosmologists think that "empty" space has a sort of dark energy. They say dark energy simply because it can't usually be measured. The idea that "empty" space has an energy potential is not a wild speculation. There is no "empty" space in our universe. All of space is continually being bombarded by electromagnetic fields, gravity, etc. Empty space would mean only that there was not enough energy available to create a particle. Sometimes, due purely by chance, an empty area of space will have enough energy to create a particle.

[/Quote]

 

 

With the correct amount of energy, you can create an electron positron pair and, with the correct equipment, seperate these two particle to use as you wish. Perhaps you do this then wonder what happens if you crash the two particles back together. When you do this, two photons of light are created. This demonstrates the idea that mass and energy are not two things, but are simply aspects. As light expands, so does the Universe. Since light can become mass, it would be correct to say that energy is causing our universe to expand. It would also be correct to say that mass is causing our universe to expand. IMO the shape of the Universe is the shape of the gravitational field which fills all of space. A popular question is why does gravity travel at the speed of light. General Relativity say a better question would be why does light travel at the speed of gravity? (T1 = T2 ( 1 + gh/C^2)

[/Quote]

I believe you are talking about pair production and annihilation here. The positron is the anti-matter counterpart to the electron. What's interesting is that a photon is used to create the two in the first place. When a photon of an energy of at least 1.02 MeV interacts with the nuclear field of the atom you get your electron and positron pair, each with an energy of 0.511MeV. So in a sense, it is as though the initial energy is carried by the pair. We all know that matter and anti matter annihilate each other. This is what happens when a positron and electron then come into contact with each other again. And the result is two .501 MeV photons, which travel in opposite directions.

 

As I mentioned earlier, I am not a big fan of an accelerating rate of expansion. If time runs slow in a gravitational field, time must have run exceedingly slow during the early Big Bang due to the intensity of gravity. If the Universe is expanding, time will run faster in the future due to the decrease in the intensity of gravity. If you could stand outside the Universe and watch, the universe would start expanding very, very, slow, then speed up as the universe expanded. This slowing of clocks in a gravitational field would look like the expansion rate is accelerating. But it isn't (IMO). The accelerating expansion rate is due to the speeding up of clocks due to the expanding universe and subsequent thinning out of the gravitational field.

[/Quote]

Actually, if this were true, there would have been no initial slowing of the expansion prior to its current accelerated phase. What's interesting is that there has not always been an acceleration of the expansion. The expansion of the universe was actually SLOWING in the past. The acceleration only began about half way through the presumed age of the universe. So you must account for why this perceived change occurred within the context of your explanation.

 

In summation, may I speculate that since Gravity is the weakest force and since light consists (ultimately) at least of some mass, however small (string theory?), it seems logical to assume then that the speed of light, at least in part, is limited by Gravity.

 

Agreed.

[/Quote]

Luke... there is another... fo....

[Tormod]

Lots of stuff

 

Bobby, could you please make sure you put the quotes in [ quote ] text [ /quote ] tags? Your above post is completely incomprehensible since it has merged your reply to the post you are replying to.

[Bobby]

Whoa, Bobby! Where did your logic escape to here?

My logic tends to follow my brain and sometimes my brain needs a rest.

 

There may not hyave been matter during this time, but there was most certainly mass! And there was most certainly gravity, as well as en emence battle betwen gravity of that mass and the outwards force of the BB (assuming a BB POV). The mass was made up of particles in a plasma, through which EM energy could not propagate.

 

 

I was trying to suggest that before the known forces split off, there was only a single force

and this force may or may not have exhibited the characteristics of mass or charge that we see today. Since inflation theory seems to say that the initial forces were very different than those today.

 

 

 

Not true. SR (if you buy agree with it fully) says either ship can consider itself or the other as stationary... or I would think a combination of the two. Only if they were traveling side by side would they argu the other was actually stationary. Furthermore, they do not need to be traveling at the same speed for SR to work. Their speeds just have to be constant and not accelerated.

 

When I said the ships were traaveling at the same Velocity I was taking Velocity at its true meaning of speed and direction thus the ships would not have been moving relative to one another.

 

 

Relativistic effects become greater because SR uses light speed as a 'zeroing out' point, which leads to its paradoxical and puzzling conclusions.

 

You might be right, but it seems to me that the speed of light is determined by gravity. If so, the relativistic effects are effects of gravity, not velocity.

 

 

Actually, if this were true, there would have been no initial slowing of the expansion prior to its current accelerated phase. What's interesting is that there has not always been an acceleration of the expansion. The expansion of the universe was actually SLOWING in the past. The acceleration only began about half way through the presumed age of the universe. So you must account for why this perceived change occurred within the context of your explanation.

 

 

I have been making this post at other boards for many months and you are the first to respond. You make a good argument that I have thought about in the past but have not pursued (So much to do So little time LOL). I'm going to do a little research and (UGH) a little math and see what I can come up with.

[EWright]

My logic tends to follow my brain and sometimes my brain needs a rest.

 

I was trying to suggest that before the known forces split off, there was only a single force

and this force may or may not have exhibited the characteristics of mass or charge that we see today. Since inflation theory seems to say that the initial forces were very different than those today.

 

When I said the ships were traaveling at the same Velocity I was taking Velocity at its true meaning of speed and direction thus the ships would not have been moving relative to one another.

[/Quote]

 

Can you explain further? Unless they had equal velocity AND were traveling parelell to each other, they would most certainly perceive movement between them.

 

 

You might be right, but it seems to me that the speed of light is determined by gravity. If so, the relativistic effects are effects of gravity, not velocity.

[/Quote]

So then what determines the speed of gravity? And how does such a weak force exert such a powerful mandate as light speed?

 

I have been making this post at other boards for many months and you are the first to respond. You make a good argument that I have thought about in the past but have not pursued (So much to do So little time LOL). I'm going to do a little research and (UGH) a little math and see what I can come up with.

Ugh is right. It seems I may have to get a better handle on this thing called math as well. Good luck.

[Bobby]

 

Can you explain further? Unless they had equal velocity AND were traveling parelell to each other, they would most certainly perceive movement between them.

 

 

So then what determines the speed of gravity? And how does such a weak force exert such a powerful mandate as light speed?

 

 

Ugh is right. It seems I may have to get a better handle on this thing called math as well. Good luck.

 

 

Re the ships. I was trying to show that relativistic effects are relative. Whereas someone on earth would see relativistic effects on the ships, the ships would not see it among themselves. Perhaps I should have explained the motion of the ships better. Sometimes I tend to get too sciency. Velocity is a vector meaning it has both speed and direction, thus two speships moving with the same velocity means they are not moving relative to themselves.

 

Gravitational force is not necessarily the same thing as gravitational time dilstion. Gravity is the force of attraction between mass F = (M1 M2 G) / R^2 and is quite small as you say. Looking at the time equation from GR T1 = T2 ( 1 + gh/C^2) you will notice that it is quite different from the law of gravitation. Time in the gravitational field would vary by the ratio of gh/C^2. Since C^2 is such a large number, the gravitational time effects are also small but not they would not be the same as gravitational attraction.

 

What causes the speed of gravity? I don't know. However, by looking at the GR equation T1 = T2 ( 1 + gh/C^2), it looks to me like it is gravity itself that causes the speed to be finite.