• This is a new section being rolled out to attract people interested in exploring the origins of the universe and the earth from a biblical perspective. Debate is encouraged and opposing viewpoints are welcome to post but certain rules must be followed. 1. No abusive tagging - if abusive tags are found - they will be deleted and disabled by the Admin team 2. No calling the biblical accounts a fable - fairy tale ect. This is a Christian site, so members that participate here must be respectful in their disagreement.

Does light have a tail?

T

tieman55

Member
Does light have a trailing edge or a tail if you will.

If light is instant than the off is just as fast as is the on, and no trailing edge.

If light has a speed then it has a tail.

A method to discover the one-way speed of light.

To find out if light has a speed limit take it past that limit and observe. To get light to appear to move past its limit, if it has one, simply rotate it. If light has a speed limit, as the circumference of the tip of the light grows ever larger, depending on its rotation rate, the angle at which the light appears to progress will continually change, until its max speed when X=Y.

If light does not have a speed limit the light generated arc will always appear at a similar radius/angle and X will never = Y.

If and when the tip of the light that creates the arc, is appearing to progress at a 45-degree angle to its path, you are at its max speed. X=Y are moving at the same rate.

One of many configurations in finding the one-way speed of light, may be done easiest in space: SEE PDF ONE WAY LIGHT SPEED.

Configure three satellites. One at the center and two at a radius. Rotate a laser on a center satellite, and use the two satellites at the radius as targets. The targets are 49.85- and 45.85-kilometers radius and they are 4.8 degrees apart. This geometry will give you a 45-degree angle between the two satellites targets from the mean radius tangent of 47.85 KM.

It is believed that it takes light about .0001663 seconds to go 49.85 KM. in space.

Run the test, based on the believed speed of light:

Rotate and fire the laser: The light is traveling to satellite #2 and will be there in .0001663 sec., with the rotation of the laser at 1000 rev/per/sec it takes .0000134 sec to rotate the entire 4.8 degrees between the two satellites and at that point the light is then traveling at the satellite #3.

Conventional belief light travel times

49.85 KM in .000166281 sec
45.85 KM in .000152939 sec
.000013342 sec difference
Rotational speed to travel 4.8 degrees in .000013342 sec = 999.35 rev / sec

At the above rotational speed of 999.7 rev/sec the light would hit the two satellites at the same moment, if the light is traveling at 299,792 KM/sec

Examples of other speeds:

Light at instant speed can never hit both satellites at the same time, as the light is rotating and has no tail.

Light at 250,000 KM/ sec
49.85 KM in .0001994
45.85 KM in .0001834
.0000160 difference, if the speed of light is 250,000 KM/sec you would have to have the rotation of 4.8 degrees in .000016 sec or 833 rev/sec, to hit both satellites at the same moment.

Light at 350,000 KM/ sec
49.85 KM in .00014242
45.85 KM in .00013
.00001242 difference, if the speed of light was 350,000 KM/sec you would have the rotation of 4.8 degrees in .00001241 sec. 1074 rev/sec
to hit the two targets at the same moment.

Observations

The two satellites are at a base distance of 4 km apart and the apparent path of the light is about 5.665 KM apart. The tip will appear to travel 5.665 KM in .0000134 or 1.41 times the believed speed of light. But in reality, the light is traveling 4 km less than satellite #2. In the PDF is the actual light path, if the speed of light is as thought, the path is shown in the cross hatched line. At two angles, one at the speed of light and one just below, with less that a 45 degree angle to its base.

If light is instant, the light will hit the first satellite at go, and the second satellite always at the rotational speed, no more no less, and can't hit them both at the same time. Rotation speed and the speed between the two satellites will always be the same. If light is instant, then the off is as instant as the on, it has no tail.

The light, if traveling at 299,792, will hit both satellites at the same time, if not then adjust the rotation speed and or the distance(s) until that happens and then calculate the speed of light.

A clock is installed to time differential between the satellite target impacts, so the rotational speed can easily be adjusted and tuned to the speed needed to hit the two in zero time. Once that is achieved the clock is no longer needed.

At the instant you fire the laser for a millisecond you at the same time are recording and entering into the equation the exact distances and angles to the target satellites. It would be extremely accurate, down to a millimeter.

I chose to use 47.85 KM as the radius as that is very close to the speed of light at 1000 Revs per second. 47.85 x 2 x (p) 3.1417 x 1000/ sec = 300,660 KM/sec to the median circumference. 1000 Rev./sec is easily achievable, especially in space, the laser doesn't have to rotate 360 degrees, it only has to move the 4.8 degrees in the allotted times and or adjustable times. The laser only has to fire for a millisecond, so it could be a very high-powered laser. Of course this could be done on land just more expensive.

This method eliminates the current objections to the use of clocks. The Einsteinian arguments against clocks are two-fold, one is syncing two clocks at different locations and the second is using one clock in a round trip, starting and stopping the same clock. The objection in the latter is not an objection to clocks / time it is only an objection to it being a round trip voyage. Which I believe is problematic.

In both those objected to efforts above, the clocks measure an amount of time of light travel. In the above proposed method, there is one clock that measures the rotational speed of the rotating laser, which measures degrees/per/sec. That clock in no way measures any distance in time of light. Another clock is used to tune the rotating laser to discover the one-way speed of light. Once the tune is complete the clock does not measure time. No current objection would apply to the above method. Math is used to discover the speed in space of light, not a clock.

Perhaps far more interesting, if light does have a limit, then some light, if it has enough energy, it is rotating and is from a distant place, is getting to earth appearing to us at an a 45 degree angle, or if you will, a shift.

This makes sense to me, that is why I am putting it out there to see if and where I have it wrong, any and all input is appreciated, however if your comments are no substantive, please refrain from commenting, Thanks Mike
 

Attachments

  • ONE WAY LIGHT SPEED TOL.pdf
    46.6 KB · Views: 3
Clete

Clete

Truth Smacker
Silver Subscriber
Why rotate a laser?

Why not simply have two lasers, each pointing at their respective satellites and fire the one with the further target .000013342 seconds before the other?

Actually, there is a really good reason why you wouldn't do that....

The reason is because it wouldn't matter. Either way, you'd have to have a clock on board all three satellites, which means you'd have to synchronize them in order to take your measurement and then you're into trouble with moving clocks and relativity and all the various reasons why they've known for over a century that there isn't any way to measure the one way speed of light. It is quite impossible because in order to measure the one way speed of light you'd have to synchronize your clocks but in order to synchronize your clocks, you have to know the one way speed of light.

For those who like videos, there's only one video anyone need watch to understand why this is the case...

 
Last edited:
T

tieman55

Member
Not true, no clock is needed other than the clock measuring the rotational speed of the laser. No clock is needed.
If light is instant it can never hit the second satellite first, but if light has a speed, you can easily rotate if fast enough to where it will hit the second satellite first, before it hits the further satellite. I am not sure if your intentionally closed minded or just not that bright.
 
Clete

Clete

Truth Smacker
Silver Subscriber
tieman55 said:
Not true, no clock is needed other than the clock measuring the rotational speed of the laser. No clock is needed.
If light is instant it can never hit the second satellite first, but if light has a speed, you can easily rotate if fast enough to where it will hit the second satellite first, before it hits the further satellite. I am not sure if your intentionally closed minded or just not that bright.
Click to expand...
I don't know who you're talking to because you seem incapable of using one of the simplest websites in existence, but do you always contradict yourself this badly without noticing it while calling someone else "not that bright"?

You deny the use of a clock and then go on to describe the use of a clock. How is that even possible for a person to do?
 
Last edited:
T

tieman55

Member
Clete said:
Why not simply have two lasers, each pointing at their respective satellites and fire the one with the further target .000013342 seconds before the other?
Click to expand...
I don't think it is difficult to see the difference between a rotating laser and turning one on and off it off, they are very different.

The question is and has been, is light a beam or does it have a tail? You can only tell by rotating it.

If light is instant and you rotate it, it acts like a beam and has no tail.

If you take a laser and rotate it at two targets, 5 degrees apart, the first target is 50 km away and second is 5 meters away, if light is instant you can't ever hit the second target first but if light has a tail, you can easily rotate the laser fast enough to hit the 2nd target first. It doesn't get much simpler. And the amount that you hit the second target first will go up and down at different RPS at a liner rate which can also be used to calculate the speed of light. But that changes as the tip of the light (if light has a tail) is moving faster than the speed of light.

As to using a clock, using a clock is not an issue if your not using the clock to calculate the speed of light, which is distance in time. Only a clock used to calculate speed has been objected too by scholars.

When you use a clock to measure the rotation of a laser in Revolutions per second, there can be no objection.

And if you use a clock to tune an experiment and then you no longer need the clock, there can't be a objection either. So yes, no clock is needed except to tune it and or graph out the results of the tuning it from above the speed of light to below it. (if light has a speed limit)

You can tune the experiment in a way that shows results one just below the speed of light and many at above the speed of light ( if light does have a terminal velocity) the graph will show the change at a distance at a revolution per second and not a distance in time.

Speed = distance in time and this experiment measures revolutions (degrees) at distance, and not time. Then use a graph to plot it out and you have your one way speed of light. Since the speed of rotation can be infinitely variable, you can plot out thousands of points above and below.

But the argument is and was is light instant. That is easily check by simply rotating the laser first at a 50 km target and second at 5meters 5 degrees apart, if you can hit the second target first then light is not a beam, is not instant and it has a tail, a trailing edge.

The concept is simple but engineering is a bit more difficult. I suggest, rotate the laser aiming between two Hubble telescopes, they should be sensitive enough to pick up the light. A Hubble engineer could probably add light to just how he would configure them.

It is very simple concept.

Staff Edit - Giving out one's email in public is not allowed. This is not Facebook. Real names are discouraged on this site because of online safety issues. You can do this through private messaging with trusted friends if you wish.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Derf

Derf

Well-known member
tieman55 said:
Does light have a trailing edge or a tail if you will.

If light is instant than the off is just as fast as is the on, and no trailing edge.

If light has a speed then it has a tail.

A method to discover the one-way speed of light.

To find out if light has a speed limit take it past that limit and observe. To get light to appear to move past its limit, if it has one, simply rotate it. If light has a speed limit, as the circumference of the tip of the light grows ever larger, depending on its rotation rate, the angle at which the light appears to progress will continually change, until its max speed when X=Y.

If light does not have a speed limit the light generated arc will always appear at a similar radius/angle and X will never = Y.

If and when the tip of the light that creates the arc, is appearing to progress at a 45-degree angle to its path, you are at its max speed. X=Y are moving at the same rate.

One of many configurations in finding the one-way speed of light, may be done easiest in space: SEE PDF ONE WAY LIGHT SPEED.

Configure three satellites. One at the center and two at a radius. Rotate a laser on a center satellite, and use the two satellites at the radius as targets. The targets are 49.85- and 45.85-kilometers radius and they are 4.8 degrees apart. This geometry will give you a 45-degree angle between the two satellites targets from the mean radius tangent of 47.85 KM.

It is believed that it takes light about .0001663 seconds to go 49.85 KM. in space.

Run the test, based on the believed speed of light:

Rotate and fire the laser: The light is traveling to satellite #2 and will be there in .0001663 sec., with the rotation of the laser at 1000 rev/per/sec it takes .0000134 sec to rotate the entire 4.8 degrees between the two satellites and at that point the light is then traveling at the satellite #3.

Conventional belief light travel times

49.85 KM in .000166281 sec
45.85 KM in .000152939 sec
.000013342 sec difference
Rotational speed to travel 4.8 degrees in .000013342 sec = 999.35 rev / sec

At the above rotational speed of 999.7 rev/sec the light would hit the two satellites at the same moment, if the light is traveling at 299,792 KM/sec

Examples of other speeds:

Light at instant speed can never hit both satellites at the same time, as the light is rotating and has no tail.

Light at 250,000 KM/ sec
49.85 KM in .0001994
45.85 KM in .0001834
.0000160 difference, if the speed of light is 250,000 KM/sec you would have to have the rotation of 4.8 degrees in .000016 sec or 833 rev/sec, to hit both satellites at the same moment.

Light at 350,000 KM/ sec
49.85 KM in .00014242
45.85 KM in .00013
.00001242 difference, if the speed of light was 350,000 KM/sec you would have the rotation of 4.8 degrees in .00001241 sec. 1074 rev/sec
to hit the two targets at the same moment.

Observations

The two satellites are at a base distance of 4 km apart and the apparent path of the light is about 5.665 KM apart. The tip will appear to travel 5.665 KM in .0000134 or 1.41 times the believed speed of light. But in reality, the light is traveling 4 km less than satellite #2. In the PDF is the actual light path, if the speed of light is as thought, the path is shown in the cross hatched line. At two angles, one at the speed of light and one just below, with less that a 45 degree angle to its base.

If light is instant, the light will hit the first satellite at go, and the second satellite always at the rotational speed, no more no less, and can't hit them both at the same time. Rotation speed and the speed between the two satellites will always be the same. If light is instant, then the off is as instant as the on, it has no tail.

The light, if traveling at 299,792, will hit both satellites at the same time, if not then adjust the rotation speed and or the distance(s) until that happens and then calculate the speed of light.

A clock is installed to time differential between the satellite target impacts, so the rotational speed can easily be adjusted and tuned to the speed needed to hit the two in zero time. Once that is achieved the clock is no longer needed.

At the instant you fire the laser for a millisecond you at the same time are recording and entering into the equation the exact distances and angles to the target satellites. It would be extremely accurate, down to a millimeter.

I chose to use 47.85 KM as the radius as that is very close to the speed of light at 1000 Revs per second. 47.85 x 2 x (p) 3.1417 x 1000/ sec = 300,660 KM/sec to the median circumference. 1000 Rev./sec is easily achievable, especially in space, the laser doesn't have to rotate 360 degrees, it only has to move the 4.8 degrees in the allotted times and or adjustable times. The laser only has to fire for a millisecond, so it could be a very high-powered laser. Of course this could be done on land just more expensive.

This method eliminates the current objections to the use of clocks. The Einsteinian arguments against clocks are two-fold, one is syncing two clocks at different locations and the second is using one clock in a round trip, starting and stopping the same clock. The objection in the latter is not an objection to clocks / time it is only an objection to it being a round trip voyage. Which I believe is problematic.

In both those objected to efforts above, the clocks measure an amount of time of light travel. In the above proposed method, there is one clock that measures the rotational speed of the rotating laser, which measures degrees/per/sec. That clock in no way measures any distance in time of light. Another clock is used to tune the rotating laser to discover the one-way speed of light. Once the tune is complete the clock does not measure time. No current objection would apply to the above method. Math is used to discover the speed in space of light, not a clock.

Perhaps far more interesting, if light does have a limit, then some light, if it has enough energy, it is rotating and is from a distant place, is getting to earth appearing to us at an a 45 degree angle, or if you will, a shift.

This makes sense to me, that is why I am putting it out there to see if and where I have it wrong, any and all input is appreciated, however if your comments are no substantive, please refrain from commenting, Thanks Mike
Click to expand...
Beside @Clete's points, it's very difficult to keep satellites in such a configuration. And it makes the experiment seem possible while staying conveniently out of reach for anyone who's last name isn't Musk or Bezos.

Forget using satellites, and do your experiment in your basement using stationary supports for your sensors, and a rotating one for the laser. Let us know how it turns out.
 
Clete

Clete

Truth Smacker
Silver Subscriber
tieman55 said:
I don't think it is difficult to see the difference between a rotating laser and turning one on and off it off, they are very different.

The question is and has been, is light a beam or does it have a tail? You can only tell by rotating it.

If light is instant and you rotate it, it acts like a beam and has no tail.

If you take a laser and rotate it at two targets, 5 degrees apart, the first target is 50 km away and second is 5 meters away, if light is instant you can't ever hit the second target first but if light has a tail, you can easily rotate the laser fast enough to hit the 2nd target first. It doesn't get much simpler. And the amount that you hit the second target first will go up and down at different RPS at a liner rate which can also be used to calculate the speed of light. But that changes as the tip of the light (if light has a tail) is moving faster than the speed of light.

As to using a clock, using a clock is not an issue if your not using the clock to calculate the speed of light, which is distance in time. Only a clock used to calculate speed has been objected too by scholars.

When you use a clock to measure the rotation of a laser in Revolutions per second, there can be no objection.

And if you use a clock to tune an experiment and then you no longer need the clock, there can't be a objection either. So yes, no clock is needed except to tune it and or graph out the results of the tuning it from above the speed of light to below it. (if light has a speed limit)

You can tune the experiment in a way that shows results one just below the speed of light and many at above the speed of light ( if light does have a terminal velocity) the graph will show the change at a distance at a revolution per second and not a distance in time.

Speed = distance in time and this experiment measures revolutions (degrees) at distance, and not time. Then use a graph to plot it out and you have your one way speed of light. Since the speed of rotation can be infinitely variable, you can plot out thousands of points above and below.

But the argument is and was is light instant. That is easily check by simply rotating the laser first at a 50 km target and second at 5meters 5 degrees apart, if you can hit the second target first then light is not a beam, is not instant and it has a tail, a trailing edge.

The concept is simple but engineering is a bit more difficult. I suggest, rotate the laser aiming between two Hubble telescopes, they should be sensitive enough to pick up the light. A Hubble engineer could probably add light to just how he would configure them.

It is very simple concept.

Staff Edit - Giving out one's email in public is not allowed. This is not Facebook. Real names are discouraged on this site because of online safety issues. You can do this through private messaging with trusted friends if you wish.
Click to expand...
Once again, you say no clock is needed and then go on to describe the use of a clock.

Do you understand what a clock is? A clock is the use of regular occurring events by which to compare any two events. A clock includes at least three things. A start point, and end point and a regularly occurring set of events in-between. So, if you say that a person was born seven years after the volcano erupted then you have used a clock. The start point was the volcano eruption, the end point was the birth, and the regularly occurring events in-between were the orbits of the Earth around the Sun (even if you didn't realize that this is what you were actually counting).

In the case of your experiment, the clock used to "tune" it, is the clock used to get the result. That clock is how you know that one target was hit before the other. Otherwise, you'd might suspect that your experiment was out of whack somehow. It doesn't matter than you ignore the length of time (i.e. ignore the number of "ticks" (the regularly occurring events)) in-between the two targets getting struck.

Basically, there can be no measure of speed without a clock. Speed, as you rightly stated, is distance over time. To get a speed, you have to measure BOTH. There is no way to measure time without one form or another of clock. Therefore, you cannot measure speed without one form or another of clock. To suggest otherwise is to contradict yourself. It is, in fact, a form of stolen concept fallacy* because by employing the concept of speed while discarding the concept of time, which the concept of speed is logical predicated, you "steel" the concept of speed.

Clete

* Stolen concept fallacy: the act of using a concept while ignoring, contradicting or denying the validity of the concepts on which it logically and genetically depends
 
Last edited:
T

tieman55

Member
Clete said:
Once again, you say no clock is needed and then go on to describe the use of a clock.

Do you understand what a clock is? A clock is the use of regular occurring events by which to compare any two events. A clock includes at least three things. A start point, and end point and a regularly occurring set of events in-between. So, if you say that a person was born seven years after the volcano erupted then you have used a clock. The start point was the volcano eruption, the end point was the birth, and the regularly occurring events in-between were the orbits of the Earth around the Sun (even if you didn't realize that this is what you were actually counting).

In the case of your experiment, the clock used to "tune" it, is the clock used to get the result. That clock is how you know that one target was hit before the other. Otherwise, you'd might suspect that your experiment was out of whack somehow. It doesn't matter than you ignore the length of time (i.e. ignore the number of "ticks" (the regularly occurring events)) in-between the two targets getting struck.

Basically, there can be no measure of speed without a clock. Speed, as you rightly stated, is distance over time. To get a speed, you have to measure BOTH. There is no way to measure time without one form or another of clock. Therefore, you cannot measure speed without one form or another of clock. To suggest otherwise is to contradict yourself. It is, in fact, a form of stolen concept fallacy* because by employing the concept of speed while discarding the concept of time, which the concept of speed is logical predicated, you "steel" the concept of speed.

Clete

* Stolen concept fallacy: the act of using a concept while ignoring, contradicting or denying the validity of the concepts on which it logically and genetically depends
Click to expand...
Do you object to using a clock to measure revolutions' of a laser?
 
T

tieman55

Member
Right Divider said:
Clete's point was that to compare any two events in time requires a clock of some kind.
Click to expand...
It is a very simple question designed to find out what specifically what clocks are OK and what clocks are not OK, so again is using a clock to measure RPS revolutions per second objected to? YES OR NO
 
Right Divider

Right Divider

Body part
tieman55 said:
It is a very simple question designed to find out what specifically what clocks are OK and what clocks are not OK, so again is using a clock to measure RPS revolutions per second objected to? YES OR NO
Click to expand...
Your "simple question" said nothing about "types of clocks". It only asked about "using a clock".
 
T

tieman55

Member
Wow, you are so afraid to answer a simple question. You have a rotating laser, and you want to know the rate at which it is turning, is it ok to do that using a device that measure rotations per second, YES OR NO :)
 
Right Divider

Right Divider

Body part
tieman55 said:
Wow, you are so afraid to answer a simple question. You have a rotating laser, and you want to know the rate at which it is turning, is it ok to do that using a device that measure rotations per second, YES OR NO :)
Click to expand...
You asked Clete the question. I'll let him answer.

No need to wet your pants.
 
T

tieman55

Member
OK, I will ask you, Right Divider: I have a rotating laser, and I want to know the rate at which it is turning, is it ok to do that, in the context of discovering the one way speed of light, using a device that measure rotations per second, YES OR NO
 
Last edited by a moderator:
T

tieman55

Member
LOL, Lets see if this can get the tooth out... Right Divider, Can/does a Tachometer measure the approximate number of rotation's in time?

Dare I risk the tooth came out :( OK, I dare.

Do you object to the use of an "accurate" tachometer, that is demonstrably accurate/acceptable to you, in the context of a conceptual model to discover the one way speed of light.

FYI Accuracy is not a part of conceptual modeling. Accuracy comes in to play in latter phases of a project. In the conceptual phase of development accuracy is assumed to be within the range of acceptable error. During the phase of engineering and or construction the feasibility of the project will be likely discovered. If the model does not meet the accuracy and or is technologically out of reach, the concept may or may not survive as viable. At this point I am only arguing the concept, nothing more.

Staff edit - please use the correct member usernames - this is not facebook.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top