Yes of course like sound uses air the spectrum uses dark mass energy. There is a mechanical reason for relativity.
The following users thanked this post: nilak
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
That's a meaningless statement. There's no meaning to "speed of time". Therefore in no sense in relativity can it be said that light has the same speed as time.The speed of time is consistent with the speed of light in every frame. Mechanical time keeping is the same as light clocks in every frame. What is the meaning of time? Planks motion of the electron would be a good guess. We use time to measure distance. It is unfortunate that distance is not uniform per frame. One had to change. Distance or light being consistent. Einstein chose wisely having light be consistent. So the speed of light is consistent with how we measure time. A light second is the speed of time in distance. Time is the energy that moves the electron planks length as the consistency of light distance per frame. So the distance light moves is always relative to the distance the electron moves in every frame.
Also another meaningless concept. There's also no such thing as "massless speed" in relativity.
That can't be said either. Since matter can never move at the speed of light that matter can never be shredded. Besides in the rest frame of matter the matter is the same as it would be in any other rest frame. The point is that there's no frame in which matter is at rest where that frame moves at the speed of light relative to another frame.Pure speculation:
have the wrong idea here. The whole idea of special relativity is that all inertial frames of reference are the same.Speculative:
"The word 'ether' has extremely negative connotations in theoretical physics because of its past association with opposition to relativity. This is unfortunate because, stripped of these connotations, it rather nicely captures the way most physicists actually think about the vacuum. . . . Relativity actually says nothing about the existence or nonexistence of matter pervading the universe, only that any such matter must have relativistic symmetry. [..] It turns out that such matter exists. About the time relativity was becoming accepted, studies of radioactivity began showing that the empty vacuum of space had spectroscopic structure similar to that of ordinary quantum solids and fluids. Subsequent studies with large particle accelerators have now led us to understand that space is more like a piece of window glass than ideal Newtonian emptiness. It is filled with 'stuff' that is normally transparent but can be made visible by hitting it sufficiently hard to knock out a part. The modern concept of the vacuum of space, confirmed every day by experiment, is a relativistic ether. But we do not call it this because it is taboo." - Robert B. Laughlin, Nobel Laureate in Physics, endowed chair in physics, Stanford University
Matter, quantum solids and fluids, a piece of window glass and 'stuff' have mass and so does the aether.