0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
This was also posted here http://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=39022.msg354554#msg354554A clock just outside the event horizon of a black hole will appear to be almost stopped to an observer far away. That same clock will appear to run faster on Earth, faster on the moon and faster in empty space. Those four locations will have an average rate which suggests the Universe has an average rate based on the matter energy density of the Universe. In space I have a device that will emit a beam of light which I call device A. Three hundred thousand kilometers away I have a detector which I call device B. Some distance away I have a clock which is entangled with device A and B such that when A emits the beam my clock starts and when device B detects the beam my clock stops. I trigger device A to fire and my clock shows a time of one second determining the speed of light to have it's current value. I now move my clock to the edge of the event horizon of a black hole and trigger device A again. If my logic is correct don't I measure c to be almost infinite?
Wow, a thought experiment that engenders absolutely no logical response.
Bill S, He is dodging the problem. Go back to when the Universe is four million years old. A clock then would run very slow compared to today. From a clock's frame of reference then c would be much faster.
A light source that starts at T = 0 and travels 300,000 km in one second as measured by a clock is how we measure c. Light would not slow in the early Universe but the clock you use to measure it with would. Therefore when you make your measurement the light beam would travel a much greater distance giving c a higher value.
There seems to be one underlying theme with this debate, that "c" is invariant. However, I have a problem envisioning the reality of length contraction due to motion. I prefer to accept that TIME really does change since this has been proven experimentally. Length contraction has never been proved to be a reality. This being the case, we cannot then hold velocity constant between two moving frames and deduce length contraction because we are afraid to challenge the limit of "c". What we must do is to allow velocity to exceed "c" (but only within the moving frame) due to time dilation and Lorentz. This does not affect the RELATIVE limit of "c" in all other frames, but does explain WHY "c" is the limit. ie, as you approach "c", your speed approaches instantaneous speed. (Just like a light beam).Cab anyone educate me as to why this approach might be wrong, or could it, in fact be right ?