Replying to Avatar Comte de Sats Germain

Ah! I've had this idea too. Not based on anything, just being trippy. But what if ALL of the galaxies are just our galaxy but at different times?
Avatar
ᴛʜᴇ ᴅᴇᴀᴛʜ ᴏꜰ ᴍʟᴇᴋᴜ 4mo ago

yeah, it would be extremely hard to know because you can barely see individual stars in most other galaxies at all.

i sorta thought of this before but then i was like, "but muh doppler effect" so i decided that space must be expanding and pushing everything apart at larger scales. but what if space is static in volume, then implicitly, ... see, i can't wrap my head around this. if space is expanding then it becomes less finite the longer the time you are looking at, and it also challenges the idea that light speed is a constant.

i mean, one of the conundrums of that itself, is if gravity changes the speed of light (because light speed is distance over time) then if the time is way longer, subjectively at higher gravity, than at low gravity (this is confirmed also) then at high gravity light speed MUST be slowing down, and eventually reach a point where with sufficient mass around, light stops entirely. i mean, supposedly photons don't have mass, so it's not gravity causing it, it's time.

Reply to this note

Please Login to reply.

Discussion

Avatar
Comte de Sats Germain 4mo ago

Ah shit, my brain broke.

Avatar
Comte de Sats Germain 4mo ago

This is probably why black holes have event horizons

Avatar
ᴛʜᴇ ᴅᴇᴀᴛʜ ᴏꜰ ᴍʟᴇᴋᴜ 4mo ago

yes, it's time. not mass. but there is some relationship between time and mass. i mean, refraction works on this same principle too, newton's prism rainbow happens because different frequencies of light slow down going through the material. so there is also that at play as well, just to make it even more insanely incomprehensible. probably basically the light must be stopping to wait for atoms to get out of the way, due to the harmonics between the spins of the matter particles and the light. so i'm not sure if that is exactly the same thing, i can't tell, is it a scale thing? light travels slower through dense objects as well, so could it be that the light is experiencing time distortion?

Avatar
Comte de Sats Germain 4mo ago

The last time I thought about this, I had decided that light goes slower through dense objects because its being absorbed and re-emitted over and over, instead of just passing cleanly through. I'm not committed to this idea, though.

Avatar
ᴛʜᴇ ᴅᴇᴀᴛʜ ᴏꜰ ᴍʟᴇᴋᴜ 4mo ago

the idea i have about the invisible clouds of ... well, strange electrons, being the mediator of the effect of gravity, they have mass, so it is entirely possible that our measure of light speed is completely wrong with regard to intergalactic space (the voids between galaxies). it is possible that light speed is WAY faster out there.

this is probably how we can see so far at all, since most of the space between is so "thin" that actually our estimate of distance is also wrong.

Avatar
Jordan S 4mo ago

Anti-Matter / Dark Matter 🤔?

Avatar
Comte de Sats Germain 4mo ago

If a photon has no mass, then how could gravity affect it?

Avatar
ᴛʜᴇ ᴅᴇᴀᴛʜ ᴏꜰ ᴍʟᴇᴋᴜ 4mo ago

that's the thing, photons don't have mass. neither do electrons. or at least, not normally. EM drive experiments suggest that there may actually be a way to make electrons into some configuration where they have mass because they were able to bump a pendulum with the beam from one that was in vacuum, where there could not have been mechanical transference force, or any other particle but the electrons emitting from the resonator.

it was the em drive that started me on the idea that gravity is in fact mediated by clouds of these special configurations of electrons. and so they would also distort the velocity of photons as well.

the idea that intergalactic space might mean light speed is orders of magnitude faster than we observe here, throws a monkey wrench into the works of estimating the size of the universe. you CANNOT measure distance without triangulation or firing a projectile into the distance and measuring the time. and even then, even at the ranges that snipers shoot, the bullet path, and velocity, and air resistance is affected so much that at the longer distances it's likely to not even be the time you estimate because you assumed uniformity of conditions over the flight path.

same thing would apply to light, i think, since gravity changes the velocity.

Avatar
Comte de Sats Germain 4mo ago

I think electrons have always had mass. Its just tiny. I think there's a 6 and a negative exponent involved, but I ain't gonna look it up.

But I'm reminded of old questions... **_Why_** do electrons move further out from the nucleus when they absorb a photon? The books stated that they did, but didn't state why. And what if the whole wavelength isn't absorbed? Is there partial absorption? Does the remaining EM field perturbate at slower rate?

Idk. I pissed off my physics professors.

Avatar
ᴛʜᴇ ᴅᴇᴀᴛʜ ᴏꜰ ᴍʟᴇᴋᴜ 4mo ago

we can be fairly certain about distances when we can measure them by parallax, to triangulate them, but at a certain distance the parallax differential is not even computable (think like doing math with numbers that require exabytes to represent the precision). let alone the device measuring the angle, that's probably way more limited.

so, how do you anyway decide how far away something is just by the light it sends back to you, if you don't have parallax? the motion of the objects would serve to help bring some ratio to it but even that would fade to zero beyond a few galaxies deep.

this whole train of thought has totally broken my brain though. since we know that light travels slower the more matter is near it, the speed of light MUST be higher between galaxies.