How Can We Be Sure Of The Speed Of Light Between Galaxies?

[sunshaker]

"I" believe our universe dropped through from a higher dimension, and is now expanding in lower dimensional space, lower dimensional space is rushing into our universe, galaxies form in pockets where our higher d energies are deposited forming galaxies,

If this is right our galaxy is in a pocket of lower dimensional space, but between galaxies, "space" would still be higher dimensional(dark matter), being infused with lower dimensional space, if all energies and materials came from the higher dimension, then would light (photons) slow down going through these energies or would light bend around "dark matter" and follow its contours and nothing is where we believe(outside of our galaxy)?."SCATTERED PICTURES".

 

Is there any proof of light speed between galaxies?

Edited November 10, 2012 by sunshaker

[Little Bang]

Sun, when a photon is created in one galaxy and enters our galaxy, no matter how far away it experiences zero time so what is d/0? There is no speed limit on light only a relative speed limit.

[sunshaker]

So we could not say so and so is 100 light years away, if there is only a relative speed limit.

Our measuring system does not work on galactic distances.

light is constant, what ever it travels through it still travels at c, but only relative to the space it is travelling through,

I will not get into dark matter, but if 2 light/photons from a distant star was to travel to us leaving at the sime time, travelling

Hypothetically through 2 mediums

1. KNOWN SPACE

 

2.DIAMOND SPACE

 

which would reach us first?

 

So we cannot really know the "distance" to any object beyond our solar system, only light distance, which is not a measurement of distance only the time it takes light to reach us. relative to the medium it passes through.

[LaurieAG]

which would reach us first?

 

I don't think many people have looked into what happens in known space Sunshaker but there are some ways we can work it out without going there.

 

Pi is fascinating because, when derived from distances or time, it becomes a dimensionless constant.

 

If I started photographing a sparkler around 6 and a bit feet away, the circle was 2 feet in diameter and I captured the light from the spinning sparkler in one complete circle the ratio ( A ) of the time between the rotating source and the observer over the diameter of rotation would be roughly equal to Pi.

In this case the ratio ( B ) of the actual distance between source and observer over the distance travelled by light in a year would be very small and the ratio ( C ) of the observation period over the time it takes for the sparkler to be rotated once will equal one. All observations should have a width of field that covers the complete diameter of rotation of the source being observed.

 

If I halve the exposure period I get half a circle and capture half as much light and when I double the exposure period I get 2 circles over each other and twice as much light in my photograph. If the sparkler is rotated twice as fast I would expect something that looked similar to when I doubled the exposure period but I would also expect to capture the same amount of light from only one rotation despite the doubling of the speed of rotation. If I taped two sparklers together I could halve the exposure time and double the speed of rotation to capture a similar amount of light from 1 sparkler doing 1 complete rotation. If the sparkler was moved at an angle to me I would observe an oval instead of a circle but the amount of light captured would remain the same as for a complete circle.

 

In this simplest base context A = Pi, B = tiny, C = 1 and the observer will capture one complete cycle. On any scale where C >= 1 the observer will capture at least one complete cycle despite the size of B.

 

On any scale where A = Pi * x, B >= 1 and C < 1 the observer will only capture the light from B * C = x of one rotation during any observation regardless of the speed of rotation of the same object.

 

On a galactic year scale where A = Pi * x, B = 230 million and C = 1/230 million you would expect to capture the light from B * C = x rotations or roughly one rotation regardless of the speed of rotation.

 

On a galactic year scale where A = Pi * x, B = 4.2 billion and C = 1/4.2 billion you would expect to capture the light from B * C = x rotations or roughly one rotation.

Edited November 24, 2012 by LaurieAG

[CraigD]

... if 2 light/photons from a distant star was to travel to us leaving at the sime time, travelling

Hypothetically through 2 mediums

1. KNOWN SPACE

 

2.DIAMOND SPACE

 

which would reach us first?

:QuestionM I’m not sure what you mean by “DIAMOND SPACE”, sunshaker. Can you clarify?

 

Assuming you mean space filled with diamond, a crystal form of carbon, and by “KNOWN SPACE”, the near perfect vacuum of extraplanetary space, the light traveling through the latter would reach us first.

 

The speed of light in a medium is equal to the speed of light in vacuum divided by the refractive index of the medium ([imath]v = \frac{c}{n}[/imath]). The refractive index of diamond is about 2.42. So, for light traveling 100 light-years, light traveling through a near perfect vacuum would reach us in almost exactly 100 years, while light traveling through diamond would take about 242 years.

 

So we cannot really know the "distance" to any object beyond our solar system, only light distance, which is not a measurement of distance only the time it takes light to reach us. relative to the medium it passes through.

Although it’s useful to visualize units such as light-years by imagining we do, we don’t actually measure distances to stars by timing how long light takes to travel from them to us. To make such a measurement, it’s necessary to know the time (instant) that the light was emitted. While this is possible with light travel time-based systems like GPS, because their transmitting satellite and ground-based receivers have precise clocks, and they transmit identifying information along with their radio-frequency EM radiation.

 

Distances to stars are measured 2 main ways. Distance to nearby stars can be measured using parallax, with the diameter of the Earth’s orbit as the baseline. From this, you can determine the brightness of stars given their spectra and other characteristics. This allows a second distance determining method, finding stars with similar spectra and characteristics, and comparing their brightness to the brightness of stars of known distance. Types of stars that are especially reliable for use in this way are called “standard candles”.

 

It’s also not true that light is the only particle that can be used to image distant objects, because recognizable particle other than photons (light particles) reach us from distant stars. Supernovae, for example, eject fast moving protons and other massive material, which can detected, along with their speed. Measuring the difference between the arrival of the light of a supernova and these other particles has been important and useful in investigating both the astrophysics of supernova and related bodies, and the qualities of difficult to directly measure particles, especially the mass of neutrinos.

[sunshaker]

Thank you for your very good answers,

but it all seems to boil down to the observer, and where we are observing from (earth),

I still can't help but think all our measurements are wrong,

i think our universe is alot older than we recon,

if light is a wave and a particle and the universe is made up of 80-90% dark matter, we cannot see distant galaxies by direct sight,

 

Is it possible that when light comes into contact with dark matter, "which i see as a quark gluon plasma in its own folded space/time",

That the light/photon being a wave and a particle/ own antiparticle, the wave is bent around each clumb of dark matter(still a wave and a particle), but the particle/antiparticle passes through the dark matter, leaving our space/time, this particle would eventually exit dark matter, long after the wave/particle has been bent around the D/M,(twin paradox), and once again be a wave and a particle, because of the properties of dark matter the particles would be focused into quantum level beams and would not lose any of its information,

This is why distant objects are not blurred, except for the odd wave we see through gravitational lensing.

 

Where as if 80/90% of universe is dark matter, and light does not pass through D/M, we would expect to see lensing everywhere we looked, but we do not, So light/PARTICLE must pass through D/M.

 

Could this also be the red /blue shift we see, as light catches up with its self on leaving dark matter?

[LaurieAG]

Hi sunshaker,

 

Are you are referring to our visual universe as opposed to the other parts we cannot see.

[sunshaker]

Hi sunshaker,

 

Are you are referring to our visual universe as opposed to the other parts we cannot see.

Both, What i can gather most blue shifted galaxies are fairly local, Meaning less clumbs of dark matter between said galaxies, plus i have read that most blue-shifted galaxies are located pretty much in two directions in the sky of about 180º apart.

Which leads me to believe that this is a result of local galaxies light beginning to enter dark matter, which is why we see blue shift,

where has red shift, would mainly be light from distant galaxies leaving dark matter,

So most galaxies would be red shifted, as we would only see there light leaving D/M hardly ever seeing distant galaxies light entering D/M as the space between is filled with dark matter.

 

This red blue shift is only a thought at the moment.

Edited November 28, 2012 by sunshaker

[LaurieAG]

This red blue shift is only a thought at the moment.

 

Have you had a look at other types of spectroscopy that are closer to the structure of x-ray telescopes glancing incident lensing?

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Long-slit_spectroscopy

 

It just gets me that the glancing incident structure is closer to the Long Slit spectroscopy and it clearly provides local doppler not universal doppler images. The only difference is that the x-ray slit is long and spiral shaped.