Light travels through water at about two thirds the regular speed of light, (regular speed 300,000 km/second) and through water (200,000km/second) about.
It just mentioned this fact casually and then moved on to a completely different topic.
But I was struck with the idea that something is not right about this fact of science. I propose the following,
Experiment;
Flashlight pointing at an aquarium floating is space.
Flashlight turns on.
Light travels at 300,000 km/second until it hits the aquarium, then passes through the water at 200,000km/second then emerges out the other side of the tank and traverses the void back at the regular speed of 300.000 km per second.
What is the motive force that propelled the light from 200,000km/second to 300,000km/second the instant that it left the water tank?
(is there a reacceleration period of time or is it instant? If it is instant it would take an infinite amount of force to propel it. If it is not instant then what laws govern its gradual acceleration?)
Instant means zero time, zero time to propel and object from rest, to motion, is an infinitely small amount of time, meaning that and infinite amount of exeleration of motion was achieved in an infinitely small amount of time.
These concepts of infinite are not palatable so we are left with the gradual increase of motion concept. This is a transitional process from lower speed to higher speed. What mechanics govern this?
I get the feeling that I am missing something here. It seems that light was not being accelerated but just temporarily suppressed. This sound more palatable.
BUT, it is not so simple. If the light was at regular speed and then went to a lower speed through the water it had to lose some energy to the water to justify its lower speed. conversely it had to regain that energy when it left the water to retain its original speed.
Also this violates the law of conservation of energy in that light can loose and gain energy with perfect efficiency.
The law of conservation of energy SHOULD go something like 300,000km/second to 200,000km/second to 299,999km/second. Just an example but you get the idea.
Something should be lost in the process. But nothing is lost.This is a violation. This is like magic.
Perhaps if I were to learn exactly WHY it slows down in the water will help me to understand WHY it speeds up in the vacuum.
What process would give energy to light as it leaves a medium that was causing it to slow down in the first place?
---
Something is infinitely more than nothing. Nothing is infinitely less than something.
If something has a velocity of 0 and goes to a velocity of 1 km per hour in 0 seconds, that is an infinite acceleration requiring and infinite force.
This is ridiculous. It is only reasonable to conclude that there is always a transitional period between states of motion. In other words an infinite amount of infinitely small acceleration increments... Everything is gradual, nothing is total... Nothing is one thing or the other, always a transitional point in between. Interesting. (if i am so bold as to say that about my own idea, which apparently I am.)
This has great philosophical implications. We are not complete, but is in a state of continual progression... Also, nothing can be defined, only constantly evaluated and assessed, like the journey of self discovery of our souls.
This quality of indefinably of ourselves, of the universe, of god, is what makes the whole experience infinite.
If it was possible to DEFINE these things then were would we be?
Ultimately we would be at the END. The end of the Universe, the end of life and the end of god. But these things we all know in our heart of hearts are in fact endless.
There is no end. And that means that there is not final resolution.
I mean resolution in both senses, including the technical meaning of a defining point of scientific measurement. There is no resolution to time, or the increasing or decreasing velocities of acceleration or deceleration.
You can not jump form one point of energy to another point of higher or lower energy in 0 time or it would take an infinite amount of energy. It is not possible to be just one thing. There is no such thing as just one thing.
There is no such thing as a body as rest - all objects in the universe are in motion.
There is no such thing as a body in motion in a straight line -all object in the universe are in curved trajectory motions.
There is no such thing as an absolute point of reference in the universe as all points of reference are dependant on other objects positions which in turn are equally unable to define THEIR positions other than there relative positions to OTHER bodies relative positions etc etc...
We can never really know anything for sure, except to compare ourselves to other people, places, things, that in turn can never really know anything for su
It just mentioned this fact casually and then moved on to a completely different topic.
But I was struck with the idea that something is not right about this fact of science. I propose the following,
Experiment;
Flashlight pointing at an aquarium floating is space.
Flashlight turns on.
Light travels at 300,000 km/second until it hits the aquarium, then passes through the water at 200,000km/second then emerges out the other side of the tank and traverses the void back at the regular speed of 300.000 km per second.
What is the motive force that propelled the light from 200,000km/second to 300,000km/second the instant that it left the water tank?
(is there a reacceleration period of time or is it instant? If it is instant it would take an infinite amount of force to propel it. If it is not instant then what laws govern its gradual acceleration?)
Instant means zero time, zero time to propel and object from rest, to motion, is an infinitely small amount of time, meaning that and infinite amount of exeleration of motion was achieved in an infinitely small amount of time.
These concepts of infinite are not palatable so we are left with the gradual increase of motion concept. This is a transitional process from lower speed to higher speed. What mechanics govern this?
I get the feeling that I am missing something here. It seems that light was not being accelerated but just temporarily suppressed. This sound more palatable.
BUT, it is not so simple. If the light was at regular speed and then went to a lower speed through the water it had to lose some energy to the water to justify its lower speed. conversely it had to regain that energy when it left the water to retain its original speed.
Also this violates the law of conservation of energy in that light can loose and gain energy with perfect efficiency.
The law of conservation of energy SHOULD go something like 300,000km/second to 200,000km/second to 299,999km/second. Just an example but you get the idea.
Something should be lost in the process. But nothing is lost.This is a violation. This is like magic.
Perhaps if I were to learn exactly WHY it slows down in the water will help me to understand WHY it speeds up in the vacuum.
What process would give energy to light as it leaves a medium that was causing it to slow down in the first place?
---
Something is infinitely more than nothing. Nothing is infinitely less than something.
If something has a velocity of 0 and goes to a velocity of 1 km per hour in 0 seconds, that is an infinite acceleration requiring and infinite force.
This is ridiculous. It is only reasonable to conclude that there is always a transitional period between states of motion. In other words an infinite amount of infinitely small acceleration increments... Everything is gradual, nothing is total... Nothing is one thing or the other, always a transitional point in between. Interesting. (if i am so bold as to say that about my own idea, which apparently I am.)
This has great philosophical implications. We are not complete, but is in a state of continual progression... Also, nothing can be defined, only constantly evaluated and assessed, like the journey of self discovery of our souls.
This quality of indefinably of ourselves, of the universe, of god, is what makes the whole experience infinite.
If it was possible to DEFINE these things then were would we be?
Ultimately we would be at the END. The end of the Universe, the end of life and the end of god. But these things we all know in our heart of hearts are in fact endless.
There is no end. And that means that there is not final resolution.
I mean resolution in both senses, including the technical meaning of a defining point of scientific measurement. There is no resolution to time, or the increasing or decreasing velocities of acceleration or deceleration.
You can not jump form one point of energy to another point of higher or lower energy in 0 time or it would take an infinite amount of energy. It is not possible to be just one thing. There is no such thing as just one thing.
There is no such thing as a body as rest - all objects in the universe are in motion.
There is no such thing as a body in motion in a straight line -all object in the universe are in curved trajectory motions.
There is no such thing as an absolute point of reference in the universe as all points of reference are dependant on other objects positions which in turn are equally unable to define THEIR positions other than there relative positions to OTHER bodies relative positions etc etc...
We can never really know anything for sure, except to compare ourselves to other people, places, things, that in turn can never really know anything for su