Good point mightymoe.

The perception of time is dependent on movement, right?


Question for Bushidobillyclub:
Is light really effected by gravity?

Is the speed of light not constant then?

"A varying speed of light contradicts Einstein's theory of relativity, and would undermine much of traditional physics. But some physicists believe it would elegantly explain puzzling cosmological phenomena such as the nearly uniform temperature of the universe. It might also support string theories that predict extra spatial dimensions."
From:
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn6092-speed-of-light-may-have-changed-recently.html

How can gravity effect the speed of light? Does Light have some mass?

Light travels within space time, if space time is bent due to mass, then light travels that bent path. Light becomes stretched out (red shifts) in the presence of a gravitational field.

I'm thinking that light has no speed at all outside of a space-time construct. Therefore it could be the warp of space-time that causes light to appear to have speed.

Indeed, if space-time, in reality, does not actually exist, then light can have no speed.

The problem I see in all arguments concerning Black Holes, mass, Energy, Gravity and time is that Physicists are still not certain of the exact relationship between mass and Energy. Einstein, a patent clerk, quoted below:

"It followed from the special theory of relativity that mass and energy are both but different manifestations of the same thing -- a somewhat unfamiliar conception for the average mind. Furthermore, the equation E is equal to m c-squared, in which energy is put equal to mass, multiplied by the square of the velocity of light, showed that very small amounts of mass may be converted into a very large amount of energy and vice versa. The mass and energy were in fact equivalent, according to the formula mentioned above. This was demonstrated by Cockcroft and Walton in 1932, experimentally."

This theory has been tested with experimental data and observed occurrence and has proved to be a very sound theory. It is however still a "Theory", to date mankind lacks the technology and knowledge to prove this theory as fact. It is based on certain assumptions that, at present time are beyond our ability to observe.

Add to this the fact that "Time" is, in itself, a tool created by man to explain observations in the physical world in which we live in. No one questions the fact that time exists in the day to day world that we live in. But I would defy anyone to provide to me physical proof that defines what "Time" is without using the concept of what they are trying to prove in the explanation of their proof.

Consequently since the theory of relativity explains the relationships between mass and energy as a factor of a constant that has "Time" as a component, how can you prove what happens to "Time" when all of the factors necessary to prove your theories are dependent upon the "Time" that you can't prove exists in the first place.