Light moves 300,000 kmps relative to what?
The speed of light is 300,000 km/s relative to the observer. Any observer. Mass does not increase with speed; that is a poor and outdated interpretations of the equations of SR, which was popular before the advent of GR. In GR, this interpretation is wholly incorrect, so it should never be used any more. Unfortunately, writers of popular works and intro textbooks sometimes still use it. If you insist on using relativistic mass, however, then yes, different observers will measure different values of your relativistic mass. You are misusing the terms "relative" and "objective." What you are calling objective (invariant mass) is a scalar. What you are calling relative is a component of a vector. Some quantities in SR are "scalar" quantities on which all observers agree. One of these is the speed of light. Another one of these is the mass of a particle. (Note that when a physicist uses the word "mass" alone, she is referring to the invariant mass, never the deprecated concept of relativistic mass) The relativistic mass is not a scalar, and so different observers will disagree on it. The relativistic mass, also known as the "energy", is the 0th component of the energy-momentum 4-vector. A vector is another kind of quantity on which all observers agree, but in this case they might disagree on its components. The norm, or magnitude of the vector, is the mass, a scalar. But people can disagree on the energy, which is one component of the vector, while still agreeing on the geometrical properties of the underlying vector. It's like a vector you draw in basic physics class. Different rotated coordinate systems will disagree on the components of that vector, but they will nonetheless be agreeing on the vector itself. I've gotten off track, but the upshot is that different observers will measure different values of the "relativistic mass" because that is just a crappy word to mean the "energy," and energy, even in classical physics, always depends on the reference frame you are using.
Can time exist without light? At the edge of the universe where light hasn’t reached the border yet?
No, time cannot exist without light.Light is the result of electrons moving between defined energy levels in a given atom, called shells. When something excites an atom, such as being hit by light energy or a collision with another atom, an electron in the atom may absorb additional energy, boosting it to a higher-level electron shell. However, the effect is exceedingly short lived, and the electron quickly returns to its previous energy level, emitting most of its extra energy in the form of an electromagnetic energy wave-particle, called a photon. We know this as light. The wavelength of the photon (and therefore what part of the light spectrum the photon is) depends on the distance of the electron’s fall. A short fall creates a short wave photon. A long fall creates a higher frequency light wave. Only some of these wavelengths are visible to humans.All atoms in the universe vibrate with some energy. As a result, there is always time and light. However, if every single atom in the universe could somehow instantly reach the theoretical “absolute zero”, then there would be no movement of anything in the universe (other than possibly at the quantum level) and therefore no light and no time. Light would cease to exist and time would cease to exist in any meaningful way. In theory, the universe could stay in that state for what we would otherwise experience as any amount of “time”, say billions of years, but from the instant the universe started up again, time would pick up exactly where it left off because every atom would be in the exact same position that it was, relative to every other atom. Light would return to the universe once more and time would begin ticking.Since absolute zero cannot be achieved (as far as we know), then time exists because atoms in the universe are always moving and light is inextricably linked with that motion. In short, if light exists, time must also exist. The fact that photons can exist without any surrounding matter is a ‘'red herring”. Granted, light is a massless particle and that, from its perspective, time does not exist, but outside of the photon itself, time must exist if the light particle also exists.
Is light independent from time?
Maybe my understanding is wrong, but isn't it true that the closer something goes to the speed of light, the slower time goes for that thing relative to us? So since light does go the speed of light, doesn't it mean that relative to us, the light particle/wave is experiencing time infinitely slower than us?
If the universe somehow stopped expanding, would time stop as well?
Another way of looking at time is that it is the rate at which things change. If the Universe stopped expanding things in it would still change. I would argue that at a temperature of absolute zero, where all atomic motion stops, there would be no change and thus no time would lapse (at least for the things that are at absolute zero).
Speed of light-time stands still, what do you think?
This is correct, but only from the point of view of the light wave itself. An outside observer sees a light wave travel at 'c', but we seldom consider how things would appear from the point of view of the light wave or a photon. We already know that within the frame of reference of a high velocity object, time will slow. As we get closer to 'c', time will slow noticeably. And upon reaching 'c' (possible only for massless particles such as the photon) time becomes reduced precisely to zero. That is, the light wave arrives at its destination in exactly zero time, which is equivalent to saying that all distances are reduced to zero for the photon. It experiences all of its world lines simultaneously, which is the definition of time standing still. Awesome to think about, isn't it?
Endless universe?? does this make sense?
I was thinking since time is relative to speed, there is no time if there is no speed. If nothing moves, nothing happens and thus there is no time to notice. As much gravity as there was before the Big Bang, nothing could move, was there also no time? could the endless expanding of the universe just be the expansion of time? I am not a scientist but I am not really buying the "the universe was all ways here" and "the universe is endless" because in my reference frame these things are not possible. So i figured if there is no time before the big bang and no time behind the end of the universe, than there is nothing to perceive (because to perceive you need time) So is the beginning of the universe just the beginning of our possibility to perceive it, and the expanding of the universe just the expanding of our possibility to perceive? P.S. this all may be very stupid, because i didn't get further then high school science and a lot of BBC Horizon docu's ;)