Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

Light Speed, Are We Talking Relativity?

Light speed relativity

  • Please log in to reply
182 replies to this topic

#171 sluggo

sluggo

    Understanding

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 250 posts

Posted 27 June 2019 - 10:36 AM

mattzy;

"The past is something always behind and the future is like grasping to a present moment that just feels like it right round the corner. Succession, as Exchemist says, requires a notion of time."

 



[The past is the collection of recorded events, individual memory, or public archives.
The present is an individuals current perception of events (now), consisting of sequences of events, each requiring a few milliseconds of
mental processing.
The future is unknowable. It is predictable, but not certain, based on the consistency of universal laws of behavior,
and assuming no change in initial conditions, or conflicting events.]

 

This sounds like my argument for human difficulty in eliminating the nagging concept of time. The word "concept" keeps coming up, and "notion”.

 



[Do you accept the concept of ‘accounting’? It works for most financial organizations.]
 

Correct me if I'm wrong but the light clock requires no mass. That also slows. But as you say in other posts - movement is always required, to maintain counting.

So I ask: Could movement of the clock be slowing movement of its workings? This would eliminate the need for any concept of time.

 


[Here is a light clock. Notice it requires a mirror and a emitter/detecter. Spatial location always uses a material object as a reference. Matter can have various speeds < c.
Light (em propagation) has a constant speed c, that is independent of its source. If the clock

moves at v, some of the light energy must compensate for that speed, leaving less for the clock function, thus requiring more ‘time’ to overtake the moving miror.

A simple comparison, the quail hunter aims his shot ahead of the bird, knowing both are moving. The ‘lead time’ is a judgement by the hunter, resulting from years of experience dealing with clocks which provide a convenient scale for lifes activities.]
 

 

Attached Thumbnails

  • lite clock.gif

  • Mattzy likes this

#172 Mattzy

Mattzy

    Questioning

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 116 posts

Posted 28 June 2019 - 03:07 AM

[The past is the collection of recorded events, individual memory, or public archives.
The present is an individuals current perception of events (now), consisting of sequences of events, each requiring a few milliseconds of
mental processing.
The future is unknowable. It is predictable, but not certain, based on the consistency of universal laws of behavior,
and assuming no change in initial conditions, or conflicting events.]
 

Agreed. This is also my view of time. It remains human.
 

[Do you accept the concept of ‘accounting’? It works for most financial organizations.]

 

Accounting exists. It is a human operation using the human concept of operational time -as all examples given so far seem to be. It uses recorded events and mathematics and even projects to the notion of the future - like provisional tax. I don't think it will be possible to escape the human concept of time. We all use it.

Our memory and concept of what happened to us today and three years ago must relate to a stored charge in neuron fibres (I think this is between the wall and core of the fibres - so I read - and needs a constant supply of oxygen to sustain life (but I digress).

This process is vital to civilisation and goes hand in hand with our evolved concept of time - I argue.

  
 

[Here is a light clock. Notice it requires a mirror and a emitter/detecter. Spatial location always uses a material object as a reference. Matter can have various speeds < c.
 

Yes the man made light clock is constructed of materials which have mass but I didn't think this relevant. I thought we were making comparison moving parts, ie. a pendulum or atom or escape mechanism which would be slowed in its movement somehow (at least that is what I was thinking about). When we talk about a binary star or corner mirrors on the moon being used as a clock we are only using light without consideration of mass.

 

Light (em propagation) has a constant speed c, that is independent of its source. If the clock
moves at v, some of the light energy must compensate for that speed, leaving less for the clock function, thus requiring more ‘time’ to overtake the moving mirror.

 

So some of te light energy can compensate for that speed. Is that not sufficient explanation? There is motion and there is existence. You have results. The term "requires more time" seems human. We can say that there was a longer period in recorded history or we can say it took longer or that it took more time - but that is still our concept in the conclusion.

 

A simple comparison, the quail hunter aims his shot ahead of the bird, knowing both are moving. The ‘lead time’ is a judgement by the hunter, resulting from years of experience dealing with clocks which provide a convenient scale for lifes activities.]

 

How did men hunt with spears and bows and arrows before they had clocks? This is pure trial and error, judgment, experience (as you say) and you can righty argue for a perception of time. It proves the concept as a useful human attribute. Spear fishermen even account for refraction!

 

What I am thinking about is whether it may be possible that a clock with moving parts that is accelerated as we have proved with atomic clocks, has its workings relatively slowed down. I'm thinking of a more mechanical explanation that may not involve time (this is probably loony).   



#173 sluggo

sluggo

    Understanding

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 250 posts

Posted 28 June 2019 - 09:55 AM

Mattzy;

What I am thinking about is whether it may be possible that a clock with moving parts that is accelerated as we have proved with atomic clocks, has its workings relatively slowed down. I'm thinking of a more mechanical explanation that may not involve time (this is probably loony). 

 

If we examine a mechanical cock, we discover parts of small mass interacting via em interactions (light). The general rule is: all processes involving em interactions, slow when in motion relative to an observer. Pendulum clocks use gravity so are in the GR class.

So some of te light energy can compensate for that speed. Is that not sufficient explanation?

 

 That IS the explanation.

 

For perspective, remember, from birth to death, we are immersed in activities involving interval counting. Time: to go to school, to go to work, to make an appointment, watch a tv program, i.e. our life is scheduled to varying degrees. We are conditioned by the concept of time to the point of accepting it as natural.


  • Mattzy likes this

#174 sluggo

sluggo

    Understanding

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 250 posts

Posted 28 June 2019 - 10:33 AM

Amplitudhedron#139;

 

 Light moves at c. But everything moves at c, in spacetime. The only difference between light and everything else is that all of light’s motion is through space, and none of it is through time. Everything else travels through both space and time.

 

[Travel through time is a figure of speech. A metaphorical interpretation (Briane Green). It's just a geometric representation of the constant velocity of light as a circle. There is no deep multidimensional meaning of SR. Einstein did not come down from a mountain with a golden tablet containing two postulates. It's physics refined to include human perception and the effects of motion. The need of refinement can be traced back to Newton. Yes, there is motion. No, there is not a complementary state of rest (lack of motion). How would you measure rest? 'Rest' can be defined as the state/relation of two objects with identical velocities. Now we have solved the illogical state of two objects at rest, while simultaneously moving through space at a large velocity.]

 

Everything is a worldtube in Minkowski spacetime.

 

[This sounds like a block universe. So how would new events occur? What would prevent an observer from experiencing the same event repeatedly, or his own birth?
This idea ignores the fact that there are multiple perceptions of the same event over a period of time, due to varying spatial distances. Past, present, and future are relative to an observer. They are not universal properties, no more than the 'time' they modify.]


 

But what is a rose?

 


[The mind processes sensory input, and forms its own images/concepts of what is out there. Light has frequencies, which the mind interprets/perceives as colors. But this is the standard procedure for the mind, as it senses everything indirectly. Recall the case of the blind man attempting to describe an elephant by touch!
When viewed from high altitude, the land-water boundary appears as a static line.
As you descend lower to smaller scale details, you discover the boundary is not even a line, but dynamic and changing.
A ball bearing appears as a sphere with a smooth surface. Using a scanning microscope, its surface is lumpy, and the 'sphere' is not visible.
Two examples showing the difference between the reality of the world, with and without human perception, and the concept of 'reality confined to the mind'.
This also shows the distortion of knowledge resulting from excessive abstraction, where the model is substituted for reality, as in the 4D model of relativity.
After the weather forecast, I check the sky for those colored blobs, but never see them.]


 

The aforementioned Petkov has taken great pains to argue (demonstrate?) that this is the explanation of the phenomenon of length contraction alone.

 


[Then he does not understand length contraction. He is using simultaneity as Einstein originally did, i.e. the measurement process, to explain it. The MMX explanation requires both td and lc as physical processes.]

[From your#150 post, we seem to agree on the reality confined to mind.]

 



#175 exchemist

exchemist

    Creating

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2762 posts

Posted 28 June 2019 - 02:28 PM

Mattzy;

If we examine a mechanical cock, we discover parts of small mass interacting via em interactions (light). The general rule is: all processes involving em interactions, slow when in motion relative to an observer. Pendulum clocks use gravity so are in the GR class.

 That IS the explanation.

 

For perspective, remember, from birth to death, we are immersed in activities involving interval counting. Time: to go to school, to go to work, to make an appointment, watch a tv program, i.e. our life is scheduled to varying degrees. We are conditioned by the concept of time to the point of accepting it as natural.

A mechanical cock?  :winknudge:


Edited by exchemist, 28 June 2019 - 02:28 PM.


#176 sluggo

sluggo

    Understanding

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 250 posts

Posted 29 June 2019 - 11:28 AM

A mechanical cock?  :winknudge:

Another reason why I don't like these tiny chromebook keyboards!

And you know this is not a porn site.


  • exchemist likes this

#177 Mattzy

Mattzy

    Questioning

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 116 posts

Posted 29 June 2019 - 08:31 PM

Mattzy;

If we examine a mechanical cock, we discover parts of small mass interacting via em interactions (light). The general rule is: all processes involving em interactions, slow when in motion relative to an observer. Pendulum clocks use gravity so are in the GR class.

 That IS the explanation.

 

For perspective, remember, from birth to death, we are immersed in activities involving interval counting. Time: to go to school, to go to work, to make an appointment, watch a tv program, i.e. our life is scheduled to varying degrees. We are conditioned by the concept of time to the point of accepting it as natural.

"We are conditioned by the concept of time to the point of accepting it as natural."

Yes, this is my feeling too. I file it alongside the history of positions.

"all processes involving em interactions, slow when in motion relative to an observer." 

We have proof of processes slowing - like the H-K and better. Why do we have to include the observer in the statement?  I feel that when we talk about a unique relativity from the perspective of a unique observer then we move deeper into theory - I think this theory requires the concept of time - which I think is not an actual.

If time is eliminated then what remains to be analysed? Movement, energy, distance, acceleration.....?



#178 sluggo

sluggo

    Understanding

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 250 posts

Posted 02 July 2019 - 11:36 AM

Mattzy;

If time is eliminated then what remains to be analysed? Movement, energy, distance, acceleration.....?

 



[Imagine a high speed camera on a stand, recording an object falling from a given height h to the ground g. Each frame is coded with a number, beginning with 1.
The frames are developed as individual pics and boxed.
You want to project them onto a screen as a slide show.
In opening the box, you spill the slides onto the floor.
You pick them up and load the machine without regard to their sequence.
On the left is 1 of 10! possible combinations, and not resembling a natural motion, as shown on the right.
The point is, the numbers preserve the natural order of events, per the established laws of physics, but are not referred to as 'time', and it is irrelevant as to their label.]

hypo-time-order.jpg


  • Mattzy likes this

#179 Dubbelosix

Dubbelosix

    Creating

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3000 posts

Posted 02 July 2019 - 11:38 AM

Sluggo, but the periods of the graph, require it has a worldline and it is well known you cannot track a worldline without a concept of time.



#180 Mattzy

Mattzy

    Questioning

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 116 posts

Posted 02 July 2019 - 06:25 PM

 

Mattzy;


[Imagine a high speed camera on a stand, recording an object falling from a given height h to the ground g. Each frame is coded with a number, beginning with 1.
The frames are developed as individual pics and boxed.
You want to project them onto a screen as a slide show.
In opening the box, you spill the slides onto the floor.
You pick them up and load the machine without regard to their sequence.
On the left is 1 of 10! possible combinations, and not resembling a natural motion, as shown on the right.
The point is, the numbers preserve the natural order of events, per the established laws of physics, but are not referred to as 'time', and it is irrelevant as to their label.]

attachicon.gifhypo-time-order.jpg

 

Yes. We agree about time. I am saying that time does not exist. But I have the paradox of valuing calculations that use time as a pre-conceived dimension. I see no problem with operational time in everyday calculations ie.S=1/2 a t squared etc. because we get useful operational values in the human world, but if we are saying that time does not exist then it seems nonsensical to say anything about it as if it does. This is what I meant by asking what is left to analyse if we decide to eliminate it. So I was thinking about the effect of acceleration and movement on clocks as an alternative to the idea of time slowing down and an explanation to what has been proved without using time. This continues to explain the slowing of brain chemistry and any other movement.

 

So my understanding so far is:-

If we believe in length contraction then it seems to me that we have to believe that there is omnipresent connection over all distances (block space) and that there is a capacity to pre-calculate contraction and discriminate for the arrival of individual movements - there can't be a "reaction time" unless proximity is a graduating factor - which seems more plausible and coherent with familiar forces like gravity and magnetism. Without proximity as a factor we can't say that block space is elastic because it is not reactive - it would therefore have to be godlike and instantly determined over any distance to maintain the speed of light.

As there is light moving in all directions throughout the universe it is difficult to comprehend simultaneous reaction to all incoming photons in order to maintain their individual speeds between objects.

It seems unnecessary to discuss what observers may or may not see in unprovable examples. I think that what actually happens and why it happens is all that should interest us ie. light speed remaining constant and clocks de-synchronising. 

 

In my humble opinion, it seems that we have the effects of energy, light speed and mass to analyse and nothing else on this topic. We are using operational time only in the human world - when a clock returns to it for recording delaying effects, for example.



#181 sluggo

sluggo

    Understanding

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 250 posts

Posted 04 July 2019 - 12:51 PM


Dubbelosix;

Sluggo, but the periods of the graph, require it has a worldline and it is well known you cannot track a worldline without a concept of time.

 


[The worldline is a history of positions, just as a trajectory. It has already happened as a sequence of events, and cannot be viewed in its entirety as a single event. The contrast is emphasizing maintaining a sensible/logical order of events by using 'time'.]

[The example is to show the purpose of the correspondence principle of an event of interest (the position of the object) associated with counting for identification purposes, a measurement process. There is no prerequisite regarding what is counted. Your pulse, earth rotations, cricket chirps, ..., em frequencies, etc. Any periodic process will serve the purpose. In early human history, natural processes were used. The current era uses manmade devices that are portable and more practical, and labeled as 'clocks'. 'Time' is not a physical measurable entity, but a human concept, a complex accounting method, a convenience.
From "The Measure of Time", Poincare, 1898.
"We do not have a direct intuition for simultaneity, just as little as for the equality of two periods. If we believe to have this intuition, it is an illusion. We helped ourselves with certain rules, which we usually use without giving us account over it [...] We choose these rules therefore, not because they are true, but because they are the most convenient, and we could summarize them while saying: „The simultaneity of two events, or the order of their succession, the equality of two durations, are to be so defined that the enunciation of the natural laws may be as simple as possible. In other words, all these rules, all these definitions are only the fruit of an unconscious opportunism."]



#182 Dubbelosix

Dubbelosix

    Creating

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3000 posts

Posted 04 July 2019 - 07:51 PM

Already happened, means a chronology. Chronology comes from the root greek name for the god Chronos, the god of time.



#183 sluggo

sluggo

    Understanding

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 250 posts

Posted 05 July 2019 - 12:59 PM

Already happened, means a chronology. Chronology comes from the root greek name for the god Chronos, the god of time.

True, and a god of thunder, but hopefully humanity has made progress since then.

My summation could be, we can replace 'time' with counting.





Also tagged with one or more of these keywords: Light speed, relativity