Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

Light Speed, Are We Talking Relativity?

Light speed relativity

  • Please log in to reply
86 replies to this topic

#35 ralfcis

ralfcis

    Explaining

  • Members
  • 763 posts

Posted 03 June 2019 - 06:54 AM

So your question is what is real and what is perspective and what does perspective say about reality if it isn't itself real. Let's just use distance perspective as an analogy. Why do things seem to shrink as they move away from you? They don't really shrink. But what would reality look like without perspective and everything remained the same size no matter how far away it was from you. Your field of vision would be constantly overloaded with information and big blocking things. So why do things look smaller from a distance. It's because less and less information is reaching your eye. The information is still there and you can access it by zooming in on it with a telescope. This makes things at a distance seem big again.

 

The same is true for time. As things move away from you, the rate of their movement affects the rate of information transfer back to you and hence their time rate you see. Their time rate isn't really affected at all but your perspective of it is. But if you change the relative velocity at a distance, it will take time for them to see the new rate of information transfer you're sending. Time must be conserved, there can't be any discontinuities of missing time and there can't be any imbalances of stored info that does not sync up.

 

If you have been moving away from me at .6c, you will store .25 yrs of info for every yr you move away. If you turn around after 4 yrs, you have 1 yr of stored info that has not been transferred back yet. For every yr you move back, you will also be storing .25 yrs but that's easy to shed because your movement back doubles the normal info transfer rate. But this is still not enough to transfer all the stored time your movement has created so that you can sync up your normal time rate with your partner when you meet up again. Relativity (not Einstein's version but my own) takes care of this problem of information imbalance during the relative velocity imbalance after a change in velocity. During this time, which is 3 return yrs in my example, you will be actually travelling through time at twice the normal rate although you will not see anything but the normal rate of time in your own frame. Your return doppler shift ratio = 2 will no longer just be a perspective of information transfer but it will become a real movement through time at a rate other than the normal rate. Without this correction, there would be no way to clear the backlog of information created during the velocity change and the time the news of the change reaches the other party.


  • Mattzy likes this

#36 ralfcis

ralfcis

    Explaining

  • Members
  • 763 posts

Posted 03 June 2019 - 07:47 AM

 

ralf#12;

 



[A water wave is a composition of water atoms. Consider a light 'wave' a composition of photons. Einstein won a Nobel prize for his paper on the photoelectric effect, based on a discrete packet of em energy, labeled a photon.]

 



[Only things with mass acquire the speed of a composite object with mass. Since light has no rest mass, it does not acquire the speed of the emitter. That's the basis for postulate 2 to include 'light speed is independent of its source]

 

Sluggo, I had high hopes for you because you were at least able to do the math unlike the vast majority of people on physics forums but those hopes are now dashed. A water wave is no more a composition of water atoms (waterons?) than a sound wave is a composition of air atoms (airons? or sonicons?) There's the wave and there's the medium for the wave. There's coffee and the cup that holds the coffee. You're completely lost. Photons do not travel, light waves travel, photons are the positional stationary wave function collapsed form of light. Light speed is independent of its source because a wave speed is only dependent on the elasticity and inertia of its medium. Does a water wave have mass. According to your 1st statement it does and yet its speed through the medium of water is independent of its source. So your last statement contradicts your first but amazingly  they're both completely wrong. You're useless to me, I can't teach you anything because you're incapable of reason and critical thinking so I'll just add you to my ignore list and save myself the aggravation.


  • Mattzy likes this

#37 Mattzy

Mattzy

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 58 posts

Posted 04 June 2019 - 02:21 AM

So your question is what is real and what is perspective and what does perspective say about reality if it isn't itself real. Let's just use distance perspective as an analogy. Why do things seem to shrink as they move away from you? They don't really shrink. But what would reality look like without perspective and everything remained the same size no matter how far away it was from you. Your field of vision would be constantly overloaded with information and big blocking things. So why do things look smaller from a distance. It's because less and less information is reaching your eye. The information is still there and you can access it by zooming in on it with a telescope. This makes things at a distance seem big again.

 

The same is true for time. As things move away from you, the rate of their movement affects the rate of information transfer back to you and hence their time rate you see. Their time rate isn't really affected at all but your perspective of it is. But if you change the relative velocity at a distance, it will take time for them to see the new rate of information transfer you're sending. Time must be conserved, there can't be any discontinuities of missing time and there can't be any imbalances of stored info that does not sync up.

 

If you have been moving away from me at .6c, you will store .25 yrs of info for every yr you move away. If you turn around after 4 yrs, you have 1 yr of stored info that has not been transferred back yet. For every yr you move back, you will also be storing .25 yrs but that's easy to shed because your movement back doubles the normal info transfer rate. But this is still not enough to transfer all the stored time your movement has created so that you can sync up your normal time rate with your partner when you meet up again. Relativity (not Einstein's version but my own) takes care of this problem of information imbalance during the relative velocity imbalance after a change in velocity. During this time, which is 3 return yrs in my example, you will be actually travelling through time at twice the normal rate although you will not see anything but the normal rate of time in your own frame. Your return doppler shift ratio = 2 will no longer just be a perspective of information transfer but it will become a real movement through time at a rate other than the normal rate. Without this correction, there would be no way to clear the backlog of information created during the velocity change and the time the news of the change reaches the other party.

As always ralfcis, very thought provoking answer. You frame my question far better than I can myself! I think you are getting through to me. Correct me if I've not understood.

Two people relatively stationary and in close proximity ie. in the same room, are existing at the same (normal standard) time because of the information transfer rate between them? Where there is a lag in info transfer rate they are living at an historical distance? Not at the same time? Are you placing time in lock-step with information transfer rate?

If light can only travel at c then it seems - as you said - that the maximum opening speed for anything (in scalar measurement) is 2c and in relativity theory measurement is c (I assume that travel at light speed is impossible). Providing that we use an opening speed of +c then your analogy makes sense to me at first reading.

We can all perceive time as simultaneous throughout any distance (like looking at a model of the universe) so what is the challenge to that perception? I think you are saying that the rate of info transfer is the said challenge.

If I blast off in my space ship and you transmit a repeating message to me, (from the launch pad) the message will leave at light speed and arrive at light speed. As the distance opens the chain of messages will lengthen - but there will be no change in the rate of transfer. If I turn around there will still be no change in the transfer rate (arriving at light speed). As I move along the chain I will receive the messages as normal all the way home. It takes more time for the messages to reach the ship in proportion to the distance, that is all - as perceived by one simply thinking about it, or looking at the model of the universe. So in this analogy I can still perceive time as universally simultaneous. I don't see the difference between this (my) analogy and communication in sound. It's just the speed of transfer that gives us a concrete time lag within a perceived uniform time.

But now I encounter the same old problem, because if I start transmitting back to you and travel at close to light speed, then what happens to my returning messages? They are transmitted at light speed relative to the ship which is moving almost at light speed! Your scalar speed of 2c seems intuitive but not the maximum speed for light - unless the messages concertina like a sound barrier type compression wave.



#38 sluggo

sluggo

    Questioning

  • Members
  • 205 posts

Posted 04 June 2019 - 10:30 AM

ralf;

But let's say you have two light detectors at your end, one outside the train and the other inside. You have two sources of light, outside and inside,  that go on together when they're side by side.


[What is the motion of the outside emitter and outside detector relative to the train?]

#39 sluggo

sluggo

    Questioning

  • Members
  • 205 posts

Posted 04 June 2019 - 10:44 AM

 

 

ralf#12;

 



[A water wave is a composition of water atoms. Consider a light 'wave' a composition of photons. Einstein won a Nobel prize for his paper on the photoelectric effect, based on a discrete packet of em energy, labeled a photon.]

 



[Only things with mass acquire the speed of a composite object with mass. Since light has no rest mass, it does not acquire the speed of the emitter. That's the basis for postulate 2 to include 'light speed is independent of its source]

 

Sluggo, I had high hopes for you because you were at least able to do the math unlike the vast majority of people on physics forums but those hopes are now dashed. A water wave is no more a composition of water atoms (waterons?) than a sound wave is a composition of air atoms (airons? or sonicons?) There's the wave and there's the medium for the wave. There's coffee and the cup that holds the coffee. You're completely lost. Photons do not travel, light waves travel, photons are the positional stationary wave function collapsed form of light. Light speed is independent of its source because a wave speed is only dependent on the elasticity and inertia of its medium. Does a water wave have mass. According to your 1st statement it does and yet its speed through the medium of water is independent of its source. So your last statement contradicts your first but amazingly  they're both completely wrong. You're useless to me, I can't teach you anything because you're incapable of reason and critical thinking so I'll just add you to my ignore list and save myself the aggravation.

The water wave form is a perception, not a physical thing, caused by the sequential vertical motion of water molecules. No different than the 'wave' made by the fans on the seats standing up,then sitting down. It is an effect of choreography. You have a comprehension problem. The 'photon' concept has been accepted and proven in many varied experiments such as the phenomena mentioned. You aren't keeping up to date with science. Fortunately my abilities do not depend on your assessments.

 



#40 sluggo

sluggo

    Questioning

  • Members
  • 205 posts

Posted 04 June 2019 - 11:18 AM

Mattzy#37;


If light can only travel at c then it seems - as you said - that the maximum opening speed for anything (in scalar measurement) is 2c

The limit of c applies to objects of mass. A spatial interval between objects is not an object of mass, but a relationship, which has a limit based on the maximum separation velocity of the two objects, or 2c. In the case of a rotating light beam projected on a distant surface, the speed of the light spot is unlimited, and could >c.

#41 ralfcis

ralfcis

    Explaining

  • Members
  • 763 posts

Posted 04 June 2019 - 04:32 PM

If you have a dripping faucet and each drop was a bit of information, would the rate of information coming to you change if the faucet was 1 inch above the water or 1 mile above the water. No, the rate would not change due to the distance. What the distance does is store the information for a time until the information reaches you. A lot more delayed water drops would be stored in the air between you and the faucet at a mile separation. The rate of information would change only if the faucet was moving. The spacing between drops would shrink if it was moving toward you and the rate of information would be more sparse if the faucet was moving away from you. This is the droppler effect.

 

Their perception of each other is in the past but there is an instantaneous present between them they can't share in the present unless there's no distance between them. Einstein did not acknowledge this instantaneous present.

 

The perception of time is information transfer rate at c but when time is actually moving at a rate different than the normal rate, it is hidden behind the perception of the doppler shift ratio. For example, someone at .6c moving towards you would look like their velocity through time was twice the normal rate. This does not mean you are actually seeing time move at twice the normal rate. In fact, if they had just turned around towards you after separating from you at .6c for 4 of their yrs, you will still see their apparent velocity through time at half the normal rate for 3 of your years before you can see their velocity through time double. During that 3 yr delay, time for them was actually going at double rate but neither you or them could detect it. You would have seen your time rate hidden behind your perception of their time rate at double c which would be expected. What you didn't expect is that you were the one actually going through time at double the normal rate while perceiving they were. (Not how Einstein's relativity explains it)

 

Yes velocity changes the perceived rate of info transfer but a change in velocity initiated by you will actually change your rate of time through time which neither you nor they will become aware of until the relative velocity imbalance period overcomes the info delay between you and you end up with a real and permanent age difference. 

 

We can't perceive time as simultaneous when both  velocity and distance are involved. We can calculate the relativity of perspective simultaneity and causal simultaneity which is independent of perspective (not part of Einstein's relativity).

 

Max scalar when v=x/t is 2c and max relative velocity when v=x/t is c. But if you use v'=x/t' there is no limit on v'=Yv.

 

No change of rate of transfer if v=0 for any distance between you. But  any other v will change the rate of transfer. Messages will show an apparent doppler shift ratio multiplying the normal time rate. The time lag does not affect the transfer rate. 2c has nothing to do with transfer rate. You're going to have to read my detailed calculations on what happens to the transfer rate when a ship is approaching or separating at near c or two ships approaching or separating from each each other at near c (same thing).


Edited by ralfcis, 04 June 2019 - 04:38 PM.

  • Mattzy likes this

#42 Mattzy

Mattzy

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 58 posts

Posted 05 June 2019 - 12:29 AM

 

 

 

ralf#12;

 



[A water wave is a composition of water atoms. Consider a light 'wave' a composition of photons. Einstein won a Nobel prize for his paper on the photoelectric effect, based on a discrete packet of em energy, labeled a photon.]

 



[Only things with mass acquire the speed of a composite object with mass. Since light has no rest mass, it does not acquire the speed of the emitter. That's the basis for postulate 2 to include 'light speed is independent of its source]

 

Sluggo, I had high hopes for you because you were at least able to do the math unlike the vast majority of people on physics forums but those hopes are now dashed. A water wave is no more a composition of water atoms (waterons?) than a sound wave is a composition of air atoms (airons? or sonicons?) There's the wave and there's the medium for the wave. There's coffee and the cup that holds the coffee. You're completely lost. Photons do not travel, light waves travel, photons are the positional stationary wave function collapsed form of light. Light speed is independent of its source because a wave speed is only dependent on the elasticity and inertia of its medium. Does a water wave have mass. According to your 1st statement it does and yet its speed through the medium of water is independent of its source. So your last statement contradicts your first but amazingly  they're both completely wrong. You're useless to me, I can't teach you anything because you're incapable of reason and critical thinking so I'll just add you to my ignore list and save myself the aggravation.

The water wave form is a perception, not a physical thing, caused by the sequential vertical motion of water molecules. No different than the 'wave' made by the fans on the seats standing up,then sitting down. It is an effect of choreography. You have a comprehension problem. The 'photon' concept has been accepted and proven in many varied experiments such as the phenomena mentioned. You aren't keeping up to date with science. Fortunately my abilities do not depend on your assessments.

 

 

Sluggo. False. A water wave is the transfer of kinetic energy (horizontally in your analogy) from molecule to molecule. 

At the surface of a wave tank you will see the vertical effect of the increased pressure within the fluid as it travels sideways. However, if we tap a hammer on the hull of a ship we will produce a sound wave that will travel at the speed of sound through salt water at its given temperature and pressure. The sound wave will travel in proportion to Brownian motion of the molecules. What I have often wondered is where the boundary is determined between a slow moving wave produced in a wave tank by a ram and the sound wave produced by a 'tap'. At some point in dynamics the motive force starts making sound. That's yet another question.



#43 Mattzy

Mattzy

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 58 posts

Posted 05 June 2019 - 12:55 AM

 

Mattzy#37;

 


If light can only travel at c then it seems - as you said - that the maximum opening speed for anything (in scalar measurement) is 2c

The limit of c applies to objects of mass. A spatial interval between objects is not an object of mass, but a relationship, which has a limit based on the maximum separation velocity of the two objects, or 2c. In the case of a rotating light beam projected on a distant surface, the speed of the light spot is unlimited, and could >c.

 

I thought the limit of c applies to everything and that only light can travel at light speed - and no faster. The light spot and its beam is not moving sideways. That really is an illusion. Each photon travels in a straight line at light speed (sorry if it seems that I'm telling you how to suck eggs here). The separation speed of 2c and the said relationship goes to my question. 



#44 Mattzy

Mattzy

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 58 posts

Posted 05 June 2019 - 01:41 AM

If you have a dripping faucet and each drop was a bit of information, would the rate of information coming to you change if the faucet was 1 inch above the water or 1 mile above the water. No, the rate would not change due to the distance. What the distance does is store the information for a time until the information reaches you. A lot more delayed water drops would be stored in the air between you and the faucet at a mile separation. The rate of information would change only if the faucet was moving. The spacing between drops would shrink if it was moving toward you and the rate of information would be more sparse if the faucet was moving away from you. This is the droppler effect.

 

Their perception of each other is in the past but there is an instantaneous present between them they can't share in the present unless there's no distance between them. Einstein did not acknowledge this instantaneous present.

 

The perception of time is information transfer rate at c but when time is actually moving at a rate different than the normal rate, it is hidden behind the perception of the doppler shift ratio. For example, someone at .6c moving towards you would look like their velocity through time was twice the normal rate. This does not mean you are actually seeing time move at twice the normal rate. In fact, if they had just turned around towards you after separating from you at .6c for 4 of their yrs, you will still see their apparent velocity through time at half the normal rate for 3 of your years before you can see their velocity through time double. During that 3 yr delay, time for them was actually going at double rate but neither you or them could detect it. You would have seen your time rate hidden behind your perception of their time rate at double c which would be expected. What you didn't expect is that you were the one actually going through time at double the normal rate while perceiving they were. (Not how Einstein's relativity explains it)

 

Yes velocity changes the perceived rate of info transfer but a change in velocity initiated by you will actually change your rate of time through time which neither you nor they will become aware of until the relative velocity imbalance period overcomes the info delay between you and you end up with a real and permanent age difference. 

 

We can't perceive time as simultaneous when both  velocity and distance are involved. We can calculate the relativity of perspective simultaneity and causal simultaneity which is independent of perspective (not part of Einstein's relativity).

 

Max scalar when v=x/t is 2c and max relative velocity when v=x/t is c. But if you use v'=x/t' there is no limit on v'=Yv.

 

No change of rate of transfer if v=0 for any distance between you. But  any other v will change the rate of transfer. Messages will show an apparent doppler shift ratio multiplying the normal time rate. The time lag does not affect the transfer rate. 2c has nothing to do with transfer rate. You're going to have to read my detailed calculations on what happens to the transfer rate when a ship is approaching or separating at near c or two ships approaching or separating from each each other at near c (same thing).

I keep saying that I should read your calculations but you keep making such interesting and eloquent answers that get me thinking further that I don't get around to it!

I'll get onto that right away. Thanks ralfcis for the long answer and big effort on my behalf. I'll get back to you in a while. I think I have your thread from previous posts.



#45 sluggo

sluggo

    Questioning

  • Members
  • 205 posts

Posted 06 June 2019 - 09:24 AM

I thought the limit of c applies to everything and that only light can travel at light speed - and no faster. The light spot and its beam is not moving sideways. That really is an illusion. Each photon travels in a straight line at light speed (sorry if it seems that I'm telling you how to suck eggs here). The separation speed of 2c and the said relationship goes to my question. 

The space between two objects is not a physical thing, try putting it into a container.

The moving spot is an illusion but it's a reality in the mind of the observer.

If you've watched movies or animations on a monitor, didn't you accept those perceptions as real?


Edited by sluggo, 06 June 2019 - 09:24 AM.


#46 Mattzy

Mattzy

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 58 posts

Posted 07 June 2019 - 01:52 AM

The illusion of reality is still an illusion even though we enjoy it. When I see stroboscopic effects - to give just on example - I know - when I think - that I am experiencing an illusion, not reality. Your "reality in the mind of the observer"  is a matter of education. The tricks we play on the human mind with animation can be easily explained because we know that the brain is a foolish interpreter of what the eye gives it. 

I ask you: Does the limit of c apply to everything, including light? I had thought that light speed has never been measured at more than c regardless of the closing speed of the emitter, and that all we can measure in this case is blueshift. True or false?



#47 sluggo

sluggo

    Questioning

  • Members
  • 205 posts

Posted 08 June 2019 - 12:54 PM

Maltzy;

The point is, perception is reality. A person on drugs sees images that are physically real in his mind. The only difference is they don't correspond to anything outside his mind, thus are not 'real' to anyone else. Watching movies, a sequence of still images are presented to the mind, which melds them into a continuous stream, yet there is no motion. Your monitor displays a sequence of on and off pixels, but there is no motion!

The anaut leaves on a spaceflight at high speed. He and his clock function at a reduced rate. His destination arrives early so he can conclude the world outside his ship has contracted. Like the 1st case, no one else shares his experience unless they participate. Relativity is also a theory of perception, which is why the observer plays a central role.


  • Mattzy likes this

#48 Mattzy

Mattzy

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 58 posts

Posted 08 June 2019 - 05:52 PM

I hadn't thought of it like that - "relativity is also a theory of perception" that is very useful to me. exchemist said earlier that I have to accept that distance and time are motion dependent. I may be starting to get it now. So the clocks and brain chemistry in the space capsule actually all slow down in proportion to their speed. This is a reality for the crew and all the workings of the capsule, which function at a reduced rate in proportion to capsule speed - although they would not be aware of it as their perception is relative to their capsule.

Can I say that the rate of reality is dependent on its relative speed?  I think I'm beginning to see what is meant by elasticity of space time. It has to stretch to meet movement. Is that right?



#49 ralfcis

ralfcis

    Explaining

  • Members
  • 763 posts

Posted 08 June 2019 - 06:00 PM

Maltzy;

The point is, perception is reality. A person on drugs sees images that are physically real in his mind. The only difference is they don't correspond to anything outside his mind, thus are not 'real' to anyone else. Watching movies, a sequence of still images are presented to the mind, which melds them into a continuous stream, yet there is no motion. Your monitor displays a sequence of on and off pixels, but there is no motion!

The anaut leaves on a spaceflight at high speed. He and his clock function at a reduced rate. His destination arrives early so he can conclude the world outside his ship has contracted. Like the 1st case, no one else shares his experience unless they participate. Relativity is also a theory of perception, which is why the observer plays a central role.

 

Hello is anyone else reading this coming out of Sluggo's mouth? He's so brainwashed, he doesn't even understand the significance of what he's saying. Members of the cult aren't allowed to say these things out loud. The illusion of perception is reality. Everyone is at the center of their own universe and who's to say their reality isn't equal to everyone else's. Even if there is a way to reconcile all these individual realities to figure out a common objective reality, you're not allowed to. Einstein says so. If you find paradoxes, there are no paradoxes because everyone is subjectively right and that's all that matters. If both pilots see time slow for the other, time is indeed really slowing for both. If you're a relativist, this is what you have no choice to believe. This isn't science anymore because science is about the search for objective reality not Einstein's fantasy world.

 

If Sluggo has kids he should take them to as many magic shows as possible because his non-critical wonderment would be infectious. Now are there any adults out there who are waking up out of their collective stupor right now?



#50 Mattzy

Mattzy

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 58 posts

Posted 08 June 2019 - 07:49 PM

Reconciling these individual realities is what I'm struggling with. But as I asked in response to sluggo - can the elasticity of spacetime account for this?

Is the light speed limit a function of spacetime elasticity? Does this mean that the greater the distance the greater the illusion? That would make all distances illusions - nope - I'm melting down again on that one - but I'm not giving up.

ralfcis, I'm still thinking of your info transfer rate and the doppler shift ratio. The incoming info is always at light speed. Doesn't that fix our perception? We know about redshift and blueshift (which our eyes can't detect) but the rate (speed of light) is the same. The information can't be lost, only delayed by distance or changed in appearance or moved out of detectable range by doppler shift. Detection is another matter (much is invisible to us) but the speed of light (I reason) fixes the maximum transfer rate and the perception (for that which can detect it).

Am I missing your point?



#51 ralfcis

ralfcis

    Explaining

  • Members
  • 763 posts

Posted 08 June 2019 - 09:10 PM

Yes totally missing it. Redshift blueshift who cares about the color. The info rate is getting shifted.





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