Science Forums

# No time at the speed of light

## Recommended Posts

Special relativity is wrong. I have mathematical evidences and key knowledges. All of the logic traps had been solved.

One of them: Numerical analysis with Lorentz equation :

Position A : The source and the light are the direction of (+ x)

(For this position ; v = 0.60 c , t = 5 s , c = 300 000 km/s)

=> x’ = 750 000 km t’ = 2.5 sec (Tempo of time becomes slower: Time dilation)

Position B : The light is at the direction of (+ x) ; The source goes at the direction of (- x)

(For this position: v = - 0.60 c ; t = 5 sec ; c = 300 000 km/sec)

 x’ = 3 000 000 km ; t’ = 10 sec (Tempo runs faster: time contraction)

Position C: The source goes at the direction of (+ x), light is at the direction of (- x)

(For this position: v = 0.60 c ; t = 5 sec ; c = - 300 000 km/sec

 x’ = - 3 000 000 km ; t’ = 10 sec ( Tempo of time runs faster: Time contraction)

The velocity of light for allpositions:

C = 750 000/2.5 = 3 000 000 / 10 = | - 3 000 000| / 10 = 300 000 km/sec

The velocity of light for each position is obtained the fixed value of < c> (= 300 000 km/sec). But the tempos of time run faster for the position (:D and © . If the tempo of time could have been slower for also the position B and C, the scientific integrity of SR would be assured. But this condition could not be realized. Faster and slower tempos never becomes simultaneously on the same experiment .

If Einstein was alive, he would take back his theory (SR)certainly because of the results of analyzing with opposite directional light.

Yeah, what he said! :D

##### Share on other sites

Chaos,

This was a comment I made earlier. Yes, I believe the issue of (time=0) for light is

discussed in "Elegant Universe" by Brian Greene. I think Qfwfq said it best by talking

about from whose point of reference. Time not existing for light is ONLY from light's

point of view (reference frame). Uncle Al's comment about inertial reference frames

though correct would Only be pertinent for particles with mass (rest mass). Since

you mentioned Brian Greene's excellent book, let give an high salutation for his new

one, "Fabric of the Cosmos" !!! I just getting to the section on String Theory. He has

really branched off from the first book. It is a Great sequel (update on theory &

observation).

Now back to No time for photons... Photons always travel at C (local reference frame).

It is only from our point of view observing with a photon (by its interaction with some

other particle (typically with mass) that we observe a speed less than (by traveling

through a medium other than a vacuum). Were a particle with mass to travel with

a speed close to light, we would view it time exceedingly slowed. However the

particle would view that our time was what had slowed by this proportion. This is all

by special relativity (SR) of Einstein. Were it to be the other end of exceedingly slow

speed (very near 0), then the sense of time would be imperceptively change from

observer to observer (depending of frames of reference). Were GR brought in here

then acceleration would become equivalent to a gravitic field of equal intensity for

the appropriate observers point of reference.

Hope this clarifies...

I once heard that time is that thing measured by clocks and distance is the thing measured by rulers. I thought these were among the dumdest statements I had ever heard. Over the years, however, I have changed my mind. I think a better understanding of time and distance would be to view them as duration and separation, and duration is in fact that thing measured by clocks and separation is that thing measured by rulers

As something approaches the speed of light we say that time slows down. But we have no definition of time other than duration, and duration is a measurement. As something approaches the speed of light we measure this in terms of clocks and rulers. IMO, to say that time slows down or length contracts gives a physicalness to time and distance that they do not deserve. When we measure the speed of light we get whatever value we get, but it is a measurement only. When we measure physical things moving relative to us we get measurements, not things.

## Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.