A Question Concerning Material Structure and the Speed of Light

originally posted by: netbound
..... Anyone who would make the statements,..snip....is either trolling or not worth replying to. He/she is obviously so far above the likes of Einstein that no amount of effort trying to explain Einstein’s concepts will be acceptable. I imagine life must be tough for someone as brilliant as NorEaster; being surrounded by such vastly inferior underlings as we Earthly creatures.

I would add though that NorEaster has added much food for thought to this thread while you have added nothing of substance yet. If no one ever questions what is generally accepted as "fact" how can we ever move on to bigger and better things. NorEaster has been here long enough to rule out being a "troll". In my opinion he is stating in a very colorful way what a lot of people think about the conclusions Einstein and others have reached about the nature of the universe. I think Einstein would welcome and enjoy this kind of discussion.
My own ideas regarding this subject differ greatly from some of the other posters and I am not as articulate as they are in putting my thoughts into words, so I commend them on the time and effort they are expending to help others understand their views.
In my opinion suggesting someone may be a troll because you don't agree with their opinion is inappropriate.
That being said; Netbound, I look forward to your views of this interesting topic.

originally posted by: Sparky63

My own ideas regarding this subject differ greatly from some of the other posters and I am not as articulate as they are in putting my thoughts into words, so I commend them on the time and effort they are expending to help others understand their views..

Just off topic I know but just how did you manage to get 52,257,426 stars?

Or is that an error somehow?

Korg.

a reply to: Korg Trinity

Glitch in the matrix no doubt. Only my wife thinks I'm that awesome.

I think this all boils down to the frame of reference. Every observer no matter their position, is locked in to their own perception of time and speed. It would take an observer outside of all frames of references and able to simultaneously observe every particle in motion to grasp the true nature of what is taking place. His method of observation would have to rely on something other than photons though to do this.
It reminds me a little of the of the Flatland illustration. No inhabitant of Flatland can truly grasp the nature of their universe until they are removed from it.

originally posted by: Bedlam

originally posted by: NorEaster
Good lord. No wonder so many science-minded people are insisting on multiverses and 26 dimensions in their effort to make sense of "reality". This is complete horsesh*t. Einstein should be dug up and dragged around a circus ring by a clown car.

Except for those pesky tons of experiments that sort of, you know, prove that it's true.

Find me a way to hand wave 'em. I'd LOVE to be able to come up with an alternate explanation.

Einstein's theories were constructed to be experimentally proven. That's the whole irony behind it all. The Scientific Method is vulnerable to experimental rigging of environment as a closed and controlled system. The preparations are always very elaborate and exact, and perhaps this is what Einstein was trying to actually prove with (especially) his Special Relativity theory.

The SR claims are completely based on perception frame of reference, and perception is not a legitimate frame of reference if what's being examined is the factual nature of physical reality. Even in his time dilation claims, Einstein is very careful to use the term clocks instead of using the term Time when he suggests the slowing down or speeding up, and he always refers to the observer's perception, and never to the larger frame of reference that both observers physically occupy. There's a reason for his legalistic use of language, and I suspect that most people have never bothered to examine just how precise Einstein was with that language as he explained his theories.

I've become suspicious of the entire suite of Relativity claims as perhaps Einstein's parodying the empirically-driven nature of what's become of the Scientific Method and scientism in general. Yes, he was a brilliant and creative man, but perhaps he was more brilliant and creative in his own ingenious manner than he's ever been given credit for being.

originally posted by: netbound
I’d throw in my 2 cents here, but I see it would be pointless. Anyone who would make the statements,

“Good lord. No wonder so many science-minded people are insisting on multiverses and 26 dimensions in their effort to make sense of "reality". This is complete horsesh*t. Einstein should be dug up and dragged around a circus ring by a clown car.”

is either trolling or not worth replying to. He/she is obviously so far above the likes of Einstein that no amount of effort trying to explain Einstein’s concepts will be acceptable. I imagine life must be tough for someone as brilliant as NorEaster; being surrounded by such vastly inferior underlings as we Earthly creatures.

I have no problem with vastly inferior underlings. Some of my best friends are vastly inferior underlings. I enjoy their colorful addition to what would otherwise be a dull (although vastly superior) existence.

originally posted by: spy66
a reply to: NorEaster

What if you are not traveling on the laser pointer, but are working with the macro-system confine's frame of reference? This would be the frame of reference that includes all material wholes and the proximity spacing between all those material wholes that exist within the entire distance traveled by the laser pointer and the light photons emitted by the laser pointer in both directions.

Hmm. You are asking for quite a lot here. Light is very Close to a absolute constant in vacuume. But since there have never been produced a chaimber With a absolute vacuum on Earth or in orbit. It is hard to determine the exact Properties of light, since light is messured/observed in a vacuum that is not absolute Perfect/pure.


You are bringing up a very complex problem With you question that is not going to be easy to answer.

Thank you for acknowledging that this is a question that has not been addressed relative to Einstein's declaration of "c". As a ToE researcher (theories of everything) the macro-system frame of reference is what I am forced to deal with. The entire Relativity theory suite of assertions simply doesn't hold up once the frame of reference has been broadened to include all existent systems within the macro-system of the whole of physical reality. Especially if that macro-system, is defined by quantum synchronization, which is the emerging contextual substructure of choice among more "scientific" pursuits. In fact, assertions like "time dilation" completely break down once you get past the insignificant parameters of any one observer's frame of reference.

originally posted by: NorEaster

originally posted by: Bedlam

originally posted by: NorEaster
Good lord. No wonder so many science-minded people are insisting on multiverses and 26 dimensions in their effort to make sense of "reality". This is complete horsesh*t. Einstein should be dug up and dragged around a circus ring by a clown car.

Except for those pesky tons of experiments that sort of, you know, prove that it's true.

Find me a way to hand wave 'em. I'd LOVE to be able to come up with an alternate explanation.

Einstein's theories were constructed to be experimentally proven. That's the whole irony behind it all. The Scientific Method is vulnerable to experimental rigging of environment as a closed and controlled system. The preparations are always very elaborate and exact, and perhaps this is what Einstein was trying to actually prove with (especially) his Special Relativity theory.

The SR claims are completely based on perception frame of reference, and perception is not a legitimate frame of reference if what's being examined is the factual nature of physical reality. Even in his time dilation claims, Einstein is very careful to use the term clocks instead of using the term Time when he suggests the slowing down or speeding up, and he always refers to the observer's perception, and never to the larger frame of reference that both observers physically occupy.

He uses the words 'clocks' because that emphasizes the specifics of measurement of time from physical principles, and that is essential because prior to relativity, the universal assumption among physicists since Aristotle was that time was global, and universal, and needn't be examined further.

It is not.

There's a reason for his legalistic use of language, and I suspect that most people have never bothered to examine just how precise Einstein was with that language as he explained his theories.

It's not legalistic, it's physically precise. Time is what clocks measure. This is not an empty statement of Einstein's---it refers to the specific meaning of the physical equations of motion. Time is seen through the dynamics of the material world.

A translation of his first paper. www.fourmilab.ch...

I'm actually astonished just how far Einstein got in that one work---the theory, both for mechanics and classical electromagnetism, came out fully formed and still unaltered today. Other than Newton's mechanics potentially (and General Relativity!), this is unprecedented in physics.

The critical piece was to unify Maxwell's equations with mechanics in light of the Michelson Morley result---and Einstein's solution was the radical idea of assuming that the recently developed electrodynamics was fully correct and the time-honored mechanics was not. Nobody else thought that---the assumption was that it was electromagnetism, which was being developed throughout the 1800's needed to be understood better (makes sense) but the basics of mechanics were rock solid.

The unification of electromagnetism was complete: just as moving charges make magnetic fields for a stationary observer, static charges also make magnetic fields for a moving observer.

I've become suspicious of the entire suite of Relativity claims as perhaps Einstein's parodying the empirically-driven nature of what's become of the Scientific Method and scientism in general.

Einstein wasn't parodying it in the slightest---he IS it.

The methodological combination of empirical predictivity combined with rigorously insightful and quantitative theory originated by Newton is the most successful and productive endeavor in the history of human civilization.

Me, I'm sticking with the winner.

Yes, he was a brilliant and creative man, but perhaps he was more brilliant and creative in his own ingenious manner than he's ever been given credit for being.

What the heck is your point?

Don't bet against Einstein.

originally posted by: mbkennel

Yes, he was a brilliant and creative man, but perhaps he was more brilliant and creative in his own ingenious manner than he's ever been given credit for being.

What the heck is your point?

Don't bet against Einstein.

My point is that Special Relativity only works on paper and within the tightly controlled confines of a lab experiment, and it clashes ridiculously with the larger reality of any macro-system. General Relativity assumes the existence of an aether, except that it declares that light isn't slowed down by this version of the aether, while everything else propagates through it, and affects the geometry of it. If he wasn't kidding, then he was no more than a man of his times, and his theories shouldn't be deified to the extent that they are.

Oh, and I don't bet against anyone. That should never be anyone's purpose behind anything that they pursue. I abhor competition. No one has ever held onto a vision of the future whilst looking over their shoulder to see where they are in the race. Competition is poison to those who are serious about figuring out what's real about reality.

Lol the tptb will get after you, if you bet on Einstein
a reply to: NorEaster

originally posted by: mbkennel

He uses the words 'clocks' because that emphasizes the specifics of measurement of time from physical principles, and that is essential because prior to relativity, the universal assumption among physicists since Aristotle was that time was global, and universal, and needn't be examined further.

It is not.

Clocks are material systems and, as such, are vulnerable to the influences of the material systems that they exist as integral to. Take the gravity-time dilation claim. In this claim, relative field strength "slows down time" (which Einstein then transfers to acceleration as also slowing down time, since to a human observer acceleration and gravity can feel similar), but since Einstein uses the term "clock" instead of "time" his assertion cannot be truthfully said to violate the fundamental requirement of system coherence - which is a basic staple of reality that trumps indication regardless of what that indication is. What that means is that while gravitational field strength can certainly affect the dynamic properties of a mechanical clock - especially the extremely delicate mechanical properties of those clocks that have measured time progression since the first caesium standard went on line - time itself cannot be vulnerable to gravitational field strength and certainly not to the intermittent whims of simple acceleration. If that were the case, air travel would feature a lot more change on this planet than bringing people closer together, when one considers the scattered and relentless impact on the universal quantum of Now (or Planck Time) - as the quantized basis of ongoing progressive development within this or any other universal reality confine - of such burps and halts and skids that would be the result of so many violations of that quantized structure.

Then again, if you feel justified in embracing a solipsistic philosophy and declare reality to be your own little construct, then I've got nothing.

originally posted by: Nochzwei
Lol the tptb will get after you, if you bet on Einstein
a reply to: NorEaster

Actually, what happens is a lot worse than that. You get dismissed and then completely ignored. Forever.

originally posted by: NorEaster

originally posted by: mbkennel

He uses the words 'clocks' because that emphasizes the specifics of measurement of time from physical principles, and that is essential because prior to relativity, the universal assumption among physicists since Aristotle was that time was global, and universal, and needn't be examined further.

It is not.

Clocks are material systems and, as such, are vulnerable to the influences of the material systems that they exist as integral to. Take the gravity-time dilation claim. In this claim, relative field strength "slows down time" (which Einstein then transfers to acceleration as also slowing down time, since to a human observer acceleration and gravity can feel similar), but since Einstein uses the term "clock" instead of "time" his assertion cannot be truthfully said to violate the fundamental requirement of system coherence - which is a basic staple of reality that trumps indication regardless of what that indication is. What that means is that while gravitational field strength can certainly affect the dynamic properties of a mechanical clock - especially the extremely delicate mechanical properties of those clocks that have measured time progression since the first caesium standard went on line - time itself cannot be vulnerable to gravitational field strength and certainly not to the intermittent whims of simple acceleration. If that were the case, air travel would feature a lot more change on this planet than bringing people closer together, when one considers the scattered and relentless impact on the universal quantum of Now (or Planck Time) - as the quantized basis of ongoing progressive development within this or any other universal reality confine - of such burps and halts and skids that would be the result of so many violations of that quantized structure.

Then again, if you feel justified in embracing a solipsistic philosophy and declare reality to be your own little construct, then I've got nothing.

Don't know if Einstein was aware of the diff between clock time as opposed to ambient time.
Air travel time dilations are miniscule, but with heavy time dilation genetics can change. Going at the speed of light stops time and if you actually move at the speed of light, your heart will also stop, not to mention dna changes.

a reply to: Nochzwei

I dont know. At the speed of light you would be able to observe changes as they happened and when they happened. Changes would take Place instantainously if you ask me. At a slower pase changes would accure to take a longer time. Isnt that true?

Ligth gives you the ability to observe changes now. To be able to observe changes accuratly you would have to slow Down the speed/time. If you speed up time, changes also speed up equally.

originally posted by: spy66
a reply to: Nochzwei

I dont know. At the speed of light you would be able to observe changes as they happened and when they happened. Changes would take Place instantainously if you ask me. At a slower pase changes would accure to take a longer time. Isnt that true?

Ligth gives you the ability to observe changes now. To be able to observe changes accuratly you would have to slow Down the speed/time. If you speed up time, changes also speed up equally.

The perception of passage of time maybe remains the same if you speed up or slow down time.
Don't know but on an average the astronauts heartbeat on the moon must have been higher cos of slowing down of time ( opp to GR btw)
imo extreme time dilation is not meant for flesh and blood life forms.

No the opp seems to be true to me ( for your 2nd para)

originally posted by: Nochzwei

originally posted by: spy66
a reply to: Nochzwei

I dont know. At the speed of light you would be able to observe changes as they happened and when they happened. Changes would take Place instantainously if you ask me. At a slower pase changes would accure to take a longer time. Isnt that true?

Ligth gives you the ability to observe changes now. To be able to observe changes accuratly you would have to slow Down the speed/time. If you speed up time, changes also speed up equally.

The perception of passage of time maybe remains the same if you speed up or slow down time.
Don't know but on an average the astronauts heartbeat on the moon must have been higher cos of slowing down of time ( opp to GR btw)
imo extreme time dilation is not meant for flesh and blood life forms.

No the opp seems to be true to me ( for your 2nd para)

Light is much like images on a roll of film/information, but being projected at light speed.

When you observe the moon from Earth. You are actually looking at light images being reflected of the moon and projected at you at the speed of light. You dont actually see the moon physically. You see the physical light images being projected at you With the speed of light. These images also give you the preception of Depth/distance.

If you physically travel at the speed of light. You travel at the exact same speed the information is being distributed by light. That would be the absolute real time.

This means you would travel at absolute real time. If you travel at absolute real time, you only travel at the exact same time physical changes take Place. So there is no way you can slow Down time or the physical changes. Because all physical changes are absolute real time. No matter if you travel at light speed or not.

Light is also dependent on absolute real time, because light is emitted from a physical Source.


EDIT: Physical changes could happen much faster, but we will never know that, because light is Our perception of absolute real time. It is Our only Method of Reading absolute real time.

You may chk out my thread on bending or unbending of space
and time is of essence
a reply to: spy66

a reply to: Nochzwei

Then again, there's no way to prove or disprove any of this. Conveniently enough.

I just downloaded "Black Holes and Time Warps: Einstein's Outrageous Legacy" by Kip Thorne, so that I can get an inside view on just how it was that the 20th Century got so bizarre (scientifically speaking) as a result of Einstein's Relativity theories. The Forward was written by Stephen Hawking and the Introduction was written by Frederick Seitz, so I'm assuming that this will be a straight-up overview of how this progressed and not just a screed against Einstein's impact on what has become "reality" for the rest of us.

I'll look at all of this with an open mind; albeit not so open that my brain is in danger of tumbling out.

Peace.

I have posted on ambient time in arbs thread ask any ques in physics To me its a done deal on ambient time
a reply to: NorEaster

a reply to: NorEaster

Ah, I think I see the problem with your understanding of Relativity - you don't actually understand Relativity.
Like, at all.

Perhaps you should take the time to understand Einstein before deciding that he's wrong.

originally posted by: WeAreAllNext
a reply to: NorEaster

Ah, I think I see the problem with your understanding of Relativity - you don't actually understand Relativity.
Like, at all.

Perhaps you should take the time to understand Einstein before deciding that he's wrong.

The only one who really understands Einstein is Einstein. So i dont think anyone of should brag.