A Question Concerning Material Structure and the Speed of Light

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.

Relativity (especially Special Relativity) is inanely simple and lacks any depth whatsoever. The complexity is imposed by those who've run into serious contradictions as a result of taking either theory and progressing it beyond Einstein's extremely primitive thought exercises, and have had to invent elaborate workarounds to preserve it as a workable premise. The scientific community is much more conservative and hierarchical than even most religious communities, and once a theory has been "proven" via lab experiment, it takes more than proof of its limitations to finally get the powers that be in that community to allow that theory to possess limitations. It's all about inductivism in that world, and that ends up resulting in some really cartoonish claims as small-system theories are artificially stretched out to explain the whole of reality itself.

Special Relativity was only ever useable as a perception consideration. General Relativity was just an attempt to preserve the Aether concept in the wake of the Michelson-Morley Experiment. If you don't examine Einstein's work within the context of the man and what was happening at the time, then you end up with Black Holes and Wormholes and Spacetime Singularities, and Multiverses and all sorts of foolishness as you chase down the ramifications of his theories.

Hell, look at the mess that String Theory and M Theory (whatever the hell that actually is) has made of theoretical physics. It's got the lion's share of the best and brightest laboring over math equations in a 40 year effort-in-vain to somehow prevent that entire multi-billion dollar boondoggle from collapsing in on itself at long last. That, and the bizarre cult of particle physics and the money pit @ CERN. Complete and utter authoritarianism at its most disturbing. Higgs Field my ass. That's just the newest term being used for the 19th century Aether, and no amount of recalculating the acceptable properties parameters of the "god particle" so that one can be "found" is ever going to change that fact.

Nothing will change and that's because no challenge to the company line will ever be entertained as being anything other than ignorance on the part of anyone who voices such a challenge. No one has explained the dichotomy of my OP, and your blanket statement that I don't understand Relativity ("Like, at all") is just another example of no challenges being allowed when it comes to Einstein. I'm sure that the man was a real sweetheart of a guy, but I don't fault him for what he did. If I'd had as bad a run - trying to get a toe hold into the profession - as he'd had by the time he began work of Special Relativity, I probably would've punked the bastards myself.

originally posted by: Nochzwei
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's a "fundamental requirement of system coherence"?

Me, I call giving experimentally confirmed results and unifying mechanics and electromagnetic kinematics a good start.

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.

Why? Simply by assertion? You're assuming there is some alternate-'time'-phenomenon that is distinct from the known-to- physicists-as-time that is intrinsic to underlying equations of motion, dynamical evolution and experimentally observed consequences.

EInstein uses 'clock' to mean clock because time is nothing other than that which clocks---dynamical evolution of atoms and fields---measure.

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.

WTF? universal quantum of Now? This falls into 'not even wrong'.

Don't know if Einstein was aware of the diff between clock time as opposed to ambient time.

Yes, he was aware that there is no time worth its name other than clock 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.

Good thing nobody will ever be going at the speed of light.

a reply to: mbkennel

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.

This can not be true. Because light is absolute real time. If you travel at light speed you only travel at absolute real time. That means time wont slow Down. You are traveing at the maximum speed that light distributes information.

Light is the Maximum speed it is possible to observe changes in physical matter.

If matter travels at light speed, the changes wont slow Down. Because matter change at real time "the minimum rate of light speed".

- EDIT:
When you observe a physical Object, You are not really observing the Object in real time. You are looking at the light reflecting of the Object traveling at light speed. The time is really the speed of light. The changes you see is really messured in the time the light travels from the Object and to your eyes. So the changes in matter have already happened before you see them.

If you travel at light speed you travel at the same speed as information is bing Distributed by light. You travel at that frame of time. But behind you changes are fallowing at the same speed. That means you are still traveling in the past.

Einstein is wrong. Or who ever tried to do his work have it all wrong.

If you accelerate from zero and up to the speed of light. You will only fallow the information Distributed by light when you Reach the speed of light.

Accuratly:
Information traveling at light speed will pass you until you Reach the speed of light. When you Reach the speed of light you will fallow that exact time frame light is at when you Reach the speed of light. That means you are still flying in the past. Because there is time right in front of you and there is time right beind you. The only thing you are doing is fallowing a specific time frame of light/information.


You are actually never catching up to time. Time is passing you untill you Reach the speed of light.

originally posted by: [post=18558136]mbkennel Yes, he was aware that there is no time worth its name other than clock time.

Yes he would say that wouldn't he? Cos ambient time completely overturns his GR

a reply to: NorEaster

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

I second that suggestion.

*

a reply to: spy66

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

Speak for yourself, spy66.

Contributors to this thread who clearly do understand special relativity:

• Bedlam
  
  
• Korg Trinity
  
  
• mbkennel

Quite a few other ATSers also do — CLPrime, dragonridr, ErosA433 to name just three.

Relativity is not a big mystery but it is not intuitively graspable. That is NorEaster's error. I believe it is also others'. They want relativity to 'make sense' according to their preconceptions, to be 'visualizable'. It will never happen. Relativity, like quantum mechanics, can only be understood intellectually — mathematically. Lamentable, perhaps, but there it is.

originally posted by: [post=18559589]Astyanax Relativity is not a big mystery but it is not intuitively graspable. That is NorEaster's error. I believe it is also others'. They want relativity to 'make sense' according to their preconceptions, to be 'visualizable'. It will never happen. Relativity, like quantum mechanics, can only be understood intellectually — mathematically. Lamentable, perhaps, but there it is.

WHAT A BLOODY JOKE
So philosophy is science is it, since when?

a reply to: Nochzwei

You need to make yourself a little clearer. Your post is harder to understand than relativity.

a reply to: Astyanax

Well it dosent matter what you think. Because it dosent make them more right at all. The truth has nothing to to whith how many you think are right. If they are wrong.

Light is the absolute constant. It is the absolute speed we can observe changes in matter. There is no way possible for us to observe changes any faster. There is no way we can travel any faster than the constant speed of light.

If you travel at light speed you travel at the constant speed as information "light" is traveling at a specific given time and space. Because information "Light" moves With a constant speed always.

So there is no way the clock will slow Down. because the clock is moving at the constant speed of light, the constant speed of time. It is not moving faster or slower, but at the constant speed of time. All information travels at the speed of light. No matter how fast matter is traveling or the clock is traveling. Because it is the light which distributes the information from matter that we observe and the clock is related to it as well.

When you look at the clock you never observe its actual real time, You are not even really looking at the clock at all.

You are actally alway observing the light reflected of the clock projected onto Your eyes at the speed of light. That means you are observing the clock in the past every light second, no matter how fast you are traveling.

a reply to: spy66

Well it dosent matter what you think.

You are quite right, it doesn't.

Because it dosent make them more right at all.

Right again. It doesn't. What makes them right is the fact that they know the subject.

The truth has nothing to to whith how many you think are right.

Right yet again! You're on a roll here.

If they are wrong.

But they are right.

Pardon me for not bothering with the rest of your post. Since it is wrong.

a reply to: Astyanax

Pardon me for not bothering with the rest of your post. Since it is wrong.

Wrong. The reason you dont bother is because you dont understand it.

I have challenged, but no one dares. Not even you.

originally posted by: Astyanax
Relativity is not a big mystery but it is not intuitively graspable. That is NorEaster's error. I believe it is also others'. They want relativity to 'make sense' according to their preconceptions, to be 'visualizable'. It will never happen. Relativity, like quantum mechanics, can only be understood intellectually — mathematically. Lamentable, perhaps, but there it is.

During its time of origin, Newton's mechanics was also criticized as being unintuitive and presumably therefore philosphically wrong or distasteful.

The highest achievement of 'Intuitive' understanding by human nature and insightful common human scale observation was Aristotle. He was good at a whole bunch of things and no fool. Still he was wrong about a bunch of physics---physics is not in the slightest bit naturally intuitive to anybody popping out of the womb and living a normal life. It takes the study and understanding of centuries of synthesis of difficult experimental work and theoretical investigation.

I hadn't ever read Einstein's original paper until just recently when I googled it. Insightful and not difficult at all---takes about 2nd year undergraduate level of background.

Quantum mechanics is far less visualizable or intuitive than relativity. Jumped the shark in 1925 with Bohr & Heisenberg with the completely radical idea of evolution in an operator/functional state space instead of a finite-dimensional geometric state space. [About as radical an idea as general relativity]

Too bad it works so damn well.

a reply to: spy66

Your consideration of the effects of observing objects, information transmission at the speed of light, and underlying time dialation has long been considered in relativity.

When making predictions about observable properties in specific experiments, both effects are taken into account with relativistic computations.

You need both to match experiment. The local time dialation is real, as proven experimentally with facts about particle decay lifetimes, and atomic clocks synchronized, one flown separately, and then rejoined. No fast information transmission needed to take place and still the entirely local effects of time dialation were real and observed.

originally posted by: mbkennel
a reply to: spy66

Your consideration of the effects of observing objects, information transmission at the speed of light, and underlying time dialation has long been considered in relativity.

When making predictions about observable properties in specific experiments, both effects are taken into account with relativistic computations.

You need both to match experiment. The local time dialation is real, as proven experimentally with facts about particle decay lifetimes, and atomic clocks synchronized, one flown separately, and then rejoined. No fast information transmission needed to take place and still the entirely local effects of time dialation were real and observed.

It cant be.

The only physical force that would effect the clock and change its time is not the speed. But force of accelration up to the given test speed. Because only within the time frame of Acceleration and deacceleration would time and Space not be a constant.

Time and Space is always a constant if the speed is constant. That is what C speed of light is all about.

a reply to: spy66

The reason you dont bother is because you dont understand it.

Don't understand it? I didn't even read it.

I have challenged, but no one dares. Not even you.

Not that don't dare, I can't be bothered. Why should I waste time reading something I already know is wrong?

originally posted by: Astyanax
a reply to: spy66

The reason you dont bother is because you dont understand it.

Don't understand it? I didn't even read it.

I have challenged, but no one dares. Not even you.

Not that don't dare, I can't be bothered. Why should I waste time reading something I already know is wrong?

How do you know that it is wrong when you havent read it.

You are basically admitting that you are a ATS troll.

originally posted by: mbkennel

What's a "fundamental requirement of system coherence"?

Me, I call giving experimentally confirmed results and unifying mechanics and electromagnetic kinematics a good start.

System coherence is the requirement that any complete system be physically and conceptually coherent as a minimum definition of itself as a physical system. The universe is one such system, and what's fundamental to the universe (as the coherent system that it is and must be if it's to be a physical system at all) must be pervasive throughout the entire universe. Period. You can imagine environments within this system that defy the physics that the rest of this system are predicated on, but people have been imagining that sort of thing for centuries. That's not hard. What's hard is finding an explanation for the mysterious indications without using any imagination whatsoever. That's what's really hard.

Why? Simply by assertion? You're assuming there is some alternate-'time'-phenomenon that is distinct from the known-to- physicists-as-time that is intrinsic to underlying equations of motion, dynamical evolution and experimentally observed consequences.

EInstein uses 'clock' to mean clock because time is nothing other than that which clocks---dynamical evolution of atoms and fields---measure.

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.

I've been reading "Black Holes and Time Warps: Einstein's Outrageous Legacy, by Kip Thorne, and in his overview of the stages of Einstein's intellectual evolution through Special Relativity and then General Relativity, his description of Einstein is of a man who simply imposed his view of how reality "should be" without any math or experimentation whatsoever. That is, until General Relativity refused to make sense with Special Relativity, when he labored - with the help of two other mathematicians - over several false starts until finally finding a mathematical way to make the equations balance without violating Special Relativity. That said, not any it has ever been thoroughly proven via experimentation. In fact there is extremely good science behind the claim that the famous "proof" photograph of the "bended starlight" can also be explained as the dilation of light that happens all the time when temperature clashes on the visual horizon cause mirages (the Sun, being pretty hot after all) but that's someone else's claim to prove.

The problem with Special Relativity is that it's perception-centric, and perception is an activity that occurs within a larger system of ongoing activity that is independent of any one perception's frame of reference. Each individual frame of reference that exists within that larger system is simply not authorized to physical alter the physics of that larger system. So, while the "legal argument" might hold water, the reality that the larger system itself has not been affected persists.

As for General Relativity, Einstein was never even capable of explaining exactly what it is - aether or whatever the hell he was trying to call "spacetime" - that is being warped by massive objects. The intractable dilemma that has emerged as an result of his waving off that requirement has had cosmologists describing the geometry of the universe as 2D sheets that we ride on, 6D hyperspatial fantasy lands that we're embedded within, bubbles floating within an impossible to perceive multiverse, and plenty of other mathematical constructs that don't even have any means of depicting.

WTF? universal quantum of Now? This falls into 'not even wrong'.

These are physics that you obviously have no knowledge of. Okay. Fair enough. I guess I'm that much further down this road than you are.

We only have mysterious indications (gravity is one such mysterious indication), and the real breakthrough will come when these kinds of mysteries are explained through directly accessible linkage to the stuff that sits right in front of each of us. That's where the real genius will be exposed for what it is. Anyone can imagine wormholes and time dilation and black holes and hyperspatial dimensions, but that's no different than imagining gods and demons and heavens and hells as your explanations for the intractable mysteries that we stumble across here and there.

And math is no different than the pure, esoterica of theology. Math is the heavenly landscape of atheistic religionists. It exists solely between the ears of brilliant people, and is only an idealized projection of how these people believe the world should work. In fact, as Kip Thorne's book (mentioned above) clearly detailed, even Einstein fell victim to that idealized view and the need for "elegant simplicity" behind the intention of physical reality. You can see things however you wish, but through my own research, I've discovered too much that has been routinely dismissed as unimportant that is critical to the coherence of this physical system that we all share. As a ToE researcher, that's the sort of thing that pushes me to dig into the established paradigm and see why it is that such schism have been allowed to persist.

a reply to: NorEaster



There is also a big difference between People who anderstand mathematics and them that can solve Equation.
A person who can solve Equations dont have to know what he is solving. And there are a lot of them on ATS.

Personally i dont think ATS is a porper Place to bring up problems as the one you have brought up.Because People cant help you. They are groomed to the matematicall solutions of others. If they dont understand it, they will stick to it anyways.

You are actually also one of them. That is why you are not getting anywhere, and dont understand what others are bringing to the table. Because what others bring dont suit the old theory of Einstein.

How would you know if a theory is correct if you compare it to the theory of Einstein? Would it have to add up to his?

originally posted by: spy66
a reply to: NorEaster



There is also a big difference between People who anderstand mathematics and them that can solve Equation.
A person who can solve Equations dont have to know what he is solving. And there are a lot of them on ATS.

Math is literally the language of the Universe.

It can describe everything and is what has led us to make some incredible predictions and discoveries. This is what theoretical physics is all about, contrary to the outsiders view which seems to be it's all just a bunch of wishy washy ideas.

The issue is that like any language it has to be interpreted and in a lot of cases can be completely miss understood, even though the equations appear to add up.

One analogy I often use to describe how Physicists use math is by thinking of math as a picture or even better a picture jigsaw puzzle. Often the pieces fit together but the picture is all messed up.

It is only when we can devise experiments to test that the picture is o.k. that we then prove the math.

Korg.

a reply to: spy66

How do you know that it is wrong when you havent read it.

Because it is an attempt to disprove relativity, which is right.

You are basically admitting that you are a ATS troll.

No, I'm basically admitting that I'm not a bloody moron.

Believe what you want. One clown more or less won't make any difference to the circus.