Time simply does not exist

@Fil Albuquerque,

Some corrections...

Fil Albuquerque wrote:

...it seams important to remember the info regarding no constant speed as time dilation wont work SYMMETRICALLY if speed is not constant...in the twins paradox example, an inversion in direction would change constance in speed from the returning travelling twin...PLUS INITIAL AND FINAL ACCELERATION/DECELERATION

1 Reply

@Fil Albuquerque,

A small straight example:
...with a flat region of space for background when two opposing photons cross each others parallel path without considering time dilation the speeds would ad up thus doubling light speed...given insofar light speed seams to be constant time space must expand to keep the speed limit in place...such odd behaviour indeed suggests timespace may not be fundamental in itself, which in turn doesn't prevent that a final subtract of reality requires some sort of axis (space) to work out a set of events...on this light the term "space" needs to be placed in the right context to properly develop a reasonable comprehensible explanation on the workings of our world...often physicists are not conceptually prepared to convey their findings with the adequate terminology...while space as an axis seams necessarily fundamental, spacetime needs not be...

2 Replies

@Fil Albuquerque,

...different arrangements of information, resulting in a different assembly of events depending on the observer location and speed, and by observer I mean local measurer, may well in fact have a common origin from a previous past event which itself is a relative unit among other possibility's...such exponential chaining accounts for all spacetime collection of sets of local events...indeed here the observer has a very specific vision of reality not brought up by its mind will but has the natural result of his spacetime circumstantial functional condition...a causal interpretation in this holistic environment becomes hard to grasp...rather, " existence" in all its extension, seams to be the result of an a priori set of correlations along the spacetime multiple collection of events...

1 Reply

@Fil Albuquerque,

Fil Albuquerque wrote:

A small straight example:
...with a flat region of space for background when two opposing photons cross each others parallel path without considering time dilation the speeds would ad up thus doubling light speed...

Wait, wait, wait. Just because you have two photons heading in opposite directions crossing parallel to each other means nothing about their combined speed. Neither one are violating the speed of light. The only thing you are comparing is how quickly they are approaching each other which a theoretical speed of C+C.

It doesn't mean that they are traveling any faster than light speed. Two objects can approach each other at relative velocities it doesn't mean that they are actually approaching at a faster speed then they are actually traveling. It just means that they would impact each other or cross each others path faster than if one were stationary.

This is exactly the same problem people have with the expansion theory. They seem to assume that the universe can't expand at the speed of light because two objects at either side of the universe would be expanding away from each other faster than light speed and they turn around and say nothing can travel faster than light. What they don't understand is the two objects are not traveling faster than light, it is only their theoretical comparitive speeds in regards to each other that is greater than light speed.

Let me use an example.

Two cars. Both are traveling at 30 miles per hour. They are driving down a street in opposite lanes but heading towards each other. They are not on a collision course but will eventually pass each other. Relative to each other they are approaching at their velocity plus that of the opposing vehicle. In other words it appears as if they are traveling at 60 miles an hour when they compare themselves to each other. However if they were to collide their impact velocity would be only that of 30 miles per hour, not 60!

The reality is both vehicles are traveling at 30 miles per hour. Just like your light example, both are traveling at the speed of light, not more. It is only when you compare their velocities to each other that you get a theretical velocity greater than the speed of light. It's NOT an actual velocity. It is just math of comparisons.

Fil Albuquerque wrote:

given insofar light speed seams to be constant time space must expand to keep the speed limit in place...such odd behaviour indeed suggests timespace may not be fundamental in itself, which in turn doesn't prevent that a final subtract of reality requires some sort of axis (space) to work out a set of events...on this light the term "space" needs to be placed in the right context to properly develop a reasonable comprehensible explanation on the workings of our world...often physicists are not conceptually prepared to convey their findings with the adequate terminology...while space as an axis seams necessarily fundamental, spacetime needs not be...

This is why the rest of your argument here fails. Space is not contracting so that two photons traveling towards each other don't violate the speed of light. It simply does not happen that way. Both photons are not violating the speed of light if you are doing comparitive math of these two particles.

Now if you were to tell me that if you were riding on a rocket at near the speed of light and shined a laser beam in the direction of travel, how fast would the laser beam be traveling, I would say the speed of light. You don't add the velocity of the rocket plus that of the laser beam. The laser beam would still be traveling at the speed of light. This seems to create a paradox since objects don't behave this way.

If you were standing siting in a car without a roof and had a ball in your hand then tossed the ball in the direction of travel. The balls velocity can be measured in different ways. You can measure it relative to the vehicle. You can measure it relative to the ground. Ect. Each would give a different answer but the fundamental thing becomes adding the velocity of the car plus that of the thrown energy. This you can't do with light.

1 Reply

@Krumple,

Say there is no other local frame of reference, imagine two rockets parallel crossing each other at light speed, since no other reference is in place you can assume one as being stationary...what would be the outcome ? you would measure the double light speed when passing by...

1 Reply

@Fil Albuquerque,

Fil Albuquerque wrote:

Say there is no other local frame of reference, imagine two rockets parallel crossing each other at light speed, since no other reference is in place you can assume one has being stationary...what would be the outcome ? you would measure the double light speed when passing by...

You would measure the rocket traveling towards you at twice the speed of light yes, but that does not mean that the object is ACTUALLY traveling at double the speed of light. In reality it is STILL traveling at the speed of light. Light speed does not care or consider how fast you are moving when you measure it. How would it know what your velocity was? Appearance from the observer does not dictate reality, it is the other way around. Reality dictates what the observer will see. The reality is, nothing travels faster than light. But comparing two objects traveling towards each other is not a REAL velocity, it is comparitive mathamatics.

1 Reply

@Krumple,

Listen, you don't have any OTHER alternative referent for absolute besides the speed of light ! ALL other motions are relative to each other !
There is no observation of any object closing to our own at twice the speed of light ! And while is true most galaxy's are getting away from each other local clusters may be approaching each other, but none of these approximations exceeds the speed of light...

2 Replies

@Fil Albuquerque,

Quote:

Simple inference of time dilation due to relative velocity

Time dilation can be inferred from the observed fact of the constancy of the speed of light in all reference frames.[4][5][6][7]
This constancy of the speed of light means, counter to intuition, that speeds of material objects and light are not additive. It is not possible to make the speed of light appear faster by approaching at speed towards the material source that is emitting light. It is not possible to make the speed of light appear slower by receding from the source at speed. From one point of view, it is the implications of this unexpected constancy that take away from constancies expected elsewhere.

Quote:

...For instance, two rocket ships (A and B) speeding past one another in space would experience time dilation. If they somehow had a clear view into each others' ships, each crew would see the others' clocks and movement as going too slowly. That is, inside the frame of reference of Ship A, everything is moving normally, but everything over on Ship B appears to be moving slower (and vice versa)...

Link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_dilation

0 Replies

@Fil Albuquerque,

Fil Albuquerque wrote:

...different arrangements of information, resulting in a different assembly of events depending on the observer location and speed, and by observer I mean local measurer, may well in fact have a common origin from a previous past event which itself is a relative unit among other possibility's...such exponential chaining accounts for all spacetime collection of sets of local events...indeed here the observer has a very specific vision of reality not brought up by its mind will but has the natural result of his spacetime circumstantial functional condition...a causal interpretation in this holistic environment becomes hard to grasp...rather, " existence" in all its extension, seams to be the result of an a priori set of correlations along the spacetime multiple collection of events...

Now...here is where I did get it wrong as structural causal coherence of the event is not affected for all observers although the time displacement on the dynamics of the event can be relative to each observer...so my fault, my bad here, one should walk before trying to run... Wink

...still I resiliently have this impression on something fishy going on which does not quite well fit together, as time displacement seams to make possible a different causal chain of events for a given observer...

...I can certainly think of a thought experiment where a machine could be triggered by 2 simultaneous events experienced for one observer and not triggered if those 2 events were not simultaneous for another observer...if say a pistol was only fired by an apparatus with two interrupters being activated simultaneously by two different light beams coming from two opposing directions in a train carriage moving in a given direction, the registering of a different timing for a second observer in a platform could result in a different outcome on which the pistol was fired, while for me, inside the train it wasn't...probably there is something I am missing on the particulars of Relativity once I am no expert...any way if someone is sufficiently informed on the matter I appreciate a helping hand !

0 Replies

@Fil Albuquerque,

Fil Albuquerque wrote:

Listen, you don't have any OTHER alternative referent for absolute besides the speed of light ! ALL other motions are relative to each other !
There is no observation of any object closing to our own at twice the speed of light ! And while is true most galaxy's are getting away from each other local clusters may be approaching each other, but none of these approximations exceeds the speed of light...

If you have two galaxies traveling in opposite directions from each other. Galaxy A is traveling at the speed of light and galaxy B is traveling at the speed of light. Comparitively between them, they are traveling away from each other at faster than the speed of light.

In fact these galaxies don't even need to be moving for this to be true. The space they occupy could be stretching in opposite directions from each other dragging the galaxies appart at faster than the speed of light and it doesn't break any rules or laws.

The problem in your example is that each rocket is attempting to be examined from the other rocket. In this case you will experience time diliations.

You are suggesting that even if you are on a rocket traveling at the speed of light it is as if you are not traveling at all. According to the speed of light your velocity is unimportant if another object is moving towards or away from you.

Do you know what the consequence of this would be? It would mean that photons would have to occupy different points in space relative to objects that are either moving towards or away from them at different velocities.

You could claim all you want that there would be a time diliation between these objects and that the photon would maintain it's position. But you can clearly see this would not be the case if you were to take multiple photons traveling either away or at this one photon from different angles.

Lets use rockets. Lets say you have a top down view of this experiment. We will use 12 rockets and one in the middle. Like a clock. At each hour there is a rocket either traveling towards the center or away from the center. Lets make them all traveling in the same direction. This would mean that time dialiation would effect each rocket differently depending on it's position and relative velocity of the central rocket. So even though they all are traveling the same velocity all times would be different. This does not happen. Otherwise light knows information about all objects around it and at what velocity and trajectory it is traveling. Simply not the case.

What you are talking about is theoretical mathmatics again. It is not a real velocity. This is why objects can travel away from each other at faster than light speeds. Because it is theoretical math, not actual real speeds.

1 Reply

@Krumple,

I am well aware on space inflation dragging galaxy's or at least primitive matter on the beginning of Big Bang but that is not our current example in debate...

I just did present you with a Wiki reference in the next post to the one you did reply...would like you to comment on it...

1 Reply

@Fil Albuquerque,

Fil Albuquerque wrote:

I am well aware on space inflation dragging galaxy's or at least primitive matter on the beginning of Big Bang but that is not our current example in debate...

I just did present you with a Wiki reference in the next post to the one you did reply...would like you to comment on it...

I was actually attempting to. I think you missed my point.

Lets take your example of two objects but this time lets make them moving away from each other. If you were on galaxy A monitoring galaxy B and both galaxies are moving away from each other at the speed of light are you saying that B would record A moving at the speed of light away from B? So even though the total expansion rate is C++ the observed velocity is only that of C?

1 Reply

@Krumple,

...from the perspective of any observer in any of those galaxy's the speed would not be superior to the speed of light...as for the total expansion rate how would you measure it if not through light speed ???

1 Reply

@Fil Albuquerque,

Fil Albuquerque wrote:

...from the perspective of any observer in any of those galaxy's the speed would not be superior to the speed of light...as for the total expansion rate how would you measure it if not through light speed ???

Well technically you wouldn't be able to measure it. If an object is moving away faster than the speed of light the light traveling off the object would never be able to catch you. This is proof that light does not know velocities.

Just like Laurance Krauss says in his lectures on a universe from nothing. In the future the expansion rate of the universe will have gotten to a point that every single galaxy is moving away from each other faster than the speed of light making their light not able to catch up to us so we can observe it. So in the future astronomers studying space will not be able to see other galaxies and will assume the galaxy they are in is the only thing in the universe.

If you were right, then galaxies would always have to be observable because nothing could travel away from each other faster than light. Which would allow light to always catch up to an object even if it were traveling away from it.

1 Reply

@Krumple,

...now you are referring objects out of our event horizon...the fact the we can see galaxy's is proof that at least from the point we observed them in time they weren't yet superluminal...

...plus, light does not need to know anything prevented time dilation occurs symmetrically to speed increase... light does not have to know others speed, they all will agree without knowing each other.

1 Reply

@Fil Albuquerque,

Fil Albuquerque wrote:

...now you are referring objects out of our event horizon...the fact the we can see galaxy's is proof that at least from the point we observed them in time they weren't yet superluminal...

...plus, light does not need to know anything prevented time dilation occurs symmetrically to speed increase... light does not have to know others speed, they all will agree without knowing each other.

Yes, but if the expansion rate theory is correct then essentially all galaxies will eventually move into the observational horizon. Well actually the expansion rate actually causes the observational horizon to grow. But this still shows something about your theory. If you are right it would suggest that this observational horizon would never exist because technically all objects can not move away from each other faster than the speed of light.

Remember the two rockets moving away from each other both traveling at the speed of light. Regardless if you knew the one you are on was moving at all (galaxy B) and are observing rocket A. According to you, you would observe the rocket moving at the speed of light and thus always observable since it could not move away faster than the speed of light. Light would always be able to trail off even though you were actually moving away at the speed of light in the opposite direction.

You can't have both an observational horizon and a threshold of C in all instances.

1 Reply

@Krumple,

...mind that superluminal objects would require infinite energy and mass...they actually at those speeds would disintegrate...nevertheless dark energy might push the intergalactic space between them through dilation rendering them out of our sight in the future without breaking the laws of physics and the speed limit...

1 Reply

@Fil Albuquerque,

Quote:

Apparent Superluminal Velocity of Galaxies

A distant object can appear to travel faster than the speed of light across our line of sight, provided that it has some component of motion towards us as well as perpendicular to our line of sight. Say that on January 1st you make a position measurement of galaxy X. One month later, you measure it again. Assuming you know its distance from us by some independent measurement, you derive its linear speed, and conclude that it is moving faster than the speed of light.

What have you forgotten? Let's say that on January 1st, the object is Dkm from us, and that between January 1st and February 1st, the object (which is actually moving at 45 degrees to the line of sight) has moved dkm closer to us. You have assumed that the light you measured on January 1st and February 1st were emitted exactly one month apart. Not so. The first light beam had farther to travel, and was actually emitted (1 + d/c) months before the second measurement, if we measure c in km/month. The object has travelled the given angular distance in more time than you thought. Indeed, we can calculate that if its real velocity is v, then its apparent velocity in this case is v/[sqrt(2) − v/c] which could be higher than twice the speed of light without v being greater than c. For galaxies moving at more acute angles to the line of sight the apparent velocity can be much higher. Similarly, if the object is moving away from us, the apparent angular velocity will be too slow, if you do not correct for this effect, which becomes significant when the object is moving along a line close to our line of sight.

The effect has been observed in the radio emissions from jets of quasars which are thought to travel close to the speed of light in a direction near to our line of sight.

Link: http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SpeedOfLight/Superluminal/superluminal.html

1 Reply

@Fil Albuquerque,

Fil Albuquerque wrote:

Quote:
Apparent Superluminal Velocity of Galaxies

A distant object can appear to travel faster than the speed of light across our line of sight, provided that it has some component of motion towards us as well as perpendicular to our line of sight. Say that on January 1st you make a position measurement of galaxy X. One month later, you measure it again. Assuming you know its distance from us by some independent measurement, you derive its linear speed, and conclude that it is moving faster than the speed of light.

What have you forgotten? Let's say that on January 1st, the object is Dkm from us, and that between January 1st and February 1st, the object (which is actually moving at 45 degrees to the line of sight) has moved dkm closer to us. You have assumed that the light you measured on January 1st and February 1st were emitted exactly one month apart. Not so. The first light beam had farther to travel, and was actually emitted (1 + d/c) months before the second measurement, if we measure c in km/month. The object has travelled the given angular distance in more time than you thought. Indeed, we can calculate that if its real velocity is v, then its apparent velocity in this case is v/[sqrt(2) − v/c] which could be higher than twice the speed of light without v being greater than c. For galaxies moving at more acute angles to the line of sight the apparent velocity can be much higher. Similarly, if the object is moving away from us, the apparent angular velocity will be too slow, if you do not correct for this effect, which becomes significant when the object is moving along a line close to our line of sight.

The effect has been observed in the radio emissions from jets of quasars which are thought to travel close to the speed of light in a direction near to our line of sight.

Link: http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SpeedOfLight/Superluminal/superluminal.html

This is essentially what I was getting at with my clock of rockets. Since each have their own position they all are traveling at the speed of light but some are moving away from each other and others are moving towards each other. If you are on the rocket in the center of the clock there would be time dilations for every single rocket including one for each possible outcome, such as rocket 1 to rocket 2 and rocket 2 to rocket 3 and rocket 1 to rocket 3 with all its combinations.

It would mean there are time dialtions for each and every photon in existence when traveling at different directions or on varying trajectories of each other. There are other problems with this concept as well, such as three converging photons originating from different angles to one another. It would mean the time diliation only occurs when their corrisponding angles are not greater than each others vectors.

Essentially saying as they converge they would actually slow down to compensate for each others motion and then if they were to say bounce off an object, such as a mirror or wall surface they would then speed back up as their angles increased or their vectors increased. This would make very small pockets of time shifts any time photons passed one another.

1 Reply

@Lustig Andrei,

"Time" is simply a unit of language; a representation of an observed natural phenomenon. To say that time does not exist is similar to saying that matter does not exist simply because we have given it name.

1 Reply

Time simply does not exist

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know