# The Naked Scientists Forum

### Author Topic: The Speed of Light is Infinite  (Read 27691 times)

#### yor_on

• Naked Science Forum GOD!
• Posts: 11987
• Thanked: 4 times
• (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
##### The Speed of Light is Infinite
« Reply #50 on: 07/05/2011 01:50:08 »
Well, when it comes to a 'universal time' I'm somewhat leaning to it too :) That local time you talked about Geezer. It's about 'frames of reference' and where one end and another starts. In a way you could define all points in SpaceTime as being unique. In another we do perceive this 'local time' to be the same when being in, loosely defined, the same frame of reference as on Earth.

So okay, imagine all points in some positional system to have a unique 'SpaceTime', a different experience of SpaceTime. Then define it such as the closer those points are to each other, the more similar will their 'SpaceTime' be. You will also need to consider gravity and motion, but if we define the points as needed to be at rest relative each other for them to experience this similarity, we can get around it for this.

So, doing so we have defined a SpaceTime where if two points are at rest relative each other they will experience the 'same'. Will this definition hold if they are at rest relative each other but not placed back to back? Not really, to make that work we will have to consider gravity as such. But assuming the same gravity acting on those points it will be true as long as they are at rest relative each other.

So, if you have a system where depending on two parameters, relative motion and gravity, where points get the same experience of our SpaceTime if converging, being at rest relative each other, can we then state that there might be a 'ground state' for those different 'clocks'?

What if we super imposed one point upon another? Would they then have the exact same experience? If you think they would, then you think there is a 'ground state'. If you don't expect this to be true, then there can't be any 'ground state' for time. Myself I think there exist a 'ground state' but as we're all different, and can't be superimposed upon each other without becoming bosons?
« Last Edit: 07/05/2011 02:50:07 by yor_on »

#### Ron Hughes

• Sr. Member
• Posts: 363
##### The Speed of Light is Infinite
« Reply #51 on: 21/05/2011 19:33:03 »
On the matter of time. A gravity well basically extends to infinity and a clock runs slower the deeper it is in that well, so we could say that time like a gravity well gets smaller (runs faster) as you go farther away from the central mass, a sort of time/gravity bubble that gets thinner the bigger it gets. Using that analogy the Universe is full of these time/gravity bubbles, a kind of spaces within spaces. It seems possible that there might be a bigger bubble that our Universe is contained inside and that some event inside that bubble created our Universe.

#### Ron Hughes

• Sr. Member
• Posts: 363
##### The Speed of Light is Infinite
« Reply #52 on: 22/05/2011 20:55:22 »
Suppose I am two meters outside the the event horizon of a black hole. I observe someone turning a laser beam on from a planet circling the black hole. The beam is aimed at another planet in the same system. When I try to measure the speed of that beam I find it to be almost infinite because my clock is almost stopped and no time passes between when the beam was fired and when it got to it's destination. There are circumstances where it can be infinite.

#### JP

• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 3366
• Thanked: 2 times
##### The Speed of Light is Infinite
« Reply #53 on: 23/05/2011 11:52:04 »
Indeed.  "The speed of light is constant" is a slightly abused phrase.  The speed of light is constant in a vacuum locally in curved space-time (of globally in flat space-time).  In your black hole example, the speed of light is constant when measured over a tiny enough patch of space, but it isn't constant over large distances because of the curvature of space-time.

And of course, if light hits matter, it slows down because of interactions with the matter.

#### Ron Hughes

• Sr. Member
• Posts: 363
##### The Speed of Light is Infinite
« Reply #54 on: 23/05/2011 15:06:34 »
From my position the speed of light will always appear to be almost infinite except in my locale area.

#### simplified

• Sr. Member
• Posts: 428
##### The Speed of Light is Infinite
« Reply #55 on: 27/05/2011 17:23:49 »
Indeed.  "The speed of light is constant" is a slightly abused phrase.  The speed of light is constant in a vacuum locally in curved space-time (of globally in flat space-time).  In your black hole example, the speed of light is constant when measured over a tiny enough patch of space, but it isn't constant over large distances because of the curvature of space-time.

And of course, if light hits matter, it slows down because of interactions with the matter.
Excuse me ,JP. I see your position here.It is right.

#### simplified

• Sr. Member
• Posts: 428
##### The Speed of Light is Infinite
« Reply #56 on: 27/05/2011 17:46:32 »
"outside of a gravitational field a photon travels instantaneous"

Hey, MikeS! A gravitation increases energy of photon . May be absence of gravitation reduces energy of photon, then photon will not have energy.

#### simplified

• Sr. Member
• Posts: 428
##### The Speed of Light is Infinite
« Reply #57 on: 29/05/2011 08:48:43 »
By the way, different observers measure time differently (time dilation) but they also measure lengths differently (length contraction).  Is there a reason you think time dilation is more important than length contraction?
I just cannot understand what does gravitational delay of light? Length contraction or time dilation?
« Last Edit: 29/05/2011 09:23:47 by simplified »

#### Ken Hughes

• Full Member
• Posts: 56
##### The Speed of Light is Infinite
« Reply #58 on: 02/06/2011 08:59:24 »
Mike,

It depends on the frame of reference you are considering.

If you consider Special Relativity and the frame of reference of the light beam itself, then I agree with you that its speed must be viewed as being infinite since it arrives anywhere in an instant, without experiencing any passage of time. This is the definition of infinite velocity;- any distance covered in no time at all.
However, if you consider any other (stationary) frame of reference viewing the same motion, then the speed is always "c".
How can that be you might ask, but I can only say that this the nature of space-time and it is described by the Lorentz transformation.

The key here is Lorentz, but we are talking scientific heresy here. What we are proposing is that the time dilation of motion produces an increase in velocity and NOT A LENGTH CONTRACTION in the direction of motion. With Lorentz, you can have either but not both. SR decides to go with length contraction firstly since it was an inherited idea from the nineteenth century. SR also holds velocity CONSTANT across frames in relative motion because scientists cannot envisage and are discouraged from envisioning, a different speed as observed from both frames. They also know the implications of accepting this and so avoid the idea, not wishing to entertain any acceptance of speeds greater than "c". There are other heretic implications.

To me, and it appears to you also, the idea of the velocity EXPERIENCED within the frame can be different to the same velocity but OBSERVED from other frames. This has been a fundamental error in Special Relativity theory since 1905.

#### imatfaal

• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 2787
• rouge moderator
##### The Speed of Light is Infinite
« Reply #59 on: 02/06/2011 10:16:32 »
By the way, different observers measure time differently (time dilation) but they also measure lengths differently (length contraction).  Is there a reason you think time dilation is more important than length contraction?
I just cannot understand what does gravitational delay of light? Length contraction or time dilation?

Per the post in the other thread - we can show that light travelling through a gravitational field (like that of the sun) is delayed compared to the Newtonian predictions.  There is a two fold reason why a distant observer will register this light as delayed, the time dilation effect of the gravitational potential and the fact that the light is travelling on a geodesic and is thus travelling further than it would in flat spacetime.

The calculated distance between Earth and Venus when they are in opposition (ie one either side of the sun) is actually 37km shorter than the real distance!  This 37 km is the extra distance that must be travelled because spacetime itself is curved.  To actually go much deeper requires a familiarity with metric tensor analysis and path integrals which is a bit beyond this forum (and me).

NB In a small enough local inertial frame Light speed is always constant and always the c we know and love.

You can read about this particular form of measurement of the slowing of light by searching on the Shapiro Delay - however this is heavy duty GR and require an engagement with the maths.

#### yor_on

• Naked Science Forum GOD!
• Posts: 11987
• Thanked: 4 times
• (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
##### The Speed of Light is Infinite
« Reply #60 on: 02/06/2011 16:47:35 »
And to me the 'real distance' includes those km too :)

#### Ken Hughes

• Full Member
• Posts: 56
##### The Speed of Light is Infinite
« Reply #61 on: 02/06/2011 16:54:07 »
Imatfaal,

About the quote you refer to from JP;- My response to that is - "Yes there is a definite reason why time dilation is more important than length contraction." In fact, I would go so far as to say that time dilation is important but length contraction is not. (provocative right?);-

When Hafele & Keating proved in 1971 that time dilation could be measured in accordance with Special Relativity, they actually proved it is REAL! Sadly, even today, this has still not sunk in for the mainstream! Although we all understand that you cannot detect any change in time rate from within your own frame, the RELATIVE differential time rates between moving frames is nevertherless a reality. Length contraction, on the other hand, is NOT real. It is merely a relative ILLUSION. How can I say this? Well, when the clock in the moving frame stops moving, it bears the evidence of the time rate differential during the journey and we can predict this and prove it by experiment. The length contraction demonstrates no such evidence on return to the stationary frame and as far as the stationary frame's experience goes, it does not experience any effect whatsoever from the movement of light or objects relative to it.

If we consider two close, moving plates with a relative electric charge then it does not matter which argument you use to calculate the relative compression of the electric field. Both Lorentz velocity increase and length contraction give the same result. So we can say any and all relative effects between frames can be viewed as a result of either. There is no scientific compelling argument to choose length contraction, more the discomfort of exceeding "c" in the moving frame if we choose velocity increase.

You can refer me to as much math as you like, but I, and you, as well as others in this forum, have a brain which is superior in certain ways to the best of mathematics. Here's a great quote;-

"Mathematics and physics take fundamentally different approaches to describing nature. The former is more concerned with what might be possible, and the latter with what is definitely real. Math is constrained by the need for internal consistency, but is generally oblivious to external constraints. Physics has its laws too, and these can change as knowledge improves. But physics is rigorously constrained by its principles which have no counterparts in mathematics. Examples are, the causality principle (“Every effect must have a proximate antecedent cause”), and the prohibition against creation. Violations of such principles are ruled out by logic as requiring magic, a miracle, or the supernatural. Although mathematically allowed, they are said to be physically impossible."
Tom Van Flandern & J. P. Vigier
(Foundations of Physics (32:1031-1068, 2002)

Now I am not anti math, far from it, but the mathematicians have "taken over" physics in the last hundred years and we are left with certain mistaken beliefs as a result. In the case of SR, it is unfortunate that we can justify, mathematically, our mistaken beliefs, but we can also justify the reality using the same mathematical rules. At the moment, the mainstream refuses to listen to the alternative and whenever it is tabled, obstacles are placed in the way of the argument before the case can be properly made. Our ducks are shot down before the row forms.
You will no doubt feel yourself wanting to do just that. It is human nature to resist any change in our beliefs.

If we come to terms with time dilation being THE reality (try to believe this for the moment), then we must accept, for reasons of causality, that TIME is the cause of ALL effects within space-time. There is nothing else available to affect anything. I am saying the distortion of a vacuum is unreal and that GR is a great way of getting to the right answers but it does not reflect reality. The abstract idea of breaking down volume into a Gaussian geometric frame, works in the mathematical sense, but you cannot attribute the property of variation to what is essentially, NOTHING !

If all this is the case, then when the time rate changes, only time related events or effects will likewise become affected as a result. Spacial or physical entities, (scalar quantities), cannot be affected by the time dilation of motion.

This means that velocity MUST change if the time rate changes since velocity has a time attribute (m/s, km/hr). It is a time related occurence and if you change the value of the unit of time then you change the value of the velocity.
If the velocity changes, then the length CANNOT change since Lorentz allows EITHER velocity OR length to change but NOT both.
You can do the math with Lorentz. It is very simple, and "c" turns out to be infinite in the moving frame whilst maintaining the limit of "c" as observed from the "stationary" frame.

As,    vs→c
Then,  vm→∞

It is this relative limit that has deceived us for over a century since we never observe anything faster. We would have to accelerate to some significant fraction of "c" to look out of our porthole and see the universe BLUE SHIFTED and speeding by with increasing velocity tending toward ∞ as we approach relative "c". Yes I know the SR argument of V being purely relative, but the symmetry of space simply does not apply to the dimension of time. Time is uni directional or assymetrical and any geometric analysis of space-time can become confused by ignoring this difference in nature between space and time.

Well, all you have done is to throw the mainstream arguments at me and I am not dissagreeing with anything you suggest since we get the right answers from any analysis using them. If I may, I must throw my alternative arguments back at you which will give the same results. The question then simply boils down to deciding which version best reflects reality.

The speed of light is a constant outside of a gravitational potential. Agreed, except that I contend it is infinite when observations are made from the frame of the light beam, since its clock has stopped relative to the rest of the universe.

In a gravitational field, it would still be observed as a constant "c", if the observer's clock tracked the light beam's clock as it moved through the field. But since, in reality, we cannot do this and our clock remains constant whilst the beam's clock varies depending on its elevation in the field, we therefore observe a variation in speed. Agreed, except it is still infinite as observed from all the frames of the beam during its travels.

I am surprised you did not mention the doubled Newtonian deflection of the beam. Einstein attributed this to "One part due to the Newtonian free fall and one part due to the geometrical variations in space."
Here are extracts from a paper which gives the real reasons;-

“……………………..If we take into account the wave nature of light, there is an additional contribution coming from the time dilation in relativity. The observation that this contribution is independent and additional to the Newtonian deflection of the mean trajectory is the main purpose of this paper.

……………One does not need full general relativity for deriving the expression for the deflection of light. What is needed are the equivalence principle, conservation of energy, and the wave nature of light. One part of the deflection comes from the free fall of the particle or light ray in the gravitational field, and the deflection depends on the average velocity of the test particle. The other part comes from the red shift factor. This is always given by, 2GM/c2r
independent of the velocity………

………………..For light, both contributions have the same magnitude, and they add to give the full deflection;- 4GM/c2r ”

On the gravitational deflection of light and particles
C. S. Unnikrishnan
Current science, vol. 88 No. 7, 10 April 2005

I take this one step further and state;-

The doubled deflection of the beam is due to One part Newtonian and One part wave front bending, BOTH due to local time dilation.

Einstein's notions of the distortion of volume and the geodesic, although essential in predicting outcomes, nevertheless divert us from reality. The reality is the time rate field, and anything that is demonstrated by GR can be equally demonstrated by an analysis of temporal effects.

There's much more, of course.

#### imatfaal

• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 2787
• rouge moderator
##### The Speed of Light is Infinite
« Reply #62 on: 02/06/2011 17:41:42 »
Ken,

On length contraction.  This is obviously not easily shown experimentally - but it is claimed that Relativistic Heavy Ion Collision generate results that only flow from a model where the ions are length contracted and not those where the ions remain spherical.  Have a look Here .  Similarly if we look at elctromagnetic interaction of heavy ions they also need to be flattened out HERE

I have done the calculation and SR works pretty damn well. Frankly, it is not really worth arguing I think the maths is right and Einstein's Theories describe reality in a very close way that can lead to further predictions; I would have to see mathematical predictions that agree with future experimentation before I changed my mind

#### Ken Hughes

• Full Member
• Posts: 56
##### The Speed of Light is Infinite
« Reply #63 on: 02/06/2011 18:24:19 »
Imatfaal,

Thankyou for your response. Yes, I have viewed the links you attached. I guess you are aware these are models which have the SR length contraction built in and so will inevitably show it.

Nevertheless,

I am also agreeing with the mathematics of SR, but SR mathematics, Lorentz, also works for velocity increase. Have you tried this also?
We can either view a flattened pancake striking something at 99.99"c", which I am saying is infinite velocity viewed from the moving frame, OR, we can view a spherical object striking something at infinite velocity in the moving frame. In which case, the front of the object hits at the same time as the rear of the object and so we can, if we wish, view it as a pancake. It doesn't matter either way as I have demonstrated.
What I am proposing will not affect science much at all. It's just that I believe we should always attempt to grasp reality, instead of relying on some convenient way of working practically. BOTH are important.

Considering the basis of SR,
Remember, the reciprocal views of clocks in relative motion has, to my knowledge, never been experimentally verified. In the case where two clocks are synchronised and one is flown out to space and eventually passes the Earth at great speed, I am predicting a redshift of the moving clock as viewed from Earth, but a blueshift of the Earth clock as viewed from the moving one. This is counter to the predictions of SR and can easily be tested.
We only predict reciprocal observations of redshift because we use geometry to do so whilst ignoring the asymmetry of time. This is wrong. Will someone please put me right by coming up with experimental verification of SR, or if unavailable at this time, will someone please carry out an appropriate experiment?

I'll take bets.

#### Geezer

• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 8328
• "Vive la résistance!"
##### The Speed of Light is Infinite
« Reply #64 on: 02/06/2011 18:43:00 »

Remember, the reciprocal views of clocks in relative motion has, to my knowledge, never been experimentally verified.

Isn't being continuously verified by GPS satellites?

#### Ken Hughes

• Full Member
• Posts: 56
##### The Speed of Light is Infinite
« Reply #65 on: 02/06/2011 19:02:20 »
Hi Geezer,

My understanding is that the GPS satellites are verifying the different time rates at different elevations in the time rate field and also the time dilation of  motion (redshift) of the satellites relative to/as viewed from Earth.
I do not think this verifies the reciprocal view of Earth clocks being redshifted as viewed from the satellites. I am saying the Earth clocks will appear blueshifted from the satellite frames.

Please correct me if I'm wrong, but I would appreciate some detail as to how and what is being measured from where, if you can. Anyone ?

#### Geezer

• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 8328
• "Vive la résistance!"
##### The Speed of Light is Infinite
« Reply #66 on: 02/06/2011 19:34:38 »
Hi Ken

Why would it not be reciprocal? If one is different relative to the other, there must be a reciprocal difference in the other direction. Or maybe I'm not getting your point?

G

#### Ken Hughes

• Full Member
• Posts: 56
##### The Speed of Light is Infinite
« Reply #67 on: 02/06/2011 21:19:14 »
Hi Geezer,

SR predicts the observation of a slow clock in the moving frame when viewed from the stationary frame. (I agree)
SR also predicts the observation of a slow clock in the stationary frame when viewed from the moving frame. (I disagree, if both clocks were synchronised before one of them moved)
This is what is termed reciprocal. ie the observations are the same from either frame.
The justification for this is that relative motion is just that, relative, and it doesn't matter which frame is moving since the relative motion is the same whichever one moves.

I am saying there is a problem with this deduction. It supposes that all effects are reciprocal and therefore that a geometric analysis will render a correct prediction but this is not so.
Physical dimensions are symetrical, or bi-directional, whereas the time dimension is asymetrical or uni-directional and a geometric analysis can never take this difference into account since it is merely a symetrical, spacial analysis, not a temporal one.

If you remember the results from Hafele & Keating in 1971. No observations were ever made between frames at any stage of the journey and the time dilation was demonstrated only by the difference in times between the stationary clock and the moving clock when the journey was over. This proved that the moving clock had been operating at a slower rate than the stationary clock during the period of the motion, thus proving the time dilation of motion from SR is real.
However, if one clock really does run slower, then how can you observe a slower clock from this perspective when the other clock you're looking at really is faster.

There are various justifications for this from supporters of mainstream SR, but frankly, none of them stack up. They don't take account of the fact that initially, both clocks were synchronised but that only one of them moved.
The one that moved has the slow clock and the one that didn't move still has the same time rate as before.
The reality is the differential time rate which is asymetrical. ie, slow when looking at the moving clock but fast when looking at the stationary clock. This leads me to predict a BLUE SHIFT when looking out from the moving frame toward the stationary frame and this is counter to the prediction from SR

The symetrical result from SR only ever happens for the special case where both clocks move at the same speed away from the synchronised position. Then and only then, is the time dilation the same for both clocks.

What do you think?

#### yor_on

• Naked Science Forum GOD!
• Posts: 11987
• Thanked: 4 times
• (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
##### The Speed of Light is Infinite
« Reply #68 on: 03/06/2011 02:08:20 »
Special Relativity needs a length contraction to make sense Ken. What you might argue is that it is a geometrical illusion from the observer at rest relative the origin? General Relativity on the other hand is to me about 'gravity', and so discuss another subject.

As for it would matter if one of two uniformly moving frames would move with a different speed?

First of all, from where would you define their 'different speed'. Take away the stars and let them move against each other, can you by looking at one from the other say which one of you is moving now? How?

If you assume a third party that looks on both? Then there will be a measurable speed difference relative that third party of course. But the problem will still be that all uniform motions are the same when you try to measure them in a black room.

The blue shift you expect is also a frequency defining a energy, so what you seem to be saying is that the physics experiments on those two ship should deliver different results, aka measuring the flashlights energy in one frame, and then go to the other and do the exact same would give different energies measured? If that was true you would have introduced different outcomes from the same experiment, in two uniformly moving frames of reference. Then Einsteins special relativity would be wrong.
==

There is the gravitational blue shift of course?

If you compare a planet uniformly moving with a ship their invariant mass will differ, and the planet will find the light from the ship to be blue shifted as it gets a 'gravitational acceleration' which for a photon will translate into a blue shift.
« Last Edit: 03/06/2011 02:19:07 by yor_on »

#### Geezer

• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 8328
• "Vive la résistance!"
##### The Speed of Light is Infinite
« Reply #69 on: 03/06/2011 07:04:15 »

SR also predicts the observation of a slow clock in the stationary frame when viewed from the moving frame.

Ken,

I could be wrong, but I thought it was the other way around.

Doesn't SR predict the observation of a fast clock in a stationary frame when viewed from the moving frame?

This would explain why the twin who goes for a jaunt around the Universe returns to find his twin, who never left Earth, is older.

#### Ken Hughes

• Full Member
• Posts: 56
##### The Speed of Light is Infinite
« Reply #70 on: 03/06/2011 09:48:11 »
Hi Guys,

Yor_on, your response is a little complicated to answer, so I'll respond to Geezer first.

Geezer, You and I are of like mind. We agree that we should observe blueshift from the moving frame when looking at the stationary frame. BUT, SR definitely claims that because the motion is relative and it doesn't matter which one is considered stationary, or moving, then the observations must be the same from both frames.
I am disagreeing with this and so it seems, are you. Yor_on is sticking with mainstream SR.

By the way, the twin paradox is just one of the contradictions from SR that show something is wrong. I agree with you, if he ages slower, then his whole existence/frame of reference has passed slower relative the twin left behind. The Earth twin's frame has passed at a faster rate than the travelling twin and so was blue shifted relatively during the period of the journey. There's definitely something amiss and I believe I know what it is. I will try again to clarify in my response to Yor_on. I am pressed for time at the moment.
« Last Edit: 03/06/2011 10:00:17 by Ken Hughes »

#### imatfaal

• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 2787
• rouge moderator
##### The Speed of Light is Infinite
« Reply #71 on: 03/06/2011 12:01:58 »
There is no twin paradox! Put one twin in a rocket with an atomic clock - leave the other one in Cape Canaveral.  Twinspaceman is accelerated upto .99c zooms out towards the great black yonder, slams on the brakes turns around and speeds back up and comes back to earth for a cheerful reunion with Twinstayathome.

Twinstayathome and his clock,his grey hairs, his infeasibly long beard etc all show that 14ish years have passed, Twinspaceman and his clock and all other measures show that two years have passed.  there are complications because the time dilation factor isn't constant during speed ups and slow downs but the errors brought in by those are minimal.

OK - now if we break out the enormous and quite unbelievable telescopes we are explain what each twin sees of the others atomic clock.  On the outbound leg Twinstayathome sees the clock of Twinspaceman ticking once every 14 seconds (using the relativistic doppler formula) and Twinspaceman sees exactly the same when he looks at  the clock of Twinstayathome.  After turn around the reciprocal occurs and each twin sees the others clock run at 14 ticks per second.  This is very counter-intuitive but a little maths with ticks and leg lengths (sounds a bit weird) will confirm to you that this is possible

#### Ken Hughes

• Full Member
• Posts: 56
##### The Speed of Light is Infinite
« Reply #72 on: 03/06/2011 13:23:12 »
Yor_on,

Length contraction is not the only thing that can make sense of SR. SR needs EITHER length contraction OR increased velocity to make sense. I am indeed arguing that length contraction is an illusion, whereas time dilation is real. Time dilation has been proven to be real.
As an example, if our space ship approaches the speed of light, lengths of everything we can see out of the porthole become contracted in the direction of motion, but only because we travel in that direction at a speed which is now approaching infinite speed. If we consider the impractical limit, then as we reach lightspeed, our ship might be considered to be stuck in a completely flattened universe, like a dart in a dart board. This is not real. If it was, we would all be compressed flat if ever a massive body were to pass us close by at near lightspeed and we don't believe we will be, do we? What this image tells us is that we get anywhere in the direction of motion in no time at all, since the lengths in the direction of motion can be considered zero. But it is only AS IF  they are zero, due to our infinite speed. The reality is that time has slowed to a halt (relative to the rest of the universe) and so we can consider distances in the direction of motion as if they are zero length but only because we reach them in no time. Does anyone agree?
If you do the simple moving clock exercise to prove time dilation in SR, you get to a point in the argument when you have to decide whether to hold velocity constant across both frames and this is what SR indeed does and the result is length contraction. SR says that each observer must see the same velocity. I am saying you cannot hold velocity constant between frames in relative motion since the clock has slowed in one of them, so the speed in that frame is faster than the stationary frame, but only as viewed from the moving one. The result is not length contraction now, but is increased velocity via Lorentz. Lorentz comes out just the same, geometrically from this, but it shows an infinite v in the moving frame as velocity as observed from the stationary frame approaches "c". It works. Try it out.
The only other way I can put it is to point out that SR does predict the slowing of time, to zero at "c". The mainstream agrees. WE ALL AGREE! SR has therefore shot itself in the foot because if your clock stops relative to the universe, then any speed you have relative to the universe MUST be INFINITE, simply because velocity is distance moved over corresponding time taken. If the time taken becomes zero, then velocity becomes infinite. It's as simple as that, and MikeS has been trying to put this over for a while now. He's right! I'm right! The mainstream really is WRONG!
I've thought of another way:- Someone said earlier that we cannot assess the "experience" of light, but I say we can. SR says time is slowed and comes to a halt at "c". This must apply to energy just as it applies to mass. (Mass = energy). Also, relative velocity is independent of the nature of the moving entity. So, the clock stops for a light beam. If we consider an image in the beam, emitted at a certain time by our clock, then that image experiences no time in getting to us since it travels at "c" over, say 4 light years. We measure 4 years from time of emission to when we see the image, but the light thinks it got here instantaneously. This is demonstrated by the fact that the image we see is exactly the same image as was emitted 4 years ago by our clock. It has not changed, because it experienced no time to allow it to change, (even if there were a cause and effect).

Next point;- Jor_on, You grasp for some datum from which to measure a change in velocity and you make the point from mainstream SR that since all speed is relative, then it doesn't matter which frame you consider is moving, the effects between them must be symmetrical.
Why do I disagree? Because it's not just the geometric relativity that matters, there's more to it because of the nature of time. It matters what frame each of the relatively moving ships were in initially and which one moved away from it.
Let's take the following simple case;-
Situation 1. Two synchronised clocks at the Earth's surface. They share the same frame of reference with the same time rate and there is no red or blue shift to be measured between them.
Situation 2. One clock has been placed aboard a rocket and blasted of into space to a great distance. The ship has then done a u-turn and accelerated toward the Earth at great speed. The speed is great enough so that the time dilation due to its speed far outweighs any increase in time rate due to gravitational effects.
Situation 3. The ship with its clock, speeds by the Earth and observations are taken from both the ship and from the Earth.

What do you think will be observed from each position? I'll let you answer.

Next question. I am NOT saying that the results of experiments will be different. The principle of relativity still stands. It's just that things happen slower in the time dilated frame relative to the stationary frame. Realities within each frame remain unchanged, eg frequencies. Relatively though the time rates are different, just like the light ray slowing down near the Sun.

The reason you think I am mixing up SR with GR is that I am only considering relative time rates and you may as well consider relative times rates caused by inertial effects as by gravitational effects. It doesn't matter HOW the time was dilated, only that it is different between frames.
Generally, I am saying that relativity, currently being split into SR and GR, can be unified by taking time as the only real entity in the vacuum. That is why I jump from one to the other as if they are the same theory. If you simply look at the time dilation then the two theories merge. In fact you could argue that we only need SR with a modification and some more math based on temporal effects. The theory would then better reflect reality.

« Last Edit: 04/06/2011 09:46:52 by Ken Hughes »

#### Ken Hughes

• Full Member
• Posts: 56
##### The Speed of Light is Infinite
« Reply #73 on: 03/06/2011 13:26:56 »
Imatfaal,
I agree there is no paradox, but what are you saying about the final age difference ? It is not clear

#### imatfaal

• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 2787
• rouge moderator
##### The Speed of Light is Infinite
« Reply #74 on: 03/06/2011 13:41:59 »
Imatfaal,
I agree there is no paradox, but what are you saying about the final age difference ? It is not clear

Quote
Twinstayathome and his clock,his grey hairs, his infeasibly long beard etc all show that 14ish years have passed, Twinspaceman and his clock and all other measures show that two years have passed.  there are complications because the time dilation factor isn't constant during speed ups and slow downs but the errors brought in by those are minimal.

What's unclear?

Your mentioning of blue-shifting and red-shifting in previous messages is incorrect by the way.  Reread how the clock ticks are described and you will see that SR is properly viewable from both perspectives.

Quote
What do you think will be observed from each position?
or doyou have different answers?  If you do then you are at variance with calcs and observations.

We def do need GR - SR does not hold in many situations, a few of which you have already mentioned.  If you feel that your ideas can overcome this - lay out the math

#### The Naked Scientists Forum

##### The Speed of Light is Infinite
« Reply #74 on: 03/06/2011 13:41:59 »