# The Naked Scientists Forum

### Author Topic: Can the speed of light be faster than time itself?  (Read 5579 times)

#### Bill S

• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 1797
• Thanked: 11 times
##### Re: Can the speed of light be faster than time itself?
« Reply #25 on: 03/11/2015 13:38:13 »
Quote from: Thebox
My calculation is falsifiable.

No argument there; in fact if you re-read this thread you might find it has been falsified.

#### Thebox

• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 3139
• Thanked: 42 times
##### Re: Can the speed of light be faster than time itself?
« Reply #26 on: 03/11/2015 13:41:27 »
Quote from: Thebox
My calculation is falsifiable.

No argument there; in fact if you re-read this thread you might find it has been falsified.

My maths is verifiable and confirmable I thing I got that backwards.

#### Thebox

• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 3139
• Thanked: 42 times
##### Re: Can the speed of light be faster than time itself?
« Reply #27 on: 03/11/2015 13:48:07 »
Maybe I should present things differently.

Bottom line, History did not realise that by using the sun and the earth to measure time they were setting arbitrary time equal to a distance and speed, a major fundamental mistake in thinking.

second mistake was to take a Caesium atom which is not a constant and define x amount of ''beats'' to an old second technically not changing anything from history and 1 second still being equal to a speed and distance.

1 second = 1035 mph= 46 m/s

crazy thinking by history

Quote from: Chiral
The fact that humanity's earliest measurements of time relied on the motion of stars moons and planets has no bearing on the fundamental nature of time itself.

But it does have effect on the speed of light calculation and all that is similar .
« Last Edit: 03/11/2015 13:56:33 by Thebox »

#### alancalverd

• Global Moderator
• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 4493
• Thanked: 137 times
• life is too short to drink instant coffee
##### Re: Can the speed of light be faster than time itself?
« Reply #28 on: 03/11/2015 14:03:52 »
Utter drivel.

You have "equated" reciprocal time (Hz) to time (s) and speed (m/s) which is illogical bunkum, then divided one arbitrary number by another to prove nothing at all.

But I like your method. If I drive at 70 mph (31 m/s) and listen to Test Match Special (198 kHz) I can calculate scoring rate as 198/31 = 6.39 runs per over, which is the expected value for the middle order on the Sharja wicket, and is actually falsifiable.

#### Thebox

• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 3139
• Thanked: 42 times
##### Re: Can the speed of light be faster than time itself?
« Reply #29 on: 03/11/2015 14:14:49 »
Utter drivel.

You have "equated" reciprocal time (Hz) to time (s) and speed (m/s) which is illogical bunkum, then divided one arbitrary number by another to prove nothing at all.

But I like your method. If I drive at 70 mph (31 m/s) and listen to Test Match Special (198 kHz) I can calculate scoring rate as 198/31 = 6.39 runs per over, which is the expected value for the middle order on the Sharja wicket, and is actually falsifiable.

I have no idea how cricket relates to this and have no idea why you would put this in new theories when it is not a new theory it is maths fact. I have not equated anything, I have used your measurements and worked out that presently you have the speed of light calculation and time and all involved in time based on a distance and not based on time at all .  It is not me who is wrong, science told me this, Chiral agreed with it, ''The fact that humanity's earliest measurements of time relied on the motion of stars moons and planets''.
It is not my blunder and now you argue your own facts and say I am wrong, contradiction galore and frivolous argument to your own facts.

Then you transfer a very reasonable question and premise for debate into the new theory section, or what I like to call the trash can......

Maybe that guy who kept mentioning conspiracies and government funding etc was correct.   Why would you move this  from the main when it is obvious I am correct and this is what history as done to us?

I have kept to topic, kept to facts, your very own facts, simple maths a 10 year old could do, yet you moved me, why, what reason this time apart from a hidden agenda?

Your facts and history clearly shows I am correct,

fact- the origin of arbitrary time was based on motion of the earth

fact-science used the same second to define a Caesium second

end of debate fACT YOUR FACTS

you have to measure movement to measure a second, think about it.

« Last Edit: 03/11/2015 14:19:06 by Thebox »

#### chiralSPO

• Global Moderator
• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 1830
• Thanked: 137 times
##### Re: Can the speed of light be faster than time itself?
« Reply #30 on: 03/11/2015 14:39:20 »
TheBox,

I do not usually excoriate members publicly, but unfortunately, you appear to have much too much confidence in your mathematical prowess, and I have had enough.

It comes down to this:

1) Either you are correct about time equaling motion, and you have single-handedly redefined probability/statistics, and you have discovered the true nature of space, and solved the problem of dark energy. But for some reason, the rest of the world (including alancalverd and me, who have substantial disagreements about many things) have ganged up and conspired against you.

2) Or, you are posting gibberish about all sorts of topics (as has been claimed by most of the members on this forum, and as far as I can tell, every other forum you have posted your musings on), and simply do not have enough knowledge of basic logic, math, or physics to understand just how far you are from the truth. Seriously, most of your arguments could be debunked by any 14-year old who has paid attention during half of the maths lectures in school...

3) Or, you are just a troll who knows that this is all nonsense, and just want to see how much aggravation can be heaped on a forum before it bans you.

So which is it: 1, 2 or 3?

#### Thebox

• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 3139
• Thanked: 42 times
##### Re: Can the speed of light be faster than time itself?
« Reply #31 on: 03/11/2015 14:56:45 »
TheBox,

I do not usually excoriate members publicly, but unfortunately, you appear to have much too much confidence in your mathematical prowess, and I have had enough.

It comes down to this:

1) Either you are correct about time equaling motion, and you have single-handedly redefined probability/statistics, and you have discovered the true nature of space, and solved the problem of dark energy. But for some reason, the rest of the world (including alancalverd and me, who have substantial disagreements about many things) have ganged up and conspired against you.

2) Or, you are posting gibberish about all sorts of topics (as has been claimed by most of the members on this forum, and as far as I can tell, every other forum you have posted your musings on), and simply do not have enough knowledge of basic logic, math, or physics to understand just how far you are from the truth. Seriously, most of your arguments could be debunked by any 14-year old who has paid attention during half of the maths lectures in school...

3) Or, you are just a troll who knows that this is all nonsense, and just want to see how much aggravation can be heaped on a forum before it bans you.

So which is it: 1, 2 or 3?

4) or members and moderators are failing to understand the content, reading it ''wrongly'' , by maybe my lack of some knowledge and poor explanation, but is totally correct.

arbitrary
time equalling motion,

I am correct, consider not everyone could understand Tesla either and Maxwell took years to do Faraday's maths. The maths I provided in this thread is based on Google measurements.   Are these wrong is the earth's circumference not roughly 24,901 miles?   is there not 24 hrs in one day roughly?  Does the Earth not rotate at 1035 mph roughly?   Did the denotion of arbitrary time come any other way than based on the earth's spin relative to motion of the Sun etc?  Can you even measure time without measuring the movement of something?  Can you deny the second constant of clarity of light in space to all visual observers?

I do not make things up so you know, it is all your science.

And there is no physical way to sprinkle 1001's mixed colours into individual straight lines.

I could show all this with a chalk board and some peers, I am not demented it is what science told me.

#### Ethos_

• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 1228
• Thanked: 10 times
##### Re: Can the speed of light be faster than time itself?
« Reply #32 on: 03/11/2015 14:58:17 »
Quote from: Thebox
My calculation is falsifiable.

No argument there; in fact if you re-read this thread you might find it has been falsified.

My maths is verifiable and confirmable I thing I got that backwards.
No surprise there Mr. Box. You seem to be traveling in reverse most of the time. Maybe you've traveled back in time, as in backwards?

#### Ethos_

• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 1228
• Thanked: 10 times
##### Re: Can the speed of light be faster than time itself?
« Reply #33 on: 03/11/2015 15:02:29 »
TheBox,

I do not usually excoriate members publicly, but unfortunately, you appear to have much too much confidence in your mathematical prowess, and I have had enough.

It comes down to this:

1) Either you are correct about time equaling motion, and you have single-handedly redefined probability/statistics, and you have discovered the true nature of space, and solved the problem of dark energy. But for some reason, the rest of the world (including alancalverd and me, who have substantial disagreements about many things) have ganged up and conspired against you.

2) Or, you are posting gibberish about all sorts of topics (as has been claimed by most of the members on this forum, and as far as I can tell, every other forum you have posted your musings on), and simply do not have enough knowledge of basic logic, math, or physics to understand just how far you are from the truth. Seriously, most of your arguments could be debunked by any 14-year old who has paid attention during half of the maths lectures in school...

3) Or, you are just a troll who knows that this is all nonsense, and just want to see how much aggravation can be heaped on a forum before it bans you.

So which is it: 1, 2 or 3?
I'm casting my vote for #3.

#### chiralSPO

• Global Moderator
• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 1830
• Thanked: 137 times
##### Re: Can the speed of light be faster than time itself?
« Reply #34 on: 03/11/2015 15:02:52 »
TheBox,

I do not usually excoriate members publicly, but unfortunately, you appear to have much too much confidence in your mathematical prowess, and I have had enough.

It comes down to this:

1) Either you are correct about time equaling motion, and you have single-handedly redefined probability/statistics, and you have discovered the true nature of space, and solved the problem of dark energy. But for some reason, the rest of the world (including alancalverd and me, who have substantial disagreements about many things) have ganged up and conspired against you.

2) Or, you are posting gibberish about all sorts of topics (as has been claimed by most of the members on this forum, and as far as I can tell, every other forum you have posted your musings on), and simply do not have enough knowledge of basic logic, math, or physics to understand just how far you are from the truth. Seriously, most of your arguments could be debunked by any 14-year old who has paid attention during half of the maths lectures in school...

3) Or, you are just a troll who knows that this is all nonsense, and just want to see how much aggravation can be heaped on a forum before it bans you.

So which is it: 1, 2 or 3?

4) or members and moderators are failing to understand the content, reading it ''wrongly'' , by maybe my lack of some knowledge and poor explanation, but is totally correct.

arbitrary
time equalling motion,

I am correct, consider not everyone could understand Tesla either and Maxwell took years to do Faraday's maths. The maths I provided in this thread is based on Google measurements.   Are these wrong is the earth's circumference not roughly 24,901 miles?   is there not 24 hrs in one day roughly?  Does the Earth not rotate at 1035 mph roughly?   Did the denotion of arbitrary time come any other way than based on the earth's spin relative to motion of the Sun etc?  Can you even measure time without measuring the movement of something?  Can you deny the second constant of clarity of light in space to all visual observers?

I do not make things up so you know, it is all your science.

And there is no physical way to sprinkle 1001's mixed colours into individual straight lines.

I could show all this with a chalk board and some peers, I am not demented it is what science told me.

......so number 2, then?

#### Thebox

• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 3139
• Thanked: 42 times
##### Re: Can the speed of light be faster than time itself?
« Reply #35 on: 03/11/2015 15:07:34 »

My maths is verifiable and confirmable I thing I got that backwards.
No surprise there Mr. Box. You seem to be traveling in reverse most of the time. Maybe you've traveled back in time, as in backwards?
[/quote]

Interesting thought, I have travelled back in time, but not in a way most people would consider, to learn science I had to start with history, I needed to know the history of science where I found 17th century Prague.
Then from there I looked at some of the scientists from history and their ideas etc and knowledge bringing me towards the future.  Then I had to slingshot back in time before 17th Prague to a time that time did not exist.   I was ''their'' when we made time and watched them do it(visualised in my head of cause).    So after a prequel visit to the past I then travelled back to the future, and behold we even have a Doc on this forum.

I have had lots of teachers on forums with lots of opinions, so to get to some more than obvious conclusions was not that difficult.

#### Ethos_

• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 1228
• Thanked: 10 times
##### Re: Can the speed of light be faster than time itself?
« Reply #36 on: 03/11/2015 15:08:23 »
TheBox,

I do not usually excoriate members publicly, but unfortunately, you appear to have much too much confidence in your mathematical prowess, and I have had enough.

It comes down to this:

1) Either you are correct about time equaling motion, and you have single-handedly redefined probability/statistics, and you have discovered the true nature of space, and solved the problem of dark energy. But for some reason, the rest of the world (including alancalverd and me, who have substantial disagreements about many things) have ganged up and conspired against you.

2) Or, you are posting gibberish about all sorts of topics (as has been claimed by most of the members on this forum, and as far as I can tell, every other forum you have posted your musings on), and simply do not have enough knowledge of basic logic, math, or physics to understand just how far you are from the truth. Seriously, most of your arguments could be debunked by any 14-year old who has paid attention during half of the maths lectures in school...

3) Or, you are just a troll who knows that this is all nonsense, and just want to see how much aggravation can be heaped on a forum before it bans you.

So which is it: 1, 2 or 3?

4) or members and moderators are failing to understand the content, reading it ''wrongly'' , by maybe my lack of some knowledge and poor explanation, but is totally correct.

arbitrary
time equalling motion,

I am correct, consider not everyone could understand Tesla either and Maxwell took years to do Faraday's maths. The maths I provided in this thread is based on Google measurements.   Are these wrong is the earth's circumference not roughly 24,901 miles?   is there not 24 hrs in one day roughly?  Does the Earth not rotate at 1035 mph roughly?   Did the denotion of arbitrary time come any other way than based on the earth's spin relative to motion of the Sun etc?  Can you even measure time without measuring the movement of something?  Can you deny the second constant of clarity of light in space to all visual observers?

I do not make things up so you know, it is all your science.

And there is no physical way to sprinkle 1001's mixed colours into individual straight lines.

I could show all this with a chalk board and some peers, I am not demented it is what science told me.

......so number 2, then?
Whether 2 or 3, it most certainly is not #1.

#### Thebox

• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 3139
• Thanked: 42 times
##### Re: Can the speed of light be faster than time itself?
« Reply #37 on: 03/11/2015 15:09:23 »

......so number 2, then?

No number 4.

#### Thebox

• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 3139
• Thanked: 42 times
##### Re: Can the speed of light be faster than time itself?
« Reply #38 on: 03/11/2015 15:12:53 »
I would at my own expense within reasonable distance travel and discuss anything I ever wrote in person with a chalk board, a light on a dimmer switch with a darkened room, a laser pen, a tub of mixed coloured balls

I could show you all this gibberish in minutes.  I dont even want the credit for it I just want you to get it right.
« Last Edit: 03/11/2015 15:14:48 by Thebox »

#### chiralSPO

• Global Moderator
• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 1830
• Thanked: 137 times
##### Re: Can the speed of light be faster than time itself?
« Reply #39 on: 03/11/2015 15:14:36 »
I would at my own expense within reasonable distance travel and discuss anything I ever wrote in person with a chalk board, a light on a dimmer switch with a darkened room.

I could show you all this gibberish in minutes.  I dont even want the credit for it I just want you to get it right.

Given your success rate over the last year, I don't think a few minutes would help anything...

#### Thebox

• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 3139
• Thanked: 42 times
##### Re: Can the speed of light be faster than time itself?
« Reply #40 on: 03/11/2015 15:16:42 »
I would at my own expense within reasonable distance travel and discuss anything I ever wrote in person with a chalk board, a light on a dimmer switch with a darkened room.

I could show you all this gibberish in minutes.  I dont even want the credit for it I just want you to get it right.

Given your success rate over the last year, I don't think a few minutes would help anything...

My posts do not show physical expression with my hands etc, a post can be read wrongly to mean something else.

I could start off slow, on here, but will anyone even read it correctly?

start here this is correct

1-Time is an arbitrary creation by mankind to synchronise their everyday activities.

1.1- This state of time is denoted by the relative movement of the earth’s spin relative to the motion of the sun. We nowadays use clocks to represent the twenty four hours or so of rotation relative to the two bodies,  An invention of a measurement that would go on to synchronise our every day activities and to aid in the scaling of space and  the measurement of speed and such.

2-Time is virtual representation of the dimension of the whole of space and virtual vectors of space.(space-time)

2.1– This state of time is a virtual representation of estimation, I.e we can calculate a journey of one mile will take one hour to travel at a  constant speed of  1 mph.   Albert Einstein created space-time and XYZ, virtual representations of dimensions of space to represent virtual journey paths through space that have not yet taken place.

3-Time is the independent rate of decay of independent physical bodies/particles. (such as the Caesium atom)

3.1- This state of time is all of existence, a rate that remains constant if the observer remains stationary in an initial reference frame and a constant of gravitational influence.  Motion stretches this time, a change in rate of time by displacement of the gravitational force constant having effect on frequency.

Principle rule 1 – All independent observers of time, independently occupy all three states of time, at the same time.

Principle rule 2- State 1 and state 2 are dependent for all observers, where as state 3 is independent for all observers.

Principle rule 3- principle 1 and 2 are unarguable axioms and this explained the full structure of what time is, the single manifold being all that is of matter occupying all three states of time instantaneously.

This is what science said.
« Last Edit: 03/11/2015 15:51:44 by Thebox »

#### Thebox

• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 3139
• Thanked: 42 times
##### Re: Can the speed of light be faster than time itself?
« Reply #41 on: 03/11/2015 15:55:34 »
science also said we see light between 400-700nm, this is called spectral content, the spectral content of light passing through air is zero, the spectral content is invisible to sight and equal to sight because it is not between 400-700nm.  (me-A clear constant for all visual observers, 400nm-700nm being different than the constant and are seen through the constant of clear, all ''observers'' effecting the constant by being in the way of the flow).
« Last Edit: 03/11/2015 16:00:58 by Thebox »

#### Thebox

• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 3139
• Thanked: 42 times
##### Re: Can the speed of light be faster than time itself?
« Reply #42 on: 03/11/2015 16:24:24 »
Added Eureka explanation -  You can't measure time in a void because there is no motion to set a rate,  a void is timeless space and motion makes rate.
« Last Edit: 03/11/2015 16:26:45 by Thebox »

#### alancalverd

• Global Moderator
• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 4493
• Thanked: 137 times
• life is too short to drink instant coffee
##### Re: Can the speed of light be faster than time itself?
« Reply #43 on: 03/11/2015 16:34:18 »
9,192,631,770 Hertz (Hz, or cycles per second)=1 second = 0.0288mile per second=46.3491072 meters per second
.

Quote
I have not equated anything,

I think you will find the "=" sign has a commonly accepted meaning.
« Last Edit: 03/11/2015 16:37:27 by alancalverd »

#### Thebox

• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 3139
• Thanked: 42 times
##### Re: Can the speed of light be faster than time itself?
« Reply #44 on: 03/11/2015 16:36:38 »
9,192,631,770 Hertz (Hz, or cycles per second)=1 second = 0.288mile per second=46.3491072 meters per second
.

edited

That is what history did without realising.
« Last Edit: 03/11/2015 16:38:17 by Thebox »

#### alancalverd

• Global Moderator
• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 4493
• Thanked: 137 times
• life is too short to drink instant coffee
##### Re: Can the speed of light be faster than time itself?
« Reply #45 on: 03/11/2015 16:38:19 »
And there you go again!

Here is what earth people have defined

https://msl.irl.cri.nz

Quote
Length

metre, m: The metre is the length of the path travelled by light in vacuum during a time interval of 1/299 792 458 of a second.......

Time, Duration

second, s: The second is the duration of 9 192 631 770 periods of the radiation corresponding to the transition between the two hyperfine levels of the ground state of the caesium 133 atom.....

When the physical metre held in Paris was abandoned as the standard length in 1983, the metre was defined as the length of the path travelled by light in vacuum during a specific fraction of a second. This effectively assigned the speed of light as a constant value.

it may be different on your planet, buit the rest of the  universe apears to obey the same laws of physics and arithmetic as apply in the New Zealand National Laboratory.
« Last Edit: 03/11/2015 16:48:31 by alancalverd »

#### Thebox

• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 3139
• Thanked: 42 times
##### Re: Can the speed of light be faster than time itself?
« Reply #46 on: 03/11/2015 16:42:38 »
And there you go again!

What do you mean and there I go again, that is what history did. Break it down and look.

1 spin = 24 hrs

we will break this down into hours and then break down the hours and call it seconds and say there is 86400 seconds in 24 hrs.

Then we can work out distances and speeds etc.

but they did not realise measuring motion was measuring a distance spun.  They never measured time, they measured motion and called it time in mistake.

#### alancalverd

• Global Moderator
• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 4493
• Thanked: 137 times
• life is too short to drink instant coffee
##### Re: Can the speed of light be faster than time itself?
« Reply #47 on: 03/11/2015 16:49:14 »
Then we can work out distances and speeds etc.

Not until you have defined a unit of length.

#### Thebox

• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 3139
• Thanked: 42 times
##### Re: Can the speed of light be faster than time itself?
« Reply #48 on: 03/11/2015 16:55:03 »
Then we can work out distances and speeds etc.

Not until you have defined a unit of length.

They did using sun dials and circles , 86400/360=240  that is where 24 hrs comes from. One full circle divided up into increments.  Even the hour clock finger travels a circle of distance equal to the earths spin.

#### Thebox

• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 3139
• Thanked: 42 times
##### Re: Can the speed of light be faster than time itself?
« Reply #49 on: 03/11/2015 16:56:20 »
second, s: The second is the duration of 9 192 631 770 periods of the radiation corresponding to the transition between the two hyperfine levels of the ground state of the caesium 133 atom.....
second, s: The second is the duration of 9 192 631 770 periods of the radiation corresponding to the transition between the two hyperfine levels of the ground state of the caesium 133 atom.....that was denoted by the old second based on motion so is equal to the motion just the same.

If A=B and B=C then C=A also

''When the physical metre held in Paris was abandoned as the standard length in 1983, the metre was defined as the length of the path travelled by light in vacuum during a specific fraction of a second.''

error.
« Last Edit: 03/11/2015 22:08:21 by Thebox »

#### The Naked Scientists Forum

##### Re: Can the speed of light be faster than time itself?
« Reply #49 on: 03/11/2015 16:56:20 »