[Demolitiondaley]

So you are disagreeing with Time dilation, there is no Twin Paradox?

[guest39538]

So you are disagreeing with Time dilation, there is no Twin Paradox?

That is correct, there is no time dilation, the twin in transit ages the same as the Twin at ground state.

[guest39538]

Premise


Time passes by at an instant and constant rate for all observers proven by the axiom logic of that any measurement after the value 0 no matter how small of an increment or how fast of a rate of measurement becomes instantaneous history.




added- it also shows simultaneity is not true.

[Demolitiondaley]

I think you are in a minority in your belief, that doesn't necessarily mean you are wrong.

'As long as men are free to ask what they must; free to say what they think; free to think what they will; freedom can never be lost and science can never regress. '

J. Robert Oppenheimer

Thank you for the discussion Sir, I bid you good day.

[guest39538]

I think you are in a minority in your belief, that doesn't necessarily mean you are wrong.

'As long as men are free to ask what they must; free to say what they think; free to think what they will; freedom can never be lost and science can never regress. '

J. Robert Oppenheimer

Thank you for the discussion Sir, I bid you good day.

I thank you for your discussion Sir, I may be a minority but the truth is unarguable and in time will be accepted worldwide and a new true reality will be written.


Good day Sir.

[guest39538]

Why are my posts so ignored when they are so correct?

I do not understand why ''you'' ignore them.

[guest39538]

You all think we presently  measure time the top way in my diagram but in reality we measure time the bottom way in my diagram.

[guest39538]

added diagram - don't ''you'' think it is about time you gave me a break?  I put in loads and loads of effort.

[McQueen]

It seems to be a commonly held misconception, as for instance in the case of the twin paradox, that time and the speed of  light are synonymous. But looked at logically it really does not make sense that anything moving faster than light will also necessarily break the time barrier.  All that would surely happen is that events would take place so fast that we would not be able to see them, it does not follow that once the speed of light is exceeded an automatic movement forward through time results.  The suggestion that if the earth were circled from east to west at the speed of light time travel into the past would result is surely pure hyperbole and science fiction.
 
No! The only possible way in which time and light could be made synonymous is IF light were travelling through a medium. Since any transport of energy through a medium necessarily means that the speed of the energy transport would only be restricted by the properties of the medium. In the case of the light travelling through a medium,  the medium itself represents time.  Nothing can travel faster. If the speed of light through the medium is exceeded then it would mean that the medium and thus the fabric governing time has itself been compromised and the time barrier would have been broken.

Looked at from another point of view IF light travels through a medium at a constant speed, it is  traveling at a constant speed because of the properties of the medium. The medium would then govern causality and determine how and in what order events take place.  Obviously if light is the speed limit of the Universe, that speed limit is solely governed by the properties of the medium through which the light is propagating, in this case the speed of light and the time barrier become synonymous, if one is broken then so is the other.

[guest39538]

It seems to be a commonly held misconception, as for instance in the case of the twin paradox, that time and the speed of  light are synonymous. But looked at logically it really does not make sense that anything moving faster than light will also necessarily break the time barrier.  All that would surely happen is that events would take place so fast that we would not be able to see them, it does not follow that once the speed of light is exceeded an automatic movement forward through time results.  The suggestion that if the earth were circled from east to west at the speed of light time travel into the past would result is surely pure hyperbole and science fiction.
 

Yes indeed time travel is pure science fiction and an impossibility.

No! The only possible way in which time and light could be made synonymous is IF light were travelling through a medium. Since any transport of energy through a medium necessarily means that the speed of the energy transport would only be restricted by the properties of the medium. In the case of the light travelling through a medium,  the medium itself represents time.  Nothing can travel faster. If the speed of light through the medium is exceeded then it would mean that the medium and thus the fabric governing time has itself been compromised and the time barrier would have been broken.

Looked at from another point of view IF light travels through a medium at a constant speed, it is  traveling at a constant speed because of the properties of the medium. The medium would then govern causality and determine how and in what order events take place.  Obviously if light is the speed limit of the Universe, that speed limit is solely governed by the properties of the medium through which the light is propagating, in this case the speed of light and the time barrier become synonymous, if one is broken then so is the other.

Time and light would be impossible to be synchronous, no matter how fast or slow something travels , time always passes that something by instantaneous.   

An object is relatively ''stationary'' :  time passes by at an instant

An object travels slowly: time passes by at an instant

An object travels at the near speed of light:  time passes by at an instant

Mediums, velocities etc,  have no affect on the instant rate of time passing by for all observers.

Speed limits are defined by our manufactured rate of time we presently use.

[McQueen]

Thebox:  Time and light would be impossible to be synchronous, no matter how fast or slow something travels , time always passes that something by instantaneous.   

Hold on for a second and let us think this through. The fact that we live in a physical Universe, one that can be measured and quantified, means that time itself is quantifiable and not the absolute abstraction that you seem to imply. Suspend for a moment all thoughts on whether a thing is possible or not. If an electromagnetic type of aether exists that came into existence at the time of the big bang and pervades the whole Universe, it clearly explains why the speed of light in a vacuum is constant.  The propagation of light then becomes an ordinary everyday occurence just like the propagation of any other wave. This interpretation does in fact explain why the speed of light changes when it enters a different medium. However, light or electromagnetic radiation is not an ordinary form of matter it is distinguished by the fact that nothing can travel faster, it is the ultimate speed limit prevailing throughout the Universe.  Yet,  light possesses this special property specifically due to the fact that it is travelling through a medium. Therefore the medium through which light is travelling takes on the guise of the very fabric of space.

If this view of the  Universe is accepted things begin to make sense. If the medium, substance or aether through which light is travelling is indeed the fabric of space, then it is responsible for all causality in the Universe, without it all time disappears and only chaos exists. There is no, here, there or where, there, is no now, no  then and no when, no past,no present and no future, everything exists simultaneously.  No sentient being can exist in these conditions and it is the only instance where  time and the speed of light would therefore be synonymous.  What this amounts to saying is that it is the electromagnetic aether that presents the Universe to us in the form in which we see it, namely a Universe where time has a specific direction, without it massive objects could instantaneously travel from A to  B presenting a scenario where neither A nor B has an existence.

Thebox: An object is relatively ''stationary'' :  time passes by at an instant

Only because no object with mass can possibly reach anything near the speed of light. In these circumstances , time has a definite duration and direction.

Thebox: An object travels slowly: time passes by at an instant.

The same logic applies as for the last point.
 
 

Thebox: An object travels at the near speed of light:  time passes by at an instant
Mediums, velocities etc,  have no affect on the instant rate of time passing by for all observers.
Speed limits are defined by our manufactured rate of time we presently use.

True time as is constantly demonstrated in our lives, passes slower or faster depending on the circumstances.
 

[McQueen]

No object with mass can possibly reach anything near the speed of light.

The above statement begins to make sense IF an aether exists AND if that aether governs our visualization of time as something that progresses in a unidirectional manner. If this is true then obviously nothing should be able to go faster than light without destroying the very notion of time.

[GoC]

Very good!!!

[LB7]

The time is a clock, like a quartz for a computer, it is a reference. Like a voltage can be a reference.

[zx16]

As LB7 perceptively points out in post #33, "time" can only be a reference.  It's not an independent "thing" existing in its own right.

As a comparable example, consider the word "distance".  Is it a distinct "thing" ?  Or just a reference for the separation between entities.

Suppose you say, there's a distance of 193 kilometres between London and Manchester. Does that mean there's an actual "thing", an entity, which can always be called "distance"?

[guest39538]

As LB7 perceptively points out in post #33, "time" can only be a reference.  It's not an independent "thing" existing in its own right.

As a comparable example, consider the word "distance".  Is it a distinct "thing" ?  Or just a reference for the separation between entities.

Suppose you say, there's a distance of 193 kilometres between London and Manchester. Does that mean there's an actual "thing", an entity, which can always be called "distance"?

Indeed there is an entity that we can always call distance, the entity being space.   Space is the divider between masses, we call this space a distance or length.   However time is an independent thing and absolute.  Time is a reference but you may not recognise or realise that the time reference frame is the background to the foreground.   The foreground being matter in motion relative to the ''situate'' background of space.

[guest39538]

The time is a clock, like a quartz for a computer, it is a reference. Like a voltage can be a reference.

Would you suggest a clock , the clocks workings and the clocks motion, do not exist in time?

[guest39538]

Thebox:  Time and light would be impossible to be synchronous, no matter how fast or slow something travels , time always passes that something by instantaneous.   

Hold on for a second and let us think this through. The fact that we live in a physical Universe, one that can be measured and quantified, means that time itself is quantifiable and not the absolute abstraction that you seem to imply. Suspend for a moment all thoughts on whether a thing is possible or not. If an electromagnetic type of aether exists that came into existence at the time of the big bang and pervades the whole Universe, it clearly explains why the speed of light in a vacuum is constant.  The propagation of light then becomes an ordinary everyday occurence just like the propagation of any other wave. This interpretation does in fact explain why the speed of light changes when it enters a different medium. However, light or electromagnetic radiation is not an ordinary form of matter it is distinguished by the fact that nothing can travel faster, it is the ultimate speed limit prevailing throughout the Universe.  Yet,  light possesses this special property specifically due to the fact that it is travelling through a medium. Therefore the medium through which light is travelling takes on the guise of the very fabric of space.

If this view of the  Universe is accepted things begin to make sense. If the medium, substance or aether through which light is travelling is indeed the fabric of space, then it is responsible for all causality in the Universe, without it all time disappears and only chaos exists. There is no, here, there or where, there, is no now, no  then and no when, no past,no present and no future, everything exists simultaneously.  No sentient being can exist in these conditions and it is the only instance where  time and the speed of light would therefore be synonymous.  What this amounts to saying is that it is the electromagnetic aether that presents the Universe to us in the form in which we see it, namely a Universe where time has a specific direction, without it massive objects could instantaneously travel from A to  B presenting a scenario where neither A nor B has an existence.

Thebox: An object is relatively ''stationary'' :  time passes by at an instant

Only because no object with mass can possibly reach anything near the speed of light. In these circumstances , time has a definite duration and direction.

Thebox: An object travels slowly: time passes by at an instant.

The same logic applies as for the last point.
 
 

Thebox: An object travels at the near speed of light:  time passes by at an instant
Mediums, velocities etc,  have no affect on the instant rate of time passing by for all observers.
Speed limits are defined by our manufactured rate of time we presently use.

True time as is constantly demonstrated in our lives, passes slower or faster depending on the circumstances.
 

Time does not pass slower or faster depending on circumstances, time passes all observers by instantaneously , The proof is in that any measurement of time after the value 0 becomes instantaneous history.  Do you wish to try and discourse the statement?   I think you will find that my axiom is unarguable and anything you could possibly say cannot change this very fact which over rules any of the Dogma about time dilation.   

[guest39538]

Consider this, the entire length of the frequency is in the present.

[zx16]

I can't quite see what you're getting at.  I mean when a composer uses standard musical notation, he or she can write a sustained musical note, lasting perhaps several seconds,  on paper by a single symbol.

This written symbol can be read by eye, in a split-second. The musical note takes longer to play. There's no necessary time correlation between the two.

Therefore I don't yet understand the point of your diagram, and will grateful for clarification, thanks!