Naked Science Forum
Non Life Sciences => Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology => Topic started by: Johann Mahne on 23/05/2011 17:01:02
-
Johann Mahne asked the Naked Scientists:
Hi Chris,
If the "metric expansion" of space exeeds the speed of light itself, then does the statement "The speed of light is the same to all observers" still hold true?
What do you think?
-
Most cosmologists think in terms of "comoving coordinates (http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=1&sqi=2&ved=0CBYQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fen.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2FComoving_distance&ei=Qa7aTZ2cGJHQsAPdromGDA&usg=AFQjCNE6ny2zB9caWGaqnmSSPbr0XWn1BQ)", in which the increasing distance of distant galaxies is not considered to be a "velocity". Velocity is measured relative to the coordinates, and the coordinate, themselves, are expanding.
The coordinates are like a grid of measuring chains, with new chain links being added all the time. For every 4 x 10^17 links, one new link is added every second. Observers who are comoving with eachother are stationary relative to the chain links near them. Light has the same speed everywhere relative to the chain links, so all observers perceive light moving at the same speed.
You could define a different kind of coordinate system, consisting of a grid of ideal, massless, unstretchable chain links, with no new links being added. In such a coordinates system, only one point (the origin) would be stationary relative to a set of comoving objects. Links far from the origin would be accelerating relative to comoving space; if they had mass, they would pull away from the origin. The expansion of space, in such a system, would be equivalent to a gravity hill centered on the origin, wherever the origin happens to be. The speed of light would still be the same everywhere by definition. But an observer stationary relative to the coordinates would see comoving meter sticks near him length contracted, while a comoving observer would see the chain links near him lenght contracted. Each observer would see light moving faster in terms of the other observer's meter sticks, but at the same constant speed in terms of his own meter sticks.
-
Yes.
In simple terms, speed is distance divided by time. Both distance and time (the 'length' of a meter and a second) are variable and they vary in such manner that the speed of light always remains constant.
-
waitedavid137 Posted: May 6 2011, 06:14 AM
Report this post · Quote
Member
Group: Power Member
Posts: 106
Joined: 17-June 10
Positive Feedback: 100%
Feedback Score: 5
View/Add Feedback New
Warn: (0%)
QUOTE (dimazin @ May 5 2011, 07:12 PM)
What is "slowing of light"? Is it slowing of light speed in your understanding?
It means that with respect to the coordinates appropriate for an observer far from any gravitational sources the speed of light near a mass like a star for example as calculated by those coordinates is less than c."
see link: http://www.physforum.com/index.php?showtopic=29063&st=15
-
Johan, you are asking one of the most important questions I know. Why is the speed of light a constant. When I see people answer this question using relativity 'proving' that it has to be a constant exemplifying it by 'frames of reference' counting on the differences, I see people that stared themselves blind on their professors explanations. The truth is both simpler, and more confusing. When Einstein created the theory of relativity he built it on Maxwell's electromagnetism, well not really, he really built it on his imagination, but he anchored it in Maxwell.
What I think he did was to look at light, and the experiments we already had, and from that draw one simple conclusion. That light to its nature is invariant, of one same 'speed', no matter if its source was moving or standing 'still', as relative some arbitrary point. And furthermore the same would be true for the 'sink' (eye). Motion had nothing to do with that 'relative constant speed'. From that simple conclusion you will get 'time dilations' and 'Lorentz contractions' when you start to introduce 'frames of reference'. And I think that he must have used the experiments proving that light didn't care for earths relative motion to prove it to himself.
It's a question that cuts to the marrow of physics, which hasn't been answered by any 'theory' yet. We know that light is a constant, we can see that the room it 'propagates' in deforms and distorts depending on observer. We know that there are no exact same 'frames of reference', even though people labor under the apprehension that we can use such definitions, rigidly speaking they just don't exist. Einstein left us a fantastic beautiful build, but it's time to look at the structure I think, and try to answer the real question.
Why is light always a constant 'c'.
It's worth thinking of.
-
Speed of light is a constant to local observer.Speed of light is not a constant to external observer. [:(]
-
Simplified, that doesn't make sense to me?
Where do you get that notion from?
-
Simplified, that doesn't make sense to me?
Where do you get that notion from?
The gravitational delay of light speaks about my concept. And you should understand that far gravitation does not reduce my coordinates,but slows motion of that local light! [8D]
-
There is a distorted room time in a gravitational field that makes my head hurt if that is what you was thinking of? And as seen from outside that gravity you see one thing (spacecraft hanging at EV) and inside it you see something else (space 'growing') but none of the observer will see light getting a new 'speed', neither when they measure their own frame of reference, or as they measure the 'opposite' frame of reference.
The light always come at you at 'c'. If it didn't you could assume that light coming from a black holes EV should be 'slower' but it isn't. And that we should see on Earth measuring the incoming light from the rest of the universe. Only if you accept that light nowhere has a different speed will Einstein make sense to you :)
The physics we have make some assumptions.
Space is homogeneous and isotropic, meaning that it looks and behaves the same everywhere, also defining that Space is expected to give us the same 'physics outcomes' everywhere. SpaceTime is also expected to be symmetric under a time translation, meaning that the experiment you do today will be valid tomorrow, as well as having been valid yesterday. We also assume that the equations of physics still will work under a motion. All of those are reasonable ideas. If you succeed to prove it otherwise you would introduce a 'magic universe' where physics would differ depending on your position in some coordinate system relative some other point. That's also why light is expected to be a constant, having a unvarying speed in a vacuum.
the other way becomes the magical kingdom, where different areas is presumed to have different lightspeeds, also invalidating the fact that three observers uniformly moving can observe the same point in space, seeing three 'time dilations' there. In Einsteins universe this is possible, in a universe where all points is expected to be regulated by some 'magical lock down' aka, for example gravity, that shouldn't be possible.
-
The light always come at you at 'c'. If it didn't you could assume that light coming from a black holes EV should be 'slower' but it isn't. And that we should see on Earth measuring the incoming light from the rest of the universe. Only if you accept that light nowhere has a different speed will Einstein make sense to you :)
[/quote] [:D]Even traveling light from Sun has delay about 53 microseconds!
-
Why is light always a constant 'c'.
It's worth thinking of.
Why does light have a very fast but finite speed? We know that a gravity well does affect light. If ‘time were a constant’ then it would slow the speed of light down but as time is variable, the speed of light remains constant and time dilates.
Everywhere within the universe there is a ‘gravitational field’ therefore time is being dilated everywhere. In other words the local time dilation is due to the strength of gravity in that locale. Hypothetically, if you remove the gravitational field then a photon can travel at it’s natural speed which is instantaneous.
I could elaborate on this but then it would be new physics.
See Time 1 http://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=39214.0;topicseen
Time 2 http://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=39218.0
Gravity and time http://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=39216.0
-
Mike - the way gravitational time dilation is calculated at present is that in a region with a low graviational potential time will pass more slowly - we measure this as a ratio of coordinate time (there are differences between this and gravitational field strength which you are relying upon). Coordinate time is the measured time between events for a higher ticking clock observer at an arbitrarily high graviatational potential ie an arbitrarily large distance. By definition light travels at c in this arbitrarily high-ticking region.
To postulate a background gravitational potential that is everywhere, needs more theory, testability, and reason than an extrapolation of gravitational time dilation. The reason you need to do more than extrapolate is that time dilation due to gravitational potential goes to a limit of coordinate time and arbitrarily high gravitational potential but not infinite speed of light.
-
What are you quoting simplistic? Feel free to give me the link to what you mean there
Are you thinking of group and phase velocity, or is it something else you mean?
For you locally measuring the speed of light it will always be at 'c'. There are some tricks in where you by using clocks in a accelerating frame can define light as having different speeds depending on direction, but those are created by ignoring the way the space distorts and gravitates under a acceleration. And even there when measuring the lightspeed directly you will find it to be at 'c' as I understands it. So, ignoring conceptual frames of reference, going for what you actually measure firsthandedly there will be no measurement giving you any other speed than 'c'. That all speeds as such are arbitrarily defined doesn't change this. It is a constant.
-
Mike - the way gravitational time dilation is calculated at present is that in a region with a low graviational potential time will pass more slowly - we measure this as a ratio of coordinate time (there are differences between this and gravitational field strength which you are relying upon). Coordinate time is the measured time between events for a higher ticking clock observer at an arbitrarily high graviatational potential ie an arbitrarily large distance. By definition light travels at c in this arbitrarily high-ticking region.
To postulate a background gravitational potential that is everywhere, needs more theory, testability, and reason than an extrapolation of gravitational time dilation. The reason you need to do more than extrapolate is that time dilation due to gravitational potential goes to a limit of coordinate time and arbitrarily high gravitational potential but not infinite speed of light.
Surely, it must follow if gravity from a massive object dilates time in its locality then the average background gravity within the universe must have an effect upon time. This must be self evident.
This is just the average background gravity of the universe (far from a source of gravity).
The universe could be defined as a gravitationally bound system that contains the aggregate of all existing matter, energy, and space. I am not postulating anything new here the universe does have a background gravitational 'field' (for lack of a better word).
I don't know as I understand this sentence correctly. It may be that you are using 'dilation' in a confusing manner where 'contraction' would be more appropriate? Ultimate time dilation is found at the event horizon of a black hole. And yes, this is a limit to coordinate time. If this black hole was 'the black hole at the end of the universe' then time and space would have been 'squeezed' out of existence. I don't see any of this as being 'new physics' and therefore, does not need more theory and testability.
That the universe has a background gravitational 'field' is self evident.
Gravitational time dilation has been experimentally proven.
Therefore it must follow (my quote)
"Everywhere within the universe there is a ‘gravitational field’ therefore time is being dilated everywhere. In other words the local time dilation is due to the strength of gravity in that locale".
The only extrapolation that I have made is to add (my quote)
"Hypothetically, if you remove the gravitational field then a photon can travel at it’s natural speed which is instantaneous".
It must follow that if gravity dilates time then the lack of gravity must contract time. The ultimate contraction of time being infinite contraction. If that is so then it follows that the speed of light would in a 'sense' be infinite but still obeying the idea that the speed of light is constant.
I must just add this as it puts the above into context. For a photon to travel instantaneous it would have to be outside of a gravitational 'field' which means outside the universe but that would also put it outside of time itself.
Can it be experimentally proven that a photon travels instantaneously outside of a gravitational field? Probably not as we can not divorce the experiment from the all encompassing effects of gravity.
However, the opposite experiment can and has been done and proved that gravity does dilate time.
Is this not essentially the same experiment?
It is generally accepted (but not proven) that time stands still at the event horizon of a black hole.
It takes no more stretch of the imagination to accept that in a gravity free environment a photon travels instantaneous.
-
Quote from my last post
Can it be experimentally proven that a photon travels instantaneously outside of a gravitational field? Probably not as we can not divorce the experiment from the all encompassing effects of gravity.
This does however, fit in with quantum mechanics idea of energy of the vacuum.
If energy can spontaneously appear from the vacuum it is doing so outside of time. In which case it must be instantaneous. Therefore, it follows that outside of a gravitational field a photon travels instantaneous.
-
Mike, your ideas are not mainstream. Neither are they backed up by any evidence. Place them in New Theories, not here.
-
This does however, fit in with quantum mechanics idea of energy of the vacuum.
If energy can spontaneously appear from the vacuum it is doing so outside of time. In which case it must be instantaneous. Therefore, it follows that outside of a gravitational field a photon travels instantaneous.
This does not fit with quantum mechanics or any other mainstream theory. If it's your own theory, please state it as such and don't mislead people into thinking it's mainstream. If it's your own theory, please keep it to the New Theories section, as yor_on suggested.
-
I have taken your advice and opened this in under new theories. 'What is the speed of light outside of a gravitational field?'
-
Johann,
My understanding of "The metric expansion of space" is of an abstract mathematical phenomena and not necessarily of a real event. Certainly there is no velocity involved since all velocity in our universe is measured against space itself, or at least some reference frame within space or space-time. Space, may or may not "expand", although I don't see how "expansion" is an appropriate word or idea within our universe.
I guess this has been answered differently and more traditionally with the co moving reference frame argument.
What I wanted to ask was a basic question about relativity connected to this thread.
Is the "expansion" of space derived from GR or simply implied from our redshift observations and, do we believe it is a real effect or just an abstract mathematical tool which gives us the right answers when using relativity theory?
-
No Ken, relative motion is always defined relative objects moving, not relative space. Although it will be the 'space' metrics that change, when defining those objects moving relative each other. And the metric expansion of space is related to the way all those objects seems to be accelerating from everyone else, as confirmed through the red shift and brightness of distant supernovae. But it could be wrong of course, there might be some other explanation that we haven't realized yet. Still, it's no weirder than we existing at all :)
-
Thankyou Yor_on,
Yes, I understand we normally deal with relative motion by considering motion between two bodies, then translate the effects by defining the metrics.
But, do we really have to do this?
Non mainstream questioning from now on
If a ship is passing through a gravitational field, why can we not consider the motion relative to some particular reference frame within the field? Perhaps you might argue that the field in question is directly related to the body producing it, but is the field any less real than the (planet)?
Would it not be possible to develop relativity based on relative motion between reference frames or is this already implicit within the theory?
I don't want to re create the Aether, but surely there are frames of reference within space-time that we could use as datums?
Regarding observed redshift, if we consider the possibility that time itself might be passing more rapidly now than in the past, then this could not only give us the same redshift observations, but it would do so without the necessity for an expanding space. Occams Razor would prefer this option and I certainly do as I have a problem accepting the expansion of nothing.
There is no scientific justification for assuming that time has always passed at the same relative rate throughout the eons. If we extrapolate in the same way as we have done to deduce expansion, then we get the slowing down of time to a standstill at the beginning. No Big Bang, just a Slow Temporal Eruption (STE).
-
Ken would you mind if I moved the above post to New Theories? - as you acknowledged it really has moved away from the OP and from mainstream knowledge.
-
That's fine thanks, but I was asking for a mainstream response to the non mainstrean idea.
-
There are several difficulties, some of them directly related to how we define motion from a relativistic perspective. But the uppermost is that space is what you find everywhere. Without space nothing can exist, it's in your cup of coffee, it's in your molecules, it's whats make up 99 ~ of a atom. And there are no distinguishing signs to space. It's the same in outer space as in that atom. If we found a way to distinguish one point of space from another we would have a new theory.
And you can't use gravity as that is a dynamic phenomena, coupled to energy, invariant mass and motion. Actually space confuses me, if I would define from a QM perspective I could mumble something about 'zero energy' and a sea of 'virtual particles' but that is nothing we can measure. That's a theory explaining some really strange properties at a minuscule plane, not anything we can hold up and say. "This is a virtual particle".
Space is without friction, Space is empty, there is none proven it to be otherwise macroscopically yet. And being so there is nowhere space will differ from any other point of space. You could assume, as I do, that 'space' is 'gravity'. To me 'space' has two qualities, it has a distance and it contain 'gravity' even when unmeasurable.
==
Gravity is in fact a 'resistance' of sorts, and what any object will do when moving in a space is to adapt to least energy expended, meaning that it will follow a geodesic (free fall/ weightless). As the universe prefers it that way you could say that for a universe in equilibrium all motion will be 'uniform' .
Electro magnetic energy is 'everywhere' if you like. But it does not leave itself to be observed in the same manner as macroscopic objects. A football will be observed as it comes, a photon will only be observed as it annihilates/interacts. That leaves you two ways to define EM. From a point of 'propagating' or just from a point of 'interacting'. Most theories today treat it as 'propagating' and so we find ourselves in a quagmire of definitions when it comes to its duality waves/particles containing a plethora of extremely confusing and clever theories. If you define EM as it actually is then it is 'everywhere' but there is 'nothing' propagating as such, instead you have something directly coupled to 'times arrow' that will present you with a effect that you directly can translate into 'propagation'.
A football is in some ways also a bundle of 'photons' as it is those that will define the football to your eyes, as it moves in the air. But invariant mass and energy/photons is not the absolute same, and that you prove each time you lift your cup looking down at the 'light' dancing on its surfaces.
-
Hi Yor_on,
It seems we completely agree on space being totally............. NOTHING!
That's great because it is the first assumption in my new theory which I cannot discuss here. (Yeah, I know, everyone's got a theory, but one may be true!)(Yeah, I know everyone thinks their theory is true, but that still doesn't mean that one (or more) of them can't be)
I do not agree with you that gravity is the only thing in space, although we very nearly do agree.
It is TIME that is the only reality in space, not gravity, but then, since Newtonian gravitation can be regarded as the curvature of time,(this is mainstream), I think it could be said that we agree on this also.
Oh, and by the way, we do have a way of distinguishing one point in space from another and that is by comparing the passage of time between each frame. (ie, the time rate in one frame of reference compared to the time rate in another. Mainstream scince agrees they are different)
In other words, space-time is the time rate field within the void.
I don't think I've strayed from the mainstream.
Oh, and another thing, space cannot exist on its own, not without the passage of time. Therefore we have our space-time continuum.
-
Yep time is most important :)
Without it no causality.
Without causality no motion.
==
As for the way you want to narrow it down to 'time'.
I don't know? Go to 'New Theories' and define what you think :)
I see 'time' as one of the most confusing phenomena I know.
But 'times arrow' seems also to be a property directly coupled to 'SpaceTime'.
And it and radiation keeps the same count, to me that is :)
They goes hand in hand, both being 'constants' from your own 'frame of reference'.
Then there is one more thing, we need to differ between 'conceptual truths' and those we actually can measure first handedly. A conceptual truth is a 'time dilation' to me. A measurable truth is that at no time will you find your time to differ, using your wrist watch against your heartbeats for example :)
But write it up in New Theories, and we will see.
-
Hi again Yor_on,
It's all written down in my new book, which I am not allowed to advertise here.
By the way, your comment about time dilation being unmeasurable is incorrect. I agree that WITHIN your frame, your clock rate will never change whether you speed off at "c" or land on a black hole (these are the limits). BUT, relative to other frames your clock certainly DOES change its rate. This IS measureable (Hafele & Keating 1971)
This is all mainstream
-
You didn't get what I said Ken. I said it was a 'conceptual truth'. It can be confirmed by a twin experiment but at no time will any of the 'frames of reference' find their own 'time' to start behave differently. That's what make it into a 'conceptual truth'.
You have the measurements you can do, and then you have 'frames of reference'.
Try to see what I mean.
==
Btw: You're not using this site to advertise your book, are you?
Because if you are then you're at the wrong place. TNS has a rather strict policy not allowing 'self aggrandizing'. It's mostly a place for questions and discussions :)
As for no 'frame of reference' being the 'exact same' it's been shown beautifully with two atomic clocks, putting one on the floor relative the other still being on a table. And in television no less :) So I have no arguments with that. But if we define you as having only one '¨frame of reference', then that also mean that although you will see the 'clock ticks' start to differ between the floor and the table, your own 'frame of reference' still only will have one same 'clock tick', defined by ? Pick your choice.
-
Yor_on,
Maybe your reply was a little hasty?
If you read my previous response, it is very clear that I do indeed understand what you are saying. "You'll never see any difference in your clock from WITHIN your frame of reference". This we agree on, right?
BUT........ by definition, "Time Dilation" is the RELATIVE change of time rate between frames of reference at different gravitational potentials and/or in relative motion. This is not just a conceptual thing, it is REAL and was proved in 1971 and subsequently.
-
Let me ask you a question, if you went out tomorrow and finding all people one year older than before your coffee break, would you then assume that it was you or them changing? As you drank that coffee? Let's assume that none of those comparing ever found their own time behaving 'different' for this.
And then change view, assume that you were one of those guys being one year older, watching 'you'. Would you then assume that it had been you 'accelerating' your time, or would you assume it was the 'other guy slowing down'?
A time dilation is a effect between 'frames of reference'. It will always be a arbitrarily defined 'system' in where one part, for example making a acceleration, introduce a different 'room time' relative it's counterpart (& origin) by that acceleration. Without another 'frame of reference' to compare that 'time dilation' against there will be no measurable proof, no matter your acceleration, or mass, or energy..
And so it is 'real', but on the conceptual plane. As the guy traveling, your time do not 'change', but your 'positional system' in time and space/room will relative all other comparisons.
-
Hi Yor_on,
It doesn't matter what I might think from either frame of reference, or what others might think from theirs. The fact is that the moving frame's clock (or the one that has been in a low gravitational potential), has lost time relative to the frame it left behind. This effect is not due to acceleration, but only to the amount of time it spent in the different frame and the difference in time rates between the frames. This is standard Special Relativity. I am not changing it or presenting it any differently than Albert Einstein.
I would be interested to know what you think about length contraction. Do you think this is the same as time dilation, or more real or less real?
-
Yes, we agree on that the frames of reference have changed relative each other :)
But, where did you think the change came about?
Assume that we have three observers. One on Earth, two 'alien observers/spacecrafts' in space.
For this we will use Earth as the 'inertial frame', defining their speeds.
Then assume that both space farer's are moving uniformly. From Earths perspective we don't need to know if they ever accelerated to measure their 'speed', relative our 'inertial earth frame' that is.
Will they see a Lorentz contraction? Will both of the aliens observe the other space-crafts 'clock' to go slower than their own? Will they have a time dilation? What will define that 'time dilation'?
In a uniform motion all motion becomes unmeasurable inside a 'black box scenario'. You trying to measure the infalling light from a lightbulb situated at the front of your ships 'motion' will find it to have no blue shift as you measure it at the aft. You will also find yourself weightless, following a geodesic. This effect and that you will find all experiments, at least all I can think up, giving you the same outcomes, no matter your 'speed' as measured by earth, or for that sake anywhere else, give all uniform speeds the same equivalence to me. They are all 'at rest' relative gravity, becoming inseparable from 'standing still' inside that room.
But we both expect a time dilation, don't we :)
And we both expect a Lorentz contraction.
There are no 'inertial frames' that won't have a 'gravitational acceleration', as long as we're discussing something made from matter. And in that way all three can be defined as being 'inertial frames'. Each one of them can define themselves, when doing a direct measurement on any of the other frames, as either moving with the other one being still, or anything in between, all the way up to themselves being the one not moving.
So where did that time dilation get 'created', relative what?
-
Yor_on,
There is insufficient information to answer the questions so I will cover the situations I think you are getting at. (I ignore gravity and concentrate on relative motion) ;-
1. The two alien space craft are moving together, in the same direction at the same speed and therefore have no relative motion between them. In this case, the Earth observer will see both space ship's clocks slowed down by the same amount due to their equal speed relative to the Earth. Both Alien observers will see NO time dilation from the other craft, but SR predicts they will see time dilation of Earth clocks to the same degree as the Earth observer sees for their clocks.
2. The two alien craft are both moving at the same speed as before, but now in opposite directions, passing one another. Now they will observe time dilation for each other's clock but greater than previously observed by the Earth observer due to their doubled relative speed. The Earth observer will see the same time dilation as previously for both craft.
I see exactly where the time dilation comes from in each case. It is the time dilation due to relative motion and is quantified by Lorentz.
Is there anything I haven't covered?
Actually, yes there is. I have neglected the Earth's time dilation due to its gravitational field and that will have an effect on all observations of objects higher up in the field. Locations higher up in space at the alien craft positions will have a faster clock than on Earth. So, if we start with the crafts having faster clocks due to their elevation and then slow them down due to their motion, we get the resulting time dilation (or quickening) for the craft as observed from Earth.
From the craft's frames, observing the Earth, and for both options above, they will first see the gravitational redshift (that's what we're talking about), then they will see the redshift or time dilation due to the relative motion added to this.
The observations between the craft remain unaffected by the Earth's time dilation field, unless they are at different elevations.
I think that covers it
-
It's fun laboring with it, ain't it :)
And yes, you have about the same conclusions as me there. The point here being that we're discussing a 'uniform motion', inseparable from being at rest in a black box scenario. Now assume the two alien ships to have a different uniform 'speed' as defined by Earth. Then look at the time dilations. They will be differently defined for each one of them, relative each one of them it will differ too. The clocks though, as measured of the others ships-clock/earth etc will still be equivalently slow, not caring of whom is really 'moving'.
So, how do the universe keep count?
And, what defines motion?
-
The question can be stated as. Do the universe have a 'gold standard' of 'time'? If it has then all of those frames described can be expected to be 'time dilated' versus that standard. If it doesn't then all 'time dilations' will be arbitrarily defined. That mean that the only way you can discuss a 'time dilation' will be by a direct comparison, as in the twin experiment, or by watching those atomic clocks differ on the table relative the floor. The other point is that we actually seem to have a 'ground state' as shown in that there is no way to define any 'temporal change' in your own 'frame of reference' no matter if you're moving close to the speed of light in a vacuum. That is, ignoring really, really, hard radiation and tidal forces.
So, how do time and motion go together? The hard radiation will come through your 'relative motion' right :) And the different 'time dilations' you will have, simultaneously, as defined per what object you 'measure yourself' arriving to conclusions of different speeds will still be there. And lastly, that time you really have measured for living your life, by fate or (..insert word of choice :) doesn't really care about that motion, neither about that mass or energy. It is the same measure wherever you are.
-
It seems I am unable to post
-
At least, to post the message I wanted
-
Here goes again
-
Nope ! It's no use, it seems my message has been prevented from being posted. I don't know why.
Any suggestions?
-
I get an error message saying there were the following errors but no list of errors
-
I don't know?
What was it, some words are 'black listed' I'm afraid?
-
And sometimes, depending on connection and location it do seems to 'hang'. At least as I've experienced? Try again after a reboot and see if it makes a difference.
==
Or possibly you tried to insert to many words for one post?
That can give a error too.
-
I'll try splitting the message
-
No good. I can't think I used any words which might be banned. I give up.
Anyway, I was making the same point as you regarding a "Universal Time Rate" which is the hypothetical time rate at a "stationary" position at infinite distance from all the mass in the universe. Yes I agree, all time dilation is from this time rate downwards
-
Yes :)
Then you and me suspect the same there. I haven't seen anyone defining it as a 'constant' yet but I think it is one myself. You might want to define SpaceTime as a whole 'system' interacting where 'entropy' becomes the 'time rate', but myself I don't like it :)
Just because of that fact you bring up there. that we do seem to have a same 'ground state'.
If we didn't no frames should be expected to 'fit' as I see it, coming together, but they do, always..
-
It is not by chance we have come down to discussion time as time is THE fundamental that explains some of the problems with current theory.
I have developed some definite ideas regarding time and its effects and will post these in the new theory topics soon.
-
Do that Ken. Time is a very interesting subject to me :)
And weird..
-
I'm not sure it is a simple constant. I see it perhaps as a constant for each "universe" or set of frames, infinite in number.
I don't see the link between time and entropy. There just different. Entropy is our way of looking at a particular property whilst time is a FUNDAMENTAL entity, however we may look at it.
-
I think it has to be the server, looking at the post count under our names it hasn't updated the count at all? You got '25' posts the whole page.
0uch..
==
Weird, it did update . Okay it does it globally for each post..
So something else then?
-
Yor_on,
It's been great having this discussion with you today.
It is now midnight here in Spain so I shall now get to bed.
Goodnight and thanks
-
Sleep well, and post your ideas :)