0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
David,it's refreshing to read a post of scientific value, in a forum dedicated to science
If you think it need further discussion, then go for it, but I think I've covered it already. The only factor relevant to the extended lifespan of unstable particles in particle accelerators is their speed of travel through space slowing their functionality and decay rate.
Quote from: David Cooper on 28/11/2018 22:38:54If you think it need further discussion, then go for it, but I think I've covered it already …Ok, if you have covered it already, I'm good.
If you think it need further discussion, then go for it, but I think I've covered it already …
David is not alone. He has, and I think Thebox too, has an issue with one generally accepted point he mentioned.
That point was that the relative motion of an object does not add to or change the speed of light emitted from that object (or the speed of light measured by an apparatus on board that moving object). Science says that the velocity of light is always c in vacua, i.e., in empty space.
...The position of the scientific theory is, that regardless of the relative motion between the independent source of light and the motion of the rocket ship, both will traverse the same space at the same velocity. It follows that if that space was a vacuum, both would be traveling at c.
So let’s say science has it right. Then David, and Thebox, and many others would apparently have it wrong.
1) First, there is the stipulation that the speed of light in space cannot exceed c, by theory, but because space is not a perfect vacuum, light traversing it could never really be going quite at c in the first place. So if it is never quite c, then what is it and why isn’t it c.
2) It isn’t c because there is no empty space, and c requires a vacuum consisting of empty space at 0 degrees Kelvin, with no outside influences. Because space is not a perfect vacuum, there is no light traversing space at c. But if the space through which light is traveling were to be cleared of everything in it (except the light waves in question), the velocity of that light would adjust itself, and if measured, would be found to be going at c, in accord with the premise that the velocity of light through a vacuum is always c.
3) What is in “otherwise empty space”, aside from the presence of our rocket and our beams of light, and various stray particles? In addition to particles and objects, space is filled with gravitational waves as predicted by Einstein, and as has been verified by LIGO. In addition to gravitational waves coming and going in all directions, there are influences like other light wave fronts going to and from all directions, the presence of massive objects, related magnetic fields, electric fields, etc. All of those things have a presence in space that affects the velocity of light through that space; one might call it the gravitational wave energy density profile of the local space. Depending on the density of all of those influences, the velocity of light through the local space is subject to those influences, and must be considered to be variable.
4) We know that objects in relative motion to each other emit gravitational waves because LIGO and ESA interferometers have detected them. Though the sources of the detected gravitational waves have so far been from massively energetic events like the in-swirling death spiral of two black holes or neutron stars, the simple event of an apple falling from a tree also emits seemingly insignificant amounts of gravitational wave energy associated with its motion as it falls, relative to the Earth. Those insignificant energy events all have the theoretical endless reach of gravity, and tiny as they are, combined with a potentially infinite amount of mass in the universe, the tiny increments of gravitational wave energy does add up to be meaningful at all points in space.
6) Logic tells us that if objects emit gravitational wave energy at the local speed light, then unless they have a natural way to absorb energy to replace the emitted gravitational wave energy, they would “evaporate”.
7) If all particles are wave-particles, composed of gravitational wave energy in quantum increments, then photons would contain mass equivalent to the quanta that they contain as a result of their emission from electrons. Photons would maintain a presence in space as massive particles, composed of quanta, via their hypothetical inflowing and out flowing gravitational wave energy components as hypothesized above. Uniquely though, all of the photon’s inflowing wave energy component would come from just one direction, the direction of their motion through space, enabling then to always travel at the local speed of light in the direction of the inflowing component of wave energy from the unique direction of motion imparted to them when they were emitted by the electron. In conclusion, for those reasons, the velocity of the light emitted by the headlight of a speeding rocket will never exceed c in a vacuum, even as the rocket approaches the speed of light itself.
I have no issue with that at all. If you travel at 0.99c, the light from your headlights moves at c, and that means it's only 0.01c faster than you (although you will still measure it as moving at c relative to you if you assume that you are at rest).Indeed - light emitted from the rocket will be of a much higher frequency than the people in the rocket think, although it will be suppressed a bit by the functionality of that emitter running slow.Again, I can't speak for the box, but you've misread my position. The speed of light through space (whether the aether or vacuum) is c (unless it's slowed by gravity, but that's irrelevant in deep space and is barely relevant here too). It's actually Einstein's original SR that broke the rule by making out that the speed of light relative to object A is c in every direction relative to object A while the speed of light relative to object B is also c in every direction relative to object B even though objects A and B are moving relative to each other. The result of that would be that the light moving relative to object A at c could be overtaken by the light moving relative to object B at c along the exact same path. That would have to be possible if all frames of reference are equally true. In reality, only one frame can be providing a true account of reality and all the others must be wrong.Being an infinitesimal amount slower than c can be counted as c when dealing with the twins paradox.If you carry out the twins paradox deep in a gravity well, the speed of light there might be 0.5c, but if so, the functionality of every component of the experiment is also running with its functionality running at half the rate it would do in deep space, so all you're doing is complifying it by bringing in an unnecessary gravity field which has an equal effect on everything. In deep space though, the amount of stuff you have flying though that space is so lacking in mass that there is practically no gravity well depth there at all.You are obsessed with an infinitesimally small factor - it would be like arguing about the impact on a race between two runners where one has had a bacterium dropped onto his head before the start - for sure it will slow him down because it adds mass to him, but it is not a factor worth considering unless you have timing equipment that can measure brazillionths of a femtosecond.They add up to virtually nothing if your interest is in how much they slow the speed of light.Then that tells you that they don't ordinarily emit such energy, and that when they do so, it is taken from the kinetic energy they're carrying and not from the structural energy of which they are made.There's a much simpler reason for the speed of light not exceeding c, and that's that c is the speed that space-dependent waves travel at through the fabric of space just as the speed of the sound is the speed that air-dependent waves travel through air. We know though just by looking out at the space around us that there is little in the way of distortion - the speed of light out there is practically c because if there was significant variation, there would be very obvious optical effects which we simply aren't seeing.
included in the "Principia Mathematica" a scholium, or an appendix of explanatory notes, and in it he defined several important principles, including the idea of absolute time. Although he understood that clocks[/url] weren't perfect and measuring time was subject to human error, Newton believed in an absolute time that was similar to a universal, omnipotent God-like time, one that was the same for everyone, everywhere. In other words, someone standing at the North Pole on Earth[/url] would experience time the same way as someone standing on Mars[/url].[/font][/size]
Let’s see if we agree on what the main point is that stimulates our discussion:I’m on record in this thread saying that 1) there is no absolute time. Briefly, 2) my position is that the universe has always existed and so there never was a start of time or an original point of space, and 3) the rate that a clock measures the passing of time is governed by the local energy density where the clock is ticking away. 4) There is no clock, light clock, atomic clock, human twins, etc. that can measure the passing of absolute time. I listed four points. If you agree that we need to define the scope of our discussion, would you mind stating your response to each of my four points?
Further:https://science.howstuffworks.com/science-vs-myth/everyday-myths/time-dilation1.htmQuote from: howstuffworks link included in the "Principia Mathematica" a scholium, or an appendix of explanatory notes, and in it he defined several important principles, including the idea of absolute time. Although he understood that clocks[/url] weren't perfect and measuring time was subject to human error, Newton believed in an absolute time that was similar to a universal, omnipotent God-like time, one that was the same for everyone, everywhere. In other words, someone standing at the North Pole on Earth[/url] would experience time the same way as someone standing on Mars[/url].[/font][/size]5) Do you believe in absolute time as defined by Newton?
(1) I say there is an absolute time and that some clocks come closer than others to measuring it. Clocks that are moving under-record the amount of time that has passed, and so do clocks in a gravity well.
(2) We seem to have an expanding space fabric, but this may be expanding within an outer fabric (with more dimensions) which doesn't expand or contract (we can only speculate about that). The universe is the inner fabric which can expand and contract, but it may be of infinite duration (with the time between two big bongs being a chapter of the universe if it's possible for it to contract back down to a point). We can only speculate about this at present, but the idea that time started at the big bong is an SR/GR idea based on the "time dimension" being time - a "time dimension" is not time though, so it's a bogus idea.
(3) The local energy density is related to the rate at which a clock runs slow, and all clocks have some energy in them which must cause an infinitesimal slowing of their functionality even if they're in an empty universe.
Even a photon traveling through space provides an energy density >0 which means that it must slow itself down to a speed below c - a lower frequency photon should move faster than a higher frequency photon.
This slowing is such a tiny effect though for a single photon that a gamma ray photon and radio wave photon should effectively travel at the same speed across billions of lightyears of space - the other radiation around them as they travel will affect them equally and will slow them down much more, but there are more photons in the space near where we are due to the presence of the sun, and they have little slowing effect where we are, so by the time you're in deep space, it's an irrelevant effect.
Of more relevance could be the virtual particles "pinging into and out of existence" in any volume of space anywhere - if that produces a high energy density everywhere, that could be slowing all clocks everywhere to the point where they're only measuring a tiny amount of the actual time that's passed there, in which case there could be a strong impact on clock speeds even in the emptiest places in the universe…
… but such an effect would be universal and has no impact on the twins paradox result, so at least we can discuss the implications of the twins paradox and come to reliable conclusions about some aspects of how the universe works.
I also doubt that virtual particles count towards energy density though, but they take me outside of the range of my knowledge, so I can't rule that possibility in or out yet.
(4) If the energy density in deep space is close to zero, a stationary clock there would almost tick at the same rate as absolute time.
His definition is wrong where it says they "would experience time the same way" - they wouldn't because someone standing on Mars would record more time passing than someone standing on the Earth during the same length of absolute time. Both are exposed to the same amount of absolute time though. A photon traveling from location X to location Y and back again might take a year to make the trip, but it has its functionality (or rather, the component of its functionality that isn't simply its movement through space) completely frozen by its speed of travel, so no time is recorded by its "clock", and yet it has been exposed to a year of absolute time during its travels.
My expected come back is that there is no absolute time in the ISU,
Quote from: Bogie_smiles on 03/12/2018 13:16:26My expected come back is that there is no absolute time in the ISU,Space does not age or alter , it is 0 constant .
Quote from: Thebox on 03/12/2018 14:48:27Quote from: Bogie_smiles on 03/12/2018 13:16:26My expected come back is that there is no absolute time in the ISU,Space does not age or alter , it is 0 constant . I agree, on the basis that in my ISU model, space is always infinite, and though time simply passes, it is measured by clocks to be passing at different rates based on the local energy density of the environment where the measurement is being made.
Time does not pass by ., things age relative to space 0 constant . We don't measure ''time'' , we record history .
Aging changes due to energy density , go nearer the Sun you will age fast .
I don’t consider your view to be factual either, for the same reason, lol.
Please feel free to measure the aging of space , try to destroy space . You can remove all the matter from the universe , but you can't remove space, can't create space , space is nothingness, nothingness can not be less than nothingness it can only be more than nothingness.
Quote from: Thebox on 03/12/2018 15:48:25Please feel free to measure the aging of space , try to destroy space . You can remove all the matter from the universe , but you can't remove space, can't create space , space is nothingness, nothingness can not be less than nothingness it can only be more than nothingness. OK, I have gathered up all of the matter in the universe so we can get it out of space; Now where do you want me to put it?Edit: I know where you are going to suggest, but forget it, it won't all fit there, lol.
You can put the matter in your imagination of a void , the voids emptiness should allow you to see that there is no matter in the beginning .
Now where do you want me to put it?Edit: I know where you are going to suggest, but forget it, it won't all fit there, lol.
Maybe not, but there are a few people on here with the capacity