Naked Science Forum
On the Lighter Side => New Theories => Topic started by: guest39538 on 04/01/2016 23:33:53
-
There is no past just memories, there is no future, the future can't be remembered in the now, there is only the moment of now, moving on to the next moment of now, time does not exist, only the now exists, the now is zero, then zero,, then zero, then zero, not 1,2,3.
-
True, but only if you consider one reference frame, if you consider two independent reference frames no one can agree which part is now, since my future might be your past, as the space interval connection between us is zero.
-
True, but only if you consider one reference frame, if you consider two independent reference frames no one can agree which part is now, since my future might be your past, as the space interval connection between us is zero.
Regardless of reference frame, including a ''Gods eye'' view. Even a ''God'' would experience simultaneous moments.
'' if you consider two independent reference frames no one can agree which part is now, since my future might be your past, as the space interval connection between us is zero.''
It is all the now, every frame.
-
I believe there the present 'moment' is the same throughout infinity .. there may or may not be a past, but there is a future, many fulfilled prophecies have been proven. I believe Non locality is merely a reduction of space to zero .. an elimination of space.
-
I believe there the present 'moment' is the same throughout infinity .. there may or may not be a past, but there is a future, many fulfilled prophecies have been proven. I believe Non locality is merely a reduction of space to zero .. an elimination of space.
It is impossible for there to be a future, In another thread I realised why, anything more than zero/nothing when considering time is history/memory.
We live a zero moment simultaneous and remember/record these moments. We are writing history expanding history.
[ Invalid Attachment ]
-
I don't get it, I prove time does not exist and nobody seemingly cares.....
-
I don't get it, I prove time does not exist and nobody seemingly cares.....
Either you're a genius unsurpassed and nobody understands you, or you're full of rubbish nobody cares to respond to you.
Which one is it? I don't know.
-
I don't get it, I prove time does not exist and nobody seemingly cares.....
Either you're a genius unsurpassed and nobody understands you, or you're full of rubbish nobody cares to respond to you.
Which one is it? I don't know.
Nobody must understand
the big bang is not the start of time, the big bang was the start of history.
-
https://theoristexplains.wordpress.com/2016/01/18/life-is-like-a-blank-cd/
-
These forums sure do seem to attract the mentally ill.
Time cube. Nuff said.
-
These forums sure do seem to attract the mentally ill.
Time cube. Nuff said.
Obviously a troll with no aim to discuss the topic.
P.s I know I am 100% correct because anything more than zero/nothing is history.
-
These forums sure do seem to attract the mentally ill.
Time cube. Nuff said.
The mentally ill generally think 'the other guy' or 'everyone else' is crazy .. so your statement is indicative.
-
I don't get it, I prove time does not exist and nobody seemingly cares.....
Either you're a genius unsurpassed and nobody understands you, or you're full of rubbish nobody cares to respond to you.
Which one is it? I don't know.
Nobody must understand
the big bang is not the start of time, the big bang was the start of history.
The Big Bang is theory only .. and the originator of this thread needs to clarify his thoughts so the rest of us can understand him.
-
Actually, name calling and resorting to insults is "crazy" in my book. Achieves nothing, supports nothing, and leaves us all wondering why we even come here. I suggest that we all take a breather and try to explain our views and opinions with some respect for other members whether we agree with them or not. If you want to behave like adolescents, you might consider "playing" at another playground!
-
and the originator of this thread needs to clarify his thoughts so the rest of us can understand him.
Thank you, for a starting premise consider that anything more than zero/nothing is an increment of history, even if we used the Planck length or light to measure ''time''.
0t←history ←Planck length
0t←history←9,192, 631,770 cycles
-
Okay .. so 0 + 1 = 1. How is this relevant to what you are saying, that time does not exist?
-
Okay .. so 0 + 1 = 1. How is this relevant to what you are saying, that time does not exist?
It is not 0+1=1
It is a discrete continuous value of 00000000000000000000000000000000000000 the now, i.e a blank space like an empty hard drive
1 second is a history of zero, a distance reference point between 0 and 0
0..1..2..3..4..5..0
0..0..0..0..0..0..0
added- 1=0 , 1 marks the now moment of zero in history
0+1=0
A 1 meter ruler does not measure from 0 to 1m, it measures from zero to zero.
-
I'd like to make a short comment about how I understand the past and the future. While I agree that the only reality we have is the present, human experience understands the past as history and the future as an execution of a plan.
Example: I can remember an event in the past, it is therefore an historical event.
Example: I can rationalize a future event because I can predict the results of an action taken here in the present. For example; I stick a pin into an inflated balloon and it will surely pop.
So these two concepts; "past and future" are products of memory and plans but the only reality we really experience is the present. So in principle, I understand what TheBox is trying to explain. But the words "past and future" have a very necessary utility when we are describing physical events and their causes. I think it is quite unnecessary to try and discard their meaning or use.
Just my two cents...............................
-
I'd like to make a short comment about how I understand the past and the future. While I agree that the only reality we have is the present, human experience understands the past as history and the future as an execution of a plan.
Example: I can remember an event in the past, it is therefore an historical event.
Example: I can rationalize a future event because I can predict the results of an action taken here in the present. For example; I stick a pin into an inflated balloon and it will surely pop.
So these two concepts; "past and future" are products of memory and plans but the only reality we really experience is the present. So in principle, I understand what TheBox is trying to explain. But the words "past and future" have a very necessary utility when we are describing physical events and their causes. I think it is quite unnecessary to try and discard their meaning or use.
Just my two cents...............................
A two cent's worth. well appreciated Ethos.
I do understand a need for a system of timing to synchronise our everyday lives, otherwise we would be just late or early for everything.
However I do see that this concept could effect a lot of things, such has ''time'' dilation.
Also may I point out something about ''prediction'', we can predict movements of the planets, because they follow their own history and repeat history, i.e the path relative stays the same of the orbiting body over ''time'' and repeats the cycle(s).
I am now lost for words, I have so much to say but do not know where to start, maybe I should ask a question and take it from there,
Do you or anyone else interested , not understand why ''time'' can not possibly dilate?
Taking into consideration that t= 0 and is a discrete continuous.
-
Do you or anyone else interested , not understand why ''time'' can not possibly dilate?
Relative to an individuals personal time, it won't appear to dilate. However, we have through experiment proven that, relative to the observer, time is variant. The observers experience of times passage for the observed depends upon several things. One is the velocity at which the object being observed is accelerating and another is the influence of a gravitational field upon the one being observed. My personal observance of how time passes in my reference frame will not appear to change. But for an observer witnessing those same events, depending on my velocity and the gravitational field in which I exist, it can.
While I agree that the present is our only reality, I evidently fail to understand how you disagree with time dilation. If there is no variation in the passage of time, how do we explain the slowing of clocks in vehicles under great acceleration? We have witnessed such time dilation occurring so if not time variance, what is it that is changing?
-
Do you or anyone else interested , not understand why ''time'' can not possibly dilate?
Relative to an individuals personal time, it won't appear to dilate. However, we have through experiment proven that, relative to the observer, time is variant. The observers experience of times passage for the observed depends upon several things. One is the velocity at which the object being observed is accelerating and another is the influence of a gravitational field upon the one being observed. My personal observance of how time passes in my reference frame will not appear to change. But for an observer witnessing those same events, depending on my velocity and the gravitational field in which I exist, it can.
I understand very well the Keating experiment and the Caesium frequency dilation, however 0 can not and will never dilate. ''Time dilation'' is something else.
anything more than zero is history including any frequency rates. A rate is established over a period of history not a period of time.
arr, you added more on as I was writing,
''While I agree that the present is our only reality, I evidently fail to understand how you disagree with time dilation. If there is no variation in the passage of time, how do we explain the slowing of clocks in vehicles under great acceleration? We have witnessed such time dilation occurring so if not time variance, what is it that is changing?''
energy variance at a guess , just like light and most things have a variance.
Let me explain a confusion the world has had for some time now , about time and the atomic clocks. A Caesium atom's frequency rate is used to represent one second, take note of the word represent. The atomic clocks suppose to be a device for measuring time, representing time increments, the clocks themselves were never meant to be time only a representation of time, so when these clocks malfunction, the constant rate of the second changes, that is just a busted clock and does not effect the time they are representing, and for some strange reason, the world thinks time is a caesium atomic clock .
I can show loads of other ways why there is no time dilation by using better clocks that do not go faulty with a bit of motion.
p.s the dilation is something to do with less absorption making a slower emittance rate ,
-
No, the 'world' doesn't think time is a caesium clock. The world thinks it is the average number of vibrations an atom goes through, dependent on temperature and pressure changes.
You wouldn't even know this if not for the discoveries of other people, so I'm not sure why you are yet again trying to claim the moral high ground. Sure, there are a lot of uneducated people out there, but there are also a lot of educated people out there too. This being a science forum associated with Cambridge, I would like to think that the average user knows how a quartz watch works...
Also, your idea that anything more than zero is history is correct, but so evidently correct to be uninteresting beyond belief. That may be why nobody really cares. Just my 2 cents.
-
so I'm not sure why you are yet again trying to claim the moral high ground.
Moral high ground? there is nobody more humble than myself.
But anyone who thinks there is a dilation of time, just because the measuring device fails, is incorrect.
-
energy variance at a guess , just like light and most things have a variance.
I think this is where I get off Mr. Box. The speed of light has been accepted by every physicist the world over as the one thing that is invariant. It remains the same in all frames of reference whether in varied degrees of motion or in varied degrees of gravitational influence. I therefore leave it to someone else to sort out the errors you evidently don't yet understand.
-
energy variance at a guess , just like light and most things have a variance.
I think this is where I get off Mr. Box. The speed of light has been accepted by every physicist the world over as the one thing that is invariant. It remains the same in all frames of reference whether in varied degrees of motion or in varied degrees of gravitational influence. I therefore leave it to someone else to sort out the errors you evidently don't yet understand.
The speed of light is measured time over distance, science even measures light history, yes it may be constant in speed, but it is a variant in frequency. i.e spectral colours
I was not claiming that light was not constant and an invariant speed. Light is not as fast as 0. 0 is instantaneous, anything that uses a distance is measuring history and not time.
p.s I can't believe you agree that time is the now but are pulling out of the thread, when with your knowledge we could develop this further
d/t is measuring a history, we some how need to measure d/0.
We need to work out, why ''time dilation'' happens and what is the meaning if any. We need to work out where ''we'' went wrong in history.
-
Also, your idea that anything more than zero is history is correct, but so evidently correct to be uninteresting beyond belief. That may be why nobody really cares. Just my 2 cents.
Nobody cares , exactly, not uninteresting, it changes a lot of things and gives a complete new view, but there is no interest like you say, why no interest? there is a fine line between logic and paranoia, hence the end of the world thread in main.
It is illogical to ignore, so if something is illogical then there must be another logic hampering the logic and making the avoidance.
I do not think science own's science, I think religion owns science, religion won the wars of religion, then it all went quiet. So surely the victors are still in-charge of everything if they were never overthrown.
-
The point Sam7 is making is that this is so obvious that it is taken as given and really doesn't make any difference to science.
Science measures the time between events and uses this info in the same way distance is used. This is a very useful process. We can use history to predict the future - if an object has been falling for 10s, if nothing changes its fall we can predict where it will be in another 10s. Time like distance has a consistency at low relative speeds.
People may just have got tired of entering into another pointless discussion full of misunderstandings about basic science.
-
The point Sam7 is making is that this is so obvious that it is taken as given and really doesn't make any difference to science.
Science measures the time between events and uses this info in the same way distance is used. This is a very useful process. We can use history to predict the future - if an object has been falling for 10s, if nothing changes its fall we can predict where it will be in another 10s. Time like distance has a consistency at low relative speeds.
People may just have got tired of entering into another pointless discussion full of misunderstandings about basic science.
I have no misunderstanding, all of you who have replied have agreed I am correct, you say it is irrelevant, when it clearly is a strict definition and an axiom .
Science says that time dilates, science is clearly lying by your own admittances. Einstein's things are based on time, so you are telling me that science uses imaginary to make up imaginary and that is in anyway good science?
I am afraid most of your science, is Psuedo-science, based on none strict definitions.
It is so obvious yet science defends the Caesium atom dilation has a fact of a change in time, time travel and all sorts based on this lie.
May I suggest science needs to sort its fairy tales out....concentrate their budget on worthy things rather than fairy tales.
-
The past is now.
-
The past is now.
It takes 1000's of light years to travel a straight line, but the mind see's the end point in the instant of now.
-
energy variance at a guess , just like light and most things have a variance.
I think this is where I get off Mr. Box. The speed of light has been accepted by every physicist the world over as the one thing that is invariant. It remains the same in all frames of reference whether in varied degrees of motion or in varied degrees of gravitational influence. I therefore leave it to someone else to sort out the errors you evidently don't yet understand.
Not true .. and Einstein never said it was invariant .. he said, 'For this purpose we shall assume it does not vary ...' I can't find the quote, but he was fond of saying, "For this purpose ..." Examples shown on
http://www.bing.com/search?q=Einstein%3A%20for%20this%20purpose%20we%20shall%20assume%20the%20speed%20of%20light&qs=n&form=QBRE&pq=einstein%3A%20for%20this%20purpose%20we%20shall%20assume%20the%20speed%20of%20light&sc=0-42&sp=-1&sk=&cvid=A848E85DA2F84E01A47442EB4A4C823F.
Also .. https://www.sciencenews.org/article/speed-light-not-so-constant-after-all .
-
Not true .. and Einstein never said it was invariant ..
In the proper vacuum of space, c is most certainly invariant. And as I was addressing Mr. Box about his flawed view of time and space, the wise member should have recognized the context to which I was responding. I think most of the individuals involved in this thread quite understood why I made the statement about the invariance of c. Welcome to my ignore list..............Mr. Aloha........
-
Not true .. and Einstein never said it was invariant ..
In the proper vacuum of space, c is most certainly invariant. And as I was addressing Mr. Box about his flawed view of time and space, the wise member should have recognized the context to which I was responding. I think most of the individuals involved in this thread quite understood why I made the statement about the invariance of c. Welcome to my ignore list..............Mr. Aloha........
My ideas revolve around the fact that the speed of light is constant and invariant in a vacuum, without this I would of never considered the clarity of space was also an invariant while light is present.
-
My ideas revolve around the fact that the speed of light is constant and invariant in a vacuum, without this I would of never considered the clarity of space was also an invariant while light is present.
In this case, I must confess to misunderstanding your position on these issues. Could you try to explain yourself a little better and start with my first question:
Are you saying that not only is the past and future irrelevant, but that they don't physically exist?
Let's take this slow Mr.Box, I want to give you every chance to really explain yourself. Try to answer my questions as briefly as possible and be as direct to the point as possible. When you've answered, I'll do my best to absorb the points your making and give them the scrutiny they deserve. If you're not willing to answer these questions and try to skirt around them with half answers and diversions, I'll exit this thread promptly and I promise I won't be back.
-
Are you saying that not only is the past and future irrelevant, but that they don't physically exist?
Thank you for your time, I now know you are genuine and will give it my 100% effort in answering your questions
''Are you saying that not only is the past and future irrelevant, but that they don't physically exist?''
I can not say if the past or the future is irrelevant or relevant , because it would be an impossibility to know if they really physically exist.
-
I can not say if the past or the future is irrelevant or relevant , because it would be an impossibility to know if they really physically exist.
Let's establish one important fact about the search for truth. Proving anything is something science rarely achieves. In my estimation, the only thing science can effectively prove is that change occurs in nature. In quantum mechanics, we've learned not to predict exact outcomes, we call that scientific philosophy: The science of probabilities."
I'm not asking you for proof my friend. The truth is, none of us can prove anything to another if they are unwilling to first believe the evidence. That being said, what I believe or what you believe is based upon the mental picture of how probable our speculations line up with our observations. Even Einstein began his work on Relativity using mental pictures and the calculations came later.
Unless you can identify what you believe about this question, whether you can prove it or not, our combined scrutiny will get us nowhere. So, I'll ask you one more time, "does the past and future exist in our physical reality?"
-
I can not say if the past or the future is irrelevant or relevant , because it would be an impossibility to know if they really physically exist.
Let's establish one important fact about the search for truth. Proving anything is something science rarely achieves. In my estimation, the only thing science can effectively prove is that change occurs in nature. In quantum mechanics, we've learned not to predict exact outcomes, we call that scientific philosophy: The science of probabilities."
I'm not asking you for proof my friend. The truth is, none of us can prove anything to another if they are unwilling to first believe the evidence. That being said, what I believe or what you believe is based upon the mental picture of how probable our speculations line up with our observations. Even Einstein began his work on Relativity using mental pictures and the calculations came later.
Unless you can identify what you believe about this question, whether you can prove it or not, our combined scrutiny will get us nowhere. So, I'll ask you one more time, "does the past and future exist in our physical reality?"
Relatively the past and future exists simultaneously in the now is my answer.
Would you like me to explain more relatively why this is relativity?
-
Relatively the past and future exists simultaneously in the now is my answer.
Would you like me to explain more relatively why this is relativity?
Not so fast my friend, as I said before let's proceed slowly so we both have a chance to absorb these thoughts.
Another question: If the past and future exist simultaneously, how do you explain "change"? For change to occur, things are different now from what they were. If the past and future exist instantly together, "simultaneously", it seems to me nothing would ever change.
-
Relatively the past and future exists simultaneously in the now is my answer.
Would you like me to explain more relatively why this is relativity?
Not so fast my friend, as I said before let's proceed slowly so we both have a chance to absorb these thoughts.
Another question: If the past and future exist simultaneously, how do you explain "change"? For change to occur, things are different now from what they were. If the past and future exist instantly together, "simultaneously", it seems to me nothing would ever change.
,'' things are different now from what they were''
what they were is a memory of now of what they were.
Consider this , you are travelling vector X . behind you is the past of the journey, in front of you is the future of your journey, but in front of you or behind you , you can observe the now through the constant-'constant.
-
,'' things are different now from what they were''
what they were is a memory of now of what they were.
You'll have to forgive me Mr. Box, something tells me we're not speaking the same language because that last sentence makes absolutely no sense to me.
Nevertheless, I do have a couple things to say about time that you may find interesting. Let's preform a thought experiment................
An astronaut is on a space craft traveling at c, I realize that's impossible but please just bare with me. He starts his trip just after the big bang and travels along with the expanding universe to some point in the far future where some theories suggests that a heat death has just finished it's epoch end. For the traveler in the ship, he realizes no passage of time, one moment the big bang has taken place and the next, everything has come to a very cold end. For him, there has been no passage of time. His past, present, and future are all rolled up into a very brief instant. This is a result of his velocity and the time dilation that's involved with that frame of reference. Within this same universe, we provide a fictional character that was born at the moment the big bang commenced and has lived until that same hypothetical heat death also occurs. We now arrange to have both men meet and ask them to tell us of their experiences. The astronaut will exclaim; "I just got here, I have no story to tell." On the other hand, our very long lived fictional man will exclaim; "Boy!! you sure have missed at lot of things."
Time dilation is a fact my friend, if you continue to seek to eliminate it from your scientific model, you're going to experience a great deal of grief when discussing this phenomenon with other members of this forum. Take my advice and consider that when everyone else understands things a little different than you do, it is very likely that you may be in error.
Whether you're in error or not, it has become very clear to me that no one here has yet been able to understand precisely what you're trying to explain and that includes myself as well.
I gave it a try Mr. Box but I think we're spinning our wheels here. Sorry,... but I'm ready to move on. Please don't take offense my friend, let's just agree to disagree...........................
-
,'' things are different now from what they were''
what they were is a memory of now of what they were.
You'll have to forgive me Mr. Box, something tells me we're not speaking the same language because that last sentence makes absolutely no sense to me.
Nevertheless, I do have a couple things to say about time that you may find interesting. Let's preform a thought experiment................
An astronaut is on a space craft traveling at c, I realize that's impossible but please just bare with me. He starts his trip just after the big bang and travels along with the expanding universe to some point in the far future where some theories suggests that a heat death has just finished it's epoch end. For the traveler in the ship, he realizes no passage of time, one moment the big bang has taken place and the next, everything has come to a very cold end. For him, there has been no passage of time. His past, present, and future are all rolled up into a very brief instant. This is a result of his velocity and the time dilation that's involved with that frame of reference. Within this same universe, we provide a fictional character that was born at the moment the big bang commenced and has lived until that same hypothetical heat death also occurs. We now arrange to have both men meet and ask them to tell us of their experiences. The astronaut will exclaim; "I just got here, I have no story to tell." On the other hand, our very long lived fictional man will exclaim; "Boy!! you sure have missed at lot of things."
Time dilation is a fact my friend, if you continue to seek to eliminate it from your scientific model, you're going to experience a great deal of grief when discussing this phenomenon with other members of this forum. Take my advice and consider that when everyone else understands things a little different than you do, it is very likely that you may be in error.
Whether you're in error or not, it has become very clear to me that no one here has yet been able to understand precisely what you're trying to explain and that includes myself as well.
I gave it a try Mr. Box but I think we're spinning our wheels here. Sorry,... but I'm ready to move on. Please don't take offense my friend, let's just agree to disagree...........................
Yes there is no problem in agreeing to disagree, I am not here to dictate to anyone, I really appreciate the conversation.
I also am certain that people here like everywhere are failing to understand. My close and personal friends understand my ideas which is strange.
But yes if you wish to move on, no problem.
-
Like minds attract. Nothing strange about that.
-
Like minds attract. Nothing strange about that.
Was that a lame attempt at insult or a failed effort to impress us?
-
Like minds attract. Nothing strange about that.
Was that a lame attempt at insult or a worthless effort to impress us?
A lame attempt at an insult, I have friends in all walks of life, some friends would be considered clever, such as my younger Nephew who is at University studying and doing computer programming/writing software.
-
Google: Is the speed of light in a vacuum invariant? You will see several choices but the top choice 'Is The Speed of Light Everywhere the Same? - Ucr' is interesting.
Now .. enter Does a photon have mass? Choose 'What is the mass of a photon? - Ucr'
Iff a photon has mass, which it is said to have, it will be affected by gravity, however slightly .. so it's speed will vary in a vacuum.
-
Like minds attract. Nothing strange about that.
Was that a lame attempt at insult or a failed effort to impress us?
Well I certainly wasn't trying to impress anybody.
What I was saying is that TheBox seems to enjoy spewing ridiculous sentences with garbled terminology that 'sounds good' in order to come across to the layman as an expert in the field. He is not a genius or an expert. If what he says was logical and made sense, I would not have a problem with him. However, he spams these Cambridge-based forums like nobody's business and always has an opinion no matter how incorrect or self-serving towards his own ideas. I remember a while ago he said he was going to make his last post, but here he is so clearly that was just a bid for attention/validation.
No matter how many times we tell him he is barking up the wrong tree with something he insists that he is right and everybody else is wrong. It's clearly some kind of superiority/ inability to to adapt to new ideas. Everything that a scientist should not be.
-
Like minds attract. Nothing strange about that.
Was that a lame attempt at insult or a failed effort to impress us?
Well I certainly wasn't trying to impress anybody.
What I was saying is that TheBox seems to enjoy spewing ridiculous sentences with garbled terminology that 'sounds good' in order to come across to the layman as an expert in the field. He is not a genius or an expert. If what he says was logical and made sense, I would not have a problem with him. However, he spams these Cambridge-based forums like nobody's business and always has an opinion no matter how incorrect or self-serving towards his own ideas. I remember a while ago he said he was going to make his last post, but here he is so clearly that was just a bid for attention/validation.
No matter how many times we tell him he is barking up the wrong tree with something he insists that he is right and everybody else is wrong. It's clearly some kind of superiority/ inability to to adapt to new ideas. Everything that a scientist should not be.
Clearly a flamer trying to disrupt a very nice conversation myself and other members are discussing.
Trying to sound clever? not at all, trying to convey ideas in the language terminology of science which is not easy at times.
Spamming the forum? my ideas have no limit my mind is limitless, I like to talk and you have no right to criticise of what I like doing with my time.
''spewing ridiculous sentences '' you are spewing an entire post with none science related flaming.
Clearly one of the bully type members from another forum who has crossed over to here, this is a good forum, they will not tolerate you if you come here like this, try joining in the discussion, let us hear your wisdom?
People like myself feel protected here from people like you.
'' I remember a while ago he said he was going to make his last post, but here he is so clearly that was just a bid for attention/validation.''
That is called turmoil , is it worth me persisting I ask myself, the answer , yes because I am determined and persistent.
-
Google: Is the speed of light in a vacuum invariant? You will see several choices but the top choice 'Is The Speed of Light Everywhere the Same? - Ucr' is interesting.
Now .. enter Does a photon have mass? Choose 'What is the mass of a photon? - Ucr'
Iff a photon has mass, which it is said to have, it will be affected by gravity, however slightly .. so it's speed will vary in a vacuum.
As I understand it a photon is considered to have 0 rest mass. However, it does have momentum (p=mv) and anything with momentum will be affected by gravity.
The complication is that no matter what gravity field you are in you will measure the speed of light to be the same, but someone else in a different gravity field will measure the speed of light at your location to be different. One way of looking at this is that gravity distorts spacetime and so the coordinates you are using for measurement are not the same as those used by the other person.
-
Google: Is the speed of light in a vacuum invariant? You will see several choices but the top choice 'Is The Speed of Light Everywhere the Same? - Ucr' is interesting.
Now .. enter Does a photon have mass? Choose 'What is the mass of a photon? - Ucr'
Iff a photon has mass, which it is said to have, it will be affected by gravity, however slightly .. so it's speed will vary in a vacuum.
As I understand it a photon is considered to have 0 rest mass. However, it does have momentum (p=mv) and anything with momentum will be affected by gravity.
The complication is that no matter what gravity field you are in you will measure the speed of light to be the same, but someone else in a different gravity field will measure the speed of light at your location to be different. One way of looking at this is that gravity distorts spacetime and so the coordinates you are using for measurement are not the same as those used by the other person.
gravity distorts spacetime or space-time distorts gravity?
-
I would like to apologize for my previous comments. They were mean and unnecessary.
-
I would like to apologize for my previous comments. They were mean and unnecessary.
I thank you Sam and apologies accepted, although I was not really offended to tell you the truth, I am a nobody, I have been on some tough forums, things do not really upset me on forums I would have to pretend to get angry. I use to be very passionate with my ideas and describe them more poetic, then I tried mimicking Wiki with my writing. I am here to learn and to say a few thoughts, maybe some of my thoughts can be used , maybe they can not, but if I did not try, then I and we would never know.
-
Google: Is the speed of light in a vacuum invariant? You will see several choices but the top choice 'Is The Speed of Light Everywhere the Same? - Ucr' is interesting.
Now .. enter Does a photon have mass? Choose 'What is the mass of a photon? - Ucr'
Iff a photon has mass, which it is said to have, it will be affected by gravity, however slightly .. so it's speed will vary in a vacuum.
As I understand it a photon is considered to have 0 rest mass. However, it does have momentum (p=mv) and anything with momentum will be affected by gravity.
The complication is that no matter what gravity field you are in you will measure the speed of light to be the same, but someone else in a different gravity field will measure the speed of light at your location to be different. One way of looking at this is that gravity distorts spacetime and so the coordinates you are using for measurement are not the same as those used by the other person.
The articles I mentioned should be read by anyone interested in photons and the speed of light. We can never learn too much if we want to learn. Speed of Light is NOT invariant in a vacuum.
-
gravity distorts spacetime or space-time distorts gravity?
I know, I know. I was trying to simplify everything to basics but as soon as I pressed post I realised what I had said gave the wrong impression, but had to log off to go to a meeting.
No, spacetime doesn't distort gravity either.
Either mass, or something connected to mass, causes spacetime to change in the vicinity of the mass. We experience that change as gravity and it affects the way we measure time in the gravity field.
Well spotted.
-
gravity distorts spacetime or space-time distorts gravity?
I know, I know. I was trying to simplify everything to basics but as soon as I pressed post I realised what I had said gave the wrong impression, but had to log off to go to a meeting.
No, spacetime doesn't distort gravity either.
Either mass, or something connected to mass, causes spacetime to change in the vicinity of the mass. We experience that change as gravity and it affects the way we measure time in the gravity field.
Well spotted.
i am not sure, but I have just awoke from a nap, there is now an idea in my head about photon-photon expansion, invert wave-function, and two rivers flowing in the opposite direction at the same speed and force in the same river bed creating a distortion field between the two flows.
like water passing through water ,
-
This is what I visualise happens,
I observe that all negative is attracted to negative
I observe that all positive including light is repulsive to positive
I think photons are propelled by their own ability to repulse each other,
I think i am being pulled to the ground by my negative
i think if i was more positive i would be more buoyant and fly away like an helium balloon.
mass being negative and anti-mass being positive.
Let us imagine a dispenser, let us consider the release of a single polarity positive particle, let us imagine this particle has no propulsion and remains at rest , now let us release a second particle, the second particle also remains at rest but pushes the prior particle forward. Now let us open the lid on the dispenser, let us imagine all the particles expanding out of the dispenser, following the same process as prior.
-
I have posted these posts separate to keep them separate.
Imagine two batteries in the same inertial reference frame, however these batteries are special batteries and can absorb photons to self charge, however the batteries also emit a positive charge at an equal rate to absorbing.
these batteries are held firmly together by their negativeness super -super glue which is also between them and the ground.
now the only way these batteries can break the super-super glue is if they emitted more positive than the grounds positive pushing them apart, however the ground also steals the positive from the batteries making this near impossible.
so anyway if we was to stretch to the super-super glue, there is less positive output from the batteries being pulled into the ground, so the output has less force being applied on it slowing the output suction down.
in simple terms motion makes less suction, the more you move away the less output of suction.
added- a bit like trying to suck the ocean up through a short straw , the straw has no effect on the ocean floor, you will not suck up sand.
-
gravity distorts spacetime or space-time distorts gravity?
I know, I know. I was trying to simplify everything to basics but as soon as I pressed post I realised what I had said gave the wrong impression, but had to log off to go to a meeting.
No, spacetime doesn't distort gravity either.
Either mass, or something connected to mass, causes spacetime to change in the vicinity of the mass. We experience that change as gravity and it affects the way we measure time in the gravity field.
Well spotted.
i am not sure, but I have just awoke from a nap, there is now an idea in my head about photon-photon expansion, invert wave-function, and two rivers flowing in the opposite direction at the same speed and force in the same river bed creating a distortion field between the two flows.
like water passing through water ,
Interesting concept .. rivers flowing through rivers .. good image.
-
I have posted these posts separate to keep them separate.
Imagine two batteries in the same inertial reference frame, however these batteries are special batteries and can absorb photons to self charge, however the batteries also emit a positive charge at an equal rate to absorbing.
these batteries are held firmly together by their negativeness super -super glue which is also between them and the ground.
now the only way these batteries can break the super-super glue is if they emitted more positive than the grounds positive pushing them apart, however the ground also steals the positive from the batteries making this near impossible.
so anyway if we was to stretch to the super-super glue, there is less positive output from the batteries being pulled into the ground, so the output has less force being applied on it slowing the output suction down.
in simple terms motion makes less suction, the more you move away the less output of suction.
added- a bit like trying to suck the ocean up through a short straw , the straw has no effect on the ocean floor, you will not suck up sand.
If that straw sucks long enough, and it's sucking end is lowered as the ocean level lowers, you will end up sucking up sand from the ocean bottom.
-
gravity distorts spacetime or space-time distorts gravity?
I know, I know. I was trying to simplify everything to basics but as soon as I pressed post I realised what I had said gave the wrong impression, but had to log off to go to a meeting.
No, spacetime doesn't distort gravity either.
Either mass, or something connected to mass, causes spacetime to change in the vicinity of the mass. We experience that change as gravity and it affects the way we measure time in the gravity field.
Well spotted.
i am not sure, but I have just awoke from a nap, there is now an idea in my head about photon-photon expansion, invert wave-function, and two rivers flowing in the opposite direction at the same speed and force in the same river bed creating a distortion field between the two flows.
like water passing through water ,
Interesting concept .. rivers flowing through rivers .. good image.
If we view the rivers as crystal clear, it becomes hard to notice there is even two rivers.