Naked Science Forum
On the Lighter Side => New Theories => Topic started by: MikeS on 01/05/2011 08:18:19
-
A Constant Paradox
The speed of light in a vacuum is a universal constant.
The speed of light is a constant because the rate of flow of time is a variable.
To the best of our knowledge both of the above are true.
This implies that the meter is a fixed length.
During the twentieth century, the speed of light in a vacuum has reached the theoretical status of a “universal constant”, a fixed value of c0 = 299,792,458 m s −1 being chosen in 1983 as a basis for the international unit system.
Speed is distance divided by time.
Time is variable .
If time were a constant then distance would have to be a variable.
It is equally valid to consider distance could be a variable.
The universal constant, the speed of light is based upon two parameters, one of which is known to be a variable, the other of which could be a variable.
How can a constant be based on two parameters both of which are variables?
If c defines the length of a meter but a meter, is variable …?
-
Speed of light is a constant. Time and distance vary depending on reference frame. You cannot just mix up different FoR and expect to get a sensible outcome. In my reference frame the SoL is the SoL, a metre rule is still a metre and a second lasts for a second; how you perceive me from your reference frame is where distinctions occur. The answers to your questions will come to you through an understanding of Einstein's theories of relativity (special r and lorentz stuff in this case , general for some of your other questions).
-
Thank you for your reply, which I am trying to understand.
I can see that for anything moving near the speed of light the above argument would not apply but otherwise I don't see what's wrong with it. No, thinking about it I image Relativity would allow for it and the above arguments would still be valid.
If you can explain in non mathematical terms what is wrong with the argument then I would really appreciate it. I think what I am trying to say is that I don't see how you can obtain a constant from three variables unless the variables change in such manner as to keep the constant constant, which does not seem to be the case here. Don't get me wrong, I am certainly not disputing the speed of light being constant but that's relative. I know that a second is only a second but that is a relative term. Likewise one can argue that distance is a relative term independent of motion.
I know this does not necessarily make it true but I believe the universe is far simpler than is generally believed.
-
The book: Albert Einstein and the Cosmic World Order
/ Six lectures delivered at the University
of Michigan in the Spring of 1962 /
by Cornelius Lanczos / The lecture № 3 /
=============.
Cornelius Lanczos wrote:
SRT was created on two postulates.
First postulate – there isn’t absolute speed of movement.
Every movement is relative.
Second postulate – the speed of light ( quantum of light)
is constant.
Lanczos wrote: from the first point of view it seems that
to unite these two different postulates is impossible,
trying to do this is absolute nonsense. (!)
But . . . . It was be done. (!)
Einstein made it. (!)
. . It was needed the Einstein’s courage to do this unity. (!)
How did Einstein connected them ? (!)
1
He solved this problem saying that Newton’s absolute space
and time are relative.
2
And these two postulates can be unite in spacetime - 4D.
3
As the result we can see different occurrences :
( for example: not only the physical parameters of particles
can change but space and time too )
And Lanczos wrote: now we are accustomed to this conception
and never, not for the world give up from such manner of thinking.
==================.
Very well ! !
There is only small problem in this conception:
What is the spacetime -4D?
Nobody knows.
! !
===============================.
P.S.
Lanczos served as assistant to Einstein during the period 1928–29.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cornelius_Lanczos
============.
-
When I wrote the constant Paradox yesterday, I wrote it because it had occurred to me and I thought it amusing. I now realize what I was postulating is probably true. The speed of light, time and distance are all relative terms. There is good reason to fix the speed of light and call it a standard. This has the advantage that it fixes ‘distance’ (the metre or meter as a standard. However as the universe is dynamic, it is done at the expense of time, which has to be a variable.
What does a meter actually mean:-
The metre (or meter), symbol m, is the base unit of length in the International System of Units (SI). Originally intended to be one ten-millionth of the distance from the Earth's equator to the North Pole (at sea level), its definition has been periodically refined to reflect growing knowledge of metrology. Since 1983, it is defined as the length of the path traveled by light in vacuum in 1⁄299,792,458 of a second.
From Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
So it’s a length defined from the speed of light.
Speed has two components, time and distance.
It used to be defined:-
1927 October 6 – The seventh CGPM adjusts the definition of the metre to be the distance, at 0 °C, between the axes of the two central lines marked on the prototype bar of platinum-iridium, this bar being subject to one standard atmosphere of pressure and supported on two cylinders of at least one centimetre diameter, symmetrically placed in the same horizontal plane at a distance of 571 millimetres from each other.
From Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
If you make the ‘rate of flow of time’ a constant then distance becomes a variable and the above standard measuring bar becomes elastic. From the reference frame of time a meter is a meter is a meter but from the reference frame of the universe independent of time, measuring rods are elastic. It’s all relative.
The speed of light and the unit of distance are constants because the ‘rate of flow of time is a variable. It is for this reason and this reason alone that all the ‘constants’ of nature are well, ‘constant’. We are unaware of any variation in the ‘speed’ of light or variation in a standard length-measuring bar because the ‘rate of flow of time’ varies to compensate.
Any fuzziness (seeming contradictions) in the understanding of this is due to the inadequacies of language in trying to refer to speed without using distance and time or vice versa.
-
I now realize what I was postulating is probably true.
The speed of light, time and distance are all relative terms.
There is good reason to fix the speed of light and call it a standard.
What does a meter actually mean:-
The metre (or meter), symbol m,
Since 1983, it is defined as the length of the path traveled by light in vacuum in 1⁄299,792,458 of a second.
From Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
So it’s a length defined from the speed of light.
1
I now realize what I was postulating is probably true.
The speed of light, time and distance are all relative terms.
/ MikeS /
#
Why you ‘ now realize’ that ‘ The speed of light’
( of quantum of light) is relative?
2
There is good reason to fix the speed of light and call it a standard.
/ MikeS /
#
The point 1
(The speed of light, time and distance are all relative terms.)
is opposite to point 2.
(There is good reason to fix the speed of light and call it a standard)
So, where are you true?
3
What does a meter actually mean:-
The metre (or meter), symbol m
Since 1983, it is defined as the length of the path traveled
by light in vacuum in 1⁄299,792,458 of a second.
From Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
So it’s a length defined from the speed of light.
/ MikeS /
#
So it means: the length 299,792,458 km is equal to 1 sec:
299,792,458 km = 1 sec
And if it so, then Mincowski decided, that it is possible
to take time as a fourth (4!) coordinate.
==.
My conclusion:
One black cat ( the question of speed )
was changed on other black cat (the question of -4D).
==.
-
I now realize what I was postulating is probably true.
The speed of light, time and distance are all relative terms.
There is good reason to fix the speed of light and call it a standard.
What does a meter actually mean:-
The metre (or meter), symbol m,
Since 1983, it is defined as the length of the path traveled by light in vacuum in 1⁄299,792,458 of a second.
From Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
So it’s a length defined from the speed of light.
1
I now realize what I was postulating is probably true.
The speed of light, time and distance are all relative terms.
/ MikeS /
#
Why you ‘ now realize’ that ‘ The speed of light’
( of quantum of light) is relative?
2
There is good reason to fix the speed of light and call it a standard.
/ MikeS /
#
The point 1
(The speed of light, time and distance are all relative terms.)
is opposite to point 2.
(There is good reason to fix the speed of light and call it a standard)
So, where are you true?
3
What does a meter actually mean:-
The metre (or meter), symbol m
Since 1983, it is defined as the length of the path traveled
by light in vacuum in 1⁄299,792,458 of a second.
From Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
So it’s a length defined from the speed of light.
/ MikeS /
#
So it means: the length 299,792,458 km is equal to 1 sec:
299,792,458 km = 1 sec
And if it so, then Mincowski decided, that it is possible
to take time as a fourth (4!) coordinate.
==.
My conclusion:
One black cat ( the question of speed )
was changed on other black cat (the question of -4D).
==.
Quote from: MikeS on 02/05/2011 05:58:10
I now realize what I was postulating is probably true.
The speed of light, time and distance are all relative terms.
There is good reason to fix the speed of light and call it a standard.
What does a meter actually mean:-
The metre (or meter), symbol m,
Since 1983, it is defined as the length of the path traveled by light in vacuum in 1⁄299,792,458 of a second.
From Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
So it’s a length defined from the speed of light.
1
I now realize what I was postulating is probably true.
The speed of light, time and distance are all relative terms.
/ MikeS /
#
Why you ‘ now realize’ that ‘ The speed of light’
( of quantum of light) is relative?
If the two components of speed, time and distance are both relative then the speed of light is also relative.
2
There is good reason to fix the speed of light and call it a standard.
/ MikeS /
#
The point 1
(The speed of light, time and distance are all relative terms.)
is opposite to point 2.
(There is good reason to fix the speed of light and call it a standard)
Time and distance are related in such manner as to ensure that ‘speed’ the speed of light remains constant.
So, where are you true?
Time and distance are both relative terms (and variable) but it is the relationship between them that makes the speed of light a constant.
3
What does a meter actually mean:-
The metre (or meter), symbol m
Since 1983, it is defined as the length of the path traveled
by light in vacuum in 1⁄299,792,458 of a second.
From Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
So it’s a length defined from the speed of light.
/ MikeS /
#
So it means: the length 299,792,458 km is equal to 1 sec:
299,792,458 km = 1 sec
And if it so, then Mincowski decided, that it is possible
to take time as a fourth (4!) coordinate.
The above, all happen in the four dimensions of space time, three dimensions of space plus one of time.
==.
My conclusion:
One black cat ( the question of speed )
was changed on other black cat (the question of -4D).
==.
From socratus 02/05/2011 14:11:34
. . It was needed the Einstein’s courage to do this unity. (!)
How did Einstein connected them ? (!)
1
He solved this problem saying that Newton’s absolute space
and time are relative.
2
And these two postulates can be unite in spacetime - 4D.
What Einstein postulated was (not his actual words) The speed of light is a constant because the ‘passage’ of time (or ‘rate of flow of time’ my words) is a variable.
What I originally thought to be a paradox, my original post was based upon, is not a paradox at all. The problem being I considered distance (a meter) as being constant. Which from our point of view (from within the reference frame of time) it is. For a distant observer outside the universe (from his time frame) he would observe clocks all over the universe running at different speeds, light changing its speed and meter rods contracting and expanding.
This is what confuses most people and it is a difficult concept.
The speed of light in a vacuum is a constant because the rate of flow of time is a variable. We do not notice everything constantly changing around us because we live in the time frame of the universe and that cancels all of the, what otherwise would have been, variables. Another way of putting this is we do not notice the variables because we are not independent but are part of them. As the universe changes my height, so it compensates by varying the rate of flow of time and hence the length of a meter, so my height remains the same.
Some people think of time as, not real, abstract, a product of the intellect. In one sense it is, arbitrary time as we define it, is the visible face of the clock. However, the universe contains another, very real but invisible clock and it is this clock as I refer to as ‘the rate of flow of time’. The face of this clock is the universe.
-
Mike - you are not reading my replies. Please go back to my initial response - you have got to read a bit about special relativity, different frames of reference and the lorentz contraction
-
"Speed of light is a constant. Time and distance vary depending on reference frame." "In my reference frame the SoL is the SoL, a metre rule is still a metre and a second lasts for a second; how you perceive me from your reference frame is where distinctions occur."
That's what I just said.
-
Sorry Mike - but this sentence shows that we are not thinking along the same lines whatsoever
...Which from our point of view (from within the reference frame of time) it is. For a distant observer outside the universe (from his time frame) ...
-
Oh good we agree on something
-
imatfaal
The Lorentz contraction has very little to do with what I have mentioned as it only becomes significant near to the speed of light.
We really seem to be talking at cross purposes and as far as I can see it has nothing to do with the Lorentz contraction which leaves?
-
Sorry Mike - but this sentence shows that we are not thinking along the same lines whatsoever
...Which from our point of view (from within the reference frame of time) it is. For a distant observer outside the universe (from his time frame) ...
Full quote.
For a distant observer outside the universe (from his time frame) he would observe clocks all over the universe running at different speeds, light changing its speed and meter rods contracting and expanding.
Ok so this is pushing E = mc2 beyond what Einstein intended but there is nothing to say that the above can not happen, it's certainly predicted. Once you look at the universe from an outside the universe time frame the above is predicted. The only thing that stops the universe from acting as above is the changing rate of the flow of time.
The changing rate of the flow of time brings order out of chaos. Time turns order into chaos.
To rephrase this. The changing rate of flow of time reduces entropy whilst time increases entropy.
-
The speed of light in a vacuum is a constant
because the rate of flow of time is a variable.
You wrote that:
‘The speed of light in a vacuum is a constant because
the rate of flow of time is a variable.’
I suggest another version.
The particle – quantum of light- moves in a straight line
with speed c=299,792,458 m =1 in the vacuum.
In this movement his Time is infinite. Later something
happens and photon’s Infinite Time changes to a relative
Time according to the Lorentz transformations.
S.
===.
-
The speed of light in a vacuum is a constant
because the rate of flow of time is a variable.
You wrote that:
‘The speed of light in a vacuum is a constant because
the rate of flow of time is a variable.’
I suggest another version.
The particle – quantum of light- moves in a straight line
with speed c=299,792,458 m =1 in the vacuum.
In this movement his Time is infinite. Later something
happens and photon’s Infinite Time changes to a relative
Time according to the Lorentz transformations.
S.
===.
Personally, I am quite happy with Einsteins version which says the speeed of light in a vacuum is a constant because the rate of flow of time is a variable. It worked for Einstein and it certainly works for me although I believe it is misunderstood by most, see my posts and lack of answers.
In this movement his Time is infinite. Later something
happens and photon’s Infinite Time changes to a relative
Time according to the Lorentz transformations.
Einstein said the speed of light in a vacuum is constant. I say the speed of light in a vacuum and in the absence of gravity is infinite. The photon is the universes clock. In the presence of gravity that clock slows down. This is what I refer to as the rate of flow of time.
-
The speed of light in a vacuum is a constant
because the rate of flow of time is a variable.
You wrote that:
‘The speed of light in a vacuum is a constant because
the rate of flow of time is a variable.’
I suggest another version.
The particle – quantum of light- moves in a straight line
with speed c=299,792,458 m =1 in the vacuum.
In this movement his Time is infinite. Later something
happens and photon’s Infinite Time changes to a relative
Time according to the Lorentz transformations.
S.
===.
I have repeated this post for clarity as the layout of the original was muddled and unclear. Sorry.
Personally, I am quite happy with Einsteins version which says the speeed of light in a vacuum is a constant because the rate of flow of time is a variable. It worked for Einstein and it certainly works for me although I believe it is misunderstood by most, see my posts and lack of answers.
Einstein said the speed of light in a vacuum is constant. I say the speed of light in a vacuum and in the absence of gravity is infinite. The photon is the universes clock. In the presence of gravity that clock slows down. This is what I refer to as the rate of flow of time.
-
I have repeated this post for clarity as the layout of the original was muddled and unclear. Sorry.
Personally, I am quite happy with Einsteins version which
says the speeed of light in a vacuum is a constant because
the rate of flow of time is a variable.
It worked for Einstein and it certainly works for me
although I believe it is misunderstood by most,
see my posts and lack of answers.
Einstein said the speed of light in a vacuum is constant.
I say the speed of light in a vacuum and
in the absence of gravity is infinite.
The photon is the universes clock.
In the presence of gravity that clock slows down.
This is what I refer to as the rate of flow of time.
Personally, I am quite happy with Einsteins version which says
the speeed of light in a vacuum is a constant because
the rate of flow of time is a variable.
/ MikeS /
Please, don’t forget that in SRT time and space are indissoluble.
If time is a variable, the space must be variable too.
S.
Einstein said the speed of light in a vacuum is constant.
I say the speed of light in a vacuum and in the absence
of gravity is infinite.
/ MikeS /
There isn’t gravity in SRT.
There is only minus 4D.
S.
The photon is the universes clock.
In the presence of gravity that clock slows down.
This is what I refer to as the rate of flow of time.
/ MikeS /
If you take photon as the universe’s clock then you have
strange situation: your clock will show you different time
and you will see around yourself another space.
But you will not understand: what is happen?
If I take Occam's Razor to SRT then briefly I explain
my position in such way:
1.
In 1905 Einstein wrote the paper:
“ On the Electrodynamics of moving Bodies.” ( SRT).
He wrote about moving of ‘Electrodynamics Bodies’ (!)
It means he wrote about particles like quantum of light, electron. (!)
And this movement is going in minus 4D continuum.
2.
One postulate of SRT says: the speed of quantum
of light in a vacuum is a constant ( c=1).
3
Another postulate of SRT says that motion, every motion (!),
(even including the motion of quantum of light ) (!)
is relative. (!)
====.
And conclusion.
Lorentz transformations explain these changes.
=====.
Socratus.
-
I have repeated this post for clarity as the layout of the original was muddled and unclear. Sorry.
Personally, I am quite happy with Einsteins version which
says the speeed of light in a vacuum is a constant because
the rate of flow of time is a variable.
It worked for Einstein and it certainly works for me
although I believe it is misunderstood by most,
see my posts and lack of answers.
Einstein said the speed of light in a vacuum is constant.
I say the speed of light in a vacuum and
in the absence of gravity is infinite.
The photon is the universes clock.
In the presence of gravity that clock slows down.
This is what I refer to as the rate of flow of time.
Personally, I am quite happy with Einsteins version which says
the speeed of light in a vacuum is a constant because
the rate of flow of time is a variable.
/ MikeS /
Please, don’t forget that in SRT time and space are indissoluble.
If time is a variable, the space must be variable too.
S.
Yes, I agree
Einstein said the speed of light in a vacuum is constant.
I say the speed of light in a vacuum and in the absence
of gravity is infinite.
/ MikeS /
There isn’t gravity in SRT.
(perhaps there should be. If Einstein had connected a few more dots then he would have not only written a hypothesis on the speed of light but on time.)
There is only minus 4D.
But there is in GR and gravity is explained in four dimensional space time.
S.
The photon is the universes clock.
In the presence of gravity that clock slows down.
This is what I refer to as the rate of flow of time.
/ MikeS /
If you take photon as the universe’s clock then you have
strange situation: your clock will show you different time
and you will see around yourself another space.
But you will not understand: what is happen?
I don't understand
If I take Occam's Razor to SRT then briefly I explain
my position in such way:
1.
In 1905 Einstein wrote the paper:
“ On the Electrodynamics of moving Bodies.” ( SRT).
He wrote about moving of ‘Electrodynamics Bodies’ (!)
It means he wrote about particles like quantum of light, electron. (!)
And this movement is going in minus 4D continuum.
2.
One postulate of SRT says: the speed of quantum
of light in a vacuum is a constant ( c=1).
3
Another postulate of SRT says that motion, every motion (!),
(even including the motion of quantum of light ) (!)
is relative. (!)
====.
And conclusion.
Lorentz transformations explain these changes.
=====.
Socratus.
I understand, i think, what Lorentz transformations are all about but I certainly don't understand the maths.
It may well be that Lorentz transformations are explaining the same simple process but in a very complicated manner. A variable rate of flow of time explains all of the above variables in a very simple way and I believe would have appealed to Occam, who like me would certainly not regard the Lorentz transformations as simple.
-
I have just had another look at the Lorentz transformations and am as certain as I can be that they can be used to obtain the same answers as obtained by using a variable rate of flow of time albeit in a much more complicated manner.
-
Mike - problem is that everyone in the physics community knows what figures to put into a lorentz, and further how to calculate time dilation due to relative velocity and grav potential, with great precision. If your conceptions bring up the same answers quantitatively not qualitatively - then you need to show that the methods are different; if you can succeed at both of these it will be a feather in your cap
-
My head hurts!