0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

I have put this in new theories, otherwise I might be banned but it's not so much meant as a new theory as a different interpretation. Unfortunately I have noticed that subjects in this section are far more likely to be ignored or not taken seriously.

"anything traveling at c is traveling backward in time at the rate that time is flowing forward." sounds fun Then we could assume 'c' to be a 'static constant', but what about everything we measure? We do it through that same constant radiation, finding its outcomes/interactions to describe a arrow to us.And you can assume gravity to propagate at 'c', if you want to assign it a 'speed', but not above.Inertia on the other hand, and maybe that was what you thought of there Mike?Depending on how you define it, inertia can be seen as instantaneous if described as some sort of 'interaction' between what experience it and SpaceTime, or seen as obeying 'c' if described as particles/positions in mass acting out their relations versus each other, or as a third possibility, possibly instantaneous there too.But I'm guessing that if we define it to the particles themselves in that rod (expressing time dilations and Lorentz contractions relative each other/ relative any displacements/accelerations) we should be able to measure/calculate a tiny delay showing us that 'inertia' also will obey 'c'.

I have put this in new theories, otherwise I might be banned but it's not so much meant as a new theory as a different interpretation. Unfortunately I have noticed that subjects in this section are far more likely to be ignored or not taken seriously.I believe I would be correct to say that mainstream would maintain that a photon does not experience time. Time for it does not exist.There is I believe another explanation that looks the same.A photon travels backward in time at the same rate that time flows forward.It could be argued that anything traveling faster than c would travel backward in time. Therefore anything traveling at c is traveling backward in time at the rate that time is flowing forward.The same logic explains why gravity may propagate faster than c. It propagates backwards in time.Perhaps this can be extended to say that everything without mass travels backward in time at or faster than c.I believe this leaves the laws of physics intact?

Quote from: MikeS on 30/04/2012 07:06:52I have put this in new theories, otherwise I might be banned but it's not so much meant as a new theory as a different interpretation. Unfortunately I have noticed that subjects in this section are far more likely to be ignored or not taken seriously.I believe I would be correct to say that mainstream would maintain that a photon does not experience time. Time for it does not exist.There is I believe another explanation that looks the same.A photon travels backward in time at the same rate that time flows forward.It could be argued that anything traveling faster than c would travel backward in time. Therefore anything traveling at c is traveling backward in time at the rate that time is flowing forward.The same logic explains why gravity may propagate faster than c. It propagates backwards in time.Perhaps this can be extended to say that everything without mass travels backward in time at or faster than c.I believe this leaves the laws of physics intact?No, photons can never experience Mike. You know this. You're really reaching new levels of psuedoscience. The part where you have it could be used to explain how mass travels backwards in time at rates faster than c is a peach.

Quote from: Æthelwulf on 06/05/2012 09:42:51Quote from: MikeS on 30/04/2012 07:06:52I have put this in new theories, otherwise I might be banned but it's not so much meant as a new theory as a different interpretation. Unfortunately I have noticed that subjects in this section are far more likely to be ignored or not taken seriously.I believe I would be correct to say that mainstream would maintain that a photon does not experience time. Time for it does not exist.There is I believe another explanation that looks the same.A photon travels backward in time at the same rate that time flows forward.It could be argued that anything traveling faster than c would travel backward in time. Therefore anything traveling at c is traveling backward in time at the rate that time is flowing forward.The same logic explains why gravity may propagate faster than c. It propagates backwards in time.Perhaps this can be extended to say that everything without mass travels backward in time at or faster than c.I believe this leaves the laws of physics intact?No, photons can never experience Mike. You know this. You're really reaching new levels of psuedoscience. The part where you have it could be used to explain how mass travels backwards in time at rates faster than c is a peach.No, I don't know it.That's a stong accusation. I have provided the logic behind what I have postulated. Perhaps you could provide evidence as to why I am wrong.That's not exactly what I said. What I said was."A photon has no mass.As the photon travels backward in time so its mass is cancelled by time flowing forward at the same rate. Its mass only becomes apparent at the point and time of impact as it is destroyed."This idea does account for how a seemingly mass-less particle can impart energy or momentum upon contact." more specifically inertial mass, can be defined as a quantitative measure of an object's resistance to the change of its speed."...sorry, you cannot view external links. To see them, please REGISTER or LOGINTherefore, to define mass you need time. A photon may simply not experience time as is generally believed but that does not explain how it can impart energy or momentum upon obliteration.If you think about it which is the most unlikely, 1) that a photon does not experience time, or 2) a photon does experience time as it travels backward in time but it appears to not experience time as it travels backward in time at the same rate that time flows forward. A photon may not seem to experience time but it does produce causality which relies upon time. In a sense time is based upon the speed of light or vice versa. Is it really impossible for a photon to travel backwards in time. A mass-less 'particle' is allowed by GR to travel faster than c so long as it does not travel slower than c.Perhaps you could provide some evidence as to why I am wrong other than it's peachy?

A photon travels backward in time at the same rate that time flows forward.

Quote from: MikeS on 30/04/2012 07:06:52A photon travels backward in time at the same rate that time flows forward.I just got my questioin back and they confirmed that the sentance has no meaning.

What I am really looking for is evidence to either support or disprove the idea.

Quote from: MikeS on 07/05/2012 05:40:49What I am really looking for is evidence to either support or disprove the idea. Why?

Why?Because I want to know how the Universe works.

PeteI postulated that photons travel backward in time at the same rate that time flows forward as the outcome of that seems to be more consistent with what we observe.

A photon travels backward in time at the same rate that time flows forward

PeteI think you are being a little unfair as I have tried to answered all of your questions in a non ambiguous manner. Everything I have written is, I believe, consistent and fits in with what we know. I am not proposing anything that is not possible. It was not my intention here to write a scientific paper.

PeteAlthough you choose to ignore it I have already addressed those points.

It could be argued that anything traveling faster than c would travel backward in time.

Reinterpretation PrincipleThe reinterpretation principle asserts that a tachyon sent back in time can always be reinterpreted as a tachyon traveling forward in time, because observers cannot distinguish between the emission and absorption of tachyons. The attempt to detect a tachyon from the future (and violate causality) would actually create the same tachyon and send it forward in time (which is causal).However, this principle is not widely accepted as resolving the paradoxes. Instead, what would be required to avoid paradoxes is that unlike any known particle, tachyons do not interact in any way and can never be detected or observed, because otherwise a tachyon beam could be modulated and used to create an anti-telephone or a "logically pernicious self-inhibitor". All forms of energy are believed to interact at least gravitationally, and many authors state that superluminal propagation in Lorentz invariant theories always leads to causal paradoxes.

I think the notion of FTL things going backwards in time is a misinterpretation of relativity. I think the equations yield imaginary clock speeds, not negative clock speeds. Time depends on cycles, and photons don't cycle unless, as in my model, they are locked in orbit around one another. A particle consisting of a pair of orbiting photons experiences a cycle of time each time its photons make one circuit around their common center. That cycle is a constant from the particle's point of view, but it varies with relative speed of an outside observer. The photons move at the same speed to all observers, but they travel farther per cycle around a moving center than around a stationary center.

Quote from: Phractality on 12/05/2012 20:05:27I think the notion of FTL things going backwards in time is a misinterpretation of relativity. I think the equations yield imaginary clock speeds, not negative clock speeds. Time depends on cycles, and photons don't cycle unless, as in my model, they are locked in orbit around one another. A particle consisting of a pair of orbiting photons experiences a cycle of time each time its photons make one circuit around their common center. That cycle is a constant from the particle's point of view, but it varies with relative speed of an outside observer. The photons move at the same speed to all observers, but they travel farther per cycle around a moving center than around a stationary center. Light is an electro-magnetic wave. Waves have wavelength and frequency. Frequency is cycles per second.

Quote from: MikeS on 13/05/2012 08:27:50Quote from: Phractality on 12/05/2012 20:05:27I think the notion of FTL things going backwards in time is a misinterpretation of relativity. I think the equations yield imaginary clock speeds, not negative clock speeds. Time depends on cycles, and photons don't cycle unless, as in my model, they are locked in orbit around one another. A particle consisting of a pair of orbiting photons experiences a cycle of time each time its photons make one circuit around their common center. That cycle is a constant from the particle's point of view, but it varies with relative speed of an outside observer. The photons move at the same speed to all observers, but they travel farther per cycle around a moving center than around a stationary center. Light is an electro-magnetic wave. Waves have wavelength and frequency. Frequency is cycles per second.Light doesn't cycle in its own reference frame. A photon has only one cycle, and that is only by theorizing that the electromagnetic field at a point in space cycles as the photon passes. In the reference frame of a particle, a photon only exists at the instant it is emitted or absorbed. The duration of that instant can only be assigned a duration with respect to cycles that occur within the particle. The situation is somewhat different if we're taking about a continuous radio wave radiating from an antenna. Yes; it has cycles in an inertial reference frame. An observer can count those cycles as they pass. A hypothetical observer traveling at the speed of light with the radio wave would not observe its cycles; to him, time could only be reckoned relative to something other than that wave. Of course, no observer can travel at the speed of light, so it is meaningless to say that such an observer would not experience time. That observer is purely imaginary, and for him time is imaginary. Likewise, for an imaginary FTL observer. His time is imaginary, not negative.

It is my understanding that anything traveling at the speed of light (e.g., a photon) does not experience the passage of time. Since "speed" is defined as 'distance / time', the term (speed) becomes indeterminate without time, or 'undefined' if time = 0. So, I have to wonder, if light, and everything else "traveling" at light speed (everything in the universe except for us and our tangible "reality") is not subject to the passage of time, might it be that those things are not "traveling" at all; that the speed of light is actually zero, and it is our frame of reference that is "traveling" at 299792458 m/s? Might that explain why, regardless of the relative motion of the source vs. the observer, the speed of light is always seen as the same (constant) value--because it is actually (some cosmic "value" for) zero, and zero = zero = zero? Additionally, if something does not experience the passage of time, is it possible for it to change (i.e., age, decay, evolve, etc.)?