Just a request for some discussion on the proof that shows absolute time is non-existent.

Some that I have talked to believe that velocity induced time dilation proves that time is not absolute, but I wonder.
Why does atomic slowing of a clock due to velocity falsify the concept of absolute time?

Just because atomic speeds vary due to velocity is no reason to falsify absolute time is my main argument I guess.....

I have read somewhere that relativity states that time is relative but is it proven to be the case or have we just made a very complicated thought experiment out of the notion that time is somehow a distinct value.

If I heat up a glass of water am I inducing a time dilation/contraction effect on that water? If I freeze water am I inducing a time dilation effect on that water?

If I slow and speed up atomic rates am I playing with time or am I playng with the atomic rate?

If there is proof of relative time, is this just not proof of atomic rate changes and if so why would we automatically assume that absolute time is no longer valid?

For relativity to be taken seriously it assumes that time is relative and I would like to know why we have accepted this perspective rather than just absolute time with atomic rate variations.
What proof is there of relative time in the context of relativity?
Care to discuss?

To discuss something we have to have the definition of the subject. What you call "the absolute time"?

I think the best way to descibe it is to use the words universal simultaneousness.

That even if an objects atomic rate is slower due to velocity that events are simultaneous regardless of frame or perspective.

I think this is probably the only way to clarify what absolute time is with out calling on the term "absolute time" itself... but maybe there are better definitions that you could provide us with?

Of course, there are...
1. "Simultaneous" has a sense if we already know what the time is.
Therefore, usage of the feature "to be simultaneous" for definition of time or any kind of it like "absolute time" becomes logical tautology.
2. Usage "simultaneous" in definition of "absolute time" as you have proposed can be a wrong way because we did not defined yet (in our discussion!) what features of "simultaneousness" the Mother Nature allows.
3. And I predict, as far as we define what we mean under term "the absolute time" whole discussion will be finished.

So, let us define what we mean saying “the absolute time”.

It is funnily enough the inspiration of the light cones that can help in this understanding of absolute time.

If we disregard the implication that invariance generates the need to eliminate absolute time conceptually for a moment and look at our humble photon.

At any give moment between future and past events universally all photons exist in a state of simultaneousness in time. always between the future and past. In this galaxy or the next all photons exists in the same moment in time. This suggests absolute simultaneousness for our photon and by extension for everything else that exists in the 'now'
so in time continuum the 'now' is absolute regardless of location in the universe.
And just because an objects atomic state slows with velocity doesn't in any way invalidate the absoluteness of the photons postion in time. It just simply means that the object is running slower and nothing more.

Now, Yuriy perhaps you would care to give me your description of absolute time.? :)

Enjoy my definition:
“The absolute time” – the set of three words that have no sense, no meaning. Analog of famous “Abracadabra”. Often used for signifying some fetish in discussions about SRT without recognition of absence of any scientific contents. Origin: comes as arbitrary philological construction born in early XX century discussions about question “is the time absolute or relative feature of Nature?”. Newtonian physics, based on assumption of the existence of infinite velocity of passage of energy and information, stated that the time is an absolute objective reality of Nature revealing itself the same for any observer. Einstein’s postulate of existence of the natural limit of the velocity of passage of energy and information led to conclusion that the time can not be an absolute reality. Time is a relativistic reality, the reality that exist and reveals itself for any two observers only in dependence to how fast they are moving in respect to each other. One can use the notion “the absolute time” to signify the notion of time, as it was understood before Einstein.

Enjoy my definition:
“The absolute time” – the set of three words that have no sense, no meaning. Analog of famous “Abracadabra”. Often used for signifying some fetish in discussions about SRT without recognition of absence of any scientific contents. Origin: comes as arbitrary philological construction born in early XX century discussions about question “is the time absolute or relative feature of Nature?”. Newtonian physics, based on assumption of the existence of infinite velocity of passage of energy and information, stated that the time is an absolute objective reality of Nature revealing itself the same for any observer. Einstein’s postulate of existence of the natural limit of the velocity of passage of energy and information led to conclusion that the time can not be an absolute reality. Time is a relativistic reality, the reality that exist and reveals itself for any two observers only in dependence to how fast they are moving in respect to each other. One can use the notion “the absolute time” to signify the notion of time, as it was understood before Einstein.

AND we all know that the fundamental assumptions of SRT that assume the measure of relative velocity of photons and ALL reference frames will always be the same, hence the mathematics of SRT has this assumption embedded in the heart of the theory, which proves absolutely nothing.

SRT ignores real motion, i.e. that of the moving observer . Significant physical paramters are discarded from experimental results before the results are genrated in the experiment.

assume the measure of relative velocity of photons and ALL reference frames will always be the sameStop making us explain this. The speed is always the same. The velocity is not.

Dear geistkiesel, you just said: “AND we all know that the fundamental assumptions of SRT that assume the measure of relative velocity of photons and ALL reference frames will always be the same, hence the mathematics of SRT has this assumption embedded in the heart of the theory, which proves absolutely nothing.SRT ignores real motion, i.e. that of the moving observer . Significant physical paramters are discarded from experimental results before the results are genrated in the experiment”.

No offence, but please, read your post one more time and rewrite it in plain understandable sentences: I can not recognize even a single accomplished thought in your post. How you can expect to hear from us any opinion, if you do not care about appearance of your own thoughts in writing? Why we should guess what you are trying to say?

just because an objects atomic state slows with velocity doesn't in any way invalidate the absoluteness of the photons postion in time
Slows with velocity? No, it doesn't!

Some of the Hindus believe in the fabled Towers of Mandalay. Three upright poles, one of which originally holds a stack of 64 center-punched solid discs, ranging in size from smallest at the top to biggest at the bottom. The monks in this fabled Temple move the discs among the three poles, always moving only one disc at a time and never placing a big one on top of a smaller one. It'll take a whole lot of moves before the entire stack is transferred to pole number 2! When the monks finish their task, the World will come to an end. I think they're almost done now.

Einstein’s postulate of existence of the natural limit of the velocity of passage of energy and information led to conclusion that the time can not be an absolute reality

What I am curious about is why the invariance of light eliminated absolute time. And whether this is proven or not?

Time dilation (a direct result of constant c) eliminates absolute time.

Just so I am clear on this point, please correct me if I am wrong ok...

If lights velocity is constant and an object is travelling at 1000 kmpsec then with out dilation the velocity of light on that object would be measured in variation range from 'c'-1000kms to 'c'+1000 kmpsec.

But because of the demands of invariance, dilation becomes a necessity to accomodate the invariance of our ray of light so by fiddling with the tick rate we can ensure light stays constant in velocity.

Is this a fair general assessment?

Just so I am clear on this point, please correct me if I am wrong ok...

If lights velocity is constant and an object is travelling at 1000 kmpsec then with out dilation the velocity of light on that object would be measured in variation range from 'c'-1000kms to 'c'+1000 kmpsec.

But because of the demands of invariance, dilation becomes a necessity to accomodate the invariance of our ray of light so by fiddling with the tick rate we can ensure light stays constant in velocity.

Is this a fair general assessment?
Yes it's fair, BUT you've gotta realize that THREE distortions work in unison to normalize light's behavior among disparate trajectories -- not just time dilation! There's also length contraction and time dissynchronicity, and those other two are just as crucial to the transformation.

Y'wanna see diagrams? go my site.

so it could be also fair to say that relativity is locked into a need to justify lights invariance with respect to objects tragectories etc.....hmmmmm....ok

What if Light is not time dependent but only distance dependent?
Say we ignore the need to think of light as having velocity at all. Say we think for a moment that the effect of light is only distance determined and does not travel from [a] to [b].

As light is not time determined it can not have velocity, thus the need to fiddle with reflector time rates disappears. And the need to construct a universe that has relative time dissappears. Time dilation becomes simple atomic slowing and nothing more.

The logic I am following at the moment is that if light exists only in the "now" then there is only the now and distance involved in the effect of light. Time is no longer relevant to light rays.

What if Light is not time dependent but only distance dependent?
Say we ignore the need to think of light as having velocity at all. Say we think for a moment that the effect of light is only distance determined and does not travel from [a] to [b].
What if your grey matter is not truth dependent but only babble dependent?
Say we ignore the need to think of QQuack as having brains at all. Say we think for a moment the the effect of QQuack is only babble detemined and does not arrive at sense from premise to conclusions.

What if Light is not time dependent but only distance dependent?Once again the problem is that experiments disagree. Light from planets (which we know the distance to) do not arrive faster when they are moving toward us.

It is very sad, my friends, that we do not pay attention to each other's assertions. I wrote "Einstein’s postulate of existence of the natural limit of the velocity of passage of energy and information led to conclusion that the time can not be an absolute reality."

So, not Relativity, not absoluteness of speed of light, but absence of means to transfer energy and information with infinite speed was a killer of the idea that time is absolute reality, and forced us to accept that time is an relative reality. But you do not apprehend this fact, you again connect relatives of time with "time delay effect", with absoluteness of speed of light, with something else. You should not arbitrarily change historical and logical hierarchy of fundamental ideas; you should not arbitrarily establish causal ties of ideas in physics. Limitation of speed of light and its absoluteness (speed of light is the same for any inertial observer) and Principle of relativity are absolutely independent ideas and there is no logical or natural ties between them. All of them came from a huge number of experiments as independent features of our World.

Saying "existence of the natural limit of the velocity of passage of energy and information" is the same thing as saying "upper limit to the speed of light".

The first assertion is nothing but a guess. The second (more specically an invarient speed of light) has been supported by every attempt to change the speed of light.

Dear Persol,
Professionals do not mix the speed of energy and information transport with speed of light. Not always the speed of light is the ultimate possible speed in some specific conditions. For instance, it could be possible to transport information in to some macromolecule faster then light (photons) can propagate there. The fact that namely speed of light in vacuum, c, is a physical limit of transport of energy and information in Nature is an independent idea in physics.

It is very sad, my friends, that we do not pay attention to each other's assertions. I wrote "Einstein’s postulate of existence of the natural limit of the velocity of passage of energy and information led to conclusion that the time can not be an absolute reality."

So, not Relativity, not absoluteness of speed of light, but absence of means to transfer energy and information with infinite speed was a killer of the idea that time is absolute reality, and forced us to accept that time is an relative reality. But you do not apprehend this fact, you again connect relatives of time with "time delay effect", with absoluteness of speed of light, with something else. You should not arbitrarily change historical and logical hierarchy of fundamental ideas; you should not arbitrarily establish causal ties of ideas in physics. Limitation of speed of light and its absoluteness (speed of light is the same for any inertial observer) and Principle of relativity are absolutely independent ideas and there is no logical or natural ties between them. All of them came from a huge number of experiments as independent features of our World.

Yuriy, AE also told us through the use of a train/railway station gedanken, where he supposedly demonstrated the "truth" of loss of simultaneity" that this is where the loss of absolute time originated. (See Relativity" by AE.) I suppose the statement above is consistent with what I stated S=AE said, butr it isn't immediatley obvious, if at all.

What if your grey matter is not truth dependent but only babble dependent?
Say we ignore the need to think of QQuack as having brains at all. Say we think for a moment the the effect of QQuack is only babble detemined and does not arrive at sense from premise to conclusions.
say you do, ha say you do,
I tell you what, you prove to me that light has velocity by showing a photon in transit and I'll cease to babble.

And show me proof as to the fact that time is not absolute and I'll cease to annoy or threaten your belief system. :D

just to back track a little:

l really didn't want to bring up the idea that light could be an atomic velocity of the reflector effect and not the velocity of the photon effect but I am a sucker when it coimes to people showing how restricted they are by conventional thought. So my appologies.......

However the purpose of this thread was to explore why we have declared absolute time as invalid and what proodf of such is there to support that state of invalidness.

From what I understand it is the fact that science declares that light has velocity in the form of photon or wave that brings about the need to declare time relative and not absolute.
Einstien agreed and stated that the "ray ' of lights velocity is invariant to all observers but in doing so cemented the notion of distance/time velocity of the ray of light and because of the invariance factor relative time had to come in to play thus throwing out absolute time.

However if we suggest that light is a "reflector effect" only and that reflection speed gives the impression of light velocity but not the truth. That it is the reflectors atomic rate over distance from source that gives us 'c' then we suddenly have invariance over distance and not time.

So I ask you: Why is there a need to complicate things by considering light as having velocity?
When a simple gravitational vibration effecting the reflector at a rate determined by distance would suffice and simplify the entire field of interest. And allow absolute time to co-exist with any dilation effects noticed?

So, not Relativity, not absoluteness of speed of light, but absence of means to transfer energy and information with infinite speed was a killer of the idea that time is absolute reality, and forced us to accept that time is an relative reali

Yuriy,
I would go out there and suggest that the lack of medium is why distance is an illusion thus distance is zero between masses. However the rate of change of those masses is restricted to 'c' thus giving the impression of distance/time velocity when it is atomic time and change rate that is involved.

Like gravity, lights intensity is directly related to distance and that distance intensity is extrapolated in the reflectors rate of reflection.

So no matter where you place your reflector it will always show an appropriate 'c' reflection and not because the distance travelled by the photon but because of the distance of the intensity.

ok....in this scenario absolute time is not invaidated.

Maybe your collective minds could tell me why light has to be considered as having velocity in the usual interpretation?

Is my concept of interpreting 'c' able to be disproven?

And
Is my concept of 'c' able to be proven?

.. I tell you what, you prove to me that light has velocity by showing a photon in transit and I'll cease to babble.

You can't see a photon in transit: they're too too dark to see.

.. However if we suggest that ... reflection speed gives the impression of light velocity but not the truth.
Reflection speed? Did you say "reflection speed"?? "Speed", as in distance over time?? So now you are saying there is velocity to it!

Is my concept of interpreting 'c' able to be disproven? And Is my concept of 'c' able to be proven?
All observers everywhere everytime agree on the speed of a light beam. Why? Because lightspeed is infinite speed, and we all agree on infinity, as it is universal. Infinity plus any number, or minus any number, or times any number or raised to any power... is still INFINITY; hence the invariance of light speed among disparate observational frames. No speed can ever exceed lightspeed, because you're already at infinity -- end of story. :m:

You can't see a photon in transit: they're too too dark to see.
Hey Distram, maybe you should consider that the photon is transperant instead, that would be real easy to prove hey? Reminds me of the old fable by Hans Christian Anderson, The emperours New clothes. His was invisable too.........
All observers everywhere everytime agree on the speed of a light beam. Why? Because lightspeed is infinite speed, and we all agree on infinity, as it is universal. Infinity plus any number, or minus any number, or times any number or raised to any power... is still INFINITY; hence the invariance of light speed among disparate observational frames. No speed can ever exceed lightspeed, because you're already at infinity -- end of story.

ok so we agree....different word I might add but we agree. Light speed is instantaneous,,,,infinite.......can yo go any faster than that......hmmmmm...slower than zero or faster than infinite.....hmmmm sorry to philosophical for me.....

Reflection speed? Did you say "reflection speed"?? "Speed", as in distance over time?? So now you are saying there is velocity to it!

Distram, How far does a stationary rock travel in 1 second ? [hint: atomically and on the spot]

That drivel has little to do with the topic at hand: light.

the topic at hand distram is why absolute time was deemed invalid. And what proof there is to support the invalidation of absolute time

And I have suggested that it is our belief that light has velocity of 'c' over separating distance rather than reflecting mass distance over time.......that because separation distance is no longer an issue absolute time is a natural outcome.

By giving light velocity in the conventional way time has to be relative to accomodate this possible error in interpretation.

now I will repeat what I just wrote:
By giving light velocity in the conventional way time has to be relative to accomodate this possible error in interpretation.

Dear geistkiesel, you just said: “AND we all know that the fundamental assumptions of SRT that assume the measure of relative velocity of photons and ALL reference frames will always be the same, hence the mathematics of SRT has this assumption embedded in the heart of the theory, which proves absolutely nothing.SRT ignores real motion, i.e. that of the moving observer . Significant physical paramters are discarded from experimental results before the results are genrated in the experiment”.

No offence, but please, read your post one more time and rewrite it in plain understandable sentences: I can not recognize even a single accomplished thought in your post. How you can expect to hear from us any opinion, if you do not care about appearance of your own thoughts in writing? Why we should guess what you are trying to say?
If one measures the relative speed of an automobile traveling at 100 km/hr and one moving at 90 km/hr the relative speed of the two automobiles, moving in the same direction, is 10 km/hr. If we compare the 100 km/hr autonmbile wih one moving 80 km/hr the relative speed is 20 km/hr. As a footnote here, one would NEVER discard the velocity of one of the automobiles whenm making a relative speed mesurement, would you? But SRT does exactly this, and the remarkable thing about this corruption of physics the SR theorists actually refer to this procedure as "physics".

The words" the speed of light in vacuo" are not magic, and at the time Einstein uttered them there hadn't been any copmprehensive data that unambiguously proved the assertion that one can extend this statement to include the exclusion of the speed of all material objects when measuring the "realtive speed of light" with regard to frame and photon.

If we measure the relative speed of a photon moving at the speed C with a frame moving at .1C, measured from the frame the relative veloity is C. If we measure the relative velocity of photon and frame moving at .999999C, the relative velocity of frame and photon is C.

In other words, in SRT the speed of the frame is discarded as a physical parameter, i.e. effectively set to zero before the measurement, that is the value of real physical parameter is established by "theory", and discarded in reality.

This remarkable result follows from the assumption that the speed of light in vacuo will always be measured the same from any frame of reference. In relativity theory then there is no such thing as a relative speed of frame and photon in the same sense of relative speeds of automobiles and all other objects in the universe.

Slows with velocity? No, it doesn't!

Some of the Hindus believe in the fabled Towers of Mandalay. Three upright poles, one of which originally holds a stack of 64 center-punched solid discs, ranging in size from smallest at the top to biggest at the bottom. The monks in this fabled Temple move the discs among the three poles, always moving only one disc at a time and never placing a big one on top of a smaller one. It'll take a whole lot of moves before the entire stack is transferred to pole number 2! When the monks finish their task, the World will come to an end. I think they're almost done now.

The problem has been solved by computer in a very short priod of tiem. The problem is discussed in freshman level computer science classes.

This remarkable result follows from the assumption that the speed of light in vacuo will always be measured the same from any frame of reference. In relativity theory then there is no such thing as a relative speed of frame and photon in the same sense of relative speeds of automobiles and all other objects in the universe.

geist,
I see your point and agree that sr gives the velocity of light a rather remarkable quality.
Can you see how eliminating the notion of traveling light that velocity additions and such become unecessary. And yet light retains invariance but not in velocity but in only reflection rates.

It sort of like you can't have it both ways sort of argument. In that if light has velocity ( as a particle or wave ) then the reflector must dilate it's rate of change to accomodate the invariance of velocity and not the invariance of change.
By removing the interpretation of light as not travelling the whole issue simplifies remarkably.

All observers everywhere everytime agree on the speed of a light beam. Why? Because lightspeed is infinite speed, and we all agree on infinity, as it is universal. Infinity plus any number, or minus any number, or times any number or raised to any power... is still INFINITY; hence the invariance of light speed among disparate observational frames. No speed can ever exceed lightspeed, because you're already at infinity -- end of story. :m:

So infinity, defined by Random Hoeuse Dictionary as: immeasurably, indefinitely, or exceedingly great, unbounded, . . .undefined, . . .

So, 3 x 10^8 km/sec is now defined as equivalent. Speak for yourself, forked tongued turkey. All observers everywhere, everytime do not agree on the [relative]speed of a light beam . This is your personal insanity, your assumption that you bought into and now preach with all the intensity of a religious fanatic - the story has just begun to unravel, all to the chagrin (even though it isn't funny) of the SR industry, whose livelyhood depends on the maintenance of SR propaganda constructs.

The problem has been solved by computer in a very short priod of time.

Not for 64 discs.

say you do, ha say you do,
I tell you what, you prove to me that light has velocity by showing a photon in transit and I'll cease to babble.

And show me proof as to the fact that time is not absolute and I'll cease to annoy or threaten your belief system. :D
QQ your babbling is refreshing, hell man threaten away, this is what my "belief system" thrives on. Few among us have such courage to express their own beliefs such as you do with relative ease and mush contrasted to SR theorists who merely echo the taught (programmed?) mantras of mathematical silliness.

But here is such a showing of velocity of light, in transit, and hereanother you can ponder; take a few minutes and let some mental digestion occur before your brain starts babbling. Consider all the implications before you prematurely negate them with your theory, if that is what babbling is all about,relatively speaking.

Time is absolute QQ. This would be an impossible proof, to prove it isbn't absolute..

When you're done digesting, then impose your gravitation model of photon activity and see if it gels with your sense of rationality and mental clarity.

Geistkiesel

But here is such a showing of velocity of light, in transit, and hereanother you can ponder; take a few minutes and let some mental digestion occur before your brain starts babbling. Consider all the implications before you prematurely negate them with your theory, if that is what babbling is all about,relatively speaking.

Geist, showing words in transit is not showing a photon in transit or diagrams that describe that movement but actually observing a photon in transit.

Show me proof that a photon has velocity and if you can't come up with another explanation for the 'c' measurement then maybe you also need to stop babbling for a moment and extend you mind outwards from the box you have placed it in.
I ask you the same thing:
Consider all the implications before you prematurely negate them with your theory, if that is what babbling is all about,relatively speaking.