Simple question really. If we break it down a little.

The timeline of light and the timeline of the source, are they relative or the same?
Can the location or position of source and photon be said to be relative?

I get the distinct impression that whilst time is not relative position in space is.

Care to discuss this salient issue? :)

Extrapolating the Lorentz tranformations, it is not meaningful to speak of the "timeline" of a photon. A photon experiences no proper time. Neither does it experience space.

In any slower-than-light reference frame, time and space present no such problem, and we can identify the position of a photon at any time as easily as we can identify the position of any other object in the universe.

A photon experiences no proper time. Neither does it experience space.
Care to elaborate, James, on why this is deemed so?
or any one else perhaps?

I'm assuming we all know the standard model that James R is correctly showing. But if we leave the old classic view of time and space intact and force a solution to the time-space variations we see in real life, this answer works:

Massive objects (http://photontheory.com/pte.html) experience space and time as distorted when in motion because the most elemental parts of massive objects all move at the invarient speed of light. Even in the standard model we have the innards of mass moving at the speed of light (quarks gluons, etc). So mass would experience space and time as distorted by motion in classic space-time.

Mass experiences time by the ticks of electrons as they swarm around in atoms. When the atom is in motion, tick patterns take more time to complete because the electron must travel a greater distance. And of course, mass can't go faster than the speed limit of its innards (quarks?).

Simple question really. If we break it down a little.

The timeline of light and the timeline of the source, are they relative or the same?
Can the location or position of source and photon be said to be relative?

I get the distinct impression that whilst time is not relative position in space is.

Care to discuss this salient issue? :)
A physical photon source (also a clock), is located equidistance from two photon sensitive clock/mirror devices. Photons, L and R, are emitted in opposite directions on the inertial frame. The clocks, Lc and Rc, print out the current frame time when a photon arrives. The midpoint clock prints out the emission time.

The frame moves (only in the L -> R direction) with velocity v wrt the emission point, called the invariant position (IP).

Answer below:
A.When v = 0:The arrival time of L and R at Lc and Rc respectivley is:
1. the same.
2. different and L arrives at Lc :
a. before
b. after
R arrives at Rc.
B. If v > 0 The arrival time of L and R at Lc and Rc respectivley is:
1. the same.
2. different and L arrives at Lc :
a. before
b. after
R arrives at Rc.





You asked about the the relative timelines of the photons and source. The photons move in straightlines with velocity = c. The distances between the forward edges of the photons and the point of emission of the photons are always equidistant. Said another way, the midpoint of the two photons moving apart at velocity c is invariant. The zero point has been defined at the instant photons are emitted (or may be defned by the constant motion of the unperturbed photons).

There is no physical matter or conditions that perturb the light or frame motion.

The answer to A is A1.
The answer to B is B2a.

Once emitted the point of emission is defined and is invariant, regardless of whether the photons are subsequently absorbed and identifiable. The technological question of locating the zero-point does not negate the fact of the invariance of the point, meaning invariance in location.

Does this answer your question?

If not then define the zero point as a line orthogonal to the photon trajectory passing through the point of instantaneous emission. This condition negates use of the speed of light having any significance in defining the zero-point of the cordinate line.

Likewise, the photons do not adopt a lateral momentum component along the the line of motion of the source.

If the opposite is claimed then light emitted at an angle, w, to the frame motion would have a momemtum/velocity component equal to the frame velocity x cosine of the angle between the frame and photon directions. If, as SRT claimed, that lateral momentum components are imposed on the photon, at what angle does the photon not absorb the lateral frame velocity such that the fundamental hypothesis of SR is maintained? Does the measure of light the same in all frames of refeerence kick in 89.99999 . . . 9 degrees?

If the frame does impose a lateral velocity component then necessarily the velocity of light C' is determined from C'^2 = v^2 + c^2 and C' > c.
Have the SRTists explain this away in as direct a manner as expressed here.

Geistkiesel

Care to elaborate, James, on why this is deemed so?
or any one else perhaps?

This is expressed by the standard formulas of time dilation and space contraction. From the photons point of view, the time is endlessly dilated, so no matter how far it travelles from our point of view, it still takes no time for it. And the same for space. For the photon, space is endlessly conracted in the direction of its motion, so it cannot travel any distance in its own frame. I guess we could probably talk about the 2-dimensional space, where the photon is at rest, since in the two other dimensions, no contraction should appear.

This is expressed by the standard formulas of time dilation and space contraction. From the photons point of view, the time is endlessly dilated, so no matter how far it travelles from our point of view, it still takes no time for it. And the same for space. For the photon, space is endlessly conracted in the direction of its motion, so it cannot travel any distance in its own frame. I guess we could probably talk about the 2-dimensional space, where the photon is at rest, since in the two other dimensions, no contraction should appear.
F03, simply said, when two photons are emitted from a point source do you have any problem by identifying that point of emission as invariant? Positionally that is?

Along the line defined by the photon's oppositely directed motion the speed of the photons is measured wrt the invariant point, the IP. Forgetting the technical difficulties measuring the IP wrt some physical frame, the IP nevertheless remain fixed in space once the photons are emitted. I say ivariant as the IP is purely abstract and invariant to any physical or even nonlocal activity. Disregarding any, "from the photon's point of view ..." rhetoric which is irrelevant here as the photon knows nothing of sources or frames and is moving at c wrt the IP. Certainly the photon has no "point of view". I say this not because the photon is not conscious, I saythis because the photon is oblivious to the source, the frame whatever.

The above describes an absolute zero reference frame that is totally unrelated or affected by any attribute of motion of the photons or the frame. The instant of emission is the defining instant of the IP for all time. The IP being impossible to vary in position, any perturbations to the photon trajectories or frame trajectories can, at least theoretically, be measured wrt the IP at t = 0 (when the phtons were emitted).

The above, by the way, is consistent with the measurement of the speed of light being exactly c, wrt IP, a point in the vacua, having no physical attributes.

Geistkiesel

This is expressed by the standard formulas of time dilation and space contraction. From the photons point of view, the time is endlessly dilated, so no matter how far it travelles from our point of view, it still takes no time for it. And the same for space. For the photon, space is endlessly conracted in the direction of its motion, so it cannot travel any distance in its own frame. I guess we could probably talk about the 2-dimensional space, where the photon is at rest, since in the two other dimensions, no contraction should appear.

Thanks fo3, however it is what we observe that I am concerned with.
WE consider that a photon is eiether a particle or wave or both that travels at a certain speed. This speed is 'c'. From the photons perspective it has no speed and is in effect the "Ray" that AE referrs to it with his light cones.
From a phtons POV it is as long as it needs to be. IT's length is determined by the distance between source and reflector. The reflectors position determines it's length. SO from a photons perspective it is instantaneous as 2 dimensionality requires. Yet from our perpective it takes time to travel.

However this is not my question.

From our POV is the photon relative in time to it's source?

The thinking:
"If we look at the tragectory of a photon we know from AE that at any point along that tragectory the light event is always NOW or in the center of time.

The source as it travels through time is also always in the NOW or the center of time. So would this not state that source and photon are absolute in time or should I say absolutely simultaneous in time?"

I have drawn up this simple time diagram to clarify what I thought would be "Naked Physics"

http://www.paygency.com/Diagrams/RV2.jpg

An object reflecting light could be treated the same way.

does the diagram make sense to any one else?

Thanks fo3, however it is what we observe that I am concerned with.
WE consider that a photon is eiether a particle or wave or both that travels at a certain speed. This speed is 'c'. From the photons perspective it has no speed and is in effect the "Ray" that AE referrs to it with his light cones.
From a phtons POV it is as long as it needs to be. IT's length is determined by the distance between source and reflector. The reflectors position determines it's length. SO from a photons perspective it is instantaneous as 2 dimensionality requires. Yet from our perpective it takes time to travel.

However this is not my question.

From our POV is the photon relative in time to it's source?

[quote=QQ]The thinking:
"If we look at the trajectory of a photon we know from AE that at any point along that tragectory the light event is always NOW or in the center of time.
I assume you are referring to a beam of photons moving on an identified trajectory? If so sure measure a photon and you have a definite Now event,

What is "The center of time?"


The source as it travels through time is also always in the NOW or the center of time. So would this not state that source and photon are absolute in time or should I say absolutely simultaneous in time?"
The photon and source being existents, or things in existence, are independent of each other.

I assume you are referring to the motion of the physical photon emitter continuoisy emitting photons?

I would say that for any "photon" the instantaneous position of the photon source wrt the emitted photon is absolute and invariant in space. The invariant position (IP) of the emitter is an abstraction unaffected by phjysical activity surrounding the emission process (or light burst as finitely a small duration sufficient for determining frame and photon relative motion to a minimum and insignifiant error). The IP once established is invariant for all time. The technological problem of maintaining an accurate determination with respect to any arbitrary physical frame does not negate the absolute nature of position of the IP.

Because of the problem relating a photon beam to an absolute state, we avoid using the speed of light along a frame with any aspect of photon speed being an attribute of the cordinate frame definition. Rotating the direction of the the photon trajectry 90 degrees we rely then only on the invariant nature of the orthogonal straightline and ignore any implication of the speed of light.

Remember, the absolute frame of reference has been defined unambiguously. Any moving entity may have a time measurement, velocity, performed on that entity measured wrt the v = 0 frame of reference - ie the abstract IP point.

Geistkiesel

From the photons point of view, the time is endlessly dilated, so no matter how far it traveles from our point of view, it still takes no time for it. And the same for space.

QQ - Would you please explain what is a "photon's point of view"?

If I understand you a photon emitted form point A arrives at point B after some time t > o wrt in the non-photon frame. Liekwise , your photon system never experiences time so when the photn arrives at point B, it has already been there, or something akin to this? Light speed cannot be used to measure relative velocity of physical inertial frames? Yes says your model, but the photon knows nothing of the spatial movement observed during light speed measuements. Photon have no "point of view".

This appears to be another relativity theory. Whatever reality the photon world is everything happens all at once. All events of photons striking a detector has always been? An invariant event that has always been? Photons with no memory, no motion and all occuring with the observed reality to be that light moves at a constant speed = c. Measuring the SOL wrt an emission point of a photon is identically equivalent to measuring the SOL in vacua.

It seems also QQ m that you have retained some attributes of SRT that are crucially convenient to your model of the photon.

I think time dialtion occurs when the matter constituting the clock is subject to high velocity , hence high acceleration. The physical resdtraints are imposed on the processes of th clock mechanism. This has nothing to do with time dilation, it has everything to do with physical perturbations of clock processes.


If the arrival of a photon at a point in space time measured by space time devices, and the time span between being emitted at A and arriving at B wrt AB line, and if the photons considers the AB trajectory occuring instantaneously there is no event one may associate with the photon.
Events are not instantaneoulsy posible. Events are processes from the very 1st event in the universe, whatever that event was, to the current NOW, events require the passage of time. Nothjinmg occuring in the photon world and assigning some reality to that world is like the SRT rhat assures us that uniform velocity is an accumulating form of forces giveing rise to dilation of all systems moving.

Newton's inertial laws tell us that uniform motion will continue as uniform until acted upon by an outside force . We would also have to insert nuclear decay acitivity in tho se decays that result in a mesured reaction to the emission of the decay particle. It is intuitive that uniform motion is not and cannot be a force generating conditions. All object observed with some relative velocity must necessaily undergone an acceleration, as slowly and imperceptively as it amy have been. But to tbe sure the acceleration is the only manifest source of forces available to impose any attentuation of any particle attribute.

Veocity is a measure of the particle energy state. Velocity is not the source of any dynamic physical processes, and certainly not time dilation.

Acceleration is insignificant regarding SRT time delay for instance. Take any clock and subject the clock to accelreation short of the breaking point. At a sufficiently undamaging acceleration rates using short swift increments accelerate the clock as often as necessary until some ordered variation of the clock rate can be plotted. We will throw out all accelerations that challenge the physical structure of the particle or object under scrutiny. Where do you get time dilation of clocks? Never, the processes of interfernce of clock rate generating mechanism is imposed by the frquency of particle mass vibration rate. Mass frequency jamming is what you get.

Geistkiesel

I have drawn up this simple time diagram to clarify what I thought would be "Naked Physics"

http://www.paygency.com/Diagrams/RV2.jpg

An object reflecting light could be treated the same way.
It makes some sense but you only need one position wrt to emitted photons. Why drag the frrame around with the point of emission know wrt to what?

If you recognize thyt the point in spape of the emitted photons is invariant then your frame should only indicate that a new Invariant Point (IP) or inertial frame of refernce when necessry or convenient. But you compcate he matter behyon comprehension by associtiang one phyisical emitter and position with one photon that can rarely if ever be measured with any useful utility Geistkiesel

It seems also QQ m that you have retained some attributes of SRT that are crucially convenient to your model of the photon.

I am indeed atempting to explore an aspect of SRT that I feel needs clarification. I am not proposing a theory or anything like it. Just wishing to clarify the time issue.

Maybe it is too simple a point that is confusing.

Simply put 3 seconds for our photon is 3 seconds for our source.

A photon changes it's location at a rate of 'c' and at any point in that change it must always be in between the future and the past, the center of time. [NOW]

Every photon must exists only in this position in time. A photon could be considered as a "potential light event." Meaning that if a reflector was placed at any point in it's tragectory that point would refelct a photon and only do so in the NOW.

So at any distance form the source the potential for a light event exists but only in the NOW.

The light source therefore must as it is with any reflector exists only in the NOW. As the diagram, shows the photon and the source change at the same rate as the photon.
OK. This is a really easy point to see, Now the question is only whether that is a valid point of not.

I see no reason to complicate the issue at this time. It is very much the nature of SRT'ists to complicate a really simple issue to the point where the issue is lost.

Is lights velocity relative to it's source?

I say ....only it's position is. It's moment in time is not relative.
The contention is thus set out clearly in the diagram showing one source and it's emited photon over time

http://www.paygency.com/Diagrams/RV2.jpg

I'm assuming we all know the standard model that James R is correctly showing. But if we leave the old classic view of time and space intact and force a solution to the time-space variations we see in real life, this answer works:

Massive objects (http://photontheory.com/pte.html) experience space and time as distorted when in motion because the most elemental parts of massive objects all move at the invarient speed of light. Even in the standard model we have the innards of mass moving at the speed of light (quarks gluons, etc). So mass would experience space and time as distorted by motion in classic space-time.

Mass experiences time by the ticks of electrons as they swarm around in atoms. When the atom is in motion, tick patterns take more time to complete because the electron must travel a greater distance. And of course, mass can't go faster than the speed limit of its innards (quarks?).

Massive objects with elemental innard parts moving with SOL? Where is the associated mass during all this? Does the mass catch up later? If so what is the mechanism of v < c catching up to innards moving at v = c? The fact that elemental parts, quarks for instance may move at the SOL such parts are speculative at best.

You are confusing time with aggravated motion of highly energetic electron vibration measured in frequency. Maybe you are saying that this is "time?", simple vibrating electrons?

Geistkiesel

Geist and others. I have drawn this diagram to show the point a little more so.
http://www.paygency.com/Diagrams/RV222.jpg
the red laser lights are continuous

I would contend that if we agree with non-simultaneousness an observer traveling at v=0.8c would be travelling in a very dark universe as the light emitted by relatively stationary stars would not be able to be seen or detected by that observer.
Because the light of the stars is in the stars NOW and the light of the object at velocity is in a different NOW the light of the star doesn't exist in the NOW of the object thus the stars would not be visable to the observer.

Also the ship light would not be visable to an observer in the stars rest frame. However the light reflected by the star off the ship would be but not by any one in the ship's frame.

An interesting aside is the question:

How far does the light travel from object A through the object B's frame to get to the reflector compared to how far the light has to travel from B's source to the reflector?

Is it the same distance or does the onboard light of object B travel only (X)% of the distance that object A's light has to travel? [given contractions of (Y) %]

Massive objects with elemental innard parts moving with SOL? Where is the associated mass during all this? Does the mass catch up later? If so what is the mechanism of v < c catching up to innards moving at v = c? The fact that elemental parts, quarks for instance may move at the SOL such parts are speculative at best. .....

I subscribe to the view of mass that Einstein was trying to prove in his Unified Field Theory: The final irreducible constituent of all physical reality is the electromagnetic field which is not the standard model, of course.

I was just saying that that construct of mass, in classic space-time, would necessarily distort when moved because of the speed invariance of its constituents.

Then switching gears to think in terms of the standard model where forces are mediated by photons and gluons, wouldn't their invarient speed also cause distortion in shape and in the way that the mass experiences time ??

Comsider the instant two , or 102 photonas are emitted from a point source in all direction simultaneously. That point, now a meere abstraction is now absolutely invariant in position invariant. Th ephysical device that emitted the photons mya be moving (assume it is moving), but so what? This motion has absolutelynothing to do with SRT, photons, what ever. The point being invariant must necessarily be reference point from which the speed of light is measured. It appears to me that the espose in this thead somehow are including the invariance principal of AE, that the SOL is always measured as C wrt all inertial frames. This is an unproved and irrational assumption. It is irrational as there is no experimental data that justifies the assumption.

Evrytime a photon is emitted it leaves an inmvariant point in space. As the photon is moving, adn if we maintain a commonsense notion of motion and velocity thee can be no othe conclusion but that yes the motion of light can and is measured wrt to some invariant point in absolute space. Have an emitter capable of emitting the photons 10000/sec simultaneously while moving at 1000m/sec uniformly. Therefore, every 100 meters an invariant point of any burst of the photons is perfectly defined.
What is wrong with this, specifically, that is?

Geistkiesel.

Geistkiesel

no.

I always wanted to make a short post. Mine are usually too long. See my best effort below. :) My answer,below, is to the question in the title of this thread as I understand it. more later when i have read more of the tread.

Simple question really. If we break it down a little.
The timeline of light and the timeline of the source, are they relative or the same?
Can the location or position of source and photon be said to be relative?

I get the distinct impression that whilst time is not relative position in space is.
Care to discuss this salient issue? :)
I am respond to above post only to mark what I have read of his thread.
I have now at least skimmed all the posts more recent between this one and my brief "no." post. Anyone who remembers my few posts in the now closed thread MacM and Pete started on SRT etc. will not be surprized to learn that once again I find I agree with James R's post that appears immediately above this one of QQ. My comments here will be about some posts later than QQ's above and, as I am not lookng at them while writting, I will not try to cite the authors of the statement that consfused me or I think need to be made more clear.

Before reading James' post, I almost posted roughly the same thing as my own reaction, but I want to tell what parts of the related physics I believe to be true in a different fashion that James did. (I am too lazy now to do or read carefully calculations of time and space between events A&B as seen by different observers in frames moving relative to each other at constant speed, less than c. Most of the posters here also seem to perfer verbal descriptions rather than equations. - Pete where are you now that we need you to keep things precise with the math of SRT?) I will keep open still the posibility tha SRT has errors, but I do not think so.

I beleive it true that:

1) All finite mass obsevers (i.e. not themselves traveling at the speed of light) in all non-accelerating frames observe the shape of the light front expanding from a point "explosion flash" as a sphere whose velocity of expansion is a universal costant, usually called c. I remember deriving most of SRT's equations from this simple statement, but not sure I can still, and being lazy, will not try even if asked. As I recall, I used two flashes one second apart in my frame in the derivation. It is mainly for this reason I trust the equations of SRT.

2) The "light cone" shown on 2D spaces times drawings as a big X, is really the "light sphere" of item 1 in Einstein's 4D space. In the reduce 2D representation, which is possible on the sheet of paper we always use to consider these questions, there is one spatial dimension and time only. All most all posters here will agree that the very fact I can speak of time so quantatively and represent it on my sheet of paper, implies that I am considering some specific, non-accelerating, reference frame which I will call "P" - the frame the 2D's Paper drawing's observer is stationary in. I will granted that some posters here, may not agree how observers in P should calculate the lapse of time between two events, A&B, when measured by the clocks of in a different frame, which I'll call "R", and I DON'T WANT TO GET IN TO DISCUSSIONS AS WHO IS CORRECT. I am going to assume that observers in both P and R agree that the relative velocity between frames P&R is V and that V<c. I think most posters here will at least grant me this assumption, and most will accept it as factually possible or even a necessary truth from some sort of symetry argument.

3)That item 2's 2D "reduced space," observer (I'll call him "o") is at the origin of the big X, but I will assume that o is "replacable" and does not mind if I explode my brief light light flashes at the origin also. :eek:

4) That there is no sensible way to make a space time drawing for a reference frame , which I will call "C", that is moving with the speed of light.

End of this list of beliefs. Now for some comments:

Thus, because of item 4 and my believe that item 1 is true, all the posts that speak of light being fixed at "NOW" in frame C, just confuse me, at best. The best I can do to think about what an observer moving with the speed of light fixed at the origin of frame C would observe of the "thing" other observers in frames not moving at c would call a photon of light (or at least an EM wave moving at c) is that she would observe a static magnetic field at right angles to a static electric one and if she is a careful observer of many such things, (slowing down and then getting back up to speed c, so she can look a another one of these "things") she might be interested to note that the relative strengths of the E and M fields was the same for all the things she observed. These things might be the only things that seem to exist for her when she is traveling at c. I don't pretend to know, because as stated in item 4, I think I am talking nonsense.

By talking this way, I am only trying to be kind, cooperative, with the posters who talk about making observations by an obserser fixed at "NOW" and at the origin in a fame C. I will continue with this nonsense a little more to hopefully persuade you that it is nonsense. (Something James R said in a couple of senstences, but in my posts I aim more at trying to get understand than to efficiently state "the truth," which with improved understanding, might be not be "the truth.") So now I want to explore just what does it mean that "frame C is traveling at the speed of light" and to make observations in it.

Well, clearly all speeds must be measured relative to something not co-moving. Something considered "fixed." Perhaps my reference frame R will serve. Yes it does - item 1 makes me sure of this. But wait, frame P, which was traveling at V relative to frame R also serves, as does frames R1, R2, R3 etc. for any frame. Frame C is moving with speed c relative to them all!

The thing my lady observer in frame C was observing is a EM wave, with different frequencies to all the observers in all of these other different frames. (She must be a very heavy lady. Too bad, I was thinking of joining her when done here. :( )

Well since I really am trying to go along with the "NOW" people opposing my view in item 4, and I have a lot of frame choices, I will chose frame R17 as the non-co-moving frame considered at "rest" from which I observe the fat lady in frame C moving at the speed c. - I found her birth certificate, stationary here in R17, which is why I chose R17, and I am curious just how old is she now, in my frame R17. I try to avoid calculations, but here goes: Woops, I got a lot of zero divides. I'll ask my buddy in frame P to calculate her age and use SRT equations to correct for his slow clocks. Woops again, he is getting zero devides also.This is getting silly (Which was my point.) so I'll stop. I'll let one of the real "NOW" people explain to me what is the meaning I deny in item 4. Any of you want to try?

Billy T, it is always a pleasure to read your words.

I have not at any point in this thread mentoned disagreemnent with JamesR's statements:
Extrapolating the Lorentz tranformations, it is not meaningful to speak of the "timeline" of a photon. A photon experiences no proper time. Neither does it experience space.

In any slower-than-light reference frame, time and space present no such problem, and we can identify the position of a photon at any time as easily as we can identify the position of any other object in the universe.

In fact I actually agree that this is the SRT position. Whether this is a truth of nature or not is not the purpose of this thread.

I am in fact NOT looking at the photons movements from a photons perspective and am attempting to look at a photons movements from a less than typically 'c' perpective....very much less than 'c'.

My contention quite clearly spelled out as:

The thinking:
"If we look at the tragectory of a photon we know from AE that at any point along that tragectory the light event is always NOW or in the center of time.

The source as it travels through time is also always in the NOW or the center of time. So would this not state that source and photon are absolute in time or should I say absolutely simultaneous in time?"
and is demonstrated in the diagram:
http://www.paygency.com/Diagrams/RV2.jpg

the sumation of the contention being:

Simply put 3 seconds for our photon is 3 seconds for our source.

A photon changes it's location at a rate of 'c' and at any point in that change it must always be in between the future and the past, the center of time. [NOW]

Every photon must exists only in this position in time. A photon could be considered as a "potential light event." Meaning that if a reflector was placed at any point in it's tragectory that point would refelct a photon and only do so in the NOW.

So at any distance form the source the potential for a light event exists but only in the NOW.

The light source therefore must as it is with any reflector exists only in the NOW. As the diagram, shows the photon and the source change at the same rate as the photon.
OK. This is a really easy point to see, Now the question is only whether that is a valid point of not.

In really simple terms and what I would have thought as "naked physcs" three seconds of elapsed time for our photon equals three seconds of elapsed time for our source. There for the photons time relationship with the source is NOT relative.

This is the main point that I am trying to be very clear about and discuss why this may not be the case. Possible I am not using the correct terminology.

What this means if correct is that as the photon changes it's postion it moves as one with the universe in time [now]. So therefore a photon does not have velocity in the usual contrext because time is no longer relative.

An example:

When they fire of that laser pulse at the moon it takes x seconds to return to the measuring device. [2.8 seconds I think]

In that 2.8 seconds the source and measuring device have also moved through time or changed for those 2.8 seconds. Now one would say, so what if I fire a bullet the same result applies. However a bullet is an object of mass where as a photon is not. That is the key distinction. A bullet is not limited by nature other than the amount of gunpowder etc as far as it's velcoity is concerned but a photon has only one speed regardless of medium of lack thereof.

So I am contending that the photon has a unique postion in time and that unique position is fundamentally between the future and past reagrdless of the velocity of the source.

The source may dilate it's tick rate but if it is emitting light that light must by using this logic be invariant regardeless of source dilations due to velocity or any other causes.

This is how I have come to agree that light is invariant. It also explains the reason why dilation is also a necessary PHYSICAL and not just a mathematical outcome of that invariance.

The dilation being physically necessary to maintain that invariance as 'c'
Given the two dimensionality of time [change] I believe this makes perfect sense. Does it?

Ok I just re-read what I have just posted and see a possibility for confusion:
When I said:
In really simple terms and what I would have thought as "naked physcs" three seconds of elapsed time for our photon equals three seconds of elapsed time for our source. There for the photons time relationship with the source is NOT relative.
I should have written:
"Three seconds for our source is equal to three seconds of elapsed time for our photon." That would make better sense I guess....

There is a reason for working on such an issue as the outcome effects my understanding of gravity and how we may actually be able to defy it.

Billy T, it is always a pleasure to read your words.

Thanks - The feeling is mutual, at least when I understand them.
Because, as stated in my post, I only skimmed many posts of the thread and because you are usualy worth reading (my view), I now have read your post severals time and I am begining to understand parts of it.I'll try to show what confuses me still.

I have not at any point in this thread mentoned disagreemnent with JamesR's statements....
I am in fact NOT looking at the photons movements from a photons perspective and am attempting to look at a photons movements from a less than typically 'c' perpective....
If we look at the tragectory of a photon we know from AE that at any point along that tragectory the light event is always NOW or in the center of time.
The source as it travels through time is also always in the NOW or the center of time. So would this not state that source and photon are absolute in time or should I say absolutely simultaneous in time?

I think I follow and agree with all parts above. It is the (at least implied) "sum of the parts" that is giving me trouble. You have two things at the NOW (no problem yet) and also at the "center of time" and this confuses me. "center" for me is a spatial concept, so I think perhaps he means at the crossing point of the "big X" of a spact time drawing, but I know you do not believe the photon remains at the source! Ok I think, he has the photon at the X cross of one frame and the source at the center of another. but this does not work either as he said explicitely that he was not going to adopt the photon's POV. Then come the diagram which is supposted to help, but I don't undersand even part of it, except Vertical axis is time. later you mention a bullet. perhaps if bullet were also on graph I could guess better. Don't mean to be critical, but only by telling things like this can you make you point clear to me, if you care to try again.

After the diagram, you speak of "naked physic" and that sounds interesting, If I were still doing class room teaching.... :cool:
I got that 3 sec=3sec for both and b/c of this understood:
"Therefor the photons time relationship with the source is NOT relative."
to mean "don't need SRT here" instead of one is moving not moving relative to the other, but I had my doubts about this b/c perhaps you did really mean both were somehow at the same "CENTER OF TIME" ??? etc.

..."So therefore a photon does not have velocity in the usual contrext because time is no longer relative."
I was ok with laser bouncing off moon and bullet having lots of speed options.

but then for the example you conclude:

"So I am contending that the photon has a unique postion in time and that unique position is fundamentally between the future and past reagrdless of the velocity of the source."

The part I made bold is another way to say at the cross of the big X - so do you adopt a frame moving at c? or not (that frame is the photon's POV )
confused
"The source may dilate it's tick rate but if it is emitting light that light must by using this logic be invariant regardeless of source dilations due to velocity or any other causes."
"dilate" for me has in it the idea that someone is looking at clocks in another frame - if you only have two frames you must mean POV from photon's frame of the source's clock, but from that frame moving with c relative to source it is not "dilate" it is "hey, that clock is broken - it has been showning the same time for the last year!"
So could not even guess what the remaining discussion about what "dilate" intended

Finally at the end:
"I believe this makes perfect sense. Does it?"
Do you want me to be honest? Perhaps you intended to put this smilie ( :rolleyes: ) after your question mark

Again, not critical. just confused:

Billy T thanks for taking the time to attempt to understand what I have posted. Obviously I have failed to convey my contentions in a manner that can be understood.

You asked why I use the words "center of time". Concerned that I have mixed it up and applied it in a spatial sense. Indeed to me the NOW is in fact at the center of mass in a spacial sense. However I failed to describe this properly and make many assumptions about my ability to communicate.
Not to worry too much you are not the only one who can't make head or tail of my posts.... :)
It is possible that you and others are looking for a complete volume of work where as I am really only posting ideas that may lead to a complete volume of work.

The idea in this thread is that Light has no velocity that can be determined ex-continuum. It's movement is in synch with mass as the Now changes. Hence my agreement with the first paragragh of JamsR's post.

"When you shine a torch light on a near by wall for 3 seconds what is happening?"
How is the NOW changing? At what rate is that change occuring? What is changing?