The Logic challenge - light speed is instantaneous

I don't find this acceptable. What you claim now then means that the star light we see (since it isn't reflected but transmitted. Has arrived here and our eye must delay interpretation for 13.5 Billion years.

I would just dream of living that long.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Nope you were right the first time

the light energy is recieved instantaneously but the strength of that energy determines the rate of receptor change. Distance only effects the strength and not the travel time which is zero.
edit: the rate of change is constant just the reflection is weaker

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

1100f, am I making any sense to you yet?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

You have any evidence that suggests this hypothesis is true and not the standard travel time concept?

 

summary of hypothesis
1) Relativity has a syntax error.
2) light is instantaneous because the universe takes time to change and reflect it and this is what is being measured not the velocity of light.
3) If light travelled at 'c' then the reflection must be instantaneous and for it to be instantaneous then time ceases to exist, thus no universe.
4) Particles are vibrating at the rate of 'c'. Thus the future changes to the past at this rate ( as shown by the light cones)
5) The distance of their vibration traveled in a second is approx. 300,000 kms.
6) e = mc^2 has now got another meaning???

 

Brandon, I haven't had time yet to even think about where to look for evidence. Maybe you coul dgive me an idea what would prove or disprove this hypothesis. What actual physical observation would prove the logic?

 

sorry Brandon I missed this part....time travel concept...if I think you mean what I think you mean I would ask you to show me were I talk about time travel...

 

Travel time, as in travel period, or time of transit, not time travel.

 

QQ, you seem confused.
It doesn't make sense to say that a fixed point "changes at c". C is a speed - it requires both a distance and a time to be meaningful.

What I think you are getting at is this:
A change at any point in space will propogate to other points in space at c.
So, when a change is made at point A (light emitted), that change will not be "real"* at point B (150000km away) until 0.5 seconds later. If that change induces another change at point B (a reflection), then the change at B won't be "real" at A until 0.5 seconds later again.




* "Real" is not really the right word here. "Detectable", "Meaningful", "of consequence" are alternatives, but don't go far enough. "Real" might go a bit too far, but is closer to the concept I have in mind.

 

Light cones are interesting things.
Consider the light cones associated with event A (a particular occurance in space-time).

Any event that occurs in the area within A's cones has a timelike separation from A. This means that if event B occurs within event A's light cones, there is a reference frame in which A and B both occur at the same place, but at different times. If B occurs in A's past lightcone, then B must occur before A, and vice versa.

Even trickier:
Any event that occurs in the area outside A's cones has a spacelike separation from event A. This means that if event B occurs outside A's light cones, there is a reference frame in which A and B occur simultaneously, but at different places.

Even trickier again:
For any two events with spacelike separation, you can find a reference frame that makes those two events occur as close to each other as you like in space, but never in exactly the same place. You can also choose a reference frame to make the time between the two events any duration you want.


Events exactly on the light cones of event A have lightlike separation. You can pick a reference frame to make the time and distance between the two events as large or small as you like, but you can't make it zero, you can't change the sign, and the distance/time ratio will always be c

 

ok ...does Einsteins theories fall under this criteria, if so then the answer is yes, this or it is another "time travel" theory. But I think the use of these words are not good ones.

 

another example is to consider two similar shaped bells....they exist approximately 1 meter apart hanging from the cieling.

You pick up a hammer and strike the first bell......how long does it take for the other bell to resonate in sympathy. Is it immediate or does it take time?

Now place the bells further apart and note how long it takes for the other bell to resonate. Doe it take longer for the other bell to resonate in sympathy, now that the separation has increased?

 

Why I find this interpretation confusing?

The light cones only are relevant to a light ray. and not relevant to any other events other than that of a light ray. Now if a light ray is invariant then all ray events are identicle as stated thus relativities main postulate comes to be. Light is invariant to all observers irespective of the velocity of the observers.

Pete, what you are suggesting is that light is not invariant, that lights behaviour in time can some how be different depending on the event. This clearly contradicts the very purpose of the light cones which is to describe that light is invariant, or should I say behaves the same in all circumstances, with respect to time.

Were did you get this reference from?

If one takes the light cones out of context I can see how this could be thought to be the case. But I can only repeat that the light cones refer in particular only to a ray of light. The photonic event so to speak.

And clearly demostrates that light is invariant regarless of location, velocity of source or observer.

So how we get a contextual shift that states

is rather strange......

Another interesting syntax is that Einstien states quite clearly that the photons "velocity" is the center of time. and is invariant etc.....stating that absolute time is no longer that time is variant. yet at the same moment declaring that the photonic event is the centre of time.

So on one hand declare absolute time obsolete and yet on the other recreate it with the light cones........all light rays behaviours are identicle as light is invariant.
This is why we are confused......declaring something obsolete only to create it again in default. A syntax or paradox so to speak.

 

Question:
What exists at the center between the light cones?

What are the cones about? Are they about anything other than a photon?

If the center of the cones is about the photon and the centre of time we see a distinct relationship between the two.

But the thing missed is that the centre of time does not only apply to the photon it applies to everything else as well......centre of time is normally referred to as the "NOW"

 

so maybe Einstein may have invalidated concepts of absolute time but in the very same inspiration created absolute time for the photon. And as I have stated in my last post that centre of time still exists for matter as well. so he hasn't removed absolute time , just shifted it to the photon and in doing so proved absolute time for everything else as well....

If you follow my reasoning you can see the nature of this syntax and how pervasive it is....

 

another diagram to emphasise this point about time being absolute for the photon.....
<img src=http://www.paygency.com/LightconesD.jpg>

Clearly if this is not the case then relativity is not valid at all.....if the photon is not invariant then relativity ceased to be.

Actually this is my take on it, maybe someone else can tell us why the light ray is invariant?

 

I have but nobody listened.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

awwwww....MacM can you tell us why relativity deems the light ray invariant?

 

if we take a look at e=mc^2 for a second......firstly I have always had trouble trying to comprehend this formula.....but

If e=mc^2 beomes
Energy = Mass * ( rate of change)^2
It seems to make more sense.

And may be later I will be able to clarify this point.


Maybe someone else can have a play with it?

 

I'll pass on your invitation to repeat my views but draw your attention to Page 1 in this thread at 10:08AM.

Clarification only. This is of course sure speculation based on the noted observations and is suggested as "May" be the cause of the observed invariance. I certainly cannot state that it is.