Has absolute time been PROVEN false?

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.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

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.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

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?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

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?

 

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

 

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

 

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:

 

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.........

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.....

 

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.

 

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.

 

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

 

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.

 

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.

 

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[post=696156] here [/post]is such a showing of velocity of light, in transit, and [post=704811]here[/post]another 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

 

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.