Is time the speed of light?

Brucep directly answered your question about the moon. Credit where credit is due.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

OK, but any answer to the OP has to admit that the calculus is correct and can't run around like a chicken with its head cut off without any alternative to that calculus.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I think I can take a swing at that. Energy is a globular squeezing of space that expands at light speed and which is visible only through the objects that reflect that energy. It's speed is dependent on the density of the empty space it passes through. You can read more at http://www.sciforums.com/threads/working-model-of-the-universe-dimensions-gravity-and-energy.154081/

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Now that's a response I can sink my teeth into.

"Is time the speed of light?" is not a calculus question.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundamental_theorem_of_calculus

"The fundamental theorem of calculus relates differentiation and integration, showing that these operations are inverses of each other.." in the same sense that the operations of multiplication and divisions, or addition and subtraction, are inverses, respectively.

Integration finds the area under a continuous function or arbitrary shape, but always involves a constant term related to the part of the area that is rectilinear (that constant is determined by simple multiplication not related to the shape of the continuous curve or function).

Differentiation derives the function that describes the slope of a line tangent to a curve at a point. A simple example of an application of calculus would be the power rule:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Power_rule

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Other rules of differentiation (sum, product, quotient, and chain rules) are here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Differentiation_rules

And only a few important non-numerical methods exist for indefinite (without set limits) integrals, integration by parts, etc. The rest of integration is generally done by looking up the function in a table of integrals.

This post comprises a complete course in calculus in a single page, leaving out the pedantic mathematical garbage/baggage like limits, the Cauchy mean value theorem and L'Hopital's rule. Anything you don't understand about it at this point will probably mean spending some time studying applications of calculus at the Khan academy, which I highly recommend. Vector calculus (more than one function, multiple integration) is just way cool to use and to set up, but is beyond the scope of this expository post. You can, for example, find an expression for the volume of something that is the shape of an egg to a very high degree of accuracy.

Even if a mathematician understood what a light wave was (and they don't), or if they understood what time was (and they don't know that either), the method of the calculus devised by Newton and others will not tell them anything that is deeper than what has already been partially modeled by Newton and by Einstein's relativity.

Worse, the calculus that is used with many applications in physics involves motion heavily dependent on a derivative with respect to time. Thus, the very use of calculus involves an assumption of absolute time in the sense that time is assumed to proceed at the same rate everywhere. It doesn't. Furthermore, calculus very much depends on an assumption of vector addition, which the speed of light, invariant in different inertial reference frames, doesn't follow at all.

Hence, the calculus is a useless tool to the end of answering the question of this thread, on TWO COUNTS.

Demonstrate it isn't so. I don't think you will be able to do so using calculus.

 

What I was trying to convey to you was the predictions, predicted results, of the experiment you're discussing will only vary with respect to a change in the mass, M, and r [the radial distance from M] anywhere, in the universe, that you conduct the experiment. 2M/r is the actual position coordinates. So when I wrote the coordinates down
M_earth and r_earth I'm describing where the experiment is being conducted. Based on this information we can get our prediction derived from GR and empirically test it. This we've done on the surface of the earth many times. That's why I guessed that might be a small priority in the Apollo missions science schedule. Remember when the astronaut dropped a solid object at the same time as a feather to do an 'eyeball' test of the equivalence principle. That was cool. Like I said I don't know whether they did your experiment on the moon. I wonder if they did that experiment in the shuttle or the International Space Station? I like the idea that it's the International ...... Space Station. Could I ask your ethnicity? Trying to conduct this type of conversation in a foreign language is very difficult. Admirable to fight through it.

 

In 1971, Apollo XV Commander David Scott dropped a hammer and a Falcon feather on the Moon, both from the same height at the same time....they hit the ground together, thereby validating Galileo's theory.

 

It's a pathetic straw man to think that anyone has said that gravitational theory is merely calculus or any other mathematics. This is, sadly, the same kind of poor moral character we can expect here.

The point is that with a certain set of mathematical relationships, we can do real physics. Without a similar system, we cannot accept a hypothesis to be something that we should seriously consider in physics.

At this point, we have to admit that this poster is either totally ignorant of how basic physics is done in relativity or is simply a liar. One does not have to assume absolute time to do a derivative with respect to time, not does one have to do all contemporary physics with a derivative based on time in a specific system of coordinates.

 

Quit wasting the posting time of those who bother to read this nonsense. You should be careful crank. Somebody might ask you to demonstrate your knowledge of calculus. Could be more embarrassing than even a crank like you could stand up to.

 

I agree it has everything to do with moral character.

 

This is a great example of how breakthroughs in science are not made. Both time and the speed of light are self-referential definitions. They are the same definitions today as they were at the turn of the 20th century. There isn't any more meaning in them that can be exploited mathematically to answer the question of the OP, and you have thus far failed to provide an example of how calculus informs us of anything even remotely related.

We have already beat this to death here and in other threads. I think that time is more properly associated with quantum entanglement than it is with the linear propagation of light, and I have plenty of company other than you, Physbang.

This one has attracted my attention:

http://oolong.co.uk/causality.htm

Apparently, there IS a good application of Minkowski's intervals of which I had not previously been aware. Spacetime intervals apparently work better with relativistic rotations than they do either with distances or times, neither of which can be agreed upon by observers in different frames of reference, even if they can agree on the invariant interval between events. If you replace the s^2 of the interval with R^2, all observers can agree on that.

It isn't calculus, but I think it might be something I can actually use. Not everything in the universe requires calculus either to formulate or understand.

 

Hey goofball. All observers can agree on the proper time and space coordinates. It' called relativity theory you should put a cork in it until after you pull your head out of your ....... The fact that you continue to make up bullshit and call it science is getting old. You need a brain transplant. It's easy to calculate the time and space coordinates for frame dependent observers. If you don't know this you should shut the .... up. This thing you have against the use of mathematical physics is complete bonkers nonsense. Personally I think your behavior is inappropriate. The only thing that will convince me you're not doing this intentionally is that you're mentally ill.

 

Always a pleasure, brucep. Thanks.

http://pubs.sciepub.com/ijp/1/6/3/

 

Thanks. But I'm thinking about wave particle duality . The theory never let a photon be a tachyon. Some times it doesn't like snake. Its a strange theory to me.

 

Density of empty space...

Density.
Of empty space.

:scratches chin thoughtfully:

 

Thank you sir. I'm really assuming the possibility of spacecraft accident out of the earth when there is no wireless onnection between the spacecraft and earth. I think it is perfect to do the experiment on moon. And it should obey the law. I was born in a Hindu family.

 

Yeah and I have to admit that nothing can be done about it. Hands are tied. Beyond not paying attention to it. Since that seems to be the topic of most threads that creates a quandary for me.

 

That'll never be a problem in our solar system. The worse aspect of communication in the solar system is the time delay between transmission and reception. You can think of that as the distance light travels in unit time. I agree we should do the experiment on the moon. LOL. It would mean we have a science team on the moon. Thanks for revealing your Hindu heritage.

 

No problem JamesR. I found what I needed; a huge missing piece that evidently was added to relativity in the 1990s (at which time I was in graduate school for another subject, or I might have actually noticed).

I don't care where tables of integrals come from; probably graduate students.

I have no doubt, you are right. I found what really is at fault, and it wasn't calculus. Just ignorance, as usual. I'm ignoring a few things this morning myself.

 

This is a great example of a crank asshole who hates his own life and takes it out on physics.

Take any example of gravitational physics as it is actually done by a scientists. Take any paper in Physics D. There you will find someone using calculus to actually do physics. They take a specific theory and they use the math of that theory to produce a result.

But the crank will claim that math has nothing to do with science, because the crank twists the words of a specific definition of "calculus" that is separate from the sense that anyone else ever used the word.

Is danthecrank going to invent more company on this one? The last citations he tried to make did not support his claim in th slightest.

Finally, danthecrank has found an introduction to the topic that we have been begging him to read.