# Time is Invariant. SR is wrong!

Discussion in 'Pseudoscience Archive' started by tashja, Feb 27, 2013.

1. ### tashjaRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
715
We measure the speed of light to be c because distance itself is defined by it (http://physics.nist.gov/cuu/Units/meter.html). If I declare that 1 foot = 10 bars and that 1 bar = 1/10 foots (and I have no other ways of measuring those quantities) we are simply employing circular definitions. Since c is distance over time, but distance is circularly defined by c, then it is the rate of passage of TIME which is the true invariant, and all of SR follows from that. Therefore, time is the TRUE invariant thing and not the speed of light. Do you see my logic here? Am I wrong?

3. ### originTrump is the best argument against a democracy.Valued Senior Member

Messages:
9,998
Your logic is flawed. You are wrong.

The meter was not defined based on the speed of light. The meter as defined long before the speed of light was measured accurately. The speed of light was defined by the meter. When the speed of light was very accurately measured and relativity showed that the speed of light is constant in all frames then it was decided to use the distance light traveled in 1/299,792,458 of a sec as the meter.

5. ### tashjaRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
715
Ahhhh.... darn it lol.

7. ### originTrump is the best argument against a democracy.Valued Senior Member

Messages:
9,998
Maybe next time.

8. ### victorespinozaGuest

No one on this planet has seen time.

While you are using is one measure, not the time of the universe.

All scientists, using time as a measure and have not seen the like it is time.

If you take the solar system, will disappear while we use in this planet.

And what is left: the never-seen immeasurable time.

9. ### originTrump is the best argument against a democracy.Valued Senior Member

Messages:
9,998
Sunlight sprinkle cat turd.

Or in Spanish:

La luz del sol espolvorear mierda de gato.

10. ### RJBeeryNatural PhilosopherValued Senior Member

Messages:
4,136
OK that was funny. I do actually agree with the OP though. I was hoping she would expand on her thoughts rather than give up.

Messages:
17,541
Actually Tashja, don't give up so easily...the scientist can not even show a photon to exist let alone use it as a measuring stick for distance. I have a a long standing challenge 5 years now [last offer was $500 usd] and counting to any one who can prove the existence of a photon independent of the mass used to record it's existence. In other words the photon or light effect, could be an effect of inertia on mass and not a free ranging particle /wave as suggested and modeled in an incredibly flawed light effect model. The passage of Time is really the passage of movement or rate of movement as time itself is merely a value placed on that movement. Time as an entity is non-existent. It could be argued that: The whole universe is moving at an invariant rate of 'c' at all points in time [ as you have IMO correctly surmised ]... hence when you accelerate an object by applying effort it's time dilates relative to the back ground rate of movement as a way of maintaining that invariance of rate. [ Remember absolute rest is impossible so a rate MUST be present and that Rate MUST be 'c'] Once that acceleration is completed and a stable relative velocity is achieved dilation is no longer present. So indeed time [rate of motion- change] could be theorized as being absolute and invariant and still accommodate all relevant data acquired so far by science using the SRT model. Bravo for thinking outside the box.... QM: Think: Two half particles entangled across a volume of empty space both moving at the same rate of 'c'. Then think any two objects in the universe entangled moving at the rate of 'c'. then think: all objects of mass entangled by inertia moving at the rate of 'c'... and what you end up with is what we see...and experience as an interconnected universe that shares the same constant G [ invariant ] by way of entanglement. 12. ### originTrump is the best argument against a democracy.Valued Senior Member Messages: 9,998 Well that certainly is a rather silly thing to say. Well that is just stupid. There is plenty of theoretical proof - but that won't do for you I am sure. And you are not allowed to measure it. Gee, what a great set up and nobody collected the money. How odd. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! mumbo - jumbo worrd salad. Maybe it could be irrationally argued.. Uh, no, not at all. Nonsense pure and simple. 13. ### Quantum QuackLife's a tease...Valued Senior Member Messages: 17,541 Maybe you could help me and others if you could explain "quantum entanglement" using SRT's limitations and show how entanglement over vast distances can somehow be compatible with SRT? Or are you saying that Quantum Entanglement is also pure nonsense..! Another more interesting question I have for you is: If absolute rest is impossible then what speed or velocity is occurring? [ generally ] What velocity/ speed/ movement is required if absolute rest is impossible? [according to SRT] I believe there is only one solution to the above and that is 'c' "As Light photons can travel no faster nor slower than 'c' for it to be considered invariant" 14. ### victorespinozaGuest No one on this planet has seen time. When you use the time, it is not the time in the universe. The scientists, from 400 years ago, are not using time of the universe, but, one measure either. If you remove the Solar system, will be cleared a measure, not the time of the universe. Real time no one has used it. Because no one has seen it, to say they are numbers. 15. ### Read-OnlyValued Senior Member Messages: 10,296 Move along folks, nothing to see here. Just his usual insane gibberish. <shrug> 16. ### victorespinozaGuest Insane. If almost give me the Nobel Prize, because I refuté the time of Albert Einstein. 17. ### Quantum QuackLife's a tease...Valued Senior Member Messages: 17,541 Who almost gave you the Nobel? 18. ### AlphaNumericFully ionizedModerator Messages: 6,697 Just like Kent Hovind has a$500,000 challenge to provide 'proof of evolution'

You constantly move the goal posts, you're ignorant of any science relevant, you don't bother to find out information for yourself and since you are the judge and you have a bias in the 'challenge' it is effectively rigged.

So you parading your little 'challenge' doesn't serve to undermine science, it serves to show the sort of dishonesty you have and how your grasp of what good honest scientific evaluation is is terrible.

19. ### originTrump is the best argument against a democracy.Valued Senior Member

Messages:
9,998
I do not know much at all quantum entanglement so I cannot answer your question.

I do not believe that absolute rest is impossible there is just no way you can determine if you are at absolute rest. I have no idea what you mean by what velocity is [generally] occuring. The velocity of any object can only be determined relative to another object.

There is no required velocity. Why on earth would there be?

That belief is completely unfounded.:shrug:

Yes, that is what invariant means.

20. ### RJBeeryNatural PhilosopherValued Senior Member

Messages:
4,136
Please expand on your challenge. What would you consider proof of existence? Seeing a photon? Holding it in your hand? Just curious.

Also, I think Tashja is overstepping when she says SR IS WRONG. I believe the correct assertion is that the invariance of c isn't required to establish SR (or more specifically, the invariance of proper time establishes both c and SR).

21. ### Quantum QuackLife's a tease...Valued Senior Member

Messages:
17,541
The simple fact is that Science has proposed the existence of an object that it can not prove exists using it's own scientific methods.
My challenge of \$500 USD was designed to highlight this fact.
Instead of claiming me as undermining science I would think the opposite that I was indeed attempting to improve the way science deals with ambiguities such as this.
Using the photon as commonly modeled has put science in so much deep shit in so many places it is incredible when you think about it properly. Pseudo paradoxes popping up every where...

22. ### Quantum QuackLife's a tease...Valued Senior Member

Messages:
17,541
well then there is not much to say then is there!?

23. ### Quantum QuackLife's a tease...Valued Senior Member

Messages:
17,541
this is a decent response and I thank you for it...

The photon can not be quantifiable identified as an independent particle/wave/energy packet/ spacial preturbance with out using objects of mass to do so.
Therefore the modeled photon may be an absolutely unnecessary abstraction that distracts science from the real game.

A question to attempt to clarify:

The same applies with gravity.

If there is no object of mass to indicate gravity does the gravitational pull still exist?
Is there a need to model gravity using a particle/wave style of modeling [ Graviton]? Or is it fundamentally more simple than that?
Is gravity simply a product of the masses involved and not the space that separates them?
Is the light effect simply a product of the masses involved and not the space that separates them.
Show me a photon traveling through space in a way that demonstrates it's independence of the mass used to detect it and I will concede my point happily.