The Speed of Light is Not Constant

[paddoboy]

I am questioning the assumption of the passage of time in the absence of space or action.

the following MAY help......

Experiments continue to show that there is no 'space' that stands apart from space-time itself...no arena in which matter, energy and gravity operate which is not affected by matter, energy and gravity. General relativity tells us that what we call space is just another feature of the gravitational field of the universe, so space and space-time can and do not exist apart from the matter and energy that creates the gravitational field. This is not speculation, but sound observation.

https://einstein.stanford.edu/content/relativity/a11332.html

 

[Motor Daddy]

I have never heard anyone able to disprove that time is a "result" and emerges along with the action of the field or object. I am not arguing against the accepted relationship between space and time. I am questioning the assumption of the passage of time in the absence of space or action.

The reason "time" has to be a "result" is because at every point in time, there you are.

 

[Undefined]

naah, keep it simple. Extraordinary examples only prove they are extraordinnary. If I have a central point around which two synchronized clocks rotate at the same speed but at different orbital distances from the central point, synchronicity is lost immediately.

Of course. But the significant point I observed is that the SR component of the two clocks' differences is inconsequential compared to the GR component. The Earth's rotation affects on two clocks only centimeters apart vertically don't get a look in when considering the GR caused de-synchrony, as calculated/observed empirically on the ground.

There is no such animal as a non rotating planet. Planets rotate because power=work/time. There is no such thing as a rotation that is not power in this universe. This is something so bizarre you have no idea.

The rotation rate of Earth does not greatly contribute much/significant SR component to the de-synchrony as the GR component does to the two clocks so close one above the other by CENTIMETERS only. All else is irrelevant in that particular Earth-bound case.

 

[Motor Daddy]

Of course. But the significant point I observed is that the SR component of the two clocks' differences is inconsequential compared to the GR component. The Earth's rotation affects on two clocks only centimeters apart vertically don't get a look in when considering the GR caused de-synchrony, as calculated/observed empirically on the ground.


The rotation rate of Earth does not greatly contribute much/significant SR component to the de-synchrony as the GR component does to the two clocks so close one above the other by CENTIMETERS only. All else is irrelevant in that particular Earth-bound case.

Yeah, but "not much" is totally out of the question for me. I want 100%.

 

[Undefined]

Yeah, but "not much" is totally out of the question for me. I want 100%.

Do the exercise on the Moon. It's rotation is practically non-existence except over a month for one rotation. It's the principle and empiricism and significance level that makes the observation meaningful enough to draw reasonable conclusions from which can BE extrapolated logically to '100% status representation of the reality.

 

[paddoboy]

Meanwhile the contradictory mainstream so-called 'explanations' pointed out for your delectation as a 'sober connoisseur of nonsense' don't bother your pretty little bleary-eyed head at all? Keep sipping that brown alcoholic cool-ade, Beer w/Straw, and maybe someday you will have something really 'grand' to contribute to the world other than your "Tweets and Babbles". Good luck!

Contradictory mainstream explanations???
No, wrong...There is one mainstream theory relating to GR and Interpretation and I have given at least 4 links adhering to that, not counting WIKI.
In reality, it's the many many silly alternative theories, and the delusions of grandeur by the people that push them that are contradictory.

 

[Motor Daddy]

Do the exercise on the Moon. It's rotation is practically non-existence except over a month for one rotation. It's the principle and empiricism and significance level that makes the observation meaningful enough to draw reasonable conclusions from which can BE extrapolated logically to '100% status representation of the reality.

The moon is the same object as the earth. Like the yolk of an egg is the same object as the white of an egg. Or even two yolks in an egg....or twins. It's one egg.

 

[Undefined]

The moon is the same object as the earth. Like the yolk of an egg is the same object as the white of an egg. Or even two yolks in an egg....or twins.

Even in that interpretation of the 'Earth-moon system', the angular velocity at the Moons 'altitude in the gravity well' makes SR component effect on two clocks one above the other there separated by centimeters negligible. While the local Moon surface conditions GR effect will dominate and give de-synchrony like that on Earth, only less dramatic a de-synchrony (unless they were put some meters and not just centimeters apart vertically to allow for the weaker local gravity on the Moon's surface).

 

[Motor Daddy]

Even in that interpretation of the 'Earth-moon system', the angular velocity at the Moons 'altitude in the gravity well' makes SR component effect on two clocks one above the other there separated by centimeters negligible. While the local Moon surface conditions GR effect will dominate and give de-synchrony like that on Earth, only less dramatic a de-synchrony (unless they were put some meters and not just centimeters apart vertically to allow for the weaker local gravity on the Moon's surface).

If you wanna talk about the earth moon system, then you have to consider the solar system (the egg with the sun as the yolk.)

 

[Undefined]

If you wanna talk about the earth moon system, then you have to consider the solar system (the egg with the sun as the yolk.)

Those factors are taken into account already, by the experiments being run many times at different 'astronomical configurational positions'. The observed de-synchrony levels/variations are then correlated to those astronomical configuration variables, and the averages taken as the 'mean' de-synchrony level. Just as the mean G is taken when accounting all the mountain tops and valleys included to arrive at 'sea level' for the globe overall rather than the actual surface of an ocean. See what I mean, MD?

 

[Motor Daddy]

Those factors are taken into account already, by the experiments being run many times at different 'astronomical configurational positions'. The observed de-synchrony levels/variations are then correlated to those astronomical configuration variables, and the averages taken as the 'mean' de-synchrony level. Just as the mean G is taken when accounting all the mountain tops and valleys included to arrive at 'sea level' for the globe overall rather than the actual surface of an ocean. See what I mean, MD?

So what you're saying is that it's already all worked out? So what's the problem, then, if everything is accurate but nothing works?

Study this to no end, I would not lead you on a wild goose chase. This is TRUTH!

 

[Write4U]

the following MAY help......

Experiments continue to show that there is no 'space' that stands apart from space-time itself...no arena in which matter, energy and gravity operate which is not affected by matter, energy and gravity. General relativity tells us that what we call space is just another feature of the gravitational field of the universe, so space and space-time can and do not exist apart from the matter and energy that creates the gravitational field. This is not speculation, but sound observation.
https://einstein.stanford.edu/content/relativity/a11332.html

Oh, as I said, I agree with "common wisdom", but that does not answer the question. The question is if time can exist without the properties of space (or action), not what the properties of spacetime are. IMO, it is a valid question in context of the OP.

If I may, look at this from the standpoint that SOL is a physical "limit" of action, but therefore also of time. i.e. The countable seperation between events has a limit and is the time limit at which reality can remain coherent (standing waves). This limit is SOL.
I believe that science agrees that no massive particles can exist at superluminal speed. This is an event horizon, beyond which we know very little, but as far as I know our knowledge of time at superluminal speeds is extremely limited.

I am just trying to apply Occam's razor here and it would make things so simple if time was created ALONG with CHANGE and is subject to how this CHANGE
occurs or can be observed.

 

[paddoboy]

Oh, as I said, I agree with "common wisdom", but that does not answer the question. The question is if time can exist without space (or action), not what the properties of spacetime are.

I think that answers it as no?

 

[Write4U]

I think that answers it as no?

TY.

If there is a condition where no action of any kind has taken place, would time exist for that condition?

From Merriam-Webster, Condition.
2: something essential to the appearance or occurrence of something else : prerequisite: as
a : an environmental requirement <available oxygen is an essential condition for animal life

But if we have a physical event horizon at SOL, how can we predict the existence or behavior of Time beyond this horizon?
I believe we run into a similar type problem in black holes which also present an event horizon beyond which we cannot see.
I guess in a black hole is so much physical stuff that photons cannot move and penetrate outward; perhaps at superluminal speed there is so little physical stuff that there is no change and time does not exist.

 

[paddoboy]

The moon is the same object as the earth. Like the yolk of an egg is the same object as the white of an egg. Or even two yolks in an egg....or twins. It's one egg.

The Moon of course was formed around 4. 3 billion years ago, just after the collapse of the accretion disk which ignited our protoSun.
The solar system was a violent disorginized place, and the favoured theory now, is that the Earth was whacked by a Mars sized body that vapourised the young Earth's surface, throwing chunks of the young planet's crust into space.
Gravity started to work its wonders, and the ejected stuff bound together, creating a Moon that happens to be the largest in the solar system, in relation to the host Planet.
Evidence that supports this hypothesis is evident in the Moon's surface being made up predominantly of lighter elements, [the ejected Earth crust] that formed around the core of the intruding body.
Plus the orbital path of the Moon is very near inline with Earth's equatorial belt.

 

[paddoboy]

TY.

If there is a condition where no action of any kind has taken place, would time exist for that condition?

No action of any kind?? hmmmm. Einstein's original Universe was static, but it still had time.
And Hawking equates time with entropy.....

My previous little quote from the GP-B site, connects all aspects...space, time, matter, energy....
I do see it as food for thought.

 

[Motor Daddy]

The Moon of course was formed around 4. 3 billion years ago, just after the collapse of the accretion disk which ignited our protoSun.
The solar system was a violent disorginized place, and the favoured theory now, is that the Earth was whacked by a Mars sized body that vapourised the young Earth's surface, throwing chunks of the young planet's crust into space.
Gravity started to work its wonders, and the ejected stuff bound together, creating a Moon that happens to be the largest in the solar system, in relation to the host Planet.
Evidence that supports this hypothesis is evident in the Moon's surface being made up predominantly of lighter elements, [the ejected Earth crust] that formed around the core of the intruding body.
Plus the orbital path of the Moon is very near inline with Earth's equatorial belt.

That's not how gravity works. You do not know how gravity works, so everything you say to me is BS!

 

[paddoboy]

That post #84 pointed to two contradictory 'interpretations' from 'mainstreamers' for the light clock mirror 'path lengths'. That example of wanting-it-both-ways 'whining' was from mainstream apologists (like yourself) and not ME.

Except there wasn't any contradictory interpretations by the mainstream..:shrug:..

 

[paddoboy]

That's not how gravity works. You do not know how gravity works, so everything you say to me is BS!

Yes it is.......
Gravity built the contents of the Universe from moons, planets, stars, galaxies, groups of galaxies, clusters, of galaxies, walls of galaxies.

 

[paddoboy]

God did not create the universe, gravity did, says Stephen Hawking


God did not create the universe and the “Big Bang” was an inevitable consequence of the laws of physics, the eminent British theoretical physicist Stephen Hawking argues in a new book.

In “The Grand Design,” co-authored with U.S. physicist Leonard Mlodinow, Hawking says a new series of theories made a creator of the universe redundant, according to the Times newspaper which published extracts on Thursday.


“Because there is a law such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing. Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the universe exists, why we exist,” Hawking writes. “It is not necessary to invoke God to light the blue touch paper and set the universe going.”



Hawking, 68, who won global recognition with his 1988 book “A Brief History of Time,” an account of the origins of the universe, is renowned for his work on black holes, cosmology and quantum gravity. His latest comments suggest he has broken away from previous views he has expressed on religion. Previously, he wrote that the laws of physics meant it was simply not necessary to believe that God had intervened in the Big Bang.

http://blogs.reuters.com/faithworld...he-universe-gravity-did-says-stephen-hawking/