Time dilation

[Shawn]

Dujon ,,,just read your reply, I think thats closer to the point...I think you on the right track...

[xelasnave]

I am asking this because I am not sure but does not space time geometry depend on c as a constant? are you saying it cant therefore be adequate because of its ridgidity (in your view) being tied to a constant c? (if it is as I recall) Or have I missed your point totally? sorry but there is no point me misunderstanding your meaning if it is to be useful particularly as you were good enough to contribute which I thank you for doing.
alex

[Shawn]

Your right there Alex, but do we know that C is a constant, I strongly suggest its not, as per my thread,,,repeated comments in this one, and other physicists worldwide and stick thier neck out, only to get thier heads cut off...

[Shawn]

Lets take mitchelson morley,s experiment for example, just look at the microscopic area of space that was measured, can you trust results based on such an infinatesimaly small window...

[AGarvin]

So what evidence do all of us highly educated and experienced theoretical and experimental physicists have to even remotely suggest that the speed of light is not invariant; thereby denouncing one of the corner stones of our current understanding of the universe.

Do we have an "Alternative Theory" board?

[xelasnave]

I found a site that makes my efforts to figure it out look lame..( in energy that is no comment as to the correctness or motive of this fellow) but he has rather stong views on light speed time dialation .. well he seems to have made a lifes work at proving the Dr. wrong, establishing the Dr as Top Gun if that is who he is after... however I found it interesting if you are interested
http://members.aol.com/carmam1534/Hollings.html#clocks
He recons the clock thing turns on whether its a pendulum or atomic clock so that new to me... I have yet to look at it all..I was looking for something on the light speed measurement. This fellow made the comment there that the medium through which the light travells is relevant.. and suggestted the probability of varience for c.
alex

[Starcrazzy]

Ok..first of all..Dujon,....i know i am not traveling at C..i know this because i am able to accelerate my mass away from my computer to the fridge..if i were travelling at C, the energy required to accelrate my mass would be infinate...as in, not definable....nut as im sure your aware, it requires quite little energy for me to go to the fridge..(well, enough to make me only do it once or twice an hour..lol)

Sirdystic..Your statement that we invented time has me baffled...time was tickin away way before you or I or anyone else was around to invent it..matter itself cannot exist without time..time and space are connected..are peices of the same stuff..and...the speed of light is constant...thats where the whole theory gets its fuel from..its constant nomatter what speed the observer is travelling...with regards to the ball on the train, whos' point of view is privaliged??the guy on the train, or on the platform??the answer is neither...both views are acceptable with regards to the physics involved,ie, neither is breaking any rules, but, both views do not agree...its one of the fundemental laws on which our current view of rea;lity is based..its a pillar of modern physics..many ..many brilliant minds have thrown experiment after experiment at it, and the theory still stands...

cheers

[Shawn]

What i mean, Starcrazzy, is that we only distinguish one moment from another using a measurement called time, based on the """theory/s""" of modern physics. this too is a variable, if c is not constant. seems a fairly straight forward question. what speed is light travelling at the event horizon of a black hole, either from our view or the view of someone that was unfortunated enough to be there. ?.as for poor person 2,, I wonder what his watch would be doing.. measuring what... Or am I just over simplifieing something this so I can get my head around out and at the same time flying in the face of many brilliant minds that have made a lifes work of overcomplicating it.

[Shawn]

xelasnave, that link you posted is what im trying to say here, but hes much cleverererer than I and can back it up with ,,,big sums

[xelasnave]

You must appreciate that he is seen as a crackpot by the converted, however he has at least tried some explanations for the against case.
I must say looking at his site I wonder why I bother at all but sadly he and I must have a similar problem of acceptance.
Time is a curley one.. if you think what we use as the prime unit (a year) that is something that could not have exsisted 7 billion years ago as there was no Earth (a reasonable presumption) to orbit the Sun and provide the marker... and no doubt from that approach each year is slightly longer or shorter that the one proceeding it... is time therefore flexible because the standard of measurement itself can not keep constant and consistent time...and as such backhandly says we therefore invented time upon our first realization of night and day... for the other side a lodgical reply to that proposition would suffice.
But obviously the acceptance of the time dialation thing is something I can not bring myself to do at this point as I simply have no faith in its extrapolation into reality.
In the example I offerred if nothing else it has allowed me to point clearly to my proposition and demonstrate why I can not accept the effect is real.
Past this point it can only become a matter where I seek to prove I am right and others are wrong which realistically is a no win situation. These arguments fall into a group where if one feels they are losing ground it is only because they have failed to make their point clear enough to be immediately excepted by those present... I teeter on that point.. and pull back. I need not to shore up my confidence as a debater using this medium so I leave it to be what it is ..my comments on a impossibly hypeathetical situation that can not be decided by proof acceptable to me in my life time.
Still I doubt if I dont have more to say in the future.
alex

[Starcrazzy]

hehe..i love how to irriterate your point you use the one area in all of physics that all the maths break down..the event horizen of a black hole..This is te one place physics can't go, and you bring it up to try and explain a theroetical theory...most physiasist's stay well clear of these "horizens" for what they represent is beyond the realms of mathmatics...i refer you to the black hole paradox (stephen hawking's) and many others..
where did we decide that C is variable??
have i missed something??
cheers

[Starcrazzy]

xelesnave..don't stop bringin it mate..there aren'yt enough of our type on this forum...and i enjoy immensly the torment...some astronomers look up and say, wow, isn't that nice...others look up and say, ..wow, isn't that nice, what the hell does that mean, how did that come to be there, where is it going, what does it have to say about where i came from...what does it have to say about where im going...and the big one...how the heck does that work???...lol
cheers

[xelasnave]

I want to know all that is out there and how it works that for sure but I also want to know the purpose of the Universe. To what end do all these bodies interact? what balance or goal is being sort? and could there be a God and where does he live? are his parents still alive and where did they come from and why?.
and if it all works out the way it has been planned what next?
Other than that nothing much really...
alex

[Starcrazzy]

haha..goodluck with that mate...similar to my own search...has been a long road..my parents were ministers and then school teachers(science..)and no, the irony is not lost on me..lol...

[AGarvin]

I want to know all that is out there and how it works that for sure but I also want to know the purpose of the Universe. To what end do all these bodies interact? what balance or goal is being sort? and could there be a God and where does he live? are his parents still alive and where did they come from and why?.
and if it all works out the way it has been planned what next?
Other than that nothing much really...

Wow dude, don't want to know much, eh . . .

Just don't confuse the physical universe with the philosophical. On the physical side, the best thing anyone can do before they go deviating off on alternate tangents along the lines of "the speed of light is not constant" is to not only understand what is currently accepted physics, but why it is currently accepted physics. This keeps the "alternate" in perspective. Some folks make ridiculous statements without even understanding the magnitude of what their saying. Virtually all of these cranks get shot down fairly readily ... be careful of what you read on the net.

Besides that .... go for it man ... !

[xelasnave]

And the philosophical side we have ?????
I appreciate the trap of the net .. I even found a site that used current formulea to prove that gravity pushes as oppossed to acting as an attractive force,(which is supportive of my concept of its action), needless to say I dropped it in the running thread on astronomydaily.com but the problem is this fellow was swimming against the tide so I doubt I can really use anything he says in support of my graivity rain idea. But I will and I did .. so if I am not beyond doing such think of the liberties some may take with the facts .
I am aware of the morosophic nature of my quest (s) and knowing same it helps protect myself from myself and the "crackpots". However there is probably a better commercial future in promoting oneself as a crackpot as there are countless examples of this being a sucessful financial approach... so I think I understand where they come from.
I had thought of a book..."Gravity does not Suck" a title which dispite the boring contents would probably be a best seller by virtue of the title alone but I think I will continue to observe and only lightly participate via little discussions such as we can enjoy here .
There is a list of qualification on the net someplace giving points to determine if you can fit the crack pot catagory... I am not there yet but I know what is expected .
So it could be done .
alex
alex

[Shawn]

Hi Starcrazzy..
Sorry missed the discusion tonite, my time got dialated,... The Speed of c may very well be constant, Im merely suggesting that mayby it is not,, previously I pointed out that our window of measurement in infinitesimally small, and maybe, just maybe should not be trusted. You did miss the point somewhere I think...This whole topic as has been said is not a case of proff or disproof. more a case of questioning the established theories, and yes I do believe they are all still theories as no absolute proof exists. and for the meantime I doubt it will,

Cheers

[xelasnave]

Good morning all is it not a wonderful day .
I have been told in another forum that in physics we dont necessarily need to know why ... mmm I say we need more why and why not.. thats the role of the crack pot and the futurist .
History tells me that humans have a tendancy to resist change generaly so any accepted theory will be held onto until there is no hope left for it. New theories are made to fit the exsisting theory not the other way around (even simply to run it by)
At a Xmas party of conveyancing lawyers as a young clerk at the coal face I made the observation that there were many areas in the conveyancing system that could be streamlined and thereby reducing costs that could be passed on to the client. Did they all gather around to hear how it could be done? No strangely ... in those days one needed to make 6 "enquiries "of Government Departments as to the possibility they may require all or part of the property being purchased... I think today that number is up to 30...The empire grows ... The fact is the Torrens title system (Real Property Act) provides a system taken by Mr Torrens of South Australia from the system of registering large ships. It was a world first..the best system in the world to date. (The previous system required all documents relating to the property from the year dot had to be checked each time the property changed hands..in case the lawyer who did the job 60 years ago missed something that has not come up in sixty years )
There is a central register under the Torrens system where one copy of the title is kept and a copy of the title is held by the owner or Mortgagee. Under such a system why is it necessary to "enquire" which Department may need the property for a school or a highway..Any requirements could be simply noted on the title (as is the case for a moprtgage, easement, covenant, lease over 3 years and other items) saving the need for any direct enquirey to the department... well the only reason why not is that the empire size will be reduced therefore it is not done that way. The irony is Torrens "invented" the system to remove these silly duplications. The empire however rocked from not being able to read and re read documents of ancient kind but nevertheless managed to complicate things enough to keep the empire mostly the same as it was before..same time to do the job we will just find other stuff to worry people with.
In the world of physics things should move slower still (for safty) however I suspect a similar condition exists in that world in fact such a condition exsists wherever there are humans engaged in an "empire".
However history also tells us that many excepted traditions beliefs systems and theory fianlly fall to the pressure of a better approach.
I sence the scientists of today feel very sophisticated to the point where that history could only happen in "the olden" days and they fail to appreciate there is nothing special about their time in history that insulates them from a major change in thinking...was that not the situation when Relatively entered the room?
My preoccupation with gravity leads me to believe that although the space time theory explains and observes results it does nothing to explain the nuts and bolts of any interaction... this is the job of quantum mechanics.. firstly why do we need a separation.. why has the inconsitencies between quatum and relativity been left open..is that two empires competing for their realm to stand over the other.. to me it is unacceptable (personaly ..does not mean the world must change to suit my dictates of reason) and that is why I am driven the way I am. Not for fame and fortune either ..fame and fortune is a backward step for me..I took years escaping from those masters and have no intentions of ever going back...not even for a book signing or to appear on Rove live .
However few enjoy the motivations I do and are not able to rock the boat.
If you dont join the empire you are on the outside and therfore a nutter.
I may have different ideas but I believe I am not swayed by fantacy or illussion, nor by pressure to accept the accepted without question...
Its a big job and I am happy to do it for my own reasons which is ..I want answers that are not clouded in mystery and ideas that can be proved conclusively ..if not I dont use them other than to talk with other humans.

alex

[Nuri]

I just read the entire thread with great interest. I like SirDystic's view about time being a human invented concept. Can we say that it only exists because we measure it by inventing our own reference points based on other objects in the universe (Sun, Earth, Moon etc) which are interacting with each other?

If we assume that "nothing" existed before the big bang, then there was no no reference point for time... Does this mean there was no time because there was nobody or no way to measure it? I'm no scientist but, do the laws of physics state that time physically exists, or is it just a measurement of human perspective? (if that makes sense)

[xelasnave]

Hi there Nuri
Personally I find the concept that nothing can exsist as unacceptable ... if there was literally nothing...well we have nothing to build anything with.. something from nothing can not be..nothing from something can not be..
an expanding Universe into what medium does it expand.. nothing? It is something we think we know but find me some, as far as I can tell such a thing will not be found in our Universe or outside it (if there is an outside which there is not) With all this in mind it makes the big bang difficult to envisage for at that point we are asked to accept the unacceptable.. something from nothing... so far religion can only provide an answer.. but again I doubt if God would exsist in nothing. The fact that he was present says ..now that is really something . So dont stop at nothing its inclussion avoids facing the reality of its non exsistence .
The laws of physics are the laws of physics not the laws of the Universe the laws of physics merely purport to measure and quantify the observations of humans so in that context the recording and observation of time is a human invention (but a very useful one).
Any comment on the thrust of my proposition that time dialation is an observation produced as a result of the maximum speed limit? and thank you for your interest and input.
alex