Time Dilation and the Speed of Light

Justatruthseeker · Jun 10, 2017

morse86 said:
Speed of light and time travel is a hoax. It's disconnected from the material world.

What does speed of light have to do with time dilation? It's just measuring speed of light output....not matter which was already materialized in the world. It's a subtle but very important distinction. It's a hoax, speed of light is useless just like e=mc^2. It's only useful in false religion $cience like "astrophysics" (mathematics disconnected from reality).

Time travel is indeed just a misunderstanding of why c is always c. There is no more a backwards running clock then there exists a bullet with negative kinetic energy.

From our view the bullet has a positive kinetic energy. The bullet says it has none, but the target does. Yet if you stop the bullet stationary to our frame we say it has no kinetic energy and the bullet says it still has none, not a negative value.

It is simply clocks and rulers reading different values and a resetting of zero points.

One can go neither forward or backwards in time, there is only the present.

Radrook · Jun 10, 2017

Justatruthseeker said:
Time travel is indeed just a misunderstanding of why c is always c. There is no more a backwards running clock then there exists a bullet with negative kinetic energy.

From our view the bullet has a positive kinetic energy. The bullet says it has none, but the target does. Yet if you stop the bullet stationary to our frame we say it has no kinetic energy and the bullet says it still has none, not a negative value.

It is simply clocks and rulers reading different values and a resetting of zero points.

One can go neither forward or backwards in time, there is only the present.

That is very true, effects of time dilation are often referred to as tantamount to tie travel and give the wrong impression. I have read about time flowing backwards if one exceeds the speed of light. What exactly this is based on I don't know. I only know that I can't accept it.

It would requite that every person who has died is still living somewhere and accessible via time travel. That the same instant of time is accessible. In short, that Christ is still hanging on the cross somewhere in time. That the earth is still being formed somewhere in time. But even more religiously significant is the fact that it propagates the lie that the Devil told Eve in Eden albeit in a very crafty roundabout way-

"You will not die!"

FrumiousBandersnatch · Jun 10, 2017

Justatruthseeker said:
What curvature? There is no mass to curve it.

A positive cosmological constant (interpreted as dark energy) in the Einstein field equations gives a positive scalar curvature of spacetime.

What you meant to say was the planets obey the gravitational laws, the sun clearly does not...

No, that's not what I meant to say.

FrumiousBandersnatch · Jun 10, 2017

Justatruthseeker said:
Then you won't mind throwing out all the distance calculations to galaxies based upon their distance and velocity due to their redshift value?
You can't have it both ways. Either we can calculate the distance of galaxies due to their velocity by their redshift values, or we can't.

Er, no; I didn't say anything about distance calculations. The expansion red shift is a Doppler effect.

Justatruthseeker · Jun 10, 2017

Radrook said:
That is very true, effects of time dilation are often referred to as tantamount to tie travel and give the wrong impression. I have read about time flowing backwards if one exceeds the speed of light. What exactly this is based on I don't know. I only know that I can't accept it.

It would requite that every person who has died is still living somewhere and accessible via time travel. That the same instant of time is accessible. In short, that Christ is still hanging on the cross somewhere in time. That the earth is still being formed somewhere in time. But even more religiously significant is the fact that it propagates the lie that the Devil told Eve in Eden albeit in a very crafty roundabout way-

"You will not die!"

It is based upon the fact they don't understand the speed of light. This is also what leads to errors in believing mass prevents us from reaching c and infinite energy. Yet to someone traveling at say 1/2 of c, they require no more energy to continue to accelerate than they did to start.

They are not resetting the zero points. That person traveling at 1/2 of c thinks he is stationary. His zero points are not the same as they were before. This is why he also believes the stationary frames clocks have slowed, the zero points are different, as are the units of measurement.

You may age slower (decay offset from energy added at the quantum level), but you still experience the same present as someone who's clocks are ticking faster. The twin in motion ages less simply because his atoms contain more energy at the quantum level which offsets the energy lost to decay. But he is still experiencing the same present as the stationary twin.

One day we won't die, but it will have nothing to do with time travel or clocks. It will be because God (who is energy/Mind) will infuse us (transform us) fully with energy (which changes the decay rate).

Justatruthseeker · Jun 10, 2017

FrumiousBandersnatch said:
Er, no; I didn't say anything about distance calculations. The expansion red shift is a Doppler effect.

But Doppler shift is due to motion, and a medium........ not magical expanding spacetime......

Ygrene Imref · Jun 10, 2017

Justatruthseeker said:
It is based upon the fact they don't understand the speed of light. This is also what leads to errors in believing mass prevents us from reaching c and infinite energy. Yet to someone traveling at say 1/2 of c, they require no more energy to continue to accelerate than they did to start.

They are not resetting the zero points. That person traveling at 1/2 of c thinks he is stationary. His zero points are not the same as they were before. This is why he also believes the stationary frames clocks have slowed, the zero points are different, as are the units of measurement.

You may age slower (decay offset from energy added at the quantum level), but you still experience the same present as someone who's clocks are ticking faster. The twin in motion ages less simply because his atoms contain more energy at the quantum level which offsets the energy lost to decay. But he is still experiencing the same present as the stationary twin.

One day we won't die, but it will have nothing to do with time travel or clocks. It will be because God (who is energy/Mind) will infuse us (transform us) fully with energy (which changes the decay rate).

I liked what you said before about time being a nondimension (if I understood you correctly) - that, it is more about changes in "real" spacial coordinates than its own dimensional entity.

Justatruthseeker · Jun 10, 2017

FrumiousBandersnatch said:
A positive cosmological constant (interpreted as dark energy) in the Einstein field equations gives a positive scalar curvature of spacetime.

What dark energy?

No, that's not what I meant to say.

It has to be since the sun doesn't orbit according to those gravitational laws that are 99% correct without Fairie Dust.

Justatruthseeker · Jun 10, 2017

Ygrene Imref said:
I liked what you said before about time being a nondimension (if I understood you correctly) - that, it is more about changes in "real" spacial coordinates than its own dimensional entity.

Yah I don't buy into time being a dimension. It is simply as you put it changes in spacial coordinates. I call it movement or distance but yours sounds so much better .

To me the math proves it since you can't divide two unrelated things without first converting one to the other. I can't divide yards by feet without first converting yards into feet, etc. Yet d/t requires no conversion....

But I can't take credit. Miles Mathis got me thinking along those lines.

A revaluation of time and velocity by Miles Williams Mathis

FrumiousBandersnatch · Jun 11, 2017

Justatruthseeker said:
But Doppler shift is due to motion, and a medium........ not magical expanding spacetime......

Doppler shift only requires objects in relative motion and for one of the objects to emit a signal of some frequency. Galaxies are in relative motion due to the expansion of spacetime. A medium isn't required for the transmission of electromagnetic signals (e.g. light) - unless you consider the electromagnetic field a medium, or maybe space itself - Einstein suggested that if you must have an aether, space fits the bill:

"...we may say that according to the General Theory of Relativity space is endowed with physical qualities; in this sense, therefore, there exists an Aether. According to the General Theory of Relativity space without Aether is unthinkable; for in such space there not only would be no propagation of light, but also no possibility of existence for standards of space and time (measuring-rods and clocks), nor therefore any space-time intervals in the physical sense. But this Aether may not be thought of as endowed with the quality characteristic of ponderable media, as consisting of parts which may be tracked through time. The idea of motion may not be applied to it." (my bolding)

FrumiousBandersnatch · Jun 11, 2017

Justatruthseeker said:
What dark energy?

The positive cosmological constant.

... the sun doesn't orbit according to those gravitational laws that are 99% correct without Fairie Dust.

Which gravitational laws? what 'Fairie Dust' ? Can you explain what you mean?

Justatruthseeker · Jun 11, 2017

FrumiousBandersnatch said:
Doppler shift only requires objects in relative motion and for one of the objects to emit a signal of some frequency. Galaxies are in relative motion due to the expansion of spacetime. A medium isn't required for the transmission of electromagnetic signals (e.g. light) - unless you consider the electromagnetic field a medium, or maybe space itself - Einstein suggested that if you must have an aether, space fits the bill:

"...we may say that according to the General Theory of Relativity space is endowed with physical qualities; in this sense, therefore, there exists an Aether. According to the General Theory of Relativity space without Aether is unthinkable; for in such space there not only would be no propagation of light, but also no possibility of existence for standards of space and time (measuring-rods and clocks), nor therefore any space-time intervals in the physical sense. But this Aether may not be thought of as endowed with the quality characteristic of ponderable media, as consisting of parts which may be tracked through time. The idea of motion may not be applied to it." (my bolding)

Except you have never once observed a Doppler shift without a medium being present....

"The idea of motion may not be applied to it." (your bolding)

And yet, you apply the very motion to it Einstein said couldn't be applied to it, imagine that.....

And since you insist galaxies are in relative motion, why deny the energy gained from that motion which causes changes in decay rates, besides the fact you don't want to have to apply time dilation effects?

Justatruthseeker · Jun 11, 2017

FrumiousBandersnatch said:
The positive cosmological constant.

But the cosmological constant was the biggest mistake of Einsteins life, or so they said......

Which gravitational laws?

Any and all of them.

what 'Fairie Dust' ? Can you explain what you mean?

Dark matter.

In case you can't see my signature.

Fairie Dust - Fabricated Ad-hoc Inventions Repeatedly Invoked in Effort to Defend Untenable Scientific Theory.

FrumiousBandersnatch · Jun 11, 2017

Justatruthseeker said:
Except you have never once observed a Doppler shift without a medium being present....

Light is generally considered to be an example. But, as Einstein said, if you feel it's necessary, you can consider space to be a medium.

"The idea of motion may not be applied to it." (your bolding)

And yet, you apply the very motion to it Einstein said couldn't be applied to it, imagine that..

Well yes; he meant it wasn't a fluid, like 'traditional' aether - but of course this was also before Hubble discovered the universe was expanding, when Einstein thought he was describing a static universe (hence his introduction of the cosmological constant that he later called his 'greatest blunder').

And since you insist galaxies are in relative motion, why deny the energy gained from that motion which causes changes in decay rates, besides the fact you don't want to have to apply time dilation effects?

I already explained why.

FrumiousBandersnatch · Jun 11, 2017

Justatruthseeker said:
But the cosmological constant was the biggest mistake of Einsteins life, or so they said..

So he said. He put it in because his field equations implied an expanding universe, and he thought it was static - until Hubble's discovery. The accelerating expansion of the universe implies a cosmological constant opposite in effect to Einstein's original. He thought it a blunder because he let his assumptions or intuitions override what his equations were telling him.

Dark matter.

In case you can't see my signature.

Fairie Dust - Fabricated Ad-hoc Inventions Repeatedly Invoked in Effort to Defend Untenable Scientific Theory.

Oh, I see. Well, you're entitled to your opinion.

Justatruthseeker · Jun 12, 2017

FrumiousBandersnatch said:
Light is generally considered to be an example. But, as Einstein said, if you feel it's necessary, you can consider space to be a medium.

Space isn't a medium, a medium exists "IN" space.

Well yes; he meant it wasn't a fluid, like 'traditional' aether - but of course this was also before Hubble discovered the universe was expanding, when Einstein thought he was describing a static universe (hence his introduction of the cosmological constant that he later called his 'greatest blunder').

Except Hubble himself did not agree in expanding space, but always insisted an as then undiscovered natural cause was the reason for cosmological redshift. So why keep blaming Hubble for their pseudoscience?

Edwin Hubble - Wikipedia

"Hubble believed that his count data gave a more reasonable result concerning spatial curvature if the redshift correction was made assuming no recession. To the very end of his writings he maintained this position, favouring (or at the very least keeping open) the model where no true expansion exists, and therefore that the redshift "represents a hitherto unrecognized principle of nature."

And he was correct.

A New Non-Doppler Redshift

I realize blaming Hubble gives more credence to the theory, but since the claimed discoverer of expansion didn't believe in expansion......

At least give credit to the person actually proposing expansion if you really believe it.

Georges Lemaître - Wikipedia

"He proposed the theory of the expansion of the universe, widely misattributed to Edwin Hubble."

I already explained why.

And I already explained why with proof that all objects in motion posses energy from their motion. And as we already know an increase in energy causes a change in the decay rate and slows clocks.

Justatruthseeker · Jun 12, 2017

FrumiousBandersnatch said:
So he said. He put it in because his field equations implied an expanding universe, and he thought it was static - until Hubble's discovery. The accelerating expansion of the universe implies a cosmological constant opposite in effect to Einstein's original. He thought it a blunder because he let his assumptions or intuitions override what his equations were telling him.

Ahh, so a cosmological constant equating to expansion isn't a blunder, but anything else is.

I already discussed above your propensity for blaming Hubble for their pseudoscience...

Oh, I see. Well, you're entitled to your opinion.

With over 12 null results I think I am entitled to more than just that.... you mean your entitled to believe despite 12 null results, even if most theories are thrown out after 4.....

FrumiousBandersnatch · Jun 12, 2017

Justatruthseeker said:
Space isn't a medium, a medium exists "IN" space.

Well that depends what you mean by a 'medium', as Einstein pointed out.

... why keep blaming Hubble..?

Nobody is blaming Hubble. Hubble made the observations, LeMaitre gave an explanation for them. Hubble is usually credited with the discovery.

Justatruthseeker · Jun 12, 2017

FrumiousBandersnatch said:
Well that depends what you mean by a 'medium', as Einstein pointed out.

Since any claimed medium would not consist of particles that can be tracked through time, it's rather moot since it can never be detected or proven. But then if it can't be tracked through time then claiming it has motion is also moot......

Nobody is blaming Hubble. Hubble made the observations, LeMaitre gave an explanation for them. Hubble is usually credited with the discovery.

Hubble didn't want the credit because he specifically disagreed with the theory of expansion.

You don't believe in it any way since redshift is the correlation between an objects speed away from us and distance, yet you refuse to accept it is increasing in speed even if redshift is increasing.

Hubble law and the expanding universe

"Hubble's law is a statement of a direct correlation between the distance to a galaxy and its recessional velocity as determined by the red shift."

But you don't believe it's recessional velocity, so apparently you don't believe in Hubble's Law. Yet you believe it's Hubble's Law, yet reject the fact it requires recessional velocity.

You truly don't see the contradiction in your beliefs, do you.... have they really done such a good job of indoctrination when you can reject the core set of what makes Hubble's Law calculate the claimed distances of galaxies, then claim you can calculate them anyways?

I think we need to discuss this recessional velocity that is a required part of the redshift distance calculation..... because without recessional velocity you no longer have a correlation to distances....

Admitting to the recessional velocity seems to me to be the lessor of two evils, but if you prefer that there is no way to calculate the distances of galaxies, that's fine too, but the entire theory of the age of the universe since the Big Bang kind of rests on those claimed distances....

But in the end no matter which you choose, time dilation will need to be applied.

FrumiousBandersnatch · Jun 12, 2017

Justatruthseeker said:
Since any claimed medium would not consist of particles that can be tracked through time, it's rather moot since it can never be detected or proven. But then if it can't be tracked through time then claiming it has motion is also moot......

Tell Einstein.

You don't believe...

... you don't believe ...

You truly don't see the contradiction in your beliefs, do you....

You don't seem to have the faintest idea what I believe, you're just making it up.

Time Dilation and the Speed of Light

Newbie

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Newbie

Newbie

Well-Known Member

Newbie

Newbie

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Newbie

Newbie

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Newbie

Newbie

Well-Known Member

Newbie

Well-Known Member

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency