geordief

Can the photon travel at less than c if it is making its way out of a gravity well? Would it have a FOR then? Also can its FOR when it does travel at c be expressed as a limit? (if it is the zeros/infinities involved that are the reason it can't have a valid FOR)

Can time be seen as a property of something rather than a thing in its own right? If so, must there always be a something for time to be a property of ** and can this something always be described as a system of some sort? Would radioactive decay be described as a system ?

Yes I see.

Not directly but the "operator" of the clock could add that info ,could he or she not? (and thus synchronize the two clocks) Not sure what your "what post did I reply to?" is getting at.... but no I don't think you replied to any of my posts in this thread. I did "cut across" your conversation with Taingorz though.

I thought it did when account was taken of relative movement and gravitational effects....(we are saying the same thing in different ways?)

You are doing a great job of explaining it . Carry on.

These two must be up for an award of some kind. This is extreme ignorancism at its finest.

Have you an alternative explanation that fits the evidence so far gathered?

Not an answer to my question . Bye.

They do say that. But they make their best stab at explaining the evidence on the table. Unlike your good self who again didn't answer my question. Go back and find it yourself.

Do you also need to define "objects" and "processes" ? (unless it is obvious) "Properties" means types of measurements that can be taken of the above?

True. It feels like the pass has been sold. Not only have they elected that embarrassment in the first place but they are yelling that it was no mistake and they may do so again. I don't want to speak kindly of Chinese policies but sure ,if comparisons are worth anything they do appear to be showing a better front in this case.

OK , good points. I may have over reacted.(to the story)

Yes a very good principle but are we complicit in disinformation and keep whole populations in the dark about,say Tienanmen Square if we support search engines that delete that history? Are we actually holding back their progress by helping to place the blinkers over their eyes? And giving international credibility to an undemocratic regime? Should we not say "censor your population if you insist ,but not with our help"? The Berlin Wall was torn down as a result of TV signals being captured over the other side against the will of the East Germans and the USSR. Are there still parallels that apply or has the world changed so much?

Yes I am not going to get into "something out of nothing" (interesting but beyond me). But you started by claiming that the Big Bang Theory implied this. Do you now agree that that is not the case?

Where does "Hawkins** says it"? Show us the quote. **It's "Hawking"

How do you personally understand the "Big Bang" ?

It is a mathematical equation (so it is "equals" ,not "is"). The numbers move from one column to another but it doesn't help to define energy as a "thing" Well prepared to be shown my error ,but that is my present understanding.

https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-45041671 "" Google in China: Internet giant 'plans censored search engine' "" If Google acquiesces in in censoring vital search terms that are politically incorrect in anti democratic regimes such as China ,should it be regarded as anti democratic itself (even if those search terms remain usable on the other side of the firewall)? Would google be "going over to the enemy" and would its actions be indistinguishable from those of the captive populations of dictatorships like China **? How can this be prevented? Will the Chinese population simply learn to avoid Google and find ways around this new censorship tool (if it comes about)? **fair description?

I understand the c fills this role but I would like to ask if that is a purely experimental finding or if there is an underpinning of a theory to it. The argument I think goes like this. There has to be a maximum speed of information transfer ,otherwise things would occur at the same time. Now we do have a maximum speed that has been observed and it is the speed of any massless object in a vacuum. Connect the dots and they are the same speed... Any more to it than that? Could it actually be higher if we came across objects that actually traveled faster than c in a vacuum? By the way ,if dolphins communicate by sonar how would their communication systems be affected if we gave them mobile phones? (a good analogy?)

What "centre of the universe" question of mine are you referring to. Was that a different thread? I did talk about centres in this thread ,but not of the universe . eg here https://www.scienceforums.net/topic/115336-time-and-space/?do=findComment&comment=1062138

Yes I think I see that. A potentially privileged FOR but completely constrained for the purposes of making any actual measurements?

Is it at all possible to talk about an observer at the origin of the creation of any system? Admittedly we cannot say that there was a "point" when our universe was created (although it seems a respectable theory that the universe naturally arose from "nothing"**) but if we posit that such a point (prior to the BB) did exist could we in theory consider this point as the origin of a frame of reference? Might the same logic be applied to any subsets of this primordial system?So when Archduke Ferdinand was assassinated can we set that occurrence (see how I skirted around calling it an "event") at that point in space and time to be somehow privileged as a frame of reference for everything causally connected to it? **respectable in that I have often heard it suggested ,even if I didn't myself understand why it might be so.

Any idea why we would feel it?( if we don't actually have it that is) Might it be a kind of useful suspension of disbelief? Is it also uncontroversial that that what we identify as our free will is diminished as our objective range of free choices narrows? So our "free will" is a function of our objective (or what we perceive as objective) choices.....

Can zero be seen as a limit ? (any number divided by a number that we let increase without limit) In that sense is zero infinite because there is an infinite process involved in its definition? Also,I wonder is the zero used in 10,20 etc the same as the zero used to denote an absence of quantity?