Hijack from Speed of Time

[Logicandreason]

On 6/21/2022 at 9:59 PM, M.Ross said:

I have a question from the following statement in this article that I can't understand.

How can our speed traveling in time be the speed of light? I realise our measure of time, such as seconds, minutes, is purely artificial, so how is our movement through time measured? For anything travelling at the speed of light, you would need infinite energy to accelerate the object to light speed. I don't see an infinite energy propelling my desk or me to light speed. What's going on here?

 

"We know through the physics of Einstein's special theory of relativity that you can trade motion in space for motion in time. If you're standing perfectly still, you're moving through the dimension of time at a particular speed (the speed of light, for those of you who are curious)." https://phys.org/news/2020-05-future-totally.html

 

Here's a bonus question - time decreases the faster you get, and the examples given are always straight linear motion relative to an observer.

What if you put a moving observer inside a cyclotron - he sits in the middle (not spinning), and the cyclotron spins around him at the speed of light.

Would time stop for him, or does he physically need to me moving/spinning.

 

The root of your problem is that you first believed that Special Relativity was a rational Theory. A correct theory.  This false belief leads to all manner of weirdness. Common excuses to overcome questions like yours are:  Shut up and Calculate (don't ask questions) , Its "Unintuitive" (meaning irrational) ,  and my favourite, "Some people just can't grasp the concepts". (said by superior intellects that can understand it but just can't seem to find suitable words to explain it )

[swansont]

It’s pretty simple. If c is invariant and the laws of physics work the same way in all inertial frames, then time and length are relative to the frame you are in.

 

[Mordred]

36 minutes ago, Logicandreason said:

The root of your problem is that you first believed that Special Relativity was a rational Theory. A correct theory.  This false belief leads to all manner of weirdness. Common excuses to overcome questions like yours are:  Shut up and Calculate (don't ask questions) , Its "Unintuitive" (meaning irrational) ,  and my favourite, "Some people just can't grasp the concepts". (said by superior intellects that can understand it but just can't seem to find suitable words to explain it )

SR is quite easy to fathom and grasp, as Swansont above pointed out. 

[Logicandreason]

So, if I disagree, please inform me how I can go about explaining why I disagree without incurring the wrath of the moderators.? Because the easiest thing to grasp about SR is that its not rational and contains internal errors.  Which are obvious once you are made aware of them. 

What is the value of the down votes if no one explain why they are downvoting? Is this the Scientific Method? Seems that this is a tool to discredit a member,  without the bother of providing any  justification.  I bet this gets downvotes too. Proving my point.

[zapatos]

6 minutes ago, Logicandreason said:

So, if I disagree, please inform me how I can go about explaining why I disagree without incurring the wrath of the moderators.? Because the easiest thing to grasp about SR is that its not rational and contains internal errors.  Which are obvious once you are made aware of them. 

Perhaps instead of 'explaining why' you disagree, you can show us evidence, not just your thoughts on the topic, on how SR is wrong. Evidence would include observations described in scientific journals, math, etc. This is after all a science site, and thus science is what is required when discussing scientific theories. 

[Mordred]

First off you an start by describing what your dilemma actually is with SR. Describe that in detail. If you have a proposed solution you can post your ideas following the rules with the speculation forum. Note this will likely require some mathematics as testability of any theory is one of the requirements of a theory.

here are the guidelines

https://www.scienceforums.net/topic/86720-guidelines-for-participating-in-speculations-discussions/

https://www.scienceforums.net/topic/22442-so-youve-got-a-new-theory/

first 24 hour of posting has a 5 post limit, this is a site antispam measure. Once 24 hours have elapsed then there is no daily post limit.

The reputation system is simply that, Its largely meaningless and simply gives an indication of trust in how a poster responds or generates posts. Its easily turned around from a low rep to a high rep without too much effort.

 

Edited June 7, 2023 by Mordred

[Bufofrog]

1 hour ago, Logicandreason said:

So, if I disagree, please inform me how I can go about explaining why I disagree without incurring the wrath of the moderators.? Because the easiest thing to grasp about SR is that its not rational and contains internal errors.  Which are obvious once you are made aware of them. 

Just point out these internal errors that are obvious!  You are getting down votes because you are saying in essence is that SR is wrong but you won't tell us why you think that.

[Logicandreason]

1 hour ago, zapatos said:

Perhaps instead of 'explaining why' you disagree, you can show us evidence, not just your thoughts on the topic, on how SR is wrong. Evidence would include observations described in scientific journals, math, etc. This is after all a science site, and thus science is what is required when discussing scientific theories. 

The evidence of the Error in fully contained in Einstein's Paper. Go find it, its really there, but you missed it.

[iNow]

Lol. They barely even try anymore 

[Bufofrog]

58 minutes ago, Bufofrog said:

You are getting down votes because you are saying in essence is that SR is wrong but you won't tell us why you think that.

 

28 minutes ago, Logicandreason said:

The evidence of the Error in fully contained in Einstein's Paper. Go find it, its really there, but you missed it.

Oops, you did it again!

[exchemist]

2 hours ago, Logicandreason said:

The evidence of the Error in fully contained in Einstein's Paper. Go find it, its really there, but you missed it.

Can you summarise this error?

[swansont]

17 hours ago, Logicandreason said:

So, if I disagree, please inform me how I can go about explaining why I disagree without incurring the wrath of the moderators.? Because the easiest thing to grasp about SR is that its not rational and contains internal errors. 

Actually pointing out these alleged errors instead of tap-dancing around the subject; you have yet to post anything with scientific content. Arguing in bad faith gets you in the express lane to the wrath of the moderators.

[Genady]

16 hours ago, Logicandreason said:

The evidence of the Error in fully contained in Einstein's Paper.

Here is the Paper: einstein_electrodynamics_of_moving_bodies.pdf (umd.edu)

Where is the Error?

[Logicandreason]

Being forced onto giving a very short explanation is a bit unfair, as I can't fully explain the error in just one paragraph. After all, Einstein had the luxury of as many pages of explanation as he wanted.  But a cut down explanation is this.  

In the paper, in the argument Einstein is proposing, he makes an error of conflating two completely different statements that are simply incompatible.

I have to ask you a question to directly demonstrate what I'm on about.

Is the phrase "it is moving with a constant speed", directly, mathematically and rationally interchangeable with the phrase, "it is moving at 60mph" ?

The only possible answer is of course, NO.

One is referring to a state of motion remaining consistent, while the other is specifying a MEASURED value of an objects speed, which could very well be constant.

While is totally correct as far as we know, to postulate that Light's motion is CONSTANT in a vacuum. its actually irrational to claim that a specific MEASURE of Lights speed must be constant as recorded by anyone, with no reference to their own speed. 

Einstein specifically pointed out that Light motion was not influenced by the motion of the Source, and because there was no Medium, no Aether discovered, then he INSINUATED that "Light has no Preferred Reference frame".  His conclusion was that light speed must remain identical as seen from any frame of reference, because "The Laws of Physics" are applicable in all inertial frames. 

Now Light does indeed have no preferred frame of reference. That is true.  And its also true that no mater who observes Lights motion, irrespective of his own state of motion (inertial motion) he will still correctly say that Lights motion is CONSTANT.

But this is not the same, its not equivalent to claiming that observers will all MEASURE what that speed is, and all get 298,000 m.p.s as their answer. Because "it is moving with a constant speed", is not interchangeable with, "it is moving at 60mph".

So NOT finding a Medium that could act as a reference for the measure of Lights speed, AND also realizing that the Light Source also was not a valid reference from which to take a measure, Einstein said there is no reference at all, therefore every observer must get 298,000 m.p.s (c) for Light speed because Light speed is CONSTANT.

But this is a wrong claim, because its NOT the MEASUREMENT that is CONSTANT, its the STATE of MOTION that is Constant.  Its also wrong because there IS A PREFEERED FRAME for Lights measurement!

Let me explain what that Preferred frame is. (Preferred Frame for MEASUREMENT!  not preferred frame for constant MOTION )

In the First Postulate, Einstein called on "The Laws of Physics, Optics, EM, and Kinematics Laws", stating that they were VALID, in all Inertial Frames. All Physicists knew this anyway.  Those Laws, (The Laws of Kinematics, of Mechanics of Newton specifically) DEFINED what was an Inertial Frame.   

Now its those Laws that Einstein called on to force us to accept that "if Light has a constant speed "c", in the "stationary frame, then it MUST also have that same speed, "c" in all other Inertial Frames". 

But the up-shoot of this claim as it seems to read, is that to make the Math work, then the Classical belief that a meter is a meter for everyone and a second is a second for everyone, had to be discarded.  Thus Time Dilation and Length Contraction.

However, this SEEMINGLY LOGICAL result, has  LOGICAL and inescapable repercussions. Namely, that NONE of Classical Physics can now function, because Classical Physics DEMANDS ABSOLUTE STABILITY of Distance and Time. 

 Einstein destroyed that base for Classical Physics, and so now the Postulate ONE is INVALID, because ALL THOSE "LAWS of Kinematics, of MOTION, ONLY work with stable DISTANCES AND Time.  

Einstein makes a theory that RELIES on Classical Physics (postulate One) then proceeds to DESTROY Postulate One as his finale. That really having your cake and eating it too.

 Don't try to say that "Classical Physics is still correct but not for relativistic speeds". Because you can't destroy the very nature of space and time then still say that it doesn't matter. There is only one math equation for speeds, distance and Time now, and it uses the Lorentz transformation equation, even if the difference is practiacall nothiing at low speeds, the Equation is still the only correct one, ACCORDING to Einstein's Theory.

But there is more.  I was going to show that there IS A PREFEERED FRAME for the Measurement of Light speed, even thought there is no absolute Medium or Absolute location or "stationary" Light Source... 

When you make a Measurement, ANY measurement, what do you need?

For Speed Measurements, you MUST have the following:

1, something that is the object

2, a Time counting Device

3. A REFERENCE LOCATION from which that Measure is RELATIVE.

Now that reference location is usually WHERE YOU ARE LOCATED when you recorded the elapsed time.

So what does this mean? It means that ANY MEASURE of Lights Speed is ONLY RELATIVE to the person taking the Measurement, just as Newton indicated in those Laws of Mechanics" that Einstein was totally happy with in Postulate One.

So Einstein's claim that "there is no Aether, and the Source is not the reference, therefore ANY and every inertial frame is the reference for the ONE SUBJECTIVE original measurement, (186,000 m.p.s.  "c")" is INCORRECT.  Because according to the Laws of Postulate One, the Measure of 186,000 m.p.s  DOES HAVE A SINGLE REFERENCE LOCATION, that location where the first measurer was located, and NOT ANYWHERE ELSE!  

All subsequent measures of Light speed MUST ACCOUNT for any differences in relative speeds between each Observer.

As a pre-emptive measure, Ill have to say that EVERY bit of claimed "experimental Evidence that SEEMS to support Einstein", is either Fraud, mistake or misinterpretation due to fantastic bias.  I'm sure that every experiment, on careful CRITIICAL and disbelieving examination, will show that its not all a done deal. Experimental evidence always has more than one possible interpretation. 

Observation of CONSTACY of UNIFORM motion, is NOT THE SAME THING as a MEASURED VALUE OF THAT CONSTANT MOTION.

Once you get that truth into your head, you can't justify Einstein's Hypothesis, as he makes the error of this false conflation, in the very first few paragraphs of the Paper.

Supporting Evidence can NOT PROVE ANY THEORY, and as its actually IMPOSSIBLE to disprove by Experiment, the Hypothesis is "unfalsifiable" because its irrational and contains this major error of Logic.

 

Edited June 8, 2023 by Logicandreason
typos and clarifications

[Genady]

18 minutes ago, Logicandreason said:

the phrase "it is moving with a constant speed"

I have the paper linked above. There is no such a phrase there.

[Logicandreason]

The WHOLE paper is discussing constant motion, Try not to be anally retentive about this.

anyway, aside from the whole context of the Hypothesis, his exact words are, "The following reflexions are based on the principle of relativity and on the principle of the constancy of the velocity of light."

Einstein's whole approach about Light is that its always has  "CONSTANT velocity" in a vacuum.  But constant velocity" is NOT the same a CONSTANCY of a MEASUREMENT.

So how does the fact that you can't find the exact phrase "it is moving with a constant speed" in the Paper, alter or negate my criticisms of the contents of the paper?

[Genady]

2 minutes ago, Logicandreason said:

So how does the fact that you can't find the exact phrase "it is moving with a constant speed" in the Paper, alter or negate my criticisms of the contents of the paper?

So:

You say that

3 minutes ago, Logicandreason said:

Einstein's whole approach about Light is that its always has  "CONSTANT velocity" in a vacuum.

This is untrue.

His approach is, from the page 1 of the paper,

"that light is always propagated in empty space with a definite velocity c."

[Logicandreason]

27 minutes ago, Genady said:

So:

You say that

This is untrue.

His approach is, from the page 1 of the paper,

"that light is always propagated in empty space with a definite velocity c."

Yes, but what does that mean exactly? Of COURSE it has a "velocity that is constant", ( and also a DEFINITE constant Velocity) but how did you get from that obvious statement, to "therefore anyone regardless of their own speed will get 298,000 m.p.s ?    When you see that label, "c", you instantly think "Oh, 298,000 m.p.s.  that is what 'c" means."   But it most absolutely does not mean that. It means that whatever the speed of light is, we are giving that a label called c.      You are not thinking this through very carefully.  If a velocity is "Constant", then it HAS to be DEFINITE. Or it would not be constant. But MEASUREMENT OF THAT VELOCITY is not the same thing, is it?

Edited June 8, 2023 by Logicandreason

[Genady]

3 minutes ago, Logicandreason said:

Yes, but what does that mean exactly? Of COURSE it has a "velocity that is constant", but how did you get from that obvious statement, to "therefore anyone regardless of their own speed will get 298,000 m.p.s ?    When you see that label, "c", you instantly think "Oh, 298,000 m.p.s.  that is what 'c" means."   But it most absolutely does not mean that. It means that whatever the speed of light is, we are giving that a label called c.      You are not thinking this through very carefully.

This is again untrue. The speed of light as a definite number was called "c" before Einstein. And also on p. 3 Einstein calls it,

"a universal constant".

[Logicandreason]

4 minutes ago, Genady said:

This is again untrue. The speed of light as a definite number was called "c" before Einstein. And also on p. 3 Einstein calls it,

"a universal constant".

Yes, Light did have a measured value at that time. it was measured in 1862 by  Leon Foucault 298,000 km/sec  and calculated by Maxwell in 1865. to be about 300,000.

But have you forgotten that Einstein is writing a scientific Paper, and as he is supposed to be a Physicist and somewhat of a Mathematician, you really think that he would claim a singular, set, fixed numerical speed but FAIL to mention from what reference point that measurement was taken? ALL MEASURES REQUIRE A REFERENCE.  Where is that reference for "c" to be found in this Paper.  Please quote.

He wrote carefully, that the Light Source and any Aether Medium can't be used, but he FORGOT that all measurements are ONLY VALID when an associated  reference origin is specified. Why did he fail to state this obvious fact?

[Genady]

OK. All I wanted to know is where you see the error. I know now. The error is not in the paper, but in your misinterpretation of it. I don't see any point in trying to convince you in this. And I am not interested in educating you. I got the answer to my question, and it is not interesting anymore. What you think about it never mattered. Have a good life.

[iNow]

5 minutes ago, Genady said:

What you think about it never mattered.

Though it could AND would have if only he had a (demonstrably) valid point and weren’t so self-evidently FOS

[Mordred]

10 minutes ago, Logicandreason said:

Yes, Light did have a measured value at that time. it was measured in 1862 by  Leon Foucault 298,000 km/sec  and calculated by Maxwell in 1865. to be about 300,000.

But have you forgotten that Einstein is writing a scientific Paper, and as he is supposed to be a Physicist and somewhat of a Mathematician, you really think that he would claim a singular, set, fixed numerical speed but FAIL to mention from what reference point that measurement was taken? ALL MEASURES REQUIRE A REFERENCE.  Where is that reference for "c" to be found in this Paper.  Please quote.

He wrote carefully, that the Light Source and any Aether Medium can't be used, but he FORGOT that all measurements are ONLY VALID when an associated  reference origin is specified. Why did he fail to state this obvious fact?

He didn't need to his use of reference frames was established with Galilean relativity. He incorporated those mathematics in the paper. 

 So he chose not to waste time describing the obvious inherent in the mathematics. Think of it this way papers you read today don't point out every detail not when those details are in established formulas. Galilean relativity was very well established. When you get down to it the gamma terms for the Lorentz transforms are a simple extension.

[Logicandreason]

4 minutes ago, Genady said:

OK. All I wanted to know is where you see the error. I know now. The error is not in the paper, but in your misinterpretation of it. I don't see any point in trying to convince you in this. And I am not interested in educating you. I got the answer to my question, and it is not interesting anymore. What you think about it never mattered. Have a good life.

Well that attitude is the exact opposite of what a real Scientist would say and think. What you are saying is that your interpretation is correct, by mine is incorrect, because you say so, without any justification at all.  I've explained with logic and reason where there is a real error, and you have no counted to my claims. None.  And you exhibit your unfounded arrogance in saying that "you don't want to waste time to educate me".  The truth is that you are now experiencing cognitive dissonance, and choose to try to back away rather than face facts.  If you had a decent response, I certainly would be hearing all about it. Normally objections to Einstein's theories are met with a constant barrage of debunking statements. But this time, you just give up so easily?   I'll wait till someone else is willing to come up with some counter to my claims. Thanks for your time.

4 minutes ago, Mordred said:

He didn't need to his use of reference frames was established with Galilean relativity. He incorporated those mathematics in the paper. 

 So he chose not to waste time describing the obvious inherent in the mathematics. Think of it this way papers you read today don't point out every detail not when those details are in established formulas. Galilean relativity was very well established. When you get down to it the gamma terms for the Lorentz transforms are a simple extension.

We are not able to continue to any Math in the Paper, till Einstein first explains why there is actually some problem that needs to be solved, and then also describes how he can solve that problem. He did not show that there was an actual valid problem, and then he fails to give a logical solution for the apparent problem that he did describe. Any math solutions must be based on a solid explanation as a pre requisite.   Einstein's actual statement on what he thinks is the problem is contained here: "the phenomena of electrodynamics as well as of mechanics possess no properties corresponding to the idea of absolute rest."  and also that "the same laws of electrodynamics and optics will be valid for all frames of reference for which the equations of mechanics hold good. (inertial frames of reference) and when paired with "light is always propagated in empty space with a definite velocity c which is independent of the state of motion of the emitting body."   So no Absolute rest, the Laws work in all Inertial Frames, but Light is never changing in speed"  so in his words, "these postulates are apparently irreconcilable".  So there is the problem.  

However, I've just shown how this "apparently irreconcilable" problem is only caused by a flawed understanding of the difference between constant velocity and the MEASURED value of that constant velocity.   Once you see that the two are not the same, all the "apparently irreconcilable" problems go away.

[StringJunky]

13 minutes ago, Logicandreason said:

Well that attitude is the exact opposite of what a real Scientist would say and think. What you are saying is that your interpretation is correct, by mine is incorrect, because you say so, without any justification at all.  I've explained with logic and reason where there is a real error, and you have no counted to my claims. None.  And you exhibit your unfounded arrogance in saying that "you don't want to waste time to educate me".  The truth is that you are now experiencing cognitive dissonance, and choose to try to back away rather than face facts.  If you had a decent response, I certainly would be hearing all about it. Normally objections to Einstein's theories are met with a constant barrage of debunking statements. But this time, you just give up so easily?   I'll wait till someone else is willing to come up with some counter to my claims. Thanks for your time.

It insults your commonsense, but Nature does that all the time.