Light Speed question

[munion]

You are quibbling with a supposition, and that is preventing you from moving on. Stop that!

 

There was no change if there is no change in what is measured, including everything that can be measured (i.e, the dimensionless fundamental constants). Arguing otherwise is akin to philosophers arguing about how many angels can dance on a pin.

 

This is not an argument... (about the angels)

 

"There was no change if there is no change in what is measured, including everything that can be measured" You can compare something with something else but this is a relative process; you understanding the reality by the differences. There is no change if there is no differences even for the speed of light.

Edited September 11, 2009 by munion

[insane_alien]

no, its a statement describing the futile and non-scientific nature of your position which is preventing you from moving on and learning more.

[D H]

This is not argument...

Then accept the premise and move on. The premise is that you measure the amount of time it takes for light to traverse a ruler, measure this time a year later, and find that this latter measurement is greater than the initial measurement. This is a given condition for this thought experiment. Stop arguing against it.

[munion]

If length and time have both scaled relative to each other and there is no measurable difference between before and after NOTHING has changed.

 

 

Not exacly....

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

Then accept the premise and move on. The premise is that you measure the amount of time it takes for light to traverse a ruler, measure this time a year later, and find that this latter measurement is greater than the initial measurement. This is a given condition for this thought experiment. Stop arguing against it.

 

Ok this is something that i don't understand if this clear out then my problem would solved...

 

If the SOL slow down by a factor a the clocks would running slower by the same factor ?

[D H]

If the SOL slow down by a factor a the clocks would running slower by the same factor ?

No. You cannot assume that in general and you must not assume that in this particular case. Once again, one item at a time

1. Premise: There exists some deeper, truer definition of distance than our current speed-of-light based definition.
   
2. Premise: Using this deeper definition of distance the speed of light changes over time.
   
3. Consequent: The time it takes light to traverse a constant distance (constant in terms of this better definition of distance) will change over time.
   
4. Consequent: The distance as measured by our current (presumably faulty) definition of distance will change over time.

 

Do you see that the two consequents are an immediate result of the two premises?

[munion]

No. You cannot assume that in general and you must not assume that in this particular case. Once again, one item at a time

1. Premise: There exists some deeper, truer definition of distance than our current speed-of-light based definition.
   
2. Premise: Using this deeper definition of distance the speed of light changes over time.
   
3. Consequent: The time it takes light to traverse a constant distance (constant in terms of this better definition of distance) will change over time.
   
4. Consequent: The distance as measured by our current (presumably faulty) definition of distance will change over time.

 

Do you see that the two consequents are an immediate result of the two premises?

 

 

Hell NO give some time if i don't clear out the matter with the clocks it is difficult (give me an example with that why in generally would not happen the clock speed change as the SOL change)

Edited September 11, 2009 by munion

[D H]

The short answer is, how the speed of light is not a part of the definition of how we measure time.

 

I am having a very hard time understanding why you cannot, at least temporarily, just accept those premises to be true. Doing so is a standard practice in law, logic, mathematics, science, and even the movies.

 

For example, proof by contradiction in mathematics works by temporarily assuming a premise is true but then showing that this leads to a contradiction. The only way to arrive at the contradiction is to first accept the premise as true.

 

Movies: If you cannot suspend your disbelief it is very hard to enjoy any movie. You just suspend your disbelief and go with it.

 

Granted, some movies, like the worst SF movie of all times, The Matrix, make it very hard to suspend ones disbelief. The premise at hand isn't anything like The Matrix. Where in "the second is the duration of 9,192,631,770 periods of the radiation corresponding to the transition between the two hyperfine levels of the ground state of the caesium 133 atom" do you see any reference to the speed of light?

 

Compare this to "the metre is the length of the path travelled by light in vacuum during a time interval of 1⁄299,792,458 of a second". The reference to the speed of light here is very clear. How we measure time has nothing directly to do with the speed of light. How we measure distance has everything to do with the speed of light.

[munion]

"The short answer is, how the speed of light is not a part of the definition of how we measure time." But how could this happen according with relativity the speed of light it has primary role in that; all the reactions in nature (electromagnetism nuclear and gravity forces) happening with that speed.

 

"Where in "the second is the duration of 9,192,631,770 periods of the radiation corresponding to the transition between the two hyperfine levels of the ground state of the caesium 133 atom" do you see any reference to the speed of light?"" If all reactions in nature happening with the SOL then if this speed change is affecting also and the previous definition. Think about the 4D time space everything in this you me and my slow mind are running with this speed if could be changed then the time would be affected.

Edited September 11, 2009 by munion

[D H]

I give up.

[munion]

I give up.

 

I m sorry for that

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

My reputation is falling at least i had profit from my stocks

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

And something last my behavior is not something that i shame for...

Edited September 14, 2009 by munion
Consecutive posts merged.

[GogoJF]

I believe that light is instantaneous and I refer this thought process to a paper that I have written “The Instantaneousness of Light and the Four Models of Light Measure”, which can be Goggled.

Concerning time and space

There is no doubt that even the most average person would know the difference between time and space. Space is a measure of our manipulation, in terms of man being able to affect a phenomenon. Space is represented by the squaring of three lengths- length, width, and height.

Time is often considered the fourth dimension. In terms of the other three dimensions, time has no significance outside the living organism. Time is a purely man-made measure designed to measure the three dimensions in terms of the observer only. Time, in terms of any of the other lengths, is not measurable. Time carries no dimension as length. Time is an instrument of three dimensional lengths, as measured by man only.

[mooeypoo]

GogoJF, your post was removed for a reason. This has nothing to do with the current thread, and it's called thread hijacking - which is against the rules.

 

Your post was removed to a new thread in the speculation forum. Please stay on topic THERE.

 

~moo

[kleinwolf]

I have stacked with the following question : Let assume that the light speed was 5 Km/h and we attempting to measure it. What would be the result of that measurement?

 

 

Thanx in advance

George

 

A good question, I thought about : what if the speed of an object decomposes in a plane (vx,vy), measured by emitting a light ray in those perpendicular direction.

 

should we "observe" this object at those speed ?

Edited September 26, 2009 by kleinwolf

[mooeypoo]

A good question, I thought about : what if the speed of an object decomposes in a plane (vx,vy), measured by emitting a light ray in those perpendicular direction.

 

should we "observe" this object at those speed ?

What is 'object decomposes in a plane'?

[swansont]

What is 'object decomposes in a plane'?

 

I think it's the vectors decomposing, not the object, i.e. it's the vector components

 

Beyond that I'm not sure what is being asked.

[kleinwolf]

yes it's not understandable, maybe like :

 

"the velocity (of an object) can be decomposed [...]" ?

[mooeypoo]

What do you mean decomposed..? I think the problem is the word decomposed, kleinwolf, not velocity or object.

 

Do you mean the object slows down? The velocity decreases?

[kleinwolf]

'Projected' ? Or maybe : 'expressed in component' ?

[swansont]

You decompose (i.e. break down) a vector into its components.

 

Still doesn't help me understand the question.

[kleinwolf]

I was incorrect using this word. I beg for pardon.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

(It's not the medical forum, but still, everything is politically surveyed ?)

[mooeypoo]

I was incorrect using this word. I beg for pardon.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

(It's not the medical forum, but still, everything is politically surveyed ?)

kleinwolf,I don't understand what you're asking. This isn't the political forum or the medical forum, so I don't know what they have to do with anything.

 

This is not intended to hurt your feelings, but if you can't manage to find a way to properly communicate with us in English, this is going to be a problem.

[kleinwolf]

Ok I thought it was because it were a sound politically incorrect word.

 

Anyhow, this question lead me to the following case : if an elongated object of length L, moving with a parallel speed v along, is observed perpendicularly to this direction, the gamma factor would be [math] \gamma(v)=\left(1-\frac{v^2}{c^2}\right)^{-1/2}[/math].

 

If observed perpendicularly, could this intuitively give [math]\gamma(v_x)[/math] ?

 

How to get this from the 2D Lorentz transformation, knowing that [math]\vec{e}'_x=(-\beta_x\gamma(v), 1+(\gamma(v)-1)\frac{\beta_x^2}{\beta^2},(\gamma-1)\frac{\beta_x\beta_y}{\beta^2})[/math] ?

[Phi for All]

!

Moderator Note

A speculative post has been removed to keep this discussion within mainstream science. Speculations belong in their own sub-forum!