Time Relativity

[O'Nero Samuel]

Traveling with the speed of light, dt tends to zero(this is assumed to be relative to earth's time; which is dependent on the gravitational force around the earth). Is there a moving frame somewhere whose time relative to earth is not zero? Maybe due to its traveling speed, or maybe the gravitational force around it. Can anybody help with an explanation, or better still, where to search for answer?

[swansont]

Speed of light is not a valid frame in which to do analysis. You cannot travel at c.

 

All inertial frames have a time relative to earth that isn't zero.

[elfmotat]

dt doesn't approach zero, that doesn't make any sense. Δτ approaches zero as v approaches c. All observers measure nonzero finite Δτ for Earth. And, as swansont said, an observer traveling at c doesn't make sense, and is not a valid frame.

Edited July 25, 2012 by elfmotat

[mooeypoo]

!

Moderator Note

Amanbir's disruptive posts (and the replies thereafter) were erased. Please resume the original topic.

[O'Nero Samuel]

Ok, thanks. light is not a valid reference frame, accepted. why then does gravitation alter the speed of light as observed from earth? Remember Einsteins prediction of the bending of starlight due to gravitation. Is that not the hand of Newtons universal law of gravitation? And if it is why then is light, a particle, not a valid frame of reference? Coherence? Oh, sorry, it doesn't have mass. Oops! But it has momentum, eh? All these speculations may seem out of point, but if only one would view our duldrums with photons, then we would get this guts instinct that there if definitely something wrong somewhere in these theories that is truncating its apparent "coherence". Even Einstein himself has this to say ;"if the facts don't fit the theory, change the facts"

[imatfaal]

Light doesn't change in speed - it goes a longer route than it would if it were not travelling close to a massive/energetic object.

 

Light is not a valid frame of reference because the physical models that we use are founded on the premise that physical laws are the same in all inertial frames - if you want to propose an inertial frame for which this no longer holds, you are quite welcome to do so, but you can no longer rely on the mainstream physical model that has experimental evidence for it. ie you're on your own - relativity no longer applies and you would have to start from the ground up; you cannot have relativity AND an inertial frame at c.

[mrtechman]

Who knows...perhaps, one day we will be able to reach c ?! What then?

[O'Nero Samuel]

If a frame is discovered whose speed approaches c, when would happen to these "mainstream physical models that have experimental evidence"? Don't be mistaken! I'm not trying to dismiss or undermine the verisimilitude of relativity, just trying to see what would happen and how things would look like on the other side, and if there ever is "another side". The speculative nature of this proposition is quite glaring due to the fact that a theory like this would "require the application of complicated logical processes in order to reach conclusions from the premises that can be confronted with observation", according to Einstein himself in his letter to scientific america on his theory on relativity. And like you said, if there really is an other side, then I'm on my own until logically proven, but then not all that is logically simple is embodied in experienced reality. Like Einstein said, is the "miracle creed" the tamed metaphysicist believes. So no matter the degree of mental oscification in the mainstream physical model, we should never stop trying to see things from a different view no matter how ludicrous they may seem. So please stop giving quotes that translates how dumb someone's view is. The founder of the theory of relativity has this to say on our attaining a unified field theory after his life's work: "The derivation, from the equations, of the conclusions which can be confronted with experience will require painstaking efforts and probably new mathematical methods."