Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 61 to 90 of 106

Thread: Einstein's Theory of Special Relativity

  1. #61
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Posts
    11,545
    Quote Originally Posted by RussT View Post
    Those "Counter Intuitive"..."That's relativity for ya'" have been trying to tell you something all along
    You appear to be advocating an Against The Mainstream position, is that correct?

  2. #62
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Posts
    926
    I was just listening again to "Questions" #5 episode, and Pamela herself stated that photons experience NO time. - even though they are moving.

    If it is against the mainstream then we'll have to ban Fraser and Pamela.

  3. #63
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Posts
    11,545
    Quote Originally Posted by EvilEye View Post
    I was just listening again to "Questions" #5 episode, and Pamela herself stated that photons experience NO time. - even though they are moving.

    If it is against the mainstream then we'll have to ban Fraser and Pamela.
    I was referring to RussT's position--I think he'd disagree with Pamela there. But it seems to go beyond that. I'm not sure.

  4. #64
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Posts
    926
    All good with me as long as I learn something.

  5. #65
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    3,066
    Quote Originally Posted by EvilEye View Post
    I was just listening again to "Questions" #5 episode, and Pamela herself stated that photons experience NO time. - even though they are moving.

    If it is against the mainstream then we'll have to ban Fraser and Pamela.
    Which Grey responded to with a BIG "IF"...the No Time part


    [then time would stand still", but that's a big "if"]

  6. #66
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    4,880

    Publius, How About an Opinion Here?

    Quote Originally Posted by Tensor View Post
    The appearance of a contraction is a artifact of the simplifying done to explain it. Most of the time, the explanation is only presented in one dimension. One dimensionally, the object would appear, to an observer, to contract. Realistically, if you were able to view an actual three demensional object traveling relativistically, it would appear to be rotated, not contracted. This is due to the combination of the speed and the different light paths from the front and rear of the object to the observer. "Spacetime Physics" by Wheeler and Taylor, has an excellent explanation of the effect.
    I agree, that's the way I understand it. Perhaps Richard could comment on this.

    Thanks for the reference on rotation.
    Last edited by John Mendenhall; 2007-Aug-27 at 04:47 PM. Reason: clarity

  7. #67
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Posts
    6,174
    Quote Originally Posted by EvilEye
    But NOT measurable by the photon's perspective. It is instantaneous for the photon.. not for the person measuring it.

    I still can't get pastthe fact that time stops at the speed of light. And if c is c, then c is c, and for the photon the trip is instant. It has not aged.
    I'd disagree, and simply state that the question of how much time passes in the "rest frame of the photon" is not a meaningful one within relativity. In any valid relativistic reference frame, light moves at c, so there's no such thing as the rest frame of a photon. Now, as I said, one can bend relativity a bit, and try to use it to answer the question, "well, what if it were a valid reference frame, how much time would pass?" And it's true that a certain reading of the equations would tell you that no time had passed. But you'd also find that some of the relativistic equations would now include division by zero, so that should be a big clue that you shouldn't take your results too seriously. It's certainly true that there's no way to measure how much time elapses between emission and absorption for a photon, but that's at least as much because there's no way for a clock of any sort to travel along with a photon as because "no time passes".
    Conserve energy. Commute with the Hamiltonian.

  8. #68
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Posts
    6,174
    Quote Originally Posted by RussT
    And yet Tensor said...
    http://www.bautforum.com/861168-post3.html
    [4 years for someone on earth. Travelling at c, the ship would experience no time for the trip (this assumes there is no acceleration or deceleration time, getting to and stopping from c.)]
    Tensor's pretty bright. I'd assume that he's aware that it's not really possible to accelerate instantaneously to the speed of light. But his statement gets most of the idea across. A more precise wording might be that if you travel from here to Alpha Centauri, moving at arbitrarily close to the speed of light, the trip will take roughly four years for outside observers, but will be arbitrarily short for the person travelling. Depending on how fast you go, the trip could take a year as measured by the traveller, or a day, or a second, or a nanosecond. Essentially no time as measured by an outside observer, if the traveller is moving quickly enough. And it still scales. If you're travelling fast enough that time dilation means you measure a nanosecond to go four light years, then it will take you a whole second to travel four billion light years.

    As always, don't take a casual statement attempting to explain the general idea of a theory to someone as the theory itself. If you want to know how differently moving observers will measure time according to special relativity, you need to look at the math of special relativity. And if you want to address problems that you think exist within special relativity, you definitely need to be looking at the math itself.

    Quote Originally Posted by RussT
    SO, when I asked how you 'justify' or 'ignore' this...you chose 'Ignore'
    Well, I'm not "ignoring" some blatant contradiction inherent in special relativity. I'm being aware that casual statements about complex theories may sometimes lack mathematical rigor in their effort to explain those complex theories to people who may not have the background needed for a fully rigorous explanation.

    Quote Originally Posted by RussT
    BUT, each individual photon is at rest, just sitting there, at 0 velocity, traveling at "c", just as I am sitting here in my chair typing this, at 0 velocity in numerous reference frames.
    Nope. Light travels at the same speed in all reference frames, and that speed is not zero. That's one of the founding postulates of special relativity.

    Quote Originally Posted by RussT
    When Einstein did his 'thought experiments', by defining photons as 'having no rest frame', and using SCI-FI spaceships traveling at near "c", and all the way to "c", he started using the 0 velocity 'rest frame' to determine reality. And THEN the 'time dilation', Lorentz contraction, etc, just compensates to make 'that reality' mathematically consistent.
    Well, it's true that Einstein started from some simple thought experiments about how light behaves (though you won't find him using any examples of an observer moving at the speed of light), mostly to try to figure out a way to get electrodynamics and mechanics to work according to the same set of rules. And of course what's really important is not that the resulting theory is mathematically consistent (which it is), it's that it is also consistent with all the experiments designed to test it since then.
    Conserve energy. Commute with the Hamiltonian.

  9. #69
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    413

    Question

    Quote Originally Posted by Grey View Post
    Tensor's pretty bright. I'd assume that he's aware that it's not really possible to accelerate instantaneously to the speed of light.
    I've always been curious: we know photons have the characteristics of waves and of particles, so does a photon accelerate too? I assume not, but why not? Is it because a photon has no mass?

    Isn't it the case that nothing with mass can travel at light speed, including any observer we could conceive of? Except in Star Trek of course. Does that make some of these thought experiments moot (regarding time stopping at 'c') or have I missed something important?

    I've heard it said that were it not for relativity and the speed limit 'c' the entire history of the universe would play out instantaneously--how does that work?

    Hope these aren't dumb questions!
    Last edited by Steve Limpus; 2007-Aug-28 at 12:29 AM.

  10. #70
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Posts
    6,208
    Quote Originally Posted by John Mendenhall View Post
    I agree, that's the way I understand it. Perhaps Richard could comment on this.
    Richard is quite aware of this (if I remember our posts to each other correctly).

    Quote Originally Posted by John Mendenhall View Post
    Thanks for the reference on rotation.
    Not a problem. For a better reference, the explanation is on page 92 and a pictoral representation is on page 93. This is in the second edition.

  11. #71
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Posts
    6,208
    Quote Originally Posted by Grey View Post
    Tensor's pretty bright.
    I'm gonna hold you to that.

    Quote Originally Posted by Grey View Post
    I'd assume that he's aware that it's not really possible to accelerate instantaneously to the speed of light.
    That would be a good assumption.

    Quote Originally Posted by Grey View Post
    But his statement gets most of the idea across.
    That was the main idea. If you go back to the post that RussT took that statement out of, you will notice that it was an answer to someone who, I thought, would understand a simpler reply much better.

    Quote Originally Posted by Grey View Post
    A more precise wording might be that if you travel from here to Alpha

    Good explanation snipped.

    then it will take you a whole second to travel four billion light years.
    Your explanation is certainly more correct.


    Quote Originally Posted by Grey View Post
    As always, don't take a casual statement attempting to explain the general idea of a theory to someone as the theory itself. If you want to know how differently moving observers will measure time according to special relativity, you need to look at the math of special relativity. And if you want to address problems that you think exist within special relativity, you definitely need to be looking at the math itself.
    This has been, from my point of view, a problem with RussT's ideas. He's very good at taking quotes from different sources to support his ideas, but he seems to be very weak at actually understanding the math behind those quotes. As a result, to those who understand the math, his ideas seem rather quixotic.

    Quote Originally Posted by Grey View Post
    Well, I'm not "ignoring" some blatant contradiction inherent in special relativity. I'm being aware that casual statements about complex theories may sometimes lack mathematical rigor in their effort to explain those complex theories to people who may not have the background needed for a fully rigorous explanation.
    I have, what I think, is a really good example of this concerning Mercury's anomalous precession. While I realize that it is due to the non-linearity of the GR equations, expressed, in the math, as a second order effect of the power expansion series, I like to explain it as the difference between Newtonian Gravity (where mass creates gravity) and GR (where energy is the cause of gravity). One can point out that the energy of the Sun's gravitational field adds to the gravity caused by the Sun. This extra bit of energy causes the extra tug on Mercury, causing the precession. While this explanation is obviously not complete (for one, it ignores the elliptical component of Mercury's orbit), it illustrates some of the differences of the two theories and the non-linearity of the GR equations, for people who have no idea what a power expansion is.

  12. #72
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    3,066
    Quote Originally Posted by Grey
    Tensor's pretty bright. I'd assume that he's aware that it's not really possible to accelerate instantaneously to the speed of light.
    See, you are already using semantics here

    Photons/Light accelerates instantaneously to "c". (which by the way is impossible for electrons to magically accomplish!)

    Quote Originally Posted by Grey
    A more precise wording might be that if you travel from here to Alpha Centauri, moving at arbitrarily close to the speed of light, the trip will take roughly four years for outside observers, but will be arbitrarily short for the person travelling. Depending on how fast you go, the trip could take a year as measured by the traveller, or a day, or a second, or a nanosecond. Essentially no time as measured by an outside observer, if the traveller is moving quickly enough. And it still scales. If you're travelling fast enough that time dilation means you measure a nanosecond to go four light years, then it will take you a whole second to travel four billion light years.
    Sure it still scales...it is all robustly consistent mathematically. Infact, it is absolutely 'Crap your Pants' perfect, as Publius has been know to quip.

    However, it 'assumes' that the current defining of light/photons as having no 'rest frame' and experiencing no time, is correct, and that it is an invalid reference frame.


    Originally Posted by RussT
    BUT, each individual photon is at rest, just sitting there, at 0 velocity, traveling at "c", just as I am sitting here in my chair typing this, at 0 velocity in numerous reference frames.
    Quote Originally Posted by Grey
    Nope. Light travels at the same speed in all reference frames, and that speed is not zero. That's one of the founding postulates of special relativity.
    I 100% agree that light/photons travel at a constant "c", In Vacua/Einstein 'empty universe', in all reference frames. However, you switched to 'light', where I said each individual photon.

    Each individual photon (wave) IS just sitting still, at 0 velocity, in/on its Point (Particle), which is carrying it at "c". BUT I don't even need to 'prove' that, to show what is really happening here. Also, even if you assume that the photon is really sitting in/on the 'particle', if you defined the particle the same way as you currently define light in its own frame, then the 'particle' could travelto infinity, instantly in its own frame, and that is still Impossible.

    When you get to the very limit of the extremes (ie; Time 'frozen' at the event horizons) is where, when it it is understood correctly (And YES, I do understand!!! Playing the "MATH CARD" will not work anymore, besides, it is Ad Hom to attack, what you or Tensor 'assume' is 'my understanding', with it!!), you can flesh out 'what is really happening'.

    SO, when the end result of assigning simultaneity to all photons in their light path, in lights reference frame, and 0 time that a photon experiences, in its own frame, results in photons/light being able to travel to infinity, instantly, in its own frame, YA gotta know that that is Impossible.

    And then what happens...you/they just say that it is an INVALID reference frame, BUT YA want to keep all the dilation and contraction...and yes, when you do that, it all scales purr-fectly

    SO, what happened, for this to become SOOOO acceptable? That light could travel clear across the universe instantaneously, in its own frame, and Time could 'freeze'? (btw, light/photons do freeze time in a way...when they hit the lens of any of our cameras/telescopes).

    That darned 'Spaceship' and those thought experiments, and what would a stationary frame and a moving frame see at relavistic speeds...IT is ALL SCI-FI, and Einsteins SR convinced mainstream (Or I guess it would be more correct to say what is now mainstream), that you/they were seeing what is "REAL" from a 0 velocity position when you hold something stationary in the same reference frame.

    SO, sure, if you were sitting on the single photon, traveling at "c", you could not measure your speed, so you have to measure it from another frame to see the reality of it traveling at "c". Just like if you were sitting on the bullet, you could not measure reality from that frame, sitting on the bullet at 0 velocity in your own frame.

    We always transfer to another frame to see the reality when we are at 0 velocity in our frame, just as I am sitting here at 0 velocity in my chair, time is ticking away 1 second at a time.

    So all the experiments, like Pound/Rebka, that require the 'stationary', are not seeing the reality...you have to switch to the 'other frame' to see the reality...assigning gravitational redshift to the gamma rays in that experiment looks correct, BUT it is the earths rotation that is really causing those rays appear to be sped up closer to a gravitational source. Time automatically goes slower at altitude, and faster toward the center of the earth because of the earths rotation.

    And this is what I meant when I finally realized what Ken G was actually saying here...

    Originally Posted by RussT
    In addition this is NOT a trivial or 'be careful' evaluation of what happens in 'reference frames', and ultimately what it really means.


    Quote:
    Originally Posted by KenG From post 18...
    We must avoid the illusions that come from taking what is happening in our frame, transforming to the photon frame where it all stacks up on top of itself and looks just like a point, and then reason from that point what should happen when we transform back to our reference frame.

    Quote:
    Originally Post by RussT
    You just described what they are doing when Time is 'frozen' at the event horizon of a black hole. Didn't You?

    Quote:
    Originally Posted by KenG
    Yes, very much so. Saying time is "frozen" at an event horizon is also extremely misleading, but in a somewhat different way. It is impossible to enter the frame of the photon to see that "frozen" time, whereas you can be in the frame of something at an event horizon-- and if you do, time isn't frozen at all.

    Quote:
    Originally Posted by RussT
    There are only two options with this 'what is happening at the point of the reference frame where we are trying to determine, based on the MAths, what is happening there.

    1. when we get to the refrence frame where we are trying to determine, 'what is happening there', we MUST decide that the 'Opposite' of what the maths is showing us is 'what is happening', just as KenG showed above. That is NOT just a matter of 'being careful'!!!
    or 2. The maths need to be refigured in a way that DOES show the reality of what is happening there.

    Everyone has always assumed that that scenario was only applicable at the Event Horizon of a black hole, BUT that is NOT true...it applies to all reference frames where we are trying to determine 'what happens there'!!!
    Now, here is what I will admit...I am not sure how to solve this.
    ETA; I meant what someone is going to need to do mathematically. I know how to solve the Time dilemma

    We know that Light travels at "c" in Vacua, and that all reference frames see it as so, unless it is curved by a massive object, BUT do we just have to accept that we have to 'figure out' what is happening at the Event Horizon, or whatever frame we are looking for 'what is happening there', OR is there a way to switch the maths around so it will show correctly, that Time is just flowing at the event horizon as the free faller see it.
    Last edited by RussT; 2007-Aug-31 at 09:38 AM.

  13. #73
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Posts
    6,208
    Quote Originally Posted by RussT View Post
    (And YES, I do understand!!! Playing the "MATH CARD" will not work anymore,...
    Hmmmmmm...

    Quote Originally Posted by RussT View Post
    OR is there a way to switch the maths around so it will show correctly, that Time is just flowing at the event horizon as the free faller see it.
    Does anyone else see the dichotomy in these two statements? I could give you a hint, but then, since you understand the math all so well, I guess we'll just have to wait until you find it.

    Quote Originally Posted by RussT View Post
    ....besides, it is Ad Hom to attack, what you or Tensor 'assume' is 'my understanding', with it!!),
    I'm not assuming anything. You have made statements to the fact that you don't understand the math and have demonstrated, that you don't understand, in the comments above and in other posts. As to whether or not it is an ad hom, your understanding or lack of understanding is directly related to your claims. You don't show, and have claimed you don't know, the math. This makes your claims rather shaky. As some of your comments directly contradict the actual math.

  14. #74
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Posts
    6,174
    Quote Originally Posted by RussT
    See, you are already using semantics here

    Photons/Light accelerates instantaneously to "c". (which by the way is impossible for electrons to magically accomplish!)
    I would disagree. Photons are created already moving at the speed of light. They don't get created first, and then accelerate. That answers Steve Limpus's question about photon acceleration as well. Photons don't accelerate, they are always moving at light speed from the moment they are created to the moment they are absorbed.

    Quote Originally Posted by RussT
    Sure it still scales...it is all robustly consistent mathematically. Infact, it is absolutely 'Crap your Pants' perfect, as Publius has been know to quip.

    However, it 'assumes' that the current defining of light/photons as having no 'rest frame' and experiencing no time, is correct, and that it is an invalid reference frame.
    Well, you're contradicting yourself here, since, as I've pointed out, if it assumes that the hypothetical rest frame of a photon is in fact not a valid reference frame, then we can't properly say anything about what time is doing in such a frame. But it's more important to point out that it doesn't actually matter what it assumes. The important part is that, after making those assumptions, the theory makes quantitative, measurable predictions about the results of various experiments, and that those results match what we see when we actually carry out those experiments.

    Quote Originally Posted by RussT
    I 100% agree that light/photons travel at a constant "c", In Vacua/Einstein 'empty universe', in all reference frames. However, you switched to 'light', where I said each individual photon.

    Each individual photon (wave) IS just sitting still, at 0 velocity, in/on its Point (Particle), which is carrying it at "c". BUT I don't even need to 'prove' that, to show what is really happening here. Also, even if you assume that the photon is really sitting in/on the 'particle', if you defined the particle the same way as you currently define light in its own frame, then the 'particle' could travelto infinity, instantly in its own frame, and that is still Impossible.

    ...

    SO, when the end result of assigning simultaneity to all photons in their light path, in lights reference frame, and 0 time that a photon experiences, in its own frame, results in photons/light being able to travel to infinity, instantly, in its own frame, YA gotta know that that is Impossible.
    For special relativity, there is no reference frame in which light can travel an infinite distance instantly. That's true whether we're using "classical" special relativity and treating light as a wave, or quantum electrodynamics (which incorporates special relativity), in which light can be considered to be composed of photons. If you want to create your own theory, where it is possible to have the rest frame of a photon, that might be a problem for your theory, but that doesn't make it so for relativity.

    Quote Originally Posted by RussT
    And then what happens...you/they just say that it is an INVALID reference frame, BUT YA want to keep all the dilation and contraction...and yes, when you do that, it all scales purr-fectly
    It's not that anyone wants to keep time dilation and length contraction. I think most physicists would have been happier if we could just use Newtonian mechanics. However, that doesn't match the results of experiment. We use special relativity because it works, not because we thought Einstein was a great guy.

    Quote Originally Posted by RussT
    SO, what happened, for this to become SOOOO acceptable? That light could travel clear across the universe instantaneously, in its own frame, and Time could 'freeze'? (btw, light/photons do freeze time in a way...when they hit the lens of any of our cameras/telescopes).
    Light doesn't travel instantaneously in any relativistic reference frame, and time doesn't "freeze" for any observer.

    Quote Originally Posted by RussT
    That darned 'Spaceship' and those thought experiments, and what would a stationary frame and a moving frame see at relavistic speeds...IT is ALL SCI-FI, and Einsteins SR convinced mainstream (Or I guess it would be more correct to say what is now mainstream), that you/they were seeing what is "REAL" from a 0 velocity position when you hold something stationary in the same reference frame.
    No, the thought experiments didn't change the mainstream view by themselves. It was the fact that the predictions based on those thought experiments match observation.

    Quote Originally Posted by RussT
    SO, sure, if you were sitting on the single photon, traveling at "c", you could not measure your speed, so you have to measure it from another frame to see the reality of it traveling at "c". Just like if you were sitting on the bullet, you could not measure reality from that frame, sitting on the bullet at 0 velocity in your own frame.
    You can't be sitting on a photon, travelling at the speed of light. However, you can be sitting on a bullet travelling along with it at some speed less than c, and you'll work out all the same laws of physics that you would if you were instead watching the bullet zip past you with some significant velocity. You may not like it, but it works.
    Conserve energy. Commute with the Hamiltonian.

  15. #75
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Posts
    6,174
    Quote Originally Posted by Tensor
    I'm gonna hold you to that.


    Quote Originally Posted by Tensor
    I have, what I think, is a really good example of this concerning Mercury's anomalous precession. While I realize that it is due to the non-linearity of the GR equations, expressed, in the math, as a second order effect of the power expansion series, I like to explain it as the difference between Newtonian Gravity (where mass creates gravity) and GR (where energy is the cause of gravity). One can point out that the energy of the Sun's gravitational field adds to the gravity caused by the Sun. This extra bit of energy causes the extra tug on Mercury, causing the precession. While this explanation is obviously not complete (for one, it ignores the elliptical component of Mercury's orbit), it illustrates some of the differences of the two theories and the non-linearity of the GR equations, for people who have no idea what a power expansion is.
    I'd agree that this is a good example. It makes sense to try to choose how you phrase something with your audience in mind, to try to get the main idea across without confusing them. Someone who has a few questions about relativity doesn't need the full-blown math of general relativity; that won't help them. Saying that time slows down more and more as you get closer to the speed of light, and that if you were going at the speed of light time wouldn't pass at all, gets across the idea, even if it's not rigorous. And yes, RussT should not then mistake it for a rigorous statement and try to critique it as though it were.
    Conserve energy. Commute with the Hamiltonian.

  16. #76
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Posts
    926
    As far as the "Star Trek" question...

    They would have a real problem going about the star systems and meeting up with old friends who stayed put.

    Ship time at even Warp 1 would be instantaneous. But from outside the ship, time would be measured as light-years. So when they arrived, they would be their steady-aged selves from whence they left, and those they arrived upon would have a history book (log-book) explaining who to look for in the future...

  17. #77
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    413

    Question

    Correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems the properties of photons have an awful lot to do with their mass-less nature (the ability to travel at 'c' and to accelerate instantaneoulsy etc) and as we think particles derive mass from the Higgs Field via the Higgs Boson, can anyone explain in layman's terms if/how the upcoming experiments at CERN are expected to inform our understanding of Relativity?

  18. #78
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Posts
    926
    Quote Originally Posted by Steve Limpus View Post
    Correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems the properties of photons have an awful lot to do with their mass-less nature (the ability to travel at 'c' and to accelerate instantaneoulsy etc) and as we think particles derive mass from the Higgs Field via the Higgs Boson, can anyone explain in layman's terms if/how the upcoming experiments at CERN are expected to inform our understanding of Relativity?
    Maybe.. but they will never see a photon INSTANTLY appear where they expect it from where it left.

    The photon is the one that experiences the "no time". Not the observer.

  19. #79
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    3,066
    Originally Posted by RussT
    OR is there a way to switch the maths around so it will show correctly, that Time is just flowing at the event horizon as the free faller see it.
    Quote Originally Posted by Tensor
    Does anyone else see the dichotomy in these two statements? I could give you a hint, but then, since you understand the math all so well, I guess we'll just have to wait until you find it.
    Uh, you left out the full context of the quote!
    Quote Originally Posted by RussT
    We know that Light travels at "c" in Vacua, and that all reference frames see it as so, unless it is curved by a massive object, BUT do we just have to accept that we have to 'figure out' what is happening at the Event Horizon, or whatever frame we are looking for 'what is happening there', OR is there a way to switch the maths around so it will show correctly, that Time is just flowing at the event horizon as the free faller see it.
    Yea, so I should have added to the last part of what you quoted...From our frame of reference.

    In other words, light/photons experience Time just like everything else in our universe. In fact we know that they experience 1 second for every 186, 000 miles they travel. Just because they are curved so strongly at the event horizon that they can no longer escape, does Not mean that time stops for them, even from our distant frame.

    BUT, the way the maths are configured now, Time is frozen at the event horizon, from a distance, and so just like I showed with KenG's example, and Cougars example in the 'hole in the universe' thread, and Publius' example of what the 'free faller' sees inside the event horizon, where for him space and time are not 'flipped'...we are always having to see 'reality' from their frame, The opposite, from our frame, of what the maths are showing is 'real'.

    SO, why does everyone keep switching to the 'other frame' to say what is 'really happening there', BUT then when it comes to the 'reality' of what the maths are showing, they insist it must be right from our 'stationary' frame?

    BUT, mainstream still wants to say that Time and Space are 'flipped' inside the event horizon, and that at the singularity, there is a 'repeling' - sign, that means that nothing can go straight through.

    AND, that is built right into the SR/GR equations, based on Einsteins concepts (Unless of course it has been switched from Einsteins orginal equations, to 'fit' the FLRW EFE) of what 'space' is made up of.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metric_..._relativity%29

    Originally Posted by Wiki
    In general relativity, the terms metric and line element are often used interchangeably.

    The line element ds2 imparts information about the causal structure of the spacetime. When ds2 < 0, the interval is timelike and the square root of the absolute value of ds2 is an incremental proper time. Only timelike intervals can be physically traversed by a massive object. When ds2 = 0, the interval is lightlike,and can only be traversed by light. When ds2 > 0, the interval is spacelike and the square root of ds2 acts as an incremental proper length. Spacelike intervals cannot be traversed, since they connect events that are out of each other's light cones. Events can be causally related only if they are within each other's light cones.

    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Wiki
    One of the core ideas of general relativity is that the metric (and the associated geometry of spacetime) is determined by the matter and energy content of spacetime. Einstein's famous field equations:
    The Bold in the first paragraph, should only apply once past/through the Ring Singularity, where the worm hole (Which is made up of "Exotic Matter" only) traverses to the white hole, that is 'leaking Gravity/Exotic Matter' to OUR universe at "c".

    That is where the light cones are seperated, and can have no causal effect, BUT the Exotic Matter can come our way, BUT nothing can go back that way, against 'space/time' coming to us. Don't thinking "Flipping" at the Ring Singularity...just space/time flowing to us at "c".

    As I have said many time now, Einstein did NOT have enough information to make the decisions he made about what 'space/time' is made up of...he did NOT know of 'Exotic Matter', SMBH's or Voids.

    I Shouln't have even used the term 'free faller', as SCI-FI'ing this whole thing is what has so convoluted everything in the first place.

    NO human or human built contraption could survive anywhere near a stellar black hole let alone a SMBH!

    As for the Maths...I have never said that I can do them, or even that I understand ALL of the maths being used, BUT I am saying that I DO understand what mainstream is saying about how the maths are being applied to the different regimes, and especially where those are at their most extreme.

    Let me ask you this...Do you still think that SMBH's are made the same as stellar black holes, but just more massive?

  20. #80
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    3,066
    Quote Originally Posted by Grey
    I would disagree. Photons are created already moving at the speed of light. They don't get created first, and then accelerate. That answers Steve Limpus's question about photon acceleration as well. Photons don't accelerate, they are always moving at light speed from the moment they are created to the moment they are absorbed.
    Ah, you are probably refering to the current paradigm of how photons are created inside of stars, where they take millions of years to make their way to the surface to be released.

    So please explain when you turn on your light in a dark room, how those trapped electrons are 'instantaneously' 'accelerating' those massless photons to 186,000mps in all/every directions?

    Quote Originally Posted by Grey
    Well, you're contradicting yourself here, since, as I've pointed out, if it assumes that the hypothetical rest frame of a photon is in fact not a valid reference frame, then we can't properly say anything about what time is doing in such a frame.
    I don't think I am the one doing the contradicting here. Let's look at what is actually being said here...

    You have said more than once...that light in its own frame is NOT a valid frame of reference, and now are saying...[then we can't properly say anything about what time is doing in such a frame.]

    AND, the same thing applies to defining light in its own frame as having zero velcocity in its reference frame because from that frame the photon is simultaneously along all points on it's path from source to sink. OR actually from source to Infinity.

    Now, the result of that, is that, in its own frame, no matter how far the trip for the individual photons is, it is Instantaneous, even 100 billion light yrs away...that's impossible, BUT...now you/they/your Profs all throughout your physics education, Insist, that because all the Maths work so well, in all other frames, that it is okay just to deem this, light in its own frame, that we can't really say anything about, because it is NOT a proper frame, Invalid. Just ignore it, and declare it meaningless.

    If it is an Invalid, meaningless frame, then we should NOT define anything in it at all, Period.

    We know that Light/Photons travel at "c" in Vacua at 186,000mps. And that there is the Shapiro Effect when massive objects are involved.

  21. #81
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Posts
    6,174
    Quote Originally Posted by RussT
    Ah, you are probably refering to the current paradigm of how photons are created inside of stars, where they take millions of years to make their way to the surface to be released.
    Um, no. I'm talking about any photons created anywhere by any process.

    Quote Originally Posted by RussT
    So please explain when you turn on your light in a dark room, how those trapped electrons are 'instantaneously' 'accelerating' those massless photons to 186,000mps in all/every directions?
    I already said that photons aren't accelerated. When they are created, they're moving at light speed. That's the only way a photon can move. Creating a photon and accelerating to light speed are not two separate steps.

    Quote Originally Posted by RussT
    I don't think I am the one doing the contradicting here. Let's look at what is actually being said here...

    You have said more than once...that light in its own frame is NOT a valid frame of reference, and now are saying...[then we can't properly say anything about what time is doing in such a frame.]
    That's true. And it doesn't especially hurt that we can't say anything about the rate of time in such a hypothetical reference frame, because there's no way we can move any kind of clock at light speed to see how it behaves. There are clocks that we can get to mvoe very fast relative to us: unstable particles with some well-defined half life. But all such particles have mass, and never move at light speed.

    Quote Originally Posted by RussT
    AND, the same thing applies to defining light in its own frame as having zero velcocity in its reference frame because from that frame the photon is simultaneously along all points on it's path from source to sink. OR actually from source to Infinity.
    Not really. Even if we take the really loose interpretation of the math and apply special relativistic equations where they don't really belong (and ignore or avoid the division by zero that we'll run across), the points from source to sink end up being the same. That is, just as we'd observe time to pass arbitrarily slowly for an observer moving arbitrarily close to light speed, an observer so moving would see the universe length contracted by an arbitrary amount, so that the distance from source to sink becomes arbitrarily short. Or, in the casual phrasing someone might use, it's okay that no time passes for a photon, because it doesn't travel any distance.

    Quote Originally Posted by RussT
    Now, the result of that, is that, in its own frame, no matter how far the trip for the individual photons is, it is Instantaneous, even 100 billion light yrs away...that's impossible, BUT...now you/they/your Profs all throughout your physics education, Insist, that because all the Maths work so well, in all other frames, that it is okay just to deem this, light in its own frame, that we can't really say anything about, because it is NOT a proper frame, Invalid. Just ignore it, and declare it meaningless.

    If it is an Invalid, meaningless frame, then we should NOT define anything in it at all, Period.
    We don't. We don't "define" anything in any reference frame. All the properties that we ascribe to photons are as determined from the reference frame of an observer watching the photon go by, not from the perspective of the photon itself.

    Special relativity tells us that if different observers are moving differently, they will measure different times and distances between the same events. The math tells us how to take the measurements one observer might get, together with information about how a second observer is moving relative to the first, and figure out what that second observer would measure. It works really well. It does not, however, actually allow us to figure out what an observer moving past us at light speed might see. That's not a big problem, though, because we also know that it's not actually possible for such an observer to exist.

    Quote Originally Posted by RussT
    We know that Light/Photons travel at "c" in Vacua at 186,000mps. And that there is the Shapiro Effect when massive objects are involved.
    That's true. The Shapiro effect is a general relativistic effect, which I assumed we weren't getting into, given the title of this thread.
    Conserve energy. Commute with the Hamiltonian.

  22. #82
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    413
    I just came across this piece, on the SLAC (Stanford Linear Accelerator Center) website; it talks about real world relativistic effects inside their accelerator:

    http://www2.slac.stanford.edu/vvc/th...elativity.html

    Peculiar Relativistic Effects
    Length Contraction and Time Dilation


    One of the strangest parts of special relativity is the conclusion that two observers who are moving relative to one another, will get different measurements of the length of a particular object or the time that passes between two events.

    Consider two observers, each in a space-ship laboratory containing clocks and meter sticks. The space ships are moving relative to each other at a speed close to the speed of light. Using Einstein's theory:

    Each observer will see the meter stick of the other as shorter than their own, by the same factor gamma. This is called length contraction.
    Each observer will see the clocks in the other laboratory as ticking more slowly than the clocks in his/her own, by a factor gamma. This is called time dilation.
    In particle accelerators, particles are moving very close to the speed of light where the length and time effects are large. This has allowed us to clearly verify that length contraction and time dilation do occur.

    Time Dilation for Particles

    Particle processes have an intrinsic clock that determines the half-life of a decay process. However, the rate at which the clock ticks in a moving frame, as observed by a static observer, is slower than the rate of a static clock. Therefore, the half-life of a moving particles appears, to the static observer, to be increased by the factor gamma.

    For example, let's look at a particle sometimes created at SLAC known as a tau. In the frame of reference where the tau particle is at rest, its lifetime is known to be approximately 3.05 x 10-13 s. To calculate how far it travels before decaying, we could try to use the familiar equation distance equals speed times time. It travels so close to the speed of light that we can use c = 3x108 m/sec for the speed of the particle. (As we will see below, the speed of light in a vacuum is the highest speed attainable.) If you do the calculation you find the distance traveled should be 9.15 x 10-5 meters.

    d = v t

    d = (3 x 108 m/sec)( 3.05 x 10-13 s) = 9.15 x 10-5 m

    Here comes the weird part - we measure the tau particle to travel further than this!

    Pause to think about that for a moment. This result is totally contradictory to everyday experience. If you are not puzzled by it, either you already know all about relativity or you have not been reading carefully.

    What is the resolution of this apparent paradox? The answer lies in time dilation. In our laboratory, the tau particle is moving. The decay time of the tau can be seen as a moving clock. According to relativity, moving clocks tick more slowly than static clocks.

    We use this fact to multiply the time of travel in the taus moving frame by gamma, this gives the time that we will measure. Then this time times c, the approximate speed of the tau, will give us the distance we expect a high energy tau to travel.

    What is gamma in this case? It depends on the tau's energy. A typical SLAC tau particle has a gamma = 20. Therefore, we detect the tau to decay in an average distance of 20 x (9.15 x 10-5 m) = 1.8 x 10-3 m or approximately 1.8 millimeters. This is 20 times further than we expect it to go if we use classical rather than relativistic physics. (Of course, we actually observe a spread of decay times according to the exponential decay law and a corresponding spread of distances. In fact, we use the measured distribution of distances to find the tau half-life.)

    Observations particles with a variety of velocities have shown that time dilation is a real effect. In fact the only reason cosmic ray muons ever reach the surface of the earth before decaying is the time dilation effect.


    Length Contraction

    Instead of analyzing the motion of the tau from our frame of reference, we could ask what the tau would see in its reference frame. Its half-life in its reference frame is 3.05 x 10-13 s. This does not change. The tau goes nowhere in this frame.

    How far would an observer, sitting in the tau rest frame, see an observer in our laboratory frame move while the tau lives?

    We just calculated that the tau would travel 1.8 mm in our frame of reference. Surely we would expect the observer in the tau frame to see us move the same distance relative to the tau particle. Not so says the tau-frame observer -- you only moved 1.8 mm/gamma = 0.09 mm relative to me. This is length contraction.

    How long did the tau particle live according to the observer in the tau frame? We can rearrange d = v x t to read t = d/v. Here we use the same speed, Because the speed of the observer in the lab relative to the tau is just equal to (but in the opposite direction) of the speed of the tau relative to the observer in the lab, so we can use the same speed. So time = 0.09 x 10-3 m/(3 x 108)m/sec = 3.0 x 10-13 sec. This is the half-life of the tau as seen in its rest frame, just as it should be!


    Hope someone finds it useful.

  23. #83
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Posts
    2
    Is modern cosmology science or folklore?

    From American Scientist. Casts doubts into relativity theory in general.

    http://www.americanscientist.org/tem...839?&print=yes

  24. #84
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    3,066
    Quote Originally Posted by Grey
    That's true. And it doesn't especially hurt that we can't say anything about the rate of time in such a hypothetical reference frame,
    Well then, since it is such a hypothetical reference frame, there is absolutely no way that it makes any sense what-so-ever, to make the 'assumption' that light is simultaneous at all points along it path to Infinity, or source to sink.

    Quote Originally Posted by Grey
    When they are created, they're moving at light speed.
    How does the electron accomplish that? When I flip the switch to turn on my light, the electrons emit photons, right at the source of the bulb.

    Quote Originally Posted by Grey
    Not really. Even if we take the really loose interpretation of the math and apply special relativistic equations where they don't really belong (and ignore or avoid the division by zero that we'll run across), the points from source to sink end up being the same.
    Grey, If I were using the same arguement here that you are, on anything I was trying to show, here is what you would say to me...

    [Even if we take the really loose interpretation of the math and apply special relativistic equations where they don't really belong (and ignore or avoid the division by zero that we'll run across), the points from source to sink end up being the same.]

    You cannot use the theory as a proven, to try and make a point as to its initial postulate.

    And yes, that division by 0 is telling , isn't it. Besides, by defining light as simultaneous at every point along its path source to sink, or to Infinity, in effect, makes light motionless, since in its own frame, it is instantaneous at any distance for points A and B, and you just said...[I already said that photons aren't accelerated. When they are created, they're moving at light speed. That's the only way a photon can move. Creating a photon and accelerating to light speed are not two separate steps.]

    Quote Originally Posted by Grey
    That is, just as we'd observe time to pass arbitrarily slowly for an observer moving arbitrarily close to light speed, an observer so moving would see the universe length contracted by an arbitrary amount, so that the distance from source to sink becomes arbitrarily short. Or, in the casual phrasing someone might use, it's okay that no time passes for a photon, because it doesn't travel any distance.
    Which makes this circular reasoning.

    As I have said, there are really only two choices.

    Either redo the Maths to eliminate that 0, OR, what all of this really means is that we have to see the Reality...'what's really happening', from the perspective of the 'other frame'.

    BUT, that's not the only thing that is happening here. This 'stationary frame' business, coupled with the SCI-FI spaceship traveling relavistically, or the 'stationary train station' seeing massive/macro objects moving relavistically, and THEN try to say we are seeing 'reality' when that moving relavistically onject is in "Its Rest Frame'...does NOT work...you cannot have two things at rest and "SEE REALITY"

    Defining Light as simultaneous at all points along its path...setting the speed of light to 0 in its own frame, and then defining it as experiencing 0 time in its own frame, is setting the whole universe to 0, and then redefining it, based on a totally wrong assumptions, because they were so convinced that time dilation and Lorentz contraction was "REAL"...

    We absolutely know that light cannot be instantaneous across any distance, IN ANY FRAME!

  25. #85
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Posts
    6,174
    Quote Originally Posted by RussT
    Well then, since it is such a hypothetical reference frame, there is absolutely no way that it makes any sense what-so-ever, to make the 'assumption' that light is simultaneous at all points along it path to Infinity, or source to sink.
    Yes, I'd actually agree with that.

    Quote Originally Posted by RussT
    How does the electron accomplish that? When I flip the switch to turn on my light, the electrons emit photons, right at the source of the bulb.
    To be honest, I don't think anyone knows the answer to that question. Charged objects can interact through the electromagnetic force, producing or absorbing photons in the process. But I don't think we know why charged objects can do that. I'm not even certain if there's a way to ever know that. We know some of the mechanisms involved, and can give a lot of the details of what happens, but that's it.

    Quote Originally Posted by RussT
    Grey, If I were using the same arguement here that you are, on anything I was trying to show, here is what you would say to me...

    [Even if we take the really loose interpretation of the math and apply special relativistic equations where they don't really belong (and ignore or avoid the division by zero that we'll run across), the points from source to sink end up being the same.]

    You cannot use the theory as a proven, to try and make a point as to its initial postulate.
    I'm not making a point about the original postulate, merely extrapolating the results of the theory. If (ignoring the advice of rigorous mathematicians ) you decide to take the limit of the relativistic equations of motion as the object in question approaches the speed of light, and take that limit as a real representation of what happens at the speed of light, you'll find that an observer moving along with the light would record no time passing between emission and absorption. However, you would also find that such a hypothetical observer would measure the distance between the point of emission and absorption as zero. So, the proper time measured in travelling nowhere is zero. Which makes a certain amount of sense.

    Quote Originally Posted by RussT
    And yes, that division by 0 is telling , isn't it. Besides, by defining light as simultaneous at every point along its path source to sink, or to Infinity, in effect, makes light motionless, since in its own frame, it is instantaneous at any distance for points A and B, and you just said...[I already said that photons aren't accelerated. When they are created, they're moving at light speed. That's the only way a photon can move. Creating a photon and accelerating to light speed are not two separate steps.]
    Yes, the division by zero tells us that if we want to heed the advice of the rigorous mathematicians, we really shouldn't be trying to do coordinate transforms into the rest frame of a photon in the first place. If we don't try to do that, then we aren't defining light as simultaneously at every point along its path. In any reference frame an observer can be in, light is moving at c along its path.

    Quote Originally Posted by RussT
    As I have said, there are really only two choices.

    Either redo the Maths to eliminate that 0, OR, what all of this really means is that we have to see the Reality...'what's really happening', from the perspective of the 'other frame'.
    Neither of those choices is a good one. If we change the math to eliminate the zero, we'll end up with equations that don't accurately predict what we'll measure at speeds less than c, which is eminently testable. And trying to understand what reality is like from the perspective of an observer that cannot possibly exist isn't going to work, since there's no way we can ever test any of our ideas, even in principle. Of course, there's a third possibility. We can stop trying to bring up philosophic objections to special relativity because it doesn't allow us to predict how the universe behaves from the perspective of an observer that cannot exist accordin gto the theory, and instead accept that it makes sense to only try to describe the universe from the perspetive of observers that can exist.

    Quote Originally Posted by RussT
    BUT, that's not the only thing that is happening here. This 'stationary frame' business, coupled with the SCI-FI spaceship traveling relavistically, or the 'stationary train station' seeing massive/macro objects moving relavistically, and THEN try to say we are seeing 'reality' when that moving relavistically onject is in "Its Rest Frame'...does NOT work...you cannot have two things at rest and "SEE REALITY"
    Except that it does work. Every test that we've done of relativity works out.

    Quote Originally Posted by RussT
    Defining Light as simultaneous at all points along its path...setting the speed of light to 0 in its own frame, and then defining it as experiencing 0 time in its own frame, is setting the whole universe to 0, and then redefining it, based on a totally wrong assumptions, because they were so convinced that time dilation and Lorentz contraction was "REAL"...
    Whether this is true or not is irrelevant, because as I've pointed out several times, we do not define light as being at rest in its own frame, because we do not even define such a frame in the first place. In special relativity, light moves at a speed of c in every possible reference frame. That's one of the founding postulates.

    Quote Originally Posted by RussT
    We absolutely know that light cannot be instantaneous across any distance, IN ANY FRAME!
    And it's not. In any valid reference frame, light moves at a finite speed. And even if you want to allow bending the rules and permit invalid reference frames, light never travels any nonzero distance instantaneously.
    Conserve energy. Commute with the Hamiltonian.

  26. #86
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    413
    Quote Originally Posted by StateBoiler View Post
    Is modern cosmology science or folklore?

    From American Scientist. Casts doubts into relativity theory in general.

    http://www.americanscientist.org/tem...839?&print=yes
    Interesting article. I think it is challenging the concepts of inflation, dark matter and dark energy; more so than relativity.

    I'm a little dubious though. I'm sure cosmologists would agree there is a lot of work to be done; and I just don't think it's all that clever to have a crack at the 'problems' of the current theory (which everyone acknowledges) when one doesn't have a better theory. What is the writers' point? Would he rather just disregard all the work of the last century, during which the big bang model smacked down all the competing theories? Methinks the writer may well be proposing to throw out the baby with the bath water.

    Enjoyed reading it nonetheless, a degree of skepticism can only be healthy.

    Just my $0.02.

  27. #87
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    3,066
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by StateBoiler
    Is modern cosmology science or folklore?

    From American Scientist. Casts doubts into relativity theory in general.

    http://www.americanscientist.org/tem...839?&print=yes

    Quote Originally Posted by Steve Limpus
    Interesting article. I think it is challenging the concepts of inflation, dark matter and dark energy; more so than relativity.
    Special Relativity is intimately tied into all cosmology, and is infact more tied into the expansion/redshift definitions, more so than GR.

    BUT this was Stateboilers 1st post on BAUT, so I am sure he doesn't realize that there are probably other threads already covering what he linked to.

    Please go to this thread to discuss those much broader concerns. Thanks Guys.

    http://www.bautforum.com/astronomy/6...his-heart.html

  28. #88
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    3,066
    QUOTE]
    Originally Posted by RussT
    Well then, since it is such a hypothetical reference frame, there is absolutely no way that it makes any sense what-so-ever, to make the 'assumption' that light is simultaneous at all points along it path to Infinity, or source to sink.[/QUOTE]

    Quote Originally Posted by Grey
    Yes, I'd actually agree with that.
    Thank you. Some kind of common sense has to prevail here. I Know we need to be extremely careful with that term...common sense, BUT there are some things that just have to be impossible, and again, using the term impossible with extreme caution.

    Originally Posted by RussT
    How does the electron accomplish that? When I flip the switch to turn on my light, the electrons emit photons, right at the source of the bulb.
    Quote Originally Posted by Grey
    To be honest, I don't think anyone knows the answer to that question.
    Finally

    Quote Originally Posted by Grey
    But I don't think we know why charged objects can do that. We know some of the mechanisms involved, and can give a lot of the details of what happens, but that's it.
    Yes, as far as I know also, there is no known mechanism that can account for the emission of photons at the source, in this case the light bulb, where the emission by the electrons result in an instantaneous speed for those photons of 186,000mps.

    Quote Originally Posted by Grey
    I'm not even certain if there's a way to ever know that.
    And you have been doing so well to argue against this 'unscientific' view in the "Spookie Matter at a Distance" thread Don't go KenG on me now

    In fact, it is actually the two definitions we are talking about (Light simultaneous at all points in its path and 0 time for photons) that is preventing 'finding the "mechanism" for definitively explaning this.

    Quote Originally Posted by Grey
    I'm not making a point about the original postulate, merely extrapolating the results of the theory.
    And, you know you can't do that This is first principles we are talking about here.

    Quote Originally Posted by Grey
    If (ignoring the advice of rigorous mathematicians ) you decide to take the limit of the relativistic equations of motion as the object in question approaches the speed of light, and take that limit as a real representation of what happens at the speed of light, you'll find that an observer moving along with the light would record no time passing between emission and absorption.
    Yes, I have already agreed that it is 'crap your pants' Purr-fect mathematically

    BUT, that would only be true IF you include the definition of light being simultaneous at all points along its path. Again we "KNOW" it is not, which you agreed to in the first part of this post.

    [QUOTE=Grey]
    However, you would also find that such a hypothetical observer would measure the distance between the point of emission and absorption as zero. So, the proper time measured in travelling nowhere is zero. Which makes a certain amount of sense.[/QUOTE]

    Now, you can use the arguement you gave me above, about 'sense'...it only makes a certain amount of sense, in this case, because you already defined that light was simultaneous at all points along its path to infinity or source to sink.

    Quote Originally Posted by Grey
    Yes, the division by zero tells us that if we want to heed the advice of the rigorous mathematicians, we really shouldn't be trying to do coordinate transforms into the rest frame of a photon in the first place.
    Nope. Again, it is not about the Maths...they are perfect. It IS about the interpretation. And as I said, when it come to the very extremes, that's where you can really determine if you are on the right track, with the proper understanding.

    They/Einstein/Lorentz/whomever did NOT make the assumptions of 'light is simultaneous at all point along it path', and 'light experiences no time in its own frame' as priori and then see what that would mean in other frames!!!

    In other words, Einstein came up with light as a Constant "c" in Vacua, and THEN did the thought experiments, with a Macro Object, a spaceship...and what would be 'seen' in "REST FRAMES" at relavistic speeds.

    This has more than 1 major problem....first, show me a spaceship that can go .6/.8/.99% of "c"...please, I would like to see the 'experiments' you guys are always talking about , BUT secondly, and more importantly, when they did all of the time dilation, simultaneity, Lorentz contracting, even though it all worked mathematically, when they had ro go back to 'light in its own frame' and make those 'hindsight' definitions of light being simultaneous at all points along it path, and photons experience NO TIme, That is what tell you it MUST be wrong, because both of those are Impossible!!! Even in light own Frame!!!

    And then, when you come to the things I have shown, about numerous learned people saying that things are actually opposite of what the 'rest frame' from our frame is showing, it becomes clear.

    Originally Posted by RussT
    In addition this is NOT a trivial or 'be careful' evaluation of what happens in 'reference frames', and ultimately what it really means.


    Quote:
    Originally Posted by KenG From post 18...
    We must avoid the illusions that come from taking what is happening in our frame, transforming to the photon frame where it all stacks up on top of itself and looks just like a point, and then reason from that point what should happen when we transform back to our reference frame.

    Quote:
    Originally Post by RussT
    You just described what they are doing when Time is 'frozen' at the event horizon of a black hole. Didn't You?

    Quote:
    Originally Posted by KenG
    Yes, very much so. Saying time is "frozen" at an event horizon is also extremely misleading, but in a somewhat different way. It is impossible to enter the frame of the photon to see that "frozen" time, whereas you can be in the frame of something at an event horizon-- and if you do, time isn't frozen at all.

    Quote:
    Originally Posted by RussT
    There are only two options with this 'what is happening at the point of the reference frame where we are trying to determine, based on the MAths, what is happening there.

    1. when we get to the refrence frame where we are trying to determine, 'what is happening there', we MUST decide that the 'Opposite' of what the maths is showing us is 'what is happening', just as KenG showed above. That is NOT just a matter of 'being careful'!!!
    or 2. The maths need to be refigured in a way that DOES show the reality of what is happening there.

    Everyone has always assumed that that scenario was only applicable at the Event Horizon of a black hole, BUT that is NOT true...it applies to all reference frames where we are trying to determine 'what happens there'!!!
    Quote Originally Posted by Grey
    Neither of those choices is a good one. If we change the math to eliminate the zero, we'll end up with equations that don't accurately predict what we'll measure at speeds less than c, which is eminently testable. And trying to understand what reality is like from the perspective of an observer that cannot possibly exist isn't going to work, since there's no way we can ever test any of our ideas, even in principle. Of course, there's a third possibility. We can stop trying to bring up philosophic objections to special relativity because it doesn't allow us to predict how the universe behaves from the perspective of an observer that cannot exist accordin gto the theory, and instead accept that it makes sense to only try to describe the universe from the perspetive of observers that can exist.
    Yes, this is what Publius asked grav to do also, and what every Physics teacher has done since ???

    However, this just assumes it must be right, and because the Maths work flawlessly, let's just ignore two things that are Absolutely Impossible...

    There is most definitely another possibility...Understand that those two things are Impossible, and that setting everything for light and time to 0 in its own frame, is a manipulation that allows for the redefining of light and time to SUIT the way you 'think' it is working, and just forget the SCI-FI spaceship and what humans can 'see' measure IF they were able to get to relavistic speeds, and just start from the premise trhat Light is traveling at "c" in Vacua, and that all reference frames that we are measuring actual celestial phenomena in have light moveing at "c", unless it is curved by massive bodies...ponderable matter . Forget the spaceships hovering at Event Horizons, ropes between relavistic spaceships, time dilated trips to far away places, ETC ETC ETC.

    IF, this MUST be done on some level, then understand that those two things are Impossible and realize that Space and Time are "Dimensionless"...they are BOTH constants...
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundamental_physical_constant

    Quote Originally Posted by Wiki
    In physics, dimensionless or fundamental physical constants are, in the strictest sense, universal physical constants that are independent of systems of units and hence are dimensionless quantities.
    BUT, alas, the problems are even much deeper that this, and it is so integrated into everything cosmological, and all the way down to QM, that I don't know how it is ever going to be rectified, other than starting all over from scratch. There are many things that are the opposite of what is currently thought, not just the 'other reference frame' is where to see 'what is really happening'.

    There is "Definitely" a Medium that is traveling at "c" that is carrying the photons. That IS the 'Mechanism' for how electrons can emit light/photons that instantly are traveling at "c"...regardless if you believe me about where they are coming from.

    The MMX DID NOT disprove a medium that is traveling at "c" in ALL/EVERY direction, that can go 'right through' ALL baryonic Matter!!!

    BUT, here is the biggest current problem that mainstream has, that this 'Medium' and where it is coming from, and what it is doing will solve.

    And Sorry, but another reason I know SR needs to be changed.

    Currently, ALL light/photons are 'wave' 'particle' and since E=MC^2, that means that the Higgs (Or whatever turns out to be the 'real' gravity 'particle') mass is embedded IN the photons. In the Primordial universe, the electrons/protons/Neutrons are "Already" in existence, and their collisions are what is causing the High Energy Gamma Radiation, until it all cools enough so that the hydrogen I can form.

    SO, since ALL frequencies and energy levels of photons have gravity in them...relavistic mass, how are you/they ever going to seperate the gravity particle from the photons??? That is the ONLY way to Unify GR and QFT
    Last edited by RussT; 2007-Aug-31 at 10:28 AM.

  29. #89
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Posts
    6,208
    Quote Originally Posted by RussT View Post
    BUT, the way the maths are configured now, Time is frozen at the event horizon, from a distance, and so just like I showed with KenG's example, and Cougars example in the 'hole in the universe' thread, and Publius' example of what the 'free faller' sees inside the event horizon, where for him space and time are not 'flipped'...we are always having to see 'reality' from their frame, The opposite, from our frame, of what the maths are showing is 'real'.

    You obviously missed this in my last post:

    Quote Originally Posted by Tensor
    Quote Originally Posted by RussT View Post
    OR is there a way to switch the maths around so it will show correctly, that Time is just flowing at the event horizon as the free faller see it.
    I could give you a hint, but then, since you understand the math all so well, I guess we'll just have to wait until you find it.

    Quote Originally Posted by RussT View Post
    SO, why does everyone keep switching to the 'other frame' to say what is 'really happening there', BUT then when it comes to the 'reality' of what the maths are showing, they insist it must be right from our 'stationary' frame?
    Because what is real is different for the two observers.

    Quote Originally Posted by RussT View Post
    BUT, mainstream still wants to say that Time and Space are 'flipped' inside the event horizon, and that at the singularity, there is a 'repeling' - sign, that means that nothing can go straight through.
    I suggest you do some research. I'll even give you a hint. The singularity at the event horizon only shows up in Schwartzchild coordinates and remember GR can use any coordinates.

    Quote Originally Posted by RussT View Post
    AND, that is built right into the SR/GR equations, based on Einsteins concepts (Unless of course it has been switched from Einsteins orginal equations, to 'fit' the FLRW EFE) of what 'space' is made up of.
    The actual theory and math says nothing about what space-time is made of. Only that it can be warped.

    Quote Originally Posted by RussT View Post
    The Bold in the first paragraph, should only apply once past/through the Ring Singularity, where the worm hole (Which is made up of "Exotic Matter" only) traverses to the white hole, that is 'leaking Gravity/Exotic Matter' to OUR universe at "c".
    Here's the bold:

    When ds2 = 0, the interval is lightlike,and can only be traversed by light.

    What is your understanding of a lightlike interval?

    Quote Originally Posted by RussT View Post
    That is where the light cones are seperated, and can have no causal effect, BUT the Exotic Matter can come our way, BUT nothing can go back that way, against 'space/time' coming to us. Don't thinking "Flipping" at the Ring Singularity...just space/time flowing to us at "c".
    And beyond your say so, what proof do you have? The math says something different and I'll have to go with the math until you can provide something more than your say so.

    Quote Originally Posted by RussT View Post
    As I have said many time now, Einstein did NOT have enough information to make the decisions he made about what 'space/time' is made up of...he did NOT know of 'Exotic Matter', SMBH's or Voids.
    What is your definition of exotic matter?

    Quote Originally Posted by RussT View Post
    I Shouln't have even used the term 'free faller', as SCI-FI'ing this whole thing is what has so convoluted everything in the first place.
    Nothing is Sci-fi in either Grey's or my explanations and free faller is a particular apt term, since that desginates an observer who is follwoing an inertial path through spacetime. What is so convoluted is your understanding.

    Quote Originally Posted by RussT View Post
    NO human or human built contraption could survive anywhere near a stellar black hole let alone a SMBH!
    Again, you need to do some research as it is more difficult to survive near the event horizon of a stellar mass black hole. Again, you might want to do some research.

    Quote Originally Posted by RussT View Post
    As for the Maths...I have never said that I can do them, or even that I understand ALL of the maths being used, BUT I am saying that I DO understand what mainstream is saying about how the maths are being applied to the different regimes, and especially where those are at their most extreme.
    No, what you understand are the simplified explanations the mainstream gives out to those who don't understand the actual math of the theory. If you actually understood the math, you wouldn't be making some of the claims you make.

    Quote Originally Posted by RussT View Post
    Let me ask you this...Do you still think that SMBH's are made the same as stellar black holes, but just more massive?
    There are thought to be three or four (or more) different ways to create a supermassive black hole. One is simply a stellar mass black hole that continues to accrete matter. So, in that case, the answer is yes.

  30. #90
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    3,066
    Quote Originally Posted by Tensor
    You obviously missed this in my last post:
    Sorry. I gave a long response in post #79 to your last post and thought my explanation covered everything.

    Quote Originally Posted by Tensor
    Because what is real is different for the two observers.
    I understand that. What is the one major objection that keeps surfacing over and over about black holes, and is the major reason that ECO/MECO/GravaStars even became part of the what ifs...besides the singularity at r=0....That since time is frozen at the event horizon, the black hole can never even form from our perspective/reference frame...Right?

    I am saying that Our perspective/reference frame should see time flowing right into the event horizon.

    And if the Maths were built on the correct perspective, that nasty little - sign would disappear. That would be the - sign at the singularity inside the event horizon where the 'repeling' happens, so nothing can go straight through a Ring Singularity, so the worm hole is actually a 'side door', that then leads to a white hole. That side door worm hole>white hole is actually what leads to the confusion about white holes being able to possibly spew baryonic matter.

    Now, orginally I just thought that the Big Bang 'starting time' with an Schwarzschild inside solution of an expanding Naked Singularity was the culprit for the 'flipping of time and space' inside a SMBH, BUT Tim actually taught me something there, by insisting that I needed a "Metric", and when I researched that I found the real reason he was objecting...

    Originally Posted by Wiki
    In general relativity, the terms metric and line element are often used interchangeably.

    The line element ds2 imparts information about the causal structure of the spacetime. When ds2 < 0, the interval is timelike and the square root of the absolute value of ds2 is an incremental proper time. Only timelike intervals can be physically traversed by a massive object. When ds2 = 0, the interval is lightlike,and can only be traversed by light. When ds2 > 0, the interval is spacelike and the square root of ds2 acts as an incremental proper length. Spacelike intervals cannot be traversed, since they connect events that are out of each other's light cones. Events can be causally related only if they are within each other's light cones.

    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Wiki
    One of the core ideas of general relativity is that the metric (and the associated geometry of spacetime) is determined by the matter and energy content of spacetime. Einstein's famous field equations:
    Einstein was making decisions about Space and Time without understanding either.

    Originally Posted by RussT
    BUT, mainstream still wants to say that Time and Space are 'flipped' inside the event horizon, and that at the singularity, there is a 'repeling' - sign, that means that nothing can go straight through.
    Quote Originally Posted by Tensor
    I suggest you do some research. I'll even give you a hint. The singularity at the event horizon only shows up in Schwartzchild coordinates and remember GR can use any coordinates.
    We may be talking past each other here...I am not talking about a singularity at the event horizon...infact, I realize that it is redshift to infinty that is the Time Frozen at the event horizon, and I am still saying that Time should be flowing right through the event horizon.

    BUT, incase you are still objecting to what I am saying mainstream says about the 'flipping' of space and time inside the event horizon, and the repeling at the singularity...

    Quote Originally Posted by Tim Thompson
    I do get that it is what you say, but I am not at all convinced that it is a reasonable claim. Look at the Schwarzschild metric for a non-rotating black hole. If the radial coordinate r becomes less than the Schwarzschild radius rs, then the term (1-r/rs) becomes negative, and the formerly space-like coordinate (plus sign) becomes a time-like coordinate (negative sign) and vice-versa. So we don't just "flip" space and time for the heck of it, or because we are too narrow minded, or whatever. We "flip" space and time because it is a necessary consequence of the metric. So long as we use any of the standard black hole metrics (Schwarzschild, Kerr, Kerr-Newman, Reisner-Nordstrom and whatever else there may be), then a necessary and unavoidable consequence is that space & time "flip", whether you, we, or anyone else likes it or not.
    And, I am saying that Einsteins defining of light as simultaneous at all points along its path to infinity, and photons experiencing NO TIME in its own frame, and THEN determining that light in its own frame is NOT a valid inertial frame, is the mathematical culprit of all of this...

    If we look at this...
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inertia...e_of_reference
    Quote Originally Posted by Wiki
    Einstein's theory of special relativity likewise assumes the equivalence of all inertial reference frames, but makes a different additional assumption, namely, that the speed of light is the same when measured in all inertial reference frames.
    Quote Originally Posted by Wiki
    And then...Hence, with respect to an inertial frame, an object or body accelerates only when a physical force is applied, and (following Newton's first law of motion), in the absence of a net force, a body at rest will remain at rest and a body in motion will continue to move uniformly—i.e. in a straight line and at constant speed.
    Then, quite simply, light considered as the 'particle' and not the 'wave', meets the definition of being 'inertial' even in its own frame

    Quote Originally Posted by Tensor
    The actual theory and math says nothing about what space-time is made of. Only that it can be warped.
    This is just flat wrong!
    Originally Posted by Wiki
    One of the core ideas of general relativity is that the metric (and the associated geometry of spacetime) is determined by the matter and energy content of spacetime. Einstein's famous field equations:
    I fully understand that this was a natural thing to do, BUT as I have said repeatedly, Einstein DID NOT have enough information to actually make this statement as fact...he did not know about Non-Baryonic DM/Exotic Matter!

    Quote Originally Posted by Tensor
    Here's the bold:

    When ds2 = 0, the interval is lightlike,and can only be traversed by light.

    What is your understanding of a lightlike interval?


    Quote:
    Originally Posted by RussT
    That is where the light cones are seperated, and can have no causal effect, BUT the Exotic Matter can come our way, BUT nothing can go back that way, against 'space/time' coming to us. Don't thinking "Flipping" at the Ring Singularity...just space/time flowing to us at "c".

    And beyond your say so, what proof do you have? The math says something different and I'll have to go with the math until you can provide something more than your say so.
    Ya Got Me... actually I blew this one because I misread it...I thought it had said Non-light-like path...actually I was thinking more olonf the lines of causality must be within light cones scenario, and that wouldn't be true if "Exotic Matter" were traveling through a worm hole to us...there would be causality with NO light cone present. I really shouln't have used it at all because I know that is not what this math is saying.

    Quote Originally Posted by Tensor
    What is your definition of exotic matter?
    I think you have read enough of my stuff to have a pretty good idea
    First, it is the 'extra gravity'/Exotic Matter that mainstream hypothesized as the answer for the rotation curves of the galaxies and the cluster dynamics.

    And now comes a long and arduous discussion of the differences between HDM abd CDM, and why maintsream came up with the WIMP, and DM Halos, and "SIMS", and 200+ DM halos predicted for dwarf galaxies to be in, per galaxy, ETC, ETC...

    BUT, since my initial correlation is that when our SMBH's are created, the High Energy Gamma Radiation that is produced is how the electrons/protons get their mass, that allows ne to think very differently about the Darkness and the initial conditions of the universe...SO, I made a very straight forward and what I think is a remarkable correlation...That the Non-baryonic Point Particle DM is Lisa Randall's "Leaking Gravity" from the 'other universe', it IS the 'extra gravity' and makes up ALL of 'space', is traveling at "c", and is the carrier of the EM waves.

    That Exotic Matter traveling at "c", IS the inertial straight line motion in Every/All directions, that carries the light/photons and matches the defintion above perfectly. That is the "Particle" part of the lights 'wave' 'particle' duality.

    You and Grey have dealt more with my work in progress over the last 2 years more than anyone else, and I do really appreciate your guys imput, teachings, sources, etc, and although I am sure you guys feel that I am just not getting it, I do have very good reasons, and extremely critical evaluations for coming to the stances that I have shown. I assure you that I am not just piecing together different terms and news bites in an incoherent jumble of misunderstood concepts, as you have seen me strongly object to.

    SO, maybe this will make more sense to you and Grey when I explain the following.

    There is a huge disconnect between GR and QM which centers on gravity, but more importantly how electrons/protons/neutrons get their mass.

    One of the reasons that my concept of when our SMBH's are created, that that creates the High Energy Gamma Radiation, that then creates the electons/protons, is precisely the reason that the Extra Gravity being the point particles and Lisa Randall's 'leaking Gravity', is that when the Gamma radiation is expoding, the gravity particles are right their to get their mass.

    Think about this....Both you and Grey.....and try not to nit pick it please

    In the Primordial universe, the electrons/protons/nuclei 'already' exist, and the collisions of all those equal amount of particles are what causes the Near Infinite GeV^19 Gamma radiation.

    SO, in that scenario, the Gamma Photons are NOT causing the electrons/protons/nuclei to obtain their mass. Once cooled, the hydrogen can form with the already present helium, lithium, deuterium...that might not be exact, but is close, and really doesn't matter for else I am going to show.

    Now, when the stars form, whether in galaxies or not, they start making what...oxygen, and whatever other ligher type elements (I know these are still considered metals) that stars make in their fussion processes. SO, what ever those elements are they get their 'extra mass' by the processes in stars combining different compound element structures of protons/neutrons.

    The next heavier elements that are made all come through Super Nova's of all the diffeent types. SO, all the metals from carbon on up, are all made in these tremendously implosive/explosive events that again bind more types of proton/neutron combinations together.

    Now, I know I am not telling you anything that you don't already know, SO what's the point to all this?

    Think E=MC^2...when does light/photons from the UV all the way down to microwaves, EVER give any particles their "Gravity"???

    Quote Originally Posted by Tensor
    And beyond your say so, what proof do you have?
    And this line that you used above is quite telling. I am quite sure you probably meant to use the word 'evidence', which I feel I have provided a substantial amount, considering most of what I am showing has never even been considered or investigated in the way I am showing it...as an "Open System" but...this all pervasive 'show me the 'proof', and waving off, trivializing, dismissing anything that isn't in tune with the FLRW EFE paradigm is...somewhat understandable, BUT counter-productive, "IF" you are truely looking for answer to many of the biggest questions...like how do the base elements get their mass

Similar Threads

  1. Episode 44: Einstein's Theory of General Relativity
    By Fraser in forum Astronomy Cast
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: 2008-Jul-16, 10:46 PM
  2. Podcast: Einstein's Theory of General Relativity
    By Fraser in forum Universe Today
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 2007-Jul-10, 06:31 PM
  3. Episode 9: Einstein’s Theory of Special Relativity
    By bsobotik in forum Astronomy Cast
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 2007-May-20, 09:44 PM
  4. Podcast: Einstein's Theory of Relativity
    By Fraser in forum Universe Today
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 2006-Nov-13, 07:48 PM
  5. Special Relativity: From Einstein to Strings
    By Normandy6644 in forum Astronomy
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 2005-Mar-01, 10:56 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •