Absolute time and the speed of light

Use this forum to discuss the philosophy of science. Philosophy of science deals with the assumptions, foundations, and implications of science.
Post Reply
Granth
Posts: 2084
Joined: July 20th, 2012, 11:56 pm

Re: Absolute time and the speed of light

Post by Granth » January 5th, 2014, 5:07 am

Calrid wrote:my own threads promotion.

And OBEs let us lose our fear of death, which is probably why it exists.
I'll just go with whatever your therapist suggests, rather than I waste my time with you on that one.

Calrid
Posts: 263
Joined: December 5th, 2013, 7:47 pm
Favorite Philosopher: your mum
Location: Portsmouth and out in space

Re: Absolute time and the speed of light

Post by Calrid » January 5th, 2014, 5:08 am

Granth wrote: (Nested quote removed.)


I'll just go with whatever your therapist suggests, rather than I waste my time with you on that one.
Oh come on that's a flame mate, was that necessary?

Anyone who doesn't agree with my completely unfounded world view is insane. Epic fail I believe. You fail at failing. ;)

Image

Xris
Posts: 5962
Joined: December 27th, 2010, 11:37 am
Location: Cornwall UK

Re: Absolute time and the speed of light

Post by Xris » January 5th, 2014, 5:38 am

I am constantly assured that light has direction and speed.Travels in waves, appears as a particle but no one is prepared to prove these well accepted facts. Even a simple diagram showing me how light permeates 3 dimensional space is not available. Constant contradictions are ignored and the illogical conclusions are brushed over with total arrogance.

Calrid
Posts: 263
Joined: December 5th, 2013, 7:47 pm
Favorite Philosopher: your mum
Location: Portsmouth and out in space

Re: Absolute time and the speed of light

Post by Calrid » January 5th, 2014, 6:12 am

Xris wrote:I am constantly assured that light has direction and speed.Travels in waves, appears as a particle but no one is prepared to prove these well accepted facts. Even a simple diagram showing me how light permeates 3 dimensional space is not available. Constant contradictions are ignored and the illogical conclusions are brushed over with total arrogance.
You know that interweb thing try that:

http://lcogt.net/spacebook/light-wave

2 seconds took me to find that, also try Stanford encyclopaedia. It's not arrogance it's just that people feel no obligation to educate others if they haven't done the basics themselves its an information age, look it up. ;).

http://lcogt.net/spacebook/light-particle

Xris
Posts: 5962
Joined: December 27th, 2010, 11:37 am
Location: Cornwall UK

Re: Absolute time and the speed of light

Post by Xris » January 5th, 2014, 7:06 am

Calrid wrote: (Nested quote removed.)


You know that interweb thing try that:

http://lcogt.net/spacebook/light-wave

2 seconds took me to find that, also try Stanford encyclopaedia. It's not arrogance it's just that people feel no obligation to educate others if they haven't done the basics themselves its an information age, look it up. ;).

http://lcogt.net/spacebook/light-particle
Thank you, I appreciate you believe you are educating me but you ain't. You are simply refering me to scripture. The double slit experiment indicates light permeates as a wave it does not prove it. Equally you have not produced a diagram showing light permeating 3D space.I would not attempt trying to find one as there ain't one. I have asked numerous well educated individuals the same questions but up till now not one has come close.

Yadayada
Posts: 39
Joined: February 3rd, 2010, 10:50 pm

Re: Absolute time and the speed of light

Post by Yadayada » January 5th, 2014, 7:32 am

And a happy New Year to you and yours!

The trouble with the most brilliant mathematical models of reality, scientific observations, and experiments is that there still has to be room for the possibility of our being as evidenced by common sense.

If light is a particle, then, as Xris pointed out, in the absence of time, light must be incapable of any motion. If it is a wave, then light cannot spread as a bubble in all directions without dissipating in space. Therefore, In a non-relativistic world, light cannot exist at all. That is not a good thing.

The only option for light remains to pop into and out of existence in a quantum instance, rather than to be an entirely timeless nothing. In a relativistic world, the quantum instance of a photon can be stretched to fit our slow, slow rate of time. Even 13 billion years. (Zweistein)

What do you think?
Obvious Leo wrote: ... ontological status of spacetime but such vanities as defining ones terms are regarded as superfluous to those who can so easily hypnotise themselves with their own mathematical virtuosity.

Would you not agree that if space is not physical it has no place in a physical model of our universe? And what of time? Would you not agree that time is either one thing and one thing only or else it doesn't exist at all? Special relativity uses two different ontologies of time within the same model and neither of these ontologies is compatible with the experimentally validated conclusions of General Relativity. Quantum Mechanics, the final refuge of the committed fundamentalists of this bizarre priesthood, doesn't bother much about an ontology of time at all.
Such quibbler you are. In my spare moments I've been looking for time, but no one in the literature has any. Just look at St. Augustine. Time is subjective, and time is nothing in reality but is only in the human mind’s apprehension of reality. That works. Objectively, there are other measures besides the average number of crystal vibrations or swayings of the pendulum in a grandfather clock.

When general relativity can stretch and contract time and distance, that introduces a surprising Alice-in-Wonderland world. Appearance and an objective reality come to be at odds. The world physically (as in physics) stretches, shortens, and warps depending on which way and how fast I walk. The instruments will always agree with this weirdness. What gives?

-- Updated Sun Jan 05, 2014 6:34 am to add the following --
Xris wrote:I am constantly assured that light has direction and speed.Travels in waves, appears as a particle but no one is prepared to prove these well accepted facts. Even a simple diagram showing me how light permeates 3 dimensional space is not available. Constant contradictions are ignored and the illogical conclusions are brushed over with total arrogance.
The reason you're wrong is because you're right. :wink:

Xris
Posts: 5962
Joined: December 27th, 2010, 11:37 am
Location: Cornwall UK

Re: Absolute time and the speed of light

Post by Xris » January 5th, 2014, 9:29 am

I love it when an ability turns to insult. As I said it is impossible to prove light travels as a wave function. There is no diagram available to explain the propagation of em radiation in 3 dimensional space. Back on the ignore list must be next :lol:

Xris
Posts: 5962
Joined: December 27th, 2010, 11:37 am
Location: Cornwall UK

Re: Absolute time and the speed of light

Post by Xris » January 5th, 2014, 10:01 am

Calrid wrote:Well yes because you are clearly a troll and completely have no idea whatsoever what you are demanding and why it is impossible, so even if you aren't trolling its bloody annoying and so that point is academic. Ask me a question that isn't nonsense, and I will answer. Did you read the links? I doubt it, you would of asked me a rational question otherwise instead of being ignorant.

Seems to me this is just classic Luddite trolling and not worth reading anyway.
You have this weird idea that if you talk dirty and give references to scripture you are proving your point. I might point out that if you simply admit my question is beyond your ability, no one is going to throw stones at you. Tell me exactly where or what experiment proves conclusively that em radiayion travels in the form of a wave? As I have said many times before, reading your links have no value.I am fully aware the reasoning why science claims these irrational conclusions.You see I do not believe em radiation is a schizophrenic particle that turns into a wave. I believe in Gaedes em rope hypothesis. He must be correct because he worked for the CIA. :wink:

Obvious Leo
Posts: 2501
Joined: April 28th, 2013, 10:03 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Omar Khayyam
Location: Australia

Re: Absolute time and the speed of light

Post by Obvious Leo » January 5th, 2014, 11:47 pm

Yadayada wrote:The trouble with the most brilliant mathematical models of reality, scientific observations, and experiments is that there still has to be room for the possibility of our being as evidenced by common sense.
Since when has common sense got anything to do with physics? My grey hair and missing teeth tell me that time is the most intimate personal experience of my existence and yet the supergeeks are telling me I'm imagining the whole thing. The universe is populated by an infinite suite of Leos all happily co-existing on an equal metaphysical footing and yet I'm bloody certain that the Leo I was yesterday no longer exists. I delude myself that he has become the Leo I am today and I dare to carry this illusion even further. Tomorrow's Leo has not been made yet, according to me. But it is what it is, mate. If the equations say that my humble experience is all crap then that's the way it's gotta be. If the equations say that I live in a universe that doesn't make sense then it must be so. Our universe is incomprehensible. The man who talks through a machine with his eyelashes is smarter than me.

Regards Leo

User avatar
Present awareness
Posts: 1213
Joined: February 3rd, 2014, 7:02 pm

Re: Absolute time and the speed of light

Post by Present awareness » March 8th, 2014, 2:55 pm

Nobody to date, has been able to accurately describe what light "is", all we really know is what light "does", it illuminates what appears to be, solid matter. The same may be said about gravity, we know what it does, but no one really knows what it "is". When it comes to the speed of light, the concept of "time" is introduced. In one second, light will travel through a given amount of space. However, in reality, time does not exist, since it is always the present moment. The movement and change "within" the present moment, gives the illusion of time. The reason we feel that we are the same person when we were children, adults and old people, even though our bodies have changed, is because we have always been "in" the present moment, which does not "arrive" or " depart", it's always here. When we go to bed at night, it is "now" and when we wake up in the morning, it is "now". No one has ever woke up in the past.
Even though you can see me, I might not be here.

Granth
Posts: 2084
Joined: July 20th, 2012, 11:56 pm

Re: Absolute time and the speed of light

Post by Granth » March 8th, 2014, 6:24 pm

We cannot ever accurately describe what light is because all human intelligence can know is what light does. All we can only see/sense, and then use the intellect for making noises that extrapolate on those sensations, is what light does. Ok, so "in reality, time does not exist". This is because time is also merely sensed, which is only to say that there is a sense of motion - of things moving - and of things which are essentially motion in order for them to even be things (all things we apparently sense are various forms of motion for our motion-senses to recognise. Our senses are in fact "motion-senses").

So no one is going to ever accurately describe what light is. One may as well just use the "God" noise for an alternative description. But this will not really do and then such description merely tends to activate emotion around the subject. And what is emotion other than a sense of things moving (toward or away similar to fight-or-flight impulses).

Frank Aiello
Posts: 11
Joined: March 7th, 2014, 4:22 pm
Favorite Philosopher: A. Einstein
Contact:

Re: Absolute time and the speed of light

Post by Frank Aiello » March 8th, 2014, 9:23 pm

Once again, the physical theory works. Of course, I'm sure this won't be posted either, as my last post giving a fully reasonable articulation of why gravity is the manifestation of the curvature of 4D spacetime, and why the effects of relativity (e.g.time dilation and length contraction) have been experimentally confirmed within an extraordinarily high degree of accuracy, was not posted.

Continue arguing against an highly experimentally well-confirmed theory that describes almost everything we know about space, time, and motion on philosophical grounds. Continue sitting in your armchairs.

Xris
Posts: 5962
Joined: December 27th, 2010, 11:37 am
Location: Cornwall UK

Re: Absolute time and the speed of light

Post by Xris » March 9th, 2014, 4:13 pm

Present awareness wrote:Nobody to date, has been able to accurately describe what light "is", all we really know is what light "does", it illuminates what appears to be, solid matter. The same may be said about gravity, we know what it does, but no one really knows what it "is". When it comes to the speed of light, the concept of "time" is introduced. In one second, light will travel through a given amount of space. However, in reality, time does not exist, since it is always the present moment. The movement and change "within" the present moment, gives the illusion of time. The reason we feel that we are the same person when we were children, adults and old people, even though our bodies have changed, is because we have always been "in" the present moment, which does not "arrive" or " depart", it's always here. When we go to bed at night, it is "now" and when we wake up in the morning, it is "now". No one has ever woke up in the past.
Have you considered Bill Gaedes EM ropes? He explain light with no illogicsl conclusions.

User avatar
Present awareness
Posts: 1213
Joined: February 3rd, 2014, 7:02 pm

Re: Absolute time and the speed of light

Post by Present awareness » March 11th, 2014, 12:16 pm

Xris, I haven't heard of Bill Gaedes EM ropes. I will have to look into it.
Even though you can see me, I might not be here.

Obvious Leo
Posts: 2501
Joined: April 28th, 2013, 10:03 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Omar Khayyam
Location: Australia

Re: Absolute time and the speed of light

Post by Obvious Leo » May 18th, 2014, 5:50 pm

Frank Aiello wrote:Once again, the physical theory works. Of course, I'm sure this won't be posted either, as my last post giving a fully reasonable articulation of why gravity is the manifestation of the curvature of 4D spacetime, and why the effects of relativity (e.g.time dilation and length contraction) have been experimentally confirmed within an extraordinarily high degree of accuracy, was not posted.

Continue arguing against an highly experimentally well-confirmed theory that describes almost everything we know about space, time, and motion on philosophical grounds. Continue sitting in your armchairs.
Time dilation and length contraction have not been experimentally confirmed. A temporal asynchronicity between moving clocks and stationary clocks has been confirmed, nothing more. That time dilates and lengths contract is an inference drawn from the mathematics, not an empirical fact, and a far simpler explanation for this asynchronicity is readily to hand. If we abandon the nonsensical notion of spacetime and regard time alone as being physically real then all motion occurs in the time "dimension" only, in accordance with both common sense and our innermost instincts. In this perspective we regard a clock as an entity which is coming into existence at the speed of light. However if one clock is also physically moving relative to another one they must also be moving apart in time. To suggest that one is ticking slower than the other is to say that it is coming into existence more slowly and this is plainly wrong-headed in an ordinary gravitational field. This bogus world-view relies on the contrived assumption of co-ordinate time in SR, but co-ordinate time is nothing more than a mathematical confection to reconcile the disparate observations of differently located observers. Co-ordinate time is not physically real. In fact the moving clock does tick infinitesimally slower than the stationary one during the brief period that it is accelerating, but this is a gravitational effect and in any ordinary experimental scenario it would be negligible. However negligible is not synonymous with irrelevant and herein lies the secret of quantum gravity, a subject for another day.

Time is not interwoven with space at all, as Minkowski would have us believe. Time is interwoven with gravity, as shown to us by GR. SR and GR are therefore mutually exclusive, so the physicists might need to pick which one makes the most sense. Both are deeply flawed but I'll go with GR as having a more coherent temporal ontology because the link between time and gravity has been empirically established countless times, whereas the link between time and space just leads us down into counter-intuitive conceptual rabbit burrows, as well as dead and alive cats. Not for me, thanks.

Regards Leo

Post Reply