Moving Finger wrote:"The speed of light is constant. Speed is distance over time. So, if the speed of light is constant, and one element of that speed is time, then a minute is always the same for every beam of light. That is, there is an absolute or a correct time."
Suggest you read up about the Special Theory of Relativity.
"a minute is always the same for every beam of light" makes no sense.
For a beam of light, traveling at the speed of light, time in fact does not pass at all - in other words, if you could travel at the speed of light then for you there would be no elapsed time between the start and end of your journey - you would be the same age when you arrive at your destination as you were when you left your starting point. To a stationary observer your journey takes a finite amount of time - but to you (traveling at the speed of light) your trip would in effect be instantaneous.
It's counter-intuitive, which is why many people cannot accept it. But its true.
Regarding the underlined part of this quote...
The purpose of philosophy in science, is to find logic
in the data. If we look at something as being "counter-intuitive" that tells us something. It tells us that our perspective is incorrect.
If we find the correct perspective, it will appear logical.
-- Updated January 4th, 2014, 9:35 am to add the following --
Xris wrote:If space and time are equivalent and light does not experience time how can light be said to travel?
Light does not travel through space. Light expands with space.
Stop for a minute and think about what "expanding space" means. Space is a measurement between areas of energy. If there is no energy, space is meaningless. If energies move away from each other, then we say that the space between them is expanding.
Xris wrote:We assume light travels but we never observe it travelling. We only ever see it arrive. Light is relationship between objects of mass it can not exist independently.
-- Updated January 4th, 2014, 9:54 am to add the following --
[quote="Calrid"There is no absolute time even for light, anyone who says otherwise is an idiot frankly no offence. Absolute time died with Galileo and Newton, or it should of done.[/quote]
No offense taken. Frankly, anyone that would make a definitive declaration about "absolute time" is not taking a scientific approach.
"General relativity" tells us that relative time is experienced differently by different observers, unless they are in a coordinated motion.
However "special relativity" tells us that light is experienced the same, by all observers, moving in any frame of reference.
"Absolute time", in the sense that I am using it, is not referring to "an identical relative time for all observers". That, I agree, is NOT realistic. The way I use the term refers to the physical action of the system that creates what we perceive of as "time". That
"Absolute time" is the radial speed of expansion, that began with the Big Bang (if you adhere to that theory) and still continues.
-- Updated January 4th, 2014, 10:03 am to add the following --
Xris wrote:If ... light does not experience time how can light be said to travel?
Yadayada wrote:Good point. Travel is not a good word for light. A quantum unit of light has to be both here and there at the same time.
Light does not "travel" relative to its position in space. It starts as a point
of emission and remains there (the expanding Light sphere always "sits" @ that point
) while it is expanded spherically into the future, only relatively, by the expansion of space.
-- Updated January 4th, 2014, 10:16 am to add the following --
Yeah, because there is no "beam" of light travelling. As I posted much earlier; 'When man sees the light of the sun he believes that he is actually seeing light when the nerves of his eyes are but “feeling” the intense, rapid, short- wave vibrations of the kind of wave motion which he senses as incandescence'.
The trip was "instantaneous" because there was no trip. The "distance", therefore geographical points (which is really just a memory of one point, a mental impression of a certain experience, when compared with a present point), is itself merely a 'sense' of distance - and senses are also "wave vibrations". It is sensory perception that gives us relativity. Our brain processes constantly measures, using memories in order to contrast moments and events, for purely survival instinct reasons.
Well you did get the "there is no "beam" of light travelling
" part correct. Light expands spherically. A "beam" of light is a series of expanding spheres, that have been limited in expanding to a narrow path by parabolic focusing and/or by shading.
Light "rays" are another misunderstood concept. They are used to compute the results of Light/Matter interactions. They simulate the "apparent motion of a photon". A photon is a concept of particle physics. It is not a real particle. Particle physics describes "points" at which there are energy thresholds as "particles". This simplifies the math and it is a descendant of classical Euclidean physics (still looking at matter as an object made from pieces).
-- Updated January 4th, 2014, 10:39 am to add the following --
Granth wrote:Eyes, the senses, are "matter", are they not?
No. The "senses" are interpretations made by our consciousness. The senses get their data from sensors (eyes, ears, nose, etc.) that are made from Matter. These sensors detect Light waves, sound waves, chemical presence, etc. and send the signals to the brain for interpretation.
Granth wrote:Do you not consider your body to be "matter"?
Granth wrote:So the act of seeing light is an act performed by matter.
No. The Light, that is detected by the sensors (eyes), is transferred into signals sent by nerves to the brain. The brain is the Matter component that directs our consciousness. The "act of seeing" is a translation of these nerve signals into a mental image by consciousness.
Granth wrote:So what else is matter going to see other than matter?
We don't see the Matter. We translate the Light, that comes to us from the other Matter, as an image of that Matter.
Granth wrote:And so from matter's conclusions, yes, matter thinks it is seeing matter when it senses light.
There you go! You got one right!!
Granth wrote:Time is only thought to exist. It is memory translating the motion of things, of matter, in order to give merely a 'sense' of direction. A 'sense' of purpose. This is the brain's instinct.
can be relative time
, in which I can agree to an extent with that description.
Granth wrote:Your perspective is merely in survival mode. It is an instinctive reflex. The idea of a self that desires to survive also means the self's ideas must apparently survive, at a cost to understanding.
My perspective is based on logic
. The only thing that can sway me from my position is showing me how my perspective lacks logic. So far, nothing has swayed me.
-- Updated January 4th, 2014, 10:44 am to add the following --
Calrid wrote:Oh and Eisntein was right. You are not Einstein and even if you were you'd be wrong if you believed in preserved frames of reference for absolutely anything ever.
Your computer exists now in this frame of reference.
OK. Now it is later. This later is a different frame of reference in "absolute time" (universal expansion) and your computer still is existing in the same dimensions as before.
That is a "preserved frame of reference"
So who's wrong???
-- Updated January 4th, 2014, 10:55 am to add the following --
Xris wrote:So why do we give it speed?
It is a measurement of the expansion radial that it covers from when it is emitted until when it is observed.
The relativity of that measurement is a different relativity than measuring the relative distances and motions between Matter.
Remember, Matter always moves through time along a time line. If you are measuring relative motion between two things (Matter), you are comparing their relative positions along their time lines.
Light has its own speed. It always expands spherically from a given point on one timeline (emission) to a given point on another timeline (reception).
-- Updated January 4th, 2014, 11:15 am to add the following --
Calrid wrote:No since you seem to argue with Eisnstein himself about time for light you are the one that is confused.
If Einstein can't convince you you are talking nonsense what chance would I have?
I think Einstein would have no trouble understanding me. And I have no trouble understanding Einstein. You, do not seem to be able to unbderstand either of us.
Calrid wrote:"time for light is meaningless it is undefined."
From the Light's point of view, it is emitted and it is received. There is no motion/time between the two events because the Light didn't have to do anything. It just passively exists within expansion until it is received.
Calrid wrote:Einatein, you can magically divide by 0 all you want and produce absolute time, you're still an idiot at the end of the day though. No offence.
Absolute time, as I have defined it, is the expansion from the Big Bang. Nothing to do with division by zero.
You are unable to differentiate between general & special relativity concepts. And because you can not follow my logic, you logically think that I am an idiot.
Calrid wrote:This is not up for debate there are no preserved franmes,
Every frame of absolute time is preserved. Sure it changes relative positions and forms but the sum remains the same.
Have you ever heard of the law of conservation? Energy is neither created nor destroyed, only changes form. We are dealing with a dynamic wave system. There is always change in form but not equivalence.
You can't push against something without creating an equal but opposite force.
Calrid wrote:no simutaneity for light even because light is propogating through space and hence gravity effects light.
The normal view of Light as a "self-propagating" wave is misleading and incomplete. Light is expanded along with space secondarily to the expansion of matter.