Common Sense vs The Theory of Relativity

[Yerda]

I would say NO, an event cannot happen on that spacetime coordinate without exceeding the speed of light.

Ok. I think you've made a mistake in your reasoning.

(That event would have no real meaning.) That spacetime diagram is showing time and space/distance. It is impossible to get to coordinate (0.8,0.6) on the spacetime diagram without exceeding the speed of light.

It is impossible to get to (0.8, 0.6) from the origin. It isn't impossible to be there in the first place. I could have been waiting at position 0.8 for you to arrive at the origin to begin our measurements.

Just like it would be impossible to get to coordinate (-0.8, -0.6) as that would have no logical meaning.

Let's say we shift the origin from you to me. Then at time=0 you would be at (-0.8, -0.6), this is perfectly acceptable.

ok - when you get a chance take a look. But it's make believe.

Relativity is only true within the bounds of the y-axis (proper time), and the 45 degree line representing the speed of light. So a bunch of those theories they have about seeing the distant past, and people aging different, and an object covering 0.8 light years in 0.6 years while you age 1 year watching, etc. are all make believe.

It sounds you've made up your mind. What I would recommend is suspending that for a time until you get your head round the theory.

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

It is both interesting and amusing that some scientists are looking again at the possibility of "aether"
Which was debunked at the end of the 19th century.
Despite vast sums being spent on research , no real advances have been made in particle physics for nearly 100 years. They are now looking at what are waves waving in, all over again.
Quantum, particle, gravity, wave theory and field theories and the theory of everything, are all well and truly stuck. Even though individually what we do know about them is proving useful.

It needs the impetus of a totally new thought to start things moving again.

 

[Yerda]

It is both interesting and amusing that some scientists are looking again at the possibility of "aether"

I didn't know that.

Despite vast sums being spent on research , no real advances have been made in particle physics for nearly 100 years.

What constistutes an "advance" here? The Standard Model is only around 50 years old. The discovery of the Higgs boson was only about a decade ago.

Quantum, particle, gravity, wave theory and field theories and the theory of everything, are all well and truly stuck. Even though individually what we do know about them is proving useful.

It needs the impetus of a totally new thought to start things moving again.

Fundamental theoretical physics has either been stuck for about 50 years, or has advanced greatly depending on who you ask. Sabine Hossenfelder's suggestion that physicists have become entranced with finding pretty mathematics rather than working from what we know is true, seems compelling to me. Especially now that it looks like string theory is headed for the bin.

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

I didn't know that.


What constistutes an "advance" here? The Standard Model is only around 50 years old. The discovery of the Higgs boson was only about a decade ago.


Fundamental theoretical physics has either been stuck for about 50 years, or has advanced greatly depending on who you ask. Sabine Hossenfelder's suggestion that physicists have become entranced with finding pretty mathematics rather than working from what we know is true, seems compelling to me. Especially now that it looks like string theory is headed for the bin.

T
The same Theories have been chewed over since the twenties and thirties.
True it has cost a fortune to run all the particle experiments to discover evidence of the actual particles like the higgs. Which was first proposed in 1964.
But hardly anything fundamental has been changed. Despite the thousands of physicists and countless papers on related material. Mathematics proves nothing except itself. And the half life of a red herring perhaps?

 

[TrueBeliever37]

Ok. I think you've made a mistake in your reasoning.


It is impossible to get to (0.8, 0.6) from the origin. It isn't impossible to be there in the first place. I could have been waiting at position 0.8 for you to arrive at the origin to begin our measurements.


Let's say we shift the origin from you to me. Then at time=0 you would be at (-0.8, -0.6), this is perfectly acceptable.


It sounds you've made up your mind. What I would recommend is suspending that for a time until you get your head round the theory.

Show how I made a mistake. Show how an object can go 0.8 light years in 0.6 years, while you age 1 year watching it.

What you are saying is not even logical. They only use the one quadrant of that spacetime diagram. You are saying things against what they actually use to make your theory seem plausible. Look at the actual examples they give in the book that I mentioned, and then explain please.

Explain what -0.6 years would mean on the spacetime diagram.

 

[GoodAttention]

Show how I made a mistake. Show how an object can go 0.8 light years in 0.6 years, while you age 1 year watching it.

What you are saying is not even logical. They only use the one quadrant of that spacetime diagram. You are saying things against what they actually use to make your theory seem plausible. Look at the actual examples they give in the book that I mentioned, and then explain please.

Explain what -0.6 years would mean on the spacetime diagram.

First, it isn't THE Spacetime diagram, it is ONE that centers an observer, and NOT the entire Universe at Big Bang (when time would behave differently).

Taking the observer to be a human, we zero the time and location. After 0.6 years (or seconds on the diagram), there can be objects/photons that are 0.8 light years away from us.

These photons will be travelling towards the observer, and quick calculation says it will reach the observer at 1.4 years having travelled from 1.4 light years away. The gradient is the same as the light one, except negative.

 

[Yerda]

Show how I made a mistake.

I think the mistake you're making is in thinking that an object has to move from the origin of the spacetime diagram to the (0.8, 0.6) coordinate.

Show how an object can go 0.8 light years in 0.6 years, while you age 1 year watching it.

Once I've read the example I'll see if I can help.

What you are saying is not even logical. They only use the one quadrant of that spacetime diagram.

The full diagram has physical significance. Anything below the x-axis denotes the past, above it is the future.

Explain what -0.6 years would mean on the spacetime diagram.

0.6 years in the past.

 

[TrueBeliever37]

First, it isn't THE Spacetime diagram, it is ONE that centers an observer, and NOT the entire Universe at Big Bang (when time would behave differently).

Taking the observer to be a human, we zero the time and location. After 0.6 years (or seconds on the diagram), there can be objects/photons that are 0.8 light years away from us.

These photons will be travelling towards the observer, and quick calculation says it will reach the observer at 1.4 years having travelled from 1.4 light years away. The gradient is the same as the light one, except negative.

No - Look at the diagrams in the book. And it doesn't center an observer, because they only use 1 quadrant. It is a diagram plotting proper time on the y-axis and distance/space on the x-axis.

They are clearly saying an object is moving from the origin 0.8 light years in 0.6 years time while you age 1 year watching. That is faster than the speed of light. (0.8 light years/0.6 years = 1.3333C)

 

[TrueBeliever37]

I think the mistake you're making is in thinking that an object has to move from the origin of the spacetime diagram to the (0.8, 0.6) coordinate.


Once I've read the example I'll see if I can help.


The full diagram has physical significance. Anything below the x-axis denotes the past, above it is the future.


0.6 years in the past.

I didn't make a mistake. That's what the book is saying. It clearly says an object moves 0.8 light years in 0.6 years time, while you age 1 year while watching. That is why I am saying it can't get to that coordinate. You guys are trying to frame the situation differently.

You can't travel faster than the 45 degree line showing C.

 

[TrueBeliever37]

First, it isn't THE Spacetime diagram, it is ONE that centers an observer, and NOT the entire Universe at Big Bang (when time would behave differently).

Taking the observer to be a human, we zero the time and location. After 0.6 years (or seconds on the diagram), there can be objects/photons that are 0.8 light years away from us.

These photons will be travelling towards the observer, and quick calculation says it will reach the observer at 1.4 years having travelled from 1.4 light years away. The gradient is the same as the light one, except negative.

Show me your diagram that supposedly proves time = zero at the speed of light. And I will prove to you it is wrong.

 

[wellwisher]

Two photons are emitted from the same source at the exact same instance. Photon A is headed to a destination 2 light years away at the speed of C. Photon B is headed to a destination 4 light years away at the speed of C. Which photon reaches the finish line first?

(You know it has to be photon A, yet some say it's a tie, and some say they experience no time or distance.) Speed involves both time and distance.

Here is the problem with the relativity theory. Look at the diagrams they use for space time. They pick a point on that space time curve and tell you, say that you are at 0.8 light years and at 0.6 on the time axis. Speed = distance / time = 0.8/0.6 = 1.333333 That would be traveling faster than the speed of light.

Prove it to yourself. Add the time and distance to the diagram. Plot out 1/2 C, C, and 2C (pretending it was possible) on the diagram. Anything beyond the 45 degree angle and closer to the x-axis is faster than the speed of light. That is supposed to be impossible. They act like when they get to the x-axis they are approaching the speed of light. They are wrong - that is approaching being instantaneous. The 45 degree angle was at the speed of C. Anything past that and closer to the x-axis is FASTER than C.

NASA has exploratory spacecrafts at various places in the solar system. When we send commands and receive data, it travels at the speed of light, between the earth and this range of distances. It experimentally, does take longer to go between the most distant space crafts and the earth. In the example, above, the 2 light years will happen first, since this closer, like going between Earth and Mars instead of Earth and Jupiter.

Say you were sitting on each photon, instead of observing from the earth. In this case you are observing the same event but at the speed of light reference. This reference will make the universe appear to contract to a point, such that these minor distances will be a fraction of that point, which is an oxymoron. Point is as small as it gets and fraction of a point are not real. In that sense, both photons would appear to get there is zero time; in the speed of light reference.

Interestingly, infinite wavelength energy or photons, which have the minimal possible energy value, will be the only full wavelength photons that can seen at the speed of light. Infinite wavelength, contacted to a point, will not be a fractional wavelength, since they begin as long as an infinite universe, and maintain full wavelength, as a point; speed of light reference. I remember reading somewhere that black holes can generate infinite wavelength photons; limits of photons.

An infinite wavelength photon, will have a frequency close to zero. It will take a very very long time for each cycle of the wave. In the case of the moving twin, as his reference goes faster and approaches the speed of light, the twin ages slower, and these infinite wavelength photon appear to develop faster and faster; blue shift, until at the speed of light, they appear to form, instantaneously, as though they become extreme gamma. There space-time ends and we enter separated space and separated time. Speed of light no longer applies. If you could move in space apart from time you could be omnipresent, which would seem to require infinite energy, but does not.

 

[GoodAttention]

No - Look at the diagrams in the book. And it doesn't center an observer, because they only use 1 quadrant. It is a diagram plotting proper time on the y-axis and distance/space on the x-axis.

The fact they are only using an x and y axis should tell you that EITHER you interpret in 2 dimensions, i.e. distance from the zero point OR you interpret in 3 dimensions, which would make the diagram an inadequate form of representation.

There is no distance/space, what do you mean by "space"???

At this point you need to clarify what parameters you are usin.g

They are clearly saying an object is moving from the origin 0.8 light years in 0.6 years time while you age 1 year watching. That is faster than the speed of light. (0.8 light years/0.6 years = 1.3333C)

If it was obvious then there would be a line drawn from the origin to that point???

Can you please take a screenshot and put it up, I don't know what book you are talking about.

 

[Samael_Khan]

How can you believe in Einstein's Theory of Relativity when it contradicts basic common sense, and fundamental laws of Physics?

For instance the speed of light is a constant, so how can photons experience no time or distance? How can something just happen and yet supposedly happen at a different time for someone else? How can two twins ages change just because of travel? To me these are ridiculous ideas.

Common sense is just our monkey brain being lazy.

 

[TrueBeliever37]

The fact they are only using an x and y axis should tell you that EITHER you interpret in 2 dimensions, i.e. distance from the zero point OR you interpret in 3 dimensions, which would make the diagram an inadequate form of representation.

There is no distance/space, what do you mean by "space"???

At this point you need to clarify what parameters you are usin.g




If it was obvious then there would be a line drawn from the origin to that point???

Can you please take a screenshot and put it up, I don't know what book you are talking about.

I specifically called out the name of the book and the diagrams, etc. They refer to light years as distance or space.

How about showing the diagram used by you that shows time to be zero when you approach the speed of light. And I will show you how it is wrong.

 

[TrueBeliever37]

Common sense is just our monkey brain being lazy.

The challenge extends to you just like the others. Show your diagram where time is zero at the speed light and I will show you how it is wrong.

 

[TrueBeliever37]

NASA has exploratory spacecrafts at various places in the solar system. When we send commands and receive data, it travels at the speed of light, between the earth and this range of distances. It experimentally, does take longer to go between the most distant space crafts and the earth. In the example, above, the 2 light years will happen first, since this closer, like going between Earth and Mars instead of Earth and Jupiter.

Say you were sitting on each photon, instead of observing from the earth. In this case you are observing the same event but at the speed of light reference. This reference will make the universe appear to contract to a point, such that these minor distances will be a fraction of that point, which is an oxymoron. Point is as small as it gets and fraction of a point are not real. In that sense, both photons would appear to get there is zero time; in the speed of light reference.

Interestingly, infinite wavelength energy or photons, which have the minimal possible energy value, will be the only full wavelength photons that can seen at the speed of light. Infinite wavelength, contacted to a point, will not be a fractional wavelength, since they begin as long as an infinite universe, and maintain full wavelength, as a point; speed of light reference. I remember reading somewhere that black holes can generate infinite wavelength photons; limits of photons.

An infinite wavelength photon, will have a frequency close to zero. It will take a very very long time for each cycle of the wave. In the case of the moving twin, as his reference goes faster and approaches the speed of light, the twin ages slower, and these infinite wavelength photon appear to develop faster and faster; blue shift, until at the speed of light, they appear to form, instantaneously, as though they become extreme gamma. There space-time ends and we enter separated space and separated time. Speed of light no longer applies. If you could move in space apart from time you could be omnipresent, which would seem to require infinite energy, but does not.

Please show me your proof that time = 0 as you approach the speed of light. In order for C to be a speed, there must be some time or it doesn't even mean anything.

It's seems more likely that light is instantaneous.

If one photon takes 2 years of our time longer to get to its destination than the other photon to its destination. Then time was involved.

 

[GoodAttention]

I specifically called out the name of the book and the diagrams, etc. They refer to light years as distance or space.

Call it out again.

How about showing the diagram used by you that shows time to be zero when you approach the speed of light. And I will show you how it is wrong.

What diagram are you talking about???

Speed is a scalar quantity. The speed of light c is a CONSTANT. A NUMBER.

 

[TrueBeliever37]

We have measured the speed of light through fiber optic cables, coming out as a percentage of c in a vacuum.

I would imagine light would be everywhere if we didn’t have space-time being moulded by massive objects, but then the conundrum of isolating a photon that did not originate from matter.

The cosmic background radiation has a “signal” that is seen almost everywhere, so would be interesting to know what makes it different considering how old it is

You honestly think you have accurately measured something that travels over 186,000 miles per second?

 

[TrueBeliever37]

Call it out again.



What diagram are you talking about???

Speed is a scalar quantity. The speed of light c is a CONSTANT. A NUMBER.

"Relativity Visualized" by Lewis Carroll Epstein
(Look at pages 83-85 Figures 5-7, 5-8, 5-9, and 5-10)

Figures 5-9, 5-10 are both impossible scenarios as you would be traveling faster than the speed of light.

I am talking about any space vs. time Diagram you want to come up with that supposedly shows time=0 as you approach the speed of light.

 

[GoodAttention]

"Relativity Visualized" by Lewis Carroll Epstein
(Look at pages 83-85 Figures 5-7, 5-8, 5-9, and 5-10)

Figures 5-9, 5-10 are both impossible scenarios as you would be traveling faster than the speed of light.

Have you read the book or only looked at the graphs?

To understand what those graphs are explaining you need to "be mindful of two aspects, or projections, of time"

(a) The time observed to be required for the journey
(b) The time the travellers reckons

The 0.8 and 0.6 is described well, explaining that a person travelling at 0.8c will experience 0.6time relative to 1time.
It does not describe an object travelling "faster than the speed of light", you are interpreting the information incorrectly.

I am talking about any space vs. time Diagram you want to come up with that supposedly shows time=0 as you approach the speed of light.

Figure 5-10.

"This object travels through 1 light year of space. You age 1 year as you watch. The object does not age at all. This object has the maximum speed through space, the speed of light. Its speed through time is zero. It is stationary in time. "Right now is forever,” the photon said.