Common Sense vs The Theory of Relativity

[Subduction Zone]

Post #133 sort of shows the point of this thread. To show that some of the conclusions arrived at by this theory are impossible.

I am still waiting for someone to explain how light can travel at a constant speed of C and yet experience no time or distance. They pick impossible places to be on the spacetime diagrams where time would appear to be approaching zero, which is instantaneous, and try to tell you it's because it is approaching the speed of light.

Do you understand that velocity compresses distances in the direction of one's travels? I can give you a real world example.

 

[TrueBeliever37]

A simple fact - photons aren’t little things that move like a brick or a space ship, in the way you seem to be thinking. What prevents you from just looking that up? Whatever the point of this thread is, it’s obvious you have no interest in understanding any of the points your question raises.

I am open to the idea of light being instantaneous rather than a speed of C. ( I'm just not open to contradictions, such as I have presented with the idea of photons racing. That is experiencing no time or distance, yet being at a constant speed.) Maybe there is a connection with the idea of entanglement used in quantum mechanics. Maybe light actually appears everywhere at once. It is so fast I find it hard to believe they have actually verified its speed.

 

[GoodAttention]

I am open to the idea of light being instantaneous rather than a speed of C. ( I'm just not open to contradictions, such as I have presented with the idea of photons racing. That is experiencing no time or distance, yet being at a constant speed.) Maybe there is a connection between the idea of entanglement used in quantum mechanics. Maybe light actually appears everywhere at once. It is so fast I find it hard to believe they have actually verified its speed.

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

 

[Watchmen]

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.

Put away the religious blinders and see physics for the glorious thing it is!

 

[Tomef]

I am open to the idea of light being instantaneous rather than a speed of C. ( I'm just not open to contradictions, such as I have presented with the idea of photons racing. That is experiencing no time or distance, yet being at a constant speed.) Maybe there is a connection with the idea of entanglement used in quantum mechanics. Maybe light actually appears everywhere at once. It is so fast I find it hard to believe they have actually verified its speed.

If you're trying to apply classical physics to quantum phenomena then as a workaround you could say from the POV of an observer, if it were possible for something travelling at the speed of light to be an observer, the photon would be present at every point along the path because, from the observers POV its 'clock', measuring time in the photons frame of reference, would have effectively stopped, hence there would be distance but no time coordinate, so the photon would be both instantly at the destination and also all the way along the path.

 

[Tomef]

Post #133 sort of shows the point of this thread. To show that some of the conclusions arrived at by this theory are impossible.

I am still waiting for someone to explain how light can travel at a constant speed of C and yet experience no time or distance. They pick impossible places to be on the spacetime diagrams where time would appear to be approaching zero, which is instantaneous, and try to tell you it's because it is approaching the speed of light.

If the photon were able to be its own observer, at near light speed (but it can’t) time would not be a relevant consideration. It would just see itself along the whole path. Sort of like when you see a flash of lightning, but different.

 

[TrueBeliever37]

If you're trying to apply classical physics to quantum phenomena then as a workaround you could say from the POV of an observer, if it were possible for something travelling at the speed of light to be an observer, the photon would be present at every point along the path because, from the observers POV its 'clock', measuring time in the photons frame of reference, would have effectively stopped, hence there would be distance but no time coordinate, so the photon would be both instantly at the destination and also all the way along the path.

But now you are doing exactly what I was saying. You are moving along the x-axis which would be instantaneous arrival. The problem is C is moving on the 45 degree line in the spacetime diagram.

 

[TrueBeliever37]

Put away the religious blinders and see physics for the glorious thing it is!

Why not give the answer to my post #133 rather than tell me to put away the blinders? I have pointed out a problem that seems to just get ignored.

Places are being chosen on the spacetime diagram to supposedly explain things. Coordinates that are impossible to get to. Just like it would be meaningless to pick out coordinates in another quadrant of that diagram.

 

[Tomef]

But now you are doing exactly what I was saying. You are moving along the x-axis which would be instantaneous arrival. The problem is C is moving on the 45 degree line in the spacetime diagram.

Photons/light are massless and do not experience time or distance. Like if you see a flash of lightning, it happens so fast (from your point of reference) it seems instant. But, for you as a reference point, it did take some tiny fraction of time. You can watch a vid of it in slo-mo and slow it down further. The lighting strike has a place and a timeframe - depending on the point of reference, in this case, you. At light speed, that all breaks down, because you can't have an observer travelling at light speed, hence no point of reference within the 'frame' of lightspeed itself. For the photon, there is no reference point other than everything else, and no coordinates of time or distance, from its perspective, if it had one. If you're asking how long does it take to get from here to there, that only has any relevance in terms of the observer, so your question needs to start from there. Who is observing, from where. If the answer doesn't make sense it doesn't have anything to do with the photons, the time and distance are only relevant for the observer, by and for whom the parameters are set. For the photon, none of that has any relevance. If you could track a proton over billions of years time and billions of light years distance, that time would only pass for you, and the distance would only have any relevance as extending out from your POV. For the photon there would be no elapsed time to measure distance by.