No, I am not ignoring it. It just doesn't supply a reference frame.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Seeing things in their past? You are full of beans!
- Thread starter james blunt
- Start date
-
- Tags
- fool
No, I am not ignoring it. It just doesn't supply a reference frame.
So all's you have really got is that you can repeat what google says ?
Let us do the maths of the origin of 1 second
An earth day was measured by rotation relative to the sun. We measured 24 hrs and we split this into the increments for preferred accuracy.
Now the earths circumference is 24,901 mile so let us split that into segments to match the 24 hrs.
= 0.28820601851 mile per second of rotation .
So you have successfully equated the speed of time to equal the earths spin speed , well done .
What you have given is the *speed* of a point on the Equator of the earth because of rotation. Once again, the *time*, a second, is not a speed. It is also not a distance.
Sorry, but it is not completely wrong. Time is different than distance and both of those are different than speed. You consistently confuse those three different concepts.
james blunt
Well-Known Member
So you accept a light year is not a distance because a distance is different from a speed ?
A distance is not a speed. A light year is a distance. A year is a time. The speed of light is a speed. A light year is the *distance* that light goes in a *time* of one year.
james blunt
Well-Known Member
So you agree it is not really a distance because you highlighted the word distance.
No, I was *emphasizing* that it is a distance.
james blunt
Well-Known Member
But its not, it is a time/c relationship constant.
In the time of 1 year light will travel at c the distance of x.
Time, speed and distance being independent of each other. So a time and speed cannot become a distance, it can become representative of a distance.
Last edited by a moderator:
Not time divided by c, time multiplied by c. And, time*speed=time*(distance/time)=distance.
Again, time*speed=distance.
james blunt
Well-Known Member
james blunt
Well-Known Member
Why not 40 pages? why not 100's? Are you trying to interrupt members communicating?
TrueBeliever37
Well-Known Member
You have come to the same conclusion I did. They don't tie each other. And the reason is because time is involved. It doesn't matter what reference frame you use, time will always be involved.
If light travels at a constant speed of c, then it only makes sense for it to take longer to cover an actual physical distance that is 1,000's of times longer than another physical distance. There will always be a difference in time if the physical distance changes, because the speed of light is a constant, based on distance and time.
We could debate this till the cows come home, and I don't think I will convince you and don't think you will convince me.
Yes. So? This is exactly what we have been saying.
But you asked what happens in the limiting frame of the light itself.
TrueBeliever37
Well-Known Member
Well I thought you were saying the photon would experience no time or distance, meaning it could travel any distance instantaneously.
And if it can go any distance instantaneously, then we shouldn't experience a time difference in our frame of reference.
I am saying it will experience different amounts of time if it travels different distances.
Last edited:
james blunt
Well-Known Member
What do you think of the ideas that a photon is not really a photon but the transfer from point to point of potential energy?
Considering each point has points right next to each point.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
You still are not understanding the concept of different frames of reference.
Do you understand that the clock of a moving object is slower than that of a stationary one? This has been confirmed by experiment. The closer an object moves the slower its clock will be. If an object with a clock could be accelerated to light speed its clock would stop. For that object travel would be instantaneous but for us outside of that frame of reference it would not be.
Time is relative. So is distance. So is velocity.
james blunt
Well-Known Member
No its not , hear we go again with the broken clocks.
The short time line still experiences the longer time line, think about that one.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
This video may help. It explains how velocities are added using relativity:
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
When you are ready to learn the math that you were supposed to learn in high school we can talk.