Seeing things in their past? You are full of beans!

[Polymath257]

It just seems to defy logic.

Thinking an alien could travel into the past and possibly see dinosaurs roaming the earth.

Nobody has said that. There is no traveling into the past. But think if it like this. If you have a star that is 4 ly away from us, it takes 4 years (in our frame) for light to get from that star to us. So, the light we are seeing now started out from that star 4 years ago. So, when we look at that star, we are seeing what happened 4 years ago (in our frame).

If the star is 30 million light years away (in our frame), then the light takes 30 million years to make the journey (in our frame) and so the light we see now started out 30 million years ago (in our frame), so we are now seeing what happened 30 million years ago (in our frame).

Thinking that actual physical distances become 0, so that 8 light minutes = 30 million light years.

The 'actual physical distance' depends on the frame. Nobody said that 8 light minutes is the same as 30 million light years *in the same frame*. But you have to be careful in switching frames. You have to be careful to distinguish clock time and proper time.

Using a frame of reference to try to prove something, but then saying that frame doesn't really exist.

Admittedly shady. It's better to avoid such imaginary frames. But, we can still talk about proper time and ALL reference frames agree on that value. i t's just not the same as clock time.

Noticing that it takes light 8m and 20s to get here from the sun, but yet believing it doesn't experience any time.

Or that it takes 8 minutes in one frame and 1 second in another.

Seeing that in every valid reference frame, to an observer it took the photon twice as long to go twice the distance. Surely it shows the photon experienced a time difference using that reference frame.

Only and when you talk about what the photon 'experiences', that doesn't correspond to any reference frame.

 

[Polymath257]

I am talking about what the photon experiences in the other valid reference frames. Two different distances and two different times.

Let me put it this way. To ask what someone in a ship 'experiences' means to ask what happens *in their reference frame*, NOT what happens in the reference frame of the earth (unless they happen to be the same--if the ship is at rest with respect to the earth). You don't say the ship 'experiences' the time lapse measured by the earth.

If one reference frame says that the distances are 500 light seconds and 30 million light years, then a different frame might they are 50 light seconds and 3 million light years.

Which would *you* say the light 'experiences'? What the earth measures? or what the ship measures?

Why do you keep using a reference frame that doesn't even exist?

I don't need to talk about a frame to talk about proper time. The proper time is something that all frames agree on. And, in the case of light, the proper time is always 0. No frame needed.

 

[TrueBeliever37]

Which would *you* say the light 'experiences'? What the earth measures? or what the ship measures?



I don't need to talk about a frame to talk about proper time. The proper time is something that all frames agree on. And, in the case of light, the proper time is always 0. No frame needed.

I am saying that the light has to be experiencing some kind of difference regarding time, because it always has two different values of time, for two different distances, regardless of what frame you use. ( Unless you try to bring a nonexistent frame into the picture.)

Please explain what you mean by a proper time. If the proper time for light is always 0, what does that mean in terms of light getting to earth from different distances?

 

[TrueBeliever37]

In a word, no. A ship going past at 99% of c watching that same photon sees that same journey of the photon to the sun (or vice versa) as taking 35 seconds. So half is 17.5 seconds.

Does the photon 'experience' 17.5 seconds? Or 250 seconds? Both are valid measurements of time from different real frames.

The 'proper time' for the photon's path is zero.

The main point is that there is a difference between 17.5s and 35 seconds. The number of seconds might be a different measurement in a different frame, but regardless there was a difference of times in that same frame. Which should prove that the photon is experiencing some element of time in every frame except the nonexistent one.

 

[Polymath257]

I am saying that the light has to be experiencing some kind of difference regarding time, because it always has two different values of time, for two different distances, regardless of what frame you use. ( Unless you try to bring a nonexistent frame into the picture.)

Please explain what you mean by a proper time. If the proper time for light is always 0, what does that mean in terms of light getting to earth from different distances?

Nothing at all. The proper time is frame independent. I gave the formula for it above. Every frame will get the same result when it puts in its values for time and distance.

 

[Polymath257]

The main point is that there is a difference between 17.5s and 35 seconds. The number of seconds might be a different measurement in a different frame, but regardless there was a difference of times in that same frame. Which should prove that the photon is experiencing some element of time in every frame except the nonexistent one.

Light moves along what is called a null geodesic. The proper time along such is always 0. The 17.5 and 35 second values are coordinate time and do not have to correlate with what is experienced.

 

[TrueBeliever37]

The equations are found in one of my earlier posts. Here it is again:

Δt = the observer time, or two-position time (s)

Δt0 = the proper time, or one-position time (s)

v = velocity (m/s)

c = speed of light (3.0 x 10^8 m/s)

All you need to do is plug 3.0 x 10^8 m/s into v and solve the equation. You will see that you get a 0 in the denominator. Dividing by zero is what others have referred to as a limit, and at that limit it doesn't make sense to talk about there even being time for something moving at the speed of light. The very same equation is used for length contraction.

Is this a universal type equation that could be used to determine times for other things if speed of light was replaced with say speed of a boat crossing a lake?

Also a question for Polymath, How can you come up with an observer time if proper time for a photon is always 0 as you said in post 1146?

 

[james blunt]

Is this a universal type equation that could be used to determine times for other things if speed of light was replaced with say speed of a boat crossing a lake?

Also a question for Polymath, How can you come up with an observer time if proper time for a photon is always 0 as you said in post 1146?

Serious dude, let most of it go in one ear and out of the other, education teaches people to be stupid not smart.

 

[Polymath257]

Is this a universal type equation that could be used to determine times for other things if speed of light was replaced with say speed of a boat crossing a lake?

No. The speed of light is special. You can use this equation with v as the speed of the boat to compare time on the shore with time on the boat. But you would still use c=speed of light.

Also a question for Polymath, How can you come up with an observer time if proper time for a photon is always 0 as you said in post 1146?

Notice that if v=c, then the denominator is 0 as well as the top. The equation is degenerate in this case and the observer time cannot be calculated from the proper time in this case. if you multiply through by the denominator, you see that the proper time is 0 no matter what the observer time is.

And that is the better way to use , this equation. For an observer with x=vt, the proper time from x=t=0 is
proper time = sqrt( t^2 - x^2/c^2 ) = sqrt( t^2 - v^2 t^2 /c^2 ) = sqrt( t^2 (1 - v^2 /c^2 ) )= t sqrt( 1 - (v/c)^2 ).

Here, t is observer time and we get the quoted equation.

For light, v=c, and we get 0 on the right hand side no matter what.

Once again, this is true for *any* observer...the same answer is found when the calculation is done in any valid frame.

Now, *if* sqrt( 1-(v/c)^2 ) is non-zero, you can use this in reverse to find observer time from proper time. But if that quantity *is* zero, you cannot. And it is zero for light. There is no way to go from proper time for a photon to observer time.

 

[james blunt]

Notice that if v=c, then the denominator is 0 as well as the top. The equation is degenerate in this case and the observer time cannot be calculated from the proper time in this case. if you multiply through by the denominator, you see that the proper time is 0 no matter what the observer time is.

And that is the better way to use , this equation. For an observer with x=vt, the proper time from x=t=0 is
proper time = sqrt( t^2 - x^2/c^2 ) = sqrt( t^2 - v^2 t^2 /c^2 ) = sqrt( t^2 (1 - v^2 /c^2 ) )= t sqrt( 1 - (v/c)^2 ).

Here, t is observer time and we get the quoted equation.

For light, v=c, and we get 0 on the right hand side no matter what.

Once again, this is true for *any* observer...the same answer is found when the calculation is done in any valid frame.

Now, *if* sqrt( 1-(v/c)^2 ) is non-zero, you can use this in reverse to find observer time from proper time. But if that quantity *is* zero, you cannot. And it is zero for light. There is no way to go from proper time for a photon to observer time.

Dude let me explain something to you , I understand you are educated and I feel sorry for you .

v=c

distance = 299 792 458 m / s


t/d = 1.s

Points traveled 299 792 458 m


Now anything other than points traveled being equal , is a measurement error. Not a time error.

 

[Polymath257]

Dude let me explain something to you , I understand you are educated and I feel sorry for you .

v=c

distance = 299 792 458 m / s


t/d = 1.s

Points traveled 299 792 458 m


Now anything other than points traveled being equal , is a measurement error. Not a time error.

Dude, when you will be listened to when you stop posting nonsense.

 

[james blunt]

Dude, when you will be listened to when you stop posting nonsense.

Have you ever thought it is maybe yourself who is not willing to listen ?

A bit of the I am better than you going on?

Looking at your education as if the absolute truth and it could not be possible wrong?


I don't see the world that way so why are you stuck in your ''programming''?

Can you think freely?

 

[Polymath257]

Have you ever thought it is maybe yourself who is not willing to listen ?

A bit of the I am better than you going on?

Looking at your education as if the absolute truth and it could not be possible wrong?


I don't see the world that way so why are you stuck in your ''programming''?

Can you think freely?

Have you ever considered those possibilities for yourself? You consistently refuse to consider constructive criticism from others. You consistently insist that you have it right in spite of others pointing out where you go wrong. You consistently present your viewpoint as if it cannot be wrong. And, yes, you seem to be programmed by your viewpoint. Can *you* think freely enough to consider that you might be wrong?

I have studied this stuff, including in a lab, checking what I've said. Have you?

 

[james blunt]

Have you ever considered those possibilities for yourself? You consistently refuse to consider constructive criticism from others. You consistently insist that you have it right in spite of others pointing out where you go wrong. You consistently present your viewpoint as if it cannot be wrong. And, yes, you seem to be programmed by your viewpoint. Can *you* think freely enough to consider that you might be wrong?

I have studied this stuff, including in a lab, checking what I've said. Have you?

I have considered I am wrong , I am never right is my motto.

Please talk freely with me , talk to me about time. Lets me prove to you that the time model is incorrect. Here is the absolute model of time. This is the correct physics sir.

 

[james blunt]

Time forward is memories of the past.

 

[Polymath257]

I have considered I am wrong , I am never right is my motto.

Please talk freely with me , talk to me about time. Lets me prove to you that the time model is incorrect. Here is the absolute model of time. This is the correct physics sir.

Yet another example of your nonsense pictures and nonsense formulas. Nothing to say to this because it says nothing.

 

[Polymath257]

Time forward is memories of the past.

So how do you deal with times so small we can't perceive them?

 

[james blunt]

So how do you deal with times so small we can't perceive them?

Think about this, a Photon has memory, we can send memory via photons.

P.s memory is continuous , we do perceive those small times.

 

[james blunt]

Are Photons alive?

Are photons talking to each other through us?

Are photons, neurons?

 

[Polymath257]

Are Photons alive?

Are photons talking to each other through us?

Are photons, neurons?

No.