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

[james blunt]

As it sits (interpreting f as frequency and S as entropy), this is a very testable prediction. So, if we can set up a system where the entropy changes very little, but the frequencies change a lot, then it could be dismissed as invalid. Agreed?

All you need to do is test a Caesium at ground state frequency to see if the frequency changes if you change the entropy, by a change of temperature or similar.

 

[Polymath257]

All you need to do is test a Caesium at ground state frequency to see if the frequency changes if you change the entropy, by a change of temperature or similar.

Easy enough. And guess what? Temperature doesn't have the effect you predict. It slightly broadens the spectral lines, but doens't shift them.

 

[james blunt]

Easy enough. And guess what? Temperature doesn't have the effect you predict. It slightly broadens the spectral lines, but doens't shift them.

Well that sounds like a contradiction, to broaden is to expand, a change. So temperature does affect entropy like you have demonstrated.

 

[Polymath257]

Well that sounds like a contradiction, to broaden is to expand, a change. So temperature does affect entropy like you have demonstrated.

So you don't understand spectral lines either, huh? The question was whether temperature changes frequency.

 

[james blunt]

So you don't understand spectral lines either, huh?

Do I need to understand spectral lines to observe you just said they broaden?

You said they change not me, so correct yourself.

 

[Polymath257]

So you don't understand spectral lines either, huh?

Do I need to understand spectral lines to observe you just said they broaden?

You said they change not me, so correct yourself.

You claimed the change in entropy is the same as the change in frequency. I gave specific examples where that is false.

 

[james blunt]

You claimed the change in entropy is the same as the change in frequency. I gave specific examples where that is false.

At the same time you demonstrated entropy can change in many ways , but never mind, generate an electromagnetic field around it, I predict time will slow down or speed up.

added- You would be increasing field density.

 

[TrueBeliever37]

No, in relativistic time frames, the distances are both actually real. That's kinda the point of relativity, that there is no underlying static "true" distance, speed, or time at all. All such measures are inherently dictated by the frame of reference of the observer.

If the observer on the ship that measured the pen at 2 3/4" had an identical pen on their ship, it would have measured 5 1/2" to them.

 

[TrueBeliever37]

And the *best* description is to use the proper time, which is 0. For any observer going slower than light (any actual observer, that is), the proper time gives the 'experienced time' for that trip. This may well differ from what *other* observers measure to be the time of the trip.

And yes, distances *actually* differ depending on the reference frame.

Now, hopefully this won't confuse you more, but here goes. For any two events A and B, there are three options: 1) there is a reference frame when they happen at the same time, 2) there is a reference frame where they happen in the same location, 3) it is possible for light to go from one to the other.

Remember that an event happens at both a location and a time. So, one event might be 'light was emitted from a device on the earth'. Another event might be 'a flare erupted on a star'. Or, perhaps, 'this ship passed by that planet'. These all happen at some location and at some time. They are events.

For any two events that an *actual* observer can go between, it is the second possibility that is the case. In that case, the proper time (as experienced by an observer in uniform motion)is the time as measured in the frame at which the two events occur in the same location.

So, one event might be that someone picks up a ball in New York at 12:00 noon on Tuesday, while another might be that someone else eats a hamburger in Paris an hour later (please adjust for time zones). In the reference frame of the earth, these two events happen in different locations and at different times. BUT, there *is* a reference frame in which they happen *in the same location*. That reference frame is the one that moves at uniform speed from the event in NY to the event in Paris. Since that motion is uniform, the observer doing that motion can think of themselves at rest, and thereby the two events happen in the location of that observer: the same location in that frame. The proper time between those events is the time as experienced by that 'moving' observer. Notice that this motion is slower than light.

If light can go from one event to the other, the proper time between those two events is 0.

The curious type is when two events are NOT such that you can go between them at a speed at or below that of light.

So, as an example, suppose from the reference frame of the earth, we have an event happening in NY at 12 noon. Suppose the other event is something on the sun that happens at 12:05 according to the earth's reference frame. Since the sun is 500 light seconds from the earth (earth's frame), it is impossible for light or anything slower to go between those two events. What that means is that there is *some* reference frame where those two events are simultaneous: they happen at the same time in that reference frame. In this case (and not the two other cases), we can talk about a 'proper distance', which is the distance between those two events in the frame where they are simultaneous.

The problem is that there is NO situation where both 'proper time' and 'proper distance' are both defined. So you can *never* use those to determine and speeds.

I'm just not going to be able to believe, that physical distances actually shrink, or that light doesn't travel at c = 186,000 miles/sec , which is what you are essentially asking me to believe, when you are telling me it travels at t=0, d=0.

I just can't believe that a distance we measure as 30 million light years in our reference frame, could become 0 for the photon. 0 distance would mean there is no separation between the star and the planet - impossible. (unless 0 just doesn't really mean 0)

And this is only a theory. In Newton's day, everyone thought he was right. Then along came Einstein, brilliant indeed, but he's only a man. Maybe some of his ideas about light, just aren't right.

Enjoyed the discussion, but I think I have spent enough time on it.

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

If the observer on the ship that measured the pen at 2 3/4" had an identical pen on their ship, it would have measured 5 1/2" to them.

I'm not sure what you mean, but remember relativity is about relations to things separated by a relativistic velocity, not two different pens measured by the same observer at separate times in separate frames of reference

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

I'm just not going to be able to believe, that physical distances actually shrink, or that light doesn't travel at c = 186,000 miles/sec , which is what you are essentially asking me to believe, when you are telling me it travels at t=0, d=0.

I just can't believe that a distance we measure as 30 million light years in our reference frame, could become 0 for the photon. 0 distance would mean there is no separation between the star and the planet - impossible. (unless 0 just doesn't really mean 0)

And this is only a theory. In Newton's day, everyone thought he was right. Then along came Einstein, brilliant indeed, but he's only a man. Maybe some of his ideas about light, just aren't right.

Enjoyed the discussion, but I think I have spent enough time on it.

This stuff has been experimentally verified. And yes, everyone agrees it's counter intuitive, but that's just part of the deal.

 

[Polymath257]

I'm just not going to be able to believe, that physical distances actually shrink, or that light doesn't travel at c = 186,000 miles/sec , which is what you are essentially asking me to believe, when you are telling me it travels at t=0, d=0.

I just can't believe that a distance we measure as 30 million light years in our reference frame, could become 0 for the photon. 0 distance would mean there is no separation between the star and the planet - impossible. (unless 0 just doesn't really mean 0)

And this is only a theory. In Newton's day, everyone thought he was right. Then along came Einstein, brilliant indeed, but he's only a man. Maybe some of his ideas about light, just aren't right.

Enjoyed the discussion, but I think I have spent enough time on it.

In every way that we have tested, Einstein's ideas about relativity have been right. And this has been extensively tested in the past century.

Now, Einsteain *was* wrong about quantum mechanics. But if anything, that is even more counter-intuitive than relativity.

 

[gnostic]

And this is only a theory. In Newton's day, everyone thought he was right. Then along came Einstein, brilliant indeed, but he's only a man.

Sorry, but Relativity is right.

A large part of astrophysics wouldn’t not work or wouldn’t be understood without Einstein’s Relativity.

And Relativity have been brought astronomy to modern science.

I am not saying Einstein didn’t make any mistake. He did, with his own cosmology competing against the 1920s expanding universe model (later known as the Big Bang cosmology, in 1948 or 49).

As to Newton. He may have contributed to physics and mathematics, but he was also involved in the pseudoscience alchemy.

Alchemy isn’t science.

 

[TrueBeliever37]

I'm not sure what you mean, but remember relativity is about relations to things separated by a relativistic velocity, not two different pens measured by the same observer at separate times in separate frames of reference

Hi Armoured,

What I meant was that the same observer may have measured a pen that was 5 1/2" in one ship as say 3 3/4", but would still measure an identical pen on his ship as being 5 1/2" long. So that would let me know the true length was 5 1/2".

 

[TrueBeliever37]

In every way that we have tested, Einstein's ideas about relativity have been right. And this has been extensively tested in the past century.

Now, Einsteain *was* wrong about quantum mechanics. But if anything, that is even more counter-intuitive than relativity.

Polymath,

I always felt like you guys were applying the math wrong in some kind of way. But I just couldn't put my finger on it. When I would look at the equation you were using, I thought well it does appear to let what you call the proper time approach 0 as the velocity approached the speed of light. But I just knew it couldn't be the way you guys were applying it.

So I got to thinking about it more, wondering what does the proper time really represent in that equation. I started wondering why would the speed and distance a photon experiences be effected by the velocity of a ship? Because the photon itself is always traveling at c.

Then I realized the proper time approaching 0 in that equation is not what the photon is experiencing. The proper time is what an observer B on the ship would record for the photon from his perspective or relative to himself. And it makes sense then, because as the ship velocity approaches c, observer B records smaller and smaller times and distances for the photon relative to himself. Once the ship reaches the speed of light, observer B can record no time or distance for the photon relative to himself. But the photon itself is still experiencing 186,000 miles/sec. It's just that so would observer B at that point. Relative to each other there is no time or distance experienced.

Much like observer B with a softball in his lap traveling on a plane moving at 500 mph could record no time or distance for the softball. Although observer A on the earth would record it as moving at 500 mph.

 

[TrueBeliever37]

Sorry, but Relativity is right.

A large part of astrophysics wouldn’t not work or wouldn’t be understood without Einstein’s Relativity.

And Relativity have been brought astronomy to modern science.

I am not saying Einstein didn’t make any mistake. He did, with his own cosmology competing against the 1920s expanding universe model (later known as the Big Bang cosmology, in 1948 or 49).

As to Newton. He may have contributed to physics and mathematics, but he was also involved in the pseudoscience alchemy.

Alchemy isn’t science.

Relativity might be right in some ways, but not in the ways you guys are applying it, coming to the conclusion that a photon experiences no time or distance.

In that equation, the proper time that is approaching 0, is relative to an observer approaching the speed of light, not that the photon's time experienced is actually approaching 0.

A photon travels at a constant rate of 186,000 miles/sec. That is both time and distance.

 

[Polymath257]

Hi Armoured,

What I meant was that the same observer may have measured a pen that was 5 1/2" in one ship as say 3 3/4", but would still measure an identical pen on his ship as being 5 1/2" long. So that would let me know the true length was 5 1/2".

So, you only accept the frame in which the pen is at rest.

 

[gnostic]

Relativity might be right in some ways, but not in the ways you guys are applying it, coming to the conclusion that a photon experiences no time or distance.

In that equation, the proper time that is approaching 0, is relative to an observer approaching the speed of light, not that the photon's time experienced is actually approaching 0.

A photon travels at a constant rate of 186,000 miles/sec. That is both time and distance.

Sorry but what part of time dilation, you don’t understand?

The clocks are never the same between satellites, space station or space missions that orbited around the Earth, to the clock at control centre at NASA, by seconds, because of due to the speeds differ (hence Special Relativity) and due to gravity (General Relativity) and the nature of spacetime.

 

[TrueBeliever37]

So, you only accept the frame in which the pen is at rest.

No, but the one ship made two measurements, one on board, and one on the other ship, both of which pens were identical. Since both were 5 1/2" when viewed first hand, wouldn't that be the actual physical measurement?

Also, please comment on post #1315

 

[TrueBeliever37]

Sorry but what part of time dilation, you don’t understand?

The clocks are never the same between satellites, space station or space missions that orbited around the Earth, to the clock at control centre at NASA, by seconds, because of due to the speeds differ (hence Special Relativity) and due to gravity (General Relativity) and the nature of spacetime.

Sorry, but you either believe light travels at a constant speed of c or you don't. c = 186,000 miles/sec