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

[gnostic]

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

You really don’t understand the concept of evidences, do you?

Relativity is more than just speed or a constant. Science is more than just about a single constant.

Science is about explanatory knowledge, backed by observation or evidences.

Evidences can be something that you can observe or detect, something that be quantified or measured, something that can be tested or verified.

The clock at command centre at nasa and the clocks on satellites, rockets or space shuttle have been synced with base’s clock, before launch.

Depending on the duration of the missions, speed of crafts, the orbital distance from Earth, time will either be faster or slower than the base command’s clock.

Even if time differences between base and crafts are just matter of seconds, microseconds or nanoseconds, they are detectable and measurable evidences of time dilation.

And if the next 10, 50 or 100 other missions, and each one have different time differences to that of the base’s clock, then you will have multiple evidences that confirmed time dilation are not only possible, but probable, then you have quantifiable and verifiable evidences.

The more evidences you have, the more probable is the theory. It is all the evidences that provide real-world solution.

But the more evidences you have against the theory, or the lack of evidence or the theory is untestable, only then, you would know the theory is improbable.

It is the evidence (eg physical evidences, the experiments and tests) that determine the validity of scientific theory, not the constant.

If the constant, or mathematical equations or formulas, don’t match the available empirical evidences, then it is the maths wrong.

The constants, equations and formulas are only valid and relevant if the evidences and maths work together.

The only reasons why Multiverse model, Superstring Theory, String Theory, M-theory, etc, are considered theoretical physics and not scientific theories, are because they have only logical and mathematical solutions to the problems, but no (real-world) testable evidences.

And the only reason why the constant speed of light have been accepted, and therefore valid and relevant, is because it works with Relativity, including time dilation.

You need to focus more on the evidences, not just maths. I am not saying you should ignore the maths. Far from it.

 

[Polymath257]

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

I'm phone only for the next couple of days, so responses will be brief.

First hand seems to mean the same as 'at rest with respect to', which is the same as 'in rest frame of'.

The other post requires more space than the phone allows easily.

 

[Polymath257]

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

That has not been disputed. But you asked what the light experiences, which makes sense only with proper time. And for light, that is zero.

 

[TrueBeliever37]

That has not been disputed. But you asked what the light experiences, which makes sense only with proper time. And for light, that is zero.

Light experiences 186,000 miles/sec

Proper time in the formula you are using where the proper time is approaching 0, is not the time the photon experiences. It's the time an observer would record for the photon relative to himself as he approaches the speed of light in the ship. Yet you conclude that proper time=0 for the photon. Contrary to light traveling at 186,000 miles/sec

186,000 miles/sec (does not) = 0 miles/ 0 sec

 

[TrueBeliever37]

You really don’t understand the concept of evidences, do you?

Relativity is more than just speed or a constant. Science is more than just about a single constant.

Science is about explanatory knowledge, backed by observation or evidences.

Evidences can be something that you can observe or detect, something that be quantified or measured, something that can be tested or verified.

The clock at command centre at nasa and the clocks on satellites, rockets or space shuttle have been synced with base’s clock, before launch.

Depending on the duration of the missions, speed of crafts, the orbital distance from Earth, time will either be faster or slower than the base command’s clock.

Even if time differences between base and crafts are just matter of seconds, microseconds or nanoseconds, they are detectable and measurable evidences of time dilation.

And if the next 10, 50 or 100 other missions, and each one have different time differences to that of the base’s clock, then you will have multiple evidences that confirmed time dilation are not only possible, but probable, then you have quantifiable and verifiable evidences.

The more evidences you have, the more probable is the theory. It is all the evidences that provide real-world solution.

But the more evidences you have against the theory, or the lack of evidence or the theory is untestable, only then, you would know the theory is improbable.

It is the evidence (eg physical evidences, the experiments and tests) that determine the validity of scientific theory, not the constant.

If the constant, or mathematical equations or formulas, don’t match the available empirical evidences, then it is the maths wrong.

The constants, equations and formulas are only valid and relevant if the evidences and maths work together.

The only reasons why Multiverse model, Superstring Theory, String Theory, M-theory, etc, are considered theoretical physics and not scientific theories, are because they have only logical and mathematical solutions to the problems, but no (real-world) testable evidences.

And the only reason why the constant speed of light have been accepted, and therefore valid and relevant, is because it works with Relativity, including time dilation.

You need to focus more on the evidences, not just maths. I am not saying you should ignore the maths. Far from it.

The clocks are a separate issue from light traveling at a constant speed of 186,000 miles/sec which does not equal 0 miles/ 0 sec

There are so many variables involved with the use of the clocks, i.e. accuracy of the clocks, delays in transmission of time, actual speeds and/or variability in speed of the crafts, actual duration of the missions, human error, etc. Microseconds or nanoseconds difference could just be due to some kind of error, even seconds for that matter. Maybe there is even some factor affecting the accuracy of the clock.

You can't just ignore or nullify the constant speed of light.

Other than just your say so, is there anywhere the actual data gathered and methods used in these missions can be reviewed?

 

[Polymath257]

Light experiences 186,000 miles/sec

No, the speed of light as measured by any observer is that speed. There can be no observer going that speed, partly for that reason.

Proper time in the formula you are using where the proper time is approaching 0, is not the time the photon experiences. It's the time an observer would record for the photon relative to himself as he approaches the speed of light in the ship. Yet you conclude that proper time=0 for the photon. Contrary to light traveling at 186,000 miles/sec

186,000 miles/sec (does not) = 0 miles/ 0 sec

The proper time is NOT what a different observer measures for the time. That is the whole point of proper time: it doesn't depend on the observer. This is not the measurement from some frame!

 

[TrueBeliever37]

The proper time is NOT what a different observer measures for the time. That is the whole point of proper time: it doesn't depend on the observer. This is not the measurement from some frame!

What are you saying proper time represents in the equation you guys use?

 

[gnostic]

The clocks are a separate issue from light traveling at a constant speed of 186,000 miles/sec which does not equal 0 miles/ 0 sec

There are so many variables involved with the use of the clocks, i.e. accuracy of the clocks, delays in transmission of time, actual speeds and/or variability in speed of the crafts, actual duration of the missions, human error, etc. Microseconds or nanoseconds difference could just be due to some kind of error, even seconds for that matter. Maybe there is even some factor affecting the accuracy of the clock.

You can't just ignore or nullify the constant speed of light.

Other than just your say so, is there anywhere the actual data gathered and methods used in these missions can be reviewed?

You are still ignoring the evidences.

Detectable, measurable and verifiable evidences.

You are so focus on just a constant, and ignoring everything else.

Did you ever did science experiments in school?

What are the purposes of performing the experiments?

How do they relate to each theory?

Did you ever go out in the field, that required you to perform tests?

Why do you perform tests?

As relevant the speed of light to Relativity, you are wasting your time, if you ignore why we have a constant in the first place.

Why do you bother to bring up speed of light, again and again, but ignored time dilation?

Why are you so against evidences?

They are connected, but you seem to don’t want to understand it. Stubborn ignorance is not a virtue.

 

[Polymath257]

What are you saying proper time represents in the equation you guys use?

If you look at a path an object takes, the proper time along that path is the time experienced by the object. This is the case for all paths that stay less than or equal to the speed of light.

In the case of path that light travels, that proper time is always 0. It is called a null path.

 

[gnostic]

Other than just your say so, is there anywhere the actual data gathered and methods used in these missions can be reviewed?

Are you sure want a link?

The first one is bit involved, and quite a lot read.

This is a link to peer-review article from the website “Living Review of Relativity” and the affect of clocks on the GPS:

volume 6 (2003), article Relativity in the Global Positioning System, click here to go to article.​

The 2nd is more of “letter” of one astronaut’s experiences, in space station mission (NASA):

Greeting Earthlings, Ed’s Musings From Space: Expedition 7​

 

[TrueBeliever37]

If you look at a path an object takes, the proper time along that path is the time experienced by the object. This is the case for all paths that stay less than or equal to the speed of light.

In the case of path that light travels, that proper time is always 0. It is called a null path.

Where is your proof that the proper time for light is always 0?

 

[TrueBeliever37]

Are you sure want a link?

The first one is bit involved, and quite a lot read.

This is a link to peer-review article from the website “Living Review of Relativity” and the affect of clocks on the GPS:

volume 6 (2003), article Relativity in the Global Positioning System, click here to go to article.​

The 2nd is more of “letter” of one astronaut’s experiences, in space station mission (NASA):

Greeting Earthlings, Ed’s Musings From Space: Expedition 7​

Seriously, you don't believe with all that complexity and the numerous corrections being made and the many adjustments, that there can't be error involved?

So you think because he thinks he aged 0.007 seconds less than everyone else when he gets back, that that is evidence?

 

[TrueBeliever37]

You are still ignoring the evidences.

Detectable, measurable and verifiable evidences.

You are so focus on just a constant, and ignoring everything else.

Did you ever did science experiments in school?

What are the purposes of performing the experiments?

How do they relate to each theory?

Did you ever go out in the field, that required you to perform tests?

Why do you perform tests?

As relevant the speed of light to Relativity, you are wasting your time, if you ignore why we have a constant in the first place.

Why do you bother to bring up speed of light, again and again, but ignored time dilation?

Why are you so against evidences?

They are connected, but you seem to don’t want to understand it. Stubborn ignorance is not a virtue.

I'm not against evidence, what are you talking about? Up to this point you had just made statements like they are facts, but provided no actual evidence. I had to ask for something besides your say so.

I keep bringing up speed of light, because it is a constant, that you want to change from 186,000 miles/sec to 0 miles/0 sec for a photon. I see that as a flaw in your logic.

 

[Polymath257]

Where is your proof that the proper time for light is always 0?

If there are two events that happen a distance x apart and a time t apart, as measured in some reference frame, the proper time between those events is the square root of

t^2 -c^2 x^2.

For light, this is always 0, BECAUSE light always goes at speed c.

 

[Polymath257]

I'm not against evidence, what are you talking about? Up to this point you had just made statements like they are facts, but provided no actual evidence. I had to ask for something besides your say so.

I keep bringing up speed of light, because it is a constant, that you want to change from 186,000 miles/sec to 0 miles/0 sec for a photon. I see that as a flaw in your logic.

First, 0/0 is indeterminate: it can evaluate to anything, depending on which limit gives it. In this case, the limit is c.

Second, you dont use proper time to compute speeds.

 

[Polymath257]

Where is your proof that the proper time for light is always 0?

The proof is that relativity works. If light didn't follow a null path, things like the bending of light by the sun would be different.

 

[Polymath257]

Seriously, you don't believe with all that complexity and the numerous corrections being made and the many adjustments, that there can't be error involved?

Yes, error bars are crucial for the testing. The possible errors are far less than the observed differences.

So you think because he thinks he aged 0.007 seconds less than everyone else when he gets back, that that is evidence?[/QUOTE]

 

[Polymath257]

Yes, error bars are crucial for the testing. The possible errors are far less than the observed differences.

So you think because he thinks he aged 0.007 seconds less than everyone else when he gets back, that that is evidence?

NO. The evidence is from the atomic clocks.

 

[TrueBeliever37]

If there are two events that happen a distance x apart and a time t apart, as measured in some reference frame, the proper time between those events is the square root of

t^2 -c^2 x^2.

For light, this is always 0, BECAUSE light always goes at speed c.

No, I mean where is the formula showing proof that proper time is always 0 for light.


When you get a chance, I still want to hear from you regarding post #1315

 

[Polymath257]

No, I mean where is the formula showing proof that proper time is always 0 for light.

Use the formula I gave. For light, x=ct.

When you get a chance, I still want to hear from you regarding post #1315

I'll be back home tonight.