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

[Polymath257]

If we have to wait around here on earth for 30 million years for the light to reach it's destination, then the light couldn't have reached its destination instantly as you guys are saying. That makes absolutely no sense.

If we had a telescope powerful enough to see that far, we would be able to see that light instantly if it arrives instantly.

In our frame of reference, it does NOT arrive instantly.

Because the light is in a constant state of flow, how would you ever be able to prove which photons you were seeing?

If you are concerned with the quantum aspects (which you are if you are considering photons), then light is NOT a continuous flow.

*First scenario - we have to wait 30 million years to see light that reached it's destination instantly.

Read: what takes 30 million years in our reference frame takes 0 time in the limiting reference frame for a photon.

*Second scenario - Assume the light is emitted at the exact point in time that it was for the First scenario. This time we only have to wait 4 years for the light. It reaches it's destination instantly also.

Read: in our reference frame, it takes 4 years. In the limiting frame for the photon, it takes 0 time.

If both are emitted at the same instant, and reach there destination instantly. Why do we have to wait longer for one than the other?
In there frame of reference they both reached the destination instantly.

Yes, in the limiting frame, all distances are 0. So? Don't switch frames. For that matter, don't use a limiting frame.

 

[Polymath257]

OK, the Lorentz Transformations.

Suppose you see an event happening at time t and position x away from you.

Suppose that someone else is moving in the x direction at a speed v. Suppose also that they make sure their t'=0 and x'=0 correspond with yours.

Then

x' =(gamma)x - (beta)(gamma)t
and
t'=-(beta)(gamma)x +(gamma)t

where beta = v/c and gamma = 1/sqrt(1- (v/c)^2 ).

Notice that, as v-->c, that gamma-->infinity and beta-->1.

Now, please ask very specific questions and we can apply these equations to see what happens.

 

[james blunt]

OK, the Lorentz Transformations.

Suppose you see an event happening at time t and position x away from you.

Suppose that someone else is moving in the x direction at a speed v. Suppose also that they make sure their t'=0 and x'=0 correspond with yours.

Then

x' =(gamma)x - (beta)(gamma)t
and
t'=-(beta)(gamma)x +(gamma)t

where beta = v/c and gamma = 1/sqrt(1- (v/c)^2 ).

Notice that, as v-->c, that gamma-->infinity and beta-->1.

Now, please ask very specific questions and we can apply these equations to see what happens.

Do you mean something like this to start with?

What is gamma ?

What is beta?

 

[Polymath257]

Do you mean something like this to start with?

What is gamma ?

What is beta?

View attachment 22368

Your diagram is unclear. I define beta and gamma in the post. beta=v/c and gamma = 1/sqrt(1-beta^2)

 

[james blunt]

Your diagram is unclear. I define beta and gamma in the post. beta=v/c and gamma = 1/sqrt(1-beta^2)

My diagram is unclear, you couldn't imagine how strange math looks if you do not know the math.

What does sqrt mean? square root?

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

And again, there is no frame of reference moving at the speed of light. How many times do I need to say it before it comes across?

Some people find counterintuitive stuff... well... counterintuitive. In fairness some of these are not easy concepts even when you're familiar with them.

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

My diagram is unclear, you couldn't imagine how strange math looks if you do not know the math.

What does sqrt mean? square root?

You don't know the math... but seek to tell us Einstein was wrong? Fun.

 

[Polymath257]

My diagram is unclear, you couldn't imagine how strange math looks if you do not know the math.

What does sqrt mean? square root?

Yes, square root. Standard notation for it in written math.

 

[Polymath257]

My diagram is unclear, you couldn't imagine how strange math looks if you do not know the math.

Oh, I'm sorry. I thought you knew everything about this. What I wrote is the standard Lorentz Transformation and I used standard notation.

 

[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.

I do have a question and a comment.

How can you even come up with an observer time that is different than the proper time unless you are using the same frame of reference?
If you use the same reference frame, then I could see how this equation would apply. But that doesn't look like what you are doing.

I could see where you could have one different answer for say a distance when you are using different frames of reference.
But you guys always have the same answer for any different distances presented. That is impossible. You try to get around this by saying there is no frame of reference.
If you don't have a frame of reference then you can't even know what is going on for sure.

 

[TrueBeliever37]

OK, the Lorentz Transformations.

Suppose you see an event happening at time t and position x away from you.

Suppose that someone else is moving in the x direction at a speed v. Suppose also that they make sure their t'=0 and x'=0 correspond with yours.

Then

x' =(gamma)x - (beta)(gamma)t
and
t'=-(beta)(gamma)x +(gamma)t

where beta = v/c and gamma = 1/sqrt(1- (v/c)^2 ).

Notice that, as v-->c, that gamma-->infinity and beta-->1.

Now, please ask very specific questions and we can apply these equations to see what happens.

Isn't this something you could only apply when the times and positions are coming from the same frame of reference?

If so, it doesn't work because you say there is no frame of reference for speed of light since time, and distance are not experienced.

 

[Polymath257]

Isn't this something you could only apply when the times and positions are coming from the same frame of reference?

If so, it doesn't work because you say there is no frame of reference for speed of light since time, and distance are not experienced.

The x and t come from one reference frame. The x' and t' are the coordinates for the same event in the moving reference frame.

And yes, as I have said *many* times now, there is no reference frame moving at the speed of light. Is that clear yet?

The results for light are found by taking the limit as v-->c.

 

[Polymath257]

I do have a question and a comment.

How can you even come up with an observer time that is different than the proper time unless you are using the same frame of reference?
If you use the same reference frame, then I could see how this equation would apply. But that doesn't look like what you are doing.

There are two reference frames here. One uses the proper time and is moving with the object in question. The other uses observer time and is moving at velocity v with respect to that object.

Proper time and observer time are *only* equal if v=0. In other words, only if the observer and the object are at rest to each other.

I could see where you could have one different answer for say a distance when you are using different frames of reference.

It's not clear what you are saying here. The phrase 'one different answer' is strange: you need at least two answers for there to be a difference.

But you guys always have the same answer for any different distances presented. That is impossible. You try to get around this by saying there is no frame of reference.
If you don't have a frame of reference then you can't even know what is going on for sure.

Once again, this is done by taking the limit of what happens for v<c.

 

[TrueBeliever37]

The x and t come from one reference frame. The x' and t' are the coordinates for the same event in the moving reference frame.

And yes, as I have said *many* times now, there is no reference frame moving at the speed of light. Is that clear yet?

The results for light are found by taking the limit as v-->c.

yes I understand what you are saying - that is why I am saying I can only see that equation working for events in the same frame of reference.

So keeping this in mind please reply to my comment in post #610
When you start putting 0 in the denominator aren't you changing to a frame of reference that doesn't even exist?

 

[Polymath257]

yes I understand what you are saying - that is why I am saying I can only see that equation working for events in the same frame of reference.

Events exist independently of the frame of reference. The *coordinates* of events are what depend on the frame of reference.

So keeping this in mind please reply to my comment in post #610
When you start putting 0 in the denominator aren't you changing to a frame of reference that doesn't even exist?

For the n+1st time. Yes. To get the results for v=c, we actually do the *limit* as v-->c. Does this make sense?

 

[james blunt]

You don't know the math... but seek to tell us Einstein was wrong? Fun.

Do you think physics is all about math?

Physics precedes maths .

 

[Thermos aquaticus]

I do have a question and a comment.

How can you even come up with an observer time that is different than the proper time unless you are using the same frame of reference?

You do that by measuring the relative velocity between the frames of reference using one frame of reference as your standard. Since the Earth is not travelling at the speed of light there is a passage of time in Earth's frame of reference. On top of that, nothing with mass can travel at the speed of light because it would take infinite energy to accelerate a mass to that speed since mass also increases with velocity. Anything with mass would accumulate infinite mass at the speed of light.

If you don't have a frame of reference then you can't even know what is going on for sure.

We do know what is happening in each frame of reference. The problem is that you incorrectly assume that what is happening the photon's frame of reference is the same as what is happening in Earth's frame of reference.

 

[james blunt]

Events exist independently of the frame of reference. The *coordinates* of events are what depend on the frame of reference.



For the n+1st time. Yes. To get the results for v=c, we actually do the *limit* as v-->c. Does this make sense?

I have not finished this yet , but have a read.

The Speed of Light limitations.

The constant speed of light 299 792 458 m / s is abbreviated by the letter c , referred to as the fastest possible speed in the Universe. It is also stated that mass could never travel at the speed of light c.
However , although we do not disagree with the worldly accepted speed of light constant, we do disagree that the speed of light constant, being the universal maximum speed limit. Our reasons for this are based on dimensional analysis , especially in relationship to points. Firstly , what does it mean when we refer to a point in physics? A point simply means zero dimensions, a geometrical point means a positioned point in a R³ real coordinate space-time. One could say that space was a n-dimensional volume of geometrical points and space-time was the stuff that occupied those points. Any given geometrical point having zero dimensions and identical in space-time value to any different given geometrical point.
So what is the relevance of this you may ask ? In analysis we considered a vector X of 299 792 458 m in length . We then considered within X there was multiple points aligned along the vector , we then considered light traversing from the start of our created length (position A) , to the end of the created length (position B) knowing the total journey time was 1 second with a speed constant of 299 792 458 m / s .
Now to understand the significance of the mentioned so far, we need to take you back to before the light was emitted and X was in relative darkness. We know X exists without light and considered a particular thought . If light takes an amount of time to travel from A to B then light does not arrive in an instant, so therefore instant would be faster than c and the obvious maximum speed of infinitely fast. This thought logically showing that c is not the fastest speed but we know logic alone is not enough as proof.
So let us take this a little bit further, not making it too lengthy of a subject.
In analysis we created two identical values of vector X placing them parallel . We then marked both B positions , marking one of them 1 second and marking the other o.5 seconds. We then again thought about the light traversing from A to B and considered if it were possible for faster c. Now our conclusion was that for the one marked 0.5 seconds the light would have to travel c*2 to arrive in 0.5 seconds. We give it some lengthy consideration to all agree that is was possible to get a faster speed than c, our parallel vectors showing us conclusively.

 

[TrueBeliever37]

You do that by measuring the relative velocity between the frames of reference using one frame of reference as your standard. Since the Earth is not travelling at the speed of light there is a passage of time in Earth's frame of reference. On top of that, nothing with mass can travel at the speed of light because it would take infinite energy to accelerate a mass to that speed since mass also increases with velocity. Anything with mass would accumulate infinite mass at the speed of light.



We do know what is happening in each frame of reference. The problem is that you incorrectly assume that what is happening the photon's frame of reference is the same as what is happening in Earth's frame of reference.

Polymath257 told me the photon has no frame of reference, unless I didn't understand him correctly. I put what he said below in brackets.

[And yes, as I have said *many* times now, there is no reference frame moving at the speed of light. Is that clear yet?]

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

I have not finished this yet , but have a read.

The Speed of Light limitations.

The constant speed of light 299 792 458 m / s is abbreviated by the letter c , referred to as the fastest possible speed in the Universe. It is also stated that mass could never travel at the speed of light c.
However , although we do not disagree with the worldly accepted speed of light constant, we do disagree that the speed of light constant, being the universal maximum speed limit. Our reasons for this are based on dimensional analysis , especially in relationship to points. Firstly , what does it mean when we refer to a point in physics? A point simply means zero dimensions, a geometrical point means a positioned point in a R³ real coordinate space-time. One could say that space was a n-dimensional volume of geometrical points and space-time was the stuff that occupied those points. Any given geometrical point having zero dimensions and identical in space-time value to any different given geometrical point.
So what is the relevance of this you may ask ? In analysis we considered a vector X of 299 792 458 m in length . We then considered within X there was multiple points aligned along the vector , we then considered light traversing from the start of our created length (position A) , to the end of the created length (position B) knowing the total journey time was 1 second with a speed constant of 299 792 458 m / s .
Now to understand the significance of the mentioned so far, we need to take you back to before the light was emitted and X was in relative darkness. We know X exists without light and considered a particular thought . If light takes an amount of time to travel from A to B then light does not arrive in an instant, so therefore instant would be faster than c and the obvious maximum speed of infinitely fast. This thought logically showing that c is not the fastest speed but we know logic alone is not enough as proof.
So let us take this a little bit further, not making it too lengthy of a subject.
In analysis we created two identical values of vector X placing them parallel . We then marked both B positions , marking one of them 1 second and marking the other o.5 seconds. We then again thought about the light traversing from A to B and considered if it were possible for faster c. Now our conclusion was that for the one marked 0.5 seconds the light would have to travel c*2 to arrive in 0.5 seconds. We give it some lengthy consideration to all agree that is was possible to get a faster speed than c, our parallel vectors showing us conclusively.

Things can move faster than light relative to each other, but no information can pass between them.