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

[james blunt]

Look, I am inventive

 

[james blunt]

I can make invisible

 

[james blunt]

Did you think I was joking when I said God shows me insight ?

I can't explain my gift any other way .

 

[Subduction Zone]

Did you think I was joking when I said God shows me insight ?

I can't explain my gift any other way .

So you are claiming that you are proof that God does not exist.

That is an interesting and highly innovative argument and I cannot find a flaw in it.

Congratulations.

 

[gnostic]

Time doesn't slow down either but that doesn't seem to bother you .

Time does slow down, as evidently demonstrated from the space station or the longer mission of space station.

Time are different at NASA control centre on Earth than those at spacecraft or space station at orbit, when comparing the clocks together.

Those in orbit, the clocks have shown to have slow down minutes, depending on how long astronauts spent in space.

That verified Einstein’s Special Relativity, regarding to speed.

 

[james blunt]

Time does slow down, as evidently demonstrated from the space station or the longer mission of space station.

Time are different at NASA control centre on Earth than those at spacecraft or space station at orbit, when comparing the clocks together.

Those in orbit, the clocks have shown to have slow down minutes, depending on how long astronauts spent in space.

That verified Einstein’s Special Relativity, regarding to speed.

Look at this critically, the measurement slows down, not the time the measurement represents. In physics time is its measurement , get it now? There is time and ''timing'' which is measurement.

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

Well I will get my space force drive to work , good luck with your inventions.

Is this as well as the antigravity device or is this something else?

 

[james blunt]

Is this as well as the antigravity device or is this something else?

Mr trump wants a space force, get it now ?

Anti gravity space force lol

 

[TrueBeliever37]

Which observer? On earth? On another ship? On the ship in question? The answers depend on which you choose.



And if, instead of an observer A on the earth, you looked at an observer C in a different reference frame as your point of reference, the limit as v->c of the time it takes for B to go from the earth to the sun would be different that 8 minutes 20 seconds, depending on how observer C moves with respect to observer A. The reason we got 500 seconds is that we were using the earth's frame as the one to compare to (the observer's frame). Take a different obsever's frame and you get a different answer (because the v will be different between A and C's frames).

Not disputing that. Only disputing distances actually shrinking, and that a photon experiences no time or distance. A photon travels at c, no matter what reference frame you are using. And it is nonsensical to say it travels 0 distance in 0 time. Everyone can travel 0 distance in 0 time, all you have to do is sit there.

 

[TrueBeliever37]

Look at this critically, the measurement slows down, not the time the measurement represents. In physics time is its measurement , get it now? There is time and ''timing'' which is measurement.

Bingo - just like the physical distance doesn't literally shrink, the measurement for that physical distance may change, but that measurement means something different in that reference frame.

Just like my examples with the 5 1/2" pen. Someone else in another frame of reference may have measured it at 2 3/4" long, but in reality it is still a 5 1/2" long pen.

 

[james blunt]

Bingo - just like the physical distance doesn't literally shrink, the measurement for that physical distance may change, but that measurement means something different in that reference frame.

Just like my examples with the 5 1/2" pen. Someone else in another frame of reference may have measured it at 2 3/4" long, but in reality it is still a 5 1/2" long pen.

You got it , I am impressed.

 

[james blunt]

Everyone can travel 0 distance in 0 time, all you have to do is sit there.

Love it....

 

[Polymath257]

Not disputing that. Only disputing distances actually shrinking, and that a photon experiences no time or distance. A photon travels at c, no matter what reference frame you are using. And it is nonsensical to say it travels 0 distance in 0 time. Everyone can travel 0 distance in 0 time, all you have to do is sit there.

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.

 

[Polymath257]

Bingo - just like the physical distance doesn't literally shrink, the measurement for that physical distance may change, but that measurement means something different in that reference frame.

Just like my examples with the 5 1/2" pen. Someone else in another frame of reference may have measured it at 2 3/4" long, but in reality it is still a 5 1/2" long pen.

No, it is *both* of those lengths, depending on the frame of reference used. You can, if you want, *prefer* the reference frame in which that pen is at rest. But there are times when finding such a frame isn't possible, or where it isn't very useful.

 

[Thermos aquaticus]

Hmm no, that is called timing, I have already demonstrated time does not slow down earlier in the thread. You ignored this.

Made up stories are not a demonstration.

 

[Thermos aquaticus]

Hi Thermos, The limit wasn't for velocity, it was for time. As the v of the ship approached c

In the equation we were looking at, it was a limit for the observers time, as v of the ship approached c. Which turned out to be 500s per Polymaths calculation. Telling us that the limit for the time that the observer would record for that ship to get from earth to the sun, as it approached the speed of light, would be 8m and 20s. Exactly what we would expect, the same as the time for light to get from the sun to the earth.

That makes sense. For an observer on Earth, the time it takes any object to reach the Sun from the Earth would get closer and closer to 500s as the object neared the speed of light since at the speed of light it takes 500s for anything to travel that distance from the Earth's frame of reference.

 

[Polymath257]

Not disputing that. Only disputing distances actually shrinking, and that a photon experiences no time or distance. A photon travels at c, no matter what reference frame you are using. And it is nonsensical to say it travels 0 distance in 0 time. Everyone can travel 0 distance in 0 time, all you have to do is sit there.

So, let's define what we mean.

What do you mean when you say the 'actual distances'? How are such determined? How would we know if they 'shrink' or not?

Look at this critically, the measurement slows down, not the time the measurement represents. In physics time is its measurement , get it now? There is time and ''timing'' which is measurement.

OK, so how to you determine the difference *in practice*? How do you find the 'time' as opposed to the 'time measurement'?

Remember that *everything* in physics is operationally defined: it is defined by how we measure it.

 

[Thermos aquaticus]

This something travelling at the speed of light c, that time has stopped for according to you , how long does it take for that something to travel a light year ?

For the something travelling at the speed of light there is no distance of one light year because length contraction is infinite at that speed.

 

[Thermos aquaticus]

Look at this critically, the measurement slows down, not the time the measurement represents. In physics time is its measurement , get it now? There is time and ''timing'' which is measurement.

There is no difference between time and our measurement of it.

 

[Thermos aquaticus]

Not disputing that. Only disputing distances actually shrinking, and that a photon experiences no time or distance. A photon travels at c, no matter what reference frame you are using. And it is nonsensical to say it travels 0 distance in 0 time. Everyone can travel 0 distance in 0 time, all you have to do is sit there.

You are not travelling at the speed of light.

There is a lot of physics that is nonsensical, but it is also true. One of the first things you learn as a scientist is that you need to follow the data, not your own human bias.