"Time is the speed of light."

[Bud Jetsun]

When one examens the illusion of 'motion' it collapses into arbitrary reference artifacts.

 

When one examens the illusion of 'time' it collapses into arbitrary reference artifacts.

 

When one examens the illusion of 'distance' it collapses into arbitrary reference artifacts.

 

To gain the delusion of understanding the non-real is to add an additional obstacle in perception of the real.

 

Unlimited Love,

-Bud

[Stosh]

Also , this is a bit of a side bar , Im more angled at the fact that the degree of distortion varies with relative speed.

[Bud Jetsun]

Also , this is a bit of a side bar , Im more angled at the fact that the degree of distortion varies with relative speed.

 

All the letters in this thread were typed by folks 'moving' at ~117,000km/hr on a little blue marble spaceship around the sun, whilst the sun is 'moving' at ~828,000km/hr taking our solar system with it through the milky way, which is 'moving' at ~1.332 Million miles per hour.

 

It doesn't require traveling around the earth or whatnot. If one puts a wrist watch on, at the moment ones arm moves, its now experienced a different period of 'time' than the portion of ones body that didn't move with the wrist.

 

The illusion of consistency in 'time' is merely an artifact of the capacity to instrument reality, and instead make clocks as aids/props for pretending time is something realer than artifact.

 

Motion, rate, distance, time illusions don't exist outside the delusions of some confused humans believing in them as a result of cripplingly limited mechanisms of perception.

 

Unlimited Love,

-Bud

 

[Marblehead]

Also , this is a bit of a side bar , Im more angled at the fact that the degree of distortion varies with relative speed.

The degree of distortion is also effected by how many times one has looked through the bottom of the beer glass.

[Stosh]

The degree of distortion is also effected by how many times one has looked through the bottom of the beer glass.

True, but emptying a beer glass, similar to returning to earth ,  brings you only back only to a relative and arbitrarily determined starting point. Since supposedly light sets a speed limit maximum within a given time zone, zero movement in that time zone is considered as slow as one can go,, but if there are other time zones then one could possibly slow down further than to the one on earth. A lower kinetic energy state than being still is , on earth. 

[Stosh]

All the letters in this thread were typed by folks 'moving' at ~117,000km/hr on a little blue marble spaceship around the sun, whilst the sun is 'moving' at ~828,000km/hr taking our solar system with it through the milky way, which is 'moving' at ~1.332 Million miles per hour. It doesn't require traveling around the earth or whatnot. If one puts a wrist watch on, at the moment ones arm moves, its now experienced a different period of 'time' than the portion of ones body that didn't move with the wrist. The illusion of consistency in 'time' is merely an artifact of the capacity to instrument reality, and instead make clocks as aids/props for pretending time is something realer than artifact. Motion, rate, distance, time illusions don't exist outside the delusions of some confused humans believing in them as a result of cripplingly limited mechanisms of perception. Unlimited Love, -Bud

Yeah that sounds fine to me too, thing is its really pretty useful to maintain the illusion that we know what time it is , so we can synchronize, , show up for work , pick ripe fruit , and so forth. 

[Brian]

Im working on it Brian, I have to remember math from 30years ago

.

http://physics.bu.edu/py106/notes/Relativity.html

If our two observers are stationary relative to each other, they measure the same time. If they are moving at constant velocity relative to each other, however, they measure different times. As an example, let's say one observer stays on the Earth, and the other goes off in a spaceship to a planet 9.5 light years away. If the spaceship travels at a speed of 0.95 c (95% of the speed of light), the observer on Earth measures a time of 10 years for the trip.

The person on the spaceship, however, measures a much shorter time for the trip. In fact, the time they measure is known as the proper time. The time interval being measured is the time between two events; first, when the spaceship leaves Earth, and second, when the spaceship arrives at the planet. The observer on the spaceship is present at both locations, so they measure the proper time. All observers moving relative to this observer measure a longer time, given by:

In this case we can use this equation to get the proper time, the time measured for the trip by the observer on the spaceship:

So, during the trip the observer on Earth ages 10 years. Anyone on the spaceship only ages 3.122 years.

It is very easy to get confused about who's measuring the proper time. Generally, it's the observer who's present at both the start and end who measures the proper time, and in this case that's the person on the spaceship.

 

That  is Arbitrary, as implied, ,, his frame is shifting and so he is a bad candidate for establishing whats proper. ( If, in his view , he takes three times less duration to reach the planet and calculates his travel at three c , then hes not the right person to assert proper time )

 

Length contraction

Carrying on with our example of the spaceship traveling to a distant planet, let's think about what it means for measuring distance. The one thing that might puzzle you is this: everything is relative, so a person on the Earth sees the clock on the spaceship running slow. Similarly, the person on the Earth is moving at 0.95c relative to the observer on the spaceship, so the observer on the ship sees their own clock behaving perfectly and the clock on the Earth moving slow. So, if the clock on the spaceship is measuring time properly according to an observer moving with the clock, how can we account for the fact that the observer on the ship seems to cover a distance of 9.5 light years in 3.122 years, which would imply that they're traveling at a speed of 3.04c?

 

I dont think it makes sense to assert that the traveler sees his motion at .95c , yet calculates the time he is taking to traverse the space three times faster unless he is deciding during the trip to calculate distances three times shorter when looking forward than back at earth. Whether he looks back at the receding earth or forward to planet X his time frame is the same slowed rate ,, 

 

That absolutely can not be true. For one thing, one of the implications of relativity is that nothing can travel faster than c, the speed of light in vacuum. c is the ultimate speed limit in the universe.

Unfounded assertion was  inserted here, its self fulfilling. 

 

For another, two observers will always agree on their relative velocities. Supports what I stated above about looking forward and back , and conflicts with a velocity calculation of three c.

 

If the person on the Earth sees the spaceship moving at 0.95c, the observer on the spaceship agrees that the Earth is moving at 0.95c with respect to the spaceship (and because the other planet is not moving relative to the Earth), everyone's in agreement that the relative velocity between the spaceship and planet is 0.95c. 

Again , he cant calculate a trip toward X at three c and simultaneously calculate a rate of .95c 

 

I have more I need to read to get caught up to you on this question, but this should illustrate where I'm just not on board yet. 

You are now talking about "proper time" rather than "real time" --see if this helps:

http://www.iep.utm.edu/proper-t/

[Brian]

Yeah that sounds fine to me too, thing is its really pretty useful to maintain the illusion that we know what time it is , so we can synchronize, , show up for work , pick ripe fruit , and so forth. 

As long as we are dealing with things and events not moving relative to each other at speeds approaching the speed of light, we have no troubles wrapping our heads around it all because the illusion of "absolute time" fits very nicely, the concept of simultaneity makes sense, and frames of reference don't carry with them a different set of space-time coordinates.

 

By comparison, as long as we don't examine duality too closely, non-duality never raises its head. The majority of the world's population has never contemplated the issue and will never miss it -- and, as with relativity (and quantum theory, for that matter), the majority of that tiny subset who do contemplate it will either dismiss it as navel-gazing nonsense or will misunderstand it.

 

The parallels are a large part of what drew me to both.

[Stosh]

As long as we are dealing with things and events not moving relative to each other at speeds approaching the speed of light, we have no troubles wrapping our heads around it all because the illusion of "absolute time" fits very nicely, the concept of simultaneity makes sense, and frames of reference don't carry with them a different set of space-time coordinates.

 

By comparison, as long as we don't examine duality too closely, non-duality never raises its head. The majority of the world's population has never contemplated the issue and will never miss it -- and, as with relativity (and quantum theory, for that matter), the majority of that tiny subset who do contemplate it will either dismiss it as navel-gazing nonsense or will misunderstand it.

 

The parallels are a large part of what drew me to both.

Makes sense ,, from a motivation standpoint. To grasp at the esoteric , and find appreciation of its nuances is rewarding. There's stuff to appreciate beyond the mundane and obvious, and once aware of it , it will be something to enjoy always. I'm a big fan of the mundane however, and understand the lightness which some folks attribute to some subjects. 

[Michael Sternbach]

Im working on it Brian, I have to remember math from 30years ago

.

http://physics.bu.edu/py106/notes/Relativity.html

If our two observers are stationary relative to each other, they measure the same time. If they are moving at constant velocity relative to each other, however, they measure different times. As an example, let's say one observer stays on the Earth, and the other goes off in a spaceship to a planet 9.5 light years away. If the spaceship travels at a speed of 0.95 c (95% of the speed of light), the observer on Earth measures a time of 10 years for the trip.

The person on the spaceship, however, measures a much shorter time for the trip. In fact, the time they measure is known as the proper time. The time interval being measured is the time between two events; first, when the spaceship leaves Earth, and second, when the spaceship arrives at the planet. The observer on the spaceship is present at both locations, so they measure the proper time. All observers moving relative to this observer measure a longer time, given by:

In this case we can use this equation to get the proper time, the time measured for the trip by the observer on the spaceship:

So, during the trip the observer on Earth ages 10 years. Anyone on the spaceship only ages 3.122 years.

It is very easy to get confused about who's measuring the proper time. Generally, it's the observer who's present at both the start and end who measures the proper time, and in this case that's the person on the spaceship.

 

That is Arbitrary, as implied, ,, his frame is shifting and so he is a bad candidate for establishing whats proper. ( If, in his view , he takes three times less duration to reach the planet and calculates his travel at three c , then hes not the right person to assert proper time )

Length contraction

 

Carrying on with our example of the spaceship traveling to a distant planet, let's think about what it means for measuring distance. The one thing that might puzzle you is this: everything is relative, so a person on the Earth sees the clock on the spaceship running slow. Similarly, the person on the Earth is moving at 0.95c relative to the observer on the spaceship, so the observer on the ship sees their own clock behaving perfectly and the clock on the Earth moving slow. So, if the clock on the spaceship is measuring time properly according to an observer moving with the clock, how can we account for the fact that the observer on the ship seems to cover a distance of 9.5 light years in 3.122 years, which would imply that they're traveling at a speed of 3.04c?

 

I dont think it makes sense to assert that the traveler sees his motion at .95c , yet calculates the time he is taking to traverse the space three times faster unless he is deciding during the trip to calculate distances three times shorter when looking forward than back at earth. Whether he looks back at the receding earth or forward to planet X his time frame is the same slowed rate ,,

 

That absolutely can not be true. For one thing, one of the implications of relativity is that nothing can travel faster than c, the speed of light in vacuum. c is the ultimate speed limit in the universe.

Unfounded assertion was inserted here, its self fulfilling.

 

For another, two observers will always agree on their relative velocities. Supports what I stated above about looking forward and back , and conflicts with a velocity calculation of three c.

 

If the person on the Earth sees the spaceship moving at 0.95c, the observer on the spaceship agrees that the Earth is moving at 0.95c with respect to the spaceship (and because the other planet is not moving relative to the Earth), everyone's in agreement that the relative velocity between the spaceship and planet is 0.95c.

Again , he cant calculate a trip toward X at three c and simultaneously calculate a rate of .95c

 

I have more I need to read to get caught up to you on this question, but this should illustrate where I'm just not on board yet.

Stosh, you just made my day!

 

Actually, the text you are quoting goes on:

 

So, distance is velocity multiplied by time and we know the velocity and time measured by the observer on the spacecraft is 0.95c and 3.122 years. This implies that they measure a distance for the trip of 2.97 light-years, much smaller than the 9.5 light-year distance measured by the observer on the Earth.

This is in fact exactly what happens; a person who is moving measures a contracted length. In this case, the person on the Earth measures the proper length, because they are not moving relative to the far-off planet. The observer on the spaceship, however, is moving relative to the Earth-planet reference frame, so they measure a shorter distance for the distance from the Earth to the planet. The length measured by the moving observer is related to the proper length by the equation:

In this case we can solve for the length measured by the observer on the spaceship:

This agrees with what we calculated above, as it should.

One important thing to note about length contraction: the contraction is only measured along the direction parallel to the motion of the observer. No contraction is seen in directions perpendicular to the motion.

So, what makes the time of travel for the astronauts on board of the ship shorter is a relativistic contraction of the space between Earth and the distant star. I had considered this possibility myself - but Brian's last comment to me took the wind out of my sails.

 

 

I wonder if that contraction is somehow related to gravitational spacetime distortion as described by the General Theory of Relativity?

 

I am still puzzled by the mutual observation of time dilation by both the astronauts and the people back on Earth, respectively, however. Using the example from the article (and since I love to visualize things in a dummy prove fashion): If the astronauts stayed in touch with Earth during the trip, they should observe three New Year eves happening there. But by the time they arrive, "suddenly" ten years have passed back on Earth. Maybe because signal transmission between the ship and Earth is limited to c, that modifies the picture somehow, but I don't seem to be able to resolve this riddle at the moment.

Edited November 25, 2015 by Michael Sternbach

[Stosh]

Glad that refreshes you , My heads spinning , but I just am not on board with Einsteins formula, I like Lorenz's better. I agree with your objection. We would be wishing them a Happy New Year every four of their months and they would appear to be travelling at three c according to their 'proper time' , unless the distance compresses. ... or they recalculate how fast light travels in mph. 

Edited November 25, 2015 by Stosh

[Bud Jetsun]

True, but emptying a beer glass, similar to returning to earth ,  brings you only back only to a relative and arbitrarily determined starting point. Since supposedly light sets a speed limit maximum within a given time zone, zero movement in that time zone is considered as slow as one can go,, but if there are other time zones then one could possibly slow down further than to the one on earth. A lower kinetic energy state than being still is , on earth. 

 

 

This is drawing conclusions from a false set of assumptions brother.  Light is a 'speed limit' of nothing.  Entanglement has been tested in hundreds of unique experiments as a minimum of  >C^2, as in 'faster' then speed of light times the speed of light. 

 

C is no limit of anything beyond Einsteins imagination bounds, which he later surrendered clinging to as entanglement experiments crushed his misconceptions into impossibility of being reality.  

 

Shedding the misconceptions IS the path.  Clinging to them is the mechanism by which one concludes their path. 

 

Unlimited Love,

-Bud

[Miffymog]

This is drawing conclusions from a false set of assumptions brother.  Light is a 'speed limit' of nothing.  Entanglement has been tested in hundreds of unique experiments as a minimum of  >C^2, as in 'faster' then speed of light times the speed of light. 

 

C is no limit of anything beyond Einsteins imagination bounds, which he later surrendered clinging to as entanglement experiments crushed his misconceptions into impossibility of being reality.  

 

Shedding the misconceptions IS the path.  Clinging to them is the mechanism by which one concludes their path. 

 

Unlimited Love,

-Bud

 

 

Ummm, not entirely with you here. There have been quantum entanglement experiments yes, but none that have broken the laws of causality. The orbits of all our celestial objects seem to agree with Special Relativity too so I'm not convinced that Special Relativity is a conception we need to shed just yet.

Edited November 25, 2015 by Miffymog

[Stosh]

This is drawing conclusions from a false set of assumptions brother.  Light is a 'speed limit' of nothing.  Entanglement has been tested in hundreds of unique experiments as a minimum of  >C^2, as in 'faster' then speed of light times the speed of light. 

 

C is no limit of anything beyond Einsteins imagination bounds, which he later surrendered clinging to as entanglement experiments crushed his misconceptions into impossibility of being reality.  

 

Shedding the misconceptions IS the path.  Clinging to them is the mechanism by which one concludes their path. 

 

Unlimited Love,

-Bud

Im prepared to accept either way 

[Michael Sternbach]

This is drawing conclusions from a false set of assumptions brother.  Light is a 'speed limit' of nothing.  Entanglement has been tested in hundreds of unique experiments as a minimum of  >C^2, as in 'faster' then speed of light times the speed of light. 

 

C is no limit of anything beyond Einsteins imagination bounds, which he later surrendered clinging to as entanglement experiments crushed his misconceptions into impossibility of being reality.  

 

Shedding the misconceptions IS the path.  Clinging to them is the mechanism by which one concludes their path. 

 

Unlimited Love,

-Bud

 

The way I see it, c defines the boundary of the physical system. The latter is not the only system, and there are several ways to get around the speed limit that c poses, at least in principle: Hyperspace, wormholes, space warps, quantum tunneling...

 

But to simply neglect c, or, for that matter, the physical Universe as a delusion won't get you anywhere, imo.

[Brian]

This is drawing conclusions from a false set of assumptions brother. Light is a 'speed limit' of nothing. Entanglement has been tested in hundreds of unique experiments as a minimum of >C^2, as in 'faster' then speed of light times the speed of light.

 

C is no limit of anything beyond Einsteins imagination bounds, which he later surrendered clinging to as entanglement experiments crushed his misconceptions into impossibility of being reality.

 

Shedding the misconceptions IS the path. Clinging to them is the mechanism by which one concludes their path.

 

Unlimited Love,

-Bud

Relativity only established the speed of light as a "limit" in one regard -- that an object with rest mass cannot be accelerated by force to that speed. It said nothing about massless objects, or about things with or without rest mass that instantaneously travel at the speed of light, or about tunneling or quantum entanglement or FTL travel -- only that the familiar approach of going faster and faster until you reach a given speed breaks down because you can't get there that way.

 

So far, there have been no exceptions found. Plenty of people looking, though, as whoever finds a Lorentz violation will be famous (and because those looking are painfully curious).

 

You are absolutely correct, though, in saying that the theory is shrouded in misunderstanding and false assumptions and erroneous conclusions. It exploded the rigidity of thought which came before it but carries with it implications that seem to contradict common sense because common sense is built on unacknowledged assumptions stemming from a special-case set of experiences. Relativity (starting with special and then extending in general) describes what starts to happen when we step beyond that familiar set of boundary conditions. Nothing more than that.

 

In fact, I would say that special relativity was a huge step towards aligning "western science" with the underlying principles of "eastern philosophy."

[Brian]

 

I might be mistaken (it happens fairly often) but I didn't think that photons had mass...do they count as massless objects?

Yes, they are considered gauge bosons within the current standard model.

[Miffymog]

I might be mistaken (it happens fairly often) but I didn't think that photons had mass...do they count as massless objects?

 

I guess that might be a convention of speech; there is a mass assocation via electronvolt measures...

 

ooooo - they have momentum

[Brian]

No rest mass.

[Brian]

FWIW, I think Albert's first wife was the insightful one.

[Michael Sternbach]

Talking about particle mass...

 

Surely, some of you still remember how CERN scientists measured neutrinos travelling at superluminal speeds? It was big news even in the general media, and to say that the scientific world was shocked would be an understatement. Of course, the equipment used was thoroughly examined, and, lo and behold, some loose cable was found! The screws were tightened, the measurements repeated and the result was: Neutrinos move exactly at the speed of light! Some professors had to take their hats for spreading such "BS" (a harshness that, by the way, really encourages unorthodoxy in science ) and Einstein's Universe was saved...

 

Now, I do have a couple of objections:

 

• It was actually not for the first time that neutrinos were observed to move at superluminal speeds. Earlier, although less spectacular and prominent measurements had already led to the same result. (Just do a search on arxiv.org.)
• The conclusion that neutrinos move at c is an averaged result derived from a number of measurements; obviously, some of them must still have shown neutrinos to travel faster. Nothing but inaccuracies?
• But here comes the biggie: The statement that neutrinos travel exactly at c is quite as incomprehensible as any superluminal speed! Why? Because it has been proven years ago that neutrinos can "change their flavour"; that's physicists' parlance for expressing that they can turn from one kind into another. But that would be impossible if (like photons) they had no rest mass! And (as has been mentioned on this thread) no object with a rest mass can move exactly at c, or so says Einstein.

I am not of the opinion that SRT is completely wrong, there is too much evidence supporting it. But maybe Relativity is in need of some relativization...