Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Club for Open-Minded Discussion & Debate

[Granth]

"The speed of light is constant. Speed is distance over time. So, if the speed of light is constant, and one element of that speed is time, then a minute is always the same for every beam of light. That is, there is an absolute or a correct time."

Suggest you read up about the Special Theory of Relativity.

"a minute is always the same for every beam of light" makes no sense.

For a beam of light, traveling at the speed of light, time in fact does not pass at all - in other words, if you could travel at the speed of light then for you there would be no elapsed time between the start and end of your journey - you would be the same age when you arrive at your destination as you were when you left your starting point. To a stationary observer your journey takes a finite amount of time - but to you (traveling at the speed of light) your trip would in effect be instantaneous.

It's counter-intuitive, which is why many people cannot accept it. But its true.

Yeah, because there is no "beam" of light travelling. As I posted much earlier; 'When man sees the light of the sun he believes that he is actually seeing light when the nerves of his eyes are but “feeling” the intense, rapid, short- wave vibrations of the kind of wave motion which he senses as incandescence'.

The trip was "instantaneous" because there was no trip. The "distance", therefore geographical points (which is really just a memory of one point, a mental impression of a certain experience, when compared with a present point), is itself merely a 'sense' of distance - and senses are also "wave vibrations". It is sensory perception that gives us relativity. Our brain processes constantly measures, using memories in order to contrast moments and events, for purely survival instinct reasons.

[Calrid]

(Nested quote removed.)

Good point. Travel is not a good word for light. A quantum unit of light has to be both here and there at the same time.

waves are infinite so that makes sense, at least in there effect to the limit of 0.

[AB1OB]

..................]"Light is an effect that is produced from Matter. It therefore can produce an image of the source Matter."

Then you are talking about Light's effects. Matter is an effect of Light.

No. Light is an effect of Matter.

Matter is fixed in 3-dimensions and moves along a radius of expansion (which is a line).

Light does not exist, until the matter, from which it's emitted,reaches the point on the radius of its travel, where it emits the light.

In other words, While Matter starts out as 3 dimensional energy, Light starts out as zero dimensional (doesn't exist until emitted).

Matter travels a line through time, while Light expands spherically through time (after its emitted).

Motion, time, everything, are effects of Light.

Our sense of sight is an "effect of Light". Therfore how we "see" the results of time & motion is mediated by Light's behavior.

This, in no way, means that Light causes motion through time. Rather, motion through time, becomes visible to us via Light.

What you see as light, something maybe appearing as apparently brighter or hotter, perhaps, than appearing object/events/sensed thoughts (generally everything existing), then this "light" factor is itself an effect of Light. It is the vibration of waves (the effect of Light), when vibrating at an intense rate, which will burn the retina of your eyes. However, the eyes themselves (which, as objects, vibrate at a lessor rate than light-waves), are also an effect of Light.

So the entire premise of your particular "light" is flawed, which makes the entire idea of matter flawed. So what is mainly discussed in this forum are the effects of Light including speed (and therefore time).

I think that you are the one that has a "flawed" perspective.

[Granth]

No. Light is an effect of Matter.

Matter is fixed in 3-dimensions and moves along a radius of expansion (which is a line).

Light does not exist, until the matter, from which it's emitted,reaches the point on the radius of its travel, where it emits the light.

In other words, While Matter starts out as 3 dimensional energy, Light starts out as zero dimensional (doesn't exist until emitted).

Matter travels a line through time, while Light expands spherically through time (after its emitted).

Eyes, the senses, are "matter", are they not?

Do you not consider your body to be "matter"?

So the act of seeing light is an act performed by matter.

So what else is matter going to see other than matter?

And so from matter's conclusions, yes, matter thinks it is seeing matter when it senses light.

Our sense of sight is an "effect of Light". Therfore how we "see" the results of time & motion is mediated by Light's behavior.

This, in no way, means that Light causes motion through time. Rather, motion through time, becomes visible to us via Light.

Time is only thought to exist. It is memory translating the motion of things, of matter, in order to give merely a 'sense' of direction. A 'sense' of purpose. This is the brain's instinct.

I think that you are the one that has a "flawed" perspective.

Your perspective is merely in survival mode. It is an instinctive reflex. The idea of a self that desires to survive also means the self's ideas must apparently survive, at a cost to understanding.

[AB1OB]

What makes the constant speed of light weird is that it's apparent motion is toward the eye. Not away from it, as it is for rocks thrown from a moving boat. If the boat is moving, how could all rocks thrown at the boat be of the same speed?

Matter is 3-dimensions moving along a time line.

Light is an expanding sphere that begins at a point along a time line of matter.

Let's say that we have 2 things of Matter. An observer and a Light source.

The observer and the light source are each moving along their own time line (think parallel paths).

The light source emits Light which expands spherically and reaches the neighboring path of the observer, who then "sees" the Light.

No matter what the relative motion between the observer and the light source is, that spherical expansion rate (of the Light) will be the same.

To compensate for the weirdness there is the phenomenon of the blue/red shift of the wavelength of light.

M31.gif

For a circular plate-shaped galaxy, the side that is moving toward us is blue shifted and the side moving away is red shifted, both compared to the center of the galaxy. What the shifts indicate is that the distance to the blue side appears to be (is?) *shorter* than to the red side, and the light gets here sooner from the blue side and later from the red side, probably by a week or more.

You are a bit confused about the red/blue shift and Light speed.

Light is always traveling @ c.

If the observer's relative motion is towards the source of the light, the wavelengths become shorter (blue shifted).

If the observer's relative motion is away from the source of the light, the wavelengths become longer (red shifted).

Saying, " the light gets here sooner from the blue side and later from the red side" only means that one side is closer than the other, nothing about the "speed".

[Calrid]

(Nested quote removed.)


Matter is 3-dimensions moving along a time line.

Light is an expanding sphere that begins at a point along a time line of matter.

Let's say that we have 2 things of Matter. An observer and a Light source.

The observer and the light source are each moving along their own time line (think parallel paths).

The light source emits Light which expands spherically and reaches the neighboring path of the observer, who then "sees" the Light.

No matter what the relative motion between the observer and the light source is, that spherical expansion rate (of the Light) will be the same.


(Nested quote removed.)


You are a bit confused about the red/blue shift and Light speed.

Light is always traveling @ c.

If the observer's relative motion is towards the source of the light, the wavelengths become shorter (blue shifted).

If the observer's relative motion is away from the source of the light, the wavelengths become longer (red shifted).

Saying, " the light gets here sooner from the blue side and later from the red side" only means that one side is closer than the other, nothing about the "speed".

No since you seem to argue with Eisnstein himself about time for light you are the one that is confused.

If Einstein can't convince you you are talking nonsense what chance would I have?

"time for light is meaningless it is undefined."

Einatein, you can magically divide by 0 all you want and produce absolute time, you're still an idiot at the end of the day though. No offence. This is not up for debate there are no preserved franmes, no simutaneity for light even because light is propogating through space and hence gravity effects light.


That's all you need to know the rest is meaningless waffle.

[AB1OB]

Water is an effect of light. Effects are the movement. Motion (what all matter is) is the effect of Light (cause).

Its nonsensical drivel.

I agree with Geordie!!!

[Calrid]

Oh and Eisntein was right. You are not Einstein and even if you were you'd be wrong if you believed in preserved frames of reference for absolutely anything ever.

[Xris]

(Nested quote removed.)

Good point. Travel is not a good word for light. A quantum unit of light has to be both here and there at the same time.

So why do we give it speed?

[AB1OB]

"The speed of light is constant. Speed is distance over time. So, if the speed of light is constant, and one element of that speed is time, then a minute is always the same for every beam of light. That is, there is an absolute or a correct time."

Suggest you read up about the Special Theory of Relativity.

"a minute is always the same for every beam of light" makes no sense.

For a beam of light, traveling at the speed of light, time in fact does not pass at all - in other words, if you could travel at the speed of light then for you there would be no elapsed time between the start and end of your journey - you would be the same age when you arrive at your destination as you were when you left your starting point. To a stationary observer your journey takes a finite amount of time - but to you (traveling at the speed of light) your trip would in effect be instantaneous.

It's counter-intuitive, which is why many people cannot accept it. But its true.

Regarding the underlined part of this quote...

The purpose of philosophy in science, is to find logic in the data. If we look at something as being "counter-intuitive" that tells us something. It tells us that our perspective is incorrect.

If we find the correct perspective, it will appear logical.

-- Updated January 4th, 2014, 9:35 am to add the following --

If space and time are equivalent and light does not experience time how can light be said to travel?

Light does not travel through space. Light expands with space.

Stop for a minute and think about what "expanding space" means. Space is a measurement between areas of energy. If there is no energy, space is meaningless. If energies move away from each other, then we say that the space between them is expanding.

We assume light travels but we never observe it travelling. We only ever see it arrive. Light is relationship between objects of mass it can not exist independently.

YES!!

-- Updated January 4th, 2014, 9:54 am to add the following --

[quote="Calrid"There is no absolute time even for light, anyone who says otherwise is an idiot frankly no offence. Absolute time died with Galileo and Newton, or it should of done.[/quote]

No offense taken. Frankly, anyone that would make a definitive declaration about "absolute time" is not taking a scientific approach.

"General relativity" tells us that relative time is experienced differently by different observers, unless they are in a coordinated motion.

However "special relativity" tells us that light is experienced the same, by all observers, moving in any frame of reference.

"Absolute time", in the sense that I am using it, is not referring to "an identical relative time for all observers". That, I agree, is NOT realistic. The way I use the term refers to the physical action of the system that creates what we perceive of as "time". That "Absolute time" is the radial speed of expansion, that began with the Big Bang (if you adhere to that theory) and still continues.

-- Updated January 4th, 2014, 10:03 am to add the following --

If ... light does not experience time how can light be said to travel?

Good point. Travel is not a good word for light. A quantum unit of light has to be both here and there at the same time.

Light does not "travel" relative to its position in space. It starts as a point of emission and remains there (the expanding Light sphere always "sits" @ that point) while it is expanded spherically into the future, only relatively, by the expansion of space.

-- Updated January 4th, 2014, 10:16 am to add the following --

Yeah, because there is no "beam" of light travelling. As I posted much earlier; 'When man sees the light of the sun he believes that he is actually seeing light when the nerves of his eyes are but “feeling” the intense, rapid, short- wave vibrations of the kind of wave motion which he senses as incandescence'.

The trip was "instantaneous" because there was no trip. The "distance", therefore geographical points (which is really just a memory of one point, a mental impression of a certain experience, when compared with a present point), is itself merely a 'sense' of distance - and senses are also "wave vibrations". It is sensory perception that gives us relativity. Our brain processes constantly measures, using memories in order to contrast moments and events, for purely survival instinct reasons.

Well you did get the "there is no "beam" of light travelling" part correct. Light expands spherically. A "beam" of light is a series of expanding spheres, that have been limited in expanding to a narrow path by parabolic focusing and/or by shading.

Light "rays" are another misunderstood concept. They are used to compute the results of Light/Matter interactions. They simulate the "apparent motion of a photon". A photon is a concept of particle physics. It is not a real particle. Particle physics describes "points" at which there are energy thresholds as "particles". This simplifies the math and it is a descendant of classical Euclidean physics (still looking at matter as an object made from pieces).

-- Updated January 4th, 2014, 10:39 am to add the following --

Eyes, the senses, are "matter", are they not?

No. The "senses" are interpretations made by our consciousness. The senses get their data from sensors (eyes, ears, nose, etc.) that are made from Matter. These sensors detect Light waves, sound waves, chemical presence, etc. and send the signals to the brain for interpretation.

Do you not consider your body to be "matter"?

Yes.

So the act of seeing light is an act performed by matter.

No. The Light, that is detected by the sensors (eyes), is transferred into signals sent by nerves to the brain. The brain is the Matter component that directs our consciousness. The "act of seeing" is a translation of these nerve signals into a mental image by consciousness.

So what else is matter going to see other than matter?

We don't see the Matter. We translate the Light, that comes to us from the other Matter, as an image of that Matter.

And so from matter's conclusions, yes, matter thinks it is seeing matter when it senses light.

There you go! You got one right!!

Time is only thought to exist. It is memory translating the motion of things, of matter, in order to give merely a 'sense' of direction. A 'sense' of purpose. This is the brain's instinct.

Time can be relative time, in which I can agree to an extent with that description.

Your perspective is merely in survival mode. It is an instinctive reflex. The idea of a self that desires to survive also means the self's ideas must apparently survive, at a cost to understanding.

My perspective is based on logic. The only thing that can sway me from my position is showing me how my perspective lacks logic. So far, nothing has swayed me.

-- Updated January 4th, 2014, 10:44 am to add the following --

Oh and Eisntein was right. You are not Einstein and even if you were you'd be wrong if you believed in preserved frames of reference for absolutely anything ever.

Your computer exists now in this frame of reference.

OK. Now it is later. This later is a different frame of reference in "absolute time" (universal expansion) and your computer still is existing in the same dimensions as before.

That is a "preserved frame of reference".

So who's wrong???

-- Updated January 4th, 2014, 10:55 am to add the following --

So why do we give it speed?

It is a measurement of the expansion radial that it covers from when it is emitted until when it is observed.

The relativity of that measurement is a different relativity than measuring the relative distances and motions between Matter.

Remember, Matter always moves through time along a time line. If you are measuring relative motion between two things (Matter), you are comparing their relative positions along their time lines.

Light has its own speed. It always expands spherically from a given point on one timeline (emission) to a given point on another timeline (reception).

-- Updated January 4th, 2014, 11:15 am to add the following --

No since you seem to argue with Eisnstein himself about time for light you are the one that is confused.

If Einstein can't convince you you are talking nonsense what chance would I have?

I think Einstein would have no trouble understanding me. And I have no trouble understanding Einstein. You, do not seem to be able to unbderstand either of us.

"time for light is meaningless it is undefined."

From the Light's point of view, it is emitted and it is received. There is no motion/time between the two events because the Light didn't have to do anything. It just passively exists within expansion until it is received.

Einatein, you can magically divide by 0 all you want and produce absolute time, you're still an idiot at the end of the day though. No offence.

Absolute time, as I have defined it, is the expansion from the Big Bang. Nothing to do with division by zero.

You are unable to differentiate between general & special relativity concepts. And because you can not follow my logic, you logically think that I am an idiot.

This is not up for debate there are no preserved franmes,

Every frame of absolute time is preserved. Sure it changes relative positions and forms but the sum remains the same.

Have you ever heard of the law of conservation? Energy is neither created nor destroyed, only changes form. We are dealing with a dynamic wave system. There is always change in form but not equivalence.

You can't push against something without creating an equal but opposite force.

no simutaneity for light even because light is propogating through space and hence gravity effects light.

The normal view of Light as a "self-propagating" wave is misleading and incomplete. Light is expanded along with space secondarily to the expansion of matter.

[Chris_lawman1987]

I thought I had posted this yesterday, but it hasn't appeared yet. This reason explains things if this OP appears twice.

According to relativity, time within one reference frame is from the time in another reference frame. For example, a “minute” for A, who is moving, is longer than a “minute” for B, who is stationary. The conclusion is that there is no absolute and correct length of time for a minute. Some minutes take longer than other minutes, and none of them is the “right” one.

The speed of light is constant. Speed is distance over time. So, if the speed of light is constant, and one element of that speed is time, then a minute is always the same for every beam of light. That is, there is an absolute or a correct time.

I can answer this question very simply. . . The speed of light is not constant. 186,000 m/s is the maximum speed of light through a vacuum but light moves at different speeds dependent on what it is passing through.

[Calrid]

I know what you mean but as uncomfortable as it may be we have to take the maths as reality and the maths says time is undefined for light.

Are you Farsight by any chance on ILP?

If so I totally agree with everything you said, if not then I only ask you to prove it, no wait prove it either way that's be science.

Semantic issue but even expansion is ruled by itself, so it is the only thing that can exceed c it can never be less than c or equal to c. Bearing that in mind what becomes of light in an infinitely expanding universe?

More pretainantly is there any difference in size >.000000000000000000000000000000000001s afterthe big bang, the answer is rather unnerving but mmathematicaly consistent.

[Xris]

I see the BB is back in fashion again. I thought it had died with the concept of the omnipresent expanding universe.

[AB1OB]

First of all, I would like to thank everyone that is or will be participating in this thread! I didn't start it but it is one subject that I have researched a lot. By trying to explain my perspective to you, it forces me to define and clarify all the concepts. I really appreciate all serious feed-back.

I know what you mean but as uncomfortable as it may be we have to take the maths as reality and the maths says time is undefined for light.

Are you Farsight by any chance on ILP?

No.

If so I totally agree with everything you said, if not then I only ask you to prove it, no wait prove it either way that's be science.

I doubt that I can "prove" anything. My goal is to make you understand a specific "perspective", from which to use, in order to make some of these "non-intuitive data results" appear logical. As we know, it was once non-intuitive to think of the earth as round. Once the perspective changed, it made perfect sense.

Semantic issue but even expansion is ruled by itself, so it is the only thing that can exceed c it can never be less than c or equal to c. Bearing that in mind what becomes of light in an infinitely expanding universe?

Here is where IMHO the confusion arises...THE RADIAL EXPANSION of the Big Bang GROWS @ c. That is the SINGLE FACTOR that is behind the observed physics of reality (EXPANSION).

Look at is this way, the energy is all moving equally away from center, along a radius vector. If you put all the radii together, it makes the expanding sphere of the "universe". Now mentally compare the radius and the sphere and how they expand relative to each other. How does the dimensions of the sphere change as the radius grows?

The universe is expanding omni-directionally into space @ twice the radius (the diameter).

So while we are thinking about properties associated with an expanding sphere, there is a concept of equivalent expansion within an expanding spherical volume. In other words, we could use different perspectives when looking at a growing sphere. We can compare how the periphery changes over time OR we can compare how much inside volume changes over time.

This is a critical distinction because if we use the wrong perspective, the result will look non-intuitive. If we had the real underlying concepts correct, in our perspective, then the results should look logical. I know that just because it seems logical, still doesn't prove it. (But I am really looking for why something is or isn't logical or how can we look at it logically.)

So using these two perspectives of expansion we could visualize the universe as growing by adding additional layers of concentrically larger spheres OR we could visualize it as an ever-enlarging volume that extends to a moving periphery.

It is logical to look at Matter as "in a position" on the expanding periphery. For example, if we had a collection of globes of the earth that were all different sizes, all the countries are always in the same relative positions.

So if we aligned all the north poles and fit the smaller one inside the larger ones, eventually we would have a radius time line for each country position.

MATTER MOVES ON A RADIUS & CHANGES POSITION WITH OTHER MATTER VIA GENERAL RELATIVITY.

By the same token, it would be illogical for us to think of matter as expanding volume.

It is logical to think of Light as expanding volume...(perfectly logical IMHO)

It is illogical to try and limit Light to a radius because it is omni-directional.

However (just to add to the confusion), when we calculate Light's action from source to reception, it is along an imaginary "ray" (which actually IS one of ALL the radii).

More pretainantly is there any difference in size >.000000000000000000000000000000000001s afterthe big bang, the answer is rather unnerving but mmathematicaly consistent.

Mathematical models can only be taken so far.

IMHO-->The Big Bang need not be instantaneous. It need not be a singularity. It had a "history".

-- Updated January 4th, 2014, 12:52 pm to add the following --

I see the BB is back in fashion again. I thought it had died with the concept of the omnipresent expanding universe.

It's not in my fashion, although I may refer to it. I use it as a general term with the intended meaning:

--> "origin of current reality"

[Calrid]

First of all, I would like to thank everyone that is or will be participating in this thread! I didn't start it but it is one subject that I have researched a lot. By trying to explain my perspective to you, it forces me to define and clarify all the concepts. I really appreciate all serious feed-back.


(Nested quote removed.)


No.


(Nested quote removed.)


I doubt that I can "prove" anything. My goal is to make you understand a specific "perspective", from which to use, in order to make some of these "non-intuitive data results" appear logical. As we know, it was once non-intuitive to think of the earth as round. Once the perspective changed, it made perfect sense.


(Nested quote removed.)


Here is where IMHO the confusion arises...THE RADIAL EXPANSION of the Big Bang GROWS @ c. That is the SINGLE FACTOR that is behind the observed physics of reality (EXPANSION).

Look at is this way, the energy is all moving equally away from center, along a radius vector. If you put all the radii together, it makes the expanding sphere of the "universe". Now mentally compare the radius and the sphere and how they expand relative to each other. How does the dimensions of the sphere change as the radius grows?

The universe is expanding omni-directionally into space @ twice the radius (the diameter).

So while we are thinking about properties associated with an expanding sphere, there is a concept of equivalent expansion within an expanding spherical volume. In other words, we could use different perspectives when looking at a growing sphere. We can compare how the periphery changes over time OR we can compare how much inside volume changes over time.

This is a critical distinction because if we use the wrong perspective, the result will look non-intuitive. If we had the real underlying concepts correct, in our perspective, then the results should look logical. I know that just because it seems logical, still doesn't prove it. (But I am really looking for why something is or isn't logical or how can we look at it logically.)

So using these two perspectives of expansion we could visualize the universe as growing by adding additional layers of concentrically larger spheres OR we could visualize it as an ever-enlarging volume that extends to a moving periphery.

It is logical to look at Matter as "in a position" on the expanding periphery. For example, if we had a collection of globes of the earth that were all different sizes, all the countries are always in the same relative positions.

So if we aligned all the north poles and fit the smaller one inside the larger ones, eventually we would have a radius time line for each country position.

MATTER MOVES ON A RADIUS & CHANGES POSITION WITH OTHER MATTER VIA GENERAL RELATIVITY.

By the same token, it would be illogical for us to think of matter as expanding volume.

It is logical to think of Light as expanding volume...(perfectly logical IMHO)

It is illogical to try and limit Light to a radius because it is omni-directional.

However (just to add to the confusion), when we calculate Light's action from source to reception, it is along an imaginary "ray" (which actually IS one of ALL the radii).


(Nested quote removed.)


Mathematical models can only be taken so far.

IMHO-->The Big Bang need not be instantaneous. It need not be a singularity. It had a "history".

job done then. And if you can't prove it that's fine it is a philosophy forum but don't expect science to accept your issues is all I can say, but then I doubt you give a damn what science thinks.

-- Updated January 4th, 2014, 12:54 pm to add the following --

(Nested quote removed.)


job done then. And if you can't prove it that's fine it is a philosophy forum but don't expect science to accept your issues is all I can say, but then I doubt you give a damn what science thinks.

few people ever belived the Earth was round, not even the ancient greeks, Colombus beleived it was pear shaped, and current thinking in the dark ages never was that it was flat so... just saying.

the Earth is not round per se, it is an oblate spheroid.

Well aside from Christians, Jews and Islamic fundamentalists but those cats are **** mental.

And the FES Flat Earth Society, but even they are being ironic I think, and it's just a target fro trolls to frot uselessly at on t'interweb.


If you have a moment I would like your input on my CIA are trolls thread as you seem pretty savy.