# Farsight

Senior Members

616

1. ## The universal constancy of c

Huh? I don't challenge Special Relativity, nor do I dispute experimental confirmation of time dilation. I hold the same view as Einstein.
2. ## The universal constancy of c

eiapeteides, here's how it makes sense: http://www.scienceforums.net/forum/showthread.php?t=24050
3. ## Energy Explained

Klaynos: I'm trying explain rather than define, trying to give the grasp and understanding that maths just doesn't offer to the layman. Do take the trouble to read this thread along with TIME EXPLAINED and MONEY EXPLAINED. I hope to post MASS EXPLAINED sometime this week.
4. ## Energy Explained

It is a tricky one jck. If I ask you what a photon is made out of, you'd say energy. If I asked you what a wave in the surf is made out of, you'd say energy again. But there's got to be some moving water to have the energy. Like there has to be something to the space so that it can have the energy of the photon. Maybe space can only be considered to exist if it has energy. I could go with that. Hmmmn. Ouroborus.
5. ## Time Explained

aguy2: Thanks. I think motion and change are pretty close, but time's a measure of motion against other motion, so I wouldn't say "time is change" myself. But I know what people mean when they say it, and agree with the sense of it. Yes, I think those oscillations are important. I'm not so sure about frequency though, because its definition relies on time being the thing we take for granted. If a photon experiences no time because it travels at c, it can't really have a frequency the way we commonly understand it. It's a really interesting subject is this. And so many other things get so much simpler.
6. ## Reactions that happen faster than light?

Nothing can go faster than the "speed of light" in a vacuum because c is not a speed. It's not a speed because speed is distance over time, and time is not a fundamental component of the thing we call spacetime. What is fundamental is space, and it can only be quantified by distance. You can measure this distance by looking at some distance travelled by a photon. When you try to measure time to calculate distance / time = speed, what you're actually measuring is the distance travelled by the photons within your body, brain, and clock. The constant you call c is how you relate the real Dimension of distance to the mathematical, subjective, imaginary dimension you call time. See this paper descibing A New Interpretation of Special Relativity: A New Interpretation of Special Relativity
7. ## Time Explained

Maybe you should show the essay to your roommate, psynapse. It's quite difficult to get your head round it. If the sun explodes now it explodes now. It's 8 light minutes away so we won't know about it for another 8 minutes. But it's really contorted confused thinking to say the sun exists 8 minutes in our past. Because then we'd exist 8 minutes in the sun's past, and you just tie yourself in knots. The sun is shining now. Edtharan: you'll never get it because you don't want to get it. Because to you square A is a different colour to B, and you'll swear blind forever that black is white. http://www.echalk.co.uk/amusements/OpticalIllusions/illusions.htm All: please can we use this TIME EXPLAINED thread hereon, and refer back to the other one where necessary.
8. ## Faster than light - just for fun

I think I understand time and energy and mass and light and other phenomena. I mean to explain all these things in essays that a layman can grasp. Meanwhile: There's no travelling faster than light. Trigger, it sounds to me as if you're thinking along the right lines.
9. ## Time Explained

Edtharan: You're wrong about the Twins Paradox. Really. Einstein tried to explain it using acceleration in 1918 and was "erroneous". But don't take my word for it. Look it up yourself. Look up "passing clocks". That's where clock A is moving with respect to clock B. Clock C is also moving with respect to clocks A and B, but in the opposite direction at twice the velocity. The situation looks like this: C---->A<--B What I'm saying is time is derived from your measure of your motion in comparison to other motion. So it's subjective to you. If time is subjective that means spacetime is not "spacetime", it's space. When you move through this space the distances in the direction of motion appear reduced. But the space is not actually contracted. When two relativistic objects pass you by, you see them flattened, but not the gap between them. You don't flatten the spherical rotating sun down to a dinner plate when you head towards it. What's subjective is that contraction of space that goes hand in hand with your time dilation. Space is objective. It's there. Like Einstein said in 1920, it's the aether. Read this paper offering an alternative interpretation of Special Relativity. Note the "sonar time". http://home.att.net/~SolidUniverse/Relativity/Relativity.html
10. ## Reactions that happen faster than light?

And to back that up, the nudge travels at the speed of sound in that rigid metal bar. For steel this is about 5000 metres per second. Way less than the speed of light.
11. ## Neil Armstrong= Hoax

Aw FFS. What is this?
12. ## Time Explained

Bah, what thing you just read. You didn't even read it. And nor did Edtharan. So frequency is a number of events per second. And a second is a number of some other events. The interval between events is measured in terms of other events. And the interval between those events is measured in terms of other events. Until there are no events left, only intervals. And intervals are frozen timeless moments. For time is a measure of events, of change, measured by and against some other change. And for things to change, something, somewhere, somehow, has to have motion. You don’t need time to have motion. You need motion to have time.

14. ## Time Explained

The twins paradox isn't as you describe Edtharan. You should remove the doppler effect, and then on both legs of the trip each twin considers the other twin's time to be running slower. It's | and /\/\/\ from both viewpoints. Here's an excerpt from a later version of TIME EXPLAINED. Special Relativity tells us that your relative velocity alters your measurement of space and time compared to everybody else. You increase your velocity and the space contracts and the time dilates by a factor of √(1-v2/c2). If you travel at .99c, space contracts to one seventh of its former size. So your trip to a star seven light years away only takes you a year. But physics is about the universe, and in that universe it took you seven years. The space in the universe didn’t contract forever because you travelled through it. But your time did. I'm sorry I was rude. But I really think we should agree to differ on this.
15. ## Energy Explained

jck: my view is that energy is like tension. You need something to have tension. So I'll say matter is made out of space and is built via work that costs energy. Like a house is made out of bricks, built via work that costs money.
16. ## Time Explained

There's something in that jck. No kidding, if you did move fast you really would experience less time. See time dilation on wikipedia. Noted. People can be extremely illogical at times. They can't see the difference between axiom and proof, and they kid themselves they're being rational when they're not. That's how brainwashing and religion works... and I hope you weren't talking about me!
17. ## Time Explained

Edtharan: It's not the same because it's different. It's different because you can move in one and not the other. Because one is a measure of the movement you can do in the other. You say you can't see what's wrong with: Look at the words. You're got local and location. You're talking about two different local times at the same local place. Your blindness to this is a reflection of the doggedness of your "time is a length" axiom. This is saying time is subjective, which is agreeing with me. But still you insist that time is some physical dimension. It makes perfect sense if you try to understand it. But you don't. And instead you dismiss it as nonsense. Not good. LOL. The twins paradox is not caused by acceleration. Go and look it up properly. Einstein used this in a GR explanation in 1918, and he got it wrong too, as demonstrated by passing clocks. When you've looked it up you can apologise, and take back all your "you never explain" and other accusations. No, in fact don't bother Edtharan. You're like some junior religious acolyte clinging to a flat earth faith. You don't understand, you don't try to understand, and instead you pretend that I don't explain. You throw in straw man arguments, you say I said things I didn't, you say you've proved something you haven't or I've ignored something I didn't, and you trumpet imagined victories. My patience is at an end. I'm not wasting any more time on you. Remember this for when you're older and wiser.
18. ## Energy Explained

It's good to talk jck. I'll be writing MASS EXPLAINED next, which you should find interesting. Can I say your definitions are axioms. They are postulates, assumptions, things you take for granted, and they act as blockers. To demonstrate this, I'd like to ask you a question. Read MONEY EXPLAINED and you will see some parallels between money and energy. Now answer me this: Can you build a house out of money?
19. ## Time Explained

It makes every difference. You're arguing to defend something you can't define. Yet rejecting my explanation. Time is a dimension in that it is a measure, of events and motion using other events and motion. You confuse this type of dimension with the type of dimension that offers freedom of movement. The two are not the same. You can measure anything. That doesn't make it the sort of dimension you insist that time is. I've explained myelf umpteen times and have demonstrated great patience. To say I never do this or that and don't show my reasoning, is dishonest. What questions? Local time. At the same location. From their frame of reference. Ed, this sums up everything that's wrong with your wrong concept of time. And you just won't look at it. How can one actual objective definitive collision location in "spacetime" possibly have two different times? Now you think carefully about this and your time-travelling clocks. You bet you are. What does local mean? It means local to a place. There can only be one local time in a place, not two. That's why the colliding clocks is so important. No. They collide. At the same place. At the same time, regardless of whatever their faces say. The light path length. At the same time is your problem. The observers experience time differently. The observer with the light+mirror sees the light like this |. Remember you don't know if it's him moving. Let's say there are six beats here, which I can spread out to show them like this |||||. The other guy sees the light like this /\/\/. He sees only five beats because his time experience is dilated, but the path length is the same as far as he's concerned. Look up the twins paradox on wikipedia.
20. ## Time Explained

You define time, Ed. Groan. Motion is through space. That's what it is. Time is a measure of that motion compared to other motion. You have freedom of movement through space. You don't have freedom of movement through time because time is a measure of motion through space. That's why time isn't like space. Local time. At the same location. From their frame of reference. Ed, this sums up everything that's wrong with your wrong concept of time. And you just won't look at it. How can one actual objective definitive collision location in "spacetime" possibly have two different times? Now you think carefully about this and your time-travelling clocks.
21. ## Time Explained

No Robonewt. I mean the clock that ticked less experienced less time. We could be talking about a light clock, where the motion means the internal light path between parallel mirrors is like this /\/\/\/\/\ rather than this ||||| so the light has further to go. No, there's no illusion. I'm an advocate of Special Relativity. I think we just misunderstand it. It tells us time is subjective, but people insist that time is objective. I'm not saying that, see above. The two clocks have experienced different amounts of time. But neither travelled through time. They set off, they travelled through space, they came back, and they collided. All the clock faces ever did was count the number of times the light bounced back and forth. You'll find the same sort of thing in the wikipedia article on time dilation. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_dilation Here's that language problem again. The faster clock hasn't travelled slower through time. That's where the illusion lies. It travelled faster through space and therefore experienced less time. There is no travelling through time. My theory is only possible if your interpretation of Special Relativity is wrong.
22. ## Time Explained

Oh geddoutofit. I'm not creating a circular argument. I'm challenging it. And I resent the way you stoop to this "false" and "strawman" dishonesty because you can't respond adequately to time is not a length.

24. ## Time Explained

That's a tough one. To simplify it let's exclude any dimension that is merely some kind of measure, like temperature or mass, with no degree of freedom that you can move in. You know I include time in that category, so that leaves us with three Dimensions of space. However when you look at the forces like gravity you can liken them to the "flatlander" experience, where you travel over a rumple without noticing the third Dimension. But you do notice a mysterious action-at-distance force that makes the uphill portion hard work. I have a concept that says forces are not the result of messenger particles, but are instead somehow geometric in nature. So I'd say we need to add in a Dimension for gravity, electromagnetism, and the strong force. The weak force is maybe different, so I won't include it. Ergo my answer is six. At least. Maybe. And not necessarily.