Time Explained

[Farsight]

If they had magic instant subspace radios like in Star Trek, they would each hear the other talking slow.

[rocket art]

Or they could try telepathy, where the concept of space-time perceived from within can contain the whole span of the universe in a single day.

[aguy2]

Ok let us assume that ther is no motion in a region of space 1 light minute in radius. So, according to your reasoning, does time occure within this region of space?

 

Are you asking, "Does space age?"

 

If it doesn't then what occures if someone ouside that region enters it?

 

The act of entering would mean motion, and once there the constituents of 'someone' would display at least quantum motion.

 

What if there was an atom of radioactive matter that would emmit a particle every 30 seconds? Since there is no movment in that region for 1 minute then how would that atom "know" to emmit that partical after 30 seconds (as 30 seconds can't occure in a region of no time)?

 

The situation would be the as above. The atom would be displaying at least quantum motion.

aguy2

[Edtharan]

I think so. If there is no movement there is no movement. You can't say there is no movement and then allow movement which then lets you say "aha but there is some time there after all."

No, what I meant was at the start of the thought experiment there is no movement in the centre of this region of space. So according to your claims, this means that there is no Time there.

 

However, once we shine the light into that region (also at the start of the experiment), this would introduce movement, but as the region is 30 light seconds in radius, then means that any movement from the outside can only reach the centre in a minimum of 30 seconds (as photons would).

 

So, no movement could reach the centre before the 30 seconds, which means that time does not exist in the centre for that 30 seconds.

 

Now any process that does not initially move but requires time to occur could therefore not happen until time is introduced via the light beam. Once this light beam has reached the centre, then the process will occur.

 

This give a basis for something that might be an experiment. It gives us something that is different between Farsight's essay, and the accepted theories of time.

 

If it is observed that the process is delayed (to the outside observer) by the 30 seconds it takes for any movement to reach the centre, then Farsight's essay would be correct. However, if this is not observed, then Motion can not determine Time as Time would have occurred without motion.

 

Now I know we can't make a region of space, 30 light seconds across devoid of all motion, but could a smaller region be created?

 

If you take this approach, it means all clocks "travel" through this time dimension at the same rate, independent of their velocity through the space dimensions.

That was never stated by me. Only that you can't change the rate (as this measure must be relative to something else then this must be as according to an outside observer).

 

Now remember, no matter how fast or slow (or which direction) an object is moving through the Time dimension, it interacts with all other objects the same way and each object will see it react normally.

 

This means that even If I was travelling at twice the speed in the Time dimension as you are, I would still be hit by a ball, if you threw it at me and I could throw a ball at you. What you would see, is my "Clock" running at a different rate even if I was in the same 3 dimensional motion as you (that is we appeared as stationary to each other in the spatial dimensions).

 

 

Now take a look at this and compare it with no amount of thrusting in the spatial dimensions will influence your velocity in the time dimension.

Relativity states that all motion is relative. So what you might measure as the X dimension, might not be the X dimension of another observer. As there is no fixed "Grid" (which would be an absolute space and/or time), you can only measure dimensions as relative.

 

This means that as you accelerate, your dimensions will "rotate". So time will appear to become space and space will appear to become time, this would be seen as a contraction of space and a dilation of time. It is therefore interesting that this is what matches what is observed.

 

But you're just using the mathematical treatment to justify a real dimension that's not there.

Only according to you is that dimension not there. If it is mathematically justified that they are comparable, then why can we not treat them the same way mathematically?

 

If a dimension is not shown to be different, then under what justification can we call it different?

 

Yes, it could be there, but the disagreement about distance and time is explained more simply in terms of what we actually see, which is light and motion, and the light triangles and Pythagoras' Theorem in the original Special Relativity before Minkowski came along.

One has to be careful when simplifying. If an observed phenomena depends on the more complex explanation and the simplified explanation can not account for it, then the more complex explanation has to be used. Einstein made this mistake with the "Cosmological Constant".

 

He initially proposed it because he thought that the universe must be static, but then removed it when he learned that the universe was not static. However, what he didn't think about was that the Cosmological Constant might not have to exactly balance out the gravity of the universe. It could be smaller or larger than needed without being 0.

 

Einstein assumed that if the universe was not static then the CC would have to be 0. Thus he simplified his equations and removed it, calling it his biggest mistake.

 

However, we now know that the CC does not have to either cancel the gravitation of the universe or equal 0. It can be slightly larger or smaller, thus the simplification was wrong. What was wrong was the value that Einstein gave to the CC.

 

This highlights the danger of simplification. The observed rate of expansion can only be reached (as far as we know) by the use of the CC. Therefore the simplification can not be made.

 

Now back to your simplification. What you have to do is to demonstrate that there is no phenomena that is reliant on Time being an actual dimension and that all observed phenomena can be explained by your proposal.

 

Also, does your proposal to eliminate the Time dimension as a physical dimension actually simplify the equations?

 

Time is still a factor of these equations, so are eliminating this from the equations and simplifying them?

 

I'd like to reiterate that the only moving going on is the movement through the three dimensions of space. The future is not a place you can visit.

Yes, "visit" is probably not the best word there as it implies returning. How about I replace it with "displacement to".

 

Future, Past, Present requires a "grid". Something absolute that you can measure against.

 

By "Your Future", I mean, the point in space time where our "lines" of motion intersect (or at least at a point where we could easily interact) at a point further along the Time dimension as you would measure it.

 

The amount of time you or I experience is not important. What is important is that it is further along your T dimension as you measure it. Not me, not an outside observer, you (as it is your future).

 

This means that relative motion in Time is possible. What is my future could in fact be your past, and your past could be my future. It doesn't need an absolute "Now" or any other absolutes at all.

 

This explanation (the one I have been supporting) covers all observed phenomena, so it is an acceptable explanation.

 

Now, is it simpler than yours? Well if we have an absolute then that is just a given. It is not something that can be calculated, it can be derived, but it is a "Deus ex Machina" to allow the theory to fit. When simplifying, these Deus ex Machina should be the first thing to go (if possible) as they have to be accepted without support for the theory to work.

 

There are a few such "constants" in science, but a lot of work is being done to eliminate them because of this reason. Thus, if you propose to add in any form of Absolute (as in "Absolute Now"), then you have to explain why it can not be also determined by a relative value.

 

This is not covered by your essay at all.

 

And of course, it could have been antimatter to begin with so an object "travelling backwards in time" can be indistinguishable. How convenient.

It seems you missed the point entirely. What I was saying was that even if there was an object travelling backwards in time relative to you, you could not determine it was travelling backwards just by simple interactions with it. So, this means that there could be objects travelling backwards through time and there might be freedom of movement in time. Your essay just assumes that it can't without giving any reason for that claim.

 

Edtharan, you kid yourself about moving through time. You kid yourself that I haven't answered your questions, and you kid yourself that you're engaging in debate. You write huge essays trying to knock what I say and you're so keen to do it you start engaging in fiction like I have not been given much in the way of good answers... I've had enough of your kind of "debate". Try some science for a change.

Your reasons that you give are not supported, that is why I don't accept them as good reasons. All your essay amounts to is a statement that, that is what you think time is. That is no explanation.

 

If I knock what you say, that is because it is wrong. Usually this is because you have presented an unproven claim, misunderstood something or used a logical fallacy.

 

You kid yourself into thinking that you have given a definitive explanation. But all you have done is given us your thoughts on what you think time is, no more.

 

An explanation must be backed up by reasoning and evidence, not "I think...".

 

your arguments against my position boil down to this:

If Time is not a dimension, then my essay is correct. If my essay is correct, then time is not a dimension.

 

You don't stop to consider "What if Time is a dimension"?

 

For your "explanation" to be complete, you also have to include why other explanations can't be correct. As you have not done this, I can still hold my position.

 

Challenging assumptions in a proposal is good science. I have done this. Requiring claims to be backed up by evidence is good science. I have also asked this of you (and only been pointed back to your essay). Asking for explanations of how you reached the conclusions you reach is also good science. Asking for a theory to be disproved is also good science (and I have also done this - please can you disprove the current theory that Time is a dimension - just give a thought experiment which if time is a dimension then the results would not match reality).

 

I have been very scientific in my approach. I also have been using good debating practice. I have been using logical arguments, questioning your claims, asking for evidence, asking for explanations when I don't understand something, providing evidence and reasoning to support my position, etc. How has any of that been bad debating? I am even trying to understand your argument and follow it through to its conclusions.

 

Remember a good debate does not just rely on logical argument from an initial claim, it also requires you to support those initial claims if they are questioned.

 

In a scientific debate, I do not need to prove my position, I just need to disprove yours.

 

I have presented a counter explanation to your explanation and you have not shown how that is impossible.

 

You have presented your essay as a complete explanation of time. The fact that this counter proposal by me matches with observed phenomena means that you explanation can not be complete as it doesn't explain why it is the only possible explanation.

 

Also the length of a post should not be an issue. If I need to take space to properly explain my self, present evidence or cover a though experiment, then I need to take that space.

 

I have said that I don't accept "Just so" posts as good debate, I would be a hypocrite if I only presented "just so" posts. Therefore I wil take the space that is needed to properly present my arguments.

[Farsight]

No, what I meant was at the start of the thought experiment there is no movement in the centre of this region of space. So according to your claims, this means that there is no Time there. However, once we shine the light into that region (also at the start of the experiment), this would introduce movement, but as the region is 30 light seconds in radius, then means that any movement from the outside can only reach the centre in a minimum of 30 seconds...

You've perhaps corrupted the experiment already by introducing yourself, an event-driven observer measuring intervals between events - you bring your concept of time into the experiment. But I applaud your effort to devise an experiment.

 

This means that even If I was travelling at twice the speed in the Time dimension as you are...

You earlier said no amount of thrusting in the spatial dimensions will influence your velocity in the time dimension, please review.

 

This means that as you accelerate, your dimensions will "rotate". So time will appear to become space and space will appear to become time, this would be seen as a contraction of space and a dilation of time. It is therefore interesting that this is what matches what is observed.

I don't dispute the observation, merely the interpretation. Yes, we can treat space and time similarly mathematically, but a mathematical dimension is just that. It isn't necessarily a real dimension the way you consider it to be. Mathematics is a vital tool in the box, but it shouldn't take precedence over what's actually observable and testable.

 

If a dimension is not shown to be different, then under what justification can we call it different?

But it is different, the t is a negative term.

 

One has to be careful when simplifying. If an observed phenomena depends on the more complex explanation and the simplified explanation can not account for it, then the more complex explanation has to be used. Einstein made this mistake with the "Cosmological Constant"....

 

I agree.

 

Now back to your simplification. What you have to do is to demonstrate that there is no phenomena that is reliant on Time being an actual dimension and that all observed phenomena can be explained by your proposal. Also, does your proposal to eliminate the Time dimension as a physical dimension actually simplify the equations? Time is still a factor of these equations, so are eliminating this from the equations and simplifying them?

 

I'm writing a series of essays such as MASS EXPLAINED etc. A different concept of time does seem to open some doors of understanding for these phenomena. I'm wouldn't say I'm eliminating time from the equations, but am perhaps looking at them in "time derivative" terms. For example this means gravity is no longer a curvature of spacetime, but is instead a local gradient in space, a tangent to the curve. I think there are simplifications available, but in grasp and concept rather than mathematics.

 

Future, Past, Present requires a "grid". Something absolute that you can measure against. By "Your Future", I mean, the point in space time where our "lines" of motion intersect (or at least at a point where we could easily interact) at a point further along the Time dimension as you would measure it. The amount of time you or I experience is not important. What is important is that it is further along your T dimension as you measure it. Not me, not an outside observer, you (as it is your future). This means that relative motion in Time is possible. What is my future could in fact be your past, and your past could be my future. It doesn't need an absolute "Now" or any other absolutes at all.

No, I'm sorry, it doesn't. Your justification of motion through time is built on your axiom that it is a dimension with some kind of length that we move through. Yes, we can measure time, just as we can measure temperature, and we can plot a grid. But it's a mathematical grid, we don't in truth move along this grid.

 

This explanation (the one I have been supporting) covers all observed phenomena, so it is an acceptable explanation. Now, is it simpler than yours?

I think not. I'm reducing the dimensions and finding that things become more understandable. Try reading the other essays and see if you agree.

 

Thus, if you propose to add in any form of Absolute (as in "Absolute Now"), then you have to explain why it can not be also determined by a relative value. This is not covered by your essay at all.

This is something that came up in conversation, I think you introduced it, not me.

 

So, this means that there could be objects travelling backwards through time and there might be freedom of movement in time. Your essay just assumes that it can't without giving any reason for that claim.

I can't see it, so I don't assume it's there. Why do you assume it's there? You have no evidence whatsover for freedom of movement through time. And yet you ask me to prove a negative instead of shouldering the responsibility to prove the positive.

 

Your reasons that you give are not supported, that is why I don't accept them as good reasons. All your essay amounts to is a statement that, that is what you think time is. That is no explanation.

The reasons you give to support your concept of time just don't stand up. Your justifications are built on your axioms not on observables and experiment. Try to set aside all assumptions and look at it from scratch.

 

Challenging assumptions in a proposal is good science. I have done this. Requiring claims to be backed up by evidence is good science. I have also asked this of you...

Whoa, wait a minute. I'm challenging your assumptions, for which you have no evidence. To deflect the pain you kid yourself that I'm the one making assumptions. It isn't me. It's you.

 

Please can you try to write shorter posts? For example you might break up a large post into several smaller posts, and pause between them to promote better dialogue.

[Edtharan]

You've perhaps corrupted the experiment already by introducing yourself, an event-driven observer measuring intervals between events - you bring your concept of time into the experiment. But I applaud your effort to devise an experiment.

Again, you have missed the point. The Observer is out side the area. It is only when they attempt to observe the "object" at the centre of the area will they interact with the area. The set-up would include excluding their influence from the area until the experiment starts. So even though the experimenter is event driven, this influence is excluded from the area too.

 

Admittedly, excluding all influence over a 30 light second area would be virtually impossible, but over much smaller distances (like sub atomic distances, it might be possible to do this experiment.

 

Now, ignoring whether or not we have the technology to actually perform this experiment. Do you agree with the two conclusions I drew:

1) If the existence of time is dependant on motion, then the object in the centre of the experiment will not experience Time until the influence of the experimenter reaches it.

2) If Time is not dependant on motion then the object in the centre of the experiment will experience time normally regardless of whether the influence of the experimenter has reached it or not.

 

You earlier said no amount of thrusting in the spatial dimensions will influence your velocity in the time dimension, please review.

Yes, this is true relative to your inertial frame of reference.

 

However, I said nothing about the initial speed or as viewed from another inertial frame of reference not having an effect. It could be quite possible for an object (eg: at the Big Bang) to have been created with a speed in the Time dimension to be more or less than some other object. An object so created would interact identically with all other matter, but it's "internal" Time would tick at a different rate than the other matter. Certain internal effects (like the decay of a free Neutron into a proton and an electron) would occur at different rates.

 

I don't dispute the observation, merely the interpretation. Yes, we can treat space and time similarly mathematically, but a mathematical dimension is just that.

The mathematical predictions made from the mathematics used for space they have actual physical effects (eg the curvature of space can warp the objects near it - gravity). These same mathematics, when applied to Time, also predict physical effects.

 

The mathematics just allow us to predict the observed pattern (I don't believe that the mathematics of science necessarily represent the true process that is occurring, it is just a representation of an observed pattern).

 

The way it works out is that Space and Matter has a physical effect (gravity, etc) and these also influence Time. However, Time also has effects that influence both space and matter (and energy), and these are physical effects on these things.

 

The fact that it is having a physical effect on such things as matter and space, indicate to me (at least) that Time is a physical "Thing". Also as the mathematics that relate the physical effects that space has it the same as the mathematics that predict the physical effects that Time has, indicates to me that Space and Time are on the same footing, and if you discard one as Non-physical, then you must either demonstrate how and why it doesn't apply to the other.

 

As you have agreed, the mathematics is the same, so if you can apply a change to the mathematics to eliminate one, you can also apply the mathematics to the other (unless there is some other reason which has not been supplied that stops this from being done).

 

This is what I meant when I indicated that you haven't fully explored the consequences of your essay, and that you haven't given a complete explanation.

 

But it is different, the t is a negative term.

Actually, it needs to be an "Imaginary" term (and by imaginary I mean the mathematical concept of imaginary numbers, not that it is illusionary).

 

However, the mathematics we use to represent physics is just that, a representation, not the actual "thing" (this comes down to the old "the measuring device is not the thing being measured").

 

A different concept of time does seem to open some doors of understanding for these phenomena.

Sure, it might aid you in understanding these things more, but is it a more accurate representation of what is really happening, or, if they are just as accurate, is it a scientifically simpler explanation?

 

For example this means gravity is no longer a curvature of spacetime, but is instead a local gradient in space, a tangent to the curve.

Could you explain in more detail what you mean by "a tangent to the curve". You started off saying that there is no curve, but then call your gradient a tangent to the curve.

 

Also, what is the Gradient? Is it of gravity, or some "fabric" of space? And how is it graded?

 

I think not. I'm reducing the dimensions and finding that things become more understandable.

"Understandable" is a kind of a catch. We humans think in "stories", that is we find a good story more easily understandable than an abstract mathematical representation. However, the Universe does not have to conform to Human understanding. We have evolved to live in a very odd corner of the universe, so why should we have the psychological equipment to understand relativistic phenomena. Human understanding is not a good guide to an accurate representation of the universe.

 

Newtonian gravity is much more easily understandable than Einstein's gravity, so if we use our ability to understand a theory as the guide for accuracy, then we should not be using relativity at all. Do not confuse "Understandability" for "Accuracy".

 

This is something that came up in conversation, I think you introduced it, not me.

Although I first used the Words: "Absolute Now", You used them and confirmed my usage of the term (I won't cross quote threads here, but you can find your usage in the last post in your first "Time explained" thread. It is this usage that I refer to when I talk about "Absolute Now".

 

I can't see it, so I don't assume it's there. Why do you assume it's there? You have no evidence whatsover for freedom of movement through time. And yet you ask me to prove a negative instead of shouldering the responsibility to prove the positive.

As you are the one that is challenging the currently accepted concepts, the burden of proof is on you. However, what I have been doing is demonstrating that there is alternative explanations of time that are just as valid as yours.

 

I can't see the wind, but it has measurable, physical effects, so I can infer that it is there. Time has measurable physical effects and so I infer that it is there.

 

It is these measurable physical effects that I have presented many times as evidence that you have not presented counter arguments for. You interpret these effect differently, but offer no explanation as to why my interpretation has to be wrong. If all that differs between the accepted concept is the interpretation of the observations and there is not improvement in predictive power, why then should we accept your essay as being closer to reality.

 

Remember, you have the burden of proof.

 

The reasons you give to support your concept of time just don't stand up. Your justifications are built on your axioms not on observables and experiment. Try to set aside all assumptions and look at it from scratch.

Again, you have the burden of proof. I don't have to argue a single position, all I have to do is show that your conclusions are wrong.

 

As for not being based on observables: Space and Time dilation due to motion and gravity is probably the most observed phenomena in all of science. GPS system rely on the theories being accurate. If the theories were not accurate, then GPS system would not work properly and they would give the incorrect positions. If the axioms that these theories are based on were wrong, then the conclusions would be wrong.

 

There are known inconstancies (like when it is applied to the Quantum Mechanics), but none of these would eliminate Time as a physical dimension and none of them support your claims.

 

Looking at it from scratch: Well from observations, we know that motion does distort Time and space, we also know that matter distorts Time and Space.

 

From this I can conclude that both time and space are very similar and that they are both influenced by physical effects.

 

We know that space has physical effects on matter and motion. Objects in distorted space will "fall" or move towards the centre of the distortion. We also know that distortions in Time has effects on physical object and that distortions of "Time" will similarly distort physical processes that rely on time.

 

So it seems that both Space and time have physical effects on physical objects.

 

From this it seems that if space is a physical dimension, then so must time. They both are effected and in turn effect physical objects.

 

When we look into what happens more closely, we find that the way matter and motion distort space and time are related very closely to one an other. If we look at it geometrically, Space and Time are "rotated" into each other by these effects (gravity and motion).

 

This indicates quite strongly that Time is a Dimension just like space and closely related at that. The fact that one can be rotated into the other indicates that they are actually the same thing. In fact the mathematics used to describe the observed effects (which is the most tested mathematics in science) relies on Time being a dimension perpendicular to all the Spatial dimensions.

 

There is this close relationship, not just mathematically, but physically, between both Space and Time. In your explanation, you have not addressed this close relationship, you have declared that it doesn't exist, but you haven't explained why it appears to be some close or how it appease so close.

 

Whoa, wait a minute. I'm challenging your assumptions, for which you have no evidence. To deflect the pain you kid yourself that I'm the one making assumptions. It isn't me. It's you.

But you have not presented evidence against those assumptions. What you have presented is another set of assumptions.

 

As evidence: I present the reliability of the GPS system. As evidence: I present all the experiments that have been so far performed and the fact that none of them disagree with the predictions of the accepted theory (it wouldn't be accepted otherwise ).

 

Please can you try to write shorter posts? For example you might break up a large post into several smaller posts, and pause between them to promote better dialogue.

As far as I know, multi posting like that is not encouraged on forums (I can;t remember the exact rules on this forum, but it is a standard request of all forums that I know). If the moderators say it's Ok to do multi post I will do so in future. But until then, I will keep to known Netiquette.

[Farsight]

Edtharan, I've got to go so I'll answer just one point:

 

Could you explain in more detail what you mean by "a tangent to the curve". You started off saying that there is no curve, but then call your gradient a tangent to the curve. Also, what is the Gradient? Is it of gravity, or some "fabric" of space? And how is it graded?

 

Let's say that a mass is somehow going to steer left because of gravity, and will move towards a planet instead of continuing in a straight line. There is no magical action-at-a-distance "force" zapping through space like cartoon magnetism. Instead the left side of the mass experiences some different local condition to the right side of the mass. If you were to move the mass a little to the right, you'd still see a different local condition on the left and right. There is a left-to-right gradient wherever there is a gravitational "field". If there were no gradient, both sides of the mass would experience the same condition, and the motion would be in a straight line. The effect of this gradient is curved motion over time, but this "curved spacetime" is an effect not a cause. You get a better idea of the cause if you remove time and take a snapshot as at some given instant - or in mathematical terms take the the time-differential of your curved spacetime. The differential of a curve is a gradient. It's a gradient in c, akin to a refractive index. It exists because mass/energy is stress, and gravity is an orthogonal tension that decreases with distance and area. You'll have to wait for GRAVITY EXPLAINED for the full works, and I might have to write SPACE EXPLAINED and/or CHARGE EXPLAINED to set the scene.

 

Newtonian gravity is much more easily understandable than Einstein's gravity...

 

IMHO Newton and Einstein explained what gravity does, not what it is.

[swansont]

IMHO Newton and Einstein explained what gravity does, not what it is.

 

Because the former is physics and the latter is metaphysics.

[Farsight]

Swansont, if you're going to dismiss questions like What is Gravity? as mere metaphysics please do it somewhere else.

 

Edtharan:

 

1) If the existence of time is dependant on motion, then the object in the centre of the experiment will not experience Time until the influence of the experimenter reaches it.

 

Yes I agree with this.

 

2) If Time is not dependant on motion then the object in the centre of the experiment will experience time normally regardless of whether the influence of the experimenter has reached it or not.

 

I don't think I agree with this. If there is no motion I can't see how there can be any time experience. There's no incoming photons, no oscillations, no weak force decay, nothing. I guess it's rather like being knocked unconscious. You have no time experience, then you wake up and find you've skipped five minutes. If you repeated this ad infinitum there would be no time experience while you were unconscious, eg while nothing was moving, but you could gain a time experience by looking at the clock every time you woke up. You'd see that the clock had moved. Which brings me back round to what I was saying. Something's got to move somewhere, and time is the measure of it.

[swansont]

Swansont, if you're going to dismiss questions like What is Gravity? as mere metaphysics please do it somewhere else.

 

"Dismiss" and "mere" are your characterizations, not mine. I'll thank you not to misrepresent my comments. I was merely pointing out that "how does gravity behave" is physics, but "what is gravity" is philosophy. AFAIK this is the only thread where it's being mentioned, so where else should I be pointing this out?

[Edtharan]

1) If the existence of time is dependant on motion' date=' then the object in the centre of the experiment will not experience Time until the influence of the experimenter reaches it.[/i']

 

Yes I agree with this.

 

2) If Time is not dependant on motion then the object in the centre of the experiment will experience time normally regardless of whether the influence of the experimenter has reached it or not.

 

I don't think I agree with this.

Ok, so each partial in the universe must interact with at least one other constantly. Otherwise, it's time would stop and no motion could take place. Once it stops, if no other interaction takes place then it can the interact with another object. Light is photons, an object, so even these would stop.

 

This is clearly not the case, so we must have some mechanism for all objects to interact with another constantly, or the universe would grind to a halt.

 

Remember Motion is displacement in time (whether or not that Time is a physical dimension or not). You can have an instantaneous "velocity" of an object taken as the differential, but that is not motion, it is only the magnitude of that motion.

 

So if an object (particle) is not currently interacting with another object, then it would have no time and therefore no motion.

 

This means that if Time is dependant on motion, then no motion can exist. As we do have motion, Time can not be dependant on motion.

 

It's a gradient in c,

C is a constant in all frames of reference, this has been experimentally confirmed. How can you have a gradient in C if it is a constant?

 

akin to a refractive index.

A refractive index arises due to the fact that light interacts with the matter of the object which slows the light down (note: that light is not C, Light just travels at C in a vacuum).

 

You are talking about having a variable value of C. A gradient. It might be possible for a region of space that slows light down, but this does not mean that C has been reduced.

 

Even in a block of glass where light is slowed, C is still the same as it is in a vacuum. C does not change with the medium or environment that it is in. The speed of a photon might, but not C its self.

 

The effect of this gradient is curved motion over time, but this "curved spacetime" is an effect not a cause.

Could you explain your reasoning for this. You made this statement but then didn't elaborate on why this is so. As it is different to accepted theories and you seem to be basing your theory on it, this does need more explanation.

 

Current theory accepts this "curvature' as an effect of mass. There is not "action at a distance" as in Newton's theory of gravity. you have not actually explained what is different about your theory, just that it is different.

[Farsight]

Edtharan: I don't understand the first portion of your post above. You seem to be saying motion is displacement in time therefore time is not dependent on motion, QED. You seem to be using an axiom to give a proof. Please clarify.

 

C is a constant in all frames of reference, this has been experimentally confirmed. How can you have a gradient in C if it is a constant?

 

It's constant in any one frame, but it isn't constant when you look at the big picture across multiple frames. Imagine you're in a spaceship travelling at .99c. You measure the speed of light to be the same as ever, but your time is dilated by a factor of 7. Now step outside that frame and ask yourself what is c inside that frame? The situation is similar to one where you're standing on the surface of a neutron star. The local c is lower than it is a light year out in space, and there's a gradient in the value of c between the two places.

 

A refractive index arises due to the fact that light interacts with the matter of the object which slows the light down...

I said akin to a refractive index. It isn't quite the right term. I'm not sure what is.

 

You are talking about having a variable value of C. A gradient. It might be possible for a region of space that slows light down, but this does not mean that C has been reduced...

I am, and it does, truly. That's what you get when you take time out of the equation. It's the cause of the "curved spacetime" effect. Search google and check up on this, you should be able to find something to vindicate what I'm saying.

 

http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&q=%22speed+of+light%22+%22gradient%22+%22gravity%22+%22c%22+&btnG=Search&meta=

 

Could you explain your reasoning for this. You made this statement but then didn't elaborate on why this is so. As it is different to accepted theories and you seem to be basing your theory on it, this does need more explanation.

It isn't really my theory. Have a read of Mass Explained and follow the link at the bottom for the Robert Close paper:

 

http://home.att.net/~SolidUniverse/Relativity/Relativity.html

 

Current theory accepts this "curvature' as an effect of mass. There is not "action at a distance" as in Newton's theory of gravity. You have not actually explained what is different about your theory, just that it is different.

The curvature is the effect of a gradient which is the effect of mass/energy. Read Energy Explained before you read Mass Explained, because that's where I introduce stress and tension. Energy is a volume of stress, and Mass is this tied down into one place. Gravity is an orthogonal tension. Get a "rubber" (a pencil eraser) and squeeze it in the middle. You're putting it under stress. The ends bulge out a little, because of the orthogonal tension you've introduced via that stress. As I said I've got to write it up properly, so that's all I can really offer for now.

[Edtharan]

Edtharan: I don't understand the first portion of your post above. You seem to be saying motion is displacement in time therefore time is not dependent on motion, QED. You seem to be using an axiom to give a proof. Please clarify.

Ahh, I should have worded that a bit differently. It would be better written as Displacement over time (I can see that displacement in time might be interpreted as movement back and forth through time which is not what I meant).

 

Motion is defined as: Distance/Time. Distance is the displacement and it is divided by time. You use "motion", but then you don't seem to be using the concept of Motion (Distance divided by Time). If you have redefined what motion is, then you will also have to explain what you new concept of what motion is. If you are using the accepted concept of motion then it is by definition: Distance divided by Time. That is displacement over a period of time. As you have not redefined what motion is, I can only assume that you are using the currently accepted concept of motion.

 

However, if you are using something different to the accepted concept of motion, then that can not be called motion as it is different. If we were talking about oranges, and I used apples as a definition, then my definition is not of oranges.

 

It's constant in any one frame, but it isn't constant when you look at the big picture across multiple frames. Imagine you're in a spaceship travelling at .99c. You measure the speed of light to be the same as ever, but your time is dilated by a factor of 7. Now step outside that frame and ask yourself what is c inside that frame? The situation is similar to one where you're standing on the surface of a neutron star. The local c is lower than it is a light year out in space, and there's a gradient in the value of c between the two places.

So if C can be changed by a gravitational field, then this has other implications. For instance:

 

E=MC^2

 

If C is lower near a gravitating body then the energy contained in a given mass will increase if you take it away from the gravitating body (or loose energy if you take it near the object).

 

If you had 1 gram of matter in open space away from a black hole where C = 300,000km/s then it would be 90,000,000,000. But if then took that same 1 gram of matter and placed it near a black hole where C = 10km/s then this would give 100.

 

Similar effects would occur as you approach C, the object would loose energy, even though you are putting energy into it. You would, in fact, slow down by accelerating (which makes no sense at all).

 

Where has this energy gone? That is a lot of energy to loose, and it violates the conservation of energy. If we have a variable value of C, then lots of very strange effects take place.

 

As these effects have not been observed, it is safe to say that this can not be occurring.

[Farsight]

Motion is defined as: Distance/Time. Distance is the displacement and it is divided by time. You use "motion", but then you don't seem to be using the concept of Motion (Distance divided by Time). If you have redefined what motion is...

 

In a nutshell I'm saying motion defines time, not the other way around. Let's park it there and agree to differ.

 

So if C can be changed by a gravitational field, then this has other implications. For instance: E=MC^2. If C is lower near a gravitating body then the energy contained in a given mass will increase if you take it away from the gravitating body... As these effects have not been observed, it is safe to say that this can not be occurring.

 

No, the change of c is the gravitational field. You need to check out those links and that google page before making a pronouncement. If you have a mass on the surface of a planet it takes energy to take it out of the gravity well. Think about it.

[Edtharan]

If you have a mass on the surface of a planet it takes energy to take it out of the gravity well. Think about it.

No. There is no energy loss. It is converted from kinetic to potential energy. No loss.

 

If an object was accelerated from the surface of the Moon into space, then it would have been given a certain amount of kinetic energy (this kinetic energy would be in excess of any energy contained in the mass). As the Moon has no atmosphere, there is no energy loos due to drag (but even if there was, we could account for it). As the object leaves the moon, the kinetic energy is converted into potential energy. Experiments have shown that this energy conversion accounts for all the kinetic energy loss.

 

However, with a variable C, there is a further energy loss that can not be accounted for by the conversion from kinetic to potential. SO where does this energy go?

 

In a nutshell I'm saying motion defines time, not the other way around. Let's park it there and agree to differ.

So you now have a different definition of motion as well. Ok, so what is your definition of motion then?

 

No, the change of c is the gravitational field.

Could you explain this better.

 

I can accept that that is what you are claiming, but if you actually look at the claim that C is variable, then there are so many other effects that will occur.

 

Another effect is that you should see a reduction in the velocity of light. As particles with 0 rest mass will travel at C, then if C is changed then these particles will also have to change their velocity.

 

If, as you say, C is reduced as you near a gravitational object then, an object (say an electron accelerated to near light speed) with a velocity of 299,999km/s moving into a gravitational field (which has a value of C as 299,998m/s) will then exceed the local value of C. This particle is now superluminal. We can now have objects travelling faster than the speed of light in a vacuum.

 

Again, this is a conclusion that has never been observed.

 

A variable value of C produces results that have never been observed, even in the situation that you say that C must change. A variable value of C (as you have presented it) does not agree with actual physical evidence.

[Farsight]

No. There is no energy loss. It is converted from kinetic to potential energy. No loss. If an object was accelerated from the surface of the Moon into space, then it would have been given a certain amount of kinetic energy...

 

Now imagine the situation where you take an object from the surface of the moon, and place it a million miles from the moon. With no kinetic energy involved.

 

So you now have a different definition of motion as well. Ok, so what is your definition of motion then?

An ongoing displacement in space that can be measured against other ongoing displacements in space. I think it's futile to discuss this further until you examine the axioms that you interpret as explanation and proof.

 

I can accept that that is what you are claiming, but if you actually look at the claim that C is variable, then there are so many other effects that will occur. Another effect is that you should see a reduction in the velocity of light. As particles with 0 rest mass will travel at C, then if C is changed then these particles will also have to change their velocity.

 

They do change their velocity. But remember it's a vector quantity. They swerve.

 

If, as you say, C is reduced as you near a gravitational object then, an object (say an electron accelerated to near light speed) with a velocity of 299,999km/s moving into a gravitational field (which has a value of C as 299,998m/s) will then exceed the local value of C. This particle is now superluminal. We can now have objects travelling faster than the speed of light in a vacuum. Again, this is a conclusion that has never been observed.

As you approach the gravitational object it's like you're accelerating, moving gradually from one inertial reference frame to another one where c is different. However this different c dictates your local time experience so you don't measure any local difference. You have to mentally step out of the frames and look at what distinguishes one frame from the other. Remember your relativity, c has a local value of 300,000 km/s. It always has, and nothing can move faster than the local value of c. Your electron is basically a ring of light - it can never move faster than light.

 

A variable value of C produces results that have never been observed, even in the situation that you say that C must change. A variable value of C (as you have presented it) does not agree with actual physical evidence.

Your misunderstanding is what's causing you problems, see above. Come on, check out those links instead of spending all your time trying to find something to argue about.

[swansont]

They do change their velocity. But remember it's a vector quantity. They swerve.

 

c is a scalar, though, so this doesn't address the question of what happens to the speed.

 

Your electron is basically a ring of light - it can never move faster than light.

 

No, an electron is not a ring of light.

[Edtharan]

Now imagine the situation where you take an object from the surface of the moon, and place it a million miles from the moon. With no kinetic energy involved.

How would this be physically possible?

 

An ongoing displacement in space that can be measured against other ongoing displacements in space. I think it's futile to discuss this further until you examine the axioms that you interpret as explanation and proof.

Ongoing, implies a period of time. I thought you were trying to eliminate time form this kind of explanation.

 

I can measure a displacement in space as compared to another displacement in space and not have motion.

 

If I displace an object by a certain distance and then displace another object by 5 times that distance, this does not imply movement at all. Just a ratio of between the magnitude of the displacements.

 

If I then move them again after this initial displacement, well, "After" is a reference to time. So, if we continue to leave time out of it, then this extra displacement occurs along with the original displacement. No motion here either.

 

They do change their velocity. But remember it's a vector quantity. They swerve.

Yes, the vector of motion changes. But an object travelling at 299,999 in an area where C is 299,998 is still travelling faster than light ©.

 

According to your proposition, moving into a gravitational field will increase the energy that particle has, so it can't be slowing down, that would be reducing the energy.

 

If it accelerates, (which objects falling into a gravitational field do) then this compounds your problems. This is a serious flaw in your proposal as it allows faster than light © effects.

 

As you approach the gravitational object it's like you're accelerating, moving gradually from one inertial reference frame to another one where c is different.

"like you're accelerating", Are you accelerating or not? IF you are accelerating then we should be able to detect it. There will be an increase in kinetic energy of the object (detectable as an increase in inertia - detected by when it hits something). If it is not "really" accelerating, then there will be no increase in inertia.

 

However, we can do a very simple experiment that shows that an object released from a higher position in a gravitational field does have increased inertia.

 

Simply take a marble and a bowl of flour. Drop the marble from 10cm up into the bowl of flour. Now smooth out the flour, and drop it from 100cm up. There is more flour kicked up, due to the increased inertia of the marble. Therefore, the inertia increases and the marble is really undergoing acceleration.

 

Your electron is basically a ring of light - it can never move faster than light.

If an electron is a "ring of light" then it has no rest mass as light doesn't have any rest mass. An object with 0 rest mass travels at the speed of light. Therefore that electron must be travelling at the speed of light. But you said that the electron can not move at the speed of light.

 

Your explanation is inconsistent with itself.

 

However this different c dictates your local time experience so you don't measure any local difference. You have to mentally step out of the frames and look at what distinguishes one frame from the other. Remember your relativity, c has a local value of 300,000 km/s. It always has, and nothing can move faster than the local value of c.

So you are saying that C is relative too.

 

Ok, let us assume this to be true.

 

So I am in a space ship travelling at 99% of C (relative to you) this means that my local speed of light is less than 300,000km/s.

 

Now, that is local to my frame of reference.

 

You are nearby, and shine a light towards a target 300,000km away (and at right angles to my motion).

 

According to your frame of reference, this light is travelling at 300,000km/s. It will take 1 second from what you observe to reach there.

 

Now, C and hence the speed of light, is less for me. So I see the beam of light take more than 1 second to reach the target.

 

I don't know the formulas that you are using to calculate the change in C, but for the sake of argument, lets assume that I see the light take 2 seconds of my time to reach the target.

 

Now, to add in a physical effect that is dependant on the outcome of this thought experiment, lets say I am going to crash into the target in 1 and a half seconds. However, it has a light activated switch to turn on a rocket (hence why you shone the light at it).

 

So, according to you, the light reaches the target after 1 second and the rocket motor move the target out of the way. According to you I will not crash into the target.

 

But, according to me, that light will take 2 seconds to reach the target and I will crash into it in 1.5 seconds. According to me, I will hit the target before the light even reaches it.

 

How can we have 2 mutually exclusive effects like this both occur due to a different frame of reference? How can I both, crash and not crash, into the target?

[Farsight]

Now, C and hence the speed of light, is less for me...

No, the speed of light in one place is what it is. Your velocity means the light in your atoms and clocks is having to travel further, and your time experience is reduced. You measure c to be the same, but your seconds last much longer. Hang on, I've already said all this but you've paid no attention.

 

You've written another long essay without checking up on anything I've said. What are you playing at? Are you even interested in physics, or are you just playing debating societies?

 

http://members.chello.nl/~n.benschop/electron.pdf

 

http://arxiv.org/ftp/physics/papers/0512/0512265.pdf

 

http://home.att.net/~SolidUniverse/Relativity/Relativity.html

 

http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/physics/0204044

 

I suggest you print out the above papers, sit down, and read them all. Also read MASS EXPLAINED. Also follow up the google link I posted earlier. Do some research then we can talk some more. All that's happening at the moment is that I'm doing the research, and you're sitting there in your blinkered ignorance saying no no no and telling me the earth is flat.

[swansont]

http://members.chello.nl/~n.benschop/electron.pdf

 

http://arxiv.org/ftp/physics/papers/0512/0512265.pdf

 

http://home.att.net/~SolidUniverse/Relativity/Relativity.html

 

http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/physics/0204044

 

Adobe doesn't like the first one (embedded font error, rendering it unreadable). But none of these are peer-reviewed sources, so they really can't be used to buttress any nonstandard physics, like the electron as being comprised of photons, or alternate interpretations of relativity.

[acehouston]

For fear of seeming ignorant or insane, I was hesitant to post this, but since the thread is called "speculations" here it is: I think there is a location in which information exists in the form of energy. I think it is in this location that everything that has ever happened and everything that will ever happen all happens at once and forever. This location is everywhere. This is time.

[swansont]

If you have a comment on the OP's conjecture, then respond here. If you have your own, alternate view, you should start a new thread so as not to derail this one.

[Edtharan]

You've written another long essay without checking up on anything I've said. What are you playing at? Are you even interested in physics, or are you just playing debating societies?

Well, I should have said that you were again stating two mutually exclusive things. First you say that I would measure a lower velocity for C, and then you say that I would measure the same velocity for C.

 

Specifically here:

The local c is lower than it is a light year out in space,

 

But then you state that C is a constant in the local frame:

You measure c to be the same,

 

So which one do you actually mean? Is C constant, or not?

[acehouston]

Thanks. I'm new here. I'll post it in a different spot.

[tomgwyther]

Time is your brains way of stopping everything from happening at once.

We expirience time as one moment after another rather like we expirience a movie as one frame after another, but the film is all there as one whole.