Kelly, out of curiosity, would you be willing to buy the following two propositions:
Physics is the same in all unaccelerated reference frames. Essentially, an experiment done in one frame, moving at some constant velocity v_1, will produce the same results if it is done in another frame, moving with some constant velocity v_2?
The speed of light is the same in all reference frames.
1 edit
Originally posted by KellyJayKelly has another explanation than the Einsteins theories of relativity do.
I've stated that before, there is no denying something is happening, but
is it happening to time or to the material world? Is it some type of material
dilation for lack of a better term for the moment?
Kelly
Basically - Kelly does not agree.
Originally posted by AThousandYoungActually, not all photons travel at c. C is the speed of light in empty space. The moment you introduce a transparent substance, it is slowed down.
Photons do not experience time in the sense that physics defines time. They move at the speed of light, so time dilation occurs to the maximum extent, meaning that to a photon, the universe never changes.
Nevertheless I have always wondered what the implications are of maximum time dilation. Does a photon that leaves one surfaces, travels through empty space and encounters another surface, experience zero time in the interim?
As the photon moves, every point it moves through is correlated to a point in the motion of everything else.
But that is the whole point of relativity. You cannot 'correlate' all points at once due to the limit on the speed of light. What you are talking about is essentially what Kelly is proposing ie that there is some sort of universal time for everything, and that for any given instant, every thing in the universe shares that instant. Yet relativity implies that we can never know which instant for you, can match to which instant for me. Whether they do match up is unknown.
Originally posted by twhiteheadWhy is this so important in relation with the current theory?
Kelly is proposing ie that there is some sort of universal time for everything, and that for any given instant, every thing in the universe shares that instant. ... Whether they do match up is unknown.
Is it possible to make an experiment that confirms Kelly's proposition?
Isn't it just how you put the words? I.e. the definition of things?
Kelly don't believe in time dilation. From his point of view it's logical that all of the universe shares the same time instant. But it ruins the relativity theory alltogether.
Originally posted by PalynkaIn the context of special relativity, an observer is simply a point in spacetime. If the observer is in an inertial frame of reference, then the time dilation with respect to other inertial frames of reference can be calculated quite easily. If the observer is not in an inertial frame of reference or is "looking at" something which isn't, then the story becomes a lot more complicated.
Question: What is an exactly an "observer" if time is relative? A quantum particle? An entity (collection of particles)? My intuition tells me it should be the former but I see it used often as the latter (e.g for a "thing" or "person" ).
Originally posted by FabianFnasKelly doesn't believe satellites and GPS navigation exist, which is his choice I guess.
Why is this so important in relation with the current theory?
Is it possible to make an experiment that confirms Kelly's proposition?
Isn't it just how you put the words? I.e. the definition of things?
Kelly don't believe in time dilation. From his point of view it's logical that all of the universe shares the same time instant. But it ruins the relativity theory alltogether.
Originally posted by KazetNagorraMathematically do you model particles as points?
In the context of special relativity, an observer is simply a point in spacetime. If the observer is in an inertial frame of reference, then the time dilation with respect to other inertial frames of reference can be calculated quite easily. If the observer is not in an inertial frame of reference or is "looking at" something which isn't, then the story becomes a lot more complicated.
It seems strange to me that if quanta are of Planck size (which implies they include an infinite of points in space-time) then how can time pass differently (even if minimally) within a quantum particle? That seems weird considering the definition of quanta.
Originally posted by PalynkaUmm well that depends on the purpose of the model... relativity is not really concerned with particles at all, it just describes the frames and how they relate to each other - the structure of spacetime. And if you have a particle, observer, cookie, whatever, traveling in such a frame, then you can apply the relativity formulae to them.
Mathematically do you model particles as points?
It seems strange to me that if quanta are of Planck size (which implies they include an infinite of points in space-time) then how can time pass differently (even if minimally) within a quantum particle? That seems weird considering the definition of quanta.
Originally posted by KazetNagorraBut to apply the formulas you assume particles are points, correct?
Umm well that depends on the purpose of the model... relativity is not really concerned with particles at all, it just describes the frames and how they relate to each other - the structure of spacetime. And if you have a particle, observer, cookie, whatever, traveling in such a frame, then you can apply the relativity formulae to them.
Originally posted by KazetNagorraObservation requires reaction time too, seeing a runner cross the finish
In the context of special relativity, an observer is simply a point in spacetime. If the observer is in an inertial frame of reference, then the time dilation with respect to other inertial frames of reference can be calculated quite easily. If the observer is not in an inertial frame of reference or is "looking at" something which isn't, then the story becomes a lot more complicated.
line and hitting a stop watch all takes time. Having a piece of test
equipment send and recieve a signal all takes time. Knowing how much
time you have allows you to measure within some degree of error.
Having something affected by forces is something we deal with daily, things
get hot they get cold, they decay, they grow, the shrink, stuff happens. We
also know that if you are dialed into a specific freq you can listen to a radio
station, change the channel you cannot, so why is it we think time changes?
Matter changes, we can affect energy and alter it, so when things occur
like clocks are off, why is it that we don't look at what we know instead of
assume it is something like time that changes?
Kelly
Originally posted by KellyJayTry reading properly other people's posts. Is your use of "observation" compatible with the observer being a point in space? No? Fallacy of equivocation it is then.
Observation requires reaction time too, seeing a runner cross the finish
line and hitting a stop watch all takes time. Having a piece of test
equipment send and recieve a signal all takes time. Knowing how much
time you have allows you to measure within some degree of error.
Having something affected by forces is something we deal with daily, things
...[text shortened]... we don't look at what we know instead of
assume it is something like time that changes?
Kelly