Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Grey
Tensor's pretty bright. I'd assume that he's aware that it's not really possible to accelerate instantaneously to the speed of light.
|
See, you are already using semantics here
Photons/Light accelerates instantaneously to "c". (which by the way is impossible for electrons to magically accomplish!)
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Grey
A more precise wording might be that if you travel from here to Alpha Centauri, moving at arbitrarily close to the speed of light, the trip will take roughly four years for outside observers, but will be arbitrarily short for the person travelling. Depending on how fast you go, the trip could take a year as measured by the traveller, or a day, or a second, or a nanosecond. Essentially no time as measured by an outside observer, if the traveller is moving quickly enough. And it still scales. If you're travelling fast enough that time dilation means you measure a nanosecond to go four light years, then it will take you a whole second to travel four billion light years.
|
Sure it still scales...it is all robustly consistent mathematically. Infact, it is absolutely 'Crap your Pants' perfect, as Publius has been know to quip.
However, it 'assumes' that the current defining of light/photons as having no 'rest frame' and experiencing no time, is correct, and that it is an invalid reference frame.
Quote:
Originally Posted by RussT
BUT, each individual photon is at rest, just sitting there, at 0 velocity, traveling at "c", just as I am sitting here in my chair typing this, at 0 velocity in numerous reference frames.
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Grey
Nope. Light travels at the same speed in all reference frames, and that speed is not zero. That's one of the founding postulates of special relativity.
|
I 100% agree that light/photons travel at a constant "c", In Vacua/Einstein 'empty universe', in all reference frames. However, you switched to 'light', where I said each individual photon.
Each individual photon (wave) IS just sitting still, at 0 velocity, in/on its Point (Particle), which is carrying it at "c". BUT I don't even need to 'prove' that, to show what is really happening here. Also, even if you assume that the photon is really sitting in/on the 'particle', if you defined the particle the same way as you currently define light in its own frame, then the 'particle' could travelto infinity, instantly in its own frame, and that is still Impossible.
When you get to the very limit of the extremes (ie; Time 'frozen' at the event horizons) is where, when it it is understood correctly (And YES, I do understand!!! Playing the "MATH CARD" will not work anymore, besides, it is Ad Hom to attack, what you or Tensor 'assume' is 'my understanding', with it!!), you can flesh out 'what is really happening'.
SO, when the end result of assigning simultaneity to all photons in their light path, in lights reference frame, and 0 time that a photon experiences, in its own frame, results in photons/light being able to travel to infinity, instantly, in its own frame, YA gotta know that that is Impossible.
And then what happens...you/they just say that it is an INVALID reference frame, BUT YA want to keep all the dilation and contraction...and yes, when you do that, it all scales purr-fectly
SO, what happened, for this to become SOOOO acceptable? That light could travel clear across the universe instantaneously, in its own frame, and Time could 'freeze'? (btw, light/photons do freeze time in a way...when they hit the lens of any of our cameras/telescopes).
That darned 'Spaceship' and those thought experiments, and what would a stationary frame and a moving frame see at relavistic speeds...IT is ALL SCI-FI, and Einsteins SR convinced mainstream (Or I guess it would be more correct to say what is now mainstream), that you/they were seeing what is "REAL" from a 0 velocity position when you hold something stationary in the same reference frame.
SO, sure, if you were sitting on the single photon, traveling at "c", you could not measure your speed, so you have to measure it from another frame to see the reality of it traveling at "c". Just like if you were sitting on the bullet, you could not measure reality from that frame, sitting on the bullet at 0 velocity in your own frame.
We always transfer to another frame to see the reality when we are at 0 velocity in our frame, just as I am sitting here at 0 velocity in my chair, time is ticking away 1 second at a time.
So all the experiments, like Pound/Rebka, that require the 'stationary', are not seeing the reality...you have to switch to the 'other frame' to see the reality...assigning gravitational redshift to the gamma rays in that experiment looks correct, BUT it is the earths rotation that is really causing those rays appear to be sped up closer to a gravitational source. Time automatically goes slower at altitude, and faster toward the center of the earth because of the earths rotation.
And this is what I meant when I finally realized what Ken G was actually saying here...
Quote:
Originally Posted by RussT
In addition this is NOT a trivial or 'be careful' evaluation of what happens in 'reference frames', and ultimately what it really means.
Quote:
Originally Posted by KenG From post 18...
We must avoid the illusions that come from taking what is happening in our frame, transforming to the photon frame where it all stacks up on top of itself and looks just like a point, and then reason from that point what should happen when we transform back to our reference frame.
Quote:
Originally Post by RussT
You just described what they are doing when Time is 'frozen' at the event horizon of a black hole. Didn't You?
Quote:
Originally Posted by KenG
Yes, very much so. Saying time is "frozen" at an event horizon is also extremely misleading, but in a somewhat different way. It is impossible to enter the frame of the photon to see that "frozen" time, whereas you can be in the frame of something at an event horizon-- and if you do, time isn't frozen at all.
Quote:
Originally Posted by RussT
There are only two options with this 'what is happening at the point of the reference frame where we are trying to determine, based on the MAths, what is happening there.
1. when we get to the refrence frame where we are trying to determine, 'what is happening there', we MUST decide that the 'Opposite' of what the maths is showing us is 'what is happening', just as KenG showed above. That is NOT just a matter of 'being careful'!!!
or 2. The maths need to be refigured in a way that DOES show the reality of what is happening there.
Everyone has always assumed that that scenario was only applicable at the Event Horizon of a black hole, BUT that is NOT true...it applies to all reference frames where we are trying to determine 'what happens there'!!!
|
Now, here is what I will admit...I am not sure how to solve this.
ETA; I meant what someone is going to need to do mathematically. I know how to solve the Time dilemma
We know that Light travels at "c" in Vacua, and that all reference frames see it as so, unless it is curved by a massive object, BUT do we just have to accept that we have to 'figure out' what is happening at the Event Horizon, or whatever frame we are looking for 'what is happening there', OR is there a way to switch the maths around so it will show correctly, that Time is just flowing at the event horizon as the free faller see it.