Simultaneous events and Einstein's absolute time
in [Relativity]
|
From: Igor on 2 Feb 2010 08:15 On Feb 1, 10:29 pm, artful <artful...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > On Feb 2, 10:44 am, Ste <ste_ro...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > > On 1 Feb, 18:27, Igor <thoov...(a)excite.com> wrote: > > > > Absolute time and a finite speed of light are contradictory concepts. > > > Therefore, since it's easy to demonstrate that light has a finite > > > speed, absolute time cannot exist. > > > The same arguments (whether true or not) can also be made from the > > existence of a finite speed of sound. > > Nope .. because the speed of sound is frame dependant And sound requires a medium.
From: Jerry on 2 Feb 2010 11:06 On Feb 1, 5:44 pm, Ste <ste_ro...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > On 1 Feb, 18:27, Igor <thoov...(a)excite.com> wrote: > > > Absolute time and a finite speed of light are contradictory concepts. > > Therefore, since it's easy to demonstrate that light has a finite > > speed, absolute time cannot exist. > > The same arguments (whether true or not) can also be made from the > existence of a finite speed of sound. You are confused by a serious PUN. There exists a demonstrable maximum possible speed of communications, designated "c". This constant "c" is a fundamental parameter in the specification of the geometric properties of spacetime. Since this constant "c" is finite, absolute time does not exist, assuming that our universe is correctly described by this geometric model. Light happens to travel at a speed which is either equal to "c" in the sense presented above, or which is so close to "c" that no measurement has yet established any detectable difference. This "speed of light" is conventionally ALSO designated by "c", which represents unfortunate historical baggage reflecting the manner in which relativity developed. Should the speed of light ever be discovered not to precisely equal "c" (and there is some controversial evidence that this may be the case for high energy gamma rays), this will have NO CONSEQUENCE WHATSOEVER in regards to the validity of relativity, since the "c" which is the speed of light is not the same "c" which determines the properties of spacetime. Jerry
From: Ste on 2 Feb 2010 11:51 On 2 Feb, 13:15, Igor <thoov...(a)excite.com> wrote: > On Feb 1, 10:29 pm, artful <artful...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > > On Feb 2, 10:44 am, Ste <ste_ro...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > > > On 1 Feb, 18:27, Igor <thoov...(a)excite.com> wrote: > > > > > Absolute time and a finite speed of light are contradictory concepts. > > > > Therefore, since it's easy to demonstrate that light has a finite > > > > speed, absolute time cannot exist. > > > > The same arguments (whether true or not) can also be made from the > > > existence of a finite speed of sound. > > > Nope .. because the speed of sound is frame dependant > > And sound requires a medium. And light requires a medium - we call it "empty space".
From: Ste on 2 Feb 2010 12:08 On 2 Feb, 16:06, Jerry <Cephalobus_alie...(a)comcast.net> wrote: > On Feb 1, 5:44 pm, Ste <ste_ro...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > > On 1 Feb, 18:27, Igor <thoov...(a)excite.com> wrote: > > > > Absolute time and a finite speed of light are contradictory concepts. > > > Therefore, since it's easy to demonstrate that light has a finite > > > speed, absolute time cannot exist. > > > The same arguments (whether true or not) can also be made from the > > existence of a finite speed of sound. > > You are confused by a serious PUN. > > There exists a demonstrable maximum possible speed of > communications, designated "c". You mean the maximum speed of communications using matter? Somewhat like how there is a maximum speed of communications using sound waves? > This constant "c" is a fundamental > parameter in the specification of the geometric properties of > spacetime. Since this constant "c" is finite, absolute time does > not exist, assuming that our universe is correctly described by > this geometric model. And that is a big assumption. > Light happens to travel at a speed which is either equal to "c" > in the sense presented above, or which is so close to "c" that no > measurement has yet established any detectable difference. This > "speed of light" is conventionally ALSO designated by "c", which > represents unfortunate historical baggage reflecting the manner > in which relativity developed. Indeed. > Should the speed of light ever be discovered not to precisely > equal "c" (and there is some controversial evidence that this > may be the case for high energy gamma rays), this will have NO > CONSEQUENCE WHATSOEVER in regards to the validity of relativity, > since the "c" which is the speed of light is not the same "c" > which determines the properties of spacetime. Which is the most absurd drivel I've ever heard. What you're basically saying is that the validity of relativity is independent of any measurement of the validity of its terms. To be honest I don't think anyone challenges the validity of relativity as a mathematical tool. What they challenge are the philosophical inferences drawn from it - some people appear to be very skilled with the maths relativity (I personally have no idea how to apply it mathematically), and yet have no contact with physical reality. When anyone asks "what is the physical basis of relativity", they're either met by blank stares or angry challenges about the meaning of "physical" or just an attitude on the part of the "expert" that the physical basis is inconsequential for the theory. It's this arrogance and loss of touch with reality that explains why we're up to 20-odd "hidden dimensions", because the loss of touch with reality has left scientists out in the wilderness, with neither the inspiration nor the intuitive guidance that comes with a connection to the material world.
From: PD on 2 Feb 2010 14:07
On Feb 2, 10:51 am, Ste <ste_ro...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > On 2 Feb, 13:15, Igor <thoov...(a)excite.com> wrote: > > > > > On Feb 1, 10:29 pm, artful <artful...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Feb 2, 10:44 am, Ste <ste_ro...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On 1 Feb, 18:27, Igor <thoov...(a)excite.com> wrote: > > > > > > Absolute time and a finite speed of light are contradictory concepts. > > > > > Therefore, since it's easy to demonstrate that light has a finite > > > > > speed, absolute time cannot exist. > > > > > The same arguments (whether true or not) can also be made from the > > > > existence of a finite speed of sound. > > > > Nope .. because the speed of sound is frame dependant > > > And sound requires a medium. > > And light requires a medium - we call it "empty space". And if this is how you want to define "medium" -- anything that carries a transmission of any description -- then there is no argument. But once again, this is not the connotation that physicists had associated with "medium" when there was much fuss about whether light was carried in a medium. |