Logical proof of SRT invalidity

[ozziemate]

Yes, you're making it quite obvious!
you have accused me of making an incorrect assumption yet you fail to support such an allegation.
so support it or be considered as irrelevant.

the moment in question is zero duration?

explain how this is not so and support your accusation.
the moment we are talking about is zero in duration so relative velocity of observer or even light speed is irrelevant. agree?
This is an assumption you are making. It happens to be incorrect.
and if you wish to refer to infinitesimal instead of zero duration I have already acknowledged in this thread that that point is yet to be fully resolved.

[ozziemate]

Photons do not stay still. They move at velocity c (in a vacuum). why do you think they stop?

ETA: any how is that relevant to the relative velocities of the observers?
because the t=thsp is zero in duration,
Why am I having to tell you this?

[Dancing David]

and instead of trying so hard to flame me, why not actually get constructive instead...

if the proof is valid you my good man are going down in history...and you can go down in history as what?:D:p

And again you can do that all you want in mental logic space, that is fine. How does it match up to reality?

What experiment will you suggest? Logic is fine and dandy, however it and reality/observable universe are often at odds with each other.
I am not flaming you currently, i am asking you to demonstrate an observable event that demonstrates your logic to be a valid expression of the behavior of the universe.

Later.

[Dancing David]

because the t=thsp is zero in duration,
Why am I having to tell you this?


Here you are breaking the universe into bits again.

Please design an experiement to show this to be true.

You can define it to be true, but what observation supports the discrete packets of time?

[ozziemate]

And gain you have shown that to be true in your mental logic space, how do you demonstrate it in reality?

seriously, that is not a flame.

Human logic is what it is, the universe is what it is, you have not shown that your logic in your mental space intersects and maps onto the behavior of reality.

mental space is often in disagreement with observable reality.

So what experiement would you design, logic often does not agree with reality. :)
agree entirely! now thats a change hey?:D
however it is not the purpose of this thread to prove SRT wrong with experiment but simply to show that it is internally inconsistant in logic.

That alone would be sufficient to stir the pot so to speak.
It just means we have to come up with a better theory to do the job that SRT has been doing. preferably one that isn't internally inconsistant.

again subject to the proof being valid of course.

[ozziemate]

Here you are breaking the universe into bits again.

Please design an experiement to show this to be true.

You can define it to be true, but what observation supports the discrete packets of time?
so are you suggesting that the point in time between future and past has some sort of "grey area" duration, hmmmm if so how long is that moment?
p.s. I had a very long debate on this issue a while ago.the crux was whether it was infinitesimal or zero duration which ultimately lead to the discovery of how to prove "absolute zero" and so on.....

[nathan]

you have accused me of making an incorrect assumption yet you fail to support such an allegation.
so support it or be considered as irrelevant.
You're the one making the assumption, you need to show it is reasonable. Because we're explicitly talking about inertial reference frames with non-zero relative velocities, it is not a valid assumption to ignore the relative velocity.

the moment in question is zero duration?

All moments are instantaneous. That's what a moment is.

explain how this is not so and support your accusation.
what is not so? The evidence supporting my 'accusation' that you made an assumption, is that you declared the observers' relative velocities to be unimportant, without showing anything supporting that.

and if you wish to refer to infinitesimal instead of zero duration I have already acknowledged in this thread that that point is yet to be fully resolved.

You seem to be arguing that because moments are instantaneous, then velocities don't matter. The Greeks figured that problem out some time ago.

[ozziemate]

You seem to be arguing that because moments are instantaneous, then velocities don't matter. The Greeks figured that problem out some time ago.
and they don't matter in the context of this thread, as we are discussing the simultaneity of a universal field of photons that are never at rest and all share the same speed. thus the moment in time is zero in duration.

and

"If all photons in existance exist simultaneously then absolutely all observations of photons must also be simultaneous"

holds true regardless of relative v of observers

[nathan]

because the t=thsp is zero in duration,
Why am I having to tell you this?

That's not stopping the photon, that's considering an instant. Those are different things.

[nathan]

and they don't matter in the context of this thread, as we are discussing the simutaneity of a universal field of photons that are never at rest and all share the same speed. thus the moment in time is zero in duration.

No, the topic of this thread is a logical flaw in SRT. So, inertial reference frames with relative velocities do matter.

If you only want to consider a single reference frame (or multiple stationary reference frames), then you're not discussing SRT.

If you wish to discuss something else, you're in the wrong place.

[nathan]

"If all photons in existance exist simultaneously then absolutely all observations of photons must also be simultaneous"
Repeating nonsense claim, does not imbue it with sense.

holds true regardless of relative v of observers
that is your assertion. You have yet to show any evidence of it being true.

[ozziemate]

No, the topic of this thread is a logical flaw in SRT. So, inertial reference frames with relative velocities do matter.

If you only want to consider a single reference frame (or multiple stationary reference frames), then you're not discussing SRT.

If you wish to discuss something else, you're in the wrong place.
well maybe you could tell the board why you think inertial reference frames with relative velocities are relevant to a zero duration moment in time?
because I fail to see it

[ozziemate]

Repeating nonsense claim, does not imbue it with sense.
support your allegation that it is nonsense please?

[ozziemate]

back in 6 hours....

[nathan]

support your allegation that it is nonsense please?

I already did that earlier today. That you chose to ignore that evidence is not my problem.

[ozziemate]

I already did that earlier today. That you chose to ignore that evidence is not my problem.
can you provide a post number or a link....?

[nathan]

well maybe you could tell the board why you think inertial reference frames with relative velocities are relevant to a zero duration moment in time?
because I fail to see it

You're assuming the result you're trying to prove. Such a proof is called circular, and is fallacious.

[nathan]

can you provide a post number or a link....?

Now you're just trolling. You know very well which post, because YOU RESPONDED TO IT. You chose to respond merely by repeating your nonsense with some words emphasized. You did not clarify.

[Reality Check]

ok you are simply stating the SRT position and I am simply stating the light simultaneity position....

and
"If all photons in existance exist simultaneously then absolutely all observations of photons must also be simultaneous"
holds true then your position which is the SRT position is invalid...ahhh such is the nature of debate....:eek:

Are all photons in existance at any given moment simultaneous to each other?
If no and reasoned properly then I loose and SRT lives on. If yes however WE win and SRT gets a revamp.

it's not hard to debate an issue if you try.

No I am not "simply stating the SRT position and I am simply stating the light simultaneity position". Read it again (quoted below).
I am stating that

You do not know what a light cone diagram is. Thus your logic is based on a faulty premise. It cannot be applied to SRT since you do not know what SRT is.
Your "logic" applies to all observations by the observer. This includes a rock landing on them. By your "logic" the rock only exists for an instant. We can extend your "logic" to deduce that the univserse only exists at the present time of the observer (tHSP). Nothing can be predicted and all of science is fake. This of course includes a certain theory called zero point theory.
"If all photons in existance exist simultaneously then absolutely all observations of photons must also be simultaneous" does not just apply to the SRT. It applies to all theories of spacetime and that includes Newton's relativity (Newton's laws).

You thus have a proof of Newton's laws invalidity :jaw-dropp !
And of General Relativity!
And of all future possible theories that include spacetime!
It is really easy to show that I am wrong. Tell me where the source of the light is in the SRT light cone diagram or even your non-SRT non-science non-mathematics diagram.

Stating the obvious again: The observation of the light from an event by an observer happens at the observer's present time and is of zero duration.

One more time: If you bother to learn about the light cone diagram then you will see that it is to do with the observer and what they can see. That is the reason that the light cones are labelled past and future - they are the path that light takes from events in the observer's past and future.

To put it in yet another way:
There is no actual light in a light cone diagram!
There are no actual photons in a light cone diagram!
There is the observer and what they can see. The light cones are sets of spacetime events not light. There are just as valid spacetime events inside and outside the cones. The observer just cannot see the spacetime events outside the light cones.

And yet another way:
Forget about light. What if there was someone throwing rocks at the observer. The rocks will arrive at the observer at tHSP (the observer's current time).
We can make exactly the same assumption that you have made for light - that the rocks are simultaneous.
Let us apply exactly the same logic to the rocks that you have applied to light, paraphrasing:
'The problem I have with this is that for an observer to observe a rock event teh hsp must be involved, and if the rock events are simultaneous tuniversally then teh hsp includes both rock event and observer.'
'One important thing to realise is that a rock event of a single wave or rock particle is zero in duration. Thus the HSP is zero in duration, a continuous event horizon, as no stasis is present.'
A proof of Newton's laws invalidity :jaw-dropp !

N.B. HSP and tHSP also exist in Galilean (or Newtonian) relativity. SRT just adds the constant speed of light in all reference frames.

ETA: We could also relabel things to match your reinterpretation, e.g. light cones become time cones.

[Reality Check]

and they don't matter in the context of this thread, as we are discussing the simultaneity of a universal field of photons that are never at rest and all share the same speed. thus the moment in time is zero in duration.

and

"If all photons in existance exist simultaneously then absolutely all observations of photons must also be simultaneous"

holds true regardless of relative v of observers
You still do not understand: The zero duration is the the duration of the observer's observation.
It is not the moment in time for the photon. The photon's duration is from when it was emitted to when it is absorbed. That is a time greater than zero.

In any case your logic is wrong. You cannot have a logical proof of SRT invalidity by starting with an assumption that it is wrong. Anything can be proved that way, e.g. I assume that 1 + 1 = -1, therefore I have proved that 1+1=2 is invalid. That proof is as valid as your proof.

This is also an example of your logic: Assume that light travels (i.e. distance is not zero for light). A theory that states that light does not travel is thus invalid. Zero point theory assumes that light does not travel. Thus zero point theory is invalid.

Therefore if you are right then zero point theory is invalid.
Do you accept that?

[Dancing David]

ozziemate, what evidence is there that time comes to an infinitly small dimension, you can define it as such.

But does reality behave that way?

[The Man]

and they don't matter in the context of this thread, as we are discussing the simultaneity of a universal field of photons that are never at rest and all share the same speed. thus the moment in time is zero in duration.

and

"If all photons in existance exist simultaneously then absolutely all observations of photons must also be simultaneous"

holds true regardless of relative v of observers


“all observations of photons” are events and events take time, specifically in the case of the photon this time is t or the cycle time which is the wavelength l divided by the speed of light (c) or lc-1. Since time and space are relative then so is that observation event time. Existence, even simultaneous existence does not denote it as observable let alone simultaneously observable. A photon is an event itself, the variation of electromagnetic fields and as such has that cycle time (or observation time) associated with it. The units of t are seconds cycle-1 and l are meters cycle-1. You can not isolate a photon to just a time or distance (becouse of c) let alone some time and distance less then t and l. In your instantaneous moment of zero time you can not consider an entire photon or any wave but just some specific point of that wave. So in your instantaneous consideration you are not considering “all photons in existence” but just the instantaneous value of the variations in electromagnetic fields which may “exist simultaneously” but may result in a zero value as some will be in a different phase of that cycle in that instance at a given location. The field value at that instant at that location is the sum of all the felid vectors acting at that instance and location. So the instantaneous simultaneous existence of equally opposing field variations at some location can in fact make that existence unobservable (zero net value) even in an instantaneous perspective. Your statement is entirely inaccurate even without the consideration of SRT but just based on the fundamental aspects of phase.

Please see group velocity (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Group_velocity) and phase velocity (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phase_velocity)

[Tubbythin]

well maybe you could tell the board why you think inertial reference frames with relative velocities are relevant to a zero duration moment in time?
because I fail to see it

Because simultaneity is, in SRT, not absolute. Therefore two events that are simultaneous in one reference frame will be not be simultaneous in another, they will be separated by an amount of time and will not be "zero duration moments", since the time between the two events will be non-zero.

[Tubbythin]

so this is not demonstrating an internal contradiction:

"If all photons in existance exist simultaneously then absolutely all observations of photons must also be simultaneous" if proven to be valid
- nonsimultaneoity is broken and SRT is invalid.
Simultaneity is specific to the inertial reference frame in question. In SRT you cannot make the statement "If all photons in existance exist simultaneously" without qualifying in which frame you are talking about. If you can define a frame in which "all photons in existance exist simultaneously" then you can define an infinite number of frames in which not all photons in existance exist simultaneously.


"If non simultaneity of all photons in existance is proven to be valid"
- SRT in invalidated because there is no need for time dilation nor length contraction as the photons are not simultaneous and immediately invariance is under the spot light. SRT is invalidated.



No. Non-simultaneity is precisely why time dilation is required.

[Tubbythin]

say you got two rel.v observers both with their respective world time lines...
Well. Each with their own spacetime coordinate system.


each observer according to SRT has a univers unto themselves wit h the other observer included.
No. They each are part of the same Universe. They just disagree on time and length measurements.


the question still stands:
"If all photons in existance exist simultaneously then absolutely all observations of photons must also be simultaneous"
That is not a question.


but in this case it must include the other observer who according to SRT sees a universe of photons that are not simultaneous with the other observers universe.
It includes another observer. The other observer need not agree on whether specific events are simultaneous. That is because they have a different coordinate system.


"If all photons in existance exist simultaneously then absolutely all observations of photons must also be simultaneous"
As I've said many times now, this makes no sense without reference to reference frames.
If all a set of events are observed to be simultaneous in reference frame A then all observers in reference frame A will agree that the events are simultaneous.
If a set of events are observed to be simultaneous in reference frame A then observers in reference frame B may not agree that the events are all simultaneous. This is
a) entirely internally consistent in SRT.
b) backed up by literally trillions of experiments.


If this is the case then photons cannot be simultaneous [ two world time lines] to each other and that is what this thead is about trying to test -just this issue.
Two events can be simultaneous in one frame and not simultaneous in another.


that is to say, how SRT can allow photons to be non simultaneous to each other.
Lorentz transformations.


It's a form of what I call double bind logic, damned if you do and damned if you don't.
Nope in one corner we have Gallilean relativity. Internally consistent if one allows for a variant speed of light. Seems intuitive. Not born out by experiment.
In the other corner we have special relativity. Internally consistent. Counter-intuitive. Backed up by trillions of experiments.


if you hold the SRT position on non-simultaneity then the photons cannot be simultaneous.
They can be simultaneous in one frame and not in another.


if you hold that photons are simultaneous to each other universally then SRT is simply wrong.
No. If you hold that simultaneity is absolute, then either you are wrong or SRT is wrong. But we know, from trillions of experiments that SRT is correct (at least to the precision we can measure) and that absolute simultaneity is wrong.


"If all photons in existance exist simultaneously then absolutely all observations of photons must also be simultaneous"
See above.


SRT has to show how it justifies non-simultaneous photons in existance and that is the point of the thread.
It does. Simultaneity is not absolute.


If it does then it invalidates light speed invariance issues too I might add.
such is the nature of a "double bind"
Nope. Because of length contraction. Speed = distance/time within any inertial reference frame. Observers in different frames who disagree on time spans will also disagree by the corresponding amount on distance spans. Giving constant c for both observers.

[Tubbythin]

simultaneous to every other photon....

Not simultaneous to what, simultaneous to who.

[NobbyNobbs]

I am sure someone else would be able to explain it better than me....

I can explain it just fine. I was wondering if you could.

You made the statement that light cannot move at a rate slower than c. I was offering those pictures as proof of the contrary.

[Uncayimmy]

Simultaneity is specific to the inertial reference frame in question. In SRT you cannot make the statement "If all photons in existance exist simultaneously" without qualifying in which frame you are talking about. If you can define a frame in which "all photons in existance exist simultaneously" then you can define an infinite number of frames in which not all photons in existance exist simultaneously.

No. Non-simultaneity is precisely why time dilation is required.

But, all photons in existence exist at the same time and are thus simultaneous! ;)

Ozzie is claiming that SRT is not internally consistent. I think the SRT experts (not me) and Ozzie should concentrate solely on SRT. It really should start with Ozzie explaining SRT at the most basic level and then showing exactly at which point it goes astray.

I get the impression that Ozzie is not really saying that SRT is internally illogical but that the whole idea of even trying to use SRT illogical. However, I haven't the foggiest idea why he thinks that.

As a practical matter, Ozzie, how has SRT failed us?

[ozziemate]

Ok Guys, fair enough, and going around in circles in not my kind fo day so if you don;t mind I woudl like to post a specific post that if agreed to or not will determine future posts.

I will refer to those equations that were set up and see how we go.

we have a universe of photons expressed as follows:

(x i , y i , z i , t A)

we also have the same for all possible observers

(x i' , y i' , z i' , t hsp)
now if you superimpose both sets of co-ordinants to show both the simultaneity of photons and observers.

Phs = (x i,i' , y i,i' , z i,i' , t phs)
you can see that both observers and photons are simultaneous in t=t phs

note: where i is relevant to photons and i' is relevant to observers
and phs = "present hyper surface" to avoid conflicting with SRT's HSP
<>

ok the above is my attempt at a mathematical desciption of only part of the problem.
qu:
1] Does the math show all photon events and observers in a way that states simultaneity?
2] If not how can the math be set up to show this?

next step:
As the formulations shown indicate a single point in time with out change included [ duration zero]:
1] The math needs to include the rate of change for that universal co-ordinant system. As change in this case is determined by the speed of light then the speed of light needs to be included in the formulation somehow.
2] The change has to be shown to be continuous.

If we can focus on the above and move on from there we may actually be able to settle this issue in the language of your choice.

[Thabiguy]

"If all photons in existance exist simultaneously then absolutely all observations of photons must also be simultaneous"

Dude... it all boils down to this:

either all observations of simultaneous events are simultaneous (i.e. all observers will agree that the two events in question were simultaneous, regardless of their relative velocity),
or the speed of light is invariant (i.e. all observers will agree that the speed of light is the same, regardless of their relative velocity).

One is incompatible with the other. You can't have both. If the former is true, the latter is false. If the latter is true, the former is false.

Approach #1:
Let "common sense" prevail! All observations of simultaneous events must be simultaneous. From this, it follows that observers may disagree about the speed of light. This is called the Galilean or Newtonian relativity.

Approach #2:
Let reality prevail! All observers must agree that the speed of light is the same. From this, it follows that observers may disagree about simultaneity of events. This is called the special relativity.

These two are models. They are both logically consistent. You could have universes working either way. It just happens that our universe's observed behavior fits the second model better.

You are essentially saying, "for the sake of logical and clarity, simultaneous events just must be universally simultaneous", and that's all good. You can have that assumption. But you must realize that what you're talking about is not special relativity. It's Galilean relativity. And you're right - special relativity is "wrong" if you assume Galilean relativity. But that doesn't tell us much, does it? We already knew that.

This is what people are getting at when they're telling you that you have assumed that SR is wrong, and from that, concluded that SR is wrong.

[ozziemate]

Dude... it all boils down to this:

either all observations of simultaneous events are simultaneous (i.e. all observers will agree that the two events in question were simultaneous, regardless of their relative velocity),
or the speed of light is invariant (i.e. all observers will agree that the speed of light is the same, regardless of their relative velocity).

One is incompatible with the other. You can't have both. If the former is true, the latter is false. If the latter is true, the former is false.

Approach #1:
Let "common sense" prevail! All observations of simultaneous events must be simultaneous. From this, it follows that observers may disagree about the speed of light. This is called the Galilean or Newtonian relativity.

Approach #2:
Let reality prevail! All observers must agree that the speed of light is the same. From this, it follows that observers may disagree about simultaneity of events. This is called the special relativity.

These two are models. They are both logically consistent. You could have universes working either way. It just happens that our universe's observed behavior fits the second model better.

You are essentially saying, "for the sake of logical and clarity, simultaneous events just must be universally simultaneous", and that's all good. You can have that assumption. But you must realize that what you're talking about is not special relativity. It's Galilean relativity. And you're right - special relativity is "wrong" if you assume Galilean relativity. But that doesn't tell us much, does it? We already knew that.

This is what people are getting at when they're telling you that you have assumed that SR is wrong, and from that, concluded that SR is wrong.
I understand your post and thanks.
The question is:
1] Does SRT require all photons that exist at any given moment, to exist simultaneously to each other for SRT to be "logically" consistant? [ according to current belief]

if this one question can be answered properly then the next step will be easier.

But as yet we have no comment about how SRT may require all photons that exist at a given moment to exist simultaneously to each other.


"essentially it is asking: does SRT require that the universal light field that exists at a given moment be simultaneious across all space co-ordinants.
[note "time" is missing]

is

we have a universe of photons expressed as follows:

(x i , y i , z i , t A)
a valid statement and required by SRT for SRt to be internally consistant.
If this is nailed then the rest will follow

[ozziemate]

Or if we must, we can pick an observer at rel. v and work backwards....
and use a two observer at relative v scenario.

I am not going to suggest an alternative to SRT I am merely at this point and in this thread wishing to test the logic that I understand will invalidate SRT.
I believe that SRT is fatally flawed and that is because it fails to handle the invariance of light issue adequately. There is no doubt to me that invariance of light is a fact however it is how we handle that fact that is in question.
The frist step though is to show that SRT is mishandling light speed invariance, which forces the universe into a non-simultaneous state.
And that is what this thread is about, presenting a case that will clearly show that SRT is invalid and logically inconsistant, and the blame eventually for being so, will be that it mishandles the invariance of light speed issue.

[Thabiguy]

1] Does the math show all photon events and observers in a way that states simultaneity?
Nope.
2] If not how can the math be set up to show this?

You can either have a set of all photons over all of time, ever:

(xi, yi, zi, ti)

or you can have a set of all photons at a particular moment t:

(xi, yi, zi)

The important thing to realize is this: all these coordinates (x, y, z and t) are already expressed in some reference frame. These sets of photons unambiguously describe one inertial observer: one that is at coordinates (0, 0, 0) and starts measuring time at t=0.

You can also have a set of all other inertial observers and their movements through the universe, which will look similar to the set of all photons.

Now, when you want to express this set in some other reference frame (from the viewpoint of another observer), you have to do a transformation.

If you transform to an observer who always stays at (1, 2, 3) for all t, it's all nice and clean: you simply subtract 1 from all x's, 2 from all y's and 3 from all z's and you're done. Now the previous observer is at -1, -2, -3 (forever) and all is fine.

But if you want to transform to an observer moving with respect to the original one ( his "subset" includes for example (0, 0, 0, 0), (1, 0, 0, 1), (2, 0, 0, 2), etc.), things become more complicated. And that's where the source of simultaneity loss lies.

I'll pause here for now and let you or others speak.

[Alkatran]

This website helped me understand the intuition behind special relativity. Hopefully it will let you see why simultaneity can be broken.

First Page, describing the problem:
http://casa.colorado.edu/~ajsh/sr/paradox.html

Make sure to read the next couple pages as well! They give the solution.

[ozziemate]

Nope.


You can either have a set of all photons over all of time, ever:

(xi, yi, zi, ti)

or you can have a set of all photons at a particular moment t:

(xi, yi, zi)

The important thing to realize is this: all these coordinates (x, y, z and t) are already expressed in some reference frame. These sets of photons unambiguously describe one inertial observer: one that is at coordinates (0, 0, 0) and starts measuring time at t=0.

You can also have a set of all other inertial observers and their movements through the universe, which will look similar to the set of all photons.

Now, when you want to express this set in some other reference frame (from the viewpoint of another observer), you have to do a transformation.

If you transform to an observer who always stays at (1, 2, 3) for all t, it's all nice and clean: you simply subtract 1 from all x's, 2 from all y's and 3 from all z's and you're done. Now the previous observer is at -1, -2, -3 (forever) and all is fine.

But if you want to transform to an observer moving with respect to the original one ( his "subset" includes for example (0, 0, 0, 0), (1, 0, 0, 1), (2, 0, 0, 2), etc.), things become more complicated. And that's where the source of simultaneity loss lies.

I'll pause here for now and let you or others speak.

could you have

(x i i', y i i', z i i')

where i = photon and i' = all observers possible

[ and the absense of t means no time involved? ]

[ozziemate]

This website helped me understand the intuition behind special relativity. Hopefully it will let you see why simultaneity can be broken.

First Page, describing the problem:
http://casa.colorado.edu/~ajsh/sr/paradox.html

Make sure to read the next couple pages as well! They give the solution.
great link and thanks but it shows only the usual SRT position so it doesn't help very much in dealing with this issue...
I especially liked this image..
http://casa.colorado.edu/~ajsh/sr/lorst.gif

[Dancing David]

You have a choice:

you can have simultaniety or you can have invariant speed of light.

You are the one who is asserting the simultaneity of photons, so it is your assertion, no one elses

1] Does SRT require all photons that exist at any given moment, to exist simultaneously to each other for SRT to be "logically" consistant? [ according to current belief]

No it doesn't.

In imaginary space they can be considered to all exist at different positions at the same relative time. But that does not mean that they all exist in one giant inertial frame, they are going to have seperate vectors of motion and exist in different gravitational fields.

And when again you try to correlate the different time references, it is easier if you use train cars than photons. But the same principals apply, they can be considered in mental space as existing at the same 'moment' but when you try to get them to communicate with each other then the differential of time and apparent path lengths will apply.

Whcch is why when you asked about the tran of photons being sent from your lazer pointer, i pointed out that you are just assuming their relative positions, so in mind space, your constract is valid.

But in reality, let us say we fire off train cars at close to the speed of light, same velocity and same vector, from a stationary platform.

Then you can say that in mental space they are spaced out at even intervals and that if the inertial frames of reference are equivalent, they will have the ability to view some events and have then occur at the 'same time'. But as the number of trains grows and the distance between the first train in the pack and the last train grows greater, the observational discrepancies will grow. the train car at the front of the pack will not see events in the same time frame as the one at the back of the pack.


So yes, in mental space, you can think about the train cars existing in some sort of simultaneous reference to each other. But in reality as the distance between seperate cars is greater, the time differentials will shift.

(Unless I totaly misunderstand the topic, in which case some one will correct me, I am sure.)

[Dancing David]

I think I am going to stop now, bye OZ!

[ozziemate]

I think I am going to stop now, bye OZ!
thanks DD, I'll post a response shortly....

[Fredrik]

I actually came here to laugh at all the people who are still trying to explain things here... :rolleyes:


The question is:
1] Does SRT require all photons that exist at any given moment, to exist simultaneously to each other for SRT to be "logically" consistant? [ according to current belief]

First of all, special relativity is a theory. I have tried to explain to you what a theory is, but I have obviously failed. This theory consists of a mathematical model (Minkowski space), and a set of postulates that identify things in the real world with things in the model. The theory is logically consistent if the model is. Nothing is required of the real world. The real world has nothing to do with the internal consistency of the theory.

Second, you're asking if SR requires that photons that exist at the same time exist at the same time! You're asking if a theory of physics requires that "if P is true, then P is true", where P is some proposition. I can't imagine why you would ask that.

The statement in blue is obviously true, but it's not because of SR. Its truth is an immediate consequence of the definition of the phrase "if X then Y". It's defined as true if both X and Y are true. This is logic, not physics.

[Thabiguy]

could you have

(x i i', y i i', z i i')

where i = photon and i' = all observers possible

[ and the absense of t means no time involved? ]
You could "have that", but this construct doesn't seem to describe anything meaningful. What do you want to describe?

(Wait a minute... I just think I might see where this is heading. Is your point that in every reference frame, an expanding sphere of light is an expanding sphere of light, just with a different point and time of origin?)

[ozziemate]

this image shows a single pulse of light propogating from a continuous light source.

http://zeropointtheory.com/images/stories/images/light/lightsim.gif

Do any of the photons of the pulse wave ever loose simultaneity with the photons behind it or in front of it?

IMO no they remain simultaneous at all positions as the wave propagates.

[ozziemate]

I actually came here to laugh at all the people who are still trying to explain things here... :rolleyes:


First of all, special relativity is a theory. I have tried to explain to you what a theory is, but I have obviously failed. This theory consists of a mathematical model (Minkowski space), and a set of postulates that identify things in the real world with things in the model. The theory is logically consistent if the model is. Nothing is required of the real world. The real world has nothing to do with the internal consistency of the theory.

Second, you're asking if SR requires that photons that exist at the same time exist at the same time! You're asking if a theory of physics requires that "if P is true, then P is true", where P is some proposition. I can't imagine why you would ask that.

The statement in blue is obviously true, but it's not because of SR. Its truth is an immediate consequence of the definition of the phrase "if X then Y". It's defined as true if both X and Y are true. This is logic, not physics.
I am not crying the real world is wrong I am crying the theory that tries to explain the real world may be wrong... can you not see the difference.

also,
I am not saying if P is true then P is true
I am saying that if P is true then Q is true...

can you not see the distinction...?

"If all photons in existance exist simultaneously then absolutely all observations of photons must also be simultaneous"
obviously a "if P then Q" statement. How did you miss it I wonder?
According to SRT the statement reads:
"If all photons in existance exist simultaneously then observations of photons must be non-simultaneous if observers are at rel.v"

why did you miss that?

[Thabiguy]

Do any of the photons of the pulse wave ever loose simultaneity with the photons behind it or in front of it?
Photons don't have simultaneity. Events have simultaneity.

"My dog is simultaneous with my cat" is a meaningless statement. "My dog brought me a frisbee and my cat caught a rat simultaneously" has a meaning.

Similarly, "photons A and B are simultaneous" is meaningless. "Photon A is at location X at the same time when photon B is at location Y" has a meaning.

[ozziemate]

You could "have that", but this construct doesn't seem to describe anything meaningful. What do you want to describe?

it describes the fundamental of light/observer simultanaeity. Reference frames at this stage are irrelevant.
In SRT I believe according to Reality Checks posts that is referred to as the t=t hsp the hypersurface of the present and a given moment of zero duration.

(Wait a minute... I just think I might see where this is heading. Is your point that in every reference frame, an expanding sphere of light is an expanding sphere of light, just with a different point and time of origin?)
You will need to clarify a little but I think you are getting to a point of realisation of what I am attempting to put forward yes.

[ozziemate]

Photons don't have simultaneity. Events have simultaneity.

"My dog is simultaneous with my cat" is a meaningless statement. "My dog brought me a frisbee and my cat caught a rat simultaneously" has a meaning.

Similarly, "photons A and B are simultaneous" is meaningless. "Photon A is at location X at the same time when photon B is at location Y" has a meaning.
how would you the describe the basic proposition put in this constructed animation?
this image shows a single pulse of light propogating from a continuous light source.

http://zeropointtheory.com/images/stories/images/light/lightsim.gif

Do any of the photons of the pulse wave ever loose simultaneity with the photons behind it or in front of it?

IMO no they remain simultaneous as all locations change as the wave propagates.

[ozziemate]

so therefore at a fundamental level:
(x i i', y i i', z i i')
has an awful lot of meaning IMO
a tautology if you like

[Thabiguy]

You will need to clarify a little but I think you are getting to a point of realisation of what I am attempting to put forward yes.

(If I was right about what you might be trying to put forward, then the quick answer is that if there were nothing in the universe but photons, moving at the speed of light, then indeed all events described just by interactions betweens these photons would indeed be simultaneous in all reference frames. The simultaneity "breaks" for events involving something other than just the photons - for example observers who observe the photons but do not move at the speed of light.)

how would you the describe the basic proposition put in this constructed animation?
this image shows a single pulse of light propogating from a continuous light source.

I would describe it as a single pulse of light propagating from a continuous light source.

There don't seem to be any explicit events that I could speak about the simultaneity of. If you want to define some events, we can talk about their simultaneity.

[Uncayimmy]

You know, Ozzie, I think at one time or another most critical thinkers find themselves in a position similar to yours. That is to say they reach a point where it looks like the accepted paradigm is incorrect.

My advice to you is to do what I have I have been trying to with you: Understand the other guy's position better than he does. In other words work on SRT as though you believe it is The Truth. Stop trying to find fault with it and instead learn it backwards and forwards. Stop asking questions in an effort to disprove it. Instead ask questions to help you understand it better. Pose problems to yourself and use SRT to solve them. Draw the diagrams that SRT demands, not your own ideas of it. Calculate the math so much that you no longer need to look up the formulas. Take a class at a local college and help other students understand it.

When you think you understand it, write a short paper explaining it. Ask others in whom you have confidence as SRT experts to read and critique. Revise as necessary until nobody can find any fault in your understanding of it.

Then, and only then, try to poke holes in it. Resist the temptation to poke holes during the learning process because it will only get in your way of understanding. Trust me, if you're right, those questions won't go away. If they remain, you will be eminently qualified to discuss them.

Look at where you're at right now - you're on a discussion forum where you are faced with an overwhelming number of people who seem to understand SRT better than you. You can't convince them that you even understand SRT, so how you can convince them that what they understand is wrong? You don't even know what it is.

[ozziemate]

You know, Ozzie, I think at one time or another most critical thinkers find themselves in a position similar to yours. That is to say they reach a point where it looks like the accepted paradigm is incorrect.

My advice to you is to do what I have I have been trying to with you: Understand the other guy's position better than he does. In other words work on SRT as though you believe it is The Truth. Stop trying to find fault with it and instead learn it backwards and forwards. Stop asking questions in an effort to disprove it. Instead ask questions to help you understand it better. Pose problems to yourself and use SRT to solve them. Draw the diagrams that SRT demands, not your own ideas of it. Calculate the math so much that you no longer need to look up the formulas. Take a class at a local college and help other students understand it.

When you think you understand it, write a short paper explaining it. Ask others in whom you have confidence as SRT experts to read and critique. Revise as necessary until nobody can find any fault in your understanding of it.

Then, and only then, try to poke holes in it. Resist the temptation to poke holes during the learning process because it will only get in your way of understanding. Trust me, if you're right, those questions won't go away. If they remain, you will be eminently qualified to discuss them.

Look at where you're at right now - you're on a discussion forum where you are faced with an overwhelming number of people who seem to understand SRT better than you. You can't convince them that you even understand SRT, so how you can convince them that what they understand is wrong? You don't even know what it is.
thanks for you advice and it is well noted.

however in my defense I am not trying to convince any one, that is something they have to do them selves.

I am putting up a simple piece of logic that if taken literally and in absolutum with out speculating on emotional issues and my intentions etc or for that matter my intelligence and knowledge.
Just deal with the logic as if it arrived in a bottle by the sea side.
Then we may get somewhere.

[Tubbythin]

I understand your post and thanks.
The question is:
1] Does SRT require all photons that exist at any given moment, to exist simultaneously to each other for SRT to be "logically" consistant? [ according to current belief]

if this one question can be answered properly then the next step will be easier.


I've answered this multiple times. The question is meaningless without explicitly identifying a reference frame.


But as yet we have no comment about how SRT may require all photons that exist at a given moment to exist simultaneously to each other.
Who's moment?


"essentially it is asking: does SRT require that the universal light field that exists at a given moment be simultaneious across all space co-ordinants.
[note "time" is missing]
All of who's space co-ordinants?

[ozziemate]

(If I was right about what you might be trying to put forward, then the quick answer is that if there were nothing in the universe but photons, moving at the speed of light, then indeed all events described just by interactions betweens these photons would indeed be simultaneous in all reference frames.
so imagine the entire universe including observers is an inertial frame. all observers are at rel. v =0

and ask the same question?
Are all interactions between photons and observers simultaneous at a given zero duration moment.

[Thabiguy]

so imagine the entire universe including observers is an inertial frame. all observers are at rel. v =0

and ask the same question?
Are all interactions between photons and observers simultaneous at a given zero duration moment.

Okay, let me see where this is heading.

Yes - if all observers are stationary with respect to each other (rel. v = 0), then all interactions between photons and observers that one observer will see as simultaneous, will be seen as simultaneous by all observers.

And?

[Tubbythin]

Or if we must, we can pick an observer at rel. v and work backwards....
and use a two observer at relative v scenario.

I am not going to suggest an alternative to SRT I am merely at this point and in this thread wishing to test the logic that I understand will invalidate SRT.

Do you think you understand SRT? If not, how do you think you could possibly think you could invalidate it?


I believe that SRT is fatally flawed and that is because it fails to handle the invariance of light issue adequately.
How would you rather handle it?

[Tubbythin]

so imagine the entire universe including observers is an inertial frame. all observers are at rel. v =0

and ask the same question?
Are all interactions between photons and observers simultaneous at a given zero duration moment.

If that is a weird way of asking "do all observers in the same inertial reference frame agree which events are simultaneous?" the answer is yes.

[ozziemate]

I've answered this multiple times. The question is meaningless without explicitly identifying a reference frame.

answer: any ones


Who's moment?
answer: any one zero duration moment for any one


All of who's space co-ordinants?
answer: any ones

"If all photons in existance exist simultaneously then absolutely all observations of photons must also be simultaneous"

notice the emphasis on the word "all" and the use of the word abolutely...
and note that a photon can not exist in the future nor can it exist in the past.
Therfore it can only exists in a zero duration moment as it travels it's journey.

[Tubbythin]

Do any of the photons of the pulse wave ever loose simultaneity with the photons behind it or in front of it?
That question doesn't make any sense. Simultaneous usually refers to two events occuring at the same time according to a specific observer. Care to reword your question so it makes sense?

[Fredrik]

I am not crying the real world is wrong I am crying the theory that tries to explain the real world may be wrong... can you not see the difference.

Great, you misunderstood the answer too. Of course I see the difference. But you weren't suggesting that the theory is wrong in the text I quoted. ("Wrong" means "makes predictions that disagree with experiments"). You were talking about the internal consistency of the theory. If it's not internally consistent, it's much more deeply flawed than if it's just wrong. What you were suggesting was not only that the theory may inconsistent, but also that it may be inconsistent because of something in the real world. I was just explaining why that's impossible.

I suggest that you read my previous post again, and think really hard about this.


I am not saying if P is true then P is true
I am saying that if P is true then Q is true...

can you not see the distinction...?


obviously a "if P then Q" statement. How did you miss it I wonder?

I would have seen the distinction if there was one. Go back and read the text I quoted in my previous post. You clearly made an "if P then P" statement. I could explain why, but I feel it would be a waste of time. For now I'm just going to recommend that you try to be more careful when you make statements like that.


"If all photons in existance exist simultaneously then observations of photons must be non-simultaneous if observers are at rel.v"

That's not careful enough. You're still not really making sense.

[Fredrik]

answer: any ones



answer: any one zero duration moment for any one



answer: any ones

This doesn't answer the questions. Do you e.g. mean "in one specific but arbitrarily chosen inertial frame" or "in all the inertial frames"?

[ozziemate]

If that is a weird way of asking "do all observers in the same inertial reference frame agree which events are simultaneous?" the answer is yes.
so we are talking about a fundamental tautology that has only one question/statement to test?
"If all photons in existance exist simultaneously then absolutely all observations of photons must also be simultaneous"
regardless of rel. velocity.

so have we established the fundamental of an inertial frame according to SRT....
with:
(x i i', y i i', z i i')

ok ?
now we need to show how that simultaneity is broken by showing how velocity can effect a zero duration moment when ever that zero duration moment occurs.

of how rel v can effect this outcome:
(x i i', y i i', z i i')
given that it occurs in a zero duration moment.
and thats a lot harder to do than I think you realise

I am agreeing that "my theory" [tongue in cheek] states that :
(x i i', y i i', z i i')
this is true in all zero duration moments.
however where my theory and yours are in conflict is that you believe that rel v of an observer can somehow change the simultaneity of a zero duration moment
(x i i', y i i', z i i')
therfore making photons non-simultaneous to them selves

[Thabiguy]

"If all photons in existance exist simultaneously then absolutely all observations of photons must also be simultaneous"

notice the emphasis on the word "all" and the use of the word abolutely...
and note that a photon can not exist in the future nor can it exist in the past.
Therfore it can only exists in a zero duration moment as it travels it's journey.

Again, I'm not sure if this is the meaning of "simultaneous existence" you're trying to get at, but all photons in existence do not exist simultaneously.

Even if you produce two photons at the very same moment, and you send them towards two observers, A and B, and they observe them at the very same moment (from your perspective), and you think that these two photons "existed simultaneously" (any time that one existed, the other did too), there will be another observer who will disagree with you: for her, the first photon only existed for one second before it reached A but the second one existed for a thousand years before it reached B.

[ozziemate]

This doesn't answer the questions. Do you e.g. mean "in one specific but arbitrarily chosen inertial frame" or "in all the inertial frames"?
Please see the post above this one addressed to Tubbythin #310

[Tubbythin]

answer: any ones
Then I've answered this multiple times too. Simultaneity is relative.
SRT require all events that one observer in a given inertial reference frame observes to be simultaneous to be simultaneous to all other observers in the same frame. But for observers in a different inertial frame, they do not have to agree which events are simultaneous.



answer: any one zero duration moment for any one
This makes no sense. Your original comment:

But as yet we have no comment about how SRT may require all photons that exist at a given moment to exist simultaneously to each other.
So you're saying we've had no comment to the the question whether any observer that believes a certain number of photons exists at a certain time believes that the same number of photons believes at the same time. This is, again like saying "If I observe the sky to be blue, what colour do I observe the sky to be?"


answer: any ones

"If all photons in existance exist simultaneously then absolutely all observations of photons must also be simultaneous"

notice the emphasis on the word "all" and the use of the word abolutely...
and note that a photon can not exist in the future nor can it exist in the past.
Therfore it can only exists in a zero duration moment as it travels it's journey.

Again I'm trying to transform your question into something meaningful. I think I give up this time.

[ozziemate]

Again, I'm not sure if this is the meaning of "simultaneous existence" you're trying to get at, but all photons in existence do not exist simultaneously.

Even if you produce two photons at the very same moment, and you send them towards two observers, A and B, and they observe them at the very same moment (from your perspective), and you think that these two photons "existed simultaneously" (any time that one existed, the other did too), there will be another observer who will disagree with you: for her, the first photon only existed for one second before it reached A but the second one existed for a thousand years before it reached B.
yet in saying so you are admiting the existance of all photons even if not observed by the observer....and the only issue then is light information delays

yes?

[ozziemate]

Then I've answered this multiple times too. Simultaneity is relative.
SRT require all events that one observer in a given inertial reference frame observes to be simultaneous to be simultaneous to all other observers in the same frame. But for observers in a different inertial frame, they do not have to agree which events are simultaneous.
which is exactly what the logical proof is attempting to invalidate, so just saying that SRT requires this and that is not debating the issue but simply re-inforcing the SRT position with out arguement to contra the claims against it...

[Thabiguy]

so have we established the fundamental of an inertial frame according to SRT....
with:
(x i i', y i i', z i i')

ok ?
I still don't understand what you want to describe by that strange construct. For the purpose of this post, I will assume that your construct just expresses this: "all simultaneous events are simultaneous for all observers".

now we need to show how that simultaneity is broken by showing how velocity can effect a zero duration moment when ever that zero duration moment occurs.

of how rel v can effect this outcome:
(x i i', y i i', z i i')
given that it occurs in a zero duration moment.

But an observer with a non-zero velocity was not in your set of observers, remember? And if you want to change your set of observers so that he is there, then it's no longer true that your construct expresses "all simultaneous events are simultaneous for all observers".

[ozziemate]

we are dealing a t a very fundamental level and so the concepts are surprisingly innocuous or simple yet to get that fundamental clear can be extraordinarily difficult.

(x i i', y i i', z i i')
says it all in a weird sort of way....

[ozziemate]

I still don't understand what you want to describe by that strange construct. For the purpose of this post, I will assume that your construct just expresses this: "all simultaneous events are simultaneous for all observers".



But an observer with a non-zero velocity was not in your set of observers, remember? And if you want to change your set of observers so that he is there, then it's no longer true that your construct expresses "all simultaneous events are simultaneous for all observers".
please excuse as I know Jack sh*t about math. I learned this contruction about 3 pages ago so it is very new to me.

(x i i', y i i', z i i')
where i = location of photons
where i' = location of all possible observers

i and i' are indexs from 1 to N

does that help?

[Tubbythin]

so we are talking about a fundamental tautology that has only one question/statement to test?
"If all photons in existance exist simultaneously then absolutely all observations of photons must also be simultaneous"
regardless of rel. velocity.
No. If all observers in all reference frames agree that all "events" are simultaneous then this is not a world in which relativity holds. You cannot, therefore use such a question to test special relativity logically. You can try to observe such an occurence through experiment and there by invalidate special relativity as a good descriptor of reality. Good luck with that.


however where my theory and yours
Sadly, its not my theory.


are in conflict is that you believe that rel v of an observer can somehow change the simultaneity of a zero duration moment
Backwards. The moment is zero duration because you say the two events are simultaneous according to a specific observer. If a second observer disagrees that the two moments are simultaneous then the time between the observations is, by definition, non-zero.

[Thabiguy]

yet in saying so you are admiting the existance of all photons even if not observed by the observer....and the only issue then is light information delays

yes?

I of course admit the existence of all photons even if not observed by an observer... but "light information delays", whatever you mean by it, is not only not the only issue, it's not an issue at all.

[Fredrik]

how would you the describe the basic proposition put in this constructed animation?
this image shows a single pulse of light propogating from a continuous light source.

http://zeropointtheory.com/images/stories/images/light/lightsim.gif

Do any of the photons of the pulse wave ever loose simultaneity with the photons behind it or in front of it?

IMO no they remain simultaneous as all locations change as the wave propagates.
This is how I would describe what the animation is showing: Light is emitted from a point source at a specific event. It's convenient to use an inertial frame in which the light source is at rest at spatial coordinates (0,0,0) and the emission event has time coordinate 0, to describe what happens next. At time t, the light has traveled a distance ct. The photons were sent out in all directions in space, so at time t, the space occupied by the photons is a sphere with radius ct. To be more specific, it's the sphere x2+y2+z2=c2t2.

If all the photons where sent out at the same event, there are no photons in front of, or behind, the photons we're talking about. So what are you talking about? Are you talking about the sphere of photons at some earlier (or later) time t'? In that case you're asking if the photon sphere at time t is simultaneous with the photon sphere at time t' (which by definition is not equal to t). That's like asking if the window in your bathroom is in the same room as the window in your kitchen, and the answer is "Of course not. The answer is immediately obvious from the information in the question, so no theory of physics is needed".

Maybe you had something else in mind, like light being emitted continuously over a significant period of time. If you did, you're going to have to say so, but please try to make sense.

[Tubbythin]

which is exactly what the logical proof is attempting to invalidate, so just saying that SRT requires this and that is not debating the issue but simply re-inforcing the SRT position with out arguement to contra the claims against it...

Its is a direct mathematical outcome of the the invariance of the speed of light, one of the postulates of SR. You cannot logically disprove this, only (in principle) experimentally disprove it.
If your "logical proof" includes the statement "simultaneity is absolute" it cannot be a logical proof of SRT invalidity.

[ozziemate]

OK I'll try this for size,

(x i i'i", y i i'i", z i i'i")
where i = all photons in existance
where i' = all possible observers
where i" = all possible relative velocities of observers (i)
and note that is a zero duration moment we are talking about.
Posibly the math could be better presented, but in the end I guess just about my entire arguement is expressed in this one math construct.

[Thabiguy]

please excuse as I know Jack sh*t about math.
Well this is obviously not your fault, but then you must understand that there will be trouble when you try to use the math.

(x i i', y i i', z i i')
where i = location of photons
where i' = location of all possible observers

i and i' are indexs from 1 to N

does that help?
Let's make it easier, shall we? Let's say that we have two photons and three observers. The three observers are at rest with respect to each other.

We will even make it ultra-easy and assume that the three observers have synchronized their clocks.

So at t0, observers see the photons as follows:
1: photon A: (1, 0, 0), photon B: (0, 1, 0)
2: photon A: (1, 2, 3), photon B: (0, 3, 3)
3: photon A: (1, 0, 5), photon B: (0, 1, 5)

Okay. Now, your point is...?

[ozziemate]

http://zeropointtheory.com/images/stories/images/light/lightspecklediag01b.jpg
a zero duration snapshot of the light field and rel. v observers...

[Tubbythin]

http://zeropointtheory.com/images/stories/images/light/lightspecklediag01b.jpg
a zero duration snapshot of the light field and rel. v observers...

What about it?

[ozziemate]

What about it?

try this
when time is zero in duration the only thing a relative v observer can show is location and his inertia he cannot show his velocity.

you can not show velocity and location simultaneously in a zero duration moment....some famous nobel prize winner stated...can't rememeber...uncertainty principle I think....

[Thabiguy]

OK I'll try this for size,

(x i i'i", y i i'i", z i i'i")
where i = all photons in existance
where i' = all possible observers
where i" = all possible relative velocities of observers (i)
and note that is a zero duration moment we are talking about.
Posibly the math could be better presented, but in the end I guess just about my entire arguement is expressed in this one math construct.

When you include all possible relative velocities of observers, the construct ceases to be meaningful, because even though you wish to exclude time, you haven't explained how each of these possible observers selects his time of observation to submit for your "snapshot".

http://zeropointtheory.com/images/stories/images/light/lightspecklediag01b.jpg
a zero duration snapshot of the light field and rel. v observers...

The problem is that for some of those moving observers, A will be inside the sphere of light while F still outside of it; for others, A will be outside the sphere but F will already be in it.

[ozziemate]

This is how I would describe what the animation is showing: Light is emitted from a point source at a specific event. It's convenient to use an inertial frame in which the light source is at rest at spatial coordinates (0,0,0) and the emission event has time coordinate 0, to describe what happens next. At time t, the light has traveled a distance ct. The photons were sent out in all directions in space, so at time t, the space occupied by the photons is a sphere with radius ct. To be more specific, it's the sphere x2+y2+z2=c2t2.

If all the photons where sent out at the same event, there are no photons in front of, or behind, the photons we're talking about. So what are you talking about? Are you talking about the sphere of photons at some earlier (or later) time t'? In that case you're asking if the photon sphere at time t is simultaneous with the photon sphere at time t' (which by definition is not equal to t). That's like asking if the window in your bathroom is in the same room as the window in your kitchen, and the answer is "Of course not. The answer is immediately obvious from the information in the question, so no theory of physics is needed".

Maybe you had something else in mind, like light being emitted continuously over a significant period of time. If you did, you're going to have to say so, but please try to make sense.
you failed to pick up on these parts of the description:
how would you the describe the basic proposition put in this constructed animation?
this image shows a single pulse of light propogating from a continuous light source.

highlighted bold
http://zeropointtheory.com/images/stories/images/light/lightsim.gif
yeah I know the drawing is a bit misleading because the pulse is ahown as shaded area when an expanding circle would have been better..apologies..

[ozziemate]

When you include all possible relative velocities of observers, the construct ceases to be meaningful, because even though you wish to exclude time, you haven't explained how each of these possible observers selects his time of observation to submit for your "snapshot".

hmmmm.....
remember the uncertainty principle?

In quantum physics, the Heisenberg uncertainty principle states that the values of certain pairs of conjugate variables (position and momentum for instance) cannot both be known with arbitrary precision. That is, the more precisely you know one value, the less precisely you know the other. This is not a statement about the limitations of a researcher's ability to measure particular quantities of a system, but rather about the nature of the system itself.
wiki

keeping in mind the duration is zero

[ozziemate]

When you include all possible relative velocities of observers, the construct ceases to be meaningful, because even though you wish to exclude time, you haven't explained how each of these possible observers selects his time of observation to submit for your "snapshot".
maybe way around this is to say that each observer has relative momentum of unknown quantities. Using the word momentum instead of velocity to help clarify the point.

That during the zero duration moment all observers and photons are simutaneous regardless of relative momentum....

[Fredrik]

Huh? So when you say "a single pulse", you don't mean that all of it was emitted at the same event? That's how I would interpret it, even if the text adds that the light source is continuous.

If we're talking about a light that was emitted over a longer period of time, then the only thing that changes is that we have many photon spheres at each time t. In a 2+1-dimensional spacetime diagram this would look like a cone inside a cone inside a cone, and so on forever, with the tip of each cone located at (0,0,0) but at different times.

OK, now that I have described the events in a way that makes sense, can you ask your question in a way that makes sense?

[Thabiguy]

*sigh*

I'm afraid what you're saying now makes absolutely no sense. Heisenberg principle of uncertainty has nothing to do with this whatsoever.

If you think that it does, I don't know how to help you.

There is nothing about instantaneous velocities that wouldn't be 100% covered by the basics of calculus. What you're hinting at is some weird form of Zeno's paradox, perhaps, but that is utterly without relevance to SR.

[ozziemate]

Huh? So when you say "a single pulse", you don't mean that all of it was emitted at the same event? That's how I would interpret it, even if the text adds that the light source is continuous.

If we're talking about a light that was emitted over a longer period of time, then the only thing that changes is that we have many photon spheres at each time t. In a 2+1-dimensional spacetime diagram this would look like a cone inside a cone inside a cone, and so on forever, with the tip of each cone located at (0,0,0) but at different times.

OK, now that I have described the events in a way that makes sense, can you ask your question in a way that makes sense?

I am sorry I screwed up with the description, to much rush and not enough thought...my appologies.

I shall rephrase the question later when I get a chance to compose it more completely... Thanks for your criticsm though I appreciate it.

[Dancing David]

This is how I would describe what the animation is showing: Light is emitted from a point source at a specific event. It's convenient to use an inertial frame in which the light source is at rest at spatial coordinates (0,0,0) and the emission event has time coordinate 0, to describe what happens next. At time t, the light has traveled a distance ct. The photons were sent out in all directions in space, so at time t, the space occupied by the photons is a sphere with radius ct. To be more specific, it's the sphere x2+y2+z2=c2t2.

If all the photons where sent out at the same event, there are no photons in front of, or behind, the photons we're talking about. So what are you talking about? Are you talking about the sphere of photons at some earlier (or later) time t'? In that case you're asking if the photon sphere at time t is simultaneous with the photon sphere at time t' (which by definition is not equal to t). That's like asking if the window in your bathroom is in the same room as the window in your kitchen, and the answer is "Of course not. The answer is immediately obvious from the information in the question, so no theory of physics is needed".

Maybe you had something else in mind, like light being emitted continuously over a significant period of time. If you did, you're going to have to say so, but please try to make sense.
Ozzie's reply: It doesn't matter they are windows!

[Tubbythin]

try this
when time is zero in duration the only thing a relative v observer can show is location and his inertia he cannot show his velocity.

you can not show velocity and location simultaneously in a zero duration moment....some famous nobel prize winner stated...can't rememeber...uncertainty principle I think....

Oh God. You don't understand relativity. I suggest you leave relativistic quantum mechanics alone.

[Dancing David]

If time doesn't exist then everything would happen all at once.
If time is infinitly small then nothing happens at all.

Screw time, it time for a beer!

Which by some extension of Xeno's paradox I never get to drink.

:D

[ozziemate]

*sigh*

I'm afraid what you're saying now makes absolutely no sense. Heisenberg principle of uncertainty has nothing to do with this whatsoever.

If you think that it does, I don't know how to help you.

There is nothing about instantaneous velocities that wouldn't be 100% covered by the basics of calculus. What you're hinting at is some weird form of Zeno's paradox, perhaps, but that is utterly without relevance to SR.
thanks for your effort. I shall go away with it and try to suss out a clearer way of getting the issue nailed.

[ozziemate]

If time doesn't exist then everything would happen all at once.
If time is infinitly small then nothing happens at all.

Screw time, it time for a beer!

Which by some extension of Xeno's paradox I never get to drink.

:D
better be a cold one too....unless your a pom who likes it hot:D

[Fredrik]

so we are talking about a fundamental tautology that has only one question/statement to test?
"If all photons in existance exist simultaneously then absolutely all observations of photons must also be simultaneous"
regardless of rel. velocity.

so have we established the fundamental of an inertial frame according to SRT....
with:
(x i i', y i i', z i i')

ok ?
now we need to show how that simultaneity is broken by showing how velocity can effect a zero duration moment when ever that zero duration moment occurs.

of how rel v can effect this outcome:
(x i i', y i i', z i i')
given that it occurs in a zero duration moment.
and thats a lot harder to do than I think you realise

I am agreeing that "my theory" [tongue in cheek] states that :
(x i i', y i i', z i i')
this is true in all zero duration moments.
however where my theory and yours are in conflict is that you believe that rel v of an observer can somehow change the simultaneity of a zero duration moment
(x i i', y i i', z i i')
therfore making photons non-simultaneous to them selves
I have absolutely no idea what you're trying to say here, even after reading your explanation of the notation in #318.

Edit: OK, I just read that you said you'll try to rephrase your question, so I'll stop criticizing your earlier statements for now.

[Tubbythin]

I have absolutely no idea what you're trying to say here, even after reading your explanation of the notation in #318.

Good to know its not just me.

[Dancing David]

OZ, HIP and Plank would argue that you can't have an infinitly small frozen moment of time, it comes in smeary packages of interaction.

Believe me, I have had the intrusive thoughts , similar to yours. the ones where the universe is made of three fields that are collapsed and that gravity just is the expansion of of space past the matter.Three fields are gravity, strong/weak and EM (one end of the field is collapsed to the other to make for attraction and repulsion), fortunatly I don't care any more. Then there was the one about thirds, where particles are made up of three parts (all particles). I understand your thinking, I saw EM as a rip in space time between the three fileds. it made sense in the sort of way that instrusive thoughts do, just like I was afraid of death by fire, death by car crash or death by firery car crash.

i also has aural lights that i could parcel out to people like blessings (they were intrusive thoughst of a visual nature0, and then there were the magic numbers of the Kabbalah.

Fortunately the symptoms of OCD are in remission, i can handle objects that i couldn't have handled before without scrubbing for hours, I don't have intrusive thoughst or panic attacks any more.

these thoughts are unhealthy for you, get outside, see the sun and sky. Fall in love, those are much healthier things.

Really, they are better. i am even decreasing the dose of my medicine. I miss the sense of connection but I don't miss the craziness at all.

[ozziemate]

OZ, HIP and Plank would argue that you can't have an infinitly small frozen moment of time, it comes in smeary packages of interaction.

Believe me, I have had the intrusive thoughts , similar to yours. the ones where the universe is made of three fields that are collapsed and that gravity just is the expansion of of space past the matter.Three fields are gravity, strong/weak and EM (one end of the field is collapsed to the other to make for attraction and repulsion), fortunatly I don't care any more. Then there was the one about thirds, where particles are made up of three parts (all particles). I understand your thinking, I saw EM as a rip in space time between the three fileds. it made sense in the sort of way that instrusive thoughts do, just like I was afraid of death by fire, death by car crash or death by firery car crash.

i also has aural lights that i could parcel out to people like blessings (they were intrusive thoughst of a visual nature0, and then there were the magic numbers of the Kabbalah.

Fortunately the symptoms of OCD are in remission, i can handle objects that i couldn't have handled before without scrubbing for hours, I don't have intrusive thoughst or panic attacks any more.

these thoughts are unhealthy for you, get outside, see the sun and sky. Fall in love, those are much healthier things.

Really, they are better. i am even decreasing the dose of my medicine. I miss the sense of connection but I don't miss the craziness at all.
damn good advice DD damn good, care for another, gotta drink......i....t....whennnn itssss coollld....
seriously though you sounds like you have been through hell and back and top marks for making it back.

And you are right what the hell has SRT, time and other abstractions got to do with sitting on a beach falling in love and watchinf a sunrise or two.

tubbythin: "but you don't know how srt made sitting on the beach possible"

me: who cares.....

thanks again DD and keep on Dancin':)

[Tubbythin]

damn good advice DD damn good, care for another, gotta drink......i....t....whennnn itssss coollld....
seriously though you sounds like you have been through hell and back and top marks for making it back.

And you are right what the hell has SRT, time and other abstractions got to do with sitting on a beach falling in love and watchinf a sunrise or two.

tubbythin: "but you don't know how srt made sitting on the beach possible"

me: who cares.....

thanks again DD and keep on Dancin':)

Nice strawman there.

[ozziemate]

Nice strawman there.
ha..thought you'd like it....

serously it is up to me to provide an adequate vehicle for understanding what I want to say. I am learning all the time thanks to your ...uhmmmm help...
so no offense intended....

just having a dig at debating styles I guess....

[Reality Check]

http://zeropointtheory.com/images/stories/images/light/lightspecklediag01b.jpg
a zero duration snapshot of the light field and rel. v observers...

You still do not understand: The zero duration is the the duration of the observer's observation.
It is not the moment in time for the photon. The photon's duration is from when it was emitted to when it is absorbed. That is a time greater than zero.

In any case your logic is wrong. You cannot have a logical proof of SRT invalidity by starting with an assumption that it is wrong. Anything can be proved that way, e.g. I assume that 1 + 1 = -1, therefore I have proved that 1+1=2 is invalid. That proof is as valid as your proof.

This is also an example of your logic:

Assume that light travels (i.e. distance is not zero for light).
A theory that states that light does not travel is thus invalid.
Zero point theory assumes that light does not travel.
Thus zero point theory is invalid.

Therefore if you are right then the same logic shows that zero point theory is invalid.

[ynot]

If time doesn't exist then everything would happen all at once.
No . . . nothing would happen at all. Time is things happening.

If time is infinitly small then nothing happens at all.
"Infinitely small" is merely a meaningless cop-out term used to avoid saying "nothing".

Screw time, it time for a beer!

Which by some extension of Xeno's paradox I never get to drink.

:D
Now you're talking! Cheers :D

[Reality Check]

If time doesn't exist then everything would happen all at once.
If time is infinitly small then nothing happens at all.

Screw time, it time for a beer!

Which by some extension of Xeno's paradox I never get to drink.

:D
What ozziemate is actually stating is totally obvious: Observers detect photons at the observer's present time (the time of the hypersphere of the present in the light cone diagram, i.e. tHSP).

His understanding and interpretation of this statement is little and wrong.

He does not understand that observers detect all events at the observer's present time.
The example I have given him is someone throwing rocks at the observer. The observer observes the rocks at tHSP.
He thinks that because the observer's time and the rock or photon time coincide at tHSP then the rock or photon only exist at that time.
The proper interpretation is that the rock or photon was observed at that time and there is no assumption about existence outside of that time.

[Uncayimmy]

I'm gonna take one last stab at this because Ozzie seems genuinely interested in an answer.

Ozzie has agreed that everything that exists at any given instant exists at that instant, which is to say simultaneously. So, Ozzie, let's build from that. Forget everything else you're saying because quite frankly some of us have no clue what you're driving at. I suggest you start from scratch.

In my mental universe I and some creature on a planet a bazillion miles away raise our hands at the same instant. Our planets always remain a bazillion miles away from each other. In this mental picture we raise our hands simultaneously. If it were possible to magically stop the universe at that instant and "see" whatever we wanted wherever we wanted, we both would have a hand in the air.

Can we agree on that very basic notion?

If not, forget the rest of what I'm about to right and explain.

If so, then suppose in the real universe we each had telescopes and could see one another clearly. When I raised my hand, would I see him raise his hand at the same time?

I say no. I say that I need light to see him. That light will take X amount of time to travel a gazillion miles. Thus I will see him raise his hand after I raise mine.

Do you agree? If not, then ignore the rest of this and explain.

If so, I further believe that he will see my hand raise at the same time I see his hand raise because we both will need to wait X amount of time.

Do you agree or disagree?

I think this very basic notion should be resolved before moving further. You SRT experts are welcome to comment on my real universe scenario.

[Fredrik]

Ozzie has agreed that everything that exists at any given instant exists at that instant...

This statement says absolutely nothing. (His version was even worse). It's like saying that every blue car is blue. So we can't really "build from that".


In my mental universe I and some creature on a planet a bazillion miles away raise our hands at the same instant. Our planets always remain a bazillion miles away from each other. In this mental picture we raise our hands simultaneously. If it were possible to magically stop the universe at that instant and "see" whatever we wanted wherever we wanted, we both would have a hand in the air.

This is what it means for the two hand-lifting events to be simultaneous in the inertial frame where you both are at rest. The events won't be simultaneous in other frames.


If so, then suppose in the real universe we each had telescopes and could see one another clearly. When I raised my hand, would I see him raise his hand at the same time?

I say no. I say that I need light to see him. That light will take X amount of time to travel a gazillion miles. Thus I will see him raise his hand after I raise mine.
...
If so, I further believe that he will see my hand raise at the same time I see his hand raise because we both will need to wait X amount of time.

All of this is correct. Just keep in mind that when you assign coordinates to events you always compensate for the travel time of light. For example, you won't assign the same time coordinate to the observation event and the event where the other guy raised his hand. You would assign the same time coordinate to the two events where you and he raise your hands.

Also keep in mind what "simultaneous" means. Two events are simultaneous in a particular coordinate system if and only if they have the same time coordinate in that coordinate system.

[Uncayimmy]

This statement says absolutely nothing. (His version was even worse). It's like saying that every blue car is blue. So we can't really "build from that".

That doesn't help anything. He believes it has some significance. What I'm trying to do is understand *what* he is saying. Telling him that he is wrong or that his statement is useless will get you nowhere. Or haven't you noticed that yet?

For example, if I flip a coin 7 times and get 7 heads, what are the odds of getting heads on the 8th flip? We both, I'm sure, agree that it's 1 in 2. But our buddy, Joe, might think the odds are way, way against it.

So, if he starts off saying, 2 to the 8th power is 256, I'm not about to tell him that it's irrelevant. I'm going to explore his line of thinking. I'll ask him how that applies. He'll say something like how each flip has a 1 in 2 chance, so once you get to 8 flips, were at a 1 in 256 chance.

At this point I would ask him, "Okay, before I flip the coin 7 times, what are the odds of getting 7 heads?" He'll say 1 in 128. "Okay, then, what about AFTER I have flipped it seven times and actually gotten 7 heads?" Hopefully the light bulb goes off and he realizes that since I already have 7 heads, that we're now only talking about the last flip, not all 8.

I'm trying a similar approach with Ozzie. Maybe I'm naive, but the rest of you masochists haven't done much better. :)

This is what it means for the two hand-lifting events to be simultaneous in the inertial frame where you both are at rest. The events won't be simultaneous in other frames.

See? You're talking SRT talk instead of playing along. Just play along for a while to see where it leads.


Also keep in mind what "simultaneous" means. Two events are simultaneous in a particular coordinate system if and only if they have the same time coordinate in that coordinate system.

We're not that far along yet. Just let Ozzie answer these simple questions written in common and therefore ambiguous terms.

[ozziemate]

ok....
time to start a fresh approach If I may

lets look at this diagram

http://zeropointtheory.com/images/stories/images/light/hsp002.gif

We see at the centre of the two time cones a plane usually referred to as the hyper surface of the present in SRT.[ ignore the dialogue in the diagram if you will]

The issue with this is can we agree that the time duration of this surface which I am going to refer to as the PHS [ present hyper surface ]
is zero in duration?

so
Time duration of the Present Hyper surface is how long?

Now I am not going to go on to discuss any other aspect until this very basic issue is agreed to. by all interested parties including uncaYimmy

[ozziemate]

to summurise the contention:

"if all photons in existance exist simultaneously then it follows that absolutely all observations of photons must also"

therefore simultaneity is maintained universally.
now I am not talking about only one inertial reference frame
I am talking about all possible frames regardless of rel. v

The issue is simply that if all photons are simultaneous to each other we have a universal light field that is simultaneous with in itself.

It follows that any observation of those photons must also be simultaneous.

As the light field has zero duration and is constantly changing simultaneously across the entire light field at the rate of 'c' all moments maintain a universal light field of simultaneous photons as time flows through the phs or NOW

this animation shows time in I believe the correct way. t=t phs = zero

http://zeropointtheory.com/images/stories/images/light/light_time02.gif

and this animation shows time in the SRT way:

http://zeropointtheory.com/images/stories/images/light/light_time.gif

SRT moves the hyper surface of the present into the future light cone where as I would move the future cone into the HSP.
thus to me the NOW is stationary and always central in eternity, a constantly changing event horizon t=0 [ light and observer premised ] where as for SRT it is constantly moving into the future. t= hsp [ observer premised only.]
One of the reasons why I feel this can be confidently held to be true is that the same logic can be used to describe gravity - simultaneity of the universal gravity field thus light and gravity are in accord regards to time.

[Reality Check]

ok....
time to start a fresh approach If I may

lets look at this diagram

http://zeropointtheory.com/images/stories/images/light/hsp002.gif

We see at the centre of the two time cones a plane usually referred to as the hyper surface of the present in SRT.[ ignore the dialogue in the diagram if you will]

The issue with this is can we agree that the time duration of this surface which I am going to refer to as the PHS [ present hyper surface ]
is zero in duration?

so
Time duration of the Present Hyper surface is how long?

Now I am not going to go on to discuss any other aspect until this very basic issue is agreed to. by all interested parties including uncaYimmy
That is correct. The present time of the observer is of zero duration. The extension of this to all spacial points makes the hypersphere of the present.
You don't have to bother with a diagram. That is the definition of the hypersphere of the present in Newtonian relativity and SRT.

[Reality Check]

to summurise the contention:

"if all photons in existance exist simultaneously then it follows that absolutely all observations of photons must also"

therefore simultaneity is maintained universally.
now I am not talking about only one inertial reference frame
I am talking about all possible frames regardless of rel. v

The issue is simply that if all photons are simultaneous to each other we have a universal light field that is simultaneous with in itself.

It follows that any observation of those photons must also be simultaneous.

That is correct: if all photons exist only at one point in time then all observations of photons have to occur at that time. That is obvious.


As the light field has zero duration and is constantly changing simultaneously across the entire light field at the rate of 'c' all moments maintain a universal light field of simultaneous photons as time flows through the phs or NOW

That is wrong. It is the observation of the photons that is of zero duration. You know this. You stated that in the previous post.


this animation shows time in I believe the correct way. t=t phs = zero

http://zeropointtheory.com/images/stories/images/light/light_time02.gif

and this animation shows time in the SRT way:

http://zeropointtheory.com/images/stories/images/light/light_time.gif

SRT moves the hyper surface of the present into the future light cone where as I would move the future cone into the HSP.
thus to me the NOW is stationary and always central in eternity, a constantly changing event horizon t=0 [ light and observer premised ] where as for SRT it is constantly moving into the future. t= hsp [ observer premised only.]
One of the reasons why I feel this can be confidently held to be true is that the same logic can be used to describe gravity - simultaneity of the universal gravity field thus light and gravity are in accord regards to time.
Both diagram are meaningless without captions, labels or desccriptions.

SRT does not "move hyper surface of the present into the future light cone. The future and past light cone are alway attached to the hyper surface of the present. They move with it. They are the set of events that the observer can see light from at their present time.
If this is your understanding of SRT then the second diagram is probably wrong.

[Reality Check]

You have missed the post quoted below.

You still do not understand: The zero duration is the the duration of the observer's observation.
It is not the moment in time for the photon. The photon's duration is from when it was emitted to when it is absorbed. That is a time greater than zero.

In any case your logic is wrong. You cannot have a logical proof of SRT invalidity by starting with an assumption that it is wrong. Anything can be proved that way, e.g. I assume that 1 + 1 = -1, therefore I have proved that 1+1=2 is invalid. That proof is as valid as your proof.


This is also an example of your logic:

Assume that light travels (i.e. distance is not zero for light).
A theory that states that light does not travel is thus invalid.
Zero point theory assumes that light does not travel.
Thus zero point theory is invalid.
Therefore if you are right then the same logic shows that zero point theory is invalid.

[Tubbythin]

to summurise the contention:

"if all photons in existance exist simultaneously then it follows that absolutely all observations of photons must also"

therefore simultaneity is maintained universally.
now I am not talking about only one inertial reference frame
I am talking about all possible frames regardless of rel. v

We've been through this many many times now. Simultaneity is a property of the inertial observer. Therefore, if you make a thought experiment in which all events can be agreed to be simultaneous by all inertial observers in frames moving at various different relative velocities this thought experiment CANNOT be used as a logical test of SR. It makes no more sense than:
"If we consider a universe where space is two dimensional then three dimensional objects cannot exist. Therefore I have proved the logical invalidity of three dimensional objects."


The issue is simply that if all photons are simultaneous to each other we have a universal light field that is simultaneous with in itself.

It follows that any observation of those photons must also be simultaneous.

This basically amounts too: "if we make a thought experiment universe in which special relativity is wrong then special relativity will not work in this universe". Which is just stating the obvious.

[Fredrik]

ok....
time to start a fresh approach If I may

lets look at this diagram

http://zeropointtheory.com/images/stories/images/light/hsp002.gif

We see at the centre of the two time cones a plane usually referred to as the hyper surface of the present in SRT.[ ignore the dialogue in the diagram if you will]

The issue with this is can we agree that the time duration of this surface which I am going to refer to as the PHS [ present hyper surface ]
is zero in duration?

so
Time duration of the Present Hyper surface is how long?

Now I am not going to go on to discuss any other aspect until this very basic issue is agreed to. by all interested parties including uncaYimmy
It's zero, just as it says in the picture.

There's no need to invent new terms like PHS here. We're just talking about the thickness of the "HSP", which is a non-standard term by the way. The definition of the HSP implies that it's zero.


"if all photons in existance exist simultaneously then it follows that absolutely all observations of photons must also"

I still don't understand what you're trying to say. The beginning of that sentence doesn't make sense. I'll explain why.

"if all photons in existence": In existence where and when? In all of spacetime? In space right now? In that case, according to what definition of "now"?

"exist simultaneously": If the words "all photons in existence" referred to all photons in space right now, you have already said both that they exist and that we're talking about a set of simultaneous events. That would make the sentence so far "if photons that have property P have property P, then..."

I can only guess what you are trying to say. These are a few of my guesses:

1. If a bunch of photons were all emitted at the same time and traveled the same distance before they were detected, the detections all occurred at the same time. (True).

2. If a bunch of photons were all emitted at the same time and one of them is detected at time t, then the others can only be detected at time t. (False).

3. All photons that are detected at time t exist at time t. (True, but why would anyone even say that?).

4. All photon detection events in the HSP are in the HSP. (True, but this is an "if P then P" statement).

5. The set of all photon detection events in the HSP is a subset of the set of points in the HSP that represent photons. (I would say that a photon detection event represents an interaction, not a particle, so I'm going to call this one false, but if other people would prefer to call it true, I wouldn't have a problem with it).

Is any one of these what you are trying to say?

[The Man]

try this
when time is zero in duration the only thing a relative v observer can show is location and his inertia he cannot show his velocity.

you can not show velocity and location simultaneously in a zero duration moment....some famous nobel prize winner stated...can't rememeber...uncertainty principle I think....


Technically you can’t show anything in a “zero duration moment” since showing things requires interactions and interactions take time. Furthermore if you are talking about the relationship between the uncertainty of position and momentum it is as follows DxDp = h2-1p-1. For time that relation is the same with energy DtDE = h2-1p-1. That is the basis of the uncertainty principle, that showing things (like position or time) requires interaction and those interactions alter things like position or time that you are trying to show. Also if we include your "zero duration moment" or Dt=0 then your notion is not compatible with the principle you are now attempting to use in your notion.

If we ignore those fundamental aspects and just postulate about the possible position and velocity in a zero duration moment of observation (instantaneous observation) we come up with some very interesting aspects.

First in a single instantaneous observation you would only be able to have information about position as well as field magnitude and direction at some location. In order to have information about changes in position (motion), as well as changes in field magnitude or direction (EM waves) at some location, you would need two instantaneous observations to make those determinations from their comparison. So velocity and momentum as well as changes in field magnitude or direction at some location (which is an EM wave or photon) are not represented in a single zero duration moment. The two instantaneous observations can represent some changes, like change in position (momentum) and changes in field magnitude or direction at some location (a photon) but not all. Two instantaneous observations can not represent changes in velocity (or acceleration) for that you would need at least three instantaneous observations. The aspects you need to involve, the photon and relative motion are not even represented in your singular zero duration moment. In your zero duration consideration no motion information is obtainable and the photon (or EM wave) simply appears as a stationary field gradient. You can not claim to logically invalidate some application if your assertion does not involve those aspects of that application you are logically trying to invalidate.

[Fredrik]

this animation shows time in I believe the correct way. t=t phs = zero

http://zeropointtheory.com/images/stories/images/light/light_time02.gif

Do you realize that there are two time dimensions in that animation? One represented by the upward direction and another represented by actual time.


and this animation shows time in the SRT way:

http://zeropointtheory.com/images/stories/images/light/light_time.gif

This animation has the same problem. If you're going to make an animation, keep the light source in one place and don't draw a time direction in the diagram, and if you're going to make a spacetime diagram, don't animate it. If you want to use a spacetime diagram to represent light going out in all directions in space, you should just draw a cone.

[Perpetual Student]

1]
Shown in this constructed diagram below is a light source, in this case a single star surrounded by it's photon light field as suggested by the speckling.

http://zeropointtheory.com/images/stories/images/light/lightspecklediag01a.jpg
[constructed image c/o photo shop software]

Of course we can not normally see a photon or light waves so your imagination is required to assume the speckle as the location of photons. You will also have to imagine that the photons are all travelling outward from the source at the rate of 'c' and that we have some how "captured" their location at a given moment.

It can be reasoned that every speckle of photon light is occurring at the same simultaneous moment. Regardless of location any and all objects of matter/mass placed in this field will record the light event simultaneously.

As time progresses all photons change their location according to their speed of 'c'. All do so simultaneously so that no matter when you take your snap shot, although time has passed the Hyper Surface of the present is still constant universally

--------------
2]

This time we have included 6 observers labeled A, B, C, D, E and F in the image below:

http://zeropointtheory.com/images/stories/images/light/clockfacespeckle01b.jpg
[constructed image c/o photo shop software]

Their relative velocity to each other and to the light source at this stage is not important.
Distance from the light source is also unimportant, however what is important is to clearly understand that regardless of distance or velocity of the observers relative to each other and the light source, the photons that are impacting on those observers must do so simultaneously for all observers. As all photons/waves present throughout the entire universe exist simultaneously.

As all photon events in the light field are occuring simultaneously then all observers must observe that effect simultaneously.

You will notice a clock is included in the image and note that regardless of where the hands are pointing t=thsp for all points in the light field.

Extrapolate this fact to every part of this universe [ normal space ] and it can be seen that t=thsp or the NOW is simultaneous for all observers.

If all observers where in fact stationary relative to each other and the light source then the passage of time regardless of the metric used would be at the same rate for all observers.

However in reality most observers are moving at relative velocity and accordingly their time passage rates are relative yet always maintaining simultaneity of the t=thsp or "NOW.
<>
Care to discuss?:)

btw "religious style" arguement will not be accepted.
If the logic is not understood then I will be more than happy to explain further

Simlpy deal with the logic presented and we might very well achieve something.:)

The messages contained in this thread are too numerous to read -- so this answer may be redundant, sorry. The answer is simply that experimental evidence contradicts your "logic."
Specifically, this statement is wrong, in that it contradicts experimental evidence: "However in reality most observers are moving at relative velocity and accordingly their time passage rates are relative yet always maintaining simultaneity of the t=thsp or "NOW."
Physics is a study of physical reality, not someones "logic," faulty or otherwise. Where thought experiments have been of value, they do not contradict experimental evidence; your so called "logic" is inconsistent with reality. End of discussion!

[ozziemate]

The messages contained in this thread are too numerous to read -- so this answer may be redundant, sorry. The answer is simply that experimental evidence contradicts your "logic."
Specifically, this statement is wrong, in that it contradicts experimental evidence: "However in reality most observers are moving at relative velocity and accordingly their time passage rates are relative yet always maintaining simultaneity of the t=thsp or "NOW."
Physics is a study of physical reality, not someones "logic," faulty or otherwise. Where thought experiments have been of value, they do not contradict experimental evidence; your so called "logic" is inconsistent with reality. End of discussion!
Correct Physics is the study of reality and with that study we create models and abstractions to make predictions. SRT does not create reality nor does any theory it only abstracts reality so we can use our intelligence to make predictive use of reality.
Proving SRT wrong in logic does not alter reality in any way shape or form.
Proving SRT as logically inconsistant only proves we need a better theory and that is all. End of discussion!
You may want to copy the above into a frame and hang it on your wall at home!:)

[The Man]

Correct Physics is the study of reality and with that study we create models and abstractions to make predictions. SRT does not create reality nor does any theory it only abstracts reality so we can use our intelligence to make predictive use of reality.
Proving SRT wrong in logic does not alter reality in any way shape or form.
Proving SRT as logically inconsistant only proves we need a better theory and that is all. End of discussion!

Saying SRT is “logically inconsistent” based on an assertion that does not include the aspects addressed by SRT (relative inertial motion) only proves that you need a more relevant assertion. Continue discussion!

[ozziemate]

You have missed the post quoted below

The zero duration is the the duration of the observer's observation.
It is not the moment in time for the photon. The photon's duration is from when it was emitted to when it is absorbed. That is a time greater than zero.

the only response I can give you due to my bewilderment at your apparent mistake, is to ask you the question:

"How is it that an observer can observe a zero duration photon event if the photons time is greater than zero?"

an obvious question yes?

you can not differentiate between observer and photon

If the photon hung around it would have to be at rest for the observer to observe a photon for longer than zero.
So therefore the HSP needs to include both observer and photon and in a sense this is part of the logical proof that invalidates SRT.

draw two time cones observer >< and photon >< and note that both observer and photon can share the same zero duration moment of the HSP.

If light had a longer duration it would have to have a rest or period of stasis which of course it doesn't

SO I ask you "

"How can a hsp not include in it's zero duration moment, a photon event also zero in duration?"
as I said you can not differentiate between emr and observer the two must go together....in a zero duration moment.

[Uncayimmy]

Ozzie, can you please answer the questions I put forth in #349?
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=4151620#post4151620

They may seem simple, but we're pushing 400 messages in this thread alone. Obviously what you're doing is not working, so let's try something simpler.

[ozziemate]

Ozzie, can you please answer the questions I put forth in #349?
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=4151620#post4151620

They may seem simple, but we're pushing 400 messages in this thread alone. Obviously what you're doing is not working, so let's try something simpler.
when you are able to agree to the post I made about the hyper surface on the previous page.
I may consider doing so, but until then I would wasting my time
Also if you think that proving SRT to be logically inconsistent is going to take lesss than say.....hmmmmmmmm 1000+ pages of forum chat then you are sadly mistaken.
The logic may appear to be very simplle but the ability to "see" it aint....in fact extraordinarilly hard which is why I am perservering

[ozziemate]

Reality Check,
That is correct: if all photons exist only at one point in time then all observations of photons have to occur at that time. That is obvious.
yes but extend that logic to include:
"If observations occur only at that one point of time and a photon only eixst for that one point of time then observer and phton must simultaneously share that one point of time....This is obvious also."

photon time cone >< , observer time cone >< , are the same time cone ><

[ozziemate]

Saying SRT is “logically inconsistent” based on an assertion that does not include the aspects addressed by SRT (relative inertial motion) only proves that you need a more relevant assertion. Continue discussion!
true statement yes I agree except I am doing just that, including non -inertial reference frames by default as merely concentrating on that zero duration moment renders the issue of SRT non-inertial frames redundent [non-simultaneity] and also invalid.

[Tubbythin]

What is a zero duration photon?

[Tubbythin]

true statement yes I agree except I am doing just that, including non -inertial reference frames by default as merely concentrating on that zero duration moment renders the issue of SRT non-inertial frames redundent [non-simultaneity] and also invalid.

I'm pretty sure that sentence makes absolutely no sense. Care to try again?

[ozziemate]

Technically you can’t show anything in a “zero duration moment” since showing things requires interactions and interactions take time.
If we ignore those fundamental aspects and just postulate about the possible position and velocity in a zero duration moment of observation (instantaneous observation) we come up with some very interesting aspects.

In a single instantaneous observation you would only be able to have information about position as well as field magnitude and direction at some location. In order to have information about changes in position (motion), as well as changes in field magnitude or direction (EM waves) at some location, you would need two instantaneous observations to make those determinations from their comparison. So velocity and momentum as well as changes in field magnitude or direction at some location (which is an EM wave or photon) are not represented in a single zero duration moment. The two instantaneous observations can represent some changes, like change in position (momentum) and changes in field magnitude or direction at some location (a photon) but not all. Two instantaneous observations can not represent changes in velocity (or acceleration) for that you would need at least three instantaneous observations. The aspects you need to involve, the photon and relative motion are not even represented in your singular zero duration moment. In your zero duration consideration no motion information is obtainable and the photon (or EM wave) simply appears as a stationary field gradient.
Wow and well said, can I put the above in a frame and put it on MY wall?:D

So the moment of observation for the observer and photon is zero in duration.

the next obvious question whihc is slightly off topic is :
"How long does it take for a photon to be absorbed and re-emitted?" [ superficially]

or in simple laymans terms:
"how long does it take for a reflection to occur?"

[ozziemate]

Do you realize that there are two time dimensions in that animation? One represented by the upward direction and another represented by actual time.


This animation has the same problem. If you're going to make an animation, keep the light source in one place and don't draw a time direction in the diagram, and if you're going to make a spacetime diagram, don't animate it. If you want to use a spacetime diagram to represent light going out in all directions in space, you should just draw a cone.

yeah the difficulty is trying to cater for all perspectives so that they make some sense, both diagrams are actually very wrong IMO but the best I can do to attempt to meet other persons needs for some sort of reference to their current understandings.
I am currently working on a better set of diagrams that would be more helpful now that I am coming to understand the barriers to understanding that seem to be in place.

The use of two time cones one for light and one for observer makes sense to me so far...as a way forward in this discussion

thanks for your critique and advice:)

[Perpetual Student]

Proving SRT wrong in logic does not alter reality in any way shape or form.
Proving SRT as logically inconsistant only proves we need a better theory and that is all.

Since you began with an incorrect premise (which I pointed out to you), you have done no such thing. The predictions of SR have been demonstrated by thousands of experiments throughout the word for many decades. Try your luck with homeopathy!

[ozziemate]

Since you began with an incorrect premise (which I pointed out to you), you have done no such thing. The predictions of SR have been demonstrated by thousands of experiments throughout the word for many decades. Try your luck with homeopathy!
Classic religious style arguement in a forum devoted to skepticism sheesh!:)

[ozziemate]

Have created a rough draft image of both light and observer cones shown below in the hope of clarifying the issue of simultaneity in the zero duration HSP.

http://bizzymate.com/uploads/images/physics/obslightcones.gif

hope it is of some value...

the image needs to be improved on for asthetical reasons.


and on that note it is Sunday here and I have a latin music festival to attend so I shall be back in about 20 hours or so

[Tubbythin]

No. Though it does look a bit a like a Maltese Cross.

[ozziemate]

No. Though it does look a bit a like a Maltese Cross.
yeah it does a bit, but in the end we shall still end up with the classic light cone set up or two cones..but interpreted differently...just a journey needed to get there.

[Mashuna]

Classic religious style arguement in a forum devoted to skepticism sheesh!:)

Why do you think that a theory backed by experimental evidence is a religious style argument?

You have a a poorly conceived thought experiment contradicted by experimental evidence. You're still trying to stick with it though. Now that's a religious style argument.

[Perpetual Student]

Classic religious style arguement in a forum devoted to skepticism sheesh!:)


What could be clearer? The statement, "However in reality most observers are moving at relative velocity and accordingly their time passage rates are relative yet always maintaining simultaneity of the t=thsp or "NOW." is not correct. Experimental evidence confirming SR refutes it. Now, it has been my experience that people who continue to argue in the face of irrefutable experimental evidence and logic are either unwilling or unable to understand. The ultimate trick is to argue with labels like "religious style argument." In short, either you do not have a clue about what you are saying or you are merely playing a game with the serious posters here. Since I am interested in real physics and the cosmos, this will be my last post on this hopeless thread.

[Fredrik]

Have created a rough draft image of both light and observer cones shown below in the hope of clarifying the issue of simultaneity in the zero duration HSP.

http://bizzymate.com/uploads/images/physics/obslightcones.gif

hope it is of some value...

Unfortunately that image only demonstrates that you have completely misunderstood spacetime diagrams.

Time is supposed to be increasing in the "up" direction. The "up" and "down" cones could be interpreted as the past and future light cones of the event at the center of the part of the "HSP" that you have drawn. (But only if you're using strange units. With standard units, the world line of a ray of light makes a 45 degree angle with the HSP).

The "left" and "right" cones might possibly be interpreted as representing the world lines of an infinite number of tachyons (which do not exist by the way). They are definitely not light cones, because the time direction isn't horizontal in this picture.

[The Man]

Wow and well said, can I put the above in a frame and put it on MY wall?:D

Unfortunately my copyright requirements insist on the entire context of the post and not just eliminating the most relevant section to bolster your ego.

So, in case, due your quick processing of information, you missed it.


Furthermore if you are talking about the relationship between the uncertainty of position and momentum it is as follows DxDp = h4-1p-1. For time that relation is the same with energy DtDE = h4-1p-1. That is the basis of the uncertainty principle, that showing things (like position or time) requires interaction and those interactions alter things like position or time that you are trying to show. Also if we include your "zero duration moment" or Dt=0 then your notion is not compatible with the principle you are now attempting to use in your notion.


You will not the correction (in bold) of 2 to 4 a previous oversight on my part that does not change the point.


So the moment of observation for the observer and photon is zero in duration.


No it is at least the cycle time t of the photon, as I pointed out in a previous post.



the next obvious question whihc is slightly off topic is :
"How long does it take for a photon to be absorbed and re-emitted?" [ superficially]
or in simple laymans terms:
"how long does it take for a reflection to occur?"

At least 2t.

[plumjam]

Ozziemate, I read through the whole thread but am still struggling to understand what it is you're saying. Part of this, I think, will be because I'm not very maths/physics minded. Part of it too, I suspect, may be because you don't go into what may be the possible consequences of what seems to be your central statement -

"If all photons in existance exist simultaneously then all observations of those photons must also be simultaneous"

With relativity those of us who are not so into physics can get a grasp on it by the use of mental illustrations which show us what the possible consequences of relativity will be.. e.g. one twin being sent off into space at high relative velocity, returning to Earth years later younger than the other twin who stayed on Earth... or a clock orbiting the Earth..etc.. etc..
Could you please have a bash at suggesting some possible consequences of your central statement? If only for the sake of physics numbskulls like myself.
Not trying to trap you here, just trying to get a grip on what you're suggesting.
Cheers.

[Uncayimmy]

when you are able to agree to the post I made about the hyper surface on the previous page.
I may consider doing so, but until then I would wasting my time
Also if you think that proving SRT to be logically inconsistent is going to take lesss than say.....hmmmmmmmm 1000+ pages of forum chat then you are sadly mistaken.
The logic may appear to be very simplle but the ability to "see" it aint....in fact extraordinarilly hard which is why I am perservering

Well, best of luck to you, Ozzie. What I've seen far is that you can't even establish that you understand SRT. Until you do, you'll never be able to prove it to be logically inconsistent. If you understood it well enough to discuss it with those who do, then proving its fault(s) would probably only take a single post.

In all seriousness and without malice I must say that you must have an incredible ego to think that you can prove wrong something which has withstood decades of scrutiny by people whose livelihoods depend upon its understanding an application.

I, being a a less self confident sort of person (and a layman), would assume that *I* am simply misunderstanding SRT. I would devote my energy to understanding it. Like I said before, I wouldn't even attempt to disprove it until I could discuss it at the highest level.

I suggest that rather than argue with people here, you argue with Einstein himself. "Relativity - The Special and General Theory" can be read at http://www.bartleby.com/173/. Why would you need 1,000 posts when you can simply point out where he went wrong? He does a good job of laying the foundation, so you should be able to point out the misplaced brick.

Anything else you post that doesn't directly address his writings is really just so much noise. Go right to the source and point out the problem.

[Reality Check]

the only response I can give you due to my bewilderment at your apparent mistake, is to ask you the question:

"How is it that an observer can observe a zero duration photon event if the photons time is greater than zero?"

an obvious question yes?

you can not differentiate between observer and photon

If the photon hung around it would have to be at rest for the observer to observe a photon for longer than zero.
So therefore the HSP needs to include both observer and photon and in a sense this is part of the logical proof that invalidates SRT.

draw two time cones observer >< and photon >< and note that both observer and photon can share the same zero duration moment of the HSP.

If light had a longer duration it would have to have a rest or period of stasis which of course it doesn't

SO I ask you "

"How can a hsp not include in it's zero duration moment, a photon event also zero in duration?"
as I said you can not differentiate between emr and observer the two must go together....in a zero duration moment.

It is not a 'zero duration photon event'. It is the duration of time of the observerer's observation. This is what you are stating is zero. I am just agreeing with you. Strickly speaking it is not zero - it must be greater than the Planck time (quantum mechanics makes it very much greater than that).

The duration of the observer's observation does not say anything about the photon. The observation takes place at the observer's present time. The photon's coordinates cooincide with the observer's during the observation (otherwise it cannot be observed).
This states nothing about the duration of the light. It is free to exist anywhere else in the universe before the observation. The SRT postulate of constant speed of light in all reference frames though restricts it to on or within the light cone.

That may be something else you do not understand. You may think that the light cone is the only place that light from spacetime events can reach the observer. That may explain the emphasis that you put on the light cones.
It is actually only the limit in SRT. For example a spacetime event may happen directly in front of the observer (within the future light cone). The observer will still measure the light flash from the event.

Light does not have a light cone. The definition of the SRT light cone diagram is that it shows the observer's spacetime events. Light is not an observer.

[Reality Check]

Reality Check,

yes but extend that logic to include:
"If observations occur only at that one point of time and a photon only eixst for that one point of time then observer and phton must simultaneously share that one point of time....This is obvious also."

photon time cone >< , observer time cone >< , are the same time cone ><

Photons do not have a light cone. The definition of the SRT light cone diagram is that it shows the observer's spacetime events. A photon is not an observer.

[Reality Check]

Have created a rough draft image of both light and observer cones shown below in the hope of clarifying the issue of simultaneity in the zero duration HSP.

http://bizzymate.com/uploads/images/physics/obslightcones.gif

hope it is of some value...

the image needs to be improved on for asthetical reasons.
..snip..
It is of no value at all.

One more time:
Light does not have a light cone. The definition of the SRT null cone diagram is that it shows the observer's spacetime events. Light is not an observer.

[Reality Check]

ozzimate: You ignored the rest of the post. Can I take it that you agree with the conclusion ? :)

In any case your logic is wrong. You cannot have a logical proof of SRT invalidity by starting with an assumption that it is wrong. Anything can be proved that way, e.g. I assume that 1 + 1 = -1, therefore I have proved that 1+1=2 is invalid. That proof is as valid as your proof.



This is also an example of your logic:

Assume that light travels (i.e. distance is not zero for light).
A theory that states that light does not travel is thus invalid.
Zero point theory assumes that light does not travel.
Thus zero point theory is invalid.
Therefore if you are right then the same logic shows that zero point theory is invalid. (emphasis added)

[Fredrik]

One more time:
Light does not have a light cone. The definition of the SRT null cone diagram is that it shows the observer's spacetime events. Light is not an observer.
I have to say...I don't understand what you're saying, so I doubt he will. The first sentence is OK. (There's a light cone associated with each event, but not with physical things like light). I don't get the second sentence. What do you mean by a "null cone diagram"? Is it a spacetime diagram, or a lightcone in a spacetime diagram? I would guess the former, since a spacetime diagram shows events from one observer's point of view.

[Fredrik]

Ozzie, you haven't answered any of my posts for a while. I do understand that you're involved in so many discussions that it's hard to keep up, but I would appreciate if you would read my posts from #321 to present and write some replies. Make sure you read #358. I'm really trying to understand what you're saying.

[ozziemate]

Why do you think that a theory backed by experimental evidence is a religious style argument?
support this please with a link or quote....

You have a a poorly conceived thought experiment contradicted by experimental evidence. You're still trying to stick with it though. Now that's a religious style argument.
nope because it is only just the last few posts that the debate has started to get into a stage where proper understanding can take place. But still a way to go I fear....
it is not a thought experiment it predicts no outcomes nor offres an alternative.
It is simply looking at the logic that SRT uses when applying light to observers

"if all photons in existance exist simultaneously then it follows that absolutely all observations of photons must also"

this is not a thought experiment it is simply a logic if/then statement that is currently waiting to be tested properly.

[ozziemate]

Well, best of luck to you, Ozzie. What I've seen far is that you can't even establish that you understand SRT. Until you do, you'll never be able to prove it to be logically inconsistent. If you understood it well enough to discuss it with those who do, then proving its fault(s) would probably only take a single post.

In all seriousness and without malice I must say that you must have an incredible ego to think that you can prove wrong something which has withstood decades of scrutiny by people whose livelihoods depend upon its understanding an application.

I, being a a less self confident sort of person (and a layman), would assume that *I* am simply misunderstanding SRT. I would devote my energy to understanding it. Like I said before, I wouldn't even attempt to disprove it until I could discuss it at the highest level.

I suggest that rather than argue with people here, you argue with Einstein himself. "Relativity - The Special and General Theory" can be read at http://www.bartleby.com/173/. Why would you need 1,000 posts when you can simply point out where he went wrong? He does a good job of laying the foundation, so you should be able to point out the misplaced brick.

Anything else you post that doesn't directly address his writings is really just so much noise. Go right to the source and point out the problem.
uncaYimmy,
with all due respect and with out prejudice,

I am the skeptic from hell. I donot care how much some one else wants to convince me of something if they do not have sound rational and reasoning to support it.
I do not care how many billions of dollars are invested or billions of hours spent supporting it, nor do I care one iota about how many erudite persons appear to believe they know SRT is perfect.

I have found that it is not. And are awaiting to be convinced that it is.
So throwing the old
"if 1 billion flies eat sh*t then it must taste good at me"
is a waste of time.

Saying that SRT has too much experimental support etc is also as this in no way handles the logical question raised and only waste time with posts like this one.
religious style arguements are a claim to authority either based purely on statistics [medical profession are really good at that one]
and your own inability to be skeptical of human infalibility.

religious style arguements avoid handling the issue at hand and fail to deal rationally with the issue. usually casued by intense paranoia about self esteem issues.

It has nothing to do with ego on my part it has all to do with sound rational arguement and debate....sanity and sane behaviour.

I have put a logical arguement to the board and am attempting to deal with it with a number of posters as well. So ...lets deal with it and deal with it professionally. Quoting probability style arguements based on an authority that is actually in question is a total waste of time for every one. [ except I get to learn more about paranoid responses by posters and what seems to drive their fear of rational debate. [ over the holy grail of science]]

And of course this thread is monitored at this end by others people besides myself.
[What is it with internet forums any way, when the posters think that only the people posting to a thread get to see their posts? ]

[ozziemate]

Ozzie, you haven't answered any of my posts for a while. I do understand that you're involved in so many discussions that it's hard to keep up, but I would appreciate if you would read my posts from #321 to present and write some replies. Make sure you read #358. I'm really trying to understand what you're saying.
shall get to it soon Fredrik....

[Mashuna]

support this please with a link or quote....




You want me to support the claim that SR is a theory?

:confused::confused::confused:

[ozziemate]

No.....Why do you think that I think that a theory is a religuous arguement?

[Mashuna]

Posts 373 and 374

[ozziemate]

Posts 373 and 374

lets see,

The predictions of SR have been demonstrated by thousands of experiments throughout the word for many decades. Try your luck with homeopathy!
This statement fails to attend to the issue and is entirely irrelevant
This statement has no more value than a religious arguement given the nature of this threads OP and the question of logical consistancy within SRT.

[ozziemate]

ozzimate: You ignored the rest of the post. Can I take it that you agree with the conclusion ? :)
(emphasis added)
nope, not yet any way, and Zero Point Theory has nothing to do with this thread.......and is off topic.

[ozziemate]

It is of no value at all.

One more time:
Light does not have a light cone. The definition of the SRT null cone diagram is that it shows the observer's spacetime events. Light is not an observer.


well so you keep saying that thsi is SRT and that is SRT and so what...it is SRTs use of time that is in question.
I am not saying that light has a light cone, however I am using a time cone instead, however I think I'll just stick to normal lines and forget using cones at all.....as you and a few others are having difficuolty with using comparitive techniques to descirbe the issue....

[ozziemate]

It is not a 'zero duration photon event'.
I never said it was. or should I say meant it to be, as I am refering to an event between observer and photon and not just photon alone.

It is the duration of time of the observerer's observation. This is what you are stating is zero.
No I am saying that it is te duration of time of the observers/light event.


I am just agreeing with you. Strickly speaking it is not zero - it must be greater than the Planck time (quantum mechanics makes it very much greater than that).
fair enough but this will not effect the outcome of this debate because we can assumes that all events
observer/light events share the same micro interaction time.

The duration of the observer's observation does not say anything about the photon. The observation takes place at the observer's present time. The photon's coordinates cooincide with the observer's during the observation (otherwise it cannot be observed).

yes and now wewe discover the use of observer/light event because one can not happen with out the other [ remember the thread about ambiguity of the evidence of a travelling photon - based on just this new discovery of use of terms]
This states nothing about the duration of the light. It is free to exist anywhere else in the universe before the observation. The SRT postulate of constant speed of light in all reference frames though restricts it to on or within the light cone.

as I said I am talking about the event between observer amd light an dnot light itself surely that was clear from the OP. [ I will check to make sure I didn't inadvertantly mislead]


That may be something else you do not understand. You may think that the light cone is the only place that light from spacetime events can reach the observer. That may explain the emphasis that you put on the light cones.
It is actually only the limit in SRT. For example a spacetime event may happen directly in front of the observer (within the future light cone). The observer will still measure the light flash from the event.

can't comment but thanks any way

Light does not have a light cone. The definition of the SRT light cone diagram is that it shows the observer's spacetime events. Light is not an observer.
maybe not but light has a future and a past and a present moment which I have included in the use of PHS [observer/light event surface]

described by this construction which has yet to be confirmed as valid:

Phs = (x i,i' , y i,i' , z i,i' , t phs)
where i is all possible photon locations universally
and i' is all possible oberserever locations universally [ observer means anything that is matter.]

[Reality Check]

nope, not yet any way, and Zero Point Theory has nothing to do with this thread.......and is off topic.
This is a "logical proof" of SRT invalidity.
That means that you have to use logic. If you do not then you are merely wasting your time.
I and other posters have pointed out that your logic is incorrect since is starts with an assuumption that a premise of SRT is invalid in order to prove that SRT is invalid. That is circular reaoning also known as begging the question (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Begging_the_question).
But you are right that applying this logic to zero point theory is not for this thread. I will start another one.

I do note that there are several steps missing in your "proof" which seems to be:

"It can be reasoned that every speckle of photon light is occurring at the same simultaneous moment. Regardless of location any and all objects of matter/mass placed in this field will record the light event simultaneously."
The obvious fact that all events happen at the observer's present time (tHSP)
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
Therefore SRT is invalid.
Perhaps you would like to fill in the gaps?
Or maybe just tell us what in SRT is invalid?

[ozziemate]

This is a "logical proof" of SRT invalidity.
That means that you have to use logic. If you do not then you are merely wasting your time.
I and other posters have pointed out that your logic is incorrect since is starts with an assuumption that a premise of SRT is invalid in order to prove that SRT is invalid. That is circular reaoning also known as begging the question (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Begging_the_question).
But you are right that applying this logic to zero point theory is not for this thread. I will start another one.

I do note that there are several steps missing in your "proof" which seems to be:

"It can be reasoned that every speckle of photon light is occurring at the same simultaneous moment. Regardless of location any and all objects of matter/mass placed in this field will record the light event simultaneously."
The obvious fact that all events happen at the observer's present time (tHSP)
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
Therefore SRT is invalid.
Perhaps you would like to fill in the gaps?
Or maybe just tell us what in SRT is invalid?

actually fair point...I shall refrain by wasting my time on your obvously flawed attack.

and stick to the issue ...thanks....

[Reality Check]

...sniped the usuai misinterpretation...
maybe not but light has a future and a past and a present moment which I have included in the use of PHS [observer/light event surface]
described by this construction which has yet to be confirmed as valid:

Phs = (x i,i' , y i,i' , z i,i' , t phs)
where i is all possible photon locations universally
and i' is all possible oberserever locations universally [ observer means anything that is matter.]
It is invalid. It is just adding an index to the simple coordinates that I gave you before: the position of all photons in the universe at an observer's present time (as measured in the Cartesian coordinate system (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cartesian_coordinate_system) which is one of the many coordinate syatems that the observer may use).

I can see that trying to make things simple for your simple understanding of mathematics has just confused you. So I guess I will have to make it more complex.

Read the Wikipedia section on spacetime.
In physics, spacetime is any mathematical model that combines space and time into a single construct called the spacetime continuum. Spacetime is usually interpreted with space being three-dimensional and time playing the role of the fourth dimension. According to Euclidean space perception, the universe has three dimensions of space and one dimension of time. By combining space and time into a single manifold, physicists have significantly simplified a large number of physical theories, as well as described in a more uniform way the workings of the universe at both the supergalactic and subatomic levels.
and
For example, two observers, one of whom is on Earth, but the other one who is on a fast rocket to Jupiter, may observe a comet crashing into Jupiter (this is the event p). In general, they will disagree about the exact location and timing of this impact, i.e., they will have different 4-tuples http://upload.wikimedia.org/math/c/c/c/ccc035dd59619bb85be94b9093f4c9ba.png (as they are using different coordinate systems). Although their kinematic descriptions will differ, dynamical (physical) laws, such as momentum conservation and the first law of thermodynamics, will still hold. In fact, relativity theory requires more than this in the sense that it stipulates these (and all other physical) laws must take the same form in all coordinate systems. This introduces tensors (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tensors) into relativity, by which all physical quantities are represented.

[ozziemate]

Ozzie, you haven't answered any of my posts for a while. I do understand that you're involved in so many discussions that it's hard to keep up, but I would appreciate if you would read my posts from #321 to present and write some replies. Make sure you read #358. I'm really trying to understand what you're saying.

OK I shall try a bit of speculation as to what I think happened in the process that lead to what I believe was a mistake....

1* Prior to SRT's publication science held the view that time was absolute universally in that regardless of rel.v all observers shared a common HSP.
2* Science had no reason to believe in the need to accommodate non-simultaneity
3* Invariance of light speed was postulated and proved to be the case using a traveling photon as a model to do so.
3* Evidence emerged that time dilation had experimental proof and this posed an enormous problem for science to accommodate.
4* Lorenz and co decide to apply a transform to a simultaneous universe to accommodate time dilation and invariance of light.
5* non-simultaneity was the outcome as it managed to accommodate not only invariance but time dilation as well.
6* length contraction was necessary to accommodate invariance, and time dilation in the transforms.
7* Lorenz uses a simultaneous universe to derive transforms from.
8* non-simultaneity can not be evidenced due to it's very nature as one observer ca not share another perspective.
9* length contraction along the vector can not either for same reasons as item 8
10* observer/light event simultaneity is ignored because to do so would contradict non-simultaneity outcome and threated invariance.
11* because invariance is a proven constant at it's exact measurement only fudging the metrics used can accommodate invariance thus Lorenz transforms are used.
12* evidence of theoretical issues emerge when pushing SRT to extremes such as [zero distance to travel yet taking eternity to do it in] Lorenz outcome when an object of mass reaches 'c' [ if I am not mistaken]
13* as invariance of change [ not speed IMO] is constant and invariant , and proven to be true, science had mishandled the invariance issue.
14* For Lorenz's transforms to function his premise must be of absolute time, or a simultaneous universe. he uses a simultaneous universe to later, with his transforms declare that same universe to be non-suimultaneous. [ thus using simultaneity to create non-simultaneity which is obviously a problem of logic
15* for that universes to be simultaneous all light/observer events with in a given zero duration moment must occur simultaneously.
16* So therefore:
"if all photons in existence exist simultaneously then it follows that absolutely all observations of photons must also"
can be proven to be valid in any zero duration moment then non-simultaneity is no longer valid and science has mishandled invariance of light which creates the need for Lorenz to transform the observers RF in question into a state of non-simultaneity.

Now I am sure I have got some of the history wrong or mixed up so don't bother yourselves too much about that, however if we find that the zero duration photon/obsrver events within the HSP hypersphere are simlutaneous SRT is in real trouble.

[Reality Check]

ozziemate: Logical proof of ZPT invalidity (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=127275)

[nathan]

This is a "logical proof" of SRT invalidity.
That means that you have to use logic. If you do not then you are merely wasting your time.

Ozziemate has already conceded that SRT is internally consistent. Here is at least one such post:
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=4149321#post4149321

Ozziemate keeps trying to design a thought experiment to show SRT doesn't reflect reality, but in doing so takes as axiomatic some property which he goes on to 'prove'.

AFAICT Ozziemate has not responded to http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=4149351#post4149351 or
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=4149442#post4149442

If SRT doesn't reflect reality (in the domains it claims to reflect it), then one of its postulates must be wrong (for it is internally consistent). Ozziemate refuses to specify which postulate or postulates.

[Reality Check]

OK I shall try a bit of speculation as to what I think happened in the process that lead to what I believe was a mistake....

1* Prior to SRT's publication science held the view that time was absolute universally in that regardless of rel.v all observers shared a common HSP.
2* Science had no reason to believe in the need to accommodate non-simultaneity
3* Invariance of light speed was postulated and proved to be the case using a traveling photon as a model to do so.
3* Evidence emerged that time dilation had experimental proof and this posed an enormous problem for science to accommodate.
4* Lorenz and co decide to apply a transform to a simultaneous universe to accommodate time dilation and invariance of light.
5* non-simultaneity was the outcome as it managed to accommodate not only invariance but time dilation as well.
6* length contraction was necessary to accommodate invariance, and time dilation in the transforms.
7* Lorenz uses a simultaneous universe to derive transforms from.
8* non-simultaneity can not be evidenced due to it's very nature as one observer ca not share another perspective.
9* length contraction along the vector can not either for same reasons as item 8
10* observer/light event simultaneity is ignored because to do so would contradict non-simultaneity outcome and threated invariance.
11* because invariance is a proven constant at it's exact measurement only fudging the metrics used can accommodate invariance thus Lorenz transforms are used.
12* evidence of theoretical issues emerge when pushing SRT to extremes such as [zero distance to travel yet taking eternity to do it in] Lorenz outcome when an object of mass reaches 'c' [ if I am not mistaken]
13* as invariance of change [ not speed IMO] is constant and invariant , and proven to be true science had mishandled the invariance issue.
14* For Lorenz's transforms to function his premise must be of absolute time, or a simultaneous universe. he uses a simultaneous universe to later, with his transforms declare that same universe to be non-suimultaneous. [ thus using simultaneity to create non-simultaneity which is obviously a problem of logic
15* for that universes to be simultaneous all light/observer events with in a given zero duration moment must occur simultaneously.
16* So therefore:
if all photons in existence exist simultaneously then it follows that absolutely all observations of photons must also"
can be proven to be valid in any zero duration moment then non-simultaneity is no longer valid and science has mishandled invariance of light which creates the need for Lorenz to transform the observers RF in question into a state of non-simultaneity.

A lot of nonsense without citations. Too much to really go through so I will leave you with these questions:
Which SRT postuate is wrong?
Or what derivations from those postulates are wrong?

[ozziemate]

It is invalid. It is just adding an index to the simple coordinates that I gave you before: the position of all photons in the universe at an observer's present time (as measured in the Cartesian coordinate system (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cartesian_coordinate_system) which is one of the many coordinate syatems that the observer may use).

I can see that trying to make things simple for your simple understanding of mathematics has just confused you. So I guess I will have to make it more complex.

Read the Wikipedia section on spacetime.

and
yeah again you are quoting using a theory that is in question as logical evidence. This is not valid as an arguement....

I am using the construction as evidence for the contrary arguement, it has nothing to do with SRT's position. It is merely my attempt to constract a set of co-ordinants that show observer/light events in a zero duration moment as simultaneous.
Of course SRT disagrees, but using SRT as evidence is not a correct way of debating as it means nothing as the evidence you are using is in dispute directly.
and you know- it which is really puzzling as to what you intend to achieve by throwing that into the debate when it is obviously of no value to it...
all you are doing is demonstrating how entrenched SRT is in your mind set, so much so that you seem unable to put it aside and be objective.

advice:
Be skeptical Reality Check, but be skeptical of SRT too or you become just another religious nutter and a very poor scientist as well - which I might add woud be a sad thing as you are obviously really clever with this sort of stuff.

[Reality Check]

yeah again you are quoting using a theory that is in question as logical evidence. This is not valid as an arguement....

I am using the construction as evidence for the contrary arguement, it has nothing to do with SRT's position. It is merely my attempt to constract a set of co-ordinants that show observer/light events in a zero duration moment as simultaneous.
Of course SRT disagrees, but using SRT as evidence is not a correct way of debating as it means nothing as the evidence you are using is in dispute directly.
and you know- it which is really puzzling as to what you intend to achieve by throwing that into the debate when it is obviously of no value to it...
all you are doing is demonstrating how entrenched SRT is in your mind set, so much so that you seem unable to put it aside and be objective.

advice:
Be skeptical Reality Check, but be skeptical of SRT too or you become just another religious nutter and a very poor scientist as well - which I might add woud be a sad thing as you are obviously really clever with this sort of stuff.
There is no SRT in that reply - just mathematics.

Advice:
Read the post ozziemate.

ETA: And a bit of physics but then you would not know that.

ETA: Thank you for the 'you are obviously really clever with this sort of stuff' but you are wrong there too. My knowledge of physics is 20 years old when I finished my Master of Physics in theoretical solid state physics (and never used it again). My cleverness is only obvious in contrast to your lack of knowledge.

[Tubbythin]

yes and now wewe discover the use of observer/light event because one can not happen with out the other [ remember the thread about ambiguity of the evidence of a travelling photon - based on just this new discovery of use of terms]


You really didn't learn anything from those ~ 40 pages did you? If the photon does not travel then conservation of energy and momentum are continually being violated. If that's the case then the laws of physics are no longer translationally or spatially invariant. If that's the case then SR is true. Not only that, so is Newtonian mechanics, QED, QCD, Maxwell's equations... everything!

[ozziemate]

For example, two observers, one of whom is on Earth, but the other one who is on a fast rocket to Jupiter, may observe a comet crashing into Jupiter (this is the event p). In general, they will disagree about the exact location and timing of this impact, i.e., they will have different 4-tuples (as they are using different coordinate systems). Although their kinematic descriptions will differ, dynamical (physical) laws, such as momentum conservation and the first law of thermodynamics, will still hold. In fact, relativity theory requires more than this in the sense that it stipulates these (and all other physical) laws must take the same form in all coordinate systems. This introduces tensors into relativity, by which all physical quantities are represented.
bah,,,no SRT my arse:)

[nathan]

aha, at last some kind of progress!

OK I shall try a bit of speculation as to what I think happened in the process that lead to what I believe was a mistake....

1* Prior to SRT's publication science held the view that time was absolute universally in that regardless of rel.v all observers shared a common HSP.

Correct. Space-time was presumed Galilean.

2* Science had no reason to believe in the need to accommodate non-simultaneity

Correct. Newtonian physics was known to be incomplete (precession of Mercury), but the correction for that was not known and no one suspected time may be subjective.

3* Invariance of light speed was postulated and proved to be the case using a traveling photon as a model to do so.

One of SRT's postulates is that all inertial observers measure the same speed for light. Note, this postulate comes after the following few points in your chronology.

3* Evidence emerged that time dilation had experimental proof and this posed an enormous problem for science to accommodate.

IIRC, it was the Michelson-Morley experiment to try and measure Earth's movement through the aether. That experiment produced a null result. Which led to ...

4* Lorenz and co decide to apply a transform to a simultaneous universe to accommodate time dilation and invariance of light.

Lorentz' length contraction. IIRC, this was an ad-hoc approach that added a compensating factor, so 'explaining' why the MM experiment failed to find movement.

5* non-simultaneity was the outcome as it managed to accommodate not only invariance but time dilation as well.

IIRC (and I'm sure someone will correct me if I'm wrong), it was SRT that reproduced the same formula for Lorentz contraction, and showed that it also predicted time dilation too.

6* length contraction was necessary to accommodate invariance, and time dilation in the transforms.

Historically length contraction was necessary to accommodate the null result. Lorentz did not predict time dilation.

7* Lorenz uses a simultaneous universe to derive transforms from.

Correct, but the Lorentz-Fitzgerald hypothesis concerned itself with the geometry of space, not time.

8* non-simultaneity can not be evidenced due to it's very nature as one observer ca not share another perspective.

You're restricting what you count as evidence here. Observers can communicate and compare measurements. From that comparison one can deduce the reference frames have a non-trivial transform. One can do this when one of the 'observers' is a fundamental particle, like say, a muon.

9* length contraction along the vector can not either for same reasons as item 8

Incorrect. Again, observers can communicate.

10* observer/light event simultaneity is ignored because to do so would contradict non-simultaneity outcome and threated invariance.

No, simultaneous events are not ignored.

11* because invariance is a proven constant at it's exact measurement only fudging the metrics used can accommodate invariance thus Lorenz transforms are used.

What invariance? Please be specific about what you are claiming is invariant?

12* evidence of theoretical issues emerge when pushing SRT to extremes such as [zero distance to travel yet taking eternity to do it in] Lorenz outcome when an object of mass reaches 'c' [ if I am not mistaken]

Applying a theory outside of its domain, is not evidence that the theory is invalid. Only of evidence that it doesn't apply outside of its domain -- but it doesn't claim to apply in such circumstances.

13* as invariance of change [ not speed IMO] is constant and invariant , and proven to be true science had mishandled the invariance issue.

'invariance of change' makes no sense. Please be specific about what you are claiming is invariant.

14* For Lorenz's transforms to function his premise must be of absolute time, or a simultaneous universe. he uses a simultaneous universe to later, with his transforms declare that same universe to be non-suimultaneous. [ thus using simultaneity to create non-simultaneity which is obviously a problem of logic

The Lorentz-Fitzgerald hypothesis is not SRT. Disproving LF does not disprove SRT.

15* for that universes to be simultaneous all light/observer events with in a given zero duration moment must occur simultaneously.

This is a convoluted though correct statement of Galilean space-time.

16* So therefore:
"if all photons in existence exist simultaneously then it follows that absolutely all observations of photons must also"
can be proven to be valid in any zero duration moment then non-simultaneity is no longer valid and science has mishandled invariance of light which creates the need for Lorenz to transform the observers RF in question into a state of non-simultaneity.

'non-zero duration moment' does not make sense. Moments, are by definition, zero duration.

Now I am sure I have got some of the history wrong or mixed up so don't bother yourselves too much about that, however if we find that the zero duration photon/obsrver events within the HSP hypersphere are simlutaneous SRT is in real trouble.

sure, if we find a prediction of SRT is falsified, then SRT is in trouble. But no such thing has occurred.

[ozziemate]

ok Reality check lets see just how open you are to possibility:
Get creative:
generate a set of math that describes a universe that has simultaneous observer / light events in a zero duration moment....that is constantly changing in that zero duration moment.

call that universe what ever you like...like duro theory or somethig similar...say I want to use it in a video game and I will pay you royalties for it...yeah thats it Duro Matrix...make a good video game

[Reality Check]

bah,,,no SRT my arse:)
That is General Relativity (and SRT and Newton's laws)

[Reality Check]

ok Reality check lets see just how open you are to possibility:
Get creative:
generate a set of math that describes a universe that has simultaneous observer / light events in a zero duration moment....that is constantly changing in that zero duration moment.

call that universe what ever you like...like duro theory or somethig similar...say I want to use it in a video game and I will pay you royalties for it...yeah thats it Duro Matrix...make a good video game
No.
This is the Logical proof of SRT invalidity (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=4154094#post4154094) thread.
Please present your logical proof.

[ozziemate]

Nathan,
The Lorentz-Fitzgerald hypothesis is not SRT. Disproving LF does not disprove SRT.

ok...but if the transforms used by SRT is incorrect then so to is SRT. yes?
You're restricting what you count as evidence here. Observers can communicate and compare measurements. From that comparison one can deduce the reference frames have a non-trivial transform. One can do this when one of the 'observers' is a fundamental particle, like say, a muon.
maybe... restrictive but by the by....
Incorrect. Again, observers can communicate.
communicating data is not evidence it is merely communicating data. In a simultaneous universe data can be communicated too . dos that mwke it evidence of simultaneity?

No, simultaneous events are not ignored.
but used all the same to generate the transforms.. you can't have it both ways. If the universe is non-simultaneous then you can't use simultaneity to generate it because simultaneity is nonexistant to begin with...
circular and flawed use of logic .. and a really simple one to spot if you know what to look for.

What invariance? Please be specific about what you are claiming is invariant?

in SRT invariance of the speed of light in a vaccuum. but as stated later i fcorrect science has mishandled the invarinace of light which is why I have switched to using the notion of change instead.
Applying a theory outside of its domain, is not evidence that the theory is invalid. Only of evidence that it doesn't apply outside of its domain -- but it doesn't claim to apply in such circumstances.
rather conveniant that is...in my book if a formula such as teh transforms produces incorrect results at extremes by defauult it must produce bad results at lesser degrees of use, then it is just a bad formula and I don't care whether you guys are prepared to tolerate it or not.

'non-zero duration moment' does not make sense. Moments, are by definition, zero duration.
never used what you claim I used.... read again...obviously a mistake...

sure, if we find a prediction of SRT is falsified, then SRT is in trouble. But no such thing has occurred.
if it is proved that invariance is mishandled then I beg to differ SRT is in deep Sh*t

[ozziemate]

No.
This is the Logical proof of SRT invalidity (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=4154094#post4154094) thread.
Please present your logical proof.
am doing so....but still waiting for that construction....uhmmm...maybe wait a long time yes?

"dont hold your breath too long or you'll go blue in the face;)" I hear you say:)

[Tubbythin]

OK I shall try a bit of speculation as to what I think happened in the process that lead to what I believe was a mistake....

1* Prior to SRT's publication science held the view that time was absolute universally in that regardless of rel.v all observers shared a common HSP.

That's probably roughly true. Though I think several others other than Einstein were starting to have suspicions.


2* Science had no reason to believe in the need to accommodate non-simultaneity
Hmm. There were a number of problems at the start of the 20th century that needed resolving. Such as Maxwell's equations in different reference frames.


3* Invariance of light speed was postulated and proved to be the case using a traveling photon as a model to do so.
Basically, either:
Light speed is frame variant
or
Maxwell's equations were wrong.
This is the case whether you consider light as a wave or a particle. The evidence for the particle nature of light came from entirely different sources (google photoelectric effect and ultra-violet catastrophe).


3* Evidence emerged that time dilation had experimental proof and this posed an enormous problem for science to accommodate.
No. Evidence emerged that time dilation occured and thus Einstein's theory of SR had (further) evidence in support of it.


4* Lorenz and co decide to apply a transform to a simultaneous universe to accommodate time dilation and invariance of light.
The Lorentz transformations are a mathematical outcome of the invariance of the speed of light in inertial reference frames. Time dilation is a result of the invariance of the speed of light.


5* non-simultaneity was the outcome as it managed to accommodate not only invariance but time dilation as well.
Time dilation is just another outcome of the invariance of the speed of light.


6* length contraction was necessary to accommodate invariance, and time dilation in the transforms.
Length contraction is another mathematical outcome of the invariance of the speed of light.


7* Lorenz uses a simultaneous universe to derive transforms from.
The Lorentz transforms are a mathematical outcome of the invariance of the speed of light.


8* non-simultaneity can not be evidenced due to it's very nature as one observer ca not share another perspective.
This is just nonsense. If non-simultaneity were false then light is frame variant. If light is frame variant then Maxwell's equations are wrong. Maxwell's equations aren't wrong (at least they are correct to a very very very very high precision).


9* length contraction along the vector can not either for same reasons as item 8
Time dilation is easy to observe. Length contraction then follows if the speed of light is frame invariant.


10* observer/light event simultaneity is ignored because to do so would contradict non-simultaneity outcome and threated invariance.
Which observers are you comparing?


11* because invariance is a proven constant at it's exact measurement only fudging the metrics used can accommodate invariance thus Lorenz transforms are used.
Lorentz transformations are a direct mathematical outcome of the frame invariance of the speed of light.


12* evidence of theoretical issues emerge when pushing SRT to extremes such as [zero distance to travel yet taking eternity to do it in] Lorenz outcome when an object of mass reaches 'c' [ if I am not mistaken]
You are mistaken.


13* as invariance of change [ not speed IMO] is constant and invariant , and proven to be true, science had mishandled the invariance issue.
Change of what?


14* For Lorenz's transforms to function his premise must be of absolute time, or a simultaneous universe. he uses a simultaneous universe to later, with his transforms declare that same universe to be non-suimultaneous. [ thus using simultaneity to create non-simultaneity which is obviously a problem of logic
No. The Lorentz transforms are a direct mathematical outcome of the frame invariance of the speed of light. The invariance of the speed of light explicitly removes the possibility of absolute time.


15* for that universes to be simultaneous all light/observer events with in a given zero duration moment must occur simultaneously.
16* So therefore:
"if all photons in existence exist simultaneously then it follows that absolutely all observations of photons must also"
can be proven to be valid in any zero duration moment then non-simultaneity is no longer valid and science has mishandled invariance of light which creates the need for Lorenz to transform the observers RF in question into a state of non-simultaneity.

These make no sense given what has gone before.

SO. That's 1/16. May I humbly suggest you read up on SRT before trying to debunk it. It is abundantly obvious from the above that you don't understand it.


Now I am sure I have got some of the history wrong or mixed up so don't bother yourselves too much about that, however if we find that the zero duration photon/obsrver events within the HSP hypersphere are simlutaneous SRT is in real trouble.
I think SRT can sleep safely in its bed tonight.

[ozziemate]

you know it all comes down a bit funny.
If I put three photons one in the middle with one at the back and one in front and have them traveling a 'c' and determine that they are simulaneous and this is a proven fact then SRT is dead meat....it is as simlpe as that....why the fuss, show that these three photons are non-simultaneous and I loose the debate...

"like an ocean with waves in it , at any given zero duration moment those waves are simultaneous along with every droplet of water in them...including all the photons that are causing them to shimmer in the moon light [ thanks DD ]"
even if due to light delays it takes a while for some of that information to reach my eyes.

[Tubbythin]

you know it all comes down a bit funny.
If I put three photons one in the middle with one at the back and one in front and have them traveling a 'c' and determine that they are simulaneous
This doesn't make a word of sense.


and this is a proven fact then SRT is dead meat....it is as simlpe as that....why the fuss, show that these three photons are non-simultaneous and I loose the debate...
You really think that despite the fact that the best scientists in the world with intricate understanding of the theory and despite all the mountains of evidence in favour of it that YOU with virtually no understanding of the subject at all are going to disprove it? Seriously?


"like an ocean with waves in it , at any given zero duration moment those waves are simultaneous along with every droplet of water in them...including all the photons that are causing them to shimmer in the moon light [ thanks DD ]"
even if due to light delays it takes a while for some of that information to reach my eyes.
You haven't paid attention to a word anyone has said have you?

[ozziemate]

wow panic stations every one,

Ozziemate has already conceded that SRT is internally consistent. Here is at least one such post:
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=4149321#post4149321

Ozziemate keeps trying to design a thought experiment to show SRT doesn't reflect reality, but in doing so takes as axiomatic some property which he goes on to 'prove'.

AFAICT Ozziemate has not responded to http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=4149351#post4149351 or
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=4149442#post4149442

If SRT doesn't reflect reality (in the domains it claims to reflect it), then one of its postulates must be wrong (for it is internally consistent). Ozziemate refuses to specify which postulate or postulates.
Of course SRT attempts to reflect reality and I reckon it does a remarkably good job too but that don't make it right....
I have clearly stated that if my logical proof is found correct then the invariance of light is mishandled by current scientific thought...ack SRT for example...

what more do you want?

btw I can always tell I have struck a chord bcause all the "flamers" adn irrational attackers come out of the wood work and demonstrate their paranoia....watch it and yu 'll see the pattern..your post is number one.

[Reality Check]

you know it all comes down a bit funny.
If I put three photons one in the middle with one at the back and one in front and have them traveling a 'c' and determine that they are simulaneous and this is a proven fact then SRT is dead meat....it is as simlpe as that....why the fuss, show that these three photons are non-simultaneous and I loose the debate...

"like an ocean with waves in it , at any given zero duration moment those waves are simultaneous along with every droplet of water in them...including all the photons that are causing them to shimmer in the moon light [ thanks DD ]"
even if due to light delays it takes a while for some of that information to reach my eyes.
That has been done and shown to be wrong - single photon experiments are common and show photons ariving one at a time and not all at the same time.

[Tubbythin]

wow panic stations every one,


Of course SRT attempts to reflect reality and I reckon it does a remarkably good job too but that don't make it right....
I have clearly stated that if my logical proof is found correct then the invariance of light is mishandled by current scientific thought...ack SRT for example...

what more do you want?

btw I can always tell I have struck a chord bcause all the "flamers" adn irrational attackers come out of the wood work and demonstrate their paranoia....watch it and yu 'll see the pattern..your post is number one.

You don't have a logical proof.

[ozziemate]

That has been done and shown to be wrong - single photon experiments are common and show photons ariving one at a time and not all at the same time.


read the three photon scenario again RealityCheck and see what is wrong with your response...and BTW where's the Duro Matrix construct?;)
three photons one in the middle , one in front and one in the back all traveling at 'c' can not possibly arrive at the same time...sheesh!

[ozziemate]

You don't have a logical proof.
well define logical proof then and maybe we will know why you keep saying that?

[Tubbythin]

well define logical proof then and maybe we will know why you keep saying that?

A logical proof would be one that showed that SR is internally inconsistent. You have, yourself, admitted this is not the case.

[Reality Check]

read the three photon scenario again RealityCheck and see what is wrong with your response...and BTW where's the Duro Matrix construct?;)
three photons one in the middle , one in front and one in the back all traveling at 'c' can not possibly arrive at the same time...sheesh!

If I put three photons one in the middle with one at the back and one in front and have them traveling a 'c' and determine that they are simulaneous and this is a proven fact then SRT is dead meat....it is as simlpe as that....why the fuss, show that these three photons are non-simultaneous and I loose the debate...

And to make my response clearer:

That has been done and shown to be wrong - experiments that produce photons one at a time are common and show the photons that they produce ariving one at a time at a detector and not all at the same time.
This includes one in the middle with one at the back and one in front and having them traveling at the speed of c.

[ozziemate]

say I want to construct an animation of an infinite number of slides,
each animation has an N or infinite [you choose] set of coordinants on a surface that lasts for 1 second.
the co-ordinants allows for a number (1 and 2) to be possible and available at every co-ordinant
each slide would have a math set of what?

If I call each slide a generic PHS [ present hyper surface ] that has a duration of 1 second
I reckon it will look similar to this but fails to show the 1 second...but hey I think I may very well be worng....

Phs = (x i,i' , y i,i' , z i,i' , t phs)

[ozziemate]

And to make my response clearer:

That has been done and shown to be wrong - experiments that produce photons one at a time are common and show the photons that they produce ariving one at a time at a detector and not all at the same time.
This includes one in the middle with one at the back and one in front and having them traveling at the speed of c.
but reality check if one photon is at the front with two photons traveling behind one after the other how the hell can they arrive simultaneously?

have another look please as I can not see why you are making such an error...

pb, pm, pf ----->object
where
p= photon
b = back
m= middle
f= front

[ozziemate]

in my lingo this sort of thing is called relational dyslexia...a psychological term that I have coined. and implies no offense
What that means is that you can not read what I write.

so lets try again but real slow:

we have one photon in the front, one photon in the middle and one photon at the back all travelling at 'c'

it is the word "middle" that has thrown you I reckon....

[Tubbythin]

ok...but if the transforms used by SRT is incorrect then so to is SRT. yes?
If the transforms derived from light speed invariance are incorrect then SRT is incorrect, yes.


maybe... restrictive but by the by....
Nope, you cannot say X cannot be proven and then when it is proven say it isn't and expect to be taken seriously.


communicating data is not evidence it is merely communicating data. In a simultaneous universe data can be communicated too . dos that mwke it evidence of simultaneity?
It is the data that is evidence, not the communication obviously. Yes, it does make it evidence of non-simultaneity.


but used all the same to generate the transforms.. you can't have it both ways. If the universe is non-simultaneous then you can't use simultaneity to generate it because simultaneity is nonexistant to begin with...
circular and flawed use of logic .. and a really simple one to spot if you know what to look for.
The transforms come from the postulate that the speed of light is frame invariant. It is pretty clear that you have no idea what to look for.


in SRT invariance of the speed of light in a vaccuum. but as stated later i fcorrect science has mishandled the invarinace of light which is why I have switched to using the notion of change instead.
You are wrong. Its as simple as that.


rather conveniant that is...in my book if a formula such as teh transforms produces incorrect results at extremes by defauult it must produce bad results at lesser degrees of use, then it is just a bad formula and I don't care whether you guys are prepared to tolerate it or not.
This is just silly. trying to apply SR outside its remit makes no more sense than trying to apply the theory of evolution to the study of fibre optics. SR makes correct predictions for bodies moving within a tiny fraction of a percent of the speed of light.


if it is proved that invariance is mishandled then I beg to differ SRT is in deep Sh*t
You have not proven it. You have not come even remotely close to proving it.

[ozziemate]

Reality Check,
If you wish we can run a few simple comprehension exercises to try and solve the issue between you and I however if you don't wish to thats no skin of my nose so to speak ok....
and no you are not going crazy..ok

[ozziemate]

If the transforms derived from light speed invariance are incorrect then SRT is incorrect, yes.


Nope, you cannot say X cannot be proven and then when it is proven say it isn't and expect to be taken seriously.


It is the data that is evidence, not the communication obviously. Yes, it does make it evidence of non-simultaneity.


The transforms come from the postulate that the speed of light is frame invariant. It is pretty clear that you have no idea what to look for.


You are wrong. Its as simple as that.


This is just silly. trying to apply SR outside its remit makes no more sense than trying to apply the theory of evolution to the study of fibre optics. SR makes correct predictions for bodies moving within a tiny fraction of a percent of the speed of light.


You have not proven it. You have not come even remotely close to proving it.
no way am I going to bother with this at the moment...
Reality Check and I have something to fix if possible other wise we are wasting our time and have wasted our time

[Tubbythin]

I notice you've also chosen to ignore post 417.

[ozziemate]

I notice you've also chosen to ignore post 417.
maybe I should ...what do you reckon Tubby; ignore it as you accuse me of doing? or just over look it which is probably more the case....?

[ozziemate]

any ways cant you see that Reality Check and I have to sort something out before we proceed any further?

[Fredrik]

Ozzie, you haven't answered any of my posts for a while. I do understand that you're involved in so many discussions that it's hard to keep up, but I would appreciate if you would read my posts from #321 to present and write some replies. Make sure you read #358. I'm really trying to understand what you're saying.
shall get to it soon Fredrik....
You made another post after this, where you quoted this post of mine again and then wrote a summary of (your version of) the early history of relativity. I hope you don't consider this a reply. You answered absolutely nothing from those earlier posts of mine.

Your "logical proof" isn't logical as long as your starting assumption makes no sense, and it still doesn't, even though we're up to over 400 posts now. (I'm not saying that it's wrong. That would be a big improvement! It's just impossible to make sense of, as I explained carefully in #358).

I was clicking around in this thread and I noticed the following posts:
But you have to define simultaneously! With reference to a specific reference frame. Simultaneously according to who?
simultaneous to every other photon....
You were asked an extremely relevant question, and gave another answer that made no sense. You still haven't defined simultaneity. This is a definition that works both in special relativity and in pre-relativistic physics:

I'm using units such that c=1, and I'm writing the coordinates of an event as (t,x), i.e. with the time coordinate first.

Suppose that a light signal that's emitted in the positive x direction at (t1,0) gets reflected at some point along the x axis and returns at (t2,0), then the reflection event is simultaneous with (t1+(t2-t1)/2,0).

Pick t1=-T and t2=T for simplicity. The emission event is (-T,0) and the return event is (T,0). The reflection event is simultaneous with (0,0), and since the speed of light is 1, the spatial coordinate must be T, so the reflection event is (0,T).

Do you agree or disagree with this definition?

[Dancing David]

you know it all comes down a bit funny.
If I put three photons one in the middle with one at the back and one in front and have them traveling a 'c' and determine that they are simulaneous and this is a proven fact then SRT is dead meat....it is as simlpe as that....why the fuss, show that these three photons are non-simultaneous and I loose the debate...

"like an ocean with waves in it , at any given zero duration moment those waves are simultaneous along with every droplet of water in them...including all the photons that are causing them to shimmer in the moon light [ thanks DD ]"
even if due to light delays it takes a while for some of that information to reach my eyes.


That is only in mental space, how do you know ehere they actualy are?

You are just assuming that they are where you think they are, and that is the issue,

try trains and try communication between the trains.


And even worse you are using an aether analogy.

If you try to communicate between reference frames your theory collapses.

It is just an obsession, you have no data, you still haven't even found an experiement to demonstrate your POV.

Next time you are at the ocean, don't think about photons.

[Dancing David]

any ways cant you see that Reality Check and I have to sort something out before we proceed any further?


yes, you need to learn that your thoughts and reality may not have a one to one correspondence. that is what experimentation is for.

Come up with and experiement yet?

[The Man]

yeah again you are quoting using a theory that is in question as logical evidence. This is not valid as an arguement....

I am using the construction as evidence for the contrary arguement, it has nothing to do with SRT's position. It is merely my attempt to constract a set of co-ordinants that show observer/light events in a zero duration moment as simultaneous.
Of course SRT disagrees, but using SRT as evidence is not a correct way of debating as it means nothing as the evidence you are using is in dispute directly.
and you know- it which is really puzzling as to what you intend to achieve by throwing that into the debate when it is obviously of no value to it...
all you are doing is demonstrating how entrenched SRT is in your mind set, so much so that you seem unable to put it aside and be objective.

advice:
Be skeptical Reality Check, but be skeptical of SRT too or you become just another religious nutter and a very poor scientist as well - which I might add woud be a sad thing as you are obviously really clever with this sort of stuff.

I have not been debating you based on what SRT postulates; I have been addressing the specific elements where your postulation fails without even considering SRT. I have repeated that failure several times and in different ways, but you do not address it. Preferring instead to claim “but using SRT as evidence is not a correct way of debating” while only debating on the use of those SRT counter arguments.

Your postulate is fundamentally flawed in your assertion of “…observer/light events in a zero duration moment as simultaneous”.

Without considering SRT, this can be demonstrated as follows.


1) Events take time, no time, or a “zero duration moment” then no “observer/light events”

2) With your “zero duration” Dt = 0 your postulate is inconsistent with Heisenberg uncertainty that you attempted to use to bolster your argument and which is in no way dependent on the postulates of SRT.

3) For "light events" that interaction time is dependent on the wave cycle time t or the inverse of its frequency (f-1)

4) Given light of different frequencies those cycle times (or interaction times) will vary.

5) Even if you eliminate your “zero duration” requirement the varying event times will make the “observer/light events”, as a whole, non-simultaneous. Events might begin at the same time but then they would not end at the same time. You could select just one point in those phase cycles to apply your simultaneous zero duration moment to, but the “observer/light events” as a whole can never be simultaneous given the interaction times’ dependency on frequency.


Your postulate does not even pass muster without considering the postulates of SRT let alone as a logical invalidation of SRT.

Advice:
Be skeptical, ozziemate, of your own thinking first, before you assert yourself as being skeptical of others.

[Tubbythin]

any ways cant you see that Reality Check and I have to sort something out before we proceed any further?

I would say that trying to understand special relativity should be top of your list with regard to this thread. Then, when you understand it, we may get somewhere.

[ozziemate]

I have not been debating you based on what SRT postulates; I have been addressing the specific elements where your postulation fails without even considering SRT. I have repeated that failure several times and in different ways, but you do not address it. Preferring instead to claim “but using SRT as evidence is not a correct way of debating” while only debating on the use of those SRT counter arguments.

Your postulate is fundamentally flawed in your assertion of “…observer/light events in a zero duration moment as simultaneous”.

Without considering SRT, this can be demonstrated as follows.


1) Events take time, no time, or a “zero duration moment” then no “observer/light events”

2) With your “zero duration” Dt = 0 your postulate is inconsistent with Heisenberg uncertainty that you attempted to use to bolster your argument and which is in no way dependent on the postulates of SRT.

3) For "light events" that interaction time is dependent on the wave cycle time t or the inverse of its frequency (f-1)

4) Given light of different frequencies those cycle times (or interaction times) will vary.

5) Even if you eliminate your “zero duration” requirement the varying event times will make the “observer/light events”, as a whole, non-simultaneous. Events might begin at the same time but then they would not end at the same time. You could select just one point in those phase cycles to apply your simultaneous zero duration moment to, but the “observer/light events” as a whole can never be simultaneous given the interaction times’ dependency on frequency.


Your postulate does not even pass muster without considering the postulates of SRT let alone as a logical invalidation of SRT.

Advice:
Be skeptical, ozziemate, of your own thinking first, before you assert yourself as being skeptical of others.
Firstly I hope you realise the post you quoted is driected at Reality Check and not you....

1) Events take time, no time, or a “zero duration moment” then no “observer/light events”

try this:

meanwhile whilst the interactions take time photons continue to arrive as you would expect them to. So mass reaction time has some small value per photon but photons keep on comming regardless? agree? disagree?
2) With your “zero duration” Dt = 0 your postulate is inconsistent with Heisenberg uncertainty that you attempted to use to bolster your argument and which is in no way dependent on the postulates of SRT.
try this:
We are talking about a zero duration observer /light event. YOu can not ascertain velocity nor vector from a single event you need at least two events for velocity over time and you need three for accelleration.
A zero duration event tells us virtually nothing about the event next to happen.
agree? disagree?

3) For "light events" that interaction time is dependent on the wave cycle time t or the inverse of its frequency (f-1)
Photons continue to arrive whilst interaction times occur so this does nto invalidate my propostion. Agree? or disagree?
4) Given light of different frequencies those cycle times (or interaction times) will vary.
same as above agree ? disagree?
5) Even if you eliminate your “zero duration” requirement the varying event times will make the “observer/light events”, as a whole, non-simultaneous. Events might begin at the same time but then they would not end at the same time. You could select just one point in those phase cycles to apply your simultaneous zero duration moment to, but the “observer/light events” as a whole can never be simultaneous given the interaction times’ dependency on frequency.
same as above...agree? disagree?
If you agree with any one of the above I would take an apology for your attitude as given.
If you disagree be prepared to defend your position vigourously...

[ozziemate]

You made another post after this, where you quoted this post of mine again and then wrote a summary of (your version of) the early history of relativity. I hope you don't consider this a reply. You answered absolutely nothing from those earlier posts of mine.

Your "logical proof" isn't logical as long as your starting assumption makes no sense, and it still doesn't, even though we're up to over 400 posts now. (I'm not saying that it's wrong. That would be a big improvement! It's just impossible to make sense of, as I explained carefully in #358).

I was clicking around in this thread and I noticed the following posts:


You were asked an extremely relevant question, and gave another answer that made no sense. You still haven't defined simultaneity. This is a definition that works both in special relativity and in pre-relativistic physics:

I'm using units such that c=1, and I'm writing the coordinates of an event as (t,x), i.e. with the time coordinate first.

Suppose that a light signal that's emitted in the positive x direction at (t1,0) gets reflected at some point along the x axis and returns at (t2,0), then the reflection event is simultaneous with (t1+(t2-t1)/2,0).

Pick t1=-T and t2=T for simplicity. The emission event is (-T,0) and the return event is (T,0). The reflection event is simultaneous with (0,0), and since the speed of light is 1, the spatial coordinate must be T, so the reflection event is (0,T).

Do you agree or disagree with this definition?
Fedrik, thanks for trying.
Unfortunately I am not at all confident enough and certainly am to tired to attempt to read the math as I have effectively no math principles of use knowledge and woud have to ask a few question befroe ansering and I think that including a reflection in the set is unecessary until the very first basic premise is established and agreed to
I am going to refer again to the op diagram:
http://zeropointtheory.com/images/stories/images/light/lightspecklediag01a.jpg
contructed photo shop diagram
We have snap shot of a source and a heap of speckles that indicate photon location [ infinitely ] around the source. The snapshot is of a zero duration event that being the hypersphere.
Every photon is stationary as they are captured and in a state of sus'pended-animation.
Obviously it is tautologically true that every photon at it's location must be simultaneous with every other photon. [ coud be waves as well but photons will do I think ]
as at this time of sus'pended-animation the actual duration is zero because there is no rest frame for a photon. Therefore the moment is d=0 as well.
so t=0 and d=0 for our photons

ok are you with me so far?

Have I established the issue regarding photon hyper sphere simultaneity to your satisfaction?
I shall respond about this post only to Fredrik to keep it simple.

So Fredrik?

[nathan]

wow panic stations every one,
Why are you panicking?

Of course SRT attempts to reflect reality and I reckon it does a remarkably good job too but that don't make it right....
I have clearly stated that if my logical proof is found correct then the invariance of light is mishandled by current scientific thought...ack SRT for example...

No one is claiming otherwise. Why do you labour the point?

what more do you want?

I'd like you to present this logical proof of SRT's invalidity. you have not done so. Furthermore you avoid answering any question that might clarify exactly what you think is wrong. You don't seem to be retracting your agreement that SRT is internally consistent, so what are you trying to say?

btw I can always tell I have struck a chord bcause all the "flamers" adn irrational attackers come out of the wood work and demonstrate their paranoia....watch it and yu 'll see the pattern..your post is number one.

It appear that the first post in this thread was yours -- your post is number one. Are you now arguing with yourself?

ETA:You failed to answer the questions I asked at http://forums.randi.org/showthread.p...51#post4149351 and
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.p...42#post4149442 If you answered those, it might be easier to find out where your error in interpretting SRT is.

[nathan]

ok...but if the transforms used by SRT is incorrect then so to is SRT. yes?

Yes, that's an orthogonal question though.

maybe... restrictive but by the by....

communicating data is not evidence it is merely communicating data. In a simultaneous universe data can be communicated too . dos that mwke it evidence of simultaneity?

Are you really that stupid? Communicating data allows one to compare the measurements made in one reference frame to those made in another.

but used all the same to generate the transforms.. you can't have it both ways. If the universe is non-simultaneous then you can't use simultaneity to generate it because simultaneity is nonexistant to begin with...
circular and flawed use of logic .. and a really simple one to spot if you know what to look for.

Where do you think SRT assumes translating inertial reference frames have a shared time coordinate?


In SRT invariance of the speed of light in a vaccuum. but as stated later i fcorrect science has mishandled the invarinace of light which is why I have switched to using the notion of change instead.

So, you're now claiming there is no invariant?

rather conveniant that is...in my book if a formula such as teh transforms produces incorrect results at extremes by defauult it must produce bad results at lesser degrees of use, then it is just a bad formula and I don't care whether you guys are prepared to tolerate it or not.

That is an assertion of yours. You have no evidence for it.

never used what you claim I used.... read again...obviously a mistake...
sorry, I did misread. But your claim that

16* So therefore:
"if all photons in existence exist simultaneously then it follows that absolutely all observations of photons must also"
can be proven to be valid in any zero duration moment then non-simultaneity is no longer valid and science has mishandled invariance of light which creates the need for Lorenz to transform the observers RF in question into a state of non-simultaneity.

Is unproven. You have yet to show this.

if it is proved that invariance is mishandled then I beg to differ SRT is in deep Sh*t

No one is claiming otherwise. If you prove that SRT is internally inconsistent, then yes, it's wrong. But you've failed to prove that.

[The Man]

Firstly I hope you realise the post you quoted is driected at Reality Check and not you.... ...

Primarily, you do realize that my previous posts referencing the fundamental flaws (even without SRT) in you postulate were directed at you and not anyone else.



try this:

meanwhile whilst the interactions take time photons continue to arrive as you would expect them to. So mass reaction time has some small value per photon but photons keep on comming regardless? agree? disagree?


It is your postulate that disagrees, within a “zero duration moment” everything is static or instantaneous, “continue” infers the passage of time or a non-zero duration moment. So you now seem to agree that events require time.


try this:
We are talking about a zero duration observer /light event. YOu can not ascertain velocity nor vector from a single event you need at least two events for velocity over time and you need three for accelleration.
A zero duration event tells us virtually nothing about the event next to happen.
agree? disagree?


It tells us nothing about events period, within a “zero duration moment” everything is static or instantaneous there are no “events”. We can infer events from two static or instantaneous (“zero duration”) moments, but those moments are not themselves events (this seems to be your confusion). Vectors (or vector fields) can be static or changing so a vector field can be represented within a static or instantaneous (“zero duration”) moment, but velocity, acceleration, changes (in vector fields) or 'events' can not. Also in order to determine (or ascertain) that vector field requires examination or ‘events’ (needing time), but we can calculate the field based on the properties of the field source, which would also require examination or ‘events’ (needing time) to determine or ascertain. You now seem willing to consider the importance of changes requiring the passage of time (or a non-zero duration moment) but have yet to make the connection of an event as specifically requiring change.


Photons continue to arrive whilst interaction times occur so this does nto invalidate my propostion. Agree? or disagree?

Again nothing “continues” in your “zero duration moment” it is just a static or instantaneous representation (which is specifically not an “event”). For continuation (or events) you need to compare one static or instantaneous representation with another thus comprising a non-zero duration moment. Continuation and events are not represented in your “zero duration moment”.



same as above agree ? disagree?

Same as above, Continuation and events are not represented in your “zero duration moment”.




same as above...agree? disagree?

Same as above, Continuation and events not represented in your “zero duration moment”.


If you agree with any one of the above I would take an apology for your attitude as given.

You can take any thing you want any way you want (as seems to be your preference) including what you refer to as my “attitude”, I could not give a flying handshake. Perhaps, instead of being concerned with my “attitude” you should be more concerned with yours, as it seems to be responsible for your apparent inability to understand the fundamentals of what you oppose as well as propose.



If you disagree be prepared to defend your position vigourously...


The problem is not in my agreement or disagreement with what you said above, but that your postulate resulting from your “zero duration moment” disagrees with what you have said above (as well as itself). Each of your responses constitutes the passage of time or non-zero moments. When you can agree with yourself (vigorously or not), perhaps then you can ask others if their response is “regardless? agree? disagree?”.

[Fredrik]

Unfortunately I am not at all confident enough and certainly am to tired to attempt to read the math as I have effectively no math principles of use knowledge and woud have to ask a few question befroe ansering...

OK, here's the definition without math: Suppose that you switch on a flashlight and that the light is reflected by a mirror and finally returned to you some time after you switched it on. The event at your location that is simultaneous with the reflection event is the event where you experienced that exactly half the time that you had to wait for the light to return had passed.

When this is combined with the fact that the speed of light is the same for all observers, the result is that different observers won't agree about which events are simultaneous. (But that's a more difficult part of the story).



I am going to refer again to the op diagram:
http://zeropointtheory.com/images/stories/images/light/lightspecklediag01a.jpg
contructed photo shop diagram
We have snap shot of a source and a heap of speckles that indicate photon location [ infinitely ] around the source. The snapshot is of a zero duration event that being the hypersphere.

My interpretation of that:

The image is not to be treated as if it was a photograph. If it had been an actual photograph, the small bright dots would have been caused by photons reaching the camera more or less simultaneously, but those photons would have been emitted at different times. (They have all been moving with the same speed since they were scattered off dust particles towards the camera, but the dust particles are at different distances from the camera so the times of scattering must be different too).

Instead, the image is a picture of a 3-dimensional HSP. Each small bright dot represents an event in the HSP where a photon is located. The locations of the dots are such that they form a sphere. In a spacetime diagram with two spatial dimensions drawn, this sphere would be represented by a circle.


Every photon is stationary as they are captured and in a state of sus'pended-animation.

Photons are never stationary, but we can assume that the detectors are.


Obviously it is tautologically true that every photon at it's location must be simultaneous with every other photon. [ coud be waves as well but photons will do I think ]

The events that are represented by bright dots are all simultaneous because we chose them to be. I hope you realize that the motion of each photon traces out a curve (called its "world line") through spacetime, and that that curve intersects each hypersurface of simultaneous events exactly once. What you have done is to make a picture of one such hypersurface, which you call "the HSP", and in that picture you're letting bright dots represent the points where photon world lines intersect the HSP.


as at this time of sus'pended-animation the actual duration is zero because there is no rest frame for a photon. Therefore the moment is d=0 as well.
so t=0 and d=0 for our photons

No, the duration is zero because we chose to consider a 3-dimensional hypersurface inststead of a 4-dimensional subset of spacetime. You're right that photons don't have rest frames, but that's not relevant here.

I don't understand what d is. Is it the size of a photon? If it is, then I'm OK with it. Photons don't really have a well-defined size (because of quantum theory stuff), but we can certainly treat them as massless point particles here.


ok are you with me so far?

Have I established the issue regarding photon hyper sphere simultaneity to your satisfaction?

I think I understand what the picture represents, but I don't understand the claim that if these photons exist simultaneously, they can only be observed simultaneously. As I said, the motion of a photon is represented by a curve that goes through all the hypersurfaces of simultaneity, and not just the HSP. A photon can certainly be detected in any of the others.

So it seems to me that what you're really saying is that since the points where the photon world lines intersect the HSP (the bright dots) are simultaneous, then so are all photon detection events in the HSP.

This is not an "if P then P" statement like that earlier version of your claim. It's definitely an "if P then Q" statement, but look at your P and Q:

P = "the points where the photon world lines intersect the HSP are simultaneous"
Q = "the photon detection events in the HSP are all simultaneous".

P and Q are both true because the HSP is defined to be a set of simultaneous events. So the truth of Q is definitely not a consequence of the truth of P. They are both true by definition.

Do you see what I'm saying here? Your statement is nothing more than "If a bald guy has no hair on his head, then all Saturdays occur during a weekend".

[Thabiguy]

you know it all comes down a bit funny.
If I put three photons one in the middle with one at the back and one in front and have them traveling a 'c' and determine that they are simulaneous and this is a proven fact then SRT is dead meat....it is as simlpe as that....why the fuss, show that these three photons are non-simultaneous and I loose the debate...

One more time: photons cannot be simultaneous. Things don't get to be simultaneous. Events get to be simultaneous. Events. Events.

Events. Not things.

"Two events are simultaneous." :checkmark :thumbsup: :up:

"Two things are simultaneous." :x: :thumbsdow :down:

Please try to keep that in mind.

read the three photon scenario again RealityCheck and see what is wrong with your response...and BTW where's the Duro Matrix construct?;)
three photons one in the middle , one in front and one in the back all traveling at 'c' can not possibly arrive at the same time...sheesh!

That's better - arriving somewhere is an event! That could be simultaneous with some other event (or not). The question is, arriving where.

Two things arriving at the same place at the same time will always be observed as simultaneous by all observers.

Two things arriving at different places can be simultaneous to one observer, and non-simultaneous (happening at different times) to another observer. And no, this has nothing to do with the "information delay" of each respective observer finding out. Even after any such delay is accounted for and compensated, they will still disagree.

[sol invictus]

I think I understand what the picture represents, but I don't understand the claim that if these photons exist simultaneously, they can only be observed simultaneously. As I said, the motion of a photon is represented by a curve that goes through all the hypersurfaces of simultaneity, and not just the HSP. A photon can certainly be detected in any of the others.


I think this goes back to the claim ozzie was trying to make in an earlier thread - that somehow because of time dilation no time passes between the emission and detection of light, and therefore an observer would detect all those photons simultaneously.

The trouble is, that claim is

1) in total conflict with reality, which perhaps ozzie now recognizes (although who knows), and

2) contradicts special relativity, which says no such thing.

My guess at ozzie's "logic" is that he thinks SR predicts that and therefore must be wrong.


ETA - on second thought maybe it's even more dumb than that. At some point ozzie knew that the sparkles in his picture were meant to represent the locations of photons at some instant. But looking at it later he forgot about that and interpreted it as if it were a photograph taken by a camera somewhere (which of course is totally wrong). But if it were a photo, thought ozzie, the camera was detecting all those photons at the same instant even though they were all at different locations - meaning they propagated to the camera infinitely fast and OMG SR IS WRONG!!!

[Mashuna]

lets see,


This statement fails to attend to the issue and is entirely irrelevant
This statement has no more value than a religious arguement given the nature of this threads OP and the question of logical consistancy within SRT.

Why did you ignore the first sentence of post 373 when you made this reply?

[Uncayimmy]

I am the skeptic from hell. I donot care how much some one else wants to convince me of something if they do not have sound rational and reasoning to support it.

I think you need to apply that one to your own arguments.


I do not care how many billions of dollars are invested or billions of hours spent supporting it, nor do I care one iota about how many erudite persons appear to believe they know SRT is perfect.

I have found that it is not. And are awaiting to be convinced that it is.


No. You have failed to understand it. There is a difference. I never said you should accept it because of what others believe. I said that you should strongly consider that you don't understand it since people with far more time and far more at stake have yet to poke a hole in it.

What I have observed is that you cannot even converse on even a low level with those who understand SRT. It's hard to debunk that which you don't understand.


So throwing the old
"if 1 billion flies eat sh*t then it must taste good at me"
is a waste of time.

Never said that and it doesn't apply. What I'm saying is that a billion flies say there's some poop somewhere, I'm not going to argue that it's not poop until I can adequately argue what constitutes poop in the first place.

Saying that SRT has too much experimental support etc is also as this in no way handles the logical question raised and only waste time with posts like this one.

I must have missed the logical question.


I have put a logical arguement to the board and am attempting to deal with it with a number of posters as well. So ...lets deal with it and deal with it professionally. Quoting probability style arguements based on an authority that is actually in question is a total waste of time for every one. [ except I get to learn more about paranoid responses by posters and what seems to drive their fear of rational debate. [ over the holy grail of science]]


This is an important point, so I'll repeat myself. You do NOT understand SRT. You think you have found a flaw in it before you understand it. I'm saying that you should learn SRT before you claim that it's wrong.

I am not telling you to accept anything from authority. I am telling you to learn SRT before you say it's wrong.

[ozziemate]

OK, here's the definition without math: Suppose that you switch on a flashlight and that the light is reflected by a mirror and finally returned to you some time after you switched it on. The event at your location that is simultaneous with the reflection event is the event where you experienced that exactly half the time that you had to wait for the light to return had passed.

When this is combined with the fact that the speed of light is the same for all observers, the result is that different observers won't agree about which events are simultaneous. (But that's a more difficult part of the story).



My interpretation of that:

The image is not to be treated as if it was a photograph. If it had been an actual photograph, the small bright dots would have been caused by photons reaching the camera more or less simultaneously, but those photons would have been emitted at different times. (They have all been moving with the same speed since they were scattered off dust particles towards the camera, but the dust particles are at different distances from the camera so the times of scattering must be different too).

Instead, the image is a picture of a 3-dimensional HSP. Each small bright dot represents an event in the HSP where a photon is located. The locations of the dots are such that they form a sphere. In a spacetime diagram with two spatial dimensions drawn, this sphere would be represented by a circle.


Photons are never stationary, but we can assume that the detectors are.


The events that are represented by bright dots are all simultaneous because we chose them to be. I hope you realize that the motion of each photon traces out a curve (called its "world line") through spacetime, and that that curve intersects each hypersurface of simultaneous events exactly once. What you have done is to make a picture of one such hypersurface, which you call "the HSP", and in that picture you're letting bright dots represent the points where photon world lines intersect the HSP.


No, the duration is zero because we chose to consider a 3-dimensional hypersurface inststead of a 4-dimensional subset of spacetime. You're right that photons don't have rest frames, but that's not relevant here.

I don't understand what d is. Is it the size of a photon? If it is, then I'm OK with it. Photons don't really have a well-defined size (because of quantum theory stuff), but we can certainly treat them as massless point particles here.


I think I understand what the picture represents, but I don't understand the claim that if these photons exist simultaneously, they can only be observed simultaneously. As I said, the motion of a photon is represented by a curve that goes through all the hypersurfaces of simultaneity, and not just the HSP. A photon can certainly be detected in any of the others.

So it seems to me that what you're really saying is that since the points where the photon world lines intersect the HSP (the bright dots) are simultaneous, then so are all photon detection events in the HSP.

This is not an "if P then P" statement like that earlier version of your claim. It's definitely an "if P then Q" statement, but look at your P and Q:

P = "the points where the photon world lines intersect the HSP are simultaneous"
Q = "the photon detection events in the HSP are all simultaneous".

P and Q are both true because the HSP is defined to be a set of simultaneous events. So the truth of Q is definitely not a consequence of the truth of P. They are both true by definition.

Do you see what I'm saying here? Your statement is nothing more than "If a bald guy has no hair on his head, then all Saturdays occur during a weekend".
thanks!
P = "the points where the photon world lines intersect the HSP are simultaneous"
Q = "the photon detection events in the HSP are all simultaneous".

P and Q are both true because the HSP is defined to be a set of simultaneous events. So the truth of Q is definitely not a consequence of the truth of P. They are both true by definition.

is this the same as sying
"if all photons in existance exist simultaneously then it follows that absolutely all observations of photons are simultaneous"

or
put in a way similar to yours:
"if the points where all photons intersect the same HSP are simultaneous then the photon detection events in the HSP are all simultaneous in a zero duration moment"

can we agree?

[ozziemate]

Photons are never stationary, but we can assume that the detectors are.

in a sense yes but at this level of exploring time no they also have no rest frame.
They may appear not to be moving or changing location but matter and mass is still changing within itself at the speed of 'c'.

So in a sense you could if you want to run the abstraction say that the photons intersecting the hsp run in a straight line where as the photons with in the observers substance runs in a short vibratory pattern or what ever but matter is constantly changing at the same rate as the photon, only it doesn't have to go any where to do so. [like a ball bouncing with in a ball - the inner ball is traveling at 'c' yet the outer ball appears to be at rest.]

which poses another fundamental issue that seems to be so confusing to explain..... later maybe...

however how it relates to this question is that the observers duration in the hsp is also the same as the photons that being zero.

and as time flows and the hsp evolves constantly the simultaneity of both photon and observer [ inner photon ] is never broken, because to do so would contradict the universal HSP that you started with in a zero duration moment.
Keeping in mind that in that moment as discussed it is universal and velocity is irrelevant thus the non simultaneity thrown up by non inertial frames is not relevant.

So generating non-inertial RF's would have to break the simultaneity that created them in the first place.

[Tubbythin]

in a sense yes but at this level of exploring time no they also have no rest frame.
They may appear not to be moving or changing location but matter and mass is still changing within itself at the speed of 'c'.
In what sense is matter changing at a rate of c?

[Tubbythin]

and as time flows and the hsp evolves constantly the simultaneity of both photon and observer [ inner photon ] is never broken, because to do so would contradict the universal HSP that you started with in a zero duration moment.
Keeping in mind that in that moment as discussed it is universal and velocity is irrelevant thus the non simultaneity thrown up by non inertial frames is not relevant.


Why are you talking about simultaneity and non-inertial reference frames?

[ozziemate]

quickly drew this animation to show what I mean by matter and phton changing in synch [ simultaneously]
http://bizzymate.com/uploads/images/physics/massphtonsim.gif

on the right we have a light box observer, with a photon continuously traveling in side it.
on the left we have a photon in free space traveling towards the light box observer.

the dotted blue line indicates "a line of simultaneity" as the HSP evolves [ as photon changes location so to does the hsp.

one photon is traveling in a straight line in free space the other is in a recipricating mode inside the light box observer.

The light box is only an analolgy for what mass is in it's fundamental state. and to show that mass/matter is always constantly changing in perfect simultaneity with the photon and has no rest frame.

shall use a better animation later I think...

[ozziemate]

you may recall that earlier in this thread I said that the photon IS time and not a product of time.
Therefore invariance of light speed is also invariance of fundamental time flow as well.

the very reason time dialtion exists is an object of mass/matter is attempting to exceed that fundamental time flow. Dilation is a form of EMR flow rate inertia compensation.

If time was not invariant as suggested, time dilation would never occur in the first place.
which I might add should make sense even if you are using SRT as your premise.

[Tubbythin]

quickly drew this animation to show what I mean by matter and phton changing in synch [ simultaneously]
http://bizzymate.com/uploads/images/physics/massphtonsim.gif

In what sense is the matter chanigng in sync with the photon?


on the right we have a light box observer, with a photon continuously traveling in side it.
on the left we have a photon in free space traveling towards the light boz observer.

the dotted blue line indicates "a line of simultaneity" as the HSP evolves [ as photon changes location so to does the hsp.
What is a line of simultaneity?


one photon is traveling in a straight line in free space the other is in a recipricating mode inside the light box observer.

The light box is only an analolgy for what mass is in it's fundamental state. and to show that mass/matter is always constantly changing in perfect simultaneity with the photon and has no rest frame.

It looks at rest to me. You seem to be proposing your own hypothesis then assuming it is fact. And then saying because SRT disagrees with this, SRT is wrong.


shall use a better animation later I think...
Rather than spend your time on animations, spend you're time trying to understand the theory you are refuting. It would be way more productive.

[sol invictus]

I'm sure Fredrik will respond, but I'm procrastinating from doing some real work, so I'll answer.


is this the same as sying
"if all photons in existance exist simultaneously then it follows that absolutely all observations of photons are simultaneous"

The second part of the statement is clear. It's not true except perhaps in a thought experiment, but one can ask what would be necessary to make it true.

The first part of the sentence: "All photons in existance [sic] exist simultaneously" is incomprehensible. As people keep pointing out to you, the word "simultaneous" applies to only events, not to things which exist for finite amounts of time (like photons, people, and houses).

"if the points where all photons intersect the same HSP are simultaneous then the photon detection events in the HSP are all simultaneous in a zero duration moment"

Each half of the sentence is true by itself - there is no if-then implication. Any set of points on a given HSP are simultaneous by definition (that's what the HSP is - the set of spacetime points at some specific time). So both statements are tautologically true, just like Fredrik's P and Q.

Your statement is like saying: "If every large city in the northern hemisphere is at a north latitude, then every village in the northern hemisphere is at a north latitude." Both statements are true by definition of "northern hemisphere", and the if-then part is extraneous.

[Ziggurat]

I've been out of this thread for a bit, but Ozzie appears as clueless as when I left it. I'm attaching a little figure which corresponds to your original scenario:
http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_11924904ecf47f851.gif (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=14163)
The green line is the position of the star at different times. The red lines are light emitted from the star. The blue lines are observers equidistant from the star, but in different directions.

The top part shows what happens when we consider this scenario from the star's reference frame. As you can see from the dashed line, the intersection of the light from the star with both observers happens at the same time, so the observations are simultaneous in this reference frame.

But what happens when we consider a different reference frame, one in which the star is moving? Well, different theories have different answers. Under Galilean relativity, both observations will remain simultaneous. But in order to keep them simultaneous, the speed of light for the two different directions MUST change. c is not constant under Galilean relativity.

Under special relativity, c remains the same. But if we enforce a constancy of c, you will note that we CANNOT maintain simultaneity of the two events in this new reference frame. It's actually quite simple, but you apparently still don't get it. Hopefully my pictures will help you, but if they don't, perhaps you're just never going to understand relativity.

Edit: some lines disappear in the shrunken image, click on it to get the full picture.

[Tubbythin]

you may recall that earlier in this thread I said that the photon IS time and not a product of time.
Of course. You failed to back it up with any evidence of course.


Therefore invariance of light speed is also invariance of fundamental time flow as well.
There is no such thing as "fundamental time flow"


the very reason time dialtion exists is an object is attempting to exceed that fundamental time flow.
Time dilation exists because there is no unique, universal reference frame.


Dilation is a form of EMR flow rate inertia compensation.
I have absolutely no idea what that is supposed to mean.


If time was not invariant as suggested, time dilation would never occur in the first place.
Time dilation can be observed because there is no unique universal reference frame.

[sol invictus]

Under special relativity, c remains the same. But if we enforce a constancy of c, you will note that we CANNOT maintain simultaneity of the two events in this new reference frame. It's actually quite simple, but you apparently still don't get it. Hopefully my pictures will help you, but if they don't, perhaps you're just never going to understand relativity.

Nice try, but I've concluded that ozzie's misunderstanding is far more basic than that. I think he doesn't understand at all what these diagrams represent. Earlier he posted an animated "space-time diagram" which was, well.... animated. It changed with time (and it was really meant to be time, not some other parameter). No one with the slightest clue would make a mistake like that.

This thread is probably just making it worse. He needs someone to sit down with him and explain the basics very slowly starting from square one... although that might not work either, given his attitude.

[ozziemate]

Of course. You failed to back it up with any evidence of course.


There is no such thing as "fundamental time flow"


Time dilation exists because there is no unique, universal reference frame.


I have absolutely no idea what that is supposed to mean.


Time dilation can be observed because there is no unique universal reference frame.
I am offering a possible explanation for the existance of time dilation whihc so far no one has yet offered that I am aware of...

Maybe tubbythin as you are a very smart person you can offer a reason for what causes time dilation?
you see "my theory" offers potential solutions for the univesral constants where as yours doesn't...

[ozziemate]

I've been out of this thread for a bit, but Ozzie appears as clueless as when I left it. I'm attaching a little figure which corresponds to your original scenario:
http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_11924904ecf47f851.gif (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=14163)
The green line is the position of the star at different times. The red lines are light emitted from the star. The blue lines are observers equidistant from the star, but in different directions.

The top part shows what happens when we consider this scenario from the star's reference frame. As you can see from the dashed line, the intersection of the light from the star with both observers happens at the same time, so the observations are simultaneous in this reference frame.

But what happens when we consider a different reference frame, one in which the star is moving? Well, different theories have different answers. Under Galilean relativity, both observations will remain simultaneous. But in order to keep them simultaneous, the speed of light for the two different directions MUST change. c is not constant under Galilean relativity.

Under special relativity, c remains the same. But if we enforce a constancy of c, you will note that we CANNOT maintain simultaneity of the two events in this new reference frame. It's actually quite simple, but you apparently still don't get it. Hopefully my pictures will help you, but if they don't, perhaps you're just never going to understand relativity.

Edit: some lines disappear in the shrunken image, click on it to get the full picture.

am waiting for Fredrik to respond to our base posts...and thanks again for demonstrating basic relativity to me.
It is true that invariance needs to be handled and it is also true that I beleieve it is handled incorrectly. Simultaneity can be maintained with invariance of 'c' but you got to throw most of SRT out the window to do it. Invariance is what in fact makes it all simultaneous to start with.
and thats the difference.

The how is for another thread,

[Dancing David]

you may recall that earlier in this thread I said that the photon IS time and not a product of time.
Therefore invariance of light speed is also invariance of fundamental time flow as well.

This is true for the interaction of any particle and other particles or space tile. ASre you bigoted against all other partciles, orare you just a photon phile living in a phton centric universe. mesons, neutrinos and plenty of other put your logic to shame.

As well as the fact that the speed of photons changes in thicker medis, so does time slow as well.

Your slip is showing.

the very reason time dialtion exists is an object of mass/matter is attempting to exceed that fundamental time flow. Dilation is a form of EMR flow rate inertia compensation.

not really, but your statements haven't made sense from the start.

Like wow, time slows so that all the virtual partcles can line up at the keg and get a beer.



If time was not invariant as suggested, time dilation would never occur in the first place.
which I might add should make sense even if you are using SRT as your premise.

See there your are, mixing metaphors and getting it all goobered up. The passage of photons is not the only measure of time.

Duh.

[Tubbythin]

I am offering a possible explanation for the existance of time dilation whihc so far no one has yet offered that I am aware of...

Maybe tubbythin as you are a very smart person you can offer a reason for what causes time dilation?
you see "my theory" offers potential solutions for the univesral constants where as yours doesn't...

I'm not sure that anything causes time dilation. It just is.
It is an effect observed simply because there is no reference frame from which we can say "Yes. This is the reference frame of the universe. All other frames are wrong." This comes from the observation that the laws of physics are frame invariant. It then follows that Maxwell's equations are frame invariant. And then from that that the speed of light is frame invariant. And time dilation just plops out from there (by which I mean the mathematics of light speed invariance makes time dilation inevitable).
Can anyone else give a better answer?

ETA: I keep telling you, it aint my theory.

[Dancing David]

I am offering a possible explanation for the existance of time dilation whihc so far no one has yet offered that I am aware of...

Maybe tubbythin as you are a very smart person you can offer a reason for what causes time dilation?
you see "my theory" offers potential solutions for the univesral constants where as yours doesn't...

Not even an explanation, a word salad with idomatic dressing.

But the explanation is not forth coming.

So what experiment Ozzie?

[Perpetual Student]

One further comment: Some people are excessively enamored with their own blathering. This thread is very reminiscent of the "Null Physics" thread that went on and on with circular, fruitless discussions.

[Fredrik]

is this the same as sying
"if all photons in existance exist simultaneously then it follows that absolutely all observations of photons are simultaneous"

No, because the first part of your sentence doesn't make sense. I analyzed it and explained why it doesn't make sense in #358:


"if all photons in existence": In existence where and when? In all of spacetime? In space right now? In that case, according to what definition of "now"?

"exist simultaneously": If the words "all photons in existence" referred to all photons in space right now, you have already said both that they exist and that we're talking about a set of simultaneous events. That would make the sentence so far "if photons that have property P have property P, then..."





or
put in a way similar to yours:
"if the points where all photons intersect the same HSP are simultaneous then the photon detection events in the HSP are all simultaneous in a zero duration moment"

You're getting closer, but this is still a very strange sentence with a few flaws: 1. There are no points where all the photon world lines intersect the HSP. You should be talking about all the points where photon world lines intersect the HSP. 2. The words "in a zero duration moment" are completely redundant. 3. It's the world lines of the photons (the curves in spacetime that represent their motions) that intersect the the HSP, not the photons themselves.

This is how I would say it: "If the points where the photon world lines intersect the HSP are simultaneous, then so are all photon detection events in the HSP".

This is a statement of the form "If P then Q" where P and Q are both true by definition, so it's useless even though it's true.

[ozziemate]

I'm not sure that anything causes time dilation. It just is.
It is an effect observed simply because there is no reference frame from which we can say "Yes. This is the reference frame of the universe. All other frames are wrong." This comes from the observation that the laws of physics are frame invariant. It then follows that Maxwell's equations are frame invariant. And then from that that the speed of light is frame invariant. And time dilation just plops out from there (by which I mean the mathematics of light speed invariance makes time dilation inevitable).
Can anyone else give a better answer?

ETA: I keep telling you, it ain't my theory.

ever asked th most obvious question?
Why are the laws of physics frame invariant?
What physical mechanism allows the universe to have the same laws of physics every where?
It is not good enough to simply postulate something with out offering a mechanism for that thing to exist.

The theory of SRT is premised on a set of postulates that have no mechanism supported by that theory.

The constants that are involved are impossible to achieve and understanding of with the use of SRT.

the laws of physics are a universal constant and need to be explained as to how that is so as well and not just why an object of mass when accelerated needs to maintain it;s internal 'c' change rate by slowing the gain it gets in time...

dilation is not slowing time it is maintaining the invariance of time. Time doesn't slow as if it has somehow sped up and then had to be dilated to come back, Time can never at any time, exceed the invariance so mass and matter changes to accomodate the increase by reducing it's tick rate to maintain the invariance of it's fundamental rate of 'c'.

If you look at the animation with the light box observer you can almost derive the lorenz transforms from it...

But because the lorenz transforms are mistaken you will never be able to do so. But yuo will derive the correect transform if done properly.

So invarinace can be maintained with out a break in simultaneity, just a matter of knowing how to show this in theory, and SRT simply can't do it.

[ozziemate]

"If the points where the photon world lines intersect the HSP are simultaneous, then so are all photon detection events in the HSP".

ok if this satisfies common physics lingo then I shall accept that. It seems correct to me and meets all aspects of the proposition I have kept repeating.

How would you show this in the form of a space /time co-ordinate set?
and even though it appears at this point that zero duration is redundant it should be included because later it will become not so redundant.

x, y , z , t

reason why this is important is that I can then abbreviate the rest of the description that will show why the above will ultimately invalidate SRT's non-simultaneity

[sol invictus]

I'm not sure that anything causes time dilation. It just is.
It is an effect observed simply because there is no reference frame from which we can say "Yes. This is the reference frame of the universe. All other frames are wrong." This comes from the observation that the laws of physics are frame invariant. It then follows that Maxwell's equations are frame invariant. And then from that that the speed of light is frame invariant. And time dilation just plops out from there (by which I mean the mathematics of light speed invariance makes time dilation inevitable).
Can anyone else give a better answer?


That's as good as it gets. It is an experimental fact that the laws of physics are boost and rotation invariant. Those two symmetries (really there are six, since one can rotate or boost around any of the three axes) form the Lorentz group and imply many things, including time dilation, relativity of simultaneity, and Lorentz contraction.

Why the laws of physics are Lorentz invariant is another question, and one better not discussed in this thread (because it's off-topic). The topic was supposed to be a logical proof that SRT is invalid, not an argument over why it is valid.

[Tubbythin]

ever asked th most obvious question?
Why are the laws of physics frame invariant?
I don't know. But there are only two options. They are or they aren't. If they weren't you'd just be asking "why are the laws of physics not frame invariant?" Moreover, the anthropic principle probably hints at why the laws of physics must be frame invariant.


What physical mechanism allows the universe to have the same laws of physics every where?
What physical mechanism would allow them to vary?


It is not good enough to simply postulate something with out offering a mechanism for that thing to exist.
That's rubbish. Start with an observation -> postulate a mechanism that describes the observation -> test the predictions of the postulate against reality-> if it holds try to find a reason why the postulate should hold. Repeat. Start with the simple, move to the more complicated. Don't try to run before you can walk etc etc.


The theory of SRT is premised on a set of postulates that have no mechanism supported by that theory.
The theory of SRT is premised on a set of postulates that conform with real observations that reflect how the Universe is. The efficacy of SRT is independent of whether we know why the postulates of SRT are true or not.


The constants that are involved are impossible to achieve and understanding of with the use of SRT.
You're trying to use SRT outside its remit again.


the laws of physics are a universal constant and need to be explained as to how that is so
The laws of physics are constant and it is desirable to know why.


as well and not just why an object of mass when accelerated needs to maintain it;s internal 'c' change rate by slowing the gain it gets in time...
This is just nonesense you've made up.


dilation is not slowing time it is maintaining the invariance of time. Time doesn't slow as if it has somehow sped up and then had to be dilated to come back, Time can never at any time, exceed the invariance so mass and matter changes to accomodate the increase by reducing it's tick rate to maintain the invariance of it's fundamental rate of 'c'.
Again, this is nonesense you've made up.


If you look at the animation with the light box observer you can almost derive the lorenz transforms from it...
No you can't, the Lorentz transforms come from the consideration of two different inertial reference frames.


But because the lorenz transforms are mistaken you will never be able to do so. But yuo will derive the correect transform if done properly.
This is a statement without substance. You have neither logically nor experimentally shown that the Lorentz transforms are wrong. Moreover, there is a wealth of evidence that they do agree to a very high precision with observable reality.


So invarinace can be maintained with out a break in simultaneity, just a matter of knowing how to show this in theory, and SRT simply can't do it.
Nope. It can't.

[ozziemate]

I'm not sure that anything causes time dilation. It just is.
excuse the tongue in cheek humor but for a scientific statement this equates to saying Adam and Eve left the garden of Eden on a tuesday. Why because they just did....:)

a scientist can not accept the "just is" solution surely....maybe I am just naive but I would have thought that statement to be the antithesis of modern scientific thought.

just is...bah!:)

[Tubbythin]

excuse the tongue in cheek humor but for a scientific statement this equates to saying Adam and Eve left the garden of Eden on a tuesday. Why because they just did....:)

a scientist can not accept the "just is" solution surely....maybe I am just naive but I would have thought that statement to be the antithesis of modern scientific thought.

just is...bah!:)

My point was really, there's no time dilation particle. No time dilation field.
But if you prefer, the cause of time dilation is the invariance of the laws of physics.

[Fredrik]

It is not good enough to simply postulate something with out offering a mechanism for that thing to exist.

The theory of SRT is premised on a set of postulates that have no mechanism supported by that theory.

Again you demonstrate that you don't understand what a theory is. A theory is a bunch of postulates that are capable of predicting the results of experiments, nothing more.

You don't have to provide any sort of motivation for the postulates. If you can, that's great, but that would be a different theory, and it would have its own postulates.

[ozziemate]

Again you demonstrate that you don't understand what a theory is. A theory is a bunch of postulates that are capable of predicting the results of experiments, nothing more.

You don't have to provide any sort of motivation for the postulates. If you can, that's great, but that would be a different theory, and it would have its own postulates.
just an opinion of the inadequacy of simply postulating with out supporting those postulates with a mechanism.

[Tubbythin]

just an opinion of the inadequacy of simply postulating with out supporting those postulates with a mechanism.

You'd just end up with an infinite regression .

[Reality Check]

Ozziemate keeps on repeating:
"if all photons in existance exist simultaneously then it follows that absolutely all observations of photons are simultaneous"
Perhaps I can try to translate this statement using what he has said in the last few hundred posts.
'simultaneous' does not mean at the same constant time, e.g. t=0. 'simultaneous' in his mind means at the time of the hypersphere of the present (the tHSP that appears in some of his posts).

He really means:
"if all photons in existence exist at the observer's present time then it follows that absolutely all observations of photons are at the observer's present time".

In any case:
Ozziemate have you come up with your logical proof that SRT is invalid yet?

ETA: Logical proof of ZPT invalidity (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=127275)

[ozziemate]

Heres another draft animation to show the simultaneous relationship between a traveling phton in free space and our light bix observer mass.
the dotted blue line is an imaginary line of simultaneity construct.

http://bizzymate.com/uploads/images/physics/massphtonsim02.gif

In all instances the photon inside the light box observer [LBO] and the traveling photon in free space are simultaneous.
~a tautology.

The idea is to demonstrate that both photon and LBO change at the same rate simultaneously. Not just the inner photon in the LBO but the entire assembly is changing at the same rate, thus time flow is in this diagram considered as invariant as light speed is.
in this instance simultaneity is not broken even thoughwe have the flow of time.
so it can be conclude using the limitations of the animation that simultaneity will never be broken with time flow.

~ another tautology...
If you stop the animation and pause it you will find the hsp as simutaneous and of zero duration. If you start the animation again you will have time flow demonstrated.

[ozziemate]

Ozziemate keeps on repeating:
"if all photons in existance exist simultaneously then it follows that absolutely all observations of photons are simultaneous"
Perhaps I can try to translate this statement using what he has said in the last few hundred posts.
'simultaneous' does not mean at the same constant time, e.g. t=0. 'simultaneous' in his mind means at the time of the hypersphere of the present (the tHSP that appears in some of his posts).

He really means:
"if all photons in existence exist at the observer's present time then it follows that absolutely all observations of photons are at the observer's present time".

In any case:
Ozziemate have you come up with your logical proof that SRT is invalid yet?

ETA: Logical proof of ZPT invalidity (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=127275)
naah I'll send you a pm when we have worked out how to show you in a way that you can understand.. ok

are you still unable to read what I write or have you managed to fix that?

[Tubbythin]

Heres another draft animation to show the simultaneous relationship between a traveling phton in free space and our light bix observer mass.
the dotted blue line is an imaginary line of simultaneity construct.

http://bizzymate.com/uploads/images/physics/massphtonsim02.gif

In all instances the photon inside the light box observer [LBO] and the traveling photon in free space are simultaneous.
~a tautology.

The idea is to demonstrate that both photon and LBO change at the same rate simultaneously. Not just the inner photon in the LBO but the entire assembly is changing at the same rate, thus time flow is in this diagram considered as invariant as light speed is.
in this instance simultaneity is not broken even thoughwe have the flow of time.
so it can be conclude using the limitations of the animation that simultaneity will never be broken with time flow.

~ another tautology...
If you stop the animation and pause it you will find the hsp as simutaneous and of zero duration. If you start the animation again you will have time flow demonstrated.

I see you've decided to ignore my comment regarding the previous diagram. Any particular reason?

[sol invictus]

As usual, when ozzie can't answer questions and starts to realize he's making a fool of himself he goes on the "attack" (if a limbless knight threatening to bite your ankles is an attack).

Ozzie, I suggest you go back to the discussion with Fredrik. You have something very very basic completely wrong, and he is being patient with you and trying to explain it. If you follow through you might actually learn something. If you don't, you'll just continue like this.

If you're just an attention-seeking troll (as I suspect) you'll choose the second option.

Bye!

[Reality Check]

Heres another draft animation to show the simultaneous relationship between a traveling phton in free space and our light bix observer mass.
the dotted blue line is an imaginary line of simultaneity construct.

http://bizzymate.com/uploads/images/physics/massphtonsim02.gif

In all instances the photon inside the light box observer [LBO] and the traveling photon in free space are simultaneous.
~a tautology.

The idea is to demonstrate that both photon and LBO change at the same rate simultaneously. Not just the inner photon in the LBO but the entire assembly is changing at the same rate, thus time flow is in this diagram considered as invariant as light speed is.
in this instance simultaneity is not broken even thoughwe have the flow of time.
so it can be conclude using the limitations of the animation that simultaneity will never be broken with time flow.

~ another tautology...
If you stop the animation and pause it you will find the hsp as simutaneous and of zero duration. If you start the animation again you will have time flow demonstrated.

So what? Anyone can create pretty pictures showing whatever they like.

You have so far just shown the obvious: observer's detect all events at their present time where all events includes photons arriving, attoms arriving, rocks arriving, etc.

You still need (after 100's of posts) to present your logical proof of SRT invalidity.

Your last attempt had 1 out of 16 steps correct! You can do better. :D

[Fredrik]

ok if this satisfies common physics lingo then I shall accept that. It seems correct to me and meets all aspects of the proposition I have kept repeating.

Great, then we know what your starting assumption is. The next step for you is to realize that it implies nothing.


How would you show this in the form of a space /time co-ordinate set?

If you're asking how to draw it in a spacetime diagram, this is the answer:

1. Draw a point. This is the event where the photons are emitted.
2. Draw a a straight vertical line through the point. This is the world line of the light source.
3. Draw a cone with the tip at the emission event, and the rest of the cone located above that point. The cone must be pointing straight down, and the angle between the surface of the cone and a horizontal plane should be 45 degrees. The cone represents the motion of photons away from the source.
4. Draw a horizontal plane that intersects the cone somewhere (anywhere) above the emission event. This is your HSP.
5. Draw the circle where the plane intersects the cone. This circle represents the photon sphere at a specific time.

Now consider your statement (as it stands after our discussion): "If the points where the photon world lines intersect the HSP are simultaneous, then all photon detection events in the HSP are simultaneous".

The set of points where photon world lines intersect the HSP is the circle you drew.

You can only detect a photon at a location in space where there actually is a photon. Those locations in the HSP are represented by the circle. So the photon detection events in the HSP must be a subset of the circle.

This means that what the statement is really saying is this: "If the points in the circle are all simultaneous, then the points in the circle that represent detection events are all simultaneous".

This statement is true, but it's useless since it's of the form "if P then Q" where P and Q are both true by definition.

[ozziemate]

As usual, when ozzie can't answer questions and starts to realize he's making a fool of himself he goes on the "attack" (if a limbless knight threatening to bite your ankles is an attack).

Ozzie, I suggest you go back to the discussion with Fredrik. You have something very very basic completely wrong, and he is being patient with you and trying to explain it. If you follow through you might actually learn something. If you don't, you'll just continue like this.

If you're just an attention-seeking troll (as I suspect) you'll choose the second option.

Bye!

I am waiting for his response to my last post to his...thank you very much... and yes there is something very basic and fundamentally wrong with SRT and that is what we are getting to

[Tubbythin]

and yes there is something very basic and fundamentally wrong with SRT and that is what we are getting to

Your arrogance knows no bounds.

[ozziemate]

Great, then we know what your starting assumption is. The next step for you is to realize that it implies nothing.


If you're asking how to draw it in a spacetime diagram, this is the answer:

1. Draw a point. This is the event where the photons are emitted.
2. Draw a a straight vertical line through the point. This is the world line of the light source.
3. Draw a cone with the tip at the emission event, and the rest of the cone located above that point. The cone must be pointing straight down, and the angle between the surface of the cone and a horizontal plane should be 45 degrees. The cone represents the motion of photons away from the source.
4. Draw a horizontal plane that intersects the cone somewhere (anywhere) above the emission event. This is your HSP.
5. Draw the circle where the plane intersects the cone. This circle represents the photon sphere at a specific time.

Now consider your statement (as it stands after our discussion): "If the points where the photon world lines intersect the HSP are simultaneous, then all photon detection events in the HSP are simultaneous".

The set of points where photon world lines intersect the HSP is the circle you drew.

You can only detect a photon at a location in space where there actually is a photon. Those locations in the HSP are represented by the circle. So the photon detection events in the HSP must be a subset of the circle.

This means that what the statement is really saying is this: "If the points in the circle are all simultaneous, then the points in the circle that represent detection events are all simultaneous".

This statement is true, but it's useless since it's of the form "if P then Q" where P and Q are both true by definition.
I do apologise it's just that every one has been asking me to establish what simultaneity between all observer/light events in a zero duration moment is and I think you and I have managed to do that....so meaningless it is not....just ask all those who wanted to establish simultaneity in teh first place.

we have done so .....as far as I can tell and now if we can formalise it into a set of co-ordiates that every possible observer/ light event we have a function that can be used with out confusion... did you not see that post requesting such...?

[ozziemate]

So can we agree that we have established that simultaneity has been established between obeserver light events in the zero duration HSP?

remember you guys have been asking for it and well here it is...

if we agree we can move onto how this proves SRT invalid.

[ozziemate]

I see you've decided to ignore my comment regarding the previous diagram. Any particular reason?
yes I have decided not to post a response as you are obviously not capable of seeing the obvious.....which is unfortunate...
what do you mean by "an imaginary line of simultaneity"? sheesh!
it is self explanitory when discussed in the context of simultaneous photons.
or maybe I should just answer: "Just is" and leave it at that...

[Reality Check]

I do apologise it's just taht every onehas been asking me to establish what simultaneity is and I think you and I have managed to do that....so meaningless it is not....just ask all those who wanted to establish simultaneity in teh first place.

we have done so .....as far as I can tell and now if we can formalise it into a set of co-ordiates that every possible observer/ light event we have a function that can be used with out confusion... did you not see that post requesting such...?
There is no exclusive 'observer/ light event'. There is only the observer and the events that they observe. They can observe any kind of event (rocks, atoms, light).
The set of coordinates that an observer can see events from is their null or light cone (that only assumes the constant speed of light). As they move their null cone moves with them.
(I have changed from light cone to null cone since the former is the physics term, the latter is the maths term and this is a maths question).

A function could be written (the equation for a cone with a moving apex?)
But such a function would not help you since you still have not presented your logical proof of SRT invalidity.

A tiny point: You cannot disprove SRT non-simultaneity by changing the definition of simultaneity. So forget about your definition of simultaneity and use SRT's.

[Tubbythin]

yes I have decided not to post a response as you are obviously not capable of seeing the obvious.....which is unfortunate...
There seems to be a certain amount of unintentional irony in this post.
To me the obvious is how absurdly stupid it is to attempt to debunk a theory that has stood the test of time for over a century without even a basic grasp of the theory. But obviously I'm wrong. Just like Einstein's SRT is so obviously wrong.


what do you mean by "an imaginary line of simultaneity"? sheesh!
it is self explanitory when discussed in the context of simultaneous photons.
To me it looks like a line connecting your two dots representing photons.

[ozziemate]

There is no exclusive 'observer/ light event'. There is only the observer and the events that they observe. They can observe any kind of event (rocks, atoms, light).
The set of coordinates that an observer can see events from is their null or light cone (that only assumes the constant speed of light). As they move their null cone moves with them.
(I have changed from light cone to null cone since the former is the physics term, the latter is the maths term and this is a maths question).

A function could be written (the equation for a cone with a moving apex?)
But such a function would not help you since you still have not presented your logical proof of SRT invalidity.

A tiny point: You cannot disprove SRT non-simultaneity by changing the definition of simultaneity. So forget about your definition of simultaneity and use SRT's.
just the equation as asked for , forget about cones as we are talking about zero duration events.

and as such it should be compatible with SRT for such zero duration events
but exclude the need to refer to cones and we will get a starting point for that logical proof.

[Fredrik]

I do apologise it's just taht every onehas been asking me to establish what simultaneity between all observer/light events in a zero duration moment is and I think you and I have managed to do that....so meaningless it is not....just ask all those who wanted to establish simultaneity in teh first place.

It's useful for us to who are trying to discuss this with you to know what your starting assumption is. I just meant that your starting assumption doesn't really say anything. (I explained why).


we have done so .....as far as I can tell and now if we can formalise it into a set of co-ordiates that every possible observer/ light event we have a function that can be used with out confusion... did you not see that post requesting such...?
I described how to draw this in a spacetime diagram, and I showed how to express the statement using references to the diagram. Isn't that sufficient? What more do you want? We could choose to let the time coordinate be 0 in the HSP. Then we have:

\mbox{HSP=}\{(t,x,y,z)\in\mathbb R^4|t=0\}

\mbox{Photon sphere at t=0\ \ \ \ }=\{(0,x,y,z)\in\mbox{HSP}|x^2+y^2+z^2=c^2T^2\}

where T is the time that has passed since the emission event.

Is that the sort of thing you'd like to see? I don't think this sort of mathematical notation is very helpful in a discussion like this. The spacetime diagram that I described represents the same things in a way that's much easier to understand (especially for you), so maybe you should draw it and post it.

[Reality Check]

So can we agree that we have established that simultaneity has been established between obeserver light events in the zero duration HSP?

remember you guys have been asking for it and well here it is...

if we agree we can move onto how this proves SRT invalid.

We can agree that

The duration of the HSP is the duration of the observer's present time. This can be taken to be zero mathematically but a physicist would say that it is at least as big as the Planck time.
Each event that the observer observes is at their present time.
That is not "simultaneity has been established between obeserver light events". It is that all events are observed at the observer's present time.

[ozziemate]

There seems to be a certain amount of unintentional irony in this post.
To me the obvious is how absurdly stupid it is to attempt to debunk a theory that has stood the test of time for over a century without even a basic grasp of the theory. But obviously I'm wrong. Just like Einstein's SRT is so obviously wrong.


To me it looks like a line connecting your two dots representing photons.
and you wonder why I am not repsonding to your posts...you insult me by saying I don not have even a basic grasp of the theory and yet I have proven that I do many times....and then you quote or site a religious style arguement by refering to authority...and you call me arrogant...
sheesh!

sorry but your posts are not constructive enough to warrant responses.

[ozziemate]

any ways I am running out of time for this project so if we do not make progress soon I will have to give it a miss...

[Reality Check]

just the equation as asked for , forget about cones as we are talking about zero duration events.

and as such it should be compatible with SRT for such zero duration events
but exclude the need to refer to cones and we will get a starting point for that logical proof.
You need the cones. They are the result of the constant speed of light. You have stated in the thread before that light moves at 'c'. This also happens to be a postulate of SRT and so removing them makes SRT into not SRT illogically (not what you are trying to do).

[Fredrik]

So can we agree that we have established that simultaneity has been established between obeserver light events in the zero duration HSP?

remember you guys have been asking for it and well here it is...

if we agree we can move onto how this proves SRT invalid.
We all agree that every member of a set of simultaneous events are simultaneous, if that's what you mean. This is true regardless of what definition of "simultaneous" we're using.

[ozziemate]

back in 6

[ozziemate]

naah don't need no cones to prove my point...a couple of imaginary lines should do the trick