Logical proof of SRT invalidity

[ozziemate]

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.:)

[Ziggurat]

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

And what makes you think that the speckling is anything other than noise in the detector caused by secondary internal reflections? I'm afraid that without addressing the possibility of noise, we cannot conclude anything from the speckles in that picture.

It can be reasoned that every speckle of photon light is occurring at the same simultaneous moment.

You can "reason" it all you want to, but it's not true. Photographs are taken over time intervals. Detection events all happened within that time window, but that time window is never instantaneous. In fact, we know that detections are NOT simultaneous, because the number of detections is proportional to the time interval used.

[ozziemate]

And what makes you think that the speckling is anything other than noise in the detector caused by secondary internal reflections? I'm afraid that without addressing the possibility of noise, we cannot conclude anything from the speckles in that picture.



You can "reason" it all you want to, but it's not true. Photographs are taken over time intervals. Detection events all happened within that time window, but that time window is never instantaneous. In fact, we know that detections are NOT simultaneous, because the number of detections is proportional to the time interval used.

the images is a contructed photo shop image being used to suggest the location of photons
made by adding noise to a black background.
Of course we can not normally see a photon that hasn't impacted on matter so your imagination is required to assume the speckle as the location of photons that are impacting upon objects of imaginary matter. You will also have to imagine that the photons are all travelling outward from the source at the rate of 'c'.


it is merely a diagram ...

care to try again....

[Reality Check]

...snip down to reklevant section...
Their relative velocity to each other and to the light source at this stage is not important but can be assumed as zero.
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.
...snip...
(emphais added)
This actually makes sense and is exactly what SRT predicts for observers at rest with respect to each other. Thus your diagram validates SRT rather than invalidates it.

[ozziemate]

(emphais added)
This actually makes sense and is exactly what SRT predicts for observers at rest with respect to each other. Thus your diagram validates SRT rather than invalidates it.
and if you read further:
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.

but I take you point. I do need to clarify the wording of the statement you refer to as it tends to confuse. [Uneccessary information ]
edited op and thanks

[Reality Check]

and if you read further:


but I take you point. I do need to clarify the statement as it tends to confuse. [Uneccessary information ]
edited op and thanks

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.

The speed of light is the same in all reference frames so if the observers are at the same distance from the star then the photons will impact them simultaneously. But if they are at different distances then the photons will take different times to get to them and so the observers will see the photons at different times.
N.B. This is in the reference frame of observer Z who is the observer that took the image.

[ozziemate]

The speed of light is the same in all reference frames so if the observers are at the same distance from the star then the photons will impact them simultaneously. But if they are at different distances then the photons will take different times to get to them and so the observers will see the photons at different times.
N.B. This is in the reference frame of observer Z who is the observer that took the image.
Thank you ...and finally a sound arguement...and I shall respond shortly

[ozziemate]

The speed of light is the same in all reference frames so if the observers are at the same distance from the star then the photons will impact them simultaneously. But if they are at different distances then the photons will take different times to get to them and so the observers will see the photons at different times.
N.B. This is in the reference frame of observer Z who is the observer that took the image.
just to confirm:
At this stage you are saying that all observers are at rel.v = 0 but have differing distance to the light source.
So therfore we are dealing with a simple relative distance issue?

please confirm...

[Ziggurat]

it is merely a diagram ...

That wasn't clear at all from your posts. And given that you're trying to prove something that is wrong, I wasn't exactly in the mood to dig through your post to figure out what you might have meant.

As for disproving SR, you haven't in the slightest. The thing which so many critics of SR don't seem to get is that mathematically, it is COMPLETELY internally consistent. It is a separate question of whether or not it describes reality, but you're not looking for experimental evidence that it's wrong, you're looking for an internal inconsistency. And I can promise you, you won't find one. Just like you can't find an internal inconsistency with Newtonian mechanics (even though it doesn't describe reality). Every single time I've ever come across someone who thought they had, it was because they misunderstood something about the theory.

What happens in your scenario if we look at the star and surrounding observer from a moving reference frame? Well, photons heading towards one observer have to travel farther (because that observer is moving away from the photons) than photons traveling towards another observer. But since the speed of light is still c even in this moving reference frame, the time it takes light to reach those different observers is different. What was simultaneous observations in the reference frame of the star become non-simultaneous obervations in the moving reference frame. This is basic relativity, and you're getting it wrong.

[Dancing David]

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 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.:)

:dl:

Priceless!
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/crackpot.html

"10 points for each statement along the lines of "I'm not good at math, but my theory is conceptually right, so all I need is for someone to express it in terms of equations". "
http://www.crank.net/relativity.html

[ozziemate]

That wasn't clear at all from your posts. And given that you're trying to prove something that is wrong, I wasn't exactly in the mood to dig through your post to figure out what you might have meant.

As for disproving SR, you haven't in the slightest. The thing which so many critics of SR don't seem to get is that mathematically, it is COMPLETELY internally consistent. It is a separate question of whether or not it describes reality, but you're not looking for experimental evidence that it's wrong, you're looking for an internal inconsistency. And I can promise you, you won't find one. Just like you can't find an internal inconsistency with Newtonian mechanics (even though it doesn't describe reality). Every single time I've ever come across someone who thought they had, it was because they misunderstood something about the theory.

What happens in your scenario if we look at the star and surrounding observer from a moving reference frame? Well, photons heading towards one observer have to travel farther (because that observer is moving away from the photons) than photons traveling towards another observer. But since the speed of light is still c even in this moving reference frame, the time it takes light to reach those different observers is different. What was simultaneous observations in the reference frame of the star become non-simultaneous obervations in the moving reference frame. This is basic relativity, and you're getting it wrong.

no, I understand how SRT will state that a relative v observer will experience non-simultaneity. And this is what is in dispute.

Also as I do not subscribe to SRT I am using light as an absolute moving reference frame as a way of showing my contention.
In a sense I am describing an aether of light that is constantly moving at 'c'.
Maybe this point alone needs to be further examined until satisfied.

The problem is I feel that SRT was esssentialy a light effect model but for some reason science has focussed it's attention to matter and mass instead. IMO

I choose with the above OP to focus on the issue of light as a priority and not mass/matter.

According to existing theory on light every speckle in the contructed image indicates a photon particle that is existing simultaneously with every other photon particle regardless of distance from the source. Once this important point is understood and verified the rest flows naturally.

Also apologies for the confusion casued by the OP regarding the images...I have since edited the op to hopefully remove such confusion to future readers.

[ozziemate]

:dl:

Priceless!
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/crackpot.html

"10 points for each statement along the lines of "I'm not good at math, but my theory is conceptually right, so all I need is for someone to express it in terms of equations". "
http://www.crank.net/relativity.html
priceless animation Dancing D thanks.

maybe we can talk about issue avoidance strategies someother time...

[Ziggurat]

no, I understand how SRT will state that a relative v observer will experience non-simultaneity.

But you've demonstrated no understanding of why this is the case in special relativity.

Also as I do not subscribe to SRT I am using light as an absolute moving reference frame as a way of showing my contention.

That makes no sense. I don't know what you think you're doing, but whatever it is, it sure as hell isn't a reference frame.

[Ziggurat]

BTW, ozzie: are you familiar with Galilean relativity? It's worth studying, because it's a theory in which simultaneity is absolute. It just happens to be wrong, but the only way to tell that it's wrong is through experimentation. There are no internal inconsistencies with it. Just like there are no internal inconsistencies in special relativity.

[Reality Check]

just to confirm:
At this stage you are saying that all observers are at rel.v = 0 but have differing distance to the light source.
So therfore we are dealing with a simple relative distance issue?

please confirm...
I am confirming that this is what I think that you have stated and shown in the figure.

[ozziemate]

unfortunately I have to be away for the next 6 hours or so. I shall respond then...
thanks...

[UncaYimmy]

That makes no sense. I don't know what you think you're doing, but whatever it is, it sure as hell isn't a reference frame.

I don't think that's his goal. In fact I think I actually get what he's trying to say. Mind you, I'm not defending his position. I'm just going to try to explain what I think is his point. This will require you to forget everything you've learned about relativity (his no religion comment). You'll need to think in very simplistic terms and deal with (unfortunately) colloquial terms.

Suppose I freeze time. Please, don't assign time and space coordinates to me - that's too sophisticated. Keep it *really* simple. Just pretend I froze time at 9:36 PM Arizona time.

At that exact moment in time (forgive the expression) I'm sitting in front of my computer. Ozzie is perhaps thousands of miles away about to take a bite out of a burger. You might be down the street from me reading a book. The twin in the twin "paradox" is even farther away traveling at 0.9c, but he's somewhere, right? And some strange being on a planet far, far, far, far, far away is drinking a milkshake.

Suppose I could exist outside of this universe (play along, okay?) and visit each of these locations. Suppose further than I could rewind the clock by one minute and let it roll again. Every time my clock here in Phoenix struck 9:36 PM, I would see the beings I described doing what I described at the place I said.

Thus, regardless of where you are or how fast you're moving, at 9:36 PM Arizona time, all of the things I described will (did) happen. Thus, they happened simultaneously.

In other words I *know* what was going on at 9:36 PM in various places in the universe. In theory at 9:36 PM Arizona time something was happening in every conceivable place of the universe. Therefore, these things all happened simultaneously.

Ozzie, am I relating this correctly?

[ingoa]

1]

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.



It can't be reasoned. Either you have the location or the time or a fuzzy mixture of both.

ozziemate: 0
Heisenberg: 1

[nathan]

ozziemate,
Which, if any, of the following are you postulating?

1) Inertial observers disagree on the value of 'c'.

2) The Galilean notion of absolute time.

3) SRT is internally inconsistent.

4) A prediction made by SRT does not reflect reality.

You may be postulating more than one of those, or you may be postulating none of those -- if that's tha case, please be specific about what you are postulating.

[ozziemate]

I don't think that's his goal. In fact I think I actually get what he's trying to say. Mind you, I'm not defending his position. I'm just going to try to explain what I think is his point. This will require you to forget everything you've learned about relativity (his no religion comment). You'll need to think in very simplistic terms and deal with (unfortunately) colloquial terms.

Suppose I freeze time. Please, don't assign time and space coordinates to me - that's too sophisticated. Keep it *really* simple. Just pretend I froze time at 9:36 PM Arizona time.

At that exact moment in time (forgive the expression) I'm sitting in front of my computer. Ozzie is perhaps thousands of miles away about to take a bite out of a burger. You might be down the street from me reading a book. The twin in the twin "paradox" is even farther away traveling at 0.9c, but he's somewhere, right? And some strange being on a planet far, far, far, far, far away is drinking a milkshake.

Suppose I could exist outside of this universe (play along, okay?) and visit each of these locations. Suppose further than I could rewind the clock by one minute and let it roll again. Every time my clock here in Phoenix struck 9:36 PM, I would see the beings I described doing what I described at the place I said.

Thus, regardless of where you are or how fast you're moving, at 9:36 PM Arizona time, all of the things I described will (did) happen. Thus, they happened simultaneously.

In other words I *know* what was going on at 9:36 PM in various places in the universe. In theory at 9:36 PM Arizona time something was happening in every conceivable place of the universe. Therefore, these things all happened simultaneously.

Ozzie, am I relating this correctly?

very very close to the mark and thanks. I especially liked this bit:
In other words I *know* what was going on at 9:36 PM in various places in the universe. In theory at 9:36 PM Arizona time something was happening in every conceivable place of the universe. Therefore, these things all happened simultaneously.

However it is even more simple than that when one accepts that all photons exist at the same time regardless of where they may be...every photon in the universe is simultaneous in time with every photon in the universe.

As such if this is indesputable then all light events must also be simultaneous simply by logical extension.

[ozziemate]

BTW, ozzie: are you familiar with Galilean relativity? It's worth studying, because it's a theory in which simultaneity is absolute. It just happens to be wrong, but the only way to tell that it's wrong is through experimentation. There are no internal inconsistencies with it. Just like there are no internal inconsistencies in special relativity.
from the quick read I have done on Galilean relativity it is not all that relevant to the questions and propositions being put here in this thread.

In this thread I accept that light speed is invariant and changes it's location normally in a straight line at the speed of 'c'
Accordingly as light is also invariant unto itself it is worth considering it's unique position in time.
SR has provided many clues and in using some of those clues we can see the following attributes of light.

Light speed is invariant
Particles or waves of light exist virtually every where in the universe.
As they exist they must do so simultaneously [ t=thsp ]
If a light event is recorded it must incorporate that simultaniety so therefore any moment that is recorded must be simultaneous with all other possible events that can be recorded at that same moment. [ t= t hsp]
That regardless of velocity. time dilation, length contraction or any other factor all recorded light events by any observer at a given moment must be simultaneous, because all photons/waves exist simultaneously. Thus t=thsp is universally simultaneous.

The following animation should indicate the sort of time relationships involved.
http://zeropointtheory.com/images/stories/images/time/10.gif

[ozziemate]

ozziemate,
Which, if any, of the following are you postulating?

1) Inertial observers disagree on the value of 'c'.

2) The Galilean notion of absolute time.

3) SRT is internally inconsistent.

4) A prediction made by SRT does not reflect reality.

You may be postulating more than one of those, or you may be postulating none of those -- if that's tha case, please be specific about what you are postulating.
I am not postulating anything. I am merely throwing up a logical issue I have with the use of light in SRT. How that effects SRT directly I leave to the specialists. I have a reasonable idea of what conflict I am causing.

The issue is to take the logic for what it is regarding the simultaneity of the photons existance universally and then once understood and agreed then determine the ramifications this understanding may have.
If it can be agreed that all photons in existance at any given moment must be simultaneous in time [ t=thsp ] we have acheived a rather significant step. IMO
Once this is agreed then the ramifications flow naturally by logical extension.
But the most important thing is to determine the simultaneity issue regarding photons, the rest is something else again.

[Vorpal]

I am not postulating anything. I am merely throwing up a logical issue I have with the use of light in SRT. How that effects SRT directly I leave to the specialists. I have a reasonable idea of what conflict I am causing.
You're not. STR is exactly as internally consistent as the coordinate geometry most people have in high school. The real issues would be whether it agrees with experiment.

If it can be agreed that all photons in existance at any given moment must be simultaneous in time ...
So you're essentially saying that things at any given moment are simultaneous? That's vacuously true, since it's the very meaning of "moment [in time]".

If UncaYimmy's thought experiment is representative of your idea, then if you "suspend time" and go around the universe making observations (of various things, including photons, supposing for the sake of the hypothetical that you could observe them without absorbing them). If your friend Bob, who was at your position when you "suspended time" but with a large velocity relative to you, also experiences this "suspension" effect, then what Bob would see would be different from your observations (e.g., he'd see the same photons in different positions that you, etc.).

In STR, you can talk of "simultaneous according to so-and-so", but not "simultaneous according to everybody"; the latter is simply incoherent within STR.

[ozziemate]

The speed of light is the same in all reference frames so if the observers are at the same distance from the star then the photons will impact them simultaneously. But if they are at different distances then the photons will take different times to get to them and so the observers will see the photons at different times.
N.B. This is in the reference frame of observer Z who is the observer that took the image.
ok so we are referring to the second image and make the scenario one in which all obsrevers and light source have rel.v of zero.

This is simple stuff I know but to make absolutely clear it needs to be posted

http://zeropointtheory.com/images/stories/images/light/clockfacespeckle01b.jpg

ok so all reference frames A through to F are effectively stationary to each other and the light source.

On that basis it is true that information from a single wave of photons will be delayed by various amounts in reaching all observers. This is obviously true.

However this does not mean that what the observers are recoding at any given moment is non-simultaneous. It only demonstrates that the information recorded by all observers at a given moment is different.

Say we look at two observers
A and F
Obviously if a wave of information is transmitted from the light source observer F is going to get it first, however simultaneously observer A is still experiencing light events of other information, t=thsp is simultaneous for both observers. Information delivery is obviously not.

The photon recorded by A and the photon recorded by F are simultaneous in that moment however their information is different.

[ozziemate]

You're not. STR is exactly as internally consistent as the coordinate geometry most people have in high school. The real issues would be whether it agrees with experiment.


So you're essentially saying that things at any given moment are simultaneous? That's vacuously true, since it's the very meaning of "moment [in time]".

If UncaYimmy's thought experiment is representative of your idea, then if you "suspend time" and go around the universe making observations (of various things, including photons, supposing for the sake of the hypothetical that you could observe them without absorbing them). If your friend Bob, who was at your position when you "suspended time" but with a large velocity relative to you, also experiences this "suspension" effect, then what Bob would see would be different from your observations (e.g., he'd see the same photons in different positions that you, etc.).

In STR, you can talk of "simultaneous according to so-and-so", but not "simultaneous according to everybody"; the latter is simply incoherent within STR.

If you have 10000 photon waves heading one behind the other towards some distant place are all photon waves simultaneous in time?
The animation below shows that both photons emitted, even though one is later than the other, share exactly the same moment in time [ t=thsp ]

http://zeropointtheory.com/images/images/HSP/5.gif

Therefore all photons universally must be simultaneous in time if they exist.
can we agree to this simple bit of logic?

[Vorpal]

ok so all reference frames A through to F are effectively stationary to each other and the light source.
They are stationary relative to one another, but are they also inertial? (I'll assume so, since we're talking about STR.)

On that basis it is true that information from a single wave of photons will be delayed by various amounts in reaching all observers. This is obviously true.
If this means that a the wave will reach observers at A-F at different times, sure.

However this does not mean that what the observers are recoding at any given moment is non-simultaneous.
What the observers are recording "at any given moment" is simultaneous simply because that's what "a given moment" means. I suspect you mean something different from what you're actually saying, because the above is completely vacuous. If you meant to say that their "received wave" events are simultaneous (according to any of them), then that's simply wrong.

If the observers are indeed at rest relative to one another, then they have the same notion of simultaneity. In particular, they will agree that did not receive the spherical wave simultaneously, but in the same order as their radial distance from the source (closest first). They will also agree on the time delays between them, but that's not immediately important here.

[Vorpal]

If you have 10000 photon waves heading one behind the other towards some distant place are all photon waves simultaneous in time?
If you have a bunch of ducklings crossing a street as a uniform speed, are the ducklings simultaneous in time? At any given moment, there are a bunch of ducklings. If you consider that a "yes" for the ducklings, the same thing applies to photons; if you consider that a "no", then again same for the photons. Speaking personally, I don't even see this as a coherent question--their simultaneity is either vacuously true or the entire question is meaningless, depending on interpretation.

[ozziemate]

They are stationary relative to one another, but are they also inertial? (I'll assume so, since we're talking about STR.)


If this means that a the wave will reach observers at A-F at different times, sure.


What the observers are recording "at any given moment" is simultaneous simply because that's what "a given moment" means. I suspect you mean something different from what you're actually saying, because the above is completely vacuous. If you meant to say that their "received wave" events are simultaneous (according to any of them), then that's simply wrong.

If the observers are indeed at rest relative to one another, then they have the same notion of simultaneity. In particular, they will agree that did not receive the spherical wave simultaneously, but in the same order as their radial distance from the source (closest first). They will also agree on the time delays between them, but that's not immediately important here.
but it was if you read Reality Checks post.
And of course this is basic stuff. [ sometimes it is needed to be clear about it though. ]

The reason why I bothered to detail it is to show again that all photons in a photon field universally exist in the same simultaneous moment.
e.g.
A photon 13 billion ly s way from another photon exist simultaneously.

Is this true or not?

[surprising this is a very hard thing to get an answer to even though it is sooooo simple]

[ozziemate]

Definition:
vacuously true:
A vacuous truth is a truth that is devoid of content because it asserts something about all members of a class that is empty or because it says "If A then B" when in fact A is false. For example, the statement "all cell phones in the room are turned off" may be true simply because there is no cell phone in the room.


If you mean what I think you mean in the use of the word "vacuously" then NO is the only answer I can give you

[ozziemate]

The issue is extraordinarilly simple and that is what is probably causing the problem.
[ probably because the ramifications could be so severe]

"If all photons in existance exist simultaneously then....." what?

[Vorpal]

Alright, you got me--I was using in the non-technical sense of being content-free. If you want me to rephrase to be technically correct, substitute "tautologously". A statement like
"The observations recorded a particular moment are simultaneous."
is a tautology, and hence devoid of content. That's why I said I suspect you meant to say something else, e.g., that they receive the spherical light pulse at different times, and went from there.

[Reality Check]

However it is even more simple than that when one accepts that all photons exist at the same time regardless of where they may be...every photon in the universe is simultaneous in time with every photon in the universe.

As such if this is indesputable then all light events must also be simultaneous simply by logical extension.
But this thread is about SRT not something that you 'accept', i.e. assume to be true regardless of its validity. That discussion is elsewhere and points out that the idea is very disputable (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4143783&postcount=1449).

You still need to provide your logical proof of SRT invalidity.
Is it a mathematical error in the use of the Lorentz transformation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lorentz_transformation) in SRT?
Maybe Einstein made a logical error in the application of the SRT postulates?

You may want to consider the experimental evidence for and mathematical consistency of SRT:

Experimental evidence
A number of experiments support special relativity when compared against other theories. These include:

The Michelson-Morley experiment - round trip speed of light variations (as a function of angle with "aether velocity"), no effect found
The Hammar experiment - obstruction of ether flow by mass, no effect found
The Trouton-Noble experiment - torque on a capacitor (as a function of angle with "aether velocity"), no effect found
The Trouton-Rankine experiment - change in resistance of a coil of wire (as a function of angle with "aether velocity"), no effect found
The Kennedy-Thorndike experiment - like the Michelson-Morley experiment except with unequal length interferometer arms (again no variation in the round trip speed of light was detected)
The Ives-Stilwell experiment - transverse doppler shift was confirmed
Experiments to test emitter theory demonstrated that the speed of light is independent of the speed of the emitter.
The Sagnac effect, a phenomenon that is taken in to account in GPS synchronisation procedures, is predicted by both special relativity and Galilean relativity and is thus neutral evidence as far as special relativity is concerned.
In addition, experimental Tests of general relativity (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tests_of_general_relativity) for the most part also verify special relativity, since the laws of special relativity are included as part of General Relativity.
Mathematical consistency
Mathematically, special relativity is internally consistent, being nothing more than the geometry of rotationally symmetric (=isotropic) Minkowski space, together with a requirement that all laws of nature be inertial frame invariant. To date, efforts of many amateur physicists to create thought-experiments within special relativity with genuine logical paradoxes have gone in vain, unless one assumes the existence of objects which do not seem to exist in special relativity (see below). However, it is certainly possible to create thought-experiments which have unintuitive consequences, and which contradict some other theories.
WP (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Status_of_special_relativity)

[ozziemate]

Alright, you got me--I was using in the non-technical sense of being content-free. If you want me to rephrase to be technically correct, substitute "tautologously". A statement like
"The observations recorded a particular moment are simultaneous."
is a tautology, and hence devoid of content. That's why I said I suspect you meant to say something else, e.g., that they receive the spherical light pulse at different times, and went from there.
yes a tautology would be more appropriate:)

stating a simple truth as a first premise and work from there...is the method.
However first there must be agreement to that tautology.

"Using the current light effect model all photons if they exist, do so simultaneously"

a tautology yes?

still need agreement though before the rest of the propostion can be made sense of.

[Vorpal]

"If all photons in existance exist simultaneously then....." what?
Then nothing. First, not all photons exist simultaneously because they are emitted and observed at different times. We can fix this, of course, by considering an isolated system that emits a light pulse (as you have), and considering times before any photons are observed. Then at any given moment, there are photons, and they exist simultaneously, but it does not mean that the pulse reaches observers A-F at the same time. It's just a trivial observation about the meaning of the terms "moment" and "simultaneous".

It's like looking at the ducklings crossing the street--at any moment, there they are, so they "exist simultaneously". It's doesn't mean anything deeper than semantics.

[ozziemate]

Then nothing. First, not all photons exist simultaneously because they are emitted and observed at different times.

ok so we have the issue right in front of our face so to speak....

lets use this scenario:

I stand on a hill top and point my high powered laser into empty space [ I happen to know that no object will ever block it's path.
I turn my laser on and leave it on for 1000000 years.

At the year 1 million I then assess the light field I have generated. a beam of photons all travelling in a straight line for 1M lys distance.
At the moment of assessment I click my stop watch and note that all photons in the beam of light I have created from laser to a point 1M lys away, are simultaneous in that moment. [ an awful ot of photons yes?]

So for a distance of 1M lys every single photon shares the same t=thsp
I click the stop watch again 10 seconds later and note again that all photons occur simultaneously and so on.....

So it can be concluded that all photons in existance must exist simultaneously regardless of when I click my stop watch. and I can only click my stop watch at the same simlutanoue t=thsp as the photons I have generated.

Therefore my t=thsp is simultaneous with the photon 1M lys away and all the photons between.

[Reality Check]

but it was if you read Reality Checks post.
And of course this is basic stuff. [ sometimes it is needed to be clear about it though. ]

The reason why I bothered to detail it is to show again that all photons in a photon field universally exist in the same simultaneous moment.
e.g.
A photon 13 billion ly s way from another photon exist simultaneously.

Is this true or not?

[surprising this is a very hard thing to get an answer to even though it is sooooo simple]
They exist simultaneously, i.e. photon 1 exists at a point 13 billion years from where photon 2 exists. That is all the information that you have provided.
This is indeed 'sooooo simple'!

You also have to state when the clocks for the photons were started, e.g. it might be when the photons were emitted.
If the photons were just emitted then they have the same time (t1=0 and t2=0).
If the photons were emitted from the same source then they have the same time (t1=6.5 billion years and t2=6.5 billion years).
If photon 1 was emitted 1 billion years ago and photon 2 was emitted 12 billion years ago then t1=1 billion years and t2=12 billion years.

[Reality Check]

ok so we have the issue right in front of our face so to speak....

lets use this scenario:

I stand on a hill top and point my high powered laser into empty space [ I happen to know that no object will ever block it's path.
I turn my laser on and leave it on for 1000000 years.

At the year 1 million I then assess the light field I have generated. a beam of photons all travelling in a straight line for 1M lys distance.
At the moment of assessment I click my stop watch and note that all photons in the beam of light I have created from laser to a point 1M lys away, are simultaneous in that moment. [ an awful ot of photons yes?]

So for a distance of 1M lys every single photon shares the same t=thsp
I click the stop watch again 10 seconds later and note again that all photons occur simultaneously and so on.....

So it can be concluded that all photons in existance must exist simultaneously regardless of when I click my stop watch. and I can only click my stop watch at the same simlutanoue t=thsp as the photons I have generated.

Therefore my t=thsp is simultaneous with the photon 1M lys away and all the photons between.
You forgot about the clock that you started to determine that 1 million years have passed. Thus t = 1 million years when you clicked on the stop watch.

[ozziemate]

I'll draw up an animation to show this issue a bit more clearly and post it soon.

[ozziemate]

You forgot about the clock that you started to determine that 1 million years have passed. Thus t = 1 million years when you clicked on the stop watch.

No as t=1M is time passed and not indicative of the moment of clicking. t=1M is a historical record only. past and not present.

[Tubbythin]

So do you now believe in travelling photons ozziemate?

[ozziemate]

They exist simultaneously, i.e. photon 1 exists at a point 13 billion years from where photon 2 exists. That is all the information that you have provided.
This is indeed 'sooooo simple'!

You also have to state when the clocks for the photons were started, e.g. it might be when the photons were emitted.
If the photons were just emitted then they have the same time (t1=0 and t2=0).
If the photons were emitted from the same source then they have the same time (t1=6.5 billion years and t2=6.5 billion years).
If photon 1 was emitted 1 billion years ago and photon 2 was emitted 12 billion years ago then t1=1 billion years and t2=12 billion years.
the moment of emittion is historical and no longer relevant to our photons current moment

[ozziemate]

So do you now believe in travelling photons ozziemate?
my belief is irrelevant to this thread Tubbythin, dealing with logic only.

[Reality Check]

the moment of emittion is historical and no longer relevant to our photons current moment
Then all you state is the position of the photons. There is no information about the value of their time coordinates. Thus they can be anything. I select t1 = 42 and t2 = 13 billion - 42.

[ozziemate]

I dug up this old animation to help explain how the emission point is historic
http://zeropointtheory.com/images/stories/images/light/2.gif
you need to add a negative sign (-) to all values shown to indicate the emission point as being in the past

[Reality Check]

No as t=1M is time passed and not indicative of the moment of clicking. t=1M is a historical record only. past and not present.
Then t = -1 million years for the first photon emitted, t = 0 for the first photon emitted when you click the stopwatch, add to t at a rate of 1 second per second for any further photons, etc.

[ozziemate]

Then all you state is the position of the photons. There is no information about the value of their time coordinates. Thus they can be anything. I select t1 = 42 and t2 = 13 billion - 42.

All I am stating is that the moment for all photons is simultaneous. You can apply what ever time you like to all of them if you so choose to do so.
However the only ones that exist are the ones that exist at t=thsp all others are either historic or future...

[Mashuna]

All I am stating is that the moment for all photons is simultaneous. You can apply what ever time you like to all of them if you so choose to do so.
However the only ones that exist are the ones that exist at t=thsp all others are either historic or future...

Like ducklings?


It's like looking at the ducklings crossing the street--at any moment, there they are, so they "exist simultaneously". It's doesn't mean anything deeper than semantics.

[ozziemate]

Then t = -1 million years for the first photon emitted, t = 0 for the first photon emitted when you click the stopwatch, add to t at a rate of 1 second per second for any further photons, etc.
maybe so but the emmision time is irrelevant to the question. because as soon as a photon is emitted the moment in question is in the past. Where as the photon that was emitted is always at t=thsp

[Reality Check]

All I am stating is that the moment for all photons is simultaneous. You can apply what ever time you like to all of them if you so choose to do so.
However the only ones that exist are the ones that exist at t=thsp all others are either historic or future...
Then you are saying that there are 2 photons:

Photon 1 is at postion A and it has a time of t=x.
Photon 2 is at a position B that is 13 billion lightyears from position A and it has a time of t=x.
There is no causal relationship between the photons and so x can be anything, i.e. they may or may not have been emitted by a single source, they may or may not have been emitted by separate sources ad any distance apart.

thsp does not exist in this case since you have not specified that there is an observer and so there is no hypersphere of present time.

[Reality Check]

maybe so but the emmision time is irrelevant to the question. because as soon as a photon is emitted the moment in question is in the past. Where as the photon that was emitted is always at t=thsp
That is correct. Each photon was emitted at the time of the observer's (your) hypersphere of present time, i.e. thsp.
So when you clicked the stopwatch thsp = 0
After 1 second thsp = 1 second
After 2 seconds thsp = 2 second, etc.

[nathan]

It can't be reasoned. Either you have the location or the time or a fuzzy mixture of both.

ozziemate: 0
Heisenberg: 1

Position and time aren't conjugate variables. position and momentum form a pair, as to time and energy.

[Reality Check]

In fact let us make this more explicit. Forget about past times.
You have a source that is set to emit 3 photons at an interval of 1 second.
You have a stopwatch that when clicked starts measuring time and turns the source on.
At t = 0 you click the stopwatch.
When the stopwatch reads t = 1, photon A is emitted. thsp = 1.
When the stopwatch reads t = 2, photon B is emitted. thsp = 2.
When the stopwatch reads t = 3, photon C is emitted. thsp = 3.

Photon A's time starts at t = 1 and increases at a rate of 1 second per second.
Photon B's time starts at t = 2 and increases at a rate of 1 second per second.
Photon C's time starts at t = 3 and increases at a rate of 1 second per second.
In each case the photon is emitted at t = thsp but the value of thsp is different for each photon.

[ozziemate]

I see we are still at odds ...
I have drawn up a quick animation shown below:

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

what it shows is a propagating light field over 5 years
You will notice that there is no historical light field or source just merely a "reality" that progresses in time
At all times the photon field and source maintain t=thsp
any other information is temporal or historic or predictive [ future]

[Reality Check]

I see we are still at odds ...
I have drawn up a quick animation shown below:

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

what it shows is a propagating light field over 5 years
You will notice that there is no historical light field or source just merely a "reality" that progresses in time
At all times the photon field and source maintain t=thsp
any other information is temporal or historic
The reality is that thsp starts at the observer's present time and goes to observer's present time + 5 years.

ETA: I think you missed this:
But this thread is about SRT not something that you 'accept', i.e. assume to be true regardless of its validity. That discussion is elsewhere and points out that the idea is very disputable (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4143783&postcount=1449).
That dicussion includes the observer's hypersurface of the present and the facts that this needs an observer and changes as the observer's clock changes.

You still need to provide your logical proof of SRT invalidity.
Is it a mathematical error in the use of the Lorentz transformation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lorentz_transformation) in SRT?
Maybe Einstein made a logical error in the application of the SRT postulates?

[ozziemate]

As an aside to the topic , you can also deduce from the animation that the entire universe is changing at the rate of 'c'.

The source of light in the middle is changing as the light field propogates at the same rate as that propagation.

So the universe has an inherant change rate of 'c'

[Reality Check]

Please get back to the OT.

[ozziemate]

The reality is that thsp starts at the observer's present time and goes to observer's present time + 5 years.

yet that time +5 years has no historic data other than historic. The measurement of time passage is temporal I hope you realise and not anything but something mankind plays with in his head.

the metric used is an abstraction, an imaginary utility.

[Reality Check]

yet that time +5 years has no historic data other than historic. The measurement of time passage is temporal I hope you realise and not anything but something mankind plays with in his head.

the metric used is an abstraction, an imaginary utility.
The metric used is a mthematical abstraction and of paramount utility.
Who cares if the time is "historic" - it still exists! The photons existed during that time.

But that is the last that I will say on this derailing of the OT.
Please get back to the OT.

[ozziemate]

The reality is that thsp starts at the observer's present time and goes to observer's present time + 5 years.

ETA: I think you missed this:
But this thread is about SRT not something that you 'accept', i.e. assume to be true regardless of its validity. That discussion is elsewhere and points out that the idea is very disputable (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4143783&postcount=1449).
That dicussion includes the observer's hypersurface of the present and the facts that this needs an observer and changes as the observer's clock changes.

You still need to provide your logical proof of SRT invalidity.
Is it a mathematical error in the use of the Lorentz transformation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lorentz_transformation) in SRT?
Maybe Einstein made a logical error in the application of the SRT postulates?
are you in a hurry to go somewhere or something?

hmmmmm...

it is as stated in the thread OP that if allphotons in a light field are simultaneous then every observer who is effected by that light will also be simultaneously effected.

and that is it in a nut shell.

so to prove the point one only has to show that all light event exist in a simultaneous moment regardless of whether you want to call it hsp or steven of t=0 or NOW or presnt or dynamic NOWw or dynamic present...It doesn't matter..
The point is simply that if all photons that exist do so simultaneously to each other then by logical extension all observations of photons must also be simultaneous.
so whats so hard about that?
as to the implications for SRT that is pretty clear don't you think. There is no need to prove anything beyond the logic presnted, no need for maths, or reference to Lorenze or anything like that. Just simply show that all photons are simultaneous when they exist and the rest is history. [ excuse the pun -]

[Reality Check]

are you in a hurry to go somewhere or something?

hmmmmm...

it is as stated in the thread OP that if allphotons in a light field are simultaneous then every observer who is effected by that light will also be simultaneously effected.

and that is it in a nut shell.

so to prove the oint one only has to show that all light event exist in a simultaneous moment regardless of whether you want to call it hsp or steven of t=0 or NOW or presnt or dynamic NOWw or dynamic present...It doesn't matter..
The point is simply that if all photons that exist do so simultaneously to each other then by logical extension all observations of photons must also be simultaneous.
so whats so hard about that?
The point is that that is your assumption. You have to prove it and you have not. Protons do not exist simultaneously as shown in the other thread.

It is not an assumption of SRT. It is not a logical proof of SRT invalidity.

Moderators:
It looks like this thread is becoming the Proof of the photon that is unambiguous? (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=125336) thread in disguise (that thread is really all about ozziemate's 'all photons that exist do so simultaneously' idea). Can you merge this thread with it?

[ozziemate]

The metric used is a mthematical abstraction and of paramount utility.
Who cares if the time is "historic" - it still exists! The photons existed during that time.

But that is the last that I will say on this derailing of the OT.
Please get back to the OT.
yes but alas they have moved on and left nothing behind them.... poetic...:)

[ozziemate]

The point is that that is your assumption. You have to prove it and you have not. Protons do not exist simultaneously as shown in the other thread.

It is not an assumption of SRT. It is not a logical proof of SRT invalidity.

Moderators:
It looks like this thread is becoming the Proof of the photon that is unambiguous? (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=125336) thread in disguise (that thread is really all about ozziemate's 'all photons that exist do so simultaneously' idea). Can you merge this thread with it?
so you are sayng that this diagram is wrong:
http://zeropointtheory.com/images/stories/images/light/5.gif

how so?

[Reality Check]

so you are sayng that this diagram is wrong:
http://zeropointtheory.com/administrator/index.php?option=com_media

how so?
I have no idea what the diagram is.

[ozziemate]

The point is that that is your assumption. You have to prove it and you have not. Protons do not exist simultaneously as shown in the other thread.

It is not an assumption of SRT. It is not a logical proof of SRT invalidity.

Moderators:
It looks like this thread is becoming the Proof of the photon that is unambiguous? (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=125336) thread in disguise (that thread is really all about ozziemate's 'all photons that exist do so simultaneously' idea). Can you merge this thread with it?
Reality Check, what on earth are you talking about?
The Op is clearly nothing to do with the other thread.
And that thread is or was about as it's op stated until it got totally off topic

[ozziemate]

I have no idea what the diagram is.
have another look:
http://zeropointtheory.com/images/stories/images/light/5.gif
tell me what do you see?

[Reality Check]

Reality Check, what on earth are you talking about?
The Op is clearly nothing to do with the other thread.
That thread was derailed into your "d=0 for light" idea.
This thread has been derailed into your "d=0 for light" idea.

Or are you finally going to produce your 'Logical proof of SRT invalidity' rather than an idea that has been shown to be wrong in the other thread.

[Reality Check]

have another look:
http://zeropointtheory.com/images/stories/images/light/5.gif
tell me what do you see?
A couple of moving dots.

[Reality Check]

have another look:
http://zeropointtheory.com/images/stories/images/light/5.gif
tell me what do you see?
If they are photons then the distance scale is the same as a time scale so you have 2 photons moving in time and distance.

[ozziemate]

A couple of moving dots.

hmmm...thats what i thought....

I am actually defending the existance of distance for the phton in this thread so I fail to see how you can make that concusion about the issue discussed in the other thread of d=0 for a photon....

[ozziemate]

If they are photons then the distance scale is the same as a time scale so you have 2 photons moving in time and distance.

and the most important part of the animation is that they do so simultaneously.....
the pink line connecting the dots [ photons ] is symbolic of the t=thsp
http://zeropointtheory.com/images/stories/images/light/5.gif

[Reality Check]

and the most important part of the animation is that they do so simultaneously.....
they are not simultaneous as in at a constant time. Time changes for them. Each goes from a time of t=0 to a another time.

[ozziemate]

Reality Check
also did this animation I posted earlier mean anything to you?
http://zeropointtheory.com/images/stories/images/light/light_time.gif
shows light field propogation over five years.

[Reality Check]

and the most important part of the animation is that they do so simultaneously.....
the pink line connecting the dots [ photons ] is symbolic of the t=thsp
http://zeropointtheory.com/images/stories/images/light/5.gif
For the fifth or sixth time: No observer so no tHSP

The first photon leaves at t=10am and traves at c.
The second photon leaves at t = 10:01am and travels at c.

So what?

[ozziemate]

they are not simultaneous as in at a constant time. Time changes for them. Each goes from a time of t=0 to a another time.
ahh but thats were we are at odds....

Time does not change for a photon, a photon IS time.

which is why 'c' is not a velocity but only a speed if I am not mistaken....[ I could be though and maybe someone else woudl liek to step in...]

[Reality Check]

Reality Check
also did this animation I posted earlier mean anything to you?
http://zeropointtheory.com/images/stories/images/light/light_time.gif
shows light field propogation over five years.
Yes and time passes there too.

Moderators:
Definitely merge this with the other thread. There has been no mention of SRT for a while now.


Moderators:
It looks like this thread is becoming the Proof of the photon that is unambiguous? (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=125336) thread in disguise (that thread is really all about ozziemate's 'all photons that exist do so simultaneously' idea). Can you merge this thread with it?


I will leave ozziemate with his non-science for now.

[ozziemate]

For the fifth or sixth time: No observer so no tHSP

The first photon leaves at t=10am and traves at c.
The second photon leaves at t = 10:01am and travels at c.

So what?
put the two animations together...

and you can see that the only thing that ever exists is t=thsp as everything else is temporal or a mere memory.

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

[ozziemate]

anyways enough from me for now...back in 8 hours or so..

[wollery]

Oh dear.

Ozziemate, all you are saying is that if you stop the Universe at any give instance, and examine several photons, you will find that they are all in existence at the same time.

This statement is so blatantly, trivially, obviously true, that it really doesn't need saying.

It also proves, precisely, nothing. Nada. Zip. Zilch. Keines. Rien. Meiyou!

SRT only deals with events, and the time dependent observations of those events. It applies to information, and the transmission of information, and you have already admitted that photons in a given wave-front take time to travel a given distance, which renders your simultaneity idea utterly meaningless in regards to SRT.

[Dancing David]

no, I understand how SRT will state that a relative v observer will experience non-simultaneity. And this is what is in dispute.

Also as I do not subscribe to SRT I am using light as an absolute moving reference frame as a way of showing my contention.
In a sense I am describing an aether of light that is constantly moving at 'c'.

Oh whoops there is that pesky aether!

I knew it was there!

"6. 5 points for using a thought experiment that contradicts the results of a widely accepted real experiment. "

Maybe this point alone needs to be further examined until satisfied.

The problem is I feel that SRT was esssentialy a light effect model but for some reason science has focussed it's attention to matter and mass instead. IMO

2. 1 point for every statement that is widely agreed on to be false.

3. 2 points for every statement that is clearly vacuous.

4. 3 points for every statement that is logically inconsistent.

5. 5 points for each such statement that is adhered to despite careful correction.


I choose with the above OP to focus on the issue of light as a priority and not mass/matter.

According to existing theory on light every speckle in the contructed image indicates a photon particle that is existing simultaneously with every other photon particle regardless of distance from the source. Once this important point is understood and verified the rest flows naturally.

"37. 50 points for claiming you have a revolutionary theory but giving no concrete testable predictions."


Also apologies for the confusion casued by the OP regarding the images...I have since edited the op to hopefully remove such confusion to future readers.

[Dancing David]

priceless animation Dancing D thanks.

maybe we can talk about issue avoidance strategies someother time...

Considering you avoid answering direct questions...

[Dancing David]

I am not postulating anything. I am merely throwing up a logical issue I have with the use of light in SRT. How that effects SRT directly I leave to the specialists. I have a reasonable idea of what conflict I am causing.

You disagree with something you don't understand, then say it doesn't matter...Where is your magic unicorn riding sky pixie?

In other words where is your evidence?

Grandeur or reality?
Only your hair dresser lnows for sure.


The issue is to take the logic for what it is regarding the simultaneity of the photons existance universally and then once understood and agreed then determine the ramifications this understanding may have.

So the thoughts you have are more imporatant than the behavior of reality, we got that.

What testable evidence do you have?

NeoPlatonic ramblings?


If it can be agreed that all photons in existance at any given moment must be simultaneous in time [ t=thsp ] we have acheived a rather significant step.

Show it, what evidence do you have, none?

that figures.

IMO
Once this is agreed then the ramifications flow naturally by logical extension.
But the most important thing is to determine the simultaneity issue regarding photons, the rest is something else again.

Uh huh, you need to do something else, this is not healthy for you.

[Dancing David]

but it was if you read Reality Checks post.
And of course this is basic stuff. [ sometimes it is needed to be clear about it though. ]

The reason why I bothered to detail it is to show again that all photons in a photon field universally exist in the same simultaneous moment.
e.g.
A photon 13 billion ly s way from another photon exist simultaneously.

Is this true or not?

[surprising this is a very hard thing to get an answer to even though it is sooooo simple]

In your head , yes.

In reality , no.

Direct questions to answer!

1.How do they exist with each other?

2.How can they establish a time frame with each other?

3.What links them?

(So how do they communicate? How do they establish they are in the same time frame? How do establish that they exist simutaneously?)

Rememebr to show your work, this is at the heart of science, you are violating some very well demonstrated experiements here.

it makes sense in abstraction, how about reality?

[Dancing David]

The issue is extraordinarilly simple and that is what is probably causing the problem.
[ probably because the ramifications could be so severe]

"If all photons in existance exist simultaneously then....." what?

Big IF!

And what evidence can you present to show that this is true?

(You know the basis of replication and observation?)

In abstracted head space this is true, now extend it to reality, how do the photons interact to exchange the frame of universal reference?

You really should read up on your physics, you have made this counter to relativity but you don't understand the basis of it.

What happens if one of your photons sends a packet of information to another photon?

Direct question to answer:

How does the universal time frame establish itself?

[Dancing David]

yes a tautology would be more appropriate:)

stating a simple truth as a first premise and work from there...is the method.
However first there must be agreement to that tautology.

"Using the current light effect model all photons if they exist, do so simultaneously"

a tautology yes?

still need agreement though before the rest of the propostion can be made sense of.


Not agreement evidence.
Not agreement evidence.
Not agreement evidence.
Not agreement evidence.
Not agreement evidence.
Not agreement evidence.
Not agreement evidence.
Not agreement evidence.
Not agreement evidence.
Not agreement evidence.

[Fredrik]

As an aside to the topic , you can also deduce from the animation that the entire universe is changing at the rate of 'c'.

The source of light in the middle is changing as the light field propogates at the same rate as that propagation.

So the universe has an inherant change rate of 'c'
This is a wonderful example of how both your conclusions and the way you explain them can be total nonsense. Don't you realize that saying that the universe's rate of change is c makes no sense? I can only guess what that would mean, and other people's guesses probably won't be the same as mine.

How did you arrive at that conclusion? It looks like you just drew a spacetime diagram and noticed that both the light source and the light is present on each horizontal line. Duh. It's like that because you decided to draw a spacetime diagram. That's what a spacetime diagram is. And how does c enter into your conclusion?

[Dancing David]

ok so we have the issue right in front of our face so to speak....

lets use this scenario:

I stand on a hill top and point my high powered laser into empty space [ I happen to know that no object will ever block it's path.
I turn my laser on and leave it on for 1000000 years.

At the year 1 million I then assess the light field I have generated. a beam of photons all travelling in a straight line for 1M lys distance.
At the moment of assessment I click my stop watch and note that all photons in the beam of light I have created from laser to a point 1M lys away, are simultaneous in that moment. [ an awful ot of photons yes?]

So for a distance of 1M lys every single photon shares the same t=thsp
I click the stop watch again 10 seconds later and note again that all photons occur simultaneously and so on.....

So it can be concluded that all photons in existance must exist simultaneously regardless of when I click my stop watch. and I can only click my stop watch at the same simlutanoue t=thsp as the photons I have generated.

Therefore my t=thsp is simultaneous with the photon 1M lys away and all the photons between.

Simple direct question:

You can assume that to be so, but how can you show where they are?

(This is crucial to getting out of head space and into reality, they may have been diverted by a Magic Pokemon called Reflectomon. How do you show where they are, not where you think they are, but where they are?)

this is crucial.

[nathan]

I am not postulating anything. I am merely throwing up a logical issue I have with the use of light in SRT. How that effects SRT directly I leave to the specialists. I have a reasonable idea of what conflict I am causing.

Do you know what postulating means? You claim you're not postulating anything, but you sure are proposing a number of contradictory and ill-described things.

If you're not postulating anything, why did you start a thread about proving SRT logically incorrect?

[ozziemate]

Oh dear.

Ozziemate, all you are saying is that if you stop the Universe at any give instance, and examine several photons, you will find that they are all in existence at the same time.

This statement is so blatantly, trivially, obviously true, that it really doesn't need saying.

It also proves, precisely, nothing. Nada. Zip. Zilch. Keines. Rien. Meiyou!

SRT only deals with events, and the time dependent observations of those events. It applies to information, and the transmission of information, and you have already admitted that photons in a given wave-front take time to travel a given distance, which renders your simultaneity idea utterly meaningless in regards to SRT.


nope, I am saying a lot more than that, I would suggest that you read the OP again but this time a little more carefully.
If you have a contra arguement to any of it lets see it in quote style line by line...thanks

[ozziemate]

Do you know what postulating means? You claim you're not postulating anything, but you sure are proposing a number of contradictory and ill-described things.

If you're not postulating anything, why did you start a thread about proving SRT logically incorrect?
actually I was incorrect in my response to yours.
I am actually claiming to have logical proof that invalidates SRT.
That logic has been presented in the OP.
and explained further as the thread has progressed.
It relies on one simple fact. That all photons in existance must share the same simultaneous constantly changing moment, the t=-thsp

So therefore every observed event universally must take place when the photon exists in time and that is always simultaneously at a constantly changing t=thsp

the logic is really simple ....
maybe thinking of the t=thsp as a constantly changing [at 'c'] event horizon might help but I doubt it...


anyways I have repeated myself enough...

[nathan]

I am actually claiming to have logical proof that invalidates SRT.

So you are claiming that SRT is internally inconsistent, right?

[wollery]

nope, I am saying a lot more than that, I would suggest that you read the OP again but this time a little more carefully.I have read the OP, and your consequent explanations of it.

And I hate to correct you on your own idea, that really is all you are saying!

If you have a contra arguement to any of it lets see it in quote style line by line...thanksThe problem with your argument is extremely trivial, and simple to explain.

You are viewing all of this from one particular reference frame. Suppose we have another observer in another reference frame viewing the same situation. You both stop the Universe at the same instance and observe where the photons are. You both agree on the positions of the photons. Then you both allow 10 seconds to pass, each by your own stopwatch, and repeat the observations. You both agree that all of the photons are still simultaneous. However you will now disagree about where they are. Let's try it another way. You both agree to allow the photons to move a particular distance, and then stop your stopwatches. You both still agree that all of the photons are simultaneous, and now agree on where they are, but now you disagree on how much time has passed.

You have tried (rather clumsily) to define an absolute reference frame in which all events happen, but there is no such thing as an absolute reference frame, which is the entire point of relativity!

[The Man]

You have tried (rather clumsily) to define an absolute reference frame in which all events happen, but there is no such thing as an absolute reference frame, which is the entire point of relativity!

Indeed, wollery, it seems all ozziemate is saying (which has probably been pointed out before) is that if we disregard the history of experiments to the contrary and postulate that SRT is invalid then we can logically conclude from and within the limits of that postulation that, well, SRT is invalid.

[The Man]

Therefore all photons universally must be simultaneous in time if they exist.



In reviewing the rest of this thread I noticed this statement that is indicative of a ignorance of the fundamental aspects of phase.

Two photons may exist at some given time but are not nesserly simultaneous at that time as they can have some or no phase difference at that time. This is easily demonstrated by interference (resulting from the sum of amplitudes in and out of phase at that time and location) of photons from a single source and even a singe photon.

[Ziggurat]

from the quick read I have done on Galilean relativity it is not all that relevant to the questions and propositions being put here in this thread.

It is very relevant. The fact that you don't understand why is due to the fact that you don't understand the difference between Galilean relativity and special relativity. Galilean relativity preserves absolute simultaneity for all reference frames, but it cannot preserve the constancy of c. Relativity preserves c for all reference frames, but it cannot preserve absolute simultaneity. The two are mathematically incompatible. You are essentially claiming that they are compatible.

You clearly don't understand special relativity (no big deal, most people don't, it takes time and effort and math skills to really do so), but perhaps you can understand Galilean relativity (which is mathematically much simpler). If you get a good handle on Galilean relativity and its enforcement of absolute simultaneity, and if you can understand why this absolute simultaneity necessarily makes c non-absolute, perhaps you will have some appreciation for why preserving c in special relativity necessarily breaks absolute simultaneity in special relativity. But if you can't understand Galilean relativity and why c cannot be constant in such a theory, then there's no hope of you understanding anything from special relativity.

[Dancing David]

I dug up this old animation to help explain how the emission point is historic
http://zeropointtheory.com/images/stories/images/light/2.gif
you need to add a negative sign (-) to all values shown to indicate the emission point as being in the past


Ooops, so now you are showing transitory states where there is not some universal time coefficient.

So what is the speed of the tranmitted partcile and how do you determine an absolute frame of reference?

[Dancing David]

my belief is irrelevant to this thread Tubbythin, dealing with logic only.

What no evidence?

Where is your evidence?

Do clocks on sattelites show time dialation?

Why?

[NobbyNobbs]

ahh but thats were we are at odds....

Time does not change for a photon, a photon IS time.

which is why 'c' is not a velocity but only a speed if I am not mistaken....[ I could be though and maybe someone else woudl liek to step in...]



Pardon me for a moment, I'm not by any means an expert on SRT, but this jumped out at me. A photon IS time?? This is one of the more ridiculous statements I've seen in this thread.

Does this imply that, given a particular region in space, if there is no photon in that region, that time is not passing in that region?

Photons are particles. They are also waves. As far as I know, neither particles or waves are time. Time is a construct we use to differentiate what has already been experienced from what has yet to be experienced,

Or, to put it another way (and in direct contradiction to ozziemate), time is nature's way of keeping everything from happening at once.

[nathan]

Galilean relativity preserves absolute simultaneity for all reference frames, but it cannot preserve the constancy of c. Relativity preserves c for all reference frames, but it cannot preserve absolute simultaneity. The two are mathematically incompatible. You are essentially claiming that they are compatible.

A pedant points out that they are compatible when you set c to infinity. Doing that collapses SRT to Galilean relativity.

But of course, that would contradict the available evidence :)

[Frinkiak7]

Ozzie, I think the problem most of us have is that you don't actually appear to be saying anything at all.

You state that all events that happen simultaneously, happen simultaneously. Great. Wonderful. Perfect. By definition of the term "simultaneously", you're right. 1 point.

The issue isn't what happens, it's the observation of the thing that's happening.

Think of two cones, one turned point down, and the two points touching. These are called "past and future light cones". The event that we're describing, X (say the emission of a photon from a star) happens at the point where the two cones meet. The boundaries of the cones indicate a distance from the event equal to t+c, or the time elapsed before the event and after the event times the speed of light. That gives you an indication of who can observe the event: those inside the light cone can observe it, those outside cannot. If you exist outside that photon's light cone, you cannot observe it. Period. Why? Because outside of a universal reference frame, which does not exist, you do not have any information leading you to deduce that the event happened other than speculation.

I assume that there are photons that are being emitted from a star 13 billion light years away. I cannot observe them, therefore I cannot measure them. If I cannot measure them, I cannot with certainty say they exist. The fact that they might exist is indisputable. The fact that they do exist is not.

And therein lies your problem. You have assumed that there are photons 13 billion light years away. There may well be. But, there is a greater than zero probability that there are not. You can't know that. Therefore, you cannot with certainty predict that your postulate is correct... whatever that postulate was.

[Tubbythin]

I stand on a hill top and point my high powered laser into empty space [ I happen to know that no object will ever block it's path.
I turn my laser on and leave it on for 1000000 years.

At the year 1 million I then assess the light field I have generated. a beam of photons all travelling in a straight line for 1M lys distance.
At the moment of assessment I click my stop watch and note that all photons in the beam of light I have created from laser to a point 1M lys away, are simultaneous in that moment. [ an awful ot of photons yes?]


So for a distance of 1M lys every single photon shares the same t=thsp
I click the stop watch again 10 seconds later and note again that all photons occur simultaneously and so on.....


So it can be concluded that all photons in existance must exist simultaneously regardless of when I click my stop watch. and I can only click my stop watch at the same simlutanoue t=thsp as the photons I have generated.

Therefore my t=thsp is simultaneous with the photon 1M lys away and all the photons between.

All you have said here is that YOU agree with YOURSELF what the distribution of photons spatially and temporally look like. This, as others have pointed out, is unbelievably obviously true. Its just like asking "If I think the sea is blue, what colour do I think the sea is?"
What you really need to ask is "What does Fred, moving in a different inertial reference frame, think the distribution of photons spatially and temporally look like?"

[UncaYimmy]

Ozziemate, all you are saying is that if you stop the Universe at any give instance, and examine several photons, you will find that they are all in existence at the same time.

This statement is so blatantly, trivially, obviously true, that it really doesn't need saying.

I think that's what he's saying, too. Once again I'll take a stab at what he's driving at because (I may be naive here) he doesn't seem like he's doing this for sport. It seems like he thinks he's on to something.

Another way to state what you did about stopping the universe is to say that at any given instant the all the photons existing in the universe exist at that exact instant. They all exist simultaneously regardless of when they were emitted. Seems like a "well, duh!" statement because it is. At any given instant everything that exists does so simultaneously at that instant.

So, what does this have to do with SRT? Mind you, I am only trying to act like an interpreter, so please don't shoot the messenger. :eek: SRT says (as I understand it) that simultaneity is not absolute, but dependent on the observer.

Well, we just agreed that all those photons exist simultaneously. Therefore, without any math, we just proved that SRT is invalid.

Ozzie, am I getting this right?

[Reality Check]

put the two animations together...

and you can see that the only thing that ever exists is t=thsp as everything else is temporal or a mere memory.

http://zeropointtheory.com/images/stories/images/light/light_time.gif
That statement is a bit strange. Time is time ("temporal") or a mere memory?
In SRT time is a coordinate in space-time. The whole point of space-time is that it is a coordinate system where space and time are combined. But maybe you do not know this. I suggest that you read the Wikipedia article Spacetime (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spacetime).

You seem to have a different definition of tHSP than the standard usage in SRT. What is it?

[RecoveringYuppy]

Does this imply that, given a particular region in space, if there is no photon in that region, that time is not passing in that region?

Do you think there is an obvious answer to that question? (is there even an obvious meaning to the question?)

Pardon me for a moment, I'm not by any means an expert on SRT, but this jumped out at me. A photon IS time?? This is one of the more ridiculous statements I've seen in this thread.

Doesn't seem like the most ridiculous to me. You might want to revive this thread (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=111799) where at least two people thought there was some merit to the idea that photons and/or gravitions served as a "chroniton".

[ozziemate]

Compare these two animations showing essentially the same thing but from different perspectives:

http://zeropointtheory.com/images/stories/images/light/light_time.gif~~~~~~http://bizzymate.com/uploads/images/physics/light_time02.gif

both show a continuously changing t=thsp

[RecoveringYuppy]

You still misunderstand the light cone diagram then. Your animation on the left should be an expanding sphere rising in the top cone of right hand animation. Basically eliminate the animated circle on the right diagram and superimpose the expanding sphere of the left animation on to the top cone of the right hand animation.

A simpler way to explain it: The expanding circle of the right diagram needs to be moving up, just like the expanding circle or sphere of the left animation. Time is the vertical axis in both diagrams. Any change over time needs to have vertical motion in both diagrams.

[ozziemate]

You still misunderstand the light cone diagram then. Your animation on the left should be an expanding sphere rising in the top cone of right hand animation. Basically eliminate the animated circle on the right diagram and superimpose the expanding sphere of the left animation on to the top cone of the right hand animation.

A simpler way to explain it: The expanding circle of the right diagram needs to be moving up, just like the expanding circle or sphere of the left animation. Time is the vertical axis in both diagrams. Any change over time needs to have vertical motion in both diagrams.


ok...so I can see how my re-interpretation of the light cones is confusing.

I place the t=thsp which is demonstrated by the expanding light field always between the future and past cones simly because to be the present it must be between the future and past.
To move the HSP into the future makes it a prediction and not an actuality. To move it into the past is to make it a historic record and again not an actuality [ other than history]

The logical proof of SRT invalidity requires a re-interpretation of what is commonly held to be true.

A photon can not exist in the future cone, however it may be "predicted" to exist.

The premise is that at any given moment the universe may very well cease to exist a sort of Schrödinger's cat (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schroedinger%27s_cat) scenario where by the future can only be deteremined as a fantasy yet to occur. And the past is no longer present and a mere temporal history.

There is a need I think to clarify what is historical and what is prediction and therefore derive the present. [ HSP ]

[ozziemate]

summary of my re-interpretation:
"time flows through the HSP and not the HSP flows through time"

[Reality Check]

ok...so I can see how my re-interpretation of the light cones is confusing.

I place the t=thsp which is demonstrated by the expanding light field always between the future and past cones simly because to be the present it must be between the future and past.
To move the HSP into the future makes it a prediction and not an actuality. To move it into the past is to make it a historic record and again not an actuality [ other than history]

The logical proof of SRT invalidity requires a re-interpretation of what is commonly held to be true.

A photon can not exist in the future cone, however it may be "predicted" to exist.

The premise is that at any given moment the universe may very well cease to exist a sort of Schrödinger's cat (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schroedinger%27s_cat) scenario where by the future can only be deteremined as a fantasy yet to occur. And the past is no longer present and a mere temporal history.

There is a need I think to clarify what is historical and what is prediction and therefore derive the present. [ HSP ]

What is your definition of tHSP?

[Tubbythin]

I place the t=thsp which is demonstrated by the expanding light field always between the future and past cones simly because to be the present it must be between the future and past.


Then the cones are utterly meaningless!

[ozziemate]

What is your definition of tHSP?

I place the t=thsp which is demonstrated by the expanding light field always between the future and past cones simply because to be the present it must be between the future and past.
To move the HSP into the future makes it a prediction and not an actuality. To move it into the past is to make it a historic record and again not an actuality [ other than history]

The HSP is a constantly changing event horizon as time flows "through it"
this is demonstrated by the experience of time as humans in that :
"as I sit waiting for the train I notice only that my watch shows how much time has passed [temporal] and notice no actual passage of time except by the movement of others around me [temporal]."
The HSP is effectively stationary betweenn future and past and time flows through it.

[Reality Check]

BTW ozziemate, you do realize that the light cone diagram is not really about light? That the focus of the light cone diagram is the observer and what the observer can observe?
Thus there is no such thing as an 'expanding light field'. The light does not expand or move. The observer moves.

[ozziemate]

What is your definition of tHSP?
I totally disagree, the cones as Einstein and co drew are very useful.
especially if you apply them to issues like time dilation as the top and bottom cone collapse to demonstrate the change in tick rates.

[Reality Check]

The HSP is a constantly changing event horizon as time flows "through it"
this is demonstrated by the experience of time as humans in that :
"as I sit waiting for the train I notice only that my watch shows how much time has passed [temporal] and notice no actual passage of time except by the movement of others around me [temporal]."
The HSP is effectively stationary betweenn future and past and time flows through it.
That is not how SRT defines HSP. The hypersphere of the present is the the observer's present time as defined by their clock.

I have just looked at my watch. That is my tHSP.
I have just looked at my watch again. That is my tHSP again and it is different to the previous tHSP.
I have just looked at my watch yet again. That is my tHSP yet again and it is different to the previous tHSP's.

[ozziemate]

BTW ozziemate, you do realize that the light cone diagram is not really about light? That the focus of the light cone diagram is the observer and what the observer can observe?
Thus there is no such thing as an 'expanding light field'. The light does not expand or move. The observer moves.

you may need to reword this response Reality Check. As from what I can tell from it you are now suggesting that d=0 for light and d=x for the observer.[matter]

[Tubbythin]

I totally disagree, the cones as Einstein and co drew are very useful.
especially if you apply them to issues like time dilation as the top and bottom cone collapse to demonstrate the change in tick rates.

Of course they're very useful... but not if we don't move along the vertical axis since these effects will always be in the past/future!

[Reality Check]

I totally disagree, the cones as Einstein and co drew are very useful.
especially if you apply them to issues like time dilation as the top and bottom cone collapse to demonstrate the change in tick rates.
The light cones never 'collapse to demonstrate the change in tick rates'. They are always the boundaries of what the observer can see using light. They are always cones.

[ozziemate]

That is not how SRT defines HSP. The hypersphere of the present is the the observer's present time as defined by their clock.


and this is where I think it is incorrect. Should read:
..The hypersphere of the present is the observers time defined by the light events occuring"

and certainly not by a clock which is an imaginary construct.

[Tubbythin]

you may need to reword this response Reality Check. As from what I can tell from it you are now suggesting that d=0 for light and d=x for the observer.[matter]

Where on Earth did you get that from?

[Tubbythin]

and this is where I think it is incorrect. Should read:
..The hypersphere of the present is the observers time defined by the light events occuring"

and certainly not by a clock which is an imaginary construct.

Clocks don't exist now?

[ozziemate]

The light cones never 'collapse to demonstrate the change in tick rates'. They are always the boundaries of what the observer can see using light. They are always cones.
if you reinterpret the cones you can change the angle of the slopes from 45deg to what ever angle required to reflect time dilation [ if I am not mistaken]

so the assembly is flattened to show the effects of dilation on the world line traveling through the HSP.

The reference frame in use maintains the 45 deg slope and the relatve v RFs get the altered angles... [ off topic I might add]

[Reality Check]

you may need to reword this response Reality Check. As from what I can tell from it you are now suggesting that d=0 for light and d=x for the observer.[matter]
No I am am not. The light cone diagrams are not about light. They are about what the observer can observe. They are 2D or 3D projections of a 4D spacetime (you may have missed that).
The light cones are there beacuse of the postulates of SRT.

[ozziemate]

I think that's what he's saying, too. Once again I'll take a stab at what he's driving at because (I may be naive here) he doesn't seem like he's doing this for sport. It seems like he thinks he's on to something.

Another way to state what you did about stopping the universe is to say that at any given instant the all the photons existing in the universe exist at that exact instant. They all exist simultaneously regardless of when they were emitted. Seems like a "well, duh!" statement because it is. At any given instant everything that exists does so simultaneously at that instant.

So, what does this have to do with SRT? Mind you, I am only trying to act like an interpreter, so please don't shoot the messenger. :eek: SRT says (as I understand it) that simultaneity is not absolute, but dependent on the observer.

Well, we just agreed that all those photons exist simultaneously. Therefore, without any math, we just proved that SRT is invalid.

Ozzie, am I getting this right?


with out being pedantic....spot on and well done!:D
edit: it is not so much that SRT is invalid it is more to do with our current interpretation of it.
relative time [tick rates] co-exists with an absolute t= thsp

"There was a theory in use just prior to SRT which for the moment I can not recall that alowed for both relat9ive tick rates and absolute time"... any one?

[Reality Check]

if you reinterpret the cones you can change the angle of the slopes from 45deg to what ever angle required to reflect time dilation [ if I am not mistaken]

so the assembly is flattened to show the effects of dilation on the world line traveling through the HSP.

The reference frame in use maintains the 45 deg slope and the relatve v RFs get the altered angles... [ off topic I might add]
You are mistaken. The speed of light is constant in all reference frames (a postualte of SRT - you may have heard of that theory before:rolleyes:).

You may want to read this sometime - light cone (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Light_cone):

In special relativity, a light cone (or null cone) is the pattern describing the temporal evolution of a flash of light in Minkowski spacetime. This can be visualized in 3-space if the two horizontal axes are chosen to be spatial dimensions, while the vertical axis is time.
The light cone is constructed as follows. Taking as event p a flash of light (light pulse) at time t0, all events that can be reached by this pulse from p form the future light cone of p, while those events that can send a light pulse to p form the past light cone of p.
Given an event E, the light cone classifies all events in spacetime into 5 distinct categories:

Events on the future light cone of E.
Events on the past light cone of E.
Events inside the future light cone of E are those which are affected by a material particle emitted at E.
Events inside the past light cone of E are those which can emit a material particle and affect what is happening at E.
All other events are in the (absolute) elsewhere of E and are those that will never affect and can never be affected by E.

If space is measured in light-seconds and time is measured in seconds, the cone will have a slope of 45°, because light travels a distance of one light-second in vacuum during one second. Since special relativity requires the speed of light to be equal in every inertial frame, all observers must arrive at the same angle of 45° for their light cones. This is ensured by the Lorentz transformation. Elsewhere, an integral part of light cones, is the region of spacetime outside the light cone at a given event (a point in spacetime). Events that are elsewhere from each other are mutually unobservable, and cannot be causally connected.
(emphasis added)

[Tubbythin]

with out being pedantic....spot on and well done!:D

The problem is, as has already been explained to you... Observers in different inertial frames do not agree on time and space. While you may measure that your laser was on for a million years other inertial observers will not agree. They will have to wait for what you observe to be longer than one million years before what they observe to be a million years has passed.

[ozziemate]

In special relativity, a light cone (or null cone) is the pattern describing the temporal evolution of a flash of light in Minkowski spacetime. This can be visualized in 3-space if the two horizontal axes are chosen to be spatial dimensions, while the vertical axis is time.
The light cone is constructed as follows. Taking as event p a flash of light (light pulse) at time t0, all events that can be reached by this pulse from p form the future light cone of p, while those events that can send a light pulse to p form the past light cone of p.
Given an event E, the light cone classifies all events in spacetime into 5 distinct categories:
Events on the future light cone of E.
Events on the past light cone of E.
Events inside the future light cone of E are those which are affected by a material particle emitted at E.
Events inside the past light cone of E are those which can emit a material particle and affect what is happening at E.
All other events are in the (absolute) elsewhere of E and are those that will never affect and can never be affected by E.
If space is measured in light-seconds and time is measured in seconds, the cone will have a slope of 45°, because light travels a distance of one light-second in vacuum during one second. Since special relativity requires the speed of light to be equal in every inertial frame, all observers must arrive at the same angle of 45° for their light cones. This is ensured by the Lorentz transformation. Elsewhere, an integral part of light cones, is the region of spacetime outside the light cone at a given event (a point in spacetime). Events that are elsewhere from each other are mutually unobservable, and cannot be causally connected.
you will also notice the emphasis on the word temporal....
also:
as space collapses for an observer travelling at relatve v his time line shrinks thus the future time cone [ as I call it ] slope changes it angle. yet 'c' is maintained as invariant.

So in re-interpreting the light cones I would call them "time cones" instead.
using light hsp as your constant and all other aspects as variables.

[Tubbythin]

So in re-interpreting the light cones I would call them "time cones" instead.
using light hsp as your constant and all other aspects as variables.

Time doesn't pass for things moving at c. Your suggestion, seems to do away with time altogether and make all events simultaneous!

[ozziemate]

The problem is, as has already been explained to you... Observers in different inertial frames do not agree on time and space. While you may measure that your laser was on for a million years other inertial observers will not agree. They will have to wait for what you observe to be longer than one million years before what they observe to be a million years has passed.

the bottom line Tubbythin is simple:

If all photons in existance exist simultaneously then all observations of those photons regardless of relative velocity must also be simultaneous"
How SRT handles this is it's problem.

The rest of discussion about light cones, time cones, and etc etc is just playing around with it.

If what is stated is true then SRT is due for re-interpretation...end of story.

You tell the board maybe:

If all photons exist simultaneously what does this mean to the observer of those photons?

maybe you have another outcome you coudl suggest but it [ the answer] seems pretty obvious to me.

[Reality Check]

you will also notice the emphasis on the word temporal....
also:
as space collapses for an observer travelling at relatve v his time line shrinks thus the future time cone [ as I call it ] slope changes it angle. yet 'c' is maintained as invariant.

So in re-interpreting the light cones I would call them "time cones" instead.
using light hsp as your constant and all other aspects as variables.
You should not reinterpret them. They have a specific definition in SRT as the surface between what spacetime events the observer can see and what spacetime events they cannot see.

Even if you reinterpret them they still do not collapse. They are still cones. Light still travels 1 light second per second. The only way that they can collapse is if you remove the constant speed of light in all reference frames postulate of SRT.

ETA: In SRT space does not collapse for an observer at relatve v. Nor does his time line shrink (whatever that means).
You are confused about what another observer sees for an observer travelling at a relative v. That observer measures time diilation and length contraction for the other obsever. But the other observer does not measure time diilation or length contraction for themselves.

[ozziemate]

Time doesn't pass for things moving at c. Your suggestion, seems to do away with time altogether and make all events simultaneous!

almost there tubby almost there....

all events are simultaneous yes.
time still passes though.
because the HSP is a continuously changing event horizon [ no stasis ]
our clocks are only an attempt to apply a measurement to that continuum of change which we record temporally or historically or make predictions with.

[RecoveringYuppy]

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

Isn't it immediately obvious that this isn't true?

[Tubbythin]

the bottom line Tubbythin is simple:

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


Simultaneous according to whom?

[ozziemate]

You should not reinterpret them. They have a specific definition in SRT as the surface between what spacetime events the observer can see and what spacetime events they cannot see.

Even if you reinterpret them they still do not collapse. They are still cones. Light still travels 1 light second per second. The only way that they can collapse is if you remove the constant speed of light in all reference frames postulate of SRT.


this is no important to the debate.
Maybe you can also suggest what happens if all photons in existance are simultaneous and how that relates to the observer who can only witness photons that are all simultaneous...

[ozziemate]

Simultaneous according to whom?
to other photons in existance.
one photon exists simultaneously with every other photon or to make it really clear,
every other photon exists simultaneously with one photon....
light it self is univerally simultaneous phenonema.

[Tubbythin]

almost there tubby almost there....

all events are simultaneous yes. time still passes though.

All events are not simultaneous. Eg, the Big Bang event happened some 300,000 years before the decoupling of radiation and matter. The battle of Hastings occured nine hundreed and forty two years before I typed this message... There's the small matter of cause and effect too.

[Reality Check]

this is no important to the debate.
Maybe you can also suggest what happens if all photons in existance are simultaneous and how that relates to the observer who can only witness photons that are all simultaneous...
If all photons in existence are simultaneous (exist at every possible space time point) then the universe is filled with photons at every point in space and forever. The observer thus sees photons wherever the observer is and forever. This includes in places where photons should not be, e.g. in a steel, lead-lined box sited at the center of the Earth.

ETA: At last we have a prediction from your zero point theory: A dark room cannot exist!

[Tubbythin]

to other photons in existance.
one photon exists simultaneously with every other photon or to make it really clear,
every other photon exists simultaneously with one photon....
light it self is univerally simultaneous phenonema.

Time does not pass for photons. Simultaneity is utterly meaningless in the reference frame of a photon.

[ozziemate]

If all photons in existence are simultaneous (exist at every possible space time point) then the universe is filled with photons at every point in space and forever. The observer thus sees photons wherever the observer is and forever. This includes in places where photons should not be, e.g. in a steel, lead-lined box sited at the center of the Earth.

ETA: At last we have a prediction from your zero point theory: A dark room cannot exist!

what is a photon? are you just talking about visible light spectrum?

And you fail to consider that the photons location is constantly changing at 'c'

so therefore the light field is universally changing at 'c'

an Observer can not observe a future photon nor can he observe a past photon, all he can observe is the current constantly changing "stream" of photons. HSP
And if all photons [EMR] exist simultaneously as SRT requires, then all observations must by logical extension be simultaneous.

For light speed to be invariant in all frames then light must be simultaneous to itself - a tautology as one poster said...

the logic is really simple, one can not occur with out the other

[ozziemate]

Time does not pass for photons. Simultaneity is utterly meaningless in the reference frame of a photon.
I beg to differ ....
http://zeropointtheory.com/images/stories/images/light/lightspecklediag01a.jpg


it is very meaningful and blatantly simple

[Tubbythin]

what is a photon? are you just talking about visible light spectrum?

And you fail to consider that the photons location is constantly changing at 'c'
Again, according to whom?

[Reality Check]

what is a photon? are you just talking about visible light spectrum?

And you fail to consider that the photons location is constantly changing at 'c'

so therefore the light field is universally changing at 'c'

an Observer can not observe a future photon nor can he observe a past photon, all he can observe is the current constantly changing "stream" of photons. HSP
And if all photons [EMR] exist simultaneously as SRT requires, then all observations must by logical extension be simultaneous.

For light speed to be invariant in all frames then light must be simultaneous to itself - a tautology as one poster sad...

the logic is really simple, one can not occur with out the other
A photon is light.
That is correct - an observer sees all present light. If light is everywhere and for all time (simultaneous as you have defined it) then the observer sees light everywhere at the present time.

The logic is extermely simple, one can not occur with out the other.

[ozziemate]

So I ask the board to consider what this statement means:

"If all photons in existance exist simultaneously then all observations of those photons must also be simultaneous"
keeping in mind that a photon is never at rest and constantly moving at 'c'.

[RecoveringYuppy]

And if all photons [EMR] exist simultaneously as SRT requires, then all observations must by logical extension be simultaneous.

Again, isn't it obvious this is wrong?

[Tubbythin]

I beg to differ ....
http://zeropointtheory.com/images/stories/images/light/lightspecklediag01a.jpg


it is very meaningful and blatantly simple

Time does not pass for photons. Neither does space. This picture is therefore meaningless.

[ozziemate]

Time does not pass for photons. Neither does space.
True as the photon IS time, IS change, IS a universal constant, time does not occur for a photon because it IS time.

[Tubbythin]

So I ask the board to consider what this statement means:

"If all photons in existance exist simultaneously then all observations of those photons must also be simultaneous"
keeping in mind that a photon is never at rest and constantly moving at 'c'.

In the rest frame of the photon, the photon is stationary. Such a thing doesn't exist in SRT.... because SRT deals with inertial reference frames travelling at subluminal speeds.

[Tubbythin]

True as the photon IS time, IS change, IS a universal constant, time does not occur for a photon because it IS time.

The photon is none of the above.

[Reality Check]

So I ask the board to consider what this statement means:

"If all photons in existance exist simultaneously then all observations of those photons must also be simultaneous"
keeping in mind that a photon is never at rest and constantly moving at 'c'.
This is simple: it means that an observer sees every photon in their light cone all the time.

[ozziemate]

This is simple: it means that an observer sees every photon in their light cone all the time.
ok I will repost a clearer version of the statement

[ozziemate]

So I ask the board to consider what this statement means:

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

[Reality Check]

what is a photon? are you just talking about visible light spectrum?

And you fail to consider that the photons location is constantly changing at 'c'

so therefore the light field is universally changing at 'c'

an Observer can not observe a future photon nor can he observe a past photon, all he can observe is the current constantly changing "stream" of photons. HSP
And if all photons [EMR] exist simultaneously as SRT requires, then all observations must by logical extension be simultaneous.

For light speed to be invariant in all frames then light must be simultaneous to itself - a tautology as one poster said...

the logic is really simple, one can not occur with out the other
You need to define 'simultaneously' a bit more rigourously.

For example:
Here is the spacetime coordinate for photon A: (xA, yA, zA, tA).
Here is the spacetime coordinate for photon B: (xB, yB, zB, tB).

What mapping between these coordinates makes photon A simultaneous to photon B?

[Reality Check]

"If all photons in existance exist simultaneously then absolutely all observations of photons must also be simultaneous"
And thus an observer sees every photon in the universe all the time (taking the widest definition of simultaneous).

[ozziemate]

You need to define 'simultaneously' a bit more rigourously.

For example:
Here is the spacetime coordinate for photon A: (xA, yA, zA, tA).
Here is the spacetime coordinate for photon B: (xB, yB, zB, tB).

What mapping between these coordinates makes photon A simultaneous to photon B?
they aren't simultaneous as one sequence os no longer existant as photons are constantly moving and never at rest.
According to yur method A is either non existant or B is but Both can not be existant simultaneously

[Reality Check]

they aren't simultaneous as one sequence os no longer existant as photons are constantly moving and never at rest.
According to yur method A is either non existant or B is but Both can not be existant simultaneously
Then define simultaneous.

ETA: Are you saying that only 1 photon exists in the universe at a time, i.e. either photon A or photon B but not both?

[ozziemate]

I'll have a go at this math thingo...correct me if I am using it badly...

we have spacetime co-ordinants:
for three photons:

#01 xA', yA' zA' tA'
#02 xB', yB' zB' tA'
#03 xC', yC' zC' tA'


then the same photons at a later time

#01 xF', yF' zF' tB'
#02 xG', yG' zG' tB'
#03 xH', yH' zH' tB'

where time for the first three is t=A' [thus simultaneous]
and time for the second three is t=B' [ thus simultaneous]
however t=A' is not simultaneous with t=B' as B' is later.
when one is at t=A', t=B' is a prediction [ future and non existant]
when one arrives at t=B', t=A' is no longer existant.

make sense?
therfore the only moment of existance of the photon is a constantly changing t=thsp

[Dancing David]

to other photons in existance.
one photon exists simultaneously with every other photon or to make it really clear,
every other photon exists simultaneously with one photon....
light it self is univerally simultaneous phenonema.

Then why does time dialation occur?

Photons do not coexist. You can not have 'simulatneous' is different inertial frames.

If what you said was true then clocks on satellites would not show different rates of time passage than clocks on earth.

[Dancing David]

I'll have a go at this math thingo...correct me if I am using it badly...

we have spacetime co-ordinants:
for three photons:

#01 xA', yA' zA' tA'
#02 xB', yB' zB' tA'
#03 xC', yC' zC' tA'


then the same photons at a later time

#01 xF', yF' zF' tB'
#02 xG', yG' zG' tB'
#03 xH', yH' zH' tB'

where time for the first three is t=A' [thus simultaneous]
and time for the second three is t=B' [ thus simultaneous]
however t=A' is not simultaneous with t=B' as B' is later.
when one is at t=A', t=B' is a prediction [ future and non existant]
when one arrives at t=B', t=A' is no longer existant.

make sense?
therfore the only moment of existance of the photon is a constantly changing t=thsp

Except for the fact that they are not simultaneous, there is no connection or transfer of information between them, if one goes past a massive gravitational field, it will have a different time than the others.

You still keep asserting they are simultaneous, but time dialation does occur, how do you explain different rates of time in different inertial frames?

[ozziemate]

Then why does time dialation occur?

Photons do not coexist. You can not have 'simulatneous' is different inertial frames.

If what you said was true then clocks on satellites would not show different rates of time passage than clocks on earth.
not on topic Dancing D but it is to do with the fact that lights invariance is in fact inertia rapped up in a different label. [ can't go faster and can't go slower than 'c'.]
But as I said this is not for this thread.

[Dancing David]

You need to define 'simultaneously' a bit more rigourously.

For example:
Here is the spacetime coordinate for photon A: (xA, yA, zA, tA).
Here is the spacetime coordinate for photon B: (xB, yB, zB, tB).

What mapping between these coordinates makes photon A simultaneous to photon B?

Imagination, no proof.

[UncaYimmy]

Okay, so everything in the universe at a given instant by definition exists at that instant, which is to say simultaneously. Light is part of everything, so all light at a given instant exists simultaneously.

So, Ozzie, suppose I am at the north pole and at some point I make the YMCA signs like The Village People.

Suppose we have a bunch of people in different places in the universe traveling at different speeds and directions looking at me. Will they all agree that I did it at the same time?

Now suppose my wife is at the south pole. At exact same time as me (time being defined as that instant where everything that exists does so at that instant) she does the YMCA thing.

Will the above group of people think we did it at the same time, different times, or a mixture of both?

If you need to define or clarify some terms, go for it.

[Dancing David]

not on topic Dancing D but it is to do with the fact that lights invariance is in fact inertia rapped up in a different label. [ can't go faster and can't go slower than 'c'.]
But as I said this is not for this thread.

It is very imporatant.

You have said that all photons are simultaneous, therefore they will not undergo time dialation as they pass through a huge gravitational field.

it is very relavant.

That is because you are stuck, you can't have simultaniety unless you have some measure or exchange between the photons.

What mediates that exchange and why does time dialation occur.

It is very much on track.

[Reality Check]

I'll have a go at this math thingo...correct me if I am using it badly...

we have spacetime co-ordinants:
for photons:

#01 xA', yA' zA' tA'
#02 xB', yB' zB' tA'
#03 xC', yC' zC' tA'


then the same photons at a later time

#01 xF', yF' zF' tB'
#02 xG', yG' zG' tB'
#03 xH', yH' zH' tB'

where time for the first three is t=A' [thus simultaneous]
and time for the second three is t=B' [ thus simultaneous]
however t=A' is not simultaneous with t=B' as B' is later.
when one is at t=A', t=B' is a prediction [ future and non existant]
when one arrives at t=B', t=A' is no longer existant.

make sense?
therfore the only moment of existance of the photon is t=thsp
Makes sense: Simultaneous = with the same value of the time coordinate which is the standard definition of simultaneous.

But photons exist along all of the time coordinate. They do not pop into existence in the observer's present time (thsp) and then vanish. That would mean that there is no way for photons to be affected by anything in the universe, e.g. the various forms of redshift (Doppler, gravitational, relativistic and cosmological).

This also contradicts your statement that they move with a velocity of c. If they do not exist except at the present time then they cannot move (or maybe they move at an infinite speed!).

[ozziemate]

Except for the fact that they are not simultaneous, there is no connection or transfer of information between them, if one goes past a massive gravitational field, it will have a different time than the others.

You still keep asserting they are simultaneous, but time dialation does occur, how do you explain different rates of time in different inertial frames?
What makes you think that light speed invariance is breached by gravitational fields?
as I sad the dialation is caused by the inertia gained by invariance of 'c'
[ I am pretty sure thats how Lorenze worked out his transforms but I would have to dig out some notes to verify]

[ozziemate]

Makes sense: Simultaneous = with the same value of the time coordinate which is the standard definition of simultaneous.

But photons exist along all of the time coordinate. They do not pop into existence in the observer's present time (thsp) and then vanish. That would mean that there is no way for photons to be affected by anything in the universe, e.g. the various forms of redshift (Doppler, gravitational, relativistic and cosmological).

This also contradicts your statement that they move with a velocity of c. If they do not exist except at the present time then they cannot move (or maybe they move at an infinite speed!).
unless you seriously consider that the t=thsp is in fact a constantly changing event horizon. That changes at the rate of 'c' [ no faster and no slower - acka inertia]

[Reality Check]

What makes you think that light speed invariance is breached by gravitational fields?
as I sad the dialation is caused by the inertia gained by invariance of 'c'
[ I am pretty sure thats how Lorenze worked out his transforms but I would have to dig out some notes to verify]
I will butt in here: "massive gravitational field" means General Realtivity ozziemate.

[Reality Check]

unless you serously consider that the t=thsp is in fact a constantly changing event horizon. That changes at the rate of 'c' [ no faster and no slower]
It is not an event horizon. It is the observer's present time. It states nothing at all about what the observer can see or what they cannot see. It changes at the speed of 1 second per second, not at a speed of c (which by the way is measured in units of length per time - that might be a clue for you).

Thus we do not have to take it seriously. It is just somebody not knowing what they are talking about and having to do some actual research for a change.

[ozziemate]

It is not an event horizon. It is the observer's present time. It states nothing at all about what the observer can see or what they cannot see.

Thus we do not have to take it seriously. It is just somebody not knowing what they are talking about and having to do some actual research for a change.
Maybe you have precognition or can see into the future but I can't, all I see is the HSP and that is all I see all the time...forget about the clock for a moment.

Can you see what's going to happen?
certainly you can make predictions...but tell me can you experience the next moment of your life until you actually experience it?

So constantly changing event horizon I feel is a valid description of experience. thus observation.

[ozziemate]

Okay, so everything in the universe at a given instant by definition exists at that instant, which is to say simultaneously. Light is part of everything, so all light at a given instant exists simultaneously.

So, Ozzie, suppose I am at the north pole and at some point I make the YMCA signs like The Village People.

Suppose we have a bunch of people in different places in the universe traveling at different speeds and directions looking at me. Will they all agree that I did it at the same time?

Now suppose my wife is at the south pole. At exact same time as me (time being defined as that instant where everything that exists does so at that instant) she does the YMCA thing.

Will the above group of people think we did it at the same time, different times, or a mixture of both?

If you need to define or clarify some terms, go for it.

I shall endeavour to post a better desciption later....

[NobbyNobbs]

not on topic Dancing D but it is to do with the fact that lights invariance is in fact inertia rapped up in a different label. [ can't go faster and can't go slower than 'c'.]
But as I said this is not for this thread.

Ozzie, if light can't go slower than c, how do you explain this (http://www.hegel.net/en/gif/prism-and-refraction-of-light-into-rainbow-2-AJHD.jpg)?


(Although, this (http://www.mtsd.k12.nj.us/6459125928124935/lib/6459125928124935/905Abstract_Refraction_green-med_photos-of-the-year_com.jpg) is a much cooler example.)

[ozziemate]

So I ask the board to consider what this statement means:

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

[ozziemate]

Ozzie, if light can't go slower than c, how do you explain this (http://www.hegel.net/en/gif/prism-and-refraction-of-light-into-rainbow-2-AJHD.jpg)?


(Although, this (http://www.mtsd.k12.nj.us/6459125928124935/lib/6459125928124935/905Abstract_Refraction_green-med_photos-of-the-year_com.jpg) is a much cooler example.)




BTW great photos, have added to my collection thanks....

[ozziemate]

Ozzie, if light can't go slower than c, how do you explain this (http://www.hegel.net/en/gif/prism-and-refraction-of-light-into-rainbow-2-AJHD.jpg)?


(Although, this (http://www.mtsd.k12.nj.us/6459125928124935/lib/6459125928124935/905Abstract_Refraction_green-med_photos-of-the-year_com.jpg) is a much cooler example.)
I am sure someone else would be able to explain it better than me....

[Reality Check]

Maybe you have precognition or can see into the future but I can't, all I see is the HSP and that is all I see all the time...forget about the clock for a moment.

Can you see what's going to happen?
certainly you can make predictions...but tell me can you experience the next moment of your life until you actually experience it?

So constantly changing event horizon I feel is a valid description of experience. thus observation.
We are not talking about you or me.

We are talking about the observer in SRT and what they can see. They can see future events because thay are moving along the time coordinate and so meet them. They have seen past events because they have moved past them. That is what the future and past light cones in the light cone diagram are - they are the set of spacetime events that the observer was able to see in the past and the set of spacetime events that the observer will be able see in the future.

One more time: The light cone diagram has time as the vertical axis. As the observer ages they move along the time axis. Events in the past that are not in the past light cone cannot affect the observer (their light never reaches the observer). Events in the future that are not in the future light cone cannot affect the observer (their light never reaches the observer).

[ozziemate]

We are not talking about you or me.

We are talking about the observer in SRT and what they can see. They can see future events because thay are moving along the time coordinate and so meet them. They have seen past events because they have moved past them. That is what the future and past light cones in the light cone diagram are - they are the set of spacetime events that the observer was able to see in the past and the set of spacetime events that the observer will be able see in the future.

One more time: The light cone diagram has time as the vertical axis. As the observer ages they move along the time axis. Events in the past that are not in the past light cone cannot affect the observer (their light never reaches the observer). Events in the future that are not in the future light cone cannot affect the observer (their light never reaches the observer).
but of course ....however one has to agree to the non-simultaneity that SRT requires. Which I obvously have great difficulty doing seeing as the logic presented seems so incontravertible.

So I ask the board to consider what this statement means:

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

[wollery]

There's a problem with logic.

It can appear to be right, and yet be completely contrary to reality.

For example;

Let a = 2, b = 3, c = 5

Then a + b = c

Multiply both sides by (a - b):

(a - b)(a + b) = (a - b)c
a^2 - b^2 = ac - bc
a^2 - ac = b^2 - bc

Add ab to both sides:

a^2 + ab - ac = ab + b^2 - bc
a(a + b - c) = b(a + b - c)

Divide both sides by (a + b -c):

a = b

Therefore 2 = 3

The above maths is utterly logically consistent, and blatantly wrong.

Your logic is also correct, but equally wrong, since your logic requires an absolute reference frame, which doesn't exist in reality.

[Reality Check]

So I ask the board to consider what this statement means:

"If all photons in existance exist simultaneously then absolutely all observations of photons must also be simultaneous"
Simultaneous means at the same point in time.

If the simultaneous point in time is an arbitary point on the time coordinate then the observer sees a flash as they pass through that time. So an observer never sees any photons in the universe before that poiint in time (the universe is dark). At that point in time they see the photons that have arrived at their point in space. After the observer has moved past that point in time they never again see a photon.
The observations of photons that the observer makes happen at one point in time only.

If the simultaneous point in time is the observer's present time then the observer always sees the subset of photons that happen to be at their current point in space as they move along the time coordinate. Add in a constant speed of light and we have the SRT light cone diagram.
The observations of photons that the observer makes happens at any point at time. They just encounter different subsets of the universe's photons as they age.

[ozziemate]

we have spacetime co-ordinants:
for photons:

#01 xA', yA' zA' tA'
#02 xB', yB' zB' tA'
#03 xC', yC' zC' tA'


then the same photons at a later time

#01 xF', yF' zF' tB'
#02 xG', yG' zG' tB'
#03 xH', yH' zH' tB'

where time for the first three is t=A' [thus simultaneous]
and time for the second three is t=B' [ thus simultaneous]
however t=A' is not simultaneous with t=B' as B' is later.
when one is at t=A', t=B' is a prediction [ future and non existant]
when one arrives at t=B', t=A' is no longer existant.

make sense?
therfore the only moment of existance of the photon is t=thsp
looking again at this how woudl I show

in a single set of co-ordinant or equation,
The over all situation regarding simultaneity of all photons universally?
where that moment of simultaneity is constantly changing at the rate of 'c'
for example one part of the equation:
how would I show the meaning of this:
#01 xA', yA' zA' tA'
#02 xB', yB' zB' tA'
#03 xC', yC' zC' tA'
when applied to all photons and all locations but only one moment in time?

[Reality Check]

but of course ....however one has to agree to the non-simultaneity that SRT requires. Which I obvously have great difficulty doing seeing as the logic presented seems so incontravertible.
...snip...
What logic?
You have not presented any yet.

The logic, mathematics and experiments that form the basis of SRT is overwhelming evidence that SRT is correct.
The fact that you 'obvously have great difficulty' agreeing with these results is a comment about you not about SRT.

It is a real pity that so many billions (trillions?) of dollars have been wasted in the world on experiments and technology that obvously cannot have worked since you have a logical proof that SRT is invalid :rolleyes: !

[ozziemate]

What logic?
You have not presented any yet.

The logic, mathematics and experiments that form the basis of SRT is overwhelming evidence that SRT is correct.
The fact that you 'obvously have great difficulty' agreeing with these results is a comment about you not about SRT.

It is a real pity that so many billions (trillions?) of dollars have been wasted in the world on experiments and technology that obvously cannot have worked since you have a logical proof that SRT is invalid :rolleyes: !
not my problem....you can go on potentially wasting those zillions if you want to....

So I ask the board to consider what this statement means:

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

any ways religious style arguements don't wash sorry...

[Reality Check]

looking again at this how woudl I show

in a single set of co-ordinant or equation,
The over all situation regarding simultaneity of all photons universally?
where that moment of simultaneity is constantly changing at the rate of 'c'
for example:
how would I show the meaning of this:

when applied to all photons and all locations but only one moment in time?
For a set of N photons: (xi,yi,zi,tA) where the index i goes from 1 to N.

[ozziemate]

For a set of N photons: (xi,yi,zi,tA) where the index i goes from 1 to N.
and if this is in a constant state of change at the speed or rate of 'c'?

obviously A's change is a rate rather than speed. [ A' changes as all the locations change at the same rate. which is 'c']
so In my naivity I would type somethng like this
....., t A i'

hmmmmmm......

this will eventually show our event horizon....mathematically I hope

[ozziemate]

I take it N = infinitey?

[ozziemate]

( xi', yi', zi', tAi' )
where A is a constantly changing event horizon and changes for eternity.

[UncaYimmy]

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

If all air in existence on this planet exists simultaneously then all observations of air must also be be simultaneous. This is why when someone fires a rifle 400 meters away, we both hear it at the same time.

No, wait...Nevermind.

[ozziemate]

If all air in existence on this planet exists simultaneously then all observations of air must also be be simultaneous. This is why when someone fires a rifle 400 meters away, we both hear it at the same time.

No, wait...Nevermind.
naah you got it....

Of course we can determine the speed of sound as different to the speed of light,
say you see the rifle go off and then a few moments later you hear the sound.
Did the rifle go off when you heard the sound or when you saw it go off?
Was the observation of the event of the rifle going off simultaneous for both you and the shooter?
[ignoring light info delays for the moment.]

[ozziemate]

Put all observers 10 lys away on planets that happen to have a relative v of zero. [ one inertial reference frame ]

and do the experiment again...

shooter fires rifle.
moment of shooting is simultaneous for all observers in that inertial reference frame.
moment of receiving light information is relative to distance from shooter.
we can forget about the sound.... ha...

[wollery]

Put all observers 10 lys away on planets that happen to have a relative v of zero. [ one inertial reference frame ]

and do the experiment again...

shooter fires rifle.
moment of shooting is simultaneous for all observers in that inertial reference frame.
moment of receiving light information is relative to distance from shooter.
we can forget about the sound.... ha...Now put them on planets that are all moving at different velocities relative to the shooter. Now what result do you get?

[ozziemate]

Now put them on planets that are all moving at different velocities relative to the shooter. Now what result do you get?
According to common SRT interpretation all observers at rel v will experience non-simultaneousness of the event.

According to what I am proposing all abservers will retain simultaneity.
and continue to experience delays in information, simply because all photons in existance exist simultaneously therefore their observation must also be simultaneous.
in other words just because a frame is now rel' v does not alter the simultaneous nature of the event. [ and as the light event itself has infinitesimal or zero time duration, time dilation has no impact.]

[ozziemate]

( xi', yi', zi', tAi' )
where A is a constantly changing event horizon and changes for eternity.


Reality check has made me curious, can any one confirm the above as being correct for a light field event horizon. I just assumed that a sub sub script could be applied using the "index i "

if correct I would write something to the equivilant of:

HSP= ( xi', yi', zi', tAi' )

[Reality Check]

I take it N = infinitey?
It depends. If the universe is finite then N = some big number (I seem to recall 1088) but not infinity.

[UncaYimmy]

say you see the rifle go off and then a few moments later you hear the sound.
Did the rifle go off when you heard the sound or when you saw it go off?
Was the observation of the event of the rifle going off simultaneous for both you and the shooter?

I wasn't looking. However, we were both holding on to a string that was taught between us. Upon hearing the sound we were instructed to pull as hard as we could. So, assuming equal reaction times, which of us felt the tug?

[ozziemate]

I wasn't looking. However, we were both holding on to a string that was taught between us. Upon hearing the sound we were instructed to pull as hard as we could. So, assuming equal reaction times, which of us felt the tug?
eh?

a bit like asking if two attracted magnets are 1 ly apart and we move one of them away from the other which magnet experiences the separation first?
and how uniform does the magnetic field change along the entire separation diostance when you pull them apart.

or if we move the earth away from the sun how long does it take for the sun to feel the difference in separation...gravity wise....given that the attraction by gravity is mutual...

[Reality Check]

Reality check has made me curious, can any one confirm the above as being correct for a light field event horizon. I just assumed that a sub sub script could be applied using the "index i "

if correct I would write something to the equivilant of:

HSP= ( xi', yi', zi', tAi' )
It is not correct for a 'light field event horizon' until you define what a 'light field event horizon' is.

It is what you asked for - the set of spacetime coordinates for a set of N photons at a time tA is ( xi, yi, zi, tA ) where i goes from 1 to N.

If you want the equation for the hypersphere of the present then that is:
HSP = ( x, y, z, tHSP ) where x, y and z can be any value (any postion in space) and tHSP is the observer's present time.

[ozziemate]

It is not correct for a 'light field event horizon' until you define what a 'light field event horizon' is.

It is what you asked for - the set of spacetime coordinates for a set of N photons at a time tA is ( xi, yi, zi, tA ) where i goes from 1 to N.

If you want the equation for the hypersphere of the present then that is:
HSP = ( x, y, z, tHSP ) where x, y and z can be any value (any postion in space) and tHSP is the observer's present time.
and if that observers present time is of infinite quantity of moments in number would you use the t A i'
In other words have I used the sub sub i' correctly in function?

[Modified]

all photons in existance exist simultaneously

You keep saying that. I have skipped most of this thread, but I assume what you are trying to say is that the set of "all photons in existence" is the same in all reference frames. So what you are saying is "SRT is false because SRT is false".

[ozziemate]

You keep saying that. I have skipped most of this thread, but I assume what you are trying to say is that the set of "all photons in existence" is the same in all reference frames. So what you are saying is "SRT is false because SRT is false".
not really in those terms.
I am suggesting and testing the logic that SRT is invalid because all photons in existance exist simultaneously. There fore all observations of light events must be simultaneous for all observers.

[Modified]

not really in those terms.
I am suggesting and testing the logic that SRT is invalid because all photons in existance exist simultaneously. There fore all observations of light events must be simultaneous for all observers.

The set of photons in existence depends on your reference frame (and time). "All photons in existence" doesn't have any meaning in a universal sense. Implying that it does is just another way of saying "SRT is false".

[ozziemate]

back in 6 hours...

[Reality Check]

and if that observers present time is of infinite quantity of moments in number would you use the t A i'
In other words have I used the sub sub i' correctly in function?
t HSP is a continuously varying coordinate (like x, y and z).

If you wanted to have a set of observers (not photons since HSP is specific to the observers) then you could add another subscript.

When you come back a defintion of 'light field event horizon' would be nice. Where is this defined in SRT?

[UncaYimmy]

eh?

a bit like asking if two attracted magnets are 1 ly apart and we move one of them away from the other which magnet experiences the separation first?


Not at all, but since I have yet to see you change your opinion about anything yet, try this instead:

There are two strings attached to bells. When I pull on my string, his bell rings and vice-versa.

So, given that all air on the planet simultaneously exists, the guy fires the rifle. When he hears the rifle, he wiggles a body part which causes my bell to ring. Likewise, when I hear the rifle 400 yards away, I pull the string to make his bell ring.

Which bell rings first: the one next to him or the one next to me?

Relate this answer to your statement about all photons existing simultaneously because you have completely lost me.

[ozziemate]

The set of photons in existence depends on your reference frame (and time). "All photons in existence" doesn't have any meaning in a universal sense. Implying that it does is just another way of saying "SRT is false".
well...that is exactly what I am doing I guess. Little wonder the title of the thread hey? "logical proof of SRT invalidity"

[ozziemate]

t HSP is a continuously varying coordinate (like x, y and z).

If you wanted to have a set of observers (not photons since HSP is specific to the observers) then you could add another subscript.

The problem I have with this is that for an observer to observe a light event teh hsp must be involved, and if the light events are simultaneous tuniversally then teh hsp includes both light event and observer.

The need to claim just HSP for the observer IMO is not correct given that the observation must necessarilly include light.
so to say that the light field and observers are all part of a continuously changing HSP is correct as far as I can tell from your description of HSP. I see no reason to exclude light from the description.



When you come back a defintion of 'light field event horizon' would be nice. Where is this defined in SRT?
And what makes you think it is part of SRT and not part of the discussion about evidence that invalidates SRT?
Re-interpreting the HSP shows something like in this diagram I have just drawn:

http://bizzymate.com/uploads/images/physics/hsp002.gif

the light field I am refering to includes all observers and sources of EMR in the HSP event horizon

[ozziemate]

Therefore you get this animation that demonstrates the rate of change in the light field that includes the source and all observers

http://bizzymate.com/uploads/images/physics/light_time02.gif
One important thing to realise is that a light event of a single wave or photon particle is zero in duration. Thus the HSP is zero in duration, a continuous event horizon, as no stasis is present.

[ozziemate]

So I ask the board to consider what this statement means regarding SRT:

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

[LucasJ]

This may not be in the scope of this thread, and maybe I'm missing the point, but here goes (also note that my understanding of this is very limited):

Are you saying that if an event occurs, all observers will see it at the same time regardless of their velocity with respect to the event (the only time delays being caused by distance from the event)?

So now taking velocities into account, say Person A is .5 light years from the event moving .5c directly away from it when it occurs. After 1 year they are now 1 light year from the event, and thus, will see it as the light has now reached them.

Person B is also .5 light years from the event, moving .5c in the OPPOSITE direction of Person A. They will see the event at the same time as Person A. So far so good?

Now a second event occurs. Person A directs a string of photons toward Person B (the original event is now over and there is nothing in between the two persons). Since you are still maintaining that the speed of light is a constant, you are saying that the photons from Person A will never reach Person B? If so, then the relative speed between Person A and Person B is c, so you're making the claim that c is not an "upper speed limit"?

Maybe I'm misinterpreting what you're saying. To be quite honest, I can grasp the idea of SRT, even with my limited knowledge in math and physics, but I haven't been able to grasp your logic at all to this point.

[LucasJ]

Therefore you get this animation that demonstrates the rate of change in the light field that includes the source and all observers

IMAGE REMOVED

One important thing to realise is that a light event of a single wave or photon particle is zero in duration. Thus the HSP is zero in duration, a continuous event horizon, as no stasis is present.

Am I the only one that looks at this diagram and sees the light field moving at an infinite velocity? The light field is expanding, but no time is passing. Which would indicate that all light is everywhere at once, wouldn't it? (I removed the image from the quote since I can't post links at this point)

[Reality Check]

The problem I have with this is that for an observer to observe a light event teh hsp must be involved, and if the light events are simultaneous tuniversally then teh hsp includes both light event and observer.

Yes - an observer observes everything at their location and at their present time which is obvious.

But the light event need not be at their their location and at their present time. That is the point of the light cones - they are the path that light travels from the light event to the observer.

ETA: The Einstein-Minkowski Spacetime: Introducing the Light Cone (http://www.phy.syr.edu/courses/modules/LIGHTCONE/minkowski.html)


The need to claim just HSP for the observer IMO is not correct given that the observation must necessarilly include light.
so to say that the light field and observers are all part of a continuously changing HSP is correct as far as I can tell from your description of HSP. I see no reason to exclude light from the description.

The definition of a HSP is that it is the hypersurface of the observer's present time. You are not free to chnage that definiion. If you do then you are describing something that is not part of SRT.


And what makes you think it is part of SRT and not part of the discussion about evidence that invalidates SRT?
Re-interpreting the HSP shows something like in this diagram I have just drawn:

http://bizzymate.com/uploads/images/physics/hsp002.gif

the light field I am refering to includes all observers and sources of EMR in the HSP event horizon

This invalidates your "logical proof of SRT invalildity". Your definition of HSP is not the SRT definition and thus your logic applies to some other theory.

The diagram in the next post is wrong. If "One important thing to realise is that a light event of a single wave or photon particle is zero in duration. Thus the HSP is zero in duration, a continuous event horizon, as no stasis is present." then there are no light cones.
Remove them.

[ozziemate]

Am I the only one that looks at this diagram and sees the light field moving at an infinite velocity? The light field is expanding, but no time is passing. Which would indicate that all light is everywhere at once, wouldn't it? (I removed the image from the quote since I can't post links at this point)
time is moving through the center of the diagram
http://bizzymate.com/uploads/images/physics/light_time02.gif

[ozziemate]

The definition of a HSP is that it is the hypersurface of the observer's present time. You are not free to chnage that definiion. If you do then you are describing something that is not part of SRT.

so I'll just call it the PHS instead...."present hyper surface"


This invalidates your "logical proof of SRT invalildity". Your definition of HSP is not the SRT definition and thus your logic applies to some other theory.
the logic is not in the diagrams it is in the simple summary statement I have repeated many times:
"If all photons in existance exist simultaneously then absolutely all observations of photons must also be simultaneous"


The diagram in the next post is wrong. If "One important thing to realise is that a light event of a single wave or photon particle is zero in duration. Thus the HSP is zero in duration, a continuous event horizon, as no stasis is present." then there are no light cones.
Remove them.
if you were not so defensive you would see that I have never mentioned on the diagrams anything about light cones. I have used the terms time cones instead....so It is impossible for me to remove something that isn't present. And even if they were there is no patent on the use of light cones regardless of whether they apply to SRT or not.

so ....

"If all photons in existance exist simultaneously then absolutely all observations of photons must also be simultaneous" still waits for your debunking.....

[Reality Check]

Therefore you get this animation that demonstrates the rate of change in the light field that includes the source and all observers

http://bizzymate.com/uploads/images/physics/light_time02.gif
One important thing to realise is that a light event of a single wave or photon particle is zero in duration. Thus the HSP is zero in duration, a continuous event horizon, as no stasis is present.

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.

[ozziemate]

This may not be in the scope of this thread, and maybe I'm missing the point, but here goes (also note that my understanding of this is very limited):

Are you saying that if an event occurs, all observers will see it at the same time regardless of their velocity with respect to the event (the only time delays being caused by distance from the event)?

So now taking velocities into account, say Person A is .5 light years from the event moving .5c directly away from it when it occurs. After 1 year they are now 1 light year from the event, and thus, will see it as the light has now reached them.

Person B is also .5 light years from the event, moving .5c in the OPPOSITE direction of Person A. They will see the event at the same time as Person A. So far so good?

Now a second event occurs. Person A directs a string of photons toward Person B (the original event is now over and there is nothing in between the two persons). Since you are still maintaining that the speed of light is a constant, you are saying that the photons from Person A will never reach Person B? If so, then the relative speed between Person A and Person B is c, so you're making the claim that c is not an "upper speed limit"?

Maybe I'm misinterpreting what you're saying. To be quite honest, I can grasp the idea of SRT, even with my limited knowledge in math and physics, but I haven't been able to grasp your logic at all to this point.
I also am not going to entertain the notion of being a SRT expert, however the issue is very simple logically to me even with the limited knowledge I have of SRT I can see a huge issue brewing.

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

how this effects SRT in full I have no real idea as some people have studied it all their lives and would know considerably more than I do currently.

However this in no way diminishes the question and use of logic as far as I can tell, which is the purpose of this thread. To test that logic.
It obvious that if the statement above is found correct and valid then SRT as a theory is no longer valid and needs to be overhauled and ammended. How that happens is not within my expertise to know.

If found to be incorrect then we have simply re-enforced SRT 's validity
and given the extreme nature of things I would almost expect it to be found incorrect but so far no one has done so.

[Tubbythin]

well...that is exactly what I am doing I guess. Little wonder the title of the thread hey? "logical proof of SRT invalidity"

If you check back you seemed to just have agreed that your logical proof is "SRT is invalid because SRT is invalid". Thread over methinks.

[Tubbythin]

I also am not going to entertain the notion of being a SRT expert, however the issue is very simple logically to me even with the limited knowledge I have of SRT I can see a huge issue brewing.

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

It is a meaningless statement in SRT without a definition of simultaneity and a description of who's reference frames things are being considered.


If found to be incorrect then we have simply re-enforced SRT 's validity
and given the extreme nature of things I would almost expect it to be found incorrect but so far no one has done so.
Absolutely not. The validity of SRT is entirely independent of your ignorance of it.

[ozziemate]

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.
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.

[ozziemate]

It is a meaningless statement in SRT without a definition of simultaneity and a description of who's reference frames things are being considered.


Absolutely not. The validity of SRT is entirely independent of your ignorance of it.
but with the statement I am not stating the SRT position. Tubbythin, I am simply putting forth a logical proposition that SRT needs to answer to.

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

notice the emphasis on "all" [ absolute term]

[Tubbythin]

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:

Holds true in who's reference frame?


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.
Who's moment measured by who's clock?


it's not hard to debate an issue if you try.
So answer the above questions.

[Tubbythin]

but with the statement I am not stating the SRT position. Tubbythin, I am simply putting forth a logical proposition that SRT needs to answer to.

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

notice the emphasis on "all" [ absolute term]

But you have to define simultaneously! With reference to a specific reference frame. Simultaneously according to who?

[ozziemate]

say you got two rel.v observers both with their respective world time lines...
each observer according to SRT has a univers unto themselves wit h the other observer included.

the question still stands:
"If all photons in existance exist simultaneously then absolutely all observations of photons must also be simultaneous"
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.

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

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

It's a form of what I call double bind logic, damned if you do and damned if you don't.

if you hold the SRT position on non-simultaneity then the photons cannot be simultaneous.
if you hold that photons are simultaneous to each other universally then SRT is simply wrong.

"If all photons in existance exist simultaneously then absolutely all observations of photons must also be simultaneous"
SRT has to show how it justifies non-simultaneous photons in existance and that is the point of the thread.
If it does then it invalidates light speed invariance issues too I might add.
such is the nature of a "double bind"

[ozziemate]

But you have to define simultaneously! With reference to a specific reference frame. Simultaneously according to who?
simultaneous to every other photon....

[ozziemate]

look,
SRT has to be one of the most self justifying and circular theories of all time, it is incredibly bullet proof and so it has to be to do the job it's doing.

However that does not make it correct or valid just merely very strong.

The logic of the question and outcomes are as follows IMHO.


"If all photons in existance exist simultaneously then absolutely all observations of photons must also be simultaneous"
- nonsimultaneoity is broken and SRT is invalid.
"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.
The only reason we need time dilation [ apart from observed dilations] and length contraction as part of SRT is because the photons in existance must be simultaneous. Thus forcing Lorenze to do his thingo with the transforms.

any ways this is how I see it.

so the double bind is necessary to prove such a distinguished theory as invalid. It cannot be done any other way if at all possible.

[nathan]

but with the statement I am not stating the SRT position. Tubbythin, I am simply putting forth a logical proposition that SRT needs to answer to.

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

notice the emphasis on "all" [ absolute term]

You keep saying this, but it is off topic. You've stated you're talking about a logical proof that SRT is invalid. Not a proof that SRT does not reflect reality -- that would be a physical proof.

Perhaps you are confused, and mean a physical proof. Now, I think I understand that you are proposing that time is a universal coordinate, agreed by all inertial observers. If this is not what you are saying, then you need to be clearer.

Which of the following are you proposing:

1) Inertial observers agree the velocity of light is a particular finite value (c)
2) Inertial observers agree the velocity of light is infinite
3) Inertial observers disagree on the velocity of light

[ozziemate]

You keep saying this, but it is off topic. You've stated you're talking about a logical proof that SRT is invalid. Not a proof that SRT does not reflect reality -- that would be a physical proof.

Perhaps you are confused, and mean a physical proof. Now, I think I understand that you are proposing that time is a universal coordinate, agreed by all inertial observers. If this is not what you are saying, then you need to be clearer.

Which of the following are you proposing:

1) Inertial observers agree the velocity of light is a particular finite value (c)
2) Inertial observers agree the velocity of light is infinite
3) Inertial observers disagree on the velocity of light

the best way of putting it is to ask what SRT's position is on the question/statement:
"If all photons in existance exist simultaneously then absolutely all observations of photons must also be simultaneous"
does SRT require this statement to be true or false?

As said to tubbythin:

"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.
"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.

The only reason we logically need time dilation [ apart from observed dilations] and length contraction as part of SRT is because the photons in existance must be simultaneous. Thus forcing Lorenze to do his thingo with the transforms.
If non-simultaneity was the case for all photons in existance then Lorenze transforms would be uneccessary.

Lorenze has to use simultaneity of all photons in existance to transform rel. v RFs in to a non-simultaneous state.

[nathan]

look,
SRT has to be one of the most self justifying and circular theories of all time, it is incredibly bullet proof and so it has to be to do the job it's doing.

You seem to be agreeing that it is internally consistent. If so, no logical proof can show it to be invalid. Only physical proof could do that.


However that does not make it correct or valid just merely very strong.
Correct.



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

This is at best an ambiguous statement.

In which reference frame are you making these observations?

By 'simultaneous' do you mean 'have the same time coordinate'? I can't think what else you might mean, but you never know.

What do you mean by 'in existence'? Do you mean 'exist (at some set of positions) in space-time', or do you mean 'exist at a particular moment in time'? If you mean the former, then your predicate is false, as some photons have different time coordinates to other photons. If you mean the latter, then the predicate is tautalogically true. If you mean something else, then you need to be clearer.

What do you mean by 'observations of photons'. Are you talking about physical observation of a photon impinging on a detector, or are you talking about the thought experiment of stepping outside space time, and measuring the in-flight locations of photons at some particular time coordinate? If you mean the former, your conclusion is false, as there's evidence that photon detectors detect photons at different times. If you mean the latter, then again it is tautalogically true, because you've fixed the time coordinate (and the observer is outside of space-time, so time has no meaning). If you mean something else, then you need to be clearer.

[ozziemate]

If you take this statement literally and in absolutum:
"If all photons in existance exist simultaneously then absolutely all observations of photons must also be simultaneous"
..you will find it isn't hard to deal with. It is only when you allow grey areas that it gets confusing...
If all photons....

SRT is an absolute theory in that it applies universally so therefore the logical proof against it, if any, must do so also, so literal and absolute use of terms is necessary.

[ozziemate]

I would suspect that Lorenze and collegues had this bit down pat:
"all photons in existance exist simultaneous to each other"

but missed this bit:

"then absolutely all observations of photons must also be simultaneous"

[ozziemate]

What do you mean by 'in existence'? Do you mean 'exist (at some set of positions) in space-time', or do you mean 'exist at a particular moment in time'? If you mean the former, then your predicate is false, as some photons have different time coordinates to other photons. If you mean the latter, then the predicate is tautalogically true. If you mean something else, then you need to be clearer.

What do you mean by 'observations of photons'. Are you talking about physical observation of a photon impinging on a detector, or are you talking about the thought experiment of stepping outside space time, and measuring the in-flight locations of photons at some particular time coordinate? If you mean the former, your conclusion is false,

if we agree that tautologically all photons exists at a given moment and we have a detector present to detect them then it follows that the detector is also in that given moment.

Reality Check helped me learn some math but this is new so I'll try to express it as best I can.

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

I am not sure that my use of math is correct but I feel it is easy to see what I am trying to get at. If someone could show how to better superimpose the photons on the observer that woud be great.

so at that given moment all photons have the capacity to be observed simultaneously.

if this is true then SRT is invalidated.

[ozziemate]

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

can also be used where i is gravity and i' is observer mass/matter
I would think....

[nathan]

SRT is an absolute theory in that it applies universally so therefore the logical proof against it, if any, must do so also, so literal and absolute use of terms is necessary.

This is incorrect. SRT restricts itself to inertial reference frames in the abscense of gravitational fields.

A logical proof of its invalidity must show an internal contradiction within the theory -- but you have admitted that there isn't one.

A physical proof of its invalidity could take one of two forms

*) show that it breaks down for non-inertial observers, or gravitational fields. But that's trivial, because you're stepping outside the bounds it claims to predict

*) show that a prediction it makes about inertial observers is incorrect. That is a much stronger falsification. You don't need to show that every prediction it makes is incorrect, just one. But you need evidence gathered from reality to do that -- thought experiments don't count. (A thought experiment may suggest that a real experiment would be interesting, but you have to go check the real experiment.)

[Dancing David]

I will butt in here: "massive gravitational field" means General Realtivity ozziemate.

You didn't answer the question, it can be for any object. Photons may have a constant velocity but the effect of time dialation still exists.

You still haven't addressed it.

[Dancing David]

Maybe you have precognition or can see into the future but I can't, all I see is the HSP and that is all I see all the time...forget about the clock for a moment.

Can you see what's going to happen?
certainly you can make predictions...but tell me can you experience the next moment of your life until you actually experience it?

So constantly changing event horizon I feel is a valid description of experience. thus observation.

Only for events that happen in isolation, what happen when there is an exchange of information?

What about the movement of people on opposite poles of the Earth, what do observers in different inertial states see when they compare notes?

[nathan]

if we agree that tautologically all photons exists at a given moment and we have a detector present to detect them then it follows that the detector is also in that given moment.

Reality Check helped me learn some math but this is new so I'll try to express it as best I can.

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.

You're doing this in a particular reference frame. So 'superimpose both sets of co-ordinants' is either superflous or meaningless.

Why do all the observers have the same time value but the photons do not? I'm guessing what you're trying to describe here are a set of functions that give the spatial coordinate of photons and observers within our reference frame, as a function of time.

Why do you presume all the observers agree on this reference frame? The whole point of SRT is when the observers are in different inertial reference frames. (In particular ones that are moving relative to each other.)

[Dancing David]

So I ask the board to consider what this statement means:

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

It means something to you, but you are using reserved defintions of a private idion so communication is not occuring.

The issue is you don't know how to establish 'simultaniety', how do you 'know' that they exist in the same time reference?

You contradict yourself soon.

[ozziemate]

A logical proof of its invalidity must show an internal contradiction within the theory -- but you have admitted that there isn't one.
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.
"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.


hmmmm......

[ozziemate]

You're doing this in a particular reference frame. So 'superimpose both sets of co-ordinants' is either superflous or meaningless.

Why do all the observers have the same time value but the photons do not? I'm guessing what you're trying to describe here are a set of functions that give the spatial coordinate of photons and observers within our reference frame, as a function of time.

Why do you presume all the observers agree on this reference frame? The whole point of SRT is when the observers are in different inertial reference frames. (In particular ones that are moving relative to each other.)
the moment we are talking about is zero in duration so relative velocity of observer or even light speed is irrelevant. agree?

[ozziemate]

and you reckon I do not know SRT!:jaw-dropp

[Dancing David]

naah you got it....

Of course we can determine the speed of sound as different to the speed of light,
say you see the rifle go off and then a few moments later you hear the sound.
Did the rifle go off when you heard the sound or when you saw it go off?
Was the observation of the event of the rifle going off simultaneous for both you and the shooter?
[ignoring light info delays for the moment.]

Put all observers 10 lys away on planets that happen to have a relative v of zero. [ one inertial reference frame ]

and do the experiment again...

shooter fires rifle.
moment of shooting is simultaneous for all observers in that inertial reference frame.
moment of receiving light information is relative to distance from shooter.
we can forget about the sound.... ha...

According to common SRT interpretation all observers at rel v will experience non-simultaneousness of the event.

According to what I am proposing all abservers will retain simultaneity.
and continue to experience delays in information, simply because all photons in existance exist simultaneously therefore their observation must also be simultaneous.
in other words just because a frame is now rel' v does not alter the simultaneous nature of the event. [ and as the light event itself has infinitesimal or zero time duration, time dilation has no impact.]


Oh whoops here is that contradiction I mentioned earlier.

"continue to experience delays in information"

So you agree that the time events are a relative expression of events for observers in seperate inertial frames?


But then you contradict you self right there:
"simply because all photons in existance exist simultaneously therefore their observation must also be simultaneous"

simultaneous= they will observe the events occuring at the same relative time. Which means you have contradicted yourself. Observers synchronise their wtaches, they go to observe the events, they come back and report the events they observed. For them to be 'simultaneous' means that they will report observing the events at the same clock time.

You adimt this will not happen.

Correct?

Here is the issue, events may happen, and you can conceive of them happening at the same time, but then when the relative time references are compared, they vary, right?

remember the universe does not behave according to logic and reasons, it does not care.

[ozziemate]

Oh whoops here is that contradiction I mentioned earlier.

"continue to experience delays in information"

So you agree that the time events are a relative expression of events for observers in seperate inertial frames?


But then you contradict you self right there:
"simply because all photons in existance exist simultaneously therefore their observation must also be simultaneous"

simultaneous= they will observe the events occuring at the same relative time. Which means you have contradicted yourself. Observers synchronise their wtaches, they go to observe the events, they come back and report the events they observed. For them to be 'simultaneous' means that they will report observing the events at the same clock time.

You adimt this will not happen.

Correct?

Here is the issue, events may happen, and you can conceive of them happening at the same time, but then when the relative time references are compared, they vary, right?

remember the universe does not behave according to logic and reasons, it does not care.
clocks are not relevant to the issue of this thread.
why not?
work it out .....sheesh I am a softy,....

why are clocks not relevant?

because we are talking about simultaneity in a moment that has zero duration. Clocks not needed.

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

[nathan]

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.

[Dancing David]

The definition of a HSP is that it is the hypersurface of the observer's present time. You are not free to chnage that definiion. If you do then you are describing something that is not part of SRT.





Ozzie, this is crucial, you are using private idiomatic defintions of words and phrases that have accepted meanings, then you expect people to agree, when you use a contradictory meaning.

Vizzini: Inconceivable.

Inigo Montoya: You keep using that word. I do not think it means, what you think it means.

[ozziemate]

This is an assumption you are making. It happens to be incorrect.

so please tell the board how long a photon stays still for?

[nathan]

and you reckon I do not know SRT!:jaw-dropp

Yes, you're making it quite obvious!

[Dancing David]

clocks are not relevant to the issue of this thread.
why not?
work it out .....sheesh I am a softy,....

why are clocks not relevant?

because we are talking about simultaneity in a moment that has zero duration. Clocks not needed.

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

If it didn't matter then you would answer the questions and do more that arm wave evasions, you know that you can't answer the questions of relative comparison of events. Which , duh, is what simultaneous means.

It does matter, I will give you a hint:

What exists in isolation?

You keep engaging in something impossible, seperate one part of the universe from another, that is your logic.

Vizzini: Inconceivable.

Inigo Montoya: You keep using that word. I do not think it means, what you think it means.

[ozziemate]

Ozzie, this is crucial, you are using private idiomatic defintions of words and phrases that have accepted meanings, then you expect people to agree, when you use a contradictory meaning.

Vizzini: Inconceivable.

Inigo Montoya: You keep using that word. I do not think it means, what you think it means.
DD you gotta keep up, I have already agreed to Realitieschecks request to not use HSP instead I am using PHS.

and the simultaneity co-ordinants of phtons and observer arrived at can be seen at post #225

[ozziemate]

You keep engaging in something impossible, seperate one part of the universe from another, that is your logic.
sheesh I am not the one who has the universe in multi hsp's simultaneously...I am not separating one part of the universe from another , in fact quite the opposite.

[Dancing David]

"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.
...


So design your experiement that demonstartes this to be true, what is it? How does it work? What measures will you use?

The universe does not care for 'logic'. Where is your data and what potential experiment will demonstrate it?

[Dancing David]

DD you gotta keep up, I have already agreed to Realitieschecks request to not use HSP instead I am using PHS.

and the simultaneity co-ordinants of phtons and observer arrived at can be seen at post #225

this one here?
http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4149405&postcount=225

yes, you have made a mental image, that you feel demonstrates that, yes.

So what experiment can you design that will agree with you? (Or potentialy not.)

The evidence of the universe's behavior is what matters, a thought experiement is nice, but data and observation in the universe needs to support the thought experiement for it to be a valid constract.

What experiement do you suggest?

[ozziemate]

So design your experiement that demonstartes this to be true, what is it? How does it work? What measures will you use?

The universe does not care for 'logic'. Where is your data and what potential experiment will demonstrate it?
hey DD whats the thread title?:)

"Logical proof of SRT invalidity"

and the proof can be shown [ if the use of the math is correct]

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

[ozziemate]

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

[Dancing David]

sheesh I am not the one who has the universe in multi hsp's simultaneously...I am not separating one part of the universe from another , in fact quite the opposite.

So explain time dialation, you seperating each object moment of time from all other object moments of time. Time dialation, you agree it exists?

the events in the mental space are irrelevant, you are seperating each events in space time from each other event.

You are not looking at a coherent whole. (I beleieve I know why you are doing it as well, but it doesn't matter.)

When you consider the events between two inertial rframes of reference is when the 'time' comes into play. So far you are saying that all events in space/time occur, which i can agree with.

But then you say they occur simultaneously, which means that they will show events to occur at the same relative times of observance.

That is where you are breaking the universe into little bits.

[Dancing David]

hey DD whats the thread title?:)

"Logical proof of SRT invalidity"

and the proof can be shown [ if the use of the math is correct]

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


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. :)

[nathan]

so please tell the board how long a photon stays still for?

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?