Nimblebrain Forums - Not logged in
Forum Help Search Chat Register Login
Previous Next Up Topic Cosmology / Alternative Cosmology / Why (22165 hits)
By RussT Date 2011-02-02 10:44
Why do we have to wait for Photons/Light to get to us from any distance?
By RussT Date 2011-02-03 11:06
Gentlemen and Ladies

The answer is very simple...

Because Photons/Light travels at a Constant finite velocity of 186,282.397 miles per second (in vacua) and does NOT get from there to here Instantly/in 0 time...

Because IF Photons did get here instantly or in 0 time...We Would NOT have to *Wait* for Photons to arrive!!!

There is absolutely no way around this pure logic.


There are NOT 2 sets of Photons coming from every light source one that gets here "C" of 186,282.307mps and another set that gets here at "C" Instant/0 Time~~~

This goes straight to the division by 0 problem and the *Singularity* in SR!

They/You Cannot use any after the "First Principles" experiments as 'evidence'...which has been happening for 106 years now!

Once you realize what this is really saying and understand the first part and the pure logic of it I will explain more.

Because of the Division by 0 problem...ALL parts of the set up of SR are actuallt fatally flawed!

Since "Instant/0 time photons" do NOT even exist (They are the Invisible Elves/Spaghetti Monsters) clocks cannot be synchronized across any distance!!!
By RussT Date 2011-02-07 07:34
"The thing is, if it exploded now, none of us would see it. It’s 600 light years away, so it would take basically 600 year for the light given off by the supernova to get here. In fact, for all we know it could have gone supernova anywhere between now and 600 years ago."

This is about Betelgeuse...Has it already gone SN and we can't know it yet???

AND, just to be clear...

sending a ship flying towards Betelgeuse would not change those photons from finite constant speed of 186,282.397mps to instant/infinitely fast/0 time photons~~~
By bangstrom Date 2011-02-27 00:55
The question is, What is Einstein's c? We can't separate space from time so I would say c is a universally observed constant describing the amount of time found in a given amount of space. Whenever we have a separation in space we also have a separation in time in the amount of one second of time for every 300,000 km of space. C is a constant and not necessarily the speed of anything. That is why c is the same for all observers despite their motion.

Our units of space, time, and c are all mutually defined making it impossible to determine the speed of light. Given any two of these values, we can calculate the precise value of the third. Consider the impossibility of trying to measure the speed of light over the distance of a light year. This conundrum is a part of all of our attempts to measure the speed of light.

We could also ask, 'Do photons even exist?' Like Invisible Elves/Spaghetti Monsters we can't observe photons. We observe that electrons at a signal source lose energy and electrons at the receiver end gain energy and imagine that something has carried that energy across the divide. 
By bangstrom Date 2011-02-27 01:16
"The thing is, if it exploded now, none of us would see it. It’s 600 light years away, so it would take basically 600 year for the light given off by the supernova to get here. In fact, for all we know it could have gone supernova anywhere between now and 600 years ago."
Two otherwise simultaneous events separated by space are also separated by time as described in SR. Betelgeuse is 600 years in our past and we are 600 years in the past for Betelgeuse. I see this as a property of Einstein's c ... the amount of time in a given distance of space rather than the "slowness" of photons.
By lyndonashmore Date 2011-02-28 20:03
scuse me but, c does not belong to einstein
The question is, What is Einsteins c?

it is my c, your c, his c, her c.
It is an experimental result/fact/observation.
Historically, faraday proposed that light was an electromagnetic wave where an electric effect set up a magnetic effect which set up an electric effect and so on as light travelled.
Maxwell showed that this could only happen at one particular speed - 3x10^8m/s.
You may well be a fan of einstein but please do not steal other peoples work in his name.
Cheers,
lyndon 
By RussT Date 2011-02-28 21:02
Is this Bob Angstrom from BAUT? I hope it is!!!
By Mike Petersen Date 2011-03-01 00:01
"Bob" Angstrom?  How do you know his first name?  His profile says nothing.

And you ask the rhetorical, "Is this Bob Angstrom from BAUT? I hope it is!!!"

"it" ???

Egad.
By RussT Date 2011-03-01 00:18 Edited 2011-03-01 00:22
Mike....you are always in the category of "Not even wrong"   geezzz, get a clue! And you call me arrogant!
By bangstrom Date 2011-03-01 00:21
scuse me but, c does not belong to einstein

Good point. C is a universally observed constant and not exclusive to Einstein but I use the term Einstein's c to distinguish it from from the alternate name that I find unsupportable by “experimental result/fact/observation.” To rephrase the question: Is the constant c the speed of light or is it the one second of time found in every 300,000 km of space? Both?
By bangstrom Date 2011-03-01 00:23
Yes, I am the “it” from BAUT and still there subject to being suspended again or banned. This must be the place where the heretics end up.
By bangstrom Date 2011-03-01 00:53
Why do we have to wait for Photons/Light to get to us from any distance?
Space and time can't be separated so we observe a one second delay for every 300,000 km of space separating two otherwise simultaneous events. I consider c to be a proportionality constant and not a speed. The observation that c is the same for all observers despite their motion suggests that c is a property of space rather than a velocity. A velocity should add or subtract to the velocity of the observer but that is not the case with light. Human experience tells us that there must be a carrier to transmit energy from one location to another so we invent the "photon" but the photon a hypothetical construction and not something we observe.
By RussT Date 2011-03-01 02:18 Edited 2011-03-01 02:21
Bob said:


Yes, I am the “it” from BAUT and still there subject to being suspended again or banned. This must be the place where the heretics end up.


I was 99.9% sure "IT" was you Bob, as i knew I was recognizing the "Viv Pope" take on light travel time you were exspousing ;>))

And, just so you know, even though this is an alternative Cosmology site, almost all the participants are devout Relativists.

So, care to retract your unwarranted "Nonsense" Mike??????
By David Russell Date 2011-03-01 03:04
Ahhh ... BAUT.  I haven't posted there in 2 or more years.   It's not that I can't operate within their parameters.  I just find that the forum is no longer any fun the way it used to be when Phil Plait ran it as the BABB.   Everyone there is so uptight and serious.   Last week I browsed it for the first time in a year.   I picked a thread I thought might be interesting - something about DM I think - and a few posts in someone is responding to what another poster said suggesting that the thread maybe should be moved to ATM. All I could say to myself is that "some things never change."   I think I showed with my "bridges" thread that it is possible to have a rational discussion about an ATM topic.  Unfortunately the 30 day rule is a bit silly because IIRC certain people on that forum that like to see themselves as authorities quickly disappeared from that thread not to be seen for at least 2 months.  I understand some of their motivation for the 30 day rule, but when the discussion is based upon published research literature - as my thread was - either you give it more than 30 days or you allow it to be discussed outside the ATM forum. 
By David Russell Date 2011-03-01 03:05
Oh ... and we might add that the thread I mentioned ultimately led to a  refereed paper published in a research journal.   Not bad for something that started out as an ATM discussion. 
By Mike Petersen Date 2011-03-01 11:11
So, care to retract your unwarranted "Nonsense" Mike??????

Nope.
By Jade Annand Date 2011-03-02 05:31
bangstrom said:

This must be the place where the heretics end up.


*laugh* Ever so slowly.

I wasn't expecting it to remain a permanent little pirate island here; I was expecting that someday, the Halton Arp forum would return after the web master there finally remade the forum in a very simple but oh-so-HTML-of-highest-compliance mode*.

(*No, really, that was his big thing!)

I just didn't want the conversations to stop. I love cracking open some of the old threads in here from time to time to see what discussions we were having.

I note with some mirth that haltonarp.com is no longer promising that the forums <arnie>will be back</arnie> :)

We don't have a 30-day rule here, either. Enjoy :)
By RussT Date 2011-03-04 11:43
RussT said:


"The thing is, if it exploded now, none of us would see it. It’s 600 light years away, so it would take basically 600 year for the light given off by the supernova to get here. In fact, for all we know it could have gone supernova anywhere between now and 600 years ago."


BobAngstrom said:


Two otherwise simultaneous events separated by space are also separated by time as described in SR. Betelgeuse is 600 years in our past and we are 600 years in the past for Betelgeuse. I see this as a property of Einstein's c ... the amount of time in a given distance of space rather than the "slowness" of photons.


But Bob, we know for a fact that it IS due to the slowness of photons, as we must wait for those photons/light signals that we send to our probes on missions to Mars/Jupiter/Saturn and Voyager I and II to travel to those probes and travel back to us at the constant finite speed of light of 186,282.397 miles per ssecond....those photons/light signals are never traveling to and from those probes "instantaneaously", right???
By bangstrom Date 2011-03-04 16:39 Edited 2011-03-04 16:44
But Bob, we know for a fact that it IS due to the slowness of photons, as we must wait for those photons/light signals that we send to our probes on missions to Mars/Jupiter/Saturn and Voyager I and II to travel to those probes and travel back to us at the constant finite speed of light of 186,282.397 miles per ssecond....those photons/light signals are never traveling to and from those probes "instantaneaously", right???
We observe a delay in time whenever there is space between two remote events but we don't observe photons. If time is an inseparable property of space, then we don't need photons to explain why there is an observed time delay. A. F. Kracklauer defines the photon as, “The name of a paradigm for the interaction of charged particles.”
http://www.nonloco-physics.000freehosting.com/paradigm.pdf

Kracklauer often refers to photons as “folklore” because they are imaginary creatures like fairies that carry energy from one charged particle to another but they are not laboratory observables. When two powerful laser beams cross, we don't see photons collide and scatter likely because there is nothing to collide and we never observe photons between a signal source and receiver. Our human experience tells us that we need some kind of contact force between two actions so we invent 'photons' to explain light related interactions but they are hypothetical constructs- not part of the observation. Two electrons side by side can share the same Schroedinger wave function and exchange energy and we observe the same effect of a shared wave function and energy exchange in 'entangled' particle pairs in the Bell experiments or quantum teleportation but we don't observe photons so we can't observe their "slowness".

Here is more information on the nonexistence of photons. http://www.science20.com/alpha_meme/fundamental_nature_light-75861
By RussT Date 2011-03-07 10:05
Okay, here is what I am going to tell you...

The Spaghetti Monster is the 0 and Infinity..

RussT said:


Here is another thing I have definitely figured out...



1.  Originally Posted by Albert Einstein 

If at the point A of space there is a clock, an observer at A can determine the time values of events in the immediate proximity of A by finding the positions of the hands which are simultaneous with these events. If there is at the point B of space another clock in all respects resembling the one at A, it is possible for an observer at B to determine the time values of events in the immediate neighbourhood of B. But it is not possible without further assumption to compare, in respect of time, an event at A with an event at B. We have so far defined only an ``A time'' and a ``B time.'' We have not defined a common ``time'' for A and B, for the latter cannot be defined at all unless we establish by definition that the ``time'' required by light to travel from A to B equals the ``time'' it requires to travel from B to A. Let a ray of light start at the ``A time'' tA from A towards B, let it at the ``B time'' tB be reflected at B in the direction of A, and arrive again at A at the ``A time'' tA'.

In accordance with definition the two clocks synchronize if tB - tA = tA' - tB.

We assume that this definition of synchronism is free from contradictions, and possible for any number of points; and that the following relations are universally valid:--


In 1905, Einstein was using "Finite light speed" for the light going from A to B and back, and assumed that meant that those clocks were 'synchronized'.

AND, that was assumed to be correct for many years until they figured out it wasn't, and then 'switched' to the 'singularity' definition of 0 time photons to try to 'sync those clocks!!!

Clocks across distance CANNOT be sync'ed to read the same time "PERIOD"!!!

So Relativity saying that time can be the same common time from here to Infinity is absolute Bunk!!!
!!!
It is impossible for the time to be Now (2011) from here to every light source from here (A) to Infinity (B) Period!!!

There is nothing else to say when talking about light travel time!!!

Light CANNOT be BOTH Finite and Infinte...it is the constant finite speed of 186,282.397 miles per second ONLY!
By bangstrom Date 2011-03-07 16:00
Light CANNOT be BOTH Finite and Infinte...it is the constant finite speed of 186,282.397 miles per second ONLY!
Is one second the amount of time in 186,282.397 miles of space or is there no time in space except for the time it takes for a photon to cross the distance. I am saying that time is a property of space and not a property determined by the “slowness” of a photon. We know by observation that a separation in space always includes a separation in time but we don't observe the photons traveling through space that are supposedly the cause of this delay. We can keep the delay but dismiss the photons as “imaginary” since they are conjecture rather than observation.

Relativity remains the same because the constant c remains as a universally observed amount of delay found in a given amount of space rather the speed of a photon. We can't observe photons between source and sink anyhow so eliminating photons from consideration does not change any observation. The observations in either case are exactly the same. Clocks can not be synced in either view and there is no such thing as a “common time from here to Infinity.” A one second delay for every 186,282.397 miles of space is a property of spacetime and not the speed of photons.
By RussT Date 2011-03-08 12:14
bob said:


Clocks can not be synced in either view and there is no such thing as a “common time from here to Infinity.”


Bob, relativity "requires" both of these to be true for it to work and even exist as a paradigm!

It's called "Proper Time" and "Proper Distance" and that is always 0 from any point A to point B > Infinity...

And I agree that clocks cannot be synced from any point A to any point B no matter how small or large the distance is...why...

Because there is NO such thing as o distance to those light sources and Nothing is going from A>B Instantaneously...

SO, if we both agree on that....then ALL of Relativity is Falsified!!!

And YES, that is truse even when we start talking about ship traveling from A > B...why...

Because the those all important "Clocks" could NEVER be synced in the first place!!!

Every observers "Now" is right in front of their nose and CANNOT be extended from there (Point A) to any distance Point B period.

Next, I will show you when a ship and laser beam leave earth at the same time how "IF" you say that ship is seeing light travel away from it at "C"....that that actually makes that beam a variable speed ;>))
By Jade Annand Date 2011-03-08 15:23
My apologies, Bob :)

Despite all his really good contributions on other issues, you'll never get through to Russ on this one issue; it's his Moby Dick. He's working with a strawman version of relativity and won't let it go.

He either takes the tack that:

* If you consider photons to "subjectively experience no time" under the "the faster you go the faster outside time seems to pass for you" premise, we should somehow see light traveling infinitely fast and therefore because they don't, relativity is wrong!
* If you fail to adjust all players in a relativity scenario at once then the numbers don't add up and therefore because of bad math, relativity is wrong!

It's like bashing evolution with "If we evolved from monkeys, why are there still monkeys?" Seriously.

He had this entire thread - as well as many others - to poop all over the subject. See if you can feel my head and open palm making contact :)

I love Russ, but this is his Cydonia, or if I was to be properly uncivil in an ATM style, his dark energy :)
By bangstrom Date 2011-03-09 02:32
And I agree that clocks cannot be synced from any point A to any point B no matter how small or large the distance is...why...
Two clocks can be synced if they are in the same location A,B and they will remain in sync as long as our observation point O is at an equal distance from both A and B. If the observational distance is unequal then the clocks will no longer appear synchronous. An unequal distance is the thing that breaks the symmetry and makes the clocks appear out of sync.
Because there is NO such thing as o distance to those light sources and Nothing is going from A>B Instantaneously...
I can agree as long as you don't stop there.
When we consider what is happening with light, there is Nothing Going from A to B either Instantaneously or with a Speed. There are no photons, no particles, no beams, no waves... nada. And a Nothing can't have a speed or measure a distance between two points as zero or anything else.
SO, if we both agree on that....then ALL of Relativity is Falsified!!!
I agree that photons traveling through space at a constant speed and Relativity are a difficult mix so I discard Photons but keep the Relativity. Relativity remains because we still have c as the observed amount of time in a given amount of space so it makes no difference to the math or predictions of relativity if we don't consider c to be the speed of anything. It is the amount of time in space.
Next, I will show you when a ship and laser beam leave earth at the same time how "IF" you say that ship is seeing light travel away from it at "C"....that that actually makes that beam a variable speed ;>))
This sounds like an example of the sort of paradoxes one can get into when we think of light as bullet like particle-waves traveling through space with a speed. We see energy disappear from point A and appear at point B and we observe a time delay between the two events but we don't observe photons. We can observe a spaceship traveling from point A to point B with an observable speed and we see the need for a spaceship if we want to travel across the same distance. This leads to the conclusion that energy must also need something like a tiny spaceship to carry it across the divide so we invent  the “photon” and give it a speed but this is an imaginary model and not to be confused with what we actually observe. Experiments such as Bell and Aspect's test of the EPR effect Anton Zeilinger's quantum teleportation demonstrate that particles can interact directly as coupled harmonic oscillators with no need for a foton particle to act as an intermediate. Fotons? We don't need no eff in photons.
We have to ask if our photon model explains light phenomenon correctly and is internally consistent or if it is more misleading than useful.
By bangstrom Date 2011-03-09 03:50
Like it or not, Russ speaks for a lot of others and we all have our strawmen. Some say photon theory is  one of my strawmen but, of course, I disagree about the strawman part.

We don't see light traveling infinitely fast and I would go even farther and say that we don't see light travel at all. The “traveling between” part is speculation and not observed but we do observe a delay in light events. As the old saying goes,'Time keeps everything from happening at once and space keeps everything from happening in the same place.' Whenever we have a separation in space, we also have a separation in time exactly as described in relativity so relativity is valid. I think the “wrong” part is when we think of photons as real particles traveling through space with an observable speed of c but that view is not really a part of relativity. It is only a popular explanation.
By Jade Annand Date 2011-03-09 05:33
bangstrom said:

Like it or not, Russ speaks for a lot of others and we all have our strawmen. Some say photon theory is  one of my strawmen but, of course, I disagree about the strawman part.


I use 'strawman' in its commonly-understood sense of misrepresenting another hypothesis or theory - whether with malignance or not - in order to knock it down more easily.

As long as you are honest about what a competing hypothesis or theory claims, supports, relies upon, etc. then you are not guilty of erecting a strawman. You can feel free to bash it or compete with it.

I don't particularly like string theory or inflationary theory as currently formulated, but I try not to misrepresent them. I can see why string theory has its appeal, for example, but see its inability to come back down to experiment and the lack of viable plan Bs as weaknesses. If I'm wrong on any particular point and the correction is not itself highly contentious, I don't mind being corrected. Strawmen are not mere artifacts of disagreement or alternative hypotheses.

I haven't heard much in the way of "photonless" hypotheses. I can see the geometric appeal, but I must say that it escapes my imagination to apply such a scheme everywhere!

Are there resources around that explain things like refraction, directionality, quantum interference patterns (and their similarity to, say, that of electrons) and/or lasers in a 'direct transference' capacity?
By Eduffy80911 Date 2011-03-17 05:29
"amount of time found in a given amount of space"

I like this little nugget. I do believe there is a finite amount of time available in the universe. Time is relative motion. The sum total of the motion of everything at any given moment is the amount of available time in the universe. If true, that actually gives meaning to the term "stealing time". The more activity you engage in, in a given space, the less there is available to others within that space at that moment.

"you can't separate time from space"

True, and I would add that you can't separate time and space from matter (broadly referring to anything that isn't time or space as matter). If there were nothing between you and a photon anywhere in space, you wouldn't have to wait for it. Therefore, if something takes time to travel from point a to point b, there must be something between a and b. Also, if there were nothing between point a and point b, the distance would be zero. You can't measure nothing. Nothing is the expression of an attempt to quantify that came up empty. Perhaps c is an expression of the lowest density of stuff in the universe.

The speed of light varies slightly with the density of the material it's traveling through, but there is a well-defined top end, because there is no "empty space".
By bangstrom Date 2011-03-19 08:16
Are there resources around that explain things like refraction, directionality, quantum interference patterns (and their similarity to, say, that of electrons) and/or lasers in a 'direct transference' capacity?
The most complete explanation involving the direct transference of light energy is John Cramer's Transactional Interpretation.
http://www.npl.washington.edu/npl/int_rep/tiqm/TI_toc.html
Cramer's theory is an update of the older Wheeler- Feynman Absorber theory with advanced and retarded waves replacing the whimsical Wheeler-Feynman photons that go everywhere and everywhen, both forward and backward in time, while our conscious observation later decides which of an infinity of photon paths is the “real” one. There is a lot to these theories and they are not easy to follow.
There is also the Pope-Osborne Angular Momentum Synthesis “POAMS” which is basically the same as the other two but with more philosophy and less math so it is easier to understand. http://www.poams.org/the-non-velocity-of-light/

Essentially these theories all speak of a two way connection going both forward and backward in time connecting a signal source and receiver. This wave like connection between an electron at the source and an electron in the sink is responsible for the wave phenomenon of light.  In this view, energy at the source can not end up as energy at the receiver until after this two way connection has been established. Hugo Tetrode explained in the 1920's that the sun could not shine unless it had something to shine upon. Energy is always a part of matter and does not go flying off into the vacuum of space where by chance it might strike a material body. Instead, energy leaves the sun and instantly appears on Earth without passing through the space between so it makes no sense to speak of light as having a speed. We observe a 500 second delay between the Earth and sun because we are separated from the sun by 93 million miles of space and that much space contains 500 seconds of time. We are not 500 seconds from the sun because of the travel time for a photon.
By bangstrom Date 2011-03-19 09:24
I do believe there is a finite amount of time available in the universe. Time is relative motion. The sum total of the motion of everything at any given moment is the amount of available time in the universe. If true, that actually gives meaning to the term "stealing time". The more activity you engage in, in a given space, the less there is available to others within that space at that moment.
I think you are right about time/motion being finite and conserved.
If there were nothing between you and a photon anywhere in space, you wouldn't have to wait for it. Therefore, if something takes time to travel from point a to point b, there must be something between a and b. Also, if there were nothing between point a and point b, the distance would be zero. You can't measure nothing. Nothing is the expression of an attempt to quantify that came up empty.

I find this inconsistent with the idea that you can't separate space from time. Two remote points separated by space are also separated by time and that alone explains the delay in light signals. If we could have space but not time between two points then we would need the "slowness" of a photon to explain the delay. This makes time a matter of photons rather than a property of space. I see photons as imaginary particles used to explain a time delay that is really an inseparable property of space so we don't need photons.
Perhaps c is an expression of the lowest density of stuff in the universe.
I prefer that definition to saying c is the speed of light because c is not a speed.
The speed of light varies slightly with the density of the material it's traveling through, but there is a well-defined top end, because there is no "empty space".
Whether one considers light to have a “speed” or not, the same understanding remains. We observe a slower speed in dense materials because light is absorbed by electrons in the atoms and then re-emitted bucket brigade style. Absorption and emission are not instant so there is a brief "hang time" within the atoms and this appears as a slower speed. The “speed” between atoms is the same as the speed in a vacuum because it is a vacuum.
In the theories of light that I mentioned where light is a direct transfer of energy and there are no photons traveling through space, the apparent motion of light is cinematic like the flashing lights on a signboard.
By Eduffy80911 Date 2011-04-17 04:36
"I find this inconsistent with the idea that you can't separate space from time."

Anything separated by time and space is separated by stuff. Two things can't be separated by just time or just space. Time and space are different ways to measure the amount of stuff between two points.

"light is a direct transfer of energy and there are no photons traveling through space"

I'd take it a step further and say that all motion is the transfer of data from cell to cell, a cell being a volume of space that is always occupied by some bit of data which determines how it is perceived.
By bangstrom Date 2011-04-18 08:30
I don't understand your statements
"I find this inconsistent with the idea that you can't separate space from time."

Anything separated by time and space is separated by stuff. Two things can't be separated by just time or just space. Time and space are different ways to measure the amount of stuff between two points.
How do you define “stuff”?  The way we observe that two objects are separated by spacetime is by putting some material (stuff) between them without disturbing their positions.
"light is a direct transfer of energy and there are no photons traveling through space"

I'd take it a step further and say that all motion is the transfer of data from cell to cell, a cell being a volume of space that is always occupied by some bit of data which determines how it is perceived. 
I see motion as a property of physical objects where objects, particles etc.,  move through space and their motion is how we measure time. Making motion a transfer of data from one volume of space to another seems a bit backward.
By David Russell Date 2011-10-03 14:49
I hate to bring this thread back up to the top, but I noticed something in it that I felt merits comment.  It is important to keep in mind that if we're going to discuss science we should use the units scientists use - so the speed of light is 300,000 km s-1 or 3 x 10^8 m s-1.   Astrophysics journals do not use miles s-1.     Distances in astrophysics research literature are in megaparsecs (Mpc) or kiloparsecs (kpc) not in light years.

Just a tip for everyone.

Dave

Previous Next Up Topic Cosmology / Alternative Cosmology / Why (22165 hits)

Powered by mwForum 2.15.0 © 1999-2008 Markus Wichitill