SRT, speed of light = rate of change

[Quantum Quack]

Scenario:

We have three objects of mass/matter in an entire self contained and closed system universe.
Those three objects have a relative velocity of zero, in that they are stationary relative to each other.

As a part of this inertial frame we have a clock that continues to tick at a steady rate and represents the passage of time for all three objects, in fact the passage of time for this entire universe.

Although there is no obvious movement in this universe we do have the passage of time therefore we have change occuring.

Test case and
The question is:

"How far do these three objects travel together in 1 second of time?"


Reasoning and outcomes:

Now this may seem like a silly question and in a way it has a trick to it.

There is no way of telling how far they travel externally as there is nothing to relate their travel to except space and vacuum.

So the question is more about how far do they travel with in themselves in 1 second.
The reason this question comes up is that using a MInkowski/ Einstein light cone diagram IMO it is often forgotten or inadvertently failed to be realized that the observer and his object of mass/ matter also fall under the decription that the cones offer regarding time.

As far as I can tell from SRT the answer must be no less and nor more than the distance light travels in 1 second.
Thus it can be concluded IMO that the inertial frame of three objects is traveling an inherent [built in] rate of 'c' even though they appear to be stationary to each other .

If extrapolated to an entire universe this would mean that at a fundamental inherent way the entire universe is changing at this very same rate.
Therefore the fundamental rate of universal change is 'c'. [ irrespective of externally observable relative velocities]

In this sense therefore the speed of light can be deemed the speed of time, rate of time or more correctly the rate of change.

care to discuss

Edit: For those who find the question badly worded or using incredibly bad terminology, possibly you may be kind enough to provide a better way of asking the same question.

 

[theoneiuse]

Scenario:

We have three objects of mass/matter in an entire self contained and closed system universe.
Those three objects have a relative velocity of zero, in that they are stationary relative to each other.

As a part of this inertial frame we have a clock that continues to tick at a steady rate and represents the passage of time for all three objects, in fact the passage of time for this entire universe.

Although there is no obvious movement in this universe we do have the passage of time therefore we have change occuring.

Test case and
The question is:

"How far do these three objects travel together in 1 second of time?"


Reasoning and outcomes:

Now this may seem like a silly question and in a way it has a trick to it.

There is no way of telling how far they travel externally as there is nothing to relate their travel to except space and vacuum.

So the question is more about how far do they travel with in themselves in 1 second.
The reason this question comes up is that using a MInkowski/ Einstein light cone diagram IMO it is often forgotten or inadvertently failed to be realized that the observer and his object of mass/ matter also fall under the decription that the cones offer regarding time.

As far as I can tell from SRT the answer must be no less and nor more than the distance light travels in 1 second.
Thus it can be concluded IMO that the inertial frame of three objects is traveling an inherent [built in] rate of 'c' even though they appear to be stationary to each other .

If extrapolated to an entire universe this would mean that at a fundamental inherent way the entire universe is changing at this very same rate.
Therefore the fundamental rate of universal change is 'c'. [ irrespective of externally observable relative velocities]

In this sense therefore the speed of light can be deemed the speed of time, rate of time or more correctly the rate of change.

care to discuss

Edit: For those who find the question badly worded or using incredibly bad terminology, possibly you may be kind enough to provide a better way of asking the same question.

For this is correct

 

[Quantum Quack]

Does any one see how this directly relates to the issue of "inertia"?
seems obvious to me.....

 

[RJBeery]

Quantum Quack: the same thought has occurred to me and has helped me try to understand time dilation under SRT. Consider "North" as time and "East" as relative spacial motion, for example. Moving at a constant "speed" of, say, 100 mph it can be seen that the more "Easterly" one moves, the smaller the "Northerly" component becomes. In this analogy light would be moving directly East, while "stationary" objects would be traveling directly North.

Not my most elegant explanation but I'm short on time and high on caffeine.

 

[Cyperium]

Scenario:

We have three objects of mass/matter in an entire self contained and closed system universe.
Those three objects have a relative velocity of zero, in that they are stationary relative to each other.

As a part of this inertial frame we have a clock that continues to tick at a steady rate and represents the passage of time for all three objects, in fact the passage of time for this entire universe.

Although there is no obvious movement in this universe we do have the passage of time therefore we have change occuring.

Test case and
The question is:

"How far do these three objects travel together in 1 second of time?"


Reasoning and outcomes:

Now this may seem like a silly question and in a way it has a trick to it.

There is no way of telling how far they travel externally as there is nothing to relate their travel to except space and vacuum.

So the question is more about how far do they travel with in themselves in 1 second.
The reason this question comes up is that using a MInkowski/ Einstein light cone diagram IMO it is often forgotten or inadvertently failed to be realized that the observer and his object of mass/ matter also fall under the decription that the cones offer regarding time.

As far as I can tell from SRT the answer must be no less and nor more than the distance light travels in 1 second.
Thus it can be concluded IMO that the inertial frame of three objects is traveling an inherent [built in] rate of 'c' even though they appear to be stationary to each other .

If extrapolated to an entire universe this would mean that at a fundamental inherent way the entire universe is changing at this very same rate.
Therefore the fundamental rate of universal change is 'c'. [ irrespective of externally observable relative velocities]

In this sense therefore the speed of light can be deemed the speed of time, rate of time or more correctly the rate of change.

care to discuss

Edit: For those who find the question badly worded or using incredibly bad terminology, possibly you may be kind enough to provide a better way of asking the same question.

I agree , now if we apply this to the planck length of one moment we get?

Could it be that the planck length is limiting the rate of change? Or are they interchangeable in any way?

 

[The Breaker]

I agree , now if we apply this to the planck length of one moment we get?

Could it be that the planck length is limiting the rate of change? Or are they interchangeable in any way?

Excuse me if I am incorrect or am misunderstanding the initial thought experiment in some way, but isn't that what the planck time is? The amount of time it takes the speed of light to travel the planck length. Nothing can occur faster than this, so time is meaningless at measurements smaller than this.

 

[EndLightEnd]

In this sense therefore the speed of light can be deemed the speed of time, rate of time or more correctly the rate of change.[/I]

Rate of perceived change maybe? What happens instantaneously only appears to be delayed by the "speed of time".

Does this line of reasoning have any affect on time dilation?

Does any one see how this directly relates to the issue of "inertia"?
seems obvious to me.....

The inertia of objects are determined by their relative speeds to each other?

 

[James R]

We have three objects of mass/matter in an entire self contained and closed system universe.
Those three objects have a relative velocity of zero, in that they are stationary relative to each other.

...

The question is:

"How far do these three objects travel together in 1 second of time?"

Relative to what? Relative to each other - no distance. Relative to space - there's no way to tell if the universe contains no other objects.

There is no way of telling how far they travel externally as there is nothing to relate their travel to except space and vacuum.

Correct.

So the question is more about how far do they travel with in themselves in 1 second.

How can any object travel "with in" itself? Travel means moving in space, not within yourself.

As far as I can tell from SRT the answer must be no less and nor more than the distance light travels in 1 second.

That's what you tell from the Special Theory of Relativity, is it? Explain for me how you get from the postulates of special relativity to your conclusion.

Thus it can be concluded IMO that the inertial frame of three objects is traveling an inherent [built in] rate of 'c' even though they appear to be stationary to each other .

Relative to what?

If extrapolated to an entire universe this would mean that at a fundamental inherent way the entire universe is changing at this very same rate.

Changing, or moving? One moment you're talking about the motion of objects, the next minute you're talking about vague and unspecified changes in the universe. There's no obvious connection between the concepts, as far as I can see.

Therefore the fundamental rate of universal change is 'c'.

Does this mean anything?

Does it mean the universe as a whole moves at c? If so, relative to what? You are aware that c is a velocity, are you not?

In this sense therefore the speed of light can be deemed the speed of time, rate of time or more correctly the rate of change.

Speed is by definition the rate of change of distance, not the rate of change of time.

Does any one see how this directly relates to the issue of "inertia"?

Nope.

seems obvious to me.....

Good.

 

[Quantum Quack]

Does it mean the universe as a whole moves at c? If so, relative to what? You are aware that c is a velocity, are you not?

'c' is a velocity? hmmmmm...need to go back to basics JamesR...think speed and why the distinction.

We are discussing the internal rate of change that every object of mass /matter in the universe goes through regardless of relative velocity. Think atomic or nuclear if you want to.

Or are you saying that the light cones diagrams [ m/e space time ] do not apply to objects of mass/matter?

As to the rest of your post, if you were to take the issue more seriously I would respond more.

 

[Quantum Quack]

JamesR try this if you can?

you have an object of mass/ matter with a clock on it ticking away. What has happened to that object in 1 second? [ relevant to the issue at hand ]

 

[Quantum Quack]

Well...moving this thread to pseudo science says it all I think...well done boys!

All you have done is admitted that the minkowski/Einstein light cones diagrams do not apply to to the observer object but only to events that are observed. Thus you have declared SRT invalid...thanks for that.
And you haven't the courage to admit it....

 

[PieAreSquared]

moving this thread to pseudo science says it all I think

does it matter in an entire self contained and closed system universe?

 

[Quantum Quack]

moving this thread to pseudo science says it all I think

does it matter in an entire self contained and closed system universe?

good point! Of course not....truth is what truth is and is usually self evident

 

[PieAreSquared]

moving this thread to pseudo science

I'm taking it was moved from some where else what was it's velocity? ..

and with one more move will it be 3 objects or remain one?

 

[Quantum Quack]

it took about 10 seconds after posting post #10 in the physics Forum that would make it at least 299,792,458 *10 meters....a long way to travel in a huff if you ask me....[chuckle]

 

[James R]

We are discussing the internal rate of change that every object of mass /matter in the universe goes through regardless of relative velocity.

Then why try to tie it in with the speed of light?

Or are you saying that the light cones diagrams [ m/e space time ] do not apply to objects of mass/matter?

Did I mention light cone diagrams? If not, then I guess I'm not talking about them.

As to the rest of your post, if you were to take the issue more seriously I would respond more.

What issue?

you have an object of mass/ matter with a clock on it ticking away. What has happened to that object in 1 second? [ relevant to the issue at hand ]

Who is to say what happened to it? Without more information there's no way to tell. Anything could have happened to it.

Well...moving this thread to pseudo science says it all I think...well done boys!

It's the best forum for this thread.

All you have done is admitted that the minkowski/Einstein light cones diagrams do not apply to to the observer object but only to events that are observed.

What's an observer object?

Thus you have declared SRT invalid...thanks for that.

Whatever.

 

[Quantum Quack]

JamesR Obviously there has been a serious communications failure here. I accept that possibly I may be responsible and possibly if we disect the OP sentence by sentence we shall get to why this misunderstanding has occurred.

The OP seems clear enough to me and others and I fail to see why it should confuse you much.

 

[AlphaNumeric]

How can any object travel "with in" itself? Travel means moving in space, not within yourself.

QQ has an obsession with saying "How far does it travel within itself" and when you point out how that's an ill posed and grammatically dubious question he just claims you're unable to answer.

That's what you tell from the Special Theory of Relativity, is it? Explain for me how you get from the postulates of special relativity to your conclusion.

He won't because he's never read any books on special relativity and so when he says "Relativity says....." and then says something you know is wrong he'll not back himself up, believing he doesn't have to. We have to defend relativity from his lies about it, apparently he doesn't have to justify his lies about it.

QQ this is akin to me saying "You're a murderer!", demanding you prove otherwise and refusing to back up my accusations. You accuse relativity is this or that but when I (or anyone else) says "What are you basing that accusation on?" you don't believe you have to justify your accusations. This is completely incorrect.

 

[Quantum Quack]

QQ has an obsession with saying "How far does it travel within itself" and when you point out how that's an ill posed and grammatically dubious question he just claims you're unable to answer.

He won't because he's never read any books on special relativity and so when he says "Relativity says....." and then says something you know is wrong he'll not back himself up, believing he doesn't have to. We have to defend relativity from his lies about it, apparently he doesn't have to justify his lies about it.

QQ this is akin to me saying "You're a murderer!", demanding you prove otherwise and refusing to back up my accusations. You accuse relativity is this or that but when I (or anyone else) says "What are you basing that accusation on?" you don't believe you have to justify your accusations. This is completely incorrect

I worked it out....Alphanumeric does not like questions and considers them as being something other than just questions.....

and will do anything to avoid dealing with the issue at hand and resort to flaming instead, to detract fromm his own incompetance as already proven.

If studying as you do leads to this sort of calibre of academic then I am glad to say I didn't study as you have.

If you intend stalking me every time I post I shall have to report you. Either contribute to the forum or abstain from posting please.

your post is off topic Alpha Numerico...

 

[AlphaNumeric]

I worked it out....Alphanumeric does not like questions and considers them as being something other than just questions.....

I answered your questions in the other thread, you just didn't understand the answers.

And its funny you talk about me dodging questions or not wanting to address things, you're the one who has never, in either thread, supported a single one of your accusations towards relativity. What's the matter, can't back up your BS?

to detract fromm his own incompetance as already proven.

So I'm incompetent because you couldn't understand how to do distances in Riemannian spaces? Yes, I'm incompetent for reading books and you're not for not reading and having to resort to lying?

That makes perfect sense.

If studying as you do leads to this sort of calibre of academic then I am glad to say I didn't study as you have.

The level of my discussion with you has no bearing in the level of physics I'm capable of doing and/or do day to day. If I tried to engage you on a discussion with my work you'd simply be in over your head.

If you intend stalking me every time I post I shall have to report you. Either contribute to the forum or abstain from posting please.

Two threads, one of which I've engaged you in considerable discussion? Hardly stalking. Besides, both threads on similar topics, you make similar statements and both James and I have noticed how you refuse to back up your claims about the supposed contradictions in relativity and how you construct meaningless strawmen instead. Such criticisms of your attempts to whine about relativity, a theory you don't know, refuse to read about and cannot do, are relevant. The fact you don't like having your complete inability to justify any your criticisms is not a fault of mine. It's a fault of yours.