Time is Invariant. SR is wrong!

[billvon]

If there is no object of mass to indicate gravity does the gravitational pull still exist?

Yes. It results in measurable changes in the frame (i.e. clocks run slower in a gravity well) as well as deflection of the above-mentioned photons.

Is gravity simply a product of the masses involved and not the space that separates them?

Gravity is a product of mass. Its effect diminishes with distance.

Show me a photon traveling through space in a way that demonstrates it's independence of the mass used to detect it and I will concede my point happily.

It sounds like you are asking to be able to observe a quantum phenomenon without affecting it - which is not possible.

 

[Quantum Quack]

It sounds like you are asking to be able to observe a quantum phenomenon without affecting it - which is not possible.

exactly correct... well done... so does the photon exist as modeled or not?

and that is the question!!!

If a photon can not be evidenced as modeled then what does that say for the model?

 

[billvon]

exactly correct... well done... so does the photon exist as modeled or not?

Per the information we have when we DO observe it - yes.

If a photon can not be evidenced as modeled then what does that say for the model?

That it obeys Heisenberg's uncertainty principle.

 

[Quantum Quack]

Per the information we have when we DO observe it - yes.



That it obeys Heisenberg's uncertainty principle.

can I ask?
Are you observing a photon or are you observing only an "effect" attributed to a photon?
The same question applies for gravity... are you seeing gravity or are you only observing the effect of gravity?

 

[billvon]

Are you observing a photon or are you observing only an "effect" attributed to a photon?

An effect. Everything you perceive is an effect that something has on something else, rather than the direct observation.

The same question applies for gravity... are you seeing gravity or are you only observing the effect of gravity?

The effect.

 

[Quantum Quack]

I do not believe that absolute rest is impossible there is just no way you can determine if you are at absolute rest. I have no idea what you mean by what velocity is [generally] occuring. The velocity of any object can only be determined relative to another object.

with all due respect this only demonstrates the limitations of your understanding not that absolute rest is impossible or not.
Using the SRT paradigm means that absolute rest is in FACT impossible. I happen to agree with this statement as in a universe of substance, movement can never cease for that substance to exist. No movement = no time = absolute zero.
Absolute zero can not exist in a universe of substance... not that hard to get your head around really....
so the question is:
If absolute rest is impossible, at what rate/velocity, speed is substance obliged to move at? [It has to be > 0]
and as I mentioned earlier.. the only solution according to SRT is 'c' which I happen to also agree with.

 

[Quantum Quack]

An effect. Everything you perceive is an effect that something has on something else, rather than the direct observation.



The effect.

So why does science claim to be observing the photon directly do you think?

 

[Quantum Quack]

Or more succinctly, an example of interpretative outcomes:

The wave particle duality that science has been trying to nut out for ages maybe only an issue if one subscribes to the reality of the photon as modeled. That photons have been deemed by science to have an unprovable reality that exceeds the evidence presented.
suggestion:
Perform the "double slit experiment" again but this time ignore the preconception of the photon model completely... and work only with the effect that you observe.

I can tell you now it is really hard to do because the notion of the photon model is simply so entrenched that the ability to perform this experiment with out a call to the model is almost impossible.

 

[billvon]

So why does science claim to be observing the photon directly do you think?

They don't.

 

[Quantum Quack]

They don't.

so does the photon exist as modeled or not?
that it supposedly travels across a volume of vacc-umous space? [ as it is only by way of reflected impact upon objects of mass that the effect can be observed ]
the point is:
We only know what we observe. We observe an effect we call light occurring on objects of mass. We are not able to determine what is happening between light source and destination masses. We use a model to fill in the gaps, even though there is no evidence to support the model.
It is highlighting this lack of evidence that the "photon challenge" was all about.

That the Photon may very well be non existent as a "traveling across space at 'c' entity.

So the it beggars the following question:

How does EM energy transfer from source A to destination B if not by way of passing/transiting through the space between?

and that is where I believe Quantum Entanglement [which is an effect that has been evidenced] can provide a clue.

Basically you get Newton, Lorentz, Minkowski, Einstein and let us say Feynman, all together at a round table and get them to nut it out... [chuckle]

 

[Grumpy]

Quantum Quack

If absolute rest is impossible, at what rate/velocity, speed is substance obliged to move at?

"Absolute Rest" is a meaningless phrase, as you left out the rest of the definition "in relation to ____". All motion is Relative, there is no such thing as motion EXCEPT in relation to another frame of reference. And a frame of reference is always at rest with itself, but that tells you nothing about movement/rate/velocity/speed. You must have a minimum of two points for motion to exist between them, it does not exist otherwise. And no point in the Universe is a reference point for determining the motion of all other particles EXCEPT your own frame of reference, which is at rest with you and an exceedingly small part of that Universe, everything else is in motion relative to you. "I am at Absolute Rest with myself" is about all you can say about Absolute Rest, even the rock next to your foot, if viewed from the perspective of a line between our galaxy and Andromeda, moves around you in a convoluted, twisted trajectory that to you appears to be absolute rest. The Earth rotates and orbits the sun which has an intrinsic velocity around our galaxy as well as a sinusoidal up and down motion through the galactic plane as our galaxy zooms toward the collision with Andromeda coming up in about 5 billion years. You look around you and see stillness, but the reality is the Universe sees you moving at several tens of thousands, if not millions of mph. So "Absolute Rest", on it's own, is a meaningless concept and it does not exist outside of very narrow definitions whose relationship must be defined. By the way, all particles are at rest with themselves, they have no velocity at all relative to themselves.

Grumpy

 

[Quantum Quack]

Quantum Quack



"Absolute Rest" is a meaningless phrase, as you left out the rest of the definition "in relation to ____". All motion is Relative, there is no such thing as motion EXCEPT in relation to another frame of reference. And a frame of reference is always at rest with itself, but that tells you nothing about movement/rate/velocity/speed. You must have a minimum of two points for motion to exist between them, it does not exist otherwise. And no point in the Universe is a reference point for determining the motion of all other particles EXCEPT your own frame of reference, which is at rest with you and an exceedingly small part of that Universe, everything else is in motion relative to you. "I am at Absolute Rest with myself" is about all you can say about Absolute Rest, even the rock next to your foot, if viewed from the perspective of a line between our galaxy and Andromeda, moves around you in a convoluted, twisted trajectory that to you appears to be absolute rest. The Earth rotates and orbits the sun which has an intrinsic velocity around our galaxy as well as a sinusoidal up and down motion through the galactic plane as our galaxy zooms toward the collision with Andromeda coming up in about 5 billion years. You look around you and see stillness, but the reality is the Universe sees you moving at several tens of thousands, if not millions of mph. So "Absolute Rest", on it's own, is a meaningless concept and it does not exist outside of very narrow definitions whose relationship must be defined. By the way, all particles are at rest with themselves, they have no velocity at all relative to themselves.

Grumpy

well prove my point.... [chuckle]

Rest in physics refers to an object being stationary relative to a particular frame of reference or another object. When the position of a body with respect to its surroundings does not change with time it is said to be at rest. According to the theory of relativity it is said that an object is at rest relative to another. For example, a train decelerates on approach to a station and eventually stops alongside the platform. The train can be said to be at rest with respect to the station or just at rest, since in practice we do not need to specify the frame of reference if it is obvious from the context.

By Albert Einstein's celebrated definition,[citation needed] two observers measure having been at rest relative to each other in a particular trial if they succeed to identify a third observer as middle between each other.

In fact, there is nothing at absolute rest. For example the Earth is rotating around the Sun which is rotating around the center of the galaxy and so on.

The concept of relative rest is closely linked to that of inertial observers and the statement that nothing is at absolute rest is loosely equivalent to stating that there are no frames of reference which are truly inertial. So-called non-inertial observers are dealt with in the theory of general relativity.

The can be nothing at absolute rest....
this leads to an interesting point and one that is relative to this thread OP.
you state:

I am at Absolute Rest with myself" is about all you can say about Absolute Rest

and I would say that this is in many ways a flawed statement as what I would say instead is that:
If I am at rest unto myself I am referring to myself as a reference frame. [ as I, my frame of reference consist of an effective infinite number of reference frames]
"I am at relative absolute rest to my self" and not at absolute rest to myself because nothing can be at absolute rest. In other words a paradox... "If I cease to exist only then can I say I am at absolute rest, but if I am no longer existent then I can not say anything"
A ball floating in space is not at absolute rest but at relative rest unto itself. I can say this simply because the ball is existent.

 

[billvon]

so does the photon exist as modeled or not?

Do photons exist? Yes.

Is the model used for them accurate? To the limits of our ability to validate it, yes.

that it supposedly travels across a volume of vacc-umous space? [as it is only by way of reflected impact upon objects of mass that the effect can be observed]

Correct - like all other forces.

We only know what we observe. We observe an effect we call light occurring on objects of mass. We are not able to determine what is happening between light source and destination masses. We use a model to fill in the gaps, even though there is no evidence to support the model.

There are centuries worth of evidence that support the standard model. I use such models in my job daily; they do indeed work.

That the Photon may very well be non existent as a "traveling across space at 'c' entity.

True. Occam's Razor, however, applies.

How does EM energy transfer from source A to destination B if not by way of passing/transiting through the space between?

?? That's what happens.

 

[Quantum Quack]

Quote Originally Posted by Quantum Quack View Post
so does the photon exist as modeled or not?
Do photons exist?

Yes.

oh ...how so? what evidence do you have that they travel across a vacuum?

Is the model used for them accurate?

To the limits of our ability to validate it, yes.

that doesn't make it correct...only that your capacity to test and come up with a better model is limited...

that it supposedly travels across a volume of vacc-umous space? [as it is only by way of reflected impact upon objects of mass that the effect can be observed]

Correct - like all other forces.

a photon is supposedly not a force but a carrier of a force, if I am not mistaken... but alas maybe context is missing...

We only know what we observe. We observe an effect we call light occurring on objects of mass. We are not able to determine what is happening between light source and destination masses. We use a model to fill in the gaps, even though there is no evidence to support the model.

There are centuries worth of evidence that support the standard model. I use such models in my job daily; they do indeed work.

so...uhm how does that address the obvious context of the statement you are responding to?

That the Photon may very well be non existent as a "traveling across space at 'c' entity.

True. Occams Razor, however, applies.

Occam's razor (also written as Ockham's razor, Latin lex parsimoniae) is a principle of parsimony, economy, or succinctness used in logic and problem-solving. It states that among competing hypotheses, the one that makes the fewest assumptions should be selected.

indeed it does so why use a photon carrier particle if you may not need to?

How does EM energy transfer from source A to destination B if not by way of passing/transiting through the space between?

?? That's what happens.

The question asked as you know was based on the approach that required the "dropping " of any preconceived notions of a photon or light effect model.

If you take the approach of "not knowing" and look again at the question...

How does EM energy transfer from source A to destination B?
and provide evidence to support your answer?
and this is what I claim no one can do...using the current model.
and it clearly shows that the scientific method has been ignored in this instance.

 

[Robittybob1]

Your logic is flawed. You are wrong.

The meter was not defined based on the speed of light. The meter as defined long before the speed of light was measured accurately. The speed of light was defined by the meter. When the speed of light was very accurately measured and relativity showed that the speed of light is constant in all frames then it was decided to use the distance light traveled in 1/299,792,458 of a sec as the meter.

What happens in regions of gravitational time dilation then. If time is slowed will the length of the meter then always changing?

 

[Grumpy]

Robittybob1

Yes, the length of a meter in any frame will be measured the same, but those frames moving relative to your frame will be seen by you as having meters that are shorter than yours, the faster they move, the shorter their meter.

Quantum Quack

If I am at rest unto myself I am referring to myself as a reference frame. [ as I, my frame of reference consist of an effective infinite number of reference frames]
"I am at relative absolute rest to my self" and not at absolute rest to myself because nothing can be at absolute rest. In other words a paradox... "If I cease to exist only then can I say I am at absolute rest, but if I am no longer existent then I can not say anything"
A ball floating in space is not at absolute rest but at relative rest unto itself. I can say this simply because the ball is existent.

To have relativity you must have two separate frames to be relative to each other. In your own frame of reference there can be no relationship(by definition), you are always at rest in your own frame, period. Anything you compare your frame with is, by definition, NOT in your frame, it is in a separate frame from yours(even if it is the mote of dust floating by your nose). That is not relativity, it is definition. Absolute rest does exist, it just must be narrowly defined and it only applies within that narrow definition. Absolute rest applied between frames is what does not exist(except in very narrow and specific definitions), absolute rest with your own frame is specified in the definition of a frame. Rest and motion have no effect on whether something exists, it is not intrinsic to existence. That all things are in relative motion with everything else is a RESULT of existence, not it's CAUSE.

Grumpy

 

[arfa brane]

Absolute rest certainly does need to be narrowly defined. Because of quantum fluctuations it can't apply to very small objects.
A weight hanging 'motionlessly' isn't strictly at rest because all the particles it's made of are in motion. Your body is never "at rest" because parts of it are always moving--your heart, your lungs, etc.
You are in fact, a composite of systems in relative motion, even a single cell is.

 

[Robittybob1]

Robittybob1

Yes, the length of a meter in any frame will be measured the same, but those frames moving relative to your frame will be seen by you as having meters that are shorter than yours, the faster they move, the shorter their meter.

Grumpy

But with Gravitational time dilation you don't have the relative motion; so are distances altered as well as time, with Gravitational time dilation, as it does if the same time dilation was a result of relative motion?

 

[victorespinoza]

The relative time does not exist, but, the relative motion that produces a measure.

No one has seen the time, to say that it is relative.

All motion in the Solar system, is a measurement, not relative time.

Have you seen the time?. Tell me how is: is a line, it is a circle, color it is, how it is time, where is it heading time, is relative, is absolute.

You see, no one has seen the time.

 

[Quantum Quack]

Absolute rest certainly does need to be narrowly defined. Because of quantum fluctuations it can't apply to very small objects.
A weight hanging 'motionlessly' isn't strictly at rest because all the particles it's made of are in motion. Your body is never "at rest" because parts of it are always moving--your heart, your lungs, etc.
You are in fact, a composite of systems in relative motion, even a single cell is.

and this is why absolute rest is impossible for something that exists.
So one can conclude that motion is essential to existing. No Motion = Non-existence.
the question is though:
If absolute rest is impossible and everything must be moving [delta t = > 0] what is the rate/velocity/speed of all substances at a fundamental level. I would surmise that it breaks down to what is the speed/velocity of energy at a fundamental level. And I feel that can only be 'c'. Hence E=mc^2 holds true regardless of reversing the equation.
If we assume that energy is the base fundamental of all mass and not that mass is a base fundamental of all energy then we can only conclude that the minimum and maximum rate of movement /change in all substances that exists right down to the qua-la is 'c'.

So a stationary ball floating in a vacuum is constantly moving at an invariant rate of 'c' with out having to be relative to anything else other than itself.
As all substances are moving at this rate then at any t=0 everything appears to be stationary [ v=0 ] relative to each other even though they are all moving at a rate of 'c'
[which axiomatically allows us to take a still photograph of a star scape and not witness movement of energetic substances with in that "still" photograph]