Timeless GR

[Motor Daddy]

In a vacuum, light travels from one point in space to another point in space. The line between those two points is the path that light traveled. That line has a path length, which is defined by time of travel when speaking about light travel in a vacuum. The meter is defined as the length of the path that light travels in a vacuum in 1/299792458 of a second.

So when light travels from one point in space to another it takes TIME! That light travel time defines the length of the path, in units of meters. That means m/s for light. That is facts, and when one tries to augment BS it is very clear where the problem is. Light travel time never lies!

 

[BlackHoley]

In a vacuum, light travels from one point in space to another point in space. The line between those two points is the path that light traveled. That line has a path length, which is defined by time of travel when speaking about light travel in a vacuum. The meter is defined as the length of the path that light travels in a vacuum in 1/299792458 of a second.

So when light travels from one point in space to another it takes TIME!

No, relative to inertial observers it takes time. You can only describe time when there is an inertial frame of reference. If you don't have anything else but light then there is a problem, light doesn't have an inertial frame of reference... in fact it has no reference according to the laws of relativity.

 

[Motor Daddy]

No, relative to inertial observers it takes time. You can only describe time when there is an inertial frame of reference. If you don't have anything else but light then there is a problem, light doesn't have an inertial frame of reference... in fact it has no reference according to the laws of relativity.

The meter is clearly defined:

Since 1983, it has been defined as "the length of the path travelled by light in vacuum during a time interval of 1/299,792,458 of a second.

If you want to take time away you have no definition of the meter, so you have no SI unit of length, the meter. So you have no speed of light in units of m/s. What have you measured if you haven't measured distance and time?

 

[BlackHoley]

The meter is clearly defined:



If you want to take time away you have no definition of the meter, so you have no SI unit of length, the meter. So you have no speed of light in units of m/s. What have you measured if you haven't measured distance and time?

*slaps head*



Motordaddy, it's a given fact of relativity that no time passes for a photon. I have no intentions teaching you these well-known things in any great depth.

 

[Motor Daddy]

*slaps head*



Motordaddy, it's a given fact of relativity that no time passes for a photon. I have no intentions teaching you these well-known things in any great depth.

You mean you have no ability to teach me BS when I know the truth. You will not pass your BS off on me, guaranteed!

 

[BlackHoley]

You mean you have no ability to teach me BS when I know the truth. You will not pass your BS off on me, guaranteed!

No, I feel sorry for a lot of posters here. I could explain it, but you'd be mixture of not listening and not understanding. I can just tell.

 

[BlackHoley]

Since I am not wasting any time on explaining a topic to you, there are however plenty people who have already invested answering similar questions. This is nice and simple, no mathematics as such... which is probably a good thing.

http://www.askamathematician.com/2011/07/q-does-light-experience-time/

 

[Motor Daddy]

No, I feel sorry for a lot of posters here. I could explain it, but you'd be mixture of not listening and not understanding. I can just tell.

I feel sorry for them too. They just want a simple, logical, easy to understand description of the universe. What do they get from you? Confusion and BS! There is no magic to all this, just mass confusion created by thousands of years of ignorance and fairy-tales told and believed. Why do you insist on carrying on the norm?

 

[BlackHoley]

I feel sorry for them too. They just want a simple, logical, easy to understand description of the universe. What do they get from you? Confusion and BS!

Projecting your anger at me because you find physics difficult and confusing won't help the situation. I've provided you a link above which can maybe help your confusion. Maybe.

 

[Motor Daddy]

Projecting your anger at me because you find physics difficult and confusing won't help the situation. I've provided you a link above which can maybe help your confusion. Maybe.

I've laid it all out for you. You can check the math, or you can simply see your error by looking at the pics. See how easy that is?

 

[wellwisher]

One set of observations, that are connected to Newtonian gravity, that are left out of GR, is connected to pressure. GR talks about the time within space-time but not the time associated with matter/energy transitions as a function of pressure induced by gravity.

For example, in a star, the center has the slowest time frame in the space-time well, yet the core also has the fastest matter/energy frequencies or fastest average time of phenomena, due to pressure; gamma and fusion reactions. Unlike the abstract of space-time, the matter transitions are tangible. One can save a cup of hydrogen. But instead we choose the imaginary time as the standard. Does this have to do with contrivances?

If we start in the core of the star, and move up the space-time well to the surface, time speeds up. Yet the tangible matter/energy frequencies get slower, which means matter/energy based time is slowing down instead of speeding up. Why do we use the abstract time instead of the tangible time?

Tangible time allows for global references. If we see fusion in stars and the rate of output energy, we can infer the amount of mass and gravity needed, regardless of how we frame it in space-time. In this respect I can see why BlackHoley contents that time is a contrivance that does not exist, because relative/abstract time cannot used as a global standard, like tangible time.

 

[Russ_Watters]

So sure, talk about time all you want in the context of moving observers or measuring an electron clock due to zitter motion, it makes no difference because the fundamental theory of gravity is essentially timeless.

What is the "fundamental theory of gravity"? Quantum Gravity?

So I define two concepts:

Induced time to explain the local phenomenon which can be modeled very successfully using the laws of relativity and fundamental time which in the context of GR, has none.

But you didn't define them until recently. You said, flatly "there is no time in GR". Repeatedly. Were you just looking for a fight or was that an error you made by using the wrong term?

At this point, you kind of need to reboot your entire reincarnation here and start over from scratch, because this changes everything.

And of course, there isn't any clock to the universe.

Nor does it have its own balance scale. That's rhetorical nonsense.

GR doesn't use a time parameter to describe cosmological evolution.

What does that mean? Show it to me.

Local experience of time is certain between observers in the context of SR but it cannot be extended to GR in this way…

In what way? GR is an extension of SR, or, from the other side, SR can be derived from GR for certain cases. So there is no disconnect between the two.

Frankly, this all looks like smoke blowing to me.

You also said recently that you think your own source is wrong and also admitted you recognize that what you are saying isn't the current mainstream view. So where does that leave us? It appears that you are making this crap up as you go and nothing you say can be taken at face value!

 

[BlackHoley]

I will get to actual questions soon, motordaddy is a motormouth with no idea about physics. I don't see why I should even respond to obvious trolls. I know the physics... I've shown you a question-answer page by a physicist.

If this isn't enough for you, then you are spouting pseudoscience.

 

[Grumpy]

BlackHoley

I'm sure Grumpy just did what most people can do... search for what I am saying for themselves.

Grumpy understood Relativity before you were born, Skippy. He probably taught kids that could be your daddy or mommy, for that matter.

Light in itself however, cannot act as a clock for the universe.

Nonsense, it is the only thing in the Universe that can be used to measure anything like a universal time for the Universe(it's still squishy locally, but that local squishyness is overwhelmed by the general flux). When looking at billions of light years all local variations of time are washed out, leaving lightspeed itself as a Relatively useful picture of overall, Universe wide time. Lightspeed through spacetime is a constant c , distance is speed times time, therefore time is an integral component of that constant. Relativity is based on that constant, so Relativity is based on the existence of time. Now go away, kid, and learn something.

Brains full of mush.

Grumpy

 

[BlackHoley]

Nonsense, it is the only thing in the Universe that can be used to measure anything like a universal time for the Universe(it's still squishy locally, but that local squishyness is overwhelmed by the general flux). When looking at billions of light years all local variations of time are washed out, leaving lightspeed itself as a Relatively useful picture of overall, Universe wide time. Lightspeed through spacetime is a constant c , distance is speed times time, therefore time is an integral component of that constant. Relativity is based on that constant, so Relativity is based on the existence of time. Now go away, kid, and learn something.

Brains full of mush.

Grumpy

Asinine troll!

Light follows null geodesics. Spanish to you yes?

Someone has some learning to do but it isn't me!

 

[Grumpy]

BlackHoley

Asinine troll!

Light follows null geodesics. Spanish to you yes?

Someone has some learning to do but it isn't me!

Do you even know what a null geodesic means? When spacetime bends due to mass, the null geodesic(also called the zero energy path)bends as well, so that a straight path through local spacetime becomes a bent path as observed from a remote observer. IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH TIME'S EXISTENCE. Just a sciency sounding word for you to misuse.

Grumpy

 

[Fraggle Rocker]

Asinine troll! -- Light follows null geodesics. Spanish to you yes? -- Someone has some learning to do but it isn't me!

NOTE FROM A MODERATOR

PERSONAL INSULTS ARE A VIOLATION OF THE FORUM RULES. WE DON'T ENFORCE THIS RULE METICULOUSLY SINCE MANY INSULTS ARE OBVIOUSLY MADE IN JEST. BUT THIS CLEARLY DOES NOT FALL INTO THAT CATEGORY.

CONSIDER THIS A FRIENDLY WARNING. IF IT HAPPENS AGAIN YOU WILL START YOUR JOURNEY THROUGH THE BAN PROCESS.

Fraggle Rocker
Moderator
Linguistics
Arts & Culture

 

[BlackHoley]

BlackHoley



Do you even know what a null geodesic means? When spacetime bends due to mass, the null geodesic(also called the zero energy path)bends as well, so that a straight path through local spacetime becomes a bent path as observed from a remote observer. IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH TIME'S EXISTENCE. Just a sciency sounding word for you to misuse.

Grumpy

Do a time dilation on a photon. Go on, I dare you! You'll find the photon experiences no time, not because it can't experience it from it's frame of reference, but simply because it doesn't have a frame of reference. It's time dilation is stretched so much, no time passes for it at all.

Now, an observer can sit and measure the time it takes a photon to traverse from one location to another, but this is because we are measuring our own time, not the photons. This is just a blatant fact of relativity.


Fraggle

Maybe if I wasn't being baited so much I wouldn't have reacted like that. Sorry, though.

 

[Russ_Watters]

Maybe if I wasn't being baited so much I wouldn't have reacted like that. Sorry, though.

Ha! Here is an excerpt from, near as I can tell, your very first post since your rebirth:

Here we go again... posters who don't actually know what they are talking about...

Before everyone here runs off their mouth and start saying silly uneducated things...

Certainly some people (paddoboy, in particular) have responded to your flaming/trolling more than they should, but it is quite clear that there was no baiting from anyone here: you dove right in with trolling attitude in your very first post.

 

[Grumpy]

BlackHoley

Do a time dilation on a photon. Go on, I dare you!

Photons and mass are two unrelated things, only those things with mass experience time dilation, photons have no time in their own frame and never move at any speed but c through spacetime.

Are you laboring under the delusion that Relativity is only about light and radiation?

You'll find the photon experiences no time, not because it can't experience it from it's frame of reference, but simply because it doesn't have a frame of reference. It's time dilation is stretched so much, no time passes for it at all.

No, you won't. And EVERYTHING has it's own frame of reference(IE the conditions where it exists). Light experiences no time because it only travels at lightspeed, it's moment of creation is the same moment it is absorbed and spacetime has zero length between those two points IN THE FRAME OF THE PHOTON. To us it is a squiggle of the electrodynamic spacetime field that transit that field at c IN OUR FRAME.

Now, an observer can sit and measure the time it takes a photon to traverse from one location to another, but this is because we are measuring our own time, not the photons. This is just a blatant fact of relativity.

I thought you said there was no time in GR? In fact that is what you claimed until you were caught trying to qualify it as "fundamental time"(which scientists know as universal time), but you claimed there was NO TIME in GR and that is plain non-sense.

So sure, talk about time all you want in the context of moving observers or measuring an electron clock due to zitter motion, it makes no difference because the fundamental theory of gravity is essentially timeless.

But Relativity is not timeless, nor is it just a theory of gravity(which is the curvature of spacetime, by the way). The whole theory is based on lightspeed, which is a defined distance in a defined TIME. So, without time you can't be talking about Relativity. Saying there is no time in GR only exposes your ignorance about GR and the nature of time.

Grumpy