A compilation of The Good Mans thoughts: Time

[John_Farson]

Hi, I have some different ideas that I feel belong in this particular forum.
Instead of making a new topic for each separate idea, I decided it might be easiar on everyone if I just posted them all in the same thread. This way if/when my ideas aren't appreciated by someone then they don't have to be annoyed by all my posts spamming the forum. If someone wants to discuss my philosophical ideas then they know where to find them.



Ill start this thread with my view on time.

TIME​

Time as we deal with it in society is relative. Things like clocks don't keep track of how many events have happened. Ie. In the 10minutes it takes someone to brush their teeth in Kansas. Someone else on a spaceship could have been born, become an adult,raised a family and had countless experiences.

Epistomoligacly time is linked to the individual. If said person has 3 precepts then I would view that as 3 units of time to that person. Time is based on change of the individual. If while you were reading the last sentence 100million generations came and went, time to you was only the amount of precepts it took to read the sentence.

 

[Kerrie]

Hi, I have some different ideas that I feel belong in this particular forum.
Instead of making a new topic for each separate idea, I decided it might be easiar on everyone if I just posted them all in the same thread. This way if/when my ideas aren't appreciated by someone then they don't have to be annoyed by all my posts spamming the forum. If someone wants to discuss my philosophical ideas then they know where to find them.

Actually, we prefer if you did start a separate thread for each idea and not compile it into one thread.

 

[Canute]

You may like this.

"If time really existed, we would be able to perceive it independent of forms, sounds, smells, tastes, and tactile sensations. It would exist on its own, and we would be able to perceive it. The fact is, however, that time can exist only in dependence upon there being something to which we can relate the notion of time. For example: if nothing had ceased, we could have no notion of the past; if there were nothing here, we could have no notion of the present; and if we did not anticipate anything happening, we could have no notion of the future. Since time can only exist in dependence upon these things, it cannot truly exist."

Khenpo Tsultrim Gyamtso
The Sun of Wisdom
(Commentary on Nargaruna's 'Fundamental Wisdom of the Middle Way')

If you check out the thread on Gregg Rosenberg's 'A Place for Consciousness' you'll see this discussed in terms of what he calls 'bare differences'.

 

[JoeError]

So, we suggest that time is based on an individuals perception of time. I agree, but can we say that even though time is perceptually changed is there not still a constant? Myself, an ant and a giant all travel 100 meters. No matter what, we all went 100 meters, but the ant traveled further than I, and the giant traveled less. Unless I'm missing something (probably), if I am though I'm all ears... or I guess eyes.

 

[John_Farson]

Actually, we prefer if you did start a separate thread for each idea and not compile it into one thread.

Kerrie that's interesting, what would be your reasoning behind this statement?

On me personally its a lot easiar to manage just one thread. As I don't have to worry about tons of email reminders, will only have to keep track of one thread and I am able to inter-weave topics into each other. These topics will all be related and come from the same view point and thus make things easiar.

Imagine if you will a religious forum and inside this religious forum people can make threads on/about religion. Now if a particular Muslim person was to start posting about all his religious ideas he could potentially post in 1000s of different threads. Or he could post in 1 thread about his ideas. Now someone else who is Muslim and shares his view-point knows where to go when they want to discuss Islamic ideas. Consquently someone who isn't Muslim but wants to read up on a Muslims point of view knows where to go. Imagine this being a religious forum and a Muslim making a thread called: My Ideas On Religion. If I didnt feel that my ideas came from a distinct Philisophical category then I wouldn't just put them in 1 Philisophical thread.

And again its just much easiar on me to manage as well as easiar for me to inter-weave my views.

 

[Kerrie]

Kerrie that's interesting, what would be your reasoning behind this statement?

because it enables the topic to get off subject. when you post a topic with a subject line, people are drawn to post under that subject. otherwise, i lock topics that get off subject, plain and simple. so, please just post one topic at at time. we have journals if you prefer to write about anything you like at random.

 

[John_Farson]

because it enables the topic to get off subject. when you post a topic with a subject line, people are drawn to post under that subject. otherwise, i lock topics that get off subject, plain and simple. so, please just post one topic at at time. we have journals if you prefer to write about anything you like at random.

Kerrie I would argue that my views are all on topic. That the subject at hand is my views on Epistemology.

Your own words are:

when you post a topic with a subject line, people are drawn to post under that subject

Thats the exact reason why I am doing what I am doing. As it will let people who want to discuss my ideas on Epistemology discuss them in 1 place. As I said before I am not writing anything at random. This thread is all about how I view epistemology. By doing this people will be able to view my entire picture on epistemology and will be able to discuss it ((pros,cons,faults, ect.)) and hopefully this will produce a coherent picture of epistemology.
Seeing how there is nothing else like this in this forum. That allows people to see a complete tapestry of views on Epistemology and how they inter-link, I would ask that this thread not be closed down when the thread eventually starts getting away from just my view on time.

 

[Kerrie]

john, there is no flexibility on this policy, please see the pm i sent and continue this on topic of time, or i will need to lock it.

 

[Jonny_trigonometry]

Time is funny, notice how none of these online conversations depend on time like all other in person conversations. Since all of what was said can't be disputed because it's all recorded from moment one, this conversation (about time) must at some point come to an end. Does that make sense? Is there an infinate amount of ways of viewing the concept of time? Perhaps this idea can be used to prove if any topic can be fully understood and/or defined. If there is no more to talk about, then everyone is satisfied that we are talking about the same exact thing? Or do we will the closure of such topics as a means to take our minds off of something we can't understand? Is there no end to conversation as long as there is will to keep talking? If so, then Kerrie is kind of a party pooper... Why do you want to end time as we know it in this particular conversational aventure? (just kidding). If time is highly linked with perception, then does it have anything to do with our will to keep percieving it? One must be alive in order to percieve time, but one can't percieve without the existence of time, ie. one can't be alive and not percieve time. Either time exists, or we aren't alive. "time doesn't exist" <--- now that's a bunch of hooplah!

 

[Jonny_trigonometry]

The problem with that argument (about time not existing) is that there is an assumption that was made where the unknown entity (the mind) is given the property that it doesn't need time to think. Try and do that right now, make a train of thought that doesn't take any time to construct... If time doesn't exist, then any person could think of everything at once (because thoughts wouldn't be separated by techniques we all use to construct them one by one and group by group). The simple fact that correlations between two similar ideas aren't all 100% shows that methods are used to compare two different thoughts. Ideas are all finite and there may as well be an infinate amount of them, but the fact remains that they are many, not one. How many things can a person think of at once? I argue that a person can only focus their attention on one thing at anyone moment ("snapshot"). If you try to contradict me and think of two things at once, you are in effect thinking of only one thing (or idea), that is composed of two correlated ideas. If you think you can get around it by thinking of two seemingly unrelated things like dolphins and bicycles, think of a dolphin-bicycle, and there you go, however funny the image you get in your head, it is one image. Now think of two separate images in your head (like, your mom on the left, and a #2 pencil on the right, does that contradict my presumption? I would say not, because this new scene that you can imagine is not two scenes of two different ideas, but it's one idea, manufactured to try to prove me wrong. A person must not be able to think of everything at once, otherwise all thoughts would be 100% correlated with all other thoughts, and there would be no such thing as a single thought. "Time is what keeps everything from happening at once." - My friend Andrew Hayes said this, but I don't know if he was quoting it.

 

[skeletonic]

kerrie is just the messenger, we all know freom the "past" that you should not shoot the messenger.

time is real, and it is not real. it is a figment of the imagination. if we were incapable of senceing anything, we prolly wouldn't need tiem to lean on, but time is just what we need it to be. how could i explain when i needed my medication if there was nothing to compare then amd now, thus time was born. i go outside and look at the stars, I am not unique in that way, millions of people have done that. but who realizes that most of the stars i am looking at are simply streaks of light traveling across space forever, until it impacts my retina. although the stars are long dead, i am still able to see them. time may not be accurate, but we use it to serve the purpose it was designed for. if we dint put a name on it would it still be there, if a tree falls in a forest with no one to hear, does it make a sound?

pointless questions without answers. we could make answers, but what would be the point, since we made time in the first place. call it a paradox or watever you want.
we try to measure time by saying that the Earth revolves once in 24 hours, we can try to be more accurate by measureing howmany seconds it takes for photons to move from one point to another. but it is all relative to to each individuals point of view, it just so happens that we all are forced to view a complex theory in simplistic terms that are used everyday. it won't change unless we change it. it is wat we want it to be, we don't make it we just view it the only way we can because we are mortal adn we all knwo that our time will end.

 

[Jonny_trigonometry]

I should have been more clear, I really don't have anything against Kerrie, in fact I voted for him! or was that Kerry... at any rate

It didn't seem to make a difference though; however, it's possible to fix mistakes as long as there is time to fix them... or do I mean "will to fix them"?

Thank you for willing another iteration of this "greater good" (conversation) into existence. The flavor evolves along with our perception of it, and here I am adding a "garnish" to your "meat and potatoes".

 

[Daminc]

My personal opinion is that Time exists independently from anything else and relates to the speed of cause/effect in our universe.

Our perception of Time differs with each individual precisely because we are individuals and are hardwired differently.

 

[Jonny_trigonometry]

My personal opinion is that Time exists independently from anything else and relates to the speed of cause/effect in our universe.

So you're saying time defines the rate of cause and effect? ok, but still, what defines time? If it's independant of everything else, how can it relate to anything? that is, if it's not a function of something else, then it just is... But if that's really the case, then how can we use it to predict events in the future? (ie. it's used as an independant variable in physics equations... ahh! I see what you're trying to say now, since it can be used as an independant variable, it's used as a set that can define the behavior of "something" or anything... but so are the 3 other dimensions.) I guess the same problems in defining time occur when trying to define space.

Our perception of Time differs with each individual precisely because we are individuals and are hardwired differently.

yes, good point. I can't deny that what I've stated is merely one perception of reality out of the teaming billions of human minds. It's not right for me to think that I've got precedence over everybody else. I'm willing to bet that perhaps everybody is aware of this feeling. Again, this is just my opinion. Is there anything that can said about time which can be agreed upon with certainty from the viewpoint of all human minds? Is that question even valid?

 

[Jonny_trigonometry]

whoopse, I messed up the quote thinggy, the paragraph in the middle is my response to the first quote, the one on the bottom (outside of the quote) is my response to the second quote

 

[Marc Carpentier]

Here’s my two cents worth…

Everything that we perceive as real is tied to a notion of dimension, whether that be space (here and there), time (then and now), and consciousness (individual and universal). To perceive anything, dichotomies in at least one of the above dimensions must be perceived.

If one by one we could eliminate the seemingly infinite dichotomies that allow us to perceive our individual existences, we would ultimately find that they lose meaning and cease to exist, if they really exist at all. For example, we have a concept of temperature because we can perceive of a temperature that I’ll call hot and a temperature that I’ll call cold. However, what if at all times it was the same temperature everywhere? How would we know temperature exists? Does it matter? The concept of temperature loses its meaning and ceases to exist to us as individuals in this world. In another example, I have men feuding over who is the strongest and who is the weakest until all men have killed one another leaving only two to decide the question. One man kills the other, leaving only himself. This man is now both the strongest and the weakest man. The comparative notion of strength (amongst other things) becomes meaningless. Though in this example the lone man can perceive of it from memory, it loses its meaning in the present tense and ceases to exist.

There is only one time, and it is Now. All moments happen concurrently. There is only one place, and it is Here. All places are in fact right where you are. There is only one consciousness and it is Universal/God. You exist on many levels of consciousness, but they all are really One.


I wrote the below ecstatic poem stream of thought… it says the same thing:


The sun is settling on my lids, and my warm breath expires, rising with me, turning cold with me, settling as I continue beyond its earthly purpose, beyond the earth. Outward and inward at the same time, yet never really moving, realizing that I had never moved, realizing that movement is a dream that I dreamt, and that I had been in one place, motionless, timeless, without punctuation, pauses or rests… that I’ve been and am and will be waiting for you, and you for me, to be here where we are and where we’ll be when we get here. Infinite as it may seem, we’ve been everywhere with a stillness. Today, I awoke from the dream and realized that I am boundless and forever.

 

[Jonny_trigonometry]

"Everything that we perceive as real is tied to a notion of dimension, whether that be space (here and there), time (then and now), and consciousness (individual and universal). To perceive anything, dichotomies in at least one of the above dimensions must be perceived" - Marc Carpentier

hmm, dichotomies... you mean like how a photon only uses 2 out of the 4 dimensions (no length in the direction of travel, no rate of time)? but what about a particle? those use all 4 dimensions, so there is no dichotomy? I also noticed that you defined "perception" using the word "perception". In accord with your stance, would that itself be a dichotomy, and therefore be real?

"Though in this example the lone man can perceive of it from memory, it loses its meaning in the present tense and ceases to exist." - Marc Carpentier

interesting, do you define all things that exist to have meaning? If something doesn't have any meaning, then it doesn't exist?

 

[Marc Carpentier]

hmm, dichotomies... you mean like how a photon only uses 2 out of the 4 dimensions (no length in the direction of travel, no rate of time)? but what about a particle? those use all 4 dimensions, so there is no dichotomy? I also noticed that you defined "perception" using the word "perception". In accord with your stance, would that itself be a dichotomy, and therefore be real? - Jonny_trigonometry

We know from Heisenburg and his Uncertainty Principle that not all dimensions described by dichotomies can be perceived/measured at the same moment. Get this one and that, and the other(s) can’t be discretely determined. So at this level of physics, we don’t know as much as we think we know about particles. This is because we are a part of the experiment that we are measuring. It’s like a blood cell trying to take the pulse of the very human in which it itself flows. I use the word perception loosely. I believe words are the bricks of the walls we speak. They are limited and cannot approach all that we have to say in the way we need to explain them. We use what we can to convey as best we can that which we are trying to say. Humans have always had problems communicating verbally, this is a given. But, yes, even perception is a dichotomy. There is “how you see thing”, and there is “how I see things”, and everything in between. If we all saw things in the exact same way, then there would be only one perception, and the “notion” of such a thing as “perception” would not come to the fore.

interesting, do you define all things that exist to have meaning? If something doesn't have any meaning, then it doesn't exist? - Jonny_trigonometry

I don’t define all things that exist as having meaning; quite the contrary. I often wonder of all the things that exist that we do not know of simply because we lack the senses or intellect to perceive them. Note that I didn’t say that temperature didn’t exist in absolute terms – I said that we would not know of its existence, and that it loses meaning to us as individuals in this world. As for meaning, I can say that if it exists, humans will try to ascribe a meaning to it; this forum is a good example of that. You can figure out the corollary, which is more along the lines of what I was trying to say.

 

[matrixdude]

ride on Time

Time is purely a reference system for progress.
Progress requires a sense of order .
A sense of order requires a certain inteligence.
Increased inteligence tends to work to declare its own order
When all is well , then time is nowhere. This soon changes , and time once more calls you , for what purpose ? for your progress.

Many moons ago, there were people with no sense of order or of time.
Slowly they became aware of a sense of time , from where ? from their observations of the universe around them.
Their early habits and lifestyles were dictated by sunrise / sunset, winter / summer.

Therefore to some extent they were victims of time.
The universe itself , sun stars moon has a sense of order reflected to us by time.

The universe therefore must have a certain inteligence.

In time, people became more aware of time, and slowly they began to think and construct tools which would allow them to gain control over time .
At the deep level, they feel that this is of vital importance and it is so.

In todays time, we have all the tools and knowledge available to allow us to gain full control over time.
But look around you and see how many have achieved this. Most people today are still total victims of time in that they are possesed with carreers , money , property , egos etc to the detriment of their very souls.
The sad thing is that they know no other way.
But there is always other ways for those whom look, and when you look with sincerity, then a way shall appear , and you must trust your instincts on that one.

 

[Kerrie]

I should have been more clear, I really don't have anything against Kerrie, in fact I voted for him! or was that Kerry... at any rate

funny how some assume i am male because of my name...

 

[Jonny_trigonometry]

My humor is too bland and pitiful to even notice I guess. Sorry.

 

[Daminc]

I'm one of those people who think odd thoughts and write them down. Unfortunately, the path my thoughts go mostly revolve around Physics which is a subject that I do not have a high qualification in. This can be a curse and a blessing.

A curse because many of the questions I have bouncing around in my head may have an answer to anyone with a degree in Physics.

A blessing because I don't recognise what is "impossible" and so I'm not confined by the "reality box" that many qualified people find themselves.

Here's one of the little things I wrote to myself which is related to the subject at hand:

Ref: Time dilation

Is the Time Dilation effect everything to do with the nature of a persons perception of Time and totally independent to Space/Time itself?

Note: Remember thoughts on the speed of light being the interaction limit between particles (or information) on our Space/Time plane instead of an actual velocity of some type.

e.g. the information that allows one particle to recognise and react to a nearby particle travels between them at 3.335640952*10^-9 sec per meter.

This would also recognise that information is massless (as apposed to photons being a massless particle that can be effected by gravity which might indicate that it actually has mass (which is supported by the equation E=MC^2 in that if a photon has an energy signature then it must have mass: M=C^2/E).

Also, with regards to abstract information, our whole science is founded upon an abstract concept of numbers.

Numbers in themselves do not mean anything. They simple show some relationship between things, reactions, whatever.

Our whole system can allow us to predict a certain outcome or probability but does nothing to explain the reality of anything. The WHY? or the WHERE? of events that we perceive.

I've got a lot more to say on the subject but I don't want to just type and not have a debate about this. I would like to know what you people think.

 

[Tournesol]

Is the Time Dilation effect everything to do with the nature of a persons perception of Time and totally independent to Space/Time itself?

Its not down to human perceptions. It affects muons, which we can safely assume do not have minds.

Note: Remember thoughts on the speed of light being the interaction limit between particles (or information) on our Space/Time plane instead of an actual velocity of some type.

It is standardly regarded as both.

This would also recognise that information is massless (as apposed to photons being a massless particle that can be effected by gravity which might indicate that it actually has mass (which is supported by the equation E=MC^2 in that if a photon has an energy signature then it must have mass: M=C^2/E)[/I].

A photon has no *rest* mass. It's KE is equivalent to mass, however.

 

[Jonny_trigonometry]

I thought they couldn't escape a black hole because space-time is being sucked in faster than the speed of light past the event horizon...

 

[Daminc]

Tournesol:

Thanks for your comments :)

With regards to:

Its not down to human perceptions. It affects muons, which we can safely assume do not have minds.

I've just read up a little bit about Muons:

On earth, muons are created when a charged pion decays. The pions are created in an upper atmosphere by cosmic radiation and have a very short decay time--a few nanoseconds. The muons created when the pion decays are also short-lived: their decay time is 2.2 microseconds. However, muons in the atmosphere are moving at very high velocities, so that the time dilation effect of make them easily detectable at the Earth's surface.

It's human perceptions that note the apparent effects of Time Dilation. We should question whether our perceptions are accurate enough (or non-biased enough) to accord a Physical law to a phenomenon such as this.

It is standardly regarded as both.

The thoughts that paragraph was reminding me of was regarding the possiblility of light traveling in a similar way to the Newton's Cradle effect as apposed to Photons actually traveling great distances at the speed of light.

A photon has no *rest* mass. It's KE is equivalent to mass, however.

The use of the word "equivalent" is interesting here. Is this just scientific talk stating "we're not sure but we think this may be likely"? (that photons act like they have mass in certain conditions but don't actually have any mass)

Quick Facts about: special relativity
A physical theory of relativity based on the assumption that the speed of light in a vacuum is a constant and the assumption that the laws of physics are invariant in all inertial systems.

I think it's more and more important that remember that we base a lot of our attempts to understand physics on 'theories' and 'assumptions' and always question the validity of what we think is true.

 

[Faust]

It's human perceptions that note the apparent effects of Time Dilation. We should question whether our perceptions are accurate enough (or non-biased enough) to accord a Physical law to a phenomenon such as this.

I don't know why Tournesol mentioned those obscure muons, when time dilation happens to anything as trivial as a wristwatch. And no Daminc, what is referred to as time dilation has nothing to do with our subjective experience. Put a clock on a rocket, send it out on a very fast trip, and on returning you will see the clock has measured less time than the ones which remained on earth. That has been empirically verified so there's no point arguing against it.

The thoughts that paragraph was reminding me of was regarding the possiblility of light traveling in a similar way to the Newton's Cradle effect as apposed to Photons actually traveling great distances at the speed of light.

You may not realize it, but that's exactly what people thought before Einstein - that light was a wave in the sense that a wave is a disturbance in a medium, and that waves travel faster than the "stuff" that makes up the medium. So your idea is not new, but rather quite old. The medium, or the balls in your Newton's cradle, is known as the luminiferous aether.

I'm not quite sure the existence of the aether has been completely disproved. I think Einstein's position was that we don't need the idea of an aether to explain our observations of the universe; so far no one has been successful at refuting him.

 

[Jonny_trigonometry]

"It's human perceptions that note the apparent effects of Time Dilation. We should question whether our perceptions are accurate enough (or non-biased enough) to accord a Physical law to a phenomenon such as this." - Daminic

The decay times of the muons as viewed from the Earth's frame of referance are much higher than their known decay times at rest. At the speed they travel from the upper atmosphere to the Earth's surface, they wouldn't be able to make it to the surface before decaying if their decay time wasn't dilated.

If the laws of physics are the same for all frames of referance, how could electromagnetism operate differently between frames? If you agree that the laws of physics are the same for all inertial frames, then the speed of light being constant is one of the implications that arise. Due to this fact, other implications arise like time dilation and length contraction.

The aether could still be there if there is a universal center. What if the opposite of matter is space, rather than anti-matter. Then if you take the inverse of a wavefunction, you get the energy inherent in space and you'll find that matter can be viewed as "holes" in space. The more distance between matter, the more inherent energy between them. The energy inherent in space drops down to nearly zero at the center of a particle distribution, and approaches zero as the mass of the particle distribution approaches infinity. (yeah I know, a little off topic)

 

[Daminc]

I've read about "luminiferous aether" a while ago (after a debate I had with someone about a similar subject) and it didn't match what I had in my head.

I appreciate your patience in explaining what must be the basics for you.

2 things may help explain the position I have.

1) Light travels from a distant star and hits Earth. Light from the same star hits another planet, of a similar distance away, with the same magnitude.

Now, I cannot understand how the same photons that left the star would hit Earth because of the dispersion over that distance which is why I imagined a similar effect of a white ball hitting a rack of red balls (snooker). The white ball is the photon leaving the star and the red ball is the photon actually hitting the Earth (which is similar to Netwton,s Cradle).

2) In my head I invisioned a lattice type framework that is space/time (which my friend insisted was the "luminiferous aether" and dismissed) but I don't think this was the case. It started with that model to describe gravity. You know the one, it showed a rubber sheet with a ball in the centre of it and marked with a grid to show the distortion of space/time.

The lattice framework was me trying to envision what the model would be like in 3d and how the lattice would be effected with varying degrees of energy introduced (dispersed and localised) and it appeared that the introduction of energy contracted the lattice cubes near the energy concentration which would stretch the lattice just outside the influence.

This led to wondering that if an area of space/time (a cube in the lattice) had zero energy in it it would be a certain size (for example 1k^3). Any intrduction of energy would contract it.

Now I had the problem of wondering if the distance (from one side of the cube to another) of that 1k had changed to a smaller length. If the distance remained the same but the area in which the distance was contained had contracted then it would seem like anything traveling though it would go slower.

This was stuff I was messing around with about 15 years ago just for something to keep my mind occupied but recently I read something about scientists debating whether the speed of light has always been constant which reminded me of the stuff I've just typed.

If what I though has any merit it would pose the possiblity that even if the speed of light was constant, space/time itself would have changed though varing degreed due to energy concentrations and this would give the impression of the 'c' changing.

This started me down the path of questioning everything about perception which is still ongoing :)

P.s. Thanks Faust and Jonny for those experimental examples which I'll read up on. I think I remember something about the watch and aircraft experiment a long time ago but I can't remember what parameters they set or if they gave any explanation about the mechanics in play.

 

[Faust]

I've read about "luminiferous aether" a while ago (after a debate I had with someone about a similar subject) and it didn't match what I had in my head.

From what I read in your post, I still think it does.

Light travels from a distant star and hits Earth. Light from the same star hits another planet, of a similar distance away, with the same magnitude.

Now, I cannot understand how the same photons that left the star would hit Earth because of the dispersion over that distance

I'm not entirely sure what you mean by "dispersion" here. I suspect you imagine that, because the number of photons must be finite and the star is too far away, then individual photons get too "spread out" making it difficult for them to hit the earth. If that is the case then well, you just got acquainted to a dilemma already known by physicists for a long time.

The simplest explanation for how the star can be seen from any point in space (that is, photons never get "dispersed" and there are no points in space in which the star becomes invisible) is that light is a wave, not a particle. By shining, the star creates "bubbles" which travel through 3D space; the larger the surface of the bubble (in other words, the farther from the star it travels), the less intense it becomes, but the bubble is still covering an entire section of 3D space, making the star visible from any point. (I hope you get this, it's easier to draw than to explain)

Scientists were happy with that explanation, until Einstein demonstrated that photons interact with electrons as if they (the photons) were particles, not waves. This is, in essence, the short story of the strange thing known as the principle of duality - light travels as waves but interacts as particles, which is the same as saying it is a wave when we are not looking, and a particle when we are. It's oversimplifying and missing a few details, but the essence is there.

Now if you feel confused about this, worry not. Absolutely everyone else is.

which is why I imagined a similar effect of a white ball hitting a rack of red balls (snooker). The white ball is the photon leaving the star and the red ball is the photon actually hitting the Earth (which is similar to Netwton,s Cradle).

Again, not sure I get your explanation, but it seems to conform to the scientific notion that light begins and ends as a particle, but travels as a wave.

In my head I invisioned a lattice type framework that is space/time (which my friend insisted was the "luminiferous aether" and dismissed) but I don't think this was the case. It started with that model to describe gravity. You know the one, it showed a rubber sheet with a ball in the centre of it and marked with a grid to show the distortion of space/time.

The lattice framework was me trying to envision what the model would be like in 3d and how the lattice would be effected with varying degrees of energy introduced (dispersed and localised) and it appeared that the introduction of energy contracted the lattice cubes near the energy concentration which would stretch the lattice just outside the influence.

Well, from here on I totally lost you. Sorry.

This was stuff I was messing around with about 15 years ago just for something to keep my mind occupied but recently I read something about scientists debating whether the speed of light has always been constant which reminded me of the stuff I've just typed.

The constancy of the speed of light is not a well-understood issue, even among physicists. The best explanation I've seen so far is that c is constant by definition, like the meter, the second, and other fundamental units. If that is really the case, then it doesn't even make sense to talk about the speed of light being different than what it is today. That would be equivalent to saying that a meter could have been shorter in the past than it is today, which is foolish because at any given point a meter has always had the exact length of... a meter!

I'm sure this will raise some eyebrows, so let me stress that the above is just a possibility, an interpretation. I don't think anyone has established the reason why c is constant beyond any reasonable doubt.

I remember something about the watch and aircraft experiment a long time ago but I can't remember what parameters they set or if they gave any explanation about the mechanics in play.

They put two atomic clocks on two planes, and had them flying around the Earth in opposite directions. According to a source:

"The atomic clocks on the planes flying east lost 184 nanoseconds because of their speed of travel relative to the Earth surface clocks. They gained 125 nanoseconds due to the gravitational red shift. The planes flying west gained 96 nanoseconds due to their motion and gained 177 nanoseconds due to gravity. The measured effects were within 10% of the predicted effects which was within the 20% error in the experimental technique"

But the explanation is not simple because it involves accelerating frames, which introduces the complexities of General Relativity. But the point remains that the clocks did slow down, which is far easier to understand (and accept) that the story about muons decaying.

 

[Daminc]

From what I read in your post, I still think it does.

The reason why I think it differs from the Aether is that the lattice isn't a conventional medium it is simple an extension of the 2d model of the rubber sheet example.

There has to be 'something' that allows matter to exist in and travel through surely.

The lattice framework was simply a way of visualising spacetime in 3d.

The idea of light acting as a particle and a wave has always seemed to me as a bit of a cop out by the scientific big-chiefs. I have yet to see a valid reason why it couldn't be a particle that is riding on a wave of some sort.

Well, from here on I totally lost you. Sorry.

Sorry about that I'll see if I can create a different visual:

Imagine a big 3d grid made out of elastic threads. When there is no energy present the x, y and z are all straight. When energy is introduced into the grid (lattice) the energy pulls on the elastic threads causing them to stretch. Some threads will now be closer together and some further apart. The more the energy is focused in a single spot the greater the pull on the elastic threads.

Does that make more sense?

As a side issue with regards to that experiment that disproves the Aether:

If a solid beam of light was pulsed so that it was exactly 1m. If you were to slow the beam down the beam would appear longer and if it went faster than the speed of light it would appear shorter since the maximum speed information travels, including our brain processes, is the speed of light. (The beam of light however would remain the same size independant to any observations)

Has the experiment been carried out to determine if there is a change in the characteristics of the light with regards to the Aether experiment?

 

[Faust]

The reason why I think it differs from the Aether is that the lattice isn't a conventional medium it is simple an extension of the 2d model of the rubber sheet example.

I think the central issue is whether we need to posit the existence of a medium to carry information across space. In that sense your lattice is similar to the aether, in other respects it might be different. But the idea of aether was never too refined in the first place, it's only a vague picture anyway.

There has to be 'something' that allows matter to exist in and travel through surely.

Why can't matter exist and move through empty space?

The idea of light acting as a particle and a wave has always seemed to me as a bit of a cop out by the scientific big-chiefs. I have yet to see a valid reason why it couldn't be a particle that is riding on a wave of some sort.

I wouldn't call it a cop-out. The problem is complex and no one has found an intuitive way to express it. Particle-wave duality is counter-intuitive and almost certainly not true, but until someone finds a better way to explain the facts, it's all we have.

The problem with the idea of a particle riding on a wave of some sort is that, more likely than not, in reality light is neither a particle nor a wave.

Imagine a big 3d grid made out of elastic threads. When there is no energy present the x, y and z are all straight. When energy is introduced into the grid (lattice) the energy pulls on the elastic threads causing them to stretch. Some threads will now be closer together and some further apart. The more the energy is focused in a single spot the greater the pull on the elastic threads.

That makes some sense. Now it's up to you to do anything interesting with that model.

As a side issue with regards to that experiment that disproves the Aether:

Just a quick note: the aether has not been "disproved". What Einstein showed was that we didn't have to think about it to explain the phenomena he set out to explain. It's quite possible that in the future the idea becomes necessary to explain some other phenomenon.

If a solid beam of light was pulsed so that it was exactly 1m. If you were to slow the beam down the beam would appear longer and if it went faster than the speed of light it would appear shorter since the maximum speed information travels, including our brain processes, is the speed of light. (The beam of light however would remain the same size independant to any observations)

Your language is a bit confusing, but I think I know what you're trying to get at. It sounds similar to some of Einstein's thought experiments, such as the one in which he imagined seeing himself lagging behind if he could travel faster than light (ie, his own image).

Has the experiment been carried out to determine if there is a change in the characteristics of the light with regards to the Aether experiment?

I think the greatest source of confusion regarding relativity is the difficulty of doing experiments. It's very hard to accelerate things to relativistic speeds, the few experiments we have are very limited and, even though they imply the mathematics of the theory are correct, their meaning is still not entirely clear. Take the experiment with atomic clocks in airplanes I mentioned before: the clocks slow down due to the uniform component of motion, and speed up due to gravity, and we can only measure the combined effect. That gives room for people to dispute claims about time, space, travel, etc. All that can be said with certainty is that the measurements were in agreement with the calculations, within a certain margin of error. In the end, that's all we can really know.

If you are interested in learning about relativity, I see there's a section of the forum devoted to it (it's physicsforums.com after all!) Over there people seem more knowledgeable about physics. I'm certainly no expert myself.

 

[Tournesol]

It's human perceptions that note the apparent effects of Time Dilation.

And everything else.

We should question whether our perceptions are accurate enough (or non-biased enough) to accord a Physical law to a phenomenon such as this.

Why should we be in more doubt about TD than anything else ? What about the use of instruments ?

The use of the word "equivalent" is interesting here. Is this just scientific talk stating "we're not sure but we think this may be likely"? (that photons act like they have mass in certain conditions but don't actually have any mass)

it's observed:
gravitational lensing.

I think it's more and more important that remember that we base a lot of our attempts to understand physics on 'theories' and 'assumptions' and always question the validity of what we think is true.

you think scientists don't do that already ?

 

[Daminc]

Why can't matter exist and move through empty space?

IMHO, I haven't read anything to suggest that zero occurs in nature therefore any area of space (except maybe outside the sphere of the expanding universe which I can only guess if this is valid) would have some sort of energy signiture/frequency that would give it a property and stop it from being empty space.

more likely than not, in reality light is neither a particle nor a wave.

Possibly, although that would seriously limit what it could be :uhh:

That makes some sense. Now it's up to you to do anything interesting with that model.

The most I can do is more thought experiments and doodles. I simply do not have the education (and the brains) to be able do anything conclusive with the math required.

Why should we be in more doubt about TD than anything else ?

We shouldn't. I doubt everything. I'm in a permanently confused state of mind questioning the validity of everything I see, hear, feel etc

At best, I can achieve something like a 95% probability that something is true

you think scientists don't do that already?

Some do, some don't. I see too often scientists (or people how have opinions of a similar type) state things as facts, as certainties not probabilities.

Just think of how many things are based upon hundreds of assumtions (that, at best, might have a 99% of being correct): 0.99^100=0.366 (to 3 s.f.)

it's observed:
gravitational lensing.

Ok. Light is seen to bend due to gravitational influences. But as far as I'm aware we still don't understand what light is or what gravity is (or loads of other stuff either). All we can do is be able to predict the behavior of the phenomena’s.


Irrelevant comment: I've just read this in one of my IT newsletters which made me smile:

"They also have a red bumper sticker that reads, 'If this sticker is blue then you're driving too fast'."

 

[Faust]

IMHO, I haven't read anything to suggest that zero occurs in nature therefore any area of space (except maybe outside the sphere of the expanding universe which I can only guess if this is valid) would have some sort of energy signiture/frequency...

"Some sort of energy" sounds a lot like a new-age expression. Energy has a very specific meaning in physics, and a very vague meaning otherwise. Both usages of the word are OK, but applying the vague concept to the preciseness of physics really leads nowhere.

Light is seen to bend due to gravitational influences. But as far as I'm aware we still don't understand what light is or what gravity is (or loads of other stuff either). All we can do is be able to predict the behavior of the phenomena’s.

That's all we can ever do. If you don't like "light bends due to gravity", then you won't like any explanation at all. But that is only because you are expecting the explanation to refer to something real, when the only real thing is the phenomenon itself. Explanations are nothing more than intellectual devices that help us think about real phenomena; the explanations themselves are not real, and it's beside the point to argue about it.

Once you understand that, you may become more comfortable with modern physics. Its explanations are not true in the sense that they correspond to real entities, but they are true in the sense that thinking about them helps you find out things about reality you didn't know before. Expecting more than that is expecting too much; to think you can do more than that is foolishness.

 

[Daminc]

"Some sort of energy" sounds a lot like a new-age expression. Energy has a very specific meaning in physics, and a very vague meaning otherwise. Both usages of the word are OK, but applying the vague concept to the preciseness of physics really leads nowhere.

I'm not a Physicist, I'm a person interested in Physics so you'll have to excuse my imprecision with the use of certain phrases and words.

you are expecting the explanation to refer to something real, when the only real thing is the phenomenon itself.

True, Cause and Consequence. The phenomenon is the consequence of something real happening and I'm just curious to know what it is

thinking about them helps you find out things about reality you didn't know before. Expecting more than that is expecting too much; to think you can do more than that is foolishness.

True again. Anything that helps me to find out new things gets a big thumbs up. Also, I always expect too much and I am a fool (I'm just a very curious one)