Special Relativity Contains Massive Error

[wisp]

Tempest

You can let your atom's frame be absolute relative to the ether. Then galilean transformations hold, and time dilation effects in that frame are zero.

When you put yourself in a moving frame F3 (moving at 1 m/s) then you must take into account a small time dilation effect, but it can be ignored and the galilean transformation still holds (on the assumption sr is wrong).

In the photon frame the effect of time dilation is infinite and so an observer cannot make any measurements.

Wisp theory http://www.kevin.harkess.btinternet.co.uk has transformations (sections 7.11 and 7.11.1) that might help you out. It looks at this from both absolute and relative frames of reference. The theory does not use the Lorentz - FitzGerald contraction; it treats events as having absolute simultaneity, and treats distances as invariant.

The theory does not support sr's claim that the speed of light is constant, although it does show that much of the predictions of sr are correct.

Your ideas will lead you to thinking that the speed of light cannot be constant and you will find it near impossible to convince anyone that this is so.

 

[deda]

Originally posted by chroot

In other words, when you're going c, everything in the universe is zero distance from you.

- Warren

It quite amazes me.If every thing is zero distant from the photon when it travels at c then if it has to go anywhere then it's already there even without moving.
It's not all, but then photon is already every where.

Does it confirms that the light transmition is instaneous from the photon's point of view?[/color]

My purpose is a good debate. I'll jepardise my membership for it if I have to!

 

[StarThrower]

Originally posted by David
I have copies of Lorentz’s 1895 and 1904 relativity papers. He introduced his Lorentz Transformation in 1895 as a way to try to explain the results of the Michelson Morley experiment.

He specifically said in his 1895 paper:



Just “relative motion” can not “exert an influence” on a body in any manner.

Sorry, but rulers don’t “contract” just due to “relative motion”, and Einstein agreed in 1907.

A ruler in “relative motion” to some distant ruler, doesn’t know it’s “moving”, and thus feels no force compelling it to shrink. You need to study more about the various relativity theories.



You can’t jump from a “relatively moving” ruler to an “accelerating ruler” just like that. Those are two different things.

And there is no such thing as something “accelerating in some inertial frame”.

David, the ether concept was discarded, and the transformations are now interpreted as transformation of coordinates from one reference frame to another. It is completely irrelevant what their formulator intended them to mean. The mathematics drive the conclusions. That math discards the notion of ether.

What Lorentz felt was responsible for the shrinking is totally irrelevant to the mathematics of relativity. The transformations are coordinate transformations. You can derive the formula for length contraction and time dilation from using a very simple argument, which will prove to you that the length of a moving ruler shrinks, because it is in motion in some inertial reference frame.

No jump is made, you perform the necessary mathematics. You differentiate velocity with respect to time.

Acceleration = dv/dt. Nothing to it.

And of course there is such a thing as accelerating in an inertial reference frame.

An inertial reference frame is a reference frame in which all three of Newton's laws are satisfied. One of those laws is Newton's third law, which states that

F12 = -F21

The symbol F is for force, and force is equal to mass times acceleration. Hence, objects in inertial reference frames can accelerate in those frames. You are making a conceptual error.

 

[StarThrower]

Originally posted by David
I've generally found that nature doesn't always obey the ancient postulates of mortal men.

Actually, many astronomers today say that distant 1-c galaxies are moving away from the Earth at the relative speed of 1-c, and, therefore, when they emit a photon aimed in our direction, that photon is moving at “0” velocity in our direction. The photon later speeds up relative to us. See the Davis-Lineweaver paper to learn about this new theory.

It’s time to move on in physics and astronomy and move into the 21st Century.

David,

You left out the remainder of the quote:

"So if the theory of relativity doesn't contradict, the only possible conclusion is that this frame isn't an inertial reference frame."

The logic in that thread was flawless, there was nothing to question at all.

 

[David]

Originally posted by StarThrower
from using a very simple argument, which will prove to you that the length of a moving ruler shrinks, because it is in motion in some inertial reference frame.

Einstein basically retracted his “the moving ruler shrinks” hypothesis in 1907, when he said:

“The shape of a body in the sense indicated we will call its ‘geometrical shape’. The latter obviously does not depend on the state of motion of a reference frame.”

Just “relative motion” alone can not cause any ruler in the universe to “shrink”. Some type of “force” or changing force must be placed upon the ruler to get it to shrink. However, I know of quite a lot of people who do believe a “relatively moving” ruler “shrinks”, because they’ve heard this rumor so many times.

 

[StarThrower]

David,

There is nothing for Einstein to recant, because the assumption that the speed of light is c in any inertial reference frame, leads to the conclusion that the length of a ruler which is moving in someone's inertial reference frame, has a length in that frame which is less than the ruler's proper length. You really aren't understanding relativity at all. There is a simple derivation of the time dilation formula, and length contraction formula which will prove that the contraction occurs in absence of any force, and is solely due to relative motion alone. Of course these conclusions are contingent on the postulate that the speed of light is c in any inertial reference frame, but they are the conclusions. Here is their derivation.

Consider an experiment designed to measure the speed of light. A photon is going to be fired from a photon gun at a mirror, it will then bounce back, and the time of travel will be measured by a single clock at rest with respect to the photon gun, and the mirror. Let the distance from the photon gun to the mirror be denoted by d, and let the time it takes for the photon to move from the gun back to the gun be denoted by \Delta t.

Now, the distance the photon travels in time delta t, is 2d. Let us denote the speed of the photon in this frame be denoted by c. Thus, in this frame the speed of light is given by:

c = 2d/ \Delta t

Now, consider things from another inertial reference frame which is moving at a constant speed v relative to the photon gun system. In this inertial frame the photon travels an isosceles triangular path. Let a clock in this frame measure the time of the event as:

\Delta t'

Now, the altitude of the triangle is d, the base of the triangle is

v \Delta t'

Now, the sides of the triangle can be found from the Pythagorean theorem. Now each side of the triangle has a length which is equal to the speed of light in this frame (which I will denote by c') times half the time of the event in this frame which is:

\Delta t'/2

Thus, the side length of the triangular path of the photon is:

(c' \Delta t')/2

And the height of this triangle is d.

And the base is given by:

v \Delta t')/2

Hence by the Pythagorean theorem the following relationship holds:

d^2 + [v \Delta t')/2 ]^2 = [c' \Delta t'/2]^2

From which it follows that:

(2d)^2 + [v \Delta t')]^2 = [c' \Delta t']^2

(2d)^2 = [c' \Delta t']^2 - [v \Delta t')]^2

(2d)^2 = \frac{[(c')^2 - v^2]}{(\Delta t')^2}

And we already know that 2d = c \Delta t

From which it follows that:

(c \Delta t)^2 = \frac{[(c')^2 - v^2]}{(\Delta t')^2}

From which it follows that:

(c \Delta t')^2 = [(c')^2 - v^2](\Delta t)^2

From which it follows that:

(\Delta t')^2 = [(c'/c)^2 - v^2/c^2](\Delta t)^2

Now, the previous formula is true, regardless of whether or not the special theory is true. The fundamental postulate of SR is that c=c', let us make that assumption at this point in the mathematical analysis. Hence we have:

(\Delta t')^2 = [1 - v^2/c^2](\Delta t)^2

Now, take the square root of both sides of the above equation:

\Delta t' = \sqrt{[1 - v^2/c^2]}\Delta t

And so finally we get the time dilation formula:

\frac{\Delta t'}{\sqrt{[1 - v^2/c^2]}} = \Delta t

Half of the work is done. The other half of the work consists of deriving the formula for Length contraction, from the above formula for time dilation. I will let you do the work. The point is, there will be length contraction of rulers, and of distances traveled. There are multiple ways to draw the conclusion, and the only assumption that was made, was that c=c', which is the Postulate of relativity. Thus, length contraction is a consequence of the postulate of relativity, and has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with applied forces. It is a relativistic effect, that only has to do with relative motion, as a derivation of the formulas fully reveals.
A classical approach would have said that not (c=c'), but the times of the event in the frames was equal.

 

[Mumeishi]

I'm not a physicist but I think this quotation from Einstein has some bearing on the flawed premise of this thread:

How, then, could such a universal principle be found?
After ten years of reflection such a principle resulted
from a paradox upon which I had already hit at the age
of sixteen: If I pursue a beam of light with the
velocity c (velocity of light in a vacuum), I should
observe such a beam of light as a spatially oscillatory
electromagnetic field at rest. However, there seems to
be no such thing, whether on the basis of experience or
according to Maxwell's equations. From the very
beginning it appeared to me intuitively clear that,
judged from the standpoint of such an observer,
everything would have to happen according to the same
laws as for an observer who, relative to the earth, was
at rest. For how, otherwise, should the first observer
know, i.e., be able to determine, that he is in a state
of fast uniform motion?

-- Albert Einstein, "Autobiographical Notes" in "Albert
Einstein: Philosopher-Scientist," Ed. Paul Arthur
Schilpp

 

[David]

Originally posted by StarThrower
David,

There is nothing for Einstein to recant, because the assumption that the speed of light is c in any inertial reference frame, leads to the conclusion that the length of a ruler which is moving in someone's inertial reference frame, has a length in that frame which is less than the ruler's proper length. You really aren't understanding relativity at all. There is a simple derivation of the time dilation formula, and length contraction formula which will prove that the contraction occurs in absence of any force, and is solely due to relative motion alone.

Sorry, but you are mistaken. And, anyway, Einstein admitted in 1907 that there is no such thing as geometrical “length contraction” caused only by relatively moving frames.

 

[StarThrower]

Originally posted by David
Sorry, but you are mistaken. And, anyway, Einstein admitted in 1907 that there is no such thing as geometrical “length contraction” caused only by relatively moving frames.

I'm not mistaken, try going through the derivation. I will explain it, if it wasn't clear from the post.

 

[David]

Originally posted by StarThrower
Thus, length contraction is a consequence of the postulate of relativity, and has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with applied forces. It is a relativistic effect, that only has to do with relative motion, as a derivation of the formulas fully reveals

Experimentation and observation suggests it is “c” inside a gravitational field when measured by an atomic clock resting on the surface of an astronomical body inside that field and when the light waves/photons are passing by that particular atomic clock. This is not quite the same as an “inertial reference frame,” because of the downward force of the gravity along the z axis. Einstein’s inertial reference frames in the SR theory only dealt with the x axis, and they had no gravitational potential anywhere along that axis.

So, we can’t think of a small-mass “inertial reference frame” free floating in space in reference to the speed of light, if that frame has no gravitational potential along any axis, because that is the incorrect way to look at the situation. The earth’s surface is an “inertial reference frame” along the x and y axes, but not along the z axis. It is the gravitational potential along the z axis that gives light its local speed of “c” at the surface of the earth.

Let me see if I can explain something that took me a long time to learn. The “relatively moving” frames of the Kinematical part of the SR theory do nothing to each other. They don’t even know the other frame exists.

However, in the Electrodynamical part of his paper he has the electrons of one frame moving around inside the fields of the other frame. I know he doesn’t mention fields, but they are there in his paper. They are what regulates his speed of light inside each frame, and that is apparently what regulates the speed of light to “c” at the surface of the earth.

So it is the Kinematical part of the paper that is incorrect, not the Electrodynamical part. As he gradually developed his GR theory, he became more involved with understanding how gravitational fields influence both stationary and moving atoms.

The “length contraction” of the Kinematical part of SR theory is due to the c – v and c + v phenomena of one observer looking into a relatively moving frame and looking into the light speed regulator of the other frame. In his theory, he has two separate light-speed regulators. Each one travels as being fixed with each frame, one per frame. So, while the frames move relative to each other, so do the light speed regulators. Just like two planets passing each other. Just like the sun has its own light speed regulator at the sun’s surface (it’s local gravitational field), and just like the Earth has its local light speed regulator at the earth’s surface (the earth’s gravitational field). But just the "relative motion" of these two local bodies or fields can not cause any ruler or anything else to "length contract".

 

[David]

Originally posted by StarThrower
I'm not mistaken, try going through the derivation. I will explain it, if it wasn't clear from the post.

I’ve got his equations right here:

Notice the c – v and the c + v?

That’s how he gets his time dilation and his length contraction. It’s a hypothetical mathematical manipulation, caused by a light beam synchronization signal going from A to B at c and B to A at c, in the “stationary” frame, but going from A to B at c – v and B to A at c + v in the “moving” frame.

But this has nothing to do with the real geometrical length of the moving rod or ruler. In 1907 he admitted this and change the “length contraction” from a “geometrical” contraction to a “kinematical” contraction, meaning it’s only an illusion caused by his thought experiments and his math. It doesn’t exist in real life, not due to just “relative motion” alone.

 

[David]

StarThrower,

He says in the 1907 paper:

“It is clear that observers who are at rest relative to a reference system S can ascertain only the kinematical shape with respect to S of a body that is in motion relative to S, but not its geometrical shape.”

See?

The "length contraction" is a visual hypothetical thing that only exists inside the 1905 paper. It's not a real thing in nature or physics.

 

[David]

StarThrower,

Einstein further said in 1907:

“In the following, we will usually not distinguish between explicitly between the geometrical and kinematical shape; a statement of geometric nature refers to the kinematic or geometric shape, respectively, depending on whether the latter refers to a reference system S or not.”

Ok, so S is his “stationary” system. IE, that is basically the “earth” with the earth’s z-axis gravity not being considered, not in 1905 and not in 1907. The S’ system is “someplace else” that is moving with respect to S.

So, when he refers to an x dimension in S, he is referring to a real “geometrical” dimension, but when he is referring to an x’ dimension in S’ (the moving system), he is referring to a “kinematic” dimension. In other words, he is referring to a visual illusion.

This revelation might come as a shock and a disappointment to some people, but I’ve got his 1907 paper right here in front of me.

Seems that quite a lot of physics professors still think he was talking about a real “geometrical” length contraction in his 1905 paper, and so do many science writers and TV documentary makers today.

Seems that there is no real geometrical “length contraction” due just to “relative motion” after all. Such a common belief has been a big mistake for the past 98 years.

Likewise, there is no such thing as real “time dilation” due only to “relative motion”.

 

[StarThrower]

David,

The entire analysis which I gave, can be performed in deep space, where there is no gravitational field, and the result will be obtained. The derivation there, makes only one assumption, that c=c', and it is the clearest derivation of the time dilation formula, and length contraction formula which I have ever come across.
What Einstein thought is now irrelevent. You were given a mathematical derivation of the two formulas, and it is clear that if the speed of light is the same in any inertial frame, then the length of a ruler contracts in a frame in which it is moving, solely based upon the fact that there is relative motion.
You have a clear derivation there, it is totally independent of the thoughts of Einstein. Now, if you have a problem with the length of a body contracting, solely due to relative motion, then don't cancel c with c`, and become a non-relativist. Again, I really don't know what to tell you, other than the thoughts of Einstein are now irrelevent, and there is a mathematical derivation of the formulas which proves my point conclusively.

 

[David]

StarThrower,

Ok, well, we aren’t getting anywhere, so let me change the subject.

Let me ask you this question. In this demonstration, why wouldn’t the dot of laser light hit the card the slits are on, right in the middle between the slits, and thus not go through either slit?

http://www.colorado.edu/physics/2000/schroedinger/two-slit2.html

 

[StarThrower]

Originally posted by David
StarThrower,

Ok, well, we aren’t getting anywhere, so let me change the subject.

Let me ask you this question. In this demonstration, why wouldn’t the dot of laser light hit the card the slits are on, right in the middle between the slits, and thus not go through either slit?

http://www.colorado.edu/physics/2000/schroedinger/two-slit2.html

It's been a long time since I've done the double slit experiment using a laser on a diffraction grating. As I recall, the distance between the two slits has to be on the order of the wavelength of the light, in order to get a diffraction pattern. Hence, if the distance between the slits is large, the laser beam will hit the center, and the photons will not pass through. There are plenty of good derivations of the formula for interference pattern on the web. The formula predicts where the light and dark fringes are, with the most intense maximum being located at the midpoint, between the slits but on the far wall.

n \lambda = d sin(\theta)= d (X/L)

d = distance between slits
x = distance between bright fringes
L = distance from slits to far screen
lambda = wavelength

In the formula above, sin theta is approximately equal to tan theta for small angles, and hence we can write X/L = sin theta.

So the textbook answer to your question, is that the distance d has to be on the order of the wavelength of the laser light, and the diffraction pattern appears, if there is a solid wall there, no photons will strike the far screen, and if there is no wall there, the beam will hit the far wall at a dot.
So then the only thing left to do, is explain why an interference pattern ever appears, and why it appears even if only one photon strikes the two slits.

I will say that a single solid particle cannot create a diffraction pattern, and that what is going on at the level where the diffraction pattern occurs is not understood by anyone yet, and that this is due to a faulty model.

 

[David]

Originally posted by StarThrower
on at the level where the diffraction pattern occurs is not understood by anyone yet, and that this is due to a faulty model.

Thanks!

 

[StarThrower]

Originally posted by David
Thanks!

You're welcome.

 

[deda]

If that's not massive error then I'm Tom Johns

Einstein versus Him Self

It's a short one!

 

[russ_watters]

Originally posted by deda
Einstein versus Him SelfThis proves that SR kind of calculus is not manageable.

All it proves is that a photon's point of view isn't a valid reference frame for SR. Not news and not a problem for SR.

 

[tenzin]

Couple questions

For tempest: First of all I am not against challenging special relativity. I have quesitons as to its foundation as well. But the first thing I do before I try to refute a theory is learn it. If you do not do this then your attacks will be very weak.

For chroot: If the photon experiences no time how can it be produced, abide and then decay? If it does not experience time then how can it change?

 

[ahrkron]

Originally posted by tenzin
If it does not experience time then how can it change?

I'm sorry if this is too much handwaving, but consider this: to a large extent, what we call time is defined by the behavior of speed-of-light entities. It is not unreasonable that they would follow different rules.

 

[tenzin]

Please Clarify

You wrote...

I'm sorry if this is too much handwaving, but consider this: to a large extent, what we call time is defined by the behavior of speed-of-light entities. It is not unreasonable that they would follow different rules.

I am not sure what is meany by time being defined by speed-of-light entities. My watch is not made of light and it keeps time.

Even if we assume what you said to be true I don't see the connection between time being defined by speed-of-light entities and them following different rules.

 

[Jimmy]

Originally posted by tenzin
]{ahrkron wrote...

I'm sorry if this is too much handwaving, but consider this: to a large extent, what we call time is defined by the behavior of speed-of-light entities. It is not unreasonable that they would follow different rules.}

I am not sure what is meany by time being defined by speed-of-light entities. My watch is not made of light and it keeps time.

Even if we assume what you said to be true I don't see the connection between time being defined by speed-of-light entities and them following different rules.

To be clear, ahrkron said, "...what we call time is defined by the behavior of speed-of-light entities." The most obvious characteristic of light is its source independence. This behavior is the key to the relationship between space and time. Specifically, how time is measured with regard to massive objects as they move in space. If the speed of light is measured to be the same regardless of the speed of its source, then it certainly cannot be considered to be an inertial frame of reference.

When talking about space-time, it is often stated that there are three dimensions of space and one time dimension. This is correct to a point. However, I believe it is more correct to say that there are four space-time dimensions. Time isn't an absolute quality of the universe with an axes that points in the same direction in space-time. How we perceive space and time is dependent on our motion. Two people moving at different velocities will measure each others motion, with regard to space and time separately, to be different. One person's space is another person's time, so to speak.

Regardless of what your velocity is with respect to any frame of reference, with respect to yourself, your motion is always time-like. So if time does not represent an absolute 'direction' or quality of space-time but is dependent on the motion of a massive object, then time (or how we measure time) is a property of matter and does not apply to light.

Light's motion is always spatial regardless of who measures it. Anything that is measured to move at C has a purely space-like motion.

 

[tenzin]

Still haven't answered the question

You still have not answered the question. Initially I said..."If the photon experiences no time how can it be produced, abide and then decay? If it does not experience time then how can it change?"

According to the view that the photon experiences no passage of time the following needs to be answered.

 

[Jimmy]

Originally posted by tenzin
You still have not answered the question. Initially I said..."If the photon experiences no time how can it be produced, abide and then decay? If it does not experience time then how can it change?"

According to the view that the photon experiences no passage of time the following needs to be answered.

Does a photon need time to exist and propagate? From our point of view (entities with rest mass) we see light propagate as a function of time. We measure astronomical distances in terms of how long light takes to travel from point a to point b. From the perspective of a photon, if such a perspective is possible, who knows? I certainly haven't traveled along with a photon to see for myself. The point is, time, in the context of the theories of Relativity, applies to massive bodies and the rate at which time is measured to proceed in different frames of reference. Time is an abstract concept which defines a relationship between massive objects, as distance is an abstract concept which defines a spatial relationship between objects.

I think it is unfortunate that the word "time" is used to refer to time itself and the measure of time. We measure space with units of distance. We measure time with units of time. I think that causes a lot of confusion. When I think of space-time, it's hard not to visualize time as some physical quality of that 4-D geometry. However, what we call time, isn't different from space in an absolute sense. We differentiate time and space based on how we move in those four dimensions and not on some absolute quality of the universe. As I said before, time is an abstract relationship between massive objects and how we measure that relationship depends on how we move. Light is decidedly different from matter as can be seen by its behavior and the same rules do not apply.

 

[tenzin]

Originally posted by Jimmy
The point is, time, in the context of the theories of Relativity, applies to massive bodies and the rate at which time is measured to proceed in different frames of reference. Time is an abstract concept which defines a relationship between massive objects, as distance is an abstract concept which defines a spatial relationship between objects.

So time does not apply to light which has no mass?

I think it is unfortunate that the word "time" is used to refer to time itself and the measure of time. We measure space with units of distance. We measure time with units of time. I think that causes a lot of confusion.

No, we measure distance in units of meters and time in units of seconds. You are attempting to use a parallel reason but it does not hold.

Third, you didn't answer my question. All you have do is change the rule to fit your view. Read what I wrote and think about it them reply.

The real problem is that you haven't defined time. I have and it is posted somewhere here.

 

[Jimmy]

Originally posted by tenzin
So time does not apply to light which has no mass?

Not in the same manner that time applies to matter. As I said before, light is decidedly different than matter as is seen by its behavior. Honestly, I don't know how time would apply to light in its own frame. We certainly observe light to traverse between two points in a finite amount of time. I don't believe anyone really knows what is happening from the point of view of a photon.

No, we measure distance in units of meters and time in units of seconds. You are attempting to use a parallel reason but it does not hold.

My point was that we describe relationships in space by using distances. A meter is just one particular unit of measure. You can use whatever unit you like. We describe relationships in "time" with units of time. A second is just one particular unit of measure of time. Again, you can use whatever unit you like. I was trying to point out the confusion that can arise when talking about time and the measure of time. Anyway,

Third, you didn't answer my question. All you have do is change the rule to fit your view. Read what I wrote and think about it them reply.

tenzin: For me the most general definition of time is change. If we measure the time between two events we are measuring the number of occurences of a particular event that happened between the two events.

The real problem is that you haven't defined time. I have and it is posted somewhere here.

Your definition of time is change. We measure the rate of that change with a physical system that has a property which varies in a regular fashion. That's a pretty good definition in my opinion but does that really define what time is? In the absence of a device to measure time, however, if a system does not change does this mean that zero time has elapsed? Is time an abstract concept? If it is, does light depend on our abstract notion of time in order to propagate in space?

 

[tenzin]

Originally posted by Jimmy
Not in the same manner that time applies to matter. As I said before, light is decidedly different than matter as is seen by its behavior. Honestly, I don't know how time would apply to light in its own frame. We certainly observe light to traverse between two points in a finite amount of time. I don't believe anyone really knows what is happening from the point of view of a photon.

First of all I don't have any idea what is meant by 'the point of view of a photon'. I believe that the photon does experience change and therefore experiences time. If it didn't experience time how could we talk about the lifetime of a photon?

My point was that we describe relationships in space by using distances. A meter is just one particular unit of measure. You can use whatever unit you like. We describe relationships in "time" with units of time. A second is just one particular unit of measure of time. Again, you can use whatever unit you like. I was trying to point out the confusion that can arise when talking about time and the measure of time. Anyway,

Maybe it is me but I don't see any confusion when talking about time and the measurement of it. I have defined time and we can measure it with a clock. When I snap my fingers we know there is an amount of time over which the snap occurred and we can measure it. What's the problem here?

Your definition of time is change. We measure the rate of that change with a physical system that has a property which varies in a regular fashion. That's a pretty good definition in my opinion but does that really define what time is? In the absence of a device to measure time, however, if a system does not change does this mean that zero time has elapsed? Is time an abstract concept? If it is, does light depend on our abstract notion of time in order to propagate in space?

A photon is always changing. You use system but I you need to give an example for me to comment on that example.

 

[Jimmy]

Originally posted by tenzin
First of all I don't have any idea what is meant by 'the point of view of a photon'. I believe that the photon does experience change and therefore experiences time. If it didn't experience time how could we talk about the lifetime of a photon?

I don't either. That was my point. A photon always moves at a speed of c no matter how we are moving in relation to the source of that photon. The frame of reference of a photon isn't a valid frame in SR as Russ_waters pointed out. How we measure time and space with regard to inertial frames does not apply to a photon because a photon exists in a special frame of it's own. The relationships between distances and time do no apply as they do to matter.

What exactly do you mean by the 'lifetime of a photon'? How does a photon experience time? How does a photon change with time?

Maybe it is me but I don't see any confusion when talking about time and the measurement of it. I have defined time and we can measure it with a clock. When I snap my fingers we know there is an amount of time over which the snap occurred and we can measure it. What's the problem here?

That was just a side issue I happened to be thinking about at the time and I felt like mentioning it. If there is no confusion in your mind about time and the measure of time, then there is no problem. Just forget I mentioned it.

A photon is always changing. You use system but I you need to give an example for me to comment on that example.

Again, what is it about a photon that changes?

Earlier, you defined time as change. The measure of time depends on change. Take any object, say a book. Place that book on a table. It's possible for that book to remain unchanged for an indefinite length of time. Let's say that it's position hasn't changed relative to the table. In fact, let's say that no measurable property of that book has changed during a certain period of time. Did time stop for that book simply because it did not undergo a change?

Edit: I'm enjoying this discussion very much but I need to step out for a little while. You raise good points and I will certainly be thinking about this while I'm gone. I'm not arguing with you just for the sake of arguing or because my ideas are set in stone. I consider myself pretty open minded and I enjoy discussions such as this for the sake of learning.

We might consider moving this discussion to a new thread. I fear we have hijacked this thread for the sake of our own discussion and have strayed from the original posters topic.