Leave these fields empty (spam trap):
Name
You can leave this blank to post anonymously, or you can create a Tripcode by using the format Name#Password
Comment
[i]Italic Text[/i]
[b]Bold Text[/b]
[spoiler]Spoiler Text[/spoiler]
>Highlight/Quote Text
[pre]Preformatted & Monospace Text[/pre]
[super]Superset Text[/super]
[sub]Subset Text[/sub]
1. Numbered lists become ordered lists
* Bulleted lists become unordered lists
File

Sandwich


420chan is Getting Overhauled - Changelog/Bug Report/Request Thread (Updated April 10)
Discuss... Ignore Report Reply
The Fool !oj3475yHBQ - Wed, 08 Jul 2015 20:14:54 EST ID:NjsLJs2P No.55484
File: 1436400894839.jpg -(114479B / 111.80KB, 854x687) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 114479
If time is equal to the distance that light travels, yet slows as one approaches the speed of light, does this not indicate that the speed of light is actually timeless?

If the speed of light is timeless, yet time is equal to the distance that light travels, does it not mean that the observer is responsible for the conception of distance in relation to light?

If time is equal to the distance that light travels, yet the speed of light is timeless, than space/time is actually light, as a measurement of time is actually a measurement of light.

If a measurement of time is actually a measurement of light, but the speed of light is timeless, does this not mean that to measure light is to create time?
>>
Henry Draper - Wed, 08 Jul 2015 21:41:22 EST ID:RbiyR5+N No.55485 Ignore Report Reply
>>55484
>If time is equal to the distance that light travels,
It's not. Yeah, I' mthe dude from /b/
>>
trypto - Wed, 08 Jul 2015 21:52:50 EST ID:RbiyR5+N No.55486 Ignore Report Reply
>>55485
Fuck. Didn't mean to post that.

>If time is equal to the distance that light travels
First of all, you should really finish this sentence. You mean to say "Time is equal to the distance that light travels (in a given interval)". This is also known as the speed of light. So you're saying that time is the speed of light.

However, that still doesn't make sense because ALL FRAMES OF REFERENCE MEASURE THE SAME SPEED OF LIGHT. In other words, time would be the same everywhere. While time does appear slower or faster from different frames of reference, the *speed* of light remains the same.

Second of all, how does this definition allow for the passage of time? If I measure the speed of light at 12 PM and 1AM, and get the same result, does that mean I'm still at 12PM?


Last of all, make no mistake: you're not playing the part of the fool. The fool says the emperor has no clothing, he doesn't present the emperor with a new set of magical clothes.
>>
The Fool !oj3475yHBQ - Wed, 08 Jul 2015 23:07:23 EST ID:NjsLJs2P No.55487 Ignore Report Reply
>>55486
Sorry if i am fuzzy on this, but i was trying to say that the interval is the act of measurement which creates the perception of time in the first place, thus time is relative for each interval of measurement, yet the speed of light is constant, not because time is the speed of light, but because the speed of light is timeless.

If the speed of light is timeless, but time is equal to the distance that light travels, would that not allow for the speed of light to be constant, while keeping the relativity of time in place?

haha, oh boy, my part as The Fool began as the ravings of a madman trying to communicate the indescribable. You have to make mistakes in order to find better ways of communicating what is in your mind....and in the end telling someone they're naked only creates more clothing, might as well show your flaws as a sift for the petty.

and when i do show my flaws it is for non-other than my own development, and should eventually result in even greater understandings....
>>
Irwin Shapiro - Thu, 09 Jul 2015 05:11:09 EST ID:v2I6+0VG No.55488 Ignore Report Reply
You can use light to measure time by building a light clock. A light clock can measure time by counting the number of light pulses sent to and reflected from a mirror back to a detector that triggers the next pulse. In the frame of reference of the light clock, the distance from the emitter to the mirror and from the mirror to the detector is a constant length. But from the perspective of a relatively moving reference frame, the distance the light pulse travels is different - longer. But because of the constant speed of light in all reference frames, the time it takes the lights pulse to travel this longer distance is also longer - proportionally so.

So no, measuring light doesn't create time. What made you think this was the case?
>>
Thomas Gold - Thu, 09 Jul 2015 15:32:06 EST ID:BF8zYeiD No.55489 Ignore Report Reply
>>55487
It's all about frames of reference, man.
>>
trypto - Thu, 09 Jul 2015 22:55:34 EST ID:RbiyR5+N No.55493 Ignore Report Reply
>>55487
Aw man, now I feel like a dick because I was too dismissive again.

>If the speed of light is timeless, but time is equal to the distance that light travels, would that not allow for the speed of light to be constant, while keeping the relativity of time in place?

I mean, the problem here is just that the language is imprecise or ambiguous. On first reading, it seems to make sense. But on closer examination, the definitions start to mutate. What does it mean for the speed to be 'timeless'? What does it mean for TIME to be equal to anything? On reading your sentence, my gut feeling says you have the right idea. But the actual language is troublesome.

>If a measurement of time is actually a measurement of light, but the speed of light is timeless, does this not mean that to measure light is to create time?

I think you're saying here that the nature of time and the speed of light are intricately linked together.That's true. But meausuring light doesn't create time. After all, you need Space-time to measure light. So if time doesn't exist, you can't create measure light. So something else must create time. What that is, is unknown.



Also, in /b/ you were saying how black holes are basically beyond our comprehension since it's the limits of space-time, and our brains are made out of space-time. Again, I think the language is troublesome, but I suspect you're right. I've got a similar crazy idea. I think the hopes to unite General Relativity with Quantum Mechanics are hopeless. I think Godel's incompleteness theorem will eventually prove that there are physical realities which we can't have knowledge of. Black holes might be one of those things, since they're both very large in mass (described by relativity) and very small in volume (described by QM).
>>
Vesto Slipher - Fri, 10 Jul 2015 14:07:48 EST ID:TG+Xx8nL No.55494 Ignore Report Reply
>If time is equal to the distance that light travels, yet slows as one approaches the speed of light, does this not indicate that the speed of light is actually timeless?

Not necessarily. One key aspect of special relativity is that it explicitly does not describe frames traveling at the speed of light.

>If the speed of light is timeless, yet time is equal to the distance that light travels, does it not mean that the observer is responsible for the conception of distance in relation to light?

It would mean an observer traveling at the speed of light wouldn't see himself travel. That doesn't mean in other frames the observer isn't moving.

The speed of light isn't "timeless" whatever that means. It's quite well defined.
>>
Vera Rubiin - Sun, 12 Jul 2015 19:29:35 EST ID:TBQu5K6m No.55502 Ignore Report Reply
>>55484
>If time is equal to the distance that light travels, yet slows as one approaches the speed of light, does this not indicate that the speed of light is actually timeless?
Well, for one time isn't equal to the distance that light travels. The speed that light travels is subjective to what it travels through. Light travels at different speeds through different materials. You probably mean the distance the light travels through vacuum, but that still isn't a measurement of time, it is a measurement of speed of light through a certain variable.
Time is best measured through atomic clock which uses certain uses certain measurements in differences of molecular electronic energy levels that I don't really have real understanding of (probably because I'm not taking a university degree on physics). But it can take you someting like 15min to get an idea of.

>If the speed of light is timeless, yet time is equal to the distance that light travels,
This simply doesn't make sense. Speed of light is 300,000 km per 1 second, not timeless. If it was timeless it would mean it would reach from one galaxy to another, or even from one edge of the universe to another edge in no time. Or like as fast as it takes an electrom to make a spin around an nucleous, which may seem timeless to our perception of time.

>does it not mean that the observer is responsible for the conception of distance in relation to light?
The light moves from point A to point B regardless of whether it is being observed or not. If an alien put an mechanical measurement device on a star let's call "C25c" then the device would measure light and the distance it has traveled regardless of whether it is being measured by an intelligent observer or not.

>If a measurement of time is actually a measurement of light, but the speed of light is timeless, does this not mean that to measure light is to create time?
Like I said earlier light isn't only measured by measuring the time at which light travels between 2 points, but for us the most precice way of measuring time is measuring the differences in certain energy levels of certain molecular processes. Taking measurements on any level simply cannot create time, because in order to create time, you would consecutively have to create space. Taking measurements cannot create either space or time, so the answer is no.
>>
Charles Messier - Sun, 12 Jul 2015 21:15:42 EST ID:o0FZnkqB No.55503 Ignore Report Reply
>>55502

but what about space-time??
>>
trypto - Mon, 13 Jul 2015 09:49:41 EST ID:RbiyR5+N No.55504 Ignore Report Reply
>>55502
>ime is best measured through atomic clock which uses certain uses certain measurements in differences of molecular electronic energy levels that I don't really have real understanding of (probably because I'm not taking a university degree on physics).
It's measured by the decay of a radioactive sample (usually cessium). If you have X amount of isotope Y, then you can calculate that there will be Z amount of decay events in a nanosecond. From there, you can work out how much energy that would be.

So the most accurate/precise clocks are basically geiger counters focused on a small radioactive sample. However, let's not forget that this is time in only one frame of reference. If you look at a moving frame of reference, those clocks will appear to go slower than in your own frame of reference.
>>
Isaac Newton - Mon, 13 Jul 2015 12:13:26 EST ID:v2I6+0VG No.55505 Ignore Report Reply
>>55504
Atomic clocks work by using the frequency of radiation emitted by the transition of electrons between certain energy levels in the caesium atoms. The radiation emitted has a frequency of 9192631770 Hz, so by counting this number of oscillations you can determine the duration of a second. What you're describing is nuclear physics - not atomic physics, which is what atomic clocks work off of.

But you're right in that relativistic time dilation doesn't care how accurate the clock is.
>>
trypto - Mon, 13 Jul 2015 23:14:59 EST ID:RbiyR5+N No.55506 Ignore Report Reply
>>55505
Sheeeeeiiiit. Right you are. I only looked at the brief SI definition, saw 'radiation' and assumed too much.
>>
Giovanni Cassini - Sat, 01 Aug 2015 03:34:11 EST ID:yp6vtzhb No.55572 Ignore Report Reply
>>55484
I think time is equal to the distance traveled by light. Why? because light began at the moment of the birth of the universe. Since then, light has traveled 13.7 Billion years %2.

Time and light, light and time. Lite-time, lightyears. Weightless years. Infinite hope.

Granular shifts, hopeless abandon.

No but really, a measurement of time is a measurement of light. The universe is all light, and outside the realm of our universe is darkness. We can only see the light of this universe, outside is not meant for us yet.

What a weird thing to exist inside something you don't understand. Weird to be existing, and to know i will die clueless. On top of that life is challenging at times and we have to justify choosing to continue mainly due to the fear of regret.

I enjoy plenty of things on this earth. I think it's worth it :) let's enjoy our time in the universe, it won't last long. Or it might last forever, actually.
>>
Mike Brown - Sat, 01 Aug 2015 13:31:38 EST ID:sFc2Gs9d No.55573 Ignore Report Reply
>>55572
"The universe is all light" -- This is objectively false. Light is photons, but the universe is many more things than light. Electrons aren't light, quarks aren't light, gravity isn't light. Light (assuming we're including the entire EM spectrum as "light") is only one of four forces in the universe (half of one, really, unless you count magnetism as 'light' as well). we can't even say we only observe via light, as we can (and do) just as easily use beams of protons or electrons to observe.
>>
Johan Galle - Sat, 01 Aug 2015 20:40:37 EST ID:lHGvTKQL No.55574 Ignore Report Reply
Light moves at the speed of time.

The speed of time is also the speed of dimensional folding. I say this because time is a dimension that we travel through and you can't travel faster than the dimensional folding, the speed of entropy, the speed of time, nor the speed of light because they are all the same thing.

Photons are not made out of time, they are just energy packets swept away by the currents of the universe slipping through the time plane. Since they are massless and just made of energy anyways, they travel at exactly the speed at which they are swept away. While it seems like light can bounce and bend on a 3D journey to us, the photons are actually following a more direct 4D path.
>>
The Fool !oj3475yHBQ - Fri, 07 Aug 2015 03:15:03 EST ID:NjsLJs2P No.55585 Ignore Report Reply
>>55574
>Light moves at the speed of time. The speed of time is also the speed of dimensional folding

This is more what i was trying to get at.

So theoretically, if one could go beyond the speed of light, would one "breach" the dimensional fold itself, going beyond space/time?
>>
Roger Penrose - Fri, 07 Aug 2015 11:16:32 EST ID:7Ip/yKza No.55586 Ignore Report Reply
1438960592705.jpg -(601376B / 587.28KB, 1333x988) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
You know how when you're on a boat and you throw another smaller boat with a running engine? Or let's say you throw a torpedoe. The thing you throw doesn't inherit your speed because of the water friction, it just goes at its own speed.

It's the same with photons, they can't inherit speed and all things just goes at the same speed because they have to propel their way through space. Like a tiny boat engine.

Discuss.
>>
Bernhard Schmidt - Fri, 07 Aug 2015 15:33:20 EST ID:YHjXylC8 No.55587 Ignore Report Reply
1438976000829.gif -(129425B / 126.39KB, 400x220) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
>>55586
That's not how it works at all, and most of this thread is full of shit.
From the perspective of the boat, If the torpedo behaves like a photo, it will be moving away as of the boat was stationary no matter how fast the boat is going or what direction the torpedo is fired in.
>>
Joseph Lockyer - Mon, 10 Aug 2015 20:46:30 EST ID:lHGvTKQL No.55589 Ignore Report Reply
>>55585
Theoretically, if one could obtain a unicorn that could wish you to the nearest star system...

It doesn't even make sense to say "if one could go beyond the speed of light" and then ask if anything would happen because it's impossible to even answer that question.
>>
John Riccioli - Mon, 10 Aug 2015 21:16:19 EST ID:j3JUC08k No.55590 Ignore Report Reply
>>55586
>he thing you throw doesn't inherit your speed because of the water friction, it just goes at its own speed.

But it does, at first. It's the water friction that slows it down.
>>
Karl Jansky - Tue, 11 Aug 2015 09:12:09 EST ID:YHjXylC8 No.55591 Ignore Report Reply
11.jpg -(80085B / 78.21KB, 666x69) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
>>55589
>Theoretically, if one could obtain a unicorn that could wish you to the nearest star system...
Even your imaginary unicorn would have difficulty, the top equation is time dilation at constant acceleration.
c= the speed of light, v=velocity. If v<c, you end up with an imaginary number.
>>
Bernard Burke - Tue, 11 Aug 2015 22:36:58 EST ID:415JX8nG No.55592 Ignore Report Reply
>>55484
It's relative.
If you yourself are traveling the speed of light, the closer you get to c, the slower time gets for you only, the rest of the universe starts to fast forward.

I guess a photon itself would be a timeless object, it has to interact with something to change.. but nothing quantum mechanical exists singularly, it exists in the context of the nature around it.
I guess in photon time, the universe is only a tiny fraction of a second old, if that is even an accurate description.
But the rest of the universe still matters.

The way I think of quantum mechanical objects is that they aren't like a ball or anything concrete like that.
A beam of electromagnetic energy is like a river.
You can run up to it with a glass, take a scoop out, and proclaim you have an electron.
You are measuring the location of that electron, as it is in your hand, but it's not going anywhere. You could then spill that electron out of the glass, back into the river. Although you don't know where that electron is anymore, you could figure out what it's speed is and where it is likely going based on the contours of the river, or getting out of the metaphor, the physical nature of what is going on around it.

Photons are only timeless to themselves, the rest of the universe collapses any notion of them existing in a timeless place.
If light didn't exist in time, I imagine, if the universe was able to form in the first place, it would just look like a big clump of white noise
>>
Fritz Zwicky - Thu, 13 Aug 2015 19:25:39 EST ID:BF8zYeiD No.55595 Ignore Report Reply
>>55592
It sounds like you have a pretty decent understanding of what you're talking about, and you're good at communicating those ideas understandably.


Report Post
Reason
Note
Please be descriptive with report notes,
this helps staff resolve issues quicker.