A light year is light traveling 299,792,458 x 60 x 60 x 24 x 365.25 meter sticks laid end to end in the duration of 1 orbit of the Earth around the Sun. PERIOD!
If you claim to have traveled that many meter sticks in a week, then you are traveling 52 times the speed of light! PERIOD!
It takes light 52 weeks to travel that distance, but you claim it takes you 1 week to make the trip, so you MUST be traveling 52c!
Your post is nothing but SOUP SANDWICH! It has so many inaccuracies it would take me all day to respond to all of them!
It appears to me that it’s not about a different unit of Earthly time (because that has already been ascertained, as we know), but regarding there then being an altogether different Universal law of the concept of time as we know it. The prospect of this being the case is nothing new.
The quicker a destination is arrived at, the less time is spent travelling… yes, travelling at the speed of light will get you there ultra-fast in less amount of time… regardless of what the unit of time is/is called. What’s in a name but another concept.
So where does the dilemma lay? in the wrong assumption that a solar year is being misinterpreted as a light year by some, or in that the properties of the speed of light might be different in relation to that of other quantifiable speeds…?
There really is no dilemma, just a Fudge Factor created by Einstein, because he didn’t know how to keep the speed of light constant to make his 2nd postulate in his theory correct.
I’ve said it many times before, and I proved it with my MD’s Box example, the speed of light is not measured to be c in all inertial frames, which means Einstein’s 2nd postulate is BUNK!
The speed of light in space is c. The speed of light in the box, which has an absolute velocity of .638971c in space, is measured to be different than c, depending on the direction measured.
The real problem is that Einstein’s BS stands, and the truth is BURIED in order to protect his theory!
I’d like to see a debate between you and phyllo (or pood) on this subject. I have a feeling they agree with the popular opinion. I’m pretty sure you’re up for it, so the question is merely whether phyllo is up for it? Or perhaps pood?
Personally, I do agree with you but for different reasons. As soon as we say that ALL rooms are occupied, there are no longer any unoccupied rooms. Thus, no room for any new guests. The number of rooms is completely irrelevant. All of that is simply due to the definition of the word “all”. The word “all” means “every single thing within a set of things”. The size of the set is irrelevant. So yeah, I agree with you that it’s false but for different reasons. And I also disagree with you when it comes to what the word “infinity” stands for and whether or not it is theoretically possible.
Like I said, it’s just “word play” that’s a bunch of nonsense.
Infinity is the concept of continuation. An example of infinity is 1+1+1+1… There is no limit, and there is no number you can say is the sum, it just continues “infinitely.”
The same with the distance you point in any direction. That line in space is “infinite” because it continues, non stop. There is no end to that line in space. That line is “infinite.”
This is just a collection of irrelevant bollocks.
None of it changes the facts and is not even related to anything I said.
Where did you leave your brain?
I think that is where you are stuck.
You measure relative distance in order to determine length.
And you measure relative changes of state in order to determine time.
And then in English we say - “it has length” - and “it took/occupied time” or “it has duration”.
We can say that time is a measure of the length along a time line that stores ordered “instances in time” but the concern is that line is not consistently determinable in all places.
You are forcing me to go lookup James’ affectance ontology bits about the basic construct of distance and time - why they exist and how the concepts are built. —
It seems to be all about propagation speed. The greater the mass field - more dense the affectance - the slower energy/affectance propagates. Science says that, James explained why - so I am confident it is true. And that one fact gives justification to all of General relativity which involves both time dilation and length contraction. So let me explain it in General relativity terms before we get into the issues with Special relativity.
The mass particles that makeup matter are made of propagating affectance (or “energy”) and when that propagation gets delayed - the motion of any mass particles gets retarded. As the mass particles get retarded - the moving objects that are formed of them get slowed. When a mass field is highly dense (close to a black hole or in a darkmatter field) the propagation of affectance is much slower than it would be in open space. So in such a field everything is comparatively slower - and also shorter.
If you could stand distant from a black-hole and drop a ticking clock toward the black hole - as the clock got closer to the black hole it would tick slower and slower and get smaller and smaller. But you could only observe that change if you stayed out of that field. If you fell in along with the clock - you would not be able to detect any change in ticking speed or in the size of the clock.
And that is what “relativity” is about. Observable measurements depend on which environment the observer is in relative to what he is observing.
When something is moving and we want to know how fast it is moving we compare the object’s motion to that of a clock. If the object moved 1 meter while our clock hand moved 6 degrees we say that it moved “1 meter in one second”. We named the 6 degree movement of our clock “1 second of time”. And we determine the time it took for the object to move 1 meter by relating it to how far our clock hand moved - that is relative motion. And motion is no more than change in position - but we don’t have to use a positional change - we could use a color change or size change. We choose a convenient standard of change in order to measure time.
And that is why - Time = the measure of relative change. It is only a relative change that tells us of time. Without relative changes - there is no time - all is still. If everything changes in the exact same manner - still there is no sign of time passage - we would have no means to know that anything changed at all - and “if it doesn’t affect anything - it doesn’t exist”.
And when the environment alters our standard - perhaps without our knowledge - the measurement that we call “time” changes also - but it cannot be discovered if everything changed with it - because it is only a relative measurement. To know that it changed - we have to use a standard that is outside the environment that changed.
And the traveler would still see the Earth orbit the Sun 40,000 times - but each orbit would be much faster by his own clock.
I am inclined to believe that length belongs to the object. It is the object that is long. By definition. Consider that how long an object is is the same regardless of how you describe its length. “1 foot” and “30.48 cm” are two different ways to represent one and the same length. They are not two different lengths. They are one and the same length expressed differently. You don’t say, “Well, from the point of view of Americans, this object is 1 foot long; but from the point of view of everyone else, this object is 30.48 cm long.” The length of the object is the same from everyone’s point of view. How they describe it, however, not necessarily so.
To measure something merely means to describe that something (most commonly verbally) in quantiative terms. And in order to do that, you have to pick a familiar object (such as human foot.) The length of that object then becomes known as “unit of length”. After that, you have to figure out how many objects of that size must be put next to each other in order to create an object that is as long as the one you’re measuring. That number coupled with the name of the unit of length you’re using is how you finally construct the description of the length of that object. That description, however, is not length.
English language supports it. We say “Let’s measure length!” That implies that length is the object of measurement (rather than the result of measurement e.g. “10 centimeters”.) Who says “Let’s measure relative distance”? Who uses the word “relative distance”?
I will respond to the rest of your post at another time.
As soon as we say that some thing occupies space and time, we’re saying that that thing has properties such as length, height, volume and so on. How much space there is, how populated that space is and what populates it is irrelevant. Even if that thing occupies all of space and even if all of that space is indivisible, that thing has volume. What that thing doesn’t have, in such a case, are descriptions of its volume in terms of other things (because there are no other things; there are no feet, for example) and descriptions in terms of smaller portions of space (space is indivisible, so there are no smaller portions of space either.) The number of ways its volume can be expressed is thus limited. But its volume can still be expressed. You can express it in terms of how much space there is at that particular time (since it occupies all of the space, that would be “1”) or you can express it in terms of itself (which would be “1” since its volume is indentical to its volume.) The former may be impractical and the latter may be useless but they are nonetheless accurate descriptions and that thing has volume regardless. And if we changed the total volume of space in the universe and added new objects to it, the volume of that thing would remain exactly as it was before.
Except that we are not talking about the things. We are talking about the measures - and the measurements with their standards belong strictly to the observer.
Objects only have properties. They have no measurement of their properties - that is up to the observer. And observers use comparison to accomplish that - “A’s property is 2.5 times as much as B’s property”.
A single object floating alone in space has dimensions - but possesses no information concerning how big or small those dimensions are. All measurements are relative.
Change is a property of an object - but how much change is a relative measurement belonging entirely to the observer called “time”.
Objects do not possess time as a property. Time is a relative measure constructed by an observer relating to how much change one object expressed compared to another’s changing.
