Existence

We get fooled by appearances all the time.If light is traveling in a curve instead of a straight line, it will still appear to be a straight line. But a curve is not the same distance as a straight line. So the time would take longer with a curved line."If it's physics it's fudged" may be because our math reflects straight lines and we have to write equations to solve the error without realizing the error could be the distance light travels in a curve.I'm not saying I'm correct, but it’s suspect to me and worth exploring given my current level of education (which is only 29 credit hours into a chemical engineering associates degree)

---

keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is
~parmenides

Define "straight line".

I am probably less educated formally than you. I am not sure if you are talking about gravitational lensing or not.Gravitational lensing is covered by general relativity, in fact the predictions made about how much light will be bent are observed many ways, solar eclipse...ect. These same predictions are used to observe black holes indirectly.I just dont see where this "curved line of travel" has to do with what is being discussed here?I guess if you dont think time dilation takes place, essentially what this topic is about, then I have to ask why? Maybe you can support it better than ICANT.This is a long thread, there is a ton of good info on relativity if you got time to review it and follow some links.Edited by fearandloathing, : No reason given.Edited by fearandloathing, : No reason given.

---

"I hate to advocate the use of drugs, alcohol, violence, or insanity to anyone, but they always worked for me." - Hunter S. ThompsonAd astra per asperaNihil curo de ista tua stulta superstitione.

The shortest distance between two points is a straight line.When light encounters matter it does not always take a straight line.Does this define straight line?

---

keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is
~parmenides

Hi Son, What part of the GPS system proves my math wrong?God Bless,

---

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

What does this have to due with time dilation?The parameters of the thought exercise have been established in Message 418 andMessage 424Gravitational lensing has nothing to do with this, or the math involved.

---

"I hate to advocate the use of drugs, alcohol, violence, or insanity to anyone, but they always worked for me." - Hunter S. ThompsonAd astra per asperaNihil curo de ista tua stulta superstitione.

Only the fact that the GPS system uses relativistic corrections in order to accurately let you know where you are, as you have been shown multiple times.Yet you never showed anything that says it doesn't use relativistic corrections, except what you cherry-picked and were called on that too. In fact you have been shown where all 3 gps systems use them.

---

"I hate to advocate the use of drugs, alcohol, violence, or insanity to anyone, but they always worked for me." - Hunter S. ThompsonAd astra per asperaNihil curo de ista tua stulta superstitione.

I'm exploring the possibility that math involving light arrives at the same conclusion based on different assumptions of the behavior of light.If a curve of light is considered straight, the math would have to compensate for the error of assuming it is straight when it gets to actual locations vs. visible locations.If the light is curved, and the curve can be identified, location of the object would take less corrective math to compensate for the uncalculated area in the curve.

---

keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is
~parmenides

quote:

---

In general relativity, light follows the curvature of spacetime, hence when light passes around a massive object, it is bent. This means that the light from an object on the other side will be bent towards your eye, just like an ordinary lens. Since light always moves at a constant speed, lensing changes the direction of the velocity of the light, but not the magnitude.

​

Light rays are the boundary between the future, the spacelike, and the past regions. The gravitational attraction can be viewed as the motion of undisturbed objects in a background curved geometry or alternatively as the response of objects to a force in a flat geometry. The angle of deflection is:

​

\theta = \frac{4GM}{rc^2}

​

toward the mass M at a distance r from the affected radiation, where G is the universal constant of gravitation and c is the speed of light in a vacuum. Some care needs to be taken in defining this distance because gravity is not instantaneous: like light, it propagates at speed c.[3] The path of the gravitational wave and the electromagnetic radiation intersect at specific space—time coordinates, and the lensing is determined by the component of the incident gravitational wave perpendicular to the direction of the electromagnetic radiation's motion.
Actual gravitational lensing effects as observed by the Hubble Space Telescope in Abell 1689 — Enlarge the image to see the lensing arcs
3D map of the large-scale distribution of dark matter, reconstructed from measurements of weak gravitational lensing with the Hubble Space Telescope.

---

FromWikiprdiaHere is a little something on gravitational lensing (GL), although as I said before, it has nothing to do with what is being discussed here.Maybe you want to start a topic on GL then I am sure other here would also be interested in learning a little more, I would.Edited by fearandloathing, : No reason given.

---

"I hate to advocate the use of drugs, alcohol, violence, or insanity to anyone, but they always worked for me." - Hunter S. ThompsonAd astra per asperaNihil curo de ista tua stulta superstitione.

Hi Mod, Shucks I didn't know I was trying to refute the constancy of the speed of light in a vaccum.I thought I was trying to raise some doubts as to the validity that time dilation exists.But all that aside in Message 483 you said:

quote:

---

You perform the experiment. You choose a distance, d, and measure how long it takes light approaching from behind you to travel that distance, t.

---

So in Message 485 I chose the distance I had traveled in 365.2425 days as the point the beam of light would leave the source beside my wife at the speed of c. Using 186,000 mps as c for brevity of math.In that 365.2425 days I had traveled 2,934,796,536,000 miles.It would take the light beam 182.62125 days to travel the distance 2,934,796,536,000 miles, to my location 365.2425 days into my journey.Do you disagree that it would take the light beam 182.62125 days to travel the distance 2,934,796,536,000 miles?Do you disagree that in that 182.62125 days I will have traveled an additional 1,467,398,268,000 miles?Do you disagree that the light beam will reach the half way point of my journey at the same time I will?God Bless,

---

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

The part where GPS use relativity and gets it right. Your math is wrong if it doesn't describe reality, and since you don't use frame of references and seem to deny time dilation, you are wrong. It's easy to see, if you were right, none of the GPS used would work.Edited by Son, : No reason given.

Imagine a sponge floating in water. The sponge is moving through the water within a swirl of the water, and to the sponge, the water appears to be moving at current C.If a piece of the sponge was to leave the sponge, the water around the piece will still be observed at speed C. To all observations of the sponge, the water is C.Now instead of a sponge, let’s make an assumption: That the earth is swimming in a sea of electrons we know as the electromagnetic spectrum. The electrons will affect the behavior of the mass depending on the energy level of the electrons, and the concentration of electrons (mass) when all electrons travel at C until it encounters mass.When an electron encounters mass it is many times absorbed and emitted as heat, other times it avoids the mass, similar to water currents avoiding the sponge. But when absorbed, the electron never sits still. Electrons have never been found sitting still.This would suggest (to me) the electron is the basis for energy, and velocity of electrons the acceleration called gravity.Protons and neutrons have something to do with electrons, maybe more than we can currently say, because: protons become neutrons when absorbing an electron into the nucleus and emit a neutrino. (Difficult to detect, a neutrino is like an electron with a non-zero mass, but missing the electric charge.)
In turn there are three versions of neutrinos.What it looks like to me is electrons on different frequencies (I use the word frequency for lack of a better word, same object, different behaviors.)So if the entire universe is swimming with these electrons, there is a mass associated with them.
As far as calculations of light and time dilation, you have not proven anything to me with a WIKI reference of current understandings.I’m not exploring whether or not current math works, I’m exploring the potential it could be working under a false assumption of behavior, If that was to turn out to be true, a more accurate equation could be derived.I wish an answer from NoNukes concerning these potentials because I believe him to be well educated and thoughtful concerning such issues.I acknowledge my potential to be dead wrong, And I wasn’t allowed to start a topic discussing the potential, and was told to hash it out here.

---

keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is
~parmenides

You can start any new topic you like without Admin approval in the coffee house forum, just hit new topic button.What you are wanting to discuss needs a topic of its own in order not to derail this one. I am sure NN will help both of us with any errors in thought, math...ect. I would like to see where you are going, just not in this thread. JMHO Edited by fearandloathing, : No reason given.

---

"I hate to advocate the use of drugs, alcohol, violence, or insanity to anyone, but they always worked for me." - Hunter S. ThompsonAd astra per asperaNihil curo de ista tua stulta superstitione.

Relative to what? You need to supply the frames of reference. For two clocks in the same inertial frames time will tick at the same rate. For two clocks moving at different velocities or experiencing different gravitational forces time will not tick at the same rate.

For water to be like light you would need the water to move at current C no matter how the sponge moves through it. Light is made of photons, not electrons. Would a peer reviewed paper from Science do?Just a moment...This is the Hafele-Keating experiment which has been repeated multiple times, and each time they are able to accurately measure time dilation in the amounts predicted by the theory of relativity.