Existence

Check out this link it will help you formulate your argument:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WdfnRWGgbd0

---

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

I didn't see that assumption from him.He is saying that if you release light at the same time you release a moving object, the time it takes the light is longer. He is not changing the speed. Just the length the light traveled.The speed of light is only constant in a vacuum. The length of distance traveled is decided by the path light chooses to take; and that is the quickest.That’s why I put out the video. The math assumes both observers are traveling in straight lines and are subjectively At rest. Then the observers always view the light at the same speed, not the same distance.This is of course granting memory serves and I understood the video's explanation.Edited by tesla, : spacing

---

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

What's his hypothesis?the speed of light exactly 299792.458 km/s
Year to seconds:31104000* lightspeed
=9.324744614 *10^12. km/s traveled in a year (From a single perspective)
93247446140000 Km *1/6= 1.554124102 *10^12=
(93247446140000) - (1.554124102) = 9.1693322*10^13Light will be located 91693322000000 Km from Its initial start after 1/6 of a year of time has passed. (Approximately)(Just did the math as a reference, I'll review his math.)91693322000000 km = 56975588811341.8 mi.lightspeed = 186282.397 miles/sec
* 300 seconds= 55884719.1 miles traveled in 300 seconds.His math appears correct.
90,000 miles in 300 seconds more distance to cover.Edited by tesla, : Just recording a mathmatical reference.Edited by tesla, : Approximation Due to figureing seconds/year as 60 seconds/minute * 60 min/hr *24 hrs a day* 30 day's a month * 12 months = N Edited by tesla, : Adding additional reference math.Edited by tesla, : Miles/secEdited by tesla, : No reason given.Edited by tesla, : No reason given.

---

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

No, the light will arrive right on time at the same speed it always does.At half the speed of light, your perspective is still that as one who stands still. Therefore the light will always appear to be traveling the speed of light. And it does by all accounts.Right?

---

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

You will reach the same destination at the same time.
but what does that prove?Unless you mean after one year you are returning to your wife’s location. Hold on I'll do that math too.By my calculations you should see the light on day 639.
The light will have been traveling 273 days to meet you there.
I confess I rushed the math so I'll take correction if I did miss something.Muse:
If the wife wanted to see you back: the return path of the light would take an additional 273 days, and you would appear to be in your location at day 639 even though you would have traveled an additional 273 days.Holy Shit?Light takes the fastest path but, but not always a straight line.
In the case of glaciers flying in the sky, the light followed the circumference of the earth to be visible in the sky (straight line) from the observers.That’s why Space-time appears curved. The light is curved. It’s an apparent straight line when it's not.It’s taking the fastest path, and that is different when it is around matter.The time dilation is apparent because of the area that is not being calculated on the lights return path.It's curved return path, not straight.I feel this is relevant but I'm not sure why.Edited by tesla, : No reason given.Edited by tesla, : calculations:Edited by tesla, : MuseEdited by tesla, : Holy shit moment?

---

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

lol Looks right. That means you did not exist before the moment the light was visible to the object. (From the perspective of the object)

---

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

The speed is the same. The time it took to get there is what is different.

---

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

Let’s say an object is defined by:_____________x______________X 1 X2The X's are a point of interest. Triangulations can derive the path of object X_____________(x)_____x(new position)_____X1 (relative point) x2 (relative point)This is using three straight lines, and the movement of the object is a straight line, under the assumption light is in a vacuum and is CNow using a curved line increases the distance which would increase the time of travel, even if it does not affect speed. (This curve would probably be miniscule for short distances, but wouldn’t it be important for long distances?)How is this worked out?

---

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

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

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

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

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

True. So Let's examine the photon.A photon enters an electron it gains energy, when a photon is expelled, it looses energy. So photons are the engines of electrons.and then there is radiation:( I know it's WIKI, please forgive)"In physics, radiation is a process in which energetic particles or energy or waves travel through a medium or space. There are two distinct types of radiation; ionizing and non-ionizing. The word radiation is commonly used in reference to ionizing radiation only (i.e., having sufficient energy to ionize an atom), but it may also refer to non-ionizing radiation (e.g., radio waves or visible light). The energy radiates (i.e., travels outward in straight lines in all directions) from its source. This geometry naturally leads to a system of measurements and physical units that are equally applicable to all types of radiation. Both ionizing and non-ionizing radiation can be harmful to organisms and can result in changes to the natural environment"and:
"Beta-minus (−) radiation consists of an energetic electron. It is more ionizing than alpha radiation, but less than gamma. The electrons can often be stopped with a few centimeters of metal. It occurs when a neutron decays into a proton in a nucleus, releasing the beta particle and an antineutrino." Yes but Time is relative to distance. I'm not attacking the math. I'm reviewing assumptions for the behavior.

---

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

I'll continue my education. I can't help but feel I may have gotten close to a missing truth.On a side note, Dark matter still might turn out to be missing the mass of the electromagnetic spectrum. Unless you can verify that has been ruled out?

---

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

Space time is curved... Now what? If the space-time is not flat, these calculations might only be appropriate for relatively short distances (close to matter) and we have no ability to test for extreme long distances with absolute certainty.A missed equation can be off: 0.00000000000000001And the evidence wouldn’t be clear until you follow a much longer path in testing.Not saying the math isn't accurate with what they do. It may be inaccurate for things we are trying to do though. Like calculate the mass of a body a billion light years away.What if light flew around for a while in some swirl.Examine: it would circle an area five times without interference, and then land in your eye. The light recorded an object that you "saw", a billion years ago. And the light is that old...but the actual object is a shorter distance to you than the path the light took. So you guess the object to be a billion light years away, because it took the light one billion years to get to you.But the object would actually be a distance of 1/5 of that distance to you. (Fractals?)This is why appearances are so deceiving with light. If light is photons and electrons, they still hold particle behavior, and the photon may well be the basic building block of mass. And it's energy the basic unit for all energy capabilities in mass.Is the assumption suspect, given the behavior we cannot explain?Edited by tesla, : space timeEdited by tesla, : million/billion correlation incorrect; corrected.

---

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