Three Air Tight Reasons Why No Object Can Ever Reach An Event Horizon

[Moronium]

.You can invert that and time would be a function of position.

 

Not sure what you're getting at here.  I don't see either time or distance as being a "function of" each other, at least not generally speaking.

 

They would just pose empirical questions:  How far did you go? and "How long did it take you?

 

But I would grant you that in Minkowski spacetime (which I reject) they do take on that tendency when light is involved.  Then if you know the time, you can deduce the distance, and vice versa.  Why?  Because the speed has already been predetermined for you, i.e., c.

 

But this is backwards.  You have to know both the time and the distance before you can ever calculate speed, unless you just make up a speed in advance.  

 

Let me illustrate what I mean:

 

Suppose I tell you that it's 500 miles from Chicago to New Orleans, AND that every vehicle going between the two will ALWAYS proceed at the rate of 100 mph.

 

Now suppose two cars leave Chicago and one arrives in N.O in 5 hours and the other in 10.  So, one traveled at the rate of 100 mph and the other only 50 mph, right?

 

WRONG!!! I already told you:  ALL cars ALWAYS travel at 100 mph, PERIOD.  Anyone who thinks otherwise is just wrong.  The guy who thought it took him 10 hours just had a fast watch.  It really took him only five hours.   Or maybe his odometer was off and he thought he only went 500 miles, when, in truth, he took a wrong turn and ended up having to travel 1000 miles to reach N.O.  Maybe some combination of the two.  But, by God, he was always going 100 mph because I said so.

Edited April 9, 2019 by Moronium

[OceanBreeze]

Just as each clock had a different velocity rate they didn't experience the receiving of the photons differently. Only the object in motion precieves its own time differently as the particles themselves had a different time rate as they passed near the object. The photons themselves as they passed over space coming to the object didn't have a different time flow rate, you think of time as this universal concept when only it is relative to the object observing itself.

 

I don't think he was talking about moving clocks; just a group of clocks sitting together and running at different rates. Broken clocks.

[OceanBreeze]

Not sure what you're getting at here.  I don't see either time or distance as being a "function of" each other, at least not generally speaking.

 

They would just pose empirical questions:  How far did you go? and "How long did it take you?

 

But I would grant you that in Minkowski spacetime (which I reject) they do take on that tendency when light is involved.  Then if you know the time, you can deduce the distance, and vice versa.  Why?  Because the speed has already been predetermined for you, i.e., c.

 

But this is backwards.  You have to know both the time and the distance before you can ever calculate speed, unless you just make up a speed in advance.  

 

Let me illustrate what I mean:

 

Suppose I tell you that it's 500 miles from Chicago to New Orleans, AND that every vehicle going between the two will ALWAYS proceed at the rate of 100 mph.

 

Now suppose two cars leave Chicago and one arrives in N.O in 5 hours and the other in 10.  So, one travelled 100 mph and the other only 50 mph, right?

 

WRONG!!! I already told you:  ALL cars ALWAYS travel at 500 mph PERIOD.  Anyone who thinks otherwise is just wrong.  The guy who thought it took him 10 hours just had a slow watch.  Or maybe his odometer was off and he thought he only went 500 miles, when in truth, he took a wrong turn and ended up having to travel 100 miles.  Maybe some combination of the two.  But, by God, he was always going 500 mph because I said so.

 

 

You are not making sense. Time for me to go do something else.

[Vmedvil2]

I don't think he was talking about moving clocks; just a group of clocks sitting together and running at different rates. Broken clocks.

 

Even the electrons around the atom orbit at a different rate, so the clock could be even the material itself if you used an atomic clock the point being that everything for that object slows down it doesn't matter how others precieve it going at that speed the time count for the object itself by itself is slowed down not the space between the object and another object unless gravity is involved.

Edited April 8, 2019 by VictorMedvil

[Moronium]

Of course the interval of time is the same!

 

I would have to have lost all my marbles to say anything else.

 

 

OK, good. 

 

 time = change seems to be a good enough way to define it.  Saying that it is undefinable and imperceptible serves no purpose; only mystifies the concept.

 

 

No one said it was undefinable, but of course it is physically imperceptible.  It's an abstraction.  A concept, not a tangible thing.  It's the same with every abstract concept, and we rely on thousands of concepts routinely.

 

Take "distance," for example.  Look the world over, but you will never "see" distance.  Nonetheless the concept is both meaningful and useful, don't you think?

Edited April 8, 2019 by Moronium

[Moronium]

But, still, I can't see why you would conclude that change = time.  They are two completely different things.  Change is used to measure time.  It is not time itself.  Any more than a yardstick is distance.  A yardstick is used to measure distance, that's all.

[Vmedvil2]

But, still, I can't see why you would conclude that change = time.  They are two completely different things.  Change is used to measure time.  It is not time itself.  Any more than a yardstick is distance.  A yardstick is used to measure distance, that's all.

 

Well, Moronium the frequency which is Change over time does change, can you explain to me why the electron would spin around the atom at a slower speed if it was not for a change in the rate of time as the orbital rotation frequency 1/dt changes when there is a velocity that the atom with the electron is traveling what else could be causing this change in frequency, to the observation of the atom and the electron the speed does effect the amount of time it takes for them to travel their distance, which can be shown with atomic clocks. Are you saying these Atomically precise clocks are wrong about their prediction measuring the atom's frequency itself is wrong about relativity being correct?

Edited April 8, 2019 by VictorMedvil

[Moronium]

Even the electrons around the atom orbit at a different rate, so the clock could be even the material itself if you used an atomic clock the point being that everything for that object slows down it doesn't matter how others precieve it going at that speed the time count for the object itself by itself is slowed down not the space between the object and another object unless gravity is involved.

 

Popeye says I'm not making sense to him.  Maybe that's because I had a typo or two, not sure.

 

But I'm really having trouble following your train of thought here, Vic.  What is your point?  Can you clarify this?

[Vmedvil2]

Popeye says I'm not making sense to him.  Maybe that's because I had a typo or two, not sure.

 

But I'm really having trouble following your train of thought here, Vic.  What is your point?  Can you clarify this?

 

Well, if even the clock for the movement on the electron slows down around a object in motion you have two frames of reference that are saying the clock has slowed down and can have a third if you measure the atom with a atomic clock that say that object has a slower frequency of electron rotation caused from the time slowing of relativity so are they all lying about this relativistic time change in frequency?

[Moronium]

Well, Moronium the frequency which is Change over time does change, can you explain to me why the electron would spin around the atom at a slower speed if it was not for a change in the rate of time as the orbital rotation frequency 1/dt changes when there is a velocity that the atom with the electron is traveling what else could be causing this change in frequency, to the observation of the atom and the electron the speed does effect the amount of time it takes for them to travel their distance, which can be shown with atomic clocks. Are you saying these Atomically precise clocks are wrong about their prediction measuring the atom's frequency itself is wrong about relativity being correct?

 

Hmmm, I'm still confused, Vic. I'm not even sure what post, if any, you are addressing.  But let me start here.

 

You seem to be arguing that a change in rate is a change in time itself.  Why would you say that?  Suppose I'm driving down the road at 100 mph, but then see a cop and slow to 50 mph. Now my rate of speed has changed.  Granted, it will now take me more time to get where I'm headed, but how has "time" changed?

Edited April 8, 2019 by Moronium

[Moronium]

Do we reset our watches every time the temperature rises or falls, just because temperature changes can affect the rate at which atoms move?

[Vmedvil2]

Hmmm, I'm still confused, Vic. I'm not even what post, if any, you are addressing.  But let me start here.

 

You seem to be arguing that a change in rate is a change in time itself.  Why would you say that?  Suppose I'm driving down the road at 100 mph, but then see a cop and slow to 50 mph.  Granted, it will now take me more time to get where I'm headed, but how has "time" changed?

Electrons always orbit at the same rate within the same orbital with the same energy you can measure this with Quantum Mechanics the radius of the atom when in motion electrons slow down, how do you explain the fact that even electrons can feel this rate of time change by moving at a slower speed around the atom? It seems if the "Clocks" of the atom have slowed down.

Edited April 8, 2019 by VictorMedvil

[Moronium]

Electrons always orbit at the same rate within the same orbital with the same energy you can measure this with Quantum Mechanics the radius of the atom when in motion electrons slow down, how do you explain the fact that even electrons can feel this rate of time change by moving at a slower speed around the atom? It seems if the "Clocks" of the atom have slowed down.

 

 

I don't think atoms ever "feel a rate of time change."  I don't think time changes at all.

 

I have no problem whatsoever understanding that clocks can, and do, slow down (or speed up).  But clocks are not time.

 

Still not sure what you're getting at.  Are you saying that if the rate at which a clock ticks has changed, then "time" has changed?

Edited April 8, 2019 by Moronium

[Vmedvil2]

I don't think atoms ever "feel a rate of time change."  I don't think time changes at all.

 

I have no problem whatsoever understanding that clocks can, and do, slow down (or speed up).  But clocks are not time.

 

Still not sure what you're getting at.  Are you saying that if the rate at which a clock ticks has changed, then "time" has changed?

 

Yes, I am getting at one of the fastest moving objects next to light even feels the difference in time why would light not have a different flow rate when going through an area with a high gravity, wouldn't it slow down too, just as our electron clocks.

[Moronium]

Yes, I am getting at one of the fastest moving objects next to light even feels the difference in time why would light not have a different flow rate when going through an area with a high gravity, wouldn't it slow down too, just as our electron clocks.

 

You're confusing the measurement of time with time itself, I think, Vic.

 

Yes, clocks do slow down with gravity.  Therefore, the speed at which we measure the light to be traveling also changes, if we rely on the clock at hand.

Edited April 8, 2019 by Moronium

[Vmedvil2]

You're confusing the measurement of time with time itself, I think, Vic.

 

Yes, clocks do slow down with gravity.  Therefore, so does the speed at which we measure the light to be traveling also changes, if we rely on the clock at hand.

 

Okay then what about objects in motion around other objects in motion do you think the electron orbiting a atom in motion would feel double the time rate slowing down?, because they feel the time slowing effect of the atom in motion along with their own motion.

Edited April 8, 2019 by VictorMedvil

[Moronium]

Okay then what about objects in motion around other objects in motion do you think the electron orbiting a atom in motion would feel double the time rate slowing down?, because they feel the time slowing effect of the atom in motion along with their own motion.

 

No, I don't.  I think we're making entirely different assumptions here.  Like I said, I don't think an electron would "feel a time slowing effect" at all.  But that's because I don't think time changes to begin with.