1 February 2012

Time is the Universal Constant

      What do I know? Nothing…I believe that time is the “universal constant”, not light –a light source will not “shine” before the light emitting source is "turned” on.  To further explain my idea, please consider that if a star was born at a distance of eight light years away from your position on planet Earth, although the star already exists, unless you change your position and distance and stay right where you are for eight years, you will not see the “light” at any time before or after the eight light years.  The star then was already created and producing light in all directions long before that light was seen from your position and yet time continued to pass.  

     Light will travel “this far” in “this” amount of time.  So the possibility that Neutrino’s may be faster than light, only means that they also would travel “this far”, in “this” amount of time which could very well be faster, or slower, than light.
     Maybe I am wrong, maybe Einstein is honestly wrong, E=mc2, simple right?  Yet humans do make mistakes, and I can demonstrate that forces, magnetic fields and gravity for instance, can and do produce useable "work" requiring the use of "energy". Space and time are not two sides of the same coin, especially if space honestly is truly expanding.  Time remains the constant, while space was proven to be expanding?  FORCES are then the exception.  The speed of time is independent of your frame of reference, it does not matter where you are, and it is the same for all and anything.
     If cameras can now "record" photons in motion, we can now "record" faster than the speed of light. We can record at the speed, of time.  This MIT students experiment has since been “debunked” because the camera that was used shutter speed, was not actually 3 trillion frames per second, which truly would have been faster than the speed of light, that it was only an effect of a pulsed laser, for a strobe like slow motion effect.  Still, my argument stands that “Time is the universal constant” because you cannot ever get in front of “RIGHT NOW”.
     The “universal speed limit” however would not be the speed of light; it would truly be “Instantaneous”, which is exhibited by “forces”. The effects of forces are present the “instant” that they are present, their effects are instantaneous.  Friction is experienced the instant that it is present, gravity is instantaneous, regardless if it is taught or accepted by the mainstream.  These forces are either there or they are not, magnetic fields are either present or not at all, and this is not the speed which you “move” the magnet to your refrigerator.  With this, If you want to effect time you must manipulate time, manipulating speed will only manipulate “distances” in relation to “Time”, and time seemingly slows down the faster you or any object travels up to the point of "right now" or the instant after you departed, hence instantaneous travel is the fastest speed anything can travel, obeying the physical universal constant of time.
    I understand that Physicists and Theoretical Physicists will certainly argue that this is incorrect, I am certain this will be ignored, based on the current space-time correlation that is taught today and was theorized by Einstein.  Yet I ask you, the reader to please look at what actually occurs in the world around you today.  Has anything ever, not obeyed the constant of time?  Does anything ever, exceed the speed of time?  Has anything ever made it in front of “RIGHT NOW”?  Has anything ever gotten in front of the present?
     If you could accelerate yourself or any other object in any given direction as fast or faster than the “speed of light” it would only enable you or the accelerating object to travel further and further “distances” in shorter and shorter amounts of “time” up to the point of instantaneous travel because of the fundamental truth that you can never get in front of “right now”, the “present time”, no matter how fast you or that object accelerate and travel in any given direction, even if it is in a circle, the distance traveled just would become greater and greater.  So, I believe that you cannot get in front of time no matter how fast you or any object can travel “distances”.  I believe that time and distances are two very different and separate things.  Just like in my example of a star being born, you cannot ever reach your destination if you have not first departed, so you cannot ever arrive before you leave, no matter how fast you have traveled.  The light that reaches your position eight light years distance away, was not emitted from that star until after that star was formed with the strength, energy, and intensity to travel that "distance" through “space” in a specific amount of “time”.
     If two groups of people and a computer arrive to the same answers with the same equation, does it mean that they are using the correct equation?  Neutrinos just may be faster than light, or Neutrinos may be slower than light, E=mc2 then would still be incorrect because using the speed of light squared would not provide anywhere near the correct amount of energy that truly exists today. 
     Because time and light do obey these rules, it enables us to virtually "see" into the past.  Because when that light that reaches us on planet Earth, after eight light "years" have passed, we can see what that star looked like as it was, eight years ago when the faintest "glint" of light reached us on Earth after it was born.  We can look into the past with the constant of light, speed, distances, and time, but we will never get in front of "Right Now" no matter how fast you or any object travel in any "direction".
     Please consider that if energy is not gained nor lost, if these laws of physics and the laws of thermodynamics are correct, how is it that potential energy IS GAINED in an object when it is lifted up from a source of gravity?  Go ahead and try it for yourself, lift something, anything up from off of the ground, then let go and let it fall, didn't 100% of the energy that you expended to lift it up, come right back as whatever you dropped surely reached back onto the ground from where it originated?  Or, did you somehow give it that energy to fall back to its source of gravity?
     Did you provide that force?  I see, you GAVE it that potential energy just by lifting it up, but yet you still received 100% back of what was truly expended by lifting it up minus the energy expended to overcome that opposing force of gravity. So it travels 100% down, the distance of 100% of the distance up. Are any of your investments this good?  50% of the total energy for distance traveled was certainly free, because the lifted object did GAIN potential energy.  An opposing force was still applied to it when you picked it up, and a force was still applied to it when you let go and discontinued applying a force against that opposing force. 
     Maybe someone out there can correct me or enlighten me, but until someone or something does successfully exceed the speed of time, the speed of the present time, right now, I believe that Physicists and Theoretical physicists alike should really think hard about rewriting their own rules and accepting reality. Science is a child, standing at a window, looking out, trying to explain what it is, they see.  You cannot get in front of “right now”. 

You can bend light, but not time. Prove it otherwise.
youve got it backwards. the theory of special relativity goes like this. time is not constant. time is accelerated motion against two moving objects. thats all time is. time does not exist if only one object is in the universe. as there would be nothing in relation to it, other than space. time is bent creating the relation so two objects view light the same. two different views show time different because of light staying at a constant rate. light is always 186000 m/s. k think of it like this time and space are on a graph time is on the y axis and space on the x. when something is sitting at perfect standstill its only traveling through time not through space. when that object moves against another object or in relation to space or x on the graph, energy from time is borrowed. slowing the amount in which you are traveling though time to transfer the energy into traveling through space. while keeping a constant rate for lightspeed. simple as that. read some brian greene he explains it so simply. another easy way to think about it is the bigger in space you are, the less you have to travel through it creating an illusion of less time. an ant takes longer to get somewhere than we do. yet the light is relative to both myself and an ant. still traveling at 186000 m/s.

Thank you for your comment, really… but this "idea” is not backwards at all, it really is forwards. Or, are you just really trying to communicate to me, that you personally disagree with what I believe to be true and are simply sharing with me, that the “theories” that you believe to be true and have learned are different from what I have shared whit you and everyone who reads this?
That is quite alright, what I am saying is that I do disagree and that regardless if there is accelerated motion against two moving objects, time is not an illusion and time has proven itself to every living being on the planet regardless if they are Physicists , time passes by every second, every minute every hour, every day…which is only the system devised we use to measure it.
What I am saying, is that time is in fact the constant and has been moving forward, ever since the big bang “theory” was set into motion. Regardless if there was only one object in the universe, time would still be, moving forward for that one object. There is no proof of time ever having been bent; there are only more “theories”. Where are the worm-holes? All that I am saying is for you to open your eyes and to observe life for what is really happening. Time is the constant, and light will travel “this far” in “this” amount of time.
If it were not true, If time did not constantly move forward gravitational lensing would not exist, light is bent, not time.
Please, consider this last comment as I have also considered your thoughts, then I will shut up as you and many, more than likely wish…First, you mentioned a graph in which time is represented by the “Y” axis and space is represented by the “X” axis. In my opinion this graph is not possible nor would it represent the truth, as space in our reality is 3 dimensional with its own X,Y,Z axis and time in our reality would be a ray which began the moment after the Big Bang. How do you then place an XYZ into another XYZ graph?
Light is “bent”, it is refracted, in raindrops spreading out the individual wavelengths of light to produce a rainbow, correct? So, is time also “bent” and or refracted in the drops of rain as well? No, only the light is. Also this…Light is bent from the intense heat of the scorching sun, rising up from a desert plain, producing a mirage in the view of an observer. Is time also “bent” in the mirage? No, only the light is. Lastly…a bright large object in space hides behind a massive object with a gravitational field as equally as massive, bending the light and producing the gravitational lensing effect to an observing astronomer. Was time bent by the gravity? No
It still took that star light -8 years to reach your position. Regardless of perceived “time dilation” or perceptions of “Simultaneity”. I believe this to be an error similar to flawed depth perception. Regardless if your time has seemingly slowed down, 8 years for you with mass have in fact passed by, not for the light, as light traveled that distance, light only appears as it was 8 years ago at your position and progresses from the moment you can see it, and on.
O.K...gravity is as fast as the speed of it…if the sun vaporized right now…it would take the lack of light and its provided gravity wave a certain time to reach us and be evident on Earth, so not instantaneous…Now, noting that “hypothetically speaking” in the train example…the train is traveling at the speed of light, please consider, that BOTH lightning strikes represent a space in time that is STATIONARY, yet only moving in the opposite direction “in relation” ,“relative” to, the forward motion of the train.
It could then appear to the traveling observer inside that the rear strike, did not even strike the moving train at all. If distance becomes dilated to the front, why hasn’t anyone accepted that the occurrences would appear dilated and pushed back at the front and at the rear as well, since the distance and time that the light reaches the observers eye, remains the same? The only difference is the observer’s velocity and forward motion?
They would have been moving so fast, it may have never appeared to even strike the train at all. It all does depend on the “frame of reference”, yes – I believe that the stationary reference without forward motion to that reference is truly the correct reference, because it is not subject to the Lorentz factor and time dilatation. So, it is only relative to the fact if you are subject to the Lorentz factor and time dilatation and are in fact in motion. But, I guess I'm too ignorant to accept that I am wrong, when all that I did was to propose an idea and ask the questions. Thanks for hearing me out. I honestly hope you got a great laugh!
Again, you obviously do not understand the theory. Everything is relative and it is true. Just like when you compare the time down here on earth and the time up in space on satellites, they are different. Relative to the satellites, the time goes faster compare to the time down here on earth. Engineers didn't believe that at first even though the theory predicts the clock in space would tick faster compare to identical clocks down on earth. That is why we now use atomic clocks in space/GPS-FACT...Time is not relative,distance is relative to your position.Time will always pass for all observers.Time will always pass.How fast will light travel in what amount of time? Time always passes.The Earth should broadcast the current time to the orbiting satellites and the daily reset would never be a problem.Who is the keeper of time? What reference are you using?Stop re-setting it and use one universal is only the system we use as an observed measurement to record it and mark it by.Light will only travel this this amount of time...DISTANCE is relative.
DISTANCE is relative.SPEED is relative...but time continues for all observers and that is the only source of non-agreement of Frame and reference. Speed and distance. Because time continues on. You cannot get in front of right now.
Loading Comment Box..