A hypothesis [ time, distance, galaxies ]

[Cerveny]

If I understand the time dilation explanation correctly, the clock should show zero elapsed time throughout the round trip. This is of course a limiting case, since a massive object cannot reach the speed of light. With a propulsion system of our thought experiment dreams we can come arbitrarily close, and the clock's display will approach zero as a limit.

Is this somehow related to whatever Relative means by "The signal itself does not need time"? I still have a hard time ascertaining his line of thought by what he is writing. If you can figure it out, you are outperforming my feeble brain.

As for photon’s „clock”, I dare to disagree We cannot suppose system’s own time slows down to zero in any inertial (independent) case.

As the “The signal itself does not need time” sentence, it is not (by my mean) perhaps happy expression of raising skepticism towards Special TR. Careful readers can recognize here several topics pointed to disputative moments of SR, include weak, difficult, up to obscure defenses of this theory. There is felt from all this topics a strong lack of fixed integration base, a need for stronger causal connection between all systems in real physical world then TR offers.

[Bob Angstrom]

Bob, you actually already answered this just by posing the qiestion...

IF, photons traveled from Point A to Point B (Laser gun to moon) "Instantly", then the question is moot...they would 'instantly' hot the mirror/reflector and 'instantly' be returned

Now, since we know we have to wait the 1 sec for them to hit the reflector and wait another sec for them to return...what 'science' "tist" is detecting/measuring those 'instant' photons...where are they? We, as 'scientists', are waiting for the "REAL" photons to make their constant "c" of 186,282.397mps journey there and back.

T= 0.9 sec: Asteroid strikes moon and destroys mirror.

Once the mirror is destroyed, the photon cannot be properly reflected

You are right that if the mirror on the moon is destroyed there is no image of a return light signal. I chose a poor example to illustrate where we have a dilemma but your question is more to the point. “If the time for both trips is 'instant' then where are the 'instant' photons?”
A photon that can make the trip in an instant by its own clock has no time to exist. We observe a time delay but what is the source of the delay?

Relativity made an important comment in his OP, “The signal itself does not need time, it’s just the distance that makes the difference.”
Any two clocks separated by distance will not read the same when viewed from either location and the discrepancy in the two clocks will amount to one second for every 300,000 km of separation.

We see distant stars and galaxies as as they existed in their own past and someone looking back at the Earth from a distant star might see an Earth populated by dinosaurs. There is a two-way time delay because remote events are separated by a spacetime interval and we can not have an interval of space without an interval of time. We do not see a delay because we are waiting for the photon to arrive. In light related events, an electron at the source loses energy as an electron at the sink gains energy much like non-local interactions in Bell's experiments involving entangled particles. The transfer is instant and direct at the electron-electron level and the “signal does not need time.” It is as though space and time does not exist between the two electrons at source and sink but we observe a time interval between the two events whenever we observe a space interval between events. As Relativity said, “Distance makes the difference.” The time delay has nothing to do with the speed of photons or the speed of the source and signal. Distance is the only consideration. The exchange of energy is 'instant' (a-temporal may be a better word) at the electron to electron level and nothing can go faster than light because nothing is faster than instant. This is the same idea proposed by Tetrode and the others I mentioned. Space and time are inseparable and any two events separated by space will also be separated by a precise amount of time observed as “c” . Einstein's c is the metric of spacetime and it is not a speed. We can invent a particle called a photon to explain the delay in Newtonian space and that is what the photon particle is... an invention. The photon particle is an unnecessary bit of folklore like fairies and elves. We see a delay because time is an integral part of space and not because we are waiting for the photon to arrive. We never see the photon and, “It's just the distance that makes the difference.”

[Cerveny]

Suppose (hypothetically) there is a digital clock carried away by appropriate photon. What the time we can read on such clock (by you) at the event

• of the impact
• of the return

?

Let me to guess myself. After 2 seconds we could have seen the photon's impact and photon's return - both at the same moment. No relativity effect would be involved But there is very different view at outgoing and incoming "relativistic" object.

[RussT]

You are right that if the mirror on the moon is destroyed there is no image of a return light signal. I chose a poor example

First, thanks for this admission...these are very helpful and necessary for an inteligent conversation to take place

2nd, it would not have been a poor example IF photons traveled from Point A to Point B 'instantly'

The real problem is simply this... the 'erronious' SR inherent Double Constant definitions of "c"
1. 186,282.397miles per second...which is obviously....time and distance
2. The 'Singularity' definition at the division by 0, of 0 time to ANY distance OR exactly equivilently, "Instantaneous" travel time to ANY distance OR the contraction of 'space' to 0/point (Supposedly 1d)

There cannot be 2 definitions for a "Constant"...period

Constant by definition means one thing always the same.

SO, you are kinda trying to do the right thing by saying there is only 1 of those that can be a 'Constant', and you, and the others you have quoted, are chosing "Instant travel time 0' and retaining the distance...because, and rightfully thinking that "0 distance", for things we most certainly know are at many different distances, makes NO sense what-so-ever.

However, that automatically means, that you are thinking that those distant things are being 'seen' as they are and where they are "NOW", and that simply cannot be the case, as I will attempt to show you and get your agreement on below...

The key however, is that NONE of the Singularity definitions are "Real"....They DO NOT EXIST

The Venus scenario I showed is one of the clearest examples, But the Moons of Jupitor, which is how they first determined that light was finite in travel time over different distances is equally clear. BUT, so is the laser moon ranging...if the photons were "Instant" we would not have to wait for their return...(Bells paradox doesn't even apply here)

IF you aimed your photon laser gun at where Venus/Pluto is "NOW", would those photons hit Venus/Pluto???

And lastly, do you think that it is possible that Belelguise has already gone SN (If that is even possible as a Red Giant), and that we can't know it YET???

And, just to be clear, your comment earlier in this thread about SR NOT being able to determine light travel time and distance was correct...BUT that does NOT mean that light is 'instant', it means that SR has been cheating for over 100 years, by getting the distances in advance from the 'correct' Constant 'observer'...the 'earth rest frame' observer, because the SR 'at rest' observer CANNOT do "time and distance".

[Bob Angstrom]

First, thanks for this admission...these are very helpful and necessary for an inteligent conversation to take place

2nd, it would not have been a poor example IF photons traveled from Point A to Point B 'instantly'

The real problem is simply this... the 'erronious' SR inherent Double Constant definitions of "c"
1. 186,282.397miles per second...which is obviously....time and distance
2. The 'Singularity' definition at the division by 0, of 0 time to ANY distance OR exactly equivilently, "Instantaneous" travel time to ANY distance OR the contraction of 'space' to 0/point (Supposedly 1d)

There cannot be 2 definitions for a "Constant"...period

Constant by definition means one thing always the same.

SO, you are kinda trying to do the right thing by saying there is only 1 of those that can be a 'Constant', and you, and the others you have quoted, are chosing "Instant travel time 0' and retaining the distance...because, and rightfully thinking that "0 distance", for things we most certainly know are at many different distances, makes NO sense what-so-ever.

There is one and only one value for the constant c and I agree with your value of 186,282.397miles per second. A double constant c makes no sense to me either. Einstein's c is a universally observed constant ratio between units of length and time and not to be confused with the speed of light. The speed of light can be measured as either c or instant depending on where we put our clocks but that does not change the amount of time found in a given amount of space which is the constant c found in SR and GR

However, that automatically means, that you are thinking that those distant things are being 'seen' as they are and where they are "NOW", and that simply cannot be the case, as I will attempt to show you and get your agreement on below...

The key however, is that NONE of the Singularity definitions are "Real"....They DO NOT EXIST

Particles in our NOW can only exchange energy (light) with particles of a distant object's past because we are separated by both space and time and we can never have space without time. I see no way to justify the idea that time is the same everywhere even though that is an intuitively sensible idea.
If you want to eliminate metaphysicals of dubious reality, singularities are one. Some others are the notion that there is a universal god's-eye-view of space and time that prefers one local view over another. A third is the notion that we can separate space from time and a fourth would be photon particles carrying bundles of energy through empty space.

The Venus scenario I showed is one of the clearest examples, But the Moons of Jupitor, which is how they first determined that light was finite in travel time over different distances is equally clear. BUT, so is the laser moon ranging...if the photons were "Instant" we would not have to wait for their return...(Bells paradox doesn't even apply here)

Roemer may have thought he was measuring the speed of light with the moons of Jupiter but I think he was really measuring the amount of time delay that accompanies a given amount of space which is the value of c.
Bell's non-locality does apply but we can substitute lightning strikes for a classical example. It makes no difference if the 'instant' is classical or quantum. Whenever two otherwise instant events are separated by space they are also separated by time. If an observer midway between the Earth and moon sees lightning strike in both locations at the same time, he could call the strikes instant. But an observer on either the Earth or the moon would see a delay. Relativity said in his OP that distance makes the difference. The simultaneity of the two events is lost whenever one event is closer to an observer than the other and the amount of delay is equal to one second for every 186,282.397 miles of distance. This is SR in its most economical form. Speculations about the speed of light, photons, and motions of the observers only make SR sound more complicated than it really is. SR is all about c which is the amount of time we observe in a given amount of distance.

IF you aimed your photon laser gun at where Venus/Pluto is "NOW", would those photons hit Venus/Pluto???

No, a theoretical straight line through the point where Venus appears to be would miss the 'real' planet but photon particles may be just as imaginary as my straight line. A drop in energy at the signal source and a rise in energy at the receiver and a delay between the two events is all we can observe with light signals. Anything happening in the space between the two is speculation and by that I mean photons.

And lastly, do you think that it is possible that Belelguise has already gone SN (If that is even possible as a Red Giant), and that we can't know it YET???

It is possible that Betelgeuse has gone SN without us knowing it yet but that assumes that there is a universal god's-eye-view of time and space that sees us in the NOW while Betelgeuse has gone SN. I don't care to go so far as to say that Betelgeuse does not exist until we observe it but but the NOW of Betelgeuse is not in our reference frame. Quantumly speaking, Betelgeuse is in an indeterminite state (both star and SN) until we interact with it but that makes no sense in Newtonian time. In Julian Barbour time the universe has a photo album of Betelgeuse pictures both pre- and post- SN so take your pick and the one you pick is your NOW. All I can say is that a Betelgeuse SN is not yet a part of our reality but we are not real to Betelgeuse either.

And, just to be clear, your comment earlier in this thread about SR NOT being able to determine light travel time and distance was correct...BUT that does NOT mean that light is 'instant', it means that SR has been cheating for over 100 years, by getting the distances in advance from the 'correct' Constant 'observer'...the 'earth rest frame' observer, because the SR 'at rest' observer CANNOT do "time and distance".

We (not SR) can not measure the speed of light. Measuring the speed of a photon in a vacuum which would amount to measuring the speed of a 'thing'? we can't observe without destroying it relative to literally nothing. Einstein's c and the speed of light are not the same thing. That is no problem for SR or GR because we have Einstein's c as the precise value of a universally observed constant and that is what we use whether it is the true speed of light or not. The highway speed may be precisely 65 but that doesn't mean that 65 is the speed of the cars.

[WayneFrancis]

...Quantumly speaking, Betelgeuse is in an indeterminite state (both star and SN) until we interact with it but that makes no sense in Newtonian time...

ummm I don't think you can scale up quantum physics in the manner you are suggesting.

Sure if I press against a wall there might be a chance that I'll experience a tunnelling event that lets me pass through the wall but if you do the calculations for the amount of atoms in my body to all tunnel in the same direction at the same time for the same distance I can safely say the odds are essentially zero.

The issue here is at every point in space you can pretty much say "It has been ~13.4 billion years since the big bang" When we look at other points in space we can NOT say that we see them as they are ~13.4 after the big bang. What we can say is that we see them at ~(13.4 billion years since the big bang - distance in light years they currently appear to be at from us). So if we measure something that appears to be 6 billion light years away then it appears to us as it did ~7.4 billion years after the big bang. We can also say that we know it is no longer where we see it.

To say we can see something 6 billion light years away and it appears to us as it would be ~13.4 billion years after the big bang is to not understand basic physics.

The clock experiments have been done and show us that the above is not a correct view of the universe.

Hiding behind interesting philosophical debates on photon propagation that doesn't support the original post is nothing but hand waving in a desperate hope that people will just get confused by superfluous points.

[RussT]

Mods...Can I answer Bob's post and include things that Wayne has posted in this thread???

[Cerveny]

We (not SR) can not measure the speed of light...The highway speed may be precisely 65 but that doesn't mean that 65 is the speed of the cars.

We can direct laser pointer at Moon, switch it on and push the stopwatch…
BTW: do you mean the speed of the light is the same in stronger gravitational field?

[RussT]

We can direct laser pointer at Moon, switch it on and push the stopwatch…
BTW: do you mean the speed of the light is the same in stronger gravitational field?

We can direct laser pointer at Moon, switch it on and push the stopwatch…

Yes, I have already covered this, but was going to reiterate some things.

BTW: do you mean the speed of the light is the same in stronger gravitational field

NO, that is Not being covered at all, and should NOT be, as we are not dealing with light/photons close to Neutron stars or Black Holes....yet!!!

[Relative]

So, my thread is about to expire (after 1 month I guess?)

Again, I want to thank everybody here very much for his/her commitment. I will be working on the hypothesis and see whether I can find appropriate evidence for it. Actually, I must admit, it was a kind of a „testing ground“ of how „unlikely“ hypotheses are dealt with. I am working on some other hypothesis since one year already, and it might take even 2-4 years more until it may be finished (I hope, this time including every required scientific evidence and data and reprocucable tests!, therefore the long period). I hope I can finish it before i die. The hypothesis in this thread only has little to do with it, except that the „Higgs boson“ may never be found due to the circumstance that no subatomic particle may be needed to make energy become mass. If something like „speed of time“ exists – or if time has two dimensions in a way that one dimension is the counterpart of the other (like we are seeking for (super)symmetrical counterparts everywhere up to the matter-antimatter-"matter") one could say that mass may be something like „stored time“, and an explosion is nothing else than „stored time is released“ and try to make an equilibrum with its environment. Ummm...

I mean, astrophysics is just awesome. If you think how many BASIC things arent solved: What is gravitation, what is magnetism, what is time, what is life? We are still at the very beginning, and every „stupid“ speculation is allowed. What a beauty!

[WayneFrancis]

So, my thread is about to expire (after 1 month I guess?)

Again, I want to thank everybody here very much for his/her commitment. I will be working on the hypothesis and see whether I can find appropriate evidence for it. Actually, I must admit, it was a kind of a „testing ground“ of how „unlikely“ hypotheses are dealt with.

They are dealt with like all other ideas are. If they are faulty we point out where the faults are. If they are not then interesting dialogue occurs. The former is normally the case tho.

I am working on some other hypothesis since one year already, and it might take even 2-4 years more until it may be finished (I hope, this time including every required scientific evidence and data and reprocucable tests!, therefore the long period). I hope I can finish it before i die. The hypothesis in this thread only has little to do with it, except that the „Higgs boson“ may never be found due to the circumstance that no subatomic particle may be needed to make energy become mass. If something like „speed of time“ exists – or if time has two dimensions in a way that one dimension is the counterpart of the other (like we are seeking for (super)symmetrical counterparts everywhere up to the matter-antimatter-"matter") one could say that mass may be something like „stored time“, and an explosion is nothing else than „stored time is released“ and try to make an equilibrum with its environment. Ummm...

I mean, astrophysics is just awesome. If you think how many BASIC things arent solved: What is gravitation, what is magnetism, what is time, what is life? We are still at the very beginning, and every „stupid“ speculation is allowed. What a beauty!

Balsamic Vinegar please.

The "what is life" sound very metaphysical in nature. Have fun with your research. See you in a few years.

[czeslaw]

I was wondering about the fact that "grown up" galaxies have been detected in regions that are supposed to be close to big bang, How can this be as it must be assumed that they should rather exhibit a kind of "baby stadium".

The difference is: It could be explained why we find galaxies very far away (even close to big bang) that exhibit the same shape like ours. So what we see is NOT the past – it is how the universe looked like at current "local earth time" at each respective spot– quasi a "present picture". Of course it has changed already compared to respective "local time". If, for example, the sun dicides to "switch off" at 2 o’clock local sun time it will be 8 minutes past 2 at local earth time. The "last sunbeam" sent to earth will not need any time itself (this is corresponding to theory of relativity where you will not need time to anywhere when travelling at light speed) therefore arriving exactly 8 minutes past 2 local earth time. It is quasi travelling at same speed as time "expands". So anybody would conclude the speed of light is 8 minutes for the distance sun–earth. No. The speed of light is just the same as the "speed of time"!
Uhmm ...

It is interesting. May be , you are right. Have you read the articles about the "Holographic Universes" (Beckenstein, t' Hooft, Smoot, Verlinde, Suskind, Chown...) ?
They claim, we are uncovering the covered universe since the Big Bang. therefore the uncovered may be an adult galaxy not necessary a baby stage. There are photons of the galaxies which are escaping faster than light and we observe them now after bilions of years. Here is an articleof Davis and Lineweaver http://www.mso.anu.edu.au/~charley/p...neweaver04.pdf

[Bob Angstrom]

ummm I don't think you can scale up quantum physics in the manner you are suggesting.

Sure if I press against a wall there might be a chance that I'll experience a tunnelling event that lets me pass through the wall but if you do the calculations for the amount of atoms in my body to all tunnel in the same direction at the same time for the same distance I can safely say the odds are essentially zero.

The issue here is at every point in space you can pretty much say "It has been ~13.4 billion years since the big bang" When we look at other points in space we can NOT say that we see them as they are ~13.4 after the big bang. What we can say is that we see them at ~(13.4 billion years since the big bang - distance in light years they currently appear to be at from us). So if we measure something that appears to be 6 billion light years away then it appears to us as it did ~7.4 billion years after the big bang. We can also say that we know it is no longer where we see it.

To say we can see something 6 billion light years away and it appears to us as it would be ~13.4 billion years after the big bang is to not understand basic physics.

The clock experiments have been done and show us that the above is not a correct view of the universe.

Hiding behind interesting philosophical debates on photon propagation that doesn't support the original post is nothing but hand waving in a desperate hope that people will just get confused by superfluous points.

Our only interactions with distant stars are in the quantum realm largely in the form of electron to electron energy exchanges so the problem is just the opposite. Can we scale up our quantum observations to model a macro world beyond our spacetime reference frame? This assumes that there is a universal gods-eye-view of time and ours is a local aberration from the REAL space and time. The line between where distant objects appear to be and where they might be in an instant is not always clearly drawn. We see the sun as it existed 500 seconds ago and presumably the effect works both ways but the Earth-sun orbit depends upon the two bodies being able to orbit where they are NOW and not where they appear to be... otherwise our orbit would decay and we would fall into the sun.

[Bob Angstrom]

We can direct laser pointer at Moon, switch it on and push the stopwatch…
BTW: do you mean the speed of the light is the same in stronger gravitational field?

For simplicity, I am ignoring any gravitational considerations. We can't measure the exact speed of light because our units of length, time, and Einstein's c are all mutually defined. It is like trying to measure the speed of light over the distance of a light year and this was explained in detail in Post #96.

[Cerveny]

We can't measure the exact speed of light because our units of length, time, and Einstein's c are all mutually defined. It is like trying to measure the speed of light over the distance of a light year and this was explained in detail in Post #96.

We live in very real condition where all measurements have a fix, reproducible mean.
Artificial decomposition of physical world to some “frames” brings more troubles then profit. Remember for example "Simultaneity and Einstein's train", this and many other similar topics here. All these topics express doubts whether the Einstein’s dissociated view to the reality is really true. Frankly, we are waiting about eighty years when TR brings some fruit. The fruit of string theories became bitter and nothing else seems to be near

[Strange]

Remember for example "Simultaneity and Einstein's train", this and many other similar topics here. All these topics express doubts whether the Einstein’s dissociated view to the reality is really true.

You seem to be confused between some people not understanding (and being unwilling/unable to understand) and a problem with the theory itself. Perhaps that is simpley because you do not understand (and are unwilling and/unable to understand).

Frankly, we are waiting about eighty years when TR brings some fruit. The fruit of string theories became bitter and nothing else seems to be near

I don't know what sort of "fruit" you are expecting. But the results of our understanding of relativity are used everyday.

[RussT]

There is one and only one value for the constant c and I agree with your value of 186,282.397miles per second. A double constant c makes no sense to me either. Einstein's c is a universally observed constant ratio between units of length and time and not to be confused with the speed of light. The speed of light can be measured as either c or instant depending on where we put our clocks but that does not change the amount of time found in a given amount of space which is the constant c found in SR and GR

Here is the bottom line...we know that we have to wait for the light signals sent to the Moon (So Bell cannot possibly come into play here!), our spacecraft (Or Here), Venus to get there and back...SO those signals CANNOT be traveling 'instantly'...period (and they are traveling in a straight line or they would take MORE time!!! unless of course the Shapiro Effect comes into play....BUT that is only very near the horizons of massive objects!!!)

Take 2 clocks that are synchronised. Move them apart and then watch the clocks. We don't see the clocks as the are for our "now" but how they where based on the distance they are from us. IE Move a 2 clocks apart by 1 light minute and when you look at the 2nd clock it will be 1 minute behind yours and not the same time as yours.

And as I have repeatedly shown, Wayne is right here, as can also be attested to by our space missions just in our solar system. And those astronauts are losing bone density but are NOT being time dilated in the slightest.

All of the above has absolutely Nothing what-eo-ever to do with SR Relativity...that is all from "Our Perspective" 'earth rest frame' observer. Newton with Constant Time and "c" as a Constant 186,282.397 mps...Why, simply because "Relativity" does NOT measure time and distance. A light second OR a light year is meaningless in Relativity!

And in Post # 73 Wayne correctly says...

The fact that you think there is a speed of time shows you that you need to learn more about physics. The "speed" of something is the distance it travels / time so show me what that means. I'll give you a clue the times will cancel out and leave you with distance. [B]This doesn't mean 2 things separated by distance will appear to each other as having the same time. This would only be true if light propagated instantly which it doesn't. [/B.

BUT, here is the Real key to finally understanding Time, and Wayne doesn't even really know what he actually did/showed here...in Post # 75

Agreed. All that says is that to the photon there is no time or distance. Whoopy. For the rest of us that have rest mass Relative's claims have already been proven to be wrong not only in thought experiments but actual experiments. Flipping from our reference frame to a photon's frame, which to us is not a valid reference frame anyway, makes no sense and does not support Relative's idea. All it does is bring the equations to a singularity and thus you can back out and get any meaningful answer. You might as well claim 1 / 0 = 2 + 5....you can't get past the 1/0.

A double constant c makes no sense to me either.

This is absolutely correct...A "Constant" CANNOT have 2 different definitions, and the ONLY one that is Valid is Light speed at Constant 186,282.397mps with Time as a Constant

The definitions at the division by 0 of 1. 0 Time from Point A to Point B to ANY distance to Infinity 2. "Instantaneous" from point A to Point B at ANY distance to Infinity 3. distance contracted to 0 from Infinity are ALL Singularity definitions and DO NOT EXIST AT ALL!!!

And here is the "REAL" kicker, and I have absolutely determined this to be 100% correct...and I do not believe that this arguement/pure logic has ever been presented to ANY Relativity Guru, so just hand waving it aside, which seems to be the first thing that BAUTians are prone to do, would actually show that 'real consideration' and proper analysis of things being presented in honest attempts at actually coming to terms with what is "REAL" or not is sorely lacking...

Anyway....here it is...

It has to do with supposedly *Approaching lightspeed "c"* or 'taking the limit'...and the 'real' problem with having 2 defintions of 1 Constant both called "c"

As a observer/ship gets closer and closer to supposedly going the speed of light, once they are almost at the Max....ie'as close to light speed as possible without readhing "c" (supposedly because nothing with mass can OR it would take Infinite energy to do so...but both of those are actually meaningless)....then you get this...

A more precise wording might be that if you travel from here to Alpha Centauri, moving at arbitrarily close to the speed of light, the trip will take roughly four years for outside observers, but will be arbitrarily short for the person traveling. Depending on how fast you go, the trip could take a year as measured by the traveler, or a day, or a second, or a nanosecond. Essentially no time as measured by an outside observer, if the traveler is moving quickly enough. And it still scales. If you're traveling fast enough that time dilation means you measure a nanosecond to go four light years, then it will take you a whole second to travel four billion light years.

Now, I included Grey's whole paragraph, BUT the bold is the key...

IFFFFFFFFFFFFF you went just that smidgeon faster, to actually get to the supposed "c", you would go to Infinity Infintely Fast!

SO, you are NOT approaching light speed at all, you are approaching going Infinitely fast to Infinity, and all this time, for the last 100 years, this has NOT even been realized!

OR, you are "Shrinking"/contracting 4 Billion Light Years worth of Space/Distance of you got there in 1 second down to 186, 282.397 miles, but here too you are still approaching infintely fast, NOT light speed.

Sorry, BUT there is NO frame where photons are or ever could travel from Point A to Point B in 0 time...All photons that we see/dectect and measure are traveling at Constant "c" of 186,282.397 mps

Time dilation does not exist and swapping two observers motions is absolutely meaningless.

[Strange]

Sorry, BUT there is NO frame where photons are or ever could travel from Point A to Point B in 0 time...All photons that we see/dectect and measure are traveling at Constant "c" of 186,282.397 mps

And is that true, regardless of of our velocity: e.g. in the through experiment with a flashlight on the train: The guy on the train sees the photons from his flashlight travel at c. What about the guy on the platform, does he see these photons travel at c or at c+v (where v=speed of the train)?

[Relative]

They are dealt with like all other ideas are. If they are faulty we point out where the faults are.

Yes. This is some of the "help" I mentioned before. I felt just sometimes a kind of "Well, it might not working exactly like your first proposal, but have you thought of a possibility X or Y?" could be helpful as well. This kind of help I was somehow missing. If you approach a new hypothesis that needs to say good-bye to some of our "old" point of view the average ATM proposer may not "accept" faults based on Mainstream. (It probably meets your observation in this forum as an established member.) Obviously it is still fun to both proposers and questioners.

Have fun with your research. See you in a few years.

Thank you, Wayne. I am having a lot of fun. Ive started to go in my Universitys library again like 25 years ago. It really feels good to fresh the brain again. Unfortunately I have to do it in my free time, and it turns out to become a longterm project.

[Relative]

If I understand the time dilation explanation correctly, the clock should show zero elapsed time throughout the round trip. This is of course a limiting case, since a massive object cannot reach the speed of light. With a propulsion system of our thought experiment dreams we can come arbitrarily close, and the clock's display will approach zero as a limit.

Is this somehow related to whatever Relative means by "The signal itself does not need time"? I still have a hard time ascertaining his line of thought by what he is writing. If you can figure it out, you are outperforming my feeble brain.

Yes, that was what I meant. I think we agree on that the hypothetical "photon's clock stands still" on its trip according to TR as far as I understand it :-) Now, imagine that the photon's clock does not. It might still have a "rate" or running somehow - and that one would be the "speed of time", I was talking about.
Today we assume, that the photon's clock is not running. Therefore, we conclude what we see in the universe is the respective past of an object according to its distance measured in c. If that clock doesnt stand still, we may not see the respective past. In the special case, that this clock is running like our average watch on earth (speed of time = c, in other words "one second per second" - I know thats funny...), we might even see the very present of distant objects right now. That's, in short, the hypothesis.

[Hornblower]

Yes, that was what I meant. I think we agree on that the hypothetical "proton's clock stands still" on its trip according to TR as far as I understand it :-) Now, imagine that the proton's clock does not. It might still have a "rate" or running somehow - and that one would be the "speed of time", I was talking about.
Today we assume, that the proton's clock is not running. Therefore, we conclude what we see in the universe is the respective past of an object according to its distance measured in c. If that clock doesnt stand still, we may not see the respective past. In the special case, that this clock is running like our average watch on earth (speed of time = c, in other words "one second per second" - I know thats funny...), we might even see the very present of distant objects right now. That's, in short, the hypothesis.

I stand by my opinion that your line of thought as written here is incoherent, pseudomathematical gibberish, but it actually is immaterial. We don't read a photon's clock to ascertain what the remote clock was showing when it emitted the photon. The photon's clock is a purely academic exercise demonstrating the limiting case of a mathematical model that was derived by Einstein from observations such as the Michelson-Morley experiment, Maxwell's work, etc.

When we receive a single photon, the only information we get is how much energy it carried as measured in our frame of reference. When we receive zillions of them from the face of a remote clock, we then can use optical means to create an image of the clock. Then we can read the time the clock was showing when that light was emitted.

I could go on and on, but others in this thread have done so at least as well as I could, if not better.

[WayneFrancis]

Our only interactions with distant stars are in the quantum realm largely in the form of electron to electron energy exchanges so the problem is just the opposite. Can we scale up our quantum observations to model a macro world beyond our spacetime reference frame? This assumes that there is a universal gods-eye-view of time and ours is a local aberration from the REAL space and time. The line between where distant objects appear to be and where they might be in an instant is not always clearly drawn. We see the sun as it existed 500 seconds ago and presumably the effect works both ways but the Earth-sun orbit depends upon the two bodies being able to orbit where they are NOW and not where they appear to be... otherwise our orbit would decay and we would fall into the sun.

Yes I understand the the large scale structure is a view into quantum fluctuations from the early universe. This is a much different quantum effect then saying a star is in a super position of being super nova and a star if we are not observing it. Our sun is in no way in a super nova / sun superposition that just happens to have its function collapse to a sun which the poster was saying. I didn't say that you can't scale up all quantum effects to the large scale and get useful information out of it. I meant that, in particular, the effect of a single particle being in some superposition is VERY different then trying to claim something on the order of 1x10⁵⁷ or more atoms can be in a superposition as it was stated.

[WayneFrancis]

Yes, that was what I meant. I think we agree on that the hypothetical "proton's clock stands still" on its trip according to TR as far as I understand it :-) Now, imagine that the proton's clock does not. It might still have a "rate" or running somehow - and that one would be the "speed of time", I was talking about.
Today we assume, that the proton's clock is not running.

really? Please show me where someone assumes that a proton does not experience time? It could be that a photon might never decay but this is vastly different to a proton that doesn't experience time.

Therefore, we conclude what we see in the universe is the respective past of an object according to its distance measured in c. If that clock doesnt stand still, we may not see the respective past. In the special case, that this clock is running like our average watch on earth (speed of time = c, in other words "one second per second" - I know thats funny...), we might even see the very present of distant objects right now. That's, in short, the hypothesis.

And I've said it before and I'll say it again your hypothesis is built on faulty logic and a physics of a universe that we do not live in.

[Relative]

really? Please show me where someone assumes that a proton does not experience time?

Sorry, of course I meant pHoton :-) (Going to edit that post...)

[Strange]

Today we assume, that the photon's clock is not running.

We don't "assume" anything of the sort.

[Bob Angstrom]

Here is the bottom line...we know that we have to wait for the light signals sent to the Moon (So Bell cannot possibly come into play here!), our spacecraft (Or Here), Venus to get there and back...SO those signals CANNOT be traveling 'instantly'...period (and they are traveling in a straight line or they would take MORE time!!! unless of course the Shapiro Effect comes into play....BUT that is only very near the horizons of massive objects!!!)

I am discounting any Shapiro, Sciama or any other gravitational effect. Bell's instant (a-temporal is a better word) non-local interactions among entangled particles can not be distinguished from ordinary light signaling so they can never used as faster than light communications. No matter how instant they may be in theory, whenever two otherwise instant events are separated by space they will always be separated by an interval of time at the rate described by Einstein's c. So the the question is, What is the cause of the delay?
You may remember the old carnival trick where a blindfolded knife thrower throws knives at a scantily clad girl standing in front of a large board. You see him throw the knife and you see and hear the knife hit the board. This is all the information you need to calculate the speed of the knives but there is one problem. There are no knives. The knife thrower hopes you are looking at the girl and fail to notice that he palms his knife and a fraction of a second later a spring loaded knife pops out of the board and the knife that goes from hand to board is only in our imagination.
You also can't measure the speed of photons because, like the knives, they can never be observed between source and sink. You can only measure two events and a time interval between them and anything in between is speculation. With light related events, we see an electron lose energy at the signal source and we see an electron gain energy at the receiver and we observe a delay between the two events but what is the cause of the delay? I am saying that the delay (time) is an inherent property of space so whenever two events are separated by space they are also separated by time at the observed rate of one second for every 300,000 km of space. Photon particle theory can explain the delay but this would mean that space and time can be separate. The theories of light I mentioned earlier, such as Cramer's TI, explain the observed time delay as a matter of spacetime rather than the time it takes for photons to travel from here to there and they dump the photon particle as a persistent illusion- like the knives in my knife throwing example.

[Relative]

Relativity made an important comment in his OP, “The signal itself does not need time, it’s just the distance that makes the difference.”
Any two clocks separated by distance will not read the same when viewed from either location and the discrepancy in the two clocks will amount to one second for every 300,000 km of separation.

We see distant stars and galaxies as as they existed in their own past and someone looking back at the Earth from a distant star might see an Earth populated by dinosaurs. There is a two-way time delay because remote events are separated by a spacetime interval and we can not have an interval of space without an interval of time. We do not see a delay because we are waiting for the photon to arrive.

Thanks, Bob. Actually it's the word "waiting" that would also make the difference between Mainstream and this hypothesis. We assume that evrey point in the universe is somehow the TIP of the iceberg seeing its representative environment as "present" and everything else more or less in the PAST, as one has been "waiting" for the photons to arrive.
In this hypothesis it's just the opposite: Each point in the universe is "the lowest" in a valley (still able to be called the present at the given position). And we are not "waiting" for the photons - we are "awaiting" them from respective FUTURE positions.

[Bob Angstrom]

Take two powerful lasers and cross their beams. Photons never collide and scatter. Just show me a photon.

[Relative]

We don't "assume" anything of the sort.

Ok, don't call it an "assumption", if you want.
We then just imply it off-handedly in every calculation on distance based on c. Otherwise, if a photon experiences time in any manner it should be determined an considered.

[Strange]

Ok, don't call it an "assumption", if you want.
We then just imply it off-handedly in every calculation on distance based on c. Otherwise, if a photon experiences time in any manner it should be determined an considered.

Neither is it "implied off-handedly".

It is calculated; using a scientific theory that is based on observational evidence and that has been repeatedly tested by experiment. That is the difference between "science" and the sort of wild speculation that goes on in the ATM forum: "hey what if black holes were actually made of bananas - that would explain the curvature of space"