[Physics] Physics Digest, Vol 19, Issue 5

[Tufail Abbas]

Hello Doug,

Yes, this question had  bothered me.
Now it does not bother me anymore.

Speed of light is the factor  by which space and time are related and
separated from each other. In absence of such a factor, space and time *cannot
be distinguished from each other *in this Universe , hence cannot be
measured. And if anything cannot be measured then it is no more a physical
object or phenomenon.

To cut the story short: For me space , time and speed of light *are equally
fundamental*. Either they all (physically) exist or all of three(3)
vanishes and ceases to exist.

Regards

Tufail Abbas



On Thu, 22 Nov 2018, 22:03 Doug Marett <dm88dm at gmail.com wrote:

> Hi All,
>
>   I recently have found a couple of relativistic concepts that I have
> found logically disturbing and thought I would throw them out there.
>
> The first is Einstein's redefinition of time as "that which a clock
> measures" which differs in a dramatic way from the more classical
> definition of time as being "the duration between events" or "the duration
> of an event". To give an example, if three observers watch a sunrise on
> earth, then two of them fly in opposite directions around the earth while
> the third stays put, and meet back at the same place where they then watch
> the sunset, all three will disagree on the elapsed time for sunrise to
> sunset using clocks they have carried with them. In other words, according
> to Einstein, there is no actual constant duration between the sunrise and
> sunset, even though all witnesses are present in the same velocity frame
> for the start and finish. Further, the idea that the number of ticks on the
> clock defines how far you have progressed into the future would also be
> wrong according to Einstein, since all the clocks would have different
> ticks even though the share the same present at the start and finish. Why
> are these contradictions not fatal to Einstein's theory?
>
> The second has to do with the statement
>
> “indeed that the speed of light is actually more fundamental than either
> time or space”
>
> -
> http://www.exactlywhatistime.com/physics-of-time/relativistic-time/
>
>
> However, the speed of light depends on both “time” and “space (distance)"
> = distance/time
>
> Is this not a circular argument – that a phenomenon that depends on time
> and space is more fundamental than time and space?
>
> It is a bit like saying the speed of sound in air is more fundamental than
> air and time.
>
> Anyone else bothered by this ??
>
> Doug
>
>
> On Wed, Oct 31, 2018 at 11:46 PM Ruud Loeffen <rmmloeffen at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Hello Hans.
>>
>> My comment at Vixra on Mass- and Field Deformation:
>> Dutch scientists play a big roll in theories about Gravitation and the
>> (expanding) universe. Your paper is an interesting approach and may be put
>> in line with these scientists. I agree with the comment of Rodney Savidge:
>> It would be rewarding to include a glossary providing clear definitions of
>> (in effect justifying the use of) the many esoteric terms (e.g., hop
>> landings, modules, etc.).
>>
>> Best regards.
>> Ruud Loeffen.
>>
>> On Thu, Nov 1, 2018 at 1:40 AM Hans van Leunen <jleunen1941 at kpnmail.nl>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Please read "Mass and Field Deformation"; http://vixra.org/abs/1809.0564
>>> All massive objects are recurrently regenerated and the volume of the
>>> universe keeps expanding.
>>> Greathings,
>>> Hans van Leunen
>>>
>>> >----Origineel Bericht----
>>> >Van : ilja.schmelzer at gmail.com
>>> >Datum : 31/10/2018 19:33
>>> >Aan : physics at tuks.nl
>>> >Onderwerp : Re: [Physics] Physics Digest, Vol 19, Issue 5
>>> >
>>> >> I have a related question for you. Since the universe is expanding,
>>> >> that means that all matter is growing larger. Since the tools that we
>>> >> use are also getting larger, how would we notice?
>>> >
>>> >No, what is held together by forces (including the gravitational
>>> >force) remains of the same size.
>>> >
>>> >So, the size of everything on Earth, but also the Solar system, the
>>> >galaxies, and even the galaxy clusters remains unchanged in size.
>>> >
>>> >> Is this why fossils
>>> >> from millions of years ago seem larger than today?
>>> >
>>> >Certainly not.
>>> >
>>> >_______________________________________________
>>> >Physics mailing list
>>> >Physics at tuks.nl
>>> >http://mail.tuks.nl/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/physics
>>> >
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Physics mailing list
>>> Physics at tuks.nl
>>> http://mail.tuks.nl/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/physics
>>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> *Ruud Loeffen*
>> Paardestraat32
>> 6131HC Sittard
>> http://www.human-DNA.org
>> _______________________________________________
>> Physics mailing list
>> Physics at tuks.nl
>> http://mail.tuks.nl/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/physics
>>
> _______________________________________________
> Physics mailing list
> Physics at tuks.nl
> http://mail.tuks.nl/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/physics
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.tuks.nl/pipermail/physics/attachments/20181127/2f204482/attachment.html>