It's about time.

[Impenitent]

...the object itself doesn't as such travel faster (light would still travel at the speed of light) but it actually contracted the distance it travelled ...

Do you really mean this? Suppose someone took a journey from the Earth to the Sun; would someone at a suitable vantage point see the Earth and Sun get closer together?

I was under the impression that the light we currently see from the sun is actually from approximately 8 seconds ago...

Not quite sure how this works, but is it possible that some distant observer in the future will see our sun go super nova as it is predicted to go?

when Betelguese or Antares go supernova, if we could see an orbiting planet (no light source I know) as that star expanded, would we see the star get closer to said planet?

suitable vantage point...

when you were young, you couldn't reach the door knob

your parents saw this great distance between your hand and the knob

time has elapsed and you have grown (as the given star should)

you can now reach the door knob with ease

the distance has contracted with your growth (your hand and the knob- given star and the planet)

so yes, it seems that someone at a suitable vantage point (your parents at least) has seen the distance get closer together...

predictable change could be a tenuous thing...

-Imp

[Age]

If the speed of light is ONLY constant in a vacuum and there is NO such thing as
a vacuum then HOW does any one KNOW that the speed of light is a constant ?

Light would be a constant in an absolute vacuum because there would be nothing else to slow it down such as gravity or mass
But absolute vacuums do not exist in Nature because if they did they would have dimension to them so would not be absolute

My question here was either missed or dismissed.

Asked in ANOTHER WAY; How would human beings KNOW what 'would' happen if they do NOT even have the ability to test 'it', for verification or for fallibility?

[Age]

If any one is Truly interested in learning and understanding this further, then all of this can be explained.

Age, if you are Truly interested in explaining it to anyone who cares to listen, could you do so in your own thread please?

I MISREAD this last time.

Why do you want me to explain your errors in another thread?

Do you not like that I am SHOWING, and can PROVE ,the inconsistencies in what you say and write here?

[surreptitious57]

If the speed of light is ONLY constant in a vacuum and there is NO such thing as
a vacuum then HOW does any one KNOW that the speed of light is a constant ?

My question here was either missed or dismissed

There IS such a thing as a vacuum and the speed of light IS constant inside one
The reason why that is known is because it has been confirmed by observation

[surreptitious57]

How would human beings KNOW what would happen if they do NOT even have the ability to test it for verification or for fallibility ?

They would not know without a testable hypothesis capable of potential falsification
Making assumptions without actually testing them first could lead to false knowledge

[attofishpi]

As most of you know, I write the occasional article for Philosophy Now. I might have mentioned it, once or twice. Anyway, I sent them another one the other day, so perhaps in a year or so it might get published. In the meantime, here's a preview of the draft I sent in. Even if it is accepted, it's unlikely to go out without a few changes, so feel free to comment/criticise.

Hi uwot

A really enjoyable article and well explained.

If you are asked to shorten it at all, my only suggestion would be after the light-clock stuff, the point you are making is already pretty clear, so some of the 'back to the railway station' stuff could be chopped!

Nice bit of humour in there too, may I suggest that should we create a spaceship that can get near the speed of c that we sell seats to the vanity queens that are overtaking the planet that are so concerned about their wrinkles developing and jettison them as far away from the rest of us as possible.

[Paradigmer]

IMO, I believe Lord Kelvin had a legit explanation for explaining gravity with his aether hypothesis and vortex theory.

Yeah, I think his basic premise is probably true. All he is really saying is that the universe is made of something that has 'mechanical' properties - it is made of some sort of 'stuff'. Many people think that Special Relativity did away with the aether, but, as you note, Einstein in his lecture at Leiden pointed out that Special Relativity only did away with a static/flat aether, it doesn't rule out a relativistic aether, and as Einstein said in the same lecture, General Relativity without an aether is unthinkable.
I've linked to the lecture before, but here it is again for anyone interested: https://mathshistory.st-andrews.ac.uk/E ... ein_ether/

I also believe Einstein didn't rule out the relativistic aether, or really did away with the aether.

Am also well aware of that Einstein's lecture at Leyden.

From my understanding with the hyperspherical vortex cosmos, I could say the spacetime continuum coined by Einstein, is the relativistic aether.

This spacetime of the original Einstein TOR as repeatedly clarified by Einstein, is not the elastic space and reified time posited in the adulterated Einstenian TOR.

This spacetime is the all-pervasive aether that is subjected to the relativistic transformations.

Also, the gravity explanation by Lord Kelvin with his aether hypothesis and the vortex theory popular in his time, is indeed the made up the sort of 'stuff' in the space that has mechanical properties. He postulated gravity is a pushed-in mechanical effect of aether, and I absolutely agreed with him.

[attofishpi]

IMO, I believe Lord Kelvin had a legit explanation for explaining gravity with his aether hypothesis and vortex theory.

Yeah, I think his basic premise is probably true. All he is really saying is that the universe is made of something that has 'mechanical' properties - it is made of some sort of 'stuff'. Many people think that Special Relativity did away with the aether, but, as you note, Einstein in his lecture at Leiden pointed out that Special Relativity only did away with a static/flat aether, it doesn't rule out a relativistic aether, and as Einstein said in the same lecture, General Relativity without an aether is unthinkable.
I've linked to the lecture before, but here it is again for anyone interested: https://mathshistory.st-andrews.ac.uk/E ... ein_ether/

I also believe Einstein didn't rule out the relativistic aether, or really did away with the aether.

Am also well aware of that Einstein's lecture at Leyden.

From my understanding with the hyperspherical vortex cosmos, I could say the spacetime continuum coined by Einstein, is the relativistic aether.

This spacetime of the original Einstein TOR as repeatedly clarified by Einstein, is not the elastic space and reified time posited in the adulterated Einstenian TOR.

This spacetime is the all-pervasive aether that is subjected to the relativistic transformations.

Also, the gravity explanation by Lord Kelvin with his aether hypothesis and vortex theory, is indeed the made up the sort of 'stuff' in the space that has mechanical properties. He postulated gravity is a pushed-in mechanical effect of aether, and I absolutely agreed with him.

For some reason I thought they, scientists, had thrown out consideration of an aether. Good work uwot on the link there - mind bender of a read.

For some time I have been considering a 3D cartesian system of binary points, where either there is an event or not (at the universes most finite scale) as the aether. At this stage I am ignoring the space-time bend with massive bodies - since at each point in the 3D cartesian system - I am imagining that the events at this binary level are switched as an event or not based on - apologies atheists - 'permitted'\'caused' by the 3rd party intelligence - thus altering the state of binary events in other coordinates of the cartesian space - which then, as our reality confirms, creates the space-time bend. At this binary scale (event or not within 3D 'space') the switching would accommodate electro-mangnetic fields, matter, indeed everything we perceive as reality.
(the above is my little theory at this stage based on my knowledge of God\'God' and it's abilities as I have experienced - including the morphing of matter at will - apologies to the atheists )

[AlexW]

I propose that this vanishing and reappearing happens many times a second - light having a frequency of somewhere between 430–750 terahertz this popping out and back into relativistic spacetime would happen VERY often every second.

As far as I can tell, those bits of space that the fast moving objects in your model flit between are the same bits of space that the light in Einstein's light clock actually travel through. It just seems simpler to stick with a fairly mundane explanation, but again, if your model makes more sense to you, as the saying goes; if it ain't broke, don't fix it.

No... the fast moving object would not "flit through any bits of space" at all when it is exiting the normal relativistic/objective dimension of spacetime.
It basically dissolves into absolute standstill - its not moving at all and as such gives up all its objective qualities (like a wave that reaches its highest/lowest point and - exactly at the crest/trough - remains motionless for an imperceptible tiny fraction of its existence)
I propose that it is these points of absolute standstill that are responsible for time dilation (and as well open the possibility for faster than light "travel" - but again: its not the speed of the object that increases, its a different mode of transportation)

[AlexW]

Oh man this forward time travel explanation is sensational!

However, it is merely a situation that could only happen in the virtual reality that does not refer to the objective reality.

This relativistic concept despite also could not be validated in the subjective reality of the contemporary Einsteinian relativism, its idea could still be pragmatic.

This concept nevermind the reality could be pragmatic for the box office hits by the team Holywood if materialized in their blockbuster movies; the film industry needs people with such ideologies.

I am not talking about time travel at all.

The skipping of parts of "objective reality" along the path of travel doesn't imply that this could only happen in (a computer simulated) virtual reality - even it is common place in these environments. In a VR simulation objects do not follow any maximum speed at all - they can simply pop up and vanish from the screen at any place at any time (only depending on the algorithms employed and of course on the maximum processing power of the computer).
I used the screen analogy to explain the idea, but, while it is common practice in simulations, I think it may also be possible in "objective reality" (if there is such a thing at all)

Also, its not an ideology, its simply an idea - I don't really care if its true or false (as all ideas are only relatively true or false anyway) - its simply fun to think about it, discuss it etc...

[Paradigmer]

Oh man this forward time travel explanation is sensational!

However, it is merely a situation that could only happen in the virtual reality that does not refer to the objective reality.

This relativistic concept despite also could not be validated in the subjective reality of the contemporary Einsteinian relativism, its idea could still be pragmatic.

This concept nevermind the reality could be pragmatic for the box office hits by the team Holywood if materialized in their blockbuster movies; the film industry needs people with such ideologies.

I am not talking about time travel at all.

The skipping of parts of "objective reality" along the path of travel doesn't imply that this could only happen in (a computer simulated) virtual reality - even it is common place in these environments. In a VR simulation objects do not follow any maximum speed at all - they can simply pop up and vanish from the screen at any place at any time (only depending on the algorithms employed and of course on the maximum processing power of the computer).
I used the screen analogy to explain the idea, but, while it is common practice in simulations, I think it may also be possible in "objective reality" (if there is such a thing at all)

Also, its not an ideology, its simply an idea - I don't really care if its true or false (as all ideas are only relatively true or false anyway) - its simply fun to think about it, discuss it etc...

OIC. You are talking about an idea of omnipresence, which transcends the objective reality.

I agree to "objective reality" is merely a persistent illusion as to how Einstein had put it:
"Reality is merely an illusion, albeit a very persistent one."

I did speculate on such an idea for the transcendental reality of the objective reality, explicated with the evolution of the hyperspherical vortex universe abstract for proposing the ontology of the cosmos , so you are not alone into this endeavor.

All matters are made of light, and this has been experimentally proven:
- Scientists create never-before-seen form of matter
- LHC creates matter from light

In my UVS worldview, everything in the objective reality is vortically made of light.

So to speak, there is a physical limit to what any object could do under the delimited bandwidths of the light-speed limit in the objective reality. In this sense, the object you proposed to be transcending space for moving with infinite speed in two locations, could not physically occur at all.

While it is definitely possible the omnipresence effect could transcend space in the transcendental reality of the objective reality, as could be simulated with the VR reality you mentioned, it could not be physically happening to any object in the realm of the objective reality.

While "its simply fun to think about it', we should be careful to distinguish the speculation of imagination from fact of the objective reality, as how Carl Segan had nicely put it: “We wish to find the truth, no matter where it lies. But to find the truth we need imagination and skepticism both. We will not be afraid to speculate, but we will be careful to distinguish speculation from fact.”

And Einstein had summarized it: “You can never solve a problem on the level on which it was created.”

BTW, this thread is about the essence of absolute time as perceived in the realism of the objective reality, and the OP had unequivocally refuted the elastic time as proposed with the contemporary Einsteinian TOR in its postulated subjective reality that assimilates the objective reality.

And again, infinite speed is invalid in the contemporary Einsteinian TOR.

[AlexW]

BTW, this thread is about the essence of absolute time as perceived in the realism of the objective reality, and the OP had unequivocally refuted the elastic time as proposed with the contemporary Einsteinian TOR in its postulated subjective reality that assimilates the objective reality.

And again, infinite speed is invalid in the contemporary Einsteinian TOR.

I haven't had time yet to read through the links you provided (thank you in advance), but regarding the OP: The OP describes the light clock experiment - which of course is in tune with TOR and points to the idea that, at the speed of light, time stops (no light bounces between the mirrors anymore...)
But this also means that all movement stops, that all distance is "annihilated" - you could say that photons do not experience time, but this also means they don't experience any distance either (not that anyone or anything would actually ever "experience" time anyway).
This sounds strange, but its pretty obvious ... sound, when travelling at the speed of sound, doesn't experience time either (when using a "sound"-clock to measure time aka. movement) etc etc --> you can only experience/measure time or distance/movement when using a measurement tool that is using a faster frequency/movement than your own...
Thus, to measure time when travelling at the speed of light, all one would have to do is build a "faster clock" (one that uses a higher frequency than the frequency of light which is about 500 trillion Hz - there are "only" about 9 billion transitions between the two hyperfine levels of the ground state of the cesium 133 atom - by far not enough to still measure time/movement at light speed...)
Now, you might say, but the speed of light is not only a constant but also as fast as anything can go... again... I doubt that very much... but, if it were the case and speed is capped at c then this - as I see it - would be a very strong pointer into the direction that this universe is not more than a simulation being processed by a limited resource (a computer system with a limited processing speed)...

Also, what do yo mean with "this thread is about the essence of absolute time"?
As I see it, there is no such thing as an absolute "anything"? No absolute time, movement, objectivity, truth, fact or whatever else one might define in our dualistic minds.

While it is definitely possible the omnipresence effect could transcend space in the transcendental reality of the objective reality, as could be simulated with the VR reality you mentioned, it could not be physically happening to any object in the realm of the objective reality.

I wouldn't be so sure about that... what are objects anyway? They are nothing but movement - vibrating/moving fields or patterns of energy.
Now stop all movement ... what happens to the objects/energetic field? It merges back into the perfectly flat/motionless ocean of the absolute - before it rises again as a new wave from the same infinite/unmoving "source"...

[Paradigmer]

Also, what do yo mean with "this thread is about the essence of absolute time"?
As I see it, there is no such thing as an absolute "anything"? No absolute time, movement, objectivity, truth, fact or whatever else one might define in our dualistic minds.

Absolute time, also called chronometric time, gives us distinct measurements and points of reference that refers to the objective reality.

The contemporary mainstream Einsteinian posited time is a reified relativistic time that merely refers to its subjective reality.

The OP unequivocally refuted the reified relativistic time when it is referred to the objective reality.

Moreover, this was experimentally proven with the muon experiment as observed with the physical relativistic transformation of the objects that had occurred in the objective reality.

The idea for nothing is absolute, which includes time, is merely a reality in the Einsteinian TOR concluded in its subjective worldview; it is merely a conceptualized idea that has had been conclusively falsified with the muon experiment.

The reified relativistic time merely exist in the abstract of the Einsteinian TOR, which does not refer to the objective reality.

The reified time postulated in the Einsteinian TOR is merely a physical paradox as a result of its subjective reality for proposing events in the objective reality.

As thus, the Einsteinian TOR confuses its subjective reality as the objective reality with its reified time for all its relativistic propositions in a world of its fantasized realm.

[Paradigmer]

This sounds strange, but its pretty obvious ... sound, when travelling at the speed of sound, doesn't experience time either (when using a "sound"-clock to measure time aka. movement) etc etc --> you can only experience/measure time or distance/movement when using a measurement tool that is using a faster frequency/movement than your own...
Thus, to measure time when travelling at the speed of light, all one would have to do is build a "faster clock" (one that uses a higher frequency than the frequency of light which is about 500 trillion Hz - there are "only" about 9 billion transitions between the two hyperfine levels of the ground state of the cesium 133 atom - by far not enough to still measure time/movement at light speed...)
Now, you might say, but the speed of light is not only a constant but also as fast as anything can go... again... I doubt that very much... but, if it were the case and speed is capped at c then this - as I see it - would be a very strong pointer into the direction that this universe is not more than a simulation being processed by a limited resource (a computer system with a limited processing speed)...

When using a "sound"-clock to measure time aka. movement) etc, could not measure time has lapsed, does not entail the time-lapse is not experienced in the objective reality. This is the fallacy of the Einsteinian reified time that could stop at light speed when referred to reality.

As a matter of fact, the intrinsic spin of photon traversing at light speed has to intrinsically propagate in the photon at twice the speed of light with its orthogonal motion for moving at light speed. Light speed nonetheless could be slowed subjected to the constraints of the medium it propagates.

I could agree to this universe is more than the objective reality of being processed by a limited resource in the manifested cosmos.

In the hypothesized aethereal world that manifests the objective reality, FTL speed is definitely plausible, despite not measurable with any physical instrument.

However, in the worldview on objects are manifest with light, no object could traverse beyond light speed.

If a sound wave manages to coalesce a structural form with its acoustic effects, this acoustic form also could not traverse faster than the speed of the sound that manifest it's existence in the medium.

The FTL speed in the conceptually contrued aethereal world is therefore not possible for any object to traverse at beyond light speed in the objective reality, which all objects are supposedly manifested with the property of light to exist in the light speed delimited cosmos.

Just my 2c.

[Paradigmer]

Not only is it a fact that no one knows the cause of gravity, it is a fact that no one can know the cause of gravity.

For all you know, you most probably are already well awared on Einstein's theory of relativity description on the effect of gravity that curves space-time. The concept discreetly correlates as a space-time vortex model, and it is a subjective study of nature with precise quantitative predictions for how a celestial object falls in the curved space-time in the gravitational singularity of another celestial object.

IMO, this is actually the aetheric (aka space-time) vortex model of Einstein GR concept of gravity.

See an article on "NASA Announces Results of Epic Space-Time Experiment" that reports on NASA had confirmed that fundamentally there is a space-time vortex around the Earth.

This concept of space-time gravity is a paradigm shift from Newton's law of universal gravitation, and with his aetheric (space-time) vortex model that postulates the gravitational singularity in the outset of his geometric gravity concept, it is fundamentally different from the conventional concept of the classical gravity.

The mainstream Einsteinian TOR merely looked into the improved precision with the relativistic effect of the General Theory of Relativity for applying mathematically to refine the quantitative predictions of Newtonian gravity, but this is not the paradigm shift Einstein was referring to with the gravitational singularity of his space-time vortex model.

BTW, the aetheric gravitational singularity emerges vortically from a single point of zero volume in an inviscid universal medium. This is not the nonsensical Einsteinian relativistic gravitational singularity that compresses into a single point of zero volume with infinite gravity, which fails there in its mathematically deduction.

In this sense, there 'exists' a gravitational singularity (barycenter) in the space-time vortex of the Earth-Moon system, wherein the Earth and the Moon is gyrating around to revolve around the gravitational singularity (not the Sun) of the Solar System. This aetheric space-time vortex model with the paradigm shift of a barycentric Solar System model that explains gravity as a repulsive force, is fundamentally different from the Newtonian Sun-centric Solar System model that explains gravity as an attractive force.

IMO, Einstein knew the cause of gravity, and he knew it correctly. The spacetime vortex model in GR could quantitatively predict the gravitational effect of interacting objects precisely and accurately from its first principle without suffering the n-body problem, which is not the case for Newton laws of gravity.

You might me interested to explore my article on "The UVS reviews on the General Relativity concepts of gravity" that elaborates on the space-time vortex concept of Einstein.

Just my 2c.