Brian Greene Teaches Constant Speed of Light

Dec 27, 2022
438
12
185
Visit site
Brian Greene: "Whether you run toward or away from a beam of light, its speed will be unchanged when you measure it"
View: https://youtu.be/-Irlq3TFr8Q?t=81


Here are George emitting equidistant light pulses and Gracie running towards him:

View: https://youtube.com/watch?v=bg7O4rtlwEE


The speed of the pulses relative to the stationary Gracie is

c = df

where d is the distance between subsequent pulses and f is the frequency measured by the stationary Gracie. The speed of the pulses relative to the running Gracie is

c'= df' > c

where f' > f is the frequency measured by the running Gracie.

That is, the speed of light relative to the observer VARIES with the speed of the observer.
 
Dec 27, 2022
438
12
185
Visit site
Brian Greene teaches ASYMMETRIC time dilation: The moving clock is slow, the stationary one is fast:

View: https://youtu.be/Q1y3YnPgaY4?t=1157


Asymmetric time dilation is non sequitur - doesn't follow from Einstein's 1905 postulates. The postulates, true or false, entail SYMMETRIC time dilation: Either clock is slow as judged from the other clock's system.

Why does Brian Greene abuse logic? Because SYMMETRIC time dilation, the valid deduction, is an obvious absurdity. It says that, if two clocks are initially stationary and synchronized, then move towards one another and finally meet, either clock lags behind the other as judged from the other clock's system. Einstein knew that SYMMETRIC time dilation is absurd and fraudulently "deduced" ASYMMETRIC time dilation in 1905:

Albert Einstein, On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies, 1905: "From this there ensues the following peculiar consequence. If at the points A and B of K there are stationary clocks which, viewed in the stationary system, are synchronous; and if the clock at A is moved with the velocity v along the line AB to B, then on its arrival at B the two clocks no longer synchronize, but the clock moved from A to B lags behind the other which has remained at B by tv^2/2c^2 (up to magnitudes of fourth and higher order), t being the time occupied in the journey from A to B." http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/

It is easy to see that the valid deduction (SYMMETRIC time dilation) doesn't, but the non sequitur (ASYMMETRIC time dilation) does predict TIME TRAVEL INTO THE FUTURE - the miracle (more precisely, idiocy) that converted Einstein into a deity:

"The paradigm of the special relativistic upheaval of the usual concept of time is the twin paradox. Let us emphasize that this striking example of time dilation proves that time travel (towards the future) is possible. As a gedanken experiment (if we neglect practicalities such as the technology needed for reaching velocities comparable to the velocity of light, the cost of the fuel and the capacity of the traveller to sustain high accelerations), it shows that a sentient being can jump, "within a minute" (of his experienced time) arbitrarily far in the future, say sixty million years ahead, and see, and be part of, what (will) happen then on Earth. This is a clear way of realizing that the future "already exists" (as we can experience it "in a minute")." http://www.bourbaphy.fr/damourtemps.pdf
 
And it continues and continues. No one, that I've seen so far, is speaking to a fact of observation. That there will always be four clocks, not two. The observer's clock unobserved by the traveler, the observed traveler's clock (by the observer), the observer's clock as observed by the traveler, and the unobserved traveler's clock, the clock always in the future of the observed traveler's clock, but not in the future of the observer's clock unobserved by the traveler. The constant spiel I'm seeing deals in only two clocks, not the four clocks that will exist once the traveling clock and observer's clock part ways. Nor does the spiel deal in the two space-time flexing expansive / contractive triangulations that will exist of three clocks each (two unobserved 0-point reals, one observed light-time-history (-), each). Naturally a future line (+) in space-time will be traveled over a light-time-history (-) to a 0-point real, a triangulation of three points contracting in space-time to 0-point (exactly like observed in the universe), or expanding in space-time from 0-point real (exactly like observed in the universe), between two 0-point real clocks and between both 0-point real clocks and the light-time-history (-) clock. Sheez!
 
Complex as it is and must be, I still left out a most important piece of the physics: "Naturally a future line (+) in space-time will be traveled over a light-time-history (-)" -- on / in the light-time-history [[field (grid)]] of universe -- "to a 0-point real..."

The traveler may occupy a few grid-crisscrossing light-time-history points of the field, or countless many grid-crisscrossing light-time-history points of the field, all-at-once as he travels accelerating or decelerating through space-time (self-powering (self-accelerating or decelerating) or due to the gravitational fields being traveled); traveling through the universe, warping a bubble of space-time like a particle occupying a box being eventually anywhere and everywhere in the box due to being subject to the principle of uncertainty. Thus, the traveler, though not the observer unless the observer is also a traveler, must deal with the fact that there are no straight lines in space-time (no straight lines in the universe) though the drift of the curvatures can be lead or cut (thus warping space-time), or continuously course corrected, by knowing -- or lucky -- travelers / navigators. The observer, though, looks into curvatures of space-time as if he is looking into a straight line (from observer's point A to an observed false point B in space-time) of light-time-history.

Straighter lines do exist for travelers as manipulations of curvatures (curvatures; spirals; vortices), as I pointed out, but not for the observer who cannot witness the manipulations by travelers taking place. The observer only observing time slowed down for the traveler (the light-time traveler (-), not the 0-point real space-time traveler, merging into light-time history (-)) to some final reading of a distant light-time-history that is not any 0-point reality of travelers -- of travelers' clocks -- now somewhere in an unobserved future (+) that equals unobservable concurrent existences in a 0-point umbrella reality of quantum-like entangled universe . . . universe that is not ever observers' "observable universe."
 
Last edited:

Jzz

May 10, 2021
186
61
1,660
Visit site
Complex as it is and must be, I still left out a most important piece of the physics: "Naturally a future line (+) in space-time will be traveled over a light-time-history (-)" -- on / in the light-time-history [[field (grid)]] of universe -- "to a 0-point real..."

The traveler may occupy a few grid-crisscrossing light-time-history points of the field, or countless many grid-crisscrossing light-time-history points of the field, all-at-once as he travels accelerating or decelerating through space-time (self-powering (self-accelerating or decelerating) or due to the gravitational fields being traveled); traveling through the universe, warping a bubble of space-time like a particle occupying a box being eventually anywhere and everywhere in the box due to being subject to the principle of uncertainty. Thus, the traveler, though not the observer unless the observer is also a traveler, must deal with the fact that there are no straight lines in space-time (no straight lines in the universe) though the drift of the curvatures can be lead or cut (thus warping space-time), or continuously course corrected, by knowing -- or lucky -- travelers / navigators. The observer, though, looks into curvatures of space-time as if he is looking into a straight line (from observer's point A to an observed false point B in space-time) of light-time-history.

I am sure, neither Ray Bradbury nor Isaac Asimov could have written more compelling lines. The point is, on a more practical level, if travel forward and backward through time and through space warps is common place, what happens when mankind eventually reaches close to light speeds? A speed of 1 g maintained for about 11 months would bring a space ship to within 98% of the speed of light. What happens then, backward and forward travel through time and space?? What happens to causality? Can a human brain or any sentient brain, for that matter, exist under such circumstances, can matter itself exist? To form matter a series of events have to take place in just the right order and at just the right time. If, as Einstein says time and space depend on the frame of reference of the observer and can mutate in order to keep the speed of light constant (!?!!) Surely the Universe would fracture into an unimaginable number of different times and spaces? Even a thousand space ships all travelling at different fractions of the speed of light would result in 1000! Different spaces and times! One thousand factorial, probably more than the number of atoms in the known Universe (note, not Galaxy, Universe!). Is such a scenario acceptable, if so why?
 

Jzz

May 10, 2021
186
61
1,660
Visit site
Jzz, you need to read my post on the impossibility of any traveler chasing the speed of light, much less catching it, and why it is impossible.

Atlan0101, Before I read your post on chasing the speed of light, which I would like to do, I should put my own point of view forward. Everyone is familiar with Neils Bohr’s meticulous and strenuous work to map the emission and absorption spectrum of the Hydrogen atom. It was meticulous, it was reproducible, it was calculable. But then, it was pointed out that the electron was a charged particle, and as such being in an accelerated state around the nucleus, it should in theory radiate away all of its energy and fall into the nucleus in something like 10 pico seconds. What does this mean? No atoms, no matter, no earth, no solar system, no Universe! It was in order to solve this seemingly impossible problem that wave-particle duality was introduced. (in a very large degree due to Einstein). It was assumed that the electron within the atom existed in a smeared out state around the nucleus. So, here is the first article of faith, a particle having measurable mass becomes a wave, whose mass and energy is in a ‘smeared’ out state around the nucleus. Then we have the incoming light, what is it particle or wave? Since light on its journey to the atom is in a wave like state (i.e., obeyed the inverse square law) it has to be assumed that at the moment it enters the atom that it assumes a particle like appearance, with an exact location and energy. Thus it is assumed that light travels as a wave and arrives as a particle! This is the second tenet of faith, that a wave at the exact moment it is needed assumes an exact energy and location concentrated in one place. Next, the two, the electron and the photon collide. This is the third tenet of faith, not only does the electron turn particle like at the exact moment it is needed but also ‘absorbs’ the energy of the particle like photon at which point it has to recoil off the massive nucleus. This is the third tenet of faith. How can one wave recoil off another? OR how can a particle recoil off a wave? Whatever the answer, it is a physical impossibility. This is the fourth tenet of faith. Next the electron emits a photon of the exact energy that was absorbed. By now there have been so many acts of faith, that it is difficult to keep track. What I am getting at is clear, modern physics is more an act of faith than any religion. Furthermore, unlike religion which is split up into different sects and religions, modern science is a single modular monolithic faith that is defended by fanatics.

But you say “It is a theory that works!” BS! It is only the empirical part of QM that works, not the esoteric part detailed above. None of it works, there is no explanation for the propagation of light; no-one can explain what radio-waves are or how they form and propagate, no-one has a lucid explanation of electricity in a wire or magnetism or gravity. It is a massive hole in physics.

So faith plays a huge part, and while the speed of light might not be attainable, there are other more mundane reasons for why this might be so, than the arcane theories that so many people have complete faith in.
 
Last edited:
Jzz,

From Britannica online: "The wave property predicts the [probability] of direction of travel before the electron is detected; on the other hand, the fact that the electron is detected in a particular place shows that it has particle properties. Therefore, the answer to the question whether the electron is a wave or a particle is that it is neither. It is an object exhibiting either wave or particle properties, depending on the type of measurement that is made on it. In other words one cannot talk about the intrinsic properties of an electron; instead, one must consider [the properties of the electron and measuring apparatus together]." (Brackets [[ and emphasis mine.)
 
Last edited:

Jzz

May 10, 2021
186
61
1,660
Visit site
From Britannica online: "The wave property predicts the [probability] of direction of travel before the electron is detected; on the other hand, the fact that the electron is detected in a particular place shows that it has particle properties. Therefore, the answer to the question whether the electron is a wave or a particle is that it is neither. It is an object exhibiting either wave or particle properties, depending on the type of measurement that is made on it. In other words one cannot talk about the intrinsic properties of an electron; instead, one must consider [the properties of the electron and measuring apparatus together]." (Brackets [[ and emphasis mine.)

I do not wish to enter into contentious ground for obvious reasons, but the discrepancies here are so great that I feel I should at least make an attempt to point them out.

There are numerous believers in special and general relativity who believe that both time dilation and length contraction are not real but exist as some kind of similitudes to reality. This is definitely not true. Einstein was deadly earnest when he talked of time dilation and length contraction, he believed they were real. The same holds true of quantum mechanics, where attempts are made to pass off dimensions as degrees of freedom, but which is definitely a false understanding. 3N space refers to dimensions needed by the Schrodinger wave equation.

Coming to your quote, the online Encyclopaedia Britannica, while an excellent and dependable source of general knowledge, cannot possibly present complete information about something as complicated as the wave-function. Here are two quotes from Max Born the father of the probability wave-function that leave little doubt as to the nature of the wave-function:

“ We have two possibilities. Either we use waves in space of more than three dimensions…………..or we remain in three dimensional space, but give up the simple picture of the wave amplitude as an ordinary physical magnitude , and replace it with a purely mathematical concept into which we cannot enter.” . Yet one has to wonder how something that can be ethically unacceptable in the ‘real’ world can be perfectly justifiable in the abstract ‘mathematical’ world. …. Max Born


And

“I personally like to regard a probability wave, even in 3N space, as a real thing, certainly as more than a tool for mathematical calculations. ... how could we rely on probability predictions if we do not refer to something real and objective? “ (Max Born on Quantum Theory)

The 3N space mentioned here refers to the belief held by Quantum mechanics and Max Born that space is 3 N -dimensional, where N is the number of particles. A beam of light has an infinite number of articles and therefore 3N (infinite) number of dimensions.
 
Jun 11, 2023
181
8
85
Visit site
Ha! Ha! sheer genius!
Well!! Yes, the speed of light will be the same if you run towards a light source or if you run away from a light source in the vacuum of space but due to the dopler effect of light, the frequency of the light waves will increase as you run towards the light and decrease as you run away from light in the vacuum of space!!
But Do you know why the speed of light is constant ??

The speed of light is constant in the vacuum of space because the GP1 Aether Particles under pressure in space in which the electromagnetic waves propagate in as alternating physical beads of GP1 Aether Particles of Plus-High GP1 Aether Particle Pressure And Minus-Low-Vacuum GP1 Aether Particle Pressure (GP1s) have a certain richocet bounce speed for the particular GP1 Aether Particle Pressure in space!!

The speed of the richocet bounce between the Pressurized GP1 Aether Particles In The vacuum of space is what determines the speed of light in space and on Earth!!

But): On Earth): The Light Waves Have To Propagate In The Pressurized GP1 Aether Particle Medium Around The dense Nuclei Of Air Atoms Which Changes The Speed Of Light In Air!! Depending On The Humidity Going Towards The Light Versus The Humidity Of The Air Going Away From The Light, The Speed Of The Light Can Vary!!
The speed of light in water is given as 0.75c!!
 
It still could not be more idiotic!

Again, and again, and again, some of us try to tell the rest, "The map is NOT the territory!" In 1905 Einstein claimed in the Special Theory of Relativity that the map is the territory, and just about every well-known physicist, including Brian Greene (so obviously in the videos above (particularly the first one)) has agreed with him ever since.

The map is NOT the territory! Einstein said it was. Brian Greene above says it is.

The observation is NOT the territory observed! Einstein and Greene say oh yes it is!

The image at light speed, the light time history frame of travelers and events "at a distance" is not the travelers or any current events "at a distance"! The map is not the territory. Time under observation is not the current time "at a distance," and Brain Greene above in the videos with the clocks illustrating what he and Einstein were saying about time, was saying the image clock brought to the observer at the speed of light, though always a different time, a time always behind the clock time of the observer (a time always slowing in going away; always speeding up in coming to), is a quantum entanglement of clocks and, therefore, the current time "at a distance" from the observer.

Someone will always me that that is not the case, that no one is saying the map is the territory! But that someone can never tell why the map of the territory and what Einstein and Greene say about time, is always exactly the same thing and never, ever, divided . . . which Greene made so obvious, presented and represented so obviously, in the first video.

He never divided the traveler into two travelers, the unobserved (unobservable) traveler and the observed (observable) traveler courtesy of the speed of light. He did not make a triangle . . . did not do a triangulation . . . that would have a solid line between observer and the observed "at a distance" and a dotted line to the future traveler beyond the observed traveler who is in the past of the unobservable future traveler who is concurrent with the observer (and whose clock is in the future of the observed clock of the traveler (observed by the observer)).

Did Brian Greene point any of this out when he talked the speed of light and time? No! He did not!

This wasn't the only thing. There is more than one point the lazy lecturer in the video did not point out. You don't run away from the speed of light just as you will never chase it since there is no back to light, no rear to light. It is strictly a single-sided 2-dimensional frame [face-on] dimensionality of the macrocosm. It is always time that you will pass -- increasingly dividing, or increasingly coming together -- and observe, especially "at a distance". It will never be light energy as such.

At exactly every 0-point of the universe, the speed of light will be constant. And when it is two or more faceted time, at that point in the universe, in that point of universe, centered crossroads of light time histories, its speed will be zero (just as both Einstein and Stephen Hawking pointed out in differing ways).

Sometimes this battle against a false premise gets tiresome. No wonder there are so many cracks and fissures in the building built over sand.
----------------------------

"Please don't hold me to anything I said before I knew better." -- Albert Einstein.
 
Last edited: