Question Speed of Light and Time Dilation

Aug 7, 2024
30
2
35
The speed of light and time dilation seem to be connected in many texts. In these texts, is time dilation actually infinite at the speed of light, or is this just a reference used for simplification?

If time dilation actually occurs with the speed of an object relative to an observer, why do we not assume that light itself doesn't undergo time dilation effects?

When looking into deep space, we see objects that are billions of LY away. Usually this is followed by a statement similar to, we are seeing these objects as they were, billions of years ago.

But if light experienced time dilation, wouldn't that light reach our instruments in zero time?
 
  • Like
Reactions: meerkat
Jan 2, 2024
1,009
165
1,360
The speed of light and time dilation seem to be connected in many texts. In these texts, is time dilation actually infinite at the speed of light, or is this just a reference used for simplification?
Light does not 'experience' time. There's a thought: Infinite slowing = zero, er not quite.[url=https://postimages.org/][/URL]

OB represents a photon. The horizontal axis is distance. Vertical is Time. All things having a speed must exist on the circumference. Distance OB is 1 Light Year. This is just an expression of Special Relativity. NB all my stuff needs checking as most is ex my imagination and not text book :)
I think the circumference can be thought of as space. Imagine, as the universe expands per second say the circumference increases at the Hubble constant (If you insert the age of the universe for time OA). Therefore the idea that SR only refers to local stuff doesn't seem correct as the diagram can be extended to represent all current space
 
Last edited:
Aug 7, 2024
30
2
35
All things having a speed must exist on the circumference. Distance OB is 1 Light Year. This is just an expression of Special Relativity. NB all my stuff needs checking as most is ex my imagination and not text book :)
I think the circumference can be thought of as space. Imagine, as the universe expands per second say the circumference increases at the Hubble constant (If you insert the age of the universe for time OA). Therefore the idea that SR only refers to local stuff doesn't seem correct as the diagram can be extended to represent all current space

Gibsense,

Please, help me understand the diagram better. I have a couple of questions.

"All things having a speed..." meaning all matter as well as photons must reside on the circumference?

...or is the circumference is essentially the "boundary" in which any matter can exist due to light speed being the speed limit and given the number of spacetime intervals?

Let's say that time cannot possibly go in reverse, or there is only the present moment (except for memories), then the horizontal axis line would be the lowest point on the diagram?
 
Jan 2, 2024
1,009
165
1,360
Ok, first thanks for asking -
"All things having a speed..." meaning all matter as well as photons must reside on the circumference?
Correct. The diagram is a 2D illustration of a hypersphere existing in 4D Space. A Sphere would be a cross-section of a hypersphere. To understand better look up Hypersphere on Wikipedia or similar. You will learn that the SURFACE of a hypersphere is 3-dimensional - our sort of space. So that means the circumference of the circle illustrates our space.
Strictly speaking, the hypersphere is the surface of a hyperball.
...or is the circumference is essentially the "boundary" in which any matter can exist due to light speed being the speed limit and given the number of spacetime intervals?
This can get confusing. Imagine you were in that circumference line (just 1 dimension, a line but representing our 3D space) then you could travel around it forever (repeating the same round journey over and over) then you could not find a boundary and you would determine the universe was curved - spherical.

However, let's say you were a superbeing in 4D outside the universe looking at the whole thing you would see that those in it were confined within the circumference. From that perspective, you could consider it a boundary but the word is usually reserved for something that limits from within 3D space
Let's say that time cannot possibly go in reverse, or there is only the present moment (except for memories), then the horizontal axis line would be the lowest point on the diagram
The radius of the circle is (as the diagram shows) both distance and time. But note that any radius can be delegated as time or as distance. That is a light year can be considered as a year and vice versa (check this statement - it is correct!).
But always time runs at 90 degrees to space

This bit is crucial to understand (But is my personal take that I think is obvious). Time is a process, not a dimension. It is an action occurring in 4D Euclidian space within the Ball the surface of which is the sphere. This means it has to be positive as there is no such process as Unaction. Don't confuse this with rewinding stuff like making a broken egg whole - that is not negative time. (according to me)

However, the position opposite A on the diagram but on the circumference has a radius that is pointing down in an opposite direction to the radius at A. Time there is still a positive process but because the direction is opposite it is designated as negative.

The negative in this sense is still a positive process and not a rewinding of events. You should note that it is all relative. If you were a person travelling through 3D space (on the circumference) positive time would rotate with you and you would regard the opposite hemisphere as negative. (and anyone opposite would regard you as negative)

Whilst we are at it it is worth mentioning something I have not ventured into before but it seems to me to be a good 'maybe'. Let's say the universe responds as a hypersphere - mathematically but that it acts out the processes as if projecting the hemispheres onto a plane that devides the hemispheres. That way the processes of anti-particles and particles will act out in time in an everyday way. (the negative time changes an electron to a positron and vice versa). Not only that but the 'relativity rotation' of speeding stuff in space is rotated in situ (it doesn't have to jump to the other side of the universe to match up the rotation angle. It's a subject I have been thinking about how to express. Not doing so well on that so far but its an early shot. :)
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: CryptoCraig
Jan 7, 2025
1
1
10
The speed of light and time dilation seem to be connected in many texts. In these texts, is time dilation actually infinite at the speed of light, or is this just a reference used for simplification?

If time dilation actually occurs with the speed of an object relative to an observer, why do we not assume that light itself doesn't undergo time dilation effects?

When looking into deep space, we see objects that are billions of LY away. Usually this is followed by a statement similar to, we are seeing these objects as they were, billions of years ago.

But if light experienced time dilation, wouldn't that light reach our instruments in zero time?
i could neverunderstand why they say time slows down when you travle close to speed of light. my point is if you take 2 clocks and 1 travels fast its time are slower when they stop. what that tells me is the clock going at speed of light took longer to do the same action as the other... time did not slow down the action was slower.... example if you drop a apple and at the same time exselirate to speed of light the apple will apear to hang in the air untill you return to normal speed and then hit the floor. i dont know what cause this or if its just gravity like when you get pushed into your seat when excilerating very fast but on a mutch biger scale. but its defenitly not time slowing down and if ther math say you would need infinet power to excilerate that fast why does light not need infinte power? i switch on a lazer pointer and the light tavels instantly at the speed of light that from a 9volt battery....
 
  • Like
Reactions: CryptoCraig
Jan 6, 2025
136
32
110
i could neverunderstand why they say time slows down when you travle close to speed of light. my point is if you take 2 clocks and 1 travels fast its time are slower when they stop. what that tells me is the clock going at speed of light took longer to do the same action as the other... time did not slow down the action was slower.... example if you drop a apple and at the same time exselirate to speed of light the apple will apear to hang in the air untill you return to normal speed and then hit the floor. i dont know what cause this or if its just gravity like when you get pushed into your seat when excilerating very fast but on a mutch biger scale. but its defenitly not time slowing down and if ther math say you would need infinet power to excilerate that fast why does light not need infinte power? i switch on a lazer pointer and the light tavels instantly at the speed of light that from a 9volt battery....
You are misunderstanding time dilation.

Time dilation, within the theory of special relativity, is the “slowing down” of a clock as determined by an observer who is in relative motion with respect to that clock. In special relativity, an observer in inertial (i.e., nonaccelerating) motion has a well-defined means of determining which events occur simultaneously with a given event.

A second inertial observer, who is in relative motion with respect to the first, however, will disagree with the first observer regarding which events are simultaneous with that given event. (Neither observer is wrong in this determination; rather, their disagreement merely reflects the fact that simultaneity is an observer-dependent notion in special relativity.)

A notion of simultaneity is required in order to make a comparison of the rates of clocks carried by the two observers. If the first observer’s notion of simultaneity is used, it is found that the second observer’s clock runs slower than the first observer’s by a factor of Square root of √(1 − v2/c2),
where v is the relative velocity of the observers and
c equals 299,792 km (186,282 miles) per second—i.e., the speed of light.

Similarly, using the second observer’s notion of simultaneity, it is found that the first observer’s clock runs slower by the same factor. Thus, each inertial observer determines that all clocks in motion relative to that observer run slower than that observer’s own clock.

In simple terms.

You see, like the speed of light, time is relative to the observer. If you are on a spaceship travelling at 99% c then you will see YOUR clock operate normally, but the clock on a space ship traveling at 10% c would be operating slower than your clock from your perspective, thus the observer on that spaceship would see their clock operate normally, and your clock operate slower.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Gibsense
Jan 12, 2025
62
4
35
The speed of light and time dilation seem to be connected in many texts. In these texts, is time dilation actually infinite at the speed of light, or is this just a reference used for simplification?

If time dilation actually occurs with the speed of an object relative to an observer, why do we not assume that light itself doesn't undergo time dilation effects?

When looking into deep space, we see objects that are billions of LY away. Usually this is followed by a statement similar to, we are seeing these objects as they were, billions of years ago.

But if light experienced time dilation, wouldn't that light reach our instruments in zero time?
i would agree with your suggestions here: that light does actually experience time, and decays because of it, hence the cause of red shift.

to say that 'light does not experience time' is a biased assumption. i believe i heard that exact same quote on PBS Eons. there is no "proof" at all that it doesn't experience time, except for the limitations set by the standard cosmological model. that's like saying "God exists, see, the proof is right here in the Bible". using something to prove itself is called a self-fulling prophecy.

there is, though, substantial proof that light is actually affected by time and that it actually does decay. this proof is called red shift. but because of the standard model paradigm, red shift has to be mis-labelled as a distance measurement otherwise the entire paradigm fails.

the standard model was built on the ASSUMPTION that light does not experience time, therefore all answers to any questions that involve the standard model will assume time does not affect light. you must look for your answer outside of the failed standard model.

the day that the standard model provides a mechanism for photon energy loss beyond mathematically stretching a void i will consider it. until then it violates the Laws of thermodynamics and is a failed model.
 
Aug 7, 2024
30
2
35
Could the speed of light not be constant? What if the speed of light appears to be 'c', when in fact it's:

300,000km/sec^2

Or, better yet, something like, but not exactly...

c = sqrt {(2 * m * g) / (d * A * C)}

I feel like this would make a lot of things make sense. If light accelerated as time passes, the effect would cause a simulated gravity. Meaning the opposite of a photon could potentially be... a black hole.

What is an anti photon?
 
Jan 12, 2025
62
4
35
Could the speed of light not be constant? If light accelerated as time passes, the effect would cause a simulated gravity.
the issue with this, besides violating general relativity, is "where does the energy come from to accelerate the light?"

models that use variable light speed to solve the errors in the standard model all have the same flaw, conservation of energy. this is because the standard model itself set the precedent, by ignoring conservation of energy in red shift. therefore light can now do whatever it wants, speed up, slow down, stretch a void. it's amazing what magic can be pulled once you throw out the fundamental laws of physics.

more than happy to consider a variable light speed hypothesis, as long as it shows where the energy transfer is happening.
 
Aug 7, 2024
30
2
35
more than happy to consider a variable light speed hypothesis, as long as it shows where the energy transfer is happening.
The energy transfer happens in another dimension from our own. Just kidding 😂, maybe.

If an anti-photon is a black hole, couldn't the energy come from the black hole?
 
Last edited:
Aug 7, 2024
30
2
35
the issue with this, besides violating general relativity, is "where does the energy come from to accelerate the light?"

models that use variable light speed to solve the errors in the standard model all have the same flaw, conservation of energy. this is because the standard model itself set the precedent, by ignoring conservation of energy in red shift. therefore light can now do whatever it wants, speed up, slow down, stretch a void. it's amazing what magic can be pulled once you throw out the fundamental laws of physics.
Possible solutions to include the conservation of energy.

The decaying of a photon causes it to lose brightness (red shift) at the same energy that it increases in speed.

Or...

A photon has zero mass, therefore accelerating a photon would take zero energy.

Or...

The anti-photon is actually a black hole. As the anti-photon absorbs other antimatter, it accelerates the photon. The anti-photon reacts the same as any other antiparticle in that if they collide with one another, they annihilate.
 
Jan 12, 2025
62
4
35
The energy transfer happens in another dimension from our own. Just kidding 😂, maybe.

Possible solutions to include the conservation of energy.

The decaying of a photon causes it to lose brightness (red shift) at the same energy that it increases in speed.
you pretty much just described the hypersphere model i posted on another thread.

1) photon energy transfer happens along a time axis (ie: another dimension)
2) red shift is a time-decay function, not a function of velocity or distance.
3) therefore the standard model is wrong about a number of things, including the age of the universe.

the speed of light could then be variable, or not, depending on the interactions it has within this "other dimension", inside the hyperball. that concept is outside the scope of what i'm presenting, physics needs to correct its failed cosmic geometry first. i feel that would change many ideas concerning black/white holes, and anti-particles, among other things.
 
  • Like
Reactions: CryptoCraig
Mar 20, 2025
11
1
10
The speed of light and time dilation seem to be connected in many texts. In these texts, is time dilation actually infinite at the speed of light, or is this just a reference used for simplification?

If time dilation actually occurs with the speed of an object relative to an observer, why do we not assume that light itself doesn't undergo time dilation effects?

When looking into deep space, we see objects that are billions of LY away. Usually this is followed by a statement similar to, we are seeing these objects as they were, billions of years ago.

But if light experienced time dilation, wouldn't that light reach our instruments in zero time?
The fourth spatial dimension/TIME is key. Indeed, consider TIME AND time dilation ON BALANCE.
 
Mar 20, 2025
11
1
10
Gravity AND ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy are (CLEARLY) linked AND BALANCED opposites, AS the stars AND PLANETS are POINTS in the night sky. TIME is NECESSARILY possible/potential AND actual ON/IN BALANCE !!!! Consider TIME AND TIME dilation ON BALANCE. What is E=MC2 is DIRECTLY derived from what is F=MA, AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy IS GRAVITY; AS I HAVE CLEARLY PROVEN WHAT IS THE FOURTH SPATIAL DIMENSION/TIME; AS the stars AND PLANETS are POINTS in the night sky; AS the rotation of WHAT IS THE MOON matches the revolution; AS gravity/acceleration involves what is BALANCED inertia (and/OR inertial resistance); AS what are OBJECTS may fall at the same rate; AS WHAT IS THE MOON will (and IT does) move away very, very, very slightly IN RELATION TO WHAT IS THE EARTH !!!! ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy IS GRAVITY, AS TIME is necessarily possible/potential AND actual ON/IN BALANCE; AS c squared CLEARLY does represent a dimension of SPACE (ON BALANCE); AS two AND three dimensional SPACE are BALANCED in accordance WITH WHAT IS the FOURTH SPATIAL dimension/TIME !!!! INDEED, consider WHAT IS THE EYE ON BALANCE !!!! Great. (ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy IS GRAVITY !!!!) I HAVE CLEARLY PROVEN WHAT IS THE FOURTH SPATIAL DIMENSION/TIME, AS I HAVE CLEARLY SOLVED WHAT IS THE CORONAL HEATING “PROBLEM” !!! Great. The tides are FUNDAMENTALLY (AND CLEARLY) ELECTROMAGNETIC/GRAVITATIONAL ON/IN BALANCE.

TIME
is NECESSARILY possible/potential AND actual ON/IN BALANCE, AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy IS GRAVITY. The fourth spatial dimension is consistent with TIME DILATION, TIME, AND the fact that what is E=MC2 is directly derived from what is F=MA, AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy IS GRAVITY; AS gravity/acceleration involves what is balanced inertia (and/OR inertial resistance); AS what are OBJECTS may fall at the same rate. GREAT.

You have to understand the second dimension in/of/AS SPACE (ON BALANCE). WHAT IS GRAVITY is, ON BALANCE, an INTERACTION that cannot be shielded or blocked. IMPORTANT. This solves the coronal heating “problem”. Consider what is THE EYE (ON BALANCE), AS the stars AND PLANETS are POINTS in the night sky; AS TIME is NECESSARILY possible/potential AND actual ON/IN BALANCE; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is CLEARLY AND NECESSARILY proven to be gravity (ON IN BALANCE). INDEED, c squared clearly (AND NECESSARILY) represents a dimension of SPACE ON BALANCE. GREAT.

By Author Frank Martin DiMeglio
 
Mar 20, 2025
11
1
10
The fourth spatial dimension/TIME is key. Indeed, consider TIME AND time dilation ON BALANCE.
You have to understand SPACE (the dimensions) together WITH the fact that the stars AND PLANETS are POINTS in the night sky, AS TIME is necessarily possible/potential AND actual on/in balance !!! So, consider TIME AND TIME dilation. ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy IS GRAVITY.
 
Jan 2, 2024
1,009
165
1,360
Could the speed of light not be constant? What if the speed of light appears to be 'c', when in fact it's:

300,000km/sec^2

Or, better yet, something like, but not exactly...

c = sqrt {(2 * m * g) / (d * A * C)}

I feel like this would make a lot of things make sense. If light accelerated as time passes, the effect would cause a simulated gravity. Meaning the opposite of a photon could potentially be... a black hole.

What is an anti photon?
In any Epoch, the speed of light is constant and 'c'. However, when compared, i.e., one Epoch measures another, different Epochs will show different speeds even though light travels at 'c' in both Epochs. The variable is Imaginary Time. Maybe.
 
  • Like
Reactions: CryptoCraig

Latest posts