Jump to content

admin

Time gets slow for an object when the object moves nearly with the speed of light. Does time slow down even for light?

Topic Summary

Created

Last Reply

Replies

Views

admin -
James Thomas Rook Jr. -
10
520

Top Posters


Recommended Posts


Remarkably, the question cannot be answered.  Einstein's theory of relativity gives the rate of time in any "inertial frame" relative to that in any other inertial frame. (Inertial frames are traditionally called Lorentz frames, after the person who first introduced the transformation.) 

According to relativity theory, there is no inertial frame that travels at the speed of light. Therefore, according to our current theory, the question is fundamentally unanswerable. 

What we can say is this: compared to an Earth-bound clock, the clock in a frame moving at velocity v progresses at a slower rate.  In the limit as the frame velocity approaches the speed of light, that rate approaches zero.

But that does not mean that the value at c is zero. To do that, mathematically, you must first show that the limiting situation exists.  According to relativity theory, it does not. Some future theory might give a different answer, but in the present day, no alternative to relativity theory has made predictions that show it to be correct. 

Richard MullerProf Physics, UCBerkeley, author of "Now-Physics of Time" (2016)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Translated into English ... time slows down as you approach the speed of light, and ON A PHOTON .... time is stopped.

You need to study "advanced and retrograde light", to get a better feel for this.

There is no such thing as "Universal Time Rate".

ALL time is a variable according to local velocity, and the strength of the gravity well.

 

All time is local.

Time passes at a different rate at the bottom of a tall radio antennae, than at the top ... because at the bottom ... there is more gravity, which slows local time.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To get one single atom to the speed of light would require all the energy in the Universe ... so the headlight scenario is impossible, but if we delve into the realm of "Star Trek" fiction, perhaps you have made a "Photon Torpedo"!

The question is much like the famous  "Can God make a rock so big that even HE can't move it ?"

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now





  • Topics

  • Posts

    • I would like to expand on the above quote. New truth/old truth......in the same WT in the preceding par (15) it says; "We discovered some priceless truths when we first began to associate with God’s people. These could well be described as “old,” in that we have known and appreciated them from the beginning of our Christian course. What do such precious truths include? We learned that Jehovah is our Creator and Life-Giver and that he has a purpose for mankind. We also learned that God lovingly provided the ransom sacrifice of his Son so that we might be freed from sin and death. We further learned that his Kingdom will end all suffering and that we have the prospect of living forever  in peace and happiness under Kingdom rule". So the "old" truths here are defined as old from the point of view of age. These are the backbone, basics, elementary, fundamental or key doctrines as JWI describes at the outset of this thread. These have not changed. Then there is the "old" as defined in par 16; "old understanding". So we are not talking about any new truth as in newly discovered truth, but an adjustment or new understanding of what has already been taught previously. In this case it really doesn't make sense to call something old truth and new truth because truth can only be one. If it's not truth, its falsehood. So in my opinion, unless something is "old" established truth, the backbone of our Biblical doctrine, then anything else that falls into the "viewpoint" category of "truth" (or the shadow that is thrown) should not have to be accepted as the "absolute Truth". (Of course with any kind of truth, whether relativism, universalism (absolute truth) etc. one can go into great depths of the philosophy behind these concepts: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Truth)        
    • I believe the action of the people made it to where the angels sent by God did not find any good hearts to sway that decision. I don't believe Abraham or anyone else was speaking as though they were higher than God. Even though Jesus had that ability to speak out, he also did not question the decisions of God since he would have seen that as an angel, firsthand to be just and a righteous judgment. True. However, I have not found any misinterpretation of prophecy by the Watchtower given to them by God to warrant a redefinition of that interpretation. Divine providence if not given to all disciples of Christ. No different from earlier prophets. However, just like those earlier prophets, the people didn't also like or accept the message given to them by the prophets just as witnesses question the findings given by the Watchtower. This of course will be settled with a judgment. I believe, certain Bible Student congregation continued to follow the advent timeline, however, Russell determination to understand chronology made a conservative effort with God's help to finally understand his own chronology. I believe not even the Edgar's pyramid scheme influenced Russell even though he found it helpful. Perhaps, that is where the confusion lies, the distinct separation of the Bible Student Association and their separate ideologies. I believe the action of another differs from the comment expressed here. I have seen the disappearance of many, at times without uttering a word but adding an emotion as a “like” or “dislike” manner on a subject or post. It appears certain people are just not tolerated, that any means to silence and violate an individual’s right afforded to them under the first amendment bill of Rights which at issue to be, have some kind of decorum that is not exercised by others that have no limitation. While I appreciate the thought, I cannot go beyond the action and limitations imposed to people that speak and find truth on their side.
    • I think that’s very unlikely. I mean, come on, are you going to cuss out an angel—dare him to a fight? Unless you no longer believe in angels, but then the phrase loses its meaning. I think it makes more sense, partly because of the above reasoning and partly because of the aspect of Law that Paul recalled when he cussed out the high priest: “You must not speak injuriously of a ruler of your people.” These ones of Jude had no problem with it. I think that expression is probably like what your mother used to say when upbraiding you for some act of disobedience, prefacing her scolding with: “I suppose you are proud of yourself, are you?!” She doesn’t actually think you are proud—just disobedient, maybe that you think you know better. And in the case of those Corinth elders, negligent—perhaps with some self-exalted view of “tolerance” as you suggest or perhaps just plain negligent. Arguing for the latter is the fact that when they did lower the hammer on this lout, Paul had to counsel them to let up in his next letter—the rebuke of the man had had its effect, but they were slow to see that—or perhaps just negligent once again in the other direction. Negligent is as negligent does. I played a little loose with the term, admittedly. Actually, to the extent that the GB are the successors of those who brought the truth of God’s word to us in the first place, they are the biggest whistleblowers of all time—blowing the whistle on the deceptions of religion claiming to represent God. A lot of detractors today pose as “whistleblowers”—unheeded reformers, who say they do not have anything against Jehovah’s Witnesses—they just want to curtail what they think are wrong practices. It’s hard to ferret out who’s who, here, because these persons mix here with ones who truly would like to see the whole JW structure AND the message they spearhead blown to smithereens. It is easy to overgeneralize, as @Arauna perhaps has done. Still, Shultz on my Twitter feed (of deVienne & Shultz) observed that whistleblowing in the case of JWs is often just a blind for not wanting to live the morals and principles that Witnesses do. It’s hard to believe that those slimy ones of Jude’s letter would have acquiesced to Jude’s description of them. It is far easier to believe that many of them would have repackaged themselves as reformers, whistleblowers, even escaped cult members. The congregation they left was simply too strict, too unyielding, even abusive in “forcing” its version of morality on others, and they would change that.
    • True, but a well-established, misinterpretation of a prophecy has no divine providence. Over the years here, Allen, I've often seen you attack the Bible when you think the Bible contradicts the Watchtower, but here you are attacking both the Bible and the Watchtower:  *** ws17 June p. 13 par. 16 Set Your Heart on Spiritual Treasures *** At times, our understanding of a Bible prophecy or a scripture may be adjusted. When that happens, it is important to take the time to study the adjustment and meditate on it. (Acts 17:11; 1 Timothy 4:15) We not only need to understand the main differences between the old understanding and the new one, but we also need to pay attention to the details of the new understanding. Such a careful study will guarantee that the new truth becomes part of our collection of Bible truths. Why is it good for us to make such efforts? Russell did not reject Barbour's chronology. Years later, after their split, when Barbour began rejecting his own chronology and numerology, Russell continued to accept it and doubled down on it. The split was primarily over variations in their understanding of the ransom, but I was talking about his chronology and numerology. Conflicted or not, I think you should feel welcome to express your opinions, whether they are for or against me, for or against others, the Watchtower, or even the Bible. I have not seen any indication that you are breaking any rules. Controversial discussions might upset people, but that's the value of discussion: it can upset long-established traditions (strongly entrenched ideas/things) and some people have a large emotional investment in these traditions. Some level of "upset" or "disturbance" should be expected. Neither you nor I should be expected to deal with these issues totally devoid of emotion. At least we are mostly trying to stick with the scriptures, the facts and the evidence.     Because of the way that posts are being merged (again) I will take up the subject of the 1260 days and 3 1/2 days in Revelation under another topic heading.
    • I think how another fact is also clear to God. Noah and their family didn't produced better humankind after Flood. According to JW preaching, today's humankind is on top of list in badness.  According to idea you explained, best solution would be, what god once expressed in his thinking - 7 So Jehovah said: “I am going to wipe men whom I have created off the surface of the ground,- to destroy all people and to release himself from this agony :)))
  • Popular Now

  • Recently Browsing

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • Who's Online (See full list)

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

Terms of Service Confirmation Terms of Use Privacy Policy Guidelines We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.