surreptitious57 wrote: ↑Thu Oct 12, 2017 12:10 pm
Photons or any massless particles are timeless because nothing travelling at the speed of light is actually capable of experiencing time
What is 'time'?
And, how could a senseless and sentientless thing like a photon be capable of experiencing any thing, let alone time?
A person travelling at the speed of light may not be capable of experiencing, what is generally perceived as being, 'time'. But this is only from an outward perspective, from an inward perspective 'time' could still be experienced. All of this is only while at the travelling speed of light too.
surreptitious57 wrote: ↑Thu Oct 12, 2017 12:10 pmSaying a clock experiences time simply means it can measure time.
So then do you think it would be better to state that a clock measures time, instead of experiencing time?
surreptitious57 wrote: ↑Thu Oct 12, 2017 12:10 pm It does not mean it is a conscious being capable of sensory experience
And it would stop when travelling at the speed of light because it could not experience or measure time as time itself would have stopped
BUT time has NOT stopped. While travelling at the speed of light it MIGHT APPEAR as though time has stopped, for some, but obviously "time", itself, can NOT stop. A clock also would NOT stop, travelling at the speed of light, because a clock does NOT measure "time". A clock is made to change at a SET rate, which was devised by and created by human beings. That set rate of change is what human beings call "time" but there is NO actual physical time itself that has nor could have an influence over clocks nor over any thing else. Obviously all physical things age or deteriorate the longer they have existed but that is because of events occurring not because of some thing that has been given the label of "time". Although the actual measurement that human beings set the rate of change or motion of a clock to is set to light, itself, which is obviously governed by the speed at which itself travels at, time, nor a clock, and nor will a human body just stop because they are travelling at the speed at which "time" is set by.
surreptitious57 wrote: ↑Thu Oct 12, 2017 12:10 pmThe closer a clock gets to the speed of light the faster time goes but at the speed of light itself time stops for any object of mass.
I have heard and read the exact same things, more than enough times. But just repeating it does NOT make it true. Where is the actual evidence for what you are saying?
surreptitious57 wrote: ↑Thu Oct 12, 2017 12:10 pmSince clocks
are objects of mass then this would apply to them too. Though they would no longer be clocks at that point as the atoms that they were made
from and more specifically their electrons would become too unstable for them to retain their solidity and they would just disintegrate instead
Yes I hear this same thing, over and over again, when discussing travelling at the speed of light. We have all heard this before. That is WHY I use that very important word 'if' when ONLY looking at some thing.
Saying, "But it is not possible to travel at the speed of light because atoms break down, ...." and similar is just like the priest saying some thing like, "There are some things we are not meant to know", when questioned about "If God supposedly created every thing, then who created God?"
What words could I use to stipulate once and for all let us concentrate on the issue here and that is if we, human beings, and a clock could travel at the speed of light, then would the human body keep ageing and would the clock keep moving at its set rate of change or would the human body not age at all and the clock just stop completely?
surreptitious57 wrote: ↑Thu Oct 12, 2017 12:10 pmAnything that travels at the speed of light such as a photon does not experience time.
Of course NOT, it is a photon after all.
But any observer could actually measure its speed in time [/quote]
How?
surreptitious57 wrote: ↑Thu Oct 12, 2017 12:10 pmSo a human being travelling at the speed of light between two planets would literally arrive in no time at all no matter what the actual distance was.
But if it takes 3 years to travel a distance of 3 light years away, then how could a human being travelling at the speed of light between two planets 3 light years in distance away from each other, for example, "literally arrive in no time at all"?
Would it not take that human being 3 years to travel that distance, if they were travelling at the speed of light?
surreptitious57 wrote: ↑Thu Oct 12, 2017 12:10 pm Only an observer watching that human being would be able to measure the time taken since to them it would not have taken no time at all
but a finite amount of time measured from their particular frame of reference. And so long as they were not travelling at the speed of light also
This is a little bit convoluted to Me. For example who is the 'them' in reference to, and, what or where is the 'their' in relation to what/where "particular frame of reference?
Besides that, depending on where the actual frame of reference is what an observer actually observes may not in fact be the actual truth. Because to some observers what they observe is the travelling human being has traveled the distance instantly and therefore no "time" at all has been measured. But to another observer at another place a considerable amount of "time" has actually taken place and been observed.
An actual fact here also is the human being doing the travel might observe it took quite some time to travel a distance, when another human being observed that it took no "time" at all for that travelling human being to travel the same distance. Because every thing is relative to the observer it all also depends on where the observer is AND what frame of thinking they are in.
Obviously an open observer can see things a lot differently from a closed observer. Just some more to think about.