"Does light move", asked Quantum Quack

Discussion in 'Pseudoscience Archive' started by geistkiesel, Mar 28, 2009.

  1. Quantum Quack Life's a tease... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,328
    You fail to realise Alphernumerico that I don't need to find the answers to the issues raised as I already have them, but you cerrtainly most do.....
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. AlphaNumeric Fully ionized Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,702
    And you accuse me of not being open minded!

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    So it seems you've done no actual research and you don't know what relativity says because you deem yourself all knowing, at least in this area of science. So I was right in my assessment, you're a fraud and an idiot.

    Thanks for confirming it.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Quantum Quack Life's a tease... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,328
    well until you deal with the issues raised it isn't I who is being the fraud or the idiot...hey I don't care one way or the other....but if you want to go on believing in a potentially flawed light effect model then thats fine by me...

    I don't how ever see how you can though as surely you would like to know whether all your hard effort is in vain or not?


    [mind you it wouldn't be in vain as a simple change to the model doesn't invalidate the observations of the light effect. So in the main the science remains intact....just the causation is re-vamped which would allow the universal constants to be understood.]
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. AlphaNumeric Fully ionized Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,702
    I have. The 'issues' you speak of are not issues in relativity, they are issues in your grasp of a topic you know nothing about.

    Think about your claims for a moment. You've read no books on relativity and you don't understand the maths of it. Or even the maths of the stuff taught 3 or 4 years before special relativity. You have no knowledge of the workings of physics, pre or post Einstein. Yet, somehow, you know more about relativity than all the people who have read books, lecture notes, researched, published, written books and devoted their lives to relativity for the past century.

    Doesn't that claim strike you as a little silly? Isn't there a voice in the back of your head saying "Are you sure? You don't know a thing about relativity, what are you basing all this on?" ? Or are you of the belief you're undoubtedly right on a topic you know nothing about?

    Even if relativity is knocked over tomorrow, it's a sufficiently good theory that it'll be around forever, just like we know Newtonian mechanics is wrong but its good enough to build bridges, design aeroplanes and put a man on the Moon.

    You have not yet raised anything which makes me think "Hmmm, maybe I should look into that....". Everything you've said is either just gibberish or common misconceptions. Cranks always say "You're just scared to accept all the work you've done is wrong!!". No, it'd be disappointing but it wouldn't put me into denial. The same cranks are the people who aren't not accept that perhaps there's people who understand things they don't. Your comments like "You fail to realise Alphernumerico that I don't need to find the answers to the issues raised as I already have them, but you cerrtainly most do....." imply you won't accept other people's answers, you're afraid to let go of your own.
     
  8. Quantum Quack Life's a tease... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,328
    Do you believe you have adequately dealt with the following issues:
    1] "How can anything exist if there is no time for it to exist in" arguement using t=0 duration [ HSP ] thus when t=0 d = 0
    2] "If you take all the matter and mass out of the universe do we have a photosphere that is still present and moving and if so how big is it?"
    3] "Provide unambiguous proof that the photon as a traveling entity even exists" [ remove the possibility that the light effect is not merely a matter or mass effect ]

    you may even then be able to provide a solution for the wave particle duality....but I guess you already have that yes?
    and I might add you also have a solid explanation for how gravity could be a universal constant..yes?
    I am all ears...if you have...
     
  9. AlphaNumeric Fully ionized Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,702
    If you refer to the Big Bang concept of t=0 (you earlier confused that and the choice of coordinates t=0) then its irrelevent to special relativity. If you refer to simply picking any particular moment in time and measuring distances within special relativity I've given you the distance formula used by any metric based theory to measure distances. Due to your lack of knowledge of calculus you didn't understand.

    Absolutely nothing to do with special relativity or its validity. Infact, removing all matter and energy from the universe would make special relativity more correct because space-time would reduce to being Minkowski.

    So that is a problem with your understanding, not relativity.

    Photons exist. Light obviously exists, the fact you're reading this is proof enough. The quantised nature of light has been verified in a myriad of ways, the first and perhaps simplest way is Planck's method of avoiding the UV catastrophy. Particle accelerators have seen probed the behaviour of light and other particles a great deal. Its non-infinite velocity has been known about for about 250 years and known to parts per billion, at least.

    Even if the photon didn't exist, the behaviour of objects as they accelerate to significant fractions of the speed 300,000km/s is inline with special relativity. Particle accelerators, without relativity being even vaguely right, would be able to accelerate electrons or other charged particles beyond 300,000km/s. Instead they never manage to get them that fast, the particles behave as special relativity predicts.

    So thats another misconception on your part, not a problem with relativity. I could have told you all of those answers before I even did special relativity at university, I'd learnt that much from just reading pop science books over the space of 2 or 3 years. You claim you've been 'researching' relativity for a decade and yet you ask those questions?

    cThat has nothing to do with special relativity, it's a matter of non-relativistic quantum mechanics. And why should it need 'a solution'. It's only a problem if you are egotistical or naive enough to believe that every phenomena in the universe should be equivalent to some everyday object or process you are familiar with. Why should all phenomena be either wave-like or particle-like?

    Firstly, that isn't even a coherent well formed statement and secondly gravity has nothing to do with special relativity, because special relativity is about a gravity-less space-time. Its a pretty basic but fundamental qualitative thing about relativity. And yet you are unfamiliar with it.

    No, you aren't. If you were honest about wanting to know about relativity you'd not be so pig-ignorant about it and making so many strawmen or false claims about it.
     
  10. Quantum Quack Life's a tease... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,328
    I know enough about the way science works to know that it is real easy to fudge anything. Using calculus to solve the paradox of something being able to exist when there is no time for it to exist in is merely a fudge.
    There was arguement ages ago that used the notion that by having everything in constant motion it meant that even though we are talking about a zero duration moment we still have existence because it is in motion or constant change.
    However what this means is that eternity or "all of time" has to be included in all calculations and not excluded as is the case.

    When stating the t=0 we are actually stating t=eternity and picking a moment with in that time duration.

    The HSP is merely one of those moments in eternity.

    However this arguement fails because we fail to use "eternity" on our calculations for time dilation. Thus the transforms provided by Lorentz fail when pushed to extremes.
    For example say we have two relative v objects that have been traveling for eternity [ pick a figure of appropriate size say 2 trillion lyears]

    Calculate how much time separates them when calculating non-simultaneity. after 2 trillion years

    and you will see just how absurd SRT outcomes are.

    So we start talking about relative simultaneity instead of non-simultaneity and claim that two objects can have events on their HSP even though they may be a billion light years apart in HSP's
    and yet claim when drawing alight cone diagram that there is only one HSP that can demonstrate relative simultaneity.

    When comparing light cone diagrams for each obsever how far apart are the HSPS?
    The typical answer is that they are at the same moment but relative.
    So again we see the paradox of being simultaneous and non-simultaneous "simultaneously"

    The use of Minkowski / Einstein Space time can not avoid this paradox as accordng to it Light must travel from a to b.

    Now I know you will like most adherants to SRT fudge this in to some form that makes it acceptable but I am afraid it doesn't wash.
    Claiming relative simultaneity instead of non-simultaneity is merely another fudge to avoid dealing with the issue of light not traveling through vacuum or empty space.

    You may also note as I and other readers have that you have avoided dealing with the question:

    "How far does an inertial frame travel with in itself in one second?"

    If you did deal with it you will find that to assume light travels is to actually double up on the time issue, as both matter/mass and our traveling light wave/particle are traveling in synch or at exactly the same rate.

    So both matter and light are traveling through time at exactly the same rate. Thus light does not travel relatively to matter but always with matter at the same speed.

    Thus light and matter are actually an inertial frame. Hence energy = mass and mass = energy

    Doubling up on the use of light as a separate relative v object is half the problem but not all the problem.
    If you go back to the basics of how the speed and not velocity of light is calculated or defined you wil lfind that SRT incorreectly uses light as some sort of massive object independently traveling at relative velocity to matter and mass.
    AE of course recognised this and developed his successful energy/mass fomulation but he then developed SRT that went on to compromise it. Contradicting his origninal inspiration. [ Thus we have a universe missing a heap of mass and energy according to the formulations used to calculate it]

    So when you fathom the logic behind the evolution of the energy/mass formlation and then compare how light is used in SRT you can clearly see the screw up.

    Double dipping by inadvertently ascribing light a mixture of mass and masslesness properties.

    So I ask again the question:

    "How far does an inertial frame travel with in itself in one second?"
    as a hint to understanding this conundrum.

    And I might add if you cannot convert your use of mathematics into plain English, even if it is for your own use then you are merely believing by rote.
    So throwing math at someone who is illiterate is no excuse for your own non-understanding of the subject.
     
    Last edited: Apr 15, 2009
  11. AlphaNumeric Fully ionized Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,702
    This is crank speak for "I can't do maths so I don't accept it".

    Gibberish.

    No, they are completely consistent. Do you even know how to use them?

    No, you know we give answers you don't understand, because you learn nothing and know nothing, and therefore you don't accept them.

    Asking an incoherent question doesn't make you right. Its possible to talk about relative motion between inertial frames but the question you ask is not well formed. Now you view the fact people don't answer as you somehow being right when infact it's because you're so ignorant of relativity you can't even ask coherent questions.

    And you think you fathom a topic you've never read and can't do?

    And we're back to the naive and egotistical belief so many cranks have that all phenomena in the universe should behave in the same way as things common to their everyday life.

    The notion of a massless particle with momentum is entirely consistent. The fact your experience of the universe is so small doesn't mean we should all adhere to your misconceptions.

    You asked for the demonstration relativity could measure distances at t=0 and I gave it. If I'd explained it in words you'd have complained I lacked justification. So its Catch 22. You're too ignorant and stupid to understand maths so you refuse to accept it. Then, when people explain things to you, you will refuse to accept that due to lack of rigour. You have been 'researching' relativity for a decade but you don't know any maths. This instantly proves you're a fraud. I've been doing relativity based stuff for 6 years and I'm knee deep in books based on relativity (almost literally, I've got half a dozen in arms reach).

    The fact you hav avoided or been unable to learn the essential language of physics doesn't make that language wrong. I can't speak Japanese but I don't deny others can communicate in it and I don't say it's their fault I can't understand.

    Like all cranks you can't accept your short comings and you have to blame someone else for your ignorance.
     
  12. Quantum Quack Life's a tease... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,328
    So we can all assume you cannot answer the question and claim it as incoherant as a cop out?

    hmmmm...you are so funny.....

    You are more ignorant of relativity than I thought you were....
    You know what the question asks and you know what it implies regarding relativity so you simply throw insult just to hide your fear of dealing with the truth.
    "How far does an inertial frame travel within itself in 1 second?"

    Take a lump of iron with it's own clock and work out how far that lump of iron travels in 1 second. [ remember SRT forbids absolute rest yes? ]
     
  13. Quantum Quack Life's a tease... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,328
    Maybe if you feel the question could be asked in a more precise manner you could suggest the appropriate wording so that we can all look for an appropriate answer?
    How would you word the question better?
    "How far does an inertial frame travel within itself in 1 second?"
     
  14. Quantum Quack Life's a tease... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,328
    The answer is quite simple and derived from relativity:

    The lump of iron mentioned travels within itself exactly the distance light is deemed to travel in that one second.

    So even though it appears to be stationary to itself it is in fact traveling within itself at 'c'. [call it a "vibrational" distance, oscilating over a null point if you like]

    "Yeah hey man! we is going places with out even realising it!"

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    And because 'c' is invariant it means that when you accelerate that object it requires time to dilate to maintain that invariance of 'c'

    Thus time dilation is a product of inertia which is the invariance of 'c'
    The whole universe of matter and mass is traveling within itself at the rate of 'c'.
    The big question which SRT forbids in it's current form [a screw up because of the need for length contraction] is:

    How it so, that all mass or matter regardless of where it is or how far apart, share the exact same rate of 'c' [with in itself]?
    In other words "Why Is 'c' invariant?

    And I bet you would like to know the answer to that one hey?

    Well, you are going to have to work it out for yourself as I am not going to just lay it out as I have been for ages now.
     
    Last edited: Apr 18, 2009
  15. AlphaNumeric Fully ionized Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,702
    No, we can all assume you can't understand what an inertial frame is and so can't form coherent questions relating to them.

    An inertial frame S moving relative to an inertial frame S' with velocity v will move a distance vt in a time t. If S = S' so that the motion of S is defined relative to itself then v=0 so d=0.

    Yeah, its not like I'm published in string theory, a relativistic quantum theory of gravity or I've a distinction in Black Holes as taught by a Cambridge professor who had Hawking as his supervisor or I've taught relativity to undergraduates. You can't even name a book you've read on the topic, I have 3 open infront of me now, I've spent 8 hours today typing up part of my PhD.

    So what you mean to say is that you didn't realise just how much relativity there is beyond your comprehension.

    You have yet to ask or say anything which makes me, even for a picosecond, worry about the validity of relativity. The fact you're unwilling to put even the smallest effort into finding anything out about relativity (or even basic science it would seem) suggests that the one who is fearful is you. You, like so many cranks, can't accept there's things other people understand that you don't so rather than putting in effort to learn, you prefer to deny the fact you need to learn.

    Meaningless question because you only define motion relative to things. As I just said, if the iron is in frame S which is moving at velocity v relative to frame S' then after time t it'll have moved a displacement of vt. If S=S' then v=0 and the lump of iron is stationary. Relativity allows you to say "This isn't moving" provided you realise it's only not moving relative to some inertial frame. Right now I'm not moving relative to my desk. I am moving relative to the cars on the motorway.

    So your question is incomplete and your little bracketed comment shows you fail to grasp even simple concepts in relativity. The lack of absolute rest does not preclude relative rest.

    I'd say "An inertial frame S moving relative to an inertial frame S' with velocity v will move how far in time t, relative to S'?"

    And as I've said 3 times now, the answer is vt. So if v=0 then there's no relative motion. Real rocket science that one, 0*t = 0. Wow!

    No, that isn't correct and you certainly didn't have it 'derived from relativity'. How can you claim "Relativity says...." when you have admitted you don't read anything on relativity?

    Give me a reference/source/citation for that result. If 'Relativity says....' then you should be able to say who said it and where.

    Nope, complete nonsense. And "oscilating over a null point" is gibberish. What does 'null' mean there? Are you just throwing in buzzwords in the hopes people think you aren't an idiot?

    Why is c a universal constant is an interesting question but it has nothing to do with the incoherent vomitus BS you're spewing forth.

    And we're back to you claiming to have deep answers to a topic you don't read, can't understand and simply lie about. Is your life so pathetic you have to try to validate yourself by lying to strangers online about a subject you know you are completely clueless on, particularly when that stranger teaches and actually researches that subject? All your claims are baseless, all your "Look, SR is inconsistent!" proclamations wrong.

    Provide sources/references for your claims. I'm sure you won't.
     
  16. Quantum Quack Life's a tease... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,328
    Obviously you cannot answer the question...or more importantly "will not" answer the question because to do so immediately has significant implications...
     
  17. Tnerb Banned Banned

    Messages:
    7,917
    what? what what?
     
  18. Quantum Quack Life's a tease... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,328
    this and more or course

     
  19. AlphaNumeric Fully ionized Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,702
    I answered the question and I challenged you to give sources for your claims. You have avoided answering that. What a surprise.

    Gibberish.

    In complete contradiction to the definition of an inertial frame.

    Completely unsupported claim as you are mathematically illiterate and have no way of understanding or doing calculations in special relativity. Thus you are lying and are a fraud.

    Mass energy predictions/descriptions of SR are one of the most verified concepts in physics. Every single particle accelerator run for a century has backed it up. And they do millions of collisions every day.

    But given you don't know how to do special relativity and you don't read any special relativity how can you make claims about it when you have no way of knowing about it?

    Having momentum without rest mass is not inconsistent. The fact you don't understand it doesn't make it wrong, it just means your horizons are a low narrower than you like to think.

    Can you answer ANY of my challenges for you to back up your claims? You continue to ignore such requests while having the hypocrisy to accuse me of ignoring questions! Whenever I answer them you just start lying about something else.
     
  20. Quantum Quack Life's a tease... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,328
    Well, seeing as you can not answer a simple question I have no reason to support any claims.
    "How far does a lump of iron travel within itself in 1 second?" remembering that no thing is at absolute rest.
    note: do you see any reference to SRT in the question?
     
    Last edited: Apr 19, 2009
  21. Quantum Quack Life's a tease... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,328
    your answer if i recall was:
    simple cop out yes?

    so where's your answer?
     
  22. AlphaNumeric Fully ionized Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,702
    http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2229477&postcount=52

    I responded to it multiple times. Obviously you're having to resorting to lying now.

    And you are ignoring my challenge you back up anything you say. Can't justify your BS?
     
  23. tamkinrules how troublesome... Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    25
    Just to answer your question, light DOES move. Have you ever heard that it takes around 8 minutes for the sun's light to reach earth. Even with light speed it still takes that long 'cause the sun is so far away. Also, let's say a star millions and millions light years away blew up. We wouldn't notice until millions and millions of years later (or something like that), because it would take that long for the light from there all the way to here to disappear. Also, just like radio waves and microwaves, light is also a wave. We can just happen to see it. Have you ever heard of infrared waves? They're called infrared because it's "right beside" visible light waves. In fact, they're to the left of red in ROY G BIV waves. Same goes with ultraviolet. To the right of violet in ROY G BIV. That's all...
     

Share This Page