# Thread: Photon in an acceleration field

1. Originally Posted by Mazulu
Sure. The time dilation of an accelerating box is given by $T_D = e^{\frac{gh}{c^2}}$. Notice the square of the speed of light? That tells you that the speed of light is important for a reason, which I've already explained. Anyway, to simulate a frequency shift from f to 2f, the progression of time has to slow down, across some distance h=300 meters, for a time dilation of $T_D = 2$. So we have, $g=log(T_D)\frac{c^2}{h}$. I used metric units: $c = 3x10^8 m/s$, h = 300m, g is in m/s^2 or g's (g-force).
I edited my own quote so it articulates more clearly. Units are not the problem. You can use whatever units you like. Just know that those units have to cancel out in the argument of an exponential and a logarithm. I still calculate about 90 trillion m/s^2 which is inconceivably huge.

If you have a question or want to point out a mistake, please do so in a calm and rational manner.

2. Originally Posted by Mazulu
Joules, ergs, foot-pounds, electron volts, take you're pick.

It looks like you're trying to make a point, just make it.
Yes this would take a lot of questions. But it is hard to get to to answer anything but extremely simple questions without you flying off on a mythical wave aether tangent.

I will try and condense this down to a simple idea for you.

1) c is not really defined by light. It was discovered through the study of light. Neutrinos also travel at c. If gravitons exist they also travel at c. c is really the maximum velocity of anything. Photons are not specifically needed in its definition.

2) In your luminiferous aether / wave aether idea, you have made some pretty bold claims.
a) The wave aether and photons cause physics to exist.
b) The wave aether causes space and time to exist.

a) is too problematic to address. It is vague and crank-like. Like many things you say it is a swiss cheese of logic.
b) if aether causes space and time to exist, then it must be beyond space and time. It is nowhere and no-when. That is the definition of non-existance. Just because you can make a statement does not mean that it is true or even logical. As far as ontology goes, it has no place in physics. Questions of being and nothingness have no place in science. Your claim that aether is a required for ontology has no logical basis. The one place that physics deals with ontology is the Big Bang and the ontology part of that has not been very successful (though the theory as a whole is very successful).

Finally, in the formula, E=mc^2, if you trace the derivation back, c is part of gamma, a dimensionless number. The formula E=mc^2 is generic and so it's constructed units can be joules, ergs, or whatever. I picked joules because it is the most common unit, and it has no velocity in it's definition. An exception breaks the rule. I could have written m=E/c^2 where the central idea is mass, which also has no velocity definition except in relativity through gamma. Normally mass is just mass. Or I could have written, 1=mc^2/E, a unitless number where c also relates to gamma. But 1 has no built in concept of velocity. No units at all. It is just 1 with no units, but the formula does mention c. You can plug E, m and c into the formula and 1 will pop out. The left hand side of the equation sets the units we are interested in. (and yes, I know the units on the right hand side cancels, but mass, energy and c are still there on the right hand side, otherwise I would have written 1=1).

Side note, I have watched those Susskind videos 2X, and similar classes from MIT and other places.

So now I imagine your mind has drifted off and is blissfully in wave aether land. All what I said here is wiped clear and a smile has appeared on your face.

3. Originally Posted by Cheezle
Yes this would take a lot of questions. But it is hard to get to to answer anything but extremely simple questions without you flying off on a mythical wave aether tangent.

I will try and condense this down to a simple idea for you.

1) c is not really defined by light. It was discovered through the study of light. Neutrinos also travel at c. If gravitons exist they also travel at c. c is really the maximum velocity of anything. Photons are not specifically needed in its definition.

2) In your luminiferous aether / wave aether idea, you have made some pretty bold claims.
a) The wave aether and photons cause physics to exist.
b) The wave aether causes space and time to exist.

a) is too problematic to address. It is vague and crank-like. Like many things you say it is a swiss cheese of logic.
b) if aether causes space and time to exist, then it must be beyond space and time. It is nowhere and no-when. That is the definition of non-existance. Just because you can make a statement does not mean that it is true or even logical. As far as ontology goes, it has no place in physics. Questions of being and nothingness have no place in science. Your claim that aether is a required for ontology has no logical basis. The one place that physics deals with ontology is the Big Bang and the ontology part of that has not been very successful (though the theory as a whole is very successful).

Finally, in the formula, E=mc^2, if you trace the derivation back, c is part of gamma, a dimensionless number. The formula E=mc^2 is generic and so it's constructed units can be joules, ergs, or whatever. I picked joules because it is the most common unit, and it has no velocity in it's definition. An exception breaks the rule. I could have written m=E/c^2 where the central idea is mass, which also has no velocity definition except in relativity through gamma. Normally mass is just mass. Or I could have written, 1=mc^2/E, a unitless number where c also relates to gamma. But 1 has no built in concept of velocity. No units at all. It is just 1 with no units, but the formula does mention c. You can plug E, m and c into the formula and 1 will pop out. The left hand side of the equation sets the units we are interested in. (and yes, I know the units on the right hand side cancels, but mass, energy and c are still there on the right hand side, otherwise I would have written 1=1).

Side note, I have watched those Susskind videos 2X, and similar classes from MIT and other places.

So now I imagine your mind has drifted off and is blissfully in wave aether land. All what I said here is wiped clear and a smile has appeared on your face.
I've got one minute before my break is over. Look, the universe exists. The laws of physics exist. If you don't want to pursue the ontology of it, that's cool. Go onto something that interests you.

4. Originally Posted by Mazulu
Kinetic energy = 1/2 (mass)*(velocity)^2.
No, it doesn't. It only seems like that when v<<c. This is, once again, a demonstrable fact which you've gotten wrong. God and those aliens sure are feeding you crummy information.

Originally Posted by Mazulu
Look, the universe exists. The laws of physics exist. If you don't want to pursue the ontology of it, that's cool.
Yes, the universe appears to exist. Yes, it appears to have structure to its internal workings. None of that in any way supports your assertions. You cannot get from those 2 statements to anything you've said without making additional assumptions.

5. Originally Posted by Mazulu
I've got one minute before my break is over. Look, the universe exists. The laws of physics exist. If you don't want to pursue the ontology of it, that's cool. Go onto something that interests you.
Ontology of creation is another one of those fool's errands. The Catholic Church tried to use it and failed. The ancient Greeks argued back and forth on the subject and failed. And now Mazulu will have his try at it. There are no answers there. That is why you and others always have to fall back to some religious text as an offering of proof. You did this in another thread where you showed argued that God created the world in a burst of light as written in Genesis. And of course, believing what is written in old books is very problematic. No chain of authority or evidence there.

And now I would ask you is God the wave aether? Because you claim the wave aether created the universe, including light and the laws of physics. If God is just inside the wave aether (which is nowhere and no-when) and used it to create the universe, then you have another chicken and egg story to tell. Does God live in the wave aether or is he the same as the wave aether? Did the aether also create God? Or did God create his own environment, the wave aether (an odd assumption to be sure). Those are rhetorical questions. I am not really interested in the answer. Any answer you give is just a fantasy you create in your own head. I am just pointing out that wild assertions often have this effect of cascading into contradiction.

6. Originally Posted by AlphaNumeric
No, it doesn't. It only seems like that when v<<c. This is, once again, a demonstrable fact which you've gotten wrong. God and those aliens sure are feeding you crummy information.
Mazulu will not address any error he makes. He will ignore it and after some time it will not exist in his mind. A kind of reverse ontology.

7. Originally Posted by AlphaNumeric
No, it doesn't. It only seems like that when v<<c. This is, once again, a demonstrable fact which you've gotten wrong. God and those aliens sure are feeding you crummy information.
You're splitting hairs trying to misrepresent what I say. If you wanted a more general expression relativistic kinetic energy, all you had to do was ask. $K = mc^2 - m_0c^2$ Is there anything else that you wanted? I'm not a mind reader.
Yes, the universe appears to exist.

You mean you're not sure if it exists? Are you sure that you have a physical body? There are lots of nerves that will remind you that you do. Trying slamming your finger in the door and then ask yourself if the door exists.
Yes, it appears to have structure to its internal workings. None of that in any way supports your assertions. You cannot get from those 2 statements to anything you've said without making additional assumptions.
Bupkis. I started with the second postulate of SR,
1: The laws of physics are the same in all inertial frames of reference.
2: The speed of light in free space has the same value C in all inertial frames of reference.
It looked to me like funny business, like something weird had to be going on with clocks and rulers. Then it struck me. If inertial reference frames were obligated to use clocks and rulers that make the speed of light equal c, in every inertial frame, then those clocks and rulers would have to directly obey $c= \lambda f$.

Quantum mechanics has been talking about wave-functions for the last 90+ years. Wave-functions are just math, so were told, yet they embody all measureable data of the quantum system. Why does nature do that? That's an ontology question. Physicists avoid ontology. I'm not a physicist, I'm an electronics technician. I can call it like I see it.

I wanted an ontology that was simple, clean and parsimonious. I have a set of waves that obey c from SR, I have simple solutions to Schrodinger Eq, for V=0, as plane waves. Waves(SR) & waves(QM) = aether waves.

I'm sure you will find a reason not to understand.

8. Originally Posted by Cheezle
Mazulu will not address any error he makes. He will ignore it and after some time it will not exist in his mind. A kind of reverse ontology.
Cheezle, when have I ever ignored your questions?

9. Originally Posted by Mazulu
Cheezle, when have I ever ignored your questions?
Lots of times. And this is true for others too. Most of the time when people reply to you, your focus is on some small side issue you can leverage into a rant about wave aether and acceleration beams. You seldom understand what other people are saying.

10. Originally Posted by Mazulu
Bupkis. I started with the second postulate of SR,
1: The laws of physics are the same in all inertial frames of reference.
2: The speed of light in free space has the same value C in all inertial frames of reference.
It looked to me like funny business, like something weird had to be going on with clocks and rulers. Then it struck me. If inertial reference frames were obligated to use clocks and rulers that make the speed of light equal c, in every inertial frame, then those clocks and rulers would have to directly obey $c= \lambda f$.
Wow, you started with SR and all by yourself discovered SR. That is pretty smart. You are a genius on a parr with Einstein it seems. Did you do this before or after you got your physics degree? (that is a rhetorical question).

11. Originally Posted by Cheezle
Ontology of creation is another one of those fool's errands. The Catholic Church tried to use it and failed. The ancient Greeks argued back and forth on the subject and failed. And now Mazulu will have his try at it.
With QM and SR, the luminiferous aether is the ontology that reproduces both.

There are no answers there. That is why you and others always have to fall back to some religious text as an offering of proof. You did this in another thread where you showed argued that God created the world in a burst of light as written in Genesis. And of course, believing what is written in old books is very problematic. No chain of authority or evidence there.

And now I would ask you is God the wave aether? Because you claim the wave aether created the universe, including light and the laws of physics. If God is just inside the wave aether (which is nowhere and no-when) and used it to create the universe, then you have another chicken and egg story to tell. Does God live in the wave aether or is he the same as the wave aether? Did the aether also create God? Or did God create his own environment, the wave aether (an odd assumption to be sure). Those are rhetorical questions. I am not really interested in the answer. Any answer you give is just a fantasy you create in your own head. I am just pointing out that wild assertions often have this effect of cascading into contradiction.

12. Originally Posted by Cheezle
Wow, you started with SR and all by yourself discovered SR. That is pretty smart. You are a genius on a parr with Einstein it seems. Did you do this before or after you got your physics degree? (that is a rhetorical question).
The point was to come up with the ontology that fits QM and SR. Given that, you go back to gravity and ask: what is gravity made of? Ontologically speaking, it's made of some kind of aether. Right?

What you don't realize yet is that you can manipulate aether as easily as you can light. If you know the aether structure of gravity, you can reproduce that using light. Do that, and you get back an acceleration field.

13. Originally Posted by Mazulu
With QM and SR, the luminiferous aether is the ontology that reproduces both.

No I asked the right question, it is just a question you don't want to address. As I explained, if aether creates space and time, then it is beyond space and time. It it is nowhere and no-when. The definition of nonexistence. And how do you create time? Creation is a process that has a before and after. So if time did not exist, there is no before the beginning. As I said, these questions point out those contradictions that cascade from illogical assumptions and claims. Specifically your illogical assumptions and claims.

From Wikipedia: Reductio ad absurdum (Latin: "reduction to absurdity") is a common form of argument in which a proposition is purported to be disproved by reduction to absurdity in reasoning or consequence.

14. Originally Posted by Mazulu
What you don't realize yet is that you can manipulate aether as easily as you can light. If you know the aether structure of gravity, you can reproduce that using light. Do that, and you get back an acceleration field.
And if you can get to the end of the rainbow there is a pot of gold waiting for you. And it is easy to get, you just wait for the rainbow and the walk to its end. Simple as pie.

15. Originally Posted by Mazulu
The point was to come up with the ontology that fits QM and SR. Given that, you go back to gravity and ask: what is gravity made of? Ontologically speaking, it's made of some kind of aether. Right?

What you don't realize yet is that you can manipulate aether as easily as you can light. If you know the aether structure of gravity, you can reproduce that using light. Do that, and you get back an acceleration field.
Here is a question I would like you to answer. Do you get more energy out of the acceleration field than you use to make it? What about conservation laws?

16. Originally Posted by Cheezle
Here is a question I would like you to answer. Do you get more energy out of the acceleration field than you use to make it? What about conservation laws?
The free lunch universe hypothesis opens the door to other mechanisms that can "get around" conservation of energy by creating energy (and the gravitational energy image).

I have only a few minutes to get this off my chest. The first postulate of relativity says: The laws of physics are the same in all inertial frames of reference.

Ontologically speaking, reference frames are made of matter. In fact, all matter (cars, spaceships, atoms, massive particles) is made of a composition of aether medium frequencies. Quarks, gluons, leptons exist as a range of frequencies, a spectral fingerprint if you will. When a particle-antiparticle annihilation occurs, you get back the spectral composition of both particles. An inertial reference frame is expected to have its own clock. When a particle, like an electron or a quark, is just a range of frequencies, here is what happens. Have you ever heard of the Uncertainty Principle: $\Delta E \Delta t > h$ The energy of a photon is E=hf, so $\Delta E = h\Delta f$. When you plug in Delta E, Planck constant appears on both sides and cancels. So you get $\Delta f \Delta t = 1$
It means that as the error in frequency gets large, the error in time gets small. A large error in frequency, aka the spectral fingerprint of the particle, results in an accurate time. Spectral frequency of matter gives you the inertial frame clock and the progression of time in that inertial frame.

The hydrogen atom has a spectral signature due to electrons transitioning between energy levels. Pure substances have a spectral image due to the ionic and covalent bonds. The idea that particles have a spectral signature is a prediction. I don't think its been varified yet.

For each energized frequency, there is an associated momentum traveling at c. The velocity v/c is just the average vector velocity of all of those aether waves traveling at c in different directions. No Higgs field is necessary.

17. Again, he just read something on wikipedia and it inspired him to come up with new nonsense.

18. Originally Posted by Mazulu
The free lunch universe hypothesis opens the door to other mechanisms that can "get around" conservation of energy by creating energy (and the gravitational energy image).
Well alrighty then. I have the solution to all your problems. The problem Mazulu is that you are on the wrong forum. You are hawking your ideas to the wrong people. You should be on the free energy, alternative energy, perpetual motion and UFO forums (etc). They are all going to want to help you get that energy beam contraption working. I guarantee it. They will eat that stuff up like plum pudding.

Or you could buy some spam advertising that could be on all the best websites. It could say something like, "Get free energy with this one weird loophole in physics." People love that crap. You are just preaching to the wrong audience. Go forth Mazulu, and find your destiny elsewhere.

19. Originally Posted by Mazulu
Ontologically speaking, reference frames are made of matter.
You're mistaken. A reference frame isn't made out of anything material. It's made out of numbers or labels which are just abstract symbols.

For instance, the string "x1 x2 x3 ... xk" has coordinates, the indices for each x in the string. These just identify the position of each x.
The number on your letterbox might be made out of material, but the postie doesn't care about that, just the number. Coordinates are abstractions of position, and a position isn't made out of anything.

20. Originally Posted by arfa brane
You're mistaken. A reference frame isn't made out of anything material. It's made out of numbers or labels which are just abstract symbols.

For instance, the string "x1 x2 x3 ... xk" has coordinates, the indices for each x in the string. These just identify the position of each x.
The number on your letterbox might be made out of material, but the postie doesn't care about that, just the number. Coordinates are abstractions of position, and a position isn't made out of anything.
You're welcome to argue with the first postulate of special relativity: The laws of physics are the same in all inertial frames of reference.

#### Posting Permissions

• You may not post new threads
• You may not post replies
• You may not post attachments
• You may not edit your posts
•