Why do you do this thing where you continue to edit posts over and over again, rather than just posting a complete reply all at once? It's rather annoying. - Warren
This is not a valid assumption, because a photon cannot be at rest in any inertial reference frame (it results in a coordinate singularity). - Warren
i didnt yet prove that frame S` is inertial, that comes at the very end of the proof, and is where the contradiction i am telling you about is located.
S' cannot be inertial, because a photon is at rest within it. The single line that I quoted makes your situation non-physical. - Warren
Your "proof" makes use of a coordinate singularity. It's no different than using division-by-zero in a mathematical proof, and it's just as wrong. - Warren
You are incorrect. The theorem that i stated, which you have not read yet, will alleviate your confusion. Do you understand why there have to be three non collinear points, and not just one? Regards
You didn't state any theorems. Photons cannot be at rest in any intertial reference frame. An intertial reference frame is one in which Newton's laws hold; a frame in which a photon is at rest cannot meet this condition, because intervals all become zero. What you are describing is a coordinate singularity. - Warren
This is incorrect, and provably so. The proof is elementary. The theorem was given. That theorem beats all SR theorists. Read it, learn it, live it.
lol, that was beautiful chroot, I am so glad to see him fall on his face trying to use an inertial frame at rest WRT a photon, I didn't catch that at first. =] p.s. your signature rings true. (crackpot killer)
They are called photonic frames. There was no falling on any face. Once you prove the theorem, SR is dead forever. It's all right there. If SR is goofy then theorem is correct. AND If theorem is correct then SR is goofy. Both statements above are true, regardless of the truth value of the postulates of SR. In other words, you can now divert all your attention to proving the theorem is false, which is impossible, since it happens to be a true analytic statement. But your logic is not sophisticated enough to understand this.
Johnny boy, if a photon is 'stationary' in any inertial frame then it ceased to be a photon. if you assume that a photon's velocity is not c in any inertial frame then you rejected the basic postulate of SR. You are not talking about SR any more. Your derivations have nothing to do with SR.
Yeah, he proved that if you change SR it would stop working properly, wow. I find it funny. Moreover, johnny5 seems to have some kind of inferiority/superiority complex. Perhaps he does not get out much. Hey, Johnny5, where do you work? It is my theory that if you spend too much time in an abnormal environment that people lose their social skills.
The question of whether or not the rest frame of a photon is an inertial reference frame, is related to the theorem which i stated earliear in the thread. From memory Theorem: If S is an inertial reference frame, and at least three non-collinear points of frame S` are moving through frame S with a constant velocity, then frame S` is an inertial reference frame. The theorem above is part of General Order Spatiotemporal Modal Binary Logic. What you suggest would be incorrect reasoning. If something is false, and you wish to use binary logic to deduce that fact, then you start off by assuming the statement is true, and then reasoning. You would have me assume the conclusion. So, to answer your question, in order to obtain the knowledge which i possess and you clearly lack, you simply cannot start off the reasoning event which leads you to my knowledge by opening the scope of the assumption that the rest frame of the photon is inertial. In point of fact, if you are going to use an indirect proof, then you would start off by assuming that the rest frame of a photon is non-inertial, then use a sequence of interelated facts, which you the individual is certain are true, then reasoning to contradiction of a known fact. There being only one scope still open, you close it using negation. At which point, a perfectly carried out reasoning event occurred, and you will have increased your individual knowledge by deduction. What you will have learned, is that your assumption is false, hence you will everafter know that the rest frame of a photon is an inertial reference frame. On the other hand, suppose you wish to carry out a direct proof of the fact that a photon is an inertial reference frame. In order to do this, part of the a priori knowledge which you must possess at the beginning of the reasoning event, is the definition of an inertial frame. For if you do not even know that definition, then you have no business even attempting to carry out said reasoning event. So given that you already know the definition of an inertial frame, you will then use Newton's laws, (and any other facts you as an individual happen to know either uniquely or otherwise) to infer the following fact: Theorem: If S is an inertial frame, and at least three points of frame S` are moving through S with a constant velocity, then S` is an inertial frame. So thats how a direct proof of the fact works. As I said, I am finally advanced. Regards
What kind of s*** theory is that General Order Spatiotemporal Modal Binary Logic? I can't find any reference in google
My conclusion: Johnny5 is approximately 16 years old. He's a sophomore, or perhaps a junior, in high school. He's probably taking a couple of AP classes, and breezes through almost everything his teachers can throw at him. He also doesn't have much of a social life, and probably has trouble making friends. These two factors have together led Johnny5 into a raging superiority complex. (It's easier to believe that people don't like you because you're better than them, than because you're really an asshole.) He believes that simply reading a textbook (and understanding approximately ten percent of it) not only makes him an expert, but also makes him better than other people. He tends to read books not because he wants to really understand anything, but because he's desperate for ammunition to use in his internal quest to prove himself better than everyone else. He doesn't really know much more than your average high-school kid, but he isn't aware of (or concerned with) the limitations of his own knowledge. He's the sort of person that will learn about something one day (like the AND operator's truth table) and then lord it over everyone else like he's a professor the next. He's pathetic and transparent at the moment, but perhaps he'll mellow a bit over the next few years, after attending college alongside people who are indisputably smarter than him. - Warren
First order logic has plenty of sites, first order logic involves exactly one domain of discourse, and the existential quantifier is translated as, "there is at least one." General order logic is the natural extension of first order to logic to multiple domains of discourse, involving translations such as "at least one" "at least two" "at least three" Etcetera. You simply subscript the existential quantifier with the natural number you need it to be translated as. Spatiotemporal logic has plenty of hits. Modal logic has plenty of hits. Binary logic has plenty of hits. Put them all together and you can access the advanced language. Perhaps try "first order temporal modal" see what comes up Or "first order spatiotemporal" and see what comes up. Try all possible combinations, and see what you find. One additional note. The existential quantifier cannot be translated as "there exists" when using General order logic, because existence always refers to the current moment in time. Eg. Aristotle does not exist. Translating the existential quantifier as "there is at least one" indicates that set theory is being used. Consider the meaning of the following two sentences side by side: There exists a man. There is at least one man. The first sentence does not use the verb 'is,' yet the meaning of existence indicates the present tense, and so the statement is true. The second sentence does use the verb 'is' but not in the sense of 'present' tense, but rather in the sense of 'elementhood' of set theory. So at the first moment in time, there was an element in the set M, where M denotes the set of men who will exist at some moment in time. M is not a function of time. On the otherhand, let M(t) denote the set of men who currently exist. The previous set is a function of time. If you didn't quite follow, that's ok. Just translate the existential quantifier as "there is at least one" and know what the domains of discourse are.
Translation: I don't know latin, but try to appear that I do in order to impress people who also don't know latin. Translation: I can't actually explain to you what "General Order Spatiotemporal Modal Binary Logic," because I made it up. Instead of trying to explain what it is (which would demonstrate that I made it up), I will point you to google, and shift the burden onto you. When you can't learn about it from any of the hundreds of reputable websites crawled by google, you'll come to one of two conclusions: (1) I made it up, or (2) it's so incredibly advanced that there's no mention of it even on the internet. I'm gambling here, but I'm taking my chances that you'll come to the second conclusion. I'll throw in some references to my advanced intellect to help guide you to the second conclusion; that works all the time in homeroom. - Warren
Wow, i would be damned to learn General Order Spatiotemporal Modal Binary Logic to prove that theorem. According to Special Relativity any point moving at constant velocity with respect to an inertial frame of reference can serve as the origin of another inertial frame of reference
