"Does light move", asked Quantum Quack

maybe you would care to say in plain English why time dilation is a necessary out come of relative Velocity?

or
"how fast and far does an inertial Frame travel within itself in a second?"
If you can answer the second question the first answer becomes obvious.
It also provides a key clue as to what inertia is and why time dilation is a product of inertia.

Care to explore with that knowledge of yours?
and I bet you will not find it in a book either... [there are a couple of obscure links about but none I could recommend.]

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

sorry try again....

no, you need to try again..

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

My dearly beloved friend JamesR:

You are terribly amusing in your machinations to avoid having to admit that light ( EM ) travels faster than c. You really do have a great many of us laughing at your postulations, and we appreciate your giving us some moments of good humor when we might need cheer.

So, you don't have the time to adequately research a subject that such a renowned physicist as yourself would have been expected to have studied in schooling long ago. You admit that you don't know anything about plasma frequency. You don't know anything about plasma frequency, by your own admission, and yet you claim that it proves nothing.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

I have given you an entry level reference to the subject, the book Faster Than Light authored by not only your peer, but, your superior, Ph.D. Nick Herbert. You hide behind the skirt of your claim that you just don't have the time or money or navigational ability or whatever to find the book and read it.

Faster Than Light by Ph.D. Nick Herbert. Page 63 for a start.

"The phase velocity of of a radio wave traveling through an ionized gas varies with the frequency of the wave and always exceeds the speed of light in vacuum. At high frequencies the phase velocity approaches light speed from above; at frequencies near the "plasma frequency" , the phase velocity becomes infinitely large."

There, I have saved you bus fare, saved you the problem of how for you to find a book store, saved you the problem of reading a whole terribly long 216 page paperback, done all the hard work for you.

All you have had to do is read the few words I have quoted from the elusive book and take them to heart: The concept of the motion of light is meaningless when we recognize that light moves at infinite speed. Infinite speed means that the same instant that we let loose a portion of light, it circumnavigates the universe and returns from our behind ( if the theory of the finite universe is true ).

Now, perhaps, you will inform us that you just simply did not have the time to read the quoted paragraph, and so, you are still totally ignorant about plasma frequency and the infinite phase velocity of light. You just simply did not have the time just to please Uno Hoo.

Perhaps the truth is that you do not have the motivation to faithfully serve the science and physics that you claim to honor.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Special relativity is the most successful theory of physics. Every test it's been put under in the last century it's passed. Also, it easily unites with quantum mechanics to provide quantum field theory, which is another enormously tested area of physics.

My vitriolic posting style is not because I fear your ignorant BS about SR is right, I am 101% certain you're talking nonsense. It's vitriolic because I get tired of listening to idiots who know nothing about a topic proclaim they have some amazing insight.

So you keep saying "Relativity says....." but you cannot provide a single book, paper or other reference where someone points out that 'Relativity says.....' ? And given you have not read any relativity and are unable to do any relativity, it would seem that there's absolutely zero reason to think what you claim about relativity is true.

You aren't 'questioning', you're making up lies and then trying to pass them off as what physicists say without reference or justification. That isn't 'I'm asking a few open minded questions', that's 'I've got a biased agenda and I'm sticking to it'.

I've already given how to compute the distance between two objects at any moment in time. The fact you're unable to understand metrics and curved manifolds doesn't mean I haven't told you the answer, it just means you are too ignorant to grasp it and too dishonest to admit it.

By definition 'detect' means that the particle does something to a 'detector'. You don't have to absorb the photon or reflect it. In general relativity a beam of photons affects space-time and so, given a sensitive enough detector you could measure the space-time deformation produced by a photon without having to actually see the photon itself.

That's the thing, if you actually gave me reason to pause and think "****, he makes a good point" I'd be less aggressive. What annoys me is your attitude. You don't know any SR, you don't read any SR, you don't back up your statements, you don't know any 'beyond high school physics', you refuse to believe anyone else might know such physics and despite asking for 'evidence' and proclaiming things about open minded, you ignore any and all replies you get which show you're wrong. You know nothing but you believe you know everything, better than the people who can (and have) proven they know some SR.

You are categorically no threat to SR. I dislike you because you're a swaggering ignorant dip****.

If I'm wrong in my views, explain why anyone should listen to you, given you don't read or do any special relativity and (as I've demonstrated) you repeatedly show you fail to understand even something concepts in physics.

Cranks always seem to think they get told to F off because they are 'close to the truth'. No, cranks are generally ignorant spewers of BS.

I wouldn't really say so. It's not the only light speed particle. It's just 'light' is used in the discussions of relativity because it was the simplest and most understood force in the late 1800s. If the photon didn't exist it wouldn't make SR wrong. Null vectors are null vectors, they don't require light to exist.

See, this is an example of you making claims you can't and don't back up. You don't grasp the construction of relativity and so you make your own assumptions about it then proclaim those assumptions as truth. And then you refuse to listen when corrected by people who do know the construction of relativity.

Simply denying the existence of light doesn't make you right. Infact, given the very obvious evidence for the existence of light, your disbelief in it goes beyond religious and into the delusional.

You keep saying " Relativity says......" and now you're admitting you refuse to read any relativity because you know it's wrong. So where are you getting your information from which makes you say "Relativity says.....". If you don't read relativity because you know it's wrong, how do you know what it says?

Basically you'd just admitted to being dishonest, closed minded and willfully ignorant. You assume relativity is wrong so you won't read it. You won't read it so you don't know what it says. You don't know what it says so you make up what it says. What you assume it says you don't accept so you don't read it. It's a close minded cycle of ignorant and lies.

You talk about me not being open minded but you are admitting to lying.

Well given you've basically just admitted to being dishonest it would seem my views of you were vindicated.

 

So tell me Alpha numeric how do you think I have lied to you or the forum?

How have I been dishonest?

please explain your accusations
jeez I just love it when the site goes down every time someone accuses me of something so maliciously...

"Only nothing can exist if there is no time for it to exist in"
fact...simple logic....don't care about your math...

The effect of light could just as easilly be a mass or matter event with out the need of a photon...fact...don't need your math.
The photon is an unecessasary and superfluous abstraction, the only use of which is to build a barrier to scientific progress.
and now I wonder how long the site will go down for this time....

 

and you missed the above as well whilst spewing out your false accusations...

 

Of course I am no threat to SR. it is primed to self destruct all on it's own....

 

Well, ( employed ) physicist, this just might be your lucky day. But first ask yourself one question. Are you feeling lucky? Are you, physicist?

I have informed you about the speed of light in regard to plasma frequency and you have claimed to have never heard of it and to be completely ignorant about it. This is truly amazing because the speed of light respecting plasma frequency is an old and very well established part of mainstream physics and has been so for over a century now.

I have already cited you one entry grade reference, worded so simply that even a child could understand it, quoted and written out for you in a previous post. The reference to Ph.D. Nick Herbert in his book Faster Than Light.

Now, physicist, I am going to cite you another reference from a more high powered book. This reference is so powerful that it could blow your mind clean off. The Electromagnetic Field, authored by Professor Albert Shadowitz.

Page 551, about half way down the page:"...gives a value for the velocity of the monochromatic wave which is greater than the speed of an electromagnetic wave in vacuum. ".

My dear beloved friend JamesR, it would be so good of you if you would sometime begin to try to act constructively in advancing science understanding rather than ubiquitously only trying to CYA when one of us posts a reference to an ordinary mainstream physics concept which you have never happened to have noticed in your uni years or ever learnt by self study, such as any sincere scientist would be expected to have done.

Have a lucky day, ( employed ) physicist.

 

You repeatedly say "Relativity says...." but you admit to not reading relativity. Infact, you admit to actively avoiding reading relativity.

The entire premise of your claims is based on "Relativity says...." but if you don't know what relativity says, you are simply making it up and thus lying.

You claim relativity can't measure distances, that's not vtrue, I've proven it. Further more, you've not read any relativity and even if you had you don't know the maths to understand it. So you lied. You make claims like "No photon, no SR". That's not true either, you assume relativity is built/based on something it isn't and proclaim things from that assumption. Since you've never learnt how SR is constructed, you don't know what is does or doesn't need.

The concept of particles of light predate special relativity by about 250 years. It's not relativity's fault the concept of the photon exists.

You keep saying "It could be something else" but you don't give any alternative explainations. It's easy to sit there going "Wrong, no that's wrong, you're wrong, wrong!". If it's so obviously wrong why has noone provided a different explaination?

If you actually knew about all the experiments done involving photons, rather than being completely ignorant of them, you'd know the wealth of evidence supporting the electromagnetism model. But you don't, so you just rubbish anything you don't understand without looking into it.

There is a particle which moves at 300,000 km/s, which has no electric charge, no weak charge, no colour and whose rest mass is less than 1eV. It only interacts with electrically charged particles, so doesn't interact with itself. We call that particle 'the photon'. The existence of such a particle is undeniable. Now if you could come up with a model which views this object as a bound state of matter particles, go ahead. But you're gonig to have to have a model which is more accurate than quantum electrodynamics, which is accurate to parts per hundred billion.

Basically there's nothing to support your claims. Every time you say "Relativity says...." its baseless because you don't know any relativity and every time you say "The photon is holding physics back" you're ignoring it's the most accurately modelled section of nature ever.

We've already established you won't read or understand any detailed explaination/derivation provided to you, you're intellectually dishonest. The answer to your question is the derivation of Lorentz transforms from the postulates of SR. Available in any one of those books you refuse to read. So if you were really interested in the derivation, you'd have found it. But you refuse to read it and now demand I tell you as if it's somehow a flaw in SR you don't know anything about it.

You're dishonest, plain and simple.

 

have researched relativity...for nearly 10 years after self deriving it and seeking confirmation.

where have I said that relativity says anything?

I have simply asked two basic questions that should be a breaze to answer and as yet after 3 years of asking received not once an adequate answer.
I choose no to get too involved in argueing SRT semantics with any one as I find it is circular and futile.

at t=0 there is no distance to measure. [where t= zero duration]
at t= infinitesimal ...[ where t= infinitesimal duration] wallah! we have a universe to play SR in....but having t= infinitesimal screws SR totally so game over red rover.

maybe it needs a real live 'traveling' photon...that would be a great start!


So relativity is unecessary due to the postulate of light speed invariance?
The only reason relativty exists is to accommodate light speed invariance through a vacuum [ a suppossedly travelling photon or ray of light ]

it is though, for not conming up with something a bit better in over 100 years don't you think?

Have been for ages but belief in the mythical photon always destroys any attempt at describing a possible alternative model.

I know of many experiements that attempt to assess the EFFECT ascribed to a photon.
The only eveidence I require is that of a photon travellig across a vacuum nothing else...You guys are great with all the effect evidence but I am chasing evidence of the supposed or alledged cause of those effects and so far none has been forthcomming, so you my good man are lying....

baah! there is no particle only an effect...why should I believe other wise?

Not ignoring it this thread is testimony to that fact.
There is nothing to support your claims of a photon particle causation of the light effect. And simlpy saying that the model has proven to be successful only indicates just how ignorant you are of what a successful model would acheive. [ eg. knowledge of the causation of universal constants would be a start not to mention other more tangible benefits such as FTL travel, other more exotic technologies and comprehensive understanding of particle entanglement and tunneling phenonema]

You can not explain why the Lorentz transforms were necessary can you?
If you did you could explain why time dilation is a necessary outcome of light speed invariance. But I can guarrantee you you will never be able to justify length contraction. [ Relative dimensional collapse along vector due to relative velocity. [total fudge and rubbish]]

Also if you did, you would know why Lorenze transform is incorrect leading to massive distortions when pushed to extremes. But you don't so I fail to see the point of discussing a flawed theory even if one assumes the existence of a traveliing photon as real.

light doesn't move because there is no where for it to move through.

I suppose according to you if you took all the matter/mass out of the universe we would be left with nothing but photons travelling to no where?:bugeye:

and then you woudl probably try to tell me that the missing mass and matter universally is not the models fault but that we simply can't see that missing stuff...begads! what a con job!
Of course the math is wrong...because if it where right we wouldn't be missing anything....

and a >70% error factor says alot in my book...sorry....and you accuse me of lying...ha what a joke!

Whilst I have all respect for you mathematical boffins it is obvious that if the math is not applied correctly the math is pretty well useless....

 

Try this thought experiment:

You have four planetoids and one star at centre in a complete universe, the distance of obital radius for all planetoids is 10 light years from the Star. According to the metric used by one planetoid.

now remove from this universe all the matter and mass?
what do we have left?

according to the light model we should have nothing left except traveling photons.... a photo sphere of 'c' rated massless particles.

so how big is this universe now that the objects are missing?
Given that all these 'photon' particles are massless?

 

Light does not need to travel, it is like empty space it has no mass.

Why complicate something so simple and obvious.





peace.

 

Well. Light is a wave that ripples of the fabric of space. So in reality, light is energy transferred to your eyes.

Energy is measured over time, and time is a concept that describes a rate, in the end we are just left with human conceptual interpretation. yay

 

wow
this is awesome

 

Not all empty space is in the same place.

 

Clearly you don't use 'research' in the same way I do. I do research into theories which have SR built into them (ie string theory or supergravity). Every day I read papers, books, talk to professors, other researchers, I go to conferences, I do pages and pages and sodding pages of algebra, I've got hundreds of megabytes of programs I've written for my thesis and I've got published work. That is research.

You claim to have been 'researching' special relativity longer than I've known about special relativity, yet you can't name 2 books you've read on the matter. I can name more than a dozen books on relativity I've read a chapter or more of, typically all of. So what exactly has your 'research' involved reading then? Published papers are beyond the ability of the layman to understand, lecture notes involve algebra and you've not read any books.

Basically you're a fraud and whenever you claim something about relativity its certain to be tainted by ignorance.

If I'm wrong, explain what your 'research' has involved. If you've not read any books, what have you read?

 

Raising issues is by far a lesser crime than avoiding those issues which you seem determined to remain doing so.
May be it is all those hours of research and attempting to comprehend an unecessary and convoluted theory and the investment that you have made that puts you in a "avoid" at all costs" position.
Whilst I sympathsise with you, there are many other people that could benefit from having those issues resolved than just you, or me.

So far all you have attempted to do is show how much work you have done and how little work you think I have done. You're assuming that to get to where I have got has been easy which of course is a total falacy.

It is the "ball" in the game that is important and not the person.
And the Ball being such an amazing fraud is a hell of a difficult thing to play.

When you are prepared to realise the true value of all your hard work then and only then will you be able to discuss the issues raised properly....

The glaring and obvious avoidance of the issues can only suggest one thing and that the issues are valid concerns. So the more you avoid dealing with them properly and scientifically the bigger the issue becomes...ahh such is the nature of denial....

So I pose a simple question again that might help lead to a better understanding of what you have studied so arduously.

"How far does an inertial frame travel within itself in 1 second?"
remembering that "absolute rest" for any frame of reference is non-existent.
I am sure somewhere in your notes there lies the answer but I bet it will be incredibly difficult to find.

 

You didn't answer my question. If you've spent a decade 'researching' relativity, what precisely have you spent that time doing? If you haven't read books and you don't know enough maths to understand papers, where are you getting your information from?

If you have nothing to hide, you'll answer my questions. It's funny how cranks always say things like "Oh, you're scared I'm getting close to the truth!!" but when their feet are held close to the fire suddenly they avoid answering straight forward and simple questions like "What have you read?".

And it is not relativity which leads to my kind of research involving lots of work and reading any kind of research involves lots of work and reading, in any subject, in any topic. My sister is doing economics, specifically the development of South American countries and the impact water supplies have on them. She reads tons of books, journals and writes lots of notes and work. Is it because economics is a bloated fraudulent area of knowledge? No. It's because it's a large complicated topic which has decades of information to be looked at.

Special relativity is actually quite a small simple concept. It's just non-Euclidean geometry. The implications of it and the applications are many-fold. Or how about electromagnetism.\(dF = d\ast F = 0\). There, that's ALL of electromagnetism. But to work out the implications of those equations literally takes a lifetime.

So the amount of time and effort research takes is not a measure of the bloatedness of a topic but a measure of its impact on a subject area, the amount of work previously done by others and the amount of effort you are willing to put in. So if you haven't even read a single book in that decade of research it isn't a reflection on relativity but a reflection on your apathy and dishonesty.

 

unfortunately you still have not addressed the question raised by this thread. All you are doing is grand standing on a potentially flawed understanding...which I must admit I find rather amusing....given that you have spent so much effort learning a mistake.

What has my reading habits got to do with the issues raised one wonders and what has your resume of decades of research got to do with it dealing with the issues raised.


I guess you are going to include your "nobel" in the next post?