"Does light move", asked Quantum Quack

edit: if one is dealing with a closed system only.
If the system is open then this, time dilation, would not be happening or if so it would be inconsistant. So IMO the existance of "consistant" time dilation proves that the universe is a fully closed system.
Thus the laws of thermodynamics are essentially upheld.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Firstly, your comments or questions have nothing to do with my level of 'fame'. Secondly, I don't want any fame. Thirdly, I'm not vitriolic because I am not famous, I'm vitriolic because I don't like liars, frauds and idiots and you're all three.

Unlike you I don't need to lie about my 'research'. This is me.

You keep saying "Relativity says....." and then something I know it doesn't. Or you claim relativity is inconsistent in an area I know it isn't. I ask you to demonstrate relativity is inconsistent or to back up your claims of what relativity says, so we can know relativity actually does say that and its not just you putting your misinterpretations into the mouth of relativity and you can't.

No, I will not because aside when I log onto SciForums and think "I wonder if that dumb lying dip**** has replied in Pseudoscience" I don't put a moments thought towards you and your delusional lies. I spend all day in a physics department or at home doing physics and never, not once, has a cranks comments made me stop, mid-work, and think "Perhaps this is wrong....?". You and other cranks are light amusement, like pointing at freaks in a travelling carnival was to people of the Mid-west 100 years ago.

In 10 years you'll still be claiming to have been 'researching' relativity but never read a book on it. Doesn't the thought you're having to lie on the internet depress you?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Do you have anything to contribute to the thread or do you refer to waste your time stalking....and flaming....

me thinks you need to go read a book on time management or something.....

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

ha..in ten years SRT will be dead and buried and so will all the time you spent trying to understand it......in fact i reckon it will be dead and burired well before ten years....

any ways your posts are off topic, if you can't stick to the issues raised I suggest your take your insults and topic avoidance somewhere else....

 

Because the 5-30 minutes I might spend a day pointing out you can't support a single claim you make really eats into my time. You're hardly one to talk, 10 years 'researching' relativity and you haven't read a single book or paper on it? Now that's bad time management!

Just like your avoidance of backing up any of your claims about relativity has no place on a science forum.

Practice what you preach there Chuckles.

 

I just remembered where I first found pseudo confirmation of this proposition about 3 years ago.
The hypothesis was put to Albert Einstien apparenttly in 1909 where by a one Harry Zeigler put forward what has since been called the Luxon hypothesis
H. Zeigler proposed in 1909 that relativity phenomena would be a natural result if the most elemental particles of mass were made of smaller particles that all moved at the constant speed of light. Although the idea easily developed the Lorentz transformations for the most obvious examples of relativity phenomena, it was never fully explored to find if it could explain all phenomena. [...]

H. Ziegler realized this in 1909. He said, "If one thinks about the basic particles of matter as invisible little spheres which possess an invariable speed of light, then all interactions of matter-like states and electrodynamics phenomena can be described and thus we would have erected the bridge between the material and immaterial world that Mr. Planck wanted."

Stated more simply, Mr. Ziegler was saying that if the most basic components of mass all moved at the speed of light, relativity would be the natural result. He saw the cause, constant speed of the components of mass, and the effect, relativity

links are many but this one in particular:
http://www.tardyon.de/other.htm

As to the veracity as usual with web references please exercise caution.
edit: oopsy wrong thread

 

someone
explain signal/phase/group velocities
in pidgin

thanks

 

Special Relativity has been killed. Within the past handful of months. It was on another site because the killer was unfairly spitefully abused on this site. History will tell how quickly or how lethargically it will be buried.

Ironically, Special Relativity has been killed, on another site, by a logical paradox first posted on this crap site. On this crap site, the author was overwhelmed by the actions of a quasi-pseudo-physicist who abused his administrative authority to drown out and then ban the author. To avoid a rePete of the lynching, CANGAS published in Anti-Relativity.

There are actually a pair of logical paradoxes, posted as separate threads. They are unique because, in each one, one of the primary predictions of Special Relativity must be invoked to disprove the paradox. But, in each case, when that primary prediction is invoked to disprove one paradox, that prediction proves the other paradox! It is quite a sight on that site.

Special Relativity is dead right now. I know as a matter of personal fact that CANGAS really does not care how much the corpse stinks before it is buried. Or how much this crap site stinks before it is buried.

Hasta la vista, baby.

 

SR wouldn't be killed on a forum, it would be killed in a journal. If someone has managed to kill it then it would be worth publishing. I am certain the person of which you speak will fail to find a publisher. A reputable publisher.

 

I believe light is an energy form which is a result of waves and ripples through the space time continuum entering the eye sockets!

In my theory particles are merely a micro-point-field charge in the form of a wave. A treat for the mind.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

I think you are talking about the relativistic bicycle thread, in which the RPM's of the bike tire, being analogous to the bike's clock, time-dilate according to relativity. I don't want to link to it here, because that might be considered "thread necromancy", however I do recall that relativity theory was hard-pressed to explain that paradox.

For me, it seems easier to look at it from the bike's reference frame. The road underneath the tires is length contracted, so it should be possible to travel a distance greater than \(d=2\pi r\) for each revolution of the tire. But then one wonders, where did the extra tire circumference come from? Relativity claims that the ratio of circumference to diameter of a rotating disk is actually some number greater than \(\pi\). But then what kind of tread mark would the tire leave on the ground if it had some wet paint on it?

In the reference frame of the road, the tire is not length contracted at all at the point where it is in contact with the road. Clearly the pattern left by the wet paint must be analogous to the pattern of the tire treads. Even allowing for relativity's claim that the ratio of circumference to diameter of a rotating disk is actually some number greater than \(\pi\) there is still the question of where that extra length comes from, and what pattern it would leave on the road.

 

The ironical thing about all this is that if people devoted only 1% of their time spent trying to find a SRT Loop hole in to actually proving or confirming that light travels as a photon/wave in the first instance not only would SRT be dead and buried the whole of Physics would be pointed towards the 23rd century.
We are arguing about a theory that has yet to prove that light travels across vacant space and this is a bit absurd don't you think?

 

The wave/particle nature of the photon is independent of the validity of special relativity. Special relativity was developed before light was known to be a photon, a quantum object. Special relativity works whether light is a wave as Maxwell described it or a tiny 'cannon ball' as Newton saw it. The packet nature of light has long since been demonstrated in experiments, we've moved onto such amazing things as using single photons and single electrons to act as switches inside computers, trying to make quantum or optical computers.

You're basically denying the last century of experimentation simply because you don't grasp special relativity.

What is absurd is how remarkably stupid and how much of a liar you are. See that giant ball of light in the sky for about 12 hours each day? You're viewing light it released 8.5 minutes ago about 96 million miles away, through 'vacant space'.

Open a book on electrodynamics and you'll see how classical electromagnetism is put into a special relativity context, which occurs naturally as Maxwell's pre-special relativity electromagnetism possesses all the same symmetries as special relativity. Open a book on quantum electrodynamics and you'll see how that theory is quantised to describe individual photons moving through a special relativity space-time.

It's all there for you to read, with huge quantities of experimental data and observations, both quantum and relativistic, available for you to read. You've got the internet at your fingertips yet you waste your life whining "Oh there's no evidence" when 12 seconds using Google will tell you otherwise.

 

Show me a photon moving across vacant space then....bet you can't...and you have the nerve to call me a liar....

 

Should be reallllll easy to do since you've had a couple of hundred years to find one.....sure you've found an effect sheesh every one has found the effect.....but not the photon .....unless you've got some hiding in your closet there Alpha......hmmmmmm.....same applies to Gravity....the effect has been observed for millions of years but has any one ever found it [ particle, substance] ......nope!
nothing new about finding an effect Alpha but find the cause of that effect ...now thats doing something...and all science has done so far is find an effect and document it in great detail but alas ..no causation just effect...

And you call me a liar......ha
The photon is mere speculation based on observed effects....that do not include any effects that demonstrate a "moving" photon across vacant space. [ as there are none]
ask the question:
"Effects specifically generated by a moving photon?"

 

Are you telling me you can't see the Sun?

The particle of gravitation is much harder to see because it's so much weaker than the photon, weak bosons or gluons. We currently do not have the technology to see such short range weak effects, just as 100 years ago we didn't have the technology to see quarks. It is not that someone has said "This experiment will see a single graviton" and it didn't, it's that the experiments which could hope to see the graviton are not currently doable with our technology.

Besides, not having seen something doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Otherwise there'd be no point doign experiments because it means there's no effect we haven't yet seen,

The Sun and all other objects out in space are seen by photons emitted from them, either in visible light frequencies or in other ones. The fact we can see stars shows light moves through 'vacant space'. In the case of very dim, very distant stars we've done observations so careful that they detect individual photons from them. Alternatively, in labs lasers can be shot through evacuated chambers (ie vacuums) and individual photons have been observed. The LHC (and all other particle acclerators like LEP and Fermilab and SLAC) works by smashing together particles inside vacuums so good they are better than the vacuum of space and individual photons have been measured moving through detectors.

You are a fraud because you don't bother researching your claims and you're a liar because you don't know any special relativity or any related theories and yet you make claims about them.

Are you claiming photons don't move? Do exactly does the light from the Sun get to your eyes then? Magic? If an object starts at point A and is then seen in Point B some time later is it not logical to think it might have moved?

 

ahhh finally a good question and one worth asking.......?

any ideas ?

measuring light speed is based purely on anecdotal evidence. Circumstantial and premised on an assumption. A big assumption.
The same thing could be said for measuring the speed of gravitational or even magnetic field change effects..

and you can take your slander someplace else .....

 

wow the religious nutters are going to have a field day with this one.....[chuckle]

 

uhm...the thread title is?

 

How is it anecdotal? It's done in the same way other things have their velocities measured. Bullet speeds are measured by firing guns over a known distance and timing how long it takes to go from the gun to the target. Light speed is measured (this is just one way, there's many) by timing how long it takes for light to go from a laser, over a set distance and to hit a detector.

How is that an assumption? That velocity is distance divided by time?

It's true that gravitational propogation speeds are done indirectly, due to the reason I gave in my previous post, we cannot make effects strong enough or measure precisely enough direct changes in a gravitational field. You can't just turn on a 'gravity light' like you can turn on a laser. But there's several ways to indirectly measure the speed of gravity and they all agree and put it to within a few percent of the speed of light.

It's a fact you've never studied special relativity. Or electromagnetism. Or general relativity. Or classical mechanics. Or quantum mechanics. And it's clear from your posts you've put in very very little effort to research the things you make claims about. So either you are ignorant or you're deliberately deceiving. I would say it's both, you are ignorant and in order to cover that up and to serve your biased agenda you lie. Have you ever studied those things? Could you sit down right now and pass a 2nd or 3rd year university physics exam on the topics I just mentioned?