All Photons Move at 300,000km/s.... But Don't?

jcc said:
solar sail bigger than earth?

how much solar wind blow on earth? are we moving away from the sun?
Click to expand...


http://www.space.com/8748-solar-sail-passes-big-test-deep-space.html

Solar Sail Passes Big Test In Deep Space


An unmanned probe riding a solar sail through space has felt its first accelerating push from sunlight in a successful test of its novel propulsion system, Japan's space agency has announced.

Observations of the Ikaros solar sail built by the Japan Aerospace Exploration Agency (JAXA) confirmed that the spacecraft has received a growing speed boost from light radiated by the sun, the space agency said.

"The small solar power sail demonstrator 'Ikaros,' which successfully deployed its solar sail, was confirmed to accelerate by [the] solar sail receiving solar pressure," JAXA officials said in a July 9 update.? "This proved that the Ikaroshas generated the biggest acceleration through photon during interplanetary flight in history."

The effect stems from the cumulative push of light photons striking the solar sail. When measured together, it adds up to a small continuous thrust that does not require fuel use by the Ikaros craft.
http://www.space.com/8748-solar-sail-passes-big-test-deep-space.html
 
the moon is reflective, the earth is reflective, why not seen any effect?

now is end of June, how do they do? sailed successfully?
 
if that's true, the solar panels on the space station should been pushed by sunlight?
 
It seems, to me at least, to be a perfectly reasonable thing to do to a Minkowski spacetime, to rotate the axes.

And so you can rotate your lightcone and your "at rest" timeline so they still intersect at 45 deg, but you appear to have a velocity of c. But you need to have that velocity to "keep up" with the events on the lightcone. Taking the notion of at rest to something of an extreme, photons you can see are in your simultaneous frame of reference, so they are instantaneously at rest in your frame also. This is only possible if you are moving at the speed of light at all "instants", q.e.d..
 
arfa brane said:
It seems, to me at least, to be a perfectly reasonable thing to do to a Minkowski spacetime, to rotate the axes.

And so you can rotate your lightcone and your "at rest" timeline so they still intersect at 45 deg, but you appear to have a velocity of c. But you need to have that velocity to "keep up" with the events on the lightcone. Taking the notion of at rest to something of an extreme, photons you can see are in your simultaneous frame of reference, so they are instantaneously at rest in your frame also. This is only possible if you are moving at the speed of light at all "instants", q.e.d..
Click to expand...

Yes this is also true the reason all material particles still move at the speed of light is because while they are at rest they are carried by the space time medium which is already moving at the speed of c, this is why it is theoretically possible to build a warp drive.
 
arfa brane said:
It seems, to me at least, to be a perfectly reasonable thing to do to a Minkowski spacetime, to rotate the axes.

And so you can rotate your lightcone and your "at rest" timeline so they still intersect at 45 deg, but you appear to have a velocity of c. But you need to have that velocity to "keep up" with the events on the lightcone. Taking the notion of at rest to something of an extreme, photons you can see are in your simultaneous frame of reference, so they are instantaneously at rest in your frame also. This is only possible if you are moving at the speed of light at all "instants", q.e.d..
Click to expand...

Yes this is also true the reason all material particles still move at the speed of light is because while they are at rest they are carried by the space time medium which is already moving at the speed of c, this is why it is theoretically possible to build a warp drive.
 
No, "movement" for a frame at rest is only defined in the time dimension, and in only one direction. If you define time by using the speed of light, as Einstein does in his 1905 paper with a mirror, you align two one-dimensional physical things, time and a constant speed, if (an interval of) time is just defined as physical distance divided by a constant.

Can you see that or am I talking out of a wormhole?
 
Last edited:
arfa brane said:
No, "movement" for a frame at rest is only defined in the time dimension, and in only one direction.
Click to expand...
Yes that is correct its scalar, I have to stop saying timespace once I start speaking about movement beyond space if you can even call it moving since there is no space to move in, in my opinion the dimension of time is actually anti space. A place where temporal properties can emerge with a finite lifespan things, material things with mass. Space started of massless then went trough an evolution that added mass to the equation once it became space time. Space time begins in three dimensions " plank length" while space begins in two dimensions, so logically space can naturally expand in time in four dimensions where it can demonstrate both massless qualities of space as well as contain particles of mass once time has expanded space at the speed of c.
 
arfa brane said:
No, "movement" for a frame at rest is only defined in the time dimension, and in only one direction. If you define time by using the speed of light, as Einstein does in his 1905 paper with a mirror, you align two one-dimensional physical things, time and a constant speed, if (an interval of) time is just defined as physical distance divided by a constant.

Can you see that or am I talking out of a wormhole?
Click to expand...
Keep the comments coming arfa please excuse my sloppyness I am only functioning at 40 percent. I am currently not pleased with my performance, my laziness comes from lack of inspiration and stimulation because I need to find things I that I feel is important enough to me to dedicate enough time to getting it done on a professional level. Am still just brainstorming but I see the pictures inside my head. So I have to do better in explaining my ideas with clear communication and always use the terms in the correct order and context. But the pictures in my head has a complete logical form just have to express it more precisely so I don't confuse the reader.
 
Dr_Toad said:
So the troll takes the thread while Rajesh and paddoboy say not one damned thing?

Y'all are lame.
Click to expand...

While you are doing what, exactly, eh?

Most of us are following the dictum "Don't feed the troll", while reporting him in the hope of a ban. If that means "the troll takes thread", then so be it: he can fucking have it. I've had my say earlier while we were discussing sensible science. I have no wish to go swimming among turds.
 
Last edited:
What's that saying about giving someone enough rope to hang themselves?

The more unsolicited crap that jcc posts, the quicker he'll get permabanned. In theory, at least.
 
Daecon said:
What's that saying about giving someone enough rope to hang themselves?

The more unsolicited crap that jcc posts, the quicker he'll get permabanned. In theory, at least.
Click to expand...

Yeah. So long as everyone who gets pissed off by it reports it. I am sure the best technique is never to reply and simply go on replying to other people's points as if he is not there.

(He will of course now react to this post: best in my view if we all resist the temptation, however strong, to reply.)
 
Unfortunately there's always the temptation to try and impart some scientific knowledge in the hope jcc may learn something. No matter how small that hope may be.

Although there's also the possibility that someone reading the thread who isn't jcc will learn something new.

I've found myself in both camps, for better or worse.
 
Daecon said:
Unfortunately there's always the temptation to try and impart some scientific knowledge in the hope jcc may learn something. No matter how small that hope may be.

Although there's also the possibility that someone reading the thread who isn't jcc will learn something new.

I've found myself in both camps, for better or worse.
Click to expand...

Agree that is often my position but, in this case, I do not believe jcc is sincere, I do believe he is a fucking nuisance and I do not wish to give any grounds at all for encouraging him.
 
1. sun light is photon emitted by electrons change orbitals in hot atoms on the sun.

2. sun light is gravitational waves produced by vibrating hot atoms on the sun.

which one is true?
 
"Hello there. I'm from PETT (people for the ethical treatment of trolls) and if you don't feed your troll we'll report you to the authorities, take your troll away and find it a better home.
If we can't find it a new home we'll euthanise it, but we won't tell our supporters. That'd be awkward."
 
Daecon said:
Unfortunately there's always the temptation to try and impart some scientific knowledge in the hope jcc may learn something. No matter how small that hope may be.
Click to expand...
Not going to happen. Obviously he is some sort of basket case with some of the questions and claims.

Daecon said:
Although there's also the possibility that someone reading the thread who isn't jcc will learn something new.

I've found myself in both camps, for better or worse.
Click to expand...

Totally agree
Yep that's why similar nuts need to be refuted.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top