we have more than one serious scientific study which shows [matter] is just a form of trapped light
Can you provide us with one citation from a non-crackpot?
we have more than one serious scientific study which shows [matter] is just a form of trapped light
Can you provide us with one citation from a non-crackpot?
The Dirac spinor and Dirac's belt hint at this. There are models such as this which describe the electron as a self-trapped photon which displaces its own path into a closed path.What people have neglected however, is that an electron truly is a photon moving at slightly less than the speed of ''c'' to an external observer, because it has to traverse a path of length I think something equivalent to $$\frac{\lambda}{2\pi}$$
I'd say this is the essence of Einstein's E=mc² paper. A radiating body loses mass. Note the mention of the electron. In electron-positron annihilation two radiating bodies lose mass. All of it! I think Light is Heavy is a good read. Note the 't Hooft here isn't the Nobel 't Hooft.we have more than one serious scientific study which shows matter is just a form of trapped light, trapped light is the presence of inertia and gravitational mass. It only has this though when the photon is confined to a limit in the space geodesics (which my math speculates it traverses two quadrants, while somehow missing full 90 degree angles).
Not where the electron is. The curvature there is curved space, not curved spacetime.Now.... has the speed of light changed?
I would urge you to re-examine this. The photon might "experience no time", but it moves. Imagine you were moving at the speed of light. You experience no time, but other things move, and I can move an asteroid into your path. BLAM. Events still happen. And "your frame" is little more than your state of motion.On this scale inside the interior of the electron, you'll find that everything is static outside, there is no change in events, (in a hypothetical god-frame which a photon has no frame at all). Now apply the god-frame to the universe in total and you also find there in no internal changes with respect to time. So can the speed of light change? It's likely it doesn't go anywhere at all, it's birth and death are simultaneous on the fundamental understanding, because from our frame of reference, we need to remember, when we calculate the time it takes for a photon to reach Earth, that rough 8 minutes is measured in your frame, not the photons.
I would urge you to re-examine this. The photon might "experience no time", but it moves.
You me, the Earth, the Sun, everything.If it experiences no time, what is it moving in respect to?
If you must pick a preferred frame, it would have to be the CMB rest frame. See CMBR dipole anisotropy. It gives you the reference frame of the universe. And think about how you "measure time" anyway: with a light clock. Using a photon, that's moving. The motion of light defines your time and your distance.If it moves in respect to the inertial observer, then the time measured is taken from the inertial frame of reference, not the photons. I guess the real question remains, what is the preferred frame, one inertial frame or one that has no frame at all?
I think it's important to appreciate that a frame of reference is an abstract thing. In a way, we derive it from the motion of light. Look at the definition of the second and the metre.Manifold1 said:I's waver for the latter since it will never experience a change outside looking at the universe. But I agree, the speed of light is not constant only if our frame of reference is special in some kind of way, outside of special relativity which was an obvious theory anyway.
Hi Manifold, have we met before?
You me, the Earth, the Sun, everything.
It doesn't matter how "respectable" the author of your citation is when he doesn't ''show[] matter is just a form of trapped light.''Easy... http://fqxi.org/data/essay-contest-...f?phpMyAdmin=0c371ccdae9b5ff3071bae814fb4f9e9Can you provide us with one citation from a non-crackpot?
next (o/k) Hestenes is very respectable
Because since Newton, all physical theories have been expressed in math so that they would be precise, communicable and testable descriptions of the behavior of actual phenomena.[rpenner] pumps out a ream of math.
A Catholic bishop would possibly still speak in Latin, the historical language of educated men. (Newton's Principia Mathematica was originally published in Latin.) I have long assumed that 1) you were old enough to be taught Latin as part of standard education and 2) that CoE bishops performed services exclusively in English. Thanks for correcting me on those points. But in fairness, I'm pretty sure you meant to write "invocation", as I don't think any Christian denomination acknowledges spell-casting bishops.He reminds me of a bishop making incantations that he knows his audience won't understand.
My previous [post=3218946]comments[/post] about your analogies with control of physical territory apply; and you only demonstrated that you don't understand differential geometry, the language of General Relativity as [post=3220207]my previous post[/post], linked to "Die Feldgleichungen der Gravitation," demonstrated.I mean, here we are talking about the speed of light, he makes a schoolboy error with his local and non-local, I trounce him, and he runs away.
Post [post=3220040]#888[/post] is the justification for Cartesian coordinates in analytic geometry in flat metrical spaces when said spaces (the Euclidean plane, Minkowski space, etc.) have no natural coordinate system. From the type of bilinear form described by $$\eta$$ (positive definitive in the case of Euclidean geometry, indefinite for Minkowski), one can directly justify a family of continuous transformations of coordinates that describe the same geometric quantities (length and angle in Euclidean geometry, invariant interval and dot-product of four-vectors in Minkowski). Thus if $$\mathcal{M}$$ is the flat manifold where we do geometry and $$\Sigma, \, \Sigma'$$ are two admissible coordinate systems related by this family of continuously parameterized transformations, then this math is saying $$\Sigma$$ and $$\Sigma'$$ are geometrically equivalent descriptions of the same geometry. (Or that the diagram of one-to-one relationships between $$\mathcal{M}, \, \Sigma \; \textrm{and} \; \Sigma'$$ commutes.)Then after he's licked his wounds does he talk physics? No. What does he come up with? This:
How can you tell such whoppers when any audience that understands your words understands the topic demonstrably better than you?All they have done is write a more complex description of an interesting cyclic nature on the basis of $$(x_1,x_2,x_3,x_4)$$ except I explicitly show why these symmetries occur.
That depends on whether the universe is superdeterministic or not ie. (following a cosmological Pilot Wave). This would act as the god-observer for cosmological and sub-system analogies.
This is a very important point that Newton tried to get across in the rewrites of the Principia. Newton was explicit in using a methodology where he would endorse the theory that best captured the mathematical regularities found in the data regardless of whether or not it fit with any particular hypothesis or not. This is important, because while the scientific community at the time was very much against action at a distance, action at a distance was all the regularity that Newton could find and all that could accurately describe gravity. Under this methodology, the very well meaning and conceptually seductive hypothesis that only contact could cause action was not enough to overthrow the mathematical regularities Newton established.Because since Newton, all physical theories have been expressed in math so that they would be precise, communicable and testable descriptions of the behavior of actual phenomena.
So your answer is, "No, I would rather try to deceive you and others by providing a citation that says nothing of the sort."Easy... http://fqxi.org/data/essay-contest-...f?phpMyAdmin=0c371ccdae9b5ff3071bae814fb4f9e9
next (o/k) Hestenes is very respectable, Dirac was in fact one of the first line of respectable physicists who discovered zitter terms between mass and energy linked by a frequency term meaning that it has an internal electron clock $$\psi(\tau)$$.
1916: “In the second place our result shows that, according to the general theory of relativity, the law of the constancy of the velocity of light in vacuo, which constitutes one of the two fundamental assumptions in the special theory of relativity and to which we have already frequently referred, cannot claim any unlimited validity. A curvature of rays of light can only take place when the velocity of propagation of light varies with position”.[/I]
He said light curves because the speed of light varies with position, Because space is inhomogeneous. Because a concentration of energy/matter conditions the surrounding space. And we know about the wave nature of matter.
I'm not mixing anything. Your pencil doesn't fall down because "spacetime in the room is curved".
You're wrong again. The frequency doesn't change at all. You must know this, you must know about E=hf and conservation of energy. When you direct a 511keV photon into a black hole the black hole mass increases by 511keV/c². You measure a higher frequency because you and your clocks go slower when you're lower.
Your imagination has run wild. There is no time flowing in a clock.....
How can you tell such whoppers when any audience that understands your words understands the topic demonstrably better than you?
So your answer is, "No, I would rather try to deceive you and others by providing a citation that says nothing of the sort."
Good for you to identify your character.
do you understand this,You understand textbook knowledge, not the actual understanding of why these symmetries appear in nature... as I said, my matrices prove why they symmetric properties. How that shows you understand something ''demonstrably better'' is without my reach, but what you have shown is there are some complicated math out there, but you haven't proven a thing to me outside of what I already know.
do you understand this,
" 10^10^123
physics breaks down at
10^10^90 "
Where in that paper is the claim that matter "is just a form of trapped light"?More like a propaganda, Hestenes is well-renowned in his field, he is the one who demonstrated geometric Dirac Algebra using a special rotation in the imaginary field, he has shown several methods in his paper, which I gave you, described several situations in which his math suits the predicted model, from the confirmed channeling experiments.
Where in that paper is the claim that matter "is just a form of trapped light"?
exactly.
you should already know.
and yet you continue to spew about somethings.