"Does light move", asked Quantum Quack

[Quantum Quack]

Well...... if you can't prove a photon travels from A to B then why believe it does?
Prove that a photon travels and you also prove that distance across the void of space is real and actual for massless particles.

 

[kurros]

I would argue that relativity is not self consistent mathematically because of one single issue. That being that the value or non-value of zero is relative and no longer absolute. Each relative v observer has a relative zero and suddenly zero is a relative floating value rather than an absolute.
Maybe it is acceptable for zero to be relative to velocity as I am not a mathematician but I would have assumed that zero is zero and not a value that can be relative.
And it is zero, both in reality and in mathematics, that is your "primary" universal constant which S.Relativity makes relative.
Please correct I am if I am wrong...when I say that zero should not be relative...

Hmm, that's kind of a funny statement to make. I'm not sure what you mean by saying that the value of zero is no longer absolute.
The mathematical concept that is zero (i.e. the identity element of the group of real numbers (and many other groups) under addition) is an object of pure thought, it exists in the ideal platonic mathematical world and is totally independent of any theories of physics we might have. It of course has many applications in the real world, but it exists independently of it.
Thus relativity cannot change the meaning or value of the number zero.

If on the other hand you are referring to the values of physically observable quantities that may be predicted using relativity, then I don't see any problem. A quantity (such as velocity, or kinetic energy) may be zero in one reference frame and something else in another. This concept of relativity predates Einstein's relativity by hundreds of years; Galileo is often credited with the classical concept of relativity present in Newtonian mechanics. For example, if I stand next to a freeway I may measure my velocity as zero kph or 100 kph, depending on whether I choose the ground or a passing car as my reference. Neither is more correct than the other, it's just we're used to measuring things relative to the Earth's motion. Einstein's relativity is really just an extension of this concept which results from the postulate that the equations of physics should work just the same in any reference frame and that the speed of light is the same in all those reference frames.
So if you want to disagree about this aspect of relativity you'll have to go back further and disagree with the Galilean relativity from which it originates.

 

[Quantum Quack]

Hmm, that's kind of a funny statement to make. I'm not sure what you mean by saying that the value of zero is no longer absolute.
The mathematical concept that is zero (i.e. the identity element of the group of real numbers (and many other groups) under addition) is an object of pure thought, it exists in the ideal platonic mathematical world and is totally independent of any theories of physics we might have. It of course has many applications in the real world, but it exists independently of it.
Thus relativity cannot change the meaning or value of the number zero.

If on the other hand you are referring to the values of physically observable quantities that may be predicted using relativity, then I don't see any problem. A quantity (such as velocity, or kinetic energy) may be zero in one reference frame and something else in another. This concept of relativity predates Einstein's relativity by hundreds of years; Galileo is often credited with the classical concept of relativity present in Newtonian mechanics. For example, if I stand next to a freeway I may measure my velocity as zero kph or 100 kph, depending on whether I choose the ground or a passing car as my reference. Neither is more correct than the other, it's just we're used to measuring things relative to the Earth's motion. Einstein's relativity is really just an extension of this concept which results from the postulate that the equations of physics should work just the same in any reference frame and that the speed of light is the same in all those reference frames.
So if you want to disagree about this aspect of relativity you'll have to go back further and disagree with the Galilean relativity from which it originates.

Not quite sure how to explain this but it is not velocity iteself that is the concern but how relative velocity generates a "relative zero" not unlike time dilation and contraction effects according to SR. he relative zero in question is not simply a mathematical construct but a universal reality [according to SR IMO ]
SR predicts that relative-simultaneity is generated by the effect of relative velocity but what is failed to be realised is this also means that relative zero is also the outcome.

The HSP's of each observer involved all have relative "zero" duration meaning that the moment between past and future light cones is relative but only as zero. [thus zero has acquired a relative condition with the use of SR]
Now IMO apart from being a "fudge" of the time line it also means that the mechanism supporting universal constants is also variant or relative to velocity. Thus the gravitational constant of an obejct at relative velocity must also be relative. [ which can not possibly be the case as the universe would disintergrate into utter chaos if so.

Under the SR paradigm there can be NO mechanism to support universal constants and that is the problem [ relative zero] [ ....I am referring to something that can somehow spread the entire universe including it's spacial volume and produce a single constant universally and SR actually destroys any possibility of such a univeral constant from existing, all because science believes in a photon travelling from A TO B across space with out any evidence to support that belief]

All we have is an light effect at any given location and not much more....this does not demonstrate travelling even though it MAY give that impression.

 

[kurros]

You'll still have to tell me what HSP stands for, I can't really make sense of the rest of what you're saying without it.
You say "Thus the gravitational constant of an obejct at relative velocity must also be relative", but Newton's gravitational constant G is not attached to any particular object, it is universal (as far as anyone can tell so far). Mass is relative, and the gravitational fields are relative, is this what you are referring to?
I think you'll have to explain what you mean by this "relative zero" concept some more also. Numbers have little to do with physical reality except as a nifty way of counting things (perhaps in extremely complex ways, but still counting nonetheless). Every number in a physical theory is either attached to a physical observable quantity, describes a ratio of physical observable quantities or describes some proportionality between physical observables (the physical constants we are talking about fall into the last category).
Are you trying to suggest that SRT alters something beyond our description of those physically observable quantities (mass, length, time etc?)

 

[Quantum Quack]

You'll still have to tell me what HSP stands for, I can't really make sense of the rest of what you're saying without it.
You say "Thus the gravitational constant of an obejct at relative velocity must also be relative", but Newton's gravitational constant G is not attached to any particular object, it is universal (as far as anyone can tell so far). Mass is relative, and the gravitational fields are relative, is this what you are referring to?
I think you'll have to explain what you mean by this "relative zero" concept some more also. Numbers have little to do with physical reality except as a nifty way of counting things (perhaps in extremely complex ways, but still counting nonetheless). Every number in a physical theory is either attached to a physical observable quantity, describes a ratio of physical observable quantities or describes some proportionality between physical observables (the physical constants we are talking about fall into the last category).
Are you trying to suggest that SRT alters something beyond our description of those physically observable quantities (mass, length, time etc?)

Hyper surface of the present [ HSP ]

 

[AlphaNumeric]

I would argue that relativity is not self consistent mathematically because of one single issue.

It's proven special relativity is mathematically consistent, because it's simply the geometry of Minkowski space-time. If special relativity is mathematically inconsistent then so would the mathematics of the group SO(3,1), which is the symmetry group of 3+1 dimensional space-time. But the mathematics of such groups is well established and independent of doing experiments.

And QQ, you completely ignored that I'd given conclusive proof you're a liar. That isn't me attacking your character without warrant, you said I had argued for the notion of absolute rest, which is a categorical lie. You attempted to paint me in a bad light by lying about things I've said and I called you on it. If you're willing to lie to me about things I've said then it calls into question any of your other claims about what relativity says, many of which I've already corrected you on. Time and again you have lied or made deliberate effort to avoid answering questions like "So what did you spend that time doing?" when you claimed you have spent 20 years on this stuff. Another lie?

You retorted nothing in my post, just continued with your Kent Hovind Challenge, trying to convince yourself you're proving science wrong. You have been unable to retort things provided to you, you refuse to engage in discussion on published papers, which I even doubt you understand as you clearly have done little or no science at or beyond high school level. You're insufficiently educated or intelligent to understand relativity and s you don't like it. I'd have thought someone of your age would have learnt there's a lot in the world beyond his reach, I realised it for me years ago. Clearly age has brought you neither wisdom or understanding.

Of course if I'm wrong, link to a post of mine where I said absolute rest exists in relativity. Or can't you?

 

[Quantum Quack]

It's proven special relativity is mathematically consistent, because it's simply the geometry of Minkowski space-time. If special relativity is mathematically inconsistent then so would the mathematics of the group SO(3,1), which is the symmetry group of 3+1 dimensional space-time. But the mathematics of such groups is well established and independent of doing experiments.

And QQ, you completely ignored that I'd given conclusive proof you're a liar. That isn't me attacking your character without warrant, you said I had argued for the notion of absolute rest, which is a categorical lie. You attempted to paint me in a bad light by lying about things I've said and I called you on it. If you're willing to lie to me about things I've said then it calls into question any of your other claims about what relativity says, many of which I've already corrected you on. Time and again you have lied or made deliberate effort to avoid answering questions like "So what did you spend that time doing?" when you claimed you have spent 20 years on this stuff. Another lie?

You retorted nothing in my post, just continued with your Kent Hovind Challenge, trying to convince yourself you're proving science wrong. You have been unable to retort things provided to you, you refuse to engage in discussion on published papers, which I even doubt you understand as you clearly have done little or no science at or beyond high school level. You're insufficiently educated or intelligent to understand relativity and s you don't like it. I'd have thought someone of your age would have learnt there's a lot in the world beyond his reach, I realised it for me years ago. Clearly age has brought you neither wisdom or understanding.

Of course if I'm wrong, link to a post of mine where I said absolute rest exists in relativity. Or can't you?

again you have failed to address the issue raised.

of course SR is mathematically consistent blah blah blah... but not address the complaint against it. [ which is why SR is mathematically consistent because in your view it warrants no such investigation]

You have also failed to address any single issue raised adequately.


You have failed to show how universal constants can be possible under the SR paradigm.
You have failed to grasp that mass is changing at the rate of 'c'
and you could not possibly comprehend that "relative zero" is the outcome of SR.
You have failed to show evidence of a traveling photons existence.
So all in all you have shown only one thing....how you are unable to support the theory you cherish so much.
And whats more, most people reading this thread can see it....
This thread was posted to enquirer as to the reality of evidence that supports our current view of the photon.

And so far all you have done is tried to discredit any attempt to do so, which can only lead to one single assessment. That you can't support your pet theory.

So what have you been doing for the last 20 years....hmmmmm....obviously not much....playing mathematical games with fictional fantasy objects......a video game called "Photon".
As far as you know, an very quick, invisible little pink elephant accompanied by a flying pig visits the source of light and puts a little packet of energy in a hand bag and then carries it on an elevator to the destination depositing it and dialing up the color it wants to give the universe an effect called light....
Sure the model you cherish is more efficient but hey who says the universe has to be efficient....
So I think the pink elephant light model is better because it is more fun....
So ask me to show evidence of pink elephants and flying pigs and I will ask you to show evidence of a traveling photon. In fact $100 usd is up for grabs to any one who can show evidence of a traveling photon in transit between objects and whats more I'll make it $200 usd for evidence of flying pigs....

 

[Quantum Quack]

You'll still have to tell me what HSP stands for, I can't really make sense of the rest of what you're saying without it.
You say "Thus the gravitational constant of an obejct at relative velocity must also be relative", but Newton's gravitational constant G is not attached to any particular object, it is universal (as far as anyone can tell so far). Mass is relative, and the gravitational fields are relative, is this what you are referring to?
I think you'll have to explain what you mean by this "relative zero" concept some more also. Numbers have little to do with physical reality except as a nifty way of counting things (perhaps in extremely complex ways, but still counting nonetheless). Every number in a physical theory is either attached to a physical observable quantity, describes a ratio of physical observable quantities or describes some proportionality between physical observables (the physical constants we are talking about fall into the last category).
Are you trying to suggest that SRT alters something beyond our description of those physically observable quantities (mass, length, time etc?)

any ways this thread is not about disproving SRT it is actually about finding evidence that supports the light effect model. [which SRT and in fact most of scientific theory rely upon to be valid]

 

[Quantum Quack]

"all you gotta do is put the photon where it belongs" and it aint travelling from A to B because it is already at A and B.
Put the "photon" in the mass/matter and drop the BS about it travelling across space and you have solved just about all there is to solve.

 

[kurros]

"Hyper surface of the present [ HSP ]"
Ok, makes a little more sense now. I assume you mean something like a hypersurface on which all observers will agree on the time-ordering of all events, or who via some method can communicate with each other and ensure their clocks all agree.

"The HSP's of each observer involved all have relative "zero" duration meaning that the moment between past and future light cones is relative but only as zero. [thus zero has acquired a relative condition with the use of SR]"

My conclusion from that argument is not that "zero" has acquired a relative condition, but rather that the concept of "the present" has acquired a relative condition. The fact that the HSP's have zero duration simply expresses the common definition of "the present" as it would be agreed on by observers on that HSP. Observers on other HSP's will disagree with this definition, and so it no longer is possible to universally define what "the present" is. Regions of the past and future become similarly blurry leading to all the usual relative simultaneity phenomena.

 

[Quantum Quack]

"Hyper surface of the present [ HSP ]"
Ok, makes a little more sense now. I assume you mean something like a hypersurface on which all observers will agree on the time-ordering of all events, or who via some method can communicate with each other and ensure their clocks all agree.

"The HSP's of each observer involved all have relative "zero" duration meaning that the moment between past and future light cones is relative but only as zero. [thus zero has acquired a relative condition with the use of SR]"

My conclusion from that argument is not that "zero" has acquired a relative condition, but rather that the concept of "the present" has acquired a relative condition. The fact that the HSP's have zero duration simply expresses the common definition of "the present" as it would be agreed on by observers on that HSP. Observers on other HSP's will disagree with this definition, and so it no longer is possible to universally define what "the present" is. Regions of the past and future become similarly blurry leading to all the usual relative simultaneity phenomena.

interesting way of putting it...differentiating between a HSP and "the present" is, in SR terms, a little difficult to see how you rationally can.

Say we have a set of universal or global light cones and then we have a set of relative v observer light cones and so on. The point between the past and future is all that exists [ the future being a prediction and the past historical]
Now SR allows all cones to coincide at this point yet allows that point to be relative, that point of course is zero in duration. Thus in abstraction, that existence, the present moment, is zero in substance as it is only the potential inherent in mass and matter and constant change that grants it substance....hmmmmm......[ no absolute rest meaning that zero is the only no-thing that has absolute rest - aka nothing has absolute rest ...therefore SR forces zero [ zero duration ] to be relative and not absolute [ in a sense relative HSPs = relative zero durations] then absolute rest [zero] is relative as well

ahh...perhaps another thread....

 

[Neddy Bate]

"Hyper surface of the present [ HSP ]"
Ok, makes a little more sense now. I assume you mean something like a hypersurface on which all observers will agree on the time-ordering of all events, or who via some method can communicate with each other and ensure their clocks all agree.

"The HSP's of each observer involved all have relative "zero" duration meaning that the moment between past and future light cones is relative but only as zero. [thus zero has acquired a relative condition with the use of SR]"

My conclusion from that argument is not that "zero" has acquired a relative condition, but rather that the concept of "the present" has acquired a relative condition. The fact that the HSP's have zero duration simply expresses the common definition of "the present" as it would be agreed on by observers on that HSP. Observers on other HSP's will disagree with this definition, and so it no longer is possible to universally define what "the present" is. Regions of the past and future become similarly blurry leading to all the usual relative simultaneity phenomena.

kurros is finding the answer

 

[kurros]

"differentiating between a HSP and "the present" is, in SR terms, a little difficult to see how you rationally can"

I only mean "the present" as a particular observer at some point on a HSP would experience it. By the definition of a HSP all other observers on that plane would be able to come to an agreement about the meaning of that concept (because they could all agree on some reference event in the past, set their stopwatches to be zero at that event, then agree exactly on how much time has elapsed since that event, assuming perfect stopwatches, thus defining a time coordinate for the present. Observers on other HSP's would then necessarily *disagree* with the first group about how much time had elapsed, and thus would record different time coordinates for the present. This is the best they can do as far as discussing the question of "when is the present?" because they cannot compare experiences directly.)

"we have a set of universal or global light cones and then we have a set of relative v observer light cones and so on."
I'm not sure what distinction you are making between global and observer light cones. One of the beautiful features of SR is the light cones are *not* relative objects. All observers everywhere will agree on what each others light cones are, in the sense that they will agree whether or not any arbitrary spacetime event lies inside or outside each others lightcones. This is how causality is maintained in SR; there exists a frame invariant concept of the past and future to each observer, i.e. there is a globally defined seperation between the events that lie in their past light cones and the events that lie in their future light cones. Events outside an observers light cone are causally disconnected from them, and cannot be uniquely classified as being in their past, present or future.

"Now SR allows all cones to coincide at this point yet allows that point to be relative"
All the cones certainly don't coincide at a single point; if we are looking at observers on some HSP then their various light cones intersect their spatial locations on that HSP, so unless they are all in the same place their lightcones certainly don't converge. Again this expresses the idea that the past and future are concepts that in SR must be defined with respect to a particular space-time event. Thus there is no unique definition of "the present moment".

 

[Steve100]

and whats more, most people reading this thread can see it....

haha

 

[Quantum Quack]

"Now SR allows all cones to coincide at this point yet allows that point to be relative"
All the cones certainly don't coincide at a single point; if we are looking at observers on some HSP then their various light cones intersect their spatial locations on that HSP, so unless they are all in the same place their lightcones certainly don't converge. Again this expresses the idea that the past and future are concepts that in SR must be defined with respect to a particular space-time event. Thus there is no unique definition of "the present moment".

I should have been more specific when I said coincide on a single point. I was referring to a single point in time not spacial location.

 

[Quantum Quack]

haha

hey Steve any news on our flying pig called photon?

Should have found him by now!
$100 and a serving of bacon for breaky....if you can

 

[Quantum Quack]

Kurros, You seem to have at least some idea of what you are talking about.
So I'll ask whether of not it is relevant to place a photon in the middle between the future and past light cones after all that is what they are yes? [ light cones]

And can we state that it is only in this position in time between future and past that a photon could possibly exist. If it exists at all it must exist only between future and past.

And if so what does it tell you about the nature of time and our "flying" pig called photon?


testing:
If the speed of light is invariant then so to must the speed of time or the rate of time [ change ] also be invariant.
In fact time dilation relies entirely on the invariant nature of change rate, time, light speed. [re: universal constant: inertia]

If I am not mistaken IMO the most incredible thing that Albert Einsteins' inspiration acheived was putting the light effect [events], smack bang between the future and past and declaring it's speed invariant.

 

[Quantum Quack]

kurros is finding the answer

to what? Our missing photon? gooody ..bacon for breakfast!

Pic taken Melbourne Australia April,2009

 

[AlphaNumeric]

of course SR is mathematically consistent blah blah blah..

Yet another sudden U turn from you.

You have failed to show how universal constants can be possible under the SR paradigm.
You have failed to grasp that mass is changing at the rate of 'c'
and you could not possibly comprehend that "relative zero" is the outcome of SR.

Strawmen. Other than c there are no universal constants in special relativity. And you don't even formulate your complaint properly. Why do you think special relativity recludes the mass of the electron being a set value? And you give no evidence that 'mass is changing at a rate of c', infact you don't seem seem aware that it not a rate of change for mass. And your third complaint I've already disproven, showing the space-time metric of special relativity gives non-zero distances at instants in time.

You have failed to show evidence of a traveling photons existence.

You have failed to retort anything I've provided. You've failed to link to mainstream evidence and retort that.

So all in all you have shown only one thing....how you are unable to support the theory you cherish so much.
And whats more, most people reading this thread can see it....
This thread was posted to enquirer as to the reality of evidence that supports our current view of the photon.

No, you had already made up your mind, you have not been an open minded enquirer. If you were open minded, you'd not be repeatedly lying. You'd have made an effort in your supposed 20 years of work to actually read what relativity says. You yourself admit you don't read any relativity because you know it to be wrong, which shows how you have no intention of engaging in honest discussion. Anyone who is interested and reading this thread needs only to go to Google.

That you can't support your pet theory.

Yes, relativity, a theory which is older than myself by about 8 decades is my 'pet theory'. Never mind its part of all the particle physics which explains the behaviour of matter or plays a part in our understanding of such things as GPS systems or superconductors or even the colour of Gold. Special relativity has passed every test put to it, you just refuse to look at it.

So what have you been doing for the last 20 years....hmmmmm....obviously not much....playing mathematical games with fictional fantasy objects......a video game called "Photon".

20 years ago I was 5. So in the last 20 years I've gone from having basic numeracy and reading skills to engaging in research of cutting edge theoretical physics. You have gone nowhere. Says a lot on the effort and ability of each of us, doesn't it?

In fact $100 usd is up for grabs to any one who can show evidence of a traveling photon in transit between objects and whats more I'll make it $200 usd for evidence of flying pigs.

Still trying to emulate Kent Hovind. If you're so right, why aren't you publishing your 'work' in reputable journals?

 

[Quantum Quack]

Yet another sudden U turn from you.

Strawmen. Other than c there are no universal constants in special relativity. And you don't even formulate your complaint properly. Why do you think special relativity recludes the mass of the electron being a set value? And you give no evidence that 'mass is changing at a rate of c', infact you don't seem seem aware that it not a rate of change for mass. And your third complaint I've already disproven, showing the space-time metric of special relativity gives non-zero distances at instants in time.

You have failed to retort anything I've provided. You've failed to link to mainstream evidence and retort that.

No, you had already made up your mind, you have not been an open minded enquirer. If you were open minded, you'd not be repeatedly lying. You'd have made an effort in your supposed 20 years of work to actually read what relativity says. You yourself admit you don't read any relativity because you know it to be wrong, which shows how you have no intention of engaging in honest discussion. Anyone who is interested and reading this thread needs only to go to Google.

Yes, relativity, a theory which is older than myself by about 8 decades is my 'pet theory'. Never mind its part of all the particle physics which explains the behaviour of matter or plays a part in our understanding of such things as GPS systems or superconductors or even the colour of Gold. Special relativity has passed every test put to it, you just refuse to look at it.

20 years ago I was 5. So in the last 20 years I've gone from having basic numeracy and reading skills to engaging in research of cutting edge theoretical physics. You have gone nowhere. Says a lot on the effort and ability of each of us, doesn't it?

Still trying to emulate Kent Hovind. If you're so right, why aren't you publishing your 'work' in reputable journals?

all I gotta say to you Alphanumeric is:

with out evidence of the traveling photon your pet pig, Special Relativity, is dead in the water and you know it....