You fail to realise Alphernumerico that I don't need to find the answers to the issues raised as I already have them, but you cerrtainly most do.....
You fail to realise Alphernumerico that I don't need to find the answers to the issues raised as I already have them, but you cerrtainly most do.....
well until you deal with the issues raised it isn't I who is being the fraud or the idiot...hey I don't care one way or the other....but if you want to go on believing in a potentially flawed light effect model then thats fine by me...And you accuse me of not being open minded! So it seems you've done no actual research and you don't know what relativity says because you deem yourself all knowing, at least in this area of science. So I was right in my assessment, you're a fraud and an idiot.
Thanks for confirming it.
I have. The 'issues' you speak of are not issues in relativity, they are issues in your grasp of a topic you know nothing about.well until you deal with the issues raised
Even if relativity is knocked over tomorrow, it's a sufficiently good theory that it'll be around forever, just like we know Newtonian mechanics is wrong but its good enough to build bridges, design aeroplanes and put a man on the Moon.I don't how ever see how you can though as surely you would like to know whether all your hard effort is in vain or not?
If you refer to the Big Bang concept of t=0 (you earlier confused that and the choice of coordinates t=0) then its irrelevent to special relativity. If you refer to simply picking any particular moment in time and measuring distances within special relativity I've given you the distance formula used by any metric based theory to measure distances. Due to your lack of knowledge of calculus you didn't understand.1] "How can anything exist if there is no time for it to exist in" arguement using t=0 duration [ HSP ] thus when t=0 d = 0.
Absolutely nothing to do with special relativity or its validity. Infact, removing all matter and energy from the universe would make special relativity more correct because space-time would reduce to being Minkowski.2] "If you take all the matter and mass out of the universe do we have a photosphere that is still present and moving and if so how big is it?"
Photons exist. Light obviously exists, the fact you're reading this is proof enough. The quantised nature of light has been verified in a myriad of ways, the first and perhaps simplest way is Planck's method of avoiding the UV catastrophy. Particle accelerators have seen probed the behaviour of light and other particles a great deal. Its non-infinite velocity has been known about for about 250 years and known to parts per billion, at least.3] "Provide unambiguous proof that the photon as a traveling entity even exists" [ remove the possibility that the light effect is not merely a matter or mass effect ]
Firstly, that isn't even a coherent well formed statement and secondly gravity has nothing to do with special relativity, because special relativity is about a gravity-less space-time. Its a pretty basic but fundamental qualitative thing about relativity. And yet you are unfamiliar with it.and I might add you also have a solid explanation for how gravity could be a universal constant..yes?
No, you aren't. If you were honest about wanting to know about relativity you'd not be so pig-ignorant about it and making so many strawmen or false claims about it.I am all ears...if you have...
This is crank speak for "I can't do maths so I don't accept it".Using calculus to solve the paradox of something being able to exist when there is no time for it to exist in is merely a fudge.
Gibberish.When stating the t=0 we are actually stating t=eternity and picking a moment with in that time duration..
No, they are completely consistent. Do you even know how to use them?Thus the transforms provided by Lorentz fail when pushed to extremes.
No, you know we give answers you don't understand, because you learn nothing and know nothing, and therefore you don't accept them.Now I know you will like most adherants to SRT fudge this in to some form that makes it acceptable but I am afraid it doesn't wash.
Asking an incoherent question doesn't make you right. Its possible to talk about relative motion between inertial frames but the question you ask is not well formed. Now you view the fact people don't answer as you somehow being right when infact it's because you're so ignorant of relativity you can't even ask coherent questions.You may also note as I and other readers have that you have avoided dealing with the question:
"How far does an inertial frame travel with in itself in one second?"
And you think you fathom a topic you've never read and can't do?So when you fathom the logic behind the evolution of the energy/mass formlation and then compare how light is used in SRT you can clearly see the screw up.
And we're back to the naive and egotistical belief so many cranks have that all phenomena in the universe should behave in the same way as things common to their everyday life.Double dipping by inadvertently ascribing light a mixture of mass and masslesness properties.
You asked for the demonstration relativity could measure distances at t=0 and I gave it. If I'd explained it in words you'd have complained I lacked justification. So its Catch 22. You're too ignorant and stupid to understand maths so you refuse to accept it. Then, when people explain things to you, you will refuse to accept that due to lack of rigour. You have been 'researching' relativity for a decade but you don't know any maths. This instantly proves you're a fraud. I've been doing relativity based stuff for 6 years and I'm knee deep in books based on relativity (almost literally, I've got half a dozen in arms reach).And I might add if you cannot convert your use of mathematics into plain English, even if it is for your own use then you are merely believing by rote.
So throwing math at someone who is illiterate is no excuse for your own non-understanding of the subject.
Asking an incoherent question doesn't make you right. Its possible to talk about relative motion between inertial frames but the question you ask is not well formed. Now you view the fact people don't answer as you somehow being right when infact it's because you're so ignorant of relativity you can't even ask coherent questions.
No, we can all assume you can't understand what an inertial frame is and so can't form coherent questions relating to them.So we can all assume you cannot answer the question and claim it as incoherant as a cop out
Yeah, its not like I'm published in string theory, a relativistic quantum theory of gravity or I've a distinction in Black Holes as taught by a Cambridge professor who had Hawking as his supervisor or I've taught relativity to undergraduates. You can't even name a book you've read on the topic, I have 3 open infront of me now, I've spent 8 hours today typing up part of my PhD.You are more ignorant of relativity than I thought you were....
You have yet to ask or say anything which makes me, even for a picosecond, worry about the validity of relativity. The fact you're unwilling to put even the smallest effort into finding anything out about relativity (or even basic science it would seem) suggests that the one who is fearful is you. You, like so many cranks, can't accept there's things other people understand that you don't so rather than putting in effort to learn, you prefer to deny the fact you need to learn.You know what the question asks and you know what it implies regarding relativity so you simply throw insult just to hide your fear of dealing with the truth.
Meaningless question because you only define motion relative to things. As I just said, if the iron is in frame S which is moving at velocity v relative to frame S' then after time t it'll have moved a displacement of vt. If S=S' then v=0 and the lump of iron is stationary. Relativity allows you to say "This isn't moving" provided you realise it's only not moving relative to some inertial frame. Right now I'm not moving relative to my desk. I am moving relative to the cars on the motorway.ake a lump of iron with it's own clock and work out how far that lump of iron travels in 1 second. [ remember SRT forbids absolute rest yes? ]
I'd say "An inertial frame S moving relative to an inertial frame S' with velocity v will move how far in time t, relative to S'?"Maybe if you feel the question could be asked in a more precise manner you could suggest the appropriate wording so that we can all look for an appropriate answer?
How would you word the question better?
"How far does an inertial frame travel within itself in 1 second?" ]
No, that isn't correct and you certainly didn't have it 'derived from relativity'. How can you claim "Relativity says...." when you have admitted you don't read anything on relativity?The answer is quite simple and derived from relativity:
The lump of iron mentioned travels within itself exactly the distance light is deemed to travel in that one second.
Nope, complete nonsense. And "oscilating over a null point" is gibberish. What does 'null' mean there? Are you just throwing in buzzwords in the hopes people think you aren't an idiot?So even though it appears to be stationary to itself it is in fact traveling within itself at 'c'. [call it a "vibrational" distance, oscilating over a null point if you like]
Why is c a universal constant is an interesting question but it has nothing to do with the incoherent vomitus BS you're spewing forth.And I bet you would like to know the answer to that one hey?
And we're back to you claiming to have deep answers to a topic you don't read, can't understand and simply lie about. Is your life so pathetic you have to try to validate yourself by lying to strangers online about a subject you know you are completely clueless on, particularly when that stranger teaches and actually researches that subject? All your claims are baseless, all your "Look, SR is inconsistent!" proclamations wrong.Well, you are going to have to work it out for yourself as I am not going to just lay it out as I have been for ages now.
Obviously you cannot answer the question...or more importantly "will not" answer the question because to do so immediately has significant implications...
this and more or coursewhat? what what?
post#47
If you did deal with it you will find that to assume light travels is to actually double up on the time issue, as both matter/mass and our traveling light wave/particle are traveling in synch or at exactly the same rate.
So both matter and light are traveling through time at exactly the same rate. Thus light does not travel relatively to matter but always with matter at the same speed.
Thus light and matter are actually an inertial frame. Hence energy = mass and mass = energy
Doubling up on the use of light as a separate relative v object is half the problem but not all the problem.
If you go back to the basics of how the speed and not velocity of light is calculated or defined you wil lfind that SRT incorreectly uses light as some sort of massive object independently traveling at relative velocity to matter and mass.
AE of course recognised this and developed his successful energy/mass fomulation but he then developed SRT that went on to compromise it. Contradicting his origninal inspiration. [ Thus we have a universe missing a heap of mass and energy according to the formulations used to calculate it]
So when you fathom the logic behind the evolution of the energy/mass formlation and then compare how light is used in SRT you can clearly see the screw up.
Double dipping by inadvertently ascribing light a mixture of mass and masslesness properties.
I answered the question and I challenged you to give sources for your claims. You have avoided answering that. What a surprise.Obviously you cannot answer the question...or more importantly "will not" answer the question because to do so immediately has significant implications...
Gibberish.f you did deal with it you will find that to assume light travels is to actually double up on the time issue, as both matter/mass and our traveling light wave/particle are traveling in synch or at exactly the same rate.
In complete contradiction to the definition of an inertial frame.Thus light and matter are actually an inertial frame. Hence energy = mass and mass = energy
Completely unsupported claim as you are mathematically illiterate and have no way of understanding or doing calculations in special relativity. Thus you are lying and are a fraud.If you go back to the basics of how the speed and not velocity of light is calculated or defined you wil lfind that SRT incorreectly uses light as some sort of massive object independently traveling at relative velocity to matter and mass.
Mass energy predictions/descriptions of SR are one of the most verified concepts in physics. Every single particle accelerator run for a century has backed it up. And they do millions of collisions every day.AE of course recognised this and developed his successful energy/mass fomulation but he then developed SRT that went on to compromise it. Contradicting his origninal inspiration. [ Thus we have a universe missing a heap of mass and energy according to the formulations used to calculate it]
But given you don't know how to do special relativity and you don't read any special relativity how can you make claims about it when you have no way of knowing about it?So when you fathom the logic behind the evolution of the energy/mass formlation and then compare how light is used in SRT you can clearly see the screw up.
Having momentum without rest mass is not inconsistent. The fact you don't understand it doesn't make it wrong, it just means your horizons are a low narrower than you like to think.Double dipping by inadvertently ascribing light a mixture of mass and masslesness properties.
I answered the question and I challenged you to give sources for your claims. You have avoided answering that. What a surprise.
No, we can all assume you can't understand what an inertial frame is and so can't form coherent questions relating to them.
http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2229477&postcount=52Well, seeing as you can not answer a simple question I have no reason to support any claims.
"How far does a lump of iron travel within itself in 1 second?" remembering that no thing is at absolute rest.
note: do you see any reference to SRT in the question?