"Does light move", asked Quantum Quack

[Quantum Quack]

http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2229477&postcount=52

I responded to it multiple times. Obviously you're having to resorting to lying now.

And you are ignoring my challenge you back up anything you say. Can't justify your BS?

yes and your answer was just plain flaming:

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 where's your answer, as maybe you are mistaken....
"How far does a lump of iron travel within itself in 1 second?"
I don't need to back up my questions Alphanumeric but you need to back up your PHD.

All I am doing is asking questions and if answered may lead on to other things...

If you can't answer then that leads on to other things as well....

1] I ask for evidence that clearly demonstrates that the light effect is not merely a mass or matter inertia effect that is being interpreted as a traveling photon effect.
I ask the question
2] How far does a lump of iron travel within itself in 1 second? as a lead into understanding why I ask these questions.
I asked:
3] How can anything exist when there is not time for it to exist in? regarding the HSP used in SRT.

 

[Quantum Quack]

Just to answer your question, light DOES move. Have you ever heard that it takes around 8 minutes for the sun's light to reach earth. Even with light speed it still takes that long 'cause the sun is so far away. Also, let's say a star millions and millions light years away blew up. We wouldn't notice until millions and millions of years later (or something like that), because it would take that long for the light from there all the way to here to disappear. Also, just like radio waves and microwaves, light is also a wave. We can just happen to see it. Have you ever heard of infrared waves? They're called infrared because it's "right beside" visible light waves. In fact, they're to the left of red in ROY G BIV waves. Same goes with ultraviolet. To the right of violet in ROY G BIV. That's all...

all this is demonstrating is an effect called light and not the cause of that effect.

Prove or supply unambiguous evidence of that cause and I will rest my case.

 

[AlphaNumeric]

yes and your answer was just plain flaming:

But your statements prove you don't know what an inertial frame is. Therefore you cannot make any correct statements about inertial frames and so your criticisms of SR are wrong.

"How far does a lump of iron travel within itself in 1 second?"

I answered several times. Here's the specific reply you didn't understand:

An inertial frame S moving relative to an inertial frame S' with velocity v will move a distance vt in a time t. If S = S' so that the motion of S is defined relative to itself then v=0 so d=0.

I don't need to back up my questions

So its one rule for you and a different rule for everyone else? If you're right and I'm so wrong and scared why can't you back up your claims?

but you need to back up your PHD.

Yesterday I worked from 2pm to 2am on my thesis, with breaks for food or forum browsing interspersed through that. I don't have to spend time constructing my replies to you, I type them off the top of my head. I spent more time reading books and papers yesterday than you have in a decade, so don't try the "You need to get back to your work", at least I've actually done work in physics, not just made a bunch of unsupported ignorant lies.

1] I ask for evidence that clearly demonstrates that the light effect is not merely a mass or matter inertia effect that is being interpreted as a traveling photon effect.

So you can ask me for evidence of my claims but when I ask you you don't have to provide anything? How hypocritical.

Photons don't obey the Pauli exclusion principle, that's experimentally verified. Therefore they are not what we call 'matter'. The fact you don't read anything about physics and therefore don't know these results doesn't mean you're right.

2] How far does a lump of iron travel within itself in 1 second? as a lead into understanding why I ask these questions.

Already answered multiple times, obviously you're either too stupid or too deceitful to respond.

3] How can anything exist when there is not time for it to exist in? regarding the HSP used in SRT.

This is a question entirely built on your ignorance. You have no knowledge of anything to do with space-time or building consistent spaces, with or without time and so you believe there's something wrong with the people who aren't as ignorant as you. Further more it means that any informed answer to your question you'll not understand and therefore think noone can answer your question so you must be right, when infact your claims depend entirely on your ignorance and dishonesty.

Notice how I can answer each of your questions effortlessly while you have to repeatedly dodgy mine. Notice how I don't have to lie about my level of effort and knowledge in this while you claim to have researched SR for a decade but not read any books on it and you think you know what SR is all about.

Do you have a job? I struggle to imagine someone as obviously detached from reality as you being able to hold down employment for long. You firmly believe you're right over anyone whose more informed and more hard working than you, hardly makes for smooth office relations.

 

[Quantum Quack]

An inertial frame S moving relative to an inertial frame S' with velocity v will move a distance vt in a time t. If S = S' so that the motion of S is defined relative to itself then v=0 so d=0.

you are answering the wrong question or can't you tell... what question are you answering?
The lump of iron is not traveling relative to anything outside itself.

how did you miss that bit?

Notice how I can answer each of your questions effortlessly while you have to repeatedly dodgy mine. Notice how I don't have to lie about my level of effort and knowledge in this while you claim to have researched SR for a decade but not read any books on it and you think you know what SR is all about.

problem is you are so full of your own ego- la-grandeousa that you are answering the wrong questions...read the questions again....

Do you really expect me to anwser your flaming?
Your false accusations and somehow support your illusions?

 

[Quantum Quack]

I have reread you last post and the funny thing is there is not a single mention any where of anything to do with the questions raised.
I can only wonder how you can spend your time writing a thesis if the content is just as lacking.
verbose and vitriolic nonsense!

maybe 500 words or more and none of it of any value to you or any one....

 

[AlphaNumeric]

problem is you are so full of your own ego

And you, someone who doesn't read or do any relativity and can't understand its language, mathematics, who proclaims himself more knowledgable in relativity than anyone else in the world isn't egotistical?

I'm confident in my knowledge and I can back up that confidence. The fact you've avoided providing a single iota of back up for your claims proves you know, deep down, you're full of BS. If I'm so wrong and egotistical prove it. Prove my accusations you're a liar and an idiot are wrong. Haven't managed it yet.

 

[Quantum Quack]

And you, someone who doesn't read or do any relativity and can't understand its language, mathematics, who proclaims himself more knowledgable in relativity than anyone else in the world isn't egotistical?

I'm confident in my knowledge and I can back up that confidence. The fact you've avoided providing a single iota of back up for your claims proves you know, deep down, you're full of BS. If I'm so wrong and egotistical prove it. Prove my accusations you're a liar and an idiot are wrong. Haven't managed it yet.

maybe we should start a thread just for your benefit....

Alphanumeric misses his chance at fame.....
resorts to vitriolic personality assassination simply because he can't answer the questions raised. And you claim to be an academic...ha

I note again you last post has no value what so ever.

And I might add I don't have to prove anything but you do....

 

[Quantum Quack]

The questions are valid and they wont go away....10 years from now you will still be thinking about them....

 

[Quantum Quack]

the issue regarding the traveling photon can be seen when applied to gravity..hey let's create a graviton and claim it travels at the speed of light....and why not the model for light has fooled every one for 100's of years...
I suppose vacant space or vacuum can travel at the speed of light too....and I am sure if you tried hard enough you could prove it using a mass / matter object to do so....

bah what a fudge...

 

[Oli]

The lump of iron is not traveling relative to anything outside itself.

Then it's not moving.
Which has been pointed out in Alpha's posts

how did you miss that bit?

Quite

 

[Quantum Quack]

Then it's not moving.
Which has been pointed out in Alpha's posts


Quite

I suppose the iron has no atomic structure?
It is pefectly still with in itself ? Defying the principle of no absolute rest.
That things are not moving within the lump of iron itself?
That energy is not moving with in the iron?

and at what speed is that energy do you think?

That the lump of iron will stay exactly the same unchanging for eternity? [ assume it is in a vacuum ]?
some sort of suspended animation like taking a photo perhaps?
and you look at me as if I am the daft one?
Do a light/em cone diagram for the iron ....and you will see what I mean...

the light cone diagrams apply to the observer object as well as light/em btw...

 

[Oli]

I suppose the iron has no atomic structure?
It is pefectly still with in itself ?

But that isn't the iron as the lump of iron - that's the sub-structure. And any movement there isn't unidirectional.

Defying the principle of no absolute rest.

Well you're the one that stated "not relative to anything else"

That things are not moving within the lump of iron itself?
That energy is not moving with in the iron?

Within the iron is not the the whole of the iron itself.

and you look at me as if I am the daft one?

Absolutely: because you are.

Do a light/em cone diagram for the iron ....and you will see what I mean...

No need.
Your argument (such as it is) is based entirely on your misunderstanding.
Alpha has pointed out your errors several times, and still you persist in misconstruing.
Is that not a good definition of daft?

 

[Quantum Quack]

Imagine our lump of iron is in the middle between the future and past "time" [light] cones.

so how far does the lump of iron travel within itself in 1 second?
the answer can only be "the same distance that light travels in 1 second"

Now, our graduate AlphaNumerico should have known that but obviously didn't as he chose to flame instead.
If I am wrong I would be most surprised...as to be wrong throws SRT out the window any way....

 

[Quantum Quack]

But that isn't the iron as the lump of iron - that's the sub-structure. And any movement there isn't unidirectional.


Well you're the one that stated "not relative to anything else"


Within the iron is not the the whole of the iron itself.


Absolutely: because you are.


No need.
Your argument (such as it is) is based entirely on your misunderstanding.
Alpha has pointed out your errors several times, and still you persist in misconstruing.
Is that not a good definition of daft?

so you misunderstood the question, my bad!

 

[Oli]

No.
The lump of of iron does not travel "within" itself at all.
And unfortunately you ARE wrong but you're too wedded to your false view of things to understand that, so you're unlikely to be surprised.

 

[Enmos]

Imagine our lump of iron is in the middle between the future and past "time" [light] cones.

so how far does the lump of iron travel within itself in 1 second?
the answer can only be "the same distance that light travels in 1 second"

Now, our graduate AlphaNumerico should have known that but obviously didn't as he chose to flame instead.
If I am wrong I would be most surprised...as to be wrong throws SRT out the window any way....

Only if yesterday exists today.

 

[Quantum Quack]

But that isn't the iron as the lump of iron - that's the sub-structure. And any movement there isn't unidirectional

does it have to be unidirectional to travel distance?

Well you're the one that stated "not relative to anything else"

what do you think the words "within itself" mean?

Within the iron is not the the whole of the iron itself.

semantics. what do you mean "whole of the iron" when I clearly asked about "with in itself - a lump of iron".

Absolutely: because you are.

pity, to resort to flaming is the last resort of a looser!

No need.
Your argument (such as it is) is based entirely on your misunderstanding.
Alpha has pointed out your errors several times, and still you persist in misconstruing.
Is that not a good definition of daft?

All Alpha has shown is that he is ignorant of what "no absolute rest" means and why it is so using the Minkowsky/Eintein space time paradigm.
[ which I added to the question on many occassisons as a clue.]

and yes it shows exactly who is daft and it aint me....

 

[Quantum Quack]

Only if yesterday exists today.

or is that tomorrow exists yesterday....bah!

 

[Enmos]

or is that tomorrow exists yesterday....bah!

You don't see the point I'm making ?
Yesterday doesn't exist anymore.

 

[Quantum Quack]

You don't see the point I'm making ?
Yesterday doesn't exist anymore.

tell that to the relativists not me.... they use the light cone diagram all the time.....
philosophically yesterdays accumulate to make the present so yes they do exist as a part of the present moment....ever heard of the time travel paradox ? "when the past is altered the present is lost."