"Does light move", asked Quantum Quack

[Oli]

does it have to be unidirectional to travel distance?

With no unidirectionality the iron as a lump will not travel anywhere.
The individual motions cancel out and the iron does not move.

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

So if you consider the Earth as the lump of iron and humans as the sub-structure does the movement of humans make the Earth move?

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

The lump AS a lump, not a conglomerate of particles.
That's where your misunderstanding seems to have occurred.
The internal structure is NOT the lump itself.

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

I merely answered your question.
(And the word you're maybe looking for is "loser").

All Alpha has shown is that he is ignorant of what "no absolute rest" means.

On the contrary, it's you that has no idea whatsoever.

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

See what I mean about being wedded to your false view?
No, apparently not...

 

[Enmos]

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."

:bugeye:
The lump of iron of t=-.000000000000001 doesn't exist in t=0. So how is the lump of iron traveling in itself ?

 

[Quantum Quack]

With no unidirectionality the iron as a lump will not travel anywhere.
The individual motions cancel out and the iron does not move.

of course the lump of iron is externally stationary to itself....sheesh!

but distance has been travelled has it not? even if cancellation of movement overall is acheived.

So if you consider the Earth as the lump of iron and humans as the sub-structure does the movement of humans make the Earth move?

The lump AS a lump, not a conglomerate of particles.
That's where your misunderstanding seems to have occurred.
The internal structure is NOT the lump itself.

I am not asking about movement of the iron other than with itself [ it's whole self]
other wise it would have to be relative to another object.

I merely answered your question.
(And the word you're maybe looking for for is "loser").

you got it ....glad you understand the point !

On the contrary, it's you that has no idea whatsoever.

hmmmm.....I have no idea why you are so hostile...true....

See what I mean about being wedded to your false view?
No, apparently not...

what , are you saying that absolute rest is ok?
.

Have another reminder of the light/time cones

and work it out for yourself.......

 

[Quantum Quack]

:bugeye:
The lump of iron of t=-.000000000000001 doesn't exist in t=0. So how is the lump of iron traveling in itself ?

Look, the iron is changing all the time as time progresses and it is changing at the rate of 'c'...simple. thus energy = mass and mass = energy [ simplified ok]
thus if t= 0 duration then nothing exists...

"if there is zero duration for a photon to exist in can the photon exist?"

 

[Enmos]

Look, the iron is changing all the time as time progresses and it is changing at the rate of 'c'...simple. thus energy = mass and mass = energy [ simplified ok]
thus if t= 0 duration then nothing exists...

I don't even know what your trying to say.

As far as I can tell you are denying the existence of time, while not denying change..
And t=0 isn't a duration.

 

[Quantum Quack]

I don't even know what your trying to say.

As far as I can tell you are denying the existence of time, while not denying change..
And t=0 isn't a duration.

t=0 can be a few things...and duration is one of them.
The Hyper surface as presented by the light cones diagram is t=0 duration.
That being the point in time between future and past is zero in duration.
t=0[sub]hsp[/sub] or similar notation depending on the school you belong to. [ I've seen it writen in about 4 different ways so don't blame me...]

 

[Oli]

Look, the iron is changing all the time as time progresses and it is changing at the rate of 'c'

No, that's an assumption you've made.
With no supporting evidence.

 

[Quantum Quack]

I don't even know what your trying to say.

everything is in constant change [ no absolute rest allowed ]
that change happens at a rate of 'c'.
for mass /matter it happens internally and according to SRT it happens externally as well [ aka travelling photon ]
Time dillation is a time [ energy ] compensation due to attemptng to exceed the inherant 'c' of matter/mass. [ nothing can go faster than 'c' so time is compensated when an object does get pushed beyond it's inherant rate of 'c']

 

[Quantum Quack]

No, that's an assumption you've made.
With no supporting evidence.

I think the light cone diagrams support it very well thank you very much...
or would you care to explain how they don't?

 

[Quantum Quack]

No, that's an assumption you've made.
With no supporting evidence.

ahh but at least I think you are starting to see the point I am attempting to clarify.

 

[Oli]

No, I understood your point and have also shown where you're wrong.
The components of the system (i.e. the particles in the iron) are not the system itself (the lump).
There is no movement of the iron.

 

[Quantum Quack]

gotta remember that lights speed is invariant in a vacuum, meaning that it travels no faster nor does it travel slower than the prescribed speed.

it's speed is fixed. The invariance of light with in that lump of iron is in fact what grants it it's inertia [universal constant] [ or at least that is the ultimate conclusion one can make ]

>reaches for a text book ....and finds nothing on the subject....

 

[Quantum Quack]

No, I understood your point and have also shown where you're wrong.
The components of the system (i.e. the particles in the iron) are not the system itself (the lump).
There is no movement of the iron.

but there is movement in the iron yes?
that is to say that the iron is changing yes?

and if so at what fundamental or base rate is that change do you think?

lets keep the light cones in view

 

[Oli]

it's speed is fixed. The invariance of light with in that lump of iron is in fact what grants it it's inertia [universal constant] [ or at least that is the ultimate conclusion one can make ]

That's an assumption.

but there is movement in the iron yes?
that is to say that the iron is changing yes?

Yes.

and if so at what fundamental or base rate is that change do you think?

The chemical changes?

[quote[lets keep the light cones in view

You're introducing things for the sake of it.
Waaay off the point.

 

[fedr808]

Doesn't the fact that solar sails atually move by using sunlight to power them prove the point that light moves? if light doesnt move than how do they work?

 

[EndLightEnd]

everything is in constant change [ no absolute rest allowed ]

I agree.

that change happens at a rate of 'c'.
for mass /matter it happens internally and according to SRT it happens externally as well [ aka travelling photon ]

Need some clarification here...

Time dillation is a time [ energy ] compensation due to attemptng to exceed the inherant 'c' of matter/mass. [ nothing can go faster than 'c' so time is compensated when an object does get pushed beyond it's inherant rate of 'c']

This makes sense to me.

it's speed is fixed. The invariance of light with in that lump of iron is in fact what grants it it's inertia [universal constant] [ or at least that is the ultimate conclusion one can make ]

That's an assumption.

Sure its an assumption, but were playing with ideas here, rolling them around to see what we can get out of them; sometimes assumptions have to be a part of that process. Besides I do not see how this is any worse than assuming the Higgs field exists.

All we really know is that inertia exists.

>reaches for a text book ....and finds nothing on the subject....

Thats because you are asking the dreaded "why?" We just need to know how things work, not why they work; things are much easier that way.
Just shut up and accept it!

 

[Quantum Quack]

Doesn't the fact that solar sails actually move by using sunlight to power them prove the point that light moves? if light doesnt move than how do they work?

a good question that needs to be further investigated.

Firstly it has to be proved that the light effect is entirely responsible for the movement.
Secondly, by knowing that the light effect "may" be a matter/mass effect opens the door so to speak to a fundamental understanding of what matter and mass actually is and all the universal constants which will lead on to understanding the answer to the question you ask.
I could answer it but to do so would mean going into the full details of the ramifications of the issue of light not moving through space.
The first step however is to get past all the flaming and fear based attacks every time this subject is brought up...

 

[Quantum Quack]

Sure its an assumption, but were playing with ideas here, rolling them around to see what we can get out of them; sometimes assumptions have to be a part of that process. Besides I do not see how this is any worse than assuming the Higgs field exists.

All we really know is that inertia exists.

IMO the higgs field actually "no-exists" or is existant by it's non-existance.... which is why it will never be found except by default of everything else.

in other words the field we are looking for is non-existant which is why it is so effective in a universe that exists. The effect of Gravity is a form of dimensional collapse from three to zero creating time along the way...so to speak.

Thats because you are asking the dreaded "why?" We just need to know how things work, not why they work; things are much easier that way.
Just shut up and accept it!

Honestly I have no real barrow to push on these issues. I gave up years ago regarding personal claims. This thread was started against my wishes and I am just participating in it for the ride so to speak.
The evidence that supports all this will present itself in due course so I am happy to just wait until this is properly demonstratable.
Otherwise as you have stated we are just dealing with ideas and notions that may inspire further thought.

 

[Quantum Quack]

That's an assumption.


You're introducing things for the sake of it.
Waaay off the point.

How is introducing the light cones off the point?

does an observer object in SRT not have to be a part of the light cone diagram? Are they somehow isolated from SRT? Can they step outside the min/ein space time paradigm?

 

[Quantum Quack]

Thats because you are asking the dreaded "why?" We just need to know how things work, not why they work; things are much easier that way.

well.... I just wanted to know HOW it is so that gravity is EXACTLY consistant and constant through out an enourmously diverse universe...
Note the emphasis on the word EXACTLY.
And IMO SRT forbids the gravitational constant from being EXACTLY constant universally.