"Does light move", asked Quantum Quack

[Enmos]

Quantum Quack once posed a query of whether or not there is a proof that light actually moves. I dismissed the question with a dogmatic shrug and wrote something embarrassing and trite, from my own perspective.

What are the experimental results of detection of light motion?

It is all speculative and convenient not to have any basic unresolved issue here in the third millennium such as resolving whether light moves or othewrwise.

We start with the question of light being either, 1. Particle, 2. Mass, or 3. Both.
1. Light when measured by a photomultiplier tube has told us that if light is mass the mass is very, very tiny. Likewise, light behaves unlike the mass of buck-shot as it seems to be wave then particle. Momentum tests are unhelpful in determining mass or wave characteristics to light.

2. If a wave the measurement in 1. above sheds little light on the basic characteristics of particle photon phenomena.

3. Diffraction experiments gave birth to the ‘wave and particle’ notion. It is concluded that the experimental apparatus affects the wave particle aspect of light, but again nothing gives a clue re motion.
If light were moving after flipping the switch at A, then a particle would mean the same stuff that left A was the same stuff that rang the photomultiplier tube’s bell. The problem with necessary mass formation in every instance of an emitted light pulse that is measured requires a convincing arm waving talent beyond the mortals and beyond understandable scientific principles.

I am leaving out much that is left to the reader to sort through.

If light moves as a wave then the stuff that left A was other than the stuff arriving at B which forces the discussion to describing a medium being perturbed that leaves a trace wherever the light happened to “be”. The forced tongue twister description of the true nature of the so called wave leaves much to mathematical speculation; to the extent that light can be manipulated even in this gross state of ignorance, hence the wave nature is left for after hours contemplation over a few ales at a friendly pub.

Dual descriptions offer even more complexities that defy rational analysis. The bottom line is that the current [or not too distant past] giants of science, whoever they may be, offer us solace by not making an issue of the impossible problem.

What happens when we look very deeply quantum mechanically? The locations of particles become smeared as we near the location of the particle 'under scrutiny'. We cannot discern wave, mass or structure, but we can surmise that no bunch of matter is “always” in some observable state in the sense that buck-shut doesn’t rapidly decay. Matter is there, and then it goes away. The stuff of matter, or some stuff, is generally understood as problematical, or a statistical reality. We only see stuff move that has accumulated a large observable bunch of problematical stuff seen as periodic excitations of matter in space.


What is light doing?

All we can say is that the light switch applies a potential to some part of a device that receives an energy pulse and likewise, must give a pulse that is absorbed by a near neighbor in space. Looking at space as a field of possible excitations, motion then becomes nothing more than the excitation of a point in space and where that excited point cascades through space analogous to the motion of falling dominoes.
There is, for sure, momentum exchanges that are straight forward in understanding. When a high energy photon is detected by human skin the momentum felt is simply the reaction of the target substance to the arrival of the near neighbor pulse.


So what is light doing?

When considering the apparent limitless energy of electron and nucleus holding onto each other, not as hooks, but as complex electro-nuclear systems, the illusion of identifiable quantities of stuff becomes undisguised. The energy and all possible forms of substances including the electric/nuclear fields of electron and nucleus in the final analysis are merely statistical and problematic.

Looking at the description simple mindedly, the motion of light as we once believed, has been transformed into the execution of a complex software package where motion, trajectory, momentum are just the manifestation of subroutines inherent in an object oriented program where the source code is identifiable, within limits, to the familiar laws of physic, as we know, or think we know the laws to be.:shrug:​

Can something have a direction if it's not actually moving ?

 

[Quantum Quack]

How is it anecdotal? It's done in the same way other things have their velocities measured. Bullet speeds are measured by firing guns over a known distance and timing how long it takes to go from the gun to the target. Light speed is measured (this is just one way, there's many) by timing how long it takes for light to go from a laser, over a set distance and to hit a detector.

1] Given that the detectors change rate through time and the photons change rate are identicle the speed bewteen the photon and the detector is zero there is no velocity to measure as both are moving exactly the same speed.
2] You are unable to measure the speed of a photon as it moves but only when it presumeably arrives [ hits the target ] [can't take a ride on a photon remember?]
3] The distance between A and B is measured using a value obtained from an object of mass. It is in fact a massive distance and not a massless distance.
If the photon has zero size along vector, is massless then it has no place in three dimensional space. [ if you devise a metric using vaccum or empty space as your premise what would you end up with? A ruler that shows only one measurement every time and that is zero distance]

Qu. How many photons when stacked together create an inch of length? answer Infinity or zero depending on point of view.

How is that an assumption? That velocity is distance divided by time?

The presumption is that distance exists in the first place. That vacuum or empty space has distance if mass is not present.
4 dimensional space only exists because it has massive objects with in it. take those massive objects out of the volume of space and what do you have left? Answer ; nothing , zero dimension.
So science believes that space exists or to put it this way believes that zero has value or that zero volume has dimension and that is rather absurd don't you think?
For example the distance between here and the moon only eixts if you wish to place an object of mass in between the moon and here. It is the mass that creates the distance.
For a zero dimensional object such as a hypothetical photon distance is either zero or infinite depending on which perspective you take. Zero from the photons perspective or infinite from the mass perspective.
How many photons are needed to make up a kilometre of massive length?

It's true that gravitational propogation speeds are done indirectly, due to the reason I gave in my previous post, we cannot make effects strong enough or measure precisely enough direct changes in a gravitational field. You can't just turn on a 'gravity light' like you can turn on a laser. But there's several ways to indirectly measure the speed of gravity and they all agree and put it to within a few percent of the speed of light.

and the speed of light is exactly the same speed of change that objects of mass go though as they travel through time. You can not measure the speed of light or gravity in relative velocity terms because they are not relative in velocity. As both the object of mass and the photon & graviton are traveling at exactly the same speed. Which is fundamentally why SRT is fatally flawed.

It's a fact you've never studied special relativity. Or electromagnetism. Or general relativity. Or classical mechanics. Or quantum mechanics. And it's clear from your posts you've put in very very little effort to research the things you make claims about. So either you are ignorant or you're deliberately deceiving. I would say it's both, you are ignorant and in order to cover that up and to serve your biased agenda you lie. Have you ever studied those things? Could you sit down right now and pass a 2nd or 3rd year university physics exam on the topics I just mentioned?

bait and flame.....obviously you donnot listen to what you yourself have learned about inertial frames and relativity of velocity.

If two objects are traveling at the exact same speed can they be considered as relative in velocity?
Dig deep and rediscover why light is deemed to have a speed and not a velocity? Study just that one question for 6 years and then apply it to SRT and you will come to the the same conclusions I have.

wow the religious nutters are going to have a field day with this one.....[chuckle] That's my point. To say "I haven't seen it therefore it doesn't exist" is something not even religious people say. It's flat out incorrect logic, both to a religious person and a scientific person. So saying "We've never seen the graviton therefore it doesn't exist" is not terribly bright.

but it is the nature of science to prove it's speculations and as regard to the photon it simply hasn't for over 100 years of study and investment. Doesn't sound like good science to me...

So when you turn on a light in your house and the room is illuminated, you don't think the light from the bulb is moving? How do you explain shadows? How do you explain torches? The propagation time of light is non-zero, ie it moves at some finite speed and there's huge numbers of different experiments, dating back to the 1600s, which support this.

even when the light bulb is switched off a shadow exists... that it's "emmissions" create.

When does an object of mass stop emmitting? Never....from the moment the universe began to the time the universe ends every object of mass will always has been emmiting at some rate of intensity. Light is never "off or on" but always on all the way to the end of time.....[acka entropy]

The only difference when you switch the light globe on is a sudden shift in intensity and that shift in intensity [rate of] is what we measure to be lights velocity. The shift in intensity is goverened by the inertia [constant change rate] of the objects involved thus 'c' is a figure of inertia and is constant.
The distance between the globe and the wall is zero for light or em and is only relative to intensity. [ inverse square rules applies]

think resonance over zero distance....inertia creates the effect we call light. as one object tries to change the intensity of another, inertia prevents this and light is the effective outcome. [the light effect is in fact resistance to change] and probably better described by Ohms law any ways...

 

[Quantum Quack]

What SRT does is in fact make the constant of zero relative to velocity...

Thus creating relative zero....and that is it's fundamental flaw in a nut shell.
Zero can not be relative, as it is a universal constant.
Vacant space is vacant space no matter were you are in the universe and no matter what velocity you may be travelling at.
If zero is a relative value then it is no longer zero. but a floating variable not unlike any other value

"actually if I am not mistaken, according to Lorentz when an object of mass achieves the impossible and travels at relative 'c' then the distance along vector becomes zero and effectively the object and it's relative universe becomes a two dimensional plane.....why this is wrong is that the object and all other massive objects universally should acheive zero dimensionallty when traveling at relative 'c' and not 2 dimensionality as Lorentz transforms generate.
Length should contract in all directions and not just along vector....a massive object traveling at 'c' becomes massless and pure energy only, thus it transforms from mass to energy and completes the E=mc^2 transformation and takes the entire universes mass/energy to do it and of course inertia prevents such an "amagedon" type event from occuring as it would take all of "time" eternity to get there."

 

[Quantum Quack]

Can something have a direction if it's not actually moving ?

good question and one Alpha may care to answer.....in terms of SRT.....

 

[Enmos]

good question and one Alpha may care to answer.....in terms of SRT.....

Well, I asked the question because no one can deny that light has a direction.
And it seems to me that anything that has a direction must have a speed.

I.e. the fact that I can illuminate something by pointing my flashlight at it indicates that light has direction and thus speed.

 

[Quantum Quack]

Well, I asked the question because no one can deny that light has a direction.
And it seems to me that anything that has a direction must have a speed.

I.e. the fact that I can illuminate something by pointing my flashlight at it indicates that light has direction and thus speed.

a bit like saying:
Well I asked the question because no one can deny the world is flat.
And it seems to me that anything that is flat must have an edge to fall off...
bahh!
non sequitur!

 

[AlphaNumeric]

1] Given that the detectors change rate through time and the photons change rate are identicle the speed bewteen the photon and the detector is zero there is no velocity to measure as both are moving exactly the same speed.

Nonsense. Are you seriously claiming that a detector, like your eyes, is moving at the speed of light? Go outside at night with a torch. Point it at a distant object and turn it on. Does the light reach the object before your eyes physically traverse that distance? Very much so. So your eyes don't move at light speed. So your comment is BS.

It's comments like that which make me question your grip on reality. When was the last time you moved at 186,000 miles per second?

2] You are unable to measure the speed of a photon as it moves but only when it presumeably arrives [ hits the target ] [can't take a ride on a photon remember?]

So a photon covers distance D in time T but you claim it didn't move with speed D/T? Another photon covers a distance aD in a time aT but you claim it didn't move with speed D/T? Another photon covers a distance bD in a time bT but you claim it didn't move with speed D/T? See where I'm going with this? Photons move, a torch and an understanding of shadows show that. What speed? It's always, always, been measured to be c.

3] The distance between A and B is measured using a value obtained from an object of mass. It is in fact a massive distance and not a massless distance.]

Completely meaningless. There's never ever been any distinction between distance from the point of view of massive and massless objects. You are simply inventing your own meaning to words.

f the photon has zero size along vector, is massless then it has no place in three dimensional space.

From a quantum mechanical point of view ALL particles are point-like. That's irrelevant to how they traverse distances.

if you devise a metric using vaccum or empty space as your premise what would you end up with? A ruler that shows only one measurement every time and that is zero distance

This is a lie. Firstly you've never done any general or special relativity and you have no understanding of metrics. Secondly, I have proven to you using the metric of special relativity that at a particular instant in time non-zero distances are well defined in special relativity. You are lying about something you know nothing about because you have a biased agenda and an axe to grind. Wow, your parents must be so proud.

Qu. How many photons when stacked together create an inch of length? answer Infinity or zero depending on point of view.

So as the number of electrons, gluons, taus, gravitons, neutrinos or any other particle in the Standard Model. And the answer is utterly irrelevant and independent of how special relativity treats photons. Not that you know that, you've never done either. So well done on more deception and lies.

The presumption is that distance exists in the first place. That vacuum or empty space has distance if mass is not present.

Your claim is that special relativity (ie a theory with a metric) says an instant of time implies no distance. That's a lie, a lie I've proven you incorrect on. So the actual truth of existence is immaterial to the fact you lied about metrics in special relativity.

4 dimensional space only exists because it has massive objects with in it.

A complete lie. Space-time's construction, in both Newtonian and relativistic theories, is independent of what actually exists within it. Dimensionality is something which is not defined by the content of space-time in both Newtonian and relativistic theories. Both massive and massless particles have their positions and velocities in N dimensional space-time defined by N dimensional vectors. The only difference between them is that the momentum vectors have the properties $$p^{2} > 0$$ and $$p^{2} = 0$$ respectively. In 4 dimensional relativistic theories both massless and massive objects have 4 component position and 4 component momentum vectors.

So either you're lying again or you're ignorant and willing to simply make things up in order to swindle people who don't know any decent level of physics. Are you lying or ignorant?

take those massive objects out of the volume of space and what do you have left? Answer ; nothing , zero dimension.

Another lie. You didn't even learn basic vector calculus or linear algebra, did you? I mean, come on, understanding of basic vector spaces comes up in high school!

So science believes that space exists or to put it this way believes that zero has value or that zero volume has dimension and that is rather absurd don't you think?

I think it's absurd you're aware you know nothing about this and yet you're trying to just make BS up and hope someone whom you know does physics will not notice you're lying through your teeth.

For example the distance between here and the moon only eixts if you wish to place an object of mass in between the moon and here. It is the mass that creates the distance.
For a zero dimensional object such as a hypothetical photon distance is either zero or infinite depending on which perspective you take. Zero from the photons perspective or infinite from the mass perspective.
How many photons are needed to make up a kilometre of massive length?

Lies, nonsense and BS.

and the speed of light is exactly the same speed of change that objects of mass go though as they travel through time. You can not measure the speed of light or gravity in relative velocity terms because they are not relative in velocity.

More nonsense. I have a 1 km long target range. I fire a gun and it covers that distance in 1s. The speed of the bullet is 1km/s. I fire a laser and it covers that distance in 3.33564095 microseconds (thank you Google). The speed of the light is 1km/3.33564095 microseconds = 299 792 km / s. Rocket science this is not. You are basically arguing with the definition of 'speed'.

As both the object of mass and the photon & graviton are traveling at exactly the same speed. Which is fundamentally why SRT is fatally flawed.

Except, even in powerful particle accelerators, no particle with mass has ever been made to move across a set distance before a photon could. And besides, special relativity has nothing to say about the speed of gravity. Clearly your level of effort in your twenty years of research leads a lot to be desired.

bait and flame.....obviously you donnot listen to what you yourself have learned about inertial frames and relativity of velocity.

I listened to what I learnt, enough to pass exams and do research. As you're demonstrating, you never learnt it in the first place.

If two objects are traveling at the exact same speed can they be considered as relative in velocity?.

Learn the difference between speed and velocity.

Dig deep and rediscover why light is deemed to have a speed and not a velocity?

No, any given photon has velocity, it moves in a particular direction. Different photons can have different velocities. However, each and every photon has the same speed, ie speed = |velocity|. Yet another thing 20 years of your 'research' missed, that anyone doing special relativity or anything else to do with photons has to consider vectors. Even the first homework sheet given to 1st years here when doing 'motion and relativity' involves such phrases as "A photon's velocity is parallel to the x axis". So you, yet again, demonstrate how you've done zero research into this, proving your dishonesty.

but it is the nature of science to prove it's speculations and as regard to the photon it simply hasn't for over 100 years of study and investment. Doesn't sound like good science to me...

The fact you haven't openned a single book in your 2 decades of research doesn't mean that the books (and the experimental evidence they contain) are not there. And you wouldn't know good science if it sneaked up to you and gave you a prostate check.

even when the light bulb is switched off a shadow exists... that it's "emmissions" create.

You do realise shadows and darkness are absense of light, right? Or do you think the inside of your eyelids are 'dark photon emitters'?

When does an object of mass stop emmitting?

This is an irrelevant question, because photon emission is due to two things. Firstly, the object being electromagnetically charged on the atomic level. For instance, normal matter emits photons because it's made up of nuclei and electrons. Dark matter, as it's name suggests, is dark. Despite making up 20+% of the universe's mass it doesn't emit any photons because it's electromagnetically neutral. Secondly, because they have non-zero temperature. Make an object have a temperature of absolute zero and it'd stop radiating photons. Both of these facts show how clueless you are and how pathetic your strawmen are.

Never....from the moment the universe began to the time the universe ends every object of mass will always has been emmiting at some rate of intensity. Light is never "off or on" but always on all the way to the end of time.....[acka entropy]

Any charged particle would emit and absorb photons, it's the definition of 'charged'. It's possible for massless particles to emit and absorb other massless particles. The strong force versions of the photon do precisely this, gluons self interact. Yet another example of how your narrow ignorance is so full of gaps.

The only difference when you switch the light globe on is a sudden shift in intensity and that shift in intensity [rate of] is what we measure to be lights velocity. The shift in intensity is goverened by the inertia [constant change rate] of the objects involved thus 'c' is a figure of inertia and is constant.
The distance between the globe and the wall is zero for light or em and is only relative to intensity. [ inverse square rules applies]]

Mostly incoherent and the parts which do show some coherence are irrelevant.

think resonance over zero distance....inertia creates the effect we call light. as one object tries to change the intensity of another, inertia prevents this and light is the effective outcome. [the light effect is in fact resistance to change] and probably better described by Ohms law any ways...

I imagine Ohm's law, V=IR, is about as advanced a formula as you can manage. And given you've never done any electromagnetism (or SR or GR or QM or QFT) you have nothing on which to base your claim Ohm's law is more appropriate other than bias and ignorance.

What SRT does is in fact make the constant of zero relative to velocity....

Well done on a grammatically incoherent sentence.

Thus creating relative zero....and that is it's fundamental flaw in a nut shell.
Zero can not be relative, as it is a universal constant.
Vacant space is vacant space no matter were you are in the universe and no matter what velocity you may be travelling at.
If zero is a relative value then it is no longer zero. but a floating variable not unlike any other value
.

Meaningless incoherent nonsense. You have no understanding of vectors, basic calculus or any of the physics which you try to whine about and your claims are BS.

good question and one Alpha may care to answer.....in terms of SRT.....

Direction is undefined for a zero length vector, as anyone whose done polar coordinates knows. Oh look, you don't and you haven't.

So QQ, would you care to enlighten me to what precisely your 20 years of research into various parts of physics actually involved? Because it is painfully clear it can't have involved reading books, doing educational courses, talking to professors, reading scientific publications, doing calculations or in any way exposing yourself to actual science. Instead you simply blurt out lies, both previously exposed and new, incorrect claims, biased comments, pathetically weak strawmen and generally put your ignorance on display. Of course, if I'm wrong you'll have no trouble giving a careful explanation of your 20 years of work in relativity. Of course if I'm right you'll just whine "OMG, you're so mean", forget to acknowledge your long list of incorrect and fraudulent claims and simply spout some more.

I wonder which road you'll go down..... :shrug:

 

[Quantum Quack]

Nonsense. Are you seriously claiming that a detector, like your eyes, is moving at the speed of light? Go outside at night with a torch. Point it at a distant object and turn it on. Does the light reach the object before your eyes physically traverse that distance? Very much so. So your eyes don't move at light speed. So your comment is BS.

It's comments like that which make me question your grip on reality. When was the last time you moved at 186,000 miles per second?

And the above shows how well you understand the subject you have studied for how long now?
Of course my eyes are traveling at 'c' but they do it within their own over all space and dimension. Like a ball bouncing on a single point that goes up ten feet and down ten feet , then up ten feet then down ten feet and do that at a rate of 186000 miles per second... or is it spinning at 'c'...who cares, travel 186,000 miles per second they do. In fact the whole unievsre is doign it simultaneously and at exactly the same rate....
Never heard of vibration? or frequency? terms are foreign to you maybe...?
so I have and you have never stopped moving at 'c' just not in a straight line....


and given your inability to grasp this simple point the rest of your post is a meaningless diatribe of vitriolic ignorance.

 

[Quantum Quack]

Completely meaningless. There's never ever been any distinction between distance from the point of view of massive and massless objects. You are simply inventing your own meaning to words.

now there is a glaring hole in scientific thought if ever there was one...


so spacial dimensions are the same for mass and massless objects?....hmmmm...you really do need to be a bit proactive in your research. Learning by blind-rote is useless...

So a photon covers distance D in time T but you claim it didn't move with speed D/T? Another photon covers a distance aD in a time aT but you claim it didn't move with speed D/T? Another photon covers a distance bD in a time bT but you claim it didn't move with speed D/T? See where I'm going with this? Photons move, a torch and an understanding of shadows show that. What speed? It's always, always, been measured to be c.

prove the existance of aphoton first and then we can argue about it's nature.... you haven't and you can't.

However the measurement of 'c' is still valid but only for the object of mass and not a mythical photon.
You still can't see where "popular mainstream" science may have made a major interpretive mistake can you? [ I can assure you there are scientists out there that are not that ....uhm...."naive"]

Originally Posted by Quantum Quack
if you devise a metric using vaccum or empty space as your premise what would you end up with? A ruler that shows only one measurement every time and that is zero distance

This is a lie. Firstly you've never done any general or special relativity and you have no understanding of metrics. Secondly, I have proven to you using the metric of special relativity that at a particular instant in time non-zero distances are well defined in special relativity. You are lying about something you know nothing about because you have a biased agenda and an axe to grind. Wow, your parents must be so proud.

Special and General relativitiy have nothing to do with it.....you want to measure mass then you use a mass premise for your metric. You want to measure massless objects you use a massless premise for your metric.
and using a ruler made of vacant space is reaaaallllllly handy!
Maybe next you will want to measure distance using Kilograms.....:bugeye:

A complete lie. Space-time's construction, in both Newtonian and relativistic theories, is independent of what actually exists within it. Dimensionality is something which is not defined by the content of space-time in both Newtonian and relativistic theories. Both massive and massless particles have their positions and velocities in N dimensional space-time defined by N dimensional vectors. The only difference between them is that the momentum vectors have the properties and respectively. In 4 dimensional relativistic theories both massless and massive objects have 4 component position and 4 component momentum vectors.

So either you're lying again or you're ignorant and willing to simply make things up in order to swindle people who don't know any decent level of physics. Are you lying or ignorant?

so rewrite the theories as they are blatantly mistaken.

“ Originally Posted by Quantum Quack
take those massive objects out of the volume of space and what do you have left? Answer ; nothing , zero dimension. ”

Another lie. You didn't even learn basic vector calculus or linear algebra, did you? I mean, come on, understanding of basic vector spaces comes up in high school!

non-sequitar...
explain how your post addresses the issue it is supposed to address?
[must have missed your afternoon nap i think...]

Originally Posted by Quantum Quack
So science believes that space exists or to put it this way believes that zero has value or that zero volume has dimension and that is rather absurd don't you think? ”

I think it's absurd you're aware you know nothing about this and yet you're trying to just make BS up and hope someone whom you know does physics will not notice you're lying through your teeth.

non-sequitar...
explain how your post addresses the issue it is supposed to address?
[must have missed your morning nap i think...]

Originally Posted by Quantum Quack
For example the distance between here and the moon only eixts if you wish to place an object of mass in between the moon and here. It is the mass that creates the distance.
For a zero dimensional object such as a hypothetical photon distance is either zero or infinite depending on which perspective you take. Zero from the photons perspective or infinite from the mass perspective.
How many photons are needed to make up a kilometre of massive length? ”

Lies, nonsense and BS.

just can't handle the consequences can you?

Originally Posted by Quantum Quack
and the speed of light is exactly the same speed of change that objects of mass go though as they travel through time. You can not measure the speed of light or gravity in relative velocity terms because they are not relative in velocity. ”

More nonsense. I have a 1 km long target range. I fire a gun and it covers that distance in 1s. The speed of the bullet is 1km/s. I fire a laser and it covers that distance in 3.33564095 microseconds (thank you Google). The speed of the light is 1km/3.33564095 microseconds = 299 792 km / s. Rocket science this is not. You are basically arguing with the definition of 'speed'.

so you think it good physics to compare the velocity of both massive and massless objects do you?

A bullet from a gun is a 4 dimensional artifact where as a photon is not

go on now measure the distance in Kilograms? I bet you can...and probably will.

“ Originally Posted by Quantum Quack
As both the object of mass and the photon & graviton are traveling at exactly the same speed. Which is fundamentally why SRT is fatally flawed. ”

Except, even in powerful particle accelerators, no particle with mass has ever been made to move across a set distance before a photon could. And besides, special relativity has nothing to say about the speed of gravity. Clearly your level of effort in your twenty years of research leads a lot to be desired.

you still don't get the fundamental point about how mass and photons are not able to be described in relative velocity terms do you? As both are travelling at exactly the same rate...how are they relative?
The only difference is that the traveling "bullet" like photon is deemed to be traveling in a straight line where as mass is travelling in a vibratory or spinning way. [actually I believe the truth is neither as it is more about inflation and deflation but thats another issue]

Originally Posted by Quantum Quack
even when the light bulb is switched off a shadow exists... that it's "emmissions" create. ”

You do realise shadows and darkness are absense of light, right? Or do you think the inside of your eyelids are 'dark photon emitters'?

There is never an absense of light....just drops below visible intensities....[too weak to see]
OMG!...EMR is every where!
where did you do your learning btw.....they need to be congradulated!

Originally Posted by Quantum Quack
The only difference when you switch the light globe on is a sudden shift in intensity and that shift in intensity [rate of] is what we measure to be lights velocity. The shift in intensity is goverened by the inertia [constant change rate] of the objects involved thus 'c' is a figure of inertia and is constant.
The distance between the globe and the wall is zero for light or em and is only relative to intensity. [ inverse square rules applies]] ”

Mostly incoherent and the parts which do show some coherence are irrelevant.

The above coming from some one who believes shadows prove an absense of light? eh......surely you wish not to be taken seriously...
of course deeper understanding of your pet subject is incoherant to you. Of course it makes no sense to you....whichis why I wonder why I bother...

Originally Posted by Quantum Quack
What SRT does is in fact make the constant of zero relative to velocity.... ”

Well done on a grammatically incoherent sentence.

relative time [ relative simultaeneity or non-simultaneity depending on your bent] is in fact relative zero....

or haven't you managed to work that out yet. The sentence is gammatically correct , it's just that your head is so far in the sand that you could not possibly understand it.

What SRT does is in fact make the constant of zero relative to velocity....

Originally Posted by Quantum Quack
good question and one Alpha may care to answer.....in terms of SRT..... ”

Direction is undefined for a zero length vector, as anyone whose done polar coordinates knows. Oh look, you don't and you haven't.

This is actually a gross over generalisation and leaves out "calculus" and how relative simultaneity is acheived on a zero duration HSP. Zero length vectors can and are directional...like drawing a line through a 2 dimensional plane that is at 45 degrees to that plane. The point [ where the line intersects the plane] on the zero thick plane does have direction but deemed more as a potential that an actual...
and the above no doubt is also incoherant to you....
I stand still and I point my hand towards a destination, but still I stand with out moving, then after a while I start my journey.....
I have direction and I have zero length vector until I actually decide to move.

So QQ, would you care to enlighten me to what precisely your 20 years of research into various parts of physics actually involved? Because it is painfully clear it can't have involved reading books, doing educational courses, talking to professors, reading scientific publications, doing calculations or in any way exposing yourself to actual science. Instead you simply blurt out lies, both previously exposed and new, incorrect claims, biased comments, pathetically weak strawmen and generally put your ignorance on display. Of course, if I'm wrong you'll have no trouble giving a careful explanation of your 20 years of work in relativity. Of course if I'm right you'll just whine "OMG, you're so mean", forget to acknowledge your long list of incorrect and fraudulent claims and simply spout some more.

I wonder which road you'll go down.....

I have yet to decide whether it is of any value to bother....I am having too much fun dealing with your closemindedness, false accusations, vitriol, and ego centric flaming not to mention your fundamental ignorance of what it's all about.
I have clearly stated my assessment that SRT is seriously flawed becaue it makes universal constants impossible to exist.
This is primarilly because it deems zero to be relative to velocity.
which is a rather impressive mistake in reason and logic.

and you think I should study something so fundamentaly absurd...sorry...but I got better things to do.

Ultimately it is the reality of theuniverse that determines the success of a theory or idea.
The universal constants do exist and this is blatantly obvious. SRT uses a universal constant and in doing so makes that very same constant impossibe to exist.

And they or it does exist and thus proving SRT to be incorrect and invalid.
IMO SRT would happen to be the greatest mind or mental puzzle trap ever invented by man kind....fortunately the universe does not conform to mankinds little puzzles.
The constants exist and that is all there is to it....and just because you don't know how or why they exist means jack sh*t as exist they do.

So tell me again how a photon travells across vacant space with out any real evidence to support the notion and I will say "that's poohey science, go away and prove what you are claiming to exist" and as yet you haven't and to be honest IMO you never will...because....it doesn't exist.

 

[Steve100]

"Spinning at c"
Haha

Never mind all the nonsense and double standards

 

[Enmos]

a bit like saying:
Well I asked the question because no one can deny the world is flat.
And it seems to me that anything that is flat must have an edge to fall off...
bahh!
non sequitur!

No one has ever fallen of the edge. So your analogy is non-sequitur.

For something to have a direction it needs to move between two points in space. From one point to the other.
Do you agree ?

 

[Quantum Quack]

No one has ever fallen of the edge. So your analogy is non-sequitur.

For something to have a direction it needs to move between two points in space. From one point to the other.
Do you agree ?

nope....

I have a ball restrained at the top of a hill, stationary, it's direction is down hill yet it is not moving.
What direction has the ball? Down hill.
Is it moving ? Nope.

If you draw a line through a 2 dimensional plane at 45 deg angle to that plane and look at the point on the plane only does that point on the 2 dim. plane have direction?
Apparently using calculus it can be proved to have direction in a zero duration moment. According to some math gurus...[ this was used as evidence to support relative simultaneity in a discussion ages ago...]

 

[Enmos]

nope....

I have a ball restrained at the top of a hill, stationary, it's direction is down hill yet it is not moving.
What direction has the ball? Down hill.
Is it moving ? Nope.

The ball doesn't have any direction because it isn't moving.
Sure it may have a potential direction but that goes for anything stationary.
If you release it it may roll downhill, but then again it might not. If you release it in the middle of a hurricane it might just roll uphill.
And even if it does roll downhill, you do not know before hand what exact direction it will take.

Hey did you see a guy with a blue coat coming through here ? Yes ?
What direction did he go in ?
Is it possible that the dude is still standing next to the person being questioned ?

If you draw a line through a 2 dimensional plane at 45 deg angle to that plane and look at the point on the plane only does that point on the 2 dim. plane have direction?
Apparently using calculus it can be proved to have direction in a zero duration moment. According to some math gurus...[ this was used as evidence to support relative simultaneity in a discussion ages ago...]

 

[Quantum Quack]

The ball doesn't have any direction because it isn't moving.
Sure it may have a potential direction but that goes for anything stationary.
If you release it it may roll downhill, but then again it might not. If you release it in the middle of a hurricane it might just roll uphill.
And even if it does roll downhill, you do not know before hand what exact direction it will take.

Hey did you see a guy with a blue coat coming through here ? Yes ?
What direction did he go in ?
Is it possible that the dude is still standing next to the person being questioned ?

Hey did you see a guy with a blue coat coming through here ? Yes ?
What direction did he go in ?

just my assessment ok?

You'll notice the use of past tense for "what direction did he go?"

try "what direction is he going ?" and you will find that unless you have acute precog you can not be absolutely sure. [he might get hit by a truck and not go any were....]
Direction as in future tense is always a prediction. Direction as in present tense is always a potential and direction as in past tense is always historical data.

In the ball hanging on a hill case, the balls direction is not certain until it actually has travelled it however it has a potential direction until it moves down the hill.
If you can determine it's direction as it is moving it is purely predictive and based on probability - historical data. [ assumption of no mitigating cirurcumstances]
However even stationary the pressure or potential can be clearly shown determined by the forces being applied , in this case being gravity, and in free fall or vacuum of space this can be quite accurately predicted assuming no mitigating circumstances. But do not forget that it is merely prediction as technically you have to assume that the universe could vanish at any given moment and all this could be, although very unlikely, a total waste of effort...[chuckle]
So yes at a given zero duration point of time [ HSP] a point can have a direction even though it is effectively stationary but exactly what that direction may be is up to the predictions one can make based on historical data.
does that help?

 

[AlphaNumeric]

QQ your posts can be summarised in a few simple points :

1. You have never studied any mainstream physics, so you understand it so you think it's wrong so you refuse to study it.

2. You have never looked in any book, journal or paper for discussions in evidence for the speed of light, speed of gravity, existence of photon and other phenomena mainstream physics has done experiments on and so you proclaim said evidence doesn't exist.

3. You have never studied relativity so don't know what it says, so you make up what you think or hope it says (like the volume of space with no mass in it is zero or distances at instants are zero) and then attack those assumptions, because you're under the misconception that if you attack your incorrect assumptions about relativity or physics in general you somehow invalidate relativity or physics in general.

Time and again you hare either lied or made false claims due to ignorance. You refuse to accept that and you try to tell someone who has studied relativity (ie me) what relativity says, when you have never ever read a book on it. Give me the name of 2 textbooks on special relativity you've read in the last 20 years.

There's no point in me going through your posts line by line since you just ignore when I point out you've lied and then you tell more lies. It's easier for me to point out how the entire basis on which you try to argue is flawed, namely you have never actually learnt what relativity says, despite saying "Isn't relativity stupid for saying....".

 

[Quantum Quack]

Your position can be summarized as follows:

• As a scientists you have failed the most important requirement.
• That is to prove what you postulate. failed!
• You [science in general ] have postulated that massless objects labeled "photons" transverse 3 dimensional space / vacuum when there is no evidence to actually state this as true. failed!
• You [science in general] have postulated that the laws of physics are universal yet provide no evidence to support that postulate and accept it as a given fact. failed!
• You have demonstrated total dependancy on a model that has yet to be proven as true and believe it to be true when in fact it may very well not be true. failed!
• You [science in general] have failed to prove or even attempt to understand even the most basic of premises that being "distance" and what it is. failed!
• You have clearly shown no understanding of dimensionality and how a massless particle can not possibly exist in three or four dimensional space as an entity that takes up space or volume. There fore it can not travel a distance of 3 dim. space. failed !
• You have also clearly shown an inability to take what is considered as scientific fact and treat it in abstraction [ the makings of a true Scientist] thus you have demonstrated nothing but rote and pupetteering. You do not demonstrate any deep understanding of the subject material. Unfortunately for you, you fail to realize that understanding a subject actually takes work and a great deal of thought and experience. You have done and achieved virtually none of it. failed!
• You have failed to address adequately and in a professional manner any of the questions raised in this thread and others and resorted to strategies such as personality assassination, vitriolic flaming by a fundamentally bored person and deliberate distraction due to your inability to admit your own limitations and incompetence and "think outside the box". failed!
• You, or your type of teaching, is why I never studied physics formally as mindless brainwashing, rote learning with out proper understanding is not my cup of tea. failed!
• Your seemingly significant math and physics methodology knowledge whilst impressive is utterly useless...and an incredible waste of invested learning due to it's inapplicability to a real world understanding. failed!

When you are serious about your pet subject and wish to further your own limited understanding of the subject at a deeper and more profound logical level then and only then can we have a proper discussion about the merits of the light effect MODEL put forward by some very smart Scientists over 100 years ago.

Note the emphasis on the word "MODEL" Spelt M....O....D....E....L and one that has yet to be validated properly.

But most of all you have failed to ask the questions:

Why does the apple fall from the tree?
What causes electricity to be generated using magnetic fields?
What is the mechanism behind universal constants and what prevents the world from understanding that mechanism? For surely the constants exist..
What is energy and how is it transferred over distances?
What is distance and how is it validated?
and so on....

so when did you stop asking questions?

When you assumed you knew all the answers that why. And franky Alpha you know nothing of value simply because you have stopped asking questions about what you think or believe you know.

 

[BobG]

Since when do you prove postulates?

 

[Neddy Bate]

"Does light move?"

After studying this thread, I am now wondering if you meant to say that light moves instantaneously (i.e. at infinite speed?)

If so, some explanation must be presented for the speed of light to be measured at c, which is less than infinity.

Otherwise, I fear you are disputing length itself.

 

[AlphaNumeric]

• As a scientists you have failed the most important requirement.
• That is to prove what you postulate. failed!

Listing one point as two isn't particularly honest of you. Besides, you don't prove postulates. You never prove anything in physics, other than proving them wrong. You seem to lack a grasp of how physics works. Evidence for the photon is enormous. Spontaneous emission, as used in lasers, can be controlled enough to emit single photons, one at a time, and then they can be experimented with. That took 8 seconds on Google to find (partly because I knew what to look for).

You keep saying "You haven't proven anything" but all you're doing is denying the evidence is there, you aren't refuting anything.

• You [science in general ] have postulated that massless objects labeled "photons" transverse 3 dimensional space / vacuum when there is no evidence to actually state this as true. failed!

You're denying that if something starts at A and ends at B then it's traversed the distance inbetween. Once again, you aren't refuting evidence, you're just denying it's there.

Light gets from the Sun to the Earth. When the Moon is in the way, aka an eclipse, light doesn't reach us. It's almost as if light is moving from the Sun to the Earth and has it's path blocked. Is that too hard for you to grasp?

• YYou [science in general] have postulated that the laws of physics are universal yet provide no evidence to support that postulate and accept it as a given fact. failed!

More lies based on ignorance and bias. Actually a great deal of time has been put into observing other galaxies to try to summise if the laws of nature there are as they are here. Such things as emission spectra or supernova would be drastically different of things like the mass of the electron, the speed of light or the fine structure constant were different in other galaxies. By observation we can say that those quantities can't be different from what we measure here by anything more than tiny fractions of a percent.

• You have demonstrated total dependancy on a model that has yet to be proven as true and believe it to be true when in fact it may very well not be true. failed!

No, we have demonstrated great confidence in what we know is not a perfect model within the range of experiments/phenomena we've tested it in. I trust QM enough to use it to build computers which help fly planes. I have literally trusted my life to quantum mechanics. I trust Newtonian mechanics enough to get in and drive a car everyday. I know both of those theories have limits but I know where those limits are and that they have no impact on the things I use them for.

NOTHING in physics is ever proven true. You make a strawman by saying that. We have yet to find a problem with the Standard Model in terms of experiments, but we know we will. That's why we keep looking. What's why we're building the LHC.

• You [science in general] have failed to prove or even attempt to understand even the most basic of premises that being "distance" and what it is. failed!

You asked me to show special relativity could do distances at a particular moment in time and I did. The fact you don't understand metrics, the things used to put distances into theories, doesn't mean it's wrong. So your point actually means "Science has failed to prove the basic premise of what I consider to be distance".

• You have clearly shown no understanding of dimensionality and how a massless particle can not possibly exist in three or four dimensional space as an entity that takes up space or volume. There fore it can not travel a distance of 3 dim. space. failed !

I've corrected you on this already. Both massless and massive particles are point-like in current physics. Mass is not related to physical size in quantum mechanics. And points don't take up volume, I told you that. That doesn't mean they can't travel distance. You make the mistake of confusing distances built of points and distances traversed by points.

So in that you both lied and made a fundamental mistake about how vectors and dimensional quantities are described. Go you!

• You have also clearly shown an inability to take what is considered as scientific fact and treat it in abstraction [ the makings of a true Scientist] thus you have demonstrated nothing but rote and pupetteering. You do not demonstrate any deep understanding of the subject material. Unfortunately for you, you fail to realize that understanding a subject actually takes work and a great deal of thought and experience. You have done and achieved virtually none of it. failed!

Seriously, you're going into the realms of full out delusion here. You have never ever done any special or general relativity, electromagnetism, quantum mechanics, quantum field theory, electrodynamics, Newtonian mechanics, vector calculus or linear algebra and you're telling me that this topic "actually takes work and a great deal of thought and experience.". You have zero experience in it and you've put in zero work into it. I've asked you repeatedly to explain what experience and work you've put into it and you've been unable to provide anything. I'm 7 years into university, with a degree, a masters, soon to be a PhD and hundreds of hours of teaching and marking of undergraduate work under my belt. I did more linear algebra yesterday than you've done in your life.

You're getting desperate if you have to try to lie about how you've got more experience than me in this.

• ou have failed to address adequately and in a professional manner any of the questions raised in this thread and others and resorted to strategies such as personality assassination, vitriolic flaming by a fundamentally bored person and deliberate distraction due to your inability to admit your own limitations and incompetence and "think outside the box". failed!

I refuted everything you claimed. The fact you didn't understand it is no fault of mine. And you have repeatedly lied, deceived and twisted claims and statements. You keep saying "Special relativity says...." when you haven't done any special relativity and you don't know what it says. What do you call that, other than lying?

• You, or your type of teaching, is why I never studied physics formally as mindless brainwashing, rote learning with out proper understanding is not my cup of tea. failed!

You say "Relativity is absurd for saying......", when relativity says nothing of the sort. This is because you're biased and you're ignorant. The latter is because you have never learnt or done any relativity. So unless you do some relativity you have no way of being able to correctly say "Relativity says....". If you've never done relativity, how can you know what it says in its details? You admit science "actually takes work and a great deal of thought and experience" but also admit you've put in no work and have no experience with relativity. Nice contradiction.

It's not about brainwashing and mindless parroting. It's about you getting your facts straight.

• Your seemingly significant math and physics methodology knowledge whilst impressive is utterly useless...and an incredible waste of invested learning due to it's inapplicability to a real world understanding. failed!

Yeah, all those people I know who go on to do financial, engineering, IT, aerospace, patent work are all finding their analytic knowledge useless. I guess you think that computer you're sat infront of doesn't contain electronics, built using quantum mechanics?

And franky Alpha you know nothing of value simply because you have stopped asking questions about what you think or believe you know.

Better to know 100 things of no value than to know nothing at all.

 

[Quantum Quack]

Better to know 100 things of no value than to know nothing at all.

now that's an interesting comment!...sounds a bit like your learning zero dimensionalism afterall...