Photon Propagation : Straightline or Helix ?

[paddoboy]

Just to reiterate.....one of the means by which some of our agenda laden friends will try and write off accepted mainstream science, is by referring to it as "pop science"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Popular_science
Popular science is a bridge between scientific literature as a professional medium of scientific research, and the realms of popular political and cultural discourse. The goal of the genre is often to capture the methods and accuracy of science, while making the language more accessible.
The purpose of scientific literature is to inform and persuade peers as to the validity of observations and conclusions and the forensicefficacy of methods. Popular science attempts to inform and convince scientific outsiders (sometimes along with scientists in other fields) of the significance of data and conclusions and to celebrate the results.
""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""
While certainly some "pop science" stuff can be wrong, in most of those cases it can be attributed to poor journalism.eg: The headlines from physorg a year or so ago went along the lines of "Hawking says BH's do not exist"
which on face value was entirely wrong but did eventually note in the article that all that was inferred was the nature of information lost, firewalls and quantum theoretical applications, which in no way did invalidate BH's.
Our alternative hypothesis friends obviously then jump on such "questionable journalism" as a lever to attempt to deride and/or invalidate.
That has never yet had any success value from the realms of a science forum, obviously and never will.
But it gives some a warm inner glow of perceived credibility to think that they have.

 

[paddoboy]

http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/universe/uni_shape.html
Recent measurements (c. 2001) by a number of ground-based and balloon-based experiments, including MAT/TOCO, Boomerang, Maxima, and DASI, have shown that the brightest spots are about 1 degree across. Thus the universe was known to be flat to within about 15% accuracy prior to the WMAP results. WMAP has confirmed this result with very high accuracy and precision. We now know (as of 2013) that the universe is flat with only a 0.4% margin of error. This suggests that the Universe is infinite in extent; however, since the Universe has a finite age, we can only observe a finite volume of the Universe. All we can truly conclude is that the Universe is much larger than the volume we can directly observe.

The red text part obviously tells us that it is a fact that according to WMAP, and its data, that the universe is topologically flat within very tiny error bars:
It logically follows that two parallel beams of light will remain parallel.
The blue text tells us that since its a fact that the data infers a flat topology, then that in turn infers a universe of possible infinite extent, but we are also able to infer "infinite" from other topologies. That inference is not anywhere near as certain as the inference in the red text re the flat topology.
They are two different kettle of fish.

 

[The God]

Rpenner :

It logically follows that two parallel beams of light will remain parallel.

We have been through this in this thread itself with cross citations. I respected your maths and the definition of geodesic, and dropped the issue of this parallel light beams, but this man Paddoboy obviously has not understood your point. He is just trolling, can't you see that ? You ignored his earlier trolling despite specific PM, I sent to you in earlier thread where he was messing up with GR and QM.

Incorrect use of singular and plural. For a sphere, they are the same geodesic.

This is in bad taste. The point being discussed was will the geodesic between two points A and B in curved space time be always the shortest path. Instead of settling that for Paddoboy, you supplied further fuel to him.

 

[The God]

Just to reiterate.....one of the means by which some of our agenda laden friends will try and write off accepted mainstream science, is by referring to it as "pop science"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Popular_science
Popular science is a bridge between scientific literature as a professional medium of scientific research, and the realms of popular political and cultural discourse. The goal of the genre is often to capture the methods and accuracy of science, while making the language more accessible.
The purpose of scientific literature is to inform and persuade peers as to the validity of observations and conclusions and the forensicefficacy of methods. Popular science attempts to inform and convince scientific outsiders (sometimes along with scientists in other fields) of the significance of data and conclusions and to celebrate the results.
""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""
While certainly some "pop science" stuff can be wrong, in most of those cases it can be attributed to poor journalism.eg: The headlines from physorg a year or so ago went along the lines of "Hawking says BH's do not exist"
which on face value was entirely wrong but did eventually note in the article that all that was inferred was the nature of information lost, firewalls and quantum theoretical applications, which in no way did invalidate BH's.
Our alternative hypothesis friends obviously then jump on such "questionable journalism" as a lever to attempt to deride and/or invalidate.
That has never yet had any success value from the realms of a science forum, obviously and never will.
But it gives some a warm inner glow of perceived credibility to think that they have.

The problem with you Paddoboy, many a times you push poposcience as mainstream version....and do not accept the correct version even when shown.

 

[The God]

Reported for trolling - exactly the kind of nitpicking and deliberate obtuseness I forecast at the start.

unwarranted pop in and without any locus standi too.

Can we discuss some chemistry ? Say, the use of catalyst in aggravating the fire ? But remember one thing catalyst vanishes without any contribution to the end products, none bothers about catalyst, the reaction continues...Pl be the reactant, not the catalyst..

 

[The God]

be patient-- there are at least a thousand of your post to go through. it is funny, because like i have already mentioned, you know for sure paddoboy's claim is 100% accurate and correct--you just assumed that no one would go through all of the 1k post to do so, but again, i am working on it-- be patient.

You qualify for Trolling for all these 10-15 unwarranted posts...Paddoboy accused DMOE of something, DMOE rightly confronted him to cite, he had to establish his accusation or withdraw, you could have supported Paddoboy by PM but you trolled DMOE, Paddoboy also tried to calm you down couple of times, by attempting to bring the thread back on track, but you are still continuing with your nonsense.....bad that Mods are letting people like you post in science threads, have you written any post without shrugs and shakes ? have you written any post which has some technical inputs ? No, not at all.....You have derailed my thread..

 

[paddoboy]

The problem with you Paddoboy, many a times you push poposcience as mainstream version....and do not accept the correct version even when shown.

I reject your nonsense: I reject pseudoscience. I reject your nonsensical pseudoscience as apparently the forum does, and as evident by your refusal to supply any links to support your said nonsensical pseudoscience:

 

[The God]

I reject your nonsense: I reject pseudoscience. I reject your nonsensical pseudoscience as apparently the forum does, and as evident by your refusal to supply any links to support your said nonsensical pseudoscience:

You could have written all the alphabets in CAPITAL.....as if your rejection matters. What is your formal education ?

 

[paddoboy]

You could have written all the alphabets in CAPITAL.....as if your rejection matters. What is your formal education ?

What's your's, to the point?
I'm not contradicting the mainstream experts, you are.
It's your general cosmological take driven by your agenda, from the remote confines of a science forum, that is rejected.
Last time I looked SR/GR, gravitational lensing, spacetime curvature, geodesic path, gravitational waves, BH's all stand as unchallenged.
But I'll keep looking and see what progress you have made.

 

[river]

http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/universe/uni_shape.html
Recent measurements (c. 2001) by a number of ground-based and balloon-based experiments, including MAT/TOCO, Boomerang, Maxima, and DASI, have shown that the brightest spots are about 1 degree across. Thus the universe was known to be flat to within about 15% accuracy prior to the WMAP results. WMAP has confirmed this result with very high accuracy and precision. We now know (as of 2013) that the universe is flat with only a 0.4% margin of error. This suggests that the Universe is infinite in extent; however, since the Universe has a finite age, we can only observe a finite volume of the Universe. All we can truly conclude is that the Universe is much larger than the volume we can directly observe.

The red text part obviously tells us that it is a fact that according to WMAP, and its data, that the universe is topologically flat within very tiny error bars:
It logically follows that two parallel beams of light will remain parallel.
The blue text tells us that since its a fact that the data infers a flat topology, then that in turn infers a universe of possible infinite extent, but we are also able to infer "infinite" from other topologies. That inference is not anywhere near as certain as the inference in the red text re the flat topology.
They are two different kettle of fish.

Oh yeah pad; how many galaxies have eliminated from the source of this microwave background radiation; maybe 5 or 6 .

In a Universe of millions .

 

[LaurieAG]

Every photon will follow the straightest path possible in curved/warped twisted spacetime. That is all this argument is about. The god is playing games and has already been warned.......

Sorry Paddo, I was just addressing the OP "Photon propagation - straight line or helix".

BTW, you can see how photons traveling from a rotating source to an observer will have the "optical appearance" of a helix when all are plotted together at the time of observation of the first photon? Only QM has qualms about the reality of in transit photons while classical and relativistic physics don't.

Incidentally if you look at how relativistic rolling wheel solutions are generated with SR you (and god) would see that while length contraction is required to calculate the physical location of a point at the end of a relativistic rolling wheels spoke (i.e. on the circumference) at the time of emission, the photons path from the emission point to the observer is a direct straight line with no curvature. I have only ever seen SR based solutions to relativistic rolling wheel problems and, as the plane the photon paths are plotted in is flat and not curved, GR and curved space time is not required (it's an unnecessary complication) to get the solution.

If you have any links to actual solutions that use GR to solve relativistic rolling wheel problems I'd be interested in seeing them.

 

[paddoboy]

Oh yeah pad; how many galaxies have eliminated from the source of this microwave background radiation; maybe 5 or 6 .

In a Universe of millions .

What the hell are you on about? Or are you just trolling again?
Firstly galaxies are not the source of the CMBR, secondly there are actually billions of galaxies.
The CMBR is the left over heat from a time when the universe was in a much hotter denser state.
Although at a generally very even temperature of around 2.7K, there was very slight minute variations spread throughout that were the seeds of galactic formation.

 

[paddoboy]

Sorry Paddo, I was just addressing the OP "Photon propagation - straight line or helix".

No probs....Sorry I jumped the gun somewhat.

BTW, you can see how photons traveling from a rotating source to an observer will have the "optical appearance" of a helix when all are plotted together at the time of observation of the first photon?

Sure thing, but we do have cranks here that are unable to recognise frames of references, and the over riding fact that if we look at a familiar example, the Moon is trying to travel in a straight line away from Earth. If it wasn't for the spacetime curvature the earth creates [note, the crank to which I am referring, does not even accept spacetime curvature] that forces it into an orbit about the Earth: The same effect is also in vogue with the Earth trying to travel in a straight line against the spacetime curvature of the Sun, which forces it then into an orbit about the Sun, and we could go on.
Even though the Moon and the earth can be observed travelling in an apparent helical/double helical fashion [if you know what I mean] they are still, each and every one of them trying to stay in a straight line. Eg: Take away the Sun, and the Earth flies off at a tangent.
That's the crux and what one poster in particular is somehow trying to invalidate.

 

[The God]

LauriAG,

SR aspect is very neat, propagation of light irrespective of emitter speed etc. The point here is more towards GR etc...

 

[The God]

Even though the Moon and the earth can be observed travelling in an apparent helical/double helical fashion [if you know what I mean] they are still, each and every one of them trying to stay in a straight line. Eg: Take away the Sun, and the Earth flies off at a tangent.
That's the crux and what one poster in particular is somehow trying to invalidate.

Paddoboy, what you are writing is here is incorrect. There is a difference between trying to stay in straightline (and failing) and moving in a straightline. You are admitting that moon/earth do not travel in a straightline as they fail to maintain despite trying...whatever this nonsense means..

by the way what is tangent motion ? Linear or curved ? Just joking, leave it, its getting beyond you...

 

[Confused2]

Looking at the International Space Station and why it orbits instead of flying off into space...
Take 1 metre of orbit in Earth coordinates from point A to point B...
Newton says the the reason point B isn't a straight line AB tending to move away from the Earth is that the Earth exerts a force on the Space Station.
Einstein says point B actually is in a straight line in spacetime coordinates.

Without the concept of spacetime Einstein's view will remain forever meaningless and (apparently) wrong.

 

[Farsight]

Einstein says point B actually is in a straight line in spacetime coordinates.

Where does Einstein say this?

 

[Confused2]

Einstein says point B actually is in a straight line in spacetime coordinates.

Where does Einstein say this

Sorry Farsight, I'd rather wait for a comment from someone with an understanding of GR.

 

[Confused2]

While waiting (possibly in vain)...

Back to my railway carriage travelling through the station.
We set up a Nerf gun on the floor at point A and point it vertically upwards at point B on the ceiling.
When lined up ... 10 hits from 10 shots.
Now the carriage starts to accelerate....
Another 10 shots ... all miss because the target isn't where we're aiming at by the time the bullet gets there.
Clearly no sideways force involved to deflect the bullet - it's the acceleration wot causes the effect.
Now stop the carriage, keep everything the same but have it hoisted up by a crane so the carriage is kind'a pointing up like a rocket.
Fire the Nerf gun again ... misses the target because of 'gravity'. By the equivalence principle 'gravity' causes the bullet to miss the target for the same reason as in the accelerating carriage... no force on the bullet in either case.

Equivalence principle:-
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equivalence_principle

 

[krash661]

You qualify for Trolling for all these 10-15 unwarranted posts...Paddoboy accused DMOE of something, DMOE rightly confronted him to cite

actually no-- DMOE made a request and i fulfilled that request-- learn something for once.

you could have supported Paddoboy

which is what i exactly did. (shrugs)-- i do not understand why your pathetic elementary minded whining is initiated.

still continuing with your nonsense

ahh you mean the reality that i stated that DMOE attempted to hand wave from?

you written any post without shrugs and shakes ?

i do not understand why you have an issue with this. (shrugs)

have you written any post which has some technical inputs ?

since I have, that included correcting you on multiple occasions-- it is simply a matter of you evolving your comprehension skills.

No, not at all.....You have derailed my thread..

it was derailed with the very first post. (shrugs)
--carry on.