SRT, speed of light = rate of change

So you should be able to answer the question posed in the thead OP yes?
If you have already somewhere else then provide a link or quote.
If you don't like the way the question is worded then maybe you could suggest a better wording?
 
QQ: All the personal zingers aside, I think you have a point in that distance must be measured, measurement requires a differential, which implies change, which requires time. I believe it is true that no spacial measurement may take place without time, therefore distance is a meaningless concept without it.
 
You don't need measurement for there to be distance.
Is your left hand separated from your right, for example, only if the distance is measured?
How much time is required for your left ear to be separately located from your right?
 
RJBeery said:
QQ: All the personal zingers aside, I think you have a point in that distance must be measured, measurement requires a differential, which implies change, which requires time. I believe it is true that no spacial measurement may take place without time, therefore distance is a meaningless concept without it.
Click to expand...

It is very difficult to accept the "abstraction" or hypothesis that distance is only an illusion of time....I understand this fact and why it is so difficult to accept. Our physical bodies are after all a part of this illusion.

When exploring concepts of generating three dimensions from zero dimensions [ exnihllo ] it becomes obvious that it is the existance of time therefore mass and matter that expands zero dimensions into three.
Take all the mass and matter out of the universe and we revert back to a zero dimensional state. It is not hard to see this yet it is incredibly difficult to see how space or vaccum itself has zero distance when matter or mass is present.

The only reason we can not travel to the moon instantaneously is that we apply time [ energy ] in our attempt to do so. As soon as we apply time or energy to do so we expand the vacuum of space between the moon and the Earth from zero to what ever distance it is using mas or matter as the metric.
because if you use space or vacuum as your metric you will find the distance is zero.
Because Light/ photons are massless and have no matter they have no dimensionality thus they are a zero space artifact and not a three dimensional entity.
Therefore they do not travel in three dimensional space as they do not exist in three dimensional space.

or so the hypothesis goes.
 
Oli: True, but that's why I said distance is meaningless rather than non-existent. If something is not able to be measured it lies outside the realm of science.
 
"The speed of light factors into much of modern physics. In 1861 Maxwell proposed a theory which linked the speed of light to the electromagnetic field.[5] In the early 20th century c assumed an even greater importance as a pivotal constant in Einstein's theory of special relativity, which holds that the speed of light has a special role connecting space and time in the structure of spacetime. As one result, the speed of light sets an absolute speed limit to how fast matter or information can move. As another result, energy and mass are connected by the speed of light in the famous mass-energy equation E = mc2 underlying nuclear energy.~wiki."


It is how the two aspects of light speed come together [ SRT and the mass - energy equation] and how they demonstrate inertia that is in discussion.

The light cone diagrams explicitly lead us to E=mc^2 and so far Alphanumeric and even JamesR have been refuting this fact. [ due to misunderstanding no doubt]
 
Last edited:
Oli said:
You don't need measurement for there to be distance.
Is your left hand separated from your right, for example, only if the distance is measured?
How much time is required for your left ear to be separately located from your right?
Click to expand...
Until you apply a mass/matter based metric the distance between your hands is zero.
Just because it is zero doen't imply that they should collapse to gether as in this case the hands are matter/mass in a 3 dimensional enviroment.

So say we measure the distance as 1 metre , I ask "One metre of what?" space or matter?
 
Quantum Quack said:
JamesR Obviously there has been a serious communications failure here. I accept that possibly I may be responsible and possibly if we disect the OP sentence by sentence we shall get to why this misunderstanding has occurred.
Click to expand...

That's what I did earlier. Read post #8, above.

Quantum Quack said:
It is how the two aspects of light speed come together [ SRT and the mass - energy equation] and how they demonstrate inertia that is in discussion.
Click to expand...

The equation $$E=mc^2$$ is a result of special relativity. How it comes about is derived in every introductory text on special relativity. There's no mystery. Go and read an introductory special relativity textbook. Then you might have some real questions rather than this nonsense.

The light cone diagrams explicitly lead us to E=mc^2 and so far Alphanumeric and even JamesR have been refuting this fact.
Click to expand...

I'll thank you not to put words in my mouth. This is the second time you've lied about what I've said in this thread. I ask you to cease and desist with these misrepresentations. Thankyou!
 
Ok then try this and see how we go...[if you want to of course ]


Quantum Quack said:
JamesR try this if you can?

you have an object of mass/ matter with a clock on it ticking away. What has happened to that object in 1 second? [ relevant to the issue at hand ]
Click to expand...
as to your post #8 it speaks for itself and is of course public record.
 
Last edited:
The entire thread could be summed up with this simple question;
"You have an object of mass/ matter with a clock on it ticking away. What has happened to that object in 1 second? [ relevant to the issue at hand ] "

Has it changed and if so how has it changed?
At what rate according to SRT has it changed?
If it has not changed then account for absolute rest?

simple really.....

It is an open question to everyone and not just JamesR or Alphanumeric.
and if you think it is dribble or gibberish, justify your criticism.
If you can think of a better way of posing the question then share it if you want to.
care to discuss?:)
 
Last edited:
AlphaNumeric said:
I answered your questions in the other thread, you just didn't understand the answers.

And its funny you talk about me dodging questions or not wanting to address things, you're the one who has never, in either thread, supported a single one of your accusations towards relativity. What's the matter, can't back up your BS?

So I'm incompetent because you couldn't understand how to do distances in Riemannian spaces? Yes, I'm incompetent for reading books and you're not for not reading and having to resort to lying?

That makes perfect sense.

The level of my discussion with you has no bearing in the level of physics I'm capable of doing and/or do day to day. If I tried to engage you on a discussion with my work you'd simply be in over your head.

Two threads, one of which I've engaged you in considerable discussion? Hardly stalking. Besides, both threads on similar topics, you make similar statements and both James and I have noticed how you refuse to back up your claims about the supposed contradictions in relativity and how you construct meaningless strawmen instead. Such criticisms of your attempts to whine about relativity, a theory you don't know, refuse to read about and cannot do, are relevant. The fact you don't like having your complete inability to justify any your criticisms is not a fault of mine. It's a fault of yours.
Click to expand...

I bet you have a nice big head print on your desk.
 
Quantum Quack said:
The entire thread could be summed up with this simple question;
"You have an object of mass/ matter with a clock on it ticking away. What has happened to that object in 1 second? [ relevant to the issue at hand ] "
Click to expand...

I'm not sure what the "issue at hand" is.

And what do you mean by "happened"? As I said before, lots of things can happen to objects. Depending on the object it might jump in the air, break, be smoked, turn brown and drop off the twig, fly to the Moon, make a loud noise, support a glass of beer, explode, wave at the crowd, etc. etc.

Has it changed and if so how has it changed?
Click to expand...

How do we know what has changed if we don't know what the object is?

At what rate according to SRT has it changed?
Click to expand...

I see no relevance of the SRT here, unless by "what happened" you mean no more than "how far did the object travel"? And if that's what you mean, I answered that question in the very first post I made in this thread.

If it has not changed then account for absolute rest?
Click to expand...

What's absolute rest?
 
Being an SRT specialist JamesR that you supposedly are I am bewildered by your question:
What's absolute rest?
Click to expand...

here lets refresh your memory....


Einstein's theory of special relativity is fundamentally a theory of measurement. He qualified the theory as "special" because it refers only to uniform velocities (meaning to objects either at rest or moving at a constant speed). In formulating his theory, Einstein dismissed the concept of the "ether," and with it the "idea of absolute rest." Prior to the generation of Einstein's theory of special relativity, physicists had understood motion to occur against a backdrop of absolute rest (the "ether"), with this backdrop acting as a reference point for all motion. In dismissing the concept of this backdrop, Einstein called for a reconsideration of all motion. According to his theory, all motion is relative and every concept that incorporates space and time must be considered in relative terms. This means that there is no constant point of reference against which to measure motion.
Click to expand...
c/o
http://www.fi.edu/learn/case-files/einstein/special.html
 
And what do you mean by "happened"? As I said before, lots of things can happen to objects. Depending on the object it might jump in the air, break, be smoked, turn brown and drop off the twig, fly to the Moon, make a loud noise, support a glass of beer, explode, wave at the crowd, etc. etc.
Click to expand...

According to SRT it doesn't matter what the object is as long as it is mass or matter, be it an apple or a cloud of steam it is irrelevant. And we are talking about energy /light /em

Maybe you are not aware of this....hmmmm am learning all the time
 
Quantum Quack said:
If you don't like the way the question is worded then maybe you could suggest a better wording?
Click to expand...
Most of your questions can't be simply reworded, because the problem is not in the grammar but in the concepts you think you understand but infact don't.

Quantum Quack said:
The light cone diagrams explicitly lead us to E=mc^2 and so far Alphanumeric and even JamesR have been refuting this fact. [ due to misunderstanding no doubt]
Click to expand...

No, they don't. And no, we haven't. The derivation of the mass-energy-momentum equation is not a matter of just looking at a light cone diagram, you have to construct operators in your theory and the mass operator is required to be Casamir, in that it commutes with all other operators or your definition of mass is not consistent (an example would be neutrinos, the flavour eigenstates are not mass eigenstates and you get neutrino oscillations). Once you've constructed a Casamir mass operator you can then use it to find the masses of things. For objected NOT on the light cone the Casamir operator is ends up giving you $$-m^{2}c^{4} = -E^{2}+|pc|^{2}$$. For objects on the light cone you get $$0 = -E^{2} + |pc|^{2}$$. Completely NOT what you said the light cone gives us. This is an example of your ignorance and your willingness to lie.

Quantum Quack said:
The entire thread could be summed up with this simple question;
Click to expand...
"Why does QQ persist in telling lyings, being deceitful and never back up a single claim he makes about SR?"

Quantum Quack said:
Being an SRT specialist JamesR that you supposedly are I am bewildered by your question:
Click to expand...
It's because you're a ****ing idiot.

Quantum Quack said:
maybe I shall include the light cones in the question? for next time. What do you think?
Click to expand...
That would be pointless, as you've already demonstrated your perceived link between equations, which you didn't even know are from special relativity, and light cones are wrong.

10 years researching relativity and you didn't know $$E=mc^{2}$$ comes from it?! And yet you still think you're actually informed on the topic?
 
It's because you're a ****ing idiot.
Click to expand...
why because JamesR doesn't know what absolute rest is or because you didn't.

Now dont lie...you had to read the wiki quote to find out didn't you....:p

I see you like to play the man instead of the ball....what a waste of time...
 
Yet another complete avoidance of the relevant issues from you. I know James know what rest is and what the concept of absolute rest is. The fact your inability to grasp relativity has lead him to ask that question isn't because he doesn't know what the answer is but more to try and prompt you to think for a moment, something you seem determined not to do.

And it's quite silly of you to try and call me uninformed on relativity when I've proven, time and again, quite knowledgable in it. I notice you completely ignored my comments on Casamir operators and how to construct the mass-energy-momentum equation in special relativity. Not only was I proving a statement of your wrong, I did it in such a way to go completely over your head. Just as I did when I showed any theory built on a Riemannian space has a well defined notion of distance at any moment in time, as SR is and does. That too proved you wrong but went over your head.

Besides, trying to call into question my level of book smarts for relativity is a little silly when you can't name a single book on the topic of relativity you've read in the decade you claim to have been researching it.

Every one of your posts tries to take a shot at me but each time you prove your ignorance and your hypocrisy. If I'm wrong, why don't you explain where I was incorrect in regards to the mass-energy-momentum relation I just mentioned. Or did you deliberately ignore that because you didn't understand?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top