When are you going to learn, you all sound like kids to me, blind kids. Waves of light is justa illusion of the real thing, think three dimansionally, http://www.lighttheory.com/experiments.htmfo3 said:
The death of "Modern Physics". Prepair it's funeral!
- Thread starter martillo
- Start date
So, what is your description of light? Keep it simple for us kids please.
martillo
Registered Senior Member
I'm editing this post a long time after because the first one contained a WRONG consideration and the author don't want future readers to consider it.
The link "anomalous" provided contains a description of an experiment that after a more detailed analysis is found to be bad interpreted.
Now I interpret the experiment as a variation of the well known "Standing Wave Hertz Experiment". The particular shapes illustrated seem to be a consequence of the "plate" used to detect radiation's energy at each point.
It can be said that "the plate interferes in the experiment"
Actually is not a proof for the photons to be a composition of two particles of opposite charge.
The link "anomalous" provided contains a description of an experiment that after a more detailed analysis is found to be bad interpreted.
Now I interpret the experiment as a variation of the well known "Standing Wave Hertz Experiment". The particular shapes illustrated seem to be a consequence of the "plate" used to detect radiation's energy at each point.
It can be said that "the plate interferes in the experiment"
Actually is not a proof for the photons to be a composition of two particles of opposite charge.
Last edited:
Useless to U, obviously, because If U agree with it, then U will be known as among the greatest morohons science has ever seen. U all Relativist sound like preist of dark ages with Bible written by Eienstien, specially the moderators from the crap forum called PHYSICSFORUMS.UnderWhelmed said:This thread is almost as useless as watching JamesR and MacM fight back and forth
I'm out...
although, JAMES R is among the best mods I have ever seen.
martillo said:
Actually no, but I know enough to see your error. It's hard to get the idea of relativity of simultenaety. It's must easier to just reject it because you don't get it and think you already know how things should be, as you are obviously doing. It's typical. It does however indicate that you haven't a clue what your'e criticizing, yet you still apparently feel vindicated in your criticism, thus.. you're another crackpot asshat with a superiority complex. *shrug*
My objection is that you obviously don't understand what SRT says in basic terms, so what you're criticizing is your own mistaken impresson of it, rather than it. In the model of space-time utilized by SRT, it's my understanding that space time itself is stretched and bent by energy/mass. Since time is part of what is bent and stretched, "now" only makes sense in terms of a particular space-time coordinate. Thus, your idea of paradox is fundamentally flawed.
Of course the odds are that it's completely pointless to tell you this, as your superiority complex will mandate that I go fuck myself.
Good luck.
martillo said:
I don't care if you're wrong or right. I'd rather you be right. Unfortunately though, even my miniscule comprehension of SRT and GR allows me to see that you don't understand them. If you did, you wouldn't assert what you do about contradictions for instance. Thus, you ARE wrong... it's not me thinking you are, you can't demonstrate a basic comprehension of the theory you're saying is incorrect.
How can you know it's not right if you don't even understand it?
You don't.
Thus, you come up with your own way of explaining things. That's fine, but you're saying that the existing ideas are wrong. Until you can demonstrate you understand what they say, even in the basic concepts... where is your basis for criticism?
I don't see it.
martillo
Registered Senior Member
Wesmorris,
How do you know what I know and what I don't?
You say that just because I have put a simple problem in a very simple manner?
Why don't you expose your solution to the problem in a similar simple way?
You prefer to spend 90% of your words in comments about myself!
How do you know what I know and what I don't?
You say that just because I have put a simple problem in a very simple manner?
Why don't you expose your solution to the problem in a similar simple way?
You prefer to spend 90% of your words in comments about myself!
Relativity is a rather easy concept to understand.
2 objects in relative motion can each consider themself at rest independently. In doing so, the rest object sees the other's clock dilated and spatial length contracted. This observation is reciprical when each observer considers themself at rest.
When a Muon and Earth are two objects in relative motion, distance is only contracted for the Muon because the atmosphere in which it is "moving through" is "moving with the Earth". There is no reciprical effect in this case because that wouldn't make sense.
And finally, when an object approaches c, the spatial contraction between two distance objects as measured from the frame that sees said object traveling near c, goes to 0 for the moving object. The object approaching c does not experience the same type of length contraction as the Muon above, because that just wouldn't make any sense - how could the distance possibly be close to 0?
Let me add the twin paradox for good measure. Two objects in relative motion meet at some point in time. In order for them to meet, one of the objects had to undergo an acceleration for the return trip to begin. The object that accelerated experiences the "real" time dilation/length contraction effect because, well, he accelerated.
See, easy to understand, where is the problem?
2 objects in relative motion can each consider themself at rest independently. In doing so, the rest object sees the other's clock dilated and spatial length contracted. This observation is reciprical when each observer considers themself at rest.
When a Muon and Earth are two objects in relative motion, distance is only contracted for the Muon because the atmosphere in which it is "moving through" is "moving with the Earth". There is no reciprical effect in this case because that wouldn't make sense.
And finally, when an object approaches c, the spatial contraction between two distance objects as measured from the frame that sees said object traveling near c, goes to 0 for the moving object. The object approaching c does not experience the same type of length contraction as the Muon above, because that just wouldn't make any sense - how could the distance possibly be close to 0?
Let me add the twin paradox for good measure. Two objects in relative motion meet at some point in time. In order for them to meet, one of the objects had to undergo an acceleration for the return trip to begin. The object that accelerated experiences the "real" time dilation/length contraction effect because, well, he accelerated.
See, easy to understand, where is the problem?
Last edited:
Aer said:
You don't think it's a conceptual problem rather than language?
Either way, doesn't the guy who is accelerated age less than the guy who isn't? So the one on earth would age more than one who was accelerated and came back..., once they're both back in the same frame.