Prev: Quantum Gravity 357.91: Croatia Shows That Probability of Vacuum Energy Density is More Important than its Vacuum Expectation Value (VEV) of the Hamiltonian Density, in line with Probable Causation/Influence (PI)
Next: Hubble Views Saturn's Northern/Southern Lights
From: Androcles on 15 Feb 2010 16:31

"Unified_Perspective" <agallist(a)gmail.com> wrote in message
news:501533ac-d96e-497f-8eaa-c554fc936629(a)b9g2000pri.googlegroups.com...
On Feb 13, 7:29 am, Ste <ste_ro...(a)hotmail.com> wrote:
Q: "it's clear that the speed of light (where light is either
considered in the form of a ballistic photon, or a wave-cycle) cannot,
physically, be constant in all relative frames, and at the same time
be constant when traveling between two objects in two different
frames. It's a physical and logical impossibility."

A: You are correct. It is an impossibility in a physic universe that
is linear in nature. That is fundamental reason why the equations of
relativity are non-linear equations.

While the math is fundamentally different the terms we use to describe
the math need to be familiar so there is understanding. Although
Einstein and pretty much everyone since has referred to "c" as a
constant it could better be referred to as an asymptote. This is the
correct mathematical term for a limit that can be infinitely closely
approached but not exceeded. In the calculus of relativity "c" is an
asymptote and not a normal constant as that term is used in algebra.

For a given frequency of light the speed of propagation nearly
perfectly approaches a fixed limiting velocity which is believed to be
invariant or unchanging and so is often referred to as a constant -
meaning the limiting value does not vary.

Varying the degree of perfection in the "perfect" vacuum has a very
large effect on the limiting value and this fact is important even if
it is often not well understood.

There is another sense in which the speed of light is invariant. A
photon is emitted when an excited electron falls from a higher orbital
to a lower one. Quantum conservation of energy demands that this occur
instantaneously. Mechanically this is impossible so a small rupture in
space, time, electric, magnetic, and thermal fields occurs. A photon
is the term we use to describe the propagation, or radiation of this
disturbance.

The self propagating nature of the photon means that it literally
consumes space-time as it goes and so its rate of propagation is
dependent on the density of space-time through which it passes. This
effect explains why its rate of propagation can never exceed the rate
it approaches in a perfect vacuum and also why its rate of propagation
in denser media appears measurably slower to an observer in an
external frame of reference.

From the photon's frame of reference it always consumes space-time at
a constant rate and so when it passes from dense media to less dense
media it appears to us to speed up while in fact from the photon's
frame of reference its rate of propagation remains constant. This
explains how the internal energy of the photon remains quite constant
while it appears to us to be changing.

Upon reflection or refraction the internal energy as measured by the
wavelength of the light do change but this change is balance by a
equivalent change in the heat, charge, or chemical properties of the
reflecting, refracting, or reacting atomic elements.

I should warn you that this "world view" is what I came up with after
considerable headaches and head scratching when I was in school. I
find it helpful, useful, internally consistent and explanatory of all
physical and chemical experimental results of which I am aware.
However, I have very seldom published my views and so you will find
they are not known or accepted. If however you find them helpful in
terms of improving your understanding of things you are certainly
welcome to make any use of them you choose, including discarding them
as utter nonsense.

Most Sincerely,

Mr. Gee
==============================================
Thank you, Mr. McGoo.
I'll choose the later option, including your method of misunderstanding
asymptotes.



From: bert on 15 Feb 2010 17:03
On Feb 13, 3:24 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> On Feb 13, 1:43 pm, Ste <ste_ro...(a)hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 13 Feb, 19:11, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Feb 13, 1:01 pm, Ste <ste_ro...(a)hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On 13 Feb, 18:45, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > On Feb 13, 11:51 am, Ste <ste_ro...(a)hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > Not really. I'm still struggling to understand what is happening
> > > > > > physically to explain these phenomena (which is not helped by the
> > > > > > dearth of interest in physics in physical, rather than mathematical,
> > > > > > explanations).
>
> > > > > Oh, come now. You appear to have bailed on the discussion of
> > > > > relativity of simultaneity, which I was doing with purely physical
> > > > > explanations and a complete lack of math.
> > > > > I think you're being just a bit disingenuous here.
>
> > > > I didn't bail on it. I said I felt that your train analogy had a lot
> > > > of extraneous concepts, such as clouds and tracks,
>
> > > On the contrary, I *agreed* with you that the clouds (which I never
> > > brought up -- you did) are extraneous, as are the tracks, which is
> > > precisely why the velocities of the train with respect to the tracks
> > > are irrelevant.
>
> > Indeed, and that is where the analogy ended as I recall.
>
> > > > and then you didn't
> > > > really go on to say anything more about that analogy or about
> > > > simultaneity.
>
> > > I'm sorry, read again. I laid out the plan for where we were going
> > > next. Did you not see that?
>
> > I did read it again before replying to you, to make sure I hadn't
> > missed anything. I couldn't see your response to me that dealt with
> > the analogy any further.
>
> Here is where I think we last left things:http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/msg/26e91b6493e277e1?
> andhttp://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/msg/4a126a6622bac8b1- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Photons do not change speed. They do not bounce, Think change only
distance TreBert
From: kenseto on 15 Feb 2010 17:03
On Feb 15, 4:06 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> On Feb 15, 2:38 pm, kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Feb 15, 12:27 pm, mpalenik <markpale...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Feb 15, 6:54 am, Ste <ste_ro...(a)hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On 14 Feb, 23:46, mpalenik <markpale...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > On Feb 14, 2:03 pm, Ste <ste_ro...(a)hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > I'm afraid you're easily satisifed Tom. As I say, I'm not really
> > > > > > interested in learning geometry, or talking about completely
> > > > > > hypothetical "grooves in spacetime".
>
> > > > > And as many people have repeatedly tried to explain to you, the answer
> > > > > simply is geometry.  When you accellerate, you rotate in spacetime.
> > > > > Why?  Because that's what accelleration means.  That's what it means
> > > > > to be travelling with a certain velocity with respect to something
> > > > > else.  It means that you're both "facing different directions".  Every
> > > > > effect predicted by relativity can be explained simply by the fact
> > > > > that two different observers at different speeds are "facing different
> > > > > directions" in spacetime--because that's what it means to be moving
> > > > > with respect to something else.  It means that you have a different t
> > > > > and x axis.
>
> > > > Mark, if you consider this an answer, then you simply haven't
> > > > understood the question.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > > - Show quoted text -
>
> > > And if you think there's more to it than that, then you haven't
> > > understood the answer.  The above explains everything about relativity
> > > and there's no ambiguity when you understand it.
>
> > > Going back to the fitting a ladder into a barn analogy, it's like you
> > > have a ladder to long to fit into the barn, you turn it at an angle,
> > > and it fits, and then someone starts asking you what "physically"
> > > happened to the ladder.  You say "well, it got rotated, so it's
> > > shorter in the horizontal direction".  Then the person keeps demanding
> > > a physical explanation, and you say you just rotated the ladder, so it
> > > takes up a bit more space in the vertical and less in the horizontal
> > > but the total length of the ladder didn't change.
>
> > In this case you are not fitting the length of the ladder through a
> > narrow door way. You are fitting a skinny side of the ladder through a
> > wider door way.
> > This is not the same as an 80 ft long material pole can fit into a 40
> > ft long material barn with both doors close simultaneously. In this
> > case material contraction must occur. That's thee reason why modern
> > interpretation of length contraction in Sr is merely a geometric
> > effect instead of material or physical effect as asserted by the
> > runts of the SRians such as PD and you.
>
> "Material" does not mean the same thing as "physical", Ken.
> This has been pointed out even in the common dictionary.
> If you can't let go of your mistakes, Ken, you'll never get off square
> one.

Physical is material....is one of the definitions in my dictionary.

>
>
>
>
>
> > Ken Seto
>
> > > And then the person
> > > you're talking to says that he refuses to believe that mathematical
> > > things like angles can affect the things that you can put the ladder
> > > inside of  So then, you try to say that it's like trying to pack a box
> > > and turning all of the objects so they fit into the box the best way.
> > > And then he says "well, there's no doubt that rotating objects is
> > > useful for packing boxes but it doesn't explain what physically
> > > happened to the ladder," so you try to explain one more time and he
> > > says you didn't understand the question.  And when you tell him that
> > > you can even *calculate* the length and height of the ladder after
> > > rotating it, he says that's an abstract mathematical question and has
> > > no bearing on what's physically happening.
>
> > > Velocity is rotation, just rotation in a way that you're not used to
> > > being able to rotate.  There's nothing else to explain.  You
> > > accellerate something, it rotates.  That's a physical answer.




- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

From: Inertial on 15 Feb 2010 17:16

"kenseto" <kenseto(a)erinet.com> wrote in message
news:65b0b432-ea12-4f62-8dea-14b916d28a20(a)15g2000yqi.googlegroups.com...
> On Feb 15, 4:06 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Feb 15, 2:38 pm, kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > On Feb 15, 12:27 pm, mpalenik <markpale...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > > On Feb 15, 6:54 am, Ste <ste_ro...(a)hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > > > On 14 Feb, 23:46, mpalenik <markpale...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > > > > On Feb 14, 2:03 pm, Ste <ste_ro...(a)hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > > > > > I'm afraid you're easily satisifed Tom. As I say, I'm not
>> > > > > > really
>> > > > > > interested in learning geometry, or talking about completely
>> > > > > > hypothetical "grooves in spacetime".
>>
>> > > > > And as many people have repeatedly tried to explain to you, the
>> > > > > answer
>> > > > > simply is geometry. When you accellerate, you rotate in
>> > > > > spacetime.
>> > > > > Why? Because that's what accelleration means. That's what it
>> > > > > means
>> > > > > to be travelling with a certain velocity with respect to
>> > > > > something
>> > > > > else. It means that you're both "facing different directions".
>> > > > > Every
>> > > > > effect predicted by relativity can be explained simply by the
>> > > > > fact
>> > > > > that two different observers at different speeds are "facing
>> > > > > different
>> > > > > directions" in spacetime--because that's what it means to be
>> > > > > moving
>> > > > > with respect to something else. It means that you have a
>> > > > > different t
>> > > > > and x axis.
>>
>> > > > Mark, if you consider this an answer, then you simply haven't
>> > > > understood the question.- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> > > > - Show quoted text -
>>
>> > > And if you think there's more to it than that, then you haven't
>> > > understood the answer. The above explains everything about
>> > > relativity
>> > > and there's no ambiguity when you understand it.
>>
>> > > Going back to the fitting a ladder into a barn analogy, it's like you
>> > > have a ladder to long to fit into the barn, you turn it at an angle,
>> > > and it fits, and then someone starts asking you what "physically"
>> > > happened to the ladder. You say "well, it got rotated, so it's
>> > > shorter in the horizontal direction". Then the person keeps
>> > > demanding
>> > > a physical explanation, and you say you just rotated the ladder, so
>> > > it
>> > > takes up a bit more space in the vertical and less in the horizontal
>> > > but the total length of the ladder didn't change.
>>
>> > In this case you are not fitting the length of the ladder through a
>> > narrow door way. You are fitting a skinny side of the ladder through a
>> > wider door way.
>> > This is not the same as an 80 ft long material pole can fit into a 40
>> > ft long material barn with both doors close simultaneously. In this
>> > case material contraction must occur. That's thee reason why modern
>> > interpretation of length contraction in Sr is merely a geometric
>> > effect instead of material or physical effect as asserted by the
>> > runts of the SRians such as PD and you.
>>
>> "Material" does not mean the same thing as "physical", Ken.
>> This has been pointed out even in the common dictionary.
>> If you can't let go of your mistakes, Ken, you'll never get off square
>> one.
>
> Physical is material....is one of the definitions in my dictionary.

My dictionary says it is relating to the human body (as opposed to mind or
spirit), or involving bodily contact. So if you mean length contraction in
SR is not physical because it does not involve human body contact, then I'd
agree.

In any case, SR says the all the atoms of a moving rod are closer together
(in the frame of a relatively moving observer). ie. that the spatial
distance between them (at any given time) is shorter than when the rod is at
rest. That sounds 'physically' shorter to me.

But then .. you think that geometric things like rotation and translation
are not physical .. so by your logic, when an object gets compressed, it is
really just a geometric effect of the atoms translating closer together, but
not a material change to the atoms themselves, so therefore it is not
physical.

You do realize that geometry is just a human model for what is happening
'physically' in reality (depending on which geometry you use .. you can have
geometries that are not models of any reality we are aware).

From: mpalenik on 15 Feb 2010 17:48
On Feb 15, 3:38 pm, kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote:
> On Feb 15, 12:27 pm, mpalenik <markpale...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Feb 15, 6:54 am, Ste <ste_ro...(a)hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On 14 Feb, 23:46, mpalenik <markpale...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On Feb 14, 2:03 pm, Ste <ste_ro...(a)hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > I'm afraid you're easily satisifed Tom. As I say, I'm not really
> > > > > interested in learning geometry, or talking about completely
> > > > > hypothetical "grooves in spacetime".
>
> > > > And as many people have repeatedly tried to explain to you, the answer
> > > > simply is geometry.  When you accellerate, you rotate in spacetime.
> > > > Why?  Because that's what accelleration means.  That's what it means
> > > > to be travelling with a certain velocity with respect to something
> > > > else.  It means that you're both "facing different directions".  Every
> > > > effect predicted by relativity can be explained simply by the fact
> > > > that two different observers at different speeds are "facing different
> > > > directions" in spacetime--because that's what it means to be moving
> > > > with respect to something else.  It means that you have a different t
> > > > and x axis.
>
> > > Mark, if you consider this an answer, then you simply haven't
> > > understood the question.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > - Show quoted text -
>
> > And if you think there's more to it than that, then you haven't
> > understood the answer.  The above explains everything about relativity
> > and there's no ambiguity when you understand it.
>
> > Going back to the fitting a ladder into a barn analogy, it's like you
> > have a ladder to long to fit into the barn, you turn it at an angle,
> > and it fits, and then someone starts asking you what "physically"
> > happened to the ladder.  You say "well, it got rotated, so it's
> > shorter in the horizontal direction".  Then the person keeps demanding
> > a physical explanation, and you say you just rotated the ladder, so it
> > takes up a bit more space in the vertical and less in the horizontal
> > but the total length of the ladder didn't change.
>
> In this case you are not fitting the length of the ladder through a
> narrow door way. You are fitting a skinny side of the ladder through a
> wider door way.
> This is not the same as an 80 ft long material pole can fit into a 40
> ft long material barn with both doors close simultaneously. In this
> case material contraction must occur. That's thee reason why modern
> interpretation of length contraction in Sr is merely a geometric
> effect instead of material or physical effect as asserted by the
> runts of the SRians such as PD and you.
>
> Ken Seto
>


Wow, SRian. . . that's a word that nobody in the real world uses.
LOL--it's funny reading this group just for the ridiculous lingo the
crackpots make up in an attempt to be insulting.
First  |  Prev  |  Next  |  Last
Pages: 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35
Prev: Quantum Gravity 357.91: Croatia Shows That Probability of Vacuum Energy Density is More Important than its Vacuum Expectation Value (VEV) of the Hamiltonian Density, in line with Probable Causation/Influence (PI)
Next: Hubble Views Saturn's Northern/Southern Lights