Johnny5

objects are space... <---- do you really believe that? your mind should be telling you that you have reached a contradiction any moment now.

The answer has to do with simultaneity, it's absolute not relative. See barn and ladder contradiction. You cannot fit a twenty foot ladder inside a ten foot barn, I don't care how fast you run.

I am not reasoning on single words. Really, I try to figure out someone's model, in order to understand that individual. I am pretty sure you mean to imply that according to undeterminism, there can be at most one possible location for the electron to be, but that where it will be is totally random. That's what I think you mean. You might as well just come out and say there are no laws of physics, so we should all stop doing physics. Ok so the motion of an electron is random, if its time evolution is not predictable. Hmmm. I assert that the motion of an electron obeys an ordinary differential equation, in the right reference frame.

No i have a reason why it's wrong.

If the photon exists, then it exists in its own rest frame. But yeah I didn't demonstrandum it at all, then again I knew that.

I already did define it. Any three non-collinear points in S are moving in a straight line at a constant speed in reference frame S. So if there was a solid body in frame S`, and the three points were on the surface of the body, then the body isn't rotating in reference frame S`. And if that body was being viewed in reference frame S, then those three points on the surface of that body would be moving in straight lines at constant speeds in S, and the three points would be at rest in S`. Was that clear enough?

That's a bit better, what is an inertial observer?

You can do physics in photon rest frames, in which the speed of a particular photon is zero. QED A longer proof would be to compare the speed of light in one frame, to the speed of the same photon in a reference frame which is accelerating away from the photon, and a reference frame which is accelerating towards the photon. In the frame which is accelerating away from the photon, the photon will have a measured speed which is slower than in the frame which is accelerating towards the photon. QED

It is highly unlikely that our thoughts would be identical, but now I feel bad. Ok what is space, and what is time?

I didn't mean all matter was located at one point in space simultaneously, that was/is impossible. BB theory may say that, but that's wrong. I think I said, near one point, and what I mean is only this... That all the material, wherever it is now, used to form a single body. If the BB model says that there was a moment in time, at which all of space was just one point, well then that's false. I have repeatedly stated that space isn't something which was created. Tom and I debated this in another thread, where I said that if you could create points in space, then points in a single frame could move relative to one another, so that you could have two points at one point simultaneously, and then 2=1. He had a problem with the reasoning, and then we discussed mappings, specifically one in which space could stretch, and I pointed out that such a mapping led to a contradiction. I never heard a word from him again about it.

You cannot 'connect' space to time. You can connect your trailer to your car using a trailer hitch, but you cannot join space and time, and that's all I meant. As for macroscopic objects... they move relative to one another. I think if I devoted enough time to it, I could formulate the laws of physics without any reference to time whatsoever. Things move... we can measure 'amounts of time,' as I stated in another thread in which I briefly discussed pendulums. Time isn't a phyiscal thing that you can connect to space... in fact space isn't matter so you can't join anything to it either. A body of matter isn't joined to the vacuum, it moves through the vacuum. I guess the basic fact which proves this, is that the vacuum does not impede the foward motion of a body. If you apply a force to some object in the vacuum, you and the object will move away from your common CM forever, you will never come to rest, because the vacuum doesn't decelerate you in the CM frame. Gravity might decelerate you, but not the vacuum. So unless you are going to tell me that gravity is vacuum inertial impedence (which would rule out gravitons), I don't think you are going to hold my attention.

Ok we are talking you here, not Einstein... Do you literally mean all frames of reference, or do you mean all inertial reference frames, or do you mean all reference frames in which Maxwell's equations are true? And for that matter, how are you defining inertial reference frame?

Say what?

This is untrue. Suppose that S is an inertial reference frame. Define the frame S` to be a coordinate system with a photon at the origin, and let the axes not be rotating in S. S` is also an inertial frame, and the photon is at rest in it.

Well you go with quantum physics which says: p = h/l But I am still held up by the assertion that p=mv does not hold for photons.

Do you literally mean all frames that I can conceive of, or do you mean all inertial reference frames, or do you mean all frames be they inertial or non-inertial frames?

I thought so. Well what is the mass of a photon in a frame of reference in which it's center of mass is at rest? Because that is a frame where its speed is zero. And in a frame where it's speed is zero, instead of c, the photon momentum mv=0, while P=E/v is infinite, since v=0. But the photon could still have a nonzero rest frequency in this frame, in which case its energy hf, would be nonzero. So I am still confused by the statement that mv doesn't apply to photons. Let me run through your argument quickly. For any object of rest mass m, and momentum p, the following equation is a true statement which is frame dependent: EE=ppcc + mccmcc Where E is the total energy of the object in a reference frame in which the center of inertia of the object has speed v, where: p = Mv where M = m (1-v^2/c^2)^-1/2 Then you hold that for a photon, m=0, from which it follows that for a photon: EE=ppcc From which it follows that for a photon: E=pc (where I have ignored E=-pc) From which it follows that for a photon: E=mv (1-v^2/c^2)^-1/2 And in any inertial reference frame the speed v of a photon is c, so for a photon traveling in an IRF the following statement is true: E=mc (1-c^2/c^2)^-1/2 From which it follows that: E=mc (0)^-1/2 From which it follows that: E=mc/0 Which is the division by zero error of algebra unless m=0, whence you must insist that for a photon in an inertial reference frame m=0, which you did do, but then the energy of a photon in an IRF is indeterminate i.e. E=0/0, whence you must resort to quantum physics to escape... E = hf for a photon

You are referring to the general theory of relativity then. How well do you know that theory?

It says that the "energy density" at the center of the ball plus the direction at that point, pluss.... see they lose me there. The center of a ball is a point in three dimensional space. The volume of a point is zero, since the radius is zero, and mass density is mass divided by volume, energy density would be energy divided by volume, but since volume of a point is zero, energy density of a point is infinite. Am I to assume they mean in some tiny region of volume?