RICHARDBATTY

In my limited capacity the problem is simple. At the speed of light time stops and therefore speed is infinite for the object at the speed of light. Go faster than infinite speed. I don't see how you could. The fact is proved by light speed being said speed no matter what your speed is.

Photons don't have eyes either. It was just a hypo question I think. To all observing frames it is the same.

This is where every thing goes a bit Pamela Anderson sun bathing. If the photon has no time then no time passes it experinces no time passing so it is still moving with no time. This is why the speed of light is constant. No matter which frame you view from there is no time to dilate more or less. If a photon could view another photon it has no time c is still constant but no time passes. Hold the sanity certificate.

I meant that from the photon/electrons point of view the journey is instant and therefore light would not see other light travel.

Yes it was but I meant that the experiment has been done with photons. The experiment with electrons was also repeated to cover all possibilities. It was performed with the detecters on in two tests and different results were gathered. The only difference was that the information recorded on the computer(to remove human intervention) was erased before the the results were viewed.

From Thales [ "Okies, well the first problem I see with your reasoning is you have adopted a relativistic framework for photons, which as someone aptly pointed out to me(can't remember who) is problematic to say the least. A particle with speed c does not see the universe shrink down to a point or see time stop because the laws of special relativity apply only to inertial refernce frames and a photon has zero mass and therefore no inertia and therefore does not adhere to lorentz transforms(time dialation and length contraction)."] I thought that sr says that c is the same in all frames and also transformations can only occur with varying speed. Light just is at c therefore cannot be transformed. There may be no contraction of mass but time still does not exist for the wave. As I have stated previously I have no science education so if I argue I'm not saying anyone is wrong. I just try to offer alternative angles to cover all possibilities.

Could this mean that the theory of go back in time go forward to an alternative future dimension is wrong. If you have just joined this thread please read the first post.

As this seems to prove I'm not insane could I have certificate to prove it please. Mr Thales could you help here, you seem to have the knowledge to pick this apart. Basicly the wave would normaly interact with its destination. It has stopped. There is no paradox. When we observe without stopping the wave this creates a temporal paradox that is unresolved until the observation is acknowledged in a perminant way. If the data is deleted before it is acknowledged all that remains of the paradox is energy which can be changed by time. I do not mean to disrespect anyone elses knowledge of this subject, but I have had more dealings with Mr Thales.

That transparent was it.

Guns ready, fingers steady. I'm going on a fly by. Prepare to shoot me down in flames. The waves travel at the speed of light. At this speed time freezes for the wave and an infinite amount of time passes for the wave. The wave is in the distant future before it reaches the target. Observation cannot take place over an infinite time and in one instant. The measurement takes place at one instant and from the instant the observation was taken the outcome is already a known future for the particle. At the instant of observation the wave cannot be viewed as it has occured over time for us. As time for the wave does not exist at no point can it be any where along its given path but it does exist and if we observe it it can only exist at that point. The point that it exists is in the future when its state has been recorded as an image. If we did not observe it, it would not have to exist at a given point and could be a wave.

"people masturbating their imaginations without much additional understanding" Thanks for the explanation and the strange image created by the later part of it.

"Without the dream what would there be to try?." Me just now.

I thought that the constant was a mistake or guess made to fill a gap in the theory that has now been proved wrong.

I thought that the constant was a mistake or guess made to fill a gap in the theory that has now been proved wrong.

Tried triangle. It fits my nose quite well. I would say that the triangle one may have varying results due to the fact that the dominant hand would tend to support the weak hand slightly. This may lead to the dominant hand pulling the other to the dominant side. Just a thought I'll shut up now.

Right handed but when focused on a point 2.5m away I see two fingers and the image moves right with left eye and left with right eye if I center the focus point between finger images. Sorry can't vote due to option limits. REPEATED TEST WITH FINGER THUMB LOOP. When using right hand left eye becomes dominant, when using left hand right eye becomes dominant. I think my brain automaticaly favoured least obstructed view. I don't know if this is any more help than the first go but I tried sorry.

I see what you mean but it still leaves us with expanding spacetime.Do you not think that this illusion would occur more localy.

Thank you this is an interesting point that should be taken into consideration. Could I just clarify a point. Do you mean that space time is expanding but the matter is not moving apart faster but is slowing. That the red shift is due to the wave length of light expanding with space time in mid transmision.

I would just like to appologize for my last post.

The reason I posted this is not just that the universe is expanding but that the speed is increasing.

Once the states of the entangled pair are known then what. If you have tr ansported a limited amount to a remote location how can you use this again.trolling, flaming, spamming whats this. If you have just joined the thread ingnore this and read the first post.

The person who started this thread wanted to talk about the existence of time. Please see first post.