StringJunky Posted August 5, 2018 Posted August 5, 2018 1 minute ago, JohnMnemonic said: Well, since hadrons, move at extremely high velocities and are still able to experience time, it doesn't confirm, but rather denies the lack of time flow at 100% of c IIRC, there is no frame for a photon because you get zero's and infinities, which means it makes no sense and is not useful.
beecee Posted August 5, 2018 Posted August 5, 2018 Just now, JohnMnemonic said: Well, since hadrons, which move at extremely high velocities and still are able to experience ti8me, it doesn't confirm, but rather denies the lack of time flow at 100% of c It shows that time dilation is a fact as detailed in Einstein's SR. What has this to do with any time flow for a photon? which is non existant.
studiot Posted August 5, 2018 Posted August 5, 2018 14 minutes ago, JohnMnemonic said: hanx! I know, that lenght contraction can be observed only by a stationary observer I seriously suggest you start by clearing up this misconception. What you are referring to (perhaps) is what used to be called 'the laboratory frame', which was often considered stationary
beecee Posted August 5, 2018 Posted August 5, 2018 1 minute ago, StringJunky said: IIRC, there is no frame for a photon because you get zero's and infinities, which means it makes no sense and is not useful. Yes, a point I already made. It appears that we now have some dancing around the issue at hand re SR and as an extension, GR.
JohnMnemonic Posted August 5, 2018 Author Posted August 5, 2018 (edited) Quote And as long as your self proclaimed knowledge and logic are clouded with afflictions and/or agendas, they will prove to be faulty. What afflictions and/or agendas? Quote ...Time does not pass for a photon... How do you know? I can make a simple statement, which will prove, that this statement is wrong... Are you ready? Then listen: It is possible to track the timeline of events, experienced by a photon. To have a timeline, means to experience time - that's all... Do you want to argue? 8 minutes ago, StringJunky said: IIRC, there is no frame for a photon because you get zero's and infinities, which means it makes no sense and is not useful. Yes - it won't make sense, if we would use SR. But is it useless, to use photons as a frame of reference? I would argue... Edited August 5, 2018 by JohnMnemonic
studiot Posted August 5, 2018 Posted August 5, 2018 A point of proceedure, John You have to highlight that text in order to copy it. If you stay your hand a bit longer to get the "quote this " up we will know whom you are responding to.
JohnMnemonic Posted August 5, 2018 Author Posted August 5, 2018 Quote It shows that time dilation is a fact as detailed in Einstein's SR. What has this to do with any time flow for a photon? which is non existant. "non existant" according to a theory, which can't even use those photons as a reference. It's pretty obvious, that it won't make sense, if we won't assume, that light experiences time, just like any other frame 2 minutes ago, studiot said: A point of proceedure, John You have to highlight that text in order to copy it. If you stay your hand a bit longer to get the "quote this " up we will know whom you are responding to. Sorry, I wanted to answer to one person in a single post, but I didn't manage...
StringJunky Posted August 5, 2018 Posted August 5, 2018 (edited) 11 minutes ago, JohnMnemonic said: Yes - it won't make sense, if we would use SR. But is it useless, to use photons as a frame of reference? I would argue... SR is GR with a flat spacetime, which means without gravity. If you are getting zero's and infinities as your result then you know it's broken down and not valid. Edited August 5, 2018 by StringJunky
JohnMnemonic Posted August 5, 2018 Author Posted August 5, 2018 11 minutes ago, beecee said: Yes, a point I already made. It appears that we now have some dancing around the issue at hand re SR and as an extension, GR. No, GR is about mass/energy distribution and time-space curvatures... SR is about relative motion and the speed of light. If you disagree, try to explain gravity with SR - good luck 2 minutes ago, StringJunky said: SR is GR in flat spacetime, which means without gravity. If you are getting zero's and infinities as your result then you know it's broken down and not valid. But does it mean, that there's absolutely no other way, to make it valid? I'm sure, that scientists should be able to make it work - even a complete amateur, like me was able to describe a possible perspective of a photon.... Problem is, that to do it, we would ave to modify a big part of SR...
studiot Posted August 5, 2018 Posted August 5, 2018 Just now, JohnMnemonic said: No, GR is about mass/energy distribution and time-space curvatures... SR is about relative motion and the speed of light. If you disagree, try to explain gravity with SR - good luck Only in part. In elementary mechanics, we start with kinematics, whcih is purely about equations of motion, irrepective of how those motions are caused. In particular kinematics does not involve any forces. To do this we move on to a more complete description, known as dynamics. It is much the same in SR and GR Forces are not involved in SR, but introduced in GR. So yes, GR deals with gravity (in its own way) Now I have answered you how about going back afew posts and answering my comment on stationary observers?
JohnMnemonic Posted August 5, 2018 Author Posted August 5, 2018 17 minutes ago, studiot said: I seriously suggest you start by clearing up this misconception. What you are referring to (perhaps) is what used to be called 'the laboratory frame', which was often considered stationary I wanted to say, that it is impossible to observe any effect of relativity in my own frame if I'm moving with a constant velocity
beecee Posted August 5, 2018 Posted August 5, 2018 4 minutes ago, JohnMnemonic said: What afflictions and/or agendas? That's why I asked you whether you believe in ghosts demons and the supernatural in general etc [which you raised] And the possible afflction being delusions of grandeur in thinking that you have discovered/reasoned and invalidated SR/GR which has been put to the tests many thousands of times and passed with flying colours. Quote How do you know? Obviously as I already told you we cannot put ourselves in, or even talk about the frame of reference of a photon, but relativity, that theory that has been validated thousands of times, tells us that as we approach "c" [and as shown in experiments many times] time slows down and lengths shorten. Therefor at "c" time should not exist and the photon be able to traverse the universe in an instant. Quote I can make a simple statement, which will prove, that this statement is wrong... Are you ready? Then listen: It is possible to track the timeline of events, experienced by a photon. To have a timeline, means to experience time - that's all... Do you want to argue? No you can't and be my guest. And again if you are so inflicted with delusions of grandeur, then write up a paper for peer review. Quote Yes - it won't make sense, if we would use SR. But is it useless, to use photons as a frame of reference? I would argue... You can argue till the cows come home, but you will never invalidate SR/GR simply because we use and apply them every day. 7 minutes ago, JohnMnemonic said: No, GR is about mass/energy distribution and time-space curvatures... SR is about relative motion and the speed of light. If you disagree, try to explain gravity with SR - good luck SR is the subset or special case of GR without gravity, so you appear to be deliberately constructing a paradox. Try again.
JohnMnemonic Posted August 5, 2018 Author Posted August 5, 2018 (edited) 8 minutes ago, beecee said: That's why I asked you whether you believe in ghosts demons and the supernatural in general etc [which you raised] And the possible afflction being delusions of grandeur in thinking that you have discovered/reasoned and invalidated SR/GR which has been put to the tests many thousands of times and passed with flying colours. You got me I'm a secret agent of God. Beware! Archangel Michael is tracking your GPS signal Quote Obviously as I already told you we cannot put ourselves in, or even talk about the frame of reference of a photon, What is the punishment for talking and thinking (!!!) about photon as a frame of reference? It has to hurt, since you are so scared of doing it... Quote but relativity, that theory that has been validated thousands of times, tells us that as we approach "c" [and as shown in experiments many times] time slows down and lengths shorten. Therefor at "c" time should not exist and the photon be able to traverse the universe in an instant. It won't be validated, until someone won't approach c. And sice timeline of events, experienced by a photon can be observed and tracked your explanations don't have no value at all - as they are contradicted by objective reality Quote You can argue till the cows come home, but you will never invalidate SR/GR simply because we use and apply them every day. I just did it with my previous answer Edited August 5, 2018 by JohnMnemonic
studiot Posted August 5, 2018 Posted August 5, 2018 3 minutes ago, beecee said: You can argue till the cows come home, but you will never invalidate SR/GR simply because we use and apply them every day. Are you sure? Have you looked at my topic in the lounge? 6 minutes ago, JohnMnemonic said: I wanted to say, that it is impossible to observe any effect of relativity in my own frame if I'm moving with a constant velocity That's much better, and much closer to what I originally said to you. But I also said that applies to anything else that is referenced to your frame ie within your frame. But why only constant velocity. The Lorenz transform has the (interesting) property that the L tranform of a L transform is again a L transform.
JohnMnemonic Posted August 5, 2018 Author Posted August 5, 2018 (edited) 12 minutes ago, studiot said: Now I have answered you how about going back afew posts and answering my comment on stationary observers? Plz, can you repeat your question? I got lost between all those recent posts... Edited August 5, 2018 by JohnMnemonic
studiot Posted August 5, 2018 Posted August 5, 2018 31 minutes ago, studiot said: I seriously suggest you start by clearing up this misconception. What you are referring to (perhaps) is what used to be called 'the laboratory frame', which was often considered stationary
JohnMnemonic Posted August 5, 2018 Author Posted August 5, 2018 1 minute ago, studiot said: But why only constant velocity. It is just my guess, but I would say, that it's because constant velocity is not associated with a kinetic force - so nothing works on a body which moves at a constant speed Quote The Lorenz transform has the (interesting) property that the L tranform of a L transform is again a L transform. Thanx! I would love to hear more - can you give me some link?
beecee Posted August 5, 2018 Posted August 5, 2018 Just now, JohnMnemonic said: You got me I'm a secret agent of God. Beware! Archangel Michael is tracking your GPS signal Why not simply answer the question, unless I really have got you. Quote What is the punishment for talking and thinking (!!!) about photon as a frame of reference None that I know of except of course being a totally invalid concept which will obviously get you know where. Quote It won't be validated, until someone won't approach c. Bullshit, Again check out particle accelerators and many other applications of the validity of SR/GR Quote And sice timeline of events, experienced by a photon can be observed and tracked your explanations don't have no value at all - as they are contradicted by objective reality I just did it with my previous answer Ahh yes the delusions of grandeur affliction again. Now again try writing up a paper for professional peer review and then be willing to accept the criticism that even SR/GR had to go through before being validated.
JohnMnemonic Posted August 5, 2018 Author Posted August 5, 2018 3 minutes ago, studiot said: I seriously suggest you start by clearing up this misconception. What you are referring to (perhaps) is what used to be called 'the laboratory frame', which was often considered stationary Keep in mind, that I'm just a complete amateur, who treats physics as a hobby - but I'm still learning and trying to improve...
beecee Posted August 5, 2018 Posted August 5, 2018 2 minutes ago, JohnMnemonic said: Keep in mind, that I'm just a complete amateur, who treats physics as a hobby - but I'm still learning and trying to improve... And you stand there claiming to have invalidated SR, and as an extension GR?
StringJunky Posted August 5, 2018 Posted August 5, 2018 7 minutes ago, beecee said: And you stand there claiming to have invalidated SR, and as an extension GR? We can all dream.
JohnMnemonic Posted August 5, 2018 Author Posted August 5, 2018 (edited) Quote 16 minutes ago, beecee said: Why not simply answer the question, unless I really have got you. And what do you want me to be? MOSAD? KGB? CIA? SJW? LGBT? Truth is, that my agenda is so secret, that it still doesn't have a name - got any ideas? Quote None that I know of except of course being a totally invalid concept which will obviously get you know where. So you say, that people won't even try to use photons as reference, cause they are afraid of being wrong? Funny, I found 2 possible ways to do it. They might be of course wrong - but since no one can move at c, how do we learn the truth? Quote Ahh yes the delusions of grandeur affliction again. Now again try writing up a paper for professional peer review and then be willing to accept the criticism that even SR/GR had to go through before being validated. Of course - my opinion matters so much, that hundreds of thousands of professional scientists tremble, when they hear my voice, while my guesses shake the entire scientific community... "Don't you know him? He's that famous nobody, who treats physics as a hobby and doesn't have any title any title or diploma" Yes - Nobel Prize is waiting.... Edited August 5, 2018 by JohnMnemonic
beecee Posted August 5, 2018 Posted August 5, 2018 1 minute ago, StringJunky said: We can all dream. Certainly...and I do my share of dreaming, particularly about where and why the BB banged. But really, all jokes aside, the frequency of amateurs coming to this and other science forums, open to all and sundry and every Tom, Dick and Harry, sees these claimants of having trumped Einstein and relativity, being worth a dime a dozen.
studiot Posted August 5, 2018 Posted August 5, 2018 9 minutes ago, JohnMnemonic said: It is just my guess, but I would say, that it's because constant velocity is not associated with a kinetic force - so nothing works on a body which moves at a constant speed Thanx! I would love to hear more - can you give me some link? 8 minutes ago, JohnMnemonic said: Keep in mind, that I'm just a complete amateur, who treats physics as a hobby - but I'm still learning and trying to improve. It's coming up to midnight here. I will see what I can look out tomorrow, but I am old fashioned so I tend to regard references as in books or papers. Janus would probably have this stuff at his fingertips. This is not a personal criticism, but your guess underlined above suggests you are not up to speed on classical mechanics. You really can't hope to cope with relativity unless you can do that first, except in the most general terms which will leave much important stuff out. In those circumstances you need to be a bit less ready to jump to unjustified conclusions. You should not have to guess at fundamentals. I have already just told you that kinetics or kinematics has nothing to do with forces (although it deals with accelerations, boosts and so forth).
swansont Posted August 5, 2018 Posted August 5, 2018 7 hours ago, JohnMnemonic said: I want to combine my model of space, time and scale relativity with those parts, which are officially approved. To be honest, I still didn't get to GR - first I want to deal with SR. But the general idea of such unification is still just in my mind You haven't presented a model.
Recommended Posts