Without time.

[DimaMazin]

Speed of light is constant therefore we can use 'dx' of light instead of time.For example:

p=m_*dx_light*dx/(dx_light²-dx²)^1/2

 

[nobox]

Good thought

[Strange]

What is "'dx' of light"?

[DimaMazin]

Good thought

Thanks Nobox. The thought has came from definition of time http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/86302-what-is-time/page-14

What is "'dx' of light"?

Change of distance to photon which is simultaneous with dx of object.

Edited April 19, 2015 by DimaMazin

[xyzt]

Thanks Nobox. The thought has came from definition of time http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/86302-what-is-time/page-14

Change of distance to photon which is simultaneous with dx of object.

did you make this up all by yourself or did you see it somewhere?

[DimaMazin]

did you make this up all by yourself or did you see it somewhere?

By myself. Did you see this somewhere?

[xyzt]

By myself. Did you see this somewhere?

it is brilliant, the work of genius, you should patent it.

[DimaMazin]

it is brilliant, the work of genius, you should patent it.

Thanks. I can't patent anything.

[ajb]

Is this just dx = c dt ?

[DimaMazin]

Is this just dx = c dt ?

No.

dx_light=c_*dt

[Strange]

1. dx has units of lengt, while c has units of length/time so you can't just replace c with dx

2. dx is undefined unless you define dt; what is the value of dt?

[ajb]

Is this more like using [math]ds^{2} = \eta_{ab}dx^{b}dx^{a}= 1[/math] (in appropriate units) along a light-like curve?

 

I think you should spell this out more. I don't think we understand your dx-light?

 

EDIT That should of course be 0 for light-like curves.

Edited April 20, 2015 by ajb

[DimaMazin]

1. dx has units of lengt, while c has units of length/time so you can't just replace c with dx

2. dx is undefined unless you define dt; what is the value of dt?

Strange questions. Show how your questions relate to my idea. You are asking about value of dt there where time doesn't exist! For example v/c has no unit and dx/dx_light has the same. If you don't understand the idea then you should try to use light clock: source creates flash and the light travels to a mirror and back then when the source recieves the light it creates flash agen. dx_light and quantity of receptions define time, time defines nothing.

Edited April 19, 2015 by DimaMazin

[swansont]

No.

dx_light=c_*dt

 

IOW, yes.

 

Congratulations, you've discovered parametric equations.

 

 

BFD.

 

[DimaMazin]

 

IOW, yes.

 

Congratulations, you've discovered parametric equations.

 

 

BFD.

 

Thanks for sarcasm agen. When I know dx_light and simultaneous dx then I don't need to know speeds and time.

[swansont]

Thanks for sarcasm agen. When I know dx_light and simultaneous dx then I don't need to know speeds and time.

 

Yes, because c is invariant. You have parameterized time in terms of c.

[DimaMazin]

 

Yes, because c is invariant. You have parameterized time in terms of c.

Let's consider non-relativistic case:You are traveler without acceleration. At distance of r to a mirror you create flash. At distance r-dx you recieve the light from the mirror. Then dx_light=2r-dx. Even if you don't know time,your speed and speed of light you can define your momentum.What is parameterized here?

[swansont]

Let's consider non-relativistic case:You are traveler without acceleration. At distance of r to a mirror you create flash. At distance r-dx you recieve the light from the mirror. Then dx_light=2r-dx. Even if you don't know time,your speed and speed of light you can define your momentum.What is parameterized here?

 

 

You have parameterized time in terms of c and distance. The question, from a practical standpoint, is how you determine the distance in the first place.

[DimaMazin]

 

 

You have parameterized time in terms of c and distance. The question, from a practical standpoint, is how you determine the distance in the first place.

There distance is marked without c and t . I don't know time and c.

Edited April 21, 2015 by DimaMazin

[swansont]

There distance is marked without c and t .

 

That's great if you have that situation, but most of the time distances are not conveniently marked out for you. It still remains that you have simply parameterized time with c and d.

[DimaMazin]

 

That's great if you have that situation, but most of the time distances are not conveniently marked out for you. It still remains that you have simply parameterized time with c and d.

Yes. But you need to know simultaneity when you use quantity of motion of another thing for definition of time. And you need no simultaneity when you use quantity of motion of light for definition of time. Therefore you can say that

time is quantity of motion of light

[DimaMazin]

Your clock are fast or slow, it has no meaning.Because your clock should tell only one thing: quantity of light motion.

[Mordred]

Yeesh can we please stop using larger fonts its far far more annoying than impressive. In truth makes me personally want to ignore your threads altogether.

[Strange]

Your clock are fast or slow, it has no meaning.Because your clock should tell only one thing: quantity of light motion.

 

Your clock should tell you only one thing: the time. By definition.

 

What does "quantity" of light motion mean? What is two litres of light motion?

Yeesh can we please stop using larger fonts its far far more annoying than impressive. In truth makes me personally want to ignore your threads altogether.

 

And the stupid smileys.

[StringJunky]

Yeesh can we please stop using larger fonts its far far more annoying than impressive. In truth makes me personally want to ignore your threads altogether.

Being emphatic improves the strength of ones argument... Duh!

 

...What does "quantity" of light motion mean? What is two litres of light motion?

It's a bit unorthodox, but what's wrong with it?