DimaMazin Posted April 18, 2015 Posted April 18, 2015 Speed of light is constant therefore we can use 'dx' of light instead of time.For example: p=m*dxlight*dx/(dxlight2-dx2)1/2
DimaMazin Posted April 19, 2015 Author Posted April 19, 2015 (edited) 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 Posted April 19, 2015 Posted April 19, 2015 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 Posted April 19, 2015 Author Posted April 19, 2015 did you make this up all by yourself or did you see it somewhere? By myself. Did you see this somewhere?
xyzt Posted April 19, 2015 Posted April 19, 2015 By myself. Did you see this somewhere? it is brilliant, the work of genius, you should patent it. -1
DimaMazin Posted April 19, 2015 Author Posted April 19, 2015 it is brilliant, the work of genius, you should patent it. Thanks. I can't patent anything.
DimaMazin Posted April 19, 2015 Author Posted April 19, 2015 Is this just dx = c dt ? No. dxlight=c*dt
Strange Posted April 19, 2015 Posted April 19, 2015 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 Posted April 19, 2015 Posted April 19, 2015 (edited) 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 Posted April 19, 2015 Author Posted April 19, 2015 (edited) 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/dxlight 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. dxlight and quantity of receptions define time, time defines nothing. Edited April 19, 2015 by DimaMazin
swansont Posted April 19, 2015 Posted April 19, 2015 No. dxlight=c*dt IOW, yes. Congratulations, you've discovered parametric equations. BFD.
DimaMazin Posted April 19, 2015 Author Posted April 19, 2015 IOW, yes. Congratulations, you've discovered parametric equations. BFD. Thanks for sarcasm agen. When I know dxlight and simultaneous dx then I don't need to know speeds and time.
swansont Posted April 19, 2015 Posted April 19, 2015 Thanks for sarcasm agen. When I know dxlight 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 Posted April 20, 2015 Author Posted April 20, 2015 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 dxlight=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 Posted April 20, 2015 Posted April 20, 2015 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 dxlight=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 Posted April 21, 2015 Author Posted April 21, 2015 (edited) 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 Posted April 21, 2015 Posted April 21, 2015 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 Posted April 27, 2015 Author Posted April 27, 2015 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 Posted May 2, 2015 Author Posted May 2, 2015 Your clock are fast or slow, it has no meaning.Because your clock should tell only one thing: quantity of light motion.
Mordred Posted May 2, 2015 Posted May 2, 2015 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 Posted May 2, 2015 Posted May 2, 2015 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 Posted May 2, 2015 Posted May 2, 2015 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? 1
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now