justafool @zeccano@qoto.org
Joined Nov 2019
@freemo @CCoinTradingIdeas
And you never explained how two differently moving guys can both read light velocity as c even when heading in different direction and speeds. Its just ignored.
Because its irrational to suggest that its possible.
@freemo @CCoinTradingIdeas
You dont need to go to the andromeda galaxy to IMAGINE that your clock is part of that galaxy, anymore than the guy on the carriage can either imagine he is in the carriage frame or can imagine he is moving and in the stationary frame, without needing to hop out of the carriage and go there.
ALL frames of reference are arbitrarily chosen according to the whims of the observer.
Choose andromeda as yours. do the math. Your clock will obey your imagination.
@freemo @CCoinTradingIdeas
Not quite. No one has ever proved that light velocity is always c in any frame. all observations were done in the same frame as the light, every time. Facing this way or that way is still in the same frame, just changing the orientation in the same frame. and the light is also facing this way or that in that same frame. When did they jump into a different inertial frame, and how much g forces did they experience?
Which experiment were you thinking about anyway?
@freemo @CCoinTradingIdeas
So go to that mountain with your clock, and choose the frame im calling the andromeda galaxy, and see how much difference you get with the clock now! After all, you just need to imagine that the clock is linked virtually to the Andromeda galaxy. and "seems like"" or ""appears to be"" according to the subjective experience of the relativist CAN make a real difference to physical objects!
Its like mind over matter.
Explain what happens with light in order for this to be true:
"However light is special and therefore they get the same speed.". SR neglects to mention HOW this works.
@freemo @CCoinTradingIdeas So here is the crux of my argument.
Go back up on that mountain, with the clock, but this time CHOOSE as your current frame, the Andromeda galaxy. Then you will observe your clock having a totally different reading! You can just choose your frame as you wish.
Because choosing your frame CHANGES REALITY!
Wow that deep. Please do it.
You measured a difference in your atomic clocks, because you chose you frame, so if you just chose another convenient frame the clock would have stayed the same as the master back home...
If you stay with your statement ""The answer is, both, everything is in every frame of reference and any frame of reference can be defined by any point you wish."" you can choose a different frame where the atomic clock wont be gaining time, because we can choose any frame we wish...
Changing ones perspective cant possibly have any affect of any event.
Leave if you want, but you are just getting to the interesting part, where you realize that you cant justify what you are claiming with rational thought.
@freemo @CCoinTradingIdeas
""Two people are moving at different speeds, both observing the same light moving at its own 3rd speed"".
OK, how can the both get the same speed for the object moving in the 3rd frame then?
It not physically possible.
And if light is moving in its own frame, not in mine or yours, and its always constant in every direction, then that is the absolute preferred frame of reference that is not supposed to exist. Light speed is measured from its own frame origin and its absolute so this is the absolute frame you were saying does not exist! Light speed is c relative to what? to its own absolute frame and all of us are also relative to that absolute frame.
Anything i see that i can measure is in my frame. The frame is NOT an observer, We dont need any observers, we can imagine measuring from the platform, and also imagine the result when measuring from the corner of the moving carriage, and in fact thats exactly what einstein did with his thought experiment, he assumed the position of an absolute observer capable of seeing everything from an absolute preferred frame. If he did not do this, we would still be looking for a guy in a carriage to get his measurements, cause we cant figure out this stuff from only our frame,.....
Thats why i can measure the velocity of a ball inside a carriage that the carriage observer has just tossed toward the front of the carriage.
So you are wrong here. Arnt you?
If he chooses to measure relative to the carriage or relative to where im standing, thats his business, but the ball wont change its motion and time wont shrink if he chooses the former or the latter.
@freemo @CCoinTradingIdeas
No you are totally wrong. Are you sere you studied this at school?
Clearly in einstins scenerio you MUST have two observers.
One observer is moving and you are considering yourself as stationary, that's Einsteins setup.
He is moving in my frame, thats why I can measure his velocity and position using classical rules.
The time whey things get relative is ONLY when there is a 3 rd object that both observr's are trying to measure, be it a ball or a light beam bouncing between mirrors.
Take away that 3rd object which can be considered to be in my frame, or also considered to be in his frame if he happens to wish to measure from the corner of his carriage,
The whole experiment is conducted as seen from the stationary observer, who has no problem with watching the passage of the vehicle containing the second observer, it ONLY when they both observe the third object, the ball or photon, that the claim of non Galilean relativity is supposed to come into play.
Anything I watch happening before me is automatically in my frame. Its not a special relativity frame, as the guy in the carriage can clearly see me as well, and we both measure the same Galilean distances and velocity between us.
It ONLY when that second, moving guy ignores me and tries to measure that photon, that''s where SR is supposed to be beginning.
So because light is never affected by anyone's frame, its always C, then light cant be relative to anyone's frame, its never able to change in velocity, its totally independent of frames, for light its as if no frames of reference exist.
Use rational thought and sound logic here, If two frames occupants agree that their frames are different, but they both get the same value for light speed, relative to their frames, then clearly they are wrong in assuming that the light is relative to frames. Its absolute, and apparently it s the only thing in the universe that is absolute.
Frames are relative never absolute, so how can you possible think that light can be absolute and not absolute at the same time?
So my statement, ""Relativity is only applicable to something that is MOVING inside a differently (moving) frame than the observer."" and the light is in my frame, and by measuring it as velocity c, it is proof that its in my frame.
And the carriage containing the other observer is also in my frame, as is the photon inside the carriage, all in my frame.
BUT its the observation of that photon in the carriage made by the second, moving observer, that einstein claims changes the universe. I just wish he would take a look outside, and stop measuring from the corner of his carriage, then the world of physics cane settle down again..
So for the moving guy, he observes something different, if he blots out the background outside his carriage, otherwise no, he sees nothing different at all.
And BECAUSE he still gets lights velocity as c, even though his carriage is moving, and its the same photon we are both measuring... then clearly the photon is not obeying the laws of anyone's relativity, not Galelio's or einstein's.
Light is acting with total indifference to all imaginary ""frames of reference"".
And that's all reference frames are, imaginary constructs that are supposed to help men make measurements when things are in motion.
Nature does not conform to mans imaginary constructs, its our constructs that must try to mimic reality, and SR is just failing to do that.
Light is never relative to my frame, to your frame or einsteins frame. Other wise you can never explain how we all get velocity of c irrespective of our motion relative to the light, or even if we turn 180 degrees and head into the light we STILL get c.
Therefore light is never relative to any frame. Its absolute. Frames are not, they are localized and relative to each other.
( actually light is relative to the medium in which it is propagating.) As Ive said before.
@freemo @CCoinTradingIdeas
The answer is zero rest mass for the photon that has 1.2.... kg at velocity c.
BUT here is that big problem I mentioned before. My last point.
You are claiming that things gain more mass with velocity, and mass is best measured as momentum, OK fine.
So then you then have rest mass and relativistic mass.
Particularly for the photon, it has zero rest mass, and some measure of mass at velocity c, giving it some momentum and therefore some energy.
You just gave the exact numerical values for a specific frequency of light at rest and at velocity c.
You call this mass of the photon its relativistic mass.
But, the photon is not in another frame of reference, its in my frame of reference, so its not a relative measurement.
Relativity is only applicable to something that is moving in a different frame than the observer.
Remember the whole explanation of SR involves one stationary guy, in his frame, will get a DIFFERENT measure for an object moving in the second observers frame!
BUT according to Einstein, the 2nd postulate of einsteins, LIGHT has exactly the same velocity in every frame! So you cant ever talk about a relative frame for a photon, there is only one frame, and its constant.
There is no relativity for a photon of light because in any state of motion of any other frame of reference we still get the constant velocity if C.
If the photon is NOT relative to any frame of reference, then you cant get a relative mass or relative momentum for it.
Because relative mass, or relative time or relative distances requires two different frames of reference moving relative to each other and providing two differing measured results!
Light has no relative frames, its always going at c.
Therefore the concept of relativity can never apply to light, or the photon of light.
So IF a photon possesses any mass, or momentum, than that mass or momentum must necessarily be a CONSTANT value, along with its constant velocity.
Its mass and therefore its momentum can only be zero or 1.2....kg ... but it CANT BE BOTH.
This is excellent, thanks for sticking about for a few more minutes.
Now, part two of the math, which Ill ask you to do please. I trust you.
Using the equation attached, convert this mass from relativistic mass into rest mass.
You need to rearrange the equation cause this is for relativistic mass.
and then I promise, I have only two more observations. then Ill give up or concede.
Dont give up yet, we still need to see the relativistic mass of a photon given the frequency.
Ok, lets plug in some numbers here see what happens: You are the math whiz, given an average frequency of sun light or 5.5 x 10 to the 14 power, Hz..
what does your equation say is the mass of the photon is at velocity c? What is the actual number derived in kg?
Also there is one big problem here that I'm letting slip till later.
@freemo @CCoinTradingIdeas
When did we agree to drag into the mix, the theory that Max Planck proposes, that there is such a thing as a magic constant to fudge away the errors of relativity?
We already have all the necessary equations and theory to be able to state the mass and therefore the momentum of light.
The problem is that by inventing a theoretical constant, you CAN fudge in to any equation a positive result when the rational result is actually zero.
So, given the equations of einstein, and newton which dont mention the need of using plancks constant, we should not be needing to use it.
Simply put, we have the equation to convert rest mass to relativistic mass, which does not exist, but is used to calculate the momentum, which also dosent exist, but is used to calculate the energy, which relies on the mass of the matter , of which light has NONE.
So why would you want to drag plancks constant into all this, if not to fudge you way out of a dilemma or rather a contradiction?
In Einsteins E=mc2 theory, or any additional similar alterantives, is the planck length a contributiing factor.
The claim is simply made ad hoc that a body emitting light will loose mass, because the light is being made by the conversion of matter.
That is the logical conclusion IF you agree that light is able to reduce mass of the emitter.
So try again to prove that a photon has momentum but this time stick to the original terms, not the fudges that were submitted later by the addition of an imaginary universal magic number, the planck length.
(under "normal"physical processes, again they claim that this tiny number has no observable affect! How bloody convenient!
Same claim exactly for ALL of Special relativity claimed effects.
You are not allowed to use other theories that hang on einstein''s SR, until you show that the photon has mass, using the equations supplied at the time the theory was proposed.
If the photon has momentum at c velocity, then it still will have the same mass when its stationary if it could be, because we have already have the statement that there is only one type of mass.
Mass of the photon unlike everything else on the universe, is not going to become a variable to suit Einstein.
@CCoinTradingIdeas @freemo
Please dont post selfies.
@CCoinTradingIdeas @freemo
You are confusing a photon with matter. Because ALL the equations used by einsteins theories are modifications of Newtons equations that are ONLY about MATTER.
The terms, mass, momentum, inertia, velocity, speed, force, are ALL terms that describe the PHYSICS of matter.
This is the whole problem with Einstein, he mixed the perfectly good equations pertaining only to matter, with terms that relate only to matter, with the NON MATERIAL phenomena called LIGHT.
Objects are things that have mass, are dealt with using Newton and Galilean physics.
Try to understand the science of Optics or electronics using Newtons laws of motion.
You cant, because these are totally different things.
Matter may posses energy but energy is NOT matter anymore than my box can contain apples, but my box is not an apple.
@freemo @CCoinTradingIdeas
Just show me the math.
@freemo Im off to the shop, Ill check later in the day.
Joined Nov 2019
