Seeing things in their past? You are full of beans!

[james blunt]

Things can move faster than light relative to each other, but no information can pass between them.

How far away is the next point? The next point is adjoined is it not ?

 

[Thermos aquaticus]

Polymath257 told me the photon has no frame of reference, unless I didn't understand him correctly. I put what he said below in brackets.

[And yes, as I have said *many* times now, there is no reference frame moving at the speed of light. Is that clear yet?]

That works as well. Before you were describing a situation where you are riding along with the photon, and that is the example I was trying to describe.

 

[Thermos aquaticus]

I have not finished this yet , but have a read.

The Speed of Light limitations.

The constant speed of light 299 792 458 m / s is abbreviated by the letter c , referred to as the fastest possible speed in the Universe. It is also stated that mass could never travel at the speed of light c.
However , although we do not disagree with the worldly accepted speed of light constant, we do disagree that the speed of light constant, being the universal maximum speed limit. Our reasons for this are based on dimensional analysis , especially in relationship to points. Firstly , what does it mean when we refer to a point in physics? A point simply means zero dimensions, a geometrical point means a positioned point in a R³ real coordinate space-time. One could say that space was a n-dimensional volume of geometrical points and space-time was the stuff that occupied those points. Any given geometrical point having zero dimensions and identical in space-time value to any different given geometrical point.
So what is the relevance of this you may ask ? In analysis we considered a vector X of 299 792 458 m in length . We then considered within X there was multiple points aligned along the vector , we then considered light traversing from the start of our created length (position A) , to the end of the created length (position B) knowing the total journey time was 1 second with a speed constant of 299 792 458 m / s .
Now to understand the significance of the mentioned so far, we need to take you back to before the light was emitted and X was in relative darkness. We know X exists without light and considered a particular thought . If light takes an amount of time to travel from A to B then light does not arrive in an instant, so therefore instant would be faster than c and the obvious maximum speed of infinitely fast. This thought logically showing that c is not the fastest speed but we know logic alone is not enough as proof.
So let us take this a little bit further, not making it too lengthy of a subject.
In analysis we created two identical values of vector X placing them parallel . We then marked both B positions , marking one of them 1 second and marking the other o.5 seconds. We then again thought about the light traversing from A to B and considered if it were possible for faster c. Now our conclusion was that for the one marked 0.5 seconds the light would have to travel c*2 to arrive in 0.5 seconds. We give it some lengthy consideration to all agree that is was possible to get a faster speed than c, our parallel vectors showing us conclusively.

We already know that it takes the expected amount of time for an Earth based radio signal to arrive at our satellites and rovers out in the solar system. The engineers who drive the Mars rovers are painfully aware of this because they have to input a command and wait quite a while before the rover reacts.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Polymath257 told me the photon has no frame of reference, unless I didn't understand him correctly. I put what he said below in brackets.

[And yes, as I have said *many* times now, there is no reference frame moving at the speed of light. Is that clear yet?]

That is correct. The best that one can do is to find the limit of that frame of reference. Do you understand the mathematical concept of limits?

 

[james blunt]

We already know that it takes the expected amount of time for an Earth based radio signal to arrive at our satellites and rovers out in the solar system. The engineers who drive the Mars rovers are painfully aware of this because they have to input a command and wait quite a while before the rover reacts.

Nothing wrong with that information , point to point transfer of energy. What if we considered the entire observable ''universe'' in being a single enormous photon? ( A light sphere)

 

[TrueBeliever37]

The x and t come from one reference frame. The x' and t' are the coordinates for the same event in the moving reference frame.

And yes, as I have said *many* times now, there is no reference frame moving at the speed of light. Is that clear yet?

The results for light are found by taking the limit as v-->c.

I understand what you guys have been saying. I'm just not sure I believe it is true, that light doesn't experience time or distance. But, if it is true, then I think the light has to go from origin to destination instantaneously no matter what the distance.

And if that is the case, then it can't be used in any way to verify age of the earth. And we definitely wouldn't be looking into the past, because the light would always get here instantaneously from any distance. You are assuming it takes 4 years to get here from 4ly away, but if it experiences no time or distance, then in reality it would get here instantly.

How could it take 4 years to get here if it actually moves from origin to destination instantly?

How could it take 10 million years another time to get here if it actually moves from origin to destination instantly?

How can there ever be a difference even in our frame of reference, if it actually travels from origin to destination instantly no matter what the distance?

 

[james blunt]

I understand what you guys have been saying. I'm just not sure I believe it is true, that light doesn't experience time or distance. But, if it is true, then I think the light has to go from origin to destination instantaneously no matter what the distance.

And if that is the case, then it can't be used in any way to verify age of the earth. And we definitely wouldn't be looking into the past, because the light would always get here instantaneously from any distance. You are assuming it takes 4 years to get here from 4ly away, but if it experiences no time or distance, then in reality it would get here instantly.

How could it take 4 years to get here if it actually moves from origin to destination instantly?

How could it take 10 million years another time to get here if it actually moves from origin to destination instantly?

How can there ever be a difference even in our frame of reference, if it actually travels from origin to destination instantly no matter what the distance?

By changing the question, how long does it take for electromagnetic radiation to enter your eye ?

 

[TrueBeliever37]

Glad to see you back Sustainer.

 

[james blunt]

Glad to see you back Sustainer.

Was I ever left?

 

[TrueBeliever37]

Was I ever left?

I just hadn't seen a post for a bit, and was glad to see you back.

 

[james blunt]

I just hadn't seen a post for a bit, and was glad to see you back.

Thanks buddy , always nice to hear a friendly ''voice''.

 

[Darkstorn]

Oh boy... Let me tell you guys. This thread was a painful experience. Constant highs and lows.

Definitely more lows. It was like a rollercoaster ride: From the high points of Polymath and Subduction Zone (and others too) to the absolute lowest lows one can ever imagine with some of the others...

I don't recommend reading it from the beginning. If you want to see a bunch of very smart people being bombarded by inane stupidity, go right ahead.

5/10.

 

[james blunt]

Oh boy... Let me tell you guys. This thread was a painful experience. Constant highs and lows.

Definitely more lows. It was like a rollercoaster ride: From the high points of Polymath and Subduction Zone (and others too) to the absolute lowest lows one can ever imagine with some of the others...

I don't recommend reading it from the beginning. If you want to see a bunch of very smart people being bombarded by inane stupidity, go right ahead.

5/10.

Almost as painful as reading your unrelated post. Do you have anything to say of interest?

Would you suggest we all just accept things without critical thinking?

Do you have anything intuitive to add?

 

[Darkstorn]

Almost as painful as reading your unrelated post. Do you have anything to say of interest?

Depends. What are your interests?

Would you suggest we all just accept things without critical thinking?

Oh no. Hell no.

I was going to suggest the opposite in fact.

Do you have anything intuitive to add?

Yes: I only called out specific people by name in a positive sense. I didn't mention you at all.

 

[james blunt]

Depends. What are your interests?



Oh no. Hell no.

I was going to suggest the opposite in fact.



Yes: I only called out specific people by name in a positive sense. I didn't mention you at all.

My apologies I took the content of your previous post to mean something else. I am interested in everything and anything. Is there any specific subject you would like to discuss?

 

[Darkstorn]

My apologies I took the content of your previous post to mean something else.

No need to apologize: After all, it was directed at you.

I am interested in everything and anything. Is there any specific subject you would like to discuss?

We could try with this simple equation: How long would it take for my tear to fall to the ground assuming a distance of 10 centimeters from the floor and a speed of 1 meter per second?

 

[TrueBeliever37]

No need to apologize: After all, it was directed at you.



We could try with this simple equation: How long would it take for my tear to fall to the ground assuming a distance of 10 centimeters from the floor and a speed of 1 meter per second?

Why is it people always resort to personal slams when others don't agree with their views?

 

[Darkstorn]

Why is it people always resort to personal slams when others don't agree with their views?

Which views are those? I think you're assuming i have views of some sort. Let's hear it.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Was I ever left?

Hard to say. One thing that we know for certain is that you never were right

 

[Darkstorn]

Hard to say. One thing that we know for certain is that you never were right

Oh snap.

(Sorry, it was a reaction.)