Does Light Travel ?
Tunel Vision
of emission coincide with the point of
absorption
is not a question of reference frame
you have to ask yourself, does those ten
photons light travel or does they not
Tom Roberts
> according to relativity for light the point
> of emission coincide with the point of
> absorption
This is just plain not true.
> you have to ask yourself, [...]
No. YOU have to ask YOURSELF: why does the fool calling himself "Tunel
Vision" bother to write about something he knows absolutely nothing about?
You don't even have "Tunel Vision". You have no vision at all
for physics until you STUDY the subject.
Tom Roberts
BURT
You can go further than light can by slow motion time of your
spaceship. Light has the fastest clock. If you have motion near the
speed of light and your clock goes slower you will go further in your
less time or aether flow.
Mitch Raemsch
PD
> according to relativity for light the point
> of emission coincide with the point of
> absorption
Nope
>
> is not a question of reference frame
>
> you have to ask yourself, does those ten
> photons light travel or does they not
Yup
Tunel Vision
> Tunel Vision wrote:
> > according to relativity for light the point
> > of emission coincide with the point of
> > absorption
>
> This is just plain not true.
you are so wrong, even "Relativity from
A to B" tell us, learn, that
"anything travelling at c experience
infinite length contractions and
infinite time dilation,
which gives exactly 0.0 cm and 0.0 sec"
you dont know you own theory ! ! !
and you dont like infinities, because
you dont understand infinities,
perhaps because you never do your models,
have somebody else to them for you
>
> > you have to ask yourself, [...]
>
> No. YOU have to ask YOURSELF: why does the fool
i disagree, but all you
sir, you just degraded my Windows Experience
Index, from 5.3 to 4.1, with your insipidity
> calling himself "Tunel
> Vision" bother to write about something he knows absolutely nothing about?
>
> You don't even have "Tunel Vision". You have no vision at all
> for physics until you STUDY the subject.
>
> Tom Roberts
sir, i will not participate in your
game of insults, i never do
you lack arguments and basic relativity,
until you come back with arguments, good bye
Tunel Vision
> On Nov 23, 3:59 pm, Tunel Vision <h38...@dcemail.com> wrote:
>
> > according to relativity for light the point
> > of emission coincide with the point of
> > absorption
>
> Nope
then explain
>
>
>
> > is not a question of reference frame
>
> > you have to ask yourself, does those ten
> > photons light travel or does they not
>
> Yup
so, what do you mean
PD
> On Nov 24, 7:55 pm, PD <thedraperfam...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Nov 23, 3:59 pm, Tunel Vision <h38...@dcemail.com> wrote:
>
> > > according to relativity for light the point
> > > of emission coincide with the point of
> > > absorption
>
> > Nope
>
> then explain
Explain what? Relativity doesn't say that. Photons travel from one
place to another.
BURT
>
> - Show quoted text -
Light slows in gravity.
Mitch Raemsch
Inertial
news:9502bd09-e482-4029...@m33g2000vbi.googlegroups.com...
You clearly don't understand SR beyond coffee table books and cartoons.
There is little point in discussing your nonsense claims about what SR says.
BURT
>
> - Show quoted text -
Relativity is disappearing in the future. But the principle will still
be around.
Sometimes there is only the appearence of motion.
Mitch Raemsch
Tunel Vision
rather you just hope may become
famous by association,
2nd order, famous by association
to another famous by association
and i been very indulgent with your
2nd order
Tunel Vision
> On Nov 24, 4:55 pm, Tunel Vision <h38...@dcemail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Nov 24, 7:55 pm, PD <thedraperfam...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Nov 23, 3:59 pm, Tunel Vision <h38...@dcemail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > according to relativity for light the point
> > > > of emission coincide with the point of
> > > > absorption
>
> > > Nope
>
> > then explain
>
> Explain what? Relativity doesn't say that. Photons travel from one
> place to another.
this is very pretty,
travel 0.0 cm in 0.0 sec ? ? ?
PD
> On Nov 25, 1:13 am, PD <thedraperfam...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Nov 24, 4:55 pm, Tunel Vision <h38...@dcemail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Nov 24, 7:55 pm, PD <thedraperfam...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On Nov 23, 3:59 pm, Tunel Vision <h38...@dcemail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > according to relativity for light the point
> > > > > of emission coincide with the point of
> > > > > absorption
>
> > > > Nope
>
> > > then explain
>
> > Explain what? Relativity doesn't say that. Photons travel from one
> > place to another.
>
> this is very pretty,
>
> travel 0.0 cm in 0.0 sec ? ? ?
No, travels in 3E7m in 0.1 s.
Inertial
Nope
> 2nd order, famous by association
> to another famous by association
>
> and i been very indulgent with your
> 2nd order
Eh?
Tunel Vision
> On Nov 29, 10:36 am, Tunel Vision <h38...@dcemail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Nov 25, 1:13 am, PD <thedraperfam...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Nov 24, 4:55 pm, Tunel Vision <h38...@dcemail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On Nov 24, 7:55 pm, PD <thedraperfam...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > On Nov 23, 3:59 pm, Tunel Vision <h38...@dcemail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > according to relativity for light the point
> > > > > > of emission coincide with the point of
> > > > > > absorption
>
> > > > > Nope
>
> > > > then explain
>
> > > Explain what? Relativity doesn't say that. Photons travel from one
> > > place to another.
>
> > this is very pretty,
>
> > travel 0.0 cm in 0.0 sec ? ? ?
>
this at best is an appearance, an artefact
a photon, or you speeding at c
would travel exactly 0.0 cm in 0.0 sec
you could not do, nor know otherwise
this is what relativity teach us
eric gisse
Looks like the dyslexic troll is lonely again.
It is nice to see you continue your habit of only posting your nonsense from
the safety of an anonymous proxy.
PD
> On Nov 29, 10:15 pm, PD <thedraperfam...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Nov 29, 10:36 am, Tunel Vision <h38...@dcemail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Nov 25, 1:13 am, PD <thedraperfam...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On Nov 24, 4:55 pm, Tunel Vision <h38...@dcemail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > On Nov 24, 7:55 pm, PD <thedraperfam...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > On Nov 23, 3:59 pm, Tunel Vision <h38...@dcemail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > according to relativity for light the point
> > > > > > > of emission coincide with the point of
> > > > > > > absorption
>
> > > > > > Nope
>
> > > > > then explain
>
> > > > Explain what? Relativity doesn't say that. Photons travel from one
> > > > place to another.
>
> > > this is very pretty,
>
> > > travel 0.0 cm in 0.0 sec ? ? ?
>
> > No, travels in 3E7m in 0.1 s.'
>
> this at best is an appearance, an artefact
>
> a photon, or you speeding at c
> would travel exactly 0.0 cm in 0.0 sec
No, I would travel 3E7m in 0.1 s.
In its own rest frame, a rubber ball doesn't move.
A photon doesn't have one of those kinds of frames.
Inertial
> On Nov 29, 10:15 pm, PD <thedraperfam...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Nov 29, 10:36 am, Tunel Vision <h38...@dcemail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> > On Nov 25, 1:13 am, PD <thedraperfam...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > > On Nov 24, 4:55 pm, Tunel Vision <h38...@dcemail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > > > On Nov 24, 7:55 pm, PD <thedraperfam...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > > > > On Nov 23, 3:59 pm, Tunel Vision <h38...@dcemail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > > > > > according to relativity for light the point
>> > > > > > of emission coincide with the point of
>> > > > > > absorption
>>
>> > > > > Nope
>>
>> > > > then explain
>>
>> > > Explain what? Relativity doesn't say that. Photons travel from one
>> > > place to another.
>>
>> > this is very pretty,
>>
>> > travel 0.0 cm in 0.0 sec ? ? ?
>>
>> No, travels in 3E7m in 0.1 s.'
>
> this at best is an appearance, an artefact
>
> a photon, or you speeding at c
> would travel exactly 0.0 cm in 0.0 sec
>
> you could not do, nor know otherwise
>
> this is what relativity teach us
Its what you have misunderstood relativity to say. The fault is not with
what relativity teaches, but with what you have failed to learn
Tunel Vision
> On Nov 29, 5:04 pm, Tunel Vision <h38...@dcemail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Nov 29, 10:15 pm, PD <thedraperfam...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Nov 29, 10:36 am, Tunel Vision <h38...@dcemail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On Nov 25, 1:13 am, PD <thedraperfam...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > On Nov 24, 4:55 pm, Tunel Vision <h38...@dcemail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > On Nov 24, 7:55 pm, PD <thedraperfam...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > On Nov 23, 3:59 pm, Tunel Vision <h38...@dcemail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > according to relativity for light the point
> > > > > > > > of emission coincide with the point of
> > > > > > > > absorption
>
> > > > > > > Nope
>
> > > > > > then explain
>
> > > > > Explain what? Relativity doesn't say that. Photons travel from one
> > > > > place to another.
>
> > > > this is very pretty,
>
> > > > travel 0.0 cm in 0.0 sec ? ? ?
>
> > > No, travels in 3E7m in 0.1 s.'
>
> > this at best is an appearance, an artefact
>
> > a photon, or you speeding at c
> > would travel exactly 0.0 cm in 0.0 sec
>
> No, I would travel 3E7m in 0.1 s.
funny, once you travel at c, gets infinite
length contraction and time dilation, how
would you measure your own speed/distance/time
>
> In its own rest frame, a rubber ball doesn't move.
dilettante mistake, a photon is not a ball and
not rotate
> A photon doesn't have one of those kinds of frames.
frames are math abstract construction
try again
Tunel Vision
you intend to contribute to this discussion,
let me know
Tunel Vision
i cant understand this lingo
sir, please post relativity and physics
PD
No, you don't. Nothing that ever travels at speed less than c can get
to c, so this infinite length contraction and infinite time dilation
doesn't happen.
Because photons never travel in free space at less than c, photons
never get length contracted or time dilated at all.
Tunel Vision
sir, please forgive me, i cant understand
this is not possible
are you saying that travelling at less than
c in a medium experience length contraction
and time dilation,
while travelling at c experience NOT length
contraction and time dilation?
this is not logical, so it must be false
please tell me how to do
PD
Strike "in a medium", replace with "in free space". Yes.
>
> while travelling at c experience NOT length
> contraction and time dilation?
That's right.
>
> this is not logical, so it must be false
Nope, sorry, it's right. The world is divided into objects that travel
at c and those that travel at less than c, and they are strictly
disjoint -- something of one kind never becomes of the other kind.
Some of the behaviors of one simply do not apply to the other.
zzbu...@netscape.net
Well, the trick is that the way photon energy is defned
it's impossible for them to travel. And given that the only
thing mathematicians even know about science is universal algrebra,
it's impossible for them to travel anywhere other than
Function Space.
So that's why Fortran Card Readers work in idiot Physics Elevators
and nowhere else.
BURT
Mitch Raemsch
Tunel Vision
makes no any sense
>
>
>
> > this is not logical, so it must be false
>
> Nope, sorry, it's right. The world is divided into objects that travel
> at c and those that travel at less than c, and they are strictly
> disjoint -- something of one kind never becomes of the other kind.
> Some of the behaviors of one simply do not apply to the other.
thanks, if divided you must have a boundary,
i never heard of a division without a boundary
it sounds merely as a definition which makes
no sense
i could also say
"The world is divided into objects that
travel at 99.99c and those that not travel
at 99.99c"
more over, you cannot shift the
length contraction from close to
infinity to zero, because is to
sharp a step, forbidden in nature
PD
Not my problem, dude.
>
>
>
> > > this is not logical, so it must be false
>
> > Nope, sorry, it's right. The world is divided into objects that travel
> > at c and those that travel at less than c, and they are strictly
> > disjoint -- something of one kind never becomes of the other kind.
> > Some of the behaviors of one simply do not apply to the other.
>
> thanks, if divided you must have a boundary,
>
> i never heard of a division without a boundary
Animals are divided into vertebrates and invertebrates. Where is the
boundary between vertebrates and invertebrates?
>
> it sounds merely as a definition which makes
> no sense
Not my problem, dude.
>
> i could also say
>
> "The world is divided into objects that
> travel at 99.99c and those that not travel
> at 99.99c"
But it turns out that it's c where the distinction is.
>
> more over, you cannot shift the
> length contraction from close to
> infinity to zero, because is to
> sharp a step, forbidden in nature
Not so.
Tunel Vision
sir, thanks, i dont know how my brain
is wired, but cant you see that must
be wrong
you give me a progressive function
that suddenly falls from infinity
to zero
why
Tom Roberts
> On Dec 2, 10:23 pm, PD <thedraperfam...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> The world is divided into objects that travel
>> at c and those that travel at less than c, and they are strictly
>> disjoint -- something of one kind never becomes of the other kind.
>> Some of the behaviors of one simply do not apply to the other.
>
> thanks, if divided you must have a boundary,
No. In a very real sense, moving with speed c _IS_ the "boundary". the
distinction is between points on the boundary and points not on the
boundary, and that distinction needs no "boundary" -- for a topological
region with boundary there is no open set containing any given point on
the boundary, but there always is an open set containing any given point
in the interior.
> i never heard of a division without a boundary
You merely display your rather limited experience with physics and
mathematics. Of course you do that with just about everything you write
around here....
> more over, you cannot shift the
> length contraction from close to
> infinity to zero, because is to
> sharp a step, forbidden in nature
But "length contraction", by its very nature, does not apply to objects
moving with speed c. This is so for reasons other than being "on the
boundary", but it is so nevertheless. You misstated it: it is a change
from close to zero to zero ("length contraction" is expressed as a
factor always less than or equal to 1). Besides, what God whispered in
your ear and told you what nature "forbids"? -- there are MANY "sharp
steps" observed in nature (e.g. quantum phenomena).
Tom Roberts
Tunel Vision
> Tunel Vision wrote:
> > On Dec 2, 10:23 pm, PD <thedraperfam...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> The world is divided into objects that travel
> >> at c and those that travel at less than c, and they are strictly
> >> disjoint -- something of one kind never becomes of the other kind.
> >> Some of the behaviors of one simply do not apply to the other.
>
> > thanks, if divided you must have a boundary,
>
> No. In a very real sense, moving with speed c _IS_ the "boundary". the
> distinction is between points on the boundary and points not on the
> boundary, and that distinction needs no "boundary" -- for a
you just contradict yourself, again
why am i not surprised
does it has a boundary or it has not?
dont come to me with your "no need" boundary
topological
> region with boundary there is no open set containing any given point on
> the boundary, but there always is an open set containing any given point
> in the interior.
has nothing to do with the existence of
a boundary to a division
>
> > i never heard of a division without a boundary
>
> You merely display your rather limited experience with physics and
> mathematics. Of course you do that with just about everything you write
> around here....
sir, i dont understand your mythology once again
some times you use words i dont understand, if
you knew these words you are talking about
>
> > more over, you cannot shift the
> > length contraction from close to
> > infinity to zero, because is to
> > sharp a step, forbidden in nature
>
> But "length contraction", by its very nature, does not apply to objects
> moving with speed c. This is so for reasons other than being "on the
> boundary", but it is so nevertheless.
then tell us these "reasons" and make us,
the entire free world, laugh
> You misstated it: it is a change
> from close to zero to zero ("length contraction" is expressed as a
> factor always less than or equal to 1).
correction, you already made us laugh
is infinite length contraction to zero
length contraction, draw a line on a
paper and stop talking lingos
i feel you should get nominated to
a prize or something
> Besides, what God whispered in
> your ear and told you what nature "forbids"? -- there are MANY "sharp
> steps" observed in nature (e.g. quantum phenomena).
right, clear, the only many you got
are about another questioned exotic theory
where else, you never did physics for real,
did you
>
> Tom Roberts
thanks
PD
It's a function that has two different domains: 0 < |v| < c; and |v| =
c.
This function does not span both domains. Lorentz contraction applies
to the first domain and not the second. In the domain to which it
applies, the Lorentz factor goes smoothly from 0 to (the asymptote)
infinity. It does not then fall to 0 at c, because that function
doesn't include c in its domain.
marcofuics
> according to relativity for light the point
> of emission coincide with the point of
> absorption
for light ds=0, so if we see at ds as if it's a "spacetime" measure of
its proper lenght, ... then your sentence is correct!
> is not a question of reference frame
No it is a question of the whole space as you can see it in its
properties, inner semantical properties.
Refernce frame is a concept that arises from... a secondary concept.
> you have to ask yourself, does those ten
> photons light travel or does they not
And this is not a simple question :))
Sure we can say that photons have no rest mass... so it isnot a body
that moves through <<our space>>, it cant be "positioned"... maybe we
can say that light is everywhere at the same time....
Inertial
> On Dec 4, 12:11 am, Tom Roberts <tjroberts...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>> Tunel Vision wrote:
>> > On Dec 2, 10:23 pm, PD <thedraperfam...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> The world is divided into objects that travel
>> >> at c and those that travel at less than c, and they are strictly
>> >> disjoint -- something of one kind never becomes of the other kind.
>> >> Some of the behaviors of one simply do not apply to the other.
>>
>> > thanks, if divided you must have a boundary,
>>
>> No. In a very real sense, moving with speed c _IS_ the "boundary". the
>> distinction is between points on the boundary and points not on the
>> boundary, and that distinction needs no "boundary" -- for a
>
> you just contradict yourself, again
>
> why am i not surprised
>
> does it has a boundary or it has not?
You are asking where the boundary is between the inside and the boundary.
Don't you see what a pointless question it is that you are asking?
BURT
If light has any energy of motion it would all have the same because
its speed is constant. This means light energy is in its frequency not
in its motion. Rest mass or energy never applied.
Mitch Raemsch
Tunel Vision
does nature knows anything about these domain division?
where exactly is that "<c"
> This function does not span both domains.
why not, is "speed" we are talking about, right?
i cant see the reason why a speed should be
split in two parts suddenly
> Lorentz contraction applies
> to the first domain and not the second. In the domain to which it
> applies, the Lorentz factor goes smoothly from 0 to (the asymptote)
> infinity. It does not then fall to 0 at c, because that function
> doesn't include c in its domain.
sounds like an error, i cant see why
PD
It's not so much a property of speed as it is there are two classes of
objects.
Again, I'll remind you there are two classes of animals: vertebrates
and invertebrates. There is no boundary between these, and yet there
are two classes. And you can ask the same question about the property
of having a vertebra: Why should vertebra-exhibition be split into two
parts.
>
> > Lorentz contraction applies
> > to the first domain and not the second. In the domain to which it
> > applies, the Lorentz factor goes smoothly from 0 to (the asymptote)
> > infinity. It does not then fall to 0 at c, because that function
> > doesn't include c in its domain.
>
> sounds like an error, i cant see why
This is just the clash of preconception against reality. It always
makes an awkward noise.
Tunel Vision
sir, thanks, i cant see you cant see the problem here
is about a progressive speed function, not about
anything else, nor distinction between objects,
which can be many
and btw, according to the law of evolution there is
always a link boundary, in your case, the cartilage
vertebrate
so you made the point with your argument
Tunel Vision
sir, you are very naive to say the least
the world you inhabit is a discretized word,
like those inside a computer, so there must
be a boundary in any case
Inertial
Nope
> the world you inhabit is a discretized word,
> like those inside a computer, so there must
> be a boundary in any case
c *IS* the boundary, there are speeds below the boundary and speeds on the
boundary. Gees .. how much of an idiot are you .. this has been explained
to you already.
Tunel Vision
you just said that the question about boundaries
make no sense
i knew i was way too indulgent with your 2nd order
famous by association baboon
marcofuics
In my opinion: the light (being an oscillation of the EM field, and
then living on it) does not travel. It is only the "signal" that
<<acquires>> a resonance (its final resonance) at the end of a
"time".....
But to me if something could be seen <<being in a position>> it needs
to have a mass (obviously a rest mass... :))
I am thinking about
See the photon moving toward it;
and
See the photon moving toward its source!