Relativity Revised

To be more easily read:



What is the velocity of p1 in relation to p2?

p1 and p2 are photons moving in opposite directions at the velocity of light.
(You can take p1 and p2 at any position)

shawn001 said:

I posted the video on orbits and you had orbits and the early universe wrong.

Then you posted your question again.

"They move apart from each other at the speed of light. Nothing so far has been found to travel faster then light."

You haven't applied relativity to your question

Click to expand...

So if p1 moves away from p2 at the velocity of light
and p1 moves away from the source at the velocity of light
then p2 has not moved from the source

LegionOnomaMoi said:

No, you don't. You quote-mine a source you don't understand and either add in tags or the image you copied included them to begin with. You quote a section on coordinate transforms and act like it is equivalent to time dilation or length contraction despite the fact that it obviously isn't and that Feynman covers these elsewhere in the volume you cite.

Click to expand...

Feynman states that the times are different for the different observers using that equation.
So its not just change in time in that equation, but he is claiming it to be the source of 'different times'.



What he means by the 'outside' is precisely where the problem arises. Various 'times' give contradictory answers.

For the space, I admit there is in my original text, what seems to be conflation of position and contraction. But i state that I cannot see any point where contraction of space comes from, other than that equation.

Jonathan Ainsley Bain said:

What is the velocity of p1 in relation to p2?

Click to expand...

Collinear.

Jonathan Ainsley Bain said:

Feynman states that the times are different for the different observers using that equation.
So its not just change in time in that equation, but he is claiming it to be the source of 'different times'.

Click to expand...

Yes, because this is a transform. You may be surprised to find that these transforms, and indeed the principle of relativity, go back to Galileo. The same kind of equations exist in classical physics. Imagine you are a supremely talented juggler. You are inside a train car heading to an arena to display your skills. I am facing parallel to the train tracks your train is traveling on such that it will approach to my left and travel past me on the right. As you speed by me, the 19 clubs you are juggling all at once are all moving along some coordinate axis (let's say x). Imagine that I mark as x0 the point at which the front of your train car is directly in front of me, x2 is when a straight line perpendicular to the the tracks can be drawn between you and me, and x3 be the point at which this is true of the end of your train car.

Over a particular interval of time dependent upon how fast the train is traveling, the clubs you are juggling travel from a certain distance to from my left to my right over some interval of time. For me, then, the clubs have traveled a certain distance along the x axis. For you, however, they are only moving along the y and z axes (you are that good of a juggle such that the clubs are only moving in a perfect ellipse). They are stationary along the x axis. In order to explain the distance traversed by the clubs from my perspective such that the laws of physics hold and explain how they move from your perspective, we require a transform. You are moving relative to me, so the velocity of the clubs along the x axis is positive while for you it is negative. By using Galilean relativity transforms, we have to do the exact type of thing described below:



In special relativity, the transforms differ mathematically, but the idea is exactly the same and doesn't involve either length contraction or time dilation.

Jonathan Ainsley Bain said:

To be more easily read:

What is the velocity of p1 in relation to p2?

p1 and p2 are photons moving in opposite directions at the velocity of light.
(You can take p1 and p2 at any position)

Click to expand...

One could not see p1 or p2 in this figure to calculate. And for the record Photons don't usually have velocity other than the speed of light.

But however there is no real good answer for this question as you wouldn't actually be able to calculate time when moving at the speed of light.

Jonathan Ainsley Bain said:

So if p1 moves away from p2 at the velocity of light
and p1 moves away from the source at the velocity of light
then p2 has not moved from the source

Click to expand...

Jonathan Ainsley Bain said:

To be more easily read:

What is the velocity of p1 in relation to p2?

p1 and p2 are photons moving in opposite directions at the velocity of light.
(You can take p1 and p2 at any position)

Click to expand...

Why can't creationists ever use proper scientific terms for what they are trying to say?

If you are going to talk of light, then use "speed", not "velocity" of light.

They are not exactly the same things.

I think someone already to use the correct terminology. And you are not making any sense because you have given poor example.

The speed of light is the same, regardless of which direction it is shining.

Midnight Rain said:

One could not see p1 or p2 in this figure to calculate. And for the record Photons don't usually have velocity other than the speed of light.

But however there is no real good answer for this question as you wouldn't actually be able to calculate time when moving at the speed of light.

Click to expand...

so how can the photon have a velocity without time?
velocity is measured as as distance over time
when the photon moves 300 000 km in one second,
that one second, is actually what we call 'time'

gnostic said:

Why can't creationists ever use proper scientific terms for what they are trying to say?

If you are going to talk of light, then use "speed", not "velocity" of light.

They are not exactly the same things.

I think someone already to use the correct terminology. And you are not making any sense because you have given poor example.

The speed of light is the same, regardless of which direction it is shining.

Click to expand...

egad!
when i look at an image of my eye in a mirror,
the 'speed' of light when the reflection enters my eye, is zero
the velocity is still 300 000 km per second

it is the norm to use the term 'speed of light' incorrectly,
i use precisely the correct terminology, unlike Einstein and the rest
who typically use the sloppy incorrect terminology
but that's water under the bridge

now according to the relativists,
what is the mass of p1 in relation to p2?
put that in your formula and see if you get a valid result ...

or even better, what is the mass of the light bulb in relation to either of the photons?
if the alleged 'rest mass' of the bulb is about 10 grams?
huh?

Jonathan Ainsley Bain said:

so how can the photon have a velocity without time?
velocity is measured as as distance over time

Click to expand...

No, it isn't. It's measured by the square root of the squared sum of it's components.

when the photon moves 300 000 km in one second, that one second, is actually what we call 'time'

Click to expand...

No, we don't. Not just because we don't call a second time but rather a unit of time, but because we're in 4-dimensional space and time doesn't exist.

Jonathan Ainsley Bain said:

now according to the relativists

Click to expand...

i.e., people who have a basic knowledge of physics or more.

what is the mass of p1 in relation to p2?

Click to expand...

Are you seriously asking the mass of two vectors? Really? It's bad enough that you are referring to massless particles without reaffirming you don't understand even the basic mathematics required to say anything about relativity.

or even better, what is the mass of the light bulb in relation to either of the photons?

Click to expand...

1) This question is meaningless. Do you understand what a "system" is in physics? I don't mean just relativity I mean all of modern physics from classical & statistical mechanics to M-theory and nuclear physics.
2) As you don't, I'll answer the part of my question that matters: you can't ask about the relationship of photons to a light bulb without first specifying whether or not you are talking about 1, 2, or 3 physical systems and in any of these cases what the properties of the systems are. For example, the effective mass of a photon λ= 5,000Å is .00000000000000003968 joules. Different spectra yield different effective masses. Also, you didn't provide any information about the bulb or photons other than mentioning them and using a term (rest mass) you don't understand, unless you count your nonsensical description of two photons travelling in opposite directions from a light bulb and the question (which I answered) about the relationship between the velocity of the photons (the answer is they are colinear). You question is the equivalent of asking how much a unicorn weighs in relation to the velocity of its hooves. Your just putting words together that, while grammatically correct, are as meaningful as Chomsky's "colorless green ideas sleep furiously".

if the alleged 'rest mass' of the bulb is about 10 grams?

Click to expand...

Then the mass of the the light bulb in relation to either of the photons is much greater. Alternatively, the mass of the light bulb in relation to either of the photons infinitely greater. Or it exists.

These aren't physics questions, they're the kind of questions you find people asking who have taken a bunch of terms they don't understand and put them together to form sentences. Of course, I could be wrong. Maybe you do know what you are talking about. So I will ask some questions that are well-defined such that there are definitive answers (and for each question there exists only one answer).

1) A perfectly cylindrical pipe is traveling at 80% the speed of light (or, if you prefer, what the standard value for c) along its length. What is the numerical value length contraction yields?
2) Does the (proper) Lorenz transformation change the sign of the 0 component of a timelike vector in 4D Minkowski space?
3) An inertial reference frame S' moves with respect to another inertial reference frame S in the positive x direction of S'. The clocks in S' and S are synchronized at the instant t = t ' = 0 when the coordinate origins O and O' of the two frames coincide. At this moment a light wave is emitted from the point O ≡ O' . After time t it is observed in S that the light wave is spherical with a radius r = ct and is described by the equation r2 = x2 + y2 + z2, which means that the center of the light sphere as determined in S is at O. Find the shape of the light wavefront in S' at time t'

Avi1001 said:

Would you mind telling us a little about your background...your posts appear to be pseudoscience...but they are certainly entertaining....do you have any training in physics ??

Also...banning someone who "quoted a privately owned website"....sounds like it might not be the whole story.......care to elaborate...???

And...it seems like your goal is to discredit Einstein theory....to prove something about G-d....am I understanding this correctly...??

There is also something in your post about 4-d space and the soul...this is clearly pseudoscience....agreed ???

Click to expand...

I certainly agree.

Jonathan Ainsley Bain said:

now according to the relativists,
what is the mass of p1 in relation to p2?
put that in your formula and see if you get a valid result ...

or even better, what is the mass of the light bulb in relation to either of the photons?
if the alleged 'rest mass' of the bulb is about 10 grams?
huh?

Click to expand...

Utoh.....someone needs to take a class in undergraduate modern physics........do they have any community colleges there in S. Africa...????.....they allow affordable education....!!!

Avi1001 said:

Utoh.....someone needs to take a class in undergraduate modern physics....

Click to expand...

That's just cruel, throwing him to the wolves like that. At least allow some lessons in high school math and physics before and some extra study materials before requiring a class that, while elementary, still clearly requires more background knowledge than exists. Let's be humane.

gnostic said:

It is not only embarrassing, Bain is also a deceitful one.

As Legion has pointed out, Bain used a book by Feynman, quoting Lorentz's work, but misapplying to Einstein's. He has misrepresented all three people.

Click to expand...

Yes, but if he didn't mean to misrepresent all three people, then he wasn't engaged in willful deceit.

Jonathan Ainsley Bain said:

so how can the photon have a velocity without time?
velocity is measured as as distance over time
when the photon moves 300 000 km in one second,
that one second, is actually what we call 'time'

Click to expand...

This is where it looses its meaning. Light travels at the speed of light. If I am moving in the same direction at 100 miles per hour vs 100,000 miles per hour the speed of light is still the same. You get redshift or blueshift based on the light intensity by number waves you see but not by the speed at which it travels.

Next part that breaks down is that we do not calculate the velocity of elementary particles. This is a big one. We don't calculate the velocity of electrons or force carriers. It is a gauge boson for all electromagnetic phenomenon. So it will not have a calculated "velocity" from its perspective.

Here is an example of time dilation.

I am "moving" at "X" meters per "second". I am stationary to myself. If I see a beam of light that beam of light is still going the speed of light to me. But I see the redshift. But the difference is that my 'meter" is shorter than your "meter" in which I am moving 99% the speed of light from your perspective.

So the light is moving at the speed of light. However the distance it covers in the same amount of time when compared to each other is different. The space and the time dilation are the same thing. Not two separate phenomenon.

I don't have the physics background that would be needed to critique relativity or Bain's specific claims. I don't have the math, or maths as our UK friends say, to do so. Everything I know about physics, I learned from reading hard sci-fi, science popularizations written by scientists, and various magazine articles. The Science Channel helps too.

That said, I can't help but notice the following about Mr. Bain & his claims, as revealed by this discussion.

1. He is claiming that a very well-tested physical theory, the current bedrock of our understanding of gravity, is obviously and deeply flawed. Yet he does not mention any effort on his part to publish his findings in scientific journals, let alone respond to the critiques of physicists who have examined his thinking. Nor does he mention how stunning and revolutionary his claims would be if they were confirmed by more than one physicist employed as such at a university or research institute.

2. He is claiming that a fourth spatial dimension is the realm of souls--this in a world where more than a century of psychical research/parapsychology has failed to discover any incorporeal beings or even offer a theory of their nature. More generally, he offers up his proposed correction of relativity as a unification between science and religion--another patently grandiose claim.

3. Scientists almost always credit the work of other scientists as important and contributory to their own work. Even in his popularization of Relativity, Einstein was careful to mention the mathematicians and scientists whose work was crucial to Einstein's own. But Bain's criticisms of well-established theories are apparently his alone. He seems to believe that he is revolutionizing science all by himself.

4. He dismisses the science educators whom he has encountered as Nazis and "queers" (sic). Even if we leave aside the absurdity of this claim, we need only remember Wernher Von Braun and Alan Turing to see how irrelevant said claim is to the merits of scientists' work as taught in universities.

5. By his own admission, Bain is a programmer, not a physicist.

6. On this thread, a small crowd of scientifically literate people have not only critiqued Bain's posts on many specific points, but have uniformly rejected Bain's claims as scientifically unsound. // I can't pretend to understand everything that this crowd has been saying. I don't have the necessary background or learning. But here and there in this crowd's posts, I see references to things I've learned about in popularizations written by physicists--so many such things that I am left with a strong suspicion that this crowd knows what it's talking about. (Remarks on what it means for the universe to expand come to mind.)

In light of all these considerations, I'm inclined to dismiss Bain as a scientific crank. If, next year, I see banner headlines reading "'Nature' Article: Bain Proves Einstein Wrong; unites religion with science," then I was wrong. I'm not holding my breath until that happens.

Ultimately, mine is an argument from authority, but such arguments are not always unsound. Not when the authorities in question have gained their authority by the acquisition of, and/or acquaintance with, virtual mountains of evidence for rigorously peer-critiqued ideas.

Jonathan Ainsley Bain said:

now according to the relativists,
what is the mass of p1 in relation to p2?
put that in your formula and see if you get a valid result ...

or even better, what is the mass of the light bulb in relation to either of the photons?
if the alleged 'rest mass' of the bulb is about 10 grams?
huh?

Click to expand...

Inertial mass doesn't change if the light bulb is at rest. The inertial mass changes when the energy changes in an object's velocity. If I suddenly rush off near the speed of light my inertial mass changes but not yours.

Jonathan Ainsley Bain said:

egad!
when i look at an image of my eye in a mirror,
the 'speed' of light when the reflection enters my eye, is zero
the velocity is still 300 000 km per second

it is the norm to use the term 'speed of light' incorrectly,
i use precisely the correct terminology, unlike Einstein and the rest
who typically use the sloppy incorrect terminology
but that's water under the bridge

Click to expand...

You don't even understand basic math or basic physics. The language of velocity and speed in either maths or physics, are quite specific, but you are confusing the two.

Velocity is a VECTOR measurement. And any vector require either length or speed, plus direction.

If you are using velocity with light, then if the light travel in one direction, eg east, and then that very same light go back in the opposite direction, hence west, then the net velocity is zero km per second.

Speed and velocity are only the same if you are measuring them only in one direction, but the velocity is different, if change direction, even if the speed is the same.

To give you a very simple vector example, we can use the length as a measurement. If we have a car being driven for 12 km east, then drive 5 km north, then the vector is the displacement of the 2 vectors, so the end net vector is 13 km north-east. The actual (scalar) distance travel is actually 17 km, which is the total distance travel, regardless of direction taken.

Go back to high school and learn basic vector.

Jonathan Ainsley Bain said:

so how can the photon have a velocity without time?
velocity is measured as as distance over time

Click to expand...

LegionOnomaMoi said:

No, it isn't. It's measured by the square root of the squared sum of it's components.

Click to expand...

I was tutoring an undergrad in physics and covering the basics and recalled this thread. I shouldn't have provided the above answer, or rather I shouldn't have only provided that answer (which is how one calculates the magnitude of any vector (despite there close affinity and how much each has influenced the other math and physics are still different and I always tend to think about the math first; the fact that in modern physics often that's all we have, at least in a certain sense, doesn't help).

In classical physics, you start with a position vector. I'm going to use some notation I rather hate, and call define the position vector parametrically: r=x(t)i+y(t)j+z(t)k.*

The velocity vector v is then defined r'=x'(t)i+y'(t)j+z'(t)k, or the derivative of the position vector. As long as we're talking about motion in 3D space, this holds true. Usually, however, dynamical systems (systems that change over time) are represented mathematically by what is called the phase space of the system, and frequently systems that we think of as existing in 3D space have a 1D phase space or a 6D phase space or an n-dimensional phase space. Also, in relativistic physics, even the physical interpretation of space changes to 4D spacetime.


*The reason I hate this representation and any like it (any that use the "unit" vectors i, j, k) is because for those of us who took linear algebra and studied vectors in Rn rather than R3 (i.e., n-dimensional space, where n could be 10, 100, 55,456, etc., and R3 is the 3-dimensional space we experience). There is no point in defining vectors of length 1 in any particular dimensional space, and thus unit vectors are represented by one symbol (often u, and whatever notation- such as an arrow over the u- might be used to indicate it is a vector). This is more compact, and considerably more powerful: it can be equal to any of the 3 unit vectors above, or any unit vector at all. The vectors i, j, k, however, can only be unit vectors in R3 and lose all meaning in any other space (or they have to be re-defined).