-
#40 by meberbs on 17 Apr, 2020 18:00
-
Mberbs, I don't agree with either your interpretation or the the video's interpretation. I would like to explain, in detail what I am trying to get across.
This is not "interpretation" what I and the video say are what physics says. Your previous discussion is simply wrong. You are confusing 2 different things with different definitions. The local propagation of electromagnetic waves is not the universal constant c by definition. Measuring one does not tell you the other.Point 1. Causality does not exist for a massless particle.
Untrue, you are effectively making the mistake of trying to do calculations in a frame travelling at c, which is simply invalid due to it being a divide by 0 error. When looking at any real frame there is a clear cause and effect including for the emission and absorption of light. Any limit approaching c (the way you deal with divide by 0 errors) will preserve this.This leads to point 2.
Point 1 is wrong, so nothing leads to point 2.Now it might be an expanded group velocity, or it might actually be a faster C without a wildly spread group velocity. This would not destroy the Lorenz transformation, merely expanding it by substituting the Maxwell's Equations boundary condition for C where C is located in the Lorenz transformation. Relativity and the Universe as we know it would merely be a subset of a larger physics, just like Newtonian mechanics is a subset of Relativity.
You have not actually described an experiment. You are just asserting that 2 things with different definitions are the same. There have been many, many experiments showing that electromagnetic waves propagate differently in different materials even extreme values, yet spacetime around these materials does not magically warp as you imply should happen. It doesn't even make sense to substitute the local propagation velocity of light into the Lorentz transformation since there is no definition for frequency in the context of Lorentz transformations.
We now have the experimental method to test this possibility. Look in the box and find out.
Theory should never be used as a reason to not do an experiment.
As for an actual experiment that is trivial to perform that proves your entire concept to be nonsense, drop to balls with significantly different permittivities and observe them fall at the same rate. The Einstein field equations show have the gravitational constant in the form of G/c^4. It would be impossible not to notice the effect if the local propagation of electromagnetic waves had anything whatsoever to do with the universal constant c.
There is a such thing as variable speed of light theories, but they have literally nothing to do with anything you are talking about and have their own set of problems. -
#41 by JohnFornaro on 18 Apr, 2020 15:56
-
The previous post brings up the issue of – What is the maximum speed of light?
No, you are confusing 2 distinct things, the speed of light in vacuum, which is a universal constant, and the speed of electromagnetic wave propagation in a material, which is completely irrelevant to this thread.
Before I get all the demands that the speed of light is a constant ( C ), one must note that the speed of light is a variable, depending on the density of the medium. The denser, the slower. This variability has been experimentally proven, over and over again.
Yeah. But.
My understanding is that the various measurements of c with increasing accuracy have varied over the years and that they are not trending towards a specific value.
Is this evidence for the variable speed of light theory? [VSL]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Variable_speed_of_light
Einstein: "The principle of the constancy of the speed of light can be kept only when one restricts oneself to space-time regions of constant gravitational potential."
He went on to conclude that c is constant when gravity does not have to be considered. But doesn't gravity have to be considered in ALL frames of reference?
I have no idea how a possible non-constant value of c would tie into these various proposals for propellantless rocketry.
A criticism of VSL from the oracle:
"Specifically regarding VSL, if the SI meter definition was reverted to its pre-1960 definition as a length on a prototype bar (making it possible for the measure of c to change), then a conceivable change in c (the reciprocal of the amount of time taken for light to travel this prototype length) could be more fundamentally interpreted as a change in the dimensionless ratio of the meter prototype to the Planck length or as the dimensionless ratio of the SI second to the Planck time or a change in both. If the number of atoms making up the meter prototype remains unchanged (as it should for a stable prototype), then a perceived change in the value of c would be the consequence of the more fundamental change in the dimensionless ratio of the Planck length to the sizes of atoms or to the Bohr radius or, alternatively, as the dimensionless ratio of the Planck time to the period of a particular caesium-133 radiation or both."
Are we all swelling and shrinking and speeding up and slowing down at the same rate? How could we tell?
Sheesh. -
#42 by meberbs on 18 Apr, 2020 18:43
-
As I mentioned at the end of my post VSL is a thing, but it is fundamentally different than what was discussed above. I am not sure what you are referring to with measurements of the speed of light changing with time, but since 1983, that is literally impossible by definition. (More on that below)The previous post brings up the issue of – What is the maximum speed of light?
No, you are confusing 2 distinct things, the speed of light in vacuum, which is a universal constant, and the speed of electromagnetic wave propagation in a material, which is completely irrelevant to this thread.
Before I get all the demands that the speed of light is a constant ( C ), one must note that the speed of light is a variable, depending on the density of the medium. The denser, the slower. This variability has been experimentally proven, over and over again.
Yeah. But.
My understanding is that the various measurements of c with increasing accuracy have varied over the years and that they are not trending towards a specific value.
Is this evidence for the variable speed of light theory? [VSL]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Variable_speed_of_lightEinstein: "The principle of the constancy of the speed of light can be kept only when one restricts oneself to space-time regions of constant gravitational potential."
I don't fully trust that article on this, some of the quotes seem to be mixing different claims. It certainly leaves out the fact that in the end, GR uses the speed of light as a constant. You can only do meaningful measurements in a local sense in GR, distant measurements give you different apparent results, but that is more like an illusion where you aren't measuring the right thing.
He went on to conclude that c is constant when gravity does not have to be considered. But doesn't gravity have to be considered in ALL frames of reference?I have no idea how a possible non-constant value of c would tie into these various proposals for propellantless rocketry.
Doesn't matter since this is an FTL comms thread not a propellantless thread.
Are we all swelling and shrinking and speeding up and slowing down at the same rate? How could we tell?
And this is the biggest problem with VSL theories, you have to be extremely careful with defining what is actually changing, probably a dimensionless ratio between some independently measurable things. As I mention above the speed of light is fixed under current definitions, it would be the effective length of a meter or duration of a second that would change. But even with other defitions of the meter like a fixed rod, you have to consider did the bond spacing change between atoms in the material due to changes in atomic size, but that could be due to changes in the electron mass.
Sheesh.
Honestly real VSL theories break my brain when I try to sort them out, and while I think that it is good to question the assumptions of constant fundamental constants with time in the universe, the experimental data shows at least a reasonable amount of consistency. I haven't seen a good source reviewing a VSL theory in depth accounting for the complications and implications and comparing to astronomical data. I get the impression that this is because no one has come up with a good way to define a consistent VSL theory (possibly due to the brain breaking nature of it.) -
#43 by JohnFornaro on 18 Apr, 2020 22:06
-
... Honestly real VSL theories break my brain when I try to sort them out ...
Thanks very much for your comments.
From:
https://www.phys.ksu.edu/personal/rprice/SpeedofLight.pdf
"The speed of light was measured using the Foucault method of reflecting a beam of light from a rotating mirror to a fixed mirror and back creating two separate reflected beams with an angular displacement that is related to the time that was required for the light beam to travel a given distance to the fixed mirror. By taking measurements relating the displacement of the two light beams and the angular speed of the rotating mirror, the speed of light was found to be (3.09±0.204)x108 m/s, which is within 2.7% of the defined value for the speed of light."
2.7% is pretty dang far off.
From:
https://www.livescience.com/29111-speed-of-light-not-constant.html
On 04-27-2013. Which I know ain't the best source. But still.
"Speed of Light May Not Be Constant, Physicists Say"
"Cosmic vacuum and light speed
"The first [paper], by lead author Marcel Urban of the Université du Paris-Sud, looks at the cosmic vacuum, which is often assumed to be empty space. The laws of quantum physics, which govern subatomic particles and all things very small, say that the vacuum of space is actually full of fundamental particles like quarks, called "virtual" particles. These matter particles, which are always paired up with their appropriate antiparticle counterpart, pop into existence and almost immediately collide. When matter and antimatter particles touch, they annihilate each other.
"Photons of light, as they fly through space, are captured and re-emitted by these virtual particles. Urban and his colleagues propose that the energies of these particles — specifically the amount of charge they carry — affect the speed of light. Since the amount of energy a particle will have at the time a photon hits it will be essentially random, the effect on how fast photons move should vary too.
"The second paper proposes a different mechanism but comes to the same conclusion that light speed changes. In that case, Gerd Leuchs and Luis Sánchez-Soto, from the Max Planck Institute for the Physics of Light in Erlangen, Germany, say that the number of species of elementary particle that exist in the universe may be what makes the speed of light what it is. ...
"Leuchs and Sanchez-Soto say that there should be, by their calculations, on the order of 100 'species' of particle that have charges. The current law governing particle physics, the Standard Model, identifies nine: the electron, muon, tauon, the six kinds of quark, photons and the W-boson."
Conspicuously missing are morons and peons. But still, these blokes seem to be saying that the speed of light varies; get used to it.
I don't want to get too sidetracked, but these people touch on permittivity as do you above. TBF, a skeptic of VSL, said that he "wasn't confident about the mathematical techniques used, and that it seemed in both cases the scientists weren't applying the mathematical tools in the way that most would."
And it is the math where I give up. I have to dig further to find the variable speeds of light that I've run across.
Thanx again for your commentary. -
#44 by cdebuhr on 18 Apr, 2020 22:12
-
speed of light was found to be (3.09±0.204)x108 m/s, which is within 2.7% of the defined value for the speed of light."
No. It isn't. You've got to look at the error bar on their measurement (the ±0.204 part). The established value of c is completely consistent with their measured value within the limits of its stated uncertainty.
2.7% is pretty dang far off. -
#45 by meberbs on 18 Apr, 2020 22:57
-
2.7% is pretty dang far off.
As stated above, with experimental uncertainty of >6%, it is pretty much dead on.From:
I agree we are probably getting sidetracked, so just a brief comment.
https://www.livescience.com/29111-speed-of-light-not-constant.html
The first one of these doesn't even make sense to me, as it is explained in the article it just seems fundamentally inconsistent. The second one doesn't even sound like a variable speed of light, but an alternate quantum explanation of where the speed of light comes from, but since it adds in a bunch of particles we have no evidence for, it feels like it brings up more issues than it solves. -
#46 by JohnFornaro on 19 Apr, 2020 13:22
-
2.7% is pretty dang far off.
As stated above, with experimental uncertainty of >6%, it is pretty much dead on.
Went back to article and took a closer read. Missed that. Thanks. -
#47 by RSE on 19 Apr, 2020 15:57
-
Mberbs, I don't agree with either your interpretation or the the video's interpretation. I would like to explain, in detail what I am trying to get across.
This is not "interpretation" what I and the video say are what physics says. Your previous discussion is simply wrong. You are confusing 2 different things with different definitions. The local propagation of electromagnetic waves is not the universal constant c by definition. Measuring one does not tell you the other.Point 1. Causality does not exist for a massless particle.
Untrue, you are effectively making the mistake of trying to do calculations in a frame travelling at c, which is simply invalid due to it being a divide by 0 error. When looking at any real frame there is a clear cause and effect including for the emission and absorption of light. Any limit approaching c (the way you deal with divide by 0 errors) will preserve this.This leads to point 2.
Point 1 is wrong, so nothing leads to point 2.Now it might be an expanded group velocity, or it might actually be a faster C without a wildly spread group velocity. This would not destroy the Lorenz transformation, merely expanding it by substituting the Maxwell's Equations boundary condition for C where C is located in the Lorenz transformation. Relativity and the Universe as we know it would merely be a subset of a larger physics, just like Newtonian mechanics is a subset of Relativity.
You have not actually described an experiment. You are just asserting that 2 things with different definitions are the same. There have been many, many experiments showing that electromagnetic waves propagate differently in different materials even extreme values, yet spacetime around these materials does not magically warp as you imply should happen. It doesn't even make sense to substitute the local propagation velocity of light into the Lorentz transformation since there is no definition for frequency in the context of Lorentz transformations.
We now have the experimental method to test this possibility. Look in the box and find out.
Theory should never be used as a reason to not do an experiment.
As for an actual experiment that is trivial to perform that proves your entire concept to be nonsense, drop to balls with significantly different permittivities and observe them fall at the same rate. The Einstein field equations show have the gravitational constant in the form of G/c^4. It would be impossible not to notice the effect if the local propagation of electromagnetic waves had anything whatsoever to do with the universal constant c.
There is a such thing as variable speed of light theories, but they have literally nothing to do with anything you are talking about and have their own set of problems.
Since you posit the point #1 is false, could you answer the following questions.
According to relativity, all reference frames are locally valid. So a sealed reference frame travelling at .999 C, would perceive the same physics as one remaining at rest. Only to an external observer would there be differences. (Or do I have this wrong?)
So....
From the reference frame of a photon (a massless particle travelling at C, not from the reference frame of an external observer of said particle, how would time be measured? According to the Lorenz transformation, at C, time should go to 0, in that reference frame. That is not a divide by 0 error, that is an asymptotic approach to zero, with 0 being reached at C, which can only be reached by a massless particle.
So please explain how time is measured in a photon's reference frame.
How is duration measured in that reference frame.
And how changes in wavelength measured in that reference frame.
Not in an external observer's reference frame, but the photon's reference frame. -
#48 by meberbs on 19 Apr, 2020 17:52
-
According to relativity, all reference frames are locally valid. So a sealed reference frame travelling at .999 C, would perceive the same physics as one remaining at rest. Only to an external observer would there be differences. (Or do I have this wrong?)
This is fine, but you then extend this to a hypothetical reference frame at c, but that is nonsensical, you cannot have a valid reference frame moving at c.From the reference frame of a photon (a massless particle travelling at C, not from the reference frame of an external observer of said particle, how would time be measured? According to the Lorenz transformation, at C, time should go to 0, in that reference frame. That is not a divide by 0 error, that is an asymptotic approach to zero, with 0 being reached at C, which can only be reached by a massless particle.
Asserting that such a reference frame exists is a divide by 0 error. to transform into that reference frame you need to multiply by the Lorentz factor 1/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2) when v = c, this reduces to 1/(1-1) = <error: divide by zero>
Really this question is backwards, you are the one asserting that such a reference frame is anything other than a math error, so you are the one who has to answer impossible questions like how you measure time in that frame to assert that "time should go to 0, in that reference frame."So please explain how time is measured in a photon's reference frame.
None of these are measured in the reference frame of a photon, because such a reference frame makes no sense. Both space and time collapse from the divide by 0 error. You cannot do meaningful calculations in that frame because you effectively lose a dimension as space collapses in the direction of travel, and so even if you take all of the limits correctly to get a transformation in that frame, you lose information like "which side of that wall am I on" and you can never get to meaningful answers or meaningfully transfor back into an actually useful frame. That is why divide by 0 is simply an error.
How is duration measured in that reference frame.
And how changes in wavelength measured in that reference frame.Not in an external observer's reference frame, but the photon's reference frame.
I am running out of ways to say this, again, that is not a valid frame. If you want to assert otherwise, you need to demonstrate how to do calculations in that frame. Trying to ask me to show your work for you is backwards. -
#49 by RSE on 19 Apr, 2020 20:31
-
According to relativity, all reference frames are locally valid. So a sealed reference frame travelling at .999 C, would perceive the same physics as one remaining at rest. Only to an external observer would there be differences. (Or do I have this wrong?)
This is fine, but you then extend this to a hypothetical reference frame at c, but that is nonsensical, you cannot have a valid reference frame moving at c.From the reference frame of a photon (a massless particle travelling at C, not from the reference frame of an external observer of said particle, how would time be measured? According to the Lorenz transformation, at C, time should go to 0, in that reference frame. That is not a divide by 0 error, that is an asymptotic approach to zero, with 0 being reached at C, which can only be reached by a massless particle.
Asserting that such a reference frame exists is a divide by 0 error. to transform into that reference frame you need to multiply by the Lorentz factor 1/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2) when v = c, this reduces to 1/(1-1) = <error: divide by zero>
Really this question is backwards, you are the one asserting that such a reference frame is anything other than a math error, so you are the one who has to answer impossible questions like how you measure time in that frame to assert that "time should go to 0, in that reference frame."So please explain how time is measured in a photon's reference frame.
None of these are measured in the reference frame of a photon, because such a reference frame makes no sense. Both space and time collapse from the divide by 0 error. You cannot do meaningful calculations in that frame because you effectively lose a dimension as space collapses in the direction of travel, and so even if you take all of the limits correctly to get a transformation in that frame, you lose information like "which side of that wall am I on" and you can never get to meaningful answers or meaningfully transfor back into an actually useful frame. That is why divide by 0 is simply an error.
How is duration measured in that reference frame.
And how changes in wavelength measured in that reference frame.Not in an external observer's reference frame, but the photon's reference frame.
I am running out of ways to say this, again, that is not a valid frame. If you want to assert otherwise, you need to demonstrate how to do calculations in that frame. Trying to ask me to show your work for you is backwards.
Mberbs, photons exist. They are real (as we understand reality), and have a set of properties. We measure them. As such, they have a frame of reference. It is not an inertial frame, because they have no mass, but a frame nonetheless. (A non-inertial frame, one might say.) And the implication of the Lorenz transformation implies that as you approach C as a limit, mass goes to infinity and time goes to 0. I state that photons, having no mass, are inherently at that limit. so time in their frame should be at 0. (With everything that t=0 implies.)
Since you state this is not right, describe the frame and what it is - to a photon. What I hear from is is that, in essence, photon don't exist. (They can't be accounted for in your frame description, so they aren't real. )
If they are, provide an explanation of what the universe would look like to a photon.
(I feel like I'm arguing the difference between a null set and zero.) -
#50 by meberbs on 19 Apr, 2020 21:27
-
Mberbs, photons exist. They are real (as we understand reality), and have a set of properties. We measure them.
Yes they do, and I have never claimed otherwise. They travel (in vacuum) at exactly the speed of light in every reference frame that makes sense. This is one moreAs such, they have a frame of reference.
No, just because something exists does not mean it makes sense to describe reality in a reference frame co-moving with it.It is not an inertial frame, because they have no mass, but a frame nonetheless. (A non-inertial frame, one might say.)
Have you just never actually opened a physics book? An inertial frame is one that is not accelerating. Since a frame moving with a relative velocity of c would have constant velocity, it would be inertial if it made any sense to talk about.And the implication of the Lorenz transformation implies that as you approach C as a limit, mass goes to infinity and time goes to 0. I state that photons, having no mass, are inherently at that limit. so time in their frame should be at 0. (With everything that t=0 implies.)
How can time go to 0 when you are multiplying it by a number approaching infinity?
Look at the first equation here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lorentz_transformation
You seem to be confusing time with delta time, and not defining exactly what difference you are taking. (And infinity minus infinity, is undefined just like the division by 0 you used to get the infinities.)Since you state this is not right, describe the frame and what it is - to a photon. What I hear from is is that, in essence, photon don't exist. (They can't be accounted for in your frame description, so they aren't real. )
Read what I wrote. I have never said anything remotely similar to what you assert that I did. Photons exist in any valid frame, in an invalid frame, logic doesn't work. I can't do calculations in an invalid frame. I repeatedly asked you to provide a way of doing calculations in a speed of light frame if you were to continue insisting one exists, and you simply and rudely have ignored that, instead repeating meaningless assertions that plainly contradict the math of frame transformations.If they are, provide an explanation of what the universe would look like to a photon.
I already did and you ignored it, because you don't like the answer.(I feel like I'm arguing the difference between a null set and zero.)
Zero is a number, the null set is the lack of any number. The set of all meaningful reference frames travelling at c is null, yet you keep trying to pull numbers out of this empty set. It simply doesn't work. What result do you get when you roll all of the dice from an empty bag? The question is simply wrong because the action "roll dice" can't be performed. -
#51 by RSE on 19 Apr, 2020 21:28
-
On the PBS imbed you included eariler, at around 9:30, the spokeman points out that at C = infinity, there is no mass (correct) and therefore no spacetime. which is consistent with the concept that for massless particles, there is no spacetime, from their frame of reference, regardless of the value of C. (At C = infinity, there is no other reference frame other than the massless frame.
E=MC*C
E/MC = C
If C = infinity, then M = 0 (Or if one prefers, as C approached infinity as a limit, M must approach 0 as a limit.)
E/0 = infinity
Infinity = infinity
Q.E.D.
(Our computers can't handle it, but the math is clear. A/B, as B approaches 0, A approaches infinity as a limit for both.) -
#52 by meberbs on 19 Apr, 2020 21:56
-
On the PBS imbed you included eariler, at around 9:30, the spokeman points out that at C = infinity, there is no mass (correct) and therefore no spacetime. which is consistent with the concept that for massless particles, there is no spacetime, from their frame of reference, regardless of the value of C. (At C = infinity, there is no other reference frame other than the massless frame.
They are discussing a hypothetical alternate universe to consider the implications, not the real one where c is finite. Your extrapolations from there miss the entire point.E/MC = C
Meaningless, multiple infinities on either side of the equation, and you are taking the M*C, asserting randomly that M is 0, and then nonsensically claiming that 0* infinity is 0, but the rule "anything times 0 is 0" cancels with "anything time infinity is infinity" and no meaningful result can be determined. This is taught along with limits in any basic calculus class.
If C = infinity, then M = 0 (Or if one prefers, as C approached infinity as a limit, M must approach 0 as a limit.)
E/0 = infinityInfinity = infinity
Infinity does not equal infinity, for example, see : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cardinality_of_the_continuum
Q.E.D.
(Our computers can't handle it, but the math is clear. A/B, as B approaches 0, A approaches infinity as a limit for both.)
When you do such math, the result is nonsensical. For demonstration see below*
let 2 variables, a and b both equal 1. Since they are equal, the following equations are clearly true:
b^2 = a*b
a^2 = a^2
subtracting you get:
a^2-b^2 = a^2 - a*b
factoring you get:
(a+b)*(a-b) = a*(a-b)
therefore you can clearly see that a+b = a *****
Plugging in the original values, you get 2 = 1.
Clearly this is gibberish. It is equivalent to what you keep doing though. That step with all of the asterisks is arrived at by dividing by zero, because (a-b) = 0. When you divide by zero you have abandoned logic. Whether a computer can handle this is irrelevant. Any conclusions after that point is meaningless, and ending with infinity = infinity is simply the same thing. Again, there is a such thing as limits, but to use them right you have to do things carefully, and they don't strictly mean that the result you get is the value at that limit. There are cases where this is decidedly not true.
*Slightly modified from the book Zero: The Biography of a Dangerous Idea by Charles Seife, The book goes on to prove that Winston Churchill is a carrot. -
#53 by RSE on 19 Apr, 2020 22:24
-
Mberbs, you are sounding like a theologian defending the faith, not a scientist.
The "alternate universe" is merely taking the relativity mathematics and analysing all possible aspects. Changing values to see what the mathematics imply. They imply that if all particles were massless, there would be no spacetime, as we know it, because there would be no time, no duration, and no causality, implying no space as well.
So, does this apply to massless particles (wavicles, if you prefer), which travel at C, where C is a finite value? An absolutely valid question to ask. It seems consistent with the existing mathematics.
If not, please provide me with the math describing how and why duration exists for a photon, that is consistent with that "alternate universe".
In other words, why times passes for a photon, if it does, and how would it be measured, in its own "perspective", not that of an outside observer.
This is a building block that must be settled before any oher discussion can be contemplated.
So far, you have refused to deal with this subject, other than hurl insults. -
#54 by meberbs on 19 Apr, 2020 22:47
-
Mberbs,
Once is an accident, twice starts sounding like an insult, check your spelling.you are sounding like a theologian defending the faith, not a scientist.
So you ran out of logic and resort to insults now?The "alternate universe" is merely taking the relativity mathematics and analysing all possible aspects. Changing values to see what the mathematics imply. They imply that if all particles were massless, there would be no spacetime, as we know it, because there would be no time, no duration, and no causality, implying no space as well.
You are missing the point, if the universal constants were significantly different, then the universe would look significantly different, but that is not the case, so these conclusions do not apply to the real world.So, does this apply to massless particles (wavicles, if you prefer), which travel at C, where C is a finite value? An absolutely valid question to ask. It seems consistent with the existing mathematics.
Again, read my previous posts. I already provided the equations that show that your assertions are inconsistent.If not, please provide me with the math describing how and why duration exists for a photon, that is consistent with that "alternate universe".
Math consistent with an imaginary universe does not in general provide any utility in the real world.In other words, why times passes for a photon, if it does, and how would it be measured, in its own "perspective", not that of an outside observer.
You cannot meaningfully measure things from the perspective of a photon, as I have said a dozen times. If you want to assert otherwise, the burden of proof is on you.This is a building block that must be settled before any oher discussion can be contemplated.
In other words you refuse to even consider the possibility that your statements are inherently wrong and illogical, and you not only refuse to admit that, but rather than providing any kind of counterargument, you insist that I defend your position for you.So far, you have refused to deal with this subject, other than hurl insults.
You are the one who has refused to respond to a single thing I have said, who has misrepresented what I said, and you are now lying, claiming that I have hurled insults when I have done no such thing. (And if you think that pointing out that you don't understand the math you are discussing by providing specifics of exactly where you are wrong with a worked out example is somehow an insult, then you can only blame yourself for the implications of refusing to accept your own mistakes.) -
#55 by RSE on 20 Apr, 2020 14:21
-
Meberbs, you want me to address your questions. I will only do it one at a time, starting with the most basic question. Otherwise, the discussion will get snarled between issues.
From various posts, starting with #40.
Untrue, you are effectively making the mistake of trying to do calculations in a frame travelling at c, which is simply invalid due to it being a divide by 0 error. When looking at any real frame there is a clear cause and effect including for the emission and absorption of light. Any limit approaching c (the way you deal with divide by 0 errors) will preserve this.
This is fine, but you then extend this to a hypothetical reference frame at c, but that is nonsensical, you cannot have a valid reference frame moving at c.
Asserting that such a reference frame exists is a divide by 0 error. to transform into that reference frame you need to multiply by the Lorentz factor 1/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2) when v = c, this reduces to 1/(1-1) = <error: divide by zero>
In response, I will go into detail to show where I disagree with you.
In mathematics, infinity is an accepted concept. It crops up in lots of places. A simple example: how many real number exist between whole numbers 1 and 2? Answer – an infinite number. One can find examples in all sorts of places in mathematics.
So, assuming we are in agreement so far, I bring up the next major piece of mathematics, the concept of a limit. It is the bedrock of Calculus. For example, the area under a curve. (A traditional example) It can't be directly calculated numerically. The concept was to make a rectangle of a portion of the area and calculate that, which is determinate, and to do that for the entire curve in question. Sum all the individual rectangles, and you have an approximate answer. The more rectangles you use, the closer to the exact answer you get. If you had an infinite (that concept again) number of rectangles, you would get the exact answer. So, the concept of limit was used. As the number of rectangles approach infinity, as a limit, the value of the area under the curve approaches the correct answer. Calculus is the mathematics that uses this concept to get the correct answer.
Now, assuming we are still in agreement at this point, we get to the question at hand - divide by zero.
You keep insisting it is an error. It is not – in mathematics. Let me explain.
For any two numbers, if one divides one by the other (the numerator divided by the denominator) you get an result. What happens with the special case of 0 as the denominator? Well, as the denominator gets smaller, the result get larger. So, I bring in the concept of a limit. As the denominator approaches zero, as a limit, the result approaches infinitely large as a limit. Therefore, by using the concepts of Calculus, I say the dividing a number by 0 gives infinity for an answer. Now, infinity cannot be used for numerical calculations, but that does not make it wrong or unreal – or an error. Now from a determinate numerical perspective (which is how our computers function), this is defined as an error, but that is due to the limitation of tool(s), not a mathematical reality.
If we can agree in this then I can go onto the next question. -
#56 by meberbs on 20 Apr, 2020 16:13
-
In response, I will go into detail to show where I disagree with you.
There is nothing explicitly wrong with any of this, except you leave out extremely important details. some of which I have already explained.
In mathematics, infinity is an accepted concept. It crops up in lots of places. A simple example: how many real number exist between whole numbers 1 and 2? Answer – an infinite number. One can find examples in all sorts of places in mathematics.
So, assuming we are in agreement so far, I bring up the next major piece of mathematics, the concept of a limit. It is the bedrock of Calculus. For example, the area under a curve. (A traditional example) It can't be directly calculated numerically. The concept was to make a rectangle of a portion of the area and calculate that, which is determinate, and to do that for the entire curve in question. Sum all the individual rectangles, and you have an approximate answer. The more rectangles you use, the closer to the exact answer you get. If you had an infinite (that concept again) number of rectangles, you would get the exact answer. So, the concept of limit was used. As the number of rectangles approach infinity, as a limit, the value of the area under the curve approaches the correct answer. Calculus is the mathematics that uses this concept to get the correct answer.
Importantly, there is not a single concept of "infinity" which seems to be an unstated assumption in your description here. just as there are infinite numbers between 1 ans 2, there are also infinite integers. There are infinite positive integers, yet the set of all integers is clearly larger than the set of positive integers by an infinite amount, yet it is still possible to create a 1 to 1 mapping between them, which is why you have to be very careful when working with infinities, or implications of this will result in nonsensical answers. To continue on this, there are more numbers between 1 and 2 than there are integers, this however is a qualitatively different infinity, as no mapping is possible with the lesser infinity of integers.
Also important is that infinity is only defined in mathematics in special situations where all of the caveats of different concepts represented by "infinity" are controlled. The most typical is one that you mention: limits. Outside of limits, infinity loses its meaning, and becomes nonsense. Up until this point, you have simply avoided taking a formal limit of anything, jumping to simply nonsensical answers.Now, assuming we are still in agreement at this point, we get to the question at hand - divide by zero.
Not even kind of true. You are skipping all of the subtleties that I mention above.
You keep insisting it is an error. It is not – in mathematics. Let me explain.
For any two numbers, if one divides one by the other (the numerator divided by the denominator) you get an result. What happens with the special case of 0 as the denominator? Well, as the denominator gets smaller, the result get larger. So, I bring in the concept of a limit. As the denominator approaches zero, as a limit, the result approaches infinitely large as a limit. Therefore, by using the concepts of Calculus, I say the dividing a number by 0 gives infinity for an answer.Now, infinity cannot be used for numerical calculations, but that does not make it wrong or unreal – or an error. Now from a determinate numerical perspective (which is how our computers function), this is defined as an error, but that is due to the limitation of tool(s), not a mathematical reality.
No, it is mathematical reality. The simple "infinity" you claim as a result cannot further be used to do anything, because all of the subtlety is gone. In reality here are some actual uses of limits:
lim (x->0) 0/x = 0
lim (x->0) 1/x = inf
lim (x->0) sin(x)/x = 1
lim (x->0) x/x^2 = inf
lim (x->0) x^2/x = 0
In this simplified case 1/x and x/x^2 are equivalent, but if instead I had used 1/x^2 it would no longer be valid to compare the infinities.
I am familiar with working with infinities outside of the formal context of limits. I had a professor who liked to do things that would horrify mathematicians, but he was always careful to warn us that he was bending the rules, and only did so when the result happened to be valid, and the shortcut could help us gain a better understanding. For example he would write an equation like:
delta(t) = 1/(2*pi) integral (-inf to inf) e^(i*w*t) dw
where delta is the Dirac delta function. This is WRONG because the Dirac delta function contains an infinity. The Dirac delta is simply undefined except when it is inside an integral (as you mentioned an integral is a form of a limit which is why certain well-defined infinities can be contained there.) It however works for conceptual understanding, because it strips away some of the formalism that distracts from the point an in practice it would only be used within the context of an integral.
You have simply not demonstrated the comprehension required for this to be useful in this discussion, so I will have to insist that we keep things formal.If we can agree in this then I can go onto the next question.
Or we could shortcut this, because I have already explained exactly where you are wrong, I had already linked you to an explanation for the different infinities, I have now written it out as plainly as possible myself. Considering that you didn't even stop to apologize for what I pointed out in my last post, I don't get the impression that there is a point conversing with you. The explanations to this point are more for the benefit of passing readers. Nothing you say in this post, even if it was perfect and not a setup to skip important subtleties, would be a foundation for your incorrect statements in previous posts such as:
-You ignored/denied the fact that the universal constant c and the local propagation velocity of electromagnetic waves have different definitions.
-You got the definition of an inertial frame wrong.
-You claim that time goes to 0 in a speed of light frame despite the transformation clearly saying otherwise (t' = gamma * (t-v*x/c^2) in the limit as v->c says: t' = inf*(t-x/c), which in most cases simply equals inf, though really it is just meaningless.
-You assert that there must be a valid way to describe the universe in a reference frame moving at c or photons could not exist. This is simply untrue, these 2 points are not logically connected.
Just about everything after the first bullet is a drift away from the thread topic anyway. I only had one "question" for you and that was for you to provide a consistent way to do calculations in a speed of light frame if you were going to insist that such a frame has any meaning. This really is rhetorical though, as it would be a fools errand. At best it may be possible to set up some careful limits and effectively do the calculations in a near c frame, since actually taking the limits causes things to collapse and information to be irretrievably lost. Such a setup would obviously just give the typical expected answers and not be insightful.
The rest of what I have said is simply pointing out errors you have made, and there really is no room to discuss. Most of the time it is a matter of literal definition, or of simple and straightforward math. These in general are not things that I have come up with entirely myself, but things that were originally come up with by people much, much smarter than me.
Seriously anything you have to say from this point is most likely covered by something I have already written, so rather than continuing this, please just re-read my posts, and only respond if there is a specific error in one of my posts you can point out. (Though it would help if you first stopped to admit that you are wrong about anything, even something irrelevant like the definition of an inertial frame.) -
#57 by laszlo on 20 Apr, 2020 16:31
-
meberbs either has the patience of Job or is out of things to do in lockdown.
-
#58 by JohnFornaro on 22 Apr, 2020 12:41
-
meberbs either has the patience of Job or is out of things to do in lockdown.
For real. Plus, he can rattle off things like:Quote from: meberbs(t' = gamma * (t-v*x/c^2) in the limit as v->c says: t' = inf*(t-x/c)
Without, we assume, breaking out into a sweat. Personally, I do not understand his interlocutor's motives. -
#59 by dustinthewind on 23 Apr, 2020 17:52
-
No, see my above post on why this is based on a misunderstanding. (That is at least a common enough misunderstanding, but your post goes much much farther than that) The bringing in GR is just an irrelevant change in topic, Gravitational time dilation is very real, but is not a change in the fundamental constant. And check out the wiki page on Puthoff, he was involved with scientology and pseudoscience experiments on psychic powers. He is not someone you reference to lend credibility to an idea.
Interesting paper, but what's happened on that line of research in the eight years hence?
Very little, it would seem. It's likely they lack sufficient context from which extrapolate other possibilities/experiments.
In the modern context, wave propagation is usually determined as a singular constant C rather than the dual factors of electric permittivity and magnetic permeability of empty space.
I suspect they will have more success once they break 'light' down into its individual components.
I suspect there is something to this. Locally the universe conspires to give us the impression when we locally measure the speed of light that it is constant but non locally it is not constant. The very nature gravitational lensing is that light is bent by both time and space can be viewed as a non-local change in the speed of light. WarpTech used to bring up a paper linked to this that related to a non-local change in the speed of light via a polarized vacuum. One of the names was Harold Puthoff.
The rest of your post is a bunch of non-sequiters and logical leaps that aren't even worth discussing since you have repeatedly demonstrated your lack of interest in actually learning what the words you use mean.This might all also be related to super cavitation which is used to push torpedos to high speeds in water.
This final sentence gives a good summary of how completely irrelevant your statements are. There is simply nothing that could possibly relate supercavitating torpedoes to the subject of this thread and if you think there is, you have very deep misunderstandings of fundamental aspects of the physics under discussion, and you need to go try to learn it from scratch after abandoning your preconceived notions.
Your relevance is a matter of opinion. What's relevant to one person might be garbage to another. This means we obviously don't understand each other and I'm not sure that will change anytime soon. Even Einstein understood that there's a non-local change in the speed of light where locally the speed of light is constant. This is where the quote before somebody had something to say about Einstein mentioning the constancy of the speed of light in a constant gravitational acceleration, not a changing gravitational acceleration. If the gravitational acceleration changes the non-local speed of light changes but the local measured speed of light remains the same.
I don't care about Harolds Religion. I do care about the relevance of what his paper had to say about space time. Warptechs references him because it illustrates a point about general relativity. He mentions a non-local change in the speed of light. There are many other scientist who also point out the exact same thing. I don't judge people and everything they do based on their religion. rather I filter out what is useful and throw away what I don't find useful as should be done. https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=19421.msg2062810#msg2062810
what's really irrelevant is you bringing in the vsl variable speed of light concepts which probably indicate a change in the measured local speed of light which may change over the eons. the concept is just simple general relativity which also collapses into special relativity.
Now if you exist in a region where the non-local speed of light is slower than the rest of non-local speed of light then there is a possible non-local faster than the normal speed of the light. The speed of light can be defined as c equals 1 divided by the square root of the magnetic permeability times the electric permittivity or something like that. Go look it up if you want to nitpick.
In some materials when you modify the local dielectric it changes the speed of light in that material. SpaceTime is also like a dielectric then you can modify it to change the non local speed of light but in doing so you modify the physical matter so that it measures a constant speed of light.
I will try and make this simple
The reference to torpedo cavitation is about the same. you can move a torpedo faster through the gas bubble in the water then you can move the torpedo through the water.
There is another paper that was referenced that discusses extremely high energy waves in water in which the wave turns into a gas wave. I think this is related to shock physics and might relate to highly energetic gravitational waves moving through space-time. The gas wave can move faster than a sound wave moving through the water.
Surprise surprise it all relates to faster than light signals but also relates to faster-than-light propulsion by manipulating space time. This is why warptech referenced it in the alcubre warp drive section.
