ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Science, Mathematics, Medicine, and Technology
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Tags photons

Reply
Old 22nd October 2008, 02:43 PM   #1481
ozziemate
Graduate Poster
 
ozziemate's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 1,240
Quote:
Images show nothing. I can draw one where every observer regardless of velocity or distance from the source has a different t=thsp. So what?
Using the photon light field as your source of t=thsp and you will derive the same conclusion as I have.
ozziemate is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd October 2008, 02:49 PM   #1482
Mashuna
Ovis ex Machina
 
Mashuna's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 6,856
Originally Posted by ozziemate View Post
Again all you are showing is what I call a "religious" arguement.
"you don't know God [srt gr]so how can you defy his existance"
"you can't read the bible [mathematics] so how can you defy what it states."
Not at all. It's more like, "Your argument is illogical and fallacious, so you can't base any conclusions on it."
__________________
Id rather be a rising ape than a falling angel. - Sir Terry Pratchett
Mashuna is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd October 2008, 02:53 PM   #1483
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 26,927
Originally Posted by ozziemate View Post
Again all you are showing is what I call a "religious" arguement.
"you don't know God [srt gr]so how can you defy his existance"
"you can't read the bible [mathematics] so how can you defy what it states."
Your ignorance is showing again: Science is not religion. They are 2 separate things.
Reality Check is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd October 2008, 02:54 PM   #1484
ozziemate
Graduate Poster
 
ozziemate's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 1,240
Maybe we should break the issue down and see if we can reach any agreement what so ever...
can we agree to the following:



Quote:
Shown in this diagram below is a light source, in this case a single star surrounded by it's photon light field as suggested by the speckling.



Of course we can not normally see a photon that hasn't impacted on matter so your imagination is required to assume the speckle as the location of photons that are impacting upon objects of imaginary matter. You will also have to imagine that the photons are all travelling outward from the source at the rate of 'c'.

It can be reasoned that every speckle of photon light is occurring at the same simultaneous moment. Regardless of location all objects of matter placed in this field will record the light event simultaneously.

As time progresses all photons change their location according to their speed of 'c'. All do so simultaneously so that no matter when you take your snap shot, although time has passed the Hyper Surface of the present is still constant universally.
extract : http://zeropointtheory.com/index.php...d=52&Itemid=61
Can we agree that every photon particle or wave exists simultaneously at t=thsp with the light field described in the image?

Last edited by ozziemate; 22nd October 2008 at 03:01 PM.
ozziemate is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd October 2008, 02:57 PM   #1485
ozziemate
Graduate Poster
 
ozziemate's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 1,240
Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
Your ignorance is showing again: Science is not religion. They are 2 separate things.
well then don't treat it like a religion....

use your head, apply reason and deal with the issues raised.
ozziemate is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd October 2008, 03:07 PM   #1486
ozziemate
Graduate Poster
 
ozziemate's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 1,240
Originally Posted by Mashuna View Post
Not at all. It's more like, "Your argument is illogical and fallacious, so you can't base any conclusions on it."
Do you feel it is reasonable to make such a claim with out supporting it?
In what way is the logic of the current issue being presented illogical and fallacious and therfore no conclusions can be drawn from it?
see post #1484 for details

Last edited by ozziemate; 22nd October 2008 at 03:08 PM.
ozziemate is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd October 2008, 03:14 PM   #1487
Mashuna
Ovis ex Machina
 
Mashuna's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 6,856
Originally Posted by ozziemate View Post
Do you feel it is reasonable to make such a claim with out supporting it?
In what way is the logic of the current issue being presented illogical and fallacious and therfore no conclusions can be drawn from it?
see post #1484 for details
There are around a thousand posts in this thread supporting this claim. Just because you refuse to acknowledge or understand them, doesn't make them go away.
__________________
Id rather be a rising ape than a falling angel. - Sir Terry Pratchett
Mashuna is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd October 2008, 03:18 PM   #1488
ozziemate
Graduate Poster
 
ozziemate's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 1,240
Originally Posted by Mashuna View Post
There are around a thousand posts in this thread supporting this claim. Just because you refuse to acknowledge or understand them, doesn't make them go away.
maybe you misssed the bit:
see post 1484 for details?
ozziemate is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd October 2008, 03:20 PM   #1489
ozziemate
Graduate Poster
 
ozziemate's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 1,240
If you don't want to deal with it here maybe a fresh thread is in order?
ozziemate is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd October 2008, 03:23 PM   #1490
Mashuna
Ovis ex Machina
 
Mashuna's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 6,856
Originally Posted by ozziemate View Post
If you don't want to deal with it here maybe a fresh thread is in order?
Please, not on my account.
__________________
Id rather be a rising ape than a falling angel. - Sir Terry Pratchett
Mashuna is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd October 2008, 03:23 PM   #1491
Tubbythin
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 3,202
Originally Posted by ozziemate View Post
So I can presume that given that you feel I am threatening SR you understand a little about what I am proposing....ahhh that is something I guess.
I do not in any way shape or form think you are threatening special relativity. I think you have no idea what you are talking about as evidenced by:

Quote:
I am suggesting that that time is a universal constant as explained using this diagram:
and then suggesting that:
Quote:
I am not declaring SRT or GR wrong.
which is precisely what you are suggesting in the first statement.

Quote:
I do not have to care about SR I am simply putting a logical proposition to the board for it's assessment. What the implications are for your belief systems I don't really care.

Maybe deal with the issue and it will go away, if not it wont....thats the reality.
There is no issue, except for the ones your ignorance has dreamt up in your head.

Quote:
If SR is sound then the logic presented should be sh*t easy to defeat...but as yet all you guys are doing is avoiding attempting to do so claiming "authority" rather than reason.
Simple. Muonic lifetimes differ in different inertial reference frames. Argument over, SR wins hands down.

Quote:
any ways an ammended version of the image:
Were every observer regardless of velocity or distance from the source shares a simultaneous t=thsp
Observers A through to F
It is the photon that determines the hyper surface of the present not the observer.
Two minutes ago you were saying photons didn't exist! You could at least make your mind up about which garbage you were gonna spout.

Quote:
[ the use of the clock in the image is to show that regardless of where the hands of the clock are t=thsp]
Brilliant. Instead of trying to find supporting evidence or a mathematical derivation, your argument relies on a picture of a clock superimposed on a picture of the sky.
Tubbythin is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd October 2008, 03:23 PM   #1492
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 26,927
Originally Posted by ozziemate View Post
well then don't treat it like a religion....

use your head, apply reason and deal with the issues raised.
I have.
The issues raised are only valid if SR is wrong. You state that you are not showing that SR is wrong. Thus the issues are invalid according to your own logic.
Reality Check is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd October 2008, 03:32 PM   #1493
ozziemate
Graduate Poster
 
ozziemate's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 1,240
Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
I have.
The issues raised are only valid if SR is wrong. You state that you are not showing that SR is wrong. Thus the issues are invalid according to your own logic.
I am not showing SR is wrong...you are by refusing to enter a proper debate.

the details of the current issue are presnted at post #1484
Explain why this position is invalid with proper reasoning and you will have done a good job in supporting SRT.
Choose not to and you are simply showing you can't.
BTW having a decent discussion about it isn't going to prove SR invalid or anything like that.
If agreement is reached then all that means is that there is a "possibility" that SR needs to be amended. It doesn't invalidate SR as that is up to the individual.

Last edited by ozziemate; 22nd October 2008 at 03:35 PM.
ozziemate is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd October 2008, 03:36 PM   #1494
Mashuna
Ovis ex Machina
 
Mashuna's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 6,856
Originally Posted by ozziemate View Post
Explain why this position is invalid with proper reasoning and you will have done a good job in supporting SRT.
Choose not to and you are simply showing you can't. . .
. . .be bothered as you've never shown any sign of comprehension.
__________________
Id rather be a rising ape than a falling angel. - Sir Terry Pratchett
Mashuna is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd October 2008, 03:39 PM   #1495
ozziemate
Graduate Poster
 
ozziemate's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 1,240
Originally Posted by Mashuna View Post
. . .be bothered as you've never shown any sign of comprehension.
then it should be really easy to invalidate yes?
ozziemate is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd October 2008, 03:45 PM   #1496
Mashuna
Ovis ex Machina
 
Mashuna's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 6,856
Originally Posted by ozziemate View Post
then it should be really easy to invalidate yes?
Well, based on this thread yes, it should be really easy to invalidate. At which point, you'll either claim that you're still right just because you are, or come up with some other bizarre theory of why light doesn't exist and time is made of sausages.

So I'm off to bed, instead.
__________________
Id rather be a rising ape than a falling angel. - Sir Terry Pratchett
Mashuna is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd October 2008, 04:02 PM   #1497
ozziemate
Graduate Poster
 
ozziemate's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 1,240
As there is no satisfaction to the question in this long and very confused thread I have started another thread for your entertainment:

Logical proof of SRT invalidity
ozziemate is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd October 2008, 05:37 PM   #1498
Dancing David
Penultimate Amazing
 
Dancing David's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: central Illinois
Posts: 39,699
Originally Posted by Belz... View Post
Lower ?

As in "inverse correct".
__________________
I suspect you are a sandwich, metaphorically speaking. -Donn
And a shot rang out. Now Space is doing time... -Ben Burch
You built the toilet - don't complain when people crap in it. _Kid Eager
Never underestimate the power of the Random Number God. More of evolutionary history is His doing than people think. - Dinwar
Dancing David is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd October 2008, 05:41 PM   #1499
Dancing David
Penultimate Amazing
 
Dancing David's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: central Illinois
Posts: 39,699
Originally Posted by ozziemate View Post
And I don't need to use any mathematics at all to do it either....

http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/crackpot.html

"15. 10 points for each statement along the lines of "I'm not good at math, but my theory is conceptually right, so all I need is for someone to express it in terms of equations". "
__________________
I suspect you are a sandwich, metaphorically speaking. -Donn
And a shot rang out. Now Space is doing time... -Ben Burch
You built the toilet - don't complain when people crap in it. _Kid Eager
Never underestimate the power of the Random Number God. More of evolutionary history is His doing than people think. - Dinwar
Dancing David is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd October 2008, 05:45 PM   #1500
Dancing David
Penultimate Amazing
 
Dancing David's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: central Illinois
Posts: 39,699
Originally Posted by ozziemate View Post
Maybe we should break the issue down and see if we can reach any agreement what so ever...
can we agree to the following:





Can we agree that every photon particle or wave exists simultaneously at t=thsp with the light field described in the image?

"14. 10 points for each new term you invent and use without properly defining it.
...
17. 10 points for arguing that while a current well-established theory predicts phenomena correctly, it doesn't explain "why" they occur, or fails to provide a "mechanism".

18. 10 points for each favorable comparison of yourself to Einstein, or claim that special or general relativity are fundamentally misguided (without good evidence). "
__________________
I suspect you are a sandwich, metaphorically speaking. -Donn
And a shot rang out. Now Space is doing time... -Ben Burch
You built the toilet - don't complain when people crap in it. _Kid Eager
Never underestimate the power of the Random Number God. More of evolutionary history is His doing than people think. - Dinwar
Dancing David is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd October 2008, 04:20 AM   #1501
Belz...
Fiend God
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the details
Posts: 89,161
Originally Posted by ozziemate View Post
nahh tried that but you wouldn't let me....remember I am just a crackpot...who aint worth the trouble yes?
I think I hear a violin.
__________________
Master of the Shining Darkness

"My views are nonsense. So what?" - BobTheCoward


Belz... is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th October 2008, 01:00 AM   #1502
CaveDave
Semicentenarian Troglodyte
 
CaveDave's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Buddy Holly's home, Surrounded by tumbleweeds, duststorms, and tornados.
Posts: 1,743
Originally Posted by ozziemate View Post
<snip>
any ways an ammended version of the image:
Were every observer regardless of velocity or distance from the source shares a simultaneous t=thsp
Observers A through to F
It is the photon that determines the hyper surface of the present not the observer.
[ the use of the clock in the image is to show that regardless of where the hands of the clock are t=thsp]
Originally Posted by ozziemate View Post
<snip>
Can we agree that every photon particle or wave exists simultaneously at t=thsp with the light field described in the image?
Oz, you seem to have a fundamental misunderstanding of the light cone diagram you are so enamoured with.
If we take for the moment your simulation image:

Now, for the moment, imagine the plane image is the view looking down the axis of the cone perpendicular to the hyper space present plane. Now, let's make the central "star" a point source (instead of a largish sphere). At some instant of time, let's assign that plane as thsp and freeze it there even though we will be able to "look" beyond that time (we are omnipotent and can do this), and add the apex of the light cone to that central point (star), the "past" extending away from us on the other side of the plane, and the "future" extending away behind us. Now we step back one increment in time and now we see a small circle surrounding the central star with a radius equal to the distance the light would travel in that increment with new photon-dots along it representing those emitted at the instant of "freezing" the thsp plane, and all the other photon-dots moved radially outward by that same distance. Call that new plane thsp + 1.
If this process was continued several more times, we would see larger and larger circles each time-slice as we incremented away, carrying along with the receeding photon-dots on the circumference.
Now, imagine photographic slides made of each of these images stacked together and looked at obliquely -- you can imagine these circle images outlining the future light cone.
That whole figure, from the thsp plane forward is what a light cone diagram represents: from an "event" (the photons emitted from the star at the moment we froze the view) through future time-slices, the radius of the light circle is the limiting distance at which the event can be observed. Each of your six "observers" will only see any photons emitted at the instant of freezing when the radius of the light circle passes through the observers radial distance from the star.

I probably could have said that better if I was not so tired.

A web site I found explains in more detail.

Please follow it pagewise (the little blue square with the lightcone symbol at the top and bottom left side of each page after the first lets you navigate forward and back) and follow the links and watch the animations.

Also view this
And here is a cute "twins non-paradox" simulator.

ETA: Good news! -- NO MATH is used in ANY of these pages, so you won't be inconvenienced!
(I wasn't either since math is not my strong suit -- I am best with visualizations like these use.)

HTH

Dave
__________________
I, for one, welcome our new Authoritarian Socialist Overlords! . . . All Hail, Comrade Obama!
WHO IS JOHN GALT? . . . Read "Atlas Shrugged" by Ayn Rand.
"Some say that I'm a wise man, some think that I'm a fool. It doesn't matter either way: I'll be a wise man's fool."
Procol Harum "In Held 'Twas In I"

Last edited by CaveDave; 24th October 2008 at 01:25 AM.
CaveDave is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th October 2008, 01:16 AM   #1503
ozziemate
Graduate Poster
 
ozziemate's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 1,240
Originally Posted by CaveDave View Post
Oz, you seem to have a fundamental misunderstanding of the light cone diagram you are so enamoured with.
If we take for the moment your simulation image:

Now, for the moment, imagine the plane image is the view looking down the axis of the cone perpendicular to the hyper space present plane. Now, let's make the central "star" a point source (instead of a largish sphere). At some instant of time, let's assign that plane as thsp and freeze it there even though we will be able to "look" beyond that time (we are omnipotent and can do this), and add the apex of the light cone to that central point (star), the "past" extending away from us on the other side of the plane, and the "future" extending away behind us. Now we step back one increment in time and now we see a small circle surrounding the central star with a radius equal to the distance the light would travel in that increment with new photon-dots along it representing those emitted at the instant of "freezing" the thsp plane, and all the other photon-dots moved radially outward by that same distance. Call that new plane thsp + 1.
If this process was continued several more times, we would see larger and larger circles each time-slice as we incremented away, carrying along with the receeding photon-dots on the circumference.
Now, imagine photographic slides made of each of these images stacked together and looked at obliquely -- you can imagine these circle images outlining the future light cone.
That whole figure, from the thsp plane forward is what a light cone diagram represents: from an "event" (the photons emitted from the star at the moment we froze the view) through future time-slices, the radius of the light circle is the limiting distance at which the event can be observed.

I probably could have said that better if I was not so tired.

A web site I found explains in more detail.

Please follow it pagewise (the little blue square with the lightcone symbol at the top and bottom left side of each page after the first lets you navigate forward and back) and follow the links and watch the animations.

Also view this
And here is a cute "twins non-paradox" simulator.

HTH

Dave
Firstly Cavedave thanks for going to the trouble and posting your post, and I understand what you are saying and it sounds about the correct SRT position.
my best response woud be to post the link to the ssite Iam currently putting together to demonstrate my point more effectively.
Zero Point theory
it is the only article currently on display.
Have a read if you feel inclined and I woudl welcome your comments.

there is another thread running currently in this forum called
Logical proof of SRT invalidity
which is a test session on the logic presented.
and btw I will look at the links that you provided...thanks.
ozziemate is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th October 2008, 07:03 AM   #1504
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 26,927
ozziemate:
Just a reminder that these issues with the "distance=0 for light" idea still remain to be resolved.
Your last word on these was:
Originally Posted by ozziemate View Post
...snip...
I'll be answering the issue you raise eventually at the web site were I can at least get the explanation presented. Presenting it here has proved tiresome.
...snip...
How many years will it take you to answer the issues? This might take a long time given your poor state of knowledge of mathematics and physics (have you learned about the Cartesian coordinate system yet?).

I have added a few more issues, e.g. "a detector must know how to calculate the path that a photon would have taken as if current physics is correct so that it can apply all of the interactions that the photon may have undergone (e.g. gravitational lensing)."

One wonders how the detectors know to use our physics and not some other physics ?


The physical facts that show that the "d=0 for light" idea is wrong. These ignore your non-mathematical and wrong suggestion that the space-time of the universe is simultaneously zero and 3 and 4 dimensional.
  1. Gravitational lensing - an effect on light seen here on Earth that happens billions of light years away without any mass event.
  2. Cosmological redshift is the observation that light changes properties (is red-shifted) with distance without interactions with mass.
  3. Detect the light in the cosmic microwave background.
    1. We know that this light was created 13.7 billion years ago.
    2. We know that at that time there was just hydrogen.
    3. We know that we are detecting that light with something that is not made of hydrogen (typically a metallic element like iron that is formed in supernova).
    4. We know that the atom that detected the light did not exist 13.7 billion years ago.
    5. Therefore this idea needs light to influence matter that does not exist at the time the light is emitted (and will not exist for many millions of years). How does it do this when d=0 and it appears at the matter as soon as it is emitted.
  4. Gamma rays (waves according to your theory) convert to an electron and a position (particles) in the presence of an electric field. Note the absence of a "mass event" (whatever that is).
  5. Integrated Sachs-Wolfe Effect.
Other problems that might be solved if you had coherent and consistant definitions for your terms:
  1. If light does not travel in 4 dimensional space then it cannot obey Maxwell's Equations and so is not even a wave!
  2. We actually measure the distance that light travels. This is with matter so your undefined "mass event" idea needs to be considered. Once you define what a mass event is then we can discuss this further. I suspect that your definition will be "anything that allows d=0 for light".
  3. The logical consequence of your idea is that every detector must know the position of every object in the universe at all times (past and future). This is because that cannot find out the position of objects in the universe from the light that may be emitted from them (remember d=0 for light). Thus it must be stored in them somehow. You do not provide a mechanism for this effect.
  4. In addition to the previous issue - a detector must know how to calculate the path that a photon would have taken as if current physics is correct so that it can apply all of the interactions that the photon may have undergone (e.g. gravitational lensing).
  5. Annihilation radiation and PET (courtesy of Tubbythin).
  6. The Lyman-alpha forest.
  7. Absorption spectrum.
  8. Sunyaev-Zel'dovich effect.
  9. "the vacuum of space between objects such as planets or stars is considered by the idea as relative zero distance space", i.e. the vacuum of space between objects such as the Sun and the Earth is considered by the idea as relative zero distance space.
    A zero distance means that the intensity of light from the Sun remains constant. That is a high school level mathematical fact not a vague idea in your head.
    Thus the intensity of light at the Earth's surface must be the same as the intensity of light at the Sun's surface. The Earth cooks and therefore we do not exist!
  10. When a parameter in a physics experiment is changed and the results change then the result has a relationship to the parameter. For example drop a weight from various heights and measure the force of its impact - you will find that the force is proportional to the height.
    Now measure the time that it takes for light to travel from a source to a detector. Vary the distance between the source and detector. Note that the times change with the distance. This means that either the speed of light has changed (but other experiments show that it is constant) or that the distance that the light has traveled is not zero - it has changed.
    (courtesy of NobbyNobbs)
  11. You are now claiming that all physical constants are derived from zero somehow. I cannot see how zero can give anything but zero especially when you do not have any mathematics in your idea. You also have no idea since you have no mathematics.
Previously ignored points:
  • You have the totally wrong idea that the space-time of the universe is zero (for light) and 3 (for gravity) and 4 dimensional all at the same tiime.
  • Your 'inverse sphere' definition is mathematically impossible (or perhaps trivially a sphere with a missing centre).
  • Your 'absolute zero' is undefined.
  • Your 'absolute zero point' is undefined.
  • Your 'mass events' idea is undefined.
  • Your 'd=0 for light' + 'mass events' idea does not predict the observed effects for non-mass events that happen when light is traveling (basically the first set of points but there may be other effects that I do not know about).
Reality Check is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Science, Mathematics, Medicine, and Technology

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 12:38 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2020, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.