McCoin Last Thread

[MacM]

Is the speed of light in vacuum "something physical"?

Yes and no. It (my opinion) is that v = c in a vacuum is no different than v = c in some other medium. That is the concept of Cerenkov Radiation applies and what you call light is nothing more than a form of Cerenkov Radiation in a vacuum. i.e. - Hint something is going FTL in the vacuum producing photons.

It is not coincidental that this velocity is the Lorentz Contraction point where a moving object's dimension collapses to zero. That is think of photons (and Cerenkov Radiation) as a form of dimensional energy release.

What is traveling FTL is the carrier signal which also may account of particle entanglement. Your observer motion relative to that background hence will always have a v=c component and produce photons.

Different observers are seeing different photons produced along a common carrier wave based on their motion v = c relative to the background.

Is this speculation? You bet but it is sound speculation and you should acutally start to think about it.

 

[Tubbythin]

Yes and no. It (my opinion) is that v = c in a vacuum is no different than v = c in some other medium. That is the concept of Cerenkov Radiation applies and what you call light is nothing more than a form of Cerenkov Radiation in a vacuum. i.e. - Hint something is going FTL in the vacuum producing photons.

What "something" is going faster than light? And what is it interacting with two produces the radiation?

It is not coincidental that this velocity is the Lorentz Contraction point where a moving object's dimension collapses to zero. That is think of photons (and Cerenkov Radiation) as a form of dimensional energy release.

Cerenkov radiation is photons. What do you mean by "dimensional energy release"?

What is traveling FTL is the carrier signal which also may account of particle entanglement.

The carrier signal of what? How would it account for entanglement?

Your observer motion relative to that background hence will always have a v=c component and produce photons.

What background? Is this signal charged?

Different observers are seeing different photons produced along a common carrier wave based on their motion v = c relative to the background.

Is this speculation? You bet but it is sound speculation and you should acutally start to think about it.

In what sense is it sound speculation? It seems to have no basis in anything whatsoever.

 

[Tubbythin]

I appreciate your time and effort here but it is wasted. I just made a very general analogy by referring to the E = mc^2 relationship when comparing mass as being compacted space along the same ratios.

He and others continue (even after being told) that there were no units involved in the comparison but merely the suggested 9E16 / 1 ratio (SEE no units factor).

Huh??? 9E16 is the value of the speed of light squared when the speed of light is measured in m/s. So if the units of the your 1 are not m²/s²then its trivially obvious that your ratio is not dimensionless. This is very very very very very very very very very very basic stuff.

If you don't know then perhaps you should be advised that I have had formal educaion in mechanical, electrical and nuclear engineering, plus electronics. So talking to me as though I am some Jr High student is frankly an insult.

I'm sorry but suggesting that the above ratio was dimensionless is below the level of a competent Jr High school student.

But the bigger insult is for these persons to continue to make issue where none exists.

Your'e correct. There is no issue whatsoever. You claim that your ratio is dimensionless. Several people have shown that is not. You are incapable of showing that it is. Therefore everybody concludes that you are wrong.

 

[TjW]

I appreciate your time and effort here but it is wasted. I just made a very general analogy by referring to the E = mc^2 relationship when comparing mass as being compacted space along the same ratios.

He and others continue (even after being told) that there were no units involved in the comparison but merely the suggested 9E16 / 1 ratio (SEE no units factor).

If you don't know then perhaps you should be advised that I have had formal educaion in mechanical, electrical and nuclear engineering, plus electronics. So talking to me as though I am some Jr High student is frankly an insult.

But the bigger insult is for these persons to continue to make issue where none exists.

I believe your imprecise use of language contributes to your confusion.
You will get a different string of digits for your ratio depending on which set of units you use to do the calculation, and this is Ziggurat's point.
The speed of light is a constant, but the numerical value of that constant is dependent on the set of units in which it is expressed.
It is 3E8 in the MKS system. It's 3E13 in the CGS system.

Your 9E16 "ratio" relies on doing your calculation in MKS units. If you use CGS units, your ratio will be 9E26. If you do it using feet-pounds-seconds units, you'll get 9.64E17. Furlongs-stones-fortnights will give you something else.
If we express the speed of light in light-seconds per second, the ratio becomes 1.
A ratio wouldn't change as the units change. Or is that 9E16 just coincidence? Can you show how you would calculate a ratio of 9E16 starting from the speed-of-light constant 982080000 feet/second? No converting into MKS allowed.

Compare and contrast to E=MC². There aren't any specific units involved. The measurements of mass could be in pounds, kilos or ounces. The measurements of speed could be in miles per hour, meters per second, or furlongs per fortnight. But the dimensions remain as mass x length²/time², independent of the measurement system being used. And those are the dimensions of energy.

I admit that dimensional analysis is something I learned in junior high school. I have found it very useful in keeping me from showing other people stupid mistakes. (I still make stupid mistakes, I just don't show as many of them around.)
I'm puzzled as to why you would abandon it.

 

[RussDill]

I'm sorry but suggesting that the above ratio was dimensionless is below the level of a competent Jr High school student.

Actually many people make it through high school and even sometimes college physics with just memorization. Memorizing the formulas and when to apply them with no clue as to how or why they work. Kind of a cargo cult physics if you will.

 

[RussDill]

You can pretend that time and space are one and the same but relativity has distinct formulas to compute the respective affects either time dilation (one physical affect) or length contraction (the second physical affect).

Its been explained many times (over many years and by man people, including Dr Lincoln) how they are not two different effects or equations. And no one is pretending. How is that even an argument? Its a rotation.

Transforming from one to the other buys you nothing.

Please provide supporting evidence. It'd seem that it'd buy a very successful theory with excellent predictions.

You are still claiming one affect for one observer and a different affect for another observer of the same relative velocity.

And this has also been explained to you many times over many years. Both translations occur when switching between reference frames.

 

[RussDill]

Actually it is far more likely that the invariance is a fucntion of an illusion based on lack of full knowledge about the basic structure of the universe.

You've shifted gears again. Are you claiming that SR doesn't make physically correct predictions, or that you have an alternate theory?

invariance is most likely linked to parrticle entanglement.

Your statements lead me to believe that you do not understand "particle entanglement" and are just throwing it out there as a buzzword. Also, you are using the word invariance in a way I don't understand.

That is an many. many FTL carrier signal which based on observer motion relative to that field at v = c roduces photons.

So there are an infinite number of photons produced? It'd be next to impossible to make a physical theory based on this. I'd challenge you to do so, but I know you won't even attempt it.

That is it is far more likely that what different observers are seeing are different photons rather than the same photon at different times and different places.

Its far more likely that when a photon is produced, an infinite number is produced? That'd violate observations we make. It would be easy to test. Get a light. Get two pieces of paper. Put them all in a line:

[Light] [Paper 1] [Paper 2]

The second paper is shadowed by the first. Now move the second paper away from the light at some velocity:

[Light] [Paper 1] ->[Paper 2]

According to your theory, the second paper and first paper are moving at different velocities and therefore observe different photons. The second paper will therefore not be shadowed anymore by the first paper. I just performed this experiment. It shows that your theory is wrong.

 

[Tubbythin]

Actually many people make it through high school and even sometimes college physics with just memorization. Memorizing the formulas and when to apply them with no clue as to how or why they work. Kind of a cargo cult physics if you will.

Hmm. You may be right. Though I'm doubtful many such students would go on to try and tell everyone that relativity is wrong.

 

[RussDill]

Sorry but the very concept of different physical affects for different observers is simply ludricrus. Something physical is physical period. IT doesn't vanish and then become somethingelse.

i.e. - swapping time dilation for length contraction as a matter of observer vantage point.

It works mathematically. Nothing wrong with that. But it is assinine as a physical concept.

You know, in Newton's time, they said that gravity was asinine since he did not define by what mechanism it acted. Nature does not care what you think is asinine. Heck, the church said that planetary bodies not being perfectly round was asinine, or that the Earth not being the center of the universe, or orbits not being perfectly circular, etc.

The only measure of a physical theory can be how accurately is predicts physical phenomenon. If you have some other measure that can be fairly applied, please supply it.

Also, time dilation and length contraction are never "swapped" in relativity. If you can show relativity doing this, please show it.

 

[RussDill]

Hmm. You may be right. Though I'm doubtful many such students would go on to try and tell everyone that relativity is wrong.

The cargo cult folk would be precisely the type. Since they don't understand where equations come from or how they are derived, it'd make sense that they would believe that they can come up with their own incantations.

 

[RussDill]

I appreciate your time and effort here but it is wasted. I just made a very general analogy by referring to the E = mc^2 relationship when comparing mass as being compacted space along the same ratios.

He and others continue (even after being told) that there were no units involved in the comparison but merely the suggested 9E16 / 1 ratio (SEE no units factor).

If you don't know then perhaps you should be advised that I have had formal educaion in mechanical, electrical and nuclear engineering, plus electronics. So talking to me as though I am some Jr High student is frankly an insult.

But the bigger insult is for these persons to continue to make issue where none exists.

Then please, use the relation in some type of mental experiment (that could conceivably be carried out).

 

[RussDill]

Yes and no. It (my opinion) is that v = c in a vacuum is no different than v = c in some other medium. That is the concept of Cerenkov Radiation applies and what you call light is nothing more than a form of Cerenkov Radiation in a vacuum. i.e. - Hint something is going FTL in the vacuum producing photons.

Ok, Cherenkov radiation is only produced by charged particles traveling through insulators. Name what charged particle you are talking about in this example.

 

[RussDill]

I've collected some terms that if MacM could define, would make this discussion more productive. Many are compare and contrast (eg, Universal energy level vs Absolute universal energy level, or permanent physical change vs physical change). If some of these terms mean the same thing, then the longer version of the term should be dropped from the discussion since it adds nothing.

Energy level
Universal energy level
Absolute energy level
Absolute universal energy level
Physical change
Permanent physical change
Space
3D space
Energetic 3D space
Physical basis
Mathematical relationship
Locally
Locality
Frame
Proper frame
Invariance
Particle Entanglement
Signal
Carrier signal
FTL carrier signal
FTL
Cherenkov radiation

I'm sure many of you can add to this list. I think once we get past this point, we can make some progress in mutual understanding.

 

[Tubbythin]

The cargo cult folk would be precisely the type. Since they don't understand where equations come from or how they are derived, it'd make sense that they would believe that they can come up with their own incantations.

I still think its probably only a small fraction. And I wouldn't describe them as competent physicists. I think most of the CC just pass their exams and forget about physics altogether. I have no evidence for this, however.

 

[Tubbythin]

Energy level
Universal energy level
Absolute energy level
Absolute universal energy level
Physical change
Permanent physical change
Space
3D space
Energetic 3D space
Physical basis
Mathematical relationship
Locally
Locality
Frame
Proper frame
Invariance
Particle Entanglement
Signal
Carrier signal
FTL carrier signal
FTL
Cherenkov radiation

Dimensional energy release
"the concept of Cherenkov radiation"
Background

 

[The Man]

Actually it is far more likely that the invariance is a fucntion of an illusion based on lack of full knowledge about the basic structure of the universe. invariance is most likely linked to parrticle entanglement. That is an many. many FTL carrier signal which based on observer motion relative to that field at v = c roduces photons.

Nope just a consequence of the electromagnetic properties of space-time, specifically the permittivity and permeability of free space, which we have known about for quite some time. No ‘particle entanglement’ required or applicable.

That is it is far more likely that what different observers are seeing are different photons rather than the same photon at different times and different places.

How do you classify a “different photon”? The energy and wavelength of the photon in the referance frame that it is absorbed versus those same aspects in the referance frame that the photon was emitted depends on the relative velocity between the emitter and absorber.

 

[Ziggurat]

The old Texas 2 step doesn't cut it.

You can pretend that time and space are one and the same but relativity has distinct formulas to compute the respective affects either time dilation (one physical affect) or length contraction (the second physical affect).

Transforming from one to the other buys you nothing.

You are still claiming one affect for one observer and a different affect for another observer of the same relative velocity.

Well, no. There's actually a single transformation (the Lorentz transformation) that applies to all coordinates. Length contraction and time dilation are just two of the coordinates involved in a 4-vector transformation. This is, once again, no different than a rotation in 3D: one can write separate equations for what happens to x and what happens to y, but it's still just one transformation.

And not surprisingly, you still can't do the calculation you claimed you did. It's simply not believable at this point that you actually know much math at all.

 

[Uncayimmy]

2 - There is not and never have been units of converson involved. I gave E=mc^2 as an example of the ratio of volumes. The ratio is a factor which in the example would be 9E16 period. NO units period except those of your initial volume multiplied by the factor..

I have no idea what you are trying to say. Is there something special about 9E16? In my world the basic unit of measurement is called the Unca. It is the distance light travels in one second. The speed of light is therefore 1 Unca/s. So, what happens if I multiply a volume by 1? It's the same, right?

How about you give a real-life example of what you are trying to say? What "ratio of volumes" are you talking about?

 

[MacM]

Its been explained many times (over many years and by man people, including Dr Lincoln) how they are not two different effects or equations. And no one is pretending. How is that even an argument? Its a rotation.

I really hope you don't think this post tells us something we aren't familiar with. 1979 Terell Rotation is also hypothetical and that does not eliminate the contraction formulas in Einstien's theory.

 

[MacM]

Ok, Cherenkov radiation is only produced by charged particles traveling through insulators. Name what charged particle you are talking about in this example.

Not in this particular post but in a prior post you must have missed the qualifier Simular. It goes without further comment that your attempt to apply conventional physics to some unknown process is a flawed critique.