|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Sun Jan 30, 2011 4:11 pm
PrometheanSet And Artto, since we're devolving to playground insults: on the topic of Know-It-Alls, it takes one to know one. OK, then we're both know-it-alls. I can't disagree with that, I do think I know a lot. But at least I'm not a bitter know-it-all. wink
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Jan 31, 2011 5:57 am
Tiina Brown .... I'm not a scholar. I look to the bigger picture, and look at it from so many different angles as i possibly can, including extrapolation. OP is correct. Perhaps not completely, but in the broad terms, he clearly is. I'd just like to add a few things, that may be thoughtworthy: * Einsteins Theory of relativities has been partially proved, and partially disproved. Yes, you read correct, partially disproved. I read this in a scientific publication. * Einsteins theory, according to a science program i once saw about it, includes drawing the conclusion that there is no absolute truth. This is my opinion about that: Totally incorrect(we're supposed to be civil here ... ). I mean, aren't we all currently on Gaia Online, as we read this thread? Aren't we all reading this thread? I rest my case. * The Autism-causing vaccine ...... Let the man parade, personally, I wonder who it was, really, that claimed that the reasearch was/is a fraud ...... (follow the money ... ) * I once heard, that the stars in the Nebulas that are closest to us, actually is getting closer ...... but here, i do nut remember where it comes from. Oh, of course, i assume that you are smart enough to not take my word for it ..... but are you smart enough to search out the truth yourselves? I don't think Einstein's relativity related to reality, per se, but about perception of time based on the speed at which an object travels. I feel that it is flawed, as it is based on light being something special. An object traveling faster than light would not break time or observe time differently, but merely arrive before any light-based data could. Much like how a bullet or plane traveling faster than sound would arrive before its sound information. As for absolute truth, I believe it does exist as well. Believing it does not is generally a thing of quantum mechanics literalists, who actually believe that observation breaks waveforms. Schrodinger's Cat disproves this through a thought experiment.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Jan 31, 2011 8:57 am
Quote: I feel that it is flawed, as it is based on light being something special. An object traveling faster than light would not break time or observe time differently, but merely arrive before any light-based data could. Much like how a bullet or plane traveling faster than sound would arrive before its sound information. The whole theory is based around the fact that light is special (well, electromagnetic radiation, to be exact). It's not a flaw it's the whole point of the theory. If you shine a light from a moving object, it won't travel at c + velocity, it will still travel at c. [link]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Jan 31, 2011 5:42 pm
Artto Quote: I feel that it is flawed, as it is based on light being something special. An object traveling faster than light would not break time or observe time differently, but merely arrive before any light-based data could. Much like how a bullet or plane traveling faster than sound would arrive before its sound information. The whole theory is based around the fact that light is special (well, electromagnetic radiation, to be exact). It's not a flaw it's the whole point of the theory. If you shine a light from a moving object, it won't travel at c + velocity, it will still travel at c. [link]Yes, because light is propelled at its own speed and I would propose in particle forms too small to be affected by Newtonian physics involving traveling with other objects. Light is radiation, usually propelled through heat. It's essentially a subatomic scale explosive force. It will travel at the rate at which it is "blasted" from its source. Besides this, light is not a true "constant", as it is always measured in a vacuum. By Newton's first law, ANYTHING moving in a vacuum will travel at a constant rate.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Jan 31, 2011 8:37 pm
divineseraph Light is radiation, usually propelled through heat. It's essentially a subatomic scale explosive force. It will travel at the rate at which it is "blasted" from its source. Besides this, light is not a true "constant", as it is always measured in a vacuum. By Newton's first law, ANYTHING moving in a vacuum will travel at a constant rate. I don't think you understand basic physical concepts. Light is "usually propelled through heat"? What? "Anything moving in a vacuum will travel at a constant rate"? That doesn't make any sense either. You keep oversimplifying and misunderstanding basic physics. Actually, not even one sentence of what I've quoted makes any sense. Light always travels at a constant speed, even if not in a vacuum. It may propagate at a different rate but the photons still travel at the same speed. Light will not "travel at the rate at which it is "blasted" from its source". The energy it has affects the frequency of the light wave, not its speed.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Feb 01, 2011 5:26 am
Artto divineseraph Light is radiation, usually propelled through heat. It's essentially a subatomic scale explosive force. It will travel at the rate at which it is "blasted" from its source. Besides this, light is not a true "constant", as it is always measured in a vacuum. By Newton's first law, ANYTHING moving in a vacuum will travel at a constant rate. I don't think you understand basic physical concepts. Light is "usually propelled through heat"? What? "Anything moving in a vacuum will travel at a constant rate"? That doesn't make any sense either. You keep oversimplifying and misunderstanding basic physics. Actually, not even one sentence of what I've quoted makes any sense. Light always travels at a constant speed, even if not in a vacuum. It may propagate at a different rate but the photons still travel at the same speed. Light will not "travel at the rate at which it is "blasted" from its source". The energy it has affects the frequency of the light wave, not its speed. Think about it- What is a common factor of almost everything that releases light? Light bulbs do it by heating up until their fillaments glow and "blast" light as radiation. Stars do it by compressing various gasses until nuclear fusion causes them to essentially explode. Lightning does it by friction between ions until they burst forth with heat. Light seems to "burst" outwards from an energetic source of friction and heat. The outliers are, of course, photoluminesence and bioluminesence, but the first has to take in light from a primary source. It travels at a different rate through water. Scientists have actually slowed light down to about the speed of a jet, and have possibly even stopped it entirely. They're thinking of using light slowed or trapped like this to store data. Light exerts pressure and can clearly be reflected. It makes no sense that it is impossible to slow, because slowing is simply interacting with another particle through collision, friction, magnetic pull, whatever you want to call it, which causes it to dump energy and lose velocity. Unless of course we're talking about if it never hits anything, which would of course be a vacuum and applies to anything.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Feb 01, 2011 10:02 am
Things emit light when electrons jump to a lower energy state, after being bumped up. LED diode is an example of a light not generated by heat. Heat is just a form of energy, that makes the electrons bump up. divineseraph It travels at a different rate through water. Scientists have actually slowed light down to about the speed of a jet, and have possibly even stopped it entirely. They're thinking of using light slowed or trapped like this to store data. They slow the speed of light propagation, not the speed of light itself. It travels slower, because it has a longer path, since it's reflecting off of particles in the material. The photons themselves still travel at c. divineseraph Light exerts pressure and can clearly be reflected. It makes no sense that it is impossible to slow, because slowing is simply interacting with another particle through collision, friction, magnetic pull, whatever you want to call it, which causes it to dump energy and lose velocity. Unless of course we're talking about if it never hits anything, which would of course be a vacuum and applies to anything. Light has no mass. That's why it travels at the maximum possible speed, always. You can only reduce the frequency of a light wave (which happens when it looses energy), not its speed. And light is not a particle. P.S.: We're going off topic again, we do this all the time biggrin We need to stop, if you'd like a conversation, please PM me razz
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Feb 01, 2011 1:05 pm
Artto Things emit light when electrons jump to a lower energy state, after being bumped up. LED diode is an example of a light not generated by heat. Heat is just a form of energy, that makes the electrons bump up. divineseraph It travels at a different rate through water. Scientists have actually slowed light down to about the speed of a jet, and have possibly even stopped it entirely. They're thinking of using light slowed or trapped like this to store data. They slow the speed of light propagation, not the speed of light itself. It travels slower, because it has a longer path, since it's reflecting off of particles in the material. The photons themselves still travel at c. divineseraph Light exerts pressure and can clearly be reflected. It makes no sense that it is impossible to slow, because slowing is simply interacting with another particle through collision, friction, magnetic pull, whatever you want to call it, which causes it to dump energy and lose velocity. Unless of course we're talking about if it never hits anything, which would of course be a vacuum and applies to anything. Light has no mass. That's why it travels at the maximum possible speed, always. You can only reduce the frequency of a light wave (which happens when it looses energy), not its speed. And light is not a particle. P.S.: We're going off topic again, we do this all the time biggrin We need to stop, if you'd like a conversation, please PM me razz You are not as off as you think: This "slowing of light", is actually one of the ways that Einstein's theory has been disproven. Think of what you just said yourself: Light has no mass. How can it then have to travel a longer distance in water? Not to mention that it is supposed to bend a bit when it is near great gravity, like even planets? (Correct me if i'm wrong.) But still, how would the first two go together? And still, despite these things, despite those uncertainities, that theory, among others, are taught in schools as "the truth". Not as "a suggestion of how it works" but as "a truth". PrometheanSet: It was in a Swedish magazine, and i do not think i have the right issue myself. However, i'm certain part of it, or perhaps all, was due to this "slowing the speed of light" thing just discussed.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Feb 01, 2011 1:42 pm
Tiina Brown Light has no mass. How can it then have to travel a longer distance in water? What does that have to do with mass? A very simplified diagram:  Tiina Brown Not to mention that it is supposed to bend a bit when it is near great gravity, like even planets? (Correct me if i'm wrong.) But still, how would the first two go together? Because massive bodies curve space-time. It just travels along that curve. The bending of light by massive objects is a piece of evidence for relativity. You guys seem to be under the impression, that these things are mere guesses. They are not. They are based on complex math and years, even decades of research and observations.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Feb 02, 2011 6:23 pm
Artto Things emit light when electrons jump to a lower energy state, after being bumped up. LED diode is an example of a light not generated by heat. Heat is just a form of energy, that makes the electrons bump up. divineseraph It travels at a different rate through water. Scientists have actually slowed light down to about the speed of a jet, and have possibly even stopped it entirely. They're thinking of using light slowed or trapped like this to store data. They slow the speed of light propagation, not the speed of light itself. It travels slower, because it has a longer path, since it's reflecting off of particles in the material. The photons themselves still travel at c. divineseraph Light exerts pressure and can clearly be reflected. It makes no sense that it is impossible to slow, because slowing is simply interacting with another particle through collision, friction, magnetic pull, whatever you want to call it, which causes it to dump energy and lose velocity. Unless of course we're talking about if it never hits anything, which would of course be a vacuum and applies to anything. Light has no mass. That's why it travels at the maximum possible speed, always. You can only reduce the frequency of a light wave (which happens when it looses energy), not its speed. And light is not a particle. P.S.: We're going off topic again, we do this all the time biggrin We need to stop, if you'd like a conversation, please PM me razz If light will continue at the same rate forever, why is it that we can not capture light in dark bottles, as the light should continue to bounce around in there at the same speed forever? It sometimes acts as a particle and sometimes acts as a wave. It would make more sense to me that it is simply BOTH. It is a wave of energy which travels through tiny particles like any other force. It's just more energetic. Is our concept of spacetime not based around light as a constant? If it is not, if it is simply a particle traveling as quickly as possible for its tiny mass, then this warping would not truly be warping but would follow Newtonian physics. The trapping or warping of light would be like the trapping of any other massive body falling towards a black hole or object of great enough mass to pull in the particle against its velocity. Light must have mass, even if not worth measuring. It can hit objects, therefore its weight or substance can not be zero.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Feb 02, 2011 6:57 pm
Light has no mass. It has momentum, but it doesn't have mass.
Look, read up on this stuff a bit. If you don't understand it, it doesn't mean it's wrong. I've learned about how it's supposed to work, the equations and the experiments in the first year of university. It was a very basic course, but I still have more knowledge about it than you.
Have you even bothered to read anything about this stuff, other than watching documentaries or reading popular science magazines?
Cause you don't have basic knowledge about it, yet you fancy yourself an expert. You throw around terms and don't even understand what they mean, a lot of the time your statements don't make any sense.
These things have been shown to be true by experiments. Scientists don't just sit around and come up with ideas, they test them and work on them.
It's hard to discuss anything with you, because you think you know enough to judge on these things, when you so clearly don't. Physics isn't easy. It's hard and complicated, it's counter-intuitive and "common sense" just won't cut it.
If you think you're better at it than people who actually work their whole lives in this field, go ahead. Write a paper. Get a Nobel prize.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Feb 03, 2011 3:23 am
Artto:
We question it, because it obviously is questionable.
You don't question it. Instead, you question us, who have questioned it.
In my case, i am a simple targe, i admit ....
Too many of those who agree that the Theory is true, haven't examined it themselves......
Oh, and the diagrams ......
Then howcome it doesn't bounce around in water, becoming scattered in all directions?
Think, please.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Feb 03, 2011 4:37 am
Tiina Brown Then howcome it doesn't bounce around in water, becoming scattered in all directions? Think, please. It does become scattered! Light is scattered and absorbed in water, why do you think it gets darker and darker in the sea the further down you go? The longer distance it travels, the greater is the chance that a photon will hit another particle. Not understanding something is a horrible reason to conclude it's not true. You're basically saying, since I don't understand it, I should question it. I'm all for questioning everything, but you guys question this stuff for the wrong reasons. You should try and learn what a theory actually says and what the evidence is, not "question" it by asking questions that don't even make sense. I wouldn't mind if the questions were good, but they are not. Even I, with my limited knowledge of physics, can see that.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Feb 03, 2011 6:17 am
Artto Light has no mass. It has momentum, but it doesn't have mass. Look, read up on this stuff a bit. If you don't understand it, it doesn't mean it's wrong. I've learned about how it's supposed to work, the equations and the experiments in the first year of university. It was a very basic course, but I still have more knowledge about it than you. Have you even bothered to read anything about this stuff, other than watching documentaries or reading popular science magazines? Cause you don't have basic knowledge about it, yet you fancy yourself an expert. You throw around terms and don't even understand what they mean, a lot of the time your statements don't make any sense. These things have been shown to be true by experiments. Scientists don't just sit around and come up with ideas, they test them and work on them. It's hard to discuss anything with you, because you think you know enough to judge on these things, when you so clearly don't. Physics isn't easy. It's hard and complicated, it's counter-intuitive and "common sense" just won't cut it. If you think you're better at it than people who actually work their whole lives in this field, go ahead. Write a paper. Get a Nobel prize. And yet it can impact other objects. How can "nothing" have momentum, anyway? This "Sometimes a particle and sometimes a wave" thing still gets physicists. They don't really know WHY it does this. My explanation is one that explains this issue and simplifies many other problems that come with light as something "special", such as time travel with its infinite paradoxes, black holes being infinitely dense and other such things that would cause the universe, essentially, to have never existed or to blink out immediately at some point. No, they've seen evidence through experiments and extrapolated on the meaning and relevance. I've seen the basic knowledge and I disagree. I have discussed this with physics professors . Their answer is a lot of "We don't know, but we see things and try to explain them." There's a lot of seeing, and physics theories are based on combining the evidence. That's what I'm doing, essentially, and attempting to discredit some things which make no sense such as things that exist physically without having form.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Feb 03, 2011 6:49 am
If we don't understand WHY the nature of light is as it is, that doesn't mean it's incorrect. You can't think of light as a particle OR a wave, because it's neither. It can be described as a wave or a particle, but that doesn't mean it's any of these things. It's in a form that is not really comprehendable to us, but there is nothing wrong with that. Time dialation actually exists, it's been shown by experiment and has to be taken into account by GPS satellites. [link] But according to you, it "doesn't make sense" and is therefore wrong. If you knew enough, you wouldn't ask questions like Quote: If light will continue at the same rate forever, why is it that we can not capture light in dark bottles, as the light should continue to bounce around in there at the same speed forever? Quote: My explanation is one that explains this issue and simplifies many other problems that come with light as something "special", such as time travel with its infinite paradoxes, black holes being infinitely dense and other such things that would cause the universe, essentially, to have never existed or to blink out immediately at some point. Your explanation doesn't make sense.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
