Mordred

this is well past the point of being tedious, its reached the point of impossible. Your proving quite well that you have no interest in learning the established science. You can never have an observer traveling at c, so you will never need to describe something that observes the rest of the universe when it is traveling at c. a particle traveling at c has inertia, to say that it has inertia but its inertia is zero is just plain nonsense. particle wave duality means that a particle has both particle and wavelight properties, we can measure both as subluminal observers. So stating that we can not observe the particle is wrong. I'll bet you didn't even bother looking at the textbook posted earlier, if you had you would understand how the Lorentz transformations work. We've wasted enough time trying to explain that the photon does travel at c in all observer frames of reference, and that the lorentz transformation only applies to subluminal observers. So the photon does not have an observer view point to worry about, it will never need to observe the rest of the universe. We will never travel at c so we will never need to describe the universe at c The mathematics of SR and GR works for any meaningful measurements that we need to worry about needing. We can describe the photon according to our everyday existence. We don't need to change those metrics to describe a situation we will never experience, you still fail to understand the different's between time within an observers frame of reference, and the time when he observes someone else's watch. Instead you choose to ignore that distinction. Rather you make incorrect statements due to ignoring that distinction

that's not how wave particle duality works they are not separated by time, The Heisenburg uncertainty principle tells us the more we know about a particles position the less we know about its energy and vice versa. This is due to interference when you take the measurement not with time.

40 pages would be troublesome to copy paste lol, you have obviously placed a lot of time and effort into it. I look forward to being able to read it if you click more reply options you should see the attachments icon, assuming the file is less than 1.9 MB. If you can't see the option then you may need to have more posts to enable the feature. I can't recall the number needed but I think you should have enough. I can only open pdf not doc extensions. A handy converter is pdf995 http://www.pdf995.com/ its basically a printer emulator to convert any software doc/program that has a printer option into a pdf file. extremely handy. if the file size is too big you might have to place it on a webpage then link it. I use wikidot for that, see signature. Its handy for the large file size articles and also gives me a means to keep track of handy help teach articles. You upload to wikidot then post a link on a page you make. Or optionally you can also set your article onto it page for page, its latex is easy to use. http://www.wikidot.com/

I know what it means I'm not the one with the problem understanding SR. You are, how many people and textbooks articles etc is it going to take to teach you that you cannot apply the same rules to a photon as an observer? You even type that you understand it but at the same time try to apply it. Here I thought you were finally understanding that the photon is not a valid reference frame when you wrote your rules in the opening post, I was actually giving you a compliment, "well at least some of your statements are getting closer to the truth. so some progress is being made" then you post this statement you keep trying to treat the photon as an observer, its not your rule two already defines that 2)the observer never travels at velocity c so why did you type the above statement???????? you can never have an observer with t=0 and no coordinates the Lorentz transformation requires coordinates. So you will never have an observer measure light at a speed other than C. Why is this so difficult for you to understand? the other post is over 5 pages long of us repeatedly telling you that the photon is not an observer frame of reference, the photon has no viewpoint. The photon cannot observe etc etc etc etc. if you won't believe us or the textbook I posted in that thread what will you believe???? http://www.lightandmatter.com/sr/ here is a free SR book. page 55 Kinemetics "Our universe does, however, contain ingredients such as light rays, gluons, and gravitational waves that travel at c, so we might wonder whether these things could be put together to form observers who do move at c.But this is not possible according to special relativity, because if we let v approach infinity ,extrapolation of figure d on p.54 shows that the Lorentz transformation would compress all of spacetime onto the lightcone,reducing its number of dimensions by 1.Distinct points would be merged, which would make it impossible to use this frame to describe the same phenomena that a subluminal observer could describe.That is,the transformation would not be one-to-one,and this is unacceptable physically."

lightning has electromagnetic radiation I think you may have to define what type of radiation specifically

well at least some of your statements are getting closer to the truth. so some progress is being made. First off lets ignore that garbage pop media video you now know its garbage from your descriptive above. "Special Relativity: The speed of light in a vacuum is always C, regardless of the velocity of the observer. The laws of physics are the same for all observers in uniform motion. These two statements indicate that C (speed of light) does not follow the same laws of physics as the observer. 1. The laws of physics are the same for all observers in uniform motion. 2. The observer never travels at the velocity C. 3. The laws of physics are the same for anything that never travels at the velocity C. 4. The laws of physics are not the same for anything that does travel at the velocity C" this means that video you posted is garbage, and this above is accurate although it would be better to word it the "observed laws of physic" "In the Lorentz transformation, if you calculate for the velocity of light the math is no longer possible to do. Indicating that it is not possible to use that law of physics" inaccurate, any subluminal observer can use the Lorentz transformations, only v=c non existent observers have the issue with the lorentz transformions, but your rules already preclude that as being an observer. rules 1,2, 3 and 4 "Assume that "space time" is a prison. In the prison there are guards and inmates. Everyone in the prison follows rules" as the only prisoners are observers, then light as an observer isn't in jail to follow those rules the rest of your jail analogy is pointless "The laws of physics for any observer include laws that define the behavior of time. The entire system of physics for all observers then, is inherently based on the existence of time, and time is one of the defining features of the "existence" or "reality" that all observers occupy. It is the presence of time that allows an observer's laws of physics to establish a frame of reference. Because all observers follow exactly the same list of rules" correct "However, the laws of physics for "light" or "the speed of light", do not recognize the existence of time. The entire system of physics for "light", is inherently without time," incorrect, the photon cannot observe so it cannot observe time, however it does have time. Time is not stopped here is the part you keep missing, time moves normal for relative observer A looking at his own watch... however when he looks at someone else's watch (observer looking at another watch then he see's the time dilation. time dilation is always relative to something else. hence the name special RELATIVITY. time moves normal in the observers own frame of reference, its when he compares his frame of reference to another frame of reference that you have time dilation. Lets put it this way the Lorentz tranformation's only occur between A and B it does not occur when A or B observes itself or any other object in its own reference frame

I already agreed with that do you accept that the an observer at v=c is not valid or not? your argument on being able to stop light is pointless to the topic of this thread a photon is never an observer, the only valid observers are subluminal that's what this whole argument has been about is your refusal to accept that understanding we are subluminal observers and we can observe and measure light. we can see, we can measure its influences, enough to attempt to distinquish if its a particle or a wave, so obviously we can make make measurements on it. However this means we are OBSERVERS that are SUBLUMINAL. an observer at c is not an observer period here is the trillion sec camera taking images of light http://web.media.mit.edu/~raskar/trillionfps/ here is a non destructive means http://www.laserfocusworld.com/articles/2013/11/nondestructive-photon-detection.html none of this is to the point of whether you can have an observer at c quite frankly if you haven't figured it out with all the details and answers we've already provided then were just wasting our time... live under whatever misconceptions and illusions you want

this is an earlier statement you made "It would require an infinite amount of energy to reduce the speed of the photon enough for any observer to observe it." all your doing is showing where your wrong in that statement and proving our case. What your posting is basic science there is no argument that we can measure light except for your statement here maybe this will help http://www.lightandmatter.com/sr/ here is a free SR book. page 55 Kinemetics "Our universe does, however, contain ingredients such as light rays, gluons, and gravitational waves that travel at c, so we might wonder whether these things could be put together to form observers who do move at c.But this is not possible according to special relativity, because if we let v approach infinity ,extrapolation of figure d on p.54 shows that the Lorentz transformation would compress all of spacetime onto the lightcone,reducing its number of dimensions by 1.Distinct points would be merged, which would make it impossible to use this frame to describe the same phenomena that a subluminal observer could describe.That is,the transformation would not be one-to-one,and this is unacceptable physically." there is your straight our of a textbook answer, which is exactly what we have been telling you all along. (this textbook is written by a PH.D instructor) see the list of the institutions that support it (one of the main reasons is its far simpler to understand than say Wald's general relativity by design this one is an introductory level book where Wald's is more advanced and yes I own copy, excellent book one of my favourites) http://www.lightandmatter.com/books.html#adoptions_sr http://www.blau.itp.unibe.ch/newlecturesGR.pdf "Lecture Notes on General Relativity" Matthias Blau here is a free one for GR

good article thanks for posting it wouldn't mind reading the arxiv paper on the experiment. Not sure why you posted it here considering no one is arguing wave-particle duality. the topic is whether a photon can have an observer reference frame the answer is no it can't

well there is certainly models with variable constants with variable G out there, several I've studied in the past. So its not a dumb idea by any means, the question is does the model conform with observations. Under the precepts of a toy model development its simply good practice to try modelling a system and see then what observational evidence would be needed to validate or invalidate the model. here is a couple Can a variable gravitational constant resolve the Faint Young Sun Paradox ? http://arxiv-web3.library.cornell.edu/abs/1405.4369?context=astro-ph.CO this one covers a couple of models and using data discounts them The variation of the gravitational constant inferred from the Hubble diagram of Type Ia supernovae http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0512164 also mentions the large number hypothesis LNH and the details you wrote earlier, so you may have already read this article. this is however one set of findings that your going to have to work against, here is other constraints Observational constraints on models of the Universe with time variable Gravitational and Cosmological constants along MOG http://arxiv.org/abs/1403.0081 this paper looks interesting but I haven't completed reading it 155 pages lol might provide some insight as its on the same subject matter http://relativity.livingreviews.org/Articles/lrr-2011-2/download/lrr-2011-2Color.pdf models are certainly available to show varying constants, the problem is addressing the observational constraints

the speculations section is relaxed enough for us to work on a toy universe. the form I gave above is one in some books but I should give the more well known form [latex]\rho_{crit} = \frac{3H^2}{8\pi G}[/latex]

and your point is what,? all observations of particles is an interaction measurement, this does nothing to solve your problem with photons having an observation frame of reference. your worried and fighting a problem that isn't one, you can never have an observer at c so why do you feel this is a problem? your worried to death over an impossibility. The metrics works for any valid observer reference frame, v=c is not a valid reference frame simple as that

http://www.extremetech.com/extreme/162289-light-stopped-completely-for-a-minute-inside-a-crystal-the-basis-of-quantum-memory done light is only c in a vacuum, we've been slowing light down for a while with the use of supercooled mediums and this method just a side note here is a single photon detector http://www.toshiba-europe.com/research/crl/qig/singlephotondetection.html here is the single photon LED http://www.toshiba-europe.com/research/crl/qig/singlephotonled.html

the workaround to that is to use Office and type it all out first then copy paste, keep the formulas in how the latex would be typed as we are talking a personal model this forum has a useful speculations section that is more open to personal models. this site prefers to stay with the concordance answers in this sub forum. So as this is admittedly a non concordance model or peer reviewed then it would be more appropriate in the speculation sub forum where the rules on personal model idea's are more relaxed

the model would not only conflict with LCDM it will also conflict with thermodyanics. a constant density will mean a constant temperature. As the universe expands the average energy=density lowers thus the temperature drops. We see this with observations. So if your model has an average constant density its temperature will always remain the same. also observations show us that we can have objects with recessive velocity of 3c at z=1090 so lets agree this is a toy universe for the time being, in which case go ahead and present your idea's it will be easier to follow if you can latex the same latex rules follow as PF but you need to type latex instead of tex this site is also more susceptible to spacing so there is a few syntax differences to get used to

NO see the example I posted and try to understand that example. the photon cannot OBSERVE if it had a mythical watch in its own mythical reference frame time is normal, it would not be able to observe anyone else's time

you don't seem to comprehend a basic difference between the term observer time and and time in the relativistic reference frame take spaceship A moving at 90.0 the speed of light and spaceship B at rest. spaceship a looks at his own watch and see's time moving normally. When he looks at spaceship B's watch then he see's the time dilation. you cannot have an observer moving at c. That is what the rules state. this is complete garbage, we observe photons everyday. we even have the means to observe and measure individual photons

my engineering knowledge is in Industrial controls systems probably not as applicable to leaky triangles,

I also can't open attached document files, but your site link I can't understand the subscript characters that are still in mandarin I assume so it makes understanding your formulas more difficult pdf995 is a handy pdf creator for any type of file you just use the print function and say the pdf printer and it will convert a document to pdf file which more people can open up. you can download it here http://www.pdf995.com/ I use it all the time its incredibly flexible

you might be right on that I can't recall if that was the case and its also understandable looks like he has the attachment functioning in his other thread http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/84455-maxwells-theory-of-electrostatic-is-the-basis-of-mathematics-establishing-a-unified-field-equation/?p=816729

the Kalman filter is a type of noise filtering algorithm so yes its a mathematical technique http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~motionplanning/papers/sbp_papers/integrated3/kleeman_kalman_basics.pdf this article shows the falling body Kalman filter algorithm he wishes to filter out any noises that lie outside the gravitational wave predicted frequency values whatever those may be lol personally don't know what values that would equate to.

here is one immediate problem a static universe is a closed universe, Also our observable universe is larger than the Hubble radius. Einsteins static universe is only possible with a positive [latex]\Lambda[/latex] and positive curvature k=1 the value for [Latex]\Lambda[/Latex] in his model is [Latex]4\pi G \rho[/Latex] please note G is used here, however the static universe is unstable. This is already well known so no one will ask why the universe is expanding when the universe is static as the two are incompatible by definition a static universe is a closed curved universe, this is not our universe. Our universe is flat and may or may not be closed. http://www.astro.umd.edu/~miller/teaching/astr422/lecture12.pdf the critical density formula is a perfectly flat universe. which is defined with [Latex]|\Lambda=0[/Latex] which coresponds to an average energy density of 1.88h^2*10-29 g/cm^3 [latex]\rho_{crit} = \frac{3c^2H^2}{8\pi G}[/latex] "The critical density is the boundary value between universe models that expand forever (open models) and those that recollapse (closed models)" I have no idea where you get this q-1 term this isn't used in the FLRW metric at all http://cosmology101.wikidot.com/universe-geometry http://cosmology101.wikidot.com/geometry-flrw-metric/ page 2 of previous link http://arxiv.org/pdf/hep-ph/0004188v1.pdf :"ASTROPHYSICS AND COSMOLOGY"- A compilation of cosmology by Juan Garcıa-Bellido http://arxiv.org/pdf/hep-ph/0004188v1.pdf our universe is k=0 or extremely close to it so if your q=-1 is suppose to be k=-1 then your talking about our universe

click more options bottom right then click attach files, then choose files max file size 1.95 MB

nah the universe doesn't care how we perceive or describe it, we simply have to accept and improve on our limitations in doing so. Understanding something so complex takes time and development (if we had all the answers science wouldn't be nearly as much fun lol)

that pretty much sums it up, lol how do you have a coordinate system with zero coordinates ? your describing 4d nothing lol yay we just invented 0d spacetime roflmao j/k on that one however as a photon is a particle and a wave, can it exist on 0d space, a wave requires time? like I said meaningless, any method to try to describe it becomes nonsensical