Jump to content


Senior Members
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

40 Good

About jajrussel

  • Rank

Profile Information

  • Interests
    Mostly, just about everything. Then there are the things I seem to foget on a daily basis. Losing my cell causes a panic because I have forgotten just about every bit of information that I have stored on it.
  • Favorite Area of Science

Recent Profile Visitors

7665 profile views
  1. Note the 1905 paper is about the only Einstein paper were they still allow a download. Eventually I am going to have to assume some professor understands his work, or be prepared to pay around 89$ per volume for a printed version 89$ is what they were asking for volume 6... They were allowing all to be read freely online using their reader when I visited... but, no doubt that will change... this is way off topic but is in regard to a suggestion that was on topic... Thank you...
  2. Agreed and understood. I called it a condition of no effect. Which is not always true. Things are happening but those things are not easily observed. Then it would be a condition of no apparent effect. Agreed and understand and accepted Thank you, it is were i got the thought to begin with. I searched for the page you posted and started reading note it was from that point that i started trying to explain a connection that seemed clear to me from this point i don’t know how to continue to explain what occurred to me while reading and thinking about this thread without it seeming like i want to argue. I would end up repeating myself, with slightly different rhetoric and i don’t want to do either. So I’ll go back to reading and thinking.
  3. Found this I think this were I got it from. Don’t remember what I was thinking when I read it now. Too many thoughts since then. I saw a connection. Maybe I read too much into it
  4. I’m sorry i missed this yesterday. Don’t know how. I guess i need to use a different device cause things seem to keep showing up haphazardly on my iPhone not to mention that it keeps changing words on me then i have to proof read with a fine tooth comb to try and find the errors the word inertial becomes initial and I reach the point where i can’t find the tree for the forrest, but in answer this this I can’t find it, and suddenly my search apps have become dumb to the point if i mention Einstein and vacuum in a sentence search i keep getting referred to Walmart, Target, and Amazon. If i ever run across the reference i will let you know, but for now I’m done. Thank you
  5. In your reference frame does Newton’s laws of motion still work? Here’s an article that probably oversimplifies things because my understanding of it is that if you are in a frame of reference where Newton’s laws of motion work then you are in an initial reference frame. If my understanding is correct how has your choice of direction removed you from a frame of reference where Newton’s laws of motion work? there is a possibility that I am completely wrong in my understanding of the article and, or in what you are saying? 🙂 https://newt.phys.unsw.edu.au/einsteinlight/jw/module1_Inertial.htm#IR
  6. Ahh 🤔🙂 Okay! I see... Shaking my head in wonder... but now I’m curious. Before I make a fool of myself, if it is not too late I’ll see if I can figure out how Einstein would have reached his invariance conclusion. I’m assuming now it was a derived revelation rather than an intuitive one, since it has been pointed out that i shouldn’t intuitively assume that if no force acts to change lights speed that invariance might be implied. My bad... Hmm... Now I have to start over from the beginning since I need to understand why no one would reach that conclusion intuitively and why I would assume that they would. Okay! Thank you.
  7. I led with Newton 1st consideration first law of motion... followed by Einstein 2nd consideration empty space, therefore no acting force on light, therefore no acting reason to expect any variance of lights speed which would be my drawn conclusion. If men of science understood Newton’s first law why would they assume or expect a variance? they also accepted Einstein’s condition of empty space. I’m assuming Einstein understood Newton’s first law and that it applies to light as well as any thing else. So in a sense invariance is not an idea he has to invent since Newton’s first law suggests its presence. Maybe I’m wrong, but this time i didn’t just jump to a conclusion without consideration. I thought my understanding of Newton’s first law meant that Newton’s first law made the implication, and I thought that someone ( can’t remember who) questioned where the idea of invariance for the speed of light came from. Stating that he was unable to reach that conclusion from relativity. Maybe I misunderstood, but I wrote what i think, apparently somewhat poorly, because it was not my intent to imply that jumping to a conclusion was the best way to answer that question. I did imply that Newton’s first law suggested invariance, and that Einstein’s condition of Empty Space did nothing to change that implication. Sorry... As to the question about sound waves I’ll have to read it again and see if i can figure out why you would compare sound and light waves and want me to consider them. My understanding is that sound waves don’t carry in a vacuum, so i need to think about the question and why you ask it... Thank you. Thank you for posting this i need to study it, but the first thing it did was remind me of a question i have about force which i have been trying to remember all day long, so thank you.
  8. Basically all I’m saying is that under Newton’s first law there is no reason why anyone should expect c to vary unless they are abandoning Newton’s law for a mathematical precept? I’m not sure if precept is the right word? The expectation that the numbers would stack? Not occurring... Since the subject is light and its motion Physically it should actually be expected to be subject to Newton’s first law first. It came first? Yet Newton’s first law does not support point 1. Newton’s law suggests that unless a force acts in it (light) it’s motion in all ways will not change. 🙂 Note the top portion was in response to Apparently this Martini doesn’t blend well, well accurately and that alone is enough to make things confusing... it allows me to edit... it don’t allow me to edit... it combines at its discretion opposed to mine🤷‍♂️. I guess it what it is...
  9. I’m trying to understand this? If c were a constant that would mean that if you change the medium of empty space to say glass? Water? Etc? C would be unchanging, but the medium is set at empty space by Einstein (generally referred as a vacuum). This is a condition, so long as the condition doesn’t change c is like a constant but it requires the condition to remain so. Under the condition set by Einstein ( empty space) c becomes invariant without regard to how you move through this empty space. Yes, it may seem at odds to what you might expect ( not obvious), but the observation conforms to Newton’s first law of motion at all times as it should. When light passes a large source of gravity it is effected. The confusion comes when it is argued that under the influence of the gravity source c remains c which would violate Newton’s first law Yes, c is c invariantly, but only under the condition set by Einstein ( empty space). Change the condition then there is no reason to suggest that c doesn’t change. To suggest that c (the number) remains the number even as it passes through water would make that number a constant. It isn’t. c (the number) gets smaller as light passes through water. This does not violate Newton’s first law, or Einstein’s invariance of c in a vacuum condition. I’m thinking this through l can’t see where I might be confused 🤷‍♂️. Rhetorically, maybe? Somewhat long winded to the point of confusion? Yeah, I tend to reach that point. Seemingly effortlessly😒, but i don’t think I am confusing the word invariant with constant. Note, to clear up one paragraph when light passes near a large gravity source I’m assuming the presence of that source violates the condition set by Einstein of empty space. Assuming that a vacuum requires a condition of no effect. I’m assuming there is a hardware problem cause this and the Janus post didn’t show up until after I had replied to stranges post which was considerably after all the post were made? I would have preferred to have responded to this post first. What?
  10. Just thinking... Consider Newton’s first law of motion. Consider Einstein’s set condition of empty space. Then ask why c would not be invariant? Wouldn’t there need to be a change in the set condition (empty space) if you want to expect variety?
  11. Apparently I got everything wrong. Apparently they just meant really, really close and my imagination did the rest. Sorry.
  12. I recently found this video and became in awe of the simplicity of the explanation.
  13. It’s possible the recent video I watched exaggerated the planets location. It was one of those live feeds, and now I can’t find the exact video, which annoys me and means I am less likely to ever watch a live feed video again. Note - apparently below the stratosphere doesn’t necessarily mean below the stratosphere, because now I can’t find any mention of such an exoplanet position existing except in terms such as we might use as in below the horizon. Or, the thought is so new that Google hasn’t heard of it, no matter how I phrase it. (Sighs)
  14. Generally, for good reason the black hole is thought of as the exit. Oft, imagined is the question, “to where”? I would reason that over a very long time a black hole losing sufficient mass, still having gravity could be attracted to a sun, but consumed? Stranges post is interesting. mistermack’s question is also a good one? ———————————————————————————— I believe that theoretically small black holes are said able to exist, but how would they interact if they didn’t cease first. A sun generally containing the majority of mass of any solar system would seem a natural target, but I have read that even two galaxies can merge without stars having to collide due to vast distances. How many planet size rocks are moving through the universe not ending up in suns? The universe gets bigger and bigger, things spread out more, and more the odds change. Planets do fall into suns, But it’s not a given. A recent video suggests that planets can actually exist inside a sun until harmonics of the system cause them to eject. I would imagine that a planet size black hole might do the same if the physical interaction didn’t expedite what strange posted? I have also read that very tiny black holes can exist to no effect. Which leads me to believe that an apparent possible effect such as a black hole exiting into a sun isn’t a given. Note - sometimes I stray to far into imagination
  15. Not confused, sure the photograph will age, but the image is a capture of time stopped (the reflection). I’m just noting examples of time doing what it is supposed to do at c without the rest of the universe being effected. You see I used to be confused because it was difficult to think of time stopping as an effect of relativity while the person who’s time is seen to be stopped by an observer goes about his or her business completely unaware that someone has used relativity to decided that they the (observed) are frozen in time. Relativity is a lot easier for simple minds like mine to accept if the universe is allowed to continue on in spite of relativity’s predictions. Actually, I am the one generally causing confusion. My mind moves around too much. Relativity, doesn’t cause effects. What it does is explain the reasoning for what might be seen as illogical because what we see is just a reflection, or a type of radiation that can be affected by gravity or extreme speeds. Both cases need to be extreme, and even though we imagine the observed as not being effected in both cases they would be torn asunder( a condition necessary for the imagined activity.) luckily photographs and mirrors are more about the past and don’t require an unpleasant present.
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.