Jump to content

Speed of light (hijack from Time for a different view (hypothesis))


Recommended Posts

Quote from  beecee :  

"The speed of light is a constant and always travels at "c"." [ End of Quote ]  

 

This statement has experientially proven to be incorrect. 

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ 

 

Quote from beecee

Space and time are both variable quantities and two opposite sides of the same coin, so to speak...without space, there is no time, without time, there is no space." [ End of quote ] 

 

It is not so. We cannot categorically asseverate that without space , for example , there's no time. Refer to Bergson's detailed discussion of the issue of time. Nor may we be absolutely  certain that space can never exist  without time. Refer to QM's way of handling this.

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Prof Reza Sanaye said:

Quote from  beecee :  

"The speed of light is a constant and always travels at "c"." [ End of Quote ]  

 

This statement has experientially proven to be incorrect. 

 

 

By what experiment?  Keep in mind that this statement refers to the speed of light in a vacuum ( and not while traveling in a medium), and measured locally ( not its coordinate speed)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Janus said:

By what experiment?  Keep in mind that this statement refers to the speed of light in a vacuum ( and not while traveling in a medium), and measured locally ( not its coordinate speed)

Excuse me ; 

these are stipulations that  YOU  are adding. The original author did not say so.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Prof Reza Sanaye said:

Excuse me ; 

these are stipulations that  YOU  are adding. The original author did not say so.

No, but that's not necessary. Physics says so, and that is sufficient. It's supposed to be taken as understood, at least by people who understand the physics involved.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, Prof Reza Sanaye said:

Quote from  beecee :  

"The speed of light is a constant and always travels at "c"." [ End of Quote ]  

 

This statement has experientially proven to be incorrect. 

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ 

 

Quote from beecee

Space and time are both variable quantities and two opposite sides of the same coin, so to speak...without space, there is no time, without time, there is no space." [ End of quote ] 

 

It is not so. We cannot categorically asseverate that without space , for example , there's no time. Refer to Bergson's detailed discussion of the issue of time. Nor may we be absolutely  certain that space can never exist  without time. Refer to QM's way of handling this.

 

Even the slowest speed of light, travel's at the speed of light..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Prof Reza Sanaye said:

these are stipulations that  YOU  are adding. The original author did not say so.

You are correct that the original author did not say so, but in discussions concerning light it is generally understood by the scientifically lieterate that referring to the speed of light as a constant, is a reference to its speed in a vacuum. There is precision of speech and then there is irrelevant, provocative pedantry.

Edit: cross posted with @swansont

Edited by Area54
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Area54 said:

You are correct that the original author did not say so, but in discussions concerning light it is generally understood by the scientifically lieterate that referring to the speed of light as a constant, is a reference to its speed in a vacuum. There is precision of speech and then there is irrelevant, provocative pedantry.

Edit: cross posted with @swansont

Ok , Area . .. .  

So Sorry  for  elucidating . . . 

We now deem it as both  Provocative   and   Irrelevant  . . . .. .  . . . . 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Prof Reza Sanaye said:

Ok , Area . .. .  

So Sorry  for  elucidating . . . 

We now deem it as both  Provocative   and   Irrelevant  . . . .. .  . . . . 

That was unintelligible, so re-affirm what I posted, it is your OP I consider to be irrelevant, provocative pedantry. I recommend you ask for this thread to be closed before more life force is wasted on it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Area54 said:

That was unintelligible, so re-affirm what I posted, it is your OP I consider to be irrelevant, provocative pedantry. I recommend you ask for this thread to be closed before more life force is wasted on it.

my  !!  

You order me to ask for the thread to be shut. 

why don't you yourself do that  ??      !!!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Prof Reza Sanaye said:

my  !!  

You order me to ask for the thread to be shut. 

why don't you yourself do that  ??      !!!!

Order and recommend have quite distinct meanings.

 

 

Thank you admin for the Ignore function.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

34 minutes ago, Area54 said:

Order and recommend have quite distinct meanings.

Yes, but what about:

 Order !!  . . . .. .  . . . . !!!

 . .. . and  . .. .

rec    omm end  . . . .. .  . . . . . . . .. .  . . . .

???

 

?????

😵

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This thread seemed to be a good learning opportunity for MPMin, who gave the appearance of being very interested certain ideas.

Until the guy with the 'crazy' eyes, who calls himself a Prof. derailed it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Prof Reza Sanaye said:

This statement has experientially proven to be incorrect. 

!

Moderator Note

You are directed to back this claim up with citations and/or links. Absent that this is soapboxing in addition to hijacking.

 
1 hour ago, MigL said:

This thread seemed to be a good learning opportunity for MPMin, who gave the appearance of being very interested certain ideas.

Until the guy with the 'crazy' eyes, who calls himself a Prof. derailed it.

!

Moderator Note

Quite agree. It has been split

 
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Prof Reza Sanaye said:

Excuse me ; 

these are stipulations that  YOU  are adding. The original author did not say so.

Excuse me, the original author certainly meant that, which would be obvious in examining other comments of mine regarding this subject. 

And your following statement is also wrong...space and time evolved at t+10-43 seconds...without one, there is not the other

7 hours ago, Prof Reza Sanaye said:

 It is not so. We cannot categorically asseverate that without space , for example , there's no time. Refer to Bergson's detailed discussion of the issue of time. Nor may we be absolutely  certain that space can never exist  without time. Refer to QM's way of handling this.

Indeed it is correct that  Space and time are both variable quantities and two opposite sides of the same coin, so to speak...without space, there is no time, without time, there is no space." 

Please dont ask me to refute your general take on science at this time...I'm typing with one eye, having just yesterday had a catarct surgery on my right eye and it is still covered until later today, after examination by the surgeon. 

Edited by beecee
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
22 hours ago, swansont said:
!

Moderator Note

You are directed to back this claim up with citations and/or links. Absent that this is soapboxing in addition to hijacking.

 
!

Moderator Note

Quite agree. It has been split

 

I always thought a moderator has the obligation to guide interlocutors not to write extremely impolitely . . .. 

17 hours ago, beecee said:

Excuse me, the original author certainly meant that, which would be obvious in examining other comments of mine regarding this subject. 

And your following statement is also wrong...space and time evolved at t+10-43 seconds...without one, there is not the other

Indeed it is correct that  Space and time are both variable quantities and two opposite sides of the same coin, so to speak...without space, there is no time, without time, there is no space." 

Please dont ask me to refute your general take on science at this time...I'm typing with one eye, having just yesterday had a catarct surgery on my right eye and it is still covered until later today, after examination by the surgeon. 

If it indeed is true that CERN tested Newton’s equation for the kinetic energy (E = ½ mv^2) by accelerating a charged particle (proton) to 7 TeV instead of the maximum possible energy of 470 MeV limited by ½mc² possible according to Newton’s equation; then is it possible that they are getting FTL velocity for the accelerating protons without any limit; violating SR?
 
It could be very interesting in light of the fact that quasars are reported to be ejected at velocities even at few orders of magnitude of c! 
 
Of course, it may be true that a charged particle like proton would be more difficult to accelerate than the ejection of a (possible) neutral mass of a quasar. An accelerating charged particle would lose energy through bremsstrahlung radiation   ; ; ; ; ;
23 hours ago, iNow said:

Yes, but what about:

 Order !!  . . . .. .  . . . . !!!

 . .. . and  . .. .

rec    omm end  . . . .. .  . . . . . . . .. .  . . . .

???

 

?????

😵

😲   !!!!!

Edited by Prof Reza Sanaye
Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, Prof Reza Sanaye said:

If it indeed is true that CERN tested Newton’s equation for the kinetic energy (E = ½ mv^2) by accelerating a charged particle (proton) to 7 TeV instead of the maximum possible energy of 470 MeV limited by ½mc² possible according to Newton’s equation; then is it possible that they are getting FTL velocity for the accelerating protons without any limit; violating SR?

This makes no sense. We know 'Newton' is not valid for velocities that are comparable with light speed.  So at one side you apply 'Newton' (E = 1/2mv^2), on the other side you apply relativity by saying that the speed of light is speed limit. You need to use relativity from the beginning, and then you will see that a proton accelerated to 7 TeV flies just a tiny fraction slower than c.

Edited by Eise
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Eise said:

This makes no sense. We know 'Newton' is no valid for velocities that are comparable with light speed.  So at one side you apply 'Newton' (E = 1/2mv^2), on the other side you apply relativity by saying that the speed of light is speed limit. You need to use relativity from the beginning, and then you will see that a proton accelerated to 7 TeV flies just a tiny fraction slower than c.

We know 'Newton' is no valid  etc   etc {Quote  // by the kind permission of Senior Member Eise}

 

this makes no sense when we see Newton is all of a sudden proven right with/without the Conditionalized  Habit of Relativity. Fresh Data speak for themselves in case we do not distort them or misinterpret them or do not make claims not dissimilar to WE KNOW EARTH IS FLAT.

11 minutes ago, MigL said:

Newton is not applicable at relativistic speeds.

Wiki on Kinetic Energy

Kinetic energy - Wikipedia

Especially relevant is the section on 'Relativistic Kinetic Energy of Rigid Bodies'.

Do a little research before posting nonsense and embarassing yourself.

 

You are  NOT  supposed to be embarrassed at receiving new data . . . . No , Mr Genius , You are not . . ..  . . . I , too , wish we could push our Most Respectable Heads into sand . .. Alas ! Alas ! We simply can't  ;;;;;;;;;;;;

Link to comment
Share on other sites

E=m0 c^2 is mass-energy equivalence! It has nothing to do with "speed of light"...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass–energy_equivalence

m0 - rest-mass (aka "invariant-mass") of object.

 

When highly (relativistic) accelerated particle collides with other particle, there is created "shower of particles".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Particle_shower

Such "shower of new particles" can be seen by naked eye.. if you have Cloud Chamber, Bubble Chamber, etc. kind of early (and cheap) particle detectors..

@Prof Reza Sanaye

21690272_ParticleShower.thumb.png.01edccba1e3991a56309f6cc02cc968c.png

 

The more (kinetic) energy has particle, the longer trace it leaves.

The more kinetic energy has particle, the more energetic (and more massive) new particles it can create during collision.

1 hour ago, Prof Reza Sanaye said:

If it indeed is true that CERN tested Newton’s equation for the kinetic energy (E = ½ mv^2) by accelerating a charged particle (proton) to 7 TeV instead of the maximum possible energy of 470 MeV limited by ½mc² possible according to Newton’s equation;

You don't need CERN to have highly energetic particle. They are coming from cosmic space. Passing through your apartment right now. You just don't know about them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Prof Reza Sanaye said:

I always thought a moderator has the obligation to guide interlocutors not to write extremely impolitely . . .. 

You have to reports a post if you want to bring it to the attention of the moderators. Attacking what someone writes is not against the rules. Attacking them personally is.

 

Quote
If it indeed is true that CERN tested Newton’s equation for the kinetic energy (E = ½ mv^2) by accelerating a charged particle (proton) to 7 TeV instead of the maximum possible energy of 470 MeV limited by ½mc² possible according to Newton’s equation; then is it possible that they are getting FTL velocity for the accelerating protons without any limit; violating SR?
 

1/2 mc^2 is not a limit from any valid physics

 

Where is the link to an experiment that I had asked for?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

3 hours ago, Prof Reza Sanaye said:

If it indeed is true that CERN tested Newton’s equation for the kinetic energy (E = ½ mv^2) by accelerating a charged particle (proton) to 7 TeV instead of the maximum possible energy of 470 MeV limited by ½mc² possible according to Newton’s equation; then is it possible that they are getting FTL velocity for the accelerating protons without any limit; violating SR?

 

1 hour ago, swansont said:

1/2 mc^2 is not a limit from any valid physics

In fairness, I take this as a slip of the pen on Reza's behalf.

The limit of the scalar total energy of a particle as its velocity, u, tends to zero is

m0c2, which is of course, the famous Einstinian mass - energy relationship Sensei has referred to.

1 hour ago, Sensei said:

E=m0 c^2 is mass-energy equivalence! It has nothing to do with "speed of light"...

But I think a slip of terminology also occurs here since c is the speed of light  - a scalar invariant constant and is included in the equation.

 

To see this it is necessary to use the correct quantites and equations.

In terms of

the scalar invariant, m0 (rest mass)

The variant scalar speed of the particle, u

The invariant scalar c, - the speed of light

The total scalar energy, W may be written


[math]W = {m_0}{c^2}\left( {1 + \frac{{{u^2}}}{{2{c^2}}} + \frac{{3{u^4}}}{{8{c^4}}} + ...} \right) = {m_0}{c^2} + \frac{1}{2}{m_0}{u^2} + {m_0}\frac{{3{u^4}}}{{8{c^2}}} + ....[/math]


If we take the limit as  [math]u \to 0[/math]

We find this is       [math]W = {m_0}{c^2}[/math]

 

If we look the other way  (u increasing) then the series diverges rapidly as   [math]u \to c[/math]

 

 

 

 

 

Edited by studiot
Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, studiot said:

In fairness, I take this as a slip of the pen on Reza's behalf.

The limit of the scalar total energy of a particle as its velocity, u, tends to zero is

m0c2, which is of course, the famous Einstinian mass - energy relationship Sensei has referred to.

Except 470 MeV is about 1/2mc^2 for a proton, and that’s what you get if you think that KE=1/2mv^2 is valid, and you apply the limiting speed of c. (refer also to the other remarks suggesting relativity is wrong). So I don’t think it was a slip of the pen.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Of course, it is debatable like all ideas or concepts, but it seems logical to me that before defining where and how "something" is likely to exist and move, this something must first be conceived of as possessing physical properties that will explain how it can exist in a stable manner as a material object, and only then attempting to define where it moves (involving the space concept), which motion involves a delay between its presence at a given location in space and then at another location (involving the time concept) because once defined as a material object, this something cannot conceivably be present at both location at the same moment.

The ladies & gentlemen at CERN only have to be expert in getting their hardware to work under a specific theoretical system. They do not need to be expert (or even to have competent newbie-level knowledge) of how that hardware might work under some parallel system of theory.
 
When it comes to knowing how to compare SR and Newtonian results, in a scientifically correct way, they don't know how to do it. Because they've been trained on a set of literature that's incompetently written and mathematically wrong, and they've internalised a load of those wrong results.
 
Mainstream educational resources will tell you that E=m0c2 is unique to SR, that transverse redshifts only happen under SR-based systems, that if SR wasn't right, particle path-lengths before decay would be shorter by gamma, and that there's no theory that predicts redshifts stronger than SR.
 
All of these statements are provably sub-amateur garbage.
 
In real life, E=m0c2 is an exact result under SR, Newtonian theory, and any other relativistic system ... Lab-transverse redshifts are expected under any theory that includes some influence of the state of motion of the emitting mass on the properties of light (ranging from "no transverse effect" for "no influence" to a Lorentz-squared effect for emission theory) ... SR, Newtonian theory and every other potential relativistic theory agree exactly as to the decay positions of particles, given an agreed energy or momentum and rest frame decay time ... and Newtonian theory predicts motion-shifts that are redder than SR, rather than the other way around.
Don't take my word for it. Try a really basic calculation:
 
Under SR, the recession redshift is E'/E = sqrt[ (c-v) / (c+v) ], while under C19th Newtonian theory, it's E'/E = (c-v)/c
 
Plug in any sensible value of v (say, half lightspeed). With SR, that gives E'/E = sqrt(0.5/1.5) = sqrt(1/3) = ~0.577.. With "Newtonian" Dopppler, we get E/E=0.5 .
 
0.5 is a smaller number than 0.577 .
The Newtonian predictions are redder than the SR predictions.
In fact, they are always redder than the SR predictions, for a given "nominal" velocity value, by an additional Lorentz factor.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Prof Reza Sanaye said:

but it seems logical to me that before defining where and how "something" is likely to exist and move, this something must first be conceived of as possessing physical properties that will explain how it can exist in a stable manner as a material object,

Why before ? what is wrong with if  ?

If there was a hundred foot banana could a 500 foot gorilla eat it ?

Edited by studiot
Link to comment
Share on other sites

So the next time that you read an experimental writeup saying that we test SR against earlier theory by proving the existence of a transverse component that wouldn't be there unless SR was right, and that any excess transverse component results are explicable by recoil effects, and have no deeper significance because there's no other theories redder than SR ... you'll understand that not only did the author not have a clue as to what they were doing, neither did the journal referees, the journal editors, or the authors of the earlier works cited in defence of that position.
 
Because of the way that the SR-testing literature developed, with incompetent analysis inflating or manufacturing the "significance" of results, if you are an experimenter, in order to be able to compete with those existing peer-reviewed "inflated" claims, you pretty much NEED to use the same illegal tricks to inflate your results, or you won;t get published.
 
The use of convenient untrue comparisons in SR testing is like the use of performance-enhancing drugs in athletics ... once their use becomes endemic, the honest athlete can no longer compete, and either has to cheat in the same way, or has to give up and find some other sport.
In athletics, being caught cheating results in bans and maybe medals being taken away. In SR testing, being caught using bad assumptions to make your figures better carries no penalty. Not only will the community not censure you or downgrade your results, they will not even report that something has gone wrong. As long as your dodgy result favours SR and disfavours possible competition, the community will actually defend your dodgy result, and will try to prevent others from revealing what went wrong.
5 minutes ago, studiot said:

Why before ? what is wrong with if  ?

If there was a hundred foot banana could a 500 foot gorilla eat it ?

She could  OR   she  could not. .  .. It is not for our scholastic presuppositions to determine that .  .. It is for the Lady Gorilla herself to decide for her own stomach . .. . 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • 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.