ydoaPs Posted March 16, 2005 Author Share Posted March 16, 2005 it's impossible for the speed of any particular object to be the same in all frames, I don't have to bother reading anything to understand that. in the words of a closed minded fool. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ydoaPs Posted March 16, 2005 Author Share Posted March 16, 2005 ok, p=h/lambda h^2f^2=(mc^2)^2+(h^2c^2)/(lambda^2). (h^2f^2lambda^2-h^2c^2)/(lambda^2)=m^2 (h(f^2lambda^2-c^2))/(lambda^2)=m^2 damn. f^2lambda^2=c^2. grrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tom Mattson Posted March 16, 2005 Share Posted March 16, 2005 You can do physics in photon rest frames' date=' in which the speed of a particular photon is zero. QED[/quote'] LOL Johnny, the "D" in "QED" stands for "Demonstratum", which you haven't done. Anyway, you are wrong. There is no coordinate system definable in SR in which the photon is at rest. There is no way to bring a "frame" moving at speed c to rest with a change of coordinates, which is what you would have to demonstrate to put the "D" after the "QE". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johnny5 Posted March 16, 2005 Share Posted March 16, 2005 LOL Johnny' date=' the "D" in "QED" stands for "[i']Demonstratum[/i]", which you haven't done. Anyway, you are wrong. There is no coordinate system definable in SR in which the photon is at rest. There is no way to bring a "frame" moving at speed c to rest with a change of coordinates, which is what you would have to demonstrate to put the "D" after the "QE". If the photon exists, then it exists in its own rest frame. But yeah I didn't demonstrandum it at all, then again I knew that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tom Mattson Posted March 16, 2005 Share Posted March 16, 2005 If the photon exists, then it exists in its own rest frame. But yeah I didn't demonstrandum it at all, then again I knew that. And you didn't demonstrate it again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ydoaPs Posted March 16, 2005 Author Share Posted March 16, 2005 johnny, so, special relativity is completely wrong just because you say it is? all the tests that prove it pretty much beyond a shadow of a doubt are wrong because you want them to be? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J.C.MacSwell Posted March 16, 2005 Share Posted March 16, 2005 LOL Johnny' date=' the "D" in "QED" stands for "[i']Demonstratum[/i]", which you haven't done. Anyway, you are wrong. There is no coordinate system definable in SR in which the photon is at rest. There is no way to bring a "frame" moving at speed c to rest with a change of coordinates, which is what you would have to demonstrate to put the "D" after the "QE". The D is not for "dynamics"? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johnny5 Posted March 16, 2005 Share Posted March 16, 2005 johnny, so, special relativity is completely wrong just because you say it is? all the tests that prove it pretty much beyond a shadow of a doubt are wrong because you want them to be? No i have a reason why it's wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ydoaPs Posted March 16, 2005 Author Share Posted March 16, 2005 please enlighten us. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J.C.MacSwell Posted March 16, 2005 Share Posted March 16, 2005 please enlighten us. Yourdadonapogos while your waiting could you explain why you think Relativity claims that the speed of light is constant in all frames? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johnny5 Posted March 16, 2005 Share Posted March 16, 2005 please enlighten us. The answer has to do with simultaneity, it's absolute not relative. See barn and ladder contradiction. You cannot fit a twenty foot ladder inside a ten foot barn, I don't care how fast you run. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phi for All Posted March 16, 2005 Share Posted March 16, 2005 No i have a reason why it's wrong.Then put up or shut up, Johnny5, you're annoying the other members and wasting everyone's time. Trolling the forum has consequences. This is your only warning before suspension. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johnny5 Posted March 16, 2005 Share Posted March 16, 2005 Then put up or shut up' date=' Johnny5, you're annoying the other members and wasting everyone's time. Trolling the forum has consequences. This is your only warning before suspension.[/quote'] I did give the reason, barn and ladder paradox, look up. And I'm not trolling. The barn and ladder paradox is a legitimate gripe with the theory of SR. At any rate I am enjoying my posts here, and they are only meant to increase my understanding of physics, so it would be a shame if you take that away from me, when in fact you cannot fit a twenty foot ladder inside of a ten foot barn. And one more thing... I am trying to figure something out. See my post entitled "Important question about possible violation of Newton's third law." I am actually working on something. I am trying to figure something out. That happens to be the most important post I've ever made here for me, and no one has responded to it yet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tom Mattson Posted March 16, 2005 Share Posted March 16, 2005 The D is not for "dynamics"? That depends on which QED you mean. Usually, when people put it at the end of what they think is a proof, it means "quod erat demonstratum", meaning "that which is to be demonstrated". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tom Mattson Posted March 16, 2005 Share Posted March 16, 2005 The answer has to do with simultaneity' date=' it's absolute not relative. See barn and ladder contradiction. You cannot fit a twenty foot ladder inside a ten foot barn, I don't care how fast you run.[/quote'] I already gave you a link explaining why you are wrong about this. The barn and ladder "paradox" is not a paradox in SR. Once again, you are allowing your false a priori assumptions to cloud your judgment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johnny5 Posted March 16, 2005 Share Posted March 16, 2005 I already gave you a link explaining why you are wrong about this. The barn and ladder "paradox" is not a paradox in SR. Once again' date=' you are allowing your false [i']a priori[/i] assumptions to cloud your judgment. I read that link, the professor there was from Princeton. But... still... according to SR, If I built a million mile starship, and got it to just the right speed, it would be smaller than the Planck length. Let it be a 5000 trillion mile long starship. Still, if we get it moving fast enough, it will fit on the head of a pin. Please see my post entitled Important question on Newton's third law violations. It happens to be something I'm working quite feverishly on, and I actually need help. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J.C.MacSwell Posted March 16, 2005 Share Posted March 16, 2005 That depends on which QED you mean. Usually, when people put it at the end of what they think is a proof, it means "quod erat demonstratum", meaning "that which is to be demonstrated". LOL, I wondered on a few posts about the QED "reference" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tom Mattson Posted March 16, 2005 Share Posted March 16, 2005 And I'm not trolling. Trolling is exactly what you're doing. It's the reason you are suspended from Physics Forums' date=' and I wouldn't blame the administration here one bit if they did the same. At any rate I am enjoying my posts here, and they are only meant to increase my understanding of physics, so it would be a shame if you take that away from me, when in fact you cannot fit a twenty foot ladder inside of a ten foot barn. Really? It sure looks to me like you are here to tell everyone why they are wrong, rather than increase your knowledge of physics. In fact, you've got the smug certainty of someone who thinks they don't need to increase their knowledge, when it's painfully obvious that you need it more than most. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tom Mattson Posted March 16, 2005 Share Posted March 16, 2005 I read that link' date=' the professor there was from Princeton. But... still... according to SR, If I built a million mile starship, and got it to just the right speed, it would be smaller than the Planck length. Let it be a 5000 trillion mile long starship. Still, if we get it moving fast enough, it will fit on the head of a pin.[/quote'] Yes, that's right, in a particular reference frame. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J.C.MacSwell Posted March 16, 2005 Share Posted March 16, 2005 Yes, that's right, in a particular reference frame[/i']. Assuming it's skinny and narrow enough (but not for long) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johnny5 Posted March 17, 2005 Share Posted March 17, 2005 Really? It sure looks to me like you are here to tell everyone why they are wrong' date=' rather than increase your knowledge of physics. In fact, you've got the smug certainty of someone who thinks they don't need to increase their knowledge, when it's painfully obvious that you need it more than most.[/quote'] I'm not here to tell anyone they are wrong, I actually need help on something which I am working on. There is no need to beat around the bush. I want to figure out a way to accelerate people from rest to 1000g, and then have that ship maintain that acceleration in the original frame in which the ship was at rest, but have their weight inside the ship be equivalent to their weight on earth, throughout the accelerative process. From your point of view this is impossible, but my questions would be along the lines of logic. What would have to be true, for this to be done. Which current theories of physics would permit it to be possible, and which current theories of physics wouldn't permit it to be possible. I have those types of questions. This may be too tall of an order for anyone to fill, but still it is what I personally am working on. I still haven't figured out everything which needs to be true in order for this to be done, but I have made some progress. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J.C.MacSwell Posted March 17, 2005 Share Posted March 17, 2005 I'm not here to tell anyone they are wrong' date=' I actually need help on something which I am working on. There is no need to beat around the bush. I want to figure out a way to accelerate people from rest to 1000g, and then have that ship maintain that acceleration in the original frame in which the ship was at rest, but have their weight inside the ship be equivalent to their weight on earth, throughout the accelerative process. From your point of view this is impossible, but my questions would be along the lines of logic. What would have to be true, for this to be done. Which current theories of physics would permit it to be possible, and which current theories of physics wouldn't permit it to be possible. I have those types of questions.[/quote'] It's nice that you're not trying to crush them! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johnny5 Posted March 17, 2005 Share Posted March 17, 2005 It's nice that you're not trying to crush them! That's the whole idea JC. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J.C.MacSwell Posted March 17, 2005 Share Posted March 17, 2005 That's the whole idea JC. You need a "human magnet" that will accelerate all parts of the body equally with no significant internal stresses. Can't see that being plausible. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johnny5 Posted March 17, 2005 Share Posted March 17, 2005 You need a "human magnet" that will accelerate all parts of the body equally with no significant internal stresses. Can't see that being plausible. Where did you get that idea from? "Accelerate all parts of the body equally, with no significant internal stresses" this seems correct. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
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 accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now