It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Thought experiment with light.

page: 5
3
<< 2  3  4    6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 18 2015 @ 06:52 PM
link   
a reply to: ImaFungi

A volume can be empty and still have dimension.

A point can exist and have no extension.
edit on 18-6-2015 by Bedlam because: (no reason given)




posted on Jun, 18 2015 @ 06:56 PM
link   

originally posted by: anonentity
The photon has exited linear time as far as the observer is concerned, because its traveling at the speed of light , because it is light.
If the photon had exited linear time, we wouldn't be able to measure the distance light travels in one second. So obviously the fact we can measure the speed of light means it's not frozen in time.

a reply to: ImaFungi
Which calculator should I use to check your math? I don't trust either one of them.

www.abovetopsecret.com...



edit on 18-6-2015 by Arbitrageur because: clarification



posted on Jun, 18 2015 @ 06:57 PM
link   

originally posted by: Arbitrageur
a reply to: darkorange
I'm glad somebody gets it.

People do claim that "from a photon's perspective" time is frozen, but that's nonsense because there is no observer on a photon. Any real observer will not see any photon frozen in time, but will see it moving at the speed of light in a vacuum.


It is not nonsense.
simple thought experiment.

Say I cut a stripe of paper couple of meters long and on it, along its side draw a zigzag line with the marker (upper point of zigzag is a 'tick'). I lay it on a floor for some room)) Beside the front end of that paper strip I put an object like a cigarette lighter upright. That's our space ship).

Now I start to move paper strip with zigzag line on it pass the lighter. Each upper point of zigzag is a tick, like I said. While my little space ship is stationary upper points are passing at the rate I move the strip.
If I start to move the lighter in a direction I move the paper strip I begin to catch up with moving line meaning 'ticks' still passing by but at slower rate. If i move the lighter at the same speed as i move the paper strip, my 'space ship' is going to move with the 'tick', time for it ceases to exist. No ticks). It is going with the 'tick'.

DO.

edit on 18-6-2015 by darkorange because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 18 2015 @ 06:59 PM
link   

originally posted by: Bedlam

A volume can be empty and still have dimension.


For an example of this statement^^^;

what is the theoretical physical bound that makes the volume?

Or is your consideration, a volume without bounds? Which would be the therefore ultimate volume, which would be the dimensions all volumes and all dimensions are contained in?

If you are inclined to ad hominem me here, you are wrong. What I have just said makes exact sense, if you do not understand the sense in which what I said makes itself sensical and meaningful, quote the statement you did not understand and I will further explain.




A point can exist and have no extension.


So can a unicorn.

A real physical object 'CAN NOT !EXIST!' (exist is defined as; that which has extension) and have 'NO EXTENSION'.

PARADOX.

CONTRADICTION.

FALSE FALSE FALSE.

You said something wrong. you said something untrue. You claim false is true. You are a liar, you are ignorant, you are wrong. You said wrong. You said bad. I am right. You are wrong. Lets play ball! I can prove everything I think I know and say, right. I can prove everything that I disagree with what you say, wrong. Yay, I will always win. I am right. I know I know what I know, and I know I dont know what I dont know. I know right from wrong. I know truth from false. I know possible from impossible. I know sense from nonsense.


edit on 18-6-2015 by ImaFungi because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 18 2015 @ 07:02 PM
link   

originally posted by: darkorange
That point, when time does not exists for my ship is when my speed is 'c' according to Eisenstein.
No, according to Einstein, your ship can't travel at c because to do so would require infinite energy which is not possible.



posted on Jun, 18 2015 @ 07:14 PM
link   
a reply to: ImaFungi

I thought I had explained it. Imagine that you are sitting down having a coffee in a busy precinct, and you are just looking around . You are a sensing, information, that's coming at you as electromagnetic waves . These waves are releasing electrons, that travel down your central nervous system. They are interpreted, as "reality" which you see, and hear "In your mind" Theirs nothing out there, but information code, which you decode into a model of reality. When some one comes up to you and starts talking, about say, that building over there, and you both look at the same building, you have both either perfectly, made the model of the building ,in both your minds at the same time. Which is unlikely, or you are sharing the same mind space. Why? because all this information, is coming in, its not going out. Its getting received, not broadcasted.

When, you move your cup of coffee . You have actually moved something in the shared mind space, and altered the input to the reality model. Theirs only waves out there. Reality is a fully lucid dream state. A simulation , it has to be something like that, because the classical view of physical matter, would have blown the lot up before anything got started.


edit on 18-6-2015 by anonentity because: (no reason given)

edit on 18-6-2015 by anonentity because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 18 2015 @ 07:20 PM
link   

originally posted by: Arbitrageur

originally posted by: darkorange
That point, when time does not exists for my ship is when my speed is 'c' according to Eisenstein.
No, according to Einstein, your ship can't travel at c because to do so would require infinite energy which is not possible.


Thanks, you are real help.

Did you even give a thought to what I wrote?

DO.
edit on 18-6-2015 by darkorange because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 18 2015 @ 07:23 PM
link   
a reply to: Arbitrageur

Yes but not light!



posted on Jun, 18 2015 @ 07:27 PM
link   
a reply to: darkorange
You're not making much sense. You say that light is frozen from an observer's perspective, then you talk about an observer going the speed of light, but no observers can travel at the speed of light, so light isn't frozen in time from the perspective of any observer. It's always traveling at the speed of light, which requires the passage of time to measure (speed =distance divided by time, so we must have time to measure light speed).

As I said some people want to put a hypothetical observer on the photon and talk about frozen time from that "observer" perspective, but there is no observer on a photon. Since it's virtually impossible to put an observer on a photon you may as well say that an omnipotent being can make an object so heavy he's unable to lift it. Both statements describe something which is not possible so it's not productive to speak of them as if they were valid concepts.


edit on 18-6-2015 by Arbitrageur because: clarification



posted on Jun, 18 2015 @ 07:32 PM
link   

originally posted by: Arbitrageur
a reply to: darkorange
You say that light is frozen from an observer's perspective


You took me for somebody else.
2nd

DO.

edit on 18-6-2015 by darkorange because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 18 2015 @ 07:36 PM
link   
a reply to: darkorange
Here's what you said:

originally posted by: darkorange
If i move the lighter at the same speed as i move the paper strip, my 'space ship' is going to move with the 'tick', time for it ceases to exist. No ticks). It is going with the 'tick'.

DO.
You did say that didn't you?
Time can't cease to exist for your space ship, it would need to have infinite energy for that to happen.



posted on Jun, 18 2015 @ 07:39 PM
link   

originally posted by: anonentity
a reply to: ImaFungi

These waves are releasing electrons.



Really? 'Releasing'? What are you talking about?
The rest of your post is meaningless. Unless you elaborate.

2nd


DO
edit on 18-6-2015 by darkorange because: (no reason given)

edit on 18-6-2015 by darkorange because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 18 2015 @ 07:58 PM
link   
a reply to: darkorange

It takes five photons, hitting your retina, to release one electron, which travels up the optic nerve .Everything from then on is decoded, information, which the reality model is based on, in your head. Same with all the other senses, a sound wave hits your ear drum, and does the same thing. You are essentially a receiver of electromagnetic waves. Which you decode in your mind, and then you walk, the walk and talk the talk. Thats the way it is.



posted on Jun, 18 2015 @ 07:58 PM
link   
a reply to: Arbitrageur

I skimmed the thread, and comprehend the gist.

Does that express that order of operations is arbitrary?

Math is supposed to be objective, self consistent, self contained.

I think that (arguably prior to this moment, but certainly this moment helps to express it) that when 0 was defined as 0 and 1 was defined as 1 (by cavemen or whoever) all of mathematics came into existence.

Or maybe I am just of the camp, that the total completion of mathematics, 'exists' timelessly.

That math is the perfect perfection, the ghost behind all matter.

I think humans invent the squiggly line 2 6 7 252295 0, the specific shapes, yes, dont get me wrong, but the underlying meaning, I believe is timeless.

Well that is just speaking first thing first, on the purest concept of quantity, and the relation between incremental increase of quantity.

But as math gets more and more complex, the complexity is, (such as can be seen in the nature of order of operations), the creation of 'tools' or mechanisms, which force quantities to interact with quantities; short hand of sorts.

Now, I do not know where to begin with the thoughts of whether these mechanism, addition, multiplication, function, complex equations, are a part of that timeless math belief. But I think they might be.

If all the numbers exist, automatically, the concept of interacting all the numbers in all the ways all the numbers can be interacted (this is a matter of sequence then... sequence being, the primary interest in this question of order of operations)

So perhaps the truth might be; That theoretically; Every permutation of order of operations, is valid, in its own right and use. Is a valid mathematical tool (which only means,; math tool, which computes, which works, which makes sense), so perhaps it is a matter of arbitrary decision making.

Though what would make it less arbitrary, and we would hope this is why the standard was chosen and it seems as if it must be;

would be if..... Well to be most honest, I do not know all the reasons as to why the standard Pemdas, is chosen, but I am sure there is sense behind it;

The interesting thing would be, what that sense says about the nature of math, of the tools, of order of operations; is it just convenience because of humans? Is there a right and wrong?

Is the one order of operations objectively, in accordance to the totality of numbers and their ways of being computed, interacted, more 'powerful' or reasonable.

For example, PEMDAS is composed of 6 operations; How many different combinations of those operations can be mixed, is that like 6 factorial or something?

Are many of those meaningless? If so what does that say about the tools, and is every possible math tool objective?

Can humans create a math tool (function, operation) which is reasonable, and not contained in 'the set of all possible reasonable math tools?'

When I say; math is eternal, and the tools are eternal that is what I mean.

there is an abstract set of 'all possible potential' beyond humans.

This is the meaning of the concept of 'number infinity'.

There are numbers that exist beyond humans.

Before humans realized addition, the concept and potential of addition 'existed' abstractly.



posted on Jun, 18 2015 @ 08:02 PM
link   

originally posted by: Arbitrageur
No, according to Einstein, your ship can't travel at c because to do so would require infinite energy which is not possible.


Is it possible Einstein jumped the gun;

And there are fundamental 'fields/things' which intrinsically travel faster than C?


The concept was created in the sense that; Out of all the things we can detect, and know to exist, this seems to be the fastest; out of all the things we have detected, none of those things could travel faster than this.

Is it not possible there are things that have not been detected that travel faster than C?

And if so; what would be a reason why that thing would not travel 1.1 times faster than C, 1.5? 4x? 100x? 100000x?



posted on Jun, 18 2015 @ 08:04 PM
link   

originally posted by: Bedlam
a reply to: ImaFungi

A volume can be empty and still have dimension.

A point can exist and have no extension.


..I can fly having no wings. Where this came from? I am sorry you live in this kind of reality.


DO.
edit on 18-6-2015 by darkorange because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 18 2015 @ 08:10 PM
link   

originally posted by: Arbitrageur
Since it's virtually impossible to put an observer on a photon


In theoretical physics, to best express you understand fundamentality; you could humor any opponent, by considering their theoretical statement. This is not anything negative I am saying to you, more of a fun challenge, think of it as fun and potentially challenging, but potentially meaningful and rewarding.

Humor them. Imagine if there was an observer on a photon (whose body did not incinerate due to the acceleration... or yeah, right off that bat that is a false thought we would have to bend theory even more to consider the photon slowed down and then the observer climbing on like a ride about to begin; because a photon does not slow down, lets not bend theory to do that, but if you understand the fundamentalities you could do so for thought experiment sake, to lead you to the situation in which an observer thats body can withstand the speed (which again may lead to the meaning of the contradiction, but this is how you can show why) is riding a photon.

So even more difficult, an observer would have to lasso himself onto a photon that is already moving lightspeed, so he would be accelerated regardless (like jumping and grabbing onto a bullet train... though interestingly, it would be the impact of the train, not you accelerating...well that is interesting in general, because it is never just your acceleration that would cause body damage, because you are always your own inertial reference frame? it is always your body in relation to other physicality that damages the body?

Theoretically if your body was far away from any physicality, and your body just started accelerating up to light speed, would this have effect on your cells and organs? would your cells and organs independent gravity fields be exaggerated and effect one another, and effect the time it takes for blood to circulate, and information to be sent from cell to cell?

Anyway;

Somehow, an immortal observer, is saddled onto a photon;

Then under that circumstance, consider the notion of what your opponent is arguing, about 'the perception of time from a photons reference frame'.



posted on Jun, 18 2015 @ 08:10 PM
link   

originally posted by: ImaFungi
Does that express that order of operations is arbitrary?
It's a crutch for people that don't understand math. The real answer is in this video, which says the order of operations is just that, and is really irrelevant if you know math:

The Order of Operations is Wrong by MinutePhysics

The title says "wrong" but the video says something more along the lines of a crutch for the mathematically incompetent, and in a way it calls them meaningless.

It's never an issue with RPN calculators which use a stack, they will only ever provide one answer, because they force you to enter expressions in a meaningful way and not so ambiguously. You can get such calculator apps for a cell phone, but I've only seen boffin types use them.


originally posted by: ImaFungi
And there are fundamental 'fields/things' which intrinsically travel faster than C?
I never said anything can't travel faster than c, only that relativity forbids massive objects like space ships from traveling AT c.

People often say relativity forbids faster than light travel but this is based on an assumption that you can't go from less than the speed of light to more than the speed of light without crossing the impossible c barrier, which isn't an unreasonable assumption however it is an assumption. If something never traveled slower than c then it might be possible for it to go faster than c but searches for such tachyons have been unsuccessful and there are theoretical problems too.
edit on 18-6-2015 by Arbitrageur because: clarification



posted on Jun, 18 2015 @ 08:38 PM
link   

originally posted by: darkorange

originally posted by: Bedlam
a reply to: ImaFungi

A volume can be empty and still have dimension.

A point can exist and have no extension.


..I can fly having no wings. Where this came from? I am sorry you live in this kind of reality.


DO.


If I were on your point of understanding, at least what I would suggest is that there is some additional dimension that singularity escapes into. No?



posted on Jun, 18 2015 @ 08:38 PM
link   

originally posted by: darkorange
..I can fly having no wings. Where this came from? I am sorry you live in this kind of reality.


DO.


Like fungi, you have no grasp on geometry. What's the definition of a point?


Both of you trying to do this with English. So sad.



new topics

top topics



 
3
<< 2  3  4    6  7 >>

log in

join