Thought experiment with light.

a reply to: anonentity

Yes that would be the generally agreed state of things. But if the photon ring becomes an area of time lock. Then at some point it should disappear from the perspective of the observer. Like exit the observers time line?

But if time reverses when speed of light is broken then the proton would return to a time when it was travelling at the speed of light, so it shouldn't disappear, just appear to be travelling at the speed of light from our point of view. We couldn't see it pulsating through different time zones but perhaps the pulsation itself cause waves within the fabric of space-time which might help explain the particle-wave duality of light (aka double-slit experiment).

a reply to: new_here

thanks, I work with the mentally handicap so I like sharing rhymes with them,

originally posted by: glend
a reply to: anonentity

Yes that would be the generally agreed state of things. But if the photon ring becomes an area of time lock. Then at some point it should disappear from the perspective of the observer. Like exit the observers time line?

But if time reverses when speed of light is broken then the proton would return to a time when it was travelling at the speed of light, so it shouldn't disappear, just appear to be travelling at the speed of light from our point of view. We couldn't see it pulsating through different time zones but perhaps the pulsation itself cause waves within the fabric of space-time which might help explain the particle-wave duality of light (aka double-slit experiment).

The only way for the grandfather paradox, not to occur, would be a time shift to parallel Universes. Which anecdotally might occur under certain natural conditions already. The top brains in Physics, already hold the view that this is the nature of reality, this guy in particular seems to think its testable. phys.org...

originally posted by: anonentity

Whether its a beam or individual packets of energy , it doesn't matter, by moving the source, the packets, have now got a forward as well as a lateral motion.

No, they don't. Forward only.

perception vs reality. Ive done similar things to stop visual hallucinations i was getting. somehow photons were being formed into images and faces as i tried to sleep.

a reply to: Bedlam

You are probably right , you usually are. The angle they come out then is a forward lateral motion, (from the point of emission) . But forward according to its trajectory. So Its relative.

a reply to: sanitizedinfo

Were they photons or the memory of photons?. All the photons I perceive, by the time I perceive them, are no longer there, so my reality is composed of the memory of photons. Reality is a memory dump.

originally posted by: Bedlam


Not at all. At any instant, a photon leaving the source departs in a straight line. There IS no "beam of light" other than your perception

This brings to such an interesting point though. And I suppose this has to do perhaps with the nature of discrete and not.

If a source is creating light continuously, is that light not continuously attached?

Because, it has already been agreed that light is in no way like 'a baseball or bullet'.

If a light creation source, is not shooting out baseballs 1 by 1, it is shooting out 'squiggly lines'?

What is the length of the line? Like imagine it shooting out worms that wiggle. If the light source is continously vibrating, therefore continuously creating EM radiation wave, does it create 1 long wave?

Or it only creates 1 up and down at a time, and then it breaks off; So photons are always only 1 trough and crest?

originally posted by: ImaFungi

If a source is creating light continuously, is that light not continuously attached?

No.

Because, it has already been agreed that light is in no way like 'a baseball or bullet'.

Correct.

If a light creation source, is not shooting out baseballs 1 by 1, it is shooting out 'squiggly lines'?

No.

What is the length of the line? Like imagine it shooting out worms that wiggle. If the light source is continously vibrating, therefore continuously creating EM radiation wave, does it create 1 long wave?

There is no line. It doesn't 'wiggle'. The source isn't vibrating.

You have to differentiate "artist's concepts" from what's actually there. If you're going to interpret things by mental visualizations like you do, you're going to have to either visualize it properly (not easy) or understand what you're visualizing (wiggly lines) is a really bad representation of what's going on.

originally posted by: Bedlam


There is no line. It doesn't 'wiggle'. The source isn't vibrating.

You have to differentiate "artist's concepts" from what's actually there. If you're going to interpret things by mental visualizations like you do, you're going to have to either visualize it properly (not easy) or understand what you're visualizing (wiggly lines) is a really bad representation of what's going on.

I really shouldnt even be wasting my time asking you, because I have seen you make statements in relation to physics that express your ignorance and inability to conceptualize and know reality. You have a very caveman understanding of physics which you are proud of, but anyway.

If like is not like a ball.

And I say; is light there fore like a line that wiggles, and you say no?

When will you tell me what light is like?

Its like nothing, mannn, its like I dont even know what its like, so even if you say something right I wouldnt be able to say if thats right because I dont know, mannn.

Light cannot be created without a vibrating source, so again you have spoken a falsity.

The analogy of a line wiggling, is the analogy of a wave.

If it is nothing like a ball, it must be something like a line. There, you are immediately proven false.

If it is nothing like a ball, and nothing like a line, then it is nothing.

a reply to: ImaFungi

There isn't a facepalm big enough to illustrate this post.

All you need to do is simulate a magnetic field stong enough to bend light arount itself. Similar to the way the earth works creating an atmosphere and keeping us all in here moving at the same space time, you just need to duplicate that and then you can go to whatever time you like.

originally posted by: JUhrman


There isn't a facepalm big enough to illustrate this post.

Explain 1 reason why.

Quote 1 of the statements, and say what is invalid about it being stated.

If you cannot do this, then your post is what deserves the facepalm, and mine does not.

I hope you attempt to prove me wrong. I am confident you will be unable to, but I certainly hope you attempt.

originally posted by: FormOfTheLord
All you need to do is simulate a magnetic field stong enough to bend light arount itself. Similar to the way the earth works creating an atmosphere and keeping us all in here moving at the same space time, you just need to duplicate that and then you can go to whatever time you like.

A magnetic field is light.

originally posted by: ImaFungi

originally posted by: FormOfTheLord
All you need to do is simulate a magnetic field stong enough to bend light arount itself. Similar to the way the earth works creating an atmosphere and keeping us all in here moving at the same space time, you just need to duplicate that and then you can go to whatever time you like.

A magnetic field is light.

Umm ok a time machine would basically just spin light around you creating a magnetic field capable of its own time space.

a reply to: FormOfTheLord

Time machine is impossible. Only time travel that can be done is relative via a consciousness; Cryogenic freezing for instance. It is impossible to escape the continual flow of ultimate time. There can only be systems which move faster or slower compared to the average.

a reply to: ImaFungi

Your understanding of what light is is that of a teenager.

Your light analogy is the equivalent of the planetary model used to picture atoms (electrons "orbiting" around a nucleus). A simplified model used to teach children about concepts too complex for them.

Everything you post in this thread shows the same level of understand of physics. That of a child.

originally posted by: JUhrman
a reply to: ImaFungi

Your understanding of what light is is that of a teenager.

Your light analogy is the equivalent of the planetary model used to picture atoms (electrons "orbiting" around a nucleus). A simplified model used to teach children about concepts too complex for them.

Everything you post in this thread shows the same level of understand of physics. That of a child.

I do not know what light is, and I believe the person I was responding to does not know what light is (how it exists).

I offered possibilities, for him to choose from. I posed an argument that expresses how he does not know how light exists.

I am familiar with the models of light.

Bedlam has said; Light is never like a bullet/ball.

How is light then? There are only a handful of ways 'something' (especially fundamental something) can possibly exist in space (and time).

If not ever like a bullet/ball.

That narrows it down to some ideas.

I was trying to suggest the possible ways it would have to exist, if not like a bullet/ball.

How do you think light exists?

a reply to: Arbitrageur

How does a photon lose energy?

Is this purely based on the assumption of 'accelerating space creation'?

Or its thought a single physical photon, without its speed changes, has its wave function change?

originally posted by: ImaFungi

I really shouldnt even be wasting my time asking you, because I have seen you make statements in relation to physics that express your ignorance and inability to conceptualize and know reality.

Meaning, I understand it and don't have to visualize it to do so. Math: it is your friend.

If like is not like a ball.

And I say; is light there fore like a line that wiggles, and you say no?

When will you tell me what light is like?

It is a small wooden ball, typically painted yellow.

The reason you have to have a "what is it like" is because you can only deal with concepts verbally. That's not easy when it's something you will have difficulty visualizing or describing in high-school English. As you have had with light from day 1.

Light is like light. It's like other EM radiation.

Its like nothing, mannn, its like I dont even know what its like, so even if you say something right I wouldnt be able to say if thats right because I dont know, mannn.

It's a small wooden ball, painted yellow.

Light cannot be created without a vibrating source, so again you have spoken a falsity.

Wrong-o. When an electron makes an orbital transition that emits a photon, there is no 'vibrating source'.

The analogy of a line wiggling, is the analogy of a wave.

Map/territory. This is not a pipe.

If it is nothing like a ball, it must be something like a line. There, you are immediately proven false.

Must it? Perhaps this is your usual false dichotomy.

If it is nothing like a ball, and nothing like a line, then it is nothing.

Perhaps it's like itself.