Thought experiment with light.

a reply to: Arbitrageur

The redshift could be because of the galaxy spinning, and the gravity field rotating with the galaxy, and the light traveling in that rotating gravity groove? I suppose that is similar to the idea of lensing. But the interior effect version.

a reply to: ImaFungi
The galaxy spinning causes a slight blue shift on one side and a slight red shift on the other side, but the magnitude of both of these is far lower than cosmological redshift for distant galaxies, so that in effect both sides are red-shifted, with one side red-shifted slightly less than the other due to the rotation.

a reply to: ImaFungi

Your'e STILL attempting to think and understand properties of the world exclusively through linguistic syllogisms and unsubtle and naive notions of '=' and 'is'.

originally posted by: ImaFungi

originally posted by: Arbitrageur

originally posted by: ImaFungi
Would the same energy signature photon be measured differently because one would hit the detector as the detector was moving away from the photon

And one would hit the detector as the detector was moving toward the photon?

Take a monochromatic light source, measure the frequency (thus the energy) of the light, from a detector stationary with respect to the light. Move the detector toward the light source and the light appears blue-shifted (higher frequency thus higher energy) and move the detector away and the light appears red-shifted (thus lower energy).

So you said 'photon' loses energy over time (and space);

But the photon doesnt really lose energy, it is just that our detector is either moving slightly towards, or slightly away, at the moment of detection?

That's the point of relativity: what is energy in one inertial measurement frame must be transformed to say what would be observed in another.

What actual physics says: photons don't spontaneously lose energy, there is no resistivity of the vacuum to dissipate its energy. Therefore photons (collectively) lose energy only by interacting with something else according to the allowable interactions in the Standard Model.

Red and blueshifts as observed are illusions from different reference frames or space expanding, which is something different.

a reply to: anonentity

I've thought of the same question, and concluded that it only creates a perception the speed of light is being violated. For example, if you put two red and bright lights on the moon near both "edges" of the moon diameter, then you timed them to go off a tiny fraction of a second apart, it could appear to an observer that a blinking red light is traveling faster than the speed of light. But in fact all that happened was that the effect, or perception, traveled faster than the speed of light. However, it was two different lights, not a single photon of light traveling from one place to another.

"Things" can happen faster than the speed of light, so faster than it takes light to travel the distance between any two given points. However, things cannot *move* faster than the speed of light. So, things are happening faster than the time it would have taken for the photon to travel from one side of the moon to the other, but things are not *moving* faster than the time it takes for the photon to travel that distance.

So, the basic answer to your issue is that the laser line in is not a literal piece of geometry, but merely a human perception, and an effect.

But there is another way of looking at this too. Imagine a machine that swings so quickly that you manage to read one photon from one side of the moon, and the next photon sent from the laser beam (by incredible luck too) all the way on the other side of the moon. Well then in that setup the perception could actually be that time went backwards, because the first photon may have had to travel a much greater distance to go all the way there and back because of the differences in angles involved, so that you see the first-sent photon last and the later-sent photon first. What happening "faster than the speed of light" is nothing more than perception of faster than light.

originally posted by: mbkennel
a reply to: ImaFungi

Your'e STILL attempting to think and understand properties of the world exclusively through linguistic syllogisms and unsubtle and naive notions of '=' and 'is'.

You still fail to grasp that my saying the words; "geometry" and "math", includes everything you think I am failing to represent.

You fail to comprehend something so obvious and easy to grasp, you just need to try to consider what I am saying.

Respond to me that you are willing to listen to what I am saying, and witness how what I am saying makes sense, and then I will write how your criticism of me is unjustified.

Though I already did in this post.

My acknowledgement of what geometry and math is and are, voids the legitimacy of your critique.

Yeah, I use words to pose arguments and discuss reality. But I know what geometry and math is. I dont have to know the exact details of your math, to know that math is used to describe reality. And how anything that is not nothing has limits that are related to limits of pure geometry.

a reply to: mbkennel

You are trying from linear moment A to Z attempt to guess and check your description/model of your perception and experiment.

I am considering all of that, while also looking at the first page, and reading ahead, beyond A and beyond Z, to comprehend the ultimate limits. You want me to learn imperfect information. There are problems with the collective of human physics comprehension of the collective of realities physics. I do not want to become part of that problem. No, I do not have to like all others who are a part of the problem, download the complete collection of the problem and whats causing it. If it was true that I could possibly comprehend the problems and attempt to solve the problems with my mind as it is now, it would be true you may have reason to be ashamed or bothered by that. If it was true that I am able to speak with a smart and passionate theoretical physicist and straighten out conceptual problems in physics, it is true that you would be jealous and/or envious of me. You would treat me and approach me the way you have, if it was true that I was smart and capable. That you dedicated yourself to the proper way, and it is not solving problems, if I dedicated myself to a different way, and could solve problems thusly, there is reason that could bother you, I understand that.

originally posted by: mbkennel

Red and blueshifts as observed are illusions from different reference frames or space expanding, which is something different.

They can trade h-nu for gravitational potential energy, coming or going. Maybe there's an absolutely huge gravitational gradient we haven't noticed.

[tongueincheek]...or all the redshift is because the photons are trading off h-nu to the gravitational shadows of superimposed symmetric universes. Might as well take care of SUSY and dark matter too.
[/tongueincheek]

a reply to: ImaFungi


To our perception, the main stock in trade of the Universe are photons. An excited carbon atom, gives off a photon, with the spectral lines of carbon, the photon collides with an atom of hydrogen, which causes the electron to jump a shell, then as it teleports back to its original shell gives of a photon with the spectral line of hydrogen.

When the electron teleports from one shell to another. The speed of light, or its time locked state as far as the observer is concerned, is transferred to the electron. It must be that the photon has collided with the electron, and not the atom, because the photon has no polarity, to cause the negative electron, to jump further away from the atom. How then does the electron know to change, the photons signature to hydrogen? Unless its intelligent.

I just thought I'd throw that into the mix, because lets face it, the free electrons, cause our appliances to work , and can build up and be measured, but when its revolving around an atom, its in some sort of probability field, which seems indeterminate. The probability field created when its around the atom, must be the net it uses to collect photons?.

originally posted by: anonentity
How then does the electron know to change, the photons signature to hydrogen? Unless its intelligent.

Because think of different atoms in a simple way for example, analogy;


Think of 1 atom as = 1.

Think of another atom as = 5.


There is a real difference between the physical existent; 1 and 5 (as atoms...as numbers...as differences... as quantity, as quality)


Photon is photon is photon (or so is thought). (just like the notes A, B, C, D, E, F, G on a guitar string is; guitar string guitar string guitar string).


When photon collides with atom 1. and then leaves the atoms area after the collision; the photon has a signature of atom 1.

When the photon collides with atom 5, and then leaves the atoms area after the collision; the photon has a signature of atom 5.


Maybe there are some infintely weird truths about reality. Maybe there are all sorts of weird and unfathomable things that are fundamentally true. But if we re to be honest truth seekers, you must admit that the largest chance is that the source of your desire to claim 'intelligence is involved in the fundamental essence of reality' is an emotional desire of yours, stemming from your mind and imagination, something that might be cool, or weird, or fun, or comforting, or special, something that you may wish is true. I dont care a bout anything but the truth, I have no bias, I dont want to use the truth for anything, I just would like to know it, and carefully attempt to and approach knowing it. I can handle whatever the truth is, I am not scared or weirded out, I accept the truth, as weird as it may be. I have dedicated a lot of time and effort to attempting to continuously approach a comprehension of the possibilities of what the truth is, and I have not been confident enough to commit to belief, that fundamental substance of reality, 'is or has intelligence'. In my past 50 or so posts, I have said a lot of different arguments and thought experiments and paths of thought, which highlight many possibilities as to why I think this. There is only ever mind and not mind. If you admit at all not mind can exist, then there is no reason to assume that fundamental substance is not mind. If you are absolutely convinced not mind cannot exist, that only mind can exist, then you have A LOT! of explaining to do.

a reply to: ImaFungi

I've got to admit, I have no idea what the heck you're even trying to say anymore.
Photons are nothing like guitar strings, by the way. Terrible analogy.

originally posted by: admirethedistance
a reply to: ImaFungi

I've got to admit, I have no idea what the heck you're even trying to say anymore.
Photons are nothing like guitar strings, by the way. Terrible analogy.

Well, if they're not little yellow wooden balls, then maybe a guitar string is a nice substitute. But the question now is, gut, silk or steel, and plain or wrapped? Flat or round? It's an important question.

eta: He's progressing into the word salad or flights of ideas phase. He does that occasionally. You'll likely see some repetition shortly, as well. Just go with it. He'll stop in a few days, if the pattern holds, and be back to his normal charming self.

originally posted by: mbkennel
a reply to: ImaFungi

Your'e STILL attempting to think and understand properties of the world exclusively through linguistic syllogisms and unsubtle and naive notions of '=' and 'is'.

sorry to interfere,

But why is that wrong? You appeal to supposed complexity of the universe that is attainable only to those with special skills is meaningless. Scientists spend lifetime explaining to themselves the meaning of it all. World can and must be conceptualized so anyone curious can understand. Science did that in the past and will do it in a future, imo.





DO.

originally posted by: darkorange

But why is that wrong? You appeal to supposed complexity of the universe that is attainable only to those with special skills is meaningless. Scientists spend lifetime explaining to themselves the meaning of it all.

But typically, they're not trying to explain things to themselves by using English to the exclusion of math. Because it's a bad tool for that sort of work.

You can't even do high school level Newtonian mechanics that way.

World can and must be conceptualized so anyone curious can understand. Science did that in the past and will do it in a future, imo.

Maybe in 1200. But science has been using advanced math since before Newton. A lot of things just aren't easy to state in English, or really even possible, other than in really confusing analogies that don't really explain what's going on, unless you already have some grasp of the math. See also: convolution, curl, gradient, etc.

originally posted by: anonentity
a photon is "time locked" or time neutral with regards to the observer

No...))) To the observer it travels at 300,000 km/sec. It is not time locked.
The rest of your post has no meaning based on that premise.



DO.

originally posted by: Bedlam

originally posted by: darkorange

But why is that wrong? You appeal to supposed complexity of the universe that is attainable only to those with special skills is meaningless. Scientists spend lifetime explaining to themselves the meaning of it all.

But typically, they're not trying to explain things to themselves by using English to the exclusion of math. Because it's a bad tool for that sort of work.

You can't even do high school level Newtonian mechanics that way.

World can and must be conceptualized so anyone curious can understand. Science did that in the past and will do it in a future, imo.

Maybe in 1200. But science has been using advanced math since before Newton. A lot of things just aren't easy to state in English, or really even possible, other than in really confusing analogies that don't really explain what's going on, unless you already have some grasp of the math. See also: convolution, curl, gradient, etc.

Please, give me a break, advance human being. All of the above are easily understood and can be put in plain ol' English, for Christ sake.
2nd

DO.

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.

a reply to: darkorange

Yes it does travel at the speed of light . That's what makes it exit linear time. With the information it was emitted with, in the same condition, with no energy loss. The emitter could have emitted it 30 million years ago. At the speed of light as far as the observer goes, the photon, is time locked. Light does this, matter would turn into energy, but even so as matter speeds up, its time slows down as far as the observer is concerned. But the rest of the Universe has speeded up as far as the matter is concerned. 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.

originally posted by: admirethedistance
a reply to: ImaFungi

I've got to admit, I have no idea what the heck you're even trying to say anymore.
Photons are nothing like guitar strings, by the way. Terrible analogy.

I am smarter than you and know more than you. So it may feel good for you to attempt to attack me, but objectively this behavior is meaningless, purposeless, valueless (besides you feeling good about yourself); destructive, and is not attempting to be constructive in any way.

You mis comprehended the nature of the analogy. I was not saying they were anything like it, you silly dingus.

I was saying a photon is a photon. But amongst the hierarchy of Photon, there are different types of photon.

A guitar string is a guitar string, but amongst the hierarchy of Guitar string, there are different types of notes.

Your failure is not mine. you failed.

originally posted by: Bedlam


But typically, they're not trying to explain things to themselves by using English to the exclusion of math. Because it's a bad tool for that sort of work.

One plus one is two