Notices
Results 1 to 80 of 80
Like Tree8Likes
  • 1 Post By dan hunter
  • 1 Post By Strange
  • 1 Post By Strange
  • 1 Post By Strange
  • 1 Post By Strange
  • 1 Post By PhDemon
  • 1 Post By MagiMaster
  • 1 Post By exchemist

Thread: As it travels is a photon creating perpetual motion in the vacuum of space?

  1. #1 As it travels is a photon creating perpetual motion in the vacuum of space? 
    Forum Junior
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Posts
    215
    Observable or not, if the universe keeps expanding forever would a photon travel forever in the vacuum of space?


    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    17,036
    would a photon travel forever in the vacuum of space?
    It could (note: could rather than would). As long as it doesn't hit something. This is true, even if the universe is not expanding.

    (Also note: the phrase "perpetual motion" means something rather different and should probably be avoided.)


    ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3  
    Forum Junior
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Posts
    215
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    would a photon travel forever in the vacuum of space?
    It could (note: could rather than would). As long as it doesn't hit something. This is true, even if the universe is not expanding.

    (Also note: the phrase "perpetual motion" means something rather different and should probably be avoided.)
    If it is not perpetual motion what is it?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    17,036
    Quote Originally Posted by YangYin View Post
    If it is not perpetual motion what is it? [/FONT][/COLOR]
    [/SIZE]
    Movement that continues forever?

    The trouble is that "perpetual motion" has a specific meaning: "impossible machines that claim to create energy from nothing."
    ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Posts
    2,408
    Quote Originally Posted by YangYin View Post
    Observable or not, if the universe keeps expanding forever would a photon travel forever in the vacuum of space?
    There is an argument that, from their perspective, photons do not know time and are in effect every place at the same time. So if the argument is correct the photon never sees itself as traveling at all.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6  
    Forum Junior
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Posts
    215
    Quote Originally Posted by dan hunter View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by YangYin View Post
    Observable or not, if the universe keeps expanding forever would a photon travel forever in the vacuum of space?
    There is an argument that, from their perspective, photons do not know time and are in effect every place at the same time. So if the argument is correct the photon never sees itself as traveling at all.
    Wouldn’t that imply the environment is moving around it?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7  
    Forum Junior
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Posts
    215
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by YangYin View Post
    If it is not perpetual motion what is it? [/FONT][/COLOR]
    [/SIZE]
    Movement that continues forever?

    The trouble is that "perpetual motion" has a specific meaning: "impossible machines that claim to create energy from nothing."
    How does a movement continue forever?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    17,036
    Quote Originally Posted by YangYin View Post
    How does a movement continue forever?
    Huh? See post 1, for example.
    ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Posts
    2,408
    Quote Originally Posted by YangYin View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by dan hunter View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by YangYin View Post
    Observable or not, if the universe keeps expanding forever would a photon travel forever in the vacuum of space?
    There is an argument that, from their perspective, photons do not know time and are in effect every place at the same time. So if the argument is correct the photon never sees itself as traveling at all.
    Wouldn’t that imply the environment is moving around it?
    Not really. We see the photon as travelling rapidly through space instead of time but because the speed of light is a constant the photons sees itself as traveling almost entirely in time.
    Space to it would be about as imaginary as we find time to be. For a photon in its own referrence frame space might not even have dimensions, much like we can't easily imagine time as having dimensions.
    Last edited by dan hunter; February 26th, 2014 at 10:44 AM.
    samsmoot likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #10  
    Forum Junior
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Posts
    215
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by YangYin View Post
    How does a movement continue forever?
    Huh? See post 1, for example.
    Are you saying a wavelength’s motion is like the motion of a rotating planet if it were to be pushed from one galaxy to the next?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #11  
    Forum Junior
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Posts
    215
    Quote Originally Posted by dan hunter View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by YangYin View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by dan hunter View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by YangYin View Post
    Observable or not, if the universe keeps expanding forever would a photon travel forever in the vacuum of space?
    There is an argument that, from their perspective, photons do not know time and are in effect every place at the same time. So if the argument is correct the photon never sees itself as traveling at all.
    Wouldn’t that imply the environment is moving around it?
    Not really. We see the photon as travelling rapidly through space instead of time but because the speed of light is a constant the photons sees itself as traveling almost entirely in time.
    Space to it would be about as imaginary as we find time to be. For a photon in its own referrence frame space might not even have dimensions, much like we can't easily imagine time as having dimensions.
    What would happen if the expansion of space exceeds the speed of light?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #12  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    17,036
    Quote Originally Posted by YangYin View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by YangYin View Post
    How does a movement continue forever?
    Huh? See post 1, for example.
    Are you saying a wavelength’s motion is like the motion of a rotating planet if it were to be pushed from one galaxy to the next?
    WHat? Where did that come from? You were asking about a photon, what does a planet have to do with it? They are nothing like photons.
    ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #13  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    17,036
    Quote Originally Posted by YangYin View Post
    [SIZE=3 ][ COLOR=#333333][ FONT=Times New Roman]What would happen if the expansion of space exceeds the speed of light?[/FONT][/COLOR]
    [/SIZE]
    <sigh>

    Expansion isn't a speed. It is a proportional rate of increase of distance between two points. Therefore the relative speed between two point depends on how far apart they are. If that distance is large enough then there will be objects moving apart at greater than the speed of light.
    ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #14  
    Forum Junior
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Posts
    215
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by YangYin View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by YangYin View Post
    How does a movement continue forever?
    Huh? See post 1, for example.
    Are you saying a wavelength’s motion is like the motion of a rotating planet if it were to be pushed from one galaxy to the next?
    WHat? Where did that come from? You were asking about a photon, what does a planet have to do with it? They are nothing like photons.
    Is their motion of travel alike in the vacuum of space? Once in motion always in motion unless acted upon by another force.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #15  
    Forum Junior
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Posts
    215
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by YangYin View Post
    [SIZE=3 ][ COLOR=#333333][ FONT=Times New Roman]What would happen if the expansion of space exceeds the speed of light?[/FONT][/COLOR]
    [/SIZE]
    <sigh>

    Expansion isn't a speed. It is a proportional rate of increase of distance between two points. Therefore the relative speed between two point depends on how far apart they are. If that distance is large enough then there will be objects moving apart at greater than the speed of light.
    Would this affect light?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  17. #16  
    Forum Junior
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Posts
    215
    Quote Originally Posted by dan hunter View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by YangYin View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by dan hunter View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by YangYin View Post
    Observable or not, if the universe keeps expanding forever would a photon travel forever in the vacuum of space?
    There is an argument that, from their perspective, photons do not know time and are in effect every place at the same time. So if the argument is correct the photon never sees itself as traveling at all.
    Wouldn’t that imply the environment is moving around it?
    Not really. We see the photon as travelling rapidly through space instead of time but because the speed of light is a constant the photons sees itself as traveling almost entirely in time.
    Space to it would be about as imaginary as we find time to be. For a photon in its own referrence frame space might not even have dimensions, much like we can't easily imagine time as having dimensions.
    What about the light’s frequency, its internal motion?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  18. #17  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    17,036
    Quote Originally Posted by YangYin View Post
    Is their motion of travel alike in the vacuum of space? Once in motion always in motion unless acted upon by another force.[/FONT][/COLOR]
    [/SIZE]
    Yes.
    ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat
    Reply With Quote  
     

  19. #18  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    17,036
    Quote Originally Posted by YangYin View Post
    Would this affect light? [/FONT][/COLOR]
    [/SIZE]
    Well, it depends what you mean by "affect". There are parts of the universe that we can never see because they are beyond our "cosmological horizon"; i.e. space between us and them is expanding so rapidly that light from there will never reach us.
    samsmoot likes this.
    ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat
    Reply With Quote  
     

  20. #19  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    17,036
    Quote Originally Posted by YangYin View Post
    What about the light’s frequency, its internal motion? [/FONT][/COLOR]
    [/SIZE]
    The frequency depends who measures it: for example, whether they are in the same frame of reference or moving relative to the light.

    There is no "internal motion".
    ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat
    Reply With Quote  
     

  21. #20  
    Forum Junior
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Posts
    215
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by YangYin View Post
    What about the light’s frequency, its internal motion? [/FONT][/COLOR]
    [/SIZE]
    The frequency depends who measures it: for example, whether they are in the same frame of reference or moving relative to the light.

    There is no "internal motion".
    There is a cycle 90 degrees from its direction and which type of cycle is relative to the motion of the observer correct?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  22. #21  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    17,036
    Quote Originally Posted by YangYin View Post
    There is a cycle 90 degrees from its direction
    Yes. Or two cycles: the electric and magnetic field components of the wave.

    and which type of cycle is relative to the motion of the observer correct?
    I don't know what that means, I'm afraid. The frequency is observer dependent. What do you mean by "type"?
    ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat
    Reply With Quote  
     

  23. #22  
    Forum Junior
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Posts
    215
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by YangYin View Post
    There is a cycle 90 degrees from its direction
    Yes. Or two cycles: the electric and magnetic field components of the wave.

    and which type of cycle is relative to the motion of the observer correct?
    I don't know what that means, I'm afraid. The frequency is observer dependent. What do you mean by "type"?
    Sorry for late replies, not a good time of year for me and my allergies. The type referring to electric and magnetic,these two cycles being relative could suggest time acts different in accordance with velocity.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  24. #23  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    17,036
    Quote Originally Posted by YangYin View Post
    Sorry for late replies, not a good time of year for me and my allergies. The type referring to electric and magnetic,these two cycles being relative could suggest time acts different in accordance with velocity. [/FONT][/COLOR]
    [/SIZE]
    Yes, the frequency of these is dependent on the velocity of the observer (as described by the theory of relativity).
    ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat
    Reply With Quote  
     

  25. #24  
    Forum Junior
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Posts
    215
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by YangYin View Post
    Sorry for late replies, not a good time of year for me and my allergies. The type referring to electric and magnetic,these two cycles being relative could suggest time acts different in accordance with velocity. [/FONT][/COLOR]
    [/SIZE]
    Yes, the frequency of these is dependent on the velocity of the observer (as described by the theory of relativity).
    A wavelength being constant and changing relative to the velocity of the observer must show what happens to time as it speeds up and slows down. What does the observer see as they speed up electric or magnetic?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  26. #25  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    17,036
    Quote Originally Posted by YangYin View Post
    A wavelength being constant and changing relative to the velocity of the observer must show what happens to time as it speeds up and slows down. What does the observer see as they speed up electric or magnetic? [/FONT][/COLOR]
    [/SIZE]

    The wavelength changes inversely to the frequency (because the velocity of light is constant). The observer sees the light red or blue shift.
    ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat
    Reply With Quote  
     

  27. #26  
    Forum Junior
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Posts
    215
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by YangYin View Post
    A wavelength being constant and changing relative to the velocity of the observer must show what happens to time as it speeds up and slows down. What does the observer see as they speed up electric or magnetic? [/FONT][/COLOR]
    [/SIZE]

    The wavelength changes inversely to the frequency (because the velocity of light is constant). The observer sees the light red or blue shift.
    Can it be said the red or the blue shift is favoring electric or magnetic?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  28. #27  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    17,036
    Quote Originally Posted by YangYin View Post
    Can it be said the red or the blue shift is favoring electric or magnetic?[/FONT][/COLOR]
    [/SIZE]
    No the electric and magnetic fields have a constant relationship (they have to).
    ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat
    Reply With Quote  
     

  29. #28  
    Forum Junior
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Posts
    215
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by YangYin View Post
    Can it be said the red or the blue shift is favoring electric or magnetic?[/FONT][/COLOR]
    [/SIZE]
    No the electric and magnetic fields have a constant relationship (they have to).
    Then what does relativity have to do with the observers velocity when comes to observing an electric or magnetic field in a wavelength?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  30. #29  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    17,036
    Quote Originally Posted by YangYin View Post
    Then what does relativity have to do with the observers velocity when comes to observing an electric or magnetic field in a wavelength? [/FONT][/COLOR]
    [/SIZE]
    The relative velocity changes the observed frequency/wavelength/energy. And, more generally, gravitational fields will do the same.

    There are two velocity-related effects here: Doppler, which will change depending on whether you are moving toward or away from the source, and relativity, which is independent of direction of movement.
    ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat
    Reply With Quote  
     

  31. #30  
    Forum Junior
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Posts
    215
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by YangYin View Post
    Then what does relativity have to do with the observers velocity when comes to observing an electric or magnetic field in a wavelength? [/FONT][/COLOR]
    [/SIZE]
    The relative velocity changes the observed frequency/wavelength/energy. And, more generally, gravitational fields will do the same.

    There are two velocity-related effects here: Doppler, which will change depending on whether you are moving toward or away from the source, and relativity, which is independent of direction of movement.
    So if I wanted to see a wavelength’s electric cycle or its magnetic cycle what would I have to do?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  32. #31  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    17,036
    Quote Originally Posted by YangYin View Post
    So if I wanted to see a wavelength’s electric cycle or its magnetic cycle what would I have to do? [/FONT][/COLOR]
    [/SIZE]
    I don't think there is any way of observing these "directly" (but I may be wrong). But that depends what you mean by "see". Every aspect of light is a result of these cycles.

    You can measure the wavelength fairly directly:
    Measure the speed of light using chocolate
    ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat
    Reply With Quote  
     

  33. #32  
    Forum Junior
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Posts
    215
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by YangYin View Post
    So if I wanted to see a wavelength’s electric cycle or its magnetic cycle what would I have to do? [/FONT][/COLOR]
    [/SIZE]
    I don't think there is any way of observing these "directly" (but I may be wrong). But that depends what you mean by "see". Every aspect of light is a result of these cycles.

    You can measure the wavelength fairly directly:
    Measure the speed of light using chocolate
    The problem I have with wavelengths is in a vacuum they need to conform to the constant speed of light much like falling object have to conform to the mass of both objects until a rest mass is achieved. To me this means something other than the source of the wavelength itself is responsible for some of its continuous motion in the vacuum of space. The term constant for something that must travel through time is not constant unless it is referring to the frame of time itself. The vacuum of space cannot be constant or instantaneous if it is allowed to expand or contract. To me the answer must be in the timeframe and the expansion of space.

    Reply With Quote  
     

  34. #33  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    17,036
    Quote Originally Posted by YangYin View Post
    The problem I have with wavelengths is in a vacuum they need to conform to the constant speed of light much like falling object have to conform to the mass of both objects until a rest mass is achieved. To me this means something other than the source of the wavelength itself is responsible for some of its continuous motion in the vacuum of space. The term constant for something that must travel through time is not constant unless it is referring to the frame of time itself. The vacuum of space cannot be constant or instantaneous if it is allowed to expand or contract. To me the answer must be in the timeframe and the expansion of space. [/FONT][/COLOR]

    [/SIZE]
    I have no idea what that means. I can't believe you think it makes sense.
    PhDemon likes this.
    ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat
    Reply With Quote  
     

  35. #34  
    Forum Junior
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Posts
    215
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by YangYin View Post
    The problem I have with wavelengths is in a vacuum they need to conform to the constant speed of light much like falling object have to conform to the mass of both objects until a rest mass is achieved. To me this means something other than the source of the wavelength itself is responsible for some of its continuous motion in the vacuum of space. The term constant for something that must travel through time is not constant unless it is referring to the frame of time itself. The vacuum of space cannot be constant or instantaneous if it is allowed to expand or contract. To me the answer must be in the timeframe and the expansion of space. [/FONT][/COLOR]

    [/SIZE]
    I have no idea what that means. I can't believe you think it makes sense.
    Do all wavelengths that are not in the vacuum of space travel at the same speed?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  36. #35  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    17,036
    Quote Originally Posted by YangYin View Post
    Do all wavelengths that are not in the vacuum of space travel at the same speed? [/FONT][/COLOR]
    [/SIZE]
    Assuming you are talking about electromagnetic radiation, then the speed depends on the medium. All wavelengths travel at the same speed in a vacuum, the speed in a medium can vary with wavelength. That is why a prism creates a spectrum, for example.
    ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat
    Reply With Quote  
     

  37. #36  
    Forum Junior
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Posts
    215
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by YangYin View Post
    Do all wavelengths that are not in the vacuum of space travel at the same speed? [/FONT][/COLOR]
    [/SIZE]
    Assuming you are talking about electromagnetic radiation, then the speed depends on the medium. All wavelengths travel at the same speed in a vacuum, the speed in a medium can vary with wavelength. That is why a prism creates a spectrum, for example.
    What about gravity?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  38. #37  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    17,036
    Quote Originally Posted by YangYin View Post
    What about gravity?[/SIZE]
    What about it? It always travels at the speed of light. As it doesn't interact with electrons in that same way that light does (because it is not electromagnetic), it is not slowed by passing through a medium.
    ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat
    Reply With Quote  
     

  39. #38  
    Forum Junior
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Posts
    215
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by YangYin View Post
    What about gravity?[/SIZE]
    What about it? It always travels at the speed of light. As it doesn't interact with electrons in that same way that light does (because it is not electromagnetic), it is not slowed by passing through a medium.
    Does gravity change wavelengths?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  40. #39  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    17,036
    Quote Originally Posted by YangYin View Post
    Does gravity change wavelengths?[/FONT][/COLOR][/SIZE]
    Gravity itself doesn't have a wavelength. But, as far as I know, nothing will change the wavelength of gravitational waves.

    Except, of course, the expansion of space. If the source of gravitational waves is sufficiently far away, then the wavelength will be increased by the same amount that light is red-shifted.
    ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat
    Reply With Quote  
     

  41. #40  
    Forum Junior
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Posts
    215
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by YangYin View Post
    What about gravity?[/SIZE]
    What about it? It always travels at the speed of light. As it doesn't interact with electrons in that same way that light does (because it is not electromagnetic), it is not slowed by passing through a medium.
    Are you saying gravity travels at the speed of light? I THOUGHT GRAVITY WAS INSTANTANOUS.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  42. #41  
    Forum Junior
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Posts
    215
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by YangYin View Post
    Does gravity change wavelengths?[/FONT][/COLOR][/SIZE]
    Gravity itself doesn't have a wavelength. But, as far as I know, nothing will change the wavelength of gravitational waves.

    Except, of course, the expansion of space. If the source of gravitational waves is sufficiently far away, then the wavelength will be increased by the same amount that light is red-shifted.
    Are you talking about wave-time dilation?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  43. #42  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    17,036
    Quote Originally Posted by YangYin View Post
    Are you saying gravity travels at the speed of light? [/FONT][/COLOR]
    [/SIZE]
    Yes.

    I THOUGHT GRAVITY WAS INSTANTANOUS.
    So did Isaac Newton.
    ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat
    Reply With Quote  
     

  44. #43  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    17,036
    Quote Originally Posted by YangYin View Post
    Are you talking about wave-time dilation? [/FONT][/COLOR]
    Not sure what you mean by "wave-time dilation", but yes: time dilation. This affects everything.
    ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat
    Reply With Quote  
     

  45. #44  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    7,302
    Quote Originally Posted by YangYin View Post
    Are you saying gravity travels at the speed of light? I THOUGHT GRAVITY WAS INSTANTANOUS.
    It is changes in the gravitational field that travel at the speed of light. Static fields on the other hand act instantaneously.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  46. #45  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    17,036
    Quote Originally Posted by Markus Hanke View Post
    It is changes in the gravitational field that travel at the speed of light. Static fields on the other hand act instantaneously.
    But what does it mean for a static field to act instantaneously? If it is static, nothing is changing so where does time come into it?
    KJW likes this.
    ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat
    Reply With Quote  
     

  47. #46  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    7,302
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    But what does it mean for a static field to act instantaneously? If it is static, nothing is changing so where does time come into it?
    Remember that what we call "gravitational fields" does not really exist in GR; all we have is space-time, which is endowed with a metric ( and a connection, but ignore that for now ), and that metric determines the geometry of geodesics along which freely falling objects move. Once this geometry has been established ( which happens at the speed of light - changes in gravity ), no further information exchange is necessary.

    Think about two travellers starting off at separate points along the equator on earth, moving north. Do these travellers need to exchange information in any form between themselves or themselves and the Earth to tell them that they need to move along great circles, or to tell them that they approach each other as the near the North Pole ? No, of course not. The curvature of the earth's surface is static and unchanging, and the travellers merely follow the geodesics determined by that geometry. Same in space-time - static fields act instantaneously because no information exchange is necessary for test particles to experience relative acceleration as they propagate through such space-times. They simply follow a static geodesic, the geometry of which just so happens to differ from a fiducial geodesic in flat space-time.

    Time comes into this in that you need space-time to consistently describe this scenario. In fact, it is the curvature in the time-like direction which is what we usually interpret as everyday gravity.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  48. #47  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    17,036
    So it seems to me that nothing happens instantaneously; it is more accurate to say that nothing happens (at least in regard to any interaction between the source of space-time curvature and the test particle). It just is.

    I am just worried that the "instantaneous" description could mislead people (as does "spooky action at a distance"). Which is why I didn't mention it in my answer to YangYin.
    Markus Hanke likes this.
    ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat
    Reply With Quote  
     

  49. #48  
    Forum Junior
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Posts
    215
    Quote Originally Posted by Markus Hanke View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    But what does it mean for a static field to act instantaneously? If it is static, nothing is changing so where does time come into it?
    Remember that what we call "gravitational fields" does not really exist in GR; all we have is space-time, which is endowed with a metric ( and a connection, but ignore that for now ), and that metric determines the geometry of geodesics along which freely falling objects move. Once this geometry has been established ( which happens at the speed of light - changes in gravity ), no further information exchange is necessary.

    Think about two travellers starting off at separate points along the equator on earth, moving north. Do these travellers need to exchange information in any form between themselves or themselves and the Earth to tell them that they need to move along great circles, or to tell them that they approach each other as the near the North Pole ? No, of course not. The curvature of the earth's surface is static and unchanging, and the travellers merely follow the geodesics determined by that geometry. Same in space-time - static fields act instantaneously because no information exchange is necessary for test particles to experience relative acceleration as they propagate through such space-times. They simply follow a static geodesic, the geometry of which just so happens to differ from a fiducial geodesic in flat space-time.

    Time comes into this in that you need space-time to consistently describe this scenario. In fact, it is the curvature in the time-like direction which is what we usually interpret as everyday gravity.
    In that description it does not seem too farfetched to suggest a wavelength in creating its cycle is traveling on the inside of a sphere against the sphere’s rotation as it quantifies (the electric cycle). The electric cycle quantifies as it makes a loop on the inside of the sphere. The sphere is collapsing which makes the electric cycle act like an eccentric orbit. Once the electric cycle makes a loop and quantifies it succumbs to the rotation of the collapsing sphere which it then enters the magnetic cycle. The magnetic cycle is the sphere as it continues to collapse. The axis of the sphere collapse first then the equator. The energy of the axis collapse and expansion syncs up with the equator’s collapse and expansion channeling the energy as it expands into the next collapsing rotating sphere, each new sphere containing more metric volume than the one before adding enough energy to repeat the cycle. It is not constant if it is not instantaneous,or if it has to travel. The speed of light is constant because each moment in time repeats at the same speed which just happens to be the speed of light. You cannot travel faster than one moment will allow without creating mass (entanglement). The first to create this entanglement in the evolution of matter is the electron not quarks. In a closed system it is farfetched, not in an open system.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  50. #49  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    17,036
    Quote Originally Posted by YangYin View Post
    [In that description it does not seem too farfetched ...
    It seems very far-fetched:

    1. I can't relate anything in your words to anything that Markus said.

    2. Markus was talking about gravitation and the curvature of space-time; nothing to do with electromagnetic radiation.

    You appear to have invented a lot of irrelevant nonsense.
    ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat
    Reply With Quote  
     

  51. #50  
    Forum Junior
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Posts
    215
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by YangYin View Post
    [In that description it does not seem too farfetched ...
    It seems very far-fetched:

    1. I can't relate anything in your words to anything that Markus said.

    2. Markus was talking about gravitation and the curvature of space-time; nothing to do with electromagnetic radiation.

    You appear to have invented a lot of irrelevant nonsense.
    Electromagnetic radiation is the point. A rotating planet traveling through space from one galaxy to the next is different than a wavelength. A planet once in motion always in motion will freeze as it departs from a heat source. Planets with enough mass will still have weight force to maintain some internal heat which will dissipate towards the surface which may cease the movement of all molecules. A wavelength has no mass so it has no weight force to produce internal energy. A wavelength for billions of light years produces electromagnetic radiation and may forever as long as space expands forever. It is called cause and effect which is forever lacking in a closed system. It is said the BB breaks downpre-BB and seconds after. What breaks down is a closed system not an open system. To create billions of years of electromagnetic radiation deserves more of an explanation of once in motion always in motion.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  52. #51  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    17,036
    Quote Originally Posted by YangYin View Post
    Electromagnetic radiation is the point.
    That is what I thought.

    A rotating planet traveling through space from one galaxy to the next is different than a wavelength.
    A rotating planet has nothing to do with electromagnetic radiation.

    A planet once in motion always in motion will freeze as it departs from a heat source.
    That may (but isn't necessarily true) but has nothing to do with electromagnetic radiation.

    Planets with enough mass will still have weight force to maintain some internal heat which will dissipate towards the surface which may cease the movement of all molecules.
    Why would internal heat cause movement of all molecules to cease? Not that that can never happen anyway. But, also, this has nothing to do with electromagnetic radiation.

    Why are you talking about planets? This has NOTHING to do with electromagnetic radiation. Planets are not radiation. Photons are not planets. They have nothing in common. Nothing. (Do you begin to see the point?)

    A wavelength has no mass so it has no weight force to produce internal energy.
    A wavelength is a distance. Like 1nm or 200 miles. Of course a length has no weight and produces no energy.

    A wavelength for billions of light years produces electromagnetic radiation
    No it doesn't. As you have just said, a wavelength does not produce energy. Electromagentic radiation is a form of energy and therefore it is not produced by a wavelength.

    It is called cause and effect which is forever lacking in a closed system.
    It is called nonsense. You are just putting words together in a way that makes no sense. And I don't think this is a language problem. You need to think very carefully about what you are trying to say. Because it is meaningless.

    It is said the BB breaks downpre-BB and seconds after. What breaks down is a closed system not an open system. To create billions of years of electromagnetic radiation deserves more of an explanation of once in motion always in motion.
    I have no idea what you think you are saying.

    You seem to think that electromagnetic radiation, or a photon, needs a continuous source of energy in order to keep moving. This is quite obviously wrong.
    ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat
    Reply With Quote  
     

  53. #52  
    Forum Junior
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Posts
    215
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by YangYin View Post
    Electromagnetic radiation is the point.
    That is what I thought.

    A rotating planet traveling through space from one galaxy to the next is different than a wavelength.
    A rotating planet has nothing to do with electromagnetic radiation.

    A planet once in motion always in motion will freeze as it departs from a heat source.
    That may (but isn't necessarily true) but has nothing to do with electromagnetic radiation.

    Planets with enough mass will still have weight force to maintain some internal heat which will dissipate towards the surface which may cease the movement of all molecules.
    Why would internal heat cause movement of all molecules to cease? Not that that can never happen anyway. But, also, this has nothing to do with electromagnetic radiation.

    Why are you talking about planets? This has NOTHING to do with electromagnetic radiation. Planets are not radiation. Photons are not planets. They have nothing in common. Nothing. (Do you begin to see the point?)

    A wavelength has no mass so it has no weight force to produce internal energy.
    A wavelength is a distance. Like 1nm or 200 miles. Of course a length has no weight and produces no energy.

    A wavelength for billions of light years produces electromagnetic radiation
    No it doesn't. As you have just said, a wavelength does not produce energy. Electromagentic radiation is a form of energy and therefore it is not produced by a wavelength.

    It is called cause and effect which is forever lacking in a closed system.
    It is called nonsense. You are just putting words together in a way that makes no sense. And I don't think this is a language problem. You need to think very carefully about what you are trying to say. Because it is meaningless.

    It is said the BB breaks downpre-BB and seconds after. What breaks down is a closed system not an open system. To create billions of years of electromagnetic radiation deserves more of an explanation of once in motion always in motion.
    I have no idea what you think you are saying.

    You seem to think that electromagnetic radiation, or a photon, needs a continuous source of energy in order to keep moving. This is quite obviously wrong.
    Molecules cease to move in zero K, and yes I agree the movement of planets through space is different than the movement of wavelengths in space. The movement of mass and zero mass through space are different. Mass has the ability to alter the prospective of time whereas the prospective of how a wavelength travels through space is relative to time. The effects of time is relatively different when it comes to mass and zero mass.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  54. #53  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    17,036
    Quote Originally Posted by YangYin View Post
    Molecules cease to move in zero K
    True in principle. And this is related to the fact that it is impossible to reach 0K. But what connection does this have with the subject of this thread?

    and yes I agree the movement of planets through space is different than the movement of wavelengths in space.
    Then why start talking about planets?

    The movement of mass and zero mass through space are different.
    Yes, mass can travel at any speed less than c, but massless particles must always travel at c.

    Mass has the ability to alter the prospective of time whereas the prospective of how a wavelength travels through space is relative to time. The effects of time is relatively different when it comes to mass and zero mass.
    And you are back to gibberish. That means nothing.
    ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat
    Reply With Quote  
     

  55. #54  
    Forum Junior
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Posts
    215
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by YangYin View Post
    Molecules cease to move in zero K
    True in principle. And this is related to the fact that it is impossible to reach 0K. But what connection does this have with the subject of this thread?

    and yes I agree the movement of planets through space is different than the movement of wavelengths in space.
    Then why start talking about planets?

    The movement of mass and zero mass through space are different.
    Yes, mass can travel at any speed less than c, but massless particles must always travel at c.

    Mass has the ability to alter the prospective of time whereas the prospective of how a wavelength travels through space is relative to time. The effects of time is relatively different when it comes to mass and zero mass.
    And you are back to gibberish. That means nothing.
    I started talking about planets to show if they were to move from one galaxy to the next they would follow thermal dynamics and would freeze as they got further away from a heat source unless they had an internal heat source. Also, planets unlike wavelengths would follow; once in motion always in motion. Wavelengths all traveling at C and different events happening when observed at different speeds is significant. How much energy loss does a wavelength have as it travels through space? At what rate does light dissipate? At what rate does gravity dissipate?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  56. #55  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    17,036
    Quote Originally Posted by YangYin View Post
    I started talking about planets to show if they were to move from one galaxy to the next they would follow thermal dynamics and would freeze as they got further away from a heat source unless they had an internal heat source.
    Obviously, if you stp providing heat to an object, it will cool down. Basic thermodynamics. I still don't see any connection with the rest of this thread.

    Also, planets unlike wavelengths would follow; once in motion always in motion.
    That is something both planets and photons have in common: they will continue in a straight line until they are acted upon by some external force.

    Wavelengths all traveling at C and different events happening when observed at different speeds is significant.
    I'm not sure what that means. And I don't know what you think is significant about it.

    How much energy loss does a wavelength have as it travels through space?
    None.

    At what rate does light dissipate?
    It doesn't. (Unless you are thinking of the inverse square law? But I thought you were talking about photons, so that is irrelevant.)

    At what rate does gravity dissipate?
    Again, are thinking of the inverse square law? It is hard to follow your line of thought when you jump around between unconnected ideas so much.
    ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat
    Reply With Quote  
     

  57. #56  
    Forum Junior
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Posts
    215
    I believe wavelengths reveal a lot about the dynamics of this universe. Both wavelengths and gravity following the inverse square law means they are both acting along the same lines as thermal dynamics. Wavelengths all traveling at C in space reveal the nature of wavelengths and of space. If C is the fastest that can be traveled then C defines how fast an actual moment is which may also follow the inverse square law. A wavelength with zero mass has almost no energy loss as it travels through space and could do so as long as space exists whereas a planet sized mass would need an internal heat source to maintain an energy level but not so, on an atomic level. I mention both planet and wavelength because I believe in order to maintain an energy level for such a long period of time both need either an internal energy supply or an external energy supply. A wavelength with zero mass would need an external source. I believe the source to be a balance created by a wavelength between the expansion of space and the collapsing of time (dimensional).
    Reply With Quote  
     

  58. #57  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    7,302
    Both wavelengths and gravity following the inverse square law
    Gravity doesn't really follow the inverse square law, that is true only for the Newtonian approximation. The full theory ( General Relativity ) is highly non-linear, and doesn't follow any simple relationship.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  59. #58  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    17,036
    Quote Originally Posted by YangYin View Post
    I believe wavelengths reveal a lot about the dynamics of this universe.
    I assume when you say "wavelengths" you mean electromagnetic radiation? Because, obviously, sound has a wavelength, ripples on a pond have a wavelength, the vibrations in a violin string have a wavelength.

    Both wavelengths and gravity following the inverse square law means they are both acting along the same lines as thermal dynamics.
    If by "wavelengths following the inverse square law" you are referring to the brightness of a light source; this is of course only true for light that is radiated evenly in all directions. And the inverse square law is just a consequence of geometry: the light falls on a sphere at any given distance. The surface area of the sphere increases with the square of the radius, therefore the amount of light per unit area falls of with the inverse of the square of the radius.

    The same is true of sound, for the same reason.

    I don't know what you mean by "thermal dynamics".

    Wavelengths all traveling at C in space reveal the nature of wavelengths and of space.
    If by "wavelengths" you mean electromagnetic radiation, then, yes, this is the basis of relativity.

    If C is the fastest that can be traveled then C defines how fast an actual moment is which may also follow the inverse square law.
    I have no idea what that means.

    A wavelength with zero mass has almost no energy loss as it travels through space and could do so as long as space exists whereas a planet sized mass would need an internal heat source to maintain an energy level but not so, on an atomic level. I mention both planet and wavelength because I believe in order to maintain an energy level for such a long period of time both need either an internal energy supply or an external energy supply. A wavelength with zero mass would need an external source. I believe the source to be a balance created by a wavelength between the expansion of space and the collapsing of time (dimensional).
    And you are back to nonsense.

    I guess you can "believe" whatever you want. But you should realise it has no basis in reality and makes no sense.
    ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat
    Reply With Quote  
     

  60. #59  
    Forum Junior
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Posts
    215
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by YangYin View Post
    I believe wavelengths reveal a lot about the dynamics of this universe.
    I assume when you say "wavelengths" you mean electromagnetic radiation? Because, obviously, sound has a wavelength, ripples on a pond have a wavelength, the vibrations in a violin string have a wavelength.

    Both wavelengths and gravity following the inverse square law means they are both acting along the same lines as thermal dynamics.
    If by "wavelengths following the inverse square law" you are referring to the brightness of a light source; this is of course only true for light that is radiated evenly in all directions. And the inverse square law is just a consequence of geometry: the light falls on a sphere at any given distance. The surface area of the sphere increases with the square of the radius, therefore the amount of light per unit area falls of with the inverse of the square of the radius.

    The same is true of sound, for the same reason.

    I don't know what you mean by "thermal dynamics".

    Wavelengths all traveling at C in space reveal the nature of wavelengths and of space.
    If by "wavelengths" you mean electromagnetic radiation, then, yes, this is the basis of relativity.

    If C is the fastest that can be traveled then C defines how fast an actual moment is which may also follow the inverse square law.
    I have no idea what that means.

    A wavelength with zero mass has almost no energy loss as it travels through space and could do so as long as space exists whereas a planet sized mass would need an internal heat source to maintain an energy level but not so, on an atomic level. I mention both planet and wavelength because I believe in order to maintain an energy level for such a long period of time both need either an internal energy supply or an external energy supply. A wavelength with zero mass would need an external source. I believe the source to be a balance created by a wavelength between the expansion of space and the collapsing of time (dimensional).
    And you are back to nonsense.

    I guess you can "believe" whatever you want. But you should realise it has no basis in reality and makes no sense.
    All things happen or take up space for a reason. If you are looking for a common reason common patterns become clues. A rate of dissipation or inverse square law, or how time speeds up at greater distances from a black hole is a common pattern. Geometry does not explain everything; the dynamics that creates the geometry is needed. What else would define how fast a moment is other than the constant speed of light?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  61. #60  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    17,036
    I'll reply when you have something vaguely intelligent or meaningful to say.
    ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat
    Reply With Quote  
     

  62. #61  
    Forum Junior
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Posts
    215
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    I'll reply when you have something vaguely intelligent or meaningful to say.
    How fast is a moment?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  63. #62  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    17,036
    Quote Originally Posted by YangYin View Post
    How fast is a moment?
    I have no idea what that means. A moment is an informal term for an arbitrary short period of time. Depending on the context it could be a second, 20 minutes or a couple of hours. None of which are speeds, so "fast" in relative to a period of time is meaningless.
    ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat
    Reply With Quote  
     

  64. #63  
    Bullshit Intolerant PhDemon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Newcastle-upon-Tyne, UK
    Posts
    5,456
    How long is a kilogram?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  65. #64  
    Forum Junior
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Posts
    215
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by YangYin View Post
    How fast is a moment?
    I have no idea what that means. A moment is an informal term for an arbitrary short period of time. Depending on the context it could be a second, 20 minutes or a couple of hours. None of which are speeds, so "fast" in relative to a period of time is meaningless.
    What is the shortest period of time that can be measured? What is a moment at rest?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  66. #65  
    Forum Junior
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Posts
    215
    Quote Originally Posted by PhDemon View Post
    How long is a kilogram?
    A kilogram of what and how is it dispersing its energy or maintain it?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  67. #66  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    17,036
    Quote Originally Posted by YangYin View Post
    What is the shortest period of time that can be measured?
    This is a question of technology: What is the fastest event (shortest time duration) that can be measured with today's technology, and how is this done? - Scientific American

    What is a moment at rest?
    What is a colourless green idea sleeping furiously?
    ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat
    Reply With Quote  
     

  68. #67  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    17,036
    Quote Originally Posted by YangYin View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by PhDemon View Post
    How long is a kilogram?
    A kilogram of what and how is it dispersing its energy or maintain it?
    I think you have missed the point: a kilogram is not a measure of length, and a "moment" is not a measure of speed.
    Dimensional analysis - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat
    Reply With Quote  
     

  69. #68  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope MagiMaster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    3,440
    Quote Originally Posted by YangYin View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by PhDemon View Post
    How long is a kilogram?
    A kilogram of what and how is it dispersing its energy or maintain it?
    Not usually one for image macros, but...
    PhDemon likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  70. #69  
    Forum Junior
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Posts
    215
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by YangYin View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by PhDemon View Post
    How long is a kilogram?
    A kilogram of what and how is it dispersing its energy or maintain it?
    I think you have missed the point: a kilogram is not a measure of length, and a "moment" is not a measure of speed.
    Dimensional analysis - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    If the capabilities were present could a moment be divided infinitely and each moment still related to the speed of light?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  71. #70  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    17,036
    Quote Originally Posted by YangYin View Post
    If the capabilities were present could a moment be divided infinitely
    Please stop (mis)using the word "moment". The question is: is time quantised? The answer is: we don't know. In general relativity, definitely not. But there are some attempts to build theories of quantum gravity where it is (causal dynamical triangulation, loop quantum gravity,etc) and others where it isn't (e.g. string theory).

    In other words: we don't know.

    and each moment still related to the speed of light?
    That still doesn't make any sense. A moment is a measure of TIME; the speed of light is a measure of SPEED. I'm not sure how you are trying to equate them.
    Dimensional analysis - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat
    Reply With Quote  
     

  72. #71  
    exchemist
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    London
    Posts
    3,413
    Quote Originally Posted by YangYin View Post
    I believe wavelengths reveal a lot about the dynamics of this universe. Both wavelengths and gravity following the inverse square law means they are both acting along the same lines as thermal dynamics. Wavelengths all traveling at C in space reveal the nature of wavelengths and of space. If C is the fastest that can be traveled then C defines how fast an actual moment is which may also follow the inverse square law. A wavelength with zero mass has almost no energy loss as it travels through space and could do so as long as space exists whereas a planet sized mass would need an internal heat source to maintain an energy level but not so, on an atomic level. I mention both planet and wavelength because I believe in order to maintain an energy level for such a long period of time both need either an internal energy supply or an external energy supply. A wavelength with zero mass would need an external source. I believe the source to be a balance created by a wavelength between the expansion of space and the collapsing of time (dimensional).
    This is gibberish, of course. My guess is you are either writing from a mental institution or you are a troll.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  73. #72  
    Bullshit Intolerant PhDemon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Newcastle-upon-Tyne, UK
    Posts
    5,456
    Sadly I think Yangyin thinks he is making sense. Just another guy who has found it easier to make stuff up than study properly... There have been a number of unfavourable comparisons to bags of hammers and boxes of rocks but the gibberish keeps coming
    Reply With Quote  
     

  74. #73  
    exchemist
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    London
    Posts
    3,413
    Quote Originally Posted by PhDemon View Post
    Sadly I think Yangyin thinks he is making sense. Just another guy who has found it easier to make stuff up than study properly... There have been a number of unfavourable comparisons to bags of hammers and boxes of rocks but the gibberish keeps coming
    This is more than just lack of education. It is on a par with: "So she went into the garden, to cut a cabbage leaf, to make an apple pie. Just then a great she bear popped her head into a corner of the shop and said "What? No soap"" So he died. And she very intelligently married the barber. etc.

    Toodle-oo, I'm a teapot.
    Cogito Ergo Sum likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  75. #74  
    Bullshit Intolerant PhDemon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Newcastle-upon-Tyne, UK
    Posts
    5,456
    You know that, I know that, Strange and the Duck know that Yangyin missed the memo...
    Reply With Quote  
     

  76. #75  
    Forum Junior
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Posts
    215
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by YangYin View Post
    If the capabilities were present could a moment be divided infinitely
    Please stop (mis)using the word "moment". The question is: is time quantised? The answer is: we don't know. In general relativity, definitely not. But there are some attempts to build theories of quantum gravity where it is (causal dynamical triangulation, loop quantum gravity,etc) and others where it isn't (e.g. string theory).

    In other words: we don't know.

    and each moment still related to the speed of light?
    That still doesn't make any sense. A moment is a measure of TIME; the speed of light is a measure of SPEED. I'm not sure how you are trying to equate them.
    Dimensional analysis - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    Are not all loops related to a three dimensional sphere?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  77. #76  
    Genius Duck Moderator Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    11,798
    Quote Originally Posted by YangYin View Post
    Are not all loops related to a three dimensional sphere?
    What?
    No.

    And WTF does that question have to do with what's in the quoted post?
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  78. #77  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    17,036
    Quote Originally Posted by YangYin View Post
    Are not all loops related to a three dimensional sphere?
    Once again, I don't really know what you are asking, or why.

    But: obviously not. You can have loops on spheres, plane surfaces, hyperbolic surfaces, toruses, etc. In 2, 3, 4 or more dimensions.
    ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat
    Reply With Quote  
     

  79. #78  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Posts
    164
    Quote Originally Posted by Markus Hanke View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    But what does it mean for a static field to act instantaneously? If it is static, nothing is changing so where does time come into it?
    Remember that what we call "gravitational fields" does not really exist in GR; all we have is space-time, which is endowed with a metric ( and a connection, but ignore that for now ), and that metric determines the geometry of geodesics along which freely falling objects move. Once this geometry has been established ( which happens at the speed of light - changes in gravity ), no further information exchange is necessary.

    Think about two travellers starting off at separate points along the equator on earth, moving north. Do these travellers need to exchange information in any form between themselves or themselves and the Earth to tell them that they need to move along great circles, or to tell them that they approach each other as the near the North Pole ? No, of course not. The curvature of the earth's surface is static and unchanging, and the travellers merely follow the geodesics determined by that geometry. Same in space-time - static fields act instantaneously because no information exchange is necessary for test particles to experience relative acceleration as they propagate through such space-times. They simply follow a static geodesic, the geometry of which just so happens to differ from a fiducial geodesic in flat space-time.

    Time comes into this in that you need space-time to consistently describe this scenario. In fact, it is the curvature in the time-like direction which is what we usually interpret as everyday gravity.
    I got the pretty good picture of the traveling photon. But photon is also a wave of probability. How dose the probability gets rehashed and propagated?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  80. #79  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    7,302
    Quote Originally Posted by trilosohpical View Post
    How dose the probability gets rehashed and propagated?
    This is not something that GR can answer, since it is a purely classical theory.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  81. #80  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Posts
    164
    Quote Originally Posted by Markus Hanke View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by trilosohpical View Post
    How dose the probability gets rehashed and propagated?
    This is not something that GR can answer, since it is a purely classical theory.
    not long ago when i was reading feynman's path integral i had some idea about two step construction of space and time, but it was for different purpose.
    now thinking this problem i can see my two step construction can be very useful in satisfying the needs for both qm and gr.
    i'll probably open a new thread on that.
    Reply With Quote  
     

Similar Threads

  1. perpetual motion
    By scrawnie in forum General Discussion
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: January 28th, 2014, 09:01 PM
  2. perpetual motion
    By lucycorp33 in forum Pseudoscience
    Replies: 17
    Last Post: December 11th, 2013, 05:42 PM
  3. Replies: 30
    Last Post: September 12th, 2013, 09:22 AM
  4. Perpetual Motion
    By Hanuka in forum Physics
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: March 16th, 2009, 10:14 AM
  5. Perpetual motion
    By clearwar in forum Physics
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: January 17th, 2008, 10:19 PM
Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •