Why is the speed of light the same relative to any frame of reference?

[Pergatory]

Can you truly believe we should take YOUR intuition over EVERYONE's math? When it comes right down to it math and intuition are very similar, the difference is that intuition is performed inside your head whereas math can be performed in your head, on paper, on a napkin, or countless other places. Math is a language through which we can express and validate our thoughts. Intuition is an INTERNAL method for your own review.

In my opinion, you are right, intuition should tend to overrule math. Otherwise, ironically, you open yourself to becoming the crackpot. In math there are many ways to do one thing, and so it is intuition that will tell you whether you are approaching it from the right angle or not. HOWEVER, this is an internal function of the mind, and your intuition should be used as sort of a filter on the theories you hear from others. Another person's theory cannot be argued by your intuition, if you wish to convey your opinions you must do so in math because math is unbiased. The person receiving your postulation will then apply their intuition to the math you've presented and either agree with you or not.

It's all fine and well to present only theories that your intuition agrees with, in fact it should be no other way. Yet you must express them using math or some other scientific notation or others will have no reason to take you seriously. It is one's knowledge in math and science that builds a strong foundation for such intuition.

 

[Terry Giblin]

"What is a photon?" - Physics or Philosophy?

This thread really seems to belong more in the Philosophy of Science and Mathematics forum than it does here. So... I'm moving it.

- Warren

Warren,

This is the second time, in as many replies, that I have to ask you the same question.

Would you classify "What is a photon?" the same way you classified, "What is an electron?" as a question for the "Philosophy of Science" and Mathematics - M-Theory issume - which has been the usual response.

Is the following cartoon joke, a joke or relality? - Science or Philosophy - Physics or metaphysics.

Can anyone please tell me,

"What is an electron?"

"What is a photon?"

"What is a graviton?"

The only metaphysicist I know is Woody Alan, who cheated in his metaphysics exam if I remember rightly.

Before we are sent to join the "Philosophy of Science" debate...

In my option this thread should remain in the physics science section for further open minded scientific discussion, as it is receiving at present, I do not study metaphysics or philosophy, only physics and mathematics.

Regards

Terry Giblin

 

[chroot]

One of the three axioms of rational thought (or whatever they happen to be called in philosophy books) states simply that "An object is defined by its properties, and only its properties."

An electron has many properties: it carries a charge of -e, it has a certain mass, it is a type of lepton, it it one of the products of beta-decay, and so on. It has enough properties to fill a book, in fact.

That's an electron: it's the thing that has all those properties. There is no deeper way to describe an electron; that's all there is, and all there can be. I somehow guess that you won't like this answer, because I think we've had this same discussion before. My reply to your anticipated rejection is simply If you do not accept the axioms of rational thought, we cannot have a rational discussion. I'm not interested in irrational discussions.

- Warren

 

[Terry Giblin]

Warren,

"An object is defined by its properties, and only its properties."

But a picture paints a thousand words, cartoon joke attached.

Any physicists and mathematicians can solve complex puzzles easier, if they can visualise them first.

The better we can visualise an electron or photons from the properties we have learned about it and look at them with an open mind, like the YDSE we might look at them in a different light.

Knowing what we have learned from the Electron-Magnetism, The Standard Model, 5 superstring theories, The M-theory, Quantum Mechanics and General Relativity.

Start by first agreeing “What an electron is” from the properties we can already observe and measure. – Just like the Chemists and Physics did with the hydrogen atom and the period table.

It is a job of a scientist to some times ask un-popular questions.

What does an electron look like based on its properties. – Ask a Chemist first you might get a surprise.

Regards

Terry Giblin

 

[chroot]

Visualization is, in fact, a totally worthless endeavor. You can't visualize a quantum-mechanical entity, because the concept of "vision" doesn't exist in such a small domain.

- Warren

 

[Stevo]

A pertinent question would be, in response to the initial thread topic, is the speed of light a contingent reality? Or is it a necessary reality?

 

[pelastration]

Visualization is, in fact, a totally worthless endeavor. You can't visualize a quantum-mechanical entity, because the concept of "vision" doesn't exist in such a small domain.

- Warren

Are you a blind man Chroot?

 

[chroot]

Are you a blind man Chroot? That's about the most stupid post ever posted on PF.

Insulting the pf staff is not a smart thing to do, you realize.

- Warren

 

[pelastration]

One of the three axioms of rational thought (or whatever they happen to be called in philosophy books) states simply that "An object is defined by its properties, and only its properties."

An electron has many properties: it carries a charge of -e, it has a certain mass, it is a type of lepton, it it one of the products of beta-decay, and so on. It has enough properties to fill a book, in fact.

That's an electron: it's the thing that has all those properties. There is no deeper way to describe an electron; that's all there is, and all there can be. I somehow guess that you won't like this answer, because I think we've had this same discussion before. My reply to your anticipated rejection is simply If you do not accept the axioms of rational thought, we cannot have a rational discussion. I'm not interested in irrational discussions.

- Warren

So a car is only what can be observed, measured. The outside properties. So there is no need to look or search for an engine, the hidden mechanism.

Einstein: "Physical concepts are free creations of the human mind, and are not, however it may seem, uniquely determined by the external world. In our endeavour to understand reality we are somewhat like a man trying to understand the mechanism of a closed watch. He sees the face and the moving hands, even hears it ticking, but he has no way of opening the case. If he is ingenious he may form some picture of the mechanism which could be responsible for all the things he observes, but he may never be quite sure his picture is the only one which could explain his observations. He will never be able to compare his picture with the real mechanism and he cannot even imagine the possibility of the meaning of such a comparison."

If you don't look after a picture that explains and confirms your observed properties you just accept ignorance. The more simple the picture is the better (Occam's razor). 'Uncertainty' is not a picture, it's the rational acceptance of ignorance.

 

[pelastration]

Insulting the pf staff is not a smart thing to do, you realize.

- Warren

Sure Warren, but as you probably noticed I edited the last sentence almost immediatelly ... but you were that fast that you didn't noticed my editing.
But as you will notice in my next post visualization is very important to have an idea about the hidden system or engineering picture behind physics and reality. Isn't that the final goal? Go for insight?
So I was very surprised to see that remark coming from you.

 

[Hurkyl]

The very real problem with trying to visualize things as macroscopic objects is that you tend to treat them as macroscopic objects. Thus, if the thing you are trying to visualize does not behave like macroscopic objects, you're probably worse off by making a visualization than not.


One can still try to visualize things, but it must be done less naively, and have some sort of rigorous justification; for instance, Feynman and string diagrams.

 

[Terry Giblin]

Don't shoot the messenger

Hindsight is a wonderful gift.

When you give a young child a new bicycle for their birthday.

They have three choices,

1 Assemble the bike from trial and error, from his, own experiences.

2 Hope to find a manual that he can read and understand the instructions.

3 Examine each part separately and write and design his-own, machine and manual.

Personally I don’t mind which route he takes, which ever gets us to where we want too be.

We can always use hindsight to fill in the gaps left behind, if our theory is correct.

I don’t mind what you call it, I call it getting the job done, the best way we can, but we must have a target to aim for – or we will simply be going round in circles?

The beauty of studying the YDSE is that I knew no one had solved it, so I do not need to speak to anyone in Physics or Mathematics. Otherwise they would have already solved it themselves and claimed their prize.

Here was a very small branch of physics no one had a satificatory solution for, the duality of electrons and photons and their interaction with Quarks to Quasars.

How could any mathematician or physicist refuse such a excellent challenge.

With single electron Quantum Tunnelling devices as a possible improvement on the experiment, to change the flavor of the electron from a particle to a quantum electron.

Time was also on my side.

If I was right, no one should be able to answer the following simple question.

"What is an electron?"

Todate I have not been proven wrong.

I do not wish to hijack this discussion, please accept my apology.

Regards

Terry Giblin

 

[mhernan]

Intuition and mathematics - exclusive?

This is an apples and oranges argument. Without intuition there would be no advances in mathematics or science in general. Without the ability to record and accumulate information there would be no advances in mathematics or science in general. The knowledge of what has been done by others must guide the intuition to enable insight leading to new knowledge. Without the cumulative knowledge of generations intuition reinvents the wheel. Unfortunately there is no easy way, there in no intuition, which will provide access to the cumulative knowledge of generations. That cumulative knowledge must be learned by sweat and inspiration, as there is much in that cumulative knowledge which seems to defy logic. But when it is all put together, it is your sense of logic which must be redefined.

What so many who claim, math is unnecessary, fail to realize is that they are the short sighted ones. Those who have struggled with the concepts and learned to understand and use mathematical and scientific methods are at an advantage, simply because they have seen both sides. At some point in their life virtually every scientist and mathematician did NOT have these skills. They have seen life with and without the skills so are able to differentiate between the states of knowing and not knowing. Those who have never put forth the effort to learn these skills have no way of understanding the advantages gained.

Once again, the only proof required to demonstrate that more is required then intuition is history itself, when only intuition was used little or no significant advances in our understanding of the universe were made. When mathematics was developed to record and guide intuition things began to happen. Intuition is how the human mind makes leaps of knowledge, Math is how these leaps are guided, recorded and shared with others.

mhernan responds

Integrals statement is well constructed and thought out. The intuition vs mathematics discussion turns on the value of both systems. To assume that mathematical modeling, or the structure of scientific models in mathematical constructs proves something about the worth, value accuracy or resolution of mathematics is axiomatic, but then what else is mathematics? Newton's "action at a distance", gravity, is defined by the scientific community in mathematical terms and says nothing about the essence of "gravity". Being able to make a spaceship that corforms to guidance systems is not a proof of mathematical integrity in science. Surely orbits of planets and asteroids can be calculated with various degress of precision, yet no inforamion about "gravity" is expressed in the calculations. Ptolemy's "Circles wiwthin circles" did a credible job for two thousand years.

It cannot be denied that mathematics is an integral part of science, whatever that may be, but the wedding of math and science does not prove the existence of value in the marriage.

To assert that the current state of science is the result of "accumulated" knowledge is to ignore history and the technology that is expressed there. Describe the building of the Giza Pyramid in scientific terms. How did they do it? Certainly not by any accumulated science. Technology (science?) seems to come and go and to eqaute the current status of history as some accumulation of the past, as if all were adding up nicely as times goes by is presumptuous, to say the least. These are mere axiomatic beliefs, that are valuless in the totality of human thinking processes, to wit, they are egotistic.

Raising mathematics to the level of science as an integral and essential part of science is no more of value, or justified, than an Expressionist artist claiming her style better represents "reality" than any other artisitic style. Mathematics is used by 'scientists' like artists use paint. Each discipline expresses an abstaction of that being described, no more, no less, and neither captures the essence of the soul of that being scrutinized and examined. Mathematics limits thinking to reality in terms of nice neat numbers that do not quarrel with limited and awkward physical concepts. Numbers are disguised objectivity, and all sum to the detriment of scientific exploration and the accumulation of knowledge.

 

[Terry Giblin]

expressionist, musician, scientist

Raising mathematics to the level of science as an integral and essential part of science is no more of value, or justified, than an Expressionist artist claiming her style better represents "reality" than any other artisitic style.

Mathematics is used by 'scientists' like artists use paint.

Each discipline expresses an abstaction of that being described, no more, no less, and neither captures the essence of the soul of that being scrutinized and examined.

But won't it be nice to learn the code used by the painter or learn the music by the composer?

Expressionist, musicians, scientists all are all looking and expressing the same thing but in different forms.

 

[Hurkyl]

mhernan responds

I'm entirely unsure what you're trying to say this last post, but I'll try and respond anyways.


Mathematics is, from one perspective, the study of deductive logic. One logically derives conclusions from hypotheses (this isn't limited to numbers). Science is the art of selecting hypotheses to describe the universe... or more precisely observed facts about the universe.

Mathematics specifically avoids ascribing any meaning to anything beyond what is given by the axioms, because the point is to study the consequences of the axioms.

 

[mhernan]

I'm entirely unsure what you're trying to say this last post, but I'll try and respond anyways.


Mathematics is, from one perspective, the study of deductive logic. One logically derives conclusions from hypotheses (this isn't limited to numbers). Science is the art of selecting hypotheses to describe the universe... or more precisely observed facts about the universe.

Mathematics specifically avoids ascribing any meaning to anything beyond what is given by the axioms, because the point is to study the consequences of the axioms.

mhernan responds:
I have no argument with any of your statements.
I was simply asserting that mathematics is no more of value as a description of nature than the artist. One uses numbers the other paint. My objection to mathematics is the widespread belief in the scientific value of mathematics, which I assert is nonexistent as the paint is of no value to the artist by itself. Both disciplines can offer, at the very most, an abstraction of reality, or physical phenomena.
In one sense the artist is more honest as there is no suggestion that the painting is a "real" representation, where the mathematical physicist, some at least, demand that mathematical modeling is on a one to-one mapping with physical reality, as in pronouncements of Hawking, for one.

 

[chroot]

And Terry, really, if you're going to keep saying things like "no one has ever explained Young's double slit experiment," we're going to have to keep moving all your posts to theory development; Young's experiment is extremely well understood.

- Warren

 

[mhernan]

But won't it be nice to learn the code used by the painter or learn the music by the composer?

Expressionist, musicians, scientists all are all looking and expressing the same thing but in different forms.

Responding is mhernan
I suppose so, but the little dabbling I have doen with 'painting' I have yet to find anything like a 'code'. In fact the best drawings are produced by the artists who specifically omit verbalization in the drawing while they are drawing. In place are general impressions, wordless, comparing heights, colors, depth, shading, line and so on. The "code" of which you refer I can only intuit, but I wouldn't use the word as if there were some literal kind of code that is lurking in the background, perhaps, or that all artistic expression can be theoretically linked to DNA, linked as the basis of the produced art, or musical presentation. What is the code, for instance, of "Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds?"

 

[confutatis]

I was simply asserting that mathematics is no more of value as a description of nature than the artist. One uses numbers the other paint. My objection to mathematics is the widespread belief in the scientific value of mathematics, which I assert is nonexistent as the paint is of no value to the artist by itself. Both disciplines can offer, at the very most, an abstraction of reality, or physical phenomena.

I think you expressed it in a very good way. I've always been puzzled as to why so many intelligent people believe mathematics and reality are the same thing, or close enough to make the differences irrelevant. Having a scientific education myself, I could never understand what everyone else seemed to find so obvious. But I think I found the answer.

What people have to understand about mathematics is that it is an extremely powerful language. If you can express an idea through mathematics, and if you don't make any mistakes in your calculations, you can rest assured that your idea is true. Once you are in possession of a mathematical truth, you can be absolutely confident that the only people who will disagree with you are fools not worth taking seriously.

That power of mathematics tends to make people believe it is somehow magically capable of telling you what you can't otherwise know. And this is exactly where misunderstanding comes in - mathematics can't possibly tell you what you don't already know. The reason math is so powerful is precisely because its rules prohibit people from telling what they don't know. That fact is not well understood, so people tend to see all those physics equations as some form of revelation. They aren't. The mathematical aspect of physics is simply a linguistic expression of its empirical aspect. Physicists measure something, and then express the results of those measurements through mathematics, so that whoever understands the equations also understands what has been measured. There's nothing more to it, nothing less.

In one sense the artist is more honest as there is no suggestion that the painting is a "real" representation, where the mathematical physicist, some at least, demand that mathematical modeling is on a one to-one mapping with physical reality, as in pronouncements of Hawking, for one.

Some mathematical models are a perfect mapping of reality. The difference between the way you and Hawking think about reality is not as fundamental as you seem to be implying. If someone tells you they put five stones in a basket, took three out, and found four inside, you know they are not telling the truth. You know the equation which describes what happens to stones in a basket, and you have as much faith in that equation as physicists have in theirs.

 

[Organic]

The reason math is so powerful is precisely because its rules prohibit people from telling what they don't know.

Do you think that when we are using Math, there is one and only one way to know something?

And if your answer is no, then do you think that a dialog between different point of views on some thing can help us to know it better?

If your answer yes, do you think that mathematicians from different Mathematical branches have to develop a dialog between them if they want to develop their on special Mathematical branches?

If your answer is yes, then is this important dialog really exists among current mathematicians society?

If your answer is no, then do you think that the current mathematical system (which is constructed of separate branches, that do not communicate between them) is entering step by step to a dead-end street?

 

[Les Sleeth]

Insulting the pf staff is not a smart thing to do, you realize.

- Warren

This raises serious philosophical questions. Are we to assume that a mentor cannot say stupid things? Or is it mentors might be able to say something stupid, but we are not allowed to point that out?

And then, are mentors to be considered the standard for truth? Should we assume if a mentor can't visualize quantum operations, for example, then that must be true for everyone?

(By the way, IMO mhernan was treated pretty hard. Just because he values intuition as a way of exploring things doesn't mean he wouldn't follow up with proper research to confirm what he intuits. It seems someone might have asked him about that first before assuming the worst.)

 

[confutatis]

Do you think that when we are using Math, there is one and only one way to know something?

Actually, what I said is that there is no way to know anything using math. But I mean 'know' in a very specific sense, as in "I don't know if it will rain tomorrow". That is, math is not capable of revealing knowledge that depends on observation.

Where math is extremely useful is helping us see what we should already know, facts that are implied by other facts. For instance, you can use math to discover that April 14, 2098 will fall on a Monday. That may sound pretty impressive, but it's essentially no different from the process we use to determine that April 14, 2004 will fall on a Wednesday. It's just that we're not smart enough to do those kinds of calculations without using sophisticated methods that work around our limitations.

To a perfectly intelligent being, math would seem like a completely useless collection of trivia. But even a perfectly intelligent being cannot know if it's going to rain tomorrow.

 

[Jeebus]

To a perfectly intelligent being, math would seem like a completely useless collection of trivia. But even a perfectly intelligent being cannot know if it's going to rain tomorrow.

Are you saying this with 1oo% certainty or relativistic terminology? I think that depends on your definitions on what a perfectly intelligent being is.

 

[Stevo]

Are you saying this with 1oo% certainty or relativistic terminology? I think that depends on your definitions on what a perfectly intelligent being is.

I think the point is that a being with infinitely powerful deductive skills would regard mathematics as almost a triviality. Much the same way that authors of maths textbooks claim that some hideously difficult theorem is "clear".

 

[outandbeyond2004]

https://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=155786&postcount=8

That post referred to the 4-D "speed" of some (any) object. I suppose that means

$$(ds/dt)^2 = 1 - (dx/dt)^2 - (dy/dt)^2 - (dz/dt)^2 = 1 - v^2$$

??

That is not equal to c = 1. In fact, photons go at zero 4-D "speed"?

 

[mhernan]

Some mathematical models are a perfect mapping of reality. The difference between the way you and Hawking think about reality is not as fundamental as you seem to be implying. If someone tells you they put five stones in a basket, took three out, and found four inside, you know they are not telling the truth. You know the equation which describes what happens to stones in a basket, and you have as much faith in that equation as physicists have in theirs.

mhernan replies]
I cannot quarrel for what mathematics is and I am not aNti-mathemtics anymore than I am anti-paint. With HawkinG, howevr, there is a Sticking point: For all the claims he has made about black holes, singularities and what not, he prEsents the findings as gospel,as scientific truth. Assume his mathematics is impeccable and he hasn't misplaced a minus sign or a '2'. Like any other system using mathematics the input needs accuracy as well as mathematical manipulation. Garbage in garbae out I learned when fiorst programming in fortran. Are the quantum mechanical assumption true in Hawking 'black hole' analysis? Are his desisions along the way of ignoring this or that, or eliminating the 'seond order terms'. I don't know and neither does the mass of physicists who have heard of Hawking and his general theory of what ever. Is the mathematical model he uses of value?

SO often, especially on these pages, there is the stated, or implied, fact that "most scientists agree". What bunk. Science isn't a political disciplne, but getting funding by not straying from the well defined 'standard model path' seems to be the watchword.

I read somewhere that a 'scientist' needs more expertise in proposal writing, than quantum theory, which can be made up as one goes along.

End of venting.

 

[matt grime]

Mehrmann, you do understand what the word theory means don't you?

 

[Hurkyl]

https://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=155786&postcount=8

That post referred to the 4-D "speed" of some (any) object. I suppose that means

$$(ds/dt)^2 = 1 - (dx/dt)^2 - (dy/dt)^2 - (dz/dt)^2 = 1 - v^2$$

??

That is not equal to c = 1. In fact, photons go at zero 4-D "speed"?

The 4-velocity along a worldline is

$$v = \left( c \frac{dt}{d\tau}, \frac{dx}{d\tau}, \frac{dy}{d\tau}, \frac{dz}{d\tau} \right)$$

So the (square of) 4-speed is

$$v^2 = c^2 \frac{dt}{d\tau}^2 - \frac{dx}{d\tau}^2 - \frac{dy}{d\tau}^2 - \frac{dz}{d\tau}^2$$

Recall that $d\tau$ is defined by $(c d\tau)^2 = (c dt)^2 - dx^2 - dy^2 - dz^2$, and if we "divide through" by $d\tau^2$ we see that $v^2 = c^2$.

 

[mhernan]

Mehrmann, you do understand what the word theory means don't you?

[Mhernan replies?
Like 'relativity theory'? the Lorenz and Fitzgerald contraction theory? Math not physics.
The gobbly-d-goop quantum theory of contrived mania? wave-paricle duality, superposition of states, interference amplitude, these all assuming the world operates as mathematical models dictate? Read chapter 5 of Feynman as a scientist and see if you can find any "errors" in logic and reasoning, I dare you, or anyone to do this.
Ptolemy's circles-within-circles theory? Hey it worked for two thousand years and for over 100 years after Gallileo.
evolutionatry theory? Yeah, right, prove it.

With relativity theory, pretty much all mathematical, wouldn't you agree? The relativists are fond of quoting Michelson-Morley experiments as '"a null result", which they wasn't. MM results were merely 1/20 or so from what the "classical model" predicted they should have been. See Dayton Miller (circa 1920-1930) whose mathematics is restricted to correlating experimental results, who found essentially the same as MM, only more and better with higher resolution. Are you referring to the 1919 eclipse experiments that launched Al Einstein into orbit? Telescopes with 1-2 arc seconds of resolution claimed by Al to give results in the range of hundreths of a millimeter? Al actually spied on Miller and personnally thanked those supporting RT! Check the internet for challenges to RT theory.

I am not sure what your question is directed at, but is seems you intended a one liner that was supposed to make me "gulp", am I correct? Read Feynman's
'Lectures on Physics' Vol III page 1-10 to 1-11 (the prevailing mentality is it not?) where he says that qt is here forever and that physics has "given up", and that qt is just the way it is. Why have any qt research at all, if the qt gods have already spoken, theoretically that is? This is science? I quit counting at 100 of the instances Feynman said something to the effect "we (I) don't know" and I began to believe his confession of ignorance, and still do. They actually give Nobel Prizes for that kind of stuff? Wow!, where have I been?

 

[selfAdjoint]

mhernan,

If relativity is "just math" what about all the experimental evidence? Since you only mention the Michelson-Morley experiment, I conjecture you don't know about all the cyclotrons, synchrotrons, etc., the GPS satellites, the clock studies, the lifetime of elementary particles, and much much more I can't call to mind at this moment. Relativity is one of the most thoroughly experimentally supported theories in history. You really have to deal with all that if you want to criticize it.

 

[matt grime]

Evidently from your rant of a reply you don't understand what the word theory means.

 

[confutatis]

I cannot quarrel for what mathematics is and I am not aNti-mathemtics anymore than I am anti-paint. With HawkinG, howevr, there is a Sticking point: For all the claims he has made about black holes, singularities and what not, he prEsents the findings as gospel,as scientific truth.

I think the problem with people like Hawking is not that they have too much faith in mathematics, but simply that they have too much faith in themselves. That I find really annoying.

Are the quantum mechanical assumption true in Hawking 'black hole' analysis? Are his desisions along the way of ignoring this or that, or eliminating the 'seond order terms'. I don't know and neither does the mass of physicists who have heard of Hawking and his general theory of what ever. Is the mathematical model he uses of value?

I think most of advanced physics is pure garbage. It's assumption upon assumption upon assumption... then they end up with ridiculous nonsense and look at each other in amazement: "we have discovered that the universe is nonsensical!"

One can only laugh at the comedy.

So often, especially on these pages, there is the stated, or implied, fact that "most scientists agree". What bunk.

I think scientists are quite good at projecting an image of consensus, because they know they can lose those grants if they let people know what they are really doing.

Hawking made that very clear in one of this books. He clearly stated that physicists should not refer to research on time travel by its real name, and use something like "superluminal velocities" or some other fancy jargon I don't care to remember. His rationale? In his own words, people believe time travel is nonsense and would never give physicists money to do any research on it. So in order to get the money, physicists must lie to the public.

Those are the heroes of our time...

End of venting.

ditto

 

[Organic]

Matt Grime,

Please, define theory.

 

[Organic]

outandbeyond2004,

That is not equal to c = 1. In fact, photons go at zero 4-D "speed"?

I think maybe there is here an interesting point of view on c speed.

What if n+1_Dim appears as a motion in n_Dim?

Let us say that the existence of some phenomena cannot be totally disconnected with some cognition's abilities to know it.

If this is the case then for aleph0_Dim-cognition, motion does not exist.

But if motion does not exist then there is no difference between n and n+1, therefore "to know something from aleph0_Dim-cognition" = "to know something from 0_Dim-cognition"

What do you think?

 

[mhernan]

mhernan,

If relativity is "just math" what about all the experimental evidence? Since you only mention the Michelson-Morley experiment, I conjecture you don't know about all the cyclotrons, synchrotrons, etc., the GPS satellites, the clock studies, the lifetime of elementary particles, and much much more I can't call to mind at this moment. Relativity is one of the most thoroughly experimentally supported theories in history. You really have to deal with all that if you want to criticize it.

You just uttered useles words. Why don't you prove what you are saying instead of presenting your "theory" as some sort of polirical assessment? You are in tghe proof business aren't you?