Light and its supposed speed.

[Jbuza]

gone

[BGoodForGoodSake]

And the thinking from the same supposed law that only physical mass can act on the physical world, we propose that gravity has physical prescense.

The guys theory seems alittle far fetched when one supposes SR and GR to be true, and I think he deserves a lot of credit for trying to make sense out of light in a way that makes some sense.

You have to be really careful here. According to relativity, gravity has no physical presence and is just a manfestation of bending spacetime. The best example I know is that if you put a 10-pin bowling ball in the middle of a trampoline. The canvas curves toward the ball. Put a small marble on the trampoline and it will be attracted toward the bowling ball. In the same way, the 'gravity' is the result of the curvature of spacetime and is not, itself, an actual substance. That is, until they develop a theory for Gravitons, or somehow validate String Theory. The graviton is to gravity, what the photon is to light.

With respect to light having mass, it really doesn't. It is pure energy, which could be converted to mass, but as pure energy has no mass itself. Now, it does have momentum so when it hits something it will push against it, but still has no actual mass. These are all shown clearly in the formulas of Relativity. (if you're interested you can check out http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass#Equiv ... nal_masses ) The very formula that tells us that photons have momentum but no mass, also contains the very famous E = mc^2.

Wow, Felgar where have you been?
I don't recall you posessing this knowledge, you've been slacking, you need to contribute more often.

[Felgar]

Last time I spoke up about String Theory, the Theory of Everything, and parallel universes you hacked me apart BGood. LOL All of the stuff I say on all this is certainly just my understanding and given the depth of these subjects I can always stand to be corrected when I make statements about the state of science in these areas.

[BGoodForGoodSake]

Last time I spoke up about String Theory and parallel universes you hacked me apart BGood. LOL All of the stuff I say on all this is certainly just my understanding and given the depth of these subjects I can always stand to be corrected when I make statements about the state of science in these areas.

LOL
I apologize, I hope your wounds have healed.

[Jbuza]

gone

[Felgar]

I don't think that SR and GR reflect the true nature of things. I think it is clear that an extraordinary math genius came up with some models that in part reflect the nature of things.

True, and currently all we know that Relativity is very good but not perfect, and we don't know how far off it is. Same goes for Quantum Physics. We need a single theory that does reflect the true nature of things. In order to be correct this theory will need to incorporate those elements of both quantum physics and relativity that ARE in fact correct. So the final theory will likely be similar to one of the two. Let me say as a final note that I am personally rooting for Relativity!

Why? Because at least Relatively is orderred and calm. Interactions in the universe are predicated and defineable, and can be conceptualized and visualized. Matter and energy are conserved and static, and absolute. Yes time is flexible, but hey God transends time so I'm ok with that.

The alternative is the utterly ludicrous Quantum Physics. A place where 'we simply cannot know' where an electron is at a given time. A place where a cat be both dead AND alive at the same darn time. A universe where there are up to 11 dimensions even though we can only experience 4 of them. A place where any time an event with 2 possible outcomes happens, another whole universe 'pops up' out of no where (which means many versions OF ME, which I'm not fond of. I envision only 1 consciousness existing in the presence of God.) A place where the mere observation of something has a real effect on it's reality - literally where perception is reality. In essence, Quantum Physics describes a completely choatic universe, whos order depends on the faithful execution of probabilities.

Those probabilities are what Einstein was talking about when he stated that 'God does not play dice." And from my own sense of God being an unchanging (very orderred) God of truth (absolute truth where perception is wholly apart from an objective reality) I am very much inclined to see the universe through the eyes of Relativity instead of Quantum Physics.

[sandy_mcd]

I don't think that SR and GR reflect the true nature of things. I think it is clear that an extraordinary math genius came up with some models that in part reflect the nature of things.

Exactly. Science is not a search for truth. Science is a method of explaining observations as succinctly as possible.

[sandy_mcd]

I just wonder if frame of reference hasn't got almost everything to do with light speed.

The frame of reference (standard meaning, I don't know how that relates to your usage of infinite frame of reference or God's frame of reference) has nothing to do with the speed of light.

[sandy_mcd]

IS a radio transmission really the same as visible light emenated from a supernova? I know that visible light is on the chart of electro magnetic waves, but then what of a photon? Does a radio signal actually behave the same in all the clever tests men have devised to learn about light?
There are of models that say that light is a particle. Is a radio signal made up of photons?

All electromagnetic radiation is the same, just the wavelength (or inversely, energy) varies. All electromagnetic radiation sometimes behaves as waves, sometimes as particles (photons). This just means that electromagnetic radiation does not correspond to our known examples of macroscopic behavior. Suppose someone asked you about your pet gryphon. Would you say it looked like an eagle or a lion? You might answer it flies like an eagle or walks like a lion. It depends on what aspect you are interested in. Light sometimes behaves as waves, sometimes as particles. It really isn't either, in the way we think of macroscopic things.
Most people are first introduced to light as waves and many never hear of the particle aspect. But the particle aspect is just as well documented scientifically.
There are many features of the microscopic and quantum worlds that do not make sense in light of our everyday experience. Truth is stranger than fiction. Did you ever see a river flow uphill? It doesn't happen. But Helium-3 will flow up out of a container. Intuition is an awful guide to science.

[Jbuza]

gone

[Jbuza]

gone

[BGoodForGoodSake]

The Particle - The wrong turn that led physics to a dead end


http://www.blazelabs.com/f-p-inst.asp

Why don't you explain to us what you got out of this article. That is if you read this article at all.

=D

[Canuckster1127]

Last time I spoke up about String Theory and parallel universes you hacked me apart BGood. LOL All of the stuff I say on all this is certainly just my understanding and given the depth of these subjects I can always stand to be corrected when I make statements about the state of science in these areas.

LOL
I apologize, I hope your wounds have healed.

*looks admiringly at Felgar*

Our boy is finally growing up ...... <snif>

[Jbuza]

gone

[BGoodForGoodSake]

What I get from it, so far, is immediate action at a distance. Apparently the force of gravity transmits through the ether at infinity, but if one examines the acceleration due to gravity it is not an infinite number, neither is the speed of objects being effected by gravity. I wonder if light can transmit through the ether at infinity, but when we measure its acceleration, or more properly speed, we get a finite number.

In Newtons equations gravity's action is immediate, however in the framework of general relativity gravity propagates in waves,refer here at the speed of light. Since the interaction of gravity is so weak we have not yet been able to confirm if this is the case.