Science a GoGo's Home Page Forums General Discussion Physics Forum Quantum of Light and my Parrot.

Quantum of Light and my Parrot.
=.
The fact number - 1.
In 1887 the Michelson-Morley experiment
showed that the speed of quantum of light is constant
in all directions regardless of the motion of the source.
(c = 299,792,458 m/sec = 1)
#
The fact number - 2.
Paper: “ On the Electrodynamics of moving Bodies.”
Einstein’s second postulate says that
the speed of quantum of light in the vacuum
is absolute constant c=1.
============..
#
Gentlemen
I have only two questions:
First -
Didn’t my parrot fly to you?
Second -
Why does everyone say that all movements are relative
if the speed of quantum of light isn’t relative but
it is an absolute constant in absolute Vacuum ?
P.S.
You can easily find out my parrot. It studied only
two sentences: ‘ there is no absolute movement ’,
‘ there is no absolute reference system ‘
#
Israel Sadovnik Socratus
==== .
P.S.
‘ All these fifty years of conscious brooding have brought me
no nearer to the answer to the question, 'What are light quanta?'
Nowadays every Tom, Dick and Harry thinks he knows it,
but he is mistaken. ‘
/ Einstein /

===,

That's a deep question, Socratus. Let me throw one more ingredient into the mix. How do we know that the speed of light is an absolute constant in absolute Vacuum? The best we can say is that we measure it as such, but our measurements are relative.

Bill,
We assume that the speed of light is constant in a vacuum because if we use that in our calculations we get right answers. If it isn't then you need to find something where using the speed of light as a constant doesn't work. So far there is no evidence that it isn't constant.

Science is rather pragmatic. When it finds something that works every time it is tried, in every situation in which it is tried, then they assume it is true. If somebody finds a situation in which the speed of light isn't constant, and shows that it really isn't, then they will modify the assumption. Of course there will have to be some very strong evidence before it will be modified, just because it works so well.

Bill Gill

Quantum of Light and my Parrot.
=.
The fact number -1.
1729.The astronomical aberration effect of light showed
the finite constant speed of quantum of light.
#
The fact number - 2.
In 1887 the Michelson-Morley experiment
showed that the speed of quantum of light is constant
in all directions regardless of the motion of the source.
(c = 299,792,458 m/sec = 1)
#
The fact number - 3.
1905. Paper: “ On the Electrodynamics of moving Bodies.”
Einstein’s second postulate says that
the speed of quantum of light in the vacuum
is absolute constant c=1.
============..
#
Gentlemen
I have only two questions:
First -
Didn’t my parrot fly to you?
Second -
Why does everyone say that all movements are relative
if the speed of quantum of light isn’t relative but
it is an absolute constant in absolute Vacuum ?
P.S.
You can easily find out my parrot. It studied only
two sentences: ‘ there is no absolute movement ’,
‘ there is no absolute reference system ‘
#
Israel Sadovnik Socratus
==== .
P.S.
‘ All these fifty years of conscious brooding have brought me
no nearer to the answer to the question, 'What are light quanta?'
Nowadays every Tom, Dick and Harry thinks he knows it,
but he is mistaken. ‘
/ Einstein /
===============..

Comment by Kris:
Indeed... it is in total contradiction to say that there is no
absolute frame of reference, and then to say that the speed
of light is constant... in which you can use for you calculations
and experiments...
. . . i.e. the speed of light IS an absolute frame of reference.

However... they can fix their contradiction by making another statement –
- there is no such thing as an absolute vacuum.
With that statement, they make the speed of light relative, yet,
hold the theoretical absolute frame of reference of c.
What's worse is, all "more accurate" measurements of the speed
of light change the measure of a meter rather than the theorized
speed of light in a vacuum.

The important thing to understand is that this is all completely
arbitrary and even is admittedly so ( yet, not in these words )
in the standard model. But, it is close enough for practical use.
/ Kris /
=========…

Indeed... it is in total contradiction to say that there is no
absolute frame of reference, and then to say that the speed
of light is constant..
/ Kris /
How is it possible to say that there is absolute speed of light
and there is no absolute frame of reference ?
Huh?
In the Alice's Wonderland everything is possible.
Socratus
======…

Can you give a practical example of how you would use the constant speed of light as an absolute F of R?

In 1905 Einstein suggested this as a second postulate.

What a load of absolute rubbish ... Einstein proposed no such thing.

Kenneth Schaffner proposed that interpretation and as far as I know no mainstream scientist believes it.

The british journal of science outlines the argument you can get the context just from the extract
(http://bjps.oxfordjournals.org/content/27/3/259.extract)

Oh wait Galileo or Lorentz invented relativity anyhow didn't they or pick any other famous scientist.

Socratus, I was hoping you would enlighten me rather than just make a categorical statement. I have never been able to accept that even Schaffner's interpretation of Einstein's second postulate could establish an absolute F of R.

Does an absolute F of R exist?
Hmm?
1.
The detected material mass of the matter in the Universe
is so small (the average density of all substance in the
Universe is approximately p=10^-30 g/sm^3 ) and it cannot
‘close’ the Universe into sphere and therefore our Universe
as whole must be ‘open’, endless
2.
The cosmological constant / the critical density of Uuniverse
is very small and cannot ‘close’ the Universe into sphere
3.
Now (!) the physicists think that the Universe as whole
is: T=2,7K . ( Nobel Prize in Physics 1978 for discovery
of cosmic microwave background radiation)
and in the future ( in the Future ) it will be T=0K.
4.
The Universe as whole is Empty.
But the Emptiness isn’t emptiness because it is filled with
dark matter and dark energy.
5.
What is a vacuum ?
The empty space between stars ( Galaxies )
Is this space really empty?
. . . . .
Although we are used to thinking of empty space as containing
nothing at all, and therefore having zero energy, the quantum
rules say that there is some uncertainty about this. Perhaps each
tiny bit of the vacuum actually contains rather a lot of energy.
If the vacuum contained enough energy, it could convert this
into particles, in line with E-Mc^2.
/ Book: Stephen Hawking. Pages 147-148.
6.
Does an absolute F of R exist?
Hmm?
If ‘ yes’ , what to do with this Infinite Empty Absolute ?
?
==.

Perhaps it would be valuable to clarify if you were questioning the relativity of movement or the absolute nature of the speed of light in a vacuum.

Without that clarity you can take your reasoning round in circles and “wrong-foot” anyone who joins the discussion, which may be fun, but is unlikely to bear fruit.

Aether, Vacuum, Nothingness, Emptiness
The law number one:
Physics cannot live without Emptiness
The law number two:
The Emptiness isn’t emptiness
The law number three:
The fool won’t understand,
The ignorant won’t recognize
=.

Absolute Infinite is Aether, Vacuum, Nothingness, Emptiness
/ socratus /
"microm2...@hotmail.com" wrote:
Infinity cannot be reached by counting or calculating.
It stands alone as the highest concept in math; the unlimited quantity
==.
Correct.
"Remember gentlemen, we have not proven
the aether does not exist, we have only proven we do not
need it (for mathematical purposes)"..
/ Einstein's University of Leyden lecture of May 5, 1920. /
==.

Occam's Razor ... if we don't need it then from science point it doesn't exist.

I mean there is this 5th force right and it opposes gravity and there is this 6th force that directly supports gravity by the same ammount.

Oh and there there is the 7th and 8th pair

Oh and the 9th and 10th ...

How many do you want?

Does an Absolute Infinite Frame of Reference exist?
Hmm?
1.
The detected material mass of the matter in the Universe
( the cosmological constant / the critical density of Uuniverse)
is so small (the average density of all substance in the
Universe is approximately p=10^-30 g/sm^3 ) that it cannot
‘close’ the Universe into sphere and therefore our Universe
as whole must be ‘open’, endless
2.
The Universe as whole is Empty.
But the Emptiness isn’t emptiness because it is filled with
dark matter and dark energy : ‘ 90% or more of the matter
in the Universe is unseen / dark.’
3.
Now (!) the physicists think that the Universe as whole
the Absolute Frame of Reference of the Universe is: T=2,7K .
( Nobel Prize in Physics 1978 for discovery
of cosmic microwave background radiation). (!)
It means the Universe as whole has negative parameter,
it is negative temperature, it is Kingdom of Coldness.
Only Minkowski spacetime continuum has negative parameter.
Therefore I say the Minkowski spacetime continuum is model of Vacuum.
The parameter T=2,7K is not constant. It is temporal.
In the future ( in the Future- ? ?) it will come to T=0K.
4.
What is a vacuum ?
The empty space between stars ( Galaxies )
Is this space really empty?
. . . . .
Although we are used to thinking of empty space as containing
nothing at all, and therefore having zero energy, the quantum
rules say that there is some uncertainty about this. Perhaps each
tiny bit of the vacuum actually contains rather a lot of energy.
If the vacuum contained enough energy, it could convert this
into particles, in line with E-Mc^2.
/ Book: Stephen Hawking. Pages 147-148.
5.
According to QED Electron in interaction with vacuum has
infinity parameters ( energy, mass …etc )
Physicists do not understand what to do with infinite sizes,
and therefore they have invented "a method of renormalization",
The method of renormalization is a method
" to sweep the dust under the carpet." / Feynman./
6.
The concept of infinite/ eternal means nothing
to a scientists. They do not understand how they could
draw any real, concrete conclusions from this characteristic.
A notions of "more", "less", "equally, "similar" could not
be conformed to a word infinity or eternity.
The Infinity / Eternity is something, that has no borders,
has no discontinuity; it could not be compared to anything.
Considering so, scientists came to conclusion that the
infinity /eternity defies to a physical and mathematical definition
and cannot be considered in real processes.
Therefore they have proclaimed the strict requirement
(on a level of censor of the law):
« If we want that the theory would be correct,
the infinity/eternity should be eliminated ».
Thus they direct all their mathematical abilities,
all intellectual energy to the elimination of infinity.
But effect of infinity comes again and again and then
physicists say: that’ Infinity is the cause of the crisis in Physics.’
Another example of physicist’s thinking:
’ If there’s nothing wrong with me then,
maybe there’s something wrong with the Universe.’
/ One PhD physicist ./
#
Does an Absolute Infinite Frame of Reference exist?
I say: this unthinkable Absolute Infinite Frame of Reference
has two physical parameters.
First: T= 0K,
Second: E= 0 (the lowest state of cosmic background energy).
===.
Hmm?
What to do with this Infinite Absolute Emptiness ?
#
" Remember gentlemen, we have not proven
the aether does not exist, we have only proven we do not
need it (for mathematical purposes)"..
/ Einstein's famous University of Leyden lecture of May 5, 1920./
!!??
So ! What to do with this Infinite Absolute Emptiness ?
==========.
Best wishes.
Israel Sadovnik. Socratus.
========================..
P.S.
Infinite, unbounded, endless, never-ending ,unending,
perpetual, interminable, eternal, dateless, spaceless,
borderless . . .
- What do you read, Prince ?
- Words, words, words.
#
It is no matter how you call it.
The matter is:
How can Infinity be concrete?
===========.

I think you do Socratus an injustice here, Orac. I suspect he is one of those bright people whose thought processes differ from those of the majority.

The major problem, I find, is getting an answer from him that seems to bear any relation to the question asked. Possibly the answer is in there, somewhere, but finding it is the challenge!

I think that physicists and mathematicians have largely come to terms with the "no borders", it is the "no discontinuity" bit that causes trouble. If you follow that to its logical conclusion it leads to just one place, and, in my experience, the scientifically inclined would rather not go there.

The reason that scientists don't like discontinuities is that there is no way to manipulate them. Throughout the history of science there have been mathematical ways to model the theories that have been developed. But there is no way to model a discontinuity. Since all natural laws to this point have been able to be modeled scientists naturally feel that all natural laws should be able to be modeled. So when a theory gives an infinite result they are very suspicious of it. And of course if a correct model does produce an infinite result it could have a catastrophic impact on the universe. Since we haven't seen any such catastrophic impacts then it is assumed that the theory just doesn't work in the area in which the infinity appears. So then they go to work trying to find a new theory that will work.

Bill Gill

I think you over-estimate his intelligence.

It is just a compilation of dis-coherrent facts scrambled together.

There is no logic to it you are making logic where there is non ... have you seen the monty python dead parrot clip (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4vuW6tQ0218) here is the script please read (http://www.mtholyoke.edu/~ebarnes/python/dead-parrot.htm)

Thats all this rubbish is and hence I suspect the title even.

One of his other posting threads was basically along the cheese cake shop line I take it he is a python fan.

Sorry Bill the reason for the discontinuities is because he is pulling unrelated garbage together.

I have a uni friend who can do this all day ... he is trolling!

And probably laughing thinking how clever he is that you don't get the joke.

Oh and on the original infinity thread he tried to loop it around on itself which was an old borland joke when you looked up infinity on there index.

BTW he also posts on a number of physics forums .. this is the usual response

[Moderator: Suspended 10 days for posting no useful information or asking any valid questions.]

Perhaps he will tell you exactly 10 day holidays he has gotten for his wonderful scientific discussions?