Fifthelement:
You write nonsense and when confronted with facts you simply go away
Has Light got a decay factor?
Sort:
I imagine the difficulties in special relativity experiment. But it is not impossible to be done as shown in light speed measurement.
This is not a problem to verify the hypothesis. But creating frame of reference using pure artificial frame of reference without physical basis seems wrong. I hope Lorentz transformation have a physical basis for it to be derived.
Fifthelement wrote:
I imagine the difficulties in special relativity experiment. But it is not impossible to be done as shown in light speed measurement.
This is not a problem to verify the hypothesis. But creating frame of reference using pure artificial frame of reference without physical basis seems wrong. I hope Lorentz transformation have a physical basis for it to be derived.
___________________
What in the hell are you talking about. Be specific. Stop writing in generalities.
It is all about the Speed of Causality. Without it subatomic particles cannot form and our space/time cannot exist.
Another thought....when we look at the Hubble Deep field image we are supposed to be looking back to around the start of the universe before it really inflated. So why don't we see just a wall of light with the galaxies very close together ?
The galaxies should have been very close together but what we see looking at the 13.8 Billion light year huge distance is galaxies huge distances apart ! Doesn't make sense does it? It just doesn't fit the Big Bang model. The only pathetic answer they (the scientists) can come up with to explain it is that the universe must have inflated many many times faster than the speed of light....hhmm yeah, of course that's the answer ...(bollox...ahem)..
Iknowthemoves wrote:
Another thought....when we look at the Hubble Deep field image we are supposed to be looking back to around the start of the universe before it really inflated. So why don't we see just a wall of light with the galaxies very close together ?
The galaxies should have been very close together but what we see looking at the 13.8 Billion light year huge distance is galaxies huge distances apart ! Doesn't make sense does it? It just doesn't fit the Big Bang model. The only pathetic answer they (the scientists) can come up with to explain it is that the universe must have inflated many many times faster than the speed of light....hhmm yeah, of course that's the answer ...(bollox...ahem)..
___________________
The Big Bang is one we agree on. The principle is there are no absolutes and the exception proves the rule. Absolute no space and no time cannot exist. An infinity of universes, including our universe, are the exceptions that exist.
Our universe incorporates the speed of causality that makes it possible for subatomic particles to form when quantum waves collapse.
In the latest news that photon's rest mass is not zero. What is the implication on relativity equation.
Fifthelement wrote:
In the latest news that photon's rest mass is not zero. What is the implication on relativity equation.
Link?
Fifthelement wrote:
In the latest news that photon's rest mass is not zero. What is the implication on relativity equation.
Fifthelement wrote:
In the latest news that photon's rest mass is not zero. What is the implication on relativity equation.
Link?
_______________________________________________
A solar sail is pushed away from the sun by a combination of charged particles (photons, neutrinos, etc.) According to the special theory of relativity the speed of causality is prevalent throughout the space/time we live in. The speed of light and the speed of causality are the same. The speed of light is an attribute of the phenomenon of eletromagnetic energy which it is possible could slow down. But below the speed of light it would not be light anymore. Our space/time does not care about that speed. It does however, it absolutely requires the speed of causality in order for particles to form. One of the type of particles that can form after the collapse of a quantum wave with the speed of causality present is photons. Inside the quantum wave photons at the speed of light will seek out an infinity of paths in order to find the path of least action (stationary action)
a non-zero rest mass would lead to an infinitely massive particle (the denominator in the formula becomes zero at v=c), which is not a realistic scenario for physically possible situations. We would have to throw out the special theory of relativity. So, Fifthelement could you please reference what publication did you use for your authority that photon's rest mass is not zero.
The result is varied. This one is pretty good , photons rest mass is 2.5 E -49 Kg.
http://granthaalayah.com/Articles/Vol6Iss3/07_IJRG18_A03_1200.pdf
Fifthelement wrote:
The result is varied. This o
In modern science, a photon is represented as a massless particle.
In this article, it is proposed to consider the nature of electromagnetic particles based on the
author's "Theory of vortex gravity, cosmology and
cosmogony" [11].
ne is pretty good , photons rest mass is 2.5 E -49 Kg.
http://granthaalayah.com/Articles/Vol6Iss3/07_IJRG18_A03_1200.pdf
____________________________
A photon is an extra small
particle that has a mass. This mass can be determined according to the above theory
Please!!
No, NO, NOOOO
Light is a particle and a wave, According to Einstein, Newton, and Thomas Young's DS experiment, light is a particle and a wave, at least for now.
HolographWars wrote:
No, NO, NOOOO
Light is a particle and a wave, According to Einstein, Newton, and Thomas Young's DS experiment, light is a particle and a wave, at least for now.
__________________________
HolographWars: You see the red. "...light is a particle and a wave, at least for now..."
Fifthelement: Now you are out of answers. You pick some off the wall theory and post it on here.
http://granthaalayah.com/Articles/Vol6Iss3/07_IJRG18_A03_1200.pdf
I can understand how this hypothesis is worth investigation and it's ,in essence, what was postulated at the very start of this thread as to how light can red shift over enormous distances other than by recession (inflationary universe). It also fits well with our hypothesis that light is 'spagettified' as it travels away from any gravity well. If light has some finite mass, no matter how small, then spagettification is more likely to be the correct interpretation to the observed data .
Iknowthemoves wrote:
http://granthaalayah.com/Articles/Vol6Iss3/07_IJRG18_A03_1200.pdf
I can understand how this hypothesis is worth investigation and it's ,in essence, what was postulated at the very start of this thread as to how light can red shift over enormous distances other than by recession (inflationary universe). It also fits well with our hypothesis that light is 'spagettified' as it travels away from any gravity well. If light has some finite mass, no matter how small, then spagettification is more likely to be the correct interpretation to the observed data .
The theory of vortex gra
vity, cosmology and cosmogony is based on the assumption that gravity,
all celestial bodies and elementary particles are created by etheric vortices (torsions).
The values
of the bodies (the system of bodies) and the corresponding vortices can vary by an
infinite
amount.
Gauge symmetry is required in order to make quantum electrodynamics a renormalizable theory, i.e., one in which the calculated predictions of all physically measurable quantities are finite.
Unless the photon is massless it takes on infinite dimensions.
...and there's the rub
Iknowthemoves wrote:
...and there's the rub
__________________
The photon is the sma;llest subatomic particle in the universe. So there is no rub. It does not have infinite size. The Theory of Vortex Gravity is false. It is, however, able as the photon, which is part of the total energy in the universe to achieve the entangled state of matter (energy) and thereby instantaneous speed. With the entanglement capability it can have mass and not have to become infinite in size if it has any mass.
_________________
Here is an interesting article from Physical Review Letters:
https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn6558-quantum-quirk-may-give-objects-mass/
Perhaps a photons duality enables it to have mass and no mass ?
Iknowthemoves wrote:
Perhaps a photons duality enables it to have mass and no mass ?
________________________
When a photon seeks out an infinity of paths in order to find the path of least resistance it has to be in its entangled state. It does so inside the quantum wave. It must be that all energy inside the quantum wave is in its entangled state. It is when we collapse the quantum wave that energy is subjected to the speed of causality in order to become eternal subatomic particles.
It seems being derived from observation. The interesting part is that speed was ultimate for every observer. It means each observer is forming a local system by which being paired with other observer (other local system). And the smallest local system is as small as photon size.
It is just unbelievable if this is true.
What was the basis for Lorentz transform. Well, i hope it doesnt' have to do with the absence of light in the measurement place.
View the following: 1 clip and 1 video
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HIQ5hnm61LQ
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=toGH5BdgRZ4
Based on the detail of your post, it is necessary to explain in detail. Although I can't imagine that you are totally unfamiliar with Albert Einstein's Special Theory of Relativitiy. By way of explanation the Speed Of Causality is what makes it possible for subatomic particles to form when a quantum wave collapses and the space/time universe that we live in to exist.