Re: the speed of light and shadowing

In article
<1168993146.787012.103690@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
,
"Hero" <Hero.van.Jindelt@xxxxxx> wrote:

Michael Press schrieb:

In article
<1168722787.994340.248070@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
,
"Jacko" <jackokring@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Are you Whacko Jacko, from the Howard Stern show?

i was wondering, as light travels at c then it leaves and arrives at
the same time, and lorentz fitzgerald contracts to the same point in
space. so how do shadows come about?? is there some kind of pauli
exclusion of spacial occupation to get shadowing??

The fallacy is that light travels. This is an illusion.
An electromagnetic interaction between two bodies is
the same event; the proper interval is zero. This is
Einstein's insight. An attempt to imagine light in
transit generates a model at variance with Maxwell's
equations.

You are consequent to the point. I can not argue with real movements in
time, as this is an illusion.
For You light has no time. You look at a graph with one time axis and
one or two space axes and with one glance every moment of time is there
in the graph to be seen.
But i hope You esteem logic and argument. Did it ever occur to You,
that this theory is based on false assumptions ( on egozentrism) ? If
this is so, there must show up logical contradictions.
If light is interaction without time, one can not say from where to
where it is moving, we have the fallacy, that we send light to the
moon, and see the reflection , as Bob put it, but for light itself, it
cannot differ between emittence and absorbence and in between
reflection.So it is coming out a lamp, as well as it is coming out of
my eye, with which i observe it, no difference.
Now is there life for light after absorbence ?
That's the same question, as for the shadow.
And what is with the light passing through atmosphere and even better
through water, does this light experience time?
There must be a concept of distance and space even for light, otherwise
it could not be split up into a spectrum and there would be no place
where it is and where it not is. As for light there is no intervall of
time, distance can not change for light. Everything just is.
Another one with my name meant light will take the shortest path
through a prism, but Fermat hold for the least time. As for light there
is not time, how does it decides about it's way?

And for light there is no time, but for us it seems so, How can "light"
explain to us, where our illusion stems from? What is the reason, that
we say, the light comes from the sun to warm us, and what the reason,
that we do not say the light is created on our skin and travelling to
the sun as well. Here again shadow comes into argument, like a cloud to
Your opinion.

It is a fascinating investigation.

Cramer, J.G. (1986) Reviews of Modern Physics 58,647-687.
<http://mist.npl.washington.edu/npl/int_rep/tiqm/TI_toc.html>

Zeh et al (1996) _Decoherence_and_the_Appearance_of_a_Classical_World
_in_Quantum_Theory_(Springer-Verlag, Heidelberg).

From
Lewis, G.N. (1926) Proceedings National Academy Science USA 12,24-26.

It is generally assumed that a radiating body emits
light in every direction, quite regardless of whether
there are near or distant objects which may ultimately
absorb that light; in other words that it radiates
``into space.''...

I am going to make the contrary assumption that an atom
never emits light except to another atom ...

I propose to eliminate the idea of mere emission of
light and substitute the idea of _transmission, or a
process of exchange of energy between two definite
atoms...both atoms must play coordinate and symmetrical
parts in the process of exchange...

in a pure geometry it would surprise us to find that a
true theorem becomes false when the page upon which our
figure is drawn is turned upside down. A dissymmetry
alien to the pure geometry of relativity has been
introduced by our notion of causality.

--
Michael Press
.

Quantcast