Re: Photon, Momentum, Mass

On 2007-05-11, vern@xxxxxxxxxxxx <vern@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On May 10, 2:11 pm, Bilge <dubi...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On 2007-05-09, Jeckyl <n...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

<snip>

Do you agree with Jeckyl's post that the "geometry" of the universe
has no effect in the FOR of the source, but only affects things in
other FORs?

That is not what he said and attempting to straighten out your
misunderstanding is not worth the effort, since you have never
once made the slightest effort to understand anything which
might jeopardize your 15th century grasp of physical phenomena.

What I said was that from the FoR of the source, the light is emitted at,
and measured at, c .. it never goes faster or slower than c as far as the
source is concerned, so there needs to be no explanation of what makes it
NOT travel at c from the FoR the source, because it always DOES travel at c
from the FoR of the source.

The above may have what Jeckyl was trying to say, but what he said
was:

"The geometry affects how someone else (another FoR) measure the
light ..
that measurement is independant of the source speed."

Which is obviously quite different what you posted previously.

[...]
The identification of `c' with the speed of light is an historical
artifact due to the desire of einstein to explain maxwell's equations
as his motivation for developing special relativity. The identification
is only correct if maxwell's equations are correct (which implies
the photon is massless). This has been explained to vern (and to many
other kooks) before in an attempt to get them to separate geometry from
the theory of electromagnetism. The choice of geometry only contrains
the possibility for the theories which are self-consistent with the
geometry and I can easily write down a relativistic theory of E&M in
which the speed of light is not `c' and which contains a massive photon.

So it appears that the use of the word "geometry" is purely
mathmatical as opposed to representing a physical model.

Appearances are deceiving because you have only the ability to understand
nature on your terms, rather than on nature's terms. If you really believe
that it's possible to go pick apples and then count how many you picked,
then you are applying mathematics. You are just extremely limited in your
ability to comprehend mathematics and even more limited in your ability to
understand the physics for which the mathematics was chosen.

The term "metric" is just a mathematical concept for describing distance.

So, in your opinion:

(1) the pythagorean theorem cannot possibly tell you anything about
the length of the cross bracing struts used to connect opposite
corners of a rectangular frame made from real pieces of steel?

(2) a rectangle is a mathematical concept for an arbitrary shape,
and therefore cannot really be different from a circle, which
is also a mathematical concept?

(3) there is no such thing as distance (or at least, no way to determine
the distance between any two places or the difference between
tomorrow and a week from tomorrow?


Tom stated that classical theories assumed Euclidean space.

That is not exactly correct. Classical theories also make assumptions
about time, which is implicit only because the physicists of earlier
eras did not understand they were making an assumption. Galilean spacetime
is still a 4 dimensional spacetime.


What I'm
struggling to understand is how time works in Euclidean space.

Time doesn't work in euclidean space, unless you think it's possible
to turn around from the future and face yesterday the same way you turn
around from going north to go south.


I've
always assumed that time is just an abstract concept and cannot affect
a physical model in any way. Newton's concept of time is that it is
invarient. It seems that any other mathematical model changes the
nature of time, which is inherently undefendable.

Since you choose to interpret everything incorrectly, you'll just have
to live with the idea that you will never have the pleasure of understanding
anything about the way nature works. I'd pity you if it weren't for the
fact that you have deliberately chosen to squander the opportunities
and time you have been given in order to remain ignortant and try and
make nature conform to your naive world view.


.

Relevant Pages