What does a photon see traveling at c?

Yeah there could be inventions we cannot comprehend because of the laws of physics.
Nicessity is the mother of invention.
I'm a Christian but what anon said is no proof of anything because its simply one persons perspective.

Even if thr speed of light is different other places, it is still a semi uniform system over a cast expanse that travels in a semi uniform manner unimaginably quickly and it are these little sexy ball wave wiggle waggle spurts of beautiful sophisticated sensitive subtle powerful delicate conserved essence

Well, just a hunch, the slightest tickle of a hint.

If you are forced to be a hardcore true skeptic 50 50 agnostic, admitting you literally do not know one way or the other, if the universe was constructed by an intelligence or was not;

Then sometimes you may come across something that may jolt you with the recognition of a possible sway, in one way or the other.

I can only go off of seems here, it seems like an intelligently created universe would have seeming signs of intelligent creation.

I can only say it seems with everything I know about light; very very little, but seemingly, it exists everywhere, is different than everything, and is in many ways so useful to intelligences, also the usefulness of everything else but thats going beyond light;

That at the big bang, or starting of this universe; whatever fundamental substance stuff was there, happened to perfectly splinter off into self consistent self maintained groups of styles of things with characteristics and traits (elements, subatomic particles, that can happen to do all the things they can, and interact with light in all the constructive ways) that some of that stuff;

Or what some or most scientists would say with fundamental material they say being able to be disintegrated entirely into light;

That the em field was created at the big bang and wrapped itself around everything and perfectly became itself at all locations, and to interact with matter in it's constructive ways, and have the speed limit it has that it so perfectly obeys, and all the systems are stable.

Cntd
It just seems that intelligence would design something like that, and if intelligence didn't, that it possibly would not work so well,

It just seems to my gut, that a light field expanding the distance of the universe, would have less homogeneity, that it would have weirder reactions over there and collapse and fall apart, and over there it would leak and interact novelly with this stuff to produce a new field.
Constantly, more fundamental chaos here and there, not stability and iso's and homo's the distance of the universe.
Then there is that possible fact that all matter can be turned into light, so light might be the most fundamental thing, and there is nothing more spooky and virtual and computer like than light, so if everything is fundamentally all light, then that is very Gods Computer like and matter is just bits, data, code, program, information that light pushes around and computes, and when particle antiparticle anihilations occur thats like erasing a bit of code from the program language, and the energy, the process, the power source, replaces it with light, which is like the background refresh computational analyzer string logic gate stuff, like our computer electrons in logic gates is the universes Light in gravity field interacting with atoms.

Or light is where programing code software meets physical hardware

some wretched chimera of /x/ and r/pol

>light still needs actual time to travel through actual space
Not in the light's reference frame. Space along the trajectory geodesic is flat.

>Not in the light's reference frame
How moronic that is? Is this some "troony" relevance? Everyone else sees that i'm a man but inside i think i'm female?
How can you even tell light is timeless when every single outside evidence and all events around it prove it has time of travel?
What's the point? Is it done just so it can fix another of QM failures that soientist didn't account for?
Please don't be shy, tell everyone what kind of fail in QM "no time of travel" for light compensates for? We can figure out the reason very shortly, it's always some coping mechanism with modern science, just disappointing.

Is that just a fancy way of describing looking out the window of a fast moving car, and seeing how all the houses zipping by look like thin blurs?

>Note: "The physical world" is defined by what you can probe by pointing a laser pointer at it and wait for the signal to come back to you, not the actual physical world

You're making mysticism out of a triviality.
The physical world doesn't "contract into a single point" "from your point of view", light doesn't "experience no time" from "its point of view", you're using bad definitions of space and time and act surprised when you derive absurdities, because you still pretend that the "space" and "time" you so defined, are still the same space and time as the real world.

Speaking of photons reflecting off houses;
How do kigiglions of photons reflect off everything every second and not collide and disrupt, they going every every every which way, and everyone standing around can see everything unimpinged

You can't see the clock. The interaction would have to happen at light speed so the photon would be completely unable to see things that are perpendicular to its direction of movement. The photon could only "see" things in a 90° cone in front of it.

>That considering possibility of slight human error or relativity earth gravity well rotation it may very well be that light travels exactly 300,000 m/s?
>So crisp and pure and exact.
>Or any combo of measurement units as I said would scale up and down and be not so numerically crisp?
Though something like a meter
And something like a second

Could be some universal valence point in between most micro and most macro scales, that if God was tinkering around to figure out how to set everything up, God could have based the speed of light roughly on the scale of a meter and time bit of a second.

Though. Are there other proportional possible distance and time units that result in crisp number?

For example if light traveled 100 units of distance every 1 unit of time.

Or 5,000 units of distance, every 10 units of time?

Or 100,000 units of distance every 500 units of time.

Or the point is always equaling a unit of time to a (1).

But as is with rulers and scales; 1 second is made of microseconds, nano seconds, pico seconds etc.

So... Light travels some distance in some amount of time.

What are all the possible crisp numerical ways of representing that ratio?

It just so happens m/s is crisp, no other possibilities of representing it are?

Oh and consider this as light traveling 300,000 m/s for thought experiment (standard deviation human error padding) sake.

Who says it's not?

Would all of biology pretty much have developed exactly the same, it's just things would look a bit slower?

Or half the speed of light is still so fast, the difference would hardly be perceptible due to the close ranges of interactions we are familiar with on earth?

But would we see different on earth? Would biology, because electron photon capture, and speed of light detection, have evolved different?

Or is it still so fast every thing would be roughly the same, light would need to have it's constant cut by like 1/6 or 1/10th or 1/15th or more it's speed, to have signifigant effects on vision and bilogies paths and rates of evolution

Oh so is part of this?; that the speed of light IS tied to the possible energy lights contact imparts? And that if the max speed of light was 10% slower, biology wouldn't have developed and evolved the same, and vision wouldn't work the same, because biological cells and mechanisms and molecules wouldn't have recieved the same average; momentum, impact?

Meaning if the speed of light constant was half what it is now, then light would impart half as much energy when it closed with things? Does that make sense?

Why do you think that?

Velocity = relative mass.
An object imparts X energy when moving velocity 5 velocity units.
When the object is traveling at 100 velocity units it parts > X energy.

Light has velocity = ~300,000 m/s
Light imparts energy Y when colliding with an object.

If lights speed limit velocity was 150,000 m/s
Light would impart an energy of < Y onto the object it collided with

Maybe the poster disagreed with you stating the energy imparted would be half.

Does a baseball hitting an energy registrator at 50mph, register half the amount of energy as a baseball hitting at 100mph?

>Saying light experiences no time is true in some sense though
No that is stupid.

If light travels roughly 300,000 m/s

And light travels 900,000 m let's say in this example, light will have """""experienced"""" 3 seconds of time. Or that light wave will have existed for 3 seconds.

>If it made sense to take light's frame of reference then you could say that the light travels instantly everywhere in that frame of reference and thus it cannot experience the passage of time.
How do you figure, you can say that?
>Also light doesn't travel 300,000 m/s.
Also I said roughly

>That's a really, really rough approximation considering the relative error of it is 99.9%
Oops; ~300,000,000 m/s
300,000 km/s

>would take very little time for that observer to reach any destination
100 years is not very little time! As in Galaxy such and such is 100 light years away

No, it takes 100 Years. For light traveling lightspeed to reach an observer 100 light years away. 100 Real Years. Actually travelling for a hun dred years.

I will give you this however, it is absolutely bizarre that light pretty much travels instantly, as for us a second may as well be an instant.

The Earths perimeter is roughly 25,000 miles.

Light travels 186,000 miles per second.

Something seriously fricked up is going on here.

Light can travel the earths perimeter 7 times in a second?

Something is really afoot, here....

Oh, sorry never mind, I was looking at my foot.

I mean break down spatial increments into the smallest unit, Planck lengths or smaller, how many units of time does it take for light to travel 1 of the smallest units?

This is where you get your instant kick, if it travels multiple smallest units of space in 1 smallest possible unit of time;

Though fundamental real physical time should be the amount of time it takes for light to travel the shortest possible distance

Respond to this though

>A moving frame of reference will measure a different distance and different time.
Yes, and that distance and time of light traveling 100 light years is not 0 time and 0 space. It's 100 Earth years of light traveling 100 light years through a spatial distance that takes light 100 years to travel

>In the context of a photon experiencing time, it would experience no time if you could take it as a frame of reference.
As I asked; if it is existing and traveling through space for 100 years, where are you certifying a possession of the right to say what you are saying? Why are you making such a certain statement that simply seems so certainly contradictory to reality.

Light is generated at point A and travels for 100 years where it enters a telescope at point Z.

You: That light was generated at point A, and traveled 100 years at 300,000 km/s, where it enters a telescope at point Z. It travels from point A to point Z instantly.

I seriously don't want to be mean and don't want to talk about this but what you are saying is something that would be said by a something of an 18-20 year old who has only seen a few YouTube videos on the subject.

Same guy*

spellcheck bullshit

Light moves instantly...
IN ITS OWN FRAME.

Ok... Maybe.... But it does not move instantly from point A to point Z 100 light years away, even in its own frame.

In its own frame it would be 100 years of travel

Last I'll comment on this distracting and irrelevant and stupid statements

You are talking about non light ,being accelerated towards the speed of light, light just goes light speed. So there was no need to bring in the .999 stuff.

The whole non understanding defining time velocity stuff is dumb nonsensical and irrelevant and wrong and stupid.

In lights reference frame, if it travels 100 years, """"it experiences"""" 100 years of travel.

This is the most useless worthless meaningless topic of conversation, we were spending, I was spending weeks talking and wondering and asking about really cool interesting mysterious stuff. You watched some pbs YouTube animations and now you are parroting the misunderstandings of misunderstandings as badges of proud knowledge

>if you’re traveling at that speed, you’d feel like you crossed the whole universe in a second. You’ll age one second and bloop - you’ll be at the other side.
NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO

BECAUSE

traveling at the speed of light you travel 300,000 km in one second. The universe is much bigger than 300,000 km....much much bigger.

Let's say it's bigger than 9999999999999999 km.

THERRFORE

your statements are dumb and meaningless and false and stupid and pointless and nonsensical and faulty and absurd and ruinous and wrong

This is what’s special about the speed of light. It’s complicated to explain here, but the point is:

when moving very fast, the gamma factor approaches infinity as your speed approaches c.

The way you transfer between frames of reference (ie if I’m going close to c in your frame, then what do I see in my frame) is dependent on gamma, not your speed (also known as beta).

Remember that in your own reference frame you are at rest. Everything is moving towards you. And what’s special is also the way you see everything is different from the way your observer sees it. If going fast enough, you will see the universe the size of one foot, and you’ll get to the end immediately.

Is that clearer?

...if we pretend that it could, it would* not experience any time for any finite time measured by the stationary observer.
Typo

>Popsci exaggerated headline you got carried away
Jokes on you, I actually study this.
It's 2022. Time dilation is a real and well known phenomenon.

Length is unfortunately not equivalent in all reference frames. If someone is going fast enough, like the other guy said, the universe will be one foot long for them, in their reference frame

Yes. I don’t know why you’re having this meltdown. 93 billion light years (a measure of distance) for someone going really really really close to c would look like one foot. This is reality. This is orthodox one hundred year old science

I already stated. Light doesn’t have a reference frame. But the closer you are, the more arbitrarily small the universe is.

Get close enough? It’s one inch long. Closer? It’s one millimeter long. And so on and on. At almost speed of light, you can cross the universe in an instant

Light doesn’t have a reference frame. The question doesn’t make sense

This question makes no sense. For an observer there is a difference. For light, there’s no frame of reference at all to talk about

From the very beginning we were point out that light doesn't have its own frame of reference but if it had, then the limiting case is the Lorentz factor being infinite.

>I said many times over this discussion. Light has no reference frame
You or someone also kept saying the light experiences traveling the whole universe distance in an "instant"

experiences require time so a truly "instant experience" is a contradiction. There's no experience at all.

>so for example the decay of radioactive isotopes, as well as elementary particles, has a different perceived half-life depending on their velocity.

>velocity
Exactly, velocity, not time. Velocity makes material systems function different in relation to them, things take different amounts of time to do things, but this is not time changing, this is a systems timings changed.

If I dribble a basketball 5 times in 10 seconds.
And then 10 times in 10 seconds, time itself is not changing, maybe a rate of activity in time, but regardless.

It requires me more energy to dribble 10 times in 10 seconds than 5 times in 10 seconds. Same amount of time, different energy, different frequency of action.

I understand I am the fool for ruining this thread by responding to this

>If I dribble a basketball 5 times in 10 seconds.
>And then 10 times in 10 seconds, time itself is not changing, maybe a rate of activity in time, but regardless.
>It requires me more energy to dribble 10 times in 10 seconds than 5 times in 10 seconds. Same amount of time, different energy, different frequency of action.
Respond to this. Time doesn't change, 10 seconds is 10 seconds. Amount of actions in time changes.

93 billion years is 93 billion years. It takes like to travel X amount of distance in 93 billion years.

Humans can travel much less Distsnce X in 93 billion years. Time does not change, relative velocity changes.

>Similarly, you see me traveling for over 93 billion years, I feel like I’m just going for a second, because of my speed being close to c
Are you speaking colloquially and loosely?

Why would traveling c not experience 300,000 km in 1 second?

Why would 300,000 km be equal to 93 billion light years?

>standing still) look at a guy dribbling a basketball 5 times in ten seconds, then I (going 90% the speed of light) would see him dribbling it 5 times in (about) twenty seconds.
Ok I get that, because it's the idea of frame rate, shutter speed, slow motion, right.

2 people running on a straight away 10 yard track:. 1 person walks it in 100 seconds
The other person sprints back and forth 10 times in 100 seconds.

They experience time differently, the sprinters mind and body has to compute differently due to the need of coordinations and energy expenditures.
The person going for the walk calmly reflects on the beautiful day, looks and sees a bird, wonders what he wants for lunch.

The sprinter is feeling the strain and burn and sweat all over body, their mind is like ah ah ah gotta run ahhh hurts ok this is good breathe ah ah I'm the best...

I don't know.

So you are doing laps around the bball dribbler, at 90% speed of light;

It is as if they are moving in slow motion because, all their matter requires longer time frames to accelerate A to B,

Someone who's brain works twice as fast as another person would experience twice as much information in the same time, so to them they would experience more time or less time than the slow brained, or would it matter if they were having fun or not, time flying and all

Light has no reference frame. There is no experience from the perspective of light because there is no perspective of light

but photons basically does not experience the passage of time

>so for example the decay of radioactive isotopes, as well as elementary particles, has a different perceived half-life depending on their velocity.

>velocity
Exactly, velocity, not time. Velocity makes material systems function different in relation to them, things take different amounts of time to do things, but this is not time changing, this is a systems timings changed.

If I dribble a basketball 5 times in 10 seconds.
And then 10 times in 10 seconds, time itself is not changing, maybe a rate of activity in time, but regardless.

It requires me more energy to dribble 10 times in 10 seconds than 5 times in 10 seconds. Same amount of time, different energy, different frequency of action.

I understand I am the fool for ruining this thread by responding to this

>is more complex than just a photon taking the long path.
yes, it is...
but light still travels at c, and the path is still longer.

[-] light scatters off the molecules that make-up different materials it travels thru.
[-] How quickly the atoms in a material can absorb and re-emit the photon and how dense the atoms are decides the apparent speed of light in that material. So the light appears slower because it has a smaller “drift speed”.

google "why does light travel slower in a medium?"

thats an explanation dispersion.

I'm getting the feeling scientists don't really know why.

>electric field explanation actually fits with what we know about electromagnetic fields
electric/electromagnetic field focus lenses, when?

"every thread"

Okay, it's not that funny anymore. You can turn the bot off now.

Force lines aren't a physical thing. They are a method of representing the shape of a field.

>But I've seen iron filings react to them, and there's a corresponding physical reason they are drawn with the geometry arcs they are drawn with,
>In vacuum, in space, do magnetics have those forcefield lines extending from their body that can do iron filing stuff?

Force lines aren't a physical thing. They are a method of representing the shape of a field.

^^^^^^^^

>In vacuum, in space, do magnetics have those forcefield lines extending from their body that can do iron filing stuff?
>There's no tangible difference in this sort of experiment
So what are force lines, they exist in outer space and in vacuum, so lines really exist everywhere in space attaching all electrons to each other? And these lines are really things that exist, so that's very interesting important and strange, that there is apparently matter everywhere that is not made of electron and quark.

Are the distance between the lines any relevance or just a diagram convention?

The lines themselves are not points of anything special is it? If magnet was placed anywhere in the vicinity it would react just the same, on top or next in between the lines?

In vacuum and in space they are there too, so they are not just the pressure of atmosphere?

Why is it so mysteriously beyond simple expressing grasp? Is it like trying to describe a tiger to someone who has never seen anything like it? Surely the average seer of a tiger can draw a crude picture and an autobahn can do better, but I have seen pictures of magnet field lines since a child of course, there is some realness to their cause; and presence;

I'm asking are they present in vacuum because the first thought is atmosphere is partially or largely responsible for field lines;

If not that, that it is true that space is full of these real lines... Then yeah that line or the space between that line must be full 9f some real stuff, to have such a real effect, just again now why does the magnetic material so react to another's field lines while another magnetic material does not?

How does a very strong electromagnet effect a non magnetic rock for instance?

Electricity is like tapping into the fundamental quantum world, the power of connection and attatchment on that scale, everything on earth is electrically quite dull, it took humans to find the right pieces to put together to get huge power lines, of surging electricity. To those who have experienced first hand the cosmic powers of voltage, raw power, of that juice. When there is that connection made,.the purity of the attractive link flow,

I just thought like when there is like strong electric flow something is happening there on the small scales

So the Sun is traveling,

Either the Sun is ripping through the medium like a ballistic
The medium dragging the sun like a conveyor belt
Or a mixture of both.
The Sun is also rotating.

So I mean field theory is kind of already like this;. But what if what we see of as Black Space Between Stars and Planets, is really this Field Medium;.

And the supermassive black hole at the center of the Galaxy, along with the medium and the stars and planets are rotating around this common center, so the Sun is dragged in it's orbit like a kayak in rapids;

But it's also rotating;
Maybe the atoms of the sun do experience some friction from rubbing up against this conveyor belt gravity field space medium, and maybe this is a source of the Suns volitile and otherwise emitence of light

Do you know how force lines or field isolines are drawn?

You could, it's just the clock/twin paradox, but the result would be the same for either interpretation

Also note, since we're talking about the clock paradox, there are 4 interpretations of SR floating around in people's minds:
1 The fully relativistic one: relativistic effects must be completely reciprocal and real
Therefore, in the SAME physical situation, you should get the same result considering "what the other observer observes"
This one is absurd, and disproven by the paradoxes of SR, like the twin paradox. But it's also what you find in Einstein's original paper. He weaseled out of it later on
2 The relatively relativistic one: relativistic effects are reciprocal but real only in one way
Therefore you must perform a calculation for each frame considered stationary, and only one of them will be correct (to be decided experimentally)
Then, considering the DIFFERENT physical situation where another frame is stationary, you'll find that... the solution where it is stationary is correct, which you could figure out by classical relativity
3 The Lorentzian interpretation: you notice certain frames tend to be more stationary than others, so you postulate THE ideal stationary frame, since considering relative velocities only clearly was not enough to get the full picture
4 The sleight-of-hand interpretation, taken by the "don't trip over yourself, just draw a spacetime diagram" crowd, implicitly Lorentzian, that starts by choosing the stationary frame first to draw the spacetime diagram, then perform a red herring Lorentz transformation into the moving frame, and see that you get all the correct results. But if you started with the other frame stationary, you would've gotten another result: which is correct? Direct experimentation will tell
These are the battered wives of SR. They believe that if you agree with the 3rd, then you must be confusing the 1st and 2nd interpretation. They probably confuse them themselves, and use spacetime diagrams as a crutch

Explain this more. What is the body then, if the light wave is the internal motion of a body?

Describe the physical mechanism mechanics of how Aether exists and what motions with what energies occur

>A wave is an ordered internal motion of a body, it has no "body" per se
What's the body it's an ordered internal motion of?

Is the aether made of smaller particles then electrons and protons neutrons? like marbles or goo

Don't use the word atom to refer to unidentified particles or possible aether; the word atom refers to the periodic table of elements made by electron, proton, neutron.

Can you refer to the aether's componenture by atoms, if you are quite certain it is not made of protons, neutrons, electrons?

Why are 'gravity-atoms' so difficult to detect and sense evidence of, their presence?

So how does that which continously touches the moon to prevent it from flinging away exist and work

How do magnetic fields work?
Forces are caused by matter, but they are separare from matter

some kind of aether makes intuitive sense but it just leads to "well what is it contained within" and so on

Interesting because example of transverse waves are the plucked string of a guitar, the string itself. And surface water waves.

The string of guitar requires attatched on 2 ends to do the kind of standing wave thing.

The surface water wave, number 1 is on a surface. Number 2 it is a part of a medium and it's wave spreads out latteally due to this;

So at once; light wave is in that family of wave style; yet somehow exists in a way that is also unrelated to those two? (It's not held down on either end like guitar string, and it's not on the surface of or attatched in anyway to some larger medium)

>So at once; light wave is in that family of wave style; yet somehow exists in a way that is also unrelated to those two? (It's not held down on either end like guitar string, and it's not on the surface of or attatched in anyway to some larger medium)
Explain

I'll get back to you, just gonna ponder that one and mull it over

No, the speed of light is measured the same in all frames of reference. Doesn't matter how fast you are going. This is one of the basic postulates. This is violated when you take a photon as the frame of reference. Special relativity is not equipped to deal with frames of reference travelling at light speed and can't make any meaningful predictions here.

No, that's literally the basis for special relativity. Because of that, Special Relativity can't say anything about photon's frame of reference.

I'm literally saying that you moron
Me:

Such a frame of reference violates Einstein's postulate about the speed of light so it's not a valid frame in special relativity. Photons cannot be stationary in any frame so photon's frame of reference doesn't exist.

No, the speed of light is measured the same in all frames of reference. Doesn't matter how fast you are going. This is one of the basic postulates. This is violated when you take a photon as the frame of reference. Special relativity is not equipped to deal with frames of reference travelling at light speed and can't make any meaningful predictions here.

No, that's literally the basis for special relativity. Because of that, Special Relativity can't say anything about photon's frame of reference.

I'm not. What is wrong with you?

You were the one who was arguing that a photon can have its own frame of reference

Or;

E
v
..................................................................p^
~p
|
................................................................p^
~~p
|
..............................................................p^
~~~p
|
.............................................................p^
~~~~p
|
.........................................................p^
~~~~~p
|
......................................................p^
~~~~~~p
|
....................................................p^
~~~~~~~p
|
................................................p^
~~~~~~~~p
|
.............................................p^
~~~~~~~~~p
|
..........................................p^
~~~~~~~~~~p
|
......................................p^
~~~~~~~~~~~p
v
E
v ...............................p^
~~~~~~~~~~~~p
GGGGround SSState

Or;

E
v
..................................................................p^
~p
|
................................................................p^
~~p
|
..............................................................p^
~~~p
|
.............................................................p^
~~~~p
|
.........................................................p^
~~~~~p
|
......................................................p^
~~~~~~p
|
....................................................p^
~~~~~~~p
|
................................................p^
~~~~~~~~p
|
.............................................p^
~~~~~~~~~p
|
..........................................p^
~~~~~~~~~~p
|
......................................p^
~~~~~~~~~~~p
v
E
v ...............................p^
~~~~~~~~~~~~p
GGGGround SSState

Or;

E
~p
|
~~p
|
~~~p
|
~~~~p
|
~~~~~p
|
~~~~~~p
|
~~~~~~~p
|
~~~~~~~~p
|
~~~~~~~~~p
|
~~~~~~~~~~p
|
~~~~~~~~~~~p
v
E
v ...............................p^
~~~~~~~~~~~~p
GGGGround SSState

Yes or;

E
~p
|
~~p
|
~~~p
|
~~~~p
|
~~~~~p
|
~~~~~~p
|
~~~~~p
|
~~~~p
|
~~~p
|
~~p
|
~
v
E
v
GGGGround SSState

An electron dropping it's energy state drops some distance in space bigger or smaller;

E for Electron dropping down
|
|
v

When does Photon/EM wave appear?

E
|
~~~~~P~~~~~>
|
|
|
|
v
E

Or

E
|
|
|
~~~~P~~~>
|
|
v
E

Or

E
|
|
|
|
|
~~~~P~~~~
v
E
The photon em waves emission, propagation, generation must occur at some exact space/s and time/s in relation to the electrons lowering it's energy level.

You could mean that the photon is like a type of liquid that mixes with the electron liquid to make faster liquid, and when the liquid slows down and drips back down it is separated again or the photon is a kind of goo that glooply sticks together to the electron to make an excited fast moving goo around the nucleus, but it is like at the mall those quarter around the wide cone things where a quarter spins on its edge around and around and down and down.

The electron photon goo like as if it were the electron proton goo, or gass maybe even; swirls around the coneness of the nucleus;and maybe some photon energy even leaks out and this is why the electron eventually slips back down, or maybe just uncontrollable fluctuations between nucleus and photonized electron, shake it down little by little,

Any way finally the mixture slide down to lower orbital, and squish zap zip zing zoom the photonic electron is seperated and the photon is traveling on its way at light speed, like it never lost a breath or step

You know you can upload pics here dumbass?

Or;

E
v
..................................................................p^
~p
|
................................................................p^
~~p
|
..............................................................p^
~~~p
|
.............................................................p^
~~~~p
|
.........................................................p^
~~~~~p
|
......................................................p^
~~~~~~p
|
....................................................p^
~~~~~~~p
|
................................................p^
~~~~~~~~p
|
.............................................p^
~~~~~~~~~p
|
..........................................p^
~~~~~~~~~~p
|
......................................p^
~~~~~~~~~~~p
v
E
v ...............................p^
~~~~~~~~~~~~p
GGGGround SSState

Respond:

if any light waves actually do have some bodily back and forth component, then what prevents the momentum of the downward motion from not continuing to go down, what is the forcing pressure that would cause a back and forth for forget 10 million miles, 10 feet, how would any wave like back and forth be forced to contain that complex motion, and not just have it's momentum sprawl out into immediate decoherence?

Like shooting a simple wave encoded message in a slinkies wave function as you shoot it out 100 yards with a wave function encoded in it's up down wave pattern.

Maybe it would travel 100 yards with it's body wiggle waggling? The same pattern up and down?

Maybe air and gravity decay it's pattern?

Maybe in vacuum if you shot a slinky out and gave it a certain vibratory wave function pattern that equals some simple encoded language, hello for instance, that someone will detect 100 yards away,

If this was done in space vacuum would the slinky be able to maintain for 100 yards or 100,000 yards it's consistent vibratory up down encoded wiggle?

But if this was to relate to light in any way even .01%,

Light would have to have some bodyness at all to some degree at all.

Now another way the slinky in space idea is attempted to get closer to encapsulating how light might exist and travel,

If we shoot 100,000 slinkies back to back to back

Or if one slinky 100,000 miles long

Or 100,000 billion slinkies each 100,000 billion light years long

Interference is a wave phenomenon so it doesn't strictly require them interacting.

Yo what would be going on there, in-between very powerful magnets slowly being brought together the same pole facing in;

One anon said the field is 0 there..
I don't know if they mean the energy level is 0,. There are 0 field lines there, there is no magnetism or electric field there, or what, because it certainly feels like there is force and energy there, and I can imagine seriously strong magnets repulsing even harder.

What do very sensitive detectors say is going on in the middle there? Toss some iron filings In there, when the magnets feel all jumpy from the repulsion do the iron filings jumpy? Are photons being emitted in therr between the magnets?

It was already explained.

So is the problem that you are confused about frames of reference? Because relativity does predict that the experience of time differs with velocity.

>Because light is slower in a gravitational field.
You do realise that the gravitational field is weaker for a high orbit satellite than it is for us on Earth?

And you know that general relativity already includes time dilation in it?

>How come short-lived particles have a much longer lifespan when travelling close to c
Their speed is inferred indirectly by reverse relativistic calculation from their measured energy. Because energy goes to infinity as speed goes to c, it's circular to claim that their velocity is less than c. So one thing could be that their velocity is higher than c.

>Why do satellites that have atomic clocks on board clearly show a time discrepancy compared to Earth-based clocks and why is that discrepancy accurately predicted by relativity?
Because light is slower in a gravitational field.

Did you know that there's coordinate transformation in aerodynamics called the Prandtl-Glauert transformation, which looks exactly like the Lorentz contraction? Lengths are contracted by a factor of sqrt(1-(v/c)^2), where c is the speed of sound.
It's a linearization of compressibility effects into an incompressible flow. It's from this transformation that it was thought that the sound barrier was impossible to overcome, because the energy went to infinity as v approaches c.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/324017960_Deriving_Special_Relativity_from_the_Theory_of_Subsonic_Compressible_Aerodynamics
Where do you think the Lorentz transformation comes from anyway? From Voigt, who derived it while thinking of the Doppler effect, which affects a wave's frequency, thus time (of travel).
Is "sound" a spacetime, also? Do supersonic airplanes travel backwards in time?

Do you think Einstein came up with all the mathematics? The only thing he did, is impose his metaphysical constraints to preexisting mathematics, and interpret it in the most moronic way possible, which we call relativity.

>his metaphysical constraints to preexisting mathematics
He didn't randomly come up with them. We already knew that the speed of light is the same for all observers. Einstein wasn't even the first one to come up with the notion of mass-energy equivalence and that's not a secret. He did derive special relativity (and later on general relativity) from scratch in a very elegant way.

>... In the same way the speed of sound is.
So how do you think constant speed of light was predicted?
>which is NOT the same as special relativity
Special Realtivity is special case of General Relativity. Anything Special Relativity predicts is predicted by General Relativity (tho not the other way around).

>massive objects. Try it out, you'll never fail. In fact, "variable speed of light due to gravity" is how Einstein first came up with general relativity, before geometrizing the concept.
>Of course, light rays will bend when the speed of light of the medium it travels in changes.
Yes but this is not the slowing down of light.

As a car driving a straight away at 20 mph may take 20 seconds from A to B
While a car driving around a curve that leads from A to B, at 20 mph will take longer.

Material clocks are made of material.

Time is immaterial.

The ability to calculate this immateriality is fluctuated by the various movements of the material time keeping aparatus.

If I smash a clock on the floor have I stopped time?