Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

Personal Topic

Relativity

  • Please log in to reply
910 replies to this topic

#902 9olymmoth

9olymmoth

    Questioning

  • Members
  • 134 posts

Posted 18 February 2019 - 06:43 PM

 
Please clarify, "the speed of light changes".

He's talking about on certain scales where our planet may be travelling towards a photon faster than the speed of light travels relative to our preferred frame of reference as it pertains to the rate of time and the very distinction between energy and matter can still made from our perspective as this all structures in this cosmos are recurring fractals where can exist on a smaller scale than energy given that matter is within one of those microvacuums I described as composing the interior of a black hole thereby displacing everything as dense in quantum fluctuations as a non-microscopic redshift vacuum does. There the speed of light can be up to three orders of magnitude higher than what vacuum fluctuations will allow.

#903 Moronium

Moronium

    Creating

  • Members
  • 1918 posts

Posted 18 February 2019 - 09:22 PM

Heh, speak for yourself, Polly.

 

That's not what I'm saying at all.


Edited by Moronium, 18 February 2019 - 10:39 PM.


#904 9olymmoth

9olymmoth

    Questioning

  • Members
  • 134 posts

Posted 19 February 2019 - 10:24 AM

Heh, speak for yourself, Polly.

 

That's not what I'm saying at all.

It is you just don't understand why.

 

You were talking about the refractive index. How light takes longer to get from point a to point b in water, for instance, will take 72 thousand times longer than it would inside of a black hole, but it would take trillions of times less time than outside the event horizon of a black hole where all the spatial-temporal turbulence light hits has been shoved from within the volume of the interior of the event horizon to without. Why? Because the light is being refracted and is taking a step back for every few steps forward so to speak. Refraction occurs not just in light, it occurs in all the elementary particles that light compresses into, that's called their frequency.


Edited by 9olymmoth, 19 February 2019 - 10:26 AM.


#905 9olymmoth

9olymmoth

    Questioning

  • Members
  • 134 posts

Posted 19 February 2019 - 10:27 AM

If the medium that houses those particles has a greater density than those particles, the particles will undergo refraction assuming they're free particles.



#906 ralfcis

ralfcis

    Questioning

  • Members
  • 208 posts

Posted 19 February 2019 - 10:33 AM

Polly, you have no idea what causes refraction. It's due to the permittivity and permeability constants of the electromagnetic field of the medium light passes through aka one of Maxwell's equations. It has nothing to do with quantum effects or absorption and emission of light from one atom to the next like 99.99999% of people believe.



#907 9olymmoth

9olymmoth

    Questioning

  • Members
  • 134 posts

Posted 19 February 2019 - 11:23 AM

Polly, you have no idea what causes refraction. It's due to the permittivity and permeability constants of the electromagnetic field of the medium light passes through aka one of Maxwell's equations. It has nothing to do with quantum effects or absorption and emission of light from one atom to the next like 99.99999% of people believe.

Charge is the absorption and emission in this instance. There exists gravitational equivalents of charge below the electromagnetic interactions.



#908 ralfcis

ralfcis

    Questioning

  • Members
  • 208 posts

Posted 19 February 2019 - 12:02 PM

Sentences are the quantum equivalence theory of paralegals subject to the ruhur of vehicular traffic.



#909 9olymmoth

9olymmoth

    Questioning

  • Members
  • 134 posts

Posted 19 February 2019 - 12:19 PM

Imagine you have 10^57 lagrange coordinates, where gravitational pull is equal from all directions and all objects are passing through the center of the smallest iteration of those spherical coordinates that are each a planck length in diameter. Going at the speed of light, you lose that smallest iteration of spherical coordinates at tp=2, at tp = 3 that smallest iterations reappers and everts, the largest iteration is just one sphere, and it has become smaller by one planck volume at tp=2, it's become smaller by two planck volumes at tp=3.

 

Anyway, by the time the largest iteration of spherical coordinates reaches zero volume the smallest iteration has everted yet each of those countless smallest iteration of planck spheres has increased by nearly infinite times over their original volume and are EACH the size of the largest iteration of spherical coordinates, minus one planck volume basically. The diameter of all those photon sized spherical lagrange coordinates side by side is equal to nearly infinite photons, that is the emission related to QE which is like 999 times faster than light in a vacuum.


Edited by 9olymmoth, 19 February 2019 - 12:19 PM.


#910 9olymmoth

9olymmoth

    Questioning

  • Members
  • 134 posts

Posted 19 February 2019 - 12:22 PM

In fact particles with positive charge, such as up-quarks, can produce waves in spacetime that work like quantum gravity (absorption) on objects beneath the scale of the EM interaction.

 

This is the basis of the Anti-Life Equation.


Edited by 9olymmoth, 19 February 2019 - 12:22 PM.


#911 Moronium

Moronium

    Creating

  • Members
  • 1918 posts

Posted 19 February 2019 - 05:20 PM

I take it this harkens back to your "GR recognizes that the earth orbits the sun," statement.  No kidding that Builder wasn't the first.  Ever hear of Copernicus?  Galileo, maybe?  Newton, perhaps?

 

Guess what?  Even if you haven't heard of them, Einstein certainly had when concocted SR.  GR didn't establish that "common knowledge," eh?

 

When Einstein was specifically asked in the context of answering questions about SR whether we weren't justified in claiming that the earth orbited the sun, rather than vice versa, he kinda stumbled.

 

He could have said, "yes, that's the correct view."  But he didn't.  It would have destroyed his relativity postulate.

 

Instead he just said that, as a practical matter, no one would adopt the view that the sun orbited the earth, because that would complicate calculations. It would be ridiculous to do that.  It was simply not a "convenient" viewpoint to take.

 

But he went on to say that the two views (heliocentric vs geocentric) were nonetheless "equally valid."  Obviously they are not "equally valid" as a matter of fact (and known physics), so how did he justify this statement?

 

He said it was justified "as a matter of principle."  Kinda tells ya where "principles" will lead ya, eh?

 

Faith does not move mountains.  On the contrary, it erects mountains where none exist.   (Nietzsche)

 


Edited by Moronium, 19 February 2019 - 05:28 PM.