Philosophy Discussion Forums

You are totally missing the point.

AB1OB wrote: We have a way of gently aiming the antimatter & matter so that they collide at a specifically positioned point relative to our observation points and create a short electromagnetic "flash".

Matter & antimatter totally eliminate each other producing only a "flash" of light.

A flash of light unfiltered, not shaped, not focused. The idea is to study the "unhindered" Light and watch where it goes over a 3 second duration.

AB1OB wrote:You are totally missing the point.


(Nested quote removed.)


Matter & antimatter totally eliminate each other producing only a "flash" of light.

A flash of light unfiltered, not shaped, not focused. The idea is to study the "unhindered" Light and watch where it goes over a 3 second duration.

It goes in whatever direction it was created in at c.

Calrid wrote: (Nested quote removed.)


It goes in whatever direction it was created in at c.

Please explain "the direction of creation".

Whatever direction it was impelled by upon creation, probability dictates there are more likely directions, but mostly it would be pretty random.

You could probably invent some differential to explain the probability of a photon being created at any one point with a vector correspondingly.

What about a round 6 foot diameter children's wading pool. Let's say that you want to create expanding circular waves directed so they hit the perphery uniformly at the walls. How do you do it?

AB1OB wrote:What about a round 6 foot diameter children's wading pool. Let's say that you want to create expanding circular waves directed so they hit the perphery uniformly at the walls. How do you do it?

Well you can't because it doesn't work like that, it wont be created at any one point so there is no point trying to set it up in any particular place because as we know light does not behave like that, spontaneous photon pair creation is another one of those illuminating subjects if you'll pardon the pun.

If the position x is random within renormalisation limits (ie the photon doesn't appear in another galaxy and is thought to have only a limited chance of appearing outside a certain area), then there is no way to get exactly the result you want except by pure chance.

Strictly speaking the wave is infinite anyway, but obviously it's better to picture it as being of a finite size.

Calrid wrote:Whatever direction it was impelled by upon creation, probability dictates there are more likely directions, but mostly it would be pretty random.

You could probably invent some differential to explain the probability of a photon being created at any one point with a vector correspondingly.

Light does not get "impelled" it is a constant expansion.

If you have a flashlight going 100,000 mph and turn it on, the light travels from it at the same speed as a stationary flashlight.

-- Updated January 1st, 2014, 9:26 am to add the following --

AB1OB wrote:What about a round 6 foot diameter children's wading pool. Let's say that you want to create expanding circular waves directed so they hit the periphery uniformly at the walls. How do you do it?

Calrid wrote:Well you can't because it doesn't work like that, it wont be created at any one point so there is no point trying to set it up in any particular place because as we know light does not behave like that, spontaneous photon pair creation is another one of those illuminating subjects if you'll pardon the pun.

If the position x is random within renormalisation limits (ie the photon doesn't appear in another galaxy and is thought to have only a limited chance of appearing outside a certain area), then there is no way to get exactly the result you want except by pure chance.

Strictly speaking the wave is infinite anyway, but obviously it's better to picture it as being of a finite size.

I am totally baffled but that response. I have no idea what you are talking about or how it relates to my question above.

If you want circular waves to expand uniformly to the periphery, then you need to displace the water at the center of the circular pool.

well no actually it depends how fast the flash light is really travelling at and since there are no fixed points, and we don't know what speed we are going only relatively it means we are not even sure what light speed is but we call it c anyway because it is a relative term which only depends on itself. But the fact still remains what you say is impossible to achieve except by chance.

And I think you know what I mean by impelled, but yes what you said. The only thing that can potentially exceed c, is the expansion of time and space itself.

Calrid wrote:well no actually it depends how fast the flash light is really travelling at and since there are no fixed points, and we don't know what speed we are going only relatively it means we are not even sure what light speed is but we call it c anyway because it is a relative term which only depends on itself.

I don't understand what you are trying to say.

A flashlight traveling, at any speed, will always emit light that travels @ c. c is the constant speed relative to the position of any matter.

Calrid wrote:But the fact still remains what you say is impossible to achieve except by chance.

What exactly is impossible?

Calrid wrote:And I think you know what I mean by impelled, but yes what you said. The only thing that can potentially exceed c, is the expansion of time and space itself.

The expansion of the universe (space-time) is a constant radial expansion.

When the radius of an expanding sphere is large enough, 2 relative points on the periphery of the sphere can expand at a rate faster than the lengthening radius (c).

To set your experiment so that light strikes the sides of the pool simultaneously as a wave. It's impossible to do except by chance since there is no exact position a photon is in because we can not know that without upsetting the system, likewise upon creation there is no definitive position either so we could see it do what you say but it is only as likely as probability dictates. Given enough time it is bound to happen though, given the lifespan of the universe almost certain that is. As a particle of course the probability of striking any one point is related to pi and hence sin and the operators in a 4d space.

A flashlight traveling, at any speed, will always emit light that travels @ c. c is the constant speed relative to the position of any matter.

Reltively speaking to you at that space and time but to other observers this is not so because speed and time concerns are not additive nothing can exceed c, even your relative speed aside from the already potential for space/time itself to do it which is a moot point, hyperinflation is not exactly theoretical. If 2 ships are travelling towards each other at close to c they are not moving towards each other at 2x close to c, like they are at relatively normal speeds of less than a fraction of c.

Where beta is .9999c

Using the correct Lorentzian:



Essentially this boils down to .9999c x i999c/1-.9999^2= .999 of c.

It also means time for c is undefined. since it is division by 0

Calrid wrote:To set your experiment so that light strikes the sides of the pool simultaneously as a wave. It's impossible to do except by chance since there is no exact position a photon is in because we can not know that without upsetting the system, likewise upon creation there is no definitive position either so we could see it do what you say but it is only as likely as probability dictates. Given enough time it is bound to happen though, given the lifespan of the universe almost certain that is. As a particle of course the probability of striking any one point is related to pi and hence sin and the operators in a 4d space.

OH, No wonder. When I switched to the wading pool example, I was referring to regular water waves (not light). I was using wave action (2-dimensional expansion) as an analogy to 3-dimensional expansion of Light.

A flashlight traveling, at any speed, will always emit light that travels @ c. c is the constant speed relative to the position of any matter.

Calrid wrote:Reltively speaking to you at that space and time but to other observers this is not so because speed and time concerns are not additive nothing can exceed c, even your relative speed aside from the already potential for space/time itself to do it which is a moot point, hyperinflation is not exactly theoretical. If 2 ships are travelling towards each other at close to c they are not moving towards each other at 2x close to c, like they are at relatively normal speeds of less than a fraction of c.

Where beta is .9999c

Using the correct Lorentzian:



Essentially this boils down to .9999c xi999c/1-.9999= .999c

Yes, I understand special relativity but it is not relevant to the point in question.

We are not talking about matter moving at or near c. We are talking about how the Light itself "moves" relative to stationary matter.

Ok sorry we are on different wavelengths here. If you are talking about something that isn't quantum but classical ie a flashlight as you said, and classical water waves are the same. Sorry I should of got that. Kinda busy and multi tasking atm and men are crap at that stuff. Then it is simply a matter of turning it on at the right position. Since the classical holds in that example.

I am really enjoying talking to you by the way, it's nice to chat.

It's nice to also meet someone who answers your questions, I seem to have been assailed by multiple debaters for the most part who just want to win an argument which is not my thing, on a philosophy forum, I consider it apt, but mostly it's little more than trolling, if you can't answer peoples questions you are losing anyway. But as long as you say you are just here to win an argument by any means necessary though that's fine. If you get off on Pyhrric victories where you just wander all over the map and never answer anything then that is your prerogative. I have no issue with that, although it's not my thing and I am not trying to score brownie points on my win board, I understand some people enjoy that which is cool, half assed but it's fine. Can the insults though, it is also going to make you look like you are struggling to win. it's like resorting to pointing out grammatical errors and not tackling the argument in a post although you knew what they meant, evidence that you are on a sinking ship, and everyone knows it so you are wasting your time. Just answer the question you dummard.

And ultimately you will be banned for insults too, which means a technical knockout although as I say I would chalk that up as a loss myself because I am not interested in my win board. I may act like a child when I want to have some fun, but in all the areas that matter I like to think I have a mature attitude, of course I am lying to myself but life revolves around comfortable lies.

If you can understand the analogy of a 2-d circularly expanding water wave to a 3-d spherically expanding light wave, then I can describe absolute time and the speed of light using this "kiddie pool" analogy.

The basic APPARATUS (that you need to visualize) for this demonstration:

An enclosed, stadium-sized, circular, pool of water of equal depth. 4 observation points oriented around the pool. (like compass points-N/E/S/W). A train (or multiples of the same), on a straight and level track, to carry this stadium-sized pool room.

This train is running on a track that we will call "ABSOLUTE TIME". When it was constructed, each tie was placed the same distance apart from its neighbor. All of the ties have a magnet embedded in them. We have a "clock" on the train that works by counting the passing magnets.

OK. I think that should about do it for the stuff that you need to visualize. Now we need to visualize how all this stuff looks from 2 different perspectives. A god-like (external to the system) perspective, vs. an apparent (as seen from within) the system.

God-like perspective

From this perspective, we are not on the train. We can see the train moving along the tracks. This train is analogous to our galaxy. Our Galaxy travels a radius of expansion. Other galaxies are also on their radius of expansion. So what does this galactic expansion look like in terms of our experimental model?

From this external perspective we look down and see many tracks connecting at a hub and extending away like spokes on a wheel. Each track has another train, these are the analogy to other galaxies. Now it is easy to see why their relative expansion seems to be accelerating. (The spokes are lengthening at a constant rate and their divergence angle is constant but the relative space between the spokes "accelerates").

We can see that all the ties are equally spaced. We can see that all the tracks are straight. We can see that tie # 7654932 is exactly the same distance from the hub, no matter which track you check. We can see the train moving relative to the track. We see the track as stationary, on the ground. We see the waves in the pool move relative to the train and also relative to the ground. We can see the frequency and size of the waves and also the wavelengths.

Apparent perspective

Now we are within the system. I am going to describe some of the finer details of the methods for this demonstration; The "observation points", that I referred to above (compass positions around pool), are set up so that only the water waves create input. (The observers are blindfolded and soundproofed.) This isolates them from anything that is "outside of the system" from influencing them. They have a small access point that allows them to detect waves that reach them by feeling the waves. The observers also can initiate waves, from this small access point.

So "within" perspective does not feel the train moving at a constant speed. As far as "within" knows, he is stationary.

Each observer can receive messages in the language of waves that enter their "access position". Visualize that language. It consists of time between waves and size of waves. Just like Light.

I'm not done but I'd better stop and see if this is clear enough to understand before proceeding with tieing it all together.

hmm I am going to take some time to think about what you said, since I don't have enough time to address your points you do strike me though as very similar to another poster on another board, and for that I thank you. If you are him at last, answering questions, if not well every loser wins when the game begins.

Happy recluse wrote: (Nested quote removed.)


The speed of light is 299,792,458 meters per second. This speed is always the same, provided light travels in a vacuum. If that speed is always the same, then the length of a meter and the duration of a second is always the same. In fact, such is the case for every single observer.

Would it help to express the speed of light as age? It takes x number of years for the light of the sun to reach us, or the light of a star. Light travels at the same speed, but it is actually over time, or age. So, we're seeing aged light, or past light, when we look at the stars, right?