Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 50 (9181 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: joebialek123
Post Volume: Total: 918,282 Year: 5,539/9,624 Month: 564/323 Week: 61/143 Day: 4/19 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Speed of Light
Alfred Maddenstein
Member (Idle past 4085 days)
Posts: 565
Joined: 04-01-2011


Message 241 of 268 (615565)
05-14-2011 11:17 AM
Reply to: Message 231 by Viv Pope
12-31-2009 8:27 AM


Re: c & t
Viv Pope writes:
To Iblis,
You ask why does this happen? Or doesn't it?
Well, Iblis, it doesn’t. In my last post to Cavediver, I described what I have called the Cinematic Model as a logical solution of the ‘two velocities’ problem in relativity, on the existence of which — the two velocities — he and I concur. (see his Message
222. My reply has been sent but hasn’t appeared yet.)
So, let’s ‘chalk this up’ as a positive move forward. Now you say you want to know the ‘substance’ of the argument. Well, okay, here goes.
Your knowledge of the existence of the sun begins with a pattern of quantum light pixels in your eye — or, more safely, in something like a camera or a projected image. Now it has to be faced that in no way whatsoever can you see those light quanta starting out from the sun and travelling for eight minutes in space before entering your eye — or the camera.
Now hold that thought. Then think: From where did I get the idea that those ‘photons’ which enter my eye have ‘travelled for eight minutes’? Certainly it was not from observing those ‘photons’ travelling in that way. So that notion of the ‘space- travelling photons’ is a theory, no less.
And what about the distance of the sun? How do you know that? The simple answer is, of course, that you were told it or that you read it somewhere. Again, in no way can you actually see that distance stretching from you to the sun. So, from where do we get the knowledge that the distance from here to the sun is 93 million miles? Did someone tape-measure it or determine it in some other ‘hands-on’ way ? Well, of course not! So, again where did that knowledge come from?
You wanted the ‘substance’, well, now you’ve got it. What is not substantial, indeed is completely insubstantial, is the idea of light travelling in the form of ‘photons’ from the sun to you. As you have already realised, the set of quantum pixels that occur in your eye are the same events, identically, as those in certain atoms on the sun. As we discussed earlier, this is exactly the same as saying that the sun and its distance from you are projections out of statistical numbers of these single, discrete events common to both you and the sun. In my previous posting you seemed not to have been able to complete that conceptual flipover from the insubstantial ‘light in space’ to the substantial ‘space in light’ which is the point of departure for a whole New Physics, based on the ideas of Einstein’s relativistic mentor, Mach, instead of those of his pupil, Einstein, which he, Mach repudiated. Forgive me for saying this, Iblis, but that bit of logical ratiocination seems to have gone right over your head — as, indeed. it does with most people confronted with that logical argument, steeped as they are in the now failing extant physics which regards light in space as substantial.
Let’s face it, then, the substance of this issue is that our knowledge of the sun’s distance comes from nowhere but the patterns of quantum pixels in our eye or some other optical instrument — or, of course, in the eyes or instruments of other observers, some of whom are the expert observers whose observations and measurements are the basis of our textbook knowledge of physics and astronomy.
Characteristic of these informational patterns of quantum pixels are, of course, the phenomena of parallax and perspective, from which the positions and distances of external objects are automatically deduced. As I described it to Cavediver, these patterns are analogous to the still photographs, or ‘stills’ in a cinematographic projector, and the ‘action’ of the film, as the director views it, consists of sequences of these patterns of quantum stills in the time of the observer of that action. The objects are instantaneously connected in the stills themselves while they move with finite speed relatively to one another in the running of the film. (Compare this with what I discussed with Cavediver.) In this Normal Realist Cinematic Model of quantum connection, there is no conflict whatsoever between instantaneous and delayed distant interaction.
So there is no relationship between the two places which, as you say ‘exists and then collapses’. Nor is there any ‘duration element’ which, from the viewpoint of the observer ‘seems to take no time at all’. And, certainly, there is no ‘proper time and relative duration reversal’. For anyone who can shake his mind free of conventional precepts, no such puzzles arise.
Viv Pope (no pseudonym).
That's very interesting- all that you are saying, Viv Pope. Certainly the two different approaches could compete and co-exist. There is no need for dogma.
Space in light makes as much sense as light in space. Velocity of light is indeed the receding speed limit and the velocity of horizon.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 231 by Viv Pope, posted 12-31-2009 8:27 AM Viv Pope has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 242 by David Carroll, posted 08-24-2012 1:01 PM Alfred Maddenstein has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024