Moderators: Calilasseia, ADParker
newolder wrote:Another way to look at this involves the Lorentz transform. When applied to a photon moving in the positive x direction at c we note that lengths along x are contracted to zero relative to a rest frame observer.
Volume is a product of x, y and z lengths. In the case of an x-moving photon, there is no length in x. Consequently the volume product vanishes.
DavidMcC wrote:newolder wrote:Another way to look at this involves the Lorentz transform. When applied to a photon moving in the positive x direction at c we note that lengths along x are contracted to zero relative to a rest frame observer.
Volume is a product of x, y and z lengths. In the case of an x-moving photon, there is no length in x. Consequently the volume product vanishes.
Well, you could argue that, way, but it could cause confusion, as there is no specific volume associated with a photon in the first place.
... I suppose in this sense, photons could lack volume, but does that mean they lack dimensions? It doesn't appear this could be the case if photons have wavelengths.
newolder wrote:This could only cause confusion in an idiot's brain.
newolder wrote:What insult, DavidMcC? I've read elsewhere that you display the characteristics of some kind of persecution complex but this is the first time I can recall I've seen it displayed openly.
The algebra of the Lorentz transform is mid-school simple - if an object travels at c relative to "me" then I observe it displays no thickness along the axis of travel.
DavidMcC wrote: I suspect that, for years, you have been waiting for a chance to hit back after I exposed your FTL travel nonsense as just that.
Sendraks wrote:DavidMcC wrote: I suspect that, for years, you have been waiting for a chance to hit back after I exposed your FTL travel nonsense as just that.
Wow. Is there no end to this conspiracy fuelled bullshit?
At what point David are you going to come to accept that no one gives a flying fuck about the FTL thread apart from you. Literally, no one. ...
DavidMcC wrote:
EDIT: Although both of these occurred years ago, neither ever admitted to being wrong.
DavidMcC wrote:newolder wrote:What insult, DavidMcC? I've read elsewhere that you display the characteristics of some kind of persecution complex but this is the first time I can recall I've seen it displayed openly.
That's your interpretation. You have to bear in mind your own issues. I suspect that, for years, you have been waiting for a chance to hit back after I exposed your FTL travel nonsense as just that.
The algebra of the Lorentz transform is mid-school simple - if an object travels at c relative to "me" then I observe it displays no thickness along the axis of travel.
Of course it is, but that was not the issue. It is just playing with words to talk of the size of a photon in any case, as I have already pointed out. Interpretting the size of a photon in terms of its wavelength is dubious, to say the least. Better to say that photons only have the size that their associated EM field has (which can fill the entire universe, or not, depending on whether the light-source is inside a box).
DavidMcC wrote:newolder wrote:What insult, DavidMcC? I've read elsewhere that you display the characteristics of some kind of persecution complex but this is the first time I can recall I've seen it displayed openly.
That's your interpretation. You have to bear in mind your own issues. I suspect that, for years, you have been waiting for a chance to hit back after I exposed your FTL travel nonsense as just that.
laklak wrote:Tired of limp, flyaway light? Try new Elvive Photon Volumizer Seurm!
laklak wrote:Tired of limp, flyaway light? Try new Elvive Photon Volumizer Seurm!
Users viewing this topic: No registered users and 1 guest