Horizons/power/photons

[dabiznuss]

I was wondering the other day about Einstein thought experiment the one of how it would look if you were to ride on a light wave. Well i started to wonder if photons and light according to Einstein experience no time during there journey, what would happen if you were in a horizon and you shined a flash light or laser since the photon would have no place to go and photons journeys are timeless and only play apart once absorbed, reflected, refracted, ect. Would the power of the laser, flashlight, or star become less? Meaning the power of the source decreases........ <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[Mee_n_Mac]

Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I was wondering the other day about Einstein thought experiment the one of how it would look if you were to ride on a light wave. Well i started to wonder if photons and light according to Einstein experience no time during there journey, what would happen if you were in a horizon and you shined a flash light or laser since the photon would have no place to go and photons journeys are timeless and only play apart once absorbed, reflected, refracted, ect. Would the power of the laser, flashlight, or star become less? Meaning the power of the source decreases........ <br />Posted by <strong>dabiznuss</strong></DIV><br /><br />I'm completely in the dark re: what you mean by "you were in a horizon"&nbsp;juxtaposed&nbsp;with&nbsp;"photon has no place to go".&nbsp; Is this trying to refer to a black hole's event horizon ? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>-----------------------------------------------------</p><p><font color="#ff0000">Ask not what your Forum Software can do do on you,</font></p><p><font color="#ff0000">Ask it to, please for the love of all that's Holy, <strong>STOP</strong> !</font></p> </div>

 

[dabiznuss]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I'm completely in the dark re: what you mean by "you were in a horizon"&nbsp;juxtaposed&nbsp;with&nbsp;"photon has no place to go".&nbsp; Is this trying to refer to a black hole's event horizon ? <br />Posted by mee_n_mac</DIV></p><p>Preferably a cosmological horizon, i know this concept is a little awkward, but think about what would happen to any source providing light, that will never become absorbed, reflected ect..&nbsp;&nbsp;<br /></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[why06]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Preferably a cosmological horizon, i know this concept is a little awkward, but think about what would happen to any source providing light, that will never become absorbed, reflected ect..&nbsp;&nbsp; <br /> Posted by dabiznuss</DIV></p><p>A cosmological horizon? umm... define horizon again in more detail. Because from my knowledge I match horizon with something that can never be reached. Horizon itself is imaginary. It is a concept, but not really a defined point or space except in relation to a certain perspective. A perspective I might add that can actually be any point or time that exists or has existed in the known universe. </p><p>Theres probalby a lot more that can be said about the concept of horizon, but that was not your question so please find another word to use in its place or better define what you mean.&nbsp;</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div>________________________________________ <br /></div><div><ul><li><font color="#008000"><em>your move...</em></font></li></ul></div> </div>

 

[SpeedFreek]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Preferably a cosmological horizon, i know this concept is a little awkward, but think about what would happen to any source providing light, that will never become absorbed, reflected ect..&nbsp;&nbsp; <br /> Posted by dabiznuss</DIV></p><p>Perhaps you are referring to something like the cosmological event horizon, which marks the place where light emitted from objects today will never be able to reach us (currently 16 billion light-years away, where our observable universe is 46 billion light-years in radius). Well, light is passing that horizon. A galaxy, say, 10 billion light-years away from us and within <strong>our</strong> cosmological event horizon will see the light from galaxies beyond it, and will continue to be able see light emitted beyond <strong>our</strong> horizon for billions of years to come. That galaxy 10 billion light-years away from us has its own cosmological event horizon, which is currently 16 billion light-years away from it, and 26 billion light-years away from us. This is what <strong>why06</strong> was referring to.</p><p>(Simply put!)&nbsp;</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#ff0000">_______________________________________________<br /></font><font size="2"><em>SpeedFreek</em></font> </p> </div>

 

[derekmcd]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I was wondering the other day about Einstein thought experiment the one of how it would look if you were to ride on a light wave. Well i started to wonder if photons and light according to Einstein experience no time during there journey, what would happen if you were in a horizon and you shined a flash light or laser since the photon would have no place to go and photons journeys are timeless and only play apart once absorbed, reflected, refracted, ect. Would the power of the laser, flashlight, or star become less? Meaning the power of the source decreases........ <br /> Posted by dabiznuss</DIV></p><p>Your question is a little vague.&nbsp; You are correct in that a photon doesn't experience time in its own reference frame.&nbsp; Therefore, if you were riding with those photons, you wouldn't experience time either.&nbsp; In other words, you couldn't do anything, much less do experiments.&nbsp; You would have no experience between event A and event B... it would be instantaneous.&nbsp;</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div> </div><br /><div><span style="color:#0000ff" class="Apple-style-span">"If something's hard to do, then it's not worth doing." - Homer Simpson</span></div> </div>

 

[UncertainH]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>You are correct in that a photon doesn't experience time in its own reference frame.&nbsp; Therefore, if you were riding with those photons, you wouldn't experience time either.&nbsp; In other words, you couldn't do anything, much less do experiments.&nbsp; You would have no experience between event A and event B... it would be instantaneous.&nbsp; <br />Posted by derekmcd</DIV></p><p>This is something I have always had a problem with in relativity. Is the frame of reference of the photon not an inertial frame and thus subject to the same laws of relativity? I think it goes something like 'the laws of phyics are the same in all frames of reference' If the photon experiences no time then from its perspective it has no energy or motion and in fact without time it wouldn't have any laws of phyics whatsoever.</p>

 

[kg]

Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>This is something I have always had a problem with in relativity. Is the frame of reference of the photon not an inertial frame and thus subject to the same laws of relativity? I think it goes something like 'the laws of phyics are the same in all frames of reference' If the photon experiences no time then from its perspective it has no energy or motion and in fact without time it wouldn't have any laws of phyics whatsoever. <br />Posted by UncertainH</DIV><br /><br />I kind of feel sorry for those photons.&nbsp; From their perspective they leave one place and instantly show up at another without having any idea how far they went or what they did along the way.&nbsp; I've had a couple of nights out like that and it's really disorienting!&nbsp;

 

[dabiznuss]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I kind of feel sorry for those photons.&nbsp; From their perspective they leave one place and instantly show up at another without having any idea how far they went or what they did along the way.&nbsp; I've had a couple of nights out like that and it's really disorienting!&nbsp; <br />Posted by kg</DIV></p><p>&nbsp;That's kind of the point the photons instantly show up at another place with out ever knowing how they got their, but what would happen to say a sun emitting energy and light if the photons never got any where? (b/c if the photons never got any where conservations laws should than play a role to make the sun decrease in energy) i know this question is kind of counter intuitive in a sense.........</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[SpeedFreek]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>This is something I have always had a problem with in relativity. Is the frame of reference of the photon not an inertial frame and thus subject to the same laws of relativity? I think it goes something like 'the laws of phyics are the same in all frames of reference' If the photon experiences no time then from its perspective it has no energy or motion and in fact without time it wouldn't have any laws of phyics whatsoever.<br /> Posted by UncertainH</DIV></p><p>No, in relativity a photon does not have a valid inertial frame of reference. If you think about it, you answered your own question. What is the purpose of an inertial frame of reference? </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#ff0000">_______________________________________________<br /></font><font size="2"><em>SpeedFreek</em></font> </p> </div>

 

[UncertainH]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>No, in relativity a photon does not have a valid inertial frame of reference. If you think about it, you answered your own question. What is the purpose of an inertial frame of reference? <br />Posted by SpeedFreek</DIV></p><p>Why is it not a valid inertial frame of reference ?&nbsp;</p><p>&nbsp;</p>

 

[SpeedFreek]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Why is it not a valid inertial frame of reference ?&nbsp;&nbsp; <br /> Posted by UncertainH</DIV></p><p><em>Special principle of relativity</em>: If a system of coordinates K is chosen so that, in relation to it, physical laws hold good in their simplest form, the <em>same</em> laws hold good in relation to any other system of coordinates K' moving in uniform translation relatively to K.</p><p> &ndash; <cite>Albert Einstein: <em>The foundation of the general theory of relativity.</em></cite></p><p>If I may rephrase that, K represents an inertial frame of reference <strong>if</strong> it is chosen so that the physical laws hold good in relation to it. That being the case, then the same laws hold good in relation to other inertial frames of reference.</p><p>But if light is K, the physical laws do <strong>not</strong> hold good in relation to it, as no time would pass for a photon. So, you answered your own question as to why it is not a valid inertial frame of reference. As you put it, "If the photon experiences no time then from its perspective it has no energy or motion and in fact without time it wouldn't have any laws of physics whatsoever." In valid frames of reference, a second always lasts a second.</p><p>In the real world, nothing will ever be able look at things from the point of view of a photon. It, or anything moving at c, <em>has no point of view</em>. It is a null viewpoint</p><p>Or put another way...</p><p>Consider the point of view of a photon travelling at c. No time passes. Nothing ever happens. The universe doesn't exist. There's your frame of reference, but what use is it if the universe doesn't exist in that frame of reference?<br /> </p><p>Consider the point of view of a spaceship that manages to impossibly accelerate to c. The universe ceases to exist. Nothing more can ever happen from the point of view of that spaceship, whilst it is at c. Why? Because it will, from a valid (if you allow the impossible) frame of reference, continue to travel at c forever, or until some <em>(impossible?)</em> outside force causes it to decelerate. As no time is passing on the spaceship, it cannot change its own circumstances in any way.</p><p>So what if it meets something that impossibly slows it down? From its own (now impossibly valid again!) less than c frame, the universe springs into existence again (unless the ship hits something hard and is vapourised)! No time has passed since the ship achieved c. Whilst it was at c, it had no point of view, it had no frame of reference. For the people on that impossible spaceship, the universe they ceased to experience would be termed a <em>discontinuity</em>. From their valid (less than c) frames of reference, you might think the discontinuity represents instantaneous travel, but that is only if you invoke impossible conditions, which render the frame of reference invalid. </p><p>&nbsp;</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#ff0000">_______________________________________________<br /></font><font size="2"><em>SpeedFreek</em></font> </p> </div>

 

[DrRocket]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>This is something I have always had a problem with in relativity. Is the frame of reference of the photon not an inertial frame and thus subject to the same laws of relativity? I think it goes something like 'the laws of phyics are the same in all frames of reference' If the photon experiences no time then from its perspective it has no energy or motion and in fact without time it wouldn't have any laws of phyics whatsoever. <br />Posted by UncertainH</DIV></p><p>It is not that a photon experiences no time from its perspective.&nbsp; It sees no length in its direction of motion relative to any reference frame attached to any piece of mass.&nbsp; <br /></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[vandivx]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Why is it not a valid <font color="#ff0000">i</font>nertial <font color="#ff0000">f</font>rame of <font color="#ff0000">r</font>eference ?&nbsp;&nbsp; <br /> Posted by UncertainH</DIV><br /><font color="#ff0000">IFR</font> only has meaning in respect to matter because of the term 'inertial' in it - that term means non-accelerated </p><p>matter can be accelerated whereas photon speed cannot be changed by its very nature, the concept of acceleration doesn't apply to photons at all, in fact the constant photon speed c was taken as postulate on which SR and all its talk about IFR was built, that's why IFR terminology only reffers to uniform velocities v which are always less than speed c (and v can never equal c), bottom line is one shouldn't talk about reference frame of a photon as it doesn't apply at all</p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>recognition of photon as a particle is the source of the confusion - people talk about it like if it was matter and there could be perspective on universe taken from the point of view of photon which is all patent nonsense, to get some sensible view one must leave the official physics view behind which is what I do in the rest of this post (warning! don't talk about what follows to your physics teacher LOL) </p><p>photon should be thought of not as a particle but as a 'photon of energy' which during its travel doesn't have localized 'particle' form but is QMechanically spread in space and only localizes upon absorption or (attempts) at its detection, it is also emitted in localized form but spreads in space immediately</p><p>photon is not a particle of matter as all the other particles are but it is a photon of energy and energy by its definition is not something that could be 'stopped' (as anything which can have its speed altered can also be stopped)</p><p>photons are really 'waves' in ether of space carying quantized energy around (waves can have spin and other properties that photon 'particles' have) and like all waves are purely dynamic phenomenon - if you stop them you got nothing left except the energy they carried along and they deliver that energy in localized form, actually it is not like that the photon of energy somehow localizes upon preparation for being absorbed, rather it is that the nature of matter is such that it accepts the photon wave energy from space in quantized and localized manner (it also emits it locally on particle level but once emited it spreads in space)</p><p>matter absorbs photon energy waves in a local manner in the sense that it is individual particles of matter that get excited by the absorption and receive momentum from the photon wave etc., the macroscopic chunk of matter as such is affected by photon energy waves only in a secondary manner through the particles of matter that make it up </p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>one can still wonder why we can't catch up with those photon waves or alter their speed, one way to look at it is by analogy - it is like if one wanted to catch up with one's shadow, real reasons I can't go into here </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[derekmcd]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>(warning! don't talk about what follows to your physics teacher LOL)<br /> Posted by vandivx</DIV></p><p>Indeed.&nbsp; If you told your physics teacher that mumbo jumbo, he/she would walk away scratching his/her head wondering how you got into his/her class.&nbsp;</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div> </div><br /><div><span style="color:#0000ff" class="Apple-style-span">"If something's hard to do, then it's not worth doing." - Homer Simpson</span></div> </div>

 

[UncertainH]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Indeed.&nbsp; If you told your physics teacher that mumbo jumbo, he/she would walk away scratching his/her head wondering how you got into his/her class.&nbsp; <br />Posted by derekmcd</DIV></p><p>&nbsp;I think I'll just continue to be uncertain.<br /></p>

 

[SpeedFreek]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>It is not that a photon experiences no time from its perspective.&nbsp; It sees no length in its direction of motion relative to any reference frame attached to any piece of mass.&nbsp; <br /> Posted by DrRocket</DIV></p><p>That's a very interesting way of putting it, but are you implying that it <em>would</em> "see length" in directions other than that of its motion? Surely the photon should be able to think of itself as at rest, so it is not trying to measure the length of its own motion, but the relative motion of objects around it. Can the photon only not see the distance to objects in its direction of motion? Perhaps I totally misunderstood you, as you know far more about this than I do. </p><p>How about:</p><p>When constructing a reference frame for an object you start by choosing a vector for the time coordinate which is the unit vector tangent to the object's worldine. However for a photon (or an object travelling at c) all vectors tangent to its worldline are null vectors (whose 'length' is 0) so you cannot construct a reference frame.</p><p>Doesn't this mean that the vector for the time coordinate has no length? </p><p><em>(this post is about me trying to learn. I keep getting an understanding and then someone else explains it differently!)&nbsp;</em></p><p>&nbsp;</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#ff0000">_______________________________________________<br /></font><font size="2"><em>SpeedFreek</em></font> </p> </div>

 

[UncertainH]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>It is not that a photon experiences no time from its perspective.&nbsp; It sees no length in its direction of motion relative to any reference frame attached to any piece of mass.&nbsp; <br />Posted by DrRocket</DIV></p><p>Do not both the length and time components approach zero at the speed of light? It sounds like from what you said that a photon does experience time so&nbsp;if it travelled from a distant galaxy to the hubble telescope it would view the distance as zero but that it took a whole bunch of time to go nowhere</p><p><br /><br />&nbsp;</p>

 

[dabiznuss]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Do not both the length and time components approach zero at the speed of light? It sounds like from what you said that a photon does experience time so&nbsp;if it travelled from a distant galaxy to the hubble telescope it would view the distance as zero but that it took a whole bunch of time to go nowhere&nbsp; <br />Posted by UncertainH</DIV></p><p>The interval is time-like when the time between the events is longer than light would take from the place to the one, to the place of the other. in the contrary case it is space-like. when the time between the two events is exactly equal to the time taken by light from one to other, <u>the interval is zero: the two events are than situated on parts of one light ray, unless no light happens to be passing that way.<br /></u></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[DrRocket]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Do not both the length and time components approach zero at the speed of light? It sounds like from what you said that a photon does experience time so&nbsp;if it travelled from a distant galaxy to the hubble telescope it would view the distance as zero but that it took a whole bunch of time to go nowhere&nbsp; <br />Posted by UncertainH</DIV></p><p>You need to be careful about your reference frames.&nbsp; In the reference frame of the photon, what we ("at rest") see as length is reduced to zero.&nbsp; And from our perspective the photon sees no time.&nbsp;The photon will experience time in its own reference frame (but since photons do not decay that experience is not particularly meaningful) but it sees no distance along its line of travel, it is basically everywhere at once along its line of travel.&nbsp; The photon would also say that no time passed in our frame of reference, that all objectds had infintite mass, and that there was infinite energy in their motion.&nbsp; Physics in the photons frame is a mess, and it is probably best not to think too hard about it.&nbsp; It is not really an inertial frame for the purposes of SR.<br /></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[DrRocket]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>That's a very interesting way of putting it, but are you implying that it would "see length" in directions other than that of its motion? Surely the photon should be able to think of itself as at rest, so it is not trying to measure the length of its own motion, but the relative motion of objects around it. Can the photon only not see the distance to objects in its direction of motion?...<br />Posted by SpeedFreek</DIV></p><p><br />&nbsp;If you look at the Lorentz transformaion there is only length contraction along the axis of motion.&nbsp; In the two perpendicular distances both reference frames see the same thing.&nbsp;&nbsp; So for insance passing circles are turned into ellipses (but for other reasons involving the speed of light and optics they look like circles).</p><p>The photon "sees" everything else coming towards it and therefore "sees" those lengths contracted, in this case to zero.&nbsp; </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[vandivx]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Indeed.&nbsp; If you told your physics teacher that <strong><font color="#008000">mumbo jumbo</font></strong>, <font color="#008000">he/she would walk away scratching his/her head wondering <strong>how you got into his/her class</strong>.&nbsp; </font><br /> Posted by derekmcd</DIV></p><p>it always surprises me to see hostility and/or ridicule on science forums, here mainly from you and from drrocket on other threads, the fact that you are politically correct gender wise in the above quote puts a cap on it </p><p>I try my best to answer, either using conventional physics view or from my own work in physics and it meets with slighting comments or else with silence, I would understand that people don't get what I tried to say there, if only because digesting new ideas is always difficult but I should think it certainly doesn't qualify as mumbo jumbo no matter what your level of understanding physics&nbsp;is at </p><p> nobody has anything positive to say it seems or if they do they keep silent, perhaps so as not to take sides with the likes of drrocket here or other such outspoken forum guardians of established 'blue stock' physics, it was very telling when emperor_of_localgroup said in that thread on the topic of dimensions: <font size="1">"</font><font size="2"><font size="1">You are brave to make this post here</font>.</font>" meaning brave to say how it is and thus potentially exposing myself to another scathing attack from DrRocket among others, however I should think that's how science should be done - not caring what people like but only what is true as one sees it and there shouldn't be intimidating atmosphere on science forums </p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>its not like there are no real crank threads/posts on this forum but the thing is they usually elicit respectfull and arguing posts and very seldom are the posters ridiculed and put down as I am, besides scifi like threads not worth mentioning I recall Mmozina (or what was the nick) who argued for electric universe in countless threads, then there was that guy who made numerous arguments for gravitation as expanding matter (or was it expanding space) and both of these topics got numerous replies in respectfull manner even though people knew those theories were hundred percent wrong which of course they were and they told that to the proponets of those ideas in plain words but not ridiculing them or at least I don't remember that being so </p><p>I suppose people knew those were trully cranky and therefore 'safe' topics - safe in obviously not running any danger that they might actually lead to new physics - which makes it seem that people are hostile when they sense that potentially new and correct physics are put forth that could mean a change to their belowed, well known and familiar established physical theories</p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>number of times DrRocket (and now also you) replied with ridiculling comment believing you got me on some particular point and when I ran the challenge successfully in subsequent post, you or him never said anything and kept silent henceforth regarding that point, so you wouldn't have to take back the ridicule or accede that there might be something to my arguments re: 'Rest in absolute space': "DrRocket: <font color="#008000"><em>the notion of reducing the universe to absolute zero is somewhat unique in that it would simultaneously violate all the laws of thermodynamics.&nbsp; <strong>That is pretty impressive*</strong>.</em></font>" and on similar note earlier "<em><font color="#008000">Bottom line:&nbsp;</font><font color="#008000"> You have made it quite clear that your notions have no basis in either the data from physical experiments nor can they be derived from accepted physical principles.&nbsp; In fact they contradict both.&nbsp; </font><font color="#008000"><strong>You don't know what you are talking about</strong>.</font></em>" </p><p><strong><font color="#008000">*</font></strong> when I exposed the basic mistake you made and which he picked on (he couldn't help himself not to add the usual slighting attack "<font color="#008000"><em><strong>That is pretty impressive</strong></em></font>") as anybody could see that I was right and that you both have misinterpreted my theory, you didn't say a boo and neither did he to that, that is no manner to behave on what should be science forums where established as well as new ideas should be discussed and new ideas shouldn't be ridiculled even if they might in fact be wrong as the case may be</p><p>&nbsp;</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[SpeedFreek]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>&nbsp;If you look at the Lorentz transformaion there is only length contraction along the axis of motion.&nbsp; In the two perpendicular distances both reference frames see the same thing.&nbsp;&nbsp; So for insance passing circles are turned into ellipses (but for other reasons involving the speed of light and optics they look like circles).The photon "sees" everything else coming towards it and therefore "sees" those lengths contracted, in this case to zero.&nbsp; <br /> Posted by DrRocket</DIV></p><p>And it is basically everywhere at once along its line of travel, as you said.</p><p>It sees time stop for the rest of the universe ("The photon would also say that no time passed in our frame of reference") and the rest of the universe sees time stop for the photon ("And from our perspective the photon sees no time").</p><p>So can I say that, from the invalid reference frame of a photon, no time passes for the universe. It is at all coordinates along its path which crosses the universe but has no length?</p><p>Would the photon notice when all the stars burned out and the universe went dark? If the photon doesn't decay, does time pass for the photon whilst it is watching the universe that is frozen in time? To me, it would seem not. </p><p>&nbsp;</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#ff0000">_______________________________________________<br /></font><font size="2"><em>SpeedFreek</em></font> </p> </div>

 

[dabiznuss]

i agree with <font color="#003399">vandivx</font>&nbsp; about his above comment to a certain extent, there are people on this forum that are so quick to discourage other's new idea's. Although Dr. rocket has come to my aid in questions which i greatly appreciate, vandivx is right, mostly&nbsp;ridicoul will take place. The older physicist are good in this forum to guide, but physics will prevail and new imaginative idea's and leaps of thought and faith are the heart and soul of physics.........Let new idea's always come forth, but don't forget debating is also half the battle in physics! <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[why06]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>it always surprises me to see hostility and/or ridicule on science forums, here mainly from you and from drrocket on other threads, the fact that you are politically correct gender wise in the above quote puts a cap on it I try my best to answer, either using conventional physics view or from my own work in physics and it meets with slighting comments or else with silence, I would understand that people don't get what I tried to say there, if only because digesting new ideas is always difficult but I should think it certainly doesn't qualify as mumbo jumbo no matter what your level of understanding physics&nbsp;is at nobody has anything positive to say it seems or if they do they keep silent, perhaps so as not to take sides with the likes of drrocket here or other such outspoken forum guardians of established 'blue stock' physics,</p><p>Posted by vandivx</DIV></p><p>I don't know about them ridiculing you, Im sure they have nothing against, but I have to agree that sweeping your rather lengthy post under the rug and simply labeling it as <strong>"mumbo jumbo"</strong> was completely uncallled and outright rude. derekcmd You should realize that you have some measure of power on this forum. Its not all fun and games anymore for you. You should more careful before you jokingly dismiss ideas especially when they are rather hard to understand at first. Some of you have a lot of clout, so you have to think before you simply ignore or snuff ideas. Some people don't give textbook answers. I've got books for text answers. If you ignore the ideas that have some measurable amount of truth in them you destroy what makes this forum worthwhile. That is one can get a well thought out response for a non-textbook question. </p><p>However vandivx your post was rather off topic. </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div>________________________________________ <br /></div><div><ul><li><font color="#008000"><em>your move...</em></font></li></ul></div> </div>