Quote from nav on July 19th, 2018, 08:44 AM

No no no no no Cycle, it is you that doesn't understand the concept

Given that my formal education is in nuclear physics, supplemented with autodidactic quantum mechanics via college texts, I understand it perfectly well. What you're proposing does not and indeed can not occur. You've been proven wrong on this in the past... that you refuse to accept reality is merely a reflection of your inability to reconcile yourself to reality.

Quote from nav on July 19th, 2018, 08:44 AM

and you are not keeping up with the latest experiments in Europe.
They are now taking entangled Electron's and firing Lasers at them to alter spin state and charge state and finding that green laser light is being absorbed by one Electron and emitted by the other which has been separated from it's counterpart.

I note you never provide any corroborating evidence. That's telling. Of course, you know that if you ever dare crack a quantum mechanics text, you'll have to admit you've been wrong about everything, to the point that you've resisted schooling on the topic... which is why you'll likely never crack a quantum mechanics text.

I further note that rather than addressing the points I bring up, you continually attempt to change the subject to something other than that which you've been found lacking in knowledge on... moving the goalposts like that won't work with me. I'll keep you on point.

You're describing an Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen pair, Nav. The researchers generated Cooper pairs, then tunneled them across a SQUID bandgap and through two separate quantum dots to separate them. The result is known as an Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen pair because that process allows the researchers to measure the spin state of the separate electrons without affecting the entanglement. They measured the spin states with that "green laser" by measuring the angle of scattering of the elastically-scattered photons (given that it's scattered in the direction of the electron's electric field). You've misinterpreted the entire process to fit your fairy-tale universe.

Did you not realize that free mass electrons are all identical waves of two fields (the electron field (e^-_L) and the anti-positron field (e^-_R)) with a strictly defined rest mass (0.510998946113 MeV) and charge (-1.602176634×10⁻¹⁹ C), Nav? So there is none of your claimed "altering charge state"... that's unscientific prattle. Every free electron has the same charge, and it does not change.

Further, the separated electrons can be considered free (as in, unbound to a nucleus), and thus they cannot absorb photons. If they could, momentum and energy could not be simultaneously conserved. They can only elastically scatter photons.

Do you not even know why bound electrons can absorb photons and free electrons cannot, Nav? Yet you sit there and attempt to lecture me about quantum mechanics, while you don't even know the basics of quantum mechanics. You sit there and bloviate about fantasy as though you actually knew what you were talking about.

You don't. Educate yourself.

Quote from nav on July 19th, 2018, 08:44 AM

Now, you can play about with your silly analogies about gloves and spew out as many scientific explanations as you like but the fact remains that the green Laser light traveled across space time without leaving the absorbing Electron. The experiment was done live on TV!.

No, no it didn't. Unbound electrons cannot absorb photons. What mediated this exchange of energy? Magic?

Quote from Cycle on July 19th, 2018, 05:07 PM

Given that my formal education is in nuclear physics, supplemented with autodidactic quantum mechanics via college texts, I understand it perfectly well. What you're proposing does not and indeed can not occur. You've been proven wrong on this in the past... that you refuse to accept reality is merely a reflection of your inability to reconcile yourself to reality.

I note you never provide any corroborating evidence. That's telling. Of course, you know that if you ever dare crack a quantum mechanics text, you'll have to admit you've been wrong about everything, to the point that you've resisted schooling on the topic... which is why you'll likely never crack a quantum mechanics text.

I further note that rather than addressing the points I bring up, you continually attempt to change the subject to something other than that which you've been found lacking in knowledge on... moving the goalposts like that won't work with me. I'll keep you on point.

You're describing an Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen pair, Nav. The researchers generated Cooper pairs, then tunneled them across a SQUID bandgap and through two separate quantum dots to separate them. The result is known as an Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen pair because that process allows the researchers to measure the spin state of the separate electrons without affecting the entanglement. They measured the spin states with that "green laser" by measuring the helicity of the elastically-scattered photons. You've misinterpreted the entire process to fit your fairy-tale universe.

Did you not realize that free mass electrons are all identical waves of two fields (the electron field (e^-_L) and the anti-positron field (e^-_R)) with a strictly defined rest mass (0.510998946113 MeV) and charge (-1.602176634×10⁻¹⁹ C), Nav? So there is none of your claimed "altering charge state"... that's unscientific prattle. Every free electron has the same charge, and it does not change.

Further, the separated electrons can be considered free (as in, unbound to a nucleus), and thus they cannot absorb photons. If they could, momentum and energy could not be simultaneously conserved. They can only elastically scatter photons.

Do you not even know why bound electrons can absorb photons and free electrons cannot, Nav? Yet you sit there and attempt to lecture me about quantum mechanics, while you don't even know the basics of quantum mechanics. You sit there and bloviate about fantasy as though you actually knew what you were talking about.

You don't. Educate yourself.

No, no it didn't. Unbound electrons cannot absorb photons. What mediated this exchange of energy? Magic?

So, out of your educated quantum physics view then, if you could allow yourself some freedom to speculate wildly regarding time, space, matter, energy, gravity, temperature, etc, which physical properties would such a device need to have then which moves a spaceship through space covering vast amounts of distances in virtually no time at all?

Concencus today amongst scientists who study this field of spaceship propulsion is still burning matter of sort in order to gain propulsion, leaving the speed of light as the max possible speed achievable.

What I'd really like to see is Cycle light up the day when he's allowed to participate in the reverse engineering of an alien spacecraft.  That "Holy Crap" moment would be priceless.  :-)

Hello Lynx

I have no idea if this guy David Pares is onto something or not. I think the idea is to compress space in front and expand space behind to move forward. Not sure if you have seen it so wanted to bring it to you. Enjoy!!!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2BoEegKZxE8

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCpGB9CG1rMOTLLfSw9LAAtQ

Quote from Lynx on July 19th, 2018, 06:22 PM

So, out of your educated quantum physics view then, if you could allow yourself some freedom to speculate wildly regarding time, space, matter, energy, gravity, temperature, etc, which physical properties would such a device need to have then which moves a spaceship through space covering vast amounts of distances in virtually no time at all?

Concencus today amongst scientists who study this field of spaceship propulsion is still burning matter of sort in order to gain propulsion, leaving the speed of light as the max possible speed achievable.

That's about the long and short of it for now. We'd have to move a ways up the Kardashev scale to achieve the energy levels necessary to travel very fast just via field radiation pressure alone (which is about the only way to achieve the impulse force speed necessary to reach reaction force speeds at middling to high fractions of c). Even then, we'll never break c (in fact, we'll likely never even approach it)... to go faster than c is impossible.

There is one possibility, but it's not practical. The expansion of the universe means that for every megaparsec (3.3 million light years) we travel away from Earth, we pick up an additional 68 km/s of speed away from Earth due solely to that universal expansion. Do enough of that, and you're moving away from Earth at a good clip. Of course, 3.3 million light years of travel to pick up only 68 km/s isn't very practical.

Quote from Matt Watts on July 19th, 2018, 06:55 PM

What I'd really like to see is Cycle light up the day when he's allowed to participate in the reverse engineering of an alien spacecraft.  That "Holy Crap" moment would be priceless.  :-)

They'd be required to follow the laws by which the universe operates, same as us. We're further back on the learning curve than I suppose they would be, but their physics wouldn't be any different than ours simply because they're "aliens". They're not going to traverse the universe by magic, after all.

Quote from nav on July 19th, 2018, 09:41 AM

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yb38jozeDOs

If you understood that video, you'd understand that the Chinese scientists didn't actually "teleport' anything physical. They merely transmitted quantum data about photons which were quantumly entangled. You'll note that their satellite can make ~6,000,000 quantumly-entangled pairs per second, but only ~1 pair / second were still quantumly entangled upon being received... because the photon trajectory can be changed (I'm assuming it was via atmospheric scattering) and thus the quantum entanglement can be destroyed. That's the same reason why entangled photons transmitted via fiber optic only sustain their entanglement for ~150 meters.

Think of a hot cup of coffee... as it cools, it is quantumly entangling with the surrounding environment. That's why it cools. It's called decoherence. Find a way to completely isolate that cup of coffee from the surrounding environment, and the coffee will only remain entangled within itself, and thus will not cool. Of course, that's impossible. There are no truly closed systems.

Quote from nav on July 19th, 2018, 09:50 AM

Here's a nice one involving Photon's.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LdNKCEvWnGg

That's a very simplified explanation, leading some to believe in mystical nonsense.

Here's a more scientific explanation:
http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1402-4896/aa736d



You'll note the distant photon (Photon 3) only changed after the initial photon's (Photon 1) quantum information had been transmitted (via the classical feed-forward channel) to the distant station, where that quantum information was used to generate a replica photon matching the transmitted quantum state. Nothing was "teleported". Nothing happened "faster than light". There was no "spooky action at a distance"... all they proved is that photons can remain coherently entangled over long distances (which is to be expected... the Schrodinger equation has no expressions within it for space-like distance, after all), and that they can change the quantum state of a photon based upon classically-transmitted quantum information about another photon, via two different means.

Quote from PeakPositive on July 19th, 2018, 07:12 PM

Hello Lynx

I have no idea if this guy David Pares is onto something or not. I think the idea is to compress space in front and expand space behind to move forward. Not sure if you have seen it so wanted to bring it to you. Enjoy!!!

That's awesome PP, many thanks :-)
Gonna check it out :thumbsup:

Quote from Cycle on July 19th, 2018, 07:40 PM

That's about the long and short of it for now. We'd have to move a ways up the Kardashev scale to achieve the energy levels necessary to travel very fast just via field radiation pressure alone (which is about the only way to achieve the impulse force speed necessary to reach reaction force speeds at middling to high fractions of c). Even then, we'll never break c (in fact, we'll likely never even approach it)... to go faster than c is impossible.

But if you fantasized about it then, using crunching space, manipulating time, harnessing wormholes, etc etc.
What would your thoughts be about that then, like how would you imagine stepping into a spaceship, go up through Earth's atmosphere into space, switch on the yet-to-be-invented-thing, set your course to some star, push a button and BOOM you're there.
Which physical properties would this, the uninvented machine, need to have according to your imagination in order to be able to get you from here to the stars in virtually no time at all?
Just let it rip.

Quote from Lynx on July 19th, 2018, 09:36 PM

But if you fantasized about it then, using crunching space, manipulating time, harnessing wormholes, etc etc.
What would your thoughts be about that then, like how would you imagine stepping into a spaceship, go up through Earth's atmosphere into space, switch on the yet-to-be-invented-thing, set your course to some star, push a button and BOOM you're there.
Which physical properties would this, the uninvented machine, need to have according to your imagination in order to be able to get you from here to the stars in virtually no time at all?
Just let it rip.

Well, the faster you go, the slower time passes, but you've got to get up around 75% the speed of light before the effect becomes pronounced, so just getting to that point is impractical. We're only moving through space at ~627 ±22 km/s, so we've got a long way to go to get to 75% c (~224,844 km/s).


As I said, we'll never exceed c (mainly because the stuff you use to push your spacecraft can never exceed c), but our best bet is to use an active antenna array to gather a wide frequency band of energy, divert some of the gathered energy to run the equipment used to oscillate the active antenna array, and chuck the rest out the back to push the craft.

I touched upon the idea without realizing it in a prior post, as did Matt Watts:


If we constructed an antenna like the above such that the wound wire length was an integer multiple of the center wire's length, and oscillated the wound wire at the resonant frequency of the center wire (which is based upon its length), we'd create an active antenna, increasing the electromagnetic 'footprint' of the antenna such that it appears to be much larger than it physically is. Thus it would 'suck in' more energy than its size would indicate it could.

Tesla did something similar, as did Don Smith:


Where it gets really interesting for terrestrial applications, though, is when you figure out how to design the antenna such that its electromagnetic footprint is so large that it extends outside our atmosphere... then you're picking up all the high-energy EM radiation in space, as well as the electric field potential of Earth's atmosphere. But as I said, it'd have to be an array to pick up a wide range of frequencies.

Quote from Cycle on July 19th, 2018, 07:40 PM

They'd be required to follow the laws by which the universe operates, same as us. We're further back on the learning curve than I suppose they would be, but their physics wouldn't be any different than ours simply because they're "aliens". They're not going to traverse the universe by magic, after all.

That's kind of what I was getting at Cycle.  Their physics with millions of years of evolution beyond ours would tend to look like magic.  We really have no idea how far their mathematics and understanding of the universe has progressed.  They may even have techniques to alter the typical "laws of the universe", simply because they have overcame the complexity boundary.

I have a hunch if we had the opportunity to be taught by these beings, we would consider our current understanding and methods rather quaint.  Within a rather short period of time, I doubt we would look at our current limitations the same.  I suspect we would laugh at how prehistoric our methods actually are.  We might even wonder why we got stuck so easily--hit a wall as they say.

Quote

Well, the faster you go, the slower time passes, but you've got to get up around 75% the speed of light before the effect becomes pronounced, so just getting to that point is impractical. We're only moving through space at ~627 ±22 km/s, so we've got a long way to go to get to 75% c (~224,844 km/s).

Cycle, that statement is about as stupid as professor Hawking's statement that the singularity that preceded the big bang was the size of a pea.
Once again you fail to grasp even the fundamental rules of relativity, which you yourself being educated in Physics as you say should understand. But all you are, is a master of the cut and paste functions of your computer and don't have the sense to be able to tie your shoe laces probably.
No one knows how fast the Earth is truly moving through space, we know the velocity relevant to the sun, we know the velocity of the twist of the Galaxy and we know how fast the Galaxies are moving apart locally. There are calculations available to give an estimated mean velocity but only locally. The far field becomes a problem because we don't know if our sector of visible Universe is twisting on a larger scale, we don't know the true size of the Universe which is a massive factor. Because we don't know the exact size of the Universe then any velocity calculations can only be taken relative to the data which we already know locally. For all we know we could already be traveling at close to C or we could be traveling 10x C, there is no way of knowing.

Quote

You're describing an Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen pair, Nav. The researchers generated Cooper pairs, then tunneled them across a SQUID bandgap and through two separate quantum dots to separate them. The result is known as an Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen pair because that process allows the researchers to measure the spin state of the separate electrons without affecting the entanglement. They measured the spin states with that "green laser" by measuring the angle of scattering of the elastically-scattered photons (given that it's scattered in the direction of the electron's electric field). You've misinterpreted the entire process to fit your fairy-tale universe.

No, you're off you're rocker again, it was done live on European TV, Youtube it.

Quote

No, no it didn't. Unbound electrons cannot absorb photons. What mediated this exchange of energy? Magic?

I never mentioned outbound Electrons, I mentioned an 'absorbing Electron'
OK we are not getting know where with this because all you are doing is copying massive chunks of Wiki onto the forum.
Forget Wiki for a minute and let me see if I can make the real Cycle think for himself, think objectively that is. So I'm going to ask you a very simple question, you don't need a fifteen page long reply with 700 mathematical equations, you just need a quick reply in one sentence. Here goes:- We all know by now that during Quantum entanglement, two sub atomic particles which are paired or entangled which ever way you wish to explain it, each particle replicates certain characteristics of it's paired particle. We also know that putting distance between the two paired particles has no effect and the pairing continues. Most people on the forum know about the strong force and the weak force concerning gravity and what that entails but could you describe the medium in which the two paired particles communicate? Remember, just a few words.

Quote from Cycle on July 19th, 2018, 11:04 PM

Well, the faster you go, the slower time passes, but you've got to get up around 75% the speed of light before the effect becomes pronounced, so just getting to that point is impractical. We're only moving through space at ~627 ±22 km/s, so we've got a long way to go to get to 75% c (~224,844 km/s).

As I said, we'll never exceed c (mainly because the stuff you use to push your spacecraft can never exceed c), but our best bet is to use an active antenna array to gather a wide frequency band of energy, divert some of the gathered energy to run the equipment used to oscillate the active antenna array, and chuck the rest out the back to push the craft.

I touched upon the idea without realizing it in a prior post, as did Matt Watts.

If we constructed an antenna like the above such that the wound wire length was an integer multiple of the center wire's length, and oscillated the wound wire at the resonant frequency of the center wire (which is based upon its length), we'd create an active antenna, increasing the electromagnetic 'footprint' of the antenna such that it appears to be much larger than it physically is. Thus it would 'suck in' more energy than its size would indicate it could.

Tesla did something similar, as did Don Smith.

Where it gets really interesting for terrestrial applications, though, is when you figure out how to design the antenna such that its electromagnetic footprint is so large that it extends outside our atmosphere... then you're picking up all the high-energy EM radiation in space, as well as the electric field potential of Earth's atmosphere. But as I said, it'd have to be an array to pick up a wide range of frequencies.

Yes I get it that travelling through space leaves the speed of light as a, however unattainable, maximum speed any spaceship ever could hope to reach.
So if we would like to reach the very farthermost stars in this galaxy of ours we'd either succumb to the idea that the speed of light keeps us chained to our own planet, or we try to really think outside the box.

This can be done in our minds.

Compressing space is one thing I, however abstract, could imagine being done by such a space compressing machine aboard ship, whereupon the ship then enters this compressed space, without being compressed itself of course, and then when the compressor shuts down the compressed empty space expands to it's original size again with the "only" difference that this time it's spearheaded by our very own spaceship, which means that  we've managed to move our spaceship say 100 lightyears in say 1 minute without actually travelling at 52,416,000 times the speed of light, which of course would be quite impossible in itself, yet thanks to the space compressor we've sort of cheated the laws of physics a little by first compressing then expanding the very space itself from here to 100 lightyears out in space.

That is but one game I can play in my mind, simply by imagining it.

My question is if you, Cycle, have another completely wild idea you'd like to share, which, by using yet undiscovered technology, enables us to travel through space, covering vast amounts of distance in virtually no time at all, without the need to travel faster than the speed of light.

Lynx, I'll tell you what I'll do, i'm going to show you a way of looking at the Universe which I promise will open your mind, it's basically what Einstein and Schrödinger were arguing about many many years ago and basically a set of mind exercises through a series of simple questions. I'd appreciate it Cycle if you didn't get involved and become argumentative during this please.
So the first question is this:-
Imagine a Universe that is empty of matter, the Universe has no boundaries in any direction. Suddenly there appear two marbles, heading towards each other at a steady velocity. The first question is - obviously both marbles are moving through space relative to each other but which marble is moving and which is stationary relative to the Universe? Have a think about it and post your reply and we'll talk about it and move onto the next question. This is a really cool thing to do BTW.

Quote from nav on July 20th, 2018, 08:42 AM

Lynx, I'll tell you what I'll do, i'm going to show you a way of looking at the Universe which I promise will open your mind, it's basically what Einstein and Schrödinger were arguing about many many years ago and basically a set of mind exercises through a series of simple questions. I'd appreciate it Cycle if you didn't get involved and become argumentative during this please.
So the first question is this:-
Imagine a Universe that is empty of matter, the Universe has no boundaries in any direction. Suddenly there appear two marbles, heading towards each other at a steady velocity. The first question is - obviously both marbles are moving through space relative to each other but which marble is moving and which is stationary relative to the Universe? Have a think about it and post your reply and we'll talk about it and move onto the next question. This is a really cool thing to do BTW.

They're both relative to each other.
Out of the viewpoint of the first marble the other one is moving, at some direction at some speed, and the same could be said about the other marble, I.E it claims to be at standstill while the first marble is the one doing all the moving.
And they would both be correct in their claims.

Quote from Lynx on July 20th, 2018, 09:37 AM

They're both relative to each other.
Out of the viewpoint of the first marble the other one is moving, at some direction at some speed, and the same could be said about the other marble, I.E it claims to be at standstill while the first marble is the one doing all the moving.
And they would both be correct in their claims.

Ok, So we are saying basically that neither marble has the right to claim to be stationary or moving at a steady velocity and we are saying this because there is no third party such as an edge to the Universe or a third party observer. Sounds good to me.
Question 2.
Same scenario, two marbles at a steady velocity heading towards each other but this time there appears an observer. The observer sits in a spacecraft 200 feet from each marble and can see them heading towards him at a steady velocity. Again there is no edge to the Universe, it is infinite. The question: The observer see's a paradox, one marble coming towards him from the left, one from the right. The observer knows from the first experiment that neither marble has the right to claim fixation or velocity but he has a problem: When he looks to the left he see's a marble coming towards him and now finds himself in the same situation, he himself has no right to claim fixation or velocity and neither does the marble, when he looks to the right he's got the same problem again, he nor the marble can claim fixation or velocity.
Which of the three is stationary relative to the Universe?

Quote from nav on July 20th, 2018, 09:59 AM

Ok, So we are saying basically that neither marble has the right to claim to be stationary or moving at a steady velocity and we are saying this because there is no third party such as an edge to the Universe or a third party observer. Sounds good to me.
Question 2.
Same scenario, two marbles at a steady velocity heading towards each other but this time there appears an observer. The observer sits in a spacecraft 200 feet from each marble and can see them heading towards him at a steady velocity. Again there is no edge to the Universe, it is infinite. The question: The observer see's a paradox, one marble coming towards him from the left, one from the right. The observer knows from the first experiment that neither marble has the right to claim fixation or velocity but he has a problem: When he looks to the left he see's a marble coming towards him and now finds himself in the same situation, he himself has no right to claim fixation or velocity and neither does the marble, when he looks to the right he's got the same problem gain, he nor the marble can claim fixation or velocity.
Which of the three is stationary relative to the Universe?

Should be neither or all......?
All three could be said to be observers, observing the other 2 moving.
Only when it comes to the marbles they observe a ship approaching them while the other marble is approaching the ship.
One thing in common for all 3 is that their original speed and direction is quite unknown as there's no "absolute standstill", so there's no way to ascertain this without any shadow of a doubt.

Quote from Lynx on July 20th, 2018, 10:09 AM

Should be neither or all......?
All three could be said to be observers, observing the other 2 moving.
Only when it comes to the marbles they observe a ship approaching them while the other marble is approaching the ship.
One thing in common for all 3 is that their original speed and direction is quite unknown as there's no "absolute standstill", so there's no way to ascertain this without any shadow of a doubt.

You're on the ball Lynx!, once again you are looking at this from the right perspective. None of them have the right to claim anything, all they see is a local interaction relative only to the three objects but not to the Universe.
Question 3:
Same scenario but we are not using marbles we are using particles instead. We have an Electron, a tiny piece of matter sat on it's own in an empty infinite Universe. The Electron through no fault of it's own gets a little warm and when Electrons get warm they like to vent off a little energy. So the Electron emits a Photon and the Photon is moving away from the Electron at a velocity of 186,000 miles per second.
Who has the right to claim fixation and velocity, the Electron or the Photon?

Quote from nav on July 20th, 2018, 10:18 AM

You're on the ball Lynx!, once again you are looking at this from the right perspective. None of them have the right to claim anything, all they see is a local interaction relative only to the three objects but not to the Universe.
Question 3:
Same scenario but we are not using marbles we are using particles instead. We have an Electron, a tiny piece of matter sat on it's own in an empty infinite Universe. The Electron through no fault of it's own gets a little warm and when Electrons get warm they like to vent off a little energy. So the Electron emits a Photon and the Photon is moving away from the Electron at a velocity of 186,000 miles per second.
Who has the right to claim fixation and velocity, the Electron or the Photon?

Wow.

I'd like to say neither in this case also, however being the case that Photons gives away light upon impact they'd have to be moving at 186000 miles per second, in relation to the Electron in this case, "simply" because it would need to be travelling in that speed prior to smashing in to something in order for it to emit light.
So, regardless of what speed or direction the Electron is moving in the moment it gives away it's Photon, in a way it could be in it's right to claim fixation and declare the Photon to be travelling at 186000 miles per second relative to itself, while also claiming to be at standstill itself, albeit that almost certainly isn't the case, but whatever.

Now it's getting harder.

And more interesting.

Quote from Lynx on July 20th, 2018, 10:32 AM

Wow.

I'd like to say neither in this case also, however being the case that Photons gives away light upon impact they'd have to be moving at 186000 miles per second, in relation to the Electron in this case, "simply" because it would need to be travelling in that speed prior to smashing in to something in order for it to emit light.
So, regardless of what speed or direction the Electron is moving in the moment it gives away it's Photon, in a way it could be in it's right to claim fixation and declare the Photon to be travelling at 186000 miles per second relative to itself, while also claiming to be at standstill itself, albeit that almost certainly isn't the case, but whatever.

Now it's getting harder.

And more interesting.

OK, The Electron cannot regard itself as being stationary because there isn't a third party yet and no edge to the Universe to define movement. The Photon's velocity is a local event not a Universal one so in one sense the Electron and the Photon are very much like the marbles, neither can claim anything apart from one factor which comes later. They cannot claim 186,000 miles per second because there are no seconds and no miles in the Universe at this time so in essence, time and velocity are infinite.
Question 4:
Same scenario but along pops Fred in his spaceship as an observer, this time Fred is sat at the side of the Electron in question, he has a watch on and Fred has a Photon absorber 10 miles from his spaceship ready for the Photon to hit. He excites the Electron and it emits a Photon which hits the absorber and Fred measures the velocity at 186,000 miles per second. Fred is absolutely convinced he is stationary because Fred also knows that Photon's have an effect called the Doppler effect, in which if Fred's Electron is moving then the frequency of light changes because it becomes more compressed. So Fred is convinced that he is totally stationary in a Universe that has no boundaries. Is Fred right? Could Fred be flawed? What are Fred's flaws?

Quote from nav on July 20th, 2018, 10:50 AM

OK, The Electron cannot regard itself as being stationary because there isn't a third party yet and no edge to the Universe to define movement. The Photon's velocity is a local event not a Universal one so in one sense the Electron and the Photon are very much like the marbles, neither can claim anything apart from one factor which comes later. They cannot claim 186,000 miles per second because there are no seconds and no miles in the Universe at this time so in essence, time and velocity are infinite.
Question 4:
Same scenario but along pops Fred in his spaceship as an observer, this time Fred is sat at the side of the Electron in question, he has a watch on and Fred has a Photon absorber 10 miles from his spaceship ready for the Photon to hit. He excites the Electron and it emits a Photon which hits the absorber and Fred measures the velocity at 186,000 miles per second. Fred is absolutely convinced he is stationary because Fred also knows that Photon's have an effect called the Doppler effect, in which if Fred's Electron is moving then the frequency of light changes because it becomes more compressed. So Fred is convinced that he is totally stationary in a Universe that has no boundaries. Is Fred right? Could Fred be flawed? What are Fred's flaws?

Ok.
Fred's instruments shows 186000 miles per second on the Photon, so that velocity is correct in relation to his spaceship.
Fred is wrong in claiming to be at standstill/stationary as his spaceship, together with the electron and the absorber full well could be moving relative to whatever comes by checking what Fred is up to.

Ok to make it easier I'll ask some questions.
1. Can Fred be absolutely sure that the Photon absorber and his spaceship are not both traveling at the same velocity through space but he doesn't realize it?
2. Bearing in mind that before Fred appeared on the scene with his measuring equipment, the velocity of light could only be assumed as infinite, what has Fred done by bringing a finite quantifiable number into the Universe?
3. What is the finite measurable number really signifying?

Quote from Lynx on July 20th, 2018, 11:23 AM

Ok.
Fred's instruments shows 186000 miles per second on the Photon, so that velocity is correct in relation to his spaceship.
Fred is wrong in claiming to be at standstill/stationary as his spaceship, together with the electron and the absorber full well could be moving relative to whatever comes by checking what Fred is up to.

OK ignore that part of the last post, you've hit upon the fact that his spaceship and absorber could be both moving. But concentrate on 2 and 3

Quote from nav on July 20th, 2018, 11:25 AM

Ok to make it easier I'll ask some questions.
1. Can Fred be absolutely sure that the Photon absorber and his spaceship are not both traveling at the same velocity through space but he doesn't realize it?
2. Bearing in mind that before Fred appeared on the scene with his measuring equipment, the velocity of light could only be assumed as infinite, what has Fred done by bringing a finite quantifiable number into the Universe?
3. What is the finite measurable number really signifying?

Ok, I'll try.
1) No, as Fred don't have any frame of reference to compare his spaceship's velocity with, together with his Photon absorber.
2) Fred has used the physical properties explaining distance and time according to Fred's own personal definition thereof and says that it's correct when it shows the Photon's speed to be 186000 miles per second.
3) That it doesn't matter in which speed or direction Fred's spaceship and his Photon absorber is travelling while measuring the speed of the Photon, Fred's measurements would always turn out to show 186000 miles per second on the Photon's speed.

Quote from Lynx on July 20th, 2018, 11:37 AM

Ok, I'll try.
1) No, as Fred don't have any frame of reference to compare his spaceship's velocity with, together with his Photon absorber.
2) Fred has used the physical properties explaining distance and time according to Fred's own personal definition thereof and says that it's correct when it shows the Photon's speed to be 186000 miles per second.
3) That it doesn't matter in which speed or direction Fred's spaceship and his Photon absorber is travelling while measuring the speed of the Photon, Fred's measurements would always turn out to show 186000 miles per second on the Photon's speed.

Brilliant!

Quote from nav on July 20th, 2018, 11:38 AM

Brilliant!

Hubba hubba :-D

Now, you're really getting to grips with this but it gets a little more complex and by this time Einstein and Schrödinger were really tearing lumps out of each other concerning all of this.
Basically Schrödinger was saying that Einstein was an idiot. The reason he said this is because he couldn't get through to Einstein that introducing a measuring device or a human being into a paradox actually changes the outcome of the paradox just like the double slit experiment does. He also made it quite clear that all the mathematical equations that you introduce to explain the visible Universe were not actually Universal equations but were 'human equations' used to define the shape and size of the Universe and that all Einstein was actually doing was trying to mathematically calculate an infinite law into a finite understandable number but all that Schrödinger ever did was to remind Einstein that when all life disappears from the Universe those equations are not worth a carrot.
We move on.
Question 5, the final question.
The Photon has no rest mass which makes it different from the Electron, Einstein actually did come up with a brilliant piece of work and this part is overlooked but I can assure you he wrote it. He concluded that in space when a Photon is emitted from an Electron the defining difference between the two particles is that only matter is affected by time. Because Photon's have no rest mass or are not 'heavy' then time has no effect on them and they are left behind.
This is why a Photon has no acceleration curve, when you drop a brick from a moving train, if it hits the ground and sticks like glue, the apparent velocity of the train is the differential between the two and seeing as the train is already at a steady velocity then there need be no acceleration curve for the parting of companies. Photons do the exact same, the are emitted from an Electron and the Electron carries on through time while the Photon remains, which makes the speed of time 186,000 miles per second relative ONLY to the dearly departed Photon.
Quite agreeable don't you think but here is the last question.
Cycle and I are much like Einstein and Schrödinger, Cycle is trying to explain the Universe through some kind of finite formula which he invented himself or borrowed from Wiki, as for myself i'm like Schrödinger, I see things objectively and think into the deep side of things and believe that the Universe is not as we see it but something of an unknown that is unquantied just like the marbles because once you take life from the Universe then what do you have left?
Your question is, who was right, Schrödinger or Einstein, myself or Cycle?