Playing with E=m.c^2

On 8/30/2011 1:38 PM, dlzc wrote:
Dear Ollie B Bimmol:

On Aug 30, 1:25 am, Ollie B wrote:
Yousuf wrote:
....
Don't think of the speed of light in terms of miles/second
or km/sec. Another way to look at the speed of light is
that it represents the time it takes energy to flow within
the smallest unit of space in universe, within the smallest
unit of time in the universe. The smallest unit of space is
called a Planck Length, and the smallest unit of time is
called a Planck Time.

Here Youself is promoting yet another flavor of "magic numbers".
Continuous approximations to this universe start breaking down at
nanometer scales and larger. No need to go "smaller than quarks" for
any sort of granularity.

This is true, the Planck scale is so far below the quark scale that it
really doesn't make sense talking about it with today's level of
technology. And the quantum nature of particles makes everything as
tenuous as a cloud anyway.

There is no length smaller than a Planck Length, or a
time shorter than a Planck Time. The speed of light is 1
Planck Length/Planck Time. When you look at it this
way, you notice that the speed of light is equal to exactly
1!

Not in the mks system of units, 1 planck length / 1 plank time = c
exactly.

Nothing can be simpler.

Not playing with magic numbers in the first place, and not spreading
your personal illness to a novice would be another.

And there lies the difference between the "universe is a continuum" and
the "universe is discrete" camps.

Yousuf Khan

On 8/30/2011 1:57 PM, Ollie B Bimmol wrote:
Oh, now it is more clear to me, this feels more right.
Seems to me physics is a big battle field, all these theories.
I will listen to both sides, maybe when they split a quark something
smaller will happen, how big is an electron?
I could not find that.

It really is, and believe it or not, David and I agree on a lot of
things most of the time.

The stuff I told you about Planck units is purely theoretical, we don't
have the technology yet to test down at the Planck scales yet. However,
knowing about Planck units does help you understand the background to
why light speed may be what it is.

Yousuf Khan

On 8/30/2011 3:52 PM, dlzc wrote:
how big is an electron?
I could not find that.

Photons and electrons are point particles, and are non-composite.
They only ever interact via their field, no matter how "close" they
come to something else or each other.

Protons and neutrons suddenly change from one type of interaction to a
different type, as collisions start involving "bumpers and flying
glass". And of course, they are composite particles too...

Current established theories of physics like the Standard Model of
Quantum Mechanics treats these particles as point particles. However,
according to various next-generation theories, such as Superstring
theory, those point particles are actually strings that are 1 Planck
Length in diameter. The next gen theories suggest that the Standard
Model point particles are just an approximation, which will disappear
the closer we get to the Planck scale.

Yousuf Khan

On 8/30/2011 1:49 PM, Ollie B Bimmol wrote:
So the light emitted again from the mirror always leaves at c relative to that mirror.
I mean even if it came in faster?

It can't come in faster than c. If it did, then they'd be able to detect
the speed difference in this MMX apparatus.

Look at the animation of the MMX apparatus. When light is travelling
with an "aether wind" at its back, it is speeding up. When it's
travelling with the aether wind at its front, then it's slowing down.
When the two beams recombine, there should be an interference pattern
that represents the two speed differences in the split light. Since they
never detected those differences, it means light was travelling at
exactly the same speed coming and going.

Yousuf Khan

On 8/30/2011 1:49 PM, Ollie B Bimmol wrote:
wrote:
They got rid of the original luminoferous aether, i.e. the solid 3-
dimensional aether. However, a lot of the current work seems to still
look upon space-time as a sort of material of its own, and that it can
be looked upon as a 4-dimensional fluid.

Yousuf Khan

Why 4 dimensional, should that not be 3 dimensional?
Would anything sort of float in that fluid?

The 4th dimension is time. Thus the modern concept of an aether would be
a space-time aether, rather than a space-only aether. Einstein's two
theories of relativity pretty much erased the line between space and
time as two different concepts.

People have difficulty getting their heads around the concept of space
and time being exactly the same thing, because they are so different in
our everyday experience. Our everyday conception of space is that it is
something that we have full freedom to move around in. We can move
forward and then we can move back, we can move left and then right, and
we can move up and down. Our everyday conception of time is that it is
something that moves us around, we can only move forward in it, but
never back. We have no freedom of movement in time, thus we don't
consider it to be similar to space.

Think of a what might have existed prior to the Big Bang. There could've
been a primordial universe which had 4 dimensions, possibly more, with
no specific direction of time. Then the Big Bang explosion happened.
Also, don't think of the Big Bang as an explosion but more like a jet of
water through a hose. The jet went along one of the 4 dimensions of this
primordial universe, and this direction became what we call time. The
remaining 3 dimensions are still free for us to move in, but we have no
choice but to ride the jet of the 4th dimension wherever it takes us.

Yousuf Khan

Yousuf Khan wrote:

On 8/30/2011 1:49 PM, Ollie B Bimmol wrote:
wrote:
They got rid of the original luminoferous aether, i.e. the solid 3-
dimensional aether. However, a lot of the current work seems to still
look upon space-time as a sort of material of its own, and that it can
be looked upon as a 4-dimensional fluid.

Yousuf Khan

Why 4 dimensional, should that not be 3 dimensional?
Would anything sort of float in that fluid?

The 4th dimension is time. Thus the modern concept of an aether would be
a space-time aether, rather than a space-only aether. Einstein's two
theories of relativity pretty much erased the line between space and
time as two different concepts.

People have difficulty getting their heads around the concept of space
and time being exactly the same thing, because they are so different in
our everyday experience. Our everyday conception of space is that it is
something that we have full freedom to move around in. We can move
forward and then we can move back, we can move left and then right, and
we can move up and down. Our everyday conception of time is that it is
something that moves us around, we can only move forward in it, but
never back. We have no freedom of movement in time, thus we don't
consider it to be similar to space.

Think of a what might have existed prior to the Big Bang. There could've
been a primordial universe which had 4 dimensions, possibly more, with
no specific direction of time. Then the Big Bang explosion happened.
Also, don't think of the Big Bang as an explosion but more like a jet of
water through a hose. The jet went along one of the 4 dimensions of this
primordial universe, and this direction became what we call time. The
remaining 3 dimensions are still free for us to move in, but we have no
choice but to ride the jet of the 4th dimension wherever it takes us.

Yousuf Khan

I understand from this that you were there in the big bang and did see all this?
How come you survived such a big bang?
You must be very old?
Or else how do you know all this for sure?

Ollie

Yousuf Khan wrote:

On 8/30/2011 1:57 PM, Ollie B Bimmol wrote:
Oh, now it is more clear to me, this feels more right.
Seems to me physics is a big battle field, all these theories.
I will listen to both sides, maybe when they split a quark something
smaller will happen, how big is an electron?
I could not find that.

It really is, and believe it or not, David and I agree on a lot of
things most of the time.

The stuff I told you about Planck units is purely theoretical, we don't
have the technology yet to test down at the Planck scales yet. However,
knowing about Planck units does help you understand the background to
why light speed may be what it is.

Yousuf Khan

Sorry I do not understand that.

Ollie

Yousuf Khan wrote:

On 8/30/2011 1:49 PM, Ollie B Bimmol wrote:
So the light emitted again from the mirror always leaves at c relative to that mirror.
I mean even if it came in faster?

It can't come in faster than c. If it did, then they'd be able to detect
the speed difference in this MMX apparatus.

Why?

Ollie

On 31/08/2011 9:36 AM, Ollie B Bimmol wrote:
Yousuf wrote:

On 8/30/2011 1:57 PM, Ollie B Bimmol wrote:
Oh, now it is more clear to me, this feels more right.
Seems to me physics is a big battle field, all these theories.
I will listen to both sides, maybe when they split a quark something
smaller will happen, how big is an electron?
I could not find that.

It really is, and believe it or not, David and I agree on a lot of
things most of the time.

The stuff I told you about Planck units is purely theoretical, we don't
have the technology yet to test down at the Planck scales yet. However,
knowing about Planck units does help you understand the background to
why light speed may be what it is.

Yousuf Khan

Sorry I do not understand that.

You don't understand what?

Yousuf Khan

On 31/08/2011 9:37 AM, Ollie B Bimmol wrote:
Yousuf wrote:

On 8/30/2011 1:49 PM, Ollie B Bimmol wrote:
So the light emitted again from the mirror always leaves at c relative to that mirror.
I mean even if it came in faster?

It can't come in faster than c. If it did, then they'd be able to detect
the speed difference in this MMX apparatus.

Why?

Take whatever explanation that I already gave you, either the
explanation about the Planck units, or the experimental data of the MM
experiment.

Yousuf Khan