Tensor, you keep taking just the quotes you want to use, out of context of how I was showing different correlations.
From the 'reference frame' thread.
These are my posts
Is there a preferred frame of reference?
Is there a preferred frame of reference?
This is yours
Is there a preferred frame of reference?
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Tensor
Let''s look at the equations:
g = 1/sqrt(1- v^2/c^2), where g is the gamma factor, v is the velocity in question and c is, of course the speed of light. If you put the speed a photon is moving into v you end up in the denominator, under the square root with this: 1-c^2/C^2, which reduces to 1-1. This leaves you with a zero in the denominator and division by zero is undefined.
|
YOU seem to think that this Math IS the theory and 'proves' something.
YOU, keep accusing me of NOT understanding the theory, and that any explanation MUST be lacking if I say the theory is wrong, because you automatically think the Maths must be right...That's NOT it!!!
IT is that the Maths are NOT being applied correctly to lights own frame...light along its own path.
When you get to the 'division by 0'...Infinity, that's when you know that something MUST be different to correctly correlate 'what is happening there', Just like at r=0 in Black Holes.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Tensor
Which does not mean light travels instaneously or takes no time.
|
Really?
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Tensor
It means the equations are undefined.
|
Again, Really?
THEN, why does the definition of...'light is simultaneous at all points along its Path to Infinity, or source to sink' appear in the definition of light in its own frame?
AND, why is Time frozen at the event horizons of Black Holes, so that from our frame of reference, it appears that they can never even form?
Those are both rhetorical questions, because the answer is that they are both....Impossible.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Tensor
Well since the equations at c are undefined, there's no way to define it as a frame of reference.
|
Sure there is. It just hasn't been done yet because everyone/mainstream has been SOOOOO convinced that time dilation and Lorentz Contraction MUST be true.
You just have to set the 'wave' part at 0 velocity and the 'particle' part at "c" in a dimensionless background space.
But, the simple fact is, that when Lorentz and Einstein put in the variables of time dilation and Lorentz contraction, and THEN got to your above Maths, where they had to define light in its own frame as...simultaneous at all points along its own path to Infinity,
to make the variables work, with the result that Mr Spaceman could then travel to the end of the universe "Instantly", OR that light in its own frame could do the same, EVERYONE should have known that it had to be WRONG.
Which means that the .99/.8/.6 dilation/contractions are also WRONG