All Photons Move at 300,000km/s.... But Don't?

Why would anyone waste their time answering you? All you will say is the answer is bs, without ever engaging your brain for even an instant.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

But the question is what is your motive behind asking this question, considering how you have ignored the answers to all your past questions......
And why do you not accept the answers given from where you copy n pasted your question, here.......
https://van.physics.illinois.edu/qa/listing.php?id=2348

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

It's bad enough when a poster plagiarizes an answer, but when he plagiarizes the question, he's gone too far.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Well that question was posted 4 years ago by someone who was 60 years of age.

According to jcc's profile he's currently 64 years of age.

 

gives carbon wire current, the wire will heat up and produce light.

the atoms in the wire are vibrating, producing gravitation waves at same frequency.

if the atoms vibrating faster, the em radiation becomes stronger.

anything wrong with science laws?

 

all science questions, what's difference? i am not black nor white, am i still a man?

 

Quit waffling around and answer the blasted question...

 

A quick read of jcc's more recent postings indicates to me mental impairment is more likely than deliberate and calculated trolling. Thus some of the more nasty attacks on him are likely misdirected. Surely the kindest thing is to just ban and be done with it.

 

Either that or English is jcc's second language.

 

Nice theory but his word-salad style tells me it's more than just language difficulties. Derangement fits nicely.

 

do i need to explain my science questions?

anyone wants to discuss science?

 

What needs explanation is why you are copying questions from other sites to be pasted here...

 

I think he's come here in a vindictive act, to mess up this rather high quality discussion, after seeing that I supported getting him banned and that I was a participant in the discussion here. Textbook troll behaviour.

 

OK. From rpenner's summary (I have not yet looked at the papers he cited), it looks to me as if what the researchers have done is formulate an alternative uncertainty principle - equivalent to Heisenberg's - but coming at it from the perspective of information theory and probability, rather than considering Fourier sums of wavefunctions, or by non-commuting operators, which is how Heisenberg's principle is traditionally described.

But both these traditional approaches do implicitly recognise wave-particle duality as well, so it is not new to link wave-particle duality as such to the uncertainty principle, though the application of information theory may well be.

 

A slap-on-the-wrist 2 day ban is like 'fining' a football team by forbidding them to play a match mid-week. What's more, the main reason given - plagiarism, doesn't imo make any sense. How is re-pasting one's own question, given at another site some 4 years prior, as per link in #42, 'plagiarism'? Isn't it obvious the likely explanation is he archived that episode, then or now considered the answer unsatisfactory, and has reissued it here? Or is it just strange coincidence that the age then (60), matches age now (64), as per profile? Doesn't it make more sense jcc is mentally impaired as I suggested, and has memory issues apart from general derangement? Then what will a paltry 2 day ban do to fix that? Of course nothing - there will simply be a resumption of more of the same. Without expert psychiatric assessment this is necessarily speculative, but imo it doesn't take a Sherlock Holmes to figure out the most likely explanation.

 

'Warmhole'? That's like, a higher temperature wormhole, right? Funny idea for some new x-rated scifi though.

Do wormholes orbit anything or gravitate in any manner at all? Why or why not? If either end of wormholes stay in one place, why do they do that, and what is the 'same place' with respect to? Does time dilate or do meter sticks contract when traversing a wormhole? Why or why not? Do wormholes produce any sort of Doppler shift if they are viewed from cosmological distances? Is it possible to exceed the speed of light while inside a wormhole, or is the speed of light constant to all observers inside of there too?

Is Kip Thorne a physicist or a crackpot? If he is a respected physicist, then why did he never address such issues with respect to his theoretical constructs? What kind of 'science' is it that allows theories to be tendered without a shred of observation or solid theoretical foundation with bindings to the universe we live in, much less propose the existence of something that cannot be tested? How is this sort of science superior to trial and error or sheer guesswork?

Sorry if I don't seem to understand much about the current Scientific / Mathematical Fantasy Methods. My entire career at Comsat Labs was based on science fiction courtesy of Arthur C. Clarke. But his idea (geostationary satellites) actually worked in real life. There are even a few practical ideas for space slingshots (sorry, no elevators) on the drawing board.

That should give you enough to actually think about for a while. Excuse me. I need to watch reruns of Stargate SG-1, Stargate Atlantis, and Stargate Universe. Then I need to lighten up on the drama a bit and have a few more well-deserved laughs at the expense of Brian Greene's Alien riding across the universe on a relativistic bicycle. However did that alien expect to visit our distant past on our side of the universe when he was riding a bicycle at relativistic speeds AWAY from it, as fast as he possibly could. Oh Brian, you're so silly, just like Mr. Thorne. Was that really the last Mimsy, or is this more of the same? Without Mimsies, whatever will the Borogoves do?

 

Not really. The "wave" part of "wave-particle duality" is very much like a wave of the probability density (more like the square root of it, to be more accurate). That is what a wavefunction is: a probability function. You multiply it by its complex conjugate (which is more or less equivalent to squaring it: at any rate it gives you its square modulus) and integrate over a volume of space, in order to find the probability that the "particle" will be found in that volume.

Probability is thus not the same the same thing expressed differently. It is the same thing entirely.

 

In actual fact, I find it is you in an attempt to be hilariously funny and facetious as missing the point.
Firstly perhaps Thorne doesn't mention the issues that you have because at this time it is unknown. Although I do believe there are a couple of obvious answers anyway.
Fact one: GR does not forbid wormholes or time travel, and in fact the equations of GR give possible solutions as to how it can be achieved.
Keeping that in mind Thorne in his book makes it clear that without observational evidence of wormholes, they are speculative.
He then proceeds to logically create possible scenarios and outcomes on the presumption that they can exist.
He naturally highlights the fact that we would also need a form of exotic energy to maintain a passage through any wormhole.
On your Greene criticism and a relativistic bike, I'm sure he also meant that in a speculative fashion, although personally, I'm not that keen on Greene. I find other science popularisers far more entertaining and convincing.
But the overall point you miss, is that these are speculative scenarios, put by professional qualified people, and there is nothing wrong with speculative scenarios that do not step outside the laws of physics and GR.
And yes, most certainly, even this type of speculative science is far more legitimate then the nonsense put forward by our self indulgent alternative alternative hypothesis pushers, whose stuff defies what GR tells us and sometimes even the basic laws of physics.