>> From: Jim Choate <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, crackpot: >On Mon, 6 Jan 2003, blah wrote: >> From: Jim Choate <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >> > Not from the photons perspective, from a photons perspective there is >> > -no- time. >> >> A photon has no "perspective". > > Yes it does. It is a particle and it interacts with the rest of the > cosmos. The cosmos views it, it views the cosmos. OK. I'm convinced that you are a crackpot. Now, could someone (else) tell me if this is really a troll? [...] >There is a 'c' and a 'v' in -any- Lorentz transform. Do the math with v=c. I provided you with the lorentz transforms explicitly because you seem to be unfamiliar with them and so that you could plug in `c' for `v' and see the problem. It doesn't take any particular genius to realize what happens. But, go ahead and insist a while longer. Or, do like anyone else who read the post in which I provided you with the lorentz transforms could have done if they didn't already know what they were. Plug in the value of `c' for `v'.
>'v' is -always- in relation to 'c' because 'c' is -always constant-. Another misconception. `C' is a constant in any inertial frame. `V' defines a relationship between two inertial frames. >> There exists no lorentz transform by which any observer may transform >> coordinates to a photon, > >Really why? sheeesh... I provided you with the lorentz transforms in two different forms so that you could figure this out for yourself. I see that you were either unwilling or were unable to substitute v for c and deduce anything about the transformation. >> It's called relativity because it assumes no absolute frame against >> which speeds must be referenced. >Wrong. -ALL- speeds are measured against c. That -is- the whole point of >Lorentz transforms. 'c' is -always- c. Yikes. Buy an introductory text on relativity as I suggested. >c is a -constant-. Therefore it -is absolute-. What does that have to do with measuring velocities relative to `c' as you seem to believe? A lorentz transform is nothing more than a coordinate transformation that preserves the value of `c'. Since the entire puropse for which the lorentz trannsform was developed was to find a coordinate transformation between coordinates in which `c' has the same value, it's pretty much a tautology that `c' will be constant in those frames. >There is no -space- constant, to that I will agree. Since I haven't the faintest idea what this means, then the only way you could agree with me is to agree that you don't know what you are talking about. Which is perfectly ok with me. --
