Recent content by Windows

You didn't get it. You define time as what you see, i.e, as the information you get from photons. Time is related to motion, photons do travel, so without time photons would not even travel. And the EM process is just photons, you again define time as the motion of photons which is incorrect.

So my comment was correct? And it has nothing to do with "there is no such thing as the reference frame of light.".

You should not take exams and other junk (such as IQ) as an 'absolute measurements'. It is not even an approximation measurement. In other words, exams are for machines, but you are not a machine.

So you define time in terms of light? But that's obviously wrong, without time, photons would not even move.

I was asking why time is related to velocity.

Griffiths, D.J., Introduction to Quantum Mechanics Cohen-Tannoudji, C., Dui, B., & Laloe, F., Quantum Mechanics [J.W.] This book really has it all. It comes in two huge volumes, sold separately at about $90 each, so for the price it should. It's a very complete, generally well-thought out...

That's the picture I was sticking to before reading things such as the "Twin Paradox". And also, how can time run slower according to you?

Sorry for my long absence but here is what I mean: I was just asking if I was moving at a great velocity, if someone sees me holding a clock, he will see it go slowly, but from my reference frame, the clocks is not slowed down and that is just a consequence of the electrodynamics of moving...

Quoting a 'TRUE' big mathematician about the "Genius and Mathematics": Does one have to be a genius to do mathematics? The answer is an emphatic NO. In order to make good and useful contributions to mathematics, one does need to work hard, learn one’s field well, learn other fields and tools...

I mean we observe things through photons and because relative to us something is traveling then what we see will be different because of the transforms; So what if we could see reality, the object as it is, in other words we use the transforms to somewhat find the real value will it be correct...

Hello! Are the transformations such as time dilation, length contraction and relativistic mass just observed ones or real ones? Thank you.

Hello I'm not a professional cosmologist but I wanted to know what the orbital length is equal to in Km units in this graph: http://ej.iop.org/images/1538-4357/707/2/L114/Full/apjl334146f3_lr.jpg Thank you so much.

I can't determine distance whatsoever.

Actually, he says he wants to measure the speed of a specific point in the cube, at the center. The cube is small, the size of a key. I don't know how fast it will be traveling but not that much. The optical motion method requires distance. I will search to see if the acceletometers are a good...

The cube moves by curves, ya, an inclined plane. I can adhere to both proposition (camera or on the cube) if they don't use distance. Thank you. :shy: