XPost: sci.physics.relativity, alt.atheism, sci.physics   
   XPost: sci.skeptic, alt.paranormal   
   From: PointedEars@web.de   
      
   Dawn Flood wrote:   
   > On 12/15/2025 8:45 PM, JTEM wrote:   
   >> On 12/15/25 10:14 AM, Dawn Flood wrote:   
   >>> Wow, amazing!!   
   >>   
   >> Photons never move. Not from the perspective of a photon.   
      
   There is no "perspective of a photon" in the first place.   
      
   >> They can't.   
      
   But the second postulate of the special principle of relativity (which is   
   sometimes called the "principle of light speed constancy"), on which the   
   Lorentz transformation and thus this (zero distance, no time) argument is   
   based, states that light propagates at the same speed in *every* inertial   
   reference frame:   
      
   ,-   
   |   
   | 2. Jeder Lichtstrahl bewegt sich im „ruhenden“ Koordinatensystem mit   
   |    der bestimmten Geschwindigkeit V, unabhängig davon, ob dieser   
   |    Lichtstrahl von einem ruhenden oder bewegten Korper emittiert ist.   
      
   Translation (my native language happens to be German as well, and I am   
   fluent in English, too):   
      
     ‘2. Any light ray moves in the “stationary” coordinate system with   
         the specific speed V, independent of whether this light ray is   
         emitted by a stationary or a moving body.’   
      
     [Einstein, A. (1905): „Zur Elektrodynamik bewegter Körper“   
      (“On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies”).  Annalen der Physik,   
      Vol. 322, Issue 10.   
      
      Einstein initially used „V“ for the speed of light in vacuum before   
      he switched to „c“.]   
      
   You can't have your cake and eat it too.   
      
   The only statement in this regard that is mathematically and physically   
   sound is that zero proper time elapses along lightlike worldlines (those   
   turn out to be spacetime geodesics), because that is Lorentz-invariant.   
      
   So even though there is no Lorentz transformation to/from a frame moving at   
   c relative to all other frames, and therefore this frame is cannot be an   
   *inertial* frame (in the Newtonian sense, not the GR sense), we can   
   confidently make the previous statement because for that we do not have to   
   do a Lorentz transformation.   
      
   >> To claim otherwise is to insists that photons do experience time.   
      
   Ex falso quodlibet.   
      
   >> You can't have it any other way.   
      
   You *can*.  If a photon has no (Newtonian-)inertial rest frame -- and it   
   hasn't -- *no* statement about its state of motion in that frame is possible.   
      
   >> You either take the position that photons experience time,   
   >> or they never move. There is only one moment EVER for a   
   >> photon, one place... which is everywhere (it can potentially   
   >> be).   
   >   
   > Get Mom her fenestrated wooden discipline paddle; there's still time for   
   > a Christmas delivery!!   
      
   As a Christmas gift I recommend this course on special relativity instead:   
      
      
      
      [I took and passed it a few years ago (before I started to formally study   
       Physics, and it became a major incentive for me to do just that).]   
      
   It should clear up some of those misconceptions.   
      
      
   BTW, please stop this amok-crossposting.  F'up2 sci.physics.relativity set.   
      
   --   
   PointedEars   
      
   Twitter: @PointedEars2   
   Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)