XPost: alt.atheism   
   From: Dawn.Belle.Flood@gmail.com   
      
   On 12/16/2025 1:24 PM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:   
   > 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.   
   >   
      
   Wow, yet another amazing post!!  I only read & post in alt.atheism,   
   which is why I am including that in my replies.  (If you leave   
   alt.atheism off your replies, then I will never read them.)  The   
   Stanford courses are amazing!  Professor Leonard Susskind is an   
   astonishing teacher, although, I wish that he would not snack while   
   lecturing!   
      
   Dawn   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)