# SRT: what is it about?
**URL:** https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/srt-what-is-it-about/30628
**Category:** Science, Technology, and Math
**Created:** [May 4, 2011, 1:37pm UTC](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/srt-what-is-it-about/30628 "2011-05-04T13:37:23Z")
**Posts on this page:** 20
**Page:** 1
### Author:  [@socratus](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/u/socratus)
#### Post date: [May 4, 2011, 1:37pm UTC](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/srt-what-is-it-about/30628/1 "2011-05-04T13:37:23Z")
SRT: what is it about?
1.
One of Einstein’s postulate says that particle – quantum of light-
moves in a straight line with constant speed c=1 in the vacuum.
So, in SRT we have one reference frame and it is vacuum.
But because Einstein took Time as a length (1 sec= 299,792,458 m)
Minkowski decided to take this time as a fourth coordinate
and created his minus 4D continuum. And we lost the direction.
But the root of the SR theory is the postulate:
constant and independence speed of quantum of light in the vacuum.
2.
The other Einstein’s SRT postulate says that movement is relative
conception. The name of Einstein’s SRT is :
“ On the Electrodynamics of moving Bodies.” ( SRT).
Einstein wrote about moving of ‘Electrodynamics Bodies’ (!)
It means he wrote about particles like quantum of light, electron. (!)
And then this other Einstein’s SRT postulate must be understand
as: ‘every speed, even the speed of quantum of light is relative.’
It means that quantum of light in a vacuum can have
two kinds of motions: constant and relative.
3
SRT is theory about relativity of every particle’s speed,
including the motion of particle - quantum of light. (!)
SRT explains only the behavior of Quantum of Light (!)
So, in my opinion the essence of Einstein’s SRT is hidden
in the questions:
a)
What will be happen if the particle – quantum of light – changes
its constant and straight movement in the vacuum?
b)
How can quantum of light change his movement?
=========.
All the best.
Israel Sadovnik Socratus.
==============…
---
### Author:  [@James\_S\_Saint](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/u/James_S_Saint)
#### Post date: [May 4, 2011, 5:55pm UTC](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/srt-what-is-it-about/30628/2 "2011-05-04T17:55:14Z")
> [@socratus](#):
>
> SRT: what is it about?
> 1.
> One of Einstein’s postulate says that particle – quantum of light-
> moves in a straight line with constant speed c=1 in the vacuum.
> So, in SRT we have one reference frame and it is vacuum.
> But because Einstein took Time as a length (1 sec= 299,792,458 m)
> Minkowski decided to take this time as a fourth coordinate
> and created his minus 4D continuum. And we lost the direction.
> But the root of the SR theory is the postulate:
> constant and independence speed of quantum of light in the vacuum.
Close enough.
> [@socratus](#):
>
> 1.
>
> The other Einstein’s SRT postulate says that movement is relative
> conception.
Actually that was Galelean Relativity proposed long before Einstein.
> [@socratus](#):
>
> The name of Einstein’s SRT is :
> “ On the Electrodynamics of moving Bodies.” ( SRT).
> Einstein wrote about moving of ‘Electrodynamics Bodies’ (!)
> It means he wrote about particles like quantum of light, electron. (!)
> And then this other Einstein’s SRT postulate must be understand
> as: ‘every speed, even the speed of quantum of light is relative.’
> It means that quantum of light in a vacuum can have
> two kinds of motions: constant and relative.
Emm… not quite.
The postulate concerning the light is that "light will always be observed to travel at a constant speed, ‘c’ ".
Special Relativity (SRT), negates Galilean Relativity concerning light (only).
But by “light” they really mean any electromagnetic wave.
> [@socratus](#):
>
> 3
> SRT is theory about relativity of every particle’s speed,
> including the motion of particle - quantum of light. (!)
> SRT explains only the behavior of Quantum of Light (!)
> So, in my opinion the essence of Einstein’s SRT is hidden
> in the questions:
> a)
> What will be happen if the particle – quantum of light – changes
> its constant and straight movement in the vacuum?
> b)
> How can quantum of light change his movement?
> =========.
> All the best.
> Israel Sadovnik Socratus.
> ==============…
General Relativity (GRT) extends beyond Special Relativity to include the concerns of acceleration usually due to strong gravity fields.
So gravity will bend the path of light (or any EM) and alter its speed. The light travels slower in a strong gravity field even though otherwise still in a “vacuum”.
And btw, all of that could have been logically deduced without any prior Scientific observations at all. A very serious genius could have known of those things thousands of years ago.
---
### Author:  [@Archangel](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/u/Archangel)
#### Post date: [May 4, 2011, 9:17pm UTC](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/srt-what-is-it-about/30628/3 "2011-05-04T21:17:33Z")
> [@James S Saint](#):
>
> So gravity will bend the path of light (or any EM) and alter its speed. The light travels slower in a strong gravity field even though otherwise still in a “vacuum”.
You sure about this? If light changes its velocity whilst traveling through curved space, than that means that c is NOT a constant. That brings down Einstein…
---
### Author:  [@socratus](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/u/socratus)
#### Post date: [May 5, 2011, 5:06am UTC](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/srt-what-is-it-about/30628/4 "2011-05-05T05:06:17Z")
Occam’s Razor and SRT
/Special for James S Saint /
1.
In 1905 Einstein wrote the paper:
“ On the Electrodynamics of moving Bodies.” ( SRT).
He wrote about moving of ‘Electrodynamics Bodies’ (!)
It means he wrote about particles like quantum of light, electron. (!)
And this movement is going in minus 4D continuum.
2.
One postulate of SRT says: the speed of quantum
of light in a vacuum is a constant ( c=1).
3
Another postulate of SRT says that motion, every motion (!),
(even including the motion of quantum of light ) (!)
is relative. (!)
====.
Question for James S Saint:
What conclusion can be doing?
---
### Author:  [@James\_S\_Saint](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/u/James_S_Saint)
#### Post date: [May 5, 2011, 5:44am UTC](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/srt-what-is-it-about/30628/5 "2011-05-05T05:44:34Z")
> [@Archangel](#):
>
> > [@James S Saint](#):
> >
> > So gravity will bend the path of light (or any EM) and alter its speed. The light travels slower in a strong gravity field even though otherwise still in a “vacuum”.
>
> You sure about this? If light changes its velocity whilst traveling through curved space, than that means that c is NOT a constant. That brings down Einstein…
No it doesn’t. No one argues against light bending around things like black-holes. That is how they are detected. It is well established that light travels slower in the presence of high mass. That is why light refracts through glass. And I don’t think Einstein ever got into the notion of bent space, but rather everything within space getting bent. Volume is defined in straight coordinates, else “bent” has no meaning.
---
### Author:  [@James\_S\_Saint](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/u/James_S_Saint)
#### Post date: [May 5, 2011, 5:51am UTC](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/srt-what-is-it-about/30628/6 "2011-05-05T05:51:41Z")
> [@socratus](#):
>
> Occam’s Razor and SRT
> /Special for James S Saint /
> 1.
> In 1905 Einstein wrote the paper:
> “ On the Electrodynamics of moving Bodies.” ( SRT).
> He wrote about moving of ‘Electrodynamics Bodies’ (!)
> It means he wrote about particles like quantum of light, electron. (!)
> And this movement is going in minus 4D continuum.
> 2.
> One postulate of SRT says: the speed of quantum
> of light in a vacuum is a constant ( c=1).
True, but the SRT does not compensate for gravity fields. GRT is used if there are gravity variations. SRT assumes zero gravity (or mass field). That “c” is only a constant for travel very clear of any influence of mass.
> [@socratus](#):
>
> 3
> Another postulate of SRT says that motion, every motion (!),
> (even including the motion of quantum of light ) (!)
> is relative. (!)
That was Galilean Relativity, not SRT. SRT specifically states that the speed of light (assuming no mass influence) is constant and that Galileo didn’t realize that.
> [@socratus](#):
>
> What conclusion can be doing?
I see no issue or conflict. The Galilean theory got updated by SRT to include the issue of constant light speed which got updated by GRT to include the issue of mass influence on the otherwise constant speed of light.
---
### Author:  [@Archangel](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/u/Archangel)
#### Post date: [May 5, 2011, 7:40pm UTC](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/srt-what-is-it-about/30628/7 "2011-05-05T19:40:09Z")
> [@James S Saint](#):
>
> > [@Archangel](#):
> >
> > > [@James S Saint](#):
> > >
> > > So gravity will bend the path of light (or any EM) and alter its speed. The light travels slower in a strong gravity field even though otherwise still in a “vacuum”.
> >
> > You sure about this? If light changes its velocity whilst traveling through curved space, than that means that c is NOT a constant. That brings down Einstein…
>
> No it doesn’t. No one argues against light bending around things like black-holes. That is how they are detected. It is well established that light travels slower in the presence of high mass. That is why light refracts through glass.
-It may be well established but this is the first time i hear about it… Could you provide a link where it says that?
---
### Author:  [@James\_S\_Saint](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/u/James_S_Saint)
#### Post date: [May 5, 2011, 8:04pm UTC](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/srt-what-is-it-about/30628/8 "2011-05-05T20:04:39Z")
> [@Archangel](#):
>
> -It may be well established but this is the first time i hear about it… Could you provide a link where it says that?
Well, just to get you started;
[Refraction](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Refraction)
> [@Wiki](#):
>
> Refraction is the change in direction of a wave due to a change in its speed. This is most commonly observed when a wave passes from one medium to another at any angle other than 90° or 0°. Refraction of light is the most commonly observed phenomenon, but any type of wave can refract when it interacts with a medium, for example when sound waves pass from one medium into another or when water waves move into water of a different depth. Refraction is described by Snell’s law, which states that the angle of incidence θ1 is related to the angle of refraction θ2 by
>
> ```
> \frac{\sin\theta_1}{\sin\theta_2} = \frac{v_1}{v_2} = \frac{n_2}{n_1}
>
> ```
>
> where v1 and v2 are the wave velocities in the respective media, and n1 and n2 the refractive indices. In general, the incident wave is partially refracted and partially reflected; the details of this behavior are described by the Fresnel equations.
Additionally;
[Black Hole Einstein Ring Image](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blackhole)
> [@Wiki](#):
>
> Simulated view of a black hole in front of the Large Magellanic Cloud. The ratio between the black hole Schwarzschild radius and the observer distance to it is 1:9. Of note is the gravitational lensing effect known as an Einstein ring, which produces a set of two fairly bright and large but highly distorted images of the Cloud as compared to its actual angular size.
And;
[Einstein Ring](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Einstein_ring)
> [@Wiki](#):
>
> In observational astronomy an Einstein ring is the deformation of the light from a source (such as a galaxy or star) into a ring through gravitational lensing of the source’s light by an object with an extremely large mass (such as another galaxy, or a black hole). This occurs when the source, lens and observer are all aligned. The first complete Einstein ring, designated B1938+666, was discovered by collaboration between astronomers at the University of Manchester and NASA’s Hubble Space Telescope in 1998.[1]
I’m sure physics classes are filled with other details.
---
### Author:  [@victorel21](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/u/victorel21)
#### Post date: [May 6, 2011, 1:41am UTC](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/srt-what-is-it-about/30628/9 "2011-05-06T01:41:35Z")
> [@James S Saint](#):
>
> > [@Archangel](#):
> >
> > > [@James S Saint](#):
> > >
> > > So gravity will bend the path of light (or any EM) and alter its speed. The light travels slower in a strong gravity field even though otherwise still in a “vacuum”.
> >
> > You sure about this? If light changes its velocity whilst traveling through curved space, than that means that c is NOT a constant. That brings down Einstein…
>
> No it doesn’t. No one argues against light bending around things like black-holes. That is how they are detected. It is well established that light travels slower in the presence of high mass. That is why light refracts through glass. And I don’t think Einstein ever got into the notion of bent space, but rather everything within space getting bent. Volume is defined in straight coordinates, else “bent” has no meaning.
What do you mean by slower?
---
### Author:  [@James\_S\_Saint](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/u/James_S_Saint)
#### Post date: [May 6, 2011, 2:18am UTC](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/srt-what-is-it-about/30628/10 "2011-05-06T02:18:38Z")
> [@victorel21](#):
>
> > [@James S Saint](#):
> >
> > > [@Archangel](#):
> > >
> > > You sure about this? If light changes its velocity whilst traveling through curved space, than that means that c is NOT a constant. That brings down Einstein…
> >
> > No it doesn’t. No one argues against light bending around things like black-holes. That is how they are detected. It is well established that light travels slower in the presence of high mass. That is why light refracts through glass. And I don’t think Einstein ever got into the notion of bent space, but rather everything within space getting bent. Volume is defined in straight coordinates, else “bent” has no meaning.
>
> What do you mean by slower?
If you were watching from a distance as the photon got closer to the mass object, it would take longer to travel the same distance as it had been prior. And if not headed directly at the center of mass, it would curve closer to the mass (very, very slightly).
---
### Author:  [@Archangel](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/u/Archangel)
#### Post date: [May 6, 2011, 8:36am UTC](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/srt-what-is-it-about/30628/11 "2011-05-06T08:36:28Z")
JSS, thanks for the links but most of the stuff there i already know. Optics says that light refracts (not bends) when it travels between mediums of different density. Vacuum is vacuum. Unless we take into account gases and other obstructions near stars and other objects that curve light. -Best case, we can talk about an apparent change of light speed, if observed from a different reference frame…
---
### Author:  [@James\_S\_Saint](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/u/James_S_Saint)
#### Post date: [May 6, 2011, 2:48pm UTC](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/srt-what-is-it-about/30628/12 "2011-05-06T14:48:58Z")
Well no, “vacuum” is not really vacuum. The only thing different about one medium and another is the degree of presence of mass, its “mass density”. The light doesn’t actually “touch” anything as it passes through the material. In space, the mass is merely further spread, but never zero density. When a single massive object is large enough, the mass density for the region is higher and the light will bend or refract as it passes through the region. Passing through glass, the exact same thing occurs. The mass need not be as great because the light is so much closer to the atoms. And it all really has nothing to do with reference frames. Any reference frame of motion would see the exact same effect, they would just report that it occurred at a different time.
Actually, you can merely look very carefully just over the tip of your finger or between a narrow slit in your fingers and you can perceive the refraction. Often people who have forgotten their glasses squint or peek between fingers to help focus. If your finger weighed 100,000,000 tons, you wouldn’t have to try very hard to see the refraction (but don’t try to scratch your nose).
---
### Author:  [@Archangel](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/u/Archangel)
#### Post date: [May 6, 2011, 6:10pm UTC](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/srt-what-is-it-about/30628/13 "2011-05-06T18:10:29Z")
> [@James S Saint](#):
>
> Well no, “vacuum” is not really vacuum. The only thing different about one medium and another is the degree of presence of mass, its “mass density”. The light doesn’t actually “touch” anything as it passes through the material. In space, the mass is merely further spread, but never zero density. When a single massive object is large enough, the mass density for the region is higher and the light will bend or refract as it passes through the region.
I see your point… This makes sence, but how would you explain the fact that every other object accelerates when it gets close to an object of a greater mass, and light is somehow “special” and it slows down? After all, light is an EM wave, i.e. energy, and mass is the same thing - but they behave differently towards eachother in same conditions. That makes 0 sense to me…
---
### Author:  [@James\_S\_Saint](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/u/James_S_Saint)
#### Post date: [May 6, 2011, 6:26pm UTC](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/srt-what-is-it-about/30628/14 "2011-05-06T18:26:54Z")
> [@Archangel](#):
>
> I see your point… This makes sence, but how would you explain the fact that every other object accelerates when it gets close to an object of a greater mass, and light is somehow “special” and it slows down? After all, light is an EM wave, i.e. energy, and mass is the same thing - but they behave differently towards eachother in same conditions. That makes 0 sense to me…
Well, it is easy really…
First realize that light or EM waves CANNOT increase their speed regardless of any force anywhere of any type. But that doesn’t really explain why matter can and does.
The reality is that the matter, as you stated, is made of EM waves. Those EM waves are in a “knot”, effectively chasing their own tails. But because they are already traveling at the speed of light in a small knot, if that knot gets pushed, some portion of the EM wave inside is getting pushed to go faster than light can go, so it doesn’t. But the rest of the knot can increase toward the mass (thus away from the pure circle where it was headed) as long as it drags that other portion along. As anything pushes against a particle, it is pulling against the forces that hold the particle into its knot. And that is why you experience inertia. The particle is reluctant to change in its motion, because any change is an attempt to pull the particle apart.
But then as far as the acceleration toward another mass;
The other mass, due to gravity, is a constant pull on the knot. The portion of the particle that is already going at the speed of light directly toward the mass, does not increase at all, it is only the other portions that increase in the direction of the mass. They do not increase their speed within the knot, they only alter the direction of their velocity.
The reason that a photon “bends” is similar. The photon is not a point in space, but rather it has dimension. Due to that, the portion of the photon that is closer to the mass will be affected more than the rest of the photon. The actual affect of a nearby mass is to slow the EM wave. So it slows the inner portion of the photon and less so, the outer. Again, so as to remain a particle, the center of the particle must shift - toward the mass that was slowing it. Thus light bends toward the mass as do all particles.
---
### Author:  [@victorel21](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/u/victorel21)
#### Post date: [May 6, 2011, 7:53pm UTC](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/srt-what-is-it-about/30628/15 "2011-05-06T19:53:20Z")
J.ss.
So you are essencially saying that speed of light in a medium is inversely proportinal to the mass density of the medium? More mass, less velocity?
---
### Author:  [@James\_S\_Saint](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/u/James_S_Saint)
#### Post date: [May 6, 2011, 8:38pm UTC](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/srt-what-is-it-about/30628/16 "2011-05-06T20:38:22Z")
> [@victorel21](#):
>
> J.ss.
>
> So you are essencially saying that speed of light in a medium is inversely proportinal to the mass density of the medium? More mass, less velocity?
Yes, in concept. Actually right now, I can’t recall the exact equation, but yes the higher the mass density in the region, the slower the light travels and that doesn’t violate any current theories.
---
### Author:  [@victorel21](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/u/victorel21)
#### Post date: [May 7, 2011, 12:58am UTC](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/srt-what-is-it-about/30628/17 "2011-05-07T00:58:12Z")
> [@James S Saint](#):
>
> > [@victorel21](#):
> >
> > J.ss.
> >
> > So you are essencially saying that speed of light in a medium is inversely proportinal to the mass density of the medium? More mass, less velocity?
>
> Yes, in concept. Actually right now, I can’t recall the exact equation, but yes the higher the mass density in the region, the slower the light travels and that doesn’t violate any current theories.
I know the current explanation of why this is like this but I am curious how you explain this?
---
### Author:  [@socratus](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/u/socratus)
#### Post date: [May 7, 2011, 3:17am UTC](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/srt-what-is-it-about/30628/18 "2011-05-07T03:17:25Z")
> [@victorel21](#):
>
> > [@James S Saint](#):
> >
> > > [@victorel21](#):
> > >
> > > J.ss.
> > >
> > > So you are essencially saying that speed of light in a medium
> > > is inversely proportinal to the mass density of the medium? More mass, less velocity?
> >
> > Yes, in concept. Actually right now, I can’t recall the exact equation,
> > but yes the higher the mass density in the region, the slower the light travels
> > and that doesn’t violate any current theories.
>
> I know the current explanation of why this is like this but I am curious how you explain this?
1
Well no, “vacuum” is not really vacuum.
The only thing different about one medium and
another is the degree of presence of mass, its “mass density”.
/ James S Saint /
The detected material mass of the matter in the Universe is very small
(the average density of all substance in the Universe is approximately
p=10^-30 g/sm^3) and therefore physicists invented an abstract
‘dark matter and dark energy’.They say: ‘ 90% or more of the matter
in the Universe is unseen.’
And nobody knows what it is.
Question:
How can the 99% of the Hidden ( dark ) matter in the Universe
create the 1% of the visible matter ?
S.
2
The photon is not a point in space, but rather it has dimension.
/ James S Saint /
Is photon triangle?
Is photon cube?
Which geometrical form can have photon in the vacuum?
S.
====================…
---
### Author:  [@James\_S\_Saint](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/u/James_S_Saint)
#### Post date: [May 7, 2011, 12:05pm UTC](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/srt-what-is-it-about/30628/19 "2011-05-07T12:05:43Z")
> [@socratus](#):
>
> The detected material mass of the matter in the Universe is very small
> (the average density of all substance in the Universe is approximately
> p=10^-30 g/sm^3) and therefore physicists invented an abstract
> ‘dark matter and dark energy’.They say: ‘ 90% or more of the matter
> in the Universe is unseen.’
> And nobody knows what it is.
> Question:
> How can the 99% of the Hidden ( dark ) matter in the Universe
> create the 1% of the visible matter ?
This gets into the definition of “mass” and “matter” as well as recent attempts to reverse design reality to fit into prior theories. The working theories indicate that for the universe to behave as it appears to be doing, “there must be mass out there that we just cannot see”. Such is very poor Science but is getting more common every day. When something doesn’t make sense by your accepted theories, you alter the evidence and invent anything necessary to justify your theories. Very much of Quantum Physics has been invented that way. The “strong force” for example is merely a superstitious way of maintaining the illusion that a nucleus has individual protons in it. “Dark matter” is merely another superstition invented to maintain astrological and physics theories involving why planets and stars move as they appear to move.
But on a more legitimate note; Gravitation can actually be sourced from non particularized EM waves. The vacuum of space is nothing but EM waves much like an ocean (not counting the loose particles). Those EM waves can theoretically cause mass-like attraction if they happen to swirl and splash around just right. The degree that this occurs is an open question. Photons for example cannot be seen unless the are traveling toward you, but they can produce a gravity field merely by their spin. That would account for one hell of a lot of gravity that is coming from a completely unseen source (all of the light that is not coming straight at you).
> [@socratus](#):
>
> 2
> The photon is not a point in space, but rather it has dimension.
> / James S Saint /
>
> Is photon triangle?
> Is photon cube?
> Which geometrical form can have photon in the vacuum?
> S.
> ====================…
Well, there is debate about that too. My personal speculation at this point is that it is a bit like a spiraling snake, spinning as it projects forward with a tail swirling behind. That swirling tail can account for much of the “dark matter” because anything spinning at the speed of light will produce a gravity field.
---
### Author:  [@Archangel](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/u/Archangel)
#### Post date: [May 7, 2011, 1:21pm UTC](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/srt-what-is-it-about/30628/20 "2011-05-07T13:21:41Z")
JSS, your interpretation of light bending so far seems to hold - specifically, the idea of “space density” near massive objects that acts as a different medium…
-On the other hand, the part in your post that deals with inertia and “attempts to push the energy of a particle faster than c” - as far as i understand - is flawed. You said that any attempt to move the particle in a certain direction violates the intrinsic speed of the composing EM energy and because of that the resulting resistance creates variations in speed and direction… When i think about it, it seems to me that you were trying to add velocities in a linear way - which the TR forbids and comes up with its own rules. Keep in mind that c is a constant in every direction, so pushing the energy in the direction of moving or against it makes no difference - that’s the foundation stone of TR.
[Next page](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/srt-what-is-it-about/30628.md?page=2)