Is Light Stationary?

[TRS-90]

If the speed of light is the invariant, could it be that everything else is moving and that light is somehow stationary?

[Ross Finlayson]

Post by TRS-90
If the speed of light is the invariant, could it be that everything else is moving and that light is somehow stationary?

From any given perspective the image contained is always
receding at c, buts that's from all given perspectives,
some "Light Speed Rest Frame" theory.

Two images meet and pass so light's not stationary,
and it's not stationery, it's though just a way to
frame GR instead of SR in terms of what's "absolute"
and what's "relative", in relative terms.

It's not necessarily very practical, though it's a
sort of theoretical artifice, and relates to otherwise
models of separation, it's just an idea in the
abstraction of terms, perspective.

It is that, then, yet, that's what it is.

[Maciej Wozniak]

Post by TRS-90
If the speed of light is the invariant

It is not, even poor idiot Einstein
couldn't stick to this idiocy for a long
time and his GR shit had to abandon it.

[J. J. Lodder]

Post by TRS-90
If the speed of light is the invariant, could it be that everything else
is moving and that light is somehow stationary?

Certainly, according to light itself,

Jan

[gharnagel]

Post by J. J. Lodder

Post by TRS-90
If the speed of light is the invariant, could it be that everything

else

Post by TRS-90
is moving and that light is somehow stationary?

Certainly, according to light itself,
Jan

:-)

Light has no mass, which is why it can exist in that frame.
Unfortunately,
observers are composed of bradyons, which have mass. Sorry, no
observers
allowed.

[Ross Finlayson]

Post by J. J. Lodder

Post by TRS-90
If the speed of light is the invariant, could it be that everything

else

Post by TRS-90
is moving and that light is somehow stationary?

Certainly, according to light itself,
Jan

:-)
Light has no mass, which is why it can exist in that frame. Unfortunately,
observers are composed of bradyons, which have mass. Sorry, no
observers
allowed.

Light has no charge, why is it called "electromagnetic"?

[gharnagel]

Post by Ross Finlayson

Post by gharnagel
Light has no mass, which is why it can exist in that frame.
Unfortunately, observers are composed of bradyons, which
have mass. Sorry, no observers allowed.

Light has no charge, why is it called "electromagnetic"?

Electric fields have no charge, why are they called "electric"?

[Senewa Hegedüs]

Post by gharnagel

Post by Ross Finlayson

Post by gharnagel
Light has no mass, which is why it can exist in that frame.
Unfortunately, observers are composed of bradyons, which have mass.
Sorry, no observers allowed.

Light has no charge, why is it called "electromagnetic"?

Electric fields have no charge, why are they called "electric"?

lol, this usenet user dont undrestand relativity. You cant have a charge
without a field.

𝗪𝗔𝗧𝗖𝗛_𝗨𝗸𝗿𝗮𝗶𝗻𝗶𝗮𝗻_𝗦𝘂-25_𝗴𝗲𝘁_𝗼𝗯𝗹𝗶𝘁𝗲𝗿𝗮𝘁𝗻_𝗱𝗿𝗲𝗱_𝗶𝗼𝗻𝗲_𝘀𝘁𝗿𝗶𝗸𝗲
A Lancet loitering munition caught the jet in the open at an airfield,
according to the Russian Defense Ministry
https://r%74.com/russia/599126-ukrainian-jet-destroyed-video/

[Maciej Wozniak]

Post by J. J. Lodder

Post by TRS-90
If the speed of light is the invariant, could it be that everything else
is moving and that light is somehow stationary?

Certainly, according to light itself,

Did the light tell you its opinion,
poor halfbrain?

[Mikko]

Post by J. J. Lodder

Post by TRS-90
If the speed of light is the invariant, could it be that everything else
is moving and that light is somehow stationary?

Certainly, according to light itself,

But not according to every other light.