| > Every single comment you've written on this subject closes all discussion on it I have done no such thing. I have only closed discussion based on a fallacious premise. If you drop the fallacious premise there is plenty to discuss. > We certainly don't know spacetime as photons "know" it, since its not "well defined." I did not say spacetime is not well-defined. Spacetime is not "as photons know it" or as any observer "knows" it. Spacetime is the underlying geometric entity; it requires no "point of view" to exist, or even to be described; you can describe spacetime without ever using inertial frames, which are what your "points of view" actually are. > you use the term worldline to describe the totality of the temporal-spatial existence of a photon That's because "worldline" is the standard physics term for it, as used in physics textbooks and peer-reviewed papers. > you're lightly reproving us for not using the same dictionary as you. If you want to discuss physics, it helps a lot to use the standard language of physics. > I'm interested in this subject but not interested enough (or rather, have the time and energy) to become a physicist to understand You don't have to become a physicist. But you do have to be willing to drop fallacious premises. |
Eg distance traveled is 0 due to length contraction. Time taken is 0 due to time dilation. So what's its velocity? 0/0 = undefined, the question is meaningless. But the velocity is arguably more fundamendal than the distance travelled or time taken, so those aren't truly 0. They're also undefined quantities.