Can we detect a blueshift of –c?
in [Relativity]
|
Prev: GUESS WHO'S BACK TO HELP US CELEBRATE EARTH DAY? .
Next: Proton Radius Cannot Be Derived From Standard Model
From: G. L. Bradford on 22 Apr 2010 12:29 "HVAC" wrote: (snip) > > "G. L. Bradford" wrote: >> >> The onion skin time-slice of universe that is observed to be the largest >> of them all is the slice farthest out from Earth along every single spoke >> out, with Earth HERE-NOW (0) occupying the tiniest space-time universe >> [observed] of all. Now tell me, Sam, is there any spatial universe out >> there existing in the same moment of time as Earth here-now? You keep >> telling us you astronomers can see what the rest of us can never see, a >> universe simultaneous with Earth. An expanding one at that when the fact >> is space-time contracts in upon HERE-NOW beginning from the largest >> observed horizon-universe of space-time most distant from any HERE-NOW >> and progressing through progressively smaller slices (progressively >> smaller layers) until contraction reaches the smallest slice of all, the >> Earth (0) or any other unobserved HERE-NOW (0) simultaneous with it (0=0) >> 13.75 billion space-time-slice universes (-) [in] from the biggest >> horizon-slice of them all outermost (-(-)-). > > > Gee. And I thought *I* had it bad dealing with > the aether people. > ========================= Why is it that so many think they can safely ignore the general presence of gravity throughout the universe? Particularly, the infinity? And, where time is relative, so is space (spacetime or space-time). Relative? Not so according to Sam. According to (Creationist) Sam both the space and time of our "observable" universe are absolutes rather than relatives. Not only absolutes, but in fact just one single absolute. To travel to the Moon, Mars, Alpha Centauri, anywhere outside the Earth, the physical traveler (physical and observed travelers -- just the same as with physical and observed universes -- being one and the same entity to Sam) would "retard" in time. The further out, the more "retarded in time" physically as well as observably (remaining -just 1-dimensionally- the one and the same [physical / observable] universe and traveler all the way). Never SEPARATING into two (unobserved non-retarding physical) (observed "retarding" image). Never EXPANDING in that separation. GLB ========================
From: Sam Wormley on 22 Apr 2010 12:41 On 4/22/10 11:29 AM, G. L. Bradford wrote: > Why is it that so many think they can safely ignore the general > presence of gravity throughout the universe? Particularly, the infinity? > > And, where time is relative, so is space (spacetime or space-time). > > Relative? Not so according to Sam. According to (Creationist) Sam both > the space and time of our "observable" universe are absolutes rather > than relatives. Not only absolutes, but in fact just one single > absolute. To travel to the Moon, Mars, Alpha Centauri, anywhere outside > the Earth, the physical traveler (physical and observed travelers -- > just the same as with physical and observed universes -- being one and > the same entity to Sam) would "retard" in time. The further out, the > more "retarded in time" physically as well as observably (remaining > -just 1-dimensionally- the one and the same [physical / observable] > universe and traveler all the way). Never SEPARATING into two > (unobserved non-retarding physical) (observed "retarding" image). Never > EXPANDING in that separation. > > GLB It is wrong to attribute words to another that were not written. Brad--You appear NOT to understand many things that have been learned over the past 400 years about the universe. Four hundred years ago Kepler and Galileo changed our concept of the universe... and there have been at least two more revolutions in cosmology since. Why do you not bring yourself up2date on what the current evidence tells us? No Center http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/nocenter.html http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/infpoint.html Also see Ned Wright's Cosmology Tutorial http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmolog.htm http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmology_faq.html http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/CosmoCalc.html WMAP: Foundations of the Big Bang theory http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/m_uni.html WMAP: Tests of Big Bang Cosmology http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/m_uni/uni_101bbtest.html
From: Brad Guth on 22 Apr 2010 13:14 On Apr 22, 9:47 am, "Greg Neill" <gneil...(a)MOVEsympatico.ca> wrote: > Brad Guth wrote: > > In other words, you don't know: "Can we detect a blueshift of c?" > > > Redshift is obviously mainstream approved, but blueshift isn't? > > Silly. Both are simply the result of the standard physics > of Doppler Shift. > > > > > Obviously we can't seem to detect 100% redshift of c, so I'd doubt -c > > being detectable. Supposedly our universe radii is getting another ly > > larger per year, and as such it's undetectable. > > 100% red shift, to take your implied meaning, would result in > photon frequencies of zero by the time it arrived. That is, > an observer could not have any physical way to detect them > since relative to him the photons would have zero energy. > E = h*f . I'll accept that. > > The radius of the observable portion of our universe, that is > from where we are situated and looking out and back in time to > when the Big Bang happened, grows by a lightyear per year (if > we choose to interpret the lookback time as a measure of > distance -- there are several different ways to measure and > interpret distance in an expanding, curved space universe). > > The universe as a whole, including the portion we can't see > (which is most of it) because it is beyond our comic horizon, > is expanding relative to us at rates greater than c. That is, > the space beyond the horizon is moving away from our local > region of space at greater than c, and the further away the > faster. > > This is not in contradiction with Relativity, which places > constraints on how fast massive objects move *in* space, and > the speed of light *in* space as measured by a local observer. > Relativity does not place constraints on how quickly space > itself can expand. Nor on how quickly it might contract as equally undetectable if that blueshift is worth anything near -c. For all we know the undetected portions of our universe are contracting/imploding, unless there's something beyond that's pulling matter outwards. ~ BG ~ BG
From: BURT on 22 Apr 2010 16:17 On Apr 21, 7:17 pm, Brad Guth <bradg...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Apr 21, 6:59 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Apr 21, 6:25 pm, Brad Guth <bradg...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Apr 21, 6:15 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > On Apr 21, 5:56 pm, Brad Guth <bradg...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > On Apr 21, 5:41 pm, artful <artful...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Apr 22, 10:35 am, Brad Guth <bradg...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > In other words, if something substantial (such as a 10 solar mass > > > > > > > super-star and its tidal swarm of Jupiter+ planets) was headed as > > > > > > > seemingly directly towards us at c (-299.8e3 km/sec), could that item > > > > > > > regardless of its size, mass and vibrance be detected? > > > > > > > > Brad Guth, Brad_Guth, Brad.Guth, BradGuth, BG / Guth Usenet > > > > > > > Nothing with mass can have a speed of c .. so your question is not > > > > > > valid. But if it was travelling fast enough, its light would be > > > > > > Doppler shifted to beyond the visible spectrum .. but then, and lower > > > > > > frequency EMR from it could be shifted into the visible spectrum. > > > > > > We're told by our peers that the outer parts of our universe is likely > > > > > expanding/receding at c, as sort of leaving us in its photon dust that > > > > > we'll never detect. > > > > > > Stop avoiding the truth-seeking context or intent of my topic. > > > > > > LHC proves that matter can be artificially directed towards other > > > > > matter at a closing velocity of <2c. > > > > > > ~ BG > > > > > Increased strength of gravity blueshifts light from its fundamental by > > > > gravity Gamma factor. > > > > > Mitch Raemsch > > > > Are you suggesting gravity has the same velocity as photons? > > > > I thought gravity was worth at least 2c. > > > > ~ BG- Hide quoted text - > > > > - Show quoted text - > > > Two light waves traveling toward one another (in a gravity) would > > converge on a center at 2C. > > > Mitch Raemsch > > That seems likely, but even if each were making a velocity towards the > other at .5c for a closing velocity of c, could we as one item detect > the other? > > ~ BG- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - Gravity moves with mass center so it can have a closing speed of 2C. Mitch Raemsch
From: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Anders_Ekl=F6f?= on 22 Apr 2010 17:17
artful <artful_me(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > On Apr 22, 10:35 am, Brad Guth <bradg...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > In other words, if something substantial (such as a 10 solar mass > > super-star and its tidal swarm of Jupiter+ planets) was headed as > > seemingly directly towards us at –c (-299.8e3 km/sec), could that item > > regardless of its size, mass and vibrance be detected? > > > > Brad Guth, Brad_Guth, Brad.Guth, BradGuth, BG / "Guth Usenet" > > Nothing with mass can have a speed of c .. so your question is not > valid. But if it was travelling fast enough, its light would be > Doppler shifted to beyond the visible spectrum .. but then, and lower > frequency EMR from it could be shifted into the visible spectrum. Please, don't feed... -- I recommend Macs to my friends, and Windows machines to those whom I don't mind billing by the hour |