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 23 Apr 2010 05:20 "Sam Wormley" <swormley1(a)gmail.com> wrote in message news:l9qdnbLCqtlQ703WnZ2dnUVZ_qudnZ2d(a)mchsi.com... > On 4/22/10 3:19 AM, G. L. Bradford wrote: >> "Everywhere we look the universe is expanding." >> >> Which universe, Sam? Just arbitrarily speaking, there are a minimum of >> 13.75 billion universes showing. A minimum of 13.75 billion very thin >> time-slice universes observed for [our] observable universe. In total >> view, the observed universe is a total fiction that [as observed whole] >> does not exist in space, never existed in space at any time, never >> existing [in] any time at all. > > Are you able to carry on reasonable conversations of a technical or > scientific nature face-to-face with other humans? > > Look up "universe" in a dictionary. Probably a better scientific > definition for universe is everything to which we are causally > connected. Our observable universe extends back in time to about > 13.7 billion years. > > This should keep you busy for a while: > http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/CosmoCalc.html ===================== And you will never understand that that is a constant base.....a base (horizon) constant. It never was anything different (not even an eternity ago) and it never will be anything different (not even in an eternity from now). But you seem to be too stuck in the mud of just another version of Creationism to even conceive of a continuing base (what would be considered an 'endless beginning' that is at once also an 'endless end' -- an infinite Singularity of singularities), thus continuance in the horizon over base, of base, from base, to base..... A constancy of base and thus a constancy of every single dimension or plane of complexity existing. Both macro- and micro-verse horizon constant (exactly the same horizon constant). After all these years you've come to remind me so much of what the competent militaries of history and today have always called "a fourth class officer." Otherwise, nothing but a digit, just a place fill (a low grade hack) in your profession. Too bad. GLB ====================
From: Peter Webb on 23 Apr 2010 07:08 "G. L. Bradford" <glbrad01(a)insightbb.com> wrote in message news:mbmdnT_wTsTV-0zWnZ2dnUVZ_g6dnZ2d(a)insightbb.com... > > "Sam Wormley" <swormley1(a)gmail.com> wrote in message > news:l9qdnbLCqtlQ703WnZ2dnUVZ_qudnZ2d(a)mchsi.com... >> On 4/22/10 3:19 AM, G. L. Bradford wrote: >>> "Everywhere we look the universe is expanding." >>> >>> Which universe, Sam? Just arbitrarily speaking, there are a minimum of >>> 13.75 billion universes showing. A minimum of 13.75 billion very thin >>> time-slice universes observed for [our] observable universe. In total >>> view, the observed universe is a total fiction that [as observed whole] >>> does not exist in space, never existed in space at any time, never >>> existing [in] any time at all. >> >> Are you able to carry on reasonable conversations of a technical or >> scientific nature face-to-face with other humans? >> >> Look up "universe" in a dictionary. Probably a better scientific >> definition for universe is everything to which we are causally >> connected. Our observable universe extends back in time to about >> 13.7 billion years. >> >> This should keep you busy for a while: >> http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/CosmoCalc.html > > ===================== > > And you will never understand that that is a constant base.....a base > (horizon) constant. It never was anything different (not even an eternity > ago) and it never will be anything different (not even in an eternity from > now). But you seem to be too stuck in the mud of just another version of > Creationism to even conceive of a continuing base (what would be > considered an 'endless beginning' that is at once also an 'endless end' -- > an infinite Singularity of singularities), thus continuance in the horizon > over base, of base, from base, to base..... A constancy of base and thus a > constancy of every single dimension or plane of complexity existing. Both > macro- and micro-verse horizon constant (exactly the same horizon > constant). > Wow. That's far out. > After all these years you've come to remind me so much of what the > competent militaries of history and today have always called "a fourth > class officer." Otherwise, nothing but a digit, just a place fill (a low > grade hack) in your profession. Too bad. > > GLB > Actually, he reminds me of what people call a "physicist". OTOH, you remind me of how good dope was back in the 70s.
From: dlzc on 23 Apr 2010 10:31 Dear Brad Guth: On Apr 22, 9:39 pm, Brad Guth <bradg...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Apr 22, 7:36 am, dlzc <dl...(a)cox.net> wrote: > > On Apr 21, 10:46 pm, Brad Guth <bradg...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > ... > > > > Should any parts or items of our universe be collapsing > > > towards us at c, could we detect it? > > > No. The laws of physics do not permit detection of > > motion in raging pink fairy Universes. > > Can we detect a blueshift of c? We can detect blue shifts right up to -c. We cannot get any emitter to -c to find out. We bounce visible light photons off of very high speed electrons, and we get gamma ray photons with energies of up to gamma^2 of the electrons. In a Universe that permitted objects to move faster than c, the "death train" you imagine would be preceeded by hosts of particles from previous collisions at up to 2c. Unless some evil Cosmic A**hole invented it to only collide with us. David A. Smtih
From: Sam Wormley on 22 Apr 2010 00:22 On 4/21/10 7:35 PM, Brad Guth 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� I though you knew that mass cannot move at c for any inertial observer. Your question makes no sense given that c is the cosmic speed limit.
From: Jerry on 23 Apr 2010 11:24
On Apr 21, 7:56 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. Space is expanding...big difference! http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmology_faq.html#FTL There is no conflict with special relativity. > 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. So what? Closing velocity is not a measured velocity. You've been participating how many years on these newsgroups, and YOU STILL DON'T KNOW THAT???? Jerry |