Prev: The best we can get for a standard model
Next: A blue·shifted photon is “spun up”; its frequency goes up.
From: Brad Guth on 23 Apr 2010 17:10
On Apr 23, 11:22 am, "Greg Neill" <gneil...(a)MOVEsympatico.ca> wrote:
> Brad Guth wrote:
> > On Apr 23, 5:09 am, "Greg Neill" <gneil...(a)MOVEsympatico.ca> wrote:
> >> Brad Guth wrote:
> >>> On Apr 22, 1:33 pm, "Greg Neill" <gneil...(a)MOVEsympatico.ca> wrote:
> >>>> Brad Guth wrote:
> >>>>> How about photons from a vibrant 10 solar mass star that's situated
> >>>>> well within our visual detection horizon of 13.7e9 ly, but trekking
> >>>>> directly towards us at -c?
>
> >>>> It can't. Nothing physical within our horizon can be
> >>>> observed to move at or above c. Close to c, sure, but
> >>>> not at or above.
>
> >>>> The best a body can do is approach c with respect to
> >>>> observers in its proximity (within the local region of
> >>>> space moving with the Hubble flow). Every non-local
> >>>> observer (such as us sitting a great distance away from
> >>>> that region in our own local region) sees that region
> >>>> of space moving away in bulk according to the Hubble
> >>>> expansion, thus decreasing any net speed of approach.
>
> >>> I wasn't asking for your subjective opinion of physics.
>
> >>> I was asking about photons from a vibrant 10 solar mass star that's
> >>> situated well within our visual detection horizon of 13.7e9 ly,
> >>> trekking directly towards us at -c. How would we ho about detecting
> >>> this 100% blue-shift?
>
> >> See my first paragraph above.
>
> >> If your observed star is relatively close by, it's observed
> >> velocity will be limited by an upper bound approaching c.
> >> The further away it is (and the closer it gets to our
> >> cosmic horizon), the motion due to the expansion of the
> >> space between us and it has to be added to its motion
> >> through space, decreasing the net observed velocity.
>
> >> Near the horizon, a body moving at near c in its local space
> >> in a direction towards us will have a net velocity near
> >> zero (the best it could do would be to stand still with
> >> respect to us), and so its red shift would be very small.
>
> >> There is no way for a body to be observed moving towards us
> >> at c.
> > That's exactly what I’d thought.  If we're moving away or towards
> > other mass at c, we'd be oblivious to realizing its existence.
>
> I don't see why you persist in assuming the impossible.
> A relative velocity of c or greater is simply not allowed
> by nature.
Then by all means use 99.9999% c for all I care. Isn't that what LHC
is accomplishing?

Can anything head-on detect those protons without their smashing into
those other retrograde protons?

Isn't LHC incapable of mustering up more than 0.0000000000000001% (a
long trillionth) of whatever magnetic and/or gravity potential or
density that black holes and neutron stars have to offer?

Can we see or detect any -99.9999%c photons? (I don't think so)

>
> > I understand there's a few rogue stars moving at 1500 km/sec, and it's
> > thought possible that stars further out could easily be moving at .5c,
> > so what if another star were moving towards the other at .5c, making
> > their mutual closing velocity c.  Due to their relative closing
> > velocity being c, could either of those fast moving stars notice the
> > other? (I don't think so)
>
> Look up relativistic addition of velocities.
>
> Closing velocity, as judged by a third party observer of two
> separate objects closing on each other, is not at all the
> same thing as one object moving at c or greater with respect
> to the other; Each of the stars would see the other as moving
> towards it at a velocity less than c.  Neither star would be
> invisible to the other.
You have something/anything other than theory backing that up?

Are you suggesting that black hole horizons or any other form of
gravity induced horizons or lensing distortions do not exist?

Are you suggesting that photons do not exist within a black hole?

>
> > It seems anything moving away or towards us at c (relative to us)
> > becomes stealth/invisible.
>
> But nothing can so move.  So your conclusions are not logical.
My conclusions or interpretations are perhaps just as logical as are
your suggestions that photons are of zero mass and that cosmic photon
horizons do not exist. You might as well stipulate that gravity isn't
caused by and/or affected/distorted by anything.

>
> > This simply means we’re always at some
> > degree of risk unless fast moving exogravity can be detected.  A
> > neutron star or black hole closing in on us, even if it were passing
> > outside of Pluto could be a cosmic form of fatal attraction, whereas
> > just the gravitational shockwave of one light year radii alone could
> > perturb and/or traumatize most everything about our solar system.
>
> And invisible pink elephants are a threat to ants of the
> 13th dimension.  Makes as much sense.

Your Semitic Einstein anti-pink elephant gods are noted. Meanwhile,
we can't detect whatever's coming or going at -c or c. We can only
detect whatever's between -c and c (+/- 3e8 m/sec), and supposedly our
universe is still expanding itself at a redshift of c+, whereas
13.75e9 ly seems to be the relative horizon where the receding
elements that generate photons have reached their exit velocity of c,
whereas at 0.1 m/s slower than c they start becoming invisible.

~ BG
From: Greg Neill on 23 Apr 2010 08:09
Brad Guth wrote:
> On Apr 22, 1:33 pm, "Greg Neill" <gneil...(a)MOVEsympatico.ca> wrote:
>> Brad Guth wrote:
>>> How about photons from a vibrant 10 solar mass star that's situated
>>> well within our visual detection horizon of 13.7e9 ly, but trekking
>>> directly towards us at -c?
>>
>> It can't. Nothing physical within our horizon can be
>> observed to move at or above c. Close to c, sure, but
>> not at or above.
>>
>> The best a body can do is approach c with respect to
>> observers in its proximity (within the local region of
>> space moving with the Hubble flow). Every non-local
>> observer (such as us sitting a great distance away from
>> that region in our own local region) sees that region
>> of space moving away in bulk according to the Hubble
>> expansion, thus decreasing any net speed of approach.
>
> I wasn't asking for your subjective opinion of physics.
>
> I was asking about photons from a vibrant 10 solar mass star that's
> situated well within our visual detection horizon of 13.7e9 ly,
> trekking directly towards us at -c. How would we ho about detecting
> this 100% blue-shift?

See my first paragraph above.

If your observed star is relatively close by, it's observed
velocity will be limited by an upper bound approaching c.
The further away it is (and the closer it gets to our
cosmic horizon), the motion due to the expansion of the
space between us and it has to be added to its motion
through space, decreasing the net observed velocity.

Near the horizon, a body moving at near c in its local space
in a direction towards us will have a net velocity near
zero (the best it could do would be to stand still with
respect to us), and so its red shift would be very small.

There is no way for a body to be observed moving towards us
at c.


From: J. Clarke on 23 Apr 2010 08:37
On 4/23/2010 8:09 AM, Greg Neill wrote:
> Brad Guth wrote:
>> On Apr 22, 1:33 pm, "Greg Neill"<gneil...(a)MOVEsympatico.ca> wrote:
>>> Brad Guth wrote:
>>>> How about photons from a vibrant 10 solar mass star that's situated
>>>> well within our visual detection horizon of 13.7e9 ly, but trekking
>>>> directly towards us at -c?
>>>
>>> It can't. Nothing physical within our horizon can be
>>> observed to move at or above c. Close to c, sure, but
>>> not at or above.
>>>
>>> The best a body can do is approach c with respect to
>>> observers in its proximity (within the local region of
>>> space moving with the Hubble flow). Every non-local
>>> observer (such as us sitting a great distance away from
>>> that region in our own local region) sees that region
>>> of space moving away in bulk according to the Hubble
>>> expansion, thus decreasing any net speed of approach.
>>
>> I wasn't asking for your subjective opinion of physics.
>>
>> I was asking about photons from a vibrant 10 solar mass star that's
>> situated well within our visual detection horizon of 13.7e9 ly,
>> trekking directly towards us at -c. How would we ho about detecting
>> this 100% blue-shift?
>
> See my first paragraph above.
>
> If your observed star is relatively close by, it's observed
> velocity will be limited by an upper bound approaching c.
> The further away it is (and the closer it gets to our
> cosmic horizon), the motion due to the expansion of the
> space between us and it has to be added to its motion
> through space, decreasing the net observed velocity.
>
> Near the horizon, a body moving at near c in its local space
> in a direction towards us will have a net velocity near
> zero (the best it could do would be to stand still with
> respect to us), and so its red shift would be very small.
>
> There is no way for a body to be observed moving towards us
> at c.

If we accept Guth's premise that something is coming toward us at c,
leaving aside the issue of how that came to be, then it's not going to
be detectable in time to do anything useful since it's going to arrive
simultaneously with any light coming off it, so what's the point of
trying to detect it? If it exists we will be well aware of it for
perhaps a picosecond.


From: Brad Guth on 23 Apr 2010 09:22
On Apr 22, 11:14 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Apr 22, 10:41 pm, Brad Guth <bradg...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Apr 22, 10:27 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Apr 22, 9:31 pm, Brad Guth <bradg...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On Apr 22, 1:33 pm, "Greg Neill" <gneil...(a)MOVEsympatico.ca> wrote:
>
> > > > > Brad Guth wrote:
> > > > > > How about photons from a vibrant 10 solar mass star that's situated
> > > > > > well within our visual detection horizon of 13.7e9 ly, but trekking
> > > > > > directly towards us at -c?
>
> > > > > It can't.  Nothing physical within our horizon can be
> > > > > observed to move at or above c.  Close to c, sure, but
> > > > > not at or above.
>
> > > > > The best a body can do is approach c with respect to
> > > > > observers in its proximity (within the local region of
> > > > > space moving with the Hubble flow).  Every non-local
> > > > > observer (such as us sitting a great distance away from
> > > > > that region in our own local region) sees that region
> > > > > of space moving away in bulk according to the Hubble
> > > > > expansion, thus decreasing any net speed of approach.
>
> > > > I wasn't asking for your subjective opinion of physics.
>
> > > > I was asking about photons from a vibrant 10 solar mass star that's
> > > > situated well within our visual detection horizon of 13.7e9 ly,
> > > > trekking directly towards us at -c.  How would we ho about detecting
> > > > this 100% blue-shift?
>
> > > >  ~ BG- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > > - Show quoted text -
>
> > > What if you are moving sideways to light when absorbing it? What shift
> > > is it going to have?
>
> > > There must be a maximum energy shift with drop off at different angles
> > > of absorption.
>
> > > Mitch Raemsch
>
> > Interesting interpretation or notion, of perhaps a phase shift taking
> > place.
>
> > Sideways or angular encounters of photons is perhaps just interacting
> > with considerably more photons.  Each and every nm3 of our universe
> > has it's own streams of photons.
>
> >  ~ BG- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> If there are angles of absorption straight front and back there would
> be maximum red and blue shift. But sideways or 90 degrees should yield
> no shift. And then there all the different angles and energies of red
> and blue inbetween.
>
> Mitch Raemsch

Correct, whereas it's all relative to our cosmic velocity and/or phase
angle.

If we were moving towards that vibrant 10 solar mass star at c, I'm
not sure it ant any phase angle we'd see or detect anything, as well
as equally blind or unaware if we were moving away at c.

It seems photons are relatively slow, and otherwise we simply can't
detect a zero Hz or that of any Planck/∞ Hz photon. In other words,
under the right conditions it seems you can overrun out outrun a
photon.

~ BG
From: Peter Webb on 22 Apr 2010 02:25

"Brad Guth" <bradguth(a)gmail.com> wrote in message
news:90d95c55-3fda-4e4a-9df7-8bf39290bed1(a)m25g2000prj.googlegroups.com...
On Apr 21, 10:58 pm, "Peter Webb"
<webbfam...(a)DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> wrote:
> Some parts of the Universe are moving towards us at speed c.
>
> Some of the light from other galaxies, for example.
>
> We can know nothing about this light until it actually reaches us. No
> information (eg that light was emitted by a distant galaxy) can travel
> faster than c.

Perhaps as far as we know, yet gravity and the information it
represents seems to be worth at least 2c.

______________________

I think its worth much more than 2 cents. If nothing else, it keeps the
earth in orbit around the Sun.

First  |  Prev  |  Next  |  Last
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Prev: The best we can get for a standard model
Next: A blue·shifted photon is “spun up”; its frequency goes up.