Can we detect a blueshift of -c?
in [Physics]
|
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 19:42 On Apr 22, 4:01 pm, artful <artful...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > On Apr 23, 6:05 am, Brad Guth <bradg...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Apr 22, 11:25 am, "Greg Neill" <gneil...(a)MOVEsympatico.ca> wrote: > > > > Brad Guth wrote: > > > > On Apr 22, 9:47 am, "Greg Neill" <gneil...(a)MOVEsympatico.ca> wrote: > > > >> 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. > > > > Of course even if regions of space beyond our cosmic > > > horizon were moving towards us at any rate we would > > > not be able to see them since light from there would > > > still have to cross the horizon in our direction and > > > that horizon is moving away at c; light there and > > > beyond can never reach us. > > > 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 happen .. so why ask about it? > > Every object with mass travels at less than c in our (and every) frame > of reference In that case whenever unknowns or unexplainable things happen, we can say with absolute "artful" certainty that it had absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with anything moving along or closing at c or faster. ~ BG
From: Brad Guth on 23 Apr 2010 20:44 On Apr 23, 2:52 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > On Apr 23, 2:17 pm, Brad Guth <bradg...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Apr 23, 10:36 am, Double-A <double...(a)hush.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 > > > > Any star moving towards us at the speed of light would be a black hole > > > relative to us (infinite mass). Also every photon it emitted in our > > > direction would also be a black hole, because 100 percent blue-shift > > > would cause the infinite energy resulting from that shift to be > > > confined to an infinitely small area, thus resulting in event horizons > > > forming. Unless there proves to be some truth to long range variable > > > speed light theories, there would be no way we could detect it before > > > it hit us! > > > > Double-A > > > I'll buy that, except there should be a fairly large radii Oort cloud > > that could be detectable as we pass through or nearby. Our small and > > relatively passive sun supposedly has a light year radii worth of Oort > > cloud. > > > ~ BG- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text - > > What is the left over of the prior supernova? What if it left behind a > neutron star or core in the Oort cloud? We could test gravity. > > Mitch Raemsch We could effectively and objectively test gravity within our Earth- moon L1 (Selene L1). ~ BG
From: BURT on 23 Apr 2010 20:56 On Apr 23, 5:44 pm, Brad Guth <bradg...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Apr 23, 2:52 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Apr 23, 2:17 pm, Brad Guth <bradg...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Apr 23, 10:36 am, Double-A <double...(a)hush.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 > > > > > Any star moving towards us at the speed of light would be a black hole > > > > relative to us (infinite mass). Also every photon it emitted in our > > > > direction would also be a black hole, because 100 percent blue-shift > > > > would cause the infinite energy resulting from that shift to be > > > > confined to an infinitely small area, thus resulting in event horizons > > > > forming. Unless there proves to be some truth to long range variable > > > > speed light theories, there would be no way we could detect it before > > > > it hit us! > > > > > Double-A > > > > I'll buy that, except there should be a fairly large radii Oort cloud > > > that could be detectable as we pass through or nearby. Our small and > > > relatively passive sun supposedly has a light year radii worth of Oort > > > cloud. > > > > ~ BG- Hide quoted text - > > > > - Show quoted text - > > > What is the left over of the prior supernova? What if it left behind a > > neutron star or core in the Oort cloud? We could test gravity. > > > Mitch Raemsch > > We could effectively and objectively test gravity within our Earth- > moon L1 (Selene L1). > > ~ BG- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - The lowest end of gravity is the Earth Moon system. If the star or stars before the Sun left neutron cores behind we might more effectively test our theories of gravity. Mitch Raemsch
From: Brad Guth on 23 Apr 2010 21:39 On Apr 23, 5:56 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > On Apr 23, 5:44 pm, Brad Guth <bradg...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Apr 23, 2:52 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > On Apr 23, 2:17 pm, Brad Guth <bradg...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Apr 23, 10:36 am, Double-A <double...(a)hush.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 > > > > > > Any star moving towards us at the speed of light would be a black hole > > > > > relative to us (infinite mass). Also every photon it emitted in our > > > > > direction would also be a black hole, because 100 percent blue-shift > > > > > would cause the infinite energy resulting from that shift to be > > > > > confined to an infinitely small area, thus resulting in event horizons > > > > > forming. Unless there proves to be some truth to long range variable > > > > > speed light theories, there would be no way we could detect it before > > > > > it hit us! > > > > > > Double-A > > > > > I'll buy that, except there should be a fairly large radii Oort cloud > > > > that could be detectable as we pass through or nearby. Our small and > > > > relatively passive sun supposedly has a light year radii worth of Oort > > > > cloud. > > > > > ~ BG- Hide quoted text - > > > > > - Show quoted text - > > > > What is the left over of the prior supernova? What if it left behind a > > > neutron star or core in the Oort cloud? We could test gravity. > > > > Mitch Raemsch > > > We could effectively and objectively test gravity within our Earth- > > moon L1 (Selene L1). > > > ~ BG- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text - > > The lowest end of gravity is the Earth Moon system. If the star or > stars before the Sun left neutron cores behind we might more > effectively test our theories of gravity. > > Mitch Raemsch True, but we always know exactly where the zero delta-V of Selene L1 is, and it's extremely easy and efficient to get whatever to/from this location. ~ BG
From: spudnik on 25 Apr 2010 17:09
all "photons" are readily absorbed by the correct tuner, generally a change of orbital of an electron, I suppose; all "photons" "go" at the spesd of lightwaves, depending upon teh index of refraction of the medium (given that there is really no vacuum "a la Pascal"). > Can we see or detect any -99.9999%c photons? (I don't think so) thus: but, dood, what in Hell do *you* mean, by "aether & matter are different states of the same material" -- why do atoms and electrons & antimatter need "an other state" of themselves? thus: Skeptics were just another Greek cult under the Roman Empire; Peripatetics, Gnostics, Stoics, Epicureans etc. ad vomitorium. I recall also recently reading that Kennedy had come out for WS in some moot court, but that he later came to Oxford ... most likely, because it serves his oligarchical worldview I know of at least three "proofs" that WS was WS, but I recently found a text that really '"makes the case," once and for all (but the Oxfordians, Rhodesian Scholars, and others brainwashed by British Liberal Free Trade, capNtrade e.g.). > To hear Shermer tell it, one would think that Justice Stevens > is the first and only authorship doubter to serve on the Supreme > Court. On the contrary, others include Justices Scalia, OConnor, > Blackmun and Powell, as the WSJ article noted. Only two current > Justices (Breyer and Kennedy) openly support the Stratford man. thus: what ever it says, Shapiro's last book is just a polemic; his real "proof" is _1599_; the fans of de Vere are hopelessly stuck-up -- especially if they went to Harry Potter PS#1. http://www.google.com/url?sa=D&q=http://entertainment.timesonline.co..... --Light: A History! http://wlym.com |