Prev: The best we can get for a standard model
Next: A blue·shifted photon is “spun up”; its frequency goes up.
From: Antares 531 on 22 Apr 2010 09:39
On Thu, 22 Apr 2010 16:25:55 +1000, "Peter Webb"
<webbfamily(a)DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> wrote:

>
>"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.
>
That would have been �, not c.
From: BURT on 23 Apr 2010 16:02
On Apr 23, 6:22 am, Brad Guth <bradg...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> 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- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

You can leave a light wave behind when energy speed is below light.

Mitch Raemsch
From: BURT on 23 Apr 2010 16:11
On Apr 23, 6:22 am, Brad Guth <bradg...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> 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- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Headed sideways light cannot have a blueshift or red shift. At all of
the other anlges it will.

Mitch Raemsch
From: Greg Neill on 22 Apr 2010 14:25
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.


From: jbriggs444 on 22 Apr 2010 15:26
On Apr 22, 9:29 am, Brad Guth <bradg...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> On Apr 21, 11:25 pm, "Peter Webb"
>
>
>
>
>
> <webbfam...(a)DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> wrote:
> > "Brad Guth" <bradg...(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.
>
> I agree, gravity could be as fast as c2 (9e16 m/s).

I suppose you think that's pretty fast, huh?
You probably that it's even faster than light
Imagine how much faster it sould be if we used cgs.

On the other hand, the speed of light is about 0.3 parsecs per year.
So the square of the speed of light is under 0.1 parsecs per year (per
year per parsec).

So it would seem that not only is the square of the speed of light a
lot faster than light, it's also a lot slower.

Could you please use dimensional analysis to resolve this conundrum
for us, oh one whose intellect is so massive as to form a a black
hole? (Information goes in, but it doesn't come out).
 |  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.