Can we detect a blueshift of –c?
in [Physics]
|
Prev: Dave Rothschild On Astro Physics & Alex Jones' "Scientific Dictatorship" Re: America: The Dark Ages For Science
Next: Two time slowdowns come together
From: Peter Webb on 23 Apr 2010 20:01 "G. L. Bradford" <glbrad01(a)insightbb.com> wrote in message news:hLKdnbeMKt7cTkzWnZ2dnUVZ_i2dnZ2d(a)insightbb.com... > > "Peter Webb" <webbfamily(a)DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> wrote in message > news:4bd17fc8$0$1783$afc38c87(a)news.optusnet.com.au... >> >> "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. >> >> > > ========================= > > No, he won't. Neither he nor Park will remind you of anything like a > "physicist" in another few years of the regimes they've helped put in > power over the world. ______________________________________ So Wormley works for the CIA, huh? <giggle>
From: Brad Guth on 21 Apr 2010 21:25 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
From: Brad Guth on 21 Apr 2010 21:56 On Apr 21, 6:12 pm, dlzc <dl...(a)cox.net> wrote: > Dear Brad Guth: > > On Apr 21, 5:35 pm, 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? > > I'll assume just a tad under light speed... > > There would be a glowing path of destruction in its wake, and even > more energetic particles leading it. There are very few directions > that would not show its passage towards us. > > Note that the blue shift would make even a brown dwarf into something > quite bright, and deadly. > > David A. Smith Yes, but a closing velocity of -c means we wouldn't detect the fast moving item itself, which means those badly perturbed and glowing items in its "path of destruction" might only be detected after the primary item encountered us, and long before then we'd all be vaporized just by the forward shockwave. ~ BG
From: BURT on 21 Apr 2010 21:59 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
From: Brad Guth on 21 Apr 2010 22:17
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 |