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: BURT on 29 Apr 2010 21:29 On Apr 29, 4:26 pm, Brad Guth <bradg...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Apr 29, 11:11 am, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > On Apr 28, 10:45 pm, Brad Guth <bradg...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > I'm not the parrot here. > > > Then why are you saying it? > > > Mitch Raemsch > > Why are you quoting everything? > > topic at hand: "Can we detect a blueshift of c?" You mean infinite blue shift for light going into a black hole. This is the one place in the universe where there would be infinite energy. Mitch Raemsch > No doubt theres a whole lot better talent and words and math of > physics wisdom in order to explain everything better than I can > muster, but the intent or gist of what Im saying shouldnt be that > far off the mark. > > Riding a planet or moon thats moving you along at c or c makes no > difference, as long as youre not running into other stuff that > technically doesnt exist to the local observer because of that c > blueshift or negative redshift thing, although as for the local > observer peering up, down and side to side thats viewing other > passing stars and galaxies should appear as only somewhat skewed but > otherwise perfectly normal for observing whatevers within the 90 > degree halo. Any reasonable supercomputer as having accommodated this > 3D simulation of light speed travel proves the truth of this analogy > beyond peer reviewed objections. > > How about also accepting that we dont directly see or otherwise > detect the quantum energy realm of actual photons until they interact > with something, and we only measure their speed or propagation along > with most of everything else via timing those interactions, and > therefore its never something entirely objective or otherwise > referenced from any given point in the universe because, everything is > continually moving and otherwise in orbit around something. In other > words, its all relative and subsequently subjective because theres > not a guide star or even a guide galaxy that we can call our xyz 0,0,0 > home or cosmic hub, unless its simply well enough hidden somewhere > within The Great Attractor along with all of those Muslim WMD and OBL > thats invisible/stealth like nothing else. > > It seems the same kinds of physics should apply to that of any fast > incoming item plus whatevers associated thats running towards or > away from us at 99.9999% c, whereas we cant directly see it any > better than it can directly see us until were near passing along side > one another. In other words, perhaps photons are extremely slow, as > opposed to that weak force of gravity being extremely fast, because > wed likely realize the affects of its tidal gravity long before > detecting the item itself. > > Secondly, it seems any number of photons and thus infinite energy > density can safely coexist with antimatter (such as within the EH of > positron saturated black holes), where those same photons of ordinary > electron populated matter simply can not safely coexist. > > Perhaps when a positron saturated black hole exceeds critical mass and > implodes, it converts its terrific density of most all those positrons > into becoming electrons and photons that instantly morph into ordinary > reactive matter. Perhaps everything at or above 99.9999% c has to > become essentially a black hole of positrons that only accepts > photons, and w/o electrons simply can not reflect or otherwise emit > photons to the +/- c observers, even though their up, down and side to > side worth of local and remote viewing should remain relatively > normal. > > In other common words, at +/-c is where the opposite of having forward/ > backwards tunnel vision seems to apply, whereas instead theres only > peripheral vision allowed of noticing whatevers moving relative at > less than +/-c. Im also thinking the forward shockwave of any star > and its planets moving at near c might actually to some extent clear a > path. > > ~ BG |