Prev: We see energy. But what we don't see is more important
Next: Request for Paper: J.P. Wesley "Terrestrial Aberration Cannot be Observed"
From: Brad Guth on 29 Apr 2010 01:37
On Apr 28, 10:27 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Apr 28, 9:08 pm, Brad Guth <bradg...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Apr 28, 7:14 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > The strength of gravity has a limit. Light always overcomes it.
>
> > > Mitch Raemsch
>
> > Not always.
>
> >  ~ BG
>
> There are no boundaries in space. There are no event horizons. The
> cosmological rule applies to local gravity.
>
> Mitch Raemsch; The No Boundary Proposal Started with Albert Einstein

Excessive gravity creates artificial boundaries.

Excessive energy creates matter.

Zero energy = zero mass and zero velocity.

Excessive velocity is lethal to life as we know it.

~ BG
From: Brad Guth on 29 Apr 2010 13:10
On Apr 28, 4:34 pm, Brad Guth <bradg...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> Supposedly black holes represent a great deal of density and thus
> capable of representing an astronomical amount of local gravity and
> compacted energy, as somewhat greater density and energy/cm3 than a
> neutron star, or perhaps they are merely spent white dwarfs that on
> their last combined breaths having shrunk themselves past whatever
> neutron density.
>
> Multiple super-massive black holes are supposedly within the core of
> every galaxy, and as such could pretty much override whatever
> surrounding gravity and orbital dynamics in order to toss in or out
> whatever excess or nearby mass at near c.
>
> Given the vast number of galaxies, many/most considerably more
> substantial than ours, whereas perhaps it’s a wonder we haven’t been
> introduced to a few of those rogue displaced items that most star
> systems and galaxies seem to have in surplus, not to mention the
> potential of collateral flack whenever a pair of galaxies merge or
> sort of go bump in the night.
>
> Next consideration is the even greater number of white dwarfs that
> used to be a whole lot bigger and massive enough as regular stars to
> hold onto a large number of planets and their moons.  This might
> conservatively estimate as our universe hosting on average at least a
> million fold more lost/rogue items than galaxies, as having items set
> free or ejected at speeds far in excess of their respective escape
> velocity.
>
> Last but not least;  Perhaps in order for the extremely weak force of
> gravity to be so capably in charge, its velocity of propagation might
> have to be worth 2c.
>
> If any of this seems confusing and excessively what-if worthy, it
> certainly is to me.

Riding a planet or moon that’s moving you along at c or –c makes no
difference, as long as you’re not running into other stuff that
technically doesn’t exist to the local observer because of that –c
blueshift or negative redshift thing, although peering up, down and
side to side viewing of passing stars and galaxies should appear as
only somewhat skewed but otherwise normal.

How about accepting that we don’t 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
it’s 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, it’s
all relative and subsequently subjective because there is not guide
star or even a guide galaxy that we can call our xyz 0,0,0 home or
cosmic hub, unless it’s well hidden somewhere within The Great
Attractor along with all of those Muslim WMD and OBL that’s invisible/
stealth like nothing else.

It seems the same kinds of physics should apply to that of any fast
incoming item plus whatever’s associated that’s running towards or
away from us at 99.9999% c, whereas we can’t directly see it any
better than it can directly see us. In other words, perhaps photons
are extremely slow, as opposed to that weak force of gravity being
extremely fast.

Secondly, it seems any number of photons and thus infinite energy
density can safely coexist with antimatter (such as within the EH of
positron black holes), where those same photons and ordinary electron
populated matter simply can not safely coexist.

Perhaps when a positron saturated black hole implodes, it converts its
terrific density of positrons into becoming electrons and photons that
become 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’t reflect or
otherwise emit photons to the +/c observer, while the up, down and
side to side viewing remains relatively normal.

Brad Guth, Brad_Guth, Brad.Guth, BradGuth, BG / “Guth Usenet”

From: BURT on 29 Apr 2010 21:48
The fuel of the space ship becomes the kinetic energy of the ships
mass as it accelerates.

Mitch Raemsch
From: Brad Guth on 30 Apr 2010 00:50
On Apr 29, 6:48 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote:
> The fuel of the space ship becomes the kinetic energy of the ships
> mass as it accelerates.
>
> Mitch Raemsch

Perhaps at those speeds of near c, almost anything becomes matter/
antimatter fuel. Directing or projecting the trust of positron
reactions with the IGM of ordinary matter and electrons is all that's
necessary.

~ BG
From: Brad Guth on 2 May 2010 00:46
How did you get yourself assigned to this topic?

~ BG

First  |  Prev  | 
Pages: 1 2 3 4
Prev: We see energy. But what we don't see is more important
Next: Request for Paper: J.P. Wesley "Terrestrial Aberration Cannot be Observed"