Prev: asteroid visited by a "satellite"
Next: What do real scientist say about Abiogenesis:Alexandre Meinesz:
From: PD on 12 Jul 2010 13:24
On Jul 10, 6:27 pm, ..@..(Marvin) wrote:
> Yes folks, without Einstein light could lose energy as it travels, slow down
> and turn red. There would be no need for an expanding universe or big bang.

I don't know why you would worry about what relativity would REQUIRE.
The question is what observations it explains well, and whether there
are a lot of them that it doesn't explain well. The very same issue is
what tired-light models have faced. So far, relativity wins.

>
> Currently, religious fanatics of all persuasions are united behind Einstein
> because he alone has provided the vital link between science and their various
> belief systems, ie., that their various imaginary gods 'made the earth in seven
> days'.
>
> No doubt all conventional religions would be now struggling to survive had
> Einstein not concocted his famous second postulate.
>
> The question arises, WAS...or more precisely """IS""" EINSTEIN himself the
> actual one and only illusive GOD? After all, he has certainly attracted many
> braindead worshippers... like all the other gods of history.  Did he design and
> build the whole bloody shebang himself? ....after all, he never came across as
> being 100% human.
> Maybe Einstein put all those fossils in the rocks just to fool the sinful
> non-believers..... and....was it he who strung up the other bloke on a cross
> as some kind of publicity stunt?
>
> One can only wonder....

From: Henry Wilson DSc on 12 Jul 2010 14:39
On Sun, 11 Jul 2010 19:22:28 -0500, Sam Wormley <swormley1(a)gmail.com> wrote:

>On 7/11/10 5:31 PM, Henry Wilson DSc wrote:
>> Light ... loses energy as it travels, hence the redshift.
>
>Wrong again, Henri--In the late 1920's, the astronomer Edwin Hubble
>first observed that distant galaxies are moving away from us, just as
>would be expected if the space between galaxies were growing in volume -
>and just as predicted by Einstein's theory of gravity. Since then,
>astronomers have measured this recession for millions of galaxies. But
>there's other evidence as well.
>
>
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metric_expansion_of_space#Observational_evidence
>
>
>Are galaxies really moving away from us or is space just expanding?
> http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmology_faq.html#MX
>
>"This depends on how you measure things, or your choice of coordinates.
>In one view, the spatial positions of galaxies are changing, and this
>causes the redshift. In another view, the galaxies are at fixed
>coordinates, but the distance between fixed points increases with time,
>and this causes the redshift. General relativity explains how to
>transform from one view to the other, and the observable effects like
>the redshift are the same in both views. Part 3 of the tutorial shows
>space-time diagrams for the Universe drawn in both ways".
>
>"In the absence of the cosmological constant, an object released at rest
>with respect to us does not then fly away from us to join the Hubble
>flow. Instead, it falls toward us, and then joins the Hubble flow on the
>other side of the sky, as discussed by Davis, Lineweaver & Webb (2003,
>AJP, 71, 358). In what are arguably the most reasonable coordinates, the
>cosmic time t and the distance D(t) measured entirely at the cosmic time
>t, the acceleration is given by g = -GM(r<D)/D2 where M(r<D) is the mass
>contained within radius D. This gives g =
>-(4*pi/3)*G*(rho(t)+3P(t)/c2)*D(t). The 3P/c2 term is a general
>relativistic correction to the otherwise Newtonian dynamics. Galaxies
>all move under the influence of this acceleration and their initial
>position and velocity. In other words, F = ma and gravity provides the
>force. Nothing extra or weird is needed".

(:

Henry Wilson...

........Einstein's Relativity...The religion that worships negative space.
From: Henry Wilson DSc on 12 Jul 2010 14:41
On Sun, 11 Jul 2010 21:06:09 -0700 (PDT), NoEinstein <noeinstein(a)bellsouth.net>
wrote:

>On Jul 11, 6:31�pm, ..@..(Henry Wilson DSc) wrote:
>>
>Dear Henry: You are more right than most. But light does NOT loose
>energy as it travels! (Passage through air or water, etc. are
>exceptions.) The reason is: The IOTAs (or smallest energy units of
>the ether) have a tangential velocity of 'c'. Trains of photons, in
>passing through the ether quickly orient the IOTAs so they rotate in
>opposite directions on opposite sides of each photon. That has the
>effect of constantly nurturing the photons to travel at velocity 'c'.
>The actual reason for the red shift is the wedging apart of the
>photons caused by other trains of photons crossing paths. That
>happens without a slowing of the velocity of the light. Thanks for
>your... 'other' insights! � NoEinstein �

You are an aethrist....which places you just one level above an Einstein
worshipper.



Henry Wilson...

........Einstein's Relativity...The religion that worships negative space.
From: Henry Wilson DSc on 12 Jul 2010 14:46
On Mon, 12 Jul 2010 10:24:41 -0700 (PDT), PD <thedraperfamily(a)gmail.com> wrote:

>On Jul 10, 6:27�pm, ..@..(Marvin) wrote:
>> Yes folks, without Einstein light could lose energy as it travels, slow down
>> and turn red. There would be no need for an expanding universe or big bang.
>
>I don't know why you would worry about what relativity would REQUIRE.
>The question is what observations it explains well, and whether there
>are a lot of them that it doesn't explain well. The very same issue is
>what tired-light models have faced. So far, relativity wins.

It would be extremely unusual for anything to travel for millions of years
without being affected by whatever it meets on the way.

>> Currently, religious fanatics of all persuasions are united behind Einstein
>> because he alone has provided the vital link between science and their various
>> belief systems, ie., that their various imaginary gods 'made the earth in seven
>> days'.
>>
>> No doubt all conventional religions would be now struggling to survive had
>> Einstein not concocted his famous second postulate.
>>
>> The question arises, WAS...or more precisely """IS""" EINSTEIN himself the
>> actual one and only illusive GOD? After all, he has certainly attracted many
>> braindead worshippers... like all the other gods of history. �Did he design and
>> build the whole bloody shebang himself? ....after all, he never came across as
>> being 100% human.
>> Maybe Einstein put all those fossils in the rocks just to fool the sinful
>> non-believers..... and....was it he who strung up the other bloke on a cross
>> as some kind of publicity stunt?
>>
>> One can only wonder....


Henry Wilson...

........Einstein's Relativity...The religion that worships negative space.
From: Sam Wormley on 12 Jul 2010 14:48
On 7/12/10 1:39 PM, Henry Wilson DSc wrote:
> On Sun, 11 Jul 2010 19:22:28 -0500, Sam Wormley<swormley1(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On 7/11/10 5:31 PM, Henry Wilson DSc wrote:
>>> Light ... loses energy as it travels, hence the redshift.
>>
>> Wrong again, Henri--In the late 1920's, the astronomer Edwin Hubble
>> first observed that distant galaxies are moving away from us, just as
>> would be expected if the space between galaxies were growing in volume -
>> and just as predicted by Einstein's theory of gravity. Since then,
>> astronomers have measured this recession for millions of galaxies. But
>> there's other evidence as well.
>>
>>
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metric_expansion_of_space#Observational_evidence
>>
>>
>> Are galaxies really moving away from us or is space just expanding?
>> http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmology_faq.html#MX
>>
>> "This depends on how you measure things, or your choice of coordinates.
>> In one view, the spatial positions of galaxies are changing, and this
>> causes the redshift. In another view, the galaxies are at fixed
>> coordinates, but the distance between fixed points increases with time,
>> and this causes the redshift. General relativity explains how to
>> transform from one view to the other, and the observable effects like
>> the redshift are the same in both views. Part 3 of the tutorial shows
>> space-time diagrams for the Universe drawn in both ways".
>>
>> "In the absence of the cosmological constant, an object released at rest
>> with respect to us does not then fly away from us to join the Hubble
>> flow. Instead, it falls toward us, and then joins the Hubble flow on the
>> other side of the sky, as discussed by Davis, Lineweaver& Webb (2003,
>> AJP, 71, 358). In what are arguably the most reasonable coordinates, the
>> cosmic time t and the distance D(t) measured entirely at the cosmic time
>> t, the acceleration is given by g = -GM(r<D)/D2 where M(r<D) is the mass
>> contained within radius D. This gives g =
>> -(4*pi/3)*G*(rho(t)+3P(t)/c2)*D(t). The 3P/c2 term is a general
>> relativistic correction to the otherwise Newtonian dynamics. Galaxies
>> all move under the influence of this acceleration and their initial
>> position and velocity. In other words, F = ma and gravity provides the
>> force. Nothing extra or weird is needed".
>
> (:
>
> Henry Wilson...
>
> .......Einstein's Relativity...The religion that worships negative space.

Obviously, Henri, you have no idea what I posted, or any understanding
of relativity theory. You are relegated to belittling what you cannot
understand.


First  |  Prev  |  Next  |  Last
Pages: 1 2 3 4
Prev: asteroid visited by a "satellite"
Next: What do real scientist say about Abiogenesis:Alexandre Meinesz: