Prev: Aether flow and round direction over energy
Next: Relativistic Length vs Wavelength?
From: dlzc on 28 May 2010 12:18
Dear hanson:

On May 27, 10:59 pm, "hanson" <han...(a)quick.net> wrote:
> "Don Stockbauer" <donstockba...(a)hotmail.com> wrote:
> > "hanson" <han...(a)quick.net> wrote:
> > > <g...(a)hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> > > As space stretches, we do not know if the
>> > > wavelength of light also stretches with
>> > > it and by the exact same amount. If so,
>> > > then distances calculated based on Hubble
>> > > redshifts are Incorrect and likewise the
>> > > Hubble constant. The correct formula to
>> > > follow, as well as the correct Hubble
>> > > onstant for semi-distant stars.
>
>> > hanson wrote:
>> > yeah, yeah.. one's gotta love your guskian
>> > physics. Tell me, Gus, besides "semi-distant
>> > stars" are there also quarter-distant,
>> > full-distant, non-distant and perhaps eve
>> > pi-distant stars? ---- With a properly
>> > graduated and calibrated scale you could
>> > produce an epoch making, work-easing system
>> > for the Astro physicists.
>> > So, till you do, Gus, thanks for the
>> > laughs... ahahanson
>
>> > PS:
>> > oh, yeah, what does that space of yours
>> > stretch into?
>
>> Stocky wrote:
>
>> More space.
>
> hanson wrote:
>
> if so...then why does space have to
> expand/stretch in the first place?

The great Cosmic Thigh stretches the fabric of space as Nature pulls
on the silken stockings of Reality. If it didn't stretch... it'd be a
girdle.

David A. Smith
From: spudnik on 28 May 2010 21:59
that seems rather unlikely, because
"orthogonal Hilbert dimensions" etc. are rather abstract. on the
other hand,
there is nothing arbitrary about 11-dim. objects in W-theory (meaning,
What ever), if you consider that no-one bothers to debunk or
deny Kaluza's 5D coordination of Maxwell's spacetime stuff (never
mind,
what Klein decided it "looked like," or Minkowski's slogan about
time .-)

> Or one could define a consistent set of mutually orthogonal dimensions
> with length, time, and momentum, and mass is just some more-or-less
> interesting vectorless, multi-dimensioned, quantity that matter / enegy has.

thusNso:
although global warming is almost entirely a)
computerized simulacra, and b)
very selective reporting, it seems that
the effects we have on landscapes & atmosphere are much larger
than could be accounted for, merely by measuring the gasses
that are the end result (agricultural turnover of CO2 is much greater
than that from cars or electricity e.g.; there may have been no jet
stream,
before the ivention of jets e.g.).

water vapor is far & away the greatest "glass house gas," yet CO2 is
the one
that is not presewnt in three or four phases in the background, and is
#2 (also,
as John Muir dyscovered, you can be nearly smothered by it,
just by digging a 40' well for your grumpy dad-unit, by hand .-)

so, stop Waxman's capNtrade rip-off;
institute a tiny, adjustable tax on carbon,instead of "free trade,
free beer, free dumb."

a combination of nuclear & solar etc. in space,
might alleviate some of the needs in here (with or without the
Satellevator Synchrongeos,
which seems totally unworkable, with or without graphenes).

thusNso:
well, the textbook method is quite questionable, iff
you have access to the original monographs of the dyscoverers. but,
what I was going to type, just now, is that *mathematica* is not a
program
from the Wolframites ("yo, my daddy dyscovered an element!"), but
it is four subjects (*quadrivium* in Latin .-)... if Timmy wants
to pretend that he can grok it all, de novo,
it might take a while.

> The response is in any basic textbook.

thusNso:
I was reading one of Brown's books, and he is pretty-much
in the officious opinions of the Second Church of England, Newton,
about the "separation of science & religion," the idolization
of Galileo (as in, Galileo started the Illuminati,
sheesh, the background to the one where he relays
the officially unofficial Anglican doctrine
about the Chosen (British) People. well-paced, though.

> religion. It is fairly clear to me that progress will not lay in the
> direction of negating time http://bandtechnology.com

thusNso:
if the proofs of Bell's inequalities are interpreted
to mean that EPR were wrong, then you *should* transmit info
faster than lightwaves. a lot of the formalistic "paradox" goes
by the wauyside, by not enlisting the rock o'light
to impart the "momentum" to the atoms, electromagnetically. maybe,
the confusion is not helped, that EPR et al were wedded
to that "photon" being a particle. well, if
there's is only one thing that can't be a particle
-- except in some equatiopnal form with momentum --
it is waves of light in space -- not Pascal's Plenum!
never much cared for stuff from Templeton Prize Pop Sci,
kind of an Anglican thing, in Philadelphia, as I recall.
> For one thing, there's an arbitrary phase factor exp(i*theta)
> I think. Rather, it's a probabilistic theory tool.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/blog/2009/mar/17/templeton-quantum-...

--Light: A History!
http://wlym.com
From: 7 on 29 May 2010 09:42
guskz(a)hotmail.com wrote:

> As space stretches, we do not know if the wavelength of light also
> stretches with it and by the exact same amount.
>
> If so, then distances calculated based on Hubble redshifts are
> Incorrect and likewise the Hubble constant.
>
>
> The correct formula to follow, as well as the correct Hubble constant
> for semi-distant stars.


Funny I never thought of it like that.
And thank you for sharing that thought.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tired_light

It is clear everyone accepts that light is stretched ONLY by expansion of
space. Free atoms don't have much of an effect because you could
get that effect with about 1 meter of air - that is how sparse space
is compared to normal air, and we can see out to 13 billion light years out
because space is so transparent.


From: Klaus Schadenfreude on 30 May 2010 08:39
[Default] "Tom Potter" <xprivatnews(a)mailinator.com> wrote in
talk.politics.guns :

Gun group fuckwit.
From: JohnJohnsn on 30 May 2010 09:17
On May 30, 3:36 am, "Tom Potter" <xprivatn...(a)mailinator.com> wrote:

Nothing related to "talk.politics.guns".

However, on the subject of "Red Shift" and "politics", just WHEN did
the Democrats "steal" the color "blue" from Republicans?

Back when I first started following politics all Democrats used the
color "red" for their campaign literature, signs, etc., while
Republicans used "blue",

I guess that somewhere down the line Democrate finally realized that
their politics had "shifted" to those of OTHER "Reds": Communista/
Socialists, and they were afraid SOMEONE might notice.

Hence: they began using "blue" and started calling themselves "Blue-
State'rs" and calling Republicans "Red-State'rs."

I noticed THAT it happened, just not WHEN.

Anyone notice WHEN?
First  |  Prev  |  Next  |  Last
Pages: 1 2 3
Prev: Aether flow and round direction over energy
Next: Relativistic Length vs Wavelength?