It is currently Thu Nov 21, 2019 6:12 am


Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 120 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 4, 5, 6, 7, 8  Next
Author Message
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Oct 09, 2008 12:53 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Mar 04, 2008 11:24 am
Posts: 266
Location: The White Rose County
Cliff wrote:
Dear Rudd
I am reasonably happy with my own simplistic ideas about cosmology.
For me personally, "theoretical" cosmology is only one part and not the most interesting aspect of the broader subject of astronomy.
I have no problem with the speed of light myself.
Best wishes from Cliff

I have one major fundamental problem with light speed and that is the lack of an acceleration curve. Described as a constant by the scientific community, light speed and people's understanding of it IMHO is completely flawed. The reason I say this is because a Photon that has no acceleration curve can never have started a journey in the first place.
Imagine you had a railway track with no train on it, then the train is created having the velocity of 300,000 KM\S immediatly. Because there is no acceleration curve for the train it has to appear on a certain part of the track not having travelled along a 'would be' acceleration curve. The track can be described as time reference frames. The Photon either had to have accelerated before it entered a time reference frame in a dimension we do not see where time stands still or it didn't accelerate at all.
You cannot create velocity without a means of reaching it, it goes against all the known principles we have including Newtons.
The common sense question that Ruud has come up with is quite simple. Yes there is a constant involved in this argument but it is not light speed. The constant that we all witness everyday is time, we do not have a velocity of time as such, we just witness ourselves moving forward through time at a speed we cannot see. Ruud simply suggests that light because it has no mass cannot travel with us forward into the future and we leave it behind. This is why light has no acceleration curve, because time is the constant in the equation. If you look at this principle correctly, you will have determined that mass moves forward through spacetime not at a velocity but at a constant which is unmeasurable by us, then the light is left stationary in spacetime. The 300,000 KM\S is simply the velocity that the past cannot keep up with the future. Time is the constant not light speed. Prove Ruud wrong!


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Oct 09, 2008 7:57 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Dec 11, 2004 8:18 pm
Posts: 6506
Location: Manchester
Dear Quasar
Why do I need to prove Rudd wrong. His ideas add nothing to my own particular interest in astronomy. My own observations "prove" (at least to my own desired level of satisfaction) that current conventional accepted science work, in the same way that Newton, Maxwell and Einstein do.
If it is assumed that Rudd's ideas are correct how would it actually improve our understanding of astronomy?
Back to part of my simplistic view of the subject.
Assuming that light photons have no mass presumably might account for them attaining light speed instantaneously.
Of course perhaps we must not take any models of the various particles, or waves, too seriously. I have read that these things can sometimes act like particles, other times like waves.
I have visually observed Jupiters satellites and their behaviour suggests that light travels at about 300,000 km per second in the gap between Jupiter and us. I have observed and imaged a few stellar spectra (eg Altair, Betelgeuse, Capella, and I have imaged famous Double Quasar Q0957+561 and and the current standard explanations of these phenomena are acceptable for me.
There is nothing wrong with Rudd or anyone else for that matter, having whimsical ideas. There are a variety of scientific publications that such ideas can be sent, to get the appreciation of a potentially wider audience.
Best wishes from Cliff


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Mar 03, 2009 12:00 pm 
Offline

Joined: Fri May 23, 2008 3:32 pm
Posts: 41
Location: Amsterdam
Hey Guys.. maybe this can gice the discussion a new impulse.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ewn27yCQQgI

GrtZ Rudolf


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Mar 03, 2009 12:23 pm 
Offline
Site Admin

Joined: Fri Dec 03, 2004 11:24 am
Posts: 4376
Location: Greenwich, London
It's a guy I don't know, with a pullover tied around his neck, talking to.....?

_________________
200mm Newtonian, OMC140, ETX90, 15x70 Binoculars.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Mar 06, 2009 1:47 pm 
Offline

Joined: Fri May 23, 2008 3:32 pm
Posts: 41
Location: Amsterdam
joe wrote:
It's a guy I don't know, with a pullover tied around his neck, talking to.....?


At least he was talking to you... ;)

You can find his name on the same page, Nassim Haramein.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Mar 06, 2009 2:34 pm 
Offline
Site Admin

Joined: Fri Dec 03, 2004 11:24 am
Posts: 4376
Location: Greenwich, London
Yes, Rudolf, I was able discover his name. Nevertheless, I still have no idea who he is or what qualifies him to be someone who I should listen to. A small amount of research suggests he is a "self-proclaimed" expert and a "self-educated" physicist. I did note immediately that the same person who posted the video also posted videos of a David Icke lecture. 'Nuff said.

I thought you might offer an explanation rather than just posting a link.

_________________
200mm Newtonian, OMC140, ETX90, 15x70 Binoculars.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Mar 11, 2009 9:22 pm 
Offline

Joined: Fri Jul 06, 2007 9:51 pm
Posts: 349
Quasar wrote:
I have one major fundamental problem with light speed and that is the lack of an acceleration curve. Described as a constant by the scientific community, light speed and people's understanding of it IMHO is completely flawed. The reason I say this is because a Photon that has no acceleration curve can never have started a journey in the first place.!


You have to consider the generation of the photon.

It is probably easier to envisage the generation of sound waves.
These waves travel at a constant speed (given a constant medium).

A drumbeat for example travels at the speed of sound the instant it leaves the drum and continues at this same speed (assuming a constant medium)
However there is an acceleration involved in the initial movement of the drumskin which generates the sound.
This is easily measurable by looking at the movement of the drumskin and the time interval involved.

With light it travels at a constant speed ( again assuming a constant medium ) the instant it leave the atom.
However there is an acceleration involved when the electron that generates the light moves from one energy level to another.
It is likely that this movement takes place at ( or less) than planck time which means to all intents and purposes that it is below the level at which we can measure the time interval involved.
This would mean that it was instantaneous ( faster than any reference clock that we could use to measure it ).

So when it is said that light accelerates instantly to the speed c then this is true as long as you take into account what is meant by instantly.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun May 10, 2009 1:48 pm 
Offline

Joined: Fri May 23, 2008 3:32 pm
Posts: 41
Location: Amsterdam
Maybe this question can open some doors..

Is the size of the universe igual to her age?


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun May 10, 2009 2:53 pm 
Offline
Site Admin

Joined: Fri Dec 03, 2004 11:24 am
Posts: 4376
Location: Greenwich, London
Do you mean - Does the universe have a radius of 13.7 billion light years, given an age of 13.7 billion years?

_________________
200mm Newtonian, OMC140, ETX90, 15x70 Binoculars.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun May 10, 2009 3:01 pm 
Offline

Joined: Fri May 23, 2008 3:32 pm
Posts: 41
Location: Amsterdam
joe wrote:
Do you mean - Does the universe have a radius of 13.7 billion light years, given an age of 13.7 billion years?



Yes, that's what I mean. The option that this also could be 27.4 billion lightyears stays open aswell.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Jun 14, 2009 1:05 pm 
Offline

Joined: Fri May 23, 2008 3:32 pm
Posts: 41
Location: Amsterdam
It's very easy to prove that Einstein's relativity theory is wrong. All matter travles with the same speed!

We all know what is a bicycle.

You put some force on the padle of the bike and your bike will go forwart. True!


Why do you go forward?

This is because there is no differnce in the speed you turn the padle's and the speed you go forward.

In fact, you go forward because all the elements of the bike and the wheel are standing still to eachother.

If they really would move to eachother, you will lose a lot of energy and NOT going forward.

See this in a larger concept with the tracks of an armytank, the track's do not move on the road, they are standing still. This is why the tank goes forward!

The weheels do the same thing, they don't move to eachother, they are standign stil, to eachoter at every single moment.

It is time what make's us going forward, not the wheel.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Jun 14, 2009 1:17 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 24, 2006 6:09 pm
Posts: 749
Location: Plymouth
If you imagine it as we walk. We put one foot on the floor in front of the other and move forward, but the foot touching the floor isn't moving. True. But the other foot is. It's the moving foot thats making us move. Tank tracks. The part in contact with the ground isn't moving. True. The rest of it is and it's being placed in front of the stationary bit and rotating that way. Again it's the moving bit causing the movement. Otherwise, what you're saying is it's impossible for a tank to STOP moving. Because again, the bit in contact with the ground isn't moving, so according to you, it should be moving forward. I don't think you can prove Einstein wrong with that.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Jun 15, 2009 9:48 am 
Offline

Joined: Fri May 23, 2008 3:32 pm
Posts: 41
Location: Amsterdam
RL Astro wrote:
If you imagine it as we walk. We put one foot on the floor in front of the other and move forward, but the foot touching the floor isn't moving. True. But the other foot is. It's the moving foot thats making us move. Tank tracks. The part in contact with the ground isn't moving. True. The rest of it is and it's being placed in front of the stationary bit and rotating that way. Again it's the moving bit causing the movement. Otherwise, what you're saying is it's impossible for a tank to STOP moving. Because again, the bit in contact with the ground isn't moving, so according to you, it should be moving forward. I don't think you can prove Einstein wrong with that.


I know it sounds weird, because what I say sounds like.. we move because we don't move. Totaly agree wthat this sounds weird.

But let's look at movement, and see what really happens.
The tank tracks don't move, and because of this they we are able to bring a force into some direction.

The wheels have the same function as the tanktrack. I you would roll the tanktrack on a wheel, the function will still be the same.

I agree that we can travel distance, but we can because wheels are not moving upon eachtother. A box of wheels does the same thing as a long line between to objects, The tranfer a force because there is no movement between the different parts.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Jun 15, 2009 10:54 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 24, 2006 6:09 pm
Posts: 749
Location: Plymouth
rudolfhendriques wrote:
The tranfer a force because there is no movement between the different parts.

Not so. If you look carefully at tank tracks you'll see that it's only the part in contact with the ground not moving. The rest of the tracks are moving. It's the action of moving the part of the track at the back round to the front that causes movement. Movement is not created by the lack of movement.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Jul 19, 2009 11:49 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Mar 04, 2008 11:24 am
Posts: 266
Location: The White Rose County
I would just point something out about this theory. If indeed Photon's are stationary in spacetime and we are moving through spacetime at C then it is quite apparant that space is not expanding but rather it is contracting in this theosis. You only have to do some simple maths to calculate this. The Galaxies are then moving closer together at 70KM\S.
Emmmm...........


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 120 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 4, 5, 6, 7, 8  Next

All times are UTC


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group