It is currently Sun Nov 17, 2019 6:56 am


Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 120 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 4, 5, 6, 7, 8
Author Message
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Jul 19, 2009 12:57 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Dec 11, 2004 8:18 pm
Posts: 6505
Location: Manchester
Dear Quasar
I am sorry to say that I think Ruud's theory is totally misguided.
I would also take issue with your suggestion that objectors to Ruud's "theory" must prove him wrong.
As far as I am concerned it is either Rudd's or your need to prove him right. By proof I mean provide good evidence supporting his ideas\hypothesis.
I have previously mentioned that I myself have made numerous astronomical observations that support many aspects of generally accepted science eg observations of Jupiters satellites supporting accepted ideas about the speed of light. Whilst I have no problem in say accepting that light photons are massless particles (although I do not necessarily think of photons as being "particles" in ordinary wordly terms.
It seems to me that in the main Rudd's ideas are rather like to simply turning current thinking on its head without providing any real logical alternatives related to reality.
If anyone thinks that it is acceptable to have unconventional ideas just for the sake of being unconventional, hoping something might stick eg come up with a million suggestions and one of them might be nearly right, fair enough. However, that is not for me.
Best of luck from Cliff


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Jul 19, 2009 7:22 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Mar 04, 2008 11:24 am
Posts: 266
Location: The White Rose County
Quote:
If anyone thinks that it is acceptable to have unconventional ideas

Without unconventional ideas and theory we would still be in the stone age. The whole idea behind unconventional thinking is to seek alternative ideas and answers to the unknown. Newton's laws of motion were unconventional when they were first heard, so was his theory of gravity but that doesn't mean they are wrong. Some people seem to have the idea that unconventional thinking has to be left to an elite few. Not the case, some backstreet kid from Brazil might end up working the whole job lot out in years to come - who knows? Some of his theory might seem unconventional to you Cliff because you are unwilling to stretch your imagination past the written word of those you hold in high esteem or maybe you are too lazy to become adaptable or except something different or new - who knows?
No one is saying that any theory must be accepted as gospel, just that before we diss the theory it may have to be given a second thought. You won't give any theory that isn't written by anyone of any notoriety any chance. Thats dangerous because one day someone may stumble upon something very important - only to be dissed by people like yourself unwilling to give it a second thought.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Jul 29, 2009 1:34 pm 
Offline

Joined: Fri Jul 06, 2007 9:51 pm
Posts: 349
Cliff wrote:
If anyone thinks that it is acceptable to have unconventional ideas just for the sake of being unconventional,


I think its important that people are quoted fully otherwise the meaning can be misconstrued.

I believe Cliff is completely correct in this matter, its alright having ideas that happen to be unconventional as long as the original reason behind them was not purely to be so.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Jul 29, 2009 3:21 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Mar 04, 2008 11:24 am
Posts: 266
Location: The White Rose County
big_kev wrote:
Cliff wrote:
If anyone thinks that it is acceptable to have unconventional ideas just for the sake of being unconventional,


I think its important that people are quoted fully otherwise the meaning can be misconstrued.

I believe Cliff is completely correct in this matter, its alright having ideas that happen to be unconventional as long as the original reason behind them was not purely to be so.

Fair comment, but in this case I dont think Ruud is trying to be unconventional for the sake of it, he believes he has a point.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Jul 30, 2009 3:21 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Dec 11, 2004 8:18 pm
Posts: 6505
Location: Manchester
Dear Quasar
I do not really think there is much point in me wittering on - although I nearly always do.
However, accepting that Rudd thinks he has a point- then let him simply prove it. - you seem all too keen to think other people need to prove Rudd wrong - not for Rudd (or yourself) to prove Rudd is right.
As for people like me not giving Rudd a chance, why shoud I ?
Rudd may be a great chap, he might be a complete charlattan, he might be an ordinary bloke with some great ideas or absolutely stupid thoughts.
I do not think my acceptance or non acceptance of Rudd's ideas will have the slightest affect on whether Rudd's ideas gain general acceptance or not.
If Rudd's ideas are proved to be correct and accepted by the general scientific\astronomical\cosmological community, then I will make an offer.
I'll run round all round the outside of Rochdale Town Hall wearing a kilt.
Best of luck from Cliff


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Jul 30, 2009 3:47 pm 
Offline

Joined: Fri Jul 06, 2007 9:51 pm
Posts: 349
Quasar wrote:

he believes he has a point.




No he doesn't.






I looked at the video on youtube.



His basic presumption is that because light accelerates "instantly" then this must be wrong.
He states therefore that it is not light but matter that travels.
Fair enough !

However surely the same instantaneous acceleration problem arises ?




What about Relativistic effects ?
These play a critical factor in determining Time and Distance.
They have to be at least mentioned.




Also he only mentions Light and Matter !

How does all this apply to Dark Matter and Dark Energy which are by far the major constituents of the universe...( according to currently accepted theories ...which could be wrong)....again no mention of them.



Sorry it does appear to have no foundation at all.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Feb 07, 2010 3:06 pm 
Offline

Joined: Fri May 23, 2008 3:32 pm
Posts: 41
Location: Amsterdam
Hello all ogf you.. since I see 23.000 pageviews on this topic I was wondering if people still are thinking of the idea which I posted here.

Oke, the basic idea is very simple. I try to argue that the speed of light is not a speed at all. It would be the absolute minimum of speed, stillness.

As I try to explain I see light as a trail leeding into the past direction of spacetime. We ( as matter) travel further into future space/time. This make's the absolute moment of "now" like an edge of space time.

The edge between past and future is the moment of "now". This moment goed into future timespace like a stream of a river.

I was wondering if there are some people here with similar interpretations.

Best regards,

Rudolfhensdriques


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Feb 08, 2010 12:04 am 
Offline

Joined: Sat Dec 11, 2004 8:18 pm
Posts: 6505
Location: Manchester
Dear Rudolfhenriques
I can only say - not me, my opinion is still much the same as it was a few thousnd pages back.
Best of luck from Cliff


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Aug 23, 2011 8:48 pm 
Offline

Joined: Fri May 23, 2008 3:32 pm
Posts: 41
Location: Amsterdam
It's been a while since my last posting on this forum. Would it be an idea to open this discussion again?

My main goal is to open the idea that the speed of light would be the absolute zeropoint of spacetime while matter travels with the velocity of light trough space and time. Matter travels in 4 dimensions while light leads to the past time and space.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Aug 26, 2011 1:22 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Dec 11, 2004 8:18 pm
Posts: 6505
Location: Manchester
Dear Rudolfhendriques
I cannot speak for others using the forum, but there is no point in pursuing the issues further as far as I personally am concerned.
So count me out.
Best of luck from Cliff


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Oct 21, 2011 7:45 am 
Offline

Joined: Sat Feb 14, 2009 7:35 pm
Posts: 16
Rud, I like your idea. Can you show the mathematics behind it?


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Oct 21, 2011 12:48 pm 
Offline

Joined: Fri May 23, 2008 3:32 pm
Posts: 41
Location: Amsterdam
Hello Ryand, thanks for your reply.

I do have some mathematics behind my idea of the zeropoint of spacetime, but I'm not really good in math so I might need some help for this. The formulas which we use for timedilation and lengtcontraction can still be used, but in my idea it is matter which travels with 300.000km/s into the 4th dimension. What we see as accelaration is actually "put on the break". To start with this idea let us keep it very simple. We first asume that matter has the velocity of 300.000km/s in spascetime. To put on the break till light"speed" the matter wil go from;

300.000km/1s - 300.000km/1s = 0km/0s.

An other way to use mathematics for this idea is that we see c as the speed of matter. In E=mc² we should see as matter x 300.000km²/s² = Energy.

Energy is matter with the (accelerating) velocity of 300.000km²/s².

The km² and s² tells us something about the acceleration of spacetime.
I think this acceleration is actually the acceleration of the expanding universe.

We could go further with this mathamatics and introduce the twin paradox in this idea. In this idea the brother on earth will age many years while is twinbrother comes back to earth only a few minutes older. If the brother would travel with the "speed" of light, he would come back to earth at the same time he was leaving the planet. In this case the person on earth could age for example 20 years while his brother comes back without measuring a second. How many meters could the brother move in 0s while the person on earth went 20 years walking to the supermarket? ;)

Oke, I think this post might help to open some ideas how to prove my theory with mathematics. I hope you understand that English is not my native language.

GrtZ Ruud


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Nov 28, 2011 10:17 pm 
Offline

Joined: Fri May 23, 2008 3:32 pm
Posts: 41
Location: Amsterdam
Maybe this video explains in a good way my thought?

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


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Dec 01, 2011 12:13 pm 
Offline
Site Admin

Joined: Fri Dec 03, 2004 11:24 am
Posts: 4376
Location: Greenwich, London
I just watched that video and understand what he was saying. It's not new or revolutionary, just another way of explaining the consequences of Relativity. I thought that you were trying to say something altogether different, something new?

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


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Dec 03, 2011 4:57 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Dec 11, 2004 8:18 pm
Posts: 6505
Location: Manchester
Dear al(L)
Ah! well ! If you cann't come up with something really original, I suppose unconvential explanations for a theory already generally accepted is better than nothing.
Or is it ?
Best wishes from ffilC


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

All times are UTC


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 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