|
|
| Author |
Message |
glbrad01
science forum Guru Wannabe
Joined: 20 Mar 2005
Posts: 105
|
 Posted: Sat Jun 24, 2006 10:30 am Post subject:
Einstein, mind's voyage, speed of light and time
|
|
|
When Einstein did his voyage to the speed of light thought, he started out
in usual universe of time passing and arrived where no time passes, time at
the speed of light. Bingo, the thinking was and is that time slows for
anything that speeds up in space toward the speed of light until it would
reach zero, or timelessness, at the speed of light (+1+1=0). That isn't the
way it works. The way it works should be (-1+1=0) and in fact that is the
way the observable universe tells us it does work.
The speed of light in a vacuum is constant. A universal constant. Time at
the speed of light is internal, integral, immortally so, to the speed of
light. Wherever the speed of light is constant, time at the speed of light
must also be constant. Time at the speed of light is a universal constant. A
universal constant of zero. Any Einstein-like entity, or any other entity,
no matter his or her or its galaxy or universe taking the same voyage in
thought should arrive at the same zeroing of time. It is the sole constant
of time there is or can ever be to the entire universal Universe. And it is
what it is everywhere in space and time throughout all existence.
Why is it that it seems every physicist, cosmologist, and astronomer,
while conceding the physics "c" and the zeroing of time at the speed of
light at the same time totally rejects its applicability to the Universe
regardless of the fact that they observe the physic of the Universe as an
acceleration toward the speed of light and the zeroing of time? And at the
same time the average of space-time from here to the farthest observable
horizon of the Universe is no nor less than 300,000 kilometers-per-second?
It must be a terrible mental conflict to both advocate a physic being a
physic but at the same time completely reject its only-too-obvious
applicability to the Universe, to the what it is, they observe out there.
The rejection has to have something to do with an utterly fanatical
religious or philosophical bent of mind -- to see and yet to deliberately
not see. To see and yet to deliberately dis-interpret. The whole all at once
of what we observe of the largest space-time of all from here, horizon to
horizon, is precisely what Einstein saw. Rather the enormously bigger
reality of it (far more filled in or filled out, whichever).
You can realize a physic, talk and write of it, reduce it to mathematics,
argue your long life long for and about it, and still not recognize it when
it is blatantly staring right at you, staring you dead in the face (so to
speak). Especially when it is the vastness of the entire [observable]
Universe that is staring you dead in face as the vast proof, the vastest
proof of all, of that one basic physic you realized regarding it. It's a
physic damnit, a universal constant at that (no beginning nor end). There is
no vastly speeded up evolution, vastly speeded up space and time, at and
nearer the farthest horizon from us, from there and then to here and now
slowing down to the deadest crawl with us here and now. Ten, twenty, thirty,
forty....billion years ago that was the scene. It is the same scene now. Ten
billion years from now it will be the same scene. Twenty, thirty,
forty....billion years from now it will be the same scene. The same scene
ever has been and ever will be observed at and near the farthest horizon
from every point of the Universe wherever situate. Never changing. Fixed as
the distant horizon. Frozen as the distant horizon. A constant horizon. A
constant. A universal constant.
GLB |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Tom Roberts
science forum Guru
Joined: 24 Mar 2005
Posts: 1399
|
| Posted: Sat Jun 24, 2006 7:58 pm Post subject:
Re: Einstein, mind's voyage, speed of light and time
|
|
|
G. L. Bradford wrote:
| Quote: | When Einstein did his voyage to the speed of light thought, he started out
in usual universe of time passing and arrived where no time passes, time at
the speed of light. Bingo, the thinking was and is that time slows for
anything that speeds up in space toward the speed of light until it would
reach zero, or timelessness, at the speed of light (+1+1=0). That isn't the
way it works. The way it works should be (-1+1=0) and in fact that is the
way the observable universe tells us it does work.
|
You are confused.
Einstein's key insight was that light, AS DESCRIBED BY MAXWELL'S
EQUATIONS, is different from every other wave phenomenon. For all other
waves, such as ocean waves, sound waves, etc., if one traveled with the
speed of the wave in the direction the wave is propagating then one
would see the wave standing still. For example, the crest of a water
wave remains motionless relative to an appropriately moving observer.
But the waves of Maxwell's equations are different -- while they
propagate at c, to a co-moving observer an amazing thing occurs:
Maxwell's equations are not satisfied! This is because the spatial
derivative of the EM fields is related to the time derivative of the EM
fields; for a co-moving observer the latter would be zero, so the former
must also be zero (in vacuum), and the wave simply does not exist!
After puzzling about this for some years, iby 1905 he finally realized
that space and time are just _different_ from how they behave in
Newtonian physics. SR was the result, and it has proved to be one of the
best theories of physics we have (idiots around here notwithstanding).
In particular, it is not possible for an observer to be co-moving with a
light wave (in vacuum) -- a clear and simple resolution of the original
problem.
| Quote: | [... further word salad omitted]
|
Tom Roberts |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
glbrad01
science forum Guru Wannabe
Joined: 20 Mar 2005
Posts: 105
|
| Posted: Sat Jun 24, 2006 9:23 pm Post subject:
Re: Einstein, mind's voyage, speed of light and time
|
|
|
"Tom Roberts" <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:xPgng.108559$H71.105896@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com...
| Quote: | G. L. Bradford wrote:
When Einstein did his voyage to the speed of light thought, he started
out in usual universe of time passing and arrived where no time passes,
time at the speed of light. Bingo, the thinking was and is that time
slows for anything that speeds up in space toward the speed of light
until it would reach zero, or timelessness, at the speed of light
(+1+1=0). That isn't the way it works. The way it works should be
(-1+1=0) and in fact that is the way the observable universe tells us it
does work.
You are confused.
Einstein's key insight was that light, AS DESCRIBED BY MAXWELL'S
EQUATIONS, is different from every other wave phenomenon. For all other
waves, such as ocean waves, sound waves, etc., if one traveled with the
speed of the wave in the direction the wave is propagating then one would
see the wave standing still. For example, the crest of a water wave
remains motionless relative to an appropriately moving observer. But the
waves of Maxwell's equations are different -- while they propagate at c,
to a co-moving observer an amazing thing occurs: Maxwell's equations are
not satisfied! This is because the spatial derivative of the EM fields is
related to the time derivative of the EM fields; for a co-moving observer
the latter would be zero, so the former must also be zero (in vacuum), and
the wave simply does not exist!
After puzzling about this for some years, iby 1905 he finally realized
that space and time are just _different_ from how they behave in Newtonian
physics. SR was the result, and it has proved to be one of the best
theories of physics we have (idiots around here notwithstanding). In
particular, it is not possible for an observer to be co-moving with a
light wave (in vacuum) -- a clear and simple resolution of the original
problem.
[... further word salad omitted]
Tom Roberts
|
Yes, nice, and I'm not confused. I have most of the best known authorities
in my library and I read through them constantly.
If ever there could be "Nowhereland" (or "Everywhereland") to the Universe
it would be in [the] "Horizon." The oft-dreamed of merger. Or better,
mergence. Horizon does not exist when you get there where or when you
thought it would be, but it is still around, still right where or when it
was before relative to you (positionally or velocity-wise or both;
space-wise and time-wise) when you first went for it. Horizon is something
that exists at all times, only-too-obviously, yet never exists. It is
something you, me, and everything else (so to speak), are in at all times
yet will never be in. It is here, there, everywhere and nowhere at all,
everywhen and nowhen at all, all at once, same as the oft described cat in
Alice In Wonderland (Through The Looking Glass). The Universe is multiple
characterization of the same thing....and it makes multiple use, has
multiple uses, for such multiple characterization.
GLB |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
tdp1001@gmail.com
science forum Guru Wannabe
Joined: 04 Nov 2005
Posts: 168
|
| Posted: Sun Jun 25, 2006 1:30 am Post subject:
Re: Einstein, mind's voyage, speed of light and time
|
|
|
"Tom Roberts" <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:xPgng.108559$H71.105896@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com...
| Quote: | G. L. Bradford wrote:
When Einstein did his voyage to the speed of light thought, he started
out in usual universe of time passing and arrived where no time passes,
time at the speed of light. Bingo, the thinking was and is that time
slows for anything that speeds up in space toward the speed of light
until it would reach zero, or timelessness, at the speed of light
(+1+1=0). That isn't the way it works. The way it works should be
(-1+1=0) and in fact that is the way the observable universe tells us it
does work.
You are confused.
Einstein's key insight was that light, AS DESCRIBED BY MAXWELL'S
EQUATIONS, is different from every other wave phenomenon. For all other
waves, such as ocean waves, sound waves, etc., if one traveled with the
speed of the wave in the direction the wave is propagating then one would
see the wave standing still. For example, the crest of a water wave
remains motionless relative to an appropriately moving observer. But the
waves of Maxwell's equations are different -- while they propagate at c,
to a co-moving observer an amazing thing occurs: Maxwell's equations are
not satisfied! This is because the spatial derivative of the EM fields is
related to the time derivative of the EM fields; for a co-moving observer
the latter would be zero, so the former must also be zero (in vacuum), and
the wave simply does not exist!
After puzzling about this for some years, iby 1905 he finally realized
that space and time are just _different_ from how they behave in Newtonian
physics. SR was the result, and it has proved to be one of the best
theories of physics we have (idiots around here notwithstanding). In
particular, it is not possible for an observer to be co-moving with a
light wave (in vacuum) -- a clear and simple resolution of the original
problem.
|
Regarding Einstein's and "Tom Roberts" position:
"For example, the crest of a water
wave remains motionless relative to an appropriately moving observer.
But the waves of Maxwell's equations are different -- while they
propagate at c, to a co-moving observer an amazing thing occurs:
Maxwell's equations are not satisfied! This is because the spatial
derivative of the EM fields is related to the time derivative of the EM
fields; for a co-moving observer the latter would be zero, so the former
must also be zero (in vacuum), and the wave simply does not exist!
After puzzling about this for some years, iby 1905 he finally realized
that space and time are just _different_ from how they behave in
Newtonian physics."
Maybe Einstein's and "Tom Roberts" have created a universe
in which "co-moving observers" exist at "c",
and maybe such a universe does not exist.
The point being,
that nothing happens between "co-moving observers",
and when something does happen between two observers
(A unit or more of action is transferred between them.)
the observers are NO LONGER "co-moving observers",
but some amount of relative motion has been created.
As I have pointed out,
Maxwell's multi-dimensional del factor
is a far, far better measure of reality
than Einstein's one dimensional "rigid rods",
wher one has to construct rubber geometries
to go with the "rigid rods", in order to model observations.
Which is best
multi-dimensional del factor,
or one dimensional "rigid rods"
combined with rubber geometry?
You takes your pick and pays the price,
in terms of money, time and mind.
A mind is a terrible thing to waste.
--
Tom Potter
http://home.earthlink.net/~tdp/
http://tdp1001.googlepages.com/home
http://no-turtles.com
http://www.frappr.com/tompotter
http://photos.yahoo.com/tdp1001
http://spaces.msn.com/tdp1001
http://www.flickr.com/photos/tom-potter/
http://tom-potter.blogspot.com |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
glbrad01
science forum Guru Wannabe
Joined: 20 Mar 2005
Posts: 105
|
| Posted: Sun Jun 25, 2006 10:51 am Post subject:
Re: Einstein, mind's voyage, speed of light and time
|
|
|
"Tom Potter" <tdp1001@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:e7kp5j$61b$1@news.ndhu.edu.tw...
(snip)
| Quote: |
Which is best
multi-dimensional del factor,
or one dimensional "rigid rods"
combined with rubber geometry?
You takes your pick and pays the price,
in terms of money, time and mind.
A mind is a terrible thing to waste.
--
Tom Potter
|
I'm afraid I'd have to stick with Einstein and Tom. That "rubber geometry"
is what we run into every time we take a plane trip and look out the window
at all that shrunken life and other shrunken things a few hundred to some
thousands of feet below us. That rubber geometry is what space travelers
will encounter in getting above the solar systemic disk and it, in whole,
becoming their preferred frame of reference, singularly the sun becoming
their so-called inertial frame of reference -- or ground -- rather than the
ground or core of planet Earth. That rubber geometry is what even later
future space travelers will encounter when they can get far above or below
the galactic disk and have the entire galactic plane as their natural
preferred frame of reference, singularly the galactic core becoming their
so-called inertial frame of reference -- or ground -- rather than the ground
or core of either the solar system or the planet Earth. The traveler has
then transcended horizons or frames or layers of his or hers or its
relativity, very definitely a rubber or ballooning-like effect or geometry
vis-a-vis frame of reference and traveler together. The only mistake
relativists make is in not realizing that physics doesn't change for the
traveler because the traveler's frame of reference grew proportionately. The
"rigid rod" became bigger but not any way bigger relative to the traveler's
immediate environment of universe. Looking down upon the galaxy from above
or below it, no traveler could say anymore that he is relative to any piece
of it but possibly the core. He is at that time relative to the entirety of
it as a singular whole. Its space, its time, as a one singular whole. A
shrinkage of the galaxy.
Yet the light of it will measurably arrive to him being 300,000 kilometers
per second. The light from the rest of the observable universe around will
not have changed in its velocity either. It will be measurably 300,000
kilometers per second. He will measure the speed of light in a vacuum at all
times to be 300,000 kilometers (rounded off) per second.
His second didn't become longer than it would be on Earth. It would become
bigger. His own local 300,000 kilometers would be hyperspatial compared to
spatiality when he was standing next to a railroad track on Earth. His own
local second would coincide. It would be the same second of time in length
gone hyper-time. In other words, in leaving the galaxy he shrunk the galaxy
from billions of pieces to one whole. From billions to a single. From
billions to just one. That is the kind of "rubber geometry" relativity
really deals in. It has taken me more than fifteen years to finally see the
real picture. It is a different picture than the usual one proffered but one
picturing the same thing. When the usual suspects picture an expanded second
they picture it as having lengthened in time to some time longer than one
second on Earth. They don't picture space out of space, or time out of time,
the transcendence of relative horizons, though to a large degree quantum
mechanics can picture such things. They can identify layers of horizon going
down and in from us to atoms and atomic structures, and on further down to
quarks and structure on that level, calculating about 15 horizons worth of
layers before the limits of relativity are found, but they have a hard time
observing the possibility of horizons worth of layers, or layers worth of
horizons, continuing on up the scale from us that a traveler could pass on
up through, transcending. They cannot observe the spatial Universe, the
real-time Universe (or simultaneous-time Universe), out there in any way,
shape or form. They could not possibly observe a traveler who is relative to
the entirety of the Milky Way galaxy as a whole rather than relative to them
here on Earth as nothing more nor less than a very small piece of a
de-centralized space and time puzzle the traveler outside the galaxy has
centralized (has framed in whole to just one single space and time unit). It
would be like just one atom trying to picture one planet. Both recognize
exactly the same time length of one second but cannot possibly recognize
each other.
If the speed of light in a vacuum is the same constant everywhere,
including at all levels of the greater Universe, all the way down to Planck
limits of relativity and below in the infinitesimal, and all the way up into
the infinite Universe of universes, then spatiality and time, and
space-time, are also constants in keeping with its constancy. That means the
splitting out of space and time into paralleling spaces and times. The
galaxy being many spaces and many times until it is observed from outside of
its almost infinite complexity where and when it becomes one single, a
single space and time whole, a unitary object or package deal, relative to
that observer. For that now whole unit, and then still for that traveler /
observer, the speed of light in a vacuum is the same constant as it was for
any of the pieces. The galaxy is no longer that big anymore...relative to
that traveler / observer now outside its [horizon], hyperspatial or
hyper-timely to it, rather than inside its enormity and swamped in its many
differing space and time [horizons].
Sorry if I seem to be repeating myself, traveling down different spokes to
the same hub hoping some one or more spokes will finally set off recognition
and enlightenment. The "rubber geometry" is immaterial as opposed to
material. The average physicist on Earth thinks through relativity he or she
will just stretch out in the entirety of the Universe without ever leaving
their armchair on Earth. They don't like the idea of things, including
travelers, being in way able to lose relativity to them, their armchair they
sit in, and their ground they stand on, on Earth; at once gaining in
relativity to things they could never gain relativity to sitting on their
dead asses on Earth. It is precisely the same mentality and view of things
total authoritarian tyrants and tyrannies want to have be the physicality of
the entire Universe. Stretchable but utterly inescapable from them and some
form of immediate surveillance and control throughout the stretch. The
"rubber geometry" I describe [reduces] them and their reach, and their reach
of observation, level by level of the Universe, horizon by horizon of space
and time, to insignificant relativity graduating to no relativity existing
to the observer on Earth whatsoever. Yet the traveler / observer turning
around to return into the galaxy, then into the solar system, then to the
Earth, can make it -- relativity -- go the other way, "accelerating
expansion" in relativity into the galaxy, then to one solar system of the
galaxy, then to one planet -- or whatever -- of the solar system. What he
can shrink, accelerating in that shrinkage, he can expand, accelerating in
that expansion. In this case, what he [expands] out of, he can also [shrink]
into. It can be though of both ways. In any case, a "rubber geometry."
GLB |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Dobri Karagorgov
science forum Guru Wannabe
Joined: 19 May 2005
Posts: 147
|
| Posted: Sun Jun 25, 2006 1:11 pm Post subject:
Re: Einstein, mind's voyage, speed of light and time
|
|
|
just imagine one spatially fixed particle which' chagre varies from +1C
to -1C and back to +1C. how does this oscillatory charge affect the
rest of the universe and how do you define speed of light then,
Coulombs per second?
http://dedanoe.tripod.com |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
tdp1001@gmail.com
science forum Guru Wannabe
Joined: 04 Nov 2005
Posts: 168
|
| Posted: Sun Jun 25, 2006 1:43 pm Post subject:
Re: Einstein, mind's voyage, speed of light and time
|
|
|
G. L. Bradford wrote:
| Quote: | "Tom Potter" <tdp1001@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:e7kp5j$61b$1@news.ndhu.edu.tw...
(snip)
Which is best
multi-dimensional del factor,
or one dimensional "rigid rods"
combined with rubber geometry?
You takes your pick and pays the price,
in terms of money, time and mind.
A mind is a terrible thing to waste.
--
Tom Potter
I'm afraid I'd have to stick with Einstein and Tom. That "rubber geometry"
is what we run into every time we take a plane trip and look out the window
at all that shrunken life and other shrunken things a few hundred to some
thousands of feet below us. That rubber geometry is what space travelers
will encounter in getting above the solar systemic disk and it, in whole,
becoming their preferred frame of reference, singularly the sun becoming
their so-called inertial frame of reference -- or ground -- rather than the
ground or core of planet Earth. That rubber geometry is what even later
future space travelers will encounter when they can get far above or below
the galactic disk and have the entire galactic plane as their natural
preferred frame of reference, singularly the galactic core becoming their
so-called inertial frame of reference -- or ground -- rather than the ground
or core of either the solar system or the planet Earth. The traveler has
then transcended horizons or frames or layers of his or hers or its
relativity, very definitely a rubber or ballooning-like effect or geometry
vis-a-vis frame of reference and traveler together. The only mistake
relativists make is in not realizing that physics doesn't change for the
traveler because the traveler's frame of reference grew proportionately. The
"rigid rod" became bigger but not any way bigger relative to the traveler's
immediate environment of universe. Looking down upon the galaxy from above
or below it, no traveler could say anymore that he is relative to any piece
of it but possibly the core. He is at that time relative to the entirety of
it as a singular whole. Its space, its time, as a one singular whole. A
shrinkage of the galaxy.
Yet the light of it will measurably arrive to him being 300,000 kilometers
per second. The light from the rest of the observable universe around will
not have changed in its velocity either. It will be measurably 300,000
kilometers per second. He will measure the speed of light in a vacuum at all
times to be 300,000 kilometers (rounded off) per second.
His second didn't become longer than it would be on Earth. It would become
bigger. His own local 300,000 kilometers would be hyperspatial compared to
spatiality when he was standing next to a railroad track on Earth. His own
local second would coincide. It would be the same second of time in length
gone hyper-time. In other words, in leaving the galaxy he shrunk the galaxy
from billions of pieces to one whole. From billions to a single. From
billions to just one. That is the kind of "rubber geometry" relativity
really deals in. It has taken me more than fifteen years to finally see the
real picture. It is a different picture than the usual one proffered but one
picturing the same thing. When the usual suspects picture an expanded second
they picture it as having lengthened in time to some time longer than one
second on Earth. They don't picture space out of space, or time out of time,
the transcendence of relative horizons, though to a large degree quantum
mechanics can picture such things. They can identify layers of horizon going
down and in from us to atoms and atomic structures, and on further down to
quarks and structure on that level, calculating about 15 horizons worth of
layers before the limits of relativity are found, but they have a hard time
observing the possibility of horizons worth of layers, or layers worth of
horizons, continuing on up the scale from us that a traveler could pass on
up through, transcending. They cannot observe the spatial Universe, the
real-time Universe (or simultaneous-time Universe), out there in any way,
shape or form. They could not possibly observe a traveler who is relative to
the entirety of the Milky Way galaxy as a whole rather than relative to them
here on Earth as nothing more nor less than a very small piece of a
de-centralized space and time puzzle the traveler outside the galaxy has
centralized (has framed in whole to just one single space and time unit). It
would be like just one atom trying to picture one planet. Both recognize
exactly the same time length of one second but cannot possibly recognize
each other.
If the speed of light in a vacuum is the same constant everywhere,
including at all levels of the greater Universe, all the way down to Planck
limits of relativity and below in the infinitesimal, and all the way up into
the infinite Universe of universes, then spatiality and time, and
space-time, are also constants in keeping with its constancy. That means the
splitting out of space and time into paralleling spaces and times. The
galaxy being many spaces and many times until it is observed from outside of
its almost infinite complexity where and when it becomes one single, a
single space and time whole, a unitary object or package deal, relative to
that observer. For that now whole unit, and then still for that traveler /
observer, the speed of light in a vacuum is the same constant as it was for
any of the pieces. The galaxy is no longer that big anymore...relative to
that traveler / observer now outside its [horizon], hyperspatial or
hyper-timely to it, rather than inside its enormity and swamped in its many
differing space and time [horizons].
Sorry if I seem to be repeating myself, traveling down different spokes to
the same hub hoping some one or more spokes will finally set off recognition
and enlightenment. The "rubber geometry" is immaterial as opposed to
material. The average physicist on Earth thinks through relativity he or she
will just stretch out in the entirety of the Universe without ever leaving
their armchair on Earth. They don't like the idea of things, including
travelers, being in way able to lose relativity to them, their armchair they
sit in, and their ground they stand on, on Earth; at once gaining in
relativity to things they could never gain relativity to sitting on their
dead asses on Earth. It is precisely the same mentality and view of things
total authoritarian tyrants and tyrannies want to have be the physicality of
the entire Universe. Stretchable but utterly inescapable from them and some
form of immediate surveillance and control throughout the stretch. The
"rubber geometry" I describe [reduces] them and their reach, and their reach
of observation, level by level of the Universe, horizon by horizon of space
and time, to insignificant relativity graduating to no relativity existing
to the observer on Earth whatsoever. Yet the traveler / observer turning
around to return into the galaxy, then into the solar system, then to the
Earth, can make it -- relativity -- go the other way, "accelerating
expansion" in relativity into the galaxy, then to one solar system of the
galaxy, then to one planet -- or whatever -- of the solar system. What he
can shrink, accelerating in that shrinkage, he can expand, accelerating in
that expansion. In this case, what he [expands] out of, he can also [shrink]
into. It can be though of both ways. In any case, a "rubber geometry."
GLB
|
General Relativity is an auguring system like astrology.
It does not have the tools to allow sentient man
to modify his environment.
General Relativity pretends to mirror the mind of God
and it puts man back into the auguring mode that he was in
until the Lunar Society looked at Newton's Equations,
and found a system they could use to change their world.
Archimedes and Galileo were in the control Nature mode,
rather than the auguring mode but the vast majority
of mankind remained in the auguring mode,
until the Lunar Society showed the way out
by using Classical Physics to create the Industrial Revolution.
Even then, the non-Western world stayed in the auguring mode,
until Perry forced Japan to open its' doors, and after Japan's
management saw what could be done by controlling Nature,
rather than auguring the signs of the Gods,
they quickly became one of the most powerful
nations on the Earth.
As can be seen, China is moving
from the auguring mode to the control mode,
and they are becoming a productive and powerful nation.
There is no question about the fact that
things and events traversing a
non-dissipative, homogeneous medium
do so at a constant speed,
but this has long been known, and it is not Relativity.
After Newton's model,
there were immediate and rapid advances
in mechanics, astronomy, etc.
After Maxwell's model
there were immediate and rapid advances
in chemistry, electricity, etc.
After Watson's and Crick's DNA model
there were immediate and rapid advances
in medicine, genetics, animal husbandry,
the history of the Earth and Mankind, etc.
Here we are, 100 years after General Relativity
and it continues to generate more hype and heat
than light and advances
and it wastes time, money and minds,
on such pursuits as time travel, worm holes, space warps,
gravitons, rubber times and spaces, etc.
The Lunar Society and Classical Physics
showed the way out of auguring,
and General Relativity is showing the way back in.
A mind is a terrible thing to waste.
--
Tom Potter
http://home.earthlink.net/~tdp/
http://tdp1001.googlepages.com/home
http://no-turtles.com
http://www.frappr.com/tompotter
http://photos.yahoo.com/tdp1001
http://spaces.msn.com/tdp1001
http://www.flickr.com/photos/tom-potter/
http://tom-potter.blogspot.com |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Jeff…Relf
science forum Guru Wannabe
Joined: 03 Apr 2006
Posts: 114
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 28, 2006 11:20 am Post subject:
Entropy is the top God.
|
|
|
Hi Tom_Potter and G. L. Bradford,
General_Relativity is evolution on steroids... zooming even farther out.
But the hights are too much for most... including you two.
But contemplate what the word God means:
Like you're God like to the mice you raise to feed your snake,
you're God's prisoner and God to your prisoners.
Entropy is the top God because, like a lit match,
consumption ( dissipation/entropy ) creates/destroys you.
Cosmologists talk in terms of temperature/redshift, not age,
and, seeing as entropy is just Joules/Kelvin, where the Joules are constant,
entropy continually rises as the redshift drops.
So Entropy is a valid spatial dimension, no place is ever without it:
Entropy_Time_Space
Accumulated-Dissipated, Past-Future, Up-Down... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
T Wake
science forum Guru
Joined: 08 May 2005
Posts: 1978
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 28, 2006 11:14 pm Post subject:
Re: Entropy is the top God.
|
|
|
"Jeff.Relf" <Jeff_Relf@Yahoo.COM> wrote in message
news:Jeff_Relf_2006_Jun_28_DMfb@Cotse.NET...
| Quote: | Hi Tom_Potter and G. L. Bradford,
General_Relativity is evolution on steroids... zooming even farther out.
|
Total nonsense.
| Quote: | But the hights are too much for most... including you two.
|
Like you would know.
| Quote: | But contemplate what the word God means:
Like you're God like to the mice you raise to feed your snake,
you're God's prisoner and God to your prisoners.
Entropy is the top God because, like a lit match,
consumption ( dissipation/entropy ) creates/destroys you.
|
Gibberish. More meaningless, pointless, inaccurate analogies than normal -
but still a relfian pile of pooh.
| Quote: | Cosmologists talk in terms of temperature/redshift, not age,
|
How on Earth would you know?
| Quote: | and, seeing as entropy is just Joules/Kelvin, where the Joules are
constant,
entropy continually rises as the redshift drops.
So Entropy is a valid spatial dimension, no place is ever without it:
|
Nope. Look at gravity and the strong force for two very good clues as to why
there are actually three SPATIAL Dimensions. Then, if you are still in
doubt, look at the way we use the luminosity of distant supernovae. This
again implies three SPATIAL dimensions. Add to this your previous post about
the how much temperature had dropped since CMBR was formed (which was wrong
anyway) and it becomes obvious you dont understand what spatial dimensions
are (_your_ model implied two spatial dimensions... but you didnt realise
how....)
| Quote: | Entropy_Time_Space
Accumulated-Dissipated, Past-Future, Up-Down...
|
non_sense_with_under_scores_is_still_non_sense_no_matter_how_many_words_you_use.
Idiocy^2 = relf. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Eric Gisse
science forum Guru
Joined: 04 May 2005
Posts: 1999
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 28, 2006 11:50 pm Post subject:
Re: Entropy is the top God.
|
|
|
Jeff...Relf wrote:
[snip usual relf-esque tripe]
Stop posting s**t to sci.physics. I have a phone card to burn, would it
help if I communicated my desire for you to stop posting your s**t to
sci.physics through the telephone? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Jeff…Relf
science forum Guru Wannabe
Joined: 03 Apr 2006
Posts: 114
|
| Posted: Thu Jun 29, 2006 12:31 am Post subject:
It'd be a waste of my time to try to explain every little thing.
|
|
|
Sure Eric_Gisse, You can call me, 206.525.5196.
I woke up today at 3 pm Seattle time... went to bed around 7 am.
I'm on dialup these days, which ties up the phone line.
I lost my only good WiFi connection when the student left for the summer.
Gisse, just because you don't understand what I write doesn't mean it's wrong.
It'd be a waste of my time to try to explain every little thing to you,
so I don't even try. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Eric Gisse
science forum Guru
Joined: 04 May 2005
Posts: 1999
|
| Posted: Thu Jun 29, 2006 1:21 am Post subject:
Re: It'd be a waste of my time to try to explain every little thing.
|
|
|
Jeff...Relf wrote:
| Quote: | Sure Eric_Gisse, You can call me, 206.525.5196.
|
You are an idiot.
| Quote: | I woke up today at 3 pm Seattle time... went to bed around 7 am.
I'm on dialup these days, which ties up the phone line.
I lost my only good WiFi connection when the student left for the summer.
|
Ha ha.
| Quote: | Gisse, just because you don't understand what I write doesn't mean it's wrong.
It'd be a waste of my time to try to explain every little thing to you,
so I don't even try.
|
Probably because you don't understand what you are talking about. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
glbrad01
science forum Guru Wannabe
Joined: 20 Mar 2005
Posts: 105
|
| Posted: Thu Jun 29, 2006 5:39 am Post subject:
Re: Entropy is the top God.
|
|
|
"Jeff.Relf" <Jeff_Relf@Yahoo.COM> wrote in message
news:Jeff_Relf_2006_Jun_28_DMfb@Cotse.NET...
| Quote: | Hi Tom_Potter and G. L. Bradford,
General_Relativity is evolution on steroids... zooming even farther out.
But the hights are too much for most... including you two.
But contemplate what the word God means:
Like you're God like to the mice you raise to feed your snake,
you're God's prisoner and God to your prisoners.
Entropy is the top God because, like a lit match,
consumption ( dissipation/entropy ) creates/destroys you.
Cosmologists talk in terms of temperature/redshift, not age,
and, seeing as entropy is just Joules/Kelvin, where the Joules are
constant,
entropy continually rises as the redshift drops.
So Entropy is a valid spatial dimension, no place is ever without it:
Entropy_Time_Space
Accumulated-Dissipated, Past-Future, Up-Down...
|
There is no such thing as entropy, standalone, anywhere, anytime, any how.
Also, entropy is a matter of time (of change), not space. Trope: to turn.
En: in. En trope: to turn in, or in-turn, or in-turning. "Entropy increases
and energy diminishes in a closed system," such as a world behind Big
Brother's iron curtain or a planet inside, within, Big Brother's iron
cocoon. Synonym for tyranny, anarchy. Synonym for anarchy, tyranny. More
tyranny, more anarchy (one and the same thing). Absolute tyranny, absolute
anarchy (one and the same thing). Power corrupts. Super power corrupts
superbly. Absolute power corrupts absolutely. 'Complicate embryo': Life,
Man, Civilization, World, turning, brainwashed, forced, toward itself, to
itself, into itself, into its own, folding into, on to, itself (vortex);
Bottomless Pitting, blackholing, jading, rotting, shredding, coming apart at
the seams, every seam without exception, One Universe (redundant)! One
World! One World-ism (Pestilence, War, Famine, Death)!
(Will Durant, The Lessons of History: "Nature smiles at the union of
freedom and equality in our utopias. For freedom and equality are sworn and
everlasting enemies, and when one prevails the other dies. Leave men free,
and their natural inequalities will multiply almost geometrically, as in
England and America in the nineteenth under 'laissez-faire'. To check the
growth of inequality, liberty must be sacrificed, as in Russia after 1917.
Even when repressed, inequality grows; only the man who is below the average
in economic ability desires equality; those who are conscious of superior
ability desire freedom; and in the end superior ability has its way. Utopias
of equality are biologically doomed.... Competition becomes more severe as
the destruction of distance (time (space-time)) intensifies the
confrontation of states (in every sense of 'state')." (All in parenthesis,
mine))
The redshift of the observed universe has nothing to do with its
temperature. As to age, distance and the speed of light limit on information
transmission automatically ages the information. The Earth's moon as
observed from Earth is about 1.5 seconds behind the real-time of the moon.
Mars at its closest distance from Earth, will have all observation of it
from the Earth to be a minimum of 200 seconds behind the real-time of Mars
at Mars. Andromeda, at this time, as observed from Earth, will be observed
from Earth a minimum of 2.2 million years behind the real-time of Andromeda
at Andromeda. Has space expanded so far in this scenario? No, but
distance-time (space-time) is definitely expanding. And, at the other end as
observed from Earth, larger and ever larger chunks of space and time is
being swallowed in ever smaller frames.
From here to the far horizon of what universe we observe is a distance of
13.7 billion light years (or 13.7 billion years). One light second is
300,000 kilometers [to] one second of time (or 300,000 kilometers [per] one
second of time). Three-hundred thousand kilometers to each and every second
of time, times 13.7 billion years worth of seconds, constant. CONSTANT!
Average velocity of so-called expansion of the universe, an unchanged,
unchanging, constant of 300,000 kilometers per second. Since time stops,
zeroes out, at the speed of light, no change ever to be witnessed in the
farthest scene we will observe as the far edge -- the far horizon -- of time
(of space-time). Farthest from any real-time, or spatial, point in the
entirety of the Universe. Ipso facto, from here (every foreground) to that
horizon there (furthest background horizon), permanent acceleration -- to no
other than the speed of light! -- to be permanently observed from every
foreground (every real-time, spatial) point extant in the entirety of
Universe, no matter what the relativity of position or velocity between
points.
Space-time horizons going away into the distance are like any other rings
going away into distance. Widely spaced nearer to ever more narrowly spaced
farther out. Doesn't matter that there may be an infinity of them and that
they may all be equally spaced and timed overall, they will at all growing
distance from foreground to background appear to be narrowing or shrinking
in distance in space and time between them until finally there appears at a
distance to be no more space and time between them at all; at which
space-time they appear to have become a naked singularity, one horizon and
one only, the final / absolute horizon. The Big Bang Horizon.
Enter Relativity. As foregrounds at a distance, no difference from any
other foreground with regard to mass, density, energy, entropy, space, time,
and so on and on, ad nauseum. But as background relative to all foreground
(relative to all foregrounds), aaahhhh, what a difference. Infinite mass,
infinite density, mindboggling energy......Bang. Big Bang!
GLB |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Jeff…Relf
science forum Guru Wannabe
Joined: 03 Apr 2006
Posts: 114
|
| Posted: Thu Jun 29, 2006 9:35 am Post subject:
Entropy can be modeled as an expansion of spacetime over cosmological time.
|
|
|
Hi G_L_Bradford, You began by telling me:
There is no such thing as entropy, standalone, anywhere, anytime, any how.
The visible universe is known to be exanding at an accelerated rate,
according to the cosmological constant, lambda,
i.e. the dark energy equation of state, w, is a constant -1.
Some call that: The cost of having spacetime.
The universe cools when that happens, increasing the entropy,
measured in joules per Kelvin, where the joules are constant.
As I said, entropy, measured in Joules per Kelvin,
is a measure of how dissipated a system is... For example,
an ideal vacuum has the most entropy ( most dissipated ),
while ideal singularities have the least ( most accumulated ).
You continued:
Also, entropy is a matter of time ( of change ), not space.
Sure, if you want to model it that way, ( do you model things ? ),
but it can also be modeled as an expansion of spacetime over cosmological time.
Cosmologists demarcate cosmological time in z, redshift,
or, for the media yokels, Kelvin.
As for your comments on communism/socialism/capitalism...
Why work for someone else ?
It's one dollar one vote... but why care if you get votes or not ?
I've got a voice via powerful labs on campus, for CPP_files/Usenet/Web.
....I can tutor for tobacco money, rolling my own.
I know plenty of people who refuse to work, remaining homeless,
and going on the Food_Stamp program, or eating whatever they find.
Homeless people can't own anything... nowhere to put it;
yet their homes are _Everywhere_ to a large extent.
They are rich because their society is rich... shades of Marxism ?
You wrote:
The redshift of the observed universe has nothing to do with its temperature.
The CMB, Cosmic_Microwave_Background, is 2.7 Kelvin,
that's the temperture of our universe, on average.
It used to be 3000 Kelvin... that's a redshift of z = 1,088.
It's not an optical illusion.
You wrote:
From here to the far horizon of what universe we observe is a distance of
13.7 billion light years (or 13.7 billion years). One light second is
300,000 kilometers [to] one second of time (or 300,000 kilometers [per] one
second of time). Three-hundred thousand kilometers to each and every second
of time, times 13.7 billion years worth of seconds, constant. CONSTANT !
General relativity models the visible universe on the cosmic scale.
Because the visible universe is expanding at an accelerated rate,
the 13.7 billion years amounts of a geodesic 46 Giga Light Years long.
If, in a mind experiment, you freeze comological time, keeping z constant,
you'll find that the light path is now 50,000 Giga Light Years long,
....this is called the Luminocity_Distance,
which is useful when comparing the expected flux ( brightness )
of a standard candle ( type 1a supernova ) with the actual value.
As the mega years go by, the earth is continually exposed to
ever newer surfaces of the CMB event, like a growing sherical area
being melted/drained out of a huge chunk of opaque ice,
with us in the middle of it, looking at the opaque walls,
....now 50,000 Giga Light Years away.
The reported .00038 giga year age at the CMB event is
the " Sound " travel time to to the start of the Sound_Horizon;
and so was probably just some phase transition, not the birth of the universe. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Phineas T Puddleduck
science forum Guru
Joined: 01 Jun 2006
Posts: 759
|
| Posted: Thu Jun 29, 2006 11:37 am Post subject:
Re: It'd be a waste of my time to try to explain every little thing.
|
|
|
In article <Jeff_Relf_2006_Jun_28_9oiy@Cotse.NET>, Jeff’ĶRelf
<Jeff_Relf@Yahoo.COM> wrote:
| Quote: | Sure Eric_Gisse, You can call me, 206.525.5196.
I woke up today at 3 pm Seattle time... went to bed around 7 am.
I'm on dialup these days, which ties up the phone line.
I lost my only good WiFi connection when the student left for the summer.
Gisse, just because you don't understand what I write doesn't mean it's wrong.
It'd be a waste of my time to try to explain every little thing to you,
so I don't even try.
|
We dont understand what you write cause its unscientific bollocks,
inconsistent not only with current physics but with itself as well, and
is word salad with no redeeming features....
--
The greatest enemy of science is pseudoscience.
Jaffa cakes. Sweet delicious orangey jaffa goodness, and an abject lesson why
parroting information from the web will not teach you cosmology.
Official emperor of sci.physics, head mumbler of the "Cult of INSANE SCIENCE".
Please pay no attention to my butt poking forward, it is expanding.
Relf's Law?
"Bullshit repeated to the limit of infinity asymptotically approaches
the odour of roses."
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Google
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
The time now is Sat Jan 10, 2009 3:10 am | All times are GMT
|
|
Nikes | Mortgage | Credit Card Debt Consolidation Online | Credit Card | Duwayne Burnside
|
|
Copyright © 2004-2005 DeniX Solutions SRL
|
|
Other DeniX Solutions sites:
Electronics forum |
Medicine forum |
Unix/Linux blog |
Unix/Linux documentation |
Unix/Linux forums
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
Forum index
»
Science and Technology
»
Physics
»
Relativity
