« on: 13/06/2017 22:03:12 »
What is interesting to me is how far down in the moon before you find water. Mars also.
The following users thanked this post: Alex Dullius Siqueira
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
Again this needs a diagram to make it possible to follow. Let's just do one thing at a time though and start with something really simple. Let's start with a stationary object one metre long. If this object is then moved lengthways at 0.5c, it should appear to shorten to 867mm. In LET, this shortening is accounted for by the atoms settling closer together so that the communication distances between atoms are the same in the direction of travel of the object as they are sideways. What does your theory say about what's going on in the same situation?
How can the Big Bang survive its failure with Black Holes? In our universe there are BH's larger than 30,000 AU.QuoteI know that the evidence is that you don't really care about the actual content of physics or empirical evidence, but what is your source for that claim? Your claim about the size of black holes is at least one order of magnitude larger than the Schwartzchild radius of the largest recorded black hole.I do care about the content of physics. And I did make a mistake by a factor of about 100. 17 billion solar units. This would be around 314 AU. But you are avoiding the point by your insult. How could the universe be only 13.6 billion years old with a BH of 17 billion suns?QuoteThis would put red shift in the realm of GR dilation and not SR expansion.QuoteAgain, for those people who actually care about physics: cosmological expansion is entirely a GR phenomenon, SR is not a factor of cosmological redshift.GR is gravity red shift and SR is vector red shift. GR red shift does not necessary mean anything is moving away. Explain your GR version of the expansion of the universe.Quote13.6 billion years has become a faith no longer following our observed reality. After all it was a Catholic Priest who coined the phrase Big Bang.Actually, it was an atheist who coined the term "Big Bang". He did it in order to attempt to smear the theory because he couldn't produce definitive evidence in favor of his own theory. Time and further data collection did not side with him.
History of the Big Bang theory - Wikipedia
The history of the Big Bang theory began with the Big Bang's development from observations ... In 1927, the Belgian Catholic priest Georges Lemaître proposed an ... who coined the name of Lemaître's theory, referring to it as "this 'big bang' idea" ... Hoyle repeated the term in further broadcasts in early 1950, as part of a ...
Electro-magnetic is a difference in potential. Charge is a difference in potential. Gravity is a difference in potential. c spectrum is the potential.QuoteThe Box : I personally feel that charge stops total compression of matter because charge is opposed to charge.
What do you think?
Very close to it, I think. The number of scientists who agree on the basic scenario that electromagnetism was involved in gravity are too many to even begin to list here. In Particular those scientists including Poincare who were responsible for the eventual and unintentional revival of the aether theory in the form of relativity. Relativity was originally formulated as a means to to explain why the aether was undetectable.
Big bang is not the beginning of space, big bang is the foundation over which "motion" was able to start to take place. As one said motion exists for it has space(volume) to be able to exist.
Big bang is motion. Time is independent from motion.
Goc the absolute reference frame is observable space.
jef: Any object that moves away from you falls into the past. Not only does time slow down for the object, but also because of the nature of light we observe the object falling into the past.
Goc has misconstrued the concept of unambiguous measurements. It does not equate to an absolute reference frame. It simply means that a measurement made in one context can be reliably transposed to another. It requires a common factor, which is light speed in the case of SR.I agree there is no absolute reference frame. How and where did you read anything I said to suggest one? There is only one ratio between frames with relativity math giving that ratio of observed effects accurately.
To answer the question posed in the title of this thread, the speed of time is one second per second or one year per year or whatever unit of time per whatever unit of time. Einstein taught us that my seconds (or years or whatever) are not necessarily the same as yours so the real question is how they differ. SR answers that question and it all boils down to one's perception of light speed, which is the only unambiguous way to measure distances in space.Einstein suggested all views are equally valid. Interestingly enough this allows that no view is valid. Each frame has its own measuring stick. When everyone measures with their own measuring stick we obtain many different values. There is no valid view same as there is no standard time.Quotewhich is the only unambiguous way to measure distances in space.
Your time and distance changes for every different frame. If you change your frame your tick rate and measuring stick change equally to measure the same speed of light. Your measuring the speed of light not unambiguous distances.
our knowledge is to explain what exists and not how it existed
our creative skills is to build things from what exists and not to create matter or energy
what if my hypotheses are valid ? how it would be acceptable worldwide ? will scientists accept a forum thread ?No.
I think that why light moves at speed c because it is a kinetic energy of 0.5mc^2 !!
I'm just curious, if not big bang, what are the best(most solid) alternatives we have available?
Perhaps there is a way, if you can find one way speed of light.
I've already described how they move. Fundamental wave that it is made of travels at c the same way as EM waves. Interactions with other waves makes them to change shape (compress or extend the helix) and thus the forward speed changes. What makes photons to move makes electrons to move.
Regarding fields other than electro-magnetic, since they can interact with electro-magnetic filed through gravitational effects it means that probably they are also electro-magnetic. This explains the relativistic mass effects that apply to all particles.
Like Nikola Tesla said – "Everything is the Light".