0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Space-Time is an absolute 4 dimensional environment. As stated by physicist Brian Greene in his book The Elegant Universe, pages 26 and 27, all objects are constantly on the move at the speed of light within Space-Time.Google "The_Elegant_Universe-B.Greene.pdf"All that can be done is change the direction of that constant ongoing motion. The outcome of this "Absolute" motion that's ongoing within the "Absolute" Space-Time environment,is Special Relativity itself. The Special Relativity can be darn confusing if you have not managedto discover the "Absolute" foundation of which the Special Relativity itself resides within.http://goo.gl/fz4R0I
As stated by physicist Brian Greene in his book The Elegant Universe, pages 26 and 27, all objects are constantly on the move at the speed of light within Space-Time.
Quote from: NUFOIBAs stated by physicist Brian Greene in his book The Elegant Universe, pages 26 and 27, all objects are constantly on the move at the speed of light within Space-Time.That's a common misconception. It's meaningless to speak of something "moving" through spacetime. That phrase is only meant as an analogy and should never be used to mean anything physical. Saying that something is moving through spacetime is equally meaningless. Greene is doing all layman a disservice to relativity enthusiasts by saying something like that. Shame on him!
Objects travelling through space, creating time , could not be seen if they travelled at c, they would be invisible.
Quote from: Thebox on 25/04/2015 11:13:49Objects travelling through space, creating time , could not be seen if they travelled at c, they would be invisible.I know you have given a lot of thought to light, but some alternative thoughts:A true one: the only objects we know that travel at the speed of light are photons, and we do see those when they fall on our retina.A relative one: any object which has a rest mass, would have infinite mass at the speed of light. As it would be 'in yer face' it is unlikely you could miss such an object, or rather, unlikely it could miss you. Unlikely you would survive the encounter!A mythology one: I am aware you don't believe in relativity, so assume an object could travel at the speed of light. If passing through our solar system it would reflect the sun's light and because of persistence of vision we would see a line of light. What arc this would be visible over I haven't bothered to calc, but I assume that on both approach and retreat there would be a point where the Doppler effect means the light would be outside of visible range.
I haven't looked the file up or followed the link, but I wondered if that particular claim might be related to the idea that "stationary" things are "travelling" through the time dimension at c.
I apologise to you, it is obvious to me now from forum time, that you really are a scientist, ...
... is that you in the download I downloaded from off here?
A true one: the only objects we know that travel at the speed of light are photons, and we do see those when they fall on our retina.
A relative one: any object which has a rest mass, would have infinite mass at the speed of light.
A mythology one: I am aware you don't believe in relativity, ...
If the graviton is discovered someday and has the properties we believe that it does then the graviton also has zero proper mass and therefore travel at the speed of light. I believe that they will because gravitational waves also travel at the speed of light.
While that's correct, I myself try to avoid making statements like. Since no object can travel at the speed of light we'll never be able to measure the particles proper mass.
Really? He actually doesn't "believe" relativity? I don't think I was aware of that. What does he base that belief on?
So all this time you thought I was lying about it? Unbelievable! Is that what you normally do, i.e. assume people are lying to you about something like that? If it'd make you happy I'll scan my degree into my computer and post an image of it in this forum. It will have to wait though. A long time ago when I moved from one place to another it got lost in the process. I've been planning on getting another one for a long time. I just contacted my old alma-mater and will be getting a copy of it in a few weeks. In all the years I've spent on the internet I've never seen someone who wasn't a physicist claim to be one. It's too easy to catch someone in a lie like that because it's very difficult to get the education of a physicist by self study. It's far too difficult for the average person. I'd wager that people who aren't a physicist don't claim they are because they'd be afraid of being asked a question that any physicist could answer but which a non-physicist most likely couldn't answer.Quote from: Thebox... is that you in the download I downloaded from off here?What download are you referring to?Quote from: TheboxObjects travelling through space, creating time , could not be seen if they travelled at c, they would be invisible.Objects don't create time by moving through space.
A true one: the only objects we know that travel at the speed of light are photons, ...
You say and insist you can destroy a space and measure time of a space, I await your answers, you insist this. If you can not provide the answers it s obvious that I speak no false tongue, and it is indeed you who are spreading science lies that are not even science truths with experimental evidence.
If you can not provide the answers it s obvious that I speak no false tongue, ...
and it is indeed you who are spreading science lies that are not even science truths with experimental evidence.
If the universe expands it can only do that in space-time meaning that space is continually expanding and applying the same theory in reverse it should give us the opposite so as to say contraction might destroy space.
People read these threads such as children, can you please stop lying to people and learning them your false thoughts.
P.s My 8 year old thinks you are barking mad if you say you can destroy a space.
I am not lacking in the information I know now, I am tenacious to my own logic.
Upon looking for something else I ran across this post, written by the forum crackpot;Quote from: TheboxYou say and insist you can destroy a space and measure time of a space, I await your answers, you insist this. If you can not provide the answers it s obvious that I speak no false tongue, and it is indeed you who are spreading science lies that are not even science truths with experimental evidence.Nobody ever said anything about "measure time of a space" since that's such a screwy statement I can't make out what it's supposed to mean. And you can await answers all you want. That's just a favorite way that crackpots try to provoke people into endless arguments. One of the reasons I gave up on trying to help you is for crap like thisQuote from: Thebox If you can not provide the answers it s obvious that I speak no false tongue, ...That's one of the most ignorant statements a person can make. It's irrational to think that if a person can't provide you a proof or something than that thing is wrong. But you've never been that rational so its expected. But the reason I stopped trying to help you is because I made several attempts in proving my case. I explained to you that general relativity allows for both an expanding and a contracting universe. If our universe is spatially closed then it used to be extremely small. So small that it was too small to contain a baseball. The universe started expanding about 13.2 billion years ago. When that started to happen space started to be created. That means that there was more and more of it as time went by. By "more and more of it" its meant that you could actually measure how much space there was with a tape measure. Of course there were no tape measures back then and it was expanding too fast and it was too hot etc. to do that. However the process is still going on, space is still expanding, the universe is still growing in size.I wasn't the one to prove this was the case. It was done long before I was born. Solutions to Einstein's equations in general relativity are famous for being notoriously difficult to solve. While I an certainly follow and understand the derivation I very much doubt that you can. So if I showed you a proof you'd be unable to grasp it. Now you're demanding experimental proof when all I've said to date that it's possible, i.e. that general relativity predicts it. The only experimental evidence that makes sense to talk about is that which is used to test general relativity. It's also possible for a universe to contract. If there were no dark energy and the mass density was too small then the day would come when the universe would stop expanding and then start to contract. When that happens there becomes less and less space as time goes on. That's what is meant by "space being destroyed." I.e. when there is less space in the universe it's said to be less by space being destroyed. However, if you don't like that terminology, or if its the terminology that is bothering you then use your own words - just to make you comfy!What makes you the raving crackpot are statements like this oneQuote from: Theboxand it is indeed you who are spreading science lies that are not even science truths with experimental evidence.You're a scumbag claiming that I lied about anything when you're too ignorant and stupid to be able to understand the physics. But everything I've said is in any text on relativistic cosmology. You're simply too lazy to look it up or do a google search. You can learn about the expansion of space here: http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/astro/hubble.html#c0You need to know about the metric before you could grasp that. See:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metric_expansion_of_spaceThe model of the universe which is contracting is called The Big Crunch and is described here:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Crunchhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultimate_fate_of_the_universeThe best explanation you could have found if you weren't such a lazy stupid person is this one:http://www.answers.com/Q/What_is_space_and_how_can_space_be_created_or_destroyed_when_the_universe_expands_or_contractsThe author explains what I just explained to you, i.e.QuoteIf the universe expands it can only do that in space-time meaning that space is continually expanding and applying the same theory in reverse it should give us the opposite so as to say contraction might destroy space.Quote from: TheboxPeople read these threads such as children, can you please stop lying to people and learning them your false thoughts.Children should never think that what they see posted in a forum is correct. After all, look at all the bogus nonsense that you post on a daily basis.Quote from: TheboxP.s My 8 year old thinks you are barking mad if you say you can destroy a space.You're son has an idiot for a father. No wonder he can't grasp cosmology with someone as dumb as you trying to teach it to him. Besides, nobody bases what's logically correct in physics based on the thought processes of an 8 year old, unless you're a raving lunatic such as yourself.Quote from: TheboxI am not lacking in the information I know now, I am tenacious to my own logic.Oh, please! You're the most ignorant person on this forum.
Space-Time is an absolute 4 dimensional environment. As stated by physicist Brian Greene in his book The Elegant Universe, pages 26 and 27, all objects are constantly on the move at the speed of light within Space-Time.Google "The_Elegant_Universe-B.Greene.pdf"All that can be done is change the direction of that constant ongoing motion. The outcome of this "Absolute" motion that's ongoing within the "Absolute" Space-Time environment,is Special Relativity itself. The Special Relativity can be darn confusing if you have not managedto discover the "Absolute" foundation of which the Special Relativity itself resides within.http://goo.gl/fz4R0I [nofollow]
Waaaa!!
Quote from: TheboxWaaaa!!Grow up, TB.