Could Time be a singularity?

opportunity · « **Reply #60 on:** 13/02/2018 15:14:35 »

No question.

Webb is not Hubble.

Webb is Hubble that can correct its own lens errors.

That's good.

guest39538 · « **Reply #61 on:** 13/02/2018 15:17:12 »

Quote from: opportunity on 13/02/2018 15:14:35

No question.

Webb is not Hubble.

Webb is Hubble that can correct its own lens errors.

That's good.

Yes that sounds very good, it may lead to new discovery.

opportunity · « **Reply #62 on:** 14/02/2018 08:29:01 »

Quote from: Thebox on 13/02/2018 15:17:12

Quote from: opportunity on 13/02/2018 15:14:35
No question.

Webb is not Hubble.

Webb is Hubble that can correct its own lens errors.

That's good.

Yes that sounds very good, it may lead to new discovery.

I think it will. They're aiming to see the most distant stars and thus arrive at an ultimate value for the red shift effect factor. My writing work says it will be a value of z = ~20.8. Those results are expected late next year.

guest39538 · « **Reply #63 on:** 14/02/2018 12:16:06 »

Quote from: opportunity on 14/02/2018 08:29:01

Quote from: Thebox on 13/02/2018 15:17:12
Quote from: opportunity on 13/02/2018 15:14:35
No question.

Webb is not Hubble.

Webb is Hubble that can correct its own lens errors.

That's good.

Yes that sounds very good, it may lead to new discovery.

I think it will. They're aiming to see the most distant stars and thus arrive at an ultimate value for the red shift effect factor. My writing work says it will be a value of z = ~20.8. Those results are expected late next year.

The problem I have got is that the size of the Universe is relative to the magnification of the telescope, the Universe is size n in reality because we can nether know. Light intensity stops us seeing beyond a spherical boundary.

opportunity · « **Reply #64 on:** 15/02/2018 07:11:33 »

Quote from: Thebox on 14/02/2018 12:16:06

Quote from: opportunity on 14/02/2018 08:29:01
Quote from: Thebox on 13/02/2018 15:17:12
Quote from: opportunity on 13/02/2018 15:14:35
No question.

Webb is not Hubble.

Webb is Hubble that can correct its own lens errors.

That's good.

Yes that sounds very good, it may lead to new discovery.

I think it will. They're aiming to see the most distant stars and thus arrive at an ultimate value for the red shift effect factor. My writing work says it will be a value of z = ~20.8. Those results are expected late next year.
The problem I have got is that the size of the Universe is relative to the magnification of the telescope, the Universe is size n in reality because we can nether know. Light intensity stops us seeing beyond a spherical boundary.

Here's the link to the article I'm referring to re. the James Webb telescope:

https://www.nasa.gov/feature/nasa-s-james-webb-space-telescope-to-be-launched-spring-2019, Retrieved 28 January 2018. (see "note [1]).

guest39538 · « **Reply #65 on:** 15/02/2018 09:33:45 »

Quote from: opportunity on 15/02/2018 07:11:33

rtunity on

I watched something on it last night, apparently it is a very late launch ? It should of been sent up years ago?

opportunity · « **Reply #66 on:** 15/02/2018 09:36:03 »

Really? Any links for that? We can only ask what the investors hope to achieve with these launches.

I know the data is available late 2019.

guest39538 · « **Reply #67 on:** 15/02/2018 09:48:01 »

Quote from: opportunity on 15/02/2018 09:36:03

Really? Any links for that? We can only ask what the investors hope to achieve with these launches.

I know the data is available late 2019.

It took 20 years to build and the launch got delayed a few times. Would 20 years not make it old technology now lol ?

Sorry could not find the video on youtube I watched

opportunity · « **Reply #68 on:** 15/02/2018 10:02:08 »

Doing a satellite beyond Hubble with the ability to change the focus is a good idea; bad if they tooled it right this time and got it wrong.

guest39538 · « **Reply #69 on:** 15/02/2018 10:11:34 »

Quote from: opportunity on 15/02/2018 10:02:08

Doing a satellite beyond Hubble with the ability to change the focus is a good idea; bad if they tooled it right this time and got it wrong.

It is a brilliant idea, hopefully it removes the transverse red shift affect.

guest39538 · « **Reply #70 on:** 15/02/2018 10:15:42 »

shift.jpg (24.04 kB . 731x461 - viewed 2186 times)

opportunity · « **Reply #71 on:** 15/02/2018 11:39:58 »

We are waiting long; late 2019 and then add problems.

Long enough for us to calculate before what they're trying to see....sounds bad, but who was happy going to get glasses the first time?

guest39538 · « **Reply #72 on:** 15/02/2018 13:13:54 »

Quote from: opportunity on 15/02/2018 11:39:58

We are waiting long; late 2019 and then add problems.

Long enough for us to calculate before what they're trying to see....sounds bad, but who was happy going to get glasses the first time?

Hopefully it works. However there could be still a problem that the nearest body in the non-observable Universe could still be too far away too see. If the observable Universe is expanding , then it is very likely that things in the non-observable Universe are also in expansion , cause and affect.

p.s we need to launch a telescope with a velocity heading of outer space. Transmit the signal back to see if we get new pictures of non-observable things.

opportunity · « **Reply #73 on:** 15/02/2018 13:21:24 »

I'm "hoping" its still the issue given the Tesla fanfare?

guest39538 · « **Reply #74 on:** 15/02/2018 13:24:03 »

Quote from: opportunity on 15/02/2018 13:21:24

Tesla fanfare

I am sorry that is a question I did not understand, Tesla fanfare?

opportunity · « **Reply #75 on:** 15/02/2018 13:27:27 »

Quote from: Thebox on 15/02/2018 13:24:03

Quote from: opportunity on 15/02/2018 13:21:24
Tesla fanfare

I am sorry that is a question I did not understand, Tesla fanfare?

Tesla as a story is not something I'd be using if not for doing what he wanted to achieve.....which was an absolute fail......

I'm surprised his name is being used today......very surprised....

If he were alive today he wouldnt be backing batteries.

guest39538 · « **Reply #76 on:** 15/02/2018 13:33:09 »

Quote from: opportunity on 15/02/2018 13:27:27

Quote from: Thebox on 15/02/2018 13:24:03
Quote from: opportunity on 15/02/2018 13:21:24
Tesla fanfare

I am sorry that is a question I did not understand, Tesla fanfare?

Tesla as a story is not something I'd be using if not for doing what he wanted to achieve.....which was an absolute fail......

I'm surprised his name is being used today......very surprised....

Tesla was just unorthodox , sometimes unorthodox gives answers. I am rather unorthodox myself. I quite like Tesla and respect his mind.

guest39538 · « **Reply #77 on:** 15/02/2018 13:43:33 »

Nikola Tesla wanted to be a polar opposite of his father. HIs father was an orthodox priest, I think he wanted to prove that god is science.

opportunity · « **Reply #78 on:** 15/02/2018 14:00:40 »

Tesla had an idea of using rapid AC.

I'm surprised Plank didn't challenge him, right? What I'm saying is Planck also didn't really do the math.

(apologies, yet I had to edit this): Anyone who knows the energy levels of the atom knows the frequency of photon release increases with each photoelectric effect the higher-out the energy shell...and not as the planck equation suggests; the further out the energy shell (higher as we call it) the lower the energy release though, and thus the lower the energy release for the higher the frequency for the photo-electric effect. So, I'm not sure how Planck didn't notice that.

And so, when that fundamental Planck equation is changed accordinly, our understanding of singularities needs to change fundamentally so. I used the analogy of Tesla as an idea's person that wasn't bang-on with his proposals. I think Planck could be similar, as I'm suggesting he wasn't bang on with the photoelectric effect. I'm suggesting that frequency is inversely proposal to energy.

Just as a post-edit, I've had to change the above. I started a new post in the physics section re. the Photo-electric effect, and clearly frequency there is in proportion to energy. Apologies for the confusion. I've been working on a sub-atomic theory for the relation between energy and frequency, not the standard quantum electron shell formula prescribed by Rydberg, and the theory became overlapped, but all good now.

guest39538 · « **Reply #79 on:** 16/02/2018 15:34:37 »

Quote from: opportunity on 15/02/2018 14:00:40

I'm suggesting he wasn't bang on with the photoelectric effect. I'm suggesting that frequency is inversely proposal to energy.

I didn't really understand the rest of the post but I did understand this sentence. A notion I have mentioned before,

That λ is directly proportional to the invert force. So you was close .

λ = F₁ + F₂

F₁ = c

F₂= u where c is Photons and u is permeability.

Could Time be a singularity?

guest39538

guest39538

guest39538

guest39538

guest39538

guest39538

guest39538

guest39538

guest39538

guest39538

guest39538