It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Thank you.

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

# Timewave Zero - Countdown to Transition

page: 164
575
share:

posted on Aug, 24 2011 @ 05:10 AM

It may not be newsworthy but was UNexpected, exactly what I would expect on novelty jumps. UNexpected stuff.

P.S. In my previous post I explained that December 2 2011 is massively important to determinate the validity of the graph.
edit on 24-8-2011 by Zagari because: (no reason given)

posted on Aug, 24 2011 @ 07:35 AM

We are in agreement on Moore's Law then. There may be analogies to other areas, but that is simply stating that some events are exponential in nature.

The more variables in the equation you have, the more accurately you can represent speed with relation to a traveling object and space/time in general.

No. More variables is not going to provide a more accurate answer to travel through space.

You can't solve for "X" if you don't even know what all the variables in the equation are.

Not sure what you mean here. If you have an equation, then you might be able to solve for x. Or there might be an approximation method to solve for x.

Still, this has nothing to do with determining our speed through space. Space does not have a reference system.

The sun travels around the galaxy at approximately 640,000 miles per hour. That's only one variable. It adds up fast.

The problem here is that you don't appear to understand that the issue deals with a problem that needs to be solved. What problem are you trying to solve? It seems that you have no idea and are simply confusing your lack of understanding of the issues with the existence of a problem to solve.

The motion of the Sun around the galaxy is of no interest in launching probes to objects in the solar system. Pointing out that the galaxy rotates is stated for what reason? My guess is that you don't know.

posted on Aug, 24 2011 @ 07:46 AM
reply to post by Wobbly Anomaly

Relative to the immediate environment, eg a plane relative to the ground.

So you claim again that we are more and more able to move relative to our immediate environment. That isn't true is it? Limitations caused by physical processes such as the speed of sound are the limiting factors and those have been tested decades ago.

posted on Aug, 24 2011 @ 07:47 AM

Do we need to find the speeds of planets, stars and galaxys? I'm not sure we do from the perspective of finding out if things are speeding up. My understanding is that the universe is expanding and this expansion is increasing in speed thus we need not know our speed, we only need to know we are moving faster today than we were yesterday.

posted on Aug, 24 2011 @ 07:51 AM

How would you test this idea? Can you produce a statement that shows how to test this idea or are you going to rely on shoehorning after the fact?

Consider the Calleman claim in this thread.
www.abovetopsecret.com...

sirric came up with a statement on the type of event that he would accept as evidence that Calleman was correct in his claim of Night 5. That statement sets the bar to test the Calleman calendar.

Here you regard the TWZ as some holy scripture. Why not look at the events of the time period you mention and from that derive a statement as to the sorts of events you expect and then see if that happens.

That is how real scientists test their theories.

posted on Aug, 24 2011 @ 07:53 AM

It may not be newsworthy but was UNexpected, exactly what I would expect on novelty jumps. UNexpected stuff.

It sounds to me like you are changing your definition of novelty to suit your claims.

posted on Aug, 24 2011 @ 08:02 AM

All motion is relative. The expansion of the space appears to be accelerating. That does not mean we are moving faster. It means space is increasing in size.
oposite.stsci.edu...
apod.nasa.gov...

posted on Aug, 24 2011 @ 09:33 AM

Yes it does mean we are moving faster, how could we not be moving faster if the expansion of our universe is increasing in pace. If we were expanding at the same rate of expansion I would agree with you but that is not the case.

posted on Aug, 24 2011 @ 09:48 AM

Yes it does mean we are moving faster, how could we not be moving faster if the expansion of our universe is increasing in pace. If we were expanding at the same rate of expansion I would agree with you but that is not the case.

Is the universe expanding faster than the speed of light?
There is a discussion of how space can expand such that we are receding from galaxies faster than the speed of light without anything actually moving faster than the speed light.

The bottom line is that different pairs of galaxies are moving at different speeds with respect to each other; the further the galaxies are, the faster they move apart.

The fact that galaxies we see now are moving away from us faster than the speed of light has some bleak consequences, however. Astronomers now have strong evidence that we live in an "accelerating universe," which means that the speed of each individual galaxy with respect to us will increase as time goes on.

What happens to a substance if its speed is more than the speed of light?

Technically speaking, the speed of light limit only applies when you are in an "inertial frame" -- that is, sitting where you are, without any forces acting on you, and measuring the speed of an object that moves past a ruler and clock that you are holding in your hand. Across the large distances in the universe, however, we have a very different set of circumstances. No one is in an inertial frame, because everyone is being accelerated with respect to everyone else, due to the universe's gravitational field and the fact that the universe is expanding. In effect, the universe's expansion isn't really due to galaxies moving "through space" away from each other, but rather due to the stretching of space itself, which isn't governed by the same limits that we are.

Thus, although it's impossible to move through space (locally) faster than the speed of light, and it's impossible for anyone within the universe to send off a piece of "information" faster than the speed of light, it is still possible for the distances between faraway galaxies to increase faster than the speed of light, due to the rate at which the space between them is stretching.

Hope this helps

posted on Aug, 24 2011 @ 10:04 AM
My point still holds, if expansion is increasing then we are moving faster. The fact they see galaxys moving faster than the speed of light will be relative wont it? 2 bodies traveling at 51% speed of light away from each other then thier relative speed apart will be 102% speed of light wont it ? That does not mean matter has reached the speed of light

It is impossible to for matter to travel at the speed of light and i think we all know why.

posted on Aug, 24 2011 @ 12:38 PM

My point still holds, if expansion is increasing then we are moving faster. The fact they see galaxys moving faster than the speed of light will be relative wont it? 2 bodies traveling at 51% speed of light away from each other then thier relative speed apart will be 102% speed of light wont it ? That does not mean matter has reached the speed of light

It is impossible to for matter to travel at the speed of light and i think we all know why.

Seems either you did not read the material or did not understand the material. Expansion of space is not the same as moving faster. Please read and then comment because your suggestion is false - the material discusses why it is false.

posted on Aug, 24 2011 @ 01:22 PM

Your correct i did not follow your link but perhaps you did not understand my reply to you. Do you know the principles of Galilean invariance and if so could you please explain to me how the expansion of space would put objects influenced by that expansion outside the principles of Galilean invariance.

I admit i am a complete novice here so your help in aiding my understanding would truly be appreciated.

posted on Aug, 24 2011 @ 05:18 PM

I have to admit I did not know the term Galilean invariance although I though the principle. Definitely a thumbs up for pointing out the proper term to me. Much appreciated.

The issue is that the expansion of the universe is a change in the space. And altering space does not mean that the classical or relativistic issues are compromised.

In an inertial reference frame we cannot tell if we are in motion or not. The Earth appears to be stationary. For most purposes that is true. We do notice some discrepancies such as the Sun moving. For short times we can assume that the Earth or a moving car or a moving train is an inertial reference frame.

Suppose we were in a dark room and that we cannot see the Sun or Moon or stars. We could detect that we are not in an inertial reference frame with Foucault's pendulum.
Foucault pendulum - wikipedia

When the expansion is due to space we do not see any indication that this are changing because the change is between our position and some other remote position. The expansion rate is so small that it is only apparent when looking at objects that are very far away.

posted on Aug, 24 2011 @ 06:36 PM

Originally posted by stereologist
reply to post by Wobbly Anomaly

Relative to the immediate environment, eg a plane relative to the ground.

So you claim again that we are more and more able to move relative to our immediate environment. That isn't true is it? Limitations caused by physical processes such as the speed of sound are the limiting factors and those have been tested decades ago.

No argument about limiting factors, its our exponential acceleration towards those limitations that i was using as examples.

posted on Aug, 24 2011 @ 09:11 PM
reply to post by Wobbly Anomaly

But we aren't.

posted on Aug, 25 2011 @ 01:42 AM

Originally posted by stereologist
reply to post by Wobbly Anomaly

But we aren't.

Maybe you aren't, (I respect your right, in principle, to be whatever you like
) but some of us certainly are. You know it would have taken my Grandfather days if not weeks to travel to the other side of the world at the turn of the 20th Century, now, its hours, unless you are in a space rocket, then it would be even quicker.(Although i still respect your right to believe that we havnt improved on travel times.)

posted on Aug, 25 2011 @ 08:04 AM
reply to post by Wobbly Anomaly

Although i still respect your right to believe that we havnt improved on travel times.

Not sure how to make my position simpler to understand.

1. We are able to travel faster.
2. The improvements are not exponential.

Is that understandable or do you want to continue to misrepresent my position?

posted on Aug, 25 2011 @ 11:39 AM

Originally posted by stereologist

So you claim again that we are more and more able to move relative to our immediate environment. That isn't true is it?

Oops, sorry, wrong quote, i meant

Originally posted by stereologist

1. We are able to travel faster.

Originally posted by stereologist
Is that understandable or do you want to continue to misrepresent my position?

Yeah, crystal clear

Just one little question, do you want me not to misrepresent your first or second quotes.

posted on Aug, 25 2011 @ 12:07 PM
reply to post by Wobbly Anomaly

Just one little question, do you want me not to misrepresent your first or second quotes.

Taking stuff out of context to misrepresent AGAIN!

Too too your claims are all failures.

posted on Aug, 25 2011 @ 12:17 PM

I take it you're not counting down to transition. Party-pooper.

new topics

top topics

575