It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

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

 

anyone with a base in physics.

page: 2
3
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 24 2009 @ 01:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by Cyberbian
Reason dictates that we should laugh when someone suggests we are so "lucky" as to be just the right distance and period from the first light to be able to witness it.

No, Cyberian. At any time and any location in the universe, the light from the Big Bang will be visible. There is no coincidence here.


I believe in little c in accordance with the parameters of the theory which is in respect to frames of reference relative to a rotating sphere. And only to frames of reference relative to a rotating sphere. In fact it is the rotation of the sphere which causes the frame dragging.

No, you're getting Special and General Relativity mixed up, and much else besides. Frame dragging is a concept in GR, not SR. SR does not deal with the curvature of space.


c remains constant but the frequency red shifts. Consider the difference.

It is implicit in what I wrote in my earlier post. What would you have me consider?


I appreciate that most physicists jeer at such notions. However a few at the highest levels of the profession sometimes say things which make me think they may be closer in agreement with me than the others. Unfortunately they mostly speak in mathematics and I in logic.

No, that would be 'all physicists', though 'jeer' sounds a bit rude. Let's substitute 'reject' instead. For, moreover, very good reason.

Logic and mathematics are twin sisters. There is no contradiction between them.




posted on Aug, 24 2009 @ 07:02 PM
link   
Ok, so how does accepted physics deal with light "passing" an observer at c when the observer is moving at half of c, therefore necessitating it's premature arrival to a second observer farther on, who is moving faster and yet perceives it once again to be passing at c?

I say premature in the sense that if you plotted lights transit from point A to point C at the speed of light, it woud be logically required to arrive after light which passed B at 1.5c relative to position A.

(Observed relative to B, then apply simple addition to account for the speed of B away from A.)

Please do not tell me that A is moving away at half c. That would necessitate the entire universe moving away in the same direction, and my head would explode.

[edit on 24-8-2009 by Cyberbian]



posted on Aug, 24 2009 @ 11:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by Cyberbian
Ok, so how does accepted physics deal with light "passing" an observer at c when the observer is moving at half of c, therefore necessitating it's premature arrival to a second observer farther on, who is moving faster and yet perceives it once again to be passing at c?

Time dilation

The link is to a simplified, nontechnical presentation. If you would care for something with more meat in it, go here.

You need a grounding in the basics before one is qualified to discuss these things, I'm afaid.



new topics
 
3
<< 1   >>

log in

join