Can we detect a blueshift of –c?

[Brad Guth]

In other words, if something substantial (such as a 10 solar mass
super-star and its tidal swarm of Jupiter+ planets) was headed as
seemingly directly towards us at –c (-299.8e3 km/sec), could that item
regardless of its size, mass and vibrance be detected?

Brad Guth, Brad_Guth, Brad.Guth, BradGuth, BG / “Guth Usenet”

[artful]

Nothing with mass can have a speed of c .. so your question is not
valid. But if it was travelling fast enough, its light would be
Doppler shifted to beyond the visible spectrum .. but then, and lower
frequency EMR from it could be shifted into the visible spectrum.

[Brad Guth]

We're told by our peers that the outer parts of our universe is likely
expanding/receding at c, as sort of leaving us in its photon dust that
we'll never detect.

Stop avoiding the truth-seeking context or intent of my topic.

LHC proves that matter can be artificially directed towards other
matter at a closing velocity of <2c.

~ BG

[dlzc]

Dear Brad Guth:

On Apr 21, 5:35 pm, Brad Guth <bradg...@gmail.com> wrote:
> In other words, if something substantial (such as a 10
> solar mass super-star and its tidal swarm of Jupiter+
> planets) was headed as seemingly directly towards us
> at –c (-299.8e3 km/sec), could that item regardless of
> its size, mass and vibrance be detected?

I'll assume just a tad under light speed...

There would be a glowing path of destruction in its wake, and even
more energetic particles leading it. There are very few directions
that would not show its passage towards us.

Note that the blue shift would make even a brown dwarf into something
quite bright, and deadly.

David A. Smith

[BURT]

Increased strength of gravity blueshifts light from its fundamental by
gravity Gamma factor.

Mitch Raemsch
Mitch Raemsch

[Brad Guth]

Are you suggesting gravity has the same velocity as photons?

I thought gravity was worth at least 2c.

~ BG

[Uncle Al]

Brad Guth wrote:
>
> In other words, if something substantial (such as a 10 solar mass
> super-star and its tidal swarm of Jupiter+ planets)

Do you drip bullsht everytime your tongue falls out from between your
lips? Yes.

> was headed as
> seemingly directly towards us at –c (-299.8e3 km/sec), could that item
> regardless of its size, mass and vibrance be detected?

1) Gliese 710

http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/whammo.htm

2) Bloody stooopid scenario - there is a hydrogena atom/m^3 in
interstellar vacuum. Yeah we'd see it. What do you plan to do about
it?

3) idiot

--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz4.htm

[Uncle Al]

Brad Guth wrote:
[snip crap]

> We're told by our peers that the outer parts of our universe is likely
> expanding/receding at c, as sort of leaving us in its photon dust that
> we'll never detect.

[snip rest of crap]

YOUR peers, not ours. You are not a peer of Uncle Al, you are a
dogshit being scraped from his shoe.

idiot

> LHC proves that matter can be artificially directed towards other
> matter at a closing velocity of <2c.

For velocities at an arbitrary angle theta,

u_parallel = (u'_parallel + v)/(1+(v dot u')/c^2)
u_perp = u'_perp/(gamma_v(1+(v dot u')/c^2))

(idiot)^2

[Brad Guth]

Yes, but a closing velocity of -c means we wouldn't detect the fast
moving item itself, which means those badly perturbed and glowing
items in its "path of destruction" might only be detected after the
primary item encountered us, and long before then we'd all be
vaporized just by the forward shockwave.

~ BG

[BURT]

>  ~ BG- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Two light waves traveling toward one another (in a gravity) would
converge on a center at 2C.

Mitch Raemsch

[Brad Guth]

That seems likely, but even if each were making a velocity towards the
other at .5c for a closing velocity of c, could we as one item detect
the other?

~ BG

[artful]

On Apr 22, 10:56 am, Brad Guth <bradg...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Apr 21, 5:41 pm, artful <artful...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Apr 22, 10:35 am, Brad Guth <bradg...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > In other words, if something substantial (such as a 10 solar mass
> > > super-star and its tidal swarm of Jupiter+ planets) was headed as
> > > seemingly directly towards us at –c (-299.8e3 km/sec), could that item
> > > regardless of its size, mass and vibrance be detected?
>
> > > Brad Guth, Brad_Guth, Brad.Guth, BradGuth, BG / “Guth Usenet”
>
> > Nothing with mass can have a speed of c .. so your question is not
> > valid.  But if it was travelling fast enough, its light would be
> > Doppler shifted to beyond the visible spectrum .. but then, and lower
> > frequency EMR from it could be shifted into the visible spectrum.
>
> We're told by our peers that the outer parts of our universe is likely
> expanding/receding at c,

There is nothing massive there moving away at c .. the edge that one
could consider as expanding at c has no mass.

> as sort of leaving us in its photon dust that
> we'll never detect.
>
> Stop avoiding the truth-seeking context or intent of my topic.

I'm not

> LHC proves that matter can be artificially directed towards other
> matter at a closing velocity of <2c.

Irrelevant .. nothing with mass can move at c (or greater relative to
another object.

That one can have two object both moving just under c toward (or away)
from each other having a vector difference in their velocity
approaching 2c does NOT mean that one has a speed of >c relative to
the other.

You need to understand the difference between closing speed (the
difference in speeds between two objects in some frame) and the speed
of a single object in a frame.

[artful]

SR would say gravity 'moves' at c.

[artful]

On Apr 22, 11:56 am, Brad Guth <bradg...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Apr 21, 6:12 pm, dlzc <dl...@cox.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > Dear Brad Guth:
>
> > On Apr 21, 5:35 pm, Brad Guth <bradg...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > In other words, if something substantial (such as a 10
> > > solar mass super-star and its tidal swarm of Jupiter+
> > > planets) was headed as seemingly directly towards us
> > > at –c (-299.8e3 km/sec), could that item regardless of
> > > its size, mass and vibrance be detected?
>
> > I'll assume just a tad under light speed...
>
> > There would be a glowing path of destruction in its wake, and even
> > more energetic particles leading it.  There are very few directions
> > that would not show its passage towards us.
>
> > Note that the blue shift would make even a brown dwarf into something
> > quite bright, and deadly.
>
> > David A. Smith
>
> Yes, but a closing velocity of -c means we wouldn't detect the fast
> moving item itself,

You mean a speed of c relative to us .. that cannot happen

[snip conclusions from incorrect assumption]

[artful]

Why not ?

[palsing]

Do you 2 just make this stuff up as you go along? Your collective
knowledge of physics is quite diminutive.

[BURT]

But light never travels in empty space at .5c

[Sam Wormley]

I though you knew that mass cannot move at c for any inertial
observer. Your question makes no sense given that c is the
cosmic speed limit.

[BURT]

How does light reach light speed?

It doesn't accelerate so it must be pushed in some way.

Mitch Raemsch

[Brad Guth]

On Apr 21, 9:22 pm, Sam Wormley <sworml...@gmail.com> wrote:

In other words, you don't understand the question.

Should any parts or items of our universe be collapsing towards us at –
c, could we detect it?

~ BG

[Brad Guth]

Don't confuse our mainstream parrots and brown-nosed clowns with
deductive logic.

Just keep asking them; should any parts or items of our universe be

[Brad Guth]

In other words, you simply don't understand the question.

Should any parts or items of our universe be collapsing towards us at –

[Sam Wormley]

Everywhere we look the universe is expanding.

No Center
http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/nocenter.html
http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/infpoint.html

Also see Ned Wright's Cosmology Tutorial
http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmolog.htm
http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmology_faq.html
http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/CosmoCalc.html

WMAP: Foundations of the Big Bang theory
http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/m_uni.html

WMAP: Tests of Big Bang Cosmology
http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/m_uni/uni_101bbtest.html

[Brad Guth]

I didn't say it did, or didn't.

Forget about the speed of those mystery photons, and just focus upon
detecting whatever's coming towards us at -c. (just like our universe
is supposedly expanding at c)

~ BG

[Brad Guth]

So what makes a photon go? While you're at it, tell us how fast is
gravity and what makes it go?

~ BG

[Peter Webb]

Some parts of the Universe are moving towards us at speed c.

Some of the light from other galaxies, for example.

We can know nothing about this light until it actually reaches us. No
information (eg that light was emitted by a distant galaxy) can travel
faster than c.

[Brad Guth]

So what makes a photon go?

What makes gravity go?

How fast is gravity?

Tell us why a quantified finite supply of photons go in only one
direction, whereas immortal gravity seems to continuously go in all
directions at the same time.

Once more: Should any parts or items of whatever’s in our universe be

collapsing towards us at –c, could we detect it?

[Brad Guth]

On Apr 21, 10:58 pm, "Peter Webb"

Perhaps as far as we know, yet gravity and the information it
represents seems to be worth at least 2c.

~ BG

[Sam Wormley]

On 4/22/10 1:04 AM, Brad Guth wrote:

>
> So what makes a photon go?

Why do you think something has to "make" it go? It only
exists propagating at c.

>
> What makes gravity go?

What make you think that something has to "make" it go?
gravitation is the curvature of spacetime. Einstein's
model of gravitation and the predictions his theory make
have never been contradicted by an observation.

>
> How fast is gravity?

I suspect you are referring to gravity waves--Yes? See the
Physics FAQ: Does gravity travel at the speed of light?
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/GR/grav_speed.html

>
> Tell us why a quantified finite supply of photons go in only one
> direction, whereas immortal gravity seems to continuously go in all
> directions at the same time.

You are becoming ILLUCID... Ask a question that makes some sense.

>
> Once more: Should any parts or items of whatever’s in our universe be
> collapsing towards us at –c, could we detect it?

Everywhere we look the universe is expanding.

[Peter Webb]

"Brad Guth" <brad...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:90d95c55-3fda-4e4a...@m25g2000prj.googlegroups.com...

______________________

I think its worth much more than 2 cents. If nothing else, it keeps the
earth in orbit around the Sun.

[G. L. Bradford]

"Sam Wormley" <swor...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:MJidnTKmdK_cdFLW...@mchsi.com...

======================

"Everywhere we look the universe is expanding."

Which universe, Sam? Just arbitrarily speaking, there are a minimum of
13.75 billion universes showing. A minimum of 13.75 billion very thin
time-slice universes observed for [our] observable universe. In total view,
the observed universe is a total fiction that [as observed whole] does not
exist in space, never existed in space at any time, never existing [in] any
time at all.

The onion skin time-slice of universe that is observed to be the largest
of them all is the slice farthest out from Earth along every single spoke
out, with Earth HERE-NOW (0) occupying the tiniest space-time universe
[observed] of all. Now tell me, Sam, is there any spatial universe out there
existing in the same moment of time as Earth here-now? You keep telling us
you astronomers can see what the rest of us can never see, a universe
simultaneous with Earth. An expanding one at that when the fact is
space-time contracts in upon HERE-NOW beginning from the largest observed
horizon-universe of space-time most distant from any HERE-NOW and
progressing through progressively smaller slices (progressively smaller
layers) until contraction reaches the smallest slice of all, the Earth (0)
or any other unobserved HERE-NOW (0) simultaneous with it (0=0) 13.75
billion space-time-slice universes (-) [in] from the biggest horizon-slice
of them all outermost (-(-)-).

It expands from the smallest slice observed (the most interior horizon
(0)) to the biggest slice observed (the most distant exterior horizon
(-(-)-)). Horizons will always expand away in every direction from HERE-NOW
(both macroverse and microverse horizons) toward an impossible to observe
infinity (thus toward a not-so-impossible-to-observe closed up and collapsed
horizon-constant of it. Infinity going away into how many points of distant
horizon? Into how many holes? How [distantly] densely packing?).

GLB

=====================

[HVAC]

"G. L. Bradford" <glbr...@insightbb.com> wrote in message
news:uZ-dneW_F_hbm03W...@insightbb.com...

>
> The onion skin time-slice of universe that is observed to be the largest
> of them all is the slice farthest out from Earth along every single spoke
> out, with Earth HERE-NOW (0) occupying the tiniest space-time universe
> [observed] of all. Now tell me, Sam, is there any spatial universe out
> there existing in the same moment of time as Earth here-now? You keep
> telling us you astronomers can see what the rest of us can never see, a
> universe simultaneous with Earth. An expanding one at that when the fact
> is space-time contracts in upon HERE-NOW beginning from the largest
> observed horizon-universe of space-time most distant from any HERE-NOW and
> progressing through progressively smaller slices (progressively smaller
> layers) until contraction reaches the smallest slice of all, the Earth (0)
> or any other unobserved HERE-NOW (0) simultaneous with it (0=0) 13.75
> billion space-time-slice universes (-) [in] from the biggest horizon-slice
> of them all outermost (-(-)-).

Gee. And I thought *I* had it bad dealing with
the aether people.

[bert]

Sam Never change the speed of light. Once you do you end up in a dark
tonnel with no light at its end. Brad gets a -D for this crazy
thinking TreBert

[bert]

Photons are emmited out of the spinning cloud of the electron at the
speed of 186,242 mps There speed is set. There are photons from the
BB that are still here at this spacetime. Think micro-wave
readiation. I have thought about photons all my life. I have stopped
and took the fastest pictures in the world. I have built a machanical
white light laser. Yes I am very clever. Give me 7 billion bucks and
I will build you a pulse fusion machine TreBert.

[Brad Guth]

In other words, you don't know: "Can we detect a blueshift of –c?"

Redshift is obviously mainstream approved, but blueshift isn't?

Obviously we can't seem to detect 100% redshift of c, so I'd doubt -c
being detectable. Supposedly our universe radii is getting another ly
larger per year, and as such it's undetectable.

~ BG

[Brad Guth]

On Apr 21, 11:25 pm, "Peter Webb"
<webbfam...@DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> wrote:
> "Brad Guth" <bradg...@gmail.com> wrote in message

I agree, gravity could be as fast as c2 (9e16 m/s).

btw; whatever happened to those planets orbiting Sirius(B)?

~ BG

[Brad Guth]

In other words, you don't really know, but you like pretending that
you know everything.

Can we detect a blueshift of –c?

~ BG

[Antares 531]

That would have been ¢, not c.

[Brad Guth]

On Apr 21, 7:33 pm, artful <artful...@hotmail.com> wrote:

> On Apr 22, 11:25 am, Brad Guth <bradg...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Apr 21, 6:15 pm, BURT <macromi...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Apr 21, 5:56 pm, Brad Guth <bradg...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On Apr 21, 5:41 pm, artful <artful...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>

> > > > > On Apr 22, 10:35 am, Brad Guth <bradg...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > In other words, if something substantial (such as a 10 solar mass
> > > > > > super-star and its tidal swarm of Jupiter+ planets) was headed as
> > > > > > seemingly directly towards us at –c (-299.8e3 km/sec), could that item
> > > > > > regardless of its size, mass and vibrance be detected?
>
> > > > > > Brad Guth, Brad_Guth, Brad.Guth, BradGuth, BG / “Guth Usenet”
>

> > > > > Nothing with mass can have a speed of c .. so your question is not
> > > > > valid.  But if it was travelling fast enough, its light would be
> > > > > Doppler shifted to beyond the visible spectrum .. but then, and lower
> > > > > frequency EMR from it could be shifted into the visible spectrum.
>
> > > > We're told by our peers that the outer parts of our universe is likely
> > > > expanding/receding at c, as sort of leaving us in its photon dust that
> > > > we'll never detect.
>
> > > > Stop avoiding the truth-seeking context or intent of my topic.
>
> > > > LHC proves that matter can be artificially directed towards other
> > > > matter at a closing velocity of <2c.
>
> > > >  ~ BG
>
> > > Increased strength of gravity blueshifts light from its fundamental by
> > > gravity Gamma factor.
>
> > > Mitch Raemsch
>
> > Are you suggesting gravity has the same velocity as photons?
>
> > I thought gravity was worth at least 2c.
>

> SR would say gravity 'moves' at c.

In that case it should be easy to objectively prove. So why hasn't it
been proven?

~ BG

[dlzc]

Dear Brad Guth:

On Apr 21, 10:46 pm, Brad Guth <bradg...@gmail.com> wrote:
...

> Should any parts or items of our universe be collapsing
> towards us at – c, could we detect it?

No. The laws of physics do not permit detection of motion in raging
pink fairy Universes.

David A. Smith

[[SMF]]

Yeah, I want what he is smoking.

[Mathal]

On Apr 22, 6:35 am, Brad Guth <bradg...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Can we detect a blueshift of –c?
>
>  ~ BG

no.
No material object can travel at c or -c wrt any other material
object.
Blue and red shifted light from other galaxies simply tells us the
relative velocity of the two objects to each other.
Try asking what the limit is for red shift and blue shift as the
relative velocities of two objects approach c or -c.
The limit for red shift of objects moving away at relative speeds
approaching c is zero i.e. all frequencies from the object approach a
frequency of zero.
The limit for blue shift of objects moving towards us at relative
speeds approaching c is infinite i.e all frequencies of light from the
object approach infinity.
Mathal

[Sam Wormley]

On 4/22/10 3:19 AM, G. L. Bradford wrote:
> "Everywhere we look the universe is expanding."
>
> Which universe, Sam? Just arbitrarily speaking, there are a minimum of
> 13.75 billion universes showing. A minimum of 13.75 billion very thin
> time-slice universes observed for [our] observable universe. In total
> view, the observed universe is a total fiction that [as observed whole]
> does not exist in space, never existed in space at any time, never
> existing [in] any time at all.

Are you able to carry on reasonable conversations of a technical or
scientific nature face-to-face with other humans?

Look up "universe" in a dictionary. Probably a better scientific
definition for universe is everything to which we are causally
connected. Our observable universe extends back in time to about
13.7 billion years.

This should keep you busy for a while:
http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/CosmoCalc.html

[Sam Wormley]

c^2 = 8.98755179 × 10^16 m2/s2 in SI units

[G. L. Bradford]

"HVAC" wrote:

(snip)

=========================

Why is it that so many think they can safely ignore the general presence
of gravity throughout the universe? Particularly, the infinity?

And, where time is relative, so is space (spacetime or space-time).

Relative? Not so according to Sam. According to (Creationist) Sam both the
space and time of our "observable" universe are absolutes rather than
relatives. Not only absolutes, but in fact just one single absolute. To
travel to the Moon, Mars, Alpha Centauri, anywhere outside the Earth, the
physical traveler (physical and observed travelers -- just the same as with
physical and observed universes -- being one and the same entity to Sam)
would "retard" in time. The further out, the more "retarded in time"
physically as well as observably (remaining -just 1-dimensionally- the one
and the same [physical / observable] universe and traveler all the way).
Never SEPARATING into two (unobserved non-retarding physical) (observed
"retarding" image). Never EXPANDING in that separation.

GLB

========================

[Sam Wormley]

On 4/22/10 11:29 AM, G. L. Bradford wrote:
> Why is it that so many think they can safely ignore the general
> presence of gravity throughout the universe? Particularly, the infinity?
>
> And, where time is relative, so is space (spacetime or space-time).
>
> Relative? Not so according to Sam. According to (Creationist) Sam both
> the space and time of our "observable" universe are absolutes rather
> than relatives. Not only absolutes, but in fact just one single
> absolute. To travel to the Moon, Mars, Alpha Centauri, anywhere outside
> the Earth, the physical traveler (physical and observed travelers --
> just the same as with physical and observed universes -- being one and
> the same entity to Sam) would "retard" in time. The further out, the
> more "retarded in time" physically as well as observably (remaining
> -just 1-dimensionally- the one and the same [physical / observable]
> universe and traveler all the way). Never SEPARATING into two
> (unobserved non-retarding physical) (observed "retarding" image). Never
> EXPANDING in that separation.
>
> GLB

It is wrong to attribute words to another that were not written.

Brad--You appear NOT to understand many things that have been learned
over the past 400 years about the universe. Four hundred years ago
Kepler and Galileo changed our concept of the universe... and there
have been at least two more revolutions in cosmology since. Why do
you not bring yourself up2date on what the current evidence tells
us?

[Greg Neill]

Brad Guth wrote:

> In other words, you don't know: "Can we detect a blueshift of –c?"
>
> Redshift is obviously mainstream approved, but blueshift isn't?

Silly. Both are simply the result of the standard physics
of Doppler Shift.

>
> Obviously we can't seem to detect 100% redshift of c, so I'd doubt -c
> being detectable. Supposedly our universe radii is getting another ly
> larger per year, and as such it's undetectable.

100% red shift, to take your implied meaning, would result in
photon frequencies of zero by the time it arrived. That is,
an observer could not have any physical way to detect them
since relative to him the photons would have zero energy.
E = h*f .

The radius of the observable portion of our universe, that is
from where we are situated and looking out and back in time to
when the Big Bang happened, grows by a lightyear per year (if
we choose to interpret the lookback time as a measure of
distance -- there are several different ways to measure and
interpret distance in an expanding, curved space universe).

The universe as a whole, including the portion we can't see
(which is most of it) because it is beyond our comic horizon,
is expanding relative to us at rates greater than c. That is,
the space beyond the horizon is moving away from our local
region of space at greater than c, and the further away the
faster.

This is not in contradiction with Relativity, which places
constraints on how fast massive objects move *in* space, and
the speed of light *in* space as measured by a local observer.
Relativity does not place constraints on how quickly space
itself can expand.

[Brad Guth]

On Apr 22, 9:47 am, "Greg Neill" <gneil...@MOVEsympatico.ca> wrote:
> Brad Guth wrote:
> > In other words, you don't know: "Can we detect a blueshift of c?"
>
> > Redshift is obviously mainstream approved, but blueshift isn't?
>
> Silly.  Both are simply the result of the standard physics
> of Doppler Shift.
>
>
>
> > Obviously we can't seem to detect 100% redshift of c, so I'd doubt -c
> > being detectable.  Supposedly our universe radii is getting another ly
> > larger per year, and as such it's undetectable.
>
> 100% red shift, to take your implied meaning, would result in
> photon frequencies of zero by the time it arrived.  That is,
> an observer could not have any physical way to detect them
> since relative to him the photons would have zero energy.
> E = h*f .

I'll accept that.

>
> The radius of the observable portion of our universe, that is
> from where we are situated and looking out and back in time to
> when the Big Bang happened, grows by a lightyear per year (if
> we choose to interpret the lookback time as a measure of
> distance -- there are several different ways to measure and
> interpret distance in an expanding, curved space universe).
>
> The universe as a whole, including the portion we can't see
> (which is most of it) because it is beyond our comic horizon,
> is expanding relative to us at rates greater than c.  That is,
> the space beyond the horizon is moving away from our local
> region of space at greater than c, and the further away the
> faster.
>
> This is not in contradiction with Relativity, which places
> constraints on how fast massive objects move *in* space, and
> the speed of light *in* space as measured by a local observer.
> Relativity does not place constraints on how quickly space
> itself can expand.

Nor on how quickly it might contract as equally undetectable if that
blueshift is worth anything near -c. For all we know the undetected
portions of our universe are contracting/imploding, unless there's
something beyond that's pulling matter outwards.

~ BG

~ BG

[Greg Neill]

Of course even if regions of space beyond our cosmic
horizon were moving towards us at any rate we would
not be able to see them since light from there would
still have to cross the horizon in our direction and
that horizon is moving away at c; light there and
beyond can never reach us.

[HVAC]

"G. L. Bradford" <glbr...@insightbb.com> wrote in message

news:iJ6dnSmbjKkI5E3W...@insightbb.com...

>>
>> Gee. And I thought *I* had it bad dealing with
>> the aether people.
>>
>
> =========================
>
> Why is it that so many think they can safely ignore the general presence
> of gravity throughout the universe? Particularly, the infinity?

Huh? What the fuck does THAT mean?

>
> And, where time is relative, so is space (spacetime or space-time).
>
> Relative? Not so according to Sam. According to (Creationist) Sam both
> the space and time of our "observable" universe are absolutes rather than
> relatives. Not only absolutes, but in fact just one single absolute. To
> travel to the Moon, Mars, Alpha Centauri, anywhere outside the Earth, the
> physical traveler (physical and observed travelers -- just the same as
> with physical and observed universes -- being one and the same entity to
> Sam) would "retard" in time. The further out, the more "retarded in time"

Come on dude... You can't give me slow curves over the plate like that.

[spudnik]

slightly academic question, since
a freq. of zero is no energy (invisible) and
a freq. of infinity is when the object hits you, and
you "see" it.

unfortuantely for Olber, almost all of Universe is red-
shifted out of visible spectra, including most blue-
shifters, due supposedly to Hubble's being hounded
into saying that the shift is "Dopplerian."

>    The limit for blue shift of objects moving towards us at relative
> speeds approaching c is infinite i.e all frequencies of light from the
> object approach infinity.

thus:
the main, supposedly unsolved anomaly is that
the winters & nights are "warmer" than the days and
summers. now, how could taht, be?

thus:
the problem is that, although the GCMs are frought
with nearly irreducible uncertainties re clouds & vapor,
virtually all of the changes that effect these are made
by men on land; whereas the hydro cycle at sea is some-
what more of a constant. that's why,
they call it, the Anthropocene (viz,
the typical passive solar take on the urban heat islands, and
the UNIPCC's supposed fudge-factor to cover them,
which never seems to come-up in the actual articles
in the actual journals).

see my sig, which is like a letter
to my congressors -- no cap & trade Wall St. Bailout!

thus:
sorry; above, I should have said,
*Dirac's cool math*, interpreting de Broglie's fun idea etc.;
and, Schroedinger's cat should be credited,
with stomping the crap out of the whole confusion
between the mere mathematical duality
between his caretaker's wave-function, and
Pauli's matrix's point-particle --
don't combine them in one cat-dish!

thus:
R. Bucky Fuller was a funny guy, and your spiel about orbit
is a perfect counter to his blather about pi. on the other hand,
the vast majority of earth scientists don't know spherical trig.,
which Bucky did, in the command of a naval vessel,
just before radio came in (in their GCMs etc.,
the poles are singularities, as in a Mercator projection ... but
the space-science folks are *all* about the poles .-)
see color plates one & two in _Synergetics_.
http://www.rwgrayprojects.com/synergetics/synergetics.html

> And when the Earth orbits the sun, how often does it make a quick turn
> at a corner between two straight-line segments? And what kicks the
> Earth from one segment to the next?

thus:
space-time is merely ordinary phase-space, properly seen,
a la Lanczos' use of quaternions -- Death to the lightcone;
long-live the lightcone-heads!
so, are biquaternions non-associative, like octonions?
poor Minkowski, made his bizzare slogan about time *qua* the
graphed *function*
on a piece of paper, and then he died, and that ain't electronics *or*
rocketscience (like Bucky saith, It is *all* rocketscience .-)
the great geometer Minkowski, alas, puts his pants on,
one lightcone at a time, like any one else.

--No Cap and Trade Bailout for Wall Street and The City!
to whom it concerns;
as I comprehend it, after briefly speaking with Waxman at UCLA, his
bill does
the same as his '91 cap&trade bill under HW, on SO2 and NOx (viz,
acid rain); that is, it is just a "free trade" nostrum.

if Dubya had known that Kyoto was just another cap&trade "free trade"
nostrum,
I'm sure that he would have signed it, since he has been thoroughly
indoctrinated
in the MBA school on "British Liberal Free Trade" (cotton, sugar &
slavery etc.,
why the British organized and supported Secession with ships &
materiel) --
what the Revolution was mainly about -- not just,
Taxation without representation, as a la the Tea Party effetes and
the Encyclopedia Brittaninca!

Waxman perhaps has been too long on the job;
when I spoke to him at the Faculty Center, he seemed to be on drugs,
two,
a marked difference form when I saw him in P.Palisades. anyway,
as I asked him,
why can't we just have a very small Carbon Tax,
instead of letting the arbitrageurs run the bull & bear hijinx?

as they say, the bears make money, the bulls make money, and
the hogs always get slaughtered.

none of the (two) experts, I have read or asked,
thought that a tax would work as well, but that it was somehow
politically impossible.

--sooner,bri

[spudnik]

this reminds me of the old Ultraviolet Catastrophe,
when you take Hubble's opinion about the redshift,
being directly related to speeding-away ... and
there is no antilight; only antimatter.

what lies within the visible universe is still very,
very hard to elaborate, at very high redshifts, but
there are plenty of goofy theories.

> Of course even if regions of space beyond our cosmic
> horizon were moving towards us at any rate we would
> not be able to see them since light from there would
> still have to cross the horizon in our direction and
> that horizon is moving away at c; light there and
> beyond can never reach us.

thus:

[jbriggs444]

I suppose you think that's pretty fast, huh?
You probably that it's even faster than light
Imagine how much faster it sould be if we used cgs.

On the other hand, the speed of light is about 0.3 parsecs per year.
So the square of the speed of light is under 0.1 parsecs per year (per
year per parsec).

So it would seem that not only is the square of the speed of light a
lot faster than light, it's also a lot slower.

Could you please use dimensional analysis to resolve this conundrum
for us, oh one whose intellect is so massive as to form a a black
hole? (Information goes in, but it doesn't come out).

[Brad Guth]

Those Guth black holes are filled with positrons/antimatter. How's
that?

Gravity at c2 is just my honest swag, as provable as is the none-zero
mass of the Guth photon. I've also estimated there's <1e100 photons/
atom, and our universe is worth perhaps 1e84 atoms that never stop
making photons.

~ BG

[Brad Guth]

How about photons from a vibrant 10 solar mass star that's situated
well within our visual detection horizon of 13.7e9 ly, but trekking
directly towards us at -c?

~ BG

[BURT]

On Apr 21, 7:17 pm, Brad Guth <bradg...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Apr 21, 6:59 pm, BURT <macromi...@yahoo.com> wrote:

>
>
>
>
>
> > On Apr 21, 6:25 pm, Brad Guth <bradg...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Apr 21, 6:15 pm, BURT <macromi...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On Apr 21, 5:56 pm, Brad Guth <bradg...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > On Apr 21, 5:41 pm, artful <artful...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>

> > > > > > On Apr 22, 10:35 am, Brad Guth <bradg...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > In other words, if something substantial (such as a 10 solar mass
> > > > > > > super-star and its tidal swarm of Jupiter+ planets) was headed as
> > > > > > > seemingly directly towards us at –c (-299.8e3 km/sec), could that item
> > > > > > > regardless of its size, mass and vibrance be detected?
>
> > > > > > > Brad Guth, Brad_Guth, Brad.Guth, BradGuth, BG / “Guth Usenet”
>

> > > > > > Nothing with mass can have a speed of c .. so your question is not
> > > > > > valid.  But if it was travelling fast enough, its light would be
> > > > > > Doppler shifted to beyond the visible spectrum .. but then, and lower
> > > > > > frequency EMR from it could be shifted into the visible spectrum.
>
> > > > > We're told by our peers that the outer parts of our universe is likely
> > > > > expanding/receding at c, as sort of leaving us in its photon dust that
> > > > > we'll never detect.
>
> > > > > Stop avoiding the truth-seeking context or intent of my topic.
>
> > > > > LHC proves that matter can be artificially directed towards other
> > > > > matter at a closing velocity of <2c.
>
> > > > >  ~ BG
>
> > > > Increased strength of gravity blueshifts light from its fundamental by
> > > > gravity Gamma factor.
>
> > > > Mitch Raemsch
>
> > > Are you suggesting gravity has the same velocity as photons?
>
> > > I thought gravity was worth at least 2c.
>

> > >  ~ BG- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > - Show quoted text -
>
> > Two light waves traveling toward one another (in a gravity) would
> > converge on a center at 2C.
>
> > Mitch Raemsch
>
> That seems likely, but even if each were making a velocity towards the
> other at .5c for a closing velocity of c, could we as one item detect
> the other?
>
>  ~ BG- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Gravity moves with mass center so it can have a closing speed of 2C.

Mitch Raemsch

[Greg Neill]

Brad Guth wrote:

> How about photons from a vibrant 10 solar mass star that's situated
> well within our visual detection horizon of 13.7e9 ly, but trekking
> directly towards us at -c?

It can't. Nothing physical within our horizon can be
observed to move at or above c. Close to c, sure, but
not at or above.

The best a body can do is approach c with respect to
observers in its proximity (within the local region of
space moving with the Hubble flow). Every non-local
observer (such as us sitting a great distance away from
that region in our own local region) sees that region
of space moving away in bulk according to the Hubble
expansion, thus decreasing any net speed of approach.

[Anders Eklöf]

artful <artf...@hotmail.com> wrote:

> On Apr 22, 10:35 am, Brad Guth <bradg...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > In other words, if something substantial (such as a 10 solar mass
> > super-star and its tidal swarm of Jupiter+ planets) was headed as
> > seemingly directly towards us at –c (-299.8e3 km/sec), could that item
> > regardless of its size, mass and vibrance be detected?
> >
> > Brad Guth, Brad_Guth, Brad.Guth, BradGuth, BG / "Guth Usenet"
>
> Nothing with mass can have a speed of c .. so your question is not
> valid. But if it was travelling fast enough, its light would be
> Doppler shifted to beyond the visible spectrum .. but then, and lower
> frequency EMR from it could be shifted into the visible spectrum.

Please, don't feed...

--
I recommend Macs to my friends, and Windows machines
to those whom I don't mind billing by the hour

[artful]

It can't happen .. so why ask about it?

Every object with mass travels at less than c in our (and every) frame
of reference

[spudnik]

there is no direct observation of "moving away;"
it is all presupposition of a "Dopplerian" redshift (probably
related to a belief in Pascal's absolute vacuum; I mean,
he did do the experiment).

[BURT]

If light is absorbed sideways to motion instead of head on what kind
of energy shift will it have?

Mitch Raemsch

[spudnik]

that might affect the relative polarization of the wave.

many high-energy astrophysical experiments do not bother
wtih polarization, even though that's just about all
that there is to "see."

[BURT]

> > of energy shift will it have?- Hide quoted text -

>
> - Show quoted text -

If from ahead or behind there is an energy shift what about sideways
absorption of light?

It looks as if angle determines the energy shift. With a maximum, and
a zero for 90 degrees to motion.

Mitch Raemsch

[Brad Guth]

I wasn't asking for your subjective opinion of physics.

I was asking about photons from a vibrant 10 solar mass star that's

situated well within our visual detection horizon of 13.7e9 ly,

trekking directly towards us at -c. How would we ho about detecting
this 100% blue-shift?

~ BG

[Brad Guth]

Can we detect a blueshift of –c?

[Brad Guth]

On Apr 22, 2:17 pm, andekl_no@saaf_spam.se (Anders Eklöf) wrote:

> artful <artful...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > On Apr 22, 10:35 am, Brad Guth <bradg...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > In other words, if something substantial (such as a 10 solar mass
> > > super-star and its tidal swarm of Jupiter+ planets) was headed as
> > > seemingly directly towards us at –c (-299.8e3 km/sec), could that item
> > > regardless of its size, mass and vibrance be detected?
>
> > > Brad Guth, Brad_Guth, Brad.Guth, BradGuth, BG / "Guth Usenet"
>
> > Nothing with mass can have a speed of c .. so your question is not
> > valid.  But if it was travelling fast enough, its light would be
> > Doppler shifted to beyond the visible spectrum .. but then, and lower
> > frequency EMR from it could be shifted into the visible spectrum.
>
> Please, don't feed...

Can we detect a blueshift of –c?

[BURT]

>  ~ BG- Hide quoted text -

>
> - Show quoted text -

What if you are moving sideways to light when absorbing it? What shift
is it going to have?

There must be a maximum energy shift with drop off at different angles
of absorption.

Mitch Raemsch

[Brad Guth]

Interesting interpretation or notion, of perhaps a phase shift taking
place.

Sideways or angular encounters of photons is perhaps just interacting
with considerably more photons. Each and every nm3 of our universe
has it's own streams of photons.

~ BG

[BURT]

If there are angles of absorption straight front and back there would
be maximum red and blue shift. But sideways or 90 degrees should yield
no shift. And then there all the different angles and energies of red
and blue inbetween.

Mitch Raemsch

[G. L. Bradford]

"Sam Wormley" <swor...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:l9qdnbLCqtlQ703W...@mchsi.com...
> On 4/22/10 3:19 AM, G. L. Bradford wrote:
>> "Everywhere we look the universe is expanding."
>>
>> Which universe, Sam? Just arbitrarily speaking, there are a minimum of
>> 13.75 billion universes showing. A minimum of 13.75 billion very thin
>> time-slice universes observed for [our] observable universe. In total
>> view, the observed universe is a total fiction that [as observed whole]
>> does not exist in space, never existed in space at any time, never
>> existing [in] any time at all.
>
> Are you able to carry on reasonable conversations of a technical or
> scientific nature face-to-face with other humans?
>
> Look up "universe" in a dictionary. Probably a better scientific
> definition for universe is everything to which we are causally
> connected. Our observable universe extends back in time to about
> 13.7 billion years.
>
> This should keep you busy for a while:
> http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/CosmoCalc.html

=====================

And you will never understand that that is a constant base.....a base
(horizon) constant. It never was anything different (not even an eternity
ago) and it never will be anything different (not even in an eternity from
now). But you seem to be too stuck in the mud of just another version of
Creationism to even conceive of a continuing base (what would be considered
an 'endless beginning' that is at once also an 'endless end' -- an infinite
Singularity of singularities), thus continuance in the horizon over base, of
base, from base, to base..... A constancy of base and thus a constancy of
every single dimension or plane of complexity existing. Both macro- and
micro-verse horizon constant (exactly the same horizon constant).

After all these years you've come to remind me so much of what the
competent militaries of history and today have always called "a fourth class
officer." Otherwise, nothing but a digit, just a place fill (a low grade
hack) in your profession. Too bad.

GLB

====================

[Peter Webb]

"G. L. Bradford" <glbr...@insightbb.com> wrote in message

news:mbmdnT_wTsTV-0zW...@insightbb.com...

Wow. That's far out.

> After all these years you've come to remind me so much of what the
> competent militaries of history and today have always called "a fourth
> class officer." Otherwise, nothing but a digit, just a place fill (a low
> grade hack) in your profession. Too bad.
>
> GLB
>

Actually, he reminds me of what people call a "physicist".

OTOH, you remind me of how good dope was back in the 70s.

[Greg Neill]

See my first paragraph above.

If your observed star is relatively close by, it's observed
velocity will be limited by an upper bound approaching c.
The further away it is (and the closer it gets to our
cosmic horizon), the motion due to the expansion of the
space between us and it has to be added to its motion
through space, decreasing the net observed velocity.

Near the horizon, a body moving at near c in its local space
in a direction towards us will have a net velocity near
zero (the best it could do would be to stand still with
respect to us), and so its red shift would be very small.

There is no way for a body to be observed moving towards us
at c.

[J. Clarke]

If we accept Guth's premise that something is coming toward us at c,
leaving aside the issue of how that came to be, then it's not going to
be detectable in time to do anything useful since it's going to arrive
simultaneously with any light coming off it, so what's the point of
trying to detect it? If it exists we will be well aware of it for
perhaps a picosecond.

[Brad Guth]

Correct, whereas it's all relative to our cosmic velocity and/or phase
angle.

If we were moving towards that vibrant 10 solar mass star at c, I'm
not sure it ant any phase angle we'd see or detect anything, as well
as equally blind or unaware if we were moving away at c.

It seems photons are relatively slow, and otherwise we simply can't
detect a zero Hz or that of any Planck/∞ Hz photon. In other words,
under the right conditions it seems you can overrun out outrun a
photon.

~ BG

[dlzc]

Dear Brad Guth:

On Apr 22, 9:39 pm, Brad Guth <bradg...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Apr 22, 7:36 am, dlzc <dl...@cox.net> wrote:
> > On Apr 21, 10:46 pm, Brad Guth <bradg...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > ...
>
> > > Should any parts or items of our universe be collapsing
> > > towards us at – c, could we detect it?
>
> > No.  The laws of physics do not permit detection of
> > motion in raging pink fairy Universes.
>

> Can we detect a blueshift of –c?

We can detect blue shifts right up to -c. We cannot get any emitter
to -c to find out. We bounce visible light photons off of very high
speed electrons, and we get gamma ray photons with energies of up to
gamma^2 of the electrons.

In a Universe that permitted objects to move faster than c, the "death
train" you imagine would be preceeded by hosts of particles from
previous collisions at up to 2c. Unless some evil Cosmic A**hole
invented it to only collide with us.

David A. Smtih

[Jerry]

On Apr 21, 7:56 pm, Brad Guth <bradg...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Apr 21, 5:41 pm, artful <artful...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Apr 22, 10:35 am, Brad Guth <bradg...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > In other words, if something substantial (such as a 10 solar mass
> > > super-star and its tidal swarm of Jupiter+ planets) was headed as
> > > seemingly directly towards us at –c (-299.8e3 km/sec), could that item
> > > regardless of its size, mass and vibrance be detected?
>
> > > Brad Guth, Brad_Guth, Brad.Guth, BradGuth, BG / “Guth Usenet”
>
> > Nothing with mass can have a speed of c .. so your question is not
> > valid.  But if it was travelling fast enough, its light would be
> > Doppler shifted to beyond the visible spectrum .. but then, and lower
> > frequency EMR from it could be shifted into the visible spectrum.
>

> We're told by our peers that the outer parts of our universe is likely
> expanding/receding at c, as sort of leaving us in its photon dust that
> we'll never detect.

Space is expanding...big difference!
http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmology_faq.html#FTL

There is no conflict with special relativity.

> Stop avoiding the truth-seeking context or intent of my topic.
>
> LHC proves that matter can be artificially directed towards other
> matter at a closing velocity of <2c.

So what? Closing velocity is not a measured velocity. You've been
participating how many years on these newsgroups, and YOU STILL
DON'T KNOW THAT????

Jerry

[Androcles]

"Jerry" <Cephalobu...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:8f1ff9c1-2286-4ddf...@f17g2000vbd.googlegroups.com...

On Apr 21, 7:56 pm, Brad Guth <bradg...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Apr 21, 5:41 pm, artful <artful...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Apr 22, 10:35 am, Brad Guth <bradg...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > In other words, if something substantial (such as a 10 solar mass
> > > super-star and its tidal swarm of Jupiter+ planets) was headed as
> > > seemingly directly towards us at –c (-299.8e3 km/sec), could that item
> > > regardless of its size, mass and vibrance be detected?
>
> > > Brad Guth, Brad_Guth, Brad.Guth, BradGuth, BG / “Guth Usenet”
>
> > Nothing with mass can have a speed of c .. so your question is not
> > valid. But if it was travelling fast enough, its light would be
> > Doppler shifted to beyond the visible spectrum .. but then, and lower
> > frequency EMR from it could be shifted into the visible spectrum.
>
> We're told by our peers that the outer parts of our universe is likely
> expanding/receding at c, as sort of leaving us in its photon dust that
> we'll never detect.

Space is expanding...big difference!
http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmology_faq.html#FTL

There is no conflict with special relativity.

===================================================
You can whine and deny all to want to, fuckheaded bigot, but it's Einstein
and Tom&Jeery you are denying.

For a cosmic muon with v = 0.999c, it's natural lifespan = 2.2 usec.
ref: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muon

Einstein's calculation is tau = t * sqrt(1-v^2/c^2),
ref: http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/figures/img61.gif

2.2usec * sqrt(1-0.999^2) = 0.098362 usec

So cosmic muons which normally decay in 2.2 usec therefore map to "a
narrower set of values tau in the relatively moving frame"(--Tom&Jeery)
and only last for a maximum of 0.01 usec.
"These effects are regularly seen" -- Tom&Jeery.

I would estimate that more than likely you are a deranged insane old
faggot called "Tom the Minor Crank", pretending he could be the
pretty radiologist "Geraldine" he met in hospital when he went for an
X-ray, living out his fantasies on usenet and believing anyone can be
fooled by it.

REPEAT:
2.2 usec in the stationary frame, tau = 2.2 * sqrt(1-v^2/c^2) in the moving
frame. Einstein's equation - not a thing you can do about it, I can squeeze
your balls and you can only squeal. And I'm not letting go until you cry
"uncle" or fuck off out of here, you bastard. I'm teaching physics to guys
like Gehan and tords like you are in the way. Fucking weep, arsehole.
It is NOT possible that I have made a mistake, you FUCKING LYING
INCOMPETENT STOOOOOOOPID INSANE MORONIC ARROGANT
COWARDLY FRAUDULENT BIGOT, AS ALWAYS!

[Brad Guth]

That's exactly what I’d thought. If we're moving away or towards
other mass at c, we'd be oblivious to realizing its existence.

I understand there's a few rogue stars moving at 1500 km/sec, and it's
thought possible that stars further out could easily be moving at .5c,
so what if another star were moving towards the other at .5c, making
their mutual closing velocity c. Due to their relative closing
velocity being c, could either of those fast moving stars notice the
other? (I don't think so)

It seems anything moving away or towards us at c (relative to us)
becomes stealth/invisible. This simply means we’re always at some
degree of risk unless fast moving exogravity can be detected. A
neutron star or black hole closing in on us, even if it were passing
outside of Pluto could be a cosmic form of fatal attraction, whereas
just the gravitational shockwave of one light year radii alone could
perturb and/or traumatize most everything about our solar system.

~ BG

[G. L. Bradford]

"Peter Webb" <webbf...@DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> wrote in message
news:4bd17fc8$0$1783$afc3...@news.optusnet.com.au...

=========================

No, he won't. Neither he nor Park will remind you of anything like a
"physicist" in another few years of the regimes they've helped put in power
over the world. A good physicist, exactly like a good historian, can see the
big picture and accurately predict. There's actually no difference in the
physics. Gerard K. O'Neill or Stephen Hawking, or Will Durant or Edward
Gibbon, among many other competents in both fields, would tell you, or would
have told you, the same thing. Wormley and Park, very evidently, would not
be among them.

GLB

=========================

[Brad Guth]

Depending on its mass, the gravitational shockwave of perhaps one
light year radii could represent a 2 year window of realizing its
passing existence. Of course we'd likely be vaporized or at least
badly affected before we ever realized what just happened.

~ BG

[Double-A]

Any star moving towards us at the speed of light would be a black hole
relative to us (infinite mass). Also every photon it emitted in our
direction would also be a black hole, because 100 percent blue-shift
would cause the infinite energy resulting from that shift to be
confined to an infinitely small area, thus resulting in event horizons
forming. Unless there proves to be some truth to long range variable
speed light theories, there would be no way we could detect it before
it hit us!

Double-A

[Greg Neill]

I don't see why you persist in assuming the impossible.
A relative velocity of c or greater is simply not allowed
by nature.

>
> I understand there's a few rogue stars moving at 1500 km/sec, and it's
> thought possible that stars further out could easily be moving at .5c,
> so what if another star were moving towards the other at .5c, making
> their mutual closing velocity c. Due to their relative closing
> velocity being c, could either of those fast moving stars notice the
> other? (I don't think so)

Look up relativistic addition of velocities.

Closing velocity, as judged by a third party observer of two
separate objects closing on each other, is not at all the
same thing as one object moving at c or greater with respect
to the other; Each of the stars would see the other as moving
towards it at a velocity less than c. Neither star would be
invisible to the other.

>
> It seems anything moving away or towards us at c (relative to us)
> becomes stealth/invisible.

But nothing can so move. So your conclusions are not logical.

> This simply means we’re always at some
> degree of risk unless fast moving exogravity can be detected. A
> neutron star or black hole closing in on us, even if it were passing
> outside of Pluto could be a cosmic form of fatal attraction, whereas
> just the gravitational shockwave of one light year radii alone could
> perturb and/or traumatize most everything about our solar system.

And invisible pink elephants are a threat to ants of the
13th dimension. Makes as much sense.

[BURT]

You can leave a light wave behind when energy speed is below light.

Mitch Raemsch

[BURT]

Headed sideways light cannot have a blueshift or red shift. At all of
the other anlges it will.

Mitch Raemsch

[Brad Guth]

Then by all means use 99.9999% c for all I care. Isn't that what LHC
is accomplishing?

Can anything head-on detect those protons without their smashing into
those other retrograde protons?

Isn't LHC incapable of mustering up more than 0.0000000000000001% (a
long trillionth) of whatever magnetic and/or gravity potential or
density that black holes and neutron stars have to offer?

Can we see or detect any -99.9999%c photons? (I don't think so)

>
> > I understand there's a few rogue stars moving at 1500 km/sec, and it's
> > thought possible that stars further out could easily be moving at .5c,
> > so what if another star were moving towards the other at .5c, making
> > their mutual closing velocity c.  Due to their relative closing
> > velocity being c, could either of those fast moving stars notice the
> > other? (I don't think so)
>
> Look up relativistic addition of velocities.
>
> Closing velocity, as judged by a third party observer of two
> separate objects closing on each other, is not at all the
> same thing as one object moving at c or greater with respect
> to the other; Each of the stars would see the other as moving
> towards it at a velocity less than c.  Neither star would be
> invisible to the other.

You have something/anything other than theory backing that up?

Are you suggesting that black hole horizons or any other form of
gravity induced horizons or lensing distortions do not exist?

Are you suggesting that photons do not exist within a black hole?

>
> > It seems anything moving away or towards us at c (relative to us)
> > becomes stealth/invisible.
>
> But nothing can so move.  So your conclusions are not logical.

My conclusions or interpretations are perhaps just as logical as are
your suggestions that photons are of zero mass and that cosmic photon
horizons do not exist. You might as well stipulate that gravity isn't
caused by and/or affected/distorted by anything.

>
> > This simply means we’re always at some
> > degree of risk unless fast moving exogravity can be detected.  A
> > neutron star or black hole closing in on us, even if it were passing
> > outside of Pluto could be a cosmic form of fatal attraction, whereas
> > just the gravitational shockwave of one light year radii alone could
> > perturb and/or traumatize most everything about our solar system.
>
> And invisible pink elephants are a threat to ants of the
> 13th dimension.  Makes as much sense.

Your Semitic Einstein anti-pink elephant gods are noted. Meanwhile,
we can't detect whatever's coming or going at -c or c. We can only
detect whatever's between -c and c (+/- 3e8 m/sec), and supposedly our
universe is still expanding itself at a redshift of c+, whereas
13.75e9 ly seems to be the relative horizon where the receding
elements that generate photons have reached their exit velocity of c,
whereas at 0.1 m/s slower than c they start becoming invisible.

~ BG

[Brad Guth]

I'll buy that, except there should be a fairly large radii Oort cloud
that could be detectable as we pass through or nearby. Our small and
relatively passive sun supposedly has a light year radii worth of Oort
cloud.

~ BG

[BURT]

>  ~ BG- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

What is the left over of the prior supernova? What if it left behind a
neutron star or core in the Oort cloud? We could test gravity.

Mitch Raemsch

[spudnik]

you (all) are presuming a corpuscular "light;"
das ist verboten, saith Schroedinger's joke-cat.

> If from ahead or behind there is an energy shift what about sideways
> absorption of light?

thus:
the whole basis, sometime since Ahrrenius coined "greenhouse
gasses," has been predicated on a simple lack
of a model of an ordinary glass house, say,
at a certain lattitude out of the tropics. not only
is "global" warming an oxymoron, nonsequiter, or
just a misnomer, by a very simple trig "model"
of insolation at any lattitude, but there are *no* datasets
that show such a phenomenon (extrapolating
from the handful that I ahve looked at,
more or less casually, over the decades).

and, yet, the climate is changing very rapidly
"in the Anthropocene," in line with the #1 anomaly,
that night & winter are "warming, faster,"
than at day & summer.

> Climate scientists at East Anglia University cleared by inquiry
> http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article7097234.ece

thus:
if you don't know any spherical trig, a la color plate one
in _S_, you might as well forget "it" (*mathematica* .-)
http://www.rwgrayprojects.com/synergetics/synergetics.html

thus:
with ships & materiel) -- what the Revolution was about -- not just,
Taxation without representation, a la the Tea Party effetes and
the Encyclopedia Brittaninca!
as they say, the bears make money, the bulls make money, and
the hogs always get slaughtered.
none of the (two) experts, I have read or asked,
thought that a Carbon Tax wouldn't work as well, just that
it was somehow politically impossible.

thus:
if some one gave a *reason* to redefine "twin primes,"
that'd be "mathematical" (proviso: er, maths;
math is four subjects, at minimum). as for the idea
of calling AP, an ultrafinitist, I only have two things
to say: a)
it wouldn't make any difference to him,
being a user of "E-prime," the joke-language
of Korbizynski (sp.?); b)
the Monster group's symmetry has a factoring
that is awfully similar to Bucky's here-to-fore silly
finite base for computation:
http://www.rwgrayprojects.com/synergetics/s12/p3100.html#1238.20

--Light: A History!
http://wlym.com

[Brad Guth]

On Apr 22, 4:01 pm, artful <artful...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On Apr 23, 6:05 am, Brad Guth <bradg...@gmail.com> wrote:

>
>
>
> > On Apr 22, 11:25 am, "Greg Neill" <gneil...@MOVEsympatico.ca> wrote:
>
> > > Brad Guth wrote:

> > > > On Apr 22, 9:47 am, "Greg Neill" <gneil...@MOVEsympatico.ca> wrote:
> > > >> This is not in contradiction with Relativity, which places
> > > >> constraints on how fast massive objects move *in* space, and
> > > >> the speed of light *in* space as measured by a local observer.
> > > >> Relativity does not place constraints on how quickly space
> > > >> itself can expand.
>
> > > > Nor on how quickly it might contract as equally undetectable if that
> > > > blueshift is worth anything near -c.  For all we know the undetected
> > > > portions of our universe are contracting/imploding, unless there's
> > > > something beyond that's pulling matter outwards.
>
> > > Of course even if regions of space beyond our cosmic
> > > horizon were moving towards us at any rate we would
> > > not be able to see them since light from there would
> > > still have to cross the horizon in our direction and
> > > that horizon is moving away at c; light there and
> > > beyond can never reach us.

>
> > How about photons from a vibrant 10 solar mass star that's situated
> > well within our visual detection horizon of 13.7e9 ly, but trekking
> > directly towards us at -c?
>

> It can't happen .. so why ask about it?
>
> Every object with mass travels at less than c in our (and every) frame
> of reference

In that case whenever unknowns or unexplainable things happen, we can
say with absolute "artful" certainty that it had absolutely nothing
whatsoever to do with anything moving along or closing at c or faster.

~ BG

[Peter Webb]

"G. L. Bradford" <glbr...@insightbb.com> wrote in message

news:hLKdnbeMKt7cTkzW...@insightbb.com...

______________________________________
So Wormley works for the CIA, huh?

<giggle>

[Brad Guth]

We could effectively and objectively test gravity within our Earth-
moon L1 (Selene L1).

~ BG

[BURT]

The lowest end of gravity is the Earth Moon system. If the star or
stars before the Sun left neutron cores behind we might more
effectively test our theories of gravity.

Mitch Raemsch

[tj Frazir]

c is constant BUT TIME is NOT.
Blue shift is not from speed its from time.

Gravity is the time slope around mass just as this red or blue shift is
a product of time not speed .

The visible edge of the universe is the time slope to the point time
becomes a strait line.

No two points in space are at the same time.
The fastest time is the center of an atoms G.
The slowest time is the farthest from G and is why it looks likethe
universe is expanding faster.
Its the universe in the flow of the slope in time around mass.
This is why the mass could excape the BB but not a black hole .
The mass of the universe in a basket ball has a time slope thats
allmost infinite insideit where all time is allmost at one point.
How it is tht all mass energy ,,,or all energy of the universe at one
point can only be when all time is at one point .
When all time was at one point the edge of the universe was instant .
There was no mass at the single point of time just energy ..all the
energ of the universe in the single point where all time was.

At some point all the universe will reach 14 bly and at some point all
the time will again be at one point in the center of the universe.

http://community.webtv.net/GravityPhysics/WhaleSteamEngineA

[BURT]

Blue shift is from gravity flow not from time.

Mitch Raemsch

[Brad Guth]

True, but we always know exactly where the zero delta-V of Selene L1
is, and it's extremely easy and efficient to get whatever to/from this
location.

~ BG

[Brad Guth]

That's good to know, even if the closing velocity were only reaching
99.9999%c. Perhaps all we need is a good Planck photon detector.

~ BG

[Brad Guth]

Our universe is supposedly expanding at the redshift of <c ot perhaps
even greater, and as such we can’t detect those items as they expand
away from us.

If something substantial (such as a 10 solar mass super-star and its
tidal associated swarm of Jupiter+ planets w/moons) was headed as

seemingly directly towards us at –c (-299.8e3 km/sec), could that item

regardless of size, mass and vibrance of energy be detected?

Once more on behalf of: “can we detect a blueshift of –c?”
Should any parts or items of whatever’s in our universe be collapsing

towards us at –c, could we detect it?

In other words, what exactly should a 100% blueshift of –c look or
detect like?

On Apr 22, 9:47 am, "Greg Neill" <gneil...@MOVEsympatico.ca> wrote:

> 100% red shift, to take your implied meaning, would result in
> photon frequencies of zero by the time it arrived. That is,
> an observer could not have any physical way to detect them
> since relative to him the photons would have zero energy.
> E = h*f .

Would any of those 100% red-shift photons of zero Hz ever arrive to be
detected?

Perhaps the opposite of 100% red-shift and zero Hz, being 100% blue-
shift makes every –c associated photon = Planck Hz or ∞Hz (as equally
invisible or undetectable).

[Brad Guth]

On Apr 23, 5:09 am, "Greg Neill" <gneil...@MOVEsympatico.ca> wrote:
: If your observed star is relatively close by, it's observed

: velocity will be limited by an upper bound approaching c.
: The further away it is (and the closer it gets to our
: cosmic horizon), the motion due to the expansion of the
: space between us and it has to be added to its motion
: through space, decreasing the net observed velocity.
:
: Near the horizon, a body moving at near c in its local space
: in a direction towards us will have a net velocity near
: zero (the best it could do would be to stand still with
: respect to us), and so its red shift would be very small.
:
: There is no way for a body to be observed moving towards
: us at c.

That's exactly what I’d thought. If we're moving away or towards
other mass at c, we'd be oblivious to realizing its existence.

I understand there's a few rogue stars within our galaxy moving at

1500 km/sec, and it's thought possible that stars further out could
easily be moving at .5c, so what if another star were moving towards

the other at .5c, making their mutual blue-shift closing velocity c.
Due to their relative closing velocity of this example being c, could

either of those fast moving stars notice the other? (I don't think so)

It seems anything moving away or towards us at c (relative to us)
becomes stealth/invisible. This simply means we’re always at some
degree of risk, unless fast moving exogravity flux can be detected. A
substantial neutron star or black hole closing in on us, even if it
were passing well outside of Pluto could be a cosmic form of fatal

attraction, whereas just the gravitational shockwave of one light year
radii alone could perturb and/or traumatize most everything about our
solar system.

Depending on its core mass (I’d suggested 2e31 kg), plus the
surrounding gravitational fields as to whatever assortments of planets
and assorted debris forming their combined ionized particle shockwave
as representing at the very least one light year radii should offer a
2 year window of realizing its passing existence (remember that our
own solar cryogenic Oort cloud has nearly a light year radii). Of

course we'd likely be vaporized or at least badly affected before we
ever realized what just happened.

NGO (near galactic object):
Encountering a large galactic mass of say 1.4e42 kg might for example
offer at least a 100,000 year window or cycle of detection. Perhaps a
reasonably deductive swag as to our global warming trend is just
offering such an indication (not that Newtonian tidal interactions
from our moon/Selene as well as Andromeda are insignificant and that
we humans haven’t been making our environment measurably worse),
whereas the mostly fluid mass of Earth is acting as a gravitational
tsunami detector of what we can’t otherwise manage to see or detect..

Even if Andromeda were to be closing at 99.9999% c, it would be a good
2.5 million years before those pesky galactic interactions started
taking place, plus another couple hundred thousand years of
considerable collateral damage before parting away from one another.
So, a fast arriving galaxy that’s invisible to us because of its
blueshift velocity, as such could become a real surprise once those
unexplained cosmic interactions start taking place.

~ BG

[Brad Guth]

On Apr 25, 11:16 am, Brad Guth <bradg...@gmail.com> wrote:

-c blueshifted gamma is just as undetectable as is c redshifted gamma.

Gamma packs a whole lot more individual photon energy than red. Gamma
is also lethal to most of everything it runs into, whereas red isn't.
However, most likely gamma still can't survive a direct encounter with
a proton or neutron, any better than a red photon.

In any direction or photon narrow pathway as headed away from a star,
there are always trillions of protons plus large numbers of other
particles directly in the path of a given photon. So, how do those
photons manage to avoid and otherwise navigate safely through that
sort of vast gauntlet?

13.75e9 light years is essentially 1.3e29 mm in any given radial
direction, and the average mm3 contains perhaps 0.001 particle,
electron/positron or dark and possibly inert matter of something.
This gives an estimate of there being 1.3e26 items directly in the
path of a given photon from a star or galaxy of stars <13.75e9 light
years away from us. In other words, the odds of a given photon
getting through is something worse than yocto:1 (1e24:1), whereas it
seems a given star would have to send out at least several yoctos
worth of photons for each and every pm2 area of its surface in order
that each and every mm2 area of our planet facing those photons gets a
look-see at perhaps as little as one photon/hour, all because most of
those original photons got diverted, converted or destroyed along the
way.

Perhaps this is why we can’t resolve even the point source of a
individual star at more than a few billion light years unless it’s one
of those 100+ solar mass of hyper illumination that’s running a
million fold brighter than our sun as having a trillion fold greater
UV saturation to boot. Super quasars or supernovas that exist beyond
our maximum telescope detections are only of those limited gamma
events, as otherwise no such individual stars can be resolved outside
of galactic clusters that also fade to nothing at roughly 13.75e9 ly,
and supposedly our universe radius is worth 50e9 ly and somehow
physically expanding at c.

Brad Guth / Blog and Google document pages:
http://bradguth.blogspot.com/
http://docs.google.com/View?id=ddsdxhv_0hrm5bdfj

[BURT]

>  http://docs.google.com/View?id=ddsdxhv_0hrm5bdfj- Hide quoted text -

>
> - Show quoted text -

If we are not moving toward or away from light what is its energy
shift? I believe it would be zero and the other angles from zero to a
maximum energy shift depending.

Mitch Raemsch