- Thank you received: 0
Red Shift
21 years 10 months ago #4395
by Mac
Replied by Mac on topic Reply from Dan McCoin
Rush,
Basically that is it. They discover objects measuring several thousand times the speed of light moving traverse (which means they don't have relative velocity to us otherwise they couldn't be seen) and conclude that red shift must be off by factors of thousands and the objects are therefore much closer and thereby reducing the lngth of the arc so that they aren't really exceeding the speed of light.
Why? Because Einstein could never be wrong could he? Of course he was wrong on several things before he passed. The Steady State Universe and his arbitrary cosmological constant for one. The 100,000,000 ly diameter of the universe for another, etc.
rather than admit that Relativity is bunk they look for alternative explanations for todays observations. Had Quasars moving this fast been discovered 100 years ago einsteins arbitrary mathematics to limit velocity to the speed of light would never have been introduced.
Mac
Basically that is it. They discover objects measuring several thousand times the speed of light moving traverse (which means they don't have relative velocity to us otherwise they couldn't be seen) and conclude that red shift must be off by factors of thousands and the objects are therefore much closer and thereby reducing the lngth of the arc so that they aren't really exceeding the speed of light.
Why? Because Einstein could never be wrong could he? Of course he was wrong on several things before he passed. The Steady State Universe and his arbitrary cosmological constant for one. The 100,000,000 ly diameter of the universe for another, etc.
rather than admit that Relativity is bunk they look for alternative explanations for todays observations. Had Quasars moving this fast been discovered 100 years ago einsteins arbitrary mathematics to limit velocity to the speed of light would never have been introduced.
Mac
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
21 years 10 months ago #4396
by rush
Replied by rush on topic Reply from
Thanks for your answer Mac.
I'm not sure if relativity is completely "bunk" but I'm pretty sure that it at least needs some kind of reformulation.
I'm not sure if relativity is completely "bunk" but I'm pretty sure that it at least needs some kind of reformulation.
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
21 years 10 months ago #4399
by Mac
Replied by Mac on topic Reply from Dan McCoin
rush,
I agree with that. For example tests do show increase in energy to increase velocity. The problem is they mis-interprete that to mean an increase in mass, which creates numerous conflicts of physics of reality.
It is better to view the process as a decrease in energy transfer efficiency - same result - but no physical mass change. The excess energy may be stored in the fabric of time-space like the energy around a coil. On decelerating the mass the energy is restored to the mass making its momentum appear to have been as a result of an increase in mass.
Mac
I agree with that. For example tests do show increase in energy to increase velocity. The problem is they mis-interprete that to mean an increase in mass, which creates numerous conflicts of physics of reality.
It is better to view the process as a decrease in energy transfer efficiency - same result - but no physical mass change. The excess energy may be stored in the fabric of time-space like the energy around a coil. On decelerating the mass the energy is restored to the mass making its momentum appear to have been as a result of an increase in mass.
Mac
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
- Larry Burford
- Offline
- Platinum Member
Less
More
- Thank you received: 0
21 years 10 months ago #4400
by Larry Burford
Replied by Larry Burford on topic Reply from Larry Burford
<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=2 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>[Mac]
The problem is they mis-interprete that to mean an increase in mass, which creates numerous conflicts of physics of reality.
It is better to view the process as ... (snip) ... no physical mass change.<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>
FYI, the "official view" of the General Theory of Relativity recognized this problem and made this exact change back in the 1980s.
(Keeping up is <b>not</b> easy.)
Regards,
LB
The problem is they mis-interprete that to mean an increase in mass, which creates numerous conflicts of physics of reality.
It is better to view the process as ... (snip) ... no physical mass change.<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>
FYI, the "official view" of the General Theory of Relativity recognized this problem and made this exact change back in the 1980s.
(Keeping up is <b>not</b> easy.)
Regards,
LB
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
21 years 10 months ago #4832
by mechanic
Replied by mechanic on topic Reply from
From Larry:
FYI, the "official view" of the General Theory of Relativity recognized this problem and made this exact change back in the 1980s.
If you are talking about differentiating rest mass from relativistic mass then that's not what Mac's is elluding to, I believe... He is saying something else, totally different in that respect.
From Larry:
(Keeping up is not easy.)
From Mechanic (me):
and catching up is even more difficult.
Time to fix some cars.
FYI, the "official view" of the General Theory of Relativity recognized this problem and made this exact change back in the 1980s.
If you are talking about differentiating rest mass from relativistic mass then that's not what Mac's is elluding to, I believe... He is saying something else, totally different in that respect.
From Larry:
(Keeping up is not easy.)
From Mechanic (me):
and catching up is even more difficult.
Time to fix some cars.
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
21 years 10 months ago #4885
by Mac
Replied by Mac on topic Reply from Dan McCoin
LB,
For a quote by Einstein himself go to:
hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/relativ/relcon.html#relcon
Then Click on "Relavistic Mass", scroll down and;
Then Click on "Problems with Relavistic Mass" at the bottom of that block.
Einstein knew that Relativity was invalid. He urged that they calculate an objects momentum, not its mass. Having things become infinite in mass creates unreconcilable physics problems with reality; especially when you consider that Relativity says it is equally valid to view either observer at rest and the other in motion.
Since all velocity is relative the function must be reversable which means two observers create two "Infinite Masses" at the same time and yet under go no mass change at the same time all depending on the "Observers" view points. They can't both be reality at the same time.
Creating "Infinite" momentum avoids the infinite mass problem but the hoax is exposesed via F = mc^2.
Today physicist still use "Infinite Mass" calculations to prove v = c is a limit. When there simply is no such limit because there is no (by Relativity) any such thing as absolute motion.
You can't impose a limit on something that you say doesn't exist.
If there is no such thing as absolute velocity there can be no absolute velocity limit.
Mac
For a quote by Einstein himself go to:
hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/relativ/relcon.html#relcon
Then Click on "Relavistic Mass", scroll down and;
Then Click on "Problems with Relavistic Mass" at the bottom of that block.
Einstein knew that Relativity was invalid. He urged that they calculate an objects momentum, not its mass. Having things become infinite in mass creates unreconcilable physics problems with reality; especially when you consider that Relativity says it is equally valid to view either observer at rest and the other in motion.
Since all velocity is relative the function must be reversable which means two observers create two "Infinite Masses" at the same time and yet under go no mass change at the same time all depending on the "Observers" view points. They can't both be reality at the same time.
Creating "Infinite" momentum avoids the infinite mass problem but the hoax is exposesed via F = mc^2.
Today physicist still use "Infinite Mass" calculations to prove v = c is a limit. When there simply is no such limit because there is no (by Relativity) any such thing as absolute motion.
You can't impose a limit on something that you say doesn't exist.
If there is no such thing as absolute velocity there can be no absolute velocity limit.
Mac
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
Time to create page: 0.292 seconds