Re: Epistemology 201: The Science of Science
From: Lester Zick (lesterDELzick_at_worldnet.att.net)
Date: 03/03/05
- Next message: aeo6: "Re: Epistemology 201: The Science of Science"
- Previous message: Gib Bogle: "Re: Sieve distinction, prime counting"
- In reply to: aeo6: "Re: Epistemology 201: The Science of Science"
- Next in thread: aeo6: "Re: Epistemology 201: The Science of Science"
- Reply: aeo6: "Re: Epistemology 201: The Science of Science"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Thu, 03 Mar 2005 19:43:19 GMT
On Thu, 3 Mar 2005 12:53:41 -0500, Tony Orlow (aeo6)
<aeo6@cornell.edu> in comp.ai.philosophy wrote:
>Lester Zick said:
>> On Wed, 2 Mar 2005 16:15:55 -0500, Tony Orlow (aeo6)
>> <aeo6@cornell.edu> in comp.ai.philosophy wrote:
>>
>> >Lester Zick said:
>> >> On Wed, 2 Mar 2005 15:02:54 -0500, Tony Orlow (aeo6)
>> >> <aeo6@cornell.edu> in comp.ai.philosophy wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >robert j. kolker said:
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Tony Orlow (aeo6) wrote:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> > As I said, if the frequency degrades to the point of zero at 15 billion
>> >> >> > years, does it become negative after that, or does the amplitude just
>> >> >> > disappear, causing a lack of coonservation of energy?
>> >> >>
>> >> >> What is negative frequency? Frequency is the cycle count per unit time
>> >> >> of an oscillator.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Bob Kolker
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >That's my point. The hypothesis leads to illogical conclusions.
>> >> >
>> >> >I guess negative frequency would mean the light turns around and heads
>> >> >the other direction? Is this right, Lester? Is that what happens after
>> >> >15 billion years?
>> >>
>> >> Sure, Tony, that's what happens. Then it begins to smile to itself
>> >> after putting on over on us all. Does the approximation for pi ever
>> >> start going backward, Tony? Same principle, similar mechanics.
>> >>
>> >> Regards - Lester
>> >>
>> >It would be the same if the digits of pi stopped at some point, say
>> >after 15 billion decimal places, but it doesn't. Why this event horizon,
>> >and what happens to the light after that point? What does the proportion
>> >of implied speed to distance tell us if not the age of our spacetime?
>>
>> The age of the light. The proportionality is actually only to distance
>> traveled regardless of whether you interpret the distance as a measure
>> of time or anything else. Slower light just traverses less distance in
>> direct proportion to its velocity. The slowing doesn't need to be
>> linear for the effect to be linear and it never goes negative.
>>
>> Regards - Lester
>>
>Huh? So all light is the same age, whether coming from a nearby star or
>a distant galaxy? Slower light goes the same velocity but less distance
>in the same amount of time? Huh? Get some sleep or lay off the ipecac
No, Tony, all light is not the same age. Can't imagine why you thought
I said so. I don't know where you get these measures of time you refer
to. There is only space out there and EM radiation frequency. Apart
from that there is no time. Slower light doesn't go the same velocity.
That's why there's a cosmic redshift to begin with.
Regards - Lester
- Next message: aeo6: "Re: Epistemology 201: The Science of Science"
- Previous message: Gib Bogle: "Re: Sieve distinction, prime counting"
- In reply to: aeo6: "Re: Epistemology 201: The Science of Science"
- Next in thread: aeo6: "Re: Epistemology 201: The Science of Science"
- Reply: aeo6: "Re: Epistemology 201: The Science of Science"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|