Re: Relative Movement vs. Moving through Space
From: kenseto (kenseto_at_erinet.com)
Date: 12/20/04
- Next message: Eugene Shubert: "Re: Why u (not =) u' in ANALYTICAL SPACE-TIME"
- Previous message: Creighton Hogg: "Re: my gravity theory"
- In reply to: glbrad01: "Re: Relative Movement vs. Moving through Space"
- Next in thread: glbrad01: "Re: Relative Movement vs. Moving through Space"
- Reply: glbrad01: "Re: Relative Movement vs. Moving through Space"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Mon, 20 Dec 2004 16:07:01 GMT
"glbrad01" <glbrad01@insightbb.com> wrote in message
news:csBxd.262932$HA.87147@attbi_s01...
>
> "kenseto" <kenseto@erinet.com> wrote in message
> news:g3gxd.651$mA3.274@fe2.columbus.rr.com...
> >
> > "glbrad01" <glbrad01@insightbb.com> wrote in message
> > news:80dxd.212572$5K2.77687@attbi_s03...
> >>
> >> "Randy Poe" <poespam-trap@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> >> news:1103398479.546058.274620@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> >> >
> >> > kenseto wrote:
> >> >> "Randy Poe" <poespam-trap@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> >> >> news:1103315281.087898.215470@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Show me EXACTLY how you determine relative motion from
> >> >> > absolute motion. Give me an example, with numbers.
> >> >>
> >> >> You will need to determine the absolute motions of A and B
> >> > experimentally
> >> >> before you can do such calculations.
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> > Ah, we're getting closer.
> >> >
> >> > OK, describe this experiment. How do I determine the absolute
> >> > motion of any object? For instance, how would I determine the
> >> > absolute velocity of the earth, or of the sun?
> >
> > You determine the absolute motion of the earth by doing the experiment
> > described in the following link (page 3):
> > http://www.journaloftheoretics.com/Links/Papers/Seto.pdf
> >
> > You don't need to determine the absolute motion of the sun to do
> > calculations. You can use SR/GR or IRT to do calculations. Why? Because
> > relative velocity is the vector difference of the vector component of
> > earth's absolute motion and the vector component of the sun's absolute
> > motion along the line of sight between the earth and the sun.
> >
> >>
> >> The one constant of velocity, the speed of light.
> >
> > The speed of light is constant in all frame because different observers
> > use
> > different amount of time (duration) to measure light speed. The speed of
> > light is a constant math ratio as follows:
> > Light path legnth of rod (299,792,458m)/the absolute time content for a
> > clock second co-moving with the rod.
> >>
> >> We have in view the proof of absolute motion, the so-called
> >> accelerating
> >> expansion of the Universe. I see it as accelerated 'expanse' of the
> > Universe
> >> OUT from a point in it, this Earth, rather than accelerating expansion,
> > but
> >> that is just how I see it. There isn't any difference between 300,000
> >> kilometers of space per one second time and 300,000 kilometers of space
> >> to
> >> one light second of time,
> >
> > this is not true. The constant speed of light needs a clock second to
have
> > the proper amount of duration (absolute time).
> >
> > Ken Seto
> >
>
> The map is never the territory mapped. Are you telling me it is? There
are
> seconds we use to describe time, then there are seconds we use to describe
> spatial distance between two points in space (such as between the Earth
and
> the Moon, or between the Earth and Mars, or as years, between the Sun and
> Alpha Centauri).
saigh....but this is assuming that the one-way speed of light in free space
is c. The one-way speed of light was never measured.
Kenb Seto
We use light-years to describe the distance in space, and
> in time, between the Earth and the farthest observed objects away from the
> Earth in the observable Universe. We describe an accelerating expansion of
> the Universe to these objects. Somewhere around 12.6 to 12.7 billion light
> years distant in space, and in time, the distant horizon [is the speed of
> light]. Astronomers have measured the rate of what appears to be
> acceleration, an increase of 160,000 mph per every 3,000,000 light years
> going away from the Earth toward that most distant horizon observable in
the
> Universe. Simply because other astronomers have given a figure of 13.7
> billion light years does not change where and when an increase of 160,000
> mph per every 3,000,000 light years reaches a velocity equal to the speed
of
> light.
>
> This comes back to us on Earth from there in space and then in time as
> there being no difference between the supposed spatial distance and the
> supposed time distance, observed. No difference involved for the farthest
> horizon, and no difference involved for any distant object outside the
Milky
> Way [region] of the universe observed anywhere, any when, between that
> horizon and us here on Earth. The constant of no difference is 300,000
> (rounded) kilometers of space to each 1 second of time, about 9.7 trillion
> kilometers of space to each 1 year of time, or the constant of the speed
of
> light when one converts "to" (as in 'position') to "per" (as in
'velocity').
>
> List some of the elementary conditions supposed for the Universe in the
> instant moment before, or the instant moment of, the so-called Big Bang.
> List some of the elementary conditions supposed for a constant Universe
> existing at the constant of the speed of light. List for me fundamental
> similarities and any fundamental differences in the two. Particularly any
> fundamental differences.
>
> On Earth here, we see its horizon in the distance from anywhere we are
> positioned on Earth. Spatial expanse expands away from us to it. That
> expanse geometrically expands away from us. All objects very rapidly
shrink,
> accelerate in shrinkage, going away (in space and in time) from us until
> they are lost in all that relatively vast expanse, or are lost over (or
in)
> the horizon. Why does any object [apparently] shrink, apparently
accelerate
> in shrinkage, the more distant it is from us, whether it is gaining in
> distance or is just distant (such as a line of similar dominoes where only
> the line itself travels away from us in space and in time rather than any
of
> the individual dominoes)?
>
> Detection of anything at any distance will always be history frame
timed.
> An earlier time frame will always be at the detector with all later time
> frames running later and ever later backward (going away from the
detector)
> toward the source space of any and all time frame propagators existing
> parallel in space and in time with a distant detector. The more distant
the
> propagator from the detector the greater likely-hood the time frame
arrived
> at the detector is of a source propagator no longer existing either where
or
> how the immediate time frame informs the detector it exists. We believe we
> are reaching out further and ever further distant into the Universe with
our
> Hubble telescopes and other detection instruments when the truth is they
> detect nothing whatsoever of the real space and time Universe but timed
> history frames, timed histories, immediately upon them (thus immediate to
> us). We here on Earth are totally blind to the reality of the Universe at
> large starting with any and all of the Universe just merest fractions of a
> light second distant from our detectors and us. The whole, entire,
Universe
> we observe is nothing more than the Universe immediately upon us,
immediate
> to us, or relative to us alone. We can [perceive] the Universe as it
should
> be with regard to distances closer to us but farther away than those
> histories' frames immediate upon us, but even our perception must become
> worse and ever worse with all growing distance away from us in space and
in
> time. We can [perceive] future histories that in themselves are already
> history, but not yet arrived to us or detectable by us, to some degree.
>
> Those future histories are what we travel, time-wise, when we travel to
> any destination. If we spin in place, say, they will just arrive to us in
> their later sequences from outside of us as if we were simply standing.
Time
> will advance uniformly per these later and ever later sequences arriving
to
> us no matter how we move or how fast. In traveling from point A to point
B,
> we will do nothing less than up the frequency of these future histories,
> these time frames, in order to reach point B. We have to speed up the
> frequency of light speed traveling time frames in order to just move,
> travel, across a room here on Earth. Whenever the frequency stays the
same,
> we stay equa distant from anything, which is say neither that anything or
us
> is moving. No distance, no relativity, is being gained or lost.
>
> There are four dimensions to time. History (past-futures), frequency,
> relativity, and zero (the end product, arrival, in the constant of "now".
> Universal Real Time and time as it is at the speed of light (one and the
> same time)).
>
> When you turn on a lamp, where is the leading edge of the light's travel
> now in space and in time? Where now in space and in time? Where now in
space
> and in time? Where......... You're walking. Where is your foot right now
in
> space and in time? Where now? Where now? Where....... What Universe is the
> leading edge of light's travel in in space and in time? You're foot
> placement in walking? The real world of light is the quantum mechanical
> realm. And so it is really with your foot. What direction is the Earth
> spinning in and at what velocity? What direction is the Earth moving in
and
> at what velocity? What direction is the sun moving in and what velocity?
> What direction is the solar system moving in and at what velocity? What
> direction is the galaxy moving in and at what velocity? Your foot is in
all
> of these, all at once. So is the leading edge of the light traveling
outward
> from the lamp. Every entity, every direction, every velocity, all at once
> "now" as Universal Real Time. How many entities involved, really? How many
> directions involved, really? How many velocities involved, really? How
many
> dimensions?
>
> Since everything in the Universe is in motion one way or another, what
of
> it is slower than slow? And what of it is faster than fast? There is
always
> something slower. There is always something faster. The common constant is
> the speed of light and its leading edge is right now, absolute, in space
and
> in time. It will never be anywhere else or any when else. Its leading edge
> is also time's leading edge. It won't be outside of time now. It won't
exist
> anywhere else in space or time but "now."
>
> For all the study of light no one has thought to get behind it and try
to
> look at it from behind for its source. No one has thought to because there
> is no such thing as getting behind it and seeing its source in it from
that
> direction. One will always see what is to the front of one in some
direction
> to the front, even the mirror that can reflect the behind. Light is
> observationally, informationally, one sided only. As I illustrated before,
> it is a one way corridor only. Turn around and you are in another corridor
> rather than the same corridor. Spin in place, the more corridors you face,
> each bringing to you a later frame of time (never an earlier) each time
you
> face it in the spin.
>
> Relativity illustrates time as an accumulation of space-time (continuum)
> evolution forcing expansion, which it isn't:
>
> BB (change1) t1 observers (change1).
> BB (change1) t1, t2 observers (change2).
> BB (change1) t1, t2, t3 observers (change3).
> BB (change1) t1, t2, t3, t4 observers (change4).
> BB (change1) t1, t2, t3, t4, t5 observers (change5).
>
> The Theory of Relativity, by its very notions of how space and time work
> cannot escape the scenario of time travel back in time. My previous
> illustration points out how this must be an utter impossibility. The
> illustration above though shows a way to travel back in time, the only
way.
> It also happens to be the way theorists in Relativity see the Universe,
its
> space, time, and light, working, evolving, expanding. Here in this
> illustration they can look far out in space far back in time, travel out
in
> space back in time. They see light-time in complete reverse to the way it
> must be. They see it almost as expanding numbers of fixed stepped blocks
> that are seen backward to a Big Bang, thus able to be traveled backward
> toward that same Big Bang. These theorists in "Relativity" think they can
> actually see, telescope, far out into the Universe, far back in time.
>
> Again this how advancing change in source and light-time traveling away
from
> any source in change, toward any observer at any distance away, works and
> must work:
>
> Source (change1) t1.
> Source (change2) t2, t1.
> Source (change3) t3, t2, t1.
> Source (change4) t4, t3, t2, t1.
> Source (change5) t5, t4, t3, t2, t1.
>
> Brad
>
>
- Next message: Eugene Shubert: "Re: Why u (not =) u' in ANALYTICAL SPACE-TIME"
- Previous message: Creighton Hogg: "Re: my gravity theory"
- In reply to: glbrad01: "Re: Relative Movement vs. Moving through Space"
- Next in thread: glbrad01: "Re: Relative Movement vs. Moving through Space"
- Reply: glbrad01: "Re: Relative Movement vs. Moving through Space"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
