Re: GR-c goes "instantaneously" from 0 to c ..in NO time.!! But jOE, Tom Roberts says LiGHT "STOPs slowing down".!! [ Does SPEED c "STOP slowing down" instantaneously.? ] [ Does VELOCiTY c "STOP slowing down" ..automatically.? ] Does LiGHT "STOP slowing down" instantaneously automatically.?!! What is "simultaneity" for TWO different POiNTs on a TiME-line.?

On Wed, brian a m stuckless <bastuck@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

>[snip irrational text]
>Joe Fischer wrote:
>> Right, and this is one of the things about Divergent
>> Matter that I like, even though I have no interest at all in
>> Special Relativity.
>>
>> I study Divergent Matter as both a model for gravity,
>> and as a model to make many different processes part of a pattern
>> rather than haphazard.
>>
>> >If the propagation of light was indeed mediated by say the
>> >propagation of a longitudinal vacuum wave then as the particles
>> >of Aether increased in size, so too would the frequency of any
>> >event be automatically carried with it.
>>
>> There is no aether, and none is needed. --
>
> insert HERE ..see top of PAGE.!!

I can't, I snipped it.

>> -- Because of the fact that light appears to instantly
>> "travel" at c when it is emitted, --
>
>$ Wicked acceleration.
>GR-c goes "instantaneously" from 0 to c ..in NO time.!!
>But jOE, Tom Roberts says LiGHT "STOPs slowing down".!!

I don't claim to talk about light in GR, light does not
accellerate though, simply because it has no mass, and
because it is emitted as a slingshot projects a pebble,
which does not accelerate forward after being projected.

>[ Does SPEED c "STOP slowing down" instantaneously.? ]
>[ Does SPEED c "STOP slowing down" ..automatically.? ]

I have no idea what this means.

>[ Does VELOCiTY c "STOP slowing down" instantaneously.? ]
>[ Does VELOCiTY c "STOP slowing down" ..automatically.? ]
>
>Does LiGHT "STOP slowing down" instantaneously automatically.?!!

Why be so redundant?

>> -- the expansion on matter resulting in a lengthening meter
>> and a lengthening unit of time, light could "travel" farther in
>> succeeding seconds, but would still retain the same frequency and
>> wavelength to "current" meters and seconds.
>>
>> But the real kicker is that the longer second, allowing
>> light to "travel" farther each succeeding second would mean that
>> the "speed" of light would always be measured as c, --
>
>GR VELOCiTY c is AUTOMATiC.!!
>GR VELOCiTY c is iNSTANTANEOUS.!!
>GR VELOCiTY c is AUTOMATiCALLY iNSTANTANEOUS.!!
>
>GR SPEED c is AUTOMATiC.!!
>GR SPEED c is iNSTANTANEOUS.!!
>GR SPEED c is AUTOMATiCALLY iNSTANTANEOUS.!!

Are you a GR teacher now. I didn't think so.

>> -- AND that _nothing_ having mass that must accelerate could
>> ever "travel" as fast as light.
>
>Only LiGHT "travels", AUTOMATiCALLY, iNSTANTANEOUSLY.!!

Yes, but a number of things are referred to as "light",
but all are part of the electromagnetic spectrum.

>> So the expanding matter (Divergent Matter) model absolutely
>> requires that c is --
>
> ..AUTOMATiCALLY, iNSTANTANEOUSLY, ...
>
>> -- a limiting velocity.
>>
>> >No, it is not the Lorentz Aether, (nor Einstein's either), --
>
>Leave "EinsteiN's either" OUT of this, jOE.!!

I did not write that, what are you drinking/smoking/sniffing?

And "either" wss not a mispelled "ether".

>> -- but then again if Lorentz had of completed the task of unmasking
>> the Aether, everybody would have yelled, 'BINGO.'
>>
>> There is no aether, why mention it.
>
>"AEther", "either", "ether", He der ..iAMbient media gradient.!!
>*Disbelief* is the SiMPLiST form of virtual "objectification".!!

Is AEther supposed to mean "A. E. ther" after Albert Einstein,
I don't think so, he said in 1905 that the ether is just extra baggage
without being needed.

>> >I am thinking more the geodesic is not caused by a physical
>> >curvature of space more so the expansion of space itself and
>> >the earth racing up to met it.
>>
>> The "geodesic" is simply an object following through
>> on it's present motion and proceeding in inertial motion without
>> any interaction of any kind. "Space" has no attributes and
>> needs none, the distance between objects changes, and that makes
>> it appear as if space had an attribute of length on 3 axes.
>>
>> That is why the concept of "attraction" due to gravity
>> has no place in physics.
>
>Explain an "attraction" of TWO different POiNTs on a WORLD-line.
>Explain an "attraction" of POiNTs, on TWO different WORLD-lines.

There is no "attraction" at a distance.

"Points" are not physical objects, and I don't study Minkowski.

>What is "simultaneity" for TWO different POiNTs on a TiME-line.?
>What is "simultaneity" for POiNTs, on TWO different TiME-lines.?

I have no idea, I have no need to use the word.

I must have said something to ring your bell, but get used to it.

There is no ether.

Joe Fischer

.

Relevant Pages