Re: I have a question about relativity so that I do not become another crackpot.
- From: PD <TheDraperFamily@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 11 Apr 2008 04:25:17 -0700 (PDT)
On Apr 10, 4:48 pm, oliveroyana...@xxxxxxxxx wrote:
On Mar 27, 9:13 am, "N:dlzc D:aol T:com \(dlzc\)" <dl...@xxxxxxx>
wrote:
Dear oliveroyanadel:<oliveroyana...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:bb973eee-2f97-4df9-a14b-08a606ddb655@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
I do not pretend to be a physisit but I've read
a few books, and my mind is blown by this idea
I had. I just don't know if this conclusion has
been arrived at yet or not, but if it has, I'm sure
it was Einstein who saw it first. But I just
realized that with Newton's first law of motion
(that an object will stay at rest or continue at a
constant velocity unless acted upon by an
external unbalanced force), that ever since the
big bang, we ourselves and everything in the
universe has got to be moving at the speed of
light and has been this whole time simply
because of the big bang.
The Big Bang was not an explosion in a pre-existing space. Great
lumps of matter were not expelled from some central nucleus. We
see light from distant objects that is so red shifted that using
classical Doppler, they "must" be moving faster than c. Or at
least the distance between us is growing faster than c.
You might want to read this series...http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmo_01.htm
We do not observe this from an earthly
reference frame because of Einstein's time
dilation (time slows down for those
approaching the speed of light), and that is
why we are able to see the universe expand
at such a slow rate.
No... were we moving faster than the ~300km/sec observed, we
would see stuff in the direction we were moving as very blue
shifted, and happening faster than we see here.
And finally, like a fly that would travel faster
than a speeding car simply by flying from
the backseat to the front, we still observe
light propagating through space at its normal
speed from within our reference point.
... or, light simply travels at one speed in a vacuum *locally*,
no matter how fast someone else thinks you are moving.
That is why c (the velocity of light) is squared
in the equations such as E = mc^2;
E^2 = (pc)^2 + (mc^2)^2
... covers photons too, not just mass at rest.
because we are already moving through
the void of space at the speed of light once,
yet our actions propagate in space at the
speed of light yet another time; so the
velocity of light has to be brought to the
power of two for its use in calculating the
curvature of space-time in a gravitational
field for instance.
Doesn't follow.
Am I the first person to come up with
this idea?
Does it matter?
And if I am, shouldn't I get some kind of
award or something for this?
There are idiot awards that are issued every month or so, but
only for really annoying posters, and usually in newsgroups other
than this one. Is that what you had in mind?
See, questions or word pictures don't usually get awards.
Theories that make quantitative predictions that coiuld have been
potentially experimentally falsified (but correctly described
what was seen)... they get things like Nobel prizes and such.
Because I've read Relativity by Einstein
as you can plainly see, and he did not say
that we ourselves were already moving at
the velocity of light, unless I've accidentally
skipped a page. But I have not read much
more on the subject either, as you can
probably once again plainly see.
A lot has happened since ~1920. You might want to keep reading.
Let me know.
You form good mental pictures, now you just need more experience.
David A. Smith
The earth is traveling around the sun at 67,000 mph, and is rotating
at around 1,000 mph. Multiply those together and you have 67,000,000
mph, which is the velocity of light. This explains the rest mass at c
by itself; if it is squared it has to be the added velocity of the
sun, by which I mean the entire solar system itself, which, since
nothing can exceed the velocity of light, the energy given at the big
bang has got to be the maximum percentage of the velocity of light.
This covers c^2. You say the big bang was not an explosion? What are
you supposed to call a release of energy on the biggest of scales?
You're right though, I have no experience.
Well, it seems you are already slipping into crackpotdom.
1. Multiplying two velocities does not produce another velocity.
2. Have you tried doing this multiplication for other planets to see
if one of those might come out higher? Why would you only pick the
Earth?
3. Adding and multiplying are two completely different things. Adding
the velocity of the sun does not result in another multiplicative
factor of c. 3 + 3 is not the same thing as 3 x 3. c + c is not the
same thing as c x c.
4. Having something in common does not make the big bang an explosion.
The fact that lizards and cows have four legs does not make a cow a
kind of lizard.
PD
.
- Follow-Ups:
- References:
- Re: I have a question about relativity so that I do not become another crackpot.
- From: oliveroyanadel
- Re: I have a question about relativity so that I do not become another crackpot.
- Prev by Date: Re: time dilation
- Next by Date: Re: The differences between LET, SRT and IRT
- Previous by thread: Re: I have a question about relativity so that I do not become another crackpot.
- Next by thread: Re: I have a question about relativity so that I do not become another crackpot.
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
