Re: Relative Movement vs. Moving through Space
From: glbrad01 (glbrad01_at_insightbb.com)
Date: 12/20/04
- Next message: Sam Wormley: "Re: One-Way Tests of Light-Speed Isotropy"
- Previous message: BB: "Re: Is zero even or odd?"
- In reply to: kenseto: "Re: Relative Movement vs. Moving through Space"
- Next in thread: kenseto: "Re: Relative Movement vs. Moving through Space"
- Reply: kenseto: "Re: Relative Movement vs. Moving through Space"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Mon, 20 Dec 2004 14:36:56 GMT
"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). 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: Sam Wormley: "Re: One-Way Tests of Light-Speed Isotropy"
- Previous message: BB: "Re: Is zero even or odd?"
- In reply to: kenseto: "Re: Relative Movement vs. Moving through Space"
- Next in thread: kenseto: "Re: Relative Movement vs. Moving through Space"
- Reply: kenseto: "Re: Relative Movement vs. Moving through Space"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
