Re: It is time, yet again. I am back.
- From: "G. L. Bradford" <glbrad01@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 26 May 2008 16:44:25 -0400
"Spaceman" <spaceman@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message news:P-SdnWWBQ-EMl6bVnZ2dnUVZ_rPinZ2d@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
"G. L. Bradford" <glbrad01@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:e5-dneOP5bbDm6bVnZ2dnUVZ_oWdnZ2d@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
"0.9c" is relative. 'c' is not.
That might be why I used 0.9c and did not say 'c'
anyways,
Do you wish to count on your local frames clock alone to travel the
universe?
I sure hope you say no, or you will also be bummin on one of your flights.
unless of course you can travel in an empty universe that nobody has found
yet.
LOL
--
James M Driscoll Jr
Spaceman
Since the mid 1700s navigators have depended upon clocks to help travel the seas. And since a traveler will have no idea of velocity -- no clue concerning velocity -- while traveling the universe (in general), that traveler will be heavily dependent upon clocks to be an aid in navigation of the universe. The traveler's [space] coordinates will estimates of distances in units of [light time] rather than miles or kilometers. Light seconds being traveled [will not] be one to one with clock seconds passing. It's an all history universe out there and the traveler will cross it traveling both directions of history all at once.
Spatially, the traveler will seem to [expand] across space-time under constant boost, the local universe seemingly becoming more crowded around the traveler dictating a rise to another level of it (interstellar, intergalactic....), while under deceleration the universe itself will seem to [expand up, out] around the traveler (external light time then being observed to be getting a little closer to one to one relationship with internal clock time).
GLB
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: It is time, yet again. I am back.
- From: Spaceman
- Re: It is time, yet again. I am back.
- References:
- It is time, yet again. I am back.
- From: Spaceman
- Re: It is time, yet again. I am back.
- From: Sam Wormley
- Re: It is time, yet again. I am back.
- From: Spaceman
- Re: It is time, yet again. I am back.
- From: Sam Wormley
- Re: It is time, yet again. I am back.
- From: Spaceman
- Re: It is time, yet again. I am back.
- From: Sam Wormley
- Re: It is time, yet again. I am back.
- From: Spaceman
- Re: It is time, yet again. I am back.
- From: Greg Neill
- Re: It is time, yet again. I am back.
- From: Spaceman
- Re: It is time, yet again. I am back.
- From: G. L. Bradford
- Re: It is time, yet again. I am back.
- From: Spaceman
- It is time, yet again. I am back.
- Prev by Date: Re: Null Physics, worth it?
- Next by Date: Re: Campaigning is a 'Science', too.
- Previous by thread: Re: It is time, yet again. I am back.
- Next by thread: Re: It is time, yet again. I am back.
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|