Rudolfhendriques's thread.

The non amateur stuff. Hawking, black holes, that sort of thing

Moderators: joe, Brian, Guy Fennimore

Quasar
Posts: 266
Joined: Tue Mar 04, 2008 11:24 am
Location: The White Rose County
Contact:

Post by Quasar »

Cliff wrote:Dear Rudd
I am reasonably happy with my own simplistic ideas about cosmology.
For me personally, "theoretical" cosmology is only one part and not the most interesting aspect of the broader subject of astronomy.
I have no problem with the speed of light myself.
Best wishes from Cliff
I have one major fundamental problem with light speed and that is the lack of an acceleration curve. Described as a constant by the scientific community, light speed and people's understanding of it IMHO is completely flawed. The reason I say this is because a Photon that has no acceleration curve can never have started a journey in the first place.
Imagine you had a railway track with no train on it, then the train is created having the velocity of 300,000 KM\S immediatly. Because there is no acceleration curve for the train it has to appear on a certain part of the track not having travelled along a 'would be' acceleration curve. The track can be described as time reference frames. The Photon either had to have accelerated before it entered a time reference frame in a dimension we do not see where time stands still or it didn't accelerate at all.
You cannot create velocity without a means of reaching it, it goes against all the known principles we have including Newtons.
The common sense question that Ruud has come up with is quite simple. Yes there is a constant involved in this argument but it is not light speed. The constant that we all witness everyday is time, we do not have a velocity of time as such, we just witness ourselves moving forward through time at a speed we cannot see. Ruud simply suggests that light because it has no mass cannot travel with us forward into the future and we leave it behind. This is why light has no acceleration curve, because time is the constant in the equation. If you look at this principle correctly, you will have determined that mass moves forward through spacetime not at a velocity but at a constant which is unmeasurable by us, then the light is left stationary in spacetime. The 300,000 KM\S is simply the velocity that the past cannot keep up with the future. Time is the constant not light speed. Prove Ruud wrong!
Cliff
Posts: 6598
Joined: Sat Dec 11, 2004 8:18 pm
Location: Manchester
Contact:

Post by Cliff »

Dear Quasar
Why do I need to prove Rudd wrong. His ideas add nothing to my own particular interest in astronomy. My own observations "prove" (at least to my own desired level of satisfaction) that current conventional accepted science work, in the same way that Newton, Maxwell and Einstein do.
If it is assumed that Rudd's ideas are correct how would it actually improve our understanding of astronomy?
Back to part of my simplistic view of the subject.
Assuming that light photons have no mass presumably might account for them attaining light speed instantaneously.
Of course perhaps we must not take any models of the various particles, or waves, too seriously. I have read that these things can sometimes act like particles, other times like waves.
I have visually observed Jupiters satellites and their behaviour suggests that light travels at about 300,000 km per second in the gap between Jupiter and us. I have observed and imaged a few stellar spectra (eg Altair, Betelgeuse, Capella, and I have imaged famous Double Quasar Q0957+561 and and the current standard explanations of these phenomena are acceptable for me.
There is nothing wrong with Rudd or anyone else for that matter, having whimsical ideas. There are a variety of scientific publications that such ideas can be sent, to get the appreciation of a potentially wider audience.
Best wishes from Cliff
rudolfhendriques
Posts: 41
Joined: Fri May 23, 2008 3:32 pm
Location: Amsterdam
Contact:

Post by rudolfhendriques »

Hey Guys.. maybe this can gice the discussion a new impulse.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ewn27yCQQgI

GrtZ Rudolf
joe
Site Admin
Posts: 4382
Joined: Fri Dec 03, 2004 11:24 am
Location: Greenwich, London
Contact:

Post by joe »

It's a guy I don't know, with a pullover tied around his neck, talking to.....?
200mm Newtonian, OMC140, ETX90, 15x70 Binoculars.
rudolfhendriques
Posts: 41
Joined: Fri May 23, 2008 3:32 pm
Location: Amsterdam
Contact:

Post by rudolfhendriques »

joe wrote:It's a guy I don't know, with a pullover tied around his neck, talking to.....?
At least he was talking to you... ;)

You can find his name on the same page, Nassim Haramein.
joe
Site Admin
Posts: 4382
Joined: Fri Dec 03, 2004 11:24 am
Location: Greenwich, London
Contact:

Post by joe »

Yes, Rudolf, I was able discover his name. Nevertheless, I still have no idea who he is or what qualifies him to be someone who I should listen to. A small amount of research suggests he is a "self-proclaimed" expert and a "self-educated" physicist. I did note immediately that the same person who posted the video also posted videos of a David Icke lecture. 'Nuff said.

I thought you might offer an explanation rather than just posting a link.
200mm Newtonian, OMC140, ETX90, 15x70 Binoculars.
big_kev
Posts: 349
Joined: Fri Jul 06, 2007 9:51 pm
Contact:

Post by big_kev »

Quasar wrote: I have one major fundamental problem with light speed and that is the lack of an acceleration curve. Described as a constant by the scientific community, light speed and people's understanding of it IMHO is completely flawed. The reason I say this is because a Photon that has no acceleration curve can never have started a journey in the first place.!
You have to consider the generation of the photon.

It is probably easier to envisage the generation of sound waves.
These waves travel at a constant speed (given a constant medium).

A drumbeat for example travels at the speed of sound the instant it leaves the drum and continues at this same speed (assuming a constant medium)
However there is an acceleration involved in the initial movement of the drumskin which generates the sound.
This is easily measurable by looking at the movement of the drumskin and the time interval involved.

With light it travels at a constant speed ( again assuming a constant medium ) the instant it leave the atom.
However there is an acceleration involved when the electron that generates the light moves from one energy level to another.
It is likely that this movement takes place at ( or less) than planck time which means to all intents and purposes that it is below the level at which we can measure the time interval involved.
This would mean that it was instantaneous ( faster than any reference clock that we could use to measure it ).

So when it is said that light accelerates instantly to the speed c then this is true as long as you take into account what is meant by instantly.
rudolfhendriques
Posts: 41
Joined: Fri May 23, 2008 3:32 pm
Location: Amsterdam
Contact:

Post by rudolfhendriques »

Maybe this question can open some doors..

Is the size of the universe igual to her age?
joe
Site Admin
Posts: 4382
Joined: Fri Dec 03, 2004 11:24 am
Location: Greenwich, London
Contact:

Post by joe »

Do you mean - Does the universe have a radius of 13.7 billion light years, given an age of 13.7 billion years?
200mm Newtonian, OMC140, ETX90, 15x70 Binoculars.
rudolfhendriques
Posts: 41
Joined: Fri May 23, 2008 3:32 pm
Location: Amsterdam
Contact:

Post by rudolfhendriques »

joe wrote:Do you mean - Does the universe have a radius of 13.7 billion light years, given an age of 13.7 billion years?

Yes, that's what I mean. The option that this also could be 27.4 billion lightyears stays open aswell.
rudolfhendriques
Posts: 41
Joined: Fri May 23, 2008 3:32 pm
Location: Amsterdam
Contact:

Post by rudolfhendriques »

It's very easy to prove that Einstein's relativity theory is wrong. All matter travles with the same speed!

We all know what is a bicycle.

You put some force on the padle of the bike and your bike will go forwart. True!


Why do you go forward?

This is because there is no differnce in the speed you turn the padle's and the speed you go forward.

In fact, you go forward because all the elements of the bike and the wheel are standing still to eachother.

If they really would move to eachother, you will lose a lot of energy and NOT going forward.

See this in a larger concept with the tracks of an armytank, the track's do not move on the road, they are standing still. This is why the tank goes forward!

The weheels do the same thing, they don't move to eachother, they are standign stil, to eachoter at every single moment.

It is time what make's us going forward, not the wheel.
RL Astro
Posts: 749
Joined: Tue Jan 24, 2006 6:09 pm
Location: Plymouth
Contact:

Post by RL Astro »

If you imagine it as we walk. We put one foot on the floor in front of the other and move forward, but the foot touching the floor isn't moving. True. But the other foot is. It's the moving foot thats making us move. Tank tracks. The part in contact with the ground isn't moving. True. The rest of it is and it's being placed in front of the stationary bit and rotating that way. Again it's the moving bit causing the movement. Otherwise, what you're saying is it's impossible for a tank to STOP moving. Because again, the bit in contact with the ground isn't moving, so according to you, it should be moving forward. I don't think you can prove Einstein wrong with that.
rudolfhendriques
Posts: 41
Joined: Fri May 23, 2008 3:32 pm
Location: Amsterdam
Contact:

Post by rudolfhendriques »

RL Astro wrote:If you imagine it as we walk. We put one foot on the floor in front of the other and move forward, but the foot touching the floor isn't moving. True. But the other foot is. It's the moving foot thats making us move. Tank tracks. The part in contact with the ground isn't moving. True. The rest of it is and it's being placed in front of the stationary bit and rotating that way. Again it's the moving bit causing the movement. Otherwise, what you're saying is it's impossible for a tank to STOP moving. Because again, the bit in contact with the ground isn't moving, so according to you, it should be moving forward. I don't think you can prove Einstein wrong with that.
I know it sounds weird, because what I say sounds like.. we move because we don't move. Totaly agree wthat this sounds weird.

But let's look at movement, and see what really happens.
The tank tracks don't move, and because of this they we are able to bring a force into some direction.

The wheels have the same function as the tanktrack. I you would roll the tanktrack on a wheel, the function will still be the same.

I agree that we can travel distance, but we can because wheels are not moving upon eachtother. A box of wheels does the same thing as a long line between to objects, The tranfer a force because there is no movement between the different parts.
RL Astro
Posts: 749
Joined: Tue Jan 24, 2006 6:09 pm
Location: Plymouth
Contact:

Post by RL Astro »

rudolfhendriques wrote:The tranfer a force because there is no movement between the different parts.
Not so. If you look carefully at tank tracks you'll see that it's only the part in contact with the ground not moving. The rest of the tracks are moving. It's the action of moving the part of the track at the back round to the front that causes movement. Movement is not created by the lack of movement.
Quasar
Posts: 266
Joined: Tue Mar 04, 2008 11:24 am
Location: The White Rose County
Contact:

Post by Quasar »

I would just point something out about this theory. If indeed Photon's are stationary in spacetime and we are moving through spacetime at C then it is quite apparant that space is not expanding but rather it is contracting in this theosis. You only have to do some simple maths to calculate this. The Galaxies are then moving closer together at 70KM\S.
Emmmm...........
Post Reply