There's a Black Hole at the Cosmic Core

What is really odd is that Onlyme said this:

I am really surprised I was under the impression that Onlyme was a mainstream sort of guy.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

AlexG, you are at relative rest on a sattelite and 1 light minute in opposite directions, that's a total of two light minutes apart, two lights are turned on simultaneously. The light from both lights reach you in 1 light second. Since the two lights were two light seconds apart, the closing speed of the two rays of light had to be twice the speed of light.

Neither ray of light exceeded the speed of light. But together they travel a combined distance of two light seconds in one second.

The next question to think about, is how far does light travel in one light second and why is that distance and time not affected by time dilation and length contraction. I know there are arguments that suggest that they are, but they are all framed in hypotheticals that do not exist in the real world. Light that took 14 billion light years to reach us, took 14 billion light years in all reference frames, because the speed of light is the same in all inertial frames of reference, and the distance it travels has no meaning to a photon, apart from the proper distance involved.

Closing and parting velocities seem to create a paradox in SR. The only thing of significance is the real velocity of the object, which can only be relative to its own Pre-acceleration frame of reference. Nothing can in fact exceed the speed of light. That does not mean that nothing cannot appear to exceed the speed of light...

In the case of closing velocities, no object or photon is exceeding the speed of light.

Much as with the twin paradox and time, once the spaceships meet at their common destination and the total distance traveled by both is compared to their clocks, they will both KNOW that their closing speed was greater than the speed of light. In fact if an observer on one of the ships understands SR and that BOTH ships are traveling with equal velocity toward a common destination, he/she will also know that their closing speed will greater than the speed of light.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

but only if you presume a universal reference frame which is a no no according to SRT.

The easiest way I found to remember this, as it is always easy to get trapped by it, is to keep in mind that each observer is in his own individual universe and each observers universe is c rated...
So the closing speed is alway determined as less than 'c'
The only reference frame that is involved is that of the observer's in question.
According to SRT there are absolutely no exceptions....

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

One more time...

First, any light emitted or reflected from an approaching spaceship would be blue shifted, but if it's velocity we're measured it would be \(c\).

Second, it must be assumed that this is the real world (abscent the effects of gravity as that gets too complicated), and all observers are aware of the proper distance involved.

Given that exactly how would an observer on one ship determine their closing speed?

They would have to calculate the distance at two times on their own clock, which is time dilated proportion only to their own velocity. So they bounce a lazier off of the approaching ship at timed intervals and knowing that \(c\) is constant they can determine how much distance has been closed in a specific time, on their clock. The distance closed will be the proper distance traveled, because the speed of light is universally constant in all inertial frames. And to a photon no distance except the proper distance between two points has any meaning... A LY is a LY is LY... Light is the only standard candle so to speak for time and distance on comological scales.

When they compare the elapsed time on their time dilated clock and the proper distance indicated by the laser pulses as the distance closed between the two ships, if they know their own velocity, the will imediately see that the proper distance is twice what their own ship should have traveled and that the two ships are in fact closing the distance between them at greater than \(c\).

Closing speeds are not in contradiction to SR. They do present an apparent paradox, in a similar manner as does time dilation in the twin paradox.

It does not matter that the measuring sticks on either rocket are length contracted, because they cannot be used to measure the closing distance. That measurement where relativistic velocities are involved can only be done with light. And as I said earlier light is the standard candle for time and distance cosmologically and it is the same for all observers. The wavelength of a ray of light can be affected by the velocity of the object from which it originates, but its velocity is not. So the measurements of distance made by bouncing a later off of the approaching ship, together with an understanding of the time dilation of the observer's clock, allows the observer to accurately determine the proper distance closed in a given time and thus the closing speed which will be greater than \(c\).

Sorry, I do go on. I know it. I almost always post on the flay and off the cuff.., and I am prone to carry on and over talk a thing. In person to person conversations, I am reminded of that constantly. There is no help for it, it is what it is.

 

Dumbest an on Earth,
You clearly have completely misunderstood me - that's not your fault, it' s entirely mine. I'm glad to get a chance to redeem myself in your eyes.

The most important thing to understand is probably this 'Inward Expansion.' Now, all Outward Expansions start fast and slow down. Can we agree on that? I read in Wiki that the solar wind affecting Voyager 1 had slowed and stopped. I haven't checked, but I don't think anybody has yet edited that. If not, it stands!

But what kind of expansion speeds up? And I mean Naturally, without having to make up any Anti-Gravity forces. I mean what kind of expansion speeds up (accelerates) in Nature?

The only kind of expansion that speeds up is Inward (opposite to Outward - the kind that slows down). This Inward Expansion happens all the time, in Nature.

Each time a bird flaps its wing, it sets up a vortex above the wing. Now, I don't know how much you know about vortices (plural of Vortex) but the outsside of any (free) vortex turns only slowly, speeding up (accelerating) and losing pressure as this air is pulled into the center of the vortex, drawn by the Low Pressure at the center.

Robert Boyle (probably not the first) declared that any Loss of Pressure equaled Rising Expansion.

My point is that what we have here, is an expansion that speeds up. Just co-incidence that it accelerates, this expansion, and it's Inward? Not really. The expansion speeds up because it is moving toward an attracive force - in this case a Low Air Pressure, but it could be an electric motor providing the attractive force (as in a vacuum cleaner) or Gasoline or even Gravity!

Anti-Gravity doesn't exist. I read that in Wiki. And that's all Dark Energy is! It's Gravity that keeps the moon orbiting Earth - not Anti-Gravity. Where does Gravity run out? It doesn't, it's Universal according to Newton. That's good enough for me.

We're speeding up (accelerating) because we're falling into the center of mass of the Universe. As we fall we accelerate (according to the 'Inverse Square Rule') and thereby Lose Pressure (Expand). If you're faling in Space, you don't know it, because it seems like all forces acting on you are equal and so you will expand evenly, with those bodies furthest away expanding fastest.

Now, all this expansion is headed for a single point. How can this be? Well, it's like in the vortex, the expansion is speeding up.
At the center of the vortex is the point of highest speed, coldest temperature, minimum pressure and maximum expansion. The material is removed faster than it is arriving, hence the Low Pressure.

All that air headed for the nozzle of the vacuum cleaner accelerates as it loses pressure. It's an accelerating expansion, and it's also inward, as all accelerating expansions are - think 'attractive force'. If you're responding to an attractive force emminating from a 'Central Point' you'll find yourself expanding (evenly) and accelerating on the way in.

We're falling into the center of mass of the Cosmos. It really is that simple. We're going in and that means there's just Gravity.

Get back to me, Dumbest Man on Earth, I think you should. Let me know what you think of that above. Please tell me where I have gone wrong.

 

Mr. Lamont, I ASKED if you COULD be wrong!
Reading the now seven pages of this posting, and using only that as the evidence - It was a question that I felt I had to ask.
I personally believe citing "Wiki" as a reference in a truly intelligent discourse, ends any and all pretense of intelligence! But, I COULD BE WRONG!

"The most important thing to understand is probably this 'Inward Expansion.' Now, all Outward Expansions start fast and slow down. Can we agree on that? I read in Wiki that the solar wind affecting Voyager 1 had slowed and stopped. I haven't checked, but I don't think anybody has yet edited that. If not, it stands!" As quoted from your previous post. Is space a vacuum? Does the solar wind experience any kind of resistance? Does, Will or Can any kind of "Resistance" figure into your "Mable Theory"?
Has anyone, to your knowledge, ever even measured the "Speed of Light" OUTSIDE of OUR SOLAR SYSTEM?
Has it ever been PROVEN that any natural laws that seem to be INFALLIBLE in our local "reality" hold any true credence in every part of even the "known" universe, let alone the unknown?
I find you whole " outward = slow down / inward = speed up" theory "Suspect" simply by referencing my own "H.A.L.O." jumps while in the military - there was some minor little thing called "terminal velocity". But, I COULD be wrong!

I applaud you trying to think "outside the box", but that leaves open the possibility that you might just be thinking "INSIDE" another box!
If you take the time to read some of my other postings ( there are not very many ), you will probably find that I truly fit my "moniker"! I am indeed "DUMB" enough to actually believe that we as a species are indeed ignorant to true "universal knowledge", if there is indeed such an animal.

In theses 7 pages, some seemingly fairly intelligent posters ( ALL, I may add, much more learned and more intelligent than myself ) have taken the time to try and show you that there may indeed be numerous "stumbling blocks", I will call them, in your theory. Your only response is to retort that they (and myself!) obviously do not understand or misunderstand and then go on to repeat the SAME THING OVER AND OVER! Hence CESSPOOL MATERIAL!!!

Mr. Lamont, please just be OPEN MINDED enough to admit you COULD be wrong. Heck, I've probably been wrong more times than you have blinked your eyes since your birth. I still wake up every day hoping and OPEN TO learning something new and going to sleep that night , just maybe a teensy weensy less ignorant.
Here is a decent example of how dumb I truly am: I subscribe to an age old theory that indeed theory's are like bungholes and we ALL HAVE THEM. Now these bungholes have their uses, but can fail miserably when used for the wrong application.
There is this fellow, by the name of Neil Degrasse Tyson (excuse possible spelling error!) that once pointed out that we as a species, only differ in our DNA by about 2% to all other mammals on earth. Yet we seem to hold ourselves - as evidenced by our technological prowess to be so far ahead of all the lesser mammals. Now try and wrap your head around the idea that we someday meet a species 2% ahead of us!
Maybe you could look that up on your often cited "Wiki". Better yet maybe "Google" it or just check "You Tube" - it is something Mr. Tyson finds terrifying, as I believe he put it!

If you really are interested, like I said earlier, read my few other posts and you will see that I am indeed, the Dumbest Man On Earth - better yet check out really intelligent people, like Mr. Tyson.
I stated earlier that I try to learn something every day - and believe it or not, the more I actually learn, the more I realize how little I really KNOW and am constantly humbled by realizing how much MORE there is to LEARN, but I refuse to slow down! Heck, maybe I am only doing that to try to prove your " outward = slow down / inward = speed up" theory, not just "Suspect", but, indeed WRONG! Now, Mr. Lamont, think about that!
I do not care if you get back to me or let me know what you think of this above - because, even as DUMB as I am, I am still leaning toward casting my ballot for CESSPOOL MATERIAL.
G'day

 

gotta respect that...[chuckle]
10 cents worth of wisdom and humility is worth 1 Million dollars worth of pseudo knowledge....

 

Sorry, Origin.
You see, I never get the chance to see the other person's post, because I can only get the 'advanced' space to answer. I have mental relapses sometimes. I couldn't quite remember your name. Now, if I press the 'back' button, the 'bot' won't let me post another answer, not 'till next day. I forget what I called you, I hoped you wouldn't take offence, but you had to, didn't you?

Anyway, air accelerates and expands on its way into the Central Point of the vortex at the nozzle of a Central-Vac, when the Central Vac is working and the nozzle is laid in the center of a room.

I see your conundrum. You don't believe the above statement. That's because you don't properly understand that this system, the air, is speeding up as it expands, and it is expanding 'exponentially,' within the vortex, on its way into the nozzle. At the nozzle is the Central Point of the vortex and this is also the point of Highest Acceleration, Coldest Temperature, Minimum Pressure and Maximum Expansion (within the room). I do hope you can see this. If you can't, it's my fault - I haven't explained it properly... Perhaps somebody else can add to what I have said......?????????

Is there anything here that I've written in this response that you do not agree with?

 

Hi again, Dumbest Man on Earth. (DMOE) can I call you that?

Yes, I could be wrong - if you can tell me of an Outward Expansion that accelerates as it goes?

I don't know... Quoting Wiki probably isn't the best, but sometimes that's all there is. I know what you mean, they have a graph in the 'Big-Bang' section that shows the expansion slowing rdown before it sped up, and there is absolutely no evide4nce of any slowing down of the expansion. But then, nobody has seen the Universe. It could be expanding, but I think it's more likely we (in the Universe) are going in, and I believe Mother Nature is on my side. That's what I was trying to tell you.

Now, about the 2%!!!! The dinosaurs disappeared beginning with the biggest until now we only have small ones (crocodiles). Any hunter recognises that's 'Trophy Hunting,'!!!!!!!

Our dinosaurs were captured and taken away by aliens. They loved our huge beasts. When they had all the dinosaurs, they left - except for one, his name was Dorny!

Dorny stayed behind. He liked Earth, and especially a female chimpanzee that befriended him. He took an egg from her, mixed it with his own stuff, and put the embryo in a larger mammal and out popped Adam. Repeating the experiment gave him Eve.

They'll never findr 'the Missing Link'! We're half ape, DMOE, and half Alien.

Let me know what you think of that!

 

I am again surprised by this type of a statement. I hope you realize that you are setting up a prefered reference frame. A LY is not a LY if you like. From difference reference frames a light year can be very different.

If 1 twin flys to a planet 4.6 light years away a 0.975c he will have a very different measurement of the a light year than the stay at home twin. the traveling twin will say the planet is about 1 light year away and the stay at home twin will say the planet is 4.6 light years away. Even if the flying twin were to flash a pulse of light he would measure the speed of light a c AND it would take about 1 year to reach the planet.

Saying proper distance is confusing because you are talking about the proper distance from in one reference frame. It is not possible for a space ship in one reference frame to somehow know the proper distance of another reference frame and use that in a calculation to determine the speed of an object.

 

Mr. Lamont, in reference to your post (#129).
Mammals = Reptiles ??!!!??
Aliens took away dinosaurs ??!!!??
Wiki is all there is ??!!!??
"Dorny" plus Chimpanzee = Adam ??!!!??
Then "Dorny" plus Chimpanzee = Eve ??!!!??
Mr. Lamont, you are seriously asking me what I think of that!
Really tough question to answer, but I will give it a shot;
I am guessing that you are one of the ELITE PEOPLE who are SO INTELLIGENT and SO WELL INFORMED that you do not have to THINK before you Post.
I am not one of those people, so I can not do that.
I am guessing that you have never heard of the adage; " It is better to remain quiet and be thought a fool, then to speak up and erase all doubt!"
I have heard of that.
I am guessing that if you talk like you Post, nobody listens to you.
Nobody listens to me either.
Since Wiki is your only source for learning, I am guessing that you did not read any of my other posts - let alone did any research on Neal Tyson.
Admirable due diligence on your part.
Possible reason you are stuck on "Mable Theory" is that any thing that even remotely resembles Logic, Common Sense or Intelligence has already accelerated into an infinitely small singularity that occupies about 00.0000000000000001% of the single brain cell that possibly occupies your otherwise empty cranial cavity.
This is of course is dependent on whether or not the mating of "Dorny" and a Chimpanzee produces offspring that actually have a Cranial Cavity.
You can call me Dumbest Man On Earth (DMOE) - but if you really want to be honest with yourself - you should probably call me 2ndDMOE!
Mr. Lamont, I have tried my darnedest to give you the benefit of the doubt - but my severely limited intelligence fails me again, and again I AM PROVEN WRONG.
I have this vision of some sort of Weird mutated reptile/mammal hybrid sitting in mom and dad's basement in front of a computer keyboard, next to a bucket, with two appendages. One for striking keys and the other for holding the feces covered stick that he is constantly using to stir in previously mentioned bucket.
You will have to reply to this post, not just to tell me that I am indeed WRONG - but just to have the common decency to get THAT VISION out of my head!!
Speaking of "Common Decency" - if you are going to tell me that I DO NOT UNDERSTAND or MISUNDERSTAND and insist on repeating your "Mable Theory" or for that matter your theory on the history of the world/creation of humans, PLEASE, PLEASE be decent enough to post it in the CESSPOOL!!
G'day, the (2nd ?) Dumbest Man On Earth

 

This discussion must remain confined to a SR, as within the context of GR and the presence of gravitational fields, the shape or curvature of space is dynamic and thus distances also become dynamic and proportional to the local curvature of space.

If we accept;

1. That the velocity of light is constant
2. And that the velocity of a moving object does not affect the velocity of light

Then the distance that a photon travels between any two points in space, must be the proper distance between those two points, as defined from within their common rest frame. This assumes two points or objects which share an inertial or accelerating frame of reference. (While we may have difficulties with accelerations, light does not.)

Where two objects are in motion relative to one another, the same photon moving between the two objects, whether they are inertial or accelerating, will also travel the proper distance between the two, as defined by the location of each object in space, at the instant of emission and absorption or reflection, by each of the objects.

This does not establish a preferred frame of reference, all it does is establish that as far as a photon is concerned it always travels the proper distance between two points in space. The photon's velocity is unaffected by the velocity of its point of origin or destination.

This is accurate, but it assumes that the traveling twin measures distances with his/her length contracted ruler. However, that same twin would have known the proper distance to his/her destination, before beginning the trip. And the only practical way for the twin to measure the distance is with light, and his/her calculations must account for the fact that the length contraction he/she experiences in the ship, has no affect on the light he/she uses to measure the proper distance to the destination.

Remember we are limited here to flat space. While there is good reason to accept that objects in motion do become length contracted. Planets and stars don't get closer together just because we are moving. Though there are times that may appear to be the case.

In the twin paradox, time dilation becomes reconciled when the twins meet after the trip and compare clocks. Unfortunately, their rulers do not retain a memory of having been length contracted. So the returning twin must accept that he/she did just travel, the proper distance between the two planets.

Remember we are staying in flat space and space does not change shape or curvature.

Proper lengths and distances are agreed on from all frames of reference, and any observer in a spaceship with a relativistic velocity would have to understand time dilation and length contraction sufficiently that even without bouncing a laser off of their destination they could transform distances between frames. The only time this would be untrue is where the traveler was unaware of "who" or "what" was actually moving.

The fact that the traveler knows his/her own velocity relative to his/her starting point and/or destination, provides the only information required, in addition to the round trip time of light between the ship and it's destination to determine the proper distance between the two.

Though there remain questions about empirical proof of, length contraction of objects is well supported by proof of time dilation. There is nothing outside of GR and the curvature of space/spacetime, that supports and similar contraction of "distances". Even the length contraction of objects is indirect.

 

So there is a prefered reference frame that gives the correct Proper Length! Which one is it? You and Motor Daddy are the only ones that are aware of this fact, as far as I know.

So what is the Proper Length between the Anteres and Polaris that all frames of reference in the universe would agree on.


It seems to me that you made a mistake saying that one space ship could measure the speed of another space ship as super luminal, and instead of saying, "hey WTF is screwed up", you are digging yourself deeper and deeper into the abyss.

 

Firstly, you are degrading to personal comment rather than discussion.

And second I NEVER said anyone any where could measure the speed of ANYTHING (meaning object, even photon), to be greater than the speed of light. I specifically on several occassions expressly stated that no object or photon was exceeding the speed of light. All I said and continue to argue is that closing and parting speeds can and do exceed the speed of light. It happens in the LHC all of the time.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proper_length
... Proper lengths provide an invariant measure, whose value is the same for all observers...

... the proper length of the object is the length of the object as measured by an observer which is at rest relative to the object....​

Proper lengths are easy. They can be measured directly from the rest frame of an object. Or they can be determined from another inertial frame of reference mathematically.

Proper distances are not so easy because by definition they represent a measurement that cannot be carried out with a direct simutaneous measurement. They can be calculated and determined mathematically given sufficient information.

In the example we have been discussing the situation is really pretty straight forward. The independent velocities of two objects in a third at rest frame are known. The invariance of the speed of light is known. And the effects of both time dilation and length contraction are known. With that information observers in any of the three frames should be able to determine the proper distance between the two moving objects.., and their closing speed.

It seems you are trying to argue the issue as if the observers have no knowledge beyond what they can actually see. That they do not understand relativity and that they are probably blind in one eye. The issue cannot be resolved based on what any observer could "see", because they could not see anything. At relativistic velocities everything would happen at a rate faster than human optical recognition occurs!

The observers have to be educated and capable of doing the math, so to speak.

As I said earlier, yes IF either observer COULD measure the velocity of the approaching ship, completely unaware of their own velocity. Their results would conform to the addition of velocities according to SR. But that is not what they are doing.

I presented the means with which, while knowing their own velocity and time dilation, they could determine the closing distance for a given time frame and with all of their knowledge and understanding of SR determine that the CLOSING SPEED was greater than the speed of light while also correctly calculating the actual velocity, of the other ship, in it's own frame of reference.

Do you have a problem with the fact that the time it takes light to travel between two points in space, is relative only to the instantaneous position of those points as the light is emitted and then detected? The velocity of light between to point is unaffected by the velocity of anything moving between those two points, even should that be objects that emit and detect the light.

And then knowing that the speed of light is constant, the elapsed time, the effects of time dilation on the observer's clock and distance traveled, that the observer can calculate the proper distance between two moving objects and over time and several calculations their closing speed.

 

Ony me,
It is what it is. You certainly have taught me much about Relativity, and c. I had no idea you knew so much - I'm impressed!

That said, this is my thread and so please honor a simple request from (one of your disciples?) me;-

gIVE (caps lock) me one single expansion that speeds up - other than the expansion of your Universe.

Here's an example:- The Refrigerant Gas (R134a?) in the suction line of a 'fridge, speeds up as it loses pressure (expands) on its way into the compressor. Note a) the slow start b) the accelerating expansion and c) the Inward Direction (into the compressor.)

You're intelligent. You should be able to come up with one. I've asked you (and everybody else) to come up with one but no-one can - what else can I think?

I don't even know if you understand my Inward Expansion, the kind that speeds up (kinda like in the manner of the expansion of the Observable Universe, no?) without having to make up (fabricate) any repulsive forces, or leave you fighting Gravity, in a Universe run by Anti-Gravity. No, I can show that each time a bird flaps its wing, this speeding up expansion occurs - naturally.

Please let me know. And try to satisfy my request.

 

The only problem I have is that you said it is possible for a mass to be meausred moving at superluminal speeds. You have been talking in circles since that statement IMO. You can believe whatever you want I am done wasting my time.

 

DMOE, I tried. We can't work together, you have made that plain. Why do you have to talk about feces? No, don't bother me - I have more important fish to fry. Okay? Do have a nice day.

 

Please quote the reference. You may have thought that is what I was saying but as far as I know I never said that.

From the start I mentioned that closing speeds could exceed the speed of light. I added that an observer on a ship could calculate the closing speed and know that it was greater than the speed of light. I also said more than once nothing was moving faster than the speed of light.

Given an understanding of relativity and sufficient information about their own velocity, an observer should be able to calculate and understand what any other inertial observer measures. So when an observer in the rest frame calculates a closing velocity for two approaching ships, it is not information that an observer on either ship cannot also calculate and understand.

 

Mr. Lamont, not sure what you tried. Do not recall asking you to work with me. You ask why I have to talk about feces - what else would you call these Quoted nuggets of wisdom from your post #129;

"I don't know... Quoting Wiki probably isn't the best, but sometimes that's all there is. I know what you mean, they have a graph in the 'Big-Bang' section that shows the expansion slowing rdown before it sped up, and there is absolutely no evide4nce of any slowing down of the expansion. But then, nobody has seen the Universe. It could be expanding, but I think it's more likely we (in the Universe) are going in, and I believe Mother Nature is on my side. That's what I was trying to tell you.

Now, about the 2%!!!! The dinosaurs disappeared beginning with the biggest until now we only have small ones (crocodiles). Any hunter recognises that's 'Trophy Hunting,'!!!!!!!

Our dinosaurs were captured and taken away by aliens. They loved our huge beasts. When they had all the dinosaurs, they left - except for one, his name was Dorny!

Dorny stayed behind. He liked Earth, and especially a female chimpanzee that befriended him. He took an egg from her, mixed it with his own stuff, and put the embryo in a larger mammal and out popped Adam. Repeating the experiment gave him Eve.

They'll never findr 'the Missing Link'! We're half ape, DMOE, and half Alien."

Mr. Lamont, I could be wrong, but I was under the impression that you typed that - so who started talking feces, and who made what plain?
Rhetorical question - no need to stoop to my level and try to answer.

Sorry to have bothered you, Sir.
I sincerely hope you enjoy your fish fry!

 

Here is your quote from post #106:

If these were spaceships and you were on one, yes you would see the other, approaching you at greater than c and the light [emitted] or reflected by the approaching rocket would be blue shifted.