|
|
 | | From: | glbrad01 | | Subject: | Aether medium gravity | | Date: | Sun, 23 Jan 2005 15:18:52 GMT |
|
|
 | NASA scientists some time ago observed 70,000 light years distant from
Earth the aura of a nova they said occurred 1,000 years ago our time. I not
kidding, it was all in the caption underneath the picture just as I put
above.
That is neither here nor there for my illustration of simultaneous event
occurrence.
We observe the aura 70,000 light years distant. The causing nova occurred
71,000 years ago our time somewhere in time just passed the mid-point of our
last ice age. All points in space are in continuous motion, continuously
traveling at all times. So, the Earth is in ice age 71,000 years ago, the
nova is at that time occurring [approximately] 70,000 light years away (the
event of the causing nova will arrive to Earth in the vicinity of 1,000 A.
D. our time, or somewhere around 1,000 years ago). At a distance of 142,000
light years away from Earth, we see an object in some kind of state of
existence. We will never see it at it was 71,000 later than 142,000 years
ago our time, around the beginning of said ice age for us, which event
observed by us will be simultaneous with the nova that occurred 1,000 years
before the aura we observe 70,000 light years distant, and our own mid point
of our last ice age. We won't be around, probably, 71,000 years from now our
time (and the expanding aura we observe at the distance of 70,000 light
years from us will have disappeared by that time).
Confused? The object is 142,000 light years distant from us. It takes
light 142,000 years to cross that distance which places the event time of
the object sighted by us right now 71,000 years earlier than the event time
of said causing nova of the aura we witness 70,000 light years from us, and
142,000 years before our own current time. Our Earth was probably in the
beginnings of its last major ice age when that object was in that state that
we witness it to be in right now our time.
That object was not in that space we observe it to be in 142,000 light
years distant from us because we were not in this space--we are in
now--142,000 years ago, nor was the star that would go nova 71,000 years
later in that space of the aura we observe 70,000 light years distant from
us, nor was our Milky Way galaxy exactly in this space it is in now 142,000
years ago. Nor was Andromeda in the space then it is now in though it may
still be partially in that space. It isn't even in the space we witness it
to be in right now, not at 2.2 million light years distant and continuously
traveling all during that 2.2 million years it took light from that galaxy's
position in space to reach us where we are here and now. Andromeda is said
to be closing upon the Milky Way, I believe I've read, at a relative speed
of 300,000 miles per hour now. Rather the gap between the two is closing,
shrinking, at that velocity. We may choose to observe the Milky Way as being
the center of an infinite Universe, thus ever fixed in position relative to
all distant objects appearing to expanding directly from it evenly in
perfect red shifts at observed perfect specific distances away from us and
accelerating. The center of the Milky Way is not that far away from the
Earth and the Sun to choose a preferred center of the Universe between the
three. Of course those evenly spaced "latitudes" of red shift going away
measure perfect going away from the Earth, not the center of the Milky Way.
That alone (that every point in the Universe at large observes itself to be
the dead center of the larger Universe) should definitively define the
Universe infinite.
The other thing that should define the Universe infinite is that no
inflation is occurring. When the supposed accelerating expansion is averaged
space-time as to velocity space and time, it comes out the exact space-time
kilometers or miles per year, reduced to kilometers or miles per second, of
the speed of light constant. The observed acceleration rate of observed
expansion reaches the speed of light horizon at approximately the point in
distance-time given for the so-called Big Bang. The point is, we right here
and right now, would be within that averaged velocity figure for expansion
of the Universe at large, the speed of light, were it expanding.
if acceleration reaches the speed of light in distant horizon, and if it
is also the averaged velocity for expansion, and if that is the universal
horizon with regard to every point in the Universe, then there is no
expansion, the Universe is infinite: And at the same time cannot possibly be
static because of one very important and very relevant definition of
infinite which is "indeterminate." As I've said elsewhere, a static Universe
could and would be anything but "indeterminate." That it could never be.
Never get infinite Universe (U) confused with finite universe (u). Also
always try to think, as much as possible, of universes as existing in
innumerable universes on our plane but beyond the distant relative horizon
from us, plus there being innumerable universes deep in vertical layers of
planes from our plane.
Confused again? see it terms of quantum mechanics. All the various atoms
in all their myriads of numbers existing horizontal in space and time on the
same plane. Then, vertical, all the planes of magnitude going down and in,
or, relatively speaking, going away from us farther and ever farther in
distance vertically in planes of magnitude.
Or you can think of it in terms of gravity. There is no such thing as
absolute zero-g. Therefore gravity is everywhere both horizontal on our flat
plane of Universe, with its innumerable universes, and in the layers of
planes of Universe, each plane with its own innumerable number of universes,
vertical. One Earth gravity is relative to the Earth alone. At one
quintillion-quintillionth one Earth gravity, to anything that is one gravity
on that level, Earth's gravity measures a whopping quintillion-quintillion
gravities relative to it. On the other end of the scale, anything in the
infinite Universe that happens to consider Earth's gravity to be one
quintillion-quintillionth its one gravity, that thing to one Earth gravity
is a quintillion-quintillion gravities relative to one Earth gravity.
Confused because of the infinite potentials with regard to both the
infinitesimal and the infinite, relative to [one] Earth-g, since there is no
such thing as [zero]-g? One Earth gravity, if memory serves, equals the
acceleration rate of 32 feet per second per second as measured by an
Earth-man standing still beside a railroad track watching a train go by--and
also watching someone bouncing a ball on that train going by him--somewhere
on Earth. Now any object doing a velocity of 25,000 miles per hour leaving
the Earth or in outer space, relative to that man by the railroad track in
his frame, will have quite a different relationship to 32 feet per second
per second than that man has, as will any object in outer space doing a
negative 25,000 miles per hour relative to that man and to his one Earth
gravity acceleration rate of 32 feet per second per second.
Yes, I said an object in outer space "doing a [negative] 25,000 miles per
hour relative to that man and to his one Earth gravity acceleration rate of
32 feet per second per second." That objects velocity relationship to the
other object's velocity is a difference of 50,000 miles per hour, observable
and measurable by both objects without any reference to that man standing by
that railroad track on Earth. If the object doing the negative 25,000 miles
per hour relative that man--and therefore relative to Earth--were back of
Earth at quite some distance in Earth's orbit of the Sun trying to catch up
with Earth it would be losing ground pretty quickly rather than gaining it.
It's relationship to 32 feet per second per second relative to the man
standing by the railroad track would be quite different than the other
object's.
For each of these objects their moment of either negative or positive
25,000 miles per hour relative to the man standing by the railroad track on
Earth and his relationship to 32 feet per second per second is momentary.
Moment to moment the relationship to both will change as space is not a
vacuum but rather an infinitely variable aether medium of sorts, that aether
medium being definitively [gravity medium] wholly thanks to there being no
such thing as zero-g, I've come to realize over time.
The object that is doing 1,000 miles per second relative to that man
standing by the railroad track on Earth has a vastly different relationship
to that man's gravity acceleration rate of 32 feet per second per second
than does the object doing a velocity of 25,000 miles per hour. So does an
object doing negative 1,000 miles per hour relative to the man standing by
the railroad track. The two objects will have a velocity relationship to
each other of 2,000 miles per second, a difference both will be able to
measure relative to each other and not relative to the man standing by the
railroad track on Earth and his relationship to a gravity acceleration rate
of 32 feet per second per second. To the one object (the positive) the
gravity acceleration rate is micro-gravitational. To the other (the
negative), it is macro-gravitational. But only momentarily will each and
both relationships exist as stated. Very momentarily. It will change
constantly, as will their relative positions and velocities constantly
change, even if minutely, no matter what either object does to try to
establish an absolutely fixed static state of universe. There being no such
thing as zero-g will see to it always (constantly and forever).
I've lately wandered what relationship an object doing 25,000,000 miles
per hour would have to a gravity acceleration rate of 32,000 feet per second
per second relative to the usual man standing by the railroad track. Or even
whether it is 32,000 feet per second per second and not 32 feet per second
per second per second per second, etc., or just something different than
32,000 feet per second per second.
No matter, I can see that different infinitely variable velocities have
different relationships to different infinitely variable gravities. Also I
can see that one Earth gravity is only meaningful locally and means nothing
universally. That has infinite, you might say, repercussions for Einstein's
observers and their inertial frames. It has repercussions with regard to
both Special Relativity and General Relativity. But only the true genius and
insightfulness that was Albert Einstein had the insight to qualify SR and GR
to be valid only in narrowly specified circumstances. They are valid only
within rigidly set situational parameters, such as one-Earth-g being the
given, the fundamental base, for all inertial frames universally. On Earth's
moon, it stops being the given. On Mars it stops being the given. One Ceres
it stops being the given.
Since there is no such thing as zero-g, '1-g' is an infinite variable
meaningful only locally. Since there is no such thing as zero-v
(zero-velocity), 299,800 kilometers per second (186,200 miles per second)
rounded off, effectively '1-c', is an infinite variable meaningful only
locally. But here to the true genius and insightfulness that was Albert
Einstein, joined by Stephen Hawking in his own way, rises to the occasion
with his mind's eye trip to the speed of light and finding there
timelessness, at once Universal Real Time Zero on Hawking's grand clock in
his Grand Central Station of the Universe. It is the only parameter that can
be constant in and to infinite, infinitesimal, and infinities. Timelessness,
Universal Real Time Zero, is the definitive "cosmological constant of zero."
Where is Universal Real Time Zero? Where is the cosmological constant of
zero? Where is timelessness?
A lot of people have had the phrase "Do it immediately if not sooner!"
used on them, the user being unaware of the universal implication of what he
was saying. It is a credit to us humans to even have this phrase, and what
it implies, in our lingo. Per Albert Einstein's perception, the fastest
thing in the Universe is the leading edge of time, the leading edge of
light-time-velocity, constant. Remember that, without ever traveling
anywhere, that is where he went on his trip of perception. We living humans
exist "immediately" in time. The leading edge of traveling
light-time-velocity-history single-sided 2-dimensional "brane" frames exist
'soonest' in time exactly as does time advance in place. The two are
precisely parallel sequential. They cannot be otherwise. The difference
between "immediately" and "soonest" with regard to time, is the
aforementioned "sooner" ("do it immediately if not sooner!"). "Sooner" is
the gap time between "immediately" and "soonest": At once the gap time
between "time is relative" and Hawking's Universal Real Time Zero on the
clock of his "Grand Central Station of the Universe" (Einstein's
"cosmological constant of zero" as it would apply to time).
Now someone might say that everything that physically [exists] in the
Universe, including the Universe itself, has to exist right at the dead
leading edge of time advance in place everywhere in the Universe. They would
be dead right, no argument from me on that score. The only qualifier would
be that everything in the Universe but light and maybe some atomic and
sub-atomic particles and/or waves, and the Universe itself, is a little bit
behind and slow to [realize] that they, everything else, is where they are.
Everything is inside that horizon (unobservably so), but, (observably) for
most everything, that horizon is distant, ever constantly distant and thus
ever unapproachable no matter what one's position and/or velocity. Every
point in an infinite Universe will always be the dead center point of an
infinite Universe, constant to infinity's ever distant
collapsed--constant--horizons ("horizons" (plural), horizontal and vertical,
plane and layer, magnitude and magnitudes and so on) always accelerating in
expansion, in expansiveness, in expanse, away from them omni-directionally
and/or omni-dimensionally, and/or omni-state and states....toward collapse
at the horizon of complexity's reaching all but total chaos, or all but
total smearing out, or all but total massing, or all but total....totaling).
Brad
|
|
| | From: | Uncle Al | | Subject: | Re: Aether medium gravity | | Date: | Sun, 23 Jan 2005 13:55:09 -0800 |
|
|
| glbrad01 wrote:
>
> NASA scientists some time ago observed 70,000 light years distant from
> Earth the aura of a nova they said occurred 1,000 years ago our time. I not
> kidding, it was all in the caption underneath the picture just as I put
> above.
Post the URL. You are obviously incompetent to be a primary or
secondary source.
> That is neither here nor there for my illustration of simultaneous event
> occurrence.
>
> We observe the aura 70,000 light years distant. The causing nova occurred
> 71,000 years ago our time somewhere in time just passed the mid-point of our
> last ice age. All points in space are in continuous motion, continuously
> traveling at all times.
Nothing moves in GR. The four-vector is conserved. Movement in
3-space is swaping time and space coordinates.
> So, the Earth is in ice age 71,000 years ago, the
> nova is at that time occurring [approximately] 70,000 light years away (the
> event of the causing nova will arrive to Earth in the vicinity of 1,000 A.
> D. our time, or somewhere around 1,000 years ago). At a distance of 142,000
> light years away from Earth, we see an object in some kind of state of
> existence. We will never see it at it was 71,000 later than 142,000 years
> ago our time, around the beginning of said ice age for us, which event
> observed by us will be simultaneous with the nova that occurred 1,000 years
> before the aura we observe 70,000 light years distant, and our own mid point
> of our last ice age. We won't be around, probably, 71,000 years from now our
> time (and the expanding aura we observe at the distance of 70,000 light
> years from us will have disappeared by that time).
You are an idiot.
[snip 200 lines of crap]
--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz.pdf
|
|
| | From: | Morituri-|-Max | | Subject: | Re: Aether medium gravity | | Date: | Sun, 23 Jan 2005 22:46:06 GMT |
|
|
| glbrad01 wrote:
> NASA scientists some time ago observed 70,000 light years distant
> from Earth the aura of a nova they said occurred 1,000 years ago our
> time. I not kidding, it was all in the caption underneath the picture
> just as I put above.
>
> That is neither here nor there for my illustration of simultaneous
> event occurrence.
URL please?
Occams Razor: it was a typo. A newspaper article doesn't define or redefine
how the universe works.
|
|
| | From: | Franz Heymann | | Subject: | Re: Aether medium gravity | | Date: | Mon, 24 Jan 2005 07:43:45 +0000 (UTC) |
|
|
|
glbrad01 wrote:
> NASA scientists some time ago observed 70,000 light years distant
> from Earth the aura of a nova they said occurred 1,000 years ago our
> time. I not kidding, it was all in the caption underneath the
picture
> just as I put above.
I fail to see anything odd in that statement.
Franz
|
|
| | From: | glbrad01 | | Subject: | Re: Aether medium gravity | | Date: | Mon, 24 Jan 2005 08:05:22 GMT |
|
|
|
"Franz Heymann" wrote in message
news:ct28vh$ohv$4@sparta.btinternet.com...
>
> glbrad01 wrote:
>> NASA scientists some time ago observed 70,000 light years distant
>> from Earth the aura of a nova they said occurred 1,000 years ago our
>> time. I not kidding, it was all in the caption underneath the
> picture
>> just as I put above.
>
> I fail to see anything odd in that statement.
>
> Franz
>
You wouldn't see anything odd about a caption saying a nova occurred 1,000
years ago at 70,000 light years distance-time.
Brad
|
|
| | From: | Greg Neill | | Subject: | Re: Aether medium gravity | | Date: | Sun, 23 Jan 2005 18:52:13 -0500 |
|
|
| "Morituri-|-Max" wrote in message
news:OOVId.63296$Z%.2181@fe1.texas.rr.com...
> glbrad01 wrote:
> > NASA scientists some time ago observed 70,000 light years distant
> > from Earth the aura of a nova they said occurred 1,000 years ago our
> > time. I not kidding, it was all in the caption underneath the picture
> > just as I put above.
> >
> > That is neither here nor there for my illustration of simultaneous
> > event occurrence.
>
> URL please?
>
> Occams Razor: it was a typo. A newspaper article doesn't define or redefine
> how the universe works.
Why the confusion? The nova event could have been witnessed
1000 years ago, and the expanding remnants photographed
yesterday. Neither precludes a distance of 70,000 light years
for the object.
|
|
| | From: | glbrad01 | | Subject: | Re: Aether medium gravity | | Date: | Mon, 24 Jan 2005 08:02:30 GMT |
|
|
|
"Morituri-|-Max" wrote in message
news:OOVId.63296$Z%.2181@fe1.texas.rr.com...
> glbrad01 wrote:
>> NASA scientists some time ago observed 70,000 light years distant
>> from Earth the aura of a nova they said occurred 1,000 years ago our
>> time. I not kidding, it was all in the caption underneath the picture
>> just as I put above.
>>
>> That is neither here nor there for my illustration of simultaneous
>> event occurrence.
>
> URL please?
>
> Occams Razor: it was a typo. A newspaper article doesn't define or
> redefine how the universe works.
>
You are exactly right, it was a typo, but there are a lot of those typos
running through physics, like constantly leaving out "relative to....."
Brad
|
|
|
