Bird11dog

Honest, good post.I have given up trying to convince anyone because there are to few with any reasoning powers.

A hydrogen atom falling into a black hole should have the velocity of c when it reaches the event horizon. Will it's relative mass be infinite?

Swan, here you talk like you understand but in other threads you sometimes don't.

Your right, I don't understand you.

We are not allowed to discuss reasons for things that science can't explain.

Any change of direction must include acceleration. Come on Swan, have I done something to you?

Where does thermal radiation come from? I could have sworn it was from the vibration of atoms and molecules.

Would you mind pointing to your source. I must have missed it in my own studies.

The electrons and protons are not neutral and they are moving. Sure, but what if they are accelerating in the same direction?

The atoms in your body are not stationary.

No evidence but your right everything is in motion wr to everything else ie, everything must radiate. An interesting experiment, two objects of equal mass under equal acceleration. Can one object detect radiation from the other?

You can't radiate in one frame and not in another. I agree, I'm saying that any motion wr to another will produce radiation even after acceleration.

I'm not sure that I wouldn't radiate. The radiation would have wavelengths so long they would be undetectable.. Jackson's is what made me think about it.and his drawing of an accelerated charged particle.

Within a millenium there won't be any humans to make the trip.

What is really going on when we accelerate a charged particle? A charged particle has an electromagnetic field that is always propagating away from it at c so when we accelerate it that field must start propagating away from it in a new position in space. The difference in those two positions could be construed as a photon. Something like the perpendicular part of a square wave with the angle of the perpendicular part being determined by how much acceleration is used to accelerate the charged particle. That angle being the wavelength.

It is Impossible to move an object without acceleration and if it was accelerated it emits photons and all objects are made of charged particles. Come on guys or gals, it was a serious question that deserves some thought. Why is it that every time someone asks a question that isn't in a text book we treat them like their an idiot?

As we all know a charged particle has an electromagnetic field that propagates away from it at the speed of light. If we move/accelerate that charged particle it's field starts propagating away from it's new location in space. Could we say that the difference between it's old position and new position is a photon that displays exactly the energy required to make that move?

But you don't need a citation?

If the average clock rate for the Universe in the early Universe is slower? v = d/t ?

Does the average strength of the Universe's gravitational field get weaker as it expands? I'm pretty sure that is obvious. If true then the Universal clock must be speeding up.

Yes, was the average mass density higher or lower in the early expanding Universe? My post should be self evident in an expanding Universe.

Is the average gravitational field strength for the Universe weaker now than in the early Universe? Yes. Does time speed up in a weaker gravitational field strength? Yes.Then time was slower in the early Universe therefore the speed of light was faster in the early Universe. v = d/t

Why is it we always look at an object near c and never out from an object near c?

We could consider the fields generated by the electrons and protons of the Universe as the OP's Aether.

THE PROBLEM i SEE WITH THE ARGUMENT IS THAT WE ARE USING OUR FRAME OF REFERENCE TO MEASURE c. If we are on the ship traveling at .9999c and we measure how fast we are moving we find Our velocity to be much faster than c.