exchemist

9 minutes ago, tmdarkmatter said:

So you admit that this light was travelling at only about 20% of the speed of light or that the "average effective speed of light" was just 0,20740741 C.

Using the word "presumably" indicates me that your model does not seem to be perfect yet or that you are not completely convinced yet.

 

No of course not. "Presumably" is a term I use to indicate something is what I think, while acknowledging I am far from expert on cosmology, so I advance my remarks tentatively. It's not my model or my speciality.

You have to be careful, I think, with "the average effective speed of light." I thought you already understood the light travels towards Earth at c throughout, but the distance over which that light has to travel is increasing as it goes, as  @Genady had already said.

I'm wondering if it may be useful in this discussion to distinguish between comoving distance and proper distance: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comoving_and_proper_distances I have the feeling this may be where the confusion is occurring. But as I say I am not a cosmologist. There are others here better qualified to steer you through what the theory actually says.

4 minutes ago, tmdarkmatter said:

If this model works, I think you should be able to tell me where this galaxy was 13.5 billion years ago, where the light was emitted, where the galaxy is now and how fast this light travelled what distance to reach us to see if it makes sense. And why we are seeing tiny dots instead of clusters like the neighboring clusters of our milky way.

But how is it possible that this light travels for 13.5 billion years if the galaxy was only 2.8 billion light years away?

Because of the stretching while it was en route, presumably. 

6 hours ago, tmdarkmatter said:

Ok, the same calculations can be made with different horizons, but the problem remains the same. Light is still beeing carried away by expansion.

So you suppose that the light was emitted closer to us and then the universe expanded. My questions in this case are: At what distance was the light emitted? What was the position of this light during all this time (light just floating and not moving?)? Why would we see tiny galaxies (dots) with their size beeing according to the estimated distance, why would we not see big galaxies corresponding the images to galaxies closer to us?

Yes, I understand what you mean, but red shifted or not, light coming from this distance and having to cross a universe in expansion would need more time to travel this distance, even if travelling at the speed of light and beeing this speed a constant. If light is travelling through a space and I (playing god) expand this space while the light is inside of this space, I should be able to delay that light. It is very important to mention that I am not changing the speed of light, I am only modifying the distance light has to travel. Wouldn´t it be strange to say that when light is red shifted it has the right to travel faster than the speed of light? That would be a contradiction.

OK, so you seem to be seeing this the same way as in @Genady's explanation then, viz. travels at c, but through a space that is itself expanding, so the distance stretches during its travel.  

7 hours ago, tmdarkmatter said:

Once again, I have some (maybe unusual) questions for the scientific community. I hope you can easily refute my ideas with good arguments. But first I want to mention again what we are currently supposing:

1. The limit of the visible universe is somewhere close to 13.5 billion light years away. (I am using this limit just to make my calculations easier).

2. The universe is expanding, and this expansion is pulling galaxies away from us according to the Hubble constant.

3. Whenever a galaxy is at a distance of almost 13.5 billion light years, this galaxy is moving away from us almost at the speed of light.

4. Objects that are very close to us (for example less than 1 million light years) are almost not moving away from us.

5. The speed of light is constant and has always been the same.

Now I have the following idea about light travelling from the furthest galaxies towards us: if light is travelling at speed of light but at the same time the space between this galaxy and us is expanding at a speed that is almost the speed of light, that would mean that the “effective speed of light” of this light should be close to zero. This is similar to someone walking on an escalator against the current. After some time, the escalator would move slower and slower, until finally stopping completely, when the person arrives at its destination (for example earth).

At first, I thought that there should be an acceleration of the light when it is travelling to us and that the “effective speed” should increase according to time, meaning that there is a constant acceleration (this would translate into light needing at least twice as much time to reach us than we currently think). But this is not true, because the “effective speed” would not depend on time, but on the distance light has effectively travelled. The expansion depends on the distance the light is still away from us.

Now if I imagine that the horizon of the visible universe is 13.5 billion light years away and that a galaxy is for example 13.499 billion light years away, I calculated that the light of this galaxy would move at the usual 300,000 km/s against a current of 299,977.78 km/s arising from the expansion, so the “effective speed” would be only approx. 22.22 km/s. If I now split the path of the light towards us into 13,500 segments of 1 million light years each, then I can calculate that the light would need about 13,500 billion years just to travel through the first segment. Once this light has travelled through about 1000 of these segments, it would still need about 13,5 million years to travel through each segment and once it reaches us, it would only need 1 million years to travel these 1 million light years (maximum effective speed). According to my calculations, the light would need about 136 billion years to reach us from a distance of 13.499 billion light years (about 10 times more).

But if there is a galaxy even closer to the horizon, it might need even more time until reaching infinite.

On the other side, even the light from a galaxy that is 1 billion light years closer to us than the horizon would still need 35 billion years to reach us, not 12.5 billion years.

Now please tell me what I am doing wrong. Why should the expansion of the universe not have any effect at all on the light travelling against this expansion? Was light much faster 13.5 billion years ago than it is today? Was the light coming from distant galaxies actually generated in galaxies that were much closer to us? If the universe expands, this expansion should also carry the light away from us, not only the galaxies. I hope you understand what I mean. Expansion cannot move galaxies while not moving light.

On the other hand, the (accelerated) expansion of the universe would make our universe look very odd and unnatural. It would be like a soccer field where there is one galaxy every 5 meters at the borders of the soccer field, with increasing density of galaxies in the center, with maybe 1 million galaxies at a radius of less than 5 meters from the center and a pinhead in the center containing 99,9% of all galaxies of the universe.

Please let me know what you think and don´t forget that it does not matter who I am or what I do. Everybody on this planet should have the right to ask questions. I hope that this topic will lead to a conversation with mutual respect and that somebody shows up with a good refutation, so I have peace of mind.

I’m just a chemist, but isn’t there a problem with your notion of the “effective speed” of light? Surely the speed of light is independent of the relative speeds of emitter and receiver, is it not? So for rapidly receding objects (relative to us) what happens is the speed of light still reaches us at c, but it is just red shifted.

In which case your escalator analogy would appear to be misplaced.

4 hours ago, StringJunky said:

When anyone puts 'Truth' in a name, you know they are lying. Trump's Truth Social site comes to mind.

Quite. Also often the case with “People’s” and “Democratic”, as in People’s Republic of China or German Democratic Republic.

1 hour ago, swansont said:

Of which you are a member, and joined voluntarily.

Seems strange behaviour for a person  sign up to a club - and then immediately start complaining about the rules they've just agreed to. 

58 minutes ago, John Cuthber said:

This bit reminds me of something.
About 30 years ago I used to live in London and, from time to time, in the pubs I would meet American tourists who explained to me at  length how much better America was than the UK. To be fair, it wasn't only Americans- some of the Aussies were just as bad. And, of course, it was only ever a small minority.

I'd wait for them to finish their rant and then politely offer to pay for their ticket to the airport so they could go back.

They never took me up on it.

Here's your ticket back to your forum where you are happy. Would you like directions and/ or help with your packing?

Perhaps it should rather read: "Admit a right one."......... 

48 minutes ago, disobey said:

 

  Did you even read those quotes?  Apparently not.

 

  If I were allowed to speak freely around here, I would have you eating every statement you utter.  Does that seem right to anybody?  (Besides you)  It should.

 

  Define "fuck off."  Then do it.  As in stop wasting my time with your delusional lunacy.  I know that you don't want to know the truth.  Stop pretending that you do.

 

  Too bad freedom of speech didn't remind you of freedom of speech.  Let a thing be said.  Then, if you have a problem with it, speak it.  If you are right, the matter will be settled.

 

  There is no controversy on the matter.  Either you support freedom of speech or you don't.  Also, are you an American?  If you are, then you live under the umbrella of the first amendment.  It would be hypocritical for you to deny to others that which your government provides for you.  Also, why does the first amendment allow for freedom of speech?  Because denying it is a bad thing.  If it is a bad thing for the government to do, then it is a bad thing for whoever exists as a citizen of that government to do too.

 

  Then you disagree with the concept of freedom of speech.  I'll keep that in mind.

Not at all. But a club is free to make rules of discourse for its members to abide by. That has no impact on anyone’s rights of free speech.

1 hour ago, disobey said:

 

  1.  Go to my thread, "The hell of logic."  Look at the second reply by a mod.

  2.  "Hate" isn't senseless.  It is the very crux of survival.  You could also call it a moral DUTY!  To be otherwise is the pinnacle of EEEEVILLLLLLL!!!!!!  How does it feel to know that satan should be taking lessons in evil from YOU and others like you.  Don't believe it?  I told of a forum here where the truth could be spoken.  From checking in there today, I see that nobody here went there.  Apparently nobody wants their fiendish evil exposed.  Also, I am reminded of an old truism.  "The road to hell is paved with good intentions."

 

  I hate to point out the obvious to you, but science is all about the truth.  Knowing what the real truth is is the whole reason behind the scientific method.  Also, are you claiming that science is all about lies?  Next, the truth isn't "subjective."  It is what it is.  Just as 1+1=2 isn't subjective.  Neither is it a theory.  It is the truth.

In scientific theories, all “truth” is provisional. Science deals in predictive models, not absolute truth.

14 hours ago, disobey said:

  Freedom of speech is absolutely essential.  Everywhere.  Even at "private" forums who obviously found a loophole around the cornerstone of the most fundamental and important human right of all.  FREEDOM OF SPEECH!.  But don't take my word for it.  Consider what these people of note had to say on the matter.

 

 

 

 

 

    

 

 

 

  

  

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

No one is stopping you marching up and down Piccadilly, or Madison Ave, with this stuff on a placard and a loudhailer. So your free speech rights are not infringed in any way. 

But there is no reason why a science forum can't have its own rules of membership, which put some constraints on the type of stuff it allows to be shown on its discussion boards.

You are not the first to make the mistake of confusing legal rights to free speech with membership rules on a forum.

12 hours ago, disobey said:

 

 

 

  Everything in my thread couldn't have been any more in context.  The mutual context being the ignorance of the vast majority of people.  And that truthful fact is the current state of affairs.  Not an "unknown subject."

 

  

You have misunderstood me. I am referring to the lack of context for the quoted remark of Casey. Without context, we have no way to know what CIA programme he may have been referring to, whether it was a joke, or intended ironically, whether he was being sarcastic, or what.

This is the trouble with quote-mining.

So, in the absence of such further information, it makes little sense to ask us whether we agree or disagree with what Casey is reported to have said, 40 years ago.  

7 hours ago, disobey said:

 

  Indeed.  The hell of logic.  A bitch, isn't it.

 Well, it seems that it was logical enough to befuddle you.  So what are you.  A fetus?

 

  I'm pretty sure you saw my thread, "How wrong are you."  Why is it so hard for you to understand.  For whatever you think is right or true, chances are the complete opposite is actually the case.  In this instance, history is written by the victors.  And you better believe it.  OR ELSE!  But I disobey.  While it lasts, seek out my thread here in the philosophy section called, "Where are the seekers of truth."  You better do it quick.  I don't expect it to last long.

 

  Did the holocaust happen?  You should have seen my thread about logic.  If it did happen, you should be able to say it didn't.  Because you could then be proven wrong.  But denying it isn't allowed around here.  So the logical conclusion as to why is because it in fact didn't happen.  (Just as Roseanne Barr said)  Now I'm not sayiong it didn't happen.  What I am saying is that the actions of this forum in a logical way is saying it didn't happen.  Make of that what you will.

 

  My logic is spot on.  Only those who have become accustomed to delusion would think otherwise.  Next, try this on for size.  Though I haven't done it here, at other forums I have denied the holocaust.  You speak of wasting your time?  Hundreds of people at many forums over the years have tried to refute what I had to say.  THEY ALL FAILED!!!  Miserably.  Oh how I wish I could tell you the real truth.  On MANY matters.  If only it were allowed and if only you weren't programmed to disregard it.  Just as any cult follower would do.

  Those who deny freedom of speech are scum.  Tell me more of how you enjoy being at a scum forum.

Bye bye.😁

1 hour ago, KrallSpace29 said:

I have come to this conclusion based on time dilation which has occurred in my awareness in the last year or two. I've been reading a lot of Riemannian and Tensor Calculus in the last year, and am still becoming more aware of what each and anveryone's human mind can do. We're more powerful than you think, a lot of people have succumbed to the media and other. 

Since I did this Antarctica went from melting to freezing, a deep freeze actually. The North pole can be fixed once the Southern one is, this can't happen at the same time.

 

OK. This post enables us to form certain conclusions about you and your ideas. 

I'm out. 

46 minutes ago, MJ kihara said:

What's your area of expertise? If your a doctor I would want to know about that from you...having attitudes and stereotyping is not thinking coherently....you haven't talked anything substantial about light escaping from blackhole or are you coming up with a new way to communicate concept of relativity that am not deciphering...I need help here pliz...😂.

 

My profile is visible if you care to look it up.

I answered the thread OP in post 2 as clearly as I was able. (I did include a joke, mind you.)

59 minutes ago, KrallSpace29 said:

Hey Everyone,

I'm new to the forum but am looking forward to engaging with people who are also interested in brainstorming for solutions.

And another thing I've been having a hard time with, what happens when you actually come across a potentially world fixing/changing solution but don't have the funds or resources to make it happen? This has been a problem for me recently. 

 

Anyways, I have had an idea that could potentially have a dramatically beneficial cooling impact on the Climate, It would be an atmosphere lamp; located on either pole.

I've tried this before a few times on a small scale and it has already prevented multiple apocalyptic warming scenarios. This is something that NASA should already be looking into. I haven't been able to exactly describe the phenomena just yet as I would be wasting my time if I were to try, I have to keep going with other things, but I'm sure if I had a group of people to work with this could be easily achieved. 

 

Back to the lamp, I have found that if you are to orient a nice LED light bulb in a lamp, (I used a GE LED), it instantly and definitely has a dramatic effect on correcting the layers of the atmosphere. When I did this I think it may have corrected a disgusting amount of disorganization in the atmosphere from all the atomic bomb testing in the 50's, 60's, and so forth. Even firing a gun causes cavities in the atmosphere which otherwise would last for an indefinite amount of time until something disturbs where the cavitation occurred, light is good for doing this.

Referring to Newtons first law, all of the cavitation produced from all of these projectiles in war need to be made up for, or else we're doomed to climate change. If NASA could install two lamps on either pole even if it were purely experimental, I think this could be a great step towards a climate that we would have under control. The name of the game at this point is controlling the climate, which is definitely very possible, actually it would be too easy if everyone were working together. 

Back on track, I think if we had two decently sized GE LED lightbulbs pointed outward towards space at either pole, the poles would have a better chance at refreezing. Simple, and they could control these from a HQ wherever they need it be. (Brightness, timing, etc).

Thoughts? Please let me know looking forward to hearing from you guys. 

 

 

Please (1) post details of the trials you have carried out, (2) explain why you think LED light has an impact on the layers of the atmosphere and (3) explain why altering the layers in some way would reduce the greenhouse effect of CO2. 

1 hour ago, MJ kihara said:

Lots of misunderstanding,it like you are fighting invisible enemy.

When you see that ' ...' '....' associate it with me..🤗 its the way my neurons are firing. This one "........." for slack thinking you should tell me/us how you came up with it.

Otherwise brain do the thinking... communication and sentences don't think, saying communication and sentence think is bad science (BS).

Experience: people that can't communicate coherently often can't think coherently, I have found. 

25 minutes ago, MJ kihara said:

At every phase in history there seems to be a well defined coherent way of thinking for the majority of people at that particular phase of history only later to be realised that there were hidden layers of ideas within those coherence.

I tried to overthink about that phrase when I came across it to understand it, it lead me to alot of things... sometimes even ambiguous phrases can lead to deeper meaning when you try to search for clarity out of those phrases...to me 'even light' seemed to emphasize the indestructible nature of Blackhole to say the least,this gave me the urge to over think about it to go beyond the established facts.

A good tip for clear thinking and expression is to communicate in complete sentences, not in half sentences trailing off with "........... ". That way lies slack thinking and, if you're not jolly careful, pet theories.😀

You are not thinking clearly here. "Even light" says nothing whatsoever about the permanence or otherwise of black holes. Or, if you think it does, you need to explain why you think it says that, since it is far from obvious. 

11 minutes ago, MJ kihara said:

What is thinking straight? It depend on the range of thinking,the narrower the range it is,the straighter it appears,that is what I think.

I totally agree with this.... yeah atleast nothing gets out.

Thinking straight involves well-defined ideas, that can be clearly expressed, and which are connected in a coherent way. 

1 hour ago, Genady said:

If this is the case, then the comparison to light is simply wrong, because one does not need a high velocity to escape a Newtonian BH. One could just crawl out of it.

What do you mean by crawl out? Do you mean a powered spacecraft or something?

4 hours ago, MJ kihara said:

When the science behind the reasons is not clear esp in a form that can also be clearly understood by a layman it creates a room for ambiguous terms and phrases to be used.
If you have the science behind it you would really know why it doesn't escape...which on itself will really lead you to something wonderful,that is,what escape from the Blackhole..... simplicity and consistency in scientific explanations leads to reduction in ambiguities....sometime when you try to bring clarity you end up with a pet theory.

 

Not sure I follow this. Are you saying people who can’t think straight may end up with pet theories? There does seem to be evidence for that, certainly. But that’s not what this thread is about.

5 hours ago, disobey said:

  Not that logic is hell.  But I have found that the average political forum views logical thought as hell.  And will ban you for using it.  For example, let's take a logical look at the topic of "racism."  If racism is wrong, what is wrong about it should be easy enough to point out.  So that if anybody came along and said something racist, what is wrong with that point of view could be pointed out.  Therefore settling the matter.  But the vast majority of forums won't let you say racist things.  The only logical conclusion as to why is because there is nothing wrong about such statements to be pointed out.  So if it isn't wrong, that must mean it is good.

  While I'm here, I may as well bring up another topic.  The holocaust.  If the holocaust happened, it should be easy enough to prove that it happened.  So if anybody said things to deny that the holocaust happened, it should be easy enough to prove that it did in fact happen.  But most forums won't let you deny the holocaust.  The logical conclusion as to why is because it in fact didn't happen.  Otherwise they would let you deny it and be proven wrong.  On that last note, I will show you something said by Roseanne Barr.  Who is Jewish.  What a moderator told me at another forum was that what she said was taken out of context.  (Before he banned me)  But look at how she says what she says.  She was being serious.  As if that wasn't enough, I watched enough of the interview to know that what she said wasn't taken out of context.  Also, the way she described how most businesses operate was spot on.  That aside, here is the clip.  Strangely enough, this can no longer is shown directly in the internet.  What is shown is a lot of damage control and plain BS on the matter.

 

 

 

 

Your logic is flawed. Another possibility is that forums don’t wish to waste time pointing out what is wrong with racist or holocaust-denying statements. We are not under any moral obligation to pay attention to the ravings of every nutter on the street corner. If we did, forums would be cluttered with tedious junk, of no interest to members. We’ve got better things to do than point out why offensive statements and badly argued positions  are so.

If you’ve been banned a lot it will be because you are an annoying bore, and/or the forums in question don’t want to be associated with your ideas.

Why not try Truth Social or something? There are plenty of outlets for unpleasant cranks these days.

5 hours ago, disobey said:

 

  Somebody else being wrong.  How interesting.  If it isn't philosophy, what is it.  Obviously William Casey must have has some "philosophical" reasoning for saying what he did.  The question is, and you can consider it a philosophical question, do you agree with what he said or not.

How can we agree or disagree with an out of context statement, relating to an unknown subject, from over 40 years ago?

1 hour ago, TheVat said:

I try to have some variety, too.  Reuters, Guardian, LA Times, Washington Post, AP News, Daily Kos, Vice News (for its "underreported stories" emphasis), Politico, National Review (has retained a few conservatives with the capacity for independent thought), BBC,  National Public Radio (US), and The Atlantic.  

And of course Journal of Toenail Fungus for its guest editorials by deposed dictators, unique perspectives I can find nowhere else.

Oh I go to the National Lubricating Grease Institute Spokesman for that: https://www.nlgi.org/nlgi-spokesman/

56 minutes ago, StringJunky said:

Mine are: Aljazeera, BBC, Reuters, The Intercept, Kyiv Post, Institute for the Study of War, Moscow Times, UK Defence Journal, Associated Press and Politico. I like to try and get varied perspectives as seen from different countries on similar subjects that interest me. I have noted that AP and ISoW are cited by the others listed quite a lot.

 

Financial Times, BBC, Guardian, Reuters, mainly. I also check Independent, Brexograph (headlines only, to see what the Swivel-Eyes are thinking, or being told to think ) and the Spectator and New Statesman for commentary.  And others from time to time on specific topics, e.g. Forbes, Business Insider, New Scientist, Nature publications etc. 

2 hours ago, PeterBushMan said:

You get nothing more than an average Russian, a house and a car,

you only get a big mouth.

You can have a look at those homeless people in America,

those American make $12,000 per year, their living standard is lower than those South Americans who make $1/day.  Your GDP is a fake number.

 

I think you are the big mouth, not others.

1) The West laughs Russia lost a war to Japan, you must forget  the battle of Singapore, and the battle of Hong Kong, Two biggest jokes in history.

 

2) Muscovy was not ruled by Mongols. Please google the map of the Mongol Empire.

But Spain was ruled by Moors for 750 years.

And Europe was invaded by Mongol long ago, Huns came form Mongolia.

Later when Mongols arrived the Danube, the European Army ran away.

 

 

 

Your inferiority complex is showing. I remember similar stuff from the USSR when I was a child. They were taught that Russians had invented just about every modern appliance. Their government felt the need to boost national pride by changing history. In your case, you seem preoccupied with some kind of competition that a nation "wins" or "loses". That may be how China, or Malaysia, say, is being taught to see itself, because of an uneasy awareness that it has spent the last 30 years "catching up".  But don't try to change history. Nobody "laughs" at Russia because of the war with Japan. You are imagining that. Spain - in the form of Al Andalus - was mostly under Moorish rule from about 700 to 1250, 550 years, not 750.  But why pick on that? All manner of parts of Europe and the Middle East were ruled from elsewhere for considerable periods. That's what happens in history. Nobody but you thinks in terms of "Europe" or "The West" versus everyone else. It's simplistic, childish and divisive.