Roger Dynamic Motion

That was not clear before, and no, it wasn't obvious. The time it takes depends on who is doing the measuring.

Swansont: The Astronauts

Could it be also who is doing the timing ?

Your question still doesn't add up. You say the ship is 1 sec away from the target, but as traveled by the ship, or by the light?( if by the light, then it is one light-sec from the target when the light is turned on, and my previous answer holds if this is the distance measured by the target frame).

Then you go on to give a distance of 1860001 miles, which would take light ~10 sec to travel and the ship ~40 sec to travel and in no way matches up with your "one second away statement"( the only way to make these two statements consistent with each other is for the distance to be measured in the target frame, the time measured in the Ship frame and the relative speed of ship to target being much greater than 0.25c).

In addition, you have still failed to specify whether this distance is being measured by someone at rest with respect to the ship or by someone at rest with respect to the target(an important piece of information when dealing with relativistic speeds.).

There is only one person in the ship who knows the speed of the ship .25 the speed of light and the light travel with the ship , at one second away from target. the light is turned on,,,so what i'm saying the ship will arrived 3 quarters of a second later than light. obviously.

Your question still doesn't add up. You say the ship is 1 sec away from the target, but as traveled by the ship, or by the light?( if by the light, then it is one light-sec from the target when the light is turned on, and my previous answer holds if this is the distance measured by the target frame).

Then you go on to give a distance of 1860001 miles, which would take light ~10 sec to travel and the ship ~40 sec to travel and in no way matches up with your "one second away statement"( the only way to make these two statements consistent with each other is for the distance to be measured in the target frame, the time measured in the Ship frame and the relative speed of ship to target being much greater than 0.25c).

In addition, you have still failed to specify whether this distance is being measured by someone at rest with respect to the ship or by someone at rest with respect to the target(an important piece of information when dealing with relativistic speeds.).

Janus ,,sorry I just realized I meet 186000 miles not 1860001

Studiot: thanks for the expose, but You are not telling if my quote is right

Well I could think of circumstances in which that is true.

 

But then I could think of circumstances in which it is untrue.

 

But then you did not do what Janus asked.

 

I would suggest you use several short sentences.

 

Each sentence should contain only one statement.

 

That would help you a great deal.

Well I could think of circumstances in which that is true.

 

But then I could think of circumstances in which it is untrue.

 

But then you did not do what Janus asked.

 

I would suggest you use several short sentences.

 

Each sentence should contain only one statement.

 

That would help you a great deal.

Studiot: thanks for the expose, but You are not telling if my quote is right

Ok I agree with the post 6; but my question was directed about rotation on its own axis perhaps.

I rephrased it. A space ship cruising at .25 the speed of light with a source of light up front,the light is turned on at 1 second away to target (1860001 Miles away, the arrival time of the ship will be 3 quarter of a second after the light at target. I'm I right?

Ok I was referring to time. not speed my error sorry .

got to go

Here is an example; of a space ship cruising at .25 second the speed of light with a source up front the beam at 0 second the light comes on , ''I'm right to estimate the arrival time of the ship at 3 quarter of a second after the light; at target?

 

Quote: Read it again, please

1 I cannot find any vector that makes me believe ''any other wise'' = from Google

Posted Today, 07:29 PM

Strange, on 02 Jun 2017 - 7:09 PM, said:

Apparently, it was me (yeah, I was surprised too):

 

 

 

So, what was in motion (before the existence of the Sun) was the contents of the universe.

 

To say the universe (as a whole) is in motion would seem to be pretty meaningless.

1e__I cannot find any vector that makes me believe ''any other wise''

2e_Not at all. It would prove that you do not belong to that Universe and the law of relativity is not valid in space .

Look up at night.

Very funny Strange

Very funny Strange

Tell me strange _are we in motion with all the galaxy.

Apparently, it was me (yeah, I was surprised too):

 

 

 

So, what was in motion (before the existence of the Sun) was the contents of the universe.

 

To say the universe (as a whole) is in motion would seem to be pretty meaningless.

1e__I cannot find any vector that makes me believe ''any other wise''

2e_Not at all. It would prove that you do not belong to it.

You said that motion in the universe was started when the Sun came into existence. I was just pointing out that things have always been in motion (before the sun existed). The evidence for this is the fact that we see stars, galaxies and other structures in the universe.

 

You also said that black holes did not exist before the Sun came into existence. That is even more bizarre. But the evidence is that there are black holes in the centre of nearly every galaxy and they predate the existence of the Sun.

 

And what is wrong with your keyboard? What all the random punctuation in your posts? ~<<=-??/!@£$%^&

The evidence for this is the fact that we see stars, galaxies and other structures in the universe __

in Motion? who sees that?

The Theory of the Instant Inflation . . .

More and more evidence is comming in indicating space is indeed a form of matter. As the reading of this text progresses it will become clear our view of the world is currently unclear. This text will show beyond any shadow of a doubt there was no Big Bang. It will make clear why Dark Matter exists, and show there's no Dark Energy.

In the beggining the world was void and without form. What this means is the universe was empty and it had no shape. I won't emphasize how empty it was like Big Bang Theory does. What gives the world shape? God Particles. AKA the Higgs Field. Space. Functional Dark Matter. At the start there was no DM, the only matter that existed existed in a point singularity. Now a point singularity is not a real object, but rather a mathematicle concept derived by a mathematicle formula which describes an infinitesimally small volume of the universe. An infinite number of point singularities existed at this time in the universe (the Multiheaven Theory, not the Multiverse theories). These Heavens are not parrallel beyond the fact all were created at the same time and oscillate in perfect sync with our Heaven. All the matter of Heaven was compressed down into an infinitesimally small volume as well as all its mass. Gravity was so strong when it pulled on all that matter it pulled it into a smaller volume. The compression of matter can go on forever because there is no limit to how much matter can be compressed. Let me attempt to explain what I mean when I say forever. Since the Higgs boson is nick named the God Particle, let's use this famous beings life span to understand forever. Forever means for so long as God shall live. God is imortal. He does not die because His days are not numbered, so He cannot die, ever. Fortunately God doesn't have to wait this long. In fact once the PS has formed He need only wait 5 billionths of a second. We need to apply the Laws of Physics durring the compressionary phase of matter. Specifically the inverse square law. When we apply the inverse square law we find that as the PS loses half its' diameter gravity becomes twice as strong thereby pulling on matter twice as hard. In other words the PS collapses exponentially faster, over five time constants, until its' compression aproaches the speed of light. Gravity being a form of light works up to the speed of light and gives one last desperate infinitesimally short tug on matter compressing matter infinitesimally faster than the speed of light. Now it doesn't take much, but when you out run the speed of light you out run gravity. Gravity is still there, but no longer part of the equation, so the PS disolves under its' own internal pressure.

There was an experiment with two gigantic metal plates (Niel De'Grasse Tyson), which I believe were placed in a giant vacuum chamber and had an array of electron microscopes placed all around their infinitesimally narrow gap, which took place decades ago. Five out of seven possible observations were made durring this experiment.

Observations:

1. The plates had to be perfectly parrallel or the plates would be forced together when pressure was applied.

2. When pressure was applied to the perfectly parrallel plates the gap narrowed.

3. When pressure was released form the plates the gap widened.

4. When too much pressure was applied the plates were forced together,

5. and when pressure was released the plates remained together (the effect appeared to have dissipated)

 

6. If the plates would have been dragged back to the narrow gap and then had pressure applied to them the width of the gap would have remained unchanged.

 

7. If the pressure were then removed the gap would have increased to the wide gap.

 

This experiment gave rise to 18 string theories which have since been parred back to 16 (whew, only 16 to go!). The reason why there are so many is because a lot of confusion can be generated when trying to explain something that doesn't exist. It also gave rise to vacuum theory which states anti-matter and matter are created from vacuum (nothing) and anhialate one another which violates two laws of physics and the Nonviolatable theory which tells us no law of physics can be violated, not even for the moment which ends one instant and beggins another. So these theories can be safely ignored.

My Interpretation of Observations.

When a line of ball bearings is placed between two not parrallel metal plates and pressure is applied to the plates the bearings are forced out of the gap and the plates come into full surface to surface contact. In other words what actually happened here is that a plane of Higgs bosons was forced out of the gap.

1. When the plates were not parrallel the plane of HB existing in the Linked Higgs Field were forced out of the gap.

 

2. When the gap narrowed the HB in the gap were compressed

3. When the pressure was released the pressure in the HB pushed the plates right back to where they started.

4. When too much pressure was applied the atoms in the plates moved around the HB because the HB were now small enough to fit into the empty spaces in between the atoms in the metal plates.

5. When the pressure was released the plates did not seperate because the HB were in the plates rather than in between the plates and so had nothing to press against that could be forced a part.

6. When the plates were dragged appart so the experiment could be repeated, they were dragged away from the plane of HB till the HB were once again in between the two MP. At the narrow gap pressure can be applied to the plane of HB.

7. When the pressure is removed from the MP the pressure in the HB moves the plates back to the wide gap.

Theory of Compression:

When matter is compressed it's volume decresses and its pressure increases. While the volume of matter decreases its' temerature rises.

When an infinite amount of matter is compressed into an infinitesesimally small volume it is infinitely pressurized, so when gravity disapears from the equation, pressure inflates matter infinitely far back out into the universe.

Theory of Inflation:

When matter has been infinitely compressed and the pressure is suddenly removed a subatomic particle must inflate at C for one instant. All SP must inflate simultaneously. Matter cannot inflate out into the universe below C. The inflations of all SP are additive.

Let's run another mental simulation, this one a bit more descriptive than the one with the line of ball bearings. We're onboard the 'Seeker' falling at breakneck speed under full acceleration towards the PS. The Seeker and all personel onboard are getting smaller as the PS comes closer. Now we can see the CGIs of the SPs in the holomonitor which fills the vast empty expanse of the bridge. Finally we can see the SP at the core of all matter. The core particle is enveloped by a shell of SP and is infact contained by an infinite number of nested shells of SP. When gravity disapears all SPs inflate at the same time at the speed of light. The infinite pressure of the core particle pushes all the SP in all the shells infinitely far out into the universe in just one oscillation of a precisely tuned ceasium atom. The innermost shell inflates at the same time pushing all the matter around it two times infinitely far out into the universe at 2C in just one oscillation of a precisely tuned ceasium atom. A shell infinitely far from the CP inflates at the same time pushing all the matter around it infinitely times infinitely far out into the universe infinitely faster than light in just one oscillation of a precisely tuned ceasium atom.

Inflation is the force which sets the mass of matter into motion. A mass in motion tends to stay in motion. At the moment the inflationary phase of matter ends the expansionary phase of matter beggins because a mass in motion stays in motion. When matter was compressed by the PS it became super heated, that is, as hot as matter can get. The moment the EP began matter began to cool off. The outer shells of matter cooled off first with a cooling thermal wave moving towards the CP. As matter cooled sufficiently the first form of matter precipitated out. A field of Higgs bosons. This field still exists today. It hasn't gone anywhere. It hasn't disapeared. It's transparent, perfectly clear. We can see right through it, forever. The HF has an infinitesimally small mass compared to visible matter, so we cannot detect the HF directly. As soon as the HF precipitated out the HB within it formed gravitational links. This linking created an all encompassing compleately contiguous field of HB. A single object made of matter called space. When the HBs linked up the HF became the Linked Higgs Field. The Linked Higgs Field resists expansion. The faster it expands the more it resists expansion. This is what put the brakes on the expansion of matter out into the empty universe, and this is what will drag all mass to a rest and trigger the Big Crunch, or Continuous Compression followed by the Exponential Compression.

In the beggining the universe was empty and it had no shape. Visible matter had seven times the diameter it does today. We can only see a very small volume of this matter. This small volume is known as the Observable Universe, because beyond the boundary of the OU light has not yet had time to reach Earth since the time of the Instant Inflation 13.7 billion years ago. Dark matter gives the world shape, but it is created gradually, rather than suddenly. Functional Dark Matter has too much volume to be gathered up durring the CC, so it remains behind. After the next II when the expansionary phase begins, the diameter of matter is infinitesimally smaller than the start of the last EP. At the next CC space will be added to dark matter. An infinitesimal mass added to the infinitesimal mass of DM. Each Big Bang Big Crunch cycle lasting perhaps no more than 100 billion years, although no one really knows how long the BB BC cycle lasts. None the less, it may as well last forever in comparison to the infinitesimally short existence of our species. In any event DM now has 6 times the mass of VM. It takes an eternity to create DM and only an instant to create VM. Clearly, VM is losing mass. If we extrapulate the loss of mass infinitely into the future we find there's no longer sufficient mass to form a PS at which time an eternity comes to an end. Now; however, DM has sufficient mass to lose volume and form black holes which can then be pulled in by gravity to form a PS leaving the world empty and without shape. And so beggins a new eternity, or Super BB BC cycle.

Next time I'll write about the:

mechanics of Higgs Lensing (gravitational lensing)

Higgs Transition (inertia)

velocity of C

Doppler effect

type 1A super nova data

and precession

I find your expose very interesting; but_ to make it more accessible to fast comprehension without losing the fill of the idea; it would help, not to abbreviate the words like <<hb,sp,ps,_ect,,, . But i have a vision close to yours . Bravo !

Sorry, you have to use the same definitions as everyone else.

 

Where is the quote you referred to?

To me _ I see the Universe as a big round body like the earth as an example and why would the Universe have a different shape, and we are parts of it.

So !~ my question << ''Is the Universe in Motion''/ and if so!~ what is the evident proof:

Patent for "Liquid nitrogen emergency cooling system for nuclear power plants "

https://www.google.com/patents/US20150380115

 

"A reactor cooling system for cooling a nuclear reactor using nitrogen comprising a refrigeration unit for cooling and compressing nitrogen gas into liquid nitrogen, a liquids storage tank to store liquid nitrogen, the tank in fluid communication with the refrigeration unit, a heat exchanger drop system in fluid communication with the liquids storage tank, adjacent to the nuclear reactor, wherein the nitrogen absorbs heat by becoming gaseous, a tank for receiving and holding nitrogen gas in fluid communication with the heat exchanger and in fluid communication with the refrigeration unit, and where the system is a closed-loop drop system."

your are taking about a ''nuke for Submarine''

In several of the Nuclear Power plants I worked on (designing) we had double valves on all pipelines exiting the reactor containment building. No valve is perfect (they all will leak-- even if only a tiny amount). Safety regulations required that we test the valves periodically to ensure leakage was within the acceptable range. We did this by pressurizing the space between the two valves with compressed air and measuring the rate of air loss. This was a very good test, because normally the lines contain water, so using air amplified the leakage (compared to water) and gave us a test of adequate sensitivity.

Very interesting OldChemE thans!

That is the chamber that contains the reactor.

 

http://ffden-2.phys.uaf.edu/webproj/212_spring_2015/Jackson_Page/jackson_page/pg6.html

Thanks for the [pictures.

"Gallilean Addition Law"? It would help if you had said that you mean the "addition of velocities". The "Gallilean Addition Law" says that if A is moving, relative to you, at speed u and B is moving relative to A with speed v, then B is moving, relative to you, with speed u+ v.

 

Yes, at high speeds, the "Gallilean Addition Law" is incorrect. It need to be replaced by the law from relativity.

 

With relativity the law for "adding velocities" says that if A is moving, relative to you, at speed u and B is moving, relative to B at speed v, then B is moving, relative to you, at [math]\frac{u+ v}{1+ \frac{uv}{c^2}}[/math].

I thought that was pretty well known.

I don't know what you mean by "Let say a target is at 1 second when the switch is turn ''on'' by the man in the train ; if the train's speed is X the train will arrived at the target". A target would be at some distance from a train, so I don't know what you mean by "a target is at 1 second". Do you mean that, at the current speed of the train it would take one second to get there? And what switch is being turned on? A light switch? if so the speed of light is "c" so using the formula above, with u as the speed of the train, relative to you, the speed of light relative you is [math]\frac{u+ c}{1+ \frac{uc}{c^2}}= \frac{u+ c}{1+ \frac{u}{c}}[/math]. Multiplying both numerator and denominator by c, that becomes [math]\frac{c(u+ c)}{c+ u}= c[/math]. Yes, the velocity of light is "c" relative to any inertial frame.

[/quote

Again, it depends on who's measuring the time. For a someone at rest with respect to the target, with the ship 1 light sec from the target at the moment the light is fired, the light will take 1 sec to reach the target, And it will take 4 sec for the ship to reach the target for a difference of 3 sec.

 

As far as the ship is concerned, the light will reach the target after ~0.7746 sec, and the ship and target will meet after ~3.873 sec, a difference of 3.098 sec.

how So! << what is causing the delay in time ?

Light emitted from a ship will never arrive at its destination at the same time as the ship, assuming everything is traveling in straight lines. The light will always arrive first. The question is simply one of by how much.

how much ? I like that !

by the way,,, how much before ?

The Galilean addition for Velocities ? incorrect. First the speed of light is always the same../ in the Galilean addition of velocities ;the difference with the speed of the source in the train must be deducted from the speed of light not added . The Galilean addition for velocities evaluate an event in time without target like a magician . Let say a target is at 1 second in time, when the light switch is turn ''on'' by the man in the train ; if the train's speed is X the train will arrived at the target

x- the speed of light ''not +''<< I'm I right ?

I would think that monitoring a slight pressure would be the quickest way to detect a breach of the containment structure.

Possibly a very small crack somewhere inaccessible to normal operations.

thanks for your answer.

Assuming the target is 1 light second away from the ship when the beam is turned on, and all of this is from the frame of the target, then yes.

+ one for you!

+ one for you!

so the light, to a point by ,changing the timing, will arrive at the same time with the ship

Superheated water vs steam?

thank you ! I know all about it../ it is not the answer I'm seeking .

Here is an example; of a space ship cruising at .25 second the speed of light with a source up front ''beam On.''I'm right to estimate the arrival time of the ship at 3 quarter of a second after the light; at target?

Function, on 01 Jun 2017 - 2:42 PM, said:

Are you insinuating the existance of choice in sexual orientation?

yes very much so . The homosexuality way way back in time was forbidden because it would slow down the reproduction of human on earth .

meaning that to chose a person as your lover is ok and natural according to nature not because of the law of Man .