Jump to content


Senior Members
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

24 Nice

About between3and26characterslon

  • Rank

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. So if a photon is emitted as blue light and received as red light is it the case that it still has the same total energy but it's energy is delivered over a longer period of time? or is a photon all or nothing in which case it has less total energy? Edit: I am thinking about expansion of space and not movement through it. I am trying to change my thinking not yours
  2. Two assumptions followed by a question 1) Red shift of distant galaxies is determined by measuring the shift in absorption lines in a spectrum of light, however, it is not just the lines that shift but the entire spectrum. 2) Higher frequency light has more energy than lower frequency light. Q. If light is emitted with more energy than when it is received where does that energy go?
  3. So they both left at the same time, traveled the same distance at different speeds but both returned at the same time? What am I missing?
  4. In a frame of reference described by x and y co-ordinates is it reasonable to describe a diagonal motion (what axis is this on?). Does this 'diagonal' motion not have x and y components of speed and therefore will appear to have contraction in both x and y directions?
  5. I think a lack of clarity in the original question has led to conflicting answers here. If the distance between our target galaxies is comparatively small and they are each moving through space with respect to A at 0.6c then the relative velocity between B and C will necessarily be less than c and they will be able to see each other. At relativistic speeds spacetime is distorted. If however the distance between all galaxies is vast and their apparent speed is due to the expansion of space between them then they will not be able to see each other and their relative speed is meaningless. Any distortion in spacetime due to their speed through space is voided by the expansion of spacetime between them. That's my thoughts
  6. How long does it take for an electron to jump an energy level? Does time exist in a singularity? isn't physics full of t=0? Have I not understood the question?
  7. Thanks mathematic, that's all good to know but I think you missed the point of the question. So are we saying that all the energy of the matter we can see and all the energy of the CMBR still only accounts for a small percentage of the energy required for galaxies to form the way they do?
  8. Keep an eye out or google MK-3475 which is a drug currently being trialed by Merck. It works by chemically tagging cancer cells which causes the body's immune system to identify it as foreign and therefore attack the cell. It has, according to some published results, shown remarkable efficacy in treating multiple cancers including lung cancer even after the cancer has metastasized. Doesn't answer your question but I thought it might interest you.
  9. I keep hearing that science cannot explain where the missing 95% of the mass of the universe is, ok so I keep hearing it in dumbed down news reports and TV shows and not so much in white papers. I will therefore conceed there is probably a large gap in my knowledge but it got me thinking. After the big bang came inflation, after inflation the universe cooled enough for matter to form which it did in almost equal ammounts of matter and anti-matter. This then anihilated almost completely leaving only a small amount of matter remaining. This must have caused another rather large bang as all that mass was in a considerably smaller universe than todays. So am I right in thinking the energy from this anihilation still has a mass equivelance and therefore a warping effect on spacetime? So is the Dark matter and dark energy we can't explain the remnants of the matter/anti-matter destruction or is it just coincidence that the 95% of the universe that anihilated seems to be the same amount as the 95% we can't now explain. seems so obvious but as I said that is based on my limited knowledge.
  10. It's the stuff that stops everything happening all at once (Déjà vu anyone?)
  11. IF (and its a big if) you could be absolutely stationary how fast would time pass by. The faster you go the slower time passes therefore the slower you go the faster time passes, if you were stationary would time pass infinitely quickly so is time inextricably linked to motion?
  12. Thanks for the reply So as the radius increases the speed increases but the RPM decreases?
  13. I'm not sure I understand a paradigm where a correct theory is contradicted by observation
  14. Having given it some more thought what you said in you first post makes sense, I don't know, maybe it had been a long day but when I first read your post it looked wrong.
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.