Jump to content

Light is matter at below c


Recommended Posts

Okay, so I now gather that PureGenuis has been banned. Therefore I don't need to answer his call about a PM to another member, not that I feel that I ever really did.

 

However, in the the interest of fairness an openness I did send such a message to someone who was clearly not sure if PureGenuis had anything to say about physics. I pointed out that the best thing to do is to pick up a book on cosmology and use that to get a grounding rather than threads in our speculation forum, rather generally and specifically in this case.

 

The intention was to stop someone falling into the trap of thinking these threads by PureGenuis are physics.

 

I do not apologise for that, buy I do apologise to PureGenuis if I personally offended him.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 55
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

You would need to give us some more specific properties that one can test in experiments.   0m +c = 1m and so on is just nonsense.

The units don't make sense for a start. It is just not physics, I really don't know how to explain that to you.

Because nothing you have said anywhere on this forum suggests that you actually have any real knowledge of phsyics. You have admitted this yourself. Thus, I do not understand why you think you have ma

Posted Images

Did I miss something?

The universe has a centre (with or without a black hole).

 

As far as the observable universe is concerned, the observer is at the centre of it and that observer isn't a black hole so PG is simply wrong about that.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Exactly John, that is something that PG never managed to explain to us to our satisfaction. I don't think he was aware of how odd this notion seems to modern cosmology and thus why we were so unhappy with it.

PG originally disusses in his other thread here.

Edited by ajb
Link to post
Share on other sites

Did I miss something?

The universe has a centre (with or without a black hole).

 

As far as the observable universe is concerned, the observer is at the centre of it and that observer isn't a black hole so PG is simply wrong about that.

 

It's better to say that each point on the spacetime map has a centre, so that readers won't think the observer is central in that principle.

Link to post
Share on other sites

It's better to say that each point on the spacetime map has a centre, so that readers won't think the observer is central in that principle.

But the observable universe bounded by the current inability to see anything before/beyond the era/surface of last scattering is centred on us. There is also the interact-able universe as that part of space time we can ever affect or be affected by - again centred on us. We can posit that analogues would also be centred on any other species with our current level of astronomical observing power. It is an anthropocentric concept - and it is thus by design not by any silly simian-bravado. We have to merely guess with no hope of ever really knowing about the universe beyond that which we can observe and interact with - now that universe is not centred on us

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • 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.