The Theory of Relativity will begin to fall apart in 2016/2017

[fuelair]

The theory has its own logic; I can do nothing but follow where it lead me.
As I wrote the same kind of pattern applies for solar systems

No! Direct observation might or might just appear to, but the math supporting the theory must be there. You have no maths. You will pretty much certainly never have maths supporting you.

 

[ehcks]

Just to make sure I'm following you, v is volume right? I only ask because that the volume of most things squared are not the equivalent of the speed of light squared.

Just to prove that here is that equation using the volume of Death Star.

V=7,238,246.4
C=9.72

At this point, it's worth pointing out that already we've determined that v≠c.

So your objection is worthless from the onset.

But carrying on:

1-7,238,246.4²/9.72²

v is velocity. c is the speed of light. You can't make v = c for a massive object.

 

[Mudcat]

v is velocity. c is the speed of light. You can't make v = c for a massive object.

I've had to correct that post because the numbers went past the range of my calculator, sorry. But now I know that v is velocity instead of volume, I should point out that if v=c than light itself shouldn't be able to move at the speed of light either. Mass or no mass.

Logic has sank your argument. Again.

Also the velocity of light is 300,000,000 m/s. Speed of light is 299,792,458 m/s. Therefore v≠c. Again.

 

[Reality Check]

But now I know that v is velocity instead of volume, I should point out that if v=c than light itself shouldn't be able to move at the speed of light either. Mass or no mass.

Logic has sank your argument. Again.

Also the velocity of light is 300,000,000 m/s. Speed of light is 299,792,458 m/s. Therefore v≠c. Again.

Oh so much ignorance, Mudcat - hopefully a Poe !
Light has a rest mass of zero. A photon always has a relativistic mass of zero. An force acing on a hypothetical photon at rest will accelerative it. The velocity v will increase. SR says that v cannot get to c. Thus photons in empty space are travelling at the speed of light c.
The velocity of light is not 300,000,000 m/s (that is a scalar amount not a vector).

 

[Mudcat]

Oh so much ignorance, Mudcat - hopefully a Poe !

No, not a Poe. Partly ignorant and hoping to understand more, but not a Poe.

The velocity v will increase. SR says that v cannot get to c. Thus photons in empty space are travelling at the speed of light c.

If v can not get to c, than by default v≠c. Am I missing something here?

And even if v=c than light itself can't travel at the speed of light, mass or no mass, for many of the same reasons y'all argue that things that aren't light can't travel the speed of light.

Therefore it must be possible, however difficult, to travel the speed of light because light obviously travels the speed of light.

The velocity of light is not 300,000,000 m/s (that is a scalar amount not a vector).

300,000,000 m/s was the only answer I could really find on what the velocity of light, if that isn't what the velocity of light than what is?

 

[wollery]

No, not a Poe. Partly ignorant and hoping to understand more, but not a Poe.



If v can not get to c, than by default v≠c. Am I missing something here?

And even if v=c than light itself can't travel at the speed of light, mass or no mass, for many of the same reasons y'all argue that things that aren't light can't travel the speed of light.

Therefore it must be possible, however difficult, to travel the speed of light because light obviously travels the speed of light.



300,000,000 m/s was the only answer I could really find on what the velocity of light, if that isn't what the velocity of light than what is?

Look at the equation again;

E = γmc² where γ = (1 - v²/c²)^-1/2
Light has 0 mass, which means it takes no energy to accelerate it. Light always travels at c in a vacuum, specifically because it has no mass!

 

[Reality Check]

No, not a Poe. Partly ignorant and hoping to understand more, but not a Poe.

Then the physical facts, Mudcat.
What the physics says is that any body with mass cannot get to c.
This is a photon. A photon has no rest or relativistic mass - this is an important physic fact about photons.
A hypothetical photon that was at rest will be accelerated by any force to and even past c. But the measured speed of light in vacuum is c. Thus the speed of photons is c.

Photons are also electromagnetic waves - Maxwell's equations state that the speed of all electromagnetic waves in vacuum is c.

Speed of light. The velocity of light is a vector pointing in the direction of travel of the light with a magnitude of c.

 

[Mudcat]

Look at the equation again;

Yes, let's:

E = γmc² where γ = (1 - v²/c²)^-1/2

If v=c, as y'all keep on insisting than y=∞ and you would still need an infinite amount of energy to accelerate light to the speed of light regardless of whether or not light has mass, therefore light can not be traveling the speed of light using your own logic.

But since light does travel at the speed of light and that's the only speed it travels at, that's obviously wrong. Therefore your insistence that not anything that isn't light can't travel the speed of light is wrong.

It might be difficult and impractical but it's not impossible.

 

[ferd burfle]

[IMGw=640]http://cdn.eso.org/images/screen/eso1438a.jpg[/IMGw]





http://www.eso.org/public/news/eso1438/

Bjarne, your diagram and the artist's depiction in the link you gave seem to have nothing to do with each other. As other's have pointed out, the linked article concerns quasars and not galaxies generally. You indicate an "orbit" of the galaxies in your diagram (around what is not clear); there is nothing about such an orbit in the article.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[ehcks]

Yes, let's:



If v=c, as y'all keep on insisting than y=∞ and you would still need an infinite amount of energy to accelerate light to the speed of light regardless of whether or not light has mass, therefore light can not be traveling the speed of light using your own logic.

But since light does travel at the speed of light and that's the only speed it travels at, that's obviously wrong. Therefore your insistence that not anything that isn't light can't travel the speed of light is wrong.

It might be difficult and impractical but it's not impossible.

It's a weird thing where multiplying infinity by zero gives you a number. Sometimes zero, sometimes infinity, sometimes at a certain place in between. I'm not sure, I failed calculus, but multiplying a limit that approaches zero by another that approaches infinity could be just about anything. For a photon, it's a finite number.

 

[Bjarne]

Well, you certainly can't do the maths.

I you would be 1 billion year old to compared it to observation it would be a good idea. Otherwise what will you use it for, when it comes to galaxy inclination?

 

[Bjarne]

Actually, what Bjarne does is that he finds any news in astronomy, then claims it confirms his theory. - Which proves that he doesn't even understand his own theory.


Hans

The biggest mystery is no longer all great mysteries in cosmos, but rather how so many people still can be so stubborn and blind.

 

[Bjarne]

Oh dear, Bjarne, showing how ignorant you are with an image that has nothing to do with dark flow !
Spooky Alignment of Quasars Across Billions of Light-years

This is the observation that the supermassive black holes in these 19 quasars tend to be "either parallel or perpendicular to the directions of the large-scale structures to which they belong". Those structures go in various directions as you can see in the image which happens to be an artists impression !

ETA: The main point is that this science has nothing to do with this thread. Unless you are trying to show yet again that your ignorance and fantasies means that your opinion as stated in the thread title is just another a fantasy.

Because quasars are easy to measure the inclination. The new theory predicts the same phenome to happen for all orbits, it’s already a clear consequence of the theory, also even though we first is at the threshold to understand that law of nature.
Anyway even we so fare “only” speak about 19 quasars, - the most stubborn and stupid cow on the planet is still intelligent enough to ask what the hell is that for a force responsible.
And the fact is you have NOTHING, even not a stupid idea, but absolutely NOTHING. Mother cow at least know there must be some huge significant unknown force out there.

 

[Bjarne]

If only you could white coherent text rather than delusions about galaxies, Bjarne !

If only you could write english, it would take you a little serious

 

[Perpetual Student]

Yes, let's:



If v=c, as y'all keep on insisting than y=∞ and you would still need an infinite amount of energy to accelerate light to the speed of light regardless of whether or not light has mass, therefore light can not be traveling the speed of light using your own logic.

But since light does travel at the speed of light and that's the only speed it travels at, that's obviously wrong. Therefore your insistence that not anything that isn't light can't travel the speed of light is wrong.

It might be difficult and impractical but it's not impossible.

Reviewing the links below might help. The energy of a massless particle is given by: E = hf, not by the equation I posted above in post #842, which applies only to a particle with mass > 0.
Unfortunately, it's a bit more involved than you might like to believe and it takes some study of special relativity to get it.
LINK1

LINK2

 

[Bjarne]

Repeating a delusion about "same kind of pattern applies for solar systems" does not make it true. AFAIK, We observe that solar systems tend to be aligned with the galaxy. We knew that galaxies are fairly randomly oriented. This observation is the possibility that galaxies tend to be oriented along large scale structures such as the filaments in that artist picture.

For inclination change to take place the sideward motion must be about same speed sideward as it is towards dark flow..
If less, the sideward RR will be weaker and the effect therefore also weaker inclination change.

So well you are right, - not all solar systems are affected equally.
Í mean all galaxies is also not moving with the same dark flow speed and the same sideward motion relative to Dark Flow.

So there are no contradiction in what I wrote, but only a question of understanding all the RR-forces affecting solar systems and galaxies.
Or in short, - a question to have the overall perspective.
Or even shorter, - see the 3 RR influences (and EDFA) from Newtons second law perspective

And yes I agree, it is not so very simple as I wrote, - when you say solar system tend to be aligned with galaxies they belong to, - it just confirm what I wrote above,
Because seen from a overall perspective the sideward motion of the solar system (alone) is far from always enough to trigger enough sideward RR, and therefore most of the time solar system must more or less follows the inclination of galaxies.

And amigo notice the ring of gas planets - these inclinations also tend to be aligned with both the solar system and galaxies.
Why ? – because everything is affected by the same overall RR and EDFA influences.
Does that make sense?

So my best friend RC you are right the picture is bit more nuanced as the simple words I wrote yesterday..
Notice I did this discovery this week, and did not have time to think about the overall RR perspective implying for solar systems..

Anyway here is a theory where you really can test all orbit inclination of the universe, and ask the question is RR and EDFA responsible for all these ? Are there any contradiction at all ? - Just remember to take on the very heavy glasses when analyzing.

 

[Mudcat]

If only you could write english, it would take you a little serious

If irony had mass your post would collapse in on itself, become a black hole and swallow the Earth.

 

[Pixel42]

It's a weird thing where multiplying infinity by zero gives you a number. Sometimes zero, sometimes infinity, sometimes at a certain place in between. I'm not sure, I failed calculus, but multiplying a limit that approaches zero by another that approaches infinity could be just about anything. For a photon, it's a finite number.

For a particle with zero rest mass the Lorentz equations give a mass at the speed of light of zero divided by zero, which is indeterminate. It could be anything, you need to find another way of determining it.

That light does have mass (ie is affected by gravity) was one of the first predictions made by Relativity. It was confirmed by Eddington, who measured the deflection of the light from a star behind the sun by the sun's mass during a solar eclipse.

One way of looking at it is that the fact that photons have zero rest mass is the reason they travel at the speed of light. It's the only speed at which they can exist.

 

[MikeG]

If only you could write english, it would take you a little serious

What? YOU! You of all people, are no position to say that about anyone else on this board. Here's the nearest example of Bjarne-gibberish to hand, but the thread is littered with incomprehensible tosh from you:

I you would be 1 billion year old to compared it to observation it would be a good idea..........

There's a good reason we keep asking you to do some maths: your English is so appalling that none of us can understand everything you write, and most of us struggle to understand much of it at all. I wouldn't start talking about other people's English if I had as poor a grasp of it as you have. Maths is universal. Gibberish isn't.

 

[Dave Rogers]

If v=c, as y'all keep on insisting than y=∞ and you would still need an infinite amount of energy to accelerate light to the speed of light regardless of whether or not light has mass, therefore light can not be traveling the speed of light using your own logic.

Not true. If it were possible for light to travel at any speed, the energy required to accelerate it would be zero, because its mass is zero. Try to accelerate it to the speed of light and you have a required energy of zero times infinity, which is equal to zero divided by zero, which is mathematically indeterminate; that is, it can have any value. In practice that means that you have to find a different way of working it out, which for a photon turns out to be the product of the wavelength and Planck's constant. But that also tells you why a photon can only travel at the speed of light; if it could go slower, any amount of energy would immediately accelerate it to lightspeed.

But since light does travel at the speed of light and that's the only speed it travels at, that's obviously wrong. Therefore your insistence that not anything that isn't light can't travel the speed of light is wrong.

That's not what's being said. There are two points to understand here:

(1) Any object or particle that has a rest mass not equal to zero cannot be accelerated to the speed of light, because infinite energy is required.
(2) Any particle that has a rest mass equal to zero cannot travel at any speed other than the speed of light.

(1) includes electrons, protons, neutrons and collections thereof, including you and me. (2) includes photons and neutrinos.

It might be difficult and impractical but it's not impossible.

No; according to SR and GR it is actually impossible, and unless and until a better theory is found that indicates otherwise that will be our best understanding.

Dave