Only "Would-be-Einsteins" need apply...
 

"kd5sak" wrote in message
...

"Cecil Moore" wrote in message
m...
John Smith wrote:
What say you?

Virtually everyone is in mutual agreement that there
was no such thing as time before the "time" of the
Big Bang. :-)

Note that time is so ingrained in our language that
it is impossible to talk about a "time" before time.
T=0 occurred "immediately after" the Big Bang. :-)
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com


Time existed before the BB, there was just nothing against which to index
it.
It's like when you're waiting as your Mrs. tries on clothes or shoes. Time
stretches
to infinity, it's a relativity thing.(G)

Harold
KD5SAK


Before the Big Bang everything may have existed pretty much as we know it
now. From some other perspective the universe as we know it may exist as it
did at the the instant in time we call the big bang.. In a universe of many
to infinite dimensions it seems there could always be at least one
perspective of the universe that would appear as a single point much as a
perspective of a line could appear as a single point.

Only "Would-be-Einsteins" need apply...
 

Cecil Moore wrote:
Mike Coslo wrote:

Are you talking about displacement when you refer to physical dimension?


I'm talking about the space dilation equation.

x' = (x + vt)/SQRT(1 - v^2/c^2)

Dontcha just hate translating equations to ascii!! 8^)

Anyhow, what alterations to the equation do you propose that will allow
or introduce the aging effect?


Quoting George Gamow: "It was Einstein who first
realized that Lorentz transformations actually
correspond to physical reality ..."

All very well, but how do you argue for the velocity of light slowing
down? How do you propose we attempt to measure this loss in velocity? I
see those equations, and don't see that as any problem with light having
a constant velocity.


- 73 de Mike KB3EIA -

Only "Would-be-Einsteins" need apply...
 

Mike Coslo wrote:
Anyhow, what alterations to the equation do you propose that will
allow or introduce the aging effect?

No alterations necessary. Just accept the equations
as literal facts of physics.

All very well, but how do you argue for the velocity of light
slowing down?

The velocity factor of empty space is changing. With
seconds getting shorter and space getting longer, light
just cannot travel as far in a second as it once did.
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

Only "Would-be-Einsteins" need apply...
 

Cecil Moore wrote:
Mike Coslo wrote:
Anyhow, what alterations to the equation do you propose that will
allow or introduce the aging effect?

No alterations necessary. Just accept the equations
as literal facts of physics.


Well, it looks like you look at something, and come to quite a
different conclusion a a lot of us do. 8^)



All very well, but how do you argue for the velocity of light slowing
down?

The velocity factor of empty space is changing. With
seconds getting shorter and space getting longer, light
just cannot travel as far in a second as it once did.

You don't like relativity?


- 73 de Mike KB3EIA -

Only "Would-be-Einsteins" need apply...
 

Michael Coslo wrote:
You don't like relativity?

I apparently like it a lot better than some
astronomers and astrophysicists. The space
containing the Big Bang expanded a lot more
than it is possible for 3D space to expand.
Therefore, space is not three dimensional.
Latest theories are 10+ dimensions for space.
--
73, Cecil, http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp

Only "Would-be-Einsteins" need apply...
 

Cecil Moore wrote:
Michael Coslo wrote:
You don't like relativity?

I apparently like it a lot better than some
astronomers and astrophysicists. The space
containing the Big Bang expanded a lot more
than it is possible for 3D space to expand.
Therefore, space is not three dimensional.
Latest theories are 10+ dimensions for space.


I think that those thories have some nasty side effects that are making
a lot of people take a second look at them.

- 73 de Mike KB3EIA -

Only "Would-be-Einsteins" need apply...
 

Michael Coslo wrote:
I think that those thories have some nasty side effects that are
making a lot of people take a second look at them.

Yep, the inquisition didn't like Galileo's
side effects either. :-)
--
73, Cecil, http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp

Only "Would-be-Einsteins" need apply...
 

Cecil Moore wrote:
Michael Coslo wrote:
I think that those thories have some nasty side effects that are
making a lot of people take a second look at them.

Yep, the inquisition didn't like Galileo's
side effects either. :-)


That may be true, but in this case, it is a number of the proponents of
string theory rethinking their position.

- 73 de Mike KB3EIA -

Only "Would-be-Einsteins" need apply...
 

"Jim Kelley" wrote in message
...


Cecil Moore wrote:
John Smith wrote:

This page contains instructions on how to construct a cheap and simple
device to detect the ether.


Consider that the galactic red shift might be caused
by the expansion of the ether and not by movement of
the galaxies.

Most current thought is that the expansion of the ether might be caused by
the movement of (expansion of the space between) the galaxies.

73 ac6xg

It is entirely possible that the galaxies are moving further apart(red
shift) even though the universe itself may be shrinking.

Only "Would-be-Einsteins" need apply...
 

Cecil Moore wrote:

Michael Coslo wrote:

I think that those thories have some nasty side effects that are
making a lot of people take a second look at them.


Yep, the inquisition didn't like Galileo's
side effects either. :-)

So they bet on the wrong horse. You might be doing the same thing,
Cecil. Most theories are necessarily incorrect. We just don't always
know which ones.

73, ac6xg