|
|
 Up |
|
|
  |
Author: BURTBURT
Date: Dec 18, 2007 22:38
If time can slow down it must slow down from a kind of fastest time.
Near the Big Bang curved space-time was greater and therefor time was
running slower. If time can run slower why can't it also run faster?
I believe the future of the universe is a faster and faster time just
the opposite of the slower time in the beginning.
|
| |
|
| |
6 Comments |
|
|
Author: ivlovaivlova
Date: Dec 18, 2007 20:34
Einstein’s E=mc2 Generalized
In this book, the hidden aspects of original derivation
( Sep 1905, Einstein, A., Annalen der Physik 18, 639 (1905).)
of Einstein’s E=mc2 are highlighted.
The contents of the book are already published in international
journals, in international conference including in USA and England.
Einstein’s paper was published in English in 1923 for first time.
The theme of discussion is that Einstein’s derivation
( Sep 1905, Einstein, A., Annalen der Physik 18, 639 (1905).)
is true under special conditions only.
Under general conditions it contradicts the LAW OF CONSERVATION OF
MATTER.
The hidden prediction of derivation is that,
When body emits light energy its mass must increase.
Mathematically
Mass of body after emission of light energy
= Mass of body before emission of light energy
+ positive quantity
Ma = Mb + 0.004L/cv – L/c2 ( v<<
|
| Show full article (1.99Kb) |
|
| |
95 Comments |
|
|
Author: foolsrushin.foolsrushin.
Date: Dec 18, 2007 18:28
On 15 Dec, 04:39, BURT yahoo.com> wrote:> The galaxies are not moving through a preexisting space away from one
> another. Instead space is expanding. >
.
> The curved space-time continuum is expanding. This is the growing of
> the hypersphere and surface; or a closed universe; finite yet
> unbounded with space curving back on itself in the 4th dimension.
Twit!
Crap! This is their/your idea of a growing idea, and that's all it is.
What we have is theory, and attempts to wrap our minds round the
impossible.
> Mitch Raemsch -- Falling Toward Light --
You ain't been out there with a measuring rod and measured every bit
of it!
--'foolsrushin.'
|
| |
|
1 Comment |
|
|
Author: BURTBURT
Date: Dec 18, 2007 17:48
On Dec 16, 10:14 am, Pepe le Pew biteme.com> wrote:> BURT wrote:
>> The galaxies are not moving through a preexisting space away from one
>> another. Instead space is expanding. The red shift from motion and
>> Space expansion are equivalent. We can calculate galactic distances
>> because of this equivalence. Universal Expansion is Distance growing.
>
>> The curved space-time continuum is expanding. This is the growing of
>> the hypersphere and surface; or a closed universe; finite yet
>> unbounded with space curving back on itself in the 4th dimension.
>
>> Atronomers calculate the age of the universe from the most distant
>> objects. They are said to lay 13 billion light years away. So because
>> they believe the past lies in the distance they calculate the age of
>> the universe to be 13 billion years.
>> They left out the time it took for these galaxies to expand out to
>> this distance. They left out universal expansion that brings them out
>> to distance.
>> I calculate the age of the universe to be a combination of the time it
>> took for the universe to expand to what we see and add the time it ...
|
| Show full article (2.50Kb) |
|
no comments
|
|
|
Author: BURTBURT
Date: Dec 18, 2007 17:44
There is position in momentum so how could it exclude the knowledge of
it?
Objects are found most where there momentum is low.
Mitch Raemsch
|
| |
|
4 Comments |
|
|
Author: BURTBURT
Date: Dec 18, 2007 17:05
It is acceleration increasing around masses surface.
Mitch Raemsch
|
| |
|
13 Comments |
|
|
Author: foolsrushin.foolsrushin.
Date: Dec 18, 2007 11:01
On 17 Dec, 18:22, Igor excite.com> wrote:> On Dec 16, 12:35 am, BURT yahoo.com> wrote:
>>> Everything you know is wrong. "Weird Al" Yankovic
>
> Actually it was the Firesign Theatre that said that.
>
>>Time doesn't curve. It slows down. If it curved; what direction?
>
> It curves in the direction of 5 PM. That's why it's so difficult to
> see 6 oclock from 4.
|
| Show full article (0.85Kb) |
|
1 Comment |
|
|
Author: Juan R. González-ÁlvarezJuan R. González-Álvarez
Date: Dec 18, 2007 10:45
Unfortunately, a guy has filled this thread with too much noise and i
will close it.
Fortunately, my post has been approved in sci.physics.research.
Discussion, if any, would be followed *there* instead here.
Extra references on action-at-a-distance electrodynamics:
[1] Classical Electrodynamics in Terms of Direct Interparticle Action.
Rev. Mod. Phys. 1949, 21, 425. Wheeler J. A; Feynman R. P.
[2] Space-Time Approach to Quantum Electrodynamics. Phys. Rev. 1949, 76,
769. Feynman, R. P.
[3] Cosmology and action-at-a-distance electrodynamics. Review of Modern
Physics 1995, 67(1), 113. Hoyle F; Narlikar J. V.
|
| |
|
4 Comments |
|
|
Author: harryharry
Date: Dec 18, 2007 09:35
> Einstein's first paper contained no explicit reference to previous
> work by others,
That appears to have been on purpose... As far as I know, that was highly
irregular for Einstein as well as for the journal he published in.
> and the math in the paper was not arduous.
It was mostly OK. :-)
> This set of circumstances has given by-standers the impression that
> this is all he had to go on. People make the erroneous conclusion
> therefore that he invented this out of whole cloth; that he was not
> familiar with experimental or theoretical findings to date, or that he
> in no way relied on them; and that he did all of his preparatory work
> in his spare time while he had another day job using simple arguments
> and mathematics.
That was apparently the intended effect; and in part it was highly
succesful!
|
| Show full article (2.18Kb) |
|
no comments
|
|
|
|
|
|
Author: Pepe le PewPepe le Pew
Date: Dec 18, 2007 09:17
BURT wrote:
> On Dec 17, 7:53 am, Pepe le Pew biteme.com> wrote:>> BURT wrote:
.....
>>> The point is we can see the oldest objects. What would stand in our
>>> way of observing them if you will PP PEW?
>>
>> Oh, any number of things, light absorbing material like cosmic dust,
>> black holes and anything behind a superbright object is effectively
>> concealed from us.
>>
> Directions in space curve back on themelves.
Hmmm..... I've always wanted to play around with this concept.
So somehow the universe is circular, right? Beautiful, so if
some supernova shoots out a lightbeam in the direction of earth,
we observe it, and most of the light just shoots beyond us, does the
light after some time bend somehow into a circle and shoot past the
supernova again and back along the path to earth again and
we end up seeing the same show again and again?
|
| Show full article (1.72Kb) |
|
no comments
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
