The secret goldfish

Claude Badley

Registered Guest
Fascist
Still Jerry, you'll be happy to know that in my half-written book on the COVID Scam I am referring to you entirely positively when dealing with your and Joe's work on Catcher in the Rye - as I have also realized it to be a homage to Zionism, via an Australian connection Joe is unfamiliar with (i.e. it includes the James Castle connection which you pioneered).

Yours faithfully
Claude
 

Jerry Russell

Administrator
Staff member
The issue does NOT apply in the same way with neutrinos as they are spin-1/2 not spin-1 particles. Hence there is no fundamental wavelength Doppler issue as with protons.

I meant to draw the comparison that in Figure 1 (Dingle's Question) above, one could substitute a neutrino source for a photon source, and in either case the emitted photons / neutrinos would move at the speed of light away from the source, but in opposite directions. If I'm understanding you correctly, Claude, you are claiming that the speed of one neutrino is 2c with respect to a neutrino moving in the opposite direction. And when you said "just like photons", did you mean that the two situations were alike in that the photons' relative velocity is also 2c? Or were you implying some other similarity?

According to "Socratic Q&A Astrophysics", neutrinos also have the property of wave-particle duality, and thus they have a wavelength predicted by the de Broglie equation. And thus I'm puzzled as to why the Doppler effect wouldn't also apply.

This claim is wrong on many levels due to adopting Einsteinian presumptions.

I'm sorry I didn't clarify at the outset of my reply above, that I was trying to reason based on Einsteinian presumptions. I was trying to understand your view that according to Einsteinians, the photons would not reach observers C and D simultaneously.

One does not have "a frame of reference in which the photon is stationary"; they are always observed moving at c

OMG you're right, I have succeeded at writing total gibberish even for an Einsteinian! I can imagine a frame of reference moving at a velocity equal to exactly the speed of light, with respect to observers A, C and D. And I can imagine a stationary object within that frame of reference. But, the said object could not be a photon!! Does this mean that my imaginary sped-up frame of reference cannot actually exist? I guess not.

Still Jerry, you'll be happy to know that in my half-written book on the COVID Scam I am referring to you entirely positively when dealing with your and Joe's work on Catcher in the Rye - as I have also realized it to be a homage to Zionism, via an Australian connection Joe is unfamiliar with (i.e. it includes the James Castle connection which you pioneered).

Thank you very much, Mr. Badley! I noticed that there was also a very favorable reference in the General Science article.

You are working on a book on the Covid scam? Good for you. Riddle me this: what would Franco have done, faced with this situation?
 
Last edited:

Claude Badley

Registered Guest
Fascist
I meant to draw the comparison that in Figure 1 (Dingle's Question) above, one could substitute a neutrino source for a photon source, and in either case the emitted photons / neutrinos would move at the speed of light away from the source, but in opposite directions. If I'm understanding you correctly, Claude, you are claiming that the speed of one neutrino is 2c with respect to a neutrino moving in the opposite direction. And when you said "just like photons", did you mean that the two situations were alike in that the [oppositely directed] photons' relative velocity is also 2c? Or were you implying some other similarity?
Yes, that is what I meant - but with the qualification that I am dealing with the visible wavelengths moving in opposite directions to one another. Due to the Doppler Ensemble the wavelengths of light travel at different velocities in proportion to the wavelength relative to the source.

According to "Socratic Q&A Astrophysics", neutrinos also have the property of wave-particle duality, and thus they have a wavelength predicted by the de Broglie equation. And thus I'm puzzled as to why the Doppler effect wouldn't also apply.
Well it does apply, but neutrinos are so hard to detect that we cannot detect wavelength changes DIRECTLY in them so have to look at the momenta of electrons and positrons used to form and decay said neutrinos. Photons are ubiquitous; neutrinos are too, but devilishly hard to demonstrate and even detect. A neutrino emitted from the sun would eventually leave the cosmos since one needs lightyears of rock-dense material to have a 50% chance of even intercepting a neutrino.
I'm sorry I didn't clarify at the outset of my reply above, that I was trying to reason based on Einsteinian presumptions. I was trying to understand your view that according to Einsteinians, the photons would not reach observers C and D simultaneously.
The big issue of course is that the Einsteinians can choose various bogus replies and try to manipulate the investigator in various ways.

OMG you're right, I have succeeded at writing total gibberish even for an Einsteinian! I can imagine a frame of reference moving at a velocity equal to exactly the speed of light, with respect to observers A, C and D. And I can imagine a stationary object within that frame of reference. But, the said object could not be a photon!! Does this mean that my imaginary sped-up frame of reference cannot actually exist? I guess not.
That's right - you (and I so often too) don't notice the gibberish because we have already been led into gibberish by Einstein's popularization as well as his official relativity publications.
Thank you very much, Mr. Badley! I noticed that there was also a very favorable reference in the General Science article.

You are working on a book on the Covid scam? Good for you. Riddle me this: what would Franco have done, faced with this situation?
I must admit I'd forgotten about the General Science reference!:oops:

As for Franco he would no doubt have made many mistakes - just as Putin, Xie Jinping, Bojo, Trump, Macron etc. are making, since none of them are immunologists so do not have the specialized understand to decide what is right on the medical evidence (Biden couldn't even grasp the problem so he is NOT on the list). Rather, all of them are manipulated by the WHO and corrupted global medical institutions. The leaders need to get proper advice from doctors who are NOT beholden to Big Pharma, and these have been rather hard to find, as I must sadly admit - which of course is why I'm writing the book. The book also has to cover philosophy in order to counteract the popular Western misconceptions, so will necessarily be a long text unfortunately.

So keep reading about Einstein since the misuse of mathematics by his supporters parallels and justifies the similar misuse of mathematics by the medical bureaucrat "modelers" that tell us that COVID-19 and other epidemics are deadly so will need masks, lockdowns and jabs to save millions of people. For this reason I am now reading "Mathematicians under the Nazis" by one Sanford Segal. While I guess he is Jewish he at least has to reveal some of the mathematical malfeasance created by modern culture.

Yours faithfully
Claude B the F
 

Jerry Russell

Administrator
Staff member
Putin, Xie Jinping, Bojo, Trump, Macron etc. are making, since none of them are immunologists so do not have the specialized understand to decide what is right on the medical evidence

It seems to me that the pharma ringleaders such as Gates, Fauci, Bourla and Daszak must know exactly what they're doing, because they were so adept at covering up the lab origins of the virus, and because of the advance planning for the vaxxes. But it's also clear that some very prestigious people are completely clueless, accepting the official narrative beyond any question. I don't know about Putin, etc.

To change the subject just slightly away from Einstein: I noticed this article by Eric Lerner, who claims that the images from the new James Webb Space Telescope are vindicating his 'eternal universe' model. He says:

https://iai.tv/articles/the-big-bang-didnt-happen-auid-2215

To everyone who sees them, the new James Webb Space Telescope (JWST) images of the cosmos are beautifully awe-inspiring. But to most professional astronomers and cosmologists, they are also extremely surprising—not at all what was predicted by theory. In the flood of technical astronomical papers published online since July 12, the authors report again and again that the images show surprisingly many galaxies, galaxies that are surprisingly smooth, surprisingly small and surprisingly old. Lots of surprises, and not necessarily pleasant ones. One paper’s title begins with the candid exclamation: “Panic!”​
Why do the JWST’s images inspire panic among cosmologists? And what theory’s predictions are they contradicting? The papers don’t actually say. The truth that these papers don’t report is that the hypothesis that the JWST’s images are blatantly and repeatedly contradicting is the Big Bang Hypothesis that the universe began 14 billion years ago in an incredibly hot, dense state and has been expanding ever since. Since that hypothesis has been defended for decades as unquestionable truth by the vast majority of cosmological theorists, the new data is causing these theorists to panic. “Right now I find myself lying awake at three in the morning,” says Alison Kirkpatrick, an astronomer at the University of Kansas in Lawrence, “and wondering if everything I’ve done is wrong.”
But sadly, he reports that this state of panic and surprise, is not leading to any sort of scientific revolution. Instead, he says that the funding agencies and journals are only working harder than ever, to prop up the failed Big Bang theory. He reports that as recently as 2018, he was able to get his papers published in astrophysics journals, but now he is completely shut out. His latest papers are self-published at his website.

He thinks that scientific mis-direction is making it far more difficult for him to obtain the resources to make his fusion power project a commercial success.
 

Claude Badley

Registered Guest
Fascist
I concur with your first paragraph Jerry, so I don't quote it.
To change the subject just slightly away from Einstein: I noticed this article by Eric Lerner, who claims that the images from the new James Webb Space Telescope are vindicating his 'eternal universe' model.
He's right of course. :D
Eric Lerner said:
To everyone who sees them, the new James Webb Space Telescope (JWST) images of the cosmos are beautifully awe-inspiring. But to most professional astronomers and cosmologists, they are also extremely surprising—not at all what was predicted by theory. In the flood of technical astronomical papers published online since July 12, the authors report again and again that the images show surprisingly many galaxies, galaxies that are surprisingly smooth, surprisingly small and surprisingly old. Lots of surprises, and not necessarily pleasant ones. One paper’s title begins with the candid exclamation: “Panic!” Why do the JWST’s images inspire panic among cosmologists? And what theory’s predictions are they contradicting? The papers don’t actually say. The truth that these papers don’t report is that the hypothesis that the JWST’s images are blatantly and repeatedly contradicting is the Big Bang Hypothesis that the universe began 14 billion years ago in an incredibly hot, dense state and has been expanding ever since. Since that hypothesis has been defended for decades as unquestionable truth by the vast majority of cosmological theorists, the new data is causing these theorists to panic. “Right now I find myself lying awake at three in the morning,” says Alison Kirkpatrick, an astronomer at the University of Kansas in Lawrence, “and wondering if everything I’ve done is wrong.”
He is quite right of course, but what he does NOT understand well enough is philosophy.:cool:
But sadly, he reports that this state of panic and surprise, is not leading to any sort of scientific revolution. Instead, he says that the funding agencies and journals are only working harder than ever, to prop up the failed Big Bang theory. He reports that as recently as 2018, he was able to get his papers published in astrophysics journals, but now he is completely shut out. His latest papers are self-published at his website.
He is shut out for the SAME REASON that anti-COVID mandate scientists are shut out. The Global Elites control science with mathematics and will NOT brook any opposition whatsoever.

I hadn't heard the following reference so will have to look at his new posting now.:eek:
He thinks that scientific mis-direction is making it far more difficult for him to obtain the resources to make his fusion power project a commercial success.
I feel certain his opinion is correct. So I have no doubt that this would be true since the Global Elites want the population reduced to 500,000,000 and no one ever to travel into the infinite universe. They, the Global Elites, want energy shortages, food shortages and resource wars! Instead, Lerner's allies are those who blew up the Georgia Guidestones, whether Lerner knows it or not. He doesn't know about Joe either - so I'm gunna hafta tell him!

Yours faithfully
Claude B the F

PS: I'm gettin' worried, Jerry! We're agreeing so much you just might remove the 'Fascist' label! Please don't!o_O
 

Seeker

Well-Known Member
What about these billions of planets and galaxies that we can't see? Is there any other way to detect them?

Your theory also predicts that there are multiple universes full of objects moving faster than light -- but that these are undetectable from my frame of reference.
Multiple cosmoses, not multiple universes. There is but one universe but we live in a particular cosmos with mutual galactic recession throughout the visible portion. This would also apply to other cosmoses and their component galaxies moving FTL as they pass through us on Earth and each other.
Does all of this stuff have anything to do with parallel universes (or cosmoses), where alternate versions of ourselves exist, such as myself being President of the United States in one, and a Bowery bum in another (I am using myself as the "fall guy" here, so you two won't fight again, as you are both doing so well together now, lol).
 
Last edited:

Jerry Russell

Administrator
Staff member
We're agreeing so much you just might remove the 'Fascist' label!

I'm not qualified to agree or disagree with Lerner. I do see that Big Bang theory, and expanding-universe cosmology in general, seems to be in big trouble, if for no other reason than the lack of evidence for 'dark matter' and/or 'dark energy'.

This is a completely different issue from Special Relativity. I am still not seeing how Dingle's Question is exposing any contradictions. I don't understand how to dispute the experimental fact that attempts to increase the velocity of particles in accelerators hit the proverbial 'brick wall' as the speed approaches light.

Lerner accepts SR and uses it to develop his theory, right?

Why would I remove the 'Fascist' label? Your hero is still Franco, even though you admit he'd flunk the Covid integrity test?
 

Claude Badley

Registered Guest
Fascist
Does all of this stuff have anything to do with parallel universes (or cosmoses), where alternate versions of ourselves exist, such as myself being President of the United States in one, and a Bowery bum in another (I am using myself as the "fall guy" here, so you two won't fight again, as you are both doing so well together now, lol).
Parallel (& daughter) universes is the Einsteinian concept. But even with multiple cosmoses in an infinite universe, unlikely events can almost duplicate e.g. it is possible that humans evolved on another planet somewhere - with interfertility with humans on Earth. However before we ever discovered such a planet we would have found millions or even billions of other sentient beings that evolved on other planets.

Nevertheless the notion of parallel universes is just mathematical schlock based on special relativity.

Yours faithfully
Claude B the F
 

Claude Badley

Registered Guest
Fascist
I'm not qualified to agree or disagree with Lerner. I do see that Big Bang theory, and expanding-universe cosmology in general, seems to be in big trouble, if for no other reason than the lack of evidence for 'dark matter' and/or 'dark energy'.
The trouble for the BB arises because galaxies of great age can be seen in the JWT, ages much greater than the 14 billion year old Big Big Universe would allow. According to relativity we should be looking back to the 'infancy' of the universe.

This is a completely different issue from Special Relativity.
The issue is the same as special relativity (SR) since SR teaches that nothing can travel faster than light - a false conception as it implies that the universe is static and that objects say moving almost as fast as light relative to the Earth will be retarded by a mysterious force in proportion to its velocity relative to Earth. This nonsensical view arises from believing the principles that lead to SR, i.e. time dilation (TD) and length contraction (LC), two artificial notions that arose from asserting that the universe is finite and static.
I am still not seeing how Dingle's Question is exposing any contradictions. I don't understand how to dispute the experimental fact that attempts to increase the velocity of particles in accelerators hit the proverbial 'brick wall' as the speed approaches light.
The contradictions are exposed by answering Dingle's question i.e. by seeing that each and every photon is composed of a Doppler Ensemble, not some abstract point moving at c relative to a given observer. The supposed retardation of bodies near the speed of light is an unwarranted deduction from electromagnetic phenomena, where e.g. in a cyclotron, an electron cannot exceed speed c relative to the cyclotron since the electromagnetic forces pushing it cannot push it past light speed because as it nears light speed it no longer 'feels' the electromotive force tied to the cyclotron itself. But the cyclotron is NOT the universe - and we already know that objects receding at 0.9c from us in one direction are moving at 1.8c relative to galaxies receding from us in the opposite direction of the sky! I.e. the speed of light is NOT a limit to relative motion. Only the false deductions of SR lead to the contrary claim.
Lerner accepts SR and uses it to develop his theory, right?
He does indeed - and that's why he cannot get anywhere with his new cosmology. He accepts Halton Arp's nonsensical belief in tired light, so does not see that in an infinite but static universe, the stars would stretch to infinity and their light would therefore build up to be as bright as the sun in every direction. This is because all dark matter, over infinite time, would be heated up by the infinite static stars to become visible as very bright light indeed.

A static and infinite universe is impossible because Olbers' Paradox is violated by asserting infinite static stars. Galactic recession into space - not "expanding space" is the answer to Olbers' Paradox, the phenomenon also termed the Lambert-Charlier Hierarchical Cosmology (LCHC), which Alfven has mentioned but Lerner has not taken up. LCHC teaches that the universe is ever less dense when ever larger portions are considered.

Einstein's "average density of the universe" symbolized by ρ, (the Greek letter 'rho') is an erroneous teaching since the universe does NOT have an average density but tends to zero density as ever-larger portions are considered. You will grasp what I mean by considering higher mathematics since it was Heinrich Lambert - contemporary of Immanuel Kant - who introduced hyperbolic trigonometric functions to deal with such considerations. The Einsteinians have ignored all this entirely, but I hope your mathematical knowledge might be greater than mine here so that you will appreciate what is meant by the work of Lambert.:)
Why would I remove the 'Fascist' label? Your hero is still Franco, even though you admit he'd flunk the Covid integrity test?
Whew! That's a relief. :cool:

Yours faithfully
CB the Fascist
 

Jerry Russell

Administrator
Staff member
The trouble for the BB arises because galaxies of great age can be seen in the JWT, ages much greater than the 14 billion year old Big Big Universe would allow. According to relativity we should be looking back to the 'infancy' of the universe.

Could you explain why the contradiction can't be resolved simply by moving back the date of the big bang? According to "StarChild Question of the Month" there are two sources of the conventionally accepted age of the universe: (1) looking for the oldest stars; (2) estimating the Hubble Constant for the expansion of the universe, and working backwards from that. We already know that the estimation of the Hubble Constant is a catastrophic mess, requiring the discovery of vast quantities of dark matter and energy that don't seem to actually exist. If the oldest stars are in fact older, doesn't this relax the amount of dark matter necessary?

The supposed retardation of bodies near the speed of light is an unwarranted deduction from electromagnetic phenomena, where e.g. in a cyclotron,

I am having difficulty imagining any better way to build a particle accelerator (or rocket) that could do any better. If using a force applied at a distance, what else do we have besides electromagnetism? If applying force as in a rocket engine, by throwing a mass backwards to generate thrust, what accelerant could be faster than light?

In a linear accelerator, can the electromagnetic field really be said to move at all?

You will grasp what I mean by considering higher mathematics since it was Heinrich Lambert - contemporary of Immanuel Kant - who introduced hyperbolic trigonometric functions to deal with such considerations.

I did encounter hyperbolic geometry in school. This led to considerable head scratching on my part. Although Euclidean geometry has the appeal of familiarity, the claim was that hyperbolic geometry is actually correct at a cosmic scale. At ordinary human scale, there is no detectable difference between euclidian geometry vs. hyperbolic geometry. That is, I can't tell whether there is exactly one parallel to a line through a point, or whether there are two or more lines passing through the same point, each with a slight curvature into infinity. In retrospect, with a new-found freedom to deny the weight of authority, I realize that I was never truly convinced that the universe is curved in a non-Euclidean fashion.

Perhaps there's an analogy here. I can see that all the usual proofs and evidence regarding Special Relativity are failing to convince you, Mr. Badley. It's gotten to the point that I'm having trouble convincing even myself. But on the other hand, I'm not seeing any of the claimed contradictions in SR.

At human scale, from my own lived experience, I have no basis for holding strong beliefs about the behavior of matter and energy as they approach the speed of light. So I'm stumped. So maybe you're making progress towards winning me over, Mr. Badley? Or perhaps we're just exposing that I was never smart enough for advanced physics to begin with, and now becoming ever more addle-brained and senile.
 

Jerry Russell

Administrator
Staff member
and we already know that objects receding at 0.9c from us in one direction are moving at 1.8c relative to galaxies receding from us in the opposite direction of the sky!

Do we really know this? Could this be a testable prediction? If two objects are receding from each in opposite directions, relative to a "stationary" starting point: can we observe one object from the other and determine how quickly it appears to be moving? If the velocity of each is greater than 0.5c, you are predicting that they should become mutually invisible? Shouldn't there be measurable effects even if the velocities are only a small fraction of c? And, how else to observe, other than by "looking" (that is, relying on effects of electromagnetic radiation)?
 

1698code

New Member
Seeker, Jerry and others:

"Show'em how well you can cypher boy" - Jed Clampett talking about his son Jethro

I am 'bringing up the rear' of the cypher situation:

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/bi...y-significant-violation-international-charter

[this is an example of how a number can be presented using a simple cyphers and likely manipulated words and spellings that we call language]

Gematrinator 'classic' with 'all' counts selected is used. Most; but not all of the totals are from Sumerian and Reverse Sumerian.

Biden in UN speech accuses Russia of 'extremely significant' violation of international charter
Fox News

Biden i 714 n UN 906 speech 888 a 1698 cc 1986 u 1056 2022 ses Russ 1776 i 1830 a 1836 1782 of 'extr 3144 emely sign 3018 if 3180 i 3162 c 3180 a 3186 nt' violation of international 5130 6858 charter

The 318 can represent the 318 trained men from the Abraham household mentioned in:


Genesis 14:14 And when Abram heard that his relative had ...
https://biblehub.com › genesis



When Abram heard that his relative had been taken prisoner, he assembled his 318 trained men, born in his household, and they went ...

significant = 666 s 444 eng ext extremely = 696 rs

powerful = 696 s rothschild = 696 s

[The 'encoding' can be easily done with modern computers.]

the year twenty forty seven = 2028 s 1698 rs

the year twenty fifty = 1530 s 1386 rs

the year twenty twenty five = 2028 s 1698 rs
the year twenty twenty nine = 2028 s 1698 rs

The Great Architect of the Universe = 2028 s 2832 rs



the '2023' year ?

23 skidoo (phrase) - Wikipedia

https://en.wikipedia.org › wiki › 23_skidoo_(phrase)

23 skidoo (sometimes 23 skiddoo) is an American slang phrase popularized during the early ... 'Cause we all reside down the block inside at 23 Skidoo. [John Prine lyrics: Jesus the Missing Years

2030 ? skiddoo?
[The 'romans' like their numbers]

Elton John 'flabbergasted' and teary after Biden surprises him with medal
The Washington Post


Biden surprises Elton John with National Humanities Medal at White House
CNN

Elton Jo 588 hn 'f 714 906 l 786 abber 1638 609(906) gasted' an 1380 d te 2820 ary a 3198 fter Bi 3810 den surpri 2928 ses 3186 him with medal



Biden s 318 u 444 690(906) rprises 1068 1200 Elto 1380 1536 n 1614(174) Jo 1614(174) hn 1746 1407 w 138 318 i 1938 th Nation 2802 al H 3162 u 3198 mani 3018 t 3138 ies Medal at W 3810 hite House

jesus = 444 s 153 is the 'fish number' from the Gospel of John

174 is used for the '174 petawatts' that the sun puts on earth

the '17' is a hidden 153 as the 1-17 digits added = 153

'The 17 sustainability goals' and the '17 days of mourning' after the death of our queen

In the queue for over 12 hours to meet queen, Lucy tell her story


Al Jazeera English
[test caption bit]
my name's Lucy 906 876 1969 and I 1074 1356 'm 1440 fro 1386 1692 m 1464 1776 Bristol

[I think goldbug accused Lucille Ball of being more than queen-like.]

my name's Lucy = 906 s
Jesus Christ = 906 s

[The '1698' numerals show up for the year of the Whitehall Palace fire. Royals were said to begin using the Whitehall Palace for living quarters in the year 1530. 1698-1530 provides the '168' numerals.

The Great Tribulation = 1350 s 1728 rs whitehall = 588 s

1728 is 12x12x12 or in 'technical terms' 12 to the third power.

Jerry,
Thank you for leaving this trash on the blog. I do too much 'counting'.
 

Claude Badley

Registered Guest
Fascist
Do we really know this? Could this be a testable prediction?
This is avoiding the issue. We cannot test this because it is far beyond our means to do so. The inference is made upon redshifts. Einsteinians deny the >c implications by claiming that space 'stretches' over time, creating a redshift over and above the redshift occurring from galactic recession. I.e. Einsteinian claims are a form of doublethink where the redshift is alternately explained as being either from genuine mutual recession in space or from the 'stretching of space'. Since we cannot readily determine one from the other, this is NOT a testable prediction - yet the Einsteinian vermin believe and preach it. Rather, the whole notion is based upon the FALSE principle of length contraction (LC) which is applied not only to physical objects but space itself. I.e. the whole claim of space-stretching is mere false inference hiding logical paradoxes.
If two objects are receding from each in opposite directions, relative to a "stationary" starting point: can we observe one object from the other and determine how quickly it appears to be moving? If the velocity of each is greater than 0.5c, you are predicting that they should become mutually invisible?
That's right. Traveling faster than c relative to one another, the two galaxies will be mutually invisible, hence they cannot detect mutual motion because they cannot detect one another.

Shouldn't there be measurable effects even if the velocities are only a small fraction of c? And, how else to observe, other than by "looking" (that is, relying on effects of electromagnetic radiation)?
There are measurable effects if the mutual velocity <c, the most prominent measurable effect being redshifts, which are due to mutual recession in space, not the 'stretching' of space itself. The difference here is fundamental.

Yours faithfully
CB the F
 

Claude Badley

Registered Guest
Fascist
Could you explain why the contradiction can't be resolved simply by moving back the date of the big bang? According to "StarChild Question of the Month" there are two sources of the conventionally accepted age of the universe: (1) looking for the oldest stars; (2) estimating the Hubble Constant for the expansion of the universe, and working backwards from that. We already know that the estimation of the Hubble Constant is a catastrophic mess, requiring the discovery of vast quantities of dark matter and energy that don't seem to actually exist. If the oldest stars are in fact older, doesn't this relax the amount of dark matter necessary?
Stars older than the Big Bang (BB) have been found - due to spectral lines of long-lived isotopes being uncovered. The recession rate is well known, but moving the BB back from say 14 billion years to about 24 billion years lies outside the narrow parameters set up for extrapolating the BB. Mature galaxies seen in the JWT indicate that they must have formed at least 10 billion years before, hence the 24 billion year date.

I am having difficulty imagining any better way to build a particle accelerator (or rocket) that could do any better. If using a force applied at a distance, what else do we have besides electromagnetism? If applying force as in a rocket engine, by throwing a mass backwards to generate thrust, what accelerant could be faster than light?
If we have a railgun - an electromagnetic accelerator - then add solar sail and further electromagnetic acceleration, we could add gravity to the mixture by turning the spaceship towards the sun to accelerate further. Passing the sun at say 0.2c, the spaceship could jettison matter in the opposite direction, the payload then moving faster and faster away from the sun. Beyond about 0.3c, the pull of stars traveling <c relative to the spaceship will actually pull the spaceship forward so as to make it >c relative to the sun itself. The inertial force works only between objects traveling <c relative to one another. This is what I have realized from studying mass ejections from galaxies that seem to require tremendous energy to reach mutual speeds like 0.7c.; where does the allegedly tremendous energy come from? Rather, this question reveals a misconception. Instead, the inertial force pulling such objects faster and faster away from each other is due to the objects moving faster relative to the local background, galaxies to their rear moving away faster than light and 'disappearing' inertially, while galaxies to the front of the spaceship 'appear' in front of it to increase the inertial force forward because the 'new' galaxies 'appearing' forward add their inertial force to pull the spaceship onward.
In a linear accelerator, can the electromagnetic field really be said to move at all?
Very true, since the field is fixed to the object creating it - but the moved objects move very fast indeed, but as they approach relative c, feel the electromotive force less.
I did encounter hyperbolic geometry in school. This led to considerable head scratching on my part. Although Euclidean geometry has the appeal of familiarity, the claim was that hyperbolic geometry is actually correct at a cosmic scale. At ordinary human scale, there is no detectable difference between euclidian geometry vs. hyperbolic geometry. That is, I can't tell whether there is exactly one parallel to a line through a point, or whether there are two or more lines passing through the same point, each with a slight curvature into infinity. In retrospect, with a new-found freedom to deny the weight of authority, I realize that I was never truly convinced that the universe is curved in a non-Euclidean fashion.
Very good insight. Hyperbolic trigonometry is correctly applied to electromagnetism, not to space itself, which is not curved.
Perhaps there's an analogy here. I can see that all the usual proofs and evidence regarding Special Relativity are failing to convince you, Mr. Badley. It's gotten to the point that I'm having trouble convincing even myself. But on the other hand, I'm not seeing any of the claimed contradictions in SR.
Mutual LC and mutual TD are physically impossible but both are claimed by SR when applied consistently. The crude attempt to resolve the contradictions implies that the universe must be static - but from that emerge further logical paradoxes ('contradictions' in your terminology).
At human scale, from my own lived experience, I have no basis for holding strong beliefs about the behavior of matter and energy as they approach the speed of light. So I'm stumped. So maybe you're making progress towards winning me over, Mr. Badley? Or perhaps we're just exposing that I was never smart enough for advanced physics to begin with, and now becoming ever more addle-brained and senile.
No! It's Einstein's manipulation where in his popularization he claims that it is a work "that anyone can understand." This mysterious 'anyone' has never been found.

Yours faithfully
CB the F
 

Seeker

Well-Known Member
The 'secret fish' also evokes for me, Juvenal's Satire #4, about Domitian's Big Fish.

A huge fish is caught, so big that it is brought, live, (from the Mediterranean) to Domitian's villa (today the papal summer retreat in the highlands). A meeting is held of important Roman poobahs, and they discuss what to do with the big fish. Should we carve it up and eat it? No, we should have a bigger bowl made for the fish. Of course, in this case, it is not one individual that knows the secret, but the attending Roman poobahs of the Flavian day.
Remembering that Postflaviana "poobah" Richard Stanley left us two years ago on this date, a not so "secret" big "fish" on this site. This has nothing to do with physics, but that is off topic for this thread anyway, so who cares?
 

Claude Badley

Registered Guest
Fascist
Yes, Richard would still be here...
Remembering that Postflaviana "poobah" Richard Stanley left us two years ago on this date, a not so "secret" big "fish" on this site. This has nothing to do with physics, but that is off topic for this thread anyway, so who cares?
...had he, like others of our age group including me, not had the wretched vaccines et al. that induced his body into the pain of autoimmune illness: i.e. Crohn's Disease with its anterior uveitis. Meeting him in Lancaster, I will always remember Richard with high regard because it was he who first introduced me to Ralph Ellis's work. While I cannot of course agree with Ellis's claims, his Freemasonic cunning and manipulation are on full display in his works: i.e. Ellis is a sort of "anti-Atwill".

Yours faithfully
CB the F
 

1698code

New Member
Seeker, Jerry and others:

"Show'em how well you can cypher boy" - Jed Clampett talking about his son Jethro

I am 'bringing up the rear' of the cypher situation:

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/bi...y-significant-violation-international-charter

[this is an example of how a number can be presented using a simple cyphers and likely manipulated words and spellings that we call language]

Gematrinator 'classic' with 'all' counts selected is used. Most; but not all of the totals are from Sumerian and Reverse Sumerian.

Biden in UN speech accuses Russia of 'extremely significant' violation of international charter
Fox News

Biden i 714 n UN 906 speech 888 a 1698 cc 1986 u 1056 2022 ses Russ 1776 i 1830 a 1836 1782 of 'extr 3144 emely sign 3018 if 3180 i 3162 c 3180 a 3186 nt' violation of international 5130 6858 charter

The 318 can represent the 318 trained men from the Abraham household mentioned in:


Genesis 14:14 And when Abram heard that his relative had ...
https://biblehub.com › genesis



When Abram heard that his relative had been taken prisoner, he assembled his 318 trained men, born in his household, and they went ...

significant = 666 s 444 eng ext extremely = 696 rs

powerful = 696 s rothschild = 696 s

[The 'encoding' can be easily done with modern computers.]

the year twenty forty seven = 2028 s 1698 rs

the year twenty fifty = 1530 s 1386 rs

the year twenty twenty five = 2028 s 1698 rs
the year twenty twenty nine = 2028 s 1698 rs

The Great Architect of the Universe = 2028 s 2832 rs



the '2023' year ?

23 skidoo (phrase) - Wikipedia

https://en.wikipedia.org › wiki › 23_skidoo_(phrase)

23 skidoo (sometimes 23 skiddoo) is an American slang phrase popularized during the early ... 'Cause we all reside down the block inside at 23 Skidoo. [John Prine lyrics: Jesus the Missing Years

2030 ? skiddoo?
[The 'romans' like their numbers]

Elton John 'flabbergasted' and teary after Biden surprises him with medal
The Washington Post


Biden surprises Elton John with National Humanities Medal at White House
CNN

Elton Jo 588 hn 'f 714 906 l 786 abber 1638 609(906) gasted' an 1380 d te 2820 ary a 3198 fter Bi 3810 den surpri 2928 ses 3186 him with medal



Biden s 318 u 444 690(906) rprises 1068 1200 Elto 1380 1536 n 1614(174) Jo 1614(174) hn 1746 1407 w 138 318 i 1938 th Nation 2802 al H 3162 u 3198 mani 3018 t 3138 ies Medal at W 3810 hite House

jesus = 444 s 153 is the 'fish number' from the Gospel of John

174 is used for the '174 petawatts' that the sun puts on earth

the '17' is a hidden 153 as the 1-17 digits added = 153

'The 17 sustainability goals' and the '17 days of mourning' after the death of our queen

In the queue for over 12 hours to meet queen, Lucy tell her story


Al Jazeera English
[test caption bit]
my name's Lucy 906 876 1969 and I 1074 1356 'm 1440 fro 1386 1692 m 1464 1776 Bristol

[I think goldbug accused Lucille Ball of being more than queen-like.]

my name's Lucy = 906 s
Jesus Christ = 906 s

[The '1698' numerals show up for the year of the Whitehall Palace fire. Royals were said to begin using the Whitehall Palace for living quarters in the year 1530. 1698-1530 provides the '168' numerals.

The Great Tribulation = 1350 s 1728 rs whitehall = 588 s

1728 is 12x12x12 or in 'technical terms' 12 to the third power.

Jerry,
Thank you for leaving this trash on the blog. I do too much 'counting'.

[easy to do using Gematrinator]

Zelenskyy urges Russian conscripts to 'sabotage' military operations, offers protections to those who surre...

Business Insider

Zelenskyy urges R 1380 uss 1734 ia 1794 n c 1896 o 1986 1740 nscripts to 's 3018 abo 3126 tag 3186 e' 3318 military operations, offers protections to those who surre...

[notice that the 'showing' of the '318' 'Abram's army' is presented near the 'conscripts']

Fox News
Italy on track to elect first right-wing prime minister since World War II, first female to hold the office


It 174 aly on track to elect 1374 1704 first right-wing prime minister since World War II, first female to hold the office


right-wing prime minister = 1698 s 1866 rs right-wing politician = 1338 s 1740 rs


left-wing politician = 1224 s 1692 rs left-wing politicians = 1338 s 1740 rs

The Guardian - Opinion
Giorgia Meloni is a danger to Italy and the rest of Europe

Giorgia Meloni i 858 s a danger to Italy and 3186 the rest of Europ 3144 e = 3174 s 4440 rs

danger to Italy = 906 s 1200 rs Jesus (444 s) Christ = 906 s 876 rs

The Guardian
Europe holds its breath as Italy prepares to vote in far-right leader

Europe hol 690(906 Jesus Christ) d 714 906 s 828 i 882 ts breath 1440 1800 a 1446 s 1560 It 1734 a 1740 ly prepares t 3162(318) o vote 3510 i 3186 3618 n fa 3810 r-right leader

god = 156 s 330 rs satan = 330 s 480 rs
 

Jerry Russell

Administrator
Staff member
Claude and Seeker, thank you both for remembering Richard.

the wretched vaccines et al. that induced his body into the pain of autoimmune illness

Interesting speculation. Claude, do you follow Toby Rogers? I was intrigued with this article of his, where he suggests that US politics has become so insane lately because the generation coming into power is severely vaccine injured. I am not sure about this: it seems to me that earlier generations of humans, even before vaccines, had their own problems that were just as severe.

This has nothing to do with physics, but that is off topic for this thread anyway, so who cares?

I moved some posts over to the coronavirus thread, but I'm feeling a sense of futility about trying to keep threads on-topic. Everything is connected to everything else, and there is only one topic.
 
Top