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.
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.
The big issue of course is that the Einsteinians can choose various bogus replies and try to manipulate the investigator in various ways.
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.
I must admit I'd forgotten about the General Science reference!
He's right of course.
He is quite right of course, but what he does NOT understand well enough is philosophy.Eric Lerner said:
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 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!
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Whew! That's a relief.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Very good insight. Hyperbolic trigonometry is correctly applied to electromagnetism, not to space itself, which is not curved.
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).
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.
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".
Flavian Roman Emperor Vespasian was born on the 17th of November.
I wonder if any of those "fish" was a "goldfish"?
What do you think of his royal genealogy for "Jesus"?