1828 replies to this topic

[DieChecker]

nopeda, on 16 October 2012 - 06:14 PM, said:

There would be no need for an adjustment if there were no red or blue shift because then there would be no combined velocity. Instead there IS the combined velocities of 186K... +/- the velocities of emitters relative to observers. That combination is what causes the frequency shift and imo also a velocity shift, but the velocity is later adjusted by something so that all incoming light arrives in the areas where humans have been able to detect at one velocity relative to the area. Even if that area is the entire galaxy the adjustment must be made. My guess is that light moves much faster outside of adjustment areas, which would account for how it can not only appear to slow down in order to arrive at c, but how it can also appear to speed up in order to arrive at c. Too bad you can't even appreciate the situation, much less how what I described could account for it.

No... I get it. You think that there possibly could be areas of the universe where Physics as we know it does not apply the same, so that the emitter velocity can be added to the speed of light and thus have a total speed of c+v. I simply don't believe it because all human experimentation has shown this to not be true. We can bounce lasers off asteroids, or with radar for that matter, and have detected no addition and no adjustment. Thus, the most reasonable assumption is that it is the same everywhere and c is a constant. What you are proposing is only an idea without even existing data or an experiment that can be used to verify it.

What experiment could someone provide that would be proof of your idea?

Experiments have shown that the red and blue shift is directly propostional to the speed of the emitter (or reciever). You would propose that this is true, but that the velocities would also add up on top of that. Correct? How would you explain the red and blue shift, if not with an energy difference, which would be taken from the added velocities? Do the velocities only partly add?

Edited by DieChecker, 16 October 2012 - 07:41 PM.

[Myles]

nopeda, on 15 October 2012 - 10:07 PM, said:

Regardless of what you do or don't do they don't look like they were carved to represent something else and they just fell apart extremely coincidentally in a way that made them all look like air vehicles OR THAT people carved over original carvings extremely coincidentally in a way that made them all look like air vehicles. That's just how it is and always will be unless something changes the carvings.

No-one here believes they ALL look like air vehicles except you.  Most of us believe one or two of them resemble air vehicles, but that proves nothing.  Just as a piece of toast that resembles Jesus means nothing.  Except to you of course.

[nopeda]

DieChecker, on 16 October 2012 - 07:38 PM, said:

Experiments have shown that the red and blue shift is directly propostional to the speed of the emitter (or reciever). You would propose that this is true, but that the velocities would also add up on top of that. Correct? How would you explain the red and blue shift, if not with an energy difference, which would be taken from the added velocities? Do the velocities only partly add?

The frequency and velocity would add or subtract but the energy level would probably remain unchanged imo. If that's the case then that would be how they can tell how the light has been shifted, if it didn't have the correct amount of energy for the particular frequency. The velocity would be reduced when it hits the adjustment area, as it is when it enters glass and water. The velocity is reduced but the frequency stays the same. If what causes the adjustment is large like the galactic magnetosphere then humans have never been able to do a test outside of it, which is what at this point I expect is the case. If light travels significantly faster when outside the adjustment area then even light sources that are moving away from us could produce light that has a velocity which needs to be slowed down in order to be at 186K miles per second. I'm not saying that's how it is, but how it could be. It would explain the situation.

[nopeda]

Myles, on 17 October 2012 - 02:08 PM, said:

No-one here believes they ALL look like air vehicles except you.  Most of us believe one or two of them resemble air vehicles, but that proves nothing.

It certainly dosn't prove they weren't carved to depict air vehicles. The fact that you can't recognise some as being possible air vehicles suggests only that they could be air vehicles you're unfamiliar with and can't relate to.

[nopeda]

synchronomy, on 16 October 2012 - 06:37 PM, said:

I posted an excellent video link, which you can't watch.
I took the time to explain it to you, and you don't "believe" it.
You seem to have developed your own theory on the relativistic nature of time and space, which contradicts current widely accepted theories of physics and cosmology.

After having thought it through a number of times and concluded that a fabric of space or/and spacetime can not exist, I'm not going to try to trick myself into thinking it might just so I can try to accept your favorite possibility. Not only is it not my favorite possibility, but I don't really consider it to be a possibility at all and never have. That means I have to consider something other than your fabric theory, and your time theory.

[synchronomy]

nopeda, on 17 October 2012 - 07:02 PM, said:

After having thought it through a number of times and concluded that a fabric of space or/and spacetime can not exist, I'm not going to try to trick myself into thinking it might just so I can try to accept your favorite possibility. Not only is it not my favorite possibility, but I don't really consider it to be a possibility at all and never have. That means I have to consider something other than your fabric theory, and your time theory.

Wow!
They're not MY theories.

[Myles]

nopeda, on 17 October 2012 - 07:00 PM, said:

It certainly dosn't prove they weren't carved to depict air vehicles. The fact that you can't recognise some as being possible air vehicles suggests only that they could be air vehicles you're unfamiliar with and can't relate to.

Did you read this after posting it?

Again, 2 mountains resemble boobies.     They are not boobies though.

[Quaentum]

nopeda, on 11 October 2012 - 09:46 PM, said:

Sure it does, and you're in no position to decide whether it does or not. IF you had any example(s) you would be glad to show it or them, meaning that you have none. Before you taught me that you're being dishonest YOU knew it but WE did not. Now that you've shown you're being dishonest WE know it.

The examples were given, the posts are there.  Perhaps you don't remember them because of some memory problems?  Do you have memory problems?  If not you should remember all the posts that were made by various people with all those examples.  Can't remember them?  Well maybe you should see a doctor.  Memory loss of that type could be serious but may be treated.

You're sure there are no memory problems?  Well that leaves only one conclusion.  Willful ignorance and dishonesty on your part.  In fact the level of dishonesty you are showing is dare I say, surpassing that of most politicians.  I'm curious, have you been this dishonest your whole life or did you work your way up to the level your at now a bit at a time.

It's sad really.  Your attempt to play head games just isn't succeeding.  How does it feel to fail in that attempt time and again?

[Quaentum]

nopeda, on 17 October 2012 - 07:00 PM, said:

It certainly dosn't prove they weren't carved to depict air vehicles. The fact that you can't recognise some as being possible air vehicles suggests only that they could be air vehicles you're unfamiliar with and can't relate to.

The fact that you wish not to believe or ignore evidence shown to you as to why they look that way is of course your right but in no way supports your position.

Oh and please don't say I have to post the evidence as it has already been posted and you don't want to increase your level of dishonesty now would you.

[Quaentum]

nopeda, on 17 October 2012 - 07:02 PM, said:

After having thought it through a number of times and concluded that a fabric of space or/and spacetime can not exist, I'm not going to try to trick myself into thinking it might just so I can try to accept your favorite possibility. Not only is it not my favorite possibility, but I don't really consider it to be a possibility at all and never have. That means I have to consider something other than your fabric theory, and your time theory.

You conclusion, not based on any fact or evidence is in itself evidence that you have tricked yourself into believing that it doesn't exist.

[nopeda]

synchronomy, on 17 October 2012 - 07:17 PM, said:

Quote

nopeda, on 17 October 2012 - 02:02 PM, said:
After having thought it through a number of times and concluded that a fabric of space or/and spacetime can not exist, I'm not going to try to trick myself into thinking it might just so I can try to accept your favorite possibility. Not only is it not my favorite possibility, but I don't really consider it to be a possibility at all and never have. That means I have to consider something other than your fabric theory, and your time theory.

Wow!
They're not MY theories.

I know you didn't come up with them to begin with but since they're the ones you presented they are in that way your theories. However, if you've changed your mind and would like to abandon one or both then just say so and try something else if you want.

[nopeda]

Myles, on 17 October 2012 - 07:22 PM, said:

Quote

nopeda, on 17 October 2012 - 02:00 PM, said:
It certainly dosn't prove they weren't carved to depict air vehicles. The fact that you can't recognise some as being possible air vehicles suggests only that they could be air vehicles you're unfamiliar with and can't relate to.

Did you read this after posting it?
Again, 2 mountains resemble boobies. They are not boobies though.

There isn't even a comparison between a situation with mountains that just happen to look like tits and carvings in stone that were deliberately intended to represent something. That's a basic you should try to comprehend and then maybe you can move on to something worthwhile.

[nopeda]

Quaentum, on 18 October 2012 - 03:41 PM, said:

Quote

nopeda, on 11 October 2012 - 04:46 PM, said:
Sure it does, and you're in no position to decide whether it does or not. IF you had any example(s) you would be glad to show it or them, meaning that you have none. Before you taught me that you're being dishonest YOU knew it but WE did not. Now that you've shown you're being dishonest WE know it.

you ... you ... you ... you ... You're ... your ... you ... you ... your ... you ... your ... Your

AGAIN you blatantly flaunt your own dishonesty by parading the fact that you have no examples. Hilarious!

[nopeda]

Quaentum, on 18 October 2012 - 03:49 PM, said:

Quote

nopeda, on 17 October 2012 - 02:00 PM, said:
It certainly dosn't prove they weren't carved to depict air vehicles. The fact that you can't recognise some as being possible air vehicles suggests only that they could be air vehicles you're unfamiliar with and can't relate to.

The fact that you wish not to believe or ignore evidence shown to you as to why they look that way is of course your right but in no way supports your position.
Oh and please don't say I have to post the evidence as it has already been posted

You would have to post it in order to seem like you might possibly be honest if I challenged you to do so. I expect you would fail completely if I did. But I've been told various things about why they look as they do and the one you appear to like best is the idea that parts of them have just fallen away in the most incredibly coincidental way that it makes them appear to resemble air vehicles. Not only would it be almost unbelievably coincidental IF that is what happened, but it looks nothing at all like that's what did happen either. Those two things are huge aspects imo, and reasons why I can't accept your favorite possibility.

[nopeda]

Quaentum, on 18 October 2012 - 03:50 PM, said:

Quote

nopeda, on 17 October 2012 - 02:02 PM, said:
After having thought it through a number of times and concluded that a fabric of space or/and spacetime can not exist, I'm not going to try to trick myself into thinking it might just so I can try to accept your favorite possibility. Not only is it not my favorite possibility, but I don't really consider it to be a possibility at all and never have. That means I have to consider something other than your fabric theory, and your time theory.

You conclusion, not based on any fact or evidence is in itself evidence that you have tricked yourself into believing that it doesn't exist.

It's certainly not that way if I'm right. If I'm right other people have tricked you into believing something exists even though it doesn't, but they didn't trick me. Since you think space does exist, then how do you think it's different after space ends? What do you think is there instead after "space" runs out? If nothing, how do you think that nothing is different than the nothing I consider to surround us INSTEAD OF space?