| Topic: |
Science > Physics |
| User: |
"glbrad01" |
| Date: |
22 Jan 2005 05:18:24 AM |
| Object: |
Einstein's Observer Totally Blind To Space |
No observer can ever observe space. He, per the speed of light's
limitations in transmitting information through, is totally blind to space.
He can only observe a light-time history frame arriving within his frame,
period. A traveler travels through space, but he will never observe that
travel through space either. He will observe travel through time. Light
transmits information but it takes time to get where it is going, whether a
minute fraction of a second or billions of years or more, thus it will get
behind in time, farther and ever farther behind in time, to the real space
and time of where and what it departed.
I've illustrated this again and again. Herein the illustration is for a
lamp and observer in exactly the same frame of reference separated by only a
little distance. It works the same though no matter where.
History = hy
Immediate Time = t
Source(t1)>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Observer(t1)
Source(t2), hy1, >>>>>>>>>>Observer(t2)
Source(t3), hy2, hy1, >>>>>>>Observer(t3)
Source(t4), hy3, hy2, hy1, >>>>Observer(4)
Source(t5), hy4, hy3, hy2, (hy1)Observer(t5)
Source(t6), hy5, hy4, hy3, (hy2)Observer(t6)
Source(t7), hy6, hy5, hy4, (hy3)Observer(t7)
The observer believes himself to be observing in a space-time environment
but he is a blind man (all life is) when it comes to space beyond his
ability to touch it. He observes in a strict light-time history frame
environment when it comes to sight. Even having to do with the computer
screen you are viewing right now--that you believe you are viewing
instantaneously in real time, you are behind in time to the phsyical
screen's real space and time. When it comes to motion and travel, concerning
anything going away from his location at any angle and velocity, the
observer in observing the traveler will always suffer from light's velocity
frame dragging effect, whether slightly or hugely. Since the observer can
never observe space, a traveler will never be where an observer observes him
to be because all the observer observes is history and the traveler has
since--to long since--moved on in both space (unobservable) and time
(unobserved). This "since moved on..." negates all "time slowing." It
cancels it out. It will always be as if the intrinsic traveler is on the
other side of the speed of light taking advantage of that effect to
constantly cancel out the apparent traveler's "time slowing."
Brad
.
|
|
| User: "Franz Heymann" |
|
| Title: Re: Einstein's Observer Totally Blind To Space |
22 Jan 2005 04:58:24 PM |
|
|
"glbrad01" <glbrad01@insightbb.com> wrote in message
news:4EqId.17007$P04.4992@attbi_s03...
[snup]
You are drivelling.
Franz
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Old Man" |
|
| Title: Re: Einstein's Observer Totally Blind To Space |
22 Jan 2005 07:39:54 PM |
|
|
"glbrad01" <glbrad01@insightbb.com> wrote in message
news:4EqId.17007$P04.4992@attbi_s03...
No observer can ever observe space. ...
False.
Free space is observable via it's properties. The space-time
metric for free space has but one observable parameter: the
local speed of light.
[Old Man]
Brad
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Dirk Van de moortel" |
|
| Title: Re: Einstein's Observer Totally Blind To Space |
22 Jan 2005 05:52:08 AM |
|
|
"glbrad01" <glbrad01@insightbb.com> wrote in message news:4EqId.17007$P04.4992@attbi_s03...
No observer can ever observe space.
An observer with a radar and a clock can send out signals
and wait for the echos. By timing the events of sending and
receiving he can define the time and the distance of the
reflection event and he can start doing physics.
Dirk Vdm
.
|
|
|
| User: "glbrad01" |
|
| Title: Re: Einstein's Observer Totally Blind To Space |
22 Jan 2005 06:04:23 PM |
|
|
"Dirk Van de moortel" <dirkvandemoortel@ThankS-NO-SperM.hotmail.com> wrote
in message news:I7rId.1551$xQ.216167@phobos.telenet-ops.be...
"glbrad01" <glbrad01@insightbb.com> wrote in message
news:4EqId.17007$P04.4992@attbi_s03...
No observer can ever observe space.
An observer with a radar and a clock can send out signals
and wait for the echos. By timing the events of sending and
receiving he can define the time and the distance of the
reflection event and he can start doing physics.
Dirk Vdm
Repost from "Redshift......"
These are QUOTES from the article:
"raise a fundamental problem for astronomers who had long assumed that
the "high redshifts" in the light spectra of quasars meant these
objects were among the fastest receding objects in the universe and,
therefore, billions of light years away."
"No one has found a quasar with such a high redshift, with a redshift
of 2.11, so close to the center of an active galaxy," said Geoffrey
Burbidge."
"team measured the redshifts of the spiral galaxy and quasar and found
that the quasar appears to be interacting with the interstellar gas
within the galaxy."
"Because quasars and black holes are generally found within the most
energetic parts of galaxies, their centers, the astronomers are further
persuaded that this particular quasar resides within this spiral
galaxy. Geoffrey Burbidge added that the fact that the quasar is so
close to the center of this galaxy, only 8 arc seconds from the
nucleus, and does not appear to be shrouded in any way by interstellar
gas make it highly unlikely that the quasar lies far behind the galaxy,
its light shining through the galaxy near its center by "an accident
of projection."
"If this quasar is close by, its redshift cannot be due to the
expansion of the universe," he adds. "If this is the case, this
discovery casts doubt on the whole idea that quasars are very far away
and can be used to do cosmology."
Brad
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "The Ghost In The Machine" |
|
| Title: Re: Einstein's Observer Totally Blind To Space |
22 Jan 2005 01:00:08 PM |
|
|
In sci.physics, Dirk Van de moortel
<dirkvandemoortel@ThankS-NO-SperM.hotmail.com>
wrote
on Sat, 22 Jan 2005 11:52:08 GMT
<I7rId.1551$xQ.216167@phobos.telenet-ops.be>:
"glbrad01" <glbrad01@insightbb.com> wrote in message
news:4EqId.17007$P04.4992@attbi_s03...
No observer can ever observe space.
An observer with a radar and a clock can send out signals
and wait for the echos. By timing the events of sending and
receiving he can define the time and the distance of the
reflection event and he can start doing physics.
But that's not observing space; that's observing stuff in space
that can bounce off radar echoes. Admittedly, there are
a lot of issues here; how much stuff per cubic meter is
required to define space? (My understanding is that the
Universe has an average density of 1 atom per cc or so;
in our region it's slightly denser, about 6 atoms per cc.
A quick Google coughed up
http://www.sunspot.noao.edu/sunspot/pr/answerbook/universe.html
which suggests 3 * 10^-28 kg per cubic meter. Since
proton mass + electron mass = 1.67262171 * 10^-27 + 9.10938188 * 10^-31
= 1.673532648188*10^-27, this works out to be about 1
hydrogen atom every 5.58 cubic meters -- far less dense than
I had thought. However, that includes intergalactic space.)
And I agree that that's a very good variant of physics one
can do with such equipment -- and is probably what led
up to the radar defenses of World War II and ultimately to
the far more sophisticated stuff that we have today,
and observation of such things as the CMBR.
It gets even weirder if one steps up the frequency a few
notches and throws in electric and/or magnetic fields.
Ultimately, one should be able to generate particle
pairs, and then intercept one of the particles;
unfortunately the only example of such I can think of
is around the event horizon of a black hole -- and
putting equipment near there is next to impossible. :-)
However, one can still theorize, of course; Stephen Hawking
and other notables are presumably wrangling over this
and other questions -- and the ramifications are subtle
(far too subtle for me, anyway :-) ) but many.
One can also look at macro issues. For example, a rotating
black hole twists space around it. It turns out the
Earth does, too; Gravity Probe B will observe precisely
how much but another bunch of researchers have already
upstaged the results by using more conventional methods,
namely analysis of the orbits of satellites. One hopes
we can correlate the two.
I'm not sure that one can observe space, but there are a
fair number of other things one can observe therein.
Dirk Vdm
--
#191,
It's still legal to go .sigless.
.
|
|
|
| User: "glbrad01" |
|
| Title: Re: Einstein's Observer Totally Blind To Space |
22 Jan 2005 06:08:26 PM |
|
|
"The Ghost In The Machine" <ewill@sirius.athghost7038suus.net> wrote in
message news:0vhac2-blm.ln1@sirius.athghost7038suus.net...
In sci.physics, Dirk Van de moortel
<dirkvandemoortel@ThankS-NO-SperM.hotmail.com>
wrote
on Sat, 22 Jan 2005 11:52:08 GMT
<I7rId.1551$xQ.216167@phobos.telenet-ops.be>:
"glbrad01" <glbrad01@insightbb.com> wrote in message
news:4EqId.17007$P04.4992@attbi_s03...
No observer can ever observe space.
An observer with a radar and a clock can send out signals
and wait for the echos. By timing the events of sending and
receiving he can define the time and the distance of the
reflection event and he can start doing physics.
But that's not observing space; that's observing stuff in space
that can bounce off radar echoes. Admittedly, there are
a lot of issues here; how much stuff per cubic meter is
required to define space? (My understanding is that the
Universe has an average density of 1 atom per cc or so;
in our region it's slightly denser, about 6 atoms per cc.
A quick Google coughed up
http://www.sunspot.noao.edu/sunspot/pr/answerbook/universe.html
which suggests 3 * 10^-28 kg per cubic meter. Since
proton mass + electron mass = 1.67262171 * 10^-27 + 9.10938188 * 10^-31
= 1.673532648188*10^-27, this works out to be about 1
hydrogen atom every 5.58 cubic meters -- far less dense than
I had thought. However, that includes intergalactic space.)
And I agree that that's a very good variant of physics one
can do with such equipment -- and is probably what led
up to the radar defenses of World War II and ultimately to
the far more sophisticated stuff that we have today,
and observation of such things as the CMBR.
It gets even weirder if one steps up the frequency a few
notches and throws in electric and/or magnetic fields.
Ultimately, one should be able to generate particle
pairs, and then intercept one of the particles;
unfortunately the only example of such I can think of
is around the event horizon of a black hole -- and
putting equipment near there is next to impossible. :-)
However, one can still theorize, of course; Stephen Hawking
and other notables are presumably wrangling over this
and other questions -- and the ramifications are subtle
(far too subtle for me, anyway :-) ) but many.
One can also look at macro issues. For example, a rotating
black hole twists space around it. It turns out the
Earth does, too; Gravity Probe B will observe precisely
how much but another bunch of researchers have already
upstaged the results by using more conventional methods,
namely analysis of the orbits of satellites. One hopes
we can correlate the two.
I'm not sure that one can observe space, but there are a
fair number of other things one can observe therein.
Dirk Vdm
--
#191,
It's still legal to go .sigless.
Therein "light-time history frames" transmitted, not space. Never space.
Brad
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Einstein's Observer Totally Blind To Space |
22 Jan 2005 04:41:58 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 22 Jan 2005 11:18:24 GMT, "glbrad01" <glbrad01@insightbb.com>
wrote:
No observer can ever observe space. He, per the speed of light's
limitations in transmitting information through, is totally blind to space.
He can only observe a light-time history frame arriving within his frame,
period. A traveler travels through space, but he will never observe that
travel through space either. He will observe travel through time. Light
transmits information but it takes time to get where it is going, whether a
minute fraction of a second or billions of years or more, thus it will get
behind in time, farther and ever farther behind in time, to the real space
and time of where and what it departed.
I've illustrated this again and again. Herein the illustration is for a
lamp and observer in exactly the same frame of reference separated by only a
little distance. It works the same though no matter where.
History = hy
Immediate Time = t
Source(t1)>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Observer(t1)
Source(t2), hy1, >>>>>>>>>>Observer(t2)
Source(t3), hy2, hy1, >>>>>>>Observer(t3)
Source(t4), hy3, hy2, hy1, >>>>Observer(4)
Source(t5), hy4, hy3, hy2, (hy1)Observer(t5)
Source(t6), hy5, hy4, hy3, (hy2)Observer(t6)
Source(t7), hy6, hy5, hy4, (hy3)Observer(t7)
The observer believes himself to be observing in a space-time environment
but he is a blind man (all life is) when it comes to space beyond his
ability to touch it. He observes in a strict light-time history frame
environment when it comes to sight. Even having to do with the computer
screen you are viewing right now--that you believe you are viewing
instantaneously in real time, you are behind in time to the phsyical
screen's real space and time. When it comes to motion and travel, concerning
anything going away from his location at any angle and velocity, the
observer in observing the traveler will always suffer from light's velocity
frame dragging effect, whether slightly or hugely. Since the observer can
never observe space, a traveler will never be where an observer observes him
to be because all the observer observes is history and the traveler has
since--to long since--moved on in both space (unobservable) and time
(unobserved). This "since moved on..." negates all "time slowing." It
cancels it out. It will always be as if the intrinsic traveler is on the
other side of the speed of light taking advantage of that effect to
constantly cancel out the apparent traveler's "time slowing."
Brad
Scary.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Einstein's Observer Totally Blind To Space |
23 Jan 2005 10:34:15 AM |
|
|
[Brad:]
"Since the observer can
never observe space, a traveler will never be where an observer
observes him
to be because all the observer observes is history and the traveler has
since--to long since--moved on in both space (unobservable) and time
(unobserved). This "since moved on..." negates all "time slowing." "
"observer" is easily misunderstood. Brad, with "observer" in physics
usually one means a measurement system. An idealised system has perfect
detectors everywhere; a good one has enough detectors to reconstruct
(x, t) by calculation.
That has nothing to do with "time slowing".
Cheers,
Harald
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Uncle Al" |
|
| Title: Re: Einstein's Observer Totally Blind To Space |
22 Jan 2005 11:11:44 AM |
|
|
glbrad01 wrote:
No observer can ever observe space.
Casimir effect, electron anomalous g-factor, Rabi vacuum oscillations,
Lamb shift... Look out on a clear night. Look into a vacuum tube.
He, per the speed of light's
limitations in transmitting information through, is totally blind to space.
Hubble telescope.
He can only observe a light-time history frame arriving within his frame,
period. A traveler travels through space, but he will never observe that
travel through space either.
[snip crap]
Annalen der Physik 4 XVII 891-921 (1905)
Idiot.
--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz.pdf
.
|
|
|
| User: "glbrad01" |
|
| Title: Re: Einstein's Observer Totally Blind To Space |
22 Jan 2005 06:03:06 PM |
|
|
"Uncle All" wrote
glbrad01 wrote:
No observer can ever observe space.
Casimir effect, electron anomalous g-factor, Rabi vacuum oscillations,
Lamb shift... Look out on a clear night. Look into a vacuum tube.
He, per the speed of light's
limitations in transmitting information through, is totally blind to
space.
Hubble telescope.
He can only observe a light-time history frame arriving within his frame,
period. A traveler travels through space, but he will never observe that
travel through space either.
[snip crap]
Annalen der Physik 4 XVII 891-921 (1905)
Idiot.
--
Uncle Al
Repost from discovery concerning red shift.
These are QUOTES from the article:
"raise a fundamental problem for astronomers who had long assumed that
the "high redshifts" in the light spectra of quasars meant these
objects were among the fastest receding objects in the universe and,
therefore, billions of light years away."
"No one has found a quasar with such a high redshift, with a redshift
of 2.11, so close to the center of an active galaxy," said Geoffrey
Burbidge."
"team measured the redshifts of the spiral galaxy and quasar and found
that the quasar appears to be interacting with the interstellar gas
within the galaxy."
"Because quasars and black holes are generally found within the most
energetic parts of galaxies, their centers, the astronomers are further
persuaded that this particular quasar resides within this spiral
galaxy. Geoffrey Burbidge added that the fact that the quasar is so
close to the center of this galaxy, only 8 arc seconds from the
nucleus, and does not appear to be shrouded in any way by interstellar
gas make it highly unlikely that the quasar lies far behind the galaxy,
its light shining through the galaxy near its center by "an accident
of projection."
"If this quasar is close by, its redshift cannot be due to the
expansion of the universe," he adds. "If this is the case, this
discovery casts doubt on the whole idea that quasars are very far away
and can be used to do cosmology."
Brad
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
