Musings of an old man....

[alismith]

I don't know but when you are driving on the interstate at 65 and the car next to you is driving
65 do they look strange?

That depends on how much you've had to drink....

[l921428x]

In that case why cannot a driver at 200 mph pass a dozen other drivers
driving 200?

[N/A]

N/A, go back to the video in post #56 and start at 25:20. It'll answer this question there. (It's not very long....)

I'd like to, but the only internet connection I have is thru an AT&T
monthly go phone. Thus, it takes forever to watch a video as it stops every 30 seconds to buffer or download more of the video. I'd have to wait an hour to finally get to the 25:00 mark.

Right now I've just finished coffee at the store, and now I'm headed home for breakfast. One of the joys of retirement is not being on a schedule and no big hurry to get anywhere.

I'll go into my thoughts later this morning.

[1 Patriot-of-many]

I'd like to, but the only internet connection I have is thru an AT&T
monthly go phone. Thus, it takes forever to watch a video as it stops every 30 seconds to buffer or download more of the video. I'd have to wait an hour to finally get to the 25:00 mark.

Right now I've just finished coffee at the store, and now I'm headed home for breakfast. One of the joys of retirement is not being on a schedule and no big hurry to get anywhere.

I'll go into my thoughts later this morning.

So you're saying YOU are the fucker doing 45 in the 70mph zone while the rest of us are trying to get to work at the last minute.....

[N/A]

So you're saying YOU are the fucker doing 45 in the 70mph zone while the rest of us are trying to get to work at the last minute.....

Lol....which is why I don't drive in high traffic areas...so it must not be me.

It would be like comparing rush hour to a black hole; once you're caught in the grip of stop & go traffic, time slows down and every minute seems like an hour and you can never escape. So , I avoid the event (horizon) altogether.

[N/A]

www.ardeshirmehta.com/Einstein%27sTrain.html

Came across this, and it explains in part my thinking, but I came to a bit different conclusion.

[1 Patriot-of-many]

Lol....which is why I don't drive in high traffic areas...so it must not be me.

It would be like comparing rush hour to a black hole; once you're caught in the grip of stop & go traffic, time slows down and every minute seems like an hour and you can never escape. So , I avoid the event (horizon) altogether.

BWAAHAAAAAA Now with my job driving a truck with set hours, how do I avoid the event horizon?

[N/A]

BWAAHAAAAAA Now with my job driving a truck with set hours, how do I avoid the event horizon?

You don't.

You're a prime example of the "S O L theory".

[N/A]

The above image is from the web site I posted above. I make no claim that my ideas are the only correct ideas, only that I present them for discussion.

In Einstein's thought experiment, a passenger on a moving train that was struck by lightning on the front and back simultaneously, would see one flash of lightning before the other. The idea is that person is in the very center of the train, but the train is moving. Thus the passenger is moving toward one flash of lightning and away from.

A person standing stationary out side the train, at the center of the train, would see both lightning strikes at the same time.

As both see the same event, and light's velocity is the same in all frames of reference, how can one flash travel faster/slower to the passenger if the speed is suppose to be constant? By looking at the diagram above, we can see that the person on the ground does indeed see the two flashes of light meet at the half way point simultaneously, but the passenger doesn't see this as they have moved away from the midway point.

Now the passenger sees one flash of light before the other. What are they to think of this? They didn't see the flash of light when it happened, as they had to wait for the light to reach them. So, the best they could assume is one lightning bolt happened before the other. But, as we already know, the lightning bolts struck simultaneously. If they did happen to know that the lightning bolts were going to strike simultaneously, but then saw the flashes at different times, they could conclude that glad of light had to move faster than the other, or slower than the other, and thus the speed of light c was not constant in the passenger's from of reference.
That couldn't be true, so then the passenger could only conclude they were in a moving frame of reference. And that moving frame of reference would have to be a "subframe of reference" existing in a "Master frame of reference".

The Master Frame of Reference would be space itself.
Not the mass and energy, but the void of space itself. And as a void has no substance, in or of itself, it would be the stationary Master Frame of Reference. Then the mass/energy that exist in the void, would all be subframes of reference, whether they are atoms, planets, solar systems, galaxies, et cetera.

So, we see it is movement that appears to create these subframes, and that it is this movement across the stationary Master Frame. If a particle didn't move thru space, it would then be in sync with the Master Frame, and wouldn't be a sub frame.



Now, for the speed of light, which is always speed C, (except in water a n D some other liquids). As I see it, light is electromagnetic radiation that is created from mass. Light is emitted from mass in "photons". Mass is always moving in space. One could assume that light photons emitted from a mass traveling at one/sixth C, would have the speed of the mass added to its speed. In other words, you think that light would have a speed of 1 1/6 C. But light always has a speed of C no matter the velocity of the mass it originates from. How is this possible?

My thoughts are, that when mass is excited enough to emit part of itself as light, the change from mass is instantaneous. That between being mass to energy involves no passage of time. That for all intents and purposes, the mass is absolutely stationary in the light's frame of reference. In other words, even tho the mass is moving, it is stationary against the Master Frame of Reference, and light emits from a "stationary" mass. Thus light is always speed C.

Last but not least, I the speed of light is only limiting for light. I don't believe it is the ultimate speed in the universe.

[alismith]

The above image is from the web site I posted above. I make no claim that my ideas are the only correct ideas, only that I present them for discussion.

In Einstein's thought experiment, a passenger on a moving train that was struck by lightning on the front and back simultaneously, would see one flash of lightning before the other. The idea is that person is in the very center of the train, but the train is moving. Thus the passenger is moving toward one flash of lightning and away from.

A person standing stationary out side the train, at the center of the train, would see both lightning strikes at the same time.

As both see the same event, and light's velocity is the same in all frames of reference, how can one flash travel faster/slower to the passenger if the speed is suppose to be constant? By looking at the diagram above, we can see that the person on the ground does indeed see the two flashes of light meet at the half way point simultaneously, but the passenger doesn't see this as they have moved away from the midway point.

Now the passenger sees one flash of light before the other. What are they to think of this? They didn't see the flash of light when it happened, as they had to wait for the light to reach them. So, the best they could assume is one lightning bolt happened before the other. But, as we already know, the lightning bolts struck simultaneously. If they did happen to know that the lightning bolts were going to strike simultaneously, but then saw the flashes at different times, they could conclude that glad of light had to move faster than the other, or slower than the other, and thus the speed of light c was not constant in the passenger's from of reference.
That couldn't be true, so then the passenger could only conclude they were in a moving frame of reference. And that moving frame of reference would have to be a "subframe of reference" existing in a "Master frame of reference".

The Master Frame of Reference would be space itself.
Not the mass and energy, but the void of space itself. And as a void has no substance, in or of itself, it would be the stationary Master Frame of Reference. Then the mass/energy that exist in the void, would all be subframes of reference, whether they are atoms, planets, solar systems, galaxies, et cetera.

So, we see it is movement that appears to create these subframes, and that it is this movement across the stationary Master Frame. If a particle didn't move thru space, it would then be in sync with the Master Frame, and wouldn't be a sub frame.



Now, for the speed of light, which is always speed C, (except in water a n D some other liquids). As I see it, light is electromagnetic radiation that is created from mass. Light is emitted from mass in "photons". Mass is always moving in space. One could assume that light photons emitted from a mass traveling at one/sixth C, would have the speed of the mass added to its speed. In other words, you think that light would have a speed of 1 1/6 C. But light always has a speed of C no matter the velocity of the mass it originates from. How is this possible?

My thoughts are, that when mass is excited enough to emit part of itself as light, the change from mass is instantaneous. That between being mass to energy involves no passage of time. That for all intents and purposes, the mass is absolutely stationary in the light's frame of reference. In other words, even tho the mass is moving, it is stationary against the Master Frame of Reference, and light emits from a "stationary" mass. Thus light is always speed C.

Last but not least, I the speed of light is only limiting for light. I don't believe it is the ultimate speed in the universe.

Where's Krupski?

[JTHunter]

N/A - the only problem with your scenario (it's a good one too) is that there is no earth-based vehicle that can go fast enough for a human to tell the difference. Sure, there might testing equipment sensitive enough to register the difference but that difference on a ground vehicle would still be so miniscule that it might not be measurable.

[N/A]

N/A - the only problem with your scenario (it's a good one too) is that there is no earth-based vehicle that can go fast enough for a human to tell the difference. Sure, there might testing equipment sensitive enough to register the difference but that difference on a ground vehicle would still be so miniscule that it might not be measurable.

I know, but I'm attempting to use Einstein's train thought idea to show that it was having an observer in one frame of reference witness an event in another frame of reference. The observer's view is a distorted view because they are seeing an event outside their frame of reference. Thus, what they are seeing is false. They are adding a third motion to the motions of the two light flashes. But what if the observer is sitting in an airplane, in-between the wings, equal distance from the wing tips. Lightning hits both wingtips simultaneously. What does the observer see? They will see both flashes simultaneously, because even tho they are moving, they are stationary in reference to the wing tips. Even tho the lightning originated out their frame of reference. Their being in a moving frame of reference had no effect on the results, because they remains station in relation to the event. That allowed the subframe of reference to duplicate the Master Frame of Reference.

The only difference between the two, is that the light flashes had to travel a longer distance to get to an observer in the moving subframe, than it would have in the Master Frame where everything was stationary. This longer time to get there, is not because time slowed down for the light, but because it had a farther distance to travel to reach the observer.

Thus, I don't think time slows down, but that at any velocity, an action has to travel a farther distance across the Master Frame, but being a sub frame, the time seems normal.
Hi

[N/A]

When I was a kid and then young man, whenever I would be driving down the road and came upon some buzzards feasting on road kill, they would always fly off a few seconds before you got to them.
Now, in my older years, I've noticed in the last few years that they wait untill the last second and then just hop a couple feet out of the way. As soon as you pass, they hop right back. Nature has been adapting.

The same in town. Drive down a street, and any birds in the way, especially doves, will usually walk over to the curb and wait for you to pass.

Now days, if I see roadkill, I consider them the dumb ones...not the unlucky ones.

[alismith]

When I was a kid and then young man, whenever I would be driving down the road and came upon some buzzards feasting on road kill, they would always fly off a few seconds before you got to them.
Now, in my older years, I've noticed in the last few years that they wait untill the last second and then just hop a couple feet out of the way. As soon as you pass, they hop right back. Nature has been adapting.

The same in town. Drive down a street, and any birds in the way, especially doves, will usually walk over to the curb and wait for you to pass.

Now days, if I see roadkill, I consider them the dumb ones...not the unlucky ones.

Nature has a way of culling the dumb ones and preventing them from passing the “stupid” gene on to their offspring, unlike humans, who coddle the stupid ones and let them grow up and become Dimocrats.

[N/A]

In days of yore, when I read a lot, I remember one author theorized that one could create a small sphere in the earth; and if that empty sphere was placed at the right spot, anything inside that sphere would be weightless. He cited one particular spot and the reason why.

Thinking on it, there may be more than one spot theoretically possible. Does anyone have a guess at what particular spot he mentioned, and why?

[alismith]

DNC headquarters?

[N/A]

DNC headquarters?

That would be "wasteland", not "weightless".
It's a common misnomer.

[alismith]

That would be "wasteland", not "weightless".
It's a common misnomer.

I stand corrected.

[N/A]

According to the author, if you could create an empty sphere, say, 10 foot in diameter, and place it at the very center of the Earth, there would be weightlessness in that sphere. The theory, that you would be surrounded on all sides by mass exerting gravity on you. As that gravity would be coming from all directions pulling on you, it would all cancel out. Thus, you would essentially be weightless in that sphere.

Mass exerts gravity in all directions, not just out away from the mass. The iron core exerts it's gravity on the mantle of the Earth, but at the same time the mantle is exerting it's gravity outward into space and downward on the core. By placing an empty sphere at the center of the Earth, you have placed all the mass "above" the sphere, pulling anything in the sphere "upward" in all directions. In effect, this equal pull in all directions puts one in a place with no up or down.

Orbiting Earth puts one in free fall. We call it weightless untill that free fall happens to fall into the mass. Being at the center of the Earth would put one in "no fall", as there is no one direction to fall into. Thus, you are weightless.

[Helen Keller]

So I just need to find my safe space ??