El grupo al cual envías entradas es un grupo Usenet. Si envías mensajes a este grupo, cualquier usuario de Internet podrá ver tu dirección de correo electrónico
5310...@physicsbanter.com> wrote: > Quasar jet streams (QJS) have been exhibiting Faster than light motion > since they were first discovered by radio astronomy a long time ago. > The Narrow Angle model, (NA Model) has been used to describe this > motion for some time, this only works for Quasar Jet Streams (QJS) at > 19 degrees line of sight. Then we discovered QJS at up to 43 degrees > line of sight, we were stumped, how can this be happening. Now we > describe it using a model that some what complicated. General Theory of > Relativity states that Space time was created in the creation of the > universe, no more is being made apparently. But what if Black holes > were creating Space time, what if a relationship between matter energy > and space time exists, in a conundrum what can matter exist in, it can > exist in side of it's self, how about this as a hypothesis, can black > holes create space time?
> I just need Quasar Jet Stream data to write a simple description of > this FTL motion. Nothing in this universe, NOTHING that we describe is > RIGHT, it is only right for the times we live in and the data available > to us at that time. So all that we know over time WILL be replaced with > greater knowledge and description's aka (Theorys).
> Does any one want to work together on writing a description of Quasar > Jet Stream (FTL) motion using the data available from the Very Large > Array (VLA) and the VLBAhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Very_Long_Baseline_Array. I would think > this FTL motion root equation could perhaps be described as V = mc^3, > (V being (volume)), think about it, the universe is still expanding, > where does the Space time come from???? The Space Time Fairy??? But > who's to say Yay or Nay till the data is plugged into it and can it > predict motion from other Quasar Jet Streams, Or NOT, if not then it > doesn't work and perhaps another equation can be used but atleast the V > = mc^3 can be ruled out. Remember Every description over time is > replaced with another description as more data becomes available to us, > so keep an open mind. The NA Model must be included in the description > as well.
> If you don't believe FTL motion exists as an illusion which I feel it > is, go herehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superluminal_motionSince > Nothing can go faster than light, what if the QJS are traveling in a > space time Jet Stream. As energy goes into a BH space time is created. > V=mc^3??? All I need is the data, if that equation doesn't work I (or > you) can try another. Want to work together on it, I just need good > data, but can't afford a subscription to Nature and they have the best > articles, if you have data please share it.
> -- > kevinmorais
Space-time flows into black holes ('River Model). No reason it can't be spouted out in those jet streams.
> 5310...@physicsbanter.com> wrote: > > Quasar jet streams (QJS) have been exhibiting Faster than light motion > > since they were first discovered by radio astronomy a long time ago. > > The Narrow Angle model, (NA Model) has been used to describe this > > motion for some time, this only works for Quasar Jet Streams (QJS) at > > 19 degrees line of sight. Then we discovered QJS at up to 43 degrees > > line of sight, we were stumped, how can this be happening. Now we > > describe it using a model that some what complicated. General Theory of > > Relativity states that Space time was created in the creation of the > > universe, no more is being made apparently. But what if Black holes > > were creating Space time, what if a relationship between matter energy > > and space time exists, in a conundrum what can matter exist in, it can > > exist in side of it's self, how about this as a hypothesis, can black > > holes create space time?
> > I just need Quasar Jet Stream data to write a simple description of > > this FTL motion. Nothing in this universe, NOTHING that we describe is > > RIGHT, it is only right for the times we live in and the data available > > to us at that time. So all that we know over time WILL be replaced with > > greater knowledge and description's aka (Theorys).
> > Does any one want to work together on writing a description of Quasar > > Jet Stream (FTL) motion using the data available from the Very Large > > Array (VLA) and the VLBAhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Very_Long_Baseline_Array. I would think > > this FTL motion root equation could perhaps be described as V = mc^3, > > (V being (volume)), think about it, the universe is still expanding, > > where does the Space time come from???? The Space Time Fairy??? But > > who's to say Yay or Nay till the data is plugged into it and can it > > predict motion from other Quasar Jet Streams, Or NOT, if not then it > > doesn't work and perhaps another equation can be used but atleast the V > > = mc^3 can be ruled out. Remember Every description over time is > > replaced with another description as more data becomes available to us, > > so keep an open mind. The NA Model must be included in the description > > as well.
> > If you don't believe FTL motion exists as an illusion which I feel it > > is, go herehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superluminal_motion Since > > Nothing can go faster than light, what if the QJS are traveling in a > > space time Jet Stream. As energy goes into a BH space time is created. > > V=mc^3??? All I need is the data, if that equation doesn't work I (or > > you) can try another. Want to work together on it, I just need good > > data, but can't afford a subscription to Nature and they have the best > > articles, if you have data please share it.
> > -- > > kevinmorais
> Space-time flows into black holes ('River Model). No reason it can't > be spouted out in those jet streams.
A black hole simply can not have enough gravity like influence to exceed the speed of light at 1024r. Instead, the much stronger electron/positron (matter/antimatter) attraction force has to be involved.
On Nov 4, 4:50 am, jughead <oldcoot7...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Nov 3, 7:00 pm, Double-A <double...@hush.com> wrote:
> > Space-time flows into black holes ('River Model). No reason it can't > > be spouted out in those jet streams.
> Heh.. 'member the flowing space model, and Painius' expression > "E=mc^3" describing energy density (energy equivalence) of the spatial > medium?
That's OK, because you're not Jewish is why your "E=mc^3" only sucks and blows. Too bad that your faith in whatever isn't all-knowing or otherwise powerful enough to matter. G=EMC^2 has the same problem, so at least you're not alone.
whereupon it was cussed and dis-cussed at great length. The River model is an updated version of the old Painleve`-Gullstrand metric from the 1920s, now revisited to include black holes. But the model has always carried a huge caveat-- it's an allegorical or 'heuristic' teaching tool; nothing is *really* flowing and accelerating. The allegorical "River" is in motion relative to the fixed background space. The model has to conform to the sitting paradigm that there is "no medium". Whereas when the reality of the spatial medium is recognized, the "fixed background" itself is literally flowing and accelerating into the gravitator.
> whereupon it was cussed and dis-cussed at great length. The River > model is an updated version of the old Painleve`-Gullstrand metric > from the 1920s, now revisited to include black holes. But the model > has always carried a huge caveat-- it's an allegorical or 'heuristic' > teaching tool; nothing is *really* flowing and accelerating. The > allegorical "River" is in motion relative to the fixed background > space. The model has to conform to the sitting paradigm that there is > "no medium". Whereas when the reality of the spatial medium is > recognized, the "fixed background" itself is literally flowing and > accelerating into the gravitator.
It seems to conform awfully well to reality and to the math for it being just an "allegory"!
> > whereupon it was cussed and dis-cussed at great length. The River > > model is an updated version of the old Painleve`-Gullstrand metric > > from the 1920s, now revisited to include black holes. But the model > > has always carried a huge caveat-- it's an allegorical or 'heuristic' > > teaching tool; nothing is *really* flowing and accelerating. The > > allegorical "River" is in motion relative to the fixed background > > space. The model has to conform to the sitting paradigm that there is > > "no medium". Whereas when the reality of the spatial medium is > > recognized, the "fixed background" itself is literally flowing and > > accelerating into the gravitator.
> It seems to conform awfully well to reality and to the math for it > being just an "allegory"!
> Double-A
Oh, and thanks for attaching that article that I posted earlier. I missed it the first time I read this post. That article explains it really well.
Double-A
(Adding sci.physics back in for our readers there, and so the original poster can see it.)
On Nov 5, 9:08 am, Double-A <double...@hush.com> wrote:
> It seems to conform awfully well to reality and to the math for it > being just an "allegory"!
Bingo! Or just the bookeeping. Excerpting from a quote by Michio Kaku, quoting Einstein (emphasis mine):
"Einstein also said that behind every great theory there is a simple physical picture that even lay people can understand. In fact, he said, if a theory does not have a simple underlying picture, then the theory is probably worthless. The important thing is the physical picture; MATH IS NOTHING BUT BOOKEEPING."
On Nov 5, 9:08 am, Double-A <double...@hush.com> wrote:
> It seems to conform awfully well to reality and to the math for it > being just an "allegory"!
Bingo! Or just the bookeeping. Excerpting from a quote by Michio Kaku, quoting Einstein (emphasis mine):
"Einstein also said that behind every great theory there is a simple physical picture that even lay people can understand. In fact, he said, if a theory does not have a simple underlying picture, then the theory is probably worthless. The important thing is the physical picture; MATH IS NOTHING BUT BOOKEEPING."
<oldcoot7...@gmail.com> wrote: >On Nov 5, 9:08 am, Double-A <double...@hush.com> wrote:
>> It seems to conform awfully well to reality and to the math for it >> being just an "allegory"!
>Bingo! Or just the bookeeping. Excerpting from a quote by Michio Kaku, >quoting Einstein (emphasis mine):
>"Einstein also said that behind every great theory there is a simple >physical picture that even lay people can understand. In fact, he >said, if a theory does not have a simple underlying picture, then the >theory is probably worthless. The important thing is the physical >picture; MATH IS NOTHING BUT BOOKEEPING."
|
