|
Post by speakertoanimals on Nov 16, 2010 19:59:03 GMT 1
Utter bollocks!
It is VERY, VERY simple, as the flashbulbs example shows. If all the bulbs flash at the SAME instant, then one second after the flash, we see the bulbs one lightsecond away.
After two seconds we still see the flash, but now from the bulbs two lightseconds away.
We don't see the light from the bulbs three lightseconds away, there hasn't been time.
Why you think there is nothing beyond the flash we can see now, when the abiove clearly shows this is not the case, is beyond me, unless it is just your usual time-wasting and ignorance spreading nonsense...........................
So, answer me this. If I am sitting here one second after the flash, what about the bulbs two lightseconds away from me? Do you really claim we can see them, that the light from them has managed to travel a distance of two lightseconds in one second, that the speed of light has somehow been repealed for those bulbs?
If so, why do I still see the flash a million years later, where did that light come from? Why is the flash still there, because by your supposed reasoning, we shouldn't still see it..................
If we continue seeing it then logically, the light from the flash has gopt spread out over time, because it was spread out over distance originally -- we keep seeing it because new objects keep coming into view as time passes. How this can be the case if nothing is beyond the flash we saw a second ago?
What do you think we are seeing.....................
|
|
|
Post by nickcosmosonde on Nov 16, 2010 23:26:20 GMT 1
Are you really a woman, StA?
|
|
|
Post by Progenitor A on Nov 17, 2010 9:39:17 GMT 1
Utter bollocks! It is VERY, VERY simple, as the flashbulbs example shows. If all the bulbs flash at the SAME instant, then one second after the flash, we see the bulbs one lightsecond away. After two seconds we still see the flash, but now from the bulbs two lightseconds away. We don't see the light from the bulbs three lightseconds away, there hasn't been time. Why you think there is nothing beyond the flash we can see now, when the abiove clearly shows this is not the case, is beyond me, unless it is just your usual time-wasting and ignorance spreading nonsense........................... So, answer me this. If I am sitting here one second after the flash, what about the bulbs two lightseconds away from me? Do you really claim we can see them, that the light from them has managed to travel a distance of two lightseconds in one second, that the speed of light has somehow been repealed for those bulbs? If so, why do I still see the flash a million years later, where did that light come from? Why is the flash still there, because by your supposed reasoning, we shouldn't still see it.................. If we continue seeing it then logically, the light from the flash has gopt spread out over time, because it was spread out over distance originally -- we keep seeing it because new objects keep coming into view as time passes. How this can be the case if nothing is beyond the flash we saw a second ago? What do you think we are seeing..................... Piity you do not have a facility with the English language, then you might be able to persuade someone of the verisimilitude of what you so clumsily write. As it is your English is so poor, so full of ill-thought out goobledeygook that you are simply wasting your breath. Some (Olmy and one or two others)may be impressed by your ill-considered waffle, but not this one ducky. Three things persuade me that you are a waffler: 1. Your nonsense about an electron being in 2 places at once (yes I know that this is central to the Copenhagen School, but you apparently believe in such nonsense) 2. Your self-contradictory waffle about gravitational field - firstly saying that Gravitational Potential is not a measure of the Gravitational field , then later saying it is, then denying you have said any such thing 3. Your appallingly muddled thinking on electro-magnetic Path Losses that finally put the cap on any hope that you may be a physcist. Not that any of this matters particularly but your penchant for calling all and sundry who question yout waffle 'idiots' does you no service at allmy dear What this board urgently requires is an articulate physicist; presumably such people have better things to occupy them
|
|
|
Post by enquirer on Nov 17, 2010 13:16:38 GMT 1
naymissus - I believe that it is your english comprehension that is at fault rather than STA's ability to write clear and easily understood sentences to explain highly complex issues.
Did it ever occur to you that your lack of understanding could be your lack of ability?
(especially if others, such as myself, appear to have little difficulty understanding?)
|
|
|
Post by speakertoanimals on Nov 17, 2010 13:25:53 GMT 1
Naymissus gives himself away again, since he made no attempt to actually answer the question, just tried a general mud-slinging and repetition of comments that he thinks annoyed me in the past. Why this fascination with my level of english? Okay, I'm a scientist, and everybody knows us scientists aren't great wordsmiths, most of us can bung together a journal paper, and many of those are fairly incomprehensible, even to the initiated. But why should anyone find it odd that I'm a woman? If you look up the origin of my username, despite the slight gender confusion (female kzin are not sentient), the propensity to scream and leap fits me quite well, it seems. Plus I was always a great Larry Niven fan! Oh, and the animals referred to in the name were humans, and it was intended as an insult by the alien concerned. Ponder as much as you like over why I'd name myself after a male alien with psychopathic tendencies
|
|
|
Post by Progenitor A on Nov 17, 2010 14:31:48 GMT 1
naymissus - I believe that it is your english comprehension that is at fault rather than STA's ability to write clear and easily understood sentences to explain highly complex issues. Did it ever occur to you that your lack of understanding could be your lack of ability? (especially if others, such as myself, appear to have little difficulty understanding?) Oh yes, that really quick person who did not understand what I was talking about in the Wind Energy thread I tell you what, oh one of superior intellect, the next time that STA comes out with her incomprehensible gobbledegook, I shall ask you what she is talking about.
|
|
|
Post by Progenitor A on Nov 17, 2010 14:36:12 GMT 1
Why this fascination with my level of english? Okay, I'm a scientist, and everybody knows us scientists aren't great wordsmiths, most of us can bung together a journal paper, and many of those are fairly incomprehensible, even to the initiated. We scientists indeed! There are many, many great scientists who express themselves superbly - indeed th emark of a good brain i sclear concise English (for English brains anyway) You are not a scientist and cannot express yourself clearly and call other 'idiots' because they cannot see through your opaque gobbledegook
|
|
|
Post by enquirer on Nov 17, 2010 14:39:04 GMT 1
and talking of gobbledegook...
|
|
|
Post by enquirer on Nov 17, 2010 14:44:09 GMT 1
th emark of a good brain i sclear concise English ( says it all really
|
|
|
Post by speakertoanimals on Nov 17, 2010 15:22:17 GMT 1
And still no attempt to answer my question.................
Why do you think all the lampsb are visible then?
In good or bad english, but preferably not french or latin...............
|
|
|
Post by Progenitor A on Nov 17, 2010 18:22:29 GMT 1
|
|
|
Post by speakertoanimals on Nov 17, 2010 19:01:37 GMT 1
Well, that's nonsense for starters, as I pointed out. I refer you to all my previous answers.................. You can find such statements loosely quoted on various websites, e.g., www.asterism.org/tutorials/tut29-1.htmbut the site also makes clear that the CMB is of course travelling towards us at lightspeed as it always was -- we are not talking recession speed of source (Doppler shift), but expansion of space (Hubble shift). So the z=1089 figure really just tells you the redshift, and the travel time: www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/ACC.htmlthe recession speed is just misleading, because it isn't recession, it is expansion. If you look at this page: www.asterism.org/tutorials/tut29-1.htmyou'll see that the v quoted is just the speed that a source would have to have to give the SAME z via Doppler shift as the z we get from cosmological expansion. It doesn't mean that the physics is the same, and that the source of the CMB is actually receeding at that speed. Like asking how many apples weight the same as a kilo of lead, doesn't mean that the lead IS apples.................. Since you don't get it as regards redshifts, anything you attempted to derive from that misunderstanding can be dismissed as worthless. Hence your we can see everything claim for starters........... And you still haven't answered my static lamps case. If we can't see all the static lamps, but have to wait for further ones to come into view, why should it be any BETTER (ie we can see more) when we add in expansion, and in effect (careful now!), allow the lamps to run away from us as time goes on. Surely the answer would be we would have to wait longer for a given lamp to appear (if it ever did), not magically skip to we can see everything there ever will be to see.............
|
|
|
Post by Progenitor A on Nov 17, 2010 21:00:04 GMT 1
the recession speed is just misleading, because it isn't recession, it is expansion. And if the space is expanding between two objects, then , by definition, the objects are receding from one another at the expansion rate Why do you argue about words when you have no facility with the English language? Since you don't get it as regards redshifts, anything you attempted to derive from that misunderstanding can be dismissed as worthless. I do get red-shift actually. It is a very simple concept. Unlike your covoluted and presumptuous arguments, couched in ghastly inpenetrable Englsih
|
|
|
Post by alanseago on Nov 18, 2010 3:08:52 GMT 1
"Unlike your covoluted and presumptuous arguments, couched in ghastly inpenetrable Englsih"
Comment?
|
|
|
Post by abacus9900 on Nov 18, 2010 13:07:54 GMT 1
"Unlike your covoluted and presumptuous arguments, couched in ghastly inpenetrable Englsih" Comment? I'm sorry alan, but you do seem to be coming over as a troublemaker. And why this blind adherence to whatever STA's views are?
|
|