Dear Orac You asked me one time how look atom
it is impossible ...or possible ?

my new question for You Can You see one mass m or two mass m
or You can see only one M ?

Important is what we see ?.... Einstein ?


p1...p2...p3...p4...p5...M ---- V ------>

Mass M is moving
p1,p2,p3,p4,p5 - points where mass M was in past

{p1--p2}={p4--p5} this condition describe constant velocity

From each new position mass M is sending gravitation's wave
( Yelow rings - below drawing explain three situation)

1 mass M speed = ZERO
2 mass M speed = grawitation's wave speed
3 mass M speed > G


We have two the same masses m in space
between masses exist distance L

m ---- L ---- m ------ Vx ------>

m1=m2
m1+m2=M

p1...p2...p3...p4...p5...m1 ---- L ---- m2 ------ Vx ------>

A-point
stationary
observer

Vx > G - velocity higher than gravitation's wave

Please evaluate what will happen if absolute velocity Vx and distance L will give very special combination.

What You think mass m1 can be in point for example p3 where mass m2 was in past and repeat similar wave ? what will feel observer ? what will see observer ?


Weak forces ?
gravitation and huge velocity can give zero distance ?

What will happen with Newton's equation
(gravitation forces ) can we div by zero ?

ATHOM ????????????????????????????????????????????

Very fast rotation mass m very fast is changing position and is in place where her opposite friend was in past

......m--->Vx
......I
..<---m


above I showed very fast omega we can have not only two mass but more and not only in one axis


Ohhh ... small example at the End




Maciej Marosz I'm 33 years old
Engineer and Inventor from POland

(my design vision , patents, physics )
http://tesla4.blogspot.de/

If you wish to continue to post in an English speaking forum you really need to learn how to speak English better. At least use a programe like MS Word which has a spell checker!

I prefer his english to his stupid child pictures at least his english takes up less room on the screen

You miss the really funny bit however go to the website he is looking for design work



Note he likes to cooperate with people I guess like he does with us on this forum. Full of frank meaningful exchanges and ever so helpful. I am sure they are knocking down the doors to work with him and business is booming

Anyhow ignoring this stupidity and the dropkick lunatic got work to do .. coffee break over.

Dear Orac ( not exist stupid drawing ) if You like matematica You very good knew that drawing easy can be describe by equations


Faster than gravitation ?

respect to what ?

if exist C ( light speed in vacuum ) and G ( gravitation in vacuum ) so ... why You have problem to accept that exist mass M that is moving faster than own signals


physics = circle
(supersonic airplane can escape own signals )

why You can not imagine what will be if ... if Your brain will start work ... people who only repeat = zero new idea

Kopernicus = problem for peole in his time
Leonardo = nobody understand his stupid drawing

Above I showed You how to add mass m + m
You even not tried read
( What mean for you ? Not exist C speed + 30 km/s )

If earth is moving light that was sent in past has got only C speed ! Inverted square law,

ROCKET Has got constant acceleration ? good if gravitation between mass M---m exist it will have other intsnsity .

About patents and design vision all what You see in my blog work

http://tesla4.blogspot.com

BR
Maciej

As you are actually trying to communicate and interact I will answer this post



Every particle accelerator in the world shows you as you try and accelerate anything with mass towards the speed the thing gets heavier and heavier and the produced mathematics says that at the speed of light it would have infinite mass.

The only things measured to do the speed of light have no mass such as light itself.

So the idea of something with mass going faster than the speed of light violates every known observation .... A FACT YOU JUST IGNORE.

So start with the basics in your physics why does a particle get heavier as you accelerate it in a particle accelerator.

YOU CAN'T JUST IGNORE THIS FACT

Here is what we observe in any accelerator

Mass of particle at speed v = Mass Original * Gamma
Gamma = 1 / sqrt(1 - (v*v)/(c*c))


So your job is to show me why that is the mathematics we get according to your theory.

You can't draw child pictures and dribble bullshit your theory mathematics must produce that exact relationship because that is what we measure in real experiments.

Einsteins GR equations produce the same answer as what we measure so must your theory to be valid.

So enough of the childish bullshit pictures and claims show us the mathematics of your theory that produces that result please.

BE AWARE IF YOU CAN NOT DO THE TASK YOU HAVE NO THEORY, ALL YOU HAVE IS DRIBBLE.

Orac wow You very smart

and You very good know many links about the tests

please ask Your self anywone tested below situation

http://www.scienceagogo.com/forum/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=50687#Post50687

I no need made test Mr Mach made all for Sound
Did he know before die ? why he made test for sound ?

if not exist C speed + V source above link will change physics

BR

and that increase in mass would of course depend on who's math
your using.

the kinetic energy or momentum of a particle does not convert into mass.

if you use math that can only deliver a increase of mass with an increase in velocity , then sure the math will deliver an increase in mass.

but reality , is still reality , and fantasy is still fantasy.

so to achieve fantasy science results you must use fantasy math.

Not one bit of that changes what I have asked I don't care what maths or whose maths he uses show me why the relationship exist but he is like you Paul trying to hide in bullshit.

There is a clear relationship and if you want to use paul goat god mathematics, middle eastern jihad mathematics, Western Americian lets nuke the world mathematics or any other mathematics you care to choose describe the relationship is all I ask.

So if you want to try this with your goat god mathematics step right up Paul and I will hang the goat and your god around your neck because that relationship echoes out across all physics ... you played this game with me before want to try round 2 Paul?

Are you saying you can't derive or work out why something we can clearly measure exists?

Please answer the question why can't you explain the relationship if like Paul you want to use your own brand of special mathematics go ahead but derive the relationship if you can't you don't have a theory you have at best an idea at worst a brain fart.

I dont understand why you always use your anti religion as your crutch when you are faced with reality.

I was simply pointing out that what you wrote was incorrect.



the particle accelerator does not show anyone anything , it is the interpretation of what occurs in a particle accelerator that shows people
the effects of particle acceleration and collision.

and if people design math to show certain results when examining the results of particle acceleration and collisions then they are showing themselves and others what they want to see , not what is actually happening.

velocity does not convert into mass.

anyone who believes that it does , believes bullshit.



at least you did write "produced" mathematics which is correct.

because the math was "produced" to protect a theory of mainline science.

BTW , I understand that you cannot accept logic due to your involvement
in a science group or cult that believes in fantasy and even if you did begin
to think logically again you cannot reveal that logic in fear of becoming shunned by the other members of the science group or cult that you belong to.

because I think differently than mainline science thinks I find
myself thankful that its not the 14th century where I could be
burned at the stake or drawn and quartered , or beheaded for
non compliance of mainline science cult beliefs.

Paul, would you be more comfortable talking about an increase in inertia with increased velocity?

Mr Mach worked in past on very universal model
gravitation relation for all masses in the universe

m

Mach trusted that if You pushing mass m You feel not mass m but you feel all others masses in space ( between mass m and all others masses exist gravitation )


to build his model at first he would like to use absolute motion definition ( please compare far far star signal and einstein )




Mr Mach Supersonic airplane ???

I started think how will look mass M and where will be gravitation if mass M will escape from own singnal
( airplane can escape from sound -I Mach speed )

we have mass M ----> faster than own gravitation




Einstein and rocket that constant accelerate ?

mass m and mass M problem ?


M---m --------> V= G (Mach Marosz 1 speed)

M---m --------------> V>G ( Mach Marosz > 1 speed )



We all knew ( many test in past proved ) that not exist
Electromagnetic Wave G speed + Vrocket ( rocket speed )

exist only G speed what if rocket go faster than G ???

It is not my mathematic
( all described Mr Mach for sound -please use the same graph )

not really , Bill S.

I can agree that as a particles velocity increases the particles inertia would also increase along with its momentum.

so to accelerate the particle to a higher velocity you must add more force
for the acceleration.

you must also keep adding force to the containment field to maintain acceleration when using a circular accelerator because of the increased inertia , angular acceleration of the particle (or the centrifugal force).

a linear accelerator containment field should not require any additional force added because of added inertia.

I have a silly question for you.

why does science insist that nothing can travel faster than the speed at which light travels in a vacuum , when science does not have any resources that could propel anything faster than the speed at which light travels in a vacuum?

yet there sits the cesium experiment !

Ok Orac lets Interaact it will be hurt You
I hope You will start read this what You already wrote


Orac :
anything with mass towards the speed the thing gets heavier and heavier

mass m is heavier and hevier or Energy consumption for the same delta V is different ?

for Marosz m= constant Enery rise up not mass


please study parabola graph problem ( how many AIR will escape to left mass ///compare to right mass



my verbal english is better


http://youtu.be/1HWsvZdMBek

Mathematic or IDIOT ?

symetry and asymetry very old parabola

*************************************

Orac :
So the idea of something with mass going faster than the speed of light violates every known observation .... A FACT YOU JUST IGNORE.

--
gravitation in vacuum speed is lower than C
please confirm in books ( physics )

----

In that case, I don't understand why you are not comfortable with the concept of inertia increasing with velocity.

Exist two mass m type

A gravitational mass m
B inertial mass m


for einstein

A=B

for Newton NO !!!

for Marosz I showed what is it gravitation ( wave and Inverted square law decide about this how mass m cooperate with other masses M in the universe )

about inertia ( what is it ??? ) Inertia nobody in past
compared inertia and energy

if Your body in car has got energy You have got inertia

m----->

Newton made small mistake we can recognize if Your finger is pusing masss m perpendicular or opposite to absolute mass m motion You will feel not the same resistance

F=ma ???
m need two informations more( how m is moving in space - absolute motion and how other bodies around m are moving )

*****
why does science insist that nothing can travel faster than the speed at which light travels in a vacuum , when science does not have any resources that could propel anything faster than the speed at which light travels in a vacuum?

yet there sits the cesium experiment !

******

good model no need help but :


observer ------------------------mass m >>>> faster than light

observer see only dark mattery
he knew that dark mattery has got mass
he registering old apparent position of mass m
mass m accelerate galactica where is observer

light can not hit mass m and back to observer !!!

two months ago we saw nothing in new observatory ( dark mattery observatory )


people please stop invest money in test without sens please repeat my simple test camera and bulb You will confirm abowe words

doppler AND !!! inverted square law for light


Marosz's test

Rubbish Paul what you were doing was taking a cheap shot antagonistic shot at science you don't want to discuss anything.

As I have shown by action I am more than open to showing your religion respect so long as you show science the same respect.

A group of hard working individuals who are doing nothing other than following the data and trying to work out how the universe works deserves at least the same respect as a group in our society who seems to have contributed nothing but death and wars in gods name and the molesting of a pile of children.

You want to make a cheap antagonist rant at science expect your religion to get it back, I do this because as we have previously discussed the moderation standards on this forum are non existent.

Where this all goes for here is firmly in your court, you want another flame war more than happy to go there.

It doesn't insist any such thing

LETS GET WHAT SCIENCE SAYS IN EXACT TERMINOLOGY

Science says ANYTHING MADE OF MATTER can not go faster than the speed of light. It is also the speed limit of light without the presence of a media.

Light itself for example can go faster than the speed of light it can actually go at infinite speed as was recently demonstrated it just needs a media to do it

http://phys.org/news/2013-10-material-visible-infinite-wavelength.html
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn23...ated-glass.html



See once again you haven't got even close to what science actually says because you leave out the matter and media bits.

What is telling here is the religious, anti-science Paul has more things to say than the alternative theory nutcase Maciej Marosz.

Sad when the religious anti-science type is actually more intelligent than wannabee physics re-writer.

Our physics wannabee can't even produce a statement on how he views the relationship something Paul managed to do, oh but wait he did manage to make a new children's drawing .. well no it's a repeat as well ... sigh!

New discovery ( hypervelocity stars )

http://www.scienceagogo.com/news/20140011005530.shtml


Dear Orac day by day astronomers will show You new facts



about above link and my model

Our Galactica --------STAR --> -p1 ...p2...p3..Black HOLE --->


respect to Our galactica black holes speed >>> C

for star black holes is in point p1,p2,p3.... not in real fresh position

"Almost infinite"!? Nice one!!

Yes, I know what they mean, but it's such a ridiculous concept.

"Almost infinite"!? Nice one!!

Dear Bill Universe not like LIMITS !!!!

C speed = constant

not Exist C+ Vsource exist only C !!!

below very nice animation

1730 J. Bradley aberration ( please study what is it apparent position ) Star that started light in past will be in new position before light will touch Your Eyes . also observer is moving - below animation has got small mistake observer also has got speed .

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/6/6d/Aberrationlighttimebeaming.gif


To above animation please Add Inverted Square Law problem




Intensity of the signal and distanse from place where signal started to observer position ?


Simply problems zero heavy mathematic !!!

observer--> 4 km/s ----------L---------Star --> 300 km/s

L distance = 150 000 000 km

observer 0 km/s ----------L---------Star --> 300 km/s


Dark mattery or massive black holes for observer

observer 30 km/s ----------L---------mass M (passive )-> C

( passive = not star but for example moon not the source of light) light can not hit mass M and back to observer

???
observer 300 km/s ----------L---------Star zero motion

Star brightness will be rise UP each step


GRAVITATION and LIGHT = EM waves

Em waves works similar not exist C+ Vsource speed
not Exist Gravtation speed + V source




Mass M faster than own signal ? why not ?





more info

http://www.scienceagogo.com/forum/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=50687#Post50687

first test above idea POLAND 2012
private person


camera -----bulb >>> 30 km/s

bulb -----camera >>> 30 km/s


camera see old Bulb position (apparent ) not actual
fresh position where is bulb right now

What is it brightness of picture ?
Energy / Area




first test inside AIR
> http://youtu.be/XF_npmQ8kGY



first pictures
( brightness - photoshop 10 histogram) west ( -30km/s ) and East (+30 km/s ) 190 000 points small sensor in camera cheap

24 h test 6h ,6h,6h,6h ( full earth rotation around own axis)

step 1-- 5 pictures west
step 2-- rotation 180 degree
step 3--- 5 pictures east

> http://youtu.be/O9k-zidfJZg

Paul, would you be more comfortable talking about an increase in inertia with increased velocity?



In that case, I don't understand why you are not comfortable with the concept of inertia increasing with velocity.

the reason I said "not really" was because it has nothing to
do with the fantasy about velocity converting into mass.

ie...inertia also has nothing to do with the fantasy about velocity converting into mass.

thats why I didnt feel comfortable about talking about inertia increasing with velocity.

and frankly Im not sure why you would think that increasing inertia would have any impact on the issue.

velocity ( and or inertia ) does not convert into mass.

I think your having language issues again.

"thing" constitutes matter. ( nothing , anything )

light is not matter , so light was not included.

let me ask again , why does science insist that matter can not travel faster than the speed at which light travels in a vacuum?

does science have resources that could propel matter faster than the speed at which light travels in a vacuum?

just because science does not have resources that can propel matter faster than the speed at which light travels in a vacuum
science shouldnt make false claims and invent false math that
places false limitations on things that science does not fully understand and has no way of proving that the false claims or the false math is correct.

big headed, know it all , know nothings, is what you end up with.

proud boasters of immense knowledge in a belief in the most ridiculous fantasies that modern man has ever created in his mind.

Would that be like the big headed claims of religion that it is good when all it does it create division, killing, wars and molesting of children.

proud boasters of good and kindness in religion is the most ridiculous fantasies that Religion has ever created in his mind more likely religion is the work of the devil.

I think that equates exactly to your crap I did cut and paste your sentence and just start substituting words to make the point.

Well, Paul I guess if you say so there are things that can travel faster than C (the speed of light in a vacuum). Would you please give us a list of those things?

Bill Gill

Actually Lubos does a fairly good analysis of people like Paul

http://motls.blogspot.com.au/2014/01/hamiltonians-not-dogmas-pick-right.html

It would rate as fairly technical analysis of extreme left and right wing philosophies on science but your should be able to work thru it Bill.



Paul just want's his own left wing Hamiltonian which comes like a deck of card with jokers which can suddenly pop up.

anything made of matter can travel faster than C

there is no real reason why matter could not travel faster than C

even if you base your belief on math that was designed to show that
matter cannot travel faster than C , math does not influence reality.

Yeah that's your religions way ignore all observation and reality or pervert the hell out them and infer whatever suits your argument ... what else would we expect from you Paul, not like you obey any of god's rules.

I think there is something about lying and bearing false witness and we see you really adhere and follow those rules

Sorry that is probably just an antagonistic comment a bit like most of your posts.

Perhaps as a more genuine response you would like to tell us what defines your reality?

Dear Orac

please solve below problem
please prepare Your model please use books

You can ? why other people now think how why and what ?


http://www.scienceagogo.com/forum/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=50723#Post50723


I will study Your model You can use quantum mechanic

Orac ? where is Your Idea ... Can You solve problem or not

please stop write about religion

give US facts here
if you can

ask Your sef How ? why ?

First I don't see any problem all I see is a pile disjointed and clearly not understood observations which you won't bother to try and understand and you somehow expect me to waste time interacting with this garbage which doesn't remotely make sense.



Why we ask you to study more and stop dribbling garbage that is so stupid it is clearly wrong and you don't why should I do anything you ask ... is it annoying to you?

Good you might get some idea how how annoying disjointed childrens drawings are when your target audience is people who study science and physics. At times we fell like bring out the crayons and finger painting for you because you have the science level of a child.

My religion flame war with Paul is every bit as useful and enlightening as your idea which rates under the same category at any local rubbish dump. Every now and again we do actually get a snippet of some science that is interesting something your dog excrement of an idea fails totally at.

In case you missed the memo I am not here to be your or anyone else friend I like to discuss science which discussion with you fail at, your garbage isn't science it actually isn't anything anyone can describe. You have tried on how many forums and everyone tells you the exact same thing at some point the message must penetrate even your thick skull.

For some reason in a hope you may have a small shred of intelligence we asked you to show us describe a simple relationship under your idea I won't call it a theory anymore it isn't even close to a theory.

You can't even give us a basic relationship description and somehow you want us to comment on a pile of trash you stick together that makes no sense to any sane person. Can you name or show me one person on any forum that remotely could understand or believed your idea? Just one that is all I ask!!!



Why would I want to give you anything you are a total waste of time because you are to stupid to at least try and understand the how and why science already knows.

So take you idea stick it in your ear, butt or anywhere else you want and smoke it until you start answer and dealing with basic relationship I am not wasting my time on a drop-kick like you. If you dropped dead tomorrow the average IQ of humans on earth would improve a lot.

Is that view blunt and clear enough for you?

My hope is you will consider me too rude and offensive to interact with and leave me alone but I fear you are too stupid to even understand that because in all honesty I think you need to seek urgent mental services.

Orac M'man! Thank you for saying all these things I'm too tired to say.

I admit to having (and enjoying) some weird ideas, so I am inclined to come to the defence of others who are in a similar position, but I have to say that constant repetitious posting, with no real attempt to answer reasonable questions leaves me wondering if all we are doing is troll feeding.

I dont think that Orac has any ideas or answers , he only has contempt for religion , and he wants us to read a lot of articles about QM as if reading QM has some importance in real science.

I have to admit that just as soon as I realized that the math
was fake and that the math was the foundation of QM for some
reason ->( logic )<- I decided not to spend time reading about QM
and that I could scratch my butt or pick my nose and accomplish more than I would ever accomplish reading anything about QM.

I don't have contempt of religion only some of the people who claim to religious

Religion isn't the problem the lunatics that migrate and hide in it is the problem.

I find no issue for example with Rev K he seems to be a very honest and caring person who use his religion for positives in his life something you perhaps could learn a lesson from.

You on the other hand I find as a lying deceitful person who for some reason thinks science is at war with religion and therefore anything you do in the name of your goat effigy of a god is okay. It's a bit like some of the religions you do anything you want say you repent your sin and say a few hail mary's and it will all be forgiven. Sort of the reason we end up with some religions tolerating and openly protecting child molesters in their ranks.

What I find amusing if there is a god I don't think he is going to be quite as accommodating as that and the thought of all you so called religious loons getting nailed to the wall I find great mirth in.

Do I care what you think of QM ... why would I care what a liar and deceitful religious whackjob like you thinks. Unlike religion science isn't here to convert you to be honest we don't give a dam what you think something you struggle with. Only religion cares how many people believe if you are a pessimist it is because that guarantees you more money in the collection plates

sometimes when people are upset and are talking about other peoples faults they are covering up their own faults.

1) where did I lie?

2) when have I been deceitful?

3) what causes you to think that I am a religious whackjob?

not that it really matters orac, its just that you might
need to answer those questions for yourself.

I pitty people like yourself orac , perhaps one day you will understand that I was trying to help you and others or attempting to help you and others to see through the falsities of modern science as I have.

only because I actually care about real science.

Careful Paul that was almost a statement of compassion something very rare from the ever so religious Paul




Another lie Paul so soon ... would you like me to back and cut and paste your answer about science you know the war bit or have your forgotten you wrote that bit or have you changed your mind?

Again above you already stated you won't even read science because it is based on mathematics so are you studying science or not?

See you try this posturing garbage and get caught out each and every time ... so lets give you a chance to fix your lie ... would you like to discuss real science Paul, I don't even care how you define "real". You can include goat god if you like it is all fine by me .... I love science discussions

Help me understand real science Paul I am willing to repent and I am reaching out for your assistance, I have seen that QM is all wrong!!!

real science and science are different.

in that real science does not adhere to the fantasy math that must exist
in order for certain theories and false claims like those that Einstein presented to remain.

and science adheres to these fantasy theories and the fantasy math in order to protect these fantasy theories , QM carries these fantasies even
further than Einsteins proposals even into the realm of embarrassment.

now you shouldnt think that I think that science as a whole consist of
idiots who adhere to these fantasy beliefs that their produced math has
control of all matter in Creation.

because I dont , I think that the only parts of science that consist of these idiots are the ones who adhere to the Einstein and QM false math and theories and the theories of Evolution and of course the medical industry scientist who no longer strive to find cures for illness and disease but focus on the control of illness and disease through the use of prescription drugs only.

in order to claim that matter in a vacuum cannot travel faster than the speed at which light travels in a vacuum , you must first have resources
that could propel matter to that speed in a vacuum.

to put it in real science terminology so that you can understand it , you
must first have a force that can travel faster than the matter that you are
trying to accelerate to a certain speed in a vacuum.

whatever that force may be , a physical force by an object acting on the
matter , gravitational force , magnetic force , etc...

and that force must be capable of overcoming the inertia of the matter
that it is trying to accelerate.

just claiming that matter cannot travel faster than the speed of sound didnt hold water either once the needed force was found , and the false claims of science that matter cannot travel faster than the speed at which
light travels in a vacuum does not hold water either , when real science is concerned.

you cant have your fantasy shrouded cake and eat your cake , but
real science is eating your cake as we speak and before long you will have
no cake.

yourself and others like you who are followers of the science fantasies cult can continue to adhere to these fantasies if you so choose , but the future
will remember you as quacks without any sense of logic.

charlatans who imposed their will upon the population of the Earth through
fake science.

Ummm perhaps you missed the 50 years we have these big machines we build they send matter round and round accelerating matter to almost the speed of light.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Large_Hadron_Collider



Umm so science got matter to 0.999999991c how much closer would you like them to get?

Oh I know a bunch of protons is not matter under goat god theory is it ... how silly of me.



Imposed???? We don't care what idiot layman believe they can go worship goat gods for all we care ... oh wait

That is the funny thing about science there are very few numbers that actually believe some of the stuff at the cutting edges and it still gets money for the research I wonder why that is

See science doesn't impose anything their will on the population we leave that to religion

The population of earth funds science freely because they want more weapons, more discoveries, more toys, more money.

That's the bit you struggle with Paul science really doesn't give a rats what you think because we get funding not based on popularity but on results and we don't need your belief

That is why your war of science against religion is so funny, it's a fight you can't win and you haven't even realized that. Perhaps you would like to start a movement in the USA to ban science you have a large number of religious people there supposedly. Come on if you really believe your garbage start it. See that Paul is called contempt

Ahh the smell of the first flame war of the year, I live for it.

so science claims that it has gotten matter to a speed that close to the speed at which light travels in a vacuum?

and it still claims that matter cannot travel faster than the speed at which light travels in a vacuum?



the earth is moving as it rotates at 40,075 km per 24 hours.
thats 40,075,000 meters per day.
and 1,669,791.66 meters per hour.
and 27,829.86 meters per minute.
and 463.83 meters per second.

according to your testimony of sciences accomplishments
the proton would be moving (in reference to the earth)
at a speed faster than the speed at which light can travel in a vacuum.

in fact 460 meters per second faster than c.

and if using our sun as the reference point it would be moving
apx 105,000 + 460 meters per second faster than c.

so given that science claims that the proton should become
infinitely massive as it approaches c , just what does science
now claim that infinitely massive really means?

the speed of light ( c ) has been broken many times according to your testimony.

so why does science and yourself adhere to these false claims
that matter cannot travel faster than the speed at which light travels in a vacuum?

I believe I have won this argument , thanks.

If that was all you were trying to prove all you need is a tube in a vacuum and a light in the tube.

Now the light in the tube is launched at the speed of light by definition and the tube is moving with the earth so it meets the same criteria as the LHC but it's a little more simple. In fact shining a torch forward off a moving car or anything moving would meet your criteria.

There is however a problem lets see if you are smart enough to work it out.

Tell you what I will give you a hint the earth isn't moving in a straight line in your story above or any of the stories, your 463 m/sec is in an arc movement. The LHC would have the exact same problem

This by the way is very Newton you sure you don't want to join his theory?

so , I suppose that you were just being deceitful when you
said the following.



it doesnt really look as if a media is required now does it.

so basically as long as you have a force that is capable
of accelerating matter that matter will
eventually reach and surpass c.

The matter isn't moving faster than the speed of light you haven't resolved the problem of the arc spiral

Let me know if you get stuck working it out the torch example is easier to see the problem because you will end up with the problem does light move in a straight line or does it follow the arc movement.

I dont need to resolve any problem.

if the proton were being accelerated along a straight line
the proton would still reach and exceed c.

for instance a infinitely long and straight
accelerator. ( linear )

and the accelerator is not bound to the earth or its rotation.
it is in space.

and as long as there is a force that is accelerating the proton
it will continue to accelerate further beyond c.

If that is what you want to believe then fine but you have a big problem light bends with motion then.

if there is no motion then light will not bend because of motion.

besides that emitted light from a light source will travel in a straight line.

unless it is bent by an outside force acting on it.

gravity , magnetic fields , traveling through a medium , etc...

Quantum ?

We speak here about Galileo !!!

Natural fall down Law

m-----earth-------m >>>>>>>>>> constant motion 30 km/s

mass m left or mass m right will be first n the Eart


HISTORICAL BACKGROUND of the problem
" Galileo postulated his relativity hypothesis: any two observers moving at constant speed and direction with respect to one another will obtain the same results for all mechanical experiments (it is understood that the apparatuses they use for these experiments move with them).
This idea has a very important consequence: velocity is not absolute. This means that velocity can only be measured in reference to some object(s), and that the result of this measurment changes if we decide to measure the velocity with respect to a diferent refernce point(s). Imagine an observer traveling inside a windowless spaceship moving away from the sun at constant velocity. Galileo asserted that there are no mechanical experiments that can be made inside the rocket that will tell the occupants that the rocket is moving .
The question ``are we moving'' has no meaning unless we specify a reference frame (are we moving with respect to that star'' is meaningful). This fact, formulated in the 1600's remains very true today and is one of the cornerstones of Einstein's theories of relativity."

The problem is earth is describing an arc spiral so when you watch a laser describe a straight line across a room it is actually arc spiraling because the whole room is arc spiraling in the motion you just calculated yet you see it as a straight line.

You aren't getting the problem so perhaps I just tell you.

This is a standard reference frame issue the speed of the protons is calculated from a reference frame the reference frame is the electromagnetic wave running the LHC doing the acceleration.

Thus the 0.999999991 c already includes the movement of the earth because the speed measurement is based on the changing rate of the EM pulse running around the LHC which includes earths movements.

So I guess if we are being exact some of the 0.999999991 c is bought about by the earth's movement rather than actual acceleration by the LHC.

The key point is the protons when doing 0.999999991 c is not a relative speed it is there speed measured in the conditions they were referenced which was a spinning moving earth that contains the LHC.

You can't then decide to add the earths movement speed to the figure because it already includes it.

Your error was a standard layman error you assumed the 0.999999991 c was an absolute stand alone speed of the protons relative to the earth when we use xxxx.xxx c we are almost always referencing to the speed of light in space and you can't add or subtract things from it

That is why I found your whole example funny it is the same for the torch example resolves exactly the same way.

To me you just told a funny joke like a police man booking a stationary motorist for doing 1656 Kilometer/Hour because of the speed of the earth ... point of reference is everything

So I give you points for thinking of the possible problem but take points off for not being able to resolve it. You have improved your logic skills lately even resolving some of Newton's trash so I had expected you would work it out but it looks like you have a little way to go yet.

Unfortunately the way we use speed often doesn't talk about the reference point it is assumes you can work that out with logic even within the law. When we talk about 60km/h car speed it assumes you recognize that speed is relative to the earths surface and science often gives speeds in percentage of c which means the reference is to the speed of light in space.

So the memo from the exercise is when someone gives you a speed think careful about what the reference point is because there is no absolute reference point !!!!

ahhh , the cult must be pressuring you to find some excuse.

but that wont work , orac.

when I said in reference to the earth , I meant to a point on the earth just outside the LHC where the measurement is taken.

if an observer was standing on that point during that 1 second that the earth rotates 463 meters yet he is frozen to that point as the earth rotates , ie he sees the earth rotating beneath him then he would see the added 463 mps speed that the proton is traveling at.

you have two points of reference here the observer and the proton.

either point sees the speed as being faster than c.

and the policeman was right in his speeding estimate , the person was speeding if you include the earths rotational speed , its like this is the year 13 billion + or so but we only count 2014 of those years.

what we are discussing here is the speed of matter , if a proton sitting on top of your car it is already traveling at
463 mps if the car is motionless , because the car is traveling at 463 mps due to the earths rotation.

if your car is on the equator and facing east and you drive it east at a speed of 1 mps then the proton sitting on top of your car is traveling at 464 mps because of the added 1 mps speed that your car is traveling at.

needless to say we are only interested in the speed of the proton.

and in this discussion we are only discussing the fact that real science has already caused matter to travel beyond the speed that light travels in a vacuum.

and that science still adheres to the fake theories that claim that its not possible.

So go back I count 7 posts and you asked



There you have your own answer you have done both lie and attempted a deceitful answer in 7 posts.

You can't even admit you have no idea how the measurement was derived or it's reference you just try to use some twisting of words to escape the trap. Caught you like reeling in a stupid fish, hook line and sinker.

See unlike stupid goat god liars I know exactly how we measure the speed of the LHC first hand, I am not relying on some 10th hand account of words in wikipedia. You claim still that some reference point will see the protons faster than the speed of light but sorry no it doesn't anyone with half a brain can work that out.

So unless you can give me the exact description of how we measure the speed of the protons in the LHC you are making and being DECEITFUL BY DEFINITION.

You have been caught out a number of times in this way.

So does the great goat god in sky sanction or forgive your lies and deceit, does he sanction such behaviour or are you just a very bad goat god lover headed for a bad afterlife

Im going to guess that the measuring instruments were
not rotating around the LHC with the proton , orac.
and that the speed was taken from a fixed position so that
it could be more accurate.

and after all , your the one that gave the measurement orac.

and all of your religion bashing serves no purpose.

why do you always use your anti religion as a crutch when your faced with logic , I guess thats the way your brain deals with fight or flight.

True I gave you a speed the same as the police example you need to know what is implied as the reference point.

In both cases it isn't given you need understanding of what you are talking about.

So you had no idea what my speed reference is and you went off on a stupidity exercise and got caught

So instead of saying okay I realize I haven't understood the background of what you have told me you made up a pile of bullshit and tried to sell it as the truth.

Now the question is why did you try and sell the pile of bullshit as truth because you have this religion versus science war thing going on. Something you now try and back away from and deny even though you are clearly wrote that exact thing in previous posts.

You wanted an example of something going faster than the speed of light and you set about creating a bullshit argument to make it and when caught doing it you now try and play it all down. I was kind at the start I told you to think about the situation carefully ... SOMETHING YOU DIDN'T DO

so are you now saying that the speed that you gave was a false measurement , or was it a true measurement?

I found it on wiki.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Large_Hadron_Collider



you stated that the earths rotational speed was accounted for in the measurements , could you please post a link to that information.

Its a true speed referenced to an electromagnetic wave in space.

So in technical speak it is the speed of the proton including all movements that affect earth but do not affect an electromagnetic wave.

So in your police example it is the 1650 Km/h number, if you want it referenced to earth surface you will need to take off the speed of earth which is actually complicated because of the spiral arc.

Note these are still not an absolute speeds because the universe itself could be moving and the EM waves are in the universe they don't move relative to earth but they would move with the universe.

Everything involving speed requires a reference point.

where is the link that shows this information.

Lubos does a reasonable semi readable version of a calculation

http://motls.blogspot.com.au/2013/01/the-world-as-seen-by-lhc-protons.html

He even gives you the rather complicated proton's world line speed versus world line spacetime speed and even consequence of what the proton sees the LHC like which I sort of hinted at.

The true actual precise calculation you do from the field movement in the LHC that the proton is synchronized with but it is well outside the scope of something that is going to found on the internet. If you really want it in layman or at least dumbed down Pete aka PMB may be your man because of his background.

The magnetic controls over the LHC is just amazing it is even affected by the gravity from the moon which causes tides on the tunnel

http://www.quantumdiaries.org/2012/06/07/is-the-moon-full-just-ask-the-lhc-operators/

Orac ?


observer ---> Vy -------light>>> ------ mass M -----> Vx


Light must hit mass M and back to observer
many years ago Michelson Morley was Important zero
few weeks ago we all could read that dark matter not give light signals

Marosz
What if mass M is faster than light ?

light can not hit mass M
Observer can feel only old apparent positions mass M ( dark matter has got Mass 70% of the universe ?)


What if mass M is faster than light ?


m1 ..m2 ...m3 ............... M >>>>> Vx>C

m4
m5

....m6


Mass M will never stop moving !!! mass M give forces to many masses m1...m6...mx around mass M

mass M is making work !!! but not slowing down ( Universe feel mass M but mass M not feel the universe )

!!!!

masses m1..m6....mx = galactics

galactis right now accelerating


MAROSZ ***

In universe only!!! only !!! mass M (above model ) has got constant motion.

Not Exist other masses around mass M that have got constant velocity. Each masses m ...mx must accelerate. They step by step
register apparent positions of the mass M


Mass M was first ? ( first- after big bang ???)


All what I showed above can be describe by very poor mathematic
I like very simply model .Simply .... ?

before Us many work and problems -- people who right now are resposible for education need be brave... they Can not repeat mistake ... they must repair physics .


We Must back to Gallileo "Natural Fall DOWN law"
need be more wide

We must add motion to NEWTON's equation
we have to rebuild RULES !!!

Motion ? I'm moving but respect to what ?


g1..g2...g3...You >>>>

You were in point g1 and
your body started wave 1 (gravitation )

You are moving respect to
point where You were in past


Einstein body A is moving respect to body B or C or D...?

You are moving or stars ?
what is your energy ?
how big energy has got universe ?

Perhaps the kindest thing we can do for you MAROSZ is show you an article.

http://phys.org/news/2014-01-einstein-wrong.html

Read it and understand it ... spend the time to translate and understand it properly because it is important !!!!!

It tells you the fact you can't prove Einstein wrong and no one is going to throw relativity out that isn't how science works, you can however replace them.

As the writer of the story comments the way you are trying to argue your idea at the moment will guarantee scientists throw it in the rubbish bin.

All the appealing and grovelling to ignore this and go back to that, simply isn't science and makes you look very silly. I am pleased to see you have at least taken advice and stopped with the drawings so I will answer things I think are appropriate given you are making an effort.

I can't work enough into either of you situations above to make any real comment on, throw in some maths and I might be able too.

I am disappointed in you however as you are introducing new problems without trying to explain under your idea why we have to keep adding more and more energy as the proton in the LHC increases speed. The religious lunatic has had more to say on the issue than you.

neither of your links show any information pertaining to how the protons
speed is measured.

lubos uses the false math orac.

for instance his first formula in the article , is proposedly a calculation of
the rest mass of a proton.

" rest mass is the mass of an object when it is reguarded as being at rest
relative to an observer"

the above alone is retarded , no thing is at rest.

these two words used in conjunction in real science has no meaning because no thing is at rest , all things are in motion.

his calculation is apx 1 gev / c^2 , LOL

then he adds the lorentz gamma factor , and in this calculation he uses
the false math that is specifically designed to uphold Einsteins theories.

1/sqr1-(v^2/c^2) <------ charlatan math inclusion.

with the above formula you will always end up with a number lower than 1

ie.. the math will always show that no thing can ever travel faster than
the speed of light in a vacuum.

I skipped through the rest of the specially designed math because I know
that the math is fake.

ok , I did read the rest of the article where he dwells on gibberish such
as time dilation and distances being shortened and other garbage while
using the fake math to show how it is come into being.

I will say this however his dribblings sound alot like your dribblings without
all the religious bashings.

a spaceship that is designed by those who adhere to the fake math such

as depicted in his article might be traveling several million x the speed of

light , yet their math would prevent them from ever knowing just how far

they have traveled.

because their math will not even allow light speed.

a clear example of the blind leading the blind.

So lets face it no evidence will work for you because because the great goat god in the sky is under threat because he is just a fragile effigy.

There is no way to prove a speed even under the great goat or even the police and law, at some point you end up with distance/time which is a calculation which you will then complain about for either the numerator or denominator.

Time as you say is in the mind so to you that is a fictional entry and distance is going to be problematic because everything like the earth is moving so how does one measure the distance accurately.

So your goat god argument will end up

dubious distance / fictional time

That was where I was expecting the argument to end up because that is the obvious logical ending of this garbage. Now I could go back an ferret around and try and get other papers and calculations but we both know I am wasting my time you are a goat god believer and unless the great goat god in the sky blesses the calculation it isn't going to work for you.

Lets face it the only way we could resolve the speed for you I think is we stick your head in the LHC and you tell us how fast you see the protons moving.

On the plus side if we did that we could solve a problem that the LHC has been grapling with "What would happen if you put your hand in the Large Hadron Collider?"

From http://www.wimp.com/hadroncollider/

you could run the LHC from now until doomsday but using the
specially designed math that is used to calculate the speeds approaching c will never allow a calculation to show
that matter can reach c.

because the math is designed to not allow c.

thats the way this argument was designed to end up.

showing that the math is fake.

now take this into consideration , it is said that the particles mass is increasing apx 4000 - 7000 times what
it was before being accelerated.

the speed measurements are derived from the collision energy.

if you know for a fact that matter cannot travel as fast as light because that is the belief that your cult believes in
and that is the foundation of your education and your whole career depends on it , then how would you explain away a larger collision energy than expected.

lets try increasing the particles mass rather than admitting that the particles are traveling faster than c , and see how that looks to the other cult members whos career also depends on it.

ok , yes thats the answer we can claim that the particles mass is increasing and that is why the collision energy is larger than expected.

LOL

ORAC

The problem is earth is describing an arc spiral so when you watch a laser describe a straight line across a room it is actually arc spiraling because the whole room is arc spiraling in the motion you just calculated yet you see it as a straight line.



MAROSZ
You have right ?

Omega = V / R

If My camera will have small different angle to V it joust can be small mistake distance SUN -----Earth 150 000 000 km
my picture time 10 sec. Can I think that is strait line ?
( I can not evaluate this mistake in home )

before test I schould use very precision
tool to show me direction ( Omega arrow ) classical mechanic , or light

I also in my home set other direction !!! 220 km/s
and my +/- 5 degrees gived me 8,6 biger brightness different

camera 1 ---bulb --- camera 2 >> 30 km/s --- direction 1---

camera 1 ---bulb --- camera 2 >>>> 220 km/s ---direcion 2 --


average brightness different 0,8 % direction 1

average brightness different 8,6 x 0,8 % direction 2



IF YOU LIKE

PLEASE EVALUATE BELOW PROBLEM

Earth--------SUN -----------------Earth winter >>> 20km/s
Summer .......P1

not exist C+ 20 km/s

Sun started signal in p1 point

Inerted Square Law ???
how far from P1 point
Earth will register signal ? ( intensity winter/summer )

Intensity of the signal
has got any relation with constant motion ?

E--- Sun ----E >>> 20 km/s
E--- Sun-----E >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 500 km/s

Where sun started signal ? where Earth will register signal ?
how big Intensity !!!???

Why we have winter / summer ( 66.66 is only one reason ??? )


WHAT ABOUT GRAVITATION ???!!!

EINSTEIN CONSTANT ACCELERATION ( FAMOUS ROCKET PROBLEM )


Earth -----SUN ---------EARTH >>>>>>>acceleration

Eart -------SUN --------EARTH -----> constant V


I was first person ???

respect to what my camera see different brightness ? ( different intensity ??? ) west east


respect to Sun's ?

Fresh or Old position ?

Sun was in p1 if I see P1 where is the sun Where I'm ?
how far from p1

Why Inverted Square Law is importnat ?

I still for the life of me can't work out what you are on about but lets fill in some maths numbers and see if it helps you describe what you are trying to solve since you are actually communicating.



No idea what this means in a stand alone I am assuming something to do with the sun brightness so lets answer that.

The sun output has been studied by climate science for the last 20 years or so so we know the actual direct solar irradiance at the top of the atmosphere fluctuates by about 6.9% during a year (from 1412 Watts per square meter in early January to 1321 Watts per square meter in early July) due to the Earth's varying distance from the Sun.

No way of doing this as a ground based observation because clouds and even the temperature of atmosphere change everything at the ground where you and I live.

I think that is what you are suggesting you are going to try and measure but it can't be done at ground level because of the atmosphere issue. So if that is what you are suggesting it won't work.

The solar irradiation at the actual sun surface is remarkably stable even the appearance or not of sunspots changes the value little and I will ignore that for now because I don't think that is what you are on about.



Ok I am assuming from this you realize there is a flight time of 8 minutes +- a little bit depending on time of year and distance we are from sun.

The photons of light fly in a direct straight line so that means the photon that is leaving the sun right now will not hit earth because earth will have moved in the 8 minutes of flight time.

The only photons that will hit earth are the ones that leave the surface of the sun slightly forward of our current position and the earth and the photons sort of collide in a 3D collision.

This is exactly the same when we fire lasers at the moon you have to fire forward of the moon position you are aiming at to allow for flight time. There are actually many reflection targets on the moon science uses

http://www.space.com/20865-soviet-moon-rover-lunokhod-laser.html
http://www.princeton.edu/~achaney/tmve/wiki100k/docs/Lunar_Laser_Ranging_Experiment.html

As the last link explains it is almost the same as "a rifle to hit a moving dime (US coin) 3 kilometers (two miles) away."

So I am not understanding what part of this you are struggling with the photons get emitted from the suns surface in a straight line like a bullet. The ones that leave slightly ahead of a straight line between earth and the sun currently we will collide with in 8 min time.



This makes no sense to me lets turn it back to a rifle, bullet and target because that is exactly what we have.

My bullet from my gun take 8 min to reach the target but the target is moving in that 8 min. If I aim directly at the target my bullet will miss and fall behind it. What I have to do is aim slightly in front of the motion of the target to hit it.

Lets say I am not a good sniper so instead of a rifle I get myself a machine gun. What I do is spray a pile of bullets ahead of the target increasing my chances of hitting it. Anti-aircraft guns work on that principle they lay down a field of fire ahead of the current position of the aircraft.

The sun is like the ultimate machine gun it lays down a massive amount of photons in 360 degree the exact number can be calculated to be 1 x 10E45 photons per second

Here is the calculation by Dr Brian Cox.

http://harveyjohnson.wordpress.com/2013/...un-in-a-second/

Earth will encounter only a small fraction of those 1x1045 photons emitted every second being the ones emitted pointing slightly forward of earths current position.

You can do a quick calculation of what percentage of the suns light we hit easily

1360 Watts per square meter is a rough average sunlight per square meter on earth which equals approximately 3x10E21 photons.

The cross sectional area of earth is

pi*6378000^2= 127,796,483,130,631 square meters.

I will round that to 1.3x10E14 square meters

So earth gets hit by 3x10E21 x 1.3x10E14 = 3.9x10E35


So the sun emits 1x1045 photons per second of which earth get hit by 3.9x10E35 photons per second so that is 0.0000000000039%.

So as you can see only a tiny percentage (0.0000000000039%) of photons emitting out from the sun per second ever hit the earth and those that do are the photons that were pointing at our current position 8 minutes ago just like the bullet and target example.

Now I have no idea if any of that helps you but at least you have numbers and mathematics to start.

SUN---------Earth >>> 20 km/s
p1


.....SUN---------Earth >>> 20 km/s
p1.................p2



SUN---------Earth >>> 40 km/s
p1

...................SUN---------Earth >>> 40 km/s
p1...............................p2


20 km/s respect to point where signal started ???

TEST IN HOME
I ALREADY REPEATED IN HOME TOLMAN's BRIGHTNESS TEST

1930 Tolman surface brightness test
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tolman_surface_brightness_test


Please Turn On bulb on table in Your room ( look what is it brightness picture below )



please remember that flashlight and Earth are moving in space !. Screen will always register apparent position of the bulb from past .

what is it apparent position (below animation )
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/6/6d/Aberrationlighttimebeaming.gif

( only absolute stationary bulb is not sending signals from many new points ) .
Light speed is only C ! not exist in vacuum C+Vearth. Light need short time T to touch the screen ( time T for distance L1 ) - during time T Earth and screen and table escape from point 1 (escape from point where signal 1 started )

PLEASE TAKE MASTER SOURCE OF LIGHT and one CAMERA







WHY ABOVE TEST IS VERY IMPORTANT FOR PHYSICS ?

above I showed problem for LIGHT

GRAVITATION and MOTION ?



Orac above You have famous Einstein's rocket ( mass M ) and person insie rocket ( mass m )

M---m >>>> constant acceleration
p1

mass M started gravitation's wave in point 1 where mass m will register wave 1... wave 2 ...wave 3


Can we recognize different if we speak about rocket that is on planet or rocket that constant accelerate ?

M---m ----> constant V ( planet)

M---m >>>> constant acceleration ( rocket and person )

Sorry all look's like children's drawings to me as usual .... I have no idea what you are trying to say.

HOW MANY TIMES DO YOU NEED PEOPLE TO TELL YOU THE PICTURES ARE STUPID ... THEY ONLY MAKE SENSE TO YOU.

TELL ME HONESTLY HAS ANYONE EVER SAID THEY CAN UNDERSTAND YOUR PICTURES?

Go back to what I posted and explain what you are trying to say and stop jumping around.

Stay with ONE IDEA choose the illumination problem or the rocket stop switching between both it just confuses.

If you post pictures again I am simply going to ignore you.

1930 Tolman surface brightness test
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tolman_surface_brightness_test

what is it apparent position ? (imortant animation )

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/6/6d/Aberrationlighttimebeaming.gif

Orac can you imagine two masses M-----m both masses in space are moving with the same speed

after study :

Q1

M-------m >>>> 100 km/s
p1

M-------m >>>>>>>>>>>>> 300 km/s
p1

How big intensity of the signal ( gravitation )
will register mass m
( Intensity = Brightness -TOLMAN !!! )


Stupid drawing ? In famous Einstein's example
the rocket has got constant acceleration between rocket and masses inside rocket exist gravitation's forces.

Orac do You know what mean that we can recognize different
between rocket that stay on planet and rocket that has got constant acceleration ????

PLEASE READ ABOUT TOLMAN TEST please imagine Tower 100 meters

Bulb
I
I
I
tower 100 meters long
I
I
I
Earth----------astronomer

Astronomer can observe the bulb ? what they knew about bulb

1 he can measure electric energy consumption (power )
2 he has got distance to bulb ( hew knew how many time light need
for this distane )

3 HE CAN REPEAT TOLMAN'S observaton ( brightness )
he will not register RED / BLUE shift BULB and EARTH are moving with the same speed !

what he will be able very easy recognize brightness of the bulb has got relation with direction.



astronomer1 -------- BULB ---------- astronomer2 >>>> 30 km/s

astronomer 1 will register more brightness bulb
astronomer 2 will register more darkness bulb

ORAC ask any of Your friend who like wach on stars ...
Please ask them why and how to find relation between velocity
and intensity of the signal

1930 Tolman surface brightness test
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tolman_surface_brightness_test

what is it apparent position ? (imortant animation )

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/6/6d/Aberrationlighttimebeaming.gif

Orac can you imagine two masses M-----m both masses in space are moving with the same speed

after study :

Q1

M-------m >>>> 100 km/s
p1

M-------m >>>>>>>>>>>>> 300 km/s
p1

How big intensity of the signal ( gravitation )
will register mass m
( Intensity = Brightness -TOLMAN !!! )


Stupid drawing ? In famous Einstein's example
the rocket has got constant acceleration between rocket and masses inside rocket exist gravitation's forces.

Orac do You know what mean that we can recognize different
between rocket that stay on planet and rocket that has got constant acceleration ????

PLEASE READ ABOUT TOLMAN TEST please imagine Tower 100 meters

Bulb
I
I
I
tower 100 meters long
I
I
I
Earth----------astronomer

Astronomer can observe the bulb ? what hew knew about bulb
what he can measure ?

1 he can measure electric energy consumption (power )
2 he has got distance to bulb ( hew knew how many time light need
for this distane )

3 HE CAN REPEAT TOLMAN'S observaton ( brightness )
he will not register RED / BLUE shift problem
BULB and EARTH are moving with the same speed !

what he will be able very easy recognize brightness of the bulb has got relation with direction.

astronomer1 -------- BULB ---------- astronomer2 >>>> 30 km/s

astronomer 1 will register more brightness bulb
astronomer 2 will register more darkness bulb

ORAC ask any of Your friend who like wach on stars ...
Please ask them why and how to find relation between velocity
and intensity of the signal

to help You find relation I want to show You one "stupid" drawing
Rocket = Earth
Rocket has got two long wings 100 meters
at the and of each wing we have hot bulb

can you recocognize zero motion and constant motion !!
can you imagine that also Omega it is zero problem for astromomer ( each ring from below picture = 3d signal )




When You will start study abowe example
You not read my posts ? You not like astrnomy ?

very precision test "two astronomers and tower "

http://www.scienceagogo.com/forum/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=50857#Post50857