plz , disregard the hyperlinks , they are invalidly incorporated by mu utf-8 settings, they have no function. i will correct this.
2010/9/2 ADRIE KINTZIGER <[email protected]> > Hi , Horse. > > Ok ; i will comment on some things, but try to understand that this can > become complicated, and i will use some shortcuts and > some simplified examples to explain in common language some of this topics, > i think its better to do some things step by step. > But do keep in mind that the given examples are stripped to the essential. > > C is a constant, it is the speed of light in a vacuum,,; the max speed of > light in a vacuum, the max speed of light in a vacuum was > a postulate coming from Einstein, "postulate" , unproven and unprovable at > that moment. > It is proven later on, by various experiments, and proved to be correct. It > is about 300.000.km/second, bit lesser, 299........etc. > The most capital error in understanding this , is this , there are some > variables . > 1)vacuum,....to understand that there is an absolute vacuum, as in absence > of pressure, to be found in space. > 2) this is a tricky one, the max speed is a variable because it hides the > lower speeds, by stepping over them, or the possibility of them. > > ...Try this one, lower speeds are allowed , possible , and not in conflict > with the theory of relativity, they exist.this is long known in science, > mostly it is stepped over in wikipages and other populair science-related > internetcontent. > > Light slows down in water, air, fog,plastic, lenses, optics, etc.....this > is called the brakingindex.however it regains its speed after passing the > medium immediatly (Heisenberg). but it goes further. > Today already it is proven that it is possible to slowdown light much > further down the scale, it can be slowwed down to a halt , this is already > proven, light can be halted for a split second.it can be stored and > re-used. proven that all possible speeds are allowed. > > This is not in conflict with the postulate, nor with general, or special > relativity, nor is it in conflict with the constant, that states > "The max speed of light in a vacuum= 299.792.458 km/sec", this is the only > thing the postulate says. > So the postulate remains valid until today. it does not exclude the other > speeds. > I think i can find some material back on the internet about slowing down > and trapping light into a halt. > So remind me on this. > > > Now , vacuum, as in absence of pressure, does it exist ,? in space , in > labs? well , yes and no, there is always some contamination > some molecule's or some particle's capable of distorting the experiments a > little bit , but this is neglectible for common use. > > Note this , the max speed of light in vacuum, is equal in all > directions,and independant of the observer or observed.,this mystery is > unsolved .but this is unimportant for us .also note (probably important for > Horse) that it is wavelenght independant , the speed counts for all > wavelenghts.(diff"erent in music eh?) ...soundwaves move only in matter or > air because they are pressurewaves, negative or positive-pulsing sound > -backpulsing sound-echoe.neat aint it? > > > now for gravity. > The mechanism of gravity remains unsolved until today.it is unknown how it > works. > Most of science like's to think that is is provoked by mass. > This is the path of generel relativity. this is to complicated for the > forum, and it serves no purpose, general relativity can only study the > EFFECTS of gravity, same goes for all other theory's.not one of them has > the concluding evidence on the mechanism of gravity. > > Therefore all what one is able to find on the matter, on internet or > science is only about the EFFECTS of gravity, the representation,,,,,,,,,,, > the conceptualisation, etc, the mechanism remains unsolved. > > The effect , the properties, the possibilities, the value's, can we use and > predict them, ..yes, they describe the effects of the properties, the > value's etc....so they are to be used.they cannot be denied.So do understand > that i will be talking about only the effect further on. > > Gravity is everywhere around us and different on all locations. > How? well, mass is involved , so it depends on the observers > weight-distance to the earthcore( max mass) and distance to the > earthrotationsaxle.spacetime is involved because gravity , like light , is > bendible, compressible, etc...(all proven). > Some minor players are involved , like lake's different mass than > soil,mountains, sea, etc, > The location. > The local location, the direct vicinity of the gravity field around a human > observer, gravity is different in your backyard if you compare it to your > livingroom, (masses), gravity is different in an airoplane then on the > ground, different distance to earthcore-airoplane-than airoplane -observer > on the ground. gravity, time is different in a satellite than it is on the > ground, space/timedilatation,(relativity of speeds, bending of time). > So to show an example , mostly in a sattellite in a geo-stationair position > time goes about 4 full minute's slower than it goes on earth > they have to correct this every day for all sattelite's depending on the > orbits/speeds, different bending. > > In general, for us , normal people, it is normal to maintain the position > that gravity on earth behaves like a freatic surface > if you want me to explain this , i will, but i have to translate some > things than first, for an easily understanding however,try this > gravity is standing on heaps unther the earth., and interacts with us > accordingly, but i will explain if you like it to be. > > > the universe is for tomorrow, my time is ending for today, maybe i find a > window in the evening.dunno. > > > people are not aware of it , but in regard of the uncertainty-principle, > this is far more easy to be made understandable > then most people think, it is not difficult at all, if explained in the > correct way.maybe i will do this later on, i think most people her have a > distorted image of it, same goes for the copenhagen interpretation of the > principle, there are misconceptions with big implication. > > okay, i will fill in some fields later on, ask if not clear. > Greetzz, Adrie > > > > > > 2010/9/2 Horse <[email protected]> > > Hi Marsha >> It probably depends on what you mean by a vacuum but I was having an >> interesting conversation with a friend of mine yesterday about C. >> Apparently, from what I gather he was talking about, C is no longer a >> constant but is dependent upon the curvature of space - i.e. if there is a >> gravitational difference in one area of the universe compared to another >> area (E.g. a singularity) then there will be a difference in the value of C! >> The greater the effect of gravity the slower C becomes and thus time is >> affected. So in areas of high gravitation time is slower than in areas of >> lower gravitation. Weird? Maybe. The Standard Model has been in a bit of a >> mess recently and I don't suppose that this helps too much. >> This also, apparently, has implications for the age of the universe as in >> the early stages of the universe overall gravity would have been much >> greater so time would have been slower which means, I think, that the >> universe could be older than has been assumed!!!!! It could also mean that >> as the universe expands and average gravity value decreases time speeds up. >> Which may also be a factor in the apparent increase in the speed of >> expansion of the universe. Maybe! All pretty mind-blowing but very >> interesting. >> I'm sure this idea has been around for a while but I can't find specific >> references to it at the moment but I think there was an article recently in >> either New Scientist or Scientific American relating to some new ideas on >> the subject and how it relates to a reduction in the amount of dark >> energy/matter required to make various sums add up properly. Anyone else >> heard anything about this? Or am I becoming delusional as I get older? Which >> is entirely possible! >> >> Horse >> >> >> >> >> On 02/09/2010 07:58, MarshaV wrote: >> >>> Greetings, >>> >>> It is my understanding that the usefulness of c is dependent >>> on it existing within a vacuum, a vacuum which does not >>> exist, is this true? Anybody know? >>> >>> >>> >>> Marsha >>> >>> >>> >>> ___ >>> >>> >>> Moq_Discuss mailing list >>> Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. >>> http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org >>> Archives: >>> http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ >>> http://moq.org/md/archives.html >>> >>> >> -- >> >> "Without music to decorate it, time is just a bunch of boring production >> deadlines or dates by which bills must be paid." >> — Frank Zappa >> >> >> Moq_Discuss mailing list >> Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. >> http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org >> Archives: >> http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ >> http://moq.org/md/archives.html >> > > > > -- > parser > -- parser Moq_Discuss mailing list Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org Archives: http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ http://moq.org/md/archives.html
