Another crazy idea on this oneChris Peterson wrote:there's no way in that case to distinguish between a photon of zero energy, and the simple absence of the photon
![Smile :)](./images/smilies/icon_smile.gif)
Another crazy idea on this oneChris Peterson wrote:there's no way in that case to distinguish between a photon of zero energy, and the simple absence of the photon
Wouldn't you have to run at infinite speed (or at least at c), though?makc wrote:Another crazy idea on this oneChris Peterson wrote:there's no way in that case to distinguish between a photon of zero energy, and the simple absence of the photonwhat if we run towards the black hole very fast, shouldnt we see those zero energy photons effectively blue-shifted back to non-zero, vs seing nothing at all if there are no photons?
You're always at the center of the universe, though.aristarchusinexile wrote:Wow! Earth really IS at the centre of the universe after all!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Only if the universe is infinite .. and the seeming fact that two points separated by googolplexes of googolplexes to the power of googolplex of light years are each at the centre of infinity poses certain perplexing questions to my mind which I must abandon the pondering of until I have a drink of something which dulls the senses.Qev wrote:You're always at the center of the universe, though.aristarchusinexile wrote:Wow! Earth really IS at the centre of the universe after all!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
There is no need at all for an infinite universe in order for every point to be considered the center in three dimensions.aristarchusinexile wrote:Only if the universe is infinite ..Qev wrote: You're always at the center of the universe, though. :)
kentein/cento : prickQev wrote:You're always at the center of the universe, though.aristarchusinexile wrote:Wow! Earth really IS at the centre of the universe after all!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
http://www.constellationsofwords.com/Constellations/Centaurus.html wrote:
"It is believed that Centaurs arose from a misinterpretation of horse and riders which seems to explain the origin of the name, Centaurus, -cento meaning 'to goad or prick' and -tauros meaning 'bull', which implies they were cattle herders" . Greek kenteo means to goad, urge on, drive on, kenteo-tauros, 'goad a bull', 'to prick a bull'. Centaurs had a similar occupation to modern cowboys, rounding up herds of cattle while on horseback, cowboys were also called cowpokes implying goading or pricking. The South Americans have gauchos. Greek kenteo comes from the Indo-European root *kent- 'To prick, jab'. Derivatives: center, centre, eccentric ('out of the center'), -centric, concentrate, concentric, (these words from Greek kentein, to prick, kentron 'needle'). Suffixed form *kent-to-; cestus¹ (a woman's belt or girdle, especially as worn in ancient Greece, from Greek kestos, belt, girdle).
No, but thanks. 8)BMAONE23 wrote:Neufer,
Ever consider going on Jeopardy???
Perhaps you need a warmer couch???neufer wrote:No, but thanks. 8)BMAONE23 wrote:Neufer,
Ever consider going on Jeopardy???
I freeze up on the answers/questions just sitting on the couch.
"What the gravity-agenda scientists need to realize is that 'gravity waves' and 'gravitons' are just secular words for 'God can do whatever He wants.'"
In 1692, in a letter to Dr. Richard Bentley, Isaac Newton wrote:To your second query I answer that the motions which the planets now have could not spring from any natural cause alone but were impressed by an intelligent agent.
Please explain your statement, Chris; because according to my basic understanding of simple geometry the three dimensions are length, height, width; and only one point in the centre of a cardboard box or balloon can be considered their centre.Chris Peterson wrote:There is no need at all for an infinite universe in order for every point to be considered the center in three dimensions.aristarchusinexile wrote:Only if the universe is infinite ..Qev wrote: You're always at the center of the universe, though.
It seems to me that would only happen if our running towards the photons added energy to the photon(?)makc wrote:Another crazy idea on this onewhat if we run towards the black hole very fast, shouldnt we see those zero energy photons effectively blue-shifted back to non-zero, vs seing nothing at all if there are no photons?
It's been discussed many times here. Mathematically, and physically, any point on the N-dimensional surface of a (N+1)-dimensional manifold can be considered the N-dimensional center. Again, the easiest way to visualize this is by considering the surface of a balloon. This is a 2D surface on a 3D manifold, and by any reasonable definition of 2D center, any point on that surface is central to every other.aristarchusinexile wrote:Please explain your statement, Chris; because according to my basic understanding of simple geometry the three dimensions are length, height, width; and only one point in the centre of a cardboard box or balloon can be considered their centre.Chris Peterson wrote:There is no need at all for an infinite universe in order for every point to be considered the center in three dimensions.
I suppose this is your anti-gravity??aristarchusinexile wrote:"Intelligent Falling" ? I propose an "Intelligent Holding Up"
I'm not familiar with your term "N-1". I'll do a Wiki search, but until then it's easy for me to understand any point on the surface of the balloon as being the centre of the surface. However, your 3D plus Time Spacetime is (only) theoretical, with some phsicists saying time has two or more dimensions, and space four or more spacial dimensions. Personally, I hold space and time to be separate, although interacting with each other, so I will have to either go with basic 3D geometry with its one centre , or consider the possibility that with multiple space and time dimensions we can be in two or more places, towards infinite, of the universe at the same 'instant'. According to some physicists, it is also possible to be at any point in time. Vast possibilities, restricted only by ?Chris Peterson wrote:It's been discussed many times here. Mathematically, and physically, any point on the N-dimensional surface of a (N+1)-dimensional manifold can be considered the N-dimensional center. Again, the easiest way to visualize this is by considering the surface of a balloon. This is a 2D surface on a 3D manifold, and by any reasonable definition of 2D center, any point on that surface is central to every other.aristarchusinexile wrote:Please explain your statement, Chris; because according to my basic understanding of simple geometry the three dimensions are length, height, width; and only one point in the centre of a cardboard box or balloon can be considered their centre.Chris Peterson wrote:There is no need at all for an infinite universe in order for every point to be considered the center in three dimensions.
The Universe is a 4D structure (you left out time). The three spatial dimensions we observe are a N-1 surface on the Universe, and any 3D point is central.
No, the shape of the Universe doesn't matter in this respect. It does matter for determining if all 3D points are equidistant or not from the higher order center, however.aristarchusinexile wrote:Chris, am I correct in thinking that your N-1 only applies to a flat universe?
What isn't theoretical? But the 4D nature of the Universe, which is fundamental to GR, is one of the best supported theories we have. There are other theories that invoke additional dimensions, but these are normally on a quantum scale, not a cosmological scale. You won't find many physicists who disagree that spacetime is integral to understanding the structure of the Universe.aristarchusinexile wrote:However, your 3D plus Time Spacetime is (only) theoretical, with some phsicists saying time has two or more dimensions, and space four or more spacial dimensions.
I suppose yours is intelligent humour with a spiritual twist (?)bystander wrote:I suppose this is your anti-gravity??aristarchusinexile wrote:"Intelligent Falling" ? I propose an "Intelligent Holding Up"
From what I've read lately Relativity may be on its way out .. again .. due to non-locality.Chris Peterson wrote:What isn't theoretical? But the 4D nature of the Universe, which is fundamental to GR, is one of the best supported theories we have. There are other theories that invoke additional dimensions, but these are normally on a quantum scale, not a cosmological scale. You won't find many physicists who disagree that spacetime is integral to understanding the structure of the Universe.aristarchusinexile wrote:However, your 3D plus Time Spacetime is (only) theoretical, with some phsicists saying time has two or more dimensions, and space four or more spacial dimensions.