michel123456

Sybillic answer. Is the motion of the rocket described by velocity?

Then what did you say?

Thank you String. But I am tired of trying to absorb so many things that do not make any sense. I won't tell you the story of my life but a long time ago I thought I simply had to inform myself in order to understand the world around me. Since then, I have come to the conclusion that you must be very stupid (or shy) to accept what is being told. During my inquiry I have lost any respect for people who after being explained what is going on say "oh yes you are right I understand now". These are imbeciles. Relativity makes sense only as a theory of observation. IOW observation, measurements, are distorted and Relativity tells us how. This is my starting point. From there on, there is a lot of BS. Oh. For a rocket it would be a velocity? but not for a photon? Why?

Sorry. It was sarcastic. Let me re-phrase Question: if we have to send a rocket through the "increased gap between gravitationaly not bounded clusters of galaxies", how would we describe its motion? Wouldn't that be a velocity?

from this link mentioned in the beginning of this thread Page 3 And page 4. As measured from Earth, the photon goes reversed, or stops mid air. That's not me. Kilometers are added also between me and the source. As explained in the link, it is supposed, according to the distance I am, sometimes I go backward, sometimes I stop, sometimes I go forward, as measured by the destination point .

If it is a question so difficult to answer a mod could split the thread.

Ah at last, this is my question. If velocity of the stuff doesn't matter then I think they would. At this moment we are receiving light from objects receding faster than c. This light arrives at c. It is a confirmation of the statement that says the velocity of the source doesn't matter. The velocity of the photons is totally independent of the velocity of the source. IOW there is no velocity input from the source to the photons (it is not like like throwing little marbles). But then, why do we believe that over c (even if produced by spatial expansion if you prefer) there would be an effect on photons, that the photons will stop mid air over even go reverse ? *see the link & the photo attached in page 1 of this thread.

The Real Genius Of EinstienIs the inversion of letters a sign of genuis?

Did I say anything like that? Because of some acceleration**. Either applied to the objects that we are observing, either applied to us, either on both (most probably) How can I refute such an argument? It is like throwing out any proposition. You are correct, it is difficult not to say impossible to introduce concepts that match all observations just like that. My personal view on this is that one must take things one by one and clear the subject bit by bit. Einstein introduced the concept of Space-time growing and shrinking. Some other understood this as if it was really happening* and introduced the concept of space expansion although it has been proved (by Einstein) that Space & time have no "fabric". I prefer to stick to this "no fabric" concept than to accept "space expansion". *I know many people believe firmly this. Argument from Authority. OK I stop here. **I have other threads on that. How acceleration & expansion appear from delay, for example. How expansion appears from acceleration and delay. And how the world around you appears geometrically distorded (perspective) and the relation of this geometric distortion with acceleration.

expansion of the Universe without inserting gaps in space. Regular stuff.

Expansion "of space-time" is the question (expansion of space) Simplistic (Newtonian) expansion there can be. Since as you noted (for the sake of my argument) that [apparent] speeds greater than c are observed.

OK Let me rephrase: My question was about a world without expansion. From what I understand the answer to my question is Quote However, we are actually observing such things.

J.C. understands me very well. True I have a simplistic point of view. Question: if we have to send a rocket through the "increased gap between gravitationaly not bounded clusters of galaxies", how would we describe its motion? Wouldn't that be a velocity? Isn't the "gap" newly created space, exactly as regular space is? Or is it "other kind of space", lets say "gaps" that the rocket will go through by jumping (like photons are supposed to do I suppose?)

A galaxy far away is also seen as it was long ago. The fact that you see something at a distance means you see it as it was in the past. One can transform any distance in light-seconds, or light-years. Hubble's law can be translated in an increase of speed by time. As much the Universe gets older as much it expands.

The 50 ways

I hope you are not kidding. Distance means time.

Exactly. Otherwise, without that information you will observe light (red, green blue wathever) without getting any information about the velocity of the source. Where is Sensei?

Oh i thought the secondary acceleration was linked to dark energy.

My point is that Hubble's law describes an increase of apparent velocity. Formally, Newton would have called that an acceleration*. When someone states that the expansion is accelerating, he is speaking of an acceleration of acceleration*. Where acceleration needs a force and acceleration* does not.

Dear Strange, you are so intelligent but sometimes I don't know what to say.... ---------------------------------------------------- Sorry, that must be me. I mean, you need extra information to solve the problem. Only with frequencies you cannot determine your velocity.

In "basic" meanings, how do you call an increase of speed? A.B.C.D.E.F A..B..C..D..E..F A...B...C...D...E...F A....B....C....D....E....F A.....B.....C.....D.....E.....F A......B......C......D......E......F A.......B.......C.......D.......E.......F A........B........C........D........E........F A.........B.........C.........D.........E.........F Don't you see acceleration in this?

not this one http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/69965-recession-velocity/?hl=scaling#entry709965 Somewhere else.

Maybe, can you find it? I remember a very long thread. It was towards the last page.

Yes I think you are correct. If the rocket travels at constant velocity. one will observe the red/blueshift because of the characteristic spectral lines of hydrogen.

Lemaître