ACG52

Made up numbers, more random made up numbers, with more meaningless made up numbers.

Not without reference to time.

I'm of the opinion it hasn't received enough attention from the moderators. I think it should have gone into the trash a long time ago.

You're not pushing the limits of physics, you're simply making stuff up without any justification or basis and claiming it has some meaning.

Again, some basic reading would do you good. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_hole

Yeah, but in it's own frame, the probe is gone and toast.

But your 'recalculation' is meaningless, and your results aren't anywhere near what's actually observed, your 'high velocity Relativity' is something you've made up. Real calculations, actually based on General Relativity give an age of the universe of 13.7 billion years, and a radius of the OBSERVABLE universe at 48 billion light years. These are calculation based on observation, not imagination, and they've been done by many people over many years. Claiming you're right and the rest of the world is wrong has a definite air of the absurd.

So again, you simply say the map is the territory, and the only thing you're concerned with is how you express it. It's just a disconnect between your thinking and the physical reality of the universe. You assume what's inside your head is real, and what's outside in reality isn't.

What you've actually shown is that you don't understand the concept of time dilation or relativity at all. You've simply made up numbers, and in some cases tried to justify them by referencing Hindu religious mythology, which seems absurd.

Only to your own satisfaction.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_relativity http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doppler_effect

So by assigning data to speed, you are assigning data to a non-existent property. After all, speed is the derivative of distance and time. You seem to believe that the map is the territory, and that your computer model is reality.

Blue shift and red shift are the results of whether the photons are moving towards you or away from you. The only way either one can happen is if the emitter, be it a star, or a galaxy, or a flashlight, is in motion relative to you. And for that to happen, something must undergo acceleration. A force must be applied which causes a change in motion. But the application of the force doesn't matter, so much as it's result, relative motion.

No, time does not slow down in the frame of reference of the probe. It enters the EH and is never seen or heard from again. From a distant observational frame, we see the probe appearing to slow down, while it's photons become increasing red-shifted, until the last photon emitted before the probe enters the EH red shifts its way to zero energy and we see the probe vanish.

But motion is change of location over time. If there's no passage of time, there no change. Without time, stuff don't move. So your basic statement on the universe implies the existence of time.

Yes. Speed doesn't change though. And it's not the acceleration of the source, it's the relative motion of the source. The acceleration is just causing the change in relative motion.

In other words, you don't understand that you've presented nothing at all which in any way supports anything you've posted. Everything you've posted directly contradicts all actual measurements, all actual observations, in fact, all of physics as has been verified over the last hundred years, by thousands of experiments, with results accurate to 14 decimal places. You're telling the forum that thousands of highly educated physicists and Nobel Prize winners were and continue to be wrong, and you've got it right. But nobody here will understand your 'calculations' or your 'conceptual makeup'.

Light doesn't accelerate. It always travels at c. It is created at c. In point of fact, it does. If you are accelerating away from the light source, the light will shift to the red, if you are approaching the source it will shift to the blue. But the velocity never changes. No, acceleration is the equivalent of gravitational effects. What this means is in a sealed environment, such as a sealed lab room, there is no way you can determine if you are on the surface of the earth, or undergoing a steady 1 gravity acceleration. But this affect can only be seen and measured from a different reference frame. Light is always moving at the same speed, as measured in any frame of reference. It doesn't matter how fast you move compared to anything, you will always measure the speed of light to be c. Well, light doesn't accelerate, and there's no backwards or forwards. It just moves in the direction it was emitted in, subject to gravitational fields. Light from a given source doesn't take any 'sortcuts' and reach you quicker. If the light source is further away, the light will take longer to arrive at your location.

This seems to be a lot of numbers and buzz words thrown out completely at random. The mean nothing, have nothing to do any physical theory.. There's no way to test anything, there are no predictions that can in any way be verified, (although there many which can be falsified with the most basic observations and experiment), there are no calculations because " the conceptual make up is beyond the scope of this forum."

It's not verifiable, it's not replicatible, it's strictly anecdotal and subjective. That's not evidence.

So far, all I've seen are bland, unsupported and inaccurate assertions, completely uncoupled from any actual observation or experiment. Using the vedas as a scientific source is nonsensical. As is simply making up 'equations' which have no meaning.

The supernatural does not exist..All that does exist lies within the physical universe, and hence is 'natural'. Religion is a brain fart, a primitive longing for simple answers which do not require intelligence to accept.

Science has NOTHING to say about the existence of a deity, positively or negatively. Matters of faith are outside the pervue of science. Science deals with the physical universe, not the supernatural.

The latter is testable, verifiable or falsifiable. The former simply requires belief, which requires nothing in the way of rational thought.

This is total crackpottery, and has no place on a science forum, even in as loose a subforum as speculations. It's just nonsense.