Reply
Sat 3 Jan, 2015 08:11 am

How, why? Very easy, in order to say who is the fastest student in a classroom, several things need be done. 1. Is to determine everyone's speed. 2. Determine what type of race will be held, determine the distance and ground to be run on. 3. Set a date for the race to be run, noting that it may be cloudy or rainy or sunny. 4. Then you test, and find the fastest student, but there will be multiple fastest students, perhaps due to the variables.

Now to prove that light is the fastest thing in the universe, you need to do this again, but test light against everything in the universe, which is impossible, since there is no understanding of where 96 percent of the universe actually is. And the other 99.999 percent, that is visible, is also 99.999 oercent not understood.

All we understand, is the bump on a grain of sand on which we live. To say that we understand all else, is silly.

Which is why theoretical physics exist, it's a shame that so many do not understand the word theory.

@DNA Thumbs drive,

Indeed DNA, I've been excoriated for suggesting that some other particle ever-so-slightly lighter might eventually be discovered eg to have a velocity 0.0000000000322 mph greater than c

@dalehileman,

dalehileman wrote:some other particle ever-so-slightly lighter

The "weight" of a particle is not relevant to whether it can exceed the speed of light; in fact photons are massless, so the concept of a "lighter" particle is meaningless.

@contrex,

Quote:in fact photons are massless

Yes Con I understand current theory, but suppose it's wrong; that is, it ain't massless but just too light, at present, to measure

@dalehileman,

dalehileman wrote:suppose it's wrong

Why? Because Dahileman doesn't "get" relativity? Or is there a better reason? Please explain.

@contrex,

Quote:Or is there a better reason? Please explain

Be happy to oblige, Con. In short, our assumption that its mass is zero and so it's the fastest particle is simply because we haven't discovered a faster one

Otherwise I've no quarrel with Albert

@dalehileman,

dalehileman wrote:our assumption that its mass is zero and so it's the fastest particle is simply because we haven't discovered a faster one

This shows you clearly have a fundamental misunderstanding. It also shows that all of the explanations you have been given have passed right over your head, and I cannot really see any reason to continue with this.

@contrex,

Correct, but if it's meaningless, why even mention it.

@contrex,

You mean the equations that proved that the universe was not expanding, and that can't account for 96 percent of the universe, in the first place.......

It's meaningless jibber jabber, from a guy too cheap to buy a comb.

@DNA Thumbs drive,

so let me get this right.

Period luminosity v distance of stars; red shift =K(distance) in light years); and Hubbles constant are all bullshit?

@farmerman,

You can not tell the distance to something, by it's luminosity, because all things in the universe have different luminosities. Now if you know the luminosity beforehand, or if all things are equally luminous, this would be simpler. So using an equation to determine distance without knowing the luminosity of the object, is quite impossible. Oh one can estimate, but that's about it.

Disproving this is impossible

Next

@DNA Thumbs drive,

I think you should consult Ms Leavitt who would show you that when relative luminosity (magnitude) v its periodicity, we have a graph that is a Function of distance( in light years)

@farmerman,

If you do not know how far away a star is, nor how big it is, nor how luminous it is, in comparison to it's unknown size and distance, you can have no rational equation. Which is why Einstein's equation said that the universe, was not expanding, then he changed his mind and said that it was. This entire concept is nonsense.............

@DNA Thumbs drive,

Quote: If you do not know how far away a star is, nor how big it is, nor how luminous it is, in comparison to it's unknown size and distance, you can have no rational equation

You do know that time rate and distance can be solved by a graph don't you? The graph describes the linear equation.

Luminosity and periodicities of stars are uniquely cyclic and that the luminosity track for each unique cycle, when graphed , describes a solution .

Of course, it depens on "c" being a constant.

How about 170 km/sec/10^6 light year ( in km) ? mean anything?

@farmerman,

Wrong.....

Quote:How about 170 km/sec/10^6 light year ( in km) ? mean anything?

Yea it means you are a complete fool, who thinks that he knows something

Again, no graph, can tell you the distance to a star, nor it's luminosity. But you go on believing, and keep on farming

@DNA Thumbs drive,

Youre the one who started this whole thing. Ive just given three valid points that say you've got your head firmly up your ass. ll you can do is misquote what Ive said.

Typical of all your contributions , totally wrong but strongly asserted.

@farmerman,

And the graphic relationhip showing th periodicity v luminosity for Cepheids , which was first disovered by Ms Leavitt nd further refined by Hubble and others.

@farmerman,

You can not tell the distance to a star, by using the stars luminosity. Why? because you do not know the stars luminosity, as luminosity is not a constant. This only takes basic logic.

@DNA Thumbs drive,

If you notice, Ms Leavitt's (and Dr Hubble's) graphs have both an ordinate and an absissa . Periodicity is graphed against luminosity for the Cepheid stars. The math analysis derives from that relationship.

I thought you would have caught that by now.

Of course, There are lots of problems using the methods based upon "standard candles' and these require calibration techniques . However, to say that it "isn't done" is an error because , as I showed, it resolves into a linar algebra problem (sorta like Time Rate amd Distance graphs) , except the rate has to be determined using OTHER FUNCTIONS