You treat everything as a joke. It's not a laughing matter.
A RESOUNDING THANK YOU, lovetherain. It sure isn't funny at all. I deem it to be quite morose, even depressing. It is immobilizing to say the very least. And it is going to be much, much worse before it becomes better. This is DARK, VERY VERY DARK...….
I’m listening. In fact I asked you to explain something to me multiple times in another thread, ready to listen, and you wouldn’t. So maybe the problem is that you don’t bother to explain what you’re talking about and instead get irritated that people don’t just automatically know.
I will tell you again aime. And I don't have a lot of time. This is pisces, heading into aquarius. The age of man. What is the man pouring out of his pitcher? A change of consciousness. This is going to dredge up a lot of crap. More than you can imagine. Aquarius is at the bottom of the precession, opposite leo.this makes it the winter of the precession.It doesn't get much worse than that
LTL, Pisces is over and we are in Aquarius. We are fished out. It may dredge up a lot of crap, but hopefully the piscean crap will settle to the bottom with the catfish. Maybe the man is pouring clean water out of his pitcher. Sorry, Catholics, I don't mean holy water. That too will settle to the bottom with the rest of the piscean crap, but it may kill the catfish.
I don't care a bit for that Zodiac $hit. Are you serious?
Randy, I don't have time to go into another explanation, but please see my explanation to Ed on page 2. This is what LTL is talking about. Ages refer to the revolution of our solar system in our galaxy, which actually exists, not astrological months representing the revolution of our planet around the sun which astrologers try to convince people that it affects us. I'm not really interested in astrology either, but I do find this fascinating.
It definitely is interesting the astronomy, but that has nothing to do with what happens on Earth. Unless it's a 26k year loop. By nothing, I mean nothing in human culture and events.
It is a 26K (rounded off) loop just like our year is a 365 1/4 day loop (by our current calendar). We have leap year every 4 years to fill in that extra day. That loop affects earth by giving us seasons. I don't know how the 26k loop affects earth, if it does.
Some days I just read these threads if I want quick comedy. Many funny people out here.
Honestly everything that you’re saying just makes me think of this:
It's healthy to laugh about politics. It's better than being perpetually angry or outraged like a few people around here seem to be.
I'm sorry to laugh so much, but those on the right are so ridiculously funny. But I thought they were mostly Xtians who always forgive that sort of thing.
Dear Heart, I'm not making fun of you. Maybe teasing a little bit, but not making fun. An age in astronomy terms is revolutions of our solar system. It takes about 26,000 years to make a full revolution. The zodiac comprises actual locations in the skies, which are 12 locations that we are familiar with through the works of astrologers if we aren't astronomers. Divide 26,000 by 12, and you get approximately 2,500 years, give or take a few, per location. Astrologers have equated the zodiac signs with certain traits of humans, animals, etc., but it doesn't mean that everyone believes that. There actually were ages of Tarus (bull), Aries (represented by Moses, ram), and Pisces (fish represented by Jesus) and now we have entered into Aquarius (water bearer) represented by to be named, but according to Christians it will be Satan who wreaks havoc and then Jesus who will reign for 1,000 years. As I see it, believability isn't a factor here. It is something to be serious about if you are a believer in astrology or a Christian, but if you are a heretic like me, it is something to have fun with.
The astrology of our birth months is a representation of the revolution of the earth around the sun. That is why I say you are exempt, so am I, although I'm Libran.
The canonical great year is 25,920 years, with each age 2160 years. These are important numbers to remember.
Because they are the numbers used to create the universe.
So this universe is Earth Centered (solar system centered)?
Possibly, yes. Probably, no. If we were in fact in the center of the universe, we would not be moving, because the very very midpoint has to be fixed in space while it travels forward in time. This is going by the expansion of the universe theory which is based on the theory of the big bang (read about it here: https://www.askamathematician.com/2012/ … passed-us/ most people understand it wrong thanks to media created by artists and not science people)
If we were at the center and not moving the groups of stars would be moving away from us without changing their location other than expanding outwards and covering a wider range in the night sky.
Just like the Earth revolves around the sun every 365.25 days, the solar system moves around the center of the galaxy and it happens to move around these constillations in the time frame you defined. This series of numbers is just as special as the cycle of the moon and the cycle of the earth around the sun, but the latter two have a direct effect on us because we are close to these bodies. The effect by the constellations exists, but is negligible at the scale of the Earth.
Movement is relative; without a fixed point in space we cannot tell if we are moving or another star, planet or galaxy is doing so.
But if we are fixed in space, the movement of planets, moons and stars is incredibly complex rather than a simple orbit, and makes everything we know about gravity false.
Exactly, I wasn't implying that there is a fixed point, on a universal scale this fixed point would be at the smallest the size of a massive galaxy.
There should be a region (what I said is a point in my last post) that is expanding slower (but still obeying the same laws of physics). Until there's another theory on the expansion of the universe, because expansion is happening, no doubt. The wavelength of some light we receive is witness to this.
I was thinking more of the motion of planets. Jupiter orbits the sun, but if the earth if fixed, and the sun and Jupiter move relative to that fixed position, Jupiter's motion would be indescribably complex, and could not be described by anything we know, including gravity. Likewise for every star in the galaxy and the black hole at the center; the motion, relative to the earth, would be terrifically complex and unexplainable.
Yup, that's why I clarified what I was hinting at. Not really a fixed earth center as that's extremely small a point to be fixed.
And yet...if the universe is expanding (it is), then it is either expanding from every single point (of zero dimension) or from a single, specific point (again most likely zero dimension). For some of to expand, but not the rest, would be difficult to understand, unless it is that single point where the big bang occurred.
Does that make sense? Although, if the universe is rotating around the earth (how fast are those galaxies on the edge moving!?) then the earth is not rotating on it's axis, and the entire earth must be the fixed point. Including atmosphere, but not satellites or the moon.
You should read the link I included in an earlier post, I'm sure you'd enjoy it.
I did. It's pretty much what I've come to think of as modern theory of creation. It was interesting to think that the microwave radiation we see was gamma radiation, though - that was something I had never considered.
But I've always had a question, a lack of understanding about that expansion of space. If space is being stretched as they indicate, rather than have new space created, won't it carry along any mass or energy that's in it?
Paint a dot on a sheet of rubber and then stretch it. The paint is no longer where it was.
This in turn seems to indicate that the distance we're calculating to far off galaxies is wrong as it is based on how long it takes light to travel a distance; a distance that has increased due to stretching and thus negated some of the time required.
You're absolutely right and they take this into consideration. They do this by considering the amount that light has stretched (increased in wavelength).
The law of conservation holds in the universe: Energy can neither be created nor destroyed, only transformed from one form to another. Mass is energy too, according to Einstein's equation of E is mc2.
About your last paragraph, did you mean to say and thus adds to the time required? If not, I may have misunderstood what you tried to say.
No, no! If space itself has moved, carrying a photon along with it, then the speed of light, as observed from earth, has decreased. That's because the speed remained constant in the space it occupies, but that space has moved, adding to (or decreasing) the speed as seen from someone outside that particular bit of space (on earth). The wavelength shifts because of the speed of the emitter, relative to earth, but the speed never can...unless space itself is moving.
Yup, the wavelength shits because of the speed of the emitter, relative to earth, etc. and the Doppler effect is used to calculate the distance from Earth to those bodies. This is a good explanation https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ue9TaLv3Jd4
But you're not getting it. If space itself is moving, then that speed can change relative to earth. Which means our calculated distance is not correct.
Or, alternatively, new space is being created, either at the edges of the universe or throughout it. Either way, the light then travels at the same speed as space is not moving.
I know what you were implying, but the Doppler effect still holds and takes this into account because the speed of light is also relative as you already know.
Took me a while to find an article that talks about this: https://medium.com/starts-with-a-bang/h … 2d6bc8e7b0
That's what I'm saying; space "stretching" results in a speed, relative to a fixed observer, that is greater than the speed of light.
Example: An airplane travelling at mach 2 and an observer on the ground watching it. A sound is made at the rear of the plane, and when it is received at the front of the plane a light bulb lights.
According to the ground observer, the sound will have travelled far further than an observer in the plane will see, and the speed of sound is thus mach 3 according to the ground observer.
Same thing for light; if the "medium" (space) is moving then that observer on a fixed planet (earth) will see it as moving at more than C. The doppler effect will happen because as soon as it enters the "medium" of the earth it must obey the law that nothing can go faster than the speed of light, but if the distance to the emitting star is measured, after the "stretching", it will be far greater than the speed of light would allow in the time it took to get to earth.
Again, a simplistic example: a star 20 light years away emits a light beam towards earth. It travels for 19.99 years and then the intervening space stretches to 40 light years. We think it was emitted 40 years ago, but it wasn't. It just didn't have to travel 40 light years to get here because it didn't used to be 40 light years away.
Yup, and therefore for these calculations, you need to consider a different frame of reference, where it is possible to travel faster than the speed of light (for the sake of the argument). Because the relative speed is the speed of light + the speed of expansion.
If locked into the earth reference coordinate system, it would not be possible to measure this, because then that photon has to travel faster than light which is not possible, hence the change of reference or the acceptance that it is possible to travel faster than light when the origin of the two heavenly bodies was not at the same place at the instance the photon began its journey.
I think we are on the same page.
LOL I THINK so! Although if we could measure the time a photon took to travel what appears to be from the current location to earth, we WOULD find a speed greater than C because the current location is not where travel began. Can't do it, of course.
Most people just round them off because they can vary a little bit. Each age overlaps into the next, or the next overlaps the one it is succeeding, so 2160 is an arbitrary mathematical number.
I'm not a Nuclear Physician in real life, that being said, all this stretching and expansion sounds like comic book science fiction, to me. That oughta be wreaking havoc in the quantum world. I think it just as probable that we are just a figment of Ops imagination.
Yup, this isn't nuclear physics though. The expansion is happening for sure, it's not a theory it's solid fact. The simple Doppler effect proves this and the quantum scale is so small that this would not have any direct impact there.
How can contingent facts be solid? My theory stands. Is it just coincidence we are here?
You replied to a statement that discussed the movement of heavenly bodies away from one another and my reply to you about that being a fact holds. Where we came from and where the universe came from is not the topic of discussion that you replied to and it is not something I would want to get into here.
I did NOT reply to any specific post. I replied in general, mostly to expansion. You are mistaken. I think, given your recent precedent of being mistaken, there presents the possibility that you have made other mistakes in the past.
You replied to my thoughts about an unaffected quantum world with unsubstantiated remark " so small scale would not have an impact" paraphrased.
Based upon what? We can get back to that. My theory stands.
Based on the fact that I stuided nuclear physics and you say you haven't. I cannot explain entire coursework on a forum, not would I want to.
This was your previous reply: I'm not a Nuclear Physician in real life, that being said, all this stretching and expansion sounds like comic book science fiction, to me.
You did reply to the expansion topic. I clearly said you replied to a statement and not a specific forum post (reply). If I were always right I'd not be human, but in this case, talking about the replies, I am.
The expansion is happening for sure, it's not a theory it's solid fact."
Not positive of that, either. While the observable universe is certainly expanding (that is, the stars we can see), we have no way of knowing if there is already cold, empty space beyond those stars. I think.
I'm of course only talking about the observable universe. You cannot have facts about stuff you cannot see, nor know.
Right. So perhaps there is no actual expansion of space, just movement of mass and energy into areas that had none? How would we know?
Unfortunately, we cannot and since we can't travel faster than light, there's no way of ever knowing as we need to see it to observe it. By faster than light in this statement I mean the actual speed light travels at from a frame external to the universe we exist in.
Have to go through subspace, then won't we? We need a Zefram Cochrane!
Hah! Another Trekkie! Or just a google expert.
Not a star trek fan (for lack of watching not because I dislike it for any particular reason), but my flatmates in the student dorm were, so I do know a fair deal. May have misunderstood a bit here and there as the conversations were in German hahaha.
OK, guys, I'm not a nuclear physicist either, but I was a Trekkie (having fallen in love with the original) and I agree that we need Zefram Cochrane. I have a question here, and please don't bust a gut laughing at me. At one time, I think I saw this in an issue of Scientific American, someone theorized that space expanded and contracted by folding over and over on itself (like folding cake batter, their example, not mine) and that the big bang existed as a folding. Now seriously, could this cause the increase in the speed of light in Lobobrandon's statement: "By faster than light in this statement I mean the actual speed light travels at from a frame external to the universe we exist in." When it folds over and there is a speed of light occurring within the folding, could not the speed of the fold add to the speed occurring within the fold? Or do they even relate?
There can be no speed without a reference point. But yes, if there is a fold and if light has to reach two points along the fold at the same time, I would say the speed has to accelerate on the outer periphery much like the flow around an airplane wing. But I am not sure about this, as I do not know this theory well. Yes, I heard of this one too and the example I like the idea.
Not getting this. Subtract one dimension, down to a sheet, folded and crumpled, and everything on the surface.
The folds won't matter as light (and everything else) can exist only on the surface. Regardless of how close things are in THREE dimensions, everything in the example only has two to work with. Going back to three dimensions and folding like batter, won't it work the same way?
Imagine bending a rectangle eraser, the region near the bend is compressed while the outer region is elongated. This is what I meant. I could further clarify if needed. Look for a video of flow around an airplane wing its similar to what I mean.
by lovetherain 2 weeks ago
have a new theory that I started working on last night after a huge psychic download of information. It involves everything in the title and more. This is just a rough sketch of the idea that was given to me.I am using rounded numbers for simplicity at this time.My theory in a nutshell: the...
by ngureco 10 years ago
What’s the meaning of lol, lmao, rofl, brb, afk, ty, thx, and np in Hubpages?
Copyright © 2021 Maven Media Brands, LLC and respective content providers on this website. HubPages® is a registered trademark of Maven Coalition, Inc. Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners. Maven Media Brands, LLC and respective content providers to this website may receive compensation for some links to products and services on this website.
|HubPages Device ID||This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.|
|Login||This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.|
|HubPages Traffic Pixel||This is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.|
|Remarketing Pixels||We may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.|
|Conversion Tracking Pixels||We may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.|