Recent content by Fire-Starter James

The observer watching the video is NOT in the same inertial frame as the moving observer, but rather the non-moving one. If we were, we would perceive the emitter to be moving, and the spaces between the pulses contracted.

I re-examined the Alice and Cooper experiment. Figuring in the time it takes for the first relayed signal to get to its receiver, the chance of success is very close to zero, and probably on the wrong side of it. I like this concept of the chain of relay stations. A line of pingers all...

Real semantics is used to clarify, not avoid, or it would be called sophistry. Semantics sorts out words by meaning, even when they are spelled and pronounced the same way. Sophistry uses those coincidental words to deceive people.

Just to be clear, I wasn't trying to get around c as a limit. What I was trying to do was test the assumption that the cosmic expansion is Newtonian, that is, V(r)=Hr. If it can be shown that the relay could work, even for a moment, then Newtonian expansion is disproved. btw: Relativistic...

I would like to flesh out the math on whether or not the relayed message arrives (assuming all Newtonian). I've been working on the supposition that if I can see them, they can see me. When they leave each other's red limits, they are still both within my red limit by about half-way. The...

V(r) = Hr is the original version of Hubble's Law. Later, gator. Gotta go burn some deadfall to clear the way for the mower. :cool:

I like having some fun, but I'm not trying to pull anything over on anybody. If I'm wrong about this, it's an honest mistake. An indirect proof works by assuming a new proposition, and then finding a logical contradiction. In this case, the new proposition is V(r)=Hr. Using this new...

Oh! the Gondor-Rohan bridge! :)

The relay works when the "straight" line won't. This points out a contradiction of premises. In this case, I'm saying to NO to the premise that parts of the universe could have a relative motion greater than c. It leads to a logical contradiction — the one you found so amusing.🙂 I don't...

Let's define function V(r) as the recessional speed due to cosmic expansion at distance r. In Newtonian expansion, V(r) = Hr, which leads to that contradiction in causal connections. How can A and C be causally disconnected, and both still causally connected to B? Not. In Relativistic...

V(r) != Hr V(r) = c × tanh(Hr/c) Infinity is real. If we revise Hubble's Law this way, we now describe a universe that is infinite and all causally connected. Use all of Relativity, and our universe now appears to finite, bounded by a neutronium plated event horizon. I emphasize again, that...

A semantic question. It does seem like the "uni" part of "universe" implies that there can only be one, yet we still talk about a plurality of universes. So, if two universes have any interaction at all, they are now two parts of a larger, single universe. I've considered using "cosmos", but...

(1) the universe expands relative to the observer (2) there are multiple observers (3) the universe expands in a Newtonian manner, that is, x times the distance means x times the speed. Imagine I'm immortal, and my two immortal friends, Alice and Cooper, live in opposite directions from me. We...

I love the "personal universe bubbles". They're a great image of how Newtonian expansion works. Let's add it as a third proposition: (1) the universe expands relative to the observer (2) there are multiple observers (3) the universe expands in a Newtonian manner, that is, x times the distance...

It's weird. On some tabs it's like this, I'm logged in, but only see my comments. On other tabs, I can see other comments at the bottom of the article, but I'm told my login is wrong. I hope that helps.