FTL Astronomy!

On Mar 6, 4:12*am, "HVAC" wrote:
"Double-A" wrote in message

...

Hey, either some
photons travel faster than c or they don't.

They don't.

How fast/slow do photons in those galaxies exiting away from us at
0.51c mange?

So, if photons have only a fixed velocity, then why can't we tell
exactly which way and how fast we're moving in this universe?

~ BG

On Mar 6, 10:52*pm, Brad Guth wrote:
On Mar 6, 4:12*am, "HVAC" wrote:

"Double-A" wrote in message

...

Hey, either some
photons travel faster than c or they don't.

They don't.

How fast/slow do photons in those galaxies exiting away from us at
0.51c mange?

So, if photons have only a fixed velocity, then why can't we tell
exactly which way and how fast we're moving in this universe?

*~ BG

Photons are super-symmetrical They come in every wave length. I have
stopped a ray of light an inch and a half from its source. Most here
have seen thuis picture. To think photons can change speeds is niave .
It would leave us with unansweable questions. Think distance made
longer,but never touch the c of photons. TreBert

On Mar 7, 5:18*am, bert wrote:
On Mar 6, 10:52*pm, Brad Guth wrote:



On Mar 6, 4:12*am, "HVAC" wrote:

"Double-A" wrote in message

....

Hey, either some
photons travel faster than c or they don't.

They don't.

How fast/slow do photons in those galaxies exiting away from us at
0.51c mange?

So, if photons have only a fixed velocity, then why can't we tell
exactly which way and how fast we're moving in this universe?

*~ BG

Photons are super-symmetrical They come in every wave length. I have
stopped a ray of light an inch and a half from its source. Most here
have seen thuis picture. To think photons can change speeds is niave .
It would leave us with unansweable questions. Think distance made
longer,but never touch the c of photons. TreBert

Photons are made or created on the fly, sort of speak, and by now
there are perhaps 1e100 photons per atom. They vary in frequency from
near zero Hz to Planck Hz.

Photons can create other photons by way of their interacting with
matter.

At least 99.9999% of these photons we can not see, although more
likely we can't visualize a billionth of the spectrum that makes this
universe tick.

A photon can be diverted, or otherwise made to lase into a very
orderly line or waveguide of photons that even brings atoms into play,
offering a monochromatic coherent form of radiation that too can be
modulated, diverted and/or absorbed.

Photons can be indirectly converted into matter, and matter can
obviously be converted into photons.

A photon can be artificially made to seemingly slow down or speed up,
which means photon paths can become circular, spherical or allowed to
proceed straight as an arrow.

Nothing is more important or more vital to our existence and
interpretation of everything, than the photon.

~ BG

On Mar 4, 10:57*am, Double-A wrote:
… there is also an amplitude for light to go faster (or slower) than
the conventional speed of light. You found out in the last lecture
that light doesn't go only in straight lines; now, you find out that
it doesn't go only at the speed of light! It may surprise you that
there is an amplitude for a photon to go at speeds faster or slower
than the conventional speed, c.[37]

– Richard Feynman

If Feynman was right, of the countless photons leaving a star, there
might be a few reaching us at FTL speeds. *These at best would only be
a blur on the countless ones reaching us at c. *But what if there were
a way to screen out all the photons travelling at the usual speed and
observe only those arriving at a certain FTL speed? *That way we might
be able to observe distant objects in a time frame much closer to our
own. *Almost like seeing into the future! *Could some kind of special
lens or other means be invented to accomplish this? *To bad we don't
still have Feynman's great mind around to guide us in this.
Remember, you heard this first in alt,astronomy!

Double-A

Photons are made or created on the fly, sort of speak, and by now
there are perhaps 1e100 photons per atom. They vary in frequency from
near zero Hz to Planck Hz.

Photons can create other secondary/recoil photons by way of their
interacting with matter.

At least 99.9999% of these photons we can not see, although more
likely we can't visualize a billionth worth of the all-inclusive
spectrum that makes this universe tick.

A photon can be diverted, or otherwise made to lase into a very
orderly line or waveguide of photons that even brings atoms into play,
offering a monochromatic coherent form of radiation that too can be
modulated, diverted and/or absorbed.

Photons can be indirectly converted into matter, and matter can
obviously be converted into photons.

A photon can be artificially made to seemingly slow down or speed up
by way of interacting with matter, which means photon paths can become
circular, spherical or allowed to proceed straight as an arrow.

Nothing is more important or more vital to our existence and
interpretation of everything, than the photon.

~ BG

"Brad Guth" wrote in message
...
On Mar 6, 4:12 am, "HVAC" wrote:
"Double-A" wrote in message

...

Hey, either some
photons travel faster than c or they don't.

They don't.

How fast/slow do photons in those galaxies exiting away from us at
0.51c mange?

So, if photons have only a fixed velocity, then why can't we tell
exactly which way and how fast we're moving in this universe?

All photons move in a vacuum at the same speed, regardless
of the frame of reference. We can tell how fast we are moving
relative to any distant light source by measuring its frequency,
which is reduced (red shift) for a source we are moving away
from and increased (blue shift) for a source we are moving
towards. "Which way we are moving" has no fixed meaning;
we have to pick some frame of reference, for instance the
galaxy we live in, and then we can measure which way we
are moving in that frame. If we choose the frame of reference
of our own planet, we aren't going anywhere, for example;
this is a useful frame of reference for monitoring air traffic,
but a pretty useless one for astronomy.

On Mar 7, 12:07*pm, "Anthony Buckland"
wrote:
"Brad Guth" wrote in message

...
On Mar 6, 4:12 am, "HVAC" wrote:

"Double-A" wrote in message

....

Hey, either some
photons travel faster than c or they don't.

They don't.

How fast/slow do photons in those galaxies exiting away from us at
0.51c mange?

So, if photons have only a fixed velocity, then why can't we tell
exactly which way and how fast we're moving in this universe?

All photons move in a vacuum at the same speed, regardless
of the frame of reference. *We can tell how fast we are moving
relative to any distant light source by measuring its frequency,
which is reduced (red shift) for a source we are moving away
from and increased (blue shift) for a source we are moving
towards. *"Which way we are moving" has no fixed meaning;
we have to pick some frame of reference, for instance the
galaxy we live in, and then we can measure which way we
are moving in that frame. *If we choose the frame of reference
of our own planet, we aren't going anywhere, for example;
this is a useful frame of reference for monitoring air traffic,
but a pretty useless one for astronomy.

There's no such thing as a true vacuum, other than whatever we've
subjectively considered as vacuum worthy.

Each and every m3 of this universe is chock full of or saturated with
photons, rogue quarks, electrons, magnetic forces, electrostatic
charges and loads of other strange stuff that's called dark matter and
considered to be worth ~95% of the all-inclusive mass that's otherwise
unaccounted for.

btw; what about those pesky gravity redshifts plus all the blueshifts
that's surrounding us and distorting most everything we can detect?

How can we have any frame of reference within this vast composite soup
that's continually moving or morphing at various densities in most
every which way at the same time.

How much if any of this universe is at zero xyz velocity in relation
to us?

Just the local kinetic energy that's surrounding us within 1000 ly is
worth how much? (?~14e76 J/s/s that's not even including dark matter)

Perhaps a few seconds after that supposed big bang and we shouldn't be
able to see anything if we buy into mainstream logic of the forever
expanding universe. In other words, not all of us Guth's think alike.

~ BG

"Double-A" wrote in message
...

… there is also an amplitude for light to go faster (or slower) than
the conventional speed of light. You found out in the last lecture
that light doesn't go only in straight lines; now, you find out that
it doesn't go only at the speed of light! It may surprise you that
there is an amplitude for a photon to go at speeds faster or slower
than the conventional speed, c.[37]

– Richard Feynman

If Feynman was right, of the countless photons leaving a star, there
might be a few reaching us at FTL speeds. These at best would only be
a blur on the countless ones reaching us at c. But what if there were
a way to screen out all the photons travelling at the usual speed and
observe only those arriving at a certain FTL speed? That way we might
be able to observe distant objects in a time frame much closer to our
own. Almost like seeing into the future! Could some kind of special
lens or other means be invented to accomplish this? To bad we don't
still have Feynman's great mind around to guide us in this.
Remember, you heard this first in alt,astronomy!

Double-A

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

Wouldn't there be interference, DA? That's my first
thought after reading the above. A photon is known as
a "quantum" of energy, a "packet" of energy. Photons
from, say, the star Sirius are radiated in all directions,
and when you look at Sirius, you are seeing only those
photons that were radiated by Sirius pretty much on a
straight line between you and Sirius.

So Sirius' quanta of photons that are on a straight line
with your twinkle-admiring eye seem similar to a line
of straight-line dragging race cars, heading into your
retina at "blinding" speed (no pun intended).

Now, if one or two of those race cars decide to go much
faster or slower than the others, there would have to
be a great deal of interference, probably notable as
wave interference, between the faster cars and the cars
that are going at "c".

So if Feynman is correct, there should be interference,
and this interference ought to be at least detectable, if
not filterable.

The Fain-man spoke of "amplitude", which to me means
"signal strength" (as opposed to signal frequency). So
i would have to ask just why the heck the amplitude or
the frequency would have any effect upon the velocity?
It appears to me that Feynman was either messing
around with his odd mathematical ideas, or he was out
there smokin' somethin' that gets ya high.

happy days and...
starry starry nights!

--
Indelibly yours,
Paine Ellsworth

P.S.: "Not only is the universe stranger than we
imagine, it is stranger than we can imagine."
Sir Arthur Eddington

P.P.S.: http://Astronomy.painellsworth.net
http://PoisonFalls.painellsworth.net
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Paine_Ellsworth

"Brad Guth" wrote in message
...
On Mar 4, 1:15 pm, bert wrote:
On Mar 4, 1:57 pm, Double-A wrote:

… there is also an amplitude for light to go faster (or slower) than
the conventional speed of light. You found out in the last lecture
that light doesn't go only in straight lines; now, you find out that
it doesn't go only at the speed of light! It may surprise you that
there is an amplitude for a photon to go at speeds faster or slower
than the conventional speed, c.[37]

– Richard Feynman

If Feynman was right, of the countless photons leaving a star, there
might be a few reaching us at FTL speeds. These at best would only be
a blur on the countless ones reaching us at c. But what if there were
a way to screen out all the photons travelling at the usual speed and
observe only those arriving at a certain FTL speed? That way we might
be able to observe distant objects in a time frame much closer to our
own. Almost like seeing into the future! Could some kind of special
lens or other means be invented to accomplish this? To bad we don't
still have Feynman's great mind around to guide us in this.
Remember, you heard this first in alt,astronomy!

Double-A

As much as I love Feynman a photon would not be a photon if it ever
changed its speed.Nor do they bounce. I have said this for 62
years,and posted this here in this group for 17 years. Lots of stuff
prove this TreBert

So call those FTL items quantum strings that act exactly like a
photon.

~ BG

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

i HATE string theory (ies). Some things suck rocks.
But string theory sucks freakin' boulders!

happy days and...
starry starry nights!

--
Indelibly yours,
Paine Ellsworth

P.S.: "Not only is the universe stranger than we
imagine, it is stranger than we can imagine."
Sir Arthur Eddington

P.P.S.: http://Astronomy.painellsworth.net
http://PoisonFalls.painellsworth.net
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Paine_Ellsworth

On Mar 8, 12:57*pm, "Painius" wrote:
"Brad Guth" wrote in message

...
On Mar 4, 1:15 pm, bert wrote:



On Mar 4, 1:57 pm, Double-A wrote:

… there is also an amplitude for light to go faster (or slower) than
the conventional speed of light. You found out in the last lecture
that light doesn't go only in straight lines; now, you find out that
it doesn't go only at the speed of light! It may surprise you that
there is an amplitude for a photon to go at speeds faster or slower
than the conventional speed, c.[37]

– Richard Feynman

If Feynman was right, of the countless photons leaving a star, there
might be a few reaching us at FTL speeds. These at best would only be
a blur on the countless ones reaching us at c. But what if there were
a way to screen out all the photons travelling at the usual speed and
observe only those arriving at a certain FTL speed? That way we might
be able to observe distant objects in a time frame much closer to our
own. Almost like seeing into the future! Could some kind of special
lens or other means be invented to accomplish this? To bad we don't
still have Feynman's great mind around to guide us in this.
Remember, you heard this first in alt,astronomy!

Double-A

As much as I love Feynman a photon would not be a photon if it ever
changed its speed.Nor do they bounce. I have said this for 62
years,and posted this here in this group for 17 years. Lots of stuff
prove this TreBert

So call those FTL items quantum strings that act exactly like a
photon.

*~ BG

* * * *$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

i HATE string theory (ies). *Some things suck rocks.
But string theory sucks freakin' boulders!

That's why they call it "theory", because thus far no one knows
objectively how much of anything works, at least not while under all
conditions.

I have a "theory" that we have 1e100 photons/atom to work with, and
while the number and/or combined mass of atoms are never increasing,
those crazy original plus secondary/recoil photons are busting out and
within all over the place.

Give us your best swag or theory as to how many all-inclusive photons
are coexisting within our sun = ?e??

As well as photons within Earth = ?e??

~ BG

"Painius" wrote in message
g.com...

There is another answer. It's that Feynman was wrong.

If you think about it, nothing CAN go faster than light due
to causality alone.

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

What if "causality" is wrong?


A specious argument. It's like debating if 1 comes before 2.

If you want to argue it, be my guest... I'm out.


Point is... since light and similar radiations are the
ONLY things we know that can go at "c", and since we
(our scientists) only have limited experience with any
matter that can or does go almost "c" (a few electrons
maybe?), then i find it hard to blindly accept relativistic
(theoretical) viewpoints on the issue.


They aren't theoretical. We bring gold and other protons
to more than 99% of C in Fermi and other particle accelerator
labs. Also, every quasar emits a broad spectrum of particles
that reach these same speeds. In the lab, short-lived particles
last MUCH longer that what is expected due to relativity.

So, we really have lots of experience with this.

Re-think your position.




--
If you don't expect to much from me, you might not be let down