Femto camera experiment says space is the medium for light

[trevorjohnson83]

I'm sure I read it. Does not compute. What do you find controversial about "time dilation" theory?

There is no explanation to time dilation.

 

[Grumblenuts]

There is no explanation to time dilation.

True, I can provide links but can't force others to follow them.

 

[trevorjohnson83]

True, I can provide links but can't force others to follow them.

If only you had a anti force/ force field to control others with... wait can counterspace hold the keys to magic like this?

 

[Grumblenuts]

If only you had a anti force/ force field to control others with... wait can counterspace hold the keys to magic like this?

Perhaps, but I still can't help thinking that following a link to an explanation of time dilation should be a much lighter lift.

 

[trevorjohnson83]

https://www.instagram.com/p/Cgj8ySbrl-J/

• 127
• 2

 

[Grumblenuts]

Good discussion extracted from James Webb Telescope images topic:
-----------------------------
14 hr. ago
I'm not entirely sure how to word this but I'm curious to know what the age of the galaxy we live in is versus the farthest distance we've seen back in time and what the difference in time is between those two points.

12 hr. ago
edited 10 hr. ago
Ok, I'll try to answer that.

So the universe as a whole is thought to be about ~13.7 Billion years old.

Our spiral galaxy, known as the Milky Way is believed to be roughly 13.61 Billion years old.

There are only 1,000,000,000 years in a billion years.

That would mean that our own galaxy formed roughly 110 Million years after the big bang, this is controversial because up until about a month ago we believed that stars first formed about ~500 Million years after the big bang.

As far as we know every spiral galaxy has a super massive black hole at its center.

So that leaves two possibilities.

material was not evenly distributed after the big bang, instead it immediately began to condense in certain points until star formation began, some of these early stars would have either exploded in massive 1a super novas or would condense and form direct-collapse black holes. These first black holes would have immediately began to attract everything else around them eventually some of them grew to be massive enough for spiral galaxies to form.

black holes somehow pre-date star formation and may contribute to the formation of everything.

It's probably 1 and not 2 because we can see Nebula that are still forming with stars in them that do not yet appear to have a SMBH at their center so it is believed that it takes time for one to form and grow large enough to create the rotational energy required to form a galaxy.

I'm curious to know what the age of the galaxy we live in is versus the farthest distance we've seen back in time and what the difference in time is between those two points.

So we are seeing a galaxy as it was roughly 200,000,000 years after the big bang, this being the earliest know galaxy in the universe beside our own, our own being roughly 100,000,000 years older.

And the universe is expanding faster than the speed of light, so that galaxy that we are seeing as it was 13.5 Billion years ago could be as far away as 30+ Billion light years now.

So if you wanted to see that galaxy as it is this moment, you would have to wait ~2.2 times longer than the universe has existed.

11 hr. ago
Just remember that you're standing on a planet that's evolving
-------------------

I think this analysis clearly indicates that we really don't know enough about "the universe" to be labelling it "the universe" yet. Only two "two possibilities" regarding galaxy formation are considered here. Why limit ourselves to those? Our "universe" could be folded into others and even into itself, but such thoughts are verboten. Recycling? Whaa? Where we supposed ta put the meter??

 

[trevorjohnson83]

I think this analysis clearly indicates that we really don't know enough about "the universe" to be labelling it "the universe" yet. Only two "two possibilities" regarding galaxy formation are considered here. Why limit ourselves to those? Our "universe" could be folded into others and even into itself, but such thoughts are verboten. Recycling? Whaa? Where we supposed ta put the meter??

Good point Dr. Nuts, I didn't really learn anything from there commentary and there listing off one of two possibilities? sounds like the idiots of GR banwaggoning on the latest fad. A good classical mind like Democritus would instantly have to argue with what the big bang is and how pfft everything in the universe pfft was in a undescribed point. I bet the further away we look into time before the big bang we might see it as slightly illuminated by heat everywhere and might appear more red, its funny I've never heard what they see beyond the visible universe. I guess it doesn't dawn on them to focus in on space itself to see what is before the big bang?!?

 

[Grumblenuts]

And the universe is expanding faster than the speed of light, so

it must be larger than the speed of light by now.

 

[Ringo]

Sputnik orbit visualization

CelesTrak Orbit Visualization

 

[Grumblenuts]

I bet the further away we look into time before the big bang we might see it as slightly illuminated by heat everywhere and might appear more red, its funny I've never heard what they see beyond the visible universe. I guess it doesn't dawn on them to focus in on space itself to see what is before the big bang?!?

The current focus upon black holes and gravity waves do come as somewhat welcome relief from the singular "big bang" obsession. But becoming increasingly capable of observing matter and energy interact at great distances is most compelling. Observing "space itself," otoh, as I continue failing to make plain to you, remains a most boring proposal. It has no temperature. No heat. It can't even be "observed." Space can't do anything since it has no properties by definition. Space interacts with nothing. It can't "warp" or logically be conflated with time. Idiotically? Sure. That's QM in a nutshell. Space is nothingness. A placeholder. The Aether creates the "space" it requires for (energy) fields to exist and interact with one another along with matter. Nothing to be gained from endlessly obsessing over it.

 

[trevorjohnson83]

The current focus upon black holes and gravity waves do come as somewhat welcome relief from the singular "big bang" obsession. But becoming increasingly capable of observing matter and energy interact at great distances is most compelling. Observing "space itself," otoh, as I continue failing to make plain to you, remains a most boring proposal. It has no temperature. No heat. It can't even be "observed." Space can't do anything since it has no properties by definition. Space interacts with nothing. It can't "warp" or logically be conflated with time. Idiotically? Sure. That's QM in a nutshell. Space is nothingness. A placeholder. The Aether creates the "space" it requires for (energy) fields to exist and interact with one another along with matter. Nothing to be gained from endlessly obsessing over it.

And I keep telling you nothing exists without temperature, heat, and the background 'filling' space is nothing more then a medium of heat, everything in it is made of heat, whether it be light from the sun or an ice cube, it's made out of heat. So space is heat as well, the definition is a ridiculous outdated from the time of believing light needs no medium. Of course it needs a medium.

 

[Grumblenuts]

And I keep telling you nothing exists without temperature, heat, and the background 'filling' space is nothing more then a medium of heat, everything in it is made of heat, whether it be light from the sun or an ice cube, it's made out of heat. So space is heat as well, the definition is a ridiculous outdated from the time of believing light needs no medium. Of course it needs a medium.

Heat is one form of energy. Heat can neither be matter nor space. The Aether is the medium effecting all energy transfer -- including the three widely recognized means of heat transfer -- by conduction (direct, friction), by convection (natural or forced mixing), and by radiation (light, electromagnetic waves).

 

[Grumblenuts]

nothing exists without temperature, heat, and the background 'filling' space is nothing more then a medium of heat, everything in it is made of heat

One either believes words have meaning(s) that are generally found in dictionaries and used in related reference material -or- they believe they can just make up what they like as they go along and simply expect everyone to fall in line behind them. I admittedly stray far from the norm regarding current modern physics, but I use the same terms they do in accord with their common usages and definitions as much as possible.. to be coherent and logical if nothing else.

Temperature is just a "measure of hotness or coldness expressed in terms of any of several arbitrary scales and indicating the direction in which heat energy spontaneously flows --"

Thus temperature is simply an abstraction -- like time. Not a real thing. ^See.. energy must flow.. Through what? Something extremely real.. Must be the Aether.

 

[trevorjohnson83]

Heat can neither be matter nor space.

Heat is the background medium of infinity, everything is heat. Unoccupied space-heat medium always gets its temperature and slight amount of heat from matter, usually large gravity fields.

See.. energy must flow.. Through what? Something extremely real.. Must be the Aether.

how does the heat stay put in the center of the earth? Is it getting hotter? no so the heat remains constant in a gravity field and doesn't escape, so does that energy flow? why not?

 

[Grumblenuts]

Thermometers are certainly real, but they only provide an arbitrarily scaled measure of molecular activity around their bulbs. The above definition mentions "indicating the direction" (of energy flow) without, seems to me, needed clarification. That definition can only mean relative to an observer or some test point which may be hotter or colder than what the thermometer is currently measuring. It cannot be taken to mean in absolute terms since heat energy always travels from hot to cold and no heat can transfer from anything at absolute zero.

In turn, that doesn't mean there's no "zero point" energy at absolute zero. We know stuff still vibrates there constantly and even changes state, periodically radiating and absorbing some higher energy "particles" or "waves" in QM speak. In reality speak, this extremely cold stuff is still interacting directly with the Aether. Yet, sorry Charlie, there's no "heat." For an atom to go from a lower to a higher energy state at absolute zero logically requires some sort of energy input. That energy can only come from counterspace. Similarly, for an atom to go from a higher to a lower energy state at absolute zero logically requires some sort of energy output. That energy must end up back in counterspace for everything to remain neatly balanced at absolute zero -or- at any other temperature for that matter.

Sorry about that. We now return to entertaining regularly scheduled fantasies:

Heat is the background medium of infinity, everything is heat. Unoccupied space-heat medium always gets its temperature and slight amount of heat from matter, usually large gravity fields.

So no matter, no heat, but still "large gravity fields" from what again? Whatever. If that line somehow floats your dinghy keep running with it.

how does the heat stay put in the center of the earth? Is it getting hotter? no so the heat remains constant in a gravity field and doesn't escape, so does that energy flow? why not?

See above and no, the Earth is cooling. Has been since day one. Despite even AGW, the balance of heat transfers still favor us warming all the dust and crap out there in space over all the inputs here on Earth (Aether pressure{i.e. gravity}, solar + cosmic radiation + your foot fungus).

 

[Grumblenuts]

Of course, that negative energy balance must end up somewhere. The QM explanation is "The Vacuum of Space," by which they mean it all simply gets sucked into this supposedly endless "vacuum field" of material stuff popping in and out of existence like magic. Wrong. Given nothing left to warm, the energy (not matter) simply gets sucked gradually back into the counterspace from where it originated. However, all this happens relatively fast within every atom, black hole, star, and galactic center. {here's another helpful link I just happened upon by accident}. Black holes destroy and create matter constantly, exchanging a net surplus of energy from counterspace for a net surplus of matter in many observable cases such as our own galaxy.

 

[trevorjohnson83]

Thermometers are certainly real, but they only provide an arbitrarily scaled measure of molecular activity around their bulbs. The above definition mentions "indicating the direction" (of energy flow) without, seems to me, needed clarification. That definition can only mean relative to an observer or some test point which may be hotter or colder than what the thermometer is currently measuring. It cannot be taken to mean in absolute terms since heat energy always travels from hot to cold and no heat can transfer from anything at absolute zero.

I don't understand, so if space has a temperature below the freezing point of the thermometer then it can't be measured and is said to have no temperature? Is that what you are saying?

So no matter, no heat, but still "large gravity fields" from what again? Whatever. If that line somehow floats your dinghy keep running with it.

Yes it is a little mind boggling, matter creates the dense/hot gravity fields that create the darkness and slight background temperature to infinity. Meanwhile the oneness of infinity is much greater in volume then the amount of matter filling the universe. Space-heat and matter share the same medium. Matter's infinite squeeze on space-heat seems impossible and is hard to wrap your head around, but the force of gravity keeping things relative and the tug of the infinite cold as counter TO matter has something to do with existence.

 

[Grumblenuts]

I don't understand, so if space has a temperature below the freezing point of the thermometer then it can't be measured and is said to have no temperature? Is that what you are saying?

That being not at all what I said, of course not. Space has no temperature. It can have no properties, by definition.

When we read that spacewalking astronauts experience certain temperature extremes, these extremes are the temperatures molecules in that location would achieve dependent upon the amount of solar radiation received. The astronaut’s space suit thus must withstand a temperature range of about -255 to +255 °F depending upon the amount of radiant energy absorbed from the sun.

Completely empty space would have no temperature since there are no molecules there {<--link} - it would make no sense to discuss the temperature of nothingness. We wouldn’t even call it zero degrees. Technically, there must be matter present to have an associated temperature.

Yes it is a little mind boggling, matter creates the dense/hot gravity fields that create the darkness and slight background temperature to infinity. Meanwhile the oneness of infinity is much greater in volume then the amount of matter filling the universe. Space-heat and matter share the same medium. Matter's infinite squeeze on space-heat seems impossible and is hard to wrap your head around, but the force of gravity keeping things relative and the tug of the infinite cold as counter TO matter has something to do with existence.

If you read the rest of my link, it goes on to say our universe was hot for a long while after the bang. The question for you then is what was it before the bang, hot or cold?

 

[trevorjohnson83]

That being not at all what I said, of course not. Space has no temperature. It can have no properties, by definition.

"completely empty space would have no temperature since there are no molecules there" -G-nuts

I kind of agree that space void of molecules AND gravity fields AND EMR would be pretty cold. To say that it wouldn't have temperature without these things is false. It's almost imaginairy the definition of space you have provided because I would like you to find this place where there is no heat and has no temperature, IT DOESN'T EXIST!!! How can you say something that doesn't exist is everywhere? Complete contradiction and BS of the definition of space. I will continue to refer to space as a medium of heat thank you.

 

[Grumblenuts]

I gather that many of the things I actually say make you feel icky.