 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Natural Science Forum / Physics / General Physics / July 2008Spacetime in Astronomy
So, I understand that time near a black hole slows down, the whole twin paradox thing, which for me I equates to, "more mass per space is a slower time frame" and the reverse, "less mass per space is a faster time frame". I picture the galaxies a few eons ago, b M D a with our Milky Way's time frame being "t", having galaxies "a" and "b" nearby and distant galaxy "D" emits its light to us. Jump ahead to, b M D a and we find the Milky Way area with less mass near it, "less mass per space", so it's frame becomes a faster time of "t * 1.something", but the light we are just now receiving form galaxy "D" is from a "SLOW" time in the universe. Is this phenomenon accounted for in viewing distance events like supernovas and gamma bursts? Or is it so small of a difference, that it is ignored? Also, slower to faster time frames does not have and affect on color Doppler shift, right? Or would the observation of distance (long ago and slower) events naturally have a red shift due to our now faster - less mass per space time frame? > So, I understand that time near a black hole slows down, the whole > twin paradox thing, which for me I equates to, "more mass per space is [quoted text clipped - 31 lines] > and slower) events naturally have a red shift due to our now faster - > less mass per space time frame? You need to do the gravitational time dilation calculations to answer your question... If you do it yourself you will learn something. | So, I understand that time near a black hole slows down That's just great, now show me a black hole, iiiiililiiliilli. How do you say your name, anyway? > | So, I understand that time near a black hole slows down > > That's just great, now show me a black hole, iiiiililiiliilli. > How do you say your name, anyway? ROFL. That about hits it on the head! Harry C. > | So, I understand that time near a black hole slows down > > That's just great, now show me a black hole, iiiiililiiliilli. > How do you say your name, anyway? My original post was not to debate the existence of black hole, I will let you argue that with SPACE.COM. I also did not think that a handles needed to be pronounceable, but if you need, most say 'barcode'. My question is to the time distortion due to gravity, coupled with the difference of a present time frame viewing older photons emitted back when everything was closer together. > My question is to the time distortion due to gravity, coupled with the > difference of a present time frame viewing older photons emitted back > when everything was closer together. Science uses single standards for measurement systems. The variable time bullshit is not even in science. Hint: the clock malfunctioned. You have lost science if you do not understand such a simple fact about clocks. :)  SignatureJames M Driscoll Jr Spaceman On Jul 16, 2:00?am, "Androcles" <Headmas...@Hogwarts.physics> wrote: > "iiiiililiiliilli" <iiiiililiilii...@aol.com> wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > That's just great, now show me a black hole, iiiiililiiliilli. > How do you say your name, anyway? My original post was not to debate the existence of black hole, I will let you argue that with SPACE.COM. I also did not think that a handles needed to be pronounceable, but if you need, most say 'barcode'. My question is to the time distortion due to gravity, coupled with the difference of a present time frame viewing older photons emitted back when everything was closer together. ============================================== So you assume the existence of black holes. So you assume the existence of time distortion due to gravity. So you assume the existence of a Big Bang. Do you also assume that bright green flying elephants lay their eggs in black holes as my THEORY says? If so, look in a black hole for me and bring me out some broken eggshell left behind by hatchlings, it would help me prove my theory; then lock yourself up in the looney bin. If not, lock me up in the lunatic asylum, I must be crazy to make absurd assumptions. Since I'm quite sane and wish to remain that way, I'll leave you to your own "understanding". Oh, and wipe the drool off your lip, it looks disgusting. |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2009 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.