[N0B0DY]

"This means there is only ever the distance between you and the mirror, inside the mirror there is no distance."

This is interesting, Greg. Why do you propose there is a difference between inside the mirror and the "distance" between the observer and the mirror?

Do you propose photons are chiral as well?

[neutralino]

Originally Posted by Graybeard I think that you have a fine mind ... I think you should seriously consider further educating (graduating) yourself in one of the science disciplines (even Einstein had to do this). I think that you have a grasp of fundamentals that exceeds mine, but you need the discipline of a University to focus your considerable creative ability. cool bananas ... greg

These are very wise words!

pok, you were banned for a reason. Please do not post again until your ban is lifted. Further, if you wish to talk about your "invention" then start another thread specifically aimed at discussing that topic.

[Graybeard]

Originally Posted by N0B0DY This is interesting, Greg. Why do you propose there is a difference between inside the mirror and the "distance" between the observer and the mirror? Do you propose photons are chiral as well?

Hi Nob ... not sure what Chiral refers to in this instance ??

But what I am saying is that the photon only travels the distance between ourselves and the mirror. But the information it carries, our reflection, appears to have come from twice as far. But this is only information (a measurement) , it has no reality (entity)




If you look from 1 metre away, your reflection appears as 2 metres.

Now, if the mirror moves away from you at slightly more than half-light-speed (POK's idea)
in theory your reflection is apparently moving from you at greater than light speed. But in fact the light reaching you from the moving mirror does not have to travel a distance that is increasing at greater than light speed, it only has to cross an 'increasing distance' of separation at slightly greater than half-light-speed.

The information that the photons contain is not proof of exceeding light speed. It is information (concepts) of how we choose to view it. A mirror is no different to a Planet or a Rock, it just reflects greater amounts of light.

Its reflections are so precise that we are convinced (our eyes) we are perceiving a reality, but it is only an illusion.

If what I have explained is correct, and I could be wrong, then POK efforts to receive light from across the Cosmic Horizon cannot be achieved by this method.

Hope this explains my reasoning a bit better ??

cool bananas ... greg

PS: the angle of light reflection in my diagram should be 180 degree reflection, not 45 degrees as I have drawn for clarity purposes only.


.

[N0B0DY]

You know me and my einsteinian reality, Greg. I just wanted your explanation of the difference between the illusion depicted and the actual distance between the mirror and observer(couldn't you have found a better looking observer?). They both seem to be information-based, no?

Also, why would the reflection "appear" to be moving away at greater than light speed if the mirror moves away at only slightly greater than half light speed, if the illusory distance is always twice the acutal distance? The reflected image should follow at whatever velocity the mirror recedes I would think.

My chiral(differing mirror image) reference was just a joke because you seem to have a good sense of humor. Yet the depth perception of the actual distance you propose might be correlated with the observed depth perception of the observer's reflection - no actual distance other than redshifted light.

Your explanations are always great, btw.

[Graybeard]

Originally Posted by everymansmedium Hello Greg: How can you say that our speed in this concept of expanding space is less than the speed of light? Relative to what center of expansion? If there is no center than maybe everything is traveling greater than the speed of light. We must be traveling at greater than the speed of light relative to that which is beyond the horizon if in fact it is there at all. These are the very questions that made me feel that the idea of the expanding space is an attempt to explain a phenomena that will in time be better explained by other methods. John

Sorry John .... I missed this post first time round ... just read it now.

What I am saying is that the expansion of space is greater than the speed of light ... not less than ????

The reason I say this is because of the example I gave in post #1 .....

The centre of expansion is always whereever the observer stands .... in the case of my example it is the person who gives the order of separation by 1 metre steps.

does that help ...

cool bananas ... greg

[Graybeard]

Originally Posted by N0B0DY (couldn't you have found a better looking observer?).

Actually it is an artists impression of a dinosaur called a Trooadon 60 millions years into its evolution if it had survived. A creature that walked on two legs, and had many of the physical attributes required to develop intelligence, including a large brain. He was millions of years ahead of us in the race for our current position and status. But a meteor put paid to him, lucky for us, unlucky for him.

Originally Posted by N0B0DY Also, why would the reflection "appear" to be moving away at greater than light speed if the mirror moves away at only slightly greater than half light speed, if the illusory distance is always twice the acutal distance? The reflected image should follow at whatever velocity the mirror recedes I would think.

Well, the best example I can think of is if you painted a picture, and in particular, a tree so that it appears about 100 metres from the front edge of the picture (an illusion of depth)

Now, if you move the painting away from yourself at half-light-speed, then the tree will always 'appear' at what ever distance the painting has reached + the illusory 100 metres.

The 100 metres (illusory) will never change because the painting is not dynamic. A mirror, however, is dynamic and as the tree is replaced by your own reflection it will always appear at double the actual distance the mirror has reached. This is only illusory, triggered in your brain by the decrease in height of your reflection.

Do you know that your eyes (everyones) have NO depth perception at all. Our brain creates it from the change in heights and previous perceptions of similar situations retrieved from memory.

Originally Posted by N0B0DY Yet the depth perception of the actual distance you propose might be correlated with the observed depth perception of the observer's reflection - no actual distance other than redshifted light.

Wow ... now that you say that ... I am unsure ... But I think, and only think, that the 'redshift' of the reflection would also have to match the 'redshift' of the receding mirror. If it doesn't, but is twice 'redshifted' in relation to the mirror ... then POK is back in the running with his idea. !!!

It would also mean, a really bizarre thought, that red-shifted light reflected from objects in space could be supplying information that is incorrect regarding the objects themselves ... for this reason alone I am convinced that it is incorrect ... but at this exact moment, for the life of me, I can't see why ????

You've raised a good point Nob, if I understand you correctly.

Perhaps Neutralino, or Dave or Lloyd could work this out ... I am thinking but nothing is coming yet ... LOL

cool bananas ... greg

[N0B0DY]

Nothing is too bizarre for someone who advocates G=mc^2, Greg, though it might not be all that bizarre if Einstein was correct in his assessment that objects are not "in space" but spatially extended - and I would further propose, extended via gravitational time dilation, or redshifted due the deceleration of light instead of the acceleration of space.

With time being the sole factor in creating spatial perception, Newton's absolute frame is always fully-accelerated/expanded because there is no time in the absolute frame, and Einstein's relativity allows for wavelength changes through variable media without changing Newton's absolute frame of light.

The other thing, not that your explanations are ever unclear, the proposed illusory acceleration of the reflected image at greater than the velocity of light could only be accurate if both the mirror and reflected image velocities were to be combined; but if the reflected image only is measured as it appears to the observer, the velocity of the reflected image would not exceed "slightly more than half the velocity of light."

[Lloyd Gillespie]

Originally Posted by Graybeard Wow ... now that you say that ... I am unsure ... But I think, and only think, that the 'redshift' of the reflection would also have to match the 'redshift' of the receding mirror. If it doesn't, but is twice 'redshifted' in relation to the mirror ... then POK is back in the running with his idea. !!! It would also mean, a really bizarre thought, that red-shifted light reflected from objects in space could be supplying information that is incorrect regarding the objects themselves ... for this reason alone I am convinced that it is incorrect ... but at this exact moment, for the life of me, I can't see why ???? You've raised a good point Nob, if I understand you correctly. Perhaps Neutralino, or Dave or Lloyd could work this out ... I am thinking but nothing is coming yet ... LOL cool bananas ... greg

I'm with you Greg, I also think red-blue-shifted light "reflected from objects in space could be supplying information that is incorrect regarding the objects themselves". That is why I have chosen to use the atomic decay model, to interpret the truer motions of objects in space. Of course, I mainly use it as a corrective knowledge tool, applied to red-blue-shifted light. To me, there's just far too much gravitational lensing, between us, and distant objects, to fully rely on the total accuracy of our instruments, even when most of the filters are applied. I haven't seen anywhere, where someone else is using atomic decay mechanics, as a filter of gravitational lensing. They may be, but I'm not aware of it...

Regards,
Lloyd

[neutralino]

Originally Posted by Graybeard Wow ... now that you say that ... I am unsure ... But I think, and only think, that the 'redshift' of the reflection would also have to match the 'redshift' of the receding mirror. If it doesn't, but is twice 'redshifted' in relation to the mirror ... then POK is back in the running with his idea. !!! It would also mean, a really bizarre thought, that red-shifted light reflected from objects in space could be supplying information that is incorrect regarding the objects themselves ... for this reason alone I am convinced that it is incorrect ... but at this exact moment, for the life of me, I can't see why ????

I don't understand how you've drawn the conclusion that I've highlighted. What objects are you talking about? If it's planets, or other "dark" objects, then it doesn't really matter, since we don't really observe many of these. However, it also seems that you are comparing these objects to perfect mirrors, in which all photons "bounce" off the surface. For real objects, this is not true: photons get absorbed and then re-emitted from objects with rough surfaces, and the rougher the surface the less photons actually "bounce" off.

If you're talking about stars, however; we know that they emit light of their own, and do not rely on reflected light. I suppose, although this is a guess, that the fraction of their light that we see that is reflected is much less than that emitted.

Either way.. I don't see a problem.

[Graybeard]

Originally Posted by neutralino I don't understand how you've drawn the conclusion that I've highlighted.

LOL ... I'm very sorry.

Nob threw me into a tailspin with his proposal and all of a sudden I didn't know which way was up ..LOL

I had a crazy moment .. but first Nobs and then Lloyds posts made me realise what I was saying.

While not disagreeing with Nobs ideas, nor Lloyds who makes a very good point, I am reverting to my opinion of an earlier post

'The information that the photons contain is not proof of exceeding light speed. It is information (concepts) of how we choose to view it. A mirror is no different to a Planet or a Rock, it just reflects greater amounts of light'

MORE or LESS photons, not different redshifts as you point out Neutralino.


cool bananas ... greg