It is not just sight, if you are in an enclosed box with no windows there is no experiment that you could perform to determine what your velocity is. Wow.... Please tell me that this was just a brain fart and you realize you are wrong.
We are looking the scrapbook of the universe in reverse. The closest objects are what is happen now. The most distant objects are what these object did in the very distant past. Say I exploded a bomb. The bomb expands rapidly, the fragments slow as time moves on, finally settling on the ground. I take a super slow motion movie of the bomb from start to finish. I then play the moving backwards, what will I see? I will see the bomb start slowly, and then appear to accelerate toward the beginning. If we did not know we are viewing this backwards, we might assume a giant central attractor was puling all the matter inward at an accelerated rate; accelerated contraction. The way this scenario differs from our universe, is our universe appears spread out around us, instead of going toward a BB center. This creates the paradox of the BB. As well look into the past; oldest objects, the matter is not going toward a common center like the BB implies. There is another way to explain this besides expanding at all points. Light does not move in a straight path, over great distance, but will follow a curved path. Where the object appears in the sky is not where the light necessarily began due to the curved path. What we see surrounding the earth in the night sky, is the ancient light as it moves in spiral path that began at the BB and gets more complex as discontinuities in space-time appear. As the path of the light get larger and more complex over time, light from the original center, beginning of the scrap book, appears everywhere around us. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Exactly, and the energy balance would never come out right. What I said is consistent with what I have been saying. The universe moved fastest at the BB and have been slowing since then, as inferred by the age of the light coming to us. If we see the energy from a solar flair, this is not what the sun is doing now. This is history.
I repeat: so what? If there was some sort of point in there you concealed it well. I think you're somewhat confused here. Distance doesn't curve light. Despite a number of posts you haven't even proximately addressed anything I wrote.
No. Although you have been consistent you've managed - despite corrections - to be consistently wrong. As usual. The word is "flare". And so what (again)? Perhaps you didn't notice when I wrote "with the information you've given it's not possible to answer". So, no, there aren't "two answers".
There is no big bang center. Any paradox is just in your mind. The big bang implies nothing of the sort. Not true. More made up stuff. If you don't know something you should look it up, don't just make guesses. I guess philosophy is the right place for this - it does not even rise to the level of pseudoscience.
Please do not say this. I know many people who work in the philosophy of physics, they take knowing the science very, very seriously. I even know a few published in reputable physics journals.
After due consideration, I formally withdraw my snide comment about philosophy, however the part where I said that wellwisher's ideas do not even rise to the level pseudoscience remains as stated.
This is certainly true. Starting with faulty premises will certainly lead to faulty conclusions. So don't.
Nobody answered my question in italics! Instead there was a lot of smoke as the engines ground to a halt. Let me give another example in the form of a question? We have two rockets on a platform, one has mass M and the other has mass 2M. There are both at rest; zero relative velocity. I fill up only one of the two rockets with fuel and burn just enough fuel to generate 1/2MV2 of total system kinetic energy. What is the final relative velocity of the two rockets? Gravitational lensing bends light. If we start at the BB, we have all the mass of the universe in a very tiny zone. Like with a black hole, light cannot escape, since it follows a path of extreme curvature in space-time. As the BB expands and the assumed discontinuities form, from which the galaxy will appear, the lensing affect becomes much more complex. It is not a single helix that is expanding with the universe, like I showed in my diagram. It is more like many additive helixes based on the discontinuity geometry. What we see from the earliest days of the universe, is not in the same place as what we see today. It all began close together but spirals in all directions until we see it appear sas the shell of the horizontal. This is superimposed with light that is also traveling more or less in straight lines from closer sources. But before I address this further, answer the question in italics above.
One more time: an answer is not possible from the information you gave. But keep on ignoring this (as opposed to telling us what you think is the "answer") because it makes you feel better.
This is the nature of relative reference. There is more than one answer, if we can't do an accurate energy balance. All I did was reverse the relative reference scenario. The result is subjectivity when it comes to deciding a velocity. There are two answers to the question. Let me phrase the question this way. We have two rockets one of mass M and the other of mass 2M with relative velocity V, how much energy was used to create this situation, if we know only one of the rockets had the fuel and both start at rest? If the mass was the same, like in the twin paradox, there is only one answer. But our universe has all types of objects with different masses, that we cannot directly measure.
You said that before. Yet, apparently, you can't actually state what these answers are, or explain what the "problem" is. What? Do you have any idea what you're talking about? (That was rhetorical by the way). And that's relevant because...? Yes, you have a long-standing record of cluelessness.
It is not possible in this scenario to determine the amount of energy needed to accelerate the rocket to velocity V relative to the other rocket. However, since one of the rockets accelerated to velocity V, both rockets will agree on which one was accelerated and the amount of energy required to for the acceleration.
E=1/2(M)V2 ; there are two answers, one for M and other for 2M. In the first example, the 2M rocket will have half the velocity of the M rocket. E=1/2MV2, or E=MV2. Relative velocity is not reliable, even if this is what we see. I no longer wish to argue with people who stall and confuse. I don't have the time to waste on remedial nonsense.
And the problem is...? Wrong. This is, in its entirety, UTTER BOLLOCKS. (Especially the claims "I believe in truth" and "at the request of the staff" - have you ANY evidence that the "staff" have made such requests? Any evidence that posters that disagree with you would go along with such a request? As for "so it was better not solve the simple equation" that wasn't anything at all to do with the fact that your question was imprecisely worded, would it?) You haven't explained - at all - why this ("two solutions") is a problem. As Origin pointed out: BOTH will agree on which one accelerated and that alone explains why there's a difference in the "answers".
I am sorry that all of this confuses you and discussing it seems to upset you. Since you do seem interested in science I highly recommend that you take or audit an introductory course in physics from your local Community College. Trying to figure out this stuff out on your own in a vacuum is only causing you to come up with incorrect ideas and you are not able to understand the correct answers to your questions. Good luck.
In which frame are you measuring the total system kinetic energy? The frame of mass M, or the frame of mass 2M?
