[Marxism] Breaking-Light-Speed l?
meisner at xs4all.nl
Mon Sep 26 06:13:09 MDT 2011
At 18:23 25/09/11 -0400, Shane Mage wrote:
Responding to Shane Mage is almost embarrassing since he is mistaken in
several respects and normally I don't waste my time addressing such trash.
But I will since there are other people reading this who might pay some
credence to a person who speaks as if he has some knowledge, which he
doesn't. And I'd add that his (non-) credibility in this matter could
reflect on his other comments of a political or historical nature.
>> Supernova 1987a was a distance of 166,912 ± 10.1 light years 
>> from Earth
>> when it died...
>A completely specious number based only on the fantasy dogma that
>redshift indicates distance.
Not only is Hubble's law not a "fantasy dogma," but that is beside the
point because galaxies as close as the LMC where this supernova was located
are MUCH closer than ones where you would ever use the Hubble relationship
to estimate its distance! The distance to such nearby galaxies is best
determined, rather, using "standard candles," which are stars with a known
intrinsic brightness (so that you can infer their distance from their
apparent brightness seen from earth). The best know standard candles are
Cepheid variables whose intrinsic brightness can be known from the period
of their variability.
> The actual distance is totally unknown
>and could be much, much less.
Well no, but.....
>So we learn that the neutrinos did the "impossible"--they arrived
>sooner and so travelled faster than the light did!
No, see my last post. And also the increase of light took place over a
period of hours (and weeks) whereas the entire neutrino emission was
limited to a period of seconds.
>*If* (a gigantic if) this is true, and the experimental values are
>confirmed, the Supernova would have been quite close to us.
So Shane is suggesting that this star and the entire Large Magellanic Cloud
is hundreds of times closer than we know it is. That would place this other
galaxy inside our own galaxy! It would mean that its stars would appear
millions of times brighter than they are, and this supernova would have
appeared much brighter than Venus. Or alternatively, given the observed
brightnesses of stars in the LMC, they are intrinsically millions of times
dimmer than is accepted. That would make our sun brighter than any star in
the LMC. This is so ridiculous that I'm wasting my time with each word I
>be interesting indeed to see the contortions the Astronomical Faithful
>would be going through to "save" their General Relativity-based Big
>"scientific discovery is basically recognition of obvious realities
>that self-interest or ideology have kept everybody from paying
More information about the Marxism