Kev M

The undisputed fact is that if time travel were actually possible then we would be getting inundated with calls. texts, emails saying.. " have you been affected by time travel ? .... please call xxxx solicitors...no win no fee "

That sounds like interesting reasoning, no "effective time" as no means of measuring , I am happier with that explanation than no time at all. "touch"....👍

c is a function of time , therefore E must be ?

Good explanation, that shows me where I misunderstood a bit.... However still have an issue with Photons, if they have energy and energy is a function of time. The they must travel in time.....surely ?

Indeed if the universe was infinite, then not only is everything possible but everything actually happens....an infinite amount of time each. Obviously the universe cannot be infinite.

So if m=0 then E=0 Therefore photons have no energy.....that cant be right.... or can it ? Exactly my point, agree on this.

The magnetic fields "touch" or interact in various ways....."touch" was easier to type. "act as"..... so they are not actually point particles then ? Yep, generally agree with that. That's the bit I have difficulty with.....and have still to find anything that proves this....plenty of statements but no proof. If you could educate me on this it would be appreciated.

The worry with the OU is the costs in England.....£24,000 to complete this course. Scotland is pretty much free or vastly reduced for the same course.

I get the gist of what you are saying but it raises other issues around definitions as well. For something to "exist" it has to "pass through" at least 2 moments in time ( debates around whether time is continuous or discrete does not matter in this case ). By definition a "point particle" can not exist either.....a particle has to have dimension otherwise it is not a particle.....calling something a "point particle" is nonsense. How can the position of a "point particle" be defined if it has no dimensions, how can it interact with anything if it cant "touch" anything It can be called a waveform ( or similar ) and it can then possibly do these things but then it is not a "point particle". And just to emphasise my points about nonsense..... We cannot accurately measure the speed of light as we do not have a suitable "tape measure". Consider the following.... We have decided we should all adopt the our individual Right Hand ( or your local speed of light) as the standard unit of measurement... Measure your Right Hand (or your local speed of light) and see if it is the the same size as your standard unit of measurement..... That's the problem....

That's a tricky concept...... Would the moment of perception not be in the present ? Even if that which was perceived was in the past ( which you are correct it would always have to be ).

Time can only travel in one direction....the paradoxes raised would make this obvious. Anything that "stands still in time" by definition cannot exist. Our understanding of the universe seems insufficient to deal with things like photons and their relationship with time ( or spacetime). We are missing something.....

Can a photon exist without time ? To exist you would have to have a period of time to exist in. There a Photon cannot exist...QED...

It is difficult to define length, as any measured object exists in at least 2 different places in spacetime. Consider two places A & B separated by a distance. To measure this distance you have to put your ruler at A and then it takes a certain time to move your focus to B to read the measurement. Currently the fastest time we can move our focus from A to B is the speed of light. Obviously if A & B are moving relative to each other or to ourselves then results will vary. However if we are happy to take both the speed of light and time as being universal constants then the metre can be accurately defined.

The problem is that to measure the speed of light we use.......light.....! Its always going to give the same constant result.

But if there are already galaxies travelling away from you at 99% the speed of light then they will see you as travelling at that speed. And the Battle of Jutland wouldn't have happened yet. ( I know I shouldn't start sentences with "and or but"... I don't care ).

Surely it would be dependant upon the speed of the observer .....🙃

I wouldn't worry about it, you cant drive with the lights off and if you do disturb anyone they are more than likely to be sympathetic when they find out you are observing as well. What telescope did you get ? Kev

I had one of them, wish I hadn't let it go, its a good scope. Much better than the shorter focal length version.

If their are fields and forces that our type of matter doesn't react with how would we know they exist, we would have no evidence of them ?

Sensible choice.....if it doesn't move, run a fixed cable to it.......wifi is just for portable things like phones, tablets etc. Wifi causes lower speeds, higher latency and as mentioned, frequent disconnections.

Orthoscopics I would have thought ?

I would triple check this...are the Dec & RA reversed ?

There is one on Thingiverse Finderscope adapter Skywatcher for Datyson camera guiding by Fixoo - Thingiverse Kev

Superb video........😀

The standard 8x50mm seems to be popular, there are adapters available that allow you to reach focus with a guide cam ( gpcam or similar ). There are also purpose built guide scopes of around 50mm, which are basically the same but have reduced focal length and come complete with adapters. I assume the dovetail for the 50mm is the same size base as the smaller guide scope you already have ( plenty of owners on this site to confirm )