Space cannot possibly be curved under any circumstances, no way !!!
Dredd
is curved
But what does they mean, really, they use words they dont understand
in their mythology
curved as compressed space? no, you cant compress vacuum
curved as taking some space out of space making it thinner? no, you
cant
rip permittivity and permeability out of vacuum. Even if you could,
that would
violate 2nd thermo, because destroying space you destroy vacuum which
you cant.
what else? time curved? no, time at best only dilates not curves.
in conclusion curved space-time is just another anomaly in relativity
they dont want to check
papa...@gmail.com
Try to explain then these images, obtained trough telescopes:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_lensing
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Einstein_cross
Miguel Rios
Dredd
fake
Sue...
See:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Refractive_index
B. Bertotti, L. Iess & P. Tortora
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v425/n6956/full/nature01997.html
Sue...
>
> Miguel Rios
OG
"Dredd" <wed...@execs.com> wrote in message
news:2138be4b-62fd-4644...@r37g2000prm.googlegroups.com...
> As we speak they still propagate that space around the sun an earth
> is curved
>
> But what does they mean, really,
What they mean is that the angles in a triangle don't sum to 180 degrees.
That's what they mean by 'curved'
Dredd
this is what happens on a curved surface,
which is totally unrelated to space
come back when you have something related 100% for sure
i dont want to hear old stories anymore
Pmb
"OG" <ow...@gwynnefamily.org.uk> wrote in message
news:6ct2f3F...@mid.individual.net...
To be more precise, measurements of spatial distances does not obey the
Pythagorean theorem. I.e. the "metric" for space is not Euclidean and
therefore space is not Euclidean.
Pete
Dredd
> "OG" <o...@gwynnefamily.org.uk> wrote in message
yes, this is what they propagate, verbal diarrhea
lets do it for real
give me a cubic meter of flat space and a cubic meter of curved, and
let me see the differences
there are no differences !!!
the laws of physics and mathematics are same everywhere
OG
> On Jun 30, 11:45 pm, "OG" <o...@gwynnefamily.org.uk> wrote:
>> "Dredd" <wed...@execs.com> wrote in message
>>
>> news:2138be4b-62fd-4644...@r37g2000prm.googlegroups.com...
>>
>> > As we speak they still propagate that space around the sun an earth
>> > is curved
>>
>> > But what does they mean, really,
>>
>> What they mean is that the angles in a triangle don't sum to 180 degrees.
>> That's what they mean by 'curved'
>
> this is what happens on a curved surface,
And it is exactly the same in space.
> which is totally unrelated to space
You are incorrect - angles in space do not add up to 180 degrees near
objects with mass.
Pmb
> On Jun 30, 11:54 pm, "Pmb" <some...@somewhere.com> wrote:
>> "OG" <o...@gwynnefamily.org.uk> wrote in message
>>
>> news:6ct2f3F...@mid.individual.net...
>>
>>
>>
>> > "Dredd" <wed...@execs.com> wrote in message
>> >news:2138be4b-62fd-4644...@r37g2000prm.googlegroups.com...
>> >> As we speak they still propagate that space around the sun an earth
>> >> is curved
>>
>> >> But what does they mean, really,
>>
>> > What they mean is that the angles in a triangle don't sum to 180
>> > degrees.
>> > That's what they mean by 'curved'
>>
>> To be more precise, measurements of spatial distances does not obey the
>> Pythagorean theorem. I.e. the "metric" for space is not Euclidean and
>> therefore space is not Euclidean.
>>
>> Pete
>
They? Who are "they"?
> ... verbal diarrhea
Why the foul language? Is it necceary? Just because you disagree with
something it is no cause to insult the other persons views, is it?
> lets do it for real
>
> give me a cubic meter of flat space and a cubic meter of curved, and
> let me see the differences
>
> there are no differences !!!
And you know this because .....
Tell you what. First calculate the amount that the distances will change
according to "their" theory. Then determine a way to measure that distance
knowing that you can't use regular yard sticks, because the yard sticks
length will decrease too. Then devise an experiment which will be able to
detect this change. Then build it and execute the experiment. Or better yet;
make a prediction based on that alteration and space and then see if that
prediction actually occurs in nature. Compare it with what you'd predict.
Guess what? Its already been done! Want to take a guess at whether the
results were consistent with general relativity or not?
> the laws of physics and mathematics are same everywhere
That's true. The law's of physics are the same everywhere in the universe.
However that doesn't mean that all measurements are the same everywhere. In
some places there are only electric fields, in other places there are only
magnetic fields while in still other places there are gravitational fields.
In general there is a combination of all three (the first two really being
two parts of a single field, i.e. the EM field). This said, just because the
laws of physics are the same everywhere it doesn't mean that the properties
of space itself is the same everywhere. One merely has to observe nature and
it will tell you this is the case.
Pete
OG
How do you know?
Eric Gisse
Go go gadget dyslexic troll!
dlzc
On Jun 30, 2:00 pm, Dredd <wed...@execs.com> wrote:
> As we speak they still propagate that space
> around the sun an earth is curved
>
> But what does they mean, really,
They mean like trying to walk a "straight line" on the surface of the
Earth, even one poished smoother than a ball bearing. The results are
surprising.
Like a right triangle, with three right angles... one at the pole and
the other two on the equator.
But you knew that...
David A. Smith
Pmb
>
> "Dredd" <wed...@execs.com> wrote in message
> news:33744c1b-f42a-417c...@q24g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
>> On Jun 30, 11:45 pm, "OG" <o...@gwynnefamily.org.uk> wrote:
>>> "Dredd" <wed...@execs.com> wrote in message
>>>
>>> news:2138be4b-62fd-4644...@r37g2000prm.googlegroups.com...
>>>
>>> > As we speak they still propagate that space around the sun an earth
>>> > is curved
>>>
>>> > But what does they mean, really,
>>>
>>> What they mean is that the angles in a triangle don't sum to 180
>>> degrees.
>>> That's what they mean by 'curved'
>>
>> this is what happens on a curved surface,
>
>
> And it is exactly the same in space.
Actually Dredd is thinking of the very special example of the curved surface
of a sphere. In general one can't expect that to be true. Especially in
spaces of negative curvature. In that case its possible for the angles to
add up to less than 180 degrees.
Dredd - I recommend that you first learn the theory and the math before you
try to bash it.
>> which is totally unrelated to space
>
> You are incorrect - angles in space do not add up to 180 degrees near
> objects with mass.
If the space isn't flat then yes, that's true. However when space-time is
curved its quite possible that space itself is flat even though the
space-time is curved.
Pete
OG
"Pmb" <som...@somewhere.com> wrote in message
news:cJudnVsY9soE-_TV...@comcast.com...
>
> "OG" <ow...@gwynnefamily.org.uk> wrote in message
> news:6ct5ihF...@mid.individual.net...
>>
>> "Dredd" <wed...@execs.com> wrote in message
>> news:33744c1b-f42a-417c...@q24g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
>>> On Jun 30, 11:45 pm, "OG" <o...@gwynnefamily.org.uk> wrote:
>>>> "Dredd" <wed...@execs.com> wrote in message
>>>>
>>>> news:2138be4b-62fd-4644...@r37g2000prm.googlegroups.com...
>>>>
>>>> > As we speak they still propagate that space around the sun an earth
>>>> > is curved
>>>>
>>>> > But what does they mean, really,
>>>>
>>>> What they mean is that the angles in a triangle don't sum to 180
>>>> degrees.
>>>> That's what they mean by 'curved'
>>>
>>> this is what happens on a curved surface,
>>
>>
>> And it is exactly the same in space.
>
> Actually Dredd is thinking of the very special example of the curved
> surface of a sphere. In general one can't expect that to be true.
> Especially in spaces of negative curvature. In that case its possible for
> the angles to add up to less than 180 degrees.
Who knows what he's thinking!
> Dredd - I recommend that you first learn the theory and the math before
> you try to bash it.
>
>>> which is totally unrelated to space
>>
>> You are incorrect - angles in space do not add up to 180 degrees near
>> objects with mass.
>
> If the space isn't flat then yes, that's true. However when space-time is
> curved its quite possible that space itself is flat even though the
> space-time is curved.
I think the distinction between space and spacetime would be lost on him
anyway. In essence, what's being asked is 'how does one distinguish between
flat and curved space". It's reasonable to express the difference in
geometrical terms.
Igor
Maybe you could resaerch your topic more thoroughly before making a
total ass out of yourself. I suggest starting here:
xxein
>
> - Show quoted text -
xxein: Curved space-time an attempt by free energy to come to an
equilibrium state. The free energy field is affected by various
states of activity that produce more free energy (supernovas) to free
energy users (black holes). It all moves according to how the free
energy moves --- like being in moving water.
The time part occurs as a separate condition. While on Earth's
surface we can't fall anymore. But the mass of the Earth is drawing
energy (gravity). That's what holds it together. The energy passing
the surface is almost at a constant velocity as it passes by. We are
not traveling in space as much as space is traveling through us to the
Earth mass.
At the Earth's surface, a free-falling body dropped from an ideally
infinity distance will achieve an apparent velocity of ~11185 m/s.
That body is merely going along with the free energy field. It
started at 0 velocity, followed in the field and arrives here just
before it crashes with the same timerate it had when it started. All
of a sudden it has to stop. Now it is going at a velocity that is
~11185 m/s less than the energy field it was traveling with. Check
out what our timerate on Earth's surface is. It is almost exactly the
same as that expected of an object traveling in space at 11185 m/s (to
12 to 14 significant digits).
Because mass is rather spherical in nature, the incoming energy has a
gradient field (gravitation). As any part of the energy-field-body
gets closer to mass, its velocity increases (much as like in large
pond with a drain).
With the combination of a non-inertial clock wrt the free energy field
movement and the energy's movement wrt a mass, things get that curved
look. It is both natural and necessary to maintain a continuity.
Only when light is traveling in an energy flow that is faster than
lightspeed do we get the appearance of a discontinuity. We see this
around black holes and yet we can still see light from behind them as
curved if it doesn't become captured by the BH. This is what the wiki
ref (as well as others) was trying to show you.
It is as real as anything you consider as real. We have real evidence
that cannot even be subject to theoretical interpretation to challenge
its existence. I share your disbelief of animated representations,
however. They do not always represent the reality and are made to
exaggerate the author's view. Not that the exaggeration, itself, is a
problem (I do it all the time to show a point more clearly), but that
the exact mechanism is not followed by the author to describe what is
actually happening in the physic. So while we cannot deny the
existence of a physical behavior, we can certainly interpret the
process for that behavior as differently as day or night.
Koobee Wublee
> "Dredd" <wed...@execs.com> wrote:
> > As we speak they still propagate that space around the sun an earth
> > is curved
>
> > But what does they mean, really,
>
> What they mean is that the angles in a triangle don't sum to 180 degrees.
> That's what they mean by 'curved'
No, using any coordinate system, you will always find space to be
flat. Thus, every triangle will have their angles summed up to be 180
degrees regardless whether if space is flat or curved. So,
introducing three parties:
** A = An object to be observed (the geometry)
** B = An observer located right at A
** C = Distant observer
The only way to tell if space at A (and thus B) is flat or curved is
to compare the observations of A between B’s and C’s. So, long before
the Goettingen group of mathematicians including Hilbert, Klein,
Schwarzschild, and Minkowski wrote down the following, Riemann had
already done so. All these had happened way before the plagiarism of
Einstein the nitwit, the plagiarist, and the liar.
ds^2 = g_ij dq^i dq^j
Where
** ds = Actual distance (geometry)
** dq^i, dq^j = C’s choice of coordinate system
** g_ij = Elements of the metric associated with dq^i
The following describes what C’s observation of A is.
du^2 = h_ij dq^i dq^j
Where
** du = Observed distance (geometry) by C
** h_ij = Elements of another matrix [h]
Any direct observation (du) of any geometry even if curved is always
flat. Comparing the two matrices [g] and [h] will then tell the
curvature of A represented by ds. The question is to find [g]. [g]
cannot be determined through a direct observation because any direct
observation will always yield [h]. If the space at C is also curved,
the situation becomes more complicated, but the idea is still the
same.
There appear to be several ways of gauging the curvature. For
example, the Riemann curvature tensor was invented by Ricci derived
through double covariant derivatives (man-made operator), and the
Ricci curvature tensor was invented by Levi-Civita based on the
Riemann curvature tensor. The field equations are a set of
differential equations the yield each elements of the matrix [g] as
their solutions. The man-made mathematical artifact, the Ricci (and
thus the Riemann) curvature tensor, plays a major role in describing
the field equations.
This post is intended as another Trojan horse to be collected by the
nitwit moortel like so many of mine before.
Pmb
"Igor" <thoo...@excite.com> wrote in message
news:67e9f686-8642-4a9e...@a70g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
On Jun 30, 5:00 pm, Dredd <wed...@execs.com> wrote:
> As we speak they still propagate that space around the sun an earth
> is curved
>
> But what does they mean, really, they use words they dont understand
> in their mythology
>
> curved as compressed space? no, you cant compress vacuum
>
> curved as taking some space out of space making it thinner? no, you
> cant
> rip permittivity and permeability out of vacuum. Even if you could,
> that would
> violate 2nd thermo, because destroying space you destroy vacuum which
> you cant.
>
> what else? time curved? no, time at best only dilates not curves.
>
> in conclusion curved space-time is just another anomaly in relativity
> they dont want to check
What Dredd is missing here is the fact that curved spacetime has been
checked. People who choose not to learn the theory they object to often make
these kinds of mistakes.
Pete
Androcles
"xxein" <xxe...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:74cf842c-7d2e-464b...@59g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
========================================
No no, I have it on good authority (yours) that curved space-time
is an artefactual/superficially imposed metaphoric yin yang referrence
reference of sorts.
papa...@gmail.com
> On Jun 30, 5:15 pm, "papar...@gmail.com" <papar...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Try to explain then these images, obtained trough telescopes:
>
> <<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_lensinghttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Einstein_cross
>
>
> Sue...
Sure, as usual, your contributions are a solid confirmation of
Einstein theories.
Bertoti says:
"...Here we report a measurement of the frequency shift of radio
photons to and from the Cassini spacecraft as they passed near the
Sun. Our result, italic gamma = 1 + (2.1 plusminus 2.3) times 10-5,
agrees with the predictions of standard general relativity with a
sensitivity that approaches the level at which, theoretically,
deviations are expected in some cosmological models..."
Thank you Sue for that link
Miguel Rios
Sue...
> On 30 jun, 17:33, "Sue..." <suzysewns...@yahoo.com.au> wrote:
>
> > On Jun 30, 5:15 pm, "papar...@gmail.com" <papar...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > Try to explain then these images, obtained trough telescopes:
>
>
> > B. Bertotti, L. Iess & P. Tortorahttp://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v425/n6956/full/nature01997.html
>
> > Sue...
>
> Sure, as usual, your contributions are a solid confirmation of
> Einstein theories.
>
> Bertoti says:
>
> "...Here we report a measurement of the frequency shift of radio
> photons to and from the Cassini spacecraft as they passed near the
> Sun. Our result, italic gamma = 1 + (2.1 plusminus 2.3) times 10-5,
> agrees with the predictions of standard general relativity with a
> sensitivity that approaches the level at which, theoretically,
> deviations are expected in some cosmological models..."
>
<< Thank you Sue for that link >>
I gave you links for two interpretations.
A scientist would thank me for both. ;-)
http://www.quackwatch.org/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/pseudo.html
Sue...
>
> Miguel Rios
papa...@gmail.com
Again, a very useful page which describes, in quite accurate terms,
what you do in this forum.
Miguel Rios
Sue...
>
<< Thank you Sue for that link >>
>
I gave you links for two interpretations.
A scientist would thank me for both. ;-)
http://www.quackwatch.org/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/pseudo.html
See how much Bertotti attributes to refraction
and also consider that the multifrequency interpretation
is guided by the theory that he claims to be testing.
(the URL you don't want to thank me for)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Refractive_index
B. Bertotti, L. Iess & P. Tortora
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v425/n6956/full/nature01997.html
It this newsgroup it is customary to hurl an insult
when you can't refute an argument. I anxiously
await you next insult.
Sue...
papa...@gmail.com
> On Jun 30, 10:34 pm, "papar...@gmail.com" <papar...@gmail.com> wrote:
> [...]
>
> << Thank you Sue for that link >>
>
> I gave you links for two interpretations.
> You snipped the one you don't agree with.
> A scientist would thank me for both. ;-)
>
> http://www.quackwatch.org/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/pseudo.html
>
> See how much Bertotti attributes to refraction
> and also consider that the multifrequency interpretation
> is guided by the theory that he claims to be testing.
>
>
> B. Bertotti, L. Iess & P. Tortorahttp://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v425/n6956/full/nature01997.html
>
> It this newsgroup it is customary to hurl an insult
> when you can't refute an argument. I anxiously
> await you next insult.
>
> Sue...
Well Sue, your problem is that the refractive index page you quote has
nothing whatsoever to do with gravitational lensing. As you usually
do, it is an irrelevant quote to the thread.
It would be good for you to read what you cite before quoting. Many
here over the years have told you the same, but to no avail.
So put another quote, but this time relevant to the issue under
discussion.
Miguel Rios
papa...@gmail.com
> [...]
>
> << Thank you Sue for that link >>
>
> I gave you links for two interpretations.
> You snipped the one you don't agree with.
> A scientist would thank me for both. ;-)
>
> http://www.quackwatch.org/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/pseudo.html
>
> See how much Bertotti attributes to refraction
> and also consider that the multifrequency interpretation
> is guided by the theory that he claims to be testing.
>
With respect to this affirmation of yours, in your quote there is not
a single dot that could be interpreted, in some convoluted way, as
"refraction".
What it is clear in the abstract you quoted, is that they are
confirming, with a high degree of confidence, that the gamma term
corresponds with the one general relativity predicts (that is
gamma=1).
Miguel Rios
Sue...
> On 30 jun, 22:57, "Sue..." <suzysewns...@yahoo.com.au> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Jun 30, 10:34 pm, "papar...@gmail.com" <papar...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > [...]
>
> > << Thank you Sue for that link >>
>
> > I gave you links for two interpretations.
> > You snipped the one you don't agree with.
> > A scientist would thank me for both. ;-)
>
> >
http://www.quackwatch.org/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/pseudo.html
>
> > See how much Bertotti attributes to refraction
> > and also consider that the multifrequency interpretation
> > is guided by the theory that he claims to be testing.
>
(the URL you don't want to thank me for)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Refractive_index
>
B. Bertotti, L. Iess & P. Tortora
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v425/n6956/full/nature01997.html
>
> > It this newsgroup it is customary to hurl an insult
> > when you can't refute an argument. I anxiously
> > await you next insult.
>
> > Sue...
>
> Well Sue, your problem is that the refractive index page you quote has
> nothing whatsoever to do with gravitational lensing.
<<Abstract Doppler tracking of an interplanetary spacecraft
near solar conjunction is strongly affected by the plasma
in the solar corona,
the main competitive contribution in measurements of
the gravitational deflection of light rays.
With the simultaneous availability of carriers in X band
and Ka band for interplanetary communications, the plasma
contribution to the corona can be accurately eliminated
and measured. If, as in the Cassini mission, three different
observables are available, this can be done in two ways:
one deals with the total plasma content in the electric
approximation, even in the ionosphere and interplanetary
space; another is limited to the corona, but has access
to subtler effects, like the magnetic correction to the
refractive index. This technique will allow important
progress in the radio investigation of the solar corona.>>
http://www.springerlink.com/content/k3mt05212k3x457q/
> As you usually
> do, it is an irrelevant quote to the thread.
> It would be good for you to read what you cite before quoting. Many
> here over the years have told you the same, but to no avail.
> So put another quote, but this time relevant to the issue under
> discussion.
Thank you.
I accept your insult and failure to see relevance in:
"the main competitive contribution in measurements of
the gravitational deflection of light rays."
as proof of you unwavering faith.
<<
Pseudoscience begins with a hypothesis—usually
one which is appealing emotionally, and spectacularly
implausible—and then looks only for items which appear
to support it. Conflicting evidence is ignored.
Generally speaking, the aim of pseudoscience is to
rationalize strongly held beliefs, rather than to
investigate or to test alternative possibilities.
Pseudoscience specializes in jumping to "congenial
conclusions," grinding ideological axes, appealing
to preconceived ideas and to widespread misunderstandings.>>
http://www.quackwatch.org/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/pseudo.html
May Einstein bless you.
Sue...
>
> Miguel Rios
papa...@gmail.com
> On Jun 30, 11:05 pm, "papar...@gmail.com" <papar...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On 30 jun, 22:57, "Sue..." <suzysewns...@yahoo.com.au> wrote:
>
> > > On Jun 30, 10:34 pm, "papar...@gmail.com" <papar...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > [...]
>
> > > << Thank you Sue for that link >>
>
> > > I gave you links for two interpretations.
> > > You snipped the one you don't agree with.
> > > A scientist would thank me for both. ;-)
>
> http://www.quackwatch.org/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/pseudo.html
>
> > > See how much Bertotti attributes to refraction
> > > and also consider that the multifrequency interpretation
> > > is guided by the theory that he claims to be testing.
>
>
> B. Bertotti, L. Iess & P. Tortorahttp://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v425/n6956/full/nature01997.html
>
>
>
This is your response...to pull a rabbit out of your hat?
Did your original quote, that is, http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v425/n6956/full/nature01997.html,
has anything to do with your new quote?...who is insulting here?
> <<
> Pseudoscience begins with a hypothesis—usually
> one which is appealing emotionally, and spectacularly
> implausible—and then looks only for items which appear
> to support it. Conflicting evidence is ignored.
> Generally speaking, the aim of pseudoscience is to
> rationalize strongly held beliefs, rather than to
> investigate or to test alternative possibilities.
> Pseudoscience specializes in jumping to "congenial
> conclusions," grinding ideological axes, appealing
> to preconceived ideas and to widespread misunderstandings.>>http://www.quackwatch.org/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/pseudo.html
>
> May Einstein bless you.
>
> Sue...
>
I don't need Einstein bless, for that I have my wife, thank you very
much
Miguel Rios
domini...@googlemail.com
> As we speak they still propagate thatspacearound the sun an earth
> is curved
>
> But what does they mean, really, they use words they dont understand
> in their mythology
>
>
> curved as taking somespaceout ofspacemaking it thinner? no, you
> cant
> rip permittivity and permeability out of vacuum. Even if you could,
> that would
> you cant.
>
> what else? time curved? no, time at best only dilates not curves.
>
> they dont want to check
Poe's Law?
Koobee Wublee
> Dear Dredd:
> > As we speak they still propagate that space
> > around the sun an earth is curved
>
> > But what does they mean, really,
>
> They mean like trying to walk a "straight line" on the surface of the
> Earth, even one poished smoother than a ball bearing. The results are
> surprising.
>
> Like a right triangle, with three right angles... one at the pole and
> the other two on the equator.
It sounds like you are confused between the spherical shape of the
earth with curved space.
> But you knew that...
I know you are too shallow-minded to claim such an absurdity. <shrug>
Koobee Wublee
> What Dredd is missing here is the fact that curved spacetime has been
> checked.
What do you mean by “checked”? Have you met face to face with God?
According to the religion of GR, God is spacetime; the Gospel is the
covariant derivative; Einstein the nitwit, the plagiarist, and the
liar is the prophet and the messiah.
> People who choose not to learn the theory they object to often make
> these kinds of mistakes.
You are incorrectly describing the faith of GR as a theory. <shrug>
This concludes another example of the Orwellian educational system
where:
** MYSTICISM IS WISDOM
** PLAGIARISM IS CREATIVITY
** CONJECTURE IS REALITY
** FAITH IS THEORY
** LYING IS TEACHING
** BELIEVING IS LEARNING