How Relativists Waste a Shitload of Other People's Money on Nothing
Traveler
http://www.astroengine.com/?p=565
The conclusion is obvious to anybody who does not kiss ass for a
living. Gravity does not propagate at the speed of light as Einstein
and his followers predict. Gravity is a universal,
quasi-instantaneous, non-local, energy conservation phenomenon. No
gravitational waves simply means that the general theory of relativity
is falsified. ahahaha...
Louis Savain
Rebel Science News:
http://rebelscience.blogspot.com/
Pentcho Valev
sci.physics:
Einsteiniana wastes so much money that sometimes even the bosses get
embarrassed:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/connected/main.jhtml?xml=/connected/2004/04/28/ecfgravb28.xml
"Did Einstein get all his sums right?.....Last week, an American probe
began an 18-month mission to put Einstein's prediction to the test, 90
years after he unveiled his ideas in Berlin. Gravity Probe B was
blasted into space from the Vandenberg Air Force Base in California on
a Boeing Delta 2 rocket and will orbit the Earth for more than a year.
The $700 million joint mission between Nasa and Stanford University,
conceived in 1958, uses four of the most perfect spheres ever created
inside the world's largest Thermos flask to detect minute distortions
in the fabric of the universe.....Sir Martin Rees, the Astronomer
Royal, said: "The project's a technical triumph, and a triumph of the
persistence and lobbying power of Stanford University. But its
gestation has been grotesquely prolonged, and the cost overruns have
been equally gross. I recall hearing a talk about the project from
Francis Everitt (principal investigator) when I was still a student -
and it was already well advanced. "Back in the 1960s the evidence for
Einstein's theory was meagre - just two tests, with 10 per cent
precision. But relativity is now confirmed by several tests, with
precision of one part in 10,000. It's still, in principle, good to
have new and different tests. But the level of confidence in
Einstein's theory is now so high that an announcement of the expected
result will 'fork no lightening'. "Moreover, if there's an unexpected
result, I suspect most people will suspect an error in this very
challenging experiment rather than immediately abandon Einstein:
There's now so much evidence corroborating Einstein, that a high
burden of proof is required before he'll be usurped by any rival
theory. "So the most exciting - if un-alluring - outcome of Gravity
Probe B would be a request by Stanford University for another huge sum
of money to repeat it."
Pentcho Valev
pva...@yahoo.com
Eric Gisse
Explain why binary systems decay as if gravitational radiation is real.
Pentcho Valev
Now that Einsteiniana is bringing less and less money the criminals
are trying to revitilize Clausiusiana:
but I don't think the old pre-Einsteinian money-spinner will start
working again:
http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/archive/00000313/
JOS UFFINK: "This summary leads to the question whether it is fruitful
to see irreversibility or time-asymmetry as the essence of the second
law. Is it not more straightforward, in view of the unargued
statements of Kelvin, the bold claims of Clausius and the strained
attempts of Planck, to give up this idea? I believe that Ehrenfest-
Afanassjewa was right in her verdict that the discussion about the
arrow of time as expressed in the second law of the thermodynamics is
actually a RED HERRING."
Pentcho Valev
pva...@yahoo.com
Ian Parker
How much is the Iraq war costing?
- Ian Parker
Ian Parker
> On Aug 2, 2:39 am, Traveler <noasskiss...@nowhere.net> wrote in
> sci.physics:
>
> > Gravitational Wave Theory Takes Another Kick in the Teeth:http://www.astroengine.com/?p=565
>
> > The conclusion is obvious to anybody who does not kiss ass for a
> > living. Gravity does not propagate at the speed of light as Einstein
> > and his followers predict. Gravity is a universal,
> > quasi-instantaneous, non-local, energy conservation phenomenon. No
> > gravitational waves simply means that the general theory of relativity
> > is falsified. ahahaha...
>
> > Louis Savain
>
> > Rebel Science News:http://rebelscience.blogspot.com/
>
> Einsteiniana wastes so much money that sometimes even the bosses get
> embarrassed:
>
And how much is going on Iraq?
- Ian Parker
moky
explain your opinion ?
1. Let us suppose two persons, far away from all gravitational fields.
We assume the first person to move at a constant speed with respect to
the other. If they both observe a same object, will their
observations be related by a Lorentz transformation ?
2. Why did you refer to string theory as the "21 century physics" ?
3. What is your "simple derivation" of Enstein-1911 ?
3'. Where is the mistake in my derivation of anti-Einstein-1911 ?
4. Are equations (11.73) of http://isites.harvard.edu/fs/docs/icb.topic192578.files/chap11.pdf
correct, for any value of $V$ ?
You already gave up 7 times to answer them:
http://groups.google.fr/group/fr.sci.physique/browse_thread/thread/3f176de9c1bb81ab/298c07d03bfd85ca?show_docid=298c07d03bfd85ca&
http://groups.google.fr/group/fr.sci.physique/browse_thread/thread/f9d3fe3b6c2626f8/defdc42e9464510a?show_docid=defdc42e9464510a
http://groups.google.fr/group/fr.sci.physique/browse_thread/thread/dcb5ccb45525e0ac/3e8d684e9b8d7306?hl=fr&
http://groups.google.fr/group/fr.sci.physique/browse_thread/thread/c87197498ff1f4c6/bc41aed26491b359?show_docid=bc41aed26491b359
http://groups.google.fr/group/fr.sci.physique/browse_thread/thread/2bb34dae37cda3d3/fd4ee0e291b1760d?show_docid=fd4ee0e291b1760d
http://groups.google.fr/group/fr.sci.physique/browse_thread/thread/dc9dce22bcf708e9/5f4a7c7121f36f7c?show_docid=5f4a7c7121f36f7c
http://groups.google.fr/group/fr.sci.physique/browse_thread/thread/cc0a6fed33f71c0c/a4f6b375a7904ef2?show_docid=a4f6b375a7904ef
Laurent
Johnnie In The Billows
Traveler
No they don't. You crackpots and con artists are making this shit up.
You cannot be trusted. Gravity works as if it is instantaneous,
period. This is why Newtonian gravity works. Newtonian gravity only
needs a minor correction for clock slowing and an adjustment for the
speed of light when taking optical measurements of distant objects.
There is no gravitational wave propagation for the same reason that
there is no electrostatic wave propagation. Both gravity and
electrostatic charges are nonlocal instantaneous phenomena.
Deny if you kiss ass for a living. LOL.
Spaceman
It is pretty sad that they love to ignore simple and factual reasons
for stuff they wish does not happen to further support the rubber ruler
clan.
:)
They simply can't get if something is "there" already,
why would it take any time to get there.
It is as silly as me asking how fast can I get to
The Earth while I am sitting here on Earth all along.
:)
--
James M Driscoll Jr
Creator of the Clock Malfunction Theory
Spaceman
Eric Gisse
> On Sat, 2 Aug 2008 03:50:48 -0700 (PDT), Eric Gisse
>
>
>
> <jowr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >On Aug 1, 4:39 pm, Traveler <noasskiss...@nowhere.net> wrote:
> >> Gravitational Wave Theory Takes Another Kick in the Teeth:http://www.astroengine.com/?p=565
>
> >> The conclusion is obvious to anybody who does not kiss ass for a
> >> living. Gravity does not propagate at the speed of light as Einstein
> >> and his followers predict. Gravity is a universal,
> >> quasi-instantaneous, non-local, energy conservation phenomenon. No
> >> gravitational waves simply means that the general theory of relativity
> >> is falsified. ahahaha...
>
> >> Louis Savain
>
> >> Rebel Science News:http://rebelscience.blogspot.com/
>
> >Explain why binary systems decay as if gravitational radiation is real.
>
> No they don't. You crackpots and con artists are making this shit up.
http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/physics/laureates/1993/press.html
You are going to have to do better than denial.
> You cannot be trusted. Gravity works as if it is instantaneous,
No, it does not.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/10/071003130816.htm
> period. This is why Newtonian gravity works. Newtonian gravity only
Newtonian gravity does not work.
http://www.mathpages.com/rr/s6-02/6-02.htm
> needs a minor correction for clock slowing and an adjustment for the
> speed of light when taking optical measurements of distant objects.
Abberation effects are well known and completely irrelevant, Louis.
> There is no gravitational wave propagation for the same reason that
> there is no electrostatic wave propagation. Both gravity and
> electrostatic charges are nonlocal instantaneous phenomena.
Did you just deny the existence of electromagnetic waves?
>
> Deny if you kiss ass for a living. LOL.
Shut the fuck up if you troll for a living?
Ian Parker
invariant. Likewise the gravitational field contains "magnetic"
components. We should not however be too simplistic in our parallels.
Gravitation is quadrupolar, electromagnetism is dipolar. This results
from the way in which the gravitational differential equations work.
Energy can only be lost when we radiate something viz - gravitational
waves. No energy can be lost if gravity is instantaneous. The graviton
BTW like the photon travells at c.
- Ian Parker
Traveler
Poppycock and hogwash! LOL. MAGNETIC waves propagates. Nobody, I
repeat, NOBODY has ever measured the speed of an electrostatic charge.
I predict it will be found to be instantaneous when someone actually
and finally performs the experiment. The graviton is merely a figment
of your crackpot imagination, just like dark matter, time travel and
all that other jazz. ahahaha...
Eric Gisse
More.
Traveler
<jow...@gmail.com> wrote:
[crap deleted]
>Shut the fuck up if you troll for a living?
Fuck you, Gisse. You are chicken shit. You have no control over
freedom of expression on usenet, jackass. If this little fact bothers
you, you can always jump up and down and foam at the mouth like an
organ grinder monkey. LOL.
Eric Gisse
> On Sat, 2 Aug 2008 08:25:44 -0700 (PDT), Eric Gisse
>
>
> [crap deleted]
>
> >Shut the fuck up if you troll for a living?
>
> Fuck you, Gisse. You are chicken shit. You have no control over
> freedom of expression on usenet, jackass. If this little fact bothers
> you, you can always jump up and down and foam at the mouth like an
> organ grinder monkey. LOL.
Rather than respond to the evidence that disproves your silly denials,
you get all butthurt over this? I'm willing to bet you didn't even
read any of the links I gave you.
The degree of crying I'm seeing from you suggests I'm not far off the
mark in calling you a professional troll. Do you get paid hourly? How
are the benefits? Do you still troll Slashdot with your idiocies, or
have you moved on to more receptive pastures for your ignorant
whining?
Sam Wormley
> Gravitational Wave Theory Takes Another Kick in the Teeth:
> http://www.astroengine.com/?p=565
>
> The conclusion is obvious to anybody who does not kiss ass for a
> living. Gravity does not propagate at the speed of light as Einstein
> and his followers predict. Gravity is a universal,
> quasi-instantaneous, non-local, energy conservation phenomenon. No
> gravitational waves simply means that the general theory of relativity
> is falsified. ahahaha...
Fooling yourself again, Savain (the pain of disdain)?
Traveler
<jow...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Aug 2, 7:46 am, Traveler <noasskiss...@nowhere.net> wrote:
>> On Sat, 2 Aug 2008 08:25:44 -0700 (PDT), Eric Gisse
>>
>> <jowr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> [crap deleted]
>>
>> >Shut the fuck up if you troll for a living?
>>
>> Fuck you, Gisse. You are chicken shit. You have no control over
>> freedom of expression on usenet, jackass. If this little fact bothers
>> you, you can always jump up and down and foam at the mouth like an
>> organ grinder monkey. LOL.
>
>Rather than respond to the evidence that disproves your silly denials,
>you get all butthurt over this? I'm willing to bet you didn't even
>read any of the links I gave you.
You have no evidence. Your interpretation of known observations is
faulty for the same reason that the Copenhagen interpretation of QM is
faulty. You morons are confusing electric with magnetic in order to
kiss your masters' asses, that is all. LOL.
>The degree of crying I'm seeing from you suggests I'm not far off the
>mark in calling you a professional troll. Do you get paid hourly? How
>are the benefits? Do you still troll Slashdot with your idiocies, or
>have you moved on to more receptive pastures for your ignorant
>whining?
Who's crying? You don't see me crying. Unlike you assholes who con the
public out of their money, I do this for fun. I enjoy rubbing your
nose in your own shit. ahahaha...
Lempel
Normal, il a bu de l'eau de Mars.
Au revoir.
Bernard Lempel
http://lempel.net
"Johnnie In The Billows" <bright...@yahoo.co.uk> a écrit dans le message
de news:
4f878644-8193-4cc7...@x41g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
Traveler
wrote:
>Traveler wrote:
>> Gravitational Wave Theory Takes Another Kick in the Teeth:
>> http://www.astroengine.com/?p=565
>>
>> The conclusion is obvious to anybody who does not kiss ass for a
>> living. Gravity does not propagate at the speed of light as Einstein
>> and his followers predict. Gravity is a universal,
>> quasi-instantaneous, non-local, energy conservation phenomenon. No
>> gravitational waves simply means that the general theory of relativity
>> is falsified. ahahaha...
>
> Fooling yourself again, Savain (the pain of disdain)?
ahahaha... Samantha the Bard. That IS funny.
BTW, I could have sworn I was in your kill file, Samantha. What
happened? Oh, I know. No gravity waves even after decades and a
shitload of the taxpayer's money spent on worthless experiments in
order to promote your little chicken shit religion. ahahaha...
Matthew Johnson
[snip]
>Do you still troll Slashdot with your idiocies, or
>>have you moved on to more receptive pastures for your ignorant
>>whining?
Here's where we can see how confused you are: there is no place more receptive
to 'idiocies' than Slashdot;)
Matthew Johnson
>
>Traveler wrote:
>> Gravitational Wave Theory Takes Another Kick in the Teeth:
>> http://www.astroengine.com/?p=565
>>
>> The conclusion is obvious to anybody who does not kiss ass for a
>> living. Gravity does not propagate at the speed of light as Einstein
>> and his followers predict. Gravity is a universal,
>> quasi-instantaneous, non-local, energy conservation phenomenon. No
>> gravitational waves simply means that the general theory of relativity
>> is falsified. ahahaha...
>
> Fooling yourself again, Savain (the pain of disdain)?
Well, he might as well fool himself. WIth his approach, he won't be able to fool
anyone else;)
"Quasi-instantaneous" indeed!
Traveler
<matthew...@newsguy.org> wrote:
Well, Matthew, I know. Just like Gisse and Wormley here, the Slashdot
crowd believes in time travel, dark matter, black holes, wormholes,
big bang, half-dead cats and all that other nonsense. It's
entertaining to watch them squirm when I make fun of their favorite
idols (e.g., Stephen Hawking, David Deutsch, etc.). ahahaha...
Eric Gisse
> On Sat, 2 Aug 2008 08:53:22 -0700 (PDT), Eric Gisse
>
>
>
> <jowr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >On Aug 2, 7:46 am, Traveler <noasskiss...@nowhere.net> wrote:
> >> On Sat, 2 Aug 2008 08:25:44 -0700 (PDT), Eric Gisse
>
> >> <jowr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> [crap deleted]
>
> >> >Shut the fuck up if you troll for a living?
>
> >> Fuck you, Gisse. You are chicken shit. You have no control over
> >> freedom of expression on usenet, jackass. If this little fact bothers
> >> you, you can always jump up and down and foam at the mouth like an
> >> organ grinder monkey. LOL.
>
> >Rather than respond to the evidence that disproves your silly denials,
> >you get all butthurt over this? I'm willing to bet you didn't even
> >read any of the links I gave you.
>
> You have no evidence. Your interpretation of known observations is
> faulty for the same reason that the Copenhagen interpretation of QM is
> faulty. You morons are confusing electric with magnetic in order to
> kiss your masters' asses, that is all. LOL.
Ok Louis, why does PSR 1913+16 behave exactly according to how GR
predicts?
You made the claim that gravitational radiation doesn't exist, try to
stay on topic instead of running off on a tangent to whine about more
things you don't understand.
>
> >The degree of crying I'm seeing from you suggests I'm not far off the
> >mark in calling you a professional troll. Do you get paid hourly? How
> >are the benefits? Do you still troll Slashdot with your idiocies, or
> >have you moved on to more receptive pastures for your ignorant
> >whining?
>
> Who's crying? You don't see me crying. Unlike you assholes who con the
> public out of their money, I do this for fun. I enjoy rubbing your
> nose in your own shit. ahahaha...
Pissing on skyscrapers, Louis.
Traveler
Listen here, jackass. You are the one who needs to answer why
gravitational waves have never been detected. And it's not for the
lack of trying. PSR 1913+16 is not proof that gravitational waves
exist, otherwise you assholes would not still be conducting
experiments to find the non-existent waves. It's just proof of a
simple inverse square relationship and I bet you it can all be worked
out in Newtonian gravity.
Why are there no damn gravity waves propagating at c all over the
fucking place? Answer the fucking question, you dumbass. ahahaha...
>> >The degree of crying I'm seeing from you suggests I'm not far off the
>> >mark in calling you a professional troll. Do you get paid hourly? How
>> >are the benefits? Do you still troll Slashdot with your idiocies, or
>> >have you moved on to more receptive pastures for your ignorant
>> >whining?
>>
>> Who's crying? You don't see me crying. Unlike you assholes who con the
>> public out of their money, I do this for fun. I enjoy rubbing your
>> nose in your own shit. ahahaha...
>
>Pissing on skyscrapers, Louis.
Nope. I'm pissing on your head. LOL.
Sam Wormley
<laughing> Squirming!? <laughing>
Eric Gisse
> On Sat, 2 Aug 2008 10:11:42 -0700 (PDT), Eric Gisse
>
>
>
Simple - the strain sensitivity isn't there yet, and the data from
LIGO at its' design sensitivity isn't completely analyzed yet - the
latest complete analysis was from S4, a solid order of magnitude
weaker in sensitivity than the S5 run. All you read is "haven't found
anything yet" and you do your little dance about how gravitational
waves don't exist.
You approach this from the dishonest crank angle - you don't care that
parameter space gets excluded or that there are a thousand different
models for neutron star / black hole collisions or supernovae. All you
care about is that your limited little worldview is held up and that
makes you think you can piss all over science, because that's the only
thing you have in your life anymore.
> PSR 1913+16 is not proof that gravitational waves
> exist, otherwise you assholes would not still be conducting
> experiments to find the non-existent waves.
Uh, its' pretty conclusive. The orbital decay rate is exactly as
predicted by GR.
People are looking because a) We want a direct confirmation and b)
Gravitational wave astronomy is a whole new way of looking at the
universe.
Why don't you shut the fuck up and leave science to the scientists? If
you are going to call folks names because they are doing research you
disagree with, you might as well fuck right off and never return
because you will never EVER be happy.
> It's just proof of a
> simple inverse square relationship and I bet you it can all be worked
> out in Newtonian gravity.
Where's the analysis, Louis? Hmm?
I love the double standard. The exact power loss of the system has
been calculated from GR and observation matches it, and you think it
means nothing. However you got your little idiotic half-assed half-
thought idea about "inverse square relationship" which you haven't the
faintest fucking clue as to what it means, and you don't even have an
analysis. But you think its "proof" regardless.
>
> Why are there no damn gravity waves propagating at c all over the
> fucking place? Answer the fucking question, you dumbass. ahahaha...
Science owes you nothing. Read the literature or remain ignorant.
Find another skyscraper to piss on.
Traveler
wrote:
>Traveler wrote:
ahahaha... You're squirming now, ain't you, Samantha? Every time I
post something on Slashdot to show that, contrary to what a lot of the
famous crackpot physicists (such as quantum computing con man David
Deutsch and the little guy in the wheelchair) claim, nothing can move
in spacetime, the ass-kissing and politically correct Slashdot crowd
gets righteously indignant. It's fun to watch. You know it, Samantha,
because you're one of them. ahahaha... AHAHAHA... ahahaha...
Traveler
Actually, you con artists are probably happy when you can't find your
gravity waves. It just means you need to steal more fucking money from
the taxpayer's pocket. ahahaha...
>You approach this from the dishonest crank angle - you don't care that
>parameter space gets excluded or that there are a thousand different
>models for neutron star / black hole collisions or supernovae. All you
>care about is that your limited little worldview is held up and that
>makes you think you can piss all over science, because that's the only
>thing you have in your life anymore.
Nope. I just don't like to see the public being fleeced by a bunch of
con artists, that's all.
>> PSR 1913+16 is not proof that gravitational waves
>> exist, otherwise you assholes would not still be conducting
>> experiments to find the non-existent waves.
>
>Uh, its' pretty conclusive. The orbital decay rate is exactly as
>predicted by GR.
So fucking what? That does not prove gravitational waves. GR resolves
to Newtonian gravity at non-relativistisc speeds anyway. So, big
fucking deal!
>People are looking because a) We want a direct confirmation and b)
>Gravitational wave astronomy is a whole new way of looking at the
>universe.
>
>Why don't you shut the fuck up and leave science to the scientists? If
>you are going to call folks names because they are doing research you
>disagree with, you might as well fuck right off and never return
>because you will never EVER be happy.
Why don't you fucking kiss my ass? You con artists in the physics
community are like foxes in charge of the chicken coop. There is no
fucking oversight because you have appointed yourselves as the
overseers. Somebody needs to tell the public that you are stealing
their money to play your chicken shit games while providing nothing
worthwhile in return.
>> It's just proof of a
>> simple inverse square relationship and I bet you it can all be worked
>> out in Newtonian gravity.
>
>Where's the analysis, Louis? Hmm?
>
>I love the double standard. The exact power loss of the system has
>been calculated from GR and observation matches it, and you think it
>means nothing. However you got your little idiotic half-assed half-
>thought idea about "inverse square relationship" which you haven't the
>faintest fucking clue as to what it means, and you don't even have an
>analysis. But you think its "proof" regardless.
Yes, I do think it's proof. Newtonian gravity can explain it for the
same reason that Newtonian gravity explains the decay of the Moon's
orbit around the earth.
>> Why are there no damn gravity waves propagating at c all over the
>> fucking place? Answer the fucking question, you dumbass. ahahaha...
>
>Science owes you nothing. Read the literature or remain ignorant.
You are not science, Gisse. You and your kind are a bunch of con
artists and crackpots. BTW, Erica, do you believe that there is motion
in spacetime like that little con artist in the wheelchair? LOL.
>Find another skyscraper to piss on.
I'm pissing on your head, Gisse. I'm pissing on your little pointy
propeller head. ahahaha...
Dirk Van de moortel
3af6917a-9f18-48c0...@27g2000hsf.googlegroups.com
> mmmm ... What about the following questions that arise when you try to
> explain your opinion ?
[snip]
Would you mind including some reference to whom and to which
part of a message you are responding to in your messages?
Part of some usenet FAQ:
"If you are replying to another post, please be sure to cut out all
irrelevant text, and to make every effort to ensure that it is clear
who said what. It may be advisable to lurk here for a while to
see how experienced posters accomplish this"
(In this case I have cut out almost everything you wrote, since my
request is not related to the context of your message.)
Thanks,
Dirk Vdm
moky
> [snip]
>
> Would you mind including some reference to whom and to which
> part of a message you are responding to in your messages?
I assume that, if I asked the initial poster to explain why is it wast
of money, the resulting conversation would finish on one or several of
the questions I posted.
As the link that I gave show, I have strong experimental evidences
supporting my assumption.
Anyway, you are right : I was too rapid on this one. Sorry for the
unconvenience.
Have a good day
Laurent
Sue...
Traveler wrote:
>
> Why are there no gravity waves propagating at c all over the
> place? .
There may be. Listen.. Hisssssssssss:
http://www.cv.nrao.edu/course/astr534/images/HolmdelHorn.jpg
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Induced_gravity
http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0107015
Sue...
>
> Louis Savain
>
Eric Gisse
[snip]
> Actually, you con artists are probably happy when you can't find your
> gravity waves. It just means you need to steal more fucking money from
> the taxpayer's pocket. ahahaha...
Since you are so sure scientists are stealing your money, it should be
easy to show how the money is being stolen. The budgets and grants are
open. LIGO operates under a NSF grant - have you requested any
information on it, or do you just sit here and complain?
>
> >You approach this from the dishonest crank angle - you don't care that
> >parameter space gets excluded or that there are a thousand different
> >models for neutron star / black hole collisions or supernovae. All you
> >care about is that your limited little worldview is held up and that
> >makes you think you can piss all over science, because that's the only
> >thing you have in your life anymore.
>
> Nope. I just don't like to see the public being fleeced by a bunch of
> con artists, that's all.
No argument, just appeals to emotions. "They are stealing our money!"
How do you know, Louis? Did you go over the books? Do you see
scientists driving Lambourghinis? Or do you simply see the apparently-
large amount of money sunk into something you don't understand and
think it is fraud?
>
> >> PSR 1913+16 is not proof that gravitational waves
> >> exist, otherwise you assholes would not still be conducting
> >> experiments to find the non-existent waves.
>
> >Uh, its' pretty conclusive. The orbital decay rate is exactly as
> >predicted by GR.
>
> So fucking what? That does not prove gravitational waves.
Why not? If a system loses energy in a manner consistent with what GR
says is gravitational radiation, why isn't it gravitational
radiation?
> GR resolves
> to Newtonian gravity at non-relativistisc speeds anyway. So, big
> fucking deal!
No Louis, there are differences - like gravitational radiation. Open a
textbook on the subject, Louis. The analysis is there for you to pick
at, but that requires personal effort that far surpasses what it takes
for you to whine on USENET.
Are you going to open up a textbook and see why you are wrong, or are
you going to continue to complain?
>
> >People are looking because a) We want a direct confirmation and b)
> >Gravitational wave astronomy is a whole new way of looking at the
> >universe.
>
> >Why don't you shut the fuck up and leave science to the scientists? If
> >you are going to call folks names because they are doing research you
> >disagree with, you might as well fuck right off and never return
> >because you will never EVER be happy.
>
> Why don't you fucking kiss my ass? You con artists in the physics
> community are like foxes in charge of the chicken coop. There is no
> fucking oversight because you have appointed yourselves as the
> overseers.
Who do you think cuts the checks, Louis? For federal funding, a lot of
it comes from the NSF. Who reports to congress. Is that not enough
oversight, or do you now imagine a conspiracy to funnel what amounts
to a very small amount of money compared to what the military has put
in cash form and _lost_ in Iraq?
> Somebody needs to tell the public that you are stealing
> their money to play your chicken shit games while providing nothing
> worthwhile in return.
If you actually believe what you are saying, why are you sitting on
your butt whining to USENET? Do something about it!
What are you going to tell the people who bother to pay attention to
you when they ask you how you know scientists are stealing their
money? Are you seriously going to point to LIGO - which has reached
its design sensitivity - as the major case?
>
> >> It's just proof of a
> >> simple inverse square relationship and I bet you it can all be worked
> >> out in Newtonian gravity.
>
> >Where's the analysis, Louis? Hmm?
>
> >I love the double standard. The exact power loss of the system has
> >been calculated from GR and observation matches it, and you think it
> >means nothing. However you got your little idiotic half-assed half-
> >thought idea about "inverse square relationship" which you haven't the
> >faintest fucking clue as to what it means, and you don't even have an
> >analysis. But you think its "proof" regardless.
>
> Yes, I do think it's proof. Newtonian gravity can explain it for the
> same reason that Newtonian gravity explains the decay of the Moon's
> orbit around the earth.
Its' easy to make the claim - show us the math. Let's see the
analysis, Louis.
Why haven't you written and published a paper on how Newtonian
gravitation explaines it all?
>
> >> Why are there no damn gravity waves propagating at c all over the
> >> fucking place? Answer the fucking question, you dumbass. ahahaha...
>
> >Science owes you nothing. Read the literature or remain ignorant.
>
> You are not science, Gisse. You and your kind are a bunch of con
> artists and crackpots. BTW, Erica, do you believe that there is motion
> in spacetime like that little con artist in the wheelchair? LOL.
You sound oh so jealous. Did you flunk out of intro physics when you
were trying to get a compsci degree?
PD
> Gravitational Wave Theory Takes Another Kick in the Teeth:http://www.astroengine.com/?p=565
>
> The conclusion is obvious to anybody who does not kiss ass for a
> living. Gravity does not propagate at the speed of light as Einstein
> and his followers predict. Gravity is a universal,
> quasi-instantaneous, non-local, energy conservation phenomenon. No
> gravitational waves simply means that the general theory of relativity
Waste a lot of other people's money, compared to what?
Compared to government tobacco subsidies?
Compared to the International Space Station?
Compared to military activities in the Middle East?
Compared to building bridges to nowhere in Alaska?
Compared to government funding of NSA's capture of ALL internet
traffic?
Compared to government funding of clean-up of oil spilled by private
companies, and toxic waste dumps created by private companies?
Compared to government funding of nuclear weapon research, which is
then sold to our Friend of the Month abroad, only for it to bite us in
the butt a decade later?
Compared to government funding of the incarceration of adult
recreational users of marijuana?
Compared to government funding of farmers to NOT plant crops in their
fields?
Shouldn't you be whining about other more pressing wastes of other
people's money? I mean, you're devoting an awful lot of attention to a
drop in the bucket. Is there something else about this particular drop
that is bothersome to you, that you don't want to admit?
PD
PD
> On Sat, 2 Aug 2008 08:25:44 -0700 (PDT), Eric Gisse
>
>
> [crap deleted]
>
> >Shut the fuck up if you troll for a living?
>
> Fuck you, Gisse. You are chicken shit. You have no control over
> freedom of expression on usenet, jackass. If this little fact bothers
> you, you can always jump up and down and foam at the mouth like an
> organ grinder monkey. LOL.
You are certainly free to loudly broadcast whatever asinine horseshit
you want to, Louis.
And the rest of us are free to mock you for the asininity of it.
Personally, it doesn't bother me at all that you post this kind of
stuff. I can use several good laughs a day, including the one I'm
going to have when you reply with the entirely predictable....
Wait for it....
Wait for it....
Dirk Van de moortel
b48813d2-7a7c-430c...@i76g2000hsf.googlegroups.com
He is in horror now.
Should he reply in his entirely predictable way?
Should he reply in some new unpredictable way?
Should he refrain from replying at all and make you
wait forever? Does he think you might expect him
to do that? *Should* he think that?
Either way, you managed to do the impossible, which is to
Have Some Kind of Measurable Influence on Louis Savain's
Behaviour, i.o.w. HORROR!
Well done :-)
Dirk Vdm
Eric Gisse
SperM.hotmail.com> wrote:
[snip]
> Either way, you managed to do the impossible, which is to
> Have Some Kind of Measurable Influence on Louis Savain's
> Behaviour, i.o.w. HORROR!
>
> Well done :-)
>
> Dirk Vdm
Not without precedent. I choose to believe that this newsgroup pushed
Androcles' mind right off the cliff.
Traveler
ahahahaa... Van de merde, are you still trying to hide the fact that
you're a homosexual? PD is a family man, you know that. Leave him
alone, goddamnit! But then again, maybe PD stands for pederast. Or is
it pedophile? One never knows, does one? ahahaha... AHAHAHA...
ahahaha...
At any rate, va te faire enculer, espèce d'enfoiré. ahahaha...
Sue...
Maybe if the Dork and the Apostile Paul practice on
these:
http://www.cut-the-knot.org/impossible/brothers.shtml
http://barryispuzzled.com/zmonty
they will develop enough skill in maths to calculate
the odds that someone doesn't know their own identity.
But even if one of the two fools has predicted "traveler"s
next post, a mutual "well done" won't be in order.
Only PD has connections with the man upstairs
to divine that sort of information and mutual back patting
can't get in the way of that relationship.
http://www.quackwatch.com/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/pseudo.html
http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/cargocul.htm
Sue...
>
> Dirk Vdm
PD
> On Sat, 2 Aug 2008 22:21:45 +0200, "Dirk Van de moortel"
>
>
>
> >PD <TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> > b48813d2-7a7c-430c-8d5f-eae522ed6...@i76g2000hsf.googlegroups.com
BINGO! AAAAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
I've heard that reflex response to stimulus never even reaches the
brain. Here it is in action.
Ian Parker
> On Sat, 2 Aug 2008 08:30:47 -0700 (PDT), Ian Parker
>
>
>
>
>
> <ianpark...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >On 2 Aug, 15:56, Traveler <noasskiss...@nowhere.net> wrote:
> >> On Sat, 2 Aug 2008 03:50:48 -0700 (PDT), Eric Gisse
>
> >> <jowr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >On Aug 1, 4:39 pm, Traveler <noasskiss...@nowhere.net> wrote:
> >> >> Gravitational Wave Theory Takes Another Kick in the Teeth:http://www.astroengine.com/?p=565
>
> >> >> The conclusion is obvious to anybody who does not kiss ass for a
> >> >> living. Gravity does not propagate at the speed of light as Einstein
> >> >> and his followers predict. Gravity is a universal,
> >> >> quasi-instantaneous, non-local, energy conservation phenomenon. No
> >> >> gravitational waves simply means that the general theory of relativity
>
> >> No they don't. You crackpots and con artists are making this shit up.
> >> You cannot be trusted. Gravity works as if it is instantaneous,
> >> period. This is why Newtonian gravity works. Newtonian gravity only
> >> needs a minor correction for clock slowing and an adjustment for the
> >> speed of light when taking optical measurements of distant objects.
> >> There is no gravitational wave propagation for the same reason that
> >> there is no electrostatic wave propagation. Both gravity and
> >> electrostatic charges are nonlocal instantaneous phenomena.
>
> >> Deny if you kiss ass for a living. LOL.
>
> >Drivel! We have an ELECTROMAGNETIC fileld which is relativistically
> >invariant. Likewise the gravitational field contains "magnetic"
> >components. We should not however be too simplistic in our parallels.
> >Gravitation is quadrupolar, electromagnetism is dipolar. This results
> >from the way in which the gravitational differential equations work.
>
> >Energy can only be lost when we radiate something viz - gravitational
> >waves. No energy can be lost if gravity is instantaneous. The graviton
> >BTW like the photon travells at c.
>
> Poppycock and hogwash! LOL. MAGNETIC waves propagates. Nobody, I
> repeat, NOBODY has ever measured the speed of an electrostatic charge.
> I predict it will be found to be instantaneous when someone actually
> and finally performs the experiment. The graviton is merely a figment
> of your crackpot imagination, just like dark matter, time travel and
> all that other jazz. ahahaha...
>
Look its very simple. If you travel through an electric field you see
a magnetic field and vice versa. A dynamo produces power in this way.
What is not so obvious classically is the magnetism produced as you
travel though an electric field.
Its all a matter of the Frame of Reference of the field. Maxwell's
equations are relativistically invariant as they stand.
- Ian Parker
Traveler
<jow...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Aug 2, 10:26 am, Traveler <noasskiss...@nowhere.net> wrote:
>[snip]
>
>> Actually, you con artists are probably happy when you can't find your
>> gravity waves. It just means you need to steal more fucking money from
>> the taxpayer's pocket. ahahaha...
>
>Since you are so sure scientists are stealing your money, it should be
>easy to show how the money is being stolen. The budgets and grants are
>open. LIGO operates under a NSF grant - have you requested any
>information on it, or do you just sit here and complain?
ahahaha... The NSF is run by the thieves themselves. Some idiot at NSF
once got offended because I dared to insinuate that qunatum computing
is a hoax and a scam. I challenged the asshole to sue me. He chickened
out.
>> >You approach this from the dishonest crank angle - you don't care that
>> >parameter space gets excluded or that there are a thousand different
>> >models for neutron star / black hole collisions or supernovae. All you
>> >care about is that your limited little worldview is held up and that
>> >makes you think you can piss all over science, because that's the only
>> >thing you have in your life anymore.
>>
>> Nope. I just don't like to see the public being fleeced by a bunch of
>> con artists, that's all.
>
>No argument, just appeals to emotions. "They are stealing our money!"
Yes, they are. In plain sight.
>How do you know, Louis? Did you go over the books? Do you see
>scientists driving Lambourghinis? Or do you simply see the apparently-
>large amount of money sunk into something you don't understand and
>think it is fraud?
Anybody spending money to find gravity waves or build a quantum
computer is stealing the public's money. I don't need to go over any
fucking books to explain why. You assholes don't understand the
mechanism of gravity. You just act like you do but you are as clueless
as everybody else.
>> >> PSR 1913+16 is not proof that gravitational waves
>> >> exist, otherwise you assholes would not still be conducting
>> >> experiments to find the non-existent waves.
>>
>> >Uh, its' pretty conclusive. The orbital decay rate is exactly as
>> >predicted by GR.
>>
>> So fucking what? That does not prove gravitational waves.
>
>Why not? If a system loses energy in a manner consistent with what GR
>says is gravitational radiation, why isn't it gravitational
>radiation?
Bullshit. You don't know that. You are just guessing it's
gravitational radiation. Just like you're guessing that most of the
matter in the universe is missing and that the universe is expanding
at an accelerating rate. It's all crap. It's not the universe that
must conform to your chicken shit theory. It's the other way around.
>> GR resolves
>> to Newtonian gravity at non-relativistisc speeds anyway. So, big
>> fucking deal!
>
>No Louis, there are differences - like gravitational radiation. Open a
>textbook on the subject, Louis. The analysis is there for you to pick
>at, but that requires personal effort that far surpasses what it takes
>for you to whine on USENET.
>
>Are you going to open up a textbook and see why you are wrong, or are
>you going to continue to complain?
Fuck you, you pompous asshole. Why don't you pack your books up your
ass and see if I care? Once an ass kisser, always an ass kisser. LOL.
>> >People are looking because a) We want a direct confirmation and b)
>> >Gravitational wave astronomy is a whole new way of looking at the
>> >universe.
>>
>> >Why don't you shut the fuck up and leave science to the scientists? If
>> >you are going to call folks names because they are doing research you
>> >disagree with, you might as well fuck right off and never return
>> >because you will never EVER be happy.
>>
>> Why don't you fucking kiss my ass? You con artists in the physics
>> community are like foxes in charge of the chicken coop. There is no
>> fucking oversight because you have appointed yourselves as the
>> overseers.
>
>Who do you think cuts the checks, Louis? For federal funding, a lot of
>it comes from the NSF. Who reports to congress. Is that not enough
>oversight, or do you now imagine a conspiracy to funnel what amounts
>to a very small amount of money compared to what the military has put
>in cash form and _lost_ in Iraq?
The NSF are the crooks and the crackpots. LOL.
>> Somebody needs to tell the public that you are stealing
>> their money to play your chicken shit games while providing nothing
>> worthwhile in return.
>
>If you actually believe what you are saying, why are you sitting on
>your butt whining to USENET? Do something about it!
>
>What are you going to tell the people who bother to pay attention to
>you when they ask you how you know scientists are stealing their
>money? Are you seriously going to point to LIGO - which has reached
>its design sensitivity - as the major case?
No. I am going to point out that most of the famous relativists in the
world (Kip Thorne, Stephen Hawking, David Deutsche) don't understand
their own theory and still talk about the feasibility of time travel
even thought spacetime forbid motion in spacetime. They can't deny it
because they're on the record. I noticed that John Baez used to claim
the same thing but after I put a link to it out on my site, he quietly
took down the reference. ahahaha...
I am going to point out that relativity predicts that everything
propagates at c but nobody has bothered to conduct an experiment to
prove that the electrostatic gradient propagates at c. It should be a
simple enough experiment, much cheaper than looking for non-existent
gravity waves.
>> >> It's just proof of a
>> >> simple inverse square relationship and I bet you it can all be worked
>> >> out in Newtonian gravity.
>>
>> >Where's the analysis, Louis? Hmm?
>>
>> >I love the double standard. The exact power loss of the system has
>> >been calculated from GR and observation matches it, and you think it
>> >means nothing. However you got your little idiotic half-assed half-
>> >thought idea about "inverse square relationship" which you haven't the
>> >faintest fucking clue as to what it means, and you don't even have an
>> >analysis. But you think its "proof" regardless.
>>
>> Yes, I do think it's proof. Newtonian gravity can explain it for the
>> same reason that Newtonian gravity explains the decay of the Moon's
>> orbit around the earth.
>
>Its' easy to make the claim - show us the math. Let's see the
>analysis, Louis.
>
>Why haven't you written and published a paper on how Newtonian
>gravitation explaines it all?
All orbit decays (and changes in rotational speeds) are explainable by
assuming tidal friction and similar mechanisms. It is that simple.
There is no need to wave a mathematical wand to explain it. Just
because you observe orbit decay does not mean that it's because GR is
right. Anybody can futz with equations to make data agree with theory.
Especially when you are a con artist.
>> >> Why are there no damn gravity waves propagating at c all over the
>> >> fucking place? Answer the fucking question, you dumbass. ahahaha...
>>
>> >Science owes you nothing. Read the literature or remain ignorant.
>>
>> You are not science, Gisse. You and your kind are a bunch of con
>> artists and crackpots. BTW, Erica, do you believe that there is motion
>> in spacetime like that little con artist in the wheelchair? LOL.
>
>You sound oh so jealous. Did you flunk out of intro physics when you
>were trying to get a compsci degree?
Answer the question, goddmnit! Do you believe that we are moving in
spacetime toward the future, yes or no? Hawking believes that we are.
Don't chicken out. ahahaha... AHAHAHA... ahahaha...
Traveler
You like that, don't you PD? LOL.
PD
You bet. You're funny as hell. That's why I laugh.
PD
Sue...
Is that so?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiple_integral#Some_practical_applications
Time-dependent Maxwell's equations
http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/em/lectures/node50.html
Sue...
> A dynamo produces power in this way.
> What is not so obvious classically is the magnetism produced as you
> travel though an electric field.
Yep... That nastly triple integral IS well hidden.
How do they do that?
>
> Its all a matter of the Frame of Reference of the field. Maxwell's
> equations are relativistically invariant as they stand.
<<While the modern Maxwell's equations describe how
electrically charged particles and objects give rise to
electric and magnetic fields, the Lorentz force law
completes that picture by describing the force acting
on a moving point charge q in the presence of
electromagnetic fields. The Lorentz force law
describes the effect of E and B upon a point charge,
but such electromagnetic forces are not the
entire picture. >>
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lorentz_force
Sue...
>
>
> - Ian Parker
Dirk Van de moortel
a580bac2-bef9-4f9b...@w39g2000prb.googlegroups.com
... which is exactly where it belongs :-)
Dirk Vdm
Traveler
Nah. You hate the fact that I refuse to engage you in a discussion. So
you try to turn it around by creating a strawman that you can wrestle
to the ground so you can claim a personal victory. You are beginning
to act like van de Merde and showing your homosexual tendencies, PD.
Eric Gisse
> On Sat, 2 Aug 2008 12:48:24 -0700 (PDT), Eric Gisse
>
> >On Aug 2, 10:26 am, Traveler <noasskiss...@nowhere.net> wrote:
> >[snip]
>
> >> Actually, you con artists are probably happy when you can't find your
> >> gravity waves. It just means you need to steal more fucking money from
> >> the taxpayer's pocket. ahahaha...
>
> >Since you are so sure scientists are stealing your money, it should be
> >easy to show how the money is being stolen. The budgets and grants are
> >open. LIGO operates under a NSF grant - have you requested any
> >information on it, or do you just sit here and complain?
>
> ahahaha... The NSF is run by the thieves themselves. Some idiot at NSF
> once got offended because I dared to insinuate that qunatum computing
> is a hoax and a scam. I challenged the asshole to sue me. He chickened
> out.
Since you are so sure there are so many scams, pick the easiest and
file a lawsuit in federal court. You can even do it pro se if you
wanted - you have ample free time and anger on your side.
>
> >> >You approach this from the dishonest crank angle - you don't care that
> >> >parameter space gets excluded or that there are a thousand different
> >> >models for neutron star / black hole collisions or supernovae. All you
> >> >care about is that your limited little worldview is held up and that
> >> >makes you think you can piss all over science, because that's the only
> >> >thing you have in your life anymore.
>
> >> Nope. I just don't like to see the public being fleeced by a bunch of
> >> con artists, that's all.
>
> >No argument, just appeals to emotions. "They are stealing our money!"
>
> Yes, they are. In plain sight.
Since you are so sure, file a lawsuit.
>
> >How do you know, Louis? Did you go over the books? Do you see
> >scientists driving Lambourghinis? Or do you simply see the apparently-
> >large amount of money sunk into something you don't understand and
> >think it is fraud?
>
> Anybody spending money to find gravity waves or build a quantum
> computer is stealing the public's money. I don't need to go over any
> fucking books to explain why. You assholes don't understand the
> mechanism of gravity. You just act like you do but you are as clueless
> as everybody else.
Its' stealing because they don't have your personal private knowledge
that you have never published anywhere except maybe on USENET? In
that case, I refer to my previous question: How do you know?
Since you are a programmer by trade, you are not an active researcher
in the field. Where did you gain your insights, and why have they
eluded the experts in the field? Since you are so sure of the veracity
of your insights, why are you hiding them from the rest of science?
Why don't you expose them to the same scrutiny the rest of the
scientists have to pass through?
>
> >> >> PSR 1913+16 is not proof that gravitational waves
> >> >> exist, otherwise you assholes would not still be conducting
> >> >> experiments to find the non-existent waves.
>
> >> >Uh, its' pretty conclusive. The orbital decay rate is exactly as
> >> >predicted by GR.
>
> >> So fucking what? That does not prove gravitational waves.
>
> >Why not? If a system loses energy in a manner consistent with what GR
> >says is gravitational radiation, why isn't it gravitational
> >radiation?
>
> Bullshit. You don't know that. You are just guessing it's
> gravitational radiation.
What definition of "guess" are you using here, Louis? General
relativity makes a very specific prediction for those conditions , and
observation confirms.
http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0407149
This is good enough to justify building LIGO - why do you disagree?
> Just like you're guessing that most of the
> matter in the universe is missing and that the universe is expanding
> at an accelerating rate. It's all crap. It's not the universe that
> must conform to your chicken shit theory. It's the other way around.
Why Louis, what makes you think we decided that the majority of the
mass-energy of the universe is electromagnetically transparent? What
we thought in the early 80's was _much_ simpler than it is now.
Put down the vitroil and read for a little while. You have the sum
knowledge of humanity at your fingertips - why can't you _read_ about
why scientists think what they think instead of making assumptions?
http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap060824.html
http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/print/19419
>
> >> GR resolves
> >> to Newtonian gravity at non-relativistisc speeds anyway. So, big
> >> fucking deal!
>
> >No Louis, there are differences - like gravitational radiation. Open a
> >textbook on the subject, Louis. The analysis is there for you to pick
> >at, but that requires personal effort that far surpasses what it takes
> >for you to whine on USENET.
>
> >Are you going to open up a textbook and see why you are wrong, or are
> >you going to continue to complain?
>
> Fuck you, you pompous asshole. Why don't you pack your books up your
> ass and see if I care? Once an ass kisser, always an ass kisser. LOL.
Louis, I know butt play gets you off but if you are going to make
silly assertions about what you do not understand you should expect to
be called out on them.
>
>
>
> >> >People are looking because a) We want a direct confirmation and b)
> >> >Gravitational wave astronomy is a whole new way of looking at the
> >> >universe.
>
> >> >Why don't you shut the fuck up and leave science to the scientists? If
> >> >you are going to call folks names because they are doing research you
> >> >disagree with, you might as well fuck right off and never return
> >> >because you will never EVER be happy.
>
> >> Why don't you fucking kiss my ass? You con artists in the physics
> >> community are like foxes in charge of the chicken coop. There is no
> >> fucking oversight because you have appointed yourselves as the
> >> overseers.
>
> >Who do you think cuts the checks, Louis? For federal funding, a lot of
> >it comes from the NSF. Who reports to congress. Is that not enough
> >oversight, or do you now imagine a conspiracy to funnel what amounts
> >to a very small amount of money compared to what the military has put
> >in cash form and _lost_ in Iraq?
>
> The NSF are the crooks and the crackpots. LOL.
Then prove it, and get the leadership gutted. Or are you afraid to put
your money where your mouth is?
Either you don't actually believe all of what you are saying, or you
are a coward who won't fight for what he truly believes. Which is it?
>
> >> Somebody needs to tell the public that you are stealing
> >> their money to play your chicken shit games while providing nothing
> >> worthwhile in return.
>
> >If you actually believe what you are saying, why are you sitting on
> >your butt whining to USENET? Do something about it!
>
> >What are you going to tell the people who bother to pay attention to
> >you when they ask you how you know scientists are stealing their
> >money? Are you seriously going to point to LIGO - which has reached
> >its design sensitivity - as the major case?
>
> No. I am going to point out that most of the famous relativists in the
> world (Kip Thorne, Stephen Hawking, David Deutsche) don't understand
> their own theory and still talk about the feasibility of time travel
> even thought spacetime forbid motion in spacetime.
In the court of public opinion:
* Kip Thorne: Professor at CalTech, PhD in Physics, one of the
coauthors of the seminal textbook on Gravitation.
* Stephen Hawking: Professor at Cambridge, PhD in Physics, holds the
same position Newton did when he was at Cambridge. Wrote a book about
science that held a place on the New York Times best seller list for
god knows how long.
* David Deutsche: Some guy.
vs
* Louis Savain: Fouthmouth computer programmer who claims that these
men do not understand general relativity.
Yea - not gonna happen. That doesn't even address the basic fact that
your point is silly - of course things move in spacetime. The speed of
every time-like path is c - somewhat larger than zero.
> They can't deny it
> because they're on the record. I noticed that John Baez used to claim
> the same thing but after I put a link to it out on my site, he quietly
> took down the reference. ahahaha...
Quite the puppetmaster, Louis. Is the USENET throne all you thought it
would be?
>
> I am going to point out that relativity predicts that everything
> propagates at c but nobody has bothered to conduct an experiment to
> prove that the electrostatic gradient propagates at c.
That's because an "electrostatic gradient" is not terribly
interesting. Feel free to explain why science should care about such a
thing.
You might want to first describe what an "electrostatic gradient" is,
as I'm not going to waste my time trying to divine your meaning.
> It should be a
> simple enough experiment, much cheaper than looking for non-existent
> gravity waves.
Then do it. You have gobs of free time - do something useful!
>
>
>
> >> >> It's just proof of a
> >> >> simple inverse square relationship and I bet you it can all be worked
> >> >> out in Newtonian gravity.
>
> >> >Where's the analysis, Louis? Hmm?
>
> >> >I love the double standard. The exact power loss of the system has
> >> >been calculated from GR and observation matches it, and you think it
> >> >means nothing. However you got your little idiotic half-assed half-
> >> >thought idea about "inverse square relationship" which you haven't the
> >> >faintest fucking clue as to what it means, and you don't even have an
> >> >analysis. But you think its "proof" regardless.
>
> >> Yes, I do think it's proof. Newtonian gravity can explain it for the
> >> same reason that Newtonian gravity explains the decay of the Moon's
> >> orbit around the earth.
>
> >Its' easy to make the claim - show us the math. Let's see the
> >analysis, Louis.
>
> >Why haven't you written and published a paper on how Newtonian
> >gravitation explaines it all?
>
> All orbit decays (and changes in rotational speeds) are explainable by
> assuming tidal friction and similar mechanisms. It is that simple.
Fair enough. I gave you a link containing the observed masses of the
binary components - feel free to show us how right you are.
> There is no need to wave a mathematical wand to explain it. Just
> because you observe orbit decay does not mean that it's because GR is
> right. Anybody can futz with equations to make data agree with theory.
The analysis is right here - point out where the equations were
"futzed". Put your money where your mouth is, Louis. God knows you got
plenty of mouth and the time to exercise it.
> Especially when you are a con artist.
Do you want people to ignore and marginalize you? If so, that's the
type of thing you need to keep saying!
>
> >> >> Why are there no damn gravity waves propagating at c all over the
> >> >> fucking place? Answer the fucking question, you dumbass. ahahaha...
>
> >> >Science owes you nothing. Read the literature or remain ignorant.
>
> >> You are not science, Gisse. You and your kind are a bunch of con
> >> artists and crackpots. BTW, Erica, do you believe that there is motion
> >> in spacetime like that little con artist in the wheelchair? LOL.
>
> >You sound oh so jealous. Did you flunk out of intro physics when you
> >were trying to get a compsci degree?
>
> Answer the question, goddmnit! Do you believe that we are moving in
> spacetime toward the future, yes or no? Hawking believes that we are.
> Don't chicken out. ahahaha... AHAHAHA... ahahaha...
>
> Louis Savain
>
> Rebel Science News:http://rebelscience.blogspot.com/
Of course we are moving toward the future. Play with a conformal
diagram - pretty easy to distinguish between past, present, and
future.
All this, of course, lies with your definition of "moves". I'm sure
you have a special little definition that ensures you believe you are
right, no matter how hard you have to corrupt the meaning of the word.
Traveler
How does this prove that a change in the electrostatic field gradient
travels at c? I am claiming that it does not and it is instantaneous.
I further claim that it has never been shown to travel at c, your
feeble protestations notwithstanding. If you know of an experiment
that has ever shown that the eletrostatic field travels at c, let us
have it.
Matthew Johnson
[snip]
>How does this prove that a change in the electrostatic field gradient
>travels at c?
Perhaps you would have your answer already, if you were not confusing oranges
and apples. Or, to put it more precisely, thinking about a problem in one gauge,
when by the nature of the problem, it clearly requires another.
After all: once you say "electroSTATIC gradient", the 'static' part implies that
no, it does NOT travel anywhere.
Now if you wish to study a purely electrostatic problem, then the Coulumb gauge
is just fine. But once you wish to introduce changes, look out: you now need to
consider another gauge, i.e., Lorentz or even Weyl.
> I am claiming that it does not and it is instantaneous.
But this is where you cannot possibly be right.
>I further claim that it has never been shown to travel at c, your
>feeble protestations notwithstanding. If you know of an experiment
>that has ever shown that the eletrostatic field travels at c, let us
>have it.
What a blatant double standard! Good textbooks on E&M are chock full of the
evidence that it _has_ been shown to travel at c (once you correctly state the
problem), but you are demanding he show the evidence, when you cannot have any
on your side.
Igor
> Gravitational Wave Theory Takes Another Kick in the Teeth:http://www.astroengine.com/?p=565
>
> The conclusion is obvious to anybody who does not kiss ass for a
> living. Gravity does not propagate at the speed of light as Einstein
> and his followers predict. Gravity is a universal,
> quasi-instantaneous, non-local, energy conservation phenomenon. No
> gravitational waves simply means that the general theory of relativity
> is falsified. ahahaha...
>
> Louis Savain
>
> Rebel Science News:http://rebelscience.blogspot.com/
Didn't Carley Simon once write a song about you?
PD
> On Sat, 2 Aug 2008 14:23:36 -0700 (PDT), PD
>
>
>
Nice discussion you're not engaged in. Well refused.
Androcles
"Traveler" <noassk...@nowhere.net> wrote in message
news:6lm99454c51en3fo7...@4ax.com...
| How does this prove that a change in the electrostatic field gradient
| travels at c? I am claiming that it does not and it is instantaneous.
| I further claim that it has never been shown to travel at c, your
| feeble protestations notwithstanding. If you know of an experiment
| that has ever shown that the eletrostatic field travels at c, let us
| have it.
|
| Louis Savain
Since an electrostatic field can be switched on and off as anyone
that has owned a tube TV knows, and since crumbled packaging
material, the modern equivalent of pith balls, will be readily attracted
to the tube face of said tube TV, it is not inconceivable that the
speed of electrostatic attraction is measurable.
http://www.polyfoam.com.my/images/products/product24.jpg
http://blogs.families.com/media/12%20-%20Tube%20TV.jpg
Other ways of creating an electrostatic field:
http://www.arcsandsparks.com/wimshurst200.jpg
http://tesladownunder.com/Vandergraaf1.JPG
What that speed is I have not measured but to claim that said
polystyrene foam will react instantaneously from a distance,
given that the electrostatic field was capable of moving said pith
ball at that distance, is instantaneous, is the claim of a fuckhead.
Oh wait... arse bandit Louis Savain makes that claim... never
mind, my conclusion was knowledge already in the public domain.
Sue...
Matthew Johnson wrote:
> In article <6lm99454c51en3fo7...@4ax.com>, Traveler says...
>
> [snip]
>
> >How does this prove that a change in the electrostatic field gradient
> >travels at c?
>
> Perhaps you would have your answer already, if you were not confusing oranges
> and apples. Or, to put it more precisely, thinking about a problem in one gauge,
> when by the nature of the problem, it clearly requires another.
>
> After all: once you say "electroSTATIC gradient", the 'static' part implies that
> no, it does NOT travel anywhere.
>
> Now if you wish to study a purely electrostatic problem, then the Coulumb gauge
> is just fine. But once you wish to introduce changes, look out: you now need to
> consider another gauge, i.e., Lorentz or even Weyl.
>
> > I am claiming that it does not and it is instantaneous.
>
> But this is where you cannot possibly be right.
Push your car.
It will push back... INSTANTLY.
http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0107015
Sue...
>
Traveler
<Headm...@Hogwarts.physics> wrote:
>What that speed is I have not measured but to claim that said
>polystyrene foam will react instantaneously from a distance,
>given that the electrostatic field was capable of moving said pith
>ball at that distance, is instantaneous, is the claim of a fuckhead.
ahahaha... Interesting. So you never measured it and you don't know of
anybody who has and yet you are sure it's bullshit. No wonder Gisse
and company won't kiss your ass. Not even Dick van de merde, the
daffodil queen of the sci.physics newsgroups. ahahaha... Heck, not
even the cranks gives a shit about your opinion, Andr-homo. ahahaha...
AHAHAHA... ahahaha...
Traveler
<matthew...@newsguy.org> wrote:
You're an idiot, Johnson. LOL. There is absolutely zero evidence that
a change in an electric charge travels at c. You assume this is the
case because you are an Einstein dingleberry. ahahahaha...
Here's a simple thought experiment for you. We all know the Coulomb
force obeys an inverse square law. Let's say you have two opposite
electrostatic charges A and B at a given distance L from each other.
Let's say you suddenly move A closer to B. Will B feel the increased
Coulomb force instantly or will the change propagate from A to B at
the speed of light? Inversely, one can say that since both fields are
initially static, that A will feel a change instantly as it moves
toward B because it moves towards a higher density area of B's field.
But what about B?
My claim is that the change in the Coulomb force will be felt
instantly by both charges regardless of which one is moved by the
experimenter. Relativists like you claim that the change will
propagate at the speed of light. I know I'm right and they're wrong.
But it gets even more complicated than that. Since relativists claim
that absolute motion does not exist (grins and giggles), we find
ourselves face to face with a nasty little dilemma. We have no idea
which field is moving toward which. All we can say is that the
distance L between the two changes. And yet, if we move a charge
detector closer to a given charge, we will notice an instant response
as the detector moves toward a higher field density. How can that be
since we have no way of knowing which one is actually moving?
ahahaha... AHAHAHA... ahahahaha...
Traveler
wrote:
ahahahaha... Igor! EEGOR! EEEEGOOORE!! How's Doctor FRAHKAHNSTEIN?
LOL.
Sue...
There is plenty of evidence this is faster than light in
the near-field but it is reactive or conserved and not
radiated into the impedance of free-space. (377 ohms)
>
> But it gets even more complicated than that. Since relativists claim
> that absolute motion does not exist (grins and giggles), we find
> ourselves face to face with a nasty little dilemma. We have no idea
> which field is moving toward which. All we can say is that the
> distance L between the two changes. And yet, if we move a charge
> detector closer to a given charge, we will notice an instant response
> as the detector moves toward a higher field density. How can that be
> since we have no way of knowing which one is actually moving?
QED seems to have it about right. It moves both ways.
The positive charge doesn't really have an existence without
a negative charge and tiny magic fingers to touch the
charge of your thought-experiment don't exist either.
A bit faster than light in free-space
but not instant. Inductive but not radiative.
"Near and far fields"
http://www.sm.luth.se/~urban/master/Theory/3.html
From Lorenz to Coulomb and other explicit gauge
transformations --J.D.Jackson
http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0204034
Sue...
Traveler
Are you serious? If this is true, then someone forgot to tell the bad
news to the relativists because they keep insisting that absolutely
nothing moves faster than light. And tell it first to Androcles,
Gisse, van de Merde, Samantha and the usual Einstein dingleberries on
sci.physics. That should either humble them or cause them to jump up
and down and foam at the mouth. LOL.
Having said that, I agree with the relativists (surprise!!!) that
nothing can move faster than light (or slower for that matter but
that's a different issue, ahahaha...). I don't believe there was any
radiation or motion of field changes between the two charges as they
move. I have reasons to believe that it's a non-local phenomenon.
Since I believe that gravity is directly related to the electrostatic
properties of matter, I also believe that gravity is equally non-local
and instantaneous throughout the entire universe.
The all-seeing universe, or "full of eyes", as some of the ancients
used to say.
>but it is reactive or conserved and not
>radiated into the impedance of free-space. (377 ohms)
What does this mean? Of course, it is conserved. Everything is
conserved. And what do you mean by reactive? Every phenomenon is
reactive, cause and effect and all that jazz.
>> But it gets even more complicated than that. Since relativists claim
>> that absolute motion does not exist (grins and giggles), we find
>> ourselves face to face with a nasty little dilemma. We have no idea
>> which field is moving toward which. All we can say is that the
>> distance L between the two changes. And yet, if we move a charge
>> detector closer to a given charge, we will notice an instant response
>> as the detector moves toward a higher field density. How can that be
>> since we have no way of knowing which one is actually moving?
>
>QED seems to have it about right. It moves both ways.
That's nonsense, IMO. Nobody has any idea which one moves and which
doesn't or whether both moves.
>The positive charge doesn't really have an existence without
>a negative charge
Of course. The overall charge of the entire universe is zero and that
is conserved always. Non-locally, that is, as the universe is
non-local.
>and tiny magic fingers to touch the
>charge of your thought-experiment don't exist either.
Who said anything about magic fingers? It has to do with conservation.
I believe that conservation laws are due to the ex-nihilo nature of
matter. That is to say, the total energy of the universe is zero.
Well, not entirely zero. There are imbalances and these imbalances are
the cause of motion/change. Nature tries to correct all imbalances as
much and as fast as it can.
>A bit faster than light in free-space
>but not instant. Inductive but not radiative.
I don't believe this for a nanosecond. You cannot measure that it is
instantaneous because of the inertia of your measuring instruments,
that's all. IMO, if you measure the reaction speeds at different
distances, you will find them to be pretty much the same if you factor
in the attenuation that comes with distance. This does not compute if
there is radiation, i.e., propagation.
>"Near and far fields"
>http://www.sm.luth.se/~urban/master/Theory/3.html
>
>From Lorenz to Coulomb and other explicit gauge
>transformations --J.D.Jackson
>http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0204034
>
>Sue...
Thanks for the interesting links.
Androcles
| You're an idiot, Johnson. LOL. There is absolutely zero evidence that
| a change in an electric charge travels at c.
Correct.
You assume this is the
| case because you are an Einstein dingleberry. ahahahaha...
Correct, but all that "haha" shit is kissing ahahanson's arse.
He's funny, you are not.
The difference is he doesn't stick his neck in a noose, you do.
The jackass brays when stuck, don't you, ass-kissing jackass Savain?
| Here's a simple thought experiment for you. We all know the Coulomb
| force obeys an inverse square law.
Incorrect, *we* do not all know that. You assume this is the case
because you are a fuckhead, LLS Savain. ahahahaha...
| Let's say you have two opposite
| electrostatic charges A and B at a given distance L from each other.
| Let's say you suddenly move A closer to B. Will B feel the increased
| Coulomb force instantly or will the change propagate from A to B at
| the speed of light?
Let's say you move A closer to B with velocity v, forget the "suddenly".
| Will B feel the increased
| Coulomb force instantly
No.
or will the change propagate from A to B at
| the speed of light?
No, at v.
| My claim is that the change in the Coulomb force will be felt
| instantly by both charges regardless of which one is moved by the
| experimenter.
How fast is "suddenly", queer fuckhead? Instantly?
Making phun of phuckheads is so much phucking phun.
Androcles
| On Sun, 3 Aug 2008 01:21:30 +0100, "Androcles"
| <Headm...@Hogwarts.physics> wrote:
|
| >What that speed is I have not measured but to claim that said
| >polystyrene foam will react instantaneously from a distance,
| >given that the electrostatic field was capable of moving said pith
| >ball at that distance, is instantaneous, is the claim of a fuckhead.
|
| ahahaha... Interesting.
Yes, I thought that might make you stop and think. Now go back to sleep,
you dozy bastard.
| So you never measured it and you don't know of
| anybody who has and yet you are sure it's bullshit.
I didn't say I was sure, LLS Savain; I chose my words carefully.
What I AM sure of is that you are a LLS.
Burden of proof is upon the claimant. It's your idiot claim, you prove it.
See if you can answer the QUESTION framed by your idol, hahahanson:
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/QUESTION.htm
Traveler
<Headm...@Hogwarts.physics> wrote:
[crap]
ahahaha... You need to get laid, man. You need to spend some quality
time with your girlfriend, van de Merde. Gisse can watch. ahahaha...
AHAHAHA...
Androcles
| On Sun, 3 Aug 2008 07:28:27 +0100, "Andromo"
| <Headm...@Hogwarts.physics> wrote:
|
| [crap]
Can't answer, phuckhead?
Matthew Johnson
>
>
>"Traveler" <noassk...@nowhere.net> wrote in message
>news:eq2a94t8g5evrrlk3...@4ax.com...
>
>| You're an idiot, Johnson. LOL. There is absolutely zero evidence that
>| a change in an electric charge travels at c.
>
>Correct.
Incorrect. There is a wealth of evidence. It all starts with Maxwell's
equations. If you can't understand those, you can't understand the evidence. And
you really can't understand Maxwell's equations as long as you insist on
ignoring the well established experimental fact that c is constant in all
inertial reference frames.
[snip]
Of course, since you think "You're an idiot" is a rebuttal, your failure to
understand is willful and reprehensible.
Eric Gisse
> On Sun, 3 Aug 2008 07:28:27 +0100, "Andromo"
>
>
> [crap]
>
> ahahaha... You need to get laid, man. You need to spend some quality
> time with your girlfriend, van de Merde. Gisse can watch. ahahaha...
> AHAHAHA...
>
> Louis Savain
>
> Rebel Science News:http://rebelscience.blogspot.com/
What a closet case.
Sue...
Matthew Johnson wrote:
> In article <leclk.132669$7O1....@newsfe12.ams2>, Androcles says...
> >
> >
> >"Traveler" <noassk...@nowhere.net> wrote in message
> >news:eq2a94t8g5evrrlk3...@4ax.com...
> >
> >| You're an idiot, Johnson. LOL. There is absolutely zero evidence that
> >| a change in an electric charge travels at c.
> >
> >Correct.
>
> Incorrect. There is a wealth of evidence. It all starts with Maxwell's
> equations. If you can't understand those, you can't understand the evidence. And
> you really can't understand Maxwell's equations as long as you insist on
> ignoring the well established experimental fact that c is constant in all
> inertial reference frames.
My laser pointer does not recoil when I switch it on
so there is nothin inertial about it.
Sue...
Tom Potter
>"Eric Gisse" <jow...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:45a15d14-e18a-434f...@v13g2000pro.googlegroups.com...
Don't go knocking programmers Gisse.
Sam Wormley's primary reference for physics
is the web site of an unemployed computer programmer
who took some data processing classes
at a third rate California college.
--
Tom Potter
http://www.geocities.com/tdp1001/index.html
http://notsocrazyideas.blogspot.com
http://www.flickr.com/photos/tom-potter/
http://tdp1001.wiki.zoho.com
http://groups.msn.com/PotterPhotos
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/dingleberry.htm
Ian Parker
"I".
Quantum computers, LIGO, LISA nothing is remotely comperable.
Prfoessional Physicists are often hazy about where fundamental
research will lead. I am convinced that the likes of you have even
less idea. Quantum conputing might work, or it might not. It seems
fine in theory. From the point of view of quantum phsics it is
interesting that we can have a "digital" Hamiltonian. Not so
surprising if you look at the representations of Arithmetic in matrix
form.
I don't know what the role of the quantum computer will be. It will
probably in a specialised area like encryption. LIGO and LISA are
technological feats. LISA demands knowledge of positions to a fraction
of a wavelength. The loss of energy from pulsars has been detected. It
would be nice to observe gravitational waves directly.
- Ian Parker
Sue...
Perhaps we already have observed them and
can't see the forest for the trees.
http://www.cv.nrao.edu/course/astr534/images/HolmdelHorn.jpg
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Induced_gravity
http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0107015
Sue...
>
>
> - Ian Parker
Sam Wormley
> Sam Wormley's primary reference for physics
> is the web site of an unemployed computer programmer
> who took some data processing classes
> at a third rate California college.
>
Potter, thanks for registering at crank dot net!
Sam Wormley
> Sam Wormley's primary reference for physics
> is the web site of an unemployed computer programmer
> who took some data processing classes
> at a third rate California college.
>
My, Oh, My Potter... Quite a wrap sheet there...
http://www.google.com/search?q=potter+fumble+site%3Ausers.pandora.be
Sam Wormley
>
>
> My laser pointer does not recoil when I switch it on
> so there is nothin inertial about it.
>
> Sue...
>
Really? Is yours a Mössbauer laser pointer?
Sue...
Sam Wormley wrote:
> Sue... wrote:
> >
> >
> > My laser pointer does not recoil when I switch it on
> > so there is nothin inertial about it.
> >
> > Sue...
> >
>
> Really? Is yours a M�ssbauer laser pointer?
That sounds like a German name. I am quite sure
the pointer is from China. Are you of the opinion that
light from Germany has mass and moves
under the influence of inertia? I think
Einstein was also from Germany.
http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/physics/articles/ekspong/
http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/9907017
Sue...
Traveler
Nope. The court room is a political forum where justice takes second
place to politics and propaganda.
>> >How do you know, Louis? Did you go over the books? Do you see
>> >scientists driving Lambourghinis? Or do you simply see the apparently-
>> >large amount of money sunk into something you don't understand and
>> >think it is fraud?
>>
>> Anybody spending money to find gravity waves or build a quantum
>> computer is stealing the public's money. I don't need to go over any
>> fucking books to explain why. You assholes don't understand the
>> mechanism of gravity. You just act like you do but you are as clueless
>> as everybody else.
>
>Its' stealing because they don't have your personal private knowledge
>that you have never published anywhere except maybe on USENET? In
>that case, I refer to my previous question: How do you know?
>
>Since you are a programmer by trade, you are not an active researcher
>in the field. Where did you gain your insights, and why have they
>eluded the experts in the field? Since you are so sure of the veracity
>of your insights, why are you hiding them from the rest of science?
>Why don't you expose them to the same scrutiny the rest of the
>scientists have to pass through?
I am not hiding anything. My work is there for anybody to see. I write
stuff on usenet in order to leave an internet trail, so to speak.
There is a saying to the effect that a lie can run free for a hundred
years and then the truth catches up to it. Time is my friend.
ahahaha...
>> >> >> PSR 1913+16 is not proof that gravitational waves
>> >> >> exist, otherwise you assholes would not still be conducting
>> >> >> experiments to find the non-existent waves.
>>
>> >> >Uh, its' pretty conclusive. The orbital decay rate is exactly as
>> >> >predicted by GR.
>>
>> >> So fucking what? That does not prove gravitational waves.
>>
>> >Why not? If a system loses energy in a manner consistent with what GR
>> >says is gravitational radiation, why isn't it gravitational
>> >radiation?
>>
>> Bullshit. You don't know that. You are just guessing it's
>> gravitational radiation.
>
>What definition of "guess" are you using here, Louis? General
>relativity makes a very specific prediction for those conditions , and
>observation confirms.
>
>http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0407149
>
>This is good enough to justify building LIGO - why do you disagree?
I disagree because GR is so fucking wrong on the grand scale it should
not even be called a scientific theory. Most of the matter of the
universe is missing according to GR. Are you people hiding it up tour
asses?
>> Just like you're guessing that most of the
>> matter in the universe is missing and that the universe is expanding
>> at an accelerating rate. It's all crap. It's not the universe that
>> must conform to your chicken shit theory. It's the other way around.
>
>Why Louis, what makes you think we decided that the majority of the
>mass-energy of the universe is electromagnetically transparent? What
>we thought in the early 80's was _much_ simpler than it is now.
>
>Put down the vitroil and read for a little while. You have the sum
>knowledge of humanity at your fingertips - why can't you _read_ about
>why scientists think what they think instead of making assumptions?
>
>http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap060824.html
>http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/print/19419
Fuck you. Physicists preach that dark matter is out there, not because
they have proof that this is true, but because they don't want to
admit that their chicken shit theory is wrong, that's all. Only
physicists get away with crap like this. Any other field of science
would be up in arms.
>> >> GR resolves
>> >> to Newtonian gravity at non-relativistisc speeds anyway. So, big
>> >> fucking deal!
>>
>> >No Louis, there are differences - like gravitational radiation. Open a
>> >textbook on the subject, Louis. The analysis is there for you to pick
>> >at, but that requires personal effort that far surpasses what it takes
>> >for you to whine on USENET.
>>
>> >Are you going to open up a textbook and see why you are wrong, or are
>> >you going to continue to complain?
>>
>> Fuck you, you pompous asshole. Why don't you pack your books up your
>> ass and see if I care? Once an ass kisser, always an ass kisser. LOL.
>
>Louis, I know butt play gets you off but if you are going to make
>silly assertions about what you do not understand you should expect to
>be called out on them.
Look, jackass. You people try your best to fit your tainted
observations in your chicken shit math theories in order to obtain
bragging rights. You see the orbit of far away bodies decay and you
immediately assume that it's because GR predicted it. The universe
does not give a fuck about GR or the physics community. You have no
idea what's going on. There are a zillion phenomena happening in the
sky that GR cannot explain and yet, you are sure about the cause of
decaying orbits. If gravitational radiation was responsible for orbit
decay, where is the lost energy coming from? Your ass? LOL.
>> >> >People are looking because a) We want a direct confirmation and b)
>> >> >Gravitational wave astronomy is a whole new way of looking at the
>> >> >universe.
>>
>> >> >Why don't you shut the fuck up and leave science to the scientists? If
>> >> >you are going to call folks names because they are doing research you
>> >> >disagree with, you might as well fuck right off and never return
>> >> >because you will never EVER be happy.
>>
>> >> Why don't you fucking kiss my ass? You con artists in the physics
>> >> community are like foxes in charge of the chicken coop. There is no
>> >> fucking oversight because you have appointed yourselves as the
>> >> overseers.
>>
>> >Who do you think cuts the checks, Louis? For federal funding, a lot of
>> >it comes from the NSF. Who reports to congress. Is that not enough
>> >oversight, or do you now imagine a conspiracy to funnel what amounts
>> >to a very small amount of money compared to what the military has put
>> >in cash form and _lost_ in Iraq?
>>
>> The NSF are the crooks and the crackpots. LOL.
>
>Then prove it, and get the leadership gutted. Or are you afraid to put
>your money where your mouth is?
>Either you don't actually believe all of what you are saying, or you
>are a coward who won't fight for what he truly believes. Which is it?
Oh, I ain't afraid. Otherwise, I would not be writing the things that
I write. It takes political power to change the status quo. You don't
know what the fuck you're talking about. You're stupid. LOL.
>> >> Somebody needs to tell the public that you are stealing
>> >> their money to play your chicken shit games while providing nothing
>> >> worthwhile in return.
>>
>> >If you actually believe what you are saying, why are you sitting on
>> >your butt whining to USENET? Do something about it!
>>
>> >What are you going to tell the people who bother to pay attention to
>> >you when they ask you how you know scientists are stealing their
>> >money? Are you seriously going to point to LIGO - which has reached
>> >its design sensitivity - as the major case?
>>
>> No. I am going to point out that most of the famous relativists in the
>> world (Kip Thorne, Stephen Hawking, David Deutsche) don't understand
>> their own theory and still talk about the feasibility of time travel
>> even thought spacetime forbid motion in spacetime.
>
>In the court of public opinion:
>
>* Kip Thorne: Professor at CalTech, PhD in Physics, one of the
>coauthors of the seminal textbook on Gravitation.
>* Stephen Hawking: Professor at Cambridge, PhD in Physics, holds the
>same position Newton did when he was at Cambridge. Wrote a book about
>science that held a place on the New York Times best seller list for
>god knows how long.
>* David Deutsche: Some guy.
>
>vs
>
>* Louis Savain: Fouthmouth computer programmer who claims that these
>men do not understand general relativity.
>
>Yea - not gonna happen.
My point exactly. But don't be too confident. I am getting a lot
people on my side, slowly but surely. Besides, all it takes is one
little breakthrough to confound the experts. One never knows.
> That doesn't even address the basic fact that
>your point is silly - of course things move in spacetime. The speed of
>every time-like path is c - somewhat larger than zero.
You're stupid and ignorant. Here is what Sir Karl Popper had to say
about spacetime. In "Conjectures and Refutations, he compared it to
Parmenides' myth of the unchanging block universe in which nothing
ever happens and which, if we add another dimension, becomes
Einstein's block universe (in which, too, nothing ever happens,
since everything is, four-dimensionally speaking, determined and
laid down from the beginning).
http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/popper_falsification.html
Believe me, Popper was no dummy. He was orders of magnitude smarter
than you and all the other Einstein's dingleberries combined. But if
you don't like Popper, here it is from the mouth of a well-known
relativist, Dr. Robert Geroch, a professor at the U. of Chicago:
There is no dynamics within space-time itself: nothing ever moves
therein; nothing happens; nothing changes. [...] In particular, one
does not think of particles as "moving through" space-time, or as
"following along" their world-lines. Rather, particles are just
"in" space-time, once and for all, and the world-line represents,
all at once the complete life history of the particle.
From "Relativity from A to B" by Dr. Robert Geroch, U. of Chicago
Amazingly, I am agreeing with a well-known relativist. Yep, not all
relativists are stupid and ignorant like you. A few of them do know
and understand that nothing can move in spacetime. Heck, even John
Baez at UC Riverside knows it. Go ahead, write Baez an email and ask
him, since you are too dumb to figure it out on your own. LOL.
Physicists who know that nothing can move in spacetime:
http://www.rebelscience.org/Crackpots/physicists.htm
Don't ask crackpots like Brian Greene, Kip Thorne and Stephen Hawking,
though. They are too dumb to understand. ahahaha... AHAHAHA...
ahahaha...
[the rest of your dumb crap deleted for the sake of sanity]
I think it's time that you hit the books and learn something
interesting for a change, Gissey boy.
ahahaha... AHAHAHA... ahahaha...
Androcles
| > http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap060824.html
| > http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/print/19419
|
| Fuck you. Physicists preach that dark matter is out there, not because
| they have proof that this is true, but because they don't want to
| admit that their chicken shit theory is wrong, that's all. Only
| physicists get away with crap like this. Any other field of science
| would be up in arms.
Yep. I gotta agree.
That bullet cluster plus THIS:
http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap070411.html
shows the same as THIS:
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/geoopt/optpic/brokpen.jpg
Believe what you see, the pencil is broken.
In reality the x-rays travel faster and "dark matter" is total bullshit, an
illusion.
Eric Gisse
[snip]
No point in discussing anything with you. All you do is make up
excuses and spew ink when cornered when not projecting your closet
homosexuality on others.
Traveler
ahahaha... I knew you would have no cogent reply. Time
travel-believing crackpot and ass kisser, Erica Gisse, projects his
failure and deep latent homosexuality on others, as usual. ahahaha...
AHAHAHA... ahahaha...
PS. Hey, Erica. Do you still maintain that there is motion in
spacetime? You're on the record, Gissey girlie boy. ahahaha...
Tom Potter
"Sam Wormley" <swor...@mchsi.com> wrote in message news:5bilk.227366$TT4.225854@attbi_s22...
Thanks Sammy
for confirming that your primary reference for physics
is still the web site of an unemployed computer programmer
who took some data processing classes
at a third rate California college.
I might point out that after I exposed the
ignorance of Eric Max Francis a few times,
he quit posting in sci.physics,
set up his attack web site,
and made me one of the charter members.
Sammy's secondary reference for physics
is the web site of another computer programmer,
Dork Moortel, who has been fired from a couple
of companies because of his obnoxious personality,
and like Sammy's primary reference for physics,
Dork set up his attack web site,
and made me a charter member
for pointing out that one gets
better information from the horse's mouth
than one does from a horse's ass.
I might also point out that
after I challenged Sammy comprehension of physics,
he also set up an attack web page on his phony "edu" site,
and I was a charter member.
I must admit that unlike Eric Max Francis
and Dork Moortel, Sammy had enough pride and decency
to remove his attack web page after a few months.
As my Pappy used to say:
"Birds of the feather.."
Tom Potter
"Sam Wormley" <swor...@mchsi.com> wrote in message news:Ocilk.227367$TT4.76827@attbi_s22...
Thanks Sammy
for confirming that your primary reference for physics
is still the web site of an unemployed computer programmer
who took some data processing classes
at a third rate California college,
and your secondary physics reference
is the web site of another computer programmer,
Dork Moortel, who has been fired from a couple
of companies because of his obnoxious personality.
And thanks for calling attention to my post
that indicated that:
"one gets better information from the horse's mouth,
than one gets from a horse's ass."
Sammy, if you were smart, knowledgeable, and moral,
you would ask yourself, are Eric Max Francis
and Dork Moortel useful sources of physics information,
or are they sad, vindictive "Horse's asses"?
--
Tom Potter
http://www.geocities.com/tdp1001/index.html
http://notsocrazyideas.blogspot.com
http://www.flickr.com/photos/tom-potter/
http://tdp1001.wiki.zoho.com
http://groups.msn.com/PotterPhotos
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/dingleberry.htm
--
Tom Potter
http://www.geocities.com/tdp1001/index.html
http://notsocrazyideas.blogspot.com
http://www.flickr.com/photos/tom-potter/
http://tdp1001.wiki.zoho.com
http://groups.msn.com/PotterPhotos
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/dingleberry.htm
** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **
Koobee Wublee
> On Aug 1, 4:39 pm, Traveler wrote:
> > Gravitational Wave Theory Takes Another Kick in the Teeth:
> > http://www.astroengine.com/?p=565
>
> > The conclusion is obvious to anybody who does not kiss ass for a
> > living. Gravity does not propagate at the speed of light as Einstein
> > and his followers predict. Gravity is a universal,
> > quasi-instantaneous, non-local, energy conservation phenomenon. No
> > gravitational waves simply means that the general theory of relativity
> > is falsified. ahahaha...
>
> Explain why binary systems decay as if gravitational radiation is real.
If you have actually learnt the mathematics dealing with the orbital
increase, you will understand the approach to the conservation of
energy with non-conservation of angular momentum is also a plausible
explanation to the orbital increase of a binary system over time.
Regurgitating whatever the crap that the Orwellian Big Brothers fed
you can also explain why you remain a multi-year super-senior today.
<shrug>
Starting with the following equations describing the conservation of
energy, we have
** E/m = (dr/dt)^2 + r^2 (dO/dt)^2 – G M / r
** L/m = r^2 (dO/dt)
Do you want me to take your hands and guide you through the
mathematics that will explain this increase in orbital speed?
Eric Gisse
> On Aug 2, 3:50 am, Eric Gisse wrote:
>
> > On Aug 1, 4:39 pm, Traveler wrote:
> > > Gravitational Wave Theory Takes Another Kick in the Teeth:
> > >http://www.astroengine.com/?p=565
>
> > > The conclusion is obvious to anybody who does not kiss ass for a
> > > living. Gravity does not propagate at the speed of light as Einstein
> > > and his followers predict. Gravity is a universal,
> > > quasi-instantaneous, non-local, energy conservation phenomenon. No
> > > gravitational waves simply means that the general theory of relativity
> > > is falsified. ahahaha...
>
> > Explain why binary systems decay as if gravitational radiation is real.
>
> If you have actually learnt the mathematics dealing with the orbital
> increase, you will understand the approach to the conservation of
> energy with non-conservation of angular momentum is also a plausible
> explanation to the orbital increase of a binary system over time.
The stars are getting closer, not further apart.
[snip]
Koobee Wublee
> On Aug 3, 9:32 pm, Koobee Wublee wrote:
> > If you have actually learnt the mathematics dealing with the orbital
> > increase, you will understand the approach to the conservation of
> > energy with non-conservation of angular momentum is also a plausible
> > explanation to the orbital increase of a binary system over time.
>
> The stars are getting closer, not further apart.
The eccentricity is increasing. The orbital speed is increasing as
well.
Intuition explains increasing eccentricity as decreasing orbital speed
but not the mathematics involved. The closest approach is getting
closer while the farthest distance is getting further away. The
outcome of merging or flying apart is 50-50 not 100% merging as
predicted by GR interpreted to manifest in radiation of gravitational
energy.
Speaking of radiating gravitational energy, it is not predicted by the
Noether’s theorem at all. The radiating gravitational energy nonsense
is all made up, interpreted so, and believed in without any proper
mathematics backing it up. <shrug>
Eric Gisse
> On Aug 3, 10:49 pm, Eric Gisse wrote:
>
> > On Aug 3, 9:32 pm, Koobee Wublee wrote:
> > > If you have actually learnt the mathematics dealing with the orbital
> > > increase, you will understand the approach to the conservation of
> > > energy with non-conservation of angular momentum is also a plausible
> > > explanation to the orbital increase of a binary system over time.
>
> > The stars are getting closer, not further apart.
>
> The eccentricity is increasing. The orbital speed is increasing as
> well.
>
> Intuition explains increasing eccentricity as decreasing orbital speed
> but not the mathematics involved. The closest approach is getting
> closer while the farthest distance is getting further away. The
> outcome of merging or flying apart is 50-50 not 100% merging as
> predicted by GR interpreted to manifest in radiation of gravitational
> energy.
You say "interpreted" like there is an alternate point of view. The
system's kinematics are accurately explained by GR - feel free to read
the numerous papers on this in the arXiv, or open up a textbook on the
subject.
I'd give refs if I thought you'd read them, but we both know better.
>
> Speaking of radiating gravitational energy, it is not predicted by the
> Noether’s theorem at all. The radiating gravitational energy nonsense
> is all made up, interpreted so, and believed in without any proper
> mathematics backing it up. <shrug>
Of course it isn't predicted by Noether's theorem. All Nother's
theorem does is say that the symmetries of the system generate
conserved quantities.
Nother's theorem says nothing about the dynamics of a system, which
you should know.
Feel free to point out the error in Chapter 6 of http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/9712019
. Gravitational radiation is derived right there - all you gotta do is
go there....and ignore it.
Sue...
page 159 <<the leading
contribution to electromagnetic radiation comes
from the changing dipole moment of the
charge density. The difference can be traced
back to the universal nature of gravitation. A
changing dipole moment corresponds to motion of
the center of density — charge density in
the case of electromagnetism, energy density in
the case of gravitation. While there is noth-
ing to stop the center of charge of an object
from oscillating, oscillation of the center of mass
of an isolated system violates conservation of
momentum. (You can shake a body up and
down, but you and the earth shake ever so
slightly in the opposite direction to compensate.)
The quadrupole moment, which measures the shape
of the system, is generally smaller than
the dipole moment, and for this reason (as well
as the weak coupling of matter to gravity)
gravitational radiation is typically much weaker
than electromagnetic radiation. >>
Two horses side by side hitched with equal
length lines exert the same force on a
a wagon as two horses, one in front of
the other hitched with unequal lines.
The described mechanism is faulty because
it assumes one body can shield the other.
This is not the case with induction couplings.
The intermediatebody *participates* contributing
its full mass to the far-field force just as
tho it had a direct path to the far-field
test mass.
LIGO remains silent on this issue, just
as it should.
Sue...
Eric Gisse
[snip irrelevant shit]
http://www.hugeurl.com/?MjdjODM1MjQ5MjRlYWQzYWY2Y2QyZGU4MGQ3
NWQ3OTImMTEmVm0wd2QyUXlWa2hWV0doVVYwZG9jRlZ0TVZOWFZsbDNXa1JT
VjFac2JETlhhMk0xVjBaS2MySkVUbGhoTVhCUVZteFZlRll5VGtsalJtaG9U
V3N3ZUZadGNFdFRNVTVJVm10a1dHSkdjSEJXTUZwSFRURmFjVkZ0UmxSTmF6
RTFWVEowVjFaWFNrbFJiR2hYWWxob00xWldXbUZrUlRGWlkwZDRVMkpIZHpG
V2EyUXdZVEZrU0ZOclpHcFRSVXBZVkZWa1UyUnNjRmRYYlVacVlrWmFlVmRy
V25kV01ERkZVbFJDVjAxdVVuWlZha1pYWkVaT2NtSkdTbWxXUjNoWFZtMHdl
R0l4U2tkaVNFWlRZbGhTV1ZWcVJrdFRWbFowWlVoa1YwMUVSa1pXYkdoclZq
SkZlVlZZWkZkaGExcFhXbFphVDJOdFJraGhSazVzWWxob1dGWnRNSGhPUm14
V1RVaG9XR0pIVWxsWmJHaFRWMFpTVjFkdFJteFdia0pIVmpJeE1GWlhTa2Rq
UkVaV1ZqTm9lbFpxU2tkamJVVjZZVVprVjFKV2NGbFdWM0JIWVRKU1YxZHVU
bFJpVjNodlZGVm9RMWRXV1hoWGJYUk9VbTE0V0ZaWGRHdFdiVXB6VTI1T1Zt
RnJOVlJaTVZwVFZqRndSVkZyT1dsU00yaFlWbXBLZWs1V1dsaFRhMlJxVW14
d1dGbHNhRzlsYkZweFUydGFiRlpzU2xwWlZWcHJWakZLV1ZGcmJGZFdNMEpJ
VmtSR2ExZEdUbkpoUjJoVFlYcFdXVlpYY0U5aU1rbDRWMWhvV0dKRk5WUlVW
M2hIVFRGU1ZtRkhPVmRpVlhCSVdUQmFjMWR0U2toaFJsSlhUVVp3VkZacVJu
ZFNNVkp5VGxaT2FXRXdjRWxXYWtvd1lXczFWMWRzYUZSaVJuQllXVmQ0WVdG
R1ZYZGhSVTVVVW14d2VGVXlkREJXUmtwelYyeHdXR0V4Y0hKV2FrWkxWakpP
UjFWc2FHbFNiSEJ2VjJ0U1IxTXlUWGxVYTFwb1VqTkNWRmxyVm5kV1ZscDBU
VVJHVWsxcmJEUldNV2h2V1ZaS1JsTnRPVlZXYkhCWVZHdGFZV1JIVWtoa1Iy
aFhZVE5DU1ZkVVFtRlZNV1IwVWxob1YxZEhhRmhVVmxwM1YwWnJlRmRyZEdw
aVZrcElWbGQ0YTJGV1NuUlBWRTVYWVRGd2FGbHFSbEpsVmtweVdrWm9hV0V6
UWxGV2JYaHJWVEZaZUZWc1pHRlNlbXh5V1d0YWMwMHhXWGxOVldSb1lYcEdW
MVJzYUhOWlZscFhZMFpvV2xaV1ZqUldNVnBIWXpGYWMyRkhhRTVXYmtKMlZt
eG9kMUl5UlhoYVJXUlVZbXR3YjFWcVNtOVdSbEpWVTIwNWEwMVdjSGhWVjNo
aFlUQXhSVkpzVGxaU2JFWXpWVVpGT1ZCUlBUMD0=
Traveler
<jow...@gmail.com> wrote:
[snip Erica's irrelevant shit]
Erica, remember that you're on the record for maintaining that
movement can happen in spacetime. It's right there in black and white
in this thread and forever saved for posterity by our good friend Mr.
Google. ahahahaha... AHAHAHAHA... ahahahaha...
Ian Parker
equations we have Curl E = dH/dt Curl H = -dE/dt (Iam setting my units
to c and ignoring mu and epsilon)
In the case of gravity we have 3 Tensor derivatives to get d2G/dt2
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_waves
This is the critical section.
where represents the flat-space d'Alembertian operator, and ταβ
represents the stress-energy tensor plus quadratic terms involving .
This is just a wave equation for the field with a source, despite the
fact that the source involves terms quadratic in the field itself.
That is, it can be shown that solutions to this equation are waves
traveling with velocity 1 in these coordinates.
- Ian Parker
- Ian Parker
Sue...
How do know it isn't dipolar?
Dipolar signals have been detected.
http://www.cv.nrao.edu/course/astr534/images/HolmdelHorn.jpg
Sue...
In Maxwell's
> equations we have Curl E = dH/dt Curl H = -dE/dt (Iam setting my units
> to c and ignoring mu and epsilon)
>
> In the case of gravity we have 3 Tensor derivatives to get d2G/dt2
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_waves
>
> This is the critical section.
>
> where represents the flat-space d'Alembertian operator, and ôáâ
Ian Parker
>
> Sue...
>
> In Maxwell's
>
>
>
> > equations we have Curl E = dH/dt Curl H = -dE/dt (Iam setting my units
> > to c and ignoring mu and epsilon)
>
> > In the case of gravity we have 3 Tensor derivatives to get d2G/dt2
>
> >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_waves
>
> > This is the critical section.
>
> > where represents the flat-space d'Alembertian operator, and ôáâ
> > represents the stress-energy tensor plus quadratic terms involving .
> > This is just a wave equation for the field with a source, despite the
> > fact that the source involves terms quadratic in the field itself.
> > That is, it can be shown that solutions to this equation are waves
> > traveling with velocity 1 in these coordinates.
>
coefficients.
2) The fact that dipolar radiation would put the Earth in the Sun
after 100 million years. 30km/s = c/10000. Dipolar period is 100
million years (quadratic).
The quadruplar radiation of the Earth is (I think) of the order of
300w. Very small, you don't get gravitational waves until things start
hurtling round at an appreciable fraction of c.
- Ian Parker
PS Detection is quadrupolar too. This tells us we need detectors at
least lambda/4.
Sue...
Have you ever seen a picture of the earth from space?
It was radiating long before astronats were taking
pictures of the radiation so your calculations are wrong.
Sue...
Ian Parker
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
I was talking about gravitational radiation that isd not seen by
astronauts. It gives off gravitational waves with a time period of a
year. Not very much, but just a little.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_waves
Look at Power radiated by Earth Sun system. Correction 313 watts.
- Ian Parker
Sue...
> astronauts. It gives off gravitational waves with a time period of a
> year. Not very much, but just a little.
I see that twice a day at the beach but it has
no far-field component so it is reactive not
radiative.
This is the device that detected some dipolar waves.
http://www.cv.nrao.edu/course/astr534/images/HolmdelHorn.jpg
<<One of the more fascinating approaches to “quantum gravity”
is the suggestion, typically attributed to Sakharov that gravity
itself may not be “fundamental physics”. Indeed it is now a
relatively common opinion, maybe not mainstream but
definitely a strong minority opinion, that gravity (and in
particular the whole notion of spacetime and spacetime geometry)
might be no more “fundamental” than is fluid dynamics. >>
http://relativity.livingreviews.org/Articles/lrr-2005-12/articlesu25.html#x34-720006.3
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Induced_gravity
Sue...
PD
> On Aug 2, 3:50 am, Eric Gisse wrote:
>
> > On Aug 1, 4:39 pm, Traveler wrote:
> > > Gravitational Wave Theory Takes Another Kick in the Teeth:
> > >http://www.astroengine.com/?p=565
>
> > > The conclusion is obvious to anybody who does not kiss ass for a
> > > living. Gravity does not propagate at the speed of light as Einstein
> > > and his followers predict. Gravity is a universal,
> > > quasi-instantaneous, non-local, energy conservation phenomenon. No
> > > gravitational waves simply means that the general theory of relativity
> > > is falsified. ahahaha...
>
> > Explain why binary systems decay as if gravitational radiation is real.
>
> If you have actually learnt the mathematics dealing with the orbital
> increase, you will understand the approach to the conservation of
> energy with non-conservation of angular momentum is also a plausible
> explanation to the orbital increase of a binary system over time.
Oooh, gotta love that.
"Hey, I've got an alternate theory to this relativity crap I can't
understand. What if angular momentum isn't conserved after all?"
"Um.... Angular momentum IS conserved. And the orbit isn't
increasing."
"Oh, sure, if you believe that OTHER crap they tell you besides
relativity."
PD
> On Aug 3, 10:49 pm, Eric Gisse wrote:
>
> > On Aug 3, 9:32 pm, Koobee Wublee wrote:
> > > If you have actually learnt the mathematics dealing with the orbital
> > > increase, you will understand the approach to the conservation of
> > > energy with non-conservation of angular momentum is also a plausible
> > > explanation to the orbital increase of a binary system over time.
>
> > The stars are getting closer, not further apart.
>
> The eccentricity is increasing. The orbital speed is increasing as
> well.
>
> Intuition explains increasing eccentricity as decreasing orbital speed
Eh?
Is your intuition always this bad?
> but not the mathematics involved. The closest approach is getting
> closer while the farthest distance is getting further away. The
> outcome of merging or flying apart is 50-50 not 100% merging as
> predicted by GR interpreted to manifest in radiation of gravitational
> energy.
>
> Speaking of radiating gravitational energy, it is not predicted by the
> Noether’s theorem at all.
Neither is the ideal gas law. So?
PD
> On Mon, 4 Aug 2008 02:00:29 -0700 (PDT), Erica Gisse
>
>
> [snip Erica's irrelevant shit]
>
> Erica, remember that you're on the record for maintaining that
> movement can happen in spacetime. It's right there in black and white
> in this thread and forever saved for posterity by our good friend Mr.
> Google. ahahahaha... AHAHAHAHA... ahahahaha...
Hey, look! A drunken heckler. AhahahahAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!
Dirk Van de moortel
cd387aee-9a78-4a3a...@k13g2000hse.googlegroups.com
> On Aug 4, 12:32 am, Koobee Wublee <koobee.wub...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Aug 2, 3:50 am, Eric Gisse wrote:
>>
>>> On Aug 1, 4:39 pm, Traveler wrote:
>>>> Gravitational Wave Theory Takes Another Kick in the Teeth:
>>>> http://www.astroengine.com/?p=565
>>
>>>> The conclusion is obvious to anybody who does not kiss ass for a
>>>> living. Gravity does not propagate at the speed of light as Einstein
>>>> and his followers predict. Gravity is a universal,
>>>> quasi-instantaneous, non-local, energy conservation phenomenon. No
>>>> gravitational waves simply means that the general theory of relativity
>>>> is falsified. ahahaha...
>>
>>> Explain why binary systems decay as if gravitational radiation is real.
>>
>> If you have actually learnt the mathematics dealing with the orbital
>> increase, you will understand the approach to the conservation of
>> energy with non-conservation of angular momentum is also a plausible
>> explanation to the orbital increase of a binary system over time.
>
> Oooh, gotta love that.
Yes, I gotta!
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/PlausibleExplanation.html
Thanks for pointing :-)
Dirk Vdm
Ian Parker
>
> <<One of the more fascinating approaches to “quantum gravity”
> is the suggestion, typically attributed to Sakharov that gravity
> itself may not be “fundamental physics”. Indeed it is now a
> relatively common opinion, maybe not mainstream but
> definitely a strong minority opinion, that gravity (and in
> particular the whole notion of spacetime and spacetime geometry)
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Induced_gravity
>
> Sue...
>
There are in fact a great many possibilities. This is only one of
them. Another idea is supersymmetry where bosons (including the photon
and the graviton) are paired with fermions. This means that the
equations of GTR are incomplete in that we have the 4 dimensional
Tensor producing gravitational waves, and something else in more
dimensions producing antisymmetric spinors. Is it true? We need to
look at dark matter.
It is true that Tensors arise in many situations. You could in fact
even present language translation in a Tensor form. A Tensor is simply
a differential operator. I think it would be a mistake to equate GTR
with mechanical analogies. They would make good visualisation aids
though.
- Ian Parker
Sue...
[...]
>
> > > I was talking about gravitational radiation that is not seen by
> > > astronauts. It gives off gravitational waves with a time period of a
> > > year. Not very much, but just a little.
>
> > I see that twice a day at the beach but it has
> > no far-field component so it is reactive not
> > radiative.
>
> > This is the device that detected some dipolar waves.
http://www.cv.nrao.edu/course/astr534/images/HolmdelHorn.jpg
>
> > <<One of the more fascinating approaches to “quantum gravity”
> > is the suggestion, typically attributed to Sakharov that gravity
> > itself may not be “fundamental physics”. Indeed it is now a
> > relatively common opinion, maybe not mainstream but
> > definitely a strong minority opinion, that gravity (and in
> > particular the whole notion of spacetime and spacetime geometry)
> > might be no more “fundamental” than is fluid dynamics.
http://relativity.livingreviews.org/Articles/lrr-2005-12/articlesu25.html#x34-720006.3
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Induced_gravity
>
> > Sue...
>
> There are in fact a great many possibilities. This is only one of
> them. Another idea is supersymmetry where bosons (including the photon
> and the graviton) are paired with fermions. This means that the
> equations of GTR are incomplete in that we have the 4 dimensional
> Tensor producing gravitational waves, and something else in more
> dimensions producing antisymmetric spinors. Is it true? We need to
> look at dark matter.
The induction model has some interestin possibilities for the
dark matter problem that may come from coherent matter
research. Apart from the relative ease in making some
connections to quantum theory, it also achives the unification
which eluded Einstein.
<< A second problem which at present is the subject of
lively interest is the identity between the gravitational field
and the electromagnetic field. The mind striving after
unification of the theory cannot be satisfied that two fields
should exist which, by their nature, are quite independent.
A mathematically unified field theory is sought in which
the gravitational field and the electromagnetic field are
interpreted only as different components or manifestations
of the same uniform field, the field equations where possible
no longer consisting of logically mutually independent summands. >>
http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/physics/laureates/1921/einstein-lecture.html
>
> It is true that Tensors arise in many situations. You could in fact
> even present language translation in a Tensor form. A Tensor is simply
> a differential operator. I think it would be a mistake to equate GTR
> with mechanical analogies. They would make good visualisation aids
> though.
Yes. Tensors are a wonderful tool to discipline
the conserved quantities and keep the theorist's
hands off the imaginaries. I think they may
lure some into beleiving pure geometry can
answer questions beyond its capabilities however.
Sue...
>
> - Ian Parker
Sam Wormley
<laughing> Yer funny Potter, but you do have trouble with
physics.
Koobee Wublee
> http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/PlausibleExpla...
Yes, it has been a while. You have another Trojan Horse.