EXPANDING UNIVERSE - IMPOSSIBLE TO OBSERVE ?

[sam rooney]

correct me if im wrong

the expanding universe means that all matter in the universe is
expanding at the same rate. that includes the matter of the earth and
the matter that we are composed of.
if the entire universe is expanding including everything in it then
surely that expansion would be impossible to detect for someone who is
expanding in line with the universe ?
if the entire universe increased in size by a finite amount ( delta
>0) between today at 12 am and tomorrow at 12 am then that expansion
would be impossible to detect as everything in the universe including
our measuring rods and clocks would also have expanded by the same
amount.

how is it possible to detect an expanding universe ?

[Alfred Centauri]

"sam rooney" <SAM...@HETNET.NL> wrote in message
news:113bde6e.03041...@posting.google.com...

> correct me if im wrong
>
> the expanding universe means that all matter in the universe is
> expanding at the same rate. that includes the matter of the earth and
> the matter that we are composed of.

Not so, although this is a common misconception. The expansion of the
universe is evident when considering the universe as a whole (as a bounded
system with an average mass-energy density). Within this universe,
gravitionally bound systems (planetary system, solar system, galaxy, galaxy
clusters), are not subject to this expansion. Over the huge distances
between non-gravitaionally bound systems however, the expansion is evident.

<snip>

Alfred

[Sam Wormley]

sam rooney wrote:
>
> correct me if im wrong
>
> the expanding universe means that all matter in the universe is
> expanding at the same rate. that includes the matter of the earth and
> the matter that we are composed of.

That's wrong. Space is expanding, but gravity still dominates on the
local scale. Here is excellent tutorial information:
http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmolog.htm

[Spaceman]

"Sam Wormley" <swor...@mchsi.com> wrote in message news:3E9810C9...@mchsi.com...

> sam rooney wrote:
> >
> > correct me if im wrong
> >
> > the expanding universe means that all matter in the universe is
> > expanding at the same rate. that includes the matter of the earth and
> > the matter that we are composed of.
>
> That's wrong. Space is expanding,

Space can not expand "itself",
the space between objects can expand but ony if there is space for the objects
to move into to allow the increase of space between.

Why do you give "space" a physical property of its own?
and why do you also do such with time?

You truly are lost in "spacetime" la la land!
lost forever and without a cause!
<LOL>

[Mike Varney]

"sam rooney" <SAM...@HETNET.NL> wrote in message
news:113bde6e.03041...@posting.google.com...

> correct me if im wrong
>
> the expanding universe means that all matter in the universe is
> expanding at the same rate.

Bzzzt... wrong right off the bat. Look up Hubble red shift.

> that includes the matter of the earth and
> the matter that we are composed of.
> if the entire universe is expanding including everything in it then
> surely that expansion would be impossible to detect for someone who is
> expanding in line with the universe ?

??? is right.... what did that last sentence of yours even mean?

> if the entire universe increased in size by a finite amount ( delta
> >0) between today at 12 am and tomorrow at 12 am then that expansion

Look up General relativity.

> would be impossible to detect as everything in the universe including
> our measuring rods and clocks would also have expanded by the same
> amount.
>
> how is it possible to detect an expanding universe ?

www.google.com "how to use google"

[Jim]

"Spaceman" <AgentS...@aol.combination> wrote:

>
>"Sam Wormley" <swor...@mchsi.com> wrote in message news:3E9810C9...@mchsi.com...
>> sam rooney wrote:
>> >
>> > correct me if im wrong
>> >
>> > the expanding universe means that all matter in the universe is
>> > expanding at the same rate. that includes the matter of the earth and
>> > the matter that we are composed of.
>>
>> That's wrong. Space is expanding,
>
>Space can not expand "itself",

OK, space can't expand.

>the space between objects can expand but ony if there is space for the objects
>to move into to allow the increase of space between.

So then space can expand?

>
>Why do you give "space" a physical property of its own?
>and why do you also do such with time?
>

Name one thing you can do without time. :)

>You truly are lost in "spacetime" la la land!
>lost forever and without a cause!
><LOL>

That would be: <LAL> :)

Jim

[Spaceman]

"Jim" <lose...@workfromhome.com> wrote in message news:q7jg9v0vtr1sm465i...@4ax.com...

> So then space can expand?

the space itself did not expand,
it was already there,
and the objects simply moved further away.

> Name one thing you can do without time. :)

Everything can be done "without" time or timing the thing you do,
Name one thing that "you have to time" to do it at all?
You do not need to time things to do them.
:)

Jim,
Why do you still not get what "time" was invented for?
And if time exists, please tell me why it is not in the element charts
right next to math element that is also not there.
:)

[Jim]

"Spaceman" <AgentS...@aol.combination> wrote:

>
>"Jim" <lose...@workfromhome.com> wrote in message news:q7jg9v0vtr1sm465i...@4ax.com...
>
>> So then space can expand?
>
>the space itself did not expand,
>it was already there,
>and the objects simply moved further away.
>
>> Name one thing you can do without time. :)
>
>Everything can be done "without" time or timing the thing you do,

Like what?

Jim

[Spaceman]

"Jim" <lose...@workfromhome.com> wrote in message news:18kg9v8v77ebebnk9...@4ax.com...

Do you not understand the word everything.
you name it,
It happens without "time" causing it at all
and there is no need to time something at all for it to happen.
Why do you ignore what time was invented for,
and also ignore the meaning of abstract?

[Jim]

"Spaceman" <AgentS...@aol.combination> wrote:

>
>"Jim" <lose...@workfromhome.com> wrote in message news:18kg9v8v77ebebnk9...@4ax.com...
>> "Spaceman" <AgentS...@aol.combination> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >"Jim" <lose...@workfromhome.com> wrote in message news:q7jg9v0vtr1sm465i...@4ax.com...
>> >
>> >> So then space can expand?
>> >
>> >the space itself did not expand,
>> >it was already there,
>> >and the objects simply moved further away.
>> >
>> >> Name one thing you can do without time. :)
>> >
>> >Everything can be done "without" time or timing the thing you do,
>>
>> Like what?
>
>Do you not understand the word everything.
>you name it,

Well if you can't...

I'll take a shot at it. Breathing. Oops, nope, you can't breath
without time.

Your turn. :)

>It happens without "time" causing it at all

Didn't say it did. Did you?

>and there is no need to time something at all for it to happen.

Didn't ask about timing anything. Don't care about timing anything.
Just asked you to name one thing, that you can do without time.
So far you've FAILED miserably.
<LOL>

>Why do you ignore what time was invented for,

Why do you ignore that time wasn't invented.

>and also ignore the meaning of abstract?

Main Entry: 1ab新tract
Pronunciation: ab-'strakt, 'ab-"
Function: adjective
Etymology: Medieval Latin abstractus, from Latin, past participle of
abstrahere to drag away, from abs-, ab- + trahere to pull, draw
Date: 14th century
1 a : disassociated from any specific instance <abstract entity> b :
difficult to understand : ABSTRUSE <abstract problems> c :
insufficiently factual : FORMAL <possessed only an abstract right>
2 : expressing a quality apart from an object <the word poem is
concrete, poetry is abstract>
3 a : dealing with a subject in its abstract aspects : THEORETICAL
<abstract science> b : IMPERSONAL, DETACHED <the abstract compassion
of a surgeon -- Time>
4 : having only intrinsic form with little or no attempt at pictorial
representation or narrative content <abstract painting>
- ab新tract損y /ab-'strak(t)-lE, 'ab-"/ adverb
- ab新tract搖ess /ab-'strak(t)-n&s, 'ab-"/ noun

>And if time exists, please tell me why it is not in the element charts

For the same reason that light isn't.
IT'S NOT AN ELEMENT. I think. :)

>right next to math element that is also not there.

See above yelling rant. :)

Jim

[Spaceman]

"Jim" <lose...@workfromhome.com> wrote in message news:l2lg9v81h3g51bsdh...@4ax.com...

> I'll take a shot at it. Breathing. Oops, nope, you can't breath
> without time.

You need not time breathing just to breathe.
and if you say time is needed at all for such,
that is implying it is part of the "Cause" of the breathing itself
and supposedly is needed for the breathing to occur at all.
It is not.
It is a joke you are that much of a twist artist
and keep ignoring what time was invented for
and can only twist crap into being "time dependant"
to happen at all as if time were a "real" force that helps
that cause happen at all.

You are nothing more than a philosiphicating bullshit twist artist.
Nevermind Jim,
Just keep on thinking time is needed to allow things to happen!
<LOL>
You are only fooling yourself and you are wasting
your time for you will never find a cause while thinking
time is needed for anything at all.
<LOL>

[KNIGHT TEMPLAR]

Relativity is of no value as True Physicist HE Retic had demonstrated to you
Mickey, time and time again !

Relativity as well as analysis is valueles indeed and emerging indeed from
minds unable to reach the Synthesis level .... and driven mad by Analysis at
nauseum !!!

Are you dumb or something, Mickey !

Shake yourself up and for Special Relativity Corrections, try
http://www.members.aol.com/reticher1/relcors.htm

--
Jean-Paul Turcaud
Hydro & Mining Prospector
Pioneer of Australian Mining
Discoverer of Telfer; Kintyre & Nifty Mines in The Great Sandy Desert.
Discoverer of the South Atlantic Submarine Gold Placers
_ 40 Millions Tons estimate _
Founder of The TRUE GEOLOGY

* The Greatest Australian Mining Covered Up Swindle Of The 20th Century
http://membres.lycos.fr/jpturcaud/
* The True Geology ( previously Refutation of the Horrid Geological Myths )
http://membres.lycos.fr/xxx/ ( Not available due to plagiarism hazards )

Breaking News
"THE GOLDEN RULE"
"Gold and Intrigue in the Desert"
"The true story of the discovery of the Telfer gold mine"
Author : Bob Sheppard, President of the Australian Prospectors' Union
Author's contact & web page : www.tnet.com.au/~warrigal/
Order from : Hesperian Press, PO Box 317 Victoria Park, 6979 W.Australia.
AUS 40.00 + post

Official launching done in Perth this 15th December 2002

~~Ignorance Is The Cosmic Sin, The One Never Forgiven ! ~~

"Mike Varney" <anti...@hotmail.com> a écrit dans le message de news:
A%Xla.379$4u.4...@news.uswest.net...

[Jim]

"Spaceman" <AgentS...@aol.combination> wrote:

>
>"Jim" <lose...@workfromhome.com> wrote in message news:l2lg9v81h3g51bsdh...@4ax.com...
>> I'll take a shot at it. Breathing. Oops, nope, you can't breath
>> without time.
>
>You need not time breathing just to breathe.

Didn't say so in the post <you> snipped. :)

>and if you say time is needed at all for such,
>that is implying it is part of the "Cause" of the breathing itself

*>I<* didn't say time caused anything. I asked you to name one thing
you can do without time. Gosh, I thought it was a pretty simple
request.

>and supposedly is needed for the breathing to occur at all.
>It is not.
>It is a joke you are that much of a twist artist
>and keep ignoring what time was invented for
>and can only twist crap into being "time dependant"
>to happen at all as if time were a "real" force that helps
>that cause happen at all.

Didn't say time caused anything. Who's doing the twisting here. <LOL>

>
>You are nothing more than a philosiphicating bullshit twist artist.

Asking a simple question, is "philosiphicating".(sic) ?

Don't go getting testy on me now. It is Saturday after all.
Or do you work weekends. If so, my apologies.
You have a right to be grumpy. :)
I worked this morning, but am done for the weekend!!! :)
You can't piss me off today.
Actually, you can't piss me off any day. :)
This *is* Usenet after all.

>Nevermind Jim,
>Just keep on thinking time is needed to allow things to happen!
><LOL>
>You are only fooling yourself and you are wasting
>your time for you will never find a cause while thinking
>time is needed for anything at all.
><LOL>
>

<LOL>
You are so silly. :)
BTW, name one thing that you can do without time. :)
Like, "have a good weekend" without time! <LOL>

Jim

[Mike Varney]

"KNIGHT TEMPLAR" <mining_...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:b79nco$ao7$1...@news.tiscali.fr...

> Relativity is of no value as True Physicist HE Retic had demonstrated to
you
> Mickey, time and time again !

Go away, idiot.

[Spaceman]

"Jim" <lose...@workfromhome.com> wrote in message news:5lng9vomdek5mtlcd...@4ax.com...

> "Spaceman" <AgentS...@aol.combination> wrote:
>
> >
> >"Jim" <lose...@workfromhome.com> wrote in message news:l2lg9v81h3g51bsdh...@4ax.com...
> >> I'll take a shot at it. Breathing. Oops, nope, you can't breath
> >> without time.
> >
> >You need not time breathing just to breathe.
>
> Didn't say so in the post <you> snipped. :)

Yes you did,
you are saying I need time to do things,
that is implying I need time something to get
the time you are speaking about at all.

> *>I<* didn't say time caused anything. I asked you to name one thing
> you can do without time. Gosh, I thought it was a pretty simple
> request.

I told you,
You do not need "time" do do anything,
and I asked you why it is needed and what physical property
of it proves it is needed at all?

> Didn't say time caused anything. Who's doing the twisting here. <LOL>

You are saying it is "needed"
That is part cause if needed at all..

> Asking a simple question, is "philosiphicating".(sic) ?

No,
you are asking a philosiphical question.
You are asking about me naming something that
does not need an abstract and I stated,
nothing needs the abstract known as time to happen at all.

> You are so silly. :)
> BTW, name one thing that you can do without time. :)
> Like, "have a good weekend" without time! <LOL>

I told you jim,
Not one freaking thing in the universe needs time to occur,
they can happen without time needed at all.
To imply time is needed is saying time is part cause,
and time is not part cause so it is not needed for "physical" reality to happen.

Name one thing that "proves time exists physically" so that it is needed
for something to happen at all?
Why are you lost in abstract land?

[KNIGHT TEMPLAR]

For your info Mickey is a forward from sci.geo.geology
in reply to Limestone Cowboy ... a noted Gogologist ! Yep another one of
those crude & abused so-called scientist ... jsut like you Mickey !

**************************************
Poor chap !
No laughiing on your part Old Nic ;;; simply very sad to realise how you,
and thousands of poor truthfull naïve beuuuuuuuievers, have been abused
for years by the Con Men of the Gogology !

I simply hope that a surge of anger will take you as a result, and you will
_ with some of your flabbergasted shameful Gogologists mates _ take a load
of hay to the Oxfod Bullocks right into their paddock ( Campus, they call
it ) ! ... No bother about the other Bougredanes, who all over the World
have been for years walking in step !!!!!!

That will teach a needed lesson !
to the ones who set the fashion !
Who have abused Geology !
As the realm of Fantasy !
Shameful during all Centuries !
Be those in Men's Memories
Hail to the True Geology !
Loving Gift of Divinity !!!

La Rochelle 2003 -04- 15
As birthday present !

jpturcaud
Pioneer of Australian Mining

PS
That Iraqi Information Minister's methods are in fact the ones used in
Geological ( so-called ) Faculties, in fact !

Denying the evidence ! Producing completely out the way explanations ! Lying
while confronted with facts indeed and still pretending speaking the Truth

Listeneing to him on BBC News, with Lise Doucet reporting from Aman,
I really thought attending a Geology ( so-called ) lecture at the ANU or
Oxfod !!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Score 1, Mate !!!

~~Ignorance Is The Cosmic Sin, The One Never Forgiven ! ~~

"limestone" <Limeston...@BTInternet.com> a écrit dans le message de
news: ATVla.4320$9C6.2...@wards.force9.net...
> KNIGHT TEMPLAR wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > Limestone cowboy, my four legged friend, I have a confidence for you !
> >
> > Limestones, Dolomites and roughly speaking ALL* carbonate sedimentation
> > are of Volcanic origin !!! ... but please keep that for you, the other
> > dudes are unable to understand that at the present time !
> > Next time you come to France to discover the roots of your family here,
> > make a slight detour by the cathedral of Chartres ! You will see right
up
> > the
> > steeple all the limestone rocks composing ii, inbedded with Obsidian
> > Nodules !!!
>
> I've just realised what's happening, you are the Iraqi Information
Minister
> after all.
>
> I'll wait for the book, I might need a good laugh if I live that long.

"Mike Varney" <anti...@hotmail.com> a écrit dans le message de news:

blZla.385$4u.6...@news.uswest.net...

[Sam Wormley]

Spaceshit, why do you keep peeing on yourself?

[Spaceman]

"Sam Wormley" <swor...@mchsi.com> wrote in message news:3E986430...@mchsi.com...

Sam,
name one thing that "time" needs to be the cause of?
or name one thing that "time" itself can cause.
or, name what physical property of an object proves time exists
at all?
Sam,
why do you still spell a simple word wrong so many times
even when told that you have and the word is right
in front of your face each and every "time".?

This post took no time at all to post!
<LOL>

[Jim]

"Spaceman" <AgentS...@aol.combination> wrote:

<snip>

>
>You are saying it is "needed"

I'm not *saying* anything. I'm *asking* you to name one thing you can
do without time.
Over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over
and over and over and over and over and over and over and over.

No answer yet. :)
Not expecting one anymore.
This was too easy. <LOL>

>That is part cause if needed at all..
>
>> Asking a simple question, is "philosiphicating".(sic) ?
>
>No,
>you are asking a philosiphical question.
>You are asking about me naming something that
>does not need an abstract and I stated,
>nothing needs the abstract known as time to happen at all.
>
>
>> You are so silly. :)
>> BTW, name one thing that you can do without time. :)
>> Like, "have a good weekend" without time! <LOL>
>
>I told you jim,
>Not one freaking thing in the universe needs time to occur,
>they can happen without time needed at all.

Name one. Oops, forgot, you can't. :)

>To imply time is needed is saying time is part cause,

By you perhaps. I didn't say time was a cause for anything.

>and time is not part cause so it is not needed for "physical" reality to happen.
>
>Name one thing that "proves time exists physically" so that it is needed

Didn't say "exists physically". Why do you keep putting words in my
mouth? Twisting? Shame on you. :)

>for something to happen at all?
>Why are you lost in abstract land?

If this silliness isn't abstract land, then I don't know what is.
Not to mention la la land. <LOL>

Jim

[Jim]

"Spaceman" <AgentS...@aol.combination> wrote:

James, why do you reply to messages posted to Spaceshit?

>
>This post took no time at all to post!

BZZzzzzzzzTT. Yes it did, try again.
><LOL>
<LOL>

Jim

[Sam Wormley]

KNIGHT TEMPLAR wrote:
>
> Relativity is of no value as True Physicist HE Retic had demonstrated..

Special Relativity
http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/physics/SpecialRelativity.html
http://archive.ncsa.uiuc.edu/Cyberia/NumRel/SpecialRel.html

What is the experimental basis of Special Relativity?
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/experiments.html

Physics is an experimental science, and as such the experimental basis for
any physical theory is extremely important. The relationship between
theory and experiments in modern science is a multi-edged sword:

1.It is required that the theory not be refuted by any experiment within
the theory's domain of applicability.
2.It is expected that the theory be confirmed by a number of
experiments which cover a significant fraction of the theory's
domain of applicability.
3.It is expected that the theory be confirmed by a number of
experiments which examine a significant fraction of the theory's
predictions.

Special Relativity (SR) meets all of these requirements and expectations.
There are literally hundreds of experiments which have tested SR, with
an enormous range and diversity, and the agreement between theory and
experiment is excellent. There is a lot of redundancy in these experimental
tests. There are also a lot of indirect tests of SR which are not included
here. This list of experiments is by no means complete!

Other than their sheer numbers, the most striking thing about these
experimental tests of SR is their remarkable breadth and diversity. An
important aspect of SR is its universality - it applies to all known physical
phenomena and not just to the electromagnetic phenomena it was
originally invented to explain. In these experiments you will find tests
using electromagnetic and nuclear measurements (including both strong
and weak interactions); gravitational tests are the province of General
Relativity, and are not considered here, see Experimental Tests of GR.

There are several useful surveys of the experimental basis of SR:

Y.Z.Zhang, Special Relativity and its Experimental Foundations,
World Scientific (1997).
G.Holton, "Resource Letter SRT-1 on Special Relativity Theory",
Am. J. Phys., 30 (1962), p462.
D.I.Blotkhintsev, "Basis for Special Relativity Theory Provided by
Experiments in High Energy Physics", Sov. Phys. Uspekhi, 9 (1966),
p405.
Newman et al. Phys. Rev. Lett. 40 no. 21 (1978), p1355.

Zhang's book is especially comprehensive.

Textbooks which have good summaries of the experimental basis of
relativity are:

M.Born, Einstein's theory of Relativity.
Bergmann, Introduction to the Theory of Relativity.
Moller, The Theory of Relativity.
M. von Laue, Die relativitätstheorie (in German).

Crank Information
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=group%3Asci.physics+author%3AJean-Paul+Turcaud

[Spaceman]

"Jim" <lose...@workfromhome.com> wrote in message news:m7pg9vgh4gaeostan...@4ax.com...

> I'm not *saying* anything. I'm *asking* you to name one thing you can
> do without time.

Anything and everything I do is done "without the aid" of time at all.
I have answered that question,
You just don't get the answer and are too lost in "spacetime" jokes
to get it.
I can do anything I can do, and time does not have to be counted
or happen for what I do to happen at all.
Your brain seems to not be using any time to think
about "what time is" either.
:)

[Spaceman]

"Jim the foolish and fooled philosopher " <lose...@workfromhome.com> wrote in message
news:e9qg9vc6flh2qmh43...@4ax.com...

> James, why do you reply to messages posted to Spaceshit?

You are being fooled that bad huh Jim?
I answer such posts because some pukes like to take
what was posted under my nickname "spaceman"
and change the "wrote" part into spaceshit and not even leave the correct name
at all.
I am not answering posts posted to spaceshit.
I am answering posts posted to this group, that are posted
with incorrect twists of the nickname used..

> BZZzzzzzzzTT. Yes it did, try again.

Nope,
no time at all.
Took took took took no time![
No time at all.
Then again,
Philosophers like you think time is needed for things
to happen,
It has no physical bearing on the physical sciences to happen
nor for causes to occur.
<LOL>

[Jim]

"Spaceman" <AgentS...@aol.combination> wrote:

>
>"Jim" <lose...@workfromhome.com> wrote in message news:m7pg9vgh4gaeostan...@4ax.com...
>> I'm not *saying* anything. I'm *asking* you to name one thing you can
>> do without time.
>
>Anything and everything I do is done "without the aid" of time at all.

Are you putting the word "aid" in my mouth. Because I'm sure I didn't
say it. :)
Is that one of those straws I've heard so much about? <LOL>

>I have answered that question,

Show me.!!!

>You just don't get the answer and are too lost in "spacetime" jokes
>to get it.

No "spacetime" here... There?

>I can do anything I can do, and time does not have to be counted
>or happen for what I do to happen at all.

Counted? Did I say counted? Where do you get all these things,
that you claim I've said?

>Your brain seems to not be using any time to think

You're right, I can't think without time.
"That's one small step..."

Now name something you can do without time.
Go ahead, I dare ya. :)

Jim

[Spaceman]

"Jim" <lose...@workfromhome.com> wrote in message news:0osg9vo5mtdrd2f6h...@4ax.com...

> Are you putting the word "aid" in my mouth. Because I'm sure I didn't
> say it. :)
> Is that one of those straws I've heard so much about? <LOL>
>
> >I have answered that question,
>
> Show me.!!!
>
> >You just don't get the answer and are too lost in "spacetime" jokes
> >to get it.
>
> No "spacetime" here... There?
>
> >I can do anything I can do, and time does not have to be counted
> >or happen for what I do to happen at all.
>
> Counted? Did I say counted? Where do you get all these things,
> that you claim I've said?

Time is a counting method,
you aksed me if it took time,
I did not count anything,
so it took no time.

> >Your brain seems to not be using any time to think
>
> You're right, I can't think without time.

Then that is your problem,
you should stop counting while you think.
<LOL>

> Now name something you can do without time.
> Go ahead, I dare ya. :)

I have answered Jim.
I can do all sorts of things without "time".
"time is a counting method Jim"
You still like to ignore that fact huh?

What is time Jim?
answer that!
I dare you!

[Jim]

"Spaceman" <AgentS...@aol.combination> wrote:

>
>"Jim" <lose...@workfromhome.com> wrote in message news:0osg9vo5mtdrd2f6h...@4ax.com...
>> Are you putting the word "aid" in my mouth. Because I'm sure I didn't
>> say it. :)
>> Is that one of those straws I've heard so much about? <LOL>
>>
>> >I have answered that question,
>>
>> Show me.!!!
>>
>> >You just don't get the answer and are too lost in "spacetime" jokes
>> >to get it.
>>
>> No "spacetime" here... There?
>>
>> >I can do anything I can do, and time does not have to be counted
>> >or happen for what I do to happen at all.
>>
>> Counted? Did I say counted? Where do you get all these things,
>> that you claim I've said?
>
>Time is a counting method,
>you aksed me if it took time,

No I didn't. Putting words into my mouth again?
How 'bout you speak for yourself, and I'll take care of my end of the
conversation. OK? <LOL>

>I did not count anything,
>so it took no time.
>
>
>> >Your brain seems to not be using any time to think
>>
>> You're right, I can't think without time.
>
>Then that is your problem,
>you should stop counting while you think.
><LOL>

Are you clairvoyant? You know I'm counting while I think?
Again, you are wrong. And still silly. :)

>
>
>> Now name something you can do without time.
>> Go ahead, I dare ya. :)
>
>I have answered Jim.
>I can do all sorts of things without "time".

Name one. :)

>"time is a counting method Jim"
>You still like to ignore that fact huh?
>
>What is time Jim?
>answer that!
>I dare you!

OK if you insist.

Main Entry: 1time
Pronunciation: 'tIm
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English, from Old English tIma; akin to Old Norse
tImi time, Old English tId -- more at TIDE
Date: before 12th century
1 a : the measured or measurable period during which an action,
process, or condition exists or continues : DURATION b : a nonspatial
continuum that is measured in terms of events which succeed one
another from past through present to future c : LEISURE <time for
reading>
2 : the point or period when something occurs : OCCASION
3 a : an appointed, fixed, or customary moment or hour for something
to happen, begin, or end <arrived ahead of time> b : an opportune or
suitable moment <decided it was time to retire> -- often used in the
phrase about time <about time for a change>
4 a : an historical period : AGE b : a division of geologic chronology
c : conditions at present or at some specified period -- usually used
in plural <times are hard> <move with the times> d : the present time
<issues of the time>
5 a : LIFETIME b : a period of apprenticeship c : a term of military
service d : a prison sentence
6 : SEASON <very hot for this time of year>
7 a : rate of speed : TEMPO b : the grouping of the beats of music :
RHYTHM
8 a : a moment, hour, day, or year as indicated by a clock or calendar
<what time is it> b : any of various systems (as sidereal or solar) of
reckoning time
9 a : one of a series of recurring instances or repeated actions
<you've been told many times> b plural (1) : added or accumulated
quantities or instances <five times greater> (2) : equal fractional
parts of which an indicated number equal a comparatively greater
quantity <seven times smaller> <three times closer> c : TURN <three
times at bat>
10 : finite as contrasted with infinite duration
11 : a person's experience during a specified period or on a
particular occasion <a good time> <a hard time>
12 a : the hours or days required to be occupied by one's work <make
up time> <on company time> b : an hourly pay rate <straight time> c :
wages paid at discharge or resignation <pick up your time and get out>
13 a : the playing time of a game b : TIME-OUT
14 : a period during which something is used or available for use
<computer time>
- at the same time : NEVERTHELESS, YET <slick and at the same time
strangely unprofessional -- Gerald Weaks>
- at times : at intervals : OCCASIONALLY
- for the time being : for the present
- from time to time : once in a while : OCCASIONALLY
- in no time : very quickly or soon
- in time 1 : sufficiently early 2 : EVENTUALLY 3 : in correct tempo
<learn to play in time>
- on time 1 a : at the appointed time b : on schedule 2 : on the
installment plan
- time and again : FREQUENTLY, REPEATEDLY

Didn't take too much "time" to retrieve that and add it to my message.
Pretty good, huh! :)

Jim

[Jim]

"Spaceman" <AgentS...@aol.combination> wrote:

>
>"Jim the foolish and fooled philosopher " <lose...@workfromhome.com> wrote in message
>news:e9qg9vc6flh2qmh43...@4ax.com...
>> James, why do you reply to messages posted to Spaceshit?
>
>You are being fooled that bad huh Jim?

I don't answer when someone calls "Spaceshit".
Who's the fool.

>I answer such posts because some pukes like to take
>what was posted under my nickname "spaceman"
>and change the "wrote" part into spaceshit and not even leave the correct name
>at all.
>I am not answering posts posted to spaceshit.
>I am answering posts posted to this group, that are posted
>with incorrect twists of the nickname used..

I don't think It's polite to change someone's sig,
in order to ridicule them.
If I were you I'd ignore posts like that.

>
>> BZZzzzzzzzTT. Yes it did, try again.
>
>Nope,
>no time at all.

I hope you don't actually believe that.
If you do, let me know and I'll stop
asking you to name something you can do
without time.

>Took took took took no time![

>No time at all.
>Then again,
>Philosophers like you think time is needed for things
>to happen,

Name something you can do without time.

>It has no physical bearing on the physical sciences to happen
>nor for causes to occur.

Can I quote you on that? <LOL>

Jim

[Spaceman]

"Jim" <lose...@workfromhome.com> wrote in message news:rpvg9vg6mpt4tg5st...@4ax.com...

> "Spaceman" <AgentS...@aol.combination> wrote:
> >I have answered Jim.
> >I can do all sorts of things without "time".
>
> Name one. :)

I can fart without time.

> OK if you insist.

I don't want the dictionaries wording,
I want your thoughts about what time is.

> Didn't take too much "time" to retrieve that and add it to my message.
> Pretty good, huh! :)

It did not "take" any time at all,
Where did you put that time you took?
In a time machine, that holds it for you?
and if you want to say you used time,
where did you get the time to use it from?
"spacetime"?
:)
How did you trap time to be able to use or take the time at all?
:)
what color is the time you used?
Does the time you used have a mass?
Will it be a cost less since now it is "used" time?
Do junkyards sell used time too?

Jim.
Are you going to prove time exists so then you can say you
actualkly used it at all?
Or,
are you just using that good old philosophy about "time exists"
or everything would happen at once.
:)

[Spaceman]

"Jim" <lose...@workfromhome.com> wrote in message news:8a0h9vst16as0ettc...@4ax.com...

> "Spaceman" <AgentS...@aol.combination> wrote:
>
> >
> >"Jim the foolish and fooled philosopher " <lose...@workfromhome.com> wrote in message
> >news:e9qg9vc6flh2qmh43...@4ax.com...
> >> James, why do you reply to messages posted to Spaceshit?
> >
> >You are being fooled that bad huh Jim?
>
> I don't answer when someone calls "Spaceshit".
> Who's the fool.

Sam is,
since he can not spell spaceman nor copy and paste,
nor just let his newsreader work like it should.
Why did you answer to a "Jim the foolish philospher" reply
If you are not Jim the foolish philospher?
:)

> I don't think It's polite to change someone's sig,
> in order to ridicule them.
> If I were you I'd ignore posts like that.

I don't need to ignore those posts because
when I highlight them as I do, it shows more what Sam
is all about.

> I hope you don't actually believe that.
> If you do, let me know and I'll stop
> asking you to name something you can do
> without time.

I already have told you,
time is not needed to do things.
"reality is"
and time is not a "real thing".
:)

> Name something you can do without time.

I have, you just refuse to realize time is not "needed"
it is abstracted and such abstraction are abstracts only,
not "real" needed things.

>
> >It has no physical bearing on the physical sciences to happen
> >nor for causes to occur.
>
> Can I quote you on that? <LOL>

Time is not a physical property of matter,
It has no need to be "existant for things to occur"
It only need be there for people to measure what occured.
It is an abstract Jim.

Please prove to me time exists as a physical property
of a cause.

What physical experiment can I do that proves time exists at all?

[Mike Varney]

"Spaceman" <AgentS...@aol.combination> wrote in message
news:il0ma.432694$L1.123452@sccrnsc02...

>
> "Jim" <lose...@workfromhome.com> wrote in message
news:rpvg9vg6mpt4tg5st...@4ax.com...
> > "Spaceman" <AgentS...@aol.combination> wrote:
> > >I have answered Jim.
> > >I can do all sorts of things without "time".
> >
> > Name one. :)
>
> I can fart without time.

No, you cannot. Just as you cannot molest your son without time.

[Spaceman]

"Mike Varney" <anti...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:8C0ma.395$4u.1...@news.uswest.net...

Someone should check on your sick thoughts Mike.
You truly need help for making up such crap.

[Mike Varney]

"Spaceman" <AgentS...@aol.combination> wrote in message

news:JE0ma.433821$F1.63390@sccrnsc04...

That time exists?

[Spaceman]

"Mike Varney" <anti...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:yO0ma.396$4u.1...@news.uswest.net...

Not that only you freakin' puke.
Mostly for your sad ass thoughts that I could, have, or would molest anyone
at all.
It must be because you dream of doing such huh?
You should seek help for that type of thinking Mike.
Do you take meds Mike?
You act and speak like you need them.
Do you see a shrink Mike?
You act and speak like you need one.
Seek help Mike.
You are observationally proving you need such.

--
James M Driscoll Jr
Spaceman
www.realspaceman.com

[Jim]

"Spaceman" <AgentS...@aol.combination> wrote:

>
>"Jim" <lose...@workfromhome.com> wrote in message news:rpvg9vg6mpt4tg5st...@4ax.com...
>> "Spaceman" <AgentS...@aol.combination> wrote:
>> >I have answered Jim.
>> >I can do all sorts of things without "time".
>>
>> Name one. :)
>
>I can fart without time.

I'd say "show me", but... well you know... :)

>
>> OK if you insist.
>
>I don't want the dictionaries wording,
>I want your thoughts about what time is.

Those were my thoughts. Didn't you read my mind a while ago
and tell me what I was thinking? You should know that those
were my thoughts. :)

>
>> Didn't take too much "time" to retrieve that and add it to my message.
>> Pretty good, huh! :)
>
>It did not "take" any time at all,

I hope you don't actually believe that.

>Where did you put that time you took?

Into the retrieval of course. Where did you think?

>In a time machine, that holds it for you?

There is no such thing as a time machine.
I would have thought you'd know that.

>and if you want to say you used time,
>where did you get the time to use it from?
>"spacetime"?
>:)

You believe in "spacetime"?

>How did you trap time to be able to use or take the time at all?

Did I say I trapped time. Hmmmmm... don't remember that.
But then if you say so, I guess I must have.

>:)
>what color is the time you used?

Time doesn't have a color, silly.

>Does the time you used have a mass?

Does yours?

>Will it be a cost less since now it is "used" time?
>Do junkyards sell used time too?
>
>Jim.
>Are you going to prove time exists so then you can say you
>actualkly used it at all?

If time didn't exist, then I wouldn't exist.

>Or,
>are you just using that good old philosophy about "time exists"
>or everything would happen at once.
>:)

OK.

BTW, while were are on the subject of time. Can you name something you
can do without time?

Oh, did I ask that already. Over and over and over and over and over

and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and

over?

:)

Jim

[Spaceman]

"Jim" <lose...@workfromhome.com> wrote in message news:r09h9v8pb6tjmff3u...@4ax.com...

> Those were my thoughts. Didn't you read my mind a while ago
> and tell me what I was thinking? You should know that those
> were my thoughts. :)

Those were not "your" thoughts,
those were your readings and copy and pastings.
Can you prove time exists physically at all?

> You believe in "spacetime"?

No you do when you state you need "time" for things to happen.
You still have yet to understand you do not need time,
you need motion of things,
and motion of things need no such "physical thing" as time
to move.

> If time didn't exist, then I wouldn't exist.

Nope,
not at all.
You existed and the human race (like you partly)
invented time to count and create a ratio of motion at an invariant rate.

> BTW, while were are on the subject of time. Can you name something you
> can do without time?

Are you totally lost?
I do not use time to do things,
I use motion and forces that actually exist,
I use object of reality and move them
and time does not have any "real" thing to do with such.
Why don't you get it?
Are you lost in "time"?

> Oh, did I ask that already. Over and over and over and over and over
> and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and
> over?

and I have answered over and over and over and you have yet
to prove I need a "thing" that is time to do anything at all.

I can move and do all sorts of things and I never have to
watch a clock to do so.
and before time was invented people lived and did many things.

Do you think "people" that existed before time was invented
could not do anything because "time" did not exist back then?

When are you going to physically prove time exists at all?
Can't do that can you?
Even if you have all the time in the universe huh?
:)

[Jim]

"Spaceman" <AgentS...@aol.combination> wrote:

>
>"Jim" <lose...@workfromhome.com> wrote in message news:8a0h9vst16as0ettc...@4ax.com...
>> "Spaceman" <AgentS...@aol.combination> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >"Jim the foolish and fooled philosopher " <lose...@workfromhome.com> wrote in message
>> >news:e9qg9vc6flh2qmh43...@4ax.com...
>> >> James, why do you reply to messages posted to Spaceshit?
>> >
>> >You are being fooled that bad huh Jim?
>>
>> I don't answer when someone calls "Spaceshit".
>> Who's the fool.
>
>Sam is,
>since he can not spell spaceman nor copy and paste,
>nor just let his newsreader work like it should.
>Why did you answer to a "Jim the foolish philospher" reply
>If you are not Jim the foolish philospher?
>:)

I just now noticed that. :)
As long as you keep the shit out of it, I guess
It's no big deal. :)

>
>
>> I don't think It's polite to change someone's sig,
>> in order to ridicule them.
>> If I were you I'd ignore posts like that.
>
>I don't need to ignore those posts because
>when I highlight them as I do, it shows more what Sam
>is all about.
>
>
>> I hope you don't actually believe that.
>> If you do, let me know and I'll stop
>> asking you to name something you can do
>> without time.
>
>I already have told you,
>time is not needed to do things.

Name one thing that you can do without time.

>"reality is"
>and time is not a "real thing".
>:)
>
>> Name something you can do without time.
>
>I have, you just refuse to realize time is not "needed"

Farts don't count. Name something that I can reply
with: "show me", without gagging. <LOL>

>it is abstracted and such abstraction are abstracts only,
>not "real" needed things.

"Life" is abstract. Let's see you get along without that. :)

>
>
>>
>> >It has no physical bearing on the physical sciences to happen
>> >nor for causes to occur.
>>
>> Can I quote you on that? <LOL>
>
>Time is not a physical property of matter,

I didn't think so. Now I'm not so sure.

>It has no need to be "existant for things to occur"

Name one thing that can occur without time.

>It only need be there for people to measure what occured.

And for it to occur.

>It is an abstract Jim.

Like "measure".

>
>Please prove to me time exists as a physical property
>of a cause.

Did I say time is a physical property of a cause?
Or are you trying to put word into my mouth again and again
and again and again and again and again and again and again. <LOL>

>
>What physical experiment can I do that proves time exists at all?
>

Any one that pleases you. I certainly won't stop you. :)

Jim

[Mike Varney]

"Spaceman" <AgentS...@aol.combination> wrote in message

news:VV0ma.193578$Zo.37001@sccrnsc03...

>
> "Mike Varney" <anti...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:yO0ma.396$4u.1...@news.uswest.net...
> >
> > "Spaceman" <AgentS...@aol.combination> wrote in message
> > news:JE0ma.433821$F1.63390@sccrnsc04...
> > >
> > > "Mike Varney" <anti...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:8C0ma.395$4u.1...@news.uswest.net...
> > > >
> > > > "Spaceman" <AgentS...@aol.combination> wrote in message
> > > > news:il0ma.432694$L1.123452@sccrnsc02...
> > > > >
> > > > > "Jim" <lose...@workfromhome.com> wrote in message
> > > > news:rpvg9vg6mpt4tg5st...@4ax.com...
> > > > > > "Spaceman" <AgentS...@aol.combination> wrote:
> > > > > > >I have answered Jim.
> > > > > > >I can do all sorts of things without "time".
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Name one. :)
> > > > >
> > > > > I can fart without time.
> > > >
> > > > No, you cannot. Just as you cannot molest your son without time.
> > >
> > > Someone should check on your sick thoughts Mike.
> > > You truly need help for making up such crap.
> >
> > That time exists?
>
> Not that only you freakin' puke.

That GR and SR work?

[Spaceman]

"Jim" <lose...@workfromhome.com> wrote in message news:0oah9v04odrpqkre1...@4ax.com...

> Name one thing that you can do without time.

I move,
I breathe,
I work,
I play.
I keep telling you time does not exist.
I do all I do.
Everything I do

> Farts don't count. Name something that I can reply
> with: "show me", without gagging. <LOL>

How are you going to show me that something needed time?
you can not show me a clock,
because then I say,
No,
that is not time,
that is a motion of a tick tock machine.
You still need to prove time exists to prove I used it at all.
:)

> "Life" is abstract. Let's see you get along without that. :)

Life is not abstract Jim,
Life is reality,
dreams are abstract.
You must live in a dream

> >Time is not a physical property of matter,
>
> I didn't think so. Now I'm not so sure.

You are losing it then.

> Did I say time is a physical property of a cause?

You keep saying I need time to do things,
That is implying it is a physical property of the cause of me doing things.
Sheesh you are lost in dreamland.
Tis sad Jim.
You need to show me time exists to prove what I do needs time at all.
So Jim,
Are you going to prove time exists so you can prove I need time to breathe?

Jim,
you have lost the physical and have passed into abstract dreamland.
I need no time to exist.
time needs humans with brains to count the ratio at all.
:)

Still can not grasp what time was invented for huh Jim?
Still can't grasp an abstract ratio huh?

[Spaceman]

"Mike Varney" <anti...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:U22ma.398$4u.1...@news.uswest.net...

> That GR and SR work?

Works?
What causes the work to be done?
What causes of gravity do SR and GR give?
None huh?
sheesh,
they don't work too great if they have not found a true cause
of gravity yet Mike.
you should wake up someday from your abstract la la land
that lacks cause and can't even figure out a clock malfunction cause.
Yet Newtons laws can and do.

[Jim]

"Spaceman" <AgentS...@aol.combination> wrote:

>
>"Jim" <lose...@workfromhome.com> wrote in message news:r09h9v8pb6tjmff3u...@4ax.com...
>> Those were my thoughts. Didn't you read my mind a while ago
>> and tell me what I was thinking? You should know that those
>> were my thoughts. :)
>
>Those were not "your" thoughts,
>those were your readings and copy and pastings.

I read 'em, thought about 'em, right then they became my thoughts.
They became your thought when you read them too.
You did read them, didn't you.
Perhaps you didn't have time. :)

>Can you prove time exists physically at all?

OK.

>
>> You believe in "spacetime"?
>
>No you do when you state you need "time" for things to happen.

Putting words in my mouth again.

>You still have yet to understand you do not need time,
>you need motion of things,
>and motion of things need no such "physical thing" as time
>to move.

Name the motion of one thing that doesn't need time.

>
>> If time didn't exist, then I wouldn't exist.
>
>Nope,
>not at all.
>You existed and the human race (like you partly)
>invented time to count and create a ratio of motion at an invariant rate.

Of what?

>
>> BTW, while were are on the subject of time. Can you name something you
>> can do without time?
>
>Are you totally lost?
>I do not use time to do things,

Name one. :)

>I use motion and forces that actually exist,
>I use object of reality and move them
>and time does not have any "real" thing to do with such.
>Why don't you get it?
>Are you lost in "time"?

Right there with you, in time.

>
>
>> Oh, did I ask that already. Over and over and over and over and over
>> and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and
>> over?
>
>and I have answered over and over and over and you have yet

I must have missed it. What was that thing you can do without time?

>to prove I need a "thing" that is time to do anything at all.
>
>I can move and do all sorts of things and I never have to
>watch a clock to do so.

How about go home after a long hard day's work.
I bet you watch that clock around quitting time. :)

>and before time was invented people lived and did many things.

None of which happend without time.

>
>Do you think "people" that existed before time was invented
>could not do anything because "time" did not exist back then?

Back then. Hmmmmm just when was "back then"? Perhaps somewhere in
time?

>
>When are you going to physically prove time exists at all?

I'll let you do that. There, you just did. :)

>Can't do that can you?
>Even if you have all the time in the universe huh?

Unfotunate choice of terms concidering your stance on the matter.
How can I have "all the time in the universe", if time doesn't exist?
You are so silly.
<LOL>

[Jim]

"Spaceman" <AgentS...@aol.combination> wrote:

>
>"Jim" <lose...@workfromhome.com> wrote in message news:0oah9v04odrpqkre1...@4ax.com...
>> Name one thing that you can do without time.
>
>I move,
>I breathe,
>I work,
>I play.
>I keep telling you time does not exist.
>I do all I do.
>Everything I do

Show me. Oops, you tried and took time to do it.
Try again.

>
>
>> Farts don't count. Name something that I can reply
>> with: "show me", without gagging. <LOL>
>
>How are you going to show me that something needed time?

Because it didn't happen without it.

>you can not show me a clock,
>because then I say,
>No,
>that is not time,
>that is a motion of a tick tock machine.
>You still need to prove time exists to prove I used it at all.
>:)
>
>> "Life" is abstract. Let's see you get along without that. :)
>
>Life is not abstract Jim,
>Life is reality,

Death is reality.
Both are abstract.

>dreams are abstract.
>You must live in a dream
>
>> >Time is not a physical property of matter,
>>
>> I didn't think so. Now I'm not so sure.
>
>You are losing it then.

If <you> say "Time is not a physical property of matter",
and I believe time is not a physical property of matter,
then I must question my beliefs. :)

>
>
>> Did I say time is a physical property of a cause?
>
>You keep saying I need time to do things,

I keep asking you to name one thing you can do without time.
You sure do twist.

>That is implying it is a physical property of the cause of me doing things.

In your mind perhaps.

>Sheesh you are lost in dreamland.
>Tis sad Jim.
>You need to show me time exists to prove what I do needs time at all.
>So Jim,
>Are you going to prove time exists so you can prove I need time to breathe?

You just took time to breath.

>
>Jim,
>you have lost the physical and have passed into abstract dreamland.
>I need no time to exist.

Stop time, and see how long you last in existence. :)

>time needs humans with brains to count the ratio at all.
>:)

Only to count time, not to have time.

>
>Still can not grasp what time was invented for huh Jim?

There was time long before there was invent.

>Still can't grasp an abstract ratio huh?

Here's an abstract ratio for ya.
According to you:

"Life is reality"
I say death is reality.

Life=reality=death.
Life=death.

Can only work as an abstract. :)

Jim

[Mike Varney]

"Spaceman" <AgentS...@aol.combination> wrote in message

news:Tg2ma.457419$S_4.516891@rwcrnsc53...

>
> "Mike Varney" <anti...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:U22ma.398$4u.1...@news.uswest.net...
> > That GR and SR work?
>
> Works?

Not as in work... you know, like the work it takes you to chase down your
son and bugger him.

[BHZellner]

> the expanding universe means that all matter in the
> universe is expanding at the same rate. that
> includes the matter of the earth and the matter
> that we are composed of.

Certainly not. Where do such ideas come from?
The expansion only occurs at a scale larger than
clusters of galaxies.

> ... that expansion would be impossible to detect as
> everything in the universe including our measuring
> rods and clocks would also have expanded by the
> same amount.

Another pure fantasy. Atoms, and galaxies, have
sizes as they do for fundamental physical reasons,
having nothing to do with the cosmological expansion.
If atoms and their nuclei "expanded," you would
indeed never be able to detect it, because you would
be nothing but radioactive vapor.

Could we, once and for all, bury this hoary fallacy?

Ben

[BHZellner]

>> That's wrong. Space is expanding,
>
> Space can not expand "itself"...

There is an interesting question here. Suppose you
could send a probe out to the Virgo Cluster. (Sure,
it would take a while, but we have lots of time.)

Your probe is programmed so that, when it gets to
the barycenter of the Virgo Cluster, it takes up a
velocity showing *no Doppler shift* for a beacon
at the barycenter of our own local cluster. After
accomplishing that, it shuts down its engines, and
goes strictly inertial.

Question: Will it then start to move away from our
local cluster, as if "space is expanding?" Or will
it continue to show zero Doppler shift for our own
cluster?

This question has been posed several times on
sci.astro over the years. The best-informed
answers have always been "Nope!" No "drag forces"
are associated with the cosmological expansion -
the "expansion of space" is a mathematical artifact,
not a physical reality.

If this is wrong, I would greatly appreciate elucidation.

Ben

[sam rooney]

"Alfred Centauri" <AlfredC...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message news:<20Ula.8111$PY5....@fe05.atl2.webusenet.com>...
> "sam rooney" <SAM...@HETNET.NL> wrote in message
> news:113bde6e.03041...@posting.google.com...
> > correct me if im wrong

> >
> > the expanding universe means that all matter in the universe is
> > expanding at the same rate. that includes the matter of the earth and
> > the matter that we are composed of.
>

> Not so, although this is a common misconception. The expansion of the
> universe is evident when considering the universe as a whole (as a bounded
> system with an average mass-energy density). Within this universe,
> gravitionally bound systems (planetary system, solar system, galaxy, galaxy
> clusters), are not subject to this expansion. Over the huge distances
> between non-gravitaionally bound systems however, the expansion is evident.
>
> <snip>
>
> Alfred

Alfred

the explanation of gravitationally bound systems not expanding is confusing.
if galaxies and galaxy clusters dont expand then just what is expanding ?
what do you mean by a non-gravitationally bound system ?

[Spaceman]

"Jim" <lose...@workfromhome.com> wrote in message news:dtch9vgaqmhkhpgb4...@4ax.com...

> "Spaceman" <AgentS...@aol.combination> wrote:
>
> >
> >"Jim" <lose...@workfromhome.com> wrote in message news:r09h9v8pb6tjmff3u...@4ax.com...
> >> Those were my thoughts. Didn't you read my mind a while ago
> >> and tell me what I was thinking? You should know that those
> >> were my thoughts. :)
> >
> >Those were not "your" thoughts,
> >those were your readings and copy and pastings.
>
> I read 'em, thought about 'em, right then they became my thoughts.
> They became your thought when you read them too.
> You did read them, didn't you.
> Perhaps you didn't have time. :)

NO,
I had plenty of "ratio counts of a clock device to read them"
but still found no such thing as "time" in such clocks that are counting
their own periodic motions only.

> OK.

OK is how you physically prove time exists?
Please name an experiment that shows time is a "real physical substance".

[Spaceman]

"Jim" <lose...@workfromhome.com> wrote in message news:umdh9v0par2i96scj...@4ax.com...

> "Spaceman" <AgentS...@aol.combination> wrote:
>
> >
> >"Jim" <lose...@workfromhome.com> wrote in message news:0oah9v04odrpqkre1...@4ax.com...
> >> Name one thing that you can do without time.
> >
> >I move,
> >I breathe,
> >I work,
> >I play.
> >I keep telling you time does not exist.
> >I do all I do.
> >Everything I do
>
> Show me. Oops, you tried and took time to do it.
> Try again.

I need not try again,
you are too stupid to realize what time is.
So I could care less if you wish to keep worshipping an abstract reality,
instead of finding true causes for effects.

[Spaceman]

"Mike Varney" <anti...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:C53ma.901$4u.1...@news.uswest.net...

You should really seek help for being such a lying sack of dung Mike.

[Spaceman]

"BHZellner" <bhze...@aol.com> wrote in message news:20030412234740...@mb-ch.aol.com...

You are correct,
the numbers between the objects increase because the objects move
away, not becuase the "space itself expands" and because they can
move away it would indicate there was space outside such to do such
in.
:)

.
:)

[Mike Varney]

"Spaceman" <AgentS...@aol.combination> wrote in message

news:W6ema.441033$L1.125070@sccrnsc02...

Where is the LOL Spaceshit? Used them all up while buggering your son?

[Jim]

"Spaceman" <AgentS...@aol.combination> wrote:

>
>"Jim" <lose...@workfromhome.com> wrote in message news:dtch9vgaqmhkhpgb4...@4ax.com...
>> "Spaceman" <AgentS...@aol.combination> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >"Jim" <lose...@workfromhome.com> wrote in message news:r09h9v8pb6tjmff3u...@4ax.com...
>> >> Those were my thoughts. Didn't you read my mind a while ago
>> >> and tell me what I was thinking? You should know that those
>> >> were my thoughts. :)
>> >
>> >Those were not "your" thoughts,
>> >those were your readings and copy and pastings.
>>
>> I read 'em, thought about 'em, right then they became my thoughts.
>> They became your thought when you read them too.
>> You did read them, didn't you.
>> Perhaps you didn't have time. :)
>
>NO,
>I had plenty of "ratio counts of a clock device to read them"
>but still found no such thing as "time" in such clocks that are counting
>their own periodic motions only.

How long did you look?

>
>
>> OK.
>
>OK is how you physically prove time exists?
>Please name an experiment that shows time is a "real physical substance".
>

Did I say time is a real physical substance?

The next time you put words in my mouth will be the end of this thread
for me.

Jim

[Jim]

"Spaceman" <AgentS...@aol.combination> wrote:

>
>"Jim" <lose...@workfromhome.com> wrote in message news:umdh9v0par2i96scj...@4ax.com...
>> "Spaceman" <AgentS...@aol.combination> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >"Jim" <lose...@workfromhome.com> wrote in message news:0oah9v04odrpqkre1...@4ax.com...
>> >> Name one thing that you can do without time.
>> >
>> >I move,
>> >I breathe,
>> >I work,
>> >I play.
>> >I keep telling you time does not exist.
>> >I do all I do.
>> >Everything I do
>>
>> Show me. Oops, you tried and took time to do it.
>> Try again.
>
>I need not try again,

That would take too much of your time. :)

>you are too stupid to realize what time is.
>So I could care less if you wish to keep worshipping an abstract reality,
>instead of finding true causes for effects.
>

I don't take kindly to being called stupid.

See ya.

Jim

[Spaceman]

"Jim" <lose...@workfromhome.com> wrote in message news:202j9vg28fkr4ki8l...@4ax.com...

> "Spaceman" <AgentS...@aol.combination> wrote:
>
> >
> >"Jim" <lose...@workfromhome.com> wrote in message news:dtch9vgaqmhkhpgb4...@4ax.com...
> >> "Spaceman" <AgentS...@aol.combination> wrote:
> >>
> >> >
> >> >"Jim" <lose...@workfromhome.com> wrote in message news:r09h9v8pb6tjmff3u...@4ax.com...
> >> >> Those were my thoughts. Didn't you read my mind a while ago
> >> >> and tell me what I was thinking? You should know that those
> >> >> were my thoughts. :)
> >> >
> >> >Those were not "your" thoughts,
> >> >those were your readings and copy and pastings.
> >>
> >> I read 'em, thought about 'em, right then they became my thoughts.
> >> They became your thought when you read them too.
> >> You did read them, didn't you.
> >> Perhaps you didn't have time. :)
> >
> >NO,
> >I had plenty of "ratio counts of a clock device to read them"
> >but still found no such thing as "time" in such clocks that are counting
> >their own periodic motions only.
>
> How long did you look?

I did not look for a length,
I looked while an amount of motions of other things occured.
Still can't grasp ratios huh Jim?

> Did I say time is a real physical substance?

Uou are saying such when you say it takes time to do things
and are ignoring that it takes motion during a ratio of other motion only.
"time is an abstract" you can not take it at all.
You are one good philosopher,
Too bad you still only prove you have no clue what time
was invented for.

[Spaceman]

"Mike Varney" <anti...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:RDema.420$pE.3...@news.uswest.net...

No,
there is nothing funny about you being such a lying asshole.
It is very sad you need to spout such bullshit at all.

>
>

[Spaceman]

"Jim" <lose...@workfromhome.com> wrote in message news:t32j9vs561ts77pvk...@4ax.com...

> I don't take kindly to being called stupid.

I call them like they act.
you keep acting stupid.
You say time is needed yet you can not prove it exists to be needed.

[Robert Kolker]

Spaceman wrote:
> Still can't grasp ratios huh Jim?

Surely you can't. You cannot understand why 0.333.. (decimal) is equal
to 1/3.

Bob Kolker

[Mike Varney]

"Spaceman" <AgentS...@aol.combination> wrote in message

news:7Ugma.442425$L1.125873@sccrnsc02...

>
> "Mike Varney" <anti...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:RDema.420$pE.3...@news.uswest.net...
> >
> > "Spaceman" <AgentS...@aol.combination> wrote in message
> > news:W6ema.441033$L1.125070@sccrnsc02...
> > >
> > > "Mike Varney" <anti...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:C53ma.901$4u.1...@news.uswest.net...
> > > >
> > > > "Spaceman" <AgentS...@aol.combination> wrote in message
> > > > news:Tg2ma.457419$S_4.516891@rwcrnsc53...
> > > > >
> > > > > "Mike Varney" <anti...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > > > news:U22ma.398$4u.1...@news.uswest.net...
> > > > > > That GR and SR work?
> > > > >
> > > > > Works?
> > > >
> > > > Not as in work... you know, like the work it takes you to chase down
> > your
> > > > son and bugger him.
> > >
> > > You should really seek help for being such a lying sack of dung Mike.
> >
> >
> > Where is the LOL Spaceshit? Used them all up while buggering your son?
>
> No,

That is good to know.

[JMcmi24918]

space can not expand "itself",

Yes, it can and does. The equations of general relativity in fact show that a
static universe is impossible; the universe either expands or contracts. A
universe with no matter expands the fastest as there is no mass (i.e., gravity)
to slow it down.

It is also incorrect to say the mass expands but not space. Einstein showed
that a gravitationally bound system does not expand (local gravity dominates)
but it is still "carried along" in the Hubble flow (overall expansion of the
universe).

So where is this expanding space? In the voids between the filamentary
structures that galaxies lie on..

[Spaceman]

"JMcmi24918" <jmcmi...@aol.com> wrote in message news:20030413163717...@mb-fk.aol.com...

> Yes, it can and does.

No,
space is "no stuff" in between to objects,
the space itself does not expand,
the objects move away from each other
and they can not do such without more space
outside them.

Space has no physical property to expand on it's own.

[Jim]

"Spaceman" <AgentS...@aol.combination> wrote:

>
>"Jim" <lose...@workfromhome.com> wrote in message news:202j9vg28fkr4ki8l...@4ax.com...
>> "Spaceman" <AgentS...@aol.combination> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >"Jim" <lose...@workfromhome.com> wrote in message news:dtch9vgaqmhkhpgb4...@4ax.com...
>> >> "Spaceman" <AgentS...@aol.combination> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >
>> >> >"Jim" <lose...@workfromhome.com> wrote in message news:r09h9v8pb6tjmff3u...@4ax.com...
>> >> >> Those were my thoughts. Didn't you read my mind a while ago
>> >> >> and tell me what I was thinking? You should know that those
>> >> >> were my thoughts. :)
>> >> >
>> >> >Those were not "your" thoughts,
>> >> >those were your readings and copy and pastings.
>> >>
>> >> I read 'em, thought about 'em, right then they became my thoughts.
>> >> They became your thought when you read them too.
>> >> You did read them, didn't you.
>> >> Perhaps you didn't have time. :)
>> >
>> >NO,
>> >I had plenty of "ratio counts of a clock device to read them"
>> >but still found no such thing as "time" in such clocks that are counting
>> >their own periodic motions only.
>>
>> How long did you look?
>
>I did not look for a length,
>I looked while an amount of motions of other things occured.

How long did they take?

>Still can't grasp ratios huh Jim?
>
>
>> Did I say time is a real physical substance?
>
>Uou are saying such when you say it takes time to do things

No, you are saying such. Reread my posts. I have never said time is a
real physical substance.

>and are ignoring that it takes motion during a ratio of other motion only.
>"time is an abstract" you can not take it at all.
>You are one good philosopher,
>Too bad you still only prove you have no clue what time
>was invented for.
>

Time was before invent.
When it was time to invent, it took time to invent.

Jim

[Jim]

"Spaceman" <AgentS...@aol.combination> wrote:

>
>"Jim" <lose...@workfromhome.com> wrote in message news:t32j9vs561ts77pvk...@4ax.com...
>> I don't take kindly to being called stupid.
>
>I call them like they act.
>you keep acting stupid.

End.

Jim

[Spaceman]

"Jim" <lose...@workfromhome.com> wrote in message news:v2lj9vckqja6u7hnb...@4ax.com...

> No, you are saying such. Reread my posts. I have never said time is a
> real physical substance.

Then why are you saying I need time to do anything?
I only need move to do things.

> Time was before invent.

Nope.
time is an abstract.
and you still can not grasp the difference between needing an abstract,
or needing a real.

[Spaceman]

"Jim" <lose...@workfromhome.com> wrote in message news:nmlj9v0ms6ophrrov...@4ax.com...

Why?
Because you can not prove time exists to be needed at all right?

[Alfred Centauri]

"sam rooney" <SAM...@HETNET.NL> wrote in message

news:113bde6e.0304...@posting.google.com...

By gravitiationally bound, I mean that objects within the system do not have
a velocity, relative to the center of mass of the system, exceeding the
escape velocity of the system.

As to your other question, this is a simple way I look at it:

On scales small compared with the scale of the universe, the distribution of
mass and energy in space is not homogeneous nor isotropic. However, on
large scales (imagine a cube with sides 10^9 light years long), the universe
can be modeled as a space filled with a homogeneous, isotropic fluid. That
along with a couple of fairly reasonable assumptions allows one to solve the
equations of GR for a metric that represents the geometry of spacetime for
this model universe. A static solution is not possible. A solution where
space expands with time is. But, remember that this solution represents
more or less an average geometry for the universe as a whole. At smaller
distance scales, the geometry departs from this average solution.

Regards,

Alfred

[Shrikantha S. Shastry]

SAM...@HETNET.NL (sam rooney) wrote in message news:<113bde6e.03041...@posting.google.com>...

> correct me if im wrong
>
> the expanding universe means that all matter in the universe is
> expanding at the same rate. that includes the matter of the earth and
> the matter that we are composed of.

> if the entire universe is expanding including everything in it then
> surely that expansion would be impossible to detect for someone who is
> expanding in line with the universe ?
> if the entire universe increased in size by a finite amount ( delta
> >0) between today at 12 am and tomorrow at 12 am then that expansion

> would be impossible to detect as everything in the universe including
> our measuring rods and clocks would also have expanded by the same
> amount.
>

> how is it possible to detect an expanding universe ?

Such paradoxes are in the nature of the universe which is illusory
with respect to its reality, the singularity. And so, the illusory
universe can only lead to delusions. As such, the illusory universe
gives a picture of big bang expansion or inflation when there is no
scope for it. Consequently, eventhough big bang creation and evolution
is obseved and measured, the universe being illusory never even
exists. Then, why big bang? For more details and consequences see in
steps, Conscious worldview;

http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=92a87ac5.0301210236.4169197f%40posting.google.com

[sam rooney]

"Alfred Centauri" <AlfredC...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message news:<0llma.43145$fw.3...@fe02.atl2.webusenet.com>...

Alfred

are you saying that space is filled with barriers where space doesnt
expand inside the barriers and does expand outside the barriers ?
then taking the average of the expanding areas and the non-expanding
areas we can get the average expansion taken over the whole universe ?

[Alfred Centauri]

No, I'm not saying that. Where did that barrier idea come from?

Regards,

Alfred

[sam rooney]

"Alfred Centauri" <AlfredC...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message news:<8tSma.7303$88....@fe07.atl2.webusenet.com>...

i meant boundary and not barrier. you seem to be saying that inter-
galactic space is expanding but intersteallar space isnt. correct ?

to me that suggests a boundary between areas which are expanding and
areas which arent. there cannot be any other way for it to happen.

unless interstellar space is exoanding but very very slowly compared
to intergalactic space.

i am just getting a feel for this stuff

[Alfred Centauri]

To my thinking, a boundary suggests a small region of rapid change so I
don't think its a good picture. Let me try again:

Critical to the solution of the equations of GR that predict an expanding
universe is the assumption that the mass-energy distribution in the universe
is homogeneous and isotropic. This assumption is valid if one looks at
*very* large volumes of space. However, at smaller scales, the assumption
is not valid and so the solution is not valid. What to make of this? I
guess it is something like statistical mechanics. When one examines the
motion of air molecules at small scales, the motion of individual molecules
varies greatly without apparent correlation. However, at large scales, the
individual motions average out to a coherent large scale motion. Likewise,
the metric describing the space within small volumes departs greatly from
the metric of a homogeneous expanding universe. But, on a very large scale,
these individual departures from the overall metric average out to an
expansion of space overall.

So, it is not important to look at a particular region to find expansion, it
is important to look at a *large enough* region to find expansion.

>
> unless interstellar space is exoanding but very very slowly compared
> to intergalactic space.
>
> i am just getting a feel for this stuff

With GR, that can take a lifetime!

Regards,

Alfred

[Juan Camarena]

for both of you....

stop Wasting Time!!...
time will happen wether you like it or not.. like getting to be an old fart,
while I read your bickering... time I could be using for grading papers..by
the way, I get 4 months off per year and still get check every four weeks..
there is a concept of time I can understand, because while you don't think
time exist, I should hate it when my time is up and have to go back to work
for another four months.... yuk!1

"Spaceman" <AgentS...@aol.combination> wrote in message

news:cm_la.192064$Zo.36535@sccrnsc03...

>
> "Jim" <lose...@workfromhome.com> wrote in message

news:m7pg9vgh4gaeostan...@4ax.com...
> > I'm not *saying* anything. I'm *asking* you to name one thing you can
> > do without time.
>
> Anything and everything I do is done "without the aid" of time at all.
> I have answered that question,
> You just don't get the answer and are too lost in "spacetime" jokes
> to get it.
> I can do anything I can do, and time does not have to be counted
> or happen for what I do to happen at all.
> Your brain seems to not be using any time to think
> about "what time is" either.
> :)
>
>

[sam rooney]

"Alfred Centauri" <AlfredC...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message news:<Y6fna.98$NS6...@fe09.atl2.webusenet.com>...

thanks for the explanation.