Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
there´s no question or discussion about it.
95 views
Skip to first unread message
The Starmaker
Apr 27, 2012, 12:17:46 PM4/27/12
to
Why this is marked as abuse? It has been marked as abuse.
Report not abuse
"It愀 right there in the habitable zone - there愀 no question or discussion about it.
It is not on the edge. It is right in there."
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/space/9230801/Astronomers-find-new-planet-capable-of-supporting-life.html
in搾on暗ro暇ert搏搓le
Not able to be denied or disputed
It's always the same with 'these guys'..."no discussion about it".
It's like....Religion, isn't it?
The Starmaker
I say those guys can go fuck themselves with their..."there愀 no question or discussion about it."
If you disagree, you're a cosmic religious fanatic.
It is not on the edge. It is right in there."
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/space/9230801/Astronomers-find-new-planet-capable-of-supporting-life.html
in搾on暗ro暇ert搏搓le
Not able to be denied or disputed
It's always the same with 'these guys'..."no discussion about it".
It's like....Religion, isn't it?
The Starmaker
I say those guys can go fuck themselves with their..."there愀 no question or discussion about it."
If you disagree, you're a cosmic religious fanatic.
Cryptoengineer
Apr 27, 2012, 3:55:04 PM4/27/12
to
On Apr 27, 12:17 pm, The Starmaker <starma...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> "It´s right there in the habitable zone - there´s no question or discussion about it.
> It is not on the edge. It is right in there."http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/space/9230801/Astronomers-find-new...
>
> in·con·tro·vert·i·ble
pt
> "It´s right there in the habitable zone - there´s no question or discussion about it.
> It is not on the edge. It is right in there."http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/space/9230801/Astronomers-find-new...
>
> in·con·tro·vert·i·ble
>
> Not able to be denied or disputed
>
> It's always the same with 'these guys'..."no discussion about it".
>
> It's like....Religion, isn't it?
>
> The Starmaker
>
> I say those guys can go fuck themselves with their..."there´s no question or discussion about it."
> Not able to be denied or disputed
>
> It's always the same with 'these guys'..."no discussion about it".
>
> It's like....Religion, isn't it?
>
> The Starmaker
>
>
> If you disagree, you're a cosmic religious fanatic.
You don't know, and you don't know that you don't know.
> If you disagree, you're a cosmic religious fanatic.
pt
number6
Apr 27, 2012, 4:15:20 PM4/27/12
to
On Apr 27, 12:17 pm, The Starmaker <starma...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> "It´s right there in the habitable zone - there´s no question or discussion about it.
> It is not on the edge. It is right in there."http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/space/9230801/Astronomers-find-new...
>
> in·con·tro·vert·i·ble
>
> "It´s right there in the habitable zone - there´s no question or discussion about it.
> It is not on the edge. It is right in there."http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/space/9230801/Astronomers-find-new...
>
> in·con·tro·vert·i·ble
>
> Not able to be denied or disputed
>
> It's always the same with 'these guys'..."no discussion about it".
>
> It's like....Religion, isn't it?
>
> The Starmaker
>
> I say those guys can go fuck themselves with their..."there´s no question or discussion about it."
>
> It's always the same with 'these guys'..."no discussion about it".
>
> It's like....Religion, isn't it?
>
> The Starmaker
>
>
> If you disagree, you're a cosmic religious fanatic.
Nothing further will come from this ... they really can't even go this
> If you disagree, you're a cosmic religious fanatic.
far ...
They won't find water there ... they won't be able to actually measure
the temperature ... they won't be able to know the atmosphere if
any ... they can only postulate that ... Wow that is in an area where
we think the temperature won't freeze or fry any life ...
Get us more money for another grant ... we've got people hooked on
speculation ...
See there's another star ... with planets ... because there is life on
earth maybe there is life there ... give us more grant money ...
The Starmaker
Apr 28, 2012, 2:21:05 PM4/28/12
to
> > "It愀 right there in the habitable zone - there愀 no question or discussion about it.
They should apply for disability. They see things that are not there, or are there, or are not there, or...
Just go to your nearest disability office and tell them you see Earths...everywhere!
... there愀 no question or discussion about it.
The new con is...The Earth Con. Earths ..everywhere is the newest con.
The Starmaker
I'm looking at the sky now...I think I see another Earth, It is right in there..there愀 no question or discussion about it.
> > It is not on the edge. It is right in there."http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/space/9230801/Astronomers-find-new...
> >
> > in搾on暗ro暇ert搏搓le
> >
> >
> > Not able to be denied or disputed
> >
> > It's always the same with 'these guys'..."no discussion about it".
> >
> > It's like....Religion, isn't it?
> >
> > The Starmaker
> >
> > I say those guys can go fuck themselves with their..."there愀 no question or discussion about it."
> > Not able to be denied or disputed
> >
> > It's always the same with 'these guys'..."no discussion about it".
> >
> > It's like....Religion, isn't it?
> >
> > The Starmaker
> >
> >
> > If you disagree, you're a cosmic religious fanatic.
>
> Nothing further will come from this ... they really can't even go this
> far ...
> They won't find water there ... they won't be able to actually measure
> the temperature ... they won't be able to know the atmosphere if
> any ... they can only postulate that ... Wow that is in an area where
> we think the temperature won't freeze or fry any life ...
> Get us more money for another grant ... we've got people hooked on
> speculation ...
> See there's another star ... with planets ... because there is life on
> earth maybe there is life there ... give us more grant money ...
"grant money"? It's 'government assistance'...Welfare for the Einsteins of the world.
> > If you disagree, you're a cosmic religious fanatic.
>
> Nothing further will come from this ... they really can't even go this
> far ...
> They won't find water there ... they won't be able to actually measure
> the temperature ... they won't be able to know the atmosphere if
> any ... they can only postulate that ... Wow that is in an area where
> we think the temperature won't freeze or fry any life ...
> Get us more money for another grant ... we've got people hooked on
> speculation ...
> See there's another star ... with planets ... because there is life on
> earth maybe there is life there ... give us more grant money ...
They should apply for disability. They see things that are not there, or are there, or are not there, or...
Just go to your nearest disability office and tell them you see Earths...everywhere!
... there愀 no question or discussion about it.
The new con is...The Earth Con. Earths ..everywhere is the newest con.
The Starmaker
I'm looking at the sky now...I think I see another Earth, It is right in there..there愀 no question or discussion about it.
The Starmaker
Apr 28, 2012, 3:04:33 PM4/28/12
to
whole community
that
their entire collection
of ideas
are based on...
it's either there, or it's not there?
Frightening isn't it?
The Starmaker
Will in New Haven
Apr 28, 2012, 5:43:46 PM4/28/12
to
On Apr 27, 12:17 pm, The Starmaker <starma...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> "It´s right there in the habitable zone - there´s no question or discussion about it.
> It is not on the edge. It is right in there."http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/space/9230801/Astronomers-find-new...
>
> in·con·tro·vert·i·ble
>
> It is not on the edge. It is right in there."http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/space/9230801/Astronomers-find-new...
>
> in·con·tro·vert·i·ble
>
> Not able to be denied or disputed
>
> It's always the same with 'these guys'..."no discussion about it".
>
> It's like....Religion, isn't it?
>
> The Starmaker
>
> I say those guys can go fuck themselves with their..."there´s no question or discussion about it."
>
> It's always the same with 'these guys'..."no discussion about it".
>
> It's like....Religion, isn't it?
>
> The Starmaker
>
>
> If you disagree, you're a cosmic religious fanatic.
If someone with a reason disagrees then he or she disagrees and there
> If you disagree, you're a cosmic religious fanatic.
should be a discussion. If you disagree, you are nothing and no one
need listen to you. Just as you were nothing before you disagreed.
--
Will in New Haven
The Starmaker
Apr 28, 2012, 7:49:08 PM4/28/12
to
Quadibloc wrote:
> distance between an exoplanet and the star it orbits, are tasks which
> are well understood.
>
> So this is not evidence of dogmatism on the part of scientists, any
> more than it would be to say that, after using a tape measure, that it
> is incontrovertible that a pair of pants has a 36-inch waist.
>
> For a planet to be in the "habitable zone" just means that, if the
> Earth were in that position, life might be able to survive on the
> Earth, because it wouldn't be too hot or too cold for liquid water to
> exist here. It doesn't mean that there is life on this planet, if
> that's what you were thinking.
>
> John Savard
Instead of going thru all that, you could have just posted a link
to the fairy tale, GoldenLocks and the Three Bears.
>
> On Apr 27, 10:17 am, The Starmaker <starma...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>
> > in搾on暗ro暇ert搏搓le
> >
> > Not able to be denied or disputed
> >
> > It's always the same with 'these guys'..."no discussion about it".
> >
> > It's like....Religion, isn't it?
>
> Measuring how much energy that a star produces when it shines, and the
> On Apr 27, 10:17 am, The Starmaker <starma...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>
> > in搾on暗ro暇ert搏搓le
> >
> > Not able to be denied or disputed
> >
> > It's always the same with 'these guys'..."no discussion about it".
> >
> > It's like....Religion, isn't it?
>
> distance between an exoplanet and the star it orbits, are tasks which
> are well understood.
>
> So this is not evidence of dogmatism on the part of scientists, any
> more than it would be to say that, after using a tape measure, that it
> is incontrovertible that a pair of pants has a 36-inch waist.
>
> For a planet to be in the "habitable zone" just means that, if the
> Earth were in that position, life might be able to survive on the
> Earth, because it wouldn't be too hot or too cold for liquid water to
> exist here. It doesn't mean that there is life on this planet, if
> that's what you were thinking.
>
> John Savard
Instead of going thru all that, you could have just posted a link
to the fairy tale, GoldenLocks and the Three Bears.
The Starmaker
Apr 28, 2012, 7:52:40 PM4/28/12
to
> > "It愀 right there in the habitable zone - there愀 no question or discussion about it.
> > It is not on the edge. It is right in there."http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/space/9230801/Astronomers-find-new...
> >
> > in搾on暗ro暇ert搏搓le
> >
> >
> > Not able to be denied or disputed
> >
> > It's always the same with 'these guys'..."no discussion about it".
> >
> > It's like....Religion, isn't it?
> >
> > The Starmaker
> >
> > I say those guys can go fuck themselves with their..."there愀 no question or discussion about it."
> > Not able to be denied or disputed
> >
> > It's always the same with 'these guys'..."no discussion about it".
> >
> > It's like....Religion, isn't it?
> >
> > The Starmaker
> >
> >
> > If you disagree, you're a cosmic religious fanatic.
>
> If someone with a reason disagrees then he or she disagrees and there
> should be a discussion. If you disagree, you are nothing and no one
> need listen to you. Just as you were nothing before you disagreed.
>
> --
> Will in New Haven
You're really not in New Haven...you're just an ant searching for food.
> > If you disagree, you're a cosmic religious fanatic.
>
> If someone with a reason disagrees then he or she disagrees and there
> should be a discussion. If you disagree, you are nothing and no one
> need listen to you. Just as you were nothing before you disagreed.
>
> --
> Will in New Haven
jonathan
Apr 29, 2012, 10:49:46 AM4/29/12
to
"The Starmaker" <star...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:4F9AC6...@ix.netcom.com...
> "It愀 right there in the habitable zone - there愀 no question or
> discussion about it.
> It is not on the edge. It is right in there."
> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/space/9230801/Astronomers-find-new-planet-capable-of-supporting-life.html
>
> in搾on暗ro暇ert搏搓le
>
>
> Not able to be denied or disputed
>
So this ground-breaking discovery is
> discussion about it.
> It is not on the edge. It is right in there."
> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/space/9230801/Astronomers-find-new-planet-capable-of-supporting-life.html
>
> in搾on暗ro暇ert搏搓le
>
>
> Not able to be denied or disputed
>
that gravity works outside our solar
system too?
The Starmaker
Apr 29, 2012, 7:30:09 PM4/29/12
to
The Starmaker
Apr 29, 2012, 7:41:06 PM4/29/12
to
Quadibloc wrote:
> could actually see your mistake.
>
> John Savard
I don't make mistakes.
>
> On Apr 28, 5:49 pm, The Starmaker <starma...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>
> > Instead of going thru all that, you could have just posted a link
> > to the fairy tale, GoldenLocks and the Three Bears.
>
> I really thought that I had explained the matter well enough that you
> On Apr 28, 5:49 pm, The Starmaker <starma...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>
> > Instead of going thru all that, you could have just posted a link
> > to the fairy tale, GoldenLocks and the Three Bears.
>
> could actually see your mistake.
>
> John Savard
I don't make mistakes.
Remysun
Apr 30, 2012, 3:20:06 PM4/30/12
to
The same can't be said about your parents.
The Starmaker
Apr 30, 2012, 4:36:22 PM4/30/12
to
even prove that 'gravity exist'?
Is this some kind of a joke?
The Starmaker
May 1, 2012, 12:49:35 AM5/1/12
to
mistake?
The act of making a baby is simply invisible to the ones making the
baby.
You might as well say Nature made a mistake...
I always tell girls, "Lets make a baby."
The Starmaker
May 1, 2012, 1:12:03 AM5/1/12
to
Quadibloc wrote:
I don't see anyone else...disagreeing.
> On Apr 28, 5:49 pm, The Starmaker <starma...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>
> > Instead of going thru all that, you could have just posted a link
> > to the fairy tale, GoldenLocks and the Three Bears.
>
...and this thing you call a "habitable zone"..
based on
a fairy tale.. GoldiLocks and the Three Bears
based on
a cosmic religion, called 'the anthropic principle'
the anthropic principle is not even Science, it's LSD.
Why not just call "habitable zone" , nam myoho renge kyo?
Or, "the baby's soup".
Or "the little bowl in the middle."
But "the habitable zone" sounds too much like...
The Twilight Zone
>
> On Apr 29, 5:41 pm, The Starmaker <starma...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>
> > I don't make mistakes.
>
> A number of posters other than myself apparently disagree.
> On Apr 29, 5:41 pm, The Starmaker <starma...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>
> > I don't make mistakes.
>
I don't see anyone else...disagreeing.
> On Apr 28, 5:49 pm, The Starmaker <starma...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>
> > Instead of going thru all that, you could have just posted a link
> > to the fairy tale, GoldenLocks and the Three Bears.
>
based on
a fairy tale.. GoldiLocks and the Three Bears
based on
a cosmic religion, called 'the anthropic principle'
the anthropic principle is not even Science, it's LSD.
Why not just call "habitable zone" , nam myoho renge kyo?
Or, "the baby's soup".
Or "the little bowl in the middle."
But "the habitable zone" sounds too much like...
The Twilight Zone
jonathan
May 1, 2012, 1:22:05 AM5/1/12
to
news:4F9EF7...@ix.netcom.com...
Whatever gravity may be, it still follows
inverse-square behavior. The 'mysterious'
tendency of mass to coalesce decreases
as a square of the distance.
By the way, fitness also 'mysteriously'
follows a similar inverse-square law
called a power-law.
>
> Is this some kind of a joke?
Depends on whether you find the input
or output side more important. My hobby
ignores what things are in favor or modeling
behavior, the output side. Since an orbit is
an orbit is an orbit whether we're talking about
a planet,or a ball on a string. Behavior, the output
side, is universal, while the input side (what things
actually are) is unique to each and every thing.
Universal laws, or the information which tells us
what is common among all things, is best found
in behavior. A holistic frame of reference.
If gravity and biological fitness behave much
in the same way, what is the common element?
Hint; the interaction among variables is 'complex'
in both, using the term complex as defined
by Complexity Science.
Whether a gravity well, or a fitness peak, the
two share similar forms.
One, the higher the peak, the larger the
basin of attraction.
Two, higher peaks tend to clump together
on the possibility landscape.
Combine those two, and any random path through
such a landscape, is more likely to fall into a region
of higher gravity/fitness than a lower one. Chance
favors order. See random boolean networks.
Order for free! The universe is biased towards
order and creation. Randomness or complexity
at the part level, 'sums over' to order on the
system level.
Jonathan
Calresco Themes (*in essay form)
http://calresco.org/themes.htm
Self-Organizing Faq
http://calresco.org/sos/sosfaq.htm
Dynamics of Complex Systems
(full online textbook)
http://www.necsi.org/publications/dcs/
s
inverse-square behavior. The 'mysterious'
tendency of mass to coalesce decreases
as a square of the distance.
By the way, fitness also 'mysteriously'
follows a similar inverse-square law
called a power-law.
>
> Is this some kind of a joke?
or output side more important. My hobby
ignores what things are in favor or modeling
behavior, the output side. Since an orbit is
an orbit is an orbit whether we're talking about
a planet,or a ball on a string. Behavior, the output
side, is universal, while the input side (what things
actually are) is unique to each and every thing.
Universal laws, or the information which tells us
what is common among all things, is best found
in behavior. A holistic frame of reference.
If gravity and biological fitness behave much
in the same way, what is the common element?
Hint; the interaction among variables is 'complex'
in both, using the term complex as defined
by Complexity Science.
Whether a gravity well, or a fitness peak, the
two share similar forms.
One, the higher the peak, the larger the
basin of attraction.
Two, higher peaks tend to clump together
on the possibility landscape.
Combine those two, and any random path through
such a landscape, is more likely to fall into a region
of higher gravity/fitness than a lower one. Chance
favors order. See random boolean networks.
Order for free! The universe is biased towards
order and creation. Randomness or complexity
at the part level, 'sums over' to order on the
system level.
Jonathan
Calresco Themes (*in essay form)
http://calresco.org/themes.htm
Self-Organizing Faq
http://calresco.org/sos/sosfaq.htm
Dynamics of Complex Systems
(full online textbook)
http://www.necsi.org/publications/dcs/
s
number6
May 1, 2012, 9:33:44 AM5/1/12
to
On May 1, 1:22 am, "jonathan" <wr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>
> Whatever gravity may be, it still follows
> inverse-square behavior. The 'mysterious'
> tendency of mass to coalesce decreases
> as a square of the distance.
There is one problem that never really gets addressed in these cosmic
>>
>
> Whatever gravity may be, it still follows
> inverse-square behavior. The 'mysterious'
> tendency of mass to coalesce decreases
> as a square of the distance.
measurements is that we are seeing nothing at the same time ... We
don't see "now" ...
We see the moon 1 1/2 seconds ago ... the sun a little over 8 minutes
ago ...Mars 34 minutes Saturn 80 minutes ... Alpha Centauri 4 years
ago ... The farthest star about 15000 years ago ... that light from
Andromeda is 2.5 million years ago ... all these we see with our own
eyes ... Hubble has increased that to 13.2 billion years ago ...
So what we see in the sky is a glimpse of the entire history of the
universe ... and not a snapshot of "now" ...
Even someone standing 5 feet away from you ...
even in the picoseconds it takes to we see them ... hundreds of
neutrinos have passed through their bodies ...
oriel36
May 1, 2012, 3:37:03 PM5/1/12
to
On May 1, 6:22 am, "jonathan" <wr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> "The Starmaker" <starma...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
> >> >news:4F9AC6...@ix.netcom.com...
> >> > > "It´s right there in the habitable zone - there´s no question or
with sci.relativity but it is a stroke of brilliance.
You haven't a clue what Isaac was doing apart from chanting voodoo
about an 'inverse square law' and pointing in the direction of
Kepler.What Newton did was try and set the planets moving in a
clockwork solar system and the original guys loved it as it seemed to
answer all the questions they never asked but then everyone
discovered they hated it and then they couldn't stand it,even invented
time travel to escape the damn thing.Yet nobody can say what the
'theory of gravity' where an apple falls and it has something to do
with the moon orbiting the Earth and the Earth orbiting the Sun.
Unlike a lot of men who couldn't figure out what Isaac did,I enjoyed
the puzzle that took about a decade to crack even if it was only going
on in the background and I wasn't desperate or focused on getting to
the bottom of things.Still,guys should really have a look at what
Kepler did as it is not difficult at all much less a 'law of
motion'.Here is Isaac merrily chanting voodoo at Kepler's view for
what became the so-called 'inverse square' law so lets get that out of
the way -
"That the fixed stars being at rest, the periodic times of the five
primary planets, and (whether of the sun about the earth, or) of the
earth about the sun, are in the sesquiplicate proportion of their mean
distances from the sun." Newton
Well Kepler didn't say anything close to that and if a few readers
have enough patience they can see there is no real mystery to Kepler's
observation that the time a planet travels around the Sun is related
to its distance -
"The proportion existing between the periodic times of any two planets
is exactly the sesquiplicate proportion of the mean distances of the
orbits, or as generally given,the squares of the periodic times are
proportional to the cubes of the mean distances." Kepler
No need to panic,he explains it fully so that only the rednecks won't
get it as usual -
But it is absolutely certain and exact that the ratio which exists
between the periodic times of any two planets is precisely the ratio
of the 3/2th power of the mean distances, i.e., of the spheres
themselves; provided, however, that the arithmetic mean between both
diameters of the elliptic orbit be slightly less than the longer
diameter. And so if any one take the period, say, of the Earth, which
is one year, and the period of Saturn, which is thirty years, and
extract the cube roots of this ratio and then square the ensuing
ratio
by squaring the cube roots, he will have as his numerical products the
most just ratio of the distances of the Earth and Saturn from the sun.
For the cube root of 1 is 1, and the square of it is 1; and the cube
root of 30 is greater than 3, and therefore the square of it is
greater than 9. And Saturn, at its mean distance from the sun, is
slightly higher than nine times the mean distance of the Earth from
the sun." Kepler
Now,if anyone can get from an apple falling from a tree to planetary
dynamics through Kepler's observation they are going to have to chant
a lot of voodoo but personally speaking, what Newton tried to do is
far more interesting if it is treated like a detective story and a
crime scene.
> "The Starmaker" <starma...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
>
> news:4F9EF7...@ix.netcom.com...
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > The Starmaker wrote:
>
> >> jonathan wrote:
>
> >> > "The Starmaker" <starma...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
> news:4F9EF7...@ix.netcom.com...
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > The Starmaker wrote:
>
> >> jonathan wrote:
>
> >> >news:4F9AC6...@ix.netcom.com...
> >> > > "It´s right there in the habitable zone - there´s no question or
> >> > > discussion about it.
> >> > > It is not on the edge. It is right in there."
> >> > > It is not on the edge. It is right in there."
> >> > >http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/space/9230801/Astronomers-find-new...
>
> >> > > in·con·tro·vert·i·ble
>
>
> >> > > in·con·tro·vert·i·ble
>
> >> > > Not able to be denied or disputed
>
> >> > So this ground-breaking discovery is
> >> > that gravity works outside our solar
> >> > system too?
>
> >> Gravity, has never been proven to exist.
>
> > How is it 'you people' can easily say "gravity works", when you cannot
> > even prove that 'gravity exist'?
>
> Whatever gravity may be, it still follows
> inverse-square behavior. The 'mysterious'
> tendency of mass to coalesce decreases
> as a square of the distance.
>
> By the way, fitness also 'mysteriously'
> follows a similar inverse-square law
> called a power-law.
>
I don't know who is including sci-fi in the headers and bundling it
>
> >> > So this ground-breaking discovery is
> >> > that gravity works outside our solar
> >> > system too?
>
> >> Gravity, has never been proven to exist.
>
> > How is it 'you people' can easily say "gravity works", when you cannot
> > even prove that 'gravity exist'?
>
> Whatever gravity may be, it still follows
> inverse-square behavior. The 'mysterious'
> tendency of mass to coalesce decreases
> as a square of the distance.
>
> By the way, fitness also 'mysteriously'
> follows a similar inverse-square law
> called a power-law.
>
with sci.relativity but it is a stroke of brilliance.
You haven't a clue what Isaac was doing apart from chanting voodoo
about an 'inverse square law' and pointing in the direction of
Kepler.What Newton did was try and set the planets moving in a
clockwork solar system and the original guys loved it as it seemed to
answer all the questions they never asked but then everyone
discovered they hated it and then they couldn't stand it,even invented
time travel to escape the damn thing.Yet nobody can say what the
'theory of gravity' where an apple falls and it has something to do
with the moon orbiting the Earth and the Earth orbiting the Sun.
Unlike a lot of men who couldn't figure out what Isaac did,I enjoyed
the puzzle that took about a decade to crack even if it was only going
on in the background and I wasn't desperate or focused on getting to
the bottom of things.Still,guys should really have a look at what
Kepler did as it is not difficult at all much less a 'law of
motion'.Here is Isaac merrily chanting voodoo at Kepler's view for
what became the so-called 'inverse square' law so lets get that out of
the way -
"That the fixed stars being at rest, the periodic times of the five
primary planets, and (whether of the sun about the earth, or) of the
earth about the sun, are in the sesquiplicate proportion of their mean
distances from the sun." Newton
Well Kepler didn't say anything close to that and if a few readers
have enough patience they can see there is no real mystery to Kepler's
observation that the time a planet travels around the Sun is related
to its distance -
"The proportion existing between the periodic times of any two planets
is exactly the sesquiplicate proportion of the mean distances of the
orbits, or as generally given,the squares of the periodic times are
proportional to the cubes of the mean distances." Kepler
No need to panic,he explains it fully so that only the rednecks won't
get it as usual -
But it is absolutely certain and exact that the ratio which exists
between the periodic times of any two planets is precisely the ratio
of the 3/2th power of the mean distances, i.e., of the spheres
themselves; provided, however, that the arithmetic mean between both
diameters of the elliptic orbit be slightly less than the longer
diameter. And so if any one take the period, say, of the Earth, which
is one year, and the period of Saturn, which is thirty years, and
extract the cube roots of this ratio and then square the ensuing
ratio
by squaring the cube roots, he will have as his numerical products the
most just ratio of the distances of the Earth and Saturn from the sun.
For the cube root of 1 is 1, and the square of it is 1; and the cube
root of 30 is greater than 3, and therefore the square of it is
greater than 9. And Saturn, at its mean distance from the sun, is
slightly higher than nine times the mean distance of the Earth from
the sun." Kepler
Now,if anyone can get from an apple falling from a tree to planetary
dynamics through Kepler's observation they are going to have to chant
a lot of voodoo but personally speaking, what Newton tried to do is
far more interesting if it is treated like a detective story and a
crime scene.
William December Starr
May 1, 2012, 4:30:51 PM5/1/12
to
In article <375f4f6a-0325-46c5...@f5g2000vby.googlegroups.com>,
> Yet nobody can say what the 'theory of gravity' where an apple
> falls and it has something to do with the moon orbiting the Earth
> and the Earth orbiting the Sun.
Are you aware that that isn't even a sentence?
-- wds
oriel36 <kellehe...@gmail.com> said:
> You haven't a clue what Isaac was doing apart from chanting voodoo
> about an 'inverse square law' and pointing in the direction of
> Kepler.What Newton did was try and set the planets moving in a
> clockwork solar system and the original guys loved it as it seemed
> to answer all the questions they never asked but then everyone
> discovered they hated it and then they couldn't stand it,even
> invented time travel to escape the damn thing.
Time travel. Gosh.
> You haven't a clue what Isaac was doing apart from chanting voodoo
> about an 'inverse square law' and pointing in the direction of
> Kepler.What Newton did was try and set the planets moving in a
> clockwork solar system and the original guys loved it as it seemed
> to answer all the questions they never asked but then everyone
> discovered they hated it and then they couldn't stand it,even
> invented time travel to escape the damn thing.
> Yet nobody can say what the 'theory of gravity' where an apple
> falls and it has something to do with the moon orbiting the Earth
> and the Earth orbiting the Sun.
-- wds
Wayne Throop
May 1, 2012, 4:51:35 PM5/1/12
to
:: Yet nobody can say what the 'theory of gravity' where an apple falls
: Are you aware that that isn't even a sentence?
Oh, you cad, you brute, you scoundrel, you've gone and asked
him a simple, unambiguous yes-or-no question. Be prepared for
some serious tap-dancing. Which most likely won't touch on
your answer at all.
:: and it has something to do with the moon orbiting the Earth and the
:: Earth orbiting the Sun.
: wds...@panix.com (William December Starr)
:: Earth orbiting the Sun.
: Are you aware that that isn't even a sentence?
Oh, you cad, you brute, you scoundrel, you've gone and asked
him a simple, unambiguous yes-or-no question. Be prepared for
some serious tap-dancing. Which most likely won't touch on
your answer at all.
Androcles
May 1, 2012, 4:58:23 PM5/1/12
to
"Wayne Throop" <thr...@sheol.org> wrote in message
news:13359...@sheol.org...
"Let there be given a stationary rigid rod; and let its length be L as
measured by a measuring-rod which is also stationary. We now imagine
the axis of the rod lying along the axis of x of the stationary system of
co-ordinates, and that a uniform motion of parallel translation with
velocity v along the axis of x in the direction of increasing x is then
imparted to the rod. We now inquire as to the length of the moving rod" --
Einstein
"The length to be discovered by the operation (b) we will call ``the length
of the (moving) rod in the stationary system.''"-- Einstein
"This we shall determine on the basis of our two principles, and we shall
find that it differs from L." -- Einstein.
AND THE ANSWER IS...
"xi = (x-vt)/sqrt(1 - v^2/c^2)" -- Einstein.
Yep, xi differs from L, Greek letters differ from Roman letters.
In agreement with experience we further assume the deranged babbling
incompetent cretin couldn't answer his own inquiry, he was too stupid
to realise xi is greater than L when he wrote 'for v=c all moving
objects--viewed from the "stationary'' system--shrivel up into plane
figures', whereas his own equation shows they stretch to infinity...
sqrt(1-c^2/c^2) = 0.
"But the ray moves relatively to the initial point of k, when measured in
the stationary system, with the velocity c-v" - Einstein
"the velocity of light in our theory plays the part, physically, of an
infinitely great velocity" - Einstein.
"In agreement with experience we further assume the quantity
2AB/(t'A -tA) = c to be a universal constant--the velocity of light in
empty space." -- Einstein
He was right. The distance from A to A divided by the time it takes
to get there is undefined. Anyone that divides by zero is a lunatic.
Joseph Nebus
May 1, 2012, 7:33:51 PM5/1/12
to
In <T7Ynr.268274$Pq.3...@fx09.am4> "Androcles" <M...@Apr.2012> writes:
>"Wayne Throop" <thr...@sheol.org> wrote in message
>news:13359...@sheol.org...
>> :: Yet nobody can say what the 'theory of gravity' where an apple falls
>> :: and it has something to do with the moon orbiting the Earth and the
>> :: Earth orbiting the Sun.
>>
>> : wds...@panix.com (William December Starr)
>> : Are you aware that that isn't even a sentence?
>>
>> Oh, you cad, you brute, you scoundrel, you've gone and asked
>> him a simple, unambiguous yes-or-no question. Be prepared for
>> some serious tap-dancing. Which most likely won't touch on
>> your answer at all.
>>
>Throop, tap-dancing:
[ snipping a lot of nothing ]
>"Wayne Throop" <thr...@sheol.org> wrote in message
>news:13359...@sheol.org...
>> :: Yet nobody can say what the 'theory of gravity' where an apple falls
>> :: and it has something to do with the moon orbiting the Earth and the
>> :: Earth orbiting the Sun.
>>
>> : wds...@panix.com (William December Starr)
>> : Are you aware that that isn't even a sentence?
>>
>> Oh, you cad, you brute, you scoundrel, you've gone and asked
>> him a simple, unambiguous yes-or-no question. Be prepared for
>> some serious tap-dancing. Which most likely won't touch on
>> your answer at all.
>>
>Throop, tap-dancing:
I am definitely going to have to ask my fiancee, the professional
philosopher, whether such a production without answering William's question
actually amounts to an answer to his question.
--
http://nebusresearch.wordpress.com/ Joseph Nebus
Current Entry: Introducing The Polynomial http://wp.me/p1RYhY-cV
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Androcles
May 1, 2012, 7:43:51 PM5/1/12
to
"Joseph Nebus" <nebusj-@-rpi-.edu> wrote in message
news:jnprsv$jqb$1...@reader1.panix.com...
> In <T7Ynr.268274$Pq.3...@fx09.am4> "Androcles" <M...@Apr.2012> writes:
>
>
>>"Wayne Throop" <thr...@sheol.org> wrote in message
>>news:13359...@sheol.org...
>>> :: Yet nobody can say what the 'theory of gravity' where an apple falls
>>> :: and it has something to do with the moon orbiting the Earth and the
>>> :: Earth orbiting the Sun.
>>>
>>> : wds...@panix.com (William December Starr)
>>> : Are you aware that that isn't even a sentence?
>>>
>>> Oh, you cad, you brute, you scoundrel, you've gone and asked
>>> him a simple, unambiguous yes-or-no question. Be prepared for
>>> some serious tap-dancing. Which most likely won't touch on
>>> your answer at all.
>>>
>>Throop, tap-dancing:
>
> [ snipping a lot of nothing ]
Done.
>
>
>>"Wayne Throop" <thr...@sheol.org> wrote in message
>>news:13359...@sheol.org...
>>> :: Yet nobody can say what the 'theory of gravity' where an apple falls
>>> :: and it has something to do with the moon orbiting the Earth and the
>>> :: Earth orbiting the Sun.
>>>
>>> : wds...@panix.com (William December Starr)
>>> : Are you aware that that isn't even a sentence?
>>>
>>> Oh, you cad, you brute, you scoundrel, you've gone and asked
>>> him a simple, unambiguous yes-or-no question. Be prepared for
>>> some serious tap-dancing. Which most likely won't touch on
>>> your answer at all.
>>>
>>Throop, tap-dancing:
>
> [ snipping a lot of nothing ]
--
'There is nothing so easy but that it becomes difficult when you do it with
reluctance.'- Marcus Tullius Cicero
'Great spirits have often encountered violent opposition from mediocre
minds.' -Mediocre Albert Einstein
'By denying scientific principles, one may maintain any paradox.' - Galileo
Galilei
Wayne Throop
May 1, 2012, 7:51:36 PM5/1/12
to
: "Androcles" <M...@Apr.2012>
: "The length to be discovered by the operation (b) we will call ``the
to realize that xi is a coordinate in the moving system, and L is a length
of a moving object in the stationary system. But then, Androcles always
muffs this simple distinctions of which system is being used, and the
distinction between coordinates and intervals.
: "But the ray moves relatively to the initial point of k, when measured
a velocity in the stationary system, nor in the moving system, because
it's the ratio of a separation of two moving points in the stationary system.
Somehow, Androcles mangles this, and comes up with the bizarre meaning
of c-v being the velocity in the moving system. Go figure.
: "the velocity of light in our theory plays the part, physically, of an
In fact... he's basically a very very confused relativity crank.
Is it any wonder he's so grumpy?
: "The length to be discovered by the operation (b) we will call ``the
: length of the (moving) rod in the stationary system.''"-- Einstein
:
: "This we shall determine on the basis of our two principles, and we
: shall find that it differs from L." -- Einstein.
:
: AND THE ANSWER IS...
:
: "xi = (x-vt)/sqrt(1 - v^2/c^2)" -- Einstein.
:
: Yep, xi differs from L, Greek letters differ from Roman letters.
:
: In agreement with experience we further assume the deranged babbling
: incompetent cretin couldn't answer his own inquiry, he was too stupid
: to realise xi is greater than L when he wrote
The point Androcles goes off the rails here is that he doesn't seem
:
: "This we shall determine on the basis of our two principles, and we
: shall find that it differs from L." -- Einstein.
:
: AND THE ANSWER IS...
:
: "xi = (x-vt)/sqrt(1 - v^2/c^2)" -- Einstein.
:
: Yep, xi differs from L, Greek letters differ from Roman letters.
:
: In agreement with experience we further assume the deranged babbling
: incompetent cretin couldn't answer his own inquiry, he was too stupid
: to realise xi is greater than L when he wrote
to realize that xi is a coordinate in the moving system, and L is a length
of a moving object in the stationary system. But then, Androcles always
muffs this simple distinctions of which system is being used, and the
distinction between coordinates and intervals.
: "But the ray moves relatively to the initial point of k, when measured
: in the stationary system, with the velocity c-v" - Einstein
Another case in point, he doesn't realize that c-v is neither
a velocity in the stationary system, nor in the moving system, because
it's the ratio of a separation of two moving points in the stationary system.
Somehow, Androcles mangles this, and comes up with the bizarre meaning
of c-v being the velocity in the moving system. Go figure.
: "the velocity of light in our theory plays the part, physically, of an
: infinitely great velocity" - Einstein.
Here he's confusing "plays the part of infinity" with "is infinite".
In fact... he's basically a very very confused relativity crank.
Is it any wonder he's so grumpy?
Wayne Throop
May 1, 2012, 8:12:54 PM5/1/12
to
:: [ snipping a lot ]
: "Androcles" <M...@May.2012>
: Done.
Yes, well, you'd have to do that, wouldn't you.
Or you'd actually have to think. Something you're not very good at.
Keeping track of the distinctions between coordinates and intervals,
stationary muons vs stationary clocks. So many things to keep track of;
no wonder you don't try.
: "Androcles" <M...@May.2012>
: Done.
Yes, well, you'd have to do that, wouldn't you.
Or you'd actually have to think. Something you're not very good at.
Keeping track of the distinctions between coordinates and intervals,
stationary muons vs stationary clocks. So many things to keep track of;
no wonder you don't try.
hanson
May 1, 2012, 10:17:51 PM5/1/12
to
AHAHAHAHA... ROTFLMAO!!!... ahaha.. priceless!
>
"Wayne Throop" <thr...@sheol.org> wrote:
So, Throop, you made stinky poop when you said that
a DIFFERENCE of "(c-v) is not a velocity but a ratio"!
>
Of course, in the world of Einstein Dingleberries, like
yourself, being close to Albert's sphincter, that may be
so, certainly. "Go figure, Oye weh, Trust Me"...
>
And your other poop, Throop, is your interpretation of
Einstein's quote about an _"infinitely great velocity"_
to mean:... "plays the part of infinity" with "is infinite".
>
Throop, your poop beats Yogi Berra's when he said:
"They give you cash which is just as good as money."
>
Throop, your poop has shown now why other Einstein
Dingleberries like yourself always insist that/why "there
was never an experiment that did not prove SR", which
is of course only so because _Jewish shit don't stink_!
even when it is quite clear to normal folks , since 1920,
that
--------- SR is short for SILLY RANT ------- and
----- GR stands for GULLIBLE RECITAL -----
>
Wayne, do I have to repost that Einstein himself said
that his SR/GR tripe was a crock o'shit?.. Or do you
wanna save yourself some face and google for it
or look it up in my archive?.. "go figure"... ahahaha...
and thanks for the laughs... ahahaha... ahahahahanson
>
"Wayne Throop" <thr...@sheol.org> wrote:
>
"Androcles" M...@Apr.2012 quoted & wrote:
> : "The length to be discovered by the operation (b) we will call ``the
> : length of the (moving) rod in the stationary system.''"-- Einstein
> : "This we shall determine on the basis of our two principles, and we
> : shall find that it differs from L." -- Einstein.
> : AND THE ANSWER IS...
> : "xi = (x-vt)/sqrt(1 - v^2/c^2)" -- Einstein.
> : Yep, xi differs from L, Greek letters differ from Roman letters.
> : In agreement with experience we further assume the deranged babbling
> : incompetent cretin couldn't answer his own inquiry, he was too stupid
> : to realise xi is greater than L when he wrote
>
"Androcles" M...@Apr.2012 quoted & wrote:
> : "The length to be discovered by the operation (b) we will call ``the
> : length of the (moving) rod in the stationary system.''"-- Einstein
> : "This we shall determine on the basis of our two principles, and we
> : shall find that it differs from L." -- Einstein.
> : AND THE ANSWER IS...
> : "xi = (x-vt)/sqrt(1 - v^2/c^2)" -- Einstein.
> : Yep, xi differs from L, Greek letters differ from Roman letters.
> : In agreement with experience we further assume the deranged babbling
> : incompetent cretin couldn't answer his own inquiry, he was too stupid
> : to realise xi is greater than L when he wrote
>
"Throop" wrote:
> The point Androcles goes off the rails here is that he doesn't seem
> to realize that xi is a coordinate in the moving system, and L is a length
> of a moving object in the stationary system. But then, Androcles always
> muffs this simple distinctions of which system is being used, and the
> distinction between coordinates and intervals.
>
> The point Androcles goes off the rails here is that he doesn't seem
> to realize that xi is a coordinate in the moving system, and L is a length
> of a moving object in the stationary system. But then, Androcles always
> muffs this simple distinctions of which system is being used, and the
> distinction between coordinates and intervals.
>
Andro wrote:
> : "But the ray moves relatively to the initial point of k, when measured
> : in the stationary system, with the velocity c-v" - Einstein
>
> : "But the ray moves relatively to the initial point of k, when measured
> : in the stationary system, with the velocity c-v" - Einstein
>
"Throop" wrote:
> Another case in point, he doesn't realize that c-v is neither
> a velocity in the stationary system, nor in the moving system, because
> it's the ratio of a separation of two moving points in the stationary
> system.
> Somehow, Androcles mangles this, and comes up with the bizarre meaning
> of c-v being the velocity in the moving system. Go figure.
>
> Another case in point, he doesn't realize that c-v is neither
> a velocity in the stationary system, nor in the moving system, because
> it's the ratio of a separation of two moving points in the stationary
> system.
> Somehow, Androcles mangles this, and comes up with the bizarre meaning
> of c-v being the velocity in the moving system. Go figure.
>
Andro wrote:
> : "the velocity of light in our theory plays the part, physically, of an
> : infinitely great velocity" - Einstein.
>
> : "the velocity of light in our theory plays the part, physically, of an
> : infinitely great velocity" - Einstein.
>
"Throop" wrote:
> Here he's confusing "plays the part of infinity" with "is infinite".
> In fact... he's basically a very very confused relativity crank.
> Is it any wonder he's so grumpy?
>
hanson wrote:
> Here he's confusing "plays the part of infinity" with "is infinite".
> In fact... he's basically a very very confused relativity crank.
> Is it any wonder he's so grumpy?
>
So, Throop, you made stinky poop when you said that
a DIFFERENCE of "(c-v) is not a velocity but a ratio"!
>
Of course, in the world of Einstein Dingleberries, like
yourself, being close to Albert's sphincter, that may be
so, certainly. "Go figure, Oye weh, Trust Me"...
>
And your other poop, Throop, is your interpretation of
Einstein's quote about an _"infinitely great velocity"_
to mean:... "plays the part of infinity" with "is infinite".
>
Throop, your poop beats Yogi Berra's when he said:
"They give you cash which is just as good as money."
>
Throop, your poop has shown now why other Einstein
Dingleberries like yourself always insist that/why "there
was never an experiment that did not prove SR", which
is of course only so because _Jewish shit don't stink_!
even when it is quite clear to normal folks , since 1920,
that
--------- SR is short for SILLY RANT ------- and
----- GR stands for GULLIBLE RECITAL -----
>
Wayne, do I have to repost that Einstein himself said
that his SR/GR tripe was a crock o'shit?.. Or do you
wanna save yourself some face and google for it
or look it up in my archive?.. "go figure"... ahahaha...
and thanks for the laughs... ahahaha... ahahahahanson
jonathan
May 1, 2012, 11:48:14 PM5/1/12
to
"Quadibloc" <jsa...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote in message
news:7116eb56-c56b-4711...@h4g2000pbe.googlegroups.com...
On Apr 30, 11:22 pm, "jonathan" <wr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> My hobby
> ignores what things are in favor or modeling
> behavior, the output side.
Oh, dear: you have just revealed yourself to be one of those horrible
> My hobby
> ignores what things are in favor or modeling
> behavior, the output side.
wicked empiricists! :)
John Savard
.........................
But there's a difference between Complexity Science
and classical approaches. Instead of observing a system
near equilibrium to understand it's relationships and
form, the idea is to disturb a system and see how it
responds as a way of understanding the inner system
mechanisms and relationships.
How long a system takes to return to equilibrium
shows what's going on inside. Since a complex
dynamic system may be a galaxy, an emotion or
an idea, this allows a ...single mathematics to apply
universally to any such complex collection of components
...regardless of their different natures.
The only thing that is universal is how things change.
The Starmaker
May 2, 2012, 12:14:16 AM5/2/12
to
The habitable zone is the region
around a star where a planet with
sufficient atmospheric pressure can
maintain trees and plants on its surface.
It is the trees and the plants that make...Ocean.
It is the trees and the plants that make...Fishes.
It is the trees and the plants that make...People.
Why do you think people, here...
suggest I should go back to my tree?
They don't suggest that I should go back to the ocean.
Cause they know...people come from trees.
I've have emperical edvidence of this.
..there愀 no question or discussion about it.
The Starmaker
Any kids out there going to skool tomorrow, ask your teacher:
Where did the Ocean come from?
Where did the Fishes come from?
Where did the People come from?
If she doesn't answer "They all come from trees.", she is wrong!
there愀 no question or discussion about it.
Don't bother to switich to a different skool, all the teachers are dumb.
Joe Pfeiffer
May 2, 2012, 12:17:13 AM5/2/12
to
At the latest, junior 1977,
Dorothy J Heydt
May 2, 2012, 12:30:57 AM5/2/12
to
In article <1bipgfm...@pfeifferfamily.net>,
Joe Pfeiffer <pfei...@cs.nmsu.edu> wrote:
Why, I ask, how come wherefore why is it, that I keep killfiling
this thread and it comes back in yet another form with yet
another bizarre character substituting for an apostrophe?
--
Dorothy J. Heydt
Vallejo, California
djheydt at gmail dot com
Should you wish to email me, you'd better use the gmail edress.
Kithrup's all spammy and hotmail's been hacked.
Joe Pfeiffer <pfei...@cs.nmsu.edu> wrote:
Why, I ask, how come wherefore why is it, that I keep killfiling
this thread and it comes back in yet another form with yet
another bizarre character substituting for an apostrophe?
--
Dorothy J. Heydt
Vallejo, California
djheydt at gmail dot com
Should you wish to email me, you'd better use the gmail edress.
Kithrup's all spammy and hotmail's been hacked.
Androcles
May 2, 2012, 12:46:56 AM5/2/12
to
>: "Androcles" <M...@Apr.2012>
> : "The length to be discovered by the operation (b) we will call ``the
> : length of the (moving) rod in the stationary system.''"-- Einstein
> :
> : "This we shall determine on the basis of our two principles, and we
> : shall find that it differs from L." -- Einstein.
> :
> : AND THE ANSWER IS...
> :
> : "xi = (x-vt)/sqrt(1 - v^2/c^2)" -- Einstein.
> :
> : Yep, xi differs from L, Greek letters differ from Roman letters.
> :
> : In agreement with experience we further assume the deranged babbling
> : incompetent cretin couldn't answer his own inquiry, he was too stupid
> : to realise xi is greater than L when he wrote
>
> The point Androcles goes off the rails here is that he doesn't seem
> to realize that xi is a coordinate in the moving system,
Bwhahahahahaha!
> : "The length to be discovered by the operation (b) we will call ``the
> : length of the (moving) rod in the stationary system.''"-- Einstein
> :
> : "This we shall determine on the basis of our two principles, and we
> : shall find that it differs from L." -- Einstein.
> :
> : AND THE ANSWER IS...
> :
> : "xi = (x-vt)/sqrt(1 - v^2/c^2)" -- Einstein.
> :
> : Yep, xi differs from L, Greek letters differ from Roman letters.
> :
> : In agreement with experience we further assume the deranged babbling
> : incompetent cretin couldn't answer his own inquiry, he was too stupid
> : to realise xi is greater than L when he wrote
>
> The point Androcles goes off the rails here is that he doesn't seem
> to realize that xi is a coordinate in the moving system,
12 is a coordinate on a moving ruler, I don't seem to realize
it is the length 12 inches from the 0 coordinate on the moving
ruler. Perhaps the fucking clueless moron Throop can teach me
what the fuck a ruler measures and why rulers get LONGER when
they move.
Wayne Throop
May 2, 2012, 2:08:39 AM5/2/12
to
: "Androcles" <M...@May.2012>
: 12 is a coordinate on a moving ruler,
Don't worry Androcles, everybody already knows you don't know
a coordinate from a hole in the ground, you don't need to keep
providing more evidence.
: 12 is a coordinate on a moving ruler,
Don't worry Androcles, everybody already knows you don't know
a coordinate from a hole in the ground, you don't need to keep
providing more evidence.
Wayne Throop
May 2, 2012, 2:10:14 AM5/2/12
to
: "hanson" <han...@quick.net>
Specifically the change in distance between two moving points
to the time it takes for that change to occur.
What it isn't is the velocity of light in either moving or
stationary coordinates, since it's very explicit that it wrt
the origin of the moving coordinates, but in stationary coordinates.
See, that's because a "velocity in a system of coordinates" is
the rate of change in location in those coordinates to time in those
coordinates. Which, clearly and explicitly is not the case here;
instead, it's a change in distance over change in time.
There's that "can't tell a coordinate from a distance" thing
that apparently both you and Androcles have going.
: And your other poop, Throop, is your interpretation of Einstein's
does that mean he *is* Billy the Kid?
: Wayne, do I have to repost that Einstein himself said that his SR/GR
or quoting out of context.
: So, Throop, you made stinky poop when you said that a DIFFERENCE of
: "(c-v) is not a velocity but a ratio"!
It's a ratio of the a distance to a duration.
: "(c-v) is not a velocity but a ratio"!
Specifically the change in distance between two moving points
to the time it takes for that change to occur.
What it isn't is the velocity of light in either moving or
stationary coordinates, since it's very explicit that it wrt
the origin of the moving coordinates, but in stationary coordinates.
See, that's because a "velocity in a system of coordinates" is
the rate of change in location in those coordinates to time in those
coordinates. Which, clearly and explicitly is not the case here;
instead, it's a change in distance over change in time.
There's that "can't tell a coordinate from a distance" thing
that apparently both you and Androcles have going.
: And your other poop, Throop, is your interpretation of Einstein's
: quote about an _"infinitely great velocity"_ to mean:... "plays the
: part of infinity" with "is infinite".
If an actor plays the part of Billy the Kid,
: part of infinity" with "is infinite".
does that mean he *is* Billy the Kid?
: Wayne, do I have to repost that Einstein himself said that his SR/GR
: tripe was a crock o'shit?
Not really. I'm sure eveyrbody knows you're either misinterpreting,
or quoting out of context.
Androcles
May 2, 2012, 3:15:45 AM5/2/12
to
>: "hanson" <han...@quick.net>
> : So, Throop, you made stinky poop when you said that a DIFFERENCE of
> : "(c-v) is not a velocity but a ratio"!
>
> It's a ratio of the a distance to a duration.
Are you sure it's not the difference of the b duration to a distance,
> : So, Throop, you made stinky poop when you said that a DIFFERENCE of
> : "(c-v) is not a velocity but a ratio"!
>
> It's a ratio of the a distance to a duration.
or were you just stuttering?
Androcles
May 2, 2012, 3:13:39 AM5/2/12
to
snip to keep shoving your head up your arse, you don't need
oriel36
May 2, 2012, 3:45:46 AM5/2/12
to
On May 1, 9:30 pm, wdst...@panix.com (William December Starr) wrote:
> In article <375f4f6a-0325-46c5-b869-c5f5b4ccf...@f5g2000vby.googlegroups.com>,
Yeah,poor proofreading,I have been known for that.
I like the visitors from the sci-fi forum,they don't actually add
anything to the sci.relativity forum other than present themselves as
the final flower of the vicious strain of empiricism that started with
Isaac and his all-singing-all-dancing 'theory of gravity'.The fact is
that you could find the relativity ideology on a shelf in a bookstore
in the late 19th century hardly matters to people who blur the
boundaries between fact and fiction but from my point of view,all they
did when they tried to escape Newton's clockwork solar system was ruin
a perfectly good science fiction novel which has a really nice ending
to it -
"‘Clearly,’ the Time Traveller proceeded, ‘any real body must have
extension in four directions: it must have Length, Breadth, Thickness,
and—Duration. But through a natural infirmity of the flesh, which I
will explain to you in a moment, we incline to overlook this fact.
There are really four dimensions, three which we call the three planes
of Space, and a fourth, Time." The Time Machine 1898
http://www.bartleby.com/1000/1.html
Trying to shove a 4th dimension into a clock and suddenly a simple
device designed to keep a steady pace with the Earth's rotation
becomes a magical device sprouting 100 years worth of assertions and
counter assertions based on the idea that rulers measure distance and
clocks measure time.As accurate watches were designed as rulers of
distance through the Longitude problem,this sprawling history is
conveniently forgotten in order to spend 100 years acting out a
wordplay because not only could nobody figure out what Newton's
absolute/relative time,space and motions represents but they give it
a meaning Newton never intended - Groupthink
"And if all others accepted the lie which the Party imposed—if all
records told the same tale—then the lie passed into history and became
truth. 'Who controls the past' ran the Party slogan, 'controls the
future: who controls the present controls the past...Day by day and
almost minute by minute the past was brought up to date. In this way
every prediction made by the Party could be shown by documentary
evidence to have been correct; nor was any item of news, or any
expression of opinion, which conflicted with the needs of the moment,
ever allowed to remain on record. All history was a palimpsest,
scraped clean and reinscribed exactly as often as was necessary." 1984
Orwell
To discuss relativity or even dissent requires that everyone wipes the
past clean and that the Longitude problem didn't exist nor the
technical details behind it,not just the promoters or relativity but
also the dissenters so any distinct differences are an illusion.
The thing about this is that there is an even more encompassing
version where people decided to blank the past and set up Newton as a
symbol just as they did Einstein.I read these papers before Newton's
Principia,descriptions from 1665 which speak of gravity laws of
mechanics/motion and the whole nine yards yet later empiricists treat
them as if they didn't exist and dump everything into Newton -
http://rstl.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/1/1-22/263.full.pdf+html
In short,relativity is a story inside a bigger story and a decade ago
you could probably get a small number of people to look at the bigger
picture,now the standard is so low that visitors from the sci-fi
forums have the same intellectual standing as the relativity promoters
and their dissenters.This was always going to happen and look around -
there are no new genuine discoveries in astronomy and terrestrial
science other than what is approved by groupthink/peer review.
> In article <375f4f6a-0325-46c5-b869-c5f5b4ccf...@f5g2000vby.googlegroups.com>,
I like the visitors from the sci-fi forum,they don't actually add
anything to the sci.relativity forum other than present themselves as
the final flower of the vicious strain of empiricism that started with
Isaac and his all-singing-all-dancing 'theory of gravity'.The fact is
that you could find the relativity ideology on a shelf in a bookstore
in the late 19th century hardly matters to people who blur the
boundaries between fact and fiction but from my point of view,all they
did when they tried to escape Newton's clockwork solar system was ruin
a perfectly good science fiction novel which has a really nice ending
to it -
"‘Clearly,’ the Time Traveller proceeded, ‘any real body must have
extension in four directions: it must have Length, Breadth, Thickness,
and—Duration. But through a natural infirmity of the flesh, which I
will explain to you in a moment, we incline to overlook this fact.
There are really four dimensions, three which we call the three planes
of Space, and a fourth, Time." The Time Machine 1898
http://www.bartleby.com/1000/1.html
Trying to shove a 4th dimension into a clock and suddenly a simple
device designed to keep a steady pace with the Earth's rotation
becomes a magical device sprouting 100 years worth of assertions and
counter assertions based on the idea that rulers measure distance and
clocks measure time.As accurate watches were designed as rulers of
distance through the Longitude problem,this sprawling history is
conveniently forgotten in order to spend 100 years acting out a
wordplay because not only could nobody figure out what Newton's
absolute/relative time,space and motions represents but they give it
a meaning Newton never intended - Groupthink
"And if all others accepted the lie which the Party imposed—if all
records told the same tale—then the lie passed into history and became
truth. 'Who controls the past' ran the Party slogan, 'controls the
future: who controls the present controls the past...Day by day and
almost minute by minute the past was brought up to date. In this way
every prediction made by the Party could be shown by documentary
evidence to have been correct; nor was any item of news, or any
expression of opinion, which conflicted with the needs of the moment,
ever allowed to remain on record. All history was a palimpsest,
scraped clean and reinscribed exactly as often as was necessary." 1984
Orwell
To discuss relativity or even dissent requires that everyone wipes the
past clean and that the Longitude problem didn't exist nor the
technical details behind it,not just the promoters or relativity but
also the dissenters so any distinct differences are an illusion.
The thing about this is that there is an even more encompassing
version where people decided to blank the past and set up Newton as a
symbol just as they did Einstein.I read these papers before Newton's
Principia,descriptions from 1665 which speak of gravity laws of
mechanics/motion and the whole nine yards yet later empiricists treat
them as if they didn't exist and dump everything into Newton -
http://rstl.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/1/1-22/263.full.pdf+html
In short,relativity is a story inside a bigger story and a decade ago
you could probably get a small number of people to look at the bigger
picture,now the standard is so low that visitors from the sci-fi
forums have the same intellectual standing as the relativity promoters
and their dissenters.This was always going to happen and look around -
there are no new genuine discoveries in astronomy and terrestrial
science other than what is approved by groupthink/peer review.
William December Starr
May 2, 2012, 9:21:51 AM5/2/12
to
In article <13359...@sheol.org>,
thr...@sheol.org (Wayne Throop) said:
> "hanson" <han...@quick.net>
-- wds
thr...@sheol.org (Wayne Throop) said:
> "hanson" <han...@quick.net>
>
>> Wayne, do I have to repost that Einstein himself said
>> that his SR/GR tripe was a crock o'shit?
>
> Not really. I'm sure eveyrbody knows you're either
> misinterpreting, or quoting out of context.
He could just be lying.
>> Wayne, do I have to repost that Einstein himself said
>> that his SR/GR tripe was a crock o'shit?
>
> Not really. I'm sure eveyrbody knows you're either
> misinterpreting, or quoting out of context.
-- wds
Wayne Throop
May 2, 2012, 11:46:59 AM5/2/12
to
:: I'm sure eveyrbody knows you're either misinterpreting, or quoting
:: out of context.
: wds...@panix.com (William December Starr)
: He could just be lying.
Which is just misinterpreting with intent to deceive.
More or less. So, a subset of misinterpreting.
"That's not flying. That's falling, with style."
:: out of context.
: wds...@panix.com (William December Starr)
: He could just be lying.
Which is just misinterpreting with intent to deceive.
More or less. So, a subset of misinterpreting.
"That's not flying. That's falling, with style."
Androcles
May 2, 2012, 11:56:53 AM5/2/12
to
> :: I'm sure eveyrbody knows you're either misinterpreting, or quoting
> :: out of context.
>
> : wds...@panix.com (William December Starr)
> : He could just be lying.
>
> Which is just misinterpreting with intent to deceive.
Good at that, aren't you, ya lying cunt?
> :: out of context.
>
> : wds...@panix.com (William December Starr)
> : He could just be lying.
>
> Which is just misinterpreting with intent to deceive.
--
Test of GR.
Synchronize two vacuum enclosed identical horizontal light clocks
side-by-side and leave to run for 6 months in two identical chest
freezers (for environmental control). Note any relative drift.
<http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/lightclock.gif>
Place one horizontal light clock at the top of the Burj Khalifa
<http://www.burjkhalifa.ae/>
and leave the other at the base. Leave to run for 6 months.
Bring the clocks together again, note any relative drift.
If the clocks DO read the same count (with drift allowed) then NIST
got it wrong, there was no time dilation due to altitude difference.
<http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/releases/aluminum-atomic-clock_092310.cfm>
If the clocks do NOT read the same count (with drift allowed) due to
time dilation then NIST got it wrong, the speed of light cannot be a
universal constant.
<http://physics.nist.gov/cgi-bin/cuu/Value?c>
Either way, NIST are useless yankee wankers and WRONG.
Wayne Throop
May 2, 2012, 12:01:15 PM5/2/12
to
: "Androcles" <M...@May.2012>
: If the clocks do NOT read the same count (with drift allowed) due to
Which is the whole point of relativity; there supposedly isn't.
You *really* REALLY don't understand the implications of
relativity of simultaneity. It's one of the reasons you keep
confusing coordinates with distances in mismatched coordinate systems.
: If the clocks do NOT read the same count (with drift allowed) due to
: time dilation then NIST got it wrong, the speed of light cannot be a
: universal constant.
No, that's true only if there's absolute time and space.
: universal constant.
Which is the whole point of relativity; there supposedly isn't.
You *really* REALLY don't understand the implications of
relativity of simultaneity. It's one of the reasons you keep
confusing coordinates with distances in mismatched coordinate systems.
Androcles
May 2, 2012, 12:21:39 PM5/2/12
to
>: "Androcles" <M...@May.2012>
> : If the clocks do NOT read the same count (with drift allowed) due to
> : time dilation then NIST got it wrong, the speed of light cannot be a
> : universal constant.
>
> No,
Yes.
> : If the clocks do NOT read the same count (with drift allowed) due to
> : time dilation then NIST got it wrong, the speed of light cannot be a
> : universal constant.
>
> No,
--
Test of GR.
Synchronize two vacuum enclosed identical horizontal light clocks
side-by-side and leave to run for 6 months in two identical chest
freezers (for environmental control). Note any relative drift.
<http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/lightclock.gif>
Place one horizontal light clock at the top of the Burj Khalifa
<http://www.burjkhalifa.ae/>
and leave the other at the base. Leave to run for 6 months.
Bring the clocks together again, note any relative drift.
If the clocks DO read the same count (with drift allowed) then NIST
got it wrong, there was no time dilation due to altitude difference.
<http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/releases/aluminum-atomic-clock_092310.cfm>
If the clocks do NOT read the same count (with drift allowed) due to
time dilation then NIST got it wrong, the speed of light cannot be a
universal constant.
time dilation then NIST got it wrong, the speed of light cannot be a
universal constant.
hanson
May 2, 2012, 12:44:58 PM5/2/12
to
ROTFLMAO!!!... AHAHAHAHA... it's getter even "better!"
>
"Wayne Throop" <thr...@sheol.org> to whom
a _difference_ is the same as a _ratio_, lamented
"misinterpreting, or quoting out of context" have both
been provided by YOU, Throop, with your own poop.
Here it is, so that you will not have to indict yourself
even more and worse than you already did:
(Einstein's recanting that SR/GR is a crock o'shit is added)
>
"Einstein was a _ nitwit, a plagiarist, and a liar _",
(as seen by Kubblee Wublee), who published
his wife's intellectual propery in what became:
<http://tinyurl.com/Einsteins-1905-is-Mileva-Maric>
and that same Einstein was wife-beating kike who
was arrested for it twice. Details here in
<http://tinyurl.com/Einstein-wife-beater-arrested>
>
Furthermore, it's unbelievable that after a century+ now
Einstein's Dingleberries still have not bothered to learn
that Einstein himself said that his SR/GR stuff was a
crock o'shit, in his own denials about his SR/GR and he
so warned & constantly urged others, ever since 1920:
>
|||AE:|||.... "NOT to search at the same, now well lit places,
|||AE:||| .... where he, Einstein, had been working".
>
And he so did for one full generation, till 33 years later,
a year before he folded his relativity tent, closed his
umbrella, kicked the bucket and finally puffed and bit
the grass, Einstein wrote, in 1954 to his Jewish friend
Besso:
|||AE:||| "as far as the laws of mathematics refer to
|||AE:||| reality, they are not certain; and as far as they
|||AE:||| are certain, they do not refer to reality."
|||AE:||| "why would anyone be interested in getting exact
|||AE:||| solutions from such an ephemeral set of equations?"
|||AE:||| "I consider it quite possible that physics cannot be
|||AE:||| based on the field concept, i. e., on continuous
|||AE:||| structures. In that case nothing remains of my entire
|||AE:||| castle in the air, my gravitation theory included."
|||AE:||| "If I had my life to live over again, I'd be a plumber".
|||AE:||| ... [and I would make blouses instead (see link)]
< http://tinyurl.com/Blouse-Plumber-Einstein >
>
Einstein also STOLE E=mc^2 from Pretto, (and
Hasenoehrl) for his 1905 paper, but in 1907 Einstein
flagellated himself & came clean (1), with a public
apology for his theft, and thereafter Einstein was used
by the Zionists who put him into the lime light as their
propaganda tool, for their own, to them back then noble
political agenda, (2) viz. to lure the Diaspora-Jews to
come back "home" to Israel.
>>>
<http://tinyurl.com/E-mc2-existed-before-Einstein> (1)
<http://tinyurl.com/How-Einstein-stole-E-mc-2> (1)
<http://tinyurl.com/Kwublee-views-Einsteins-Theft> (1)
<http://tinyurl.com/Zio-Politics-with-Relativity> (2)
<http://tinyurl.com/Alberts-Zio-Politics-w-SR-GR> (2)
>
Yet Einstein Dingleberries do come back with the
most bizarre excuses so that they can continue
with their worship of Albert's sphincter, and carry
on to proselytize their fanatical beliefs by them
demonstrating, upfront and center, their very own
<http://tinyurl.com/Proof-of-Relativity>,
Thanks for the laughs, though... hahahahahanson
>
"Wayne Throop" <thr...@sheol.org> to whom
a _difference_ is the same as a _ratio_, lamented
and indicted himself even worse now cuz he wrote:
" I'm sure eveyrbody knows you're either
misinterpreting, or quoting out of context."
>
hanson wrote:
" I'm sure eveyrbody knows you're either
misinterpreting, or quoting out of context."
>
"misinterpreting, or quoting out of context" have both
been provided by YOU, Throop, with your own poop.
Here it is, so that you will not have to indict yourself
even more and worse than you already did:
(Einstein's recanting that SR/GR is a crock o'shit is added)
So, Throop, you made stinky poop when you said that
a DIFFERENCE of "(c-v) is not a velocity but a ratio"!
>
a DIFFERENCE of "(c-v) is not a velocity but a ratio"!
>
Of course, in the world of Einstein Dingleberries, like
yourself, being close to Albert's sphincter, that may be
so, certainly. "Go figure, Oye weh, Trust Me"...
>
yourself, being close to Albert's sphincter, that may be
so, certainly. "Go figure, Oye weh, Trust Me"...
>
And your other poop, Throop, is your interpretation of
Einstein's quote about an _"infinitely great velocity"_
to mean:... "plays the part of infinity" with "is infinite".
>
Einstein's quote about an _"infinitely great velocity"_
to mean:... "plays the part of infinity" with "is infinite".
>
Throop, your poop beats Yogi Berra's when he said:
"They give you cash which is just as good as money."
>
Throop, your poop has shown now why other Einstein
Dingleberries like yourself always insist that/why "there
was never an experiment that did not prove SR", which
is of course only so because _Jewish shit don't stink_!
even when it is quite clear to normal folks , since 1920,
that
--------- SR is short for SILLY RANT ------- and
----- GR stands for GULLIBLE RECITAL -----
>
"They give you cash which is just as good as money."
>
Throop, your poop has shown now why other Einstein
Dingleberries like yourself always insist that/why "there
was never an experiment that did not prove SR", which
is of course only so because _Jewish shit don't stink_!
even when it is quite clear to normal folks , since 1920,
that
--------- SR is short for SILLY RANT ------- and
----- GR stands for GULLIBLE RECITAL -----
>
Wayne, do I have to repost that Einstein himself said
that his SR/GR tripe was a crock o'shit?.. Or do you
wanna save yourself some face and google for it
or look it up in my archive?.. "go figure"... ahahaha...
and thanks for the laughs... ahahaha... ahahahahanson
>
Addendum for Throop's benefit:
wanna save yourself some face and google for it
or look it up in my archive?.. "go figure"... ahahaha...
and thanks for the laughs... ahahaha... ahahahahanson
>
>
"Einstein was a _ nitwit, a plagiarist, and a liar _",
(as seen by Kubblee Wublee), who published
his wife's intellectual propery in what became:
<http://tinyurl.com/Einsteins-1905-is-Mileva-Maric>
and that same Einstein was wife-beating kike who
was arrested for it twice. Details here in
<http://tinyurl.com/Einstein-wife-beater-arrested>
>
Furthermore, it's unbelievable that after a century+ now
Einstein's Dingleberries still have not bothered to learn
that Einstein himself said that his SR/GR stuff was a
crock o'shit, in his own denials about his SR/GR and he
so warned & constantly urged others, ever since 1920:
>
|||AE:|||.... "NOT to search at the same, now well lit places,
|||AE:||| .... where he, Einstein, had been working".
>
And he so did for one full generation, till 33 years later,
a year before he folded his relativity tent, closed his
umbrella, kicked the bucket and finally puffed and bit
the grass, Einstein wrote, in 1954 to his Jewish friend
Besso:
|||AE:||| "as far as the laws of mathematics refer to
|||AE:||| reality, they are not certain; and as far as they
|||AE:||| are certain, they do not refer to reality."
|||AE:||| "why would anyone be interested in getting exact
|||AE:||| solutions from such an ephemeral set of equations?"
|||AE:||| "I consider it quite possible that physics cannot be
|||AE:||| based on the field concept, i. e., on continuous
|||AE:||| structures. In that case nothing remains of my entire
|||AE:||| castle in the air, my gravitation theory included."
|||AE:||| "If I had my life to live over again, I'd be a plumber".
|||AE:||| ... [and I would make blouses instead (see link)]
< http://tinyurl.com/Blouse-Plumber-Einstein >
>
Einstein also STOLE E=mc^2 from Pretto, (and
Hasenoehrl) for his 1905 paper, but in 1907 Einstein
flagellated himself & came clean (1), with a public
apology for his theft, and thereafter Einstein was used
by the Zionists who put him into the lime light as their
propaganda tool, for their own, to them back then noble
political agenda, (2) viz. to lure the Diaspora-Jews to
come back "home" to Israel.
>>>
<http://tinyurl.com/E-mc2-existed-before-Einstein> (1)
<http://tinyurl.com/How-Einstein-stole-E-mc-2> (1)
<http://tinyurl.com/Kwublee-views-Einsteins-Theft> (1)
<http://tinyurl.com/Zio-Politics-with-Relativity> (2)
<http://tinyurl.com/Alberts-Zio-Politics-w-SR-GR> (2)
>
Yet Einstein Dingleberries do come back with the
most bizarre excuses so that they can continue
with their worship of Albert's sphincter, and carry
on to proselytize their fanatical beliefs by them
demonstrating, upfront and center, their very own
<http://tinyurl.com/Proof-of-Relativity>,
Thanks for the laughs, though... hahahahahanson
hanson
May 2, 2012, 1:04:35 PM5/2/12
to
... ahahahaha... another Einstein Dingleberry, aka
"William December Starr" <wds...@panix.com>
who doesn't know that "He could just be lying"
_to himself_, needs some enlightenment for his
own fanatical worship of Albert's sphincter:
"William December Starr" <wds...@panix.com>
who doesn't know that "He could just be lying"
_to himself_, needs some enlightenment for his
own fanatical worship of Albert's sphincter:
>
"Wayne Throop" <thr...@sheol.org> to whom
a _difference_ is the same as a _ratio_, lamented
and indicted himself even worse now cuz he wrote:
"Wayne Throop" <thr...@sheol.org> to whom
a _difference_ is the same as a _ratio_, lamented
and indicted himself even worse now cuz he wrote:
" I'm sure eveyrbody knows you're either
misinterpreting, or quoting out of context."
>
misinterpreting, or quoting out of context."
>
hanson wrote:
"misinterpreting, or quoting out of context" have both
been provided by YOU, Throop, with your own poop.
Here it is, so that you will not have to indict yourself
even more and worse than you already did:
(Einstein's recanting that SR/GR is a crock o'shit is added)
>
"misinterpreting, or quoting out of context" have both
been provided by YOU, Throop, with your own poop.
Here it is, so that you will not have to indict yourself
even more and worse than you already did:
(Einstein's recanting that SR/GR is a crock o'shit is added)
>
So, Throop, you made stinky poop when you said that
a DIFFERENCE of "(c-v) is not a velocity but a ratio"!
>
a DIFFERENCE of "(c-v) is not a velocity but a ratio"!
>
Of course, in the world of Einstein Dingleberries, like
yourself, being close to Albert's sphincter, that may be
so, certainly. "Go figure, Oye weh, Trust Me"...
>
yourself, being close to Albert's sphincter, that may be
so, certainly. "Go figure, Oye weh, Trust Me"...
>
And your other poop, Throop, is your interpretation of
Einstein's quote about an _"infinitely great velocity"_
to mean:... "plays the part of infinity" with "is infinite".
>
Einstein's quote about an _"infinitely great velocity"_
to mean:... "plays the part of infinity" with "is infinite".
>
Throop, your poop beats Yogi Berra's when he said:
"They give you cash which is just as good as money."
>
Throop, your poop has shown now why other Einstein
Dingleberries like yourself always insist that/why "there
was never an experiment that did not prove SR", which
is of course only so because _Jewish shit don't stink_!
even when it is quite clear to normal folks , since 1920,
that
--------- SR is short for SILLY RANT ------- and
----- GR stands for GULLIBLE RECITAL -----
>
"They give you cash which is just as good as money."
>
Throop, your poop has shown now why other Einstein
Dingleberries like yourself always insist that/why "there
was never an experiment that did not prove SR", which
is of course only so because _Jewish shit don't stink_!
even when it is quite clear to normal folks , since 1920,
that
--------- SR is short for SILLY RANT ------- and
----- GR stands for GULLIBLE RECITAL -----
>
Wayne, do I have to repost that Einstein himself said
that his SR/GR tripe was a crock o'shit?.. Or do you
wanna save yourself some face and google for it
or look it up in my archive?.. "go figure"... ahahaha...
and thanks for the laughs... ahahaha... ahahahahanson
>
wanna save yourself some face and google for it
or look it up in my archive?.. "go figure"... ahahaha...
and thanks for the laughs... ahahaha... ahahahahanson
>
hanson
May 2, 2012, 1:08:32 PM5/2/12
to
in "a subset of misinterpreting" and indicted himself
even worse now cuz he wrote:
" I'm sure eveyrbody knows you're either
misinterpreting, or quoting out of context."
>
misinterpreting, or quoting out of context."
>
hanson wrote:
"misinterpreting, or quoting out of context" have both
been provided by YOU, Throop, with your own poop.
Here it is, so that you will not have to indict yourself
even more and worse than you already did:
(Einstein's recanting that SR/GR is a crock o'shit is added)
>
"misinterpreting, or quoting out of context" have both
been provided by YOU, Throop, with your own poop.
Here it is, so that you will not have to indict yourself
even more and worse than you already did:
(Einstein's recanting that SR/GR is a crock o'shit is added)
>
So, Throop, you made stinky poop when you said that
a DIFFERENCE of "(c-v) is not a velocity but a ratio"!
>
a DIFFERENCE of "(c-v) is not a velocity but a ratio"!
>
Of course, in the world of Einstein Dingleberries, like
yourself, being close to Albert's sphincter, that may be
so, certainly. "Go figure, Oye weh, Trust Me"...
>
yourself, being close to Albert's sphincter, that may be
so, certainly. "Go figure, Oye weh, Trust Me"...
>
And your other poop, Throop, is your interpretation of
Einstein's quote about an _"infinitely great velocity"_
to mean:... "plays the part of infinity" with "is infinite".
>
Einstein's quote about an _"infinitely great velocity"_
to mean:... "plays the part of infinity" with "is infinite".
>
Throop, your poop beats Yogi Berra's when he said:
"They give you cash which is just as good as money."
>
Throop, your poop has shown now why other Einstein
Dingleberries like yourself always insist that/why "there
was never an experiment that did not prove SR", which
is of course only so because _Jewish shit don't stink_!
even when it is quite clear to normal folks , since 1920,
that
--------- SR is short for SILLY RANT ------- and
----- GR stands for GULLIBLE RECITAL -----
>
"They give you cash which is just as good as money."
>
Throop, your poop has shown now why other Einstein
Dingleberries like yourself always insist that/why "there
was never an experiment that did not prove SR", which
is of course only so because _Jewish shit don't stink_!
even when it is quite clear to normal folks , since 1920,
that
--------- SR is short for SILLY RANT ------- and
----- GR stands for GULLIBLE RECITAL -----
>
Wayne, do I have to repost that Einstein himself said
that his SR/GR tripe was a crock o'shit?.. Or do you
wanna save yourself some face and google for it
or look it up in my archive?.. "go figure"... ahahaha...
and thanks for the laughs... ahahaha... ahahahahanson
>
wanna save yourself some face and google for it
or look it up in my archive?.. "go figure"... ahahaha...
and thanks for the laughs... ahahaha... ahahahahanson
>
Wayne Throop
May 2, 2012, 1:12:35 PM5/2/12
to
: Andro wrote:
: "Throop" wrote:
: Andro wrote:
: "Throop" wrote:
: hanson wrote:
Interesting. The convention seems to be to quote actual names
in "wrote" attributions and avoid quoting pseudonyms.
So "hanson" is a pseudonym. Good to know. I suppose.
: "Throop" wrote:
: Andro wrote:
: "Throop" wrote:
: hanson wrote:
Interesting. The convention seems to be to quote actual names
in "wrote" attributions and avoid quoting pseudonyms.
So "hanson" is a pseudonym. Good to know. I suppose.
Androcles
May 2, 2012, 1:37:31 PM5/2/12
to
snips.
hanson
May 2, 2012, 1:49:44 PM5/2/12
to
.... ahahahahaha... too much!... AHAHAHAHAHA...
>
"Wayne Throop" <thr...@sheol.org> to whom
a _difference_ is the same as a _ratio_, lamented
in "a subset of misinterpreting" and indicted himself
even worse now, by showing his paranoia by saying
"Wayne Throop" <thr...@sheol.org> to whom
a _difference_ is the same as a _ratio_, lamented
in "a subset of misinterpreting" and indicted himself
Helmut Wabnig
May 2, 2012, 3:57:45 PM5/2/12
to
http://www.testequipmentconnection.com/30798/Agilent_5071A-001.php
The HP 5071A wrist watch can do it all,
you need two of them and there you go.
First
Deep Freeze
then
Burj Khalifa
Give Agilent a chance, Andro, phone and order two HP 5071A.
w.
Androcles
May 2, 2012, 4:19:23 PM5/2/12
to
"Helmut Wabnig" <hwabnig@.- --- -.dotat> wrote in message
news:2643q7dru87q68b3s...@4ax.com...
Helmut Wabnig
May 2, 2012, 5:10:56 PM5/2/12
to
Never mind, I'll come and help you carrying it to your deep freeze.
w.
Androcles
May 2, 2012, 5:22:45 PM5/2/12
to
"Helmut Wabnig" <hwabnig@.- --- -.dotat> wrote in message
Helmut Wabnig
May 2, 2012, 6:42:45 PM5/2/12
to
But you will not deny one thing, will you, that it is within reach
for you to once-and-forever proof Einstein right:
Rent two HP 5071 A (advanced version with option 001)
book two seats with British Airways to Sydney, Australia,
one for you at the window, one for the travelling clock besides you,
convince the flight personnel that you are terrorist pensioner
and do not remove the mobile clock during your stay in
Australia but leave it seated for the return flight.
Back home do the obvious.
Your goal is to get a time dilatation of about 30 nanoseconds,
because that's what other people already found out.
(It's 28 nsec from Frankfurt/Germany)
You will become famous then as the 1001st person
who did that test.
w.
David DeLaney
May 2, 2012, 7:23:04 PM5/2/12
to
oriel36 <kellehe...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > Yet nobody can say what the 'theory of gravity' where an apple
>> > falls and it has something to do with the moon orbiting the Earth
>> > and the Earth orbiting the Sun.
>>
>> Are you aware that that isn't even a sentence?
>> -- wds
>
>Yeah,poor proofreading,I have been known for that.
>
>I like the visitors from the sci-fi forum,they don't actually add
>anything to the sci.relativity forum other than present themselves as
>the final flower of the vicious strain of empiricism that started with
>Isaac and his all-singing-all-dancing 'theory of gravity'.The fact is
>that you could find the relativity ideology on a shelf in a bookstore
>in the late 19th century
...Time travel? Note that just having Lorentz contraction equations sitting
>> > Yet nobody can say what the 'theory of gravity' where an apple
>> > falls and it has something to do with the moon orbiting the Earth
>> > and the Earth orbiting the Sun.
>>
>> Are you aware that that isn't even a sentence?
>> -- wds
>
>Yeah,poor proofreading,I have been known for that.
>
>I like the visitors from the sci-fi forum,they don't actually add
>anything to the sci.relativity forum other than present themselves as
>the final flower of the vicious strain of empiricism that started with
>Isaac and his all-singing-all-dancing 'theory of gravity'.The fact is
>that you could find the relativity ideology on a shelf in a bookstore
>in the late 19th century
around isn't anywhere near the same thing as actual relativity; it was known
beforehand how to -describe- what seemed to be happening, but not why. Einstein
showed how to derive it by changing one axiom (from "the speed of light, like
all other speeds, varies according to what moving frame you're in" to "the
speed of light is constant in every inertial reference frame"), and then
everything else falls out from that. Neither is saying "Time acts like a
fourth dimension" anywhere near actual relativity.
And 1905 isn't "late 19th century".
>To discuss relativity or even dissent requires that everyone wipes the
>past clean and that the Longitude problem didn't exist
to calculate how far east or west you'd traveled, from the stars visible at
night alone, without ALSO knowing accurately what time it currently was. And
relies _deeply_ on knowing that the stars don't come back to the same place
in 24 hours. You _have_ looked into what the words you're spouting mean,
haven't you?
Nothing about relativity changes the length of the sidereal day (or the solar
day either).
Dave, but since you're scared crapless away from taking actual observations
through an actual telescope and noting down actual data, I don't expect any
of this to make more than a soft whoosing sound in your ears
--
\/David DeLaney posting from d...@vic.com "It's not the pot that grows the flower
It's not the clock that slows the hour The definition's plain for anyone to see
Love is all it takes to make a family" - R&P. VISUALIZE HAPPYNET VRbeable<BLINK>
http://www.vic.com/~dbd/ - net.legends FAQ & Magic / I WUV you in all CAPS! --K.
Bill Snyder
May 2, 2012, 7:07:43 PM5/2/12
to
On Thu, 03 May 2012 00:42:45 +0200, Helmut Wabnig <hwabnig@.- ---
-.dotat> wrote:
>On Wed, 2 May 2012 22:22:45 +0100, "Androcles" <M...@May.2012> wrote:
>
>>Even your jokes are lame, wabnigger.
>>
>Welcome in The Club, Andorkles.
KOOKFIGHT!
-.dotat> wrote:
>On Wed, 2 May 2012 22:22:45 +0100, "Androcles" <M...@May.2012> wrote:
>
>>Even your jokes are lame, wabnigger.
>>
>Welcome in The Club, Andorkles.
And don't everybody bring popcorn this time, let's see some chips
and dip, too.
--
Bill Snyder [This space unintentionally left blank]
Wayne Throop
May 2, 2012, 7:42:02 PM5/2/12
to
: Helmut Wabnig <hwabnig@.- --- -.dotat>
: But you will not deny one thing, will you, that it is within reach for
: you to once-and-forever proof Einstein right: Rent two HP 5071 A
: (advanced version with option 001) book two seats with British Airways
: to Sydney, Australia, one for you at the window, one for the
: travelling clock besides you, convince the flight personnel that you
: are terrorist pensioner and do not remove the mobile clock during your
: stay in Australia but leave it seated for the return flight. Back
: home do the obvious.
Of course he denies it. A clock that works by mere vibrations of
: (advanced version with option 001) book two seats with British Airways
: to Sydney, Australia, one for you at the window, one for the
: travelling clock besides you, convince the flight personnel that you
: are terrorist pensioner and do not remove the mobile clock during your
: stay in Australia but leave it seated for the return flight. Back
: home do the obvious.
this-or-that (atoms/crystals/tuning-forks/whatnot) can't prove Einstein
right, since maybe it's affected by something that happens to have
similar effects to time dilation.
He wants it done with a "light clock", such as described in various
gedankenexperiments; a light pulse bounces back and forth between two
mirrors, a round trip being one metaphorical tick of this clock.
He wishes to pose a heads-I-win-tails-you-lose dilemma, by supposing
that, if there is no time dilation with a different in gravitational
potential, then GR is wrong because it predicts time dilation.
However, if there *is* dilation, then SR/GR is wrong, because that
proves light didn't move the same speed wrt the two clocks.
He *actually* *supposes* that GR is self-contradictory on these grounds.
Of course, the bits he overlooks are
1) the assertion that light always has the same speed in that
simplistic sense is only wrt an *inertial* frame. Neither of
the two clocks are at rest in an inertial frame. This by
itself is enough to render his argument bogus, but there's
also the issue of
2) he hasn't ruled out length contractions which would account
for the time dilation while preserving the speed of light
(after all, that's how it's done in SR, pretty much).
(Of course he doesn't understand SR either, mostly because
he has yet to wrap his brain around relativity of simultaneity.)
Of course, anybody looking at it from the perspective of the equivalence
principle can see that (1) is most likely the important factor; any
mirror towards which the light is moving has been accelerated away from
its position in the momentarily comoving inertial frame at the time the
light pulse started towards it.
Of course, Androcles and hanson will now say many rude and dismissive
things. They really can't help themselves. But the fact remains,
this attempt to cause either alternative to falsify GR is bogus,
because the experiment doesn't establish that lightspeed isn't
universal. It is doubtful either of them realize why this is so.
Their preconceptions cloud their minds, much like Lamont Cranston.
"Oh God, you *are* crazy! You're a damn, damn necrophiliac!
A *lesbian* necrophiliac at that!"
"Is that what it looks like, to you?
What a strange world you must live in, inside your head."
--- Lois McMaster Bujold, "Aftermaths"
The Starmaker
May 3, 2012, 1:29:59 AM5/3/12
to
The Starmaker wrote:
>
> The Starmaker wrote:
> >
> > Quadibloc wrote:
> > >
> > > On Apr 29, 5:41 pm, The Starmaker <starma...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > I don't make mistakes.
> > >
> > > A number of posters other than myself apparently disagree.
> >
> > I don't see anyone else...disagreeing.
> >
> > > On Apr 28, 5:49 pm, The Starmaker <starma...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Instead of going thru all that, you could have just posted a link
> > > > to the fairy tale, GoldenLocks and the Three Bears.
> > >
> >
> > ...and this thing you call a "habitable zone"..
> >
> > based on
> > a fairy tale.. GoldiLocks and the Three Bears
> > based on
> > a cosmic religion, called 'the anthropic principle'
> >
> > the anthropic principle is not even Science, it's LSD.
> >
> > Why not just call "habitable zone" , nam myoho renge kyo?
> >
> > Or, "the baby's soup".
> >
> > Or "the little bowl in the middle."
> >
> > But "the habitable zone" sounds too much like...
> >
> > The Twilight Zone
>
> Let me explain what "the habitable zone" is...
>
> The habitable zone is the region
> around a star where a planet with
> sufficient atmospheric pressure can
> maintain trees and plants on its surface.
>
> It is the trees and the plants that make...Ocean.
> It is the trees and the plants that make...Fishes.
> It is the trees and the plants that make...People.
>
> Why do you think people, here...
> suggest I should go back to my tree?
>
> They don't suggest that I should go back to the ocean.
>
> Cause they know...people come from trees.
>
> I've have emperical edvidence of this.
>
> ..there愀 no question or discussion about it.
>
> The Starmaker
>
> Any kids out there going to skool tomorrow, ask your teacher:
>
> Where did the Ocean come from?
> Where did the Fishes come from?
> Where did the People come from?
>
> If she doesn't answer "They all come from trees.", she is wrong!
>
> there愀 no question or discussion about it.
>
> Don't bother to switich to a different skool, all the teachers are dumb.
You don't actualy believe trees were created just so people can have some...wood?
>
> The Starmaker wrote:
> >
> > Quadibloc wrote:
> > >
> > > On Apr 29, 5:41 pm, The Starmaker <starma...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > I don't make mistakes.
> > >
> > > A number of posters other than myself apparently disagree.
> >
> > I don't see anyone else...disagreeing.
> >
> > > On Apr 28, 5:49 pm, The Starmaker <starma...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Instead of going thru all that, you could have just posted a link
> > > > to the fairy tale, GoldenLocks and the Three Bears.
> > >
> >
> > ...and this thing you call a "habitable zone"..
> >
> > based on
> > a fairy tale.. GoldiLocks and the Three Bears
> > based on
> > a cosmic religion, called 'the anthropic principle'
> >
> > the anthropic principle is not even Science, it's LSD.
> >
> > Why not just call "habitable zone" , nam myoho renge kyo?
> >
> > Or, "the baby's soup".
> >
> > Or "the little bowl in the middle."
> >
> > But "the habitable zone" sounds too much like...
> >
> > The Twilight Zone
>
> Let me explain what "the habitable zone" is...
>
> The habitable zone is the region
> around a star where a planet with
> sufficient atmospheric pressure can
> maintain trees and plants on its surface.
>
> It is the trees and the plants that make...Ocean.
> It is the trees and the plants that make...Fishes.
> It is the trees and the plants that make...People.
>
> Why do you think people, here...
> suggest I should go back to my tree?
>
> They don't suggest that I should go back to the ocean.
>
> Cause they know...people come from trees.
>
> I've have emperical edvidence of this.
>
> ..there愀 no question or discussion about it.
>
> The Starmaker
>
> Any kids out there going to skool tomorrow, ask your teacher:
>
> Where did the Ocean come from?
> Where did the Fishes come from?
> Where did the People come from?
>
> If she doesn't answer "They all come from trees.", she is wrong!
>
> there愀 no question or discussion about it.
>
> Don't bother to switich to a different skool, all the teachers are dumb.
You don't actualy believe trees were created just so people can have some...wood?
Androcles
May 3, 2012, 1:48:40 AM5/3/12
to
"Helmut Wabnig" <hwabnig@.- --- -.dotat> wrote in message
oriel36
May 3, 2012, 2:06:43 AM5/3/12
to
On May 3, 12:23 am, d...@gatekeeper.vic.com (David DeLaney) wrote:
standard of dissent which doesn't really exist other than to reinforce
groupthink and insulates the problem to relativity rather than
widening the circle of technical and historical details right back to
Copernicus.I see these guy go into huge detail to rail against
Einstein who is merely a symbol for the early 20th century groupthink
when they could no longer bear Newton's clockwork solar system so they
did to Einstein what they did to Newton back in the late 17th century
by elevating a man and his wordplays into something ridiculous -
"There goes the man that writt a book that neither he nor anybody else
understands." Comment on the Principia
The fact is that I do understand technically what Newton tried to do
like nobody else ever could but I soon discovered that the whole
point of the vicious strain of empiricism is to keep it muddied and
unintelligible.Relativity basically uses the text of the Principia
against itself to escape the clockwork solar system which the 'theory
of gravity' represents and into the multi-colored and gaudy world of
late 19th century sci-fi.
Whoever pulled the masterstroke of mixing a sci-fi forum with
relativity deserves an award of some kind for anyone who can tell the
fictional novel of Well's apart from relativity will have an extremely
difficult job -
"'Really this is what is meant by the Fourth Dimension, though some
people who talk about the Fourth Dimension do not know they mean it.
It is only another way of looking at Time. There is no difference
between time and any of the three dimensions of space " H.G. Wells
"What does the word 'spacetime' mean? - It means that in our universe,
3-dimensional space and time form a single indivisible new physical
object which has 4 dimensions. All physical laws and phenomena seem to
require thinking about space and time as this blended object. That's
what Einstein's relativity theories were all about. " Gravity probe b
http://einstein.stanford.edu/content/faqs/faqs.html
> oriel36 <kelleher.ger...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> > Yet nobody can say what the 'theory of gravity' where an apple
> >> > falls and it has something to do with the moon orbiting the Earth
> >> > and the Earth orbiting the Sun.
>
> >> Are you aware that that isn't even a sentence?
> >> -- wds
>
> >Yeah,poor proofreading,I have been known for that.
>
> >I like the visitors from the sci-fi forum,they don't actually add
> >anything to the sci.relativity forum other than present themselves as
> >the final flower of the vicious strain of empiricism that started with
> >Isaac and his all-singing-all-dancing 'theory of gravity'.The fact is
> >that you could find the relativity ideology on a shelf in a bookstore
> >in the late 19th century
>
> ...Time travel? Note that just having Lorentz contraction equations sitting
> around isn't anywhere near the same thing as actual relativity; it was known
> beforehand how to -describe- what seemed to be happening, but not why. Einstein
> showed how to derive it by changing one axiom (from "the speed of light, like
> all other speeds, varies according to what moving frame you're in" to "the
> speed of light is constant in every inertial reference frame"), and then
> everything else falls out from that. Neither is saying "Time acts like a
> fourth dimension" anywhere near actual relativity.
>
> And 1905 isn't "late 19th century".
>
The problem is not relativists as they exercise groupthink,it is the
> >> > Yet nobody can say what the 'theory of gravity' where an apple
> >> > falls and it has something to do with the moon orbiting the Earth
> >> > and the Earth orbiting the Sun.
>
> >> Are you aware that that isn't even a sentence?
> >> -- wds
>
> >Yeah,poor proofreading,I have been known for that.
>
> >I like the visitors from the sci-fi forum,they don't actually add
> >anything to the sci.relativity forum other than present themselves as
> >the final flower of the vicious strain of empiricism that started with
> >Isaac and his all-singing-all-dancing 'theory of gravity'.The fact is
> >that you could find the relativity ideology on a shelf in a bookstore
> >in the late 19th century
>
> ...Time travel? Note that just having Lorentz contraction equations sitting
> around isn't anywhere near the same thing as actual relativity; it was known
> beforehand how to -describe- what seemed to be happening, but not why. Einstein
> showed how to derive it by changing one axiom (from "the speed of light, like
> all other speeds, varies according to what moving frame you're in" to "the
> speed of light is constant in every inertial reference frame"), and then
> everything else falls out from that. Neither is saying "Time acts like a
> fourth dimension" anywhere near actual relativity.
>
> And 1905 isn't "late 19th century".
>
standard of dissent which doesn't really exist other than to reinforce
groupthink and insulates the problem to relativity rather than
widening the circle of technical and historical details right back to
Copernicus.I see these guy go into huge detail to rail against
Einstein who is merely a symbol for the early 20th century groupthink
when they could no longer bear Newton's clockwork solar system so they
did to Einstein what they did to Newton back in the late 17th century
by elevating a man and his wordplays into something ridiculous -
"There goes the man that writt a book that neither he nor anybody else
understands." Comment on the Principia
The fact is that I do understand technically what Newton tried to do
like nobody else ever could but I soon discovered that the whole
point of the vicious strain of empiricism is to keep it muddied and
unintelligible.Relativity basically uses the text of the Principia
against itself to escape the clockwork solar system which the 'theory
of gravity' represents and into the multi-colored and gaudy world of
late 19th century sci-fi.
Whoever pulled the masterstroke of mixing a sci-fi forum with
relativity deserves an award of some kind for anyone who can tell the
fictional novel of Well's apart from relativity will have an extremely
difficult job -
"'Really this is what is meant by the Fourth Dimension, though some
people who talk about the Fourth Dimension do not know they mean it.
It is only another way of looking at Time. There is no difference
between time and any of the three dimensions of space " H.G. Wells
"What does the word 'spacetime' mean? - It means that in our universe,
3-dimensional space and time form a single indivisible new physical
object which has 4 dimensions. All physical laws and phenomena seem to
require thinking about space and time as this blended object. That's
what Einstein's relativity theories were all about. " Gravity probe b
http://einstein.stanford.edu/content/faqs/faqs.html
Helmut Wabnig
May 3, 2012, 4:29:55 AM5/3/12
to
Watch this, it will entertain you.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=02tchltLm3c
w.
Androcles
May 3, 2012, 4:43:23 AM5/3/12
to
"Helmut Wabnig" <hwabnig@.- --- -.dotat> wrote in message
wristwatch, I can't be bothered to look.
William December Starr
May 3, 2012, 6:37:50 AM5/3/12
to
In article <3013ab47-8482-4da5...@v2g2000vbx.googlegroups.com>,
It does leave open the question of whether anyone _else_ should
share that confidence, of course.
-- wds
oriel36 <kellehe...@gmail.com> said:
> The fact is that I do understand technically what Newton tried to
> do like nobody else ever could
Well, you certainly don't lack confidence in your own genius.
> The fact is that I do understand technically what Newton tried to
> do like nobody else ever could
It does leave open the question of whether anyone _else_ should
share that confidence, of course.
-- wds
Helmut Wabnig
May 3, 2012, 7:35:15 AM5/3/12
to
w.
Androcles
May 3, 2012, 8:11:35 AM5/3/12
to
"Helmut Wabnig" <hwabnig@.- --- -.dotat> wrote in message
Look here, wabnigger------------------^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Look here, wabnigger------------------^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Look here, wabnigger------------------^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Look here, wabnigger------------------^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Look here, wabnigger------------------^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Look here, wabnigger------------------^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Look here, wabnigger------------------^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Helmut Wabnig
May 3, 2012, 9:28:44 AM5/3/12
to
You fall back into the same behaviour you would critizise the Einstein
dingleberries for. Instead of a real measurement, or a physics
experiment you produce nice fantasy illustrations
out from your dreams. Fantasy crap.
Now you are retreating on the position of a small animal in fear
of the great bear:
You sit ontop on the smallest branches of the tree, the bear, would he
climb up there, would fall down because the small twigs won't carry
him. You are safe, you think. Only you forget that you will also fall
down when the bear falls.
Your tree is your fantasy light clock, a non-existing device, on which
you build your retreat castle. Only then, you say, only when the light
clock spares 28 nanoseconds from London to Boston, only then you
will admit that Einstein was right and you were wrong all your life,
knowing you are safe because there is no such thing as a "light
clock". What a dreary end for an otherwise intelligent man.
w.
Wayne Throop
May 3, 2012, 9:29:36 AM5/3/12
to
: oriel36 <kellehe...@gmail.com>
: The problem is not relativists as they exercise groupthink,it is the
personally, are reinforcing groupthink. That must be frustrating to you.
Look. Nobody's oppressing you or censoring your ... discussions.
If there were any merit to your ... position, people are perfectly
free to adopt it and abandon the toxic horror of Newtonian empericism
(which of course actually goes back to Galileo and before).
The *reason* nobody picks up your ... ideas, is that they are
remarkably bad ideas. And many folks remark about it. If you can't
persuade folks, it's your own lack, not any horrid conspiracy of
"groupthink".
: and insulates the problem to relativity rather than widening the
You *do* know that Newtonian mechanics is perfectly Copernican, right?
Pfft, what am I saying, of *course* you don't know. It would require
you to take off your monomania-tinted glasses, and actually look at
the facts of the matter.
: Whoever pulled the masterstroke of mixing a sci-fi forum with
Your monomania has brought you to this moral nadir of admiring a troll.
This is part of why your presentations aren't persuasive. Not a
logical reason, but if somebody sinks to admiring Starmaker, it's
not a good sign for soundness of thinking.
But of course, soundness of thinking is not one of your goals.
Indeed, exactly the opposite. Better to be "intuitive" than logical.
Better to be intuitive even in self-contradiction. Even if you have
to ignore the evidence. All reasons your presentations aren't persuasive.
: The problem is not relativists as they exercise groupthink,it is the
: standard of dissent which doesn't really exist other than to reinforce
: groupthink
So... what you are saying, since you are dissenting, is that you,
: groupthink
personally, are reinforcing groupthink. That must be frustrating to you.
Look. Nobody's oppressing you or censoring your ... discussions.
If there were any merit to your ... position, people are perfectly
free to adopt it and abandon the toxic horror of Newtonian empericism
(which of course actually goes back to Galileo and before).
The *reason* nobody picks up your ... ideas, is that they are
remarkably bad ideas. And many folks remark about it. If you can't
persuade folks, it's your own lack, not any horrid conspiracy of
"groupthink".
: and insulates the problem to relativity rather than widening the
: circle of technical and historical details right back to Copernicus.
You *do* know that Galileo invented relativity, right?
You *do* know that Newtonian mechanics is perfectly Copernican, right?
Pfft, what am I saying, of *course* you don't know. It would require
you to take off your monomania-tinted glasses, and actually look at
the facts of the matter.
: Whoever pulled the masterstroke of mixing a sci-fi forum with
: relativity deserves an award of some kind
It's a standard trolling technique. Done by a standard troll.
Your monomania has brought you to this moral nadir of admiring a troll.
This is part of why your presentations aren't persuasive. Not a
logical reason, but if somebody sinks to admiring Starmaker, it's
not a good sign for soundness of thinking.
But of course, soundness of thinking is not one of your goals.
Indeed, exactly the opposite. Better to be "intuitive" than logical.
Better to be intuitive even in self-contradiction. Even if you have
to ignore the evidence. All reasons your presentations aren't persuasive.
Wayne Throop
May 3, 2012, 9:41:34 AM5/3/12
to
:: oriel36 <kellehe...@gmail.com>
:: The fact is that I do understand technically what Newton tried to do
For one self-indictment, you say that you read the principia "like
a newspaper". There's a problem right there. It really wasn't meant
to be read "like a newspaper". For another, you criticize Newtonian
mechanics because the principia is a bit hard to understand. As if it
were relevant. In the hundreds of years since then, things have been made
much easier to understand, and the reasons Newtonian mechanics reinforce
Copernicus and Kepler rather than refute then, are now well known.
If you keep insisting that Newton is anti-Copernican, then you won't
persuade folks who knows where their towels are.
:: The fact is that I do understand technically what Newton tried to do
:: like nobody else ever could
You present very *very* little evidence of it.
For one self-indictment, you say that you read the principia "like
a newspaper". There's a problem right there. It really wasn't meant
to be read "like a newspaper". For another, you criticize Newtonian
mechanics because the principia is a bit hard to understand. As if it
were relevant. In the hundreds of years since then, things have been made
much easier to understand, and the reasons Newtonian mechanics reinforce
Copernicus and Kepler rather than refute then, are now well known.
If you keep insisting that Newton is anti-Copernican, then you won't
persuade folks who knows where their towels are.
Bill Snyder
May 3, 2012, 9:53:35 AM5/3/12
to
On Thu, 03 May 2012 13:41:34 GMT, thr...@sheol.org (Wayne Throop)
wrote:
Wayne, you really ought to fix your newsreader so your posts don't
appear as replies to messages you're not replying to.
wrote:
appear as replies to messages you're not replying to.
Wayne Throop
May 3, 2012, 9:50:05 AM5/3/12
to
: Helmut Wabnig <hwabnig@.- --- -.dotat>
: Only then, you say, only when the light clock spares 28 nanoseconds
: from London to Boston, only then you will admit that Einstein was
: right and you were wrong all your life,
Actually, if you pay attention, he's set it up so he never has to
: right and you were wrong all your life,
admit it. Certainly not due to velocity-based time dilation. First,
because he's only concerned with gravitational time dilation. And second,
he supposes the possible results (ie, time difference or lack thereof)
will *both* refute relativity.
Of course, he's wrong about that second. But since when has
Androcles ever realized when he's ham-fistedly misinterpreted what
relativity is all about?
Androcles
May 3, 2012, 10:59:53 AM5/3/12
to
"Helmut Wabnig" <hwabnig@.- --- -.dotat> wrote in message
You'll have to come to my home to see a real one...
or you can buy mine, #2000.
The Starmaker
May 3, 2012, 12:35:02 PM5/3/12
to
that
a round object
six million miles
from a sun
is going to
get you
another Earth
is
poppycock.
It's just another con.
And you fall for it.
The Starmaker
oriel36
May 3, 2012, 12:36:02 PM5/3/12
to
On May 3, 11:37 am, wdst...@panix.com (William December Starr) wrote:
> In article <3013ab47-8482-4da5-b93e-0b0dfae4d...@v2g2000vbx.googlegroups.com>,
even bothered to consider what the hell the 'theory of gravity'
represented yet I can,even Mach couldn't make heads nor tails of
absolute/relative time although today's welfare empiricists gain their
wages and their reputations by not comprehending what Isaac was trying
to do -
"This absolute time can be measured by comparison with no motion; it
has therefore neither a practical nor a scientific value; and no one
is justified in saying that he knows aught about it. It is an idle
conception." Mach, Analyse der Empfindungen, 6th ed.
At least Mach and those people in his era desperately sought a way out
of the clockwork solar system and Newton's absolute/relative time but
as groupthink doesn't allow for unorthodox/normal thinking,they
eventually decided to conjure up magic and dump it into a clock.Even
if I explained a thousand times that Newton's absolute/relative time
is nothing more than his ham-fisted attempt to explain the difference
between the natural unequal noon AM/PM cycle and the equal 24 hour AM/
PM cycle it wouldn't matter,as again,too many wages are paid on the
basis of not understanding it -
"Absolute time, in astronomy, is distinguished from relative, by the
equation of time. For the natural days are truly unequal, though they
are commonly considered as equal and used for a measure of time;
astronomers correct this inequality for their accurate deducing of the
celestial motions." Principia
All this is fine and I can go through the motions of how he does this
here and then does that there but that would be wasting my time,I
already saw what they did in his era to accommodate the 'predictions'
elements which takes priority among that vicious strain of empiricism
and provides almost all of the impetus of turning him into a
'genius',more as a symbol for his followers than any of his dubious
assertions.If you can get the wider world to pay you for promoting a
'theory' that the promoters don't even understand themselves then I
suppose that is genius of a sort,more like criminal genius of course.
So, both the sci-fi forum and the relativity forum have the common
link where the fictional narrative and the formal version are
indistinguishable,not relative to each but absolutely the same.Have a
nice day ! -
"'Really this is what is meant by the Fourth Dimension, though some
people who talk about the Fourth Dimension do not know they mean it.
It is only another way of looking at Time. There is no difference
between time and any of the three dimensions of space " H.G. Wells
"What does the word 'spacetime' mean? - It means that in our universe,
3-dimensional space and time form a single indivisible new physical
object which has 4 dimensions. All physical laws and phenomena seem to
require thinking about space and time as this blended object. That's
what Einstein's relativity theories were all about. " Gravity probe B
I approach Newton's agenda and the less effective story of relativity
as an observer and not a dissenter,after all,Wikipedia are unethically
now attempting to wreck my careful reasoning which connects rotational
dynamics with plate tectonics and planetary spherical deviation using
a common mechanism and consistent with a definitive rotational speed
of 1037.5 miles per hour.It is fine for you guys who can lounge about
with fiction,do nothing and probably get paid for it but some people
actually get work done.
> In article <3013ab47-8482-4da5-b93e-0b0dfae4d...@v2g2000vbx.googlegroups.com>,
> oriel36 <kelleher.ger...@gmail.com> said:
>
> > The fact is that I do understand technically what Newton tried to
> > do like nobody else ever could
>
> Well, you certainly don't lack confidence in your own genius.
>
> It does leave open the question of whether anyone _else_ should
> share that confidence, of course.
>
> -- wds
Genius indeed !,you have a handful of guys in a few hundred years who
>
> > The fact is that I do understand technically what Newton tried to
> > do like nobody else ever could
>
> Well, you certainly don't lack confidence in your own genius.
>
> It does leave open the question of whether anyone _else_ should
> share that confidence, of course.
>
> -- wds
even bothered to consider what the hell the 'theory of gravity'
represented yet I can,even Mach couldn't make heads nor tails of
absolute/relative time although today's welfare empiricists gain their
wages and their reputations by not comprehending what Isaac was trying
to do -
"This absolute time can be measured by comparison with no motion; it
has therefore neither a practical nor a scientific value; and no one
is justified in saying that he knows aught about it. It is an idle
conception." Mach, Analyse der Empfindungen, 6th ed.
At least Mach and those people in his era desperately sought a way out
of the clockwork solar system and Newton's absolute/relative time but
as groupthink doesn't allow for unorthodox/normal thinking,they
eventually decided to conjure up magic and dump it into a clock.Even
if I explained a thousand times that Newton's absolute/relative time
is nothing more than his ham-fisted attempt to explain the difference
between the natural unequal noon AM/PM cycle and the equal 24 hour AM/
PM cycle it wouldn't matter,as again,too many wages are paid on the
basis of not understanding it -
"Absolute time, in astronomy, is distinguished from relative, by the
equation of time. For the natural days are truly unequal, though they
are commonly considered as equal and used for a measure of time;
astronomers correct this inequality for their accurate deducing of the
celestial motions." Principia
All this is fine and I can go through the motions of how he does this
here and then does that there but that would be wasting my time,I
already saw what they did in his era to accommodate the 'predictions'
elements which takes priority among that vicious strain of empiricism
and provides almost all of the impetus of turning him into a
'genius',more as a symbol for his followers than any of his dubious
assertions.If you can get the wider world to pay you for promoting a
'theory' that the promoters don't even understand themselves then I
suppose that is genius of a sort,more like criminal genius of course.
So, both the sci-fi forum and the relativity forum have the common
link where the fictional narrative and the formal version are
indistinguishable,not relative to each but absolutely the same.Have a
nice day ! -
"'Really this is what is meant by the Fourth Dimension, though some
people who talk about the Fourth Dimension do not know they mean it.
It is only another way of looking at Time. There is no difference
between time and any of the three dimensions of space " H.G. Wells
"What does the word 'spacetime' mean? - It means that in our universe,
3-dimensional space and time form a single indivisible new physical
object which has 4 dimensions. All physical laws and phenomena seem to
require thinking about space and time as this blended object. That's
I approach Newton's agenda and the less effective story of relativity
as an observer and not a dissenter,after all,Wikipedia are unethically
now attempting to wreck my careful reasoning which connects rotational
dynamics with plate tectonics and planetary spherical deviation using
a common mechanism and consistent with a definitive rotational speed
of 1037.5 miles per hour.It is fine for you guys who can lounge about
with fiction,do nothing and probably get paid for it but some people
actually get work done.
Wayne Throop
May 3, 2012, 12:54:24 PM5/3/12
to
: oriel36 <kellehe...@gmail.com>
: Genius indeed !,you have a handful of guys in a few hundred years who
: "This absolute time can be measured by comparison with no motion; it
or timezones, or latitude and longitude, or the length of the day,
or any other topics you rail about. That you seem to think it does
is pretty definite demonstration you're barking up several wrong trees.
: Genius indeed !,you have a handful of guys in a few hundred years who
: even bothered to consider what the hell the 'theory of gravity'
: represented yet I can,even Mach couldn't make heads nor tails of
: absolute/relative time although today's welfare empiricists gain their
: wages and their reputations by not comprehending what Isaac was trying
: to do -
Aw, you're just jealous. Also, wrong. Frex:
: represented yet I can,even Mach couldn't make heads nor tails of
: absolute/relative time although today's welfare empiricists gain their
: wages and their reputations by not comprehending what Isaac was trying
: to do -
: "This absolute time can be measured by comparison with no motion; it
: has therefore neither a practical nor a scientific value; and no one
: is justified in saying that he knows aught about it. It is an idle
: conception." Mach, Analyse der Empfindungen, 6th ed.
:
: At least Mach and those people in his era desperately sought a way out
: of the clockwork solar system and Newton's absolute/relative time
Mach's comment has nothing to do with the solar system,
: is justified in saying that he knows aught about it. It is an idle
: conception." Mach, Analyse der Empfindungen, 6th ed.
:
: At least Mach and those people in his era desperately sought a way out
: of the clockwork solar system and Newton's absolute/relative time
or timezones, or latitude and longitude, or the length of the day,
or any other topics you rail about. That you seem to think it does
is pretty definite demonstration you're barking up several wrong trees.
Wayne Throop
May 3, 2012, 12:57:55 PM5/3/12
to
: The Starmaker <star...@ix.netcom.com>
: But this idea... that a round object six million miles from a sun is
: But this idea... that a round object six million miles from a sun is
: going to get you another Earth is poppycock.
Good thing nobody is claiming it will, then.
The Starmaker
May 3, 2012, 1:20:13 PM5/3/12
to
I'l say it again...
But this idea... that a round object 93 million miles from a sun is
going to get you another Earth is poppycock.
Changin the number doesn't change what I'm sayin...dummie.
The Starmaker
The Starmaker
May 3, 2012, 1:28:43 PM5/3/12
to
How Many Planets Are There in the Solar System?
You think it's ...eight.
The majority of people in the world say it's nine. The majority rules.
oriel36
May 3, 2012, 1:29:32 PM5/3/12
to
On May 3, 5:54 pm, thro...@sheol.org (Wayne Throop) wrote:
> : oriel36 <kelleher.ger...@gmail.com>
Are you scared of Newton and his attempt to explain the difference
between the natural noon AM/PM cycle and the 24 hour AM/PM cycle -
"Absolute time, in astronomy, is distinguished from relative, by the
equation of time. For the natural days are truly unequal, though they
are commonly considered as equal and used for a measure of time;
astronomers correct this inequality for their accurate deducing of the
celestial motions." Principia
I read Isaac like a newspaper ,don't think it is a big deal either,and
watch as all these guys fuss and fret over simple clocks that are
really only simple devices meant to maintain a steady pace yet
acquired magical properties in the hands of schoolboy
mathematicians.The amazing welfare society and the peer review process
based on absolute/relative time,space and motion as long as nobody
makes an attempt to comprehend what Isaac was actually doing and how
it became a clockwork solar system.
I wouldn't waste my time on groupthinkers who are caught between an
1898 science fiction novel and its formal 1905 version or what amounts
to the same thing, caught between a science fiction forum and a formal
'relatvity' forum,one no different than the other.
Tell me that one where the Earth rotates 361 degrees and I will show
you 'spinal tap' physics -
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EbVKWCpNFhY
Anyway,all this shows is that relativity is sci-fi and sci-fi belongs
in a relativity forum so you are definitely a wonderful match but at
such a level that the promoters really on their perceived dissenters
to keep the charade going otherwise relativists would hate each
other,sad but true.
> : oriel36 <kelleher.ger...@gmail.com>
between the natural noon AM/PM cycle and the 24 hour AM/PM cycle -
"Absolute time, in astronomy, is distinguished from relative, by the
equation of time. For the natural days are truly unequal, though they
are commonly considered as equal and used for a measure of time;
astronomers correct this inequality for their accurate deducing of the
celestial motions." Principia
watch as all these guys fuss and fret over simple clocks that are
really only simple devices meant to maintain a steady pace yet
acquired magical properties in the hands of schoolboy
mathematicians.The amazing welfare society and the peer review process
based on absolute/relative time,space and motion as long as nobody
makes an attempt to comprehend what Isaac was actually doing and how
it became a clockwork solar system.
I wouldn't waste my time on groupthinkers who are caught between an
1898 science fiction novel and its formal 1905 version or what amounts
to the same thing, caught between a science fiction forum and a formal
'relatvity' forum,one no different than the other.
Tell me that one where the Earth rotates 361 degrees and I will show
you 'spinal tap' physics -
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EbVKWCpNFhY
Anyway,all this shows is that relativity is sci-fi and sci-fi belongs
in a relativity forum so you are definitely a wonderful match but at
such a level that the promoters really on their perceived dissenters
to keep the charade going otherwise relativists would hate each
other,sad but true.
Wayne Throop
May 3, 2012, 1:46:36 PM5/3/12
to
::: But this idea... that a round object six million miles from a sun
: How about 93 million miles?
How about it? Nobody claims being at 93 million miles from a G star
is "going to get you another earth" either.
: I'l say it again...
for liquid water "is going to get you another earth". You're making
all that up.
::: is going to get you another Earth is poppycock.
:: Good thing nobody is claiming it will, then.
: The Starmaker <star...@ix.netcom.com>
:: Good thing nobody is claiming it will, then.
: How about 93 million miles?
How about it? Nobody claims being at 93 million miles from a G star
is "going to get you another earth" either.
: I'l say it again...
:
: But this idea... that a round object 93 million miles from a sun is
: going to get you another Earth is poppycock.
: But this idea... that a round object 93 million miles from a sun is
: going to get you another Earth is poppycock.
Good thing nobody is claiming it will, then.
Also, nobody claims that having a planet with temperatures that allow
for liquid water "is going to get you another earth". You're making
all that up.
David DeLaney
May 3, 2012, 2:10:04 PM5/3/12
to
Wayne Throop <thr...@sheol.org> wrote:
> oriel36 <kellehe...@gmail.com>
>:: The fact is that I do understand technically what Newton tried to do
>:: like nobody else ever could
>
>You present very *very* little evidence of it.
ObAlice: He didn't say there was no-one BETTER, he said there was no-one LIKE
> oriel36 <kellehe...@gmail.com>
>:: The fact is that I do understand technically what Newton tried to do
>:: like nobody else ever could
>
>You present very *very* little evidence of it.
him.
Dave "I see nobody down this road" DeLaney
The Starmaker
May 3, 2012, 1:58:45 PM5/3/12
to
Wayne Throop
May 3, 2012, 1:49:46 PM5/3/12
to
: The Starmaker <star...@ix.netcom.com>
: Wayne, you don't even know
Tell that to somebody who's villiage was decimated.
: The majority of people in the world say it's nine.
: The majority rules.
So, what the majority think of you, rules?
Basically, that the majority thinks New York City is the capital of
New York, Kansas City is the capital of Kansas, and Virginia City is the
capital of Virginia, and Miami is the capital of Florida, doesn't make
those cities rule. Rule those states, that is.
: Wayne, you don't even know
: How Many Planets Are There in the Solar System?
There are eight. What, you don't think definitions of words ever change?
Tell that to somebody who's villiage was decimated.
: The majority of people in the world say it's nine.
: The majority rules.
So, what the majority think of you, rules?
Basically, that the majority thinks New York City is the capital of
New York, Kansas City is the capital of Kansas, and Virginia City is the
capital of Virginia, and Miami is the capital of Florida, doesn't make
those cities rule. Rule those states, that is.
Wayne Throop
May 3, 2012, 2:08:27 PM5/3/12
to
: oriel36 <kellehe...@gmail.com>
: Are you scared of Newton and his attempt to explain the difference
: "Absolute time, in astronomy, is distinguished from relative, by the
of the planets. Once you've deduced the earth's orbit, and realize that
the stars (other than the sun, since you like to pretend it doesn't
already mean that) are very far away, the EoT follows. Something evel
Keppler, or even Copernicus, would have been well aware of.
You can pretend it's all Newton's fault for being a nasty empericist,
but your seeming hero Copernicus was also an empericist, and also
deduced the actual physical motions from the apparent motions of
things in the sky.
If you really want to give up "deducing the celestial motions",
you're back to geocentrism, and crystal orbs.
: I read Isaac like a newspaper
Well there's your problem. You should be reading it with some
attention to mathematics and physics, and not as if it contained
the news of the day and some human insterest stories.
: Are you scared of Newton and his attempt to explain the difference
: between the natural noon AM/PM cycle and the 24 hour AM/PM cycle -
No.
: "Absolute time, in astronomy, is distinguished from relative, by the
: equation of time. For the natural days are truly unequal, though they
: are commonly considered as equal and used for a measure of time;
: astronomers correct this inequality for their accurate deducing of the
: celestial motions." Principia
It's not as if Newton is the first to relate the EoT to the actual motions
: are commonly considered as equal and used for a measure of time;
: astronomers correct this inequality for their accurate deducing of the
: celestial motions." Principia
of the planets. Once you've deduced the earth's orbit, and realize that
the stars (other than the sun, since you like to pretend it doesn't
already mean that) are very far away, the EoT follows. Something evel
Keppler, or even Copernicus, would have been well aware of.
You can pretend it's all Newton's fault for being a nasty empericist,
but your seeming hero Copernicus was also an empericist, and also
deduced the actual physical motions from the apparent motions of
things in the sky.
If you really want to give up "deducing the celestial motions",
you're back to geocentrism, and crystal orbs.
: I read Isaac like a newspaper
Well there's your problem. You should be reading it with some
attention to mathematics and physics, and not as if it contained
the news of the day and some human insterest stories.
Wayne Throop
May 3, 2012, 2:14:51 PM5/3/12
to
:::: The fact is that I do understand technically what Newton tried to
: ObAlice: He didn't say there was no-one BETTER,
"understand technically" than the "like nobody else".
Sure, he *interprets* Newton's motives and methods eccentrically,
but with no sign of following the technical issues. For example,
his insistance that Newton abandoned Copernican heliocentrism
shows he not only hasn't a clue, he hasn't any suspicions.
:::: do like nobody else ever could
:: You present very *very* little evidence of it.
: d...@gatekeeper.vic.com (David DeLaney)
:: You present very *very* little evidence of it.
: ObAlice: He didn't say there was no-one BETTER,
: he said there was no-one LIKE him.
Well, I was more pointing out the lack of evidence for the
"understand technically" than the "like nobody else".
Sure, he *interprets* Newton's motives and methods eccentrically,
but with no sign of following the technical issues. For example,
his insistance that Newton abandoned Copernican heliocentrism
shows he not only hasn't a clue, he hasn't any suspicions.
Wayne Throop
May 3, 2012, 2:19:13 PM5/3/12
to
: The Starmaker <star...@ix.netcom.com>
: What does "the habitual zone" mean to you?
It's a phrase you just made up, to pretend you mistook habitual for habitable.
But of course, even if something is "habitable" doesn't mean it's inhabited.
It *certainly* doesn't mean you're "going to get another earth". That
part, you're just making up.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Habitable_zone
In astronomy and astrobiology, the habitable zone is the region
[.. note: nothing about "another earth", nor about inhabitants ..]
"Rudy's got the chalk!"
--- Chalk Zone opening theme
: What does "the habitual zone" mean to you?
It's a phrase you just made up, to pretend you mistook habitual for habitable.
But of course, even if something is "habitable" doesn't mean it's inhabited.
It *certainly* doesn't mean you're "going to get another earth". That
part, you're just making up.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Habitable_zone
In astronomy and astrobiology, the habitable zone is the region
around a star where a planet with sufficient atmospheric pressure
can maintain liquid water on its surface.
[.. note: nothing about "another earth", nor about inhabitants ..]
"Rudy's got the chalk!"
--- Chalk Zone opening theme
oriel36
May 3, 2012, 3:14:14 PM5/3/12
to
relative that ,don't know what they actually do and what Isaac tried
to make them into,all these schoolboys with lifestyles pretending to
get into intense discussions on clocks,dimensions and what have you
but not one of them know what made the 'theory of gravity' what it was
and why it was always useless and disruptive.
Great to see relativity ultimately merge with a sci-fi forum and fair
dues to the guy who facilitated that merger.
Ultimately somebody is going to have to deal with all this as there is
no absolutely no alternative to the nightmare of groupthink and the
disappearance of astronomy and terrestrial sciences.Don't worry
Throop,you stay in the multi-colored world of an object that turns 361
degrees,a spinning moon ,a 24 hour day that doesn't keep in step with
a rotation,a dwarf planet that isn't a planet,the sky is falling/
burning and all the other amazing things that exist only in the
imagination of those who are lost to reason.
Cryptoengineer
May 3, 2012, 3:20:46 PM5/3/12
to
On May 3, 6:37 am, wdst...@panix.com (William December Starr) wrote:
> In article <3013ab47-8482-4da5-b93e-0b0dfae4d...@v2g2000vbx.googlegroups.com>,
> In article <3013ab47-8482-4da5-b93e-0b0dfae4d...@v2g2000vbx.googlegroups.com>,
> oriel36 <kelleher.ger...@gmail.com> said:
>
> > The fact is that I do understand technically what Newton tried to
> > do like nobody else ever could
>
> Well, you certainly don't lack confidence in your own genius.
>
> It does leave open the question of whether anyone _else_ should
> share that confidence, of course.
>
> -- wds
It's been said that "When you fight with a pig you both get dirty -
>
> > The fact is that I do understand technically what Newton tried to
> > do like nobody else ever could
>
> Well, you certainly don't lack confidence in your own genius.
>
> It does leave open the question of whether anyone _else_ should
> share that confidence, of course.
>
> -- wds
but the pig likes it." Realize that 'Starmaker', 'Androcles', and
oriel36 are pigs; they don't have a point to make, they quite possibly
don't actually hold the positions they put forward here. But they know
that doing so winds people up, and they enjoy the attention.
They have nothing of interest to say, and aren't amenable to reason,
logic, or education.
pt
oriel36
May 3, 2012, 3:31:58 PM5/3/12
to
On May 3, 7:08 pm, thro...@sheol.org (Wayne Throop) wrote:
> You can pretend it's all Newton's fault for being a nasty empericist,
> but your seeming hero Copernicus was also an empericist, and also
> deduced the actual physical motions from the apparent motions of
> things in the sky.
Newton and Einstein are mere symbols but moreso Newton and it took a
> You can pretend it's all Newton's fault for being a nasty empericist,
> but your seeming hero Copernicus was also an empericist, and also
> deduced the actual physical motions from the apparent motions of
> things in the sky.
while to figure out why -
http://rstl.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/1/1-22/263.full.pdf+html
Why would they wipe the past clean to accommodate Newton's 1689 view
when these views were more or less in circulation around 1666 as the
letter of Wallis to Boyle demonstrates.Not until I did original work
of my own on rotational dynamics and plate tectonics in tandem with
planetary spherical deviation did I witness productive work with
straightforward reasoning turn into a Frankenstein's monster concept
by people willing to throw every assertion possible at it.Having no
sense of style or care is one of the defining traits of empirical
groupthink,it saw the possibility of rotation as a mechanism for
crustal evolution/motion and the entire reasoning withers in the hands
of crude people who are used to destroying productive avenues of
investigation.
oriel36
May 3, 2012, 3:44:30 PM5/3/12
to
groupthink with a large sci-fi element -
"Crimestop means the faculty of stopping short, as though by instinct,
at the threshold of any dangerous thought. It includes the power of
not grasping analogies, of failing to perceive logical errors, of
misunderstanding the simplest arguments... and of being bored or
repelled by any train of thought which is capable of leading in a
heretical direction. Crimestop, in short, means protective stupidity"
Orwell
It is a modern phenomenon and it is now totally unbiquitous for even
in the birthplace of the vicious strain of empiricism where they
model 3 months of drought while there are people drowning in their
cars,there is not the slightest trace of responsibility for the
predictions and that is a mere symptom of this bad empiricism.They
just wipe the slate clean as if the prediction never happened and that
is what goes on here day in and day out.
Met Office 3-month Outlook
Period: April – June 2012 Issue date: 23.03.12
SUMMARY – PRECIPITATION:
"The forecast for average UK rainfall slightly favours drier than
average conditions for April-May-June as a whole, and also slightly
favours April being the driest of the 3 months. With this forecast,
water resources situation in southern, eastern and central England
is likely to deteriorate further during the April-May-June period. The
probability that UK precipitation for April-May-June will fall into
the driest of our five categories is 20-25% whilst the probability
that it will fall into the wettest of our five categories is 10-15%
(the 197-2000 climatological probability for each of these categories
is 20%).
CONTEXT:
As a legacy of dry weather over many months water resources in much of
southern, eastern and central England remain at very low levels.
Winter rainfall in these areas has typically been about 70% of
average,whilst observations and current forecasts suggest that the
final totals for March will be below average here too. The Environment
Agency advises that, given the current state of soils and groundwater
levels in these areas, drought impacts in the coming months are
virtually inevitable."
The Starmaker
May 3, 2012, 4:59:06 PM5/3/12
to
Wayne Throop
May 3, 2012, 5:10:34 PM5/3/12
to
: The Starmaker <star...@ix.netcom.com>
: Doesn't 'super-earth' mean, another earth in the habitable zone?
No.
It also didn't mean it the other ten times you asked,
and were pointed to various definitions of the term.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Super-Earth
A super-Earth is an extrasolar planet with a mass higher than
Earth's, but substantially below the mass of the Solar System's
smaller gas giants Uranus and Neptune, which are both more or less
15 Earth masses.[1] The term super-Earth refers only to the mass of
the planet, and does not imply anything about the surface conditions
or habitability.
In short, a super-earth is a rocky planet more massive than the earth.
Nothing other than being rocky, and more massive, is expressed or implied.
: Doesn't 'super-earth' mean, another earth in the habitable zone?
No.
It also didn't mean it the other ten times you asked,
and were pointed to various definitions of the term.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Super-Earth
A super-Earth is an extrasolar planet with a mass higher than
Earth's, but substantially below the mass of the Solar System's
smaller gas giants Uranus and Neptune, which are both more or less
15 Earth masses.[1] The term super-Earth refers only to the mass of
the planet, and does not imply anything about the surface conditions
or habitability.
In short, a super-earth is a rocky planet more massive than the earth.
Nothing other than being rocky, and more massive, is expressed or implied.
Wayne Throop
May 3, 2012, 5:16:41 PM5/3/12
to
: oriel36 <kellehe...@gmail.com>
: Great to see relativity ultimately merge with a sci-fi forum and fair
shows how pure the clue-free zone you inhabit is.
Second, it should surpise nobody you approve of trolls and trolling.
I mean, you know, as opposed to thought and thinking.
Of which you sharply *dis*approve.
: Great to see relativity ultimately merge with a sci-fi forum and fair
: dues to the guy who facilitated that merger.
First, to characterize crossposting as "merging with a forum"
shows how pure the clue-free zone you inhabit is.
Second, it should surpise nobody you approve of trolls and trolling.
I mean, you know, as opposed to thought and thinking.
Of which you sharply *dis*approve.
Cryptoengineer
May 3, 2012, 5:25:38 PM5/3/12
to
On May 3, 3:44 pm, oriel36 <kelleher.ger...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On May 3, 8:20 pm, Cryptoengineer <petert...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On May 3, 6:37 am, wdst...@panix.com (William December Starr) wrote:
>
> > > In article <3013ab47-8482-4da5-b93e-0b0dfae4d...@v2g2000vbx.googlegroups.com>,
> > > oriel36 <kelleher.ger...@gmail.com> said:
>
> > > > The fact is that I do understand technically what Newton tried to
> > > > do like nobody else ever could
>
> > > Well, you certainly don't lack confidence in your own genius.
>
> > > It does leave open the question of whether anyone _else_ should
> > > share that confidence, of course.
>
> > > -- wds
>
> > It's been said that "When you fight with a pig you both get dirty -
> > but the pig likes it." Realize that 'Starmaker', 'Androcles', and
> > oriel36 are pigs; they don't have a point to make, they quite possibly
> > don't actually hold the positions they put forward here. But they know
> > that doing so winds people up, and they enjoy the attention.
>
> > They have nothing of interest to say, and aren't amenable to reason,
> > logic, or education.
>
> > pt
>
> You are fine son,it is called protective stupidity and a trait of
> groupthink with a large sci-fi element -
[...]
> On May 3, 8:20 pm, Cryptoengineer <petert...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On May 3, 6:37 am, wdst...@panix.com (William December Starr) wrote:
>
> > > In article <3013ab47-8482-4da5-b93e-0b0dfae4d...@v2g2000vbx.googlegroups.com>,
> > > oriel36 <kelleher.ger...@gmail.com> said:
>
> > > > The fact is that I do understand technically what Newton tried to
> > > > do like nobody else ever could
>
> > > Well, you certainly don't lack confidence in your own genius.
>
> > > It does leave open the question of whether anyone _else_ should
> > > share that confidence, of course.
>
> > > -- wds
>
> > It's been said that "When you fight with a pig you both get dirty -
> > but the pig likes it." Realize that 'Starmaker', 'Androcles', and
> > oriel36 are pigs; they don't have a point to make, they quite possibly
> > don't actually hold the positions they put forward here. But they know
> > that doing so winds people up, and they enjoy the attention.
>
> > They have nothing of interest to say, and aren't amenable to reason,
> > logic, or education.
>
> > pt
>
> You are fine son,it is called protective stupidity and a trait of
> groupthink with a large sci-fi element -
This was oriel's utterly predictable response.
Oriel is demonstrating what I'm talking about. If it had shown itself
to be engaging in an actual discussion, in which both sides considered
the others arguments and were open of being persuaded, I'd be willing
to engage it in dialog. However, since, to the best of my knowledge,
Oriel, etal have *never* budged one iota from their ignorance, dialog
is impossible, and attempting it a fool's errand. You might as well
try to get a thoughtful, considered response from ELIZA. [Now there's
a thought: Could these trolls be someone's NLP project?]
Unless you like talking to bots, ignore them.
pt
Wayne Throop
May 3, 2012, 5:34:37 PM5/3/12
to
: oriel36 <kellehe...@gmail.com>
: Newton and Einstein are mere symbols but moreso Newton and it took a
(though he was correct that Galileo used the same general methods,
of applying mechanics to celestial motions where possible).
: Why would they wipe the past clean to accommodate Newton's 1689 view
: Why would they wipe the past clean to accommodate Newton's 1689 view
it matters that Wallis got it wrong. He comes close in his bit about
"greatest acceleration and greated retardation", but really misses the
boat wrt diffeential accelerations across the diameter of the earth,
ie, he completely misses what's really going on.
Though I suppose it's reasonable that you'd like his presentation,
composed as it is largely of analogies and handwavy qualitative guestimation
rather than anything more careful or rigorous. But then, that just goes back
to your preference for handwaving over logic.
: destroying productive avenues of investigation
You wouldn't know a productive avenue if there were a flashing neon
sign pointing to it.
: Newton and Einstein are mere symbols but moreso Newton and it took a
: while to figure out why -
:
: http://rstl.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/1/1-22/263.full.pdf+html
So, he was mistaken about the causes of the tides
:
: http://rstl.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/1/1-22/263.full.pdf+html
(though he was correct that Galileo used the same general methods,
of applying mechanics to celestial motions where possible).
: Why would they wipe the past clean to accommodate Newton's 1689 view
: Why would they wipe the past clean to accommodate Newton's 1689 view
: when these views were more or less in circulation around 1666 as the
: letter of Wallis to Boyle demonstrates.
You'll have to be more specific about what slate, who wiped it, and why
: letter of Wallis to Boyle demonstrates.
it matters that Wallis got it wrong. He comes close in his bit about
"greatest acceleration and greated retardation", but really misses the
boat wrt diffeential accelerations across the diameter of the earth,
ie, he completely misses what's really going on.
Though I suppose it's reasonable that you'd like his presentation,
composed as it is largely of analogies and handwavy qualitative guestimation
rather than anything more careful or rigorous. But then, that just goes back
to your preference for handwaving over logic.
: destroying productive avenues of investigation
You wouldn't know a productive avenue if there were a flashing neon
sign pointing to it.
The Starmaker
May 3, 2012, 6:09:21 PM5/3/12
to
But the "implying" is done by the 'scientific community' in the media.
"The most interesting of the planets found in stars’ habitable zones are called “super-Earths,”
the rocky or water-covered bodies with a mass of up to 10 times that of Earth."
http://phys.org/news/2012-04-earth-sister-crosshairs.html
I'm confused.
The Starmaker
The Starmaker
May 3, 2012, 6:20:51 PM5/3/12
to
“Our new observations with HARPS mean that about 40% of all
red dwarf stars have a super-Earth orbiting in the habitable zone where
liquid water can exist on the surface of the planet,”
Billions!
"Of the 54 new planet candidates found in the habitable zone, five are near Earth-sized.
The remaining 49 habitable zone candidates range from super-Earth size -- up to twice the size of Earth -- to larger than Jupiter. "
http://www.nasa.gov/home/hqnews/2011/feb/HQ_11-030_Kepler_Update.html
'Super-earth' means, another earth in the habitable zone. Throw that wiki website in the garbage.
I hope kids are not reading wiki's website...that is the worst place in the world to get information from.
The Starmaker
Wayne Throop
May 3, 2012, 6:32:29 PM5/3/12
to
: The Starmaker <star...@ix.netcom.com>
: But the "implying" is done by the 'scientific community' in the media.
not habitability when explaining what super-earths are. And your cite
also shows that not all super-earths occur in habitable zones. Finally,
it makes no mention or implication of "going to get an earth" as you
claimed upthread.
: I'm confused.
No you're not. You're just pretending. Out of malice, I expect,
though I suppose the malice may be a by-product of boredom or somesuch.
: But the "implying" is done by the 'scientific community' in the media.
:
: "The most interesting of the planets found in stars habitable zones
: are called super-Earths, the rocky or water-covered bodies with a mass
: of up to 10 times that of Earth."
: http://phys.org/news/2012-04-earth-sister-crosshairs.html
Note that the cite you reference refers only to composition and mass,
: "The most interesting of the planets found in stars habitable zones
: are called super-Earths, the rocky or water-covered bodies with a mass
: of up to 10 times that of Earth."
: http://phys.org/news/2012-04-earth-sister-crosshairs.html
not habitability when explaining what super-earths are. And your cite
also shows that not all super-earths occur in habitable zones. Finally,
it makes no mention or implication of "going to get an earth" as you
claimed upthread.
: I'm confused.
No you're not. You're just pretending. Out of malice, I expect,
though I suppose the malice may be a by-product of boredom or somesuch.
Kip Williams
May 3, 2012, 6:42:08 PM5/3/12
to
Cryptoengineer wrote:
...
Kip W
rasfw
...
> Oriel, etal have *never* budged one iota from their ignorance, dialog
> is impossible, and attempting it a fool's errand. You might as well
> try to get a thoughtful, considered response from ELIZA. [Now there's
> a thought: Could these trolls be someone's NLP project?]
>
> Unless you like talking to bots, ignore them.
Where the devil are my slippers?
> is impossible, and attempting it a fool's errand. You might as well
> try to get a thoughtful, considered response from ELIZA. [Now there's
> a thought: Could these trolls be someone's NLP project?]
>
> Unless you like talking to bots, ignore them.
Kip W
rasfw
Wayne Throop
May 3, 2012, 6:37:18 PM5/3/12
to
: The Starmaker <star...@ix.netcom.com>
: http://www.universetoday.com/94347/billions-of-habitable-worlds-likely-in-the-milky-way/
and they are still called super-earths.
: "Of the 54 new planet candidates found in the habitable zone, five are
about size, not habitability, nor even whether there's water present.
: I hope kids are not reading wiki's website...
You don't like wikipedia? They should use professionally composed sources?
Fine.
http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/1076150/extrasolar-planet/288515/Physical-properties
the term super-Earths refers to those planets that may well be rocky
bodies only a few times as massive as Earth.
No indication that super-earth's have to be in the habitable zone,
nor that they have to resemble earth much at all, other than "being rocky"
and "only a few times as massive".
: Super-earth' means, another earth in the habitable zone.
That's a flat-out lie, and you know it.
: http://www.universetoday.com/94347/billions-of-habitable-worlds-likely-in-the-milky-way/
: Our new observations with HARPS mean that about 40% of all red dwarf
: stars have a super-Earth orbiting in the habitable zone where liquid
: water can exist on the surface of the planet,
And lots of other stars have super-earth's orbiting outside habitable zones,
: stars have a super-Earth orbiting in the habitable zone where liquid
: water can exist on the surface of the planet,
and they are still called super-earths.
: "Of the 54 new planet candidates found in the habitable zone, five are
: near Earth-sized. The remaining 49 habitable zone candidates range
: from super-Earth size -- up to twice the size of Earth -- to larger
: than Jupiter. "
: http://www.nasa.gov/home/hqnews/2011/feb/HQ_11-030_Kepler_Update.html
Note "earth sized" and "super-earth sized". So they're just talking
: from super-Earth size -- up to twice the size of Earth -- to larger
: than Jupiter. "
: http://www.nasa.gov/home/hqnews/2011/feb/HQ_11-030_Kepler_Update.html
about size, not habitability, nor even whether there's water present.
: I hope kids are not reading wiki's website...
You don't like wikipedia? They should use professionally composed sources?
Fine.
http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/1076150/extrasolar-planet/288515/Physical-properties
the term super-Earths refers to those planets that may well be rocky
bodies only a few times as massive as Earth.
No indication that super-earth's have to be in the habitable zone,
nor that they have to resemble earth much at all, other than "being rocky"
and "only a few times as massive".
: Super-earth' means, another earth in the habitable zone.
That's a flat-out lie, and you know it.
oriel36
May 3, 2012, 6:52:53 PM5/3/12
to
On May 3, 10:34 pm, thro...@sheol.org (Wayne Throop) wrote:
> You wouldn't know a productive avenue if there were a flashing neon
> sign pointing to it.
I have so little regard for empiricists that I presented the outlines
> You wouldn't know a productive avenue if there were a flashing neon
> sign pointing to it.
for differential rotation as the mechanism with the highest
probability for explaining crustal motion/evolution and planetary
spherical deviation on the unmoderated Usenet ,I had to considering
that all these geniuses can't handle simple things like the maximum
equatorial speed of 1037.5 miles per hour never mind the many other
components involved.
Of course they reacted by flinging every known assertion involving
rotation at the topic where you can read it in all its miserable
stitched together state in Wikipedia - no class and no style.
Wayne Throop
May 3, 2012, 8:00:04 PM5/3/12
to
: oriel36 <kellehe...@gmail.com>
: I have so little regard for empiricists that I presented the outlines
Since there are much, much, MUCH better explanations of those things.
("Differential rotation". Pfft.)
: I have so little regard for empiricists that I presented the outlines
: for differential rotation as the mechanism with the highest
: probability for explaining crustal motion/evolution and planetary
: spherical deviation
Good thing nobody listens to you, then.
: probability for explaining crustal motion/evolution and planetary
: spherical deviation
Since there are much, much, MUCH better explanations of those things.
("Differential rotation". Pfft.)
The Starmaker
May 4, 2012, 1:30:47 AM5/4/12
to
In the real world, they use the words "earth" and "habitable" in the same sentence.
If you don't get it, ...you're living in a textbook world. Are you a professional student?
It is loading more messages.
0 new messages