gravity theory
jedakiah
ok now it is generally perceived that gravity is a product of mass, but
gravity is still unexplained, i have a theory that i believe is logical
and leaves no questions.
imagine the universe was in water, all the stars and planets was in a
liquid, now when something spins it creates a whirlpool which sucks
things in. it doesnt explain properties of whirlpools on earth because
they are effected by gravity. but i believe if gravity was not apparent
and you spin a large object in water it will create the same effect as
gravity does in the universe.
if there are any problems or questoins with my theory id be happy to
hear them.
--
jedakiah
Sam Wormley
> ok now it is generally perceived that gravity is a product of mass, but
> gravity is still unexplained, i have a theory that i believe is logical
> and leaves no questions.
>
Gravity is exquisitely model ("explained" for many) by general
relativity. Please take some time to familiarize yourself with it.
Greg Neill
news:jedakiah...@physicsbanter.com
The masses used in the Cavendish experiment to measure the
gravitational constant were not spinning, yet clearly they
manisfested gravity.
Spinning objects don't seem to change their gravitational
properties with spin rate (a whirling gyroscope still
weighs the same).
A whirlpool effect would render the gravitational field
a similar symmetry. Yet the gravitaitonal field of the
Earth does not drop to zero at the poles. Nor are bodies
swept in a particular direction when placed into orbit --
any direction of orbit is equally good.
Y.Porat
wrote:
--------------
yes there is :
you forgot or may be never noticed that if you have two
spinning objects in the water
it depends on the direction of spin
if it is in contardicting directions hey will be attracted
but if the same direction they will be rejected
------------
ATB
Y.Porat
------------------------------
Y.Porat
----------------
dont rpend a second on curved space time
if you dont pity your time
Y.P
-------------------------
G=EMC^2 Glazier
figures Bert
PD
wrote:
If you will look at real whirlpools such as what appear in water and
in tornadoes, the material that goes into them reappears somewhere
else. Also note that if you block the inflow of matter into a
whirlpool, the whirlpool stops. Now, regarding the flow of stuff
toward the earth, either the surface of the earth stops things from
flowing in, in which case the whirlpool would stop; or the stuff that
is continuing to flow into the earth unimpeded by the surface should
reappear somewhere else -- where?
Secondly, you might ask why large, nonrotating planets still
gravitate.
Sometimes, it takes just *another* 15 seconds of thinking things
through to realize that what came out in the first 15 seconds wasn't
so brilliant after all.
PD
Sam Wormley
> Sam reality is gravity is created by the energy of being in motion It
> figures Bert
>
Being in motion with respect to what, Herb?
Eric Gisse
> "jedakiah" <jedakiah.2d3a...@physicsbanter.com> wrote in message
>
> news:jedakiah...@physicsbanter.com
>
> > ok now it is generally perceived that gravity is a product of mass,
> > but gravity is still unexplained, i have a theory that i believe is
> > logical and leaves no questions.
>
> > imagine the universe was in water, all the stars and planets was in a
> > liquid, now when something spins it creates a whirlpool which sucks
> > things in. it doesnt explain properties of whirlpools on earth because
> > they are effected by gravity. but i believe if gravity was not
> > apparent and you spin a large object in water it will create the same
> > effect as gravity does in the universe.
>
> > if there are any problems or questoins with my theory id be happy to
> > hear them.
>
> The masses used in the Cavendish experiment to measure the
> gravitational constant were not spinning, yet clearly they
> manisfested gravity.
>
> Spinning objects don't seem to change their gravitational
> properties with spin rate (a whirling gyroscope still
> weighs the same).
Not true. Look at the differences between a Schwarzschild black hole
[no spin] and a near-extremal Kerr hole [lots of spin].
[...]
Greg Neill
news:0f00d823-cd87-4e8d...@k36g2000pri.googlegroups.com
I didn't suppose that such extreme instances were necessarily
of particular relevance to the O.P., whose theory fails in
the strictly Newtonian domain never mind the Relativistic.
hhc...@yahoo.com
Ahem...Sam, if their is a theory of General Relativity, please cite
the author and the journal in which it was published.
Realize that at the time of his death, Einstein never published his
theor of genral relativity, because there remained some issues that he
could not resolve.
Hence, there is no such thing as a Theory of General Relativity.
It simply does not exist.
Harry C.
Mitch Raemsch
>
> - Show quoted text -
At what angle are you traveling through space curvature?
Mitch Raemsch
Sam Wormley
> On Jul 28, 12:30 pm, Sam Wormley <sworml...@mchsi.com> wrote:
>> jedakiah wrote:
>>> ok now it is generally perceived that gravity is a product of mass, but
>>> gravity is still unexplained, i have a theory that i believe is logical
>>> and leaves no questions.
>> Gravity is exquisitely model ("explained" for many) by general
>> relativity. Please take some time to familiarize yourself with it.
>>
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_relativity
>
> the author and the journal in which it was published.
See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_relativity#References
including Einstein.
>
> Realize that at the time of his death, Einstein never published his
> theor of genral relativity, because there remained some issues that he
> could not resolve.
>
> Hence, there is no such thing as a Theory of General Relativity.
Lot's of good material, Harry.
Are There Any Good Books on Relativity Theory?
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Administrivia/rel_booklist.html
You make it sound GTR doesn't exist because it is a "work in progress"?
This is now, Harry, GTR is more mature and fruitful.
Uncle Al
>
> ok now it is generally perceived that gravity is a product of mass,
Weyl tensor - gravitation without mass
> but
> gravity is still unexplained, i have a theory that i believe is logical
> and leaves no questions.
Annalen der Physik 4 XLIX 769-822 (1916)
or
http://www.ift.unesp.br/gcg/tele.pdf
Your choice.
> imagine the universe was in water, all the stars and planets was in a
> liquid, now when something spins it creates a whirlpool which sucks
> things in.
Do you know anything about fields? Clearly not. Intensity, gradient,
divergence, curl. Are you spewing that spacetime has non-zero curl?
How droll. Hey stooopid: 3-D rotation requires an axis of rotation,
4-D rotation requires a plane of rotation.
1) Time is homogeneous + Noether's theorem = local conservation of
energy
2) Space is homogeneous + Noether's theorem = local conservation of
linear momentum
3) Space is isotropic + Noether's theorem = local conservation of
angular momentum
That leaves you nothing. Leaving you less than nothing,
4) Erect three orgthogonal ring laser gyros. No net rotation of
the universe.
> it doesnt explain properties of whirlpools on earth because
> they are effected by gravity. but i believe if gravity was not apparent
> and you spin a large object in water it will create the same effect as
> gravity does in the universe.
Reality does not give shit one about what you believe. It awards the
same generous inattention to cults of Yahweh, Hindus with their 360
million gods, and Druids who eat hazelnuts to gain wisdom.
> if there are any problems or questoins with my theory id be happy to
> hear them.
You don't have a theory. You don't even have a balanced checking
account.
--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/lajos.htm#a2
Spaceman
No problems with it really but it is nto truly just your theory.
It is in the same line of thought as the Dirac Sea thinking.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dirac_sea
It is a better thought of the universe's "water" I will agree.
:)
--
James M Driscoll Jr
Creator of the Clock Malfunction Theory
Spaceman
Androcles
|
| ok now it is generally perceived that gravity is a product of mass, but
| gravity is still unexplained, i have a theory that i believe is logical
| and leaves no questions.
*plonk*
G=EMC^2 Glazier
the universe Bert
Florian
> or the stuff that
> is continuing to flow into the earth unimpeded by the surface should
> reappear somewhere else -- where?
Well, actually, there are good evidence that Earth much like other
planets/moons like Ganymede, Enceladus, Ariel, Dione etc... are growing.
Some litterature on the subject:
<http://www.earth-prints.org/items-by-author?author=Scalera%2C+G.>
I might suggest this particular paper for an introduction:
<http://www.earth-prints.org/handle/2122/2016>
--
Florian
"Toute vérité franchit trois étapes. D'abord elle est ridiculisée.
Ensuite, elle subit une forte opposition. Puis, elle est considérée
comme ayant toujours été une évidence." - Arthur Schopenhauer
Matthew Johnson
>
>jedakiah wrote:
>> ok now it is generally perceived that gravity is a product of mass,
>> but gravity is still unexplained, i have a theory that i believe is
>> logical and leaves no questions.
>>
>> imagine the universe was in water, all the stars and planets was in a
>> liquid, now when something spins it creates a whirlpool which sucks
>> things in. it doesnt explain properties of whirlpools on earth because
>> they are effected by gravity. but i believe if gravity was not
>> apparent and you spin a large object in water it will create the same
>> effect as gravity does in the universe.
>>
>> if there are any problems or questoins with my theory id be happy to
>> hear them.
>
>No problems with it really but it is nto truly just your theory.
>It is in the same line of thought as the Dirac Sea thinking.
Really? They look quite different to me.
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dirac_sea
More importantly, as the Wikipedia site makes clear, even Dirac agreed that his
"Dirac sea" model for antiparticles was inelegant. No suprise then, that it was
replaced by the "electron travelling backwards in time" theory of antiparticles.
The latter theory has another overwhelming advantage: it explains anti-particles
for ALL elementary particles, not just Fermions. The "Dirac sea" only works for
Fermions (such as the electron). That is why the "Dirac sea" is really of only
historical interest.
So this is a respect in which Jedakiah's idea and the "Dirac sea" are similar:
they both need to be replaced;)
Sam Wormley
> Sam Being in motion relative to every thing immersed in the space of
> the universe Bert
>
It's pretty easy these days to get some conceptual background of some
basic physical principles with a search engine.
Ref: Hartle, "Gravity: An Introduction to Einstein's General Relativity",
Addison Wesley (2003)
"A few properties of the gravitational interaction that help explain when
gravity is important can already be seen from the gravitational force law
F_grav = G m_1 m_2 / r_12^2
o Gravity is a universal interaction in Newtonian theory between all mass, and,
since E = mc^2, in relativistic gravity between all forms of energy.
o Gravity is unscreened. There are no negative gravitational charges to cancel
positive ones, and therefore it is not possible to shield (screen) the
gravitational interaction. Gravity is always attractive.
o Gravity is a long-range interaction. The Newtonian force law is a 1/r^2
interaction. There is no length scale that sets a range for gravitational
interactions as there is for the strong and weak interactions.
o Gravity is the weakest of the four fundamental interactions acting between
individual elementary particles at accessible energy scales. The ratio of
the gravitational attraction to the electromagnetic repulsion between two
protons separated by a distance r is
F_grav G m_p^2 / r^2 G m_p^2
-------- = -------------------- = ------------- ~ 10^-36
F_elec e^2 / (4 pi e_0 r^2) (e^2/4pi e_0)
where m_p is the mass of the proton and e is its charge.
These four facts explain a great deal about the role gravity plays in physical
phenomena. They explain, for example, why, although it is the weakest force,
gravity governs the organization of the universe on the largest distance
scales of astrophysics and cosmology. These distance scales are far beyond
the subatomic ranges of the strong and the weak interactions. Electromagnetic
interactions COULD be long range were there any large-scale objects with net
electric charge. But the universe is electrically neutral, and electromagnetic
forces are so much stronger than gravitational forces that any large-scale net
charge is quickly neutralized. Gravity is left to govern the structure of the
universe on the largest scales.
Sam Wormley
> PD <TheDrap...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> or the stuff that
>> is continuing to flow into the earth unimpeded by the surface should
>> reappear somewhere else -- where?
>
> Well, actually, there are good evidence that Earth much like other
> planets/moons like Ganymede, Enceladus, Ariel, Dione etc... are growing.
>
> Some litterature on the subject:
>
> <http://www.earth-prints.org/items-by-author?author=Scalera%2C+G.>
>
> I might suggest this particular paper for an introduction:
>
> <http://www.earth-prints.org/handle/2122/2016>
>
>
How come that's not showing up in survey data and GPS monitoring of
tectonic plate motion.
Igor
wrote:
Rene Descartes had essentially the same idea well over 300 years ago.
Nothing came of it then, so why do you expect anything to come of it
now?
Igor
Igor
And all this time I could have sworn that Einstein published his
general theory in 1916. Silly me. I guess I was wrong.
Matthew Johnson
Igor says...
>
>On Jul 28, 8:39=A0am, jedakiah <jedakiah.2d3a...@physicsbanter.com>
Huygens developed the idea further. Something almost came of it, but Newton's
objection proved fatal to the 'vortices' theory.
Really, the only reason people were developing the vortices theories was because
they found the idea of "action at a distance" hard to swallow. But once Newton
showed that swallowing it gave the better results, people overcame their
objecttions.
Wikipedia has a good discussion of this at:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mechanical_explanations_of_gravitation
ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com
> On Jul 28, 3:25?pm, "hhc...@yahoo.com" <hhc...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > On Jul 28, 12:30?pm, Sam Wormley <sworml...@mchsi.com> wrote:
> >
> > > jedakiah wrote:
> > > > ok now it is generally perceived that gravity is a product of mass, but
> > > > gravity is still unexplained, i have a theory that i believe is logical
> > > > and leaves no questions.
> >
> > > ? ?relativity. Please take some time to familiarize yourself with it.
> >
> > > ? ?http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_relativity
> >
> > Ahem...Sam, if their is a theory of General Relativity, please cite
> > the author and the journal in which it was published.
> >
> > Realize that at the time of his death, Einstein never published his
> > theor of genral relativity, because there remained some issues that he
> > could not resolve.
> >
> > Hence, there is no such thing as a Theory of General Relativity.
> >
> > It simply does not exist.
> >
> > Harry C.
> And all this time I could have sworn that Einstein published his
> general theory in 1916. Silly me. I guess I was wrong.
What Einstein published was titled "Die Grundlage der allgemeinen
Relativitatsheorie", or "The Foundation of the General Theory of
Relativity" in English.
AFAIK, Einstein never published anything titled "The Theory of
General Relativity".
Get the point?
--
Jim Pennino
Remove .spam.sux to reply.
Sam Wormley
Nor did he publish anything titled the "special theory of
relativity".
Sue...
> ok now it is generally perceived that gravity is a product of mass, but
> gravity is still unexplained, i have a theory that i believe is logical
> and leaves no questions.
>
> liquid, now when something spins it creates a whirlpool which sucks
> things in. it doesnt explain properties of whirlpools on earth because
> they are effected by gravity. but i believe if gravity was not apparent
> and you spin a large object in water it will create the same effect as
> gravity does in the universe.
>
> if there are any problems or questoins with my theory id be happy to
> hear them.
Try water droplets condensing over a boiling pot.
The masses will be too small to manifest long range
forces but there are plausible theories based on the
same short range induction forces establish boiling points.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Induced_gravity
The Origin of Gravity
Authors: C. P. Kouropoulos
http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0107015v6
Sue...
>
> --
> jedakiah
Y.Porat
wrote:
-----------------------
i dont deal with 'curved space time'
because i have no 'spare time' (:-)
ATB
Y.Porat
----------------------------
Florian
> Wikipedia has a good discussion of this at:
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mechanical_explanations_of_gravitation
Indeed. A quite good discussion.
One of the issues shared by these hypotheses is that somehow, bodies
should absorb "something" and that "something" should appear in the
body in the form of heat or matter etc...
Note that the in the "streams" hypothesis, Ivan Osipovich Yarkovsky
suggested in 1888 that "absorbed aether might be converted into new
matter, leading to a mass increase of the celestial bodies".
This is quite close to observations. See my earlier message:
<news:1iktcg1.14li72f18awhn2N%auxotectonics_deletethis@nachon_andthis.ne
t>
Florian
> How come that's not showing up in survey data and GPS monitoring of
> tectonic plate motion.
Because the lithosphere does not move as "rigid plates" but truly
deforms under stress.
A good example is that of the agean/anatolian region:
<http://nachon.free.fr/GPS/GPSagean.gif>
Europe is chosen as reference.
If you look carefully, you will see that Africa is immobile relatively
to Europe, no collision there, but the whole area comprising Greece and
Turkey is deforming, moving at high speed West/South-West with the tip
overiding the mediterranean sea floor.
This is not a "plate", this is an area that is driven from below. Here
is a simplistic scheme that might illustrate the area:
<http://nachon.free.fr/overthrust/agean.png>
FU to sci.geo.geology
Robert J. Kolker
> Matthew Johnson <matthew...@newsguy.org> wrote:
>
>
>>Wikipedia has a good discussion of this at:
>>
>>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mechanical_explanations_of_gravitation
>
>
> Indeed. A quite good discussion.
>
> One of the issues shared by these hypotheses is that somehow, bodies
> should absorb "something" and that "something" should appear in the
> body in the form of heat or matter etc...
> Note that the in the "streams" hypothesis, Ivan Osipovich Yarkovsky
> suggested in 1888 that "absorbed aether might be converted into new
> matter, leading to a mass increase of the celestial bodies".
There is no aether.
Bob Kolker
Sam Wormley
> PD <TheDrap...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> or the stuff that
>> is continuing to flow into the earth unimpeded by the surface should
>> reappear somewhere else -- where?
>
> Well, actually, there are good evidence that Earth much like other
> planets/moons like Ganymede, Enceladus, Ariel, Dione etc... are growing.
By "growing" do you mean mass increase?
The earth accumulates meteoric dust and captures other debris,
but to the best of my knowledge, the increase in mass is so
minor as not to be measurable in satellite periodicity. Nor is
their any evidence that the volume of the earth is increasing.
Background
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Growing_Earth_Theory
Rate of expansion
"As explained above, there are many different proposals for expansion
rates - from very slow to very fast. However, modern measurements
have established very stringent upper bound limits for the expansion
rate, which very much reduces the possibility of an expanding earth.
For example, McElhinney et al. (1978) used paleomagnetic data to
calculate that the radius of the Earth 400 million years ago was
102 ± 2.8% of today's radius.[23] Furthermore, Williams (2000) alluded
to examinations of earth's moment of inertia, saying that no significant
change of earth's radius in the last 620 Million years could have taken
place and therefore earth expansion is untenable.[24]"
Sam Wormley
>
> One of the issues shared by these hypotheses is that somehow, bodies
> should absorb "something" and that "something" should appear in the
> body in the form of heat or matter etc...
> Note that the in the "streams" hypothesis, Ivan Osipovich Yarkovsky
> suggested in 1888 that "absorbed aether might be converted into new
> matter, leading to a mass increase of the celestial bodies".
No Aether
Physics Today 57, 40 (July, 2004) -- Seven page version for all readers
interested in a bit of self education.
http://cfa-www.harvard.edu/Walsworth/pdf/PT_Romalis0704.pdf
For those with a Subscription to Physics Today
http://www.aip.org/pt/vol-57/iss-7/p40.shtml
Florian
> Florian wrote:
> > PD <TheDrap...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> or the stuff that
> >> is continuing to flow into the earth unimpeded by the surface should
> >> reappear somewhere else -- where?
> >
> > Well, actually, there are good evidence that Earth much like other
> > planets/moons like Ganymede, Enceladus, Ariel, Dione etc... are growing.
>
> By "growing" do you mean mass increase?
That must be. Growth rate measurment from seafloor spreading show that
Earth's volume was at least multiplied by 8 in te last 250 My.
Watch this part of Maxlow's talk for a demonstration of empirical models
for Earth's growth.
<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qT_gaW3_ywg&feature=related>
BTW, forget about Neal Adams video. He is a true crank and does much
damage to a very well supported theory.
>
> The earth accumulates meteoric dust and captures other debris,
> but to the best of my knowledge, the increase in mass is so
> minor as not to be measurable in satellite periodicity. Nor is
> their any evidence that the volume of the earth is increasing.
That is not the growth we're concerned with. We're concerned with
internal growth leading to the dichotomy of surface of many moons and
plantes, including ours (think continental vs oceanic lithosphere).
> Background
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Growing_Earth_Theory
>
> Rate of expansion
>
> "As explained above, there are many different proposals for expansion
> rates - from very slow to very fast. However, modern measurements
> have established very stringent upper bound limits for the expansion
> rate, which very much reduces the possibility of an expanding earth.
> For example, McElhinney et al. (1978) used paleomagnetic data to
> calculate that the radius of the Earth 400 million years ago was
> 102 ± 2.8% of today's radius.[23]
McElhinney used the assumption that lithosphere is made of plates that
do not deform. This assumption does not hold no more. Continental
lithosphere *does* deform. A lot.
> Furthermore, Williams (2000) alluded
> to examinations of earth's moment of inertia, saying that no significant
> change of earth's radius in the last 620 Million years could have taken
> place and therefore earth expansion is untenable.[24]"
Williams used the assumption that the orbital period of Earth never
changed for his calculation. That is a biased assumption in a much more
dynamic solar system.
Did you read some references I gave in the earlier post, yes or not?
FU to sci.geo.geology
Florian
No XIXth century aether, but quantum vacuum/spacetime or whatever you
like to call it.
Sam Wormley
> Sam Wormley <swor...@mchsi.com> wrote:
>
>> Florian wrote:
>>> One of the issues shared by these hypotheses is that somehow, bodies
>>> should absorb "something" and that "something" should appear in the
>>> body in the form of heat or matter etc...
>>> Note that the in the "streams" hypothesis, Ivan Osipovich Yarkovsky
>>> suggested in 1888 that "absorbed aether might be converted into new
>>> matter, leading to a mass increase of the celestial bodies".
>> No Aether
>>
>> Physics Today 57, 40 (July, 2004) -- Seven page version for all readers
>> interested in a bit of self education.
>> http://cfa-www.harvard.edu/Walsworth/pdf/PT_Romalis0704.pdf
>>
>> For those with a Subscription to Physics Today
>> http://www.aip.org/pt/vol-57/iss-7/p40.shtml
>
> No XIXth century aether, but quantum vacuum/spacetime or whatever you
> like to call it.
>
Neither spacetime, nor the quantum vacuum is being "absorbed" by
matter. Florian, if you are going to make a claim, at least cite
some observational evidence in support of the claim... sea floor
spreading and subduction does not support your claim.
There is no evidence that the volume of the earth is changing, no
evidence that the volume of Jovian planets is changing, and no
evidence that their masses are changing over the last few billion
years.
Florian
> Neither spacetime, nor the quantum vacuum is being "absorbed" by
> matter.
May be not.
> Florian, if you are going to make a claim, at least cite
> some observational evidence in support of the claim... sea floor
> spreading and subduction does not support your claim.
Really?
Seafloor spreading is all about surface growth.
Now subduction.
Is it truly subduction or rather upduction?
Do you know how one can tell that a bit of lithosphere is on the move?
simple: It does deform because it behaves like a Bingham plastic.
So now, look carefully at Wadati-Benioff zones.
There are plenty in the figure below representing the Philippines area:
<http://nachon.free.fr/overthrust/Philippines-extrusions.jpg>
Which side is deformed? What does the arc shape tells you about the
direction of motion? Is it truly the lower lithosphere that is plunging
or the upper lithopshere that is overriding? Think about it. Really.
> There is no evidence that the volume of the earth is changing,
There are plenty and seafloor spreading is the most evident one.
You can look at it by yourself using Google Earth:
<http://nachon.free.fr/GE/Welcome.html>
> no
> evidence that the volume of Jovian planets is changing,
hmmm. Look at that:
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:PIA00081_Ganymede_Voyager_2_mosaic.j
pg>
No objective scientist who examines this image could reasonably doubt
that Ganymede has massively inflated from its deep interior, causing its
old dark crust to pull part as the globe expands. A new lighter coloured
crust is being emplaced between older, darker crustal shards.
The same for Miranda and its beautiful spreading grove:
<http://odin.physastro.mnsu.edu/~eskridge/astr102/miranda.gif>
<http://astrogeology.usgs.gov/Projects/BrowseTheGeologicSolarSystem/Jpg/
MirandaBack.jpg>
or those of enceladus:
<http://www.deniska.info/photos/astronomy/original/enceladusstripes_cass
ini_big.jpg>
or Ariel and its very impressive extensional fractures:
<http://sos.noaa.gov/images/Solar_System/ariel.jpg>
or those of Dione
<http://www.deniska.info/photos/astronomy/original/dione_cassini_big.jpg
>
And so on... Any planet/moon with a surface dichotomy tells you the same
story.
> and no
> evidence that their masses are changing over the last few billion
> years.
If their volume is changing then it is most likely that their mass is
also changing.
Well, that theory has a long way to go. But it *will* become mainstream.
I have zero doubt about it.
You don't have to believe me. You can simply examine the arguments made
by some proponents of that theory, such as those from Giancarlo Scalera:
<http://www.earth-prints.org/items-by-author?author=Scalera%2C+G.>
Lucky you to live in those times.
FU to sci.geo.geology
Sam Wormley
>> some observational evidence in support of the claim... sea floor
>> spreading and subduction does not support your claim.
>
> Really?
>
A Field Guide to Critical Thinking
http://www.csicop.org/si/9012/critical-thinking.html
hanson
via the forces in/of an **earth-quake** like the one that just
hit around noon-time to-day, July, 28th -08.
I'm visiting my communication center in SoCalifornia, about
10 miles from the epicenter. -- When it hit, it did not bang,
roar and rumble like a freight train, like I remember it do on
other occasions. This one was 5.8, gently swaying the building
in all 3-Dimensions for about 2 minutes. Little bit like the
building being a rubber ducky in the bath tub. Then after 15 min.
there were some after shocks. Was exciting. No damage.
When I called my Pretty Lady to check on her and I mentioned
that I wished I'd were in the saddle on here when it happened,
she called me a dirty old fart with a one-track mind instead...
ahahahaha... AHAHAHA...
>
"Sam Wormley" <swor...@mchsi.com> wrote in message
news:mypjk.219114$TT4.73919@attbi_s22...
ok now it is generally perceived that gravity is a product of
mass, but gravity is still unexplained, i have a theory that i
exquisitely model ("explained" for many) by general relativity.
... familiarize yourself with it.
>
hanson wrote:
Yo, explain simply, in a new way, what and why there is
"Action at a Distance" and you'll have an exquisite model
of Gravity. But if you need to invoke GR to do so then you
are simply delivering a useless sermon like any other
village priest of the Einstein cult does... and you'll be in
line with and in the league of those Einstein Dingleberries
that are an unending source for laughs.... ahahaha....
>>>
Sam Wormley <sworml...@mchsi.com> wrote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_relativity
>>
Harry Conover hhc...@yahoo.com wrote:
Ahem...Sam, if there is a theory of General Relativity, please cite
the author and the journal in which it was published.
>
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_relativity#References
including Einstein. [which is ...]
>
Harry Conover hhc...@yahoo.com wrote to Sam:
Realize that at the time of his death, Einstein never published his
theor of genral relativity, because there remained some issues
that he could not resolve.
Hence, there is no such thing as a Theory of General Relativity.
>
Lot's of good material, Harry.
Are There Any Good Books on Relativity Theory?
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Administrivia/rel_booklist.html
You make it sound GTR doesn't exist because it is a "work in progress"?
This is now, Harry, GTR is more mature and fruitful.
>>
Harry Conover hhc...@yahoo.com wrote to Sam:
It simply does not exist.
Harry C.
>>
Well, Chief Harry, ....
... rest will follow later....
Florian
Did you really read it?
Try this one as well:
<http://www.amazon.com/Conjectures-Refutations-Scientific-Knowledge-Rout
ledge/dp/0415285941/ref=si3_rdr_bb_product>
That might help you to figure out that the concept of plate tectonics is
bewildering and the evidence to support it are unsatisfactory.
Mitch Raemsch
Space's time.
hanson
news:mypjk.219114$TT4.73919@attbi_s22...
Harry Conover hhc...@yahoo.com wrote:
Sam Wormley <sworml...@mchsi.com> wrote:
>>>>
ok now it is generally perceived that gravity is a product of
mass, but gravity is still unexplained, i have a theory that i
he referred to GR as "allgemeine Relativitätstheorie" early
in his career, as can be seen from the link Sam gave you.
>
But Sam is a quintessential Einstein Dingleberry who does
worship Einstein & he proselytizes his notion as a teacher
in his school for the geriatric set. That is all commendable
as long as Sam teaches that SR/GR are nothing more than 1
of the fucking stories about nature, a fable, model or feeble'
description of nature.... good for mental masturbations only
BUT with NO practical value to/in the real world,
including GPS that NEVER needed nor used any SR nor GR.
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/msg/dd09db9bcf2d1a72?hl=en
>
So, when elevating SR/GR to the Holy grail of Physics it is
equivalent to the mentation that is exhibited by the religious
fundamentalists of the Jews, Islamists or Evangelicals.
>
If you look at Einstein original 1905 paper on SR you'll see
clearly that he grudgingly published it , without any references,
under the nagging and the insistence of his 1st Xian wife
Mileva Maric, who composed and wrote the manuscript.
More here:
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/c317bb71e593ff8b?hl=en
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/msg/3519d92d18984b8c?hl=en
>
The 1905 paper took off with the promos & backing of the then
very active Zionist movement in Germany. Albert got caught up in
that environment and was nudged into developing a general
theory (GR) which he was never comfy about/with, not from the
get-go, nor at any time during his career and he outright did
doubt GR's validity, grievously, at the end of his life... AND
he knew that playing that game was a despicable con. -- OTOH
his unrelated work, on the Photoelectric effect, for which he got
the Nobel price in 1921, he must be respected for.
>
Here is what Einstein said in the reference that Sam gave:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_relativity#CITEREFEinstein1917
References:
Einstein, Albert (1916), "Die Grundlage der allgemeinen Relativitätstheorie"
Annalen der Physik 49, <http://www.alberteinstein.info/gallery/gtext3.html>
which is written in the swollen genre of the 19th century German
Script with its many expressions of "manifold" meaning and
wherein Einstein, very uncharacteristically, gives credit to others
and says on:
>
286-Doc30-770: ..."all fundamentals for GR/GTR were already
known and invented by Gauss, Riemann, Christoffel, Ricci
& Levi-Civita. -- I am grateful to my friend Grossman who
spared me from me having to learn the necessary math & me
doing the required literature search to get to the needed field
equations for GTR".
>
Einstein continues on
286-Doc30-771:... "Ernst Mach was the first one to recognize a
fundamental misconception & conceptual fault in the formulation
of the SR, my Special Theory of relativity"... [Einstein then bags
on Newton's Grav. shortcomings, but he hedges in the foot note:]...
"The new theoretical realizations may not be applicable to events
in physical reality if they are contra to other physical experiences."
>
286-Doc30-771:... wherein Einstein pontificates:
"The cause and source for Newton's Action-at-a-distance must
lay **outside** of the system of the 2 involved masses... & (by
assumption) there **ought to be** no preferential frame of reference".
>
286-Doc30-771:... wherein Einstein laments like a politician
about: ... "some Force field which one must assume to be
"justifiable" in systems at rest as well as when in movement
from which one can immediately conclude that... by simply
changing the coordinate systems one generates a Gravitational
Force field... in which one **sets** the speed of light to be
constant & one can easily see that a ray of light must be bent "...
>
291-Doc30-776:... wherein Einstein laments that:
"There is no other choice then to accept/believe that all imaginable
frames of reference/coordinate systems have to regarded as being
equally valid".. [but then he adds & hedges in the page's foot note]
"About certain limitations of the requirement for attribution and
steadiness we shall NOT talk about"....[ ahahahaha... AHAHAHA...
and presumably he meant by that to admit & imply failure of his
GR because he was never able to get rid of Newton's "G" which is
required for any and all of GR's solutions... AHAHAHAHA.....]
>
hanson wrote:
Albert's hedging, cautioning, handwaving, and gauche credits
to others with his intent to absolve himself or at least spread any
possible blame for failure, is evident in the above introduction of
his 1st paper on GR ... ahahahaha.. .
>
If Albert would have written his shit today, and if he would not have
been promoted back then by the Zionist-infested academia of the
Weimar Republic, then any referee would taken Albert's manuscript
and a cigar to the toilet, smoked the cigar and wiped his ass with
Albert's paper... Albert was a fucking lucky crackpot... ahahaha...
>
GR has not matured, as Sam so lovingly advocates. Einstein's
relativity is a like an old toilet seat which normal people would
throw away because it stinks. --- But to the folks who harbor a
toilet seat fetish, like all Einstein Dingleberries do, REL has
become a cherished, albeit useless, relic that is worshiped and
still exhibited widely... ahahahaha....
>
The Dingleberry argument that GR predicts reality in many
experiments accurately is as shallow and UN-convincing as is
the plethora of the Miracles in the Torah/Bible or Koran that
too are predicting reality accurately to their disciples...
>
All these holy scriptures, including Albert's shit just show that
any highfaluting story/report or theory will always find examples
in the real world that "prove the theory right" to their believing
disciples.
>
Actually, Albert had his misgivings about his Relativity crap
from the start when he told his Dingleberries with/in his many
admonishments, ever since 1920....:
::AE:: .... "NOT to search at the same, now well lit places,
::AE:: .... where he, Einstein, had been working".
>
....This is reflected in the real world, like here, where one can
see where Einstein's crap is still used and where they laugh
about it:
= mil/indust. Eng, R&D....................."does not need REL shit"
= *.edu and grantology ...................."does use REL, No shit"
= Promo, Sales & Movies..............."loves REL by the shitload"
= Jews defend it as cultural heritage whether "REL is shit or not".
>
... and to boot Einstein was keenly aware of this and very lucidly
and finally confessed in 1954, just a year before Albert folded
his relativity tent, closes his umbrella, kicked the bucket & finally
puffed, but leaving behind vast hordes of his Einstein Dingleberries
(1 set of which resides in these NGs to stink up & retard the
intellectual level & quality of physics),
So, Einstein wrote a letter in 1954 to Besso in which he said:
>
::AE:: "I consider it quite possible that physics cannot be based
::AE:: on the field concept, i. e., on continuous structures. In that
::AE:: case nothing remains of my entire castle in the air, gravitation
::AE:: theory included, [and of] the rest of modern physics." . [ &
::AE::elsewhere] "why would anyone be interested in getting
::AE:: exact solutions of such an ephemeral set of equations?"
>
Other Luminaries have followed suit agreeing with Albert's
final realizations, insights and assessments, saying:
>
:: Professor Carver A. Mead of Caltech (a student of Feynman),
:: who said
:: "It is my firm belief that the last seven decades of the 20th century
::: will be characterized in history as the dark ages of physics."
>
:: or F.A Hayek, Nobel laureate, who said: "In the future,
:: Humanity will see in our Epoch an Era of superstition, essentially
:: associated with the names of Marx, Freud and Einstein"
>
:: or John Beckman, an astronomy professor and Einstein disciple:
:: "The theory of relativity lives on. Is it a true picture of reality?
:: That is probably more a matter of faith than of proof."
>
hanson worte:
ahahahaha... ahahaha... Thanks for the laughs, guys!
ahahahaha... ahahahahanson
Sam Wormley
> Sam Wormley <swor...@mchsi.com> wrote:
>
>> Florian wrote:
>>> Sam Wormley <swor...@mchsi.com> wrote:>
>>>> Florian, if you are going to make a claim, at least cite
>>>> some observational evidence in support of the claim... sea floor
>>>> spreading and subduction does not support your claim.
>>> Really?
>>>
>> A Field Guide to Critical Thinking
>> http://www.csicop.org/si/9012/critical-thinking.html
>
> Did you really read it?
Many times!
And some background and history for you, Florian
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plate_tectonics
>
> Try this one as well:
>
> <http://www.amazon.com/Conjectures-Refutations-Scientific-Knowledge-Rout
> ledge/dp/0415285941/ref=si3_rdr_bb_product>
>
> That might help you to figure out that the concept of plate tectonics is
> bewildering and the evidence to support it are unsatisfactory.
>
>
http://www.google.com/search?q=popper+site%3Awww.crank.net
Nasty Little Truth About Spacetime Physics 2004 Sep 19
... physics . relativity ...
"Some of the most famous physicists in the world are not telling the truth
about one of the most taken for granted concepts in scientific history.
They are not telling us how they can come up with their fanciful time travel
theories (wormholes, advanced and retarded waves traveling in spacetime,
etc...) using a model of the universe that precludes the possibility of
motion. Nothing can move in spacetime or in a time dimension-axis by
definition. This is because motion in time is self-referential. It is for
this reason that Sir Karl Popper compared Einstein's spacetime to Parmenide's
unchanging block universe[*], in which nothing ever happens. The following
is a short list of notorious time travel and spacetime crackpots, not
necessarily in order of crackpottery. Some, like Hawking, Wheeler and Feynman,
are venerated by the physics community and are considered by many to be among
the most brilliant scientific minds that ever lived. Too bad they believe in
time travel."
Florian
> Florian wrote:
> > Sam Wormley <swor...@mchsi.com> wrote:
> >
> >> Florian wrote:
> >>> Sam Wormley <swor...@mchsi.com> wrote:>
> >>>> Florian, if you are going to make a claim, at least cite
> >>>> some observational evidence in support of the claim... sea floor
> >>>> spreading and subduction does not support your claim.
> >>> Really?
> >>>
> >> A Field Guide to Critical Thinking
> >> http://www.csicop.org/si/9012/critical-thinking.html
> >
> > Did you really read it?
>
> Many times!
Then read it again. Apparently, you did not understood it yet.
>
> And some background and history for you, Florian
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plate_tectonics
Obviously you never studied plate tectonics.
Let's see if you has some knowledge: could you describe the concept of
"ridge push" and "slab pull?
> > Try this one as well:
> >
> > <http://www.amazon.com/Conjectures-Refutations-Scientific-Knowledge-Rout
> > ledge/dp/0415285941/ref=si3_rdr_bb_product>
> >
> > That might help you to figure out that the concept of plate tectonics is
> > bewildering and the evidence to support it are unsatisfactory.
> >
> >
>
> http://www.google.com/search?q=popper+site%3Awww.crank.net
Reassure me. You do know Karl Popper, don't you?
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karl_Popper>
Florian
> Florian wrote:
> > Sam Wormley <swor...@mchsi.com> wrote:
> >
> >> Florian wrote:
> >>> Sam Wormley <swor...@mchsi.com> wrote:>
> >>>> Florian, if you are going to make a claim, at least cite
> >>>> some observational evidence in support of the claim... sea floor
> >>>> spreading and subduction does not support your claim.
> >>> Really?
> >>>
> >> A Field Guide to Critical Thinking
> >> http://www.csicop.org/si/9012/critical-thinking.html
> >
> > Did you really read it?
>
> Many times!
Then read it again. Apparently, you did not understand it yet.
>
> And some background and history for you, Florian
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plate_tectonics
Obviously you never studied plate tectonics.
Let's see if you has some knowledge: could you describe the concept of
"ridge push" and "slab pull?
> > Try this one as well:
> >
> > <http://www.amazon.com/Conjectures-Refutations-Scientific-Knowledge-Rout
> > ledge/dp/0415285941/ref=si3_rdr_bb_product>
> >
> > That might help you to figure out that the concept of plate tectonics is
> > bewildering and the evidence to support it are unsatisfactory.
> >
> >
>
> http://www.google.com/search?q=popper+site%3Awww.crank.net
Reassure me. You do know Karl Popper, don't you?
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karl_Popper>
Sam Wormley
> Sam Wormley <swor...@mchsi.com> wrote:
>> And some background and history for you, Florian
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plate_tectonics
>
> Obviously you never studied plate tectonics.
>
> Let's see if you has some knowledge: could you describe the concept of
> "ridge push" and "slab pull?
>
Take a Deep Breath--and Thank Mount Everest
http://sciencenow.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/2008/729/2
By Phil Berardelli
ScienceNOW Daily News
29 July 2008
Next time you pause to view a scenic mountain vista, consider that the oxygen your lungs
are taking in resulted from the same process that raised those peaks. Researchers have
connected the periodic formation of supercontinents in Earth's geological past to the
nourishment of tiny, oxygen-producing sea creatures, and the process continues to this day.
At least seven times, the massive plates that make up Earth's continents have slammed
together--sometimes two at a time, and sometimes all of them--forming what geologists call
supercontinents. Those gradual collisions severely warped the intervening crust and pushed
up high mountain ranges, such as the Himalayas. Each time, over millions of years, wind
and rain wore down those mountains into dust that was flushed into the sea. There,
minerals containing iron, phosphorus, and other elements became food for microscopic plant
life that flourished and, through photosynthesis, boosted the amount of oxygen in the
atmosphere. The result, a team reported on 27 July in Nature Geoscience, was that
atmospheric oxygen content rose from what they call negligible levels about 2.65 billion
years ago to about 21% today.
Earth scientists Ian Campbell and Charlotte Allen of the Australian National University in
Canberra inferred atmospheric oxygen levels from the oxygen content of the minerals
deposited in ocean sediments. When they compared those data with geological evidence for
supercontinent formation, they found close correlations in six of the cases and some
evidence for the seventh. "All of the recognized supercontinent-forming events correlate
with documented increases in oxygen," Campbell says. During the past 40 million years,
when Asia and the Indian subcontinent collided and produced the Himalayas, atmospheric
oxygen has increased from about 15% to its present level.
There are other hypotheses for oxygenation of the atmosphere, Campbell says; some
researchers pose that volcanoes released oxygen from Earth's mantle into the air, for
instance. But if that were the mechanism, oxygen concentrations should be much higher than
observed, Campbell says.
Without plate tectonics, our planet might have had a thin atmosphere with nearly no
oxygen, says geophysicist Rainer Kind of GeoForschungsZentrum, a government research
institution in Potsdam, Germany. "Earth would perhaps look like Mars," he says. And that
would have made the emergence of life difficult or maybe even impossible.
Igor
sir.jean-p...@neuf.fr
That piece of literature is an excellent fiction tale and does match
in both its premises & conclusions the utter lunacy seen in all of
present Geological & Physics theories ...
One common point in al those clueless fools masquerading as geologists
are their definitive sterility in terms of mineral discoveries
indeed ... paid the parasites to warm up the benches of their
respective Universities and spout forth the tales they painfully
learnt by heart !
They are many and incontournable objections to your scenario of Plate
banging , Worley, as well as to the infantile ANU & other Universities
fools supporting it :
1) The Himalayas plateau was not submitted to any warping at all
2) No origin for the force vectors alleged to have pushed those
alleged again Tectonic Plates around the Earth Sphere
3) The Equatorial Bulge, the millions of open faults & thousand of
deep sea trenches as well as mid ocean ridges are a definitive
impossibility to your lunatic theory of Plate Wandering
4) No erosion of intrusive & extrusive rocks by water except in the
wet dreams of such geologists parasites such as the ones at the ANU,
you are quoting
5) Deep sea sedimentation is nearly inexistent and certainly does not
correspond to a weathering of the Earth since alleged again Geological
time
6) The Time Column founded on fossil degradation conducting to
Carbonates sedimentation is a typical Academic Imbecility since all
fossils are in fact silicified for once and secondly Ca & Mg
Carbonates are of volcanic origin
7) Underlying your statements are the dogma of Earth stability on
present orbit, as well as the alleged again creation of such by
accretion ... no random accretion upon a 30km/s moving target can
occur unfortunately for your childish conception of the Universe since
simply non-rotating planetoids have no magnetic field & will drift
apart as the Belt of Aeroliths and the circular rings of Jupiter &
Saturn demonstrates
The whole concept presiding over Earth Science as a conclusion can be
noted as a definitive attempt at preventing intelligence to emerge and
maintain Humanity in a state of grovelling ignorance. Universities are
far indeed from being the light which illuminates the path of
knowledge ... they are inquisitional institutions existing to maintain
Humanity at large in the Dark Ages of miracles creation and incoherent
deus-ex-machina process
Jean-Paul Turcaud
Australia Mining Pioneer
Discoverer of Telfer Mine ( Australia largest Copper & Gold MIne)
Nifty (Cu) & Kintyre (U, Th) Mines all in the Great Sandy Desert
Exploration Geologist & Offshore Consultant
Mobile + 33 6 50 17 14 64
Office + 33 5 16 19 14 21
Founder of the True Geology
~ Ignorance is the Cosmic Sin, the One never Forgiven ~
for background info.
http://www.tnet.com.au/~warrigal/grule.html
http://users.indigo.net.au/don/tel/index.html
http://users.indigo.net.au/don/tel/nac.html
http://members.iimetro.com.au/~hubbca/turcaud.htm
http://www.abc.net.au/rn/talks/bbing/stories/s28534.htm
Matthew Johnson
sir.jean-p...@neuf.fr says...
[snip]
>~ Ignorance is the Cosmic Sin, the One never Forgiven ~
Speaking of ignorance, are you ignorant of the topic for sci.physics? This is
NOT a geology forum. So please go away.
Florian
> > Obviously you never studied plate tectonics.
> >
> > Let's see if you have some knowledge: could you describe the concept
> > of "ridge push" and "slab pull?
> >
>
> Take a Deep Breath--and Thank Mount Everest
> http://sciencenow.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/2008/729/2
Thank you. By avoiding to answer such basic questions about plate
tectonics, you demonstrate that you never study it.
In the future, if you want to make comments, do your homework first.
Dirk Bruere at NeoPax
It's the numbers...
If you can't get the numbers right your new theory is a pile of shit.
A theory without numbers is less than shit.
--
Dirk
http://www.transcendence.me.uk/ - Transcendence UK
http://www.theconsensus.org/ - A UK political party
http://www.onetribe.me.uk/wordpress/?cat=5 - Our podcasts on weird stuff
don findlay
Sam Wormley wrote:
> Florian wrote:
> > Sam Wormley <swor...@mchsi.com> wrote:
>
> >> And some background and history for you, Florian
> >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plate_tectonics
> >
> > Obviously you never studied plate tectonics.
> >
> > Let's see if you has some knowledge: could you describe the concept of
> > "ridge push" and "slab pull?
> >
>
> Take a Deep Breath--and Thank Mount Everest
> http://sciencenow.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/2008/729/2
You mean *THIS* Mount Everest?
http://users.indigo.net.au/don/to/evrev.html
...the one that's an eroded plateau along with all the other high
mountains of the Himalayas
http://users.indigo.net.au/don/nonsense/mtbldgpress.html
...Or do you have another one?
You're styill as blind as the consensus you're locked up in, Wormley.
hanson
hanson wrote:
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/msg/b9dec4475940fff7?hl=en
"Sam Wormley" <swor...@mchsi.com> wrote:
Harry Conover hhc...@yahoo.com wrote:
Sam Wormley <sworml...@mchsi.com> wrote:
>>>>
jedakiah wrote:
ok now it is generally perceived that gravity is a product of
mass, but gravity is still unexplained, i have a theory that i
believe is logical and leaves no questions.
>
Gravity is exquisitely model ("explained" for many) by general
relativity. ... familiarize yourself with it.
>
hanson wrote:
It's the numbers...
If you can't get the numbers right your new theory is a pile of shit.
A theory without numbers is less than shit.
>
ahahaha... AHAHAHA... Ambiguous! Come again, Dirk.
AHAHAHA... Whose *new* theory and which numbers?
Are you talking about the above, initial snippet from/by
jedakiah jedakiah.2d3a852 at physicsbanter.com, in
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/msg/258edeaae727eaad?hl=en
who didn't present any numbers?
I have corrected an attribution above. The "familiarize"
came not from Jedakiah, but from Sam who is proselytizing
Einstein's shit with extreme prejudice and uncommon
fanaticism.... ahahahaha... So, to/for jedak's defense
consider that he is the reaction product, the victim, of the
incessant onslaught by the Dingleberries that Einstein
warned against ever since 1920...
... and see, Dirk, they even got to you now.... ahahaha...
ahahahaha... ahahaha... Thanks for the laughs, dude!
Relax, dude, all that Einstein shit is only a story that
doesn't even buy you a cup of coffee.Have fun with it!
ahahahaha... ahahahahanson
Matthew Johnson
>
[snip]
>Ahem...Sam, if there is a theory of General Relativity, please cite
>the author and the journal in which it was published.
Someone else already did this several posts ago. It was a 1915 article by A.
Einstein.
>>
>"Sam Wormley" <swor...@mchsi.com> wrote > See:
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_relativity#References
>including Einstein. [which is ...]
>>
>Harry Conover hhc...@yahoo.com wrote to Sam:
>Realize that at the time of his death, Einstein never published his
>theor of genral relativity, because there remained some issues
>that he could not resolve.
Not true. He did publish, despite unresolved issues -- as lots of physicists do.
[snip]
Sam Wormley
> Sam Wormley <swor...@mchsi.com> wrote:
>
>>> Obviously you never studied plate tectonics.
>>>
>>> Let's see if you have some knowledge: could you describe the concept
>>> of "ridge push" and "slab pull?
>>>
>> Take a Deep Breath--and Thank Mount Everest
>> http://sciencenow.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/2008/729/2
>
> Thank you. By avoiding to answer such basic questions about plate
> tectonics, you demonstrate that you never study it.
> In the future, if you want to make comments, do your homework first.
>
An interesting conclusion on your part, Florian, especially when
you are advocating for an untenable theory.
Androcles
"hanson" <han...@quick.net> wrote in message
news:p5%jk.405$Ht4.278@trnddc01...
Where's that Nobel Prize that Dork Brouhaha of Newpeace promised me?
Ah... as I suspected... the arsehole can only produce a little
pile of shit.
G=EMC^2 Glazier
every day for lots and lots of years. I think I know more about gravity
than all others. All this thinking I have come to the conclusion I know
nothing more than GR Bert
Sam Wormley
> Sam I thought about gravity more than Einstein.
How do you know... and why woul how much you have "thought"
about gravity have to do with anything.
I have thought about it
> every day for lots and lots of years. I think I know more about gravity
> than all others.
That's not obvious from your posting record, Herb.
Nicolas Krebs
> you are advocating for an untenable theory.
He said he has seen "overwhelming evidences supporting planetary growth"
(Florian, news:sci.geo.geology , 2007-11-30,
news:1i8ew2e.hox0m41avpz2bN%first_name@last_name.net#line=70,71 )
Dirk Bruere at NeoPax
They got to me in school where they showed that simply by assuming
c=const Pythagoras Theorem could deliver the main equations of SR.
As for the rest, it's no good whining on about Einstein being wrong if
the numbers turn out right. You have to show where his numbers (and by
'his' I mean modern physicists using SR/GTR) differ from experiment.
Anyone who tries to discredit Einstein's work by quoting something he
said about it 100years ago, and all the right numbers is just a
coincidence, is a moron.
Florian
> > Thank you. By avoiding to answer such basic questions about plate
> > tectonics, you demonstrate that you never study it.
> > In the future, if you want to make comments, do your homework first.
>
> An interesting conclusion on your part, Florian, especially when
> you are advocating for an untenable theory.
One cannot find the flaws in theory if one does not study it.
You never study Plate tectonic and therefore cannot understand why it is
flawed and you certainly never studied growth tectonic either.
hanson
hanson wrote:
"Dirk Bruere at NeoPax" <dirk....@gmail.com> wrote:
>
< http://groups.google.com/group/sci.chem/msg/6c8444a0451c9212?hl=en >
of which Dirk snipped the portin that answwer his worries below
and from which Dirk left this segment and finds issue with:
>
:: Professor Carver A. Mead of Caltech (a student of Feynman),
:: who said
:: will be characterized in history as the dark ages of physics."
:: or F.A Hayek, Nobel laureate, who said: "In the future,
:: Humanity will see in our Epoch an Era of superstition, essentially
:: associated with the names of Marx, Freud and Einstein"
:: or John Beckman, an astronomy professor and Einstein disciple:
:: "The theory of relativity lives on. Is it a true picture of reality?
:: That is probably more a matter of faith than of proof."
::
It's the numbers...
If you can't get the numbers right your new theory is a pile of shit.
A theory without numbers is less than shit.
>>
hanson wrote:
ahahaha... AHAHAHA... Ambiguous! Come again, Dirk.
AHAHAHA... Whose *new* theory and which numbers?
Are you talking about the above, initial snippet from/by
jedakiah jedakiah.2d3a852 at physicsbanter.com, in
who didn't present any numbers?
I have corrected an attribution above. The "familiarize"
came not from Jedakiah, but from Sam who is proselytizing
Einstein's shit with extreme prejudice and uncommon
fanaticism.... ahahahaha... So, to/for jedak's defense
consider that he is the reaction product, the victim, of the
incessant onslaught by the Dingleberries that Einstein
warned against ever since 1920...
>>
... and see, Dirk, they even got to you now.... ahahaha...
ahahahaha... ahahaha... Thanks for the laughs, dude!
Relax, dude, all that Einstein shit is only a story that
doesn't even buy you a cup of coffee.Have fun with it!
ahahahaha... ahahahahanson
>
They got to me in school where they showed that simply
by assuming c=const Pythagoras Theorem could deliver
the main equations of SR.
As for the rest, it's no good whining on about Einstein
being wrong if the numbers turn out right. You have to show
where his numbers (and by 'his' I mean modern physicists
using SR/GTR) differ from experiment.
>
Anyone who tries to discredit Einstein's work by quoting
something he said about it 100years ago, and all the right
numbers is just a coincidence, is a moron.
>
ahahahaha... So, "they got to you" in school, meaning that you
didn't get it... ahahaha... This of course explains why you think
that you are smarter then Carver, Hayeck and Beckman AND
even Einstein himself who in the part that you've snipped from
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/msg/b9dec4475940fff7?hl=en
himself said that SR/GR was a crock o'shit.... and wherein it
also says that all the experiments that deliver the "right" numbers
are... .. well, go read it again... & then after that you may announce
again, loud as you did twice already, that you are a very proud
Einstein Dingleberry which dangles and swings with great delight
and in worshipping awe from Einstein's Sphincter.... hahahaha...
>
-- I will give you all the kudos you want for that; for EDs are fun! --
Again, thanks for the laughs, dude... ahahaha... ahahahanson
Dirk Bruere at NeoPax
Read the google ref.
So? Einstein's opinion is of no interest to me.
It's the numbers.
Show me where the numbers are wrong. Not *why* you, or anyone else think
they're wrong. Quantitative, repeatable, experimental data that is
inexplicable by SR/GTR.
All that SR/GTR is are axioms and mathematics which can be applied to
explain/predict the results of experiments. Now, what axioms do you want
to scrap, and what proof can you offer that they do not match physical
reality?
Matthew Johnson
[snip]
> AND
>even Einstein himself who in the part that you've snipped from
>http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/msg/b9dec4475940fff7?hl=en
>himself said that SR/GR was a crock o'shit....
Except, of course, he said no such thing. You are misquoting him and misquoting
him badly.
[snip]
Koobee Wublee
> They got to me in school where they showed that simply by assuming
> c=const Pythagoras Theorem could deliver the main equations of SR.
What else have ‘they’ mesmerized you with?
Assuming the constancy of light actually allows you to modify the
Galilean transform into something that will agree with the null
results of the MMX. There are an infinitely such transforms where the
Lorentz transform is one of these. <shrug>
> As for the rest, it's no good whining on about Einstein being wrong if
> the numbers turn out right.
There is no need to blame Einstein the nitwit, the plagiarist, and the
liar for all the problems. The Lorentz transform was first derived by
Larmor not by Einstein, Lorentz, or Poincare. The analysis (also
known as SR) to the Lorentz transform was first performed by Poincare
not by Einstein. The postulates (Einstein’s attempt of plagiarism by
reverse-engineering the Lorentz transform) of SR were already done so
by Galileo in his principle of relativity and by Voigt in his
constancy in the speed of light. <shrug>
Just what is Einstein’s contribution?
> You have to show where his numbers (and by
> 'his' I mean modern physicists using SR/GTR) differ from experiment.
The numbers showed the results from relative simultaneity. The
observations seem to only agree with the numbers under absolute
simultaneity. You call that experimental confirmation?
> Anyone who tries to discredit Einstein's work by quoting something he
> said about it 100years ago, and all the right numbers is just a
> coincidence, is a moron.
That is correct. You can easily discredit Einstein by doing a
mathematical forensics. The history shows Einstein was nothing but a
nitwit, a plagiarist, and a liear.
Einstein the nitwit cannot discern that the Lorentz transform is
absolutely nonsense because of the twin’s paradox namely relative
simultaneity. Einstein the plagiarist tried to re-derive the Lorentz
transform by reverse-engineering it. The forensic evidence is in his
1905 paper on relativity. Einstein the lair tried to claim other’s
work as his own. Again, the forensic evidence is also lies in his
1905 paper.
Dirk Bruere at NeoPax
Not interested.
Show me where the numbers differ from experimental results.
Matthew Johnson
Koobee Wublee says...
>
>On Jul 30, 12:26 pm, Dirk Bruere at NeoPax wrote:
>
>> They got to me in school where they showed that simply by assuming
>
>What else have =91they=92 mesmerized you with?
>
>Assuming the constancy of light actually allows you to modify the
>Galilean transform into something that will agree with the null
>results of the MMX. There are an infinitely such transforms where the
>Lorentz transform is one of these. <shrug>
Ah, but here is where we need not only to correct your grammar, but also to
point out how a little bit of math could have preserved you from making such an
erroneous statement.
Sure, there are infinitely many such transforms. But thanks to the 19th century
branch of mathematics known as "the theory of algebraic invariants", we know
that this infinite set is finitely generated. And its most interesting generator
is (guess who!) the Lorentz transform.
hanson
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.chem/msg/6c8444a0451c9212?hl=en
So? Einstein's opinion is of no interest to me.
>
... ahahaha... you read the ref?... ahahahaha.. did you really?
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/msg/b9dec4475940fff7?hl=en
Annalen der Physik 49, <http://www.alberteinstein.info/gallery/gtext3.html>
=== Original German version ** CP6Doc30_pp284-339[1].pdf ** ===
Obviously you didn't get what it says nor what it means...
ahahahaha... Hey no disrespect for you, Dirk. .. ahaha...
Show me where the numbers are wrong. Not *why* you, or
anyone else think they're wrong. Quantitative, repeatable,
experimental data that is inexplicable by SR/GTR.
All that SR/GTR is are axioms and mathematics which can
be applied to explain/predict the results of experiments.
Now, what axioms do you want to scrap, and what proof
can you offer that they do not match physical reality?
>
hanson wrote:
Forget your fetish about the "numbers". Measurements have
nothing to do with any theory, REL or otherwise. -- You have
it ass-backwards... Theory describes what is already known
and does not pre-dict anything. Theories are just stories by
which they describe a process, event or state observed
in nature.
If theses theories and in particular Einstein's crap are so
great then why don't we have those wonderful gismos and
gadgets that one sees in sci-fy, Starwars and Star trek?
>
If theories do deliver like you think they do, then why don't
you or any of those Einstein Dingleberries take a good
look at those wonderful equations & produce some of that
future technology... ahahaha... Do it and show me some
piece of new harware created by gawking at an eqaution
from Einstein's crap... ... ahahaha...
>
Test case for you, Dirk: .... When you give your instructions:
in your Remote Viewing classes http://www.transcendence.me.uk/
have you applied the help I gave you for it in
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/msg/64648bfef5df3c09?hl=en
Has it helped you any?... ahahahaha... AHAHAHAHA...
ahahaha... ahahahanson
hanson
cranked himself & wrote in message news:g6qk5...@drn.newsguy.com...
In article <bW3kk.412$iM5.214@trnddc07>, hanson says...
> [snip]
>
AND even Einstein himself who in the part that you've snipped
from
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/msg/b9dec4475940fff7?hl=en
himself said that SR/GR was a crock o'shit....
>
Except, of course, he said no such thing. You are misquoting him
and misquoting him badly.
> [snip]
>
That only seems to you to be this way because you
are one of Einstein's Dingleberries that dangles in
hypnotic worship from Albert's sphincter... ahahahaha
Enjoy your delusions, Matthew... and thanks for the
laughs ... ahahaha... ahahahanson
Dirk Bruere at NeoPax
Theories are quantitative data compression algorithms.
Without numbers all that is left is handwaving and nuts on sci.physics
ranting and tossing insults.
> If theses theories and in particular Einstein's crap are so
> great then why don't we have those wonderful gismos and
> gadgets that one sees in sci-fy, Starwars and Star trek?
> If theories do deliver like you think they do, then why don't
> you or any of those Einstein Dingleberries take a good
> look at those wonderful equations & produce some of that
> future technology... ahahaha... Do it and show me some
> piece of new harware created by gawking at an eqaution
> from Einstein's crap... ... ahahaha...
> Test case for you, Dirk: .... When you give your instructions:
> in your Remote Viewing classes http://www.transcendence.me.uk/
> have you applied the help I gave you for it in
> http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/msg/64648bfef5df3c09?hl=en
> Has it helped you any?... ahahahaha... AHAHAHAHA...
> ahahaha... ahahahanson
Well, we have have a kind of astronomical project lined up, but we will
announce it in due course. A kind of prediction/causation on a grand scale.
Matthew Johnson
If you listen closely to the laughter, you will notice it is mostly directled at
you.
After all, just as I said, you are misquoting him badly. So badly, it is funny
in a sick way.
Androcles
Sources of GPS signal errors
Factors that can degrade the GPS signal and thus affect accuracy include the
following:
a.. Ionosphere and troposphere delays — The satellite signal slows as it
passes through the atmosphere. The GPS system uses a built-in model that
calculates an average amount of delay to partially correct for this type of
error.
b.. Signal multipath — This occurs when the GPS signal is reflected off
objects such as tall buildings or large rock surfaces before it reaches the
receiver. This increases the travel time of the signal, thereby causing
errors.
c.. Receiver clock errors — A receiver's built-in clock is not as accurate
as the atomic clocks onboard the GPS satellites. Therefore, it may have very
slight timing errors.
d.. Orbital errors — Also known as ephemeris errors, these are
inaccuracies of the satellite's reported location.
e.. Number of satellites visible — The more satellites a GPS receiver can
"see," the better the accuracy. Buildings, terrain, electronic interference,
or sometimes even dense foliage can block signal reception, causing position
errors or possibly no position reading at all. GPS units typically will not
work indoors, underwater or underground.
f.. Satellite geometry/shading — This refers to the relative position of
the satellites at any given time. Ideal satellite geometry exists when the
satellites are located at wide angles relative to each other. Poor geometry
results when the satellites are located in a line or in a tight grouping.
g.. Intentional degradation of the satellite signal — Selective
Availability (SA) is an intentional degradation of the signal once imposed
by the U.S. Department of Defense. SA was intended to prevent military
adversaries from using the highly accurate GPS signals. The government
turned off SA in May 2000, which significantly improved the accuracy of
civilian GPS receivers.
So the numbers are WRONG.
| Not *why* you, or
| anyone else think they're wrong. Quantitative, repeatable,
| experimental data that is inexplicable by SR/GTR.
The numbers are wrong.
| All that SR/GTR is are axioms and mathematics which can
| be applied to explain/predict the results of experiments.
| Now, what axioms do you want to scrap, and what proof
| can you offer that they do not match physical reality?
The numbers are WRONG.
| > Dirk
| >
| hanson wrote:
| Forget your fetish about the "numbers". Measurements have
| nothing to do with any theory, REL or otherwise. -- You have
| it ass-backwards... Theory describes what is already known
| and does not pre-dict anything. Theories are just stories by
| which they describe a process, event or state observed
| in nature.
| If theses theories and in particular Einstein's crap are so
| great then why don't we have those wonderful gismos and
| gadgets that one sees in sci-fy, Starwars and Star trek?
| >
| If theories do deliver like you think they do, then why don't
| you or any of those Einstein Dingleberries take a good
| look at those wonderful equations & produce some of that
| future technology... ahahaha... Do it and show me some
| piece of new harware created by gawking at an eqaution
| from Einstein's crap... ... ahahaha...
| >
| Test case for you, Dirk: .... When you give your instructions:
| in your Remote Viewing classes http://www.transcendence.me.uk/
| have you applied the help I gave you for it in
| http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/msg/64648bfef5df3c09?hl=en
| Has it helped you any?... ahahahaha... AHAHAHAHA...
| ahahaha... ahahahanson
|
Einstein Dingleberries claim GPS is dependent on GR.
Garmin, who actually make GPS receivers, say their accuracy is 15 metres
http://www8.garmin.com/aboutGPS/
It is more like +/- 40 metres vertically but only airline pilots concern
themselves with landing 120 feet below the runway, which, considering
glideslope geometry, places the aircraft among the approach lights at
touchdown causing the light bulbs to break by gravity theory.
http://farm1.static.flickr.com/168/496665511_f5e634fd2a.jpg?v=0
http://www.gebenus.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2008/05/approach_lights.jpg
http://www.ae.ca/papersart/vanfig06.jpg
The numbers are WRONG. Dork Brouhaha is a fuckhead.
don findlay
Florian wrote:
> Sam Wormley <swor...@mchsi.com> wrote:
>
> > > Thank you. By avoiding to answer such basic questions about plate
> > > tectonics, you demonstrate that you never study it.
> > > In the future, if you want to make comments, do your homework first.
> >
> > An interesting conclusion on your part, Florian, especially when
> > you are advocating for an untenable theory.
>
> One cannot find the flaws in theory if one does not study it.
>
> You never study Plate tectonic and therefore cannot understand why it is
> flawed and you certainly never studied growth tectonic either.
Sam Wormley's just a George in a lighter shade of brown. He's *NEVER*
'studied' Plate Tectonics. I don't believe Stuart has either for that
matter, ..or he would be more vocal here. Both of them - notable by
their absence. They know at last which side the cook is buttered
on. Sam's just been sucked in, 'coz he thinks he sees easy
pickings. I think he might work for the USGS - which would explain
things.
http://users.indigo.net.au/don/nonsense/foldmount1.html
>
> --
> Florian
> "Toute v�rit� franchit trois �tapes. D'abord elle est ridiculis�e.
> Ensuite, elle subit une forte opposition. Puis, elle est consid�r�e
> comme ayant toujours �t� une �vidence." - Arthur Schopenhauer
hanson
hanson wrote:
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.chem/msg/c4891132fee252c4?hl=en
Test case for you, Dirk: .... When you give your instructions:
in your Remote Viewing classes http://www.transcendence.me.uk/
have you applied the help I gave you for it in
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/msg/64648bfef5df3c09?hl=en
Has it helped you any?... ahahahaha... AHAHAHAHA...
>> ahahaha... ahahahanson
>
but we will announce it in due course.
A kind of prediction/causation on a grand scale.
>
> http://www.transcendence.me.uk/ - Transcendence UK
> http://www.theconsensus.org/ - A UK political party
> http://www.onetribe.me.uk/wordpress/?cat=5 - Our podcasts on weird stuff
>
Well, you haven't answered my question , but that's ok.
Now are sure you meant "astronomical" and not
"astrological".. I hope?... If it's the former one, does it
have to do with the 2012 predictions?... In any event,
I'd be extremely interested how your line-up is caused
by Einstein... Einstein Rings, I guess, which is really really
REMOTE viewing... Keep me posted, by all means...
... ahahaha.. ahahaha... ahahahanson
Sam Wormley
Sam Wormley
> Sam Wormley <swor...@mchsi.com> wrote:
>
>>> Thank you. By avoiding to answer such basic questions about plate
>>> tectonics, you demonstrate that you never study it.
>>> In the future, if you want to make comments, do your homework first.
>> An interesting conclusion on your part, Florian, especially when
>> you are advocating for an untenable theory.
>
> One cannot find the flaws in theory if one does not study it.
>
> You never study Plate tectonic and therefore cannot understand why it is
> flawed and you certainly never studied growth tectonic either.
>
Your theory says the earth is expanding, and measurements of the
earth's mass and surface do not show the earth is expanding.
Therefore your theory is wrong.. and must be discarded... The
theory is not viable!
Dirk Bruere at NeoPax
Nothing to do with 2012.
Just something we will predict/cause one month ahead of time.
--
hanson
>
"Androcles" <Headm...@Hogwarts.physics> wrote in message
news:Y26kk.85818$3L5....@newsfe30.ams2...
It's the numbers.
Show me where the numbers are wrong.
>
********* So the numbers are WRONG. **************
repeatable, experimental data that is inexplicable by SR/GTR.
>
********* The numbers are wrong.*************
be applied to explain/predict the results of experiments.
Now, what axioms do you want to scrap, and what proof
can you offer that they do not match physical reality?
>
******** The numbers are WRONG. ***********
>
hanson wrote earlier:
If theories do deliver like you think they do, then why don't
you or any of those Einstein Dingleberries take a good
future technology... ahahaha... Do it and show me some
from Einstein's crap... ... ahahaha...
> | >
Test case for you, Dirk: .... When you give your instructions:
in your Remote Viewing classes http://www.transcendence.me.uk/
have you applied the help I gave you for it in
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/msg/64648bfef5df3c09?hl=en
Has it helped you any?... ahahahaha... AHAHAHAHA...
ahahaha... ahahahanson
> |
Einstein Dingleberries claim GPS is dependent on GR.
Garmin, who actually make GPS receivers, say their accuracy is 15 metres
http://www8.garmin.com/aboutGPS/
>
It is more like +/- 40 metres vertically but only airline pilots concern
themselves with landing 120 feet below the runway, which, considering
glideslope geometry, places the aircraft among the approach lights at
touchdown causing the light bulbs to break by gravity theory.
http://farm1.static.flickr.com/168/496665511_f5e634fd2a.jpg?v=0
http://www.gebenus.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2008/05/approach_lights.jpg
http://www.ae.ca/papersart/vanfig06.jpg
>
>
hanson wrote:
Don't tell Dirk the bad news. He needs his ED conformal numbers
for his celestial lineup of (what I gather to be) the Einstein Rings.
>
Hey dudes, all of you who participated here in this portion of the
thread THANKS FOR ALL THE LAUGHS. You are good guys!
ahahaha... ahahahahanson
hanson
wrote in message news:g6qq9...@drn.newsguy.com...
>
> In article <pH5kk.438$Ht4.290@trnddc01>, hanson says...
>>
>>Einstein Dingleberry "Matthew Johnson" <matthew...@newsguy.org>
>>cranked himself & wrote in message news:g6qk5...@drn.newsguy.com...
>>
In article <bW3kk.412$iM5.214@trnddc07>, hanson says...
>>> [snip]
>>AND even Einstein himself who in the part that you've snipped
>>from
>>http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/msg/b9dec4475940fff7?hl=en
>>himself said that SR/GR was a crock o'shit....
>>>
>>"Matthew Johnson" <matthew...@newsguy.org> wrote
>>Except, of course, he said no such thing. You are misquoting him
>>and misquoting him badly.
>>> [snip]
>>>
>>hanson wrote:
>>That only seems to you to be this way because you
>>are one of Einstein's Dingleberries that dangles in
>>hypnotic worship from Albert's sphincter... ahahahaha
>>Enjoy your delusions, Matthew... and thanks for the
>>laughs ... ahahaha... ahahahanson
>
Einstein Dingleberry "Matthew Johnson" <matthew...@newsguy.org>
cranked himself grievously ands whined
Dirk Bruere at NeoPax
Then I guess that without all those SR/GTR corrections satellite
positioning would be perfect.
UNLESS!!!! - all the errors cancel out (miraculously, yet again)
http://www.astronomy.ohio-state.edu/~pogge/Ast162/Unit5/gps.html
"The combination of these two relativitic effects means that the clocks
on-board each satellite should tick faster than identical clocks on the
ground by about 38 microseconds per day (45-7=38)! This sounds small,
but the high-precision required of the GPS system requires nanosecond
accuracy, and 38 microseconds is 38,000 nanoseconds. If these effects
were not properly taken into account, a navigational fix based on the
GPS constellation would be false after only 2 minutes, and errors in
global positions would continue to accumulate at a rate of about 10
kilometers each day! The whole system would be utterly worthless for
navigation in a very short time. This kind of accumulated error is akin
to measuring my location while standing on my front porch in Columbus,
Ohio one day, and then making the same measurement a week later and
having my GPS receiver tell me that my porch and I are currently about
5000 meters in the air somewhere over Detroit. "
IT'S THE NUMBERS
hanson
>
"Dirk Bruere at NeoPax" <dirk....@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:6fca65F...@mid.individual.net...
... Awe, how disappointing!... Only one month?...
Like when the girlfriend's gona be on the rag or
whether the job will be still here next month?.... ahahaha...
Or did it predict this conversion here on this lined
up celestial body-Earth?... Thanks for the fun, Dirk!
ahahaha... ahahahanson
Androcles
Imagine this, though. Directly overhead is a GPS satellite,
so the signal has the least amount of atmosphere to penetrate
and the shortest distance, it is line-of-sight, no buildings in the way.
That takes out a) and b).
Now consider:
"The 24 satellites that make up the GPS space segment are orbiting the
earth about 12,000 miles above us. "
together with:
" Essentially, the GPS receiver compares the time a signal was
transmitted by a satellite with the time it was received. The time
difference tells the GPS receiver how far away the satellite is. "
Curious that just when the system should be at its most accurate,
given this perfect speed of light that the dingleberries claim, it turns
out to be at its least accurate. 12,000 miles of space, 60 miles of
atmosphere and only 40 metres accuracy. A signal from the horizon
goes through enough atmosphere to turn the sun red and refract
the rays, yet we have 15 metres horizontal accuracy.
Dirk Bruere at NeoPax
No, it will be something that the entire world will see.
--
hanson
>
"Dirk Bruere at NeoPax" <dirk....@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:6fcc81F...@mid.individual.net...
>
hanson wrote:
ahahaha... don't bring up that crap, again.. These 38 usec
are **calculated**, pitiful SR/GR explanations that took
Ashby and his Dingleberries-likes 39 equations to
arrive at 38u sec... a full decade AFTER GPS was
in operation. Its a fucking story by the Dingleberries in
their hope to get fame by association... ahahaha...
while see any decent engineer, l et alone a physicist,
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/msg/e469ebe11d1d0a73
can quickly see... in ONE FELL SWOOP, thyat in hhis case
here all what matters in such an approximation is the mass of
\the earth, M_e, and the signal height traveled, h, to show in a
single line that
[1] (M_e /h ) * (2 G/c^2) * 86400 = 38 microsec
the daily time drift, wherein M_e = the earth's mass, h = the orbit
height over the surface, G = Newton, c = Lightspeed & the 86400
sec/day.... ahahahaha....
>
and then usually like you now did another Dingleberry does
Wabnigger by with his
"GPS carrier frequency: 1.023000000000 MHz
(theor. unaffected) and 1.022999999543 MHz (rel. corrected) "
but who is not realizing that it's just another expression for
the same Newtonian 38 usec delay... which is not even
germane to the GS operation as Andro has explained...
or if you won't believe him then ask like I did here:
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/msg/57ec86d591efba8c?hl=en
Sam, I asked about this before, in this post here on 3-Jan-08,:
< http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/msg/a2a290997bafd30c >
== re: GPS World: Connectivity, Mobile Phones Will
Dominate Navigation ==,... wherein I asked you, Sam:
" Where is Einstein referred to for his contributions in your link here?
< http://lbs.gpsworld.com/gpslbs/content/printContentPopup.jsp?id=481835 >
Where do the GPS manufactures and operators like Nokia, Motorola,
LG, Samsung, TRG, Garmin or TomTom say that they could not have
achieved that level/success of technology were it not for Einstein and
his lunatic SR and GR? "...
>
They'll leave you dangle from Einstein's sphincter , Dirk,
like a Dingleberry ahahahaha... ahahahahanson
Androcles
I drive my car at 30 mph. Each foot along the road passes
by me quite frequently, in fact 44 feet go by every second.
That's a frequency of 44 Hz. If I increase my speed to
90 mph the frequency increases to 132 Hz but the feet
do not change to yards. If they did I'd be back to 44 Hz.
Of course if time changed instead I could go faster and
still be travelling at 30 mph.
So let's pretend my time for a 30 mile journey is 20 minutes
and the road time for the same journey is 1 hour. I haven't
aged as much as you have standing still. I turn around and
drive back again, total journey time 40 mins for me, 2 hours
for you. Did the Red Sox win? The result is known for you
and the game s not over for me. If I listened on the radio
it would not tune, I'd be picking up 300 MHz on the FM
band from the Doppler effect outgoing and 33 MHz returning.
But wait.... then I'd know the result...
Koobee Wublee
> Koobee Wublee wrote:
> > What else have ‘they’ mesmerized you with?
>
> > Assuming the constancy of light actually allows you to modify the
> > Galilean transform into something that will agree with the null
> > results of the MMX. There are an infinitely such transforms where the
> > Lorentz transform is one of these. <shrug>
>
> > There is no need to blame Einstein the nitwit, the plagiarist, and the
> > liar for all the problems. The Lorentz transform was first derived by
> > Larmor not by Einstein, Lorentz, or Poincare. The analysis (also
> > known as SR) to the Lorentz transform was first performed by Poincare
> > not by Einstein. The postulates (Einstein’s attempt of plagiarism by
> > reverse-engineering the Lorentz transform) of SR were already done so
> > by Galileo in his principle of relativity and by Voigt in his
> > constancy in the speed of light. <shrug>
>
> > Just what is Einstein’s contribution?
>
> > The numbers showed the results from relative simultaneity. The
> > observations seem to only agree with the numbers under absolute
> > simultaneity. You call that experimental confirmation?
>
> > You can easily discredit Einstein by doing a
> > mathematical forensics. The history shows Einstein was nothing but a
> > nitwit, a plagiarist, and a liear.
>
> > Einstein the nitwit cannot discern that the Lorentz transform is
> > absolutely nonsense because of the twin’s paradox namely relative
> > simultaneity. Einstein the plagiarist tried to re-derive the Lorentz
> > transform by reverse-engineering it. The forensic evidence is in his
> > 1905 paper on relativity. Einstein the lair tried to claim other’s
> > work as his own. Again, the forensic evidence is also lies in his
> > 1905 paper.
>
> Not interested.
Oh, well. We have another illiterate peasant. In this particular
case, he is from the good old England. <shrug>
> Show me where the numbers differ from experimental results.
There are so many. Please initiate such an experiment, and I will
engage in sincere discussions with you.
Androcles
"Koobee Wublee" <koobee...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:640655f6-d1d2-4db3...@r35g2000prm.googlegroups.com...
==========================================
Ok, Sagnac.
How does it work?
Or in you case, How does it work, liar?
Florian
> > One cannot find the flaws in theory if one does not study it.
> >
> > You never study Plate tectonic and therefore cannot understand why it is
> > flawed and you certainly never studied growth tectonic either.
> >
>
> Your theory
It is not "my" theory.
> says the earth is expanding, and measurements of the
> earth's mass and surface do not show the earth is expanding.
Are you kidding?
Datation of the surface of the earth show that 70% of it is less than
250 My:
<http://nachon.free.fr/GE/Welcome.html>
Ocean floor recycling is refuted as so called subduction zone are
actually upduction zone => the surface *is* growing, so does the volume.
Besides, tectonic activity of Earth show it is *currently* growing.
In the future, avoid talking about stuff you're totally ignorant.
--
Florian
"Toute vérité franchit trois étapes. D'abord elle est ridiculisée.
Ensuite, elle subit une forte opposition. Puis, elle est considérée
comme ayant toujours été une évidence." - Arthur Schopenhauer
Sam Wormley
> Sam Wormley <swor...@mchsi.com> wrote:
>
>>> One cannot find the flaws in theory if one does not study it.
>>>
>>> You never study Plate tectonic and therefore cannot understand why it is
>>> flawed and you certainly never studied growth tectonic either.
>>>
>> Your theory
>
> It is not "my" theory.
>
>> says the earth is expanding, and measurements of the
>> earth's mass and surface do not show the earth is expanding.
>
> Are you kidding?
> Datation of the surface of the earth show that 70% of it is less than
> 250 My:
>
> <http://nachon.free.fr/GE/Welcome.html>
>
> Ocean floor recycling is refuted as so called subduction zone are
> actually upduction zone => the surface *is* growing, so does the volume.
>
> Besides, tectonic activity of Earth show it is *currently* growing.
>
> In the future, avoid talking about stuff you're totally ignorant.
>
Your theory says the earth is expanding, and measurements of the
earth's mass and surface DO NOT SHOW that the earth is expanding.
Florian
What don't you understand in "Datation of the surface of the earth show
that 70% of it is less than 250 My"?
Sam Wormley
> Sam Wormley <swor...@mchsi.com> wrote:
>
>> Florian wrote:
>>> Sam Wormley <swor...@mchsi.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>> One cannot find the flaws in theory if one does not study it.
>>>>>
>>>>> You never study Plate tectonic and therefore cannot understand why it is
>>>>> flawed and you certainly never studied growth tectonic either.
>>>>>
>>>> Your theory
>>> It is not "my" theory.
>>>
>>>> says the earth is expanding, and measurements of the
>>>> earth's mass and surface do not show the earth is expanding.
>>> Are you kidding?
>>> Datation of the surface of the earth show that 70% of it is less than
>>> 250 My:
>>>
>>> <http://nachon.free.fr/GE/Welcome.html>
>>>
>>> Ocean floor recycling is refuted as so called subduction zone are
>>> actually upduction zone => the surface *is* growing, so does the volume.
>>>
>>> Besides, tectonic activity of Earth show it is *currently* growing.
>>>
>>> In the future, avoid talking about stuff you're totally ignorant.
>>>
>> Your theory says the earth is expanding, and measurements of the
>> earth's mass and surface DO NOT SHOW that the earth is expanding.
>
> What don't you understand in "Datation of the surface of the earth show
> that 70% of it is less than 250 My"?
>
>
More pertinent, why doesn't Florian understand that the earth is NOT
expanding and has essentially constant surface area, radius and mass.
Florian
> Florian wrote:
I understand that you have no arguments.
Go back to your cave, cranky troll.
hanson
>
news:6fcdnlF...@mid.individual.net...
>
31 days and counting down.. I shall be back at time zero
and re-inquire... hoping that your answer will not just be
"Full Moon" or "Sunrise" etc.... ahahahaha... ahahahanson
cjcountess
My name is Conrad Countess
You are on the right track and I've used the same type analogy.
The whirlpool analogy is just an extension of the wave on lake
analogy. And we know that particles of water are formed by whirlpools
such as hurricanes and particles of matter are formed by whirlpools
such as spiral galaxies in their revolving density waves . But gravity
begins with waves and acquires rest mass when the speed and momentum
of the wave in 90 degree angular direction equals and balances speed
and momentum of waves in linear direction which is, (c x c) or (c^2)
and a balance of centripetal and centrifugal forces to create the
speed of light in circular or spherical motion.
Once the rest mass particles are formed you get the attraction and
repelling forces of positive and negative charges modeled by objects
spinning in water, same and opposite directions resulting in
attracting and repelling forces pointed out by YPorat
Even in gravity description offered by Einstein which Sam Wormley
pointed out at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_relativity
it states in Einstein's equation section :
Drawing further upon the analogy with geometric Newtonian gravity, it
is natural to assume that the field equation for gravity relates this
tensor and the Ricci tensor, which describes a particular class of
tidal effects: the change in volume for a small cloud of test
particles that are initially at rest, and then fall freely.
which contains a cloud and water particle analogy and equation
Hi jedakiah
My name is Conrad Countess
You are on the right track and I've used the same type analogy.
The whirlpool analogy is just an extension of the wave on lake
analogy. And we know that particles of water are formed by whirlpools
such as hurricanes and particles of matter are formed by whirlpools
such as spiral galaxies in their revolving density waves . But gravity
begins with waves and acquires rest mass when the speed and momentum
of the wave in 90 degree angular direction equals and balances speed
and momentum of waves in linear direction which is, (c x c) or (c^2)
and a balance of centripetal and centrifugal forces to create the
speed of light in circular or spherical motion.
Once the rest mass particles are formed you get the attraction and
repelling forces of positive and negative charges modeled by objects
spinning in water, same and opposite directions resulting in
attracting and repelling forces pointed out by YPorat
Even in gravity description offered by Einstein which Sam Wormley
pointed out at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_relativity
it states in Einsteins equation section :
Drawing further upon the analogy with geometric Newtonian gravity, it
is natural to assume that the field equation for gravity relates this
tensor and the Ricci tensor, which describes a particular class of
tidal effects: the change in volume for a small cloud of test
particles that are initially at rest, and then fall freely.
which contains a cloud and water particle analogy and equation
This is section from earlier site:
Quantum Gravity
Electromagnetism - Gravity Equivalence
My name is Conrad Countess
I am an Independent Researcher
I think that I can lay the foundation for Quantum Gravity in three
steps.
1.Assuming that energy is more basic than matter, if we start with a
field of energy in its ground state that is below detectable
frequency, this can be Dark Energy or the Higgs field.
2.Next, if we assume that this energy field permeates all of space or
is indistinguishable from space itself and moves at the velocity of c
we have set the stage.
3.Now, just add extra energy and this should give rise to waves of
frequency that increase according to Planck's constant in quantum
increments with increased energy . This extra energy may come from a
rotation sense the Universe as far as we can detect may be rotating as
everything in the perceivable Universe seems to be orbiting something
else on a larger scale. Just as a tub of water with a thin film of
soap that is turned will began to congeal swirls of soapy film in
concentrated regions, the Universe may begin to congeal swirls of
energy analogous to this. When the right angle frequency speed of this
congealed energy reaches c just as the speed along the light path this
is c x c or c2 resulting in something analogous to ?the speed of light
in uniform circular motion? in classical physics as in a=v2/r, but on
the quantum level. This results in rest mass because the centripetal
speed of the frequency should balance out the centrifugal speed of
light along the light path resulting in equally distributed energy,
mass, and momentum around a center of rotation as opposed to energy
being radiated outward from a center at a velocity of c as is the case
with normal electromagnetic radiation.
Beginning With Waves
It is well known that higher energy electromagnetic waves result in an
increase in frequency but no addition to the speed of c along the
light path. In the same sense any increase in energy to this
background Dark Energy or Higgs field that is already moving at c
causes waves to churn up within it out of an otherwise imperceptible
but not empty field like waves on a pond that is disturbed. And so
electromagnetic waves and rest mass particles arise from as well as
within the background energy field itself as a consequence of added
energy giving rise to frequency, increasing in quantum increments and
attaining rest mass at the frequency of c2.
These are current sites:
http://docs.google.com/Doc?id=dsn5q6f_209723wdc9
http://docs.google.com/Doc?id=dsn5q6f_11vv737cck
Just keep working on your theory and see what happens
Conrad Countess
George
"Florian" <auxotectonics_deletethis@nachon_andthis.net> wrote in message
news:1ikvwqw.6dznja1vr1i20N%auxotectonics_deletethis@nachon_andthis.net...
> Sam Wormley <swor...@mchsi.com> wrote:
>
>> > Obviously you never studied plate tectonics.
>> >
>> > Let's see if you have some knowledge: could you describe the concept
>> > of "ridge push" and "slab pull?
>> >
>>
>> Take a Deep Breath--and Thank Mount Everest
>> http://sciencenow.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/2008/729/2
>
> Thank you. By avoiding to answer such basic questions about plate
> tectonics, you demonstrate that you never study it.
> In the future, if you want to make comments, do your homework first.
I'm a geologist. You are not. Where did the extra mass come from, Floppy?
George
Dirk Bruere at NeoPax
I do not know of any experiment.
Nor does anyone else.
--
Dirk Bruere at NeoPax
Where is the derivation from first principles?
Anyone can do a dimensional analysis, throw in a constant and get
anything they like.
I'm waiting to hear that E=MC^2 is wrong and it's really E=MC^2+0.42
Dirk Bruere at NeoPax
No, the clock hasn't started yet.
We still have to announce the specific event.
--
hanson
AHAHAHA... Easy, man, easy... Silence is Golden!
Save your palaver here for your radio show or your
"Remote viewing" classes... ahaha... ahahahaha...
It becomes apparent that you don't know what you
are talking about... ahahaha... and you are beginning
to sound funny... hahahaha... Thanks for the laughs.
ahahahaha... ahahahanson