Gravitational Physics

[numbernu...@gmail.com]

The electromagnetic gravity wave have a frequency range of 10^-7 to 10^4 Hz byt an electromagnetic gravity wave with a frequency of 10^-7 Hz forms a wavelength of 10^15 meters that is more than a light year in length!! A gravity wave with a frequency of 10^4 Hz represents sound but sound cannot propagate in the vacuum of stellar space nor can sound propagate at the velocity of light. Furthermore, the LIGO gravitational wave experiment detected electromagnetic gravity waves, that originated from the merging of two black holes more than 1.3 billion light years from the earth. The LIGO gravity waves have a frequency of 35 to 250 Hz that produce an acoustical vibration of the armature of Michelson-Morley interferometer forming a signal that is used to justify the existence of gravity waves but the LIGO gravity waves represent the frequency of sound that are propagating in the vacuum of celestial space at the velocity of light.

[Poutnik]

Dne 09/09/2016 v 05:06 numbernu...@gmail.com napsal(a):

> The electromagnetic gravity wave

There is no such a thing.

> .................... A gravity wave with a frequency of

> 10^4 Hz represents sound but sound cannot propagate in the vacuum
> of stellar space nor can sound propagate at the velocity of light.

Sound by frequency, not by nature of wave.

> The LIGO gravity waves have a frequency of 35 to 250 Hz
> that produce an acoustical vibration of
> the armature of Michelson-Morley

No, the effect is not acoustic vibration.
It is quadrupole vibration of space-time.

--
Poutnik ( The Pilgrim, Der Wanderer )
Knowledge makes great men humble, but small men arrogant.

[numbernu...@gmail.com]

It is quadrupole vibration of space-time.

Time-space is a coordinate system not a structure. Even in your imagination world you cannot produce an effect without a structure. The frequencies that they are using to represent gravity imply sound. The fluctuation of time-space is mathematical not physical. Physical reality requires a structure and the frequency implies a sound wave. Come on emit it you don't know what you are talking about. Do you know why they call people geniuses? It because they aren't really geniuses it that they aren't stupid. I'm very sorry that I have to call you stupid but come on. How would you feel if you know things and everyone was giving the wrong answers. I wonder do you really honestly think that you are correct? Honestly.

[Poutnik]

Dne 09/09/2016 v 08:03 numbernu...@gmail.com napsal(a):

> It is quadrupole vibration of space-time.

or rather its metric.

>
> Time-space is a coordinate system not a structure.

it is not a coordinate system.

> ..... Even in your

> imagination world you cannot produce an effect without a structure.

Of course I can. It is a vibration of geometry of the world.

> The frequencies that they are using to represent gravity imply
> sound.

Just by frequency.

You need to learn more about gravitation waves
to criticize the experiments.

[mlwo...@wp.pl]

W dniu piątek, 9 września 2016 08:55:58 UTC+2 użytkownik Poutnik napisał:

> >
> > Time-space is a coordinate system not a structure.
>
> it is not a coordinate system.

It's surely something far, far more important,
though you can't say precisely what.

> Of course I can. It is a vibration of geometry of the world.

"a vibration of geometry of the world".

"a mumble of an insane idiot" sounds even
better for me.

> You need to learn more about gravitation waves
> to criticize the experiments.

And here you're wrong. That's because you didn't
learn about neural networks and their properties.

[David (Time Lord) Fuller]

If Space time is a Conductor, Gravity is an electromagnetic force.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siemens_(unit)

Until the objects make physical contact, Gravity is the universe maintaining a balanced kinetic energy per unit volume of the vacuum

LIGO is detecting the oscillation of the physical location of space time itself, confirming an Aether like underlying fabric of the universe.

http://i68.tinypic.com/10sb4ab.jpg

Gravity travels at c but has 50 times the surface area of radiation.
(49+1) nodes of gravity for each node of em
Gravity is the cause of spacetime

50 * (1 - (1 / (50^2))) * c * G = 1.00001926

Truncated octahedral tessellation

7 axis's with 49 nodes

[David (Time Lord) Fuller]

((6.266662 / tau)^0.25) * (3 * (10^8)) = 299802572.747

Isosceles triangle Mandelbrot set tau/50
1.25581 Base
10 height
Area 6.26666
Angles 7.2 & 86.4

c / ((1.25581 * 10) / (4 * pi)) = 299989898 m / s

[David (Time Lord) Fuller]

((3 * (10^8)) / c) * 7.2 degrees = 7.20498446 angle

1.2566786251296 / (4 * pi) = 0.10000330753

http://i67.tinypic.com/98vubr.jpg

Mandelbrot set 7D^2 + 1 Gravity

[David (Time Lord) Fuller]

72000 / 49.8446 = 1444.48947328

[David (Time Lord) Fuller]

G * (((2^0.5) / 1.414744033361) * 50 * c) = 1.00004431

(180 / pi) * 1.5 = 85.9436692696

http://i63.tinypic.com/vmzjvc.jpg

(0.180 / pi) * 137 * 11 = 86.3447397262

http://i67.tinypic.com/98vubr.jpg

[numbernu...@gmail.com]

Poutnik

> The frequencies that they are using to represent gravity imply
> sound.


Just by frequency.

_________________________________________________


If something has the frequency of sound, is it not sound. If something has the frequency of light, is it not light. If something has the frequency of radio induction effect is it not an induction effect. etc. etc. What don't you get. Boy.

[Poutnik]

Dne 10/09/2016 v 01:51 numbernu...@gmail.com napsal(a):

You have turned it upside down, boy.
It was me who pointed that out.

[Tom Roberts]

On 9/9/16 9/9/16 1:03 AM, numbernu...@gmail.com wrote:
> Time-space is a coordinate system not a structure.

This is true, but you obviously do not understand what is happening in physics.
We are MODELING the world, and spacetime is part of the model.

> Even in your imagination
> world you cannot produce an effect without a structure.

But whatever it is in the world that corresponds to spacetime in the model can,
AND DOES, "produce an effect".

> The frequencies that
> they are using to represent gravity imply sound.

No. While the frequencies of the gravitational waves sought by LIGO are in the
same frequency band our ears can hear, the two types of waves are completely
different. For instance, sound waves require a medium to propagate, while
gravitational waves do not.

> The fluctuation of
> time-space is mathematical not physical.

But whatever it is that the model is modeling is physical (at least insofar as
it is part of the world).


> [... further nonsense]

You REALLY need to learn what science actually is. And you need to learn to
recognize your own limitations. You should LEARN something about the topic
before attempting to write about it.


Tom Roberts

[John Gogo]

I think both of you guys are terrific!

[Python]

Le 10/09/2016 à 03:39, John Gogo a écrit :
> On Friday, September 9, 2016 at 8:29:23 PM UTC-5, tjrob137 wrote:

...

>> Tom Roberts
>
> I think both of you guys are terrific!

I do think that you alone is pathetic.

[numbernu...@gmail.com]

You have turned it upside down, boy.
It was me who pointed that out.

_____________________________________________________________


So are you now agreeing that Weber's gravity waves that have a frequency of 1662 Hz represent sound that does not propagate in vacuum or at the velocity of light.

[numbernu...@gmail.com]

This is true, but you obviously do not understand what is happening in physics.

We are MODELING the world, and spacetime is part of the model. tjrob

________________________________________________________________



Pretty lame model if you don't have a structure.

[numbernu...@gmail.com]

No. While the frequencies of the gravitational waves sought by LIGO are in the
same frequency band our ears can hear, the two types of waves are completely
different. For instance, sound waves require a medium to propagate, while

gravitational waves do not. tjrob

______________________________________________________________



And I thought that space was silent.

[numbernu...@gmail.com]

You REALLY need to learn what science actually is. And you need to learn to
recognize your own limitations. You should LEARN something about the topic

before attempting to write about it. tjrob


___________________________________________________________________



You're always saying this but aren't you the one that doing the learning since the only reason that you are posting is because of the atomic explosion and the DOW that drop 400 points. Your posting because you're scared.

[numbernu...@gmail.com]

Why are you posting then?? Because I'm extremely cute and handsome? IT's just a matter of time and you'll be running around like a chicken with you're heads chop off and begging for may help. You could start by putting your head back on your heads and finding your pee pee that you lost. Try looking in you're sock drawer or in the garage next to the paint. Oh and go to the store an buy some super-dupper-super glue.

[David (Time Lord) Fuller]

(376.730313461 * 49.846971)^0.5 = 137.035998956

(376.730313461 / (299792458 * G)) / 137.035999 = 137.399068

http://i68.tinypic.com/2jdkl6v.jpg

137.339484184
(4pi-((4pi-1)/4pi)^2)^2

[Poutnik]

Dne 10/09/2016 v 04:56 numbernu...@gmail.com napsal(a):

Why should I ? EM gravity is nonsense.
And either gravity waves either hypothetical EM gravity waves
and not sound waves.

[numbernu...@gmail.com]

Einstein's gravity theory is based on Maxwell's theory; henceforth, EM gravity waves. Just about everything is based on the gauge, even gravity but the frequency of sound does not correspond with radio waves' frequency. Would you like some quotes? Relativity is also based on Maxwell's theory. Quantum mechanics, string theory, QED, quantum field theory, particle physics...on and on.

[numbernu...@gmail.com]

Do you hear that. That's Tom Roberts licking his wounds. He's hiding under his bed. "I do not have to tolerate such insults since I am a great man since I have a BMW and two dogs that love me very much which is experimental proof that I Tom Roberts am not a fake but a real man even though I say things that are phony as baloney since my dogs love me and lick me on the face do your dogs lick you on the face which proves you are wrong an I am right based on the transformation of dog love to human love?" email from Tom.

[numbernu...@gmail.com]

Einstein's gravity theory is based on the gauge; consequently, E gravity theory is based on Maxwell's theory; henceforth, EM gravity waves. Just about everything is based on the gauge, even gravity but the frequency of sound does not correspond with radio waves' frequency. Would you like some quotes? Relativity is also based on Maxwell's theory. Quantum mechanics, string theory, QED, quantum field theory, particle physics...on and on. Furthermore, physicists state that the electromagnetic gravity wave propagate at the velocity of light yet have the frequency of light. Weber uses a 750 lb aluminum beam that acoustical vibrations is used to justify the existence of gravity waves.

[numbernu...@gmail.com]

The electromagnetic gravity wave have a frequency range of 10^-7 to 10^4 Hz but an electromagnetic gravity wave with a frequency of 10^-7 Hz forms a wavelength of 10^15 meters that is more than a light year in length!! A gravity wave with a frequency of 10^4 Hz represents sound but sound cannot propagate in the vacuum of stellar space nor can sound propagate at the velocity of light. Furthermore, the LIGO gravitational wave experiment detected electromagnetic gravity waves, that originated from the merging of two black holes more than 1.3 billion light years from the earth. The LIGO gravity waves have a frequency of 35 to 250 Hz that produce an acoustical vibration of the armature of Michelson-Morley interferometer forming a signal that is used to justify the existence of gravity waves but the LIGO gravity waves represent the frequency of sound that are propagating in the vacuum of celestial space at the velocity of light. Normally, a real scientist would build a theory on it's strengths but modern physics build it's theories on it's weakness which would be Maxwell's electromagnetic theory. Now the main problem of the electromagnetic gravity theory is that if gravity was an electromagnetic wave this would form a force of repulsion and only a force of repulsion since the gravity wave is propagating towards say the earth. This extremely questionable gravity theory is similar to the wave theory of light that is based on an optical ether, composed of matter, that does not exist in vacuum yet modern scientists cannot remember that the wave theory of light is still used to represent the propagation, diffraction and polarization effects of light which is similar to the denial of gravity theory that is based on sound yet the celestial universe forms a vacuum that does not transmit sound. This lack of common sense is the hallmark of modern physics and is a result of conditioning. A mind is a terrible thing to waste.

[al...@interia.pl]

W dniu sobota, 10 września 2016 03:29:23 UTC+2 użytkownik tjrob137 napisał:
> On 9/9/16 9/9/16 1:03 AM, numbernu...@gmail.com wrote:
> > Time-space is a coordinate system not a structure.
>
> This is true, but you obviously do not understand what is happening in physics.
> We are MODELING the world, and spacetime is part of the model.

Indeed.
Thus the man modeled your great gravity waves using quite adequate model: sonic.

> > Even in your imagination
> > world you cannot produce an effect without a structure.
>
> But whatever it is in the world that corresponds to spacetime in the model can,
> AND DOES, "produce an effect".

Evidently, the term as a contradiction is unknow to.. your brain.

> You REALLY need to learn what science actually is. And you need to learn to
> recognize your own limitations. You should LEARN something about the topic
> before attempting to write about it.

Good sugestion: You can not leanr any more.

[numbernu...@gmail.com]

al...@interia.pl





Sep 11

W dniu sobota, 10 września 2016 03:29:23 UTC+2 użytkownik tjrob137 napisał:
> On 9/9/16 9/9/16 1:03 AM, numbernu...@gmail.com wrote:
> > Time-space is a coordinate system not a structure.
>
> This is true, but you obviously do not understand what is happening in physics.
> We are MODELING the world, and spacetime is part of the model.

_______________________________________________________________________


Everything is based on Maxwell's theory but Maxwell's electromagnetic field originate from Faraday's induction effect that does not affect non-metallic substances that are affected by gravity.

[numbernu...@gmail.com]

Thus the man modeled your great gravity waves using quite adequate model: sonic.

______________________________________________________________

Good point sonic (sound).

In gravitational physics, Weber (1970) detected gravity waves using the acoustical vibration of a 750 pound aluminum beam. Weber's gravity waves have the frequency of sound (1662 Hz) yet the vacuum of celestial space does not transmit sound nor does sound propagate at the velocity of light. Wheeler describes electromagnetic gravitational waves that Thorne, Gertsenshtein, and Ohanian state propagate at the velocity of light. Experimentally, the European pulsar timing array (EPTA) detected an electromagnetic gravity wave with the frequency of 10-8 Hz which forms a wavelength of 1016 m that is more than a light year in length!! In addition, the laser interferometer gravitational wave observatory (LIGO) detected electromagnetic gravity waves, that originated from the merging of two blackbody holes 1.3 billion light years from the earth. The LIGO electromagnetic gravity waves have a frequency of 35 to 250 Hz that produce an acoustical vibration of the armature of Michelson-Morley interferometer forming a signal produced by the gravity waves but the LIGO gravity waves represent the frequency of sound but sound cannot propagate in the vacuum of celestial space, nor can sound propagate at the velocity of light.

[numbernu...@gmail.com]

Gravity physics is based on Maxwell's electromagnetic theory that is represented with Faraday's induction effect that cannot

[numbernu...@gmail.com]

Gravity physics is based on Maxwell's electromagnetic theory that is represented with Faraday's induction effect that cannot be used to represent gravity. A magnetic force produced by a magnet is not a gravitational force. The electromagnetic gravity waves have the frequency and structure of sound waves. These gravity sound wave propagate at the velocity of light and in vacuum. It like physicists have completely disregarded fundamental physics and lost their minds. It's similar to Hilary's legalized corruption concealed using speaker fees and Foundation donations or the USA opposing the Israel building of Illegal settlement yet giving 38 billion dollar in Aid while and doing nothing to stop the illegal settlement that cause of the tension in the Middle east. While the USA give away 38 billion dollar to a foreign country the flood victims of Lusisiana get 38 million is relief.

[numbernu...@gmail.com]

The electromagnetic gravity wave have a frequency range of 10^-7 to 10^4 Hz but an electromagnetic gravity wave with a frequency of 10^-7 Hz forms a wavelength of 10^15 meters that is more than a light year in length!! A gravity wave with a frequency of 10^4 Hz represents sound but sound cannot propagate in the vacuum of stellar space nor can sound propagate at the velocity of light. Also, the LIGO gravity waves have a frequency of 35 to 250 Hz that produce an acoustical vibration of the armature of Michelson-Morley interferometer forming a signal of the gravity waves but the LIGO gravity waves represent the frequency of sound that are propagating in the vacuum of celestial space at the velocity of light.

[numbernu...@gmail.com]

Gravity physics is based on sound waves that are represented with an electromagnetic field structure that propagates at the velocity of light, in vacuum. The sound waves are used to form a signal but sound waves form a force that only repels.

[David (Time Lord) Fuller]

On Saturday, September 17, 2016 at 3:22:03 PM UTC-5, numbernu...@gmail.com wrote:
> Gravity physics is based on sound waves that are represented with an electromagnetic field structure that propagates at the velocity of light, in vacuum. The sound waves are used to form a signal but sound waves form a force that only repels.

Space time is Electromagnetic 376.73^2 Making the Curvature of Space time (Gravity) Electromagnetic

[numbernu...@gmail.com]

Space time is Electromagnetic 376.73^2 Making the Curvature of Space time (Gravity) Electromagnetic-----Fuller

________________________________________________________________


Explain Weber frequency of 1662 Hz for a gravity wave. I hope that you didn't believe the Einstein's horse shit since Maxwell's electromagnetic theory is based on Faraday's induction effect that is not represent a gravitational effect because the rocks, in your head, are effected by gravity but are unaffected by a magnet. Try explaining space time curvature gravitational effects using ping pong balls!

[numbernu...@gmail.com]

The electromagnetic gravity wave have a frequency range of 10^-7 to 10^4 Hz but an electromagnetic gravity wave with a frequency of 10^-7 Hz forms a wavelength of 10^15 meters that is more than a light year in length!! WOW. A gravity wave with a frequency of 10^4 Hz represents sound but sound cannot propagate in the vacuum of stellar space nor can sound propagate at the velocity of light. Furthermore, the LIGO gravitational wave experiment detected electromagnetic gravity waves, that originated from the merging of two black holes more than 1.3 billion light years from the earth. The LIGO gravity waves have a frequency of 35 to 250 Hz that produce an acoustical vibration of the armature of Michelson-Morley interferometer forming a signal that is used to justify the existence of gravity waves but the LIGO gravity waves represent the frequency of sound that are propagating in the vacuum of celestial space at the velocity of light.

[Michael Moroney]

numbernu...@gmail.com writes:

<snip babble>

Frequency of sound is not sound. Sound is not gravity waves. Sound is a
compression wave in some material. Nor are electromagnetic waves with the
frequency of sound sound. For example, they communicate with submarines
with electromagnetic waves with the frequency of sound. It is not sound,
it is electromagnetic frequency. They do this because that frequency can
be received by the submarine anywhere in the world. (and the transmitter
was usually located in a place like Minnesota, far from the ocean)
Similarly for gravitational waves. Gravitational waves with the frequency
of sound (or any other frequency) can travel through the vacuum of space
even if actual sound can't.

[numbernu...@gmail.com]

"Gravitational waves with the frequency of sound (or any other frequency) can travel through the vacuum of space even if actual sound can't."

_----_____------_________------_______-------_______------_____



LOL

[Michael Moroney]

Too bad you decided to just LOL rather than learn from your mistake.

I noticed you snipped the bit about electromagnetic waves with the
frequency of sound, yet aren't sound.

[numbernu...@gmail.com]

I noticed you snipped the bit about electromagnetic waves with the
frequency of sound, yet aren't sound.

___________________________________________


LOL

[numbernu...@gmail.com]

[Michael Moroney]

numbernu...@gmail.com writes:

<snip crap>

Reposting something already proven false doesn't make it true, either.

[numbernu...@gmail.com]

[numbernu...@gmail.com]

According to modern physicists, electromagnetic gravity wave have a frequency range of 10^-7 to 10^4 Hz but a gravity wave with a frequency of 10^-7 Hz forms a wavelength of 10^15 meters that is more than a light year in length!! WOW. A gravity wave with a frequency of 10^4 Hz represents sound but sound cannot propagate in the vacuum of stellar space nor can sound propagate at the velocity of light. The sound wave gravity wave corresponds with Weber's gravity experiment that detected celestial gravity waves that have the frequency of 1662 Hz using a 760 pound Al beam. The 1662 Hz is the same frequency that is made by a digital alarm clock! What a humorous coincidence. Maybe Weber was taking a nap. Furthermore, the LIGO gravitational wave experiment detected electromagnetic gravity waves, that originated from the merging of two black holes more than 1.3 billion light years from the earth. The LIGO gravity waves have a frequency of 35 to 250 Hz that produce an acoustical vibration of the armature of the interferometer forming a signal that is used to justify the existence of gravity waves but the LIGO gravity waves represent the frequency of sound that are propagating in the vacuum of celestial space at the velocity of light. Note that the acoustical vibration of the interferometer is causing the signal of the interferometer used to justify gravity physics which represents a 50,000 thousand dollar US research grant to MIT. Money well sent.

[mlwo...@wp.pl]

W dniu sobota, 10 września 2016 03:29:23 UTC+2 użytkownik tjrob137 napisał:
> On 9/9/16 9/9/16 1:03 AM, numbernu...@gmail.com wrote:
> > Time-space is a coordinate system not a structure.
>
> This is true, but you obviously do not understand what is happening in physics.
> We are MODELING the world, and spacetime is part of the model.

In the world observers on a street don't say
"these buildings are running around". In the world
clocks of GPS are indicating t'=t. Instead of
the world, you're modelling your moronic
phantasmagories.

And about spacetime - you don't even know how to
measure it.

[numbernu...@gmail.com]

Gravity physics is based on sound wave analogy but sound waves do not propagate in vacuum nor does sound propagate a the velocity of light. The LIGO gravitational wave experiment detected electromagnetic gravity waves, that originated from the merging of two black holes more than 1.3 billion light years from the earth. The LIGO gravity waves have a frequency of 35 to 250 Hz that produce an acoustical vibration of the armature of the interferometer forming a signal that is used to justify the existence of gravity waves but the LIGO gravity waves represent the frequency of sound that are propagating in the vacuum of celestial space at the velocity of light. Note that the acoustical vibration of the interferometer is causing the signal of the interferometer used to justify gravity physics.

[akasha...@gmail.com]

Gravity physics is based on a sound wave analogy since Weber detected gravity waves with a frequency of 1662 Hz and the LIGO detected gravity waves of frequencies between 35 to 250 Hz which proves gravity physics is a scientific hoax.

[JanPB]

On Tuesday, September 20, 2016 at 11:14:47 PM UTC-7, mlwo...@wp.pl wrote:
> W dniu sobota, 10 września 2016 03:29:23 UTC+2 użytkownik tjrob137 napisał:
> > On 9/9/16 9/9/16 1:03 AM, numbernu...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > Time-space is a coordinate system not a structure.
> >
> > This is true, but you obviously do not understand what is happening in physics.
> > We are MODELING the world, and spacetime is part of the model.
>
> In the world observers on a street don't say
> "these buildings are running around".

This is not even wrong.

> In the world
> clocks of GPS are indicating t'=t.

This is false.

> Instead of
> the world, you're modelling your moronic
> phantasmagories.
>
> And about spacetime - you don't even know how to
> measure it.

And not even wrong again. I suggest you change your hobby. There are many
subjects worth studying besides physics.

--
Jan

[mlwo...@wp.pl]

W dniu czwartek, 22 września 2016 23:33:11 UTC+2 użytkownik JanPB napisał:
> On Tuesday, September 20, 2016 at 11:14:47 PM UTC-7, mlwo...@wp.pl wrote:
> > W dniu sobota, 10 września 2016 03:29:23 UTC+2 użytkownik tjrob137 napisał:
> > > On 9/9/16 9/9/16 1:03 AM, numbernu...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > Time-space is a coordinate system not a structure.
> > >
> > > This is true, but you obviously do not understand what is happening in physics.
> > > We are MODELING the world, and spacetime is part of the model.
> >
> > In the world observers on a street don't say
> > "these buildings are running around".
>
> This is not even wrong.

Yeah, this is not wrong.

> > In the world
> > clocks of GPS are indicating t'=t.
>
> This is false.

A lie, as expected from fanatic moron confronted
with reality.

> > And about spacetime - you don't even know how to
> > measure it.
>
> And not even wrong again.

And, lie again. If you can do it, tell me,
what is the interval between events
"battle of Waterloo" and "battle of Gaugamela"
and how you measured it.

> I suggest you change your hobby. There are many
> subjects worth studying besides physics.

I suggest you take your suggestion and put it
into your puffed ass, where it belongs.

[JanPB]

On Friday, September 23, 2016 at 12:07:08 AM UTC-7, mlwo...@wp.pl wrote:
> W dniu czwartek, 22 września 2016 23:33:11 UTC+2 użytkownik JanPB napisał:
> > On Tuesday, September 20, 2016 at 11:14:47 PM UTC-7, mlwo...@wp.pl wrote:
> > > W dniu sobota, 10 września 2016 03:29:23 UTC+2 użytkownik tjrob137 napisał:
> > > > On 9/9/16 9/9/16 1:03 AM, numbernu...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > Time-space is a coordinate system not a structure.
> > > >
> > > > This is true, but you obviously do not understand what is happening in physics.
> > > > We are MODELING the world, and spacetime is part of the model.
> > >
> > > In the world observers on a street don't say
> > > "these buildings are running around".
> >
> > This is not even wrong.
>
> Yeah, this is not wrong.
>
>
> > > In the world
> > > clocks of GPS are indicating t'=t.
> >
> > This is false.
>
> A lie, as expected from fanatic moron confronted
> with reality.
>
>
> > > And about spacetime - you don't even know how to
> > > measure it.
> >
> > And not even wrong again.
>
> And, lie again. If you can do it, tell me,
> what is the interval between events
> "battle of Waterloo" and "battle of Gaugamela"
> and how you measured it.

You won't understand a word.

> > I suggest you change your hobby. There are many
> > subjects worth studying besides physics.
>
> I suggest you take your suggestion and put it
> into your puffed ass, where it belongs.

I simply know this stuff and you don't. This is not me being "puffed", it's just stating a fact.
You want to waste your life away on schizo daydreams like Pentcho, be my guest.

--
Jan

[mlwo...@wp.pl]

W dniu piątek, 23 września 2016 09:33:08 UTC+2 użytkownik JanPB napisał:

> > And, lie again. If you can do it, tell me,
> > what is the interval between events
> > "battle of Waterloo" and "battle of Gaugamela"
> > and how you measured it.
>
> You won't understand a word.

That's because you won't say a word.
At least, you won't say a word related
with the subject.
You can only mumble about imagined two
dimensional ants or something similiar.

> > > I suggest you change your hobby. There are many
> > > subjects worth studying besides physics.
> >
> > I suggest you take your suggestion and put it
> > into your puffed ass, where it belongs.
>
> I simply know this stuff and you don't. This is not me being "puffed", it's just stating a fact.

Yeah, you know the ways of imagined two
dimensional ants. No doubt about it.
As for real indications of real clocks
you neither know anything nor are interested
in anything.
As expected from relativistic moron.

[Poutnik]

On 09/22/2016 10:35 PM, akasha...@gmail.com wrote:
> Gravity physics is based on a sound wave analogy since Weber detected gravity waves with a frequency of 1662 Hz and the LIGO detected gravity waves of frequencies between 35 to 250 Hz which proves gravity physics is a scientific hoax.
>

The only proven thing is the misunderstanding
that sound-like frequencies have something to do with sound.

[JanPB]

On Friday, September 23, 2016 at 12:46:15 AM UTC-7, mlwo...@wp.pl wrote:
> W dniu piątek, 23 września 2016 09:33:08 UTC+2 użytkownik JanPB napisał:
>
> > > And, lie again. If you can do it, tell me,
> > > what is the interval between events
> > > "battle of Waterloo" and "battle of Gaugamela"
> > > and how you measured it.
> >
> > You won't understand a word.
>
> That's because you won't say a word.

Nope. Just check this NG's record.

> At least, you won't say a word related
> with the subject.

As I said several times already, whenever I answer any of your posts in a more
technical way, it's for other readers (assuming they care, of course).

> You can only mumble about imagined two
> dimensional ants or something similiar.

What you wrote above summarises one of your problems in a nutshell:
your cognitive faculties aren't working normally.

> > > > I suggest you change your hobby. There are many
> > > > subjects worth studying besides physics.
> > >
> > > I suggest you take your suggestion and put it
> > > into your puffed ass, where it belongs.
> >
> > I simply know this stuff and you don't. This is not me being "puffed", it's just stating a fact.
>
> Yeah, you know the ways of imagined two
> dimensional ants. No doubt about it.

And again a cuckoo answer.

> As for real indications of real clocks
> you neither know anything nor are interested
> in anything.
> As expected from relativistic moron.

Nonsense. All of it.

--
Jan

[numbernu...@gmail.com]

There is precedence that theoretical physics is based on deception that is depicted when people deny that the frequencies of sound that is used to representing gravity waves represent sound. The reason sound is necessary is because to produce a detectable signal requires an affect and sound is a possible force that can be experimentally detected the other possibility is electromagnetic radiation. In fact Webber states that sound is shielded from his gravity experiment but it would be hard to explain if the beam detector is shielded from sound how Webber's beam detected the gravity waves that have a frequency of sound since Webber's detector is detecting sound. They explain this with abstract physics which is ludicrous since the acoustical gravity waves violates fundamental physics which is justify by a separation of classical and theoretical physics. This deception is similar to the parallel deception regarding the wave theory of light where light waves are formed by the motion of an optical ether, composed of matter, yet light propagates in vacuum that is void of matter. It should be obvious that a deception is occurring since Huygens excuse is that the optical ether, composed of matter, penetrates the glass vacuum tube, but matter cannot propagate through matter without producing a hole, in the glass or shattering the glass which is similar to particle physics where a subatomic particle propagates through the steel enclosure of the bubble chamber which is not possible since muons that are 200 times more massive than an electron are used to justify subatomic particle propagating through the steel enclosure of the bubble chamber that would result in an explosion of the bubble chamber which is the reason that half the NASA rocket launches end up exploding.

[Maciej Woźniak]

Użytkownik "JanPB" napisał w wiadomości grup
dyskusyjnych:84b065bc-cdd3-4e89...@googlegroups.com...

> > > And, lie again. If you can do it, tell me,
> > > what is the interval between events
> > > "battle of Waterloo" and "battle of Gaugamela"
> > > and how you measured it.
> >
> > You won't understand a word.
>
> That's because you won't say a word.

|Nope. Just check this NG's record.

All I will see only screams like "this is not a question!!!
this is a RANT!!!!!"

> At least, you won't say a word related
> with the subject.

|As I said several times already, whenever I answer any of your posts in a
more
|technical way

Mumbling about 2 dimensional ants is no way technical,
poor idiot.


|Nonsense. All of it.

Rave, moron, and spit. All you can do.

[JanPB]

On Saturday, September 24, 2016 at 3:08:03 AM UTC-7, Maciej Woźniak wrote:
> Użytkownik "JanPB" napisał w wiadomości grup
> dyskusyjnych:84b065bc-cdd3-4e89...@googlegroups.com...
>
> > > > And, lie again. If you can do it, tell me,
> > > > what is the interval between events
> > > > "battle of Waterloo" and "battle of Gaugamela"
> > > > and how you measured it.
> > >
> > > You won't understand a word.
> >
> > That's because you won't say a word.
>
> |Nope. Just check this NG's record.
>
> All I will see only screams like "this is not a question!!!
> this is a RANT!!!!!"

That's not how it started. I gave proper explanations at first but your responses very quickly
degenerated into a stream of expletives and nonsensical rants and screams. So I stopped
providing answers directed at you.

> > At least, you won't say a word related
> > with the subject.
>
> |As I said several times already, whenever I answer any of your posts in a
> more
> |technical way
>
> Mumbling about 2 dimensional ants is no way technical,
> poor idiot.

Again, you prove by the above remark that you have some sort of cognitive problem. (Unless
you are simply trolling.) First of all, you are lying: the "2D ants" remark was just a sentence
added to a fully detailed technical question about certain explicitly given metric tensor in
2D. It's on the record. The "2D ants" is one example of the standard metaphoric way people
talk about issues, not only in physics but everywhere: politics, art, philosophy, etc. It's
a type of shortcut which to a normal person can describe the situation very well in far fewer
words than the full exposition. Same thing applies to other shortcuts in the language used
commonly by scientists, like "trees moving wrt observer" which likewise appears eternally
confusing to you.

This is a very characteristic trait of your posts (the small parts free of expletives and screams):
unless everything is written out in full detail at all times, you get confused.

> |Nonsense. All of it.
>
> Rave, moron, and spit. All you can do.

Screaming and ranting again.

--
Jan

[Maciej Woźniak]

Użytkownik "JanPB" napisał w wiadomości grup

dyskusyjnych:b3f5ed65-1c53-4690...@googlegroups.com...

> |Nope. Just check this NG's record.
>
> All I will see only screams like "this is not a question!!!
> this is a RANT!!!!!"

|That's not how it started. I gave proper explanations at first but your
responses

A lie, as usual, but it doesn't matter now.
You can do some calculations of some assumed 2-dimensional
ants or something, but MEASURING is far beyond the abilities
of your tiny brain. Samely as serious Tarski's logic.
As expected from a relativistic moron.

> Mumbling about 2 dimensional ants is no way technical,
> poor idiot.

|Again, you prove by the above remark that you have some sort of cognitive
problem.

I didn't recognize you as a GURU...:(

[JanPB]

On Sunday, September 25, 2016 at 2:50:33 AM UTC-7, Maciej Woźniak wrote:
> Użytkownik "JanPB" napisał w wiadomości grup
> dyskusyjnych:b3f5ed65-1c53-4690...@googlegroups.com...
>
> > |Nope. Just check this NG's record.
> >
> > All I will see only screams like "this is not a question!!!
> > this is a RANT!!!!!"
>
> |That's not how it started. I gave proper explanations at first but your
> responses
>
> A lie, as usual, but it doesn't matter now.
> You can do some calculations of some assumed 2-dimensional
> ants or something, but MEASURING is far beyond the abilities
> of your tiny brain. Samely as serious Tarski's logic.
> As expected from a relativistic moron.

Get help.

--
Jan\

[Maciej Woźniak]

Użytkownik "JanPB" napisał w wiadomości grup

dyskusyjnych:8ff1965c-1761-45b4...@googlegroups.com...

:)
So, poor idiot, once again: what is the interval between
events "battle of Gaugamela" and "battle of Waterloo"
and how did you measure it.

[JanPB]

On Sunday, September 25, 2016 at 1:11:48 PM UTC-7, Maciej Woźniak wrote:
> Użytkownik "JanPB" napisał w wiadomości grup
> dyskusyjnych:8ff1965c-1761-45b4...@googlegroups.com...
>
> On Sunday, September 25, 2016 at 2:50:33 AM UTC-7, Maciej Woźniak wrote:
> > Użytkownik "JanPB" napisał w wiadomości grup
> > dyskusyjnych:b3f5ed65-1c53-4690...@googlegroups.com...
> >
> > > |Nope. Just check this NG's record.
> > >
> > > All I will see only screams like "this is not a question!!!
> > > this is a RANT!!!!!"
> >
> > |That's not how it started. I gave proper explanations at first but your
> > responses
> >
> > A lie, as usual, but it doesn't matter now.
> > You can do some calculations of some assumed 2-dimensional
> > ants or something, but MEASURING is far beyond the abilities
> > of your tiny brain. Samely as serious Tarski's logic.
> > As expected from a relativistic moron.
>
> |Get help.
>
> :)
> So, poor idiot, once again: what is the interval between
> events "battle of Gaugamela" and "battle of Waterloo"
> and how did you measure it.

Come back when you understand how the 2D ants work. It's no use practicing a Liszt sonata
with you if you cannot play scales.

--
Jan

[mlwo...@wp.pl]

Measurement, poor idiot, has nothing in
common with your imagined ants or
with your Liszt sonata. It is about real,
ugly reality.
You forgot what is reality, a long, long
time ago.
Samely, as your idiot guru and anyone
from your crazy bunch.

[JanPB]

I never said it did. You are absolutely hopeless at understanding metaphors.

--
Jan

[mlwo...@wp.pl]

A lie. As anyone can see above.

> You are absolutely hopeless at understanding metaphors.

You pretend to have incredible technical knowledge.
But all you have is just that: metaphors.

[JanPB]

Not a lie. You simply cannot comprehend metaphors or analogies. I'm not sure if it's
your English or something else. It looks the latter. Already the good old Joseph Campbell
pointed out in his "Power of Myth" that for some people metaphors are lies.

> > You are absolutely hopeless at understanding metaphors.
>
> You pretend to have incredible technical knowledge.
> But all you have is just that: metaphors.

The technical stuff is lost on you. That's another of your little problems. In other words, as
many have noticed, no communication is possible with you. All you do is rants and nonsense.
As you can see (but then maybe not, with you one can never tell) I find it rather intriguing.

--
Jan

[numbernu...@gmail.com]

"Frequency of sound is not sound. Sound is not gravity waves. Sound is a
compression wave in some material. Nor are electromagnetic waves with the
frequency of sound sound. For example, they communicate with submarines
with electromagnetic waves with the frequency of sound. It is not sound,
it is electromagnetic frequency. They do this because that frequency can
be received by the submarine anywhere in the world. (and the transmitter
was usually located in a place like Minnesota, far from the ocean)
Similarly for gravitational waves. Gravitational waves with the frequency
of sound (or any other frequency) can travel through the vacuum of space
even if actual sound can't." (Michael Moroney, Sept 18).


To produce a revolution is physics requires a change to prevent statement like the one above from being made. LOL.

[mlwo...@wp.pl]

A lie, as anyone can see above.

> pointed out in his "Power of Myth" that for some people metaphors are lies.

Metaphore isn't. But "I never said" is, as anyone can
see above.

> > You pretend to have incredible technical knowledge.
> > But all you have is just that: metaphors.
>
> The technical stuff is lost on you.

You don't have any. You have only some
primitive metaphores.

[JanPB]

False. I used the "2D ants" picture while stating a precise mathematical question. I can
repeat it again as you count on people forgetting the context: in the 2D xy-plane a
metric is given:

ds^2 = dx^2/x^4 + dy^2.

This line element is undefined along the y-axis. Question: what geometry is this? Can the point
(1,0) be connected to (-1,0) somehow? I.e. could an ant walk from (1,0) to (-1,0)?

The above, ladies and gentlemen, is the sole source of Maciej's "2D ants" conniptions.

--
Jan

[mlwo...@wp.pl]

You're a lying scum, as expected from a relativistic moron.
The question you asked then was different. It was "is the
singularity real?". No, singularity was not real, it was
a creation of your sick imagination, together with your
ants. And your metric.

Now your question is trivial too, as you're too stupid to
invent a serious question. Can the points be connected
somehow? Yes, the section((-1,0)(1,0)) connects them - somehow.

The second part of the question, including ants, is the
same. I can't know, however, technical abilities of ants
you imagined, can I?
Unless you specify them, and you're too stupid for that.

[paparios]

Get stronger drugs and a new doctor!!

[mlwo...@wp.pl]

Rave, moron, and spit. That's all you can do.

[JanPB]

Gobbledygook.

--
Jan

[JanPB]

No, that was not the "question" that lead to the "2D ants" bit. It was exactly as I said,
the record is clear on it so stop making stuff up.

What you mentioned above was something that had been discussed earlier, and even what
you quote can be equally easily dismissed because even earlier we "discussed" (of course
with you there is never any "discussion", just rants and expletives on your side the moment
you are proven incorrect) the question that started your 3-year-long screaming fit: whether
an object falling towards a Schwarzschild black hole ever crosses the horizon. You went off
the deep end right after this very issue around 2013.

> No, singularity was not real, it was
> a creation of your sick imagination, together with your
> ants. And your metric.

Not even wrong. You have no idea what you are dealing with.

> Now your question is trivial too, as you're too stupid to
> invent a serious question. Can the points be connected
> somehow? Yes, the section((-1,0)(1,0)) connects them - somehow.

This is not an answer, it's baloney and hand waving, as everything else is that you post.
The answer is precise and technical, just like the question is. So much for me writing
"only metaphors".

> The second part of the question, including ants, is the
> same. I can't know, however, technical abilities of ants
> you imagined, can I?

What a stupid thing to say! Just say "I don't know".

> Unless you specify them, and you're too stupid for that.

Everything you need to know has been specified in the question. BTW, I posted a very long
_technical_ article a while ago that went over examples of this sort in full detail.

--
Jan

[Maciej Woźniak]

Użytkownik "JanPB" napisał w wiadomości grup

dyskusyjnych:60e68d46-01da-49bc...@googlegroups.com...

Right, poor idiot. I've forgot you have this possibility too.
But you surely are too stupid yo ask a technical
question, not even talking of answering it.



--
Jan

[JanPB]

This was a technical question, so you are lying. The question, one more time,
was:

in
> > > > the 2D xy-plane a metric is given:
> > > >
> > > > ds^2 = dx^2/x^4 + dy^2.
> > > >
> > > > This line element is undefined along the y-axis. Question: what
> > > > geometry is this? Can the point
> > > > (1,0) be connected to (-1,0) somehow? I.e. could an ant walk from
> > > > (1,0) to (-1,0)?

I recommend you start facing reality.

--
Jan

[Maciej Woźniak]

Użytkownik "JanPB" napisał w wiadomości grup

dyskusyjnych:833e8901-8989-4d55...@googlegroups.com...

Exactly as I said, you're a lying scum. And, even worse, extremly
stupid one. The record is clear on it, so stop making stuff up.

> Now your question is trivial too, as you're too stupid to
> invent a serious question. Can the points be connected
> somehow? Yes, the section((-1,0)(1,0)) connects them - somehow.

|This is not an answer

Yes, it is. If you want a serious answer, ask a serious
question, poor idiot.

> The second part of the question, including ants, is the
> same. I can't know, however, technical abilities of ants
> you imagined, can I?

|What a stupid thing to say! Just say "I don't know".

> Unless you specify them, and you're too stupid for that.

|Everything you need to know has been specified in the question.

Buhahahahahahahaha.
You know, poor idiot, let's make an experiment.
Take a sheet of paper. Assign to it the metric
you mentioned. Put an ant on it. Let's see if
your "technical" knowledge can stand the
experiment. What do you think?

[JanPB]

No, that's exactly what happened. Check the record.

> The question you asked then was different. It was "is the
> singularity real?".

No, your "2D ants" nonsense came from the problem I quoted above.

> No, singularity was not real, it was

It doesn't matter here. You are bringing up an unrelated issue (one
of your standard "debating" "techniques").

> a creation of your sick imagination, together with your
> ants. And your metric.

You still don't get it, do you.

> Now your question is trivial too, as you're too stupid to
> invent a serious question. Can the points be connected
> somehow? Yes, the section((-1,0)(1,0)) connects them - somehow.

Just don't try to answer it if you don't know the answer. This is a very
easy question and it's telling that a person unable to answer it posts
"criticisms" of relativity.

> The second part of the question, including ants, is the
> same. I can't know, however, technical abilities of ants
> you imagined, can I?

Gobbledygook. You cannot answer a simple question, get over it.
I've already suggested a different hobby.

> Unless you specify them, and you're too stupid for that.

Gobbledygook.

--
Jan

[numbernu...@gmail.com]

The electromagnetic gravity wave have a frequency range of 10^-7 to 10^4 Hz byt an electromagnetic gravity wave with a frequency of 10^-7 Hz forms a wavelength of 10^15 meters that is more than a light year in length!! A gravity wave with a frequency of 10^4 Hz represents sound but sound cannot propagate in the vacuum of stellar space nor can sound propagate at the velocity of light. Furthermore, the LIGO gravitational wave experiment detected electromagnetic gravity waves, that originated from the merging of two black holes more than 1.3 billion light years from the earth. The LIGO gravity waves have a frequency of 35 to 250 Hz that produce an acoustical vibration of the armature of Michelson-Morley interferometer forming a signal that is used to justify the existence of gravity waves but the LIGO gravity waves represent the frequency of sound that are propagating in the vacuum of celestial space at the velocity of light.

[Maciej Woźniak]

Użytkownik "JanPB" napisał w wiadomości grup

dyskusyjnych:5dcb2028-1f1e-45a4...@googlegroups.com...

> The question you asked then was different. It was "is the
> singularity real?".

|No, your "2D ants" nonsense came from the problem I quoted above.

No, that's exactly what happened. Check the record.

> Now your question is trivial too, as you're too stupid to
> invent a serious question. Can the points be connected
> somehow? Yes, the section((-1,0)(1,0)) connects them - somehow.

|Just don't try to answer it if you don't know the answer. This is a very

You've got your answer, poor idiot. Want another answer - try to
think about your question instead moronic waving arms.

> The second part of the question, including ants, is the
> same. I can't know, however, technical abilities of ants
> you imagined, can I?

|Gobbledygook. You cannot answer a simple question

A lie. You asked, whether the points are connected somehow
and you got the connection somehow.
While my question "how do you measure your moronic
metric" has still no answer.
Get over it. Try another hobby, poor idiot. Answering
questions is beyond your abilities.

[numbernu...@gmail.com]

[JanPB]

Is something wrong with your brain?

> The question you asked then was different. It was "is the
> singularity real?".

No, you are wrong, this was not the question at all, it was the 2D metric
example I gave that triggered your "no 2D ants" allergic reaction.

> No, singularity was not real, it was
> a creation of your sick imagination, together with your
> ants. And your metric.
>
> Now your question is trivial too, as you're too stupid to
> invent a serious question. Can the points be connected
> somehow? Yes, the section((-1,0)(1,0)) connects them - somehow.
>
> The second part of the question, including ants, is the
> same. I can't know, however, technical abilities of ants
> you imagined, can I?
> Unless you specify them, and you're too stupid for that.

Translation: I don't know the answer because I lack the basics so I'll try
to bullshit my way through by employing the usual tricks:
(1) lying (2) changing the topic (3) insulting the guy who pointed out
your mistake.

Nothing new here. Until you change your ways, you'll get nowhere with this.

--
Jan

[JanPB]

On Tuesday, September 27, 2016 at 12:55:23 PM UTC-7, Maciej Woźniak wrote:
> Użytkownik "JanPB" napisał w wiadomości grup
> dyskusyjnych:5dcb2028-1f1e-45a4...@googlegroups.com...
>
> > The question you asked then was different. It was "is the
> > singularity real?".
>
> |No, your "2D ants" nonsense came from the problem I quoted above.
>
> No, that's exactly what happened. Check the record.

I'll leave it at that.

> > Now your question is trivial too, as you're too stupid to
> > invent a serious question. Can the points be connected
> > somehow? Yes, the section((-1,0)(1,0)) connects them - somehow.
>
> |Just don't try to answer it if you don't know the answer. This is a very
>
> You've got your answer, poor idiot.

No. The question is precise, so is the answer. The question was: does there
exist a path from (1,0) to (-1,0) in the geometry described on a subset of the
xy-plane as: ds^2 = dx^2/x^4 + dy^2. Your answer was just hand waving: here
it is in its glorious lack of content:

+ Now your question is trivial too, as you're too stupid to
+ invent a serious question. Can the points be connected
+ somehow? Yes, the section((-1,0)(1,0)) connects them - somehow.
+
+ The second part of the question, including ants, is the
+ same. I can't know, however, technical abilities of ants
+ you imagined, can I?
+ Unless you specify them, and you're too stupid for that.

And you call me "poor idiot". You have some front. Pathetic.

> Want another answer - try to
> think about your question instead moronic waving arms.

Cut the rhetoric.

> > The second part of the question, including ants, is the
> > same. I can't know, however, technical abilities of ants
> > you imagined, can I?
>
> |Gobbledygook. You cannot answer a simple question
>
> A lie.

Where is your answer? You've never given one. Do you even know what "lie"
means? You seem very liberal with the word (and many other words, all of them
of the offensive variety with no content otherwise).

> You asked, whether the points are connected somehow
> and you got the connection somehow.

Yes. What's your answer? Hint: a bit of calculation is involved, nothing
serious. About 30 seconds' work.

> While my question "how do you measure your moronic
> metric" has still no answer.

I've never even considered this question because you asked it as a diversion
(one of your standard "debating" "techniques" here).

Besides, your grasp of the concepts is extremely fragile so answering your
question would inevitably lead down a Mandelbrot-set-like string of
clarifications which together with your inability to understand anything
or ever admit making a mistake makes the entire exercise rather boring at
this point (it was fun in 2013 but there is too much repetition in this by
now). That's why I keep saying that I answer your questions only if my
answers may look interesting to someone else. See also:
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Fractal_wrongness#Dealing_with_the_fractally_wrong

> Get over it. Try another hobby, poor idiot. Answering
> questions is beyond your abilities.

All you did was trying to change the topic by asking an unrelated question.

--
Jan

[JanPB]

Why isn't my question serious? Here it is again: can the points (1,0) and
(-1,0) be connected by a path in the geometry described on a subset of the
xy-plane by the metric ds^2 = dx^2/x^4 + dy^2.

> > The second part of the question, including ants, is the
> > same. I can't know, however, technical abilities of ants
> > you imagined, can I?
>
> |What a stupid thing to say! Just say "I don't know".
>
> > Unless you specify them, and you're too stupid for that.
>
> |Everything you need to know has been specified in the question.
>
> Buhahahahahahahaha.

Is this your answer? The question was: can the points (1,0) and
(-1,0) be connected by a path in the geometry described on a subset of the
xy-plane by the metric ds^2 = dx^2/x^4 + dy^2.

> You know, poor idiot, let's make an experiment.
> Take a sheet of paper. Assign to it the metric
> you mentioned. Put an ant on it. Let's see if
> your "technical" knowledge can stand the
> experiment. What do you think?

This is just an attempt at bullshitting your way out of answering.
You got an F. I suggest you change your hobby.

--
Jan

[JanPB]

"I have no argument, so I'll try to offend hurling idiocies."

> The question you asked then was different. It was "is the
> singularity real?".

No, that wasn't the question. The question was: does there
exist a path from (1,0) to (-1,0) in the geometry described on a subset of the
xy-plane as: ds^2 = dx^2/x^4 + dy^2.

> No, singularity was not real, it was
> a creation of your sick imagination, together with your
> ants. And your metric.

I don't care at this point about discussing an unrelated issue (your answer is incorrect BTW).

> Now your question is trivial too, as you're too stupid to
> invent a serious question. Can the points be connected
> somehow? Yes, the section((-1,0)(1,0)) connects them - somehow.

This is not an answer. This is hand waving. The question has a clear answer.

> The second part of the question, including ants, is the
> same. I can't know, however, technical abilities of ants
> you imagined, can I?
> Unless you specify them, and you're too stupid for that.

Complete nonsense.

--
Jan

[mlwo...@wp.pl]

A lie, lying scum. The question was "can they be
connected somehow". Anyone can check it out.
But, your next question is trivial again.

Quoting:
"This line element is undefined along the y-axis."

Your geometry doesn't define a path crossing y
axis.

> > You know, poor idiot, let's make an experiment.
> > Take a sheet of paper. Assign to it the metric
> > you mentioned. Put an ant on it. Let's see if
> > your "technical" knowledge can stand the
> > experiment. What do you think?
>
> This is just an attempt at bullshitting your way out of answering.
> You got an F. I suggest you change your hobby.

No. You are an idiot, so you can only imagine
ants unable to cross your phantasmagory.
Thus, question "can an imagined ant cross
the singularity" seems well defined to you.
I'm a thinking man, so I can imagine ants
able to cross or unable to cross. So for me
your question is not well defined.

[mlwo...@wp.pl]

That's right!
You have no argument, so you will try to offend

hurling idiocies.

>
> > The question you asked then was different. It was "is the
> > singularity real?".
>
> No, that wasn't the question. The question was: does there
> exist a path from (1,0) to (-1,0) in the geometry described on a subset of the
> xy-plane as: ds^2 = dx^2/x^4 + dy^2.

Unfortunately, google keeps record, poor idiot.

> > Now your question is trivial too, as you're too stupid to
> > invent a serious question. Can the points be connected
> > somehow? Yes, the section((-1,0)(1,0)) connects them - somehow.
>
> This is not an answer. This is hand waving. The question has a clear answer.

Yes, and you have it above.

[mlwo...@wp.pl]

W dniu środa, 28 września 2016 01:43:10 UTC+2 użytkownik JanPB napisał:
> On Tuesday, September 27, 2016 at 12:55:23 PM UTC-7, Maciej Woźniak wrote:
> > Użytkownik "JanPB" napisał w wiadomości grup
> > dyskusyjnych:5dcb2028-1f1e-45a4...@googlegroups.com...
> >
> > > The question you asked then was different. It was "is the
> > > singularity real?".
> >
> > |No, your "2D ants" nonsense came from the problem I quoted above.
> >
> > No, that's exactly what happened. Check the record.
>
> I'll leave it at that.

Won't you check the record?

>
> > > Now your question is trivial too, as you're too stupid to
> > > invent a serious question. Can the points be connected
> > > somehow? Yes, the section((-1,0)(1,0)) connects them - somehow.
> >
> > |Just don't try to answer it if you don't know the answer. This is a very
> >
> > You've got your answer, poor idiot.
>
> No. The question is precise, so is the answer. The question was: does there
> exist a path from (1,0) to (-1,0) in the geometry described on a subset of the
> xy-plane as: ds^2 = dx^2/x^4 + dy^2. Your answer was just hand waving: here
> it is in its glorious lack of content:

No, the question WAS different.
But - now your question is trivial too, as you're too stupid to.
You guessed correctly.

> > A lie.
>
> Where is your answer? You've never given one.

A lie.

Do you even know what "lie"
> means? You seem very liberal with the word (and many other words, all of them
> of the offensive variety with no content otherwise).
>
> > You asked, whether the points are connected somehow
> > and you got the connection somehow.
>
> Yes.

Decide. Just some paragraphes above you wrote the
question was different...


> What's your answer?

Yes, the ((-1,0)..(1,0)) section connects them - somehow.

> Hint: a bit of calculation is involved, nothing

No, it isn't.

> > While my question "how do you measure your moronic
> > metric" has still no answer.
>
> I've never even considered this question because you

Because you have no idea.

Besides, your grasp of the concepts is extremely fragile so answering your

question would inevitably lead to screams "not even wrong!" "this is no
answer!" "Irrelevant!!" or moronic waving arms.
And it leads.
Which together with your inability to understand anything

[paparios]

This troll is really funny. Since 1997 he has vastly demonstrate here he knows nothing about any science subject.

Listen trash, we know that and we do not need that you demonstrate your ignorance several times a day.

Get new drugs and find a better doctor.

[mlwo...@wp.pl]

[paparios]

Keep trolling and shitting ignorant moron, that's all you are able to do!!

[numbernu...@gmail.com]

[numbernu...@gmail.com]

THe electromagnetic gravity wave have a frequency range of 10^-7 to 10^4 Hz byt an electromagnetic gravity wave with a frequency of 10^-7 Hz forms a wavelength of 10^15 meters that is more than a light year in length!! A gravity wave with a frequency of 10^4 Hz represents sound but sound cannot propagate in the vacuum of stellar space nor can sound propagate at the velocity of light. Furthermore, the LIGO gravitational wave experiment detected electromagnetic gravity waves, that originated from the merging of two black holes more than 1.3 billion light years from the earth. The LIGO gravity waves have a frequency of 35 to 250 Hz that produce an acoustical vibration of the armature of Michelson-Morley interferometer forming a signal that is used to justify the existence of gravity waves but the LIGO gravity waves represent the frequency of sound that are propagating in the vacuum of celestial space at the velocity of LIGHT.

[JanPB]

So why can't you answer it?

> But, your next question is trivial again.
> Quoting:
> "This line element is undefined along the y-axis."
> Your geometry doesn't define a path crossing y
> axis.

No, silly goose, your answer is incorrect. How can you post even a single
WORD of criticism of relativity or physics given your state of knowledge
as witnessed in the above is beyond comprehension of any normal person.
Just thought you might be interested in knowing this.

> > > You know, poor idiot, let's make an experiment.
> > > Take a sheet of paper. Assign to it the metric
> > > you mentioned. Put an ant on it. Let's see if
> > > your "technical" knowledge can stand the
> > > experiment. What do you think?
> >
> > This is just an attempt at bullshitting your way out of answering.
> > You got an F. I suggest you change your hobby.
>
> No. You are an idiot, so you can only imagine
> ants unable to cross your phantasmagory.

Not even wrong. The question is unambiguous and has an unambiguous answer.

> Thus, question "can an imagined ant cross
> the singularity" seems well defined to you.

It's simply a well-posed question which assumes understanding of the subject.
Nothing to do with me.

> I'm a thinking man, so I can imagine ants
> able to cross or unable to cross. So for me
> your question is not well defined.

This is again irrelevant: the fact that something appears to you not
"well-defined" proves your ignorance which is your problem, not mine nor
any physicist's. You don't know the answer, therefore you cannot (by
definition) form a valid critical opinion about validity of relativity.

It's OK for an amateur to criticise certain non-scientific aspects of it,
e.g. its philosophy (I have major philosophical problems with relativity
myself), but it's not OK for him to make a sweeping general dismissal.
Such dismissal is necessarily based on hearsay so it's simply noise, and
you are wasting time looking for signal in that noise (you can find anything
in noise if you twist it long and hard enough).

You don't speak German, you don't get to criticise the style of Goethe.

--
Jan

[JanPB]

On Tuesday, September 27, 2016 at 11:38:00 PM UTC-7, mlwo...@wp.pl wrote:
> W dniu środa, 28 września 2016 01:43:10 UTC+2 użytkownik JanPB napisał:
> > On Tuesday, September 27, 2016 at 12:55:23 PM UTC-7, Maciej Woźniak wrote:
> > > Użytkownik "JanPB" napisał w wiadomości grup
> > > dyskusyjnych:5dcb2028-1f1e-45a4...@googlegroups.com...
> > >
> > > > The question you asked then was different. It was "is the
> > > > singularity real?".
> > >
> > > |No, your "2D ants" nonsense came from the problem I quoted above.
> > >
> > > No, that's exactly what happened. Check the record.
> >
> > I'll leave it at that.
>
> Won't you check the record?

No.

> > > > Now your question is trivial too, as you're too stupid to
> > > > invent a serious question. Can the points be connected
> > > > somehow? Yes, the section((-1,0)(1,0)) connects them - somehow.
> > >
> > > |Just don't try to answer it if you don't know the answer. This is a very
> > >
> > > You've got your answer, poor idiot.
> >
> > No. The question is precise, so is the answer. The question was: does there
> > exist a path from (1,0) to (-1,0) in the geometry described on a subset of the
> > xy-plane as: ds^2 = dx^2/x^4 + dy^2. Your answer was just hand waving: here
> > it is in its glorious lack of content:
>
> No, the question WAS different.

No, it wasn't. Your "2D ants" nonsense referred to my question quoted above.
You cannot answer it so you invent all sort of cuckoo pseudo-arguments
to avoid simply admitting you have no answer.

> But - now your question is trivial too, as you're too stupid to.

It's not trivial. It's very easy but not trivial.

> > Where is your answer? You've never given one.
>
> A lie.

You have never answered this problem. The closest you got to it was saying
"No" (with no proof) which also happens to be incorrect.

> > What's your answer?
>
> Yes, the ((-1,0)..(1,0)) section connects them - somehow.
>
> > Hint: a bit of calculation is involved, nothing
>
> No, it isn't.

It is. Without a small calculation one cannot answer this question. (Of course
you can write some random words and call this "answer" but obviously this is
just playing games.)

> > > While my question "how do you measure your moronic
> > > metric" has still no answer.
> >
> > I've never even considered this question because you
>
> Because you have no idea.

I know the answer very well.

> Besides, your grasp of the concepts is extremely fragile

Again, copying my words verbatim.

> so answering your
> question would inevitably lead to screams "not even wrong!" "this is no
> answer!" "Irrelevant!!" or moronic waving arms.

Yes, because that's what you post. You cannot see it because you have a blind
spot of some sort and also for some reason your inability to answer this
question does NOT raise a huge red flag in your brain as it normally would
in a normal person.

> And it leads.
> Which together with your inability to understand anything
> or ever admit making a mistake makes the entire exercise rather boring at
> this point (it was fun in 2013 but there is too much repetition in this by
> now).

Again, you are cutting and pasting my words. Believe it or not, I am not
flattered.

--
Jan

[JanPB]

You missed the quotation marks. Also, you are copying my words again.

> > > The question you asked then was different. It was "is the
> > > singularity real?".
> >
> > No, that wasn't the question. The question was: does there
> > exist a path from (1,0) to (-1,0) in the geometry described on a subset of the
> > xy-plane as: ds^2 = dx^2/x^4 + dy^2.
>
> Unfortunately, google keeps record, poor idiot.

Where is your answer?

> > > Now your question is trivial too, as you're too stupid to
> > > invent a serious question. Can the points be connected
> > > somehow? Yes, the section((-1,0)(1,0)) connects them - somehow.
> >
> > This is not an answer. This is hand waving. The question has a clear answer.
>
> Yes, and you have it above.

No, you have never answered the question. You have just written some
non-technical gobbledygook. The question is technical and so is the
answer. If you don't know it, your general "criticism" of relativity
is just noise.

--
Jan

[numbernu...@gmail.com]

The electromagnetic gravity wave have a frequency range of 10^-7 to 10^4 Hz byt an electromagnetic gravity wave with a frequency of 10^-7 Hz forms a wavelength of 10^15 meters that is more than a light year in length!! A gravity wave with a frequency of 10^4 Hz represents sound but sound cannot propagate in the vacuum of stellar space nor can sound propagate at the velocity of light. Furthermore, the LIGO gravitational wave experiment detected electromagnetic gravity waves, that originated from the merging of two black holes more than 1.3 billion light years from the earth. The LIGO gravity waves have a frequency of 35 to 250 Hz that produce an acoustical vibration of the armature of Michelson-Morley interferometer forming a signal that is used to justify the existence of gravity waves but the LIGO gravity waves represent the frequency of sound that are propagating in the vacuum of celestial space at the velocity of LIGHT.

[mlwo...@wp.pl]

I can and I did.

>
> > But, your next question is trivial again.
> > Quoting:
> > "This line element is undefined along the y-axis."
> > Your geometry doesn't define a path crossing y
> > axis.
>
> No, silly goose, your answer is incorrect.

Yes, poor idiot, your geometry doesn't define

a path crossing y axis.

More, your question has NOTHING in common
with modelling of reality.

> > No. You are an idiot, so you can only imagine
> > ants unable to cross your phantasmagory.
>
> Not even wrong. The question is unambiguous and has an unambiguous answer.

Wrong, poor idiot. It is not and it doesn't.

>
> > Thus, question "can an imagined ant cross
> > the singularity" seems well defined to you.
>
> It's simply a well-posed question which assumes understanding of the subject.

Which assumes understanding your way.

> This is again irrelevant: the fact that something appears to you not
> "well-defined" proves your ignorance which is your problem, not mine nor
> any physicist's.

Oppositely, poor idiot. the fact that something appears to you
well defined proves your ignorance which is your problem, not mine.

> You don't know the answer, therefore you cannot (by
> definition) form a valid critical opinion about validity of relativity.

Even if assumption was true, it would be only
a logic of puffed halfbrain you are.

> You don't speak German, you don't get to criticise the style of Goethe.

I don't get to criticize the style of Goethe, indeed.

[mlwo...@wp.pl]

W dniu środa, 28 września 2016 20:38:45 UTC+2 użytkownik JanPB napisał:
> On Tuesday, September 27, 2016 at 11:38:00 PM UTC-7, mlwo...@wp.pl wrote:
> > W dniu środa, 28 września 2016 01:43:10 UTC+2 użytkownik JanPB napisał:
> > > On Tuesday, September 27, 2016 at 12:55:23 PM UTC-7, Maciej Woźniak wrote:
> > > > Użytkownik "JanPB" napisał w wiadomości grup
> > > > dyskusyjnych:5dcb2028-1f1e-45a4...@googlegroups.com...
> > > >
> > > > > The question you asked then was different. It was "is the
> > > > > singularity real?".
> > > >
> > > > |No, your "2D ants" nonsense came from the problem I quoted above.
> > > >
> > > > No, that's exactly what happened. Check the record.
> > >
> > > I'll leave it at that.
> >
> > Won't you check the record?
>
> No.

Of course.

> > > it is in its glorious lack of content:
> >
> > No, the question WAS different.
>
> No, it wasn't. Your "2D ants" nonsense referred to my question quoted above.

A lie.

> You cannot answer it

A lie. As expected from relativistic trash.

> so you invent all sort of cuckoo pseudo-arguments
> to avoid simply admitting you have no answer.

A lie. As expected from relativistic trash.
BTW, that's exactly what you're doing about
my question of metric measurement.

> > A lie.
>
> You have never answered this problem.

What problem? You've specified 4 problems.
1)is singularity real (no, it isn't)
2)are the points connected somehow (yes, somehow they are)
3)are the points connected by mathamatical path (no,
they are not)
4)Can an ant walk between them (I don't know, as you
didn't specify your ant)

> > > I've never even considered this question because you
> >
> > Because you have no idea.
>
> I know the answer very well.

A lie, as expected from relativistic trash.

> > Besides, your grasp of the concepts is extremely fragile
>
> Again, copying my words verbatim.

Again, talking to an idiot I'm descending to his level.

[mlwo...@wp.pl]

The question we're talking about now is: Can the points be connected
somehow? and the answer is yes, they can be connected - somehow.

> You have just written some non-technical gobbledygook.

Gobbledygook question - gobbledygook answer, poor idiot.


> The question is technical

Buhahahahahahahahahahaha.

[Poutnik]

On 09/28/2016 07:06 PM, numbernu...@gmail.com wrote:

> [...] A gravity wave with a frequency of 10^4 Hz represents sound

> but sound cannot propagate in the vacuum of stellar space nor

> can sound propagate at the velocity of light. [...]
>

Having sound frequency and being sound
are 2 completely different things.

[JanPB]

On Wednesday, September 28, 2016 at 11:02:22 PM UTC-7, mlwo...@wp.pl wrote:
> W dniu środa, 28 września 2016 20:38:45 UTC+2 użytkownik JanPB napisał:
> > On Tuesday, September 27, 2016 at 11:38:00 PM UTC-7, mlwo...@wp.pl wrote:
> > > W dniu środa, 28 września 2016 01:43:10 UTC+2 użytkownik JanPB napisał:
> > > > On Tuesday, September 27, 2016 at 12:55:23 PM UTC-7, Maciej Woźniak wrote:
> > > > > Użytkownik "JanPB" napisał w wiadomości grup
> > > > > dyskusyjnych:5dcb2028-1f1e-45a4...@googlegroups.com...
> > > > >
> > > > > > The question you asked then was different. It was "is the
> > > > > > singularity real?".
> > > > >
> > > > > |No, your "2D ants" nonsense came from the problem I quoted above.
> > > > >
> > > > > No, that's exactly what happened. Check the record.
> > > >
> > > > I'll leave it at that.
> > >
> > > Won't you check the record?
> >
> > No.
>
> Of course.
>
> > > > it is in its glorious lack of content:
> > >
> > > No, the question WAS different.
> >
> > No, it wasn't. Your "2D ants" nonsense referred to my question quoted above.
>
> A lie.

So where does your "2D ants" remark come from? You just say "2D ants"
whenever someone mentions, say, Vincent van Gogh? Or maybe Dostoyevsky?

> > You cannot answer it
>
> A lie. As expected from relativistic trash.

How can any sane person call this a lie? You have simply never answered the
question.

It seems to me you call "the answer" any comment made after a question
is asked. This is not what normal people consider an answer.

> > so you invent all sort of cuckoo pseudo-arguments
> > to avoid simply admitting you have no answer.
>
> A lie. As expected from relativistic trash.

Your vocabulary seems stuck. Save yourself cutting and pasting the phrase
"as expected from relativistic trash", you look like an idiot every time
you post it. Secondly, what I said is the truth. You have never answered
my question. You've only made some comments and (incorrect) guesses. If
the word "answering" is too confusing for you, perhaps use the phrase
"solving the problem". So I stated a problem and you attacked it for the
standard metaphoric language it used (which BTW betrays at once you lack
the training as this sort of metaphoric talk is a part of the professional
culture and is considered important for efficient communication, see e.g.
Paul Halmos' autobiography - you've heard of Paul Halmos, haven't you?) but
you have never _solved the problem_. Instead, you attacked an irrelevancy.
What's next, how about you claiming Richard Feynman was an idiot because
his papers in scientific journals were usually printed in a two-column print
format?

> BTW, that's exactly what you're doing about
> my question of metric measurement.

This question is a totally different subject, i.e. it's merely yet another
of your childish attempts to deflect the topic: namely that you cannot answer
(i.e. solve - see above) the "ants" problem in the 2D plane.

> > > A lie.
> >
> > You have never answered this problem.
>
> What problem? You've specified 4 problems.

No, just one: does there exist a path from (1,0) to (-1,0) in the geometry

described on a subset of the xy-plane as: ds^2 = dx^2/x^4 + dy^2.

> 1)is singularity real (no, it isn't)

This is not what your "2D ants" screaming was about. I won't even address
the correctness, or the lack of it, of what you wrote above.

> 2)are the points connected somehow (yes, somehow they are)

This is not answering the problem. It's simply a random comment posted
as a response. If you cannot tell the two apart you have a cognitive
problem.

> 3)are the points connected by mathamatical path (no,
> they are not)

Incorrect. You obviously don't even understand the question and assume
it's just about connecting two points in the xy-plane with the y-axis removed?
The question is NOT about that situation, as obviously this sort of (trivial)
question would not require anyone even mentioning the metric ds^2, and it
has a trivial answer (which you gave above - an answer to a different
question).

> 4)Can an ant walk between them (I don't know, as you
> didn't specify your ant)

Bogus.

> > > > I've never even considered this question because you
> > >
> > > Because you have no idea.
> >
> > I know the answer very well.
>
> A lie, as expected from relativistic trash.

It's a"lie" that I know the answer? HAHAHAHA! I have POSTED the answer here
few months ago, detailed calculation and everything else that's involved in
it. It was a rather long post with many detailed examples of that type.

If you missed it, I'll let you suffer a bit longer and won't post the
actual answer here yet.

> > > Besides, your grasp of the concepts is extremely fragile
> >
> > Again, copying my words verbatim.
>
> Again, talking to an idiot I'm descending to his level.

Unfortunately, words are cheap. The facts OTOH are: so far you cannot
solve that little problem and instead of learning the subject you attack
me for the only thing you can understand: an irrelevancy (some little
metaphor I used).

--
Jan