Why is the universe 13.8 milliards years old ?

nero

unread,

Nov 9, 2015, 4:04:16 AM11/9/15

to

..why ? ..and only so Young ?

mlwo...@wp.pl

unread,

Nov 9, 2015, 4:16:42 AM11/9/15

to

W dniu poniedziałek, 9 listopada 2015 10:04:16 UTC+1 użytkownik nero napisał:

> ..why ? ..and only so Young ?

Because it's easy to claim, when You know nobody
can test it.

dlzc

unread,

Nov 9, 2015, 9:57:17 AM11/9/15

to

Dear mlwo...:

There have been several tests, and using different observation, they all come to about the same rough age. All have assumptions.

http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/age.html

David A. Smith

mlwo...@wp.pl

unread,

Nov 9, 2015, 10:17:01 AM11/9/15

to

W dniu poniedziałek, 9 listopada 2015 15:57:17 UTC+1 użytkownik dlzc napisał:
> Dear mlwo...:
>
> On Monday, November 9, 2015 at 2:16:42 AM UTC-7, mlwo...@wp.pl wrote:
> > W dniu poniedziałek, 9 listopada 2015 10:04:16 UTC+1 użytkownik nero napisał:
> >
> > > ..why ? ..and only so Young ?
> >
> > Because it's easy to claim, when You know
> > nobody can test it.
>
> There have been several tests, and using different observation, they all come to about the same rough age. All have assumptions.

How unfortunate, that according to relativity, universe
has no property called "age".

John Heath

unread,

Nov 9, 2015, 11:10:00 AM11/9/15

to

On Monday, November 9, 2015 at 4:04:16 AM UTC-5, nero wrote:
> ..why ? ..and only so Young ?

The why has to do with red shift observations then projecting it backwards for a ball park guess of how many years old. I know you have objection to the interpretation of red shift so I understand your questioning of the universe's age. I am leaning towards the big bounce notion where the universe compressed will bounce back caused by energy density therefore a sort of oscillating universe. Then again where is intelligent life if the universe is for ever? At the end of the day we will never know for sure as no one was there when the BB happened.

Open Collector

unread,

Nov 9, 2015, 2:12:54 PM11/9/15

to

dlzc wrote:

>> Because it's easy to claim, when You know nobody can test it.
>
> There have been several tests, and using different observation, they all
> come to about the same rough age.

Exactly, this is how Modern Science works. All must come to the same rough
age. The first one coming to the same rough age gets promotion. The
others, letter on, gets famous, just by coming to the same rough age.

dlzc

unread,

Nov 9, 2015, 2:46:57 PM11/9/15

to

Dear mlwo...:

On Monday, November 9, 2015 at 8:17:01 AM UTC-7, mlwo...@wp.pl wrote:
...

> How unfortunate, that according to relativity,
> universe has no property called "age".

No unchallengeable clocks are in evidence. All are embedded on worldlines that extend from as near the "Big Bang event" as we can surmise.

It is not a fault of Relativity, just the Scientific method.

David A. Smith

dlzc

unread,

Nov 9, 2015, 2:51:23 PM11/9/15

to

Dear Open Collector:

On Monday, November 9, 2015 at 12:12:54 PM UTC-7, Open Collector wrote:
...

> Exactly, this is how Modern Science works. All
> must come to the same rough age.

Not true. The oldest star we can see, has an nominal age that is older than the expected age of the Universe. No, "must report less than 13.8 Gy" in that.

> The first one coming to the same rough age gets
> promotion.

Not true. The one with the smallest error bars, and/or the fewest assumptions, gets "promoted".

> The others, letter on, gets famous, just by
> coming to the same rough age.

If you say so. Kopeikin thought he had measured the "speed of gravity", but instead measured the "speed of light". Yet we do not publish his value as fact for the speed of light.

Look at the error bars, and assumptions. That should be the whole story.

David A. Smith

Maciej Woźniak

unread,

Nov 9, 2015, 3:08:01 PM11/9/15

to

Użytkownik "dlzc" napisał w wiadomości grup
dyskusyjnych:0012f54f-552c-4a8f...@googlegroups.com...

> How unfortunate, that according to relativity,
> universe has no property called "age".

|No unchallengeable clocks are in evidence. All are embedded on worldlines
|that extend from as near the "Big Bang event" as we can surmise.
|It is not a fault of Relativity, just the Scientific method.

Clocks? The Shit discovered, the time is relative.
There is no quantity we could name "age of the universe".
What would it be?
When You're talking about age of twins, You mean "time
since he was born measured in his frame". Am I right?
Where is the frame of the universe?

Open Collector

unread,

Nov 9, 2015, 3:53:58 PM11/9/15

to

dlzc wrote:

>> The others, letter on, gets famous, just by coming to the same rough
>> age.
>
> If you say so. Kopeikin thought he had measured the "speed of gravity",
> but instead measured the "speed of light". Yet we do not publish his
> value as fact for the speed of light.
>
> Look at the error bars, and assumptions. That should be the whole
> story.

You may watch that errorbar as much as you want, not knowing what it
represents. Analog to looking toward (1,4,-17) direction without having a
reference. You can't. You can just not.

kefischer

unread,

Nov 9, 2015, 4:28:34 PM11/9/15

to

On Mon, 9 Nov 2015 06:57:14 -0800 (PST), dlzc <dl...@cox.net> wrote:

>Dear mlwo...:
>
>On Monday, November 9, 2015 at 2:16:42 AM UTC-7, mlwo...@wp.pl wrote:

>> W dniu poniedzialek, 9 listopada 2015 10:04:16 UTC+1 uzytkownik nero napisal:

>>
>> > ..why ? ..and only so Young ?
>>
>> Because it's easy to claim, when You know
>> nobody can test it.
>
>There have been several tests, and using different observation, they all come to about the same rough age. All have assumptions.
>
>http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/age.html
>
>David A. Smith

Only because the recession velocity
shows a definite increase in a percentage
of the speed of light per unit of distance.

There is a reason for that, maybe
more than one reason.

John Heath

unread,

Nov 9, 2015, 6:00:00 PM11/9/15

to

Instead of a open collector lets use a emitter follower for a lower impedance. I am sorry I could not resist. The absorption spectrum of hydrogen provides a reliable ruler to make the distinction between (1,4,-17) assuming the laws of physics are the same on distant stars.

Peter Riedt

unread,

Nov 9, 2015, 9:49:04 PM11/9/15

to

On Monday, November 9, 2015 at 5:04:16 PM UTC+8, nero wrote:
> ..why ? ..and only so Young ?

The universe is of an infinite age. About 14 billion years it acquired visibility via stars being able for the first time to emit radiation. Only from this point on we have knowledge of its existence and therefore we believe it is just as old as the emissions of the stars and other objects.

John Gogo

unread,

Nov 9, 2015, 9:53:33 PM11/9/15

to

There is no way to know this answer.

Tom Roberts

unread,

Nov 9, 2015, 11:36:03 PM11/9/15

to

On 11/9/15 11/9/15 3:04 AM, nero wrote:
> ..why ? ..and only so Young ?

Nobody knows why, and almost surely never will -- such "why?" questions are
beyond the realm of science. It's just that this age is the best value that fits
the observations to date, using the best models we have today.

Tom Roberts

Tom Roberts

unread,

Nov 9, 2015, 11:37:10 PM11/9/15

to

On 11/9/15 11/9/15 8:49 PM, Peter Riedt wrote:
> The universe is of an infinite age.

What God whispered in your ear and told you this?

> [... silly GUESS]

Tom Roberts

kefischer

unread,

Nov 10, 2015, 12:40:43 AM11/10/15

to

Could it be coincidence that the radius
of the visible universe is approximately equal
to the speed of light and the recession factor?

"Why" is not a good question to ask in
science, but "how" would seem to be acceptable.

And the question of what happens
to propagated light seems to be valid,
especially if the energy of that light could
be captured by molecular hydrogen after
traveling the radius of the universe, where
the relative velocity nearly matches that
of light.

mlwo...@wp.pl

unread,

Nov 10, 2015, 2:38:42 AM11/10/15

to

W dniu wtorek, 10 listopada 2015 05:36:03 UTC+1 użytkownik tjrob137 napisał:
> On 11/9/15 11/9/15 3:04 AM, nero wrote:
> > ..why ? ..and only so Young ?
>
> Nobody knows why, and almost surely never will -- such "why?" questions are
> beyond the realm of science.

Since when?

nero

unread,

Nov 10, 2015, 4:37:59 AM11/10/15

to

..thanks to all ..
my doubts come because we observe , of course , what we can measure , what is living ( The life of radiation , the life of stars ..)
once i asked to a big astronomer : how to measure the age of a galaxy ? he told : good ask , but no aswer
From the Bigbang , the galaxies made about 50 rounds .. think ! that wonderful turning objects only 50 rounds , while our earth more than 5 milliards rounds ... were the galaxies , like we observe , on the beginning ? ..the stars are mouving towards the centrum (bulge) in a walk of thousands milliards of years ...
a piece of iron ..how long can it live ? i think , more than 1000 milliards years .. and so , now , we are seeing it just on its first instant of life ...
i fill that many things are not properly in rigth way ..

Henry Wilson

unread,

Nov 10, 2015, 1:37:47 PM11/10/15

to

Our psychological concept of both Space and Time is based on our
experience with their intervals rather than on the dimensions themselves.

Spatial intervals have two ends. Time intervals have two ends. We have
difficulty in imagining intervals of infinite size.

Just as SPACE itself is not a 'spatial interval', TIME itself is not a
'time interval'.

Like number, neither Space nor Time have a beginning or an end. The very
idea of limits does not apply to them at all.

>
> Tom Roberts

Ludwig Böhm

unread,

Nov 10, 2015, 2:24:09 PM11/10/15

to

Henry Wilson wrote:

> Like number, neither Space nor Time have a beginning or an end. The very
> idea of limits does not apply to them at all.

This is a very strong statement to come up with. Any evidence that it is
as you just said? No.

The Starmaker

unread,

Nov 10, 2015, 2:53:33 PM11/10/15

to

In the beginning, (notice that the sentence begins with "In the begining")

God created the heavens and the earth.'

So, according to ancient science here, space which is part of the "heavens" had to have a beginning.

It was created...In the beginning.

Now, you can call the beginning, the beginning of Time.

by definition:

be·gin·ning
b?'giniNG/
noun
noun: beginning; plural noun: beginnings

1.
the point in time or space at which something starts.

https://www.google.com/#q=define+beginning

You're just one of those people of many here that uses words without understanding the meaning of the words.

Is that some kind of illness i'm not aware of????

Alan Folmsbee

unread,

Nov 10, 2015, 3:28:45 PM11/10/15

to

The beginning and end are swapping time and space, then a new inverted continuum expands forever. The matter has a purpose: swapping space for time. Space goes into matter, time comes out. That conserves continuum.

The 13.8 billion year age is only from redshifted galaxies as far as viscosity allows. It is from a distance measurement. As gravity shrinks space and the the universe expands, the space is not replenished at the edge because of viscosity. That lack of replenished space prevents our seeing an infinite distance. It is opaque where viscosity disallows our observations.

HGW

unread,

Nov 10, 2015, 5:06:23 PM11/10/15

to

On Tue, 10 Nov 2015 19:24:03 +0000 (UTC), Ludwig Böhm <lu...@widespectrum.com>
wrote:

True, it is a strong statment becassue it is novel.

Space doesn't actually exist, objects do. Objects possess lengths and those and
the lengths between them define what we conceive as 3D space. No matter how
many objects are added, space will accommodate them. A collection of objects
defines a volume of 'space' but space itself is not a volume. It is nothing but
a mathematical concept.

Get it?

HGW

unread,

Nov 10, 2015, 5:13:28 PM11/10/15

to

On Tue, 10 Nov 2015 12:28:43 -0800 (PST), Alan Folmsbee <omni...@gmail.com>
wrote:

>>
>> Our psychological concept of both Space and Time is based on our
>> experience with their intervals rather than on the dimensions themselves.
>>
>> Spatial intervals have two ends. Time intervals have two ends. We have
>> difficulty in imagining intervals of infinite size.
>>
>> Just as SPACE itself is not a 'spatial interval', TIME itself is not a
>> 'time interval'.
>>
>> Like number, neither Space nor Time have a beginning or an end. The very
>> idea of limits does not apply to them at all.
>>
>> >
>> > Tom Roberts
>
>The beginning and end are swapping time and space, then a new inverted continuum
expands forever. The matter has a purpose: swapping space for time. Space goes
into matter, time comes out. That conserves continuum.
>
>The 13.8 billion year age is only from redshifted galaxies as far as viscosity allows.
It is from a distance measurement. As gravity shrinks space and the the
universe expands, the space is not replenished at the edge because of

viscosity. That lack of replenished space prevents our seeing an infinite >. It

is opaque where viscosity disallows our observations.

There was no big bang. There are lots of little bangs. Light loses INTRINSIC
energy as it travels and that shows up as redshits. The known universe is like
a turbulent gas with whole galaxies being its 'atoms'.

HGW

unread,

Nov 10, 2015, 5:16:18 PM11/10/15

to

On Mon, 9 Nov 2015 23:38:37 -0800 (PST), mlwo...@wp.pl wrote:

>W dniu wtorek, 10 listopada 2015 05:36:03 UTC+1 u?ytkownik tjrob137 napisa?:

>> On 11/9/15 11/9/15 3:04 AM, nero wrote:
>> > ..why ? ..and only so Young ?
>>
>> Nobody knows why, and almost surely never will -- such "why?" questions are
>> beyond the realm of science.
>
>Since when?

Since Tom's brain ceased to function...

The Starmaker

unread,

Nov 10, 2015, 6:21:16 PM11/10/15

to

The little bangs are the result of the big bang..

maybe you need pictures:

https://media.giphy.com/media/IjmMzurYulKEw/giphy.gif

http://bestanimations.com/Holidays/Fireworks/fireworksanimation-13.gif

http://its-the-simple-things.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/fireworksAnimation1.gif

Peter Riedt

unread,

Nov 10, 2015, 8:51:57 PM11/10/15

to

God did not but an entity called REASON did.

al...@interia.pl

unread,

Nov 10, 2015, 9:38:15 PM11/10/15

to

W dniu poniedziałek, 9 listopada 2015 10:04:16 UTC+1 użytkownik nero napisał:
> ..why ? ..and only so Young ?

The 13.8 Gy is just an average lifetime of any signal in the universe, nothing more.

tau = 1/H = 13.8 Gy

and because that the observable universe is about 45Gy, not the 13.8...
which is an average only, ie. not any limit.

The number 45 is due to a limit of the common perceptional conditions,
which is equal about 4%.

exp(-45/13.8) = ~0.04

nero

unread,

Nov 11, 2015, 5:53:29 AM11/11/15

to

.....in front of this problems , i think , in some way , we are saying the same things ...perhaps we have the same natural universal spatial ufobilogical origin ..
.. we agree that everyone , also they (nasa , profs, docts etc ) , speaking about the origin , the time , the space , had to begin the talk : it seems ..it is probable ...it can be .. untill now , the datas say ...

dlzc

unread,

Nov 11, 2015, 9:39:44 AM11/11/15

to

Dear Open Collector:

On Monday, November 9, 2015 at 1:53:58 PM UTC-7, Open Collector wrote:
> dlzc wrote:
>
> >> The others, letter on, gets famous, just by coming
> >> to the same rough age.
> >
> > If you say so. Kopeikin thought he had measured the
> > "speed of gravity", but instead measured the "speed
> > of light". Yet we do not publish his value as fact
> > for the speed of light.
> >
> > Look at the error bars, and assumptions. That should
> > be the whole story.
>
> You may watch that errorbar as much as you want,
> not knowing what it represents.

The paper that reports the value, should discuss sources of error. You *can* "know" what it represents.

> Analog to looking toward (1,4,-17) direction
> without having a reference. You can't. You
> can just not.

It is the time axis. The uncertainty is in duration between now and the event observed. Your objection is not well described.

David A. Smith

dlzc

unread,

Nov 11, 2015, 9:45:21 AM11/11/15

to

Dear kefischer:

On Monday, November 9, 2015 at 2:28:34 PM UTC-7, kefischer wrote:
> On Mon, 9 Nov 2015 06:57:14 -0800 (PST), dlzc <dl...@cox.net> wrote:

...

> > There have been several tests, and using different
> > observation, they all come to about the same rough
> > age. All have assumptions.
> >
> >http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/age.html
>

> Only because the recession velocity
> shows a definite increase in a percentage
> of the speed of light per unit of distance.
>
> There is a reason for that, maybe
> more than one reason.

Yet by at least 4 different methods, some that prevent uncertainty in other methods, the various distance measures prevent there being too much mystery here.

Did you look at the "clocks" presented in the link? The only thing they have in common, and a single set of "laws of physics", that did not vary much after the first few "years" since the Big Bang.

David A. Smith

kefischer

unread,

Nov 11, 2015, 9:48:29 AM11/11/15

to

The stupid nym-changing troll can't
even remember his name, how could he
remember any science.

Maciej Woźniak

unread,

Nov 11, 2015, 9:57:50 AM11/11/15

to

Użytkownik "dlzc" napisał w wiadomości grup

dyskusyjnych:00a0a039-6de9-4124...@googlegroups.com...

Dear kefischer:

On Monday, November 9, 2015 at 2:28:34 PM UTC-7, kefischer wrote:
> On Mon, 9 Nov 2015 06:57:14 -0800 (PST), dlzc <dl...@cox.net> wrote:
...
> > There have been several tests, and using different
> > observation, they all come to about the same rough
> > age. All have assumptions.
> >
> >http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/age.html
>
> Only because the recession velocity
> shows a definite increase in a percentage
> of the speed of light per unit of distance.
>
> There is a reason for that, maybe
> more than one reason.

|Yet by at least 4 different methods, some that prevent uncertainty in other
methods, the various distance measures prevent there being too much mystery
here.

Still, tell me, my dear relativist moron, is the age of the Universe
from the point of view of a muon the same, as from our point of
view?

kefischer

unread,

Nov 11, 2015, 10:00:14 AM11/11/15

to

I read what he wrote wrong, the discussion
was about velocity with distance, and he switched
to age. When that happens, a person speaking
and changing the subject widely, I am not able
to understand what words he is saying, it may
be a more than average cognition problem,
but I think many people have.

This is a complex subject, a lot of
things have to be considered.

Ludwig Böhm

unread,

Nov 11, 2015, 10:04:34 AM11/11/15

to

Maciej Woźniak wrote:

> Still, tell me, my dear relativist moron, is the age of the Universe
> from the point of view of a muon the same, as from our point of view?

hahaha, good question, matzek. I would rather have been asking another
heavy weight in Relativity the concerns of this question. Kef is strong in
Divergent Matter only.

Ludwig Böhm

unread,

Nov 11, 2015, 10:10:30 AM11/11/15

to

kefischer wrote:

> I read what he wrote wrong, the discussion

Must have been in Braille.

> was about velocity with distance, and he switched to age. When
> that happens, a person speaking and changing the subject widely, I am
> not able to understand what words he is saying, it may be a more than
> average cognition problem, but I think many people have.

Braille for sure. It's true.

> This is a complex subject, a lot of things have to be considered.

Blank & Jones - Real Love - RELAX Edition 9

Henry Wilson

unread,

Nov 11, 2015, 1:56:15 PM11/11/15

to

A very strange post even for this NG...maybe something red is no longer
shifting properly in your brain.

Space is not a physical entity. It is a region of void that contains
objects. It has a purely mathematical basis where infinity is no problem.
Time is something entirely different...which is one reason why Einstein
was full of crap.
Only the present exists. The past and future are void.

dlzc

unread,

Nov 11, 2015, 2:35:06 PM11/11/15

to

Dear kefischer:

On Wednesday, November 11, 2015 at 8:00:14 AM UTC-7, kefischer wrote:
> On Wed, 11 Nov 2015 06:45:18 -0800 (PST), dlzc <dl...@cox.net> wrote:

...
> >...
> >> >http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/age.html

> I read what he wrote wrong, the discussion
> was about velocity with distance, and he switched
> to age.

This thread title is about "why" the Universe is the age reported, which no one can answer. It devolved into various methods of determining age (which is still perhaps on topic). So there are several possible methods of determining "how long ago the Big Bang occurred". And all of them in some sense, talk about "age".

> When that happens, a person speaking
> and changing the subject widely, I am not able
> to understand what words he is saying, it may
> be a more than average cognition problem,
> but I think many people have.

The current value of Hubble constant (red shift with distance / age) is NOT a constant over the entire history of the Universe.

> This is a complex subject, a lot of
> things have to be considered.

Sure. But you still have to keep your eye on the ball... We are talking about the *age* of the Universe. Or should be...

David A. Smith

Paul B. Andersen

unread,

Nov 11, 2015, 3:03:16 PM11/11/15

to

On 10.11.2015 23:13, HGW wrote:
>
> There was no big bang. There are lots of little bangs. Light loses INTRINSIC
> energy as it travels and that shows up as redshits.

http://www.artsjournal.com/herman/images/redshit.jpg

--
Paul

https://paulba.no/

kefischer

unread,

Nov 11, 2015, 5:44:43 PM11/11/15

to

Go away, stupid nym-=changing troll.

kefischer

unread,

Nov 11, 2015, 6:05:48 PM11/11/15

to

Obviously I did not read the link, but
that is because his writing has sunk in content
to a jumbled mess.

I am interested in the main sequence
studies, but I have questions about how the
amount of matter in a star is presumed or
calculated, I think some stars gain a great
deal of matter all through their life, and
that could make a big difference in the
elements and age estimates.

Ludwig Böhm

unread,

Nov 11, 2015, 6:13:15 PM11/11/15

to

kefischer wrote:

> I think some stars gain a great deal of matter all through their life,
> and that could make a big difference in the elements and age estimates.

No it doesn't. What falls into a star is matter already fused and
divergent. There is nothing to fuse at it anymore. Therefore that matter
is NOT part of a star. A star is only a star because is fusioning. If not
fusioning that it must be something else, not a star.

kefischer

unread,

Nov 11, 2015, 6:20:19 PM11/11/15

to

Moron troll, why do you write about
things you know nothing about, change
your nym again, this one is too stupid
to even exist.

Ludwig Böhm

unread,

Nov 11, 2015, 6:26:19 PM11/11/15

to

I never change my name. If you don't like it, not my business. I tried to
be explicit, for you to understand that whatever matter falls into a Sun
is NOT part of the Sun, since that matter is ALREADY fusioned (and
Divergent). Admit your error and start learning Divergent Matter.

Ludwig Böhm

unread,

Nov 11, 2015, 6:46:10 PM11/11/15

to

kefischer wrote:

>>> Analog to looking toward (1,4,-17) direction without having a
>>> reference. You can't. You can just not.
>>
>>It is the time axis. The uncertainty is in duration between now and the
>>event observed. Your objection is not well described.
>>
>>David A. Smith
>
> The stupid nym-changing troll can't
> even remember his name, how could he remember any science.

Can you? (remembering science). Except Divergent Matter you can't remember
other science. Since the Divergent Matter is the only Science you ever
know. Right?

kefischer

unread,

Nov 11, 2015, 7:07:52 PM11/11/15

to

On Wed, 11 Nov 2015 23:26:18 +0000 (UTC), Ludwig Böhm

No, moron troll, "hydrogen" molecules and isotopes
have never been fused.

Ludwig Böhm

unread,

Nov 11, 2015, 7:19:36 PM11/11/15

to

kefischer wrote:

>>I never change my name. If you don't like it, not my business. I tried
>>to be explicit, for you to understand that whatever matter falls into a
>>Sun is NOT part of the Sun, since that matter is ALREADY fusioned (and
>>Divergent). Admit your error and start learning Divergent Matter.
>
> No, moron troll, "hydrogen" molecules and isotopes
> have never been fused.

Hydrogen is rarely falling into a Sun. You meant something completely
else, apart from hydrogen or other ELEMENTARY particles. Elementary
particles are not flying just like that through the Universe. I hope is
right what I say.

al...@interia.pl

unread,

Nov 11, 2015, 7:44:06 PM11/11/15

to

I'm afraid that it is not any biological condition,
but a pure statistic law.

The famous 4% = 1/25 for the information necessary
to recognise a data is rather a common limit due
to the exponential distribution...

Something similar to the common rule called 3-sigma,
under a normal distribution.

kefischer

unread,

Nov 11, 2015, 8:54:33 PM11/11/15

to

On Thu, 12 Nov 2015 00:19:34 +0000 (UTC), Ludwig Böhm
<lu...@widespectrum.com> wrote:

>kefischer wrote:
>
>>>I never change my name. If you don't like it, not my business. I tried
>>>to be explicit, for you to understand that whatever matter falls into a
>>>Sun is NOT part of the Sun, since that matter is ALREADY fusioned (and
>>>Divergent). Admit your error and start learning Divergent Matter.
>>
>> No, moron troll, "hydrogen" molecules and isotopes
>> have never been fused.
>
>Hydrogen is rarely falling into a Sun.

Nothing falls into the Sun, in the
Divergent Matter model, the surface
of the sun is pushing the solar atmosphere
outward at 500km/s, and colliding with
huge amounts of molecular matter
and some solids or gases.

>You meant something completely
>else, apart from hydrogen or other ELEMENTARY particles. Elementary
>particles are not flying just like that through the Universe. I hope is
>right what I say.

Change your nym, and STFU.

Henry Wilson

unread,

Nov 12, 2015, 4:29:19 AM11/12/15

to

On Wed, 11 Nov 2015 21:03:14 +0100, Paul B. Andersen wrote:

> On 10.11.2015 23:13, HGW wrote:
>>
>> There was no big bang. There are lots of little bangs. Light loses
>> INTRINSIC energy as it travels and that shows up as redshits.
>
> http://www.artsjournal.com/herman/images/redshit.jpg

I'm glad to see that you have not dropped out of my physics class......

Ludwig Böhm

unread,

Nov 12, 2015, 11:02:19 AM11/12/15

to

kefischer wrote:

>>> No, moron troll, "hydrogen" molecules and isotopes
>>> have never been fused.
>>
>>Hydrogen is rarely falling into a Sun.
>
> Nothing falls into the Sun, in the
> Divergent Matter model, the surface of the sun is pushing the solar
> atmosphere outward at 500km/s, and colliding with huge amounts of
> molecular matter and some solids or gases.

This only because you dont understand Divergent Matter, but primary you
dont even understand what Divergent means. Which explain your errors and
confusion you exhibit in this theory. You are lying as well, saying
antecedently that hydrogen molecules are falling undigested into the Sun.

Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn

unread,

Nov 12, 2015, 2:40:42 PM11/12/15

to

That’s _crank_ class instead. What you are proposing is “tired light”, a
well-known and well-refuted cranks’ fantasy. Tell news.

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tired_light>

PointedEars
--
A neutron walks into a bar and inquires how much a drink costs.
The bartender replies, "For you? No charge."

(from: WolframAlpha)

al...@interia.pl

unread,

Nov 12, 2015, 9:59:12 PM11/12/15

to

W dniu czwartek, 12 listopada 2015 20:40:42 UTC+1 użytkownik Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn napisał:
> Henry Wilson wrote:
>
> > On Wed, 11 Nov 2015 21:03:14 +0100, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
> >> On 10.11.2015 23:13, HGW wrote:
> >>> There was no big bang. There are lots of little bangs. Light loses
> >>> INTRINSIC energy as it travels and that shows up as redshits.
> >> http://www.artsjournal.com/herman/images/redshit.jpg
> >
> > I'm glad to see that you have not dropped out of my physics class......
>
> That’s _crank_ class instead. What you are proposing is “tired light”, a
> well-known and well-refuted cranks’ fantasy. Tell news.
>
> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tired_light>

The Big Bang horde of nonsenses is just the pseudoscience.

The term: 'metric expansion of space' is a pure idiocy...
similarly as a naked vector or number in the physics context.

And in the second case: a lost of energy - dissipation,
is a common fact, known for years.
Additionally: the mentioned there 'time dilation'
doesn't exist in any observation..
another naked idiocy.

kefischer

unread,

Nov 12, 2015, 10:58:58 PM11/12/15

to

On Thu, 12 Nov 2015 18:59:09 -0800 (PST), al...@interia.pl wrote:

>W dniu czwartek, 12 listopada 2015 20:40:42 UTC+1 uzytkownik Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn napisal:

>> Henry Wilson wrote:
>>
>> > On Wed, 11 Nov 2015 21:03:14 +0100, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
>> >> On 10.11.2015 23:13, HGW wrote:
>> >>> There was no big bang. There are lots of little bangs. Light loses
>> >>> INTRINSIC energy as it travels and that shows up as redshits.
>> >> http://www.artsjournal.com/herman/images/redshit.jpg
>> >
>> > I'm glad to see that you have not dropped out of my physics class......
>>
>> That’s _crank_ class instead. What you are proposing is “tired light”, a
>> well-known and well-refuted cranks’ fantasy. Tell news.
>>
>> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tired_light>
>
>The Big Bang horde of nonsenses is just the pseudoscience.
>
>The term: 'metric expansion of space' is a pure idiocy...
>similarly as a naked vector or number in the physics context.

But the change of distance as time passes
is clearly definite and real, as shown by the
velocity caused shift in spectral lines.

Learn a little astronomy.

>And in the second case: a lost of energy - dissipation,
>is a common fact, known for years.

The only ways that energy can dissipate
are well known and measured, objects moving
farther apart as time passes is one of them.

>Additionally: the mentioned there 'time dilation'
>doesn't exist in any observation..
>another naked idiocy.

It is a rational part of relative motion,
human observation is not able to perceive
all forms of relative motion, the Divergent
Matter model is needed to predict them.

Paul B. Andersen

unread,

Nov 13, 2015, 7:05:53 AM11/13/15

to

Quite.
But as you can see, I recognize the true nature of your droppings.

--
Paul

https://paulba.no/

Henry Wilson

unread,

Nov 13, 2015, 1:50:42 PM11/13/15

to

On Fri, 13 Nov 2015 13:05:49 +0100, Paul B. Andersen wrote:

>>>>
>>>> There was no big bang. There are lots of little bangs. Light loses
>>>> INTRINSIC energy as it travels and that shows up as redshits.
>>>
>>> http://www.artsjournal.com/herman/images/redshit.jpg
>>
>> I'm glad to see that you have not dropped out of my physics class......
>>
>>
> Quite.
> But as you can see, I recognize the true nature of your droppings.

How could anything exist for a billion years without changing?
Light quanta are made of fields and even a Norwegian microprofessor
should know something about the behaviour of fields in high vacuum. Has
he ever seen a gas discharge at very low pressure?

Henry Wilson

unread,

Nov 13, 2015, 1:54:45 PM11/13/15

to

On Thu, 12 Nov 2015 20:40:34 +0100, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:

> Henry Wilson wrote:
>
>>
>> I'm glad to see that you have not dropped out of my physics class......
>
> That’s _crank_ class instead. What you are proposing is “tired light”,
> a well-known and well-refuted cranks’ fantasy. Tell news.
>
> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tired_light>

Load of crap...I suppose you still believe that jesus christ's father
never screwed his mother.

> PointedEars

al...@interia.pl

unread,

Nov 13, 2015, 3:06:12 PM11/13/15

to

W dniu piątek, 13 listopada 2015 04:58:58 UTC+1 użytkownik kefischer

> >The term: 'metric expansion of space' is a pure idiocy...
> >similarly as a naked vector or number in the physics context.
>
> But the change of distance as time passes
> is clearly definite and real, as shown by the
> velocity caused shift in spectral lines.
> Learn a little astronomy.

> The only ways that energy can dissipate
> are well known and measured, objects moving
> farther apart as time passes is one of them.

In the Doppler effect the energy is perfectly preserved.

> >Additionally: the mentioned there 'time dilation'
> >doesn't exist in any observation..
> >another naked idiocy.
>
> It is a rational part of relative motion,
> human observation is not able to perceive
> all forms of relative motion, the Divergent
> Matter model is needed to predict them.

Yes. Your divergent pussy is very nice model.

I'm not interested in any model,
but only in the the strong - formal theories, babe.

kefischer

unread,

Nov 13, 2015, 3:31:05 PM11/13/15

to

On Fri, 13 Nov 2015 12:06:07 -0800 (PST), al...@interia.pl wrote:

>W dniu piatek, 13 listopada 2015 04:58:58 UTC+1 uzytkownik kefischer

>
>> >The term: 'metric expansion of space' is a pure idiocy...
>> >similarly as a naked vector or number in the physics context.
>>
>> But the change of distance as time passes
>> is clearly definite and real, as shown by the
>> velocity caused shift in spectral lines.
>> Learn a little astronomy.
>> The only ways that energy can dissipate
>> are well known and measured, objects moving
>> farther apart as time passes is one of them.
>
>In the Doppler effect the energy is perfectly preserved.

The Doppler effect is different for
observers moving differently, energy
in that case is reference system dependent.

>> >Additionally: the mentioned there 'time dilation'
>> >doesn't exist in any observation..
>> >another naked idiocy.
>>
>> It is a rational part of relative motion,
>> human observation is not able to perceive
>> all forms of relative motion, the Divergent
>> Matter model is needed to predict them.
>

>Yes. Your divergent is very nice model.

You seem stuck in the gutter.

>I'm not interested in any model,
>but only in the the strong - formal theories, babe.

But you haven't identified them, and
you seem to think there are absolutes.
The only certainty is that current
thought could be wrong tomorrow.

Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn

unread,

Nov 13, 2015, 6:22:03 PM11/13/15

to

Henry Wilson wrote:

> On Thu, 12 Nov 2015 20:40:34 +0100, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
>> Henry Wilson wrote:
>>> I'm glad to see that you have not dropped out of my physics class......
>> That’s _crank_ class instead. What you are proposing is “tired light”,
>> a well-known and well-refuted cranks’ fantasy. Tell news.
>>
>> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tired_light>
>
> Load of crap...

The theory that you are trying to revive here? Yes. The article documents
that it has been experimentally falsified years ago already.

> I suppose you still believe that jesus christ's father
> never screwed his mother.

Fascinating. What else do you suppose?

PointedEars
--
I heard that entropy isn't what it used to be.

(from: WolframAlpha)

Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn

unread,

Nov 13, 2015, 6:33:34 PM11/13/15

to

Henry Wilson wrote:

> On Fri, 13 Nov 2015 13:05:49 +0100, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
>>>>> There was no big bang. There are lots of little bangs. Light loses
>>>>> INTRINSIC energy as it travels and that shows up as redshits.
>>>> http://www.artsjournal.com/herman/images/redshit.jpg
>>> I'm glad to see that you have not dropped out of my physics class......
>>
>> Quite.
>> But as you can see, I recognize the true nature of your droppings.
>
> How could anything exist for a billion years without changing?

Why do you assume that this would be the case?

> Light quanta are made of fields

No, photons, or – as you put it – “light quanta”, are elementary excitations
of the electromagnetic field. So, that sense, it is the other way around.

> and even a Norwegian microprofessor should know something about the$

> behaviour of fields in high vacuum. Has he ever seen a gas discharge at
> very low pressure?

Why do you assume that “gas discharge” has anything to with the Big Bang?
What is that “gas discharge” of yours anyway?

PointedEars
--
Heisenberg is out for a drive when he's stopped by a traffic cop.
The officer asks him "Do you know how fast you were going?"
Heisenberg replies "No, but I know where I am."
(from: WolframAlpha)

al...@interia.pl

unread,

Nov 13, 2015, 6:39:50 PM11/13/15

to

W dniu piątek, 13 listopada 2015 21:31:05 UTC+1 użytkownik kefischer napisał:

> >In the Doppler effect the energy is perfectly preserved.
>
> The Doppler effect is different for
> observers moving differently, energy
> in that case is reference system dependent.

The energy is conserved.
In the Doppler case you consume the emited enerygy in other time,
ie, the power changes, but the energy is the same:
E = Edt = inv.

But indeed: due to the slow-down effect of a moving clock,
you can measure a different energy quantity too;
but you know about that, thus you should to correct that...
similary the GPS is corrected.

> >I'm not interested in any model,
> >but only in the the strong - formal theories, babe.
>
> But you haven't identified them, and
> you seem to think there are absolutes.
> The only certainty is that current
> thought could be wrong tomorrow.

The classical science is indestructible.

All the rest is a pseudoscience only - naive improvisations,
like the flat Earth dogmat, next the geocentric great ideas,
and now the relativity pseudogeometry, quantum fallacies,
and the Big Bang idiocy.

Paul B. Andersen

unread,

Nov 14, 2015, 4:25:05 AM11/14/15

to

On 13.11.2015 19:50, Henry Wilson wrote:
>
> How could anything exist for a billion years without changing?
> Light quanta are made of fields and even a Norwegian microprofessor
> should know something about the behaviour of fields in high vacuum. Has
> he ever seen a gas discharge at very low pressure?
>

Down under upside down logic:
"An electric discharge in a low pressure gas proves that no photon
can exists for billion of years in the intergalactic high vacuum."

--
Paul

https://paulba.no/

Gary Harnagel

unread,

Nov 14, 2015, 7:14:47 AM11/14/15

to

I wonder what he thinks he's seeing when he looks at those ancient galaxies?
Is the universe conspiring against him, too?

Gary

Maciej Woźniak

unread,

Nov 14, 2015, 7:31:58 AM11/14/15

to

Użytkownik "Gary Harnagel" napisał w wiadomości grup
dyskusyjnych:ab3af400-55b7-4894...@googlegroups.com...

|I wonder what he thinks he's seeing when he looks at those ancient
galaxies?
|Is the universe conspiring against him, too?

According to your Shit, they're ancient only from their own
point of view. It doesn't mean they're ancient for us, does
it, poor idiot?

Henry Wilson

unread,

Nov 14, 2015, 11:49:36 AM11/14/15

to

On Sat, 14 Nov 2015 00:33:25 +0100, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:

> Henry Wilson wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 13 Nov 2015 13:05:49 +0100, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
>>>>>> There was no big bang. There are lots of little bangs. Light loses
>>>>>> INTRINSIC energy as it travels and that shows up as redshits.
>>>>> http://www.artsjournal.com/herman/images/redshit.jpg
>>>> I'm glad to see that you have not dropped out of my physics
>>>> class......
>>>
>>> Quite.
>>> But as you can see, I recognize the true nature of your droppings.
>>
>> How could anything exist for a billion years without changing?
>
> Why do you assume that this would be the case?

I don't know of anything that remains exactly the same for even ten years.

>> Light quanta are made of fields
>
> No, photons, or – as you put it – “light quanta”, are elementary
> excitations of the electromagnetic field. So, that sense, it is the
> other way around.

Excitations in what? The aether that Einstein's theory requires? Do you
still believe in that?

>> and even a Norwegian microprofessor should know something about the$
>> behaviour of fields in high vacuum. Has he ever seen a gas discharge at
>> very low pressure?
>
> Why do you assume that “gas discharge” has anything to with the Big
> Bang?
> What is that “gas discharge” of yours anyway?

It is not the same as your continuous hot air discharge.

> PointedEars

Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn

unread,

Nov 14, 2015, 1:34:32 PM11/14/15

to

Henry Wilson wrote:

> On Sat, 14 Nov 2015 00:33:25 +0100, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
>> Henry Wilson wrote:
>>> On Fri, 13 Nov 2015 13:05:49 +0100, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
>>>>>>> There was no big bang. There are lots of little bangs. Light loses
>>>>>>> INTRINSIC energy as it travels and that shows up as redshits.
>>>>>> http://www.artsjournal.com/herman/images/redshit.jpg
>>>>> I'm glad to see that you have not dropped out of my physics
>>>>> class......
>>>> Quite.
>>>> But as you can see, I recognize the true nature of your droppings.
>>> How could anything exist for a billion years without changing?
>> Why do you assume that this would be the case?
>
> I don't know of anything that remains exactly the same for even ten years.

OK then, what thing are you talking about that had to change in this case?

>>> Light quanta are made of fields
>>
>> No, photons, or – as you put it – “light quanta”, are elementary
>> excitations of the electromagnetic field. So, that sense, it is the
>> other way around.
>
> Excitations in what?

The electromagnetic field. (Can’t you read?)

> The aether that Einstein's theory requires?

Nonsense. Einstein’s theory, by which you probably mean (the) special
(theory of) relativity, is the one surviving of many theories about
electrodynamics that does _not_ require an aether. It even says so *on the
first page* of Einstein’s „Zur Elektrodynamik bewegter Körper“ (1905; later
translated to “On the electrodynamics of moving bodies”):

| ON THE ELECTRODYNAMICS OF MOVING BODIES
|
| By A. Einstein
| June 30, 1905
|
| It is known that Maxwell's electrodynamics—as usually understood at the
| present time—when applied to moving bodies, leads to asymmetries which do
| not appear to be inherent in the phenomena. Take, for example, the
| reciprocal electrodynamic action of a magnet and a conductor. The
| observable phenomenon here depends only on the relative motion of the
| conductor and the magnet, whereas the customary view draws a sharp
| distinction between the two cases in which either the one or the other of
| these bodies is in motion. For if the magnet is in motion and the
| conductor at rest, there arises in the neighbourhood of the magnet an
| electric field with a certain definite energy, producing a current at the
| places where parts of the conductor are situated. But if the magnet is
| stationary and the conductor in motion, no electric field arises in the
| neighbourhood of the magnet. In the conductor, however, we find an
| electromotive force, to which in itself there is no corresponding energy,
| but which gives rise—assuming equality of relative motion in the two cases
| discussed—to electric currents of the same path and intensity as those
| produced by the electric forces in the former case.
|
| Examples of this sort, together with the unsuccessful attempts to discover
| any motion of the earth relatively to the “light medium,” suggest that the
| phenomena of electrodynamics as well as of mechanics possess no properties
| corresponding to the idea of absolute rest. They suggest rather that, as
| has already been shown to the first order of small quantities, the same
| laws of electrodynamics and optics will be valid for all frames of
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
| reference for which the equations of mechanics hold good.¹ We will raise
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
| this conjecture (the purport of which will hereafter be called the
| “Principle of Relativity”) to the status of a postulate, and also
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
| introduce another postulate, which is only apparently irreconcilable with
| the former, namely, that light is always propagated in empty space with a
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
| definite velocity c which is independent of the state of motion of the
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
| emitting body. These two postulates suffice for the attainment of a simple
^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
| and consistent theory of the electrodynamics of moving bodies based on
| Maxwell's theory for stationary bodies. The introduction of a
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
| “luminiferous ether” will prove to be superfluous inasmuch as the view
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
| here to be developed will not require an “absolutely stationary space”
| provided with special properties, nor assign a velocity-vector to a point
| of the empty space in which electromagnetic processes take place.

See:

<https://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/>
<http://hermes.ffn.ub.es/luisnavarro/nuevo_maletin/Einstein_1905_relativity.pdf>
<https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/On_the_Electrodynamics_of_Moving_Bodies_(1920_edition)>
<http://press.princeton.edu/einstein/materials/special_theory_of_relativity.pdf>
<http://einsteinpapers.press.princeton.edu/vol2-trans/154>

And in general:

<https://www.google.com/search?q=%22on+the+electrodynamics+of+moving+bodies%22&filter=0>
<https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=%22on+the+electrodynamics+of+moving+bodies%22&filter=0>

>>> and even a Norwegian microprofessor should know something about the$
>>> behaviour of fields in high vacuum. Has he ever seen a gas discharge at
>>> very low pressure?
>>
>> Why do you assume that “gas discharge” has anything to with the Big
>> Bang?
>> What is that “gas discharge” of yours anyway?
>
> It is not the same as your continuous hot air discharge.

You have not the slightest idea what you are talking about.

PointedEars
--
Two neutrinos go through a bar ...

(from: WolframAlpha)

Ty Knotts

unread,

Nov 14, 2015, 1:43:37 PM11/14/15

to

W dniu Sat, 07 Nov 2015 07:33:26 +0600 (PDT) użytkownik Thomas
'PointedEars' Lahn napisał:

>> Excitations in what?
>
> The electromagnetic field. (Can’t you read?)

A field is just an epithet given to a phenomena in Math and Physics. Here
its consistence is ample unknown. He was asking you "Excitation in what?"
One way or another, are you a cretin or an almost not even half of an
engineer?

Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn

unread,

Nov 14, 2015, 1:59:37 PM11/14/15

to

‘nym-shifting troll, the electromagnetic field is an observable, measurable
reality.

In fact, your trolling here depends on it because computers and the Internet
would not work if it were not.

Go read <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnetic_field> and shut up.

*PLONK*

F'up2 sci.physics

al...@interia.pl

unread,

Nov 14, 2015, 2:15:38 PM11/14/15

to

W dniu sobota, 14 listopada 2015 19:34:32 UTC+1 użytkownik Thomas 'PointedEars'

> > The aether that Einstein's theory requires?

Yes.

Nice speech of an amateur...
Einstein was an uneducated idiot in the 1905!

> See:
>
> <https://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/>
> <http://hermes.ffn.ub.es/luisnavarro/nuevo_maletin/Einstein_1905_relativity.pdf>
> <https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/On_the_Electrodynamics_of_Moving_Bodies_(1920_edition)>
> <http://press.princeton.edu/einstein/materials/special_theory_of_relativity.pdf>
> <http://einsteinpapers.press.princeton.edu/vol2-trans/154>
>
> And in general:
>
> <https://www.google.com/search?q=%22on+the+electrodynamics+of+moving+bodies%22&filter=0>
> <https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=%22on+the+electrodynamics+of+moving+bodies%22&filter=0>

Indeed, nice references for the mainstrem pseudoscience...
but I can't see there the geocentric great ideas - you should include this!

Gary Harnagel

unread,

Nov 14, 2015, 2:54:45 PM11/14/15

to

On Saturday, November 14, 2015 at 12:15:38 PM UTC-7, al...@interia.pl wrote:
>
> W dniu sobota, 14 listopada 2015 19:34:32 UTC+1 użytkownik Thomas 'PointedEars'
> >

You prove yourself to be an uneducated troll and an idiot.

al...@interia.pl

unread,

Nov 14, 2015, 3:12:56 PM11/14/15

to

You prove much more, and long ago, babe.
Go to some basics school first, instead improvising -
like the famous imbecilus Einstein and many others such promitives.

Ty Knotts

unread,

Nov 14, 2015, 3:17:58 PM11/14/15

to

W dniu Sat, 07 Nov 2015 07:33:26 +0600 (PDT) użytkownik Thomas
'PointedEars' Lahn napisał:

>>> The electromagnetic field. (Can’t you read?)
>>
>> A field is just an epithet given to a phenomena in Math and Physics.
>> Here its consistence is ample unknown. He was asking you "Excitation in
>> what?"
>> One way or another, are you a cretin or an almost not even half of an
>> engineer?
>
> ‘nym-shifting troll, the electromagnetic field is an observable,
> measurable reality.

That's why is been called a *phenomenon*, pointedHead. But the crystalline
structure and the nature of it remains predominately UNKNOWN.

Gary Harnagel

unread,

Nov 14, 2015, 4:23:15 PM11/14/15

to

On Saturday, November 14, 2015 at 1:12:56 PM UTC-7, al...@interia.pl wrote:
>
> You prove much more, and long ago, babe.
> Go to some basics school first, instead improvising -
> like the famous imbecilus Einstein and many others such promitives.

Yep, definitely a stupid troll.

Henry Wilson

unread,

Nov 15, 2015, 4:20:50 PM11/15/15

to

On Sat, 14 Nov 2015 11:15:35 -0800, alsor wrote:

>
> Nice speech of an amateur...
> Einstein was an uneducated idiot in the 1905!

...and he has attracted uneducated idiots ever since...

Gary Harnagel

unread,

Nov 15, 2015, 8:10:34 PM11/15/15

to

Like you, for example.

Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn

unread,

Nov 17, 2015, 3:51:18 PM11/17/15

to

That is true, for he has attracted you. You who claim something that
Einstein explicitly said and showed would _not_ be necessary to explain the
observations: an (a)ether medium. You have no clue what you are talking
about, no clue what you are rejecting in the first place. Go away.

PointedEars
--
Q: Who's on the case when the electricity goes out?
A: Sherlock Ohms.

(from: WolframAlpha)

al...@interia.pl

unread,

Nov 17, 2015, 3:57:51 PM11/17/15

to

W dniu wtorek, 17 listopada 2015 21:51:18 UTC+1 użytkownik Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn napisał:
> Henry Wilson wrote:
>
> > On Sat, 14 Nov 2015 11:15:35 -0800, alsor wrote:
> >> Nice speech of an amateur...
> >> Einstein was an uneducated idiot in the 1905!
> >
> > ...and he has attracted uneducated idiots ever since...
>
> That is true, for he has attracted you. You who claim something that
> Einstein explicitly said and showed would _not_ be necessary to explain the
> observations: an (a)ether medium. You have no clue what you are talking
> about, no clue what you are rejecting in the first place. Go away.

Do not cite any such great-illuminated imbecilic claims... unless you do not have any brain, babe.

Gary Harnagel

unread,

Nov 17, 2015, 10:37:57 PM11/17/15

to

On Tuesday, November 17, 2015 at 1:57:51 PM UTC-7, al...@interia.pl wrote:
>
> Do not cite any such great-illuminated imbecilic claims... unless you do
> not have any brain, babe.

You certainly don't USE yours.

al...@interia.pl

unread,

Nov 18, 2015, 12:24:58 PM11/18/15

to

I have the glue, which stick yours USE defintitely. :)

Henry Wilson

unread,

Nov 20, 2015, 12:01:43 PM11/20/15

to

On Tue, 17 Nov 2015 21:51:16 +0100, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:

> Henry Wilson wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 14 Nov 2015 11:15:35 -0800, alsor wrote:
>>> Nice speech of an amateur...
>>> Einstein was an uneducated idiot in the 1905!
>>
>> ...and he has attracted uneducated idiots ever since...
>
> That is true, for he has attracted you. You who claim something that
> Einstein explicitly said and showed would _not_ be necessary to explain
> the observations: an (a)ether medium. You have no clue what you are
> talking about, no clue what you are rejecting in the first place. Go
> away.

Einstein's P2 requires an absolute aether to unify the speed of light
from differently moving sources. Words alone will not do it. There must
be a physical reason.
SR is just LET in disguise...and devised by the greatest plagiarist ever
known.

> PointedEars

Gary Harnagel

unread,

Nov 20, 2015, 3:46:56 PM11/20/15

to

On Friday, November 20, 2015 at 10:01:43 AM UTC-7, Henry Wilson wrote:
>
> On Tue, 17 Nov 2015 21:51:16 +0100, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
> >
> > Henry Wilson wrote:
> >
> > > On Sat, 14 Nov 2015 11:15:35 -0800, alsor wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Nice speech of an amateur...
> > > > Einstein was an uneducated idiot in the 1905!
> > >
> > > ...and he has attracted uneducated idiots ever since...
> >
> > That is true, for he has attracted you. You who claim something that
> > Einstein explicitly said and showed would _not_ be necessary to explain
> > the observations: an (a)ether medium. You have no clue what you are
> > talking about, no clue what you are rejecting in the first place. Go
> > away.
>
> Einstein's P2 requires an absolute aether to unify the speed of light
> from differently moving sources.

Complete baloney, of course. If an absolute aether existed, the SoL would
be constant wrt the aether but not constant wrt the moving observer. In
fact, the SoL is constant wrt the moving observer AND the moving source.

> Words alone will not do it. There must be a physical reason.
> SR is just LET in disguise...and devised by the greatest plagiarist ever
> known.

So the deviser must be Lorentz you're referring to, n'est-ce pas? The
greatest deceiver is one Henry Wilson, pseudonym for Ralphie-boy.

Jack Monaco

unread,

Nov 20, 2015, 4:03:48 PM11/20/15

to

Gary Harnagel wrote:

> Complete baloney, of course. If an absolute aether existed, the SoL
> would be constant wrt the aether but not constant wrt the moving
> observer. In fact, the SoL is constant wrt the moving observer AND the
> moving source.

Why not?

Jack Monaco

unread,

Nov 20, 2015, 4:13:49 PM11/20/15

to

Jack Monaco wrote:

> In fact, the SoL is constant wrt the moving observer AND the
>> moving source.

Are you just saying that the speed wrt something else would be the SoL +
his own speed? I suspect they just kicked you out of the Relativity club.
Hahaha

Henry Wilson

unread,

Nov 21, 2015, 7:04:09 PM11/21/15

to

On 21/11/15 07:46, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> On Friday, November 20, 2015 at 10:01:43 AM UTC-7, Henry Wilson wrote:
>
>>
>> Einstein's P2 requires an absolute aether to unify the speed of light
>> from differently moving sources.
>
> Complete baloney, of course. If an absolute aether existed, the SoL
would
> be constant wrt the aether but not constant wrt the moving observer. In
> fact, the SoL is constant wrt the moving observer AND the moving source.

Poor little gary. Doesn't even know what source independence means. I
will try to explain
It means that if two light signals are emitted in the same direction
from differently moving sources, they will retain the same spatial
relationship until their demise. No observers are involved.

>> Words alone will not do it. There must be a physical reason.
>> SR is just LET in disguise...and devised by the greatest plagiarist ever
>> known.
>
> So the deviser must be Lorentz you're referring to, n'est-ce pas?

--

According to LET, all observers will measure light speed to have a value
of c. Einstein stole that idea and simply made it a postulate then
worked backwards through the maths.

John Gogo

unread,

Nov 21, 2015, 7:46:25 PM11/21/15

to

I always look at it from the point of view that the very act of light is a miracle. Light is so rare in the universe that any measure of it is a privilege.

al...@interia.pl

unread,

Nov 21, 2015, 9:15:03 PM11/21/15

to

W dniu niedziela, 22 listopada 2015 01:04:09 UTC+1 użytkownik Henry Wilson

> Einstein stole that idea and simply made it a postulate then
> worked backwards through the maths.

Pseudomath only.

c't = ct' ...
ect.
idiotic improvisation,
but good for the PHd's cretnis like 137.

Gary Harnagel

unread,

Nov 21, 2015, 10:40:53 PM11/21/15

to

On Saturday, November 21, 2015 at 5:04:09 PM UTC-7, Henry Wilson wrote:
>
> On 21/11/15 07:46, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> >
> > > On Friday, November 20, 2015 at 10:01:43 AM UTC-7, Henry Wilson wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > Einstein's P2 requires an absolute aether to unify the speed of light
> > > from differently moving sources.
> >
> > Complete baloney, of course. If an absolute aether existed, the SoL
> > would
> > be constant wrt the aether but not constant wrt the moving observer. In
> > fact, the SoL is constant wrt the moving observer AND the moving source.
>
> Poor little gary. Doesn't even know what source independence means.

YOU were the fool talking about source independence, dishonest one. I
was pointing out that P2 also requires observer independence, which is
definitely NOT a property of an absolute aether, you sophist liar.

> [Idiotic moronic bullshit deleted.]

>
> > > Words alone will not do it. There must be a physical reason.
> > > SR is just LET in disguise...and devised by the greatest plagiarist ever
> > > known.
> >
> > So the deviser must be Lorentz you're referring to, n'est-ce pas?
>
> --
>
> According to LET, all observers will measure light speed to have a value
> of c. Einstein stole that idea and simply made it a postulate then
> worked backwards through the maths.

You are a simpleton AND a liar. LET requires an aether which physically
squeezes objects in the direction of motion through said medium, SR does
not. Only an abysmal fool would try to conflate the two.

BTW, I dumped your pathetic email in the trash where it belongs. And YOU
belong in alsor's delusional institution.

Gatuzo

unread,

Nov 22, 2015, 12:25:36 AM11/22/15

to

Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn

unread,

Nov 22, 2015, 6:48:39 AM11/22/15

to

Henry Wilson wrote:

> Einstein's P2 requires an absolute aether to unify the speed of light
> from differently moving sources.

What do you think is “Einstein's P2”?

PointedEars
--
Q: What did the female magnet say to the male magnet?
A: From the back, I found you repulsive, but from the front
I find myself very attracted to you.
(from: WolframAlpha)

Henry Wilson

unread,

Nov 23, 2015, 2:07:01 PM11/23/15

to

On Sun, 22 Nov 2015 11:48:37 +0000, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:

> Henry Wilson wrote:
>
>> Einstein's P2 requires an absolute aether to unify the speed of light
>> from differently moving sources.
>
> What do you think is “Einstein's P2”?

What he wrote in 1905, idiot!

It stated exactly what Lorentz had achieved after including Fitzgerald's
contractions in classical aether theory. The aether unified light speeds
form all sources and the contractions caused all observers to measure
light speed to have the value c. Einstein did nothing new. He just
plagiarized Lorentz's idea and attracted a lot of suckers with some
impressive Scifi.

> PointedEars

Henry Wilson

unread,

Nov 23, 2015, 2:10:28 PM11/23/15

to

On Sat, 21 Nov 2015 16:46:22 -0800, John Gogo wrote:

> On Saturday, November 14, 2015 at 6:31:58 AM UTC-6, Maciej Woźniak
>
>>

>> According to your Shit, they're ancient only from their own point of
>> view. It doesn't mean they're ancient for us, does it, poor idiot?
>
> I always look at it from the point of view that the very act of light is
> a miracle. Light is so rare in the universe that any measure of it is a
> privilege.

This is true, most of the universe contains very little light. In remote
space, everything is black...or nearly.

Gary Harnagel

unread,

Nov 23, 2015, 2:25:29 PM11/23/15

to

completely wrong, of course. SR showed that the LT could be derived
WITHOUT assuming Lorentz's indetectable aether. So you still hold the
title of Sophist-Monger-in-Chief.

Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn

unread,

Nov 23, 2015, 5:17:26 PM11/23/15

to

Henry Wilson wrote:

> On Sun, 22 Nov 2015 11:48:37 +0000, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
>> Henry Wilson wrote:
>>> Einstein's P2 requires an absolute aether to unify the speed of light
>>> from differently moving sources.
>> What do you think is “Einstein's P2”?
>
> What he wrote in 1905, idiot!

I have cited and quoted what he wrote. You cannot have read it, otherwise
you would not claim such nonsense. So you are the idiot.

> It stated exactly what Lorentz had achieved after including Fitzgerald's
> contractions in classical aether theory.

No. Again, Einstein wrote in 1905 in “On the electrodynamics of moving
bodies”, page 1, paragraph 2:

‘[…] The introduction of a “luminiferous ether” will prove to be superfluous
inasmuch as the view here to be developed will not require an “absolutely

stationary space” provided with special properties, nor assign a velocity-
vector to a point of the empty space in which electromagnetic processes take

place.’

Which part of that do you not understand?

PointedEars
--
Q: Why is electricity so dangerous?
A: It doesn't conduct itself.

(from: WolframAlpha)

Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn

unread,

Nov 23, 2015, 5:39:23 PM11/23/15

to

Henry Wilson wrote:

> On Sat, 21 Nov 2015 16:46:22 -0800, John Gogo wrote:

>> […] Light is so rare in the universe that any measure of it is a

>> privilege.
>
> This is true, most of the universe contains very little light. In remote
> space, everything is black...or nearly.

Another common misconception. Actually, light is everywhere in the
universe, and photons range among the most frequent particles, but it is not
everywhere in wavelengths that human eyes can see. Where the human eye sees
only blackness, there are usually only infrared light, microwaves, or radio
waves.

Most well-known, the Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB) radiation (the
“afterglow” of the Big Bang) permeates the universe; its maxima are between
those of infrared light and radio waves. And it is in fact relativistic
redshift that makes very distant objects (“remote space”) detectable only
using devices of specialized branches of astronomy.

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infrared#Astronomy>
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radio_astronomy>

PointedEars
--
“Science is empirical: knowing the answer means nothing;
testing your knowledge means everything.”
—Dr. Lawrence M. Krauss, theoretical physicist,
in “A Universe from Nothing” (2009)

al...@interia.pl

unread,

Nov 23, 2015, 8:27:09 PM11/23/15

to

W dniu poniedziałek, 23 listopada 2015 20:25:29 UTC+1 użytkownik Gary Harnagel

> SR showed that the LT could be derived
> WITHOUT assuming Lorentz's indetectable aether.

By idiots only.

assumption: c = const then...
abd there some long idiotic improvisations, and finally:
the great conclusion: c = const.

That is a theory in the mainstream sense.

John Gogo

unread,

Nov 23, 2015, 8:28:26 PM11/23/15

to

If you believe this to be true then you must at once realize how powerful the base magnitude of Earth's visual ability is.

John Gogo

unread,

Nov 23, 2015, 9:08:02 PM11/23/15

to

Our eyeballs are capable of ruling the universe.

The Starmaker

unread,

Nov 24, 2015, 12:04:36 AM11/24/15

to

Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
>
> Henry Wilson wrote:
>
> > On Sat, 21 Nov 2015 16:46:22 -0800, John Gogo wrote:
> >> […] Light is so rare in the universe that any measure of it is a
> >> privilege.
> >
> > This is true, most of the universe contains very little light. In remote
> > space, everything is black...or nearly.
>
> Another common misconception. Actually, light is everywhere in the
> universe, and photons range among the most frequent particles, but it is not
> everywhere in wavelengths that human eyes can see. Where the human eye sees
> only blackness, there are usually only infrared light, microwaves, or radio
> waves.
>
> Most well-known, the Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB) radiation (the
> “afterglow” of the Big Bang) permeates the universe; its maxima are between
> those of infrared light and radio waves. And it is in fact relativistic
> redshift that makes very distant objects (“remote space”) detectable only
> using devices of specialized branches of astronomy.

There seems to be some mistake about what red shift is..

a red shift is not due to expansion or movement..

the red shift is due to a decaying star due to it's age..the red is the
first to go.

so the further you see the more red shifts you'll find...but not because
of expansion..
it's just a fading star.

The Starmaker