info
Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Why does mass/energy cause spacetime to curve?
286 views
Skip to first unread message
Jon Price
Oct 30, 2015, 8:50:16 PM10/30/15
to
Do they know or have ideas about the reason mass/energy causes space/time to curve?
Alan Folmsbee
Oct 30, 2015, 9:03:41 PM10/30/15
to
On Friday, October 30, 2015 at 2:50:16 PM UTC-10, Jon Price wrote:
> Do they know or have ideas about the reason mass/energy causes space/time to curve?
I have a theory. The BIPM does not know what causes gravity, or what mass is. But I know. Matter consumes space and grows time. Not mass. Matter's volume is taken out every 5ns
> Do they know or have ideas about the reason mass/energy causes space/time to curve?
rotchm
Oct 30, 2015, 9:29:14 PM10/30/15
to
On Friday, October 30, 2015 at 8:50:16 PM UTC-4, Jon Price wrote:
> Do they know or have ideas about the reason mass/energy causes space/time to curve?
No, and such questions are irrelevant to physics and left to philosophers or metaphysicist. Physics is concerned with finding *models* described by equations, so as to make predictions (and experimental verification). The "causes" are irrelevant, because it will not change the equations. Also, "space/time" does not curve; Thats just a popular expression, a verbal "embellishment"; equations do not "curve"; y = x^2 does not "curve". What is really meant, is that it (the relevant equations) has a (math) curvature; put simply (very simply), the (second) derivative is not zero.
> Do they know or have ideas about the reason mass/energy causes space/time to curve?
kefischer
Oct 30, 2015, 9:51:30 PM10/30/15
to
Tom Roberts
Oct 30, 2015, 11:11:32 PM10/30/15
to
On 10/30/15 10/30/15 7:50 PM, Jon Price wrote:
> Do they know or have ideas about the reason mass/energy causes space/time to curve?
Modern science is a systematic effort to formulate and test MODELS of the world
> Do they know or have ideas about the reason mass/energy causes space/time to curve?
we inhabit. Such "why" questions are outside the realm of science.
Basically the answers to such questions are not testable. They
generally display the prejudices of the person answering,
rather than any objective facts about the world we inhabit.
Note the curvature of spacetime is rather different from the everyday notion of
curvature -- it is an abstract mathematical property of the collection of all
spatio-temporal distances between points in spacetime.
Tom Roberts
JanPB
Oct 30, 2015, 11:20:48 PM10/30/15
to
On Friday, October 30, 2015 at 5:50:16 PM UTC-7, Jon Price wrote:
> Do they know or have ideas about the reason mass/energy causes space/time to curve?
Actually GR does not quite say that. What it says is that energy-momentum and the curvature are
> Do they know or have ideas about the reason mass/energy causes space/time to curve?
equal (at each event). It says nothing about what _causes_ what.
So it may well be that there is some other substance which in some way "implies" both
what we quantify as "energy-momentum flux" and "traceless Ricci curvature" as equal,
but one not "causing" the other.
--
Jan
Jon Price
Nov 1, 2015, 10:53:13 PM11/1/15
to
Science not about reasons and cause? Hmmm.
mlwo...@wp.pl
Nov 2, 2015, 7:19:30 AM11/2/15
to
W dniu sobota, 31 października 2015 04:11:32 UTC+1 użytkownik tjrob137 napisał:
> On 10/30/15 10/30/15 7:50 PM, Jon Price wrote:
> > Do they know or have ideas about the reason mass/energy causes space/time to curve?
>
> Modern science is a systematic effort to formulate and test MODELS of the world
> we inhabit. Such "why" questions are outside the realm of science.
Imagination of a moron taking his wishful thinking for reality.
> On 10/30/15 10/30/15 7:50 PM, Jon Price wrote:
> > Do they know or have ideas about the reason mass/energy causes space/time to curve?
>
> Modern science is a systematic effort to formulate and test MODELS of the world
> we inhabit. Such "why" questions are outside the realm of science.
mlwo...@wp.pl
Nov 2, 2015, 7:21:41 AM11/2/15
to
W dniu poniedziałek, 2 listopada 2015 04:53:13 UTC+1 użytkownik Jon Price napisał:
> Science not about reasons and cause? Hmmm.
It is. But it is not a physical construct. So Tom
> Science not about reasons and cause? Hmmm.
knows really little about it.
fuller...@hotmail.com
Nov 2, 2015, 11:49:07 AM11/2/15
to
Gravity is increasing entropy.
Gravity is energy being shifted out of our spatial dimension.
Matter is "vacuum energy " or an "energy debt"
E= (-m)*c^2
Gravity is energy being shifted out of our spatial dimension.
Matter is "vacuum energy " or an "energy debt"
E= (-m)*c^2
Koobee Wublee
Nov 2, 2015, 12:32:45 PM11/2/15
to
On Friday, October 30, 2015 at 8:20:48 PM UTC-7, JanPB wrote:
> On Friday, October 30, 2015 at 5:50:16 PM UTC-7, Jon Price wrote:
> > Do they know or have ideas about the reason mass/energy causes
> > space/time to curve?
This is a very good question. It is same as why mass causes gravity in the Newtonian world. That means GR is not even superior to Newtonian gravity. <shrug>
> On Friday, October 30, 2015 at 5:50:16 PM UTC-7, Jon Price wrote:
> > Do they know or have ideas about the reason mass/energy causes
> > space/time to curve?
> Actually GR does not quite say that. What it says is that
> energy-momentum and the curvature are equal (at each event).
> So it may well be that there is some other substance which in some
> way "implies" both what we quantify as "energy-momentum flux" and
> "traceless Ricci curvature" as equal, but one not "causing" the other.
JanPB
Nov 2, 2015, 5:06:34 PM11/2/15
to
On Monday, November 2, 2015 at 9:32:45 AM UTC-8, Koobee Wublee wrote:
> On Friday, October 30, 2015 at 8:20:48 PM UTC-7, JanPB wrote:
> > On Friday, October 30, 2015 at 5:50:16 PM UTC-7, Jon Price wrote:
>
> > > Do they know or have ideas about the reason mass/energy causes
> > > space/time to curve?
>
> This is a very good question. It is same as why mass causes gravity in the Newtonian world. That means GR is not even superior to Newtonian gravity. <shrug>
>
> > Actually GR does not quite say that. What it says is that
> > energy-momentum and the curvature are equal (at each event).
>
> This is a bloody myth.
It's not any "myth", it's what the equation _is_.
> On Friday, October 30, 2015 at 8:20:48 PM UTC-7, JanPB wrote:
> > On Friday, October 30, 2015 at 5:50:16 PM UTC-7, Jon Price wrote:
>
> > > Do they know or have ideas about the reason mass/energy causes
> > > space/time to curve?
>
> This is a very good question. It is same as why mass causes gravity in the Newtonian world. That means GR is not even superior to Newtonian gravity. <shrug>
>
> > Actually GR does not quite say that. What it says is that
> > energy-momentum and the curvature are equal (at each event).
>
> This is a bloody myth.
> The field equations of null Ricci tensor has zero energy momentum tensor but yields solutions such as the Schwarzschild metri exhibiting curvatures in spacetime. <shrug>
--
Jan
Jeffrey Bannister
Nov 2, 2015, 5:22:02 PM11/2/15
to
JanPB wrote:
>> The field equations of null Ricci tensor has zero energy momentum
>> tensor but yields solutions such as the Schwarzschild metri exhibiting
>> curvatures in spacetime. <shrug>
>
> True but the question was why mass/energy causes spacetime to curve.
Very clever, making a postulate to a fact jut by asking a question. No, my
>> The field equations of null Ricci tensor has zero energy momentum
>> tensor but yields solutions such as the Schwarzschild metri exhibiting
>> curvatures in spacetime. <shrug>
>
> True but the question was why mass/energy causes spacetime to curve.
dear friend. There are no evidences that your ghostly "spacetime" curves.
This is it, you might not like it, sorry to break your toy.
Nota bene, my little theory of Divergent Matter no need of curved
spacetime. No need for spacetime all together.
JanPB
Nov 2, 2015, 6:25:44 PM11/2/15
to
On Monday, November 2, 2015 at 2:22:02 PM UTC-8, Jeffrey Bannister wrote:
> JanPB wrote:
>
> >> The field equations of null Ricci tensor has zero energy momentum
> >> tensor but yields solutions such as the Schwarzschild metri exhibiting
> >> curvatures in spacetime. <shrug>
> >
> > True but the question was why mass/energy causes spacetime to curve.
>
> Very clever, making a postulate to a fact jut by asking a question. No, my
> dear friend. There are no evidences that your ghostly "spacetime" curves.
> This is it, you might not like it, sorry to break your toy.
Do you read the posts you respond to at all?
> JanPB wrote:
>
> >> The field equations of null Ricci tensor has zero energy momentum
> >> tensor but yields solutions such as the Schwarzschild metri exhibiting
> >> curvatures in spacetime. <shrug>
> >
> > True but the question was why mass/energy causes spacetime to curve.
>
> Very clever, making a postulate to a fact jut by asking a question. No, my
> dear friend. There are no evidences that your ghostly "spacetime" curves.
> This is it, you might not like it, sorry to break your toy.
--
Jan
Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn
Nov 2, 2015, 6:55:02 PM11/2/15
to
Jeffrey Bannister wrote:
> JanPB wrote:
>>> The field equations of null Ricci tensor has zero energy momentum
>>> tensor but yields solutions such as the Schwarzschild metri exhibiting
>>> curvatures in spacetime. <shrug>
>> True but the question was why mass/energy causes spacetime to curve.
>
> Very clever, making a postulate to a fact jut by asking a question. No, my
> dear friend. There are no evidences that your ghostly "spacetime" curves.
There is plenty of evidence, and it has been presented here numerous times
> JanPB wrote:
>>> The field equations of null Ricci tensor has zero energy momentum
>>> tensor but yields solutions such as the Schwarzschild metri exhibiting
>>> curvatures in spacetime. <shrug>
>> True but the question was why mass/energy causes spacetime to curve.
>
> Very clever, making a postulate to a fact jut by asking a question. No, my
> dear friend. There are no evidences that your ghostly "spacetime" curves.
before, but the ’nym-shifting troll *chooses* to ignore it.
*PLONK*
PointedEars
--
Q: Where are offenders sentenced for light crimes?
A: To a prism.
(from: WolframAlpha)
Koobee Wublee
Nov 3, 2015, 12:38:16 AM11/3/15
to
On Monday, November 2, 2015 at 2:06:34 PM UTC-8, JanPB wrote:
> On Monday, November 2, 2015 at 9:32:45 AM UTC-8, Koobee Wublee wrote:
> > On Friday, October 30, 2015 at 8:20:48 PM UTC-7, JanPB wrote:
> > > GR says is that energy-momentum and the curvature are equal (at
> On Monday, November 2, 2015 at 9:32:45 AM UTC-8, Koobee Wublee wrote:
> > On Friday, October 30, 2015 at 8:20:48 PM UTC-7, JanPB wrote:
> > > each event).
> >
> > This is a bloody myth.
>
> It's not any "myth", it's what the equation _is_.
What equation? When cornered, Jan tends to behave irrationally. <shrug>
> >
> > This is a bloody myth.
>
> It's not any "myth", it's what the equation _is_.
> > The field equations of null Ricci tensor has zero energy momentum
> > exhibiting curvatures in spacetime. <shrug>
>
> True but the question was why mass/energy causes spacetime to curve.
And that has nothing to do with the energy momentum tensor. It is all a myth. <shrug>
>
> True but the question was why mass/energy causes spacetime to curve.
JanPB
Nov 3, 2015, 2:37:41 AM11/3/15
to
On Monday, November 2, 2015 at 9:38:16 PM UTC-8, Koobee Wublee wrote:
> On Monday, November 2, 2015 at 2:06:34 PM UTC-8, JanPB wrote:
> > On Monday, November 2, 2015 at 9:32:45 AM UTC-8, Koobee Wublee wrote:
> > > On Friday, October 30, 2015 at 8:20:48 PM UTC-7, JanPB wrote:
>
> > > > GR says is that energy-momentum and the curvature are equal (at
> > > > each event).
> > >
> > > This is a bloody myth.
> >
> > It's not any "myth", it's what the equation _is_.
>
> What equation? When cornered, Jan tends to behave irrationally. <shrug>
G^ab = 8 pi T^ab
> On Monday, November 2, 2015 at 2:06:34 PM UTC-8, JanPB wrote:
> > On Monday, November 2, 2015 at 9:32:45 AM UTC-8, Koobee Wublee wrote:
> > > On Friday, October 30, 2015 at 8:20:48 PM UTC-7, JanPB wrote:
>
> > > > GR says is that energy-momentum and the curvature are equal (at
> > > > each event).
> > >
> > > This is a bloody myth.
> >
> > It's not any "myth", it's what the equation _is_.
>
> What equation? When cornered, Jan tends to behave irrationally. <shrug>
It say the LHS equals the RHS. It does not say that the RHS is the "cause" of the LHS.
It may be the case in some sense. But right now we don't know.
--
Jan
Koobee Wublee
Nov 4, 2015, 1:55:59 AM11/4/15
to
On Monday, November 2, 2015 at 11:37:41 PM UTC-8, JanPB wrote:
> G^ab = 0
Or
> R^ab = 0
The bottom line is that the energy momentum tensor vanishes, but that did not prevent Hilbert from deriving the Schwarzschild metric. <shruf>
> It say the LHS equals the RHS.
Of course. That is the basic mathematics. Why is Jan the relativistic moron making a big deal out of this farce? <shrug>
> It does not say that the RHS is the "cause" of the LHS.
It looks like Jan the relativistic moron has not understood the Newtonian stuff very well. Jan the relativistic moron needs to concentrate on the Poisson equation. <shrug>
> It may be the case in some sense. But right now we don't know.
As Koobee Wublee has pointed out, Jan the relativistic moron is indeed very ignorant. <shrug>
> On Monday, November 2, 2015 at 9:38:16 PM, Koobee Wublee wrote:
> And that has nothing to do with the energy momentum tensor. It
> is all a myth. <shrug>
> And that has nothing to do with the energy momentum tensor. It
>
> G^ab = 8 pi T^ab
For all practical applications, your T^ab is always zero, and the following is the consequence. <shrug>
> G^ab = 8 pi T^ab
> G^ab = 0
Or
> R^ab = 0
The bottom line is that the energy momentum tensor vanishes, but that did not prevent Hilbert from deriving the Schwarzschild metric. <shruf>
> It say the LHS equals the RHS.
> It does not say that the RHS is the "cause" of the LHS.
> It may be the case in some sense. But right now we don't know.
JanPB
Nov 4, 2015, 3:48:56 PM11/4/15
to
On Tuesday, November 3, 2015 at 10:55:59 PM UTC-8, Koobee Wublee wrote:
> On Monday, November 2, 2015 at 11:37:41 PM UTC-8, JanPB wrote:
> > On Monday, November 2, 2015 at 9:38:16 PM, Koobee Wublee wrote:
>
> > And that has nothing to do with the energy momentum tensor. It
> > is all a myth. <shrug>
> >
> > G^ab = 8 pi T^ab
>
> For all practical applications, your T^ab is always zero, and the following is the consequence. <shrug>
Again, you are addressing something off-topic. The question was why
> On Monday, November 2, 2015 at 11:37:41 PM UTC-8, JanPB wrote:
> > On Monday, November 2, 2015 at 9:38:16 PM, Koobee Wublee wrote:
>
> > And that has nothing to do with the energy momentum tensor. It
> > is all a myth. <shrug>
> >
> > G^ab = 8 pi T^ab
>
> For all practical applications, your T^ab is always zero, and the following is the consequence. <shrug>
_mass/energy_ causes spacetime to curve.
The question was NOT why _zero_ causes spacetime to curve.
--
Jan
RichD
Nov 4, 2015, 5:10:35 PM11/4/15
to
On October 30, JanPB wrote:
> So it may well be that there is some other substance which
> in some way "implies" both what we quantify as "energy-momentum flux"
> and "traceless Ricci curvature" as equal,
> but one not "causing" the other.
Has anyone attempted to gin up such a theory? Perhaps
> So it may well be that there is some other substance which
> in some way "implies" both what we quantify as "energy-momentum flux"
> and "traceless Ricci curvature" as equal,
> but one not "causing" the other.
the explanation falls out of a quantum gravity theory?
--
Rich
RichD
Nov 4, 2015, 5:16:19 PM11/4/15
to
On November 1, Jon Price wrote:
> Science not about reasons and cause? Hmmm.
Chess is about chackmating the enemy king. All the
> Science not about reasons and cause? Hmmm.
other stuff - game, pastime, brain exercise, competition -
is invented by the players.
--
Rich
JanPB
Nov 4, 2015, 6:38:14 PM11/4/15
to
On Wednesday, November 4, 2015 at 2:10:35 PM UTC-8, RichD wrote:
> On October 30, JanPB wrote:
> > So it may well be that there is some other substance which
> > in some way "implies" both what we quantify as "energy-momentum flux"
> > and "traceless Ricci curvature" as equal,
> > but one not "causing" the other.
>
> Has anyone attempted to gin up such a theory?
People have been trying since Schroedinger.
> On October 30, JanPB wrote:
> > So it may well be that there is some other substance which
> > in some way "implies" both what we quantify as "energy-momentum flux"
> > and "traceless Ricci curvature" as equal,
> > but one not "causing" the other.
>
> Has anyone attempted to gin up such a theory?
> Perhaps
> the explanation falls out of a quantum gravity theory?
going to be something else.
--
Jan
Gary Harnagel
Nov 4, 2015, 10:27:18 PM11/4/15
to
On Wednesday, November 4, 2015 at 4:38:14 PM UTC-7, JanPB wrote:
>
> On Wednesday, November 4, 2015 at 2:10:35 PM UTC-8, RichD wrote:
> > ....
>
> On Wednesday, November 4, 2015 at 2:10:35 PM UTC-8, RichD wrote:
> > Perhaps the explanation falls out of a quantum gravity theory?
>
> "Quantum gravity" has been a spectacular failure so far so it's probably
> going to be something else.
>
> --
> Jan
Hi Jan,
>
> "Quantum gravity" has been a spectacular failure so far so it's probably
> going to be something else.
>
> --
> Jan
I thought that the EFE could be derived from QM. At least Seth Lloyd
seems to think so:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t9zcBKoFrME
He fudges a bit in cutting things off at the Planck level, but it seems
that M-theory gives a good rationale for doing that. What do you think?
Gary
JanPB
Nov 4, 2015, 10:54:43 PM11/4/15
to
My feeling in the bones is that all attempts at "quantizing" the stuff we know already
are doomed to failure. It's metaphorically speaking aether all over again.
We are missing something entirely new, I think. OK, so the realization by Schroedinger,
de Broglie, and others that classical mechanics was a limiting case of a wave-like mechanics
(very much analogous to the way geometric optics is a limiting case of the wave theory of light)
can be pushed only so far.
I'll check the video, looks interesting anyway :-)
--
Jan
Koobee Wublee
Nov 5, 2015, 3:17:56 AM11/5/15
to
On Wednesday, November 4, 2015 at 12:48:56 PM UTC-8, JanPB wrote:
> The question was why _mass/energy_ causes spacetime to curve.
Yes, that question remains a mystery, but Einstein dingleberries have attempted to blame the energy momentum tensor. That can easily be definitively shown wrong through sound mathematics involved. <shrug>
> The question was NOT why _zero_ causes spacetime to curve.
Jan the relativistic moron needs to stop giving excuses on why Jan the relativistic moron is so ignorant of the stuff that Jan the relativistic moron wishes to engage in debates on. <shrug>
> On Tuesday, November 3, 2015 at 10:55:59 PM, Koobee Wublee wrote:
> > On Monday, November 2, 2015 at 11:37:41 PM UTC-8, JanPB wrote:
> > > G^ab = 8 pi T^ab
>
> > For all practical applications, your T^ab is always zero, and the
> > following is the consequence. <shrug>
>
> > On Monday, November 2, 2015 at 11:37:41 PM UTC-8, JanPB wrote:
> > > G^ab = 8 pi T^ab
>
> > For all practical applications, your T^ab is always zero, and the
> > following is the consequence. <shrug>
>
> > G^ab = 0
>
> Or
>
> > R^ab = 0
>
>
> Or
>
> > R^ab = 0
>
> Again, you are addressing something off-topic.
Hmmm... Jan the relativistic moron was the one who had earlier attempted to pin the curvature of spacetime on the energy momentum tensor. Jan the relativistic moron even had attempted to bring the field equations to justify its mystic point of view. Well, Koobee Wublee is the one who has pointed out that Jan the relativistic moron has not understood Newtonian physics thoroughly especially on the Poisson equation. The only plausible explanation to the action of Jan the relativistic moron is that Jan the relativistic moron is attempting to execute a graceful retreat from earlier blunders. <shrug>
> The question was why _mass/energy_ causes spacetime to curve.
> The question was NOT why _zero_ causes spacetime to curve.
Maciej Woźniak
Nov 5, 2015, 4:03:12 AM11/5/15
to
Użytkownik "RichD" napisał w wiadomości grup
dyskusyjnych:84aaf035-3e9b-4db3...@googlegroups.com...
Still, chackmating the king is also invented by
players.
al...@interia.pl
Nov 6, 2015, 1:00:47 PM11/6/15
to
W dniu sobota, 31 października 2015 01:50:16 UTC+1 użytkownik Jon Price napisał:
> Do they know or have ideas about the reason mass/energy causes space/time to curve?
No, because any such idea would be nonsensical.. explicitly - in a first place.
> Do they know or have ideas about the reason mass/energy causes space/time to curve?
The space concept is a pure abstraction only.
So, it's a supplementary entity only, thus strongly a model-dependent.
Dono,
Nov 19, 2015, 11:57:27 AM11/19/15
to
On Friday, October 30, 2015 at 6:29:14 PM UTC-7, rotchm wrote:
> Also, "space/time" does not curve; Thats just a popular expression, a verbal "embellishment"; equations do not "curve"; y = x^2 does not "curve". What is really meant, is that it (the relevant equations) has a (math) curvature; put simply (very simply), the (second) derivative is not zero.
Google "gravitational lensing", imbecile.
> Also, "space/time" does not curve; Thats just a popular expression, a verbal "embellishment"; equations do not "curve"; y = x^2 does not "curve". What is really meant, is that it (the relevant equations) has a (math) curvature; put simply (very simply), the (second) derivative is not zero.
Alan Folmsbee
Nov 19, 2015, 12:37:32 PM11/19/15
to
Mass is not causing gravity, matter's volume causes gravity. Mass is area, so it cannot cause gravity. Mass is affected by gravity, like a parachute's area is affected by air. But parachutes do not cause air.
Jack Monaco
Nov 19, 2015, 12:54:30 PM11/19/15
to
Alan Folmsbee wrote:
> Mass is not causing gravity, matter's volume causes gravity.
Or just mass
> Mass is not causing gravity, matter's volume causes gravity.
> Mass is area, so it cannot cause gravity.
> Mass is affected by gravity, like a
> parachute's area is affected by air. But parachutes do not cause air.
Tom Roberts
Nov 19, 2015, 8:39:57 PM11/19/15
to
On 11/19/15 11/19/15 11:37 AM, Alan Folmsbee wrote:
> Mass is not causing gravity, matter's volume causes gravity.
Nope. Not even close. The orbits of moons around planets depend on the MASSES of
> Mass is not causing gravity, matter's volume causes gravity.
the planets, not their volumes. The ratio mass/volume for planets varies by ~
8:1, so we know for sure it is mass that matters, not volume.
Tom Roberts
Y.y.Porat
Nov 20, 2015, 2:51:11 AM11/20/15
to
On Saturday, October 31, 2015 at 2:50:16 AM UTC+2, Jon Price wrote:
> Do they know or have ideas about the reason mass/energy causes space/time to curve?
=================================
> Do they know or have ideas about the reason mass/energy causes space/time to curve?
SEE THE Y CIRCLON'' MECHANISM !!
TIA
Y.Porat
===================================
Y
Nov 20, 2015, 3:03:05 AM11/20/15
to
On Saturday, October 31, 2015 at 10:50:16 AM UTC+10, Jon Price wrote:
> Do they know or have ideas about the reason mass/energy causes space/time to curve?
I do...
> Do they know or have ideas about the reason mass/energy causes space/time to curve?
Firstly it should be understood as Roberts pointed out earlier, that spacetime is mathematical structure and it is used to make predictions about what happens in nature. It is not necessary that the thing describing the phenomena is the thing itself. A bit like a picture.
However, as the non-physicist guru Alan Watts once pointed out, people are liable to confuse the world of symbols with the world of nature, and indeed there are dangers associated with doing this.
"We've invented this wonderful system, of language and calculation, and that it is at once too simple to deal with the complexity of the world, and also, we are liable to confuse that system of symbols with the world itself."
My theory of how spacetime becomes a useful model of nature is that planets absorb energy from all the sources of energy in the universe (as described by Mach's principle). The diagram below explains it better.
http://postimg.org/image/5jn5jvw1v/
-y
mlwo...@wp.pl
Nov 20, 2015, 3:32:20 AM11/20/15
to
W dniu piątek, 20 listopada 2015 09:03:05 UTC+1 użytkownik Y napisał:
>
> My theory of how spacetime becomes a useful model of nature
Spacetime doesn't become a useful model of nature.
>
> My theory of how spacetime becomes a useful model of nature
It's just an illusion of laymans knowing nothing
about either models of nature, or usability.
We have quite reliable procedures to measure time
and distance, but we have no procedures to measure
that moronic interval.
JanPB
Nov 20, 2015, 3:51:11 AM11/20/15
to
On Friday, November 20, 2015 at 12:32:20 AM UTC-8, mlwo...@wp.pl wrote:
> W dniu piątek, 20 listopada 2015 09:03:05 UTC+1 użytkownik Y napisał:
> >
> > My theory of how spacetime becomes a useful model of nature
>
> Spacetime doesn't become a useful model of nature.
> It's just an illusion of laymans knowing nothing
> about either models of nature, or usability.
This is irrelevant to physics and its method of inquiry.
> W dniu piątek, 20 listopada 2015 09:03:05 UTC+1 użytkownik Y napisał:
> >
> > My theory of how spacetime becomes a useful model of nature
>
> Spacetime doesn't become a useful model of nature.
> It's just an illusion of laymans knowing nothing
> about either models of nature, or usability.
> We have quite reliable procedures to measure time
> and distance, but we have no procedures to measure
> that moronic interval.
I have no problem with philosophy BTW, it's just different.
--
Jan
mlwo...@wp.pl
Nov 20, 2015, 4:28:58 AM11/20/15
to
W dniu piątek, 20 listopada 2015 09:51:11 UTC+1 użytkownik JanPB napisał:
> On Friday, November 20, 2015 at 12:32:20 AM UTC-8, mlwo...@wp.pl wrote:
> > W dniu piątek, 20 listopada 2015 09:03:05 UTC+1 użytkownik Y napisał:
> > >
> > > My theory of how spacetime becomes a useful model of nature
> >
> > Spacetime doesn't become a useful model of nature.
> > It's just an illusion of laymans knowing nothing
> > about either models of nature, or usability.
>
> This is irrelevant to physics and its method of inquiry.
I'm sure usability is irrelevant to physics and its
> On Friday, November 20, 2015 at 12:32:20 AM UTC-8, mlwo...@wp.pl wrote:
> > W dniu piątek, 20 listopada 2015 09:03:05 UTC+1 użytkownik Y napisał:
> > >
> > > My theory of how spacetime becomes a useful model of nature
> >
> > Spacetime doesn't become a useful model of nature.
> > It's just an illusion of laymans knowing nothing
> > about either models of nature, or usability.
>
> This is irrelevant to physics and its method of inquiry.
method of inquiry. I'm glad we agree on that.
> > We have quite reliable procedures to measure time
> > and distance, but we have no procedures to measure
> > that moronic interval.
>
> Same thing, those are philosophical objections.
>
> I have no problem with philosophy BTW, it's just different.
busy with explaining The Essence Of The Universe to
care for measurements anymore; philosophy, however,
always very busy with explaining The Essence Of The
Universe, was never interested in them.
They're crucial, however, in the process of building
computable models of reality, i.e. in my job.
Tom Roberts
Nov 20, 2015, 10:10:29 AM11/20/15
to
On 11/20/15 11/20/15 2:32 AM, mlwo...@wp.pl wrote:
> Spacetime doesn't become a useful model of nature.
> It's just an illusion of laymans knowing nothing
> about either models of nature, or usability.
Clearly you haven't a clue about what "model" means in the context of physics.
> Spacetime doesn't become a useful model of nature.
> It's just an illusion of laymans knowing nothing
> about either models of nature, or usability.
While spacetime alone does not comprise a model, SR and GR are based upon a
spacetime manifold, and _ARE_ very useful models of various aspects of the world
we inhabit.
> We have quite reliable procedures to measure time
> and distance, but we have no procedures to measure
> that moronic interval.
We have no procedures to measure velocity, either (in the same sense you mean
above: DIRECTLY). We can measure distance traveled and travel time, and can
COMPUTE velocity; we can measure Doppler shift and COMPUTE velocity, etc. But we
cannot measure velocity directly. Ditto for speed.
So, too, we can measure distance and time interval and compute the spacetime
interval.
There _IS_ no problem here. There is no requirement that quantities that appear
in our theories be directly measurable, all that is required is that they be
computable from measurable quantities, because the theories themselves are
mathematical and always involve computations.
Tom Roberts
Y
Nov 20, 2015, 10:28:28 AM11/20/15
to
On Saturday, October 31, 2015 at 10:50:16 AM UTC+10, Jon Price wrote:
> Do they know or have ideas about the reason mass/energy causes space/time to curve?
This explanation is better.
> Do they know or have ideas about the reason mass/energy causes space/time to curve?
http://postimg.org/image/b0gm1fbyv/
-y
Maciej Woźniak
Nov 20, 2015, 11:12:35 AM11/20/15
to
Użytkownik "Tom Roberts" napisał w wiadomości grup
dyskusyjnych:aqadnU30bq58qtLL...@giganews.com...
On 11/20/15 11/20/15 2:32 AM, mlwo...@wp.pl wrote:
> Spacetime doesn't become a useful model of nature.
> It's just an illusion of laymans knowing nothing
> about either models of nature, or usability.
|Clearly you haven't a clue about what "model" means in the context of
physics.
|While spacetime alone does not comprise a model, SR and GR are based upon a
|spacetime manifold, and _ARE_ very useful models of various aspects of the
world
|we inhabit.
a moron knowing nothing about models, nothing
about usability and nothing about world we inhabit.
Shouting won't help.
> We have quite reliable procedures to measure time
> and distance, but we have no procedures to measure
> that moronic interval.
|The "moron" is you.
|We have no procedures to measure velocity, either (in the same sense you
mean
|above: DIRECTLY).
but how a moron would know.
| We can measure distance traveled and travel time, and can
|COMPUTE velocity
inflation of space (because measured distance didn't
match your brilliant theories of velocity).
|So, too, we can measure distance and time interval and compute the
spacetime
|interval.
|There _IS_ no problem here.
the spacetime interval between Gaugamela battle and
Waterloo battle, and then, how, exactly, you computed it,
and what formula(s) you've used.
But, the fact you can't doesn't even matter, because your
Shit is lacking serious procedures of distance and time
measurement, too. Not even talking about surface or volume,
where it can't even define units. (I'm talking about
General Shit, of course).
JanPB
Nov 20, 2015, 2:35:26 PM11/20/15
to
On Friday, November 20, 2015 at 1:28:58 AM UTC-8, Maciej Woźniak wrote:
> W dniu piątek, 20 listopada 2015 09:51:11 UTC+1 użytkownik JanPB napisał:
> > On Friday, November 20, 2015 at 12:32:20 AM UTC-8, mlwo...@wp.pl wrote:
> > > W dniu piątek, 20 listopada 2015 09:03:05 UTC+1 użytkownik Y napisał:
> > > >
> > > > My theory of how spacetime becomes a useful model of nature
> > >
> > > Spacetime doesn't become a useful model of nature.
> > > It's just an illusion of laymans knowing nothing
> > > about either models of nature, or usability.
> >
> > This is irrelevant to physics and its method of inquiry.
>
> I'm sure usability is irrelevant to physics and its
> method of inquiry. I'm glad we agree on that.
Since I never said that, saying "I'm glad we agree on that" is wrong.
> W dniu piątek, 20 listopada 2015 09:51:11 UTC+1 użytkownik JanPB napisał:
> > On Friday, November 20, 2015 at 12:32:20 AM UTC-8, mlwo...@wp.pl wrote:
> > > W dniu piątek, 20 listopada 2015 09:03:05 UTC+1 użytkownik Y napisał:
> > > >
> > > > My theory of how spacetime becomes a useful model of nature
> > >
> > > Spacetime doesn't become a useful model of nature.
> > > It's just an illusion of laymans knowing nothing
> > > about either models of nature, or usability.
> >
> > This is irrelevant to physics and its method of inquiry.
>
> I'm sure usability is irrelevant to physics and its
> method of inquiry. I'm glad we agree on that.
What I said was that objections to spacetime based on "it's just an
illusion" is not even wrong.
> > > We have quite reliable procedures to measure time
> > > and distance, but we have no procedures to measure
> > > that moronic interval.
> >
> > Same thing, those are philosophical objections.
> >
> > I have no problem with philosophy BTW, it's just different.
>
> It's obvious your physics - since it got mad
> - is too
> busy with explaining The Essence Of The Universe to
> care for measurements anymore;
> philosophy, however,
> always very busy with explaining The Essence Of The
> Universe, was never interested in them.
>
> They're crucial, however, in the process of building
> computable models of reality, i.e. in my job.
--
Jan
Jack Monaco
Nov 20, 2015, 3:21:04 PM11/20/15
to
Tom Roberts wrote:
> We have no procedures to measure velocity, either (in the same sense you
> mean above: DIRECTLY). We can measure distance traveled and travel time,
> and can COMPUTE velocity;
This would high probably be also wrong, as it will give constant velocity,
> We have no procedures to measure velocity, either (in the same sense you
> mean above: DIRECTLY). We can measure distance traveled and travel time,
> and can COMPUTE velocity;
which may not be the case. If your constant velocity would be say 0.99c,
you will never know whether the velocity was higher than c along the path,
and correspondently lower than 0,99c.
> we can measure Doppler shift and COMPUTE
> velocity, etc. But we cannot measure velocity directly. Ditto for speed.
kefischer
Nov 20, 2015, 4:33:04 PM11/20/15
to
On Fri, 20 Nov 2015 07:28:26 -0800 (PST), Y <yana...@hotmail.com>
wrote:
It is either wrong, or incomplete,
pendulums align with acceleration
vectors, and, gravitational field lines,
if there _are_ any gravitational field
lines, if Divergent Matter _were_
correct, there would not be any
_actual_ gravitational field "lines".
wrote:
pendulums align with acceleration
vectors, and, gravitational field lines,
if there _are_ any gravitational field
lines, if Divergent Matter _were_
correct, there would not be any
_actual_ gravitational field "lines".
Jack Monaco
Nov 20, 2015, 4:38:51 PM11/20/15
to
kefischer wrote:
> if Divergent Matter _were_
> correct, there would not be any _actual_ gravitational field "lines".
Easy boy, take it easy. Those lines are just imaginary abstraction lines,
> if Divergent Matter _were_
> correct, there would not be any _actual_ gravitational field "lines".
Divergent Matter or not. You may have if you want them, just to easy your
digestion.
Y
Nov 20, 2015, 7:37:59 PM11/20/15
to
This is one of the very convincing arguments that Divergent matter is horse shit. How do you explain magnetism Fischer ? Are magnets expanding at a different rate to everything else ?
You can't have a force without a force carrier. Here' the clincher...
Even if your Earth is infinitely expanding in volume with an accelerated motion, and you're now being pushed to the surface as an outcome, there still needs to be a force carrier in space. There can't just be nothing.
It's not sufficient to say that inertia exists independently of some field. The inertia of bodies is inextricable to the energetic conditions of an environment (as described by fields).
-y
kefischer
Nov 20, 2015, 9:17:47 PM11/20/15
to
On Fri, 20 Nov 2015 16:37:55 -0800 (PST), Y <yana...@hotmail.com>
can accelerate in a straight line, haven't you seen
the lines on a runway at an airport?
(Oh, sorry, I forgot you live in the Outback region). :-)
>Field lines represent the directional flow of energy for a given region of space.
For magnetism, probably, what other kind
if "fields" can you think of.
>There are no vectors in space,
There aren't vary many pendulums in space.
>but the field line is about as accurate to explaining nature as it gets.
Magnetism, yes.,
>Vectors represent how a body would behave whereas the field is an
>environmental descriptor, it describes how the environment is behaving.
Magnetic fields can be illustrated with iron filings.
>This is one of the very convincing arguments that Divergent matter is horse shit.
The Divergent Matter model is about matter
flying apart at a slow rate. The name fits well,
because it is a model of expanding matter gravity
theory where the expansion is velocity, while
expanding matter models written about or
published by other people have mostly
been about matter expanding by acceleration,
and they have to add other factors to account
for part of the process of gravitation.
>How do you explain magnetism Fischer ?
>Are magnets expanding at a different rate to everything else ?
No, I haven't even thought about it,
but it has nothing to do with gravity, and
Divergent Matter has nothing to with
magnetism.
>You can't have a force without a force carrier. Here' the clincher...
Right, now you are beginning to get
the picture, magnetic forces have the
magnetic field, gravity doesn't have
anything that can be identified as a
mediating force carrier.
>Even if your Earth is infinitely expanding in volume with an accelerated motion,
>and you're now being pushed to the surface as an outcome,
>there still needs to be a force carrier in space. There can't just be nothing.
There isn't "nothing" that exerts a
"control", or governs the physical laws
that apply to Divergent Matter, there
is inertia, and it is likely that the inertia
in Divergent Matter is created by matter
expanding, as that gives the energy
a kind of balance index factor that
can be measured with high precision,
and it is called mass.
>It's not sufficient to say that inertia exists independently of some field.
Well, it possibly might not exist
without some kind of field, or the
expansion.
That might be a useful argument
for discussion of the expansion of
matter causing gravity being _all_
velocity.
It is only an argument because
it has not been established by
experiment that inertia does not
exist at some sub-atomic level.
>The inertia of bodies is inextricable to the energetic
>conditions of an environment (as described by fields).
>
>-y
There has been nothing to show that
inertia is a field of some kind, or that any
kind of field causes it.
There was a paper about 110 years
ago that asked if inertia is the energy
content of a body. I think the answer
was positive.
I am not sure how an experiment
could be performed to see if a body
has inertia if it does not have a "kind"
of matter that _could_ be expanding,
maybe there are elementary particles
that exist but have no inertia at all.
wrote:
>On Saturday, November 21, 2015 at 7:33:04 AM UTC+10, kefischer wrote:
>> On Fri, 20 Nov 2015 07:28:26 -0800 (PST), Y <yana...@hotmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >On Saturday, October 31, 2015 at 10:50:16 AM UTC+10, Jon Price wrote:
>> >> Do they know or have ideas about the reason mass/energy causes space/time to curve?
>> >
>> >This explanation is better.
>> >
>> >http://postimg.org/image/b0gm1fbyv/
>> >
>> >-y
>>
>> It is either wrong, or incomplete,
>> pendulums align with acceleration
>> vectors, and, gravitational field lines,
>> if there _are_ any gravitational field
>> lines, if Divergent Matter _were_
>> correct, there would not be any
>> _actual_ gravitational field "lines".
>
>Acceleration vectors are entirely mathematical.
No, they are not, a car, or a rocket. or airplane,
>On Saturday, November 21, 2015 at 7:33:04 AM UTC+10, kefischer wrote:
>> On Fri, 20 Nov 2015 07:28:26 -0800 (PST), Y <yana...@hotmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >On Saturday, October 31, 2015 at 10:50:16 AM UTC+10, Jon Price wrote:
>> >> Do they know or have ideas about the reason mass/energy causes space/time to curve?
>> >
>> >This explanation is better.
>> >
>> >http://postimg.org/image/b0gm1fbyv/
>> >
>> >-y
>>
>> It is either wrong, or incomplete,
>> pendulums align with acceleration
>> vectors, and, gravitational field lines,
>> if there _are_ any gravitational field
>> lines, if Divergent Matter _were_
>> correct, there would not be any
>> _actual_ gravitational field "lines".
>
>Acceleration vectors are entirely mathematical.
can accelerate in a straight line, haven't you seen
the lines on a runway at an airport?
(Oh, sorry, I forgot you live in the Outback region). :-)
>Field lines represent the directional flow of energy for a given region of space.
if "fields" can you think of.
>There are no vectors in space,
>but the field line is about as accurate to explaining nature as it gets.
>Vectors represent how a body would behave whereas the field is an
>environmental descriptor, it describes how the environment is behaving.
>This is one of the very convincing arguments that Divergent matter is horse shit.
flying apart at a slow rate. The name fits well,
because it is a model of expanding matter gravity
theory where the expansion is velocity, while
expanding matter models written about or
published by other people have mostly
been about matter expanding by acceleration,
and they have to add other factors to account
for part of the process of gravitation.
>How do you explain magnetism Fischer ?
>Are magnets expanding at a different rate to everything else ?
but it has nothing to do with gravity, and
Divergent Matter has nothing to with
magnetism.
>You can't have a force without a force carrier. Here' the clincher...
the picture, magnetic forces have the
magnetic field, gravity doesn't have
anything that can be identified as a
mediating force carrier.
>Even if your Earth is infinitely expanding in volume with an accelerated motion,
>and you're now being pushed to the surface as an outcome,
>there still needs to be a force carrier in space. There can't just be nothing.
"control", or governs the physical laws
that apply to Divergent Matter, there
is inertia, and it is likely that the inertia
in Divergent Matter is created by matter
expanding, as that gives the energy
a kind of balance index factor that
can be measured with high precision,
and it is called mass.
>It's not sufficient to say that inertia exists independently of some field.
without some kind of field, or the
expansion.
That might be a useful argument
for discussion of the expansion of
matter causing gravity being _all_
velocity.
It is only an argument because
it has not been established by
experiment that inertia does not
exist at some sub-atomic level.
>The inertia of bodies is inextricable to the energetic
>conditions of an environment (as described by fields).
>
>-y
inertia is a field of some kind, or that any
kind of field causes it.
There was a paper about 110 years
ago that asked if inertia is the energy
content of a body. I think the answer
was positive.
I am not sure how an experiment
could be performed to see if a body
has inertia if it does not have a "kind"
of matter that _could_ be expanding,
maybe there are elementary particles
that exist but have no inertia at all.
Y
Nov 21, 2015, 2:41:10 AM11/21/15
to
On Saturday, November 21, 2015 at 12:17:47 PM UTC+10, kefischer wrote:
> There has been nothing to show that
> inertia is a field of some kind, or that any
> kind of field causes it.
Absolute rubbish ! The entire reason that bodies accelerate inertially in freefall indicates that a field is responsible.
> There has been nothing to show that
> inertia is a field of some kind, or that any
> kind of field causes it.
How else does a body accelerate while remaining inertial ? The field itself is responsible.
-y
Maciej Woźniak
Nov 21, 2015, 3:59:23 AM11/21/15
to
Użytkownik "JanPB" napisał w wiadomości grup
dyskusyjnych:5bc5c33c-3278-4260...@googlegroups.com...
On Friday, November 20, 2015 at 1:28:58 AM UTC-8, Maciej Woźniak wrote:
> W dniu piątek, 20 listopada 2015 09:51:11 UTC+1 użytkownik JanPB napisał:
> > On Friday, November 20, 2015 at 12:32:20 AM UTC-8, mlwo...@wp.pl wrote:
> > > W dniu piątek, 20 listopada 2015 09:03:05 UTC+1 użytkownik Y napisał:
> > > >
> > > > My theory of how spacetime becomes a useful model of nature
> > >
> > > Spacetime doesn't become a useful model of nature.
> > > It's just an illusion of laymans knowing nothing
> > > about either models of nature, or usability.
> >
> > This is irrelevant to physics and its method of inquiry.
>
> I'm sure usability is irrelevant to physics and its
> method of inquiry. I'm glad we agree on that.
|Since I never said that
And above means above. A-B-O-V-E.
> - is too
> busy with explaining The Essence Of The Universe to
> care for measurements anymore;
|And this one is false. You have a lot to learn.
kefischer
Nov 21, 2015, 5:25:11 AM11/21/15
to
On Fri, 20 Nov 2015 23:41:07 -0800 (PST), Y <yana...@hotmail.com>
wrote:
>On Saturday, November 21, 2015 at 12:17:47 PM UTC+10, kefischer wrote:
>
>> There has been nothing to show that
>> inertia is a field of some kind, or that any
>> kind of field causes it.
>
>Absolute rubbish ! The entire reason that bodies accelerate inertially in freefall indicates that a field is responsible.
You really should read about "coordinate acceleration".
>How else does a body accelerate while remaining inertial ? The field itself is responsible.
>
>-y
It doesn't accelerate, :-)
the ground accelerates upward. :-)
Really! :-)
wrote:
>On Saturday, November 21, 2015 at 12:17:47 PM UTC+10, kefischer wrote:
>
>> There has been nothing to show that
>> inertia is a field of some kind, or that any
>> kind of field causes it.
>
>Absolute rubbish ! The entire reason that bodies accelerate inertially in freefall indicates that a field is responsible.
>How else does a body accelerate while remaining inertial ? The field itself is responsible.
>
>-y
the ground accelerates upward. :-)
Really! :-)
Y
Nov 21, 2015, 7:43:05 AM11/21/15
to
On Saturday, November 21, 2015 at 8:25:11 PM UTC+10, kefischer wrote:
> On Fri, 20 Nov 2015 23:41:07 -0800 (PST), Y <yana...@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> >On Saturday, November 21, 2015 at 12:17:47 PM UTC+10, kefischer wrote:
> >
> >> There has been nothing to show that
> >> inertia is a field of some kind, or that any
> >> kind of field causes it.
> >
> >Absolute rubbish ! The entire reason that bodies accelerate inertially in freefall indicates that a field is responsible.
>
> You really should read about "coordinate acceleration".
Coordinate acceleration isn't a physical thing.
> On Fri, 20 Nov 2015 23:41:07 -0800 (PST), Y <yana...@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> >On Saturday, November 21, 2015 at 12:17:47 PM UTC+10, kefischer wrote:
> >
> >> There has been nothing to show that
> >> inertia is a field of some kind, or that any
> >> kind of field causes it.
> >
> >Absolute rubbish ! The entire reason that bodies accelerate inertially in freefall indicates that a field is responsible.
>
> You really should read about "coordinate acceleration".
Coordinate acceleration is just the acceleration of coordinate. It's something that happens in a mathematical model. Nothing even moves. It's just numbers and symbols etc.
How many times does Roberts, or I, or others have to explain to you the difference between the physical world and the world of models before it sinks in ?
> >How else does a body accelerate while remaining inertial ? The field itself is responsible.
> >-y
> It doesn't accelerate, :-)
> the ground accelerates upward. :-)
>
> Really! :-)
"How else does a body accelerate while remaining inertial ?"
2. You answered incorrectly when you said "the ground accelerates upward." (You have NO proof of that, or evidence, or way to measure that).
We do have proof that a freefall body does not accelerate and this is what inspired Einstein to create GR.
So let's roll with your correct assumption. A freefall body does not accelerate. The only way that a body can accelerate is against the background of nature satisfying the condition of Newton's Law that F=ma > 0. Now let's get this little problem of representing nature's background (whatever that is). Using mathematics we do this with things called SPACES. Spacetime is one such example. We can also put things in those spaces.. like field lines. lol. We can do other things with space, like layer many spaces on top of each-other, and relate them with coordinate transformations.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_common_coordinate_transformations
Since a freefall body is not accelerating with respect to space, is it the space itself that is doing the accelerating ? Not necessarily. We know that the speed of light is constant. We also know (using field lines) that the density of absorbing energy is greater towards a grav body and lesser further out. In a manner of speaking, it could be argued that gravitational systems are a monopole.
-y
Y
Nov 21, 2015, 7:59:02 AM11/21/15
to
On Saturday, November 21, 2015 at 8:25:11 PM UTC+10, kefischer wrote:
> On Fri, 20 Nov 2015 23:41:07 -0800 (PST), Y <yana...@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> >On Saturday, November 21, 2015 at 12:17:47 PM UTC+10, kefischer wrote:
> >
> >> There has been nothing to show that
> >> inertia is a field of some kind, or that any
> >> kind of field causes it.
> >
> >Absolute rubbish ! The entire reason that bodies accelerate inertially in freefall indicates that a field is responsible.
>
> You really should read about "coordinate acceleration".
> wrote:
>
> >On Saturday, November 21, 2015 at 12:17:47 PM UTC+10, kefischer wrote:
> >
> >> There has been nothing to show that
> >> inertia is a field of some kind, or that any
> >> kind of field causes it.
> >
> >Absolute rubbish ! The entire reason that bodies accelerate inertially in freefall indicates that a field is responsible.
>
> You really should read about "coordinate acceleration".
Coordinate acceleration isn't a physical thing.
Coordinate acceleration is just the acceleration of coordinate. It's something that happens in a mathematical model. Nothing even moves. It's just numbers and symbols etc.
How many times does Roberts, or I, or others have to explain to you the difference between the physical world and the world of mathematical models before it sinks in ?
Coordinate acceleration is just the acceleration of coordinate. It's something that happens in a mathematical model. Nothing even moves. It's just numbers and symbols etc.
> >How else does a body accelerate while remaining inertial ? The field itself is responsible.
> >-y
> It doesn't accelerate, :-)
> the ground accelerates upward. :-)
>
> Really! :-)
"How else does a body accelerate while remaining inertial ?"
1. You answered correctly when you said "It doesn't accelerate".
2. You answered incorrectly when you said "the ground accelerates upward." (You have NO proof of that, or evidence, or way to measure that).
We do have proof that a freefall body does not accelerate and this is what inspired Einstein to create GR.
So let's roll with your correct assumption. A freefall body does not accelerate. The only way that a body can accelerate is against the background of nature (satisfying the condition of Newton's Law that F=ma > 0).
2. You answered incorrectly when you said "the ground accelerates upward." (You have NO proof of that, or evidence, or way to measure that).
We do have proof that a freefall body does not accelerate and this is what inspired Einstein to create GR.
Now let's get this little problem of representing nature's background (whatever that is). Using mathematics we do this with things called SPACES. Spacetime is one such example. We can also put things in those spaces.. like field lines, or other geometries lol. It really is that simple.
We can do other things with spacea, like layer many spaces on top of each-other, or relate these using coordinate transformations, or map one space to another using certain functions.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_common_coordinate_transformations
Since a freefall body is not accelerating with respect to the natural background, and appears (inertially to remain at rest with the natural background), could it be the natural background itself that is doing the accelerating ? Possibly, but not necessarily. We know that the speed of light is constant. So Energy is unlikely to be doing any speeding up as it comes towards a planet.
HOWEVER.
We do know (using field lines) that the density of absorbing energies is greater towards a gravitational centre of mass, and that these absorbing energies are lesser the further we go out.
In a manner of speaking, and certainly if gravitational bodies both dissipate and absorb energies (which they do) it could be argued that gravitational bodies are monopoles.
-y
kefischer
Nov 21, 2015, 11:31:44 AM11/21/15
to
On Sat, 21 Nov 2015 04:58:58 -0800 (PST), Y <yana...@hotmail.com>
confidence you exhibit. Actually, coordinate
acceleration can be either "proper acceleration",
or it can lack proper acceleration, depending
on where and how and what acceleration is
measured.
The big difference in your assertion above,
and my discussion, is that, a gravimeter, pendulum,
and accelerometer, and human feelings do not
register freefall AS acceleration, but Newton
mechanics does consider freefall to be an
acceleration.
>Coordinate acceleration is just the acceleration of coordinate.
I don't think that is worded correctly, it seems
to assume that one end of the measurement is
"fixed", or "at rest", and the other end moves
with changing velocity.
>It's something that happens in a mathematical model.
>Nothing even moves. It's just numbers and symbols etc.
That is nonsense jibberish, if you want to
discuss physics, you need to be more specific.
>How many times does Roberts, or I, or others have to
>explain to you the difference between the physical world
>and the world of mathematical models before it sinks in ?
I see a world of difference between what
you and Roberts say. :-)
>> >How else does a body accelerate while remaining inertial ? The field itself is responsible.
>> >-y
>> It doesn't accelerate, :-)
>> the ground accelerates upward. :-)
>>
>> Really! :-)
>
>"How else does a body accelerate while remaining inertial ?"
>
>1. You answered correctly when you said "It doesn't accelerate".
>2. You answered incorrectly when you said "the ground accelerates upward."
that do the measuring of proper acceleration show.
I do not talk across the differences specified
by models. Newton says freefall is acceleration,
GR seems to say it isn't, the Divergent Matter
model says it definitely is NOT.
>We do have proof that a freefall body does not accelerate
What "proof" is that of which you speak?
>and this is what inspired Einstein to create GR.
I think he said it is "what humans feel"
when falling, compared to what they feel
when on the surface that caused him to
"extend relativity theory" to include gravity.
>So let's roll with your correct assumption. A freefall body does not accelerate.
>The only way that a body can accelerate is against the background of nature
I don't know what you mean by that,
if I try to aim a camera at a falling object,
I have to move the angle the camera points,
unless I am falling, or accelerating the
camera downward with a force equal
to it's mass neglecting air drag.
>(satisfying the condition of Newton's Law that F=ma > 0).
That is not a consistent statement with
what you have been saying.
>Now let's get this little problem of representing nature's background
>(whatever that is). Using mathematics we do this with things called SPACES.
You need to explain that, it is wording
I don't remember seeing. I did not forget,
I just don't remember ever seeing it stated
that way.
>Spacetime is one such example. We can also put things in those spaces..
>like field lines, or other geometries lol. It really is that simple.
Why the lol, "field lines" are not a type
of geometry, they are either real, like in
magnetism, or fictitious or imaginary,
as in Newtonian gravitation.
>We can do other things with spacea, like layer many spaces on top of each-other,
>or relate these using coordinate transformations, or map one space to another using certain functions.
>
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_common_coordinate_transformations
Doing coordinate transformations is above
the level of this discussion as long as only you
and I are concerned.
>Since a freefall body is not accelerating with respect to the natural background,
>and appears (inertially to remain at rest with the natural background),
>could it be the natural background itself that is doing the accelerating ?
>Possibly, but not necessarily. We know that the speed of light is constant.
>So Energy is unlikely to be doing any speeding up as it comes towards a planet.
I don't see rational consistency in all
of those statements.
>HOWEVER.
>
>We do know (using field lines) that the density of absorbing energies is greater
>towards a gravitational centre of mass, and that these absorbing energies are
>lesser the further we go out.
Are you now talking totally within the
Newtonian model of gravitation, or not,
you seem to be (to me).
>In a manner of speaking, and certainly if gravitational bodies both dissipate
>and absorb energies (which they do) it could be argued that gravitational
>bodies are monopoles.
>
>-y
Are what? Why did you stop, did you
fall asleep and hit the send button? (Twice?)
wrote:
>On Saturday, November 21, 2015 at 8:25:11 PM UTC+10, kefischer wrote:
>> On Fri, 20 Nov 2015 23:41:07 -0800 (PST), Y <yana...@hotmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >On Saturday, November 21, 2015 at 12:17:47 PM UTC+10, kefischer wrote:
>> >
>> >> There has been nothing to show that
>> >> inertia is a field of some kind, or that any
>> >> kind of field causes it.
>> >
>> >Absolute rubbish ! The entire reason that bodies accelerate inertially in freefall indicates that a field is responsible.
>>
>> You really should read about "coordinate acceleration".
>
>Coordinate acceleration isn't a physical thing.
I wish I could talk about nature with the
>On Saturday, November 21, 2015 at 8:25:11 PM UTC+10, kefischer wrote:
>> On Fri, 20 Nov 2015 23:41:07 -0800 (PST), Y <yana...@hotmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >On Saturday, November 21, 2015 at 12:17:47 PM UTC+10, kefischer wrote:
>> >
>> >> There has been nothing to show that
>> >> inertia is a field of some kind, or that any
>> >> kind of field causes it.
>> >
>> >Absolute rubbish ! The entire reason that bodies accelerate inertially in freefall indicates that a field is responsible.
>>
>> You really should read about "coordinate acceleration".
>
>Coordinate acceleration isn't a physical thing.
confidence you exhibit. Actually, coordinate
acceleration can be either "proper acceleration",
or it can lack proper acceleration, depending
on where and how and what acceleration is
measured.
The big difference in your assertion above,
and my discussion, is that, a gravimeter, pendulum,
and accelerometer, and human feelings do not
register freefall AS acceleration, but Newton
mechanics does consider freefall to be an
acceleration.
>Coordinate acceleration is just the acceleration of coordinate.
to assume that one end of the measurement is
"fixed", or "at rest", and the other end moves
with changing velocity.
>It's something that happens in a mathematical model.
>Nothing even moves. It's just numbers and symbols etc.
discuss physics, you need to be more specific.
>How many times does Roberts, or I, or others have to
>explain to you the difference between the physical world
>and the world of mathematical models before it sinks in ?
you and Roberts say. :-)
>> >How else does a body accelerate while remaining inertial ? The field itself is responsible.
>> >-y
>> It doesn't accelerate, :-)
>> the ground accelerates upward. :-)
>>
>> Really! :-)
>
>"How else does a body accelerate while remaining inertial ?"
>
>1. You answered correctly when you said "It doesn't accelerate".
>2. You answered incorrectly when you said "the ground accelerates upward."
>You have NO proof of that, or evidence, or way to measure that).
I am only accepting what the physical devices
that do the measuring of proper acceleration show.
I do not talk across the differences specified
by models. Newton says freefall is acceleration,
GR seems to say it isn't, the Divergent Matter
model says it definitely is NOT.
>We do have proof that a freefall body does not accelerate
>and this is what inspired Einstein to create GR.
when falling, compared to what they feel
when on the surface that caused him to
"extend relativity theory" to include gravity.
>So let's roll with your correct assumption. A freefall body does not accelerate.
>The only way that a body can accelerate is against the background of nature
if I try to aim a camera at a falling object,
I have to move the angle the camera points,
unless I am falling, or accelerating the
camera downward with a force equal
to it's mass neglecting air drag.
>(satisfying the condition of Newton's Law that F=ma > 0).
what you have been saying.
>Now let's get this little problem of representing nature's background
>(whatever that is). Using mathematics we do this with things called SPACES.
I don't remember seeing. I did not forget,
I just don't remember ever seeing it stated
that way.
>Spacetime is one such example. We can also put things in those spaces..
>like field lines, or other geometries lol. It really is that simple.
of geometry, they are either real, like in
magnetism, or fictitious or imaginary,
as in Newtonian gravitation.
>We can do other things with spacea, like layer many spaces on top of each-other,
>or relate these using coordinate transformations, or map one space to another using certain functions.
>
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_common_coordinate_transformations
the level of this discussion as long as only you
and I are concerned.
>Since a freefall body is not accelerating with respect to the natural background,
>and appears (inertially to remain at rest with the natural background),
>could it be the natural background itself that is doing the accelerating ?
>Possibly, but not necessarily. We know that the speed of light is constant.
>So Energy is unlikely to be doing any speeding up as it comes towards a planet.
of those statements.
>HOWEVER.
>
>We do know (using field lines) that the density of absorbing energies is greater
>towards a gravitational centre of mass, and that these absorbing energies are
>lesser the further we go out.
Newtonian model of gravitation, or not,
you seem to be (to me).
>In a manner of speaking, and certainly if gravitational bodies both dissipate
>and absorb energies (which they do) it could be argued that gravitational
>bodies are monopoles.
>
>-y
fall asleep and hit the send button? (Twice?)
Jack Monaco
Nov 21, 2015, 11:40:44 AM11/21/15
to
kefischer wrote:
>>Coordinate acceleration isn't a physical thing.
>
> I wish I could talk about nature with the
> confidence you exhibit. Actually, coordinate acceleration can be
> either "proper acceleration",
> or it can lack proper acceleration, depending on where and how and what
> acceleration is measured.
Too bad you never are or will be confident, in anything.
>>Coordinate acceleration isn't a physical thing.
>
> I wish I could talk about nature with the
> confidence you exhibit. Actually, coordinate acceleration can be
> either "proper acceleration",
> or it can lack proper acceleration, depending on where and how and what
> acceleration is measured.
> The big difference in your assertion above,
> and my discussion, is that, a gravimeter, pendulum,
> and accelerometer, and human feelings do not register freefall AS
> acceleration, but Newton mechanics does consider freefall to be an
> acceleration.
Interestingly enough, each time you proves incompetent, or you having no
idea what you are talking about, you always invoke "Newton", "Newtonian"
or also derivatives as "Newton mechanics" and such. But you don't know
"Newton Mechanics", just stfu.
Y
Nov 21, 2015, 12:23:25 PM11/21/15
to
On Sunday, November 22, 2015 at 2:31:44 AM UTC+10, kefischer wrote:
> Why the lol, "field lines" are not a type
> of geometry, they are either real, like in
> magnetism, or fictitious or imaginary,
> as in Newtonian gravitation.
>
Of course they are you severely deluded crackpot. Field lines are a bit like contour lines except they are given direction. Contour lines aren't actually painted onto hills and neither are field lines plotted onto electromagnetic fields.
> Why the lol, "field lines" are not a type
> of geometry, they are either real, like in
> magnetism, or fictitious or imaginary,
> as in Newtonian gravitation.
>
We even use them in weather to denote wind direction and intensity.
You're a crackpot dude. Time to fess up this fact to yourself, and then start asking questions to learn things; or as Bodkin would suggest, read a F&%ing text book.
-y
Tom Roberts
Nov 21, 2015, 1:09:50 PM11/21/15
to
On 11/20/15 11/20/15 2:20 PM, Jack Monaco wrote:
> Tom Roberts wrote:
>> We have no procedures to measure velocity, either (in the same sense you
>> mean above: DIRECTLY). We can measure distance traveled and travel time,
>> and can COMPUTE velocity;
>
> This would high probably be also wrong, as it will give constant velocity,
> which may not be the case.
You have to know what you are doing. This is the DEFINITION of velocity, in the
> Tom Roberts wrote:
>> We have no procedures to measure velocity, either (in the same sense you
>> mean above: DIRECTLY). We can measure distance traveled and travel time,
>> and can COMPUTE velocity;
>
> This would high probably be also wrong, as it will give constant velocity,
> which may not be the case.
limit of the measured interval going to zero. For finite intervals, it clearly
yields the average velocity over the interval. If the object being measured does
not have constant velocity, then you must measure it multiple times using
sufficiently short intervals.
IOW: you are supposed to THINK.
>> we can measure Doppler shift and COMPUTE
>> velocity, etc. But we cannot measure velocity directly. Ditto for speed.
>
> Hmmm,of course you can,
Tom Roberts
Maciej Woźniak
Nov 21, 2015, 3:31:22 PM11/21/15
to
Użytkownik "Tom Roberts" napisał w wiadomości grup
dyskusyjnych:h62dncoIbIP2Ls3L...@giganews.com...
On 11/20/15 11/20/15 2:20 PM, Jack Monaco wrote:
> Tom Roberts wrote:
>> We have no procedures to measure velocity, either (in the same sense you
>> mean above: DIRECTLY). We can measure distance traveled and travel time,
>> and can COMPUTE velocity;
>
> This would high probably be also wrong, as it will give constant velocity,
> which may not be the case.
|You have to know what you are doing. This is the DEFINITION of velocity, in
the
|limit of the measured interval going to zero.
refuted common sense and "discovered" inflation.
|So describe how to measure velocity or speed DIRECTLY.
Jack Monaco
Nov 21, 2015, 4:24:18 PM11/21/15
to
Tom Roberts wrote:
>>> we can measure Doppler shift and COMPUTE velocity, etc. But we cannot
>>> measure velocity directly. Ditto for speed.
>>
>> Hmmm,of course you can,
>
> So describe how to measure velocity or speed DIRECTLY.
Using the light or photons arriving from the target in motion?
>>> we can measure Doppler shift and COMPUTE velocity, etc. But we cannot
>>> measure velocity directly. Ditto for speed.
>>
>> Hmmm,of course you can,
>
> So describe how to measure velocity or speed DIRECTLY.
JanPB
Nov 21, 2015, 7:42:20 PM11/21/15
to
On Saturday, November 21, 2015 at 12:59:23 AM UTC-8, Maciej Woźniak wrote:
> Użytkownik "JanPB" napisał w wiadomości grup
> dyskusyjnych:5bc5c33c-3278-4260...@googlegroups.com...
>
> On Friday, November 20, 2015 at 1:28:58 AM UTC-8, Maciej Woźniak wrote:
> > W dniu piątek, 20 listopada 2015 09:51:11 UTC+1 użytkownik JanPB napisał:
> > > On Friday, November 20, 2015 at 12:32:20 AM UTC-8, mlwo...@wp.pl wrote:
> > > > W dniu piątek, 20 listopada 2015 09:03:05 UTC+1 użytkownik Y napisał:
> > > > >
> > > > > My theory of how spacetime becomes a useful model of nature
> > > >
> > > > Spacetime doesn't become a useful model of nature.
> > > > It's just an illusion of laymans knowing nothing
> > > > about either models of nature, or usability.
> > >
> > > This is irrelevant to physics and its method of inquiry.
> >
> > I'm sure usability is irrelevant to physics and its
> > method of inquiry. I'm glad we agree on that.
>
> |Since I never said that
>
> A lie, as expected from a relativistic moron. Read above.
> And above means above. A-B-O-V-E.
I never said that usability was irrelevant to physics and its method of inquiry.
> Użytkownik "JanPB" napisał w wiadomości grup
> dyskusyjnych:5bc5c33c-3278-4260...@googlegroups.com...
>
> On Friday, November 20, 2015 at 1:28:58 AM UTC-8, Maciej Woźniak wrote:
> > W dniu piątek, 20 listopada 2015 09:51:11 UTC+1 użytkownik JanPB napisał:
> > > On Friday, November 20, 2015 at 12:32:20 AM UTC-8, mlwo...@wp.pl wrote:
> > > > W dniu piątek, 20 listopada 2015 09:03:05 UTC+1 użytkownik Y napisał:
> > > > >
> > > > > My theory of how spacetime becomes a useful model of nature
> > > >
> > > > Spacetime doesn't become a useful model of nature.
> > > > It's just an illusion of laymans knowing nothing
> > > > about either models of nature, or usability.
> > >
> > > This is irrelevant to physics and its method of inquiry.
> >
> > I'm sure usability is irrelevant to physics and its
> > method of inquiry. I'm glad we agree on that.
>
> |Since I never said that
>
> A lie, as expected from a relativistic moron. Read above.
> And above means above. A-B-O-V-E.
> > - is too
> > busy with explaining The Essence Of The Universe to
> > care for measurements anymore;
>
> |And this one is false. You have a lot to learn.
>
> No, it isn't, and I'm not going to learn from a moron.
for you to learn. Not only physics, to be successful in this sort of thing it's also important
to be sober, honest, and humble. I don't see much of this in you yet.
--
Jan
Maciej Woźniak
Nov 22, 2015, 3:06:10 AM11/22/15
to
Użytkownik "JanPB" napisał w wiadomości grup
On Saturday, November 21, 2015 at 12:59:23 AM UTC-8, Maciej Woźniak wrote:
> Użytkownik "JanPB" napisał w wiadomości grup
> dyskusyjnych:5bc5c33c-3278-4260...@googlegroups.com...
>
> On Friday, November 20, 2015 at 1:28:58 AM UTC-8, Maciej Woźniak wrote:
> > W dniu piątek, 20 listopada 2015 09:51:11 UTC+1 użytkownik JanPB
> > napisał:
> > > On Friday, November 20, 2015 at 12:32:20 AM UTC-8, mlwo...@wp.pl
> > > wrote:
> > > > W dniu piątek, 20 listopada 2015 09:03:05 UTC+1 użytkownik Y
> > > > napisał:
> > > > >
> > > > > My theory of how spacetime becomes a useful model of nature
> > > >
> > > > Spacetime doesn't become a useful model of nature.
> > > > It's just an illusion of laymans knowing nothing
> > > > about either models of nature, or usability.
> > >
> > > This is irrelevant to physics and its method of inquiry.
> >
> > I'm sure usability is irrelevant to physics and its
> > method of inquiry. I'm glad we agree on that.
>
> |Since I never said that
>
> A lie, as expected from a relativistic moron. Read above.
> And above means above. A-B-O-V-E.
|I never said that usability was irrelevant to physics and its method of
inquiry.
A lie, as expected from a relativistic moron. Read above.
And above means above. A-B-O-V-E.
> |And this one is false. You have a lot to learn.
>
> No, it isn't, and I'm not going to learn from a moron.
|It is false.
No, it is not.
>
> No, it isn't, and I'm not going to learn from a moron.
|It is false.
|But, as I mentioned before, I cannot teach you physics here, there is too
And you are an extreme moron.
Gary Harnagel
Nov 22, 2015, 7:25:10 AM11/22/15
to
On Sunday, November 22, 2015 at 1:06:10 AM UTC-7, Maciej Woźniak wrote:
>
> Użytkownik "JanPB" napisał w wiadomości grup
> dyskusyjnych:0309a52e-e286-43d2...@googlegroups.com...
>
> Użytkownik "JanPB" napisał w wiadomości grup
> >
> > But, as I mentioned before, I cannot teach you physics here, there is too
> > much\
>
> And you are an extreme moron.
Your very posts define you as a moron, and a dishonest one at that. Jan's
> > But, as I mentioned before, I cannot teach you physics here, there is too
> > much\
>
> And you are an extreme moron.
post do not do so.
“When you point your finger at someone, anyone, it is often a moment of
judgement. We point our fingers when we want to scold someone, point
out what they have done wrong. But each time we point, we simultaneously
point three fingers back at ourselves.” – Christopher Pike
Maciej Woźniak
Nov 22, 2015, 7:52:52 AM11/22/15
to
Użytkownik "Gary Harnagel" napisał w wiadomości grup
dyskusyjnych:904cc89c-dd06-457c...@googlegroups.com...
On Sunday, November 22, 2015 at 1:06:10 AM UTC-7, Maciej Woźniak wrote:
>
> Użytkownik "JanPB" napisał w wiadomości grup
> dyskusyjnych:0309a52e-e286-43d2...@googlegroups.com...
> >
> > But, as I mentioned before, I cannot teach you physics here, there is
> > too
> > much\
>
> And you are an extreme moron.
|Your very posts define you as a moron, and a dishonest one at that. Jan's
|post do not do so.
A,B,C,D,E...
Gary Harnagel
Nov 22, 2015, 8:16:52 AM11/22/15
to
On Sunday, November 22, 2015 at 5:52:52 AM UTC-7, Maciej Woźniak wrote:
>
> Użytkownik "Gary Harnagel" napisał w wiadomości grup
> dyskusyjnych:904cc89c-dd06-457c...@googlegroups.com...
> >
>
> Użytkownik "Gary Harnagel" napisał w wiadomości grup
> dyskusyjnych:904cc89c-dd06-457c...@googlegroups.com...
> >
> |Your very posts define you as a moron, and a dishonest one at that. Jan's
> |post do not do so.
>
> Oh, yes, they do.
> A,B,C,D,E...
Wherein he points out what an idiot you are.
> |post do not do so.
>
> Oh, yes, they do.
> A,B,C,D,E...
Maciej Woźniak
Nov 22, 2015, 8:39:35 AM11/22/15
to
Użytkownik "Gary Harnagel" napisał w wiadomości grup
answer!!!
What an idiot I am.
Gary Harnagel
Nov 22, 2015, 8:54:54 AM11/22/15
to
On Sunday, November 22, 2015 at 6:39:35 AM UTC-7, Maciej Woźniak wrote:
>
> Użytkownik "Gary Harnagel" napisał w wiadomości grup
> dyskusyjnych:f43d95f6-c679-4b4e...@googlegroups.com...
> >
> > On Sunday, November 22, 2015 at 5:52:52 AM UTC-7, Maciej Woźniak wrote:
> > >
> > > Gary wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Your very posts define you as a moron, and a dishonest one at that.
> > > > Jan's post do not do so.
> > >
> > > Oh, yes, they do.
> > > A,B,C,D,E...
> >
> > Wherein he points out what an idiot you are.
>
> Oh, yes!!! I asked relativistic moron a question he couldn't answer!!!
You never asked any question. All you do is call names like
>
> Użytkownik "Gary Harnagel" napisał w wiadomości grup
> dyskusyjnych:f43d95f6-c679-4b4e...@googlegroups.com...
> >
> > On Sunday, November 22, 2015 at 5:52:52 AM UTC-7, Maciej Woźniak wrote:
> > >
> > > Gary wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Your very posts define you as a moron, and a dishonest one at that.
> > > > Jan's post do not do so.
> > >
> > > Oh, yes, they do.
> > > A,B,C,D,E...
> >
> > Wherein he points out what an idiot you are.
>
> Oh, yes!!! I asked relativistic moron a question he couldn't answer!!!
"relativistic moron" and spout vulgar nonsense.
> What an idiot I am.
Maciej Woźniak
Nov 22, 2015, 9:15:07 AM11/22/15
to
Użytkownik "Gary Harnagel" napisał w wiadomości grup
On Sunday, November 22, 2015 at 6:39:35 AM UTC-7, Maciej Woźniak wrote:
>
> Użytkownik "Gary Harnagel" napisał w wiadomości grup
> dyskusyjnych:f43d95f6-c679-4b4e...@googlegroups.com...
> >
> > On Sunday, November 22, 2015 at 5:52:52 AM UTC-7, Maciej Woźniak wrote:
> > >
> > > Gary wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Your very posts define you as a moron, and a dishonest one at that.
> > > > Jan's post do not do so.
> > >
> > > Oh, yes, they do.
> > > A,B,C,D,E...
> >
> > Wherein he points out what an idiot you are.
>
> Oh, yes!!! I asked relativistic moron a question he couldn't answer!!!
|You never asked any question.
Well, even more impudent, than expected from a
common relaivistic moron.
Gary Harnagel
Nov 22, 2015, 9:33:44 AM11/22/15
to
On Sunday, November 22, 2015 at 7:15:07 AM UTC-7, Maciej Woźniak wrote:
>
> Użytkownik "Gary Harnagel" napisał w wiadomości grup
> dyskusyjnych:d05f1377-1455-405d...@googlegroups.com...
>
> Użytkownik "Gary Harnagel" napisał w wiadomości grup
> >
> > You never asked any question.
>
> A lie, as expected from relativistic moron.
> Well, even more impudent, than expected from a
> common relaivistic moron.
See? You prove yourself to be the real moron by repeating your imbecilic
> > You never asked any question.
>
> A lie, as expected from relativistic moron.
> Well, even more impudent, than expected from a
> common relaivistic moron.
mantra. Perhaps you need a lesson on what a question is, as well as on
many, many other things. You must have a really dull life to spend your
valuable limited time wasting it on the rubbish you spew.
Maciej Woźniak
Nov 22, 2015, 10:00:00 AM11/22/15
to
Użytkownik "Gary Harnagel" napisał w wiadomości grup
On Sunday, November 22, 2015 at 7:15:07 AM UTC-7, Maciej Woźniak wrote:
>
> Użytkownik "Gary Harnagel" napisał w wiadomości grup
> dyskusyjnych:d05f1377-1455-405d...@googlegroups.com...
> >
> > You never asked any question.
>
> A lie, as expected from relativistic moron.
> Well, even more impudent, than expected from a
> common relaivistic moron.
|See? You prove yourself to be the real moron by repeating your imbecilic
|mantra.
to "prove", what he believes.
BTW. Why didn't you use your moronic "standard"
clocks on GPS? Where are you going to use them,
if not in such places? What are the geodesics of
space (don't confuse with spacetime)? What is
a square, or a cupic meter, since The Shit discovered,
that there is no cubes or squares? What is your
moronic interval between Gaugamela and waterloo
battles? And what formula would you use to calculate
it?
etc, etc, etc. Will never get answers from a relativistic
moron, and he is too stupid even to notice he is
questioned.
Gary Harnagel
Nov 22, 2015, 10:22:52 AM11/22/15
to
On Sunday, November 22, 2015 at 8:00:00 AM UTC-7, Maciej Woźniak wrote:
>
> Użytkownik "Gary Harnagel" napisał w wiadomości grup
> dyskusyjnych:a227dfa6-5f71-484b...@googlegroups.com...
> >
> > On Sunday, November 22, 2015 at 7:15:07 AM UTC-7, Maciej Woźniak wrote:
> > >
> > > A lie, as expected from relativistic moron.
> > > Well, even more impudent, than expected from a
> > > common relaivistic moron.
> >
> > See? You prove yourself to be the real moron by repeating your imbecilic
> > mantra.
>
> It's always easy for a fanatic, lying moron
> to "prove", what he believes.
As you always do.
>
> Użytkownik "Gary Harnagel" napisał w wiadomości grup
> dyskusyjnych:a227dfa6-5f71-484b...@googlegroups.com...
> >
> > On Sunday, November 22, 2015 at 7:15:07 AM UTC-7, Maciej Woźniak wrote:
> > >
> > > A lie, as expected from relativistic moron.
> > > Well, even more impudent, than expected from a
> > > common relaivistic moron.
> >
> > See? You prove yourself to be the real moron by repeating your imbecilic
> > mantra.
>
> It's always easy for a fanatic, lying moron
> to "prove", what he believes.
> BTW. Why didn't you use your moronic "standard"
> clocks on GPS?
you are a moron.
> [Delusional rubbish deleted]
>
> etc, etc, etc. Will never get answers from a relativistic
> moron, and he is too stupid even to notice he is questioned.
You are too stupid to realize your "questions" are nothing more than a
> etc, etc, etc. Will never get answers from a relativistic
> moron, and he is too stupid even to notice he is questioned.
Launchpad for your dishonest diatribes. You must have a really boring
life to waste it on such stupid drivel.
Maciej Woźniak
Nov 22, 2015, 11:03:43 AM11/22/15
to
Użytkownik "Gary Harnagel" napisał w wiadomości grup
On Sunday, November 22, 2015 at 8:00:00 AM UTC-7, Maciej Woźniak wrote:
>
> Użytkownik "Gary Harnagel" napisał w wiadomości grup
> dyskusyjnych:a227dfa6-5f71-484b...@googlegroups.com...
> >
> > On Sunday, November 22, 2015 at 7:15:07 AM UTC-7, Maciej Woźniak wrote:
> > >
> > > A lie, as expected from relativistic moron.
> > > Well, even more impudent, than expected from a
> > > common relaivistic moron.
> >
> > See? You prove yourself to be the real moron by repeating your
> > imbecilic
> > mantra.
>
> It's always easy for a fanatic, lying moron
> to "prove", what he believes.
|As you always do.
that what I say is proven.
> BTW. Why didn't you use your moronic "standard"
> clocks on GPS?
|So you delusionally believe that I invented the GPS?
So, why didn't you use your moronic "standard"
clocks on GPS?
etc, etc, etc. Will never get answers from a relativistic
moron, and he is too stupid even to notice he is questioned.
|You are too stupid to realize your "questions" are nothing more than a
|Launchpad for your dishonest diatribes.
If your bunch od morons were able to answer questions, I
moron, and he is too stupid even to notice he is questioned.
|You are too stupid to realize your "questions" are nothing more than a
|Launchpad for your dishonest diatribes.
couldn't use them this way...
Gary Harnagel
Nov 22, 2015, 11:16:06 AM11/22/15
to
On Sunday, November 22, 2015 at 9:03:43 AM UTC-7, Maciej Woźniak wrote:
>
> Użytkownik "Gary Harnagel" napisał w wiadomości grup
> dyskusyjnych:9d1c7cac-73ce-4529...@googlegroups.com...
>
> Użytkownik "Gary Harnagel" napisał w wiadomości grup
> >
> > So you delusionally believe that I invented the GPS?
>
> No, I don't. It's only your imagination of a moron.
> So, why didn't you use your moronic "standard"
> clocks on GPS?
See? You're still claiming that I had something to do with the GPS clocks.
> > So you delusionally believe that I invented the GPS?
>
> No, I don't. It's only your imagination of a moron.
> So, why didn't you use your moronic "standard"
> clocks on GPS?
> etc, etc, etc. Will never get answers from a relativistic
> moron, and he is too stupid even to notice he is questioned.
> > You are too stupid to realize your "questions" are nothing more than a
> > Launchpad for your dishonest diatribes.
>
> If your bunch od morons were able to answer questions, I
> couldn't use them this way...
pound sand up your butt until it fills that hollow space in your head.
JanPB
Nov 22, 2015, 1:20:48 PM11/22/15
to
> |But, as I mentioned before, I cannot teach you physics here, there is too
> much\
>
> And you are an extreme moron.
--
Jan
Maciej Woźniak
Nov 22, 2015, 1:23:01 PM11/22/15
to
Użytkownik "JanPB" napisał w wiadomości grup
> And you are an extreme moron.
|No, I am the queen of England, remember?
JanPB
Nov 22, 2015, 1:24:18 PM11/22/15
to
--
Jan
Maciej Woźniak
Nov 22, 2015, 2:55:24 PM11/22/15
to
Użytkownik "JanPB" napisał w wiadomości grup
You know, every relativistic moron is trying to
change the subject, when cornered, but your choice
of the substitute subject was really, hmmm.... specific.
0 new messages