Twins and the universe

[Maciej Woźniak]

As we all know, a twins will age slower
Still, the age of the universe is observer independent.
Seems, that a twins counted as twins will age slower,
than the same twins counted as a part of the universe...

Did I miss something?

[paparios]

Yes, your brain!

[John Heath]

You did not miss the point. However your point of "the age of the universe is observer independent" has no empirical evidence to support it nor a theory to back it up including SR and GR so where does this come from? If you move you lose time , relative to what is around you. What is relative to around you? The mass that is around you weighted by its mass divided by the square of distance from you. It is important to give full consideration to the words "divided by the square of distance from you". In our case movement is relative to the earth at the north or south pole as the moon and the sun are too far away to be relevant with "divided by the square of distance". If you wish to plow through GR tensor and metric you will arrive at the same answer.

You will note I said at the north or south pole of the earth. If you come back with some flip response you will never know why this is not true for the equator. The choice is yours. Do you have a genuine interest in leaning the subject of physics.

[Tom Roberts]

On 10/30/15 10/30/15 5:40 PM, Maciej Woźniak wrote:
> As we all know, a twins will age slower

I'm not sure what you are trying to say.

In the usual twin scenario of SR, neither twin "ages slower"
than the other. They do, however, have different elapsed
proper times between meetings, because they follow different
trajectories (worldlines) through spacetime. The twin scenario
does not demonstrate "time dilation", it demonstrates the
path dependence of path length.

> Still, the age of the universe is observer independent.

Yes. At least in the context of GR and modern cosmological models.

Note, however, in modern cosmological models based on the FRW manifolds of GR,
there is a unique congruence of timelike geodesics corresponding to the dust
particles of the FRW manifold; in cosmological models these dust particles are
identified with the galaxies. For every observer following a geodesic of this
congruence, the "age of the universe" is simply the elapsed proper time since
the big bang (i.e. when the universe "started"). This, of course, includes
observers located on earth (though we cannot trace our own proper time back to
the big bang, we CAN trace back along the geodesic on which we currently evolve).

Fortunately the motion of earth relative to the galaxy is
small enough that the difference between earth's geodesic
and the galaxy's [#] is negligible -- errors due to that
are smaller than the uncertainties in the measurements.

[#] Insofar as this exists and is well defined.

> Seems, that a twins counted as twins will age slower,
> than the same twins counted as a part of the universe...

Here, too, I'm not sure what you are trying to say.

If you mean that differently-moving observers can obtain different values for
the age of the universe, then: yes that's true. But for observers following
geodesics of the congruence mentioned above, they obtain the same value for the
age of the universe at simultaneous points of their worldlines, once a sensible
definition of simultaneity is applied. This is so even though the observers on
different geodesics are indeed moving differently (i.e. have nonzero relative
velocity). But an observer NOT on one of those geodesics can indeed obtain some
different value at simultaneous points on her worldline.

So this is more subtle than you think, and "relative motion" may or may not
imply a difference in the observed age of the universe. Note also the the
definition of simultaneity is important as well (it makes no sense to compare
measurements of the age of the universe at points along the observers'
worldlines that are not "simultaneous").


Tom Roberts

[John Gogo]

Your right, it makes no sense.

[John Gogo]

So, in a single picture (near point) some objects will be in focus and others not. But once our magnifying powers reach infinity (which is not far even for the most powerful of our instruments); therefore, when it comes to measuring the universe- we capture these pictures which have vast distances (even though the objects may be close to each other) between each other.

[fuller...@hotmail.com]

Again the twins paradox.

If one of the Twins is physically Mechanically Accelerated with enough force to Slow the twin's Clock in relation to the Slower Moving twin, the Accelerated Twin will be Physically VIOLENTLY HEATED CAUSING RAPID AGING the Twin.
the Twin paradox is a MOOT POINT due to THERMAL DAMAGE to the Accelerated twin.

The "Variation to the impedance of the vacuum" Due to mechanical acceleration or Gravitational acceleration causes the time Dilation effect one of the Twins.

The Vacuum impedance is ALWAYS RE-BALANCING ITSELF so the Clock will automatically fall out of Any preparatory clock synchronization, Invalidating the Gedanken ...............
no More twins Paradoxes .....!!!!!! Ahhhhhh !!!!!!!!!!!

[Thomas Heger]

Usually we measure time locally.

The one who measures time is called 'observer'. That is usually a human
being, (since animals cannot use a clock).

We humans live on the surface of planet Earth and can use clocks. These
clocks operate around the globe in (somehow) similar manner.

What we in fact do not know is, whether or not they would work similar
in any other place of the universe.

This is so, because humans have not been too far away from the surface
of our home-planet (until now).

But I would think, the universe itself has other ideas about time then
we have. Also SRT and GR assume, that time is not a universal constant
phenomenon, but observer dependent.

We have - for example - the Pioneer anomaly or the experiments at the
Harvard towers, that suggest, that time flows at other pace in other
locations.

Such 'other locations' with a different pace and direction of time I
call 'time domain' and the surface of the Earth is apparently one.

But you could imagine a 'world behind the mirror' where time flows into
the opposite direction. In the view of such a world our future is their
past.

Inhabitants of such a world would certainly have an entirely different
assumption about the age of the universe.


TH

[Koobee Wublee]

On Friday, October 30, 2015 at 8:03:46 PM UTC-7, tjrob137 wrote:

> In the usual twin scenario of SR, neither twin "ages slower" than the
> other.

Bloody hell! All science can do is to examine observations working against the abstract models on the workings of the real world. Tom is making a claim along the line of authoritarian despotism. What supports Tom's authoritarian despotism? Experiments? <Koobee Wublee bursts out in laughing.>

> They do, however, have different elapsed proper times between meetings,

It is a magician's trick to bring out the smoke screen aka proper time. The proper time can only be the local time of the remote event and nothing else. However, the magicians of the religion of relativity tend to "interpret" proper time as a divine and magic thing. <shrug>

> because they follow different trajectories (worldlines) through
> spacetime.

Here we go. The first BS. Clearly, the boot factor of the Lorentz transform only involves the speed of the frames of references --- the observers observing the mutually observed event. That is not anything mystic, but Tom tries to make it so to justify the religion of relativity where the buffoons can now worship their stupide god --- Einstein the nitwit, the plagiarist, and the liar. The religion of relativity, in case if anyone has not yet figured out, is to promote stupidity, plagiarism, and deceits. <shrug>

> The twin scenario does not demonstrate "time dilation",

Tom does not understand the Lorentz transform. <shrug>

> it demonstrates the path dependence of path length.

The only quantity involved is the boost factor, and IT FVCKING CLEARLY IS A FUNCTION OF THE RELATIVE SPEED AND DEFINITIVELY NOTHING ELSE (besides the speed of light, of course). <shrug>

> Note, in modern cosmological models based on the FRW manifolds of GR,

Koobee Wublee would like to remind everyone else that the [Le Maitre]FRW metric does not satisfy the Newtonian law of physics. Why is this a big deal? The Cosmological scale must agree with the Newtonian outcome to be a valid scientific model. If not, THE SOLAR SYSTEM WOULD NEVER EXIST! <shrug>

> there is a unique congruence of timelike geodesics corresponding to
> the dust particles of the FRW manifold;

Tom is spraying mystic power again. <shrug>

> in cosmological models these dust particles are identified with the
> galaxies.

But galaxies gravitationally attract each other. The [L]FRW metric is 100% contradictory to observations, and this should have been shot down by science fvcking long ago. <shrug>

> For every observer following a geodesic of this congruence, the "age
> of the universe" is simply the elapsed proper time since the big bang
> (i.e. when the universe "started"). This, of course, includes observers
> located on earth (though we cannot trace our own proper time back to
> the big bang, we CAN trace back along the geodesic on which we
> currently evolve).

Total bullshit for the reasons explained by Koobee Wublee above. <shrug>

> Fortunately the motion of earth relative to the galaxy is small enough

> that the difference between earth's geodesic and the galaxy's is

> negligible -- errors due to that are smaller than the uncertainties in
> the measurements.

Tom introduces BS and defiantly claimed not to debunk the BS mentioned. Tom is not a scientist but a usual preacher. <shrug>

> [rest of repeating BS snipped]

It is fvcking disgusting that this is what science has degenerated into. <shrug>

[Maciej Woźniak]

Użytkownik "John Heath" napisał w wiadomości grup
dyskusyjnych:f050afba-d044-4e69...@googlegroups.com...

On Friday, October 30, 2015 at 6:40:58 PM UTC-4, Maciej Woźniak wrote:
> As we all know, a twins will age slower
> Still, the age of the universe is observer independent.
> Seems, that a twins counted as twins will age slower,
> than the same twins counted as a part of the universe...
>
> Did I miss something?

|You did not miss the point. However your point of "the age of the universe
is observer independent" has no empirical evidence to support it nor a
theory to back it up including SR and GR so where does this come from?

From one of relativistic "gurus" here.

[Maciej Woźniak]

Użytkownik "Tom Roberts" napisał w wiadomości grup
dyskusyjnych:PoudncJhtuUWsqnL...@giganews.com...

On 10/30/15 10/30/15 5:40 PM, Maciej Woźniak wrote:
> As we all know, a twins will age slower

I'm not sure what you are trying to say.

|In the usual twin scenario of SR, neither twin "ages slower"

"Usual" twin scenario is GR scenario for me.

> Still, the age of the universe is observer independent.

|Yes. At least in the context of GR and modern cosmological models.

> Seems, that a twins counted as twins will age slower,
> than the same twins counted as a part of the universe...

|Here, too, I'm not sure what you are trying to say.

Let amount of time since BB (age of the universe) is
t0.
We do a common GR twins scenario. One of them
take a rocket, travel, return. Their clocks indicate
t0+t1, t0+t2, t1<>t2.
What is the age of the universe now?

[Maciej Woźniak]

Użytkownik "Thomas Heger" napisał w wiadomości grup
dyskusyjnych:d9j03n...@mid.individual.net...

|Usually we measure time locally.

|But I would think, the universe itself has other ideas about time then

I think, ideas require a brain. And even more, a language.
See no reason to think universe has one.

[Thomas Heger]

Well, yes.

But the OP asked a question. This was: is the age of the universe
observer independent?

'Age' means number time-intervals (like: years) since 'birth'.

The 'length' of such intervals is now in question, since different
length of - say- a year would give a different number of counts from
such an event.

So is the length of the year always the same (for all possible observers)?

I would say: no, it's not.

We don't even know, if any observer would encounter the same order of
events. So we could assume a world, where time runs kind of backwards
(in our - external - view).

This would also exclude, to assign a certain age to the universe, since
what is birth to us is death to 'them'.

So the correct answer to the question of the OP would be: no.


TH

[Maciej Woźniak]

Użytkownik "Thomas Heger" napisał w wiadomości grup

dyskusyjnych:d9jf3r...@mid.individual.net...

|So is the length of the year always the same (for all possible observers)?
|I would say: no, it's not.

|We don't even know, if any observer would encounter the same order of
|events. So we could assume a world, where time runs kind of backwards
|(in our - external - view).

And we could assume jedi knights waving their lightsabers, too. Couldn't we?

No, observers don't encounter the same order of events. Read the history,
You'll know, that order of event can mix. Still, historicians are DOING
THEIR
BEST to clear it, because disorder in events between observers is amongst
the last things a sane person would like.

Anyway, "ordering events" is an idea. I'm afraid ideas can't exist without
a brain, and even more - language. That leads me to a conclusion, that
the only order of events we can meet, is the one we created/will create.
It's just - if we do it a stupid way, we'll get a sorry mess to deal with.

[Tom Roberts]

On 10/30/15 10/30/15 10:03 PM, Tom Roberts wrote:
> On 10/30/15 10/30/15 5:40 PM, Maciej Woźniak wrote:
>> Still, the age of the universe is observer independent.
>
> Yes. At least in the context of GR and modern cosmological models.

OOPS I mis-read, and thought he said "observer dependent".

As I explained in modern cosmological models, for one class of observers the age
of the universe is observer independent, but for observers not in that class it
is observer dependent. (Earthbound observers are in that class, with negligible
error.)

That mis-reading does not affect the rest of what I wrote.


Tom Roberts

[Thomas Heger]

Am 31.10.2015 11:14, schrieb Maciej Woźniak:
>
>
> Użytkownik "Thomas Heger" napisał w wiadomości grup
> dyskusyjnych:d9jf3r...@mid.individual.net...
>
> |So is the length of the year always the same (for all possible observers)?
> |I would say: no, it's not.
>
> |We don't even know, if any observer would encounter the same order of
> |events. So we could assume a world, where time runs kind of backwards
> |(in our - external - view).
>
>
> And we could assume jedi knights waving their lightsabers, too. Couldn't
> we?
>
> No, observers don't encounter the same order of events. Read the history,
> You'll know, that order of event can mix. Still, historicians are DOING
> THEIR
> BEST to clear it, because disorder in events between observers is amongst
> the last things a sane person would like.
>

The order of event is apparent and ascribed by the observer.

This is caused by the speed of light. Since light is fast in comparison
to human measures, but slow in respect to the distances in the universe,
we must keep in mind, that what we see at the same time did not happen
simultaneous.

But if we assume, that simultaneousness is 'relative' we also mean, the
order of events is 'relative'.

Since a certain timeline means, that the events along such an axis of
time happen in the supposed order. This is mainly governed by the second
law of thermodynamics, which claims, that entropy must increase.


But apparently the universe has not been cancelled out and and has not
yet died from increasing entropy.

So there must be a process acting, that prevents the universe from
getting filled with somehow even temperatures and mean distribution of
matter.

I assume, there would be different timelines, along which the disorder
in one universe is 'recycled' in another, where time flows in the
opposite direction.

So, a black hole in one direction is actually a white hole with time
reversed. And 'the' big-bang is actually the 'birth' of OUR universe and
we measure time as OUR (local) time from that 'birth'.

The age of this universe is then depending on us (humans) as observers
here on planet Earth, since we are in fact in the centre of this
'universe', since actually the term 'universe' is ascribed to what we
see in the sky. And this is a picture caused by the delay due to the
limited speed of light.

And all other observers do similar, but see a different 'universe' (and
also ascribe a different age to it).


TH

[Maciej Woźniak]

Użytkownik "Thomas Heger" napisał w wiadomości grup

dyskusyjnych:d9li1n...@mid.individual.net...

|But if we assume, that simultaneousness is 'relative' we also mean, the
|order of events is 'relative'.

Mathematic has proven, that we can assume a lot of
different things.
But it has never proven, that whatever we assume is
good and wise. Or has it?

|I assume, there would be different timelines, along which the disorder
|in one universe is 'recycled' in another, where time flows in the
|opposite direction.

And I assume, that stupid assumptions result in a sorry mess
we have to deal with later.
But let us return to my question.
Suppose age of the Universe is t0. We do a common twins
case, after travel clocks indicate t0+t1, t0+t2.
What is the age of the Universe now?

[Maciej Woźniak]

Użytkownik "Tom Roberts" napisał w wiadomości grup
dyskusyjnych:PPCdnQ4ipK_5RanL...@giganews.com...

|As I explained in modern cosmological models, for one class of observers
the age
|of the universe is observer independent, but for observers not in that
class it
|is observer dependent. (Earthbound observers are in that class, with
negligible
|error.)

:)
That's lead us to the question: are WE earthbound? Many religions say,
we're not.
Where was your frame of reference 200 000 000 years ago, according
to these modern cosmological models you mentioned? Where wil itl
be in a hundred years? I You were/will be massless then, you could
travel with c. Even more, if without information.
Another interesting question is: where was this "earthbound" frame
and what was its proper time 12 000 000 000 years ago? Don't you
think it is possible, that Earth's proper time was slowing down?

We see a stars or galaxies 15 000 000 000 years old, but
we can be like this twins, can't we? Maybe in Earth's
reference frame it's only 8000 000 000 years since BB?
And in my frame it's only 341.34 years? Isn't it possible?
What do your modern cosmological models say about it?


And, most important:

[kenseto]

The main problem of modern physics is the definition of time...."time is what the clock measures". This definition assumes that a unit of clock time "a clock second"

[kenseto]

On Friday, October 30, 2015 at 11:03:46 PM UTC-4, tjrob137 wrote:

The main problem of modern physics is the definition of time...."time is what the clock measures". This definition assumes that a unit of clock time "a clock second" is a universal interval of time....IOW the passage of a clock second in A's frame is corresponded to the passage of a clock second in B's frame. That is a false claim. The GPS refutes such claim. The GPS second is redfined to have 4.46 more periods of Cs 133 radiation than the ground clcok second. This is designed to make the passage of a redesigned GPS second corresponds to the passage of a standard ground clock second. Such redefinition of the GPS second acknowledges the existence of universal interval of time.

[Wayne Olmstead]

kenseto wrote:

> The main problem of modern physics is the definition of time...."time is
> what the clock measures". This definition assumes that a unit of clock
> time "a clock second" is a universal interval of time....

Of course not, is simpler than that, can't you read: "what a clock shows".

> IOW the passage
> of a clock second in A's frame is corresponded to the passage of a clock
> second in B's frame. That is a false claim.

Yes.

> The GPS refutes such claim.
> The GPS second is redfined to have 4.46 more periods of Cs 133 radiation
> than the ground clcok second.

No, it is just establish a correspondence between the passage of time down
on Earth and up there.

> This is designed to make the passage of a
> redesigned GPS second corresponds to the passage of a standard ground
> clock second. Such redefinition of the GPS second acknowledges the
> existence of universal interval of time.

This is similar to the theory of Divergent Matter. Have a nice day.

[John Heath]

t0+t1 and t0+t2 will give different answers. As this is obvious I assume you are not happy with two twins aging at different rates. Mr Muon ages much slower when falling to earth at .99 c than when at rest. That one is known to be true as they tested in the 1950s. There in is empirical evidence that supports twins aging at different rates. The age of the universe would depend on which twin you asked t0+t1 or t0=t2. At the end of the day it is relative to the observer. It should be noted that as space expands you can effectively move faster than light but not within that expanding space. This is how BB gets away with expansion faster than light.

[mlwo...@wp.pl]

W dniu niedziela, 1 listopada 2015 16:13:35 UTC+1 użytkownik John Heath napisał:

> > And I assume, that stupid assumptions result in a sorry mess
> > we have to deal with later.
> > But let us return to my question.
> > Suppose age of the Universe is t0. We do a common twins
> > case, after travel clocks indicate t0+t1, t0+t2.
> > What is the age of the Universe now?
>
> t0+t1 and t0+t2 will give different answers.

Fine.
Now, suppose the travelling twins, with his
point of view "age of the universe is t0+t2",
after returning marry a stationary woman
with a point of view "t0+t1". What is the
point of view of their child?
What do mr Muon and Your brilliant experimens
say?

BTW, are You sure, that You weren't travelling
since 9000 000 000 B.c to 1 000 000 000 B.C?
Without any mass, You could even reach c...
So, maybe from Your point of view the Universe
is 8000 000 000 younger, than from mine?
Mr Muon doesn't say "no"... Common sense does,
but it's just a set of prejudices, isn't it?

[Odd Bodkin]

On 11/1/2015 8:49 AM, kenseto wrote:
> The main problem of modern physics is the definition of time...."time is what the clock measures". This
> definition assumes that a unit of clock time "a clock second" is a universal interval of time.

Why do you think it makes any such assumption?
Why not just take it for EXACTLY what it says, without adding anything
extra from your own head?


--
Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

[Tom Roberts]

On 10/31/15 10/31/15 - 3:11 AM, Maciej Woźniak wrote:
> Użytkownik "Tom Roberts" napisał w wiadomości grup
> dyskusyjnych:PoudncJhtuUWsqnL...@giganews.com...
> On 10/30/15 10/30/15 5:40 PM, Maciej Woźniak wrote:
>> As we all know, a twins will age slower
>
> I'm not sure what you are trying to say.
>
> |In the usual twin scenario of SR, neither twin "ages slower"
>
> "Usual" twin scenario is GR scenario for me.

You cannot expect people to be clairvoyant, so you should say so.

In GR it's still true that neither twin "ages slower" -- they each get 1 second
older for every second of their elapsed proper time.

>> Still, the age of the universe is observer independent.
>
> |Yes. At least in the context of GR and modern cosmological models.

As I said earlier, I misread and thought you said "observer dependent".

In general it _IS_ observer dependent, but as I explained earlier, in modern
cosmological models there is a class of observers for whom the age of the

universe is observer independent, but for observers not in that class it is

observer dependent. In those models, whenever they discuss the age of the
universe, they implicitly mean to observers in that class.

>> Seems, that a twins counted as twins will age slower,
>> than the same twins counted as a part of the universe...
>
> |Here, too, I'm not sure what you are trying to say.
>
> Let amount of time since BB (age of the universe) is
> t0.
> We do a common GR twins scenario. One of them
> take a rocket, travel, return. Their clocks indicate
> t0+t1, t0+t2, t1<>t2.
> What is the age of the universe now?

To one observer it will be t0+t1, and to the other observer it will be t0+t2.
What's so hard about that? If the observer who did not use the rocket is a
member of the above-mentioned class, than this observer will agree with all
others in that class. The twin who used the rocket cannot be a member of that class.


Tom Roberts

[Thomas Heger]

Am 01.11.2015 09:11, schrieb Maciej Woźniak:
>

> |But if we assume, that simultaneousness is 'relative' we also mean, the
> |order of events is 'relative'.
>
> Mathematic has proven, that we can assume a lot of
> different things.
> But it has never proven, that whatever we assume is
> good and wise. Or has it?
>
> |I assume, there would be different timelines, along which the disorder
> |in one universe is 'recycled' in another, where time flows in the
> |opposite direction.
>
> And I assume, that stupid assumptions result in a sorry mess
> we have to deal with later.

If we look at the world, we find places like the Earth. There are also
all sorts of other objects visible in the sky at night.

So we actually see an increase of order and not the creation of some
sort of average foggy 'soup'.

This is astonishing, since that would bring the second law of
thermodynamics into question, which states, that entropy must increase.

But on large scale the universe does (apparently) not follow this rule.

How did that happen?

This is an important question, since its solution would allow a more
profound understanding about natural phenomena.

My own assumption is, that we have actually different timelines, to
which of each is associated an entire universe. Such a 'universe' could
be 'born' in a big bang and kind of 'die' in a 'big crunch'.

This gives a large circle, that we could 'mirror' and continue to
another circle. This would than look like '8'.


TH

[Koobee Wublee]

On Monday, November 2, 2015 at 11:28:32 AM UTC-8, tjrob137 wrote:

> In GR it's still true that neither twin "ages slower" -- they each
> get 1 second older for every second of their elapsed proper time.

Although what Tom is talking about is not endorsed by any textbooks, Koobee Wublee has already explained why any spacetime physics (ie: GR) offers no gravitational Doppler effect agreeing with what Tom is talking about above. Of course, this proper time thing can only be the local time as experienced through this local event. <shrug>

https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.physics.relativity/a8bLh7dANy0/n-70UJYShHkJ

> as I explained earlier, in modern cosmological models there is a
> class of observers for whom the age of the universe is observer
> independent,

Gods? Does that include the stupid god of relativity --- Einstein the nitwit, the plagiarist, and the liar? <shrug>

> but for observers not in that class it is observer dependent.

Mortals like the late Andro? <shrug>

> In those models, whenever they discuss the age of the universe,
> they implicitly mean to observers in that class.

Nonsense! So, Cosmologists like to blend the lines between gods and mortals. What a fvcking joke! <shrug>

> [rest of babbling nonsense snipped]

Koobee Wublee has had enough of Tom's bullshit on Cosmology as pictured from gods and mortals. If Koobee Wublee wants to feel how small He is in the universe, Koobee Wublee will certainly consult with a priest instead of a self-styled physicist. <shrug>

[mlwo...@wp.pl]

W dniu poniedziałek, 2 listopada 2015 16:32:31 UTC+1 użytkownik Odd Bodkin napisał:
> On 11/1/2015 8:49 AM, kenseto wrote:
> > The main problem of modern physics is the definition of time...."time is what the clock measures". This
> > definition assumes that a unit of clock time "a clock second" is a universal interval of time.
>
> Why do you think it makes any such assumption?

Because it says directly.

[mlwo...@wp.pl]

W dniu poniedziałek, 2 listopada 2015 20:28:32 UTC+1 użytkownik tjrob137 napisał:
> > Let amount of time since BB (age of the universe) is
> > t0.
> > We do a common GR twins scenario. One of them
> > take a rocket, travel, return. Their clocks indicate
> > t0+t1, t0+t2, t1<>t2.
> > What is the age of the universe now?
>
> To one observer it will be t0+t1, and to the other observer it will be t0+t2.
> What's so hard about that? If the observer who did not use the rocket is a
> member of the above-mentioned class, than this observer will agree with all
> others in that class. The twin who used the rocket cannot be a member of that class.

:)It takes more, than using the words like "class" to
make it exact.
How is your "class" defined?
What about his children? Are they in "the class" or not?
What makes you sure YOU are in "the class"? What were you
doing 500 years ago?

How is the frame you measure the age of the Universe
defined?

[mlwo...@wp.pl]

W dniu wtorek, 3 listopada 2015 05:42:40 UTC+1 użytkownik Thomas Heger napisał:
> Am 01.11.2015 09:11, schrieb Maciej Woźniak:
>
> My own assumption is, that we have actually different timelines,

Unfortunately, this assumption is samely
worthless in GPS, as it is in the cosmology.
G in GPS means "global". Not "local".
Cosmology is even more "global".
Your concept of local timelines won't work.
Simple?

[Tom Roberts]

On 11/1/15 11/1/15 - 2:36 AM, Maciej Woźniak wrote:
> Użytkownik "Tom Roberts" napisał w wiadomości grup
> dyskusyjnych:PPCdnQ4ipK_5RanL...@giganews.com...
> |As I explained in modern cosmological models, for one class of observers the age
> |of the universe is observer independent, but for observers not in that class it
> |is observer dependent. (Earthbound observers are in that class, with negligible
> |error.)
>

> That's lead us to the question: are WE earthbound? Many religions say,
> we're not.

Apparently you are completely unable to distinguish sense from nonsense. No
wonder you are so confused.

How many people do you know who are not earthbound? If the answer is zero, then
your question is downright silly.

Astronauts in orbit are still effectively earthbound, as
they will return to earth, having experienced a difference
in elapsed proper time measured in microseconds. How does
that compare to the age of the universe?

> Where was your frame of reference 200 000 000 years ago, according
> to these modern cosmological models you mentioned? Where wil itl
> be in a hundred years?

Along the same geodesic path the earth is following today. It extends all the
way back to the big bang. While the earth (and humans) did not exist long ago,
the geodesic certainly did. These are MATHEMATICAL models, and the mathematics
is eternal even if humans are not.

> We see a stars or galaxies 15 000 000 000 years old, but
> we can be like this twins, can't we? Maybe in Earth's
> reference frame it's only 8000 000 000 years since BB?

No. Physics is a QUANTITATIVE science. We can COMPUTE how the earth's trajectory
differs from the closest trajectory of the class of observers for whom the age
of the universe is the same (and to which the models refer). So we _KNOW_ that
the difference is negligible (i.e. the effect of that difference is smaller than
the errorbar in the measurement).

> And in my frame it's only 341.34 years? Isn't it possible?

Not for earth. Not for earthbound observers.

Simply making GUESSES and throwing out RANDOM numbers is useless. All you do is
generate more nonsense (which you apparently cannot distinguish from sensible
ideas -- that's rather sad for you).

> And, most important:
> Suppose age of the Universe is t0. We do a common twins
> case, after travel clocks indicate t0+t1, t0+t2.
> What is the age of the Universe now?

As I said before (in a post TO WHICH YOU RESPONDED): to one the age is t0+t1 and
to the other it is t0+t2.

You should also learn how to read, and how to REMEMBER what you have read.

(Around here you are not alone in your inability to do this.)


In another post you asked:

> It takes more, than using the words like "class" to
> make it exact.
> How is your "class" defined?

> How is the frame you measure the age of the Universe
> defined?

All you have to do is READ WHAT I WROTE in earlier posts in this thread. And
remember it.


Tom Roberts

[Tom Roberts]

On 11/2/15 11/2/15 - 11:32 PM, Koobee Wublee wrote:
> On Monday, November 2, 2015 at 11:28:32 AM UTC-8, tjrob137 wrote:
>> In GR it's still true that neither twin "ages slower" -- they each get 1
>> second older for every second of their elapsed proper time.
>
> Although what Tom is talking about is not endorsed by any textbooks,

Nonsense! This is discussed in every GR textbook I own. Perhaps not in those
exact words, but the underlying idea is well known, widely described, and
unassailable (except by fools who do not understand GR but pretend to do so,
such as KW).

> Koobee
> Wublee has already explained why any spacetime physics (ie: GR) offers no
> gravitational Doppler effect agreeing with what Tom is talking about above.

More nonsense. KW "explained" how his PERSONAL MISUNDERSTANDINGS OF GR do that,
but he said NOTHING AT ALL about the actual theory. The gravitational Doppler
effect is also discussed in every GR textbook I own.


Note to readers: Koobee Wublee is among the most persistent idiots
around here. He has been repeating this nonsense for many years,
without any attempt to learn the subject he tries to write about.
I reply to him only occasionally, as a service to readers who may
not recognize his mistakes. He has proven himself to be unable
and unwilling to learn anything.


Tom Roberts

[Maciej Woźniak]

Użytkownik "Tom Roberts" napisał w wiadomości grup

dyskusyjnych:Z5idncsK8bLiQKXL...@giganews.com...

> That's lead us to the question: are WE earthbound? Many religions say,
> we're not.

|Apparently you are completely unable to distinguish sense from nonsense. No
|wonder you are so confused.
|How many people do you know who are not earthbound? If the answer is zero,
then
|your question is downright silly.

:)Listen to yourself.
So, after all of these tales of twins and triplets driving their rockets
and falling into black holes, when it comes to do something for
real you suddenly remind, that real observers are all earthbound?
Oh, yes, we are. Thinking oppositely is a nonsense, right. It's not
me who started this nonsense, but it's me who is going to finish
with it.
BTW, earhbound standard of the second will be kept, as long
as we are earthbound. Or even longer. Your Shit is a dead one.

> Where was your frame of reference 200 000 000 years ago, according
> to these modern cosmological models you mentioned? Where wil itl
> be in a hundred years?

|Along the same geodesic path the earth is following today.

Why on geodesics, and why on the same geodesics?

| These are MATHEMATICAL models, and the mathematics is eternal
| even if humans are not.

Is it? Really? What the hell makes you think so?

|No. Physics is a QUANTITATIVE science. We can COMPUTE how the earth's
trajectory
|differs from the closest trajectory of the class of observers for whom the
age

Trajectories are not everything. There is still gravity. Isn't it?

[crisd]

On Saturday, October 31, 2015 at 12:03:41 AM UTC-7, Koobee Wublee wrote:

<snip usual>

> <Koobee Wublee bursts out in laughing.>

<snip usual>

Holy crap, Koobee actually said something new!

[Thomas Heger]

Why?

It's a question of definition of the term 'time'.

If we would follow Einstein, then time is what a clock measures.

A clock is a device and devices are mainly local.

In other words: there is something, that clocks measure and that we call
'time'.

This is obviously a local phenomenon, since these devices are localised
machines.

How time behaves on larger scales we simply don't know, since we don't
have an 'outside view' (upon the universe).

Since 'all inertial observers are of equal rights', we should assume,
that all observers measure proper time, thou along different timelines.

TH

[Thomas Heger]

Am 03.11.2015 17:19, schrieb Tom Roberts:
>
> Note to readers: Koobee Wublee is among the most persistent idiots
> around here. He has been repeating this nonsense for many years,
> without any attempt to learn the subject he tries to write about.
> I reply to him only occasionally, as a service to readers who may
> not recognize his mistakes. He has proven himself to be unable
> and unwilling to learn anything.

You speak from an assumed superiority of your own point of view.

But how to criticize this point of view?

E.g. I assume - for example- the formula E=m*c² contains a serious error.

If I say, that formula is wrong, you may reply, that I should learn.

But I say, what I shall learn is wrong, even if I had learned that already.

So how to adjust, what is in the textbooks?


TH

[Thomas Heger]

Am 04.11.2015 01:41, schrieb Thomas Heger:
> Am 03.11.2015 17:19, schrieb Tom Roberts:
>>
>> Note to readers: Koobee Wublee is among the most persistent idiots
>> around here. He has been repeating this nonsense for many years,
>> without any attempt to learn the subject he tries to write about.
>> I reply to him only occasionally, as a service to readers who may
>> not recognize his mistakes. He has proven himself to be unable
>> and unwilling to learn anything.
>
> You speak from an assumed superiority of your own point of view.
>
> But how to criticize this point of view?
>
> E.g. I assume - for example- the formula E=m*c² contains a serious error.
>

Actually a radioactive sample looses mass, while it sends out energetic
rays.

This is somehow similar in the numerical value, but not equal. Actually
we loose mass and get radiation (like e.g gamma rays, with energy but no
mass).

A loss of some mass is 'delta m' (not m).

Also the signs should be different, since gain is not loss.



TH

[Tom Roberts]

On 11/3/15 11/3/15 6:41 PM, Thomas Heger wrote:
> Am 03.11.2015 17:19, schrieb Tom Roberts:
>> Note to readers: Koobee Wublee is among the most persistent idiots
>> around here. He has been repeating this nonsense for many years,
>> without any attempt to learn the subject he tries to write about.
>> I reply to him only occasionally, as a service to readers who may
>> not recognize his mistakes. He has proven himself to be unable
>> and unwilling to learn anything.
>
> You speak from an assumed superiority of your own point of view.

No. I speak from KNOWLEDGE OF GR. After all, the subject here is explicitly GR.

> But how to criticize this point of view?

One MUST understand GR. That leaves you out, and KW, and almost everyone who
contributes to this newsgroup.

Such knowledge will leave you nothing to criticize, as I have simply described
basic GR.

For instance, JanPB is one person around here who does have
good knowledge of GR. How often have you seen him criticize
anything I have said? Or I him? -- not very often, as we
SHARE A COMMON UNDERSTANDING. When he does point out an
error I made, we quickly and amicably resolve it. Contrast
that to the never-ending arguments and "discussions" with
just about anyone else -- there is no shared understanding,
and usually not even a shared vocabulary. Physicists do not
have that problem, but fools, idiots, and wannabes around
here often do.

> E.g. I assume - for example- the formula E=m*c² contains a serious error.
> If I say, that formula is wrong, you may reply, that I should learn.

Right -- such an "assumption" is hopeless, and you DO need to learn, because in
the context of SR is it not wrong. Note that SR has been confirmed by every test
performed within its domain, and has been refuted by NONE. It is among the
best-tested theories/models we have.

Fools and idiots around here who claim otherwise simply do
not understand the issues.

> But I say, what I shall learn is wrong, even if I had learned that already.

You did not learn it, you "learned" errors.

> So how to adjust, what is in the textbooks?

You can "adjust" by LEARNING ABOUT MODERN PHYSICS. There is no shortcut, and no
other way. What is in the textbooks is what I said.

Yes, it can be difficult for newbies to distinguish fools
and idiots from people who do understand modern physics
(such as relativity). Heger is not a newbie, but still
seems to have this problem. The only reliable way I know
is that fools and idiots do not reference textbooks,
while knowledgeable people often do. I recommend:
SR: Taylor and Wheeler, _Spacetime_Physics_
GR: Misner, Thorne, and Wheeler, _Gravitation_


Tom Roberts

[John Gogo]

On Friday, October 30, 2015 at 11:39:47 PM UTC-5, John Gogo wrote:
> On Friday, October 30, 2015 at 11:30:26 PM UTC-5, John Gogo wrote:

> > On Friday, October 30, 2015 at 10:03:46 PM UTC-5, tjrob137 wrote:
> > > On 10/30/15 10/30/15 5:40 PM, Maciej Woźniak wrote:
> > > > As we all know, a twins will age slower
> > >
> > > I'm not sure what you are trying to say.
> > >
> > > In the usual twin scenario of SR, neither twin "ages slower"

> > > than the other. They do, however, have different elapsed
> > > proper times between meetings, because they follow different
> > > trajectories (worldlines) through spacetime. The twin scenario
> > > does not demonstrate "time dilation", it demonstrates the
> > > path dependence of path length.
> > >
> > >

> > > > Still, the age of the universe is observer independent.
> > >
> > > Yes. At least in the context of GR and modern cosmological models.
> > >

> > > Note, however, in modern cosmological models based on the FRW manifolds of GR,
> > > there is a unique congruence of timelike geodesics corresponding to the dust
> > > particles of the FRW manifold; in cosmological models these dust particles are
> > > identified with the galaxies. For every observer following a geodesic of this
> > > congruence, the "age of the universe" is simply the elapsed proper time since
> > > the big bang (i.e. when the universe "started"). This, of course, includes
> > > observers located on earth (though we cannot trace our own proper time back to
> > > the big bang, we CAN trace back along the geodesic on which we currently evolve).
> > >
> > > Fortunately the motion of earth relative to the galaxy is
> > > small enough that the difference between earth's geodesic
> > > and the galaxy's [#] is negligible -- errors due to that
> > > are smaller than the uncertainties in the measurements.
> > >
> > > [#] Insofar as this exists and is well defined.
> > >
> > >

> > > > Seems, that a twins counted as twins will age slower,
> > > > than the same twins counted as a part of the universe...
> > >
> > > Here, too, I'm not sure what you are trying to say.
> > >

> > > If you mean that differently-moving observers can obtain different values for
> > > the age of the universe, then: yes that's true. But for observers following
> > > geodesics of the congruence mentioned above, they obtain the same value for the
> > > age of the universe at simultaneous points of their worldlines, once a sensible
> > > definition of simultaneity is applied. This is so even though the observers on
> > > different geodesics are indeed moving differently (i.e. have nonzero relative
> > > velocity). But an observer NOT on one of those geodesics can indeed obtain some
> > > different value at simultaneous points on her worldline.
> > >
> > > So this is more subtle than you think, and "relative motion" may or may not
> > > imply a difference in the observed age of the universe. Note also the the
> > > definition of simultaneity is important as well (it makes no sense to compare
> > > measurements of the age of the universe at points along the observers'
> > > worldlines that are not "simultaneous").
> > >
> > >

> > > Tom Roberts
> >
> > Your right, it makes no sense.
>
> So, in a single picture (near point) some objects will be in focus and others not. But once our magnifying powers reach infinity (which is not far even for the most powerful of our instruments); therefore, when it comes to measuring the universe- we capture these pictures which have vast distances (even though the objects may be close to each other) between each other.

Close to each other in the sense that the objects can be captured in with a single photograph.

[John Gogo]

This is because you still believe that the universe is ruled by c and the fact that all objects in the observable universe have strikingly varying distances. I look at it like man is a machine. The machine was built by nature which possesses a base magnitude of measure. From this base magnitude we are capable of capturing still photographs of millions of stars at a single moment. This is what time means to me- any variation from a "still" photograph. This is how we discovered our planets.

[John Gogo]

There are philosophical timelines of which one is false:
1) light travels and falls into the eyes according to c
2) the eyes are a most evolved instrument capable of instantaneously capturing lighted objects solely dependent on man's maximum visual acuity.

[Koobee Wublee]

On TOn Tuesday, November 3, 2015 at 8:19:51 AM UTC-8, tjrob137 wrote:

> On Monday, November 2, 2015 at 9:32:50 PM, Koobee Wublee wrote:

> > Although what Tom is talking about is not endorsed by any textbooks,
>
> Nonsense! This is discussed in every GR textbook I own.

Which bible would that be that is told from God's point of view? <shrug>

> Perhaps not in those exact words, but the underlying idea is well
> known,

Or perhaps, any book attempting to pass as science does not offer God's point of view, eh? <shrug>

> widely described, and unassailable (except by fools who do not

> understand GR but pretend to do so, such as...

Hmmm... Tom comes in mind. <shrug>

> > Koobee Wublee has already explained why any spacetime physics (ie:
> > GR) offers no gravitational Doppler effect agreeing with what Tom is

> > talking about above. Of course, this proper time thing can only be
> > the local time as experienced through this local event. <shrug>
>
> https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.physics.relativity/a8bLh7dANy0/n-70UJYShHkJ
>

> More nonsense.

Notice Tom's ego is deeply bruised that its lack of understanding in GR is exposed through self-denial. <shrug>

> KW "explained" how his PERSONAL MISUNDERSTANDINGS OF GR do that,

Not personal misunderstanding but the logical conclusion played in the same game rules as the self-styled physicists. <shrug>

> but he said NOTHING AT ALL about the actual theory.

Koobee Wublee has demonstrated vastly superior understanding of GR that Tom could never hopefully comprehend. <shrug>

> The gravitational Doppler effect is also discussed in every GR
> textbook I own.

Yes, but it is wrong again and again as explained so by Koobee Wublee. <shrug>

> [more personal attacks snipped

[Koobee Wublee]

On Tuesday, November 3, 2015 at 7:51:45 PM UTC-8, tjrob137 wrote:

> On 11/3/15, 6:41 PM, Thomas Heger wrote:

> > You speak from an assumed superiority of your own point of view.
>
> No. I speak from KNOWLEDGE OF GR.

A more correct phrase is that Tom speaks from the MYSTIC POINT OF VIEW OF GR. <shrug>

> > But how to criticize this point of view?
>
> One MUST understand GR.

That is correct. ONE MUST UNDERSTAND GR FROM THE SCIENTIFIC POINT OF VIEW AND NOT FROM MYSTICISM LIKE TOM. <shrug>

> That leaves you out, and KW, and almost everyone who contributes
> to this newsgroup.

High priests of a religion tend to feel lonely at the so-called TOP. <shrug>

> For instance, JanPB is one person around here who does have good
> knowledge of GR.

Tom need to go for a confession on that one. Jan Bielawski is among the most fvcking mystified individuals ever embraced the cyberspace of these newsgroups. The buffoon is hopeless in understanding simple mathematics. For example, when Koobee Wublee wants to describe a specific geometry with the polar coordinate system, the imbecile ranted "what gives you the right to do that". Well, the lists go on. <shrug>

> How often have you seen him criticize anything I have said? Or I
> him?

Both are deeply mystified by the nonsense of GR. <shrug>

> -- not very often, as we SHARE A COMMON UNDERSTANDING.

Both buffoons listens to whispers from their stupid god of relativity --- Einstein the nitwit, the plagiarist, and the liar. <shrug>

> When he does point out an error I made, we quickly and amicably
> resolve it.

Tom meant both would shove under the carpet --- so to speak. <shrug>

> Contrast that to the never-ending arguments and "discussions" with
> just about anyone else -- there is no shared understanding, and
> usually not even a shared vocabulary.

But plenty of shared mysticisms. <shrug>

> Physicists do not have that problem, but fools, idiots, and wannabes
> around here often do.

When Tom cannot have its way, Tom would throw personal attacks. Tom behaves very childish. <shrug>

> [rest of useless ranting snipped for the sanity of mankind]

As long as Tom does not discuss GR with math, Tom will remain ever so mystified. Amen! <shrug>

[Koobee Wublee]

On Tuesday, November 3, 2015 at 2:08:42 PM UTC-8, crisd wrote:

> On Saturday, October 31, 2015 at 12:03:41 AM, Koobee Wublee wrote:
>
> <snip usual>
>
> > <Koobee Wublee bursts out in laughing.>
>
> <snip usual>
>
> Holy crap, Koobee actually said something new!

Hi, Jan. Bored of mysticism? <shrug>

[mlwo...@wp.pl]

W dniu środa, 4 listopada 2015 01:34:33 UTC+1 użytkownik Thomas Heger napisał:
> Am 03.11.2015 10:31, schrieb mlwo...@wp.pl:
> > W dniu wtorek, 3 listopada 2015 05:42:40 UTC+1 użytkownik Thomas Heger napisał:
> >> Am 01.11.2015 09:11, schrieb Maciej Woźniak:
> >>
> >> My own assumption is, that we have actually different timelines,
> >
> > Unfortunately, this assumption is samely
> > worthless in GPS, as it is in the cosmology.
> > G in GPS means "global". Not "local".
> > Cosmology is even more "global".
> > Your concept of local timelines won't work.
>
> Why?

Because it's local, and cosmology and GPS
are global.

>
> It's a question of definition of the term 'time'.

No matter, how You will define "time", GPS requires
synchronized clocks to work, and won't work
with clocks unsynchronized.
Of course, after redefining "time", You can also
redefine "work" to "prove", that Your "time" "works".

> If we would follow Einstein, then time is what a clock measures.
> A clock is a device and devices are mainly local.
> In other words: there is something, that clocks measure and that we call
> 'time'.
> This is obviously a local phenomenon, since these devices are localised
> machines.

Take a look at GPS. No, in the real world these
devices are not localised machines.

> How time behaves on larger scales we simply don't know, since we don't
> have an 'outside view' (upon the universe).

GPS is large enough. Time, understood as "what clocks
indicate" is global and matching t'=t equation, with
the precision of acceptable error.

> Since 'all inertial observers are of equal rights',

1)there are no inertial observers in the real
world
2)there are no "equal rights for everybody"
in the real world.

[Thomas Heger]

Am 04.11.2015 04:51, schrieb Tom Roberts:

>>> Note to readers: Koobee Wublee is among the most persistent idiots
>>> around here. He has been repeating this nonsense for many years,
>>> without any attempt to learn the subject he tries to write about.
>>> I reply to him only occasionally, as a service to readers who may
>>> not recognize his mistakes. He has proven himself to be unable
>>> and unwilling to learn anything.
>>
>> You speak from an assumed superiority of your own point of view.
>
> No. I speak from KNOWLEDGE OF GR. After all, the subject here is
> explicitly GR.
>
>
>> But how to criticize this point of view?
>
> One MUST understand GR. That leaves you out, and KW, and almost everyone
> who contributes to this newsgroup.

Well, no.

I actually think, that GR is correct, but would like to replace tensors
by complex-four-vectors.

Unfortunately I have not yet developed such a model, but others have:
http://pws.prserv.net/jonathan_scott/physics/diraceqn.pdf

Complex-four-vectors are also called 'bi-quaternions'.

The associated math is a little tricky, but I can draw quite well. So I
base my understanding on pictures (instead of formulas) and have put
them into my 'book':

https://docs.google.com/present/view?id=dd8jz2tx_3gfzvqgd6

Such a method is kind of 'illegal' in physics, but that would not bother
me much, since I regard physics as a hobby.

..

>
>> E.g. I assume - for example- the formula E=m*c² contains a serious error.
>> If I say, that formula is wrong, you may reply, that I should learn.
>
> Right -- such an "assumption" is hopeless, and you DO need to learn,
> because in the context of SR is it not wrong. Note that SR has been
> confirmed by every test performed within its domain, and has been
> refuted by NONE. It is among the best-tested theories/models we have.
>
> Fools and idiots around here who claim otherwise simply do
> not understand the issues.

Who decides, who is the fool?

>
>> But I say, what I shall learn is wrong, even if I had learned that
>> already.
>
> You did not learn it, you "learned" errors.
>
>
>> So how to adjust, what is in the textbooks?
>
> You can "adjust" by LEARNING ABOUT MODERN PHYSICS. There is no shortcut,
> and no other way. What is in the textbooks is what I said.

Yes, I know. But what if I suggest, something in the textbook is wrong.

For example: I assume, that 'Growing Earth' is actually correct and
'plate tectonics' is not.

So my assumptions are in harsh contrast to mainstream understanding, but
I can - nevertheless - provide evidence in favour of my assumption.

Actually I have spent years on this subject and failed to convince a
single person in the mainstream.

There are loads of outsiders, that also believe GE is true. But insiders
apparently dislike the idea of GE. And they also like to defend 'their'
territory.

This behaviour is violating certain principles of science (like
delivering, what is true in an objective sense).

So we encounter something like 'voodoo-science', where its
'high-priests' tell, what the believers shall swallow.

Since I'm an amateur, I don't know any of these priests and could not
know, what you want me to learn.



TH

[Odd Bodkin]

On 11/3/2015 6:41 PM, Thomas Heger wrote:
> You speak from an assumed superiority of your own point of view.
>
> But how to criticize this point of view?
>
> E.g. I assume - for example- the formula E=m*c² contains a serious error.
>
> If I say, that formula is wrong, you may reply, that I should learn.
>
> But I say, what I shall learn is wrong, even if I had learned that already.
>
> So how to adjust, what is in the textbooks?
>
>
> TH

Thomas, you act as though this is all an academic mental exercise. You
act as though you are free to reject a premise and suppose the opposite,
and then to say that maybe books should be then written with the
opposite accepted.

But science is not just a mental exercise. Science doesn't rely on just
thinking things through, making premises and then building on them. In
science, *every* theory must submit itself to experimental test. The
only way you can tell whether a theory is sensible or not is whether its
predictions match experimental measurement. IF this turns out to be the
case, THEN books would be written.

[mlwo...@wp.pl]

W dniu środa, 4 listopada 2015 14:48:20 UTC+1 użytkownik Odd Bodkin napisał:

> But science is not just a mental exercise. Science doesn't rely on just
> thinking things through, making premises and then building on them. In
> science, *every* theory must submit itself to experimental test. The
> only way you can tell whether a theory is sensible or not is whether its
> predictions match experimental measurement. IF this turns out to be the
> case, THEN books would be written.

In Polish we say: How little Yona imagines a war.

[Thomas Heger]

Well, if science would be based on experimental data only, than the
explanation must explain the experimental data (only).

But that's not, what we have. E.g. we have a jesuit priest named
LeMaitre, who 'found' a physical interpretation for the book Genesis
(called 'Big bang theory').

And we have several 'laws', that are actually violated occasionally in
nature, but are held as universally valid.

e.g. there are certain conservation laws, that aren't universally valid:

conservation of mass, for example.

If physicist would base their concepts on evidence, (instead of what
they think is true,) we would have other models. But actually we would
have only one single model about the world and not zillions.

In fact the number is slightly smaller, but there are millions of papers
on arxiv.org and it's simply impossible, that all are valid.

And who's going to sort out the wrong ones?

TH

[Tom Roberts]

On 11/4/15 11/4/15 1:51 AM, mlwo...@wp.pl wrote:
> Because it's local, and cosmology and GPS
> are global.

HUGE PUN, which destroys your argument.

The "G" in "GPS" does indeed stand for "global", but in that context it means
"in the vicinity of earth".

Whenever physicists discuss the local vs global distinction, global means
"throughout the entire manifold", or "throughout the entire universe" (depending
on context). The GPS is most definitely NOT "global" in that sense. But
cosmology is.

When you don't know what the words you use actually mean, you are doomed to
writing AND THINKING nonsense.

> Take a look at GPS. No, in the real world these
> devices are not localised machines.

But they are ALL near earth. As I said above.

And actually, each individual device is VERY local. But
the system they implement is NOT. (I.e. the GPS is
not local in any meaningful sense, but it is global
ONLY the the RESTRICTED sense described above.)

> GPS is large enough. Time, understood as "what clocks
> indicate" is global and matching t'=t equation, with
> the precision of acceptable error.

This is simply not true. If one put standard clocks into the GPS satellites then
the system would not work. For them, t' != t, and the errors due to ignoring
that difference would be completely unacceptable. The designers were COMPELLED
to modify the "clocks" in the satellites in order to make the system work and
meet its specifications (the compulsion comes from the world we inhabit, not
from any model or theory of physics -- these permit them to deal with it, however).

Some people around here with no experience whatsoever in
engineering large and complex systems claim that a satnav
system would work with unmodified clocks. While at the level
to which they think about it this might be imagined to work,
whenever REAL systems designers look at the engineering
problems of a REAL system, they come back to modifying the
satellite "clocks", for the same reasons that the GPS did.
The Galileo system did PRECISELY this -- they initially
planned to use standard (unmodified) satellite clocks, but
the final design uses modified "clocks" (modified in
precisely the same way as GPS satellite clocks, using GR).

> 1)there are no inertial observers in the real
> world

But physics is a QUANTITATIVE science. One does not need "exactly inertial
observers" as you imagine, one only needs observers for whom their
non-inertialness is negligible (i.e. induces errors smaller than their
measurement resolution).

In practice, this applies to most measurements on earth (e.g. essentially any
experiment performed inside a volume < 300 meters cubed).

> 2)there are no "equal rights for everybody"
> in the real world.

You confuse physics with politics. And you also confuse physics with a
poorly-worded claim by someone who does not understand the real issues.


Tom Roberts

[Maciej Woźniak]

Użytkownik "Tom Roberts" napisał w wiadomości grup

dyskusyjnych:MPSdnWWl8_72aqfL...@giganews.com...

|HUGE PUN, which destroys your argument.

Imagination.

|The "G" in "GPS" does indeed stand for "global", but in that context it
means
|"in the vicinity of earth".

"Global in the vincinity of earth" - is still not "local".
And, as we all can see, GPS is global enough for
your brilliant concept of "local time" to be useless.

> Take a look at GPS. No, in the real world these
> devices are not localised machines.

|But they are ALL near earth. As I said above.
|And actually, each individual device is VERY local.

Maybe it is "VERY local", but it is global enough for
your brilliant concept of "local time" to be useless.
If your local concept is useless even in "VERY local"
system... Well, too bad for it.

|This is simply not true. If one put standard clocks into the GPS satellites
then
|the system would not work.

Right. GPS, though "VERY local", is global enough for
your brilliant concept of "local time" to be useless.

> 2)there are no "equal rights for everybody"
> in the real world.

|You confuse physics with politics. And you also confuse physics with a
|poorly-worded claim by someone who does not understand the real issues.

No. Physics is exactly this: a poorly worded claim by someone who
does not understand the real issues. At least, modern physics.

And what about your "class"? Are children of our travelling twins
in it, or not?

[Odd Bodkin]

On 11/4/2015 9:19 PM, Thomas Heger wrote:
>
> Well, if science would be based on experimental data only, than the
> explanation must explain the experimental data (only).

That's right.

>
> But that's not, what we have. E.g. we have a jesuit priest named
> LeMaitre, who 'found' a physical interpretation for the book Genesis
> (called 'Big bang theory').

Which would have meant nothing unless it matched experimental data,
which it did. Hence it became scientifically valid.

>
> And we have several 'laws', that are actually violated occasionally in
> nature, but are held as universally valid.
>
> e.g. there are certain conservation laws, that aren't universally valid:
>
> conservation of mass, for example.

But conservation of mass is NOT held to be a universally valid law. I
don't know why you thought it was. Any others?

>
> If physicist would base their concepts on evidence, (instead of what
> they think is true,) we would have other models. But actually we would
> have only one single model about the world and not zillions.

I really don't think that's true. There are in fact multiple models
about the world, not one. Most of them are awaiting experimental test
and are not considered "valid" until they are. There are not zillions,
because literally thousands of models have been already found to be
inconsistent with experimental data.

>
> In fact the number is slightly smaller, but there are millions of papers
> on arxiv.org and it's simply impossible, that all are valid.

You are right, not all of them are valid.

>
> And who's going to sort out the wrong ones?
>

Experimentalists, of course. That's how theories are tested.

> TH

[al...@interia.pl]

W dniu czwartek, 5 listopada 2015 07:30:04 UTC+1 użytkownik tjrob137 napisał:

> > Take a look at GPS. No, in the real world these
> > devices are not localised machines.

Nonsense. Everything is localised,
and because that the famous EPR protest, descibed mainy just by Einstein!

> This is simply not true. If one put standard clocks into the GPS satellites then
> the system would not work. For them, t' != t, and the errors due to ignoring
> that difference would be completely unacceptable. The designers were COMPELLED
> to modify the "clocks" in the satellites in order to make the system work and
> meet its specifications (the compulsion comes from the world we inhabit, not
> from any model or theory of physics -- these permit them to deal with it, however).

A typical geocentric logics.

The corrections of the clocks (correctly: the times of the clocks)
s just neccessery to preserve the standard: t' = t, nothing more!

In other case, ie. with some: t' <> t
the whole time idea would be completely useless.

[Thomas Heger]

Am 05.11.2015 17:47, schrieb Odd Bodkin:

>> Well, if science would be based on experimental data only, than the
>> explanation must explain the experimental data (only).
>
> That's right.
>
>>
>> But that's not, what we have. E.g. we have a jesuit priest named
>> LeMaitre, who 'found' a physical interpretation for the book Genesis
>> (called 'Big bang theory').
>
> Which would have meant nothing unless it matched experimental data,
> which it did. Hence it became scientifically valid.

But it's not valid. I would like to quote Alexander Franklin Mayer about
this, since he found, that Hubbles law seems to violate experimental data.

His method was to sort a huge star catalogue into 'bins' of similar
distance.

If stars are somehow randomly distributed, the number of star in these
bins should be proportional to the volume covered by such a 'bin'.

But there was a discrepancy in the range of four orders of magnitude.

This a VERY large discrepancy and that deserves an explanation. His
explanation was, that the assumption, that redshift is proportional to
distance, would be wrong.

It was a little more complicated than that and possibly I have
misinterpreted something. But Mayer did argue along this line.

He said, that stars with very different redshift seem to be
gravitationally connected. This would mean, that redshift is not a valid
way to estimate distance.

And that would make a key assumption of big-bang theory invalid.

>>
>> And we have several 'laws', that are actually violated occasionally in
>> nature, but are held as universally valid.
>>
>> e.g. there are certain conservation laws, that aren't universally valid:
>>
>> conservation of mass, for example.
>
> But conservation of mass is NOT held to be a universally valid law. I
> don't know why you thought it was. Any others?

Conservation of energy, second law of thermodynamics, conservation of
charge.

>>
>> If physicist would base their concepts on evidence, (instead of what
>> they think is true,) we would have other models. But actually we would
>> have only one single model about the world and not zillions.
>
> I really don't think that's true. There are in fact multiple models
> about the world, not one. Most of them are awaiting experimental test
> and are not considered "valid" until they are. There are not zillions,
> because literally thousands of models have been already found to be
> inconsistent with experimental data.

As I have 'found' my own model, I have a tendency to promote my own ideas.

So my point of view has a certain bias (towards my own ideas). But
that's ok, as far as I can tell.

>>
>> In fact the number is slightly smaller, but there are millions of papers
>> on arxiv.org and it's simply impossible, that all are valid.
>
> You are right, not all of them are valid.
>
>>
>> And who's going to sort out the wrong ones?
>>
>
> Experimentalists, of course. That's how theories are tested.

Actually the server gets more and more input, but apparently nobody
removes things.

So I wonder, how long this will last.

Now we have 2.5" hard-drives containing Terabytes. So they could store
every single paper ever written.



TH

[Thomas Heger]

Am 05.11.2015 21:00, schrieb Thomas Heger:

>>>
>>> If physicist would base their concepts on evidence, (instead of what
>>> they think is true,) we would have other models. But actually we would
>>> have only one single model about the world and not zillions.
>>
>> I really don't think that's true. There are in fact multiple models
>> about the world, not one. Most of them are awaiting experimental test
>> and are not considered "valid" until they are. There are not zillions,
>> because literally thousands of models have been already found to be
>> inconsistent with experimental data.
>
> As I have 'found' my own model, I have a tendency to promote my own ideas.
>
> So my point of view has a certain bias (towards my own ideas). But
> that's ok, as far as I can tell.
>
>>>
>>> In fact the number is slightly smaller, but there are millions of papers
>>> on arxiv.org and it's simply impossible, that all are valid.
>>
>> You are right, not all of them are valid.
>>
>>>
>>> And who's going to sort out the wrong ones?
>>>
>>
>> Experimentalists, of course. That's how theories are tested.
>
> Actually the server gets more and more input, but apparently nobody
> removes things.
>
> So I wonder, how long this will last.
>
> Now we have 2.5" hard-drives containing Terabytes. So they could store
> every single paper ever written.

In fact arxiv.org has still less than a million papers stored.

So I have exaggerated 'slightly'.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ArXiv

Now they store about 8000 new papers every month.

The problem I see is this:

in such a medium, where the number of papers grow and grow to an
enormous amount, there is no possibility, to estimate the usefulness of
a single certain paper.

This would mean: the server stores the papers and provides certain
technical services, but does not contain a mechanism, to validate its
content.

So the server would contain papers of very different quality, ranging
from brilliant to crap, and the user has no indication, to which
category a certain paper belongs.

Next problem is, that the access is still limited, since not everybody
could store papers there, but only members of certain universities and
some other authors or people, who are promoted by authors, that belong
to the 'insiders'.

This is the disease called 'Academia' in electronic form, but not a
solution to certain problems of scientific research.

The problem arises, if 'outsiders' have something to say, since they
could not publish there.

'academia' is a problem, since if 'insiders' decide about the progress
in science, they would most likely perpetuate, what already the
forefathers knew.


TH

[JanPB]

Don't worry about it.

--
Jan

[Odd Bodkin]

On 11/5/2015 10:46 PM, Thomas Heger wrote:
> In fact arxiv.org has still less than a million papers stored.
>
> So I have exaggerated 'slightly'.
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ArXiv
>
> Now they store about 8000 new papers every month.
>
> The problem I see is this:
>
> in such a medium, where the number of papers grow and grow to an
> enormous amount, there is no possibility, to estimate the usefulness of
> a single certain paper.
>
> This would mean: the server stores the papers and provides certain
> technical services, but does not contain a mechanism, to validate its
> content.
>
> So the server would contain papers of very different quality, ranging
> from brilliant to crap, and the user has no indication, to which
> category a certain paper belongs.

That's exactly right. It takes some expertise to be able to sort out
which papers are interesting and which ones are not. That expertise is
not typically held by amateurs. But then again, ArXiv is not intended to
be a place for amateurs to browse to learn a subject.

Now, the amateur (like me) might fuss and complain, "But how then am I
supposed to acquire this expertise?" The answer is to *start* with books
and articles aimed at the beginner. In those books and articles, you
will find references to further reading, which will point to articles in
ArXiv or in published journals, and those are the ones that you should
select to read.

>
> Next problem is, that the access is still limited, since not everybody
> could store papers there, but only members of certain universities and
> some other authors or people, who are promoted by authors, that belong
> to the 'insiders'.

Well, it's not a completely unmoderated forum, that's correct. It is not
sci.physics.relativity, nor is intended to be.

>
> This is the disease called 'Academia' in electronic form, but not a
> solution to certain problems of scientific research.
>
> The problem arises, if 'outsiders' have something to say, since they
> could not publish there.

That's true, but that doesn't mean you're out of options. You can create
a blog. You can post to unmoderated forums (like this one). The real
problem is that you don't want the audience of a blog or an unmoderated
forum. You want the audience of ArXiV. But the fact is, you're not
actually entitled to that audience until you earn it.

It seems to be a common misconception that scientific communication
should be completely open and unmoderated and unfiltered, so that anyone
with an interest in the subject will be visible and have their ideas
heard. That is both an unrealistic and unreasonable expectation.

>
> 'academia' is a problem, since if 'insiders' decide about the progress
> in science, they would most likely perpetuate, what already the
> forefathers knew.

This I disagree with wholeheartedly. The Nobel Prizes are prime examples
of physicists strenuously disagreeing with what their forefathers knew.

[John Heath]

On Monday, November 2, 2015 at 11:42:40 PM UTC-5, Thomas Heger wrote:
> Am 01.11.2015 09:11, schrieb Maciej Woźniak:
> >
>

Thumbs up. As I look at the night sky I see white hot stars next to cold black space. It seems entropy has been sleeping on the job.

[John Gogo]

I look at it oppositely. I see the GPS as the greatest extension of our local environment- and everything else in the seeing universe is frozen, inert, and instantaneous.

[John Gogo]

This is like a game of chess. At some point, one has to admit that they are checkmated.

[John Gogo]

On Thursday, November 5, 2015 at 3:16:35 AM UTC-6, Maciej Woźniak wrote:

Global is in no way associated with all the universe. It all of a sudden becomes clear that GPS is 100% associated with local measure.

[shuba]

two cranks wrote:

>> This is astonishing, since that would bring the second law of
>> thermodynamics into question, which states, that entropy must
>> increase.
>>
>> But on large scale the universe does (apparently) not follow
>> this rule.

> Thumbs up. As I look at the night sky I see white hot stars next
> to cold black space. It seems entropy has been sleeping on the job.

Gravitation does not violate the rules of thermodynamics. In fact,
a collapsed star (black hole) is a region of maximal entropy. It's
true that stars and black holes are not in thermal equilibrium with
their surroundings. So they radiate energy and eventually die. The
total entropy of the object + surroundings increases at all times.


---Tim Shuba---

[John Gogo]

To get to Mars the whole world would have to be in cooperation.

[Thomas Heger]

We have MANY objects and a lot of space. If your statement would be
tru7e, the universe should look like kind of 'soup'. But it doesn't.

We have distinct objects, that apparently swallow the dust and absorb
the energy, while the space seems mostly transparent.

So we have some sort of process acting, which 'recycles' the debris,
left over from dead stars.

This process works on a VERY large scale, since if it would not work,
the universe should be full of dust. These is a little dust, but by no
means the amount we would expect, if your statement would be true.

We know this, because rays of light reaching us, that are billions of
years old. So the space this light has went through is mostly crystal clear.

TH

[shuba]

anti-science arsehole Thomas Heger wrote:

> Am 07.11.2015 04:07, schrieb shuba:

>> Gravitation does not violate the rules of thermodynamics. In
>> fact, a collapsed star (black hole) is a region of maximal
>> entropy. It's true that stars and black holes are not in thermal
>> equilibrium with their surroundings. So they radiate energy and
>> eventually die. The total entropy of the object + surroundings
>> increases at all times.

> If your statement would be tru7e

It is true. If you and "thumbs up" John Heath are too fucking
incompetent to look into the literature readily available about
this, so be it. I support your decision to be ignorant cranks.

http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/entropy.html
http://www.mso.anu.edu.au/~charley/papers/LineweaverEgan2008v2.pdf


---Tim Shuba---

[Tom Roberts]

On 11/3/15 11/3/15 12:45 PM, Maciej Woźniak wrote:
> Użytkownik "Tom Roberts" napisał w wiadomości grup

> dyskusyjnych:Z5idncsK8bLiQKXL...@giganews.com...
>> That's lead us to the question: are WE earthbound? Many religions say,
>> we're not.
> |Apparently you are completely unable to distinguish sense from nonsense. No
> |wonder you are so confused.
> |How many people do you know who are not earthbound? If the answer is zero, then
> |your question is downright silly.
>
> So, after all of these tales of twins and triplets driving their rockets
> and falling into black holes, when it comes to do something for
> real you suddenly remind, that real observers are all earthbound?

In addition to your inability to distinguish sense from nonsense, you also
cannot keep straight the context of a discussion.

When discussing "twins and triplets driving their rockets and falling into black
holes", the discussion is a GEDANKENEXPERIMENT. That is, a "thought experiment"
intended to display some aspect OF THE THEORY.

Whereas in real life we humans _ARE_ earthbound. We simply do not have any
technology that can carry a human at an appreciable fraction of c.


> |Along the same geodesic path the earth is following today.
>
> Why on geodesics, and why on the same geodesics?

In addition to your other failures, you cannot remember what has been said
earlier in the thread. As I said before, this is because that is the way the
model describes it.


> | These are MATHEMATICAL models, and the mathematics is eternal
> | even if humans are not.
>
> Is it? Really? What the hell makes you think so?

The basic nature of mathematics. 2+2=4 has always been true, and will always be
true, completely independent of any humans.


> |No. Physics is a QUANTITATIVE science. We can COMPUTE how the earth's trajectory
> |differs from the closest trajectory of the class of observers for whom the age
>
> Trajectories are not everything. There is still gravity. Isn't it?

Another skill you need to learn is what different categories of concepts are.
Trajectories are QUITE DIFFERENT from gravity. Your statement here is as silly
as this: Chairs are not everything, there are still hurricanes.


Tom Roberts

[Tom Roberts]

On 11/6/15 11/6/15 10:35 PM, Thomas Heger wrote:
> Am 07.11.2015 04:07, schrieb shuba:
>> Gravitation does not violate the rules of thermodynamics. In fact,
>> a collapsed star (black hole) is a region of maximal entropy. It's
>> true that stars and black holes are not in thermal equilibrium with
>> their surroundings. So they radiate energy and eventually die. The
>> total entropy of the object + surroundings increases at all times.
>>
> We have MANY objects and a lot of space. If your statement would be tru7e, the
> universe should look like kind of 'soup'. But it doesn't.

Physics is a QUANTITATIVE science. One can COMPUTE how long it would take for
that to happen, and it is found to be enormously longer than the age of the
universe.

When you choose to keep yourself ignorant of very basic physics, all you will be
able to do is make stupid remarks. Like this.


> [...]


Tom Roebrts

[Edgardo Alcantara]

W dniu Sat, 07 Nov 2015 09:02:24 -0600 użytkownik Tom Roberts napisał:

> On 11/6/15 11/6/15 10:35 PM, Thomas Heger wrote:
>> Am 07.11.2015 04:07, schrieb shuba:
>>> Gravitation does not violate the rules of thermodynamics. In fact, a
>>> collapsed star (black hole) is a region of maximal entropy. It's true
>>> that stars and black holes are not in thermal equilibrium with their
>>> surroundings. So they radiate energy and eventually die. The total
>>> entropy of the object + surroundings increases at all times.

You are not going to say that your "black hole" IS in thermal equilibrium
with the surroundings, in order to survive the extinguishing process. Even
Stephane Hawkins will approve such that.

> When you choose to keep yourself ignorant of very basic physics, all you
> will be able to do is make stupid remarks. Like this.

You cannot experimentally prove the entropy of a black hole. (unless
working at the Large Hadron Collider (LHC))

[Maciej Woźniak]

Użytkownik "John Gogo" napisał w wiadomości grup
dyskusyjnych:d249b5d5-7987-4b72...@googlegroups.com...

No. Tom can also knock the checkuer over and
yell he was cheated.
As expected from a relativistic moron.

[Maciej Woźniak]

Użytkownik "John Gogo" napisał w wiadomości grup
dyskusyjnych:f11e251a-3088-45bf...@googlegroups.com...

>Global is in no way associated with all the universe. It all of a sudden
>becomes clear that GPS is 100% associated with local measure.

But, somehow, this brilliant "local time" concept
is completely useless in it. Too bad.

[kenseto]

On Friday, October 30, 2015 at 11:03:46 PM UTC-4, tjrob137 wrote:
> On 10/30/15 10/30/15 5:40 PM, Maciej Woźniak wrote:
> > As we all know, a twins will age slower
>
> I'm not sure what you are trying to say.
>
> In the usual twin scenario of SR, neither twin "ages slower"
> than the other. They do, however, have different elapsed
> proper times between meetings, because they follow different
> trajectories (worldlines) through spacetime. The twin scenario
> does not demonstrate "time dilation", it demonstrates the
> path dependence of path length.
>
>
> > Still, the age of the universe is observer independent.
>
> Yes. At least in the context of GR and modern cosmological models.
>
> Note, however, in modern cosmological models based on the FRW manifolds of GR,
> there is a unique congruence of timelike geodesics corresponding to the dust
> particles of the FRW manifold; in cosmological models these dust particles are
> identified with the galaxies. For every observer following a geodesic of this
> congruence, the "age of the universe" is simply the elapsed proper time since
> the big bang (i.e. when the universe "started"). This, of course, includes
> observers located on earth (though we cannot trace our own proper time back to
> the big bang, we CAN trace back along the geodesic on which we currently evolve).
>
> Fortunately the motion of earth relative to the galaxy is
> small enough that the difference between earth's geodesic
> and the galaxy's [#] is negligible -- errors due to that
> are smaller than the uncertainties in the measurements.
>
> [#] Insofar as this exists and is well defined.
>
>
> > Seems, that a twins counted as twins will age slower,
> > than the same twins counted as a part of the universe...
>
> Here, too, I'm not sure what you are trying to say.
>
> If you mean that differently-moving observers can obtain different values for
> the age of the universe, then: yes that's true. But for observers following
> geodesics of the congruence mentioned above, they obtain the same value for the
> age of the universe at simultaneous points of their worldlines, once a sensible
> definition of simultaneity is applied. This is so even though the observers on
> different geodesics are indeed moving differently (i.e. have nonzero relative
> velocity). But an observer NOT on one of those geodesics can indeed obtain some
> different value at simultaneous points on her worldline.
>
> So this is more subtle than you think, and "relative motion" may or may not
> imply a difference in the observed age of the universe. Note also the the
> definition of simultaneity is important as well (it makes no sense to compare
> measurements of the age of the universe at points along the observers'
> worldlines that are not "simultaneous").

Simultaneity got nothing to do with it. Clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates. The reason is that a clock second in each frame reepresents a different amount of absolute time.

[kenseto]

On Monday, November 2, 2015 at 10:32:31 AM UTC-5, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> On 11/1/2015 8:49 AM, kenseto wrote:
> > The main problem of modern physics is the definition of time...."time is what the clock measures". This
> > definition assumes that a unit of clock time "a clock second" is a universal interval of time.
>
> Why do you think it makes any such assumption?
> Why not just take it for EXACTLY what it says, without adding anything
> extra from your own head?

SR makes such assumption becAUSE it claims that an A second measures the speed of light to be c and a B second measures the speed of light to be c. That means that a second is a universal interval of time.

[Maciej Woźniak]

Użytkownik "Tom Roberts" napisał w wiadomości grup

dyskusyjnych:z_adnZT7PuDXjaPL...@giganews.com...

On 11/3/15 11/3/15 12:45 PM, Maciej Woźniak wrote:
> Użytkownik "Tom Roberts" napisał w wiadomości grup
> dyskusyjnych:Z5idncsK8bLiQKXL...@giganews.com...
>> That's lead us to the question: are WE earthbound? Many religions say,
>> we're not.
> |Apparently you are completely unable to distinguish sense from nonsense.
> No
> |wonder you are so confused.
> |How many people do you know who are not earthbound? If the answer is
> zero, then
> |your question is downright silly.
>
> So, after all of these tales of twins and triplets driving their rockets
> and falling into black holes, when it comes to do something for
> real you suddenly remind, that real observers are all earthbound?

|In addition to your inability to distinguish sense from nonsense, you also
|cannot keep straight the context of a discussion.

In addition to your inability to distinguish sense from nonsense,

after all these nonsense tales of twins and triplets driving their

rockets and falling into black holes, when it comes to do something

for real you suddenly remind, that real observers are all earthbound.

Well, at least you do remind.

> |Along the same geodesic path the earth is following today.
>
> Why on geodesics, and why on the same geodesics?

|In addition to your other failures, you cannot remember what has been said
|earlier in the thread. As I said before, this is because that is the way
the
|model describes it.

Really, you did say it? So, you lied. Your model forgot to specify
the frame. You know, I know. And you still didn't specify your
"class". I still don't know, whether the children of the twins
will belong to it, or not...

> | These are MATHEMATICAL models, and the mathematics is eternal
> | even if humans are not.
>
> Is it? Really? What the hell makes you think so?

|The basic nature of mathematics. 2+2=4 has always been true, and will
always be

200 years ago the same was said about Pythagorean theorem,
wasn't it?
Maybe tomorrow another idiot physicist on his quest for
a theory "mad enough" will break this rule too.

Anyway, no, mathematic, samely as other languages, is
a human invention, and as any human invention, is
human dependent. And can be changed any time, any
way. Though changing it is a stupid idea.

> |No. Physics is a QUANTITATIVE science. We can COMPUTE how the earth's
> trajectory
> |differs from the closest trajectory of the class of observers for whom
> the age
>
> Trajectories are not everything. There is still gravity. Isn't it?

|Another skill you need to learn is what different categories of concepts
are.
|Trajectories are QUITE DIFFERENT from gravity.

But both are important, when counting time in modern physics.
So, what was gravity around "our" geodesic 9000 000 000 years ago?

[Maciej Woźniak]

Użytkownik "Tom Roberts" napisał w wiadomości grup

dyskusyjnych:6fOdnYZMsNccj6PL...@giganews.com...

|Physics is a QUANTITATIVE science. One can COMPUTE how long it would take
for
|that to happen, and it is found to be enormously longer than the age of the
|universe.

You know, I'm a computer programmer. Pay me, and I'll compute
any result you want. That's my job.

[Thomas Heger]

Am 07.11.2015 16:02, schrieb Tom Roberts:

>>> Gravitation does not violate the rules of thermodynamics. In fact,
>>> a collapsed star (black hole) is a region of maximal entropy. It's
>>> true that stars and black holes are not in thermal equilibrium with
>>> their surroundings. So they radiate energy and eventually die. The
>>> total entropy of the object + surroundings increases at all times.
>>>
>> We have MANY objects and a lot of space. If your statement would be
>> tru7e, the
>> universe should look like kind of 'soup'. But it doesn't.
>
> Physics is a QUANTITATIVE science. One can COMPUTE how long it would
> take for that to happen, and it is found to be enormously longer than
> the age of the universe.
>

Have I told you, that I think 'Growing Earth' is true?

Not yet?

Well, actually I do think, that the Earth does in fact grow and gains
mass from the inside.

(btw: This would - if true- render large parts of current physics
practically useless.)

But GE would nicely explain, how the universe 'recycles' the energy
distribute by the stars.

I have spent several years on this subject, but made similar experience
as Neil Adams did:

it's a complete waste of time, since these 'scientists' ignore evidence
as long as they possibly can.

If they can't do that anymore, then come insults.

And if that would not help, then come 'men in black'.


TH

[Gary Harnagel]

On Saturday, November 7, 2015 at 11:52:23 PM UTC-7, Thomas Heger wrote:
>
> Am 07.11.2015 16:02, schrieb Tom Roberts:
> >
> > Physics is a QUANTITATIVE science. One can COMPUTE how long it would
> > take for that to happen, and it is found to be enormously longer than
> > the age of the universe.
> >
> Have I told you, that I think 'Growing Earth' is true?
>
> Not yet?
>
> Well, actually I do think, that the Earth does in fact grow and gains
> mass from the inside.

Of course the earth is growing. Meteorites account for around 5 tons
per year of additional mass. This, of course, is not what your "growing
earth" means. Growing from "inside" is complete nonsense because it
violates conservation of mass/energy. If it were true, it would be
observed on the surface, too, but all tests demonstrate that the conser-
vation principle is alive and well. Your hypothesis must be rejected
since it has no extraordinary evidence:

"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." - Marcello Truzzi

and is a completely crackpot idea:

http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/crackpot.html

You get -5 points to begin.

26. 20 points for talking about how great your theory is, but never
actually explaining it.

Score: +15 points

> (btw: This would - if true- render large parts of current physics
> practically useless.)

This is a common belief among crackpots, as if current models, which
describe reality very well would become "useless." Is Newtonian
gravitation useless because of GR? Of course not! NASA uses it all
the time to get its spacecraft around the solar system. Your claim
is delusional dreaming on two fronts, the one I mentioned here and this:

36. 40 points for claiming that when your theory is finally appreciated,
present-day science will be seen for the sham it truly is

Score: +55 points

> But GE would nicely explain, how the universe 'recycles' the energy
> distribute by the stars.

You have presented no evidence that it DOES recycle energy, and your claim
violates the laws of thermodynamics.

2. 1 point for every statement that is widely agreed on to be false.

Score: +56 points.

> I have spent several years on this subject,

11. 10 points for beginning the description of your theory by saying how
long you have been working on it.

Score: +66 points

> but made similar experience as Neil Adams did:

Nonsense. We have many, many satellites in orbit that are continuously
monitoring the earth. The GPS is accurate to a few feet and has not seen
any evidence whatever for this flaky phenomenon.

> it's a complete waste of time, since these 'scientists' ignore evidence
> as long as they possibly can.

You have shown NO evidence whatever.

> If they can't do that anymore, then come insults.

Some get impatient when nut cases persist in their stupidity.

"I'm allergic to stupidity. I break out in sarcasm." - Rebels Market

> And if that would not help, then come 'men in black'.
>
>
> TH

34. 40 points for claiming that the "scientific establishment" is engaged
in a "conspiracy" to prevent your work from gaining its well-deserved fame,
or suchlike.

Score: +106 points.

You're right up there with flat earth advocates.

Gary

[Maciej Woźniak]

Użytkownik "Gary Harnagel" napisał w wiadomości grup
dyskusyjnych:a5e2ce2f-0962-4701...@googlegroups.com...

|"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." - Marcello Truzzi

Nothing extraordinary in 20 extra dimensions, however.
An ordinary mumble of an insane moron.
So it doesn't require any evidence, neither extraordinary,
nor ordinary.

|This is a common belief among crackpots, as if current models, which
|describe reality very well would become "useless." Is Newtonian

The Shit doesn't describe reality well. The only thing The Shit
describes well, is a sick imagination of relativistic morons.

[Gary Harnagel]

On Sunday, November 8, 2015 at 5:58:45 AM UTC-7, Maciej Woźniak wrote:
>
> [Vulgarity and lies]

Why does this moron keep posting lies? Because he is basically dishonest
and craves attention in an infantile manner.

[Maciej Woźniak]

Użytkownik "Gary Harnagel" napisał w wiadomości grup

dyskusyjnych:00c849db-715d-4d2b...@googlegroups.com...

|Why does this moron keep posting lies? Because he is basically dishonest
|and craves attention in an infantile manner.

Why does this moron keep posting lies? Because he is basically dishonest

and craves attention in an infantile manner. And, last but not least, he is
stupid.

[Gary Harnagel]

Wozniak's post just proved that he is an infantile brattish troll. Of
course, he does that EVERYTIME he posts.

[paparios]

He was just a software developer at Info Baza Technology, and now works at Happy Team Sp, with too litle work to do and a total ignorance of physics subjects.

It also appears the he is also a not nice person in his subject, as seen in https://twitter.com/eldhash

Just ignore him

[Maciej Woźniak]

Użytkownik "Gary Harnagel" napisał w wiadomości grup

dyskusyjnych:9742f25c-010d-4026...@googlegroups.com...

|Wozniak's post just proved that he is an infantile brattish troll. Of
|course, he does that EVERYTIME he posts.

Harmagel's post just proved that he is an infantile brattish troll. Of

[Maciej Woźniak]

Użytkownik "paparios" napisał w wiadomości grup
dyskusyjnych:bdd6af4f-6fe4-4a84...@googlegroups.com...

|He was just a software developer at Info Baza Technology, and now works at
Happy Team Sp, with too litle work to do and a total ignorance of physics
subjects.
|It also appears the he is also a not nice person in his subject, as seen in
https://twitter.com/eldhash

A miss. As usual. It's a popular name in Poland.

[Gary Harnagel]

He looks like a bird brain :-)

[Maciej Woźniak]

Użytkownik "Gary Harnagel" napisał w wiadomości grup

dyskusyjnych:8b16c101-b2cc-4b42...@googlegroups.com...

> It also appears the he is also a not nice person in his subject, as seen
> in https://twitter.com/eldhash
>
> Just ignore him

|He looks like a bird brain :-)

Maybe he does, there is a lot of bird brains around,
but he's not me.

[shuba]

Thomas Heger wrote:

> 'scientists' ignore evidence as long as they possibly can

So ironic. There is much evidence and good theoretical calculations
just in the Lineweaver/Egan article and its 56 included references
that I posted a link to (those being, of course, just a few of the
plethora of credible scientific works). It's comical that you've
invented this entire crusade against 'scientists', complete with
imaginary black helicopters and everything. At least you've got
support from those like the ignorant fool John "thumbs up" Heath,
who also believes the way to "do science" is to avoid learning
anything actually done by the serious practitioners of the field.

> If they can't do that anymore, then come insults.

Good thing you cranks never stoop that low.


---Tim Shuba---

[Thomas Heger]

Am 08.11.2015 20:05, schrieb shuba:

>> 'scientists' ignore evidence as long as they possibly can
>
> So ironic. There is much evidence and good theoretical calculations
> just in the Lineweaver/Egan article and its 56 included references
> that I posted a link to (those being, of course, just a few of the
> plethora of credible scientific works). It's comical that you've
> invented this entire crusade against 'scientists', complete with
> imaginary black helicopters and everything. At least you've got
> support from those like the ignorant fool John "thumbs up" Heath,
> who also believes the way to "do science" is to avoid learning
> anything actually done by the serious practitioners of the field.

Actually invented was 'Growing Earth' by a German geologist, named Ott
Cristoph Hilgenberger.

As a matter of fact, I have spent a significant part of my study (at
TU-Berlin) in the very same building, where Hilgenberger had worked.

The name of the University had changed (since 1930) and the use of this
building. But I'm pretty sure, to once have seen these 'expanding
balls', by what he tried to illustrate the expanding Earth, (catching
dust somewhere there).

This was actually the same place, where I had to learn thermodynamics
and how to calculate entropy.

(Entropy is a really nasty subject !!)

Anyhow. Now I have changed the focus of my 'studies' and create (mainly)
'conspiracy theories'.

One of my theories is, that 'Hitler' was actually a British spy, who was
related to the 'Apostles' of Cambridge (possibly: Noel Travelian Huxley).

>> If they can't do that anymore, then come insults.
>
> Good thing you cranks never stoop that low.
>

Insults are not the problem. MIB are ;-)


TH

[Tom Roberts]

On 11/8/15 11/8/15 6:38 AM, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> Of course the earth is growing. Meteorites account for around 5 tons
> per year of additional mass. This, of course, is not what your "growing
> earth" means. Growing from "inside" is complete nonsense because it
> violates conservation of mass/energy. If it were true, it would be
> observed on the surface, too, but all tests demonstrate that the conser-
> vation principle is alive and well.

I can imagine a situation in which the mass of the earth is increasing,
essentially "growing from inside" (in addition to the meteorites entering from
outside).

If dark matter is real, and consists of massive particles that interact with
each other considerably more than gravitationally, but only interact with normal
matter gravitationally, then it might be possible for dark matter to accumulate
at the center of the earth, and be held there gravitationally.

This, of course, is essentially "dark matter meteorites". But to us it would
appear that the earth was gaining mass from inside.

At present we do not know what dark matter is, and have no evidence whatsoever
that the above scenario happens. Note that even if dark matter has appropriate
properties, it still requires a distribution near earth that permits this
accumulation, which seems unlikely....


Tom Roberts

[Gary Harnagel]

On Sunday, November 8, 2015 at 1:22:07 PM UTC-7, tjrob137 wrote:
>
> On 11/8/15 11/8/15 6:38 AM, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> >
> > Of course the earth is growing. Meteorites account for around 5 tons
> > per year of additional mass. This, of course, is not what your "growing
> > earth" means. Growing from "inside" is complete nonsense because it
> > violates conservation of mass/energy. If it were true, it would be
> > observed on the surface, too, but all tests demonstrate that the conser-
> > vation principle is alive and well.
>
> I can imagine a situation in which the mass of the earth is increasing,
> essentially "growing from inside" (in addition to the meteorites
> entering from outside).
>
> If dark matter is real, and consists of massive particles that interact
> with each other considerably more than gravitationally, but only interact
> with normal matter gravitationally, then it might be possible for dark
> matter to accumulate at the center of the earth, and be held there
> gravitationally.

Yesss! I LIKE it! May I use this idea to explain my radioactive decay
anomaly? BTW, did you get my recent emails?

> This, of course, is essentially "dark matter meteorites". But to us
> it would appear that the earth was gaining mass from inside.

But they still wouldn't cause the earth to expand.

> At present we do not know what dark matter is, and have no evidence
> whatsoever that the above scenario happens.

Indeed.

> Note that even if dark matter has appropriate properties, it still
> requires a distribution near earth that permits this accumulation,
> which seems unlikely....
>
>
> Tom Roberts

Earth may have a large dark matter core, which explains why its density
appears to be significantly greater than iron. Okay, taking off my
speculation/arm-waving hat now ....

Gary

[pnal...@gmail.com]

On Saturday, November 7, 2015 at 10:52:23 PM UTC-8, Thomas Heger wrote:

> Have I told you, that I think 'Growing Earth' is true?

> Well, actually I do think, that the Earth does in fact grow and gains
> mass from the inside.
>
> (btw: This would - if true- render large parts of current physics
> practically useless.)

> I have spent several years on this subject, but made similar experience
> as Neil Adams did:
>
> it's a complete waste of time, since these 'scientists' ignore evidence
> as long as they possibly can.

So, just what so-called 'evidence' do you have that you claim is being ignored?

you know, of course, that you are dangerously close to earning 40 points on the Crackpot Index...

http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/crackpot.html

[Gary Harnagel]

I gave him 106 points in my post.

[pnal...@gmail.com]

I guess you did more research than I did...

[Maciej Woźniak]

Użytkownik "Tom Roberts" napisał w wiadomości grup
dyskusyjnych:8PudnSt8p89wM6LL...@giganews.com...

|I can imagine a situation in which the mass of the earth is increasing,

And - can you imagine a jedi knight, poor idiot?

[Thomas Heger]

Am 08.11.2015 22:55, schrieb pnal...@gmail.com:
> On Saturday, November 7, 2015 at 10:52:23 PM UTC-8, Thomas Heger wrote:
>
>> Have I told you, that I think 'Growing Earth' is true?
>
>> Well, actually I do think, that the Earth does in fact grow and gains
>> mass from the inside.
>>
>> (btw: This would - if true- render large parts of current physics
>> practically useless.)
>
>> I have spent several years on this subject, but made similar experience
>> as Neil Adams did:
>>
>> it's a complete waste of time, since these 'scientists' ignore evidence
>> as long as they possibly can.
>
> So, just what so-called 'evidence' do you have that you claim is being ignored?
>

How much do you want?

Let me begin with problems of moving plates (what 'plate tectonics' is
about):

the crust of planet Earth rests on the mantle and this mantle is not
liquid. Instead we have a very dense semi-plastic material. So we have
problems, to see compelling reason, why plates should float.

Since the density is higher, we have also a problem with submerging
pieces of the crust.

Then the Earth is completely covered with crust, which contains only
small cracks. So, if plates move, they must make space for themselves,
by pushing other pieces away.

The problem is related to a theorem of Euler, that movement of a piece
of the spherial shell of a ball upon this ball is equivalent to a
rotation of this piece around a so called 'Euler pole'.

In other words: the part of this piece, that is opposite to this Euler
pole should look round (what is doesn't).

Then we have the problem of pressure, that applies sideways between
these plates. since the plates are quite thick and the borders are very
long, we have a huge area, upon which a high pressure presses the pieces
side against the neighbouring plate. From the rules of mechanics we
know, this would require a high force, that would be larger than the
resistance.

Also the form of plates would hinder movements, since they do not look
like made for sliding along other plates.

If a plate would submerge, this plate had to overcome a difficult
problem. This is related to the reason, why egg-shells are so strong: if
you try to bent down a hard spherical sheet, this sheet would create
internal pressure, since the piece is spherical.

Also the thickness of the plate would require, that upper parts of the
piece are stretched, while lower parts are pushed together. Since rock
is quite incompressible, we would expect large parallel cracks, where
such a piece submerges. (what we don't find)

Also the age of the crust and the sea-floor does not fit to plate
tectonics. Instead the surface of the continents is in the range of
billion of years, while the sea-floor is no older than about 300 million
years.

Continents look way to levelled for way too long time, since if plates
would move, emerge and dive under other ones, theses pieces would not
stay horizontal.

There is evidence for steady drop of sea-levels, what plate tectonic
can't explain, but what Growing Earth assumes.

Growing Earth would explain, why planets exist in the first place or why
there are so many double-star systems. The assumption is, that Jupiter
will once become a sun and its current moons will become planets then.

and so forth..


(This was meant as a small sample of what I had to say about this
subject. But I can provide more, if you like.)


TH

[Odd Bodkin]

First of all, you need more than a second to measure the speed of
anything. I'm sure you know what the other thing is.

> That means that a second is a universal interval of time.

No, it means no such thing. This is what you've added on your own.


--
Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

[kenseto]

On Tuesday, November 3, 2015 at 11:14:58 AM UTC-5, tjrob137 wrote:

> On 11/1/15 11/1/15 - 2:36 AM, Maciej Woźniak wrote:
> > Użytkownik "Tom Roberts" napisał w wiadomości grup

> > dyskusyjnych:PPCdnQ4ipK_5RanL...@giganews.com...
> > |As I explained in modern cosmological models, for one class of observers the age
> > |of the universe is observer independent, but for observers not in that class it
> > |is observer dependent. (Earthbound observers are in that class, with negligible
> > |error.)

> >
> > That's lead us to the question: are WE earthbound? Many religions say,
> > we're not.
>
> Apparently you are completely unable to distinguish sense from nonsense. No
> wonder you are so confused.
>
> How many people do you know who are not earthbound? If the answer is zero, then
> your question is downright silly.
>

> Astronauts in orbit are still effectively earthbound, as
> they will return to earth, having experienced a difference
> in elapsed proper time measured in microseconds. How does
> that compare to the age of the universe?
>
>
> > Where was your frame of reference 200 000 000 years ago, according
> > to these modern cosmological models you mentioned? Where wil itl
> > be in a hundred years?
>
> Along the same geodesic path the earth is following today. It extends all the
> way back to the big bang. While the earth (and humans) did not exist long ago,
> the geodesic certainly did. These are MATHEMATICAL models, and the mathematics

> is eternal even if humans are not.

This is nonsense. A Math model like a physical model is based on assumptions and if the assumptions are wrong then the math model based on those assumptions is also wrong. For example, the math model of the super string theory assumes that there are 7 extra space dimensions....but we only observe three dimensions of space and one dimension of time. This means that the math model of the super string theory is not eternal as you assumed.
>
>
> > We see a stars or galaxies 15 000 000 000 years old, but
> > we can be like this twins, can't we? Maybe in Earth's
> > reference frame it's only 8000 000 000 years since BB?

>
> No. Physics is a QUANTITATIVE science. We can COMPUTE how the earth's trajectory
> differs from the closest trajectory of the class of observers for whom the age

> of the universe is the same (and to which the models refer). So we _KNOW_ that
> the difference is negligible (i.e. the effect of that difference is smaller than
> the errorbar in the measurement).
>
>
> > And in my frame it's only 341.34 years? Isn't it possible?
>
> Not for earth. Not for earthbound observers.
>
> Simply making GUESSES and throwing out RANDOM numbers is useless. All you do is
> generate more nonsense (which you apparently cannot distinguish from sensible
> ideas -- that's rather sad for you).
>
>
> > And, most important:
> > Suppose age of the Universe is t0. We do a common twins
> > case, after travel clocks indicate t0+t1, t0+t2.
> > What is the age of the Universe now?
>
> As I said before (in a post TO WHICH YOU RESPONDED): to one the age is t0+t1 and
> to the other it is t0+t2.
>
> You should also learn how to read, and how to REMEMBER what you have read.
>
> (Around here you are not alone in your inability to do this.)
>
>
> In another post you asked:
> > It takes more, than using the words like "class" to
> > make it exact.
> > How is your "class" defined?
> > How is the frame you measure the age of the Universe
> > defined?
>
> All you have to do is READ WHAT I WROTE in earlier posts in this thread. And
> remember it.
>
>
> Tom Roberts

[kenseto]

On Monday, November 9, 2015 at 10:23:34 AM UTC-5, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> On 11/7/2015 9:59 AM, kenseto wrote:
> > On Monday, November 2, 2015 at 10:32:31 AM UTC-5, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> >> On 11/1/2015 8:49 AM, kenseto wrote:
> >>> The main problem of modern physics is the definition of time...."time is what the clock measures". This
> >>> definition assumes that a unit of clock time "a clock second" is a universal interval of time.
> >>
> >> Why do you think it makes any such assumption?
> >> Why not just take it for EXACTLY what it says, without adding anything
> >> extra from your own head?
> >
> > SR makes such assumption becAUSE it claims that an A second measures the speed of light to be c and a B
> > second measures the speed of light to be c.
>
> First of all, you need more than a second to measure the speed of
> anything. I'm sure you know what the other thing is.

That's irrelevant... SR (and you) assumes that you can compare an A second directly with a B second means that a second is a universal interval of time.

>
> > That means that a second is a universal interval of time.
>
> No, it means no such thing. This is what you've added on your own.

Sure it means that....if not then the SR concept of time dilation is refuted.

[Odd Bodkin]

On 11/9/2015 10:13 AM, kenseto wrote:
> For example, the math model of the super string theory assumes that there are 7 extra space
> dimensions....but we only observe three dimensions of space and one dimension of time.

And what makes you think that all 10 dimensions should be observable in
everyday experience?

[Odd Bodkin]

On 11/9/2015 10:23 AM, kenseto wrote:
> On Monday, November 9, 2015 at 10:23:34 AM UTC-5, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>> On 11/7/2015 9:59 AM, kenseto wrote:
>>> On Monday, November 2, 2015 at 10:32:31 AM UTC-5, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>>>> On 11/1/2015 8:49 AM, kenseto wrote:
>>>>> The main problem of modern physics is the definition of time...."time is what the clock measures". This
>>>>> definition assumes that a unit of clock time "a clock second" is a universal interval of time.
>>>>
>>>> Why do you think it makes any such assumption?
>>>> Why not just take it for EXACTLY what it says, without adding anything
>>>> extra from your own head?
>>>
>>> SR makes such assumption becAUSE it claims that an A second measures the speed of light to be c and a B
>>> second measures the speed of light to be c.
>>
>> First of all, you need more than a second to measure the speed of
>> anything. I'm sure you know what the other thing is.
>
> That's irrelevant... SR (and you) assumes that you can compare an A second directly with a B second means
> that a second is a universal interval of time.

No, it doesn't. I can easily compare two things that are not equal.
What makes you think that you can only compare to things if they are the
same?

>>
>>> That means that a second is a universal interval of time.
>>
>> No, it means no such thing. This is what you've added on your own.
>
> Sure it means that....if not then the SR concept of time dilation is refuted.
>

No, it's not. Time dilation does not hinge on things you've added on
your own.

Time is what a clock measures. That's it. Nothing more. Nothing about
universal anything.

[Open Collector]

kenseto wrote:

> .but we only observe three dimensions of space and one dimension of
> time. This means that the math model of the super string theory is not
> eternal as you assumed.

As a hybrid curiosity, yes it is, eternal.