Re: Einstein was an atheist. ACTUALLY EINSTEIN WAS AN IDIOT
46erjoe
Einstein may have been a genius in his field but that doesn't mean he
was an expert in other fields, like theology and religion. He could
have been (and I believe he was) and idiot insofar as religion is
concerned. There's no way in hell he could have studied enough of the
source material to reach any informed conclusions. It takes as much
study to become a theologian as it does to become a physicist. Not
many people in our day and age can be true multi-disciplinarians. So
why all this shit about whether Einstein was an atheist or not, as
though whether he was or wasn't carries any weight? It's like asking
the Pope if he believes in string theory. If he does it must be true
etc etc
And the biggest idiots of all were the ones who posed the question to
AE in the first place as to whether he was an atheist or not. I'm
surprised old AE didn't just pop off: "Oh shut the f*** up and let me
do my science."
Double-A
46erjoe wrote:
> Okay, he wasn't an idiot. I just wrote that to get you attention.
>
> Einstein may have been a genius in his field but that doesn't mean he
> was an expert in other fields, like theology and religion. He could
> have been (and I believe he was) and idiot insofar as religion is
> concerned. There's no way in hell he could have studied enough of the
> source material to reach any informed conclusions. It takes as much
> study to become a theologian as it does to become a physicist.
Do you think that four years of studying dogmas at a seminary gets one
any closer to ultimate truths?
> Not
> many people in our day and age can be true multi-disciplinarians. So
> why all this shit about whether Einstein was an atheist or not, as
> though whether he was or wasn't carries any weight? It's like asking
> the Pope if he believes in string theory. If he does it must be true
> etc etc
The Pope is held to infallible on matters of faith and doctrine, but is
string theory doctrine? Believing in it does take a lot of faith!
> And the biggest idiots of all were the ones who posed the question to
> AE in the first place as to whether he was an atheist or not. I'm
> surprised old AE didn't just pop off: "Oh shut the f*** up and let me
> do my science."
Einstein had a lot of opinions outside of science, but most people
never gave them much weight.
Double-A
nightbat
Double-A wrote:
nightbat
Correct Commander first the coffee boys make fun and nominate
Team members for their original profound far advanced predictions,
theories, and give them silly awards and then accuse those same members
of plagiarism. How they wish they could come up with just one original
science discovery instead of constant playing with themselves. Dr.
Einstein did not like being made an authority and warned about seeking
it. The clueless ones seek attention and fame at the expense of the
dedicated researchers, for how they hang on your every word. Predictions
come and go but results remain forever. Clueless Saul is no exception,
for the observed melting mountain peaks and breaking or melting pole
icebergs do not deter his disbelieve, for he exclaims, I don't see any
Alps or icebergs melting in the desert. Everything here is perfectly
normal, what are you profound Earth Science Team Officers talking about?
You mean this stuff really is going on?
Dr. Einstein had to deal with the clueless, nothing new, and his genius
first wife had to deal with him. The annals of science are filled with
the greats having to deal with discovered advanced knowledge
understanding and at the time accepted miss true reality. Just remember
when standing in front of these in ah of you try to be kind, for they
mentally challenged can't help it, gray matter doesn't come with
instructions.
ponder on,
the nightbat
Double-A
Thanks for you fine remarks, Captain General nightbat.
The coffee boys with all their silly awards have not been able to keep
their act together very well lately. Just goes to show their lack of
organizational ability.
Dr. Einstein and Dr. Tesla were visionaries of their times. That is
why their admirers study their every word. But still the scoffers try
to find fault wherever they can.
Yes, the Earth Science Team Officers are having to keep well apprised
of all the apocalyptic changes that are going on nowadays on this
troubled planet. Coffee boys run about clueless to their pending fate.
But we await FOC.
Atheists want to claim Einstein as one of their own despite his
proclaiming that God doesn't play dice. Yet Buzz Aldrin sensed
something surely divine after seeing for the first time the far side of
the Moon, and proclaimed, "goodnight, good luck, a Merry Christmas and
God bless all of you - all of you on the good earth."
Double-A
G=EMC^2 Glazier
patterned an invention "refrigeration" with no moving parts He was also
a good violin player. Had a sense of humor. Had very smart friends. He
knew when he was right. Bert
Painius
news:1165737590.5...@n67g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
I've read this many times in many places... about
how Einstein was an atheist, a "non-believer". And
then you read about the God/dice/Universe thing,
and wonder if maybe the guy was more agnostic
than atheist?
Myself, i have no scientific evidence to support it,
but i was raised with a strong faith in a power that
goes way, way beyond any power of mankind. I
personally like this idea because i find it impossible
to accept that humans are the summit of life in the
Universe.
So it troubles me that such obviously and awesomely
intelligent, perhaps even wise people such as Einstein
and Asimov were atheists. Einstein found it totally
unacceptable that a benevolent, omnipresent and
omnipotent God could have possibly allowed the
atrocities of the 20th-century holocaust. And Asimov
based his personal atheism upon good, solid scientific
research and reason.
And i often wonder if this bothers anybody else?
happy days and...
starry starry nights!
--
Give the Devil an inch, and he'll take your Smile!
Indelibly yours,
Paine
http://www.savethechildren.org/
http://www.painellsworth.net
46erjoe
wrotF:
Atheists or atheistic systems (mainly socialism) have killed more
innocent people than all the Christians who have ever lived on earth.
Swallow that, AE. Oh, sorry, I forgot. You're dead and already know
it.
-Me
If there's no afterlife, I'm really gonna be pissed off. ; - )
Double-A
I think it takes a strong "faith" to believe that God does not exist,
because there is no proof that he does not. l do not have that kind of
faith.
Double-A
nightbat
nightbat
Yes like all profound Earth Science Team members and our
Officer oc with his refrigeration applied model which our Officer Zinni
enjoys so much. Einstein was looking to close the gravitational loop via
that same analogy. Trying to close the loop using one Universe is not
solution easy for first cause frame is missing. Hence attempts and
logical need for outer Universe frame extrapolation as Wolter's and per
oc's explained extension.
The deep field objective understanding however must be grasped from what
can be theoretically deduced, observed, versus field propensity. Latent
field memory discovery is the key pointing to missing frame acuity, for
it, perfect uniform momentum, has never existed in our space-time. And
the deduced reverse is true, the Universe in present necessary disturbed
momentum state therefore could not exist.
Explaining observed cosmos immense inputted applied energy momentum
differential impulse signal is necessary to complete loop cycle via
natural means with none available. Officer oc attempts just such a
monumental deep field theory task via theoretical outer Universe Wolter
engine presentation.
See Officer oc for site particulars
The nightbat presents an objective unified field view from explained
missing frame perspective not dependent on extrapolation but discovered
field latent memory remaining only confirmation peer dependent on co
researcher confirmed proof or disproof of presented premise. In other
words my model lends to observation confirmation and/or nullification,
while Officer oc's for Wolter's depends on beyond observable Universe
dependence, non observable reality, or nullable imaginary based model.
Very much like String theory needing more and more dimensions, branes,
and Universes to try to close the loop but without plus/negative
confirmable evidence for same.
Once you realize the amount of shear required applied inputted non
uniform energy momentum needed to create one physical mass particle
versus the entire micro/macro field base reality you can begin to grasp
absent immense missing natural first cause impulse. Remember the energy
field is reciprocal unto itself, (Newton), therefore applied field
impulse requires reciprocal equal or greater impulse to required law via
disclosed observed field latent memory (nightbat) pointing attempts
return to pure uniform momentum. Multi differential energy states do not
create or self alter themselves from base energy pure momentum. They are
reciprocal to directed or latent redirected applied impulse.
ponder on,
the nightbat
G=EMC^2 Glazier
the time of his death. So is the way of the witless in his spacetime.
Now he is accused to be and idiot in our present spacetime that he can
not witness. This proves humankind has its hate built in from one
generation to the next. This proves that man is wolf to man(Darwin)
This proves that nature created a species of higher life,that was not
the best life form to show the universe. Humankind has intrinsic
hate. Reality even at this Christmas season man has great hate for one
group to the next group to the next group. A critical force of hate,that
can only explode. Sad theory but based on great evidence
through out the history of man Bert
Double-A
I thought you were just whistling Dixie, Bert, but then I found:
http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/uspat1781541/www/
Perhaps Einstein was closer to discovering the Wolter refrigerator
model of the universe than I had thought!
Certainly he must have considered concepts of compression and density
of space in developing his warped space GR model.
Double-A
Double-A
G=EMC^2 Glazier wrote:
> Double-A Einstein had much Jewish prejudice from the time he was born to
> the time of his death. So is the way of the witless in his spacetime.
> Now he is accused to be and idiot in our present spacetime that he can
> not witness. This proves humankind has its hate built in from one
> generation to the next. This proves that man is wolf to man(Darwin)
Freud!
> This proves that nature created a species of higher life,that was not
> the best life form to show the universe. Humankind has intrinsic
> hate. Reality even at this Christmas season man has great hate for one
> group to the next group to the next group. A critical force of hate,that
> can only explode. Sad theory but based on great evidence
> through out the history of man Bert
"And in despair I bowed my head
"There is no peace on earth," I said,
"For hate is strong and mocks the song
Of peace on earth, good will to men.""
- "Christmas Bells" by Henry Wadsworth Longfellow
Double-A
Painius
I'm as convinced of this as i am certain that
Einstein applied his math to the task and found
that, while E = mc^2 on the electromagnetic
radiation scale, on the scale of the dynamic
flowing of the SPED, energy "E" was equal to
"m" multiplied by a far greater velocity.
Bill and i have been tossing around the nonmath
idea of E = mc³, but what if the actual energy
of flowing space is equal to "m" times the speed
of gravity? (or more accurately, the speed of
space itself)...
E = m(c x 2 x 10^20)²
or...
E = mVg²
...where Vg is the so-called "speed of gravity"
(actually the speed of flowing space)?
And it would come to me as no surprise, after he
saw what his EM equation had led to in Japan, that
Einstein would have withheld not only an equation
for space-energy conversion, but also the distinct
fact that space was by no means made of "nothing".
He was perhaps hoping that by the time this was
independently discovered, humankind would be
much older and wiser than those who waged war
in the 20th century.
happy days and...
starry starry nights!
--
The best things in life are here and now!
Tim McGaughy
Double-A wrote:
> I think it takes a strong "faith" to believe that God does not exist,
> because there is no proof that he does not. l do not have that kind of
> faith.
I think it takes a strong 'faith' to believe that Superman does not
Bill Sheppard
>...what if actual energy of flowing space
>gravity? (or more accurately, the speed
>of space itself)...
> E = m(c x 2 x 10^20)²
>or...
> E = mVg²
>...where Vg is the so-called "speed of
>gravity" (actually the speed of flowing
>space)?
As was just stated in another thread, what this is describing is _speed
of gravitational charge_ which is functionally instantaneous
irrespective of distance. This is distinct from velocity of spatial flow
itself. Space flow into Earth's surface, for instance, is equivalent to
escape velocity, or 11.2 km/s (about 7 mps). Same with any celestial
body; speed of inflow at surface datum is equal to that body's escape
velocity.
>And it would come to me as no surprise,
>after he saw what his EM equation had
>led to in Japan, that Einstein would have
>withheld not only an equation for
>space-energy conversion, but also the
>distinct fact that space was by no means >made of "nothing".
>
>He was perhaps hoping that by the time
>this was independently discovered,
>humankind would be much older and
>wiser than those who waged war in the
>20th century.
This is what i much prefer to believe of the sly and incredibly wise old
elf.
oc
Starman
something for god (he dosn't exist) sake
Man you are so ignorant that it hurts !
Religion is the main course regarding mass killing through history !
-snip
> Atheists or atheistic systems (mainly socialism) have killed more
> innocent people than all the Christians who have ever lived on earth.
> Swallow that, AE. Oh, sorry, I forgot. You're dead and already know
> it.
>
> -Me
>
> If there's no afterlife, I'm really gonna be pissed off. ; - )
GO AHEAD START PISSING OFF NOW ;-)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jeg beskyttes af den gratis SPAMfighter til privatbrugere.
Den har indtil videre sparet mig for at få 1381 spam-mails
Betalende brugere får ikke denne besked i deres e-mails.
Hent en gratis SPAMfighter her.
Bill Sheppard
>...my model lends to observation
>Officer oc's for Wolter's depends on
>beyond observable Universe
>dependence, non observable reality, or
>nullable imaginary based model.
Admittedly, Wolter's CBB model depends on intuitive extrapolation(IE),
that is, deducing the nature of the unseen from a
pattern/principle/planform seen consistently and universally throughout
nature, and presuming the unseen is more likely to embody that same
pattern/principle/planform, than not.
The minute you recognize space for what it is, a dynamic,
sub-Planck-wavelength field of stupendous energy density and
hydrodynamic pressure, the next question must invariably arise: What
manner of 'Engine' is capable of driving and sustaining so energetic a
Field? What sort of 'compressor' and Master Oscillator rings out the
'tones' whose sub-harmonics give rise to the Periodic Table? The CBB
model with its centerpiece Primal Particle provides just that
'Engine'/compressor/'Master Oscillator'.
>Very much like String theory...
Nay, nyet. While string theory does posit some sort of vibrational
underpinning, it remains clueless as to the 'Engine' driving it. Also,
it depends on ad hockery such as 'eleven dimensions' to try to
mathematicavlly unify gravity and the strong nuclear force under the
VSP. It depicts gravity some sort of emanation from those 'higher
dimensions'. The dynamic is no different than geocentrism's use of
'epicycles' - applying perfectly good math to try to validate a false
premise.
>...needing more and more dimensions,
>branes, and Universes to try to close the
>loop but without plus/negative
>confirmable evidence for same.
Yep. More and more fixes, fudges and kludges.
Whereas the CBB model needs no such ad hockery. Without ever holding
unification as an objective, it seamlessly unifies gravity and the SNF.
It unifies relativity and QM. It explains the mechanism of gravity and
gravity-accereration equivalence. It provides the next
expansion/extension of special relativity to include _density frames_ of
the spatial medium, holding c constant in all density frames just as SR
holds it constant in all inertial frames. It explains 'c-dilation' as
the drop in lightspeed _as observed from the external frame_ across the
expansion of the universe, with c remaining fixed *locally* in the
absence of any density gradient. No constants are ever violated, not the
Lorentz invariance, the fine structure constant, the lightspeed
constant, or any other constant. And the CBB model doesn't require any
'higher dimensions' beyond our familiar three. It simply replaces the
'Void' with the SPED and one primal Flow driven by one Force.
With its numerous sidebars providing so much collaboration and
corroboration while explaining the one simple mechanism behind all of
physical reality, and without needing one iota of math to do it, what if
perhaps the CBB model really *is* true?
oc
Painius
in message news:457C878C...@ispwest.com...
I thing it takes a strong "faith" to believe that Santa Claus does not
exist, because there is no proof that he does not.
happy days and...
starry starry nights!
--
The best things in life are here and now!
Indelibly yours,
nightbat
Bill Sheppard wrote:
nightbat
Well since no one else even comes close to presenting a viable
premise for closing the gravitational loop for field unity, it's
debatable. That Darla however has taken favor with you Officer oc is
interesting while respecting the nightbat's friendship and authority.
respectfully,
the nightbat
46erjoe
Glazier) wrotF:
>Double-A Einstein had much Jewish prejudice from the time he was born to
>the time of his death.
Do you mean that he was prejudiced or that others were prejudiced
against him? It works both ways. I assume the former. Then yes, he
must have experienced much prejudice even though he was a genius
physicist. Sad but true. And the holocaust proves that.
So is the way of the witless in his spacetime.
>Now he is accused to be and idiot in our present spacetime that he can
>not witness. This proves humankind has its hate built in from one
>generation to the next.
This proves shit. An opinion or a statement of fact does not
necessarily carry any hatred within it. Wow, what an astronomical
jump! Light years in fact. I say that I believe he was an idiot in a
particular area of study and you say that I harbor hatred toward him.
Not so. I admire the man insofar as he was a physicist. But he wasn't
much of a philosopher and others should not make him out to be one
just because he excelled in one area. Bach (n. 1685) and Mozart
(n.1756) were also brilliant within their fields (music), but their
opinions on, say, what Newton (n. 1643) was doing in physics, would
and should carry no weight at all.
Okay, I shouldn't have called him an "idiot" because that is
considered pejoritive. Does "dumb" sound better?
46erjoe
wrotF:
>Go back to school boy ! (not sunday bible school) REAL school and learn
>something for god (he dosn't exist) sake
>
>Man you are so ignorant that it hurts !
>
>Religion is the main course regarding mass killing through history !
Jeez! Calm down. Switch to decaf and let's ponder this issue
like intelligent people. I am quite educated, BTW.
Your reaction leads me to believe that you think religions
which claim to preach morality, peace and hope, in fact bring
intolerance, violence and destruction. I say, that by far the biggest
examples of intolerance, violence and destruction in human history are
those wrought by militant atheism, underpinned by bogus (I'll get to
that shortly) science. Mao, Stalin, Hitler, Pol Pot come to mind.
Religions might not bring perfection, but Atheisms have 100 times
worse track record.
At an empirical level, these 4 regimes must represent a good
85% of the atheist regimes (weighted by number of citizens) in
recorded history (the atheist phase of the French Revolution may well
account for another 2-3% which was about as bloodthirsty). Atheist
regimes are actually quite rare, representing say 20% of the regimes
(weighted by citizens) in recorded history. The only theist regime I
can think of which practised/allowed mass murder of its citizens on a
comparable relative scale was in Rwanda (representing say 0.1% of
regimes). So at an empirical level, the association between atheist
regimes and mass murder is very strong - far worse than smoking and
cancer.
What is the mechanism? Mao, Stalin and Pol Pot all claimed to
be Marxists and Marxism "the science of history" was the essential
underpinning ideology that allowed them to perpetrate their massive
crimes. The essence of Marxism is dialectical materialism and a denial
of the existence of God - indeed Marxism was specifically developed as
an anti-Christian philosophy. Hitler's Nazi-ism was admittedly far
more confused than Marxism, a sort of anti-Marxism which was based on
the popularised Darwinism of Haekel (the Dawkins of his day) and
picked up the widely-held German view that "survival of the fittest"
was a scientific and moral principle (and that, of course, the Germans
were the fittest!).
But more fundamentally, if you don't believe in God it is very
hard to believe in a morality that will constrain you when you have an
enormous amount of power. Christian leaders, however powerful, know
that they are "under God" and that they do not have ultimate power,
but are themselves under judgement. Atheists, manifestly, do not. An
absence of constraints on the abuse of power leads, understandably, to
an abuse of power.
Incidentally, these 'darwinian' views were very common in German
intellectual an military circles in the early 1900s, and very widely
held by the German General Staff. It was this that shocked Vernon
Kellogg, a Stanford professor who was posted to the headquarters of
the German general staff during the period of American neutrality in
World War I and was shocked to find German military leaders, sometimes
with the Kaiser present, supporting the war with an "evolutionary
rationale." They did so with "a particularly crude form of natural
selection, defined as inexorable, bloody battle." His subsequent book
"Headquarters Nights" helped bring the US into the war.
I obviously don't suggest that all atheists are immoral - many
smokers do not die of cancer. But atheism and power is an
exceptionally dangerous mixture.
I wonder if you consider humans to be animals - most atheists do.
And that view does lead to the rivers of blood of the 20th C - not in
all cases, but in enough to cause massive concern, and over 100M
deaths.
Of course there are ethical atheists. I certainly respect
them. However, false ideologies do not only correspond to erroneous
beliefs. They can also lead to terrible actions. The Church has not
been free from this kind of error (crusades, inquisition), but the
twentieth century atheist regimes are truly frightful examples.
I really get tired of the bullshit criticisms of Christianity
as a carniverous beast on society. An unbiased examination of history
proves otherwise, as well as demonstrates how atheists "conveniently"
forget Stalinism et al from their diagnoses of society's ills.
G=EMC^2 Glazier
complete hocus pocus. They in reality can not be compatible. This guy
"George Berkley" Tim you might agree with(kind of an act of faith) This
philosopher told us "IF not for the mind of God objects in the universe
would have a jerky kind of existence,becoming real only when we looked
at them. Tricky stuff,but Einstein even ask does the Moon exist only
when its looked upon?(objectively real) Tricky thinking. bert
G=EMC^2 Glazier
Clever fits One word for you is "dumb" bert
Double-A
G=EMC^2 Glazier wrote:
> Tim People with complete faith in their God have to find science
> complete hocus pocus. They in reality can not be compatible. This guy
> "George Berkley" Tim you might agree with(kind of an act of faith) This
> philosopher told us "IF not for the mind of God objects in the universe
> would have a jerky kind of existence,becoming real only when we looked
> at them.
Isn't that what they say in QM?
> Tricky stuff,but Einstein even ask does the Moon exist only
> when its looked upon?(objectively real) Tricky thinking. bert
With all our cloudy weather, the Moon doesn't exist very often here in
the winter.
Double-A
Bill Hudson
Double-A wrote:
> G=EMC^2 Glazier wrote:
> > Tim People with complete faith in their God have to find science
> > complete hocus pocus. They in reality can not be compatible. This guy
> > "George Berkley" Tim you might agree with(kind of an act of faith) This
> > philosopher told us "IF not for the mind of God objects in the universe
> > would have a jerky kind of existence,becoming real only when we looked
> > at them.
>
>
> Isn't that what they say in QM?
>
Is it? Are you thinking of Schrodinger's Cat? If so, then what it
says in that instance is that you can only speak of probabilities, so
the cat in the box is "half dead" and "half alive" according to the
probability function. Or are you thinking of something else?
46erjoe
Glazier) wrotF:
>46 You sound prejudice(read your posts) To sum Einstein up in one word
>Clever fits One word for you is "dumb" bert
Your hatred is showing, to use the logic expressed elsewhere in this
thread.
Okay, so much for my ranting and your ranting and our ranting. Just
wanted to vent some, even as you have. BTW, I am not a fundamentalist
Christian - not by a LONG shot - which you might have assumed. I just
like it when all data is shared in a discussion. I do feel that
Christians (excluding the TV anus orifices) have been given a bad
shake. My training is in philosophy and history and they are often
ignored in favor of science and current events.
But I'm an avid amateur astronomer. Built my own 'scope and keep up on
the topic because it is astounding to say the least. It's a great love
of mine and I hope that the off-topic precedings won't keep you and
others from answering questions I pose on that subject.
G=EMC^2 Glazier
46erjoe
Glazier) wrotF:
>You sound like a preacher to me. Bert
Hehe.
Herb, everybody's a preacher. Just on different subjects and at
different levels of expertise.
For your enjoyment:
There was a young lady named Wright,
Whose speed was far faster than light.
She went out one day,
In a relative way,
And returned the previous night.
Painius
news:481-457C...@storefull-3178.bay.webtv.net...
> From Painius:
>>
>> ...what if actual energy of flowing space
>> is equal to "m" times the speed of
>> gravity? (or more accurately, the speed
>> of space itself)...
>> E = m(c x 2 x 10^20)²
>> or...
>> E = mVg²
>> ...where Vg is the so-called "speed of
>> gravity" (actually the speed of flowing
>> space)?
>
> As was just stated in another thread, what this is describing is _speed
> of gravitational charge_ which is functionally instantaneous
> irrespective of distance. This is distinct from velocity of spatial flow
> itself. Space flow into Earth's surface, for instance, is equivalent to
> escape velocity, or 11.2 km/s (about 7 mps). Same with any celestial
> body; speed of inflow at surface datum is equal to that body's escape
> velocity.
The speed of gravitational charge, hmm..., or
do you mean "change"?
At any rate, this would make out the speed of
functional gravity to be...
3 x 10^8 x 2 x 10^20 m/s, or
6 x 10^28 m/s, or
60,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 m/s
That's 60 OCTILLION meters per second!
That's 200 quintillion TIMES the speed of light!
From our frame of reference, we can almost lose the
word "functionally" in "functionally instantaneous"!
Using the Sun and Earth, we know it takes 8.31
minutes (498.6 seconds) for light from the Sun to
reach us. If we divide this by Vg, we get a figure of...
2.5 x 10^-18 second
...as the time it would take for the Sun's change in
gravitational information to reach the Earth.
Now here's where it gets interesting... suppose there
is an object out there about one light year away. We
can't see it because it's, say, a brown dwarf and does
not emit/reflect light. How long would it take for a
change in its position to be gravitationally noted by
our Sun?
Using round figures, this comes out to be...
9.5 quadrillion meters / 60 octillion meters per second, or
0.16 picoseconds!
And isn't it another tickle to realize that any such
influence on our Sun by the nearest stars of the
Centauri group would only take about four times
as long to reach us!
I wanna do one more just for the hell of it, sorry...
The center of our galaxy is roughly 30,000 light
years away. How long does it take the influence
from this tremendous gravity well to be felt by our
Solar System? At the speed of gravity set forth by
Van Flandern...
4.75 nanoseconds!
I'm tired... who wants to figure how many ergs in
E = mVg² ? <g>
Painius
news:481-457C...@storefull-3178.bay.webtv.net...
>>
>> ...what if actual energy of flowing space
>> is equal to "m" times the speed of
>> gravity? (or more accurately, the speed
>> of space itself)...
>> E = m(c x 2 x 10^20)²
>> or...
>> E = mVg²
>> ...where Vg is the so-called "speed of
>> gravity" (actually the speed of flowing
>> space)?
>
> As was just stated in another thread, what this is describing is _speed
> of gravitational charge_ which is functionally instantaneous
> irrespective of distance. This is distinct from velocity of spatial flow
> itself. Space flow into Earth's surface, for instance, is equivalent to
> escape velocity, or 11.2 km/s (about 7 mps). Same with any celestial
> body; speed of inflow at surface datum is equal to that body's escape
> velocity.
I wanted to discuss that last part separately.
How does space know to decelerate to any given
speed as it enters the gravity well of any given
mass? It slows down to 7 miles/sec at Earth's
surface, and this figure is greater for, say, the
planet Jupiter, and it's a smaller figure for, say,
the planet Mars.
So how does flowing space "know" to slow down
to a certain speed for any given amount of mass?
And how slow is it going as it enters an atom?
happy days and...
starry starry nights!
--
Give the Devil an inch, and he'll take your Smile!
Indelibly yours,
Bill Sheppard
>How does space know to decelerate to
>any given speed as it enters the gravity
>well of any given mass?
Hoo boy. You're still not "gettin' it", dude. have you read any of
Lindner's or Shifman's material? It covers all of this in depth.
The flow _accelerates_ as it approaches/enters any gravity well. Think
river aproaching waterfall. Think venturi.
>It slows down to 7 miles/sec at Earth's
>surface.
It _speeds up_ to that velocity.
>So how does flowing space "know" to >slow down to a certain speed for
any >given amount of mass?
It "knows" to _accelerate_ by the hyperpressurized state of the medium,
the 'supra-cosmic overpressure' or SCO. The _rate_ of acceleration is
determined by the size of the 'sink' (mass). Mass and 'flow sink' are
synonymous. _Rate of acceleration_ is synonymous with the Einsteinian
"curvature" of space.
>..7 miles/sec at Earth's surface, and this
>figure is greater for, say, the planet
>Jupiter, and it's a smaller figure for, say,
>the planet Mars.
Yes, because Jupiter represents a bigger collective 'sink', and Mars a
smaller one.
>And how slow is it going as it enters an
>atom?
It reaches its _maximum_ acceleration and velocity there, as the inflow
transitions into what is termed the strong nuclear force (or 'hadronic
flow' as Lindner calls it).
Clearly, you are still not 'getting' the diff between *acceleration/
flow rate* and *speed of charge*, as evidenced in your other two posts.
The instantaneity of the 'speed of gravity' is _not_ referring to
acceleration or flow rate. In the analogy of electric flow in a wire,
the flow rate of individual electrons is very small, while the *speed of
charge* is instantaneous when you throw the switch (read: "functionally
instantaneous" for the nit-pickers). Similarly, gravity's influence is
instantaneus irrespecrtive of distance and irrespective of acceleration/
flow rate into any given sink (mass).
Then there's the matter of *gravitational waves* (one of db's favorite
subjects:-)). These are undulations of the spatial medium that *do*
propagate at c, believed generated by massive gravitational events like
supernovae, binary neutron star mergers, binary BH mergers etc.
(surrogate evidence for GWs is found in the Hulse-Taylor pulsar if you'd
care to Google it). But 'gravitational waves' propagating at c are not
referring to *speed of gravitational charge* which is instantaneous. And
gravitational waves are not the smoothly-accelerating flow which is
gravity. Think of ripples on a smooth lake or smooth river when you
throw a rock in.
oc
G=EMC^2 Glazier
tells you its already there. It relates to being inside a space ship
going at light speed. You would cover all the universe at once. For
gravity to cover the universe and its actions felt at once it would have
to be a grid connecting(going through) all there is in the universe. I
have posted this thinking in some of my past posts. I compare the grid
like a spider web. When a fly hits the web the spider instantly feels
the vibrations,and goes directly to that area of the web. Hope oc you
can use some of this for your inward flow of space energy to
particles,and waves Bert
Bill Sheppard
>The speed of gravitational charge,
>hmm..., or
>do you mean "change"?
Hey yeah, "change" is a good term. An abrupt change in gravitational
status *will* propagate at c, as a gravitational wave.
>Using the Sun and Earth, we know it
>takes 8.31 minutes (498.6 seconds) for
>light from the Sun to reach us. If we
>divide this by Vg, we get a figure of...
> 2.5 x 10^-18 second
>...as the time it would take for the Sun's
>change in gravitational information to
>reach the Earth.
'Fraid not 'ol chap. Say there's a massive eruption on the Sun, massive
enough to make the whole orb quiver like Jello. It'll emit information
in the form of gravitational waves which will still take 8.31 minutes to
get here.
>Now here's where it gets interesting...
>suppose there is an object out there
>about one light year away. We can't see
>it because it's, say, a brown dwarf and
>does not emit/reflect light. How long
>would it take for a change in its position
>to be gravitationally noted by our Sun?
Again, a change of *gravitational status* will propagate at c as
gravitational waves. This has nothing to do with the instantaneity of
gravity's influence across distance.
>I wanna do one more just for the hell of
>it, sorry...
>The center of our galaxy is roughly
>30,000 light years away. How long does
>it take the influence from this
>tremendous gravity well to be felt by our
>Solar System? At the speed of gravity
>set forth by Van Flandern...
> 4.75 nanoseconds!
Again, instantaneity/'speed' of gravity is not the same as gravitational
waves.
We've beat this stuff to death about gravitational waves
before, Paine. The term itself is a misnomer and has caused untold
confusion. Although *related* to gravity and caused by gravitational
events, GWs are not gravity. Properly defined, they are _spatial
acoustic pressure waves_ analogous to sound waves in air. They are
predominantly _londitudinal_ pressure-rarefaction waves (db's
hystrionics notwithstanding:-)). Einstein's original GW model which db
recites was predicated on a rigid, immobile 'ether'. As such, the model
had to predict transverse wave polarization, as through a solid. But
when the medium is recognized as fluid, compressible and expansible, the
wave is predominatly longitudinal, as through gas.
oc
Painius
in message news:492-458...@storefull-3172.bay.webtv.net...
> From Painius:
>>
>> How does space know to decelerate to
>> any given speed as it enters the gravity
>> well of any given mass?
>
> Hoo boy. You're still not "gettin' it", dude. have you read any of
> Lindner's or Shifman's material? It covers all of this in depth.
Yes, Bill, i *am* getting it... i'm getting that there
are some seemingly profound inconsistencies in all
this. To wit:
> The flow _accelerates_ as it approaches/enters any gravity well. Think
> river aproaching waterfall. Think venturi.
Okay, in science the word "accelerate" actually can
be positive or negative. And of course, a "negative
acceleration" would be a "deceleration". I'm taking
you to mean that the flow of space is a positive
acceleration as it approaches a gravity well. Space
"speeds up" as it enters the mass of a planet or a
star.
This would imply that space is flowing more slowly
out among the stars, and perhaps even more slowly,
kind of like molasses out between the galaxies and
galaxy clusters. Here is an inconsistency as i see it.
Astronomy's observations indicate that space does
expand, and it may expand at speeds that far exceed
the speed of light without going against the special
theory of relativity. Recent observations appear to
indicate that the expansion of space is accelerating.
All this tends to make me think that space outside
our Solar System, and especially outside our Milky
Way Galaxy, is flowing and expanding at extremely
high speeds.
So it is more consistent to think that flowing space
must SLOW DOWN to enter galaxies, stars and
planets.
>> It slows down to 7 miles/sec at Earth's
>> surface.
>
> It _speeds up_ to that velocity.
>
>> So how does flowing space "know" to
>> slow down to a certain speed for
>> any given amount of mass?
>
> It "knows" to _accelerate_ by the hyperpressurized state of the medium,
> the 'supra-cosmic overpressure' or SCO. The _rate_ of acceleration is
> determined by the size of the 'sink' (mass). Mass and 'flow sink' are
> synonymous. _Rate of acceleration_ is synonymous with the Einsteinian
> "curvature" of space.
Now, i realize that this seems inconsistent to you.
That because the escape velocity decreases above
the Earth's surface, this must mean that the speed
of flowing space is lower above the Earth. Also,
since physical objects fall at an accelerating rate,
it would seem that the flow of space is causing this.
I'm still thinking about these inconsistencies.
>> ..7 miles/sec at Earth's surface, and this
>> figure is greater for, say, the planet
>> Jupiter, and it's a smaller figure for, say,
>> the planet Mars.
>
> Yes, because Jupiter represents a bigger collective 'sink', and Mars a
> smaller one.
>
>> And how slow is it going as it enters an
>> atom?
>
> It reaches its _maximum_ acceleration and velocity there, as the inflow
> transitions into what is termed the strong nuclear force (or 'hadronic
> flow' as Lindner calls it).
Here is a major inconsistency in Wolter's argument.
Space speeds up a lot going into the Sun. Space
speeds up less going into Jupiter, even less going
into Earth, and even less going into Mars. So the
less mass involved, it would seem the less space
speeds up. So why isn't it going its SLOWEST speed
into an atom, the smallest mass of all?
> Clearly, you are still not 'getting' the diff between *acceleration/
> flow rate* and *speed of charge*, as evidenced in your other two posts.
> The instantaneity of the 'speed of gravity' is _not_ referring to
> acceleration or flow rate. In the analogy of electric flow in a wire,
> the flow rate of individual electrons is very small, while the *speed of
> charge* is instantaneous when you throw the switch (read: "functionally
> instantaneous" for the nit-pickers). Similarly, gravity's influence is
> instantaneus irrespecrtive of distance and irrespective of acceleration/
> flow rate into any given sink (mass).
>
> Then there's the matter of *gravitational waves* (one of db's favorite
> subjects:-)). These are undulations of the spatial medium that *do*
> propagate at c, believed generated by massive gravitational events like
> supernovae, binary neutron star mergers, binary BH mergers etc.
> (surrogate evidence for GWs is found in the Hulse-Taylor pulsar if you'd
> care to Google it). But 'gravitational waves' propagating at c are not
> referring to *speed of gravitational charge* which is instantaneous. And
> gravitational waves are not the smoothly-accelerating flow which is
> gravity. Think of ripples on a smooth lake or smooth river when you
> throw a rock in.
> oc
Another thing i'm thinking here is that if space
ultimately flows into an atom to use the atom as
a point of return to the source via nonlocality,
then it seems to me that space would be going
into the atom at its slowest possible speed so as
to be right on target for the nonlocality switch.
happy days and...
starry starry nights!
--
The best things in life are here and now!
Indelibly yours,
Painius
> From Painius:
>>
>> The speed of gravitational charge,
>> hmm..., or
>> do you mean "change"?
>
> Hey yeah, "change" is a good term. An abrupt change in gravitational
> status *will* propagate at c, as a gravitational wave.
No, no, no, Bill. A gravitational WAVE may
propagate at c, but the gravitational CHARGE
propagates at speeds in excess of c x 2 x 10^10
(which does BTW mean that my figures are off by
several magnitudes since i used c x 2 x 10^20)...
http://www.metaresearch.org/cosmology/speed_of_gravity.asp
"Using the same equation with binary pulsar
PSR1534+12 and the parameters in Table I,
we can place the most stringent limit yet from
the observed uncertainty in (orbital period):
Vg = or > 2 x 10^10 x c."
>> Using the Sun and Earth, we know it
>> takes 8.31 minutes (498.6 seconds) for
>> light from the Sun to reach us. If we
>> divide this by Vg, we get a figure of...
>> 2.5 x 10^-18 second
>> ...as the time it would take for the Sun's
>> change in gravitational information to
>> reach the Earth.
Allowing for my big blunder in math, the new
figure is...
2.5 x 10^-8 second, or
25 nanoseconds
...as the time it takes for the Sun's change in
positional information to reach the Earth.
> 'Fraid not 'ol chap. Say there's a massive eruption on the Sun, massive
> enough to make the whole orb quiver like Jello. It'll emit information
> in the form of gravitational waves which will still take 8.31 minutes to
> get here.
No argument, but again the waves are not the
same as the charge. The speed of the waves
may very well be c, but the speed of the charge
is "at least" 20 billion times c.
>> Now here's where it gets interesting...
>> suppose there is an object out there
>> about one light year away. We can't see
>> it because it's, say, a brown dwarf and
>> does not emit/reflect light. How long
>> would it take for a change in its position
>> to be gravitationally noted by our Sun?
>>
>> Using round figures, this comes out to be...
Again, to allow for my astronomical error this
actually comes out to be...
9.5 quadrillion meters / 6 quintillion meters per second, or
1.6 milliseconds!
And isn't it another tickle to realize that any such
influence on our Sun by the nearest stars of the
Centauri group would only take about four times
as long to reach us!
I wanna do one more just for the hell of it, sorry...
The center of our galaxy is roughly 30,000 light
years away. How long does it take the influence
from this tremendous gravity well to be felt by our
Solar System? At the speed of gravity set forth by
Van Flandern...
47.5 seconds!
It may very well be this delay that explains why
the galaxy arms revolve around the center of the
galaxy the way they do!
> Again, a change of *gravitational status* will propagate at c as
> gravitational waves. This has nothing to do with the instantaneity of
> gravity's influence across distance.
Sorry, Bill, but this statement above seems
contradictory to what you say below...
> We've beat this stuff to death about gravitational waves
> before, Paine. The term itself is a misnomer and has caused untold
> confusion. Although *related* to gravity and caused by gravitational
> events, GWs are not gravity. Properly defined, they are _spatial
> acoustic pressure waves_ analogous to sound waves in air. They are
> predominantly _londitudinal_ pressure-rarefaction waves (db's
> hystrionics notwithstanding:-)). Einstein's original GW model which db
> recites was predicated on a rigid, immobile 'ether'. As such, the model
> had to predict transverse wave polarization, as through a solid. But
> when the medium is recognized as fluid, compressible and expansible, the
> wave is predominatly longitudinal, as through gas.
> oc
If GWs are not gravity, then why are you using
them to propagate the gravitational changes? The
gravitational changes are propagated at speeds
much greater than c. If this were not true, then...
"The effect on computed orbits is usually
disastrous because conservation of angular
momentum is destroyed." (Van F.)
Double-A
You know Bill, thinking about gravity as a flow, it has interesting
parallels to electricity: the velocity of the flow being the current,
and the acceleration being the potential or voltage.
As I pointed out once before, ones relation to the velocity of the flow
could explain the time dilation in gravitational fields. If this were
true, it could be that at the center of Earth, where there would be
little flow, there would be little time dilation. This could be a
testable difference from standard curved void space GR theory.
However, even if it were proved to be true, they would find a way to
explain it with their standard theory. It's just like they found a way
to explain the Sagnac effect with relativity, after it was first
presented as a disproof of relativity. And take black holes: GR
objects, all perfectly predicted by GR, right? Never mind that the
black hole-like objects they are detecting today, emitting vast amounts
of energy and shooting streams of matter into space are nothing like
the invisible black holes they were predicting back in the 70's with
GR. And never mind that Einstein himself did not predict their
existence. Yet they are totally GR objects, right?
Double-A
John Zinni
The problem with making crap up out of thin air is that it is usually
inconsistent with crap someone else makes up out of thin air.
Bill Sheppard
>...thinking about gravity as a flow, it has >interesting parallels to
electricity: the >velocity of the flow being the current, >and the
acceleration being the potential
>or voltage.
Well, one can certainly draw parallels with electric flow. But voltage
would be equivalent to the pressure gradient causing the flow (in fact
voltage is referred to as 'pressure', potential, or electromotive force,
the 'E' in the Ohm's law formulae). Flow rate, as you say, would
correspond to amps, or 'intensity', the 'I' in Ohm's law.
What you say about acceleration is interesting, because in a CRT or an
Xray tube, a high voltage ('pressure gradient') accelerates an electron
beam, causing it to strike the target (anode) at high energy. In fact
the beam is accelerating exponentially as it hits the anode.
oc
G=EMC^2 Glazier
Current tell us that. Feynman when visiting Hoover dam had this to say
For every drop of water an electron will flow. Water goes through
pipes,and electrons go through wire. No conducting wire no flow of
electrons Bert
Bill Sheppard
>Here is a major inconsistency in Wolter's >argument. Space speeds up a
lot going
>into the Sun. Space speeds up less
>going into Jupiter, even less going into
>Earth, and even less going into Mars. So >the less mass involved, it
would seem
>the less space speeds up. So why isn't it
>going its SLOWEST speed into an atom,
>the smallest mass of all?
Well, Wolter had no 'argument' per se. He pictured the proton as a
microscale black hole analog replete with its own 'event horizon'. It
would be my conjecture then, that the flow hits the speed of light as it
enters the nucleus, just as it does when it enters a BH. Wolter pictured
the subnuclear domain as not part the external universe since it does
not *directly* participate in the Unified Field of Spatial Flows 'out
here'. That's why he excluded the Weak force, seeing it as more of a
'subset' of the Strong force.
Regarding the disparite inflow velocities you cite at the surface of
planets, suns etc., you gotta think of these bodies as aggregate
collections of protons. The bigger the aggregate, the bigger the
collective 'sink' it forms, and the greater the inflow velocity. When
the aggregate is sufficiently massive to form a BH, the inflow velocity
then equals the inflow velocity of its constituent protons, which is the
speed of light.
Wolter didn't go into this much detail, but i'm
extrapolating here from his basic model of the proton as a microscale BH
analog.
>Recent observations appear to indicate >that the expansion of space is
>accelerating. All this tends to make me >think that space outside our
Solar >System, and especially outside our Milky >Way Galaxy, is flowing
and expanding at >extremely high speeds.
What recent observations? Presumably you're referrin' to the 1a
supernova dimming, which is observed at extreme cosmological distances,
not in our immediale galactic environs. If such expansion were occuring
'locally' (ie, out to a radius of a few billion LY or so), we oughta be
seeing excessive dimming and reddening locally, which is not the case.
oc
Phineas T Puddleduck
"Painius" <starsw...@noaol.com> wrote:
> Okay, in science the word "accelerate" actually can
> be positive or negative. And of course, a "negative
> acceleration" would be a "deceleration". I'm taking
> you to mean that the flow of space is a positive
> acceleration as it approaches a gravity well. Space
> "speeds up" as it enters the mass of a planet or a
> star.
And what does this space accelerate, decelerate in reference too. Is it
turtles all the way down?
>
> This would imply that space is flowing more slowly
> out among the stars, and perhaps even more slowly,
> kind of like molasses out between the galaxies and
> galaxy clusters. Here is an inconsistency as i see it.
>
Utter rubbish
> Astronomy's observations indicate that space does
> expand, and it may expand at speeds that far exceed
> the speed of light without going against the special
> theory of relativity. Recent observations appear to
> indicate that the expansion of space is accelerating.
> All this tends to make me think that space outside
> our Solar System, and especially outside our Milky
> Way Galaxy, is flowing and expanding at extremely
> high speeds.
Really? Funny how Hipparcos proves thats BS.
>
> So it is more consistent to think that flowing space
> must SLOW DOWN to enter galaxies, stars and
> planets.
So many words, so little science. Step away from the bong, saucerheads.
--
Just \int_0^\infty du it!
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
Phineas T Puddleduck
<r98gh.201766$Fi1.1...@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>,
"Painius" <starsw...@noaol.com> wrote:
> The center of our galaxy is roughly 30,000 light
> years away. How long does it take the influence
> from this tremendous gravity well to be felt by our
> Solar System? At the speed of gravity set forth by
> Van Flandern...
>
> 47.5 seconds!
>
> It may very well be this delay that explains why
> the galaxy arms revolve around the center of the
> galaxy the way they do!
Utter, utter rubbish.
nightbat
John Zinni wrote:
> Officer Zinni
> The problem with making crap up out of thin air is that it is usually
> inconsistent with crap someone else makes up out of thin air.
> Zinni
nightbat
The trouble in trying to get profound original thought to final
understanding of the clueless is that they are normally too busy
comparing copied notes and search engine findings of what's known versus
what is novel and beyond their mental grasp.
carry on,
the nightbat
G=EMC^2 Glazier
the Earth coming up to the apple answers a hard question,but both get
shot down because they create lots of questions they are unable to
answer. Wolter was not the first to kick this idea around. Attraction
over distance even the great mind of Newton would not touch. Now Brian
Greene uses virtual particles to give the message for objects to attract
or repel. That begs the question is QM gravitons virtual particles? Is
this the reason they can't be detected? Is Scheck and Schwarz with their
theory on gravity in the Planck realm the true source of gravity? I
think so bert
Bill Sheppard
>The trouble in trying to get profound
>original thought to final understanding of
>the clueless is that they are normally too
Yeah, they shoulda starred in the Wizard of Oz as one of those
'challenged' characters, with the lament "If I Only Had a Brain." :-) oc
Bill Sheppard
>...electric current has always been
Good point Bert. But you gotta parse the observation carefully, to
clarify the distinction between *electric flow* in a wire and _electron
flow_ in free space, as in a vacuum tube. In a wire, the individual
electrons move very, very slowly, while the *speed of charge* thru the
wire moves at the speed of light (minus the 'velocity factor' making it
about .77c depending on the material. That's why a radio transmitter's
antenna is cut to the velocity factor).
Whereas in a vacuum tube, individual electrons *are*
liberated to flow and accelerate freely thru space.
Though superficially similar, Electric flow with its associated speed of
charge, and electron flow are distinctly different critters.
oc
Phineas T Puddleduck
nightbat <nigh...@home.ffni.com> wrote:
> The trouble in trying to get profound original thought to final
> understanding of the clueless is that they are normally too busy
> comparing copied notes and search engine findings of what's known versus
> what is novel and beyond their mental grasp.
You've never had a profound original thought. You just like to pretend
you're silly little sci fi club has any relevance to astronomy.
nightbat
Phineas T Puddleduck wrote:
> In article <d5969$458267ef$46e3a66a$11...@COMTECK.COM>,
>> nightbat <nigh...@home.ffni.com> wrote:
>>
>> The trouble in trying to get profound original thought to final
>>understanding of the clueless is that they are normally too busy
>>comparing copied notes and search engine findings of what's known versus
>>what is novel and beyond their mental grasp.
> Puddleduck
>
> You've never had a profound original thought. You just like to pretend
> you're silly little sci fi club has any relevance to astronomy.
>
nightbat
Profound Science Team Officers please escort this self admitted
quack duck out to the vacuum low IQ mental stowfile for he is so far off
deep theoretical field reality base he wouldn't understand real
alt.astronomy versus if Hollywood Captain Kirk smacked him on his
feathered behind. Puddles should be able to keep clueless Saul, sidewalk
guy, and the coffee boys very happy with his flapping silly quacks. Oh
the humanity! when will the confounded mentally challenged coffee boy
wonders understand the profound enlightened net World famous Science
Team Officers and nightbat super advanced iterations without having a
quacked up befuddled mental crisis of lack of intellectual neuron
sensory grasping ability.
at ease quacky duck,
the nightbat
Bill Sheppard
childhood, where he dumped a bucket of ice on Daffy Duck, saying,
"here's quacked ice for a qwacked quacker." oc
nightbat
Bill Sheppard wrote:
nightbat
Yes Officer oc, the VSP diehards quack on while the World Sun
hurdles and spin on their SF axis and they look for imaginary no
evidence strings. Without the dynamic Planck quantum dense micro energy
background space medium there could be no condensed energy mass Planet
anti quacks coming from the peanut clueless gallery. Talk about biting
the hand that feeds them, oh the humanity! Like the flat Earth the void
space cartoon characters are alive and well.
Happy New Year physical bean counters,
the nightbat
Double-A
Why don't you go back to your crank physics group with Y. Porat, Tom
Potter, and tj Frazir!
Double-A
Phineas T Puddleduck
nightbat <nigh...@home.ffni.com> wrote:
> nightbat
>
> Profound Science Team Officers please escort this self admitted
> quack duck out to the vacuum low IQ mental stowfile for he is so far off
> deep theoretical field reality base he wouldn't understand real
> alt.astronomy versus if Hollywood Captain Kirk smacked him on his
> feathered behind
BWAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHA
Free clue for you kooky boy. My PhD application went in last week. I was
born knowing more astronomy then you sad wankers.
Phineas T Puddleduck
> Oh
> the humanity! when will the confounded mentally challenged coffee boy
> wonders understand the profound enlightened net World famous Science
> Team Officers and nightbat super advanced iterations without having a
> quacked up befuddled mental crisis of lack of intellectual neuron
> sensory grasping ability.
Profound enlightmentment - yeah more like a candle
Phineas T Puddleduck
nightbat <nigh...@home.ffni.com> wrote:
> Without the dynamic Planck quantum dense micro energy
> background space medium there could be no condensed energy mass Planet
> anti quacks coming from the peanut clueless gallery. Talk about biting
> the hand that feeds them, oh the humanity! Like the flat Earth the void
> space cartoon characters are alive and well.
Wow - excellent random sentence creator there. Shame there is NO SCIENCE
BACKGROUDN WHENEVER. Still wearing the tshirts, kooky boys.
Phineas T Puddleduck
"Double-A" <doub...@hush.ai> wrote:
>
> Why don't you go back to your crank physics group with Y. Porat, Tom
> Potter, and tj Frazir!
Why don't you get a clue about real science, moron. Its you and your
little pretend star trek group that belong with them. You haven't got a
physics or astronomy qualification between all of you. hell you don't
even have a fully firing neuron to share.
So which one is the vulcan? I guess its you, sticking up for a bunch of
deadbeats.
Phineas T Puddleduck
old...@webtv.net (Bill Sheppard) wrote:
Why not take an elementary astronomy course so you can detect nightbats
utter bollocks.
Double-A
I've seen your inane posts in sci.physics. From those I would conclude
that you are a little light in the science yourself! If you do know
anything, you sure are being reluctant to share it.
Double-A
Phineas T Puddleduck
"Double-A" <doub...@hush.ai> wrote:
> I've seen your inane posts in sci.physics. From those I would conclude
> that you are a little light in the science yourself! If you do know
> anything, you sure are being reluctant to share it.
>
> Double-A
And yet here you are Double-A. With nothing to add to physics or science
discussions yourself, you run along after nightbat collecting his little
droppings....
Double-A
You might want to work on making your insults more witty, since that's
all you seem to have to offer!
Double-A
Phineas T Puddleduck
"Double-A" <doub...@hush.ai> wrote:
>
>
> You might want to work on making your insults more witty, since that's
> all you seem to have to offer!
Thats the most pathetic flame I've seen, which from you is quite an
achievement.
Phineas T Puddleduck
> You might want to work on making your insults more witty, since that's
> all you seem to have to offer!
>
I could add all of your physics qualifications together and still get
nothing.
> Double-A
I think nightbat is calling you, he's made another "nugget" of
discovery. You'd better rush on over with your pooper scooper.
Fluid space indeed. Well, now Star Trek Voyager is giving you insights
now.
Please Double-A, explain what is exactly space flowing in? How would you
detect the motion. Lets happily ignore the fact that the Aether model is
dead and buried.
You guys must be amongst the finest minds of the 14th Century.
Double-A
Phineas T Puddleduck wrote:
> In article <1166289451.4...@j72g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
> "Double-A" <doub...@hush.ai> wrote:
>
> > You might want to work on making your insults more witty, since that's
> > all you seem to have to offer!
> >
>
> I could add all of your physics qualifications together and still get
> nothing.
>
> > Double-A
>
> I think nightbat is calling you, he's made another "nugget" of
> discovery. You'd better rush on over with your pooper scooper.
>
> Fluid space indeed. Well, now Star Trek Voyager is giving you insights
> now.
>
> Please Double-A, explain what is exactly space flowing in? How would you
> detect the motion. Lets happily ignore the fact that the Aether model is
> dead and buried.
>
> You guys must be amongst the finest minds of the 14th Century.
>
If that were true, we would still be centuries ahead of you!
Double-A
Phineas T Puddleduck
"Double-A" <doub...@hush.ai> wrote:
> If that were true, we would still be centuries ahead of you!
>
> Double-A
But as you said it isnt true. You're a bunch of no hoper social misfits
without a physics qualification between you, producing a mishmash of
poor scifi and even poorer science (though I taint the word by even
mentioning it in the same sentence as your moronic ramblings) which has
no congruence with reality at all.
But you keep on washing nightbats ass with your tounge AA- I guess
double-A stands for Asshole Astronomer? Even if it did, the second part
is still incorrect.
But you evade my questions really well so I shall repeat.
What is space flowing in?
Hint, is it turtles all the way down?
honestjohn
"Double-A" <doub...@hush.ai> wrote in message
news:1166293570.5...@n67g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
>
> Phineas T Puddleduck wrote:
> > In article <1166289451.4...@j72g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
> > "Double-A" <doub...@hush.ai> wrote:
> >
> > > You might want to work on making your insults more witty, since that's
> > > all you seem to have to offer!
> > >
> >
> > I could add all of your physics qualifications together and still get
> > nothing.
> >
> > > Double-A
> >
> > I think nightbat is calling you, he's made another "nugget" of
> > discovery. You'd better rush on over with your pooper scooper.
> >
> > Fluid space indeed. Well, now Star Trek Voyager is giving you insights
> > now.
> >
> > Please Double-A, explain what is exactly space flowing in? How would you
> > detect the motion. Lets happily ignore the fact that the Aether model is
> > dead and buried.
> >
> > You guys must be amongst the finest minds of the 14th Century.
> >
>
>
> If that were true, we would still be centuries ahead of you!
>
HJ
Double-A
Phineas T Puddleduck wrote:
> In article <1166293570.5...@n67g2000cwd.googlegroups.com>,
> "Double-A" <doub...@hush.ai> wrote:
>
> > If that were true, we would still be centuries ahead of you!
> >
> > Double-A
>
> But as you said it isnt true. You're a bunch of no hoper social misfits
> without a physics qualification between you, producing a mishmash of
> poor scifi and even poorer science (though I taint the word by even
> mentioning it in the same sentence as your moronic ramblings) which has
> no congruence with reality at all.
>
> But you keep on washing nightbats ass with your tounge AA- I guess
> double-A stands for Asshole Astronomer? Even if it did, the second part
> is still incorrect.
You are beginning to sound a lot like Michael Baldwin, Bruce. I
stopped even reading his posts because he is such a witless A-hole.
>
> But you evade my questions really well so I shall repeat.
>
> What is space flowing in?
What is being warped?
Double-A
Phineas T Puddleduck
"honestjohn" <hones...@centurytel.net> wrote:
> > If that were true, we would still be centuries ahead of you!
> >
> Well played D-A! You got P-P on the run and damp!
>
> HJ
Oh god, another imbecile. You lot interbred or something?
Phineas T Puddleduck
"Double-A" <doub...@hush.ai> wrote:
> What is being warped?
>
> Double-A
The shape of spacetime. Really, even a dunderhead like you should
understand this.
Double-A
Phineas T Puddleduck wrote:
> In article <1166295988.7...@f1g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
> "Double-A" <doub...@hush.ai> wrote:
>
> > What is being warped?
> >
> > Double-A
>
> The shape of spacetime. Really, even a dunderhead like you should
> understand this.
So what is the shape of spacetime being warped in?
Phineas T Puddleduck
"Double-A" <doub...@hush.ai> wrote:
>
> So what is the shape of spacetime being warped in?
Does shape need a container? Besides, the same question can be asked of
your flowing space. However curved space (through the equivalence
principle) explains away gravity through the field equations. You
somehow think there needs to be a container for space.
Would you like me to point you to a GR primer? Sean Carroll's website
has an introduction to GR.
Phineas T Puddleduck
Phineas T Puddleduck <phineasp...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> In article <1166310230....@j72g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
> "Double-A" <doub...@hush.ai> wrote:
>
> >
> > So what is the shape of spacetime being warped in?
>
> Does shape need a container? Besides, the same question can be asked of
> your flowing space. However curved space (through the equivalence
> principle) explains away gravity through the field equations. You
> somehow think there needs to be a container for space.
>
> Would you like me to point you to a GR primer? Sean Carroll's website
> has an introduction to GR.
To add a further note of explanation - spacetime curvature into a fifth
dimension (outside the three of space and one of time) means it is just
curved in that direction. Asking outside of that isn't relevant because
we are restricted to space and time?
Read "Flatland"
Double-A
Hang around here and you might learn some things they didn't teach you
in your GR primer.
Double-A
honestjohn
"Phineas T Puddleduck" <phineasp...@googlemail.com> wrote in message
news:phineaspuddleduck-6...@free.teranews.com...
> In article <EvCdnYQRqdJb3xnY...@centurytel.net>,
> "honestjohn" <hones...@centurytel.net> wrote:
>
> > > If that were true, we would still be centuries ahead of you!
> > >
> > Well played D-A! You got P-P on the run and damp!
> >
> > HJ
>
> Oh god, another imbecile. You lot interbred or something?
>
HJ
Phineas T Puddleduck
"Double-A" <doub...@hush.ai> wrote:
> Hang around here and you might learn some things they didn't teach you
> in your GR primer.
>
> Double-A
I doubt it very much. Considering you don't even know SFA about
non-euclidean geoemtry, I doubt a bunch of people pretending to be some
sort of pseudo sci-fi star trek group could teach anyone anything...
Phineas T Puddleduck
"honestjohn" <hones...@centurytel.net> wrote:
Nah, you haven't earned it yet.
Bill Sheppard
>Yes... the VSP diehards quack on..
Yeah, their motto is "keep on quackin'" in the manner of the old pot
runners' slogan "keep on truckin'". :-) oc
Bill Sheppard
>Certainly Einstein must have considered
>concepts of compression and density of
>space in developing his warped space
>GR model.
As stated before, i would certainly like to believe this. Whereas Henry
Lindner has roundly denounced him as a charlatan and a fraud for
allowing the 'no medium' doctrine to take over science while knowing
full well better. That certainly would qualify him as an idiot (the
original title of this thread).
I believe more and more that he had to know the truth
but *deliberately* couched it in the "curvature of space" metaphor.
After all, the math does work, as proven over and over in GR. By
couching the truth this way and depicting space as 'nothing', and then
spending his last 30 years "searching for" the unification of gravity,
he very convincingly cemented in stone the 'no medium' doctrine.. like a
mama bird feigning a broken wing. But it was an act of supreme wisdom,
not idiocy. It's gotta be one or the other, there's not much room for
middle ground here.
>Perhaps Einstein was closer to
>discovering the Wolter refrigerator model >of the universe than I had
thought!
Actually the freon cycle analogy was not Wolter's but (ahem) an oc
original.
As related numeroius times before you (AA) came to the
NG, Wolter jestingly used the terms 'Big Hoover in the sky' and 'the
ultimate Tokamak' in describing his centerpiece 'Engine'. He also used
the analogy of a jet engine running on a test stand. You hear the whine
of the turbine and the roar of the exhaust and see the whole process at
work. Meanwhile, a tiny dust speck gets sucked thru the engine,
undergoes combustion and is instantly shot out the exhaust as a particle
of carbon. It felt a 'bang', a BIG bang as it went thru the engine. From
the limited perception of that particle, it only knew of the 'bang', not
the larger, whole process at work.. thus illustrating the restricted
'inside' referance frame of the 'Singular BB' model vs. the larger
'outside' frame that sees the whole Process.
The freon cycle analogy was a refinement of the 'jet
engine' analogy. And db says oc has no original thought but just parrots
Wolter. Hrrumph. :-) oc
Double-A
As a matter of fact, I used to have a non-Euclidean pool table. I got
to be quite good at it.
By the way, you might start by learning the proper capitalization in
the term "non-Euclidean".
Double-A
Phineas T Puddleduck
"Double-A" <doub...@hush.ai> wrote:
> As a matter of fact, I used to have a non-Euclidean pool table. I got
> to be quite good at it.
>
> By the way, you might start by learning the proper capitalization in
> the term "non-Euclidean".
>
> Double-A
If the best you can manage is the fact I wrote e not E, well then that
speaks volumes about your stupidity.
honestjohn
> In article <A_SdnSmR3bdGFRnY...@centurytel.net>,
> "honestjohn" <hones...@centurytel.net> wrote:
>
> >
> > "Phineas T Puddleduck" <phineasp...@googlemail.com> wrote in
message
> > news:phineaspuddleduck-6...@free.teranews.com...
> > > In article <EvCdnYQRqdJb3xnY...@centurytel.net>,
> > > "honestjohn" <hones...@centurytel.net> wrote:
> > >
> > > > > If that were true, we would still be centuries ahead of you!
> > > > >
> > > > Well played D-A! You got P-P on the run and damp!
> > > >
> > > > HJ
> > >
> > > Oh god, another imbecile. You lot interbred or something?
> > >
> > Thanks for the lame, P-P. May I have another?
> >
> > HJ
>
> Nah, you haven't earned it yet.
>
<runs away>
nightbat
> Commander Double-A
> Hang around here and you might learn some things they didn't teach you
> in your GR primer.
>
> Double-A
>
nightbat
Please Commander don't encourage quacks like Puddles to
continue to make noise in this or any other net serious science
newsgroups, we have enough interruptions with the regular clueless auk
ones. Ducky needs to find more birds of his feather at the park or zoo
not on one of the most Worlds respected science newsgroups on the net.
His affinity for fantasy is noted so maybe he can get a part on the
Sesame Big Yellow Bird show they like quacking ducks over there.
On a more serious note how are you holding up with deteriorating
conditions at your duty station? Understand thousands are left without
power for days deaths being reported and could possible be another
Katrina like disaster brewing.
over and out,
the nightbat
nightbat
Phineas T Puddleduck wrote:
> In article <9f73e$45837f1f$46e3a679$24...@COMTECK.COM>,
> nightbat <nigh...@home.ffni.com> wrote:
>
>
>>nightbat
>>
>> Profound Science Team Officers please escort this self admitted
>>quack duck out to the vacuum low IQ mental stowfile for he is so far off
>>deep theoretical field reality base he wouldn't understand real
>>alt.astronomy versus if Hollywood Captain Kirk smacked him on his
>>feathered behind
> Puddleduck
>
> BWAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHA
>
> Free clue for you kooky boy. My PhD application went in last week. I was
> born knowing more astronomy then you sad wankers.
>
nightbat
Captain's log---Present date
Local Earth time Ind. coordinates
Indy Base One code RtoC123
A subject on the net calling himself Puddleduck of true particular sub
species unknown attempts to make conversation with me and my Profound
Science Team Officers. His IQ is extremely low and base life form like.
He states he has an application in but not where for some acknowledgment
of purportedly PhD (Please help Ducky). He also claims being of birth
knowing subject of astronomy without knowing his still infantile speech
patterns and zero knowledge of subject matter give him away as a
clueless baby. Apparently Officer oc's discussion with fellow Science
Team Officers on space flow theory has disturbed this planet declared
duckling greatly.
Computer data recorder make note: subject duck enjoys laughing as an
disguised human and is not normal for a self admitted duck bird.
Something is fishy perhaps further iterations of his quacks will bring
light to true form of this mixed up Earth net subject.
end of log
ponder on,
the nightbat
nightbat
Phineas T Puddleduck wrote:
> In article <1166253095.4...@16g2000cwy.googlegroups.com>,
> "Double-A" <doub...@hush.ai> wrote:
>
>
>>Why don't you go back to your crank physics group with Y. Porat, Tom
>>Potter, and tj Frazir!
> Puddleduck
>
> Why don't you get a clue about real science, moron. Its you and your
> little pretend star trek group that belong with them. You haven't got a
> physics or astronomy qualification between all of you. hell you don't
> even have a fully firing neuron to share.
>
> So which one is the vulcan? I guess its you, sticking up for a bunch of
> deadbeats.
>
nightbat
How dare you speak of our perfect logic Officer Zinni that way
you befuddled Puddleduckling! I'll have you know Officer Zinni has more
science knowledge in his pinky quacky then you have in all your mixed up
bird brain.
Commander and Officer Zinni please disregard any and all quacks from
this sub species for he refers to baby parrot like brain reliance. Oh
the humanity! when will these clueless wonders stop flying in here to
try to rule the roust.
shoo fly away,
the nightbat
nightbat
Phineas T Puddleduck wrote:
> In article <e7b77$4583968a$46e3a679$20...@COMTECK.COM>,
> nightbat <nigh...@home.ffni.com> wrote:
>
>
>>Without the dynamic Planck quantum dense micro energy
>>background space medium there could be no condensed energy mass Planet
>>anti quacks coming from the peanut clueless gallery. Talk about biting
>>the hand that feeds them, oh the humanity! Like the flat Earth the void
>>space cartoon characters are alive and well.
> Puddleduck
>
> Wow - excellent random sentence creator there. Shame there is NO SCIENCE
> BACKGROUDN WHENEVER. Still wearing the tshirts, kooky boys.
>
nightbat
Kook capitals noted and quacky a so called un-approved
application for PhD (Please help Ducky) like net Hammond is not science
background or laurels. Edison and Tesla like Patented useful inventions,
Team member profound net presented deep theories, and/or actual earned
accredited higher learning scientific degrees, profound literary and
scientific Peer Awards, who's who in science, accepted applied advanced
knowledge, working models, any astronomy shared discovered knowledge and
Team provided helpful links, co-member scientific community awareness
and acceptance is. Who's ducky and why doesn't this parrot repeating
duck brain know his way home? Oh! did we hurt your feelings, Officers
please call a duck ambulance right away we can't have duck tears messing
up our science group. Just not politically correct and what will our
Sean friends think. By the way, sorry, no Glow T-shirt for you ducky.
Get in line with all the other failed science Team cadet hopefuls. Next
opening date to reapply is August 2012 if we're still here. Officer
Warhol will either accept your re-application at that time or make you
walk the plank.
Caution---Science Officers converse with this Puddles quacky duck at
your own discretion. Puddleduck welcome to the Captain's stowfile, you
earned it. Say hello to our little clueless friends in there.
don't fluff your feathers ducky,
the nightbat
Double-A
nightbat wrote:
> nightbat wrote
>
> Phineas T Puddleduck wrote:
>
> > In article <e7b77$4583968a$46e3a679$20...@COMTECK.COM>,
> > nightbat <nigh...@home.ffni.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> >>Without the dynamic Planck quantum dense micro energy
> >>background space medium there could be no condensed energy mass Planet
> >>anti quacks coming from the peanut clueless gallery. Talk about biting
> >>the hand that feeds them, oh the humanity! Like the flat Earth the void
> >>space cartoon characters are alive and well.
>
> > Puddleduck
> >
> > Wow - excellent random sentence creator there. Shame there is NO SCIENCE
> > BACKGROUDN WHENEVER. Still wearing the tshirts, kooky boys.
> >
>
> nightbat
>
> Kook capitals noted and quacky a so called un-approved
> application for PhD (Please help Ducky)
I hope his grammar and spelling on his dissertation were better than he
has displayed here, or approval of any PhD is doubtful!
> like net Hammond is not science
> background or laurels. Edison and Tesla like Patented useful inventions,
> Team member profound net presented deep theories, and/or actual earned
> accredited higher learning scientific degrees, profound literary and
> scientific Peer Awards, who's who in science, accepted applied advanced
> knowledge, working models, any astronomy shared discovered knowledge and
> Team provided helpful links, co-member scientific community awareness
> and acceptance is. Who's ducky and why doesn't this parrot repeating
> duck brain know his way home? Oh! did we hurt your feelings, Officers
> please call a duck ambulance right away we can't have duck tears messing
> up our science group.
Somebody call a quack!
> Just not politically correct and what will our
> Sean friends think. By the way, sorry, no Glow T-shirt for you ducky.
> Get in line with all the other failed science Team cadet hopefuls. Next
> opening date to reapply is August 2012 if we're still here. Officer
> Warhol will either accept your re-application at that time or make you
> walk the plank.
>
> Caution---Science Officers converse with this Puddles quacky duck at
> your own discretion. Puddleduck welcome to the Captain's stowfile, you
> earned it. Say hello to our little clueless friends in there.
>
> don't fluff your feathers ducky,
> the nightbat
Double-A
Double-A
I filed a complete report in Troubling Planetary News thread.
Temporary power outage tonight, but now the power is back on, and I'm
back online! Just all in a night's work for a Earth Science Officer
manning the most extreme post on the western weather front.
Double-A
G=EMC^2 Glazier
when he was at the prime of life,and that was 100 years ago. Hard
for us to read his mind at this spacetime. SR was not all his thinking.
He just put things together nicely,and used good math. GR showed how
clever he really was. It has such original thinking. Why he did not get
the Nobel for GR is a mystery. Go figure Bert
Phineas T Puddleduck
nightbat <nigh...@home.ffni.com> wrote:
> Please Commander don't encourage quacks like Puddles to
> continue to make noise in this or any other net serious science
> newsgroups, we have enough interruptions with the regular clueless auk
> ones. Ducky needs to find more birds of his feather at the park or zoo
> not on one of the most Worlds respected science newsgroups on the net.
> His affinity for fantasy is noted so maybe he can get a part on the
> Sesame Big Yellow Bird show they like quacking ducks over there.
So pray tell space cadet what is your science qualification. Klingon
University?
Phineas T Puddleduck
nightbat <nigh...@home.ffni.com> wrote:
> A subject on the net calling himself Puddleduck of true particular sub
> species unknown attempts to make conversation with me and my Profound
> Science Team Officers. His IQ is extremely low and base life form like.
> He states he has an application in but not where for some acknowledgment
> of purportedly PhD (Please help Ducky). He also claims being of birth
> knowing subject of astronomy without knowing his still infantile speech
> patterns and zero knowledge of subject matter give him away as a
> clueless baby. Apparently Officer oc's discussion with fellow Science
> Team Officers on space flow theory has disturbed this planet declared
> duckling greatly.
You are 12, right?
Phineas T Puddleduck
nightbat <nigh...@home.ffni.com> wrote:
> How dare you speak of our perfect logic Officer Zinni that way
> you befuddled Puddleduckling! I'll have you know Officer Zinni has more
> science knowledge in his pinky quacky then you have in all your mixed up
> bird brain.
>
> Commander and Officer Zinni please disregard any and all quacks from
> this sub species for he refers to baby parrot like brain reliance. Oh
> the humanity! when will these clueless wonders stop flying in here to
> try to rule the roust.
BWAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHAHHA
Free clue for you, watching Star Trek doesn't make you an astronomer,
nutter.
Phineas T Puddleduck
nightbat <nigh...@home.ffni.com> wrote:
> Caution---Science Officers converse with this Puddles quacky duck at
> your own discretion. Puddleduck welcome to the Captain's stowfile, you
> earned it. Say hello to our little clueless friends in there.
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAH
Phineas T Puddleduck
"Double-A" <doub...@hush.ai> wrote:
> > Kook capitals noted and quacky a so called un-approved
> > application for PhD (Please help Ducky)
>
>
> I hope his grammar and spelling on his dissertation were better than he
> has displayed here, or approval of any PhD is doubtful!
OH I dropped a capital E - someone send for the doctor...
So please tell me your last scientific publication, Double-Anus?
Phineas T Puddleduck
"Double-A" <doub...@hush.ai> wrote:
> I filed a complete report in Troubling Planetary News thread.
> Temporary power outage tonight, but now the power is back on, and I'm
> back online! Just all in a night's work for a Earth Science Officer
> manning the most extreme post on the western weather front.
Have any of you ever kissed a girl?
Phineas T Puddleduck
herbert...@webtv.net (G=EMC^2 Glazier) wrote:
GR was not accepted fully until the 60's, it was the photoelectric
effect that got him his Nobel.
Bill Sheppard
>The shape of spacetime.
Hmm. Sounds like Duck and db have been hangin' out. Same mama doll, pull
string response. :-)
>Really, even a dunderhead like you
>should understand this.
Well Duckster, us dunderheads seem to believe that *descriptions of
effects* do not equate to _explanations of causation_. Field equations,
geometric coordinates and 'metrics' describe something. They do not
_cause_ it. A speedometer readout describes something. According to your
logic, twisting the speedometer needle should make the car go, and
twisting it further should make it accelerate. Us dunderheads believe
that you, db, OG, Scott et al lack even the most basic comprehension of
the difference between descriptions of effects and _explanations of
causation_.. and that as such, your worldview is Quack-ery. Har har. :-)
oc
Phineas T Puddleduck
old...@webtv.net (Bill Sheppard) wrote:
> Well Duckster, us dunderheads seem to believe that *descriptions of
> effects* do not equate to _explanations of causation_. Field equations,
> geometric coordinates and 'metrics' describe something. They do not
> _cause_ it.
Matter tells space how to curve
Space tells matter how to move.
> A speedometer readout describes something. According to your
> logic, twisting the speedometer needle should make the car go, and
> twisting it further should make it accelerate.
Don't project your faulty logic on me.
> Us dunderheads believe
> that you, db, OG, Scott et al lack even the most basic comprehension of
> the difference between descriptions of effects and _explanations of
> causation_.. and that as such, your worldview is Quack-ery. Har har. :-)
And your belief is worthless as it has no grounds in reality.
Please tell me your physics qualifications, this should be good for a
laugh. Or are you another of nightbats space cadets?
Congratulations. You've just proved you completely misunderstand the
point of Einsteins field equations
Matter tells space how to curve
Space tells matter how to move.
The fact you're an anti-relativist puts you the as the quack. And as a
hint, I chose this obviously fake name for a reason. Its a good sign of
a kook if they start saying things like "duckster"...
Bill Sheppard
>Don't project your faulty logic on ME.
Sorry.
>And your belief is worthless as it has no
>grounds in reality.
I'm shattered. Should i go stand in corner?:-)
>Please tell me your physics
>qualifications.
#1, I managed to escape the 'space-as-void' indoctrination.
>Or are you another of nightbats space
>cadets?
No, a probationary cadet.
>Congratulations.
Thank you.
>You've just proved you completely
>misunderstand the point of Einsteins
>field equations
Apparently you have a very superficial knowledge base. You seem unaware
that Einstein fully endorsed the reality of the spatial medium until
well into the 1920s before inexplicably flip-flopping to the 'no medium'
idea which then grew legs and became the bedrock axiom of science.. all
in the space of scarcely 80 years. Can you explain the flip-flop?
The 'ether', as it was known to Einstein, was depicted
as fixed and immobile, like a rigid lattice. Yet the existance of such a
medium was disproven by Michelson-Morley in 1887. He FINALLY rejected
it, and rightly so. But why did he continue endorsing it for 35+ years
before doing so?
Why, instead of further investigating a medium that's
FLUID, compressible/expansible and amenalble to density gradients, did
Einstein suddenly "throw out the baby with the bathwater" and go with
'no medium'? Why did he instead adopt the "curvature of space" metaphor?
>Matter tells space how to curve
Oh. But if space is 'nothing', what's curving?
>Space tells matter how to move.
Sounds like Abbot & Costello in "Who's on first?" :-)
>The fact you're an anti-relativist puts you >the as the quack.
Who's an anti-relativist??
>And as a hint, I chose this obviously fake >name for a reason.
I see.
>Its a good sign of a kook if they start
>saying things like "duckster"...
How 'bout Baby Huey? (-:
oc
Phineas T Puddleduck
old...@webtv.net (Bill Sheppard) wrote:
> Apparently you have a very superficial knowledge base. You seem unaware
> that Einstein fully endorsed the reality of the spatial medium until
> well into the 1920s before inexplicably flip-flopping to the 'no medium'
> idea which then grew legs and became the bedrock axiom of science.. all
> in the space of scarcely 80 years. Can you explain the flip-flop?
His work with GR...
> The 'ether', as it was known to Einstein, was depicted
> as fixed and immobile, like a rigid lattice. Yet the existance of such a
> medium was disproven by Michelson-Morley in 1887. He FINALLY rejected
> it, and rightly so. But why did he continue endorsing it for 35+ years
> before doing so?
> Why, instead of further investigating a medium that's
> FLUID, compressible/expansible and amenalble to density gradients, did
> Einstein suddenly "throw out the baby with the bathwater" and go with
> 'no medium'? Why did he instead adopt the "curvature of space" metaphor?
Scientists often try various ideas before settling on the one that
works. The whole early 20th century science was already in flux thanks
to Maxwell....
Phineas T Puddleduck
old...@webtv.net (Bill Sheppard) wrote:
> >Matter tells space how to curve
>
> Oh. But if space is 'nothing', what's curving?
>
> >Space tells matter how to move.
>
> Sounds like Abbot & Costello in "Who's on first?" :-)
No - its called coupling. Happens a lot in systems.
Phineas T Puddleduck
old...@webtv.net (Bill Sheppard) wrote:
> >Please tell me your physics
> >qualifications.
>
> #1, I managed to escape the 'space-as-void' indoctrination.
Ah, none - you are a space cadet.
Bill Sheppard
>you are a space cadet.
>--
>Just \int_0^\infty du it!
A probationary space cadet, thank you.
oc