Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > sci.math > #645322 > unrolled thread

what-would-it-take-for-aliens-to-reach-earth

Back to article view | Back to sci.math

Contents

  what-would-it-take-for-aliens-to-reach-earth The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2026-06-01 08:56 -0700
    Re: what-would-it-take-for-aliens-to-reach-earth The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2026-06-01 23:28 -0700
      Re: what-would-it-take-for-aliens-to-reach-earth The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2026-06-02 01:53 -0700
        Re: what-would-it-take-for-aliens-to-reach-earth Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-06-03 00:39 -0700
        Re: what-would-it-take-for-aliens-to-reach-earth The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2026-06-08 00:07 -0700
          Re: what-would-it-take-for-aliens-to-reach-earth phoenix <j63840576@gmail.com> - 2026-06-08 06:24 -0600
            Re: what-would-it-take-for-aliens-to-reach-earth Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-06-08 08:30 -0700
              Re: what-would-it-take-for-aliens-to-reach-earth Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-06-08 08:42 -0700
                Re: what-would-it-take-for-aliens-to-reach-earth Brennus <brennus@allia.org> - 2026-06-08 20:38 +0000
      Re: what-would-it-take-for-aliens-to-reach-earth phoenix <j63840576@gmail.com> - 2026-06-02 06:33 -0600
        Re: what-would-it-take-for-aliens-to-reach-earth Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2026-06-02 19:55 +0200
          Re: what-would-it-take-for-aliens-to-reach-earth phoenix <j63840576@gmail.com> - 2026-06-02 12:01 -0600
            Universe (was: what-would-it-take-for-aliens-to-reach-earth) Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2026-06-02 22:05 +0200
          Re: what-would-it-take-for-aliens-to-reach-earth Wesley Kozlowski <yosy@zlowoyo.pl> - 2026-06-02 19:13 +0000
            Re: what-would-it-take-for-aliens-to-reach-earth Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2026-06-02 22:11 +0200
              Re: what-would-it-take-for-aliens-to-reach-earth Jimmy Kamiński <mjmwsimi@ijmay.pl> - 2026-06-03 14:38 +0000
                Re: what-would-it-take-for-aliens-to-reach-earth Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2026-06-03 21:04 +0200
                  Re: what-would-it-take-for-aliens-to-reach-earth phoenix <j63840576@gmail.com> - 2026-06-03 13:22 -0600
                    Re: what-would-it-take-for-aliens-to-reach-earth Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2026-06-04 08:21 +0200
                  Re: what-would-it-take-for-aliens-to-reach-earth Emmitt Kefalas <mem@skkfeie.gr> - 2026-06-03 20:16 +0000
                    Re: what-would-it-take-for-aliens-to-reach-earth Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2026-06-04 08:31 +0200
                      Re: what-would-it-take-for-aliens-to-reach-earth Callum Balabuev <lvmvab@bluumaa.ru> - 2026-06-04 11:56 +0000
      Re: what-would-it-take-for-aliens-to-reach-earth "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2026-06-02 14:09 -0700

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

#645322 — what-would-it-take-for-aliens-to-reach-earth

https://studyfinds.com/what-would-it-take-for-aliens-to-reach-earth-aerospace-engineer-did-math/


what-would-it-take-for-aliens-to-reach-earth?

Answer: by not using stupid math from people on earth.



It's very simple..
you pop in, you pop out.

or, you pop out, you pop in.


Okay, you are a golden retriever...


How did the universe get in here?

It popped in!

Okay, I'm talking to a dog.

Start with a simple definition:

https://www.google.com/search?hl=en&source=hp&biw=&bih=&q=define+in


 in
/in/
preposition

    expressing the situation of something that is or appears to be enclosed or surrounded by something else.


a preposition indicating location or position within limits (e.g., “in the house”).



Now, How did the universe get 'in' here???


'In the beginning, ...' of course.


Now, how do you pop out from in?


Ask a dog, "What's on top of the house?"


Dog sez: "roof, roof!"


Now, ask an alien from outer space, "How did you get here?"



roof, roof!






-- 
The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable,
to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable, 
and challenge the unchallengeable.

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#645323

The Starmaker wrote:
> 
> https://studyfinds.com/what-would-it-take-for-aliens-to-reach-earth-aerospace-engineer-did-math/
> 
> what-would-it-take-for-aliens-to-reach-earth?
> 
> Answer: by not using stupid math from people on earth.
> 
> It's very simple..
> you pop in, you pop out.
> 
> or, you pop out, you pop in.
> 
> Okay, you are a golden retriever...
> 
> How did the universe get in here?
> 
> It popped in!
> 
> Okay, I'm talking to a dog.
> 
> Start with a simple definition:
> 
> https://www.google.com/search?hl=en&source=hp&biw=&bih=&q=define+in
> 
>  in
> /in/
> preposition
> 
>     expressing the situation of something that is or appears to be enclosed or surrounded by something else.
> 
> a preposition indicating location or position within limits (e.g., “in the house”).
> 
> Now, How did the universe get 'in' here???
> 
> 'In the beginning, ...' of course.
> 
> Now, how do you pop out from in?
> 
> Ask a dog, "What's on top of the house?"
> 
> Dog sez: "roof, roof!"
> 
> Now, ask an alien from outer space, "How did you get here?"
> 
> roof, roof!


Now, if you ask the alien from outer space...

 "How did you get here?"


The alien would say..."I can give you the math."

The alien would then say..."What is math symbol for 'universe?"

The Math guy would say..."WHAT?"







-- 
The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable,
to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable, 
and challenge the unchallengeable.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#645324

The Starmaker wrote:
> 
> The Starmaker wrote:
> >
> > https://studyfinds.com/what-would-it-take-for-aliens-to-reach-earth-aerospace-engineer-did-math/
> >
> > what-would-it-take-for-aliens-to-reach-earth?
> >
> > Answer: by not using stupid math from people on earth.
> >
> > It's very simple..
> > you pop in, you pop out.
> >
> > or, you pop out, you pop in.
> >
> > Okay, you are a golden retriever...
> >
> > How did the universe get in here?
> >
> > It popped in!
> >
> > Okay, I'm talking to a dog.
> >
> > Start with a simple definition:
> >
> > https://www.google.com/search?hl=en&source=hp&biw=&bih=&q=define+in
> >
> >  in
> > /in/
> > preposition
> >
> >     expressing the situation of something that is or appears to be enclosed or surrounded by something else.
> >
> > a preposition indicating location or position within limits (e.g., “in the house”).
> >
> > Now, How did the universe get 'in' here???
> >
> > 'In the beginning, ...' of course.
> >
> > Now, how do you pop out from in?
> >
> > Ask a dog, "What's on top of the house?"
> >
> > Dog sez: "roof, roof!"
> >
> > Now, ask an alien from outer space, "How did you get here?"
> >
> > roof, roof!
> 
> Now, if you ask the alien from outer space...
> 
>  "How did you get here?"
> 
> The alien would say..."I can give you the math."
> 
> The alien would then say..."What is math symbol for 'universe?"
> 
> The Math guy would say..."WHAT?"


"How did you get here?"


I mean, it's very simple...


you pop out
walk a couple of blocks
pop in
and you are now at the other side of the universe!

you 'bypass' the stupid speed of light and time.



"bypass", look it up.





-- 
The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable,
to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable, 
and challenge the unchallengeable.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#645337

On 06/02/2026 01:53 AM, The Starmaker wrote:
> The Starmaker wrote:
>>
>> The Starmaker wrote:
>>>
>>> https://studyfinds.com/what-would-it-take-for-aliens-to-reach-earth-aerospace-engineer-did-math/
>>>
>>> what-would-it-take-for-aliens-to-reach-earth?
>>>
>>> Answer: by not using stupid math from people on earth.
>>>
>>> It's very simple..
>>> you pop in, you pop out.
>>>
>>> or, you pop out, you pop in.
>>>
>>> Okay, you are a golden retriever...
>>>
>>> How did the universe get in here?
>>>
>>> It popped in!
>>>
>>> Okay, I'm talking to a dog.
>>>
>>> Start with a simple definition:
>>>
>>> https://www.google.com/search?hl=en&source=hp&biw=&bih=&q=define+in
>>>
>>>   in
>>> /in/
>>> preposition
>>>
>>>      expressing the situation of something that is or appears to be enclosed or surrounded by something else.
>>>
>>> a preposition indicating location or position within limits (e.g., “in the house”).
>>>
>>> Now, How did the universe get 'in' here???
>>>
>>> 'In the beginning, ...' of course.
>>>
>>> Now, how do you pop out from in?
>>>
>>> Ask a dog, "What's on top of the house?"
>>>
>>> Dog sez: "roof, roof!"
>>>
>>> Now, ask an alien from outer space, "How did you get here?"
>>>
>>> roof, roof!
>>
>> Now, if you ask the alien from outer space...
>>
>>   "How did you get here?"
>>
>> The alien would say..."I can give you the math."
>>
>> The alien would then say..."What is math symbol for 'universe?"
>>
>> The Math guy would say..."WHAT?"
>
>
> "How did you get here?"
>
>
> I mean, it's very simple...
>
>
> you pop out
> walk a couple of blocks
> pop in
> and you are now at the other side of the universe!
>
> you 'bypass' the stupid speed of light and time.
>
>
>
> "bypass", look it up.
>
>
>
>
>

What it would take for aliens to reach Earth,
is the same as it would be for humans to reach Space.

Usually though the idea is to _hide_ Earth from most aliens.


Anyways a theory with real space-contraction makes for that
since there's to be different linear and rotational invariance,
so that the linear is Galilean while the rotational is not,
making for space-contraction-linear and space-contraction-rotational,
then with "momentum" as for the "un-linear" not being conserved
(since it's immediately "lost in the wash" in any kinematic
system since there are no "perfect inelastic collisions" in nature)
then has that the terms of relativity theory and for that matter
mechanics already admit to ignorance "beyond the first order"
or "beyond the second order" variously, that's where the applicability
ends and that's yet all the "confirmations" ever say - there's
room in the formalism for the higher-order terms as simply as
for spinning bodies and heft, then for that "Dark Matter" gets
solved as courtesy _classical_ mechanics re-newed, and then "Dark
Energy" gets solved courtesy a modern theory of light itself,
then super-luminal motion lives in various models of "relativity"
theories, for example "doubly-objective relativity of motion
and also space", that since "gravity's speed is infinite",
the "light-speed limit" is a bit of a lie.


The usual idea isn't "what would it take for aliens to reach
Earth", it's, "what does it take to keep aliens away from Earth".


If you've never done a deep analysis of all the mathematical formalisms
and the relevant bodies of experiment, about not just "relativity
theory" which doesn't really say much except "tensors", yet also
_classical mechanics itself_, then you don't know.


See, according to 20'th century relativity theory: the picture of Earth
in the sky never actually points to the Earth itself.


Yet, how it does so is an account of "21'st century relativity
theory", which is doubly-objective so to reclaim some of what's
lost & missing from the severe reductionist account of gullible SR-ians.



Yeah, keep looking.



It involves real continuity and infinity,
so almost-all can be fooled that it's grainy
and just a few more than their fingers
(and even their toes, and other short appendages).

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#645371

The Starmaker wrote:
> 
> The Starmaker wrote:
> >
> > The Starmaker wrote:
> > >
> > > https://studyfinds.com/what-would-it-take-for-aliens-to-reach-earth-aerospace-engineer-did-math/
> > >
> > > what-would-it-take-for-aliens-to-reach-earth?
> > >
> > > Answer: by not using stupid math from people on earth.
> > >
> > > It's very simple..
> > > you pop in, you pop out.
> > >
> > > or, you pop out, you pop in.
> > >
> > > Okay, you are a golden retriever...
> > >
> > > How did the universe get in here?
> > >
> > > It popped in!
> > >
> > > Okay, I'm talking to a dog.
> > >
> > > Start with a simple definition:
> > >
> > > https://www.google.com/search?hl=en&source=hp&biw=&bih=&q=define+in
> > >
> > >  in
> > > /in/
> > > preposition
> > >
> > >     expressing the situation of something that is or appears to be enclosed or surrounded by something else.
> > >
> > > a preposition indicating location or position within limits (e.g., “in the house”).
> > >
> > > Now, How did the universe get 'in' here???
> > >
> > > 'In the beginning, ...' of course.
> > >
> > > Now, how do you pop out from in?
> > >
> > > Ask a dog, "What's on top of the house?"
> > >
> > > Dog sez: "roof, roof!"
> > >
> > > Now, ask an alien from outer space, "How did you get here?"
> > >
> > > roof, roof!
> >
> > Now, if you ask the alien from outer space...
> >
> >  "How did you get here?"
> >
> > The alien would say..."I can give you the math."
> >
> > The alien would then say..."What is math symbol for 'universe?"
> >
> > The Math guy would say..."WHAT?"
> 
> "How did you get here?"
> 
> I mean, it's very simple...
> 
> you pop out
> walk a couple of blocks
> pop in
> and you are now at the other side of the universe!
> 
> you 'bypass' the stupid speed of light and time.

Albert Einstein figured out how to 'bypass' his own speed of light...

"spooky action at a distance."

In 'science gargon' it's: 'When a mass moves, the force acting on other
masses had been considered to adjust instantaneously to the new location
of the displaced mass.'

In other words... make a rocketship invisible and transport it to
another place.



pop out
pop in


most of yous arrived on earth either by popping out or popping in.


I think it's time for some of yous to ...pop the fuck out of here!

to a spooky place... 






-- 
The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable,
to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable, 
and challenge the unchallengeable.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#645374

The Starmaker wrote:
> The Starmaker wrote:
>>
>> The Starmaker wrote:
>>>
>>> The Starmaker wrote:
>>>>
>>>> https://studyfinds.com/what-would-it-take-for-aliens-to-reach-earth-aerospace-engineer-did-math/
>>>>
>>>> what-would-it-take-for-aliens-to-reach-earth?
>>>>
>>>> Answer: by not using stupid math from people on earth.
>>>>
>>>> It's very simple..
>>>> you pop in, you pop out.
>>>>
>>>> or, you pop out, you pop in.
>>>>
>>>> Okay, you are a golden retriever...
>>>>
>>>> How did the universe get in here?
>>>>
>>>> It popped in!
>>>>
>>>> Okay, I'm talking to a dog.
>>>>
>>>> Start with a simple definition:
>>>>
>>>> https://www.google.com/search?hl=en&source=hp&biw=&bih=&q=define+in
>>>>
>>>>   in
>>>> /in/
>>>> preposition
>>>>
>>>>      expressing the situation of something that is or appears to be enclosed or surrounded by something else.
>>>>
>>>> a preposition indicating location or position within limits (e.g., “in the house”).
>>>>
>>>> Now, How did the universe get 'in' here???
>>>>
>>>> 'In the beginning, ...' of course.
>>>>
>>>> Now, how do you pop out from in?
>>>>
>>>> Ask a dog, "What's on top of the house?"
>>>>
>>>> Dog sez: "roof, roof!"
>>>>
>>>> Now, ask an alien from outer space, "How did you get here?"
>>>>
>>>> roof, roof!
>>>
>>> Now, if you ask the alien from outer space...
>>>
>>>   "How did you get here?"
>>>
>>> The alien would say..."I can give you the math."
>>>
>>> The alien would then say..."What is math symbol for 'universe?"
>>>
>>> The Math guy would say..."WHAT?"
>>
>> "How did you get here?"
>>
>> I mean, it's very simple...
>>
>> you pop out
>> walk a couple of blocks
>> pop in
>> and you are now at the other side of the universe!
>>
>> you 'bypass' the stupid speed of light and time.
> 
> Albert Einstein figured out how to 'bypass' his own speed of light...
> 
> "spooky action at a distance."
> 
> In 'science gargon' it's: 'When a mass moves, the force acting on other
> masses had been considered to adjust instantaneously to the new location
> of the displaced mass.'
> 
> In other words... make a rocketship invisible and transport it to
> another place.
> 
> 
> 
> pop out
> pop in
> 
> 
> most of yous arrived on earth either by popping out or popping in.
> 
> 
> I think it's time for some of yous to ...pop the fuck out of here!
> 
> to a spooky place...

Why do scientists rationally believe that 'folding space' is what's 
going to happen? Why not 'throwing monkeys in a furnace' or 'putting 
potatoes on a shelf' or 'paving the universe with asphalt?'

Why is 'folding space' the ridiculous, abstract, non-sequitur science of 
choice, science du jour?

It's still ridiculous science fiction. Give me a break.

-- 
The future has begun
The waiting is over
We have gained time
For one blink of an eye

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#645379

On 06/08/2026 05:24 AM, phoenix wrote:
> The Starmaker wrote:
>> The Starmaker wrote:
>>>
>>> The Starmaker wrote:
>>>>
>>>> The Starmaker wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> https://studyfinds.com/what-would-it-take-for-aliens-to-reach-earth-aerospace-engineer-did-math/
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> what-would-it-take-for-aliens-to-reach-earth?
>>>>>
>>>>> Answer: by not using stupid math from people on earth.
>>>>>
>>>>> It's very simple..
>>>>> you pop in, you pop out.
>>>>>
>>>>> or, you pop out, you pop in.
>>>>>
>>>>> Okay, you are a golden retriever...
>>>>>
>>>>> How did the universe get in here?
>>>>>
>>>>> It popped in!
>>>>>
>>>>> Okay, I'm talking to a dog.
>>>>>
>>>>> Start with a simple definition:
>>>>>
>>>>> https://www.google.com/search?hl=en&source=hp&biw=&bih=&q=define+in
>>>>>
>>>>>   in
>>>>> /in/
>>>>> preposition
>>>>>
>>>>>      expressing the situation of something that is or appears to be
>>>>> enclosed or surrounded by something else.
>>>>>
>>>>> a preposition indicating location or position within limits (e.g.,
>>>>> “in the house”).
>>>>>
>>>>> Now, How did the universe get 'in' here???
>>>>>
>>>>> 'In the beginning, ...' of course.
>>>>>
>>>>> Now, how do you pop out from in?
>>>>>
>>>>> Ask a dog, "What's on top of the house?"
>>>>>
>>>>> Dog sez: "roof, roof!"
>>>>>
>>>>> Now, ask an alien from outer space, "How did you get here?"
>>>>>
>>>>> roof, roof!
>>>>
>>>> Now, if you ask the alien from outer space...
>>>>
>>>>   "How did you get here?"
>>>>
>>>> The alien would say..."I can give you the math."
>>>>
>>>> The alien would then say..."What is math symbol for 'universe?"
>>>>
>>>> The Math guy would say..."WHAT?"
>>>
>>> "How did you get here?"
>>>
>>> I mean, it's very simple...
>>>
>>> you pop out
>>> walk a couple of blocks
>>> pop in
>>> and you are now at the other side of the universe!
>>>
>>> you 'bypass' the stupid speed of light and time.
>>
>> Albert Einstein figured out how to 'bypass' his own speed of light...
>>
>> "spooky action at a distance."
>>
>> In 'science gargon' it's: 'When a mass moves, the force acting on other
>> masses had been considered to adjust instantaneously to the new location
>> of the displaced mass.'
>>
>> In other words... make a rocketship invisible and transport it to
>> another place.
>>
>>
>>
>> pop out
>> pop in
>>
>>
>> most of yous arrived on earth either by popping out or popping in.
>>
>>
>> I think it's time for some of yous to ...pop the fuck out of here!
>>
>> to a spooky place...
>
> Why do scientists rationally believe that 'folding space' is what's
> going to happen? Why not 'throwing monkeys in a furnace' or 'putting
> potatoes on a shelf' or 'paving the universe with asphalt?'
>
> Why is 'folding space' the ridiculous, abstract, non-sequitur science of
> choice, science du jour?
>
> It's still ridiculous science fiction. Give me a break.
>

Well, first of all, you'd need a reasoning why information can go
any faster than the speed of light.

It's not an un-usual idea that gravity's speed is infinite, with
the idea that three objects in a row can send information to a
third object in the middle, which can move, then that thusly,
the destination can immediately detect the movement, gravitationally,
effectively doubling light speed ("guide lode").

Then, the space-time wheel, is after the idea that two systems
can't observe each other at light-speed, so they each rotate,
toward light speed, effectively halving light speed ("space-time wheel").


It's well-known that that solar system, for example, has that
the effective force of gravity always points at the source
not the image, so the speed of gravity is greater than the
speed of light, otherwise gravity would point at the image
not the source, and the solar system would fly apart.


Then, for real space-contraction then light speed is a value
that can be derived as basically twice aether drift velocity.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#645380

On 06/08/2026 08:30 AM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
> On 06/08/2026 05:24 AM, phoenix wrote:
>> The Starmaker wrote:
>>> The Starmaker wrote:
>>>>
>>>> The Starmaker wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> The Starmaker wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> https://studyfinds.com/what-would-it-take-for-aliens-to-reach-earth-aerospace-engineer-did-math/
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> what-would-it-take-for-aliens-to-reach-earth?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Answer: by not using stupid math from people on earth.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It's very simple..
>>>>>> you pop in, you pop out.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> or, you pop out, you pop in.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Okay, you are a golden retriever...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> How did the universe get in here?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It popped in!
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Okay, I'm talking to a dog.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Start with a simple definition:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> https://www.google.com/search?hl=en&source=hp&biw=&bih=&q=define+in
>>>>>>
>>>>>>   in
>>>>>> /in/
>>>>>> preposition
>>>>>>
>>>>>>      expressing the situation of something that is or appears to be
>>>>>> enclosed or surrounded by something else.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> a preposition indicating location or position within limits (e.g.,
>>>>>> “in the house”).
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Now, How did the universe get 'in' here???
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 'In the beginning, ...' of course.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Now, how do you pop out from in?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Ask a dog, "What's on top of the house?"
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Dog sez: "roof, roof!"
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Now, ask an alien from outer space, "How did you get here?"
>>>>>>
>>>>>> roof, roof!
>>>>>
>>>>> Now, if you ask the alien from outer space...
>>>>>
>>>>>   "How did you get here?"
>>>>>
>>>>> The alien would say..."I can give you the math."
>>>>>
>>>>> The alien would then say..."What is math symbol for 'universe?"
>>>>>
>>>>> The Math guy would say..."WHAT?"
>>>>
>>>> "How did you get here?"
>>>>
>>>> I mean, it's very simple...
>>>>
>>>> you pop out
>>>> walk a couple of blocks
>>>> pop in
>>>> and you are now at the other side of the universe!
>>>>
>>>> you 'bypass' the stupid speed of light and time.
>>>
>>> Albert Einstein figured out how to 'bypass' his own speed of light...
>>>
>>> "spooky action at a distance."
>>>
>>> In 'science gargon' it's: 'When a mass moves, the force acting on other
>>> masses had been considered to adjust instantaneously to the new location
>>> of the displaced mass.'
>>>
>>> In other words... make a rocketship invisible and transport it to
>>> another place.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> pop out
>>> pop in
>>>
>>>
>>> most of yous arrived on earth either by popping out or popping in.
>>>
>>>
>>> I think it's time for some of yous to ...pop the fuck out of here!
>>>
>>> to a spooky place...
>>
>> Why do scientists rationally believe that 'folding space' is what's
>> going to happen? Why not 'throwing monkeys in a furnace' or 'putting
>> potatoes on a shelf' or 'paving the universe with asphalt?'
>>
>> Why is 'folding space' the ridiculous, abstract, non-sequitur science of
>> choice, science du jour?
>>
>> It's still ridiculous science fiction. Give me a break.
>>
>
> Well, first of all, you'd need a reasoning why information can go
> any faster than the speed of light.
>
> It's not an un-usual idea that gravity's speed is infinite, with
> the idea that three objects in a row can send information to a
> third object in the middle, which can move, then that thusly,
> the destination can immediately detect the movement, gravitationally,
> effectively doubling light speed ("guide lode").
>
> Then, the space-time wheel, is after the idea that two systems
> can't observe each other at light-speed, so they each rotate,
> toward light speed, effectively halving light speed ("space-time wheel").
>
>
> It's well-known that that solar system, for example, has that
> the effective force of gravity always points at the source
> not the image, so the speed of gravity is greater than the
> speed of light, otherwise gravity would point at the image
> not the source, and the solar system would fly apart.
>
>
> Then, for real space-contraction then light speed is a value
> that can be derived as basically twice aether drift velocity.
>
>


Since setting up a mechanical system over many astronomical units
or parsecs is non-trivial, mostly it would depend on planetary
and solar axial alignments, about Moon-Earth, Earth-Sun, Sun-Polaris,
and so on, about when the planets and stars align, then as with
regards to the much, much wider surrounds of the galactic and
super-galactic about that, the projections and these kinds of things.


At least: it's conceptually simple notions of "guide lode" and
"space-time wheel", and furthermore science as it is today
doesn't make them simply farcical or "dis-proven".


Since Einstein's SR is local, then also light-speed is local.

That "there are no closed finite time-like curves", and so
no violation of causality or paradoxes of time, doesn't say
much about "closed infinitesimal time-like curves", which
basically reflect chance itself then for that clocks either
slow or meet, about real space-contraction.


"Astronomical units" and "parsecs" are both kinds of local, measures.
This also is already in the theory about differences between
"length" the metric and "distance" the norm, since usually enough
people forget they're not the same thing.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#645381

Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> wrote in
news:XSudnX-0F_-bfrv3nZ2dnZfqn_udnZ2d@giganews.com: 

> On 06/08/2026 08:30 AM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
>> On 06/08/2026 05:24 AM, phoenix wrote:
>>> The Starmaker wrote:
>>>> The Starmaker wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> The Starmaker wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The Starmaker wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> https://studyfinds.com/what-would-it-take-for-aliens-to-reach-earth
>>>>>>> -aerospace-engineer-did-math/ 
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> what-would-it-take-for-aliens-to-reach-earth?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Answer: by not using stupid math from people on earth.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It's very simple..
>>>>>>> you pop in, you pop out.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> or, you pop out, you pop in.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Okay, you are a golden retriever...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> How did the universe get in here?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It popped in!
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Okay, I'm talking to a dog.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Start with a simple definition:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> https://www.google.com/search?hl=en&source=hp&biw=&bih=&q=define+in
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>   in
>>>>>>> /in/
>>>>>>> preposition
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>      expressing the situation of something that is or appears to
>>>>>>>      be 
>>>>>>> enclosed or surrounded by something else.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> a preposition indicating location or position within limits (e.g.,
>>>>>>> “in the house”).
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Now, How did the universe get 'in' here???
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 'In the beginning, ...' of course.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Now, how do you pop out from in?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Ask a dog, "What's on top of the house?"
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Dog sez: "roof, roof!"
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Now, ask an alien from outer space, "How did you get here?"
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> roof, roof!
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Now, if you ask the alien from outer space...
>>>>>>
>>>>>>   "How did you get here?"
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The alien would say..."I can give you the math."
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The alien would then say..."What is math symbol for 'universe?"
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The Math guy would say..."WHAT?"
>>>>>
>>>>> "How did you get here?"
>>>>>
>>>>> I mean, it's very simple...
>>>>>
>>>>> you pop out
>>>>> walk a couple of blocks
>>>>> pop in
>>>>> and you are now at the other side of the universe!
>>>>>
>>>>> you 'bypass' the stupid speed of light and time.
>>>>
>>>> Albert Einstein figured out how to 'bypass' his own speed of light...
>>>>
>>>> "spooky action at a distance."
>>>>
>>>> In 'science gargon' it's: 'When a mass moves, the force acting on
>>>> other masses had been considered to adjust instantaneously to the new
>>>> location of the displaced mass.'
>>>>
>>>> In other words... make a rocketship invisible and transport it to
>>>> another place.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> pop out
>>>> pop in
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> most of yous arrived on earth either by popping out or popping in.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I think it's time for some of yous to ...pop the fuck out of here!
>>>>
>>>> to a spooky place...
>>>
>>> Why do scientists rationally believe that 'folding space' is what's
>>> going to happen? Why not 'throwing monkeys in a furnace' or 'putting
>>> potatoes on a shelf' or 'paving the universe with asphalt?'
>>>
>>> Why is 'folding space' the ridiculous, abstract, non-sequitur science
>>> of choice, science du jour?
>>>
>>> It's still ridiculous science fiction. Give me a break.
>>>
>>
>> Well, first of all, you'd need a reasoning why information can go
>> any faster than the speed of light.
>>
>> It's not an un-usual idea that gravity's speed is infinite, with
>> the idea that three objects in a row can send information to a
>> third object in the middle, which can move, then that thusly,
>> the destination can immediately detect the movement, gravitationally,
>> effectively doubling light speed ("guide lode").
>>
>> Then, the space-time wheel, is after the idea that two systems
>> can't observe each other at light-speed, so they each rotate,
>> toward light speed, effectively halving light speed ("space-time
>> wheel"). 
>>
>>
>> It's well-known that that solar system, for example, has that
>> the effective force of gravity always points at the source
>> not the image, so the speed of gravity is greater than the
>> speed of light, otherwise gravity would point at the image
>> not the source, and the solar system would fly apart.
>>
>>
>> Then, for real space-contraction then light speed is a value
>> that can be derived as basically twice aether drift velocity.
>>
>>
> 
> 
> Since setting up a mechanical system over many astronomical units
> or parsecs is non-trivial, mostly it would depend on planetary
> and solar axial alignments, about Moon-Earth, Earth-Sun, Sun-Polaris,
> and so on, about when the planets and stars align, then as with
> regards to the much, much wider surrounds of the galactic and
> super-galactic about that, the projections and these kinds of things.
> 
> 
> At least: it's conceptually simple notions of "guide lode" and
> "space-time wheel", and furthermore science as it is today
> doesn't make them simply farcical or "dis-proven".
> 
> 
> Since Einstein's SR is local, then also light-speed is local.
> 
> That "there are no closed finite time-like curves", and so
> no violation of causality or paradoxes of time, doesn't say
> much about "closed infinitesimal time-like curves", which
> basically reflect chance itself then for that clocks either
> slow or meet, about real space-contraction.
> 
> 
> "Astronomical units" and "parsecs" are both kinds of local, measures.
> This also is already in the theory about differences between
> "length" the metric and "distance" the norm, since usually enough
> people forget they're not the same thing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 

Your mom's butt is what they use for bigger stuff.  LOL!  

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#645325

The Starmaker wrote:
> The Starmaker wrote:
>>
>> https://studyfinds.com/what-would-it-take-for-aliens-to-reach-earth-aerospace-engineer-did-math/
>>
>> what-would-it-take-for-aliens-to-reach-earth?
>>
>> Answer: by not using stupid math from people on earth.
>>
>> It's very simple..
>> you pop in, you pop out.
>>
>> or, you pop out, you pop in.
>>
>> Okay, you are a golden retriever...
>>
>> How did the universe get in here?
>>
>> It popped in!
>>
>> Okay, I'm talking to a dog.
>>
>> Start with a simple definition:
>>
>> https://www.google.com/search?hl=en&source=hp&biw=&bih=&q=define+in
>>
>>   in
>> /in/
>> preposition
>>
>>      expressing the situation of something that is or appears to be enclosed or surrounded by something else.
>>
>> a preposition indicating location or position within limits (e.g., “in the house”).
>>
>> Now, How did the universe get 'in' here???
>>
>> 'In the beginning, ...' of course.
>>
>> Now, how do you pop out from in?
>>
>> Ask a dog, "What's on top of the house?"
>>
>> Dog sez: "roof, roof!"
>>
>> Now, ask an alien from outer space, "How did you get here?"
>>
>> roof, roof!
> 
> 
> Now, if you ask the alien from outer space...
> 
>   "How did you get here?"
> 
> 
> The alien would say..."I can give you the math."
> 
> The alien would then say..."What is math symbol for 'universe?"
> 
> The Math guy would say..."WHAT?"
> 

I doubt it. The math symbol for 'universe' is 'U'. Duh.

-- 
The future has begun
The waiting is over
We have gained time
For one blink of an eye

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#645329

phoenix wrote:
> The Starmaker wrote:
>> Now, if you ask the alien from outer space...
>>
>>   "How did you get here?"
>>
>>
>> The alien would say..."I can give you the math."
>>
>> The alien would then say..."What is math symbol for 'universe?"
>>
>> The Math guy would say..."WHAT?"
>>
> 
> I doubt it. The math symbol for 'universe' is 'U'. Duh.

It is one possible symbol.  The concept of a universe in mathematics is
(like all those concepts) independent of what symbol one uses for it.

It is also different from the concept of a universe in astrophysics.

So the two of you are just writing nonsense based on your half-wit
knowledge, i.e. ignorance.

-- 
PointedEars

Twitter: @PointedEars2
Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#645330

Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
> phoenix wrote:
>> The Starmaker wrote:
>>> Now, if you ask the alien from outer space...
>>>
>>>    "How did you get here?"
>>>
>>>
>>> The alien would say..."I can give you the math."
>>>
>>> The alien would then say..."What is math symbol for 'universe?"
>>>
>>> The Math guy would say..."WHAT?"
>>>
>>
>> I doubt it. The math symbol for 'universe' is 'U'. Duh.
> 
> It is one possible symbol.  The concept of a universe in mathematics is
> (like all those concepts) independent of what symbol one uses for it.
> 
> It is also different from the concept of a universe in astrophysics.
> 
> So the two of you are just writing nonsense based on your half-wit
> knowledge, i.e. ignorance.
> 
If the universe is possible in the supposition, then 'U' is correct for 
it. It basically means "everything." Quit being difficult, contrarian.

-- 
The future has begun
The waiting is over
We have gained time
For one blink of an eye

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#645332 — Universe (was: what-would-it-take-for-aliens-to-reach-earth)

phoenix wrote:
> Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
>> phoenix wrote:
>>> The Starmaker wrote:
>>>> The alien would then say..."What is math symbol for 'universe?"
>>>>
>>>> The Math guy would say..."WHAT?"
>>> I doubt it. The math symbol for 'universe' is 'U'. Duh.
>>
>> It is one possible symbol.  The concept of a universe in mathematics is
>> (like all those concepts) independent of what symbol one uses for it.
>>
>> It is also different from the concept of a universe in astrophysics.
>>
>> So the two of you are just writing nonsense based on your half-wit
>> knowledge, i.e. ignorance.
>
> If the universe is possible in the supposition, then 'U' is correct for 
> it. It basically means "everything."

No, see below.

And in astrophysics that is an outdated conception:

<https://youtu.be/2bZi3Xm9tJE?si=piz5Quv4jx4plSP->

> Quit being difficult, contrarian.

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universe_(disambiguation)>

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect>
-- 
PointedEars

Twitter: @PointedEars2
Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#645331

Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:

> phoenix wrote:
>> I doubt it. The math symbol for 'universe' is 'U'. Duh.
> 
> It is one possible symbol.  The concept of a universe in mathematics is
> (like all those concepts) independent of what symbol one uses for it.
> 
> It is also different from the concept of a universe in astrophysics.
> 
> So the two of you are just writing nonsense based on your half-wit
> knowledge, i.e. ignorance.

these two old farts doesnt know what mathematics is, amazing. The math is 
a macro scale outcome of this universe, and not the other way around, 
idiots.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#645333

Wesley Kozlowski wrote:
> [...] The math is a macro scale outcome of this universe, and not the other way around, [...]

If by that you mean that humans can use the mathematics that they created to
describe our universe, or universes in general, you are correct.

F'up2 <news:sci.physics.relativity>

-- 
PointedEars

Twitter: @PointedEars2
Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#645340

Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:

> Wesley Kozlowski wrote:
>> [...] The math is a macro scale outcome of this universe, and not the
>> other way around, [...]
> 
> If by that you mean that humans can use the mathematics that they
> created to describe our universe, or universes in general, you are
> correct.

nothing to do with humans; that's embedded into the manifold as a 
characteristic

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#645345

Jimmy Kamiński wrote:
> Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
>> Wesley Kozlowski wrote:
>>> [...] The math is a macro scale outcome of this universe, and not the
>>> other way around, [...]
>>
>> If by that you mean that humans can use the mathematics that they
>> created to describe our universe, or universes in general, you are
>> correct.
> 
> nothing to do with humans; that's embedded into the manifold as a 
> characteristic

Spacetime as I know it is a human invention to describe our universe,
based on human mathematics.  It is NOT inherent to our universe.

Please keep postings to the group in which a discussion is on-topic.
F'up2 <news:sci.physics.relativity> again.

-- 
PointedEars

Twitter: @PointedEars2
Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#645346

Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
> Jimmy Kamiński wrote:
>> Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
>>> Wesley Kozlowski wrote:
>>>> [...] The math is a macro scale outcome of this universe, and not the
>>>> other way around, [...]
>>>
>>> If by that you mean that humans can use the mathematics that they
>>> created to describe our universe, or universes in general, you are
>>> correct.
>>
>> nothing to do with humans; that's embedded into the manifold as a
>> characteristic
> 
> Spacetime as I know it is a human invention to describe our universe,
> based on human mathematics.  It is NOT inherent to our universe.
> 
> Please keep postings to the group in which a discussion is on-topic.
> F'up2 <news:sci.physics.relativity> again.
> 
Your average Joe doesn't want to hear about black holes. Those are for 
Einstein & Hawking to talk about. If the average Joe doesn't want to 
hear about them, how are they even important in the least?

Is that black hole going to drive my caterpillar for me? says the 
average Joe.

-- 
The future has begun
The waiting is over
We have gained time
For one blink of an eye

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#645351

phoenix wrote:
> Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
>> Jimmy Kamiński wrote:
>>> Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
>>>> Wesley Kozlowski wrote:
>>>>> [...] The math is a macro scale outcome of this universe, and not the
>>>>> other way around, [...]
>>>>
>>>> If by that you mean that humans can use the mathematics that they
>>>> created to describe our universe, or universes in general, you are
>>>> correct.
>>>
>>> nothing to do with humans; that's embedded into the manifold as a
>>> characteristic
>>
>> Spacetime as I know it is a human invention to describe our universe,
>> based on human mathematics.  It is NOT inherent to our universe.
>
> Your average Joe doesn't want to hear about black holes.

Nobody talked about black holes until now except you.

> Those are for Einstein & Hawking to talk about. If the average Joe
> doesn't want to hear about them, how are they even important in the
> least?
Following that "logic", a certain curious human should have never gone and
*looked* what is behind the hill over there because "what we have here is
enough to survive".  Except when it no longer is.  Except when they find out
that another tribe lives behind the hill (which can be good or bad for you).
 Ignorance is bliss until it kicks you in your lazy behind.

> Is that black hole going to drive my caterpillar for me? says the 
> average Joe.

Who cares about what ignorant people say?

For example, the average Joe wants to know where they are without having to
ask anyone (because there may be nobody else there), and wants to take the
fastest or shortest route from A to B, and does not care how that is
facilitated.  Also, it would be nice to have a clock that always shows the
correct time, that synchronizes itself with the world, wouldn't it?  This is
where general relativity comes in and makes it possible with satellite-based
global navigation and timekeeping (strangely, while the timekeeping is
actually the foundation of this kind of navigation, it is often only known
as a byproduct of the latter, if at all).  And this is where theoretical
physicists come in to do the necessary calculations, so that engineers can
build the thing so that it actually works.

Applications of theoretical physics and particularly the theories of
relativity are all around you; you are presently bathing your eyes and
fingers (and perhaps ears) in them (how do you think those fancy Bluetooth
headphones work?).  You appear to be an average Joe, and ignorant too.
Don't be.  Direct benefits aside, life is so much more interesting and worth
living when you have at least a fair idea how things work 8-)

-- 
PointedEars

Twitter: @PointedEars2
Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#645347

Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:

> Jimmy Kamiński wrote:
>> Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
>>> Wesley Kozlowski wrote:
>>>> [...] The math is a macro scale outcome of this universe, and not the
>>>> other way around, [...]
>>>
>>> If by that you mean that humans can use the mathematics that they
>>> created to describe our universe, or universes in general, you are
>>> correct.
>> 
>> nothing to do with humans; that's embedded into the manifold as a
>> characteristic
> 
> Spacetime as I know it is a human invention to describe our universe,
> based on human mathematics.  It is NOT inherent to our universe.

i beg your pardon, you dont undrestand again, spacetime has nothing to do 
with the mathematics, but it's embedded inherent into the manifold, as a 
fundamental characteristic. Go reread your papers.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | sci.math

csiph-web