Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #583850 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2022-04-23 13:35 -0700 |
| Last post | 2022-04-26 10:30 -0700 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 187 — 18 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.physics.relativity
Stationary Points in Space Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> - 2022-04-23 13:35 -0700
Re: Stationary Points in Space Stan Fultoni <fultonistan@gmail.com> - 2022-04-23 14:31 -0700
Re: Stationary Points in Space Stan Fultoni <fultonistan@gmail.com> - 2022-04-23 14:40 -0700
Re: Stationary Points in Space Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> - 2022-04-24 07:56 -0700
Re: Stationary Points in Space Stan Fultoni <fultonistan@gmail.com> - 2022-04-24 09:06 -0700
Re: Stationary Points in Space Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> - 2022-04-24 11:12 -0700
Re: Stationary Points in Space Stan Fultoni <fultonistan@gmail.com> - 2022-04-24 12:11 -0700
Re: Stationary Points in Space Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> - 2022-04-24 13:14 -0700
Re: Stationary Points in Space Python <python@example.invalid> - 2022-04-24 22:29 +0200
Re: Stationary Points in Space Stan Fultoni <fultonistan@gmail.com> - 2022-04-24 13:43 -0700
Re: Stationary Points in Space Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> - 2022-04-25 08:26 -0700
Re: Stationary Points in Space Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-04-25 16:25 +0000
Re: Stationary Points in Space Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> - 2022-04-25 13:59 -0700
Re: Stationary Points in Space Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-04-25 21:45 +0000
Re: Stationary Points in Space Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> - 2022-04-26 07:49 -0700
Re: Stationary Points in Space Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-04-26 16:04 +0000
Re: Stationary Points in Space Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> - 2022-04-26 09:43 -0700
Re: Stationary Points in Space Stan Fultoni <fultonistan@gmail.com> - 2022-04-26 09:56 -0700
Re: Stationary Points in Space Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> - 2022-04-26 10:05 -0700
Re: Stationary Points in Space Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-04-26 17:18 +0000
Re: Stationary Points in Space Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> - 2022-04-26 13:37 -0700
Re: Stationary Points in Space Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-04-26 21:10 +0000
Re: Stationary Points in Space Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> - 2022-04-27 07:02 -0700
Re: Stationary Points in Space Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-04-27 14:26 +0000
Re: Stationary Points in Space Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> - 2022-04-27 09:15 -0700
Re: Stationary Points in Space Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-04-27 17:32 +0000
Re: Stationary Points in Space Michael Moroney <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> - 2022-04-26 23:20 -0400
Re: Stationary Points in Space Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> - 2022-04-27 08:21 -0700
Re: Stationary Points in Space Michael Moroney <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> - 2022-04-27 13:26 -0400
Re: Stationary Points in Space Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2022-04-26 12:45 -0500
Re: Stationary Points in Space Stan Fultoni <fultonistan@gmail.com> - 2022-04-26 11:47 -0700
Re: Stationary Points in Space Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-04-26 17:18 +0000
Re: Stationary Points in Space Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> - 2022-04-26 13:27 -0700
Re: Stationary Points in Space Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-04-26 21:01 +0000
Re: Stationary Points in Space Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2022-04-25 20:36 -0500
Re: Stationary Points in Space Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> - 2022-04-26 08:45 -0700
Re: Stationary Points in Space whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2022-04-26 13:00 -0500
Re: Stationary Points in Space Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-04-26 19:16 +0000
Re: Stationary Points in Space Michael Moroney <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> - 2022-04-26 23:38 -0400
Re: Stationary Points in Space Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> - 2022-04-27 08:39 -0700
Re: Stationary Points in Space Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-04-27 16:45 +0000
Re: Stationary Points in Space Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> - 2022-04-27 10:22 -0700
Re: Stationary Points in Space Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-04-27 17:48 +0000
Re: Stationary Points in Space Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> - 2022-04-27 12:52 -0700
Re: Stationary Points in Space Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2022-04-27 14:20 -0700
Re: Stationary Points in Space Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> - 2022-04-27 14:36 -0700
Re: Stationary Points in Space Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2022-04-27 15:22 -0700
Re: Stationary Points in Space Python <python@example.invalid> - 2022-04-28 01:36 +0200
Re: Stationary Points in Space Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2022-04-27 21:49 -0700
Re: Stationary Points in Space Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-04-28 16:44 +0000
Re: Stationary Points in Space Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> - 2022-04-28 07:40 -0700
Re: Stationary Points in Space Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-04-28 14:56 +0000
Re: Stationary Points in Space Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2022-04-28 12:11 -0700
Re: Stationary Points in Space Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-04-28 16:28 +0000
Re: Stationary Points in Space The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2022-04-28 11:23 -0700
Re: Stationary Points in Space Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-04-28 20:26 +0000
Re: Stationary Points in Space The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2022-04-28 15:01 -0700
Re: Stationary Points in Space Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-04-28 22:26 +0000
Re: Stationary Points in Space The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2022-04-28 16:09 -0700
Re: Stationary Points in Space The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2022-04-28 17:01 -0700
Re: Stationary Points in Space Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-04-29 00:41 +0000
Re: Stationary Points in Space The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2022-04-28 18:39 -0700
Re: Stationary Points in Space The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2022-04-28 22:10 -0700
Re: Stationary Points in Space Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-04-29 12:52 +0000
Re: Stationary Points in Space Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2022-04-29 10:06 -0700
Re: Stationary Points in Space The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2022-04-29 21:21 -0700
Re: Stationary Points in Space The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2022-04-30 12:12 -0700
Re: Stationary Points in Space The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2022-04-30 14:39 -0700
Re: Stationary Points in Space Michael Moroney <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> - 2022-04-27 20:01 -0400
Re: Stationary Points in Space Michael Moroney <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> - 2022-04-27 13:33 -0400
Re: Stationary Points in Space Michael Moroney <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> - 2022-04-25 13:55 -0400
Re: Stationary Points in Space Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> - 2022-04-25 14:32 -0700
Re: Stationary Points in Space Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-04-25 22:00 +0000
Re: Stationary Points in Space Michael Moroney <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> - 2022-04-25 18:12 -0400
Re: Stationary Points in Space Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> - 2022-04-26 08:14 -0700
Re: Stationary Points in Space Michael Moroney <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> - 2022-04-26 17:36 -0400
Re: Stationary Points in Space Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> - 2022-04-27 07:50 -0700
Re: Stationary Points in Space Michael Moroney <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> - 2022-04-27 14:18 -0400
Re: Stationary Points in Space Michael Moroney <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> - 2022-04-25 18:33 -0400
Re: Stationary Points in Space Dean Totolos <hcdp@xurrppjn.cn> - 2022-04-25 23:01 +0000
Re: Stationary Points in Space Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> - 2022-04-26 08:30 -0700
Re: Stationary Points in Space Michael Moroney <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> - 2022-04-26 17:51 -0400
Re: Stationary Points in Space Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2022-04-26 22:20 -0700
Re: Stationary Points in Space Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> - 2022-04-27 08:14 -0700
Re: Stationary Points in Space Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2022-04-27 18:58 +0300
Re: Stationary Points in Space Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> - 2022-04-27 09:30 -0700
Re: Stationary Points in Space Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2022-04-28 15:58 +0300
Re: Stationary Points in Space Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> - 2022-04-28 07:52 -0700
Re: Stationary Points in Space Michael Moroney <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> - 2022-04-27 14:36 -0400
Re: Stationary Points in Space Ufonaut <ufonaut9@gmail.com> - 2022-04-28 06:11 -0700
Re: Stationary Points in Space Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> - 2022-04-28 08:12 -0700
Re: Stationary Points in Space Ufonaut <ufonaut9@gmail.com> - 2022-04-28 17:25 -0700
Re: Stationary Points in Space Stan Fultoni <fultonistan@gmail.com> - 2022-04-25 12:00 -0700
Re: Stationary Points in Space Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2022-04-24 13:51 -0700
Re: Stationary Points in Space Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> - 2022-04-25 09:20 -0700
Re: Stationary Points in Space Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-04-25 16:28 +0000
Re: Stationary Points in Space Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-04-25 16:35 +0000
Re: Stationary Points in Space Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2022-04-25 09:46 -0700
Re: Stationary Points in Space Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2022-04-25 10:00 -0700
Re: Stationary Points in Space Michael Moroney <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> - 2022-04-25 19:07 -0400
Re: Stationary Points in Space Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2022-04-25 21:43 -0700
Re: Stationary Points in Space Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> - 2022-04-25 14:17 -0700
Re: Stationary Points in Space Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-04-25 21:45 +0000
Re: Stationary Points in Space Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> - 2022-04-26 07:56 -0700
Re: Stationary Points in Space Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-04-26 17:18 +0000
Re: Stationary Points in Space Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2022-04-25 15:10 -0700
Re: Stationary Points in Space Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> - 2022-04-26 08:04 -0700
Re: Stationary Points in Space whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2022-04-24 16:19 -0500
Re: Stationary Points in Space Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-04-25 13:12 +0000
Re: Stationary Points in Space whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2022-04-25 10:43 -0500
Re: Stationary Points in Space Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-04-25 16:25 +0000
Re: Stationary Points in Space whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2022-04-25 11:58 -0500
Re: Stationary Points in Space Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> - 2022-04-25 09:35 -0700
Re: Stationary Points in Space whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2022-04-25 12:14 -0500
Re: Stationary Points in Space Michael Moroney <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> - 2022-04-24 22:08 -0400
Re: Stationary Points in Space Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> - 2022-04-25 09:46 -0700
Re: Stationary Points in Space Michael Moroney <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> - 2022-04-25 14:43 -0400
Re: Stationary Points in Space Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2022-04-25 10:56 +0300
Re: Stationary Points in Space Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> - 2022-04-25 10:04 -0700
Re: Stationary Points in Space Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2022-04-26 12:46 +0300
Re: Stationary Points in Space Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> - 2022-04-26 09:13 -0700
Re: Stationary Points in Space Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-04-26 17:05 +0000
Re: Stationary Points in Space Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> - 2022-04-26 13:04 -0700
Re: Stationary Points in Space Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-04-26 20:33 +0000
Re: Stationary Points in Space Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> - 2022-04-26 13:59 -0700
Re: Stationary Points in Space Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-04-26 21:10 +0000
Re: Stationary Points in Space Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> - 2022-04-27 07:22 -0700
Re: Stationary Points in Space Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-04-27 16:30 +0000
Re: Stationary Points in Space Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> - 2022-04-27 10:12 -0700
Re: Stationary Points in Space Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-04-27 17:48 +0000
Re: Stationary Points in Space Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-04-27 19:43 +0000
Re: Stationary Points in Space whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2022-04-27 15:29 -0500
Re: Stationary Points in Space Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> - 2022-04-27 14:25 -0700
Re: Stationary Points in Space whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2022-04-27 18:13 -0500
Re: Stationary Points in Space Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> - 2022-04-28 07:49 -0700
Re: Stationary Points in Space Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-04-28 16:43 +0000
Re: Stationary Points in Space Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> - 2022-04-28 07:19 -0700
Re: Stationary Points in Space Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-04-28 14:56 +0000
Re: Stationary Points in Space whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2022-04-28 11:26 -0500
Re: Stationary Points in Space Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2022-04-28 19:36 +0300
Re: Stationary Points in Space RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> - 2022-04-27 14:08 -0700
Re: Stationary Points in Space Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> - 2022-04-28 07:33 -0700
Re: Stationary Points in Space Michael Moroney <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> - 2022-04-28 11:50 -0400
Re: Stationary Points in Space whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2022-04-28 11:49 -0500
Re: Stationary Points in Space Colin Ohba <owfs@gcftghsf.tk> - 2022-04-30 21:30 +0000
Re: Stationary Points in Space The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2022-04-30 16:09 -0700
Re: Stationary Points in Space Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2022-04-30 13:10 -0500
Re: Stationary Points in Space Colin Ohba <owfs@gcftghsf.tk> - 2022-04-30 18:28 +0000
Re: Stationary Points in Space The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2022-04-30 14:24 -0700
Re: Stationary Points in Space The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2022-05-01 12:15 -0700
Re: Stationary Points in Space Clutterfreak <clutterfreakincarnate@gmail.com> - 2022-05-01 14:52 -0500
Re: Stationary Points in Space Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2022-04-27 10:08 +0300
Re: Stationary Points in Space whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2022-04-27 03:01 -0500
Re: Stationary Points in Space Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> - 2022-04-27 08:54 -0700
Re: Stationary Points in Space Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-04-27 17:17 +0000
Re: Stationary Points in Space Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-04-25 13:12 +0000
Re: Stationary Points in Space Michael Moroney <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> - 2022-04-24 13:42 -0400
Re: Stationary Points in Space Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2022-04-24 10:52 -0700
Re: Stationary Points in Space Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> - 2022-04-24 11:24 -0700
Re: Stationary Points in Space Dong Vassilikos <saox@cowrpsho.rb> - 2022-04-24 20:47 +0000
Re: Stationary Points in Space Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> - 2022-04-25 08:54 -0700
Re: Stationary Points in Space Michael Moroney <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> - 2022-04-25 14:19 -0400
Re: Stationary Points in Space Michael Moroney <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> - 2022-04-24 22:25 -0400
Re: Stationary Points in Space Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-04-25 13:12 +0000
Re: Stationary Points in Space Ken Seto <setoken47@gmail.com> - 2022-04-25 09:45 -0700
Re: Stationary Points in Space Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> - 2022-04-25 14:04 -0700
Re: Stationary Points in Space Dean Totolos <hcdp@xurrppjn.cn> - 2022-04-25 21:16 +0000
Re: Stationary Points in Space Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-04-25 12:56 +0000
Re: Stationary Points in Space RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> - 2022-04-25 12:11 -0700
Re: Stationary Points in Space Stan Fultoni <fultonistan@gmail.com> - 2022-04-25 15:46 -0700
Re: Stationary Points in Space RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> - 2022-04-26 10:11 -0700
Re: Stationary Points in Space whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2022-04-23 18:07 -0500
Re: Stationary Points in Space Michael Moroney <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> - 2022-04-23 23:42 -0400
Re: Stationary Points in Space Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> - 2022-04-24 08:11 -0700
Re: Stationary Points in Space Michael Moroney <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> - 2022-04-24 22:32 -0400
Re: Stationary Points in Space Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-04-25 12:56 +0000
Re: Stationary Points in Space Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-04-24 18:36 +0000
Re: Stationary Points in Space whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2022-04-24 15:55 -0500
Re: Stationary Points in Space Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-04-25 13:12 +0000
Re: Stationary Points in Space whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2022-04-25 10:25 -0500
Re: Stationary Points in Space Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-04-24 01:43 +0000
Re: Stationary Points in Space Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-04-25 12:56 +0000
Re: Stationary Points in Space Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2022-04-25 06:03 -0700
Re: Stationary Points in Space Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2022-04-25 15:19 -0500
Re: Stationary Points in Space The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2022-04-26 09:58 -0700
Re: Stationary Points in Space Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-04-26 17:18 +0000
Re: Stationary Points in Space The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2022-04-26 10:30 -0700
Page 5 of 10 — ← Prev page 1 … 3 4 [5] 6 7 … 10 Next page →
| From | Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-04-26 08:30 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <2b572319-41e1-4e24-bc88-aa96ea1a9a6bn@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #584071 |
On Monday, April 25, 2022 at 5:33:28 PM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote: > On 4/25/2022 5:32 PM, Ed Lake wrote: > > On Monday, April 25, 2022 at 12:55:26 PM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote: > >> On 4/25/2022 11:26 AM, Ed Lake wrote: > (snip) > >> How could it be, if "stationary" cannot apply to a point in empty space > >> (Einstein), or without a reference frame "Stationary with respect to what?" > > > > Stationary to NOTHING! > That makes zero sense. None whatsoever. Everything is relative. > > EVERYTHING ELSE IN THE UNIVERSE IS MOVING > > RELATIVE TO THOSE STATIONARY POINTS! > Then those "stationary" points are moving relative to everything else in > the universe, in an equal and opposite direction. I think you need a > better description of those points other than "stationary". > > > > Ed > > It appears to me that your biggest problem is that you simply don't > grasp the concept of relative motion and reference frames in physics. > You don't understand that part of physics at all. Instead you are too > stubborn to even attempt to learn about it, and would rather blame your > boogeymen for them, those evil "mathematicians" 🧟‍♂️. And add to your > manifesto, of course. I understand the "concept of relative motion and reference frames in physics." It is the CAUSE of many IDIOTIC BELIEFS. It takes ENERGY to make something move in our universe. Yet you argue that due to "relative motion" it can be claimed that a rocket can be viewed as moving away from the stationary earth, or you can view the earth as moving away from a stationary rocket. That is MORONIC. The BIG BANG provided the energy that put all the stars and galaxies into motion. Gravity then provided energy to move somethings closer together. And nuclear reactions provided energy to blast things apart again if too much got too close together. The Big Bang put everything in motion relative to the stationary point of the Big Bang. The only thing that remained stationary is empty space. Moving through empty space requires energy. Ed
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Michael Moroney <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-04-26 17:51 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <t49pg0$1tev$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #584124 |
On 4/26/2022 11:30 AM, Ed Lake wrote: > On Monday, April 25, 2022 at 5:33:28 PM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote: >> On 4/25/2022 5:32 PM, Ed Lake wrote: >>> On Monday, April 25, 2022 at 12:55:26 PM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote: >>>> On 4/25/2022 11:26 AM, Ed Lake wrote: >> > (snip) >>>> How could it be, if "stationary" cannot apply to a point in empty space >>>> (Einstein), or without a reference frame "Stationary with respect to what?" >>> >>> Stationary to NOTHING! >> That makes zero sense. None whatsoever. Everything is relative. >>> EVERYTHING ELSE IN THE UNIVERSE IS MOVING >>> RELATIVE TO THOSE STATIONARY POINTS! >> Then those "stationary" points are moving relative to everything else in >> the universe, in an equal and opposite direction. I think you need a >> better description of those points other than "stationary". >>> >>> Ed >> >> It appears to me that your biggest problem is that you simply don't >> grasp the concept of relative motion and reference frames in physics. >> You don't understand that part of physics at all. Instead you are too >> stubborn to even attempt to learn about it, and would rather blame your >> boogeymen for them, those evil "mathematicians" 🧟‍♂️. And add to your >> manifesto, of course. > > I understand the "concept of relative motion and reference frames in physics." > It is the CAUSE of many IDIOTIC BELIEFS. If you feel it's the cause of "IDIOTIC BELIEFS", you definitely do not understand it. Forget Einstein, this is from Galileo. > > It takes ENERGY to make something move in our universe. Yet you argue > that due to "relative motion" it can be claimed that a rocket can be viewed as > moving away from the stationary earth, or you can view the earth as moving > away from a stationary rocket. That is MORONIC. Because you don't understand it. If I'm on the rocket, the earth is obviously moving away from me, I see it receding and getting smaller and smaller. The energy involved is relative to the center of mass, and discussing how much energy it it would have to take to move the earth away is meaningless. > > The BIG BANG provided the energy that put all the stars and galaxies into > motion. Gravity then provided energy to move somethings closer together. > And nuclear reactions provided energy to blast things apart again if too > much got too close together. > > The Big Bang put everything in motion relative to the stationary point of > the Big Bang. Nonsense. You are trying to apply ancient concepts to the Big Bang, as if the Big Bang was a big bomb at a specific location which exploded, and we can go see where the bomb was. Actually if you try to figure out where the Big Bang was located, it will come up with the answer of wherever you are. I will get where I am. The location of the Big Bang is everywhere. The Big Bang can't be thought of an explosion of a bomb IN space and time, think of it as an explosion OF space and time. > The only thing that remained stationary is empty space. > Moving through empty space requires energy. > Einstein: "The introduction of a “luminiferous ether” will prove to be superfluous inasmuch as the view here to be developed will not require an “absolutely stationary space” provided with special properties, *nor assign a velocity-vector to a point of the empty space in which electromagnetic processes take place.*" You ignored this last time I posted it. Pay attention to the phrase after the comma.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-04-26 22:20 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <29a21c7e-c5ed-48a2-9a24-3a5e2271b0f5n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #584180 |
On Tuesday, 26 April 2022 at 23:50:59 UTC+2, Michael Moroney wrote: > On 4/26/2022 11:30 AM, Ed Lake wrote: > > On Monday, April 25, 2022 at 5:33:28 PM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote: > >> On 4/25/2022 5:32 PM, Ed Lake wrote: > >>> On Monday, April 25, 2022 at 12:55:26 PM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote: > >>>> On 4/25/2022 11:26 AM, Ed Lake wrote: > >> > > (snip) > >>>> How could it be, if "stationary" cannot apply to a point in empty space > >>>> (Einstein), or without a reference frame "Stationary with respect to what?" > >>> > >>> Stationary to NOTHING! > >> That makes zero sense. None whatsoever. Everything is relative. > >>> EVERYTHING ELSE IN THE UNIVERSE IS MOVING > >>> RELATIVE TO THOSE STATIONARY POINTS! > >> Then those "stationary" points are moving relative to everything else in > >> the universe, in an equal and opposite direction. I think you need a > >> better description of those points other than "stationary". > >>> > >>> Ed > >> > >> It appears to me that your biggest problem is that you simply don't > >> grasp the concept of relative motion and reference frames in physics. > >> You don't understand that part of physics at all. Instead you are too > >> stubborn to even attempt to learn about it, and would rather blame your > >> boogeymen for them, those evil "mathematicians" 🧟‍♂️. And add to your > >> manifesto, of course. > > > > I understand the "concept of relative motion and reference frames in physics." > > It is the CAUSE of many IDIOTIC BELIEFS. > > If you feel it's the cause of "IDIOTIC BELIEFS", you definitely do not > understand it. Forget Einstein, this is from Galileo. Too bad for Galileo, stupid Mike - it's still an idiotic belief.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-04-27 08:14 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <77307d67-482e-4c82-8cd7-179090a5f269n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #584180 |
On Tuesday, April 26, 2022 at 4:50:59 PM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote: > On 4/26/2022 11:30 AM, Ed Lake wrote: > > On Monday, April 25, 2022 at 5:33:28 PM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote: > >> On 4/25/2022 5:32 PM, Ed Lake wrote: > >>> On Monday, April 25, 2022 at 12:55:26 PM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote: > >>>> On 4/25/2022 11:26 AM, Ed Lake wrote: > >> > > (snip) > >>>> How could it be, if "stationary" cannot apply to a point in empty space > >>>> (Einstein), or without a reference frame "Stationary with respect to what?" > >>> > >>> Stationary to NOTHING! > >> That makes zero sense. None whatsoever. Everything is relative. > >>> EVERYTHING ELSE IN THE UNIVERSE IS MOVING > >>> RELATIVE TO THOSE STATIONARY POINTS! > >> Then those "stationary" points are moving relative to everything else in > >> the universe, in an equal and opposite direction. I think you need a > >> better description of those points other than "stationary". > >>> > >>> Ed > >> > >> It appears to me that your biggest problem is that you simply don't > >> grasp the concept of relative motion and reference frames in physics. > >> You don't understand that part of physics at all. Instead you are too > >> stubborn to even attempt to learn about it, and would rather blame your > >> boogeymen for them, those evil "mathematicians" 🧟‍♂️. And add to your > >> manifesto, of course. > > > > I understand the "concept of relative motion and reference frames in physics." > > It is the CAUSE of many IDIOTIC BELIEFS. > > If you feel it's the cause of "IDIOTIC BELIEFS", you definitely do not > understand it. Forget Einstein, this is from Galileo. The discussion is about EINSTEIN'S Second Postulate. Galileo has nothing to do with anything in this discussion. > > > > It takes ENERGY to make something move in our universe. Yet you argue > > that due to "relative motion" it can be claimed that a rocket can be viewed as > > moving away from the stationary earth, or you can view the earth as moving > > away from a stationary rocket. That is MORONIC. > > Because you don't understand it. If I'm on the rocket, the earth is > obviously moving away from me, I see it receding and getting smaller and > smaller. Wow! Now you are really in LUNATIC territory! If I am in a rocket, I am obviously moving away from the earth, because I can see earth receding and getting smaller and smaller. To believe that you somehow caused the earth to move away from YOU is lunacy that is beyond hilarious. > The energy involved is relative to the center of mass, and > discussing how much energy it it would have to take to move the earth > away is meaningless. Because it would disprove your screwball beliefs. > > > > The BIG BANG provided the energy that put all the stars and galaxies into > > motion. Gravity then provided energy to move somethings closer together. > > And nuclear reactions provided energy to blast things apart again if too > > much got too close together. > > > > The Big Bang put everything in motion relative to the stationary point of > > the Big Bang. > > Nonsense. You are trying to apply ancient concepts to the Big Bang, as > if the Big Bang was a big bomb at a specific location which exploded, > and we can go see where the bomb was. We could, but it would take countless lifetimes, and it would be a point far outside of our observable universe. So, first you'd have to decide on a direction to go. The best bet is to try the direction that is OPPOSITE to where the blue-shifted stars and galaxies are. (They are ALL in the same general area.) We are traveling TOWARD the blue shifted stars and galaxies, which should mean that we are traveling away from some point in the opposite direction. > > Actually if you try to figure out where the Big Bang was located, it > will come up with the answer of wherever you are. I will get where I am. > The location of the Big Bang is everywhere. The Big Bang can't be > thought of an explosion of a bomb IN space and time, think of it as an > explosion OF space and time. Nonsense. See what I just wrote above. > > > The only thing that remained stationary is empty space. > > Moving through empty space requires energy. > > > Einstein: "The introduction of a “luminiferous ether” will prove to be > superfluous inasmuch as the view here to be developed will not require > an “absolutely stationary space” provided with special properties, *nor > assign a velocity-vector to a point of the empty space in which > electromagnetic processes take place.*" > You ignored this last time I posted it. Pay attention to the phrase > after the comma. He appears to be saying that you do not need to assign a velocity-vector to a point of the empty space in which electromagnetic processes take place. "A velocity vector represents the rate of change of the position of an object. The magnitude of a velocity vector gives the speed of an object while the vector direction gives its direction." Einstein is saying that you do not need that, because photons are emitted from STATIONARY points in space. There is no "change in position" involved, and a stationary point has no direction. Ed
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-04-27 18:58 +0300 |
| Message-ID | <t4bp7t$l3i$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #584257 |
On 2022-04-27 15:14:53 +0000, Ed Lake said: > We could, but it would take countless lifetimes, and it would be a point > far outside of our observable universe. So, first you'd have to decide on a > direction to go. The best bet is to try the direction that is OPPOSITE > towhere the blue-shifted stars and galaxies are. (They are ALL in the > same > general area.) We are traveling TOWARD the blue shifted stars and > galaxies,which should mean that we are traveling away from some point > in theopposite direction. There are several blueshifted galaxies in Virgo cluster. So the opposite direction would be roughly towards M33 (in Triangulum). But M33 is also blueshifted, as is M31 (Andromeda). In a different direction M81 (in Ursa Major) is also blueshifted. So, which galaxy we should go away from? Mikko
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-04-27 09:30 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <2bd25b30-b6c4-497f-a103-042fccf25348n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #584262 |
On Wednesday, April 27, 2022 at 10:58:56 AM UTC-5, Mikko wrote: > On 2022-04-27 15:14:53 +0000, Ed Lake said: > > > We could, but it would take countless lifetimes, and it would be a point > > far outside of our observable universe. So, first you'd have to decide on a > > direction to go. The best bet is to try the direction that is OPPOSITE > > towhere the blue-shifted stars and galaxies are. (They are ALL in the > > same > > general area.) We are traveling TOWARD the blue shifted stars and > > galaxies,which should mean that we are traveling away from some point > > in theopposite direction. > > There are several blueshifted galaxies in Virgo cluster. So the opposite > direction would be roughly towards M33 (in Triangulum). But M33 is also > blueshifted, as is M31 (Andromeda). In a different direction M81 (in > Ursa Major) is also blueshifted. So, which galaxy we should go away from? > > Mikko According to a Cornell University web page: “There are in all about 100 known galaxies with blueshifts out of the billions of galaxies in the observable universe. Most of these blue-shifted galaxies are in our own local group, and are all bound to each other. Most are also dwarf galaxies which you've probably never heard of, although the Andromeda Galaxy, M31, is in there.” http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/ask-a-question/97-the-universe/galaxies/cosmology/539-why-are-there-blue-shifted-galaxies-intermediate What about the galaxies that are NOT part of our Local Group? And is there a pattern to what we see in the Local Group? Are there MORE in one direction than another. You can't just say there is a blue shifted galaxy in that direction and there is a blue shifted galaxy in another direction, so there is no pattern that means anything. I recall doing some research and seeing a pattern, but I don't recall where I wrote about it. Ed
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-04-28 15:58 +0300 |
| Message-ID | <t4e314$74i$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #584270 |
On 2022-04-27 16:30:11 +0000, Ed Lake said: > What about the galaxies that are NOT part of our Local Group? And is > there a pattern to what we see in the Local Group? Are there MORE in > one direction than another. The most obvious pattern is that all blue shifted galaxies are near. They are all in the Virgo supercluster. In the M81 group there are several blueshifted galaxies: HS 117, M81, PGC 28529, PGC 28731, UGC 5428, UGC 5442, UGC 6456 in directions 10h..12h. In the Maffei Group: Camelopardalis A, NGC 1560, NGC 1569, UGCA 92, Maffei 2 in directions h4..5h There are blueshifted galaxies elsewhere, too, e.g.: NGC 404 in the direction 1h NGC 1313 in the direction 3h 18m In Virgo cluster there are more blueshinfted galaxies simply because it is the biggest cluster nearby. Mikko
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-04-28 07:52 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <855aac1a-7761-475b-a920-2261d3fe4731n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #584357 |
On Thursday, April 28, 2022 at 7:58:15 AM UTC-5, Mikko wrote: > On 2022-04-27 16:30:11 +0000, Ed Lake said: > > > What about the galaxies that are NOT part of our Local Group? And is > > there a pattern to what we see in the Local Group? Are there MORE in > > one direction than another. > The most obvious pattern is that all blue shifted galaxies are near. > They are all in the Virgo supercluster. > > In the M81 group there are several blueshifted galaxies: > HS 117, M81, PGC 28529, PGC 28731, UGC 5428, UGC 5442, UGC 6456 > in directions 10h..12h. > > In the Maffei Group: > Camelopardalis A, NGC 1560, NGC 1569, UGCA 92, Maffei 2 > in directions h4..5h > > There are blueshifted galaxies elsewhere, too, e.g.: > NGC 404 in the direction 1h > NGC 1313 in the direction 3h 18m > > In Virgo cluster there are more blueshinfted galaxies simply because > it is the biggest cluster nearby. > > Mikko This is another situation where an illustration is needed. When you need to LOOK for a pattern, it helps to have something to look at. Ed
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Michael Moroney <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-04-27 14:36 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <t4c2ep$199s$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #584257 |
On 4/27/2022 11:14 AM, Ed Lake wrote: > On Tuesday, April 26, 2022 at 4:50:59 PM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote: >> On 4/26/2022 11:30 AM, Ed Lake wrote: >>> On Monday, April 25, 2022 at 5:33:28 PM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote: >>>> On 4/25/2022 5:32 PM, Ed Lake wrote: >>>>> On Monday, April 25, 2022 at 12:55:26 PM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote: >>>>>> On 4/25/2022 11:26 AM, Ed Lake wrote: >>>> >>> (snip) >>>>>> How could it be, if "stationary" cannot apply to a point in empty space >>>>>> (Einstein), or without a reference frame "Stationary with respect to what?" >>>>> >>>>> Stationary to NOTHING! >>>> That makes zero sense. None whatsoever. Everything is relative. >>>>> EVERYTHING ELSE IN THE UNIVERSE IS MOVING >>>>> RELATIVE TO THOSE STATIONARY POINTS! >>>> Then those "stationary" points are moving relative to everything else in >>>> the universe, in an equal and opposite direction. I think you need a >>>> better description of those points other than "stationary". >>>>> >>>>> Ed >>>> >>>> It appears to me that your biggest problem is that you simply don't >>>> grasp the concept of relative motion and reference frames in physics. >>>> You don't understand that part of physics at all. Instead you are too >>>> stubborn to even attempt to learn about it, and would rather blame your >>>> boogeymen for them, those evil "mathematicians" 🧟‍♂️. And add to your >>>> manifesto, of course. >>> >>> I understand the "concept of relative motion and reference frames in physics." >>> It is the CAUSE of many IDIOTIC BELIEFS. >> >> If you feel it's the cause of "IDIOTIC BELIEFS", you definitely do not >> understand it. Forget Einstein, this is from Galileo. > > The discussion is about EINSTEIN'S Second Postulate. Galileo has nothing > to do with anything in this discussion. WTF? You just called GALILEO'S "concept of relative motion and reference frames in physics" to be "IDIOTIC BELIEFS". And this discussion is titled "Stationary Points in Space". > >>> >>> It takes ENERGY to make something move in our universe. Yet you argue >>> that due to "relative motion" it can be claimed that a rocket can be viewed as >>> moving away from the stationary earth, or you can view the earth as moving >>> away from a stationary rocket. That is MORONIC. >> >> Because you don't understand it. If I'm on the rocket, the earth is >> obviously moving away from me, I see it receding and getting smaller and >> smaller. > > Wow! Now you are really in LUNATIC territory! If I am in a rocket, I am > obviously moving away from the earth, because I can see earth receding and > getting smaller and smaller. To believe that you somehow caused the earth > to move away from YOU is lunacy that is beyond hilarious. Now you call Galileo a lunatic? This is just ordinary relative motion. > >> The energy involved is relative to the center of mass, and >> discussing how much energy it it would have to take to move the earth >> away is meaningless. > > Because it would disprove your screwball beliefs. Nope. The energy involved is proportionate to the relative distance and speed. You OBVIOUSLY don't understand Galileo's relative motion AT ALL. Again, forget Einstein, study GALILEO. > >>> >>> The BIG BANG provided the energy that put all the stars and galaxies into >>> motion. Gravity then provided energy to move somethings closer together. >>> And nuclear reactions provided energy to blast things apart again if too >>> much got too close together. >>> >>> The Big Bang put everything in motion relative to the stationary point of >>> the Big Bang. >> >> Nonsense. You are trying to apply ancient concepts to the Big Bang, as >> if the Big Bang was a big bomb at a specific location which exploded, >> and we can go see where the bomb was. > > We could, but it would take countless lifetimes, and it would be a point > far outside of our observable universe. So, first you'd have to decide on a > direction to go. The best bet is to try the direction that is OPPOSITE to > where the blue-shifted stars and galaxies are. (They are ALL in the same > general area.) We are traveling TOWARD the blue shifted stars and galaxies, > which should mean that we are traveling away from some point in the > opposite direction. Nope. Galaxies, other than a limited few, are moving away in ALL directions. The limited few, such as Andromeda, are part of a gravitationally bound local cluster and remain together. Because of how they all are moving away from us, it appears that the Big Bang happened right here, where Earth is, right where you sit. Go to some other distant galaxy, and they will see the same thing. The Big Bang happened on THEIR galaxy, where THEIR planet is. > >> >> Actually if you try to figure out where the Big Bang was located, it >> will come up with the answer of wherever you are. I will get where I am. >> The location of the Big Bang is everywhere. The Big Bang can't be >> thought of an explosion of a bomb IN space and time, think of it as an >> explosion OF space and time. > > Nonsense. See what I just wrote above. Which is wrong. > >> >>> The only thing that remained stationary is empty space. >>> Moving through empty space requires energy. >>> >> Einstein: "The introduction of a “luminiferous ether” will prove to be >> superfluous inasmuch as the view here to be developed will not require >> an “absolutely stationary space” provided with special properties, *nor >> assign a velocity-vector to a point of the empty space in which >> electromagnetic processes take place.*" >> You ignored this last time I posted it. Pay attention to the phrase >> after the comma. > > He appears to be saying that you do not need to assign a velocity-vector > to a point of the empty space in which electromagnetic processes take place. > > "A velocity vector represents the rate of change of the position of an object. > The magnitude of a velocity vector gives the speed of an object while the > vector direction gives its direction." > > Einstein is saying that you do not need that, because photons are emitted > from STATIONARY points in space. WRONG!!! A "stationary" point means a point where the velocity vector has a magnitude (speed) of 0. But Einstein stated assigning velocities to points of empty space is wrong. If he meant a speed of 0, he would have said so (and violated his own first postulate). Do you claim 0 is not a number? There is no "change in position" involved, > and a stationary point has no direction. It has a change of position of 0, so it is still a valid velocity vector, so can't be used, according to Einstein.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ufonaut <ufonaut9@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-04-28 06:11 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <47552cc8-f5a6-46a6-aeff-323b93a9889dn@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #584124 |
On Wednesday, April 27, 2022 at 1:30:47 AM UTC+10, det...@outlook.com wrote: > I understand the "concept of relative motion and reference frames in physics." > It is the CAUSE of many IDIOTIC BELIEFS. > > It takes ENERGY to make something move in our universe. Yet you argue > that due to "relative motion" it can be claimed that a rocket can be viewed as > moving away from the stationary earth, or you can view the earth as moving > away from a stationary rocket. That is MORONIC. OK, so what about these scenarios : 1) Alice is in a rocketship with engines turned off (so unpowered, coasting inertially).Through her window , she sees the earth moving with velocity v relative to her. So you would say that her rocketship is the one that is moving, obviously not the earth. Consequently, since time dilation is related to movement, you would also that therefore her rocketship's clocks are the ones that are are running slow - certainly slower than those on Earth. 2) Let's take a bird's-eye view of the Solar System, from a point stationary relative to the Sun (say above its north pole). We can see the Earth moving along its orbit. Let's put Bob in a rocketship (again, powered off, just coasting inertially), also stationary relative to the sun, but on Earth's orbital path (or just to the side). So Bob looks through his window to see Earth approaching then receeding from him at (naturally enough) Earth's orbital velocity of v = 30 km/sec. So, since it is the Earth that is clearly the one that is moving in its orbit rather than Bob, then obviously you would say that it is the Earth's clocks that must be the ones that are time dilated - certainly slower than those positioned stationary relative to the Sun (such as those on Bob's rocketship). So do I understand your position correctly, that you agree with both (1) and (2) ? If so, let's put them together. There are not two rocketships, but rather Alice and Bob are both on THE SAME rocketship. So, are the clocks on that one rocketship : a) running SLOWER than those on Earth, as per your quote above, or b) running FASTER than those on Earth, because the Earth is moving (contrary to your quote above) ? I don't see how that contradiction can be avoided under what you have stated. (There is no contradiction with the mainstream position) Of course, even more in line with this thread, we can also have Charles, in a rocketship (yep, you got it - powered off and coasting inertially) who really is stationary at one of your "stationary points in space" where time runs the fastest. Surprise : the stationary point in space that Charles is at just happens to be close to the path of the Earth that is moving by :) So, as per your quote above, are you saying that it is MORONIC for Charles at the "stationary point in space" to consider himself stationary and the Earth to be moving ? Would you say that Charles' clocks (where time is running the fastest) are slower than those on the Earth that is moving past him ? > > Ed
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-04-28 08:12 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <0a1b888d-5d2c-4f3a-b324-6410a5aaf850n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #584358 |
On Thursday, April 28, 2022 at 8:11:35 AM UTC-5, Ufonaut wrote: > On Wednesday, April 27, 2022 at 1:30:47 AM UTC+10, wrote: > > I understand the "concept of relative motion and reference frames in physics." > > It is the CAUSE of many IDIOTIC BELIEFS. > > > > It takes ENERGY to make something move in our universe. Yet you argue > > that due to "relative motion" it can be claimed that a rocket can be viewed as > > moving away from the stationary earth, or you can view the earth as moving > > away from a stationary rocket. That is MORONIC. > OK, so what about these scenarios : > > 1) Alice is in a rocketship with engines turned off (so unpowered, coasting inertially).Through her window , she sees the earth moving with velocity v relative to her. > So you would say that her rocketship is the one that is moving, obviously not the earth. Consequently, since time dilation is related to movement, you would also that therefore her rocketship's clocks are the ones that are are running slow - certainly slower than those on Earth. Your comment is hopelessly muddled. EVERYTHING in our observable universe is MOVING. To know whose clocks are running slower, you need to know the DIRECTION of movement. The Hafele-Keating experiment demonstrated that. If the rocket ship is moving in one direction and the earth in its orbit around the sun is moving in the other direction, time should tick slower on earth. If the rocket ship is moving in the same direction as the earth, clocks on the rocket ship should run slower because the rocket ship is moving faster than the earth. > > 2) Let's take a bird's-eye view of the Solar System, from a point stationary relative to the Sun (say above its north pole). We can see the Earth moving along its orbit. > Let's put Bob in a rocketship (again, powered off, just coasting inertially), also stationary relative to the sun, but on Earth's orbital path (or just to the side). > So Bob looks through his window to see Earth approaching then receeding from him at (naturally enough) Earth's orbital velocity of v = 30 km/sec. > So, since it is the Earth that is clearly the one that is moving in its orbit rather than Bob, then obviously you would say that it is the Earth's clocks that must be the ones that are time dilated - certainly slower than those positioned stationary relative to the Sun (such as those on Bob's rocketship). As stated above, in that situation Bob in his rocket ship is moving faster around the sun than the earth. So, Bob's clock would run slower. > > So do I understand your position correctly, that you agree with both (1) and (2) ? No, I disagree with you on both. (snip more of the same) This is my final post on this thread. Bye bye. Ed
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ufonaut <ufonaut9@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-04-28 17:25 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <c26ab967-3b34-4834-a561-c89cd3471b7en@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #584367 |
On Friday, April 29, 2022 at 1:12:28 AM UTC+10, det...@outlook.com wrote: > > Your comment is hopelessly muddled. EVERYTHING in our observable universe > is MOVING. …. > This is my final post on this thread. Bye bye. > > Ed OK, I’m going to reply, and we can continue next time you visit the board :) You say MY comment is muddled ????? Not at all - my scenarios were clear and explicit; What you are seeing is the reflection of your muddled inconsistencies. For example, you make the statement “EVERYTHING in our observable universe is MOVING. “ in your thread that you title (EMPHASIS mine) : “STATIONARY points in space”. Do you honestly not see that claiming BOTH that “everything is moving” AND that there are “stationary points in space” is muddled contradiction ? What IS true is the mainstream position - the ONLY thing we can talk about is RELATIVE motion between objects, and it is a mistake to ascribe any meaning to “stationary” except relative to something else. That is NOT muddled at all, and is fully consistent with all Einstein’s writings. Of course, such relative motion is reciprocal. You then go on to say : On Friday, April 29, 2022 at 1:12:28 AM UTC+10, det...@outlook.com wrote: > On Thursday, April 28, 2022 at 8:11:35 AM UTC-5, Ufonaut wrote: > > 2) … Let's put Bob in a rocketship (again, powered off, just coasting inertially), also stationary relative to the sun, but on Earth's orbital path (or just to the side). … > As stated above, in that situation Bob in his rocket ship is moving faster around the > sun than the earth. So, Bob's clock would run slower. So your response to a rocket ship that is EXPLICITLY stated to be “stationary relative to the sun” is that that “rocket ship is moving faster around the sun than the earth.” What ?????? Again, it is not my scenario that is muddled, but your response. And I note that you did not even attempt to state any position about Charles (who is sitting stationary at one of your “stationary points in space”) regards himself as stationary and the Earth moving, as the Earth is moving past that stationary point in space. Still, let’s see what we have taken out of this. Previously, your statements have been : On Wednesday, April 27, 2022 at 1:30:47 AM UTC+10, det...@outlook.com wrote: > It takes ENERGY to make something move in our universe. Yet you argue > that due to "relative motion" it can be claimed that a rocket can be viewed as > moving away from the stationary earth, or you can view the earth as moving > away from a stationary rocket. That is MORONIC. However, you DO now accept that for at least some rocket ships, the clocks on Earth do tick slower than that rocket ship’s clocks. (*) Would that not mean that for a passenger on such a rocket ship, it would be a perfectly valid (not MORONIC) view that it is the Earth (rather than his rocket ship) that is moving - which is why the Earth’s clocks are velocity-time-dilated ticking slower than his ? Ah well, next time. (*) and for other readers, yes I know in SR this is reciprocal :)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Stan Fultoni <fultonistan@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-04-25 12:00 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <323518ca-8f63-4e70-be6d-0517e7a9af15n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #583997 |
On Monday, April 25, 2022 at 8:26:57 AM UTC-7, det...@outlook.com wrote: > We also know that when a moving atom emits a photon, that atom continues to > move after the photon has gone. Wait... you can't talk about an atom either being in a state of motion or rest without specifying a system of reference. Is your refrigerator moving? In terms of your kitchen's rest frame, your refrigerator is not moving, but in terms of other frames of reference it is moving. If you want to declare that your refrigerator has some absolute state of motion, then you are tacitly asserting an absolute rest frame. For example, you may claim that the frame in which the CMBR is isotropic is the absolute rest frame. But the equations of physics all take the same simple homogeneous and isotropic form when expressed in terms of any inertial reference system, regardless of how that system is moving relative to the CMBR isotropic frame. So this doesn't help you in your crusade to deny modern physics. > > So, I ask you again to tell me: What is the point in space where your refrigerator was > > 24 hours ago? Are you going to base your answer on "what you see"? Or (my prediction) > > are you just going to run away and refuse to answer? > > 24 hours ago, my refrigerator was 67,000 x 24 miles away behind us as the earth orbits > the sun. And it was 486,000 x 24 miles away behind us as the sun orbits the center of > the Milky Way galaxy. And the Milky Way galaxy is also moving through space, so my > refrigerator was 1,342,161 x 24 miles behind us as a result of that movement. Aha, so you're taking the isotropic CMBR frame as absolute rest. Okay, you can do that, but, again, it doesn't contradict local Lorentz invariance, which is what you are trying to deny. > I have only one frame of reference: ME at my location. But your solipsistic claim is inconsistent with your statement just above that declares the CMBR isotropic frame to be the absolute rest frame, and that is the frame that determines (according to you) the absolute position of every event. That totally contradicts your solipsistic claim that the only frame that matters is Ed Lake's rest frame. Make up your mind. I ask again, where was your refrigerator 24 hours ago? Are you going to answer in terms of your frame of reference (which you say is the only one you have), or are you going to answer in terms of the CMBR frame (as you did above)? > The question isn't about inertial frames or anything at rest. It is > about the POINT IN SPACE where a photon originated... But the "point in space" where the photon was emitted (or where your refrigerator was 24 hours ago) depends on what system of reference you are using. If you want a single unique answer, you need to choose some frame as the absolute rest frame, such as the isotropic CMBR frame. But (1) that doesn't contradict local Lorentz invariance, so it doesn't help you, and (2) you contradict yourself when you say you are only using your own rest frame.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-04-24 13:51 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <ee18eb92-e17f-4796-b0c6-5f07f34148c9n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #583930 |
El domingo, 24 de abril de 2022 a las 16:14:20 UTC-4, det...@outlook.com escribiĂł: > On Sunday, April 24, 2022 at 2:11:28 PM UTC-5, Stan Fultoni wrote: > > Not true. See Copernicus. Do you believe the earth revolves around the sun? Do you think the earth rotates? Or do all the stars in the heavens rotate on a giant crystal shell centered on Ed Lake? > I didn't say anything about anything being "centered" on me. I understand that > I am on a spinning earth, and that the earth is orbiting the sun, and that the sun > is orbiting the center of the Milky Way galaxy. Those facts have NOTHING to do > with the fact that light traveled in a straight line from where the light photons were > emitted to where I observed the light through my telescope. > > Andromeda moved away from where I see it, and when it emitted its light I didn't > even exist, nor did anyone on earth. The light from Andromeda traveled in a straight > line from the STATIONARY POINT IN SPACE where it was emitted to the STATIONARY > POINT IN SPACE where my eye happened to be when I saw the light. The photons > I saw were not seen by anyone else in the universe. They all see different photons. Actually what you say is wrong. For a proof, just visit and carefully read https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Einstein_ring Light (and all other forms of radiation) follows geodesics paths. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geodesic
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-04-25 09:20 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <b9878aa0-2dd7-4141-acee-32b09a97a8efn@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #583936 |
On Sunday, April 24, 2022 at 3:51:16 PM UTC-5, Paparios wrote: > El domingo, 24 de abril de 2022 a las 16:14:20 UTC-4, escribiĂł: > > On Sunday, April 24, 2022 at 2:11:28 PM UTC-5, Stan Fultoni wrote: > > > > Not true. See Copernicus. Do you believe the earth revolves around the sun? Do you think the earth rotates? Or do all the stars in the heavens rotate on a giant crystal shell centered on Ed Lake? > > > I didn't say anything about anything being "centered" on me. I understand that > > I am on a spinning earth, and that the earth is orbiting the sun, and that the sun > > is orbiting the center of the Milky Way galaxy. Those facts have NOTHING to do > > with the fact that light traveled in a straight line from where the light photons were > > emitted to where I observed the light through my telescope. > > > > Andromeda moved away from where I see it, and when it emitted its light I didn't > > even exist, nor did anyone on earth. The light from Andromeda traveled in a straight > > line from the STATIONARY POINT IN SPACE where it was emitted to the STATIONARY > > POINT IN SPACE where my eye happened to be when I saw the light. The photons > > I saw were not seen by anyone else in the universe. They all see different photons. > Actually what you say is wrong. For a proof, just visit and carefully read https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Einstein_ring > > Light (and all other forms of radiation) follows geodesics paths. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geodesic That is about the most idiotic thing anyone has written on this forum. If light followed the curvature of the earth, we'd be able to see around the world from atop the Empire State Building. When light passes through some substance, like air or water, it travels in a straight line from one atom to the next, BUT each atom can send the NEW photon off in a random direction to find the next atom. So, when light travels through some substance it can change direction. That substance can also be the "atmosphere" of stars. In a vacuum, however, there is nothing to cause a change in direction. Ed
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-04-25 16:28 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <t46i7v$of5$2@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #584007 |
Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> wrote: > On Sunday, April 24, 2022 at 3:51:16 PM UTC-5, Paparios wrote: >> El domingo, 24 de abril de 2022 a las 16:14:20 UTC-4, escribió: >>> On Sunday, April 24, 2022 at 2:11:28 PM UTC-5, Stan Fultoni wrote: >> >>>> Not true. See Copernicus. Do you believe the earth revolves around the >>>> sun? Do you think the earth rotates? Or do all the stars in the >>>> heavens rotate on a giant crystal shell centered on Ed Lake? >> >>> I didn't say anything about anything being "centered" on me. I understand that >>> I am on a spinning earth, and that the earth is orbiting the sun, and that the sun >>> is orbiting the center of the Milky Way galaxy. Those facts have NOTHING to do >>> with the fact that light traveled in a straight line from where the light photons were >>> emitted to where I observed the light through my telescope. >>> >>> Andromeda moved away from where I see it, and when it emitted its light I didn't >>> even exist, nor did anyone on earth. The light from Andromeda traveled in a straight >>> line from the STATIONARY POINT IN SPACE where it was emitted to the STATIONARY >>> POINT IN SPACE where my eye happened to be when I saw the light. The photons >>> I saw were not seen by anyone else in the universe. They all see different photons. >> Actually what you say is wrong. For a proof, just visit and carefully read >> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Einstein_ring >> >> Light (and all other forms of radiation) follows geodesics paths. See >> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geodesic > > That is about the most idiotic thing anyone has written on this forum. If light followed > the curvature of the earth, we'd be able to see around the world from atop the Empire > State Building. > > When light passes through some substance, like air or water, it travels in a straight line > from one atom to the next No, actually, it does not. Feynman’s little book, The Character of Physical Law, might help you. > , BUT each atom can send the NEW photon off in a random > direction to find the next atom. So, when light travels through some substance it can > change direction. That substance can also be the "atmosphere" of stars. > > In a vacuum, however, there is nothing to cause a change in direction. There doesn’t need to be. > > Ed > -- Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-04-25 16:35 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <t46ijo$u6d$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #584013 |
Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> wrote: > Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> wrote: >> On Sunday, April 24, 2022 at 3:51:16 PM UTC-5, Paparios wrote: >>> El domingo, 24 de abril de 2022 a las 16:14:20 UTC-4, escribió: >>>> On Sunday, April 24, 2022 at 2:11:28 PM UTC-5, Stan Fultoni wrote: >>> >>>>> Not true. See Copernicus. Do you believe the earth revolves around the >>>>> sun? Do you think the earth rotates? Or do all the stars in the >>>>> heavens rotate on a giant crystal shell centered on Ed Lake? >>> >>>> I didn't say anything about anything being "centered" on me. I understand that >>>> I am on a spinning earth, and that the earth is orbiting the sun, and that the sun >>>> is orbiting the center of the Milky Way galaxy. Those facts have NOTHING to do >>>> with the fact that light traveled in a straight line from where the light photons were >>>> emitted to where I observed the light through my telescope. >>>> >>>> Andromeda moved away from where I see it, and when it emitted its light I didn't >>>> even exist, nor did anyone on earth. The light from Andromeda traveled in a straight >>>> line from the STATIONARY POINT IN SPACE where it was emitted to the STATIONARY >>>> POINT IN SPACE where my eye happened to be when I saw the light. The photons >>>> I saw were not seen by anyone else in the universe. They all see different photons. >>> Actually what you say is wrong. For a proof, just visit and carefully read >>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Einstein_ring >>> >>> Light (and all other forms of radiation) follows geodesics paths. See >>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geodesic >> >> That is about the most idiotic thing anyone has written on this forum. If light followed >> the curvature of the earth, we'd be able to see around the world from atop the Empire >> State Building. >> >> When light passes through some substance, like air or water, it travels >> in a straight line >> from one atom to the next > > No, actually, it does not. Feynman’s little book, The Character of Physical > Law, might help you. And actually, to help you avoid a severe case of Soundbititis, when you run into the statement that Feynman makes that light behaves like a particle, you’d better keep reading. Because Feynman GOES ON to mention that particles — as he is using that term — do not travel in straight lines from one atom to the next. If you read the word “particle” and interpret that to mean “like a BB or a grain of sand would travel, in a straight line from one point to another”, then you have read too much into that word. In fact, what ALL particles do is quite a bit more complicated than your common experience tells you. > >> , BUT each atom can send the NEW photon off in a random >> direction to find the next atom. So, when light travels through some substance it can >> change direction. That substance can also be the "atmosphere" of stars. >> >> In a vacuum, however, there is nothing to cause a change in direction. > > There doesn’t need to be. > >> >> Ed >> > > > -- Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-04-25 09:46 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <51cb7504-d361-4122-b104-6afc5bcd1cb8n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #584007 |
El lunes, 25 de abril de 2022 a las 12:20:04 UTC-4, det...@outlook.com escribiĂł: > On Sunday, April 24, 2022 at 3:51:16 PM UTC-5, Paparios wrote: > > > Andromeda moved away from where I see it, and when it emitted its light I didn't > > > even exist, nor did anyone on earth. The light from Andromeda traveled in a straight > > > line from the STATIONARY POINT IN SPACE where it was emitted to the STATIONARY > > > POINT IN SPACE where my eye happened to be when I saw the light. The photons > > > I saw were not seen by anyone else in the universe. They all see different photons. > > Actually what you say is wrong. For a proof, just visit and carefully read https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Einstein_ring > > > > Light (and all other forms of radiation) follows geodesics paths. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geodesic > That is about the most idiotic thing anyone has written on this forum. If light followed > the curvature of the earth, we'd be able to see around the world from atop the Empire > State Building. > That is complete nonsense. Light paths are affected by gravity. The Sun gravity curves the light path of stars, as Eddington verified in 1919 (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eddington_experiment). The Einstein rings (there are hundreds of them) prove that light from very far light sources (as shown in the diagram in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Einstein_ring) are bent by the gravity of closer objects, where the massive object acts like a lens. > When light passes through some substance, like air or water, it travels in a straight line > from one atom to the next, BUT each atom can send the NEW photon off in a random > direction to find the next atom. So, when light travels through some substance it can > change direction. That substance can also be the "atmosphere" of stars. > > In a vacuum, however, there is nothing to cause a change in direction. > For sure there are, as you could understand if you read the references provided to you. You are calling idiocies to very well known astronomic observations, which are totally explained by using General Relativity. You need to study more before spouting nonsense as you do with everyone of your posts. No wonder the sites you publish your nonsense avoid to deal with you.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-04-25 10:00 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <1ffd267f-9ad1-4c7c-91b3-296aba296060n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #584024 |
On Monday, 25 April 2022 at 18:46:42 UTC+2, Paparios wrote: > El lunes, 25 de abril de 2022 a las 12:20:04 UTC-4, det...@outlook.com escribiĂł: > > On Sunday, April 24, 2022 at 3:51:16 PM UTC-5, Paparios wrote: > > > > > Andromeda moved away from where I see it, and when it emitted its light I didn't > > > > even exist, nor did anyone on earth. The light from Andromeda traveled in a straight > > > > line from the STATIONARY POINT IN SPACE where it was emitted to the STATIONARY > > > > POINT IN SPACE where my eye happened to be when I saw the light. The photons > > > > I saw were not seen by anyone else in the universe. They all see different photons. > > > > Actually what you say is wrong. For a proof, just visit and carefully read https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Einstein_ring > > > > > > Light (and all other forms of radiation) follows geodesics paths. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geodesic > > > That is about the most idiotic thing anyone has written on this forum. If light followed > > the curvature of the earth, we'd be able to see around the world from atop the Empire > > State Building. > > > That is complete nonsense. Light paths are affected by gravity. The Sun gravity curves the light path of stars A pity that, according to your insane Shit - light paths [in vacuum] are always straight/geodesic lines.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Michael Moroney <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-04-25 19:07 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <t479j7$hdd$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #584028 |
On 4/25/2022 1:00 PM, Maciej Wozniak wrote: > A pity that, according to your insane Shit - light paths > [in vacuum] are always straight/geodesic lines. Straight or geodesic, Janitor. No "/" gibberish, one or the other.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 5 of 10 — ← Prev page 1 … 3 4 [5] 6 7 … 10 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity
csiph-web