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 8 of 10 — ← Prev page 1 … 6 7 [8] 9 10 Next page →
| From | RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-04-27 14:08 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <882464e5-d11d-4742-9a78-582f2477519dn@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #584279 |
On April 27, det...@outlook.com wrote: > I'm just using LOGIC instead of mathematics, > because LOGIC is the basis for understanding. > WE are at the center of our "observable universe." We can see 13.8 billion > light years in all directions. Yes. > WE KNOW that the universe did not form around us, because that is > ILLOGICAL. We KNOW that? We SEE the universe expanding away from us, in all directions! The problem is your DEFECTIVE logic, which is nought but your BELIEF that the center is "somewhere else". It is ILLOGICAL and ANTI-SCIENTIFIC. > No science supports such an idea. What? Science is based on OBSERVATION, that's how we contact REALITY. > Therefore it MUST have begun somewhere else. > We see no POINT in our "observable universe" > which everything else is moving away from. What? The center point is the sun! > Therefore the universe MUST have begun outside of our "observable universe." If your theory doesn't agree with experiment, it's WRONG. Your FANTASY. -- Rich
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-04-28 07:33 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <d7d3d9de-5c4f-4052-a04c-68e2833b96b1n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #584313 |
On Wednesday, April 27, 2022 at 4:08:41 PM UTC-5, RichD wrote: > On April 27, com wrote: > > I'm just using LOGIC instead of mathematics, > > because LOGIC is the basis for understanding. > > WE are at the center of our "observable universe." We can see 13.8 billion > > light years in all directions. > Yes. > > WE KNOW that the universe did not form around us, because that is > > ILLOGICAL. > We KNOW that? We SEE the universe expanding away from us, > in all directions! Yes, but we would ALSO see the same thing if the universe was expanding away from some other point. I've explained that before. All that is needed is for the Big Bang to expand like unleashing springs, instead of like an explosion. The first springs released travel faster than the next springs. That will result in every place in the observable universe to seem like everything is moving away from that place. > > The problem is your DEFECTIVE logic, which is nought but your BELIEF > that the center is "somewhere else". It is ILLOGICAL and ANTI-SCIENTIFIC. It is totally logical and totally scientific. There are NO REMNANTS of anything that could CAUSE everything else in the universe to move away from us. > > No science supports such an idea. > What? > Science is based on OBSERVATION, that's how we contact REALITY. Right. PLUS you need to UNDERSTAND what you see. There is nothing on earth or near the sun that could push away the rest of the universe. > > Therefore it MUST have begun somewhere else. > > We see no POINT in our "observable universe" > > which everything else is moving away from. > What? > The center point is the sun! That is only an ILLUSION. People on planets around every star would see the same thing. > > Therefore the universe MUST have begun outside of our "observable universe." > If your theory doesn't agree with experiment, it's WRONG. > Your FANTASY. This is my last posting session for this thread. I have better things to do than the explain the same things over and over and over and over and over. Ed
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Michael Moroney <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-04-28 11:50 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <t4ed4n$qov$3@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #584361 |
On 4/28/2022 10:33 AM, Ed Lake wrote: > This is my last posting session for this thread. I have better things to do than > the explain the same things over and over and over and over and over. > > Ed Run away!! Run away!!!!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-04-28 11:49 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <jcvusbFrfj5U1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #584373 |
On 4/28/2022 10:50 AM, Michael Moroney wrote: > On 4/28/2022 10:33 AM, Ed Lake wrote: > >> This is my last posting session for this thread. I have better things >> to do than >> the explain the same things over and over and over and over and over. >> >> Ed > > Run away!! Run away!!!! He is!! He is!!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Colin Ohba <owfs@gcftghsf.tk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-04-30 21:30 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <pan$5c943$4ae8b7bb$27b5cdbe$8a84b0bc@gcftghsf.tk> |
| In reply to | #584160 |
The Starmaker wrote: >> not true, it travels spherically. Even lasers travels in steradians, >> hence still spherically, and gets "lesser", or rather spread >> spherically. I wonder how it relates to photons. > > Stars, the origin of stars...whence they came from...the Stationary > Points in Space, had no curvature in space then. new to me. However, as EM you 2D integrate the amplitude over surface, which becomes weaker further away from the sources. However as photons, the probability amplitude *has_to* flattens and fall, further away from the source. I can't really interpret the later regarding the macro_scale.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-04-30 16:09 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <626DC1B7.3E79@ix.netcom.com> |
| In reply to | #584573 |
Colin Ohba wrote: > > The Starmaker wrote: > > >> not true, it travels spherically. Even lasers travels in steradians, > >> hence still spherically, and gets "lesser", or rather spread > >> spherically. I wonder how it relates to photons. > > > > Stars, the origin of stars...whence they came from...the Stationary > > Points in Space, had no curvature in space then. > > new to me. However, as EM you 2D integrate the amplitude over surface, > which becomes weaker further away from the sources. However as photons, > the probability amplitude *has_to* flattens and fall, further away from > the source. I can't really interpret the later regarding the macro_scale. it's new to you because I'm refering to...Before the big bang, whence they came from, not After the big bang. -- 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]
| From | Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-04-30 13:10 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <gOadndLB_PUS5vD_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #584160 |
On 4/26/22 3:04 PM, Ed Lake wrote: > Years ago it was determined that everything in our visible universe > is moving away from the point of the Big Bang. You OBVIOUSLY do not know anything about the big bang. This is COMPLETELY WRONG, as there is no "point of the big bang". > I just looked through the top 3 physics textbooks. NONE contains a > description of a photon. Because you're looking at a list of ELEMENTARY physics textbooks. Photons are an aspect of QED, which is an advanced topic that students don't learn about until graduate school. (There's no point in giving you a list of such textbooks, as you don't understand the elementary books you claim to have "read".) > Virtually every source describes a photon as consisting of > oscillating electric and magnetic fields. They are all wrong. I cannot help it if idiots and know-nothings outnumber experts, so Google prioritizes their nonsense over correct information. And I cannot help it that you are so stupid you don't recognize your own incompetence in distinguishing lies and misinformation from correct descriptions. > We know that light travels in straight lines, so we can trace a > photon back to its point of origin. Yes. (Well, light travels along null geodesics, which in the curved spacetime of the world we inhabit cannot really be called "straight lines".) > It is a stationary point in space where some ATOM was located when it > emitted the photon. Assertions like this are not facts. Rather, the photon was emitted at a particular point in spacetime; "stationary" simply does not apply to such points, as they have zero temporal duration. > I've read Einstein's 1905 paper dozens of times. No, your eyes may have traversed the text, but you CLEARLY have never read it with anything approaching understanding. > Every photon that is emitted is emitted from a stationary point in > space. Assertions are not facts. In fact, in our current best models of the world, photons are emitted from a point in spacetime, to which "stationary" simply does not apply. > the first postulate says nothing about any preferred frame. SURE IT DOES! It's just that you don't understand any of this. Einstein's first postulate directly states that there is no such thing as a "preferred frame" (in the sense that such a frame appears explicitly in the laws of physics). Every time you claim something is "stationary", you are implicitly invoking such a preferred frame, that the first postulate says does not exist. > How do we know the point of emission is stationary? "We" don't -- it is only YOU who fantasizes this, because you don't know the meanings of the words you use, or the concepts of physics that are involved. > The Big Bang put everything in motion relative to the stationary > point of the Big Bang You just keep demonstrating that you know NOTHING AT ALL about the big bang -- there is no "stationary point of the big bang", because those concepts are incommensurate. You REALLY need to learn how to read, and how to understand what you have read. Tom Roberts
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Colin Ohba <owfs@gcftghsf.tk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-04-30 18:28 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <pan$f14a6$f95bbb88$30947de7$ced81b49@gcftghsf.tk> |
| In reply to | #584577 |
Tom Roberts wrote: >> We know that light travels in straight lines, so we can trace a photon >> back to its point of origin. > > Yes. (Well, light travels along null geodesics, which in the curved > spacetime of the world we inhabit cannot really be called "straight > lines".) not true, it travels spherically. Even lasers travels in steradians, hence still spherically, and gets "lesser", or rather spread spherically. I wonder how it relates to photons.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-04-30 14:24 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <626DA924.6AE1@ix.netcom.com> |
| In reply to | #584595 |
Colin Ohba wrote: > > Tom Roberts wrote: > > >> We know that light travels in straight lines, so we can trace a photon > >> back to its point of origin. > > > > Yes. (Well, light travels along null geodesics, which in the curved > > spacetime of the world we inhabit cannot really be called "straight > > lines".) > > not true, it travels spherically. Even lasers travels in steradians, hence > still spherically, and gets "lesser", or rather spread spherically. I > wonder how it relates to photons. Stars, the origin of stars...whence they came from...the Stationary Points in Space, had no curvature in space then. The Big Dipper which existed at the big bang contains 4 stars at points perpendicular to each other. The other handle of the big dipper simply lost is way. Each star then existed at a Stationary Point in Space, like billions of big dippers without the handles. things were in order then.. The Starmaker btw, the earth is the center of the universe. It is the focal point of the universe. -- 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]
| From | The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-05-01 12:15 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <626EDC5E.694B@ix.netcom.com> |
| In reply to | #584600 |
The Starmaker wrote: > > btw, the earth is the center of the universe. > > It is the focal point of the universe. I understand it is a little differcult for yous to understand and see the center of the universe... Look at a woman.. Where is her Center? ..the focal point, also known at the...entertainment center? Where life comes from? The center of a woman. The only thing you focus on... Now, where is the center of the universe? Where is the focus of the universe? It would have to be where chemical operations and activity are taking place. Where life is. Now, where is the center of the universe? -- 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]
| From | Clutterfreak <clutterfreakincarnate@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-05-01 14:52 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <t4moeo$1mlo1$1@solani.org> |
| In reply to | #584631 |
On 5/1/2022 2:15 PM, The Starmaker wrote: > Now, where is the center of the universe? What does the 1940s comic books say about it? -- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-04-27 10:08 +0300 |
| Message-ID | <t4aq55$2d1$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #584130 |
On 2022-04-26 16:13:10 +0000, Ed Lake said: > On Tuesday, April 26, 2022 at 4:46:34 AM UTC-5, Mikko wrote: >> On 2022-04-25 17:04:21 +0000, Ed Lake said: >>> On Monday, April 25, 2022 at 2:56:08 AM UTC-5, Mikko wrote: >>>> So how do you know that the Andromeda galaxy is moving? > > Evidently, Mikko's question was "So how do you know that the Andromeda > galaxy is moving?" > > Because we know that everything we can see is moving. The earth spins > on its axis at about 1,040 mph. The earth orbits the sun at 67,000 mph. > The sun orbits the center of the Milky Way galaxy at 486,000 mph. And > the Milky Way Galaxy is moving in the direction of the constellation Hydra > at 1,342,161 mph. For the others the evidence is obvious but how do you know that Milky Way is moving, let alone its speed and direction? > Using trigonometry we can view things from one point in space in the > summer and from another point about 185 million miles away in the winter. > That allows us to measure distances to some objects in space. A type > of star called a "Cepheid variable" pulses at a specific rate, and > because light travels at a specific rate, we can determine how far away > a Cepheid variable is even if it is trillions of miles away. This way we can measure the distance to the Andromeda galaxy but the distance does not change enough to observe motion so how is its motion observed and measured? > And, of course, there are ways to measure changes in light frequency and > in photon arrival frequencies. We cannot compare photon arrival rates on Earth to their emission rates in Andromeda Galaxy as we were not there two and half million years ago to measure it. Frequencies of emissions and absorptions by atoms are known so it is possible to compare them to the observed frequencies and determine the blue shift. But what is the connection of blue shift to the motion of light source? The article https://vixra.org/pdf/2204.0016v2.pdf says that there is no connection. If the only way that this motion is ever observed is invalid then there is no justification to the claim that the Andromeda galaxy is moving. > Or we can just Google the answer: > https://skyandtelescope.org/astronomy-resources/astronomy-questions-answers/is-it-true-that-the-andromeda-galaxy-is-blueshifted-and-moving-toward-us/ > It only tells the result but does not say how those results are obtained or why we should believe them. But of course we already know that light from a moving object is blueshifted and that's how we know that the Andromed galaxy is approaching. Mikko
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-04-27 03:01 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <jcsbimF64ojU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #584218 |
On 4/27/2022 2:08 AM, Mikko wrote: > On 2022-04-26 16:13:10 +0000, Ed Lake said: > >> On Tuesday, April 26, 2022 at 4:46:34 AM UTC-5, Mikko wrote: >>> On 2022-04-25 17:04:21 +0000, Ed Lake said: > >>>> On Monday, April 25, 2022 at 2:56:08 AM UTC-5, Mikko wrote: > >>>>> So how do you know that the Andromeda galaxy is moving? >> >> Evidently, Mikko's question was "So how do you know that the Andromeda >> galaxy is moving?" >> >> Because we know that everything we can see is moving. The earth spins >> on its axis at about 1,040 mph. The earth orbits the sun at 67,000 mph. >> The sun orbits the center of the Milky Way galaxy at 486,000 mph. And >> the Milky Way Galaxy is moving in the direction of the constellation >> Hydra >> at 1,342,161 mph. > > For the others the evidence is obvious but how do you know that Milky Way > is moving, let alone its speed and direction? Are you certain that every element of the milky way galaxy is moving as a unit? "Sprinkled around the disk and the bulge are globular clusters, collections of ancient stars, as well as approximately 40 dwarf galaxies that are either orbiting or colliding with the larger Milky Way according to a statement from ESA." And: "There is also evidence that the Milky Way collided with several smaller galaxies during its evolution. In 2018, a team of Dutch astronomers found a group of 30,000 stars moving in sync through the sun's neighborhood in the opposite direction to the rest of the stars in the data set. The motion pattern matched what scientists had previously seen in computer simulations of galactic collisions. These stars also differed in color and brightness, which suggested they came from a different galaxy" And there's a lot more meat... https://www.space.com/19915-milky-way-galaxy.html <snip>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-04-27 08:54 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <fd73a197-21d3-43af-8ad1-3cda7af68d6cn@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #584218 |
On Wednesday, April 27, 2022 at 2:08:25 AM UTC-5, Mikko wrote: > On 2022-04-26 16:13:10 +0000, Ed Lake said: > > > On Tuesday, April 26, 2022 at 4:46:34 AM UTC-5, Mikko wrote: > >> On 2022-04-25 17:04:21 +0000, Ed Lake said: > > >>> On Monday, April 25, 2022 at 2:56:08 AM UTC-5, Mikko wrote: > > >>>> So how do you know that the Andromeda galaxy is moving? > > > > Evidently, Mikko's question was "So how do you know that the Andromeda > > galaxy is moving?" > > > > Because we know that everything we can see is moving. The earth spins > > on its axis at about 1,040 mph. The earth orbits the sun at 67,000 mph. > > The sun orbits the center of the Milky Way galaxy at 486,000 mph. And > > the Milky Way Galaxy is moving in the direction of the constellation Hydra > > at 1,342,161 mph. > For the others the evidence is obvious but how do you know that Milky Way > is moving, let alone its speed and direction? We know the earth is orbiting the sun because of how the locations of stars change between summer and winter. We know how gravity keeps the earth in its orbit around the sun. We know that the stars in the Milky Way galaxy are orbiting something at the center that has the mass to cause all the orbiting. It is a black hole. There appears to be a black hole at the center of every galaxy. We know that the Milky Way and Andromeda are moving because EVERYTHING in the observable universe appears to be moving. If they are not moving in orbits, they are moving toward or away from each other. Most galaxies are moving away from each other, evidently due to the Big Bang sending everything off in different directions away from the point of the Big Bang. Knowing how gravity works allows us to DEDUCE what must have happened in the past to cause what we see today. Ed
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-04-27 17:17 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <t4btqr$1218$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #584261 |
Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> wrote: > On Wednesday, April 27, 2022 at 2:08:25 AM UTC-5, Mikko wrote: >> On 2022-04-26 16:13:10 +0000, Ed Lake said: >> >>> On Tuesday, April 26, 2022 at 4:46:34 AM UTC-5, Mikko wrote: >>>> On 2022-04-25 17:04:21 +0000, Ed Lake said: >> >>>>> On Monday, April 25, 2022 at 2:56:08 AM UTC-5, Mikko wrote: >> >>>>>> So how do you know that the Andromeda galaxy is moving? >>> >>> Evidently, Mikko's question was "So how do you know that the Andromeda >>> galaxy is moving?" >>> >>> Because we know that everything we can see is moving. The earth spins >>> on its axis at about 1,040 mph. The earth orbits the sun at 67,000 mph. >>> The sun orbits the center of the Milky Way galaxy at 486,000 mph. And >>> the Milky Way Galaxy is moving in the direction of the constellation Hydra >>> at 1,342,161 mph. >> For the others the evidence is obvious but how do you know that Milky Way >> is moving, let alone its speed and direction? > > We know the earth is orbiting the sun because of how the locations of stars > change between summer and winter. Right, the orbit is what says the Earth is moving. There is no equivalent for the motion of the Milky Way, so you can’t assert how much the Milky Way is moving, except in reference to other galaxies. > > We know how gravity keeps the earth in its orbit around the sun. > > We know that the stars in the Milky Way galaxy are orbiting something at > the center that has the mass to cause all the orbiting. It is a black hole. > There appears to be a black hole at the center of every galaxy. > > We know that the Milky Way and Andromeda are moving because EVERYTHING > in the observable universe appears to be moving. No, you don’t know that. All you know is that they are moving RELATIVE TO EACH OTHER. But in any examination of relative motion, you cannot tell whether one party is stationary and the other moving, or both moving. > If they are not moving in orbits, > they are moving toward or away from each other. Most galaxies are moving away > from each other, evidently due to the Big Bang sending everything off in different > directions away from the point of the Big Bang. There is no “point of the Big Bang”. > > Knowing how gravity works allows us to DEDUCE what must have happened in > the past to cause what we see today. > > Ed > I -- Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-04-25 13:12 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <t466nq$1maa$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #583921 |
Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> wrote: > On Sunday, April 24, 2022 at 11:06:42 AM UTC-5, Stan Fultoni wrote: >> On Sunday, April 24, 2022 at 7:56:40 AM UTC-7, wrote: >>> When I look through a telescope at Andromeda, there is no other "reference >>> system." >> When you say "no OTHER", do you mean that the only reference system that >> exists is the one in which you (Ed) are at rest at any given moment? Remember, >> your state of motion changes constantly, because of the earth's rotation, and >> it's movement around the sun, and so on. > > What I'm saying is that I DO NOT CARE about any other "reference system." > I KNOW I am not at rest. I KNOW I am moving as the earth spins on its axis and > as it orbits the sun, and as the sun orbits the center of the Milky Way galaxy. More importantly, as night turns into day, you are CHANGING your inertial reference system. *ANY* motion that involves a change in speed or direction involves a CHANGE in inertial reference system. And so you, a single observer, are constantly changing which inertial reference frames you are comoving with. > > None of that matters when I look at Andromeda. My ONLY question is: If > Andromeda is no longer where I see it, what does that MEAN about how > light is created? The atoms that created the photons I see have moved on, > but the path of the photons traces in a STRAIGHT LINE back to where those > atoms WERE 2.5 million years ago. The atoms moved, but the EMISSION POINT > IN SPACE DID NOT MOVE. > > (snip) >>> Logically, the point of origin for those photons were stationary points >>> in space. The points didn't move when Andromeda moved. >> You're not thinking logically at all. Whether or not Andromeda moved, >> and in which direction it moved, and how far it moved, depends entirely on >> what frame of reference you are using. > > I can ONLY USE ONE FRAME OF REFERENCE: myself at my location. > Any other "frame of reference" would NOT BE MY FRAME OF REFERENCE. > It would be some mathematical concoction or projection. > >> Oh, I see... you are a solipsist. Science is fundamentally opposed to solipsism, >> it refers to an external objective world. Science fundamentally rejects the >> premise that the only reality is the thoughts of (say) Ed Lake. So you won't find >> a sympathetic audience for your solipsist views among scientists. > > Solipsism is defined as the view or theory that the self is all that can > be known to exist." > > How can I be a "silpsist" if others have done the observations which show how > fast Andromeda is moving and how far away Andromeda is located? And others > built the telescope I am using, and others wrote the books I read to study science > and astronomy. > > At the moment, I'm just not concerned with Relativity and what might appear in > other "frames of reference." I'm trying to understand how light can come to me > in a straight line from a point in space where Andromeda WAS 2.5 million years > ago if that point in space is NOT STATIONARY. It MUST be stationary, otherwise > the line to it would not be straight, and the geometry would not compute to show > where the source WAS located 2.5 million years ago. > > Ed > -- Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Michael Moroney <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-04-24 13:42 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <t4426q$ac7$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #583898 |
On 4/24/2022 10:56 AM, Ed Lake wrote: > On Saturday, April 23, 2022 at 4:40:29 PM UTC-5, Stan Fultoni wrote: >> On Saturday, April 23, 2022 at 1:35:27 PM UTC-7, wrote: >>> If light moved at the same speed in all directions away from that point, >>> and if we can pinpoint that location because a star in Andromeda was >>> there 2,537,000 years ago, that point cannot be moving. >> The problem with your reasoning is that light moves at the same speed in all >> directions in terms of _every_ inertial reference system, so this doesn't enable >> you to distinguish which reference system is the absolute rest system, which >> is what you would need to declare that a supernova in Andromeda a million >> years ago occurred at "this particular point in space". > > The problem with your reasoning is exactly what Einstein meant when he said, > "As far as the laws of mathematics refer to reality, they are not certain; and as far > as they are certain, they do not refer to reality." Out of context. > > I'm talking about reality. You are talking mathematics. When I look through a > telescope at Andromeda, there is no other "reference system." There are an infinite number of reference frames. In this case, you are using a reference frame in which you are stationary and Andromeda is moving. The reality you see from where you are. Of course everyone on earth will see almost the exact same thing as you when observing Andromeda. It is equally valid, however, to use a frame where Andromeda is stationary and you are moving. An observer in Andromeda would use such a frame. > I am just trying > to understand what I see. From your own reference frame. 100% understandable. > And I see photons coming from a point in space that > I know is now empty, but Andromeda was at that point two and a half million > years ago. And here, you have subconsciously done the mathematics of physics to see how far Andromeda has moved in those 2 1/2 million years to conclude Andromeda is no longer where you see Andromeda. So, from your reference frame, that point is not in Andromeda, but somewhere "behind" Andromeda. From an observer in Andromeda, using himself as stationary in a frame, after 2 1/2 million years, the point is on a neutron star/black hole in Andromeda, the remains of the star that went supernova. I am ignoring the rotation of Andromeda and whatever proper motion the supernova remnant has wrt. the observer for this. If you do take those into account, the supernova remnant has moved during that time, so the origin point will be some (probably) empty space, but located within the Andromeda galaxy, and the supernova remnant is no longer there. Of course, in the frame of the supernova remnant itself, the event took place at itself, the remnant of the supernova event. > Logically, the point of origin for those photons were stationary points > in space. The points didn't move when Andromeda moved. Only from your reference. Events, such as a supernova explosion have a 4 coordinates (x,y,z,t) in any frame, but each frame has different (x,y,z,t) for the events. You are trying to hang on to your particular (x,y,z) for the event and calling them special. They're special to you, but not to an Andromeda based observer. > >> >> The initial pulse of light emanating from the supernova expands spherically in all >> directions at the speed c, and this is true in terms of *every* inertial reference >> system, including one in which Andromeda is at rest, and in terms of one in which >> Andromeda is moving at high speed. Your first reaction to hearing this should be >> "That's impossible! How could the burst of light expand spherically at speed c in >> terms of different systems of reference moving relative to each other?" That's the >> seeming irreconcilability that special relativity famously resolves... by the relativity >> of simultaneity. > > Again, you are talking mathematics, and I am talking reality. IN REALITY, I am the > only one making an observation. First of all, that paragraph is pure physics and reality, not math. Second, there is a whole universe out there making observations. Like it or not, physics is full of mathematics, even if you are not aware of it. Indirectly, you used mathematics subconsciously to figure out how far Andromeda moved in 2.5 million years and concluded that the point is no longer located within Andromeda.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-04-24 10:52 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <60f0ad54-f05f-4dd1-af26-add503cea8edn@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #583915 |
On Sunday, 24 April 2022 at 19:42:54 UTC+2, Michael Moroney wrote: > On 4/24/2022 10:56 AM, Ed Lake wrote: > > On Saturday, April 23, 2022 at 4:40:29 PM UTC-5, Stan Fultoni wrote: > >> On Saturday, April 23, 2022 at 1:35:27 PM UTC-7, wrote: > >>> If light moved at the same speed in all directions away from that point, > >>> and if we can pinpoint that location because a star in Andromeda was > >>> there 2,537,000 years ago, that point cannot be moving. > >> The problem with your reasoning is that light moves at the same speed in all > >> directions in terms of _every_ inertial reference system, so this doesn't enable > >> you to distinguish which reference system is the absolute rest system, which > >> is what you would need to declare that a supernova in Andromeda a million > >> years ago occurred at "this particular point in space". > > > > The problem with your reasoning is exactly what Einstein meant when he said, > > "As far as the laws of mathematics refer to reality, they are not certain; and as far > > as they are certain, they do not refer to reality." > Out of context. > > > > I'm talking about reality. You are talking mathematics. When I look through a > > telescope at Andromeda, there is no other "reference system." > There are an infinite number of reference frames. In this case, you are > using a reference frame in which you are stationary and Andromeda is > moving. The reality you see from where you are. Of course everyone on > earth will see almost the exact same thing as you when observing > Andromeda. It is equally valid, however, to use a frame where Andromeda > is stationary and you are moving. An observer in Andromeda would use > such a frame. > > I am just trying > > to understand what I see. > From your own reference frame. 100% understandable. > > And I see photons coming from a point in space that > > I know is now empty, but Andromeda was at that point two and a half million > > years ago. > And here, you have subconsciously done the mathematics of physics to see > how far Andromeda has moved in those 2 1/2 million years to conclude > Andromeda is no longer where you see Andromeda. So, from your reference > frame, that point is not in Andromeda, but somewhere "behind" Andromeda. > > From an observer in Andromeda, using himself as stationary in a frame, > after 2 1/2 million years, the point is on a neutron star/black hole in > Andromeda, the remains of the star that went supernova. I am ignoring > the rotation of Andromeda and whatever proper motion the supernova > remnant has wrt. the observer for this. If you do take those into > account, the supernova remnant has moved during that time, so the origin > point will be some (probably) empty space, but located within the > Andromeda galaxy, and the supernova remnant is no longer there. > > Of course, in the frame of the supernova remnant itself, the event took > place at itself, the remnant of the supernova event. > > Logically, the point of origin for those photons were stationary points > > in space. The points didn't move when Andromeda moved. > Only from your reference. Events, such as a supernova explosion have a > 4 coordinates (x,y,z,t) in any frame, but each frame has different > (x,y,z,t) for the events. You are trying to hang on to your particular > (x,y,z) for the event and calling them special. They're special to you, > but not to an Andromeda based observer. > > > >> > >> The initial pulse of light emanating from the supernova expands spherically in all > >> directions at the speed c, and this is true in terms of *every* inertial reference > >> system, including one in which Andromeda is at rest, and in terms of one in which > >> Andromeda is moving at high speed. Your first reaction to hearing this should be > >> "That's impossible! How could the burst of light expand spherically at speed c in > >> terms of different systems of reference moving relative to each other?" That's the > >> seeming irreconcilability that special relativity famously resolves... by the relativity > >> of simultaneity. > > > > Again, you are talking mathematics, and I am talking reality. IN REALITY, I am the > > only one making an observation. > First of all, that paragraph is pure physics and reality, not math. Or rather, pure physics and gedanken bullshit, not math. And speaking of math, it's always good to remind that your bunch of idiots had to announce its oldest part false, becuse the postulates of your idiot guru couldn't agree with it.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-04-24 11:24 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <bb044a4e-dacf-49bb-b050-fa2508e6a96an@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #583915 |
On Sunday, April 24, 2022 at 12:42:54 PM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote: > On 4/24/2022 10:56 AM, Ed Lake wrote: > > On Saturday, April 23, 2022 at 4:40:29 PM UTC-5, Stan Fultoni wrote: > >> On Saturday, April 23, 2022 at 1:35:27 PM UTC-7, wrote: > >>> If light moved at the same speed in all directions away from that point, > >>> and if we can pinpoint that location because a star in Andromeda was > >>> there 2,537,000 years ago, that point cannot be moving. > >> The problem with your reasoning is that light moves at the same speed in all > >> directions in terms of _every_ inertial reference system, so this doesn't enable > >> you to distinguish which reference system is the absolute rest system, which > >> is what you would need to declare that a supernova in Andromeda a million > >> years ago occurred at "this particular point in space". > > > > The problem with your reasoning is exactly what Einstein meant when he said, > > "As far as the laws of mathematics refer to reality, they are not certain; and as far > > as they are certain, they do not refer to reality." > Out of context. Nope. It is exactly on point. > > > > I'm talking about reality. You are talking mathematics. When I look through a > > telescope at Andromeda, there is no other "reference system." > There are an infinite number of reference frames. In this case, you are > using a reference frame in which you are stationary and Andromeda is > moving. The reality you see from where you are. Of course everyone on > earth will see almost the exact same thing as you when observing > Andromeda. It is equally valid, however, to use a frame where Andromeda > is stationary and you are moving. An observer in Andromeda would use > such a frame. I DON"T CARE about what an Observer in Andromeda would see. It has NOTHING to do with the question. The question is: Did the light that I see come from a STATIONARY POINT IN SPACE? > > I am just trying > > to understand what I see. > From your own reference frame. 100% understandable. > > And I see photons coming from a point in space that > > I know is now empty, but Andromeda was at that point two and a half million > > years ago. > And here, you have subconsciously done the mathematics of physics to see > how far Andromeda has moved in those 2 1/2 million years to conclude > Andromeda is no longer where you see Andromeda. So, from your reference > frame, that point is not in Andromeda, but somewhere "behind" Andromeda. I didn't do any mathematics. I read in a book what astronomers had observed and calculated. I have no reason to question their mathematics. > > From an observer in Andromeda, using himself as stationary in a frame, > ..... yada yada yada. I DON"T GIVE A DAMN WHAT AN OBSERVER IN ANDROMEDA SEES!!!!! I'm just trying to understand what I see. > > Logically, the point of origin for those photons were stationary points > > in space. The points didn't move when Andromeda moved. > Only from your reference. Yes. And that is ALL I am interested in. > First of all, that paragraph is pure physics and reality, not math. > Second, there is a whole universe out there making observations. WHO CARES????? I don't! > > Like it or not, physics is full of mathematics, even if you are not > aware of it. Indirectly, you used mathematics subconsciously to figure > out how far Andromeda moved in 2.5 million years and concluded that the > point is no longer located within Andromeda. Right. I let someone else do the math. All I am wondering about is the implications of that math. The implication is that the light I see came from STATIONARY POINTS IN SPACE. Ed
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Dong Vassilikos <saox@cowrpsho.rb> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-04-24 20:47 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <pan$2b606$f628d83d$6d732a8c$3c821e56@cowrpsho.rb> |
| In reply to | #583922 |
Ed Lake wrote: > I DON"T CARE about what an Observer in Andromeda would see. It has > NOTHING to do with the question. The question is: Did the light that I > see come from a STATIONARY POINT IN SPACE? you never know unless compared to something similar known to be stationary, or moving to a certain speed.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 8 of 10 — ← Prev page 1 … 6 7 [8] 9 10 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity
csiph-web