Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #595704 > unrolled thread
| Started by | patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2022-11-19 15:10 -0800 |
| Last post | 2022-11-23 12:59 -0800 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 94 — 15 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.physics.relativity
How much gravity is too much gravity? patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2022-11-19 15:10 -0800
Re: How much gravity is too much gravity? rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2022-11-19 15:55 -0800
Re: How much gravity is too much gravity? patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2022-11-19 18:11 -0800
Re: How much gravity is too much gravity? rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2022-11-19 19:10 -0800
Re: How much gravity is too much gravity? patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2022-11-19 19:47 -0800
Re: How much gravity is too much gravity? patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2022-11-19 20:01 -0800
Re: How much gravity is too much gravity? rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2022-11-19 20:09 -0800
Re: How much gravity is too much gravity? patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2022-11-19 20:17 -0800
Re: How much gravity is too much gravity? rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2022-11-19 20:34 -0800
Re: How much gravity is too much gravity? Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2022-11-20 15:33 -0500
Re: How much gravity is too much gravity? Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2022-11-20 22:10 -0800
Re: How much gravity is too much gravity? "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> - 2022-11-20 14:14 +0100
Re: How much gravity is too much gravity? patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2022-11-20 08:02 -0800
Re: How much gravity is too much gravity? "Dono." <eggy20011951@gmail.com> - 2022-11-20 08:14 -0800
Re: How much gravity is too much gravity? patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2022-11-20 08:19 -0800
Re: How much gravity is too much gravity? patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2022-11-20 08:23 -0800
Imbecile Pat Dolan perseveres "Dono." <eggy20011951@gmail.com> - 2022-11-20 10:41 -0800
Re: How much gravity is too much gravity? "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> - 2022-11-20 22:36 +0100
Re: How much gravity is too much gravity? patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2022-11-20 15:36 -0800
Re: How much gravity is too much gravity? "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> - 2022-11-21 13:28 +0100
Re: How much gravity is too much gravity? patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2022-11-21 06:44 -0800
Re: How much gravity is too much gravity? "mitchr...@gmail.com" <mitchrae3323@gmail.com> - 2022-11-21 10:37 -0800
Re: How much gravity is too much gravity? "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> - 2022-11-21 19:44 +0100
Re: How much gravity is too much gravity? patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2022-11-21 11:32 -0800
Re: How much gravity is too much gravity? "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> - 2022-11-21 22:47 +0100
Re: How much gravity is too much gravity? patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2022-11-21 14:23 -0800
Re: How much gravity is too much gravity? patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2022-11-21 14:24 -0800
Re: How much gravity is too much gravity? "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> - 2022-11-22 13:21 +0100
Re: How much gravity is too much gravity? patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2022-11-22 10:06 -0800
Re: How much gravity is too much gravity? "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> - 2022-11-22 19:55 +0100
Re: How much gravity is too much gravity? patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2022-11-22 11:20 -0800
Re: How much gravity is too much gravity? Paul Alsing <pnalsing@gmail.com> - 2022-11-22 19:14 -0800
Re: How much gravity is too much gravity? patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2022-11-23 00:04 -0800
Re: How much gravity is too much gravity? Prokaryotic Capase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2022-11-22 19:57 -0800
Re: How much gravity is too much gravity? patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2022-11-23 00:08 -0800
Re: How much gravity is too much gravity? "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> - 2022-11-23 12:05 +0100
Re: How much gravity is too much gravity? Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2022-11-23 03:26 -0800
Re: How much gravity is too much gravity? nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2022-11-23 14:50 +0100
Re: How much gravity is too much gravity? Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2022-11-23 06:57 -0800
Re: How much gravity is too much gravity? Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2022-11-23 12:24 -0500
Re: How much gravity is too much gravity? Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2022-11-23 09:36 -0800
Re: How much gravity is too much gravity? "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> - 2022-11-23 14:20 +0100
Re: How much gravity is too much gravity? patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2022-11-23 10:09 -0800
Re: How much gravity is too much gravity? "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> - 2022-11-24 20:36 +0100
Re: How much gravity is too much gravity? patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2022-11-24 14:27 -0800
Re: How much gravity is too much gravity? "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> - 2022-11-25 12:27 +0100
Re: How much gravity is too much gravity? patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2022-11-25 07:23 -0800
Re: How much gravity is too much gravity? "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> - 2022-11-26 10:42 +0100
Re: How much gravity is too much gravity? patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2022-11-26 07:59 -0800
Re: How much gravity is too much gravity? "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> - 2022-11-26 22:42 +0100
Re: How much gravity is too much gravity? patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2022-11-26 20:24 -0800
Re: How much gravity is too much gravity? "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> - 2022-11-27 13:14 +0100
Re: How much gravity is too much gravity? "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> - 2022-11-27 13:27 +0100
Re: How much gravity is too much gravity? Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2022-11-27 04:36 -0800
Re: How much gravity is too much gravity? patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2022-11-27 09:28 -0800
Re: How much gravity is too much gravity? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2022-11-27 12:16 -0800
Re: How much gravity is too much gravity? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2022-11-28 14:38 -0800
Re: How much gravity is too much gravity? Jim Pennino <jimp@gonzo.specsol.net> - 2022-11-28 15:02 -0800
Re: How much gravity is too much gravity? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2022-11-28 16:35 -0800
Re: How much gravity is too much gravity? Jim Pennino <jimp@gonzo.specsol.net> - 2022-11-28 16:50 -0800
Re: How much gravity is too much gravity? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2022-11-28 19:54 -0800
Re: How much gravity is too much gravity? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2022-11-30 11:59 -0800
Re: How much gravity is too much gravity? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2022-12-03 10:38 -0800
Re: How much gravity is too much gravity? Bobby Spanò <byy@bybpbayo.ay> - 2022-11-29 18:07 +0000
Re: How much gravity is too much gravity? Bobby Spanò <byy@bybpbayo.ay> - 2022-11-29 18:12 +0000
Re: How much gravity is too much gravity? "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> - 2022-11-28 12:53 +0100
Re: How much gravity is too much gravity? patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2022-11-28 10:43 -0800
Re: How much gravity is too much gravity? patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2022-11-29 10:22 -0800
Re: How much gravity is too much gravity? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2022-11-29 11:33 -0800
Re: How much gravity is too much gravity? "mitchr...@gmail.com" <mitchrae3323@gmail.com> - 2022-11-25 12:45 -0800
Re: How much gravity is too much gravity? patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2022-11-25 13:24 -0800
Cretin Pat Dolan admits he's a clown "Dono." <eggy20011951@gmail.com> - 2022-11-22 07:22 -0800
Re: How much gravity is too much gravity? Paul Alsing <pnalsing@gmail.com> - 2022-11-19 18:18 -0800
Re: How much gravity is too much gravity? Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2022-11-19 23:22 -0800
Re: How much gravity is too much gravity? "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2022-11-19 20:32 -0800
Re: How much gravity is too much gravity? patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2022-11-19 20:42 -0800
Re: How much gravity is too much gravity? patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2022-11-19 20:50 -0800
Re: How much gravity is too much gravity? whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2022-11-20 00:08 -0600
Re: How much gravity is too much gravity? Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2022-11-19 23:23 -0800
Re: How much gravity is too much gravity? "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> - 2022-11-20 14:08 +0100
Re: How much gravity is too much gravity? "mitchr...@gmail.com" <mitchrae3323@gmail.com> - 2022-11-20 12:20 -0800
Re: How much gravity is too much gravity? "mitchr...@gmail.com" <mitchrae3323@gmail.com> - 2022-11-23 10:42 -0800
Re: How much gravity is too much gravity? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2022-11-23 12:19 -0800
Re: How much gravity is too much gravity? patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2022-11-23 12:41 -0800
Re: How much gravity is too much gravity? "mitchr...@gmail.com" <mitchrae3323@gmail.com> - 2022-11-23 13:07 -0800
Re: How much gravity is too much gravity? patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2022-11-23 13:33 -0800
Re: How much gravity is too much gravity? Paul Alsing <pnalsing@gmail.com> - 2022-11-23 14:12 -0800
Re: How much gravity is too much gravity? patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2022-11-23 17:20 -0800
Re: How much gravity is too much gravity? Paul Alsing <pnalsing@gmail.com> - 2022-11-23 18:43 -0800
Re: How much gravity is too much gravity? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2022-11-24 14:47 -0800
Re: How much gravity is too much gravity? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2022-11-25 20:03 -0800
Re: How much gravity is too much gravity? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2022-11-26 11:57 -0800
Re: How much gravity is too much gravity? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2022-11-28 14:01 -0800
Re: How much gravity is too much gravity? "mitchr...@gmail.com" <mitchrae3323@gmail.com> - 2022-11-23 12:59 -0800
Page 4 of 5 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4] 5 Next page →
| From | The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-11-28 19:54 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <63858260.7C57@ix.netcom.com> |
| In reply to | #596393 |
Jim Pennino wrote: > > In sci.physics The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> wrote: > > Jim Pennino wrote: > >> > >> In sci.physics The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> wrote: > >> > >> <snip piles of old crap? > >> > >> > Now, everyone knows that all the planets run clockwise and counterclockwise.. > >> > the whole universe runs run clockwise and counterclockwise... > >> > > >> > but the machinery behind these clockwise and counterclockwise objects in > >> > the universe no one seems to bother to investitgate. > >> > >> Maybe because clockwise and counterclockwise are the only choices that > >> exit, idiot. > >> > >> As to whether some thing is going clockwise or counterclockwise, it > >> depends on how you are looking at the thing, idiot. > > > > Well that is simply not true... > > > > > > Every planet in our solar system except for Venus and Uranus rotates counter-clockwise as seen from above the North Pole. > > See above and read it slowly, idiot. > > > > > So, if you're looking at it from either from above or below it's STILL clockwise and counterclockwise. > > See above and read it slowly, idiot. You're too close to the clock to see the machinery....guinea. -- 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 | 2022-11-30 11:59 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <6387B62D.75D8@ix.netcom.com> |
| In reply to | #596395 |
The Starmaker wrote: > > Jim Pennino wrote: > > > > In sci.physics The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> wrote: > > > Jim Pennino wrote: > > >> > > >> In sci.physics The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> wrote: > > >> > > >> <snip piles of old crap? > > >> > > >> > Now, everyone knows that all the planets run clockwise and counterclockwise.. > > >> > the whole universe runs run clockwise and counterclockwise... > > >> > > > >> > but the machinery behind these clockwise and counterclockwise objects in > > >> > the universe no one seems to bother to investitgate. > > >> > > >> Maybe because clockwise and counterclockwise are the only choices that > > >> exit, idiot. > > >> > > >> As to whether some thing is going clockwise or counterclockwise, it > > >> depends on how you are looking at the thing, idiot. > > > > > > Well that is simply not true... > > > > > > > > > Every planet in our solar system except for Venus and Uranus rotates counter-clockwise as seen from above the North Pole. > > > > See above and read it slowly, idiot. > > > > > > > > So, if you're looking at it from either from above or below it's STILL clockwise and counterclockwise. > > > > See above and read it slowly, idiot. > > You're too close to the clock to see the machinery....guinea. > I mean I'm shocked! No one, absolutely NOONE has ever bothered to look at the Machinery behind the whole entire Universe! The machinery that makes the earth go...round, and round, and round it goes where it stops nobody knows. Even if the earth doesn't go round and round it still goes either way. The machinery that makes it go...no one has bothered to look at it. Okay, you cannot see it....but, but, you cannot even THINK of it???¿ I mean I'm shocked! Welcome to the machine. The machine that makes the earth go. -- 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 | 2022-12-03 10:38 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <if5noh1rtgrvjk47c07jd1s84p9fr1kgpl@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #596531 |
On Wed, 30 Nov 2022 11:59:41 -0800, The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> wrote: >The Starmaker wrote: >> >> Jim Pennino wrote: >> > >> > In sci.physics The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> wrote: >> > > Jim Pennino wrote: >> > >> >> > >> In sci.physics The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> wrote: >> > >> >> > >> <snip piles of old crap? >> > >> >> > >> > Now, everyone knows that all the planets run clockwise and counterclockwise.. >> > >> > the whole universe runs run clockwise and counterclockwise... >> > >> > >> > >> > but the machinery behind these clockwise and counterclockwise objects in >> > >> > the universe no one seems to bother to investitgate. >> > >> >> > >> Maybe because clockwise and counterclockwise are the only choices that >> > >> exit, idiot. >> > >> >> > >> As to whether some thing is going clockwise or counterclockwise, it >> > >> depends on how you are looking at the thing, idiot. >> > > >> > > Well that is simply not true... >> > > >> > > >> > > Every planet in our solar system except for Venus and Uranus rotates counter-clockwise as seen from above the North Pole. >> > >> > See above and read it slowly, idiot. >> > >> > > >> > > So, if you're looking at it from either from above or below it's STILL clockwise and counterclockwise. >> > >> > See above and read it slowly, idiot. >> >> You're too close to the clock to see the machinery....guinea. >> > > >I mean I'm shocked! No one, absolutely NOONE has ever bothered to look at the Machinery behind the whole entire Universe! > >The machinery that makes the earth go...round, and round, and round it goes where it stops nobody knows. > >Even if the earth doesn't go round and round it still goes either way. > >The machinery that makes it go...no one has bothered to look at it. > > >Okay, you cannot see it....but, but, you cannot even THINK of it???¿ > > >I mean I'm shocked! > > > >Welcome to the machine. > > >The machine that makes the earth go. furthermore, keep in mind that Gravity is...just a theory. One simply needs to look at the Machinery that runs it. The Machine that runs ...Gravity. All 'things' come from the Machine. All things, including Time and Space. The machinery that makes...Space. Space is a 'thing'. (that's a fact) -- The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable, to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, and challenge the unchallengeable.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Bobby Spanò <byy@bybpbayo.ay> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-11-29 18:07 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <tm5hpv$2af3k$3@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #596393 |
Jim Pennino wrote: > In sci.physics The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> wrote: >> Every planet in our solar system except for Venus and Uranus rotates >> counter-clockwise as seen from above the North Pole. > > See above and read it slowly, idiot. yet another uneducated, old and lying capitalist, waging war without declaring war, detonating energy pipelines, which are not theirs, to an entire continent. Germany, France and Italy will never forget you, you deformed nazi ugly bitch. You will be burn in flames like the witched. It's coming. Don't think, it will be forgotten and you will escape. You dirty capitalist nazi bitches. Which Spirit Do They Speak With https://%62%69%74%63%68%75%74%65.com/%76%69%64%65%6f/AADt4MxkSbYa what people does with the dirty lying capitalists. https://google.com/%73%65%61%72%63%68? q=%6d%65%64%69%65%76%61%6c%2b%62%75%72%6e%69%6e%67%2b%77%69%74%63%68%65%73&source=lnms&tbm=isch 🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥 🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥 🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟨🟨🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥 🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟨🟨🟨🟥🟥🟥🟨🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥 🟥🟥🟥🟥🟨🟨🟨🟨🟥🟥🟥🟨🟨🟥🟥🟥🟥 🟥🟥🟥🟨🟨🟨🟨🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟨🟨🟥🟥🟥 🟥🟥🟨🟨🟨🟨🟨🟨🟥🟥🟥🟥🟨🟨🟥🟥🟥 🟥🟥🟥🟨🟨🟥🟨🟨🟨🟥🟥🟥🟥🟨🟨🟥🟥 🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟨🟨🟨🟥🟥🟥🟨🟨🟥🟥 🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟨🟨🟨🟥🟨🟨🟨🟥🟥 🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟨🟥🟥🟥🟨🟨🟨🟨🟨🟥🟥🟥 🟥🟥🟥🟥🟨🟨🟨🟥🟥🟥🟨🟨🟨🟥🟥🟥🟥 🟥🟥🟨🟨🟨🟥🟨🟨🟨🟨🟨🟨🟨🟨🟥🟥🟥 🟥🟥🟨🟨🟥🟥🟥🟨🟨🟨🟥🟥🟨🟨🟥🟥🟥 🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥 🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Bobby Spanò <byy@bybpbayo.ay> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-11-29 18:12 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <tm5i2d$2ai04$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #596386 |
Jim Pennino wrote: > In sci.physics The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> wrote: >> but the machinery behind these clockwise and counterclockwise objects >> in the universe no one seems to bother to investitgate. > > Maybe because clockwise and counterclockwise are the only choices that > exit, idiot. yet another uneducated, old and lying capitalist, waging war without declaring war, detonating energy pipelines, which are not theirs, to an entire continent. Germany, France and Italy will never forget, you deformed nazi ugly bitch. You will be burn in flames like the witched. It's coming. Don't think, it will be forgotten and you will escape. You dirty capitalist nazi bitches. Which Spirit Do They Speak With https://%62%69%74%63%68%75%74%65.com/%76%69%64%65%6f/AADt4MxkSbYa what people does with the dirty lying capitalists. https://google.com/%73%65%61%72%63%68?q=%6d%65%64%69%65%76%61%6c%2b%62%75%72%6e%69%6e%67%2b%77%69%74%63%68%65%73&source=lnms&tbm=isch 🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥 🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥 🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟨🟨🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥 🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟨🟨🟨🟥🟥🟥🟨🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥 🟥🟥🟥🟥🟨🟨🟨🟨🟥🟥🟥🟨🟨🟥🟥🟥🟥 🟥🟥🟥🟨🟨🟨🟨🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟨🟨🟥🟥🟥 🟥🟥🟨🟨🟨🟨🟨🟨🟥🟥🟥🟥🟨🟨🟥🟥🟥 🟥🟥🟥🟨🟨🟥🟨🟨🟨🟥🟥🟥🟥🟨🟨🟥🟥 🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟨🟨🟨🟥🟥🟥🟨🟨🟥🟥 🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟨🟨🟨🟥🟨🟨🟨🟥🟥 🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟨🟥🟥🟥🟨🟨🟨🟨🟨🟥🟥🟥 🟥🟥🟥🟥🟨🟨🟨🟥🟥🟥🟨🟨🟨🟥🟥🟥🟥 🟥🟥🟨🟨🟨🟥🟨🟨🟨🟨🟨🟨🟨🟨🟥🟥🟥 🟥🟥🟨🟨🟥🟥🟥🟨🟨🟨🟥🟥🟨🟨🟥🟥🟥 🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥 🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-11-28 12:53 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <Ii1hL.1592353$JNZ4.849257@fx12.ams4> |
| In reply to | #596320 |
Den 27.11.2022 18:28, skrev patdolan: > On Sunday, November 27, 2022 at 4:15:01 AM UTC-8, Paul B. Andersen wrote: >> Say, are you really too stupid to understand who >> has made a gigantic fool of himself when he stated: >> "If a distant observer was travelling at .866 c relative to >> the solar system along the line that is co-linear with the sun's >> axis of rotation, then the Earth's gravity HAD to diminish as 0.5." >> Case closed. > > Please explain to this forum and to posterity exactly what is going on here Paul. What's going on here is that you have yet again demonstrated that you really are too stupid to understand who has made a gigantic fool of himself when he stated: "If a distant observer was travelling at .866 c relative to the solar system along the line that is co-linear with the sun's axis of rotation, then the Earth's gravity HAD to diminish as 0.5." Have a good day in Wonderland, and give my regards to Alice. -- Paul https://paulba.no/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-11-28 10:43 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <9cd8aae5-a3b7-4387-9fde-978915de1333n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #596360 |
On Monday, November 28, 2022 at 3:53:14 AM UTC-8, Paul B. Andersen wrote: > Den 27.11.2022 18:28, skrev patdolan: > > On Sunday, November 27, 2022 at 4:15:01 AM UTC-8, Paul B. Andersen wrote: > >> Say, are you really too stupid to understand who > >> has made a gigantic fool of himself when he stated: > >> "If a distant observer was travelling at .866 c relative to > >> the solar system along the line that is co-linear with the sun's > >> axis of rotation, then the Earth's gravity HAD to diminish as 0.5." > > >> Case closed. > > > > > Please explain to this forum and to posterity exactly what is going on here Paul. > What's going on here is that you have yet again demonstrated > that you really are too stupid to understand who has made > a gigantic fool of himself when he stated: > "If a distant observer was travelling at .866 c relative to > the solar system along the line that is co-linear with the sun's > axis of rotation, then the Earth's gravity HAD to diminish as 0.5." > Have a good day in Wonderland, and give my regards to Alice. > > -- > Paul > > https://paulba.no/ Let the record show that your supposed quote of mine is fabricated because I have not typed the "g-word" in this forum in 5 years or more. But I can see why you might have fabricated it. A 50% decrease in orbital velocity due to time dilation will reduce the centrifugal force on the earth by 75%. But don't forget that in Paul's frame the relativistic mass of the earth is now twice what it is in the solar system's rest frame. Putting this all together results in the earth's centrifugal force in Paul's frame or any other frame, being 1/gamma what it is in the solar system's rest frame. I consider this one of my greatest discoveries. So yes Paul, your spurious quotation claiming that the sun's spacetime curvature must reduce its effect on the earth by a factor of two, appears to be numerically correct. The only other alternative is the one you suggest, namely, that all time dilated clocks only appear so. Time dilation is actually an optical illusion and has no real effect on the flow of time which, as maluw assures us, is always t = t' everywhere. Then the accelerated twin and the decelerated solar system age at the same rate as the stay at home twin and the distant observer Paul, respectively. Someone correct me if I am overlooking any other alternative.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-11-29 10:22 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <3f4ecfdc-4eb4-47b7-b6c5-d652fb72cf4an@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #596376 |
On Monday, November 28, 2022 at 10:43:08 AM UTC-8, patdolan wrote: > On Monday, November 28, 2022 at 3:53:14 AM UTC-8, Paul B. Andersen wrote: > > Den 27.11.2022 18:28, skrev patdolan: > > > On Sunday, November 27, 2022 at 4:15:01 AM UTC-8, Paul B. Andersen wrote: > > >> Say, are you really too stupid to understand who > > >> has made a gigantic fool of himself when he stated: > > >> "If a distant observer was travelling at .866 c relative to > > >> the solar system along the line that is co-linear with the sun's > > >> axis of rotation, then the Earth's gravity HAD to diminish as 0.5." > > > > >> Case closed. > > > > > > > > Please explain to this forum and to posterity exactly what is going on here Paul. > > What's going on here is that you have yet again demonstrated > > that you really are too stupid to understand who has made > > a gigantic fool of himself when he stated: > > "If a distant observer was travelling at .866 c relative to > > the solar system along the line that is co-linear with the sun's > > axis of rotation, then the Earth's gravity HAD to diminish as 0.5." > > Have a good day in Wonderland, and give my regards to Alice. > > > > -- > > Paul > > > > https://paulba.no/ > Let the record show that your supposed quote of mine is fabricated because I have not typed the "g-word" in this forum in 5 years or more. But I can see why you might have fabricated it. A 50% decrease in orbital velocity due to time dilation will reduce the centrifugal force on the earth by 75%. But don't forget that in Paul's frame the relativistic mass of the earth is now twice what it is in the solar system's rest frame. Putting this all together results in the earth's centrifugal force in Paul's frame or any other frame, being 1/gamma what it is in the solar system's rest frame. I consider this one of my greatest discoveries. So yes Paul, your spurious quotation claiming that the sun's spacetime curvature must reduce its effect on the earth by a factor of two, appears to be numerically correct. > > The only other alternative is the one you suggest, namely, that all time dilated clocks only appear so. Time dilation is actually an optical illusion and has no real effect on the flow of time which, as maluw assures us, is always t = t' everywhere. Then the accelerated twin and the decelerated solar system age at the same rate as the stay at home twin and the distant observer Paul, respectively. > > Someone correct me if I am overlooking any other alternative. Is there anyone in this forum who can help poor Paul to finally dispel the contradictory thoughts he now holds in his mind. I've tried the best I know how. I've brought him to the very brink of breath through. But he just cannot seem to take those final steps out into the bright sunshine of scientific sobriety. Instead he prefers to remain in the Einstein Saloon slumped over the bar knocking back straight shots of relativity rye served to him by bartender Dono whilst Dirk pounds on the piano and Sylvia beckons him from the balcony to come upstairs.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-11-29 11:33 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <63865EA1.124B@ix.netcom.com> |
| In reply to | #596429 |
patdolan wrote: > > On Monday, November 28, 2022 at 10:43:08 AM UTC-8, patdolan wrote: > > On Monday, November 28, 2022 at 3:53:14 AM UTC-8, Paul B. Andersen wrote: > > > Den 27.11.2022 18:28, skrev patdolan: > > > > On Sunday, November 27, 2022 at 4:15:01 AM UTC-8, Paul B. Andersen wrote: > > > >> Say, are you really too stupid to understand who > > > >> has made a gigantic fool of himself when he stated: > > > >> "If a distant observer was travelling at .866 c relative to > > > >> the solar system along the line that is co-linear with the sun's > > > >> axis of rotation, then the Earth's gravity HAD to diminish as 0.5." > > > > > > >> Case closed. > > > > > > > > > > > Please explain to this forum and to posterity exactly what is going on here Paul. > > > What's going on here is that you have yet again demonstrated > > > that you really are too stupid to understand who has made > > > a gigantic fool of himself when he stated: > > > "If a distant observer was travelling at .866 c relative to > > > the solar system along the line that is co-linear with the sun's > > > axis of rotation, then the Earth's gravity HAD to diminish as 0.5." > > > Have a good day in Wonderland, and give my regards to Alice. > > > > > > -- > > > Paul > > > > > > https://paulba.no/ > > > > > The only other alternative is the one you suggest, namely, that all time dilated clocks only appear so. Time dilation is actually an optical illusion and has no real effect on the flow of time which, as maluw assures us, is always t = t' everywhere. Then the accelerated twin and the decelerated solar system age at the same rate as the stay at home twin and the distant observer Paul, respectively. > > > > Someone correct me if I am overlooking any other alternative. > Is there anyone in this forum who can help poor Paul to finally dispel the contradictory thoughts he now holds in his mind. I've tried the best I know how. I've brought him to the very brink of breath through. But he just cannot seem to take those final steps out into the bright sunshine of scientific sobriety. Instead he prefers to remain in the Einstein Saloon slumped over the bar knocking back straight shots of relativity rye served to him by bartender Dono whilst Dirk pounds on the piano You First have to convince Paul to remove the middle initial letter B. from his name he posts with. -- 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 | "mitchr...@gmail.com" <mitchrae3323@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-11-25 12:45 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <4a304376-4a9e-4db0-8c6e-5376252107f0n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #596125 |
On Thursday, November 24, 2022 at 2:27:43 PM UTC-8, patdolan wrote: > On Thursday, November 24, 2022 at 11:36:52 AM UTC-8, Paul B. Andersen wrote: > > Den 23.11.2022 19:09, skrev patdolan: > > > On Wednesday, November 23, 2022 at 5:20:07 AM UTC-8, Paul B. Andersen wrote: > > >> Den 23.11.2022 12:05, skrev Paul B. Andersen: > > >>> Den 22.11.2022 20:20, skrev patdolan: > > >>>> > > >>>> What is frame dependent, according to SR, is time dilation. > > >>>> Orbital velocity and the velocity of clock hands are a consequent > > >>>> of this time dilation. This is easily explained, even to a dull > > >>>> student such as yourself. Consider and observer traveling at .866 c > > >>>> relative to the solar solar system. It goes without saying that > > >>>> the observer will note that all clocks on the earth will run at half > > >>>> the speed of the observer's onboard clock in accordance with SR. > > >>>> > > >>>> This means that in order for the earth's solar year to coincide > > >>>> the earth clocks, the earth must travel slower by a factor of two > > >>>> in its annual trip around the sun. > > >>>> > > >>>> Now, according to Einstein, this slower orbital velocity is not > > >>>> an illusion. In the observer's frame the earth REALLY IS traveling > > >>>> through the sun's spacetime curvature at half the speed it travels > > >>>> in the solar system's rest frame. > > >>>> > > >> You said that according to SR, the real duration of one > > >> Earth orbit around the Sun is 2 years, but you did NOT > > >> say that that a clock on the Earth would measure the duration > > >> to be 2 years. > > >> > > >> What you ARE saying is that according to SR, the earthling Pat > > >> would measure the duration of one Earth orbit around the Sun > > >> to be one year (as normal), and he would measure the orbital > > >> velocity of the Earth in the Solar system to be ≈ 30 km/s (as normal). > > >> > > >> So, according to SR, Pat, who is unaware of the existence of > > >> the travelling observer, would have no way of knowing that his clock > > >> is running at half speed. Pat would think that everything was normal. > > >> > > >> Could we say that according to SR, Pat and the Earth are unaffected > > >> by the existence of the travelling observer? > > >> > > >> Have I got it right now, teacher Pat? > > >> Or what ARE you saying? > > > Correct Paul. With one correction. Look at your first para: > > > > > > "You said that according to SR, the real duration of one > > >> Earth orbit around th..." > > > > > > Your use of the word "real" is absolutely forbidden in SR. > > OK, so you never said: > > > > "Now, according to Einstein, this slower orbital velocity is not > > an illusion. In the observer's frame the earth REALLY IS traveling > > through the sun's spacetime curvature at half the speed it travels > > in the solar system's rest frame." > > And when you said: > > > > "This means that in order for the earth's solar year to coincide > > the earth clocks, the earth must travel slower by a factor of two > > in its annual trip around the sun." > > .. then you did NOT mean that the earth REALLY had to travel slower > > by a factor or two and you did not mean that the earth clocks REALLY > > had to slow down by a factor of two to make the annual trip around > > the sun to last 1 year. > > > > So now we agree: > > According to SR, the earthling Pat would measure the duration of > > one Earth orbit around the Sun to be one year (as normal), and > > he would measure the orbital velocity of the Earth in the Solar > > system to be ≈ 30 km/s (as normal). > > So according to SR, Pat and the Earth are unaffected > > by the existence of the travelling observer. > > > > ---- > > > > Everybody (now including Pat Dolan) will agree to the following: > > > > The state of motion of an arbitrary observer can't affect > > the observed object, but it can affect the observer's > > observations of the object. > > > > No consistent theory of physics can claim otherwise. > > > > It would obviously be ridiculous to claim that according to SR: > > "If a distant observer was travelling at .866 c relative to > > the solar system along the line that is co-linear with the sun's > > axis of rotation, then the Earth's gravity HAD to diminish as 0.5." > > > > Right Pat? > > > > -- > > Paul > > > > https://paulba.no/ > Paul, it appears that I am ever so slowly awakening you from the dreamscape that is relativity. Begin to move on your world line and what you see is an opposite appearance of speed. In history appearance science started at retrograde motion's appearance in astronomy. > You say: > > The state of motion of an arbitrary observer can't affect > > the observed object, but it can affect the observer's > > observations of the object. > > > > No consistent theory of physics can claim otherwise. > > > I say absolutely correct...but... > > Consider distant observer Paul traveling at a velocity of .866c relative to earthling Pat who happens to be standing at the base of Big Ben in London. Paul watches Big Ben through his powerful telescope and notices the following: > > 1) The little hand of Big Ben makes 730.5 revolutions in the time it takes the earth to make one revolution around the sun. > > 2) The little hand of Paul's wristwatch makes 1461 revolutions in the time it takes Big Ben's little hand to make 730.5 revolutions. > > Do you agree with these two statements? If not, why not. How could your new movement give energy of motion to something else? Mitchell Raemsch
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-11-25 13:24 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <5af7165b-2e5a-4c30-a98c-f121d32b755fn@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #596180 |
On Friday, November 25, 2022 at 12:45:41 PM UTC-8, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote: > On Thursday, November 24, 2022 at 2:27:43 PM UTC-8, patdolan wrote: > > On Thursday, November 24, 2022 at 11:36:52 AM UTC-8, Paul B. Andersen wrote: > > > Den 23.11.2022 19:09, skrev patdolan: > > > > On Wednesday, November 23, 2022 at 5:20:07 AM UTC-8, Paul B. Andersen wrote: > > > >> Den 23.11.2022 12:05, skrev Paul B. Andersen: > > > >>> Den 22.11.2022 20:20, skrev patdolan: > > > >>>> > > > >>>> What is frame dependent, according to SR, is time dilation. > > > >>>> Orbital velocity and the velocity of clock hands are a consequent > > > >>>> of this time dilation. This is easily explained, even to a dull > > > >>>> student such as yourself. Consider and observer traveling at .866 c > > > >>>> relative to the solar solar system. It goes without saying that > > > >>>> the observer will note that all clocks on the earth will run at half > > > >>>> the speed of the observer's onboard clock in accordance with SR. > > > >>>> > > > >>>> This means that in order for the earth's solar year to coincide > > > >>>> the earth clocks, the earth must travel slower by a factor of two > > > >>>> in its annual trip around the sun. > > > >>>> > > > >>>> Now, according to Einstein, this slower orbital velocity is not > > > >>>> an illusion. In the observer's frame the earth REALLY IS traveling > > > >>>> through the sun's spacetime curvature at half the speed it travels > > > >>>> in the solar system's rest frame. > > > >>>> > > > >> You said that according to SR, the real duration of one > > > >> Earth orbit around the Sun is 2 years, but you did NOT > > > >> say that that a clock on the Earth would measure the duration > > > >> to be 2 years. > > > >> > > > >> What you ARE saying is that according to SR, the earthling Pat > > > >> would measure the duration of one Earth orbit around the Sun > > > >> to be one year (as normal), and he would measure the orbital > > > >> velocity of the Earth in the Solar system to be ≈ 30 km/s (as normal). > > > >> > > > >> So, according to SR, Pat, who is unaware of the existence of > > > >> the travelling observer, would have no way of knowing that his clock > > > >> is running at half speed. Pat would think that everything was normal. > > > >> > > > >> Could we say that according to SR, Pat and the Earth are unaffected > > > >> by the existence of the travelling observer? > > > >> > > > >> Have I got it right now, teacher Pat? > > > >> Or what ARE you saying? > > > > Correct Paul. With one correction. Look at your first para: > > > > > > > > "You said that according to SR, the real duration of one > > > >> Earth orbit around th..." > > > > > > > > Your use of the word "real" is absolutely forbidden in SR. > > > OK, so you never said: > > > > > > "Now, according to Einstein, this slower orbital velocity is not > > > an illusion. In the observer's frame the earth REALLY IS traveling > > > through the sun's spacetime curvature at half the speed it travels > > > in the solar system's rest frame." > > > And when you said: > > > > > > "This means that in order for the earth's solar year to coincide > > > the earth clocks, the earth must travel slower by a factor of two > > > in its annual trip around the sun." > > > .. then you did NOT mean that the earth REALLY had to travel slower > > > by a factor or two and you did not mean that the earth clocks REALLY > > > had to slow down by a factor of two to make the annual trip around > > > the sun to last 1 year. > > > > > > So now we agree: > > > According to SR, the earthling Pat would measure the duration of > > > one Earth orbit around the Sun to be one year (as normal), and > > > he would measure the orbital velocity of the Earth in the Solar > > > system to be ≈ 30 km/s (as normal). > > > So according to SR, Pat and the Earth are unaffected > > > by the existence of the travelling observer. > > > > > > ---- > > > > > > Everybody (now including Pat Dolan) will agree to the following: > > > > > > The state of motion of an arbitrary observer can't affect > > > the observed object, but it can affect the observer's > > > observations of the object. > > > > > > No consistent theory of physics can claim otherwise. > > > > > > It would obviously be ridiculous to claim that according to SR: > > > "If a distant observer was travelling at .866 c relative to > > > the solar system along the line that is co-linear with the sun's > > > axis of rotation, then the Earth's gravity HAD to diminish as 0.5." > > > > > > Right Pat? > > > > > > -- > > > Paul > > > > > > https://paulba.no/ > > Paul, it appears that I am ever so slowly awakening you from the dreamscape that is relativity. > Begin to move on your world line and what you see is an opposite appearance of speed. > In history appearance science started at retrograde motion's appearance in astronomy. > > You say: > > > The state of motion of an arbitrary observer can't affect > > > the observed object, but it can affect the observer's > > > observations of the object. > > > > > > No consistent theory of physics can claim otherwise. > > > > > I say absolutely correct...but... > > > > Consider distant observer Paul traveling at a velocity of .866c relative to earthling Pat who happens to be standing at the base of Big Ben in London. Paul watches Big Ben through his powerful telescope and notices the following: > > > > 1) The little hand of Big Ben makes 730.5 revolutions in the time it takes the earth to make one revolution around the sun. > > > > 2) The little hand of Paul's wristwatch makes 1461 revolutions in the time it takes Big Ben's little hand to make 730.5 revolutions. > > > > Do you agree with these two statements? If not, why not. > How could your new movement give energy of motion to something else? > > Mitchell Raemsch Soaring vocabulary and breathtakingly beautiful, Mitch. I will consider this last for my epitaph, with your permission.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Dono." <eggy20011951@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-11-22 07:22 -0800 |
| Subject | Cretin Pat Dolan admits he's a clown |
| Message-ID | <38378219-9eaf-4faa-b139-956b474ae3c8n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #595879 |
On Monday, November 21, 2022 at 11:32:36 AM UTC-8, patdolan wrote: > I'm the person who is the second biggest clown (after Dick Hertz) in this forum Yep
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Paul Alsing <pnalsing@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-11-19 18:18 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <35c5db54-3160-48eb-83e1-b749643e7f8an@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #595704 |
On Saturday, November 19, 2022 at 3:10:18 PM UTC-8, patdolan wrote: > But wait! In some cases the spacetime curvature in the vicinity of the solar system turns out to be SR-destroying, as in the case of Dolan's Dilemma... https://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/crackpot.html 20 points for naming something after yourself. (E.g., talking about the "Dolan's Dilemma" when your name happens to be Dolan.) I think you have almost enough points by now to be very near to becoming the Crackpot Index Champion... congrats!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-11-19 23:22 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <cb65a984-fb6d-47c5-b503-69e5be02a745n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #595718 |
On Sunday, 20 November 2022 at 03:19:01 UTC+1, Paul Alsing wrote: > On Saturday, November 19, 2022 at 3:10:18 PM UTC-8, patdolan wrote: > > > But wait! In some cases the spacetime curvature in the vicinity of the solar system turns out to be SR-destroying, as in the case of Dolan's Dilemma... > > https://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/crackpot.html > > 20 points for naming something after yourself. (E.g., talking about the "Dolan's Dilemma" when your name happens to be Dolan.) And don't forget to add your idiot guru Tom 5 points for every word he wrote in capital letters.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-11-19 20:32 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <tlcakt$3er9i$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #595704 |
On 11/19/2022 3:10 PM, patdolan wrote: > We know from no less a personage than H. Antoon Lorentz that SR is valid in all accelerated frames except for those frames where the acceleration is caused by mass and/or energy: > > "SR as the theory of flat Minkowski spacetime remains valid in the presence of accelerations, because general relativity (GR) is only required when there is curvature of spacetime caused by the energy–momentum tensor (which is mainly determined by mass). However, since the amount of spacetime curvature is not particularly high on Earth or its vicinity, SR remains valid for most practical purposes, such as experiments in particle accelerators.[1]" > > That particle accelerators and cosmic muons exhibit near-SR values in the solar system's frame, any experimentalist will testify to on the grave of his mother. But wait! In some cases the spacetime curvature in the vicinity of the solar system turns out to be SR-destroying, as in the case of Dolan's Dilemma: > > https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/580388/does-keplers-3rd-law-of-planetary-motion-violate-the-first-postulate > > Which was meticulously verified by Professor Paul B. Andersen: > > https://paulba.no/pdf/Dolan.pdf > > So how much gravity is too much gravity for SR? And what does SR failure in the face of gravity look like? Can anyone provide side by calculations with error analysis? > Falling into a black hole... When an observer sees you finally freeze in a frame, and you see the observer speed up infinitely fast to the point where you can see stars wizz by and the universe expire... So to speak. Fair enough?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-11-19 20:42 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <334e8181-3a6a-4b38-a538-d1d2a561f76bn@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #595735 |
On Saturday, November 19, 2022 at 8:32:32 PM UTC-8, Chris M. Thomasson wrote: > On 11/19/2022 3:10 PM, patdolan wrote: > > We know from no less a personage than H. Antoon Lorentz that SR is valid in all accelerated frames except for those frames where the acceleration is caused by mass and/or energy: > > > > "SR as the theory of flat Minkowski spacetime remains valid in the presence of accelerations, because general relativity (GR) is only required when there is curvature of spacetime caused by the energy–momentum tensor (which is mainly determined by mass). However, since the amount of spacetime curvature is not particularly high on Earth or its vicinity, SR remains valid for most practical purposes, such as experiments in particle accelerators.[1]" > > > > That particle accelerators and cosmic muons exhibit near-SR values in the solar system's frame, any experimentalist will testify to on the grave of his mother. But wait! In some cases the spacetime curvature in the vicinity of the solar system turns out to be SR-destroying, as in the case of Dolan's Dilemma: > > > > https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/580388/does-keplers-3rd-law-of-planetary-motion-violate-the-first-postulate > > > > Which was meticulously verified by Professor Paul B. Andersen: > > > > https://paulba.no/pdf/Dolan.pdf > > > > So how much gravity is too much gravity for SR? And what does SR failure in the face of gravity look like? Can anyone provide side by calculations with error analysis? > > > Falling into a black hole... When an observer sees you finally freeze in > a frame, and you see the observer speed up infinitely fast to the point > where you can see stars wizz by and the universe expire... So to speak. > Fair enough? You will have to elaborate, Chris. I'm not getting the point you are trying to make. What point do you believe I am trying to make?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-11-19 20:50 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <6cb51346-6edc-4418-a269-b5601869c466n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #595737 |
On Saturday, November 19, 2022 at 8:42:31 PM UTC-8, patdolan wrote: > On Saturday, November 19, 2022 at 8:32:32 PM UTC-8, Chris M. Thomasson wrote: > > On 11/19/2022 3:10 PM, patdolan wrote: > > > We know from no less a personage than H. Antoon Lorentz that SR is valid in all accelerated frames except for those frames where the acceleration is caused by mass and/or energy: > > > > > > "SR as the theory of flat Minkowski spacetime remains valid in the presence of accelerations, because general relativity (GR) is only required when there is curvature of spacetime caused by the energy–momentum tensor (which is mainly determined by mass). However, since the amount of spacetime curvature is not particularly high on Earth or its vicinity, SR remains valid for most practical purposes, such as experiments in particle accelerators.[1]" > > > > > > That particle accelerators and cosmic muons exhibit near-SR values in the solar system's frame, any experimentalist will testify to on the grave of his mother. But wait! In some cases the spacetime curvature in the vicinity of the solar system turns out to be SR-destroying, as in the case of Dolan's Dilemma: > > > > > > https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/580388/does-keplers-3rd-law-of-planetary-motion-violate-the-first-postulate > > > > > > Which was meticulously verified by Professor Paul B. Andersen: > > > > > > https://paulba.no/pdf/Dolan.pdf > > > > > > So how much gravity is too much gravity for SR? And what does SR failure in the face of gravity look like? Can anyone provide side by calculations with error analysis? > > > > > Falling into a black hole... When an observer sees you finally freeze in > > a frame, and you see the observer speed up infinitely fast to the point > > where you can see stars wizz by and the universe expire... So to speak. > > Fair enough? > You will have to elaborate, Chris. I'm not getting the point you are trying to make. What point do you believe I am trying to make? The point I have successfully made in my eponymous dilemma is that both spacetime curvature and special relativity cannot be true at the same time unless spacetime curvature diminishes as 1/gamma. Grizzled Relativists like rotchm and Stan Fultoni and Sylvia and Tom Roberts and Paul B. Andersen and Python and Prokary and Jan and Dono and Bodkin (God rest his soul?) and Moroney and Dirk...am I leaving anyone out?...realize this is catastrophic to the Relativist world view.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-11-20 00:08 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <jttujcF3763U1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #595738 |
On 11/19/2022 10:50 PM, patdolan wrote: > On Saturday, November 19, 2022 at 8:42:31 PM UTC-8, patdolan wrote: >> On Saturday, November 19, 2022 at 8:32:32 PM UTC-8, Chris M. Thomasson wrote: >>> On 11/19/2022 3:10 PM, patdolan wrote: >>>> We know from no less a personage than H. Antoon Lorentz that SR is valid in all accelerated frames except for those frames where the acceleration is caused by mass and/or energy: >>>> >>>> "SR as the theory of flat Minkowski spacetime remains valid in the presence of accelerations, because general relativity (GR) is only required when there is curvature of spacetime caused by the energy–momentum tensor (which is mainly determined by mass). However, since the amount of spacetime curvature is not particularly high on Earth or its vicinity, SR remains valid for most practical purposes, such as experiments in particle accelerators.[1]" >>>> >>>> That particle accelerators and cosmic muons exhibit near-SR values in the solar system's frame, any experimentalist will testify to on the grave of his mother. But wait! In some cases the spacetime curvature in the vicinity of the solar system turns out to be SR-destroying, as in the case of Dolan's Dilemma: >>>> >>>> https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/580388/does-keplers-3rd-law-of-planetary-motion-violate-the-first-postulate >>>> >>>> Which was meticulously verified by Professor Paul B. Andersen: >>>> >>>> https://paulba.no/pdf/Dolan.pdf >>>> >>>> So how much gravity is too much gravity for SR? And what does SR failure in the face of gravity look like? Can anyone provide side by calculations with error analysis? >>>> >>> Falling into a black hole... When an observer sees you finally freeze in >>> a frame, and you see the observer speed up infinitely fast to the point >>> where you can see stars wizz by and the universe expire... So to speak. >>> Fair enough? >> You will have to elaborate, Chris. I'm not getting the point you are trying to make. What point do you believe I am trying to make? > The point I have successfully made in my eponymous dilemma is that both spacetime curvature and special relativity cannot be true at the same time unless spacetime curvature diminishes as 1/gamma. Grizzled Relativists like rotchm and Stan Fultoni and Sylvia and Tom Roberts and Paul B. Andersen and Python and Prokary and Jan and Dono and Bodkin (God rest his soul?) and Moroney and Dirk...am I leaving anyone out?...realize this is catastrophic to the Relativist world view. Relax. In fact, pour yourself a drink of whatever you think is relaxing, sit back and let your dilemma flow away. The first thing that becomes clear to anyone studying science is that we don't deal directly with the realities, at best we only deal with segmented models that have limits on their validity. I don't know how many times I've urged readers NOT to confuse models with nature. And here it is again.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-11-19 23:23 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <146e2237-cda3-4e16-bd44-bcf70058e413n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #595739 |
On Sunday, 20 November 2022 at 07:08:49 UTC+1, whodat wrote: > The first thing that becomes clear to anyone studying science is that we > don't deal directly with the realities, at best we only deal with > segmented models that have limits on their validity. Your moronic mumble doesn't deserve "model" name. Sorry.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-11-20 14:08 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <tld8sd$3h3o0$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #595704 |
Den 20.11.2022 00:10, skrev patdolan: > > That particle accelerators and cosmic muons exhibit near-SR values in the solar system's frame, any experimentalist will testify to on the grave of his mother. Quite. Since accelerators always are horizontal (same gravitational potential) and the area of spacetime is small (short time, small area), spacetime can be considered flat like you can consider the water surface in your bathtub to be flat. So SR can be used. > But wait! In some cases the spacetime curvature in the vicinity of the solar system turns out to be SR-destroying, as in the case of Dolan's Dilemma: Don't be ridiculous. SR is only applicable in flat spacetime. In the vicinity of the Earth or Sun, GR must often be used. For example, GR will predict that a clock orbiting the Earth will gain on a clock at the geoid by: Moon orbit: ≈ 58.7 μs/day Geostationary: ≈ 43.2 μs/day Galileo orbit: ≈ 41.0 μs/day GPS orbit: ≈ 38.6 μs/day GLONASS orbit: ≈ 37.7 μs/day ISS orbit: ≈-24.8 μs/day The planetary orbits predicted by GR will differ little from ditto predicted by NM, the most notable difference is that GR predicts a perihelion advance, which NM doesn't. https://paulba.no/pdf/GRPerihelionAdvance.pdf > > https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/580388/does-keplers-3rd-law-of-planetary-motion-violate-the-first-postulate Dolan's dilemma seems to be: "So it appears as if Kepler's 3rd law of planetary motion is only valid in the rest frame of the solar system. Does this violate the first postulate of special relativity?" Kepler's 3rd law is: “The square of the orbital period of a planet is proportional to the cube of the semi-major axis of its orbit.” In maths: P² ∝ a³ This law follows from the property of an ellipse, the planet is considered massless, and it says nothing about the mass of the star. But for the Earth and Sun we have: P² = a³ when a = 1 AU and P = 1 year. (Obvious, no?) That means that when the units year and AU are used, the formula P² = a³ can also be used for the other (massless) planets who are orbiting the Sun. It's hard to see why Pat Dolan think that this law can violate the first postulate of special relativity > > Which was meticulously verified by Professor Paul B. Andersen: > > https://paulba.no/pdf/Dolan.pdf > > So how much gravity is too much gravity for SR? Obviously a stupid question. You must consider every concrete experiment. > And what does SR failure in the face of gravity look like? Can anyone provide side by calculations with error analysis? That was exactly what I did in the link you provided: https://paulba.no/pdf/Dolan.pdf SR predicted: τ = 0.43588989 year GR predicted: τ = 0.43588986 year It is of course GR that is most correct. The relative error in the SR prediction is ≈ 7e-8 If you consider this error too big, then you must use GR. But if you consider the error negligible (it is probably much less than the uncertainties of your input data), then spacetime can in THIS PARTICULAR CASE be considered flat enough to use SR. -- Paul https://paulba.no/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 4 of 5 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4] 5 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity
csiph-web