Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #665778 > unrolled thread
| Started by | The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2025-09-04 14:40 -0700 |
| Last post | 2025-09-06 16:48 -0700 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 106 — 10 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.physics.relativity
What came first the stars or the earth? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2025-09-04 14:40 -0700
Re: What came first the stars or the earth? Jim Pennino <jimp@gonzo.specsol.net> - 2025-09-04 16:26 -0700
Re: What came first the stars or the earth? Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2025-09-05 08:16 +0200
Re: What came first the stars or the earth? nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2025-09-05 11:05 +0200
Re: What came first the stars or the earth? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2025-09-05 09:41 -0700
Re: What came first the stars or the earth? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2025-09-04 23:39 -0700
Re: What came first the stars or the earth? "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-09-05 14:31 -0700
Re: What came first the stars or the earth? Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2025-09-06 10:39 +0200
Re: What came first the stars or the earth? Python <jp@python.invalid> - 2025-09-06 12:56 +0000
Re: What came first the stars or the earth? Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2025-09-07 10:26 +0200
Re: What came first the stars or the earth? Python <jp@python.invalid> - 2025-09-07 08:37 +0000
Re: What came first the stars or the earth? Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2025-09-09 08:35 +0200
Re: What came first the stars or the earth? Python <jp@python.invalid> - 2025-09-09 14:38 +0000
Re: What came first the stars or the earth? Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2025-09-12 07:51 +0200
Re: What came first the stars or the earth? Python <jp@python.invalid> - 2025-09-12 05:56 +0000
Re: What came first the stars or the earth? Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2025-09-13 08:33 +0200
Re: What came first the stars or the earth? Python <jp@python.invalid> - 2025-09-13 08:45 +0000
Re: What came first the stars or the earth? Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2025-09-14 10:25 +0200
Re: What came first the stars or the earth? Python <jp@python.invalid> - 2025-09-14 20:21 +0000
Re: What came first the stars or the earth? Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2025-09-15 08:38 +0200
Re: What came first the stars or the earth? "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2025-09-15 21:25 +0200
Re: What came first the stars or the earth? Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2025-09-15 22:26 +0200
Re: What came first the stars or the earth? "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2025-09-16 20:07 +0200
Re: What came first the stars or the earth? Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2025-09-16 20:20 +0200
Re: What came first the stars or the earth? "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-09-15 13:01 -0700
Re: What came first the stars or the earth? "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-09-15 13:29 -0700
Re: What came first the stars or the earth? Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2025-09-15 22:49 +0200
Re: What came first the stars or the earth? "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-09-15 14:13 -0700
Re: What came first the stars or the earth? Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2025-09-16 06:55 +0200
Re: What came first the stars or the earth? Richard Hachel <rh@tiscali.fr> - 2025-09-15 17:16 +0000
Re: What came first the stars or the earth? Python <jp@python.invalid> - 2025-09-15 17:28 +0000
Re: What came first the stars or the earth? Richard Hachel <rh@tiscali.fr> - 2025-09-15 18:35 +0000
Re: What came first the stars or the earth? "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-09-09 11:54 -0700
Re: What came first the stars or the earth? "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2025-09-08 14:23 +0200
Re: What came first the stars or the earth? Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2025-09-10 10:40 +0200
Re: What came first the stars or the earth? "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2025-09-10 20:57 +0200
Re: What came first the stars or the earth? Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2025-09-10 21:25 +0200
Re: What came first the stars or the earth? Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2025-09-12 08:07 +0200
Re: What came first the stars or the earth? "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2025-09-12 12:54 +0200
Re: What came first the stars or the earth? Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2025-09-12 12:58 +0200
Re: What came first the stars or the earth? "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2025-09-12 14:27 +0200
Re: What came first the stars or the earth? Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2025-09-12 14:31 +0200
Re: What came first the stars or the earth? "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2025-09-13 14:06 +0200
Re: What came first the stars or the earth? Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2025-09-13 14:08 +0200
Re: What came first the stars or the earth? Python <jp@python.invalid> - 2025-09-13 12:31 +0000
Re: What came first the stars or the earth? nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2025-09-15 20:01 +0200
Re: What came first the stars or the earth? Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2025-09-15 21:01 +0200
Re: What came first the stars or the earth? Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2025-09-13 09:05 +0200
Re: What came first the stars or the earth? "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2025-09-13 21:37 +0200
Re: What came first the stars or the earth? Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2025-09-13 22:23 +0200
Re: What came first the stars or the earth? Python <jp@python.invalid> - 2025-09-13 20:30 +0000
Re: What came first the stars or the earth? Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2025-09-14 06:34 +0200
Re: What came first the stars or the earth? Python <jp@python.invalid> - 2025-09-14 07:44 +0000
Re: What came first the stars or the earth? Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2025-09-14 10:36 +0200
Re: What came first the stars or the earth? Python <jp@python.invalid> - 2025-09-14 10:35 +0000
Re: What came first the stars or the earth? Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2025-09-14 13:16 +0200
Re: What came first the stars or the earth? "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2025-09-14 11:13 +0200
Re: What came first the stars or the earth? Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2025-09-14 12:14 +0200
Re: What came first the stars or the earth? "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2025-09-14 21:10 +0200
Re: What came first the stars or the earth? Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2025-09-14 22:56 +0200
Re: What came first the stars or the earth? "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2025-09-15 12:04 +0200
Re: What came first the stars or the earth? Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2025-09-15 16:09 +0200
Re: What came first the stars or the earth? nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2025-09-15 13:37 +0200
Re: What came first the stars or the earth? Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2025-09-16 08:33 +0200
Re: What came first the stars or the earth? nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2025-09-16 11:42 +0200
Re: What came first the stars or the earth? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2025-09-16 09:35 -0700
Re: What came first the stars or the earth? Dwan Szczepanski <aan@ezz.pl> - 2025-09-17 10:56 +0000
Re: What came first the stars or the earth? nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2025-09-06 18:10 +0200
Re: What came first the stars or the earth? "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-09-06 13:29 -0700
Re: What came first the stars or the earth? Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2025-09-07 10:34 +0200
Re: What came first the stars or the earth? "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2025-09-08 14:24 +0200
Re: What came first the stars or the earth? nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2025-09-06 11:14 +0200
Re: What came first the stars or the earth? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2025-09-06 09:53 -0700
Re: What came first the stars or the earth? "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-09-06 13:34 -0700
Re: What came first the stars or the earth? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2025-09-06 16:37 -0700
Re: What came first the stars or the earth? "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-09-07 14:11 -0700
Re: What came first the stars or the earth? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2025-09-08 09:53 -0700
Re: What came first the stars or the earth? "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-09-08 12:10 -0700
Re: What came first the stars or the earth? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2025-09-09 12:20 -0700
Re: What came first the stars or the earth? "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-09-09 12:59 -0700
Re: What came first the stars or the earth? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2025-09-09 13:33 -0700
Re: What came first the stars or the earth? "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-09-09 14:16 -0700
Re: What came first the stars or the earth? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2025-09-09 16:26 -0700
Re: What came first the stars or the earth? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2025-09-09 16:29 -0700
Re: What came first the stars or the earth? "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-09-10 13:18 -0700
Re: What came first the stars or the earth? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2025-09-11 10:01 -0700
Re: What came first the stars or the earth? "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-09-11 14:19 -0700
Re: What came first the stars or the earth? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2025-09-11 22:29 -0700
Re: What came first the stars or the earth? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2025-09-12 11:11 -0700
Re: What came first the stars or the earth? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2025-09-12 11:25 -0700
Re: What came first the stars or the earth? Jim Pennino <jimp@gonzo.specsol.net> - 2025-09-12 12:05 -0700
Re: What came first the stars or the earth? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2025-09-12 13:40 -0700
Re: What came first the stars or the earth? Jim Pennino <jimp@gonzo.specsol.net> - 2025-09-12 13:55 -0700
Re: What came first the stars or the earth? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2025-09-12 15:40 -0700
Re: What came first the stars or the earth? Jim Pennino <jimp@gonzo.specsol.net> - 2025-09-12 15:54 -0700
Re: What came first the stars or the earth? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2025-09-12 22:31 -0700
Re: What came first the stars or the earth? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2025-09-16 09:56 -0700
Re: What came first the stars or the earth? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2025-09-14 00:40 -0700
Re: What came first the stars or the earth? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2025-09-14 12:54 -0700
Re: What came first the stars or the earth? "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-09-14 20:24 -0700
Re: What came first the stars or the earth? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2025-09-15 10:48 -0700
Re: What came first the stars or the earth? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2025-09-16 10:04 -0700
Re: What came first the stars or the earth? "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-09-16 15:11 -0700
Re: What came first the stars or the earth? "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-09-14 20:27 -0700
Re: What came first the stars or the earth? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2025-09-06 10:06 -0700
Re: What came first the stars or the earth? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2025-09-06 16:48 -0700
Page 1 of 6 [1] 2 3 4 5 6 Next page →
| From | The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-09-04 14:40 -0700 |
| Subject | What came first the stars or the earth? |
| Message-ID | <cm1kbk9b2torp4a6hauhe4pp8f9u6fqm9k@4ax.com> |
What came first the stars or the earth? All evidence i gathered says the earth came first.
[toc] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jim Pennino <jimp@gonzo.specsol.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-09-04 16:26 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <kpjpol-ltrv.ln1@gonzo.specsol.net> |
| In reply to | #665778 |
In sci.physics The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> wrote: > What came first the stars or the earth? > > > All evidence i gathered says the earth came first. > Stars formed from primordial hydrogen and helium shortly after ther Big Bang, with subsequent generations of stars creating heavier elements necessary for planet formation. The Earth, along with the rest of our solar system, formed around 4.54 billion years ago from the remnants of these older, exploding stars. Therefore, stars existed long before the Earth, providing the raw materials for its creation. -- penninojim@yahoo.com
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-09-05 08:16 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <18624e6254d0072b$5503545$2360894$c2565adb@news.newsdemon.com> |
| In reply to | #665780 |
On 9/5/2025 1:26 AM, Jim Pennino wrote: > In sci.physics The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> wrote: >> What came first the stars or the earth? >> >> >> All evidence i gathered says the earth came first. >> > > Stars formed from primordial hydrogen and helium shortly after ther > Big Bang, with subsequent generations of stars creating heavier > elements necessary for planet formation. The Earth, along with the > rest of our solar system, formed around 4.54 billion years ago from > the remnants of these older, exploding stars. Have you ever heard about an idiot babbling that what is 4.54 billion of years for some obsever may be easily 2 billion years for another one?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-09-05 11:05 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <1ri6l58.1o93f6tdqyjlN%nospam@de-ster.demon.nl> |
| In reply to | #665780 |
Jim Pennino <jimp@gonzo.specsol.net> wrote: > In sci.physics The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> wrote: > > What came first the stars or the earth? > > > > > > All evidence i gathered says the earth came first. > > > > Stars formed from primordial hydrogen and helium shortly after ther > Big Bang, with subsequent generations of stars creating heavier > elements necessary for planet formation. The Earth, along with the > rest of our solar system, formed around 4.54 billion years ago from > the remnants of these older, exploding stars. Therefore, stars existed > long before the Earth, providing the raw materials for its creation. As a matter of fact it is possible to date both the Earth and the (ignition of) the Sun reliably, and accurately. It turns out, as expected, that the sun is somewhat older, but not by much, Jan
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-09-05 09:41 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <co3mbkl55emqj84fafnbhn2k7ollb3cefm@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #665786 |
On Fri, 5 Sep 2025 11:05:29 +0200, nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) wrote: >Jim Pennino <jimp@gonzo.specsol.net> wrote: > >> In sci.physics The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> wrote: >> > What came first the stars or the earth? >> > >> > >> > All evidence i gathered says the earth came first. >> > >> >> Stars formed from primordial hydrogen and helium shortly after ther >> Big Bang, with subsequent generations of stars creating heavier >> elements necessary for planet formation. The Earth, along with the >> rest of our solar system, formed around 4.54 billion years ago from >> the remnants of these older, exploding stars. Therefore, stars existed >> long before the Earth, providing the raw materials for its creation. > >As a matter of fact it is possible to date both the Earth >and the (ignition of) the Sun reliably, and accurately. >It turns out, as expected, that the sun is somewhat older, >but not by much, > >Jan Well, when did the "ignition" happen...had to be after there was water on the earth. Okay, I knows you people have differculty with simple terms.. you take a pot of water.. you put it on the stove... and you turn the dial to boil the water.. fire. It is simply natural to to put a pot of water on the stove and turn on the stove. That is the order of events. The stove is not going to go on by itself. In fact, it will stay OFF forevery unless someone takes a pot of water and put in on the stove to boil it. You turn on the stove! And then...There was Light.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-09-04 23:39 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <m11lbk55fv9aifh9jt5ku5g7kusq5tils1@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #665778 |
On Thu, 04 Sep 2025 14:40:42 -0700, The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> wrote: >What came first the stars or the earth? > > >All evidence i gathered says the earth came first. All evidence i gathered says the earth came first.. any my evidence comes from all different levels.. The most simpliest level.. it is written, and God said, "Let there be light." but the Light went on After there was First an Ocean on earth. So, if you understand 'order of events' , earth came first... and it already had an ocean Before the first Light. And that Light was our Sun.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-09-05 14:31 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <109fkqu$2lmfa$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #665783 |
On 9/4/2025 11:39 PM, The Starmaker wrote: > On Thu, 04 Sep 2025 14:40:42 -0700, The Starmaker > <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> wrote: > >> What came first the stars or the earth? >> >> >> All evidence i gathered says the earth came first. > > All evidence i gathered says the earth came first.. > any my evidence comes from all different levels.. > > The most simpliest level.. > > it is written, and God said, "Let there be light." > > but the Light went on After there was First an Ocean on earth. Comets with shit loads of water impacting the primordial Earth? > > > So, if you understand 'order of events' , earth came first... > and it already had an ocean Before the first Light. And that Light was > our Sun. > > > > >
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-09-06 10:39 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <mi2a1oFjd7bU6@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #665790 |
Am Freitag000005, 05.09.2025 um 23:31 schrieb Chris M. Thomasson: > On 9/4/2025 11:39 PM, The Starmaker wrote: >> On Thu, 04 Sep 2025 14:40:42 -0700, The Starmaker >> <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> wrote: >> >>> What came first the stars or the earth? >>> >>> >>> All evidence i gathered says the earth came first. >> >> All evidence i gathered says the earth came first.. >> any my evidence comes from all different levels.. >> >> The most simpliest level.. >> >> it is written, and God said, "Let there be light." >> >> but the Light went on After there was First an Ocean on earth. > > Comets with shit loads of water impacting the primordial Earth? The water came out of the interior of the Earth, not from comets. Comets are the remains of a former planet, which exploded long ago in a region, where today there is the asteroid belt. That former planet had also water upon its surface. That's why some comets consist of water. But mainly the water stems from within the celestial bodies. We can see this effect easily in e.g. volcanoes, because the lava contains besides of CO2 and other gases also a lot of water vapor. ... TH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Python <jp@python.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-09-06 12:56 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <kYXftERrQe7RqrEZ88uxHLvD-Ig@jntp> |
| In reply to | #665792 |
Le 06/09/2025 à 10:35, Thomas Heger a écrit : > Am Freitag000005, 05.09.2025 um 23:31 schrieb Chris M. Thomasson: >> On 9/4/2025 11:39 PM, The Starmaker wrote: >>> On Thu, 04 Sep 2025 14:40:42 -0700, The Starmaker >>> <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> wrote: >>> >>>> What came first the stars or the earth? >>>> >>>> >>>> All evidence i gathered says the earth came first. >>> >>> All evidence i gathered says the earth came first.. >>> any my evidence comes from all different levels.. >>> >>> The most simpliest level.. >>> >>> it is written, and God said, "Let there be light." >>> >>> but the Light went on After there was First an Ocean on earth. >> >> Comets with shit loads of water impacting the primordial Earth? > > > The water came out of the interior of the Earth, not from comets. > > Comets are the remains of a former planet, which exploded long ago in a > region, where today there is the asteroid belt. > > That former planet had also water upon its surface. That's why some > comets consist of water. > > But mainly the water stems from within the celestial bodies. > > We can see this effect easily in e.g. volcanoes, because the lava > contains besides of CO2 and other gases also a lot of water vapor. Again, Thomas, weird stuff that you pulled out of your ass that are partially true and mainly false. You forgot to answer to my posts on synchronization between Earth and Moon and about the ridiculous claim that cosmological maps in Astronomy does not take light propagation delays into account. How come?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-09-07 10:26 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <mi4tlrF2lhaU3@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #665794 |
Am Samstag000006, 06.09.2025 um 14:56 schrieb Python: ... >>>> it is written, and God said, "Let there be light." >>>> >>>> but the Light went on After there was First an Ocean on earth. >>> >>> Comets with shit loads of water impacting the primordial Earth? >> >> >> The water came out of the interior of the Earth, not from comets. >> >> Comets are the remains of a former planet, which exploded long ago in >> a region, where today there is the asteroid belt. >> >> That former planet had also water upon its surface. That's why some >> comets consist of water. >> >> But mainly the water stems from within the celestial bodies. >> >> We can see this effect easily in e.g. volcanoes, because the lava >> contains besides of CO2 and other gases also a lot of water vapor. > > > Again, Thomas, weird stuff that you pulled out of your ass that are > partially true and mainly false. > > You forgot to answer to my posts on synchronization between Earth and > Moon and about the ridiculous claim that cosmological maps in Astronomy > does not take light propagation delays into account. > > How come? > That is my personal impression of how popular cosmology seemingly functions. I would say: "what we call 'universe' is actually our own past light cone and not universal at all." It simply wouldn't make sense, to find patterns in stars, which do not belong to the same time. But that is actually done. Therefore, I think, that nonsense is taken to the next level and I had to stay away from that. TH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Python <jp@python.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-09-07 08:37 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <7YBXgIOzVFRaHkWuGbFIH1ym3SQ@jntp> |
| In reply to | #665818 |
Le 07/09/2025 à 10:22, Thomas Heger a écrit : > Am Samstag000006, 06.09.2025 um 14:56 schrieb Python: > ... >>>>> it is written, and God said, "Let there be light." >>>>> >>>>> but the Light went on After there was First an Ocean on earth. >>>> >>>> Comets with shit loads of water impacting the primordial Earth? >>> >>> >>> The water came out of the interior of the Earth, not from comets. >>> >>> Comets are the remains of a former planet, which exploded long ago in >>> a region, where today there is the asteroid belt. >>> >>> That former planet had also water upon its surface. That's why some >>> comets consist of water. >>> >>> But mainly the water stems from within the celestial bodies. >>> >>> We can see this effect easily in e.g. volcanoes, because the lava >>> contains besides of CO2 and other gases also a lot of water vapor. >> >> >> Again, Thomas, weird stuff that you pulled out of your ass that are >> partially true and mainly false. >> >> You forgot to answer to my posts on synchronization between Earth and >> Moon and about the ridiculous claim that cosmological maps in Astronomy >> does not take light propagation delays into account. >> >> How come? >> > > That is my personal impression of how popular cosmology seemingly functions. "impression" ? "seemingly" ? You didn't check ? > Therefore, I think, that nonsense is taken to the next level and I had > to stay away from that. Did you consider that this nonsense is something you made up by yourself ?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-09-09 08:35 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <mi9vtiFsi4fU5@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #665820 |
Am Sonntag000007, 07.09.2025 um 10:37 schrieb Python: > Le 07/09/2025 à 10:22, Thomas Heger a écrit : >> Am Samstag000006, 06.09.2025 um 14:56 schrieb Python: >> ... >>>>>> it is written, and God said, "Let there be light." >>>>>> >>>>>> but the Light went on After there was First an Ocean on earth. >>>>> >>>>> Comets with shit loads of water impacting the primordial Earth? >>>> >>>> >>>> The water came out of the interior of the Earth, not from comets. >>>> >>>> Comets are the remains of a former planet, which exploded long ago >>>> in a region, where today there is the asteroid belt. >>>> >>>> That former planet had also water upon its surface. That's why some >>>> comets consist of water. >>>> >>>> But mainly the water stems from within the celestial bodies. >>>> >>>> We can see this effect easily in e.g. volcanoes, because the lava >>>> contains besides of CO2 and other gases also a lot of water vapor. >>> >>> >>> Again, Thomas, weird stuff that you pulled out of your ass that are >>> partially true and mainly false. >>> >>> You forgot to answer to my posts on synchronization between Earth and >>> Moon and about the ridiculous claim that cosmological maps in >>> Astronomy does not take light propagation delays into account. >>> >>> How come? >>> >> >> That is my personal impression of how popular cosmology seemingly >> functions. > > "impression" ? "seemingly" ? You didn't check ? Well, in part's I did. I used a technique to analyze Einstein's text, which is applicable to other papers, too. For instance I had taken 'The Galactic Black Hole' and analyzed that. I found several statements, that were in my opinion nonsense. This is actually all over the place and has to do with how physicists think about their own profession. It is more like a medieval guild, which has apprentices and masters, where non-initiated are not allowed to participate. > >> Therefore, I think, that nonsense is taken to the next level and I had >> to stay away from that. > > Did you consider that this nonsense is something you made up by yourself ? > This is certainly a risk. But I think, that I'm not as stupid as you think. TH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Python <jp@python.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-09-09 14:38 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <nPHckiNzvx7hCgAbozOv3kHJBkY@jntp> |
| In reply to | #665861 |
Le 09/09/2025 à 08:31, Thomas Heger a écrit : > Am Sonntag000007, 07.09.2025 um 10:37 schrieb Python: >> Le 07/09/2025 à 10:22, Thomas Heger a écrit : >>> Am Samstag000006, 06.09.2025 um 14:56 schrieb Python: >>> ... >>>>>>> it is written, and God said, "Let there be light." >>>>>>> >>>>>>> but the Light went on After there was First an Ocean on earth. >>>>>> >>>>>> Comets with shit loads of water impacting the primordial Earth? >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> The water came out of the interior of the Earth, not from comets. >>>>> >>>>> Comets are the remains of a former planet, which exploded long ago >>>>> in a region, where today there is the asteroid belt. >>>>> >>>>> That former planet had also water upon its surface. That's why some >>>>> comets consist of water. >>>>> >>>>> But mainly the water stems from within the celestial bodies. >>>>> >>>>> We can see this effect easily in e.g. volcanoes, because the lava >>>>> contains besides of CO2 and other gases also a lot of water vapor. >>>> >>>> >>>> Again, Thomas, weird stuff that you pulled out of your ass that are >>>> partially true and mainly false. >>>> >>>> You forgot to answer to my posts on synchronization between Earth and >>>> Moon and about the ridiculous claim that cosmological maps in >>>> Astronomy does not take light propagation delays into account. >>>> >>>> How come? >>>> >>> >>> That is my personal impression of how popular cosmology seemingly >>> functions. >> >> "impression" ? "seemingly" ? You didn't check ? > > Well, in part's I did. Not properly. > I used a technique to analyze Einstein's text, which is applicable to > other papers, too. Your "analyze" of Einstein's text is an abysmal failure, a complete bunch of nonsense from start to finish. > For instance I had taken 'The Galactic Black Hole' and analyzed that. > > I found several statements, that were in my opinion nonsense. > > This is actually all over the place and has to do with how physicists > think about their own profession. > > It is more like a medieval guild, which has apprentices and masters, > where non-initiated are not allowed to participate. Real physics books, articles, courses are available online for everyone. Your ignorance is the result of a choice to remain ignorant. >>> Therefore, I think, that nonsense is taken to the next level and I had >>> to stay away from that. >> >> Did you consider that this nonsense is something you made up by yourself ? >> > > This is certainly a risk. > > But I think, that I'm not as stupid as you think. There is no comma before "that" in proper English. You are probably even more stupid as I think.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-09-12 07:51 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <mihqe5F8bv4U1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #665873 |
Am Dienstag000009, 09.09.2025 um 16:38 schrieb Python: > Le 09/09/2025 à 08:31, Thomas Heger a écrit : >> Am Sonntag000007, 07.09.2025 um 10:37 schrieb Python: >>> Le 07/09/2025 à 10:22, Thomas Heger a écrit : >>>> Am Samstag000006, 06.09.2025 um 14:56 schrieb Python: >>>> ... >>>>>>>> it is written, and God said, "Let there be light." >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> but the Light went on After there was First an Ocean on earth. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Comets with shit loads of water impacting the primordial Earth? >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> The water came out of the interior of the Earth, not from comets. >>>>>> >>>>>> Comets are the remains of a former planet, which exploded long ago >>>>>> in a region, where today there is the asteroid belt. >>>>>> >>>>>> That former planet had also water upon its surface. That's why >>>>>> some comets consist of water. >>>>>> >>>>>> But mainly the water stems from within the celestial bodies. >>>>>> >>>>>> We can see this effect easily in e.g. volcanoes, because the lava >>>>>> contains besides of CO2 and other gases also a lot of water vapor. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Again, Thomas, weird stuff that you pulled out of your ass that are >>>>> partially true and mainly false. >>>>> >>>>> You forgot to answer to my posts on synchronization between Earth >>>>> and Moon and about the ridiculous claim that cosmological maps in >>>>> Astronomy does not take light propagation delays into account. >>>>> >>>>> How come? >>>>> >>>> >>>> That is my personal impression of how popular cosmology seemingly >>>> functions. >>> >>> "impression" ? "seemingly" ? You didn't check ? >> >> Well, in part's I did. > > Not properly. > >> I used a technique to analyze Einstein's text, which is applicable to >> other papers, too. > > Your "analyze" of Einstein's text is an abysmal failure, a complete > bunch of nonsense from start to finish. >> For instance I had taken 'The Galactic Black Hole' and analyzed that. I made an English version called 'Annotated version of SRT'. It was a pdf of the English translation of Einstein's paper 'On the electrodynamics of moving bodies'. Then I marked every questionable statement with the annotation function of that pdf software and wrote a comment, why that was in my view a questionable statement (and whether or not that was an error). I wrote more than 420 annotations. This actually means: the text contains a colossal number of errors of all kinds. About those comments I had several discussions in this group of the UseNet in a period of about two years. The comments helped me a lot to clarify my own statements and rethink a number of comments. But the total number of annotation was only reduced insignificantly in this process. The vast majority remained unchallenged. That means: there are a HUGE number of errors in this text, where the text itself could not be defended against critique. This in turn would qualify Einstein's text as among the worst articles ever printed in a scientific journal. >> >> I found several statements, that were in my opinion nonsense. >> >> This is actually all over the place and has to do with how physicists >> think about their own profession. >> >> It is more like a medieval guild, which has apprentices and masters, >> where non-initiated are not allowed to participate. > > Real physics books, articles, courses are available online for everyone. Sure, but my statement was that because they are available for everyone they contain mainly nonsense. > Your ignorance is the result of a choice to remain ignorant. If textbook-science is fake, than ignoring textbook science would be a god idea. >>>> Therefore, I think, that nonsense is taken to the next level and I >>>> had to stay away from that. >>> >>> Did you consider that this nonsense is something you made up by >>> yourself ? >>> >> >> This is certainly a risk. >> >> But I think, that I'm not as stupid as you think. > > There is no comma before "that" in proper English. Well, possibly, but I'm German and use a second language. In German you make a comma before 'das' (in an equivalent position to 'that'). So, yes, I make mistakes and especially in certain 'comma-cases'. Sorry. TH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Python <jp@python.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-09-12 05:56 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <eRSdBSppoeTWQuZs3FwEo8hCrxU@jntp> |
| In reply to | #665965 |
Le 12/09/2025 à 07:46, Thomas Heger a écrit : > Am Dienstag000009, 09.09.2025 um 16:38 schrieb Python: >> Le 09/09/2025 à 08:31, Thomas Heger a écrit : >>> Am Sonntag000007, 07.09.2025 um 10:37 schrieb Python: >>>> Le 07/09/2025 à 10:22, Thomas Heger a écrit : >>>>> Am Samstag000006, 06.09.2025 um 14:56 schrieb Python: >>>>> ... >>>>>>>>> it is written, and God said, "Let there be light." >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> but the Light went on After there was First an Ocean on earth. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Comets with shit loads of water impacting the primordial Earth? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> The water came out of the interior of the Earth, not from comets. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Comets are the remains of a former planet, which exploded long ago >>>>>>> in a region, where today there is the asteroid belt. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> That former planet had also water upon its surface. That's why >>>>>>> some comets consist of water. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> But mainly the water stems from within the celestial bodies. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> We can see this effect easily in e.g. volcanoes, because the lava >>>>>>> contains besides of CO2 and other gases also a lot of water vapor. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Again, Thomas, weird stuff that you pulled out of your ass that are >>>>>> partially true and mainly false. >>>>>> >>>>>> You forgot to answer to my posts on synchronization between Earth >>>>>> and Moon and about the ridiculous claim that cosmological maps in >>>>>> Astronomy does not take light propagation delays into account. >>>>>> >>>>>> How come? >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> That is my personal impression of how popular cosmology seemingly >>>>> functions. >>>> >>>> "impression" ? "seemingly" ? You didn't check ? >>> >>> Well, in part's I did. >> >> Not properly. >> >>> I used a technique to analyze Einstein's text, which is applicable to >>> other papers, too. >> >> Your "analyze" of Einstein's text is an abysmal failure, a complete >> bunch of nonsense from start to finish. >>> For instance I had taken 'The Galactic Black Hole' and analyzed that. > > I made an English version called 'Annotated version of SRT'. > > It was a pdf of the English translation of Einstein's paper 'On the > electrodynamics of moving bodies'. > > Then I marked every questionable statement with the annotation function > of that pdf software and wrote a comment, why that was in my view a > questionable statement (and whether or not that was an error). > > I wrote more than 420 annotations. > > This actually means: the text contains a colossal number of errors of > all kinds. > > About those comments I had several discussions in this group of the > UseNet in a period of about two years. > > The comments helped me a lot to clarify my own statements and rethink a > number of comments. > > But the total number of annotation was only reduced insignificantly in > this process. > > The vast majority remained unchallenged. > > That means: there are a HUGE number of errors in this text, where the > text itself could not be defended against critique. > > This in turn would qualify Einstein's text as among the worst articles > ever printed in a scientific journal. 100% of your "comments" are idiotic garbage. You failed at understanding the most obvious basic statements. Especially about synchronization of clocks. Remember? >>> >>> I found several statements, that were in my opinion nonsense. >>> >>> This is actually all over the place and has to do with how physicists >>> think about their own profession. >>> >>> It is more like a medieval guild, which has apprentices and masters, >>> where non-initiated are not allowed to participate. >> >> Real physics books, articles, courses are available online for everyone. > > Sure, but my statement was that because they are available for everyone > they contain mainly nonsense. > > >> Your ignorance is the result of a choice to remain ignorant. > > > If textbook-science is fake, than ignoring textbook science would be a > god idea. They are not fake. You're just abysmally stupid.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-09-13 08:33 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <mikhakFm89fU2@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #665967 |
Am Freitag000012, 12.09.2025 um 07:56 schrieb Python: ... >>> Your "analyze" of Einstein's text is an abysmal failure, a complete >>> bunch of nonsense from start to finish. >>>> For instance I had taken 'The Galactic Black Hole' and analyzed that. >> >> I made an English version called 'Annotated version of SRT'. >> >> It was a pdf of the English translation of Einstein's paper 'On the >> electrodynamics of moving bodies'. >> >> Then I marked every questionable statement with the annotation >> function of that pdf software and wrote a comment, why that was in my >> view a questionable statement (and whether or not that was an error). >> >> I wrote more than 420 annotations. >> >> This actually means: the text contains a colossal number of errors of >> all kinds. >> >> About those comments I had several discussions in this group of the >> UseNet in a period of about two years. >> >> The comments helped me a lot to clarify my own statements and rethink >> a number of comments. >> >> But the total number of annotation was only reduced insignificantly in >> this process. >> >> The vast majority remained unchallenged. >> >> That means: there are a HUGE number of errors in this text, where the >> text itself could not be defended against critique. >> >> This in turn would qualify Einstein's text as among the worst articles >> ever printed in a scientific journal. > > 100% of your "comments" are idiotic garbage. You failed at understanding > the most obvious basic statements. > > Especially about synchronization of clocks. Remember? No, not at all. I have criticized Einstein's method, because Einstein didn't mention any means to correct the error caused by the finite speed of light and the resulting delay. This critique may eventually be wrong, even if I don't think so, but it's certainly not garbage. It is actually a possible critique, but possibly not a valid one. If my critique ain't valid, because it's erroneous itself, then you could defend Einstein and I my critique and we'll see, who 'wins'. TH ...
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Python <jp@python.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-09-13 08:45 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <mJwf0hRuQex9Kq4uhC7PAmwnBAA@jntp> |
| In reply to | #666006 |
Le 13/09/2025 à 08:29, Thomas Heger a écrit : > Am Freitag000012, 12.09.2025 um 07:56 schrieb Python: > ... >>>> Your "analyze" of Einstein's text is an abysmal failure, a complete >>>> bunch of nonsense from start to finish. >>>>> For instance I had taken 'The Galactic Black Hole' and analyzed that. >>> >>> I made an English version called 'Annotated version of SRT'. >>> >>> It was a pdf of the English translation of Einstein's paper 'On the >>> electrodynamics of moving bodies'. >>> >>> Then I marked every questionable statement with the annotation >>> function of that pdf software and wrote a comment, why that was in my >>> view a questionable statement (and whether or not that was an error). >>> >>> I wrote more than 420 annotations. >>> >>> This actually means: the text contains a colossal number of errors of >>> all kinds. >>> >>> About those comments I had several discussions in this group of the >>> UseNet in a period of about two years. >>> >>> The comments helped me a lot to clarify my own statements and rethink >>> a number of comments. >>> >>> But the total number of annotation was only reduced insignificantly in >>> this process. >>> >>> The vast majority remained unchallenged. >>> >>> That means: there are a HUGE number of errors in this text, where the >>> text itself could not be defended against critique. >>> >>> This in turn would qualify Einstein's text as among the worst articles >>> ever printed in a scientific journal. >> >> 100% of your "comments" are idiotic garbage. You failed at understanding >> the most obvious basic statements. >> >> Especially about synchronization of clocks. Remember? > > No, not at all. Are you kidding ? It was a few days ago ! See: Le 04/09/2025 à 17:40, Python a écrit : > Le 02/09/2025 à 12:28, Python a écrit : >> Le 02/09/2025 à 11:39, Python a écrit : >>> Le 01/09/2025 à 08:23, Thomas Heger a écrit : >>> ... >>>> station 'A' is located in Houston, Texas and station 'B' upon the Moon. >>>> >>>> A-time is usual Texas-time and 'B-time' was named 'Moon mean time'. >>>> >>>> Now we have a huge clock on the Moon and also an 'Apollo' crew to >>>> maintain the clock there. >>> >>> No reason for this clock to be huge. >>> >>>> You wrote, that a number of methods would be possible by which Houston >>>> could be informed about t_B, which included also letters sent by mail. >>>> >>>> And I have written, that you should explain to me, what a letter with >>>> the time 'it's now 13:00:00 Moon mean time' arriving one week later >>>> would say. >>>> >>>> But you are in fact correct and t_B was defined as time of arrival of >>>> the signal in B, which was the meaning of t_B. >>>> >>>> Therefore the letter from the Moon should contain the message ' your >>>> signal arrived here at 13:00:00 Moon mean time'. >>>> >>>> Now: how do you synchronize the clock on the Moon with that information? >>> >>> The message is sent to A in your scenario, so it is the clock on Earth that >>> could be synchronized, by applying a computed offset, with clock B. >>> >>> In order to do so A also need to uses t_A and t'_A. As both are values that have >>> been read on clock A before, there is no communication issues here. Right? >>> >>> Let's suppose that these values are: >>> >>> t_A = 12:30:00 >>> t'_A = 11:30:2.56444 >> >> Typo: >> t_A = 12:30:00 >> t'_A = 12:30:2.56444 >> >> >>> t_B = 13:00:00 >>> >>> A few questions now: >>> 1. Can you check if 2*d/(tpA - tA) = c [d is the Earth-Moon distance] ? >>> 2. Can you check if t_B - t_A = t'_A - t_B ? What does this means in term of >>> clocks synchronization according to Einstein? >>> 3. Can you compute an offset to be applied to clock A so that clocks A & B will >>> be, then, synchronized? > > No answer? How weird... > I have criticized Einstein's method, because Einstein didn't mention any > means to correct the error caused by the finite speed of light and the > resulting delay. It is not an "error", it is what it is. And Einstein take this (what you call "delay") into account in this explicit equation : t_B - t_A = t'_A - t_B
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-09-14 10:25 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <minc7gF5u0bU5@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #666010 |
Am Samstag000013, 13.09.2025 um 10:45 schrieb Python: > Le 13/09/2025 à 08:29, Thomas Heger a écrit : >> Am Freitag000012, 12.09.2025 um 07:56 schrieb Python: >> ... >>>>> Your "analyze" of Einstein's text is an abysmal failure, a complete >>>>> bunch of nonsense from start to finish. >>>>>> For instance I had taken 'The Galactic Black Hole' and analyzed that. >>>> >>>> I made an English version called 'Annotated version of SRT'. >>>> >>>> It was a pdf of the English translation of Einstein's paper 'On the >>>> electrodynamics of moving bodies'. >>>> >>>> Then I marked every questionable statement with the annotation >>>> function of that pdf software and wrote a comment, why that was in >>>> my view a questionable statement (and whether or not that was an >>>> error). >>>> >>>> I wrote more than 420 annotations. >>>> >>>> This actually means: the text contains a colossal number of errors >>>> of all kinds. >>>> >>>> About those comments I had several discussions in this group of the >>>> UseNet in a period of about two years. >>>> >>>> The comments helped me a lot to clarify my own statements and >>>> rethink a number of comments. >>>> >>>> But the total number of annotation was only reduced insignificantly >>>> in this process. >>>> >>>> The vast majority remained unchallenged. >>>> >>>> That means: there are a HUGE number of errors in this text, where >>>> the text itself could not be defended against critique. >>>> >>>> This in turn would qualify Einstein's text as among the worst >>>> articles ever printed in a scientific journal. >>> >>> 100% of your "comments" are idiotic garbage. You failed at >>> understanding the most obvious basic statements. >>> >>> Especially about synchronization of clocks. Remember? >> >> No, not at all. > > Are you kidding ? It was a few days ago ! > > See: > > Le 04/09/2025 à 17:40, Python a écrit : >> Le 02/09/2025 à 12:28, Python a écrit : >>> Le 02/09/2025 à 11:39, Python a écrit : >>>> Le 01/09/2025 à 08:23, Thomas Heger a écrit : >>>> ... >>>>> station 'A' is located in Houston, Texas and station 'B' upon the >>>>> Moon. >>>>> >>>>> A-time is usual Texas-time and 'B-time' was named 'Moon mean time'. >>>>> >>>>> Now we have a huge clock on the Moon and also an 'Apollo' crew to >>>>> maintain the clock there. >>>> >>>> No reason for this clock to be huge. >>>> >>>>> You wrote, that a number of methods would be possible by which >>>>> Houston could be informed about t_B, which included also letters >>>>> sent by mail. >>>>> >>>>> And I have written, that you should explain to me, what a letter >>>>> with the time 'it's now 13:00:00 Moon mean time' arriving one week >>>>> later would say. >>>>> >>>>> But you are in fact correct and t_B was defined as time of arrival >>>>> of the signal in B, which was the meaning of t_B. >>>>> >>>>> Therefore the letter from the Moon should contain the message ' >>>>> your signal arrived here at 13:00:00 Moon mean time'. >>>>> >>>>> Now: how do you synchronize the clock on the Moon with that >>>>> information? >>>> >>>> The message is sent to A in your scenario, so it is the clock on >>>> Earth that could be synchronized, by applying a computed offset, >>>> with clock B. >>>> >>>> In order to do so A also need to uses t_A and t'_A. As both are >>>> values that have been read on clock A before, there is no >>>> communication issues here. Right? >>>> >>>> Let's suppose that these values are: >>>> >>>> t_A = 12:30:00 >>>> t'_A = 11:30:2.56444 >>> >>> Typo: t_A = 12:30:00 >>> t'_A = 12:30:2.56444 >>> >>> >>>> t_B = 13:00:00 >>>> >>>> A few questions now: >>>> 1. Can you check if 2*d/(tpA - tA) = c [d is the Earth-Moon distance] ? >>>> 2. Can you check if t_B - t_A = t'_A - t_B ? What does this means in >>>> term of clocks synchronization according to Einstein? >>>> 3. Can you compute an offset to be applied to clock A so that clocks >>>> A & B will be, then, synchronized? >> >> No answer? How weird... > > > >> I have criticized Einstein's method, because Einstein didn't mention >> any means to correct the error caused by the finite speed of light and >> the resulting delay. > > It is not an "error", it is what it is. And Einstein take this (what you > call "delay") into account in this explicit equation : t_B - t_A = t'_A > - t_B This is the delay, but only under certain conditions. Main requirements: A and B should not move in respect to each other and the speed of light on the way had always to be the same. But there ain't no variables for delay (like e.g. 'd') in Einstein's text. What was also missing, that is a connection between delay and clock-setting. The correct method would be to adjust the remote clock to a timing signal, which is already corrected by the estimated delay. E.g. a position on the Moon shall be exactly 1 light-seconds away and a clock there should become synchronized with a master clock in Houston. Houston would send a timing signal to the Moon at say 1:00:00 pm, but with the content 1:00:01 pm. The man in the Moon reads out this signal and turns the knob, that the Moon clock is set according to that signal from Houston. Since Einstein didn't mention this method or anything similar or even the delay itself, we can only assume, that he didn't want. TH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Python <jp@python.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-09-14 20:21 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <0wWCSdE7cdwNWaoLc173Tyi4sDU@jntp> |
| In reply to | #666052 |
Le 14/09/2025 à 10:21, Thomas Heger a écrit : > Am Samstag000013, 13.09.2025 um 10:45 schrieb Python: >> Le 13/09/2025 à 08:29, Thomas Heger a écrit : >>> Am Freitag000012, 12.09.2025 um 07:56 schrieb Python: >>> ... >>>>>> Your "analyze" of Einstein's text is an abysmal failure, a complete >>>>>> bunch of nonsense from start to finish. >>>>>>> For instance I had taken 'The Galactic Black Hole' and analyzed that. >>>>> >>>>> I made an English version called 'Annotated version of SRT'. >>>>> >>>>> It was a pdf of the English translation of Einstein's paper 'On the >>>>> electrodynamics of moving bodies'. >>>>> >>>>> Then I marked every questionable statement with the annotation >>>>> function of that pdf software and wrote a comment, why that was in >>>>> my view a questionable statement (and whether or not that was an >>>>> error). >>>>> >>>>> I wrote more than 420 annotations. >>>>> >>>>> This actually means: the text contains a colossal number of errors >>>>> of all kinds. >>>>> >>>>> About those comments I had several discussions in this group of the >>>>> UseNet in a period of about two years. >>>>> >>>>> The comments helped me a lot to clarify my own statements and >>>>> rethink a number of comments. >>>>> >>>>> But the total number of annotation was only reduced insignificantly >>>>> in this process. >>>>> >>>>> The vast majority remained unchallenged. >>>>> >>>>> That means: there are a HUGE number of errors in this text, where >>>>> the text itself could not be defended against critique. >>>>> >>>>> This in turn would qualify Einstein's text as among the worst >>>>> articles ever printed in a scientific journal. >>>> >>>> 100% of your "comments" are idiotic garbage. You failed at >>>> understanding the most obvious basic statements. >>>> >>>> Especially about synchronization of clocks. Remember? >>> >>> No, not at all. >> >> Are you kidding ? It was a few days ago ! >> >> See: >> >> Le 04/09/2025 à 17:40, Python a écrit : >>> Le 02/09/2025 à 12:28, Python a écrit : >>>> Le 02/09/2025 à 11:39, Python a écrit : >>>>> Le 01/09/2025 à 08:23, Thomas Heger a écrit : >>>>> ... >>>>>> station 'A' is located in Houston, Texas and station 'B' upon the >>>>>> Moon. >>>>>> >>>>>> A-time is usual Texas-time and 'B-time' was named 'Moon mean time'. >>>>>> >>>>>> Now we have a huge clock on the Moon and also an 'Apollo' crew to >>>>>> maintain the clock there. >>>>> >>>>> No reason for this clock to be huge. >>>>> >>>>>> You wrote, that a number of methods would be possible by which >>>>>> Houston could be informed about t_B, which included also letters >>>>>> sent by mail. >>>>>> >>>>>> And I have written, that you should explain to me, what a letter >>>>>> with the time 'it's now 13:00:00 Moon mean time' arriving one week >>>>>> later would say. >>>>>> >>>>>> But you are in fact correct and t_B was defined as time of arrival >>>>>> of the signal in B, which was the meaning of t_B. >>>>>> >>>>>> Therefore the letter from the Moon should contain the message ' >>>>>> your signal arrived here at 13:00:00 Moon mean time'. >>>>>> >>>>>> Now: how do you synchronize the clock on the Moon with that >>>>>> information? >>>>> >>>>> The message is sent to A in your scenario, so it is the clock on >>>>> Earth that could be synchronized, by applying a computed offset, >>>>> with clock B. >>>>> >>>>> In order to do so A also need to uses t_A and t'_A. As both are >>>>> values that have been read on clock A before, there is no >>>>> communication issues here. Right? >>>>> >>>>> Let's suppose that these values are: >>>>> >>>>> t_A = 12:30:00 >>>>> t'_A = 11:30:2.56444 >>>> >>>> Typo: t_A = 12:30:00 >>>> t'_A = 12:30:2.56444 >>>> >>>> >>>>> t_B = 13:00:00 >>>>> >>>>> A few questions now: >>>>> 1. Can you check if 2*d/(tpA - tA) = c [d is the Earth-Moon distance] ? >>>>> 2. Can you check if t_B - t_A = t'_A - t_B ? What does this means in >>>>> term of clocks synchronization according to Einstein? >>>>> 3. Can you compute an offset to be applied to clock A so that clocks >>>>> A & B will be, then, synchronized? >>> >>> No answer? How weird... Still no answer? >>> I have criticized Einstein's method, because Einstein didn't mention >>> any means to correct the error caused by the finite speed of light and >>> the resulting delay. >> >> It is not an "error", it is what it is. And Einstein take this (what you >> call "delay") into account in this explicit equation : t_B - t_A = t'_A >> - t_B > > This is the delay, but only under certain conditions. Sure. It is the delay under a specific condition. This condition il : t_B - t_A = t'_A - t_B > Main requirements: A and B should not move in respect to each other and > the speed of light on the way had always to be the same. Sure. It is explicitly stated by Einstein. > But there ain't no variables for delay (like e.g. 'd') in Einstein's text. I don't need a "variable" called d. I can grasp that the difference between two time measures is a delay. Are you that dump that you missed the obvious: t_whatever - t_whatever_else IS A DELAY !!!? ? ? Your stupidity is properly amazing Thomas. > What was also missing, that is a connection between delay and clock-setting. Quite the opposite: the condition t_B - t_A = t'_A - t_B is the definition of synchronization: i.e. correct clock settings. > The correct method would be to adjust the remote clock to a timing > signal, which is already corrected by the estimated delay. This is another way that may work or not, anyway it is what Einstein's synchronization procedure already take into account *explicitly*. You also miss (as usual) another point: Einstein is describing a synchronization *checking* procedure NOT a synchronization procedure by itself. Why did he did so? Because he knew that the intended audience will get the point. Even if what he wrote can be turned in a synchronization procedure (see https://noedge.net/e/) it is not the only one. This is something Wozniak failed to understand as well. You are insufferable idiots. > E.g. a position on the Moon shall be exactly 1 light-seconds away and a > clock there should become synchronized with a master clock in Houston. > > Houston would send a timing signal to the Moon at say 1:00:00 pm, but > with the content 1:00:01 pm. > > The man in the Moon reads out this signal and turns the knob, that the > Moon clock is set according to that signal from Houston. I presented you with measures (read below) that could make senes in this very scenario that you ignored. Why did you fly away :-) ? > Since Einstein didn't mention this method or anything similar or even > the delay itself, we can only assume, that he didn't want. We can assume the contrary because what you call "delays" are a key part of ALL equations in paragraph 1. about synchronization in Einstein's paper. Your failure to spot it is YOUR failure.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-09-15 08:38 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <mipqagFi9g9U5@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #666063 |
Am Sonntag000014, 14.09.2025 um 22:21 schrieb Python: > Le 14/09/2025 à 10:21, Thomas Heger a écrit : >> Am Samstag000013, 13.09.2025 um 10:45 schrieb Python: >>> Le 13/09/2025 à 08:29, Thomas Heger a écrit : >>>> Am Freitag000012, 12.09.2025 um 07:56 schrieb Python: >>>> ... >>>>>>> Your "analyze" of Einstein's text is an abysmal failure, a >>>>>>> complete bunch of nonsense from start to finish. >>>>>>>> For instance I had taken 'The Galactic Black Hole' and analyzed >>>>>>>> that. >>>>>> >>>>>> I made an English version called 'Annotated version of SRT'. >>>>>> >>>>>> It was a pdf of the English translation of Einstein's paper 'On >>>>>> the electrodynamics of moving bodies'. >>>>>> >>>>>> Then I marked every questionable statement with the annotation >>>>>> function of that pdf software and wrote a comment, why that was in >>>>>> my view a questionable statement (and whether or not that was an >>>>>> error). >>>>>> >>>>>> I wrote more than 420 annotations. >>>>>> >>>>>> This actually means: the text contains a colossal number of errors >>>>>> of all kinds. >>>>>> >>>>>> About those comments I had several discussions in this group of >>>>>> the UseNet in a period of about two years. >>>>>> >>>>>> The comments helped me a lot to clarify my own statements and >>>>>> rethink a number of comments. >>>>>> >>>>>> But the total number of annotation was only reduced >>>>>> insignificantly in this process. >>>>>> >>>>>> The vast majority remained unchallenged. >>>>>> >>>>>> That means: there are a HUGE number of errors in this text, where >>>>>> the text itself could not be defended against critique. >>>>>> >>>>>> This in turn would qualify Einstein's text as among the worst >>>>>> articles ever printed in a scientific journal. >>>>> >>>>> 100% of your "comments" are idiotic garbage. You failed at >>>>> understanding the most obvious basic statements. >>>>> >>>>> Especially about synchronization of clocks. Remember? >>>> >>>> No, not at all. >>> >>> Are you kidding ? It was a few days ago ! >>> >>> See: >>> >>> Le 04/09/2025 à 17:40, Python a écrit : >>>> Le 02/09/2025 à 12:28, Python a écrit : >>>>> Le 02/09/2025 à 11:39, Python a écrit : >>>>>> Le 01/09/2025 à 08:23, Thomas Heger a écrit : >>>>>> ... >>>>>>> station 'A' is located in Houston, Texas and station 'B' upon the >>>>>>> Moon. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> A-time is usual Texas-time and 'B-time' was named 'Moon mean time'. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Now we have a huge clock on the Moon and also an 'Apollo' crew to >>>>>>> maintain the clock there. >>>>>> >>>>>> No reason for this clock to be huge. >>>>>> >>>>>>> You wrote, that a number of methods would be possible by which >>>>>>> Houston could be informed about t_B, which included also letters >>>>>>> sent by mail. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> And I have written, that you should explain to me, what a letter >>>>>>> with the time 'it's now 13:00:00 Moon mean time' arriving one >>>>>>> week later would say. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> But you are in fact correct and t_B was defined as time of >>>>>>> arrival of the signal in B, which was the meaning of t_B. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Therefore the letter from the Moon should contain the message ' >>>>>>> your signal arrived here at 13:00:00 Moon mean time'. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Now: how do you synchronize the clock on the Moon with that >>>>>>> information? >>>>>> >>>>>> The message is sent to A in your scenario, so it is the clock on >>>>>> Earth that could be synchronized, by applying a computed offset, >>>>>> with clock B. >>>>>> >>>>>> In order to do so A also need to uses t_A and t'_A. As both are >>>>>> values that have been read on clock A before, there is no >>>>>> communication issues here. Right? >>>>>> >>>>>> Let's suppose that these values are: >>>>>> >>>>>> t_A = 12:30:00 >>>>>> t'_A = 11:30:2.56444 >>>>> >>>>> Typo: t_A = 12:30:00 >>>>> t'_A = 12:30:2.56444 >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> t_B = 13:00:00 >>>>>> >>>>>> A few questions now: >>>>>> 1. Can you check if 2*d/(tpA - tA) = c [d is the Earth-Moon >>>>>> distance] ? >>>>>> 2. Can you check if t_B - t_A = t'_A - t_B ? What does this means >>>>>> in term of clocks synchronization according to Einstein? >>>>>> 3. Can you compute an offset to be applied to clock A so that >>>>>> clocks A & B will be, then, synchronized? >>>> >>>> No answer? How weird... > > Still no answer? > >>>> I have criticized Einstein's method, because Einstein didn't mention >>>> any means to correct the error caused by the finite speed of light >>>> and the resulting delay. >>> >>> It is not an "error", it is what it is. And Einstein take this (what >>> you call "delay") into account in this explicit equation : t_B - t_A >>> = t'_A - t_B >> >> This is the delay, but only under certain conditions. > > Sure. It is the delay under a specific condition. This condition il : > > t_B - t_A = t'_A - t_B You hallucinate, what should be there but simply isn't. That equation "t_B - t_A = t'_A - t_B" isn't delay, but an equation. And it does not even contain a variable, which could eventually represent delay. You simply added 'delay', because you think that this would be obvious. But there are no 'obvious' extensions allowed in theoretical physics. Instead you should stick to the text as it is and not as you like it to be. > >> Main requirements: A and B should not move in respect to each other >> and the speed of light on the way had always to be the same. > > Sure. It is explicitly stated by Einstein. BUT: light does NOT travel with the same velocity all the time, because light speed is depending on the medium. E.g. light speed in air or water is slower than in vacuum. And Einstein didn't mention that.> >> But there ain't no variables for delay (like e.g. 'd') in Einstein's >> text. > > I don't need a "variable" called d. I can grasp that the difference > between two time measures is a delay. There is no room for your extensions, if you analyze a paper. > Are you that dump that you missed the obvious: t_whatever - > t_whatever_else IS A DELAY !!!? ? ? > > Your stupidity is properly amazing Thomas. > >> What was also missing, that is a connection between delay and clock- >> setting. > > Quite the opposite: the condition t_B - t_A = t'_A - t_B is the > definition of synchronization: i.e. correct clock settings. No. It starts with the lack of a proper definition of t_A and t_B. If disconnected local times are meant with 'A-time' and 'B-time' and t_A was measured in 'A-time' and t_B by means of 'B-time', than t_B-t_A would be an illegal operation to begin with. Therefore t_A and t_B must be based on 'A-time' only. And that in turn would make 'B-time' irrelevant. That isn't bad at all, because the clock in B shall be synchronized with the clock in A, anyhow. ... TH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 1 of 6 [1] 2 3 4 5 6 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity
csiph-web