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

Groups > alt.astronomy > #279260 > unrolled thread

Re: Where is the center of the universe?

Back to article view | Back to alt.astronomy

This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.

Contents

  Re: Where is the center of the universe? Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2015-11-20 17:45 -0600
    Re: Where is the center of the universe? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-11-20 23:48 -0800
      Re: Where is the center of the universe? Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2015-11-21 10:27 +0100
        Re: Where is the center of the universe? benj <none@gmail.com> - 2015-11-21 05:13 -0500
          Re: Where is the center of the universe? Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2015-11-21 12:57 +0100
            Re: Where is the center of the universe? benj <none@gmail.com> - 2015-11-21 13:44 -0500
              Re: Where is the center of the universe? Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2015-11-21 20:01 +0100
                Re: Where is the center of the universe? benj <none@gmail.com> - 2015-11-21 14:17 -0500
              Re: Where is the center of the universe? Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2015-11-21 20:01 +0100
                Re: Where is the center of the universe? benj <none@gmail.com> - 2015-11-21 14:22 -0500
      Re: Where is the center of the universe? Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2015-11-21 08:05 -0600
        Re: Where is the center of the universe? benj <none@gmail.com> - 2015-11-21 13:48 -0500
          Re: Where is the center of the universe? Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2015-11-23 10:21 -0600
            Re: Where is the center of the universe? Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2015-11-23 17:34 +0100
            Re: Where is the center of the universe? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-11-23 11:31 -0800
              Re: Where is the center of the universe? rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2015-11-23 15:54 -0500
                Re: Where is the center of the universe? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-11-23 13:43 -0800
                  Re: Where is the center of the universe? rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2015-11-23 16:49 -0500
                    Re: Where is the center of the universe? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-11-23 16:17 -0800
                Re: Where is the center of the universe? dvus <dven1@adelphia.net> - 2015-11-24 16:52 -0500
                  Re: Where is the center of the universe? Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2015-11-24 22:24 +0000
      Re: Where is the center of the universe? Saul Levy <saullevy1@cox.net> - 2015-11-21 07:13 -0700
        Re: Where is the center of the universe? "Notroll2015" <notroll2015@charter.net> - 2015-11-21 12:48 -0600
          Re: Where is the center of the universe? Saul Levy <saullevy1@cox.net> - 2015-11-21 14:10 -0700
    Re: Where is the center of the universe? dvus <dven1@adelphia.net> - 2015-11-21 06:43 -0500
      Re: There's nothing special about the start of "the big bang". benj <none@gmail.com> - 2015-11-21 13:45 -0500
        Re: There's nothing special about the start of "the big bang". "Notroll2015" <notroll2015@charter.net> - 2015-11-21 12:51 -0600
        Re: There's nothing special about the start of "the big bang". Edward Stansfield <stansfield5REM6@linuxmail.org> - 2015-11-21 14:11 -0500
      Re: Where is the center of the universe? Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2015-11-21 20:37 +0000
        Re: Where is the center of the universe? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-11-21 21:06 -0800
          Re: Where is the center of the universe? Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2015-11-22 11:43 +0000
            Re: Where is the center of the universe? benj <none@gmail.com> - 2015-11-22 09:01 -0500
              Re: Where is the center of the universe? Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2015-11-22 14:59 +0000
            Re: Where is the center of the universe? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-11-22 14:02 -0800
              Re: Where is the center of the universe? Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2015-11-22 16:32 -0600
          Re: Where is the center of the universe? Saul Levy <saullevy1@cox.net> - 2015-11-22 07:18 -0700
      Re: Where is the center of the universe? Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2015-11-23 10:51 -0600
        Re: Where is the center of the universe? Arc Michael <abookoflife@yahoo.com> - 2015-11-24 13:57 -0800
        Re: Where is the center of the universe? dvus <dven1@adelphia.net> - 2015-11-24 17:07 -0500
          Re: Where is the center of the universe? Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2015-11-24 22:48 +0000
            Re: Where is the center of the universe? Arc Michael <abookoflife@yahoo.com> - 2015-11-24 17:01 -0800
              Re: Where is the center of the universe? Saul Levy <saullevy1@cox.net> - 2015-11-25 01:20 -0700
                Re: Where is the center of the universe? Arc Michael <abookoflife@yahoo.com> - 2015-11-25 10:51 -0800
                  Re: Where is the center of the universe? Saul Levy <saullevy1@cox.net> - 2015-12-03 18:13 -0700
            Re: Where is the center of the universe? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-11-24 21:47 -0800
              Re: Where is the center of the universe? Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2015-11-25 10:32 +0000
                Re: Where is the center of the universe? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-11-25 09:47 -0800
                  Re: Where is the center of the universe? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-11-25 21:36 -0800
                    Re: Where is the center of the universe? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-11-26 14:22 -0800
                      Re: Where is the center of the universe? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-11-26 14:27 -0800
                      Re: Where is the center of the universe? Saul Levy <saullevy1@cox.net> - 2015-11-26 15:39 -0700
                    Re: Where is the center of the universe? Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2015-11-27 00:48 +0000
                      Re: Where is the center of the universe? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-11-26 17:34 -0800
                  Re: Where is the center of the universe? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-12-01 21:52 -0800
                    Re: Where is the center of the universe? Saul Levy <saullevy1@cox.net> - 2015-12-02 09:49 -0700
          Re: Where is the center of the universe? Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2015-11-25 09:59 -0600
            Re: Where is the center of the universe? benj <none@gmail.com> - 2015-11-25 11:16 -0500
              Re: Where is the center of the universe? Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2015-11-25 11:02 -0600
                Re: Where is the center of the universe? Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2015-11-25 18:47 +0100
                Re: Where is the center of the universe? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-11-25 10:06 -0800
                  Re: Where is the center of the universe? Arc Michael <abookoflife@yahoo.com> - 2015-11-25 10:52 -0800
                  Re: Where is the center of the universe? Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2015-11-25 14:04 -0600
                    Re: Where is the center of the universe? Arc Michael <abookoflife@yahoo.com> - 2015-11-25 12:38 -0800
                      Re: Where is the center of the universe? Saul Levy <saullevy1@cox.net> - 2015-11-25 14:23 -0700
                        Re: Where is the center of the universe? "Notroll2015" <notroll2015@charter.net> - 2015-11-25 15:51 -0600
                          Re: Where is the center of the universe? Saul Levy <saullevy1@cox.net> - 2015-11-29 12:40 -0700
            Re: Where is the center of the universe? Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2015-11-25 17:50 +0100
            Re: Where is the center of the universe? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-11-25 10:01 -0800
              Re: Where is the center of the universe? Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2015-11-25 14:05 -0600
                Re: Where is the center of the universe? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-11-25 12:42 -0800

Page 3 of 4 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4  Next page →

#279413

On Tuesday, November 24, 2015 at 2:48:23 PM UTC-8, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
> dvus wrote:
> ^^^^
> Please fix.
> 
> > It seems as though no one can say what the "shape" of the Universe
> > really is,
> 
> You are mistaken.  We are pretty sure that it is locally flat, i.e. the 
> local curvature is zero.


how is local and universe comparable, tardo? R u a meth addict, a low brained moron.? 


that background radiation that steven hawkings saw early in his career were low level lensing, due to primitive  human being tech. 

Since he lied, he went out of his mind, and believes the  UFO  men will return to eat all. 

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

#279419

WHY DON'T THE UFOs COME AND GET YOU, ARCieLIARFRAUD?

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

Saul Levy


On Tue, 24 Nov 2015 17:01:59 -0800 (PST), Arc Michael
<abookoflife@yahoo.com> wrote:

>On Tuesday, November 24, 2015 at 2:48:23 PM UTC-8, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
>> dvus wrote:
>> ^^^^
>> Please fix.
>> 
>> > It seems as though no one can say what the "shape" of the Universe
>> > really is,
>> 
>> You are mistaken.  We are pretty sure that it is locally flat, i.e. the 
>> local curvature is zero.
>
>
>how is local and universe comparable, tardo? R u a meth addict, a low brained moron.? 
>
>
>that background radiation that steven hawkings saw early in his career were low level lensing, due to primitive  human being tech. 
>
>Since he lied, he went out of his mind, and believes the  UFO  men will return to eat all.

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

#279440

On Wednesday, November 25, 2015 at 12:20:40 AM UTC-8, Saul Levy wrote:
> WHY DON'T THE UFOs COME AND GET YOU, ARCieLIARFRAUD?
> 
> BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
> 
> Saul Levy
> 
> 
> On Tue, 24 Nov 2015 17:01:59 -0800 (PST), Arc Michael
> <abo> wrote:
> 
> >On Tuesday, November 24, 2015 at 2:48:23 PM UTC-8, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
> >> dvus wrote:
> >> ^^^^
> >> Please fix.
> >> 
> >> > It seems as though no one can say what the "shape" of the Universe
> >> > really is,
> >> 
> >> You are mistaken.  We are pretty sure that it is locally flat, i.e. the 
> >> local curvature is zero.
> >
> >
> >how is local and universe comparable, tardo? R u a meth addict, a low brained moron.? 
> >
> >
> >that background radiation that steven hawkings saw early in his career were low level lensing, due to primitive  human being tech. 
> >
> >Since he lied, he went out of his mind, and believes the  UFO  men will return to eat all.

when they see my face they run. How is your miss camele today? 

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

#279676

YOU WRITE LIKE AN INSANE MOTHERFUCKER, ARCieBOI!

I HAVE NO CAMEL, SHIT FOR BRAINS!

Saul Levy


On Wed, 25 Nov 2015 10:51:35 -0800 (PST), Arc Michael
<abookoflife@yahoo.com> wrote:

>On Wednesday, November 25, 2015 at 12:20:40 AM UTC-8, Saul Levy wrote:
>> WHY DON'T THE UFOs COME AND GET YOU, ARCieLIARFRAUD?
>> 
>> BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
>> 
>> Saul Levy
>> 
>> 
>> On Tue, 24 Nov 2015 17:01:59 -0800 (PST), Arc Michael
>
>when they see my face they run. How is your miss camele today?

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

#279414

Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
> 
> dvus wrote:
> ^^^^
> Please fix.
> 
> > It seems as though no one can say what the "shape" of the Universe
> > really is,
> 
> You are mistaken.  We are pretty sure that it is locally flat, i.e. the
> local curvature is zero.


"pretty sure" doesn't cut the mustard. You need to do better than that.


And Einstein already proved there is no PointedEars.

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

#279421

The Starmaker amok-crossposted:

> Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
>> dvus wrote:
>> > It seems as though no one can say what the "shape" of the Universe
>> > really is,
>> 
>> You are mistaken.  We are pretty sure that it is locally flat, i.e. the
>> local curvature is zero.
> 
> "pretty sure" doesn't cut the mustard. You need to do better than that.
 
No, “pretty sure” is how science works.  You make observations, you have a 
theory as to how things are, you test the theory; if it is confirmed by 
observations again, if it predicts what you observe later, it is good to go 
as long as there is no observation saying otherwise.  “Only religion claims 
to know everything although clearly knowing nothing.” (Lawrence Krauss 
[paraphrased])

> And Einstein already proved there is no PointedEars.

In your dreams.


F'up2 .relativity

PointedEars
-- 
Q: Why is electricity so dangerous?  
A: It doesn't conduct itself.

(from: WolframAlpha)

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

#279434

Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
> 
> The Starmaker amok-crossposted:
> 
> > Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
> >> dvus wrote:
> >> > It seems as though no one can say what the "shape" of the Universe
> >> > really is,
> >>
> >> You are mistaken.  We are pretty sure that it is locally flat, i.e. the
> >> local curvature is zero.
> >
> > "pretty sure" doesn't cut the mustard. You need to do better than that.
> 
> No, “pretty sure” is how science works.  You make observations, you have a
> theory as to how things are, you test the theory; if it is confirmed by
> observations again, if it predicts what you observe later, it is good to go
> as long as there is no observation saying otherwise.  “Only religion claims
> to know everything although clearly knowing nothing.” (Lawrence Krauss
> [paraphrased])

Lawrence Krauss is a fraud.  I never heard anybody in religion claiming
to know everything. What religion is he refering too??

Lawrence Krauss repeats the samething over and over again...he's got a
devil smile and devil eyes.


> 
> > And Einstein already proved there is no PointedEars.
> 
> In your dreams.

From what I know...
It is written, that the people with PointedEars
are from the planet Vulcan.

Einstein proved that the planet Vulcan doesn't exist.


That means there is no PointedEars.

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

#279471

Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
> 
> The Starmaker wrote:
> 
> > Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
> >> The Starmaker amok-crossposted:
> >> > And Einstein already proved there is no PointedEars.
> >> In your dreams.
> >
> > From what I know...
> > It is written, that the people with PointedEars
> > are from the planet Vulcan.
> 
> That would be _pointed ears_, and they could as well be from Barradas â…¢,
> Romulus, and a number of other Vulcan/Romulan/Debrune colonies ;-)
> 
> > Einstein proved that the planet Vulcan doesn't exist.
> 
> No, he did not.  He could not.  The fact aside that Einstein has concerned
> himself with far more important things at the time, like world peace and a
> unified theory without quantum mechanics, Star Trek and the idea of the
> planet Vulcan (1964) was not even conceived when Einstein lived (1879–1955).
> 
> > That means there is no PointedEars.
> 
> Ex falso quodlibet.
> 
> PointedEars
> --
> Q: What happens when electrons lose their energy?
> A: They get Bohr'ed.
> 
> (from: WolframAlpha)


For a guy with PointedEars, you don't know much about your
planet...Vulcan:


"Einstein, Destroyer of Worlds"

Einstein went one better. With his pen he destroyed a planet, Vulcan,
and simultaneously “reimagined the cosmos.” 



Although general relativity encompasses the entire universe, Einstein in
1915 decided to highlight its effects on the planet Mercury for a few
reasons, Mr. Levenson notes. General relativity predicts that massive
objects warp the space around them. The larger the object, the more
warping that occurs. And Mercury, the closest planet to the sun, would
therefore feel the effects of general relativity far more than other
planets.

Equally important, Mr. Levenson writes, “Einstein had a perfectly fine
grasp of . . . intellectual combat,” and knew he needed to make a splash
to win people’s attention. Solving the mystery of Mercury’s
orbit—something Newton’s revered theory couldn’t do—would produce an
intellectual tsunami.

So Einstein sat down to calculate, and watched as the correct orbit
popped right out of his equations—like “magic,” he said. Far from
playing it cool, Einstein felt his heart shudder at the sight, and said
that something “snapped” inside him. A friend later speculated that
resolving Mercury’s orbit was the most intense emotional experience of
Einstein’s scientific life, maybe even his entire life. As Mr. Levenson
writes, “It had been said of Le Verrier that he discovered a planet
[Neptune] at the tip of his pen.” Einstein went one better. With his pen
he destroyed a planet, Vulcan, and simultaneously “reimagined the
cosmos.”

Throughout the book, Mr. Levenson seems intent on using Vulcan to make
grand pronouncements about science and the human condition. The planet
exposes “the human capacity to both discover and self-deceive.” It
provides “an object lesson in how easy it is to see what ought to be
rather than what is.” And so on. More aptly, he uses Vulcan to draw
several thought-provoking parallels to modern science. Just like with
Vulcan, physicists spent decades talking about the Higgs boson based on
the seeming “necessity” of it—the fact that modern theories said these
bosons must exist, even if no one had ever seen them. The Higgs
eventually proved real, but what about superstrings or cosmic inflation
or gravitational waves? We might not be as far removed from the foibles
of Vulcan-hunters as we think.

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

#279479

The Starmaker wrote:
> 
> Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
> >
> > The Starmaker wrote:
> >
> > > Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
> > >> The Starmaker amok-crossposted:
> > >> > And Einstein already proved there is no PointedEars.
> > >> In your dreams.
> > >
> > > From what I know...
> > > It is written, that the people with PointedEars
> > > are from the planet Vulcan.
> >
> > That would be _pointed ears_, and they could as well be from Barradas â…¢,
> > Romulus, and a number of other Vulcan/Romulan/Debrune colonies ;-)
> >
> > > Einstein proved that the planet Vulcan doesn't exist.
> >
> > No, he did not.  He could not.  The fact aside that Einstein has concerned
> > himself with far more important things at the time, like world peace and a
> > unified theory without quantum mechanics, Star Trek and the idea of the
> > planet Vulcan (1964) was not even conceived when Einstein lived (1879–1955).
> >
> > > That means there is no PointedEars.
> >
> > Ex falso quodlibet.
> >
> > PointedEars
> > --
> > Q: What happens when electrons lose their energy?
> > A: They get Bohr'ed.
> >
> > (from: WolframAlpha)
> 
> For a guy with PointedEars, you don't know much about your
> planet...Vulcan:
> 
> "Einstein, Destroyer of Worlds"
> 
> Einstein went one better. With his pen he destroyed a planet, Vulcan,
> and simultaneously “reimagined the cosmos.”
> 
> Although general relativity encompasses the entire universe, Einstein in
> 1915 decided to highlight its effects on the planet Mercury for a few
> reasons, Mr. Levenson notes. General relativity predicts that massive
> objects warp the space around them. The larger the object, the more
> warping that occurs. And Mercury, the closest planet to the sun, would
> therefore feel the effects of general relativity far more than other
> planets.
> 
> Equally important, Mr. Levenson writes, “Einstein had a perfectly fine
> grasp of . . . intellectual combat,” and knew he needed to make a splash
> to win people’s attention. Solving the mystery of Mercury’s
> orbit—something Newton’s revered theory couldn’t do—would produce an
> intellectual tsunami.
> 
> So Einstein sat down to calculate, and watched as the correct orbit
> popped right out of his equations—like “magic,” he said. Far from
> playing it cool, Einstein felt his heart shudder at the sight, and said
> that something “snapped” inside him. A friend later speculated that
> resolving Mercury’s orbit was the most intense emotional experience of
> Einstein’s scientific life, maybe even his entire life. As Mr. Levenson
> writes, “It had been said of Le Verrier that he discovered a planet
> [Neptune] at the tip of his pen.” Einstein went one better. With his pen
> he destroyed a planet, Vulcan, and simultaneously “reimagined the
> cosmos.”
> 
> Throughout the book, Mr. Levenson seems intent on using Vulcan to make
> grand pronouncements about science and the human condition. The planet
> exposes “the human capacity to both discover and self-deceive.” It
> provides “an object lesson in how easy it is to see what ought to be
> rather than what is.” And so on. More aptly, he uses Vulcan to draw
> several thought-provoking parallels to modern science. Just like with
> Vulcan, physicists spent decades talking about the Higgs boson based on
> the seeming “necessity” of it—the fact that modern theories said these
> bosons must exist, even if no one had ever seen them. The Higgs
> eventually proved real, but what about superstrings or cosmic inflation
> or gravitational waves? We might not be as far removed from the foibles
> of Vulcan-hunters as we think.


And when he delivered a talk detailing his calculations at the Prussian Academy of Sciences on Nov. 18, 1915 in Berlin, his “pen destroyed Vulcan 


 THE HUNT FOR VULCAN:

. . . And How Albert Einstein Destroyed a Planet, Discovered Relativity, and Deciphered the Universe

By Thomas Levenson




How Albert Einstein Destroyed The Planet...Vulcan.



He also almost destroyed the earth:
http://pw1.netcom.com/~starmaker/Albert_Einstein/Albert_Einstein_The-Man-Who-Built-The-Atomic-Bomb.html

--- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: news@netfront.net ---

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

#279480

The Starmaker wrote:
> 
> The Starmaker wrote:
> >
> > Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
> > >
> > > The Starmaker wrote:
> > >
> > > > Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
> > > >> The Starmaker amok-crossposted:
> > > >> > And Einstein already proved there is no PointedEars.
> > > >> In your dreams.
> > > >
> > > > From what I know...
> > > > It is written, that the people with PointedEars
> > > > are from the planet Vulcan.
> > >
> > > That would be _pointed ears_, and they could as well be from Barradas â…¢,
> > > Romulus, and a number of other Vulcan/Romulan/Debrune colonies ;-)
> > >
> > > > Einstein proved that the planet Vulcan doesn't exist.
> > >
> > > No, he did not.  He could not.  The fact aside that Einstein has concerned
> > > himself with far more important things at the time, like world peace and a
> > > unified theory without quantum mechanics, Star Trek and the idea of the
> > > planet Vulcan (1964) was not even conceived when Einstein lived (1879–1955).
> > >
> > > > That means there is no PointedEars.
> > >
> > > Ex falso quodlibet.
> > >
> > > PointedEars
> > > --
> > > Q: What happens when electrons lose their energy?
> > > A: They get Bohr'ed.
> > >
> > > (from: WolframAlpha)
> >
> > For a guy with PointedEars, you don't know much about your
> > planet...Vulcan:
> >
> > "Einstein, Destroyer of Worlds"
> >
> > Einstein went one better. With his pen he destroyed a planet, Vulcan,
> > and simultaneously “reimagined the cosmos.”
> >
> > Although general relativity encompasses the entire universe, Einstein in
> > 1915 decided to highlight its effects on the planet Mercury for a few
> > reasons, Mr. Levenson notes. General relativity predicts that massive
> > objects warp the space around them. The larger the object, the more
> > warping that occurs. And Mercury, the closest planet to the sun, would
> > therefore feel the effects of general relativity far more than other
> > planets.
> >
> > Equally important, Mr. Levenson writes, “Einstein had a perfectly fine
> > grasp of . . . intellectual combat,” and knew he needed to make a splash
> > to win people’s attention. Solving the mystery of Mercury’s
> > orbit—something Newton’s revered theory couldn’t do—would produce an
> > intellectual tsunami.
> >
> > So Einstein sat down to calculate, and watched as the correct orbit
> > popped right out of his equations—like “magic,” he said. Far from
> > playing it cool, Einstein felt his heart shudder at the sight, and said
> > that something “snapped” inside him. A friend later speculated that
> > resolving Mercury’s orbit was the most intense emotional experience of
> > Einstein’s scientific life, maybe even his entire life. As Mr. Levenson
> > writes, “It had been said of Le Verrier that he discovered a planet
> > [Neptune] at the tip of his pen.” Einstein went one better. With his pen
> > he destroyed a planet, Vulcan, and simultaneously “reimagined the
> > cosmos.”
> >
> > Throughout the book, Mr. Levenson seems intent on using Vulcan to make
> > grand pronouncements about science and the human condition. The planet
> > exposes “the human capacity to both discover and self-deceive.” It
> > provides “an object lesson in how easy it is to see what ought to be
> > rather than what is.” And so on. More aptly, he uses Vulcan to draw
> > several thought-provoking parallels to modern science. Just like with
> > Vulcan, physicists spent decades talking about the Higgs boson based on
> > the seeming “necessity” of it—the fact that modern theories said these
> > bosons must exist, even if no one had ever seen them. The Higgs
> > eventually proved real, but what about superstrings or cosmic inflation
> > or gravitational waves? We might not be as far removed from the foibles
> > of Vulcan-hunters as we think.
> 
> And when he delivered a talk detailing his calculations at the Prussian Academy of Sciences on Nov. 18, 1915 in Berlin, his “pen destroyed Vulcan
> 
>  THE HUNT FOR VULCAN:
> 
> . . . And How Albert Einstein Destroyed a Planet, Discovered Relativity, and Deciphered the Universe
> 
> By Thomas Levenson
> 
> How Albert Einstein Destroyed The Planet...Vulcan.
> 
> He also almost destroyed the earth:
> http://pw1.netcom.com/~starmaker/Albert_Einstein/Albert_Einstein_The-Man-Who-Built-The-Atomic-Bomb.html
> 


Scientific American eventually banned all new stories about Vulcan
“discoveries” in its pages.


i guess there is too muck kooks in the 'scientific community'...isn't
there? wat is a kook to do? discover global warming? banned those too!


ban all those kooks, and wat have you left? a bunch of turkeys...

--- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: news@netfront.net ---

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

#279481

NOT EVEN CLOSE, FAKESHITHEAD!

Saul Levy


On Thu, 26 Nov 2015 14:22:28 -0800, The Starmaker
<starmaker@ix.netcom.com> wrote:

>He also almost destroyed the earth:
>http://pw1.netcom.com/~starmaker/Albert_Einstein/Albert_Einstein_The-Man-Who-Built-The-Atomic-Bomb.html

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

#279482

“The Starmaker” wrote:

> For a guy with PointedEars, you don't know much about your
> planet...Vulcan:

Sadly, you have lost the sense to tell reality from fiction.

> "Einstein, Destroyer of Worlds"
> 
> Einstein went one better. With his pen he destroyed a planet, Vulcan,
> and simultaneously “reimagined the cosmos.”
> […]
> 
> 
> Although general relativity encompasses the entire universe, Einstein in
> 1915 decided to highlight its effects on the planet Mercury for a few
> reasons, Mr. Levenson notes.

So far that is correct and has nothing to do with the planet Vulcan which, 
mind you, is a *ficticious* planet (although maybe an example of a real one.  
Diane Duane, arguably only a writer of non-scientific books, has detailed 
the astronomical evolution of the planet Vulcan in several chapters of the 
Star Trek novel “Spock’s World” in a scientifically plausible way.  There 
may be desert planets that evolved that way.  One would have to check the 
Kepler data to determine if such a planet has been discovered.

But that has nothing to do with your nonsensical assumption that therefore 
it had to be inhabited by a humanoid lifeform with pointed ears.  Although 
one must admit the idea, and this has relevance to physics, that on a desert 
planet with a thin atmosphere such a form of ears could be an evolutionary 
advantage.)

> General relativity predicts that massive objects warp the space around 
> them.

That would have been be correct if you had said “space(-)time”.

> The larger the object, the more warping that occurs.

No, the more *mass* is concentrated within the *smaller* space, the greater 
the curvature of spacetime.

> And Mercury, the closest planet to the sun, would therefore feel the
> effects of general relativity far more than other planets.

Because Sol comprises about 99.86 % of the Sol system’s mass.

> Equally important, Mr. Levenson writes, “Einstein had a perfectly fine
> grasp of . . . intellectual combat,” and knew he needed to make a splash
> to win people’s attention. Solving the mystery of Mercury’s
> orbit—something Newton’s revered theory couldn’t do—would produce an
> intellectual tsunami.

The precession of the perihelion of Mercury was the perfect test for the 
general theory of relativity (GR) as a theory of gravity, because if GR 
could explain and predict that precisely, which Newtonian gravity failed to 
do, GR was undoubtedly the better of the two theories of gravity.  And, 
happily for Einstein, it did; if it did not, as I remember Lawrence Krauss 
saying, “Einstein would have thrown it out like yesterday’s newspaper”.  And 
that is what science is all about: The better theory, the one that explains 
and predicts observations better, wins.  Theories that make predictions that 
are worse with regard to that, are refined or replaced.

It is an historian’s fallacy to assume that Einstein chose Mercury for 
getting attention.  In fact, the record shows that Einstein was not keen and 
happy with becoming famous afterwards.  Reportedly (I just read this in the 
London Science Museum yesterday; a highly recommended place to visit, not 
just for Einstein), he said: “To punish me for my contempt for authority, 
Fate has made me an authority myself.”  (Einstein’s contempt for authority 
is well-documented; the Einstein Museum in Berne has more about that.)

> […]
> Throughout the book, Mr. Levenson seems intent on using Vulcan to make
> grand pronouncements about science and the human condition.

I am sure that either you misunderstood Levenson completely, or that he used 
a good premise and distorted it to fit his crackpot theories.

Now stop this mindbogglingly stupid crossposting across 4 newsgroups without 
Followup-To (especially to newsgroups that have nothing to do with the 
subject), and get a real name, or I stop discussing with you.


PointedEars
-- 
Q: Where are offenders sentenced for light crimes?  
A: To a prism.

(from: WolframAlpha)

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

#279483

Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
> 
> “The Starmaker” wrote:
> 
> > For a guy with PointedEars, you don't know much about your
> > planet...Vulcan:
> 
> Sadly, you have lost the sense to tell reality from fiction.
> 
> > "Einstein, Destroyer of Worlds"
> >
> > Einstein went one better. With his pen he destroyed a planet, Vulcan,
> > and simultaneously “reimagined the cosmos.”
> > […]
> >
> >
> > Although general relativity encompasses the entire universe, Einstein in
> > 1915 decided to highlight its effects on the planet Mercury for a few
> > reasons, Mr. Levenson notes.
> 
> So far that is correct and has nothing to do with the planet Vulcan which,
> mind you, is a *ficticious* planet (although maybe an example of a real one.
> Diane Duane, arguably only a writer of non-scientific books, has detailed
> the astronomical evolution of the planet Vulcan in several chapters of the
> Star Trek novel “Spock’s World” in a scientifically plausible way.  There
> may be desert planets that evolved that way.  One would have to check the
> Kepler data to determine if such a planet has been discovered.
> 
> But that has nothing to do with your nonsensical assumption that therefore
> it had to be inhabited by a humanoid lifeform with pointed ears.  Although
> one must admit the idea, and this has relevance to physics, that on a desert
> planet with a thin atmosphere such a form of ears could be an evolutionary
> advantage.)

You are soooo wrong on so many points, it's not even worth pointing it out!


Even in 1938 War of the World broadcast peopla believed in Martians...why not Vulcans...with pointed ears??


Does your mailbox at home read 'PointedEars'???? I bet your dog has pointed ears..  


> 
> > General relativity predicts that massive objects warp the space around
> > them.
> 
> That would have been be correct if you had said “space(-)time”.
> 
> > The larger the object, the more warping that occurs.
> 
> No, the more *mass* is concentrated within the *smaller* space, the greater
> the curvature of spacetime.
> 
> > And Mercury, the closest planet to the sun, would therefore feel the
> > effects of general relativity far more than other planets.
> 
> Because Sol comprises about 99.86 % of the Sol system’s mass.
> 
> > Equally important, Mr. Levenson writes, “Einstein had a perfectly fine
> > grasp of . . . intellectual combat,” and knew he needed to make a splash
> > to win peopleÂ’s attention. Solving the mystery of MercuryÂ’s
> > orbit—something Newton’s revered theory couldn’t do—would produce an
> > intellectual tsunami.
> 
> The precession of the perihelion of Mercury was the perfect test for the
> general theory of relativity (GR) as a theory of gravity, because if GR
> could explain and predict that precisely, which Newtonian gravity failed to
> do, GR was undoubtedly the better of the two theories of gravity.  And,
> happily for Einstein, it did; if it did not, as I remember Lawrence Krauss
> saying, “Einstein would have thrown it out like yesterday’s newspaper”.  And
> that is what science is all about: The better theory, the one that explains
> and predicts observations better, wins.  Theories that make predictions that
> are worse with regard to that, are refined or replaced.
> 
> It is an historian’s fallacy to assume that Einstein chose Mercury for
> getting attention.  In fact, the record shows that Einstein was not keen and
> happy with becoming famous afterwards.  Reportedly (I just read this in the
> London Science Museum yesterday; a highly recommended place to visit, not
> just for Einstein), he said: “To punish me for my contempt for authority,
> Fate has made me an authority myself.”  (Einstein’s contempt for authority
> is well-documented; the Einstein Museum in Berne has more about that.)
> 
> > […]
> > Throughout the book, Mr. Levenson seems intent on using Vulcan to make
> > grand pronouncements about science and the human condition.
> 
> I am sure that either you misunderstood Levenson completely, or that he used
> a good premise and distorted it to fit his crackpot theories.
> 
> Now stop this mindbogglingly stupid crossposting across 4 newsgroups without
> Followup-To (especially to newsgroups that have nothing to do with the
> subject), and get a real name, or I stop discussing with you.
> 
> PointedEars
> --
> Q: Where are offenders sentenced for light crimes?
> A: To a prism.
> 
> (from: WolframAlpha)

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

#279631

Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
> 
> Greg Goss wrote:
> 
> > Oddities in the orbit of Mercury led to speculation about an inner
> > planet perturbing it.  This hypothetical planet was generally called
> > "Vulcan".
> > […]
> > Asimov did a short essay once on the idea that Vulcan was "cast out"
> > by a stone (ein stein) and tied this somehow to Greek mythology in a
>   ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> > manner that I can't remember.
> 
> Interesting :)  The god Vulcan is the Roman equivalent of the Greek god
> Hephaistos/Hephaestus, the “blacksmith of the Gods”.  He was the inventor
> among the Greek Gods who designed and had manufactured, among other things,
> Zeus’ (Roman: Jupiter’s) lightnings, Helios’ (Sol’s) chariot, and Hermes’
> (Mercury’s) winged shoes.  In one version, he was the child of Zeus and his
> sister Hera (Juno), and had his workshop on Mount Olympus.  In another one,
> “he was Hera’s parthenogenous child, rejected by his mother because of his
> deformity and thrown out [‘cast out’] of heaven [Olympus; the ed.] and down
> to earth.”
> 
> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hephaestus>
> 
> > But for once, it looks like SM got something right.  Einstein proved
> > that an inner planet (usually called Vulcan) didn't need to exist.
> 
> They got it right insofar as that a planet named Vulcan was involved in the
> history of general relativity.  They got it completely wrong with regard to
> a certain ficticious species with pointed ears, and to me.

Now wait a minute here...Spock is from the planet Vulcan, and he's got pointed ears! Where am I wrong here??

There is only one planet Vulcan. 

Einstein destroyed the other planet Vulcan, that didn't even exist..

You see what science and science fiction does to kids...it distorts children's minds.


And what is Science?....opinions! No truths, just opinions!!!


o·pin·ion
a view or judgment formed about something, not necessarily based on fact 


That is what Science is...opinions! 


o·pin·ions



and what is science fiction? the false illusion of
scientific understanding.

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

#279647

FAKER DESTROYS ALL MINDS!

WHAT AN IMBECILE AND FRAUD!

Saul Levy


On Tue, 01 Dec 2015 21:52:19 -0800, The Starmaker
<starmaker@ix.netcom.com> wrote:

>Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
>> 
>> Greg Goss wrote:
>> 
>> > Oddities in the orbit of Mercury led to speculation about an inner
>> > planet perturbing it.  This hypothetical planet was generally called
>> > "Vulcan".
>> > […]
>> > Asimov did a short essay once on the idea that Vulcan was "cast out"
>> > by a stone (ein stein) and tied this somehow to Greek mythology in a
>>   ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>> > manner that I can't remember.
>> 
>> Interesting :)  The god Vulcan is the Roman equivalent of the Greek god
>> Hephaistos/Hephaestus, the “blacksmith of the Gods�.  He was the inventor
>> among the Greek Gods who designed and had manufactured, among other things,
>> Zeus’ (Roman: Jupiter’s) lightnings, Helios’ (Sol’s) chariot, and Hermes’
>> (Mercury’s) winged shoes.  In one version, he was the child of Zeus and his
>> sister Hera (Juno), and had his workshop on Mount Olympus.  In another one,
>> “he was Hera’s parthenogenous child, rejected by his mother because of his
>> deformity and thrown out [‘cast out’] of heaven [Olympus; the ed.] and down
>> to earth.�
>> 
>> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hephaestus>
>> 
>> > But for once, it looks like SM got something right.  Einstein proved
>> > that an inner planet (usually called Vulcan) didn't need to exist.
>> 
>> They got it right insofar as that a planet named Vulcan was involved in the
>> history of general relativity.  They got it completely wrong with regard to
>> a certain ficticious species with pointed ears, and to me.
>
>Now wait a minute here...Spock is from the planet Vulcan, and he's got pointed ears! Where am I wrong here??
>
>There is only one planet Vulcan. 
>
>Einstein destroyed the other planet Vulcan, that didn't even exist..
>
>You see what science and science fiction does to kids...it distorts children's minds.
>
>
>And what is Science?....opinions! No truths, just opinions!!!
>
>
>o·pin·ion
>a view or judgment formed about something, not necessarily based on fact 
>
>
>That is what Science is...opinions! 
>
>
>o·pin·ions
>
>
>
>and what is science fiction? the false illusion of
>scientific understanding.

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

#279424

On 11/24/15 11/24/15 - 4:07 PM, dvus wrote:
> It seems as though no one can say what the "shape" of the Universe really is,

Yes. Because we're pretty sure that the universe extends considerably beyond 
what we can observe.

But within the region we can observe, it structure is consistent with being 
spatially flat to high accuracy.


> If someone said we lived on the surface of a sphere of some determinate size I
> could visualize that,

Of course that does hold for us, approximately, here on earth -- only a handful 
of people have ever been more than 0.1% away from the mean radius of the earth's 
surface.


> But all I see are explanations of a Universe
> that's "bounded" or "not bounded" without an explanation of just what the heck
> that really means.

"Bounded" means of finite spatial size, "not bounded" means of infinite spatial 
size.

	"Bounded" is not really the correct term, it should be
	"compact" (a topological term), or "finite" (here a
	geometrical term).


> I suppose if you live in a Universe which you consider has no
> "outside" it's tough to give its shape except in mathematical terms.

Yes.


> I'd even prefer it if someone said "we have no idea" rather than these murky
> non-explanations.

But they _ARE_ reasonable descriptions to the people who count: experts 
interested in the issues involved. That lay people like yourself don't 
understand them is not of concern, except to those people themselves. There is a 
"cure": STUDY.


Tom Roberts

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

#279425

On 11/25/2015 10:59 AM, Tom Roberts wrote:
> On 11/24/15 11/24/15 - 4:07 PM, dvus wrote:
>> It seems as though no one can say what the "shape" of the Universe
>> really is,
>
> Yes. Because we're pretty sure that the universe extends considerably
> beyond what we can observe.
>
> But within the region we can observe, it structure is consistent with
> being spatially flat to high accuracy.
>
>
>> If someone said we lived on the surface of a sphere of some
>> determinate size I
>> could visualize that,
>
> Of course that does hold for us, approximately, here on earth -- only a
> handful of people have ever been more than 0.1% away from the mean
> radius of the earth's surface.
>
>
>> But all I see are explanations of a Universe
>> that's "bounded" or "not bounded" without an explanation of just what
>> the heck
>> that really means.
>
> "Bounded" means of finite spatial size, "not bounded" means of infinite
> spatial size.
>
>      "Bounded" is not really the correct term, it should be
>      "compact" (a topological term), or "finite" (here a
>      geometrical term).
>
>
>> I suppose if you live in a Universe which you consider has no
>> "outside" it's tough to give its shape except in mathematical terms.
>
> Yes.
>
>
>> I'd even prefer it if someone said "we have no idea" rather than these
>> murky
>> non-explanations.
>
> But they _ARE_ reasonable descriptions to the people who count: experts
> interested in the issues involved. That lay people like yourself don't
> understand them is not of concern, except to those people themselves.
> There is a "cure": STUDY.

Actually there is another option: Fantasy and arrogance. Simply make up 
your own stories and and arrogantly assure anyone who will listen that 
they are all how it is even though they really don't make common sense. 
Then YOU will be an "expert". Your reputation then being proportional to 
the number of other people you can get to believe and repeat your 
fantasies.


-- 

       ___           ___           ___            ___
      /\  \         /\  \         /\__\          /\  \
     /::\  \       /::\  \       /::|  |         \:\  \
    /:/\:\  \     /:/\:\  \     /:|:|  |     ___ /::\__\
   /::\~\:\__\   /::\~\:\  \   /:/|:|  |__  /\  /:/\/__/
  /:/\:\ \:|__| /:/\:\ \:\__\ /:/ |:| /\__\ \:\/:/  /
  \:\~\:\/:/  / \:\~\:\ \/__/ \/__|:|/:/  /  \::/  /
   \:\ \::/  /   \:\ \:\__\       |:/:/  /    \/__/
    \:\/:/  /     \:\ \/__/       |::/  /
     \::/__/       \:\__\         /:/  /
      ~~            \/__/         \/__/

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

#279430

On 11/25/15 11/25/15 - 10:16 AM, benj wrote:
> On 11/25/2015 10:59 AM, Tom Roberts wrote:
>> But they _ARE_ reasonable descriptions to the people who count: experts
>> interested in the issues involved.
>
> Actually there is another option: Fantasy and arrogance. Simply make up your
> own stories and and arrogantly assure anyone who will listen that they are
> all how it is even though they really don't make common sense.

Yes, all too may people around here behave that way.

But physicists like myself do not. Our theories/models have an important aspect 
that those others do not: experimental and observational confirmation, and 
absence of refutation.

	Note that common sense has no place in physics, except
	for regimes in which it was developed (i.e. at size
	scales from mm to km, time scales from seconds to years,
	and speeds up to a km/sec or so.

	IOW: there is no requirement that nature make sense.
	(It is our remarkable good fortune that much of nature
	can be described mathematically.)


Tom Roberts

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

#279435

Użytkownik "Tom Roberts"  napisał w wiadomości grup 
dyskusyjnych:VtidnVUyobkTdMjLnZ2dnUU7_8ydnZ2d@giganews.com...


> Actually there is another option: Fantasy and arrogance. Simply make up 
> your
> own stories and and arrogantly assure anyone who will listen that they are
> all how it is even though they really don't make common sense.

|Yes, all too may people around here behave that way.
|But physicists like myself do not.
| Our theories/models have an important aspect
|that those others do not: experimental and observational confirmation, and
|absence of refutation.

Yes. True, real clocks of GPS do indicate t'=t, just
like clocks always did, but it doesn't mean our Shit
is refuted! It does mean reality is UNPROPER!!!!
Besides, if they indicated as The Shit told, they would
indicate exactly as The Shit told!!!!! So, The Shit
is confirmed!!!
And those, who don't believe, are
STUPID!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Right, poor idiot? 

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

#279437

Tom Roberts wrote:
> 
> On 11/25/15 11/25/15 - 10:16 AM, benj wrote:
> > On 11/25/2015 10:59 AM, Tom Roberts wrote:
> >> But they _ARE_ reasonable descriptions to the people who count: experts
> >> interested in the issues involved.
> >
> > Actually there is another option: Fantasy and arrogance. Simply make up your
> > own stories and and arrogantly assure anyone who will listen that they are
> > all how it is even though they really don't make common sense.
> 
> Yes, all too may people around here behave that way.
> 
> But physicists like myself do not. Our theories/models have an important aspect
> that those others do not: experimental and observational confirmation, and
> absence of refutation.
> 
>         Note that common sense has no place in physics, except
>         for regimes in which it was developed (i.e. at size
>         scales from mm to km, time scales from seconds to years,
>         and speeds up to a km/sec or so.
> 
>         IOW: there is no requirement that nature make sense.
>         (It is our remarkable good fortune that much of nature
>         can be described mathematically.)
> 
> Tom Roberts


Nature makes no sense, Math makes sense. Which do you prefer?

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

Page 3 of 4 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | alt.astronomy

csiph-web