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

Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #357580

Re: Einstein's mistake and Okun's delusion

Show all headers | View raw

On 7/16/2015 6:54 PM, kefischer wrote:> On Thu, 16 Jul 2015 17:33:41 
-0500, Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com>
 > wrote:
 >
 >> On 7/16/2015 5:25 PM, kefischer wrote:
 >>> On Thu, 16 Jul 2015 16:57:33 -0500, Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com>
 >>> wrote:
 >>>
 >>>> On 7/16/2015 4:00 PM, kefischer wrote:
 >>>>>> Right, and after that happened, it wouldn't be a densely packed star
 >>>>>>> region any more, would it?
 >>>>>            It would be a region of violence and energy
 >>>>> production  so great, it would be obvious that
 >>>>> stars cannot "orbit" in all 3 axes, so there should
 >>>>> be a continuous accretion of stars into a single mass,
 >>>>
 >>>> Prove that. Don't wave your hands. Prove it. Show the calculations.
 >>>
 >>>            You show the calculations for 50 million
 >>> stars in a cube with 100 light years sides.
 >>>
 >>
 >> I showed you a calculation pal. Now you do one.
 >>
 >> Oh wait ....
 >
 >           No, get right to it, that cube is one million
 > cubic light years.
 >
 >           In our region there is about one star in
 > about every 10 light year cube.
 >
 >           I won't make any statement about how
 > many that would be, the link I posted and
 > which you always snip, told about how
 > many there are per cubic light year.

That's right, you won't make any statement about how many that would be, 
because even the 3rd grade math required to do it eludes you.

 >
 >
 >>>>> with more energy release than quasars or any
 >>>>> other known feature if Newton was even close
 >>>>> to correct.
 >>>>>
 >>>>
 >>>> Prove that too. Show the calculations.
 >>>>
 >>>> You're full of shit, you know that, right?
 >>>
 >>>             But I know mine stinks, you think
 >>> your's smells good.
 >>
 >> Ah, but you don't say yours stinks, do you? You say it is
 >> graduate-student-quality work.
 >
 >           Some is, but very crude and sloppy
 > work, I don't like doing the details.
 >
 >           The thing is, I enjoy doing original
 > work, even starting something and just
 > see where it leads.
 >
 >           I have a project going now with
 > more than $4000 invested, just to see
 > what develops, and I am way ahead
 > of where I expected to be.

Oh, I'm thrilled for you.

 >
 >
 >> If you said your ideas stank like shit a little more often, you'd be
 >> more on track.
 >
 >         How many times have I said that
 > Divergent Matter is crazy, insane or
 > absurd?

And it stinks.

 >
 >         But it is better than GR in many
 > ways,

And that stinks.

 > and I think is geometrically
 > just an inverse of General Relativity,
 > with time being an advancing well
 > defined parameter.

And that stinks too.

Or, as you say, crazy, insane, absurd.

 >
 >
 >
 >
 >


-- 
Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables


-- 
Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

Back to sci.physics.relativity | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread

Thread

Re: Einstein's mistake and Okun's delusion kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> - 2015-07-16 17:00 -0400
  Re: Einstein's mistake and Okun's delusion khrapko_ri@hotmail.com - 2015-07-17 01:07 -0700
  Re: Einstein's mistake and Okun's delusion kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2015-07-17 04:52 -0700
    Re: Einstein's mistake and Okun's delusion Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-07-17 07:26 -0500
  Re: Einstein's mistake and Okun's delusion Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-07-17 07:06 -0500
  Re: Einstein's mistake and Okun's delusion Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-07-17 07:11 -0500

csiph-web