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

Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #368359 > unrolled thread

Relativity in big trouble

Back to article view | Back to sci.physics.relativity

Contents

  Relativity in big trouble Günther Huldiberaht <gunhu@allrportos.org> - 2015-10-28 14:16 +0000
    Re: Relativity in big trouble Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2015-10-28 08:50 -0700
      Re: Relativity in big trouble Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2015-10-28 17:25 +0100
        Re: Relativity in big trouble Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2015-10-28 10:08 -0700
        Re: Relativity in big trouble kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> - 2015-10-28 18:22 -0400
      Re: Relativity in big trouble kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> - 2015-10-28 18:21 -0400
        Re: Relativity in big trouble Bobby Sifuentes <bobsif@academicinstitute.org> - 2015-10-28 22:32 +0000
          Re: Relativity in big trouble kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> - 2015-10-28 20:25 -0400
        Re: Relativity in big trouble Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2015-10-28 19:07 -0700
          Re: Relativity in big trouble kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> - 2015-10-28 22:59 -0400
            Re: Relativity in big trouble Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2015-10-28 20:24 -0700
    Relativity in no trouble at all (was: Relativity in big trouble) Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2015-10-28 22:08 +0100
      Re: Relativity in no trouble at all (was: Relativity in big trouble) Willie Stovall <wstov23@yahoo.com> - 2015-10-28 21:54 +0000
        Re: Relativity in no trouble at all Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2015-10-28 23:22 +0100
          Re: Relativity in no trouble at all Bobby Sifuentes <bobsif@academicinstitute.org> - 2015-10-28 22:53 +0000
      Re: Relativity in no trouble at all (was: Relativity in big trouble) kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> - 2015-10-28 20:15 -0400
        Re: Relativity in no trouble at all (was: Relativity in big trouble) pnalsing@gmail.com - 2015-10-28 17:45 -0700
          Re: Relativity in no trouble at all (was: Relativity in big trouble) kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> - 2015-10-28 23:30 -0400
            Re: Relativity in no trouble at all (was: Relativity in big trouble) pnalsing@gmail.com - 2015-10-28 22:08 -0700
              Re: Relativity in no trouble at all (was: Relativity in big trouble) kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> - 2015-10-29 02:38 -0400
                Re: Relativity in no trouble at all (was: Relativity in big trouble) Bobby Sifuentes <bobsif@academicinstitute.org> - 2015-10-29 20:20 +0000
                  Re: Relativity in no trouble at all (was: Relativity in big trouble) kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> - 2015-10-29 16:34 -0400
                    Re: Relativity in no trouble at all (was: Relativity in big trouble) Bobby Sifuentes <bobsif@academicinstitute.org> - 2015-10-29 20:58 +0000
                    Re: Relativity in no trouble at all (was: Relativity in big trouble) pnalsing@gmail.com - 2015-10-29 15:12 -0700
                      Re: Relativity in no trouble at all (was: Relativity in big trouble) kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> - 2015-10-29 19:51 -0400
                        Re: Relativity in no trouble at all (was: Relativity in big trouble) Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2015-10-29 19:19 -0700
                          Re: Relativity in no trouble at all (was: Relativity in big trouble) kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> - 2015-10-29 23:07 -0400
                            Re: Relativity in no trouble at all (was: Relativity in big trouble) Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2015-10-30 05:27 -0700
                              Re: Relativity in no trouble at all (was: Relativity in big trouble) kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> - 2015-10-31 03:46 -0400
                                Re: Relativity in no trouble at all (was: Relativity in big trouble) Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2015-10-31 04:54 -0700
                          Re: Relativity in no trouble at all (was: Relativity in big trouble) kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> - 2015-10-30 08:38 -0400
                            Re: Relativity in no trouble at all (was: Relativity in big trouble) Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2015-10-30 05:45 -0700
                          Re: Relativity in no trouble at all (was: Relativity in big trouble) Jack Weidner <jackwd@webportal.au> - 2015-10-31 11:36 +0000
                        Re: Relativity in no trouble at all (was: Relativity in big trouble) pnalsing@gmail.com - 2015-10-29 19:35 -0700
                          Re: Relativity in no trouble at all (was: Relativity in big trouble) kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> - 2015-10-29 23:13 -0400
                            Re: Relativity in no trouble at all (was: Relativity in big trouble) Jack Weidner <jackwd@webportal.au> - 2015-10-31 11:37 +0000
                Re: Relativity in no trouble at all (was: Relativity in big trouble) pnalsing@gmail.com - 2015-10-29 15:40 -0700
                  Re: Relativity in no trouble at all (was: Relativity in big trouble) kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> - 2015-10-29 20:57 -0400
                    Re: Relativity in no trouble at all (was: Relativity in big trouble) pnalsing@gmail.com - 2015-10-29 20:09 -0700
                    Re: Relativity in no trouble at all (was: Relativity in big trouble) paparios <paparios@gmail.com> - 2015-10-30 04:08 -0700
                      Re: Relativity in no trouble at all (was: Relativity in big trouble) mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2015-10-30 04:33 -0700
                        Re: Relativity in no trouble at all (was: Relativity in big trouble) paparios <paparios@gmail.com> - 2015-10-30 05:18 -0700
                          Re: Relativity in no trouble at all (was: Relativity in big trouble) mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2015-10-30 05:45 -0700
                            Re: Relativity in no trouble at all (was: Relativity in big trouble) kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> - 2015-10-30 09:23 -0400
                              Re: Relativity in no trouble at all (was: Relativity in big trouble) mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2015-10-30 07:17 -0700
                              Re: Relativity in no trouble at all (was: Relativity in big trouble) paparios <paparios@gmail.com> - 2015-10-30 07:42 -0700
                              Re: Relativity in no trouble at all (was: Relativity in big trouble) paparios <paparios@gmail.com> - 2015-10-30 08:11 -0700
                                Re: Relativity in no trouble at all (was: Relativity in big trouble) Bobby Sifuentes <bobsif@academicinstitute.org> - 2015-10-30 15:34 +0000
                                Re: Relativity in no trouble at all (was: Relativity in big trouble) kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> - 2015-10-30 12:12 -0400
                                  Re: Relativity in no trouble at all (was: Relativity in big trouble) Bobby Sifuentes <bobsif@academicinstitute.org> - 2015-10-30 16:17 +0000
                      Re: Relativity in no trouble at all (was: Relativity in big trouble) kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> - 2015-10-30 08:58 -0400
                        Re: Relativity in no trouble at all (was: Relativity in big trouble) Bobby Sifuentes <bobsif@academicinstitute.org> - 2015-10-30 15:21 +0000
                  Re: Relativity in no trouble at all (was: Relativity in big trouble) mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2015-10-30 00:20 -0700
                    Re: Relativity in no trouble at all (was: Relativity in big trouble) pnalsing@gmail.com - 2015-10-30 10:38 -0700
        Re: Relativity in no trouble at all Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2015-10-29 02:26 +0100
          Re: Relativity in no trouble at all kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> - 2015-10-28 23:16 -0400
            Re: Relativity in no trouble at all Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2015-10-29 15:26 +0100
              Re: Relativity in no trouble at all Bobby Sifuentes <bobsif@academicinstitute.org> - 2015-10-29 20:08 +0000
            Re: Relativity in no trouble at all kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> - 2015-10-29 16:27 -0400
        Re: Relativity in no trouble at all (was: Relativity in big trouble) Jack Weidner <jackwd@webportal.au> - 2015-10-31 11:35 +0000
      Re: Relativity in no trouble at all (was: Relativity in big trouble) mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2015-10-29 00:35 -0700
        Re: Relativity in no trouble at all (was: Relativity in big trouble) Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2015-10-29 15:30 +0100
          Re: Relativity in no trouble at all (was: Relativity in big trouble) Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2015-10-29 18:37 +0100
            Re: Relativity in no trouble at all Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2015-10-29 19:50 +0100
              Re: Relativity in no trouble at all Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2015-10-29 20:53 +0100
                Re: Relativity in no trouble at all Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2015-10-30 13:04 +0100
                  Re: Relativity in no trouble at all mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2015-10-30 05:32 -0700
                  Re: Relativity in no trouble at all shuba <tim@sh.uba> - 2015-10-31 01:34 +0000
      Re: Relativity in no trouble at all (was: Relativity in big trouble) Bobby Sifuentes <bobsif@academicinstitute.org> - 2015-10-30 17:46 +0000
    Re: Relativity in big trouble kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> - 2015-10-28 18:09 -0400

Page 1 of 4  [1] 2 3 4  Next page →

#368359 — Relativity in big trouble

Unlike Divergent Matter, Relativity does not work at large scale, in 
Cosmology, a domain where Relativity should work, (obtained by purpose to 
serve as a tool, exactly in that domain).

Fortunately, we have Divergent Matter, which is not suffering from this 
inconvenience. I don't buy such statements, ie 

    "My students don't understand it, because I don't understand it". 

If you don't understand your theory, that theory is wrong. Mostly you can 
simulate of fake predictions, but you should better ask why your method 
applied does fake predictions.

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#368364

On Wednesday, October 28, 2015, the 'nym-shifting troll wrote:
>
> Unlike Divergent Matter, Relativity does not work at large scale, in 
> Cosmology, a domain where Relativity should work, (obtained by purpose to 
> serve as a tool, exactly in that domain).

There is no evidence that refutes GR anywhere.  Gravitational lensing is
experimentally confirmed, so SOMETHING must be causing it.  Contrary to
one Ralphie-boy's false assertion, it is NOT refraction because refraction
requires the presence of matter, which Ralphie-boy rejects.

> Fortunately, we have Divergent Matter, which is not suffering from this 
> inconvenience.

DuMb suffers from a multitude of sins and doesn't even work at close range,
let alone cosmologically.

> If you don't understand your theory, that theory is wrong.

You don't understand DuMb, therefore it is wrong?  You should sue the guy
that gave you your logic chip.

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

#368365

Użytkownik "Gary Harnagel"  napisał w wiadomości grup 
dyskusyjnych:1f2d660a-26c2-4abe-8c6f-fa93ec462294@googlegroups.com...

On Wednesday, October 28, 2015, the 'nym-shifting troll wrote:
>
> Unlike Divergent Matter, Relativity does not work at large scale, in
> Cosmology, a domain where Relativity should work, (obtained by purpose to
> serve as a tool, exactly in that domain).

|There is no evidence that refutes GR anywhere.

A lie, as expected from a relativistic moron.
Neither real clocks, nor real observers
don't follow insane schemas of The Shit.

And it's not even consistent. 

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

#368371

On Wednesday, October 28, 2015 at 10:25:13 AM UTC-6, Maciej Woźniak wrote:
>
> Użytkownik "Gary Harnagel"  napisał w wiadomości grup 
> dyskusyjnych:1f2d660a-26c2-4abe-8c6f-fa93ec462294@googlegroups.com...
> >
> > There is no evidence that refutes GR anywhere.
> 
> A lie, as expected from a relativistic moron.

A lie, as expected from a dishonest, brain-damaged, moronic hypocrite.

> [Brain-dead, yammering, vulgarity deleted] 
 
> And it's not even consistent.

A lie, as expected from a dishonest, brain-damaged, moronic hypocrite.

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

#368415

On Wed, 28 Oct 2015 17:25:05 +0100, Maciej Wozniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl>
wrote:

>Uzytkownik "Gary Harnagel"  napisal w wiadomosci grup 
>dyskusyjnych:1f2d660a-26c2-4abe-8c6f-fa93ec462294@googlegroups.com...
>
>On Wednesday, October 28, 2015, the 'nym-shifting troll wrote:
>>
>> Unlike Divergent Matter, Relativity does not work at large scale, in
>> Cosmology, a domain where Relativity should work, (obtained by purpose to
>> serve as a tool, exactly in that domain).
>
>|There is no evidence that refutes GR anywhere.
>
>A lie, as expected from a relativistic moron.
>Neither real clocks, nor real observers
>don't follow insane schemas of The Shit.
>
>And it's not even consistent. 

         Why is it that The Shit keeps coming
out of your mouth?

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

#368412

On Wed, 28 Oct 2015 08:50:20 -0700 (PDT), Gary Harnagel
<hitlong@yahoo.com> wrote:

>On Wednesday, October 28, 2015, the 'nym-shifting troll wrote:
>>
>> Unlike Divergent Matter, Relativity does not work at large scale, in 
>> Cosmology, a domain where Relativity should work, (obtained by purpose to 
>> serve as a tool, exactly in that domain).
>
>There is no evidence that refutes GR anywhere.  Gravitational lensing is
>experimentally confirmed, so SOMETHING must be causing it.  Contrary to
>one Ralphie-boy's false assertion, it is NOT refraction because refraction
>requires the presence of matter, which Ralphie-boy rejects.

         Yes, SOMETHING  is causing it, and
GR does not say what.


>> Fortunately, we have Divergent Matter, which is not suffering from this 
>> inconvenience.
>
>DuMb suffers from a multitude of sins and doesn't even work at close range,
>let alone cosmologically.

       Only in Gary's mind, because he doesn't
use the correct math.


>> If you don't understand your theory, that theory is wrong.
>
>You don't understand DuMb, therefore it is wrong?  You should sue the guy
>that gave you your logic chip.

         He doesn't know anything at all about
Divergent Matter, he can't even tell you 
anything about the model, because he
is a stupid troll.

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

#368417

kefischer wrote:

>>> Unlike Divergent Matter, Relativity does not work at large scale, in
>>> Cosmology, a domain where Relativity should work, (obtained by purpose
>>> to serve as a tool, exactly in that domain).
>>
>>There is no evidence that refutes GR anywhere.  Gravitational lensing is
>>experimentally confirmed, so SOMETHING must be causing it.  Contrary to
>>one Ralphie-boy's false assertion, it is NOT refraction because
>>refraction requires the presence of matter, which Ralphie-boy rejects.
> 
> Yes, SOMETHING  is causing it, and GR does not say what.

Excellent answer you just gave (you might not be aware). Lensing may ONLY 
occur in the absence of Divergent Matter. But I susepct it is nopt about 
lensing, but the 96% quantitative missings from the acquired relativity 
observation concerns. You have much to catch up in Divergent Matter.

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

#368424

On Wed, 28 Oct 2015 22:32:11 +0000 (UTC), Bobby Sifuentes
<bobsif@academicinstitute.org> wrote:

>kefischer wrote:
>
>>>> Unlike Divergent Matter, Relativity does not work at large scale, in
>>>> Cosmology, a domain where Relativity should work, (obtained by purpose
>>>> to serve as a tool, exactly in that domain).
>>>
>>>There is no evidence that refutes GR anywhere.  Gravitational lensing is
>>>experimentally confirmed, so SOMETHING must be causing it.  Contrary to
>>>one Ralphie-boy's false assertion, it is NOT refraction because
>>>refraction requires the presence of matter, which Ralphie-boy rejects.
>> 
>> Yes, SOMETHING  is causing it, and GR does not say what.
>
>Excellent answer you just gave (you might not be aware). Lensing may ONLY 
>occur in the absence of Divergent Matter. But I susepct it is nopt about 
>lensing, but the 96% quantitative missings from the acquired relativity 
>observation concerns. You have much to catch up in Divergent Matter.

       NOTICE!     You, the nym-changing troll, has used up
all the nyms available today, come back tomorrow and
maybe some will be freed up.

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

#368430

On Wednesday, October 28, 2015 at 4:21:35 PM UTC-6, kefischer wrote:
>
> On Wed, 28 Oct 2015 08:50:20 -0700 (PDT), Gary Harnagel
> <hitlong@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> > There is no evidence that refutes GR anywhere.  Gravitational lensing is
> > experimentally confirmed, so SOMETHING must be causing it.  Contrary to
> > one Ralphie-boy's false assertion, it is NOT refraction because refraction
> > requires the presence of matter, which Ralphie-boy rejects.
> 
> Yes, SOMETHING  is causing it, and GR does not say what.

Of course it does.  Don't be an ignoramous:

"Mass tells space-time how to curve, and space-time tells mass how to move."
-- John Wheeler

> > DuMb suffers from a multitude of sins and doesn't even work at close range,
> > let alone cosmologically.
> 
> Only in Gary's mind, because he doesn't use the correct math.

How does a guy who admits he can't do the math know what math is correct
and which is not?  His only criterion is obvious: if it doesn't support
DuMb, it's wrong :-)))

> > >  If you don't understand your theory, that theory is wrong.
> >
> > You don't understand DuMb, therefore it is wrong?  You should sue the guy
> > that gave you your logic chip.
> 
>          He doesn't know anything at all about
> Divergent Matter, he can't even tell you 
> anything about the model, because he
> is a stupid troll.

Yes, he is.  Why don't you understand that you are really close to him?

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

#368433

On Wed, 28 Oct 2015 19:07:57 -0700 (PDT), Gary Harnagel
<hitlong@yahoo.com> wrote:

>On Wednesday, October 28, 2015 at 4:21:35 PM UTC-6, kefischer wrote:
>>
>> On Wed, 28 Oct 2015 08:50:20 -0700 (PDT), Gary Harnagel
>> <hitlong@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> >
>> > There is no evidence that refutes GR anywhere.  Gravitational lensing is
>> > experimentally confirmed, so SOMETHING must be causing it.  Contrary to
>> > one Ralphie-boy's false assertion, it is NOT refraction because refraction
>> > requires the presence of matter, which Ralphie-boy rejects.
>> 
>> Yes, SOMETHING  is causing it, and GR does not say what.
>
>Of course it does.  Don't be an ignoramous:
>
>"Mass tells space-time how to curve, and space-time tells mass how to move."
>-- John Wheeler

        That is the kind of nonsense that is most
certain to be wrong, way wrong.


>> > DuMb suffers from a multitude of sins and doesn't even work at close range,
>> > let alone cosmologically.
>> 
>> Only in Gary's mind, because he doesn't use the correct math.
>
>How does a guy who admits he can't do the math know what math is correct
>and which is not?  His only criterion is obvious: if it doesn't support
>DuMb, it's wrong :-)))

         I can do math, just not advanced shortcut math,
and not precise advanced math.


>> > >  If you don't understand your theory, that theory is wrong.
>> >
>> > You don't understand DuMb, therefore it is wrong?  You should sue the guy
>> > that gave you your logic chip.
>> 
>>          He doesn't know anything at all about
>> Divergent Matter, he can't even tell you 
>> anything about the model, because he
>> is a stupid troll.
>
>Yes, he is.  Why don't you understand that you are really close to him?

       I think he is a jerk, just like you and bodkin,
if not creating adversity, itching to find it.

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

#368438

On Wednesday, October 28, 2015 at 8:59:17 PM UTC-6, kefischer wrote:
>
> On Wed, 28 Oct 2015 19:07:57 -0700 (PDT), Gary Harnagel
> <hitlong@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> > On Wednesday, October 28, 2015 at 4:21:35 PM UTC-6, kefischer wrote:
> > >
> > > On Wed, 28 Oct 2015 08:50:20 -0700 (PDT), Gary Harnagel
> > > <hitlong@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > There is no evidence that refutes GR anywhere.  Gravitational lensing
> > > > is experimentally confirmed, so SOMETHING must be causing it.
> > > >  Contrary to one Ralphie-boy's false assertion, it is NOT refraction
> > > > because refraction requires the presence of matter, which Ralphie-boy
> > > > rejects.
> > > 
> > > Yes, SOMETHING  is causing it, and GR does not say what.
> >
> > Of course it does.  Don't be an ignoramous:
> >
> > "Mass tells space-time how to curve, and space-time tells mass how to move."
> > -- John Wheeler
> 
> That is the kind of nonsense that is most certain to be wrong,

I agree, but for a different reason than your prejudice.

> way wrong.

I disagree.

> > > > DuMb suffers from a multitude of sins and doesn't even work at close
> > > > range, let alone cosmologically.
> > > 
> > > Only in Gary's mind, because he doesn't use the correct math.
> >
> > How does a guy who admits he can't do the math know what math is correct
> > and which is not?  His only criterion is obvious: if it doesn't support
> > DuMb, it's wrong :-)))
> 
>          I can do math, just not advanced shortcut math,
> and not precise advanced math.

Which proves my point.  Your prejudices govern your assertions, not reality.

> > > > >  If you don't understand your theory, that theory is wrong.
> > > >
> > > > You don't understand DuMb, therefore it is wrong?  You should sue
> > > > the guy that gave you your logic chip.
> > > 
> > >          He doesn't know anything at all about
> > > Divergent Matter, he can't even tell you 
> > > anything about the model, because he
> > > is a stupid troll.
> >
> >Yes, he is.  Why don't you understand that you are really close to him?
> 
>        I think he is a jerk, just like you and bodkin,
> if not creating adversity, itching to find it.

Exactly my point, you are severely-prejudiced against anything and anyone
who rocks your delusional boat.

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

#368395 — Relativity in no trouble at all (was: Relativity in big trouble)

Günther Huldiberaht wrote:

> Unlike Divergent Matter, Relativity does not work at large scale, in
> Cosmology, […]

The usual “not even wrong”-kind of nonsense from the ’nym-shifting troll.

General relativity (GR) works *especially* at large scales, *especially* in 
cosmology.

Modern cosmology would not be the way it is without GR: The current, well-
confirmed standard (ΛCDM – Lambda Cold Dark Matter) model of cosmology is 
based on the Friedmann–Lemaître–Robertson–Walker (FLRW) metric, an 
application of GR.  Using it, one can calculate the expansion of the 
universe and obtain the observed redshifts of distant galaxies. [1]

GR is consistent with observations of gravitational lensing: applying GR 
equations to images received from distant galaxies flattens the images 
received as they are focused by massive accumulations of matter in front of 
them and allows those galaxies to be seen. [2]

Closer, GR equations precisely describe the observed fast motion of stars 
around the supermassive black hole at the center of the Milky Way (ca. 
27'000 light-years away from Terra). [3]

Closest, GR explains the precession of the perihelion of Mercury and GR 
equations allow it to be calculated precisely in advance.  And so on. [4]

Instead, GR does not work so well on small, subatomic scales, which is why 
there are theories of quantum gravity to fill the gap. [5]

By comparison, “Divergent Matter” is a crackpot’s fantasy.

IOW: <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=buqtdpuZxvk> :)


PointedEars
___________
[1] <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lambda-CDM_model> pp.
[2] <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_lens>
[3] <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galactic_Center>
[4] <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tests_of_general_relativity> pp.
[5] <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_gravity> pp.
-- 
Q: How many theoretical physicists specializing in general relativity
   does it take to change a light bulb?  
A: Two: one to hold the bulb and one to rotate the universe.
(from: WolframAlpha)

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

#368400 — Re: Relativity in no trouble at all (was: Relativity in big trouble)

Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:

> Günther Huldiberaht wrote:
> 
>> Unlike Divergent Matter, Relativity does not work at large scale, in
>> Cosmology, […]
> 
> The usual “not even wrong”-kind of nonsense from the ’nym-shifting troll.
> 
> General relativity (GR) works *especially* at large scales, *especially*
> in cosmology.

You know so many things monsiour PointedEars. You use large fonts. Are you 
aware that the predictions of relativity, in that domain, are 96% off 
range, the reason for which fictitious additive were introduced, for the 
moment known as dark matter and dark energy. You may call them what you 
want, bottom line is that those 96% are missing from the aforementioned 
relativity predictions. Günther is consistent. What is your excuse?

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

#368414 — Re: Relativity in no trouble at all

The ’nym-shifting troll posted as “Willie Stovall”:

> Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
>> Günther Huldiberaht wrote:
>>> Unlike Divergent Matter, Relativity does not work at large scale, in
>>> Cosmology, […]
>> The usual “not even wrong”-kind of nonsense from the ’nym-shifting troll.
>> 
>> General relativity (GR) works *especially* at large scales, *especially*
>> in cosmology.
> 
> You know so many things monsiour PointedEars.

(That would be “monsieur”.  Please stop using languages that you do not 
know.)

Yes, I do.  But if you would take the time to learn instead of to assume and 
to lie repeatedly, you could as well.

> You use large fonts.

You cannot know the font size that I use.  This is a text-only medium. 
Probably your well-known abysmally low understanding of English has caused 
you to post such a nonsensical sentence.

> Are you aware that the predictions of relativity, in that domain, are 96% 
> off range,

They are not.

> the reason for which fictitious additive were introduced, for the
> moment known as dark matter and dark energy. You may call them what you
> want, bottom line is that those 96% are missing from the aforementioned
> relativity predictions.

Not even wrong.

> Günther is consistent.

You are Günther.

> What is your excuse?

I do not need an excuse.  I am not the habitual liar here; you are.

*PLONK*


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

(from: WolframAlpha)

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

#368419 — Re: Relativity in no trouble at all

Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:

>> Are you aware that the predictions of relativity, in that domain, are
>> 96% off range,
> 
> They are not.
> 
>> the reason for which fictitious additive were introduced, for the
>> moment known as dark matter and dark energy. You may call them what you
>> want, bottom line is that those 96% are missing from the aforementioned
>> relativity predictions.
> 
> Not even wrong.

Then yes, Mr Stovall was wrong. You know not even nearly that much, or 
rather to say, anything at all. You are blocked blank in Divergent Matter.

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

#368421 — Re: Relativity in no trouble at all (was: Relativity in big trouble)

On Wed, 28 Oct 2015 22:08:58 +0100, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn
<PointedEars@web.de> wrote:

>Günther Huldiberaht wrote:
>
>> Unlike Divergent Matter, Relativity does not work at large scale, in
>> Cosmology, […]
>
>The usual “not even wrong”-kind of nonsense from the ’nym-shifting troll.
>
>General relativity (GR) works *especially* at large scales, *especially* in 
>cosmology.
>
>Modern cosmology would not be the way it is without GR: The current, well-
>confirmed standard (?CDM – Lambda Cold Dark Matter) model of cosmology is 
>based on the Friedmann–Lemaître–Robertson–Walker (FLRW) metric, an 
>application of GR.  Using it, one can calculate the expansion of the 
>universe and obtain the observed redshifts of distant galaxies. [1]
>
>GR is consistent with observations of gravitational lensing: applying GR 
>equations to images received from distant galaxies flattens the images 
>received as they are focused by massive accumulations of matter in front of 
>them and allows those galaxies to be seen. [2]
>
>Closer, GR equations precisely describe the observed fast motion of stars 
>around the supermassive black hole at the center of the Milky Way (ca. 
>27'000 light-years away from Terra). [3]
>
>Closest, GR explains the precession of the perihelion of Mercury and GR 
>equations allow it to be calculated precisely in advance.  And so on. [4]
>
>Instead, GR does not work so well on small, subatomic scales, which is why 
>there are theories of quantum gravity to fill the gap. [5]
>
>By comparison, “Divergent Matter” is a crackpot’s fantasy.

         I wesent that wemark, Mr. Spock.   :-)

        The Divergent Matter model is based on the
most solid facts of any model, it is more a physical
theory than GR, which is "field theory".

       Field theory is an "estimate" approximation,
used in many disciplines to obtain a good estimate
when exact data cannot be obtained, it works for
gravity in General Relativity, giving very accurate
results, but it does not explain how gravity works.


>IOW: <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=buqtdpuZxvk> :)
>
>
>PointedEars
>___________
>[1] <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lambda-CDM_model> pp.
>[2] <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_lens>
>[3] <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galactic_Center>
>[4] <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tests_of_general_relativity> pp.
>[5] <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_gravity> pp.


          But no references that the author signed
or gave his name.       


         Divergent Matter pretty much rules out the 
possibility of black holes and other nonsense
based on the apparent "attraction" due to gravity.

        Oddly enough, GR was not based on the
Newtonian nonsense of attraction, the presence
of BIG G and the speed of light constant being
in the equations may be misleading.


        Divergent Matter has not been studied in 
depth, it is so complex, few even can follow
the explanation of simple processes involving
the changing value of units, and the constants
that arise because the units are changing.
        There is such a wealth of understanding
available to those who will try to follow along
in a discussion, the model is really worth study.

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

#368425 — Re: Relativity in no trouble at all (was: Relativity in big trouble)

On Wednesday, October 28, 2015 at 5:15:26 PM UTC-7, kefischer wrote:

>          Divergent Matter pretty much rules out the 
> possibility of black holes and other nonsense
> based on the apparent "attraction" due to gravity.

That's some assertion that you are making. OK, so how does DuMb explain the convincing evidence that seems to explain the existence of black holes? For example...

http://hubblesite.org/reference_desk/faq/answer.php.id=64&cat=exotic

http://www.skyandtelescope.com/astronomy-news/best-evidence-yet-that-black-holes-really-exist-0505201523/

https://www.cfa.harvard.edu/seuforum/bh_reallyexist.htm

If there are no such things as black holes, what is causing these observed phenomenons, and specifically what 'other nonsense' are you referring to?

\Paul A

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

#368440 — Re: Relativity in no trouble at all (was: Relativity in big trouble)

On Wed, 28 Oct 2015 17:45:48 -0700 (PDT), pnalsing@gmail.com wrote:

>On Wednesday, October 28, 2015 at 5:15:26 PM UTC-7, kefischer wrote:
>
>>          Divergent Matter pretty much rules out the 
>> possibility of black holes and other nonsense
>> based on the apparent "attraction" due to gravity.
>
>That's some assertion that you are making. OK, so how does DuMb explain the convincing evidence that seems to explain the existence of black holes? For example...
>
>http://hubblesite.org/reference_desk/faq/answer.php.id=64&cat=exotic

        Well, Divergent Matter requires very high
tangent velocities for any orbits, the issue seems
to be how to ascertain the tangent velocity that
is partly radial and "measured" as a "non-acceleration",
or "constant velocity".


>http://www.skyandtelescope.com/astronomy-news/best-evidence-yet-that-black-holes-really-exist-0505201523/

:"Although the evidence for these grandiose objects is convincing, it isn’t 100% conclusive. 
:So in a field that’s skeptical by nature, some astronomers are still working to prove that 
:black holes are not just the concoction of theorists whose mathematics got away from them.
: When it comes to “something this extraordinary, we have to work harder before we’re 
:willing to accept it,” says Ramesh Narayan (Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics). 

        While it makes sense to try to learn more
about evidence that could prove the objects
exist _as described_, it makes sense to also
think of a model that can explain the high
velocity spectral curves (which are the only
real suggestion of evidence).


>https://www.cfa.harvard.edu/seuforum/bh_reallyexist.htm
>
>If there are no such things as black holes, what is causing these observed phenomenons, and specifically what 'other nonsense' are you referring to?
>
>\Paul A

        The nonsense of "attraction" due to gravity,
I suggest anybody interested in the subject try
to surmise what Einstein thought of black holes
or the math that preceded their "invention".

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

#368444 — Re: Relativity in no trouble at all (was: Relativity in big trouble)

On Wednesday, October 28, 2015 at 8:30:26 PM UTC-7, kefischer wrote:
> On Wed, 28 Oct 2015 17:45:48 -0700 (PDT), pnal...@gmail.com wrote:
> 
> >On Wednesday, October 28, 2015 at 5:15:26 PM UTC-7, kefischer wrote:
> >
> >>          Divergent Matter pretty much rules out the 
> >> possibility of black holes and other nonsense
> >> based on the apparent "attraction" due to gravity.
> >
> >That's some assertion that you are making. OK, so how does DuMb explain the convincing evidence that seems to explain the existence of black holes? For example...
> >
> >http://hubblesite.org/reference_desk/faq/answer.php.id=64&cat=exotic
> 
>         Well, Divergent Matter requires very high
> tangent velocities for any orbits, the issue seems
> to be how to ascertain the tangent velocity that
> is partly radial and "measured" as a "non-acceleration",
> or "constant velocity".

Well, I perceive this problem to be just one of many Death Knells for DuMb, just how objects acquire the tangential velocity needed for orbits. So far, you can't explain it, and I doubt you ever will.
 
> >http://www.skyandtelescope.com/astronomy-news/best-evidence-yet-that-black-holes-really-exist-0505201523/
> 
> :"Although the evidence for these grandiose objects is convincing, it isn't 100% conclusive. 
> :So in a field that's skeptical by nature, some astronomers are still working to prove that 
> :black holes are not just the concoction of theorists whose mathematics got away from them.
> : When it comes to "something this extraordinary, we have to work harder before we're 
> :willing to accept it," says Ramesh Narayan (Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics). 
> 
>         While it makes sense to try to learn more
> about evidence that could prove the objects
> exist _as described_, it makes sense to also
> think of a model that can explain the high
> velocity spectral curves (which are the only
> real suggestion of evidence).

The only problem with this statement is that DuMb can't explain the results of the observations described in the bulk of the article, which you conveniently ignored, regarding the brightness, or the lack of brightness, of the high-energy photons in the core of M 87. 

> >https://www.cfa.harvard.edu/seuforum/bh_reallyexist.htm

You didn't address this link at all, and for good reason. How does DuMb explain the very rapid orbital motion of stars very near the center of our own galaxy, as shown here...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u_gggKHvfGw

... hmmmm?

> >If there are no such things as black holes, what is causing these observed phenomenons, and specifically what 'other nonsense' are you referring to?
 
>         The nonsense of "attraction" due to gravity...

But what if it isn't nonsense? Just because you and I (or anyone else, for that matter) don't understand it does not mean it isn't true... and there are experiments that show that it IS true, which you choose to basically ignore, like the Cavendish experiment, because DuMb can't explain it. Why would you ignore something that you could do in your own home, if you were careful?

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

#368450 — Re: Relativity in no trouble at all (was: Relativity in big trouble)

On Wed, 28 Oct 2015 22:08:59 -0700 (PDT), pnalsing@gmail.com wrote:

>On Wednesday, October 28, 2015 at 8:30:26 PM UTC-7, kefischer wrote:
>> On Wed, 28 Oct 2015 17:45:48 -0700 (PDT), pnal...@gmail.com wrote:
>> 
>> >On Wednesday, October 28, 2015 at 5:15:26 PM UTC-7, kefischer wrote:
>> >
>> >>          Divergent Matter pretty much rules out the 
>> >> possibility of black holes and other nonsense
>> >> based on the apparent "attraction" due to gravity.
>> >
>> >That's some assertion that you are making. OK, so how does DuMb explain the convincing evidence that seems to explain the existence of black holes? For example...
>> >
>> >http://hubblesite.org/reference_desk/faq/answer.php.id=64&cat=exotic
>> 
>>         Well, Divergent Matter requires very high
>> tangent velocities for any orbits, the issue seems
>> to be how to ascertain the tangent velocity that
>> is partly radial and "measured" as a "non-acceleration",
>> or "constant velocity".
>
>Well, I perceive this problem to be just one of many Death Knells for DuMb, 
>just how objects acquire the tangential velocity needed for orbits. 
>So far, you can't explain it, and I doubt you ever will.

         :-)      An object on the surface already has the
outward velocity because the surface has the outward
velocity, so all that is needed is gain the non-radial
tangent velocity.

        The spectral data just shows a high velocity,
without being specific about what part is radial
and what part is non-radial.

 
>> >http://www.skyandtelescope.com/astronomy-news/best-evidence-yet-that-black-holes-really-exist-0505201523/
>> 
>> :"Although the evidence for these grandiose objects is convincing, it isn't 100% conclusive. 
>> :So in a field that's skeptical by nature, some astronomers are still working to prove that 
>> :black holes are not just the concoction of theorists whose mathematics got away from them.
>> : When it comes to "something this extraordinary, we have to work harder before we're 
>> :willing to accept it," says Ramesh Narayan (Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics). 
>> 
>>         While it makes sense to try to learn more
>> about evidence that could prove the objects
>> exist _as described_, it makes sense to also
>> think of a model that can explain the high
>> velocity spectral curves (which are the only
>> real suggestion of evidence).
>
>The only problem with this statement is that DuMb can't explain 
>the results of the observations described in the bulk of the article, 
>which you conveniently ignored, regarding the brightness, 
>or the lack of brightness, of the high-energy photons in the core of M 87. 

         The "article" is not a technical paper,
and is not news of a definite conclusion;


:"That number came in at roughly 100 billion times brighter than the Sun"

       And;

:"The team found an object that appeared darker than expected 
:(by at least an order of magnitude) for an object with a surface"

         Whether the author knows the difference between
an order of magnitude and a simple factor of 2, the large
difference between 10 times the brightness and 100 Billion
times the brightness could be obstructing dust or could
have some other explanation.
         An event horizon surely would mean a lot more
than 10 times darker, so the 100 Billion number sure
sounds like a solid surface.


>> >https://www.cfa.harvard.edu/seuforum/bh_reallyexist.htm
>
>You didn't address this link at all, and for good reason. How does DuMb explain the very rapid orbital motion of stars very near the center of our own galaxy, as shown here...
>
>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u_gggKHvfGw
>
>... hmmmm?

          What is the orbital period shown there,
the date is shown at the top left, doesn't it
show a passage of time of several years
for one orbit?

          How is that very extraordinary?


>> >If there are no such things as black holes, what is causing these observed phenomenons, and specifically what 'other nonsense' are you referring to?
> 
>>         The nonsense of "attraction" due to gravity...
>
>But what if it isn't nonsense? 

        That remains to be seen.     Why only follow
one path, all of the present effort seems to be
on one path, "attraction", even though is based
on relative motion and not attraction.

>Just because you and I (or anyone else, for that matter) 
>don't understand it does not mean it isn't true... 
>and there are experiments that show that it IS true, 
>which you choose to basically ignore, 

        I don't ignore them, I try to think of what
could cause the appearance of an attraction,
but not be an attraction.


>like the Cavendish experiment, because DuMb can't explain it. 
>Why would you ignore something that you could do in your 
>own home, if you were careful?

        I haven't ignored it, I have tried to think
of a way to do an experiment that does not
assume an attraction, and does not involve
moving masses greater than the test mass.


       The thing is, all of the professionals
working on these projects try to look at
all possibilities, and in the case of black
holes, don't have too many options to
compare against each other.

       And the thing all of you ignore, is
that none of the professionals working
on these projects have never heard
of Divergent Matter, and have never
read any of what I have written about
the specific processes affected by
the changing measuring lengths in
the model.

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

Page 1 of 4  [1] 2 3 4  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity

csiph-web