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

Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #368539 > unrolled thread

How doess "experimental evidence" work

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

Contents

  How doess "experimental evidence" work mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2015-10-30 04:54 -0700
    Re: How doess "experimental evidence" work Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2015-10-30 23:06 +1100
      Re: How doess "experimental evidence" work mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2015-10-30 05:20 -0700
      Re: How doess "experimental evidence" work kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> - 2015-10-30 09:08 -0400
        Re: How doess "experimental evidence" work mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2015-10-30 06:38 -0700
          Re: How doess "experimental evidence" work kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> - 2015-10-30 11:54 -0400
        Re: How doess "experimental evidence" work pnalsing@gmail.com - 2015-10-30 10:59 -0700
          Re: How doess "experimental evidence" work kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> - 2015-10-30 14:13 -0400
            Re: How doess "experimental evidence" work pnalsing@gmail.com - 2015-10-30 11:31 -0700
          Re: How doess "experimental evidence" work Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2015-11-07 12:43 +1100
            Re: How doess "experimental evidence" work kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> - 2015-11-06 21:05 -0500
              Re: How doess "experimental evidence" work pnalsing@gmail.com - 2015-11-06 18:48 -0800
                Re: How doess "experimental evidence" work kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> - 2015-11-06 23:10 -0500
                  Re: How doess "experimental evidence" work pnalsing@gmail.com - 2015-11-06 20:35 -0800
                    Re: How doess "experimental evidence" work kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> - 2015-11-07 01:06 -0500
                      Re: How doess "experimental evidence" work pnalsing@gmail.com - 2015-11-06 22:27 -0800
                        Re: How doess "experimental evidence" work kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> - 2015-11-07 02:02 -0500
                  Re: How doess "experimental evidence" work Edgardo Alcantara <edgardoalcantara@carosseryrepair.org> - 2015-11-07 12:37 +0000
                Re: How doess "experimental evidence" work Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2015-11-07 16:44 +0100
                  Re: How doess "experimental evidence" work pnalsing@gmail.com - 2015-11-07 09:24 -0800
                    Re: How doess "experimental evidence" work Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2015-11-07 18:57 +0100
                      Re: How doess "experimental evidence" work pnalsing@gmail.com - 2015-11-07 10:21 -0800
                        Re: How doess "experimental evidence" work Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2015-11-07 20:41 +0100
                      Re: How doess "experimental evidence" work JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2015-11-07 20:23 -0800
                        Re: How doess "experimental evidence" work Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2015-11-08 08:34 +0100
                    Re: How doess "experimental evidence" work Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2015-11-08 00:08 -0800
                      Re: How doess "experimental evidence" work pnalsing@gmail.com - 2015-11-08 14:08 -0800
    Re: How doess "experimental evidence" work paparios <paparios@gmail.com> - 2015-10-30 05:24 -0700
      Re: How doess "experimental evidence" work mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2015-10-30 05:47 -0700
        Re: How doess "experimental evidence" work pnalsing@gmail.com - 2015-10-30 11:05 -0700
          Re: How doess "experimental evidence" work Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2015-10-30 19:47 +0100
          Re: How doess "experimental evidence" work RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> - 2015-10-30 12:53 -0700
            Re: How doess "experimental evidence" work pnalsing@gmail.com - 2015-10-30 15:03 -0700
              Re: How doess "experimental evidence" work paparios <paparios@gmail.com> - 2015-10-30 15:13 -0700
                Re: How doess "experimental evidence" work kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> - 2015-10-30 18:23 -0400
                  Re: How doess "experimental evidence" work pnalsing@gmail.com - 2015-10-30 15:29 -0700
                    Re: How doess "experimental evidence" work kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> - 2015-10-30 19:31 -0400
                      Re: How doess "experimental evidence" work ktalsing@gmail.com - 2015-10-30 19:29 -0700
                Re: How doess "experimental evidence" work pnalsing@gmail.com - 2015-10-30 15:26 -0700
    Re: How doess "experimental evidence" work "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2015-10-30 06:34 -0700
      Re: How doess "experimental evidence" work mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2015-10-30 06:42 -0700
    Re: How doess "experimental evidence" work Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2015-10-30 15:47 +0100
      Re: How doess "experimental evidence" work Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2015-10-30 17:06 +0100
        Re: How doess "experimental evidence" work Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2015-10-30 17:40 +0100
          Re: How doess "experimental evidence" work Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2015-10-30 17:55 +0100
            Re: How doess "experimental evidence" work Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2015-10-30 18:40 +0100
    Re: How doess "experimental evidence" work JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2015-10-30 12:56 -0700
      Re: How doess "experimental evidence" work Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2015-10-30 21:14 +0100
        Re: How doess "experimental evidence" work paparios <paparios@gmail.com> - 2015-10-30 15:04 -0700
          Re: How doess "experimental evidence" work Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2015-10-30 23:35 +0100
        Re: How doess "experimental evidence" work JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2015-10-30 16:03 -0700
          Re: How doess "experimental evidence" work mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2015-11-02 01:17 -0800
            Re: How doess "experimental evidence" work JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2015-11-02 14:10 -0800
              Re: How doess "experimental evidence" work mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2015-11-03 01:13 -0800
                Re: How doess "experimental evidence" work fuller.david@hotmail.com - 2015-11-03 04:50 -0800
                  Re: How doess "experimental evidence" work Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2015-11-03 23:08 +0100
                    Re: How doess "experimental evidence" work fuller.david@hotmail.com - 2015-11-03 14:37 -0800
    Re: How doess "experimental evidence" work John Heath <heathjohn2@gmail.com> - 2015-10-30 15:28 -0700
      Re: How doess "experimental evidence" work Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2015-11-02 23:43 +0100
        Re: How doess "experimental evidence" work fuller.david@hotmail.com - 2015-11-03 04:47 -0800

Page 3 of 3 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3]

#368558

W dniu piątek, 30 października 2015 14:34:32 UTC+1 użytkownik Dono, napisał:
> On Friday, October 30, 2015 at 4:54:23 AM UTC-7, mlwo...@wp.pl wrote:
> >snip imbecilities< !
> 
> What makes you, polacks, so stupid?

That's simple.
After growing up under one insane, brainwashing
ideollogy, we're prepared to recognize and deal 
with another. At least, some of us.

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

#368561

mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote:

> […] paparios napisał:
>> On Thursday, October 29, 2015 at 9:57:57 PM UTC-3, kefischer wrote:
>> > On Thu, 29 Oct 2015 15:40:36 -0700 (PDT), pnalsing@gmail.com wrote:>>
>> > >What is extraordinary is that the orbital calculations
>> > >show that the mass of the unseen object that all of
>> > >these stars are orbiting has a mass of 4.3 million suns!
>> >
>> >        I would like to see a technical paper on
>> > the matter before thinking about it.
>>
>> http://www2011.mpe.mpg.de/ir/GC/papers/nature2002.pdf
> 
> So, we have a theory. It's saying "a huge mass will be invisible".

No, it is saying that an object, *if* all of its mass is located within a 
*small enough* region of space, becomes a black hole.  The corresponding 
equation is that for the Schwarzschild radius:

  rₛ = 2 G M∕c²

If all of the mass M of an object is located within a sphere with a radius 
equal to or smaller than rₛ, then that object becomes a black hole.

See also: <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schwarzschild_radius> pp.

> And we have a huge mass - visible.

No.  It is amazing how easily your mind can be challenged.

The article says: There are stars near the center of the Milky Way that 
orbit the center in a way that is consistent with the assumption that the 
“huge mass” is there.

It also says: There are emissions from regions close to the “huge mass”’s 
boundary (the event horizon) as gas is accelerated when it enters those 
regions.  Consistent with general relativity, no radiation is coming 
directly from the region within which the “huge mass” is supposed to be 
concentrated.

BTW, that article is from 2002.  It is 2015 now; more observations have been 
made, and more papers have been published on this in the meantime.  We are 
pretty sure now that there is a supermassive black hole, not only at the 
center of our galaxy, the Milky Way, but at the center of *every* galaxy.

> What a perfect experimental evidence of the theory!!!
> There is a huge mass!!!!!! […]

“And all those exclamation marks, you notice? Five? A sure sign
of someone who wears his underpants on his head.”

  –Terry Pratchett, in “Maskerade”


PointedEars
-- 
Q: Who's on the case when the electricity goes out?  
A: Sherlock Ohms.

(from: WolframAlpha)

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

#368570

Użytkownik "Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn"  napisał w wiadomości grup 
dyskusyjnych:2675353.gsCXVW9I6R@PointedEars.de...


> And we have a huge mass - visible.
|No.  It is amazing how easily your mind can be challenged.

It's always easy for a moron to yell "no!"


|It also says: There are emissions from regions close to the “huge mass”’s
|boundary (the event horizon) as gas is accelerated when it enters those

A lie, as expected from a relativistic moron. Though, more impudent
and primitive, than usual. No "event", no  "horizon" in the text, but
there is  "the compact radio source (and massive black-hole candidate)
Sagittarius A*".

Your "candidate" and paparios/pnalsing obvious black hole
is observed shining. 

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

#368575

Maciej Woźniak wrote:
 
> […] "Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn" […]
>> And we have a huge mass - visible.
> |No.  It is amazing how easily your mind can be challenged.
> 
> It's always easy for a moron to yell "no!"

I have told you why you are wrong.  You snipped it.

> |It also says: There are emissions from regions close to the “huge mass”’s
> |boundary (the event horizon) as gas is accelerated when it enters those
> 
> A lie,

No.

> as expected from a relativistic moron. Though, more impudent
> and primitive, than usual. No "event", no  "horizon" in the text,

The event horizon of a black hole does not need to be explained to the 
scientists who are the target audience of the paper; hence no mention of it 
in there.  But it needed to be explained to you as, surprising for someone 
subscribed to this newsgroup, you knew nothing about black holes.

> but there is  "the compact radio source (and massive black-hole candidate)
> Sagittarius A*".

AISB, as gas (from stars and interstellar matter) approaches the event 
horizon of a black hole, it is accelerated (much like an interplanetary 
probe in a gravity assist, yet much more thanks to the much stronger gravity 
of the black hole).  In layman’s terms, when gas is accelerated, it heats up 
and emits radiation such as radio waves.

See also:

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_hole#Galactic_nuclei>
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Active_galactic_nucleus#Radio-loud_AGN>
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radio_galaxy>
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synchrotron_radiation>

Go *read* it, for once.

> Your "candidate" and paparios/pnalsing obvious black hole is observed
> shining.

Sadly, apparently you do not understand the things around you even when they 
are explained to you in the most simple terms.  One gets the impression that 
actually you do not want to understand, which was foreseeable given your 
continued insults, but is a pity nevertheless.


PointedEars
-- 
I heard that entropy isn't what it used to be.

(from: WolframAlpha)

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

#368576

Użytkownik "Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn"  napisał w wiadomości grup 
dyskusyjnych:15924007.cLT9PNolkG@PointedEars.de...

Maciej Woźniak wrote:

> […] "Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn" […]
>> And we have a huge mass - visible.
> |No.  It is amazing how easily your mind can be challenged.
>
> It's always easy for a moron to yell "no!"

|I have told you why you are wrong.  You snipped it.

Of course. Nothing relevant, as expected from
a moron.

> |It also says: There are emissions from regions close to the “huge mass”’s
> |boundary (the event horizon) as gas is accelerated when it enters those
>
> A lie,

|No.

Yes. You're talking about the article here.
http://www2011.mpe.mpg.de/ir/GC/papers/nature2002.pdf
Will you show quotings? 

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

#368579

Maciej Woźniak wrote:

[fixed quotation]

> […] "Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn" […]
> > I have told you why you are wrong.  You snipped it.
> 
> Of course. Nothing relevant,

Nothing that *you* consider relevant.  Because *if* you considered it, your 
belief that relativity were utterly wrong would be shaken.  And you cannot 
allow that to happen as it would take away from you the opportunity to 
insult people.  Coward.

> as expected from a moron.

*You* are the moron here, but you do not realize it.
 
>> |It also says: There are emissions from regions close to the “huge
>> |mass”’s boundary (the event horizon) as gas is accelerated when it
>> |enters those
>>
>> A lie,
> 
> |No.
> 
> Yes. You're talking about the article here.
> http://www2011.mpe.mpg.de/ir/GC/papers/nature2002.pdf
> Will you show quotings?

I doubt you would understand them, let alone accept them, so no; I have 
invested far too much of my precious free time in explanations to you idiot 
already.

May you die in ignorance.


PointedEars
-- 
Two neutrinos go through a bar ...

(from: WolframAlpha)

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

#368599

On Friday, October 30, 2015 at 4:54:23 AM UTC-7, mlwo...@wp.pl wrote:
> W dniu piątek, 30 października 2015 12:08:24 UTC+1 użytkownik paparios napisał:
> > On Thursday, October 29, 2015 at 9:57:57 PM UTC-3, kefischer wrote:
> > > On Thu, 29 Oct 2015 15:40:36 -0700 (PDT), pnalsing@gmail.com wrote:
> >
> > > >
> > > >What is extraordinary is that the orbital calculations
> > > >show that the mass of the unseen object that all of
> > > >these stars are orbiting has a mass of 4.3 million suns!
> > >
> > >        I would like to see a technical paper on
> > > the matter before thinking about it.
> > >
> >
> > http://www2011.mpe.mpg.de/ir/GC/papers/nature2002.pdf
> 
> So, we have a theory. It's saying "a huge mass
> will be invisible".
> And we have a huge mass - visible.
> What a perfect experimental evidence of the theory!!!

What the theory actually says is that the falling matter radiates.
Observations also are consistent with the source of the radiation
being situated off-center. If there was a star there, the radiation
would extend until the impact with the central object:

"According to general relativity, this would result in a minimum observed
size of at least 5.2 times the black hole's Schwarzschild radius, which,
for a black hole of around 4 million solar masses, corresponds to a minimum 
observed size of approximately 52 μas. This is much larger than the observed 
size of 37 μas and so suggests that the Sagittarius A* radio emissions are not 
centered on the hole but arise from a bright spot in the region around the 
black hole, close to the event horizon, possibly in the accretion disc or a 
relativistic jet of material ejected from the disc."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sagittarius_A*#Central_black_hole 

> There is a huge mass!!!!!! And, as all huge masses
> are invisible, it's obviously invisible!!!! So it
> confirms the theory!!!!
> What? it's visible? Doesn't matter, we can explain 
> it!!!!  There must be an explaination!!! What matters,
> it's that it's obviously invisible, as all huge masses 
> are  invisible, so it confirms the theory!!!!

It's better to acquaint oneself with X before posting silly rants
against X.

--
Jan

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

#368601

Użytkownik "JanPB"  napisał w wiadomości grup 
dyskusyjnych:211daa8e-2cac-48b5-8108-c3dd9689aca4@googlegroups.com...

|What the theory actually says is that the falling matter radiates.
|Observations also are consistent with the source of the radiation

Of course, they are!!!
We see a shining object, so it's an obvious experimental
confirmation of black holes!!!!!
And those, who don't believe are
STUPID!!!!!
And they
DON'T UNDERSTAND!!!!
And they are
NOT EVEN WRONG!!!!!!

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

#368611

El viernes, 30 de octubre de 2015, 17:15:09 (UTC-3), Maciej Woźniak  escribió:
> Użytkownik "JanPB"  napisał w wiadomości grup 
> dyskusyjnych:211daa8e-2cac-48b5-8108-c3dd9689aca4@googlegroups.com...
> 
> |What the theory actually says is that the falling matter radiates.
> |Observations also are consistent with the source of the radiation
> 
> Of course, they are!!!
> We see a shining object, so it's an obvious experimental
> confirmation of black holes!!!!!
> And those, who don't believe are
> STUPID!!!!!
> And they
> DON'T UNDERSTAND!!!!
> And they are
> NOT EVEN WRONG!!!!!!

Well it is clear that you are nothing. A worthless, uneducable, trolling moronic imbecile. Just fuck off, will you?

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

#368620

Użytkownik "paparios"  napisał w wiadomości grup 
dyskusyjnych:11575810-5fe3-46d1-a82c-025ef3ae0512@googlegroups.com...

El viernes, 30 de octubre de 2015, 17:15:09 (UTC-3), Maciej Woźniak 
escribió:
> Użytkownik "JanPB"  napisał w wiadomości grup
> dyskusyjnych:211daa8e-2cac-48b5-8108-c3dd9689aca4@googlegroups.com...
>
> |What the theory actually says is that the falling matter radiates.
> |Observations also are consistent with the source of the radiation
>
> Of course, they are!!!
> We see a shining object, so it's an obvious experimental
> confirmation of black holes!!!!!
> And those, who don't believe are
> STUPID!!!!!
> And they
> DON'T UNDERSTAND!!!!
> And they are
> NOT EVEN WRONG!!!!!!

|Well it is clear that you are nothing. A worthless, uneducable, trolling 
moronic imbecile. Just fuck off, will you?

No, moron. I won't. 

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

#368622

On Friday, October 30, 2015 at 1:15:09 PM UTC-7, Maciej Woźniak wrote:
> Użytkownik "JanPB"  napisał w wiadomości grup 
> dyskusyjnych:211daa8e-2cac-48b5-8108-c3dd9689aca4@googlegroups.com...
> 
> |What the theory actually says is that the falling matter radiates.
> |Observations also are consistent with the source of the radiation
> 
> Of course, they are!!!
> We see a shining object, so it's an obvious experimental
> confirmation of black holes!!!!!

Readers will note that Maciej removed the important part of my post.
What I wrote was (the removed portion highlighted):

"Observations also are consistent with the source of the radiation
BEING SITUATED OFF-CENTER."

So it's not a question of only "We see a shining object [etc.]".

> And those, who don't believe are

I wasn't saying anything about any belief. You'd fare better around here
if you read the articles you answer more carefully. What I said was that
certain observations are such-and-such and that they were consistent
with the source of radiation situated off-center (which is, incidentally,
what one would expect from GR).

> STUPID!!!!!
> And they
> DON'T UNDERSTAND!!!!
> And they are
> NOT EVEN WRONG!!!!!!

Irrelevant, actually.

--
Jan

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

#368857

W dniu sobota, 31 października 2015 00:03:22 UTC+1 użytkownik JanPB napisał:
> On Friday, October 30, 2015 at 1:15:09 PM UTC-7, Maciej Woźniak wrote:
> > Użytkownik "JanPB"  napisał w wiadomości grup 
> > dyskusyjnych:211daa8e-2cac-48b5-8108-c3dd9689aca4@googlegroups.com...
> > 
> > |What the theory actually says is that the falling matter radiates.
> > |Observations also are consistent with the source of the radiation
> > 
> > Of course, they are!!!
> > We see a shining object, so it's an obvious experimental
> > confirmation of black holes!!!!!
> 
> Readers will note that Maciej removed the important part of my post.
> What I wrote was (the removed portion highlighted):
> "Observations also are consistent with the source of the radiation
> BEING SITUATED OFF-CENTER."
> 
> So it's not a question of only "We see a shining object [etc.]".

Of course, it is not!!! So this shining object is
an obvious experimental confirmation of black holes!!!!!
And those, who don't believe are
STUPID!!!!!
And they
DON'T UNDERSTAND!!!!
And they are
NOT EVEN WRONG!!!!!!

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

#368925

On Monday, November 2, 2015 at 1:18:01 AM UTC-8, mlwo...@wp.pl wrote:
> W dniu sobota, 31 października 2015 00:03:22 UTC+1 użytkownik JanPB napisał:
> > On Friday, October 30, 2015 at 1:15:09 PM UTC-7, Maciej Woźniak wrote:
> > > Użytkownik "JanPB"  napisał w wiadomości grup 
> > > dyskusyjnych:211daa8e-2cac-48b5-8108-c3dd9689aca4@googlegroups.com...
> > > 
> > > |What the theory actually says is that the falling matter radiates.
> > > |Observations also are consistent with the source of the radiation
> > > 
> > > Of course, they are!!!
> > > We see a shining object, so it's an obvious experimental
> > > confirmation of black holes!!!!!
> > 
> > Readers will note that Maciej removed the important part of my post.
> > What I wrote was (the removed portion highlighted):
> > "Observations also are consistent with the source of the radiation
> > BEING SITUATED OFF-CENTER."
> > 
> > So it's not a question of only "We see a shining object [etc.]".
> 
> Of course, it is not!!! So this shining object is
> an obvious experimental confirmation of black holes!!!!!

I never said that. Why do you feel the need to go through those
fantasies and conniptions? For example, quote:

> And those, who don't believe are
> STUPID!!!!!
> And they
> DON'T UNDERSTAND!!!!
> And they are
> NOT EVEN WRONG!!!!!!

...unquote.

--
Jan

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

#368958

W dniu poniedziałek, 2 listopada 2015 23:10:53 UTC+1 użytkownik JanPB napisał:
> On Monday, November 2, 2015 at 1:18:01 AM UTC-8, mlwo...@wp.pl wrote:
> > W dniu sobota, 31 października 2015 00:03:22 UTC+1 użytkownik JanPB napisał:
> > > On Friday, October 30, 2015 at 1:15:09 PM UTC-7, Maciej Woźniak wrote:
> > > > Użytkownik "JanPB"  napisał w wiadomości grup 
> > > > dyskusyjnych:211daa8e-2cac-48b5-8108-c3dd9689aca4@googlegroups.com...
> > > > 
> > > > |What the theory actually says is that the falling matter radiates.
> > > > |Observations also are consistent with the source of the radiation
> > > > 
> > > > Of course, they are!!!
> > > > We see a shining object, so it's an obvious experimental
> > > > confirmation of black holes!!!!!
> > > 
> > > Readers will note that Maciej removed the important part of my post.
> > > What I wrote was (the removed portion highlighted):
> > > "Observations also are consistent with the source of the radiation
> > > BEING SITUATED OFF-CENTER."
> > > 
> > > So it's not a question of only "We see a shining object [etc.]".
> > 
> > Of course, it is not!!! So this shining object is
> > an obvious experimental confirmation of black holes!!!!!
> 
> I never said that. 

But your fellow idiots did.

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

#368965

Poutnik
Dne 30/10/2015 v 23:28 John Heath napsal(a): 

> 
> I hear you. There is some mysterious mass out there but you can not see or feel it. That one smells of BS to justify GR as a correct theory so I hear you. Let me give a counter argument that could be more to your liking. If you place two sheets of aluminum foil 1 square meter 1 meter apart and hook those aluminum sheets of foil to a 50 dollar radio shack capacity meter it will read about 10 p Farad + or - 2 p F . What is a p and what is a Farad. p is 10^-12 and Farad is the degree of elasticity to electric stimulus . In short the radio shack meter is tapping the aluminum foil with electrical pulses to see how elastic , spring like, the sheets are to voltage changes. These meters are very accurate thanks to digital technology and can be trusted. If you wish to buy one the buzz word is not epsilon or permittivity meter. There is a chance he will call a security guard. The buzz word you need is LCR or capacity meter , this will ring a bell. If you take this experiment to space in a p 
ure vacuum the measurement will be 8.8 p Farad , elasticity. How can a vacuum of nothing be elastic to electrical pulses? Maybe a pure vacuum is more than nothing. Food for thought. 
> 
Capacitance has nothing to do with elasticity. 

-- 
Poutnik ( the Czech word for a wanderer ) 


That pretty cool how you just "Know Things"
Like the relations of capacitance to elasticity 
How you have instant access to the most concrete Facts of the universe

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

#369000

Dne 03/11/2015 v 13:50 fuller.david@hotmail.com napsal(a):

>> Poutnik : Capacitance has nothing to do with elasticity.

> That pretty cool how you just "Know Things"
> Like the relations of capacitance to elasticity
> How you have instant access
> to the most concrete Facts of the universe.

In contrary to abstract numerology,
it is basic knowledge of physics.

It is nothing special invented by myself.

-- 
Poutnik ( the Czech word for a wanderer )

Knowledge makes great men humble, but small men arrogant.

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

#369002

How is is numerology ? And how is it any different than your Damned Numerology?

Yes,  it is abstract but pegs all the constants to within 1% or better

My Numerology predicted the speed of light to within seven tenths of a meter and the correct force of gravity 

Don't be all butt hurt. 

Show me your derivation of gravity from any of the other constants please or quit yer bellowing. 

 https://plus.google.com/107909633052051852299/posts/84ZEnZ6LW14



Poutnik
Dne 03/11/2015 v 13:50 fuller...@hotmail.com napsal(a): 

>> Poutnik : Capacitance has nothing to do with elasticity. 

> That pretty cool how you just "Know Things" 
> Like the relations of capacitance to elasticity 
> How you have instant access 
> to the most concrete Facts of the universe. 

In contrary to abstract numerology, 
it is basic knowledge of physics. 

It is nothing special invented by myself. 

-- 
Poutnik

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

#368618

On Friday, October 30, 2015 at 7:54:23 AM UTC-4, mlwo...@wp.pl wrote:
> W dniu piątek, 30 października 2015 12:08:24 UTC+1 użytkownik paparios napisał:
> > On Thursday, October 29, 2015 at 9:57:57 PM UTC-3, kefischer wrote:
> > > On Thu, 29 Oct 2015 15:40:36 -0700 (PDT), pnalsing@gmail.com wrote:
> >
> > > >
> > > >What is extraordinary is that the orbital calculations
> > > >show that the mass of the unseen object that all of
> > > >these stars are orbiting has a mass of 4.3 million suns!
> > >
> > >        I would like to see a technical paper on
> > > the matter before thinking about it.
> > >
> >
> > http://www2011.mpe.mpg.de/ir/GC/papers/nature2002.pdf
> 
> So, we have a theory. It's saying "a huge mass
> will be invisible".
> And we have a huge mass - visible.
> What a perfect experimental evidence of the theory!!!
> There is a huge mass!!!!!! And, as all huge masses
> are invisible, it's obviously invisible!!!! So it
> confirms the theory!!!!
> What? it's visible? Doesn't matter, we can explain 
> it!!!!  There must be an explaination!!! What matters,
> it's that it's obviously invisible, as all huge masses 
> are  invisible, so it confirms the theory!!!!

I hear you. There is some mysterious mass out there but you can not see or feel it. That one smells of BS to justify GR as a correct theory so I hear you. Let me give a counter argument that could be more to your liking. If you place two sheets of aluminum foil 1 square meter 1 meter apart and hook those aluminum sheets of foil to a 50 dollar radio shack capacity meter it will read about 10 p Farad + or - 2 p F . What is a p and what is a Farad. p is 10^-12 and Farad is the degree of elasticity to electric stimulus . In short the radio shack meter is tapping the aluminum foil with electrical pulses to see how elastic , spring like, the sheets are to voltage changes. These meters are very accurate thanks to digital technology and can be trusted. If you wish to buy one the buzz word is not epsilon or permittivity meter. There is a chance he will call a security guard. The buzz word you need is LCR or capacity meter , this will ring a bell. If you take this experiment to space in a pure vacuum the measurement will be 8.8 p Farad , elasticity. How can a vacuum of nothing be elastic to electrical pulses? Maybe a pure vacuum is more than nothing. Food for thought. 

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

#368927

Dne 30/10/2015 v 23:28 John Heath napsal(a):

> 
> I hear you. There is some mysterious mass out there but you can not see or feel it. That one smells of BS to justify GR as a correct theory so I hear you. Let me give a counter argument that could be more to your liking. If you place two sheets of aluminum foil 1 square meter 1 meter apart and hook those aluminum sheets of foil to a 50 dollar radio shack capacity meter it will read about 10 p Farad + or - 2 p F . What is a p and what is a Farad. p is 10^-12 and Farad is the degree of elasticity to electric stimulus . In short the radio shack meter is tapping the aluminum foil with electrical pulses to see how elastic , spring like, the sheets are to voltage changes. These meters are very accurate thanks to digital technology and can be trusted. If you wish to buy one the buzz word is not epsilon or permittivity meter. There is a chance he will call a security guard. The buzz word you need is LCR or capacity meter , this will ring a bell. If you take this experiment to space in a p
ure vacuum the measurement will be 8.8 p Farad , elasticity. How can a vacuum of nothing be elastic to electrical pulses? Maybe a pure vacuum is more than nothing. Food for thought. 
> 
Capacitance has nothing to do with elasticity.

-- 
Poutnik ( the Czech word for a wanderer )

Knowledge makes great men humble, but small men arrogant.

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

#368964

Poutnik
Dne 30/10/2015 v 23:28 John Heath napsal(a): 

> 
> I hear you. There is some mysterious mass out there but you can not see or feel it. That one smells of BS to justify GR as a correct theory so I hear you. Let me give a counter argument that could be more to your liking. If you place two sheets of aluminum foil 1 square meter 1 meter apart and hook those aluminum sheets of foil to a 50 dollar radio shack capacity meter it will read about 10 p Farad + or - 2 p F . What is a p and what is a Farad. p is 10^-12 and Farad is the degree of elasticity to electric stimulus . In short the radio shack meter is tapping the aluminum foil with electrical pulses to see how elastic , spring like, the sheets are to voltage changes. These meters are very accurate thanks to digital technology and can be trusted. If you wish to buy one the buzz word is not epsilon or permittivity meter. There is a chance he will call a security guard. The buzz word you need is LCR or capacity meter , this will ring a bell. If you take this experiment to space in a p 
ure vacuum the measurement will be 8.8 p Farad , elasticity. How can a vacuum of nothing be elastic to electrical pulses? Maybe a pure vacuum is more than nothing. Food for thought. 
> 
Capacitance has nothing to do with elasticity. 

-- 
Poutnik ( the Czech word for a wanderer ) 

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Page 3 of 3 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3]

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

csiph-web