Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #398592 > unrolled thread
| Started by | mlwozniak@wp.pl |
|---|---|
| First post | 2016-11-16 00:09 -0800 |
| Last post | 2016-11-17 04:37 -0800 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 81 — 23 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.physics.relativity
This is your guru mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-11-16 00:09 -0800
Re: This is your guru Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> - 2016-11-16 10:52 +0100
Re: This is your guru mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-11-16 02:41 -0800
Re: This is your guru Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> - 2016-11-16 11:43 +0100
Re: This is your guru mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-11-16 03:49 -0800
Re: This is your guru Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> - 2016-11-16 13:18 +0100
Re: This is your guru mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-11-16 04:48 -0800
Re: This is your guru JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-11-16 21:54 -0800
Re: This is your guru mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-11-16 23:19 -0800
Re: This is your guru JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-11-16 23:32 -0800
Re: This is your guru mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-11-16 23:38 -0800
Re: This is your guru JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-11-17 00:14 -0800
Re: This is your guru mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-11-17 00:38 -0800
Re: This is your guru JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-11-17 10:37 -0800
Re: This is your guru mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-11-17 22:36 -0800
Re: This is your guru Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-11-16 10:26 -0600
Re: This is your guru Kieth Staudt <KiethS@StaudtInstitute.info> - 2016-11-16 18:12 +0000
Re: This is your guru Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> - 2016-11-16 19:28 +0100
Re: This is your guru JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-11-16 21:57 -0800
Re: This is your guru mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-11-16 23:34 -0800
Re: This is your guru JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-11-17 00:23 -0800
Re: This is your guru mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-11-17 03:37 -0800
Re: This is your guru JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-11-17 10:39 -0800
Re: This is your guru mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-11-17 22:50 -0800
Re: This is your guru JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-11-17 23:52 -0800
Re: This is your guru mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-11-18 00:53 -0800
Re: This is your guru JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-11-18 12:28 -0800
Re: This is your guru Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-11-19 10:07 +0100
Re: This is your guru Marion Vanriper <Marion@Vanriper.info> - 2016-11-26 09:30 +0000
Re: This is your guru Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-11-17 10:09 -0600
Re: This is your guru JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-11-16 12:11 -0800
Re: This is your guru mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-11-16 23:14 -0800
Re: This is your guru JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-11-16 23:35 -0800
Re: This is your guru mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-11-16 23:52 -0800
Re: This is your guru JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-11-17 00:25 -0800
Re: This is your guru paparios <paparios@gmail.com> - 2016-11-17 03:59 -0800
Re: This is your guru "Dan S. MacAbre" <no@way.com> - 2016-11-17 12:12 +0000
Re: This is your guru Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-11-18 05:07 +0100
Re: This is your guru "Dan S. MacAbre" <no@way.com> - 2016-11-18 10:02 +0000
Re: This is your guru Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-11-18 22:13 +0100
Re: This is your guru "David (Time Lord) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-11-18 21:46 -0800
Re: This is your guru "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-11-19 09:30 +0100
Re: This is your guru Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-11-19 10:01 -0600
Re: This is your guru "David (Time Lord) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-11-19 08:07 -0800
Re: This is your guru Norberto Haman <norberman@norberman.info> - 2016-11-19 16:37 +0000
Re: This is your guru Steven Carlip <carlip@physics.ucdavis.edu> - 2016-11-20 09:37 -0800
Re: This is your guru Norberto Haman <norberman@norberman.info> - 2016-11-20 20:32 +0000
Re: This is your guru Steven Carlip <carlip@physics.ucdavis.edu> - 2016-11-20 15:54 -0800
Re: This is your guru Maryann Tonn <libradaz@libradazert.info> - 2016-11-21 15:00 +0000
Re: This is your guru Steven Carlip <carlip@physics.ucdavis.edu> - 2016-11-21 19:16 -0800
Re: This is your guru Maryann Tonn <libradaz@libradazert.info> - 2016-11-22 10:39 +0000
Re: This is your guru paparios <paparios@gmail.com> - 2016-11-22 03:16 -0800
Re: This is your guru Maryann Tonn <libradaz@libradazert.info> - 2016-11-22 11:24 +0000
Re: This is your guru Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2016-11-22 12:13 +0000
Re: This is your guru benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2016-11-22 17:37 -0500
Re: This is your guru Steven Carlip <carlip@physics.ucdavis.edu> - 2016-11-22 22:57 -0800
Re: This is your guru Dusty Kollman <uberdriver@uberdriver.info> - 2016-11-23 13:37 +0000
Re: This is your guru paparios <paparios@gmail.com> - 2016-11-23 06:04 -0800
Re: This is your guru Dusty Kollman <uberdriver@uberdriver.info> - 2016-11-23 14:27 +0000
Re: This is your guru paparios <paparios@gmail.com> - 2016-11-23 06:44 -0800
Re: This is your guru Dusty Kollman <uberdriver@uberdriver.info> - 2016-11-23 14:56 +0000
Re: This is your guru Steven Carlip <carlip@physics.ucdavis.edu> - 2016-11-23 10:46 -0800
Re: This is your guru Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-11-23 23:21 +0100
Re: This is your guru Bob Goodman <bobg@boobgodman.info> - 2016-11-23 22:58 +0000
Re: This is your guru Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-11-25 20:00 +0100
Re: This is your guru Bernardo Dearmond <bnard@dearmond.org> - 2016-11-25 21:46 +0000
Re: This is your guru Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-11-25 22:56 +0100
Re: This is your guru "David (Lord Kronos) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-11-23 20:13 -0800
Re: This is your guru Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-11-23 09:24 -0600
Re: This is your guru Dusty Kollman <uberdriver@uberdriver.info> - 2016-11-23 15:33 +0000
Re: This is your guru Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-11-23 23:23 +0100
Re: This is your guru "David (Lord Kronos) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-11-23 20:15 -0800
Re: This is your guru Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-11-25 20:05 +0100
Re: This is your guru "David (Lord Kronos) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-11-25 14:57 -0800
Re: This is your guru Dusty Kollman <uberdriver@uberdriver.info> - 2016-11-23 18:28 +0000
Re: This is your guru Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-11-23 19:37 +0100
Re: This is your guru Dusty Kollman <uberdriver@uberdriver.info> - 2016-11-23 18:39 +0000
Re: This is your guru "David (Lord Kronos) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-11-21 22:40 -0800
Re: This is your guru Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-11-19 10:47 -0600
Re: This is your guru Norberto Haman <norberman@norberman.info> - 2016-11-19 17:20 +0000
Re: This is your guru mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-11-17 04:37 -0800
Page 4 of 5 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4] 5 Next page →
| From | Dusty Kollman <uberdriver@uberdriver.info> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-23 14:56 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <o14alv$bh0$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #399463 |
paparios wrote: > On Wednesday, November 23, 2016 at 11:27:02 AM UTC-3, Dusty Kollman > wrote: >> paparios wrote: >> >> >> > As a matter of fact, this is not a bad analogy. I may use it the >> >> > next time I teach GR, probably next fall. If you give me your >> >> > real name, I'll be happy to credit you. Steve Carlip >> >> >> >> In spite of what you said is pretty much consistent, I'm not >> >> convinced. >> >> As you say, light shadows are not a one-to-one analogy. The point is >> >> that it is about the geometry/projection, not the shadow. However >> >> yes, the physicality of the world may materialize in this way into >> >> the geometry as a theoretical domain. Very funny indeed. I haver no >> >> idea. Thanks. >> > >> > For sure you do not have idea. You even do not know what your name >> > is...troll >> >> Hey pap, Dr. Steve just mentioned he'll give credit to Dr. Maryann in >> his lectures. Who is the troll now, as correctly mentioned earlier by >> others, >> that is YOU, a cretin, probably gotten a diploma and everybody are >> asking why!! Thanks you stupidingly great!! > > There is no Dr Maryann, which by the way is other of your stupid names > Your "Dusty" address is IhXXGyXTgisY5KLK9expvA.user.gioia.aioe.org > Marathon address is BR2gIOinywZYrh92MehZYA.user.gioia.aioe.org > The same as all the dozen identities you assume. Than you contradict yourself again, pap. You can't be so stupid not seeing you are contradicting yourself. One of the difference between you and us, some others around here, is that I'm never keen declaring that I'm stupid when I am really, really stupid. You never declare that you are stupid, pap. An eventually clear indicator, that you sold your people and your country for a piece of worthless paper. A diploma, in case that you got such one. Btw, aioe.org is a public server, available to millions in Physics. Have a nice day.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Steven Carlip <carlip@physics.ucdavis.edu> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-23 10:46 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <o14o3d$ms7$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #399453 |
On 11/23/16 5:37 AM, Dusty Kollman wrote:
> Steven Carlip wrote:
>> Gravity is a little more complicated -- it takes more than one number
>> ("how much light") to describe spacetime curvature, and there are
>> conservation laws that come in, so you get things like quadrupole
>> radiation and velocity-dependent effects. But the basic idea is the
>> same.
[...]
> In spite of what you said is pretty much consistent, I'm not convinced. As
> you say, light shadows are not a one-to-one analogy. The point is that it
> is about the geometry/projection, not the shadow.
Good. You shouldn't be convinced by an analogy -- you should just take
it as a starting point for learning more.
The simplest next step is electromagnetism rather than gravity.
There's a beautiful quantitative description of how the field of a
moving charge "separates" from the charge in Purcell, _Electricity
and Magnetism_, section 5.7. This is very close to my description
of what happens with the shadow of a moving object, but it has all
of the details.
For gravity, as I said, it's more complicated, especially since the
field equations are nonlinear. You can find a derivation of the
linear approximation in any GR textbook, and if you compare to
Purcell, you'll see that the description is very similar. Once
you really understand this, it might be fun to do a more direct
analogue of Purcell's argument. This should be possible by using
the Kinnersley metric (you can get a start by looking at my paper
at https://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/9909087).
Steve Carlip
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-23 23:21 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <3713427.mogB4TqSGs@PointedEars.de> |
| In reply to | #399512 |
Steven Carlip wrote: > On 11/23/16 5:37 AM, Dusty Kollman wrote: > [...] >> In spite of what you said is pretty much consistent, I'm not convinced. >> As you say, light shadows are not a one-to-one analogy. The point is that >> it is about the geometry/projection, not the shadow. > > Good. You shouldn't be convinced by an analogy -- you should just take > it as a starting point for learning more. […] Pearls before the swine. I hate to break this to you, but you have wasted your precious time feeding the ’nym-shifting (Tensor) troll; they have just changed their pseudonym again (previously it was "Maryann Tonn"). F'up2 sci.physics.relativity -- PointedEars Twitter: @PointedEars2 Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Bob Goodman <bobg@boobgodman.info> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-23 22:58 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <o156uk$1v1r$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #399537 |
Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: > Steven Carlip wrote: > >> On 11/23/16 5:37 AM, Dusty Kollman wrote: >> [...] >>> In spite of what you said is pretty much consistent, I'm not >>> convinced. >>> As you say, light shadows are not a one-to-one analogy. The point is >>> that it is about the geometry/projection, not the shadow. >> >> Good. You shouldn't be convinced by an analogy -- you should just take >> it as a starting point for learning more. […] > > Pearls before the swine. I hate to break this to you, but you have > wasted your precious time feeding the ’nym-shifting (Tensor) troll; they > have just changed their pseudonym again (previously it was "Maryann > Tonn"). You are so lacking the required pre-requisites, not seeing that Dr. Steven decided to credit Dr. Maryann in his lectures in Universities. Which is advanced material in Physics, not digestible to half-engineers like you.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-25 20:00 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <14236036.S38Je9uiNW@PointedEars.de> |
| In reply to | #399545 |
The ’nym-shifting troll gibbered as "Bob Goodman" (formerly: "Maryann
Tonn"):
> Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
>> Steven Carlip wrote:
>>> On 11/23/16 5:37 AM, Dusty Kollman wrote:
>>> [...]
>>>> In spite of what you said is pretty much consistent, I'm not
>>>> convinced.
>>>> As you say, light shadows are not a one-to-one analogy. The point is
>>>> that it is about the geometry/projection, not the shadow.
>>> Good. You shouldn't be convinced by an analogy -- you should just take
>>> it as a starting point for learning more. […]
>> Pearls before the swine. I hate to break this to you, but you have
>> wasted your precious time feeding the ’nym-shifting (Tensor) troll; they
>> have just changed their pseudonym again (previously it was "Maryann
>> Tonn").
>
> You are so lacking the required pre-requisites, not seeing that Dr. Steven
> decided to credit Dr. Maryann
^^^^^^^^^^^
ROTFL!
> in his lectures in Universities.
Steven has confirmed to me via e-mail that he knew he was feeding you, but
that he found it worthwhile to post this anyway – *for other* subscribers*.
> Which is advanced material in Physics, not digestible to half-engineers
> like you.
Quoting Paul Andersen, slightly corrected:
“It doesn't help to change your name,
the trolling idiot is recognized anyway.
One can but wonder what kind of mental disturbance [makes]
a person constantly change [their] name and write nonsense only.”
*PLONK*
--
PointedEars
Twitter: @PointedEars2
Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Bernardo Dearmond <bnard@dearmond.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-25 21:46 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <o1abfg$1thg$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #399696 |
Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: >> Steven decided to credit Dr. Maryann > ^^^^^^^^^^^ > ROTFL! > >> in his lectures in Universities. > > Steven has confirmed to me via e-mail that he knew he was feeding you, > but that he found it worthwhile to post this anyway – *for other* > subscribers*. Why doing that, Pointedhead, what are you afraid of :) Hmm, you just half- engineered his international lectures. “It doesn't help to change your name, the trolling idiot is recognized anyway. One can but wonder what kind of mental disturbance [makes] a person constantly change [their] name and write nonsense only.” *PLONK*
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-25 22:56 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <3286147.FgHPLZCH7E@PointedEars.de> |
| In reply to | #399711 |
Look everyone, the ’nym-shifting troll has a new pseudonym again – just hours after their previous one was exposed. "Bernardo Dearmond" wrote: > Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: >>> Steven decided to credit Dr. Maryann >> ^^^^^^^^^^^ >> ROTFL! >> >>> in his lectures in Universities. >> >> Steven has confirmed to me via e-mail that he knew he was feeding you, >> but that he found it worthwhile to post this anyway – *for other* >> subscribers*. > > [gibberish] “It doesn't help to change your name, the trolling idiot is recognized anyway. One can but wonder what kind of mental disturbance [makes] a person constantly change [their] name and write nonsense only.” *PLONK* (You’re welcome, Paul ;-)) -- PointedEars Twitter: @PointedEars2 Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "David (Lord Kronos) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-23 20:13 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <33cc878d-a4bb-4a17-bcc4-6c1ae7c24fd9@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #399512 |
On Wednesday, November 23, 2016 at 12:46:17 PM UTC-6, Steven Carlip wrote:
> On 11/23/16 5:37 AM, Dusty Kollman wrote:
> > Steven Carlip wrote:
>
> >> Gravity is a little more complicated -- it takes more than one number
> >> ("how much light") to describe spacetime curvature, and there are
> >> conservation laws that come in, so you get things like quadrupole
> >> radiation and velocity-dependent effects. But the basic idea is the
> >> same.
>
> [...]
> > In spite of what you said is pretty much consistent, I'm not convinced. As
> > you say, light shadows are not a one-to-one analogy. The point is that it
> > is about the geometry/projection, not the shadow.
>
> Good. You shouldn't be convinced by an analogy -- you should just take
> it as a starting point for learning more.
>
> The simplest next step is electromagnetism rather than gravity.
> There's a beautiful quantitative description of how the field of a
> moving charge "separates" from the charge in Purcell, _Electricity
> and Magnetism_, section 5.7. This is very close to my description
> of what happens with the shadow of a moving object, but it has all
> of the details.
>
> For gravity, as I said, it's more complicated, especially since the
> field equations are nonlinear. You can find a derivation of the
> linear approximation in any GR textbook, and if you compare to
> Purcell, you'll see that the description is very similar. Once
> you really understand this, it might be fun to do a more direct
> analogue of Purcell's argument. This should be possible by using
> the Kinnersley metric (you can get a start by looking at my paper
> at https://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/9909087).
>
> Steve Carlip
2e+10 / the speed of light = 66.712819
(2e+10 / 50) * 0.75 = 300000000
66.712819 * 0.75 * the speed of light = 1.5e+10 m / s
http://oi62.tinypic.com/2ag3f47.jpg
http://oi60.tinypic.com/okmna0.jpg
http://i68.tinypic.com/10sb4ab.jpg
https://arxiv.org/find/gr-qc/1/au:+Carlip_S/0/1/0/all/0/1
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-23 09:24 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <o14caf$e7d$3@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #399445 |
On 11/23/2016 12:57 AM, Steven Carlip wrote: > As a matter of fact, this is not a bad analogy. I may use it the > next time I teach GR, probably next fall. If you give me your > real name, I'll be happy to credit you. > > Steve Carlip I'm going to wager he doesn't remember it anymore. -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Dusty Kollman <uberdriver@uberdriver.info> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-23 15:33 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <o14csc$fiq$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #399469 |
Odd Bodkin wrote: > On 11/23/2016 12:57 AM, Steven Carlip wrote: >> As a matter of fact, this is not a bad analogy. I may use it the next >> time I teach GR, probably next fall. If you give me your real name, >> I'll be happy to credit you. Steve Carlip > > I'm going to wager he doesn't remember it anymore. Since you admittedly are boring stupid, you gonna fervently wager for a period of time. Just let Dr. Steven kindly mention Dr. Maryann, if he really want to.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-23 23:23 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <3139771.hdfAi7Kttb@PointedEars.de> |
| In reply to | #399469 |
Odd Bodkin wrote: > On 11/23/2016 12:57 AM, Steven Carlip wrote: >> As a matter of fact, this is not a bad analogy. I may use it the >> next time I teach GR, probably next fall. If you give me your >> real name, I'll be happy to credit you. > > I'm going to wager he doesn't remember it anymore. I see your wager and raise you that they do not even know whether they are a “he” or a “she”. -- PointedEars Twitter: @PointedEars2 Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "David (Lord Kronos) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-23 20:15 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <a6024265-6b24-4a9a-ac44-c8f038542c88@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #399539 |
On Wednesday, November 23, 2016 at 4:23:59 PM UTC-6, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: > I see your wager and raise you that they do not even know whether they are a > “he” or a “she”. Prime us https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X9uk9IcoQ0w
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-25 20:05 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <10807960.29hYlI1gZS@PointedEars.de> |
| In reply to | #399572 |
David (Lord Kronos) Fuller wrote: > On Wednesday, November 23, 2016 at 4:23:59 PM UTC-6, Thomas 'PointedEars' > Lahn wrote: Attribution _line_, not attribution novel. >> I see your wager and raise you that they do not even know whether they >> are a “he” or a “she”. > > Prime us No, _Primus_. > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X9uk9IcoQ0w Thank you for pointing out that version of one of my favorite songs. -- PointedEars Twitter: @PointedEars2 Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "David (Lord Kronos) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-25 14:57 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <554eb3a8-f8b0-4c62-939c-7c2c6107a7cf@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #399701 |
On Friday, November 25, 2016 at 1:05:57 PM UTC-6, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: > David (Lord Kronos) Fuller wrote: > > > On Wednesday, November 23, 2016 at 4:23:59 PM UTC-6, Thomas 'PointedEars' > > Lahn wrote: > > Attribution _line_, not attribution novel. > > >> I see your wager and raise you that they do not even know whether they > >> are a “he” or a “she”. > > > > Prime us > > No, _Primus_. > > > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X9uk9IcoQ0w > > Thank you for pointing out that version of one of my favorite songs. > > -- > PointedEars > > Twitter: @PointedEars2 > Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail. You're Welcome, Glad to Help
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Dusty Kollman <uberdriver@uberdriver.info> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-23 18:28 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <o14n47$13ou$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #399445 |
Poutnik wrote: > On 11/23/2016 02:39 PM, john wrote: >> Carlip " >> >> As a matter of fact, this is not a bad analogy. I may use it the next >> time I teach GR, probably next fall. If you give me your real name, >> I'll be happy to credit you. Steve " >> >> It's a perfect analogy. >> Except that Gravity, which is caused by emissions from electrons with >> vibrations in the 50 attoseconds range (electron period 100 >> attoseconds) is travelling at least 10 times faster than light. > > Can you refer laboratories that were successful in reproducing the > confirming experiment ? What for, you are not gonna pretend you'll also understand. Infact, you are not even really interested.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-23 19:37 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <o14nii$kp8$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #399502 |
On 11/23/2016 07:28 PM, Dusty Kollman wrote: > Poutnik wrote: > >> On 11/23/2016 02:39 PM, john wrote: >>> It's a perfect analogy. >>> Except that Gravity, which is caused by emissions from electrons with >>> vibrations in the 50 attoseconds range (electron period 100 >>> attoseconds) is travelling at least 10 times faster than light. >> >> Can you refer laboratories that were successful in reproducing the >> confirming experiment ? > > What for, you are not gonna pretend you'll also understand. Infact, you > are not even really interested. He cannot refer them. You are not even able to recognize a sarcastic question. -- Poutnik ( The Pilgrim, Der Wanderer ) A wise man guards words he says, as they say about him more, than he says about the subject.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Dusty Kollman <uberdriver@uberdriver.info> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-23 18:39 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <o14np4$14um$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #399507 |
Poutnik wrote: > On 11/23/2016 07:28 PM, Dusty Kollman wrote: >> Poutnik wrote: >> >>> On 11/23/2016 02:39 PM, john wrote: > >>>> It's a perfect analogy. >>>> Except that Gravity, which is caused by emissions from electrons with >>>> vibrations in the 50 attoseconds range (electron period 100 >>>> attoseconds) is travelling at least 10 times faster than light. >>> >>> Can you refer laboratories that were successful in reproducing the >>> confirming experiment ? >> >> What for, you are not gonna pretend you'll also understand. Infact, you >> are not even really interested. > > He cannot refer them. > You are not even able to recognize a sarcastic question. Yes, since you carefully omitted the sarcastic marks.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "David (Lord Kronos) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-21 22:40 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <e6950a2e-a1df-44ad-89ae-08c4c9f668c2@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #399169 |
On Monday, November 21, 2016 at 9:01:03 AM UTC-6, Maryann Tonn wrote: > On to the subject, gravity cannot possibly travel at any speed, since is a > geometry, curvature in GR, hence similar to the projection of a shadow. No > matter how fast or slow you shake your head, its shadow will never leave > the association with your head. Your gravity "field" is to Matter/Mass > what a Shadow is for an opaque object. Gravity is the "Ratio of State of Density of the Elastic Medium" Between two Spatially Separated Locations. The Information About the State of Density of the Medium cannot travel Spatially at a speed faster than c The Density of the Medium cannot Re-balance spatially faster c http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/permot3.html http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/Sound/souspe2.html http://i67.tinypic.com/5anxg7.jpg Bulk modulus (Elastic Property / Inertial Property)^0.5 = Velocity ((800000 / 8.88888888888e-12)^0.5) = 3e+8 375 / ((800000 / 8.88888888888e-12)^0.5) = 0.00000125 ((1 / ((4 * pi) / (10^7))) / 8.8541885e-12)^0.5 = 299792446.448 pi / (((375 + (3^0.5)) / c) / 4e-7) = 0.999995388 http://i65.tinypic.com/256hje1.jpg
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-19 10:47 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <wPOdnff0aNC8H63FnZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #398933 |
On 11/19/16 11/19/16 10:01 AM, Tom Roberts wrote: > In General Relativity, CHANGES in gravity due to the motion of a mass are > propagated with speed c at distances in the "far zone" (i.e. distance >> c/f, > where f is the frequency of the change). In the "near zone" (distance < c/f), > changes in gravity act as if they were propagated with essentially infinite > speed; this appearance is caused by fields at the observation location depending > on the position, velocity, and acceleration of the mass [#]. I forgot to say that these dependencies on position, velocity, and acceleration are all retarded (i.e. occur with a delay corresponding to propagation at c), but combine to "predict" where the source mass will be at the time of the observation. This prediction is exact if the mass moves with constant acceleration, but is in error by a small amount if its motion is more complicated. For planetary motions in the solar system, this approximation is good enough for most applications (exceptions being the precession of perihelia). So GR approximates the "infinite speed" of Newtonian gravitation by using retarded fields but "predicting" where the moving mass will be at the observation instant. This is also what E&M does, but E&M uses one fewer derivative in the prediction. Tom Roberts
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Norberto Haman <norberman@norberman.info> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-19 17:20 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <o0q1lo$qsg$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #398946 |
Tom Roberts wrote: > On 11/19/16 11/19/16 10:01 AM, Tom Roberts wrote: >> In General Relativity, CHANGES in gravity due to the motion of a mass >> are propagated with speed c at distances in the "far zone" (i.e. >> distance >> c/f, where f is the frequency of the change). In the "near >> zone" (distance < c/f), changes in gravity act as if they were >> propagated with essentially infinite speed; this appearance is caused >> by fields at the observation location depending on the position, >> velocity, and acceleration of the mass [#]. Why not putting some numbers. At what frequency a massive object as Earth may "vibrate"?. Low, sub-Hertzm which is "DC" akka undetectable. Furthermore, a collapsing Big (Neutron) Star (I have no idea), must output a close to infinity frequency (sharp corner step response, however there is no space to overshoot!!). Summasummarum, those thing seems wrong even theoretically. > I forgot to say that these dependencies on position, velocity, and > acceleration are all retarded (i.e. occur with a delay corresponding to > propagation at c), but combine to "predict" where the source mass will > be at the time of the observation. This prediction is exact if the mass > moves with constant acceleration, but is in error by a small amount if Displacements along a sinusoid canNOT take place at constant acceleration. > its motion is more complicated. For planetary motions in the solar > system, this approximation is good enough for most applications > (exceptions being the precession of perihelia). > > So GR approximates the "infinite speed" of Newtonian gravitation by > using retarded fields but "predicting" where the moving mass will be at > the observation instant. This is also what E&M does, but E&M uses one > fewer derivative in the prediction. Tom Roberts Thanks
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 4 of 5 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4] 5 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity
csiph-web