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

Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #383573 > unrolled thread

Space-Time and Surrealism

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

Contents

  Space-Time and Surrealism "hanson" <hanson@quick.net> - 2016-05-16 17:51 -0700
    Space-Time and Surrealism David Fuller <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-05-16 18:47 -0700
    Re: Space-Time and Surrealism "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-05-17 09:54 +0200
      Re: Space-Time and Surrealism "Dirk Van de moortel" <dirkvandemoortel@hotspam.not> - 2016-05-17 12:19 +0200
        Re: Space-Time and Surrealism "hanson" <hanson@quick.net> - 2016-05-17 11:40 -0700
      Re: Space-Time and Surrealism "hanson" <hanson@quick.net> - 2016-05-17 11:41 -0700
    Re: Space-Time and Surrealism JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-05-17 10:26 -0700
      Re: Space-Time and Surrealism Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-05-17 20:45 +0200
    Re: Space-Time and Surrealism John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2016-05-17 16:28 -0700
    Re: Space-Time and Surrealism The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-05-17 23:13 -0700
      Re: Space-Time and Surrealism The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-05-17 23:26 -0700
        Re: Space-Time and Surrealism The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-05-17 23:32 -0700
      Re: Space-Time and Surrealism "David (Time Lord) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-05-18 06:25 -0700
        Re: Space-Time and Surrealism The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-05-18 11:31 -0700
          Re: Space-Time and Surrealism "David (Time Lord) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-05-18 13:09 -0700
            Re: Space-Time and Surrealism The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-05-19 09:53 -0700

#383573 — Space-Time and Surrealism

The term "space-time" is idiotic & ill defined.
It has a different meaning and explanation from 
author to author, each yelling at the other: 
"You must learn" in their hope to cram their own
crap down other folks' throat... ahahahahaha...
>
In the real world there are 1D lengths or lines, 
2D areas or surfaces & 3D volumes or spaces.
But "space-time"? 
Is it the product of "Volume x Time"?, 
Is it a "Time in the Volume of Space"?
>
Semantics also says that "space" is a DIFFERENCE
or an Interval between 2 points, 2 lines or 2 volumes 
or 2 times, which is what the SR/GR Lawyer-language
uses and then leads to space-like, time-like, mass-like 
and certainly to _ass-like_ events, -states or -processes,
>
dubbed as Event-horizons, Roche-lobes, Schwartzschild 
Radius, Einstein Rings, or Expanding Space, without
saying what it expands into, &/or/not specifying that the 
highfaluting expression of "expanding space" merely 
means an increase in the interval between 2 observations
or happenings, that have nothing to do with any increase 
of 3D Space or Volume of some media. 
>
Most of these terms mentioned above do NOT  exist
in the real world, except in the agile minds of Einstein 
Dinglesberries in/during their worship of AE's sphincter:
>
AE:  "People like us, who **believe** in physics,
AE:  know that the distinction between the
AE:  past, resent, and future is only a stubbornly
AE:  persistent illusion."

Einstein's language-use in/for SR/GR is akin to the 
depiction of Pablo Picasso's bizarre and distorted
schmiers of the human face & form on his canvasses
which is his realism that he called "Surrealism".
> 
__ Both are Useless Yiddisher Street Corner Acts.__
__________  aka Judenphysik  __________
> 

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#383579

hanson wrote:
The term "space-time" is idiotic & ill defined. 
It has a different meaning and explanation from 
author to author, each yelling at the other: 
"You must learn" in their hope to cram their own 
crap down other folks' throat... ahahahahaha... 
 "Volume x Time"?, 

"Space Time" is a very accurate descriptor. 

who ever originated it should be compensated 

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

#383591

On 17.05.2016 02:51, hanson wrote:
>
> Einstein's language-use in/for SR/GR is akin to the depiction of Pablo
> Picasso's bizarre and distorted
> schmiers of the human face & form on his canvasses
> which is his realism that he called "Surrealism".

Pablo Picasso surrealist? :-D

I note with interest that you are ignorant of arts
as well as of physics.

> __ Both are Useless Yiddisher Street Corner Acts.__
> __________  aka Judenphysik  __________

Ah! I see.

-- 
Paul

https://paulba.no/

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

#383594

Paul B. Andersen <relativity@paulba.no> wrote:
> On 17.05.2016 02:51, hanson wrote:
>> 
>> Einstein's language-use in/for SR/GR is akin to the depiction of
>> Pablo Picasso's bizarre and distorted
>> schmiers of the human face & form on his canvasses
>> which is his realism that he called "Surrealism".
> 
> Pablo Picasso surrealist? :-D
> 
> I note with interest that you are ignorant of arts
> as well as of physics.

Idiocy is usually all-round.

Dirk Vdm

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

#383637

"Dirk VD Trottel" <dirkvandemoortel@hotspam.not> 
wrote that "Idiocy is usually all-round" in Einstein Dingleberries.
>
hanson wrote:
That is right, you Belgian Trottel. So here, for your
benefit, is a re-post that shows why those all-round
Einstein Dingleberries are idiots:
>
The term "space-time" is idiotic & ill defined.
It has a different meaning and explanation from 
author to author, each yelling at the other: 
"You must learn" in their hope to cram their own
crap down other folks' throat... ahahahahaha...
>
In the real world there are 1D lengths or lines, 
2D areas or surfaces & 3D volumes or spaces.
But "space-time"? 
Is it the product of "Volume x Time"?, 
Is it a "Time in the Volume of Space"?
>
Semantics also says that "space" is a DIFFERENCE
or an Interval between 2 points, 2 lines or 2 volumes 
or 2 times, which is what the SR/GR Lawyer-language
uses and then leads to space-like, time-like, mass-like 
and certainly to _ass-like_ events, -states or -processes,
>
dubbed as Event-horizons, Roche-lobes, Schwartzschild 
Radius, Einstein Rings, or Expanding Space, without
saying what it expands into, &/or/not specifying that the 
highfaluting expression of "expanding space" merely 
means an increase in the interval between 2 observations
or happenings, that have nothing to do with any increase 
of 3D Space or Volume of some media. 
>
Most of these terms mentioned above do NOT  exist
in the real world, except in the agile minds of Einstein 
Dinglesberries in/during their worship of AE's sphincter:
>
AE:  "People like us, who **believe** in physics,
AE:  know that the distinction between the
AE:  past, resent, and future is only a stubbornly
AE:  persistent illusion."

Einstein's language-use in/for SR/GR is akin to the 
depiction of Pablo Picasso's bizarre and distorted
schmiers of the human face & form on his canvasses
which is his realism that he called "Surrealism".
> 
__ Both are Useless Yiddisher Street Corner Acts.__
__________  aka Judenphysik  __________
> 


>
>

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

#383638

"Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> wrote:
> Pablo Picasso surrealist? :-D
> I note with interest that you are ignorant of arts
> as well as of physics.
>
hanson wrote:
ahahahaha... Paul, that is because you are
a house painter and an Einstein Dingleberry.
Pity.
>
>
>          ------------------- 
The term "space-time" is idiotic & ill defined.
It has a different meaning and explanation from 
author to author, each yelling at the other: 
"You must learn" in their hope to cram their own
crap down other folks' throat... ahahahahaha...
>
In the real world there are 1D lengths or lines, 
2D areas or surfaces & 3D volumes or spaces.
But "space-time"? 
Is it the product of "Volume x Time"?, 
Is it a "Time in the Volume of Space"?
>
Semantics also says that "space" is a DIFFERENCE
or an Interval between 2 points, 2 lines or 2 volumes 
or 2 times, which is what the SR/GR Lawyer-language
uses and then leads to space-like, time-like, mass-like 
and certainly to _ass-like_ events, -states or -processes,
>
dubbed as Event-horizons, Roche-lobes, Schwartzschild 
Radius, Einstein Rings, or Expanding Space, without
saying what it expands into, &/or/not specifying that the 
highfaluting expression of "expanding space" merely 
means an increase in the interval between 2 observations
or happenings, that have nothing to do with any increase 
of 3D Space or Volume of some media. 
>
Most of these terms mentioned above do NOT  exist
in the real world, except in the agile minds of Einstein 
Dinglesberries in/during their worship of AE's sphincter:
>
AE:  "People like us, who **believe** in physics,
AE:  know that the distinction between the
AE:  past, resent, and future is only a stubbornly
AE:  persistent illusion."

Einstein's language-use in/for SR/GR is akin to the 
depiction of Pablo Picasso's bizarre and distorted
schmiers of the human face & form on his canvasses
which is his realism that he called "Surrealism".
> 
__ Both are Useless Yiddisher Street Corner Acts.__
__________  aka Judenphysik  __________
> 

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

#383625

On Tuesday, May 17, 2016 at 2:52:21 AM UTC+2, hanson wrote:
> The term "space-time" is idiotic & ill defined.

No, it's quite old. In Lagrangian and Hamiltonian mechanics, for example,
spacetime is enlarged even further by adding another degrees of freedom
corresponding to velocity (resp. momentum).

The "only" novel thing in relativity's concept of spacetime is the imposition
of certain geometry on it.

Last but not least, it's a very useful model. It's exactly as "ill-defined"
as anything else in physics.

--
Jan

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

#383640

Użytkownik "JanPB"  napisał w wiadomości grup 
dyskusyjnych:cd22d993-1d46-4221-953f-17d69c9929d1@googlegroups.com...

|Last but not least, it's a very useful model.

A lie, as expected from relativistic trash. Even your
bunch of idiots is not stupid enough to use it.

 

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

#383656

On Monday, May 16, 2016 at 7:52:21 PM UTC-5, hanson wrote:
> The term "space-time" is idiotic & ill defined.
> It has a different meaning and explanation from 
> author to author, each yelling at the other: 
> "You must learn" in their hope to cram their own
> crap down other folks' throat... ahahahahaha...
> >
> In the real world there are 1D lengths or lines, 
> 2D areas or surfaces & 3D volumes or spaces.
> But "space-time"? 
> Is it the product of "Volume x Time"?, 
> Is it a "Time in the Volume of Space"?
> >
> Semantics also says that "space" is a DIFFERENCE
> or an Interval between 2 points, 2 lines or 2 volumes 
> or 2 times, which is what the SR/GR Lawyer-language
> uses and then leads to space-like, time-like, mass-like 
> and certainly to _ass-like_ events, -states or -processes,
> >
> dubbed as Event-horizons, Roche-lobes, Schwartzschild 
> Radius, Einstein Rings, or Expanding Space, without
> saying what it expands into, &/or/not specifying that the 
> highfaluting expression of "expanding space" merely 
> means an increase in the interval between 2 observations
> or happenings, that have nothing to do with any increase 
> of 3D Space or Volume of some media. 
> >
> Most of these terms mentioned above do NOT  exist
> in the real world, except in the agile minds of Einstein 
> Dinglesberries in/during their worship of AE's sphincter:
> >
> AE:  "People like us, who **believe** in physics,
> AE:  know that the distinction between the
> AE:  past, resent, and future is only a stubbornly
> AE:  persistent illusion."
> 
> Einstein's language-use in/for SR/GR is akin to the 
> depiction of Pablo Picasso's bizarre and distorted
> schmiers of the human face & form on his canvasses
> which is his realism that he called "Surrealism".
> > 
> __ Both are Useless Yiddisher Street Corner Acts.__
> __________  aka Judenphysik  __________
> >

Time is invented by man- space is the domain of nature. 

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

#383673

hanson wrote:
> 
> The term "space-time" is idiotic & ill defined.
> It has a different meaning and explanation from
> author to author, each yelling at the other:
> "You must learn" in their hope to cram their own
> crap down other folks' throat... ahahahahaha...
> >
> In the real world there are 1D lengths or lines,
> 2D areas or surfaces & 3D volumes or spaces.
> But "space-time"?
> Is it the product of "Volume x Time"?,
> Is it a "Time in the Volume of Space"?
> >
> Semantics also says that "space" is a DIFFERENCE
> or an Interval between 2 points, 2 lines or 2 volumes
> or 2 times, which is what the SR/GR Lawyer-language
> uses and then leads to space-like, time-like, mass-like
> and certainly to _ass-like_ events, -states or -processes,
> >
> dubbed as Event-horizons, Roche-lobes, Schwartzschild
> Radius, Einstein Rings, or Expanding Space, without
> saying what it expands into, &/or/not specifying that the
> highfaluting expression of "expanding space" merely
> means an increase in the interval between 2 observations
> or happenings, that have nothing to do with any increase
> of 3D Space or Volume of some media.
> >
> Most of these terms mentioned above do NOT  exist
> in the real world, except in the agile minds of Einstein
> Dinglesberries in/during their worship of AE's sphincter:
> >
> AE:  "People like us, who **believe** in physics,
> AE:  know that the distinction between the
> AE:  past, resent, and future is only a stubbornly
> AE:  persistent illusion."
> 
> Einstein's language-use in/for SR/GR is akin to the
> depiction of Pablo Picasso's bizarre and distorted
> schmiers of the human face & form on his canvasses
> which is his realism that he called "Surrealism".
> >
> __ Both are Useless Yiddisher Street Corner Acts.__
> __________  aka Judenphysik  __________
> >


Let me put is simply, but not clear...

the past does not exist
the future does not exist
the present does not exist...
that means..
spacetime isn't going anywhere.




no spacetime
no time travel 
no time dimension.

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

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

#383675

The Starmaker wrote:
> 
> hanson wrote:
> >
> > The term "space-time" is idiotic & ill defined.
> > It has a different meaning and explanation from
> > author to author, each yelling at the other:
> > "You must learn" in their hope to cram their own
> > crap down other folks' throat... ahahahahaha...
> > >
> > In the real world there are 1D lengths or lines,
> > 2D areas or surfaces & 3D volumes or spaces.
> > But "space-time"?
> > Is it the product of "Volume x Time"?,
> > Is it a "Time in the Volume of Space"?
> > >
> > Semantics also says that "space" is a DIFFERENCE
> > or an Interval between 2 points, 2 lines or 2 volumes
> > or 2 times, which is what the SR/GR Lawyer-language
> > uses and then leads to space-like, time-like, mass-like
> > and certainly to _ass-like_ events, -states or -processes,
> > >
> > dubbed as Event-horizons, Roche-lobes, Schwartzschild
> > Radius, Einstein Rings, or Expanding Space, without
> > saying what it expands into, &/or/not specifying that the
> > highfaluting expression of "expanding space" merely
> > means an increase in the interval between 2 observations
> > or happenings, that have nothing to do with any increase
> > of 3D Space or Volume of some media.
> > >
> > Most of these terms mentioned above do NOT  exist
> > in the real world, except in the agile minds of Einstein
> > Dinglesberries in/during their worship of AE's sphincter:
> > >
> > AE:  "People like us, who **believe** in physics,
> > AE:  know that the distinction between the
> > AE:  past, resent, and future is only a stubbornly
> > AE:  persistent illusion."
> >
> > Einstein's language-use in/for SR/GR is akin to the
> > depiction of Pablo Picasso's bizarre and distorted
> > schmiers of the human face & form on his canvasses
> > which is his realism that he called "Surrealism".
> > >
> > __ Both are Useless Yiddisher Street Corner Acts.__
> > __________  aka Judenphysik  __________
> > >
> 
> Let me put is simply, but not clear...
> 
> the past does not exist
> the future does not exist
> the present does not exist...
> that means..
> spacetime isn't going anywhere.
> 
> no spacetime
> no time travel
> no time dimension.
> 


In other words...spacetime is just a math idea someone came up with,
...nothing to do with nature.

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

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

#383676

The Starmaker wrote:
> 
> The Starmaker wrote:
> >
> > hanson wrote:
> > >
> > > The term "space-time" is idiotic & ill defined.
> > > It has a different meaning and explanation from
> > > author to author, each yelling at the other:
> > > "You must learn" in their hope to cram their own
> > > crap down other folks' throat... ahahahahaha...
> > > >
> > > In the real world there are 1D lengths or lines,
> > > 2D areas or surfaces & 3D volumes or spaces.
> > > But "space-time"?
> > > Is it the product of "Volume x Time"?,
> > > Is it a "Time in the Volume of Space"?
> > > >
> > > Semantics also says that "space" is a DIFFERENCE
> > > or an Interval between 2 points, 2 lines or 2 volumes
> > > or 2 times, which is what the SR/GR Lawyer-language
> > > uses and then leads to space-like, time-like, mass-like
> > > and certainly to _ass-like_ events, -states or -processes,
> > > >
> > > dubbed as Event-horizons, Roche-lobes, Schwartzschild
> > > Radius, Einstein Rings, or Expanding Space, without
> > > saying what it expands into, &/or/not specifying that the
> > > highfaluting expression of "expanding space" merely
> > > means an increase in the interval between 2 observations
> > > or happenings, that have nothing to do with any increase
> > > of 3D Space or Volume of some media.
> > > >
> > > Most of these terms mentioned above do NOT  exist
> > > in the real world, except in the agile minds of Einstein
> > > Dinglesberries in/during their worship of AE's sphincter:
> > > >
> > > AE:  "People like us, who **believe** in physics,
> > > AE:  know that the distinction between the
> > > AE:  past, resent, and future is only a stubbornly
> > > AE:  persistent illusion."
> > >
> > > Einstein's language-use in/for SR/GR is akin to the
> > > depiction of Pablo Picasso's bizarre and distorted
> > > schmiers of the human face & form on his canvasses
> > > which is his realism that he called "Surrealism".
> > > >
> > > __ Both are Useless Yiddisher Street Corner Acts.__
> > > __________  aka Judenphysik  __________
> > > >
> >
> > Let me put is simply, but not clear...
> >
> > the past does not exist
> > the future does not exist
> > the present does not exist...
> > that means..
> > spacetime isn't going anywhere.
> >
> > no spacetime
> > no time travel
> > no time dimension.
> >
> 
> In other words...spacetime is just a math idea someone came up with,
> ...nothing to do with nature.
> 



Does space move?

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

#383685

The Starmaker wrote:
Let me put is simply, but not clear... 

the past does not exist 
the future does not exist 
the present does not exist... 
that means.. 
spacetime isn't going anywhere. 


no spacetime 
no time travel 
no time dimension. 

Take off your shoes, hold a brick at shoulder height, and drop it on your toe.

That will give some clarity to the validity to time, space, Gravity, mass, inertia, kinetic energy & the photons that relay the information that the brick is in process of traveling towards your toe. 

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

#383702

David (Time Lord) Fuller wrote:
> 
> The Starmaker wrote:
> Let me put is simply, but not clear...
> 
> the past does not exist
> the future does not exist
> the present does not exist...
> that means..
> spacetime isn't going anywhere.
> 
> no spacetime
> no time travel
> no time dimension.
> 
> Take off your shoes, hold a brick at shoulder height, and drop it on your toe.
> 
> That will give some clarity to the validity to time, space, Gravity, mass, inertia, kinetic energy & the photons that relay the information that the brick is in process of traveling towards your toe.



If I hold a brick at shoulder height, and drop it on my toe...

it has nothing to do with space and time, Gravity, mass, inertia,
kinetic energy & the photons...


it has to do with...motion.


But you need first to understand the definition of ..."motion"



There is no motion in space and time.


Does space move?

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

#383721

The Starmaker instructed:

But you need first to understand the definition of ..."motion" 

There is no motion in space and time. 

Does space move?

OMG
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wKjxFJfcrcA

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

#383774

David (Time Lord) Fuller wrote:
> 
> The Starmaker instructed:
> 
> But you need first to understand the definition of ..."motion"
> 
> There is no motion in space and time.
> 
> Does space move?
> 
> OMG
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wKjxFJfcrcA


I'll put it in a different way...

imagine if gravity was 'just a theory'..


then the brick appears to be moving...
it could be at rest 
and the earth is moving
and the brick appears
to hit the toe.

And if I move my toe
out of the way...
what moved my toe? gravity? space? time? inertia? love?


I love my toe. 

So love moved my toe.


Is love physics?

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

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

csiph-web