Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #384929 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Alan Folmsbee <omnilobe@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2016-06-03 11:09 -0700 |
| Last post | 2016-06-24 10:13 -0700 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 108 — 15 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.physics.relativity
Time and Gravity Alan Folmsbee <omnilobe@gmail.com> - 2016-06-03 11:09 -0700
Re: Time and Gravity "David (Time Lord) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-06-03 15:38 -0700
Re: Time and Gravity Alan Folmsbee <omnilobe@gmail.com> - 2016-06-04 09:35 -0700
Re: Time and Gravity "David (Time Lord) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-06-05 13:20 -0700
Re: Time and Gravity Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-06-04 06:34 +0200
Re: Time and Gravity "David (Time Lord) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-06-04 09:36 -0700
Re: Time and Gravity Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-06-05 05:03 +0200
Re: Time and Gravity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-06-05 15:35 -0500
Re: Time and Gravity Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-06-07 15:52 +0200
Re: Time and Gravity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-06-07 11:26 -0500
Re: Time and Gravity Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-06-08 10:42 +0200
Re: Time and Gravity mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-06-08 01:55 -0700
Re: Time and Gravity Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-06-08 22:24 +0200
Re: Time and Gravity mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-06-08 23:24 -0700
Re: Time and Gravity The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-06-10 01:24 -0700
Re: Time and Gravity Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-06-12 10:19 +0200
Re: Time and Gravity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-06-08 08:17 -0500
Re: Time and Gravity Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-06-08 22:39 +0200
Re: Time and Gravity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-06-08 15:52 -0500
Re: Time and Gravity Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-06-09 05:13 +0200
Re: Time and Gravity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-06-09 11:39 -0500
Re: Time and Gravity Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-06-10 07:23 +0200
Re: Time and Gravity Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-06-10 13:14 -0500
Re: Time and Gravity Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-06-11 06:35 +0200
Re: Time and Gravity Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-06-17 11:09 +0200
Re: Time and Gravity Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-06-18 06:46 +0200
Re: Time and Gravity Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-06-19 12:02 -0500
Re: Time and Gravity "David (Time Lord) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-06-19 14:17 -0700
Re: Time and Gravity Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-06-20 05:59 +0200
Re: Time and Gravity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-06-20 15:45 -0500
Re: Time and Gravity Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-06-23 22:39 +0200
Re: Time and Gravity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-06-23 16:06 -0500
Re: Time and Gravity Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-06-24 07:09 +0200
Re: Time and Gravity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-06-24 07:49 -0500
Re: Time and Gravity Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-06-24 09:52 -0500
Re: Time and Gravity Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-06-24 17:31 +0200
Re: Time and Gravity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-06-24 13:17 -0500
Re: Time and Gravity A Nony Mouse <abc@cef.ghi> - 2016-06-24 12:57 -0600
Re: Time and Gravity alsor@interia.pl - 2016-06-24 12:08 -0700
Re: Time and Gravity Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-06-25 04:35 +0200
Re: Time and Gravity "David (Time Lord) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-06-24 20:12 -0700
Re: Time and Gravity "David (Time Lord) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-06-24 20:31 -0700
Re: Time and Gravity Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-06-24 23:48 -0500
Re: Time and Gravity Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-06-25 08:13 +0200
Re: Time and Gravity "David (Time Lord) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-06-25 09:04 -0700
Re: Time and Gravity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-06-25 13:33 -0500
Re: Time and Gravity Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-06-26 03:34 +0200
Re: Time and Gravity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-06-27 15:33 -0500
Re: Time and Gravity Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-06-27 23:58 +0200
Re: Time and Gravity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-06-28 08:26 -0500
Re: Time and Gravity Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-07-11 06:30 +0200
Re: Time and Gravity Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-07-13 09:50 +0200
Re: Time and Gravity "David (Time Lord) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-07-13 07:40 -0700
Re: Time and Gravity Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-07-14 07:14 +0200
Re: Time and Gravity "David (Time Lord) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-07-19 05:54 -0700
Re: Time and Gravity "David (Time Lord) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-07-19 06:04 -0700
Re: Time and Gravity "David (Time Lord) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-07-19 07:03 -0700
Re: Time and Gravity Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-06-25 14:00 +0200
Re: Time and Gravity "Dr. Bob John" <drbobjohn@hotmail.org> - 2016-06-25 18:31 +0000
Re: Time and Gravity Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-06-25 05:02 +0200
Re: Time and Gravity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-06-25 13:32 -0500
Re: Time and Gravity Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-07-12 06:30 +0200
Re: Time and Gravity "David (Time Lord) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-07-12 08:27 -0700
Re: Time and Gravity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-13 09:07 -0500
Re: Time and Gravity "David (Time Lord) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-06-24 07:23 -0700
Re: Time and Gravity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-06-20 14:14 -0500
Re: Time and Gravity Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-06-26 03:24 +0200
Re: Time and Gravity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-06-26 15:59 -0500
Re: Time and Gravity Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-06-27 04:25 +0200
Re: Time and Gravity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-06-27 14:27 -0500
Re: Time and Gravity Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-06-28 00:43 +0200
Re: Time and Gravity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-06-28 08:43 -0500
Re: Time and Gravity Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-06-28 22:10 +0200
Re: Time and Gravity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-06-28 16:22 -0500
Re: Time and Gravity Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-06-29 08:06 +0200
Re: Time and Gravity paparios <paparios@gmail.com> - 2016-06-29 05:47 -0700
Re: Time and Gravity Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-06-29 19:18 +0200
Re: Time and Gravity paparios <paparios@gmail.com> - 2016-06-29 10:28 -0700
Re: Time and Gravity Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-07-08 09:36 +0200
Silliness about "growing earth" Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-07-08 10:45 -0500
Re: Silliness about "growing earth" Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-07-09 07:10 +0200
Re: Time and Gravity Alejandro Bellucci <alejb@yahoo.info> - 2016-07-08 17:49 +0000
Re: Time and Gravity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-06-29 08:08 -0500
Re: Time and Gravity Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-06-29 18:46 +0200
Re: Time and Gravity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-06-29 12:17 -0500
Re: Time and Gravity Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-06-29 19:45 +0200
Re: Time and Gravity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-06-29 13:02 -0500
Re: Time and Gravity Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-06-30 07:41 +0200
Re: Time and Gravity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-06-30 08:14 -0500
Re: Time and Gravity Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-07-01 05:12 +0200
Re: Time and Gravity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-01 07:46 -0500
Re: Time and Gravity Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-07-01 22:16 +0200
Re: Time and Gravity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-01 15:54 -0500
Re: Time and Gravity Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-07-02 07:25 +0200
Re: Time and Gravity Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-07-06 04:18 +0200
Re: Time and Gravity "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2016-07-05 23:28 -0700
Re: Time and Gravity Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-07-06 23:10 +0200
Re: Time and Gravity "David (Time Lord) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-06-09 10:23 -0700
Re: Time and Gravity "David (Time Lord) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-06-09 10:36 -0700
Re: Time and Gravity Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-06-09 13:18 -0500
Re: Time and Gravity "David (Time Lord) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-06-09 11:25 -0700
Re: Time and Gravity Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-06-10 07:05 +0200
Re: Time and Gravity "David (Time Lord) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-06-05 13:41 -0700
Re: Time and Gravity Alan Folmsbee <omnilobe@gmail.com> - 2016-06-06 08:54 -0700
Re: Time and Gravity "David (Time Lord) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-06-06 09:17 -0700
Re: Time and Gravity "David (Time Lord) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-06-06 09:37 -0700
Re: Time and Gravity "David (Time Lord) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-06-06 11:11 -0700
Re: Time and Gravity Carl Susumu <numbernumber1212@gmail.com> - 2016-06-24 10:13 -0700
Page 1 of 6 [1] 2 3 4 5 6 Next page →
| From | Alan Folmsbee <omnilobe@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-03 11:09 -0700 |
| Subject | Time and Gravity |
| Message-ID | <5611f503-5a5b-4064-a53e-54564e73a08c@googlegroups.com> |
This theory of time has it growing out of protons and neutrons at the speed c. Time grows out of the Earth. Time passes rockets that depart our planet. If the rocket goes very fast, less time passes the rocket, relative to Earth. The time expands outward as a continuum with a space amount. Space drains into protons and neutrons as a balance of nature. Continuum is conserved because the time growing out has the same magnitude as the space draining in. That makes gravity. A new kind of momentum is defined to calculate gravity based on the equal magnitudes idea. momentum of free space = proton volume / 5 nanosecond Planck's Constant is based on that momentum in a simple formula for angular momentum using only fundamental constants. Rejoice. Rev. 2016.201 Gravity Volume Theory
[toc] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "David (Time Lord) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-03 15:38 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <8d0d04f3-6c62-4178-9083-e7568183ac3a@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #384929 |
On Friday, June 3, 2016 at 1:09:43 PM UTC-5, Alan Folmsbee wrote: > This theory of time has it growing out of protons and neutrons at the speed c. Time grows out of the Earth. Time passes rockets that depart our planet. If the rocket goes very fast, less time passes the rocket, relative to Earth. The time expands outward as a continuum with a space amount. > > Space drains into protons and neutrons as a balance of nature. Continuum is conserved because the time growing out has the same magnitude as the space draining in. That makes gravity. A new kind of momentum is defined to calculate gravity based on the equal magnitudes idea. > > momentum of free space = proton volume / 5 nanosecond > > Planck's Constant is based on that momentum in a simple formula for angular momentum using only fundamental constants. Rejoice. > > Rev. 2016.201 Gravity Volume Theory Kinetic Energy of the Vacuum ((1 / c) * ((5^0.5) + 1)) / 2 = 5.39718043 × 10^-9 s / m ((5^0.5) + 2)^(1/3) = 1.61803398875 http://i57.tinypic.com/2e5tcfq.jpg http://oi61.tinypic.com/2i12w5g.jpg https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/9e/Truncated_octahedron_internal_rectangles.png
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Alan Folmsbee <omnilobe@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-04 09:35 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <22ad5a44-3a92-4702-be06-f99daba785a9@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #384935 |
Time is money. t=$ Knowledge is Power. K=P Power is Energy over time. P = E/t Money is energy divided by the knowledgeable. $ = E/K Know. No? na. ...
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "David (Time Lord) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-05 13:20 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <0866af6b-3fa6-48f9-a824-fe8395d44302@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #384935 |
Kinetic Energy of the Vacuum ((1 / c) * ((5^0.5) + 1)) / 2 = 5.39718043 × 10^-9 s / m ((5^0.5) + 2)^(1/3) = 1.61803398875 http://i57.tinypic.com/2e5tcfq.jpg http://oi61.tinypic.com/2i12w5g.jpg https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/9e/Truncated_octahedron_internal_rectangles.png (((5^0.5) + 1) / 2) * ((10^6) / 1836.15267389) = 881.208851398 http://i61.tinypic.com/2i12w5g.jpg
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-04 06:34 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <drf42uF457aU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #384929 |
Am 03.06.2016 20:09, schrieb Alan Folmsbee: > This theory of time has it growing out of protons and neutrons at the speed c. Time grows out of the Earth. Time passes rockets that depart our planet. If the rocket goes very fast, less time passes the rocket, relative to Earth. The time expands outward as a continuum with a space amount. > > Space drains into protons and neutrons as a balance of nature. Continuum is conserved because the time growing out has the same magnitude as the space draining in. That makes gravity. A new kind of momentum is defined to calculate gravity based on the equal magnitudes idea. > > momentum of free space = proton volume / 5 nanosecond > > Planck's Constant is based on that momentum in a simple formula for angular momentum using only fundamental constants. Rejoice. I would say, that time-vectors should point towards the Earth, since that is also the direction of gravity. And if time comes with angular momentum and vanishes inside the planet, than the planet would also absorb the angular momentum and therefore spins. The energy would be trapped inside, too, and make the inside hot and let new matter emerge from inside the planet, which subsequently grows. This new matter pushes then from underneath the Earth' crust and occasionally breaks out in volcanoes. TH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "David (Time Lord) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-04 09:36 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <d913ff3e-5ed0-4ffb-ad4b-47c810dfd320@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #384942 |
Thomas Heger wrote: I would say, that time-vectors should point towards the Earth, since that is also the direction of gravity. And if time comes with angular momentum and vanishes inside the planet, than the planet would also absorb the angular momentum and therefore spins. The energy would be trapped inside, too, and make the inside hot and let new matter emerge from inside the planet, which subsequently grows. This new matter pushes then from underneath the Earth' crust and occasionally breaks out in volcanoes. TH Yes ... If the relationship or ratio between the (quantity of mass in kilograms) / (volume of spacetime in cubic meters ) is considered a "measure of entropy" of the universe .... As the entropy of the "system universe" encreased, the (quantity of Mass in kilograms ) in relation to the (volume of spacetime in cubic meters) would Increase ... Gravity and a Growing earth
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-05 05:03 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <drhj3fFj8opU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #384970 |
Am 04.06.2016 18:36, schrieb David (Time Lord) Fuller: > I would say, that time-vectors should point towards the Earth, since > that is also the direction of gravity. > > And if time comes with angular momentum and vanishes inside the planet, > than the planet would also absorb the angular momentum and therefore spins. > > The energy would be trapped inside, too, and make the inside hot and let > new matter emerge from inside the planet, which subsequently grows. > > This new matter pushes then from underneath the Earth' crust and > occasionally breaks out in volcanoes. > > > TH > > > Yes ... > > If the relationship or ratio between the (quantity of mass in kilograms) / (volume of spacetime in cubic meters ) is considered a "measure of entropy" of the universe .... > As the entropy of the "system universe" encreased, the (quantity of Mass in kilograms ) in relation to the (volume of spacetime in cubic meters) would Increase ... > > Gravity and a Growing earth > Actually I have spent a lot of time on trying to prove 'Growing Earth theory'. I had also participated in a mailing system initiated by Neal Adams about this subject. He made e.g. this nice film: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oJfBSc6e7QQ It is actually possible to prove GE by proving, that sea-levels fall at a certain rate of almost all of Earth' history. Now the water-level in the oceans seem to fall a rate of about 4m per millennium. This could be estimated by the location of the former harbour of ancient Rome. Today it's Lake Tranjan near airport Fiomicino and 8m above sea-level. You can actually see the effect of falling sea-levels everywhere, like in the Sahara or in the deserts of the USA. I have spent so much time on that subject, because I have tried to prove, that matter could be created out of nothing and inside the planet. This was needed to prove a certain idea I had, called 'structured spacetime': https://docs.google.com/present/view?id=dd8jz2tx_3gfzvqgd6 Spacetime is assumed to be real and have internal structure, what we call matter. This kind of system could be created, if pointlike 'elements' of spacetime would behave similar to complex numbers, but in volume. (It's actually little tricky. But you could read my 'book', which has a lot of illustrations.) TH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-05 15:35 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <nj22eo$v5h$3@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #385026 |
On 6/4/2016 10:03 PM, Thomas Heger wrote: > Actually I have spent a lot of time on trying to prove 'Growing Earth > theory'. I don't think anyone can PROVE any scientific theory. Why are you trying? -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-07 15:52 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <dro1tdFsjauU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #385069 |
Am 05.06.2016 22:35, schrieb Odd Bodkin: > On 6/4/2016 10:03 PM, Thomas Heger wrote: >> Actually I have spent a lot of time on trying to prove 'Growing Earth >> theory'. > > I don't think anyone can PROVE any scientific theory. Why are you trying? > Well, actually 'theory' means 'a hypothesis that nobody was able to disprove'. Apparently you want to challenge the GE-theory. So, feel free to disprove it! In the meantime I would like to disprove plate-tectonics (PT). Plate tectonic does not work for various reasons: 1) the density of Earth' material is increasing with depth. So the crust is actually 'swimming' on denser material. Depper we also find higher pressure. Since we all have heard about Archimedes and his principles. So the process called 'subduction' would require a downwards force, which would balance the uplift. But there is no such force. 2) The separation boundaries between geological structures, that match across the Atlantic sit on top of such plates. If PT would be correct, the boundaries should match the borders of the plates (what they don't). 3) the so called 'Euler theorem' says, that movement of a piece of a sphere about a ball is equivalent to a rotation around the Euler pole. Movement of plates according to PT would require, that plates are rounded on the side opposite to the Euler pole (what they are not). 4) The Earth is roughly a ball, which is covered with plates. Since the ball is entirely covered with plates, these plates could only move, if they would scratch alongside other plates. This would be inhibited by the form of these plates, which are not smooth enough at the sides, to 'slip' alongside other plates. There is also tremendous pressure along a very long border between plates, pressing sideways against each other, what would make movement practically impossible. 5) Subduction would require, that a plate would bent down, slip under a continent and melt away somewhere deep down. To bent down a piece of a sphere, you need to overcome the inherent strength of spheres against such deformation. This could be seen at egg-shells, which have enormous strength against such deformation. But the egg-shell is thin, while the Earth' crust is about 40 km thick and made of very resistant rock. Also it is not commonly observed, that rock has a tendency to 'flow' (like e.g. glass does), since rock is composed from crystals. 6) If plates would nevertheless subduct and dive under other continents, than we would expect to see certain cracks on the surface. These should be caused by tension perpendicular to the direction of bending and caused by pressure towards that direction. This is caused by the spherical form of the Earth crust. And: no such formations are visible somewhere. 7) The process of subduction would make the continental plates above get tilted a little bit. But various observations show, that horizontal planes stay horizontal for very long times. One such observation is the Trajan's Lake. Since it was build horizontal by the Romans two thousand years ago, an uplift would have caused at least a tiny angle of the waterline. But no inclination is found to the fraction of a degree. TH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-07 11:26 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <nj6sj3$16dh$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #385227 |
On 6/7/2016 8:52 AM, Thomas Heger wrote: > Am 05.06.2016 22:35, schrieb Odd Bodkin: >> On 6/4/2016 10:03 PM, Thomas Heger wrote: >>> Actually I have spent a lot of time on trying to prove 'Growing Earth >>> theory'. >> >> I don't think anyone can PROVE any scientific theory. Why are you trying? >> > Well, actually 'theory' means 'a hypothesis that nobody was able to > disprove'. > > Apparently you want to challenge the GE-theory. > > So, feel free to disprove it! > > In the meantime I would like to disprove plate-tectonics (PT). Thomas, just a few comments: - You don't prove a theory is true by other people not disproving it. Not how science works. - You trying to disprove that plate tectonic theory is wrong, even if you were successful in doing that, would not prove growing-earth theory is true. - Your idea of what a physical theory is, is just not right. A physical theory is an explanatory hypothesis, developed mathematically to the point where it makes *specific* and *distinctive* and *quantitative* predictions about what will be seen in feasible observational tests. Until you have those *specific*, *distinctive*, *quantitative* predictions for feasible observational tests, you do not have a theory. - Finally, I read through your critique of plate tectonic theory, and I have to tell you that a number of your assumptions are just flat wrong: that surface plates have to echo the shape of sub-crustal plates; that jagged-edged plates cannot slide past each other; and so on. -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-08 10:42 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <drq43dFai4kU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #385242 |
Am 07.06.2016 18:26, schrieb Odd Bodkin: >>>> Actually I have spent a lot of time on trying to prove 'Growing Earth >>>> theory'. >>> >>> I don't think anyone can PROVE any scientific theory. Why are you >>> trying? >>> >> Well, actually 'theory' means 'a hypothesis that nobody was able to >> disprove'. >> >> Apparently you want to challenge the GE-theory. >> >> So, feel free to disprove it! >> >> In the meantime I would like to disprove plate-tectonics (PT). > > Thomas, just a few comments: > - You don't prove a theory is true by other people not disproving it. > Not how science works. > - You trying to disprove that plate tectonic theory is wrong, even if > you were successful in doing that, would not prove growing-earth theory > is true. > - Your idea of what a physical theory is, is just not right. A physical > theory is an explanatory hypothesis, developed mathematically to the > point where it makes *specific* and *distinctive* and *quantitative* > predictions about what will be seen in feasible observational tests. > Until you have those *specific*, *distinctive*, *quantitative* > predictions for feasible observational tests, you do not have a theory. > - Finally, I read through your critique of plate tectonic theory, and I > have to tell you that a number of your assumptions are just flat wrong: > that surface plates have to echo the shape of sub-crustal plates; that > jagged-edged plates cannot slide past each other; and so on. > How to build a theory and what that actually is was researched by Karl Popper. If I recall that correct the title was something like 'the logic of scientific reasoning'. In short it says, that you don't prove a theory. 'Theory' is a hypothesis, which withstood attempts to disprove it. 'Growing Earth hypothesis' is - of course - a hypothesis. So, feel free to disprove it. In the meantime I would like to disprove the 'Plate tectonic hypothesis'. That is kind of similar to a 'shoot out' in an old Western movie. The 'last man standing' (so to speak) gets the title 'theory'. TH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mlwozniak@wp.pl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-08 01:55 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <59b9b2ed-fba4-49bc-b02d-fc4a966affc2@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #385331 |
W dniu środa, 8 czerwca 2016 10:42:24 UTC+2 użytkownik Thomas Heger napisał: > 'Theory' is a hypothesis, which withstood attempts to disprove it. Is the above theory or hypothesis?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-08 22:24 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <drrd8lFir5lU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #385333 |
Am 08.06.2016 10:55, schrieb mlwozniak@wp.pl: >> 'Theory' is a hypothesis, which withstood attempts to disprove it. > > Is the above theory or hypothesis? No. It is called 'scientific method'. This was developed by the Austrian philosopher Karl Popper. He wrote a book with the title "The Logic of Scientific Discovery". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Logic_of_Scientific_Discovery (Certainly you will find a supplier, like e.g. Amazon, who has this book.) TH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mlwozniak@wp.pl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-08 23:24 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <b31504e8-48ef-45dc-b3b9-f11f830df081@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #385429 |
W dniu środa, 8 czerwca 2016 22:24:55 UTC+2 użytkownik Thomas Heger napisał: > Am 08.06.2016 10:55, schrieb mlwozniak@wp.pl: > > >> 'Theory' is a hypothesis, which withstood attempts to disprove it. > > > > Is the above theory or hypothesis? > > No. It is called 'scientific method'. I don't care, how it's called. I asked, whether it's a theory or hypothesis. > > This was developed by the Austrian philosopher Karl Popper. He wrote a > book with the title "The Logic of Scientific Discovery". > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Logic_of_Scientific_Discovery He wrote a BOOK!!!! WOW!!!!! So, a theory or hypothesis?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-10 01:24 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <575A794D.741A@ix.netcom.com> |
| In reply to | #385471 |
mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote: > > W dniu środa, 8 czerwca 2016 22:24:55 UTC+2 użytkownik Thomas Heger napisał: > > Am 08.06.2016 10:55, schrieb mlwozniak@wp.pl: > > > > >> 'Theory' is a hypothesis, which withstood attempts to disprove it. > > > > > > Is the above theory or hypothesis? > > > > No. It is called 'scientific method'. > > I don't care, how it's called. > I asked, whether it's a theory or hypothesis. You are asking the wrong question. There is no "or". They are both the same thing... whereas coffee or tea are two different things... theory and hypothesis are both coffee.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-12 10:19 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <ds4k94FdlgmU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #385574 |
Am 10.06.2016 10:24, schrieb The Starmaker: > mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote: >> >> W dniu środa, 8 czerwca 2016 22:24:55 UTC+2 użytkownik Thomas Heger napisał: >>> Am 08.06.2016 10:55, schrieb mlwozniak@wp.pl: >>> >>>>> 'Theory' is a hypothesis, which withstood attempts to disprove it. >>>> >>>> Is the above theory or hypothesis? >>> >>> No. It is called 'scientific method'. >> >> I don't care, how it's called. >> I asked, whether it's a theory or hypothesis. > > > You are asking the wrong question. There is no "or". > > > They are both the same thing... > > whereas coffee or tea are two different things... > > theory and hypothesis are both coffee. Well, a theory is also a hypothesis, while not all hypotheses are a theory. According to Popper a theory is a hypothesis, which withstood attempts to disprove it. His own book is not science, but philosophy. The difference is, that science is about nature and philosophy is about methods, thoughts and ideas. Ideas cannot be treated in a scientific way, because you may believe things, that are not justified at all. Physics in contrast is a science and is about nature and the behaviour of natural systems. The knowledge acquired in this field is utilised by engineers, who build all those nice devices, like cell phones and or mp3-players. So science is about nature and about understanding, how nature actually functions. That is necessary to allow to build devices of some usefulness. But these things are not science themselves, but their creation falls into fields like electronics, design and engineering. Methods in science are also man-made, hence cannot be treated with methods meant for scientific discovery. So the scientific method is neither a theory nor a hypothesis. It stems from a philosophical realm and is based on logic and thought. TH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-08 08:17 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <nj95tn$oms$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #385331 |
On 6/8/2016 3:42 AM, Thomas Heger wrote: > Am 07.06.2016 18:26, schrieb Odd Bodkin: > >>>>> Actually I have spent a lot of time on trying to prove 'Growing Earth >>>>> theory'. >>>> >>>> I don't think anyone can PROVE any scientific theory. Why are you >>>> trying? >>>> >>> Well, actually 'theory' means 'a hypothesis that nobody was able to >>> disprove'. >>> >>> Apparently you want to challenge the GE-theory. >>> >>> So, feel free to disprove it! >>> >>> In the meantime I would like to disprove plate-tectonics (PT). >> >> Thomas, just a few comments: >> - You don't prove a theory is true by other people not disproving it. >> Not how science works. >> - You trying to disprove that plate tectonic theory is wrong, even if >> you were successful in doing that, would not prove growing-earth theory >> is true. >> - Your idea of what a physical theory is, is just not right. A physical >> theory is an explanatory hypothesis, developed mathematically to the >> point where it makes *specific* and *distinctive* and *quantitative* >> predictions about what will be seen in feasible observational tests. >> Until you have those *specific*, *distinctive*, *quantitative* >> predictions for feasible observational tests, you do not have a theory. >> - Finally, I read through your critique of plate tectonic theory, and I >> have to tell you that a number of your assumptions are just flat wrong: >> that surface plates have to echo the shape of sub-crustal plates; that >> jagged-edged plates cannot slide past each other; and so on. >> > > How to build a theory and what that actually is was researched by Karl > Popper. If I recall that correct the title was something like 'the logic > of scientific reasoning'. > > In short it says, that you don't prove a theory. > > 'Theory' is a hypothesis, which withstood attempts to disprove it. Where disproof means demonstration of a conflict between observations predicted by the theory and actual observations. That is, confrontation with experiment and observation. NOT disproof by "argument" or "logic". Of course, in order for a hypothesis to get to the point where it can even be compared to experiment, it has to be developed mathematically to the point where it makes those predictions of observations -- and those predictions have to be quantitative, specific, and distinguishing. If they hypothesis is never brought to that point, then it does not even meet basic criteria to put to the Popper test. > > 'Growing Earth hypothesis' is - of course - a hypothesis. > > So, feel free to disprove it. > > In the meantime I would like to disprove the 'Plate tectonic hypothesis'. > > That is kind of similar to a 'shoot out' in an old Western movie. > > The 'last man standing' (so to speak) gets the title 'theory'. > > > TH > -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-08 22:39 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <drre54Fj1fkU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #385357 |
Am 08.06.2016 15:17, schrieb Odd Bodkin: > On 6/8/2016 3:42 AM, Thomas Heger wrote: >> Am 07.06.2016 18:26, schrieb Odd Bodkin: >> >>>>>> Actually I have spent a lot of time on trying to prove 'Growing Earth >>>>>> theory'. >>>>> >>>>> I don't think anyone can PROVE any scientific theory. Why are you >>>>> trying? >>>>> >>>> Well, actually 'theory' means 'a hypothesis that nobody was able to >>>> disprove'. >>>> >>>> Apparently you want to challenge the GE-theory. >>>> >>>> So, feel free to disprove it! >>>> >>>> In the meantime I would like to disprove plate-tectonics (PT). >>> >>> Thomas, just a few comments: >>> - You don't prove a theory is true by other people not disproving it. >>> Not how science works. >>> - You trying to disprove that plate tectonic theory is wrong, even if >>> you were successful in doing that, would not prove growing-earth theory >>> is true. >>> - Your idea of what a physical theory is, is just not right. A physical >>> theory is an explanatory hypothesis, developed mathematically to the >>> point where it makes *specific* and *distinctive* and *quantitative* >>> predictions about what will be seen in feasible observational tests. >>> Until you have those *specific*, *distinctive*, *quantitative* >>> predictions for feasible observational tests, you do not have a theory. >>> - Finally, I read through your critique of plate tectonic theory, and I >>> have to tell you that a number of your assumptions are just flat wrong: >>> that surface plates have to echo the shape of sub-crustal plates; that >>> jagged-edged plates cannot slide past each other; and so on. >>> >> >> How to build a theory and what that actually is was researched by Karl >> Popper. If I recall that correct the title was something like 'the logic >> of scientific reasoning'. >> >> In short it says, that you don't prove a theory. >> >> 'Theory' is a hypothesis, which withstood attempts to disprove it. > > Where disproof means demonstration of a conflict between observations > predicted by the theory and actual observations. That is, confrontation > with experiment and observation. NOT disproof by "argument" or "logic". Well. Plate-tectonic is not a quantitative theory, but assumes a certain mechanism, by which those plates move about the ball of the Earth. And I would like to show, that those plates do not move, since they sit like glued onto dense and semi-plastic material. The separation we see e.g. in the Mid-Atlantic ridge stem from growth. We find lots of similar examples of spreading between plates. What we do not find and what is required for plate-tectonics, that is a process called 'subduction'. And we don't find subduction, because it does not work. What we find instead are hints for falling sea-levels over very long periods of time. This, of course, is also a hint into the direction of 'Growing Earth', since new cracks in a larger surface would make sea-level drop. > Of course, in order for a hypothesis to get to the point where it can > even be compared to experiment, it has to be developed mathematically to > the point where it makes those predictions of observations -- and those > predictions have to be quantitative, specific, and distinguishing. If > they hypothesis is never brought to that point, then it does not even > meet basic criteria to put to the Popper test. Well, no. Growing Earth is not a mathematical concept. Neither is plate tectonics. The difference between both theories is actually simple: growth vs. steady state. In other words: the Earth does either grow or not. Since the number of possibilities is rather small (2 actually), you don't need sophisticated mathematical models to handle this number. TH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-08 15:52 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <nja0io$f8q$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #385435 |
On 6/8/2016 3:39 PM, Thomas Heger wrote: > Am 08.06.2016 15:17, schrieb Odd Bodkin: >> On 6/8/2016 3:42 AM, Thomas Heger wrote: >>> Am 07.06.2016 18:26, schrieb Odd Bodkin: >>> >>>>>>> Actually I have spent a lot of time on trying to prove 'Growing >>>>>>> Earth >>>>>>> theory'. >>>>>> >>>>>> I don't think anyone can PROVE any scientific theory. Why are you >>>>>> trying? >>>>>> >>>>> Well, actually 'theory' means 'a hypothesis that nobody was able to >>>>> disprove'. >>>>> >>>>> Apparently you want to challenge the GE-theory. >>>>> >>>>> So, feel free to disprove it! >>>>> >>>>> In the meantime I would like to disprove plate-tectonics (PT). >>>> >>>> Thomas, just a few comments: >>>> - You don't prove a theory is true by other people not disproving it. >>>> Not how science works. >>>> - You trying to disprove that plate tectonic theory is wrong, even if >>>> you were successful in doing that, would not prove growing-earth theory >>>> is true. >>>> - Your idea of what a physical theory is, is just not right. A physical >>>> theory is an explanatory hypothesis, developed mathematically to the >>>> point where it makes *specific* and *distinctive* and *quantitative* >>>> predictions about what will be seen in feasible observational tests. >>>> Until you have those *specific*, *distinctive*, *quantitative* >>>> predictions for feasible observational tests, you do not have a theory. >>>> - Finally, I read through your critique of plate tectonic theory, and I >>>> have to tell you that a number of your assumptions are just flat wrong: >>>> that surface plates have to echo the shape of sub-crustal plates; that >>>> jagged-edged plates cannot slide past each other; and so on. >>>> >>> >>> How to build a theory and what that actually is was researched by Karl >>> Popper. If I recall that correct the title was something like 'the logic >>> of scientific reasoning'. >>> >>> In short it says, that you don't prove a theory. >>> >>> 'Theory' is a hypothesis, which withstood attempts to disprove it. >> >> Where disproof means demonstration of a conflict between observations >> predicted by the theory and actual observations. That is, confrontation >> with experiment and observation. NOT disproof by "argument" or "logic". > > > Well. Plate-tectonic is not a quantitative theory, but assumes a certain > mechanism, by which those plates move about the ball of the Earth. I'm not sure it's accurate to say that it's not a quantitative theory. There are specific predictions about correlation of species and how long ago they branched from each other, which can be independently verified by genetic divergence rates. Moreover, there are rate calculations relating seismic activity and how fast the continents are being OBSERVED to be moving. > > And I would like to show, that those plates do not move, since they sit > like glued onto dense and semi-plastic material. > > The separation we see e.g. in the Mid-Atlantic ridge stem from growth. > > We find lots of similar examples of spreading between plates. > > What we do not find and what is required for plate-tectonics, that is a > process called 'subduction'. > > And we don't find subduction, because it does not work. http://www.see.leeds.ac.uk/structure/dynamicearth/subduction/ > > What we find instead are hints for falling sea-levels over very long > periods of time. > > This, of course, is also a hint into the direction of 'Growing Earth', > since new cracks in a larger surface would make sea-level drop. > > >> Of course, in order for a hypothesis to get to the point where it can >> even be compared to experiment, it has to be developed mathematically to >> the point where it makes those predictions of observations -- and those >> predictions have to be quantitative, specific, and distinguishing. If >> they hypothesis is never brought to that point, then it does not even >> meet basic criteria to put to the Popper test. > > > Well, no. > Growing Earth is not a mathematical concept. Neither is plate tectonics. Plate tectonics makes quantitative predictions. Maybe you're not aware of them? In any event, a growing earth theory would need to do the same to even be declared a viable candidate for a theory. > > The difference between both theories is actually simple: growth vs. > steady state. > > In other words: the Earth does either grow or not. So, what are the DISTINCTIVE observational predictions you would call out that would clearly mark that the earth is growing? > > Since the number of possibilities is rather small (2 actually), you > don't need sophisticated mathematical models to handle this number. > > > TH > -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-09 05:13 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <drs573Fn3ahU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #385436 |
Am 08.06.2016 22:52, schrieb Odd Bodkin: >> >> Well, no. >> Growing Earth is not a mathematical concept. Neither is plate tectonics. > > Plate tectonics makes quantitative predictions. Maybe you're not aware > of them? In any event, a growing earth theory would need to do the same > to even be declared a viable candidate for a theory. > >> >> The difference between both theories is actually simple: growth vs. >> steady state. >> >> In other words: the Earth does either grow or not. > > So, what are the DISTINCTIVE observational predictions you would call > out that would clearly mark that the earth is growing? That is: Globally falling sea-levels at a rate of about 4m per millennium. This rate is changing and is actually accelerating. But currently we seem to have this rate. It is simply derived from the Lake Trajan near Rome. This is now 8m higher than the Mediterranean Sea and roughly 2000 years old. Since we have no reason to assume, that the Romans didn't know, where the mean level of the Mediterranean Sea was, we can safely assume it was exactly where the surface of that lake is now. The rate of 4m/1000 years gives a precise 'clock' for geological/historical events. E.g. the ancient city of Troy was once a harbour, which controlled the entrance to the Dardanelles. Now the former port sits on a hill, 30m above the Mediterranean Sea. This gives an age of certain structures of about 7500 years. TH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 1 of 6 [1] 2 3 4 5 6 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity
csiph-web