Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #363995 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Phil Bouchard <pbouchard8@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2015-09-13 13:03 -0400 |
| Last post | 2015-09-14 08:45 -0400 |
| Articles | 7 on this page of 87 — 19 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.physics.relativity
Einstein's gravitational constant Phil Bouchard <pbouchard8@gmail.com> - 2015-09-13 13:03 -0400
Re: Einstein's gravitational constant alsor@interia.pl - 2015-09-13 10:50 -0700
Re: Einstein's gravitational constant kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> - 2015-09-13 15:41 -0400
Re: Einstein's gravitational constant Phil Bouchard <pbouchard8@gmail.com> - 2015-09-13 16:05 -0400
Re: Einstein's gravitational constant Alan Folmsbee <omnilobe@gmail.com> - 2015-09-13 13:01 -0700
Re: Einstein's gravitational constant kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> - 2015-09-13 16:06 -0400
Re: Einstein's gravitational constant alsor@interia.pl - 2015-09-13 14:03 -0700
Re: Einstein's gravitational constant fuller.david@hotmail.com - 2015-10-06 13:40 -0700
Re: Einstein's gravitational constant Katarina Bulakova <katabu@transmatric.org> - 2015-10-06 22:06 +0000
Re: Einstein's gravitational constant Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2015-09-13 16:37 -0500
Re: Einstein's gravitational constant Phil Bouchard <pbouchard8@gmail.com> - 2015-09-13 18:18 -0400
Re: Einstein's gravitational constant YBM <ybmess@noos.fr.invalid> - 2015-09-14 02:24 +0200
Re: Einstein's gravitational constant Phil Bouchard <pbouchard8@gmail.com> - 2015-09-13 21:10 -0400
Re: Einstein's gravitational constant YBM <ybmess@noos.fr.invalid> - 2015-09-14 03:37 +0200
Re: Einstein's gravitational constant Phil Bouchard <pbouchard8@gmail.com> - 2015-09-13 23:04 -0400
Re: Einstein's gravitational constant "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2015-09-13 23:35 -0700
Re: Einstein's gravitational constant Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2015-09-14 23:41 -0700
Re: Einstein's gravitational constant Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2015-09-15 11:32 -0500
Re: Einstein's gravitational constant Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2015-09-15 10:42 -0700
Re: Einstein's gravitational constant alsor@interia.pl - 2015-09-15 12:12 -0700
Re: Einstein's gravitational constant JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2015-09-15 12:16 -0700
Re: Einstein's gravitational constant Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2015-09-15 12:32 -0700
Re: Einstein's gravitational constant JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2015-09-15 12:49 -0700
Re: Einstein's gravitational constant Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2015-09-16 00:44 -0700
Re: Einstein's gravitational constant JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2015-09-16 10:25 -0700
Re: Einstein's gravitational constant Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2015-09-16 10:31 -0700
Re: Einstein's gravitational constant JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2015-09-16 10:42 -0700
Re: Einstein's gravitational constant Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2015-09-17 00:01 -0700
Re: Einstein's gravitational constant alsor@interia.pl - 2015-09-15 13:40 -0700
Re: Einstein's gravitational constant JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2015-09-15 14:50 -0700
Re: Einstein's gravitational constant alsor@interia.pl - 2015-09-17 05:07 -0700
Re: Einstein's gravitational constant Poutnik <Poutnik4NNTP@gmail.com> - 2015-09-17 14:22 +0200
Re: Einstein's gravitational constant alsor@interia.pl - 2015-09-17 05:43 -0700
Re: Einstein's gravitational constant Poutnik <Poutnik4NNTP@gmail.com> - 2015-09-17 15:44 +0200
Re: Einstein's gravitational constant alsor@interia.pl - 2015-09-17 06:54 -0700
Re: Einstein's gravitational constant Poutnik <Poutnik4NNTP@gmail.com> - 2015-09-17 16:05 +0200
Re: Einstein's gravitational constant alsor@interia.pl - 2015-09-17 09:31 -0700
Re: Einstein's gravitational constant Poutnik <Poutnik4NNTP@gmail.com> - 2015-09-17 18:42 +0200
Re: Einstein's gravitational constant Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2015-09-17 20:17 +0200
Re: Einstein's gravitational constant kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> - 2015-09-17 08:44 -0400
Re: Einstein's gravitational constant alsor@interia.pl - 2015-09-17 06:38 -0700
Re: Einstein's gravitational constant JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2015-09-18 20:45 -0700
Re: Einstein's gravitational constant Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2015-09-19 00:26 -0700
Re: Einstein's gravitational constant kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> - 2015-09-19 08:12 -0400
Re: Einstein's gravitational constant Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2015-09-19 05:33 -0700
Re: Einstein's gravitational constant kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> - 2015-09-19 10:38 -0400
Re: Einstein's gravitational constant Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2015-09-19 08:28 -0700
Re: Einstein's gravitational constant Jimmie Wynne <jimmwyn@metermap.org> - 2015-09-19 15:45 +0000
Re: Einstein's gravitational constant kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> - 2015-09-19 13:14 -0400
Re: Einstein's gravitational constant Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2015-09-19 12:00 -0700
Re: Einstein's gravitational constant kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> - 2015-09-19 16:09 -0400
Re: Einstein's gravitational constant Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-09-19 15:45 -0500
Re: Einstein's gravitational constant Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2015-09-19 14:28 -0700
Re: Einstein's gravitational constant pnalsing@gmail.com - 2015-09-19 17:41 -0700
Re: Einstein's gravitational constant kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> - 2015-09-19 22:30 -0400
Re: Einstein's gravitational constant pnalsing@gmail.com - 2015-09-19 20:42 -0700
Re: Einstein's gravitational constant kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> - 2015-09-20 00:23 -0400
Re: Einstein's gravitational constant pnalsing@gmail.com - 2015-09-19 21:44 -0700
Re: Einstein's gravitational constant Jimmie Wynne <jimmwyn@metermap.org> - 2015-09-22 17:55 +0000
Re: Einstein's gravitational constant alsor@interia.pl - 2015-09-19 06:25 -0700
Re: Einstein's gravitational constant alsor@interia.pl - 2015-09-19 05:52 -0700
Re: Einstein's gravitational constant kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> - 2015-09-19 10:39 -0400
Re: Einstein's gravitational constant alsor@interia.pl - 2015-09-20 10:07 -0700
Re: Einstein's gravitational constant kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> - 2015-09-20 13:46 -0400
Re: Einstein's gravitational constant alsor@interia.pl - 2015-09-20 14:31 -0700
Re: Einstein's gravitational constant kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> - 2015-09-15 21:26 -0400
Re: Einstein's gravitational constant Frances Espinosa <franesp@portio.org> - 2015-09-15 20:50 +0000
Re: Einstein's gravitational constant "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2015-09-16 14:11 +0200
Re: Einstein's gravitational constant kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> - 2015-09-16 08:35 -0400
Re: Einstein's gravitational constant Frances Espinosa <franesp@portio.org> - 2015-09-16 17:08 +0000
Re: Einstein's gravitational constant kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> - 2015-09-16 15:08 -0400
Re: Einstein's gravitational constant Jimmie Wynne <jimmwyn@metermap.org> - 2015-09-16 19:41 +0000
Re: Einstein's gravitational constant kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> - 2015-09-16 16:22 -0400
Re: Einstein's gravitational constant Frances Espinosa <franesp@portio.org> - 2015-09-16 17:01 +0000
Re: Einstein's gravitational constant "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2015-09-17 15:27 +0200
Re: Einstein's gravitational constant Jimmie Wynne <jimmwyn@metermap.org> - 2015-09-17 20:29 +0000
Re: Einstein's gravitational constant Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2015-09-17 23:32 -0700
Re: Einstein's gravitational constant Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2015-09-16 10:26 -0700
Re: Einstein's gravitational constant "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2015-09-17 15:30 +0200
Re: Einstein's gravitational constant Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2015-09-17 23:14 -0700
Re: Einstein's gravitational constant kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> - 2015-09-18 03:18 -0400
Re: Einstein's gravitational constant "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2015-09-18 10:43 +0200
Re: Einstein's gravitational constant Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2015-09-18 16:32 -0700
Re: Einstein's gravitational constant "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2015-09-20 15:19 +0200
Phil Bouchard proves again that he's an imbecile "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2015-09-13 18:59 -0700
Re: Einstein's gravitational constant JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2015-09-13 23:13 -0700
Re: Einstein's gravitational constant Phil Bouchard <pbouchard8@gmail.com> - 2015-09-14 08:45 -0400
Page 5 of 5 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 [5]
| From | kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-18 03:18 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <2ldnvad2o6rpc1h4to02sam4iuhhvmsi82@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #364443 |
On Thu, 17 Sep 2015 23:14:09 -0700 (PDT), Koobee Wublee
<koobee.wublee@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Thursday, September 17, 2015 at 6:30:21 AM, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
>> On 16.09.2015 19:26, Koobee Wublee wrote:
>> > On Wednesday, September 16, 2015, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
>
>> > > http://relativity.livingreviews.org/Articles/lrr-2010-7/download/lrr-2010-7Color.pdf
>>
>> > You can only study gravity by looking at the system from the outside
>> > or very close to that. For example, Newton did so by observing how
>> > that apple behaved under gravity. In a gravitational system, by
>> > observing the orbit of a gravitated body is pretty much the only way.
>> > <shrug>
Say what you mean, gravity is not a "relative" effect,
it is a real force, with the surface pushing upward.
No other process than expanding matter could
cause the elevator thought experiment to be so
enlightening.
>> > Einstein the nitwit, the plagiarist, and the liar did so by pretending
>> > to be that falling apple. The nitwit's "Entwurf" did not go anywhere.
>> > <shrug>
>>
>> > Similarly, examining the surface distances between the earth and the
>> > moon achieves nothing. Why? <shrug>
>>
>> Why indeed? :-D
>
>Hint: If Paul even understands the Newtonian stuff, an effective gravitating distance is between the CENTERS of the bodies not the surfaces which are subjected to gravitational effect from each other. <shrug>
But he doesn't understand the beauty in the
Divergent Matter model where the lengthening
of the meterstick causes the appearance of the
centers moving together, while the upward
velocity + acceleration is what causes the
surfaces to move together.
This is what is needed to carry the idea
through, that an object well above the surface
is still moving upward as there is NO force
that slows it and stops it and causes it to
accelerate downward.
Shrug all you want, the PoE is the key
to understanding, Synge never got it, but
wrote a book on GR.
Will writes a good book, but fails to
respect Einstein's work enough to use
the term (PoE) that translators say that
Einstein used.
You talk name calling, a little math,
and no physics.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-18 10:43 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <mtgiro$8u8$1@news.albasani.net> |
| In reply to | #364443 |
On 18.09.2015 08:14, Koobee Wublee wrote: > On Thursday, September 17, 2015 at 6:30:21 AM, Paul B. Andersen wrote: >> On 16.09.2015 19:26, Koobee Wublee wrote: >>> On Wednesday, September 16, 2015, Paul B. Andersen wrote: >>> >>>> http://relativity.livingreviews.org/Articles/lrr-2010-7/download/lrr-2010-7Color.pdf >>>> http://arxiv.org/pdf/gr-qc/0509114v1 >>> >>> You can only study gravity by looking at the system from the outside >>> or very close to that. For example, Newton did so by observing how >>> that apple behaved under gravity. In a gravitational system, by >>> observing the orbit of a gravitated body is pretty much the only way. >>> <shrug> >>> >>> Einstein the nitwit, the plagiarist, and the liar did so by pretending >>> to be that falling apple. The nitwit's "Entwurf" did not go anywhere. >>> <shrug> >> >>> Similarly, examining the surface distances between the earth and the >>> moon achieves nothing. Why? <shrug> >> >> Why indeed? :-D > > Hint: If Paul even understands the Newtonian stuff, an effective gravitating distance is between the CENTERS of the bodies not the surfaces which are subjected to gravitational effect from each other. <shrug> A person who calls it a delusion that the stellar aberrations of both components of a binary are equal, can't be expected to believe any experiment performed in the the real world. <shrug> -- Paul https://paulba.no/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-18 16:32 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <d0a0d358-2dd6-4cb8-85df-5aec6e13f924@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #364461 |
On Friday, September 18, 2015 at 1:43:37 AM UTC-7, Paul B. Andersen wrote: > On 18.09.2015 08:14, Koobee Wublee wrote: > > Hint: If Paul even understands the Newtonian stuff, an effective > > gravitating distance is between the CENTERS of the bodies not the > > surfaces which are subjected to gravitational effect from each other. > > <shrug> > > A person who calls it a delusion that the stellar aberrations > of both components of a binary are equal, can't be expected > to believe any experiment performed in the the real world. > <shrug> That is correct. Paul really screwed on the aberration stuff. It is no wonder Paul can get the Newtonian gravitational constant confused with the constant in the field equations. That is another good self-confession of stupidity on the net, Paul. Make sure you also confess your fvck up at your local church. <shrug>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-20 15:19 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <mtmbpv$6do$1@news.albasani.net> |
| In reply to | #364537 |
On 19.09.2015 01:32, Koobee Wublee wrote: > On Friday, September 18, 2015 at 1:43:37 AM UTC-7, Paul B. Andersen wrote: >> >> A person who calls it a delusion that the stellar aberrations >> of both components of a binary are equal, can't be expected >> to believe any experiment performed in the the real world. >> <shrug> > > That is correct. Paul really screwed on the aberration stuff. What would you call a person who voluntarily keeps claiming what everybody knows is wrong? | On 26.08.2015 07:20, Koobee Wublee wrote: |> On Tuesday, August 25, 2015 at 11:50:55 AM UTC-7, Paul B. Andersen wrote: |>> |>> Now I know that you [Koobee Wublee] are but a conspiracy theory crank. |>> Your delusions trumps experimental evidence. |>> That explains why you can keep claiming what is proven to be wrong. |> |> Now, Koobee Wublee is getting very excited. <shrug> |> |>> Here is one example (amongst many): |>> |>> December 2008 Koobee Wublee wrote (and repeated several times): |>> | The stellar aberration is an |>> | application of the Galilean transform for low speeds. Since the |>> | Galilean transform satisfies the principle of relativity, the velocity |>> | of the star is very much important in determining this aberration. |>> |>> The fact is that ever since Bradley in 1725 for the fist time |>> measured the stellar aberration, it has been experimentally |>> verified over and over again that stellar aberration depends |>> _only_ on the change of the velocity of the Earth, and of |>> the speed of light. The velocity of the star contributes |>> nothing to stellar aberration. |> |> Paul's understanding is just wrong. Aberration is strictly |> a phenomenon of velocity thing not of acceleration (change of velocity). <shrug> |> |>> The fact that the stellar aberration is the same for both |>> components of a binary makes it blazingly clear that |>> the velocities of the components are irrelevant. |> |> So, Paul is the one that is delusional. <shrug> https://paulba.no/pdf/Stellar_aberration.pdf -- Paul https://paulba.no/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-13 18:59 -0700 |
| Subject | Phil Bouchard proves again that he's an imbecile |
| Message-ID | <78e00f6d-f13b-4d57-a472-bfec656ab020@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #363995 |
On Sunday, September 13, 2015 at 10:03:08 AM UTC-7, Phil Bouchard wrote: > I proved here that ...you are an imbecile
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-13 23:13 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <4d7a207c-e19a-4be9-810f-d4c17921161c@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #363995 |
On Sunday, September 13, 2015 at 10:03:08 AM UTC-7, Phil Bouchard wrote: > For those who didn't know Einstein's gravitational constant is derived > statistically: > http://www.digplanet.com/wiki/Einstein%27s_constant There is nothing "statistical" on that page. > I proved here that this constant is in fact an inside-the-sphere > gravitational potential distribution: > http://cosmoquest.org/forum/showthread.php?137103-Finite-Theory-of-the-Universe-Dark-Matter-Disproof-and-Faster-Than-Light-Speed&p=2307613#post2307613 The constant is obtained by considering the weak gravity approximation. Your page is nonsense. Why do you even bother with stuff you don't understand? > It is obvious Einstein fooled all of us for over a century. FT makes GR > a joke. You have no authority to comment negatively on GR until you learn GR. It's just honesty. -- Jan
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Phil Bouchard <pbouchard8@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-14 08:45 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <d5ntqgFd0olU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #364049 |
On 09/14/2015 02:13 AM, JanPB wrote: > On Sunday, September 13, 2015 at 10:03:08 AM UTC-7, Phil Bouchard wrote: >> For those who didn't know Einstein's gravitational constant is derived >> statistically: >> http://www.digplanet.com/wiki/Einstein%27s_constant > > There is nothing "statistical" on that page. I confused momentarily the Poisson equation with the Poisson distribution. >> I proved here that this constant is in fact an inside-the-sphere >> gravitational potential distribution: >> http://cosmoquest.org/forum/showthread.php?137103-Finite-Theory-of-the-Universe-Dark-Matter-Disproof-and-Faster-Than-Light-Speed&p=2307613#post2307613 > > The constant is obtained by considering the weak gravity approximation. Your page > is nonsense. Why do you even bother with stuff you don't understand? It solves kappa the correct way. >> It is obvious Einstein fooled all of us for over a century. FT makes GR >> a joke. > > You have no authority to comment negatively on GR until you learn GR. It's just honesty. Spend 5 minutes understanding what I am saying and you'll see it makes a lot of sense.
[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]
Page 5 of 5 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 [5]
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity
csiph-web