Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #365898 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Kent Beeler <kenbee@jefffast.au> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2015-10-01 19:18 +0000 |
| Last post | 2015-10-04 18:50 -0400 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 167 — 20 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.physics.relativity
LIGO experiment seen gravitational waves? Kent Beeler <kenbee@jefffast.au> - 2015-10-01 19:18 +0000
Re: LIGO experiment seen gravitational waves? Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2015-10-01 22:00 +0200
Re: LIGO experiment seen gravitational waves? Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2015-10-02 05:58 +0200
Re: LIGO experiment seen gravitational waves? Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2015-10-03 07:10 +0200
Re: LIGO experiment seen gravitational waves? Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2015-10-03 04:02 -0700
Re: LIGO experiment seen gravitational waves? Kent Beeler <kenbee@jefffast.au> - 2015-10-03 15:03 +0000
Re: LIGO experiment seen gravitational waves? Kent Beeler <kenbee@jefffast.au> - 2015-10-03 15:00 +0000
Re: LIGO experiment seen gravitational waves? Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2015-10-03 21:31 +0200
Re: LIGO experiment seen gravitational waves? Kent Beeler <kenbee@jefffast.au> - 2015-10-03 21:20 +0000
Re: LIGO experiment seen gravitational waves? Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2015-10-04 05:30 +0200
Re: LIGO experiment seen gravitational waves? shuba <tim@sh.uba> - 2015-10-04 06:14 +0000
Re: LIGO experiment seen gravitational waves? Kent Beeler <kenbee@jefffast.au> - 2015-10-04 17:07 +0000
Re: LIGO experiment seen gravitational waves? Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2015-10-04 22:32 +0200
Re: LIGO experiment seen gravitational waves? Kent Beeler <kenbee@jefffast.au> - 2015-10-04 20:51 +0000
Re: LIGO experiment seen gravitational waves? gilber34 <fafa@invalid.com> - 2015-10-04 16:39 -0500
Re: LIGO experiment seen gravitational waves? John Heath <heathjohn2@gmail.com> - 2015-10-04 16:07 -0700
Re: LIGO experiment seen gravitational waves? shuba <tim@sh.uba> - 2015-10-05 05:33 +0000
Re: LIGO experiment seen gravitational waves? John Heath <heathjohn2@gmail.com> - 2015-10-04 23:44 -0700
Re: LIGO experiment seen gravitational waves? shuba <tim@sh.uba> - 2015-10-05 08:02 +0000
Re: LIGO experiment seen gravitational waves? Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2015-10-05 21:44 +0200
Re: LIGO experiment seen gravitational waves? shuba <tim@sh.uba> - 2015-10-06 22:31 +0000
Re: LIGO experiment seen gravitational waves? Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2015-10-07 02:36 +0200
Re: LIGO experiment seen gravitational waves? shuba <tim@sh.uba> - 2015-10-07 01:55 +0000
Re: LIGO experiment seen gravitational waves? shuba <tim@sh.uba> - 2015-10-07 19:59 +0000
Re: LIGO experiment seen gravitational waves? kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> - 2015-10-07 17:00 -0400
Re: LIGO experiment seen gravitational waves? shuba <tim@sh.uba> - 2015-10-07 23:33 +0000
Re: LIGO experiment seen gravitational waves? Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2015-10-08 06:13 +0200
Re: LIGO experiment seen gravitational waves? Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2015-10-08 11:32 -0500
Re: LIGO experiment seen gravitational waves? Natalina Nazvarova <natana42@hotmail.com> - 2015-10-08 17:06 +0000
Re: LIGO experiment seen gravitational waves? John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2015-10-09 19:11 -0700
Re: LIGO experiment seen gravitational waves? Natalina Nazvarova <natana42@hotmail.com> - 2015-10-10 11:42 +0000
Re: LIGO experiment seen gravitational waves? Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2015-10-10 06:24 +0200
Re: LIGO experiment seen gravitational waves? fuller.david@hotmail.com - 2015-10-11 19:00 -0700
Re: LIGO experiment seen gravitational waves? shuba <tim@sh.uba> - 2015-10-08 17:18 +0000
Re: LIGO experiment seen gravitational waves? Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2015-10-08 20:25 +0200
Re: LIGO experiment seen gravitational waves? Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2015-10-08 13:04 -0700
Re: LIGO experiment seen gravitational waves? Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2015-10-09 08:25 +0200
Re: LIGO experiment seen gravitational waves? Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2015-10-09 05:25 -0700
Re: LIGO experiment seen gravitational waves? mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2015-10-09 05:52 -0700
Re: LIGO experiment seen gravitational waves? Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2015-10-10 06:55 +0200
Re: LIGO experiment seen gravitational waves? Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2015-10-10 04:41 -0700
Re: LIGO experiment seen gravitational waves? Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2015-10-14 05:00 +0200
Re: LIGO experiment seen gravitational waves? Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2015-10-13 20:06 -0700
Re: LIGO experiment seen gravitational waves? Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2015-10-14 22:03 +0200
Re: LIGO experiment seen gravitational waves? Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2015-10-14 14:45 -0700
Re: LIGO experiment seen gravitational waves? xxein1@att.net - 2015-10-14 19:59 -0700
Re: LIGO experiment seen gravitational waves? fuller.david@hotmail.com - 2015-10-15 05:03 -0700
Re: LIGO experiment seen gravitational waves? fuller.david@hotmail.com - 2015-10-15 05:21 -0700
Re: LIGO experiment seen gravitational waves? xxein1@att.net - 2015-10-15 06:33 -0700
Re: LIGO experiment seen gravitational waves? xxein1@att.net - 2015-10-15 06:46 -0700
Re: LIGO experiment seen gravitational waves? fuller.david@hotmail.com - 2015-10-15 07:58 -0700
Re: LIGO experiment seen gravitational waves? fuller.david@hotmail.com - 2015-10-15 08:38 -0700
Re: LIGO experiment seen gravitational waves? kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> - 2015-10-15 14:13 -0400
Re: LIGO experiment seen gravitational waves? Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2015-10-15 21:23 +0200
Re: LIGO experiment seen gravitational waves? Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2015-10-15 13:28 -0700
Re: LIGO experiment seen gravitational waves? mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2015-10-19 00:43 -0700
Re: LIGO experiment seen gravitational waves? Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2015-10-16 10:26 -0500
Re: LIGO experiment seen gravitational waves? Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2015-10-17 07:35 +0200
Re: LIGO experiment seen gravitational waves? Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2015-10-17 03:20 -0700
Re: LIGO experiment seen gravitational waves? Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2015-10-18 06:49 +0200
Re: LIGO experiment seen gravitational waves? Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2015-10-18 05:02 -0700
Re: LIGO experiment seen gravitational waves? Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2015-10-18 22:37 +0200
Re: LIGO experiment seen gravitational waves? fuller.david@hotmail.com - 2015-10-18 14:03 -0700
Re: LIGO experiment seen gravitational waves? Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2015-10-18 15:34 -0700
Re: LIGO experiment seen gravitational waves? Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2015-10-19 05:21 +0200
Re: LIGO experiment seen gravitational waves? Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2015-10-18 20:56 -0700
Re: LIGO experiment seen gravitational waves? Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2015-10-19 20:56 +0200
Re: LIGO experiment seen gravitational waves? fuller.david@hotmail.com - 2015-10-19 12:14 -0700
Re: LIGO experiment seen gravitational waves? Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2015-10-19 13:40 -0700
Re: LIGO experiment seen gravitational waves? Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2015-10-20 05:07 +0200
Re: LIGO experiment seen gravitational waves? Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2015-10-19 21:07 -0700
Re: LIGO experiment seen gravitational waves? shuba <tim@sh.uba> - 2015-10-20 07:59 +0000
Re: LIGO experiment seen gravitational waves? mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2015-10-20 01:26 -0700
Re: LIGO experiment seen gravitational waves? Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2015-10-20 21:37 +0200
Re: LIGO experiment seen gravitational waves? Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2015-10-20 13:59 -0700
Re: LIGO experiment seen gravitational waves? Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2015-10-21 05:03 +0200
Re: LIGO experiment seen gravitational waves? kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> - 2015-10-20 23:38 -0400
Re: LIGO experiment seen gravitational waves? Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2015-10-21 04:22 -0700
Re: LIGO experiment seen gravitational waves? mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2015-10-21 05:03 -0700
Re: LIGO experiment seen gravitational waves? Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2015-10-24 04:19 +0200
Re: LIGO experiment seen gravitational waves? Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2015-10-23 20:08 -0700
Re: LIGO experiment seen gravitational waves? Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2015-10-24 08:24 +0200
Re: LIGO experiment seen gravitational waves? Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2015-10-24 04:04 -0700
Re: LIGO experiment seen gravitational waves? Erebus Xanthopoulos <elefxa@spacepark.au> - 2015-10-24 11:13 +0000
Re: LIGO experiment seen gravitational waves? Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2015-10-25 05:29 +0100
Re: LIGO experiment seen gravitational waves? Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2015-10-25 04:36 -0700
Re: LIGO experiment seen gravitational waves? Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2015-10-26 04:42 +0100
Re: LIGO experiment seen gravitational waves? Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2015-10-26 03:49 -0700
Re: LIGO experiment seen gravitational waves? mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2015-10-26 05:03 -0700
Re: LIGO experiment seen gravitational waves? Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2015-10-27 01:43 +0100
Re: LIGO experiment seen gravitational waves? Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2015-10-26 20:27 -0700
Re: LIGO experiment seen gravitational waves? Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2015-10-27 05:50 +0100
Re: LIGO experiment seen gravitational waves? Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2015-10-27 04:22 -0700
Re: LIGO experiment seen gravitational waves? mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2015-10-27 04:59 -0700
Re: LIGO experiment seen gravitational waves? Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2015-10-28 05:07 +0100
Re: LIGO experiment seen gravitational waves? Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2015-10-28 04:10 -0700
Re: LIGO experiment seen gravitational waves? Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2015-10-29 05:49 +0100
Re: LIGO experiment seen gravitational waves? Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2015-10-29 04:29 -0700
Re: LIGO experiment seen gravitational waves? mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2015-10-29 05:22 -0700
Re: LIGO experiment seen gravitational waves? Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2015-10-29 19:33 +0100
Re: LIGO experiment seen gravitational waves? Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2015-10-29 14:10 -0700
Re: LIGO experiment seen gravitational waves? Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2015-10-30 07:00 +0100
Re: LIGO experiment seen gravitational waves? Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2015-10-30 05:00 -0700
Re: LIGO experiment seen gravitational waves? Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2015-10-31 06:21 +0100
Re: LIGO experiment seen gravitational waves? Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2015-10-31 04:28 -0700
Re: LIGO experiment seen gravitational waves? Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2015-11-01 05:49 +0100
Re: LIGO experiment seen gravitational waves? Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2015-11-01 05:01 -0800
Re: LIGO experiment seen gravitational waves? Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2015-11-02 04:35 +0100
Re: LIGO experiment seen gravitational waves? Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2015-11-02 03:21 -0800
Re: LIGO experiment seen gravitational waves? mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2015-11-02 03:38 -0800
Re: LIGO experiment seen gravitational waves? Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2015-11-05 04:46 +0100
Re: LIGO experiment seen gravitational waves? Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2015-11-01 07:55 +0100
Re: LIGO experiment seen gravitational waves? mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2015-10-20 23:08 -0700
Re: LIGO experiment seen gravitational waves? fuller.david@hotmail.com - 2015-10-19 07:04 -0700
Re: LIGO experiment seen gravitational waves? fuller.david@hotmail.com - 2015-10-17 05:58 -0700
Re: LIGO experiment seen gravitational waves? fuller.david@hotmail.com - 2015-10-17 06:18 -0700
Re: LIGO experiment seen gravitational waves? fuller.david@hotmail.com - 2015-10-17 06:33 -0700
Re: LIGO experiment seen gravitational waves? kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> - 2015-10-17 10:24 -0400
Re: LIGO experiment seen gravitational waves? fuller.david@hotmail.com - 2015-10-17 11:57 -0700
Re: LIGO experiment seen gravitational waves? fuller.david@hotmail.com - 2015-10-17 12:25 -0700
Re: LIGO experiment seen gravitational waves? fuller.david@hotmail.com - 2015-10-17 12:43 -0700
Re: LIGO experiment seen gravitational waves? fuller.david@hotmail.com - 2015-10-17 06:30 -0700
Re: LIGO experiment seen gravitational waves? Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2015-10-17 10:06 -0500
Re: LIGO experiment seen gravitational waves? Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2015-10-18 00:07 -0700
Re: LIGO experiment seen gravitational waves? Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2015-11-07 05:50 +0100
Re: LIGO experiment seen gravitational waves? Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2015-11-07 05:08 -0800
Re: LIGO experiment seen gravitational waves? Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2015-11-07 09:16 -0600
Re: LIGO experiment seen gravitational waves? Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2015-11-07 18:46 +0100
Re: LIGO experiment seen gravitational waves? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-11-09 08:04 -0600
Re: LIGO experiment seen gravitational waves? mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2015-11-09 06:13 -0800
Re: LIGO experiment seen gravitational waves? paparios <paparios@gmail.com> - 2015-11-09 06:49 -0800
Re: LIGO experiment seen gravitational waves? mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2015-11-09 07:08 -0800
Re: LIGO experiment seen gravitational waves? Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2015-11-09 22:32 -0600
Re: LIGO experiment seen gravitational waves? mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2015-11-09 23:35 -0800
Re: LIGO experiment seen gravitational waves? paparios <paparios@gmail.com> - 2015-11-10 03:24 -0800
Re: LIGO experiment seen gravitational waves? mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2015-11-10 03:36 -0800
Re: LIGO experiment seen gravitational waves? paparios <paparios@gmail.com> - 2015-11-10 04:07 -0800
Re: LIGO experiment seen gravitational waves? mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2015-11-10 04:53 -0800
Re: LIGO experiment seen gravitational waves? paparios <paparios@gmail.com> - 2015-11-10 05:21 -0800
Re: LIGO experiment seen gravitational waves? mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2015-11-10 05:39 -0800
Re: LIGO experiment seen gravitational waves? paparios <paparios@gmail.com> - 2015-11-10 05:56 -0800
Re: LIGO experiment seen gravitational waves? mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2015-11-10 06:42 -0800
Re: LIGO experiment seen gravitational waves? Open Collector <openc@opencollector.org> - 2015-11-10 15:04 +0000
Re: LIGO experiment seen gravitational waves? paparios <paparios@gmail.com> - 2015-11-10 07:10 -0800
Re: LIGO experiment seen gravitational waves? Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2015-11-11 09:59 +0100
Re: LIGO experiment seen gravitational waves? paparios <paparios@gmail.com> - 2015-11-11 02:53 -0800
Re: LIGO experiment seen gravitational waves? Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2015-11-11 12:10 +0100
Re: LIGO experiment seen gravitational waves? paparios <paparios@gmail.com> - 2015-11-11 05:02 -0800
Re: LIGO experiment seen gravitational waves? Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2015-11-11 14:49 +0100
Re: LIGO experiment seen gravitational waves? paparios <paparios@gmail.com> - 2015-11-11 06:02 -0800
Re: LIGO experiment seen gravitational waves? kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> - 2015-11-11 09:37 -0500
Re: LIGO experiment seen gravitational waves? Open Collector <openc@opencollector.org> - 2015-11-10 14:58 +0000
Re: LIGO experiment seen gravitational waves? paparios <paparios@gmail.com> - 2015-11-10 04:09 -0800
Re: LIGO experiment seen gravitational waves? Ludwig Böhm <ludwb@widespectrum.com> - 2015-11-12 00:02 +0000
Re: LIGO experiment seen gravitational waves? Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2015-11-10 09:17 -0600
Re: LIGO experiment seen gravitational waves? Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2015-11-11 10:06 +0100
Re: LIGO experiment seen gravitational waves? Open Collector <openc@opencollector.org> - 2015-11-09 19:03 +0000
Re: LIGO experiment seen gravitational waves? paparios <paparios@gmail.com> - 2015-11-09 14:48 -0800
Re: LIGO experiment seen gravitational waves? Ludwig Böhm <ludwb@widespectrum.com> - 2015-11-12 00:08 +0000
Re: LIGO experiment seen gravitational waves? paparios <paparios@gmail.com> - 2015-11-11 16:50 -0800
Re: LIGO experiment seen gravitational waves? Ludwig Böhm <ludwb@widespectrum.com> - 2015-11-12 16:30 +0000
Re: LIGO experiment seen gravitational waves? paparios <paparios@gmail.com> - 2015-11-12 09:08 -0800
Re: LIGO experiment seen gravitational waves? shuba <tim@sh.uba> - 2015-10-09 19:45 +0000
Re: LIGO experiment seen gravitational waves? kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> - 2015-10-09 19:18 -0400
Re: LIGO experiment seen gravitational waves? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-10-11 16:11 -0500
Re: LIGO experiment seen gravitational waves? Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2015-10-10 06:29 +0200
Re: LIGO experiment seen gravitational waves? kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> - 2015-10-04 18:50 -0400
Page 3 of 9 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next page →
| From | Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-10 04:41 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <41af4110-8789-4c95-a3a1-7ab46a073528@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #366694 |
On Friday, October 9, 2015 at 10:55:59 PM UTC-6, Thomas Heger wrote: > > Am 09.10.2015 14:25, schrieb Gary Harnagel: > > > > > > Your problem is in the second sentence: GR assumes smooth space-time > > > > but QM does not. REAL physicists are working on connecting GR and QM, > > > > for example: > > > > > > Yes, I know. Most physicists want it the other way round: start at QM > > > and create gravity by means of some sort of particles. > > > > > > But I think, that idea is wrong. > > > > > > Reason: my concept is simple and straight forward. It's only a little > > > counter-intuitive. > > > > "Simple" and "logical" are human terms. I don't believe the universe > > cares what we think. > > Who knows? > > Maybe the universe CAN think... > > If so, the universe may be concerned with what humans think. Pure speculation. Actually, you are espousing religion, not science. I'm okay with that, but putting your own meager intelligence up against the thousands of thinkers over thousands of years is vaunting arrogance. If you really look at some passages in the Bible, it implies that the Judeo-Christian God is an emergent phenomenon of the universe. Now, that is a concept based on thoughts that are thousands of years old. Consider that science concludes that the universe is nearly 14 billion years old, our galaxy is 9 billion years old, yet the sun and the solar system have been around only 4.5 billion years. Think about where we would be in another 4.5 billion years (if we don't succumb to the stupidity running rampant in this discussion group). Now think about a civilization that has already been there, done that. My speculation, based on this reasoning, is that the universe is really, really organized. > > > In my own context this seemed to work, but physicists could not > > > understand what I'm talking about, since the didn't find anything > > > fitting to their knowledge. > > > > It seems unrelated to reality. > > But it's not my fault, what physicists regard as reality. No, but it IS your fault for speculating with NOTHING to support it. > > > But, well, it was my hobby and hobbies are not made for purpose. > > > > Mine are. > > Well, ok, hobbies have a purpose. But professional work and hobby are > different realms. Not always. In some cases, the only difference is the amount of money thrown at the problem. In my professional work, I felt I was trying to understand the real world. I'm still doing that in some of my hobbies. > Usually we work for money, while hobbies are entertaining. I find it entertaining when I try to understand the universe. > > > And if physicists don't like my idea, they may dislike it. I -personally- > > > like the idea. > > > > > > Personally, I prefer to understand what the universe is telling me rather > > than what I "like." > > This is a very good approach. > > TH Well, I'm not perfect at doing that :-) Gary
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-14 05:00 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <d85uqdF17vcU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #366714 |
Am 10.10.2015 13:41, schrieb Gary Harnagel: .. >>>> In my own context this seemed to work, but physicists could not >>>> understand what I'm talking about, since the didn't find anything >>>> fitting to their knowledge. >>> >>> It seems unrelated to reality. >> >> But it's not my fault, what physicists regard as reality. > > No, but it IS your fault for speculating with NOTHING to support it. I don't understand your statement. Speculation is by its very nature speculative. The question is not, what you speculate about, but which hypothesis you take into the 'next round'. This is a difficult question: you have several possibilities, but need to decide for one of them. Which one do you want to take (for further investigation)? I have tried to make use of a certain concept, that is related to quaternions. The real name is: complex-four-vectors (bi-quaternions) and Pauli-algebra. So I assume such a 'quaternion-field' to be a physical reality and 'stuff' as structures within such a field. (-> 'Structured spacetime') This approach can link to several other realms, like Chemistry, electro-magnetic phenomena, General Relativity, particle physics and a few others. So I assume, this approach is correct, while not well understood or far developed. This is not a proven fact, but a guess and I kind of 'bet' on this approach, since it seems to be plausible (to me). Now I'm just a single person and have no support by any organisation or whatever. So I try to 'lure' some specialists to this idea. But - to my surprise - this didn't work. Instead the reactions were in parts really nasty and in other cases people called me a 'crank'. So what? Well, actually nothing, since it's a hobby and physics is not really my business. TH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-13 20:06 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <b0aef965-d842-45f7-81d2-bc9b66e5caec@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #367001 |
On Tuesday, October 13, 2015 at 9:00:35 PM UTC-6, Thomas Heger wrote: > > Am 10.10.2015 13:41, schrieb Gary Harnagel: > > > > > But it's not my fault, what physicists regard as reality. > > > > No, but it IS your fault for speculating with NOTHING to support it. > > I don't understand your statement. > > Speculation is by its very nature speculative. > > The question is not, what you speculate about, but which hypothesis you > take into the 'next round'. > > This is a difficult question: you have several possibilities, but need > to decide for one of them. Which one do you want to take (for further > investigation)? > > I have tried to make use of a certain concept, that is related to > quaternions. The real name is: complex-four-vectors (bi-quaternions) and > Pauli-algebra. > > So I assume such a 'quaternion-field' to be a physical reality and > 'stuff' as structures within such a field. (-> 'Structured spacetime') > > This approach can link to several other realms, like Chemistry, > electro-magnetic phenomena, General Relativity, particle physics and a > few others. > > So I assume, this approach is correct, while not well understood or far > developed. > > This is not a proven fact, but a guess and I kind of 'bet' on this > approach, since it seems to be plausible (to me). > > Now I'm just a single person and have no support by any organisation or > whatever. So I try to 'lure' some specialists to this idea. But - to my > surprise - this didn't work. > > Instead the reactions were in parts really nasty and in other cases > people called me a 'crank'. > > So what? > > Well, actually nothing, since it's a hobby and physics is not really my > business. > > > TH Speculations are useless unless they lead to testable predictions. You shouldn't carry on and on with them if (1) they have no predictions or (2) their predictions conflict with reality. Gary
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-14 22:03 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <d87qoiFfujaU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #367003 |
Am 14.10.2015 05:06, schrieb Gary Harnagel: >> The question is not, what you speculate about, but which hypothesis you >> take into the 'next round'. >> >> This is a difficult question: you have several possibilities, but need >> to decide for one of them. Which one do you want to take (for further >> investigation)? >> >> I have tried to make use of a certain concept, that is related to >> quaternions. The real name is: complex-four-vectors (bi-quaternions) and >> Pauli-algebra. >> >> So I assume such a 'quaternion-field' to be a physical reality and >> 'stuff' as structures within such a field. (-> 'Structured spacetime') >> >> This approach can link to several other realms, like Chemistry, >> electro-magnetic phenomena, General Relativity, particle physics and a >> few others. >> >> So I assume, this approach is correct, while not well understood or far >> developed. >> >> This is not a proven fact, but a guess and I kind of 'bet' on this >> approach, since it seems to be plausible (to me). >> >> Now I'm just a single person and have no support by any organisation or >> whatever. So I try to 'lure' some specialists to this idea. But - to my >> surprise - this didn't work. >> >> Instead the reactions were in parts really nasty and in other cases >> people called me a 'crank'. >> >> So what? >> >> Well, actually nothing, since it's a hobby and physics is not really my >> business. >> >> >> TH > > Speculations are useless unless they lead to testable predictions. You > shouldn't carry on and on with them if (1) they have no predictions or > (2) their predictions conflict with reality. Actually I made a few predictions. One was related to 'Growing Earth'. The idea is to create matter by 'electric' means. The idea is, that it should be possible to create dust within a sealed cube of some sort of transparent plastic (like acrylic or PET), if the cube is put into a chamber with pulsed microwaves. This is a little similar to a microwave oven, but stronger radiation and with 'hard' pulses. I also assume an effect similar to what Martin Grusenick has measured. And I think, that SRT is wrong and the relativistic effects stem from acceleration, not from velocity. And I assume a mutual relation between being inside a black hole and outside. TH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-14 14:45 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <ea7acf53-58fb-4f4a-9b07-e833b1077e16@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #367078 |
On Wednesday, October 14, 2015 at 2:03:35 PM UTC-6, Thomas Heger wrote: > > Am 14.10.2015 05:06, schrieb Gary Harnagel: > > > > Speculations are useless unless they lead to testable predictions. You > > shouldn't carry on and on with them if (1) they have no predictions or > > (2) their predictions conflict with reality. > > Actually I made a few predictions. > > One was related to 'Growing Earth'. The idea is to create matter by > 'electric' means. > > The idea is, that it should be possible to create dust within a sealed > cube of some sort of transparent plastic (like acrylic or PET), if the > cube is put into a chamber with pulsed microwaves. > > This is a little similar to a microwave oven, but stronger radiation and > with 'hard' pulses. Do you have ANY idea how many joules you have to put in to "make" matter? I don't see you doing any calculations here. And any significant mass increase would be much less than the tons of meteorites than land on earth every year. > I also assume an effect similar to what Martin Grusenick has measured. Really? All he saw was stresses in his instrument due to the changing direction of gravity. > And I think, that SRT is wrong and the relativistic effects stem from > acceleration, not from velocity. And you are abysmally wrong about that, too. The LT comes DIRECTLY from the fact that the speed of light is not affected by the motion of either source or receiver. It is a mathematical fact that acceleration is irrelevant. > And I assume a mutual relation between being inside a black hole and > outside. > > TH You make a habit of empty speculations. Gary
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | xxein1@att.net |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-14 19:59 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <4ed4bc7f-2896-4492-858b-f61b31f3f43a@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #367083 |
On Wednesday, October 14, 2015 at 5:45:20 PM UTC-4, Gary Harnagel wrote: > On Wednesday, October 14, 2015 at 2:03:35 PM UTC-6, Thomas Heger wrote: > > > > Am 14.10.2015 05:06, schrieb Gary Harnagel: > > > > > > Speculations are useless unless they lead to testable predictions. You > > > shouldn't carry on and on with them if (1) they have no predictions or > > > (2) their predictions conflict with reality. > > > > Actually I made a few predictions. > > > > One was related to 'Growing Earth'. The idea is to create matter by > > 'electric' means. > > > > The idea is, that it should be possible to create dust within a sealed > > cube of some sort of transparent plastic (like acrylic or PET), if the > > cube is put into a chamber with pulsed microwaves. > > > > This is a little similar to a microwave oven, but stronger radiation and > > with 'hard' pulses. > > Do you have ANY idea how many joules you have to put in to "make" matter? > I don't see you doing any calculations here. And any significant mass > increase would be much less than the tons of meteorites than land on earth > every year. > > > I also assume an effect similar to what Martin Grusenick has measured. > > Really? All he saw was stresses in his instrument due to the changing > direction of gravity. > > > And I think, that SRT is wrong and the relativistic effects stem from > > acceleration, not from velocity. > > And you are abysmally wrong about that, too. The LT comes DIRECTLY from > the fact that the speed of light is not affected by the motion of either > source or receiver. It is a mathematical fact that acceleration is > irrelevant. > > > And I assume a mutual relation between being inside a black hole and > > outside. > > > > TH > > You make a habit of empty speculations. > > Gary xxein: Is it waves that LIGO et al are trying to measure or is it an oscillating fluctuation of the field strength? This question might be ill posed but just think about it anyway. What purpose would it serve if something IS measured? A confirmation of a prediction of a theory? What if it can't be measured as such? What did we pay for? Can I get paid for guessing? What is gravity? I mean that we know what it does. At least we think we do. We can make a list. Now, how does gravity do that? Well we (Einstein) guessed up a mathematical model. What do the numbers mean? Things going through a rigid process. We also need a useful mental image of what it should do to the things we see around us. Even to things we can't see or measure. Invisible stuff? How do we know this invisible stuff exists or happens? Sometimes we have indirect evidence. Sometimes we have certain number relations (or, at least, desire them) to explain hidden stuff or a process we think exists. Sometimes we think it (whatever) must exist. Sometimes things exist and we never suspect they do. This is the world we live in with our meager senses. So back to this model. GR, right? It seems to be the right model, huh? Is it? We know it's spacialy undefined at <2M because of the speed of light. And it doesn't come right out and tell us what gravity is, either. We end up guessing about a lot of things that GR doesn't cover. A curved space-time, for instance. GR cannot prove anything exists. Stuff either complies, or not, with this model. The best (macro) model we have come up with. Is it necessarily the only correct model? In any case, it has become ingrown to us through several human generations. Smart money doesn't even question its validity anymore. But - does it really describe reality? Does gravity affect the speed of light? Does it carry light with it like it does matter? Then the speed of light would be constant to gravity and not the so-called empty flat space. But GR nowhere implies that. We may have implied wrongly. We just construed the constancy of lightspeed to the wrong relative space. None of this violates what the contrived results of GR predicts. It does extend the limits of GR through <2M though. It also explains the actual orbital mechanics around a black hole. Pound-Rebka can be viewed in new light (ha-ha). It explains a lot of stuff in much simpler terms. A page of Schwarzschild metric can be shortened to 1/sqrt(x) *c in form for a circular orbit velocity of a test mass. Or sqrt(2/x) *c for an escape velocity. The constancy of SOL is preserved while setting a limit, however, of (circular orbit velocity^2 + escape velocity^2) =< c^2. A simple 2-vector. These two short expressions work in all situations, GPS included. One all inclusive variable 'x' representing geometric mass (M) /dist is all that is needed. You might not like it but it is accurate to infinity. So? What is the nature of gravity whose proper understanding makes all things easier to calculate? In terms of gravity, is matter a source or destination? Despite gravity's infinitely long range, why would there be waves instead of simply local disturbances that wash out in a relatively short range? Yeah. Binaries. There. I said it. Mostly. There is much more about gravity for you (all) to learn. Me too. But everything I did say, cannot be disproven. A word of caution though. What you think you know might be false. A falsehood cannot be used to disprove a truth. For instance: a photon rising up through gravity does not lose energy. John A. Wheeler said it did in a caption under a diagram of the Pound-Rebka apparatus. His meaning was that the photons rising against gravity measured less frequency than the frequency sent from below and therefor lost energy. But in the body of the text of his work, he asserts that the frequency difference is due solely to the difference in clock rates between the upper and lower clocks. Ambiguous at best and contradictory at worst. He offered no cop out. But Wheeler is weird anyway. He might state that babies come from cabbage patches as an analogy to birth. Physics anyone? (A JOURNEY INTO GRAVITY AND SPACETIME) Einstein got his Nobel for his explanation of the photo-electric effect. I found that plausibly wrong and can give an alternate explanation. I hope it's not true that it's in agreement with or a basis for quantum theory (wikipedia). I'd hate to spend another 30 years studying that too. I know a lot more about gravity that I'm not disclosing. How to unite it with a Quantum theory for instance. It's all in the lucky guess of what gravity really is. I might be persuaded with some of that wasted LIGO money though. And if anyone is too lazy to check even my simple example, please do not reply to this post. But if anyone is interested and needs clarification or some other help, please feel free to ask.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | fuller.david@hotmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-15 05:03 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <6be51de5-71ce-4650-a72e-7c1befdc41b2@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #367112 |
xxein: Is it waves that LIGO et al are trying to measure or is it an oscillating fluctuation of the field strength? This question might be ill posed but just think about it anyway. What purpose would it serve if something IS measured? A confirmation of a prediction of a theory? What if it can't be measured as such? What did we pay for? Can I get paid for guessing? They would be trying to measure variations in the local vacuum impedance at a tiny scale Anything large and far away would have a very long wave length of changing values in the vacuum impedance. The local vacuum impedance would drowned out these large long wave length events. A super nova would be the equivalent of a very large mass disappearing then rapidly reappearing. Would seem likely this high amplitude short wavelength event would be more measure able.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | fuller.david@hotmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-15 05:21 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <ed816873-cc4b-4e34-9aac-55d8e4ef0152@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #367112 |
xxein: Is it waves that LIGO et al are trying to measure or is it an oscillating fluctuation of the field strength? This question might be ill posed but just think about it anyway. What purpose would it serve if something IS measured? A confirmation of a prediction of a theory? What if it can't be measured as such? What did we pay for? Can I get paid for guessing? They would be trying to measure variations in the local vacuum impedance at a tiny scale Anything large and far away would have a very long wave length of changing values in the vacuum impedance. The local vacuum impedance would drowned out these large long wave length events. A super nova would be the equivalent of a very large mass disappearing then rapidly reappearing. Would seem likely this high amplitude short wavelength event would be more measure able. For 2 merging black hole that displaced X meters^3, the combined displacement of their event horizons would not be 2, but the displacement would be 8 4 times more This would be a more measurable change in vacuum impedance that occurs rapidly in one location
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | xxein1@att.net |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-15 06:33 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <6e4aa5db-de39-4da4-97c4-4583c3db4ddf@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #367112 |
On Wednesday, October 14, 2015 at 10:59:15 PM UTC-4, xxe...@att.net wrote: > On Wednesday, October 14, 2015 at 5:45:20 PM UTC-4, Gary Harnagel wrote: > > On Wednesday, October 14, 2015 at 2:03:35 PM UTC-6, Thomas Heger wrote: > > > > > > Am 14.10.2015 05:06, schrieb Gary Harnagel: > > > > A page of Schwarzschild metric can be shortened to 1/sqrt(x) *c in form for a circular orbit velocity of a test mass. Or sqrt(2/x) *c for an escape velocity. The constancy of SOL is preserved while setting a limit, however, of (circular orbit velocity^2 + escape velocity^2) =< c^2. A simple 2-vector. These two short expressions work in all situations, GPS included. One all inclusive variable 'x' representing geometric mass (M) /dist is all that is needed. You might not like it but it is accurate to infinity. xxein: Correction. 'x' represents dist/M (all in meters).
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | xxein1@att.net |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-15 06:46 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <7a4049d3-4e5d-438f-8484-4db088c843de@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #367154 |
On Thursday, October 15, 2015 at 9:33:50 AM UTC-4, xxe...@att.net wrote: > On Wednesday, October 14, 2015 at 10:59:15 PM UTC-4, xxe...@att.net wrote: > > On Wednesday, October 14, 2015 at 5:45:20 PM UTC-4, Gary Harnagel wrote: > > > On Wednesday, October 14, 2015 at 2:03:35 PM UTC-6, Thomas Heger wrote: > > > > > > > > Am 14.10.2015 05:06, schrieb Gary Harnagel: > > > > > > > A page of Schwarzschild metric can be shortened to 1/sqrt(x) *c in form for a circular orbit velocity of a test mass. Or sqrt(2/x) *c for an escape velocity. The constancy of SOL is preserved while setting a limit, however, of (circular orbit velocity^2 + escape velocity^2) =< c^2. A simple 2-vector. These two short expressions work in all situations, GPS included. One all inclusive variable 'x' representing geometric mass (M) /dist is all that is needed. You might not like it but it is accurate to infinity. > > xxein: Correction. 'x' represents dist/M (all in meters). xxein: Addition: (circular orbit velocity^2 + escape velocity^2) =< c^2 shows why 3M is is the lower limit for circular orbit.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | fuller.david@hotmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-15 07:58 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <b526fc91-1480-4ab4-bc33-4d2c67176a9e@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #367157 |
(Pi/2)*(phi) = 2.54160184616 ((Pi/2))*(phi))/10^2= 0.0254160184616 sqrt(0.254160184616 * 2.54160184616) =0.80372507391 (1 / c) * (0.5 * (2.54160184616 / 0.0254160184616)) = 1.66782048 × 10-7 s / m
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | fuller.david@hotmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-15 08:38 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <54c9fa0f-26d1-4f92-b0dd-2553ea5e43a3@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #367161 |
sqrt 50 = 7.07106781187 10* RMS
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-15 14:13 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <p3rv1b1g4olediupatlu1nff1v2me6h108@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #367161 |
On Thu, 15 Oct 2015 07:58:31 -0700 (PDT), fuller.david@hotmail.com
wrote:
>(Pi/2)*(phi) = 2.54160184616
>
>((Pi/2))*(phi))/10^2= 0.0254160184616
>
>
>
>sqrt(0.254160184616 * 2.54160184616) =0.80372507391
>
>
>(1 / c) * (0.5 * (2.54160184616 / 0.0254160184616)) = 1.66782048 × 10-7 s / m
OUCH! My finger is getting sore from
pressing the delete button to get rid of all
the coded messages to alien beings.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-15 21:23 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <d8acq0F55joU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #367083 |
Am 14.10.2015 23:45, schrieb Gary Harnagel: >>> Speculations are useless unless they lead to testable predictions. You >>> shouldn't carry on and on with them if (1) they have no predictions or >>> (2) their predictions conflict with reality. >> >> Actually I made a few predictions. >> >> One was related to 'Growing Earth'. The idea is to create matter by >> 'electric' means. >> >> The idea is, that it should be possible to create dust within a sealed >> cube of some sort of transparent plastic (like acrylic or PET), if the >> cube is put into a chamber with pulsed microwaves. >> >> This is a little similar to a microwave oven, but stronger radiation and >> with 'hard' pulses. > > Do you have ANY idea how many joules you have to put in to "make" matter? > I don't see you doing any calculations here. And any significant mass > increase would be much less than the tons of meteorites than land on earth > every year. I assume a different model about matter in general. And I have assumed, that SRT is wrong. So I base my idea on a different concept and I cannot convince you, because you insist on the validity of SRT. So I kind of bet, that is is in fact possible to create matter by pulsed microwaves. The energy required is far less than what SRT would predict. >> I also assume an effect similar to what Martin Grusenick has measured. > > Really? All he saw was stresses in his instrument due to the changing > direction of gravity. > >> And I think, that SRT is wrong and the relativistic effects stem from >> acceleration, not from velocity. > > And you are abysmally wrong about that, too. The LT comes DIRECTLY from > the fact that the speed of light is not affected by the motion of either > source or receiver. It is a mathematical fact that acceleration is > irrelevant. the so called 'Pioneer anomaly' could be (nicely) explained by an effect of acceleration. I use a term called 'time domain'. This is a subspace of the universe, where clocks run at the same rate. Obviously the surface of planet Earth is such a place, since we can use the same clocks around the globe. But is stuff gets accelerated, this stuff enters a different 'time domain', because the 'axis of time' gets tilted. This curvature of the time-line is an acceleration (in the picture of a spacetime-diagram). What would make a space-probe enter a different time-domain? Actually I assume, a rocket would do that, since rockets accelerate things. It's actually a VERY small angle and the effect is hardly measurable. But of the probe flies far enough, the clocks seem to run too slow. This would make the probe look like being pull back by some unknown force. Also the twin-paradox could be solved. the effect cancels out, since a traveller has to accelerate and decelerate four times: after start from planet A before landing at planet B after start from planet B before landing at planet A So relativistic effects would cancel out, if they are caused by acceleration. We have also Pound-Rebka and Martin Grusenick. These experiments show, that gravity has an effect on light, which could be measured as fringe shift or shift of frequency. And shifted frequency could also be interpreted as similar frequency, but with 'slower time' (tilted timeline). TH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-15 13:28 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <dca83009-9069-4b9d-8f9c-b7ce6cdabd6c@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #367188 |
On Thursday, October 15, 2015 at 1:23:49 PM UTC-6, Thomas Heger wrote: > > Am 14.10.2015 23:45, schrieb Gary Harnagel: > > > > Do you have ANY idea how many joules you have to put in to "make" matter? > > I don't see you doing any calculations here. And any significant mass > > increase would be much less than the tons of meteorites than land on earth > > every year. > > > I assume a different model about matter in general. And I have assumed, > that SRT is wrong. Assumptions that contradict experimental evidence are useless nonsense. > So I base my idea on a different concept and I cannot convince you, > because you insist on the validity of SRT. I have logic, rationality and experimental evidence on my side. All you have are clueless ASSumptions. > So I kind of bet, that is is in fact possible to create matter by pulsed > microwaves. Then do it. Don't come here yammering nonsense. I accept experimental evidence, not baseless assertions. > The energy required is far less than what SRT would predict. Assertion is not evidence. > > > I also assume an effect similar to what Martin Grusenick has measured. > > > > Really? All he saw was stresses in his instrument due to the changing > > direction of gravity. > > > > > And I think, that SRT is wrong and the relativistic effects stem from > > > acceleration, not from velocity. > > > > And you are abysmally wrong about that, too. The LT comes DIRECTLY from > > the fact that the speed of light is not affected by the motion of either > > source or receiver. It is a mathematical fact that acceleration is > > irrelevant. > > the so called 'Pioneer anomaly' could be (nicely) explained by an effect > of acceleration. The anomaly IS an anomalous acceleration, and it's been cogently explained. > I use a term called 'time domain'. This is a subspace of the universe, > where clocks run at the same rate. Already been done, but it already has a name: proper time. > Obviously the surface of planet Earth is such a place, since we can use > the same clocks around the globe. No, we can't. We use the GPS to synchronize them. > But is stuff gets accelerated, this stuff enters a different 'time > domain', because the 'axis of time' gets tilted. Yawn. This just Minkowski spacetime. Rest of yammering deleted.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mlwozniak@wp.pl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-19 00:43 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <d3c2bfd7-2a22-4f97-900e-dd91919d6f63@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #367198 |
W dniu czwartek, 15 października 2015 22:28:10 UTC+2 użytkownik Gary Harnagel napisał: > > Assumptions that contradict experimental evidence are useless nonsense. Like, for instance, your Shit's tales of clocks and observers.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-16 10:26 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <lKWdnXZdiu7dirzLnZ2dnUU7_8ydnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #367188 |
On 10/15/15 10/15/15 - 2:23 PM, Thomas Heger wrote: > I have assumed, that SRT > is wrong. There certainly is precedent for this, as GR (implicitly) makes that same assumption. But what you MUST do is ensure that all the experiments that support SR are consistent with your assumptions. GR and string theory both do this easily, as SR is their local limit. But other than that, this is VERY DIFFICULT. It is rather clear that you do not have a clue about this. Just "making assumptions" is both HOPELESS and USELESS, until and unless you can make assumptions not already ruled out by existing experiments. That requires serious study of the experiments, and A LOT more intelligence and cleverness than you have displayed around here.... By not studying the experiments, you display a serious lack of understanding. Why do you think I created a webpage on the experimental basis of SR? Tom Roberts
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-17 07:35 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <d8e50uF44kvU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #367266 |
Am 16.10.2015 17:26, schrieb Tom Roberts: >> I have assumed, that SRT >> is wrong. > > There certainly is precedent for this, as GR (implicitly) makes that > same assumption. > > But what you MUST do is ensure that all the experiments that support SR > are consistent with your assumptions. GR and string theory both do this > easily, as SR is their local limit. But other than that, this is VERY > DIFFICULT. No, I assume that SRT is wrong, because it makes statements, that are illogic. SRT is based on velocity v, that an observer has in respect to something else. Now SRT uses the 'Einstein equivalence principle', which says 'all inertial observers are of equal rights'. This I take as allowance to say, that all inertial observers have the velocity zero. But this would violate the previous concept, that SRT is based on the velocity v of the observers. So if the observer moves with some sort of non-zero velocity, this must be in respect to the universe itself. If so, the Einstein equivalence principle would be wrong. So: you cannot have both, hence SRT is illogic. Also 'E=m*c²' is wrong, since more energy means less mass, what you can hardly address with the '=' sign. TH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-17 03:20 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <846fa426-6f39-4e02-b23f-15da0b9d3f31@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #367312 |
On Friday, October 16, 2015 at 11:35:30 PM UTC-6, Thomas Heger wrote: > > Am 16.10.2015 17:26, schrieb Tom Roberts: > > > > > I have assumed, that SRT > > > is wrong. > > > > There certainly is precedent for this, as GR (implicitly) makes that > > same assumption. > > > > But what you MUST do is ensure that all the experiments that support SR > > are consistent with your assumptions. GR and string theory both do this > > easily, as SR is their local limit. But other than that, this is VERY > > DIFFICULT. > > > No, I assume that SRT is wrong, because it makes statements, that are > illogic. No, it doesn't. It is mathematically consistent based upon its postulates. > SRT is based on velocity v, that an observer has in respect to something > else. It's obvious what that "something else" is to most intelligent people. > Now SRT uses the 'Einstein equivalence principle', which says 'all > inertial observers are of equal rights'. > This I take as allowance to say, that all inertial observers have the > velocity zero. You take it wrong. Are you confused about what "inertial" means? > But this would violate the previous concept, that SRT is based on the > velocity v of the observers. "By denying scientific principles, one may maintain any paradox." -- Galileo Galilei > So if the observer moves with some sort of non-zero velocity, this must > be in respect to the universe itself. Non sequitur and illogical. > If so, the Einstein equivalence principle would be wrong. > > So: you cannot have both, hence SRT is illogic. I'm afraid that YOU are illogical. > Also 'E=m*c²' is wrong, since more energy means less mass, what you can > hardly address with the '=' sign. > > TH Do you believe the speed of light is constant? If you don't, let's see the refutation. If you do, do you believe this: dE = F*dx = (dp/dt)*dx = (dx/dt)*dp = v*dp v = c, therefore dE = c* dp, so E = p*c (which is consistent with Maxwell's equations). Now if you accept Newton's Laws, then p = m*v = m*c, so E = m*c². Once again, you just make assertions without ANYTHING to back them up. Gary
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-18 06:49 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <d8gmnsFnrirU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #367338 |
Am 17.10.2015 12:20, schrieb Gary Harnagel: >>>> I have assumed, that SRT >>>> is wrong. >>> >>> There certainly is precedent for this, as GR (implicitly) makes that >>> same assumption. >>> >>> But what you MUST do is ensure that all the experiments that support SR >>> are consistent with your assumptions. GR and string theory both do this >>> easily, as SR is their local limit. But other than that, this is VERY >>> DIFFICULT. >> >> >> No, I assume that SRT is wrong, because it makes statements, that are >> illogic. > > No, it doesn't. It is mathematically consistent based upon its postulates. ?? Physics is NOT mathematics. Physics is a natural science and its postulates should match the real world. >> SRT is based on velocity v, that an observer has in respect to something >> else. > > It's obvious what that "something else" is to most intelligent people. > Yes, I wrote, that SRT assumes a velocity v in respect to the universe (or fixed stars background). This is obviously an 'absolute space'. And I regard the concept of SRT as funny, since that absolute space of SRT is in violation of its own mane 'relativity'. To solve this riddle, SRT uses a second observer and those had to synchronise their clocks. But I regard this idea as even worse, since no remote observers with their clocks to synchronise have ever been found. That's in short, why I try to avoid SRT and stick to GR alone. In my understanding of GR the axis of time could point into a spatial direction and space could shrink (hence is not absolute). Then I try to replace tensors by complex-four-vectors and use angles instead of velocities. So in my own 'lingo' SRT says, that the angle of 45° is always 45°. >> Now SRT uses the 'Einstein equivalence principle', which says 'all >> inertial observers are of equal rights'. >> This I take as allowance to say, that all inertial observers have the >> velocity zero. > > You take it wrong. Are you confused about what "inertial" means? In GR-terms: uncurved axis of time. >> But this would violate the previous concept, that SRT is based on the >> velocity v of the observers. > > "By denying scientific principles, one may maintain any paradox." > -- Galileo Galilei " by denying paradoxes, one may maintain scientific principles" -- Thomas Heger >> So if the observer moves with some sort of non-zero velocity, this must >> be in respect to the universe itself. > > Non sequitur and illogical. So in respect to what else should the velocity v (of the inertial observer) be measured? .. TH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 3 of 9 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity
csiph-web