Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #368621 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2015-10-30 23:40 +0100 |
| Last post | 2015-11-12 11:32 -0600 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 146 — 24 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.physics.relativity
Twins and the universe Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2015-10-30 23:40 +0100
Re: Twins and the universe paparios <paparios@gmail.com> - 2015-10-30 16:15 -0700
Re: Twins and the universe John Heath <heathjohn2@gmail.com> - 2015-10-30 18:49 -0700
Re: Twins and the universe Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2015-10-31 09:02 +0100
Re: Twins and the universe Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2015-10-30 22:03 -0500
Re: Twins and the universe John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2015-10-30 21:30 -0700
Re: Twins and the universe John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2015-10-30 21:39 -0700
Re: Twins and the universe John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2015-11-03 20:00 -0800
Re: Twins and the universe Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2015-10-31 00:03 -0700
Re: Twins and the universe crisd <crisdunbar@gmail.com> - 2015-11-03 14:08 -0800
Re: Twins and the universe Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2015-11-03 23:01 -0800
Re: Twins and the universe Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2015-10-31 09:11 +0100
Re: Twins and the universe Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2015-11-02 13:28 -0600
Re: Twins and the universe Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2015-11-02 21:32 -0800
Re: Twins and the universe Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2015-11-03 10:19 -0600
Re: Twins and the universe Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2015-11-04 01:41 +0100
Re: Twins and the universe Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2015-11-04 02:09 +0100
Re: Twins and the universe Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2015-11-03 21:51 -0600
Re: Twins and the universe Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2015-11-03 22:27 -0800
Re: Twins and the universe Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2015-11-04 09:24 +0100
Re: Twins and the universe Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-11-04 07:48 -0600
Re: Twins and the universe mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2015-11-04 06:43 -0800
Re: Twins and the universe Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2015-11-05 04:19 +0100
Re: Twins and the universe Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-11-05 10:47 -0600
Re: Twins and the universe Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2015-11-05 21:00 +0100
Re: Twins and the universe Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2015-11-06 05:46 +0100
Re: Twins and the universe JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2015-11-05 20:54 -0800
Re: Twins and the universe Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-11-06 07:54 -0600
Re: Twins and the universe John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2015-11-06 19:28 -0800
Re: Twins and the universe Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2015-11-03 22:10 -0800
Re: Twins and the universe mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2015-11-03 01:22 -0800
Re: Twins and the universe Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2015-10-31 10:04 -0500
Re: Twins and the universe Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2015-11-01 09:36 +0100
Re: Twins and the universe Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2015-11-03 10:14 -0600
Re: Twins and the universe Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2015-11-03 19:45 +0100
Re: Twins and the universe Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2015-11-07 08:52 -0600
Re: Twins and the universe Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2015-11-07 17:02 +0100
Re: Twins and the universe kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2015-11-09 08:13 -0800
Re: Twins and the universe Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-11-09 10:25 -0600
Re: Twins and the universe Open Collector <openc@opencollector.org> - 2015-11-09 19:00 +0000
Re: Twins and the universe kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2015-11-09 11:55 -0800
Re: Twins and the universe Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-11-09 15:51 -0600
Re: Twins and the universe Open Collector <openc@opencollector.org> - 2015-11-09 18:59 +0000
Re: Twins and the universe kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2015-11-01 06:25 -0800
Re: Twins and the universe kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2015-11-01 06:49 -0800
Re: Twins and the universe Wayne Olmstead <wayols@eclipseevenet.org> - 2015-11-01 14:55 +0000
Re: Twins and the universe Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-11-02 09:32 -0600
Re: Twins and the universe mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2015-11-03 01:15 -0800
Re: Twins and the universe kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2015-11-07 07:59 -0800
Re: Twins and the universe Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-11-09 09:23 -0600
Re: Twins and the universe kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2015-11-09 08:23 -0800
Re: Twins and the universe Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-11-09 10:27 -0600
Re: Twins and the universe kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2015-11-09 12:22 -0800
Re: Twins and the universe Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-11-09 15:58 -0600
Re: Twins and the universe kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2015-11-10 06:07 -0800
Re: Twins and the universe Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-11-10 08:32 -0600
Re: Twins and the universe kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2015-11-10 06:54 -0800
Re: Twins and the universe Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-11-10 13:44 -0600
Re: Twins and the universe kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2015-11-11 06:19 -0800
Re: Twins and the universe Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-11-11 09:12 -0600
Re: Twins and the universe kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2015-11-11 12:47 -0800
Re: Twins and the universe Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-11-11 15:02 -0600
Re: Twins and the universe kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2015-11-14 06:52 -0800
Re: Twins and the universe Ty Knotts <TyKnotts@hotmail.org> - 2015-11-14 16:14 +0000
Re: Twins and the universe kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2015-11-07 07:49 -0800
Re: Twins and the universe fuller.david@hotmail.com - 2015-10-30 21:58 -0700
Re: Twins and the universe Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2015-10-31 05:58 +0100
Re: Twins and the universe Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2015-10-31 09:14 +0100
Re: Twins and the universe Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2015-10-31 10:14 +0100
Re: Twins and the universe Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2015-10-31 11:14 +0100
Re: Twins and the universe Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2015-11-01 05:16 +0100
Re: Twins and the universe Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2015-11-01 09:11 +0100
Re: Twins and the universe John Heath <heathjohn2@gmail.com> - 2015-11-01 07:13 -0800
Re: Twins and the universe mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2015-11-01 23:03 -0800
Re: Twins and the universe Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2015-11-03 05:42 +0100
Re: Twins and the universe mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2015-11-03 01:31 -0800
Re: Twins and the universe Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2015-11-04 01:34 +0100
Re: Twins and the universe mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2015-11-03 23:51 -0800
Re: Twins and the universe Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2015-11-05 00:30 -0600
Re: Twins and the universe Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2015-11-05 10:16 +0100
Re: Twins and the universe John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2015-11-06 18:17 -0800
Re: Twins and the universe Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2015-11-07 16:41 +0100
Re: Twins and the universe John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2015-11-06 18:35 -0800
Re: Twins and the universe Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2015-11-07 16:42 +0100
Re: Twins and the universe alsor@interia.pl - 2015-11-05 11:43 -0800
Re: Twins and the universe John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2015-11-06 18:14 -0800
Re: Twins and the universe John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2015-11-03 20:21 -0800
Re: Twins and the universe John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2015-11-03 20:30 -0800
Re: Twins and the universe John Heath <heathjohn2@gmail.com> - 2015-11-06 18:00 -0800
Re: Twins and the universe shuba <tim@sh.uba> - 2015-11-07 03:07 +0000
Re: Twins and the universe Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2015-11-07 05:35 +0100
Re: Twins and the universe shuba <tim@sh.uba> - 2015-11-07 06:28 +0000
Re: Twins and the universe Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2015-11-07 09:02 -0600
Re: Twins and the universe Edgardo Alcantara <edgardoalcantara@carosseryrepair.org> - 2015-11-07 15:09 +0000
Re: Twins and the universe Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2015-11-07 17:05 +0100
Re: Twins and the universe Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2015-11-08 07:52 +0100
Re: Twins and the universe Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2015-11-08 04:38 -0800
Re: Twins and the universe Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2015-11-08 13:58 +0100
Re: Twins and the universe Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2015-11-08 05:38 -0800
Re: Twins and the universe Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2015-11-08 15:24 +0100
Re: Twins and the universe Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2015-11-08 06:36 -0800
Re: Twins and the universe paparios <paparios@gmail.com> - 2015-11-08 07:13 -0800
Re: Twins and the universe Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2015-11-08 16:18 +0100
Re: Twins and the universe Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2015-11-08 07:32 -0800
Re: Twins and the universe Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2015-11-08 16:48 +0100
Re: Twins and the universe Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2015-11-08 16:15 +0100
Re: Twins and the universe Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2015-11-08 14:22 -0600
Re: Twins and the universe Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2015-11-08 13:41 -0800
Re: Twins and the universe Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2015-11-08 23:18 +0100
Re: Twins and the universe shuba <tim@sh.uba> - 2015-11-08 19:05 +0000
Re: Twins and the universe Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2015-11-08 20:51 +0100
Re: Twins and the universe pnalsing@gmail.com - 2015-11-08 13:55 -0800
Re: Twins and the universe Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2015-11-08 14:00 -0800
Re: Twins and the universe pnalsing@gmail.com - 2015-11-08 14:13 -0800
Re: Twins and the universe Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2015-11-09 05:58 +0100
Re: Twins and the universe Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2015-11-10 04:31 +0100
Re: Twins and the universe JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2015-11-09 20:34 -0800
Re: Twins and the universe pnalsing@gmail.com - 2015-11-09 20:45 -0800
Re: Twins and the universe shuba <tim@sh.uba> - 2015-11-10 21:23 +0000
Re: Twins and the universe Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-11-10 15:42 -0600
Re: Twins and the universe Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2015-11-11 03:01 +0100
Re: Twins and the universe Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-11-10 20:06 -0600
Re: Twins and the universe Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2015-11-11 06:21 +0100
Re: Twins and the universe kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> - 2015-11-11 01:08 -0500
Re: Twins and the universe Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2015-11-11 04:00 -0800
Re: Twins and the universe Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-11-11 07:32 -0600
Re: Twins and the universe Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2015-11-11 16:51 +0100
Re: Twins and the universe Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-11-11 10:27 -0600
Re: Twins and the universe Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2015-11-11 22:48 +0100
Re: Twins and the universe kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> - 2015-11-11 18:11 -0500
Re: Twins and the universe Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2015-11-12 06:22 +0100
Re: Twins and the universe kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> - 2015-11-12 01:23 -0500
Re: Twins and the universe Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2015-11-12 04:13 -0800
Re: Twins and the universe Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2015-11-12 21:30 +0100
Re: Twins and the universe kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> - 2015-11-12 16:25 -0500
Re: Twins and the universe Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2015-11-12 14:35 -0800
Re: Twins and the universe Ted Striker <tedstrickdr@mailaccount.org> - 2015-11-12 22:47 +0000
Re: Twins and the universe Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2015-11-13 05:25 +0100
Re: Twins and the universe Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2015-11-12 20:49 -0800
Re: Twins and the universe Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2015-11-14 05:02 +0100
Re: Twins and the universe Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2015-11-14 10:11 +0100
Re: Twins and the universe Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2015-11-14 11:10 +0100
Re: Twins and the universe Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2015-11-14 12:11 +0100
Re: Twins and the universe Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2015-11-14 04:54 -0800
Re: Twins and the universe RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> - 2015-11-11 16:18 -0800
Re: Twins and the universe Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-11-12 11:32 -0600
Page 1 of 8 [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next page →
| From | Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-30 23:40 +0100 |
| Subject | Twins and the universe |
| Message-ID | <n10rlp$vf1$1@node1.news.atman.pl> |
As we all know, a twins will age slower Still, the age of the universe is observer independent. Seems, that a twins counted as twins will age slower, than the same twins counted as a part of the universe... Did I miss something?
[toc] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | paparios <paparios@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-30 16:15 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <a5a77d11-50fe-4148-82e2-f83f96346887@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #368621 |
El viernes, 30 de octubre de 2015, 19:40:58 (UTC-3), Maciej Woźniak escribió: > As we all know, a twins will age slower > Still, the age of the universe is observer independent. > Seems, that a twins counted as twins will age slower, > than the same twins counted as a part of the universe... > > Did I miss something? Yes, your brain!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | John Heath <heathjohn2@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-30 18:49 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <f050afba-d044-4e69-ac2c-3c4ee2df4523@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #368621 |
On Friday, October 30, 2015 at 6:40:58 PM UTC-4, Maciej Woźniak wrote: > As we all know, a twins will age slower > Still, the age of the universe is observer independent. > Seems, that a twins counted as twins will age slower, > than the same twins counted as a part of the universe... > > Did I miss something? You did not miss the point. However your point of "the age of the universe is observer independent" has no empirical evidence to support it nor a theory to back it up including SR and GR so where does this come from? If you move you lose time , relative to what is around you. What is relative to around you? The mass that is around you weighted by its mass divided by the square of distance from you. It is important to give full consideration to the words "divided by the square of distance from you". In our case movement is relative to the earth at the north or south pole as the moon and the sun are too far away to be relevant with "divided by the square of distance". If you wish to plow through GR tensor and metric you will arrive at the same answer. You will note I said at the north or south pole of the earth. If you come back with some flip response you will never know why this is not true for the equator. The choice is yours. Do you have a genuine interest in leaning the subject of physics.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-31 09:02 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <n11sig$lhj$1@node2.news.atman.pl> |
| In reply to | #368631 |
Użytkownik "John Heath" napisał w wiadomości grup dyskusyjnych:f050afba-d044-4e69-ac2c-3c4ee2df4523@googlegroups.com... On Friday, October 30, 2015 at 6:40:58 PM UTC-4, Maciej Woźniak wrote: > As we all know, a twins will age slower > Still, the age of the universe is observer independent. > Seems, that a twins counted as twins will age slower, > than the same twins counted as a part of the universe... > > Did I miss something? |You did not miss the point. However your point of "the age of the universe is observer independent" has no empirical evidence to support it nor a theory to back it up including SR and GR so where does this come from? From one of relativistic "gurus" here.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-30 22:03 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <PoudncJhtuUWsqnLnZ2dnUU7_82dnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #368621 |
On 10/30/15 10/30/15 5:40 PM, Maciej Woźniak wrote: > As we all know, a twins will age slower I'm not sure what you are trying to say. In the usual twin scenario of SR, neither twin "ages slower" than the other. They do, however, have different elapsed proper times between meetings, because they follow different trajectories (worldlines) through spacetime. The twin scenario does not demonstrate "time dilation", it demonstrates the path dependence of path length. > Still, the age of the universe is observer independent. Yes. At least in the context of GR and modern cosmological models. Note, however, in modern cosmological models based on the FRW manifolds of GR, there is a unique congruence of timelike geodesics corresponding to the dust particles of the FRW manifold; in cosmological models these dust particles are identified with the galaxies. For every observer following a geodesic of this congruence, the "age of the universe" is simply the elapsed proper time since the big bang (i.e. when the universe "started"). This, of course, includes observers located on earth (though we cannot trace our own proper time back to the big bang, we CAN trace back along the geodesic on which we currently evolve). Fortunately the motion of earth relative to the galaxy is small enough that the difference between earth's geodesic and the galaxy's [#] is negligible -- errors due to that are smaller than the uncertainties in the measurements. [#] Insofar as this exists and is well defined. > Seems, that a twins counted as twins will age slower, > than the same twins counted as a part of the universe... Here, too, I'm not sure what you are trying to say. If you mean that differently-moving observers can obtain different values for the age of the universe, then: yes that's true. But for observers following geodesics of the congruence mentioned above, they obtain the same value for the age of the universe at simultaneous points of their worldlines, once a sensible definition of simultaneity is applied. This is so even though the observers on different geodesics are indeed moving differently (i.e. have nonzero relative velocity). But an observer NOT on one of those geodesics can indeed obtain some different value at simultaneous points on her worldline. So this is more subtle than you think, and "relative motion" may or may not imply a difference in the observed age of the universe. Note also the the definition of simultaneity is important as well (it makes no sense to compare measurements of the age of the universe at points along the observers' worldlines that are not "simultaneous"). Tom Roberts
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-30 21:30 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <32a00b2f-aa41-4122-86bc-04d8aa2d0e71@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #368634 |
On Friday, October 30, 2015 at 10:03:46 PM UTC-5, tjrob137 wrote: > On 10/30/15 10/30/15 5:40 PM, Maciej Woźniak wrote: > > As we all know, a twins will age slower > > I'm not sure what you are trying to say. > > In the usual twin scenario of SR, neither twin "ages slower" > than the other. They do, however, have different elapsed > proper times between meetings, because they follow different > trajectories (worldlines) through spacetime. The twin scenario > does not demonstrate "time dilation", it demonstrates the > path dependence of path length. > > > > Still, the age of the universe is observer independent. > > Yes. At least in the context of GR and modern cosmological models. > > Note, however, in modern cosmological models based on the FRW manifolds of GR, > there is a unique congruence of timelike geodesics corresponding to the dust > particles of the FRW manifold; in cosmological models these dust particles are > identified with the galaxies. For every observer following a geodesic of this > congruence, the "age of the universe" is simply the elapsed proper time since > the big bang (i.e. when the universe "started"). This, of course, includes > observers located on earth (though we cannot trace our own proper time back to > the big bang, we CAN trace back along the geodesic on which we currently evolve). > > Fortunately the motion of earth relative to the galaxy is > small enough that the difference between earth's geodesic > and the galaxy's [#] is negligible -- errors due to that > are smaller than the uncertainties in the measurements. > > [#] Insofar as this exists and is well defined. > > > > Seems, that a twins counted as twins will age slower, > > than the same twins counted as a part of the universe... > > Here, too, I'm not sure what you are trying to say. > > If you mean that differently-moving observers can obtain different values for > the age of the universe, then: yes that's true. But for observers following > geodesics of the congruence mentioned above, they obtain the same value for the > age of the universe at simultaneous points of their worldlines, once a sensible > definition of simultaneity is applied. This is so even though the observers on > different geodesics are indeed moving differently (i.e. have nonzero relative > velocity). But an observer NOT on one of those geodesics can indeed obtain some > different value at simultaneous points on her worldline. > > So this is more subtle than you think, and "relative motion" may or may not > imply a difference in the observed age of the universe. Note also the the > definition of simultaneity is important as well (it makes no sense to compare > measurements of the age of the universe at points along the observers' > worldlines that are not "simultaneous"). > > > Tom Roberts Your right, it makes no sense.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-30 21:39 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <7781bdf3-b598-49cf-b7f8-1016778f592a@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #368639 |
On Friday, October 30, 2015 at 11:30:26 PM UTC-5, John Gogo wrote: > On Friday, October 30, 2015 at 10:03:46 PM UTC-5, tjrob137 wrote: > > On 10/30/15 10/30/15 5:40 PM, Maciej Woźniak wrote: > > > As we all know, a twins will age slower > > > > I'm not sure what you are trying to say. > > > > In the usual twin scenario of SR, neither twin "ages slower" > > than the other. They do, however, have different elapsed > > proper times between meetings, because they follow different > > trajectories (worldlines) through spacetime. The twin scenario > > does not demonstrate "time dilation", it demonstrates the > > path dependence of path length. > > > > > > > Still, the age of the universe is observer independent. > > > > Yes. At least in the context of GR and modern cosmological models. > > > > Note, however, in modern cosmological models based on the FRW manifolds of GR, > > there is a unique congruence of timelike geodesics corresponding to the dust > > particles of the FRW manifold; in cosmological models these dust particles are > > identified with the galaxies. For every observer following a geodesic of this > > congruence, the "age of the universe" is simply the elapsed proper time since > > the big bang (i.e. when the universe "started"). This, of course, includes > > observers located on earth (though we cannot trace our own proper time back to > > the big bang, we CAN trace back along the geodesic on which we currently evolve). > > > > Fortunately the motion of earth relative to the galaxy is > > small enough that the difference between earth's geodesic > > and the galaxy's [#] is negligible -- errors due to that > > are smaller than the uncertainties in the measurements. > > > > [#] Insofar as this exists and is well defined. > > > > > > > Seems, that a twins counted as twins will age slower, > > > than the same twins counted as a part of the universe... > > > > Here, too, I'm not sure what you are trying to say. > > > > If you mean that differently-moving observers can obtain different values for > > the age of the universe, then: yes that's true. But for observers following > > geodesics of the congruence mentioned above, they obtain the same value for the > > age of the universe at simultaneous points of their worldlines, once a sensible > > definition of simultaneity is applied. This is so even though the observers on > > different geodesics are indeed moving differently (i.e. have nonzero relative > > velocity). But an observer NOT on one of those geodesics can indeed obtain some > > different value at simultaneous points on her worldline. > > > > So this is more subtle than you think, and "relative motion" may or may not > > imply a difference in the observed age of the universe. Note also the the > > definition of simultaneity is important as well (it makes no sense to compare > > measurements of the age of the universe at points along the observers' > > worldlines that are not "simultaneous"). > > > > > > Tom Roberts > > Your right, it makes no sense. So, in a single picture (near point) some objects will be in focus and others not. But once our magnifying powers reach infinity (which is not far even for the most powerful of our instruments); therefore, when it comes to measuring the universe- we capture these pictures which have vast distances (even though the objects may be close to each other) between each other.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-03 20:00 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <86cb8fda-f9b0-43c1-b39d-8ec0b9ff4b59@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #368643 |
On Friday, October 30, 2015 at 11:39:47 PM UTC-5, John Gogo wrote: > On Friday, October 30, 2015 at 11:30:26 PM UTC-5, John Gogo wrote: > > On Friday, October 30, 2015 at 10:03:46 PM UTC-5, tjrob137 wrote: > > > On 10/30/15 10/30/15 5:40 PM, Maciej Woźniak wrote: > > > > As we all know, a twins will age slower > > > > > > I'm not sure what you are trying to say. > > > > > > In the usual twin scenario of SR, neither twin "ages slower" > > > than the other. They do, however, have different elapsed > > > proper times between meetings, because they follow different > > > trajectories (worldlines) through spacetime. The twin scenario > > > does not demonstrate "time dilation", it demonstrates the > > > path dependence of path length. > > > > > > > > > > Still, the age of the universe is observer independent. > > > > > > Yes. At least in the context of GR and modern cosmological models. > > > > > > Note, however, in modern cosmological models based on the FRW manifolds of GR, > > > there is a unique congruence of timelike geodesics corresponding to the dust > > > particles of the FRW manifold; in cosmological models these dust particles are > > > identified with the galaxies. For every observer following a geodesic of this > > > congruence, the "age of the universe" is simply the elapsed proper time since > > > the big bang (i.e. when the universe "started"). This, of course, includes > > > observers located on earth (though we cannot trace our own proper time back to > > > the big bang, we CAN trace back along the geodesic on which we currently evolve). > > > > > > Fortunately the motion of earth relative to the galaxy is > > > small enough that the difference between earth's geodesic > > > and the galaxy's [#] is negligible -- errors due to that > > > are smaller than the uncertainties in the measurements. > > > > > > [#] Insofar as this exists and is well defined. > > > > > > > > > > Seems, that a twins counted as twins will age slower, > > > > than the same twins counted as a part of the universe... > > > > > > Here, too, I'm not sure what you are trying to say. > > > > > > If you mean that differently-moving observers can obtain different values for > > > the age of the universe, then: yes that's true. But for observers following > > > geodesics of the congruence mentioned above, they obtain the same value for the > > > age of the universe at simultaneous points of their worldlines, once a sensible > > > definition of simultaneity is applied. This is so even though the observers on > > > different geodesics are indeed moving differently (i.e. have nonzero relative > > > velocity). But an observer NOT on one of those geodesics can indeed obtain some > > > different value at simultaneous points on her worldline. > > > > > > So this is more subtle than you think, and "relative motion" may or may not > > > imply a difference in the observed age of the universe. Note also the the > > > definition of simultaneity is important as well (it makes no sense to compare > > > measurements of the age of the universe at points along the observers' > > > worldlines that are not "simultaneous"). > > > > > > > > > Tom Roberts > > > > Your right, it makes no sense. > > So, in a single picture (near point) some objects will be in focus and others not. But once our magnifying powers reach infinity (which is not far even for the most powerful of our instruments); therefore, when it comes to measuring the universe- we capture these pictures which have vast distances (even though the objects may be close to each other) between each other. Close to each other in the sense that the objects can be captured in with a single photograph.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-31 00:03 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <493688b2-2a52-47ac-a64c-28f170e7e115@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #368634 |
On Friday, October 30, 2015 at 8:03:46 PM UTC-7, tjrob137 wrote: > In the usual twin scenario of SR, neither twin "ages slower" than the > other. Bloody hell! All science can do is to examine observations working against the abstract models on the workings of the real world. Tom is making a claim along the line of authoritarian despotism. What supports Tom's authoritarian despotism? Experiments? <Koobee Wublee bursts out in laughing.> > They do, however, have different elapsed proper times between meetings, It is a magician's trick to bring out the smoke screen aka proper time. The proper time can only be the local time of the remote event and nothing else. However, the magicians of the religion of relativity tend to "interpret" proper time as a divine and magic thing. <shrug> > because they follow different trajectories (worldlines) through > spacetime. Here we go. The first BS. Clearly, the boot factor of the Lorentz transform only involves the speed of the frames of references --- the observers observing the mutually observed event. That is not anything mystic, but Tom tries to make it so to justify the religion of relativity where the buffoons can now worship their stupide god --- Einstein the nitwit, the plagiarist, and the liar. The religion of relativity, in case if anyone has not yet figured out, is to promote stupidity, plagiarism, and deceits. <shrug> > The twin scenario does not demonstrate "time dilation", Tom does not understand the Lorentz transform. <shrug> > it demonstrates the path dependence of path length. The only quantity involved is the boost factor, and IT FVCKING CLEARLY IS A FUNCTION OF THE RELATIVE SPEED AND DEFINITIVELY NOTHING ELSE (besides the speed of light, of course). <shrug> > Note, in modern cosmological models based on the FRW manifolds of GR, Koobee Wublee would like to remind everyone else that the [Le Maitre]FRW metric does not satisfy the Newtonian law of physics. Why is this a big deal? The Cosmological scale must agree with the Newtonian outcome to be a valid scientific model. If not, THE SOLAR SYSTEM WOULD NEVER EXIST! <shrug> > there is a unique congruence of timelike geodesics corresponding to > the dust particles of the FRW manifold; Tom is spraying mystic power again. <shrug> > in cosmological models these dust particles are identified with the > galaxies. But galaxies gravitationally attract each other. The [L]FRW metric is 100% contradictory to observations, and this should have been shot down by science fvcking long ago. <shrug> > For every observer following a geodesic of this congruence, the "age > of the universe" is simply the elapsed proper time since the big bang > (i.e. when the universe "started"). This, of course, includes observers > located on earth (though we cannot trace our own proper time back to > the big bang, we CAN trace back along the geodesic on which we > currently evolve). Total bullshit for the reasons explained by Koobee Wublee above. <shrug> > Fortunately the motion of earth relative to the galaxy is small enough > that the difference between earth's geodesic and the galaxy's is > negligible -- errors due to that are smaller than the uncertainties in > the measurements. Tom introduces BS and defiantly claimed not to debunk the BS mentioned. Tom is not a scientist but a usual preacher. <shrug> > [rest of repeating BS snipped] It is fvcking disgusting that this is what science has degenerated into. <shrug>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | crisd <crisdunbar@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-03 14:08 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <64bb8e52-b006-4016-aae6-d019b247d029@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #368653 |
On Saturday, October 31, 2015 at 12:03:41 AM UTC-7, Koobee Wublee wrote: <snip usual> > <Koobee Wublee bursts out in laughing.> <snip usual> Holy crap, Koobee actually said something new!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-03 23:01 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <813e8ab9-cfc2-4ac4-bee6-88d6c23ba7f9@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #368999 |
On Tuesday, November 3, 2015 at 2:08:42 PM UTC-8, crisd wrote: > On Saturday, October 31, 2015 at 12:03:41 AM, Koobee Wublee wrote: > > <snip usual> > > > <Koobee Wublee bursts out in laughing.> > > <snip usual> > > Holy crap, Koobee actually said something new! Hi, Jan. Bored of mysticism? <shrug>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-31 09:11 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <n11t3k$m2u$1@node2.news.atman.pl> |
| In reply to | #368634 |
Użytkownik "Tom Roberts" napisał w wiadomości grup dyskusyjnych:PoudncJhtuUWsqnLnZ2dnUU7_82dnZ2d@giganews.com... On 10/30/15 10/30/15 5:40 PM, Maciej Woźniak wrote: > As we all know, a twins will age slower I'm not sure what you are trying to say. |In the usual twin scenario of SR, neither twin "ages slower" "Usual" twin scenario is GR scenario for me. > Still, the age of the universe is observer independent. |Yes. At least in the context of GR and modern cosmological models. > Seems, that a twins counted as twins will age slower, > than the same twins counted as a part of the universe... |Here, too, I'm not sure what you are trying to say. Let amount of time since BB (age of the universe) is t0. We do a common GR twins scenario. One of them take a rocket, travel, return. Their clocks indicate t0+t1, t0+t2, t1<>t2. What is the age of the universe now?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-02 13:28 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <RNidnXd25qrDJKrLnZ2dnUU7_8ydnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #368660 |
On 10/31/15 10/31/15 - 3:11 AM, Maciej Woźniak wrote: > Użytkownik "Tom Roberts" napisał w wiadomości grup > dyskusyjnych:PoudncJhtuUWsqnLnZ2dnUU7_82dnZ2d@giganews.com... > On 10/30/15 10/30/15 5:40 PM, Maciej Woźniak wrote: >> As we all know, a twins will age slower > > I'm not sure what you are trying to say. > > |In the usual twin scenario of SR, neither twin "ages slower" > > "Usual" twin scenario is GR scenario for me. You cannot expect people to be clairvoyant, so you should say so. In GR it's still true that neither twin "ages slower" -- they each get 1 second older for every second of their elapsed proper time. >> Still, the age of the universe is observer independent. > > |Yes. At least in the context of GR and modern cosmological models. As I said earlier, I misread and thought you said "observer dependent". In general it _IS_ observer dependent, but as I explained earlier, in modern cosmological models there is a class of observers for whom the age of the universe is observer independent, but for observers not in that class it is observer dependent. In those models, whenever they discuss the age of the universe, they implicitly mean to observers in that class. >> Seems, that a twins counted as twins will age slower, >> than the same twins counted as a part of the universe... > > |Here, too, I'm not sure what you are trying to say. > > Let amount of time since BB (age of the universe) is > t0. > We do a common GR twins scenario. One of them > take a rocket, travel, return. Their clocks indicate > t0+t1, t0+t2, t1<>t2. > What is the age of the universe now? To one observer it will be t0+t1, and to the other observer it will be t0+t2. What's so hard about that? If the observer who did not use the rocket is a member of the above-mentioned class, than this observer will agree with all others in that class. The twin who used the rocket cannot be a member of that class. Tom Roberts
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-02 21:32 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <48f5d666-f5b1-4ea5-ab56-4e3304f977e6@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #368905 |
On Monday, November 2, 2015 at 11:28:32 AM UTC-8, tjrob137 wrote: > In GR it's still true that neither twin "ages slower" -- they each > get 1 second older for every second of their elapsed proper time. Although what Tom is talking about is not endorsed by any textbooks, Koobee Wublee has already explained why any spacetime physics (ie: GR) offers no gravitational Doppler effect agreeing with what Tom is talking about above. Of course, this proper time thing can only be the local time as experienced through this local event. <shrug> https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.physics.relativity/a8bLh7dANy0/n-70UJYShHkJ > as I explained earlier, in modern cosmological models there is a > class of observers for whom the age of the universe is observer > independent, Gods? Does that include the stupid god of relativity --- Einstein the nitwit, the plagiarist, and the liar? <shrug> > but for observers not in that class it is observer dependent. Mortals like the late Andro? <shrug> > In those models, whenever they discuss the age of the universe, > they implicitly mean to observers in that class. Nonsense! So, Cosmologists like to blend the lines between gods and mortals. What a fvcking joke! <shrug> > [rest of babbling nonsense snipped] Koobee Wublee has had enough of Tom's bullshit on Cosmology as pictured from gods and mortals. If Koobee Wublee wants to feel how small He is in the universe, Koobee Wublee will certainly consult with a priest instead of a self-styled physicist. <shrug>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-03 10:19 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <Oe2dnU_CXpA4Q6XLnZ2dnUU7_8ydnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #368944 |
On 11/2/15 11/2/15 - 11:32 PM, Koobee Wublee wrote:
> On Monday, November 2, 2015 at 11:28:32 AM UTC-8, tjrob137 wrote:
>> In GR it's still true that neither twin "ages slower" -- they each get 1
>> second older for every second of their elapsed proper time.
>
> Although what Tom is talking about is not endorsed by any textbooks,
Nonsense! This is discussed in every GR textbook I own. Perhaps not in those
exact words, but the underlying idea is well known, widely described, and
unassailable (except by fools who do not understand GR but pretend to do so,
such as KW).
> Koobee
> Wublee has already explained why any spacetime physics (ie: GR) offers no
> gravitational Doppler effect agreeing with what Tom is talking about above.
More nonsense. KW "explained" how his PERSONAL MISUNDERSTANDINGS OF GR do that,
but he said NOTHING AT ALL about the actual theory. The gravitational Doppler
effect is also discussed in every GR textbook I own.
Note to readers: Koobee Wublee is among the most persistent idiots
around here. He has been repeating this nonsense for many years,
without any attempt to learn the subject he tries to write about.
I reply to him only occasionally, as a service to readers who may
not recognize his mistakes. He has proven himself to be unable
and unwilling to learn anything.
Tom Roberts
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-04 01:41 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <d9t2idF22hsU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #368976 |
Am 03.11.2015 17:19, schrieb Tom Roberts: > > Note to readers: Koobee Wublee is among the most persistent idiots > around here. He has been repeating this nonsense for many years, > without any attempt to learn the subject he tries to write about. > I reply to him only occasionally, as a service to readers who may > not recognize his mistakes. He has proven himself to be unable > and unwilling to learn anything. You speak from an assumed superiority of your own point of view. But how to criticize this point of view? E.g. I assume - for example- the formula E=m*c² contains a serious error. If I say, that formula is wrong, you may reply, that I should learn. But I say, what I shall learn is wrong, even if I had learned that already. So how to adjust, what is in the textbooks? TH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-04 02:09 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <d9t46cF2dntU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #369010 |
Am 04.11.2015 01:41, schrieb Thomas Heger: > Am 03.11.2015 17:19, schrieb Tom Roberts: >> >> Note to readers: Koobee Wublee is among the most persistent idiots >> around here. He has been repeating this nonsense for many years, >> without any attempt to learn the subject he tries to write about. >> I reply to him only occasionally, as a service to readers who may >> not recognize his mistakes. He has proven himself to be unable >> and unwilling to learn anything. > > You speak from an assumed superiority of your own point of view. > > But how to criticize this point of view? > > E.g. I assume - for example- the formula E=m*c² contains a serious error. > Actually a radioactive sample looses mass, while it sends out energetic rays. This is somehow similar in the numerical value, but not equal. Actually we loose mass and get radiation (like e.g gamma rays, with energy but no mass). A loss of some mass is 'delta m' (not m). Also the signs should be different, since gain is not loss. TH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-03 21:51 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <l6WdnUxEPrBSHaTLnZ2dnUU7_8ydnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #369010 |
On 11/3/15 11/3/15 6:41 PM, Thomas Heger wrote: > Am 03.11.2015 17:19, schrieb Tom Roberts: >> Note to readers: Koobee Wublee is among the most persistent idiots >> around here. He has been repeating this nonsense for many years, >> without any attempt to learn the subject he tries to write about. >> I reply to him only occasionally, as a service to readers who may >> not recognize his mistakes. He has proven himself to be unable >> and unwilling to learn anything. > > You speak from an assumed superiority of your own point of view. No. I speak from KNOWLEDGE OF GR. After all, the subject here is explicitly GR. > But how to criticize this point of view? One MUST understand GR. That leaves you out, and KW, and almost everyone who contributes to this newsgroup. Such knowledge will leave you nothing to criticize, as I have simply described basic GR. For instance, JanPB is one person around here who does have good knowledge of GR. How often have you seen him criticize anything I have said? Or I him? -- not very often, as we SHARE A COMMON UNDERSTANDING. When he does point out an error I made, we quickly and amicably resolve it. Contrast that to the never-ending arguments and "discussions" with just about anyone else -- there is no shared understanding, and usually not even a shared vocabulary. Physicists do not have that problem, but fools, idiots, and wannabes around here often do. > E.g. I assume - for example- the formula E=m*c² contains a serious error. > If I say, that formula is wrong, you may reply, that I should learn. Right -- such an "assumption" is hopeless, and you DO need to learn, because in the context of SR is it not wrong. Note that SR has been confirmed by every test performed within its domain, and has been refuted by NONE. It is among the best-tested theories/models we have. Fools and idiots around here who claim otherwise simply do not understand the issues. > But I say, what I shall learn is wrong, even if I had learned that already. You did not learn it, you "learned" errors. > So how to adjust, what is in the textbooks? You can "adjust" by LEARNING ABOUT MODERN PHYSICS. There is no shortcut, and no other way. What is in the textbooks is what I said. Yes, it can be difficult for newbies to distinguish fools and idiots from people who do understand modern physics (such as relativity). Heger is not a newbie, but still seems to have this problem. The only reliable way I know is that fools and idiots do not reference textbooks, while knowledgeable people often do. I recommend: SR: Taylor and Wheeler, _Spacetime_Physics_ GR: Misner, Thorne, and Wheeler, _Gravitation_ Tom Roberts
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-03 22:27 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <aff8780a-b071-4fa8-b5d5-a1ef41b3df4c@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #369016 |
On Tuesday, November 3, 2015 at 7:51:45 PM UTC-8, tjrob137 wrote: > On 11/3/15, 6:41 PM, Thomas Heger wrote: > > You speak from an assumed superiority of your own point of view. > > No. I speak from KNOWLEDGE OF GR. A more correct phrase is that Tom speaks from the MYSTIC POINT OF VIEW OF GR. <shrug> > > But how to criticize this point of view? > > One MUST understand GR. That is correct. ONE MUST UNDERSTAND GR FROM THE SCIENTIFIC POINT OF VIEW AND NOT FROM MYSTICISM LIKE TOM. <shrug> > That leaves you out, and KW, and almost everyone who contributes > to this newsgroup. High priests of a religion tend to feel lonely at the so-called TOP. <shrug> > For instance, JanPB is one person around here who does have good > knowledge of GR. Tom need to go for a confession on that one. Jan Bielawski is among the most fvcking mystified individuals ever embraced the cyberspace of these newsgroups. The buffoon is hopeless in understanding simple mathematics. For example, when Koobee Wublee wants to describe a specific geometry with the polar coordinate system, the imbecile ranted "what gives you the right to do that". Well, the lists go on. <shrug> > How often have you seen him criticize anything I have said? Or I > him? Both are deeply mystified by the nonsense of GR. <shrug> > -- not very often, as we SHARE A COMMON UNDERSTANDING. Both buffoons listens to whispers from their stupid god of relativity --- Einstein the nitwit, the plagiarist, and the liar. <shrug> > When he does point out an error I made, we quickly and amicably > resolve it. Tom meant both would shove under the carpet --- so to speak. <shrug> > Contrast that to the never-ending arguments and "discussions" with > just about anyone else -- there is no shared understanding, and > usually not even a shared vocabulary. But plenty of shared mysticisms. <shrug> > Physicists do not have that problem, but fools, idiots, and wannabes > around here often do. When Tom cannot have its way, Tom would throw personal attacks. Tom behaves very childish. <shrug> > [rest of useless ranting snipped for the sanity of mankind] As long as Tom does not discuss GR with math, Tom will remain ever so mystified. Amen! <shrug>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-04 09:24 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <d9ttloF8247U1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #369016 |
Am 04.11.2015 04:51, schrieb Tom Roberts: >>> Note to readers: Koobee Wublee is among the most persistent idiots >>> around here. He has been repeating this nonsense for many years, >>> without any attempt to learn the subject he tries to write about. >>> I reply to him only occasionally, as a service to readers who may >>> not recognize his mistakes. He has proven himself to be unable >>> and unwilling to learn anything. >> >> You speak from an assumed superiority of your own point of view. > > No. I speak from KNOWLEDGE OF GR. After all, the subject here is > explicitly GR. > > >> But how to criticize this point of view? > > One MUST understand GR. That leaves you out, and KW, and almost everyone > who contributes to this newsgroup. Well, no. I actually think, that GR is correct, but would like to replace tensors by complex-four-vectors. Unfortunately I have not yet developed such a model, but others have: http://pws.prserv.net/jonathan_scott/physics/diraceqn.pdf Complex-four-vectors are also called 'bi-quaternions'. The associated math is a little tricky, but I can draw quite well. So I base my understanding on pictures (instead of formulas) and have put them into my 'book': https://docs.google.com/present/view?id=dd8jz2tx_3gfzvqgd6 Such a method is kind of 'illegal' in physics, but that would not bother me much, since I regard physics as a hobby. .. > >> E.g. I assume - for example- the formula E=m*c² contains a serious error. >> If I say, that formula is wrong, you may reply, that I should learn. > > Right -- such an "assumption" is hopeless, and you DO need to learn, > because in the context of SR is it not wrong. Note that SR has been > confirmed by every test performed within its domain, and has been > refuted by NONE. It is among the best-tested theories/models we have. > > Fools and idiots around here who claim otherwise simply do > not understand the issues. Who decides, who is the fool? > >> But I say, what I shall learn is wrong, even if I had learned that >> already. > > You did not learn it, you "learned" errors. > > >> So how to adjust, what is in the textbooks? > > You can "adjust" by LEARNING ABOUT MODERN PHYSICS. There is no shortcut, > and no other way. What is in the textbooks is what I said. Yes, I know. But what if I suggest, something in the textbook is wrong. For example: I assume, that 'Growing Earth' is actually correct and 'plate tectonics' is not. So my assumptions are in harsh contrast to mainstream understanding, but I can - nevertheless - provide evidence in favour of my assumption. Actually I have spent years on this subject and failed to convince a single person in the mainstream. There are loads of outsiders, that also believe GE is true. But insiders apparently dislike the idea of GE. And they also like to defend 'their' territory. This behaviour is violating certain principles of science (like delivering, what is true in an objective sense). So we encounter something like 'voodoo-science', where its 'high-priests' tell, what the believers shall swallow. Since I'm an amateur, I don't know any of these priests and could not know, what you want me to learn. TH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 1 of 8 [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity
csiph-web