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 2 of 8 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next page →
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-04 07:48 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <n1d2at$mnj$1@speranza.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #369010 |
On 11/3/2015 6:41 PM, Thomas Heger wrote: > 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 Thomas, you act as though this is all an academic mental exercise. You act as though you are free to reject a premise and suppose the opposite, and then to say that maybe books should be then written with the opposite accepted. But science is not just a mental exercise. Science doesn't rely on just thinking things through, making premises and then building on them. In science, *every* theory must submit itself to experimental test. The only way you can tell whether a theory is sensible or not is whether its predictions match experimental measurement. IF this turns out to be the case, THEN books would be written. -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mlwozniak@wp.pl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-04 06:43 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <4a531a74-61dd-405c-8499-c1fd4bdc9f3e@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #369040 |
W dniu środa, 4 listopada 2015 14:48:20 UTC+1 użytkownik Odd Bodkin napisał: > But science is not just a mental exercise. Science doesn't rely on just > thinking things through, making premises and then building on them. In > science, *every* theory must submit itself to experimental test. The > only way you can tell whether a theory is sensible or not is whether its > predictions match experimental measurement. IF this turns out to be the > case, THEN books would be written. In Polish we say: How little Yona imagines a war.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-05 04:19 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <da006mFoerqU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #369040 |
Am 04.11.2015 14:48, schrieb Odd Bodkin: > On 11/3/2015 6:41 PM, Thomas Heger wrote: >> 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 > > Thomas, you act as though this is all an academic mental exercise. You > act as though you are free to reject a premise and suppose the opposite, > and then to say that maybe books should be then written with the > opposite accepted. > > But science is not just a mental exercise. Science doesn't rely on just > thinking things through, making premises and then building on them. In > science, *every* theory must submit itself to experimental test. The > only way you can tell whether a theory is sensible or not is whether its > predictions match experimental measurement. IF this turns out to be the > case, THEN books would be written. > Well, if science would be based on experimental data only, than the explanation must explain the experimental data (only). But that's not, what we have. E.g. we have a jesuit priest named LeMaitre, who 'found' a physical interpretation for the book Genesis (called 'Big bang theory'). And we have several 'laws', that are actually violated occasionally in nature, but are held as universally valid. e.g. there are certain conservation laws, that aren't universally valid: conservation of mass, for example. If physicist would base their concepts on evidence, (instead of what they think is true,) we would have other models. But actually we would have only one single model about the world and not zillions. In fact the number is slightly smaller, but there are millions of papers on arxiv.org and it's simply impossible, that all are valid. And who's going to sort out the wrong ones? TH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-05 10:47 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <n1g16t$suk$1@speranza.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #369095 |
On 11/4/2015 9:19 PM, Thomas Heger wrote: > > Well, if science would be based on experimental data only, than the > explanation must explain the experimental data (only). That's right. > > But that's not, what we have. E.g. we have a jesuit priest named > LeMaitre, who 'found' a physical interpretation for the book Genesis > (called 'Big bang theory'). Which would have meant nothing unless it matched experimental data, which it did. Hence it became scientifically valid. > > And we have several 'laws', that are actually violated occasionally in > nature, but are held as universally valid. > > e.g. there are certain conservation laws, that aren't universally valid: > > conservation of mass, for example. But conservation of mass is NOT held to be a universally valid law. I don't know why you thought it was. Any others? > > If physicist would base their concepts on evidence, (instead of what > they think is true,) we would have other models. But actually we would > have only one single model about the world and not zillions. I really don't think that's true. There are in fact multiple models about the world, not one. Most of them are awaiting experimental test and are not considered "valid" until they are. There are not zillions, because literally thousands of models have been already found to be inconsistent with experimental data. > > In fact the number is slightly smaller, but there are millions of papers > on arxiv.org and it's simply impossible, that all are valid. You are right, not all of them are valid. > > And who's going to sort out the wrong ones? > Experimentalists, of course. That's how theories are tested. > TH -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-05 21:00 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <da1qqvF8c98U1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #369134 |
Am 05.11.2015 17:47, schrieb Odd Bodkin: >> Well, if science would be based on experimental data only, than the >> explanation must explain the experimental data (only). > > That's right. > >> >> But that's not, what we have. E.g. we have a jesuit priest named >> LeMaitre, who 'found' a physical interpretation for the book Genesis >> (called 'Big bang theory'). > > Which would have meant nothing unless it matched experimental data, > which it did. Hence it became scientifically valid. But it's not valid. I would like to quote Alexander Franklin Mayer about this, since he found, that Hubbles law seems to violate experimental data. His method was to sort a huge star catalogue into 'bins' of similar distance. If stars are somehow randomly distributed, the number of star in these bins should be proportional to the volume covered by such a 'bin'. But there was a discrepancy in the range of four orders of magnitude. This a VERY large discrepancy and that deserves an explanation. His explanation was, that the assumption, that redshift is proportional to distance, would be wrong. It was a little more complicated than that and possibly I have misinterpreted something. But Mayer did argue along this line. He said, that stars with very different redshift seem to be gravitationally connected. This would mean, that redshift is not a valid way to estimate distance. And that would make a key assumption of big-bang theory invalid. >> >> And we have several 'laws', that are actually violated occasionally in >> nature, but are held as universally valid. >> >> e.g. there are certain conservation laws, that aren't universally valid: >> >> conservation of mass, for example. > > But conservation of mass is NOT held to be a universally valid law. I > don't know why you thought it was. Any others? Conservation of energy, second law of thermodynamics, conservation of charge. >> >> If physicist would base their concepts on evidence, (instead of what >> they think is true,) we would have other models. But actually we would >> have only one single model about the world and not zillions. > > I really don't think that's true. There are in fact multiple models > about the world, not one. Most of them are awaiting experimental test > and are not considered "valid" until they are. There are not zillions, > because literally thousands of models have been already found to be > inconsistent with experimental data. As I have 'found' my own model, I have a tendency to promote my own ideas. So my point of view has a certain bias (towards my own ideas). But that's ok, as far as I can tell. >> >> In fact the number is slightly smaller, but there are millions of papers >> on arxiv.org and it's simply impossible, that all are valid. > > You are right, not all of them are valid. > >> >> And who's going to sort out the wrong ones? >> > > Experimentalists, of course. That's how theories are tested. Actually the server gets more and more input, but apparently nobody removes things. So I wonder, how long this will last. Now we have 2.5" hard-drives containing Terabytes. So they could store every single paper ever written. TH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-06 05:46 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <da2plnFffmmU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #369153 |
Am 05.11.2015 21:00, schrieb Thomas Heger: >>> >>> If physicist would base their concepts on evidence, (instead of what >>> they think is true,) we would have other models. But actually we would >>> have only one single model about the world and not zillions. >> >> I really don't think that's true. There are in fact multiple models >> about the world, not one. Most of them are awaiting experimental test >> and are not considered "valid" until they are. There are not zillions, >> because literally thousands of models have been already found to be >> inconsistent with experimental data. > > As I have 'found' my own model, I have a tendency to promote my own ideas. > > So my point of view has a certain bias (towards my own ideas). But > that's ok, as far as I can tell. > >>> >>> In fact the number is slightly smaller, but there are millions of papers >>> on arxiv.org and it's simply impossible, that all are valid. >> >> You are right, not all of them are valid. >> >>> >>> And who's going to sort out the wrong ones? >>> >> >> Experimentalists, of course. That's how theories are tested. > > Actually the server gets more and more input, but apparently nobody > removes things. > > So I wonder, how long this will last. > > Now we have 2.5" hard-drives containing Terabytes. So they could store > every single paper ever written. In fact arxiv.org has still less than a million papers stored. So I have exaggerated 'slightly'. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ArXiv Now they store about 8000 new papers every month. The problem I see is this: in such a medium, where the number of papers grow and grow to an enormous amount, there is no possibility, to estimate the usefulness of a single certain paper. This would mean: the server stores the papers and provides certain technical services, but does not contain a mechanism, to validate its content. So the server would contain papers of very different quality, ranging from brilliant to crap, and the user has no indication, to which category a certain paper belongs. Next problem is, that the access is still limited, since not everybody could store papers there, but only members of certain universities and some other authors or people, who are promoted by authors, that belong to the 'insiders'. This is the disease called 'Academia' in electronic form, but not a solution to certain problems of scientific research. The problem arises, if 'outsiders' have something to say, since they could not publish there. 'academia' is a problem, since if 'insiders' decide about the progress in science, they would most likely perpetuate, what already the forefathers knew. TH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-05 20:54 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <dd34f8c3-8bee-4e22-97a0-d24c11288e39@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #369190 |
On Thursday, November 5, 2015 at 8:46:52 PM UTC-8, Thomas Heger wrote: > Am 05.11.2015 21:00, schrieb Thomas Heger: > > >>> > >>> If physicist would base their concepts on evidence, (instead of what > >>> they think is true,) we would have other models. But actually we would > >>> have only one single model about the world and not zillions. > >> > >> I really don't think that's true. There are in fact multiple models > >> about the world, not one. Most of them are awaiting experimental test > >> and are not considered "valid" until they are. There are not zillions, > >> because literally thousands of models have been already found to be > >> inconsistent with experimental data. > > > > As I have 'found' my own model, I have a tendency to promote my own ideas. > > > > So my point of view has a certain bias (towards my own ideas). But > > that's ok, as far as I can tell. > > > >>> > >>> In fact the number is slightly smaller, but there are millions of papers > >>> on arxiv.org and it's simply impossible, that all are valid. > >> > >> You are right, not all of them are valid. > >> > >>> > >>> And who's going to sort out the wrong ones? > >>> > >> > >> Experimentalists, of course. That's how theories are tested. > > > > Actually the server gets more and more input, but apparently nobody > > removes things. > > > > So I wonder, how long this will last. > > > > Now we have 2.5" hard-drives containing Terabytes. So they could store > > every single paper ever written. > > In fact arxiv.org has still less than a million papers stored. > > So I have exaggerated 'slightly'. > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ArXiv > > Now they store about 8000 new papers every month. > > The problem I see is this: > > in such a medium, where the number of papers grow and grow to an > enormous amount, there is no possibility, to estimate the usefulness of > a single certain paper. > > This would mean: the server stores the papers and provides certain > technical services, but does not contain a mechanism, to validate its > content. > > So the server would contain papers of very different quality, ranging > from brilliant to crap, and the user has no indication, to which > category a certain paper belongs. > > Next problem is, that the access is still limited, since not everybody > could store papers there, but only members of certain universities and > some other authors or people, who are promoted by authors, that belong > to the 'insiders'. > > This is the disease called 'Academia' in electronic form, but not a > solution to certain problems of scientific research. > > The problem arises, if 'outsiders' have something to say, since they > could not publish there. > > 'academia' is a problem, since if 'insiders' decide about the progress > in science, they would most likely perpetuate, what already the > forefathers knew. > > > TH Don't worry about it. -- Jan
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-06 07:54 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <n1ibds$lr3$1@speranza.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #369190 |
On 11/5/2015 10:46 PM, Thomas Heger wrote: > In fact arxiv.org has still less than a million papers stored. > > So I have exaggerated 'slightly'. > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ArXiv > > Now they store about 8000 new papers every month. > > The problem I see is this: > > in such a medium, where the number of papers grow and grow to an > enormous amount, there is no possibility, to estimate the usefulness of > a single certain paper. > > This would mean: the server stores the papers and provides certain > technical services, but does not contain a mechanism, to validate its > content. > > So the server would contain papers of very different quality, ranging > from brilliant to crap, and the user has no indication, to which > category a certain paper belongs. That's exactly right. It takes some expertise to be able to sort out which papers are interesting and which ones are not. That expertise is not typically held by amateurs. But then again, ArXiv is not intended to be a place for amateurs to browse to learn a subject. Now, the amateur (like me) might fuss and complain, "But how then am I supposed to acquire this expertise?" The answer is to *start* with books and articles aimed at the beginner. In those books and articles, you will find references to further reading, which will point to articles in ArXiv or in published journals, and those are the ones that you should select to read. > > Next problem is, that the access is still limited, since not everybody > could store papers there, but only members of certain universities and > some other authors or people, who are promoted by authors, that belong > to the 'insiders'. Well, it's not a completely unmoderated forum, that's correct. It is not sci.physics.relativity, nor is intended to be. > > This is the disease called 'Academia' in electronic form, but not a > solution to certain problems of scientific research. > > The problem arises, if 'outsiders' have something to say, since they > could not publish there. That's true, but that doesn't mean you're out of options. You can create a blog. You can post to unmoderated forums (like this one). The real problem is that you don't want the audience of a blog or an unmoderated forum. You want the audience of ArXiV. But the fact is, you're not actually entitled to that audience until you earn it. It seems to be a common misconception that scientific communication should be completely open and unmoderated and unfiltered, so that anyone with an interest in the subject will be visible and have their ideas heard. That is both an unrealistic and unreasonable expectation. > > 'academia' is a problem, since if 'insiders' decide about the progress > in science, they would most likely perpetuate, what already the > forefathers knew. This I disagree with wholeheartedly. The Nobel Prizes are prime examples of physicists strenuously disagreeing with what their forefathers knew. -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-06 19:28 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <93f84fbc-126e-4e5d-95a4-25e45fc2a887@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #369190 |
On Thursday, November 5, 2015 at 10:46:52 PM UTC-6, Thomas Heger wrote: > Am 05.11.2015 21:00, schrieb Thomas Heger: > > >>> > >>> If physicist would base their concepts on evidence, (instead of what > >>> they think is true,) we would have other models. But actually we would > >>> have only one single model about the world and not zillions. > >> > >> I really don't think that's true. There are in fact multiple models > >> about the world, not one. Most of them are awaiting experimental test > >> and are not considered "valid" until they are. There are not zillions, > >> because literally thousands of models have been already found to be > >> inconsistent with experimental data. > > > > As I have 'found' my own model, I have a tendency to promote my own ideas. > > > > So my point of view has a certain bias (towards my own ideas). But > > that's ok, as far as I can tell. > > > >>> > >>> In fact the number is slightly smaller, but there are millions of papers > >>> on arxiv.org and it's simply impossible, that all are valid. > >> > >> You are right, not all of them are valid. > >> > >>> > >>> And who's going to sort out the wrong ones? > >>> > >> > >> Experimentalists, of course. That's how theories are tested. > > > > Actually the server gets more and more input, but apparently nobody > > removes things. > > > > So I wonder, how long this will last. > > > > Now we have 2.5" hard-drives containing Terabytes. So they could store > > every single paper ever written. > > In fact arxiv.org has still less than a million papers stored. > > So I have exaggerated 'slightly'. > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ArXiv > > Now they store about 8000 new papers every month. > > The problem I see is this: > > in such a medium, where the number of papers grow and grow to an > enormous amount, there is no possibility, to estimate the usefulness of > a single certain paper. > > This would mean: the server stores the papers and provides certain > technical services, but does not contain a mechanism, to validate its > content. > > So the server would contain papers of very different quality, ranging > from brilliant to crap, and the user has no indication, to which > category a certain paper belongs. > > Next problem is, that the access is still limited, since not everybody > could store papers there, but only members of certain universities and > some other authors or people, who are promoted by authors, that belong > to the 'insiders'. > > This is the disease called 'Academia' in electronic form, but not a > solution to certain problems of scientific research. > > The problem arises, if 'outsiders' have something to say, since they > could not publish there. > > 'academia' is a problem, since if 'insiders' decide about the progress > in science, they would most likely perpetuate, what already the > forefathers knew. > > > TH To get to Mars the whole world would have to be in cooperation.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-03 22:10 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <da8ac946-5bdd-4ff9-875b-51c61c2e06b8@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #368976 |
On TOn Tuesday, November 3, 2015 at 8:19:51 AM UTC-8, tjrob137 wrote: > On Monday, November 2, 2015 at 9:32:50 PM, Koobee Wublee wrote: > > Although what Tom is talking about is not endorsed by any textbooks, > > Nonsense! This is discussed in every GR textbook I own. Which bible would that be that is told from God's point of view? <shrug> > Perhaps not in those exact words, but the underlying idea is well > known, Or perhaps, any book attempting to pass as science does not offer God's point of view, eh? <shrug> > widely described, and unassailable (except by fools who do not > understand GR but pretend to do so, such as... Hmmm... Tom comes in mind. <shrug> > > 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 > > More nonsense. Notice Tom's ego is deeply bruised that its lack of understanding in GR is exposed through self-denial. <shrug> > KW "explained" how his PERSONAL MISUNDERSTANDINGS OF GR do that, Not personal misunderstanding but the logical conclusion played in the same game rules as the self-styled physicists. <shrug> > but he said NOTHING AT ALL about the actual theory. Koobee Wublee has demonstrated vastly superior understanding of GR that Tom could never hopefully comprehend. <shrug> > The gravitational Doppler effect is also discussed in every GR > textbook I own. Yes, but it is wrong again and again as explained so by Koobee Wublee. <shrug> > [more personal attacks 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 | mlwozniak@wp.pl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-03 01:22 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <6253896a-d502-40d8-bf9e-4d318d31f9f0@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #368905 |
W dniu poniedziałek, 2 listopada 2015 20:28:32 UTC+1 użytkownik tjrob137 napisał: > > 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. :)It takes more, than using the words like "class" to make it exact. How is your "class" defined? What about his children? Are they in "the class" or not? What makes you sure YOU are in "the class"? What were you doing 500 years ago? How is the frame you measure the age of the Universe defined?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-31 10:04 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <PPCdnQ4ipK_5RanLnZ2dnUU7_82dnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #368634 |
On 10/30/15 10/30/15 10:03 PM, Tom Roberts wrote: > On 10/30/15 10/30/15 5:40 PM, Maciej Woźniak wrote: >> Still, the age of the universe is observer independent. > > Yes. At least in the context of GR and modern cosmological models. OOPS I mis-read, and thought he said "observer dependent". As I explained in modern cosmological models, for one class of observers the age of the universe is observer independent, but for observers not in that class it is observer dependent. (Earthbound observers are in that class, with negligible error.) That mis-reading does not affect the rest of what I wrote. Tom Roberts
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-01 09:36 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <n14itv$ci5$1@node2.news.atman.pl> |
| In reply to | #368700 |
Użytkownik "Tom Roberts" napisał w wiadomości grup dyskusyjnych:PPCdnQ4ipK_5RanLnZ2dnUU7_82dnZ2d@giganews.com... |As I explained in modern cosmological models, for one class of observers the age |of the universe is observer independent, but for observers not in that class it |is observer dependent. (Earthbound observers are in that class, with negligible |error.) :) That's lead us to the question: are WE earthbound? Many religions say, we're not. Where was your frame of reference 200 000 000 years ago, according to these modern cosmological models you mentioned? Where wil itl be in a hundred years? I You were/will be massless then, you could travel with c. Even more, if without information. Another interesting question is: where was this "earthbound" frame and what was its proper time 12 000 000 000 years ago? Don't you think it is possible, that Earth's proper time was slowing down? We see a stars or galaxies 15 000 000 000 years old, but we can be like this twins, can't we? Maybe in Earth's reference frame it's only 8000 000 000 years since BB? And in my frame it's only 341.34 years? Isn't it possible? What do your modern cosmological models say about it? And, most important: Suppose age of the Universe is t0. We do a common twins case, after travel clocks indicate t0+t1, t0+t2. What is the age of the Universe now?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-03 10:14 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <Z5idncsK8bLiQKXLnZ2dnUU7_81i4p2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #368768 |
On 11/1/15 11/1/15 - 2:36 AM, Maciej Woźniak wrote: > Użytkownik "Tom Roberts" napisał w wiadomości grup > dyskusyjnych:PPCdnQ4ipK_5RanLnZ2dnUU7_82dnZ2d@giganews.com... > |As I explained in modern cosmological models, for one class of observers the age > |of the universe is observer independent, but for observers not in that class it > |is observer dependent. (Earthbound observers are in that class, with negligible > |error.) > > That's lead us to the question: are WE earthbound? Many religions say, > we're not. Apparently you are completely unable to distinguish sense from nonsense. No wonder you are so confused. How many people do you know who are not earthbound? If the answer is zero, then your question is downright silly. Astronauts in orbit are still effectively earthbound, as they will return to earth, having experienced a difference in elapsed proper time measured in microseconds. How does that compare to the age of the universe? > Where was your frame of reference 200 000 000 years ago, according > to these modern cosmological models you mentioned? Where wil itl > be in a hundred years? Along the same geodesic path the earth is following today. It extends all the way back to the big bang. While the earth (and humans) did not exist long ago, the geodesic certainly did. These are MATHEMATICAL models, and the mathematics is eternal even if humans are not. > We see a stars or galaxies 15 000 000 000 years old, but > we can be like this twins, can't we? Maybe in Earth's > reference frame it's only 8000 000 000 years since BB? No. Physics is a QUANTITATIVE science. We can COMPUTE how the earth's trajectory differs from the closest trajectory of the class of observers for whom the age of the universe is the same (and to which the models refer). So we _KNOW_ that the difference is negligible (i.e. the effect of that difference is smaller than the errorbar in the measurement). > And in my frame it's only 341.34 years? Isn't it possible? Not for earth. Not for earthbound observers. Simply making GUESSES and throwing out RANDOM numbers is useless. All you do is generate more nonsense (which you apparently cannot distinguish from sensible ideas -- that's rather sad for you). > And, most important: > Suppose age of the Universe is t0. We do a common twins > case, after travel clocks indicate t0+t1, t0+t2. > What is the age of the Universe now? As I said before (in a post TO WHICH YOU RESPONDED): to one the age is t0+t1 and to the other it is t0+t2. You should also learn how to read, and how to REMEMBER what you have read. (Around here you are not alone in your inability to do this.) In another post you asked: > It takes more, than using the words like "class" to > make it exact. > How is your "class" defined? > How is the frame you measure the age of the Universe > defined? All you have to do is READ WHAT I WROTE in earlier posts in this thread. And remember it. Tom Roberts
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-03 19:45 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <n1avcu$595$1@node2.news.atman.pl> |
| In reply to | #368975 |
Użytkownik "Tom Roberts" napisał w wiadomości grup dyskusyjnych:Z5idncsK8bLiQKXLnZ2dnUU7_81i4p2d@giganews.com... > That's lead us to the question: are WE earthbound? Many religions say, > we're not. |Apparently you are completely unable to distinguish sense from nonsense. No |wonder you are so confused. |How many people do you know who are not earthbound? If the answer is zero, then |your question is downright silly. :)Listen to yourself. So, after all of these tales of twins and triplets driving their rockets and falling into black holes, when it comes to do something for real you suddenly remind, that real observers are all earthbound? Oh, yes, we are. Thinking oppositely is a nonsense, right. It's not me who started this nonsense, but it's me who is going to finish with it. BTW, earhbound standard of the second will be kept, as long as we are earthbound. Or even longer. Your Shit is a dead one. > Where was your frame of reference 200 000 000 years ago, according > to these modern cosmological models you mentioned? Where wil itl > be in a hundred years? |Along the same geodesic path the earth is following today. Why on geodesics, and why on the same geodesics? | These are MATHEMATICAL models, and the mathematics is eternal | even if humans are not. Is it? Really? What the hell makes you think so? |No. Physics is a QUANTITATIVE science. We can COMPUTE how the earth's trajectory |differs from the closest trajectory of the class of observers for whom the age Trajectories are not everything. There is still gravity. Isn't it?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-07 08:52 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <z_adnZT7PuDXjaPLnZ2dnUU7_82dnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #368990 |
On 11/3/15 11/3/15 12:45 PM, Maciej Woźniak wrote: > Użytkownik "Tom Roberts" napisał w wiadomości grup > dyskusyjnych:Z5idncsK8bLiQKXLnZ2dnUU7_81i4p2d@giganews.com... >> That's lead us to the question: are WE earthbound? Many religions say, >> we're not. > |Apparently you are completely unable to distinguish sense from nonsense. No > |wonder you are so confused. > |How many people do you know who are not earthbound? If the answer is zero, then > |your question is downright silly. > > So, after all of these tales of twins and triplets driving their rockets > and falling into black holes, when it comes to do something for > real you suddenly remind, that real observers are all earthbound? In addition to your inability to distinguish sense from nonsense, you also cannot keep straight the context of a discussion. When discussing "twins and triplets driving their rockets and falling into black holes", the discussion is a GEDANKENEXPERIMENT. That is, a "thought experiment" intended to display some aspect OF THE THEORY. Whereas in real life we humans _ARE_ earthbound. We simply do not have any technology that can carry a human at an appreciable fraction of c. > |Along the same geodesic path the earth is following today. > > Why on geodesics, and why on the same geodesics? In addition to your other failures, you cannot remember what has been said earlier in the thread. As I said before, this is because that is the way the model describes it. > | These are MATHEMATICAL models, and the mathematics is eternal > | even if humans are not. > > Is it? Really? What the hell makes you think so? The basic nature of mathematics. 2+2=4 has always been true, and will always be true, completely independent of any humans. > |No. Physics is a QUANTITATIVE science. We can COMPUTE how the earth's trajectory > |differs from the closest trajectory of the class of observers for whom the age > > Trajectories are not everything. There is still gravity. Isn't it? Another skill you need to learn is what different categories of concepts are. Trajectories are QUITE DIFFERENT from gravity. Your statement here is as silly as this: Chairs are not everything, there are still hurricanes. Tom Roberts
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-07 17:02 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <n1l7bl$9ol$1@node1.news.atman.pl> |
| In reply to | #369300 |
Użytkownik "Tom Roberts" napisał w wiadomości grup dyskusyjnych:z_adnZT7PuDXjaPLnZ2dnUU7_82dnZ2d@giganews.com... On 11/3/15 11/3/15 12:45 PM, Maciej Woźniak wrote: > Użytkownik "Tom Roberts" napisał w wiadomości grup > dyskusyjnych:Z5idncsK8bLiQKXLnZ2dnUU7_81i4p2d@giganews.com... >> That's lead us to the question: are WE earthbound? Many religions say, >> we're not. > |Apparently you are completely unable to distinguish sense from nonsense. > No > |wonder you are so confused. > |How many people do you know who are not earthbound? If the answer is > zero, then > |your question is downright silly. > > So, after all of these tales of twins and triplets driving their rockets > and falling into black holes, when it comes to do something for > real you suddenly remind, that real observers are all earthbound? |In addition to your inability to distinguish sense from nonsense, you also |cannot keep straight the context of a discussion. In addition to your inability to distinguish sense from nonsense, after all these nonsense tales of twins and triplets driving their rockets and falling into black holes, when it comes to do something for real you suddenly remind, that real observers are all earthbound. Well, at least you do remind. > |Along the same geodesic path the earth is following today. > > Why on geodesics, and why on the same geodesics? |In addition to your other failures, you cannot remember what has been said |earlier in the thread. As I said before, this is because that is the way the |model describes it. Really, you did say it? So, you lied. Your model forgot to specify the frame. You know, I know. And you still didn't specify your "class". I still don't know, whether the children of the twins will belong to it, or not... > | These are MATHEMATICAL models, and the mathematics is eternal > | even if humans are not. > > Is it? Really? What the hell makes you think so? |The basic nature of mathematics. 2+2=4 has always been true, and will always be 200 years ago the same was said about Pythagorean theorem, wasn't it? Maybe tomorrow another idiot physicist on his quest for a theory "mad enough" will break this rule too. Anyway, no, mathematic, samely as other languages, is a human invention, and as any human invention, is human dependent. And can be changed any time, any way. Though changing it is a stupid idea. > |No. Physics is a QUANTITATIVE science. We can COMPUTE how the earth's > trajectory > |differs from the closest trajectory of the class of observers for whom > the age > > Trajectories are not everything. There is still gravity. Isn't it? |Another skill you need to learn is what different categories of concepts are. |Trajectories are QUITE DIFFERENT from gravity. But both are important, when counting time in modern physics. So, what was gravity around "our" geodesic 9000 000 000 years ago?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-09 08:13 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <ee9b4083-eb04-4e3f-bd87-2064aa1f8250@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #368975 |
On Tuesday, November 3, 2015 at 11:14:58 AM UTC-5, tjrob137 wrote: > On 11/1/15 11/1/15 - 2:36 AM, Maciej Woźniak wrote: > > Użytkownik "Tom Roberts" napisał w wiadomości grup > > dyskusyjnych:PPCdnQ4ipK_5RanLnZ2dnUU7_82dnZ2d@giganews.com... > > |As I explained in modern cosmological models, for one class of observers the age > > |of the universe is observer independent, but for observers not in that class it > > |is observer dependent. (Earthbound observers are in that class, with negligible > > |error.) > > > > That's lead us to the question: are WE earthbound? Many religions say, > > we're not. > > Apparently you are completely unable to distinguish sense from nonsense. No > wonder you are so confused. > > How many people do you know who are not earthbound? If the answer is zero, then > your question is downright silly. > > Astronauts in orbit are still effectively earthbound, as > they will return to earth, having experienced a difference > in elapsed proper time measured in microseconds. How does > that compare to the age of the universe? > > > > Where was your frame of reference 200 000 000 years ago, according > > to these modern cosmological models you mentioned? Where wil itl > > be in a hundred years? > > Along the same geodesic path the earth is following today. It extends all the > way back to the big bang. While the earth (and humans) did not exist long ago, > the geodesic certainly did. These are MATHEMATICAL models, and the mathematics > is eternal even if humans are not. This is nonsense. A Math model like a physical model is based on assumptions and if the assumptions are wrong then the math model based on those assumptions is also wrong. For example, the math model of the super string theory assumes that there are 7 extra space dimensions....but we only observe three dimensions of space and one dimension of time. This means that the math model of the super string theory is not eternal as you assumed. > > > > We see a stars or galaxies 15 000 000 000 years old, but > > we can be like this twins, can't we? Maybe in Earth's > > reference frame it's only 8000 000 000 years since BB? > > No. Physics is a QUANTITATIVE science. We can COMPUTE how the earth's trajectory > differs from the closest trajectory of the class of observers for whom the age > of the universe is the same (and to which the models refer). So we _KNOW_ that > the difference is negligible (i.e. the effect of that difference is smaller than > the errorbar in the measurement). > > > > And in my frame it's only 341.34 years? Isn't it possible? > > Not for earth. Not for earthbound observers. > > Simply making GUESSES and throwing out RANDOM numbers is useless. All you do is > generate more nonsense (which you apparently cannot distinguish from sensible > ideas -- that's rather sad for you). > > > > And, most important: > > Suppose age of the Universe is t0. We do a common twins > > case, after travel clocks indicate t0+t1, t0+t2. > > What is the age of the Universe now? > > As I said before (in a post TO WHICH YOU RESPONDED): to one the age is t0+t1 and > to the other it is t0+t2. > > You should also learn how to read, and how to REMEMBER what you have read. > > (Around here you are not alone in your inability to do this.) > > > In another post you asked: > > It takes more, than using the words like "class" to > > make it exact. > > How is your "class" defined? > > How is the frame you measure the age of the Universe > > defined? > > All you have to do is READ WHAT I WROTE in earlier posts in this thread. And > remember it. > > > Tom Roberts
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-09 10:25 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <n1qhdu$pd2$1@speranza.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #369440 |
On 11/9/2015 10:13 AM, kenseto wrote: > For example, the math model of the super string theory assumes that there are 7 extra space > dimensions....but we only observe three dimensions of space and one dimension of time. And what makes you think that all 10 dimensions should be observable in everyday experience? -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Open Collector <openc@opencollector.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-09 19:00 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <n1qqfv$frb$3@speranza.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #369442 |
Odd Bodkin wrote: > On 11/9/2015 10:13 AM, kenseto wrote: >> For example, the math model of the super string theory assumes that >> there are 7 extra space dimensions....but we only observe three >> dimensions of space and one dimension of time. > > And what makes you think that all 10 dimensions should be observable in > everyday experience? Stupid question. Try another one.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 2 of 8 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity
csiph-web