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 5 of 8 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7 8 Next page →
| From | John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-06 18:17 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <d249b5d5-7987-4b72-b9f3-f206a199962a@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #369117 |
On Thursday, November 5, 2015 at 3:16:35 AM UTC-6, Maciej Woźniak wrote: > Użytkownik "Tom Roberts" napisał w wiadomości grup > dyskusyjnych:MPSdnWWl8_72aqfLnZ2dnUU7_8ydnZ2d@giganews.com... > > |HUGE PUN, which destroys your argument. > > Imagination. > > |The "G" in "GPS" does indeed stand for "global", but in that context it > means > |"in the vicinity of earth". > > "Global in the vincinity of earth" - is still not "local". > And, as we all can see, GPS is global enough for > your brilliant concept of "local time" to be useless. > > > Take a look at GPS. No, in the real world these > > devices are not localised machines. > > |But they are ALL near earth. As I said above. > |And actually, each individual device is VERY local. > > Maybe it is "VERY local", but it is global enough for > your brilliant concept of "local time" to be useless. > If your local concept is useless even in "VERY local" > system... Well, too bad for it. > > > |This is simply not true. If one put standard clocks into the GPS satellites > then > |the system would not work. > > Right. GPS, though "VERY local", is global enough for > your brilliant concept of "local time" to be useless. > > > > 2)there are no "equal rights for everybody" > > in the real world. > > |You confuse physics with politics. And you also confuse physics with a > |poorly-worded claim by someone who does not understand the real issues. > > No. Physics is exactly this: a poorly worded claim by someone who > does not understand the real issues. At least, modern physics. > > And what about your "class"? Are children of our travelling twins > in it, or not? This is like a game of chess. At some point, one has to admit that they are checkmated.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-07 16:41 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <n1l62v$8i2$1@node1.news.atman.pl> |
| In reply to | #369256 |
Użytkownik "John Gogo" napisał w wiadomości grup dyskusyjnych:d249b5d5-7987-4b72-b9f3-f206a199962a@googlegroups.com... On Thursday, November 5, 2015 at 3:16:35 AM UTC-6, Maciej Woźniak wrote: > Użytkownik "Tom Roberts" napisał w wiadomości grup > dyskusyjnych:MPSdnWWl8_72aqfLnZ2dnUU7_8ydnZ2d@giganews.com... > > |HUGE PUN, which destroys your argument. > > Imagination. > > |The "G" in "GPS" does indeed stand for "global", but in that context it > means > |"in the vicinity of earth". > > "Global in the vincinity of earth" - is still not "local". > And, as we all can see, GPS is global enough for > your brilliant concept of "local time" to be useless. > > > Take a look at GPS. No, in the real world these > > devices are not localised machines. > > |But they are ALL near earth. As I said above. > |And actually, each individual device is VERY local. > > Maybe it is "VERY local", but it is global enough for > your brilliant concept of "local time" to be useless. > If your local concept is useless even in "VERY local" > system... Well, too bad for it. > > > |This is simply not true. If one put standard clocks into the GPS > satellites > then > |the system would not work. > > Right. GPS, though "VERY local", is global enough for > your brilliant concept of "local time" to be useless. > > > > 2)there are no "equal rights for everybody" > > in the real world. > > |You confuse physics with politics. And you also confuse physics with a > |poorly-worded claim by someone who does not understand the real issues. > > No. Physics is exactly this: a poorly worded claim by someone who > does not understand the real issues. At least, modern physics. > > And what about your "class"? Are children of our travelling twins > in it, or not? |This is like a game of chess. At some point, one has to admit that they are checkmated. No. Tom can also knock the checkuer over and yell he was cheated. As expected from a relativistic moron.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-06 18:35 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <f11e251a-3088-45bf-9d6c-5fcacbe790b1@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #369117 |
On Thursday, November 5, 2015 at 3:16:35 AM UTC-6, Maciej Woźniak wrote: > Użytkownik "Tom Roberts" napisał w wiadomości grup > dyskusyjnych:MPSdnWWl8_72aqfLnZ2dnUU7_8ydnZ2d@giganews.com... > > |HUGE PUN, which destroys your argument. > > Imagination. > > |The "G" in "GPS" does indeed stand for "global", but in that context it > means > |"in the vicinity of earth". > > "Global in the vincinity of earth" - is still not "local". > And, as we all can see, GPS is global enough for > your brilliant concept of "local time" to be useless. > > > Take a look at GPS. No, in the real world these > > devices are not localised machines. > > |But they are ALL near earth. As I said above. > |And actually, each individual device is VERY local. > > Maybe it is "VERY local", but it is global enough for > your brilliant concept of "local time" to be useless. > If your local concept is useless even in "VERY local" > system... Well, too bad for it. > > > |This is simply not true. If one put standard clocks into the GPS satellites > then > |the system would not work. > > Right. GPS, though "VERY local", is global enough for > your brilliant concept of "local time" to be useless. > > > > 2)there are no "equal rights for everybody" > > in the real world. > > |You confuse physics with politics. And you also confuse physics with a > |poorly-worded claim by someone who does not understand the real issues. > > No. Physics is exactly this: a poorly worded claim by someone who > does not understand the real issues. At least, modern physics. > > And what about your "class"? Are children of our travelling twins > in it, or not? Global is in no way associated with all the universe. It all of a sudden becomes clear that GPS is 100% associated with local measure.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-07 16:42 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <n1l664$8jg$1@node1.news.atman.pl> |
| In reply to | #369257 |
Użytkownik "John Gogo" napisał w wiadomości grup dyskusyjnych:f11e251a-3088-45bf-9d6c-5fcacbe790b1@googlegroups.com... >Global is in no way associated with all the universe. It all of a sudden >becomes clear that GPS is 100% associated with local measure. But, somehow, this brilliant "local time" concept is completely useless in it. Too bad.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | alsor@interia.pl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-05 11:43 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <e36447aa-839c-48d1-86b0-cbceafd62434@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #369109 |
W dniu czwartek, 5 listopada 2015 07:30:04 UTC+1 użytkownik tjrob137 napisał: > > Take a look at GPS. No, in the real world these > > devices are not localised machines. Nonsense. Everything is localised, and because that the famous EPR protest, descibed mainy just by Einstein! > This is simply not true. If one put standard clocks into the GPS satellites then > the system would not work. For them, t' != t, and the errors due to ignoring > that difference would be completely unacceptable. The designers were COMPELLED > to modify the "clocks" in the satellites in order to make the system work and > meet its specifications (the compulsion comes from the world we inhabit, not > from any model or theory of physics -- these permit them to deal with it, however). A typical geocentric logics. The corrections of the clocks (correctly: the times of the clocks) s just neccessery to preserve the standard: t' = t, nothing more! In other case, ie. with some: t' <> t the whole time idea would be completely useless.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-06 18:14 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <ad313b81-af18-4de8-9644-94c5d70e4e18@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #369109 |
On Thursday, November 5, 2015 at 12:30:04 AM UTC-6, tjrob137 wrote: > On 11/4/15 11/4/15 1:51 AM, mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote: > > Because it's local, and cosmology and GPS > > are global. > > HUGE PUN, which destroys your argument. > > The "G" in "GPS" does indeed stand for "global", but in that context it means > "in the vicinity of earth". > > Whenever physicists discuss the local vs global distinction, global means > "throughout the entire manifold", or "throughout the entire universe" (depending > on context). The GPS is most definitely NOT "global" in that sense. But > cosmology is. > > When you don't know what the words you use actually mean, you are doomed to > writing AND THINKING nonsense. > > > > Take a look at GPS. No, in the real world these > > devices are not localised machines. > > But they are ALL near earth. As I said above. > > And actually, each individual device is VERY local. But > the system they implement is NOT. (I.e. the GPS is > not local in any meaningful sense, but it is global > ONLY the the RESTRICTED sense described above.) > > > > GPS is large enough. Time, understood as "what clocks > > indicate" is global and matching t'=t equation, with > > the precision of acceptable error. > > This is simply not true. If one put standard clocks into the GPS satellites then > the system would not work. For them, t' != t, and the errors due to ignoring > that difference would be completely unacceptable. The designers were COMPELLED > to modify the "clocks" in the satellites in order to make the system work and > meet its specifications (the compulsion comes from the world we inhabit, not > from any model or theory of physics -- these permit them to deal with it, however). > > Some people around here with no experience whatsoever in > engineering large and complex systems claim that a satnav > system would work with unmodified clocks. While at the level > to which they think about it this might be imagined to work, > whenever REAL systems designers look at the engineering > problems of a REAL system, they come back to modifying the > satellite "clocks", for the same reasons that the GPS did. > The Galileo system did PRECISELY this -- they initially > planned to use standard (unmodified) satellite clocks, but > the final design uses modified "clocks" (modified in > precisely the same way as GPS satellite clocks, using GR). > > > > 1)there are no inertial observers in the real > > world > > But physics is a QUANTITATIVE science. One does not need "exactly inertial > observers" as you imagine, one only needs observers for whom their > non-inertialness is negligible (i.e. induces errors smaller than their > measurement resolution). > > In practice, this applies to most measurements on earth (e.g. essentially any > experiment performed inside a volume < 300 meters cubed). > > > > 2)there are no "equal rights for everybody" > > in the real world. > > You confuse physics with politics. And you also confuse physics with a > poorly-worded claim by someone who does not understand the real issues. > > > Tom Roberts I look at it oppositely. I see the GPS as the greatest extension of our local environment- and everything else in the seeing universe is frozen, inert, and instantaneous.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-03 20:21 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <fd4a08b2-0c4a-41c6-8beb-8f194cdf574c@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #368940 |
On Monday, November 2, 2015 at 10:42:40 PM UTC-6, Thomas Heger wrote: > Am 01.11.2015 09:11, schrieb Maciej Woźniak: > > > > > |But if we assume, that simultaneousness is 'relative' we also mean, the > > |order of events is 'relative'. > > > > Mathematic has proven, that we can assume a lot of > > different things. > > But it has never proven, that whatever we assume is > > good and wise. Or has it? > > > > |I assume, there would be different timelines, along which the disorder > > |in one universe is 'recycled' in another, where time flows in the > > |opposite direction. > > > > And I assume, that stupid assumptions result in a sorry mess > > we have to deal with later. > > If we look at the world, we find places like the Earth. There are also > all sorts of other objects visible in the sky at night. > > So we actually see an increase of order and not the creation of some > sort of average foggy 'soup'. > > This is astonishing, since that would bring the second law of > thermodynamics into question, which states, that entropy must increase. > > But on large scale the universe does (apparently) not follow this rule. > > How did that happen? > > This is an important question, since its solution would allow a more > profound understanding about natural phenomena. > > My own assumption is, that we have actually different timelines, to > which of each is associated an entire universe. Such a 'universe' could > be 'born' in a big bang and kind of 'die' in a 'big crunch'. > > This gives a large circle, that we could 'mirror' and continue to > another circle. This would than look like '8'. > > > TH This is because you still believe that the universe is ruled by c and the fact that all objects in the observable universe have strikingly varying distances. I look at it like man is a machine. The machine was built by nature which possesses a base magnitude of measure. From this base magnitude we are capable of capturing still photographs of millions of stars at a single moment. This is what time means to me- any variation from a "still" photograph. This is how we discovered our planets.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-03 20:30 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <7bc73534-cb41-4598-8a64-f98f3dfa645c@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #369018 |
On Tuesday, November 3, 2015 at 10:21:28 PM UTC-6, John Gogo wrote: > On Monday, November 2, 2015 at 10:42:40 PM UTC-6, Thomas Heger wrote: > > Am 01.11.2015 09:11, schrieb Maciej Woźniak: > > > > > > > > |But if we assume, that simultaneousness is 'relative' we also mean, the > > > |order of events is 'relative'. > > > > > > Mathematic has proven, that we can assume a lot of > > > different things. > > > But it has never proven, that whatever we assume is > > > good and wise. Or has it? > > > > > > |I assume, there would be different timelines, along which the disorder > > > |in one universe is 'recycled' in another, where time flows in the > > > |opposite direction. > > > > > > And I assume, that stupid assumptions result in a sorry mess > > > we have to deal with later. > > > > If we look at the world, we find places like the Earth. There are also > > all sorts of other objects visible in the sky at night. > > > > So we actually see an increase of order and not the creation of some > > sort of average foggy 'soup'. > > > > This is astonishing, since that would bring the second law of > > thermodynamics into question, which states, that entropy must increase. > > > > But on large scale the universe does (apparently) not follow this rule. > > > > How did that happen? > > > > This is an important question, since its solution would allow a more > > profound understanding about natural phenomena. > > > > My own assumption is, that we have actually different timelines, to > > which of each is associated an entire universe. Such a 'universe' could > > be 'born' in a big bang and kind of 'die' in a 'big crunch'. > > > > This gives a large circle, that we could 'mirror' and continue to > > another circle. This would than look like '8'. > > > > > > TH > > This is because you still believe that the universe is ruled by c and the fact that all objects in the observable universe have strikingly varying distances. I look at it like man is a machine. The machine was built by nature which possesses a base magnitude of measure. From this base magnitude we are capable of capturing still photographs of millions of stars at a single moment. This is what time means to me- any variation from a "still" photograph. This is how we discovered our planets. There are philosophical timelines of which one is false: 1) light travels and falls into the eyes according to c 2) the eyes are a most evolved instrument capable of instantaneously capturing lighted objects solely dependent on man's maximum visual acuity.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | John Heath <heathjohn2@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-06 18:00 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <ce304e2f-3f05-4a91-ba62-c7432b69b6f1@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #368940 |
On Monday, November 2, 2015 at 11:42:40 PM UTC-5, Thomas Heger wrote: > Am 01.11.2015 09:11, schrieb Maciej Woźniak: > > > > > |But if we assume, that simultaneousness is 'relative' we also mean, the > > |order of events is 'relative'. > > > > Mathematic has proven, that we can assume a lot of > > different things. > > But it has never proven, that whatever we assume is > > good and wise. Or has it? > > > > |I assume, there would be different timelines, along which the disorder > > |in one universe is 'recycled' in another, where time flows in the > > |opposite direction. > > > > And I assume, that stupid assumptions result in a sorry mess > > we have to deal with later. > > If we look at the world, we find places like the Earth. There are also > all sorts of other objects visible in the sky at night. > > So we actually see an increase of order and not the creation of some > sort of average foggy 'soup'. > > This is astonishing, since that would bring the second law of > thermodynamics into question, which states, that entropy must increase. > > But on large scale the universe does (apparently) not follow this rule. > > How did that happen? > > This is an important question, since its solution would allow a more > profound understanding about natural phenomena. > > My own assumption is, that we have actually different timelines, to > which of each is associated an entire universe. Such a 'universe' could > be 'born' in a big bang and kind of 'die' in a 'big crunch'. > > This gives a large circle, that we could 'mirror' and continue to > another circle. This would than look like '8'. > > > TH Thumbs up. As I look at the night sky I see white hot stars next to cold black space. It seems entropy has been sleeping on the job.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | shuba <tim@sh.uba> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-07 03:07 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <n1jpu5$fvi$1@speranza.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #369253 |
two cranks wrote:
>> This is astonishing, since that would bring the second law of
>> thermodynamics into question, which states, that entropy must
>> increase.
>>
>> But on large scale the universe does (apparently) not follow
>> this rule.
> Thumbs up. As I look at the night sky I see white hot stars next
> to cold black space. It seems entropy has been sleeping on the job.
Gravitation does not violate the rules of thermodynamics. In fact,
a collapsed star (black hole) is a region of maximal entropy. It's
true that stars and black holes are not in thermal equilibrium with
their surroundings. So they radiate energy and eventually die. The
total entropy of the object + surroundings increases at all times.
---Tim Shuba---
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-07 05:35 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <da5dc3F54erU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #369261 |
Am 07.11.2015 04:07, schrieb shuba: >>> This is astonishing, since that would bring the second law of >>> thermodynamics into question, which states, that entropy must >>> increase. >>> >>> But on large scale the universe does (apparently) not follow >>> this rule. > >> Thumbs up. As I look at the night sky I see white hot stars next >> to cold black space. It seems entropy has been sleeping on the job. > > Gravitation does not violate the rules of thermodynamics. In fact, > a collapsed star (black hole) is a region of maximal entropy. It's > true that stars and black holes are not in thermal equilibrium with > their surroundings. So they radiate energy and eventually die. The > total entropy of the object + surroundings increases at all times. > We have MANY objects and a lot of space. If your statement would be tru7e, the universe should look like kind of 'soup'. But it doesn't. We have distinct objects, that apparently swallow the dust and absorb the energy, while the space seems mostly transparent. So we have some sort of process acting, which 'recycles' the debris, left over from dead stars. This process works on a VERY large scale, since if it would not work, the universe should be full of dust. These is a little dust, but by no means the amount we would expect, if your statement would be true. We know this, because rays of light reaching us, that are billions of years old. So the space this light has went through is mostly crystal clear. TH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | shuba <tim@sh.uba> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-07 06:28 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <n1k5m5$fvi$2@speranza.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #369266 |
anti-science arsehole Thomas Heger wrote:
> Am 07.11.2015 04:07, schrieb shuba:
>> Gravitation does not violate the rules of thermodynamics. In
>> fact, a collapsed star (black hole) is a region of maximal
>> entropy. It's true that stars and black holes are not in thermal
>> equilibrium with their surroundings. So they radiate energy and
>> eventually die. The total entropy of the object + surroundings
>> increases at all times.
> If your statement would be tru7e
It is true. If you and "thumbs up" John Heath are too fucking
incompetent to look into the literature readily available about
this, so be it. I support your decision to be ignorant cranks.
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/entropy.html
http://www.mso.anu.edu.au/~charley/papers/LineweaverEgan2008v2.pdf
---Tim Shuba---
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-07 09:02 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <6fOdnYZMsNccj6PLnZ2dnUU7_8ydnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #369266 |
On 11/6/15 11/6/15 10:35 PM, Thomas Heger wrote: > Am 07.11.2015 04:07, schrieb shuba: >> Gravitation does not violate the rules of thermodynamics. In fact, >> a collapsed star (black hole) is a region of maximal entropy. It's >> true that stars and black holes are not in thermal equilibrium with >> their surroundings. So they radiate energy and eventually die. The >> total entropy of the object + surroundings increases at all times. >> > We have MANY objects and a lot of space. If your statement would be tru7e, the > universe should look like kind of 'soup'. But it doesn't. Physics is a QUANTITATIVE science. One can COMPUTE how long it would take for that to happen, and it is found to be enormously longer than the age of the universe. When you choose to keep yourself ignorant of very basic physics, all you will be able to do is make stupid remarks. Like this. > [...] Tom Roebrts
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Edgardo Alcantara <edgardoalcantara@carosseryrepair.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-07 15:09 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <n1l47g$c2o$1@speranza.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #369301 |
W dniu Sat, 07 Nov 2015 09:02:24 -0600 użytkownik Tom Roberts napisał: > On 11/6/15 11/6/15 10:35 PM, Thomas Heger wrote: >> Am 07.11.2015 04:07, schrieb shuba: >>> Gravitation does not violate the rules of thermodynamics. In fact, a >>> collapsed star (black hole) is a region of maximal entropy. It's true >>> that stars and black holes are not in thermal equilibrium with their >>> surroundings. So they radiate energy and eventually die. The total >>> entropy of the object + surroundings increases at all times. You are not going to say that your "black hole" IS in thermal equilibrium with the surroundings, in order to survive the extinguishing process. Even Stephane Hawkins will approve such that. > When you choose to keep yourself ignorant of very basic physics, all you > will be able to do is make stupid remarks. Like this. You cannot experimentally prove the entropy of a black hole. (unless working at the Large Hadron Collider (LHC))
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-07 17:05 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <n1l7ft$a15$1@node1.news.atman.pl> |
| In reply to | #369301 |
Użytkownik "Tom Roberts" napisał w wiadomości grup dyskusyjnych:6fOdnYZMsNccj6PLnZ2dnUU7_8ydnZ2d@giganews.com... |Physics is a QUANTITATIVE science. One can COMPUTE how long it would take for |that to happen, and it is found to be enormously longer than the age of the |universe. You know, I'm a computer programmer. Pay me, and I'll compute any result you want. That's my job.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-08 07:52 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <da89p2Fr38pU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #369301 |
Am 07.11.2015 16:02, schrieb Tom Roberts: >>> Gravitation does not violate the rules of thermodynamics. In fact, >>> a collapsed star (black hole) is a region of maximal entropy. It's >>> true that stars and black holes are not in thermal equilibrium with >>> their surroundings. So they radiate energy and eventually die. The >>> total entropy of the object + surroundings increases at all times. >>> >> We have MANY objects and a lot of space. If your statement would be >> tru7e, the >> universe should look like kind of 'soup'. But it doesn't. > > Physics is a QUANTITATIVE science. One can COMPUTE how long it would > take for that to happen, and it is found to be enormously longer than > the age of the universe. > Have I told you, that I think 'Growing Earth' is true? Not yet? Well, actually I do think, that the Earth does in fact grow and gains mass from the inside. (btw: This would - if true- render large parts of current physics practically useless.) But GE would nicely explain, how the universe 'recycles' the energy distribute by the stars. I have spent several years on this subject, but made similar experience as Neil Adams did: it's a complete waste of time, since these 'scientists' ignore evidence as long as they possibly can. If they can't do that anymore, then come insults. And if that would not help, then come 'men in black'. TH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-08 04:38 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <a5e2ce2f-0962-4701-bdf0-74ffd714da00@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #369364 |
On Saturday, November 7, 2015 at 11:52:23 PM UTC-7, Thomas Heger wrote: > > Am 07.11.2015 16:02, schrieb Tom Roberts: > > > > Physics is a QUANTITATIVE science. One can COMPUTE how long it would > > take for that to happen, and it is found to be enormously longer than > > the age of the universe. > > > Have I told you, that I think 'Growing Earth' is true? > > Not yet? > > Well, actually I do think, that the Earth does in fact grow and gains > mass from the inside. Of course the earth is growing. Meteorites account for around 5 tons per year of additional mass. This, of course, is not what your "growing earth" means. Growing from "inside" is complete nonsense because it violates conservation of mass/energy. If it were true, it would be observed on the surface, too, but all tests demonstrate that the conser- vation principle is alive and well. Your hypothesis must be rejected since it has no extraordinary evidence: "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." - Marcello Truzzi and is a completely crackpot idea: http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/crackpot.html You get -5 points to begin. 26. 20 points for talking about how great your theory is, but never actually explaining it. Score: +15 points > (btw: This would - if true- render large parts of current physics > practically useless.) This is a common belief among crackpots, as if current models, which describe reality very well would become "useless." Is Newtonian gravitation useless because of GR? Of course not! NASA uses it all the time to get its spacecraft around the solar system. Your claim is delusional dreaming on two fronts, the one I mentioned here and this: 36. 40 points for claiming that when your theory is finally appreciated, present-day science will be seen for the sham it truly is Score: +55 points > But GE would nicely explain, how the universe 'recycles' the energy > distribute by the stars. You have presented no evidence that it DOES recycle energy, and your claim violates the laws of thermodynamics. 2. 1 point for every statement that is widely agreed on to be false. Score: +56 points. > I have spent several years on this subject, 11. 10 points for beginning the description of your theory by saying how long you have been working on it. Score: +66 points > but made similar experience as Neil Adams did: Nonsense. We have many, many satellites in orbit that are continuously monitoring the earth. The GPS is accurate to a few feet and has not seen any evidence whatever for this flaky phenomenon. > it's a complete waste of time, since these 'scientists' ignore evidence > as long as they possibly can. You have shown NO evidence whatever. > If they can't do that anymore, then come insults. Some get impatient when nut cases persist in their stupidity. "I'm allergic to stupidity. I break out in sarcasm." - Rebels Market > And if that would not help, then come 'men in black'. > > > TH 34. 40 points for claiming that the "scientific establishment" is engaged in a "conspiracy" to prevent your work from gaining its well-deserved fame, or suchlike. Score: +106 points. You're right up there with flat earth advocates. Gary
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-08 13:58 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <n1ngu3$j36$1@node1.news.atman.pl> |
| In reply to | #369370 |
Użytkownik "Gary Harnagel" napisał w wiadomości grup dyskusyjnych:a5e2ce2f-0962-4701-bdf0-74ffd714da00@googlegroups.com... |"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." - Marcello Truzzi Nothing extraordinary in 20 extra dimensions, however. An ordinary mumble of an insane moron. So it doesn't require any evidence, neither extraordinary, nor ordinary. |This is a common belief among crackpots, as if current models, which |describe reality very well would become "useless." Is Newtonian The Shit doesn't describe reality well. The only thing The Shit describes well, is a sick imagination of relativistic morons.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-08 05:38 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <00c849db-715d-4d2b-b2a4-5e6cc982e315@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #369372 |
On Sunday, November 8, 2015 at 5:58:45 AM UTC-7, Maciej Woźniak wrote: > > [Vulgarity and lies] Why does this moron keep posting lies? Because he is basically dishonest and craves attention in an infantile manner.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-08 15:24 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <n1nluf$o23$1@node1.news.atman.pl> |
| In reply to | #369373 |
Użytkownik "Gary Harnagel" napisał w wiadomości grup dyskusyjnych:00c849db-715d-4d2b-b2a4-5e6cc982e315@googlegroups.com... |Why does this moron keep posting lies? Because he is basically dishonest |and craves attention in an infantile manner. Why does this moron keep posting lies? Because he is basically dishonest and craves attention in an infantile manner. And, last but not least, he is stupid.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 5 of 8 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7 8 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity
csiph-web