Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #370504 > unrolled thread

Re: Where is the center of the universe?

Back to article view | Back to sci.physics.relativity

This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.

Contents

  Re: Where is the center of the universe? Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2015-11-20 17:45 -0600
    Re: Where is the center of the universe? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-11-20 23:48 -0800
      Re: Where is the center of the universe? Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2015-11-21 10:27 +0100
        Re: Where is the center of the universe? benj <none@gmail.com> - 2015-11-21 05:13 -0500
          Re: Where is the center of the universe? Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2015-11-21 12:57 +0100
            Re: Where is the center of the universe? benj <none@gmail.com> - 2015-11-21 13:44 -0500
              Re: Where is the center of the universe? Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2015-11-21 20:01 +0100
                Re: Where is the center of the universe? benj <none@gmail.com> - 2015-11-21 14:17 -0500
              Re: Where is the center of the universe? Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2015-11-21 20:01 +0100
                Re: Where is the center of the universe? benj <none@gmail.com> - 2015-11-21 14:22 -0500
                  Re: Where is the center of the universe? Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2015-11-21 12:08 -0800
          Re: Where is the center of the universe? pnalsing@gmail.com - 2015-11-21 10:56 -0800
      Re: Where is the center of the universe? Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2015-11-21 08:05 -0600
        Re: Where is the center of the universe? Jack Monaco <jacksh@umbertopal.org> - 2015-11-21 14:18 +0000
        Re: Where is the center of the universe? benj <none@gmail.com> - 2015-11-21 13:48 -0500
          Re: Where is the center of the universe? Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2015-11-23 10:21 -0600
            Re: Where is the center of the universe? Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2015-11-23 17:34 +0100
            Re: Where is the center of the universe? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-11-23 11:31 -0800
              Re: Where is the center of the universe? rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2015-11-23 15:54 -0500
                Re: Where is the center of the universe? fuller.david@hotmail.com - 2015-11-23 13:04 -0800
                Re: Where is the center of the universe? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-11-23 13:43 -0800
                  Re: Where is the center of the universe? rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2015-11-23 16:49 -0500
                    Re: Where is the center of the universe? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-11-23 16:17 -0800
                Re: Where is the center of the universe? dvus <dven1@adelphia.net> - 2015-11-24 16:52 -0500
                  Re: Where is the center of the universe? Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2015-11-24 22:24 +0000
                    Re: Where is the center of the universe? underante <underante@yahoo.com> - 2015-11-24 15:24 -0800
                      Re: Where is the center of the universe? Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2015-11-24 23:43 +0000
                    Re: Where is the center of the universe? dvus <dven1@adelphia.net> - 2015-11-30 09:55 -0500
                      Re: Where is the center of the universe? Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2015-12-02 12:50 +0100
    Re: Where is the center of the universe? dvus <dven1@adelphia.net> - 2015-11-21 06:43 -0500
      Re: There's nothing special about the start of "the big bang". benj <none@gmail.com> - 2015-11-21 13:45 -0500
        Re: There's nothing special about the start of "the big bang". Edward Stansfield <stansfield5REM6@linuxmail.org> - 2015-11-21 14:11 -0500
      Re: Where is the center of the universe? Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2015-11-21 20:37 +0000
        Re: Where is the center of the universe? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-11-21 21:06 -0800
          Re: Where is the center of the universe? Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2015-11-22 11:43 +0000
            Re: Where is the center of the universe? benj <none@gmail.com> - 2015-11-22 09:01 -0500
              Re: Where is the center of the universe? Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2015-11-22 14:59 +0000
                Re: Where is the center of the universe? Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2015-11-22 07:12 -0800
                  Re: Where is the center of the universe? Walter Ilinois <walin@wej98j5q.org> - 2015-11-22 16:00 +0000
                    Re: Where is the center of the universe? Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2015-11-22 08:18 -0800
                      Re: Where is the center of the universe? Walter Ilinois <walin@wej98j5q.org> - 2015-11-22 17:50 +0000
                        Re: Where is the center of the universe? "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2015-11-22 12:38 -0800
                          Re: Where is the center of the universe? "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2015-11-22 14:12 -0800
                  Re: Where is the center of the universe? Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2015-11-22 23:07 +0000
                    Re: Where is the center of the universe? Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2015-11-22 16:22 -0800
                      Re: Where is the center of the universe? Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2015-11-23 22:09 +0000
                        Re: Where is the center of the universe? Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2015-11-23 15:15 -0800
                          Re: Where is the center of the universe? Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2015-11-24 12:01 +0000
                            Re: Where is the center of the universe? Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2015-11-24 04:52 -0800
                              Re: Where is the center of the universe? Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2015-11-24 14:33 +0000
                                Re: Where is the center of the universe? Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2015-11-24 07:05 -0800
                                  Re: Where is the center of the universe? Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2015-11-24 15:23 +0000
                                    Re: Where is the center of the universe? Jack Monaco <jacksh@umbertopal.org> - 2015-11-24 16:30 +0000
            Re: Where is the center of the universe? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-11-22 14:02 -0800
              Re: Where is the center of the universe? Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2015-11-22 16:32 -0600
              Re: Where is the center of the universe? Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2015-11-22 22:52 +0000
      Re: Where is the center of the universe? Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2015-11-23 10:51 -0600
        Re: Where is the center of the universe? dvus <dven1@adelphia.net> - 2015-11-24 17:07 -0500
          Re: Where is the center of the universe? "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2015-11-24 14:21 -0800
            Re: Where is the center of the universe? Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2015-11-24 23:14 +0000
              Re: Where is the center of the universe? "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2015-11-24 16:27 -0800
                Re: Where is the center of the universe? Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2015-11-25 01:50 +0000
                  Re: Where is the center of the universe? "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2015-11-24 18:18 -0800
                    Re: Where is the center of the universe? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-11-24 21:44 -0800
                      Re: Where is the center of the universe? "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2015-11-25 07:53 -0800
                    Re: Where is the center of the universe? Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2015-11-25 12:39 +0000
          Re: Where is the center of the universe? Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2015-11-24 22:48 +0000
            Re: Where is the center of the universe? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-11-24 21:47 -0800
              Re: Where is the center of the universe? Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2015-11-25 10:32 +0000
                Re: Where is the center of the universe? mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2015-11-25 03:03 -0800
                Re: Where is the center of the universe? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-11-25 09:47 -0800
                  Re: Where is the center of the universe? Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2015-11-25 23:31 +0000
                    Re: Where is the center of the universe? Cryptoengineer <treifamily@gmail.com> - 2015-11-25 19:28 -0600
                    Re: Where is the center of the universe? Greg Goss <gossg@gossg.org> - 2015-11-25 21:37 -0700
                      Re: Where is the center of the universe? Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2015-11-28 23:52 +0100
                        Re: Where is the center of the universe? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-12-01 21:52 -0800
                    Re: Where is the center of the universe? Lawrence Watt-Evans <lwe@sff.net> - 2015-11-26 00:36 -0500
                      Re: Where is the center of the universe? Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2015-11-27 01:33 +0000
                    Re: Where is the center of the universe? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-11-25 21:36 -0800
                      Re: Where is the center of the universe? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-11-26 14:22 -0800
                        Re: Where is the center of the universe? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-11-26 14:27 -0800
                      Re: Where is the center of the universe? Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2015-11-27 00:48 +0000
                        Re: Where is the center of the universe? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-11-26 17:34 -0800
                        Re: Where is the center of the universe? mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2015-11-26 23:49 -0800
                          Re: Where is the center of the universe? Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2015-11-27 04:39 -0800
                            Re: Where is the center of the universe? mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2015-11-27 04:54 -0800
                              Re: Where is the center of the universe? Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2015-11-27 05:11 -0800
                                Re: Where is the center of the universe? mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2015-11-27 06:02 -0800
                          Re: Where is the center of the universe? Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2015-11-28 16:08 +0100
                            Re: Where is the center of the universe? Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2015-11-28 17:51 +0100
                              Re: Where is the center of the universe? Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2015-11-29 00:20 +0100
                                Re: Where is the center of the universe? Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2015-11-29 11:10 +0100
                                  Re: Where is the center of the universe? Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2015-11-29 11:45 +0100
                                    Re: Where is the center of the universe? Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2015-11-29 13:01 +0100
                                      Re: Where is the center of the universe? Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2015-11-29 04:55 -0800
                                        Re: Where is the center of the universe? Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2015-11-29 14:33 +0100
                                          Re: Where is the center of the universe? Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2015-11-29 06:24 -0800
                                            Re: Where is the center of the universe? Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2015-11-29 15:50 +0100
                                              Re: Where is the center of the universe? Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2015-11-29 07:06 -0800
                                                Re: Where is the center of the universe? Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2015-11-29 16:11 +0100
                                    Re: Where is the center of the universe? "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2015-11-29 04:56 -0800
                                      Re: Where is the center of the universe? "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2015-11-29 05:48 -0800
                                        Re: Where is the center of the universe? "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2015-11-29 06:16 -0800
                                          Re: Where is the center of the universe? Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2015-11-30 22:50 +0100
                                            Re: Where is the center of the universe? "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2015-11-30 16:27 -0800
                                              Re: Where is the center of the universe? Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2015-12-01 07:51 +0100
                                                Re: Where is the center of the universe? "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2015-11-30 23:09 -0800
                                                  Re: Where is the center of the universe? Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2015-12-01 08:31 +0100
                                            Re: Where is the center of the universe? mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2015-12-01 00:15 -0800
          Re: Where is the center of the universe? Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2015-11-25 09:59 -0600
            Re: Where is the center of the universe? benj <none@gmail.com> - 2015-11-25 11:16 -0500
              Re: Where is the center of the universe? Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2015-11-25 11:02 -0600
                Re: Where is the center of the universe? fuller.david@hotmail.com - 2015-11-25 09:07 -0800
                Re: Where is the center of the universe? fuller.david@hotmail.com - 2015-11-25 09:16 -0800
                Re: Where is the center of the universe? Jack Monaco <jacksh@umbBertopal.org> - 2015-11-25 17:37 +0000
                Re: Where is the center of the universe? Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2015-11-25 18:47 +0100
                  Re: Where is the center of the universe? Jack Monaco <jacksh@umbBertopal.org> - 2015-11-25 18:11 +0000
                Re: Where is the center of the universe? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-11-25 10:06 -0800
                  Re: Where is the center of the universe? Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2015-11-25 14:04 -0600
                    Re: Where is the center of the universe? mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2015-11-25 23:09 -0800
            Re: Where is the center of the universe? Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2015-11-25 17:50 +0100
            Re: Where is the center of the universe? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-11-25 10:01 -0800
              Re: Where is the center of the universe? Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2015-11-25 14:05 -0600
                Re: Where is the center of the universe? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-11-25 12:42 -0800

Page 4 of 7 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7  Next page →

#370832

On Tuesday, November 24, 2015 at 3:14:24 PM UTC-8, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
> Ross A. Finlayson wrote:
> 
> > The visible universe
> > is what can see us.
> 
> Not even wrong.
> 
> 
> PointedEars
> -- 
> Q: What did the nuclear physicist post on the laboratory door
>    when he went camping?  
> A: 'Gone fission'.
> (from: WolframAlpha)

http://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/wordpress/

Woit's "Not Even Wrong"

Just because you're a 
romulan or vulcan type 
person with your pointed 
ears superiority doesn't 
mean that I'll accept that 
the visible universe isn't 
both what we can see and 
what can see us.

Here visible in the sense 
of "accessible to sensory 
apparatus where light speed 
is a fixed constant and the 
maximum speed of propagation 
of information", the visible 
universe is what can see us.

And you can call me "James T. 
Kirk".  And the cosmic background 
infrared is about 3.5 Kelvins, 
and black holes are dark and 
stars are bright.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#370834

Ross A. Finlayson wrote:

> On Tuesday, November 24, 2015 at 3:14:24 PM UTC-8, Thomas 'PointedEars'
> Lahn wrote:
>> Ross A. Finlayson wrote:
>> > The visible universe
>> > is what can see us.
>> Not even wrong.
> 
> http://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/wordpress/
> 
> Woit's "Not Even Wrong"

Interesting.
 
> […]
> Here visible in the sense
> of "accessible to sensory
> apparatus

The proper term is “_observable_ universe” and it has nothing to do with 
perception, everything with the universal expansion and the finite speed of 
light.

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Observable_universe>
<http://physics.stackexchange.com/a/57538/17333>

> where light speed
> is a fixed constant

That depends on what you mean by that.  There is a valid interpretation in 
which this statement is wrong, as the speed of light depends on the optical 
density of the medium.  It is certainly constant across media of equal 
optical density.

> and the maximum speed of propagation
> of information", 

The speed of light *in vacuum* is the maximum speed of propagation of 
information.

> he visible universe is what can see us.

Still nonsense.

> And you can call me "James T. Kirk".

So far I call you “another gibbering crank”.

> And the cosmic background infrared is about 3.5 Kelvins,

_Microwave_, not infrared, and 2.72548 ± 0.00057 K (Fixsen, 2009).

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infrared#Definition_and_relationship_to_the_electromagnetic_spectrum>
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmic_microwave_background>

> and black holes are dark and stars are bright.

And violets are blue.  Just how primitive can your arguments get?


PointedEars
___________
Fixsen, D. J. (2009). “The Temperature of the Cosmic Microwave Background”. 
The Astrophysical Journal 707 (2): 916–920. arXiv:0911.1955. 
Bibcode:2009ApJ...707..916F. doi:10.1088/0004-637X/707/2/916.
-- 
Q: Why is electricity so dangerous?  
A: It doesn't conduct itself.

(from: WolframAlpha)

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#370835

On Tuesday, November 24, 2015 at 5:50:30 PM UTC-8, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
> Ross A. Finlayson wrote:
> 
> > On Tuesday, November 24, 2015 at 3:14:24 PM UTC-8, Thomas 'PointedEars'
> > Lahn wrote:
> >> Ross A. Finlayson wrote:
> >> > The visible universe
> >> > is what can see us.
> >> Not even wrong.
> > 
> > http://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/wordpress/
> > 
> > Woit's "Not Even Wrong"
> 
> Interesting.
>  
> > [...]
> > Here visible in the sense
> > of "accessible to sensory
> > apparatus
> 
> The proper term is "_observable_ universe" and it has nothing to do with 
> perception, everything with the universal expansion and the finite speed of 
> light.
> 
> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Observable_universe>
> <http://physics.stackexchange.com/a/57538/17333>
> 
> > where light speed
> > is a fixed constant
> 
> That depends on what you mean by that.  There is a valid interpretation in 
> which this statement is wrong, as the speed of light depends on the optical 
> density of the medium.  It is certainly constant across media of equal 
> optical density.
> 
> > and the maximum speed of propagation
> > of information", 
> 
> The speed of light *in vacuum* is the maximum speed of propagation of 
> information.
> 
> > he visible universe is what can see us.
> 
> Still nonsense.
> 
> > And you can call me "James T. Kirk".
> 
> So far I call you "another gibbering crank".
> 
> > And the cosmic background infrared is about 3.5 Kelvins,
> 
> _Microwave_, not infrared, and 2.72548 ± 0.00057 K (Fixsen, 2009).
> 
> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infrared#Definition_and_relationship_to_the_electromagnetic_spectrum>
> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmic_microwave_background>
> 
> > and black holes are dark and stars are bright.
> 
> And violets are blue.  Just how primitive can your arguments get?
> 
> 
> PointedEars
> ___________
> Fixsen, D. J. (2009). "The Temperature of the Cosmic Microwave Background". 
> The Astrophysical Journal 707 (2): 916-920. arXiv:0911.1955. 
> Bibcode:2009ApJ...707..916F. doi:10.1088/0004-637X/707/2/916.
> -- 
> Q: Why is electricity so dangerous?  
> A: It doesn't conduct itself.
> 
> (from: WolframAlpha)

Lahn, I'm working from an "axiomless 
system of natural deduction" in terms 
of then that it follows that it's the 
complete and consistent theory for 
numbers then also that it is a scientific 
theory for the concrete.

So, this is "all the way primitive", 
"truly fundamental" and "fundamental 
as of truisms and truth as a conserved 
quantity".

That said, then, I have at least an 
engineering curriculum including physics 
and a reasonable undergraduate introduction 
to chemistry and physics and standardized 
exams tell me so.

That otherwise seems proper enough, it's 
a free country and you're welcome to your 
opinion, and mine, though I'll claim to 
be "not a crank", nor a "troll", though 
I'm very good at it.

That said now, the observable or visible 
universe, with these being the same, 
basically does have a more or less uniform 
background radiation (in thermal and 
electromagnetic radiation, non-zero).

Then about how attenuation works over 
cosmological scales is still something 
being learned, where, as above I have 
this theory that is then in terms of 
usual notions of symmetries and conserved 
and preserved quantities here of variety 
and diversity, and yes that's technical, 
the cosmological constant is a mathematical 
infinitesimal in this theory, then for why 
space is not flat and space is not curved.  
(Space is infinitesimally flat and curved.)

Then, there are features in the numbers and 
continuum analysis, that "discretizing" a 
point is doubling it, on a line, or multiplying 
it by integers factors in area terms like 3,4,5, 
so, I am looking at how the global setting sees 
the measurement effect (of sampling) or observer 
effect (of sampling) among measurement and 
observer effects, that there are numerical reasons 
why the measurement would be off so neatly, 
then for that this automatically so equips the 
mathematical theory.

That said then as some background, then you can 
refer to me as Ross A. Finlayson and I'd rather 
you not call me crank.  (You're welcome to your 
own opinion.)

Bright and dark things lens.  This is a supposition
to help explain the effect of the instantaneous 
changes of gravity (where objects only move at < 0.5c), 
in a rather flat space-time.


So, that said, yes the "dually-self-infraconsistent 
null axiom theory" the following as being the only 
consistent mathematical theory advises what I see 
as follows as a "theory of physics".

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#370837

Ross A. Finlayson wrote:
> 
> On Tuesday, November 24, 2015 at 5:50:30 PM UTC-8, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
> > Ross A. Finlayson wrote:
> >
> > > On Tuesday, November 24, 2015 at 3:14:24 PM UTC-8, Thomas 'PointedEars'
> > > Lahn wrote:
> > >> Ross A. Finlayson wrote:
> > >> > The visible universe
> > >> > is what can see us.
> > >> Not even wrong.
> > >
> > > http://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/wordpress/
> > >
> > > Woit's "Not Even Wrong"
> >
> > Interesting.
> >
> > > [...]
> > > Here visible in the sense
> > > of "accessible to sensory
> > > apparatus
> >
> > The proper term is "_observable_ universe" and it has nothing to do with
> > perception, everything with the universal expansion and the finite speed of
> > light.
> >
> > <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Observable_universe>
> > <http://physics.stackexchange.com/a/57538/17333>
> >
> > > where light speed
> > > is a fixed constant
> >
> > That depends on what you mean by that.  There is a valid interpretation in
> > which this statement is wrong, as the speed of light depends on the optical
> > density of the medium.  It is certainly constant across media of equal
> > optical density.
> >
> > > and the maximum speed of propagation
> > > of information",
> >
> > The speed of light *in vacuum* is the maximum speed of propagation of
> > information.
> >
> > > he visible universe is what can see us.
> >
> > Still nonsense.
> >
> > > And you can call me "James T. Kirk".
> >
> > So far I call you "another gibbering crank".
> >
> > > And the cosmic background infrared is about 3.5 Kelvins,
> >
> > _Microwave_, not infrared, and 2.72548 ± 0.00057 K (Fixsen, 2009).
> >
> > <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infrared#Definition_and_relationship_to_the_electromagnetic_spectrum>
> > <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmic_microwave_background>
> >
> > > and black holes are dark and stars are bright.
> >
> > And violets are blue.  Just how primitive can your arguments get?
> >
> >
> > PointedEars
> > ___________
> > Fixsen, D. J. (2009). "The Temperature of the Cosmic Microwave Background".
> > The Astrophysical Journal 707 (2): 916-920. arXiv:0911.1955.
> > Bibcode:2009ApJ...707..916F. doi:10.1088/0004-637X/707/2/916.
> > --
> > Q: Why is electricity so dangerous?
> > A: It doesn't conduct itself.
> >
> > (from: WolframAlpha)
> 
> Lahn, I'm working from an "axiomless
> system of natural deduction" in terms
> of then that it follows that it's the
> complete and consistent theory for
> numbers then also that it is a scientific
> theory for the concrete.
> 
> So, this is "all the way primitive",
> "truly fundamental" and "fundamental
> as of truisms and truth as a conserved
> quantity".
> 
> That said, then, I have at least an
> engineering curriculum including physics
> and a reasonable undergraduate introduction
> to chemistry and physics and standardized
> exams tell me so.
> 
> That otherwise seems proper enough, it's
> a free country and you're welcome to your
> opinion, and mine, though I'll claim to
> be "not a crank", nor a "troll", though
> I'm very good at it.
> 
> That said now, the observable or visible
> universe, with these being the same,
> basically does have a more or less uniform
> background radiation (in thermal and
> electromagnetic radiation, non-zero).
> 
> Then about how attenuation works over
> cosmological scales is still something
> being learned, where, as above I have
> this theory that is then in terms of
> usual notions of symmetries and conserved
> and preserved quantities here of variety
> and diversity, and yes that's technical,
> the cosmological constant is a mathematical
> infinitesimal in this theory, then for why
> space is not flat and space is not curved.
> (Space is infinitesimally flat and curved.)
> 
> Then, there are features in the numbers and
> continuum analysis, that "discretizing" a
> point is doubling it, on a line, or multiplying
> it by integers factors in area terms like 3,4,5,
> so, I am looking at how the global setting sees
> the measurement effect (of sampling) or observer
> effect (of sampling) among measurement and
> observer effects, that there are numerical reasons
> why the measurement would be off so neatly,
> then for that this automatically so equips the
> mathematical theory.
> 
> That said then as some background, then you can
> refer to me as Ross A. Finlayson and I'd rather
> you not call me crank.  (You're welcome to your
> own opinion.)
> 
> Bright and dark things lens.  This is a supposition
> to help explain the effect of the instantaneous
> changes of gravity (where objects only move at < 0.5c),
> in a rather flat space-time.
> 
> So, that said, yes the "dually-self-infraconsistent
> null axiom theory" the following as being the only
> consistent mathematical theory advises what I see
> as follows as a "theory of physics".



There is no such thing as a "theory of physics".


You need to learn to get your jargon right.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#370868

On Tuesday, November 24, 2015 at 9:44:07 PM UTC-8, The Starmaker wrote:
> Ross A. Finlayson wrote:
> > 
> > On Tuesday, November 24, 2015 at 5:50:30 PM UTC-8, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
> > > Ross A. Finlayson wrote:
> > >
> > > > On Tuesday, November 24, 2015 at 3:14:24 PM UTC-8, Thomas 'PointedEars'
> > > > Lahn wrote:
> > > >> Ross A. Finlayson wrote:
> > > >> > The visible universe
> > > >> > is what can see us.
> > > >> Not even wrong.
> > > >
> > > > http://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/wordpress/
> > > >
> > > > Woit's "Not Even Wrong"
> > >
> > > Interesting.
> > >
> > > > [...]
> > > > Here visible in the sense
> > > > of "accessible to sensory
> > > > apparatus
> > >
> > > The proper term is "_observable_ universe" and it has nothing to do with
> > > perception, everything with the universal expansion and the finite speed of
> > > light.
> > >
> > > <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Observable_universe>
> > > <http://physics.stackexchange.com/a/57538/17333>
> > >
> > > > where light speed
> > > > is a fixed constant
> > >
> > > That depends on what you mean by that.  There is a valid interpretation in
> > > which this statement is wrong, as the speed of light depends on the optical
> > > density of the medium.  It is certainly constant across media of equal
> > > optical density.
> > >
> > > > and the maximum speed of propagation
> > > > of information",
> > >
> > > The speed of light *in vacuum* is the maximum speed of propagation of
> > > information.
> > >
> > > > he visible universe is what can see us.
> > >
> > > Still nonsense.
> > >
> > > > And you can call me "James T. Kirk".
> > >
> > > So far I call you "another gibbering crank".
> > >
> > > > And the cosmic background infrared is about 3.5 Kelvins,
> > >
> > > _Microwave_, not infrared, and 2.72548 ą 0.00057 K (Fixsen, 2009).
> > >
> > > <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infrared#Definition_and_relationship_to_the_electromagnetic_spectrum>
> > > <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmic_microwave_background>
> > >
> > > > and black holes are dark and stars are bright.
> > >
> > > And violets are blue.  Just how primitive can your arguments get?
> > >
> > >
> > > PointedEars
> > > ___________
> > > Fixsen, D. J. (2009). "The Temperature of the Cosmic Microwave Background".
> > > The Astrophysical Journal 707 (2): 916-920. arXiv:0911.1955.
> > > Bibcode:2009ApJ...707..916F. doi:10.1088/0004-637X/707/2/916.
> > > --
> > > Q: Why is electricity so dangerous?
> > > A: It doesn't conduct itself.
> > >
> > > (from: WolframAlpha)
> > 
> > Lahn, I'm working from an "axiomless
> > system of natural deduction" in terms
> > of then that it follows that it's the
> > complete and consistent theory for
> > numbers then also that it is a scientific
> > theory for the concrete.
> > 
> > So, this is "all the way primitive",
> > "truly fundamental" and "fundamental
> > as of truisms and truth as a conserved
> > quantity".
> > 
> > That said, then, I have at least an
> > engineering curriculum including physics
> > and a reasonable undergraduate introduction
> > to chemistry and physics and standardized
> > exams tell me so.
> > 
> > That otherwise seems proper enough, it's
> > a free country and you're welcome to your
> > opinion, and mine, though I'll claim to
> > be "not a crank", nor a "troll", though
> > I'm very good at it.
> > 
> > That said now, the observable or visible
> > universe, with these being the same,
> > basically does have a more or less uniform
> > background radiation (in thermal and
> > electromagnetic radiation, non-zero).
> > 
> > Then about how attenuation works over
> > cosmological scales is still something
> > being learned, where, as above I have
> > this theory that is then in terms of
> > usual notions of symmetries and conserved
> > and preserved quantities here of variety
> > and diversity, and yes that's technical,
> > the cosmological constant is a mathematical
> > infinitesimal in this theory, then for why
> > space is not flat and space is not curved.
> > (Space is infinitesimally flat and curved.)
> > 
> > Then, there are features in the numbers and
> > continuum analysis, that "discretizing" a
> > point is doubling it, on a line, or multiplying
> > it by integers factors in area terms like 3,4,5,
> > so, I am looking at how the global setting sees
> > the measurement effect (of sampling) or observer
> > effect (of sampling) among measurement and
> > observer effects, that there are numerical reasons
> > why the measurement would be off so neatly,
> > then for that this automatically so equips the
> > mathematical theory.
> > 
> > That said then as some background, then you can
> > refer to me as Ross A. Finlayson and I'd rather
> > you not call me crank.  (You're welcome to your
> > own opinion.)
> > 
> > Bright and dark things lens.  This is a supposition
> > to help explain the effect of the instantaneous
> > changes of gravity (where objects only move at < 0.5c),
> > in a rather flat space-time.
> > 
> > So, that said, yes the "dually-self-infraconsistent
> > null axiom theory" the following as being the only
> > consistent mathematical theory advises what I see
> > as follows as a "theory of physics".
> 
> 
> 
> There is no such thing as a "theory of physics".
> 
> 
> You need to learn to get your jargon right.

So, have you heard now 
that there is 
also cosmic infrared?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#370856

Ross A. Finlayson wrote:

> On Tuesday, November 24, 2015 at 5:50:30 PM UTC-8, Thomas 'PointedEars'
> Lahn wrote:

It’s attribution *line*, _not_ attribution novel.

>> […]
>> > and black holes are dark and stars are bright.
>> 
>> And violets are blue.  Just how primitive can your arguments get?
>> 
>> 
>> PointedEars
>> ___________
>> Fixsen, D. J. (2009). "The Temperature of the Cosmic Microwave
>> Background". The Astrophysical Journal 707 (2): 916-920. arXiv:0911.1955.
>> Bibcode:2009ApJ...707..916F. doi:10.1088/0004-637X/707/2/916.
>> --
>> Q: Why is electricity so dangerous?
>> A: It doesn't conduct itself.
>> 
>> (from: WolframAlpha)

The preceding five lines are a Usenet signature. Signatures are not to be 
quoted unless referred to.  In general, nothing that is not referred to is 
to be quoted, and the reply should be below each section of quoted text,
not below (or above) a full quote.

> Lahn,

It is customary to address each other using first names here.

> I'm working from an "axiomless
> system of natural deduction" in terms
> of then that it follows that it's the
> complete and consistent theory for
> numbers then also that it is a scientific
> theory for the concrete. [tl;dr]

More incoherent nonsense, as expected.  I do not have time for that.


PointedEars
-- 
Q: Why is electricity so dangerous?  
A: It doesn't conduct itself.

(from: WolframAlpha)

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#370821

dvus wrote:
^^^^
Please fix.

> It seems as though no one can say what the "shape" of the Universe
> really is,

You are mistaken.  We are pretty sure that it is locally flat, i.e. the 
local curvature is zero.

> all these mathematical terms don't describe it in a way a
> person can visualize.

Measurements show that it is true regardless.  At large observable scales, 
all triangles have an angle sum of approximately 180°.

> If someone said we lived on the surface of a sphere of some determinate
> size I could visualize that, or if they said it was a fairly homogenous
> sphere we lived inside of, I could visualize that. But all I see are
> explanations of a Universe that's "bounded" or "not bounded" without an
> explanation of just what the heck that really means.

What you see is your problem.  It is a typical beginner’s mistake that 
everything that can be accepted as true also has to be visualizable.

> I suppose if you live in a Universe which you consider has no
> "outside" it's tough to give its shape except in mathematical terms.

There simply is no way for humans to understand the curvature of space or 
any other higher-dimensional object intuitively because they cannot perceive 
that.  But one can use the abstraction of a two-dimensional surface, an 
abstraction that works rather well because three-dimensional objects *can* 
be perceived by humans, and are perceived as arrangements of two-dimensional 
confining surfaces.  And because the same math can be applied.

For example, you define a cube by the arrangement of its confining 6 
surfaces which need to be squares, and the angle between adjacent surfaces 
needs to be a right angle (90°).  When you perceive such an arrangement of 
surfaces, from experience it is associated in your brain with the word 
“cube” (or whatever word in your native language).

> I'd even prefer it if someone said "we have no idea" rather than these
> murky non-explanations.

But we have an idea.  Your problem is that you did not even try to 
understand the explanations.


F'up2 sci.physics.relativity

PointedEars
-- 
Q: How many theoretical physicists specializing in general relativity
   does it take to change a light bulb?  
A: Two: one to hold the bulb and one to rotate the universe.
(from: WolframAlpha)

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#370838

Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
> 
> dvus wrote:
> ^^^^
> Please fix.
> 
> > It seems as though no one can say what the "shape" of the Universe
> > really is,
> 
> You are mistaken.  We are pretty sure that it is locally flat, i.e. the
> local curvature is zero.


"pretty sure" doesn't cut the mustard. You need to do better than that.


And Einstein already proved there is no PointedEars.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#370850

The Starmaker amok-crossposted:

> Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
>> dvus wrote:
>> > It seems as though no one can say what the "shape" of the Universe
>> > really is,
>> 
>> You are mistaken.  We are pretty sure that it is locally flat, i.e. the
>> local curvature is zero.
> 
> "pretty sure" doesn't cut the mustard. You need to do better than that.
 
No, “pretty sure” is how science works.  You make observations, you have a 
theory as to how things are, you test the theory; if it is confirmed by 
observations again, if it predicts what you observe later, it is good to go 
as long as there is no observation saying otherwise.  “Only religion claims 
to know everything although clearly knowing nothing.” (Lawrence Krauss 
[paraphrased])

> And Einstein already proved there is no PointedEars.

In your dreams.


F'up2 .relativity

PointedEars
-- 
Q: Why is electricity so dangerous?  
A: It doesn't conduct itself.

(from: WolframAlpha)

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#370851

W dniu środa, 25 listopada 2015 11:32:47 UTC+1 użytkownik Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn napisał:
> The Starmaker amok-crossposted:
> 
> > Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
> >> dvus wrote:
> >> > It seems as though no one can say what the "shape" of the Universe
> >> > really is,
> >> 
> >> You are mistaken.  We are pretty sure that it is locally flat, i.e. the
> >> local curvature is zero.
> > 
> > "pretty sure" doesn't cut the mustard. You need to do better than that.
>  
> No, “pretty sure” is how science works.  

You know nothing about science and how it works.
It's not your turf.

> You make observations, you have a 
> theory as to how things are, you test the theory; if it is confirmed by 
> observations again, if it predicts what you observe later, it is good to go 
> as long as there is no observation saying otherwise. 

That's how little Yona imagines a war.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#370886

Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
> 
> The Starmaker amok-crossposted:
> 
> > Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
> >> dvus wrote:
> >> > It seems as though no one can say what the "shape" of the Universe
> >> > really is,
> >>
> >> You are mistaken.  We are pretty sure that it is locally flat, i.e. the
> >> local curvature is zero.
> >
> > "pretty sure" doesn't cut the mustard. You need to do better than that.
> 
> No, “pretty sure” is how science works.  You make observations, you have a
> theory as to how things are, you test the theory; if it is confirmed by
> observations again, if it predicts what you observe later, it is good to go
> as long as there is no observation saying otherwise.  “Only religion claims
> to know everything although clearly knowing nothing.” (Lawrence Krauss
> [paraphrased])

Lawrence Krauss is a fraud.  I never heard anybody in religion claiming
to know everything. What religion is he refering too??

Lawrence Krauss repeats the samething over and over again...he's got a
devil smile and devil eyes.


> 
> > And Einstein already proved there is no PointedEars.
> 
> In your dreams.

From what I know...
It is written, that the people with PointedEars
are from the planet Vulcan.

Einstein proved that the planet Vulcan doesn't exist.


That means there is no PointedEars.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#370904

The Starmaker wrote:

> Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
>> The Starmaker amok-crossposted:
>> > And Einstein already proved there is no PointedEars.
>> In your dreams.
> 
> From what I know...
> It is written, that the people with PointedEars
> are from the planet Vulcan.

That would be _pointed ears_, and they could as well be from Barradas Ⅲ, 
Romulus, and a number of other Vulcan/Romulan/Debrune colonies ;-)
 
> Einstein proved that the planet Vulcan doesn't exist.

No, he did not.  He could not.  The fact aside that Einstein has concerned 
himself with far more important things at the time, like world peace and a 
unified theory without quantum mechanics, Star Trek and the idea of the 
planet Vulcan (1964) was not even conceived when Einstein lived (1879–1955).
 
> That means there is no PointedEars.

Ex falso quodlibet.


PointedEars
-- 
Q: What happens when electrons lose their energy?  
A: They get Bohr'ed.

(from: WolframAlpha)

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#370907

Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> wrote in
news:3600492.jtiUJ5quDi@PointedEars.de: 

> The Starmaker wrote:
> 
>> Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
>>> The Starmaker amok-crossposted:
>>> > And Einstein already proved there is no PointedEars.
>>> In your dreams.
>> 
>> From what I know...
>> It is written, that the people with PointedEars
>> are from the planet Vulcan.
> 
> That would be _pointed ears_, and they could as well be from Barradas
> Ⅲ, Romulus, and a number of other Vulcan/Romulan/Debrune colonies
> ;-) 
>  
>> Einstein proved that the planet Vulcan doesn't exist.
> 
> No, he did not.  He could not.  The fact aside that Einstein has
> concerned himself with far more important things at the time, like
> world peace and a unified theory without quantum mechanics, Star Trek
> and the idea of the planet Vulcan (1964) was not even conceived when
> Einstein lived (1879–1955). 

Pre-Relativity, the precession of the perhelion of Mercury's orbit
had no explanation. One proposal was perturbation by an unknown
body closer in, which was labeled 'Vulcan'. 

Relativity provided an explanation which did not include Vulcan.

Einstein didn't 'disprove' Vulcan. He just made it unneccesary.

pt

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#370916

Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> wrote:
>The Starmaker wrote:

>> Einstein proved that the planet Vulcan doesn't exist.
>
>No, he did not.  He could not.  The fact aside that Einstein has concerned 
>himself with far more important things at the time, like world peace and a 
>unified theory without quantum mechanics, Star Trek and the idea of the 
>planet Vulcan (1964) was not even conceived when Einstein lived (1879–1955).

Oddities in the orbit of Mercury led to speculation about an inner
planet perturbing it.  This hypothetical planet was generally called
"Vulcan".

Eventually general relativity (by this guy named Einstein) explained
the oddities in Mercury's orbit so Vulcan was not necessary any more.

Asimov did a short essay once on the idea that Vulcan was "cast out"
by a stone (ein stein) and tied this somehow to Greek mythology in a
manner that I can't remember.

But for once, it looks like SM got something right.  Einstein proved
that an inner planet (usually called Vulcan) didn't need to exist.
-- 
We are geeks.  Resistance is voltage over current.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#371048

Greg Goss wrote:

> Oddities in the orbit of Mercury led to speculation about an inner
> planet perturbing it.  This hypothetical planet was generally called
> "Vulcan".
> […]
> Asimov did a short essay once on the idea that Vulcan was "cast out"
> by a stone (ein stein) and tied this somehow to Greek mythology in a
  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> manner that I can't remember.

Interesting :)  The god Vulcan is the Roman equivalent of the Greek god 
Hephaistos/Hephaestus, the “blacksmith of the Gods”.  He was the inventor 
among the Greek Gods who designed and had manufactured, among other things, 
Zeus’ (Roman: Jupiter’s) lightnings, Helios’ (Sol’s) chariot, and Hermes’ 
(Mercury’s) winged shoes.  In one version, he was the child of Zeus and his 
sister Hera (Juno), and had his workshop on Mount Olympus.  In another one, 
“he was Hera’s parthenogenous child, rejected by his mother because of his 
deformity and thrown out [‘cast out’] of heaven [Olympus; the ed.] and down 
to earth.”

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hephaestus>
 
> But for once, it looks like SM got something right.  Einstein proved
> that an inner planet (usually called Vulcan) didn't need to exist.

They got it right insofar as that a planet named Vulcan was involved in the 
history of general relativity.  They got it completely wrong with regard to 
a certain ficticious species with pointed ears, and to me.

X-Post & F'up2 <news:rec.arts.sf.written>


PointedEars
-- 
Q: Why is electricity so dangerous?  
A: It doesn't conduct itself.

(from: WolframAlpha)

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#371276

Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
> 
> Greg Goss wrote:
> 
> > Oddities in the orbit of Mercury led to speculation about an inner
> > planet perturbing it.  This hypothetical planet was generally called
> > "Vulcan".
> > […]
> > Asimov did a short essay once on the idea that Vulcan was "cast out"
> > by a stone (ein stein) and tied this somehow to Greek mythology in a
>   ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> > manner that I can't remember.
> 
> Interesting :)  The god Vulcan is the Roman equivalent of the Greek god
> Hephaistos/Hephaestus, the “blacksmith of the Gods”.  He was the inventor
> among the Greek Gods who designed and had manufactured, among other things,
> Zeus’ (Roman: Jupiter’s) lightnings, Helios’ (Sol’s) chariot, and Hermes’
> (Mercury’s) winged shoes.  In one version, he was the child of Zeus and his
> sister Hera (Juno), and had his workshop on Mount Olympus.  In another one,
> “he was Hera’s parthenogenous child, rejected by his mother because of his
> deformity and thrown out [‘cast out’] of heaven [Olympus; the ed.] and down
> to earth.”
> 
> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hephaestus>
> 
> > But for once, it looks like SM got something right.  Einstein proved
> > that an inner planet (usually called Vulcan) didn't need to exist.
> 
> They got it right insofar as that a planet named Vulcan was involved in the
> history of general relativity.  They got it completely wrong with regard to
> a certain ficticious species with pointed ears, and to me.

Now wait a minute here...Spock is from the planet Vulcan, and he's got pointed ears! Where am I wrong here??

There is only one planet Vulcan. 

Einstein destroyed the other planet Vulcan, that didn't even exist..

You see what science and science fiction does to kids...it distorts children's minds.


And what is Science?....opinions! No truths, just opinions!!!


o·pin·ion
a view or judgment formed about something, not necessarily based on fact 


That is what Science is...opinions! 


o·pin·ions



and what is science fiction? the false illusion of
scientific understanding.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#370917

On Wed, 25 Nov 2015 23:31:20 +0000, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn
<PointedEars@web.de> wrote:

>The Starmaker wrote:
>
>> Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
>>> The Starmaker amok-crossposted:
>>> > And Einstein already proved there is no PointedEars.
>>> In your dreams.
>> 
>> From what I know...
>> It is written, that the people with PointedEars
>> are from the planet Vulcan.
>
>That would be _pointed ears_, and they could as well be from Barradas ?, 
>Romulus, and a number of other Vulcan/Romulan/Debrune colonies ;-)
> 
>> Einstein proved that the planet Vulcan doesn't exist.
>
>No, he did not.  He could not.  The fact aside that Einstein has concerned 
>himself with far more important things at the time, like world peace and a 
>unified theory without quantum mechanics, Star Trek and the idea of the 
>planet Vulcan (1964) was not even conceived when Einstein lived (1879–1955).

Wrong planet Vulcan.

Einstein considered the hypothetical Vulcan orbiting our sun inside
Mercury's orbit, which has been proven not to exist.  The Vulcan that
produced Mr. Spock allegedly orbits Epsilon Eridani.  The coincidence
of names is unfortunate, but no more surprising than Causasian Georgia
and American Georgia.

>> That means there is no PointedEars.
>
>Ex falso quodlibet.
>
>PointedEars



-- 
My webpage is at http://www.watt-evans.com

---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#370960

Lawrence Watt-Evans wrote:

> On Wed, 25 Nov 2015 23:31:20 +0000, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn
> <PointedEars@web.de> wrote:
>>The Starmaker wrote:
>>> Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
>>>> The Starmaker amok-crossposted:
>>>> > And Einstein already proved there is no PointedEars.
>>>> In your dreams.
>>> From what I know...
>>> It is written, that the people with PointedEars
>>> are from the planet Vulcan.
>> That would be _pointed ears_, and they could as well be from Barradas ?,
>> Romulus, and a number of other Vulcan/Romulan/Debrune colonies ;-)
>>> Einstein proved that the planet Vulcan doesn't exist.
>> No, he did not.  He could not.  The fact aside that Einstein has 
>> concerned himself with far more important things at the time, like world 
>> peace and a unified theory without quantum mechanics, Star Trek and the 
>> idea of the planet Vulcan (1964) was not even conceived when Einstein 
>> lived (1879–1955).
> 
> Wrong planet Vulcan.

Not *my* mistake.  If you read more carefully, you will find that “The 
Starmaker” claimed that Einstein had disproved the existence of the planet 
Vulcan inhabited by people with pointed ears, and as if that were not 
hilarious enough, therefore of me.
 
> Einstein considered the hypothetical Vulcan orbiting our sun inside
> Mercury's orbit, which has been proven not to exist. 

OK.

> The Vulcan that produced Mr. Spock

One half of him ;-)

> allegedly orbits Epsilon Eridani. 

I know.


PointedEars
-- 
Heisenberg is out for a drive when he's stopped by a traffic cop. 
The officer asks him "Do you know how fast you were going?" 
Heisenberg replies "No, but I know where I am."
(from: WolframAlpha)

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#370918

Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
> 
> The Starmaker wrote:
> 
> > Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
> >> The Starmaker amok-crossposted:
> >> > And Einstein already proved there is no PointedEars.
> >> In your dreams.
> >
> > From what I know...
> > It is written, that the people with PointedEars
> > are from the planet Vulcan.
> 
> That would be _pointed ears_, and they could as well be from Barradas â…¢,
> Romulus, and a number of other Vulcan/Romulan/Debrune colonies ;-)
> 
> > Einstein proved that the planet Vulcan doesn't exist.
> 
> No, he did not.  He could not.  The fact aside that Einstein has concerned
> himself with far more important things at the time, like world peace and a
> unified theory without quantum mechanics, Star Trek and the idea of the
> planet Vulcan (1964) was not even conceived when Einstein lived (1879–1955).
> 
> > That means there is no PointedEars.
> 
> Ex falso quodlibet.
> 
> PointedEars
> --
> Q: What happens when electrons lose their energy?
> A: They get Bohr'ed.
> 
> (from: WolframAlpha)


For a guy with PointedEars, you don't know much about your
planet...Vulcan:


"Einstein, Destroyer of Worlds"

Einstein went one better. With his pen he destroyed a planet, Vulcan,
and simultaneously “reimagined the cosmos.” 



Although general relativity encompasses the entire universe, Einstein in
1915 decided to highlight its effects on the planet Mercury for a few
reasons, Mr. Levenson notes. General relativity predicts that massive
objects warp the space around them. The larger the object, the more
warping that occurs. And Mercury, the closest planet to the sun, would
therefore feel the effects of general relativity far more than other
planets.

Equally important, Mr. Levenson writes, “Einstein had a perfectly fine
grasp of . . . intellectual combat,” and knew he needed to make a splash
to win people’s attention. Solving the mystery of Mercury’s
orbit—something Newton’s revered theory couldn’t do—would produce an
intellectual tsunami.

So Einstein sat down to calculate, and watched as the correct orbit
popped right out of his equations—like “magic,” he said. Far from
playing it cool, Einstein felt his heart shudder at the sight, and said
that something “snapped” inside him. A friend later speculated that
resolving Mercury’s orbit was the most intense emotional experience of
Einstein’s scientific life, maybe even his entire life. As Mr. Levenson
writes, “It had been said of Le Verrier that he discovered a planet
[Neptune] at the tip of his pen.” Einstein went one better. With his pen
he destroyed a planet, Vulcan, and simultaneously “reimagined the
cosmos.”

Throughout the book, Mr. Levenson seems intent on using Vulcan to make
grand pronouncements about science and the human condition. The planet
exposes “the human capacity to both discover and self-deceive.” It
provides “an object lesson in how easy it is to see what ought to be
rather than what is.” And so on. More aptly, he uses Vulcan to draw
several thought-provoking parallels to modern science. Just like with
Vulcan, physicists spent decades talking about the Higgs boson based on
the seeming “necessity” of it—the fact that modern theories said these
bosons must exist, even if no one had ever seen them. The Higgs
eventually proved real, but what about superstrings or cosmic inflation
or gravitational waves? We might not be as far removed from the foibles
of Vulcan-hunters as we think.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#370954

The Starmaker wrote:
> 
> Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
> >
> > The Starmaker wrote:
> >
> > > Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
> > >> The Starmaker amok-crossposted:
> > >> > And Einstein already proved there is no PointedEars.
> > >> In your dreams.
> > >
> > > From what I know...
> > > It is written, that the people with PointedEars
> > > are from the planet Vulcan.
> >
> > That would be _pointed ears_, and they could as well be from Barradas â…¢,
> > Romulus, and a number of other Vulcan/Romulan/Debrune colonies ;-)
> >
> > > Einstein proved that the planet Vulcan doesn't exist.
> >
> > No, he did not.  He could not.  The fact aside that Einstein has concerned
> > himself with far more important things at the time, like world peace and a
> > unified theory without quantum mechanics, Star Trek and the idea of the
> > planet Vulcan (1964) was not even conceived when Einstein lived (1879–1955).
> >
> > > That means there is no PointedEars.
> >
> > Ex falso quodlibet.
> >
> > PointedEars
> > --
> > Q: What happens when electrons lose their energy?
> > A: They get Bohr'ed.
> >
> > (from: WolframAlpha)
> 
> For a guy with PointedEars, you don't know much about your
> planet...Vulcan:
> 
> "Einstein, Destroyer of Worlds"
> 
> Einstein went one better. With his pen he destroyed a planet, Vulcan,
> and simultaneously “reimagined the cosmos.”
> 
> Although general relativity encompasses the entire universe, Einstein in
> 1915 decided to highlight its effects on the planet Mercury for a few
> reasons, Mr. Levenson notes. General relativity predicts that massive
> objects warp the space around them. The larger the object, the more
> warping that occurs. And Mercury, the closest planet to the sun, would
> therefore feel the effects of general relativity far more than other
> planets.
> 
> Equally important, Mr. Levenson writes, “Einstein had a perfectly fine
> grasp of . . . intellectual combat,” and knew he needed to make a splash
> to win people’s attention. Solving the mystery of Mercury’s
> orbit—something Newton’s revered theory couldn’t do—would produce an
> intellectual tsunami.
> 
> So Einstein sat down to calculate, and watched as the correct orbit
> popped right out of his equations—like “magic,” he said. Far from
> playing it cool, Einstein felt his heart shudder at the sight, and said
> that something “snapped” inside him. A friend later speculated that
> resolving Mercury’s orbit was the most intense emotional experience of
> Einstein’s scientific life, maybe even his entire life. As Mr. Levenson
> writes, “It had been said of Le Verrier that he discovered a planet
> [Neptune] at the tip of his pen.” Einstein went one better. With his pen
> he destroyed a planet, Vulcan, and simultaneously “reimagined the
> cosmos.”
> 
> Throughout the book, Mr. Levenson seems intent on using Vulcan to make
> grand pronouncements about science and the human condition. The planet
> exposes “the human capacity to both discover and self-deceive.” It
> provides “an object lesson in how easy it is to see what ought to be
> rather than what is.” And so on. More aptly, he uses Vulcan to draw
> several thought-provoking parallels to modern science. Just like with
> Vulcan, physicists spent decades talking about the Higgs boson based on
> the seeming “necessity” of it—the fact that modern theories said these
> bosons must exist, even if no one had ever seen them. The Higgs
> eventually proved real, but what about superstrings or cosmic inflation
> or gravitational waves? We might not be as far removed from the foibles
> of Vulcan-hunters as we think.


And when he delivered a talk detailing his calculations at the Prussian Academy of Sciences on Nov. 18, 1915 in Berlin, his “pen destroyed Vulcan 


 THE HUNT FOR VULCAN:

. . . And How Albert Einstein Destroyed a Planet, Discovered Relativity, and Deciphered the Universe

By Thomas Levenson




How Albert Einstein Destroyed The Planet...Vulcan.



He also almost destroyed the earth:
http://pw1.netcom.com/~starmaker/Albert_Einstein/Albert_Einstein_The-Man-Who-Built-The-Atomic-Bomb.html

--- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: news@netfront.net ---

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 4 of 7 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity

csiph-web