Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #376674 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Pentcho Valev <pvalev@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2016-02-20 12:22 -0800 |
| Last post | 2016-03-07 09:23 -0600 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 126 — 22 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.physics.relativity
Fatal Oversight by LIGO Conspirators Pentcho Valev <pvalev@yahoo.com> - 2016-02-20 12:22 -0800
Re: Fatal Oversight by LIGO Conspirators "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2016-02-20 12:31 -0800
Re: Fatal Oversight by LIGO Conspirators Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-02-20 21:37 +0100
Re: Fatal Oversight by LIGO Conspirators "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2016-02-20 13:50 -0800
Re: Fatal Oversight by LIGO Conspirators Stzepan Zdrobněliny <stzepan282@guadalajara.org> - 2016-02-20 20:33 +0000
Re: Fatal Oversight by LIGO Conspirators Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-02-20 19:12 -0600
Re: Fatal Oversight by LIGO Conspirators David Fuller <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-02-20 17:45 -0800
Re: Fatal Oversight by LIGO Conspirators "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2016-02-20 21:21 -0800
Re: Fatal Oversight by LIGO Conspirators "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2016-02-20 22:26 -0800
Re: Fatal Oversight by LIGO Conspirators Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-02-24 19:13 +1100
Re: Fatal Oversight by LIGO Conspirators "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2016-02-25 20:19 -0800
Re: Fatal Oversight by LIGO Conspirators Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-02-26 21:50 +1100
Re: Fatal Oversight by LIGO Conspirators "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-02-26 14:08 +0100
Re: Fatal Oversight by LIGO Conspirators PC <pc468@hotmail.com> - 2016-02-26 13:15 +0000
Re: Fatal Oversight by LIGO Conspirators Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-02-27 11:27 +1100
Re: Fatal Oversight by LIGO Conspirators PC <pc468@hotmail.com> - 2016-02-27 01:11 +0000
Re: Fatal Oversight by LIGO Conspirators Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-02-27 12:24 +1100
Re: Fatal Oversight by LIGO Conspirators Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-02-27 11:25 +1100
Re: Fatal Oversight by LIGO Conspirators "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-02-28 09:47 +0100
Re: Fatal Oversight by LIGO Conspirators Pentcho Valev <pvalev@yahoo.com> - 2016-02-26 06:46 -0800
Re: Fatal Oversight by LIGO Conspirators "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2016-02-26 17:49 -0800
Re: Fatal Oversight by LIGO Conspirators "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2016-02-26 18:21 -0800
Re: Fatal Oversight by LIGO Conspirators "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2016-02-28 12:11 -0800
Re: Fatal Oversight by LIGO Conspirators "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2016-02-28 23:45 -0800
Re: Fatal Oversight by LIGO Conspirators Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-02-26 08:15 -0600
Re: Fatal Oversight by LIGO Conspirators Pentcho Valev <pvalev@yahoo.com> - 2016-02-20 23:13 -0800
Re: Fatal Oversight by LIGO Conspirators Pentcho Valev <pvalev@yahoo.com> - 2016-02-21 01:44 -0800
Re: Fatal Oversight by LIGO Conspirators "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2016-02-21 10:38 -0800
Re: Fatal Oversight by LIGO Conspirators "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2016-02-21 10:51 -0800
Re: Fatal Oversight by LIGO Conspirators John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2016-02-21 19:12 -0800
Re: Fatal Oversight by LIGO Conspirators John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2016-02-21 19:04 -0800
Re: Fatal Oversight by LIGO Conspirators "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2016-02-21 23:53 -0800
Re: Fatal Oversight by LIGO Conspirators "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2016-02-21 23:54 -0800
Re: Fatal Oversight by LIGO Conspirators John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2016-02-25 21:12 -0800
Re: Fatal Oversight by LIGO Conspirators pnalsing@gmail.com - 2016-02-25 21:24 -0800
Re: Fatal Oversight by LIGO Conspirators "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2016-02-25 21:49 -0800
Re: Fatal Oversight by LIGO Conspirators John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2016-02-25 21:13 -0800
Re: Fatal Oversight by LIGO Conspirators John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2016-02-21 19:09 -0800
Re: Fatal Oversight by LIGO Conspirators John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2016-02-21 19:13 -0800
Re: Fatal Oversight by LIGO Conspirators Pentcho Valev <pvalev@yahoo.com> - 2016-02-21 22:40 -0800
Re: Fatal Oversight by LIGO Conspirators Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-02-21 18:20 +0100
Re: Fatal Oversight by LIGO Conspirators Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-02-21 13:25 -0600
Re: Fatal Oversight by LIGO Conspirators Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-02-21 21:59 +0100
Re: Fatal Oversight by LIGO Conspirators "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-02-22 10:03 +0100
Re: Fatal Oversight by LIGO Conspirators Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-02-22 09:50 -0600
Re: Fatal Oversight by LIGO Conspirators Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-02-22 19:41 +0100
Re: Fatal Oversight by LIGO Conspirators Stzepan Zdrobněliny <stzepan282@guadalajara.org> - 2016-02-22 18:45 +0000
Re: Fatal Oversight by LIGO Conspirators David Fuller <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-02-22 11:09 -0800
Re: Fatal Oversight by LIGO Conspirators David Fuller <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-02-22 10:56 -0800
Re: Fatal Oversight by LIGO Conspirators "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-02-22 21:12 +0100
Re: Fatal Oversight by LIGO Conspirators moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-02-22 21:39 +0000
Re: Fatal Oversight by LIGO Conspirators Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-02-22 22:26 -0600
Re: Fatal Oversight by LIGO Conspirators Steven Carlip <carlip@physics.ucdavis.edu> - 2016-02-22 19:45 -0800
Re: Fatal Oversight by LIGO Conspirators Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-02-23 05:54 +0100
Re: Fatal Oversight by LIGO Conspirators Steven Carlip <carlip@physics.ucdavis.edu> - 2016-02-22 22:11 -0800
Re: Fatal Oversight by LIGO Conspirators Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-02-24 05:20 +0100
Re: Fatal Oversight by LIGO Conspirators David Fuller <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-02-23 21:07 -0800
Re: Fatal Oversight by LIGO Conspirators David Fuller <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-02-23 21:13 -0800
Re: Fatal Oversight by LIGO Conspirators David Fuller <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-02-23 21:58 -0800
Re: Fatal Oversight by LIGO Conspirators JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-02-23 21:24 -0800
Re: Fatal Oversight by LIGO Conspirators Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-02-24 08:30 -0600
Re: Fatal Oversight by LIGO Conspirators Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-02-24 09:54 -0600
Re: Fatal Oversight by LIGO Conspirators PC <pc468@hotmail.com> - 2016-02-24 16:59 +0000
Re: Fatal Oversight by LIGO Conspirators "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-02-24 19:30 +0100
Re: Fatal Oversight by LIGO Conspirators PC <pc468@hotmail.com> - 2016-02-24 22:11 +0000
Re: Fatal Oversight by LIGO Conspirators Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-02-24 18:31 -0800
Re: Another Moon Landing PC <pc468@hotmail.com> - 2016-02-25 17:27 +0000
Re: Another Moon Landing Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-02-25 10:49 -0800
Re: Another Moon Landing PC <pc468@hotmail.com> - 2016-02-25 19:27 +0000
Re: Fatal Oversight by LIGO Conspirators Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-02-26 06:05 +0100
Re: Fatal Oversight by LIGO Conspirators pnalsing@gmail.com - 2016-02-25 21:22 -0800
Re: Fatal Oversight by LIGO Conspirators Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-02-27 01:02 +0100
Re: Fatal Oversight by LIGO Conspirators Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-02-28 09:19 +0100
Re: Fatal Oversight by LIGO Conspirators Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-02-28 15:04 +0100
Subduction (was Re: Fatal Oversight by LIGO Conspirators) Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-02-28 09:42 -0600
Re: Subduction (was Re: Fatal Oversight by LIGO Conspirators) Emigdio Sophronius <emigg@augustvisitors.org> - 2016-02-28 17:06 +0000
Re: Subduction (was Re: Fatal Oversight by LIGO Conspirators) Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-02-28 18:43 +0100
Re: Subduction (was Re: Fatal Oversight by LIGO Conspirators) Emigdio Sophronius <emigg@augustvisitors.org> - 2016-02-28 19:40 +0000
Re: Subduction (was Re: Fatal Oversight by LIGO Conspirators) Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-02-29 04:06 +0100
Re: Subduction (was Re: Fatal Oversight by LIGO Conspirators) Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-02-29 13:56 -0600
Re: Subduction (was Re: Fatal Oversight by LIGO Conspirators) Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-03-01 06:45 +0100
Re: Subduction (was Re: Fatal Oversight by LIGO Conspirators) Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-03-02 03:04 +0100
Re: Subduction (was Re: Fatal Oversight by LIGO Conspirators) "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2016-03-01 20:49 -0800
Re: Subduction (was Re: Fatal Oversight by LIGO Conspirators) Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-03-02 07:36 +0100
Re: Subduction (was Re: Fatal Oversight by LIGO Conspirators) "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2016-03-01 22:44 -0800
Re: Subduction (was Re: Fatal Oversight by LIGO Conspirators) Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-03-06 08:58 +0100
Re: Subduction (was Re: Fatal Oversight by LIGO Conspirators) Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-03-02 08:30 -0600
Re: Subduction (was Re: Fatal Oversight by LIGO Conspirators) "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-02-28 21:39 +0100
Re: Fatal Oversight by LIGO Conspirators Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-02-26 08:22 -0600
Re: Fatal Oversight by LIGO Conspirators moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-02-23 17:27 +0000
Re: Fatal Oversight by LIGO Conspirators "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2016-02-23 21:58 -0800
Re: Fatal Oversight by LIGO Conspirators Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-02-24 20:17 -0600
Re: Fatal Oversight by LIGO Conspirators Jackpol11@hotmail.com - 2016-03-03 16:12 -0500
Re: Fatal Oversight by LIGO Conspirators "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2016-03-03 19:56 -0800
Re: Fatal Oversight by LIGO Conspirators Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-03-03 22:32 -0600
Re: Fatal Oversight by LIGO Conspirators "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2016-03-03 21:10 -0800
Re: Fatal Oversight by LIGO Conspirators "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2016-03-03 22:11 -0800
Re: Fatal Oversight by LIGO Conspirators "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2016-03-03 23:36 -0800
Re: Fatal Oversight by LIGO Conspirators Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-03-05 06:20 +0100
Re: Fatal Oversight by LIGO Conspirators Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-03-07 09:19 -0600
Re: Fatal Oversight by LIGO Conspirators Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-03-07 21:38 +0100
Re: Fatal Oversight by LIGO Conspirators Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-03-04 08:05 +0100
Re: Fatal Oversight by LIGO Conspirators Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-03-04 07:55 -0600
Re: Fatal Oversight by LIGO Conspirators "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2016-03-04 18:47 -0800
Re: Fatal Oversight by LIGO Conspirators Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-03-07 09:15 -0600
Re: Fatal Oversight by LIGO Conspirators "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2016-03-07 18:04 -0800
Re: Fatal Oversight by LIGO Conspirators Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-03-08 07:41 -0600
Re: Fatal Oversight by LIGO Conspirators "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2016-03-08 09:01 -0800
Re: Fatal Oversight by LIGO Conspirators Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-03-08 18:36 -0600
Re: Fatal Oversight by LIGO Conspirators "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2016-03-08 19:28 -0800
Re: Fatal Oversight by LIGO Conspirators Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-03-09 07:19 -0600
Re: Fatal Oversight by LIGO Conspirators "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2016-03-11 08:43 -0800
Re: Fatal Oversight by LIGO Conspirators "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2016-03-11 08:47 -0800
Re: Fatal Oversight by LIGO Conspirators David Fuller <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-03-09 13:32 -0800
Re: Fatal Oversight by LIGO Conspirators David Fuller <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-03-09 14:37 -0800
Re: Fatal Oversight by LIGO Conspirators David Fuller <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-03-09 18:16 -0800
Re: Fatal Oversight by LIGO Conspirators David Fuller <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-03-11 07:37 -0800
Re: Fatal Oversight by LIGO Conspirators David Fuller <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-03-11 07:52 -0800
Re: Fatal Oversight by LIGO Conspirators Henry Wilson <HGW@home.com> - 2016-03-06 18:37 +0000
Re: Fatal Oversight by LIGO Conspirators alsor@interia.pl - 2016-03-05 12:33 -0800
Re: Fatal Oversight by LIGO Conspirators JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-03-05 16:42 -0800
Re: Fatal Oversight by LIGO Conspirators Helene Swanhild <helenes@gardenclosure.org> - 2016-03-06 00:54 +0000
Re: Fatal Oversight by LIGO Conspirators JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-03-05 22:36 -0800
Re: Fatal Oversight by LIGO Conspirators Helene Swanhild <helenes@gardenclosure.org> - 2016-03-06 12:39 +0000
Re: Fatal Oversight by LIGO Conspirators Helene Swanhild <helenes@gardenclosure.org> - 2016-03-06 14:40 +0000
Re: Fatal Oversight by LIGO Conspirators Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-03-07 09:23 -0600
Page 4 of 7 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 Next page →
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-24 08:30 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <nakeqk$17v5$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #376996 |
On 2/23/2016 10:20 PM, Thomas Heger wrote: > This type of 'proof' is unscientific. I disagree this is unscientific. If I were to take your stance, then evidence for dinosaurs in the form of fossilized bones, footprints, and eggs is not scientifically compelling, because you haven't ruled out the possibility that other processes could have produced those artifacts. What you are specifying are the things that would convince YOU personally that the signal was due to gravitational waves, and declaring that anything less than that level of evidence is unscientific. However, to *scientists*, if you have a prediction by a theory that specifies a particular form of a signal that can be measured, and for which no other theory provides a comparable prediction, and then you go and make a measurement and that *particular* form of signal is observed, then this constitutes strong experimental support for the theory. > > Assumed the measurements are correct and the same signal of unknown > origin is measured at two places on Earth with a certain small delay. > > Now we don't know, where the signals came from and how fast the signals > move. > > To estimate the source you would need to have the velocity. > > To figure out the velocity, you need to have information about the origin. > > But you cannot do both with just two measurements. > > > TH -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-24 09:54 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <h5qdnWVaq9C8T1DLnZ2dnUU7_82dnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #377036 |
On 2/24/16 2/24/16 - 8:30 AM, Odd Bodkin wrote: > On 2/23/2016 10:20 PM, Thomas Heger wrote: >> This type of 'proof' is unscientific. > > I disagree this is unscientific. > If I were to take your stance, then evidence for dinosaurs in the form of > fossilized bones, footprints, and eggs is not scientifically compelling, because > you haven't ruled out the possibility that other processes could have produced > those artifacts. > > What you are specifying are the things that would convince YOU personally that > the signal was due to gravitational waves, and declaring that anything less than > that level of evidence is unscientific. > > However, to *scientists*, if you have a prediction by a theory that specifies a > particular form of a signal that can be measured, and for which no other theory > provides a comparable prediction, and then you go and make a measurement and > that *particular* form of signal is observed, then this constitutes strong > experimental support for the theory. Yes. To emphasize: this is "experimental support", not "proof". People who expect "proof" in science do not understand what science actually is (CSI claims of "scientific proof" notwithstanding -- their writers are not scientists). [Explaining the reference, "CSI" is "Crime Scene Investigation", a popular TV show in the U.S. It's about forensic investigators who use the tools of science to solve crimes.] Tom Roberts
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | PC <pc468@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-24 16:59 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <nakni0$1o32$2@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #377043 |
Tom Roberts wrote: > Yes. To emphasize: this is "experimental support", not "proof". People > who expect "proof" in science do not understand what science actually is > (CSI claims of "scientific proof" notwithstanding -- their writers are > not scientists). > > [Explaining the reference, "CSI" is "Crime Scene Investigation", > a popular TV show in the U.S. It's about forensic investigators who > use the tools of science to solve crimes.] Are you just suggesting that the prestigious announcement of that "gravitational wave" needs to be subjected rigorous Crime Scene Investigation?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-24 19:30 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <naksrn$2tf$1@news.albasani.net> |
| In reply to | #377046 |
On 24.02.2016 17:59, PC wrote: > [] It doesn't help to change your name, the trolling idiot is recognized anyway. One can but wonder what kind of mental disturbance make a person constantly change his name and write nonsense only. plonk -- Paul https://paulba.no/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | PC <pc468@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-24 22:11 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <nal9r9$qng$2@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #377050 |
Paul B. Andersen wrote: > On 24.02.2016 17:59, PC wrote: > > [] > > It doesn't help to change your name, the trolling idiot is recognized > anyway. One can but wonder what kind of mental disturbance make a person > constantly change his name and write nonsense only. plonk What's wrong with you, boy? Go away, if you don't like talking like we the rest do.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-24 18:31 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <cd9f3c45-6d56-4ab2-89e9-975e99d54d10@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #377069 |
On Wednesday, February 24, 2016 at 3:11:57 PM UTC-7, PC wrote: > > Paul B. Andersen wrote: > > > > On 24.02.2016 17:59, PC wrote: > > > [] > > > > It doesn't help to change your name, the trolling idiot is recognized > > anyway. One can but wonder what kind of mental disturbance make a person > > constantly change his name and write nonsense only. plonk > > What's wrong with you, boy? Go away, if you don't like talking like we the > rest do. YOU are only "the rest" if you count all of your near-infinite dishonest pseudonyms, disgusting eater of swine wallow.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | PC <pc468@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-25 17:27 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: Another Moon Landing |
| Message-ID | <nandh5$51c$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #377074 |
Gary Harnagel wrote: >> What's wrong with you, boy? Go away, if you don't like talking like we >> the rest do. > > YOU are only "the rest" if you count all of your near-infinite dishonest > pseudonyms, disgusting eater of swine wallow. Hey, little Gary, I take these things as insults. Nothing true, nothing to worry about, but rather your penticostallity make you to talk in tongues like that. But listen, I need to learn some Tensors, in order to understand Relativity. Without which Relativity is not possible. Would you volunteer to help me along the learning curve thoroughly with that? Are you capable? Btw, since you brainlessly choose to go along mainstream and believe in detection of "Gravitational Waves" etc, another moon landing. The Great Global Warming Swindle https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D-m09lKtYT4
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-25 10:49 -0800 |
| Subject | Re: Another Moon Landing |
| Message-ID | <4c7c3201-80de-43bc-b828-5e07782541cb@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #377100 |
On Thursday, February 25, 2016 at 10:27:08 AM UTC-7, PC wrote: > > [Abysmally stupid gruntings of a 'nym-shifting troll] Nobody cares how you take the truth, baloney-spewing liar.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | PC <pc468@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-25 19:27 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: Another Moon Landing |
| Message-ID | <nankj6$hh1$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #377115 |
Gary Harnagel wrote: > On Thursday, February 25, 2016 at 10:27:08 AM UTC-7, PC wrote: >> >> [Abysmally stupid gruntings of a 'nym-shifting troll] > > Nobody cares how you take the truth, baloney-spewing liar. You abuse of yourself, calling those nice people liars?? Read their papers carefully, then draw your conclusion, as also stipulated clearly in their papers. I can't recall me saying something giving you the opportunity to misinterpret and call me liar. Stop being an idiot, Gary.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-26 06:05 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <dja4olF9p1eU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #377036 |
Am 24.02.2016 15:30, schrieb Odd Bodkin: >> This type of 'proof' is unscientific. > > I disagree this is unscientific. > If I were to take your stance, then evidence for dinosaurs in the form > of fossilized bones, footprints, and eggs is not scientifically > compelling, because you haven't ruled out the possibility that other > processes could have produced those artifacts. Actually I have done that already and presented another process, which could explain the found fossils: Growing Earth I had assumed, that in former times the animals and plants have been much larger than today, since the Earth was much smaller. Humans could have been really tall (like 15 m high), too, and dinosaurs in relation not very large. > What you are specifying are the things that would convince YOU > personally that the signal was due to gravitational waves, and declaring > that anything less than that level of evidence is unscientific. Personally I would say, that GR is mainly correct. So I have a tendency towards the explanations based on GR. So I would agree, that the observations do not violate the predictions of GR. But that wouldn't mean much. Especially would opinion not be regarded as proof. > However, to *scientists*, if you have a prediction by a theory that > specifies a particular form of a signal that can be measured, and for > which no other theory provides a comparable prediction, and then you go > and make a measurement and that *particular* form of signal is observed, > then this constitutes strong experimental support for the theory. > Well, no. In this particular case it is not known, whether or not the interpretation 'gravitational wave' is correct. Also the specific features of the observed phenomenon are unknown. So we would need observations of such waves before we could figure out, how fast these waves distribute. Otherwise we would use a method, I would call "wishful thinking". This means, we would search for evidence of an idea, we already try to prove (GR in this case). Actually I had done similar, since I regard Growing Earth as true and try to find evidence, which would rule out plate tectonics. But the difference is, that I'm a single person, who may rightfully follow his own ideas, while 'science in total' is more bound to scientific ethics. TH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | pnalsing@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-25 21:22 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <971784fc-768e-41ce-9453-774a40ae00cc@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #377156 |
On Thursday, February 25, 2016 at 9:05:28 PM UTC-8, Thomas Heger wrote: > ... I regard Growing Earth as true and > try to find evidence, which would rule out plate tectonics... From Wiki, concerning Expanding Earth... http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Expanding_Earth "This hypothesis was actually considered not unreasonable before the acceptance of plate tectonics, and there are still a small number of older respectable geologists who hold it plausible. It defied physics, but the geologists had been right and physics and chemistry wrong in the 19th century regarding the age of the Earth, and the geologists still had a great big smug on. These days, though, it's cranks all the way down." Further... "the idea of an expanding Earth has several problems and very little evidence to back it up. For instance, in continental drift theory, we have measurements of the rate of plate movement (done by fancy satellites and lasers) that show the speed of movement. This movement, projected back, gives us the last time the continents were together. That these figures match up with geological strata and the fossil record is another big hint that we have this right." You have a mountain to overcome with this view... better to study modern thinking instead.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-27 01:02 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <djc7clFqgg4U1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #377159 |
Am 26.02.2016 06:22, schrieb pnalsing@gmail.com: > On Thursday, February 25, 2016 at 9:05:28 PM UTC-8, Thomas Heger wrote: > >> ... I regard Growing Earth as true and >> try to find evidence, which would rule out plate tectonics... > > From Wiki, concerning Expanding Earth... > > http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Expanding_Earth > > "This hypothesis was actually considered not unreasonable before the acceptance of plate tectonics, and there are still a small number of older respectable geologists who hold it plausible. It defied physics, but the geologists had been right and physics and chemistry wrong in the 19th century regarding the age of the Earth, and the geologists still had a great big smug on. These days, though, it's cranks all the way down." > > Further... "the idea of an expanding Earth has several problems and very little evidence to back it up. For instance, in continental drift theory, we have measurements of the rate of plate movement (done by fancy satellites and lasers) that show the speed of movement. This movement, projected back, gives us the last time the continents were together. That these figures match up with geological strata and the fossil record is another big hint that we have this right." > The idea of 'Growing Earth' stems from the German geologist 'Ott Christoph Hilgenberg', who wrote a book called 'Vom wachsenden Erdball'. He was teacher at the Technical University in Berlin (bearing a different name at that time - about 1930). Coincidently I spent a lot of time at the same building, where Hilgenberg had worked, when I was student of TU-Berlin. I think I have seen his models of the expanding Earth somewhere there, but I'm actually not sure. I had the idea from Neal Adams and his videos on YouTube. I have also taking part in his newsletter system for about a year, where roughly 300 people were discussing 'Growing Earth'. From such discussions like there or here (in the UseNet) or in web-based forums (like BAUT), I have still the ability to present as many arguments in favour of 'Growing Earth' as you like. And I'm actually quite good in showing, that a certain aspect of plate tectonics (called 'subduction') is impossible. > You have a mountain to overcome with this view... better to study modern thinking instead. Actually I tried to find evidence for 'Growing Earth', since it would give hints that would support my idea called 'structured spacetime'. This is (roughly) the method to explain, HOW Earth would gain mass from the inside. The idea is, that particles (like in QM) are in fact 'structures' of/in spacetime: https://docs.google.com/present/view?id=dd8jz2tx_3gfzvqgd6 'Growing Earth' would allow matter to create from nothing, hence Growing Earth would support such an idea. Since I needed a proof, that would rule out the so called 'particle concept' (~>Standard-model of QM), Growing Earth would provide this. So I have a personal bias towards Growing Earth, since that would support the idea, I have presented in my 'book'. TH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-28 09:19 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <djfosbFmtnpU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #377295 |
Am 27.02.2016 01:02, schrieb Thomas Heger: > And I'm actually quite good in showing, that a certain aspect of plate > tectonics (called 'subduction') is impossible. Subduction is the process by which the proponents of plate tectonics try to balance spreading. Spreading is obvious and easily seen in the spreading of the Atlantic. To maintain the assumption of the constant size of planet Earth, there is a negative process to spreading required, by which the additional surface vanishes somehow inside the planet. This assumed process is call 'subduction' and supposed to occur at certain place like the coat of Chile. Assumed is the following: the floor of the Pacific Ocean moves towards South America, bends down and vanishes under the Andes and then melts away inside the Earth mantle. This idea has a lot of issues, which are not plausible or impossible. First: the sea-floor moves in the other direction. Actually the sea-floor is getting younger the further away from the coast, but stays in place. The Earth crust is also thick, stiff and brittle, hence would not bent down (especially since the surface is spherical). Next problem: the deeper inside Earth you would dig, the higher the pressure and the higher the density, hence plates swim and do not 'want' to dive. Another problem for plate tectonic is to explain, how plates could slide about the mantle, if that is not liquid. The material is more like semi molten plastic in its viscosity, what inhibits anything to move above (like thick glue). Since the mantle is not liquid it is also hard to explain, how large pieces of crust should get inside. Other problems of subduction stem from the geometry of a sphere (what Earth surface is to sufficient approximation). Euler had proven, that moving a piece of a sphere about a ball, this movement is equivalent to a rotation about the so called 'Euler pole'. This would suggest, that plates have round shapes (what they haven't). Instead the form of the plates would hinder any movements along other plates. This would also be hindered by the pressure plates apply sideways to each other. and so forth.. So: subduction does not work, hence would not likely happen. But if you remove subduction from plate tectonic, you get 'Growing Earth'. TH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-28 15:04 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <djgd3jFs46iU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #377385 |
Am 28.02.2016 09:19, schrieb Thomas Heger: > Subduction is the process by which the proponents of plate tectonics try > to balance spreading. > > Spreading is obvious and easily seen in the spreading of the Atlantic. > > To maintain the assumption of the constant size of planet Earth, there > is a negative process to spreading required, by which the additional > surface vanishes somehow inside the planet. > > This assumed process is call 'subduction' and supposed to occur at > certain place like the coat of Chile. > > Assumed is the following: > > the floor of the Pacific Ocean moves towards South America, bends down > and vanishes under the Andes and then melts away inside the Earth mantle. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subduction Quote: "In geology, subduction is the process that takes place at convergent boundaries by which one tectonic plate moves under another tectonic plate and sinks into the mantle as the plates converge. Regions where this process occurs are known as subduction zones. " Only problem: this does NOT happen. Reason: the mantle has higher density and pressure then the plates. Other problem: the movement would require a force, which pushes the plates under other plates. Plate tectonics has presented no compelling reason, why this should happen. So, there is no force, which pushes plates horizontally along other plates, under adjacent continents and into the mantle. Then: bending plates is something, you would notice. Reason: think plates of rock (about 10 km thick) do not simply bent down. You could check that out by trying to bent much smaller stone plates (say 10 cm). TH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-28 09:42 -0600 |
| Subject | Subduction (was Re: Fatal Oversight by LIGO Conspirators) |
| Message-ID | <COCdnRp6LJDCiE7LnZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #377400 |
On 2/28/16 2/28/16 8:04 AM, Thomas Heger wrote: > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subduction > Quote: > "In geology, subduction is the process that takes place at convergent boundaries > by which one tectonic plate moves under another tectonic plate and sinks into > the mantle as the plates converge. Regions where this process occurs are known > as subduction zones. " > > Only problem: this does NOT happen. [...] Just sitting in your armchair and SPECULATING about such things is COMPLETELY USELESS. You need to GO OUT AND LOOK. When geologists do that, they find subduction zones, and describe them in textbooks, and on the web. > Other problem: the movement would require a force, which pushes the plates under > other plates. How silly. The forces involved in plate tectonics are ENORMOUS. You clearly don't have a clue about any of this. > Plate tectonics has presented no compelling reason, why this should happen. FAR more compelling is the fact that IT DOES HAPPEN. Tom Roberts
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Emigdio Sophronius <emigg@augustvisitors.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-28 17:06 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: Subduction (was Re: Fatal Oversight by LIGO Conspirators) |
| Message-ID | <nav9e1$1qnb$2@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #377406 |
Tom Roberts wrote: >> Other problem: the movement would require a force, which pushes the >> plates under other plates. > > How silly. The forces involved in plate tectonics are ENORMOUS. You > clearly don't have a clue about any of this. I tell you where those forces are coming from, since you avoid mentioning. Those plates are floating either suspended in gas, vacuum or liquid. There are no other possibilities.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-28 18:43 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: Subduction (was Re: Fatal Oversight by LIGO Conspirators) |
| Message-ID | <djgpufF112gU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #377416 |
Am 28.02.2016 18:06, schrieb Emigdio Sophronius: >>> Other problem: the movement would require a force, which pushes the >>> plates under other plates. >> >> How silly. The forces involved in plate tectonics are ENORMOUS. You >> clearly don't have a clue about any of this. > > I tell you where those forces are coming from, since you avoid mentioning. > Those plates are floating either suspended in gas, vacuum or liquid. There > are no other possibilities. Plates are not floating at all, since the plates are extremely heavy and sit on dense, stiff and gluey underground. Another very important problem, plate tectonic failed to explain, is the fact, that the entire Earth is covered with plates. This would make it extremely difficult for plates to move. I try to explain the problem with a somehow simplified example: a water melon. This melon shall represent the Earth. Now you get a knife and make 'vertical' cuts along the lines, where Earth has plate boundaries. Next: try to move the 'plates'. Someone might argue, the surface of the melon is not 'floating'. But, as I have mentioned, the plates on Earth don't float neither. But that's not the real problem. What really hinders the movement of the 'plates' is the rest of the melon: it's simply in the way. And you cannot move one piece a bit, without pushing other plates away. But you can't push other plates away, since they could not go anywhere. There is simply no space for movement. And space is required, since the Earth is spherical and plates are not rectangular. So ANY movement of any plate would push against some other plates. TH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Emigdio Sophronius <emigg@augustvisitors.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-28 19:40 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: Subduction (was Re: Fatal Oversight by LIGO Conspirators) |
| Message-ID | <naviei$c5v$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #377425 |
Thomas Heger wrote: >> I tell you where those forces are coming from, since you avoid >> mentioning. >> Those plates are floating either suspended in gas, vacuum or liquid. >> There are no other possibilities. > > Plates are not floating at all, since the plates are extremely heavy and > sit on dense, stiff and gluey underground. > Another very important problem, plate tectonic failed to explain, is the > fact, that the entire Earth is covered with plates. This would make it > extremely difficult for plates to move. > I try to explain the problem with a somehow simplified example: a water > melon. This melon shall represent the Earth. Now you get a knife and make > 'vertical' cuts along the lines, where Earth has plate boundaries. > Next: try to move the 'plates'. > Someone might argue, the surface of the melon is not 'floating'. But, as > I have mentioned, the plates on Earth don't float neither. > But that's not the real problem. What really hinders the movement of the > 'plates' is the rest of the melon: it's simply in the way. And you > cannot move one piece a bit, without pushing other plates away. > But you can't push other plates away, since they could not go anywhere. > There is simply no space for movement. > And space is required, since the Earth is spherical and plates are not > rectangular. So ANY movement of any plate would push against some other > plates. TH I don't know. What do you think?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-29 04:06 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: Subduction (was Re: Fatal Oversight by LIGO Conspirators) |
| Message-ID | <djhqu9F92vpU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #377438 |
Am 28.02.2016 20:40, schrieb Emigdio Sophronius: > Thomas Heger wrote: > >>> I tell you where those forces are coming from, since you avoid >>> mentioning. >>> Those plates are floating either suspended in gas, vacuum or liquid. >>> There are no other possibilities. >> >> Plates are not floating at all, since the plates are extremely heavy and >> sit on dense, stiff and gluey underground. >> Another very important problem, plate tectonic failed to explain, is the >> fact, that the entire Earth is covered with plates. This would make it >> extremely difficult for plates to move. >> I try to explain the problem with a somehow simplified example: a water >> melon. This melon shall represent the Earth. Now you get a knife and make >> 'vertical' cuts along the lines, where Earth has plate boundaries. >> Next: try to move the 'plates'. >> Someone might argue, the surface of the melon is not 'floating'. But, as >> I have mentioned, the plates on Earth don't float neither. >> But that's not the real problem. What really hinders the movement of the >> 'plates' is the rest of the melon: it's simply in the way. And you >> cannot move one piece a bit, without pushing other plates away. >> But you can't push other plates away, since they could not go anywhere. >> There is simply no space for movement. >> And space is required, since the Earth is spherical and plates are not >> rectangular. So ANY movement of any plate would push against some other >> plates. TH > > I don't know. What do you think? > If I think, my statement is correct? Well, yes! Actually I wrote that stuff, because I think it's true. I have spent a lot of time on the problem: Plate tectonics vs Growing Earth. I think: Growing Earth is true and plate tectonics partially (subduction is wrong). Wrong with plate tectonics is the assumption of a constant size of the planet. Reason: growing planets would nicely explain their existence. There are also other observations, which would fit to growing celestial bodies. For example double-star systems and galaxy formation could be explained this way, too. The appropriate observation would be that of Jupiter. According to 'Growing Earth' theory, Jupiter is kind of 'baby sun' and its current moons will become the planetary system of Jupiter and Earth-sized in the far future. The only thing, what is hindering the idea to be accepted is a 'law' (mass conservation), which seems to be invalid, if planets grow. Well, yes, but maybe that law is actually a misconception. Possibly we have other laws in nature, we still don't know, since we reject observations, that do not fit to current understanding. TH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-29 13:56 -0600 |
| Subject | Re: Subduction (was Re: Fatal Oversight by LIGO Conspirators) |
| Message-ID | <lYOdncdD3aLNP0nLnZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #377425 |
On 2/28/16 2/28/16 - 11:43 AM, Thomas Heger wrote: > Plates are not floating at all, since the plates are extremely heavy and sit on > dense, stiff and gluey underground. OF COURSE the plates are floating. For the simple reason that their density is lower than that of the (very viscous but still fluid) magma below. > Another very important problem, plate tectonic failed to explain, is the fact, > that the entire Earth is covered with plates. This would make it extremely > difficult for plates to move. Unless, of course, some plates slide under other plates. This is called "subduction" and IS OBSERVED TO HAPPEN. [Your fantasies and denials of reality are uninteresting. Don't expect me to continue unless you come up with something both sensible and new.] Tom Roberts
[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