Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #384929 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Alan Folmsbee <omnilobe@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2016-06-03 11:09 -0700 |
| Last post | 2016-06-24 10:13 -0700 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 108 — 15 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.physics.relativity
Time and Gravity Alan Folmsbee <omnilobe@gmail.com> - 2016-06-03 11:09 -0700
Re: Time and Gravity "David (Time Lord) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-06-03 15:38 -0700
Re: Time and Gravity Alan Folmsbee <omnilobe@gmail.com> - 2016-06-04 09:35 -0700
Re: Time and Gravity "David (Time Lord) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-06-05 13:20 -0700
Re: Time and Gravity Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-06-04 06:34 +0200
Re: Time and Gravity "David (Time Lord) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-06-04 09:36 -0700
Re: Time and Gravity Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-06-05 05:03 +0200
Re: Time and Gravity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-06-05 15:35 -0500
Re: Time and Gravity Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-06-07 15:52 +0200
Re: Time and Gravity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-06-07 11:26 -0500
Re: Time and Gravity Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-06-08 10:42 +0200
Re: Time and Gravity mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-06-08 01:55 -0700
Re: Time and Gravity Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-06-08 22:24 +0200
Re: Time and Gravity mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-06-08 23:24 -0700
Re: Time and Gravity The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-06-10 01:24 -0700
Re: Time and Gravity Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-06-12 10:19 +0200
Re: Time and Gravity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-06-08 08:17 -0500
Re: Time and Gravity Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-06-08 22:39 +0200
Re: Time and Gravity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-06-08 15:52 -0500
Re: Time and Gravity Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-06-09 05:13 +0200
Re: Time and Gravity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-06-09 11:39 -0500
Re: Time and Gravity Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-06-10 07:23 +0200
Re: Time and Gravity Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-06-10 13:14 -0500
Re: Time and Gravity Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-06-11 06:35 +0200
Re: Time and Gravity Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-06-17 11:09 +0200
Re: Time and Gravity Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-06-18 06:46 +0200
Re: Time and Gravity Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-06-19 12:02 -0500
Re: Time and Gravity "David (Time Lord) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-06-19 14:17 -0700
Re: Time and Gravity Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-06-20 05:59 +0200
Re: Time and Gravity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-06-20 15:45 -0500
Re: Time and Gravity Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-06-23 22:39 +0200
Re: Time and Gravity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-06-23 16:06 -0500
Re: Time and Gravity Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-06-24 07:09 +0200
Re: Time and Gravity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-06-24 07:49 -0500
Re: Time and Gravity Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-06-24 09:52 -0500
Re: Time and Gravity Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-06-24 17:31 +0200
Re: Time and Gravity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-06-24 13:17 -0500
Re: Time and Gravity A Nony Mouse <abc@cef.ghi> - 2016-06-24 12:57 -0600
Re: Time and Gravity alsor@interia.pl - 2016-06-24 12:08 -0700
Re: Time and Gravity Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-06-25 04:35 +0200
Re: Time and Gravity "David (Time Lord) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-06-24 20:12 -0700
Re: Time and Gravity "David (Time Lord) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-06-24 20:31 -0700
Re: Time and Gravity Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-06-24 23:48 -0500
Re: Time and Gravity Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-06-25 08:13 +0200
Re: Time and Gravity "David (Time Lord) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-06-25 09:04 -0700
Re: Time and Gravity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-06-25 13:33 -0500
Re: Time and Gravity Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-06-26 03:34 +0200
Re: Time and Gravity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-06-27 15:33 -0500
Re: Time and Gravity Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-06-27 23:58 +0200
Re: Time and Gravity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-06-28 08:26 -0500
Re: Time and Gravity Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-07-11 06:30 +0200
Re: Time and Gravity Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-07-13 09:50 +0200
Re: Time and Gravity "David (Time Lord) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-07-13 07:40 -0700
Re: Time and Gravity Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-07-14 07:14 +0200
Re: Time and Gravity "David (Time Lord) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-07-19 05:54 -0700
Re: Time and Gravity "David (Time Lord) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-07-19 06:04 -0700
Re: Time and Gravity "David (Time Lord) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-07-19 07:03 -0700
Re: Time and Gravity Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-06-25 14:00 +0200
Re: Time and Gravity "Dr. Bob John" <drbobjohn@hotmail.org> - 2016-06-25 18:31 +0000
Re: Time and Gravity Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-06-25 05:02 +0200
Re: Time and Gravity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-06-25 13:32 -0500
Re: Time and Gravity Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-07-12 06:30 +0200
Re: Time and Gravity "David (Time Lord) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-07-12 08:27 -0700
Re: Time and Gravity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-13 09:07 -0500
Re: Time and Gravity "David (Time Lord) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-06-24 07:23 -0700
Re: Time and Gravity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-06-20 14:14 -0500
Re: Time and Gravity Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-06-26 03:24 +0200
Re: Time and Gravity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-06-26 15:59 -0500
Re: Time and Gravity Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-06-27 04:25 +0200
Re: Time and Gravity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-06-27 14:27 -0500
Re: Time and Gravity Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-06-28 00:43 +0200
Re: Time and Gravity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-06-28 08:43 -0500
Re: Time and Gravity Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-06-28 22:10 +0200
Re: Time and Gravity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-06-28 16:22 -0500
Re: Time and Gravity Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-06-29 08:06 +0200
Re: Time and Gravity paparios <paparios@gmail.com> - 2016-06-29 05:47 -0700
Re: Time and Gravity Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-06-29 19:18 +0200
Re: Time and Gravity paparios <paparios@gmail.com> - 2016-06-29 10:28 -0700
Re: Time and Gravity Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-07-08 09:36 +0200
Silliness about "growing earth" Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-07-08 10:45 -0500
Re: Silliness about "growing earth" Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-07-09 07:10 +0200
Re: Time and Gravity Alejandro Bellucci <alejb@yahoo.info> - 2016-07-08 17:49 +0000
Re: Time and Gravity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-06-29 08:08 -0500
Re: Time and Gravity Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-06-29 18:46 +0200
Re: Time and Gravity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-06-29 12:17 -0500
Re: Time and Gravity Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-06-29 19:45 +0200
Re: Time and Gravity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-06-29 13:02 -0500
Re: Time and Gravity Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-06-30 07:41 +0200
Re: Time and Gravity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-06-30 08:14 -0500
Re: Time and Gravity Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-07-01 05:12 +0200
Re: Time and Gravity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-01 07:46 -0500
Re: Time and Gravity Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-07-01 22:16 +0200
Re: Time and Gravity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-01 15:54 -0500
Re: Time and Gravity Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-07-02 07:25 +0200
Re: Time and Gravity Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-07-06 04:18 +0200
Re: Time and Gravity "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2016-07-05 23:28 -0700
Re: Time and Gravity Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-07-06 23:10 +0200
Re: Time and Gravity "David (Time Lord) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-06-09 10:23 -0700
Re: Time and Gravity "David (Time Lord) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-06-09 10:36 -0700
Re: Time and Gravity Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-06-09 13:18 -0500
Re: Time and Gravity "David (Time Lord) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-06-09 11:25 -0700
Re: Time and Gravity Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-06-10 07:05 +0200
Re: Time and Gravity "David (Time Lord) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-06-05 13:41 -0700
Re: Time and Gravity Alan Folmsbee <omnilobe@gmail.com> - 2016-06-06 08:54 -0700
Re: Time and Gravity "David (Time Lord) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-06-06 09:17 -0700
Re: Time and Gravity "David (Time Lord) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-06-06 09:37 -0700
Re: Time and Gravity "David (Time Lord) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-06-06 11:11 -0700
Re: Time and Gravity Carl Susumu <numbernumber1212@gmail.com> - 2016-06-24 10:13 -0700
Page 3 of 6 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 Next page →
| From | "David (Time Lord) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-24 20:12 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <8e31c2c0-43f0-425b-b3d0-ec9014015622@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #386629 |
Thomas Heger said: 'Growing Earth' assumes a different mechanism. That is creation of matter inside the planet. This matter would kind of bubble upwards from the centre to the crust and breaks out in volcanoes. (1 / (((68 665.5865 (meters per second)) / (1 Mpc)) * (c^2))) / 5 = 1 If an expanding earth is factual at all, it is tied to the Hubble expansion (1 / (((68 665.5865 (meters per second)) / (1 Mpc)) * (c^2))) / 5 = 1 As per your book, light would be seen as mass if your light cone is tipped far enough in the opposite direction. Seems more likely the mass increase you are looking for is not coming from large celestial bodies , but it is coming from the volume of space time it self. Mass is being added to the universe at a rate of 4.66*10^-31 kg per second per second per cubic meter. Now this mechanism is actually the thing, which possibility I try to prove by proving 'Growing Earth'. The idea behind it is the assumption I call 'structured spacetime'. (about what I have written the following 'book': https://docs.google.com/present/view?id=dd8jz2tx_3gfzvqgd6 ) According to this concept matter is a 'structure' of/in spacetime and 'relative'. So matter could be created in a low energy process and inside a planet. This concept is in sharp contrast to the standard model of cosmology. To decide, who is right, I try to prove, whether or not Growing Earth is true (or not). And to the best of my knowledge Growing Earth is actually correct. So matter does not come from the early times of the universe and a hot big-bang, but is created in realtime inside celestial bodies. The could be tested in a laboratory. So I assume it would be possible to create dust inside of a sealed plastic container by certain waves (pulsed microwaves). (Unfortunately I don't have such a laboratory. ) TH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "David (Time Lord) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-24 20:31 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <bb0f0bac-0517-4eb7-b157-f8b6d5e5cfbb@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #386632 |
As per your book, light would be seen as mass if your light cone is tipped far enough in the opposite direction. Seems more likely the mass increase you are looking for is not coming from large celestial bodies , but it is coming from the volume of space time it self. Mass is being added to the universe at a rate of 4.66*10^-31 kg per second per second per cubic meter. http://i65.tinypic.com/t7j0hx.jpg
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-24 23:48 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <k76dnZOT28SOkPPKnZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #386588 |
On 6/24/16 6/24/16 1:57 PM, A Nony Mouse wrote: > In article <nkjteu$1l25$1@gioia.aioe.org>, > Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> wrote: >> The sphere of the orbit of the satellites does not change, even if the >> earth is growing. Why would it? That is strictly governed by the >> strength of the gravitational field out at that orbit, which is NOT >> CHANGING. > > Nonsense! If, as is the case, Earth is getting more massive from > meteorite impacts, so is its gravitational field changing and changing > any orbits around Earth. This is supposed to be physics, not some debating society. Physics is QUANTITATIVE. So compute the effect of a typical year's meteorites on GPS satellite orbits. Then compare to the GPS accuracy. You'll find your concern is misplaced, and meteorites can be safely neglected for MANY years. Tom Roberts
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-25 08:13 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <dt6lorF8ieoU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #386635 |
Am 25.06.2016 06:48, schrieb Tom Roberts: >>> The sphere of the orbit of the satellites does not change, even if the >>> earth is growing. Why would it? That is strictly governed by the >>> strength of the gravitational field out at that orbit, which is NOT >>> CHANGING. >> >> Nonsense! If, as is the case, Earth is getting more massive from >> meteorite impacts, so is its gravitational field changing and changing >> any orbits around Earth. > > This is supposed to be physics, not some debating society. Physics is > QUANTITATIVE. So compute the effect of a typical year's meteorites on > GPS satellite orbits. Then compare to the GPS accuracy. > This is not physics, but a 'debating society' called 'UseNet'. I have the pleasure to promote the somehow exotic concept known as 'Growing Earth'. In a debating society it is actually acceptable to defend eccentric propositions, since debating is based on discussions. And you can't discuss about what everybody would agree. To figure out how much the Earth does grow, that is, despite of your complains, not my concern and I would gracefully leave that up to you. TH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "David (Time Lord) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-25 09:04 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <8efe7c2f-be4c-4bf6-9551-7c432c37cebc@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #386636 |
((((4 * pi) / 3) * (10^(-14))) * 2) * joules = 522887.446 electron volts 522887.446 / 510998.910 ((1 + (((522887.446 - 510998.910) / 510998.910) * 2)) / (pi / (3^2))) = 2.99808924774 (1 - ((1 - (522887.446 / 510998.910)) * 2)) / (pi / 3) = 0.99936308258 1 / ((1 / 0.99936308258) - 1) = 1569.06225391 CMBR @ (4pi/3*10^-14) joules per cubic meter. Energy Bandwidth of the vacuum of free space per cubic meter per second .. (4pi/3*10^-14) joules Relativistic mass of one cubic meter of free space . 1+ (4pi/3*10^-14) http://vixra.org/pdf/1310.0191vC.pdf
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-25 13:33 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <nkmiqc$1fn8$2@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #386636 |
On 6/25/2016 1:13 AM, Thomas Heger wrote: > This is not physics, but a 'debating society' called 'UseNet'. I'm sorry, perhaps I'm lost. I don't view sci.physics or sci.physics.relativity as "debating societies", nor do I view science as a "debating society". Isn't there a specific usenet group for debating? Like alt.conversation.confrontational? > > I have the pleasure to promote the somehow exotic concept known as > 'Growing Earth'. > > In a debating society it is actually acceptable to defend eccentric > propositions, since debating is based on discussions. And you can't > discuss about what everybody would agree. > > To figure out how much the Earth does grow, that is, despite of your > complains, not my concern and I would gracefully leave that up to you. > > > TH -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-26 03:34 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <dt8ppdFls51U1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #386657 |
Am 25.06.2016 20:33, schrieb Odd Bodkin: >> This is not physics, but a 'debating society' called 'UseNet'. > > I'm sorry, perhaps I'm lost. I don't view sci.physics or > sci.physics.relativity as "debating societies", nor do I view science as > a "debating society". > > Isn't there a specific usenet group for debating? Like > alt.conversation.confrontational? > What do you think, we are actually doing here (in this forum)? Certainly we do not practise either science or physics, since we are actually 'talking' (=debating) certain questions. Science would be something like drilling a deep hole or putting something under a microscope. But neither is possibly in ASCII code. If Mr. Roberts would require calculation for physics, talk in forums like this one isn't physics, since people simply do not calculate. Actually some folks do and present their results (like '23494.389'), but I personally do not regard such numbers as particularly interesting. TH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-27 15:33 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <nks2it$1u4q$8@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #386684 |
On 6/25/2016 8:34 PM, Thomas Heger wrote: > Am 25.06.2016 20:33, schrieb Odd Bodkin: > >>> This is not physics, but a 'debating society' called 'UseNet'. >> >> I'm sorry, perhaps I'm lost. I don't view sci.physics or >> sci.physics.relativity as "debating societies", nor do I view science as >> a "debating society". >> >> Isn't there a specific usenet group for debating? Like >> alt.conversation.confrontational? >> > > > What do you think, we are actually doing here (in this forum)? > > Certainly we do not practise either science or physics, since we are > actually 'talking' (=debating) certain questions. I think it's a fair statement to say that what you're doing is not science. Right. > > Science would be something like drilling a deep hole or putting > something under a microscope. But neither is possibly in ASCII code. > > > If Mr. Roberts would require calculation for physics, talk in forums > like this one isn't physics, since people simply do not calculate. And that is also true. So people here are not really doing physics. > > Actually some folks do and present their results (like '23494.389'), but > I personally do not regard such numbers as particularly interesting. You don't think physics, being a quantitative science, is interesting? Then why post to a physics group? > > > > TH -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-27 23:58 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <dtdlt1FlupkU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #386763 |
Am 27.06.2016 22:33, schrieb Odd Bodkin: >>>> This is not physics, but a 'debating society' called 'UseNet'. >>> >>> I'm sorry, perhaps I'm lost. I don't view sci.physics or >>> sci.physics.relativity as "debating societies", nor do I view science as >>> a "debating society". >>> >>> Isn't there a specific usenet group for debating? Like >>> alt.conversation.confrontational? >>> >> >> >> What do you think, we are actually doing here (in this forum)? >> >> Certainly we do not practise either science or physics, since we are >> actually 'talking' (=debating) certain questions. > > I think it's a fair statement to say that what you're doing is not > science. Right. Well .. Actually I'm not a physicist and regard this subject as a hobby. So I wouldn't call me 'scientist' - at least not in a professional sense. But you don't need to be a physicist to be able to say something about a scientific problem. Here we are discussing a scientific problem, which is 'plate tectonic vs. growing Earth'. Such discussion are not real science, since we don't conduct any experiment or measure something. And certainly I'm not able to travel to the Andes and measure the age of fossils. So you cannot expect anything of this type from me. But observations are also possible on e.g. google.earth or youtube and that is more of the type of resources by 'research' is based. Other sophisticated means are my computers, which are a little old and mainly refurbished scrap. So I do not plan to compete with established institutions in measuring tectonic plates. >> >> Science would be something like drilling a deep hole or putting >> something under a microscope. But neither is possibly in ASCII code. >> >> >> If Mr. Roberts would require calculation for physics, talk in forums >> like this one isn't physics, since people simply do not calculate. > > And that is also true. So people here are not really doing physics. Certainly some do, but writing here is not physics. It is writing into an electronic forum about certain subjects. >> >> Actually some folks do and present their results (like '23494.389'), but >> I personally do not regard such numbers as particularly interesting. > > You don't think physics, being a quantitative science, is interesting? > Then why post to a physics group? You shouldn't think, that I'm unable to calculate. But prior to calculation should come a discussion about the content of that calculation and what it is supposed to provide. Since here we had the subject of measurement of the diameter of the planet from orbit. And we didn't agree about the method and whether or not such a measurement is possible. This is not really a mathematical problem. TH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-28 08:26 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <nkttue$klb$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #386766 |
On 6/27/2016 4:58 PM, Thomas Heger wrote: > Am 27.06.2016 22:33, schrieb Odd Bodkin: > >>>>> This is not physics, but a 'debating society' called 'UseNet'. >>>> >>>> I'm sorry, perhaps I'm lost. I don't view sci.physics or >>>> sci.physics.relativity as "debating societies", nor do I view >>>> science as >>>> a "debating society". >>>> >>>> Isn't there a specific usenet group for debating? Like >>>> alt.conversation.confrontational? >>>> >>> >>> >>> What do you think, we are actually doing here (in this forum)? >>> >>> Certainly we do not practise either science or physics, since we are >>> actually 'talking' (=debating) certain questions. >> >> I think it's a fair statement to say that what you're doing is not >> science. Right. > > > Well .. > > Actually I'm not a physicist and regard this subject as a hobby. So I > wouldn't call me 'scientist' - at least not in a professional sense. > > But you don't need to be a physicist to be able to say something about a > scientific problem. Well, anybody can say something about anything. Dentists can say something about woodworking. But unless they know a little about what they're talking about, then most likely what they say about woodworking will be foolish or at best uninformed. Now, maybe they just like talking about it as a passing interest anyway, or maybe they just like discussion even among people who don't know what they're talking about. > > Here we are discussing a scientific problem, which is 'plate tectonic > vs. growing Earth'. > > Such discussion are not real science, since we don't conduct any > experiment or measure something. And certainly I'm not able to travel > to the Andes and measure the age of fossils. > > So you cannot expect anything of this type from me. But observations are > also possible on e.g. google.earth or youtube and that is more of the > type of resources by 'research' is based. > > Other sophisticated means are my computers, which are a little old and > mainly refurbished scrap. I really don't think that using web searches is "sophisticated", sorry. A middle-school child can do that. > > So I do not plan to compete with established institutions in measuring > tectonic plates. > >>> >>> Science would be something like drilling a deep hole or putting >>> something under a microscope. But neither is possibly in ASCII code. >>> >>> >>> If Mr. Roberts would require calculation for physics, talk in forums >>> like this one isn't physics, since people simply do not calculate. >> >> And that is also true. So people here are not really doing physics. > > Certainly some do, but writing here is not physics. It is writing into > an electronic forum about certain subjects. Then I'm glad you're clear about what your contribution is here. Frankly, I think there are a lot of people here who have spent more effort in learning the subject than you have. >>> >>> Actually some folks do and present their results (like '23494.389'), but >>> I personally do not regard such numbers as particularly interesting. >> >> You don't think physics, being a quantitative science, is interesting? >> Then why post to a physics group? > > You shouldn't think, that I'm unable to calculate. But prior to > calculation should come a discussion about the content of that > calculation and what it is supposed to provide. I'm not really sure I agree with that. You can spend a lifetime piddling away with qualitative discussions, studiously avoiding any calculations. But calculations are instrumental in telling you whether your ideas have merit. A back-of-the-envelope calculation is usually one of the very first steps a physicist makes to perform a reality check on an idea. > > Since here we had the subject of measurement of the diameter of the > planet from orbit. And we didn't agree about the method and whether or > not such a measurement is possible. > > This is not really a mathematical problem. > > > TH -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-11 06:30 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <duglo1Fhf3cU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #386803 |
Am 28.06.2016 15:26, schrieb Odd Bodkin: >> >> Here we are discussing a scientific problem, which is 'plate tectonic >> vs. growing Earth'. >> >> Such discussion are not real science, since we don't conduct any >> experiment or measure something. And certainly I'm not able to travel >> to the Andes and measure the age of fossils. >> >> So you cannot expect anything of this type from me. But observations are >> also possible on e.g. google.earth or youtube and that is more of the >> type of resources by 'research' is based. >> >> Other sophisticated means are my computers, which are a little old and >> mainly refurbished scrap. > > I really don't think that using web searches is "sophisticated", sorry. > A middle-school child can do that. Irony a not recommended is UseNet discussion too much, since someone always manages to miss it. And you did, of course, since actually I had no intention to call the means I use 'sophisticated'. E.g. the computer, which I use now is a Samsung NC10. This little thing is nice, but quite old and certainly not that sophisticated. >> >> So I do not plan to compete with established institutions in measuring >> tectonic plates. >> >>>> >>>> Science would be something like drilling a deep hole or putting >>>> something under a microscope. But neither is possibly in ASCII code. >>>> >>>> >>>> If Mr. Roberts would require calculation for physics, talk in forums >>>> like this one isn't physics, since people simply do not calculate. >>> >>> And that is also true. So people here are not really doing physics. >> >> Certainly some do, but writing here is not physics. It is writing into >> an electronic forum about certain subjects. > > Then I'm glad you're clear about what your contribution is here. > Frankly, I think there are a lot of people here who have spent more > effort in learning the subject than you have. I write about certain ideas I had and how I came to my conclusions. Especially important is 'Growing Earth', since I try to use that as prove, that certain assumptions of QM are wrong. Mainly wrong is the one-dimensional time QM uses (and requires) and the standard-model (or: particle concept). Since 'Growing Earth' is the subset of physics, in which I have way more experience that you, you could trust into my ability to defend GE. >>>> >>>> Actually some folks do and present their results (like '23494.389'), >>>> but >>>> I personally do not regard such numbers as particularly interesting. >>> >>> You don't think physics, being a quantitative science, is interesting? >>> Then why post to a physics group? >> >> You shouldn't think, that I'm unable to calculate. But prior to >> calculation should come a discussion about the content of that >> calculation and what it is supposed to provide. > > I'm not really sure I agree with that. You can spend a lifetime piddling > away with qualitative discussions, studiously avoiding any calculations. > But calculations are instrumental in telling you whether your ideas have > merit. A back-of-the-envelope calculation is usually one of the very > first steps a physicist makes to perform a reality check on an idea. No. You do not calculate because you just like to calculate something. It has to fulfil a certain purpose and this the question, what you want to do with these numbers. You simply don't calculate and have no clue, what that is you have figured out. So, in a way, we are talking about the question, what should be calculated, why and how. The numbers itself are actually not important at all, since if we agree about the method, the actual calculation could be done by a computer. But you apparently think, that nature behaves similar to mathematical device, hence with the right math, we could understand nature much better. Well, yes, I would agree on that. But you don't seem to be willing to discuss the question, which mathematical formalism nature actually uses. I have in contrast a proposal for this question: nature is actually a very large fractal, based on complex numbers, which are connected very similar to how quaternions are multiplied. I have also suggested the appropriate group (SO3). But neither you or anybody else had any intention to discuss that subject. TH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-13 09:50 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <duma6vFsij5U1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #387551 |
Am 11.07.2016 06:30, schrieb Thomas Heger: > But you apparently think, that nature behaves similar to mathematical > device, hence with the right math, we could understand nature much better. > > Well, yes, I would agree on that. But you don't seem to be willing to > discuss the question, which mathematical formalism nature actually uses. > > I have in contrast a proposal for this question: > > nature is actually a very large fractal, based on complex numbers, which > are connected very similar to how quaternions are multiplied. > > I have also suggested the appropriate group (SO3). But neither you or > anybody else had any intention to discuss that subject. > I assume, that nature behaves on a fundamental level very mathematical. I assume, that 'elements of spacetime' behave like complex four-vectors (or: bi-quaternions). These 'elements' twist each other in a certain way and the appropriate group is SO3, the rotations group. Why I think so you may find here: https://docs.google.com/present/view?id=dd8jz2tx_3gfzvqgd6 What we call matter is in this model a 'timelike stable structure'. So matter could be created and destroyed and is not composed from particles. Particles are certain structures, which appear like waves on the ocean, not real things. To prove this, I try to prove Groving Earth, since this would violate the particle concept of QM. SO3 is the group of rotations in three dimensions, where the 'space' with three dimensions is a spacetime, which has three orthogonal dimensions of the type time. TH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "David (Time Lord) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-13 07:40 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <596717d8-26b7-4666-8960-4d30ba0443a0@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #387679 |
Thomas Heger wrote: I assume, that nature behaves on a fundamental level very mathematical. I assume, that 'elements of spacetime' behave like complex four-vectors (or: bi-quaternions). These 'elements' twist each other in a certain way and the appropriate group is SO3, the rotations group. Why I think so you may find here: https://docs.google.com/present/view?id=dd8jz2tx_3gfzvqgd6 What we call matter is in this model a 'timelike stable structure'. So matter could be created and destroyed and is not composed from particles. Particles are certain structures, which appear like waves on the ocean, not real things. To prove this, I try to prove Groving Earth, since this would violate the particle concept of QM. SO3 is the group of rotations in three dimensions, where the 'space' with three dimensions is a spacetime, which has three orthogonal dimensions of the type time. TH https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rotation_group_SO(3) http://i57.tinypic.com/294ksba.jpg http://i68.tinypic.com/2qjkqxv.jpg http://i61.tinypic.com/2hd0cug.jpg
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-14 07:14 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <duolecFfiimU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #387693 |
Am 13.07.2016 16:40, schrieb David (Time Lord) Fuller: > Thomas Heger wrote: > > > I assume, that nature behaves on a fundamental level very mathematical. > > I assume, that 'elements of spacetime' behave like complex four-vectors > (or: bi-quaternions). > > These 'elements' twist each other in a certain way and the appropriate > group is SO3, the rotations group. > > Why I think so you may find here: > > https://docs.google.com/present/view?id=dd8jz2tx_3gfzvqgd6 > > What we call matter is in this model a 'timelike stable structure'. > > So matter could be created and destroyed and is not composed from > particles. > > Particles are certain structures, which appear like waves on the ocean, > not real things. > > To prove this, I try to prove Groving Earth, since this would violate > the particle concept of QM. > > SO3 is the group of rotations in three dimensions, where the 'space' > with three dimensions is a spacetime, which has three orthogonal > dimensions of the type time. > > TH > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rotation_group_SO(3) Actually I had chosen SO3 for it's 'logo' called 'triality' (actually the so called 'Dynkins diagram'). I had found, that a certain quaternion formula would allow to connect concepts of GR to those of QM. This was: v'= q* v* q^-1 This equation describes a rotation with quaternions. Since I wanted something with four components for relativity, quaternions were the obvious choice. And the equation resembles somehow the bra / ket formalism of QM. But later I found complex-four-vector would fit better and used so called 'biquaternions' instead of quaternions. The rotation is 'anti-symmetric'. This could be understood as a connection, where one element rotates its neighbour into the same direction. (in contrast gears in a gear-box have the opposite behaviour and symmetric rotation). Now these rotations could build spherical waves and those are, what we call 'atoms' (timelike stable patterns). The axis of stability of these patterns are what we call 'time', since we see ourselves as stable and massive objects (like our planet). If the axis of stability is altered, these objects could eventually disappear, (what is kind of counter-intuitive). But this can be done and hence the axis of time could turn into any direction (what is even more counter-intuitive) and we have in fact three orthogonal axis of time. The rotations in this 'space' could be regarded as what SO3 contains. TH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "David (Time Lord) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-19 05:54 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <07afc0dc-f896-4df6-81cc-2694a473e15f@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #387731 |
Thomas Heger wrote: But this can be done and hence the axis of time could turn into any direction (what is even more counter-intuitive) and we have in fact three orthogonal axis of time. Seems likely to me Our space and time as perceived are Very dilated from their actual state. A Seven Axis is useful as one can switch between (3 spatial with 4 temporal) or ( 3 positive spatial with 3 negative spatial with 1 temporal) or ( 1 spherical spatial with 2pi temporal )
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "David (Time Lord) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-19 06:04 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <9a60ad47-6c9e-44e7-a7ce-9914e0deab72@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #387731 |
A seven axis system is interesting because 0.376730313461 * (7^0.5) = 0.99673472075 (4 * pi * (10^(-7))) / ((1000 / (7^0.5))^2) = 8.7964594e-12 1 / ((4 * pi * (10^(-7))) / (1000 / (7^0.5))) = 300774570.963
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "David (Time Lord) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-19 07:03 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <b7c28d87-4ba9-452e-a9f9-032c76242200@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #388024 |
& A seven axis system is interesting because pi / (3 + (1 / 7)) =. 0.9995976625
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-25 14:00 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <nklrpb$rom$1@node2.news.atman.pl> |
| In reply to | #386635 |
Użytkownik "Tom Roberts" napisał w wiadomości grup dyskusyjnych:k76dnZOT28SOkPPKnZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com... |This is supposed to be physics, not some debating society. Physics is |QUANTITATIVE. Physics was quantitative. Now it's symmytric instead.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Dr. Bob John" <drbobjohn@hotmail.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-25 18:31 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <nkmim2$1ff3$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #386635 |
Tom Roberts wrote: > This is supposed to be physics, not some debating society. Physics is > QUANTITATIVE. So compute the effect of a typical year's meteorites on > GPS satellite orbits. Then compare to the GPS accuracy. This must be in a way blatantly untrue. At least in Relativity, whereas the qunatitative Length Contraction gets not quantitative anymore when the speeds goes back to normal. Summa summarum, Length Contraction is NOT quantitative pretty much.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-25 05:02 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <dt6ai5F6l8jU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #386585 |
Am 24.06.2016 20:17, schrieb Odd Bodkin:
>>>>> Sir, please start thinking.
>>>>> If I am a satellite system that has orbits on a sphere in space,
>>>>> then I
>>>>> know the location of the center of that sphere. (If you walked in a
>>>>> large circle, measuring your distance of travel, you would know the
>>>>> circumference of the circle you walked in. Knowing the circumference
>>>>> and
>>>>> dividing by 2*pi, you now know the radius of the circle from your
>>>>> measured distance of travel. Now that you know the radius, you know
>>>>> the
>>>>> exact location of the center of the circle you traveled in, even
>>>>> though
>>>>> it may be in the middle of a mountain.) The center of that sphere
>>>>> coincides with the center of the earth, even though I cannot see the
>>>>> center of the earth. The radius of this sphere is therefore a measured
>>>>> value R.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> This too funny, since what you cannot do in orbit, that is measure the
>>>> distance travelled by kind of odometer. (You DON'T walk in space!)
>>>
>>> I did not mean to suggest that satellites measure the circumference of
>>> their travel. They know the dimensions of the sphere they are on by
>>> different means (radar ranging, effectively). The point of my
>>> illustration of walking in a circle is to point out that you do not need
>>> to be able to see the center of a circle to know where it is, even when
>>> walking around a mountain.
>>
>> The point is this statement:
>>
>> "They know the dimensions of the sphere..."
>>
>> But what if they try to measure changes of this sphere?
>
> The sphere of the orbit of the satellites does not change, even if the
> earth is growing. Why would it? That is strictly governed by the
> strength of the gravitational field out at that orbit, which is NOT
> CHANGING.
Since the mass of the Earth assumed to increase, the gravity of Earth
would change, too.
This would make the distance to the Sun larger and the year longer.
Also the Earth Moon distance would increase.
This is a feature of angular momentum, since if the planet gains mass,
the rotational velocity would decrease.
>>
>> How would they do that?
>>
>> You said, the GPS system measures the diameter of the Earth,
>
> No, I didn't say that. I said the GPS system measures the diameter of
> the sphere of their orbit. The earth is well inside this orbital sphere.
>
> I'll reiterate this: The GPS satellites range relative to each other.
> Where the ground is underneath them is irrelevant for this determination.
The GPS satelites measure the distance to each other?
Well, maybe, but as non-expert in this field I will not insist on my
opinion about how the system functions.
So possibly you are in fact right and the GPS satelites could measure,
whether or not the Earth would grow.
But do you actually think, the US-military would tell, if they would
measure such a growth?
...
>>>>
>>>> No!
>>>> I wrote, that movement of plates is caused by growth.
>>>>
>>>> What cannot possibly work is the mechanism, which Plate tectonic
>>>> assumes.
>>>>
>>>> PT has a constant size of the planet as axiom. Under this condition
>>>> plates cannot move at all.
>>>>
>>>> PT uses, in violation of facts, a plane model of plates.
>>>
>>> I don't think so, no. I don't know where you got the impression that it
>>
>>
>> A belt is flat and rectangular. It has two main dimensions: length and
>> width.
>
> That is NOT what plate tectonics presumes. If you have seen a comparison
> of tectonic plates with a conveyor belt, and you took that illustration
> to mean that tectonic plates are flat and rectangular, then you
> over-literalized that illustration. The illustration is intended for
> children.
>
> Plate tectonics does NOT assume a plane model of plates.
Sure they do.
A conveyor belt is actually (almost) two-dimensional and flat. And pt
uses the conveyor belt as model for the movement of plates.
As Earth is roughly a ball, the crust is a spherical shell about this ball.
If you regard plates a kind of tiles, you need a model, which completely
covers the ball of the planet by such tiles.
Relatively close is a soccer ball and its typical pattern of hexagonal
shapes ('tiles').
If these tiles would move from one side of the hexagon towards the
other, they would need to stretch towards the middle and then compress
again.
And this a completely impossible process and something not observed.
But a tile in constant form and size cannot move about the ball, since
the ball is completely covered. So a moving tile would soon run into
another tile and then stop.
>>
>> It has also thickness, but we could ignore this in these circumstances.
>>
>> A belt has a feature, that tectonic plates cannot have: belts have
>> constant width.
>>
>> A tectonic plate could be approximated with a large hexagon.
>
> That is not accurate either and is as bad as the flat, rectangular
No. A soccer ball is quite a good example. But also a ball created from
flat hexagons would be much more ball-like than the cube, you could
actually construct from rectangular 'plates'.
>> The one
>> side is the spreading zone, from where it originates and on the opposite
>> side we have the subduction zone.
>>
>> But in between these zones, the 'belt' is changing width.
>>
>> And such a feature of tectonic plates is not seen in reality. And such a
>> process would definitely not stay unnoticed, since if such a plate would
>> stretch significantly and subsequently would be squeezed together, we
>> would expect tremendous 'ripples' in the landscape, which are simply not
>> there .
>>
>> Plate tectonic ignores this problem by using the flat model of a
>> conveyor belt, while sweeping the problem of different width under the
>> rug.
>>
>> The other problem ignored is the spherical form. This is significantly
>> different to the form of a belt, which could be approximated by a sheet
>> or plane.
>
> You have mistaken a child's analogy of a conveyor belt for a literal
> description of tectonic plates. Good grief.
I used, what plate tectonic provides and that is this 'conveyor belt'
analogy.
Actually I try to prove 'Growing Earth', hence think, that PT is wrong.
>>>>
>>>> Avocados are not spherical.
>>>
>>> Nor is a watermelon. Objection irrelevant.
>>
>> Well, no. A melon is quite close to a ball. A pumpkin would also be a
>> possible example. But fruits with soft and thin skin are not possible.
>
> I believe now you are arguing for the sake of arguing.
Not true. What I actually try to prove is something different than
Growing Earth. That is the concept I have developed I call 'structured
spacetime', which is essentially something about matter and what that
might be.
In case you don't have that link already, here it comes again:
https://docs.google.com/present/view?id=dd8jz2tx_3gfzvqgd6
Since I have spent a terrible lot of time on this 'book', I feel kind of
disappointed about nobody reading it.
So I try to find proof, that my concept is actually correct and growing
Earth would provide evidence.
TH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 3 of 6 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity
csiph-web