Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #424266 > unrolled thread
| Started by | "Edgar L. Owen" <Edgar@edgarlowen.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2017-07-08 05:05 -0700 |
| Last post | 2017-07-29 20:43 +0000 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 125 — 24 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.physics.relativity
Why there must be an absolute frame - New Book "Edgar L. Owen" <Edgar@edgarlowen.com> - 2017-07-08 05:05 -0700
Re: Why there must be an absolute frame - New Book Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2017-07-08 14:09 +0200
Re: Why there must be an absolute frame - New Book The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-07-08 12:04 -0700
Re: Why there must be an absolute frame - New Book Ursler Zilberschlag <ursler@zilbersch.org> - 2017-07-09 09:57 +0000
Re: Why there must be an absolute frame - New Book Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2017-07-12 20:26 -0500
Re: Why there must be an absolute frame - New Book "Edgar L. Owen" <Edgar@edgarlowen.com> - 2017-07-13 03:48 -0700
Re: Why there must be an absolute frame - New Book Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2017-07-13 11:47 -0500
Re: Why there must be an absolute frame - New Book "Edgar L. Owen" <Edgar@edgarlowen.com> - 2017-07-14 03:07 -0700
Re: Why there must be an absolute frame - New Book "Edgar L. Owen" <Edgar@edgarlowen.com> - 2017-07-14 03:44 -0700
Re: Why there must be an absolute frame - New Book "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2017-07-14 06:46 -0700
Re: Why there must be an absolute frame - New Book Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2017-07-14 21:12 -0500
Re: Why there must be an absolute frame - New Book "Edgar L. Owen" <Edgar@edgarlowen.com> - 2017-07-14 19:49 -0700
Re: Why there must be an absolute frame - New Book "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2017-07-14 20:02 -0700
Re: Why there must be an absolute frame - New Book "Edgar L. Owen" <Edgar@edgarlowen.com> - 2017-07-15 04:22 -0700
Re: Why there must be an absolute frame - New Book "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2017-07-15 06:21 -0700
Re: Why there must be an absolute frame - New Book "Edgar L. Owen" <Edgar@edgarlowen.com> - 2017-07-15 08:10 -0700
Re: Why there must be an absolute frame - New Book "Edgar L. Owen" <Edgar@edgarlowen.com> - 2017-07-15 08:13 -0700
Re: Why there must be an absolute frame - New Book "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2017-07-15 08:22 -0700
Re: Why there must be an absolute frame - New Book Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2017-07-16 13:08 -0500
Re: Why there must be an absolute frame - New Book Winfred Plumer <lewru@pulwr.cn> - 2017-07-16 18:15 +0000
Re: Why there must be an absolute frame - New Book Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2017-07-17 10:57 -0500
Re: Why there must be an absolute frame - New Book Winfred Plumer <lewru@pulwr.cn> - 2017-07-17 16:12 +0000
Re: Why there must be an absolute frame - New Book Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2017-07-17 12:05 -0500
Re: Why there must be an absolute frame - New Book mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-07-17 10:42 -0700
Re: Why there must be an absolute frame - New Book Ustin Veterre <utve@nauoe.ct> - 2017-07-17 21:45 +0000
Re: Why there must be an absolute frame - New Book Nicolaas Vroom <nicolaas.vroom@pandora.be> - 2017-07-19 05:27 -0700
Re: Why there must be an absolute frame - New Book Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2017-07-19 08:23 -0700
Re: Why there must be an absolute frame - New Book Nicolaas Vroom <nicolaas.vroom@pandora.be> - 2017-07-26 01:25 -0700
Re: Why there must be an absolute frame - New Book "Edgar L. Owen" <Edgar@edgarlowen.com> - 2017-07-26 05:05 -0700
Re: Why there must be an absolute frame - New Book Ernard Hevalier <adrdo@tarlaab.lr> - 2017-07-26 20:49 +0000
Re: Why there must be an absolute frame - New Book Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2017-07-27 10:59 -0500
Re: Why there must be an absolute frame - New Book mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-07-27 09:10 -0700
Re: Why there must be an absolute frame - New Book Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2017-07-27 09:34 -0700
Re: Why there must be an absolute frame - New Book Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-07-27 11:59 -0500
Re: Why there must be an absolute frame - New Book mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-07-27 12:01 -0700
Re: Why there must be an absolute frame - New Book JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2017-07-27 12:18 -0700
Re: Why there must be an absolute frame - New Book mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-07-27 12:49 -0700
Re: Why there must be an absolute frame - New Book Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-07-27 19:35 +0000
Re: Why there must be an absolute frame - New Book mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-07-27 11:56 -0700
Re: Why there must be an absolute frame - New Book Ernard Hevalier <adrdo@tarlaab.lr> - 2017-07-27 19:05 +0000
Re: Why there must be an absolute frame - New Book JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2017-07-27 12:17 -0700
Re: Why there must be an absolute frame - New Book mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-07-27 12:47 -0700
Re: Why there must be an absolute frame - New Book JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2017-07-28 11:01 -0700
Re: Why there must be an absolute frame - New Book Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2017-07-27 13:04 -0700
Re: Why there must be an absolute frame - New Book Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2017-07-27 09:30 -0700
Re: Why there must be an absolute frame - New Book Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2017-07-27 09:45 -0700
Re: Why there must be an absolute frame - New Book Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2017-07-27 12:52 -0500
Re: Why there must be an absolute frame - New Book Ernard Hevalier <adrdo@tarlaab.lr> - 2017-07-27 18:06 +0000
Re: Why there must be an absolute frame - New Book Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-07-27 13:11 -0500
Re: Why there must be an absolute frame - New Book Ernard Hevalier <adrdo@tarlaab.lr> - 2017-07-27 18:04 +0000
Re: Why there must be an absolute frame - New Book Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2017-07-26 20:11 -0500
Re: Why there must be an absolute frame - New Book kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-07-19 05:59 -0700
Re: Why there must be an absolute frame - New Book "Edgar L. Owen" <Edgar@edgarlowen.com> - 2017-07-15 04:07 -0700
Re: Why there must be an absolute frame - New Book Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2017-07-16 13:22 -0500
Re: Why there must be an absolute frame - New Book "Edgar L. Owen" <Edgar@edgarlowen.com> - 2017-07-17 05:26 -0700
Re: Why there must be an absolute frame - New Book shuba <thailao2558@gmail.com> - 2017-07-17 08:03 -0700
Re: Why there must be an absolute frame - New Book Winfred Plumer <lewru@pulwr.cn> - 2017-07-17 15:59 +0000
Re: Why there must be an absolute frame - New Book Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2017-07-17 11:37 -0500
Re: Why there must be an absolute frame - New Book "Edgar L. Owen" <Edgar@edgarlowen.com> - 2017-07-18 04:30 -0700
Re: Why there must be an absolute frame - New Book Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2017-07-18 12:55 -0500
Re: Why there must be an absolute frame - New Book "Edgar L. Owen" <Edgar@edgarlowen.com> - 2017-07-18 11:41 -0700
Re: Why there must be an absolute frame - New Book Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2017-07-18 22:59 -0500
Re: Why there must be an absolute frame - New Book "Edgar L. Owen" <Edgar@edgarlowen.com> - 2017-07-19 05:13 -0700
Re: Why there must be an absolute frame - New Book Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2017-07-25 10:00 -0500
Re: Why there must be an absolute frame - New Book Jonathan Doolin <good4usoul@gmail.com> - 2017-07-25 10:23 -0700
Re: Why there must be an absolute frame - New Book Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2017-07-25 22:04 -0500
Re: Why there must be an absolute frame - New Book Jonathan Doolin <good4usoul@gmail.com> - 2017-07-26 07:16 -0700
Re: Why there must be an absolute frame - New Book Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2017-07-26 20:21 -0500
Re: Why there must be an absolute frame - New Book Jonathan Doolin <good4usoul@gmail.com> - 2017-07-27 07:15 -0700
Re: Why there must be an absolute frame - New Book JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2017-07-25 13:54 -0700
Re: Why there must be an absolute frame - New Book Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2017-07-25 21:51 -0500
Re: Why there must be an absolute frame - New Book JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2017-07-18 11:56 -0700
Re: Why there must be an absolute frame - New Book "Edgar L. Owen" <Edgar@edgarlowen.com> - 2017-07-18 12:14 -0700
Re: Why there must be an absolute frame - New Book JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2017-07-18 13:55 -0700
Re: Why there must be an absolute frame - New Book mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-07-18 23:30 -0700
Re: Why there must be an absolute frame - New Book JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2017-07-19 01:05 -0700
Re: Why there must be an absolute frame - New Book "Edgar L. Owen" <Edgar@edgarlowen.com> - 2017-07-19 04:23 -0700
Re: Why there must be an absolute frame - New Book JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2017-07-19 11:37 -0700
Re: Why there must be an absolute frame - New Book mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-07-19 11:42 -0700
Re: Why there must be an absolute frame - New Book "Edgar L. Owen" <Edgar@edgarlowen.com> - 2017-07-19 13:25 -0700
Re: Why there must be an absolute frame - New Book Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2017-07-25 10:40 -0500
Re: Why there must be an absolute frame - New Book Ernard Hevalier <adrdo@tarlaab.lr> - 2017-07-25 17:57 +0000
Re: Why there must be an absolute frame - New Book Jonathan Doolin <good4usoul@gmail.com> - 2017-07-25 11:38 -0700
Re: Why there must be an absolute frame - New Book Ernard Hevalier <adrdo@tarlaab.lr> - 2017-07-25 19:12 +0000
Re: Why there must be an absolute frame - New Book Jonathan Doolin <good4usoul@gmail.com> - 2017-07-25 14:21 -0700
Re: Why there must be an absolute frame - New Book Ernard Hevalier <adrdo@tarlaab.lr> - 2017-07-28 20:44 +0000
Re: Why there must be an absolute frame - New Book Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2017-07-25 22:05 -0500
Re: Why there must be an absolute frame - New Book RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> - 2017-07-19 12:56 -0700
Re: Why there must be an absolute frame - New Book Dirk Van de moortel <dirkvandemoortel@hotspam.not> - 2017-07-19 22:13 +0200
Re: Why there must be an absolute frame - New Book RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> - 2017-07-19 14:49 -0700
Re: Why there must be an absolute frame - New Book "Edgar L. Owen" <Edgar@edgarlowen.com> - 2017-07-19 13:44 -0700
Re: Why there must be an absolute frame - New Book JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2017-07-19 13:52 -0700
Re: Why there must be an absolute frame - New Book Ustin Veterre <utve@nauoe.ct> - 2017-07-20 16:58 +0000
Re: Why there must be an absolute frame - New Book Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2017-07-19 22:04 -0500
Re: Why there must be an absolute frame - New Book Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2017-07-14 21:05 -0500
Re: Why there must be an absolute frame - New Book JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2017-07-18 12:08 -0700
Re: Why there must be an absolute frame - New Book mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-07-18 13:22 -0700
Re: Why there must be an absolute frame - New Book JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2017-07-26 20:45 -0700
Re: Why there must be an absolute frame - New Book mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-07-27 00:04 -0700
Re: Why there must be an absolute frame - New Book JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2017-07-27 09:09 -0700
Re: Why there must be an absolute frame - New Book mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-07-27 11:55 -0700
Re: Why there must be an absolute frame - New Book JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2017-07-27 12:16 -0700
Re: Why there must be an absolute frame - New Book mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-07-27 12:47 -0700
Re: Why there must be an absolute frame - New Book JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2017-07-27 13:59 -0700
Re: Why there must be an absolute frame - New Book mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-07-27 23:03 -0700
Re: Why there must be an absolute frame - New Book JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2017-07-28 10:57 -0700
Re: Why there must be an absolute frame - New Book mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-07-29 00:56 -0700
Re: Why there must be an absolute frame - New Book JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2017-07-28 11:01 -0700
Re: Why there must be an absolute frame - New Book Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2017-07-28 12:23 -0700
Re: Why there must be an absolute frame - New Book RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> - 2017-07-19 12:38 -0700
Re: Why there must be an absolute frame - New Book JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2017-07-17 15:55 -0700
Re: Why there must be an absolute frame - New Book mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-07-17 23:25 -0700
Re: Why there must be an absolute frame - New Book Kurt Larrabee <arb@twraa.ab> - 2017-07-22 12:29 +0000
Re: Why there must be an absolute frame - New Book Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2017-07-13 11:39 +1000
Re: Why there must be an absolute frame - New Book pcardinale@volcanomail.com - 2017-07-13 12:49 -0700
Re: Why there must be an absolute frame - New Book Jonathan Doolin <good4usoul@gmail.com> - 2017-07-25 11:21 -0700
Re: Why there must be an absolute frame - New Book "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2017-07-25 11:28 -0700
Re: Why there must be an absolute frame - New Book Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2017-07-25 22:12 -0500
Re: Why there must be an absolute frame - New Book Jonathan Doolin <good4usoul@gmail.com> - 2017-07-26 08:22 -0700
Re: Why there must be an absolute frame - New Book Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2017-07-26 20:35 -0500
Re: Why there must be an absolute frame - New Book JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2017-07-27 12:13 -0700
Re: Why there must be an absolute frame - New Book Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2017-07-29 11:50 -0500
Re: Why there must be an absolute frame - New Book JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2017-07-29 13:30 -0700
Re: Why there must be an absolute frame - New Book Jeèným Ludnými <hovae@ieuuio.org> - 2017-07-29 20:45 +0000
Re: Why there must be an absolute frame - New Book Jeèným Ludnými <hovae@ieuuio.org> - 2017-07-29 20:43 +0000
Page 6 of 7 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 5 [6] 7 Next page →
| From | mlwozniak@wp.pl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-27 11:55 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <0a48c8de-a8c7-4f8d-bf90-638abd1c0769@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #426306 |
W dniu czwartek, 27 lipca 2017 18:09:19 UTC+2 użytkownik JanPB napisał: > On Thursday, July 27, 2017 at 12:04:03 AM UTC-7, mlwo...@wp.pl wrote: > > W dniu czwartek, 27 lipca 2017 05:45:27 UTC+2 użytkownik JanPB napisał: > > > On Tuesday, July 18, 2017 at 1:22:44 PM UTC-7, mlwo...@wp.pl wrote: > > > > W dniu wtorek, 18 lipca 2017 21:08:12 UTC+2 użytkownik JanPB napisał: > > > > > On Friday, July 14, 2017 at 7:05:39 PM UTC-7, tjrob137 wrote: > > > > > > On 7/14/17 7/14/17 5:07 AM, Edgar L. Owen wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > So I understand relativity quite well, [...] > > > > > > > > > > > > No, you DON'T. You don't even know enough to recognize your own errors. And your > > > > > > delusion is strong enough that you cannot even recognize your own errors when > > > > > > they are explained to you. How sad. > > > > > > > > > > Sad but very common: > > > > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect > > > > > > > > Yes. The victims tend to believe they have superior knowledge > > > > and everything they don't know is gobledygook. Or schmyntax. > > > > > > No. Knowledge is not something that depends on one's perspective. > > > > And you are a queen of England, poor idiot. > > > > > > > > I have it, you don't. It's an absolute. > > > > Surely. You know that syntax schmyntax, I don't. > > You just keep putting your own words in other people's mouths. You just keep lying. As expected from stupid, lying shit convinced to be a guru.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-27 12:16 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <63d6a07c-2628-4ec8-9fd9-78b37f3fcaf5@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #426336 |
On Thursday, July 27, 2017 at 11:55:12 AM UTC-7, mlwo...@wp.pl wrote: > W dniu czwartek, 27 lipca 2017 18:09:19 UTC+2 użytkownik JanPB napisał: > > On Thursday, July 27, 2017 at 12:04:03 AM UTC-7, mlwo...@wp.pl wrote: > > > W dniu czwartek, 27 lipca 2017 05:45:27 UTC+2 użytkownik JanPB napisał: > > > > On Tuesday, July 18, 2017 at 1:22:44 PM UTC-7, mlwo...@wp.pl wrote: > > > > > W dniu wtorek, 18 lipca 2017 21:08:12 UTC+2 użytkownik JanPB napisał: > > > > > > On Friday, July 14, 2017 at 7:05:39 PM UTC-7, tjrob137 wrote: > > > > > > > On 7/14/17 7/14/17 5:07 AM, Edgar L. Owen wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > So I understand relativity quite well, [...] > > > > > > > > > > > > > > No, you DON'T. You don't even know enough to recognize your own errors. And your > > > > > > > delusion is strong enough that you cannot even recognize your own errors when > > > > > > > they are explained to you. How sad. > > > > > > > > > > > > Sad but very common: > > > > > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect > > > > > > > > > > Yes. The victims tend to believe they have superior knowledge > > > > > and everything they don't know is gobledygook. Or schmyntax. > > > > > > > > No. Knowledge is not something that depends on one's perspective. > > > > > > And you are a queen of England, poor idiot. > > > > > > > > > > > I have it, you don't. It's an absolute. > > > > > > Surely. You know that syntax schmyntax, I don't. > > > > You just keep putting your own words in other people's mouths. > > You just keep lying. As expected from stupid, lying > shit convinced to be a guru. Notice you have nothing to say except yelling vulgarisms. Of course I am convinced, it's been proved several times: you cannot answer simple test questions about relativity yet you keep screaming expletives at it. What do you think does this say about you? -- Jan
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mlwozniak@wp.pl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-27 12:47 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <e5e989e4-f354-4589-936e-30b2e04caee6@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #426347 |
W dniu czwartek, 27 lipca 2017 21:16:28 UTC+2 użytkownik JanPB napisał: > On Thursday, July 27, 2017 at 11:55:12 AM UTC-7, mlwo...@wp.pl wrote: > > W dniu czwartek, 27 lipca 2017 18:09:19 UTC+2 użytkownik JanPB napisał: > > > On Thursday, July 27, 2017 at 12:04:03 AM UTC-7, mlwo...@wp.pl wrote: > > > > W dniu czwartek, 27 lipca 2017 05:45:27 UTC+2 użytkownik JanPB napisał: > > > > > On Tuesday, July 18, 2017 at 1:22:44 PM UTC-7, mlwo...@wp.pl wrote: > > > > > > W dniu wtorek, 18 lipca 2017 21:08:12 UTC+2 użytkownik JanPB napisał: > > > > > > > On Friday, July 14, 2017 at 7:05:39 PM UTC-7, tjrob137 wrote: > > > > > > > > On 7/14/17 7/14/17 5:07 AM, Edgar L. Owen wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > So I understand relativity quite well, [...] > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > No, you DON'T. You don't even know enough to recognize your own errors. And your > > > > > > > > delusion is strong enough that you cannot even recognize your own errors when > > > > > > > > they are explained to you. How sad. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sad but very common: > > > > > > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect > > > > > > > > > > > > Yes. The victims tend to believe they have superior knowledge > > > > > > and everything they don't know is gobledygook. Or schmyntax. > > > > > > > > > > No. Knowledge is not something that depends on one's perspective. > > > > > > > > And you are a queen of England, poor idiot. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I have it, you don't. It's an absolute. > > > > > > > > Surely. You know that syntax schmyntax, I don't. > > > > > > You just keep putting your own words in other people's mouths. > > > > You just keep lying. As expected from stupid, lying > > shit convinced to be a guru. > > Notice you have nothing to say except yelling vulgarisms. > > Of course I am convinced, it's been proved several times: you cannot > answer simple test questions about relativity yet you keep screaming > expletives at it. What do you think does this say about you? Notice you have nothing to say except yelling "syntax schmyntax" or "nor even wrong". Of course I am convinced, it's been proved several times: you cannot answer simple test question about a metric space yet you keep pretending a guru. What do you think does this say about you?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-27 13:59 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <3cadf1c0-cb01-432b-b280-8816336b7b83@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #426359 |
On Thursday, July 27, 2017 at 12:47:20 PM UTC-7, mlwo...@wp.pl wrote: > W dniu czwartek, 27 lipca 2017 21:16:28 UTC+2 użytkownik JanPB napisał: > > On Thursday, July 27, 2017 at 11:55:12 AM UTC-7, mlwo...@wp.pl wrote: > > > W dniu czwartek, 27 lipca 2017 18:09:19 UTC+2 użytkownik JanPB napisał: > > > > On Thursday, July 27, 2017 at 12:04:03 AM UTC-7, mlwo...@wp.pl wrote: > > > > > W dniu czwartek, 27 lipca 2017 05:45:27 UTC+2 użytkownik JanPB napisał: > > > > > > On Tuesday, July 18, 2017 at 1:22:44 PM UTC-7, mlwo...@wp.pl wrote: > > > > > > > W dniu wtorek, 18 lipca 2017 21:08:12 UTC+2 użytkownik JanPB napisał: > > > > > > > > On Friday, July 14, 2017 at 7:05:39 PM UTC-7, tjrob137 wrote: > > > > > > > > > On 7/14/17 7/14/17 5:07 AM, Edgar L. Owen wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > So I understand relativity quite well, [...] > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > No, you DON'T. You don't even know enough to recognize your own errors. And your > > > > > > > > > delusion is strong enough that you cannot even recognize your own errors when > > > > > > > > > they are explained to you. How sad. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sad but very common: > > > > > > > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Yes. The victims tend to believe they have superior knowledge > > > > > > > and everything they don't know is gobledygook. Or schmyntax. > > > > > > > > > > > > No. Knowledge is not something that depends on one's perspective. > > > > > > > > > > And you are a queen of England, poor idiot. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I have it, you don't. It's an absolute. > > > > > > > > > > Surely. You know that syntax schmyntax, I don't. > > > > > > > > You just keep putting your own words in other people's mouths. > > > > > > You just keep lying. As expected from stupid, lying > > > shit convinced to be a guru. > > > > Notice you have nothing to say except yelling vulgarisms. > > > > Of course I am convinced, it's been proved several times: you cannot > > answer simple test questions about relativity yet you keep screaming > > expletives at it. What do you think does this say about you? > > Notice you have nothing to say except yelling "syntax schmyntax" > or "nor even wrong". You keep simply echoing what an opponent says. Obviously, it's not true (IOW, you are a liar) that I "nothing to say except yelling "syntax schmyntax" or "nor even wrong". I posted a lot of stuff that actually discussed physics, apparently it went so far over your head you haven't noticed. > Of course I am convinced, it's been proved several times: you cannot > answer simple test question about a metric space yet you keep > pretending a guru. What do you think does this say about you? This is total nonsense. During a discussion of _metric tensors_ you brought up a totally unrelated concept of _metric space_ (they happen to share the same word, "metric" (that's the level of your competence)). I didn't follow it up because I didn't feel like going on a totally unrelated tangent. You produce enough noise as it is. As far as metric spaces are concerned, you probably forgot that I told you that general and geometric topology was one of my initial fields of study in the 1970s, I studied books like "Theory of retracts" and "Theory of shape" by Karol Borsuk (whose seminar at the PAN Mathematics Institute in Warsaw I attended, I still have his signature in my "index"). So I'm sorry to disappoint you but metric spaces is something I know backwards and forwards. My MS thesis was on Borsuk's shape theory, ANRs, etc. The sooner you give up this line of inquiry, the better it will be for you, trust me. -- Jan
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mlwozniak@wp.pl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-27 23:03 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <2bc1ea51-55ec-44f8-adfd-26343c9b08b2@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #426371 |
W dniu czwartek, 27 lipca 2017 22:59:47 UTC+2 użytkownik JanPB napisał: > > Notice you have nothing to say except yelling "syntax schmyntax" > > or "nor even wrong". > > You keep simply echoing what an opponent says. Obviously, it's not true > (IOW, you are a liar) that I "nothing to say except yelling "syntax > schmyntax" or "nor even wrong". It's samely true as that I have nothing to say except yelling vulgarisms. I posted a lot of stuff that actually discussed science, models of reality and methodology, apparently it went so far over your head you haven't noticed. > > Of course I am convinced, it's been proved several times: you cannot > > answer simple test question about a metric space yet you keep > > pretending a guru. What do you think does this say about you? > > This is total nonsense. During a discussion of _metric tensors_ you > brought up a totally unrelated concept of _metric space_ (they happen > to share the same word, "metric" (that's the level of your competence)). After providing a false answer you've roared "you're not in the position to ask questions!!". That's the level of YOUR competence. > > I didn't follow it up because because after providing wrong answer you felt the urgency to withdraw. As expected from a poor idiot convinced to be a guru.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-28 10:57 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <5fb917bb-1380-41aa-ac7c-1ac297ea0e04@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #426404 |
On Thursday, July 27, 2017 at 11:03:06 PM UTC-7, mlwo...@wp.pl wrote: > W dniu czwartek, 27 lipca 2017 22:59:47 UTC+2 użytkownik JanPB napisał: > > > > Notice you have nothing to say except yelling "syntax schmyntax" > > > or "nor even wrong". > > > > You keep simply echoing what an opponent says. Obviously, it's not true > > (IOW, you are a liar) that I "nothing to say except yelling "syntax > > schmyntax" or "nor even wrong". > > It's samely true as that I have nothing to say except yelling vulgarisms. > I posted a lot of stuff that actually discussed science, models of > reality and methodology, apparently it went so far over your head > you haven't noticed. False. You've definitely never discussed "science, models of reality and methodology", never ever. You only posted one-liners like "I'm an expert on models theory" (inexact quote). You have never provided any substance to back up any of your claims which - incidentally - are _monumental_: nothing less then: 1. physics has lost its way, 2. all physicists over the last 100+ years are "idiots" (there are more but those two would suffice for at least two Nobel prizes, and I am most definitely NOT JOKING when I say that). There was nothing in your posts even remotely approaching any "discussion of science and models" that would stand in any proportion to the magnitude of your claims above. But there are loads of: yelling, insults, vulgarisms, day in day out. Just search for your name in this NG's records and count the percentage of your posts that do not contain: "poor idiot", "the shit", "relativistic moron". What is it - 0.1%? > > > Of course I am convinced, it's been proved several times: you cannot > > > answer simple test question about a metric space yet you keep > > > pretending a guru. What do you think does this say about you? > > > > This is total nonsense. During a discussion of _metric tensors_ you > > brought up a totally unrelated concept of _metric space_ (they happen > > to share the same word, "metric" (that's the level of your competence)). > > After providing a false answer you've roared "you're > not in the position to ask questions!!". That's the level > of YOUR competence. You brought up _metric spaces_ in the midst of a discussion of _metric tensors_. > > I didn't follow it up because > > because after providing wrong answer I didn't provide any answer because _metric spaces_ was a diversion you inserted in the discussion either out of ignorance or because you wanted to trip up the debate participants. I simply didn't follow an irrelevancy. > you felt the urgency to withdraw. Yes. I simply called your bluff. > As expected from a poor idiot convinced to be a guru. The simple fact is that I know something about science you don't. For some reason this sends you ballistic. But your sophistry here is useless, facts cannot be altered by talking about them. -- Jan
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mlwozniak@wp.pl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-29 00:56 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <88f446a8-0d0b-4e40-9a93-0e57ed826fdb@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #426455 |
W dniu piątek, 28 lipca 2017 19:58:02 UTC+2 użytkownik JanPB napisał: > On Thursday, July 27, 2017 at 11:03:06 PM UTC-7, mlwo...@wp.pl wrote: > > W dniu czwartek, 27 lipca 2017 22:59:47 UTC+2 użytkownik JanPB napisał: > > > > > > Notice you have nothing to say except yelling "syntax schmyntax" > > > > or "nor even wrong". > > > > > > You keep simply echoing what an opponent says. Obviously, it's not true > > > (IOW, you are a liar) that I "nothing to say except yelling "syntax > > > schmyntax" or "nor even wrong". > > > > It's samely true as that I have nothing to say except yelling vulgarisms. > > I posted a lot of stuff that actually discussed science, models of > > reality and methodology, apparently it went so far over your head > > you haven't noticed. > > False. You've definitely never discussed "science, models of reality and > methodology", never ever. Jan, poor idiot, I did. You unerstood nothing of that, you roared "gobbledygook! syntax schmyntax!" And that was our discussion. > 1. physics has lost its way, > 2. all physicists over the last 100+ years are "idiots" > (there are more but those two would suffice for at least two Nobel prizes, Maybe they would, but absolutely surely they suffice for getting screams "gobledygook! syntax schmyntax!" and other. > > After providing a false answer you've roared "you're > > not in the position to ask questions!!". That's the level > > of YOUR competence. > > You brought up _metric spaces_ in the midst of a discussion of _metric > tensors_. I've tested your overall mathemaatical skills. They don't exist, thank you. > > As expected from a poor idiot convinced to be a guru. > > The simple fact is that I know something about science you don't. Yes, a simple fact you know that syntax schmyntax.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-28 11:01 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <a8b4d45b-3648-4d50-8989-92f2aec31d1a@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #426359 |
On Thursday, July 27, 2017 at 12:47:20 PM UTC-7, mlwo...@wp.pl wrote: > W dniu czwartek, 27 lipca 2017 21:16:28 UTC+2 użytkownik JanPB napisał: > > On Thursday, July 27, 2017 at 11:55:12 AM UTC-7, mlwo...@wp.pl wrote: > > > W dniu czwartek, 27 lipca 2017 18:09:19 UTC+2 użytkownik JanPB napisał: > > > > On Thursday, July 27, 2017 at 12:04:03 AM UTC-7, mlwo...@wp.pl wrote: > > > > > W dniu czwartek, 27 lipca 2017 05:45:27 UTC+2 użytkownik JanPB napisał: > > > > > > On Tuesday, July 18, 2017 at 1:22:44 PM UTC-7, mlwo...@wp.pl wrote: > > > > > > > W dniu wtorek, 18 lipca 2017 21:08:12 UTC+2 użytkownik JanPB napisał: > > > > > > > > On Friday, July 14, 2017 at 7:05:39 PM UTC-7, tjrob137 wrote: > > > > > > > > > On 7/14/17 7/14/17 5:07 AM, Edgar L. Owen wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > So I understand relativity quite well, [...] > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > No, you DON'T. You don't even know enough to recognize your own errors. And your > > > > > > > > > delusion is strong enough that you cannot even recognize your own errors when > > > > > > > > > they are explained to you. How sad. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sad but very common: > > > > > > > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Yes. The victims tend to believe they have superior knowledge > > > > > > > and everything they don't know is gobledygook. Or schmyntax. > > > > > > > > > > > > No. Knowledge is not something that depends on one's perspective. > > > > > > > > > > And you are a queen of England, poor idiot. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I have it, you don't. It's an absolute. > > > > > > > > > > Surely. You know that syntax schmyntax, I don't. > > > > > > > > You just keep putting your own words in other people's mouths. > > > > > > You just keep lying. As expected from stupid, lying > > > shit convinced to be a guru. > > > > Notice you have nothing to say except yelling vulgarisms. > > > > Of course I am convinced, it's been proved several times: you cannot > > answer simple test questions about relativity yet you keep screaming > > expletives at it. What do you think does this say about you? > > Notice you have nothing to say except yelling "syntax schmyntax" > or "nor even wrong". > > Of course I am convinced, it's been proved several times: you cannot > answer simple test question about a metric space yet you keep > pretending a guru. What do you think does this say about you? You haven't asked any question about "metric space", you just made an irrelevant comment in order to pretend you were qualified to enter that discussion. I know more about metric spaces you'll ever know, geometric topology used to be my main field of study. -- Jan
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-28 12:23 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <4707a431-3a02-4c43-bf6d-c4e93c579c3b@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #426456 |
El viernes, 28 de julio de 2017, 13:01:03 (UTC-5), JanPB escribió: > On Thursday, July 27, 2017 at 12:47:20 PM UTC-7, mlwo...@wp.pl wrote: > > W dniu czwartek, 27 lipca 2017 21:16:28 UTC+2 użytkownik JanPB napisał: > > > On Thursday, July 27, 2017 at 11:55:12 AM UTC-7, mlwo...@wp.pl wrote: > > > > W dniu czwartek, 27 lipca 2017 18:09:19 UTC+2 użytkownik JanPB napisał: > > > > > On Thursday, July 27, 2017 at 12:04:03 AM UTC-7, mlwo...@wp.pl wrote: > > > > > > W dniu czwartek, 27 lipca 2017 05:45:27 UTC+2 użytkownik JanPB napisał: > > > > > > > On Tuesday, July 18, 2017 at 1:22:44 PM UTC-7, mlwo...@wp.pl wrote: > > > > > > > > W dniu wtorek, 18 lipca 2017 21:08:12 UTC+2 użytkownik JanPB napisał: > > > > > > > > > On Friday, July 14, 2017 at 7:05:39 PM UTC-7, tjrob137 wrote: > > > > > > > > > > On 7/14/17 7/14/17 5:07 AM, Edgar L. Owen wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > So I understand relativity quite well, [...] > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > No, you DON'T. You don't even know enough to recognize your own errors. And your > > > > > > > > > > delusion is strong enough that you cannot even recognize your own errors when > > > > > > > > > > they are explained to you. How sad. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sad but very common: > > > > > > > > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Yes. The victims tend to believe they have superior knowledge > > > > > > > > and everything they don't know is gobledygook. Or schmyntax. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > No. Knowledge is not something that depends on one's perspective. > > > > > > > > > > > > And you are a queen of England, poor idiot. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I have it, you don't. It's an absolute. > > > > > > > > > > > > Surely. You know that syntax schmyntax, I don't. > > > > > > > > > > You just keep putting your own words in other people's mouths. > > > > > > > > You just keep lying. As expected from stupid, lying > > > > shit convinced to be a guru. > > > > > > Notice you have nothing to say except yelling vulgarisms. > > > > > > Of course I am convinced, it's been proved several times: you cannot > > > answer simple test questions about relativity yet you keep screaming > > > expletives at it. What do you think does this say about you? > > > > Notice you have nothing to say except yelling "syntax schmyntax" > > or "nor even wrong". > > > > Of course I am convinced, it's been proved several times: you cannot > > answer simple test question about a metric space yet you keep > > pretending a guru. What do you think does this say about you? > > You haven't asked any question about "metric space", you just made > an irrelevant comment in order to pretend you were qualified to enter > that discussion. > > I know more about metric spaces you'll ever know, geometric topology > used to be my main field of study. > > -- > Jan Yes, the only provided reference by this guy has been: The Merriam-Webster Dictionary
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-19 12:38 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <224298d4-301a-427b-bff9-5dbf1f6f2a80@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #425524 |
On July 18, JanPB wrote: >>> So I understand relativity quite well, > >> You don't even know enough to recognize your own >> errors. And your delusion is strong enough that you cannot even >> recognize your own errors when they are explained to you. > > Sad but very common: > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wvVPdyYeaQU -- Rich
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-17 15:55 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <27e82ed5-3df8-442b-aef7-e1cb55e062c0@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #424750 |
On Thursday, July 13, 2017 at 9:47:27 AM UTC-7, tjrob137 wrote: > > Would you bother with a math book that claims to present > "A whole new way to do advanced calculus" written by > someone who does not understand elementary arithmetic? There are things like this on sci.math :-) It never ceases to amaze me so many people write about stuff they have no clue about - can't they simply FEEL that they are way beyond the boundaries of their knowledge? Apparently not. It's totally weird to me. Would any of those guys ever allow to have a brain surgery performed on them by a doctor who doesn't know how to measure blood pressure? -- Jan
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mlwozniak@wp.pl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-17 23:25 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <aeac3ec3-3b8d-4a94-bea7-113ee171679b@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #425399 |
W dniu wtorek, 18 lipca 2017 00:55:29 UTC+2 użytkownik JanPB napisał: > It never ceases to amaze me so many people write about stuff they have > no clue about - can't they simply FEEL that they are way beyond the > boundaries of their knowledge? Of course you can't simply feel it, poor idiot.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Kurt Larrabee <arb@twraa.ab> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-22 12:29 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <okvgfv$jbm$4@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #425399 |
JanPB wrote: > Would any of those guys ever allow to have a brain surgery performed on > them by a doctor who doesn't know how to measure blood pressure? None of them are measuring it correctly.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-13 11:39 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <eso1aaFq1kkU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #424266 |
On 8/07/2017 10:05 PM, Edgar L. Owen wrote: > Relativity is well known for saying that all frames are equally valid and there is no absolute frame but this is demonstrably false. > > 1. Rotation is with respect to an absolute frame roughly aligned with the aggregate mass of the universe. Google 'Newton's Bucket' or 'Mach's Principle'. > > 2. Each of the space traveling twins moves equal and opposite to the frame of the other but only one's clock time actually ran slower though both observed each other's clock time run slower during the movement. > > Thus there are ACTUAL relativistic effects, and OBSERVATIONAL relativistic effects. A critical distinction not recognized by relativity itself. > > Now the difference can only be that actual relativistic effects are with respect to a universal absolute background frame, whereas observational relativistic effects are with respect to an observer's own frame. > > Now what is this absolute frame? There can be only one answer. It's the single computational frame within which everything is actually computed. > > Thus there is a single computational frame in which everything is computed and this takes the form of a universal entanglement network that expresses the dimensional relations among all the particles in the universe resulting from the conservation of mass-energy in their interactions. > > It's the dimensional consistency of this entanglement network that human observers interpret as an all encompassing spacetime in their mental simulations of reality. > > This is all explained in detail in my new book Universal Reality 2.0 available under my name on Amazon. > > Edgar L. Owen > Hmm... Looks like I can buy it from Amazon Australia, write a review of it, and then get refund under Australian consumer law on the grounds of misrepresentation. Whether I an be bothered is a different matter. Sylvia.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | pcardinale@volcanomail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-13 12:49 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <81fcd182-9bdc-4123-b6ed-43e07d11b341@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #424266 |
On Saturday, July 8, 2017 at 5:05:47 AM UTC-7, Edgar L. Owen wrote: > Relativity is well known for saying that all frames are equally valid and there is no absolute frame but this is demonstrably false. > Your 1st sentence betrays your rank ignorance of the subject. It's foolish to write about a subject that you haven't bothered to learn.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jonathan Doolin <good4usoul@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-25 11:21 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <202448b8-ad23-45c3-b601-02948c579eae@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #424266 |
On Saturday, July 8, 2017 at 7:05:47 AM UTC-5, Edgar L. Owen wrote: > Relativity is well known for saying that all frames are equally valid and there is no absolute frame but this is demonstrably false. > > 1. Rotation is with respect to an absolute frame roughly aligned with the aggregate mass of the universe. Google 'Newton's Bucket' or 'Mach's Principle'. > If the universe has a finite mass, then there would be a center-of-mass. But that wouldn't necessarily mean that we're anywhere near that center-of-mass. Quite the contrary, if you have a look at the Lorentz Transformation of an expanding Lobachevskian pattern, it looks identical from all velocities, at least until you get to the far edges of the distribution. What makes you bring up Newton's bucket? One key feature of a bucket is that there is a container, holding the water. The universe, so far as we know, has no bucket, holding it in. And if you're arguing that the universe is rotating, where is the center, and at what rate do you suppose it is rotating? > 2. Each of the space traveling twins moves equal and opposite to the frame of the other but only one's clock time actually ran slower though both observed each other's clock time run slower during the movement. > What are you talking about here? Before you can argue with an idea, you need to demonstrate some familiarity with the idea you're arguing with. Your words here are ambiguous enough here, that I can't tell whether you're clumsily describing time-dilation, or if you're arguing against the common conception of time-dilation. > Thus there are ACTUAL relativistic effects, and OBSERVATIONAL relativistic effects. A critical distinction not recognized by relativity itself. > You're confusing pedagogy with theory. "Relativity itself" is not an entity with the capacity to recognize things. > Now the difference can only be that actual relativistic effects are with respect to a universal absolute background frame, whereas observational relativistic effects are with respect to an observer's own frame. > Observational effects are actual. > Now what is this absolute frame? There can be only one answer. It's the single computational frame within which everything is actually computed. > Are you referring to the reference frames of all of the computers on earth? What about the computers in New Horizons and Voyager II and Pathfinder? What if there are aliens in distant galaxies also doing computations? > Thus there is a single computational frame in which everything is computed and this takes the form of a universal entanglement network that expresses the dimensional relations among all the particles in the universe resulting from the conservation of mass-energy in their interactions. > Oh! It's a religion! Cool, carry on. > It's the dimensional consistency of this entanglement network that human observers interpret as an all encompassing spacetime in their mental simulations of reality. > > This is all explained in detail in my new book Universal Reality 2.0 available under my name on Amazon. > > Edgar L. Owen Well, Edgar, it sounds like you've developed sort of a solipsistic vision of the universe. Where there is one point-of-view that is correct, and the others just have the illusion of being correct. Is it your idea to say that your own point-of-view is the one observing the actual phenomena of the universe, or are you somewhere off to the edge somewhere, and there's some other perspective--not your own--which is the absolute reference frame? Jonathan Doolin
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-25 11:28 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <78cf0d67-99f4-427b-b6ee-95e40fd5df3b@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #426106 |
On Tuesday, July 25, 2017 at 1:21:35 PM UTC-5, Jonathan Doolin wrote: > On Saturday, July 8, 2017 at 7:05:47 AM UTC-5, Edgar L. Owen wrote: > > Relativity is well known for saying that all frames are equally valid and there is no absolute frame but this is demonstrably false. > > > > 1. Rotation is with respect to an absolute frame roughly aligned with the aggregate mass of the universe. Google 'Newton's Bucket' or 'Mach's Principle'. > > > > If the universe has a finite mass, then there would be a center-of-mass. > But that wouldn't necessarily mean that we're anywhere near that > center-of-mass. > > Quite the contrary, if you have a look at the Lorentz Transformation > of an expanding Lobachevskian pattern, it looks identical from all velocities, > at least until you get to the far edges of the distribution. > > What makes you bring up Newton's bucket? One key feature of a bucket is that there is a container, holding the water. The universe, so far as we know, has no bucket, holding it in. > > And if you're arguing that the universe is rotating, where is the center, and at what rate do you suppose it is rotating? > > > > 2. Each of the space traveling twins moves equal and opposite to the frame of the other but only one's clock time actually ran slower though both observed each other's clock time run slower during the movement. > > > > What are you talking about here? > Before you can argue with an idea, > you need to demonstrate some > familiarity with the idea you're arguing with. > > Your words here are ambiguous enough here, that I > can't tell whether you're clumsily describing > time-dilation, or if you're arguing against > the common conception of time-dilation. > > > Thus there are ACTUAL relativistic effects, and OBSERVATIONAL relativistic effects. A critical distinction not recognized by relativity itself. > > > > You're confusing pedagogy with theory. > "Relativity itself" is not an entity with > the capacity to recognize things. > > > Now the difference can only be that actual relativistic effects are with respect to a universal absolute background frame, whereas observational relativistic effects are with respect to an observer's own frame. > > > > Observational effects are actual. > > > > Now what is this absolute frame? There can be only one answer. It's the single computational frame within which everything is actually computed. > > > > Are you referring to the reference frames of all of the computers on earth? What about the computers in New Horizons and Voyager II and Pathfinder? What if there are aliens in distant galaxies also doing computations? > > > Thus there is a single computational frame in which everything is computed and this takes the form of a universal entanglement network that expresses the dimensional relations among all the particles in the universe resulting from the conservation of mass-energy in their interactions. > > > > Oh! It's a religion! > > Cool, carry on. > > > It's the dimensional consistency of this entanglement network that human observers interpret as an all encompassing spacetime in their mental simulations of reality. > > > > This is all explained in detail in my new book Universal Reality 2.0 available under my name on Amazon. > > > > Edgar L. Owen > > Well, Edgar, > > it sounds like you've developed sort of a solipsistic vision > of the universe. Where there is one point-of-view that is correct, > and the others just have the illusion of being correct. > > Is it your idea to say that your own point-of-view is the one > observing the actual phenomena of the universe, or are you > somewhere off to the edge somewhere, and there's some other > perspective--not your own--which is the absolute reference frame? > > Jonathan Doolin Edgar believes himself to be Morpheus of the Matrix with the ability to save us from the Devils illusion
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-25 22:12 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <GoydnQQNfeIqleXEnZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #426106 |
On 7/25/17 7/25/17 1:21 PM, Jonathan Doolin wrote: > If the universe has a finite mass, then there would be a center-of-mass. Why? -- I see no such necessity. You are making assumptions that are so hidden that you don't realize you are making them. In particular you assume that integration over all space is well defined (because that is how center-of-mass is defined). But on a curved manifold, as in GR, such integration is in general NOT well defined. You can integrate certain geometrical objects known as differential forms. But for center-of-mass the integrand is not such a form. Tom Roberts
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jonathan Doolin <good4usoul@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-26 08:22 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <fde9cba6-115f-48a5-b892-fe5d0aa6deca@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #426150 |
On Tuesday, July 25, 2017 at 10:13:01 PM UTC-5, tjrob137 wrote: > On 7/25/17 7/25/17 1:21 PM, Jonathan Doolin wrote: > > If the universe has a finite mass, then there would be a center-of-mass. > > Why? -- I see no such necessity. You are making assumptions that are so hidden > that you don't realize you are making them. In particular you assume that > integration over all space is well defined (because that is how center-of-mass > is defined). But on a curved manifold, as in GR, such integration is in general > NOT well defined. > > You can integrate certain geometrical objects known as > differential forms. But for center-of-mass the integrand is > not such a form. > > Tom Roberts Okay, yes, well, we both probably have hidden assumptions. If the universe is, as many believe, a model like the one promoted in Davis and Lineweaver' paper here: https://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0310808 then you would be right in saying that a center-of-mass integral would have a different value, for every observer at every instant in time, because you have radom particles constantly crossing from outside the observable universe. However, I was assuming, for the moment, a true big bang model, where every particle in the universe is constrained to within some global Hubble Sphere. If the universe were finite in such a case, then each observer would be able to see some kind of asymmetry pointing toward the center-of-mass, unless you were at the center-of mass. A higher density in one direction. Except that in most places, that higher density would be behind the CMBR. But the region of high density would be beyond the CMBR so you wouldn't be able to see it, unless you were near the edge.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-26 20:35 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <p_-dnetfOK7C3uTEnZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #426177 |
On 7/26/17 7/26/17 10:22 AM, Jonathan Doolin wrote: > On Tuesday, July 25, 2017 at 10:13:01 PM UTC-5, tjrob137 wrote: >> On 7/25/17 7/25/17 1:21 PM, Jonathan Doolin wrote: >>> If the universe has a finite mass, then there would be a center-of-mass. >> >> Why? -- I see no such necessity. You are making assumptions that are so hidden >> that you don't realize you are making them. In particular you assume that >> integration over all space is well defined (because that is how center-of-mass >> is defined). But on a curved manifold, as in GR, such integration is in general >> NOT well defined. >> >> You can integrate certain geometrical objects known as >> differential forms. But for center-of-mass the integrand is >> not such a form. >> >> Tom Roberts > [...] The problem goes MUCH deeper than you realize. In general you cannot perform the integral required [#]. This can be because it does not converge, or because it is not well defined and you get different values depending on which method you use, or because you cannot find valid boundaries to the integration region, or.... [#] Though in some specific cases you can. Simple example: consider Schwarzschild spacetime with the usual coordinates, and the 2-sphere r=10M,t=0. This is well outside the horizon, but the volume enclosed within that boundary is not well defined. [I am not expert here, but I know that in general integration over a curved manifold is not well defined.] Tom Roberts
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 6 of 7 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 5 [6] 7 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity
csiph-web