Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #453648 > unrolled thread
| Started by | jgreenfield97@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| First post | 2018-03-23 20:21 -0700 |
| Last post | 2018-05-02 23:31 -0700 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 119 — 27 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.physics.relativity
Trivial destruction of AE theory jgreenfield97@gmail.com - 2018-03-23 20:21 -0700
Trivial destruction of AE theory "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-03-23 20:36 -0700
Re:Trivial destruction of AE theory Libor Striz <poutnik4REMOVEnntp@CAPITALSgmail.com> - 2018-03-24 07:04 +0100
Re: Trivial destruction of AE theory Peter Brown <pmbphy@gmail.com> - 2018-04-30 02:06 -0700
Re: Trivial destruction of AE theory Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2018-05-01 15:17 -0700
Re: Trivial destruction of AE theory Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2018-03-23 23:50 -0700
Re: Trivial destruction of AE theory Libor Striz <poutnik4REMOVEnntp@CAPITALSgmail.com> - 2018-03-24 07:56 +0100
Re: Trivial destruction of AE theory Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2018-03-24 10:24 -0700
Re: Trivial destruction of AE theory Libor Striz <poutnik4REMOVEnntp@CAPITALSgmail.com> - 2018-03-24 19:52 +0100
Re: Trivial destruction of AE theory Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2018-03-24 12:28 -0700
Re: Trivial destruction of AE theory Libor Striz <poutnik4REMOVEnntp@CAPITALSgmail.com> - 2018-03-24 23:25 +0100
Re: Trivial destruction of AE theory Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2018-03-24 22:17 -0700
Re: Trivial destruction of AE theory JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-03-25 01:45 -0700
Re: Trivial destruction of AE theory Libor 'Poutnik' Stříž <poutnik@privacy.net> - 2018-03-25 13:13 +0200
Re: Trivial destruction of AE theory Emma Blazer <aemb@wmopswxa.as> - 2018-03-25 13:31 +0000
Re: Trivial destruction of AE theory JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-03-26 16:40 -0700
Re: Trivial destruction of AE theory Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2018-03-25 10:31 -0700
Re: Trivial destruction of AE theory Libor 'Poutnik' Stříž <poutnik@privacy.net> - 2018-03-25 13:08 +0200
Re: Trivial destruction of AE theory Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2018-03-25 11:12 -0700
Re: Trivial destruction of AE theory JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-03-26 16:47 -0700
Re: Trivial destruction of AE theory JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-03-26 16:45 -0700
Re: Trivial destruction of AE theory Emma Blazer <aemb@wmopswxa.as> - 2018-03-25 13:33 +0000
Re: Trivial destruction of AE theory Peter Brown <pmbphy@gmail.com> - 2018-04-30 02:09 -0700
Re: Trivial destruction of AE theory Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2018-05-01 10:28 -0700
Re: Trivial destruction of AE theory "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-05-01 10:35 -0700
Re: Trivial destruction of AE theory JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-05-01 14:43 -0700
Re: Trivial destruction of AE theory Steve BH <sbharris@gmail.com> - 2018-03-24 19:01 -0700
Re: Trivial destruction of AE theory Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2018-03-24 22:28 -0700
Re: Trivial destruction of AE theory JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-03-25 01:47 -0700
Re: Trivial destruction of AE theory Emma Blazer <aemb@wmopswxa.as> - 2018-03-25 13:35 +0000
Re: Trivial destruction of AE theory JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-03-27 10:19 -0700
Re: Trivial destruction of AE theory alsor@interia.pl - 2018-03-24 12:37 -0700
Re: Trivial destruction of AE theory Libor Striz <poutnik4REMOVEnntp@CAPITALSgmail.com> - 2018-03-24 23:26 +0100
Re: Trivial destruction of AE theory alsor@interia.pl - 2018-03-25 12:32 -0700
Re: Trivial destruction of AE theory "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2018-03-24 19:51 -0700
Re: Trivial destruction of AE theory JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-03-25 01:44 -0700
Re: Trivial destruction of AE theory Emma Blazer <aemb@wmopswxa.as> - 2018-03-25 13:43 +0000
Re: Trivial destruction of AE theory Steve BH <sbharris@gmail.com> - 2018-03-25 22:25 -0700
Re: Trivial destruction of AE theory jgreenfield97@gmail.com - 2018-03-27 00:44 -0700
Re: Trivial destruction of AE theory Steve BH <sbharris@gmail.com> - 2018-03-27 15:29 -0700
Re: Trivial destruction of AE theory mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-03-28 00:06 -0700
Re: Trivial destruction of AE theory Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2018-03-27 10:15 -0700
Re: Trivial destruction of AE theory JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-03-27 10:21 -0700
Re: Trivial destruction of AE theory Emma Blazer <aemb@wmopswxa.as> - 2018-03-25 13:46 +0000
Re: Trivial destruction of AE theory jgreenfield97@gmail.com - 2018-03-25 19:21 -0700
Re: Trivial destruction of AE theory Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2018-03-25 21:09 -0700
Re: Trivial destruction of AE theory jgreenfield97@gmail.com - 2018-03-27 00:40 -0700
Re: Trivial destruction of AE theory Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2018-03-27 05:01 -0700
Re: Trivial destruction of AE theory jgreenfield97@gmail.com - 2018-03-30 22:11 -0700
Re: Trivial destruction of AE theory Libor 'Poutnik' Stříž <poutnik@privacy.net> - 2018-03-31 13:22 +0200
Re: Trivial destruction of AE theory Emory Walpole <aibw@wrtwgt.lr> - 2018-03-31 19:40 +0000
Re: Trivial destruction of AE theory "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-03-31 12:53 -0700
Re: Trivial destruction of AE theory "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-03-31 13:21 -0700
Re: Trivial destruction of AE theory "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-04-29 11:16 -0700
Re: Trivial destruction of AE theory "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-04-29 11:20 -0700
Re: Trivial destruction of AE theory mitchrae3323@gmail.com - 2018-04-01 15:12 -0700
Re: Trivial destruction of AE theory jgreenfield97@gmail.com - 2018-05-02 23:08 -0700
Re: Trivial destruction of AE theory Steve BH <sbharris@gmail.com> - 2018-03-25 22:31 -0700
Re: Trivial destruction of AE theory "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-03-25 23:00 -0700
Re: Trivial destruction of AE theory Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2018-03-27 11:01 +1100
Re: Trivial destruction of AE theory jgreenfield97@gmail.com - 2018-03-27 01:10 -0700
Re: Trivial destruction of AE theory Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2018-03-27 19:30 +1100
Re: Trivial destruction of AE theory jgreenfield97@gmail.com - 2018-03-27 01:50 -0700
Re: Trivial destruction of AE theory Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2018-03-28 11:14 +1100
Re: Trivial destruction of AE theory mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-03-28 00:09 -0700
Re: Trivial destruction of AE theory Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-04-29 19:09 +0100
Re: Trivial destruction of AE theory Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-04-29 13:50 -0500
Re: Trivial destruction of AE theory Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-04-29 20:13 +0100
Re: Trivial destruction of AE theory "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-04-29 12:24 -0700
Re: Trivial destruction of AE theory Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2018-04-29 12:59 -0700
Re: Trivial destruction of AE theory "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-04-29 13:18 -0700
Re: Trivial destruction of AE theory jgreenfield97@gmail.com - 2018-05-02 23:37 -0700
Re: Trivial destruction of AE theory "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-05-03 04:22 -0700
Re: Trivial destruction of AE theory "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-05-03 05:35 -0700
Re: Trivial destruction of AE theory jgreenfield97@gmail.com - 2018-05-07 22:24 -0700
Re: Trivial destruction of AE theory Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2018-05-08 05:08 -0700
Re: Trivial destruction of AE theory jgreenfield97@gmail.com - 2018-05-09 23:32 -0700
Re: Trivial destruction of AE theory Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2018-05-10 04:38 -0700
Re: Trivial destruction of AE theory "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2018-05-08 15:03 +0200
Re: Trivial destruction of AE theory HGW <HW@home.net> - 2018-05-12 10:16 +1000
Re: Trivial destruction of AE theory jgreenfield97@gmail.com - 2018-05-03 22:53 -0700
Re: Trivial destruction of AE theory Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2018-04-29 15:13 -0700
Re: Trivial destruction of AE theory Volney <volney@volney.invalid> - 2018-04-29 20:37 -0400
Re: Trivial destruction of AE theory pnalsing@gmail.com - 2018-04-29 17:47 -0700
Re: Trivial destruction of AE theory "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2018-04-30 11:16 +0200
Re: Trivial destruction of AE theory Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2018-05-01 10:30 -0700
Re: Trivial destruction of AE theory "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2018-05-01 21:51 +0200
Re: Trivial destruction of AE theory Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2018-05-01 13:38 -0700
Re: Trivial destruction of AE theory JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-05-01 15:42 -0700
Re: Trivial destruction of AE theory Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2018-05-01 17:13 -0700
Re: Trivial destruction of AE theory JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-05-01 17:35 -0700
Re: Trivial destruction of AE theory Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2018-05-01 17:46 -0700
Re: Trivial destruction of AE theory Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2018-05-01 22:53 -0700
Re: Trivial destruction of AE theory Otto Wahl <tlow@wtiwor.oc> - 2018-05-02 15:42 +0000
Re: Trivial destruction of AE theory JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-05-02 11:02 -0700
Re: Trivial destruction of AE theory Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2018-05-02 11:21 -0700
Re: Trivial destruction of AE theory JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-05-03 00:11 -0700
Re: Trivial destruction of AE theory "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2018-05-02 21:02 +0200
Re: Trivial destruction of AE theory mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-05-02 12:34 -0700
Re: Trivial destruction of AE theory Python <python@python.invalid> - 2018-05-03 04:17 +0200
Re: Trivial destruction of AE theory mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-05-02 22:10 -0700
Re: Trivial destruction of AE theory Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2018-05-02 12:58 -0700
Re: Trivial destruction of AE theory "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2018-05-03 16:34 +0200
Re: Trivial destruction of AE theory Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2018-05-03 10:57 -0700
Re: Trivial destruction of AE theory JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-05-03 12:48 -0700
Re: Trivial destruction of AE theory "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2018-05-03 22:15 +0200
Re: Trivial destruction of AE theory JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-05-03 13:40 -0700
Re: Trivial destruction of AE theory mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-05-03 21:15 -0700
Re: Trivial destruction of AE theory Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2018-05-03 17:44 -0700
Re: Trivial destruction of AE theory "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2018-05-04 15:09 +0200
Re: Trivial destruction of AE theory mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-04-29 21:27 -0700
Re: Trivial destruction of AE theory Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-04-29 15:39 -0500
Re: Trivial destruction of AE theory Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-04-30 06:44 +0100
Re: Trivial destruction of AE theory mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-04-29 21:25 -0700
Re: Trivial destruction of AE theory mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-03-27 02:15 -0700
Re: Trivial destruction of AE theory John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2018-03-29 19:18 -0700
Re: Trivial destruction of AE theory Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2018-03-30 12:30 +1100
Re: Trivial destruction of AE theory kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-04-02 14:08 -0700
Re: Trivial destruction of AE theory jgreenfield97@gmail.com - 2018-05-02 23:31 -0700
Page 3 of 6 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 Next page →
| From | mlwozniak@wp.pl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-03-28 00:06 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <6ef38e65-d33d-4eb2-a39e-15e35de695f2@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #454030 |
On Wednesday, 28 March 2018 00:29:06 UTC+2, Steve BH wrote: > > Well, no, because it's twice as large a deflection as it would be if Newtonian. What a bullshit. Well, what to expect from a fanatic idiot.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-03-27 10:15 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <c9c367bd-730c-473c-bc47-47b676b550ba@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #453795 |
On March 25, 2018, Jan Bielawski the fruitcake wrote: > Koobee Wublee wrote: > > Curved spacetime has two components: curved space and gravitational > > time dilation. Curved space causes no net deflection, but > > gravitational time dilation does attribute to a permanent deflection. > > According to the Schwarzschild metric of GR, this net deflected > > amount actually agrees with Newtonian prediction treating light as > > classical particles with a non-zero mass. > > > https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.physics.relativity/wUR5Ara-DHU/_ndghkBeBgAJ > > > It was Einstein the nitwit, the plagiarist, and the liar who first > > proposed that curved time and gravitational time dilation that each > > contributes to a deflection. There have been a few derivations > > since, but they were heavily influenced by the assumption of Einstein > > the nitwit, the plagiarist, and the liar. Looking for that small > > amount allows careless approximations to achieve the desired results. > > According to the Schwarzschild metric, Koobee Wublee here presents > > the derivation that shows indeed the curved space offers no net > > deflection. All deflection does come from gravitational time > > dilation only. <shrug> > > Goobbledygook... The fruitcake is behaving like a free ranging chicken. It defecates all over the thread, and the excrement offers no values in discussion except as falsely cheerleading food for the morale of Einstein dingleberries fvcking desperately clinging on to their beliefs and their god Einstein the nitwit, the plagiarist, and the liar. How fvcking pathetic if you ask Koobee Wublee. <shrug>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-03-27 10:21 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <833c01d2-2d10-4f41-b565-ed309ab331bb@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #453991 |
On Tuesday, March 27, 2018 at 10:15:43 AM UTC-7, Koobee Wublee wrote: > On March 25, 2018, Jan Bielawski the fruitcake wrote: > > Koobee Wublee wrote: > > > > Curved spacetime has two components: curved space and gravitational > > > time dilation. Curved space causes no net deflection, but > > > gravitational time dilation does attribute to a permanent deflection. > > > According to the Schwarzschild metric of GR, this net deflected > > > amount actually agrees with Newtonian prediction treating light as > > > classical particles with a non-zero mass. > > > > > https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.physics.relativity/wUR5Ara-DHU/_ndghkBeBgAJ > > > > > It was Einstein the nitwit, the plagiarist, and the liar who first > > > proposed that curved time and gravitational time dilation that each > > > contributes to a deflection. There have been a few derivations > > > since, but they were heavily influenced by the assumption of Einstein > > > the nitwit, the plagiarist, and the liar. Looking for that small > > > amount allows careless approximations to achieve the desired results. > > > According to the Schwarzschild metric, Koobee Wublee here presents > > > the derivation that shows indeed the curved space offers no net > > > deflection. All deflection does come from gravitational time > > > dilation only. <shrug> > > > > Goobbledygook... > > The fruitcake is behaving like a free ranging chicken. It defecates all over the thread, No, look in the mirror. It is YOU who constantly post "Einstein the nitwit, the plagiarist, and the liar", and similar pieces of fecal matter. You only get what you deserve. -- Jan
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Emma Blazer <aemb@wmopswxa.as> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-03-25 13:46 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <p98971$1k32$6@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #453648 |
jgreenfield97 wrote: > Gravitational lensing is often given as 'proving' SR > > Any highschool student knows that a lens works because light has had > its' trajectory from source to observer PERMANENTLY altered. > AE says that light follows gravitational potential (space time). > If that is so, light passing a large mass would return to its' ORIGINAL > path afterwards, and NO lensing would ever be apparent. > As this (lensing) is routinely seen, RIP AE theory. Jim G Actually it follows the same principle, regarding the path. Onleý its speeds recaps.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jgreenfield97@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-03-25 19:21 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <42fb873c-ee84-4c95-961a-6b4918f1efdd@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #453648 |
On Saturday, March 24, 2018 at 1:51:42 PM UTC+10:30, jgreen...@gmail.com wrote: > Gravitational lensing is often given as 'proving' SR > > Any highschool student knows that a lens works because light has had its' > trajectory from source to observer PERMANENTLY altered. > > AE says that light follows gravitational potential (space time). > If that is so, light passing a large mass would return to its' ORIGINAL path afterwards, and NO lensing would ever be apparent. > As this (lensing) is routinely seen, RIP AE theory > > Jim G If two parallel lasers pass one each side of a large mass, will they intersect later AE? I maintain that 'work was done' (Newton) From whence did the energy come from to do said work AE? Just from a magical 'curve'? Jim G
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-03-25 21:09 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <1c9301db-f8b1-407b-b56b-a8d53673e663@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #453859 |
On Sunday, March 25, 2018 at 8:21:49 PM UTC-6, jgreen...@gmail.com wrote: > > On Saturday, March 24, 2018 at 1:51:42 PM UTC+10:30, jgreen...@gmail.com wrote: > > > > Gravitational lensing is often given as 'proving' SR > > > > Any highschool student knows that a lens works because light has had its' > > trajectory from source to observer PERMANENTLY altered. > > > > AE says that light follows gravitational potential (space time). > > If that is so, light passing a large mass would return to its' ORIGINAL > > path afterwards, and NO lensing would ever be apparent. > > As this (lensing) is routinely seen, RIP AE theory > > > > Jim G > > If two parallel lasers pass one each side of a large mass, will they > intersect later AE? > I maintain that 'work was done' (Newton) > From whence did the energy come from to do said work AE? Just from a > magical 'curve'? > > Jim G That same Newton. Drop a rock from 6 feet up and it splats into the ground, producing heat. Where did the energy come from? A meteor from far out in space crashes into the earth. Where did its energy come from? You seem pretty good at producing straw-man arguments.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jgreenfield97@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-03-27 00:40 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <c7e46896-6377-4437-b187-3a657b3e09bf@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #453863 |
On Monday, March 26, 2018 at 2:39:19 PM UTC+10:30, Gary Harnagel wrote: > On Sunday, March 25, 2018 at 8:21:49 PM UTC-6, jgreen...@gmail.com wrote: > > > > On Saturday, March 24, 2018 at 1:51:42 PM UTC+10:30, jgreen...@gmail.com wrote: > > > > > > Gravitational lensing is often given as 'proving' SR > > > > > > Any highschool student knows that a lens works because light has had its' > > > trajectory from source to observer PERMANENTLY altered. > > > > > > AE says that light follows gravitational potential (space time). > > > If that is so, light passing a large mass would return to its' ORIGINAL > > > path afterwards, and NO lensing would ever be apparent. > > > As this (lensing) is routinely seen, RIP AE theory > > > > > > Jim G > > > > If two parallel lasers pass one each side of a large mass, will they > > intersect later AE? > > I maintain that 'work was done' (Newton) > > From whence did the energy come from to do said work AE? Just from a > > magical 'curve'? > > > > Jim G > > That same Newton. Drop a rock from 6 feet up and it splats into the > ground, producing heat. Where did the energy come from? A meteor from > far out in space crashes into the earth. Where did its energy come from? > > You seem pretty good at producing straw-man arguments. History! At some point in time work was done by separating the bodies. If the meteor just misses earth, then where did its energy come from Think STORED energy; kinetic or gravitational potential. Jim G
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-03-27 05:01 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <6f8e92f2-08d0-4458-995c-cd30fc17c641@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #453952 |
On Tuesday, March 27, 2018 at 1:40:54 AM UTC-6, jgreen...@gmail.com wrote: > > On Monday, March 26, 2018 at 2:39:19 PM UTC+10:30, Gary Harnagel wrote: > > > > On Sunday, March 25, 2018 at 8:21:49 PM UTC-6, jgreen...@gmail.com wrote: > > > > > > If two parallel lasers pass one each side of a large mass, will they > > > intersect later AE? > > > I maintain that 'work was done' (Newton) > > > From whence did the energy come from to do said work AE? Just from a > > > magical 'curve'? > > > > > > Jim G > > > > That same Newton. Drop a rock from 6 feet up and it splats into the > > ground, producing heat. Where did the energy come from? A meteor from > > far out in space crashes into the earth. Where did its energy come from? > > > > You seem pretty good at producing straw-man arguments. > > > History! > At some point in time work was done by separating the bodies. Well, no. That meteor was never on earth and was never separated from it. > If the meteor just misses earth, then where did its energy come from > Think STORED energy; kinetic or gravitational potential. > > Jim G When I hear "stored energy," I think of a capacitor, not a moving body in a gravitational field. For that it's kinetic energy and potential energy.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jgreenfield97@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-03-30 22:11 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <7cf18961-7a3e-40ae-a81b-601a01afdbc7@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #453964 |
On Tuesday, March 27, 2018 at 10:31:12 PM UTC+10:30, Gary Harnagel wrote: > On Tuesday, March 27, 2018 at 1:40:54 AM UTC-6, jgreen...@gmail.com wrote: > > > > On Monday, March 26, 2018 at 2:39:19 PM UTC+10:30, Gary Harnagel wrote: > > > > > > On Sunday, March 25, 2018 at 8:21:49 PM UTC-6, jgreen...@gmail.com wrote: > > > > > > > > If two parallel lasers pass one each side of a large mass, will they > > > > intersect later AE? > > > > I maintain that 'work was done' (Newton) > > > > From whence did the energy come from to do said work AE? Just from a > > > > magical 'curve'? > > > > > > > > Jim G > > > > > > That same Newton. Drop a rock from 6 feet up and it splats into the > > > ground, producing heat. Where did the energy come from? A meteor from > > > far out in space crashes into the earth. Where did its energy come from? > > > > > > You seem pretty good at producing straw-man arguments. > > > > > > History! > > At some point in time work was done by separating the bodies. > > Well, no. That meteor was never on earth and was never separated from it. > > > If the meteor just misses earth, then where did its energy come from > > Think STORED energy; kinetic or gravitational potential. > > > > Jim G > > When I hear "stored energy," I think of a capacitor, not a moving body in a > gravitational field. For that it's kinetic energy and potential energy. Well think further! Stand in front of a moving body in deep space (no grav field) See if it has any 'stored energy' when it hits you. Jim G
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Libor 'Poutnik' Stříž <poutnik@privacy.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-03-31 13:22 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <p9nr1g$9n8$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #454354 |
Dne 31/03/2018 v 07:11 jgreenfield97@gmail.com napsal(a): > On Tuesday, March 27, 2018 at 10:31:12 PM UTC+10:30, Gary Harnagel wrote: >> >> When I hear "stored energy," I think of a capacitor, not a moving body in a >> gravitational field. For that it's kinetic energy and potential energy. > > Well think further! > Stand in front of a moving body in deep space (no grav field) > See if it has any 'stored energy' when it hits you. > Jim G Kinetic energy is coordinate system dependent, it is nothing that is stored within an object. In the coordinate system the body is in rest, it is you what hits the body with high kinetic energy. -- Poutnik ( The Pilgrim, Der Wanderer ) A wise man guards words he says, as they say about him more, than he says about the subject.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Emory Walpole <aibw@wrtwgt.lr> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-03-31 19:40 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <p9oo7t$kqr$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #454361 |
Libor 'Poutnik' Stříž wrote: >> Well think further! >> Stand in front of a moving body in deep space (no grav field) >> See if it has any 'stored energy' when it hits you. >> Jim G > > Kinetic energy is coordinate system dependent, > it is nothing that is stored within an object. Where else is it stored, then? > In the coordinate system the body is in rest, > it is you what hits the body with high kinetic energy. You just said is not stored. I'm completely loopy.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-03-31 12:53 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <d81fb8b7-eae5-4186-82ac-2951717d49e1@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #454389 |
Emory Walpole Libor 'Poutnik' Stříž wrote: >> Well think further! >> Stand in front of a moving body in deep space (no grav field) >> See if it has any 'stored energy' when it hits you. >> Jim G > > Kinetic energy is coordinate system dependent, > it is nothing that is stored within an object. Where else is it stored, then? In Modulus of the medium https://youtu.be/WIyTZDHuarQ > In the coordinate system the body is in rest, > it is you what hits the body with high kinetic energy. You just said is not stored. I'm completely loopy.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-03-31 13:21 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <a46579d7-0e40-4efe-a098-e9407673287e@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #454391 |
Emory Walpole Libor 'Poutnik' Stříž wrote: >> Well think further! >> Stand in front of a moving body in deep space (no grav field) >> See if it has any 'stored energy' when it hits you. >> Jim G > > Kinetic energy is coordinate system dependent, > it is nothing that is stored within an object. Where else is it stored, then? In Modulus of the medium https://youtu.be/WIyTZDHuarQ In Modulus of the medium ....... https://youtu.be/ERazqPENmx0
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-04-29 11:16 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <ef50ab87-45fb-4ce6-a020-3d1106c2bf7f@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #454392 |
me Emory Walpole Libor 'Poutnik' Stříž wrote: >> Well think further! >> Stand in front of a moving body in deep space (no grav field) >> See if it has any 'stored energy' when it hits you. >> Jim G > > Kinetic energy is coordinate system dependent, > it is nothing that is stored within an object. Where else is it stored, then? In Modulus of the medium https://youtu.be/WIyTZDHuarQ In Modulus of the medium ....... https://youtu.be/ERazqPENmx0 In Modulus of the medium ....... https://youtu.be/tFq5lCNEZmU
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-04-29 11:20 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <94821988-c09c-48e2-9302-0a8994b31c14@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #457175 |
Emory Walpole wrote Libor 'Poutnik' Stříž wrote: >> Well think further! >> Stand in front of a moving body in deep space (no grav field) >> See if it has any 'stored energy' when it hits you. >> Jim G > > Kinetic energy is coordinate system dependent, > it is nothing that is stored within an object. Where else is it stored, then? In Modulus of the medium https://youtu.be/WIyTZDHuarQ In Modulus of the medium ....... https://youtu.be/ERazqPENmx0 In Modulus of the medium ....... https://youtu.be/tFq5lCNEZmU In the Modulus of the “medium” ....... https://youtu.be/NjPFfT2EyxQ
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mitchrae3323@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-04-01 15:12 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <a1422d27-0011-4a16-bfbf-a4e576e7a31f@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #454361 |
On Saturday, March 31, 2018 at 4:22:26 AM UTC-7, Libor 'Poutnik' Stříž wrote: > Dne 31/03/2018 v 07:11 jgreenfield97@gmail.com napsal(a): > > On Tuesday, March 27, 2018 at 10:31:12 PM UTC+10:30, Gary Harnagel wrote: > >> > >> When I hear "stored energy," I think of a capacitor, not a moving body in a > >> gravitational field. For that it's kinetic energy and potential energy. > > > > Well think further! > > Stand in front of a moving body in deep space (no grav field) > > See if it has any 'stored energy' when it hits you. > > Jim G > > Kinetic energy is coordinate system dependent, > it is nothing that is stored within an object. The atom changes position giving it kinetic energy through its stored particles. The atom always has "change of position energy..." Mitchell Raemsch
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jgreenfield97@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-02 23:08 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <cc258c22-2175-4bcf-9350-0d9b9d6e50f8@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #453964 |
On Tuesday, March 27, 2018 at 10:31:12 PM UTC+10:30, Gary Harnagel wrote: > On Tuesday, March 27, 2018 at 1:40:54 AM UTC-6, jgreen...@gmail.com wrote: > > > > On Monday, March 26, 2018 at 2:39:19 PM UTC+10:30, Gary Harnagel wrote: > > > > > > On Sunday, March 25, 2018 at 8:21:49 PM UTC-6, jgreen...@gmail.com wrote: > > > > > > > > If two parallel lasers pass one each side of a large mass, will they > > > > intersect later AE? > > > > I maintain that 'work was done' (Newton) > > > > From whence did the energy come from to do said work AE? Just from a > > > > magical 'curve'? > > > > > > > > Jim G > > > > > > That same Newton. Drop a rock from 6 feet up and it splats into the > > > ground, producing heat. Where did the energy come from? A meteor from > > > far out in space crashes into the earth. Where did its energy come from? > > > > > > You seem pretty good at producing straw-man arguments. > > > > > > History! > > At some point in time work was done by separating the bodies. > > Well, no. That meteor was never on earth and was never separated from it. > > > If the meteor just misses earth, then where did its energy come from > > Think STORED energy; kinetic or gravitational potential. > > > > Jim G > > When I hear "stored energy," I think of a capacitor, not a moving body in a > gravitational field. For that it's kinetic energy and potential energy. The energy may be in the form of inertia. Did the meteor hit the earth, or viceversa? ........sssoooooooooo back to the "history" A thinks it is at rest until collision with B Which had K energy and which 'inertial energy'?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Steve BH <sbharris@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-03-25 22:31 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <e9851c38-4b80-4933-9dd4-55811095af3a@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #453859 |
On Sunday, March 25, 2018 at 7:21:49 PM UTC-7, jgreen...@gmail.com wrote: > On Saturday, March 24, 2018 at 1:51:42 PM UTC+10:30, jgreen...@gmail.com wrote: > > Gravitational lensing is often given as 'proving' SR > > > > Any highschool student knows that a lens works because light has had its' > > trajectory from source to observer PERMANENTLY altered. > > > > AE says that light follows gravitational potential (space time). > > If that is so, light passing a large mass would return to its' ORIGINAL path afterwards, and NO lensing would ever be apparent. > > As this (lensing) is routinely seen, RIP AE theory > > > > Jim G > > If two parallel lasers pass one each side of a large mass, will they intersect later AE? > I maintain that 'work was done' (Newton) > From whence did the energy come from to do said work AE? Just from a magical 'curve'? > > Jim G See Gary's response. An asteroid in a hyperbolic trajectory through our solar system (from interstellar space) has its path permanently deflected: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%CA%BBOumuamua It's more or less an elastic collision, however, and no net work is done from start (far away, incoming) to finish (far away, outbound). It doesn't cost work to change velocity if speed is constant (see ordinary orbits). It costs work only if speed is permanently changed. Obviously for light, that's never a problem. Light being redshifted by such an encounter is not a problem, either. It isn't.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-03-25 23:00 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <0120f245-6cd5-4c05-bc79-6bcd157a1754@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #453866 |
Gravitational lending is due to a lower Vacuum Impedance around the gravitating body, lowering the energy density of space time
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-03-27 11:01 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <fhtfvjF90onU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #453648 |
On 24/03/2018 2:21 PM, jgreenfield97@gmail.com wrote: > Gravitational lensing is often given as 'proving' SR > > Any highschool student knows that a lens works because light has had its' > trajectory from source to observer PERMANENTLY altered. > > AE says that light follows gravitational potential (space time). > If that is so, light passing a large mass would return to its' ORIGINAL path afterwards, and NO lensing would ever be apparent. Why would you think that light would return to its original path? Sylvia.
[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