Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #362030 > unrolled thread
| Started by | fuller.david@hotmail.com |
|---|---|
| First post | 2015-08-27 16:18 -0700 |
| Last post | 2015-09-18 08:32 -0700 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 194 — 10 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.physics.relativity
Divergent matter = increase entropy = variation of vacuum impedance fuller.david@hotmail.com - 2015-08-27 16:18 -0700
Re: Divergent matter = increase entropy = variation of vacuum impedance kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> - 2015-08-27 20:38 -0400
Re: Divergent matter = increase entropy = variation of vacuum impedance fuller.david@hotmail.com - 2015-08-27 18:26 -0700
Re: Divergent matter = increase entropy = variation of vacuum impedance John Heath <heathjohn2@gmail.com> - 2015-08-30 21:04 -0700
Re: Divergent matter = increase entropy = variation of vacuum impedance fuller.david@hotmail.com - 2015-08-31 15:47 -0700
Re: Divergent matter = increase entropy = variation of vacuum impedance kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> - 2015-08-31 20:48 -0400
Re: Divergent matter = increase entropy = variation of vacuum impedance fuller.david@hotmail.com - 2015-08-31 18:38 -0700
Re: Divergent matter = increase entropy = variation of vacuum impedance kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> - 2015-08-31 22:34 -0400
Re: Divergent matter = increase entropy = variation of vacuum impedance fuller.david@hotmail.com - 2015-08-31 17:23 -0700
Re: Divergent matter = increase entropy = variation of vacuum impedance fuller.david@hotmail.com - 2015-08-31 17:38 -0700
Re: Divergent matter = increase entropy = variation of vacuum impedance kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> - 2015-08-31 21:02 -0400
Re: Divergent matter = increase entropy = variation of vacuum impedance fuller.david@hotmail.com - 2015-09-01 08:24 -0700
Re: Divergent matter = increase entropy = variation of vacuum impedance fuller.david@hotmail.com - 2015-09-01 08:35 -0700
Re: Divergent matter = increase entropy = variation of vacuum impedance fuller.david@hotmail.com - 2015-09-01 08:25 -0700
Re: Divergent matter = increase entropy = variation of vacuum impedance Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2015-08-31 04:53 -0700
Re: Divergent matter = increase entropy = variation of vacuum impedance kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> - 2015-08-31 12:23 -0400
Re: Divergent matter = increase entropy = variation of vacuum impedance Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2015-08-31 10:53 -0700
Re: Divergent matter = increase entropy = variation of vacuum impedance kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> - 2015-08-31 15:59 -0400
Re: Divergent matter = increase entropy = variation of vacuum impedance Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-08-31 15:33 -0500
Re: Divergent matter = increase entropy = variation of vacuum impedance kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> - 2015-08-31 18:01 -0400
Re: Divergent matter = increase entropy = variation of vacuum impedance Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-08-31 17:34 -0500
Re: Divergent matter = increase entropy = variation of vacuum impedance kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> - 2015-08-31 18:42 -0400
Re: Divergent matter = increase entropy = variation of vacuum impedance Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-08-31 17:46 -0500
Re: Divergent matter = increase entropy = variation of vacuum impedance kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> - 2015-08-31 20:41 -0400
Re: Divergent matter = increase entropy = variation of vacuum impedance Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-09-01 08:15 -0500
Re: Divergent matter = increase entropy kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> - 2015-09-01 17:19 -0400
Re: Divergent matter = increase entropy Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-09-01 16:44 -0500
Re: Divergent matter = increase entropy kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> - 2015-09-01 18:14 -0400
Re: Divergent matter = increase entropy Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-09-01 17:50 -0500
Re: Divergent matter = increase entropy kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> - 2015-09-01 20:24 -0400
Re: Divergent matter = increase entropy Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-09-02 12:34 -0500
Re: Divergent matter = increase entropy kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> - 2015-09-02 14:11 -0400
Re: Divergent matter = increase entropy Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-09-02 14:52 -0500
Re: Divergent matter = increase entropy kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> - 2015-09-02 17:20 -0400
Re: Divergent matter = increase entropy fuller.david@hotmail.com - 2015-09-02 19:59 -0700
Re: Divergent matter = increase entropy Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-09-03 12:37 -0500
Re: Divergent matter = increase entropy kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> - 2015-09-03 20:19 -0400
Re: Divergent matter = increase entropy Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-09-04 07:30 -0500
Re: Divergent matter = increase entropy Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-09-03 12:39 -0500
Re: Divergent matter = increase entropy kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> - 2015-09-03 20:20 -0400
Re: Divergent matter = increase entropy Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-09-04 07:31 -0500
Re: Divergent matter = increase entropy Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-09-03 12:41 -0500
Re: Divergent matter = increase entropy kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> - 2015-09-03 20:24 -0400
Re: Divergent matter = increase entropy Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-09-03 12:42 -0500
Re: Divergent matter = increase entropy kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> - 2015-09-03 20:28 -0400
Re: Divergent matter = increase entropy Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-09-03 12:45 -0500
Re: Divergent matter = increase entropy kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> - 2015-09-03 20:36 -0400
Re: Divergent matter = increase entropy Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-09-04 07:39 -0500
Re: Divergent matter = increase entropy Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-09-01 17:51 -0500
Re: Divergent matter = increase entropy kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> - 2015-09-01 20:25 -0400
Re: Divergent matter = increase entropy Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-09-01 17:54 -0500
Re: Divergent matter = increase entropy kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> - 2015-09-01 20:32 -0400
Re: Divergent matter = increase entropy Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-09-02 12:35 -0500
Re: Divergent matter = increase entropy kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> - 2015-09-02 14:18 -0400
Re: Divergent matter = increase entropy Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-09-02 14:44 -0500
Re: Divergent matter = increase entropy kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> - 2015-09-02 16:33 -0400
Re: Divergent matter = increase entropy Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-09-02 15:53 -0500
Re: Divergent matter = increase entropy kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> - 2015-09-02 18:25 -0400
Re: Divergent matter = increase entropy Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-09-03 10:20 -0500
Re: Divergent matter = increase entropy kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> - 2015-09-03 15:51 -0400
Re: Divergent matter = increase entropy Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-09-03 15:53 -0500
Re: Divergent matter = increase entropy Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-09-01 17:55 -0500
Re: Divergent matter = increase entropy kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> - 2015-09-01 20:34 -0400
Re: Divergent matter = increase entropy Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-09-02 12:38 -0500
Re: Divergent matter = increase entropy kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> - 2015-09-02 14:23 -0400
Re: Divergent matter = increase entropy Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-09-02 14:40 -0500
Re: Divergent matter = increase entropy kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> - 2015-09-02 16:27 -0400
Re: Divergent matter = increase entropy Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-09-02 15:49 -0500
Re: Divergent matter = increase entropy kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> - 2015-09-02 18:09 -0400
Re: Divergent matter = increase entropy Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-09-03 09:54 -0500
Re: Divergent matter = increase entropy kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> - 2015-09-03 11:15 -0400
Re: Divergent matter = increase entropy Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-09-01 17:56 -0500
Re: Divergent matter = increase entropy kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> - 2015-09-01 20:36 -0400
Re: Divergent matter = increase entropy Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-09-02 12:40 -0500
Re: Divergent matter = increase entropy kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> - 2015-09-02 14:24 -0400
Re: Divergent matter = increase entropy Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-09-02 14:38 -0500
Re: Divergent matter = increase entropy kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> - 2015-09-02 16:26 -0400
Re: Divergent matter = increase entropy Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-09-02 15:48 -0500
Re: Divergent matter = increase entropy kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> - 2015-09-02 18:05 -0400
Re: Divergent matter = increase entropy pnalsing@gmail.com - 2015-09-02 15:39 -0700
Re: Divergent matter = increase entropy kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> - 2015-09-02 20:12 -0400
Re: Divergent matter = increase entropy pnalsing@gmail.com - 2015-09-02 19:08 -0700
Re: Divergent matter = increase entropy Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-09-01 17:57 -0500
Re: Divergent matter = increase entropy kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> - 2015-09-01 20:37 -0400
Re: Divergent matter = increase entropy fuller.david@hotmail.com - 2015-09-01 17:46 -0700
Re: Divergent matter = increase entropy Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-09-02 12:41 -0500
Re: Divergent matter = increase entropy kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> - 2015-09-02 14:27 -0400
Re: Divergent matter = increase entropy Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-09-02 14:37 -0500
Re: Divergent matter = increase entropy kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> - 2015-09-02 16:22 -0400
Re: Divergent matter = increase entropy Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-09-02 15:42 -0500
Re: Divergent matter = increase entropy kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> - 2015-09-02 17:36 -0400
Re: Divergent matter = increase entropy Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-09-03 08:54 -0500
Re: Divergent matter = increase entropy fuller.david@hotmail.com - 2015-09-03 08:03 -0700
Re: Divergent matter = increase entropy kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> - 2015-09-03 11:22 -0400
Re: Divergent matter = increase entropy Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2015-09-03 08:45 -0700
Re: Divergent matter = increase entropy kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> - 2015-09-03 20:18 -0400
Re: Divergent matter = increase entropy Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2015-09-03 19:39 -0700
Re: Divergent matter = increase entropy kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> - 2015-09-03 23:18 -0400
Re: Divergent matter = increase entropy Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2015-09-04 03:57 -0700
Re: Divergent matter = increase entropy kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> - 2015-09-04 09:23 -0400
Re: Divergent matter = increase entropy Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2015-09-04 07:08 -0700
Re: Divergent matter = increase entropy kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> - 2015-09-04 15:51 -0400
Re: Divergent matter = increase entropy Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2015-09-05 05:23 -0700
Re: Divergent matter = increase entropy "Lleyton H. Bellucci" <lleyb@stratospheree.org> - 2015-09-05 12:52 +0000
Re: Divergent matter = increase entropy kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> - 2015-09-05 11:58 -0400
Re: Divergent matter = increase entropy kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> - 2015-09-05 11:57 -0400
Re: Divergent matter = increase entropy "Lleyton H. Bellucci" <lleyb@stratospheree.org> - 2015-09-05 16:11 +0000
Re: Divergent matter = increase entropy Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2015-09-05 10:46 -0700
Re: Divergent matter = increase entropy kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> - 2015-09-05 21:49 -0400
Re: Divergent matter = increase entropy Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2015-09-06 06:03 -0700
Re: Divergent matter = increase entropy pnalsing@gmail.com - 2015-09-05 14:19 -0700
Re: Divergent matter = increase entropy pnalsing@gmail.com - 2015-09-05 14:25 -0700
Re: Divergent matter = increase entropy kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> - 2015-09-05 19:39 -0400
Re: Divergent matter = increase entropy pnalsing@gmail.com - 2015-09-05 21:31 -0700
Re: Divergent matter = increase entropy kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> - 2015-09-06 01:25 -0400
Re: Divergent matter = increase entropy Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-09-08 10:53 -0500
Re: Divergent matter = increase entropy fuller.david@hotmail.com - 2015-09-03 11:15 -0700
Re: Divergent matter = increase entropy kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> - 2015-09-03 20:39 -0400
Re: Divergent matter = increase entropy John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2015-09-05 15:19 -0700
Re: Divergent matter = increase entropy fuller.david@hotmail.com - 2015-09-05 22:34 -0700
Re: Divergent matter = increase entropy kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> - 2015-09-06 03:01 -0400
Re: Divergent matter = increase entropy fuller.david@hotmail.com - 2015-09-06 20:29 -0700
Re: Divergent matter = increase entropy fuller.david@hotmail.com - 2015-09-06 20:34 -0700
Re: Divergent matter = increase entropy fuller.david@hotmail.com - 2015-09-06 20:40 -0700
Re: Divergent matter = increase entropy fuller.david@hotmail.com - 2015-09-07 07:05 -0700
Re: Divergent matter = increase entropy fuller.david@hotmail.com - 2015-09-07 07:11 -0700
Re: Divergent matter = increase entropy fuller.david@hotmail.com - 2015-09-10 15:51 -0700
Re: Divergent matter = increase entropy kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> - 2015-09-03 11:40 -0400
Re: Divergent matter = increase entropy Reginald Ehrett <chasi@competence.org> - 2015-09-03 16:01 +0000
Re: Divergent matter = increase entropy kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> - 2015-09-03 15:55 -0400
Re: Divergent matter = increase entropy "Lleyton H. Bellucci" <lleyb@stratospheree.org> - 2015-09-03 20:03 +0000
Re: Divergent matter = increase entropy "Lleyton H. Bellucci" <lleyb@stratospheree.org> - 2015-09-03 20:09 +0000
Re: Divergent matter = increase entropy = variation of vacuum impedance pnalsing@gmail.com - 2015-08-31 16:54 -0700
Re: Divergent matter = increase entropy = variation of vacuum impedance kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> - 2015-08-31 20:55 -0400
Re: Divergent matter = increase entropy = variation of vacuum impedance Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2015-08-31 18:10 -0700
Re: Divergent matter = increase entropy = variation of vacuum impedance kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> - 2015-08-31 21:27 -0400
Re: Divergent matter = increase entropy = variation of vacuum impedance Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2015-08-31 20:13 -0700
Re: Divergent matter = increase entropy = variation of vacuum impedance Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-09-01 08:17 -0500
Re: Divergent matter = increase entropy = variation of vacuum impedance pnalsing@gmail.com - 2015-08-31 19:01 -0700
Re: Divergent matter = increase entropy = variation of vacuum impedance kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> - 2015-08-31 22:38 -0400
Re: Divergent matter = increase entropy = variation of vacuum impedance pnalsing@gmail.com - 2015-08-31 20:32 -0700
Re: Divergent matter = increase entropy = variation of vacuum impedance Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-09-01 08:22 -0500
Re: Divergent matter = increase entropy = variation of vacuum impedance kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> - 2015-09-01 17:44 -0400
Re: Divergent matter = increase entropy = variation of vacuum impedance Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-09-01 16:48 -0500
Re: Divergent matter = increase entropy = variation of vacuum impedance kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> - 2015-09-01 18:21 -0400
Re: Divergent matter = increase entropy = variation of vacuum impedance Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-09-01 17:59 -0500
Re: Divergent matter = increase entropy = variation of vacuum impedance kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> - 2015-09-01 20:44 -0400
Re: Divergent matter = increase entropy = variation of vacuum impedance Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-09-02 12:44 -0500
Re: Divergent matter = increase entropy = variation of vacuum impedance kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> - 2015-09-02 14:34 -0400
Re: Divergent matter = increase entropy = variation of vacuum impedance Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-09-02 14:17 -0500
Re: Divergent matter = increase entropy = variation of vacuum impedance kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> - 2015-09-02 16:15 -0400
Re: Divergent matter = increase entropy = variation of vacuum impedance Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-09-02 15:41 -0500
Re: Divergent matter = increase entropy = variation of vacuum impedance kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> - 2015-09-03 00:27 -0400
Re: Divergent matter = increase entropy = variation of vacuum impedance Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2015-08-31 14:46 -0700
Re: Divergent matter = increase entropy = variation of vacuum impedance kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> - 2015-08-31 18:09 -0400
Re: Divergent matter = increase entropy = variation of vacuum impedance fuller.david@hotmail.com - 2015-08-31 16:08 -0700
Re: Divergent matter = increase entropy = variation of vacuum impedance John Heath <heathjohn2@gmail.com> - 2015-09-07 08:45 -0700
Re: Divergent matter = increase entropy = variation of vacuum impedance kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> - 2015-09-07 12:59 -0400
Re: Divergent matter = increase entropy = variation of vacuum impedance Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2015-09-07 11:06 -0700
Re: Divergent matter = increase entropy = variation of vacuum impedance kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> - 2015-09-07 15:04 -0400
Re: Divergent matter = increase entropy = variation of vacuum impedance "Lleyton H. Bellucci" <lleyb@stratospheree.org> - 2015-09-07 19:50 +0000
Re: Divergent matter = increase entropy = variation of vacuum impedance "Lleyton H. Bellucci" <lleyb@stratospheree.org> - 2015-09-07 20:38 +0000
Re: Divergent matter = increase entropy = variation of vacuum impedance Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2015-09-07 13:25 -0700
Re: Divergent matter = increase entropy = variation of vacuum impedance "Lleyton H. Bellucci" <lleyb@stratospheree.org> - 2015-09-07 19:13 +0000
Re: Divergent matter = increase entropy = variation of vacuum impedance kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> - 2015-09-07 16:34 -0400
Re: Divergent matter = increase entropy = variation of vacuum impedance "Lleyton H. Bellucci" <lleyb@stratospheree.org> - 2015-09-07 20:45 +0000
Re: Divergent matter = increase entropy = variation of vacuum impedance "Lleyton H. Bellucci" <lleyb@stratospheree.org> - 2015-09-07 19:15 +0000
Re: Divergent matter = increase entropy = variation of vacuum impedance kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> - 2015-09-07 16:36 -0400
Re: Divergent matter = increase entropy = variation of vacuum impedance John Heath <heathjohn2@gmail.com> - 2015-09-07 16:28 -0700
Re: Divergent matter = increase entropy = variation of vacuum impedance Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2015-09-07 16:44 -0700
Re: Divergent matter = increase entropy = variation of vacuum impedance pnalsing@gmail.com - 2015-09-07 17:15 -0700
Re: Divergent matter = increase entropy = variation of vacuum impedance John Heath <heathjohn2@gmail.com> - 2015-09-07 17:33 -0700
Re: Divergent matter = increase entropy = variation of vacuum impedance pnalsing@gmail.com - 2015-09-07 17:54 -0700
Re: Divergent matter = increase entropy = variation of vacuum impedance John Heath <heathjohn2@gmail.com> - 2015-09-07 18:48 -0700
Re: Divergent matter = increase entropy = variation of vacuum impedance pnalsing@gmail.com - 2015-09-07 18:58 -0700
Re: Divergent matter = increase entropy = variation of vacuum impedance kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> - 2015-09-07 21:13 -0400
Re: Divergent matter = increase entropy = variation of vacuum impedance fuller.david@hotmail.com - 2015-09-10 15:43 -0700
Re: Divergent matter = increase entropy = variation of vacuum impedance kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> - 2015-09-10 20:40 -0400
Re: Divergent matter = increase entropy = variation of vacuum impedance fuller.david@hotmail.com - 2015-09-10 20:03 -0700
Re: Divergent matter = increase entropy = variation of vacuum impedance kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> - 2015-09-10 23:39 -0400
Re: Divergent matter = increase entropy = variation of vacuum impedance fuller.david@hotmail.com - 2015-09-11 06:50 -0700
Re: Divergent matter = increase entropy = variation of vacuum impedance fuller.david@hotmail.com - 2015-09-11 07:45 -0700
Re: Divergent matter = increase entropy = variation of vacuum impedance fuller.david@hotmail.com - 2015-09-11 08:05 -0700
Re: Divergent matter = increase entropy = variation of vacuum impedance fuller.david@hotmail.com - 2015-09-11 12:00 -0700
Re: Divergent matter = increase entropy = variation of vacuum impedance fuller.david@hotmail.com - 2015-10-13 08:02 -0700
Re: Divergent matter = increase entropy = variation of vacuum impedance kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> - 2015-10-13 12:04 -0400
Re: Divergent matter = increase entropy = variation of vacuum impedance fuller.david@hotmail.com - 2015-10-14 05:40 -0700
Re: Divergent matter = increase entropy = variation of vacuum impedance fuller.david@hotmail.com - 2015-10-14 17:48 -0700
Re: Divergent matter = increase entropy = variation of vacuum impedance fuller.david@hotmail.com - 2015-10-14 18:23 -0700
Re: Divergent matter = increase entropy = variation of vacuum impedance fuller.david@hotmail.com - 2015-10-15 17:23 -0700
Re: Divergent matter = increase entropy = variation of vacuum impedance fuller.david@hotmail.com - 2015-10-15 18:43 -0700
Re: Divergent matter = increase entropy = variation of vacuum impedance fuller.david@hotmail.com - 2015-10-16 06:43 -0700
Re: Divergent matter = increase entropy = variation of vacuum impedance Euclid Baumann <eubaum@parallelnetwork.org> - 2015-10-16 13:55 +0000
Re: Divergent matter = increase entropy = variation of vacuum impedance fuller.david@hotmail.com - 2015-09-18 08:32 -0700
Page 2 of 10 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 … 10 Next page →
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-08-31 17:34 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <ms2kpb$fps$1@speranza.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #362522 |
On 8/31/2015 5:01 PM, kefischer wrote: > On Mon, 31 Aug 2015 15:33:57 -0500, Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> > wrote: > >> On 8/31/2015 2:59 PM, kefischer wrote: >>> Can somebody please show Gary how >>> to do the simple math for matter expanding, >>> and how surface gravity on Earth is about >>> one g when the radius doubles and all >>> measurements double along with the unit >>> lengths. >> >> I take it this means you can't. > > Help me! Help me! > > Show me how you mess up the math. Funny how someone who wouldn't know where to start thinks he'd be able to judge whether it's right or wrong. -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-08-31 18:42 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <90m9ua1oqv3tkffqh5kn68q8o91d2571iu@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #362535 |
On Mon, 31 Aug 2015 17:34:19 -0500, Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com>
wrote:
>On 8/31/2015 5:01 PM, kefischer wrote:
>> On Mon, 31 Aug 2015 15:33:57 -0500, Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On 8/31/2015 2:59 PM, kefischer wrote:
>>>> Can somebody please show Gary how
>>>> to do the simple math for matter expanding,
>>>> and how surface gravity on Earth is about
>>>> one g when the radius doubles and all
>>>> measurements double along with the unit
>>>> lengths.
>>>
>>> I take it this means you can't.
>>
>> Help me! Help me!
>>
>> Show me how you mess up the math.
>
>Funny how someone who wouldn't know where to start thinks he'd be able
>to judge whether it's right or wrong.
Funny how you never show any DM math,
does Gary messing it up cause you to fear trying?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-08-31 17:46 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <ms2lfv$gur$1@speranza.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #362540 |
On 8/31/2015 5:42 PM, kefischer wrote: > On Mon, 31 Aug 2015 17:34:19 -0500, Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> > wrote: > >> On 8/31/2015 5:01 PM, kefischer wrote: >>> On Mon, 31 Aug 2015 15:33:57 -0500, Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> On 8/31/2015 2:59 PM, kefischer wrote: >>>>> Can somebody please show Gary how >>>>> to do the simple math for matter expanding, >>>>> and how surface gravity on Earth is about >>>>> one g when the radius doubles and all >>>>> measurements double along with the unit >>>>> lengths. >>>> >>>> I take it this means you can't. >>> >>> Help me! Help me! >>> >>> Show me how you mess up the math. >> >> Funny how someone who wouldn't know where to start thinks he'd be able >> to judge whether it's right or wrong. > > Funny how you never show any DM math, > does Gary messing it up cause you to fear trying? > You forget that you are the only one interested in divergent matter. So if someone is going to do divergent matter math, it's going to be the one person interested in it. And if you decide not to do it, then it will be nothing more than what it is right now, which isn't much -- certainly not enough to draw the attention of anyone but you. -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-08-31 20:41 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <qhs9uahf0129vgdq8df4qtou0jrgi8ggot@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #362542 |
On Mon, 31 Aug 2015 17:46:23 -0500, Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com>
wrote:
>On 8/31/2015 5:42 PM, kefischer wrote:
>> On Mon, 31 Aug 2015 17:34:19 -0500, Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On 8/31/2015 5:01 PM, kefischer wrote:
>>>> On Mon, 31 Aug 2015 15:33:57 -0500, Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 8/31/2015 2:59 PM, kefischer wrote:
>>>>>> Can somebody please show Gary how
>>>>>> to do the simple math for matter expanding,
>>>>>> and how surface gravity on Earth is about
>>>>>> one g when the radius doubles and all
>>>>>> measurements double along with the unit
>>>>>> lengths.
>>>>>
>>>>> I take it this means you can't.
>>>>
>>>> Help me! Help me!
>>>>
>>>> Show me how you mess up the math.
>>>
>>> Funny how someone who wouldn't know where to start thinks he'd be able
>>> to judge whether it's right or wrong.
>>
>> Funny how you never show any DM math,
>> does Gary messing it up cause you to fear trying?
>>
>
>You forget that you are the only one interested in divergent matter.
Yeah, isn't that odd, so much talk about gravity,
stupid action at a distance forces, attractive particles,
strings, etc, but nobody but kef thinks about the most
obvious and rational underlying process.
>So
>if someone is going to do divergent matter math, it's going to be the
>one person interested in it.
I thought somebody that is interested in
doing original math problems that were never
done before would enjoy trying to work the
problems, they are good puzzle problems,
but all of you apparently only know what
you learned in school.
>And if you decide not to do it, then it
>will be nothing more than what it is right now, which isn't much --
>certainly not enough to draw the attention of anyone but you.
After 100 years and nothing better than GR,
is desperation in anybody's vocabulary?
Isn't science supposed to be test everything,
question everything?
Obviously the puzzle is not going to be
solved with classical thinking.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-01 08:15 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <ms48du$v0i$1@speranza.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #362556 |
On 8/31/2015 7:41 PM, kefischer wrote: > On Mon, 31 Aug 2015 17:46:23 -0500, Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> > wrote: > >> On 8/31/2015 5:42 PM, kefischer wrote: >>> On Mon, 31 Aug 2015 17:34:19 -0500, Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> On 8/31/2015 5:01 PM, kefischer wrote: >>>>> On Mon, 31 Aug 2015 15:33:57 -0500, Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> On 8/31/2015 2:59 PM, kefischer wrote: >>>>>>> Can somebody please show Gary how >>>>>>> to do the simple math for matter expanding, >>>>>>> and how surface gravity on Earth is about >>>>>>> one g when the radius doubles and all >>>>>>> measurements double along with the unit >>>>>>> lengths. >>>>>> >>>>>> I take it this means you can't. >>>>> >>>>> Help me! Help me! >>>>> >>>>> Show me how you mess up the math. >>>> >>>> Funny how someone who wouldn't know where to start thinks he'd be able >>>> to judge whether it's right or wrong. >>> >>> Funny how you never show any DM math, >>> does Gary messing it up cause you to fear trying? >>> >> >> You forget that you are the only one interested in divergent matter. > > Yeah, isn't that odd, so much talk about gravity, > stupid action at a distance forces, attractive particles, > strings, etc, but nobody but kef thinks about the most > obvious and rational underlying process. Replace the last "about" with "that it is", and you have made a perfectly sensible statement. > > >> So >> if someone is going to do divergent matter math, it's going to be the >> one person interested in it. > > I thought somebody that is interested in > doing original math problems that were never > done before would enjoy trying to work the > problems, they are good puzzle problems, > but all of you apparently only know what > you learned in school. > Well, I guess you thought wrong, on both fronts. > >> And if you decide not to do it, then it >> will be nothing more than what it is right now, which isn't much -- >> certainly not enough to draw the attention of anyone but you. > > After 100 years and nothing better than GR, > is desperation in anybody's vocabulary? Not really. Thermodynamics has been well established for almost two centuries and there hasn't been any replacement for it, and I don't detect any desperation about that at all. Do you think there should be? Quantum mechanics has been around for 95 years and there is no replacement for it, and there doesn't seem to be any desperation about it. > > Isn't science supposed to be test everything, > question everything? No, I think that's a basic misunderstanding about science, Ken. The point of science is to come up with models that work, where "work" has a straightforward operational definition having to do with matching experiment. Once you have a model that works, then science doesn't automatically demand that it be questioned at a fundamental level. If there is data that disagrees with it, then that's a different matter. > > Obviously the puzzle is not going to be > solved with classical thinking. > What puzzle are you referring to? Apparently you think there is some unsolved puzzle that your proposal solves, but you may only be the only one that thinks so. -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-01 17:19 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: Divergent matter = increase entropy |
| Message-ID | <id5cuapik26o9qmpg322tl9ri90rq0bse7@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #362613 |
On Tue, 1 Sep 2015 08:15:43 -0500, Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com>
wrote:
>On 8/31/2015 7:41 PM, kefischer wrote:
>> On Mon, 31 Aug 2015 17:46:23 -0500, Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On 8/31/2015 5:42 PM, kefischer wrote:
>>>> On Mon, 31 Aug 2015 17:34:19 -0500, Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 8/31/2015 5:01 PM, kefischer wrote:
>>>>>> On Mon, 31 Aug 2015 15:33:57 -0500, Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 8/31/2015 2:59 PM, kefischer wrote:
>>>>>>>> Can somebody please show Gary how
>>>>>>>> to do the simple math for matter expanding,
>>>>>>>> and how surface gravity on Earth is about
>>>>>>>> one g when the radius doubles and all
>>>>>>>> measurements double along with the unit
>>>>>>>> lengths.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I take it this means you can't.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Help me! Help me!
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Show me how you mess up the math.
>>>>>
>>>>> Funny how someone who wouldn't know where to start thinks he'd be able
>>>>> to judge whether it's right or wrong.
>>>>
>>>> Funny how you never show any DM math,
>>>> does Gary messing it up cause you to fear trying?
>>>>
>>>
>>> You forget that you are the only one interested in divergent matter.
>>
>> Yeah, isn't that odd, so much talk about gravity,
>> stupid action at a distance forces, attractive particles,
>> strings, etc, but nobody but kef thinks about the most
>> obvious and rational underlying process.
>
>Replace the last "about" with "that it is", and you have made a
>perfectly sensible statement.
Both.
>>> So
>>> if someone is going to do divergent matter math, it's going to be the
>>> one person interested in it.
>>
>> I thought somebody that is interested in
>> doing original math problems that were never
>> done before would enjoy trying to work the
>> problems, they are good puzzle problems,
>> but all of you apparently only know what
>> you learned in school.
>
>Well, I guess you thought wrong, on both fronts.
I don't think so, the issue is obviously
so well studied with not much success except
for GR, it is probably more likely that a lot of
people would like to try to do anything that
would advance gravity understanding, but
they have seen false claims that expanding
matter can't fill the bill.
>>> And if you decide not to do it, then it
>>> will be nothing more than what it is right now, which isn't much --
>>> certainly not enough to draw the attention of anyone but you.
>>
>> After 100 years and nothing better than GR,
>> is desperation in anybody's vocabulary?
>
>Not really. Thermodynamics has been well established for almost two
>centuries and there hasn't been any replacement for it, and I don't
>detect any desperation about that at all. Do you think there should be?
I didn't say anything about thermodynamics, don't try to divert.
>Quantum mechanics has been around for 95 years and there is no
>replacement for it, and there doesn't seem to be any desperation about it.
And I did not say QM needed anything,
your attempts to divert are irritating.
>> Isn't science supposed to be test everything,
>> question everything?
>
>No, I think that's a basic misunderstanding about science, Ken. The
>point of science is to come up with models that work, where "work" has a
>straightforward operational definition having to do with matching
>experiment. Once you have a model that works, then science doesn't
>automatically demand that it be questioned at a fundamental level. If
>there is data that disagrees with it, then that's a different matter.
That is something that causes me to smile,
I know how gravity could work without the force
and field nonsense
>> Obviously the puzzle is not going to be
>> solved with classical thinking.
>
>What puzzle are you referring to? Apparently you think there is some
>unsolved puzzle that your proposal solves, but you may only be the only
>one that thinks so.
The puzzle is what physical process causes
gravity and/or the effects of gravity, and how does
that process work and cause the effects.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-01 16:44 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: Divergent matter = increase entropy |
| Message-ID | <ms5689$blm$1@speranza.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #362703 |
On 9/1/2015 4:19 PM, kefischer wrote: > On Tue, 1 Sep 2015 08:15:43 -0500, Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> > wrote: > >> On 8/31/2015 7:41 PM, kefischer wrote: >>> On Mon, 31 Aug 2015 17:46:23 -0500, Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> On 8/31/2015 5:42 PM, kefischer wrote: >>>>> On Mon, 31 Aug 2015 17:34:19 -0500, Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> On 8/31/2015 5:01 PM, kefischer wrote: >>>>>>> On Mon, 31 Aug 2015 15:33:57 -0500, Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> >>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On 8/31/2015 2:59 PM, kefischer wrote: >>>>>>>>> Can somebody please show Gary how >>>>>>>>> to do the simple math for matter expanding, >>>>>>>>> and how surface gravity on Earth is about >>>>>>>>> one g when the radius doubles and all >>>>>>>>> measurements double along with the unit >>>>>>>>> lengths. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I take it this means you can't. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Help me! Help me! >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Show me how you mess up the math. >>>>>> >>>>>> Funny how someone who wouldn't know where to start thinks he'd be able >>>>>> to judge whether it's right or wrong. >>>>> >>>>> Funny how you never show any DM math, >>>>> does Gary messing it up cause you to fear trying? >>>>> >>>> >>>> You forget that you are the only one interested in divergent matter. >>> >>> Yeah, isn't that odd, so much talk about gravity, >>> stupid action at a distance forces, attractive particles, >>> strings, etc, but nobody but kef thinks about the most >>> obvious and rational underlying process. >> >> Replace the last "about" with "that it is", and you have made a >> perfectly sensible statement. > > Both. You are welcome to your opinion on something you know nothing about. > > >>>> So >>>> if someone is going to do divergent matter math, it's going to be the >>>> one person interested in it. >>> >>> I thought somebody that is interested in >>> doing original math problems that were never >>> done before would enjoy trying to work the >>> problems, they are good puzzle problems, >>> but all of you apparently only know what >>> you learned in school. >> >> Well, I guess you thought wrong, on both fronts. > > I don't think so, the issue is obviously > so well studied with not much success except > for GR, it is probably more likely that a lot of > people would like to try to do anything that > would advance gravity understanding, but > they have seen false claims that expanding > matter can't fill the bill. > > >>>> And if you decide not to do it, then it >>>> will be nothing more than what it is right now, which isn't much -- >>>> certainly not enough to draw the attention of anyone but you. >>> >>> After 100 years and nothing better than GR, >>> is desperation in anybody's vocabulary? >> >> Not really. Thermodynamics has been well established for almost two >> centuries and there hasn't been any replacement for it, and I don't >> detect any desperation about that at all. Do you think there should be? > > I didn't say anything about thermodynamics, don't try to divert. It's not a diversion. GR is in the same category as thermodynamics and quantum mechanics. All three have been established for a very long time, well tested, and accepted. There is no desperation to replace any of them, for all the same reasons. > > >> Quantum mechanics has been around for 95 years and there is no >> replacement for it, and there doesn't seem to be any desperation about it. > > And I did not say QM needed anything, > your attempts to divert are irritating. > > >>> Isn't science supposed to be test everything, >>> question everything? >> >> No, I think that's a basic misunderstanding about science, Ken. The >> point of science is to come up with models that work, where "work" has a >> straightforward operational definition having to do with matching >> experiment. Once you have a model that works, then science doesn't >> automatically demand that it be questioned at a fundamental level. If >> there is data that disagrees with it, then that's a different matter. > > That is something that causes me to smile, > I know how gravity could work without the force > and field nonsense > Well, so you say, but then that's your own self-inflated review of your own idea. What other people have pointed out is that without the mathematical development required of any physical theory, you are commenting on what a fine tree you have grown while staring at an unsprouted seed you buried in the ground some time ago. It's empty air, and I'm pretty sure everyone sees that, amateur and expert alike. Empty air impresses no one except the one exhaling it. > >>> Obviously the puzzle is not going to be >>> solved with classical thinking. >> >> What puzzle are you referring to? Apparently you think there is some >> unsolved puzzle that your proposal solves, but you may only be the only >> one that thinks so. > > The puzzle is what physical process causes > gravity and/or the effects of gravity, and how does > that process work and cause the effects. And that is not an unsolved puzzle, as has been pointed out before. The physical process that causes gravity is described by GR. You have expressed your opinion that you cannot see how GR has offered any such explanation. But that opinion stems from the fact that you have stopped reading about it, having given up. So what others have seen and understood, you have not seen and not understood, and so you say that it doesn't exist and remains unfound. Meanwhile, others who have found, seen, and understood know full well that your opinion on this is on par with your opinion on divergent matter -- worthless. -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-01 18:14 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: Divergent matter = increase entropy |
| Message-ID | <p77cua9o71p5p0cla2fmiu56b6op9qops0@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #362706 |
On Tue, 1 Sep 2015 16:44:44 -0500, Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com>
wrote:
>On 9/1/2015 4:19 PM, kefischer wrote:
>> On Tue, 1 Sep 2015 08:15:43 -0500, Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On 8/31/2015 7:41 PM, kefischer wrote:
>>>> On Mon, 31 Aug 2015 17:46:23 -0500, Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 8/31/2015 5:42 PM, kefischer wrote:
>>>>>> On Mon, 31 Aug 2015 17:34:19 -0500, Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 8/31/2015 5:01 PM, kefischer wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Mon, 31 Aug 2015 15:33:57 -0500, Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com>
>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On 8/31/2015 2:59 PM, kefischer wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> Can somebody please show Gary how
>>>>>>>>>> to do the simple math for matter expanding,
>>>>>>>>>> and how surface gravity on Earth is about
>>>>>>>>>> one g when the radius doubles and all
>>>>>>>>>> measurements double along with the unit
>>>>>>>>>> lengths.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I take it this means you can't.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Help me! Help me!
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Show me how you mess up the math.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Funny how someone who wouldn't know where to start thinks he'd be able
>>>>>>> to judge whether it's right or wrong.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Funny how you never show any DM math,
>>>>>> does Gary messing it up cause you to fear trying?
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> You forget that you are the only one interested in divergent matter.
>>>>
>>>> Yeah, isn't that odd, so much talk about gravity,
>>>> stupid action at a distance forces, attractive particles,
>>>> strings, etc, but nobody but kef thinks about the most
>>>> obvious and rational underlying process.
>>>
>>> Replace the last "about" with "that it is", and you have made a
>>> perfectly sensible statement.
>>
>> Both.
>
>You are welcome to your opinion on something you know nothing about.
Oh, thank you, I really needed your approval.
>>>>> So
>>>>> if someone is going to do divergent matter math, it's going to be the
>>>>> one person interested in it.
>>>>
>>>> I thought somebody that is interested in
>>>> doing original math problems that were never
>>>> done before would enjoy trying to work the
>>>> problems, they are good puzzle problems,
>>>> but all of you apparently only know what
>>>> you learned in school.
>>>
>>> Well, I guess you thought wrong, on both fronts.
>>
>> I don't think so, the issue is obviously
>> so well studied with not much success except
>> for GR, it is probably more likely that a lot of
>> people would like to try to do anything that
>> would advance gravity understanding, but
>> they have seen false claims that expanding
>> matter can't fill the bill.
>>
>>
>>>>> And if you decide not to do it, then it
>>>>> will be nothing more than what it is right now, which isn't much --
>>>>> certainly not enough to draw the attention of anyone but you.
>>>>
>>>> After 100 years and nothing better than GR,
>>>> is desperation in anybody's vocabulary?
>>>
>>> Not really. Thermodynamics has been well established for almost two
>>> centuries and there hasn't been any replacement for it, and I don't
>>> detect any desperation about that at all. Do you think there should be?
>>
>> I didn't say anything about thermodynamics, don't try to divert.
>
>It's not a diversion. GR is in the same category as thermodynamics and
>quantum mechanics. All three have been established for a very long time,
>well tested, and accepted. There is no desperation to replace any of
>them, for all the same reasons.
I didn't say GR needed replaced, it is a pillar
of physics right next to Newtonian mechanics and
gravitation.
>>> Quantum mechanics has been around for 95 years and there is no
>>> replacement for it, and there doesn't seem to be any desperation about it.
>>
>> And I did not say QM needed anything,
>> your attempts to divert are irritating.
>>
>>
>>>> Isn't science supposed to be test everything,
>>>> question everything?
>>>
>>> No, I think that's a basic misunderstanding about science, Ken. The
>>> point of science is to come up with models that work, where "work" has a
>>> straightforward operational definition having to do with matching
>>> experiment. Once you have a model that works, then science doesn't
>>> automatically demand that it be questioned at a fundamental level. If
>>> there is data that disagrees with it, then that's a different matter.
>>
>> That is something that causes me to smile,
>> I know how gravity could work without the force
>> and field nonsense
>>
>
>Well, so you say, but then that's your own self-inflated review of your
>own idea.
No, it isn't, it is a fact, but it doesn't mean that
I know how gravity works in this universe, I only
know how gravity _could_ work without the force
and field nonsense.
Obviously there is a force of gravity in the
Divergent Matter model, but it is the floor
accelerating upward, pushing and accelerating
everything on it as long as the floor board are
strong enough.
That upward acceleration must result in
an upward velocity, but no velocity is observed.
>What other people have pointed out is that without the
>mathematical development required of any physical theory, you are
>commenting on what a fine tree you have grown while staring at an
>unsprouted seed you buried in the ground some time ago.
Nonsense, good physics can be evaluated
with thought experiments, for an approximation,
the precise numbers are not always needed.
>It's empty air, and I'm pretty sure everyone sees that, amateur and
>expert alike. Empty air impresses no one except the one exhaling it.
No doubt you are an expert on empty air
leaving pie holes.
>>>> Obviously the puzzle is not going to be
>>>> solved with classical thinking.
>>>
>>> What puzzle are you referring to? Apparently you think there is some
>>> unsolved puzzle that your proposal solves, but you may only be the only
>>> one that thinks so.
>>
>> The puzzle is what physical process causes
>> gravity and/or the effects of gravity, and how does
>> that process work and cause the effects.
>
>And that is not an unsolved puzzle, as has been pointed out before.
>The physical process that causes gravity is described by GR.
Total nonsense, I don't understand how
you or anybody is stupid enough to say that,
the number of people trying to brainstorm
that answer is enormous.
>You have expressed your opinion that you cannot see how GR has offered
>any such explanation. But that opinion stems from the fact that you have
>stopped reading about it, having given up.
You don't know what I have done, that is
another facet of your pretense of knowing
everything.
>So what others have seen and
>understood, you have not seen and not understood, and so you say that it
>doesn't exist and remains unfound.
You make the assertion, but don't reveal
the mystery. Of course I think you still believe
that a force field accelerates falling objects
downward.
Others may believe the falling objects
are "at rest" in a coordinate frame that is
accelerating downward, but that view needs
an explanation of what is accelerating the
coordinate frame downward.
>Meanwhile, others who have found,
>seen, and understood know full well that your opinion on this is on par
>with your opinion on divergent matter -- worthless.
Yet the whole of the efforts of attempting to
improve GR, or to unite GR and QM or QED,
or to explain dark matter or dark energy
issues, all are concerned with what causes
gravity, how it works, and what causes the
effects.
GR is correct about what causes the
effects, it is the inertia of each molecule,
atom and massive particle that the object
is composed of.
Einstein mentioned an inertial field,
but that would have to be dynamic, vs
the ideas of Mach with a static absolute
inertial field, and ditto for Euclidean space.
Divergent Matter is ignored because
it requires motion that cannot be observed
because the motions also involve the very
instruments and units used in observing. :-)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-01 17:50 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: Divergent matter = increase entropy |
| Message-ID | <ms5a49$k2o$2@speranza.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #362710 |
On 9/1/2015 5:14 PM, kefischer wrote: >> What other people have pointed out is that without the >> >mathematical development required of any physical theory, you are >> >commenting on what a fine tree you have grown while staring at an >> >unsprouted seed you buried in the ground some time ago. > Nonsense, good physics can be evaluated > with thought experiments, for an approximation, > the precise numbers are not always needed. > > Sorry, but no. There has never been a physics theory that is qualitative only. Never. -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-01 20:24 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: Divergent matter = increase entropy |
| Message-ID | <d8gcua98oqj3jglfkp4csam7846akvsgb0@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #362713 |
On Tue, 1 Sep 2015 17:50:49 -0500, Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com>
wrote:
>On 9/1/2015 5:14 PM, kefischer wrote:
>>> What other people have pointed out is that without the
>>> >mathematical development required of any physical theory, you are
>>> >commenting on what a fine tree you have grown while staring at an
>>> >unsprouted seed you buried in the ground some time ago.
>> Nonsense, good physics can be evaluated
>> with thought experiments, for an approximation,
>> the precise numbers are not always needed.
>
>Sorry, but no. There has never been a physics theory that is qualitative
>only. Never.
I didn't say a complete theory, I said
good physics, it may take a lot of good
physics to complete a good theory.
But your stupid objection seems
to ignore string theory and gravitons,
they are evaluated, and nothing has
come from it, time probably wasted.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-02 12:34 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: Divergent matter = increase entropy |
| Message-ID | <ms7bu9$80v$1@speranza.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #362721 |
On 9/1/2015 7:24 PM, kefischer wrote: > On Tue, 1 Sep 2015 17:50:49 -0500, Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> > wrote: > >> On 9/1/2015 5:14 PM, kefischer wrote: >>>> What other people have pointed out is that without the >>>>> mathematical development required of any physical theory, you are >>>>> commenting on what a fine tree you have grown while staring at an >>>>> unsprouted seed you buried in the ground some time ago. >>> Nonsense, good physics can be evaluated >>> with thought experiments, for an approximation, >>> the precise numbers are not always needed. >> >> Sorry, but no. There has never been a physics theory that is qualitative >> only. Never. > > I didn't say a complete theory, I said > good physics, it may take a lot of good > physics to complete a good theory. > It is the business of good physics to produce physics theories and test them in experiment. Doing what you do does not meet the bar for being called good physics. > > But your stupid objection seems > to ignore string theory and gravitons, > they are evaluated, and nothing has > come from it, time probably wasted. They are all quantitative theories that can be tested against experiment. Much different than what you have. Whether they are right or wrong is not the basis for judging them. MOST theories in physics don't pan out or end up disagreeing with detailed experiment. But the point is to get to that point, they were *all* developed quantitatively (that means, with math) so that those comparisons with measurement can be taken. Without that development, it's useless out of the gate. And it's that development that you don't have. > > > > > -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-02 14:11 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: Divergent matter = increase entropy |
| Message-ID | <q6eeualpbasbndc1fjc123th8hf6al2kvi@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #362770 |
On Wed, 2 Sep 2015 12:34:03 -0500, Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com>
wrote:
>On 9/1/2015 7:24 PM, kefischer wrote:
>> On Tue, 1 Sep 2015 17:50:49 -0500, Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On 9/1/2015 5:14 PM, kefischer wrote:
>>>>> What other people have pointed out is that without the
>>>>>> mathematical development required of any physical theory, you are
>>>>>> commenting on what a fine tree you have grown while staring at an
>>>>>> unsprouted seed you buried in the ground some time ago.
>>>> Nonsense, good physics can be evaluated
>>>> with thought experiments, for an approximation,
>>>> the precise numbers are not always needed.
>>>
>>> Sorry, but no. There has never been a physics theory that is qualitative
>>> only. Never.
>>
>> I didn't say a complete theory, I said
>> good physics, it may take a lot of good
>> physics to complete a good theory.
>
>It is the business of good physics to produce physics theories and test
>them in experiment.
If that were true, there are way too many
physicists for the handful of good theories
that have resulted.
>Doing what you do does not meet the bar for being
>called good physics.
I am just here to discuss gravity,
what you are doing here is acting
like a no-it-all prick.
>> But your stupid objection seems
>> to ignore string theory and gravitons,
>> they are evaluated, and nothing has
>> come from it, time probably wasted.
>
>They are all quantitative theories that can be tested against
>experiment. Much different than what you have.
Oh, really? How much does a
string pull, how much does a graviton
attract?
>Whether they are right or wrong is not the basis for judging them. MOST
>theories in physics don't pan out or end up disagreeing with detailed
>experiment. But the point is to get to that point, they were *all*
>developed quantitatively (that means, with math) so that those
>comparisons with measurement can be taken. Without that development,
>it's useless out of the gate.
>
>And it's that development that you don't have.
Really? Divergent Matter simply says
that the Earth is expanding with an acceleration,
and accepts the value of that of one g.
So far, so good. But there has to be
more, just using mass as the source whatever,
is not good enough, because if the Earth was
composed of different materials or a different
proportion of the same materials, g would
no longer be one.
So to make gravity a rational quantitative
process, some value for the expansion has
to be determined for each chemical element
and composition.
Wow, Divergent Matter already sounds
better than Newton or GR.
I would write more, but it might strain
your little brain too much to read it.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-02 14:52 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: Divergent matter = increase entropy |
| Message-ID | <ms7k2m$s8f$1@speranza.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #362778 |
On 9/2/2015 1:11 PM, kefischer wrote: > On Wed, 2 Sep 2015 12:34:03 -0500, Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> > wrote: > >> On 9/1/2015 7:24 PM, kefischer wrote: >>> On Tue, 1 Sep 2015 17:50:49 -0500, Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> On 9/1/2015 5:14 PM, kefischer wrote: >>>>>> What other people have pointed out is that without the >>>>>>> mathematical development required of any physical theory, you are >>>>>>> commenting on what a fine tree you have grown while staring at an >>>>>>> unsprouted seed you buried in the ground some time ago. >>>>> Nonsense, good physics can be evaluated >>>>> with thought experiments, for an approximation, >>>>> the precise numbers are not always needed. >>>> >>>> Sorry, but no. There has never been a physics theory that is qualitative >>>> only. Never. >>> >>> I didn't say a complete theory, I said >>> good physics, it may take a lot of good >>> physics to complete a good theory. >> >> It is the business of good physics to produce physics theories and test >> them in experiment. > > If that were true, there are way too many > physicists for the handful of good theories > that have resulted. Physicists in general, or physicists working on gravity? There are lots of topics of interest in physics and gravity is pursued by only a small subset of them. Even then, it seems you're not very informed about the number of good theories of gravity other than GR. - bimetric theories, like Brans-Dicke - quasilinear theories - scalar-tensor theories - MOND theories - quantum loop gravity - spin-foam lattices - string theories - supergravity theories - M-theory - NGT theories - Kaluza-Klein theories (and did you know Einstein worked on this?) > > >> Doing what you do does not meet the bar for being >> called good physics. > > I am just here to discuss gravity, > what you are doing here is acting > like a no-it-all prick. > OK, so you are here to discuss gravity, and your idea and your approach doesn't meet the bar for being called good physics. > >>> But your stupid objection seems >>> to ignore string theory and gravitons, >>> they are evaluated, and nothing has >>> come from it, time probably wasted. >> >> They are all quantitative theories that can be tested against >> experiment. Much different than what you have. > > Oh, really? How much does a > string pull, how much does a graviton > attract? String theory does not involve strings that pull. Idiot. > > >> Whether they are right or wrong is not the basis for judging them. MOST >> theories in physics don't pan out or end up disagreeing with detailed >> experiment. But the point is to get to that point, they were *all* >> developed quantitatively (that means, with math) so that those >> comparisons with measurement can be taken. Without that development, >> it's useless out of the gate. >> >> And it's that development that you don't have. > > Really? Divergent Matter simply says > that the Earth is expanding with an acceleration, > and accepts the value of that of one g. > > So far, so good. But there has to be > more, just using mass as the source whatever, > is not good enough, because if the Earth was > composed of different materials or a different > proportion of the same materials, g would > no longer be one. > > So to make gravity a rational quantitative > process, some value for the expansion has > to be determined for each chemical element > and composition. > > Wow, Divergent Matter already sounds > better than Newton or GR. It certainly doesn't sound better than GR. Why do you think it sounds better? > > I would write more, but it might strain > your little brain too much to read it. > > > > > -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-02 17:20 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: Divergent matter = increase entropy |
| Message-ID | <05peuadtaf3cdiin0feu7qepl33h5csjk8@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #362797 |
On Wed, 2 Sep 2015 14:52:57 -0500, Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com>
wrote:
>On 9/2/2015 1:11 PM, kefischer wrote:
>> On Wed, 2 Sep 2015 12:34:03 -0500, Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On 9/1/2015 7:24 PM, kefischer wrote:
>>>> On Tue, 1 Sep 2015 17:50:49 -0500, Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 9/1/2015 5:14 PM, kefischer wrote:
>>>>>>> What other people have pointed out is that without the
>>>>>>>> mathematical development required of any physical theory, you are
>>>>>>>> commenting on what a fine tree you have grown while staring at an
>>>>>>>> unsprouted seed you buried in the ground some time ago.
>>>>>> Nonsense, good physics can be evaluated
>>>>>> with thought experiments, for an approximation,
>>>>>> the precise numbers are not always needed.
>>>>>
>>>>> Sorry, but no. There has never been a physics theory that is qualitative
>>>>> only. Never.
>>>>
>>>> I didn't say a complete theory, I said
>>>> good physics, it may take a lot of good
>>>> physics to complete a good theory.
>>>
>>> It is the business of good physics to produce physics theories and test
>>> them in experiment.
>>
>> If that were true, there are way too many
>> physicists for the handful of good theories
>> that have resulted.
>
>Physicists in general, or physicists working on gravity?
Gravity and associated processes.
>There are lots of topics of interest in physics and gravity is pursued
>by only a small subset of them.
The number must be a lot more
than small.
>Even then, it seems you're not very informed about the number of good
>theories of gravity other than GR.
>- bimetric theories, like Brans-Dicke
>- quasilinear theories
>- scalar-tensor theories
>- MOND theories
>- quantum loop gravity
>- spin-foam lattices
>- string theories
>- supergravity theories
>- M-theory
>- NGT theories
>- Kaluza-Klein theories (and did you know Einstein worked on this?)
All are not worth the paper they are
written on, Brans-Dicke is just a small
adjustment to parts of GR, suggesting
your claim of no effort to improve on GR
is your usual kind of bull.
>>> Doing what you do does not meet the bar for being
>>> called good physics.
>>
>> I am just here to discuss gravity,
>> what you are doing here is acting
>> like a no-it-all prick.
>
>OK, so you are here to discuss gravity, and your idea and your approach
>doesn't meet the bar for being called good physics.
It's a lot better than IRT and even
better than Newton.
>>>> But your stupid objection seems
>>>> to ignore string theory and gravitons,
>>>> they are evaluated, and nothing has
>>>> come from it, time probably wasted.
>>>
>>> They are all quantitative theories that can be tested against
>>> experiment. Much different than what you have.
>>
>> Oh, really? How much does a
>> string pull, how much does a graviton
>> attract?
>
>String theory does not involve strings that pull.
>Idiot.
Well then, what do they do?
Surely people that propose such
nonsense proceed with a little
more than "strings do it".
>>> Whether they are right or wrong is not the basis for judging them. MOST
>>> theories in physics don't pan out or end up disagreeing with detailed
>>> experiment. But the point is to get to that point, they were *all*
>>> developed quantitatively (that means, with math) so that those
>>> comparisons with measurement can be taken. Without that development,
>>> it's useless out of the gate.
>>>
>>> And it's that development that you don't have.
>>
>> Really? Divergent Matter simply says
>> that the Earth is expanding with an acceleration,
>> and accepts the value of that of one g.
>>
>> So far, so good. But there has to be
>> more, just using mass as the source whatever,
>> is not good enough, because if the Earth was
>> composed of different materials or a different
>> proportion of the same materials, g would
>> no longer be one.
>>
>> So to make gravity a rational quantitative
>> process, some value for the expansion has
>> to be determined for each chemical element
>> and composition.
>>
>> Wow, Divergent Matter already sounds
>> better than Newton or GR.
>
>It certainly doesn't sound better than GR. Why do you think it sounds
>better?
You don't seem to understand the basics
of why motion in space has to be inertial motion,
and how space-time simply can not be an active
player in gravity, it can only represent the space
or distance between material objects.
"Mass" simply does not provide any
component of a mechanism, but the different
elements expanding can, and mass will be
(close) to the same result, but does not offer
any active part in the cause of the apparent
"attracting".
Mass does play a part in establishing
the center of gravity systems, because
inertia is what holds things in place and
what causes things to want to keep moving.
>> I would write more, but it might strain
>> your little brain too much to read it.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | fuller.david@hotmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-02 19:59 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Divergent matter = increase entropy |
| Message-ID | <86a0b0b0-8eae-46e9-b951-f69428efa878@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #362828 |
You don't seem to understand the basics
of why motion in space has to be inertial motion,
and how space-time simply can not be an active
player in gravity, it can only represent the space
or distance between material objects.
"Mass" simply does not provide any
component of a mechanism, but the different
elements expanding can, and mass will be
(close) to the same result, but does not offer
any active part in the cause of the apparent
"attracting".
Mass does play a part in establishing
the center of gravity systems, because
inertia is what holds things in place and
what causes things to want to keep moving.
The Blue shifted past is from variance in the impedance of the vacuum.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-03 12:37 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: Divergent matter = increase entropy |
| Message-ID | <msa0hk$8jm$1@speranza.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #362828 |
On 9/2/2015 4:20 PM, kefischer wrote: >>>> It is the business of good physics to produce physics theories and test >>>> >>>them in experiment. >>> >> >>> >> If that were true, there are way too many >>> >>physicists for the handful of good theories >>> >>that have resulted. >> > >> >Physicists in general, or physicists working on gravity? > Gravity and associated processes. > > >> >There are lots of topics of interest in physics and gravity is pursued >> >by only a small subset of them. > The number must be a lot more > than small. > > It's about 1% of physicists. Is 1% small or not? -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-03 20:19 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: Divergent matter = increase entropy |
| Message-ID | <5rohua92li9gue35fsb3cmkhaq5k6cvs6f@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #362945 |
On Thu, 3 Sep 2015 12:37:58 -0500, Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com>
wrote:
>On 9/2/2015 4:20 PM, kefischer wrote:
>>>>> It is the business of good physics to produce physics theories and test
>>>>> >>>them in experiment.
>>>> >>
>>>> >> If that were true, there are way too many
>>>> >>physicists for the handful of good theories
>>>> >>that have resulted.
>>> >
>>> >Physicists in general, or physicists working on gravity?
>> Gravity and associated processes.
>>
>>
>>> >There are lots of topics of interest in physics and gravity is pursued
>>> >by only a small subset of them.
>> The number must be a lot more
>> than small.
>
>It's about 1% of physicists. Is 1% small or not?
But no references, as usual.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-04 07:30 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: Divergent matter = increase entropy |
| Message-ID | <msc2tu$akf$1@speranza.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #363013 |
On 9/3/2015 7:19 PM, kefischer wrote: > On Thu, 3 Sep 2015 12:37:58 -0500, Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> > wrote: > >> On 9/2/2015 4:20 PM, kefischer wrote: >>>>>> It is the business of good physics to produce physics theories and test >>>>>>>>> them in experiment. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> If that were true, there are way too many >>>>>>> physicists for the handful of good theories >>>>>>> that have resulted. >>>>> >>>>> Physicists in general, or physicists working on gravity? >>> Gravity and associated processes. >>> >>> >>>>> There are lots of topics of interest in physics and gravity is pursued >>>>> by only a small subset of them. >>> The number must be a lot more >>> than small. >> >> It's about 1% of physicists. Is 1% small or not? > > But no references, as usual. I had assumed you can google to do your own research. No? Here's a hint: on my search term, a good reference came up as the third in the return list. As a backup, you can go to the careers and statistics section at www.aps.org. -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-03 12:39 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: Divergent matter = increase entropy |
| Message-ID | <msa0jv$8jm$2@speranza.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #362828 |
On 9/2/2015 4:20 PM, kefischer wrote: >> >Even then, it seems you're not very informed about the number of good >> >theories of gravity other than GR. >> >- bimetric theories, like Brans-Dicke >> >- quasilinear theories >> >- scalar-tensor theories >> >- MOND theories >> >- quantum loop gravity >> >- spin-foam lattices >> >- string theories >> >- supergravity theories >> >- M-theory >> >- NGT theories >> >- Kaluza-Klein theories (and did you know Einstein worked on this?) > All are not worth the paper they are > written on, Brans-Dicke is just a small > adjustment to parts of GR, suggesting > your claim of no effort to improve on GR > is your usual kind of bull. > > Well, I see that you don't know what Brans-Dicke theory even is. As for your claim that the others are not worth the paper they're written on, any justification for that statement, or is it just an uninformed opinion? -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-03 20:20 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: Divergent matter = increase entropy |
| Message-ID | <lsohuapa1aa332v5j86ne0nft7fcov7ns4@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #362947 |
On Thu, 3 Sep 2015 12:39:13 -0500, Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com>
wrote:
>On 9/2/2015 4:20 PM, kefischer wrote:
>>> >Even then, it seems you're not very informed about the number of good
>>> >theories of gravity other than GR.
>>> >- bimetric theories, like Brans-Dicke
>>> >- quasilinear theories
>>> >- scalar-tensor theories
>>> >- MOND theories
>>> >- quantum loop gravity
>>> >- spin-foam lattices
>>> >- string theories
>>> >- supergravity theories
>>> >- M-theory
>>> >- NGT theories
>>> >- Kaluza-Klein theories (and did you know Einstein worked on this?)
>> All are not worth the paper they are
>> written on, Brans-Dicke is just a small
>> adjustment to parts of GR, suggesting
>> your claim of no effort to improve on GR
>> is your usual kind of bull.
>
>Well, I see that you don't know what Brans-Dicke theory even is.
Apparently you don't.
>As for your claim that the others are not worth the paper they're
>written on, any justification for that statement, or is it just an
>uninformed opinion?
The continued quest for better understand.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 2 of 10 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 … 10 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity
csiph-web