Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #361808 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2015-08-25 11:23 -0500 |
| Last post | 2015-09-09 20:17 +0200 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 150 — 20 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.physics.relativity
Antimatter is the new dark energy? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-08-25 11:23 -0500
Re: Antimatter is the new dark energy? Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2015-08-25 10:59 -0700
Re: Antimatter is the new dark energy? Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2015-08-25 11:03 -0700
Re: Antimatter is the new dark energy? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-08-25 13:10 -0500
Re: Antimatter is the new dark energy? Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2015-08-25 22:53 -0700
Re: Antimatter is the new dark energy? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-08-26 07:18 -0500
Re: Antimatter is the new dark energy? Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2015-08-27 23:56 -0700
Re: Antimatter is the new dark energy? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-08-28 07:17 -0500
Re: Antimatter is the new dark energy? Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2015-08-29 02:29 +0200
Re: Antimatter is the new dark energy? alsor@interia.pl - 2015-08-26 11:20 -0700
Re: Antimatter is the new dark energy? kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> - 2015-08-26 16:12 -0400
Re: Antimatter is the new dark energy? alsor@interia.pl - 2015-08-27 10:25 -0700
Re: Antimatter is the new dark energy? Alan Folmsbee <omnilobe@gmail.com> - 2015-08-25 11:11 -0700
Re: Antimatter is the new dark energy? John Heath <heathjohn2@gmail.com> - 2015-08-26 05:52 -0700
Re: Antimatter is the new dark energy? Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2015-08-26 06:27 -0700
Re: Antimatter is the new dark energy? John Heath <heathjohn2@gmail.com> - 2015-08-26 15:54 -0700
Re: Antimatter is the new dark energy? Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2015-08-26 16:27 -0700
Re: Antimatter is the new dark energy? John Heath <heathjohn2@gmail.com> - 2015-08-26 17:14 -0700
Re: Antimatter is the new dark energy? Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2015-08-26 17:25 -0700
Re: Antimatter is the new dark energy? kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> - 2015-08-26 21:18 -0400
Re: Antimatter is the new dark energy? underante <underante@yahoo.com> - 2015-08-26 19:51 -0700
Re: Antimatter is the new dark energy? kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> - 2015-08-27 00:46 -0400
Re: Antimatter is the new dark energy? underante <underante@yahoo.com> - 2015-08-27 03:50 -0700
Re: Antimatter is the new dark energy? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-08-27 09:06 -0500
Re: Antimatter is the new dark energy? kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> - 2015-08-27 16:00 -0400
Re: Antimatter is the new dark energy? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-08-27 15:10 -0500
Re: Antimatter is the new dark energy? kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> - 2015-08-27 18:54 -0400
Re: Antimatter is the new dark energy? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-08-28 09:28 -0500
Re: Antimatter is the new dark energy? kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> - 2015-08-28 16:53 -0400
Re: Antimatter is the new dark energy? paparios <paparios@gmail.com> - 2015-08-27 09:42 -0700
Re: Antimatter is the new dark energy? Poutnik <Poutnik4NNTP@gmail.com> - 2015-08-27 19:05 +0200
Re: Antimatter is the new dark energy? Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2015-08-29 11:38 -0500
Re: Antimatter is the new dark energy? kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> - 2015-08-29 14:42 -0400
Re: Antimatter is the new dark energy? Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2015-08-30 13:29 -0500
Re: Antimatter is the new dark energy? kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> - 2015-08-30 17:24 -0400
Re: Antimatter is the new dark energy? Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2015-08-30 22:04 -0500
Re: Antimatter is the new dark energy? kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> - 2015-08-31 00:26 -0400
Re: Antimatter is the new dark energy? Alan Folmsbee <omnilobe@gmail.com> - 2015-08-30 21:45 -0700
Re: Antimatter is the new dark energy? kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> - 2015-08-31 01:35 -0400
Re: Antimatter is the new dark energy? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-08-27 08:55 -0500
Re: Antimatter is the new dark energy? kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> - 2015-08-27 14:10 -0400
Re: Antimatter is the new dark energy? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-08-27 14:29 -0500
Re: Antimatter is the new dark energy? kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> - 2015-08-27 17:47 -0400
Re: Antimatter is the new dark energy? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-08-27 17:43 -0500
Re: Antimatter is the new dark energy? kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> - 2015-08-27 20:31 -0400
Re: Antimatter is the new dark energy? Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2015-08-27 19:08 -0700
Re: Antimatter is the new dark energy? kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> - 2015-08-27 23:49 -0400
Re: Antimatter is the new dark energy? Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2015-08-28 05:25 -0700
Re: Antimatter is the new dark energy? kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> - 2015-08-28 13:02 -0400
Re: Antimatter is the new dark energy? Poutnik <Poutnik4NNTP@gmail.com> - 2015-08-28 19:08 +0200
Re: Antimatter is the new dark energy? kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> - 2015-08-28 17:01 -0400
Re: Antimatter is the new dark energy? underante <underante@yahoo.com> - 2015-08-28 10:21 -0700
Re: Antimatter is the new dark energy? Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2015-08-28 11:38 -0700
Re: Antimatter is the new dark energy? Margarita Cibulkova <margac@terraspace.au> - 2015-08-28 18:43 +0000
Re: Antimatter is the new dark energy? alsor@interia.pl - 2015-09-05 11:38 -0700
Re: Antimatter is the new dark energy? alsor@interia.pl - 2015-09-05 11:38 -0700
Re: Antimatter is the new dark energy? kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> - 2015-08-28 17:07 -0400
Re: Antimatter is the new dark energy? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-08-28 09:12 -0500
Re: Antimatter is the new dark energy? kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> - 2015-08-28 15:50 -0400
Re: Antimatter is the new dark energy? Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2015-08-28 14:44 -0700
Re: Antimatter is the new dark energy? kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> - 2015-08-28 19:37 -0400
Re: Antimatter is the new dark energy? Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2015-08-28 19:47 -0700
Re: Antimatter is the new dark energy? kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> - 2015-08-28 23:41 -0400
Re: Antimatter is the new dark energy? kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> - 2015-08-28 02:57 -0400
Re: Antimatter is the new dark energy? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-08-28 09:31 -0500
Re: Antimatter is the new dark energy? fuller.david@hotmail.com - 2015-08-28 09:05 -0700
Re: Antimatter is the new dark energy? kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> - 2015-08-28 16:56 -0400
Re: Antimatter is the new dark energy? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-08-28 16:07 -0500
Re: Antimatter is the new dark energy? kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> - 2015-08-28 17:19 -0400
Re: Antimatter is the new dark energy? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-08-28 16:54 -0500
Re: Antimatter is the new dark energy? kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> - 2015-08-28 19:39 -0400
Re: Antimatter is the new dark energy? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-08-31 08:15 -0500
Re: Antimatter is the new dark energy? kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> - 2015-08-31 12:32 -0400
Re: Antimatter is the new dark energy? Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2015-08-31 11:09 -0700
Re: Antimatter is the new dark energy? kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> - 2015-08-28 15:04 -0400
Re: Antimatter is the new dark energy? Margarita Cibulkova <margac@terraspace.au> - 2015-08-28 19:10 +0000
Re: Antimatter is the new dark energy? Margarita Cibulkova <margac@terraspace.au> - 2015-08-28 19:11 +0000
Re: Antimatter is the new dark energy? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-08-28 14:52 -0500
Re: Antimatter is the new dark energy? kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> - 2015-08-28 17:15 -0400
Re: Antimatter is the new dark energy? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-08-28 16:51 -0500
Re: Antimatter is the new dark energy? Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2015-08-29 03:26 +0200
Re: Antimatter is the new dark energy? John Heath <heathjohn2@gmail.com> - 2015-08-26 18:49 -0700
Re: Antimatter is the new dark energy? John Heath <heathjohn2@gmail.com> - 2015-08-26 23:43 -0700
Re: Antimatter is the new dark energy? kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> - 2015-08-26 21:10 -0400
Re: Antimatter is the new dark energy? Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2015-08-26 20:43 -0700
Re: Antimatter is the new dark energy? kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> - 2015-08-27 01:03 -0400
Re: Antimatter is the new dark energy? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-08-27 07:59 -0500
Antimatter is the new dark energy? fuller.david@hotmail.com - 2015-08-26 09:17 -0700
Re: Antimatter is the new dark energy? John Heath <heathjohn2@gmail.com> - 2015-08-26 15:44 -0700
Antimatter is the new dark energy? fuller.david@hotmail.com - 2015-08-26 09:27 -0700
Antimatter is the new dark energy? fuller.david@hotmail.com - 2015-08-26 09:43 -0700
Re: Antimatter is the new dark energy? kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> - 2015-08-26 13:41 -0400
Re: Antimatter is the new dark energy? fuller.david@hotmail.com - 2015-08-26 11:36 -0700
Re: Antimatter is the new dark energy? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2015-08-27 06:41 -0700
Re: Antimatter is the new dark energy? Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2015-09-05 12:55 -0500
Re: Antimatter is the new dark energy? "Lleyton H. Bellucci" <lleyb@stratospheree.org> - 2015-09-05 18:36 +0000
Re: Antimatter is the new dark energy? kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> - 2015-09-05 16:39 -0400
Re: Antimatter is the new dark energy? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-09-08 10:39 -0500
Re: Antimatter is the new dark energy? Jimmie Wynne <jimmwyn@metermap.org> - 2015-09-17 20:44 +0000
Re: Antimatter is the new dark energy? Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2015-09-05 15:55 -0500
Re: Antimatter is the new dark energy? "Lleyton H. Bellucci" <lleyb@stratospheree.org> - 2015-09-05 21:29 +0000
Re: Antimatter is the new dark energy? Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2015-09-05 12:04 -0700
Re: Antimatter is the new dark energy? alsor@interia.pl - 2015-09-05 12:53 -0700
Re: Antimatter is the new dark energy? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-09-08 10:38 -0500
Re: Antimatter is the new dark energy? Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2015-09-06 22:23 -0700
Re: Antimatter is the new dark energy? Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2015-09-07 12:28 -0500
Re: Antimatter is the new dark energy? Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2015-09-07 11:50 -0700
Re: Antimatter is the new dark energy? "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2015-09-08 11:36 +0200
Re: Antimatter is the new dark energy? Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2015-09-08 09:26 -0700
Re: Antimatter is the new dark energy? "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2015-09-09 09:35 +0200
Re: Antimatter is the new dark energy? Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2015-09-10 00:03 -0700
Re: Antimatter is the new dark energy? underante <underante@yahoo.com> - 2015-09-10 04:27 -0700
Re: Antimatter is the new dark energy? Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2015-09-10 05:09 -0700
Re: Antimatter is the new dark energy? underante <underante@yahoo.com> - 2015-09-10 08:29 -0700
Re: Antimatter is the new dark energy? shuba <tim@sh.uba> - 2015-09-10 18:29 +0000
Re: Antimatter is the new dark energy? underante <underante@yahoo.com> - 2015-09-10 18:47 -0700
Re: Antimatter is the new dark energy? Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2015-09-10 23:10 -0700
Re: Antimatter is the new dark energy? Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2015-09-11 00:34 -0700
Re: Antimatter is the new dark energy? underante <underante@yahoo.com> - 2015-09-12 05:11 -0700
Re: Antimatter is the new dark energy? Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2015-09-12 23:05 -0700
Re: Antimatter is the new dark energy? alsor@interia.pl - 2015-09-10 15:27 -0700
Re: Antimatter is the new dark energy? Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2015-09-11 16:28 -0700
Re: Antimatter is the new dark energy? alsor@interia.pl - 2015-09-18 09:38 -0700
Re: Antimatter is the new dark energy? Poutnik <Poutnik4NNTP@gmail.com> - 2015-09-18 18:55 +0200
Re: Antimatter is the new dark energy? Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2015-09-18 11:47 -0700
Re: Antimatter is the new dark energy? Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2015-09-18 20:55 +0200
Re: Antimatter is the new dark energy? alsor@interia.pl - 2015-09-18 11:51 -0700
Re: Antimatter is the new dark energy? kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> - 2015-09-10 09:42 -0400
Re: Antimatter is the new dark energy? Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2015-09-10 10:06 -0700
Re: Antimatter is the new dark energy? alsor@interia.pl - 2015-09-09 10:18 -0700
Re: Antimatter is the new dark energy? fuller.david@hotmail.com - 2015-09-09 19:30 -0700
Re: Antimatter is the new dark energy? fuller.david@hotmail.com - 2015-09-09 19:45 -0700
Re: Antimatter is the new dark energy? fuller.david@hotmail.com - 2015-09-09 21:05 -0700
Re: Antimatter is the new dark energy? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-09-08 12:21 -0500
Re: Antimatter is the new dark energy? Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2015-09-08 10:59 -0700
Re: Antimatter is the new dark energy? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-09-08 13:22 -0500
Re: Antimatter is the new dark energy? Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2015-09-08 12:43 -0700
Re: Antimatter is the new dark energy? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-09-09 09:33 -0500
Re: Antimatter is the new dark energy? Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2015-09-10 00:21 -0700
Re: Antimatter is the new dark energy? "Lleyton H. Bellucci" <lleyb@stratospheree.org> - 2015-09-07 19:26 +0000
Re: Antimatter is the new dark energy? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-09-08 10:34 -0500
Re: Antimatter is the new dark energy? Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2015-09-08 21:30 +0200
Re: Antimatter is the new dark energy? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-09-08 10:45 -0500
Re: Antimatter is the new dark energy? Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2015-09-09 00:28 -0500
Re: Antimatter is the new dark energy? Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2015-09-09 08:30 +0200
Re: Antimatter is the new dark energy? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-09-09 09:42 -0500
Re: Antimatter is the new dark energy? Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2015-09-09 08:16 -0700
Re: Antimatter is the new dark energy? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-09-09 10:45 -0500
Re: Antimatter is the new dark energy? Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2015-09-09 20:14 +0200
Re: Antimatter is the new dark energy? Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2015-09-09 20:17 +0200
Page 6 of 8 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 5 [6] 7 8 Next page →
| From | "Lleyton H. Bellucci" <lleyb@stratospheree.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-05 21:29 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <msfms7$k49$1@speranza.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #363181 |
Il giorno Sat, 05 Sep 2015 15:55:31 -0500 *_Tom Roberts_* ha scritto: > On 9/5/15 9/5/15 1:36 PM, Lleyton H. Bellucci wrote: >> Il giorno Sat, 05 Sep 2015 12:55:02 -0500 *_Tom Roberts_* ha scritto: >>> That essentially require galaxies and anti-galaxies to be >> intermixed >> >> Interesting point of view. What happens if a galaxy collides with an >> anti- galaxy? A blackhole or a wormhole? > > Neither. A great amount of EM radiation would result from the individual > particle annihilations, and there would be a lot of them. But there's > nothing in particular that would cause gravitational collapse to a black > hole or wormhole. Quite the opposite, as the gammas/photons from > annihilations would carry their energy/momentum outward, away from the > high-density regions. Come on, should be read anti-blackhole and anti-wormholes. An error easy to spot. Anti-matter should give rise to anti-black holes. Since it doesn't, it proves blackholes cannot exists. You see the elite coming up with lot of theories and calculations regarding blackholes, ignoring anti-balckholes completely. >> I mean, essentially Relativity phenomena is ignoring the existence of >> anti- >> matter in the above content. (1% more matter than antimatter). > > Hmmm. Current observations are that the region near earth is > 99.9999% > matter, << 1% antimatter. Can be or not. That's just an assumption I guess, since along other regions in this Universe would necessarily have much more anti-matter density than it is "measured" who knows where and how. >> Such as, >> spacetime curvature etc, time dilation and length contraction is all >> about matter. > > You are confused. Spacetime curvature, in GR, is related to Absolutely not, I never am confused. Likely you are confused by contemplating me as confused. > ENERGY-MOMENTUM DENSITY, not either matter or antimatter (though the > presence of either implies the presence of energy-momentum density). See, I told you. Now you contradict yourself. > "Time dilation" and "length contraction" are simply appropriate > geometrical projections, and are also completely unrelated to matter or > antimatter. LOL, unbelievable. You are talking about length contraction with actually having the target of that length contraction, which MUST be an matter object of course. Let's stick to reality. >> However, the existence of anti-matter may account for the above >> misalignments and observed behavioural, the so called geometrical >> curvature of spacetime. > > Hmmm. It'ds not clear what you mean by "misalignments and observed > behavioural"; This explains a lot, since is not clear to you. > but spacetime curvature is unrelated to antimatter in any theory of > physics that has general acceptance among physicists. Nor in any crank > theory I have seen.... > >> I am just guessing here. > > I think it's a rather poor guess. Definitely not. Qualified guess. >> Respectively, the divergent matter model may account for a good part of >> that likewise. > > Hopeless.... So was relativity decades ago.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-05 12:04 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <b7f92379-0bd3-4e26-a410-b3c3f6e4b690@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #363163 |
On Saturday, September 5, 2015 at 11:55:04 AM UTC-6, tjrob137 wrote: > > On 8/25/15 8/25/15 11:23 AM, Odd Bodkin wrote: > > [...] > > I'm aware that particle physicists have been saying that the apparent > > imbalance between the amount of matter over antimatter can be traced > > to an observed CP violation in flavor-changing interactions. > > Actually, the currently-observed CP violation is many orders of magnitude too > small to account for the imbalance observed. > > Tom Roberts The initial BB was all energy, and matter-antimatter pairs "condensed" from that. IF the energy were confined long enough, then any imbalance would lead to one surviving type through matter-antimatter to energy to matter-antimatter to energy to ..., wouldn't it? The problem I see is that energy (i.e., e/m radiation) is always traveling at c so expansion would prevent enough cycles to get the steady-state, mostly one type, condition. Gary
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | alsor@interia.pl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-05 12:53 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <0726745e-43d3-4acc-a961-44370309b225@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #363172 |
W dniu sobota, 5 września 2015 21:04:56 UTC+2 użytkownik Gary Harnagel > The initial BB was all energy... Oh! Yes, yes! Just an energy, only energy, pure, strict, self energy! I see You are very productive! Nice nonsenses... maybe I recruit you in the Hollywood - are you interested?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-08 10:38 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <msmvd8$mrk$1@speranza.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #363172 |
On 9/5/2015 2:04 PM, Gary Harnagel wrote: > On Saturday, September 5, 2015 at 11:55:04 AM UTC-6, tjrob137 wrote: >> >> On 8/25/15 8/25/15 11:23 AM, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>> [...] >>> I'm aware that particle physicists have been saying that the apparent >>> imbalance between the amount of matter over antimatter can be traced >>> to an observed CP violation in flavor-changing interactions. >> >> Actually, the currently-observed CP violation is many orders of magnitude too >> small to account for the imbalance observed. >> >> Tom Roberts > > The initial BB was all energy, and matter-antimatter pairs "condensed" > from that. IF the energy were confined long enough, then any imbalance > would lead to one surviving type through matter-antimatter to energy to > matter-antimatter to energy to ..., wouldn't it? The problem I see is > that energy (i.e., e/m radiation) is always traveling at c so expansion > would prevent enough cycles to get the steady-state, mostly one type, > condition. > > Gary > I think the statement I've read is that whatever matter remains is entirely due to some incredibly small imbalance between matter and antimatter, with the balancing portions having annihilated before the decoupling of matter and radiation at ~ 300k years post-bang. So that the universe as we know it (the matter part) is more like dirt left over in a radiation-dominated universe. -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-06 22:23 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <765bcb30-e283-41b9-8ab5-af045ca42a35@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #363163 |
On Saturday, September 5, 2015 at 10:55:04 AM UTC-7, tjrob137 wrote: > It has long been known that if matter and antimatter repelled gravitationally > then the expansion of the universe might be explained, along with some other > puzzles. Tom has apparently degenerated into the most ignorant. If Tom has remembered what was taught in electromagnetism, Tom will understand that electromagnetic force is almost infinitely more powerful than gravitation. > [rest of erroneous deductions based on equally erroneous understanding of the basics snipped] All that phd thing goes into promoting the garbage of relativity where Einstein the nitwit, the plagiarist, and the liar is worshipped as a god. Every now and then, this stupid god of relativity is able to whisper nonsense into these indoctrinated buffoons where they have all the power to design a new law of physics. <shrug>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-07 12:28 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <h_ednXbHMLPbVHDInZ2dnUU7_82dnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #363333 |
On 9/7/15 9/7/15 12:23 AM, Koobee Wublee wrote:
> On Saturday, September 5, 2015 at 10:55:04 AM UTC-7, tjrob137 wrote:
>> It has long been known that if matter and antimatter repelled
>> gravitationally then the expansion of the universe might be explained,
>> along with some other puzzles.
>
> Tom has apparently degenerated into the most ignorant. If Tom has remembered
> what was taught in electromagnetism, Tom will understand that electromagnetic
> force is almost infinitely more powerful than gravitation.
Nope. It is Koobee Wublee who "has apparently degenerated into the most
ignorant". Because he seems not to understand that virtually all matter, up to
and including including galaxies, is ELECTRICALLY NEUTRAL. So E&M forces on
cosmic scales are negligible compared to gravitation.
> [insults and invective omitted]
Note to readers: Koobee Wublee is among the most persistent idiots
around here. He has been repeating this nonsense for many years,
without any attempt to learn the subject he tries to write about.
I reply to him only occasionally, as a service to readers who may
not recognize his mistakes. He has proven himself to be unable
and unwilling to learn anything.
Tom Roberts
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-07 11:50 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <008da004-f178-4120-ba44-8fe0aa299e2c@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #363376 |
On Monday, September 7, 2015 at 10:28:40 AM UTC-7, tjrob137 wrote: > On 9/7/15, 12:23 AM, Koobee Wublee wrote: > > Tom has apparently degenerated into the most ignorant. If Tom has remembered > > what was taught in electromagnetism, Tom will understand that electromagnetic > > force is almost infinitely more powerful than gravitation. > > Nope. It is Koobee Wublee who "has apparently degenerated into the most > ignorant". Because he seems not to understand that virtually all matter, up to > and including including galaxies, is ELECTRICALLY NEUTRAL. So E&M forces on > cosmic scales are negligible compared to gravitation. Tom took the bait. Now, Koobee Wublee got Tom's attention again. Tom has no problem getting a hard on on something more comfortable of its religion but remains gross impotent on the ones it knows it is wrong. Tom usually does not respond over the weekends including long weekends, but Tom must have felt so good and posted all over the newsgroup afterwards. <shrug> Yes, Koobee Wublee is still waiting for Tom to explain what part of SR says the Lorentz transform for the inertial and the non-inertial frames of reference are interpreted differently. <shrug> https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.physics.relativity/mJPcffq2O0I/PQZ9GsNWWuMJ
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-08 11:36 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <msma6h$d5s$1@news.albasani.net> |
| In reply to | #363384 |
On 07.09.2015 20:50, Koobee Wublee wrote: > > Yes, Koobee Wublee is still waiting for Tom to explain what part > of SR says the Lorentz transform for the inertial and the non-inertial > frames of reference are interpreted differently. <shrug> Let's look at a very simple scenario. |--------------------|--> x -> a 0 h Given a frame of reference which has a proper acceleration a. At the time t' = 0 the observer is at t = 0 and a clock is stationary at the distance h measured in the momentarily comoving inertial frame of reference. The LT for time is: t' = (t - vx/c^2)/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2) At the time t'= 0, v = 0, t= 0 and x = h At the time dt', we get: dt' = dt - (h/c^2)dx dt'/dt = 1 - (h/c^2)dx/dt = 1 - ha/c^2 This is 'gravitational time dilation' in an accelerated frame of reference. If we set h = 10 light years and a = - 1c per year, we get: dt'/dt = 11 https://paulba.no/temp/Twins_applet_run.pdf Look at dtA/dtB in 'B view' at the time when A is instantly at rest in B's frame when the distance is 10 light years. (dtA/dtB-1)=10 -- Paul https://paulba.no/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-08 09:26 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <4d9918f6-3aeb-4b62-a95a-bd43e5e23ce1@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #363454 |
On Tuesday, September 8, 2015 at 2:36:19 AM UTC-7, Paul B. Andersen wrote: > On 07.09.2015 20:50, Koobee Wublee wrote: > > Yes, Koobee Wublee is still waiting for Tom to explain what part > > of SR says the Lorentz transform for the inertial and the non-inertial > > frames of reference are interpreted differently. <shrug> > > Let's look at a very simple scenario. > > |--------------------|--> x -> a > 0 h > > Given a frame of reference which has a proper acceleration a. > At the time t' = 0 the observer is at t = 0 and a clock > is stationary at the distance h measured in > the momentarily comoving inertial frame of reference. > > The LT for time is: t' = (t - vx/c^2)/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2) This is wrong in general. The Lorentz transform is the following where v does not have to be constant. <shrug> ** dt' = (dt - v dx / c^2) / sqrt(1 - v^2 / c^2) ** dx' = (dx - v dt) / sqrt(1 - v^2 / c^2) ** dy' = dy ** dz' = dz The Lorentz transform allows one to condense into a single, precise equation below where v vanishes. <shrug> ** c^2 dt'^2 - dx'^2 - dy'^2 - dz'^2 = c^2 dt^2 -d x^2 - dy^2 - dz^2 This is the equation describing Minkowski spacetime. <shrug> Paul is indeed a mathemaGician, but Koobee Wublee is able to call Paul's mathemagics anytime. <shrug>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-09 09:35 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <msongt$13e$1@news.albasani.net> |
| In reply to | #363472 |
On 08.09.2015 18:26, Koobee Wublee wrote: > On Tuesday, September 8, 2015 at 2:36:19 AM UTC-7, Paul B. Andersen wrote: >> On 07.09.2015 20:50, Koobee Wublee wrote: > >>> Yes, Koobee Wublee is still waiting for Tom to explain what part >>> of SR says the Lorentz transform for the inertial and the non-inertial >>> frames of reference are interpreted differently. <shrug> >> >> Let's look at a very simple scenario. >> >> |--------------------|--> x -> a >> 0 h >> >> Given a frame of reference which has a proper acceleration a. >> At the time t' = 0 the observer is at t = 0 and a clock >> is stationary at the distance h measured in >> the momentarily comoving inertial frame of reference. >> >> The LT for time is: t' = (t - vx/c^2)/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2) > > This is wrong in general. Don't be ridiculous. > The Lorentz transform is the following where v does not have to be constant. <shrug> > > ** dt' = (dt - v dx / c^2) / sqrt(1 - v^2 / c^2) > ** dx' = (dx - v dt) / sqrt(1 - v^2 / c^2) > ** dy' = dy > ** dz' = dz > > The Lorentz transform allows one to condense into a single, precise equation below where v vanishes. <shrug> > > ** c^2 dt'^2 - dx'^2 - dy'^2 - dz'^2 = c^2 dt^2 -d x^2 - dy^2 - dz^2 > > This is the equation describing Minkowski spacetime. <shrug> https://paulba.no/pdf/TwinsByMetric.pdf > > Paul is indeed a mathemaGician, but Koobee Wublee is able to call Paul's mathemagics anytime. <shrug> > Since you snipped my 'mathemagics' with no other comment than the Lorentz transform "is wrong in general", you are hardly able to call it. No comment to the following, Koobee? Unable to point out an error, are you? >> Let's look at a very simple scenario. >> >> |--------------------|--> x -> a >> 0 h >> >> Given a frame of reference which has a proper acceleration a. >> At the time t' = 0 the observer is at t = 0 and a clock >> is stationary at the distance h measured in >> the momentarily comoving inertial frame of reference. >> >> The LT for time is: t' = (t - vx/c^2)/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2) >> At the time t'= 0, v = 0, t= 0 and x = h >> At the time dt', we get: >> dt' = dt - (h/c^2)dx >> dt'/dt = 1 - (h/c^2)dx/dt = 1 - ha/c^2 >> >> This is 'gravitational time dilation' in >> an accelerated frame of reference. >> >> If we set h = 10 light years and a = - 1c per year, we get: >> dt'/dt = 11 >> >> https://paulba.no/temp/Twins_applet_run.pdf >> Look at dtA/dtB in 'B view' at the time when A is instantly >> at rest in B's frame when the distance is 10 light years. >> (dtA/dtB-1)=10 >> -- Paul https://paulba.no/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-10 00:03 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <791414a0-89d0-49ca-9167-67fc3bcf9e05@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #363538 |
On Wednesday, September 9, 2015, Paul B. Andersen wrote: > Koobee Wublee wrote: > > On Tuesday, September 8, 2015 at 2:36:19 AM, Paul B. Andersen wrote: > > > The LT for time is: t' = (t - vx/c^2)/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2) > > > This is wrong in general. > > Don't be ridiculous. Koobee Wublee is dead serious that what Paul thinks what the Lorentz transform is above is just wrong in general. <shrug> > > The Lorentz transform is the following where v does not have to be > > constant. <shrug> > > > ** dt' = (dt - v dx / c^2) / sqrt(1 - v^2 / c^2) > > ** dx' = (dx - v dt) / sqrt(1 - v^2 / c^2) > > ** dy' = dy > > ** dz' = dz > > > The Lorentz transform allows one to condense into a single, precise > > equation below where v vanishes. <shrug> > > > ** c^2 dt'^2 - dx'^2 - dy'^2 - dz'^2 = c^2 dt^2 -d x^2 - dy^2 - dz^2 > > > > This is the equation describing Minkowski spacetime. <shrug> Does Paul understand that? <shrug> > https://paulba.no/pdf/TwinsByMetric.pdf The above rant by Paul is total bullshit. Ask Tom to support your nonsense first before asking Koobee Wublee to debunk the nonsense. <shrug> > > Paul is indeed a mathemaGician, but Koobee Wublee is able to call > > Paul's mathemagics anytime. <shrug> > > Since you snipped my 'mathemagics' with no other comment > than the Lorentz transform "is wrong in general", > you are hardly able to call it. Try to under the version of the Lorentz transform that Paul believes in versus the version that Koobee Wublee has presented. It is your problem that you do not understand that. <shrug> > No comment to the following, Koobee? > Unable to point out an error, are you? Paul got the basics all wrong. Paul does not understand the Lorentz transform. Why should Koobee Wublee enter Paul's castle of make belief? Please forgive Koobee Wublee that Koobee Wublee finds Paul a crackpot. To be more blunt, Paul is an autistic moron as per Paul's own accusations of others. <shrug>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | underante <underante@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-10 04:27 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <6937ceb8-f911-464f-b649-191ea4f3c901@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #363632 |
On Thursday, September 10, 2015 at 8:03:39 AM UTC+1, Koobee Wublee wrote: > On Wednesday, September 9, 2015, Paul B. Andersen wrote: > > Koobee Wublee wrote: > > > On Tuesday, September 8, 2015 at 2:36:19 AM, Paul B. Andersen wrote: > > > > > The LT for time is: t' = (t - vx/c^2)/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2) > > > > > This is wrong in general. > > > > Don't be ridiculous. > > Koobee Wublee is dead serious that what Paul thinks what the Lorentz transform is above is just wrong in general. <shrug> > > > > The Lorentz transform is the following where v does not have to be > > > constant. <shrug> > > > > > ** dt' = (dt - v dx / c^2) / sqrt(1 - v^2 / c^2) > > > ** dx' = (dx - v dt) / sqrt(1 - v^2 / c^2) > > > ** dy' = dy > > > ** dz' = dz > > > > > The Lorentz transform allows one to condense into a single, precise > > > equation below where v vanishes. <shrug> > > > > > ** c^2 dt'^2 - dx'^2 - dy'^2 - dz'^2 = c^2 dt^2 -d x^2 - dy^2 - dz^2 > > > > > > This is the equation describing Minkowski spacetime. <shrug> > > Does Paul understand that? <shrug> > > > https://paulba.no/pdf/TwinsByMetric.pdf > > The above rant by Paul is total bullshit. Ask Tom to support your nonsense first before asking Koobee Wublee to debunk the nonsense. <shrug> > > > > Paul is indeed a mathemaGician, but Koobee Wublee is able to call > > > Paul's mathemagics anytime. <shrug> > > > > Since you snipped my 'mathemagics' with no other comment > > than the Lorentz transform "is wrong in general", > > you are hardly able to call it. > > Try to under the version of the Lorentz transform that Paul believes in versus the version that Koobee Wublee has presented. It is your problem that you do not understand that. <shrug> > > > No comment to the following, Koobee? > > Unable to point out an error, are you? > > Paul got the basics all wrong. Paul does not understand the Lorentz transform. Why should Koobee Wublee enter Paul's castle of make belief? Please forgive Koobee Wublee that Koobee Wublee finds Paul a crackpot. To be more blunt, Paul is an autistic moron as per Paul's own accusations of others. <shrug> well i know you two guys get a great deal of fun teasing each other about such matters as this, but how exactly is a lorentz transform defined? both your examples given so far are have only involved boosts in the x-direction, but does not a simple rotation about, say, the x-axis qualify as a pukka lorentz transform as well? and its not just to the (t,x,y,z) or (dt,dx,dy,dz) four vectors they work on too, but any valid four-vector, like, say, (E, p) etc etc. (tho that of course then begs the question as what is a valid four-vector.) does one have to go to group theory for a proper definition? thoughts, anyone?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-10 05:09 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <da195155-8f2d-4ca6-b53c-7558640787f0@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #363646 |
On Thursday, September 10, 2015 at 5:27:22 AM UTC-6, underante wrote: > > ... how exactly is a lorentz transform defined? How is ANY transformed defined? First you have to decide some basic questions. For transforms between inertial frames, are space and time homogeneous and linear within a given frame? If so, then you have a general transform: x' = G*(x + H*t) t' = A*(t + B*x) > both your examples given so far are have only involved boosts in the > x-direction, but does not a simple rotation about, say, the x-axis > qualify as a pukka lorentz transform as well? Coordinate systems are arbitrary, so placing the boost along the x-axis is the convention. All you need are postulates to allow you to identify what A, B, G and H are. If your postulate is Galilean relativity, you use x' = -v*t' when x = 0 and x' = 0 when x = v*t for any t and t'. And if your second postulate is absolute time, then you use t' = t and you get the Galilean transform. OTOH, if you use c = constant, you get the Lorentz transform.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | underante <underante@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-10 08:29 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <3e9046b0-b319-4ffd-b1fe-a4a4131890f4@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #363647 |
On Thursday, September 10, 2015 at 1:09:24 PM UTC+1, Gary Harnagel wrote: > On Thursday, September 10, 2015 at 5:27:22 AM UTC-6, underante wrote: > > > > ... how exactly is a lorentz transform defined? > > How is ANY transformed defined? First you have to decide some basic > questions. For transforms between inertial frames, are space and time > homogeneous and linear within a given frame? If so, then you have a > general transform: > > x' = G*(x + H*t) > t' = A*(t + B*x) > > > both your examples given so far are have only involved boosts in the > > x-direction, but does not a simple rotation about, say, the x-axis > > qualify as a pukka lorentz transform as well? > > Coordinate systems are arbitrary, so placing the boost along the x-axis > is the convention. All you need are postulates to allow you to identify > what A, B, G and H are. If your postulate is Galilean relativity, you > use x' = -v*t' when x = 0 and x' = 0 when x = v*t for any t and t'. > > And if your second postulate is absolute time, then you use t' = t and > you get the Galilean transform. OTOH, if you use c = constant, you get > the Lorentz transform. umm, yes. thankyou. with hindsight however, I think perhaps I did not ask the right question. in the previous post, paul and KB each presented a transform which seemed to me at least pretty much identical (well, the actual transform bit at least were, though the four-vectors on which they operated were different). so, tweaked question, if presented with any old transform, how would one decide if it was a Lorentz transform or not? or: what are the defining characteristics a linear transform must have to be a proper Lorentz transform? [at which point I think I better digging this dopey hole i've gotten myself into]
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | shuba <tim@sh.uba> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-10 18:29 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <mssi6e$5ql$1@speranza.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #363673 |
underante wrote:
> [W]hat are the defining characteristics a linear transform must
> have to be a proper Lorentz transform?
https://ned.ipac.caltech.edu/level5/March01/Carroll3/Carroll1.html
Equation 1.14 must hold (necessary but not quite sufficient).
---Tim Shuba---
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | underante <underante@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-10 18:47 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <b824f2da-bbae-487e-ab03-4d8ac7fc1837@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #363689 |
On Thursday, September 10, 2015 at 7:29:39 PM UTC+1, shuba wrote: > underante wrote: > > > [W]hat are the defining characteristics a linear transform must > > have to be a proper Lorentz transform? > > https://ned.ipac.caltech.edu/level5/March01/Carroll3/Carroll1.html > > Equation 1.14 must hold (necessary but not quite sufficient). > ah, thank you, very helpful that! -- except i now need to try and reconcile it with KW's presentation. umm. i have a strong suspicion this could take some time . . !
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-10 23:10 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <115a7bd8-0b7f-4cd8-9a5c-aa4d96b9d39a@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #363732 |
On Thursday, September 10, 2015 at 6:47:08 PM UTC-7, underante wrote: > On Thursday, September 10, 2015 at 7:29:39 PM UTC+1, shuba wrote: > > Koobee Wublee wrote: > > https://ned.ipac.caltech.edu/level5/March01/Carroll3/Carroll1.html > > > Equation 1.14 must hold (necessary but not quite sufficient). > > ah, thank you, very helpful that! -- except i now need to try and reconcile > it with KW's presentation. > > > > A simple rotation does not work. The trick to build a Lorentz > > > transform with the boost not necessarily along the x-axis is to > > > separate out the longitudinal (boost) and the transverse directions > > > as in the following. <shrug> > > > > ** d\s\ * \v\ \v\ / v^2 ... longitudinal direction > > > ** d\s\ - (d\s\ * \v\ \v\ / v^2) ... transverse direction > > > > Where > > > > ** d\s\ = position segment vector (spatial geometry) > > > ** \v\ = velocity, another vector > > > ** d\s\ * \v\ = dot product of two vectors > > > > Applying length contraction with 1 and 3 being the observers and 2 > > > being the mutually observed, the generalized Lorentz transform can be > > > written as follows. <shrug> > > > > ** dt1 = (dt3 - \B31\ * d\s32 / c) / sqrt(1 - B31^2) > > > ** d\s12\ = d\s32\ + (\B31\ * \B32\ / (1 + sqrt(1 - B31^2)) - 1) > > > \B31\ c dt3 / sqrt(1 - B31^2) > > > > Where > > > > ** dt1, dt3 = rate of time flow at 1, 3 respectively > > > ** \s32\ = position vector of 2 as observed by 3 > > > ** \B31\ c = velocity of 1 as observed by 3 > > > > You will find the above 2 equations of the generalized Lorentz > > > transform will degenerate into the Lorentz transform with the boost > > > term in the x-axis. In the meantime, it will also condense into > > > the following describing the Minkowski spacetime in which \B31\ > > > vanishes. <shrug> > > > > ** c^2 dt1^2 - ds12^2 = c^2 dt3^2 - ds32^2 > > > > Or > > > > ** dt1 sqrt(1 - B12) = dt3 sqrt(1 - B32^2) > > > > Where > > > > ** B12^2 c^2 = (d\s12\ / dt1)^2 > > > > Energy and momentum can also be transformed with the Lorentz > > > transform. It can be condensed as the following. <shrug> > > > > ** E12^2 - p12^2 c^2 = E32^2 - p32^2 c^2 > > > > Where > > > > ** E12 = energy of 2 as observed by 1 > > > ** \p12\ = momentum vector of 2 as observed by 1 > > > > Similarly, power and force can be transformed and condensed into > > > the following. <shrug> > > > > ** (P12^2 / c^2 - F12^2) / sqrt(1 - B12^2) = (P32^2 / c^2 - F32^2) > > > / sqrt(1 - B32^2) > > > > Where > > > > ** P12 = dE12 / dt1 > > > ** \F12\ = d\p12\ / dt1 > > > > It is simple in concept but a little bit complex in arithmetic but > > > still not as complex as differential geometry. However, the > > > condensed precise, single equation just cannot get any simpler than > > > that. So, why has the religion of relativity not adopted this? > > > <shrug> > > > > Introducing another observer (4), the answer lies in writing the > > > observations of 2 by 1 and 4. Earlier, we have observations of 2 > > > by 1 and 3. If the Lorentz transform does not have > > > self-inconsistencies, we can combine the two sets of the Lorentz > > > transforms into the observations of 2 by 3 and 4 in which any > > > references to 1 will vanish, but it does not. The Lorentz > > > transform in general depends on every single frame of reference > > > in the world which mean SR is pure nonsense. At least, Larmor's > > > transform, which is what the Lorentz transform is based on, > > > dictates that all observations must reference back to the absolute > > > frame of reference. <shrug> Hmmm... It should be no brainer to see who has a better argument. Angles are distorted under the Lorentz transform. Koobee Wublee merely applies the essence of the Lorentz transform according to the claim of FitzGerald and Lorentz on the Lorentz-FitzGerald length contraction. Numerous people have agreed with Koobee Wublee: Professor Lugunov and Dirk Van de moortel the sperm lover which is the acting gestapo of special relativity for the church of relativity. The sperm lover has personally locked up several Koobee Wublee's great posts in jail. The sperm lover will disagree with Koobee Wublee for political reasons not scientific bases. <shrug> > umm. i have a strong suspicion this could take some time . . ! Take your time. Convert what Koobee Wublee has written down into math notations that you are comfortable with is a big plus. <shrug>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-11 00:34 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <47100aaa-8aa4-459f-bfd7-06d5fc5bea60@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #363732 |
On Thursday, September 10, 2015 at 6:47:08 PM UTC-7, underante wrote: > On Thursday, September 10, 2015 at 7:29:39 PM UTC+1, shuba wrote: > > Koobee Wublee wrote: > > https://ned.ipac.caltech.edu/level5/March01/Carroll3/Carroll1.html > > > Equation 1.14 must hold (necessary but not quite sufficient). > > ah, thank you, very helpful that! -- except i now need to try and reconcile > it with KW's presentation. > > > > A simple rotation does not work. The trick to build a Lorentz > > > transform with the boost not necessarily along the x-axis is to > > > separate out the longitudinal (boost) and the transverse directions > > > as in the following. <shrug> > > > > ** d\s\ * \v\ \v\ / v^2 ... longitudinal direction > > > ** d\s\ - (d\s\ * \v\ \v\ / v^2) ... transverse direction > > > > Where > > > > ** d\s\ = position segment vector (spatial geometry) > > > ** \v\ = velocity, another vector > > > ** d\s\ * \v\ = dot product of two vectors > > > > Applying length contraction with 1 and 3 being the observers and 2 > > > being the mutually observed, the generalized Lorentz transform can be > > > written as follows. <shrug> > > > > ** dt1 = (dt3 - \B31\ * d\s32 / c) / sqrt(1 - B31^2) > > > ** d\s12\ = d\s32\ + (\B31\ * \B32\ / (1 + sqrt(1 - B31^2)) - 1) > > > \B31\ c dt3 / sqrt(1 - B31^2) > > > > Where > > > > ** dt1, dt3 = rate of time flow at 1, 3 respectively > > > ** \s32\ = position vector of 2 as observed by 3 > > > ** \B31\ c = velocity of 1 as observed by 3 > > > > You will find the above 2 equations of the generalized Lorentz > > > transform will degenerate into the Lorentz transform with the boost > > > term in the x-axis. In the meantime, it will also condense into > > > the following describing the Minkowski spacetime in which \B31\ > > > vanishes. <shrug> > > > > ** c^2 dt1^2 - ds12^2 = c^2 dt3^2 - ds32^2 > > > > Or > > > > ** dt1 sqrt(1 - B12) = dt3 sqrt(1 - B32^2) > > > > Where > > > > ** B12^2 c^2 = (d\s12\ / dt1)^2 > > > > Energy and momentum can also be transformed with the Lorentz > > > transform. It can be condensed as the following. <shrug> > > > > ** E12^2 - p12^2 c^2 = E32^2 - p32^2 c^2 > > > > Where > > > > ** E12 = energy of 2 as observed by 1 > > > ** \p12\ = momentum vector of 2 as observed by 1 > > > > Similarly, power and force can be transformed and condensed into > > > the following. <shrug> > > > > ** (P12^2 / c^2 - F12^2) / sqrt(1 - B12^2) = (P32^2 / c^2 - F32^2) > > > / sqrt(1 - B32^2) > > > > Where > > > > ** P12 = dE12 / dt1 > > > ** \F12\ = d\p12\ / dt1 > > > > It is simple in concept but a little bit complex in arithmetic but > > > still not as complex as differential geometry. However, the > > > condensed precise, single equation just cannot get any simpler than > > > that. So, why has the religion of relativity not adopted this? > > > <shrug> > > > > Introducing another observer (4), the answer lies in writing the > > > observations of 2 by 1 and 4. Earlier, we have observations of 2 > > > by 1 and 3. If the Lorentz transform does not have > > > self-inconsistencies, we can combine the two sets of the Lorentz > > > transforms into the observations of 2 by 3 and 4 in which any > > > references to 1 will vanish, but it does not. The Lorentz > > > transform in general depends on every single frame of reference > > > in the world which mean SR is pure nonsense. At least, Larmor's > > > transform, which is what the Lorentz transform is based on, > > > dictates that all observations must reference back to the absolute > > > frame of reference. <shrug> Hmmm... It should be no brainer to see who has a better argument. Angles are distorted under the Lorentz transform. Koobee Wublee merely applies the essence of the Lorentz transform according to the claim of FitzGerald and Lorentz on the Lorentz-FitzGerald length contraction. Numerous people have agreed with Koobee Wublee: Professor Logunov https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anatoly_Logunov And Dirk Van de moortel Tthe sperm lover which is the acting gestapo of special relativity for the church of relativity. The sperm lover has personally locked up several Koobee Wublee's great posts in jail. The sperm lover will disagree with Koobee Wublee for political reasons nut not on scientific bases. <shrug> > umm. i have a strong suspicion this could take some time . . ! Take your time. Convert what Koobee Wublee has written down into math notations that you are comfortable with is a big plus. <shrug>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | underante <underante@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-12 05:11 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <e198b23b-080f-4ea7-a1e3-6939865cc34b@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #363748 |
On Friday, September 11, 2015 at 8:34:04 AM UTC+1, Koobee Wublee wrote: > On Thursday, September 10, 2015 at 6:47:08 PM UTC-7, underante wrote: > > On Thursday, September 10, 2015 at 7:29:39 PM UTC+1, shuba wrote: > > > Koobee Wublee wrote: > > > > https://ned.ipac.caltech.edu/level5/March01/Carroll3/Carroll1.html > > > > > Equation 1.14 must hold (necessary but not quite sufficient). > > > > ah, thank you, very helpful that! -- except i now need to try and reconcile > > it with KW's presentation. > > > > > > A simple rotation does not work. The trick to build a Lorentz > > > > transform with the boost not necessarily along the x-axis is to > > > > separate out the longitudinal (boost) and the transverse directions > > > > as in the following. <shrug> > > > > > > ** d\s\ * \v\ \v\ / v^2 ... longitudinal direction > > > > ** d\s\ - (d\s\ * \v\ \v\ / v^2) ... transverse direction > > > > > > Where > > > > > > ** d\s\ = position segment vector (spatial geometry) > > > > ** \v\ = velocity, another vector > > > > ** d\s\ * \v\ = dot product of two vectors > > > > > > Applying length contraction with 1 and 3 being the observers and 2 > > > > being the mutually observed, the generalized Lorentz transform can be > > > > written as follows. <shrug> > > > > > > ** dt1 = (dt3 - \B31\ * d\s32 / c) / sqrt(1 - B31^2) > > > > ** d\s12\ = d\s32\ + (\B31\ * \B32\ / (1 + sqrt(1 - B31^2)) - 1) > > > > \B31\ c dt3 / sqrt(1 - B31^2) > > > > > > Where > > > > > > ** dt1, dt3 = rate of time flow at 1, 3 respectively > > > > ** \s32\ = position vector of 2 as observed by 3 > > > > ** \B31\ c = velocity of 1 as observed by 3 > > > > > > You will find the above 2 equations of the generalized Lorentz > > > > transform will degenerate into the Lorentz transform with the boost > > > > term in the x-axis. In the meantime, it will also condense into > > > > the following describing the Minkowski spacetime in which \B31\ > > > > vanishes. <shrug> > > > > > > ** c^2 dt1^2 - ds12^2 = c^2 dt3^2 - ds32^2 > > > > > > Or > > > > > > ** dt1 sqrt(1 - B12) = dt3 sqrt(1 - B32^2) > > > > > > Where > > > > > > ** B12^2 c^2 = (d\s12\ / dt1)^2 > > > > > > Energy and momentum can also be transformed with the Lorentz > > > > transform. It can be condensed as the following. <shrug> > > > > > > ** E12^2 - p12^2 c^2 = E32^2 - p32^2 c^2 > > > > > > Where > > > > > > ** E12 = energy of 2 as observed by 1 > > > > ** \p12\ = momentum vector of 2 as observed by 1 > > > > > > Similarly, power and force can be transformed and condensed into > > > > the following. <shrug> > > > > > > ** (P12^2 / c^2 - F12^2) / sqrt(1 - B12^2) = (P32^2 / c^2 - F32^2) > > > > / sqrt(1 - B32^2) > > > > > > Where > > > > > > ** P12 = dE12 / dt1 > > > > ** \F12\ = d\p12\ / dt1 > > > > > > It is simple in concept but a little bit complex in arithmetic but > > > > still not as complex as differential geometry. However, the > > > > condensed precise, single equation just cannot get any simpler than > > > > that. So, why has the religion of relativity not adopted this? umm, i am not perfectly sure i quite understand that last bit, are not those last two equations, for example, E12^2 - p12^2 c^2 = E32^2 - p32^2 c^2 and (P12^2 / c^2 - F12^2) / sqrt(1 - B12^2) = (P32^2 / c^2 - F32^2) / sqrt(1 - B32^2) not equivalent to saying the square of the norm of the four-vector is invariant under a lorentz transformation as one might expect? but as regards this next bit: > > > > Introducing another observer (4), the answer lies in writing the > > > > observations of 2 by 1 and 4. Earlier, we have observations of 2 > > > > by 1 and 3. If the Lorentz transform does not have > > > > self-inconsistencies, we can combine the two sets of the Lorentz > > > > transforms into the observations of 2 by 3 and 4 in which any > > > > references to 1 will vanish, but it does not. The Lorentz > > > > transform in general depends on every single frame of reference > > > > in the world which mean SR is pure nonsense. At least, Larmor's > > > > transform, which is what the Lorentz transform is based on, > > > > dictates that all observations must reference back to the absolute > > > > frame of reference. now that i _am_ sure i'm sure i don't understand! oh well, won't be the first time, or last, oh, . . . never mind! > Hmmm... It should be no brainer to see who has a better argument. Angles are distorted under the Lorentz transform. Koobee Wublee merely applies the essence of the Lorentz transform according to the claim of FitzGerald and Lorentz on the Lorentz-FitzGerald length contraction. Numerous people have agreed with Koobee Wublee: Professor Logunov > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anatoly_Logunov hmm, interesting people you know . . . gandalf? (with specs on)? > > And Dirk Van de moortel > > Tthe sperm lover which is the acting gestapo of special relativity for the church of relativity. The sperm lover has personally locked up several Koobee Wublee's great posts in jail. The sperm lover will disagree with Koobee Wublee for political reasons nut not on scientific bases. <shrug> > > > umm. i have a strong suspicion this could take some time . . ! > > Take your time. Convert what Koobee Wublee has written down into math notations that you are comfortable with is a big plus. <shrug>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-12 23:05 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <82e4ed74-1798-458d-9bbc-f1f124548d4b@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #363867 |
On Saturday, September 12, 2015 at 5:11:18 AM UTC-7, underante wrote: > On Friday, September 11, 2015 at 8:34:04 AM UTC+1, Koobee Wublee wrote: > > The trick to build a Lorentz transform with the boost not necessarily > > along the x-axis is to separate out the longitudinal (boost) and the > > transverse directions as in the following. <shrug> > > > ** d\s\ * \v\ \v\ / v^2 ... longitudinal direction > > ** d\s\ - (d\s\ * \v\ \v\ / v^2) ... transverse direction > > > Where > > > ** d\s\ = position segment vector (spatial geometry) > > ** \v\ = velocity, another vector > > ** d\s\ * \v\ = dot product of two vectors > > > Applying length contraction with 1 and 3 being the observers and 2 > > being the mutually observed, the generalized Lorentz transform can be > > written as follows. <shrug> > > > ** dt1 = (dt3 - \B31\ * d\s32 / c) / sqrt(1 - B31^2) > > ** d\s12\ = d\s32\ + (\B31\ * \B32\ / (1 + sqrt(1 - B31^2)) - 1) > > \B31\ c dt3 / sqrt(1 - B31^2) > > > Where > > > ** dt1, dt3 = rate of time flow at 1, 3 respectively > > ** \s32\ = position vector of 2 as observed by 3 > > ** \B31\ c = velocity of 1 as observed by 3 > > > You will find the above 2 equations of the generalized Lorentz > > transform will degenerate into the Lorentz transform with the boost > > term in the x-axis. In the meantime, it will also condense into > > the following describing the Minkowski spacetime in which \B31\ > > vanishes. <shrug> > > > ** c^2 dt1^2 - ds12^2 = c^2 dt3^2 - ds32^2 > > > Or > > > ** dt1 sqrt(1 - B12) = dt3 sqrt(1 - B32^2) > > > Where > > > ** B12^2 c^2 = (d\s12\ / dt1)^2 > > > Energy and momentum can also be transformed with the Lorentz > > transform. It can be condensed as the following. <shrug> > > > ** E12^2 - p12^2 c^2 = E32^2 - p32^2 c^2 > > > Where > > > ** E12 = energy of 2 as observed by 1 > > ** \p12\ = momentum vector of 2 as observed by 1 > > > Similarly, power and force can be transformed and condensed into > > the following. <shrug> > > > ** (P12^2 / c^2 - F12^2) / sqrt(1 - B12^2) = (P32^2 / c^2 - F32^2) > > / sqrt(1 - B32^2) > > > Where > > > ** P12 = dE12 / dt1 > > ** \F12\ = d\p12\ / dt1 > > > It is simple in concept but a little bit complex in arithmetic but > > still not as complex as differential geometry. However, the > > condensed precise, single equation just cannot get any simpler than > > that. So, why has the religion of relativity not adopted this? > > umm, i am not perfectly sure i quite understand that last bit, are not > those last two equations, for example, > E12^2 - p12^2 c^2 = E32^2 - p32^2 c^2 > and > (P12^2 / c^2 - F12^2) / sqrt(1 - B12^2) = (P32^2 / c^2 - F32^2) > / sqrt(1 - B32^2) > not equivalent to saying the square of the norm of the four-vector is > invariant under a lorentz transformation as one might expect? Yes, they do. However, the power and force equation has never been addressed by the religion of relativity, and that is understandable since there is very little application that can fall back on that finding in real life. The relationship between the energy and the momentum is already well understood by the self-styled physicists since it describes the energy of the REST MASS as observed by anyone. However, the self-styled physicists still have vague clues as to derive this equation without employing circular references that tell you nothing about how the equation is derived through other means. <shrug> > but as regards this next bit: > > > Introducing another observer (4), the answer lies in writing the > > observations of 2 by 1 and 4. Earlier, we have observations of 2 > > by 1 and 3. If the Lorentz transform does not have > > self-inconsistencies, we can combine the two sets of the Lorentz > > transforms into the observations of 2 by 3 and 4 in which any > > references to 1 will vanish, but it does not. The Lorentz > > transform in general depends on every single frame of reference > > in the world which mean SR is pure nonsense. At least, Larmor's > > transform, which is what the Lorentz transform is based on, > > dictates that all observations must reference back to the absolute > > frame of reference. > > now that i _am_ sure i'm sure i don't understand! > oh well, won't be the first time, or last, oh, . . . never mind! What Koobee Wublee has talked about is the point-blank necessity that holds the Lorentz transform in place. Without showing mathematically so, SR is just wrong. <shrug> > > Hmmm... It should be no brainer to see who has a better argument. > > Angles are distorted under the Lorentz transform. Koobee Wublee merely > > applies the essence of the Lorentz transform according to the claim of > > FitzGerald and Lorentz on the Lorentz-FitzGerald length contraction. > > Numerous people have agreed with Koobee Wublee: Professor Logunov > > > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anatoly_Logunov > > hmm, interesting people you know . . . gandalf? (with specs on)? Koobee Wublee has no control, influence, or suggestion over how other people would like to present their appearances publically. <shrug> > > And Dirk Van de moortel the sperm lover which is the acting gestapo > > of special relativity for the church of relativity. The sperm lover > > has personally locked up several Koobee Wublee's great posts in jail. > > The sperm lover will disagree with Koobee Wublee for political > > reasons nut not on scientific bases. <shrug>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 6 of 8 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 5 [6] 7 8 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity
csiph-web