Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #368359 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Günther Huldiberaht <gunhu@allrportos.org> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2015-10-28 14:16 +0000 |
| Last post | 2015-10-28 18:09 -0400 |
| Articles | 10 on this page of 70 — 12 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.physics.relativity
Relativity in big trouble Günther Huldiberaht <gunhu@allrportos.org> - 2015-10-28 14:16 +0000
Re: Relativity in big trouble Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2015-10-28 08:50 -0700
Re: Relativity in big trouble Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2015-10-28 17:25 +0100
Re: Relativity in big trouble Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2015-10-28 10:08 -0700
Re: Relativity in big trouble kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> - 2015-10-28 18:22 -0400
Re: Relativity in big trouble kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> - 2015-10-28 18:21 -0400
Re: Relativity in big trouble Bobby Sifuentes <bobsif@academicinstitute.org> - 2015-10-28 22:32 +0000
Re: Relativity in big trouble kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> - 2015-10-28 20:25 -0400
Re: Relativity in big trouble Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2015-10-28 19:07 -0700
Re: Relativity in big trouble kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> - 2015-10-28 22:59 -0400
Re: Relativity in big trouble Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2015-10-28 20:24 -0700
Relativity in no trouble at all (was: Relativity in big trouble) Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2015-10-28 22:08 +0100
Re: Relativity in no trouble at all (was: Relativity in big trouble) Willie Stovall <wstov23@yahoo.com> - 2015-10-28 21:54 +0000
Re: Relativity in no trouble at all Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2015-10-28 23:22 +0100
Re: Relativity in no trouble at all Bobby Sifuentes <bobsif@academicinstitute.org> - 2015-10-28 22:53 +0000
Re: Relativity in no trouble at all (was: Relativity in big trouble) kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> - 2015-10-28 20:15 -0400
Re: Relativity in no trouble at all (was: Relativity in big trouble) pnalsing@gmail.com - 2015-10-28 17:45 -0700
Re: Relativity in no trouble at all (was: Relativity in big trouble) kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> - 2015-10-28 23:30 -0400
Re: Relativity in no trouble at all (was: Relativity in big trouble) pnalsing@gmail.com - 2015-10-28 22:08 -0700
Re: Relativity in no trouble at all (was: Relativity in big trouble) kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> - 2015-10-29 02:38 -0400
Re: Relativity in no trouble at all (was: Relativity in big trouble) Bobby Sifuentes <bobsif@academicinstitute.org> - 2015-10-29 20:20 +0000
Re: Relativity in no trouble at all (was: Relativity in big trouble) kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> - 2015-10-29 16:34 -0400
Re: Relativity in no trouble at all (was: Relativity in big trouble) Bobby Sifuentes <bobsif@academicinstitute.org> - 2015-10-29 20:58 +0000
Re: Relativity in no trouble at all (was: Relativity in big trouble) pnalsing@gmail.com - 2015-10-29 15:12 -0700
Re: Relativity in no trouble at all (was: Relativity in big trouble) kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> - 2015-10-29 19:51 -0400
Re: Relativity in no trouble at all (was: Relativity in big trouble) Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2015-10-29 19:19 -0700
Re: Relativity in no trouble at all (was: Relativity in big trouble) kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> - 2015-10-29 23:07 -0400
Re: Relativity in no trouble at all (was: Relativity in big trouble) Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2015-10-30 05:27 -0700
Re: Relativity in no trouble at all (was: Relativity in big trouble) kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> - 2015-10-31 03:46 -0400
Re: Relativity in no trouble at all (was: Relativity in big trouble) Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2015-10-31 04:54 -0700
Re: Relativity in no trouble at all (was: Relativity in big trouble) kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> - 2015-10-30 08:38 -0400
Re: Relativity in no trouble at all (was: Relativity in big trouble) Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2015-10-30 05:45 -0700
Re: Relativity in no trouble at all (was: Relativity in big trouble) Jack Weidner <jackwd@webportal.au> - 2015-10-31 11:36 +0000
Re: Relativity in no trouble at all (was: Relativity in big trouble) pnalsing@gmail.com - 2015-10-29 19:35 -0700
Re: Relativity in no trouble at all (was: Relativity in big trouble) kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> - 2015-10-29 23:13 -0400
Re: Relativity in no trouble at all (was: Relativity in big trouble) Jack Weidner <jackwd@webportal.au> - 2015-10-31 11:37 +0000
Re: Relativity in no trouble at all (was: Relativity in big trouble) pnalsing@gmail.com - 2015-10-29 15:40 -0700
Re: Relativity in no trouble at all (was: Relativity in big trouble) kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> - 2015-10-29 20:57 -0400
Re: Relativity in no trouble at all (was: Relativity in big trouble) pnalsing@gmail.com - 2015-10-29 20:09 -0700
Re: Relativity in no trouble at all (was: Relativity in big trouble) paparios <paparios@gmail.com> - 2015-10-30 04:08 -0700
Re: Relativity in no trouble at all (was: Relativity in big trouble) mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2015-10-30 04:33 -0700
Re: Relativity in no trouble at all (was: Relativity in big trouble) paparios <paparios@gmail.com> - 2015-10-30 05:18 -0700
Re: Relativity in no trouble at all (was: Relativity in big trouble) mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2015-10-30 05:45 -0700
Re: Relativity in no trouble at all (was: Relativity in big trouble) kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> - 2015-10-30 09:23 -0400
Re: Relativity in no trouble at all (was: Relativity in big trouble) mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2015-10-30 07:17 -0700
Re: Relativity in no trouble at all (was: Relativity in big trouble) paparios <paparios@gmail.com> - 2015-10-30 07:42 -0700
Re: Relativity in no trouble at all (was: Relativity in big trouble) paparios <paparios@gmail.com> - 2015-10-30 08:11 -0700
Re: Relativity in no trouble at all (was: Relativity in big trouble) Bobby Sifuentes <bobsif@academicinstitute.org> - 2015-10-30 15:34 +0000
Re: Relativity in no trouble at all (was: Relativity in big trouble) kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> - 2015-10-30 12:12 -0400
Re: Relativity in no trouble at all (was: Relativity in big trouble) Bobby Sifuentes <bobsif@academicinstitute.org> - 2015-10-30 16:17 +0000
Re: Relativity in no trouble at all (was: Relativity in big trouble) kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> - 2015-10-30 08:58 -0400
Re: Relativity in no trouble at all (was: Relativity in big trouble) Bobby Sifuentes <bobsif@academicinstitute.org> - 2015-10-30 15:21 +0000
Re: Relativity in no trouble at all (was: Relativity in big trouble) mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2015-10-30 00:20 -0700
Re: Relativity in no trouble at all (was: Relativity in big trouble) pnalsing@gmail.com - 2015-10-30 10:38 -0700
Re: Relativity in no trouble at all Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2015-10-29 02:26 +0100
Re: Relativity in no trouble at all kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> - 2015-10-28 23:16 -0400
Re: Relativity in no trouble at all Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2015-10-29 15:26 +0100
Re: Relativity in no trouble at all Bobby Sifuentes <bobsif@academicinstitute.org> - 2015-10-29 20:08 +0000
Re: Relativity in no trouble at all kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> - 2015-10-29 16:27 -0400
Re: Relativity in no trouble at all (was: Relativity in big trouble) Jack Weidner <jackwd@webportal.au> - 2015-10-31 11:35 +0000
Re: Relativity in no trouble at all (was: Relativity in big trouble) mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2015-10-29 00:35 -0700
Re: Relativity in no trouble at all (was: Relativity in big trouble) Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2015-10-29 15:30 +0100
Re: Relativity in no trouble at all (was: Relativity in big trouble) Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2015-10-29 18:37 +0100
Re: Relativity in no trouble at all Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2015-10-29 19:50 +0100
Re: Relativity in no trouble at all Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2015-10-29 20:53 +0100
Re: Relativity in no trouble at all Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2015-10-30 13:04 +0100
Re: Relativity in no trouble at all mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2015-10-30 05:32 -0700
Re: Relativity in no trouble at all shuba <tim@sh.uba> - 2015-10-31 01:34 +0000
Re: Relativity in no trouble at all (was: Relativity in big trouble) Bobby Sifuentes <bobsif@academicinstitute.org> - 2015-10-30 17:46 +0000
Re: Relativity in big trouble kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> - 2015-10-28 18:09 -0400
Page 4 of 4 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4]
| From | mlwozniak@wp.pl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-29 00:35 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Relativity in no trouble at all (was: Relativity in big trouble) |
| Message-ID | <b7844864-3b1d-4a25-bf9c-f20615386a8f@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #368395 |
W dniu środa, 28 października 2015 22:09:00 UTC+1 użytkownik Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn napisał: > Günther Huldiberaht wrote: > > > Unlike Divergent Matter, Relativity does not work at large scale, in > > Cosmology, […] > > The usual “not even wrong”-kind of nonsense from the ’nym-shifting troll. > > General relativity (GR) works *especially* at large scales, *especially* in > cosmology. So you shouldn't have any trouble with answering a simple question. In what observer's frame cosmology measure the age of the universe? > Modern cosmology would not be the way it is without GR: The current, well- > confirmed standard (ΛCDM – Lambda Cold Dark Matter) model of cosmology is > based on the Friedmann–Lemaître–Robertson–Walker (FLRW) metric, an > application of GR. Using it, one can calculate the expansion of the > universe and obtain the observed redshifts of distant galaxies. [1] > > GR is consistent with observations of gravitational lensing: applying GR > equations to images received from distant galaxies flattens the images > received as they are focused by massive accumulations of matter in front of > them and allows those galaxies to be seen. [2] > > Closer, GR equations precisely describe the observed fast motion of stars > around the supermassive black hole at the center of the Milky Way (ca. > 27'000 light-years away from Terra). [3] > > Closest, GR explains the precession of the perihelion of Mercury and GR > equations allow it to be calculated precisely in advance. And so on. [4] > > Instead, GR does not work so well on small, subatomic scales, which is why > there are theories of quantum gravity to fill the gap. [5] > > By comparison, “Divergent Matter” is a crackpot’s fantasy. > > IOW: <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=buqtdpuZxvk> :) > > > PointedEars > ___________ > [1] <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lambda-CDM_model> pp. > [2] <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_lens> > [3] <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galactic_Center> > [4] <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tests_of_general_relativity> pp. > [5] <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_gravity> pp. > -- > Q: How many theoretical physicists specializing in general relativity > does it take to change a light bulb? > A: Two: one to hold the bulb and one to rotate the universe. > (from: WolframAlpha)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-29 15:30 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: Relativity in no trouble at all (was: Relativity in big trouble) |
| Message-ID | <39116024.OQNB0k2Ikp@PointedEars.de> |
| In reply to | #368452 |
mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote: > W dniu środa, 28 października 2015 22:09:00 UTC+1 użytkownik Thomas > 'PointedEars' Lahn napisał: Attribution line, not attribution novel. >> General relativity (GR) works *especially* at large scales, *especially* >> in cosmology. > > So you shouldn't have any trouble with > answering a simple question. I would not have any trouble if the question made sense. > In what observer's frame cosmology measure > the age of the universe? That is gibberish, and it already hints at a misconception on your part. PointedEars -- Q: Where are offenders sentenced for light crimes? A: To a prism. (from: WolframAlpha)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-29 18:37 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: Relativity in no trouble at all (was: Relativity in big trouble) |
| Message-ID | <n0tlht$h9q$1@node2.news.atman.pl> |
| In reply to | #368464 |
Użytkownik "Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn" napisał w wiadomości grup dyskusyjnych:39116024.OQNB0k2Ikp@PointedEars.de... > In what observer's frame cosmology measure > the age of the universe? |That is gibberish, and it already hints at a misconception on your part. Didn't your Shit "discover", that time periods are observer dependent? Didn't it state, that the same process last a different amount of time, depending on - what observer's frame you use? So - what observer's frame cosmology is using?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-29 19:50 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: Relativity in no trouble at all |
| Message-ID | <2461954.Zyr1NirVFH@PointedEars.de> |
| In reply to | #368474 |
Maciej Woźniak wrote: > Użytkownik "Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn" napisał w wiadomości grup > dyskusyjnych:39116024.OQNB0k2Ikp@PointedEars.de... Which part of “attribution line” do you not understand? >> In what observer's frame cosmology measure >> the age of the universe? > > |That is gibberish, and it already hints at a misconception on your part. > > Didn't your Shit "discover", that time periods > are observer dependent? Didn't it state, that > the same process last a different amount > of time, depending on - what observer's > frame you use? Define “Shit”. > So - what observer's frame cosmology is using? Argumentum ad nauseam. PointedEars -- Q: Where are offenders sentenced for light crimes? A: To a prism. (from: WolframAlpha)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-29 20:53 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: Relativity in no trouble at all |
| Message-ID | <n0ttgl$pen$1@node2.news.atman.pl> |
| In reply to | #368484 |
Użytkownik "Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn" napisał w wiadomości grup dyskusyjnych:2461954.Zyr1NirVFH@PointedEars.de... Maciej Woźniak wrote: > Użytkownik "Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn" napisał w wiadomości grup > dyskusyjnych:39116024.OQNB0k2Ikp@PointedEars.de... |Which part of “attribution line” do you not understand? Define "attribution line". > Didn't your Shit "discover", that time periods > are observer dependent? Didn't it state, that > the same process last a different amount > of time, depending on - what observer's > frame you use? |Define “Shit”. Shit is this famous theory of relativity by Einstein. > So - what observer's frame cosmology is using? |Argumentum ad nauseam. Don't you distinguish between arguments and questions? Well, expected from a relativistic moron.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-30 13:04 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: Relativity in no trouble at all |
| Message-ID | <9070247.Hq2VpjKo90@PointedEars.de> |
| In reply to | #368487 |
Maciej Woźniak wrote: > Użytkownik "Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn" napisał w wiadomości grup > dyskusyjnych:2461954.Zyr1NirVFH@PointedEars.de... > > Maciej Woźniak wrote: > >> Użytkownik "Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn" napisał w wiadomości grup >> dyskusyjnych:39116024.OQNB0k2Ikp@PointedEars.de... > > |Which part of “attribution line” do you not understand? > > Define "attribution line". The line on the top of a Usenet posting that attributes the quoted text to an author. *One* line per author. Not two. Not more than two. >> Didn't your Shit "discover", that time periods >> are observer dependent? Didn't it state, that >> the same process last a different amount >> of time, depending on - what observer's >> frame you use? > > |Define “Shit”. > > Shit is this famous theory of relativity by Einstein. The theory of relativity (by Einstein and many others) states that time periods measured depend on the frame of reference, particularly on the relative speed and acceleration of such a frame, and are therefore dependent upon the observer who measures them. If the observer is not co-moving with the observed frame, then they will measure a different time period for a process. But that does not mean that the age of the universe is observer-dependent. Your misconception is that it would, because you do not understand the evolution of the universe as it can be observed with telescopes. >> So - what observer's frame cosmology is using? > > |Argumentum ad nauseam. > > Don't you distinguish between arguments and questions? The question is indicative and part of the kind of argument that I mentioned. > Well, expected from a relativistic moron. These continued insults are one reason why you will die in ignorance. PointedEars -- Heisenberg is out for a drive when he's stopped by a traffic cop. The officer asks him "Do you know how fast you were going?" Heisenberg replies "No, but I know where I am." (from: WolframAlpha)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mlwozniak@wp.pl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-30 05:32 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Relativity in no trouble at all |
| Message-ID | <1305a0c3-a545-4cc7-976b-3b386844decd@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #368542 |
W dniu piątek, 30 października 2015 13:04:35 UTC+1 użytkownik Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn napisał: > Maciej Woźniak wrote: > > > Użytkownik "Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn" napisał w wiadomości grup > > dyskusyjnych:2461954.Zyr1NirVFH@PointedEars.de... > > > > Maciej Woźniak wrote: > > > >> Użytkownik "Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn" napisał w wiadomości grup > >> dyskusyjnych:39116024.OQNB0k2Ikp@PointedEars.de... > > > > |Which part of “attribution line” do you not understand? > > > > Define "attribution line". > > The line on the top of a Usenet posting that attributes the quoted text to > an author. *One* line per author. Not two. Not more than two. I understand, You're displeased, that there are 2 lines for You? You're free to be, of course. > The theory of relativity (by Einstein and many others) states that time > periods measured depend on the frame of reference, particularly on the > relative speed and acceleration of such a frame, and are therefore dependent > upon the observer who measures them. If the observer is not co-moving with > the observed frame, then they will measure a different time period for a > process. > > But that does not mean that the age of the universe is observer-dependent. I understand, modern physics has discovered, and its brilliant experiments have confirmed, that it isn't a time period?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | shuba <tim@sh.uba> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-31 01:34 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: Relativity in no trouble at all |
| Message-ID | <n115qd$3p7$1@speranza.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #368542 |
On Fri, 30 Oct 2015 13:04:32 +0100,
during an apocryphal dark and stormy night
occurring at a remote place on the planet,
a dour and humorless Thomas PointyHead
adroitly employed a digital input device,
and wrote:
> The line on the top of a Usenet posting that attributes the quoted text
> to an author. *One* line per author. Not two. Not more than two.
Does something horrible happen to people who choose personal
freedom over attempted fascist coercion of others? Seems not
in this case. Maybe you will be more successful in the future.
> The theory of relativity (by Einstein and many others) states
> that time periods measured depend on the frame of reference,
> particularly on the relative speed and acceleration of such a
> frame, and are therefore dependent upon the observer who measures
> them. If the observer is not co-moving with the observed frame,
> then they will measure a different time period for a process.
>
> But that does not mean that the age of the universe is
> observer-dependent.
>
> Your misconception is that it would, because you do not
> understand the evolution of the universe as it can be observed
> with telescopes.
I think you need to crib a bit more from wikipedia. The fact is,
there is a preferred frame in standard cosmology at every point,
which is at rest in the so-called Hubble flow. It is in this frame
in which the Hubble law is valid, in which the universe is
isotropic and homogeneous, and from which the age of the universe
is determined. The Sun is approximately at rest in this preferred
cosmological frame, and it is the most natural frame to use.
"Time dilation causes the proper time measured by an
observer to depend on the velocity of the observer, so we
specify that the time variable t in the Hubble law is the
proper time since the Big Bang *for comoving observers*."
--from http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmo_02.htm
---Tim Shuba---
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Bobby Sifuentes <bobsif@academicinstitute.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-30 17:46 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: Relativity in no trouble at all (was: Relativity in big trouble) |
| Message-ID | <n10adn$cfk$2@speranza.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #368395 |
Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: > Günther Huldiberaht wrote: > >> Unlike Divergent Matter, Relativity does not work at large scale, in >> Cosmology, […] > > The usual “not even wrong”-kind of nonsense from the ’nym-shifting > troll.General relativity (GR) works *especially* at large scales, > *especially* in cosmology. It does it namely NOT, pointy. You are not even a mechaniker.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-28 18:09 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <vph23bpo5fa72f48sa2mbdag053cgvu2bb@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #368359 |
On Wed, 28 Oct 2015 14:16:55 +0000 (UTC), Günther Huldiberaht
<gunhu@allrportos.org> wrote:
>Unlike Divergent Matter, Relativity does not work at large scale, in
>Cosmology, a domain where Relativity should work, (obtained by purpose to
>serve as a tool, exactly in that domain).
>
>Fortunately, we have Divergent Matter, which is not suffering from this
>inconvenience. I don't buy such statements, ie
>
> "My students don't understand it, because I don't understand it".
>
>If you don't understand your theory, that theory is wrong. Mostly you can
>simulate of fake predictions, but you should better ask why your method
>applied does fake predictions.
More BS from the stupid nym-changing troll
that has never posted anything about Divergent
Matter, ever, any place, any time.
[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]
Page 4 of 4 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4]
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity
csiph-web