Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #369850 > unrolled thread
| Started by | John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2015-11-12 16:50 -0800 |
| Last post | 2015-11-21 13:36 -0800 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 84 — 12 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.physics.relativity
Instantaneous action at a distance is real John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2015-11-12 16:50 -0800
Re: Instantaneous action at a distance is real alsor@interia.pl - 2015-11-13 12:09 -0800
Re: Instantaneous action at a distance is real Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2015-11-14 12:18 +1100
Re: Instantaneous action at a distance is real John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2015-11-13 22:41 -0800
Re: Instantaneous action at a distance is real Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2015-11-14 17:42 +1100
Re: Instantaneous action at a distance is real John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2015-11-13 23:09 -0800
Re: Instantaneous action at a distance is real Ty Knotts <TyKnotts@hotmail.org> - 2015-11-14 16:16 +0000
Re: Instantaneous action at a distance is real Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2015-11-15 13:57 +1100
Re: Instantaneous action at a distance is real "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2015-11-15 10:10 -0800
Re: Instantaneous action at a distance is real Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2015-11-16 11:21 +1100
Re: Instantaneous action at a distance is real "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2015-11-15 16:54 -0800
Re: Instantaneous action at a distance is real Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2015-11-16 12:04 +1100
Re: Instantaneous action at a distance is real "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2015-11-15 17:13 -0800
Re: Instantaneous action at a distance is real "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2015-11-15 17:19 -0800
Re: Instantaneous action at a distance is real Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2015-11-16 12:23 +1100
Re: Instantaneous action at a distance is real "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2015-11-15 17:43 -0800
Re: Instantaneous action at a distance is real alsor@interia.pl - 2015-11-14 11:17 -0800
Re: Instantaneous action at a distance is real Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2015-11-15 13:57 +1100
Re: Instantaneous action at a distance is real alsor@interia.pl - 2015-11-15 14:43 -0800
Re: Instantaneous action at a distance is real Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2015-11-16 11:19 +1100
Re: Instantaneous action at a distance is real alsor@interia.pl - 2015-11-16 12:50 -0800
Re: Instantaneous action at a distance is real Y <yanarchi@hotmail.com> - 2015-11-13 22:40 -0800
Re: Instantaneous action at a distance is real Y <yanarchi@hotmail.com> - 2015-11-13 23:01 -0800
Re: Instantaneous action at a distance is real kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> - 2015-11-14 04:53 -0500
Re: Instantaneous action at a distance is real Y <yanarchi@hotmail.com> - 2015-11-14 02:22 -0800
Re: Instantaneous action at a distance is real Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2015-11-14 12:25 +0100
Re: Instantaneous action at a distance is real Y <yanarchi@hotmail.com> - 2015-11-14 04:30 -0800
Re: Instantaneous action at a distance is real Y <yanarchi@hotmail.com> - 2015-11-14 04:34 -0800
Re: Instantaneous action at a distance is real Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2015-11-14 05:05 -0800
Re: Instantaneous action at a distance is real Y <yanarchi@hotmail.com> - 2015-11-14 05:23 -0800
Re: Instantaneous action at a distance is real Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2015-11-14 05:55 -0800
Re: Instantaneous action at a distance is real Y <yanarchi@hotmail.com> - 2015-11-14 06:05 -0800
Re: Instantaneous action at a distance is real Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2015-11-14 06:36 -0800
Re: Instantaneous action at a distance is real Y <yanarchi@hotmail.com> - 2015-11-14 07:13 -0800
Re: Instantaneous action at a distance is real Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2015-11-14 16:34 +0100
Re: Instantaneous action at a distance is real pnalsing@gmail.com - 2015-11-14 07:36 -0800
Re: Instantaneous action at a distance is real Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2015-11-14 08:03 -0800
Re: Instantaneous action at a distance is real Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2015-11-14 17:04 +0100
Re: Instantaneous action at a distance is real Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2015-11-14 16:08 +0100
Re: Instantaneous action at a distance is real Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2015-11-14 16:08 +0100
Re: Instantaneous action at a distance is real kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> - 2015-11-14 14:27 -0500
Re: Instantaneous action at a distance is real kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> - 2015-11-14 08:29 -0500
Re: Instantaneous action at a distance is real Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2015-11-14 05:58 -0800
Re: Instantaneous action at a distance is real kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> - 2015-11-14 14:30 -0500
Re: Instantaneous action at a distance is real "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2015-11-14 11:40 -0800
Re: Instantaneous action at a distance is real kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> - 2015-11-14 15:00 -0500
Re: Instantaneous action at a distance is real "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2015-11-14 12:06 -0800
Re: Instantaneous action at a distance is real kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> - 2015-11-14 16:07 -0500
Re: Instantaneous action at a distance is real Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2015-11-14 12:12 -0800
Re: Instantaneous action at a distance is real Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2015-11-14 11:57 -0800
Re: Instantaneous action at a distance is real kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> - 2015-11-14 15:03 -0500
Re: Instantaneous action at a distance is real Ty Knotts <TyKnotts@hotmail.org> - 2015-11-14 20:20 +0000
Re: Instantaneous action at a distance is real kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> - 2015-11-14 16:19 -0500
Re: Instantaneous action at a distance is real Y <yanarchi@hotmail.com> - 2015-11-14 06:11 -0800
Re: Instantaneous action at a distance is real kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> - 2015-11-14 14:32 -0500
Re: Instantaneous action at a distance is real Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-11-16 09:31 -0600
Re: Instantaneous action at a distance is real kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> - 2015-11-14 08:23 -0500
Re: Instantaneous action at a distance is real Ty Knotts <TyKnotts@hotmail.org> - 2015-11-14 16:27 +0000
Re: Instantaneous action at a distance is real Ty Knotts <TyKnotts@hotmail.org> - 2015-11-14 16:52 +0000
Re: Instantaneous action at a distance is real kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> - 2015-11-14 14:40 -0500
Re: Instantaneous action at a distance is real Ty Knotts <TyKnotts@hotmail.org> - 2015-11-14 20:13 +0000
Re: Instantaneous action at a distance is real Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-11-16 10:15 -0600
Re: Instantaneous action at a distance is real "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2015-11-14 11:26 -0800
Re: Instantaneous action at a distance is real Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-11-16 09:29 -0600
Re: Instantaneous action at a distance is real Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2015-11-16 07:41 -0800
Re: Instantaneous action at a distance is real John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2015-11-13 23:25 -0800
Re: Instantaneous action at a distance is real Y <yanarchi@hotmail.com> - 2015-11-14 02:21 -0800
Re: Instantaneous action at a distance is real John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2015-11-20 20:04 -0800
Re: Instantaneous action at a distance is real John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2015-11-20 21:15 -0800
Re: Instantaneous action at a distance is real John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2015-11-21 18:38 -0800
Re: Instantaneous action at a distance is real "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2015-11-21 19:02 -0800
Re: Instantaneous action at a distance is real Y <yanarchi@hotmail.com> - 2015-12-11 05:37 -0800
Re: Instantaneous action at a distance is real John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2015-12-11 17:03 -0800
Re: Instantaneous action at a distance is real John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2015-12-11 17:23 -0800
Re: Instantaneous action at a distance is real "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2015-12-11 21:46 -0800
Re: Instantaneous action at a distance is real John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2015-12-13 19:36 -0800
Re: Instantaneous action at a distance is real John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2015-12-13 19:41 -0800
Re: Instantaneous action at a distance is real John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2015-12-11 17:29 -0800
Re: Instantaneous action at a distance is real fuller.david@hotmail.com - 2015-11-17 13:51 -0800
Re: Instantaneous action at a distance is real fuller.david@hotmail.com - 2015-11-17 14:01 -0800
Re: Instantaneous action at a distance is real fuller.david@hotmail.com - 2015-11-17 14:06 -0800
Re: Instantaneous action at a distance is real alsor@interia.pl - 2015-11-17 14:26 -0800
Re: Instantaneous action at a distance is real fuller.david@hotmail.com - 2015-11-17 14:39 -0800
Re: Instantaneous action at a distance is real alsor@interia.pl - 2015-11-21 13:36 -0800
Page 3 of 5 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4 5 Next page →
| From | kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-14 14:27 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <0n2f4b129g7qcjpoggc5feti8qbp3edkao@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #369941 |
On Sat, 14 Nov 2015 05:23:54 -0800 (PST), Y <yanarchi@hotmail.com>
wrote:
>On Saturday, November 14, 2015 at 11:05:09 PM UTC+10, Gary Harnagel wrote:
>> On Saturday, November 14, 2015 at 5:34:35 AM UTC-7, Y wrote:
>> >
>> > I mean, we don't even know for certain, if gravitational energy moves in
>> > waves like electromagnetic energy.
>>
>> The "waves" of e/m propagation are approximations of the bazillions of
>> photons that make up the phenomenon. It's probably the same with gravity.
>>
>> > It's very frustrating.
>> >
>> > I see it all working in my head as a particle, but so far have failed
>> > to find any information, or gather any idea about how to test it.
>> >
>> > Maybe we should put the group focus on that one day and have a really
>> > creative discussion about it, instead of all the negativity ?
>> >
>> > -y
>>
>> Discussions don't solve physics questions, experiments do. Find that
>> elusive graviton. The problem is that it would have such low energy,
>> it would never be seen as anything but a wave, and we're still looking
>> for gravitational waves.
>>
>> Gary
>
>What if the energy isn't low, but rather very high ?
>
>-y
Do you mean, like high enough to fuse
hydrogen to helium? :-)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-14 08:29 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <mjde4bh2itdd0uu97m2bklk9u04kkngecs@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #369932 |
On Sat, 14 Nov 2015 04:34:33 -0800 (PST), Y <yanarchi@hotmail.com>
wrote:
>
>I mean, we don't even know for certain, if gravitational energy moves in waves like electromagnetic energy.
>
>It's very frustrating.
>
>I see it all working in my head as a particle, but so far have failed to find any information, or gather any idea about how to test it.
>
>Maybe we should put the group focus on that one day and have a really creative discussion about it, instead of all the negativity ?
>
>-y
Sure, there must be some magical voodoo
at work there, maybe if you watch enough "Twilight
Zone" episodes, it will become obvious.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-14 05:58 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <8e80ac6f-491f-434f-9e47-cd9d435e9f6f@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #369942 |
On Saturday, November 14, 2015 at 6:29:16 AM UTC-7, kefischer wrote: > > On Sat, 14 Nov 2015 04:34:33 -0800 (PST), Y <yanarchi@hotmail.com> > wrote: > > > > I mean, we don't even know for certain, if gravitational energy moves > > in waves like electromagnetic energy. > > > > It's very frustrating. > > > > I see it all working in my head as a particle, but so far have failed > > to find any information, or gather any idea about how to test it. > > > > Maybe we should put the group focus on that one day and have a really > > creative discussion about it, instead of all the negativity ? > > > > -y > > Sure, there must be some magical voodoo > at work there, maybe if you watch enough "Twilight > Zone" episodes, it will become obvious. Fischer, you are behaving like a crackpot troll, denigrating any concept that threatens your bizarre refuted delusion. Your straw man inferences are pure baloney.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-14 14:30 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <pr2f4bh8abt14sp2scodkvvnsjh6tsc4s5@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #369949 |
On Sat, 14 Nov 2015 05:58:55 -0800 (PST), Gary Harnagel
<hitlong@yahoo.com> wrote:
>On Saturday, November 14, 2015 at 6:29:16 AM UTC-7, kefischer wrote:
>>
>> On Sat, 14 Nov 2015 04:34:33 -0800 (PST), Y <yanarchi@hotmail.com>
>> wrote:
>> >
>> > I mean, we don't even know for certain, if gravitational energy moves
>> > in waves like electromagnetic energy.
>> >
>> > It's very frustrating.
>> >
>> > I see it all working in my head as a particle, but so far have failed
>> > to find any information, or gather any idea about how to test it.
>> >
>> > Maybe we should put the group focus on that one day and have a really
>> > creative discussion about it, instead of all the negativity ?
>> >
>> > -y
>>
>> Sure, there must be some magical voodoo
>> at work there, maybe if you watch enough "Twilight
>> Zone" episodes, it will become obvious.
>
>Fischer, you are behaving like a crackpot troll, denigrating any concept
>that threatens your bizarre refuted delusion. Your straw man inferences
>are pure baloney.
No, just pointing out how silly the idea
of gravity being attractive is.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-14 11:40 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <9e41ad55-5621-44e1-b892-265b2bac7abd@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #370009 |
On Saturday, November 14, 2015 at 11:30:08 AM UTC-8, kefischer wrote: > On Sat, 14 Nov 2015 05:58:55 -0800 (PST), Gary Harnagel > <hitlong@yahoo.com> wrote: > > >On Saturday, November 14, 2015 at 6:29:16 AM UTC-7, kefischer wrote: > >> > >> On Sat, 14 Nov 2015 04:34:33 -0800 (PST), Y <yanarchi@hotmail.com> > >> wrote: > >> > > >> > I mean, we don't even know for certain, if gravitational energy moves > >> > in waves like electromagnetic energy. > >> > > >> > It's very frustrating. > >> > > >> > I see it all working in my head as a particle, but so far have failed > >> > to find any information, or gather any idea about how to test it. > >> > > >> > Maybe we should put the group focus on that one day and have a really > >> > creative discussion about it, instead of all the negativity ? > >> > > >> > -y > >> > >> Sure, there must be some magical voodoo > >> at work there, maybe if you watch enough "Twilight > >> Zone" episodes, it will become obvious. > > > >Fischer, you are behaving like a crackpot troll, denigrating any concept > >that threatens your bizarre refuted delusion. Your straw man inferences > >are pure baloney. > > No, just pointing out how silly the idea > of gravity being attractive is. The graviton is just the momentum vector! (Classically, here for an energy regime that makes a shadow for the momentum vector as a "graviton", or rather "the" graviton, vis-a-vis, the instanton, which is the moment of parallel transport, that being about solitons, or an instance of perspective.) Here that's casual and intuitive. I'd retract that part if it's wrong, about the graviton, instanton, and soliton(s).
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-14 15:00 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <gc4f4b1nmn0e7big22t7c395nfogvsfc2o@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #370012 |
On Sat, 14 Nov 2015 11:40:57 -0800 (PST), "Ross A. Finlayson"
<ross.finlayson@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Saturday, November 14, 2015 at 11:30:08 AM UTC-8, kefischer wrote:
>> On Sat, 14 Nov 2015 05:58:55 -0800 (PST), Gary Harnagel
>> <hitlong@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>> >On Saturday, November 14, 2015 at 6:29:16 AM UTC-7, kefischer wrote:
>> >>
>> >> On Sat, 14 Nov 2015 04:34:33 -0800 (PST), Y <yanarchi@hotmail.com>
>> >> wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> > I mean, we don't even know for certain, if gravitational energy moves
>> >> > in waves like electromagnetic energy.
>> >> >
>> >> > It's very frustrating.
>> >> >
>> >> > I see it all working in my head as a particle, but so far have failed
>> >> > to find any information, or gather any idea about how to test it.
>> >> >
>> >> > Maybe we should put the group focus on that one day and have a really
>> >> > creative discussion about it, instead of all the negativity ?
>> >> >
>> >> > -y
>> >>
>> >> Sure, there must be some magical voodoo
>> >> at work there, maybe if you watch enough "Twilight
>> >> Zone" episodes, it will become obvious.
>> >
>> >Fischer, you are behaving like a crackpot troll, denigrating any concept
>> >that threatens your bizarre refuted delusion. Your straw man inferences
>> >are pure baloney.
>>
>> No, just pointing out how silly the idea
>> of gravity being attractive is.
>
>
>The graviton is just the momentum vector!
There are no gravitons, if there were,
modern physics would have detected and
identified them.
>(Classically, here for an energy regime that
>makes a shadow for the momentum vector
>as a "graviton", or rather "the" graviton, vis-a-vis,
>the instanton,
Are you on drugs, or just another
stupid troll like the one who changes his
nyms instead of his diapers?
>which is the moment of parallel
>transport,
What a goofy assumption, why
don't you realize parallel transport
is free of any momentum or force?
>that being about solitons, or an instance
>of perspective.)
You really have become a disruptive
poster, as if you were speaking in tongue.
>Here that's casual and intuitive. I'd retract that
>part if it's wrong, about the graviton, instanton,
>and soliton(s).
You must be high or nuts, nothing
you say has any relation to any known physics.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-14 12:06 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <2801e7a9-421c-489c-ab05-cd4bef9cd4db@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #370020 |
On Saturday, November 14, 2015 at 12:00:55 PM UTC-8, kefischer wrote: > On Sat, 14 Nov 2015 11:40:57 -0800 (PST), "Ross A. Finlayson" > <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> wrote: > > >On Saturday, November 14, 2015 at 11:30:08 AM UTC-8, kefischer wrote: > >> On Sat, 14 Nov 2015 05:58:55 -0800 (PST), Gary Harnagel > >> <hitlong@yahoo.com> wrote: > >> > >> >On Saturday, November 14, 2015 at 6:29:16 AM UTC-7, kefischer wrote: > >> >> > >> >> On Sat, 14 Nov 2015 04:34:33 -0800 (PST), Y <yanarchi@hotmail.com> > >> >> wrote: > >> >> > > >> >> > I mean, we don't even know for certain, if gravitational energy moves > >> >> > in waves like electromagnetic energy. > >> >> > > >> >> > It's very frustrating. > >> >> > > >> >> > I see it all working in my head as a particle, but so far have failed > >> >> > to find any information, or gather any idea about how to test it. > >> >> > > >> >> > Maybe we should put the group focus on that one day and have a really > >> >> > creative discussion about it, instead of all the negativity ? > >> >> > > >> >> > -y > >> >> > >> >> Sure, there must be some magical voodoo > >> >> at work there, maybe if you watch enough "Twilight > >> >> Zone" episodes, it will become obvious. > >> > > >> >Fischer, you are behaving like a crackpot troll, denigrating any concept > >> >that threatens your bizarre refuted delusion. Your straw man inferences > >> >are pure baloney. > >> > >> No, just pointing out how silly the idea > >> of gravity being attractive is. > > > > > >The graviton is just the momentum vector! > > There are no gravitons, if there were, > modern physics would have detected and > identified them. > > > >(Classically, here for an energy regime that > >makes a shadow for the momentum vector > >as a "graviton", or rather "the" graviton, vis-a-vis, > >the instanton, > > Are you on drugs, or just another > stupid troll like the one who changes his > nyms instead of his diapers? > > > >which is the moment of parallel > >transport, > > What a goofy assumption, why > don't you realize parallel transport > is free of any momentum or force? > > > >that being about solitons, or an instance > >of perspective.) > > You really have become a disruptive > poster, as if you were speaking in tongue. > > > >Here that's casual and intuitive. I'd retract that > >part if it's wrong, about the graviton, instanton, > >and soliton(s). > > You must be high or nuts, nothing > you say has any relation to any known physics. (No.) This is clearly a puzzle that someone has already assembled for you.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-14 16:07 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <9j8f4b9j9uij9rm6bsa3r47oheu1qaun0p@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #370024 |
On Sat, 14 Nov 2015 12:06:54 -0800 (PST), "Ross A. Finlayson"
<ross.finlayson@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Saturday, November 14, 2015 at 12:00:55 PM UTC-8, kefischer wrote:
>> On Sat, 14 Nov 2015 11:40:57 -0800 (PST), "Ross A. Finlayson"
>> <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >On Saturday, November 14, 2015 at 11:30:08 AM UTC-8, kefischer wrote:
>> >> On Sat, 14 Nov 2015 05:58:55 -0800 (PST), Gary Harnagel
>> >> <hitlong@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >On Saturday, November 14, 2015 at 6:29:16 AM UTC-7, kefischer wrote:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> On Sat, 14 Nov 2015 04:34:33 -0800 (PST), Y <yanarchi@hotmail.com>
>> >> >> wrote:
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > I mean, we don't even know for certain, if gravitational energy moves
>> >> >> > in waves like electromagnetic energy.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > It's very frustrating.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > I see it all working in my head as a particle, but so far have failed
>> >> >> > to find any information, or gather any idea about how to test it.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > Maybe we should put the group focus on that one day and have a really
>> >> >> > creative discussion about it, instead of all the negativity ?
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > -y
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Sure, there must be some magical voodoo
>> >> >> at work there, maybe if you watch enough "Twilight
>> >> >> Zone" episodes, it will become obvious.
>> >> >
>> >> >Fischer, you are behaving like a crackpot troll, denigrating any concept
>> >> >that threatens your bizarre refuted delusion. Your straw man inferences
>> >> >are pure baloney.
>> >>
>> >> No, just pointing out how silly the idea
>> >> of gravity being attractive is.
>> >
>> >
>> >The graviton is just the momentum vector!
>>
>> There are no gravitons, if there were,
>> modern physics would have detected and
>> identified them.
>>
>>
>> >(Classically, here for an energy regime that
>> >makes a shadow for the momentum vector
>> >as a "graviton", or rather "the" graviton, vis-a-vis,
>> >the instanton,
>>
>> Are you on drugs, or just another
>> stupid troll like the one who changes his
>> nyms instead of his diapers?
>>
>>
>> >which is the moment of parallel
>> >transport,
>>
>> What a goofy assumption, why
>> don't you realize parallel transport
>> is free of any momentum or force?
>>
>>
>> >that being about solitons, or an instance
>> >of perspective.)
>>
>> You really have become a disruptive
>> poster, as if you were speaking in tongue.
>>
>>
>> >Here that's casual and intuitive. I'd retract that
>> >part if it's wrong, about the graviton, instanton,
>> >and soliton(s).
>>
>> You must be high or nuts, nothing
>> you say has any relation to any known physics.
>
>(No.)
>
>This is clearly a puzzle that someone has
>already assembled for you.
Why do you have a computer decide
what to reply?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-14 12:12 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <cc7a0209-2b3b-4fa3-b52b-2ac7f569b7cd@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #370020 |
On Saturday, November 14, 2015 at 1:00:55 PM UTC-7, kefischer wrote: > > On Sat, 14 Nov 2015 11:40:57 -0800 (PST), "Ross A. Finlayson" > <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > The graviton is just the momentum vector! Unsubstantiated bald assertion. > There are no gravitons, Unsubstantiated bald assertion. > if there were, modern physics would have detected and > identified them. Non sequitur. "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence." > > (Classically, here for an energy regime that > > which is the moment of parallel transport, > > What a goofy assumption, why > don't you realize parallel transport > is free of any momentum or force? No goofier than DuMb :-) > > that being about solitons, or an instance of perspective.) > > You really have become a disruptive > poster, as if you were speaking in tongue. Pot, kettle, black > > Here that's casual and intuitive. I'd retract that > > part if it's wrong, about the graviton, instanton, > > and soliton(s). > > You must be high or nuts, nothing > you say has any relation to any known physics. Neither does DuMb
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-14 11:57 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <f6de13e0-3c40-4a24-9a36-a81db5c4208c@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #370009 |
On Saturday, November 14, 2015 at 12:30:08 PM UTC-7, kefischer wrote: > > On Sat, 14 Nov 2015 05:58:55 -0800 (PST), Gary Harnagel > <hitlong@yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > Fischer, you are behaving like a crackpot troll, denigrating any concept > > that threatens your bizarre refuted delusion. Your straw man inferences > > are pure baloney. > > No, just pointing out how silly the idea > of gravity being attractive is. Actually, the silly idea is DuMb, which a refuted piece of baloney. [To Y:] > Maybe if you are around another 50 years, you will know a little > physics, you sure as hell don't know any now. Pot, kettle, black.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-14 15:03 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <rq4f4bdt9qga3u95dgv08u3gqkq01b90nr@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #370019 |
On Sat, 14 Nov 2015 11:57:54 -0800 (PST), Gary Harnagel
<hitlong@yahoo.com> wrote:
>On Saturday, November 14, 2015 at 12:30:08 PM UTC-7, kefischer wrote:
>>
>> On Sat, 14 Nov 2015 05:58:55 -0800 (PST), Gary Harnagel
>> <hitlong@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> >
>> > Fischer, you are behaving like a crackpot troll, denigrating any concept
>> > that threatens your bizarre refuted delusion. Your straw man inferences
>> > are pure baloney.
>>
>> No, just pointing out how silly the idea
>> of gravity being attractive is.
>
>Actually, the silly idea is DuMb, which a refuted piece of baloney.
>
>[To Y:]
>> Maybe if you are around another 50 years, you will know a little
>> physics, you sure as hell don't know any now.
>
>Pot, kettle, black.
What I said to Y applies to you too. :-)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ty Knotts <TyKnotts@hotmail.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-14 20:20 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <n28534$gsn$5@speranza.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #370022 |
W dniu Sat, 07 Nov 2015 07:33:26 +0600 (PDT) użytkownik kefischer napisał: >>> Maybe if you are around another 50 years, you will know a little >>> physics, you sure as hell don't know any now. >> >>Pot, kettle, black. > > What I said to Y applies to you too. Fischer, you are behaving like a crackpot troll, denigrating any concept that threatens your bizarre refuted delusion. Your straw man inferences are pure baloney.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-14 16:19 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <sa9f4b5qj57tmkaa40d08e215fs7ta8spv@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #370033 |
On Sat, 14 Nov 2015 20:20:53 +0000 (UTC), Ty Knotts
<TyKnotts@hotmail.org> wrote:
>W dniu Sat, 07 Nov 2015 07:33:26 +0600 (PDT) uzytkownik kefischer napisal:
>
>>>> Maybe if you are around another 50 years, you will know a little
>>>> physics, you sure as hell don't know any now.
>>>
>>>Pot, kettle, black.
>>
>> What I said to Y applies to you too.
>
>Fischer, you are behaving like a crackpot troll, denigrating any concept
>that threatens your bizarre refuted delusion. Your straw man inferences
>are pure baloney.
And it is even more true in your case, stupid.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Y <yanarchi@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-14 06:11 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <42a2d8e1-6ecf-4e5b-bf31-31f491af4665@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #369942 |
On Saturday, November 14, 2015 at 11:29:16 PM UTC+10, kefischer wrote: > On Sat, 14 Nov 2015 04:34:33 -0800 (PST), Y <yanarchi@hotmail.com> > wrote: > > > > >I mean, we don't even know for certain, if gravitational energy moves in waves like electromagnetic energy. > > > >It's very frustrating. > > > >I see it all working in my head as a particle, but so far have failed to find any information, or gather any idea about how to test it. > > > >Maybe we should put the group focus on that one day and have a really creative discussion about it, instead of all the negativity ? > > > >-y > > Sure, there must be some magical voodoo > at work there, maybe if you watch enough "Twilight > Zone" episodes, it will become obvious. I know you just want to be included, and this makes me sad. That people out there would be like that. You should really spend time with family. I'm guessing a man of your age has accumulated a sufficient account of regrets. Instead of avoiding them, do something about them now. After Andro passed on, it put some things into perspective for me. Maybe if you knew him it would for you too ? -y
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-14 14:32 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <mv2f4bl9tb9useehmrc69ee5o4nqn4niii@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #369953 |
On Sat, 14 Nov 2015 06:11:18 -0800 (PST), Y <yanarchi@hotmail.com>
wrote:
>On Saturday, November 14, 2015 at 11:29:16 PM UTC+10, kefischer wrote:
>> On Sat, 14 Nov 2015 04:34:33 -0800 (PST), Y <yanarchi@hotmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >I mean, we don't even know for certain, if gravitational energy moves in waves like electromagnetic energy.
>> >
>> >It's very frustrating.
>> >
>> >I see it all working in my head as a particle, but so far have failed to find any information, or gather any idea about how to test it.
>> >
>> >Maybe we should put the group focus on that one day and have a really creative discussion about it, instead of all the negativity ?
>> >
>> >-y
>>
>> Sure, there must be some magical voodoo
>> at work there, maybe if you watch enough "Twilight
>> Zone" episodes, it will become obvious.
>
>I know you just want to be included, and this makes me sad. That people out there would be like that. You should really spend time with family. I'm guessing a man of your age has accumulated a sufficient account of regrets. Instead of avoiding them, do something about them now.
>
>After Andro passed on, it put some things into perspective for me. Maybe if you knew him it would for you too ?
>
>-y
Maybe if you are around another 50 years,
you will know a little physics, you sure as hell
don't know any now.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-16 09:31 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <n2cssu$j2$2@speranza.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #369932 |
On 11/14/2015 6:34 AM, Y wrote: > > I mean, we don't even know for certain, if gravitational energy moves in waves like electromagnetic energy. > > It's very frustrating. > > I see it all working in my head as a particle, but so far have failed to find any information, or gather any idea about how to test it. > > Maybe we should put the group focus on that one day and have a really creative discussion about it, instead of all the negativity ? > > -y > LeSage gravity. Old idea. Very surprised you were unable to find any information about it, or how to test it. All of which is readily available, and in fact the tests done. -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-14 08:23 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <rbde4bla9so9cdvomq9p1ibjidtfkcrfsj@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #369926 |
On Sat, 14 Nov 2015 02:22:59 -0800 (PST), Y <yanarchi@hotmail.com>
wrote:
>On Saturday, November 14, 2015 at 7:53:55 PM UTC+10, kefischer wrote:
>> On Fri, 13 Nov 2015 23:01:25 -0800 (PST), Y <yanarchi@hotmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >On Saturday, November 14, 2015 at 4:40:10 PM UTC+10, Y wrote:
>> >> On Friday, November 13, 2015 at 10:50:40 AM UTC+10, John Gogo wrote:
>> >> > http://phys.org/news/2015-11-nist-team-spooky-action-distance.html
>> >>
>> >> I don't think so John, and I'll give you a quick reason why I personally find action at a distance to be unlikely.
>> >>
>> >> Supposing you have a 5 atom body, and its freefalling towards a 1 billion atom body. With action at a distance, it is necessary that the 5 atom body exert a force equally over all parts of the 1 billion atom body, just as for the 1 billion atom body to exert a force equally over all parts of the 5 atom body.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> It would be necessary therefore, if action at a distance were true, for that 5 atom body, to have dissipated 5 billion force carriers for any one instant. Just think about what that means.
>> >>
>> >> It's better to think of forces as they are applied. Even in the case of magnetism, force carrying particles are interacting with bodies in order to produce a force, and this is always happening at some "point of application", or "application point". This is the point where two bodies or particles meet, and a force is produced.
>> >>
>> >> -y
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >This is why btw, I think that gravity is mediated by some kind of particle
>>
>> That _would_ be action at a distance.
>
>
>Not really, because the force carrying particle is what is making the application of force - not some body "AT A DISTANCE".
>
>-y
What other kind of force do you think
there could be, magic?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ty Knotts <TyKnotts@hotmail.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-14 16:27 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <n27ne0$gtr$1@speranza.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #369940 |
W dniu Sat, 07 Nov 2015 07:33:26 +0600 (PDT) użytkownik kefischer napisał: >>Not really, because the force carrying particle is what is making the >>application of force - not some body "AT A DISTANCE". > > What other kind of force do you think there could be, magic? What do you mean by "other kind". All forces are forces, or is something you terribly misunderstood again. You may rather ask "if not a Force, what else can it be?". Relativity has an answer, know to be something specific as structure, called "curvature of spacetime". However, in my Divergent Matter theory there is no need, specifically, of curved spacetime, or "spacetime" all together. There is no need for Aether of Spacetime (although those are almost identical in functionality). What we need is as Engineers to take a look and do the Math in Divergent Matter. Since Divergent Matter is a theory more fundamental that all the other theories together. Hundreds of years from now Divergent Matter is here to stay. nb. is been said specifically *Engineers* and not half-engineers, so if you are a half or less, stay away from this novel theory.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ty Knotts <TyKnotts@hotmail.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-14 16:52 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <n27orp$jml$2@speranza.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #369978 |
W dniu Sat, 07 Nov 2015 07:33:26 +0600 (PDT) użytkownik HVAC napisał: > It's just your fundamental lack of physics knowledge that leads you to > believe that any information can be transferred at a speed faster than > light. That puts you into the same category as Bert and BJ. Uneducated > buffoons who believe in magic Could you please be more specific on why the Information cannot be transferred faster than the speed of light. I mean, not because the light as Carrier, but transmitted by any other means.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-14 14:40 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <df3f4bhjeoft7875cqgs58c9gbiilvt0t8@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #369978 |
On Sat, 14 Nov 2015 16:27:44 +0000 (UTC), Ty Knotts
<TyKnotts@hotmail.org> wrote:
>W dniu Sat, 07 Nov 2015 07:33:26 +0600 (PDT) uzytkownik kefischer napisal:
>
>>>Not really, because the force carrying particle is what is making the
>>>application of force - not some body "AT A DISTANCE".
>>
>> What other kind of force do you think there could be, magic?
>
>What do you mean by "other kind". All forces are forces, or is something
>you terribly misunderstood again. You may rather ask "if not a Force, what
>else can it be?". Relativity has an answer, know to be something specific
>as structure, called "curvature of spacetime".
>
>However, in my Divergent Matter theory there is no need, specifically, of
>curved spacetime, or "spacetime" all together. There is no need for Aether
>of Spacetime (although those are almost identical in functionality).
>
>What we need is as Engineers to take a look and do the Math in Divergent
>Matter. Since Divergent Matter is a theory more fundamental that all the
>other theories together. Hundreds of years from now Divergent Matter is
>here to stay.
>
>nb. is been said specifically *Engineers* and not half-engineers, so if
>you are a half or less, stay away from this novel theory.
I thought you said you would go away
if nobody liked you. Now go away, troll,
don't change your nym again, don't collect
$200, just go away.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 3 of 5 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4 5 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity
csiph-web