Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #454103 > unrolled thread

A GOOD QUESTION

Back to article view | Back to sci.physics.relativity

Contents

  A GOOD QUESTION Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-03-28 18:42 +0100
    A GOOD QUESTION "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-03-28 10:50 -0700
      Re: A GOOD QUESTION Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-03-28 19:07 +0100
    A GOOD QUESTION "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-03-28 11:23 -0700
    Re: A GOOD QUESTION Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-03-28 12:25 -0700
    A GOOD QUESTION Steve BH <sbharris@gmail.com> - 2018-03-28 12:27 -0700
      A GOOD QUESTION "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-03-28 12:52 -0700
        A GOOD QUESTION "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-03-28 12:57 -0700
      Re: A GOOD QUESTION Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2018-03-28 13:45 -0700
        Re: A GOOD QUESTION "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-03-28 14:39 -0700
      Re: A GOOD QUESTION RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> - 2018-04-20 16:44 -0700
        Re: A GOOD QUESTION "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-04-20 17:13 -0700
          Re: A GOOD QUESTION "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-04-20 17:21 -0700
        Re: A GOOD QUESTION Lofty Goat <rlwatkins@gmail.com> - 2018-04-20 20:00 -0500
          Re: A GOOD QUESTION RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> - 2018-04-21 12:32 -0700
            Re: A GOOD QUESTION "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-04-21 12:41 -0700
            Re: A GOOD QUESTION Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-04-21 19:28 -0500
              Re: A GOOD QUESTION mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-04-21 21:49 -0700
                Re: A GOOD QUESTION HGW <HW@home.net> - 2018-04-23 08:14 +1000
                  Re: A GOOD QUESTION Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2018-04-22 16:40 -0700
                    Re: A GOOD QUESTION Python <python@python.invalid> - 2018-04-23 01:53 +0200
                      Re: A GOOD QUESTION Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-04-24 09:45 -0700
              Re: A GOOD QUESTION Erálnì Histickému <no@ovmwk.gn> - 2018-04-22 08:06 +0000
              Re: A GOOD QUESTION HGW <HW@home.net> - 2018-04-23 08:12 +1000
            Re: A GOOD QUESTION Lofty Goat <rlwatkins@gmail.com> - 2018-04-21 19:38 -0500
              Re: A GOOD QUESTION Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-04-22 09:04 -0500
                Re: A GOOD QUESTION Erálnì Histickému <no@ovmwk.gn> - 2018-04-22 14:55 +0000
                Re: A GOOD QUESTION Lofty Goat <rlwatkins@gmail.com> - 2018-04-22 12:03 -0500
                  Re: A GOOD QUESTION Erálnì Histickému <no@ovmwk.gn> - 2018-04-23 16:29 +0000
      Re: A GOOD QUESTION kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-05-13 08:15 -0700
        Re: A GOOD QUESTION Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-05-13 18:47 +0000
          Re: A GOOD QUESTION kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-05-14 07:56 -0700
            Re: A GOOD QUESTION Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-05-14 16:47 +0000
              Re: A GOOD QUESTION kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-05-14 14:59 -0700
                Re: A GOOD QUESTION Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-05-14 22:24 +0000
          Re: A GOOD QUESTION RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> - 2018-05-16 10:35 -0700
            Re: A GOOD QUESTION Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-05-16 18:32 +0000
            Re: A GOOD QUESTION Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-05-16 18:52 -0500
      Re: A GOOD QUESTION kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-05-17 10:01 -0700
        Re: A GOOD QUESTION Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-05-17 17:44 +0000
          Re: A GOOD QUESTION Ursula Vankeuren <aln@divweo.id> - 2018-05-19 14:07 +0000
    Re: A GOOD QUESTION Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-03-31 18:42 -0500
      Re: A GOOD QUESTION HGW <HW@home.net> - 2018-04-20 09:12 +1000
        Re: A GOOD QUESTION "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-04-19 17:53 -0700
        Re: A GOOD QUESTION "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-04-19 17:54 -0700
        Re: A GOOD QUESTION Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2018-04-19 21:16 -0700
          Re: A GOOD QUESTION HGW <HW@home.net> - 2018-04-21 07:36 +1000
            Re: A GOOD QUESTION Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2018-04-20 14:58 -0700
              Re: A GOOD QUESTION Lofty Goat <rlwatkins@gmail.com> - 2018-04-20 20:00 -0500
                Re: A GOOD QUESTION benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-04-20 21:39 -0400
                  Re: A GOOD QUESTION "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-04-20 19:02 -0700
                    Re: A GOOD QUESTION "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-04-20 19:16 -0700
                      Re: A GOOD QUESTION "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-04-20 19:20 -0700
                        Re: A GOOD QUESTION "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-04-20 19:32 -0700
                          Re: A GOOD QUESTION "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-04-20 19:47 -0700
                            Re: A GOOD QUESTION "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-04-20 20:03 -0700
                Re: A GOOD QUESTION Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2018-04-20 20:39 -0700
              Re: A GOOD QUESTION HGW <HW@home.net> - 2018-04-23 07:52 +1000
                Re: A GOOD QUESTION Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2018-04-22 16:39 -0700
                  Re: A GOOD QUESTION HGW <HW@home.net> - 2018-04-25 12:25 +1000
                    Re: A GOOD QUESTION Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2018-04-24 20:34 -0700
    Re: A GOOD QUESTION Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-05-13 09:01 +0100
    Re: A GOOD QUESTION paul jark <jarkpaulsmith@gmail.com> - 2018-05-19 06:27 -0700

Page 2 of 4 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4  Next page →

#456695

Gary Harnagel wrote:
> On Sunday, April 22, 2018 at 4:14:05 PM UTC-6, HGW wrote:
>>
>> On 22/04/18 14:49, mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote:
>>>
>>> We should all assume that the center of universe is
>>> the omphalos of the observer. Our wise gurus taught
>>> us! Our wise gurus know!
>>
>> Maybe Einstein's grave is the centre of the universe.
>>
>>      HGW
> 
> One thing is certain:  YOU aren't, much to your chagrin.

But in a grave, that shouldn't be so late. It would be a nice
move for us down here to collect money in order to make sure
Ralph Malcom Rabbidge will be in grave near to John Parker
(aka Androcles).

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#456834

On Sunday, April 22, 2018 at 7:53:25 PM UTC-4, Python wrote:
> Gary Harnagel wrote:
> > On Sunday, April 22, 2018 at 4:14:05 PM UTC-6, HGW wrote:
> >>
> >> On 22/04/18 14:49, mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote:
> >>>
> >>> We should all assume that the center of universe is
> >>> the omphalos of the observer. Our wise gurus taught
> >>> us! Our wise gurus know!
> >>
> >> Maybe Einstein's grave is the centre of the universe.
> >>
> >>      HGW
> > 
> > One thing is certain:  YOU aren't, much to your chagrin.
> 
> But in a grave, that shouldn't be so late. It would be a nice
> move for us down here to collect money in order to make sure
> Ralph Malcom Rabbidge will be in grave near to John Parker
> (aka Androcles).

We can be certain, Einstein is spinning in his grave
over abuse of his theories by a lot of the posts in
this newsgroup.

Ed

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#456618

Tom Roberts wrote:

> On 4/21/18 2:32 PM, RichD wrote:
>> Prove it.
> 
> It is not possible to prove ANYTHING about physics. Proof is only
> possible in mathematics. It simply is not applicable to physics, or to
> the world we inhabit. Tom Roberts

Exactly me amigo, the symbolic mathematics is about the ideal continuum. 
However, the Nature is just an approximation of the former, in discrete. I 
saw even big mathematicians not understanding this matter of fact. And I'm 
not even a mathematician.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#456684

On 22/04/18 10:28, Tom Roberts wrote:
> On 4/21/18 2:32 PM, RichD wrote:
>>>> How do we know the sun isn't the center of the universe, with
>>>> everything flying off in every direction?
> 
> We don't [#]. But ASSUMING that the sun is the "center of the universe" is an outrageous assumption.

More Roberts' confusion! We actually DO on account of the fact that rotation is absolute. The sun is undoubtedly moving 
in some kind of curved path. To assume it is 100% inertial would create artificial rotations to all other objects....not 
allowed.

-- 

    HGW

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#456606

On Sat, 21 Apr 2018 12:32:46 -0700 (PDT), RichD wrote:

>On April 20, Lofty Goat wrote:
>> > How do we know the sun isn't the center of the universe, with
>> > everything flying off in every direction?
>> 
>> That is exactly correct.
>> 
>> Moreover, the statement is correct for *every locale*, including the
>> Sun.  Every point in the universe is its center, and every other point
>> in the universe is receding from the center.
> 
>Prove it.
>
>Note (read slowly, concentrate hard): 
>'prove' does not mean "I have a model, which conforms to 
>observations, therefore it's correct, THE model, all others fail"
>
>'prove' means "That other model -  "the sun is THE center" - 
>has been falsified, here is the evidence: ...... "

You're right.  In science "prove" means that "I have a model which makes
verifiable predictions of the outcomes of experiments."

Conforming to observations is useful, but if you can't devise a new
experiment and then use the model to predict its outcome to within some
known tolerance, then it isn't a useful model.

And no models are perfect insofar as they predict the outcome of *all*
experiments no matter how extreme the conditions.  When one passes that
boundary, it is the job of science to devise a better model.

That said, given the most useful model we have of how the universe
behaves, the Sun is at its exact center, as is everything else.

-- 
Goat

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#456626

On 4/21/18 7:38 PM, Lofty Goat wrote:
> In science "prove" means that "I have a model which makes
> verifiable predictions of the outcomes of experiments."

Not true. In science, "prove" is not used.

	Yes, TV shows such as "CSI" often use the phrase "scientific
	proof". What they mean is a proof IN A COURT OF LAW that has
	a scientific basis.

Tom Roberts

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#456632

Tom Roberts wrote:

> On 4/21/18 7:38 PM, Lofty Goat wrote:
>> In science "prove" means that "I have a model which makes verifiable
>> predictions of the outcomes of experiments."
> 
> Not true. In science, "prove" is not used.
> 
> Yes, TV shows such as "CSI" often use the phrase "scientific proof".
> What they mean is a proof IN A COURT OF LAW that has a scientific
> basis. Tom Roberts

That's rather "convincing", not "proof", in a court of law.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#456649

On Sun, 22 Apr 2018 09:04:59 -0500, Tom Roberts
<tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

>On 4/21/18 7:38 PM, Lofty Goat wrote:
>> In science "prove" means that "I have a model which makes
>> verifiable predictions of the outcomes of experiments."
>
>Not true. In science, "prove" is not used.
>
>	Yes, TV shows such as "CSI" often use the phrase "scientific
>	proof". What they mean is a proof IN A COURT OF LAW that has
>	a scientific basis.

I'm speaking vernacular to someone with whom it is impossible to
communicate in any other manner.

-- 
Goat

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#456732

Lofty Goat wrote:

> On Sun, 22 Apr 2018 09:04:59 -0500, Tom Roberts
> <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> 
>>On 4/21/18 7:38 PM, Lofty Goat wrote:
>>> In science "prove" means that "I have a model which makes verifiable
>>> predictions of the outcomes of experiments."
>>
>>Not true. In science, "prove" is not used
>>Yes, TV shows such as "CSI" often use the phrase "scientific proof".
>>	What they mean is a proof IN A COURT OF LAW that has a scientific
>>	basis.
> 
> I'm speaking vernacular to someone with whom it is impossible to
> communicate in any other manner. -- Goat

And I was suspecting you for being stupid.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#457848

On Wednesday, March 28, 2018 at 3:27:53 PM UTC-4, Steve BH wrote:
> Nope. Space itself has been expanding since the Big Bang. If you drew a crude wave of light on a child’s balloon partially inflated, and then blew that up more, you’d see the wavelength increase and frequency decrease. The speed never changes.

Space expanding is an oxymoron statement. According to SR space is empty (nothing). So how can nothing expand? A more reasonable explanation is that the Big Bang caused material objects to apart in all directions in space. And the observed red shift of galaxies is due to Doppler shift.
> 
> You must have an expanding universe in order for you to see a redshift that increases in every direction, and does so increasingly with distance. And if you have that, that’s already explanation enough for the redshift. No NEED for changing c.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#457861

kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote:
> On Wednesday, March 28, 2018 at 3:27:53 PM UTC-4, Steve BH wrote:
>> Nope. Space itself has been expanding since the Big Bang. If you drew a
>> crude wave of light on a child’s balloon partially inflated, and then
>> blew that up more, you’d see the wavelength increase and frequency
>> decrease. The speed never changes.
> 
> Space expanding is an oxymoron statement. According to SR space is empty (nothing). 

First of all, SR says nothing about space being empty or not. Secondly,
being empty would mean devoid of persistent matter, but that does not make
it nothing. 

You assume that the only things that can have existence are matter? Why?
What about energy?

> So how can nothing expand? A more reasonable explanation is that the Big
> Bang caused material objects to apart in all directions in space. And the
> observed red shift of galaxies is due to Doppler shift.
>> 
>> You must have an expanding universe in order for you to see a redshift
>> that increases in every direction, and does so increasingly with
>> distance. And if you have that, that’s already explanation enough for
>> the redshift. No NEED for changing c.
> 



-- 
Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#457882

On Sunday, May 13, 2018 at 2:47:14 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote:
> > On Wednesday, March 28, 2018 at 3:27:53 PM UTC-4, Steve BH wrote:
> >> Nope. Space itself has been expanding since the Big Bang. If you drew a
> >> crude wave of light on a child’s balloon partially inflated, and then
> >> blew that up more, you’d see the wavelength increase and frequency
> >> decrease. The speed never changes.
> > 
> > Space expanding is an oxymoron statement. According to SR space is empty (nothing). 
> 
> First of all, SR says nothing about space being empty or not. Secondly,
> being empty would mean devoid of persistent matter, but that does not make
> it nothing. 

Einstein said “empty space”. So you are now saying that space is a substance but we don’t know what that
substance is.....right?
In that case, what is the function of that substance? Does it carry light...transmits light?
In my theory that substance is the E-Matrix. Indeed the E-Matrix is not nothing. It transmits light, It gives rise a new theory of gravity, it unifies all the forces of nature, it gives rise to a new theory of relativity....etc.
> 
> You assume that the only things that can have existence are matter? Why?
> What about energy?

Energy are the effect of material objects reacting to the waves or geometries exist in the E-Matrix. 

> 
> > So how can nothing expand? A more reasonable explanation is that the Big
> > Bang caused material objects to apart in all directions in space. And the
> > observed red shift of galaxies is due to Doppler shift.
> >> 
> >> You must have an expanding universe in order for you to see a redshift
> >> that increases in every direction, and does so increasingly with
> >> distance. And if you have that, that’s already explanation enough for
> >> the redshift. No NEED for changing c.
> > 
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#457887

kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote:
> On Sunday, May 13, 2018 at 2:47:14 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>> kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote:
>>> On Wednesday, March 28, 2018 at 3:27:53 PM UTC-4, Steve BH wrote:
>>>> Nope. Space itself has been expanding since the Big Bang. If you drew a
>>>> crude wave of light on a child’s balloon partially inflated, and then
>>>> blew that up more, you’d see the wavelength increase and frequency
>>>> decrease. The speed never changes.
>>> 
>>> Space expanding is an oxymoron statement. According to SR space is empty (nothing). 
>> 
>> First of all, SR says nothing about space being empty or not. Secondly,
>> being empty would mean devoid of persistent matter, but that does not make
>> it nothing. 
> 
> Einstein said “empty space”. So you are now saying that space is a
> substance but we don’t know what that
> substance is.....right?

No. Physics recognizes more than two options, substance or nothing. 

Empty space is not a material substance. It is also not nothing. 

> In that case, what is the function of that substance? Does it carry
> light...transmits light?
> In my theory that substance is the E-Matrix.
> Indeed the E-Matrix is not nothing. It transmits light, It gives rise a
> new theory of gravity, it unifies all the forces of nature, it gives rise
> to a new theory of relativity....etc.
>> 
>> You assume that the only things that can have existence are matter? Why?
>> What about energy?
> 
> Energy are the effect of material objects reacting to the waves or
> geometries exist in the E-Matrix. 

That’s not how physicists class it. Energy is not a material substance, nor
is it nothing. 

Do catch up. 

> 
>> 
>>> So how can nothing expand? A more reasonable explanation is that the Big
>>> Bang caused material objects to apart in all directions in space. And the
>>> observed red shift of galaxies is due to Doppler shift.
>>>> 
>>>> You must have an expanding universe in order for you to see a redshift
>>>> that increases in every direction, and does so increasingly with
>>>> distance. And if you have that, that’s already explanation enough for
>>>> the redshift. No NEED for changing c.
>>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> -- 
>> Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables
> 



-- 
Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#457926

On Monday, May 14, 2018 at 12:47:08 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote:
> > On Sunday, May 13, 2018 at 2:47:14 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> >> kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote:
> >>> On Wednesday, March 28, 2018 at 3:27:53 PM UTC-4, Steve BH wrote:
> >>>> Nope. Space itself has been expanding since the Big Bang. If you drew a
> >>>> crude wave of light on a child’s balloon partially inflated, and then
> >>>> blew that up more, you’d see the wavelength increase and frequency
> >>>> decrease. The speed never changes.
> >>> 
> >>> Space expanding is an oxymoron statement. According to SR space is empty (nothing). 
> >> 
> >> First of all, SR says nothing about space being empty or not. Secondly,
> >> being empty would mean devoid of persistent matter, but that does not make
> >> it nothing. 
> > 
> > Einstein said “empty space”. So you are now saying that space is a
> > substance but we don’t know what that
> > substance is.....right?
> 
> No. Physics recognizes more than two options, substance or nothing. 

So what are the other options?
 
> Empty space is not a material substance. It is also not nothing. 

So now we have a new definition for empty space but you don’t know what that definition is.....right? Do you just making up stuff as you go along? Is that why you are such a hot shot physicist? 

> 
> > In that case, what is the function of that substance? Does it carry
> > light...transmits light?
> > In my theory that substance is the E-Matrix.
> > Indeed the E-Matrix is not nothing. It transmits light, It gives rise a
> > new theory of gravity, it unifies all the forces of nature, it gives rise
> > to a new theory of relativity....etc.
> >> 
> >> You assume that the only things that can have existence are matter? Why?
> >> What about energy?
> > 
> > Energy are the effect of material objects reacting to the waves or
> > geometries exist in the E-Matrix. 
> 
> That’s not how physicists class it. Energy is not a material substance, nor
> is it nothing. 
> 
> Do catch up. 
> 
> > 
> >> 
> >>> So how can nothing expand? A more reasonable explanation is that the Big
> >>> Bang caused material objects to apart in all directions in space. And the
> >>> observed red shift of galaxies is due to Doppler shift.
> >>>> 
> >>>> You must have an expanding universe in order for you to see a redshift
> >>>> that increases in every direction, and does so increasingly with
> >>>> distance. And if you have that, that’s already explanation enough for
> >>>> the redshift. No NEED for changing c.
> >>> 
> >> 
> >> 
> >> 
> >> -- 
> >> Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables
> > 
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#457933

kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote:
> On Monday, May 14, 2018 at 12:47:08 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>> kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote:
>>> On Sunday, May 13, 2018 at 2:47:14 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>>>> kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote:
>>>>> On Wednesday, March 28, 2018 at 3:27:53 PM UTC-4, Steve BH wrote:
>>>>>> Nope. Space itself has been expanding since the Big Bang. If you drew a
>>>>>> crude wave of light on a child’s balloon partially inflated, and then
>>>>>> blew that up more, you’d see the wavelength increase and frequency
>>>>>> decrease. The speed never changes.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Space expanding is an oxymoron statement. According to SR space is empty (nothing). 
>>>> 
>>>> First of all, SR says nothing about space being empty or not. Secondly,
>>>> being empty would mean devoid of persistent matter, but that does not make
>>>> it nothing. 
>>> 
>>> Einstein said “empty space”. So you are now saying that space is a
>>> substance but we don’t know what that
>>> substance is.....right?
>> 
>> No. Physics recognizes more than two options, substance or nothing. 
> 
> So what are the other options?

Sounds like you’re behind. Middle 1800s, physicists recognized both energy
and fields as being not material substances and not nothing either. That’s
just two examples. 

>  
>> Empty space is not a material substance. It is also not nothing. 
> 
> So now we have a new definition for empty space 

No, it’s not new. As I said, middle 1800s. Note this is BEFORE Einstein.
The only one that seems to be unaware of what empty space means is you. And
that’s because you don’t read, you just make things up — like if it’s not a
material substance then it’s nothing. 

> but you don’t know what that definition is.....right? Do you just making
> up stuff as you go along? Is that why you are such a hot shot physicist? 

None of it is made up. This has been around for 150 years and you just
never learned it. 

> 
>> 
>>> In that case, what is the function of that substance? Does it carry
>>> light...transmits light?
>>> In my theory that substance is the E-Matrix.
>>> Indeed the E-Matrix is not nothing. It transmits light, It gives rise a
>>> new theory of gravity, it unifies all the forces of nature, it gives rise
>>> to a new theory of relativity....etc.
>>>> 
>>>> You assume that the only things that can have existence are matter? Why?
>>>> What about energy?
>>> 
>>> Energy are the effect of material objects reacting to the waves or
>>> geometries exist in the E-Matrix. 
>> 
>> That’s not how physicists class it. Energy is not a material substance, nor
>> is it nothing. 
>> 
>> Do catch up. 
>> 
>>> 
>>>> 
>>>>> So how can nothing expand? A more reasonable explanation is that the Big
>>>>> Bang caused material objects to apart in all directions in space. And the
>>>>> observed red shift of galaxies is due to Doppler shift.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> You must have an expanding universe in order for you to see a redshift
>>>>>> that increases in every direction, and does so increasingly with
>>>>>> distance. And if you have that, that’s already explanation enough for
>>>>>> the redshift. No NEED for changing c.
>>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> -- 
>>>> Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables
>>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> -- 
>> Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables
> 



-- 
Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#458079

On May 13, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> You assume that the only things that can have existence are matter? 

The usual definition of 'existence' is: that which is perceivable 
through our senses, a/k/a reality.  Which includes solid stuff, 
i.e. matter.  But we also perceive light, so non-matter also exists.

> What about energy?

Energy does't exist, in the above sense.  It's an accounting 
gimmick, computed from things we can perceive.

If you wish, you can re-define 'existence' to include things 
you can't see or feel, products of your imagination.  
But do be precise, please - 

--
Rich

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#458084

RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On May 13, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>> You assume that the only things that can have existence are matter? 
> 
> The usual definition of 'existence' is: that which is perceivable 
> through our senses, a/k/a reality.  

Are genes real? What about odorless, colorless gases? What about atoms?
What about neutrinos? What about UV light?

Our senses only sample a small slice of reality. 

I don’t think physicists buy into your “usual definition” of existence. 

> Which includes solid stuff, 
> i.e. matter.  But we also perceive light, so non-matter also exists.
> 
>> What about energy?
> 
> Energy does't exist, in the above sense.  It's an accounting 
> gimmick, computed from things we can perceive.
> 
> If you wish, you can re-define 'existence' to include things 
> you can't see or feel, products of your imagination.  
> But do be precise, please - 
> 
> --
> Rich
> 



-- 
Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#458111

On 5/16/18 12:35 PM, RichD wrote:
> The usual definition of 'existence' is: that which is perceivable
> through our senses, a/k/a reality.  Which includes solid stuff,
> i.e. matter.  But we also perceive light, so non-matter also exists.
> 
>> What about energy?
> Energy does't exist, in the above sense. 

You think you cannot sense a baseball hitting you in the head? And also 
sense that it is different from a baseball at rest on your head?

"Existence" is slippery.... Primarily because we inherently use many 
different models of the world, and "existence" differs among them. For 
instance, in QED quarks and gluons (and W, Z, neutrinos, ...) don't 
exist, but in the standard model they do.

	In the model you use to find your bed at night, none of
	those elementary particles "exist".

Tom Roberts

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#458172

On Wednesday, March 28, 2018 at 3:27:53 PM UTC-4, Steve BH wrote:
> Nope. Space itself has been expanding since the Big Bang. If you drew a crude wave of light on a child’s balloon partially inflated, and then blew that up more, you’d see the wavelength increase and frequency decrease. The speed never changes.

Material objects move apart from each other from the BB explosion.....not space itself expanding.

> 
> You must have an expanding universe in order for you to see a redshift that increases in every direction, and does so increasingly with distance. And if you have that, that’s already explanation enough for the redshift. No NEED for changing c.

We do see blue shift. That destroy your argument.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#458182

kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote:
> On Wednesday, March 28, 2018 at 3:27:53 PM UTC-4, Steve BH wrote:
>> Nope. Space itself has been expanding since the Big Bang. If you drew a
>> crude wave of light on a child’s balloon partially inflated, and then
>> blew that up more, you’d see the wavelength increase and frequency
>> decrease. The speed never changes.
> 
> Material objects move apart from each other from the BB explosion.....not
> space itself expanding.

There was no explosion. 

> 
>> 
>> You must have an expanding universe in order for you to see a redshift
>> that increases in every direction, and does so increasingly with
>> distance. And if you have that, that’s already explanation enough for
>> the redshift. No NEED for changing c.
> 
> We do see blue shift. That destroy your argument.
> 

But the number redshifting far outweighs the number blueshifting.
Furthermore if the BB were an explosion you’d be hard pressed to explain
the blueshifts. 



-- 
Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 2 of 4 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity

csiph-web