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

Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #470992 > unrolled thread

fantastic question about light bending in the GR

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

Contents

  fantastic question about light bending in the GR alsor@interia.pl - 2018-09-08 10:59 -0700
    Re: fantastic question about light bending in the GR Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-09-08 20:30 +0200
      Re: fantastic question about light bending in the GR mitchrae3323@gmail.com - 2018-09-08 12:04 -0700
    Re: fantastic question about light bending in the GR mitchrae3323@gmail.com - 2018-09-12 13:23 -0700
    Re: fantastic question about light bending in the GR JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-09-12 13:38 -0700
    Re: fantastic question about light bending in the GR consequently7990662@gmail.com - 2018-09-12 13:59 -0700
      Re: fantastic question about light bending in the GR mitchrae3323@gmail.com - 2018-09-12 21:34 -0700
      Re: fantastic question about light bending in the GR Libor Striz <poutnik4REMOVEnntp@CAPITALSgmail.com> - 2018-09-13 08:14 +0200
        Re: fantastic question about light bending in the GR Libor Striz <poutnik4REMOVEnntp@CAPITALSgmail.com> - 2018-09-13 08:21 +0200
          Re: fantastic question about light bending in the GR Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-09-13 10:49 +0200
            Re: fantastic question about light bending in the GR Libor Striz <poutnik4REMOVEnntp@CAPITALSgmail.com> - 2018-09-16 09:10 +0200
              Re: fantastic question about light bending in the GR Libor Striz <poutnik4REMOVEnntp@CAPITALSgmail.com> - 2018-09-16 11:36 +0200
                Re: fantastic question about light bending in the GR Stakos Netakis <autp@wsalaw.oa> - 2018-09-16 10:16 +0000
                  Re: fantastic question about light bending in the GR Libor Striz <poutnik4REMOVEnntp@CAPITALSgmail.com> - 2018-09-16 13:36 +0200
              Re: fantastic question about light bending in the GR Stakos Netakis <autp@wsalaw.oa> - 2018-09-16 10:14 +0000
                Re: fantastic question about light bending in the GR alsor@interia.pl - 2018-09-16 11:55 -0700
              Re: fantastic question about light bending in the GR Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-09-16 23:24 +0200
                Re: fantastic question about light bending in the GR Libor Striz <poutnik4REMOVEnntp@CAPITALSgmail.com> - 2018-09-17 07:57 +0200
                  Re: fantastic question about light bending in the GR Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-09-17 23:16 +0200
                    Re: fantastic question about light bending in the GR Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-09-17 23:18 +0200
                    Re: fantastic question about light bending in the GR Stakos Netakis <autp@wsalaw.oa> - 2018-09-17 21:22 +0000
                    Re: fantastic question about light bending in the GR alsor@interia.pl - 2018-09-17 14:47 -0700
                      Re: fantastic question about light bending in the GR Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-09-17 23:53 +0200
                        Re: fantastic question about light bending in the GR alsor@interia.pl - 2018-09-18 08:04 -0700
                          Re: fantastic question about light bending in the GR JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-09-18 13:56 -0700
                            Re: fantastic question about light bending in the GR alsor@interia.pl - 2018-09-19 08:52 -0700
                              Re: fantastic question about light bending in the GR JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-09-19 12:22 -0700
                                Re: fantastic question about light bending in the GR alsor@interia.pl - 2018-09-20 09:29 -0700
                                  Re: fantastic question about light bending in the GR JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-09-20 12:15 -0700
                                    Re: fantastic question about light bending in the GR alsor@interia.pl - 2018-09-20 15:48 -0700
                                      Re: fantastic question about light bending in the GR mitchrae3323@gmail.com - 2018-09-21 16:59 -0700
                                      Re: fantastic question about light bending in the GR JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-09-21 19:43 -0700
                                        Re: fantastic question about light bending in the GR Rhett Joyner <udof@rsrrfirv.on> - 2018-09-22 08:21 +0000
                                          Re: fantastic question about light bending in the GR Libor Striz <poutnik4REMOVEnntp@CAPITALSgmail.com> - 2018-09-22 12:55 +0200
                                            Re: fantastic question about light bending in the GR Rhett Joyner <udof@rsrrfirwv.on> - 2018-09-23 09:42 +0000
                                          Re: fantastic question about light bending in the GR JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-09-23 13:18 -0700
                                            Re: fantastic question about light bending in the GR Hilton Packett <wod@wcothr.ce> - 2018-09-23 21:58 +0000
                                              Re: fantastic question about light bending in the GR mitchrae3323@gmail.com - 2018-09-23 15:00 -0700
                                                Re: fantastic question about light bending in the GR Hilton Packett <wod@wcothr.ce> - 2018-09-24 20:16 +0000
                                              Re: fantastic question about light bending in the GR JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-09-23 16:37 -0700
                                                Re: fantastic question about light bending in the GR Hilton Packett <wod@wcothr.ce> - 2018-09-24 20:13 +0000
                                                  Re: fantastic question about light bending in the GR JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-09-24 13:34 -0700
                                                    Re: fantastic question about light bending in the GR Hilton Packett <wod@wcothr.ce> - 2018-09-24 21:45 +0000
                                                      Re: fantastic question about light bending in the GR JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-09-24 15:12 -0700
                                                        Re: fantastic question about light bending in the GR Hilton Packett <wod@wcothr.ce> - 2018-09-24 22:30 +0000
                                                          Re: fantastic question about light bending in the GR JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-09-24 15:34 -0700
                                                            Re: fantastic question about light bending in the GR Hilton Packett <wod@wcothr.ce> - 2018-09-24 22:47 +0000
                                                              Re: fantastic question about light bending in the GR JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-09-24 19:44 -0700
                                                                Re: fantastic question about light bending in the GR Hilton Packett <wod@wcothr.ce> - 2018-09-25 14:57 +0000
                                                                  Re: fantastic question about light bending in the GR JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-09-25 13:45 -0700
                                                                    Re: fantastic question about light bending in the GR Hilton Packett <wod@wcothr.ce> - 2018-09-27 22:44 +0000
                                        Re: fantastic question about light bending in the GR alsor@interia.pl - 2018-09-22 09:13 -0700
                                          Re: fantastic question about light bending in the GR Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-09-22 19:57 +0200
                                            Re: fantastic question about light bending in the GR alsor@interia.pl - 2018-09-22 12:42 -0700
                                              Re: fantastic question about light bending in the GR Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-09-23 08:58 +0200
                                                Re: fantastic question about light bending in the GR alsor@interia.pl - 2018-09-23 09:14 -0700
                                                  Re: fantastic question about light bending in the GR Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-09-23 18:29 +0200
                                                    Re: fantastic question about light bending in the GR alsor@interia.pl - 2018-09-23 10:28 -0700
                                                      Re: fantastic question about light bending in the GR Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-09-23 20:37 +0200
                                                        Re: fantastic question about light bending in the GR alsor@interia.pl - 2018-09-23 11:53 -0700
                                          Re: fantastic question about light bending in the GR JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-09-26 11:45 -0700
                                            Re: fantastic question about light bending in the GR alsor@interia.pl - 2018-09-26 12:30 -0700
                                              Re: fantastic question about light bending in the GR JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-09-26 12:37 -0700
                                                Re: fantastic question about light bending in the GR alsor@interia.pl - 2018-09-26 13:43 -0700
                                                  Re: fantastic question about light bending in the GR JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-09-26 15:45 -0700
                                                    Re: fantastic question about light bending in the GR alsor@interia.pl - 2018-09-27 09:26 -0700
                                                      Re: fantastic question about light bending in the GR JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-09-27 12:19 -0700
                                                        Re: fantastic question about light bending in the GR alsor@interia.pl - 2018-09-28 10:48 -0700
                                                          Re: fantastic question about light bending in the GR mitchrae3323@gmail.com - 2018-09-30 13:23 -0700
                    Re: fantastic question about light bending in the GR Libor Striz <poutnik4REMOVEnntp@CAPITALSgmail.com> - 2018-09-18 09:35 +0200
                      Re: fantastic question about light bending in the GR Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-09-18 22:07 +0200
                    Re: fantastic question about light bending in the GR Libor Striz <poutnik4REMOVEnntp@CAPITALSgmail.com> - 2018-09-19 02:27 +0200
                      Re: fantastic question about light bending in the GR mitchrae3323@gmail.com - 2018-09-18 17:30 -0700
        Re: fantastic question about light bending in the GR consequently7990662@gmail.com - 2018-09-12 23:29 -0700
          Re: fantastic question about light bending in the GR Libor Striz <poutnik4REMOVEnntp@CAPITALSgmail.com> - 2018-09-13 19:10 +0200
            Re: fantastic question about light bending in the GR consequently7990662@gmail.com - 2018-09-13 18:09 -0700
              Re: fantastic question about light bending in the GR mitchrae3323@gmail.com - 2018-09-13 18:19 -0700
                Re: fantastic question about light bending in the GR numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2018-09-13 18:33 -0700
                  Re: fantastic question about light bending in the GR mitchrae3323@gmail.com - 2018-09-13 19:03 -0700
              Re: fantastic question about light bending in the GR Libor Striz <poutnik4REMOVEnntp@CAPITALSgmail.com> - 2018-09-14 07:50 +0200
                Re: fantastic question about light bending in the GR mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-09-13 23:03 -0700
                Re: fantastic question about light bending in the GR Libor Striz <poutnik4REMOVEnntp@CAPITALSgmail.com> - 2018-09-14 08:28 +0200
                  Re: fantastic question about light bending in the GR mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-09-14 01:52 -0700
                  Re: fantastic question about light bending in the GR Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-09-18 22:01 +0200
                    Re: fantastic question about light bending in the GR Libor Striz <poutnik4REMOVEnntp@CAPITALSgmail.com> - 2018-09-19 01:32 +0200
                Re: fantastic question about light bending in the GR Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-09-18 21:57 +0200
                  Re: fantastic question about light bending in the GR Libor Striz <poutnik4REMOVEnntp@CAPITALSgmail.com> - 2018-09-19 01:47 +0200
                    Re: fantastic question about light bending in the GR mitchrae3323@gmail.com - 2018-09-18 17:00 -0700
                      Re: fantastic question about light bending in the GR mitchrae3323@gmail.com - 2018-09-18 17:03 -0700
        Re: fantastic question about light bending in the GR mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-09-12 23:36 -0700
    Re: fantastic question about light bending in the GR consequently7990662@gmail.com - 2018-09-13 20:33 -0700
      Re: fantastic question about light bending in the GR mitchrae3323@gmail.com - 2018-09-13 20:47 -0700
      Re: fantastic question about light bending in the GR mitchrae3323@gmail.com - 2018-09-13 20:52 -0700
        Re: fantastic question about light bending in the GR consequently7990662@gmail.com - 2018-09-13 21:25 -0700
          Re: fantastic question about light bending in the GR mitchrae3323@gmail.com - 2018-09-13 21:49 -0700
            Re: fantastic question about light bending in the GR consequently7990662@gmail.com - 2018-09-14 13:13 -0700
              Re: fantastic question about light bending in the GR mitchrae3323@gmail.com - 2018-09-14 16:00 -0700
      Re: fantastic question about light bending in the GR Libor Striz <poutnik4REMOVEnntp@CAPITALSgmail.com> - 2018-09-14 07:54 +0200
    fantastic question about light bending in the GR "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-09-16 12:33 -0700

Page 3 of 5 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4 5  Next page →

#472917

JanPB wrote:

>> >> Believing in a moon landing without proofs, is a loose of
>> >> reputation.
>> > 
>> > Believing there was no Moon landing is proof positive of extreme
>> > gullibility and a disconnect from reality bordering on a problem.
>> 
>> Hey listen, in Physics what comes without evidence dismisses without
>> evidence. You have to present your data.
> 
> I don't have to present any "data" that the Sun will rise tomorrow.

Is not about the Sun. But the required moon landing data, which is not 
there. A cold fusion for instance, will not be accepted without the data. 
I must insist.

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

#472919

On Monday, September 24, 2018 at 1:14:14 PM UTC-7, Hilton Packett wrote:
> JanPB wrote:
> 
> >> >> Believing in a moon landing without proofs, is a loose of
> >> >> reputation.
> >> > 
> >> > Believing there was no Moon landing is proof positive of extreme
> >> > gullibility and a disconnect from reality bordering on a problem.
> >> 
> >> Hey listen, in Physics what comes without evidence dismisses without
> >> evidence. You have to present your data.
> > 
> > I don't have to present any "data" that the Sun will rise tomorrow.
> 
> Is not about the Sun. But the required moon landing data, which is not 
> there.

Nonsense. You are just gullible.

--
Jan

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

#472924

JanPB wrote:

> On Monday, September 24, 2018 at 1:14:14 PM UTC-7, Hilton Packett wrote:
>> JanPB wrote:
>> 
>> >> >> Believing in a moon landing without proofs, is a loose of
>> >> >> reputation.
>> >> > 
>> >> > Believing there was no Moon landing is proof positive of extreme
>> >> > gullibility and a disconnect from reality bordering on a problem.
>> >> 
>> >> Hey listen, in Physics what comes without evidence dismisses without
>> >> evidence. You have to present your data.
>> > 
>> > I don't have to present any "data" that the Sun will rise tomorrow.
>> 
>> Is not about the Sun. But the required moon landing data, which is not
>> there.
> 
> Nonsense. You are just gullible.

You are just making a fool of me. You don't believe what nasa says about 
it? No telemetry, blueprints for the rockets, moon lander and everything. 
Nothing. And you are right, they got defounded, got angry and destroyed 
the data.

And for the record, the Sun is Natural thing. A moon landing is entirely 
artificial.

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

#472926

On Monday, September 24, 2018 at 2:45:53 PM UTC-7, Hilton Packett wrote:
> JanPB wrote:
> 
> > On Monday, September 24, 2018 at 1:14:14 PM UTC-7, Hilton Packett wrote:
> >> JanPB wrote:
> >> 
> >> >> >> Believing in a moon landing without proofs, is a loose of
> >> >> >> reputation.
> >> >> > 
> >> >> > Believing there was no Moon landing is proof positive of extreme
> >> >> > gullibility and a disconnect from reality bordering on a problem.
> >> >> 
> >> >> Hey listen, in Physics what comes without evidence dismisses without
> >> >> evidence. You have to present your data.
> >> > 
> >> > I don't have to present any "data" that the Sun will rise tomorrow.
> >> 
> >> Is not about the Sun. But the required moon landing data, which is not
> >> there.
> > 
> > Nonsense. You are just gullible.
> 
> You are just making a fool of me. You don't believe what nasa says about 
> it? No telemetry, blueprints for the rockets, moon lander and everything. 
> Nothing. And you are right, they got defounded, got angry and destroyed 
> the data.
> 
> And for the record, the Sun is Natural thing. A moon landing is entirely 
> artificial.

I have a bridge to sell you. Cheap!

--
Jan

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

#472930

JanPB wrote:

>> >> >> > Believing there was no Moon landing is proof positive of
>> >> >> > extreme gullibility and a disconnect from reality bordering on
>> >> >> > a problem.
>> >> >> 
>> >> >> Hey listen, in Physics what comes without evidence dismisses
>> >> >> without evidence. You have to present your data.
>> >> > 
>> >> > I don't have to present any "data" that the Sun will rise
>> >> > tomorrow.
>> >> 
>> >> Is not about the Sun. But the required moon landing data, which is
>> >> not there.
>> > 
>> > Nonsense. You are just gullible.
>> 
>> You are just making a fool of me. You don't believe what nasa says
>> about it? No telemetry, blueprints for the rockets, moon lander and
>> everything. Nothing. And you are right, they got defounded, got angry
>> and destroyed the data. And for the record, the Sun is Natural thing. A
>> moon landing is entirely artificial.
> 
> I have a bridge to sell you. Cheap!

Of course you evade, being beaten, cornered facing the facts. Wonderful 
goods from you, man. I have understand your stuff prior to and you’re just 
extremely fantastic. I actually like what you’ve got right here, certainly 
like what you are saying and the way in which by which you assert it. You 
make it enjoyable and you still take care of to keep it smart. I can’t 
wait to learn far more from you. That is actually a wonderful web site.

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

#472932

On Monday, September 24, 2018 at 3:30:17 PM UTC-7, Hilton Packett wrote:
> JanPB wrote:
> 
> >> >> >> > Believing there was no Moon landing is proof positive of
> >> >> >> > extreme gullibility and a disconnect from reality bordering on
> >> >> >> > a problem.
> >> >> >> 
> >> >> >> Hey listen, in Physics what comes without evidence dismisses
> >> >> >> without evidence. You have to present your data.
> >> >> > 
> >> >> > I don't have to present any "data" that the Sun will rise
> >> >> > tomorrow.
> >> >> 
> >> >> Is not about the Sun. But the required moon landing data, which is
> >> >> not there.
> >> > 
> >> > Nonsense. You are just gullible.
> >> 
> >> You are just making a fool of me. You don't believe what nasa says
> >> about it? No telemetry, blueprints for the rockets, moon lander and
> >> everything. Nothing. And you are right, they got defounded, got angry
> >> and destroyed the data. And for the record, the Sun is Natural thing. A
> >> moon landing is entirely artificial.
> > 
> > I have a bridge to sell you. Cheap!
> 
> Of course you evade, being beaten, cornered facing the facts.

What facts? All you have is talk, moonshine, and dreamland fueled by
some sort of inferiority complex which makes you believe any idiocy under
the sun as long as it appears sufficiently "secret". See a therapist.

--
Jan

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

#472934

JanPB wrote:

>> >> >> Is not about the Sun. But the required moon landing data, which
>> >> >> is not there.
>> >> > 
>> >> > Nonsense. You are just gullible.
>> >> 
>> >> You are just making a fool of me. You don't believe what nasa says
>> >> about it? No telemetry, blueprints for the rockets, moon lander and
>> >> everything. Nothing. And you are right, they got defounded, got
>> >> angry and destroyed the data. And for the record, the Sun is Natural
>> >> thing.
>> >> A moon landing is entirely artificial.
>> > 
>> > I have a bridge to sell you. Cheap!
>> 
>> Of course you evade, being beaten, cornered facing the facts.
> 
> What facts? All you have is talk, moonshine, and dreamland fueled by
> some sort of inferiority complex which makes you believe any idiocy
> under the sun as long as it appears sufficiently "secret". See a
> therapist.

They are saying it, not me. You must feel inferior, loosing the argument. 
I can't believe a PLC programmer can be so ludicrous in science and 
physics. Do you still have the phonenumber to that therapist? 

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

#472966

On Monday, September 24, 2018 at 3:47:05 PM UTC-7, Hilton Packett wrote:
> JanPB wrote:
> 
> >> >> >> Is not about the Sun. But the required moon landing data, which
> >> >> >> is not there.
> >> >> > 
> >> >> > Nonsense. You are just gullible.
> >> >> 
> >> >> You are just making a fool of me. You don't believe what nasa says
> >> >> about it? No telemetry, blueprints for the rockets, moon lander and
> >> >> everything. Nothing. And you are right, they got defounded, got
> >> >> angry and destroyed the data. And for the record, the Sun is Natural
> >> >> thing.
> >> >> A moon landing is entirely artificial.
> >> > 
> >> > I have a bridge to sell you. Cheap!
> >> 
> >> Of course you evade, being beaten, cornered facing the facts.
> > 
> > What facts? All you have is talk, moonshine, and dreamland fueled by
> > some sort of inferiority complex which makes you believe any idiocy
> > under the sun as long as it appears sufficiently "secret". See a
> > therapist.
> 
> They are saying it, not me. You must feel inferior, loosing the argument. 
> I can't believe a PLC programmer can be so ludicrous in science and 
> physics. Do you still have the phonenumber to that therapist?

You make claims, you prove them. Otherwise keep everyone out of your problems.

--
Jan

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

#473022

JanPB wrote:

> On Monday, September 24, 2018 at 3:47:05 PM UTC-7, Hilton Packett wrote:
>> JanPB wrote:
>> >> >> >> Is not about the Sun. But the required moon landing data,
>> >> >> >> which is not there.
>> They are saying it, not me. You must feel inferior, loosing the
>> argument.
> 
> You make claims, you prove them. Otherwise keep everyone out of your
> problems.

You are going to rewrite the history, nothing new here. 

Your weak link is that YOU ain't delivering the required data, for 
repetitiveness of something even today unachievable. Even Wikipedia is 
bashing you.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method#Overview
"The scientific method is of necessity also an expression of an 
_OPPOSITION_ to _CLAIMS_ that e.g. revelation, political or religious 
dogma, moon landings, appeals to tradition, commonly held beliefs, common 
sense, or, importantly, currently held theories, are the only possible 
means of demonstrating truth. "


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method#Data_recording_and_sharing
"Scientists typically are careful in recording their _DATA_, a 
_requirement_ promoted by Ludwik Fleck (1896–1961) and others.[51] Though 
not typically required, they might be requested to supply this data to 
other scientists who wish to _REPLICATE_ their _original results_ (or 
parts of their original results), extending to the sharing of any 
experimental samples that may be difficult to obtain.[52]"

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

#473073

On Tuesday, September 25, 2018 at 7:57:34 AM UTC-7, Hilton Packett wrote:
> JanPB wrote:
> 
> > On Monday, September 24, 2018 at 3:47:05 PM UTC-7, Hilton Packett wrote:
> >> JanPB wrote:
> >> >> >> >> Is not about the Sun. But the required moon landing data,
> >> >> >> >> which is not there.
> >> They are saying it, not me. You must feel inferior, loosing the
> >> argument.
> > 
> > You make claims, you prove them. Otherwise keep everyone out of your
> > problems.
> 
> You are going to rewrite the history, nothing new here. 
> 
> Your weak link is that YOU ain't delivering the required data, for 
> repetitiveness of something even today unachievable. Even Wikipedia is 
> bashing you.
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method#Overview
> "The scientific method is of necessity also an expression of an 
> _OPPOSITION_ to _CLAIMS_ that e.g. revelation, political or religious 
> dogma, moon landings, appeals to tradition, commonly held beliefs, common 
> sense, or, importantly, currently held theories, are the only possible 
> means of demonstrating truth. "
> 
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method#Data_recording_and_sharing
> "Scientists typically are careful in recording their _DATA_, a 
> _requirement_ promoted by Ludwik Fleck (1896–1961) and others.[51] Though 
> not typically required, they might be requested to supply this data to 
> other scientists who wish to _REPLICATE_ their _original results_ (or 
> parts of their original results), extending to the sharing of any 
> experimental samples that may be difficult to obtain.[52]"

Still no proof. Total absurdity.

--
Jan

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

#473312

JanPB wrote:

>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
Scientific_method#Data_recording_and_sharing
>> "Scientists typically are careful in recording their _DATA_, a
>> _requirement_ promoted by Ludwik Fleck (1896–1961) and others.[51]
>> Though not typically required, they might be requested to supply this
>> data to other scientists who wish to _REPLICATE_ their _original
>> results_ (or parts of their original results), extending to the sharing
>> of any experimental samples that may be difficult to obtain.[52]"
> 
> Still no proof. Total absurdity.

You are a hard nut to crack. Nobody will gonna trust your tensors from now 
on.

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

#472709

W dniu sobota, 22 września 2018 04:43:39 UTC+2 użytkownik JanPB napisał:
> On Thursday, September 20, 2018 at 3:48:17 PM UTC-7, al...@interia.pl wrote:
> > W dniu czwartek, 20 września 2018 21:15:22 UTC+2 użytkownik JanPB napisał:
> > > On Thursday, September 20, 2018 at 9:29:59 AM UTC-7, al...@interia.pl wrote:
> > > > W dniu środa, 19 września 2018 21:22:08 UTC+2 użytkownik JanPB napisał:
> > > > 
> > > > > You cannot change facts. Which happen to be: I know this stuff and you don't.
> > > > 
> > > > But you know nothing, unfortunately!
> > > 
> > > Sorry, this is going to stop here. There is nothing I can tell you that would
> > > fix your problem.
> > 
> > Indeed. You reputation lost in the fog of your pointless replies = claims and delusions.
> 
> Dream on. Silly goose.
> 
> --
> Jan

Simple test for your competence in the math:

r' = dr/dt = (1-a/r) sqrt(1 - h^2/r^2 * 1/(1-a/r))
f' = df/dt = h/r^2

where:
a = 3km,
h = R*sqrt(1-a/r); R = 0.7e6 km, sun's radius.

Derive the light path using these equations:
r(t) = x(t), y(t);

What is the deflection angle, and a time delay - the so-called Shapiro delay?

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

#472717

alsor@interia.pl wrote:
> Simple test for your competence in the math:
> 
> r' = dr/dt = (1-a/r) sqrt(1 - h^2/r^2 * 1/(1-a/r))
> f' = df/dt = h/r^2
>
> where:
> a = 3km,
> h = R*sqrt(1-a/r); R = 0.7e6 km, sun's radius.

It should be blatantly obvious even to you that dr∕dt is the component of
a velocity in the r-direction, and not a transformed coordinate r';
similarly for f and f'.

-- 
PointedEars

Twitter: @PointedEars2
Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.

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

#472726

W dniu sobota, 22 września 2018 19:57:39 UTC+2 użytkownik Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn napisał:

> > Simple test for your competence in the math:
> > 
> > r' = dr/dt = (1-a/r) sqrt(1 - h^2/r^2 * 1/(1-a/r))
> > f' = df/dt = h/r^2
> >
> > where:
> > a = 3km,
> > h = R*sqrt(1-a/r); R = 0.7e6 km, sun's radius.
> 
> It should be blatantly obvious even to you that dr∕dt is the component of
> a velocity in the r-direction, and not a transformed coordinate r';
> similarly for f and f'.

Very good at beginning - you known the polar coordinates!

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

#472767

alsor@interia.pl wrote:
> W dniu sobota, 22 września 2018 19:57:39 UTC+2 użytkownik Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn napisał:
>>> Simple test for your competence in the math:
>>>
>>> r' = dr/dt = (1-a/r) sqrt(1 - h^2/r^2 * 1/(1-a/r))
>>> f' = df/dt = h/r^2
>>>
>>> where:
>>> a = 3km,
>>> h = R*sqrt(1-a/r); R = 0.7e6 km, sun's radius.
>>
>> It should be blatantly obvious even to you that dr∕dt is the component of
>> a velocity in the r-direction, and not a transformed coordinate r';
>> similarly for f and f'.
> 
> Very good at beginning - you known the polar coordinates!

By contrast, you fail at basic dimensional analysis already:

  [a]  = 1 km = [length]
  [h]  = [length] × [√(1 − [length]∕[length])] = [length] × 1 = [length]

  [r'] = [(1 − [a]∕[r]) [sqrt(1 − [h²]∕[r²] × [1∕(1 − [a]∕[r])]]
       = [(1 − [length]∕[length])
          × [√(1 − [length]²∕[length]² × [1∕(1 − [length]∕[length])]]
       = 1 × [√(1 − 1 × 1)] = 1.

A speed usually has units of [length]∕[time] = [length] × [time]⁻¹,
but certainly units of *some* dimension D (other than time) *over time*:
[speed] = D × [time]⁻¹.

So per the far right-hand side of the first equation, r' is not a speed;
yet the differential quotient dr∕dt that you set it equal to in the near
right-hand side of the first equation says that is a speed.

Further,

  [R]  = 1 km = [length]
  [r]  = [length]
  [f'] = [h]∕[r²] = [length]∕[length]² = 1∕[length] = [length]⁻¹.

A speed usually has units of [length]∕[time] = [length] × [time]⁻¹,
but certainly units of some dimension D (other than time) *over time*:
[speed] = D × [time]⁻¹.

So per the far right-hand side of the second equation, f' is not a speed;
yet the differential quotient df∕dt that you set it equal to in the near
right-hand side of the second equation says that would be a speed.

Conclusion: You have no clue what you are talking about.  All you have
produced so far is, as Tom Roberts put it so aptly, “chicken scratches”.

Also, did you not just say goodbye?  But in fact you yearn for more troll
food, yes?

-- 
PointedEars

Twitter: @PointedEars2
Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.

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

#472802

W dniu niedziela, 23 września 2018 08:58:36 UTC+2 użytkownik Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn napisał:

> >>> r' = dr/dt = (1-a/r) sqrt(1 - h^2/r^2 * 1/(1-a/r))
> >>> f' = df/dt = h/r^2
> >>>
> >>> where:
> >>> a = 3km,
> >>> h = R*sqrt(1-a/r); R = 0.7e6 km, sun's radius.
> >>
> >> It should be blatantly obvious even to you that dr∕dt is the component of
> >> a velocity in the r-direction, and not a transformed coordinate r';
> >> similarly for f and f'.
> > 
> > Very good at beginning - you known the polar coordinates!
> 
> By contrast, you fail at basic dimensional analysis already:
> 
>   [a]  = 1 km = [length]
>   [h]  = [length] × [√(1 − [length]∕[length])] = [length] × 1 = [length]
> 
>   [r'] = [(1 − [a]∕[r]) [sqrt(1 − [h²]∕[r²] × [1∕(1 − [a]∕[r])]]
>        = [(1 − [length]∕[length])
>           × [√(1 − [length]²∕[length]² × [1∕(1 − [length]∕[length])]]
>        = 1 × [√(1 − 1 × 1)] = 1.
> 
> A speed usually has units of [length]∕[time] = [length] × [time]⁻¹,
> but certainly units of *some* dimension D (other than time) *over time*:
> [speed] = D × [time]⁻¹.
> 
> So per the far right-hand side of the first equation, r' is not a speed;
> yet the differential quotient dr∕dt that you set it equal to in the near
> right-hand side of the first equation says that is a speed.
> 
> Further,
> 
>   [R]  = 1 km = [length]
>   [r]  = [length]
>   [f'] = [h]∕[r²] = [length]∕[length]² = 1∕[length] = [length]⁻¹.
> 
> A speed usually has units of [length]∕[time] = [length] × [time]⁻¹,
> but certainly units of some dimension D (other than time) *over time*:
> [speed] = D × [time]⁻¹.
> 
> So per the far right-hand side of the second equation, f' is not a speed;
> yet the differential quotient df∕dt that you set it equal to in the near
> right-hand side of the second equation says that would be a speed.
> 
> Conclusion: You have no clue what you are talking about.  All you have
> produced so far is, as Tom Roberts put it so aptly, “chicken scratches”.
> 
> Also, did you not just say goodbye?  But in fact you yearn for more troll
> food, yes?

You are stupid still more!

The math equation is a pure numbers relation - dimensionless.

And if you need these dims, then you simply introduce some units of measure:

r' -> c0 r'; for c0 = unit of a speed, you used.

I used c0 = 1, thus it's invisible.

h = c x r = c_t r = wr r = wr^2 = df/dt r^2 = R * sqrt(1-a/R) = const.

c_r = r' = ...

thus:
r_vec' = c_vec = c_r * r^0 + c_t f^0 = ...

ect.

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

#472805

alsor@interia.pl wrote:
> […] Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn [wrote]:
>> alsor@interia.pl wrote:
>>> r' = dr/dt = (1-a/r) sqrt(1 - h^2/r^2 * 1/(1-a/r))
>>> f' = df/dt = h/r^2
>>>
>>> where:
>>> a = 3km,
        ^^^
>>> h = R*sqrt(1-a/r); R = 0.7e6 km, sun's radius.
                                 ^^
>> […] By contrast, you fail at basic dimensional analysis already: […]
>
> You are stupid still more!

You are confused: *You* are the stupid one here.

> The math equation is a pure numbers relation - dimensionless.

Not even wrong.

> And if you need these dims, then you simply introduce some units of
> measure:

You already introduced them, stupid.

-- 
PointedEars

Twitter: @PointedEars2
Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.

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

#472813

W dniu niedziela, 23 września 2018 18:29:42 UTC+2 użytkownik Thomas 
> > […] Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn [wrote]:

> >>> r' = dr/dt = (1-a/r) sqrt(1 - h^2/r^2 * 1/(1-a/r))
> >>> f' = df/dt = h/r^2
> >>>
> >>> where:
> >>> a = 3km,
>         ^^^

a/r: this is a number - Yes/No.
h/r - what this is?

for unit c = 1 you get numbers:

a = 3km/3e5km/s = 1e-5 [s]; because c ~= 3e5 km/s in the standard units.
R = 0.7e6 km / 3e5 ~= 2.3 [s]

1au = 150e6 km/3e5 = 500 [s]

h = R sqrt(1-a/R) = 2.3 * sqrt(1-1e-5/2.3) = ...

a/R = 1e-5 / 2.3

So:
a = 1e-5; R = 2.3; h = ...

Use these numbers and compute: the deflection angle and a time delay of light.

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

#472817

alsor@interia.pl wrote:
> W dniu niedziela, 23 września 2018 18:29:42 UTC+2 użytkownik Thomas 
>>> […] Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn [wrote]:
>>>>> r' = dr/dt = (1-a/r) sqrt(1 - h^2/r^2 * 1/(1-a/r))
>>>>> f' = df/dt = h/r^2
>>>>>
>>>>> where:
>>>>> a = 3km,
>>         ^^^
> 
> a/r: this is a number - Yes/No.

No.  That should be obvious even to you.

> h/r - what this is?
>  
> for unit c = 1 you get numbers:

Obviously not.

> a = 3km/3e5km/s = 1e-5 [s]; because c ~= 3e5 km/s in the standard units.

But not only is that not what you wrote, it is also complete and utter nonsense.

a has to have dimensions of length, not time.

> R = 0.7e6 km / 3e5 ~= 2.3 [s]

So R was not a number, …

> 1au = 150e6 km/3e5 = 500 [s]
> 
> h = R sqrt(1-a/R) = 2.3 * sqrt(1-1e-5/2.3) = ...

… and as you defined h to depend on R, h was not a number either.

Go back to elementary school.

-- 
PointedEars

Twitter: @PointedEars2
Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.

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

#472820

W dniu niedziela, 23 września 2018 20:37:08 UTC+2 użytkownik Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn napisał:

> > W dniu niedziela, 23 września 2018 18:29:42 UTC+2 użytkownik Thomas 
> >>> […] Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn [wrote]:
> >>>>> r' = dr/dt = (1-a/r) sqrt(1 - h^2/r^2 * 1/(1-a/r))
> >>>>> f' = df/dt = h/r^2
> >>>>>
> >>>>> where:
> >>>>> a = 3km,
> >>         ^^^
> > 
> > a/r: this is a number - Yes/No.
> 
> No.  That should be obvious even to you.
> 
> > h/r - what this is?
> >  
> > for unit c = 1 you get numbers:
> 
> Obviously not.
> 
> > a = 3km/3e5km/s = 1e-5 [s]; because c ~= 3e5 km/s in the standard units.
> 
> But not only is that not what you wrote, it is also complete and utter nonsense.
> 
> a has to have dimensions of length, not time.
> 
> > R = 0.7e6 km / 3e5 ~= 2.3 [s]
> 
> So R was not a number, …
> 
> > 1au = 150e6 km/3e5 = 500 [s]
> > 
> > h = R sqrt(1-a/R) = 2.3 * sqrt(1-1e-5/2.3) = ...
> 
> … and as you defined h to depend on R, h was not a number either.
> 
> Go back to elementary school.


OK.
You noticed already you are unable to solve any equation.

So, what do yo do in the math based science?

You should go to some other - an easier domain,
like astrology, demonology, big bang - pseudo-cosmology,
quantum fantasy with imaginary quantum time,
cinematography, propaganda, politics, ect.

[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