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

Groups > sci.physics > #605590 > unrolled thread

Re: This is your guru

Back to article view | Back to sci.physics

This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.

Contents

  Re: This is your guru Norberto Haman <norberman@norberman.info> - 2016-11-20 20:32 +0000
    Re: This is your guru Steven Carlip <carlip@physics.ucdavis.edu> - 2016-11-20 15:54 -0800
      Re: This is your guru Maryann Tonn <libradaz@libradazert.info> - 2016-11-21 15:00 +0000
        Re: This is your guru Steven Carlip <carlip@physics.ucdavis.edu> - 2016-11-21 19:16 -0800
          Re: This is your guru Maryann Tonn <libradaz@libradazert.info> - 2016-11-22 10:39 +0000
            Re: This is your guru Maryann Tonn <libradaz@libradazert.info> - 2016-11-22 11:24 +0000
              Re: This is your guru Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2016-11-22 12:13 +0000
            Re: This is your guru benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2016-11-22 17:37 -0500
            Re: This is your guru Steven Carlip <carlip@physics.ucdavis.edu> - 2016-11-22 22:57 -0800
              Re: This is your guru Dusty Kollman <uberdriver@uberdriver.info> - 2016-11-23 13:37 +0000
                Re: This is your guru Dusty Kollman <uberdriver@uberdriver.info> - 2016-11-23 14:27 +0000
                  Re: This is your guru Dusty Kollman <uberdriver@uberdriver.info> - 2016-11-23 14:56 +0000
                Re: This is your guru Steven Carlip <carlip@physics.ucdavis.edu> - 2016-11-23 10:46 -0800
                  Re: This is your guru Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-11-23 23:21 +0100
                    Re: This is your guru Bob Goodman <bobg@boobgodman.info> - 2016-11-23 22:58 +0000
                      Re: This is your guru Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-11-25 20:00 +0100
              Re: This is your guru john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-11-23 05:39 -0800
                Re: This is your guru Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-11-23 19:25 +0100
                  Re: This is your guru Dusty Kollman <uberdriver@uberdriver.info> - 2016-11-23 18:28 +0000
                    Re: This is your guru Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-11-23 19:37 +0100
                      Re: This is your guru Dusty Kollman <uberdriver@uberdriver.info> - 2016-11-23 18:39 +0000
                Re: This is your guru edprochak@gmail.com - 2016-11-23 10:51 -0800
              Re: This is your guru Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-11-23 09:24 -0600
                Re: This is your guru Dusty Kollman <uberdriver@uberdriver.info> - 2016-11-23 15:33 +0000
                Re: This is your guru Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-11-23 23:23 +0100
                  Re: This is your guru john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-11-23 14:58 -0800
              Re: This is your guru edprochak@gmail.com - 2016-11-23 10:49 -0800
        Re: This is your guru poraty350@gmail.com - 2016-11-26 01:51 -0800

Page 2 of 2 — ← Prev page 1 [2]

#606167

Poutnik wrote:

> On 11/23/2016 07:28 PM, Dusty Kollman wrote:
>> Poutnik wrote:
>>
>>> On 11/23/2016 02:39 PM, john wrote:
> 
>>>> It's a perfect analogy.
>>>> Except that Gravity, which is caused by emissions from electrons with
>>>> vibrations in the 50 attoseconds range (electron period 100
>>>> attoseconds) is travelling at least 10 times faster than light.
>>>
>>> Can you refer laboratories that were successful in reproducing the
>>> confirming experiment ?
>>
>> What for, you are not gonna pretend you'll also understand. Infact, you
>> are not even really interested.
> 
> He cannot refer them.
> You are not even able to recognize a sarcastic question.

Yes, since you carefully omitted the sarcastic marks.

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

#606171

On Wednesday, November 23, 2016 at 8:39:58 AM UTC-5, john wrote:
> Carlip
> "
> 
> As a matter of fact, this is not a bad analogy.  I may use it the 
> next time I teach GR, probably next fall.  If you give me your 
> real name, I'll be happy to credit you. 
> 
> Steve "
> 
> It's a perfect analogy.
> Except that Gravity, which is
> caused by emissions 
> from electrons with vibrations
> in the 50 attoseconds range
> (electron period 100 attoseconds)
> is travelling at least 10 times faster than
> light.

and you measured this how?????????????
IF YOU DID, I WILL GLADLY WORK TO GET YOU THE NOBEL PRIZE.
ed

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

#606116

On 11/23/2016 12:57 AM, Steven Carlip wrote:
> As a matter of fact, this is not a bad analogy.  I may use it the
> next time I teach GR, probably next fall.  If you give me your
> real name, I'll be happy to credit you.
>
> Steve Carlip

I'm going to wager he doesn't remember it anymore.

-- 
Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

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

#606119

Odd Bodkin wrote:

> On 11/23/2016 12:57 AM, Steven Carlip wrote:
>> As a matter of fact, this is not a bad analogy.  I may use it the next
>> time I teach GR, probably next fall.  If you give me your real name,
>> I'll be happy to credit you. Steve Carlip
> 
> I'm going to wager he doesn't remember it anymore.

Since you admittedly are boring stupid, you gonna fervently wager for a 
period of time. Just let Dr. Steven kindly mention Dr. Maryann, if he 
really want to.

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

#606240

Odd Bodkin wrote:

> On 11/23/2016 12:57 AM, Steven Carlip wrote:
>> As a matter of fact, this is not a bad analogy.  I may use it the
>> next time I teach GR, probably next fall.  If you give me your
>> real name, I'll be happy to credit you.
> 
> I'm going to wager he doesn't remember it anymore.

I see your wager and raise you that they do not even know whether they are a 
“he” or a “she”.
 
-- 
PointedEars

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

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

#606256

Haha. 
Odd and Thomas awaaaaay 

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

#606170

On Wednesday, November 23, 2016 at 1:57:52 AM UTC-5, Steven Carlip wrote:
> On 11/22/16 2:39 AM, Maryann Tonn wrote:
> > Steven Carlip wrote:
> 
> >>> Maryann Tonn wrote:
> >>> On to the subject, gravity cannot possibly travel at any speed, since
> >>> is a geometry, curvature in GR, hence similar to the projection of a
> >>> shadow. No matter how fast or slow you shake your head, its shadow will
> >>> never leave the association with your head. Your gravity "field" is to
> >>> Matter/Mass what a Shadow is for an opaque object.
> 
> >> Not the best analogy, but it will do for a start.  Suppose your head is
> >> casting a shadow on a wall a meter away.  When you move your head,
> >> do you think the shadow moves instantaneously? Steve Carlip
> 
> > Nonsense. The point you fail to catch, is that the shadow, your head's
> > projection, the geometry, NEVER leaves your head, as your Gravity "field"
> > supposedly does by travelling "in waves" from your head to another head.
> 
> You want to change the subject again?  OK, we can do that.
> 
> As I said, a shadow isn't the best analogy, but it will do.  I notice
> that you didn't answer my question, so let me answer it for you.  If
> your head casts a shadow on a wall a meter away and you move your head,
> the shadow won't move instantaneously -- it will move about three
> nanoseconds later.  (The light that has already passed your head will
> keep going, and will take about three nanoseconds to reach the wall;
> it's only after that's happened that the shadow will move.)
> 
> So now, move your head and then quickly move it back again to its
> starting position.  One meter away, your shadow will be suddenly
> wiggle three nanoseconds after you've moved your head, and then
> return to its original position.  Two meters away, your shadow will
> be still for six nanoseconds, then suddenly wiggle, then return to
> its original position.  Three meters way, the same thing will happen
> after nine nanoseconds.  The wiggle in your shadow will continue to
> propagate out at the speed of light as long as there's a shadow at
> all.
> 
> You can say that the shadow is still attached to your head, and in
> some sense that's true, but it's attached to where your head was
> in the past, not to where it is now.  Once the wiggle in your
> shadow has started out, you can't call it back; you can make more
> wiggles by moving your head more, but the original won't be affected.
> The changing pattern of light that you initiated by wiggling your
> head has escaped you, and is traveling off at the speed of light;
> it's beyond your command.
> 
> Gravity is a little more complicated -- it takes more than one
> number ("how much light") to describe spacetime curvature, and
> there are conservation laws that come in, so you get things like
> quadrupole radiation and velocity-dependent effects.  But the
> basic idea is the same.
> 
> As a matter of fact, this is not a bad analogy.  I may use it the
> next time I teach GR, probably next fall.  If you give me your
> real name, I'll be happy to credit you.
> 
> Steve Carlip


hey that is a nice analogy. Good teamwork.
see what calm discussion can get us?

ed

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

#606519

On Monday, November 21, 2016 at 5:01:04 PM UTC+2, Maryann Tonn wrote:
> Steven Carlip wrote:
> 
> >> What fields, GR is not about fields. Reread your books immediately.
> >> What Einstein did then was strongly presumable something under his
> >> Aether umbrella. You too misunderstood the entire process.
> > 
> > Let me make three suggestions:
> > 1. Learn what the word "field" means in physics.
> 
> Irrelevant to the subject, but did you?
> 
> > 2. Before you start talking about what Einstein did, read a little
> > Einstein.  You could start with the basic paper on GR, Die Grundlage der
> 
> Nothing
> 
> > 3. Try responding to content, rather than looking for semantic tricks.
> > Steve Carlip
> 
> I would opt for 3. if I were you.
> 
> On to the subject, gravity cannot possibly travel at any speed, since is a 
> geometry, curvature in GR,
================================
Your mother has curvature !!

apace has no  properties except hosting mass!!
got it block   head  parrot ??
the sooner you will get it =the better !!
===========================================
NO MASS 'THE ONLY MASS!! - NO REAL PHYSICS !!
==========================================
===========================================
NASS IS THE MOTHER OF ALL FORCES - INCLUDING GRAVITY 
=============================================
---------

Y.Porat

=========
 

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Page 2 of 2 — ← Prev page 1 [2]

Back to top | Article view | sci.physics

csiph-web