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

Groups > sci.physics > #529458 > unrolled thread

Some Facts about Space, Time and Infinity

Back to article view | Back to sci.physics

Contents

  Some Facts about Space, Time and Infinity ..@..(Henry Wilson DSc.) - 2015-11-01 05:40 +1100
    Re: Some Facts about Space, Time and Infinity Wayne Olmstead <wayols@eclipseevenet.org> - 2015-10-31 18:47 +0000
      Re: Some Facts about Space, Time and Infinity HGW <xxx@....> - 2015-11-01 15:45 +1100
    Re: Some Facts about Space, Time and Infinity "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2015-10-31 11:58 -0700
      Re: Some Facts about Space, Time and Infinity Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2015-10-31 14:58 -0500
        Re: Some Facts about Space, Time and Infinity "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2015-10-31 21:54 -0700
          Re: Some Facts about Space, Time and Infinity Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2015-11-01 07:52 -0600
            Re: Some Facts about Space, Time and Infinity benj <none@gmail.com> - 2015-11-01 10:14 -0500
              Re: Some Facts about Space, Time and Infinity HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2015-11-06 08:23 -0800
            Re: Some Facts about Space, Time and Infinity "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2015-11-01 10:32 -0800
              Re: Some Facts about Space, Time and Infinity Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2015-11-01 13:02 -0600
                Re: Some Facts about Space, Time and Infinity "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2015-11-01 11:13 -0800
                  Re: Some Facts about Space, Time and Infinity Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2015-11-01 13:24 -0600
                    Re: Some Facts about Space, Time and Infinity "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2015-11-01 11:34 -0800
                      Re: Some Facts about Space, Time and Infinity Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2015-11-01 13:43 -0600
                        Re: Some Facts about Space, Time and Infinity "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2015-11-01 11:55 -0800
          Re: Some Facts about Space, Time and Infinity noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2015-11-04 14:15 -0800
            Re: Some Facts about Space, Time and Infinity "reber g=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> - 2015-11-04 14:49 -0800
              Re: Some Facts about Space, Time and Infinity benj <none@gmail.com> - 2015-11-04 18:26 -0500
        Re: Some Facts about Space, Time and Infinity "reber g=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> - 2015-11-08 09:36 -0800
    Re: Some Facts about Space, Time and Infinity Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2015-10-31 14:51 -0500
      Re: Some Facts about Space, Time and Infinity HGW <xxx@....> - 2015-11-01 16:12 +1100
        Re: Some Facts about Space, Time and Infinity Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2015-11-01 07:57 -0600
          Re: Some Facts about Space, Time and Infinity kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> - 2015-11-01 10:03 -0500
            Re: Some Facts about Space, Time and Infinity Wayne Olmstead <wayols@eclipseevenet.org> - 2015-11-01 15:08 +0000
          Re: Some Facts about Space, Time and Infinity ..@..(Henry Wilson DSc.) - 2015-11-02 04:44 +1100
            Re: Some Facts about Space, Time and Infinity Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2015-11-01 13:05 -0600
              Re: Some Facts about Space, Time and Infinity HGW <xxx@....> - 2015-11-02 08:16 +1100
                Re: Some Facts about Space, Time and Infinity "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2015-11-01 13:32 -0800
                Re: Some Facts about Space, Time and Infinity Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2015-11-01 19:28 -0600
                  Re: Some Facts about Space, Time and Infinity ..@..(Henry Wilson DSc.) - 2015-11-03 01:51 +1100
                    Re: Some Facts about Space, Time and Infinity Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2015-11-02 09:07 -0600
                      Re: Some Facts about Space, Time and Infinity ..@..(Henry Wilson DSc.) - 2015-11-03 06:58 +1100
                        Re: Some Facts about Space, Time and Infinity Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2015-11-02 14:09 -0600
                          Re: Some Facts about Space, Time and Infinity HGW <xxx@....> - 2015-11-04 16:30 +1100
                          Re: Some Facts about Space, Time and Infinity "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2015-11-04 06:07 -0800
                            Re: Some Facts about Space, Time and Infinity Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2015-11-04 11:42 -0600
                              Re: Some Facts about Space, Time and Infinity "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2015-11-04 11:44 -0800
                                Re: Some Facts about Space, Time and Infinity Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2015-11-04 13:57 -0600
                                  Re: Some Facts about Space, Time and Infinity "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2015-11-04 15:02 -0800
                                    Re: Some Facts about Space, Time and Infinity Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2015-11-04 17:14 -0600
                                      Re: Some Facts about Space, Time and Infinity "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2015-11-04 15:55 -0800
                                Re: Some Facts about Space, Time and Infinity The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-11-04 19:26 -0800
                                  Re: Some Facts about Space, Time and Infinity "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2015-11-04 19:47 -0800
                                    Re: Some Facts about Space, Time and Infinity The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-11-05 15:33 -0800
                                      Re: Some Facts about Space, Time and Infinity Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2015-11-05 17:44 -0600
                                      Re: Some Facts about Space, Time and Infinity "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2015-11-05 16:04 -0800
                                        Re: Some Facts about Space, Time and Infinity noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2015-11-05 19:42 -0800
                Re: Some Facts about Space, Time and Infinity "reber g=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> - 2015-11-04 14:50 -0800
    Re: Some Facts about Space, Time and Infinity alt.fan.jai-maharaj@googlegroups.com (Dr. Jai Maharaj) - 2015-10-31 19:52 +0000
    Re: Some Facts about Space, Time and Infinity The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-11-01 22:36 -0800
      Re: Some Facts about Space, Time and Infinity ..@..(Henry Wilson DSc.) - 2015-11-03 01:52 +1100
        Re: Some Facts about Space, Time and Infinity The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-11-02 08:59 -0800
          Re: Some Facts about Space, Time and Infinity Henry Wilson <HW@home.com> - 2015-11-06 09:10 +0000
            time is not a dimension per se (it is awareness of dimensionality noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2015-11-07 18:04 -0800
    Re: Some Facts about Space, Time and Infinity "Y.Porat" <y.y.porat@gmail.com> - 2015-11-01 22:46 -0800
    Re: Some Facts about Space, Time and Infinity "Y.Porat" <y.y.porat@gmail.com> - 2015-11-07 00:00 -0800
      Re: Some Facts about Space, Time and Infinity noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2015-11-08 08:58 -0800
        Re: Some Facts about Space, Time and Infinity "Y.Porat" <y.y.porat@gmail.com> - 2015-11-09 05:47 -0800

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

#529484

On 10/31/15 1:40 PM, Henry Wilson DSc. wrote:
> Humans are surrounded by objects that often move. Those objects are defined in
> terms of spatial intervals and their movements in time intervals.

   One must define the movement of an object with respect to some
   other object as there are no reference frames of an absolute nature.

   Galileo, Newton and Einstein all understood this, but I'm not sure
   that Henry Wilson DSc. knows this.

   Student understanding of time in special relativity: simultaneity
   and reference frames
 > http://arxiv.org/pdf/physics/0207109.pdf?origin=publication_detail

 > This article reports on an investigation of student understanding of
 > the concept of time in special relativity. A series of research tasks
 > are discussed that illustrate, step-by-step, how student reasoning of
 > fundamental concepts of relativity was probed. The results indicate
 > that after standard instruction students at all academic levels have
 > serious difficulties with the relativity of simultaneity and with the
 > role of observers in inertial reference frames. Evidence is presented
 > that suggests many students construct a conceptual framework in which
 > the ideas of absolute simultaneity and the relativity of simultaneity
 > harmoniously co-exist.


-- 

sci.physics is an unmoderated newsgroup dedicated
to the discussion of physics, news from the physics
community, and physics-related social issues.

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

#529637

On Sat, 31 Oct 2015 14:51:06 -0500, Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> wrote:

>On 10/31/15 1:40 PM, Henry Wilson DSc. wrote:
>> Humans are surrounded by objects that often move. Those objects are defined in
>> terms of spatial intervals and their movements in time intervals.
>
>   One must define the movement of an object with respect to some
>   other object as there are no reference frames of an absolute nature.
>
>   Galileo, Newton and Einstein all understood this, but I'm not sure
>   that Henry Wilson DSc. knows this.
>
>   Student understanding of time in special relativity: simultaneity
>   and reference frames
> > http://arxiv.org/pdf/physics/0207109.pdf?origin=publication_detail
>
> > This article reports on an investigation of student understanding of
> > the concept of time in special relativity. A series of research tasks
> > are discussed that illustrate, step-by-step, how student reasoning of
> > fundamental concepts of relativity was probed. The results indicate
> > that after standard instruction students at all academic levels have
> > serious difficulties with the relativity of simultaneity and with the
> > role of observers in inertial reference frames. 

Of course they have trouble understanding it. They are obviosuly a lot brighter
than those who reckon they do.

>>Evidence is presented
> > that suggests many students construct a conceptual framework in which
> > the ideas of absolute simultaneity and the relativity of simultaneity
> > harmoniously co-exist.

Wormey, you fail to see the point at all.
Let's call spatial intervals 'lengths' instead. The properties of an object
will define various lengths and so will distances between objects.

Lengths are not space. Space is just a geometry we use to construct a physical
picture of lengths and their inter relationships. Space itself has no bounds
and so there should be no mystery as to how it can be infinite. 

For instance, imagine that the only objects in the whole universe were a number
1 metre rods, arranged in some kind of fixed 3D relationship. What lies outside
the sphere containing the rods is of no interest and in effect does not even
exist.  

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

#529685

On 11/1/15 12:12 AM, HGW wrote:
> For instance, imagine that the only objects in the whole universe were a number
> 1 metre rods, arranged in some kind of fixed 3D relationship. What lies outside
> the sphere containing the rods is of no interest and in effect does not even
> exist.


  What happens to this geometric arrangement of meter sticks as you spin
  it faster and faster without limit. An A+ student will point out that
  there is no reference to measure rotation. And that the concept of
  spinning make little sense.

-- 

sci.physics is an unmoderated newsgroup dedicated
to the discussion of physics, news from the physics
community, and physics-related social issues.

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

#529693

On Sun, 1 Nov 2015 07:57:04 -0600, Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com>
wrote:

>On 11/1/15 12:12 AM, HGW wrote:
>> For instance, imagine that the only objects in the whole universe were a number
>> 1 metre rods, arranged in some kind of fixed 3D relationship. What lies outside
>> the sphere containing the rods is of no interest and in effect does not even
>> exist.
>
>
>  What happens to this geometric arrangement of meter sticks as you spin
>  it faster and faster without limit. An A+ student will point out that
>  there is no reference to measure rotation. And that the concept of
>  spinning make little sense.

          Nonsense, inertia is an attribute of matter,
indexed to the center of mass of each sediment
of matter, all ideas about any kind of background 
"control" of inertia are, and always was, nonsense.

         The fact that  -that index nearly corresponds
to the background of stars is naturally expected,
because rotation is rotation.

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

#529695

kefischer wrote:

>           Nonsense, inertia is an attribute of matter,
> indexed to the center of mass of each sediment of matter, all ideas
> about any kind of background "control" of inertia are, and always was,
> nonsense.
> 
>          The fact that  -that index nearly corresponds
> to the background of stars is naturally expected,
> because rotation is rotation.

          ,esnesnoN aitreni si na etubirtta fo ,rettam
dexedni ot eht retnec fo ssam fo hcae tnemides fo ,rettam lla saedi tuoba
yna dnik fo dnuorgkcab "lortnoc" fo aitreni ,era dna syawla ,saw .esnesnon

         ehT tcaf taht  taht- xedni ylraen sdnopserroc
ot eht dnuorgkcab fo srats si yllarutan ,detcepxe
esuaceb noitator si .noitator

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

#529718

On Sun, 1 Nov 2015 07:57:04 -0600, Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> wrote:

>On 11/1/15 12:12 AM, HGW wrote:
>> For instance, imagine that the only objects in the whole universe were a number
>> 1 metre rods, arranged in some kind of fixed 3D relationship. What lies outside
>> the sphere containing the rods is of no interest and in effect does not even
>> exist.
>
>
>  What happens to this geometric arrangement of meter sticks as you spin
>  it faster and faster without limit. An A+ student will point out that
>  there is no reference to measure rotation. And that the concept of
>  spinning make little sense.

You are raving mad! ....and very confused...Probably a C- student like all
Einsten worshipers. It is the direction of spin that has no reference. Rotation
itself is absolute. 
This is off topic anyway.

Space is not a 'spatial interval'. It is a void that has no 'size'.  If at any
instant a particular sphere encloses an entire universe, there is nothing to
prevent objects from moving outside that sphere and enlarging that universe.

It is not impossible that other universes might exist, entirely enclosed in
spheres that are separated from each other by a length (a spatial interval).

Space, being entirely mathematical, can accommodate any number of separated
objects.  Even your Big Bang theory requires something like this. 

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

#529737

On 11/1/15 11:44 AM, Henry Wilson DSc. wrote:
> On Sun, 1 Nov 2015 07:57:04 -0600, Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On 11/1/15 12:12 AM, HGW wrote:
>>> For instance, imagine that the only objects in the whole universe were a number
>>> 1 metre rods, arranged in some kind of fixed 3D relationship. What lies outside
>>> the sphere containing the rods is of no interest and in effect does not even
>>> exist.
>>
>>
>>   What happens to this geometric arrangement of meter sticks as you spin
>>   it faster and faster without limit. An A+ student will point out that
>>   there is no reference to measure rotation. And that the concept of
>>   spinning make little sense.
>
> You are raving mad! ....and very confused...Probably a C- student like all
> Einsten worshipers. It is the direction of spin that has no reference. Rotation
> itself is absolute.
> This is off topic anyway.
>
> Space is not a 'spatial interval'. It is a void that has no 'size'.  If at any
> instant a particular sphere encloses an entire universe, there is nothing to
> prevent objects from moving outside that sphere and enlarging that universe.
>
> It is not impossible that other universes might exist, entirely enclosed in
> spheres that are separated from each other by a length (a spatial interval).
>
> Space, being entirely mathematical, can accommodate any number of separated
> objects.  Even your Big Bang theory requires something like this.
>

   Ralph, imagine that the *only objects in the whole universe* were a
   number1 metre rods, arranged in some kind of fixed 3D relationship.

   What happens to this geometric arrangement of meter sticks as you spin
   it faster and faster without limit. An A+ student will point out that
   there is no reference to measure rotation. And that the concept of
   spinning make little sense.



-- 

sci.physics is an unmoderated newsgroup dedicated
to the discussion of physics, news from the physics
community, and physics-related social issues.

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

#529767

On Sun, 1 Nov 2015 13:05:32 -0600, Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> wrote:

>On 11/1/15 11:44 AM, Henry Wilson DSc. wrote:
>> On Sun, 1 Nov 2015 07:57:04 -0600, Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On 11/1/15 12:12 AM, HGW wrote:
>>>> For instance, imagine that the only objects in the whole universe were a number
>>>> 1 metre rods, arranged in some kind of fixed 3D relationship. What lies outside
>>>> the sphere containing the rods is of no interest and in effect does not even
>>>> exist.
>>>
>>>
>>>   What happens to this geometric arrangement of meter sticks as you spin
>>>   it faster and faster without limit. An A+ student will point out that
>>>   there is no reference to measure rotation. And that the concept of
>>>   spinning make little sense.
>>
>> You are raving mad! ....and very confused...Probably a C- student like all
>> Einsten worshipers. It is the direction of spin that has no reference. Rotation
>> itself is absolute.
>> This is off topic anyway.
>>
>> Space is not a 'spatial interval'. It is a void that has no 'size'.  If at any
>> instant a particular sphere encloses an entire universe, there is nothing to
>> prevent objects from moving outside that sphere and enlarging that universe.
>>
>> It is not impossible that other universes might exist, entirely enclosed in
>> spheres that are separated from each other by a length (a spatial interval).
>>
>> Space, being entirely mathematical, can accommodate any number of separated
>> objects.  Even your Big Bang theory requires something like this.
>>
>
>   Ralph, imagine that the *only objects in the whole universe* were a
>   number1 metre rods, arranged in some kind of fixed 3D relationship.
>
>   What happens to this geometric arrangement of meter sticks as you spin
>   it faster and faster without limit. An A+ student will point out that
>   there is no reference to measure rotation. And that the concept of
>   spinning make little sense.

This post reveals how little you know about basic physics. No wonder you are
gullible enough to accept Einstein's crap.

Rotation is absolute and can be sensed very easily. You are a big moron Wormey.
much bigger than I previously thought.

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

#529774

On Sunday, November 1, 2015 at 1:17:13 PM UTC-8, HGW wrote:
> 
> This post reveals how little you know about basic physics. No wonder you are
> gullible enough to accept Einstein's crap.
> 


Please don't be disrespecting Einstein, as he was one of the 
best theoretical physicists of the 20'th century, and sowed a 
framework for modern notation and usual realizations in modern 
physics, among for example Pauli, Dirac, and a host of other 
theoretical physicists of the early to mid 20'th century.  
Besides this he was also a humanitarian.

Einstein's "blunder" is a foothold for the conciliation of 
a mathematical physics, and a purely mathematical physics.

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

#529824

On 11/1/15 3:16 PM, HGW wrote:
> On Sun, 1 Nov 2015 13:05:32 -0600, Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> wrote:

>>
>>    Ralph, imagine that the *only objects in the whole universe* were a
>>    number1 metre rods, arranged in some kind of fixed 3D relationship.
>>
>>    What happens to this geometric arrangement of meter sticks as you spin
>>    it faster and faster without limit. An A+ student will point out that
>>    there is no reference to measure rotation. And that the concept of
>>    spinning make little sense.

>
> This post reveals how little you know about basic physics. No wonder you are
> gullible enough to accept Einstein's crap.
>
> Rotation is absolute and can be sensed very easily. You are a big moron Wormey.
> much bigger than I previously thought.
>


   But if the who universe consists of number1 metre rods, arranged in
   some kind of fixed 3D relationship... then there is no absolute
   rotation, Ralph.


-- 

sci.physics is an unmoderated newsgroup dedicated
to the discussion of physics, news from the physics
community, and physics-related social issues.

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

#529904

On Sun, 1 Nov 2015 19:28:48 -0600, Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> wrote:

>On 11/1/15 3:16 PM, HGW wrote:

>>
>> This post reveals how little you know about basic physics. No wonder you are
>> gullible enough to accept Einstein's crap.
>>
>> Rotation is absolute and can be sensed very easily. You are a big moron Wormey.
>> much bigger than I previously thought.
>>
>
>
>   But if the who universe consists of number1 metre rods, arranged in
>   some kind of fixed 3D relationship... then there is no absolute
>   rotation, Ralph.

That is nonsense. For things to rotate, a force must be applied to them.
otherwise they will continue in straight lines. It the whole system of rods was
rotating, it would soon fly apart.

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

#529913

On 11/2/15 8:51 AM, Henry Wilson DSc. wrote:
> On Sun, 1 Nov 2015 19:28:48 -0600, Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On 11/1/15 3:16 PM, HGW wrote:
>
>>>
>>> This post reveals how little you know about basic physics. No wonder you are
>>> gullible enough to accept Einstein's crap.
>>>
>>> Rotation is absolute and can be sensed very easily. You are a big moron Wormey.
>>> much bigger than I previously thought.
>>>
>>
>>
>>    But if the who universe consists of number1 metre rods, arranged in
>>    some kind of fixed 3D relationship... then there is no absolute
>>    rotation, Ralph.
>
> That is nonsense. For things to rotate, a force must be applied to them.
> otherwise they will continue in straight lines. It the whole system of rods was
> rotating, it would soon fly apart.
>

   Lots of contradictions in your statements, Ralph!



-- 

sci.physics is an unmoderated newsgroup dedicated
to the discussion of physics, news from the physics
community, and physics-related social issues.

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

#529988

On Mon, 2 Nov 2015 09:07:47 -0600, Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> wrote:

>On 11/2/15 8:51 AM, Henry Wilson DSc. wrote:

>>>>
>>>> Rotation is absolute and can be sensed very easily. You are a big moron Wormey.
>>>> much bigger than I previously thought.
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>    But if the who universe consists of number1 metre rods, arranged in
>>>    some kind of fixed 3D relationship... then there is no absolute
>>>    rotation, Henry.
>>
>> That is nonsense. For things to rotate, a force must be applied to them.
>> otherwise they will continue in straight lines. It the whole system of rods was
>> rotating, it would soon fly apart.
>>
>
>   Lots of contradictions in your statements, Henry!

But you can't say what they are?

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

#529992

On 11/2/15 1:58 PM, Henry Wilson DSc. wrote:
> On Mon, 2 Nov 2015 09:07:47 -0600, Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On 11/2/15 8:51 AM, Henry Wilson DSc. wrote:
>
>>>>>
>>>>> Rotation is absolute and can be sensed very easily. You are a big moron Wormey.
>>>>> much bigger than I previously thought.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>     But if the who universe consists of number1 metre rods, arranged in
>>>>     some kind of fixed 3D relationship... then there is no absolute
>>>>     rotation, Henry.
>>>
>>> That is nonsense. For things to rotate, a force must be applied to them.
>>> otherwise they will continue in straight lines. It the whole system of rods was
>>> rotating, it would soon fly apart.
>>>
>>
>>    Lots of contradictions in your statements, Henry!
>
> But you can't say what they are?
>


   The only kind of motion that can be detected without reference to
   external objects that define a reference frame, is rotation. However,
   that require all the momentum-energy of the universe and you, Ralph
   just proposed a universe with only your meter sticks.

   Rotation is meaningless without the universe as we know it.




-- 

sci.physics is an unmoderated newsgroup dedicated
to the discussion of physics, news from the physics
community, and physics-related social issues.

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

#530288

On Mon, 2 Nov 2015 14:09:45 -0600, Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> wrote:

>On 11/2/15 1:58 PM, Henry Wilson DSc. wrote:

>>>> That is nonsense. For things to rotate, a force must be applied to them.
>>>> otherwise they will continue in straight lines. It the whole system of rods was
>>>> rotating, it would soon fly apart.
>>>>
>>>
>>>    Lots of contradictions in your statements, Henry!
>>
>> But you can't say what they are?
>>
>
>
>   The only kind of motion that can be detected without reference to
>   external objects that define a reference frame, is rotation. However,
>   that require all the momentum-energy of the universe and you, Ralph
>   just proposed a universe with only your meter sticks.
>
>   Rotation is meaningless without the universe as we know it.

From your above statements, I can only assume you are no more than five years
old.

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

#530329

On Monday, November 2, 2015 at 12:09:49 PM UTC-8, Sam Wormley wrote:
> On 11/2/15 1:58 PM, Henry Wilson DSc. wrote:
> > On Mon, 2 Nov 2015 09:07:47 -0600, Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> On 11/2/15 8:51 AM, Henry Wilson DSc. wrote:
> >
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Rotation is absolute and can be sensed very easily. You are a big moron Wormey.
> >>>>> much bigger than I previously thought.
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>     But if the who universe consists of number1 metre rods, arranged in
> >>>>     some kind of fixed 3D relationship... then there is no absolute
> >>>>     rotation, Henry.
> >>>
> >>> That is nonsense. For things to rotate, a force must be applied to them.
> >>> otherwise they will continue in straight lines. It the whole system of rods was
> >>> rotating, it would soon fly apart.
> >>>
> >>
> >>    Lots of contradictions in your statements, Henry!
> >
> > But you can't say what they are?
> >
> 
> 
>    The only kind of motion that can be detected without reference to
>    external objects that define a reference frame, is rotation. However,
>    that require all the momentum-energy of the universe and you, Ralph
>    just proposed a universe with only your meter sticks.
> 
>    Rotation is meaningless without the universe as we know it.
> 
> 

No reason to go beating him up about it.

I wonder how you'd entertain that gravity is 
actually repulsive from the edges of the universe, 
and that mass occludes it as a force, so, then 
objects are drawn together locally as the block 
each other out (then that this matches attractive 
gravity up to basically the same sphere of influence).  
Then gravity is a feature of the substrate instead of 
the bodies, which are defined by the nuclear force(s).

Wondering how this might simplify the systems that 
basically sees objects fall together.

A simple two-body system is shown to be the same 
with either "attractive" or "repulsive" gravity.

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

#530353

On 11/4/15 8:07 AM, Ross A. Finlayson wrote:
> I wonder how you'd entertain that gravity is
> actually repulsive from the edges of the universe,
> and that mass occludes it as a force, so, then
> objects are drawn together locally as the block
> each other out (then that this matches attractive
> gravity up to basically the same sphere of influence).
> Then gravity is a feature of the substrate instead of
> the bodies, which are defined by the nuclear force(s).


   I hate to break this to you, Ross, but the universe doesn't
   have edges.

   No Center
     http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/nocenter.html
     http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/infpoint.html

   Also see Ned Wright's Cosmology Tutorial
     http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmolog.htm
     http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmology_faq.html
     http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/CosmoCalc.html

   WMAP: Foundations of the Big Bang theory
     http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/m_uni.html

   WMAP: Tests of Big Bang Cosmology
     http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/m_uni/uni_101bbtest.html

-- 

sci.physics is an unmoderated newsgroup dedicated
to the discussion of physics, news from the physics
community, and physics-related social issues.

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

#530378

On Wednesday, November 4, 2015 at 9:42:53 AM UTC-8, Sam Wormley wrote:
> On 11/4/15 8:07 AM, Ross A. Finlayson wrote:
> > I wonder how you'd entertain that gravity is
> > actually repulsive from the edges of the universe,
> > and that mass occludes it as a force, so, then
> > objects are drawn together locally as the block
> > each other out (then that this matches attractive
> > gravity up to basically the same sphere of influence).
> > Then gravity is a feature of the substrate instead of
> > the bodies, which are defined by the nuclear force(s).
> 
> 
>    I hate to break this to you, Ross, but the universe doesn't
>    have edges.
> 
>    No Center
>      http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/nocenter.html
>      http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/infpoint.html
> 
>    Also see Ned Wright's Cosmology Tutorial
>      http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmolog.htm
>      http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmology_faq.html
>      http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/CosmoCalc.html
> 
>    WMAP: Foundations of the Big Bang theory
>      http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/m_uni.html
> 
>    WMAP: Tests of Big Bang Cosmology
>      http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/m_uni/uni_101bbtest.html
> 

The universe is effectively infinite and unbounded, yes.

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

#530379

On 11/4/15 1:44 PM, Ross A. Finlayson wrote:
> On Wednesday, November 4, 2015 at 9:42:53 AM UTC-8, Sam Wormley wrote:
>> On 11/4/15 8:07 AM, Ross A. Finlayson wrote:
>>> I wonder how you'd entertain that gravity is
>>> actually repulsive from the edges of the universe,
>>> and that mass occludes it as a force, so, then
>>> objects are drawn together locally as the block
>>> each other out (then that this matches attractive
>>> gravity up to basically the same sphere of influence).
>>> Then gravity is a feature of the substrate instead of
>>> the bodies, which are defined by the nuclear force(s).
>>
>>
>>     I hate to break this to you, Ross, but the universe doesn't
>>     have edges.
>>
>>     No Center
>>       http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/nocenter.html
>>       http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/infpoint.html
>>
>>     Also see Ned Wright's Cosmology Tutorial
>>       http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmolog.htm
>>       http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmology_faq.html
>>       http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/CosmoCalc.html
>>
>>     WMAP: Foundations of the Big Bang theory
>>       http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/m_uni.html
>>
>>     WMAP: Tests of Big Bang Cosmology
>>       http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/m_uni/uni_101bbtest.html
>>
>
> The universe is effectively infinite and unbounded, yes.
>

   Pretty much, although this is probably more accurate: The
   observable universe is finite and unbounded. What we cannot
   see from our perspective may be infinite.





-- 

sci.physics is an unmoderated newsgroup dedicated
to the discussion of physics, news from the physics
community, and physics-related social issues.

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

#530424

On Wednesday, November 4, 2015 at 11:57:54 AM UTC-8, Sam Wormley wrote:
> On 11/4/15 1:44 PM, Ross A. Finlayson wrote:
> > On Wednesday, November 4, 2015 at 9:42:53 AM UTC-8, Sam Wormley wrote:
> >> On 11/4/15 8:07 AM, Ross A. Finlayson wrote:
> >>> I wonder how you'd entertain that gravity is
> >>> actually repulsive from the edges of the universe,
> >>> and that mass occludes it as a force, so, then
> >>> objects are drawn together locally as the block
> >>> each other out (then that this matches attractive
> >>> gravity up to basically the same sphere of influence).
> >>> Then gravity is a feature of the substrate instead of
> >>> the bodies, which are defined by the nuclear force(s).
> >>
> >>
> >>     I hate to break this to you, Ross, but the universe doesn't
> >>     have edges.
> >>
> >>     No Center
> >>       http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/nocenter.html
> >>       http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/infpoint.html
> >>
> >>     Also see Ned Wright's Cosmology Tutorial
> >>       http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmolog.htm
> >>       http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmology_faq.html
> >>       http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/CosmoCalc.html
> >>
> >>     WMAP: Foundations of the Big Bang theory
> >>       http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/m_uni.html
> >>
> >>     WMAP: Tests of Big Bang Cosmology
> >>       http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/m_uni/uni_101bbtest.html
> >>
> >
> > The universe is effectively infinite and unbounded, yes.
> >
> 
>    Pretty much, although this is probably more accurate: The
>    observable universe is finite and unbounded. What we cannot
>    see from our perspective may be infinite.
> 
> 

Sam, about the "center", for example of a 
coordinate system:  the "origin" is everywhere, 
somehow.

In experiment, we are basically each observers 
in that "the origin is everywhere".

This is yet "anthropocentric" or "sentient-centric".

Still, any Mathematical Platonist may see that the 
Universe is the same result as it could be (for 
all observers).

Whether or not there is "free will" is 
indistinguishable with whether or not 
there is.

This is a philosophical approach to theoretical 
physics.  (This is a scientific approach.)

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

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

Back to top | Article view | sci.physics

csiph-web