Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics > #532304 > unrolled thread
| Started by | "kquirici@yahoo.com" <kquirici@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2015-11-12 05:52 -0800 |
| Last post | 2015-12-13 12:28 -0800 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 228 — 24 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.physics
general relativity curvature of space = metaphor? "kquirici@yahoo.com" <kquirici@yahoo.com> - 2015-11-12 05:52 -0800
Re: general relativity curvature of space = metaphor? "Y.Porat" <y.y.porat@gmail.com> - 2015-11-12 06:08 -0800
Re: general relativity curvature of space = metaphor? "kquirici@yahoo.com" <kquirici@yahoo.com> - 2015-11-12 06:19 -0800
Re: general relativity curvature of space = metaphor? john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2015-11-12 06:53 -0800
Re: general relativity curvature of space = metaphor? "kquirici@yahoo.com" <kquirici@yahoo.com> - 2015-11-12 08:41 -0800
Re: general relativity curvature of space = metaphor? "Y.Porat" <y.y.porat@gmail.com> - 2015-11-13 05:35 -0800
general relativity curvature of space = metaphor? jay moseley <jaymoseley@hotmail.com> - 2015-11-12 09:05 -0800
Re: general relativity curvature of space = metaphor? "kquirici@yahoo.com" <kquirici@yahoo.com> - 2015-11-12 09:23 -0800
Re: general relativity curvature of space = metaphor? jay moseley <jaymoseley@hotmail.com> - 2015-11-12 10:15 -0800
Re: general relativity curvature of space = metaphor? "kquirici@yahoo.com" <kquirici@yahoo.com> - 2015-11-12 11:50 -0800
Re: general relativity curvature of space = metaphor? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-11-12 11:54 -0600
Re: general relativity curvature of space = metaphor? "kquirici@yahoo.com" <kquirici@yahoo.com> - 2015-11-12 10:14 -0800
Re: general relativity curvature of space = metaphor? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-11-12 12:24 -0600
Re: general relativity curvature of space = metaphor? Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2015-11-12 13:42 -0600
Re: general relativity curvature of space = metaphor? jay moseley <jaymoseley@hotmail.com> - 2015-11-12 11:55 -0800
Re: general relativity curvature of space = metaphor? jay moseley <jaymoseley@hotmail.com> - 2015-11-12 11:43 -0800
Re: general relativity curvature of space = metaphor? "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2015-11-17 10:09 -0800
Re: general relativity curvature of space = metaphor? "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2015-11-17 10:12 -0800
Re: general relativity curvature of space = metaphor? jay moseley <jaymoseley@hotmail.com> - 2015-11-12 10:16 -0800
Re: general relativity curvature of space = metaphor? "Y.Porat" <y.y.porat@gmail.com> - 2015-11-13 05:50 -0800
Re: general relativity curvature of space = metaphor? "Y.Porat" <y.y.porat@gmail.com> - 2015-11-13 05:45 -0800
Re: general relativity curvature of space = metaphor? "reber g=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> - 2015-11-12 09:30 -0800
Re: general relativity curvature of space = metaphor? Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2015-11-12 11:35 -0600
Re: general relativity curvature of space = metaphor? benj <none@gmail.com> - 2015-11-12 14:03 -0500
Re: general relativity curvature of space = metaphor? Mahipal <mahipal7638@gmail.com> - 2015-11-12 12:49 -0800
Re: general relativity curvature of space = metaphor? benj <none@gmail.com> - 2015-11-12 13:38 -0500
Re: general relativity curvature of space = metaphor? Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2015-11-12 13:39 -0600
Re: general relativity curvature of space = metaphor? omnilobe@gmail.com - 2015-11-12 13:22 -0800
Re: general relativity curvature of space = metaphor? Yousuf Khan <bbbl67@spammenot.yahoo.com> - 2015-11-12 19:47 -0500
Re: general relativity curvature of space = metaphor? "reber g=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> - 2015-11-14 13:40 -0800
Re: general relativity curvature of space = metaphor? Double-A <double-a3@hush.com> - 2015-11-15 12:11 -0800
Re: general relativity curvature of space = metaphor? Yousuf Khan <bbbl67@spammenot.yahoo.com> - 2015-11-12 18:03 -0500
Re: general relativity curvature of space = metaphor? "kquirici@yahoo.com" <kquirici@yahoo.com> - 2015-11-13 06:37 -0800
Re: general relativity curvature of space = metaphor? HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2015-11-14 10:00 -0800
Re: "The speed of time" (the pulse rate). benj <none@gmail.com> - 2015-11-12 18:34 -0500
Re: general relativity curvature of space = metaphor? "kquirici@yahoo.com" <kquirici@yahoo.com> - 2015-11-13 06:19 -0800
Re: general relativity curvature of space = metaphor? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-11-13 10:40 -0600
Re: general relativity curvature of space = metaphor? "kquirici@yahoo.com" <kquirici@yahoo.com> - 2015-11-13 08:44 -0800
Re: Curved spaceTIME -- not: "curvature of space = metaphor?". "kquirici@yahoo.com" <kquirici@yahoo.com> - 2015-11-13 13:30 -0800
Re: general relativity curvature of space = metaphor? jay moseley <jaymoseley@hotmail.com> - 2015-11-13 10:14 -0800
Re: general relativity curvature of space = metaphor? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-11-13 13:40 -0600
Re: general relativity curvature of space = metaphor? "kquirici@yahoo.com" <kquirici@yahoo.com> - 2015-11-13 13:33 -0800
Re: general relativity curvature of space = metaphor? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-11-13 16:58 -0600
Re: general relativity curvature of space = metaphor? "kquirici@yahoo.com" <kquirici@yahoo.com> - 2015-11-13 13:34 -0800
Re: general relativity curvature of space = metaphor? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-11-13 16:59 -0600
Re: general relativity curvature of space = metaphor? "kquirici@yahoo.com" <kquirici@yahoo.com> - 2015-11-13 17:57 -0800
Re: general relativity curvature of space = metaphor? jay moseley <jaymoseley@hotmail.com> - 2015-11-14 05:38 -0800
Re: general relativity curvature of space = metaphor? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-11-16 10:47 -0600
Re: general relativity curvature of space = metaphor? benj <none@gmail.com> - 2015-11-16 12:55 -0500
Re: general relativity curvature of space = metaphor? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-11-16 12:11 -0600
Re: general relativity curvature of space = metaphor? "Y.Porat" <y.y.porat@gmail.com> - 2015-11-18 02:19 -0800
Re: general relativity curvature of space = metaphor? Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2015-11-16 11:07 -0600
Re: general relativity curvature of space = metaphor? jay moseley <jaymoseley@hotmail.com> - 2015-11-14 06:21 -0800
phormeta noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2015-11-14 15:29 -0800
Re: general relativity curvature of space = metaphor? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-11-16 10:57 -0600
Re: general relativity curvature of space = metaphor? jay moseley <jaymoseley@hotmail.com> - 2015-11-16 12:25 -0800
Re: general relativity curvature of space = metaphor? Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2015-11-16 14:45 -0600
Re: general relativity curvature of space = metaphor? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-11-16 15:33 -0600
Re: general relativity curvature of space = metaphor? jay moseley <jaymoseley@hotmail.com> - 2015-11-17 09:47 -0800
Re: general relativity curvature of space = metaphor? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-11-17 12:13 -0600
Re: general relativity curvature of space = metaphor? jay moseley <jaymoseley@hotmail.com> - 2015-11-18 05:52 -0800
Re: general relativity curvature of space = metaphor? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-11-18 08:12 -0600
Re: general relativity curvature of space = metaphor? jay moseley <jaymoseley@hotmail.com> - 2015-11-18 07:27 -0800
Re: general relativity curvature of space = metaphor? Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2015-11-18 09:40 -0600
Re: general relativity curvature of space = metaphor? Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2015-11-18 09:41 -0600
Re: general relativity curvature of space = metaphor? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-11-18 09:50 -0600
Re: general relativity curvature of space = metaphor? jay moseley <jaymoseley@hotmail.com> - 2015-11-19 03:59 -0800
Re: general relativity curvature of space = metaphor? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-11-19 10:29 -0600
Re: general relativity curvature of space = metaphor? jay moseley <jaymoseley@hotmail.com> - 2015-11-19 09:52 -0800
Re: general relativity curvature of space = metaphor? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-11-19 12:24 -0600
Re: general relativity curvature of space = metaphor? jay moseley <jaymoseley@hotmail.com> - 2015-11-19 11:17 -0800
Re: general relativity curvature of space = metaphor? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-11-19 14:08 -0600
Re: general relativity curvature of space = metaphor? jay moseley <jaymoseley@hotmail.com> - 2015-11-20 08:46 -0800
Re: general relativity curvature of space = metaphor? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-11-20 14:14 -0600
Re: general relativity curvature of space = metaphor? "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2015-11-20 12:25 -0800
Re: general relativity curvature of space = metaphor? jay moseley <jaymoseley@hotmail.com> - 2015-11-21 05:14 -0800
Re: general relativity curvature of space = metaphor? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-11-23 15:46 -0600
Re: general relativity curvature of space = metaphor? noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2015-11-23 17:39 -0800
Re: general relativity curvature of space = metaphor? "Y.Porat" <y.y.porat@gmail.com> - 2015-11-24 03:44 -0800
Re: general relativity curvature of space = metaphor? "Mike Hunt" <invalid@troll-lo-lo.com> - 2015-11-24 21:03 -0800
Re: general relativity curvature of space = metaphor? "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2015-11-24 22:02 -0800
Re: general relativity curvature of space = metaphor? Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2015-11-25 08:25 -0600
Re: general relativity curvature of space = metaphor? "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2015-11-25 07:43 -0800
Re: general relativity curvature of space = metaphor? Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2015-11-25 10:36 -0600
Re: general relativity curvature of space = metaphor? "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2015-11-25 09:00 -0800
Re: general relativity curvature of space = metaphor? "Y.Porat" <y.y.porat@gmail.com> - 2015-11-24 23:26 -0800
Re: general relativity curvature of space = metaphor? "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2015-11-25 07:41 -0800
Re: general relativity curvature of space = metaphor? "Y.Porat" <y.y.porat@gmail.com> - 2015-11-26 02:57 -0800
Re: general relativity curvature of space = metaphor? noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2015-11-30 14:14 -0800
Re: general relativity curvature of space = metaphor? jay moseley <jaymoseley@hotmail.com> - 2015-11-19 10:06 -0800
Re: general relativity curvature of space = metaphor? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-11-19 12:27 -0600
Re: general relativity curvature of space = metaphor? "Y.Porat" <y.y.porat@gmail.com> - 2015-11-19 10:15 -0800
Re: general relativity curvature of space = metaphor? "Efftard K. Donglemeier" <invalid@troll.com> - 2015-11-19 12:01 -0800
Re: general relativity curvature of space = metaphor? "fuq::hed" <invalid@troll.com> - 2015-11-20 06:30 -0800
Re: general relativity curvature of space = metaphor? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-11-18 10:18 -0600
Re: general relativity curvature of space = metaphor? jay moseley <jaymoseley@hotmail.com> - 2015-11-18 06:06 -0800
Re: general relativity curvature of space = metaphor? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-11-18 08:14 -0600
Re: general relativity curvature of space = metaphor? noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2015-11-16 13:33 -0800
Re: general relativity curvature of space = metaphor? "Y.Porat" <y.y.porat@gmail.com> - 2015-11-18 02:27 -0800
Re: general relativity curvature of space = metaphor? "Y.Porat" <y.y.porat@gmail.com> - 2015-11-15 01:24 -0800
Re: general relativity curvature of space = metaphor? noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2015-11-15 10:51 -0800
Re: general relativity curvature of space = metaphor? Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2015-11-13 15:06 -0600
Re: general relativity curvature of space = metaphor? noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2015-11-13 13:12 -0800
Re: general relativity curvature of space = metaphor? Steven Carlip <carlip@physics.ucdavis.edu> - 2015-11-17 21:44 -0800
Re: general relativity curvature of space = metaphor? jay moseley <jaymoseley@hotmail.com> - 2015-11-18 06:34 -0800
Re: general relativity curvature of space = metaphor? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-11-18 09:14 -0600
Re: general relativity curvature of space = metaphor? jay moseley <jaymoseley@hotmail.com> - 2015-11-18 23:46 -0800
Re: general relativity curvature of space = metaphor? "Y.Porat" <y.y.porat@gmail.com> - 2015-11-19 03:49 -0800
Re: general relativity curvature of space = metaphor? Steven Carlip <carlip@physics.ucdavis.edu> - 2015-11-18 21:59 -0800
Re: general relativity curvature of space = metaphor? "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2015-11-19 09:28 -0800
Re: general relativity curvature of space = metaphor? jay moseley <jaymoseley@hotmail.com> - 2015-11-19 10:47 -0800
Re: general relativity curvature of space = metaphor? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-11-19 14:06 -0600
Re: general relativity curvature of space = metaphor? noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2015-11-19 13:45 -0800
Re: general relativity curvature of space = metaphor? jay moseley <jaymoseley@hotmail.com> - 2015-11-20 08:23 -0800
Re: general relativity curvature of space = metaphor? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-11-20 11:56 -0600
Re: general relativity curvature of space = metaphor? jay moseley <jaymoseley@hotmail.com> - 2015-11-21 05:20 -0800
Re: general relativity curvature of space = metaphor? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-11-23 15:48 -0600
Re: general relativity curvature of space = metaphor? "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2015-11-23 14:07 -0800
Re: general relativity curvature of space = metaphor? jay moseley <jaymoseley@hotmail.com> - 2015-11-24 11:15 -0800
Re: general relativity curvature of space = metaphor? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-11-24 17:26 -0600
Re: general relativity curvature of space = metaphor? jay moseley <jaymoseley@hotmail.com> - 2015-11-25 07:49 -0800
Re: general relativity curvature of space = metaphor? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-11-25 10:58 -0600
Re: general relativity curvature of space = metaphor? jay moseley <jaymoseley@hotmail.com> - 2015-11-27 01:52 -0800
Re: general relativity curvature of space = metaphor? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-11-27 12:55 -0600
Re: general relativity curvature of space = metaphor? jay moseley <jaymoseley@hotmail.com> - 2015-11-27 13:09 -0800
Re: general relativity curvature of space = metaphor? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-11-30 14:12 -0600
Re: general relativity curvature of space = metaphor? jay moseley <jaymoseley@hotmail.com> - 2015-12-04 02:33 -0800
Re: general relativity curvature of space = metaphor? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-12-04 07:40 -0600
Re: general relativity curvature of space = metaphor? jay moseley <jaymoseley@hotmail.com> - 2015-12-05 05:42 -0800
Re: general relativity curvature of space = metaphor? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-12-06 14:59 -0600
Re: general relativity curvature of space = metaphor? jay moseley <jaymoseley@hotmail.com> - 2015-12-07 07:56 -0800
Re: general relativity curvature of space = metaphor? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-12-07 11:22 -0600
Re: general relativity curvature of space = metaphor? jay moseley <jaymoseley@hotmail.com> - 2015-12-08 05:55 -0800
Re: general relativity curvature of space = metaphor? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-12-08 08:59 -0600
Re: general relativity curvature of space = metaphor? jay moseley <jaymoseley@hotmail.com> - 2015-12-08 11:04 -0800
Re: general relativity curvature of space = metaphor? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-12-08 14:49 -0600
Re: general relativity curvature of space = metaphor? jay moseley <jaymoseley@hotmail.com> - 2015-12-08 16:16 -0800
Re: general relativity curvature of space = metaphor? jay moseley <jaymoseley@hotmail.com> - 2015-12-09 01:25 -0800
Re: general relativity curvature of space = metaphor? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-12-09 13:19 -0600
Re: general relativity curvature of space = metaphor? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-12-09 13:09 -0600
Re: general relativity curvature of space = metaphor? "Y.Porat" <y.y.porat@gmail.com> - 2015-12-13 00:03 -0800
Re: general relativity curvature of space = metaphor? Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2015-12-09 13:13 -0600
Re: general relativity curvature of space = metaphor? jay moseley <jaymoseley@hotmail.com> - 2015-12-08 16:36 -0800
Re: general relativity curvature of space = metaphor? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-12-09 13:11 -0600
Re: general relativity curvature of space = metaphor? jay moseley <jaymoseley@hotmail.com> - 2015-12-09 07:58 -0800
Re: general relativity curvature of space = metaphor? Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2015-12-09 10:07 -0600
Re: general relativity curvature of space = metaphor? jay moseley <jaymoseley@hotmail.com> - 2015-12-09 08:28 -0800
Re: general relativity curvature of space = metaphor? Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2015-12-09 10:50 -0600
Re: general relativity curvature of space = metaphor? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-12-09 13:34 -0600
Re: general relativity curvature of space = metaphor? jay moseley <jaymoseley@hotmail.com> - 2015-12-10 05:13 -0800
Re: general relativity curvature of space = metaphor? Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2015-12-10 08:56 -0600
Re: general relativity curvature of space = metaphor? Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2015-12-10 09:00 -0600
Re: general relativity curvature of space = metaphor? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-12-10 09:19 -0600
Re: general relativity curvature of space = metaphor? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-12-09 13:31 -0600
Re: general relativity curvature of space = metaphor? jay moseley <jaymoseley@hotmail.com> - 2015-12-10 05:48 -0800
Re: general relativity curvature of space = metaphor? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-12-10 09:22 -0600
Re: general relativity curvature of space = metaphor? jay moseley <jaymoseley@hotmail.com> - 2015-12-11 12:46 -0800
Re: general relativity curvature of space = metaphor? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-12-11 15:40 -0600
Re: general relativity curvature of space = metaphor? jay moseley <jaymoseley@hotmail.com> - 2015-12-12 05:14 -0800
Re: general relativity curvature of space = metaphor? noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2015-12-13 19:13 -0800
Re: general relativity curvature of space = metaphor? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-12-14 09:02 -0600
Re: general relativity curvature of space = metaphor? jay moseley <jaymoseley@hotmail.com> - 2015-12-14 11:01 -0800
Re: general relativity curvature of space = metaphor? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-12-14 14:02 -0600
Re: general relativity curvature of space = metaphor? "kquirici@yahoo.com" <kquirici@yahoo.com> - 2015-12-14 23:41 -0800
Re: general relativity curvature of space = metaphor? Poutnik <Poutnik4NNTP@gmail.com> - 2015-12-15 11:24 +0100
Re: general relativity curvature of space = metaphor? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-12-15 07:25 -0600
Re: general relativity curvature of space = metaphor? Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2015-12-15 08:47 -0600
Re: general relativity curvature of space = metaphor? jay moseley <jaymoseley@hotmail.com> - 2015-12-15 12:45 -0800
Re: general relativity curvature of space = metaphor? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-12-15 15:59 -0600
Re: general relativity curvature of space = metaphor? jay moseley <jaymoseley@hotmail.com> - 2015-12-17 05:19 -0800
Re: general relativity curvature of space = metaphor? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-12-17 09:51 -0600
Re: general relativity curvature of space = metaphor? Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2015-12-17 10:05 -0600
Re: general relativity curvature of space = metaphor? jay moseley <jaymoseley@hotmail.com> - 2015-12-15 12:57 -0800
Re: general relativity curvature of space = metaphor? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-12-15 15:51 -0600
Re: general relativity curvature of space = metaphor? jay moseley <jaymoseley@hotmail.com> - 2015-12-17 04:46 -0800
Re: general relativity curvature of space = metaphor? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-12-17 09:48 -0600
Re: general relativity curvature of space = metaphor? "Y.Porat" <y.y.porat@gmail.com> - 2015-12-09 02:47 -0800
Re: general relativity curvature of space = metaphor? Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2015-11-25 08:29 -0600
Re: general relativity curvature of space = metaphor? jay moseley <jaymoseley@hotmail.com> - 2015-11-21 05:35 -0800
Re: general relativity curvature of space = metaphor? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-11-23 15:44 -0600
Re: general relativity curvature of space = metaphor? Steven Carlip <carlip@physics.ucdavis.edu> - 2015-11-22 23:15 -0800
Re: general relativity curvature of space = metaphor? Double-A <double-a3@hush.com> - 2015-11-23 14:35 -0800
Re: Do you _understand_ General Relativity better ? Double-A <double-a3@hush.com> - 2015-11-24 13:46 -0800
Re: Do you _understand_ General Relativity better ? Double-A <double-a3@hush.com> - 2015-11-24 13:53 -0800
Re: Prefering the mystical/magical. Double-A <double-a3@hush.com> - 2015-11-28 14:34 -0800
Re: "Energy that can do work" (eXergy) unites GR and QM, no ? noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2015-11-30 14:17 -0800
Re: general relativity curvature of space = metaphor? "Y.Porat" <y.y.porat@gmail.com> - 2015-11-22 23:10 -0800
Re: general relativity curvature of space = metaphor? Steven Carlip <carlip@physics.ucdavis.edu> - 2015-11-22 22:49 -0800
Re: general relativity curvature of space = metaphor? "kquirici@yahoo.com" <kquirici@yahoo.com> - 2015-11-24 06:35 -0800
Re: Where does massEnergy end and spaceTime begin ? benj <none@gmail.com> - 2015-11-24 13:57 -0500
Re: general relativity curvature of space = metaphor? "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2015-11-24 11:14 -0800
Re: general relativity curvature of space = metaphor? Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2015-11-24 13:17 -0600
Re: general relativity curvature of space = metaphor? "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2015-11-24 11:21 -0800
Re: general relativity curvature of space = metaphor? Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2015-11-24 13:24 -0600
Re: general relativity curvature of space = metaphor? "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2015-11-24 11:46 -0800
Re: general relativity curvature of space = metaphor? Steven Carlip <carlip@physics.ucdavis.edu> - 2015-11-25 20:55 -0800
Re: general relativity curvature of space = metaphor? "kquirici@yahoo.com" <kquirici@yahoo.com> - 2015-11-27 08:51 -0800
Re: general relativity curvature of space = metaphor? "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2015-11-27 10:06 -0800
Re: general relativity curvature of space = metaphor? "kquirici@yahoo.com" <kquirici@yahoo.com> - 2015-11-27 13:06 -0800
Re: general relativity curvature of space = metaphor? "Y.Porat" <y.y.porat@gmail.com> - 2015-11-28 01:28 -0800
Re: general relativity curvature of space = metaphor? "Hoofington P. McSnort" <iinvalid@eksample.com> - 2015-11-29 12:22 -0800
Re: general relativity curvature of space = metaphor? "Y.Porat" <y.y.porat@gmail.com> - 2015-11-29 22:44 -0800
Re: general relativity curvature of space = metaphor? RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> - 2015-11-24 11:00 -0800
Re: general relativity curvature of space = metaphor? Steven Carlip <carlip@physics.ucdavis.edu> - 2015-11-25 18:19 -0800
Re: general relativity curvature of space = metaphor? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2015-12-13 13:28 -0800
Re: general relativity curvature of space = metaphor? Steven Carlip <carlip@physics.ucdavis.edu> - 2015-11-18 22:14 -0800
Re: general relativity curvature of space = metaphor? jay moseley <jaymoseley@hotmail.com> - 2015-11-19 00:40 -0800
Re: general relativity curvature of space = metaphor? Steven Carlip <carlip@physics.ucdavis.edu> - 2015-11-22 22:57 -0800
Re: general relativity curvature of space = metaphor? jay moseley <jaymoseley@hotmail.com> - 2015-11-24 11:51 -0800
Re: general relativity curvature of space = metaphor? Steven Carlip <carlip@physics.ucdavis.edu> - 2015-11-27 14:48 -0800
Re: general relativity curvature of space = metaphor? jay moseley <jaymoseley@hotmail.com> - 2015-11-30 02:45 -0800
Re: general relativity curvature of space = metaphor? Steven Carlip <carlip@physics.ucdavis.edu> - 2015-12-03 20:58 -0800
"Energy that can do work" (eXergy) unites GR and QM, no ? Jeff-Relf.Me <@.> - 2015-12-03 21:27 -0800
"Energy that can do work" (eXergy) unites GR and QM, no ? jay moseley <jaymoseley@hotmail.com> - 2015-12-04 01:54 -0800
Re: What do you think of Darwin, JayMoseley ? benj <none@gmail.com> - 2015-12-04 13:47 -0500
What do you think of Darwin, JayMoseley ? jay moseley <jaymoseley@hotmail.com> - 2015-12-05 05:06 -0800
Re: general relativity curvature of space = metaphor? jay moseley <jaymoseley@hotmail.com> - 2015-12-04 01:46 -0800
Re: general relativity curvature of space = metaphor? Poutnik <Poutnik4NNTP@gmail.com> - 2015-12-04 12:54 +0100
Re: general relativity curvature of space = metaphor? jay moseley <jaymoseley@hotmail.com> - 2015-12-05 05:28 -0800
Re: general relativity curvature of space = metaphor? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-12-04 07:36 -0600
e.g bingODoG noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2015-12-09 17:14 -0800
Re: general relativity curvature of space = metaphor? "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2015-11-19 09:41 -0800
Re: general relativity curvature of space = metaphor? "reber g=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> - 2015-11-27 10:29 -0800
Re: general relativity curvature of space = metaphor? Steven Carlip <carlip@physics.ucdavis.edu> - 2015-11-17 10:01 -0800
Re: general relativity curvature of space = metaphor? Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2015-11-17 13:10 -0600
Re: general relativity curvature of space = metaphor? "Y.Porat" <y.y.porat@gmail.com> - 2015-11-18 02:35 -0800
Re: general relativity curvature of space = metaphor? "Y.Porat" <y.y.porat@gmail.com> - 2015-11-18 02:15 -0800
Re: general relativity curvature of space = metaphor? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2015-12-13 12:28 -0800
Page 11 of 12 — ← Prev page 1 … 9 10 [11] 12 Next page →
| From | "Hoofington P. McSnort" <iinvalid@eksample.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-29 12:22 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <n3fmpi$sat$1@speranza.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #536063 |
>space has no properties except hosting mass!! You're a moron. >MASS IS THE ''MAIN HERO '[' OF ALL PHYSICS You're an idiot. >NO MASS THE ONLY !! MASS - NO REAL PHYSICS You're a cretin >just a simple as that !! You're an imbecile. > is simplicity not impressive respectful not 'reword -able for > pompous physicists ?????.... > enough is enough with cheating and boggling Your skull is packed with driveway gravel and chimpanzee knuckles - no brain matter at all. > Y.Porat, needless copyright, empty threats, boring posts, dull insults. Raving lunatic
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Y.Porat" <y.y.porat@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-29 22:44 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <6dadfbea-05eb-4d6a-a283-68edf68dc22b@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #536381 |
On Sunday, November 29, 2015 at 10:22:19 PM UTC+2, Hoofington P. McSnort wrote: > >space has no properties except hosting mass!! > > You're a moron. > > >MASS IS THE ''MAIN HERO '[' OF ALL PHYSICS > > You're an idiot. > > >NO MASS THE ONLY !! MASS - NO REAL PHYSICS > > You're a cretin > > >just a simple as that !! > > You're an imbecile. > > > is simplicity not impressive respectful not 'reword -able for > > pompous physicists ?????.... > > enough is enough with cheating and boggling > > Your skull is packed with driveway gravel and chimpanzee knuckles - no brain > matter at all. > > > Y.Porat, needless copyright, empty threats, boring posts, dull insults. > > Raving lunatic ============================ ****anonymous *** drck hired gangster pig next to human beings Y.P ===============================
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-24 11:00 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <8bad1a6c-c2ff-4f59-b8e4-cae8ee1d524d@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #534723 |
On November 22, Steven Carlip wrote: >>> Newtonian gravity itself, plus the correction, is obtained by starting >>> with the field equations of GR... >>> no adjustable parameters, nothing you can fiddle with to change >>> the answer. The GR field equations are unique and "rigid," and the >>> "relativistic correction" to orbital motion is equally unique. > > As I said before, the field equations of general relativity are "rigid" -- > there's nothing to adjust to change the predictions > for orbits. More specifically, assume that > (1) gravity is an effect of spacetime curvature; > (2) curvature is described mathematically by Riemannian > geometry, as worked out 60 years before GR; > (3) gravity requires *only* curvature, with no extra > structure (for example, no "preferred" coordinates); > (4) the equations for gravity can be derived from an > action principle (as the equations for all of the > other fundamental interaction are); > (5) the equations involve only second time derivatives > (as in Newton's second law, F=ma; by Ostrogradsky's > theorem, this is necessary for there to be stable > solutions). Can you elaborate on this theorem? It's news to me. You imply that math dictates reality, rather than the other way round - I find it hard to imagine that nature cares about our chalkboard fiddling - > Given these assumptions, the field equations of GR are > unique -- there are no other possibilities. This is provable? Because if so, it means GR is unchallengeable, it has reached its ultimate form, and the physicists working on quantum gravity are banging heads on a wall - like no one has the heart to tell them the harsh truth? -- Rich
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Steven Carlip <carlip@physics.ucdavis.edu> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-25 18:19 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <carlip-2AD821.18194925112015@88-209-239-213.giganet.hu> |
| In reply to | #535106 |
In article <8bad1a6c-c2ff-4f59-b8e4-cae8ee1d524d@googlegroups.com>, RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> wrote: > On November 22, Steven Carlip wrote: > >>> Newtonian gravity itself, plus the correction, is obtained by starting > >>> with the field equations of GR... > >>> no adjustable parameters, nothing you can fiddle with to change > >>> the answer. The GR field equations are unique and "rigid," and the > >>> "relativistic correction" to orbital motion is equally unique. > > > > As I said before, the field equations of general relativity are "rigid" -- > > there's nothing to adjust to change the predictions > > for orbits. More specifically, assume that > > (1) gravity is an effect of spacetime curvature; > > (2) curvature is described mathematically by Riemannian > > geometry, as worked out 60 years before GR; > > (3) gravity requires *only* curvature, with no extra > > structure (for example, no "preferred" coordinates); > > (4) the equations for gravity can be derived from an > > action principle (as the equations for all of the > > other fundamental interaction are); > > (5) the equations involve only second time derivatives > > (as in Newton's second law, F=ma; by Ostrogradsky's > > theorem, this is necessary for there to be stable > > solutions). > > Can you elaborate on this theorem? It's news to me. It's pretty straightforward. The Riemannian geometry assumption (2) means that the local geometry of the spacetime manifold is described entirely by the metric. The action (4) must depend on this metric, and by (3) must depend on nothing else. A spacetime action is always an integral of a Lagrangian density; in the absence of preferred coordinates, the integrand must be a scalar density. So we're looking for a scalar density that depends only on the metric and its derivatives. There's an obvious candidate, the Einstein-Hilbert Lagrangian. The question is whether there are any others that also satisfy (5). Now, the variation of any action of this sort with respect to the metric gives a rank two tensor. Using coordinate invariance (from (3)), Noether's theorem tells us that this tensor has a vanishing covariant divergence. Back in 1922, Cartan and Weyl showed that in four spacetime dimensions, the only such tensor was the Einstein tensor, and thus the only possible action was the Einstein-Hilbert action, *provided* that one restricted to tensors linear in the second derivatives of the metric. This last restriction was lifted by Lovelock in 1971 (J Math Phys 12, 498), proving my claim. > You imply that math dictates reality, rather than the other > way round - I find it hard to imagine that nature cares about > our chalkboard fiddling > > Given these assumptions, the field equations of GR are > > unique -- there are no other possibilities. > This is provable? Because if so, it means GR is > unchallengeable, it has reached its ultimate form Not at all. It just means that if we want to generalize GR, we have to drop one of these assumptions. Maybe the relevant geometry is not Riemannian -- there could be torsion, or nonmetricity, or higher "hidden" dimensions. Maybe there are other structures -- there's lots of work on scalar-tensor theories, where gravity is not only a property of spacetime geometry, but depends as well on a scalar field. Maybe spacetime itself is just an approximation of some deeper underlying structure. > , and > the physicists working on quantum gravity are banging > heads on a wall - like no one has the heart to tell them > the harsh truth? No, I am only talking about the classical theory. A quantum theory of gravity (or anything else) is not described by field equations coming from an action principle, except in the classical approximation, so assumptions (4) and (5) don't apply, and the others become ambiguous, since the metric in quantum gravity would be an operator acting on some space of states, not a real-valued tensor. Steve Carlip
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-12-13 13:28 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <6978f9a6-1da7-47c5-a8d5-3a4d55fd0e2f@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #535540 |
On Wednesday, November 25, 2015 at 9:19:53 PM UTC-5, Steven Carlip wrote: > In article <8bad1a6c-c2ff-4f59-b8e4-cae8ee1d524d@googlegroups.com>, > RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> wrote: > > > On November 22, Steven Carlip wrote: > > >>> Newtonian gravity itself, plus the correction, is obtained by starting > > >>> with the field equations of GR... > > >>> no adjustable parameters, nothing you can fiddle with to change > > >>> the answer. The GR field equations are unique and "rigid," and the > > >>> "relativistic correction" to orbital motion is equally unique. > > > > > > As I said before, the field equations of general relativity are "rigid" -- > > > there's nothing to adjust to change the predictions > > > for orbits. More specifically, assume that > > > (1) gravity is an effect of spacetime curvature; > > > (2) curvature is described mathematically by Riemannian > > > geometry, as worked out 60 years before GR; > > > (3) gravity requires *only* curvature, with no extra > > > structure (for example, no "preferred" coordinates); > > > (4) the equations for gravity can be derived from an > > > action principle (as the equations for all of the > > > other fundamental interaction are); > > > (5) the equations involve only second time derivatives > > > (as in Newton's second law, F=ma; by Ostrogradsky's > > > theorem, this is necessary for there to be stable > > > solutions). > > > > Can you elaborate on this theorem? It's news to me. > > It's pretty straightforward. The Riemannian geometry > assumption (2) means that the local geometry of the > spacetime manifold is described entirely by the metric. > The action (4) must depend on this metric, and by (3) > must depend on nothing else. A spacetime action is > always an integral of a Lagrangian density; in the > absence of preferred coordinates, the integrand must > be a scalar density. > > So we're looking for a scalar density that depends only > on the metric and its derivatives. There's an obvious > candidate, the Einstein-Hilbert Lagrangian. The question > is whether there are any others that also satisfy (5). > > Now, the variation of any action of this sort with > respect to the metric gives a rank two tensor. Using > coordinate invariance (from (3)), Noether's theorem > tells us that this tensor has a vanishing covariant > divergence. Back in 1922, Cartan and Weyl showed that > in four spacetime dimensions, the only such tensor > was the Einstein tensor, and thus the only possible > action was the Einstein-Hilbert action, *provided* > that one restricted to tensors linear in the second > derivatives of the metric. This last restriction > was lifted by Lovelock in 1971 (J Math Phys 12, 498), > proving my claim. > > > You imply that math dictates reality, rather than the other > > way round - I find it hard to imagine that nature cares about > > our chalkboard fiddling > > > > Given these assumptions, the field equations of GR are > > > unique -- there are no other possibilities. > > > This is provable? Because if so, it means GR is > > unchallengeable, it has reached its ultimate form > > Not at all. It just means that if we want to generalize > GR, we have to drop one of these assumptions. Maybe > the relevant geometry is not Riemannian -- there could > be torsion, or nonmetricity, or higher "hidden" dimensions. > Maybe there are other structures -- there's lots of work > on scalar-tensor theories, where gravity is not only a > property of spacetime geometry, but depends as well on > a scalar field. Maybe spacetime itself is just an > approximation of some deeper underlying structure. My theory of gravity is a scalar-tensor theory. A paper on my theory is available in the following link: http://www.modelmechanics.org/essayonDTG.pdf
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Steven Carlip <carlip@physics.ucdavis.edu> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-18 22:14 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <carlip-FB478C.22141618112015@88-209-239-213.giganet.hu> |
| In reply to | #533926 |
In article <b2cd67fd-9052-4b07-be0c-8fda188e8a37@googlegroups.com>, jay moseley <jaymoseley@hotmail.com> wrote: [...] > Otherwise, every example you mentioned can be explained > classically. Disagree? Im sure you do. Then choose any one > for sake of brevity. And Ill show you how a classical model > can explain it. Not with numbers but with scientific > precedence. OK, let's take the deflection of light. Here are the observations for you to explain: 1. The amount of deflection is the same for all frequencies. Note that this is unlike refraction in any known medium or "atmosphere" -- the amount of refraction depends strongly on frequency. (This is, after all, how a prism works.) 2. The "elongation angle" of a star is the angle between the line of sight to the star and the Sun. Deflection is observed for elongation angles ranging from nearly zero (light grazing the surface of the Sun) to more than 90 degrees (light coming from a direction perpendicular to the Sun). The amount of deflection is much smaller for large elongation angles, of course, but it's measurable with VLBI. 3. Deflection is also observed for light passing Jupiter and light passing galaxies. 4. Finally, the numbers matter. The amount of deflection agrees with the amount predicted by general relativity, with an accuracy of about .01%. Note that this is not just a prediction of a single number. As I said, the amount of deflection depends on the elongation angle, and GR gives a formula for this dependence, which is observed to hold. Similarly, the amount of deflection by Jupiter, and by 15 elliptical galaxies, agrees with the predictions of GR. Steve Carlip
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jay moseley <jaymoseley@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-19 00:40 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <2646b61c-845d-4b2f-9341-723e0f9560b9@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #534021 |
Steve Carlip wrote... >OK, let's take the deflection of light. Here are the observations for you to explain: 1. The amount of deflection is the same for all frequencies. Note that this is unlike refraction in any known medium or "atmosphere" -- the amount of refraction depends strongly on frequency. (This is, after all, how a prism works.) 2. The "elongation angle" of a star is the angle between the line of sight to the star and the Sun. Deflection is observed for elongation angles ranging from nearly zero (light grazing the surface of the Sun) to more than 90 degrees (light coming from a direction perpendicular to the Sun). The amount of deflection is much smaller for large elongation angles, of course, but it's measurable with VLBI. 3. Deflection is also observed for light passing Jupiter and light passing galaxies. 4. Finally, the numbers matter. The amount of deflection agrees with the amount predicted by general relativity, with an accuracy of about .01%. Note that this is not just a prediction of a single number. As I said, the amount of deflection depends on the elongation angle, and GR gives a formula for this >dependence, which is observed to hold. Similarly, the amount of deflection by Jupiter, and by 15 elliptical galaxies, agrees with the predictions of GR. >Steve Carlip I thank you for your civilized posting style. I am familiar with the argument about it not being frequency dependent. But Im afraid there is a deep flaw in it that I have yet to be seen addressed. How is it that detections of the same source at the same time from the same location for different frequencies can be made? Its impossible. You want multiple detections from visible to radio from the *same location At the same time* to prove that it is frequency independent. And we havent got them. You have forgotten that it is only an assumption, not a set of observations that the relativistic argument rests on. Ive also read the argument about deflection. Once again, not only is refraction not being tested for, even IF one uses GR there are still the extenuating factors of ISM, solar wind and of course all the associated error margins. I bet anything that the GR prediction assumes a perfect vacuum. Which is not the case. What is the density of the ISM and solar wind? Unknown. What is the density variation across any given sample? Unknown. And when this information becomes available for scrutiny....Then we check the predicted relativistic deflection to see if its within error margins of variability of density of said medium. Its going to be a long time before we can prove that refraction can be ruled out. So its not a case of GR being right or wrong. Its a case of being able to definitely rule out refraction. Dont forget...we know refraction occurs. We only assume the relativistic effects are happening. It seems logical to rule out the unknown knowns before ruling in the unknown unknowns. I think you know as well as anyone how little we know about ISM, solar wind, stellar and planetary atmospheric mediums. Didnt they just discover Pluto had a significant atmosphere? Was that expected? I dont think so.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Steven Carlip <carlip@physics.ucdavis.edu> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-22 22:57 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <carlip-351E9A.22570122112015@88-209-239-213.giganet.hu> |
| In reply to | #534026 |
In article <2646b61c-845d-4b2f-9341-723e0f9560b9@googlegroups.com>, jay moseley <jaymoseley@hotmail.com> wrote: [...] > I thank you for your civilized posting style. > I am familiar with the argument about it not being > frequency dependent. But Im afraid there is a deep > flaw in it that I have yet to be seen addressed. > How is it that detections of the same source at the > same time from the same location for different > frequencies can be made? Actually, it's fairly standard in VLBI to make simultaneous measurements of the same source at multiple frequencies. For instane, Fomalont et al., Ap.J.699 (2009) 1395, make their measurements at 43, 23, and 15 GHz. > Ive also read the argument about deflection. Once > again, not only is refraction not being tested for, Actually, it is -- see below. > even IF one uses GR there are still the extenuating > factors of ISM, solar wind and of course all the > associated error margins. I bet anything that the > GR prediction assumes a perfect vacuum. Which is > not the case. What is the density of the ISM and > solar wind? Unknown. What is the density variation > across any given sample? Unknown. First of all, the true interstellar medium is largely irrelevant here. If there were significant refraction by the ISM, it wouldn't require that the path of light come near the Sun, and wouldn't show up as deflection *by the Sun*. What matters is the material -- almost entirely plasma -- near the Sun, especially in the corona. It's true that we don't know the exact density of this plasma. But the beauty of the light deflection experiments is that they allow us to *measure* the density. Different frequencies are refracted by different amounts in a plasma -- at radio frequencies the deflection varies with the inverse square of the frequency. The total deflection includes a component that depends on frequency, due to plasma, and a component that doesn't, due to gravity. By comparing the results at different frequencies, it is a simple mathematical exercise to separate the two. Finally, I think you're missing the essential point. Look, for instance, at Shapiro et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 92 (2004) 121101. You will find an analysis of more than 1.7 million observations of 541 sources, taken between 1979 and 1999. The sources had elongation angles (angles between the line of sight and the Sun) ranging from nearly zero to well over 90 degrees. The measurements took place over two Solar cycles; they included sources in the northern and southern celestial hemispheres; they included measurements in all four seasons. The measured deflections agree *quantitatively* with the predictions of GR (which gives not just one number, but deflection as a function of elongation angle). The paper did separate analyses by year of measurement, by season, by celestial hemisphere, and by intervals of elongation angle. They *all* agreed with the GR predictions. You are suggesting that somehow some sort of medium managed to produce results that not only didn't depend on frequency, but miraculously exactly duplicated the GR predictions, independent of the Solar cycle, the distance the light passed from the Sun, and the location of the source. Don't you find this to be a bit of a stretch? Steve Carlip
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jay moseley <jaymoseley@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-24 11:51 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <f8619867-2a5c-4b3e-b3c9-3c9606145804@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #534724 |
Steve Carlip wrote >Finally, I think you're missing the essential point. Look, for instance, at Shapiro et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 92 (2004) 121101. You will find an analysis of more than 1.7 million observations of 541 sources, taken between 1979 and 1999. The sources had elongation angles (angles between the line of sight and the Sun) ranging from nearly zero to well over 90 degrees. The measurements took place over two Solar cycles; they included sources in the northern and southern >celestial hemispheres; they included measurements in all four seasons. I dont deny all these measurements took place. What is ignored is any contribution by the solar wind would give the same observed progression. Looking towards the Sun, it the will be the most optically dense.. As one progressively increases the angle away from the sun the density of the solar wind must decrease. Ie, the solar wind nearest the sun must be the most dense. And progressively less so the farther away from the sun one samples. So until we get an accurate measure of the refractive index of the sun, you cant rue out refraction. Ignoring it would be unscientific. Anyways my position on this is... we have a very accurate measure of the refractive index of the vacuum medium around earth. Its confirmed by all the vlbi readings you cited. >The measured deflections agree *quantitatively* with the predictions of GR (which gives not just one number, but deflection as a function of elongation angle). The paper did separate analyses by year of measurement, by season, by celestial hemisphere, and by intervals of elongation angle. They *all* agreed >with the GR predictions. Possibly, but unfortunately for GR these measurements also confirm the refractive index of the local vacuum medium. And refraction is a well understood and documented classical effect. Whereas GR has no confirmed observations, that can be attributed to it alone. >You are suggesting that somehow some sort of medium managed to produce results that not only didn't depend on frequency, but miraculously exactly duplicated the GR predictions, independent of the Solar cycle, the distance the light passed from the Sun, and the location of the source. Don't you find this to >be a bit of a stretch? Not at all.Do you really believe that refraction is not a valid scientific phenomena? Why cant it explain the observed effects? Have you got exact measurements if the various mediums in question so as to rule out refraction? No. Take for instance the amount by which GR supposedly displaces the light beam. Its very small. Equivelent to the refractive index of a very thin medium. Much much thinner then air. Now look at the rule of thumb vis a vis refraction. Longer wavelengths refract less. I cant find any reference as to what the refractive index for radio ij a very thin medium or what the angles would be. But if one looks at optical in glass and sees how much the angle decreases from r- b,.. then the displacement of radio must be very small...for air, let alone how much less for a near vacuum. . In other words if a quasar light source is deflected by 41or so arc seconds. The displacement by refraction between 3- 30 GHZ must be so much smaller as to be unobservble with vlbi. Contrary to the outrageous claims that it can be measured. I did try in these last few days and can find no paper that specifically calculates displacement of radio between 3-30 GHZ using refraction in an thin vacuum like medium. IOW, it hasnt been done.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Steven Carlip <carlip@physics.ucdavis.edu> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-27 14:48 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <carlip-0A7985.14481427112015@88-209-239-213.giganet.hu> |
| In reply to | #535141 |
In article <f8619867-2a5c-4b3e-b3c9-3c9606145804@googlegroups.com>, jay moseley <jaymoseley@hotmail.com> wrote: > Steve Carlip wrote > >Finally, I think you're missing the essential point. Look, > >for instance, at Shapiro et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 92 (2004) > >121101. You will find an analysis of more than 1.7 million > >observations of 541 sources, taken between 1979 and 1999. > >The sources had elongation angles (angles between the line > >of sight and the Sun) ranging from nearly zero to well over > >90 degrees. The measurements took place over two Solar > >cycles; they included sources in the northern and southern > >celestial hemispheres; they included measurements in > >all four seasons. > I dont deny all these measurements took place. What is > ignored is any contribution by the solar wind would give > the same observed progression. The Solar wind varies in density by a factor of two or more depending on the time in the Solar cycle. The observations analyzed by Shapiro et al. took place over a complete cycle and most of a second. They looked explicitly for variations in deflection in different years. There were none. The Solar wind varies, again by a factor of two or more, with Solar latitude. Shapiro et al. looked at lines of sight to sources at many different Solar latitudes. No difference was observed. The Solar wind is a plasma. The index of refraction of a plasma at radio frequencies varies inversely with the square of the frequency. This is extremely well tested -- it's crucial for all sorts of applications, from radio astronomy to the effect of the ionosphere on ordinary broadcasts. For measurements at 43 GHz and 15 GHz, this would give a factor of eight difference in deflection. The observations have been done, and nothing faintly like that is seen. If you want to be serious about this (maybe you don't), you're going to have to stop just saying, "Maybe this, maybe that, I couldn't find this on the Internet,..." You're going to have to look at real physical phenomena and real numbers. Steve Carlip
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jay moseley <jaymoseley@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-30 02:45 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <ecc6b9a3-de22-4183-b6e3-3acaf5313d4b@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #535988 |
Steve Carlip wrote... > Steve Carlip wrote >> > >Finally, I think you're missing the essential point. Look, > >for instance, at Shapiro et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 92 (2004) > >121101. You will find an analysis of more than 1.7 million > >observations of 541 sources, taken between 1979 and 1999. > >The sources had elongation angles (angles between the line > >of sight and the Sun) ranging from nearly zero to well over > >90 degrees. The measurements took place over two Solar > >cycles; they included sources in the northern and southern > >celestial hemispheres; they included measurements in > >all four seasons. >> I dont deny all these measurements took place. What is > ignored is any contribution by the solar wind would give > the same observed progression. >The Solar wind varies in density by a factor of two or more depending on the time in the Solar cycle. The observations analyzed by Shapiro et al. took place over a complete cycle and most of a second. They looked explicitly for variations in deflection in different years. There were none. The Solar wind varies, again by a factor of two or more, with Solar latitude. Shapiro et al. looked at lines of sight to sources at many different Solar latitudes. No difference was observed. The Solar wind is a plasma. The index of refraction of a plasma at radio frequencies varies inversely with the square of the frequency. This is extremely well tested -- it's crucial for all sorts of applications, from radio astronomy to the effect of the ionosphere on ordinary broadcasts. For measurements at 43 GHz and 15 GHz, this would give a factor of eight difference in deflection. The observations have been done, and nothing faintly like that is seen. If you want to be serious about this (maybe you don't), you're going to have to stop just saying, "Maybe this, maybe that, I couldn't find this on the Internet,..." You're going to have to look at real physical phenomena and real numbers. >Steve Carlip Come on Steve, you can do better than that. Talk about not being serious. Your reply is a joke. I read your paper, Shapiro et al ... Where is there even a mention of how refraction cant explain the observed data? Let alone any ISM, solar wind etc measurements, known refraction index of these mediums and calculations. Zip. Nada. Come back when you have facts not hyperpole. For instance your arguments about plasma. Since when do ionosphere measurements model the much thinner vacuum medium refractions of the local solar system medium.? Is the Ionesphere even a good representation of the physical constituents of the local vacuum medium. Does anyone even know? Where are your data and supporting calculations? ......
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Steven Carlip <carlip@physics.ucdavis.edu> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-12-03 20:58 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <carlip-1A09C1.20583803122015@88-209-239-213.giganet.hu> |
| In reply to | #536462 |
In article <ecc6b9a3-de22-4183-b6e3-3acaf5313d4b@googlegroups.com>, jay moseley <jaymoseley@hotmail.com> wrote: [...] > Come on Steve, you can do better than that. Talk about not being > serious. Your reply is a joke. > I read your paper, Shapiro et al ... > Where is there even a mention of how refraction cant explain the > observed data? Let alone any ISM, solar wind etc measurements, > known refraction index of these mediums and calculations. > Zip. Nada. > Come back when you have facts not hyperpole. > For instance your arguments about plasma. Since when do > ionosphere measurements model the much thinner vacuum medium > refractions of the local solar system medium.? Is the Ionesphere > even a good representation of the physical constituents of > the local vacuum medium. Does anyone even know? Where > are your data and supporting calculations? ...... I thought you wanted to base your argument on "scientific precedence." Instead, here's what you've come up with: Let's suppose there is a substance surrounding the Sun. It's associated with the Sun, but doesn't respond to the Sun's activity -- it doesn't change over the course of a Solar cycle. It doesn't depend on the Solar latitude, so it's not Solar wind, which does. It hasn't been detected by the satellites that observe Solar wind, such as Ulysses and ACE, since what they see *does* depend on the Solar cycle and latitude. But let's suppose it's there. Now suppose that, unlike any material known to human beings, this substance refracts light by an amount that's independent of wavelength. In particular, it's not a plasma, or at least it's unlike any plasma that's ever been observed. Now suppose that somehow the density of this substance has somehow arranged itself so that the refraction of light passing the Sun is exactly identical to the deflection predicted by general relativity (to .01%), at all elongation angles, all Solar latitudes, all states of Solar activity. Now suppose that the same substance surrounds Jupiter, and that despite the huge differences between Jupiter and the Sun, its density has again arranged itself so that the refraction of light passing near Jupiter just happens to match the deflection predicted by GR. An suppose that the same substance also surrounds the 15 elliptical galaxies studied by Bolton et al. (Phys. Rev. D 74 (2006) 061501), and that there, too, its density has arranged itself so that the refraction of light just happens to match the deflection predicted by GR. Let me ask you a question. What possible observation would count as evidence against your mystery substance? I've told you the answer for GR: if the deflection of light depended on the Solar cycle, the GR explanation would be wrong. If it depended on Solar latitude, or on anything except elongation angle, the GR explanation would be wrong. If the deflection was different for different frequencies, the GR explanation would be wrong. So far, GR has passed all of these tests. What tests has your proposal passed? What future tests could it fail? Steve Carlip
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jeff-Relf.Me <@.> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-12-03 21:27 -0800 |
| Subject | "Energy that can do work" (eXergy) unites GR and QM, no ? |
| Message-ID | <Jeff-Relf.Me@Dec.3{9.27P.Seattle.2015}> |
| In reply to | #537310 |
StevenCarlip replied (to JayMoseley): > > Come on Steve, you can do better than that. > > Talk about not being serious. Your reply is a joke. > > I read your paper, Shapiro et al ... > > Where is there even a mention of how refraction > > cant explain the observed data? [[...]] > > Is the Ionesphere even a good representation of > > the physical constituents of the local vacuum medium. > > [[...]] So far, GR has passed all of these tests. > What tests has your proposal passed? > What future tests could it fail? JayMoseley rejects Einstein for the same reason he rejected Darwin... he doesn't like the implications. Again, StevenCarlip, I ask you: General Relativity paints a static, four dimensional timescape. Quantum mechanics remains statistical, always; i.e. the actual, local causes are unknowable. But "energy that can do work" (eXergy) unites them, no ?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jay moseley <jaymoseley@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-12-04 01:54 -0800 |
| Subject | "Energy that can do work" (eXergy) unites GR and QM, no ? |
| Message-ID | <ea008a1a-4e24-4152-ae30-d7b21565425a@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #537313 |
Jeff Relf wrote... > JayMoseley rejects Einstein for the same reason he rejected Darwin... he doesn't like the implications. You have the wrong information here Jeff. I have never even mentioned Darwins name in any discussion let alone claim he is someone I disagree with.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | benj <none@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-12-04 13:47 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: What do you think of Darwin, JayMoseley ? |
| Message-ID | <Ycl8y.245787$eE.93409@fx07.iad> |
| In reply to | #537321 |
On 12/04/2015 05:30 AM, Jeff-Relf.Me wrote:
>
> You (JayMoseley) replied (to me):
>> > JayMoseley rejects Einstein for the same reason he rejected Darwin,
>> > he doesn't like the implications.
>>
>> You have the wrong information here Jeff.
>> I have never even mentioned Darwins name in any discussion
>> let alone claim he is someone I disagree with.
>
> What do you think of Darwin, JayMoseley ?
>
> Darwin implied that we're animals, and you don't like it.
>
> Einstein implied that we're robots,
> programmed to want food, sex, etc.
>
>
No definitive evidence this is true Rolf. Only some evidence it's
partially true. You and H&V don't know when to stop and start to think.
--
___ ___ ___ ___
/\ \ /\ \ /\__\ /\ \
/::\ \ /::\ \ /::| | \:\ \
/:/\:\ \ /:/\:\ \ /:|:| | ___ /::\__\
/::\~\:\__\ /::\~\:\ \ /:/|:| |__ /\ /:/\/__/
/:/\:\ \:|__| /:/\:\ \:\__\ /:/ |:| /\__\ \:\/:/ /
\:\~\:\/:/ / \:\~\:\ \/__/ \/__|:|/:/ / \::/ /
\:\ \::/ / \:\ \:\__\ |:/:/ / \/__/
\:\/:/ / \:\ \/__/ |::/ /
\::/__/ \:\__\ /:/ /
~~ \/__/ \/__/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jay moseley <jaymoseley@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-12-05 05:06 -0800 |
| Subject | What do you think of Darwin, JayMoseley ? |
| Message-ID | <38a32298-eb7c-4972-98ef-fd1fa22f4e05@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #537321 |
Jeff Relf wrote.. > What do you think of Darwin, JayMoseley ? >Darwin implied that we're animals, and you don't like it. When did I say I did or didnt think we were animals? I dont ever remember even posting about Darwin. Are you sure you havent mistaken me for someone else who doesnt like Darwin? >Einstein implied that we're robots, programmed to want food, sex, etc.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jay moseley <jaymoseley@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-12-04 01:46 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <f3132208-2193-4bbb-aca2-bbafbaa7ea84@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #537310 |
Steve Carlip wrote.. >Let me ask you a question. What possible observation would count as evidence against your mystery substance? I've told you the answer for GR: if the deflection of light depended on the Solar cycle, the GR explanation would be wrong. If it depended on Solar latitude, or on anything except elongation angle, the GR explanation would be wrong. If the deflection was different for different frequencies, the GR explanation would be wrong. So far, GR has passed all of >these tests. What tests has your proposal passed? What future tests could it fail? Let me ask you a question. If I ask you for stats, numbers calculations and measurements and you fail to give to give a single example. Is it not fair ' science' for me to question your assumptions? You cited one paper that hasnt a single example of data in it. Just a few fancy graphs. And how do you know deflection by refraction isnt too small to measure? You dont know what the refraction index of the medium is. Give me some vlbi data on a * single* source at different declinations. Then give me accurate density measurements on the so called plasma you refer to. And refractive index in radio for that medium. Then tell me how you know this refractive index. Because my reading of it is that the effects of refraction in the ionosphere fall off virtually to zero in the ionsphere above a certain height. AND, that in fact very little is known of plasma effects even at these heights and that the conditions are highly changeable and extremely complex for that even which is known. Contrary to your erroneous claim you know exactly what the refractive index is for the local ISM. Looking at your graphs maybe the only fact that is available is that the angle of deflection from the sun is directly related to the deflection observed. And that doesnt seem inconsistent with refraction. At least Shapiro never proves this to be inconsistent.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Poutnik <Poutnik4NNTP@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-12-04 12:54 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <n3ruo8$l0m$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #537320 |
On 12/04/2015 10:46 AM, jay moseley wrote: > And how do you know deflection by refraction isnt too small to measure? You dont > know what the refraction index of the medium is. > To other this, even without any data in hand, as I am not involved in such measurements. Scientists are not stupid. There are 2 major differences in expected observed patterns of refraction versus GR light bending. 1/ Refraction bending weakens exponentially with height delta_alfa = delta_alfa_0 . exp [-const . (R - Rs)] where R is distance to sun centre, Rs is sun radius. delta_alfa_0 is bending angle at conventional sun surface ( lowest visible layers ) GR bending weakens reciprocally with squared distance. delta_alfa = delta_alfa_0 . (Rs / R)2 As the result, refraction bending weakens with height MUCH faster than GR bending, and is not so difficult to determine, what kind of bending occurs. As result, refraction bending was easily refuted. 2/ Refraction bending is wavelength dependent GR bending is not wavelength dependent. Wavelength dependent bending is not observed. -- Poutnik ( the Czech word for a wanderer ) Knowledge makes a great man humble, but a small man arrogant. Eventual Wikipedia articles are provided with intention of a convenient reference, not as an evidence, argument, and usually not as a primary source of my knowledge.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jay moseley <jaymoseley@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-12-05 05:28 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <bc32bf75-6344-43ad-b3fa-4fd6ed5c4c35@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #537324 |
Poutnik wrote... > > To other this, even without any data in hand, as I am not involved in such measurements. Scientists are not stupid. There are 2 major differences in expected observed patterns of refraction versus GR light bending. 1/ Refraction bending weakens exponentially with height delta_alfa = delta_alfa_0 . exp [-const . (R - Rs)] where R is distance to sun centre, Rs is sun radius. delta_alfa_0 is bending angle at conventional sun surface ( lowest visible layers ) >GR bending weakens reciprocally with squared distance. delta_alfa = delta_alfa_0 . (Rs / R)2 >As the result, refraction bending weakens with height MUCH faster than GR bending, and is not so difficult to determine, what kind of bending occurs. >As result, refraction bending was easily refuted. Refraction depends on density of medium. What assumptions are you making here. That the medium follows....what density distribution? > 2/ Refraction bending is wavelength dependent GR bending is not wavelength dependent. >Wavelength dependent bending is not observed. This is an assumption not based on measurement. How do you know wavelength dependent bending is occuring but witthin observed error margins? How do you know how much wavelength bending occurs within the local ISM? We have no measurements to define the refractive index of this medium. Let alone define what deflection angles there are between 3-30 ghz. Steve pulled an imaginary claim out of his hat of eight fold differences in defection for plasma. Based on studies of ionsphere. But deflection in the ionsphere falls off to 0 above a certain elevation. Meaning plasma effects in the ionsphere have no bearing on declection in the ISM. Seeing as the well known rule of deflection angles reducing for longer wavelengths applies. ... Then for example if lets say a refractive index of 1.0002 is needed to describe the observations. Then differences in deflection angles for wavelength dependent recraction would be infinitesimally small and unmeasureable. Your whole argument is based on assumptions that are way off and ignore well known rules of physics.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-12-04 07:36 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <n3s4t5$9qr$3@speranza.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #537320 |
On 12/4/2015 3:46 AM, jay moseley wrote: > Steve Carlip wrote.. >> Let me ask you a question. What possible observation would count as evidence against your >> mystery substance? I've told you the answer for GR: if the deflection of light depended >> on the Solar cycle, the GR explanation would be wrong. If it depended on Solar latitude, >> or on anything except elongation angle, the GR explanation would be wrong. If the deflection >> was different for different frequencies, the GR explanation would be wrong. So far, GR has >> passed all of >these tests. What tests has your proposal passed? What future tests could it fail? > > Let me ask you a question. If I ask you for stats, numbers calculations and > measurements and you fail to give to give a single example. Is it not fair > ' science' for me to question your assumptions? > You cited one paper that hasnt a single example of data in it. Just a few fancy graphs. Graphs are a way of presenting data. I'm sure you're aware of that. > > And how do you know deflection by refraction isnt too small to measure? You dont > know what the refraction index of the medium is. Wait. Now you're suggesting it's too small to measure? But the deflection observed IS observable and it matches the GR prediction. So suppose the deflection by refraction IS too small to measure --- now it cannot account for the measured deflection, while GR does. What now? What's the rationale for rejecting GR when you don't have a viable alternative? > > Give me some vlbi data on a * single* source at different declinations. Then give me > accurate density measurements on the so called plasma you refer to. And refractive > index in radio for that medium. Then tell me how you know this refractive index. > Because my reading of it is that the effects of refraction in the ionosphere > fall off virtually to zero in the ionsphere above a certain height. AND, that in fact > very little is known of plasma effects even at these heights and that the conditions are > highly changeable and extremely complex for that even which is known. > Contrary to your erroneous claim you know exactly what the refractive index is > for the local ISM. > > Looking at your graphs maybe the only fact that is available is that the angle > of deflection from the sun is directly related to the deflection observed. And > that doesnt seem inconsistent with refraction. At least Shapiro never proves > this to be inconsistent. > -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 11 of 12 — ← Prev page 1 … 9 10 [11] 12 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics
csiph-web