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

Groups > sci.physics > #727882 > unrolled thread

Comment of Einstein's Theory of Relativity

Back to article view | Back to sci.physics

Contents

  Comment of Einstein's Theory of Relativity sam.wormley@gmail.com - 2019-02-18 09:23 -0800
    Re: Comment of Einstein's Theory of Relativity benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2019-02-18 13:21 -0500
      Re: Comment of Einstein's Theory of Relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2019-02-18 19:03 +0000
      Re: Comment of Einstein's Theory of Relativity pnalsing@gmail.com - 2019-02-18 18:11 -0800
        Re: Comment of Einstein's Theory of Relativity Serg Io <invvalid@invalid.com> - 2019-02-18 22:51 -0600
          Re: Comment of Einstein's Theory of Relativity benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2019-02-19 10:03 -0500
            Re: Comment of Einstein's Theory of Relativity Serg Io <invvalid@invalid.com> - 2019-02-19 10:16 -0600
              Re: Comment of Einstein's Theory of Relativity benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2019-02-19 16:10 -0500
                Re: Comment of Einstein's Theory of Relativity Serg Io <invvalid@invalid.com> - 2019-02-19 16:33 -0600
            Re: Comment of Einstein's Theory of Relativity Double-A <double-a3@hush.com> - 2019-02-19 14:21 -0800
    Truthiness isn't that important. Jeff-Relf.Me  @. - 2019-02-18 13:11 -0800
      Re: Truthiness isn't that important. "Sir Gregory Hall,  Esq." <greghall@yacht_maester.fake> - 2019-02-18 16:15 -0500
        Re: Truthiness isn't that important. % <persent@gmail.com> - 2019-02-18 14:16 -0700
          Re: Truthiness isn't that important. onion@anon.invalid (Mr On!on) - 2019-02-18 22:28 +0000
            Re: Truthiness isn't that important. % <persent@gmail.com> - 2019-02-18 15:42 -0700
              Re: Truthiness isn't that important. onion@anon.invalid (Mr On!on) - 2019-02-18 23:00 +0000
                Re: Truthiness isn't that important. % <persent@gmail.com> - 2019-02-18 16:46 -0700
            Re: Truthiness isn't that important. Siri Cruise <chine.bleu@yahoo.com> - 2019-02-18 20:23 -0800
      Re: Truthiness isn't that important. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2019-02-18 21:32 +0000
        Which prevailed at the start of the Big Bang ? Jeff-Relf.Me  @. - 2019-02-18 17:23 -0800
          Re: Which prevailed at the start of the Big Bang ? benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2019-02-18 22:32 -0500
          Re: Which prevailed at the start of the Big Bang ? moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2019-02-19 03:50 +0000
          Re: Which prevailed at the start of the Big Bang ? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2019-02-19 14:54 +0000
      Re: Truthiness isn't that important. Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2019-02-19 09:56 -0800
    Re: Comment of Einstein's Theory of Relativity Enes Richard <pies_na_teorie@vp.pl> - 2019-02-19 00:25 -0800
    Re: Comment of Einstein's Theory of Relativity Enes Richard <pies_na_teorie@vp.pl> - 2019-02-22 06:03 -0800
      Re: Comment of Einstein's Theory of Relativity sam.wormley@gmail.com - 2019-02-22 06:06 -0800
      Re: Comment of Einstein's Theory of Relativity sam.wormley@gmail.com - 2019-02-22 06:15 -0800
        Re: Comment of Einstein's Theory of Relativity Enes Richard <pies_na_teorie@vp.pl> - 2019-02-23 04:40 -0800

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

#727882 — Comment of Einstein's Theory of Relativity

Comment of Einstein's Theory of Relativity

There has NEVER been an observation that contradicts a prediction of Einstein's Special and General Theories of Relativity. The theories remain fruitful tools of physics.

Oh, and guess what -- the same can be said of the quantum mechanics. 

<smiling>

Regards to all.

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#727906

On 2/18/2019 12:23 PM, sam.wormley@gmail.com wrote:
> Comment of Einstein's Theory of Relativity
> 
> There has NEVER been an observation that contradicts a prediction of Einstein's Special and General Theories of Relativity. The theories remain fruitful tools of physics.
> 
> Oh, and guess what -- the same can be said of the quantum mechanics.
> 
> <smiling>
> 
> Regards to all.
> 
So all of physics is "settled science"!
Boy, you sure don't know much how science works for a "professor"!

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

#727916

benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 2/18/2019 12:23 PM, sam.wormley@gmail.com wrote:
>> Comment of Einstein's Theory of Relativity
>> 
>> There has NEVER been an observation that contradicts a prediction of
>> Einstein's Special and General Theories of Relativity. The theories
>> remain fruitful tools of physics.
>> 
>> Oh, and guess what -- the same can be said of the quantum mechanics.
>> 
>> <smiling>
>> 
>> Regards to all.
>> 
> So all of physics is "settled science"!
> Boy, you sure don't know much how science works for a "professor"!
> 

 Nonsense. The two do not equate. 

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

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

#728002

On Monday, February 18, 2019 at 10:21:40 AM UTC-8, benj wrote:

> So all of physics is "settled science"!
> Boy, you sure don't know much how science works for a "professor"!

That is not what Sam said, and you know it... you just like to stir the shit up...

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

#728022

On 2/18/2019 8:11 PM, pnalsing@gmail.com wrote:
> On Monday, February 18, 2019 at 10:21:40 AM UTC-8, benj wrote:
> 
>> So all of physics is "settled science"!
>> Boy, you sure don't know much how science works for a "professor"!
> 
> That is not what Sam said, and you know it... you just like to stir the shit up...
> 


Sam said SR, GR, and QM are theories.


   "settled science" is a journalistic phase used by
        Al Gore and The Warmettes

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

#728069

On 2/18/2019 11:51 PM, Serg Io wrote:
> On 2/18/2019 8:11 PM, pnalsing@gmail.com wrote:
>> On Monday, February 18, 2019 at 10:21:40 AM UTC-8, benj wrote:
>>
>>> So all of physics is "settled science"!
>>> Boy, you sure don't know much how science works for a "professor"!
>>
>> That is not what Sam said, and you know it... you just like to stir the shit up...
>>
> 
> 
> Sam said SR, GR, and QM are theories.
> 
> 
>     "settled science" is a journalistic phase used by
>          Al Gore and The Warmettes
> 
Obviously there needs to be a law forbidding the teaching of these 
things as "theories" just like there are laws demanding that evolution 
be taught as "fact".

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

#728090

On 2/19/2019 9:03 AM, benj wrote:
> On 2/18/2019 11:51 PM, Serg Io wrote:
>> On 2/18/2019 8:11 PM, pnalsing@gmail.com wrote:
>>> On Monday, February 18, 2019 at 10:21:40 AM UTC-8, benj wrote:
>>>
>>>> So all of physics is "settled science"!
>>>> Boy, you sure don't know much how science works for a "professor"!
>>>
>>> That is not what Sam said, and you know it... you just like to stir
>>> the shit up...
>>>
>>
>>
>> Sam said SR, GR, and QM are theories.
>>
>>
>>     "settled science" is a journalistic phase used by
>>          Al Gore and The Warmettes
>>
> Obviously there needs to be a law forbidding the teaching of these
> things as "theories" just like there are laws demanding that evolution
> be taught as "fact".


agree,
      theoretical evolution vs factual evolution [show me the fossils]
        factual physics vs theoretical physics   [ugh]

"settled science"  is like has sat too long, or settled to the bottom of
the fish tank.

 I will send these questions to AOC, perhaps she may give her diving
guidance on these pressing issues.



 [why do people elect total morons into leadership positions ? ],

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

#728121

On 2/19/2019 11:16 AM, Serg Io wrote:
> On 2/19/2019 9:03 AM, benj wrote:
>> On 2/18/2019 11:51 PM, Serg Io wrote:
>>> On 2/18/2019 8:11 PM, pnalsing@gmail.com wrote:
>>>> On Monday, February 18, 2019 at 10:21:40 AM UTC-8, benj wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> So all of physics is "settled science"!
>>>>> Boy, you sure don't know much how science works for a "professor"!
>>>>
>>>> That is not what Sam said, and you know it... you just like to stir
>>>> the shit up...
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Sam said SR, GR, and QM are theories.
>>>
>>>
>>>      "settled science" is a journalistic phase used by
>>>           Al Gore and The Warmettes
>>>
>> Obviously there needs to be a law forbidding the teaching of these
>> things as "theories" just like there are laws demanding that evolution
>> be taught as "fact".
> 
> 
> agree,
>        theoretical evolution vs factual evolution [show me the fossils]
>          factual physics vs theoretical physics   [ugh]
> 
> "settled science"  is like has sat too long, or settled to the bottom of
> the fish tank.
> 
>   I will send these questions to AOC, perhaps she may give her diving
> guidance on these pressing issues.
>

I'm sure she can supply a theory for a "green new fishtank"

> 
>   [why do people elect total morons into leadership positions ? ],


Because in politics facts don't matter. It's like journalism where the 
only thing that matters is "a good story" rather than truth.

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

#728141

On 2/19/2019 3:10 PM, benj wrote:
> On 2/19/2019 11:16 AM, Serg Io wrote:
>> On 2/19/2019 9:03 AM, benj wrote:
>>> On 2/18/2019 11:51 PM, Serg Io wrote:
>>>> On 2/18/2019 8:11 PM, pnalsing@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>> On Monday, February 18, 2019 at 10:21:40 AM UTC-8, benj wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> So all of physics is "settled science"!
>>>>>> Boy, you sure don't know much how science works for a "professor"!
>>>>>
>>>>> That is not what Sam said, and you know it... you just like to stir
>>>>> the shit up...
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Sam said SR, GR, and QM are theories.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>      "settled science" is a journalistic phase used by
>>>>           Al Gore and The Warmettes
>>>>
>>> Obviously there needs to be a law forbidding the teaching of these
>>> things as "theories" just like there are laws demanding that evolution
>>> be taught as "fact".
>>
>>
>> agree,
>>        theoretical evolution vs factual evolution [show me the fossils]
>>          factual physics vs theoretical physics   [ugh]
>>
>> "settled science"  is like has sat too long, or settled to the bottom of
>> the fish tank.
>>
>>   I will send these questions to AOC, perhaps she may give her diving
>> guidance on these pressing issues.
>>
> 
> I'm sure she can supply a theory for a "green new fishtank"

one that uses no water, just paint a fish on the side

> 
>>
>>   [why do people elect total morons into leadership positions ? ],
> 
> 
> Because in politics facts don't matter. It's like journalism where the
> only thing that matters is "a good story" rather than truth.
> 

Dems are running using control of the media, (just paying them money
will do it)   all propaganda, no facts.   They need more people smoking
pot to 'believe'.

remember those full hollywood Hero movies that came out before a
politician would run, John Glen, and John Kennedy ?

Obama may have one; "The Choom Gang takes down Whitie"

Trump had his shows
Ronald Reagan had TV and Radio


...........meanwhile......BACK to PHYSICS..........

there is also

=>>  Notional Physics  and Imaginational Physics

which James McGinn tries to use, without any knowledge, to support his
Dehydrated Water Vapor Suppositoriness.

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

#728140

On Tuesday, February 19, 2019 at 7:03:17 AM UTC-8, benj wrote:
> On 2/18/2019 11:51 PM, Serg Io wrote:
> > On 2/18/2019 8:11 PM, pnalsing@gmail.com wrote:
> >> On Monday, February 18, 2019 at 10:21:40 AM UTC-8, benj wrote:
> >>
> >>> So all of physics is "settled science"!
> >>> Boy, you sure don't know much how science works for a "professor"!
> >>
> >> That is not what Sam said, and you know it... you just like to stir the shit up...
> >>
> > 
> > 
> > Sam said SR, GR, and QM are theories.
> > 
> > 
> >     "settled science" is a journalistic phase used by
> >          Al Gore and The Warmettes
> > 
> Obviously there needs to be a law forbidding the teaching of these 
> things as "theories" just like there are laws demanding that evolution 
> be taught as "fact".


Remember that law that was passed in some hillbilly state that the value of pi be taught as equal to exactly 3, because the Bible says that it is?

Double-A

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

#727948 — Truthiness isn't that important.

> There has NEVER been an observation that contradicts a prediction of
> Einstein's Special and General Theories of Relativity. 
> The theories remain fruitful tools of physics.
> 
> Oh, and guess what -- the same can be said of the quantum mechanics. 

Yet they contradict each other.

The best you can do is:

  - Find it useful ( in its domain ).
  - Try to Falsify it ( in its domain ).

For example, the notion of "mass" ( rest mass ) is useful.
The notion doesn't have to be entirely accurate ( nothing is at rest ),
it just has to be _ useful.   Truthiness isn't that important.

Most people only love, comic book, sci-fi "physics";
they've no use for the genuine article, real physics.

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

#727950 — Re: Truthiness isn't that important.

On Mon, 18 Feb 2019 13:11:17 -0800 (Seattle), Jeff-Relf.Me  @. wrote:
<...>
>For example, the notion of "mass" ( rest mass ) is useful.
>The notion doesn't have to be entirely accurate ( nothing is at rest ),
>it just has to be _ useful.   Truthiness isn't that important.
<...>

What kind of a word is "truthiness"?

-- 

Everybødy here likes Yøurs Truly, 
Gregøry Hall - Bømbastic Løudmøuth øf the Søuth

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

#727951 — Re: Truthiness isn't that important.

🍏 🍎 🍐 🍊 🍋 🍌 🍉 🍇 🍓 🍈 🍒 🍑 🍍 🥭 🥥 🥝 🍅 🍆 🥑 🥦 🥒 🥬 🌶 🌽 
🥕 🥔 🍠 🥐 🍞 🥖 🥨 🥯 🧀 🥚 🍳 🥞 🥓 🥩 🍗 🍖 🌭 🍔 🍟 🍕 🥪 🥙 🌮 🌯 
🥗 🥘 🥫 🍝 🍜 🍲 🍛 🍣 🍱 🥟 🍤 🍙 🍚 🍘 🍥 🥮 🥠 🍢 🍡 🍧 🍨 🍦 🥧 🍰 
🎂 🍮 🍭 🍬 🍫 🍿 🧂 🍩 🍪 🌰 🥜 🍯 🥛 🍼 ☕️ 🍵 🥤 🍶 🍺 🍻 🥂 🍷 🥃 🍸 
🍹 🍾 🥄 🍴 🍽 🥣 🥡 🥢

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

#727968 — Re: Truthiness isn't that important.

% <persent@gmail.com> wrote:

> ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? 
> ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? 
> ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? 
> ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? 
> ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !    ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !   ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! !    ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !    ! ! ! ! ! ! !   ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 1 

-- 
  \|/ 
(((Ï)))     U+97F1 

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

#727972 — Re: Truthiness isn't that important.

On 2019-02-18 3:28 p.m., Mr On!on wrote:
> % <persent@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
>> ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?
>> ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?
>> ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?
>> ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?
>> ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?
> 
> ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !    ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !   ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
> ! ! !    ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !    ! ! ! ! ! ! !   ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 1
> 
i guess you can't see them

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

#727978 — Re: Truthiness isn't that important.

% <persent@gmail.com> wrote:

> On 2019-02-18 3:28 p.m., Mr On!on wrote:
> > % <persent@gmail.com> wrote:
> > 
> >> ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?
> >> ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?
> >> ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?
> >> ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?
> >> ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?
> > 
> > ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !    ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !   ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
> > ! ! !    ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !    ! ! ! ! ! ! !   ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 1
> 
> i guess you can't see them

Are they [snowfakey] [snowfakey] [snowfakey] [snowfakey] 
[snowfakey] [snowfakey] [snowfakey] [snowfakey] [snowfakey] 
[snowfakey] [snowfakey] [snowfakey] [snowfakey] [snowfakey] ?

-- 
  \|/ 
(((Ï)))     U+97F1 

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

#727981 — Re: Truthiness isn't that important.

On 2019-02-18 4:00 p.m., Mr On!on wrote:
> % <persent@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
>> On 2019-02-18 3:28 p.m., Mr On!on wrote:
>>> % <persent@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?
>>>> ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?
>>>> ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?
>>>> ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?
>>>> ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?
>>>
>>> ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !    ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !   ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
>>> ! ! !    ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !    ! ! ! ! ! ! !   ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 1
>>
>> i guess you can't see them
> 
> Are they [snowfakey] [snowfakey] [snowfakey] [snowfakey]
> [snowfakey] [snowfakey] [snowfakey] [snowfakey] [snowfakey]
> [snowfakey] [snowfakey] [snowfakey] [snowfakey] [snowfakey] ?
> 

no they're smiley faces

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

#728016 — Re: Truthiness isn't that important.

In article <1o37t1f.8ascs517sprubN%onion@anon.invalid>,
 onion@anon.invalid (Mr On!on) wrote:

> % <persent@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> > ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? 
> > ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? 
> > ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? 
> > ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? 
> > ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?
> 
> ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !    ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !   ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
> ! ! !    ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !    ! ! ! ! ! ! !   ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 1

.

-- 
:-<> Siri Seal of Disavowal #000-001. Disavowed. Denied. Deleted.    @
'I desire mercy, not sacrifice.'                                    /|\
The first law of discordiamism: The more energy   This post         / \
to make order is nore energy made into entropy.   insults Islam.  Mohammed

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

#727955 — Re: Truthiness isn't that important.

<Jeff-Relf.Me  @.> wrote:
>> There has NEVER been an observation that contradicts a prediction of
>> Einstein's Special and General Theories of Relativity. 
>> The theories remain fruitful tools of physics.
>> 
>> Oh, and guess what -- the same can be said of the quantum mechanics. 
> 
> Yet they contradict each other.

Not really, no. 

GR is a continuum theory and only applies in a domain where such a
treatment is reasonable to assume — that is, in macroscopic domains. 

QM is a field theory that assumes a static and passive spacetime background
and only applies in a domain where such treatment is reasonable to assume —
that is, in small regions with weak gravity. 

The only way where one might get a feeling of contradiction is to try to
extend the tenets of either theory outside the domain in which it applies.
In other words, by ignoring boundaries. 

Which is what you allude to next. 

> 
> The best you can do is:
> 
>   - Find it useful ( in its domain ).
>   - Try to Falsify it ( in its domain ).
> 
> For example, the notion of "mass" ( rest mass ) is useful.
> The notion doesn't have to be entirely accurate ( nothing is at rest ),
> it just has to be _ useful.   Truthiness isn't that important.
> 
> Most people only love, comic book, sci-fi "physics";
> they've no use for the genuine article, real physics.
> 



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

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

#727994 — Which prevailed at the start of the Big Bang ?

Mr. Odd to me:
> > QM and GR contradict each other.
> 
> Not really, no. 

Which prevailed at the start of the Big Bang ?
Quantum Mechanics or General relativity ?

Answer that, and Stockholm has a million dollars for you.

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

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | sci.physics

csiph-web