Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics > #567488 > unrolled thread
| Started by | john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2016-04-02 09:27 -0700 |
| Last post | 2016-04-04 11:58 -0500 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 77 — 9 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.physics
Non-composites never seen before john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-04-02 09:27 -0700
Re: Non-composites never seen before benj <none@gmail.com> - 2016-04-02 13:33 -0400
Re: Non-composites never seen before Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-04-04 10:19 -0500
Re: Non-composites never seen before john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-04-04 09:20 -0700
Re: Non-composites never seen before Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-04-04 11:54 -0500
Re: Non-composites never seen before moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-04-04 16:58 +0000
Re: Non-composites never seen before Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-04-04 13:52 -0500
Re: Non-composites never seen before benj <none@gmail.com> - 2016-04-04 21:33 -0400
Re: Non-composites never seen before Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-04-05 06:54 -0500
Re: Non-composites never seen before HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-04-05 05:26 -0700
Re: Non-composites never seen before benj <none@gmail.com> - 2016-04-05 09:51 -0400
Re: Non-composites never seen before john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-04-05 05:30 -0700
Re: Non-composites never seen before john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-04-05 05:55 -0700
Re: Non-composites never seen before Mahipal <mahipal7638@gmail.com> - 2016-04-05 06:06 -0700
Re: Non-composites never seen before benj <none@gmail.com> - 2016-04-05 09:53 -0400
Re: Non-composites never seen before john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-04-05 09:16 -0700
Re: Non-composites never seen before john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-04-05 10:28 -0700
Re: Non-composites never seen before Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-04-05 17:09 -0500
Re: Non-composites never seen before Mahipal <mahipal7638@gmail.com> - 2016-04-05 10:28 -0700
Re: Non-composites never seen before HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-04-05 10:51 -0700
Re: Non-composites never seen before Mahipal <mahipal7638@gmail.com> - 2016-04-05 11:23 -0700
Re: Non-composites never seen before benj <none@gmail.com> - 2016-04-05 15:16 -0400
Re: Non-composites never seen before benj <none@gmail.com> - 2016-04-05 15:06 -0400
Re: Non-composites never seen before benj <none@gmail.com> - 2016-04-05 15:20 -0400
Re: Non-composites never seen before Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-04-05 15:56 -0500
Re: Non-composites never seen before Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-04-05 17:09 -0500
Re: Non-composites never seen before benj <none@gmail.com> - 2016-04-05 09:56 -0400
Re: Non-composites never seen before Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-04-05 17:10 -0500
Re: Non-composites never seen before john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-04-05 15:36 -0700
Re: Non-composites never seen before john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-04-05 16:09 -0700
Re: Non-composites never seen before moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-04-06 02:17 +0000
Re: Non-composites never seen before Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-04-06 07:15 -0500
Re: Non-composites never seen before noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2016-04-09 22:08 -0700
Re: Non-composites never seen before Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-04-06 07:13 -0500
Re: Non-composites never seen before john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-04-06 05:37 -0700
Re: Non-composites never seen before HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-04-06 05:48 -0700
Re: Non-composites never seen before Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-04-06 07:52 -0500
Re: Non-composites never seen before john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-04-06 06:03 -0700
Re: Non-composites never seen before john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-04-06 06:17 -0700
Re: Non-composites never seen before HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-04-06 06:21 -0700
Re: Non-composites never seen before Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-04-06 08:35 -0500
Re: Non-composites never seen before Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-04-06 08:32 -0500
Re: Non-composites never seen before john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-04-06 06:38 -0700
Re: Non-composites never seen before Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-04-06 09:10 -0500
Re: Non-composites never seen before HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-04-06 07:14 -0700
Re: Non-composites never seen before HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-04-06 08:20 -0700
Re: Non-composites never seen before john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-04-06 08:53 -0700
Re: Non-composites never seen before Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-04-06 11:00 -0500
Re: Non-composites never seen before Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-04-06 13:19 -0500
Re: Non-composites never seen before "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2016-04-09 22:40 -0700
Re: Non-composites never seen before moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-04-06 18:55 +0000
Re: Non-composites never seen before HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-04-06 12:20 -0700
Re: Non-composites never seen before benj <none@gmail.com> - 2016-04-06 16:08 -0400
Re: Non-composites never seen before benj <none@gmail.com> - 2016-04-06 10:28 -0400
Re: Non-composites never seen before Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-04-06 09:47 -0500
Re: Non-composites never seen before benj <none@gmail.com> - 2016-04-05 22:14 -0400
Re: Non-composites never seen before Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-04-06 07:27 -0500
Re: Non-composites never seen before HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-04-06 05:47 -0700
Re: Non-composites never seen before benj <none@gmail.com> - 2016-04-06 10:20 -0400
Re: Non-composites never seen before Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-04-06 09:45 -0500
Re: Non-composites never seen before benj <none@gmail.com> - 2016-04-06 11:10 -0400
Re: Non-composites never seen before Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-04-06 10:56 -0500
Re: Non-composites never seen before benj <none@gmail.com> - 2016-04-06 15:17 -0400
Re: Non-composites never seen before Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-04-05 17:10 -0500
Re: Non-composites never seen before benj <none@gmail.com> - 2016-04-05 09:42 -0400
Re: Non-composites never seen before Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-04-05 17:10 -0500
Re: Non-composites never seen before benj <none@gmail.com> - 2016-04-05 22:11 -0400
Re: Non-composites never seen before Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-04-06 07:25 -0500
Re: Non-composites never seen before benj <none@gmail.com> - 2016-04-06 10:11 -0400
Re: Non-composites never seen before Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-04-06 09:41 -0500
Re: Non-composites never seen before benj <none@gmail.com> - 2016-04-06 11:07 -0400
Re: Non-composites never seen before Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-04-06 10:55 -0500
Re: Non-composites never seen before benj <none@gmail.com> - 2016-04-06 15:15 -0400
Re: Non-composites never seen before Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-04-08 13:46 -0500
Re: Non-composites never seen before benj <none@gmail.com> - 2016-04-08 23:24 -0400
Re: Non-composites never seen before Double-A <double-a3@hush.com> - 2016-04-04 12:11 -0700
Re: Non-composites never seen before Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-04-04 11:58 -0500
Page 1 of 4 [1] 2 3 4 Next page →
| From | john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-02 09:27 -0700 |
| Subject | Non-composites never seen before |
| Message-ID | <c083e99f-0d2f-4910-9181-fb46dd2fd79c@googlegroups.com> |
Even though no one has ever seen anything that is a non-composite, our (their) entire "science" is based on their certain (?) existence!!!
[toc] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | benj <none@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-02 13:33 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <tnTLy.311$9C2.284@fx37.iad> |
| In reply to | #567488 |
On 04/02/2016 12:27 PM, john wrote:
> Even though no one has ever seen
> anything that is a non-composite,
> our (their) entire "science" is
> based on their certain (?) existence!!!
>
Aether is a non-composite.
--
___ ___ ___ ___
/\ \ /\ \ /\__\ /\ \
/::\ \ /::\ \ /::| | \:\ \
/:/\:\ \ /:/\:\ \ /:|:| | ___ /::\__\
/::\~\:\__\ /::\~\:\ \ /:/|:| |__ /\ /:/\/__/
/:/\:\ \:|__| /:/\:\ \:\__\ /:/ |:| /\__\ \:\/:/ /
\:\~\:\/:/ / \:\~\:\ \/__/ \/__|:|/:/ / \::/ /
\:\ \::/ / \:\ \:\__\ |:/:/ / \/__/
\:\/:/ / \:\ \/__/ |::/ /
\::/__/ \:\__\ /:/ /
~~ \/__/ \/__/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-04 10:19 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <ndu0lu$st$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #567488 |
On 4/2/2016 11:27 AM, john wrote: > Even though no one has ever seen > anything that is a non-composite, > our (their) entire "science" is > based on their certain (?) existence!!! > A hypothesis in science can be in line with what's been seen before or be completely different from what's been seen before. There is absolutely no hurdle or extra barrier involved in a hypothesis that is different than common experience, as long as it poses no direct contradiction to current observations. What matters is whether that hypothesis produces quantitative predictions that match observations. Period, end of story. If for example the hypothesis is extra, previously unobserved dimensions, then there is NO need to respond to questions like, "But why propose extra dimensions if they weren't obvious in everyday life before?" All that's needed is that extra dimensions provides a testable prediction that can be compared to measurement. If for example the hypothesis is fundamental particles with no structure, then there is NO need to respond to questions like, "But why propose fundamental particles if they weren't obvious in everyday life before?" All that's needed is that fundamental particles provides a testable prediction that can be compared to measurement. If for example the hypothesis is a nonstatic and expanding universe, then there is NO need to respond to questions like, "But why propose an expanding universe if it wasn't obvious in everyday life before?" All that's needed is that an expanding universe provides a testable prediction that can be compared to measurement. -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-04 09:20 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <ba8e9a61-fbc3-4a5d-b0c6-85268221ddaa@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #567847 |
Odd, if redshift is equal in all directions, and it is caused by expansion then we have to be at the Center. If redshift is tired light, then the same thing would be seen from any point in Space.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-04 11:54 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <ndu679$b00$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #567863 |
On 4/4/2016 11:20 AM, john wrote: > Odd, if redshift is equal in all directions, > and it is caused by expansion > then we have to be at the Center. No, John, this is simply not right. If there is no edge and there is uniform expansion, then no matter where you are in that expanding space, the redshift will be equal in all directions. > If redshift is tired light, > then the same thing would be seen from any > point in Space. > That's true, but then you would have no explanation for blueshift, which also happens. -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-04 16:58 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <ndu6fa$sr7$2@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #567863 |
john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> writes: >Odd, if redshift is equal in all directions, >and it is caused by expansion >then we have to be at the Center. Nope. Where is the center of the surface of an expanding spherical balloon? (Not the point at the center of the inside of a balloon, the center of the SURFACE) If you paint dots on the balloon and inflate it, you'll see that all dots move away from each other, despite the fact no dot is considered the center.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-04 13:52 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <ndud50$n69$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #567868 |
On 4/4/2016 11:58 AM, Michael Moroney wrote: > john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> writes: > >> Odd, if redshift is equal in all directions, >> and it is caused by expansion >> then we have to be at the Center. > > Nope. Where is the center of the surface of an expanding spherical > balloon? (Not the point at the center of the inside of a balloon, the > center of the SURFACE) > > If you paint dots on the balloon and inflate it, you'll see that all > dots move away from each other, despite the fact no dot is considered > the center. > John is happy with the idea of an infinite universe. So I gave him the notion of an infinitely long rod in that infinite universe, which is expanding uniformly, and he acknowledges that there is no center to that. I think he has a hard time reconciling an infinite universe with something that is expanding, because to him expansion means finding the edges. To him, something that is infinite has to be static. -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | benj <none@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-04 21:33 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <0CEMy.8$kQ1.1@fx39.iad> |
| In reply to | #567889 |
On 04/04/2016 02:52 PM, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> On 4/4/2016 11:58 AM, Michael Moroney wrote:
>> john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> writes:
>>
>>> Odd, if redshift is equal in all directions,
>>> and it is caused by expansion
>>> then we have to be at the Center.
>>
>> Nope. Where is the center of the surface of an expanding spherical
>> balloon? (Not the point at the center of the inside of a balloon, the
>> center of the SURFACE)
>>
>> If you paint dots on the balloon and inflate it, you'll see that all
>> dots move away from each other, despite the fact no dot is considered
>> the center.
>>
>
> John is happy with the idea of an infinite universe.
> So I gave him the notion of an infinitely long rod in that infinite
> universe, which is expanding uniformly, and he acknowledges that there
> is no center to that. I think he has a hard time reconciling an infinite
> universe with something that is expanding, because to him expansion
> means finding the edges. To him, something that is infinite has to be
> static.
Boinker there is nothing "infinite" except human stupidity.
You are talking prue fantasy again. Note that an expanding balloon takes
an EXTRA dimension, yet science accepts "no center" and denies "extra
dimensions". This is typical of Lib logic.
--
___ ___ ___ ___
/\ \ /\ \ /\__\ /\ \
/::\ \ /::\ \ /::| | \:\ \
/:/\:\ \ /:/\:\ \ /:|:| | ___ /::\__\
/::\~\:\__\ /::\~\:\ \ /:/|:| |__ /\ /:/\/__/
/:/\:\ \:|__| /:/\:\ \:\__\ /:/ |:| /\__\ \:\/:/ /
\:\~\:\/:/ / \:\~\:\ \/__/ \/__|:|/:/ / \::/ /
\:\ \::/ / \:\ \:\__\ |:/:/ / \/__/
\:\/:/ / \:\ \/__/ |::/ /
\::/__/ \:\__\ /:/ /
~~ \/__/ \/__/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-05 06:54 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <ne091c$1beo$3@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #567979 |
On 4/4/2016 8:33 PM, benj wrote: > On 04/04/2016 02:52 PM, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> On 4/4/2016 11:58 AM, Michael Moroney wrote: >>> john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> writes: >>> >>>> Odd, if redshift is equal in all directions, >>>> and it is caused by expansion >>>> then we have to be at the Center. >>> >>> Nope. Where is the center of the surface of an expanding spherical >>> balloon? (Not the point at the center of the inside of a balloon, the >>> center of the SURFACE) >>> >>> If you paint dots on the balloon and inflate it, you'll see that all >>> dots move away from each other, despite the fact no dot is considered >>> the center. >>> >> >> John is happy with the idea of an infinite universe. >> So I gave him the notion of an infinitely long rod in that infinite >> universe, which is expanding uniformly, and he acknowledges that there >> is no center to that. I think he has a hard time reconciling an infinite >> universe with something that is expanding, because to him expansion >> means finding the edges. To him, something that is infinite has to be >> static. > > Boinker there is nothing "infinite" except human stupidity. Then have that discussion with John, who believes in an infinite universe. > > You are talking prue fantasy again. Note that an expanding balloon takes > an EXTRA dimension, I didn't mention an expanding balloon, nor is it necessary to explain it. So Ben, let's get down to it. Since the universe cannot be infinite, according to you, it must be finite. If it is finite, do you think it has a boundary? > yet science accepts "no center" and denies "extra > dimensions". This is typical of Lib logic. > > > -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-05 05:26 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <c2a69539-4bcb-4110-b7ed-81db44074243@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #568017 |
Odd Bodkin So Ben, let's get down to it. Since the universe cannot be infinite, according to you, it must be finite. If it is finite, do you think it has a boundary? ---------------- Poor BJ has a problem with abstract thought. He simply cannot imagine an infinite set. The funny part is that many of his kooky notions require it. Plus, he's still got that chip on his shoulder because of being terminated from his job.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | benj <none@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-05 09:51 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <xpPMy.665$JM6.284@fx44.iad> |
| In reply to | #568020 |
On 04/05/2016 08:26 AM, HVAC wrote:
> Odd Bodkin So Ben, let's get down to it. Since the universe cannot be
> infinite, according to you, it must be finite. If it is finite, do
> you think it has a boundary? ----------------
>
> Poor BJ has a problem with abstract thought. He simply cannot imagine
> an infinite set. The funny part is that many of his kooky notions
> require it.
Yes, poor BJ he actually can separate reality from fantasy. HVAC's world
is 100% fantasy. And he has no problem with that. HVAC can imagine
ANYTHING and then assure everyone gullible enough to listen that his
fantasies are all true. Must be the drugs.
> Plus, he's still got that chip on his shoulder because of being
> terminated from his job.
Sorry, HVAC, I've never been Terminated from a job even after trying as
hard as I could to make it so. If you get let go you can collect
unemployment for a while. If you resign, you can't.
I'll bet you've collected unemployment MANY times! Except, of course,
for the time you got fired for getting caught having gay sex on the job.
Firing for cause means you can't collect. Boo hoo.
--
___ ___ ___ ___
/\ \ /\ \ /\__\ /\ \
/::\ \ /::\ \ /::| | \:\ \
/:/\:\ \ /:/\:\ \ /:|:| | ___ /::\__\
/::\~\:\__\ /::\~\:\ \ /:/|:| |__ /\ /:/\/__/
/:/\:\ \:|__| /:/\:\ \:\__\ /:/ |:| /\__\ \:\/:/ /
\:\~\:\/:/ / \:\~\:\ \/__/ \/__|:|/:/ / \::/ /
\:\ \::/ / \:\ \:\__\ |:/:/ / \/__/
\:\/:/ / \:\ \/__/ |::/ /
\::/__/ \:\__\ /:/ /
~~ \/__/ \/__/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-05 05:30 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <22399dc5-87d5-4752-bd06-38e92659c5bd@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #568017 |
Ben was getting down to it, OdD; Equal Universal expansion is an impossibility. Think about it. Your spots on the balloon's surface retreat equally from each other. One layer down, not so much. Near the center, they barely move. So. How does EVERYTHING retreat equally from each other? I suggest that you actually try to model this concept, Odd. Logically. This "universal expansion" concept. It can be shown to be logically impossible.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-05 05:55 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <973449d5-1b1c-44db-ad2d-36aeed63fe35@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #568022 |
Put 10 people in a space. Tell them, "Everyone move away from each other." New party game
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Mahipal <mahipal7638@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-05 06:06 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <4f611a4a-3474-40a6-9639-bc63797ed3fe@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #568024 |
On Tuesday, April 5, 2016 at 8:55:56 AM UTC-4, john wrote: > Put 10 people in a space. > Tell them, "Everyone move away from > each other." > New party game That's not new! At my age 52+, you don't need tell or instruct them anything. I walk into a room, a bar, then everyone just moves far Far FAR away. Mention you're into Ph(y)sics... drop dead silence. God forbid. -- Mahipal “IPMM... माहिपाल ७६३८: Trust me Me ME, I wish I was joking too.”
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | benj <none@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-05 09:53 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <JrPMy.666$JM6.596@fx44.iad> |
| In reply to | #568025 |
On 04/05/2016 09:06 AM, Mahipal wrote:
> On Tuesday, April 5, 2016 at 8:55:56 AM UTC-4, john wrote:
>> Put 10 people in a space.
>> Tell them, "Everyone move away from
>> each other."
>> New party game
>
> That's not new! At my age 52+, you don't need tell or instruct them
> anything. I walk into a room, a bar, then everyone just moves far Far
> FAR away. Mention you're into Ph(y)sics... drop dead silence. God forbid.
>
> -- Mahipal “IPMM... माहिपाल ७६३८: Trust me Me ME, I wish I was joking too.”
Quit whining, Maple loops. Just walk into a bar and tell them you are
for Trump. Immediately everyone will be your pal. HVAC will be your pal.
Everyone born without a brain will love you. That's science.
--
___ ___ ___ ___
/\ \ /\ \ /\__\ /\ \
/::\ \ /::\ \ /::| | \:\ \
/:/\:\ \ /:/\:\ \ /:|:| | ___ /::\__\
/::\~\:\__\ /::\~\:\ \ /:/|:| |__ /\ /:/\/__/
/:/\:\ \:|__| /:/\:\ \:\__\ /:/ |:| /\__\ \:\/:/ /
\:\~\:\/:/ / \:\~\:\ \/__/ \/__|:|/:/ / \::/ /
\:\ \::/ / \:\ \:\__\ |:/:/ / \/__/
\:\/:/ / \:\ \/__/ |::/ /
\::/__/ \:\__\ /:/ /
~~ \/__/ \/__/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-05 09:16 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <06eb173a-dbb0-4bf5-833d-069e90bd14f7@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #568025 |
Odd's "uniform expansion" is only possible for a spherical wavefront, And only at one particular radius- smaller expand less, larger expand more. Yes, it works for dots on a balloon- kind of- if you don't measure through the curvature too far, and if you only consider the surface, and only neighbouring dots. It's amazing what some people will hold out as evidence/explanation! And it can't work for more than one Center. Blow up another balloon and record where your dots go, mr scientist
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-05 10:28 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <6c848ca2-49d0-4923-a3c0-4c38197acafc@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #568049 |
Odd Think about your "universal expansion", which you so blithely accept. The MOST uniform universal expansion you can have is a spherical wave. And that has a negative gradient back to a center. If you have a random 3D selection of bodies, how do you propose to have them "universally expand" wrt the space between them? Please tell me this. Pretend I am a barmaid.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-05 17:09 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <ne1d3a$1m6v$2@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #568055 |
On 4/5/2016 12:28 PM, john wrote: > Odd > Think about your "universal expansion", > which you so blithely accept. > The MOST uniform universal expansion you > can have is a spherical wave. No, John. NOTHING I described to you is a spherical wave. It is an expansion EVERYWHERE, where any two adjacent markers recede from each other at the same rate. Look at the long rod case. Where is this wave you speak of? Look at the plate. Where is this wave you speak of? > And that > has a negative gradient back to a center. > > If you have a random 3D selection of > bodies, how do you propose to have them > "universally expand" wrt the space between > them? Those bodies don't have to be where the little marks are, where the little dots are, where the little balls are. If you have a body that lies 2/3 of the way between dots (3464,13785) and (3465,13784), then as those dots move away from each other then the body will be carried with them to stay there at 2/3 between them. If you want to think about the plate, imagine that you have this plate with little spots, and then you throw some gravel on the plate. The gravel stones don't necessarily sit on the dots, and that's just fine. So you have irregularly spaced gravel stones and regularly spaced dots on the plate. Now the plate expands uniformly, so that any two adjacent dots increase their spacing the same way. Does this help you picture it? > > Please tell me this. > Pretend I am a barmaid. > -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Mahipal <mahipal7638@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-05 10:28 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <b4b8c479-f276-49ec-9b88-c5c8643b8a6d@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #568049 |
On Tuesday, April 5, 2016 at 12:16:52 PM UTC-4, john wrote: > Odd's "uniform expansion" is only > possible for a spherical wavefront, > And only at one particular radius- > smaller expand less, larger expand > more. > Yes, it works for dots on a balloon- > kind of- if you don't measure through > the curvature too far, and if you only > consider the surface, and only > neighbouring dots. > It's amazing what some people will hold > out as evidence/explanation! > And it can't work for more than one > Center. Blow up another balloon and > record where your dots go, mr scientist That galaxies as points on an expanding balloon, spherical of course, like the way all ideal cows are, always seemed like a magician's tool to distract attention from what is really going on. It's also funny weird, the(y)TheThemScientistPhysicists always return to that one imagery. As it happens to be, magicians do use a lot of balloons too. Coincidence? Me thinks not... Conspiracy? Me not allowed to thinks that. Lecturing Prof Sam Worm Liars (Early Monday and Late Friday Classes): Hey my pals, just because most galaxies are colliding with eachother, here see our local galactic crowd, and see our latest fancy time fast forwarded CGIs, wow what a nice shade of blue that, simulations of there inevitable collisions... see all that. See The Show! That doesn't mean that all galactic scale points are not expanding away from one another like on a hot air balloon. Get real Real REAL! -- Mahipal “IPMM... माहिपाल ७६३८: It's always a hot air balloon too. Pop!”
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-05 10:51 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <a00ac745-82a0-495b-b312-814b9a5ad540@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #568056 |
Maple Loops says - show quoted text - That galaxies as points on an expanding balloon, spherical of course, like the way all ideal cows are, always seemed like a magician's tool to distract attention from what is really going on. It's also funny weird, the(y)TheThemScientistPhysicists always return to that one imagery. As it happens to be, magicians do use a lot of balloons too. Coincidence? Me thinks not... Conspiracy? Me not allowed to thinks that. Lecturing Prof Sam Worm Liars (Early Monday and Late Friday Classes): Hey my pals, just because most galaxies are colliding with eachother, here see our local galactic crowd, and see our latest fancy time fast forwarded CGIs, wow what a nice shade of blue that, simulations of there inevitable collisions... see all that. See The Show! That doesn't mean that all galactic scale points are not expanding away from one another like on a hot air balloon. Get real Real REAL! --------------- The utter stupidity shown by Maple Lips, BJ and John on their failure to understand expansion of the universe is breathtaking. Why do they find the concept of an expanding universe so difficult to comprehend? There has to be some underlying kook notion at play here.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 1 of 4 [1] 2 3 4 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics
csiph-web