Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics > #699171 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2018-08-18 23:08 -0700 |
| Last post | 2018-08-21 13:02 -0700 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 58 — 10 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.physics
From first principles what is the definition of spacetime? Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2018-08-18 23:08 -0700
Re: From first principles what is the definition of spacetime? Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2018-08-19 16:19 +1000
Re: From first principles what is the definition of spacetime? Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2018-08-19 00:05 -0700
Re: From first principles what is the definition of spacetime? Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2018-08-19 19:00 +1000
Re: From first principles what is the definition of spacetime? poraty149@gmail.com - 2018-08-19 02:39 -0700
Re: From first principles what is the definition of spacetime? poraty149@gmail.com - 2018-08-19 02:43 -0700
Re: From first principles what is the definition of spacetime? Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2018-08-19 06:21 -0700
Re: From first principles what is the definition of spacetime? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-08-19 14:01 +0000
Re: From first principles what is the definition of spacetime? benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-08-19 12:45 -0400
Re: From first principles what is the definition of spacetime? john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2018-08-19 09:53 -0700
Re: From first principles what is the definition of spacetime? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-08-19 20:47 +0000
Re: From first principles what is the definition of spacetime? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-08-19 18:26 +0000
Re: From first principles what is the definition of spacetime? Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2018-08-19 17:45 -0700
Re: From first principles what is the definition of spacetime? benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-08-19 12:29 -0400
Re: From first principles what is the definition of spacetime? benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-08-19 12:26 -0400
Re: From first principles what is the definition of spacetime? benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-08-19 12:23 -0400
Re: From first principles what is the definition of spacetime? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-08-19 18:26 +0000
Re: From first principles what is the definition of spacetime? john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2018-08-19 12:05 -0700
Re: From first principles what is the definition of spacetime? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-08-19 20:47 +0000
Re: From first principles what is the definition of spacetime? john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2018-08-19 14:19 -0700
From first principles what is the definition of spacetime? Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2018-08-19 05:39 -0700
Re: From first principles what is the definition of spacetime? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-08-19 14:01 +0000
Re: From first principles what is the definition of spacetime? benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-08-19 12:41 -0400
Re: From first principles what is the definition of spacetime? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-08-19 18:26 +0000
Re: From first principles what is the definition of spacetime? Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2018-08-19 17:32 -0700
Re: From first principles what is the definition of spacetime? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-08-20 14:17 +0000
Re: From first principles what is the definition of spacetime? Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-08-19 13:37 -0500
Re: From first principles what is the definition of spacetime? benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-08-20 14:18 -0400
Re: From first principles what is the definition of spacetime? Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-08-21 13:38 -0500
Re: From first principles what is the definition of spacetime? Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2018-08-21 18:56 -0700
Re: From first principles what is the definition of spacetime? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-08-19 14:01 +0000
Re: From first principles what is the definition of spacetime? Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2018-08-19 17:29 -0700
Re: From first principles what is the definition of spacetime? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-08-20 13:38 +0000
Re: From first principles what is the definition of spacetime? john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2018-08-20 07:01 -0700
Re: From first principles what is the definition of spacetime? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-08-20 14:29 +0000
Re: From first principles what is the definition of spacetime? Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2018-08-20 16:06 -0700
Re: From first principles what is the definition of spacetime? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-08-21 00:43 +0000
Re: From first principles what is the definition of spacetime? Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2018-08-20 18:25 -0700
Re: From first principles what is the definition of spacetime? poraty149@gmail.com - 2018-08-20 18:33 -0700
Re: From first principles what is the definition of spacetime? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-08-21 12:52 +0000
Re: From first principles what is the definition of spacetime? poraty149@gmail.com - 2018-08-21 11:10 -0700
Re: From first principles what is the definition of spacetime? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-08-21 18:56 +0000
Re: From first principles what is the definition of spacetime? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-08-21 18:59 +0000
Re: From first principles what is the definition of spacetime? poraty149@gmail.com - 2018-08-21 19:44 -0700
Re: From first principles what is the definition of spacetime? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-08-22 12:21 +0000
Re: From first principles what is the definition of spacetime? john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2018-08-22 07:10 -0700
Re: From first principles what is the definition of spacetime? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-08-22 14:39 +0000
Re: From first principles what is the definition of spacetime? poraty149@gmail.com - 2018-08-22 11:23 -0700
Re: From first principles what is the definition of spacetime? poraty149@gmail.com - 2018-08-22 11:42 -0700
Re: From first principles what is the definition of spacetime? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-08-22 20:43 +0000
Re: From first principles what is the definition of spacetime? poraty149@gmail.com - 2018-08-22 20:17 -0700
Re: From first principles what is the definition of spacetime? Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-08-21 15:06 -0500
Re: From first principles what is the definition of spacetime? poraty149@gmail.com - 2018-08-21 19:58 -0700
Re: From first principles what is the definition of spacetime? "reber G=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> - 2018-08-21 19:28 -0700
From first principles what is the definition of spacetime? john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2018-08-19 10:14 -0700
Re: From first principles what is the definition of spacetime? Alan Folmsbee <omnilobe@gmail.com> - 2018-08-19 12:24 -0700
Re: From first principles what is the definition of spacetime? john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2018-08-19 13:07 -0700
Re: From first principles what is the definition of spacetime? mitchrae3323@gmail.com - 2018-08-21 13:02 -0700
Page 1 of 3 [1] 2 3 Next page →
| From | Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-08-18 23:08 -0700 |
| Subject | From first principles what is the definition of spacetime? |
| Message-ID | <fe14a91d-9d6a-4ef4-adeb-0c5ff3c4e70f@googlegroups.com> |
From first principles what is the definition of spacetime? How does it support the transmission of light? No mathematical blah, please. Just follow the scientific methods. State your axioms, and build upon them to form a theory. Then validate that theory with experiment. Make valid predictions with the theory.
[toc] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-08-19 16:19 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <ftsgfaFgmeU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #699171 |
On 19/08/2018 4:08 PM, Arindam Banerjee wrote: > From first principles what is the definition of spacetime? > > How does it support the transmission of light? Physics doesn't answer "how", it only answers "what". > > No mathematical blah, please. > That could be difficult - maybe mere words are not up to the task. Is science to be so limited? > Just follow the scientific methods. > > State your axioms, and build upon them to form a theory. Then validate that theory with experiment. Make valid predictions with the theory. > > Axioms? This isn't mathematics. The starting point for physics is the collection of experimental results. Sylvia.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-08-19 00:05 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <395b0b30-266b-4203-9b31-e9d0c2054c5f@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #699174 |
On Sunday, 19 August 2018 16:19:27 UTC+10, Sylvia Else wrote: > On 19/08/2018 4:08 PM, Arindam Banerjee wrote: > > From first principles what is the definition of spacetime? > > > > How does it support the transmission of light? > > Physics doesn't answer "how", it only answers "what". Certainly conventional physics answers "how" with theories and supportive facts. Like gravity as an universal force (theory) is used to explain *how* things fall to earth (fact). > > > > No mathematical blah, please. > > > > That could be difficult - maybe mere words are not up to the task. Is > science to be so limited? Yes. Honesty is there as a must to be followed in conventional physics. Mathematics in conventional physics is only a brief and convenient alternative to making a wordy statement. Mathematics can be used by dishonest people to make fallacious points, for dubious purposes. > > > > Just follow the scientific methods. > > > > State your axioms, and build upon them to form a theory. Then validate that theory with experiment. Make valid predictions with the theory. > > > > > > Axioms? This isn't mathematics. The starting point for physics is the > collection of experimental results. Axioms, as basic and undisputable units of information, are required everywhere, as we all must agree upon them to start any discussion. If your axiom is that I must accept the speed of light to be independent of the source then with those, like me, who do not accept this, there is no further discussion. Any discussion can only progress when there is a certain level of agreement. When there is no such agreement, there can be no discussion, only politics. Cheers, Arindam Banerjee > Sylvia.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-08-19 19:00 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <ftsptvF2jiuU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #699175 |
On 19/08/2018 5:05 PM, Arindam Banerjee wrote: > On Sunday, 19 August 2018 16:19:27 UTC+10, Sylvia Else wrote: >> On 19/08/2018 4:08 PM, Arindam Banerjee wrote: >>> From first principles what is the definition of spacetime? >>> >>> How does it support the transmission of light? >> >> Physics doesn't answer "how", it only answers "what". > > Certainly conventional physics answers "how" with theories and supportive facts. > Like gravity as an universal force (theory) is used to explain *how* things fall to earth (fact). That's a misunderstanding of what physics says about the situation. It tells us how to calculate what the trajectory of the falling object will be. It doesn't tell us why it falls. To say it falls due to gravity is circular, since the theory of gravity is just based on the observation that things fall. > >>> >>> No mathematical blah, please. >>> >> >> That could be difficult - maybe mere words are not up to the task. Is >> science to be so limited? > > > Yes. Honesty is there as a must to be followed in conventional physics. Mathematics in conventional physics is only a brief and convenient alternative to making a wordy statement. I strongly doubt that any number of words would suffice to precisely convey general relativity, or quantum mechanics, or at least not until the words were merely a codification of the math, and considerably less comprehensible. > > Mathematics can be used by dishonest people to make fallacious points, for dubious purposes. >> >> >>> Just follow the scientific methods. >>> >>> State your axioms, and build upon them to form a theory. Then validate that theory with experiment. Make valid predictions with the theory. >>> >>> >> >> Axioms? This isn't mathematics. The starting point for physics is the >> collection of experimental results. > > Axioms, as basic and undisputable units of information, are required everywhere, as we all must agree upon them to start any discussion. > > If your axiom is that I must accept the speed of light to be independent of the source then with those, like me, who do not accept this, there is no further discussion. The constancy of the speed of light is an experimental result. If you do not accept it, you must believe that the experimenters are lying or incompetent. Perhaps you should do the experiments yourself, though you might find them rather demanding to do accurately enough. Sylvia.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | poraty149@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-08-19 02:39 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <5ff8f4fc-297c-459a-b217-faa12225f3f6@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #699184 |
On Sunday, August 19, 2018 at 12:00:51 PM UTC+3, Sylvia Else wrote: > On 19/08/2018 5:05 PM, Arindam Banerjee wrote: > > On Sunday, 19 August 2018 16:19:27 UTC+10, Sylvia Else wrote: > >> On 19/08/2018 4:08 PM, Arindam Banerjee wrote: > >>> From first principles what is the definition of spacetime? > >>> > >>> How does it support the transmission of light? > >> > >> Physics doesn't answer "how", it only answers "what". > > > > Certainly conventional physics answers "how" with theories and supportive facts. > > Like gravity as an universal force (theory) is used to explain *how* things fall to earth (fact). > > That's a misunderstanding of what physics says about the situation. It > tells us how to calculate what the trajectory of the falling object will > be. It doesn't tell us why it falls. To say it falls due to gravity is > circular, since the theory of gravity is just based on the observation > that things fall. > > > > > >>> > >>> No mathematical blah, please. > >>> > >> > >> That could be difficult - maybe mere words are not up to the task. Is > >> science to be so limited? > > > > > > Yes. Honesty is there as a must to be followed in conventional physics. Mathematics in conventional physics is only a brief and convenient alternative to making a wordy statement. > > I strongly doubt that any number of words would suffice to precisely > convey general relativity, or quantum mechanics, or at least not until > the words were merely a codification of the math, and considerably less > comprehensible. > > > > > Mathematics can be used by dishonest people to make fallacious points, for dubious purposes. > >> > >> > >>> Just follow the scientific methods. > >>> > >>> State your axioms, and build upon them to form a theory. Then validate that theory with experiment. Make valid predictions with the theory. > >>> > >>> > >> > >> Axioms? This isn't mathematics. The starting point for physics is the > >> collection of experimental results. > > > > Axioms, as basic and undisputable units of information, are required everywhere, as we all must agree upon them to start any discussion. > > > > If your axiom is that I must accept the speed of light to be independent of the source then with those, like me, who do not accept this, there is no further discussion. > > The constancy of the speed of light is an experimental result. If you do > not accept it, you must believe that the experimenters are lying or > incompetent. Perhaps you should do the experiments yourself, though you > might find them rather demanding to do accurately enough. > > Sylvia. ========================== Silvia do you consider a honest human being ??! sorry i doubt it(your honesty !!!! ============== WHY DON T Y0U SAY SPACETIME'' IS ONE of the biggest ever claimed BIGeET** TRICKY**= BULLLLL ShIT !!!!! to carry it along more than a century !!! ---a shame on human intelligence and not least -- honesty ====
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | poraty149@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-08-19 02:43 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <b39ff3dc-3b02-4815-b7a6-cfe833c195d0@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #699186 |
On Sunday, August 19, 2018 at 12:39:18 PM UTC+3, pora...@gmail.com wrote: > On Sunday, August 19, 2018 at 12:00:51 PM UTC+3, Sylvia Else wrote: > > On 19/08/2018 5:05 PM, Arindam Banerjee wrote: > > > On Sunday, 19 August 2018 16:19:27 UTC+10, Sylvia Else wrote: > > >> On 19/08/2018 4:08 PM, Arindam Banerjee wrote: > > >>> From first principles what is the definition of spacetime? > > >>> > > >>> How does it support the transmission of light? > > >> > > >> Physics doesn't answer "how", it only answers "what". > > > > > > Certainly conventional physics answers "how" with theories and supportive facts. > > > Like gravity as an universal force (theory) is used to explain *how* things fall to earth (fact). > > > > That's a misunderstanding of what physics says about the situation. It > > tells us how to calculate what the trajectory of the falling object will > > be. It doesn't tell us why it falls. To say it falls due to gravity is > > circular, since the theory of gravity is just based on the observation > > that things fall. > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >>> No mathematical blah, please. > > >>> > > >> > > >> That could be difficult - maybe mere words are not up to the task. Is > > >> science to be so limited? > > > > > > > > > Yes. Honesty is there as a must to be followed in conventional physics. Mathematics in conventional physics is only a brief and convenient alternative to making a wordy statement. > > > > I strongly doubt that any number of words would suffice to precisely > > convey general relativity, or quantum mechanics, or at least not until > > the words were merely a codification of the math, and considerably less > > comprehensible. > > > > > > > > Mathematics can be used by dishonest people to make fallacious points, for dubious purposes. > > >> > > >> > > >>> Just follow the scientific methods. > > >>> > > >>> State your axioms, and build upon them to form a theory. Then validate that theory with experiment. Make valid predictions with the theory. > > >>> > > >>> > > >> > > >> Axioms? This isn't mathematics. The starting point for physics is the > > >> collection of experimental results. > > > > > > Axioms, as basic and undisputable units of information, are required everywhere, as we all must agree upon them to start any discussion. > > > > > > If your axiom is that I must accept the speed of light to be independent of the source then with those, like me, who do not accept this, there is no further discussion. > > > > The constancy of the speed of light is an experimental result. If you do > > not accept it, you must believe that the experimenters are lying or > > incompetent. Perhaps you should do the experiments yourself, though you > > might find them rather demanding to do accurately enough. > > > > Sylvia. > ========================== > Silvia > do you consider a honest human being ??! > sorry i doubt it(your honesty !!!! > ============== > WHY DON T Y0U SAY > > SPACETIME'' IS ONE of the biggest > ever claimed BIGeET** TRICKY**= > > BULLLLL ShIT !!!!! > > to carry it along more than a century !!! > ---a shame on human intelligence and > not least -- honesty > ==== == sory typo i didnt mean above only ''''space time but ****CURVED**!!! CURVED SPACE TIME !! === Y.POrat ====================
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-08-19 06:21 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <55dea413-ab85-4d31-a721-0ba3e73e34ba@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #699184 |
On Sunday, 19 August 2018 19:00:51 UTC+10, Sylvia Else wrote: > On 19/08/2018 5:05 PM, Arindam Banerjee wrote: > > On Sunday, 19 August 2018 16:19:27 UTC+10, Sylvia Else wrote: > >> On 19/08/2018 4:08 PM, Arindam Banerjee wrote: > >>> From first principles what is the definition of spacetime? > >>> > >>> How does it support the transmission of light? > >> > >> Physics doesn't answer "how", it only answers "what". > > > > Certainly conventional physics answers "how" with theories and supportive facts. > > Like gravity as an universal force (theory) is used to explain *how* things fall to earth (fact). > > That's a misunderstanding of what physics says about the situation. It > tells us how to calculate what the trajectory of the falling object will > be. It doesn't tell us why it falls. To say it falls due to gravity is > circular, since the theory of gravity is just based on the observation > that things fall. No, it is not based just on that. The theory of gravity about which you are evidently ignorant, but what was taught to me as physics in school and followed in my engineering studies, is that every centre of mass attracts every other centre of mass in the universe, with a force that is proportional to the product of the masses and inversely proportional to the square of the distance between them, and the constant of proportionality is the gravitational constant G. So mathematically the above theory is expressed as f=mMG/RR where the symbols have their obvious meaning. The "hows" relating to falling, orbital motion, etc. all follow from the theory of gravitation. > > > > >>> > >>> No mathematical blah, please. > >>> > >> > >> That could be difficult - maybe mere words are not up to the task. Is > >> science to be so limited? > > > > > > Yes. Honesty is there as a must to be followed in conventional physics. Mathematics in conventional physics is only a brief and convenient alternative to making a wordy statement. > > I strongly doubt that any number of words would suffice to precisely > convey general relativity, or quantum mechanics, or at least not until > the words were merely a codification of the math, and considerably less > comprehensible. > > > > > Mathematics can be used by dishonest people to make fallacious points, for dubious purposes. > >> > >> > >>> Just follow the scientific methods. > >>> > >>> State your axioms, and build upon them to form a theory. Then validate that theory with experiment. Make valid predictions with the theory. > >>> > >>> > >> > >> Axioms? This isn't mathematics. The starting point for physics is the > >> collection of experimental results. > > > > Axioms, as basic and undisputable units of information, are required everywhere, as we all must agree upon them to start any discussion. > > > > If your axiom is that I must accept the speed of light to be independent of the source then with those, like me, who do not accept this, there is no further discussion. > > The constancy of the speed of light is an experimental result. If you do > not accept it, you must believe that the experimenters are lying or > incompetent. Perhaps you should do the experiments yourself, though you > might find them rather demanding to do accurately enough. > > Sylvia.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-08-19 14:01 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <plbt87$v0o$4@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #699198 |
Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> wrote: > On Sunday, 19 August 2018 19:00:51 UTC+10, Sylvia Else wrote: >> On 19/08/2018 5:05 PM, Arindam Banerjee wrote: >>> On Sunday, 19 August 2018 16:19:27 UTC+10, Sylvia Else wrote: >>>> On 19/08/2018 4:08 PM, Arindam Banerjee wrote: >>>>> From first principles what is the definition of spacetime? >>>>> >>>>> How does it support the transmission of light? >>>> >>>> Physics doesn't answer "how", it only answers "what". >>> >>> Certainly conventional physics answers "how" with theories and supportive facts. >>> Like gravity as an universal force (theory) is used to explain *how* >>> things fall to earth (fact). >> >> That's a misunderstanding of what physics says about the situation. It >> tells us how to calculate what the trajectory of the falling object will >> be. It doesn't tell us why it falls. To say it falls due to gravity is >> circular, since the theory of gravity is just based on the observation >> that things fall. > > > No, it is not based just on that. The theory of gravity about which you > are evidently ignorant, but what was taught to me as physics in school > and followed in my engineering studies, is that every centre of mass > attracts every other centre of mass in the universe, with a force that is > proportional to the product of the masses and inversely proportional to > the square of the distance between them, and the constant of > proportionality is the gravitational constant G. So mathematically the > above theory is expressed as f=mMG/RR where the symbols have their obvious meaning. Just to give you an idea of the gap, how exactly does a body over HERE exert a force on another body over THERE? Your paragraph above says “it just does”. See the problem? > > > The "hows" relating to falling, orbital motion, etc. all follow from the > theory of gravitation. >> >>> >>>>> >>>>> No mathematical blah, please. >>>>> >>>> >>>> That could be difficult - maybe mere words are not up to the task. Is >>>> science to be so limited? >>> >>> >>> Yes. Honesty is there as a must to be followed in conventional physics. >>> Mathematics in conventional physics is only a brief and convenient >>> alternative to making a wordy statement. >> >> I strongly doubt that any number of words would suffice to precisely >> convey general relativity, or quantum mechanics, or at least not until >> the words were merely a codification of the math, and considerably less >> comprehensible. >> >>> >>> Mathematics can be used by dishonest people to make fallacious points, >>> for dubious purposes. >>>> >>>> >>>>> Just follow the scientific methods. >>>>> >>>>> State your axioms, and build upon them to form a theory. Then >>>>> validate that theory with experiment. Make valid predictions with the theory. >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> Axioms? This isn't mathematics. The starting point for physics is the >>>> collection of experimental results. >>> >>> Axioms, as basic and undisputable units of information, are required >>> everywhere, as we all must agree upon them to start any discussion. >>> >>> If your axiom is that I must accept the speed of light to be >>> independent of the source then with those, like me, who do not accept >>> this, there is no further discussion. >> >> The constancy of the speed of light is an experimental result. If you do >> not accept it, you must believe that the experimenters are lying or >> incompetent. Perhaps you should do the experiments yourself, though you >> might find them rather demanding to do accurately enough. >> >> Sylvia. > > -- Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-08-19 12:45 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <plc6s5$1mve$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #699208 |
On 8/19/2018 10:01 AM, Odd Bodkin wrote: > Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> wrote: >> On Sunday, 19 August 2018 19:00:51 UTC+10, Sylvia Else wrote: >>> On 19/08/2018 5:05 PM, Arindam Banerjee wrote: >>>> On Sunday, 19 August 2018 16:19:27 UTC+10, Sylvia Else wrote: >>>>> On 19/08/2018 4:08 PM, Arindam Banerjee wrote: >>>>>> From first principles what is the definition of spacetime? >>>>>> >>>>>> How does it support the transmission of light? >>>>> >>>>> Physics doesn't answer "how", it only answers "what". >>>> >>>> Certainly conventional physics answers "how" with theories and supportive facts. >>>> Like gravity as an universal force (theory) is used to explain *how* >>>> things fall to earth (fact). >>> >>> That's a misunderstanding of what physics says about the situation. It >>> tells us how to calculate what the trajectory of the falling object will >>> be. It doesn't tell us why it falls. To say it falls due to gravity is >>> circular, since the theory of gravity is just based on the observation >>> that things fall. >> >> >> No, it is not based just on that. The theory of gravity about which you >> are evidently ignorant, but what was taught to me as physics in school >> and followed in my engineering studies, is that every centre of mass >> attracts every other centre of mass in the universe, with a force that is >> proportional to the product of the masses and inversely proportional to >> the square of the distance between them, and the constant of >> proportionality is the gravitational constant G. So mathematically the >> above theory is expressed as f=mMG/RR where the symbols have their obvious meaning. > > Just to give you an idea of the gap, how exactly does a body over HERE > exert a force on another body over THERE? Your paragraph above says “it > just does”. See the problem? And you likewise have no theory other than "magic" either. Saying gravity is caused by waves in nothing at all is just other way of saying "magic". Truth is nobody From Newton to now really knows the mechanism of gravity. It's all fantasy and speculation which makes the 'magic" explanation as good as any. >> The "hows" relating to falling, orbital motion, etc. all follow from the >> theory of gravitation. >>> >>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> No mathematical blah, please. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> That could be difficult - maybe mere words are not up to the task. Is >>>>> science to be so limited? >>>> >>>> >>>> Yes. Honesty is there as a must to be followed in conventional physics. >>>> Mathematics in conventional physics is only a brief and convenient >>>> alternative to making a wordy statement. >>> >>> I strongly doubt that any number of words would suffice to precisely >>> convey general relativity, or quantum mechanics, or at least not until >>> the words were merely a codification of the math, and considerably less >>> comprehensible. >>> >>>> >>>> Mathematics can be used by dishonest people to make fallacious points, >>>> for dubious purposes. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> Just follow the scientific methods. >>>>>> >>>>>> State your axioms, and build upon them to form a theory. Then >>>>>> validate that theory with experiment. Make valid predictions with the theory. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Axioms? This isn't mathematics. The starting point for physics is the >>>>> collection of experimental results. >>>> >>>> Axioms, as basic and undisputable units of information, are required >>>> everywhere, as we all must agree upon them to start any discussion. >>>> >>>> If your axiom is that I must accept the speed of light to be >>>> independent of the source then with those, like me, who do not accept >>>> this, there is no further discussion. >>> >>> The constancy of the speed of light is an experimental result. If you do >>> not accept it, you must believe that the experimenters are lying or >>> incompetent. Perhaps you should do the experiments yourself, though you >>> might find them rather demanding to do accurately enough. >>> >>> Sylvia. >> >> > > >
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-08-19 09:53 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <47557f92-4bee-4e04-b317-7ec1d8ad74cf@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #699223 |
Odd “Just to give you an idea of the gap, how exactly does a body over HERE exert a force on another body over THERE? Your paragraph above says “it just does”. See the problem? ” Don’t make me look up where you say EXACTLY that. You’re the problem
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-08-19 20:47 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <plcl0a$h34$2@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #699225 |
john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> wrote: > Odd > “Just to give you an idea of the gap, how exactly does a body over HERE > exert a force on another body over THERE? Your paragraph above says “it > just does”. See the problem? ” > > Don’t make me look up where you say EXACTLY that. > You’re the problem > You can’t read, John. -- Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-08-19 18:26 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <plccnt$1k6$6@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #699223 |
benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> wrote: > On 8/19/2018 10:01 AM, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> wrote: >>> On Sunday, 19 August 2018 19:00:51 UTC+10, Sylvia Else wrote: >>>> On 19/08/2018 5:05 PM, Arindam Banerjee wrote: >>>>> On Sunday, 19 August 2018 16:19:27 UTC+10, Sylvia Else wrote: >>>>>> On 19/08/2018 4:08 PM, Arindam Banerjee wrote: >>>>>>> From first principles what is the definition of spacetime? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> How does it support the transmission of light? >>>>>> >>>>>> Physics doesn't answer "how", it only answers "what". >>>>> >>>>> Certainly conventional physics answers "how" with theories and supportive facts. >>>>> Like gravity as an universal force (theory) is used to explain *how* >>>>> things fall to earth (fact). >>>> >>>> That's a misunderstanding of what physics says about the situation. It >>>> tells us how to calculate what the trajectory of the falling object will >>>> be. It doesn't tell us why it falls. To say it falls due to gravity is >>>> circular, since the theory of gravity is just based on the observation >>>> that things fall. >>> >>> >>> No, it is not based just on that. The theory of gravity about which you >>> are evidently ignorant, but what was taught to me as physics in school >>> and followed in my engineering studies, is that every centre of mass >>> attracts every other centre of mass in the universe, with a force that is >>> proportional to the product of the masses and inversely proportional to >>> the square of the distance between them, and the constant of >>> proportionality is the gravitational constant G. So mathematically the >>> above theory is expressed as f=mMG/RR where the symbols have their obvious meaning. >> >> Just to give you an idea of the gap, how exactly does a body over HERE >> exert a force on another body over THERE? Your paragraph above says “it >> just does”. See the problem? > > And you likewise have no theory other than "magic" either. Saying > gravity is caused by waves in nothing at all No physicist says that. Remember me asking you for a quote of physicists claiming that waves propagate in nothing at all? Remember you tanking in that? > is just other way of saying > "magic". Truth is nobody From Newton to now really knows the mechanism > of gravity. It's all fantasy and speculation which makes the 'magic" > explanation as good as any. > > >>> The "hows" relating to falling, orbital motion, etc. all follow from the >>> theory of gravitation. >>>> >>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> No mathematical blah, please. >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> That could be difficult - maybe mere words are not up to the task. Is >>>>>> science to be so limited? >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Yes. Honesty is there as a must to be followed in conventional physics. >>>>> Mathematics in conventional physics is only a brief and convenient >>>>> alternative to making a wordy statement. >>>> >>>> I strongly doubt that any number of words would suffice to precisely >>>> convey general relativity, or quantum mechanics, or at least not until >>>> the words were merely a codification of the math, and considerably less >>>> comprehensible. >>>> >>>>> >>>>> Mathematics can be used by dishonest people to make fallacious points, >>>>> for dubious purposes. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> Just follow the scientific methods. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> State your axioms, and build upon them to form a theory. Then >>>>>>> validate that theory with experiment. Make valid predictions with the theory. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Axioms? This isn't mathematics. The starting point for physics is the >>>>>> collection of experimental results. >>>>> >>>>> Axioms, as basic and undisputable units of information, are required >>>>> everywhere, as we all must agree upon them to start any discussion. >>>>> >>>>> If your axiom is that I must accept the speed of light to be >>>>> independent of the source then with those, like me, who do not accept >>>>> this, there is no further discussion. >>>> >>>> The constancy of the speed of light is an experimental result. If you do >>>> not accept it, you must believe that the experimenters are lying or >>>> incompetent. Perhaps you should do the experiments yourself, though you >>>> might find them rather demanding to do accurately enough. >>>> >>>> Sylvia. >>> >>> >> >> >> > > -- Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-08-19 17:45 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <f8743bdf-713f-450b-9d9c-bab89f639e56@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #699208 |
On Monday, 20 August 2018 00:01:47 UTC+10, Odd Bodkin wrote: > Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Sunday, 19 August 2018 19:00:51 UTC+10, Sylvia Else wrote: > >> On 19/08/2018 5:05 PM, Arindam Banerjee wrote: > >>> On Sunday, 19 August 2018 16:19:27 UTC+10, Sylvia Else wrote: > >>>> On 19/08/2018 4:08 PM, Arindam Banerjee wrote: > >>>>> From first principles what is the definition of spacetime? > >>>>> > >>>>> How does it support the transmission of light? > >>>> > >>>> Physics doesn't answer "how", it only answers "what". > >>> > >>> Certainly conventional physics answers "how" with theories and supportive facts. > >>> Like gravity as an universal force (theory) is used to explain *how* > >>> things fall to earth (fact). > >> > >> That's a misunderstanding of what physics says about the situation. It > >> tells us how to calculate what the trajectory of the falling object will > >> be. It doesn't tell us why it falls. To say it falls due to gravity is > >> circular, since the theory of gravity is just based on the observation > >> that things fall. > > > > > > No, it is not based just on that. The theory of gravity about which you > > are evidently ignorant, but what was taught to me as physics in school > > and followed in my engineering studies, is that every centre of mass > > attracts every other centre of mass in the universe, with a force that is > > proportional to the product of the masses and inversely proportional to > > the square of the distance between them, and the constant of > > proportionality is the gravitational constant G. So mathematically the > > above theory is expressed as f=mMG/RR where the symbols have their obvious meaning. > > Just to give you an idea of the gap, how exactly does a body over HERE > exert a force on another body over THERE? Your paragraph above says “it > just does”. See the problem? There is no problem. This attraction is always there, and the great and wonderful theory of gravitational attraction gives quantifiable measurements that are always accurate. This is "action at a distance" which does not work for electricity, though, although there are some who do think so. But this is another story. Yes, the nature of gravity is still a mystery. Science never says that all mysteries of Nature are solved - it is a method to know them better, and revise our knowledge with new findings and discoveries. > > > > > > > The "hows" relating to falling, orbital motion, etc. all follow from the > > theory of gravitation. > >> > >>> > >>>>> > >>>>> No mathematical blah, please. > >>>>> > >>>> > >>>> That could be difficult - maybe mere words are not up to the task. Is > >>>> science to be so limited? > >>> > >>> > >>> Yes. Honesty is there as a must to be followed in conventional physics. > >>> Mathematics in conventional physics is only a brief and convenient > >>> alternative to making a wordy statement. > >> > >> I strongly doubt that any number of words would suffice to precisely > >> convey general relativity, or quantum mechanics, or at least not until > >> the words were merely a codification of the math, and considerably less > >> comprehensible. > >> > >>> > >>> Mathematics can be used by dishonest people to make fallacious points, > >>> for dubious purposes. > >>>> > >>>> > >>>>> Just follow the scientific methods. > >>>>> > >>>>> State your axioms, and build upon them to form a theory. Then > >>>>> validate that theory with experiment. Make valid predictions with the theory. > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>> > >>>> Axioms? This isn't mathematics. The starting point for physics is the > >>>> collection of experimental results. > >>> > >>> Axioms, as basic and undisputable units of information, are required > >>> everywhere, as we all must agree upon them to start any discussion. > >>> > >>> If your axiom is that I must accept the speed of light to be > >>> independent of the source then with those, like me, who do not accept > >>> this, there is no further discussion. > >> > >> The constancy of the speed of light is an experimental result. The experimental result (from MMI) shows that SUCH IS NOT THE CASE. When properly analysed as I did in 2005, it is clear that the speed of light does vary with the speed of the emitter. If you do > >> not accept it, you must believe that the experimenters are lying or > >> incompetent. They were incompetent, and now they are lying when faced with the truth. This lying comes from ignoring my observation of the bungle they have reapeated. In brief, in MMI the light actually follows different path for different angles of incidence. And to get the null result, the speed of light has to vary according the angle of incidence. I have posted this earlier, several times, and talked about it to all comers. There is no doubt that the MMI actually proves that the speed of light varies with the speed of the emitter. Why this is not universally accepted, is the question. The answer is obvious, and does no credit to the scientific community. Perhaps you should do the experiments yourself, though you > >> might find them rather demanding to do accurately enough. I accept the experiment is done properly. But they have to acknowledge they have made a bungle, a huge one, and also a subtle one. The bungle is that they have ignored that with the movement of the Earth the other side has also shifted by an extra distance (varying with the angle of light incidence) so that the light has to travel an extra distance (plus or minus) depending upon the angle of incidence. The light speed has to vary to produce the null result. There is no doubt in my mind that people are clever enough to understand my point. Which is very simple, and explained in detail in my first 2005 article published in usenet. Cheers, Arindam Banerjee > >> > >> Sylvia. > > > > > > > > -- > Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-08-19 12:29 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <plc5sj$1l36$2@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #699184 |
On 8/19/2018 5:00 AM, Sylvia Else wrote: > On 19/08/2018 5:05 PM, Arindam Banerjee wrote: >> On Sunday, 19 August 2018 16:19:27 UTC+10, Sylvia Else wrote: >>> On 19/08/2018 4:08 PM, Arindam Banerjee wrote: >>>> From first principles what is the definition of spacetime? >>>> >>>> How does it support the transmission of light? >>> >>> Physics doesn't answer "how", it only answers "what". >> >> Certainly conventional physics answers "how" with theories and >> supportive facts. >> Like gravity as an universal force (theory) is used to explain *how* >> things fall to earth (fact). > > That's a misunderstanding of what physics says about the situation. It > tells us how to calculate what the trajectory of the falling object will > be. It doesn't tell us why it falls. To say it falls due to gravity is > circular, since the theory of gravity is just based on the observation > that things fall. He said "How" not Why. Science does not answer "why". You are atempting to move the goalposts. > >> >>>> >>>> No mathematical blah, please. >>>> >>> >>> That could be difficult - maybe mere words are not up to the task. Is >>> science to be so limited? >> >> >> Yes. Honesty is there as a must to be followed in conventional >> physics. Mathematics in conventional physics is only a brief and >> convenient alternative to making a wordy statement. > > I strongly doubt that any number of words would suffice to precisely > convey general relativity, or quantum mechanics, or at least not until > the words were merely a codification of the math, and considerably less > comprehensible. Not if one does not have the math textbooks and their definitions to back up your codification. If you have to include the "assumed" portion in every explanation it is not simple anymore. >> Mathematics can be used by dishonest people to make fallacious points, >> for dubious purposes. >>> >>> >>>> Just follow the scientific methods. >>>> >>>> State your axioms, and build upon them to form a theory. Then >>>> validate that theory with experiment. Make valid predictions with >>>> the theory. >>>> >>>> >>> >>> Axioms? This isn't mathematics. The starting point for physics is the >>> collection of experimental results. >> >> Axioms, as basic and undisputable units of information, are required >> everywhere, as we all must agree upon them to start any discussion. >> >> If your axiom is that I must accept the speed of light to be >> independent of the source then with those, like me, who do not accept >> this, there is no further discussion. > > The constancy of the speed of light is an experimental result. If you do > not accept it, you must believe that the experimenters are lying or > incompetent. Perhaps you should do the experiments yourself, though you > might find them rather demanding to do accurately enough. > > Sylvia.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-08-19 12:26 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <plc5n2$1l36$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #699175 |
On 8/19/2018 3:05 AM, Arindam Banerjee wrote: > On Sunday, 19 August 2018 16:19:27 UTC+10, Sylvia Else wrote: >> On 19/08/2018 4:08 PM, Arindam Banerjee wrote: >>> From first principles what is the definition of spacetime? >>> >>> How does it support the transmission of light? >> >> Physics doesn't answer "how", it only answers "what". > > Certainly conventional physics answers "how" with theories and supportive facts. > Like gravity as an universal force (theory) is used to explain *how* things fall to earth (fact). > >>> >>> No mathematical blah, please. >>> >> >> That could be difficult - maybe mere words are not up to the task. Is >> science to be so limited? > > > Yes. Honesty is there as a must to be followed in conventional physics. Mathematics in conventional physics is only a brief and convenient alternative to making a wordy statement. > > Mathematics can be used by dishonest people to make fallacious points, for dubious purposes. >> >> >>> Just follow the scientific methods. >>> >>> State your axioms, and build upon them to form a theory. Then validate that theory with experiment. Make valid predictions with the theory. >>> >>> >> >> Axioms? This isn't mathematics. The starting point for physics is the >> collection of experimental results. > > Axioms, as basic and undisputable units of information, are required everywhere, as we all must agree upon them to start any discussion. True because mathematics is pure fantasy and can be made to do anything one wishes. Reality on the other hand is real and only does what nature allowes. > If your axiom is that I must accept the speed of light to be independent of the source then with those, like me, who do not accept this, there is no further discussion. > > Any discussion can only progress when there is a certain level of agreement. When there is no such agreement, there can be no discussion, only politics. > > Cheers, > Arindam Banerjee > > >> Sylvia. >
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-08-19 12:23 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <plc5h7$1km7$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #699174 |
On 8/19/2018 2:19 AM, Sylvia Else wrote: > On 19/08/2018 4:08 PM, Arindam Banerjee wrote: >> From first principles what is the definition of spacetime? >> >> How does it support the transmission of light? > > Physics doesn't answer "how", it only answers "what". Nonsense. Spacetime is a model not a thing anymore than spacetemperature "explains" climate change. >> >> No mathematical blah, please. >> > > That could be difficult - maybe mere words are not up to the task. Is > science to be so limited? Which proves Spacetime is just a math gyration. >> Just follow the scientific methods. >> >> State your axioms, and build upon them to form a theory. Then >> validate that theory with experiment. Make valid predictions with the >> theory. >> >> > > Axioms? This isn't mathematics. The starting point for physics is the > collection of experimental results. You just stated that mathematics is the only suitable model and all mathematics is founded upon Axioms. Banjo is right on. > Sylvia. >
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-08-19 18:26 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <plccnr$1k6$4@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #699215 |
benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> wrote: > On 8/19/2018 2:19 AM, Sylvia Else wrote: >> On 19/08/2018 4:08 PM, Arindam Banerjee wrote: >>> From first principles what is the definition of spacetime? >>> >>> How does it support the transmission of light? >> >> Physics doesn't answer "how", it only answers "what". > > Nonsense. Spacetime is a model not a thing anymore than spacetemperature > "explains" climate change. Spacetime is exactly as much a model as “electron” is a model. And as “chair” is a model. > >>> >>> No mathematical blah, please. >>> >> >> That could be difficult - maybe mere words are not up to the task. Is >> science to be so limited? > > Which proves Spacetime is just a math gyration. > >>> Just follow the scientific methods. >>> >>> State your axioms, and build upon them to form a theory. Then >>> validate that theory with experiment. Make valid predictions with the >>> theory. >>> >>> >> >> Axioms? This isn't mathematics. The starting point for physics is the >> collection of experimental results. > > You just stated that mathematics is the only suitable model and all > mathematics is founded upon Axioms. Banjo is right on. > >> Sylvia. >> > > -- Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-08-19 12:05 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <5d4eb90c-f20c-4b52-8e5a-d04225d25039@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #699241 |
Odd “Spacetime is exactly as much a model as “electron” is a model. And as “chair” is a model. ” You mean “electrontime” and “chairtime”. Yes- exactly that
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-08-19 20:47 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <plcl0a$h34$3@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #699247 |
john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> wrote: > Odd > “Spacetime is exactly as much a model as “electron” is a model. And as > “chair” is a model. ” > You mean “electrontime” and “chairtime”. > Yes- exactly that > Meant what I said. And I’m sure you’re going to say a week from now that I’m backpedaling from where I said electrontime. Because YOU CANT READ. -- Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-08-19 14:19 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <d20f4ebb-2b76-463b-87eb-f219bfa3f71f@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #699255 |
Odd “Because YOU CANT READ. ” I’ll look up and find where you said that material bodies feel each other ‘just because they’re there’. Moron
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 1 of 3 [1] 2 3 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics
csiph-web