Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics > #538611 > unrolled thread
| Started by | SEKI <seki.hajime01@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2015-12-11 09:06 -0800 |
| Last post | 2015-12-26 13:53 -0600 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 172 — 19 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.physics
Do neutrinos really have masses? SEKI <seki.hajime01@gmail.com> - 2015-12-11 09:06 -0800
Re: Do neutrinos really have masses? omnilobe@gmail.com - 2015-12-11 09:59 -0800
Re: Do neutrinos really have masses? "reber g=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> - 2015-12-11 10:05 -0800
Re: Do neutrinos really have masses? Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2015-12-11 12:25 -0600
Re: Do neutrinos really have masses? "reber g=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> - 2015-12-11 13:57 -0800
Re: Do neutrinos really have masses? Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2015-12-11 22:48 -0600
Re: Do neutrinos really have masses? "reber g=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> - 2015-12-12 12:27 -0800
Re: Do neutrinos really have masses? Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2015-12-12 15:31 -0600
Re: Do neutrinos really have masses? Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2015-12-12 22:47 +0100
Re: Do neutrinos really have masses? Yousuf Khan <bbbl67@spammenot.yahoo.com> - 2015-12-14 04:54 -0500
Re: Do neutrinos really have masses? john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2015-12-14 05:28 -0800
Re: Do neutrinos really have masses? Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2015-12-14 08:36 -0600
Re: Do neutrinos really have masses? Yousuf Khan <bbbl67@spammenot.yahoo.com> - 2015-12-15 00:54 -0500
Re: Do neutrinos really have masses? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-12-15 07:20 -0600
Re: Do neutrinos really have masses? john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2015-12-15 07:18 -0800
Re: Do neutrinos really have masses? "reber g=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> - 2015-12-15 09:39 -0800
Re: Do neutrinos really have masses? Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2015-12-15 11:44 -0600
Re: Do neutrinos really have masses? Yousuf Khan <bbbl67@spammenot.yahoo.com> - 2015-12-16 03:15 -0500
Re: Do neutrinos really have masses? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-12-15 11:47 -0600
Re: Do neutrinos really have masses? john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2015-12-15 13:45 -0800
Re: Do neutrinos really have masses? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-12-15 16:06 -0600
Re: Do neutrinos really have masses? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-12-15 16:08 -0600
Re: Do neutrinos really have masses? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-12-15 16:09 -0600
Re: Do neutrinos really have masses? dobri karagorgov <dobrikarate.gov@gmail.com> - 2015-12-15 14:15 -0800
Re: Do neutrinos really have masses? "Y.Porat" <y.y.porat@gmail.com> - 2015-12-16 02:16 -0800
Re: Do neutrinos really have masses? Yousuf Khan <bbbl67@spammenot.yahoo.com> - 2015-12-16 03:05 -0500
Re: Do neutrinos really have masses? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-12-16 06:59 -0600
Re: Do neutrinos really have masses? Yousuf Khan <bbbl67@spammenot.yahoo.com> - 2015-12-17 02:42 -0500
Re: Do neutrinos really have masses? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-12-17 09:43 -0600
Re: Do neutrinos really have masses? Yousuf Khan <bbbl67@spammenot.yahoo.com> - 2015-12-17 14:12 -0500
Re: Do neutrinos really have masses? Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2015-12-15 08:42 -0600
Re: Do neutrinos really have masses? Yousuf Khan <bbbl67@spammenot.yahoo.com> - 2015-12-16 03:30 -0500
Re: Do neutrinos really have masses? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-12-16 07:34 -0600
Re: Do neutrinos really have masses? Poutnik <Poutnik4NNTP@gmail.com> - 2015-12-16 15:54 +0100
Re: Do neutrinos really have masses? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-12-16 09:04 -0600
Re: Do neutrinos really have masses? Poutnik <Poutnik4NNTP@gmail.com> - 2015-12-16 16:25 +0100
Re: Do neutrinos really have masses? Yousuf Khan <bbbl67@spammenot.yahoo.com> - 2015-12-17 02:34 -0500
Re: Do neutrinos really have masses? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-12-17 09:13 -0600
Re: Do neutrinos really have masses? Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2015-12-17 21:21 +0100
Re: Do neutrinos really have masses? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-12-17 14:46 -0600
Re: Do neutrinos really have masses? Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2015-12-17 22:03 +0100
Re: Do neutrinos really have masses? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-12-17 15:46 -0600
Re: Do neutrinos really have masses? Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2015-12-17 23:22 +0100
Re: Do neutrinos really have masses? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-12-17 17:14 -0600
Re: Do neutrinos really have masses? Poutnik <Poutnik4NNTP@gmail.com> - 2015-12-18 10:44 +0100
Re: Do neutrinos really have masses? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-12-18 07:56 -0600
Re: Do neutrinos really have masses? Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2015-12-20 09:16 +0100
Re: Do neutrinos really have masses? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-12-17 17:21 -0600
Re: Do neutrinos really have masses? Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2015-12-20 09:44 +0100
Re: Do neutrinos really have masses? "Y.Porat" <y.y.porat@gmail.com> - 2015-12-20 01:26 -0800
Re: Do neutrinos really have masses? Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2015-12-17 21:25 +0100
Re: Do neutrinos really have masses? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-12-17 14:47 -0600
Re: Do neutrinos really have masses? Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2015-12-17 22:22 +0100
Re: Do neutrinos really have masses? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-12-17 15:49 -0600
Re: Do neutrinos really have masses? Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2015-12-17 22:58 +0100
Re: Do neutrinos really have masses? Yousuf Khan <bbbl67@spammenot.yahoo.com> - 2015-12-18 00:31 -0500
Re: Do neutrinos really have masses? Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2015-12-18 08:00 +0100
Re: Do neutrinos really have masses? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-12-18 07:50 -0600
Re: Do neutrinos really have masses? Ezra Farrow <ezrafa@dubtechno.org> - 2015-12-18 15:12 +0000
Re: Do neutrinos really have masses? john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2015-12-18 08:16 -0800
Re: Do neutrinos really have masses? Ezra Farrow <ezrafa@dubtechno.org> - 2015-12-18 16:53 +0000
Re: Do neutrinos really have masses? "Y.Porat" <y.y.porat@gmail.com> - 2015-12-20 01:32 -0800
Re: Do neutrinos really have masses? Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2015-12-18 23:50 +0100
Re: Do neutrinos really have masses? Ezra Farrow <ezrafa@dubtechno.org> - 2015-12-18 23:19 +0000
Re: Do neutrinos really have masses? "Y.Porat" <y.y.porat@gmail.com> - 2015-12-20 01:35 -0800
Re: Do neutrinos really have masses? "reber g=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> - 2015-12-20 09:32 -0800
Re: Do neutrinos really have masses? Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2015-12-20 15:04 -0600
Re: Do neutrinos really have masses? "reber g=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> - 2015-12-24 12:09 -0800
Re: Do neutrinos really have masses? Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2015-12-24 14:47 -0600
Re: Do neutrinos really have masses? "reber g=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> - 2015-12-24 13:22 -0800
Re: Do neutrinos really have masses? Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2015-12-24 15:42 -0600
Re: Do neutrinos really have masses? "reber g=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> - 2015-12-25 16:02 -0800
Re: Do neutrinos really have masses? Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2015-12-25 18:54 -0600
Re: Do neutrinos really have masses? Yousuf Khan <bbbl67@spammenot.yahoo.com> - 2015-12-26 07:06 -0500
Re: Do neutrinos really have masses? HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2015-12-28 09:03 -0800
Re: Do neutrinos really have masses? Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2015-12-18 18:21 -0600
Re: Do neutrinos really have masses? Ezra Farrow <ezrafa@dubtechno.org> - 2015-12-19 10:15 +0000
Re: Do neutrinos really have masses? Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2015-12-20 12:44 +0100
Re: Do neutrinos really have masses? Ezra Farrow <ezrafa@dubtechno.org> - 2015-12-20 12:44 +0000
Re: Do neutrinos really have masses? Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2015-12-20 14:10 +0100
Re: Do neutrinos really have masses? Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2015-12-20 10:39 +0100
Re: Do neutrinos really have masses? Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2015-12-20 11:47 +0100
Re: Do neutrinos really have masses? Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2015-12-20 15:20 +0100
Re: Do neutrinos really have masses? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-12-18 07:48 -0600
Re: Do neutrinos really have masses? Yousuf Khan <bbbl67@spammenot.yahoo.com> - 2015-12-18 15:29 -0500
Re: Do neutrinos really have masses? "Y.Porat" <y.y.porat@gmail.com> - 2015-12-17 01:00 -0800
Re: Do neutrinos really have masses? "Y.Porat" <y.y.porat@gmail.com> - 2015-12-17 00:54 -0800
Re: Do neutrinos really have masses? Poutnik <Poutnik4NNTP@gmail.com> - 2015-12-15 18:11 +0100
Re: Do neutrinos really have masses? Yousuf Khan <bbbl67@spammenot.yahoo.com> - 2015-12-16 03:41 -0500
Re: Do neutrinos really have masses? Poutnik <Poutnik4NNTP@gmail.com> - 2015-12-16 10:42 +0100
Re: Do neutrinos really have masses? Yousuf Khan <bbbl67@spammenot.yahoo.com> - 2015-12-17 02:47 -0500
Re: Do neutrinos really have masses? Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2015-12-17 20:55 +0100
Re: Do neutrinos really have masses? dobri karagorgov <dobrikarate.gov@gmail.com> - 2015-12-17 12:24 -0800
Re: Do neutrinos really have masses? Yousuf Khan <bbbl67@spammenot.yahoo.com> - 2015-12-18 15:30 -0500
Re: Do neutrinos really have masses? Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2015-12-20 10:47 +0100
Re: Do neutrinos really have masses? Double-A <double-a3@hush.com> - 2015-12-15 13:53 -0800
Re: Do neutrinos really have masses? Yousuf Khan <bbbl67@spammenot.yahoo.com> - 2015-12-16 03:33 -0500
Re: Do neutrinos really have masses? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-12-14 09:59 -0600
Re: Do neutrinos really have masses? Yousuf Khan <bbbl67@spammenot.yahoo.com> - 2015-12-15 03:37 -0500
Re: Do neutrinos really have masses? "reber g=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> - 2015-12-12 17:42 -0800
Re: Do neutrinos really have masses? benj <none@gmail.com> - 2015-12-12 20:57 -0500
Re: Do neutrinos really have masses? Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2015-12-11 12:07 -0600
Re: Do neutrinos really have masses? "reber g=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> - 2015-12-17 10:03 -0800
Re: Do neutrinos really have masses? NoeDOTNatDOTNoe <dedanoe@gmail.com> - 2015-12-17 10:24 -0800
Re: Do neutrinos really have masses? Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2015-12-17 12:41 -0600
Re: Do neutrinos really have masses? "Y.Porat" <y.y.porat@gmail.com> - 2015-12-12 02:30 -0800
Re: Do neutrinos really have masses? Yousuf Khan <bbbl67@spammenot.yahoo.com> - 2015-12-14 04:44 -0500
Re: Do neutrinos really have masses? "Y.Porat" <y.y.porat@gmail.com> - 2015-12-14 06:36 -0800
Re: Do neutrinos really have masses? Raymond Yohros <bat@birdband.net> - 2015-12-20 09:46 -0800
Re: Do neutrinos really have masses? Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2015-12-20 18:58 +0100
Re: Do neutrinos really have masses? Raymond Yohros <bat@birdband.net> - 2015-12-22 10:16 -0800
Re: Do neutrinos really have masses? Yousuf Khan <bbbl67@spammenot.yahoo.com> - 2015-12-23 13:00 -0500
Re: Do neutrinos really have masses? Raymond Yohros <bat@birdband.net> - 2015-12-23 15:57 -0800
Re: Do neutrinos really have masses? Yousuf Khan <bbbl67@spammenot.yahoo.com> - 2015-12-26 07:45 -0500
Re: Do neutrinos really have masses? Raymond Yohros <bat@birdband.net> - 2015-12-27 09:01 -0800
Re: Do neutrinos really have masses? Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2015-12-27 12:24 -0600
Re: Do neutrinos really have masses? Raymond Yohros <bat@birdband.net> - 2015-12-27 16:51 -0800
Re: Do neutrinos really have masses? Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2015-12-27 20:13 -0600
Re: Do neutrinos really have masses? Raymond Yohros <bat@birdband.net> - 2015-12-27 23:58 -0800
Re: Do neutrinos really have masses? Yousuf Khan <bbbl67@spammenot.yahoo.com> - 2015-12-28 06:55 -0500
Re: Do neutrinos really have masses? Raymond Yohros <bat@birdband.net> - 2015-12-28 08:37 -0800
Re: Do neutrinos really have masses? Yousuf Khan <bbbl67@spammenot.yahoo.com> - 2015-12-28 20:31 -0500
Re: Do neutrinos really have masses? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-12-29 08:25 -0600
Re: Do neutrinos really have masses? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-12-29 08:30 -0600
Re: Do neutrinos really have masses? Raymond Yohros <bat@birdband.net> - 2015-12-29 08:45 -0800
Re: Do neutrinos really have masses? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-12-29 10:50 -0600
Re: Do neutrinos really have masses? Raymond Yohros <bat@birdband.net> - 2015-12-29 09:22 -0800
Re: Do neutrinos really have masses? Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2015-12-29 11:28 -0600
Re: Do neutrinos really have masses? Raymond Yohros <bat@birdband.net> - 2015-12-29 09:59 -0800
Re: Do neutrinos really have masses? Mahipal <mahipal7638@gmail.com> - 2015-12-29 10:34 -0800
Re: Do neutrinos really have masses? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-12-29 12:48 -0600
Re: Do neutrinos really have masses? Raymond Yohros <bat@birdband.net> - 2015-12-29 11:38 -0800
Re: Do neutrinos really have masses? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-12-29 13:52 -0600
Re: Do neutrinos really have masses? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-12-29 11:50 -0600
Re: Do neutrinos really have masses? Raymond Yohros <bat@birdband.net> - 2015-12-29 10:18 -0800
Re: Do neutrinos really have masses? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-12-29 12:50 -0600
Re: Do neutrinos really have masses? Raymond Yohros <bat@birdband.net> - 2015-12-29 11:45 -0800
Re: Do neutrinos really have masses? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-12-29 13:54 -0600
Re: Do neutrinos really have masses? Raymond Yohros <bat@birdband.net> - 2015-12-29 13:20 -0800
Re: Do neutrinos really have masses? benj <none@gmail.com> - 2015-12-29 16:53 -0500
Re: Do neutrinos really have masses? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-12-29 16:13 -0600
Re: Do neutrinos really have masses? Raymond Yohros <bat@birdband.net> - 2015-12-29 16:20 -0800
Re: Do neutrinos really have masses? Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2015-12-29 18:23 -0600
Re: Do neutrinos really have masses? Mahipal <mahipal7638@gmail.com> - 2015-12-29 17:49 -0800
Re: Do neutrinos really have masses? "Sam Jones" <invalid@example.com> - 2015-12-30 20:38 -0800
Re: Do neutrinos really have masses? Mahipal <mahipal7638@gmail.com> - 2015-12-31 05:55 -0800
Re: Do neutrinos really have masses? Raymond Yohros <bat@birdband.net> - 2015-12-31 09:45 -0800
Re: Do neutrinos really have masses? Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2015-12-31 13:04 -0600
Re: Do neutrinos really have masses? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-12-29 16:25 -0600
Re: Do neutrinos really have masses? Raymond Yohros <bat@birdband.net> - 2015-12-30 11:31 -0800
Re: Do neutrinos really have masses? HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2015-12-29 10:55 -0800
Re: Do neutrinos really have masses? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-12-29 13:04 -0600
Re: Do neutrinos really have masses? dobri karagorgov <dobrikarate.gov@gmail.com> - 2015-12-29 11:24 -0800
Re: Do neutrinos really have masses? HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2015-12-30 09:14 -0800
Re: Do neutrinos really have masses? Yousuf Khan <bbbl67@spammenot.yahoo.com> - 2015-12-30 09:53 -0500
Re: Do neutrinos really have masses? Yousuf Khan <bbbl67@spammenot.yahoo.com> - 2015-12-30 09:49 -0500
Re: Do neutrinos really have masses? Raymond Yohros <bat@birdband.net> - 2015-12-29 08:11 -0800
Re: Do neutrinos really have masses? Yousuf Khan <bbbl67@spammenot.yahoo.com> - 2015-12-30 11:40 -0500
Re: Do neutrinos really have masses? Raymond Yohros <bat@birdband.net> - 2015-12-31 08:35 -0800
Re: Do neutrinos really have masses? Yousuf Khan <bbbl67@spammenot.yahoo.com> - 2015-12-31 16:11 -0500
Re: Do neutrinos really have masses? Raymond Yohros <bat@birdband.net> - 2015-12-31 14:34 -0800
Re: Do neutrinos really have masses? Yousuf Khan <bbbl67@spammenot.yahoo.com> - 2016-01-01 02:57 -0500
Re: Do neutrinos really have masses? SEKI <seki.hajime01@gmail.com> - 2015-12-14 07:25 -0800
Re: Do neutrinos really have masses? "reber g=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> - 2015-12-14 13:32 -0800
Re: Do neutrinos really have masses? "reber g=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> - 2015-12-15 14:23 -0800
Re: Do neutrinos really have masses? "reber g=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> - 2015-12-18 09:35 -0800
Re: Do neutrinos really have masses? Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2015-12-18 11:47 -0600
Re: Do neutrinos really have masses? "reber g=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> - 2015-12-18 10:24 -0800
Re: Do neutrinos really have masses? "reber g=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> - 2015-12-18 13:28 -0800
Re: Do neutrinos really have masses? Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2015-12-18 16:33 -0600
Re: Do neutrinos really have masses? "reber g=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> - 2015-12-26 10:09 -0800
Re: Do neutrinos really have masses? Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2015-12-26 13:53 -0600
Page 3 of 9 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next page →
| From | Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-12-17 22:03 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <n4v7pv$4k3$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #539898 |
Dne 17/12/2015 v 21:46 Odd Bodkin napsal(a): > On 12/17/2015 2:21 PM, Poutnik wrote: >> Dne 17/12/2015 v 16:13 Odd Bodkin napsal(a): >>> On 12/17/2015 1:34 AM, Yousuf Khan wrote: >>>> On 16/12/2015 9:54 AM, Poutnik wrote: >>>>> There is need to be distinguished the space and the space metric. >>>> >>>> The space metric is just yet another property of spacetime. Before, in >>>> Newton's time, it was considered spacetime itself, but now it's >>>> considered just a property of a far more complex spacetime. Spacetime as >>>> object. >>>> >>>> Yousuf Khan >>> >>> The metric is a PROPERTY of the vacuum not a thing separate from the >>> vacuum. Just like permittivity is a property of the vacuum, not a think >>> separate from it. >>> >> >> As space has more than 1 meaning, >> 2 attributes of space need not to belong to the same object. >> > > Now I think we're in aether land again. Interesting, I am trying to get you from that land away. > Let's say there are material objects at certain locations and we have > cataloged them all. > Now we say that there is something that represents the background in > which those objects sit. Or we don't even have to go that far, we can > just talk about what lies between the material objects. This is what > scientists might colloquially, loosely refer to as "the vacuum". But vacuum is not an object identical to object of our topological model of reality. > > Now you might ask, is the vacuum really TWO things that occupy the same > volume? Or is it just "the vacuum" that has a variety of properties? You say so, not me. 2 objects, but not of the same class, not even the same realm. It is not vacuum + vacuum. > > If you say, it's really TWO things that occupy the volume..... Not at all. > > I'll give you an analogy. Let's take a zebra. You might say that the > zebra is really TWO animals: There's the white-zebra animal and the > black-zebra animal. And in this case what I'm calling the zebra, you > might say is a combination of black-zebra and white-zebra. But I would > then ask, how would you physically distinguish the two animals here, > OTHER THAN the properties black and white? > No, I say there is zebra animal and math model of zebra animal. -- Poutnik ( the Czech word for a wanderer ) Knowledge makes great men humble, but small men arrogant.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-12-17 15:46 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <n4vagd$v0r$1@speranza.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #539908 |
On 12/17/2015 3:03 PM, Poutnik wrote: > But vacuum is not an object identical > to object of our topological model of reality. > No, I say there is zebra animal and math model of zebra animal. This is similar to a discussion I've had with Tom Roberts. Is quantum mechanical spin a property of electrons or a property of our model of electrons? The purpose of building models is so that you can say you understand something about the natural things that the model represents. So either you'd be having to say that this is in fact FUTILE and science doesn't actually give you any insight as to what natural things are like at all; or you'd have to be making rather arbitrary decisions of the form, "Well, this feature is a good description of reality, but this other feature is only a feature of the model." If the latter, then I would say, how do you know? As I said, light considered as a natural (actually existing) thing is actually observed to bend as it passes near a material object, on its path from one material object to another material object. This is what I would call a real behavior, or something that light can be said to really do. (Of course, you have to define "bend" as stating that the trajectories are not parallel in the asymptotic regions far from the material body that is suppose to cause the effect.) Now the question is, do you attribute that bend to a property in the mathematical model of the vacuum, or do you attribute it to something in the real vacuum? If the former, how does a mathematical model influence the behavior of real light? Or said another way, is the metric property of the mathematical model of the vacuum not supposed to represent something about the real vacuum? -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-12-17 23:22 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <n4vcf5$tk9$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #539926 |
Dne 17/12/2015 v 22:46 Odd Bodkin napsal(a): > On 12/17/2015 3:03 PM, Poutnik wrote: >> But vacuum is not an object identical >> to object of our topological model of reality. >> No, I say there is zebra animal and math model of zebra animal. > > This is similar to a discussion I've had with Tom Roberts. > Is quantum mechanical spin a property of electrons or a property of our > model of electrons? Of course of our model. So do our opinions about other people are properties of our models of their personality. Our knowledge of reality is like as a curve asymptotically ( but not so smoothly ) reaching the line of reality. But, some parameters of the reality model may be right, within their errors, and some are wrong. > The purpose of building models is so that you can say you understand > something about the natural things that the model represents. So either > you'd be having to say that this is in fact FUTILE and science doesn't > actually give you any insight as to what natural things are like at all; > or you'd have to be making rather arbitrary decisions of the form, > "Well, this feature is a good description of reality, but this other > feature is only a feature of the model." If the latter, then I would > say, how do you know? Well, this feature of the model is a good description of reality. > > As I said, light considered as a natural (actually existing) thing is > actually observed to bend as it passes near a material object, on its > path from one material object to another material object. This is what I > would call a real behavior, or something that light can be said to > really do. Other possibility is, as our natural 3D model of space is wrong near massive objects, we observe the straight line of light as bended. > .....(Of course, you have to define "bend" as stating that the > trajectories are not parallel in the asymptotic regions far from the > material body that is suppose to cause the effect.) Now the question is, > do you attribute that bend to a property in the mathematical model of > the vacuum, or do you attribute it to something in the real vacuum? If Neither, Neither. > the former, how does a mathematical model influence the behavior of real > light? Or said another way, is the metric property of the mathematical > model of the vacuum not supposed to represent something about the real > vacuum? > Do not you just bring the idea of vacuum-luminoferous-aether ? -- Poutnik ( the Czech word for a wanderer ) Knowledge makes great men humble, but small men arrogant.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-12-17 17:14 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <n4vfjs$akp$1@speranza.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #539949 |
On 12/17/2015 4:22 PM, Poutnik wrote: > Well, this feature of the model is a good description of reality. Curvature and permittivity are BOTH good descriptions of reality -- wait, they're not really. They're properties of the model, remember? Not properties of reality. So when you say "description of reality", you're not really talking about the properties OF that reality, are you? The problem I have with all this is that "description of reality" becomes wholly muddied up. Because the only way you can apply ANY quality measures on the model (as in "good description of reality") is to say things like, "Well, we can predict observations with the model, where observations are not really observing reality, but only the outcome of some procedure we follow, and the procedure itself (and hence the 'observation') is another model, and the quality of the model is how well the predictions match the 'observation', but reality hasn't really entered into it at all." Thus science reduces to some sort of internalized navel-gazing, where we're not really able to say anything about nature at all. And hence "good description of reality" is an impotent and inaccurate phrase, in this philosophy. I'm not saying that our description of reality is perfect -- it never is, but to say that quantum mechanical spin doesn't have any meaning or any referent in a property of a REAL electron, just seems to beg the whole question of the value of science. -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Poutnik <Poutnik4NNTP@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-12-18 10:44 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <n50kdf$t0o$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #539960 |
On 12/18/2015 12:14 AM, Odd Bodkin wrote: > On 12/17/2015 4:22 PM, Poutnik wrote: >> Well, this feature of the model is a good description of reality. > > Curvature and permittivity are BOTH good descriptions of reality -- > wait, they're not really. They're properties of the model, remember? Not > properties of reality. > > So when you say "description of reality", you're not really talking > about the properties OF that reality, are you? They, as properties of our model of reality, are *according our knowledge* good description of reality. > > The problem I have with all this is that "description of reality" > becomes wholly muddied up. Because the only way you can apply ANY > quality measures on the model (as in "good description of reality") is > to say things like, "Well, we can predict observations with the model, > where observations are not really observing reality, but only the > outcome of some procedure we follow, and the procedure itself (and hence > the 'observation') is another model, and the quality of the model is how > well the predictions match the 'observation', but reality hasn't really > entered into it at all." Thus science reduces to some sort of > internalized navel-gazing, where we're not really able to say anything > about nature at all. And hence "good description of reality" is an > impotent and inaccurate phrase, in this philosophy. I am aware of what we talk about lays at the border of science and philosophy. People use in everyday life many simplifications in used terms, as it is very practical for usual life. But it is a trap if we think more deeply about reality observation. Science is like a guy in one room, asking a guy-in-the-middle ( our sences and devices ) what is the girl in the other room like. The guy provides us with some information, used in creation of our mental model of the girl. What people would call girl properties are properties of their model of the girl. These properties are created as model attributes, addressing patterns in states and changes of available information. Let imagine you are sitting at the table, watching your cup of tea. You are watching ( more generally observing ) the reality, right ? Your cup of tea. But wait.. What is happening during that time ? Light as flow of Em energy impacts at the cup border, reflects, absorbs, reemits, difracts, refracts, disperges... Then, it flies from the cup toward you,does the same with your eye. That it finally excites the light sensitive molecules, what starts chains of chemical reactions, what leads to change of ionic distributions in cells, that leads to change of electrostatic potentials, that propagates along eye nerve cells, that distributes within complex structure of your visual center, that is by the brain magic by the cells in visual centre interpreted like some object with some attributes, that is later in some other brain centre interpreted via pattern recognition as your cup of tea, creating mental image as one particular form of model of the reality - of cup of tea. Are you sure the attributes of you mental cup image are attributes of the cup ? > > I'm not saying that our description of reality is perfect -- it never > is, but to say that quantum mechanical spin doesn't have any meaning or > any referent in a property of a REAL electron, just seems to beg the > whole question of the value of science. This is misinterpretation. Being identical to and having no relation to are 2 opposite extremes. Negation of 1 extreme is not the opposite extreme, as not black is not white. -- Poutnik ( the Czech word for a wanderer ) Knowledge makes a great man humble, but a small man arrogant. Eventual Wikipedia articles are provided with intention of a convenient reference, not as an evidence, argument, and usually not as a primary source of my knowledge.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-12-18 07:56 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <n513a7$rug$1@speranza.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #540012 |
On 12/18/2015 3:44 AM, Poutnik wrote: > On 12/18/2015 12:14 AM, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> On 12/17/2015 4:22 PM, Poutnik wrote: >>> Well, this feature of the model is a good description of reality. >> >> Curvature and permittivity are BOTH good descriptions of reality -- >> wait, they're not really. They're properties of the model, remember? Not >> properties of reality. >> >> So when you say "description of reality", you're not really talking >> about the properties OF that reality, are you? > > They, as properties of our model of reality, > are *according our knowledge* good description of reality. Knowledge of what? Knowledge of reality or knowledge of the model? You're talking in circles. Either you say we know nothing of reality (and therefore there is NO knowledge of anything being a good description of *reality*), or you say that models do represent real aspects of reality. There is no middle ground. > >> >> The problem I have with all this is that "description of reality" >> becomes wholly muddied up. Because the only way you can apply ANY >> quality measures on the model (as in "good description of reality") is >> to say things like, "Well, we can predict observations with the model, >> where observations are not really observing reality, but only the >> outcome of some procedure we follow, and the procedure itself (and hence >> the 'observation') is another model, and the quality of the model is how >> well the predictions match the 'observation', but reality hasn't really >> entered into it at all." Thus science reduces to some sort of >> internalized navel-gazing, where we're not really able to say anything >> about nature at all. And hence "good description of reality" is an >> impotent and inaccurate phrase, in this philosophy. > > I am aware of what we talk about > lays at the border of science and philosophy. > > People use in everyday life many simplifications in used terms, > as it is very practical for usual life. But it is a trap > if we think more deeply about reality observation. > > Science is like a guy in one room, > asking a guy-in-the-middle ( our sences and devices ) > what is the girl in the other room like. > > The guy provides us with some information, > used in creation of our mental model of the girl. I get that. But are those properties to be considered representative of the features of the real girl? > > What people would call girl properties > are properties of their model of the girl. > These properties are created as model attributes, > addressing patterns in states and changes of available information. > > > Let imagine you are sitting at the table, watching your cup of tea. > You are watching ( more generally observing ) the reality, right ? > Your cup of tea. > > But wait.. What is happening during that time ? > Light as flow of Em energy impacts at the cup border, > reflects, absorbs, reemits, difracts, refracts, disperges... > Then, it flies from the cup toward you,does the same with your eye. > That it finally excites the light sensitive molecules, > what starts chains of chemical reactions, > what leads to change of ionic distributions in cells, > that leads to change of electrostatic potentials, > that propagates along eye nerve cells, > that distributes within complex structure of your visual center, > that is by the brain magic by the cells in visual centre > interpreted like some object with some attributes, > that is later in some other brain centre > interpreted via pattern recognition as your cup of tea, > creating mental image as one particular form > of model of the reality - of cup of tea. > > Are you sure the attributes of you mental cup image > are attributes of the cup ? Certain? Absolutely not! But is there a scientific assumption that the attributes of the mental cup image DO correspond to real attributes of the cup? Absolutely. Otherwise, it's just navel-gazing. > > > >> >> I'm not saying that our description of reality is perfect -- it never >> is, but to say that quantum mechanical spin doesn't have any meaning or >> any referent in a property of a REAL electron, just seems to beg the >> whole question of the value of science. > > This is misinterpretation. > Being identical to and having no relation to are 2 opposite extremes. > Negation of 1 extreme is not the opposite extreme, > as not black is not white. > And I'm not claiming identity. I'm claiming strong relation, a fundamental assumption of science. -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-12-20 09:16 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <n55nvh$68v$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #540023 |
Dne 18/12/2015 v 14:56 Odd Bodkin napsal(a): > On 12/18/2015 3:44 AM, Poutnik wrote: >> >> They, as properties of our model of reality, >> are *according our knowledge* good description of reality. > > Knowledge of what? Knowledge of reality or knowledge of the model? > You're talking in circles. Knowledge of information gained via senses and devices, and some derived by secondary analysis to construct our models. > Either you say we know nothing of reality (and therefore there is NO > knowledge of anything being a good description of *reality*), or you say > that models do represent real aspects of reality. There is no middle ground. How do you know there is no middle ground ? Similar was being said in past about about nature of light and matter about corpuscles and waves. I say neither nothing, neither representing, I say there is strong relation. >> I am aware of what we talk about >> lays at the border of science and philosophy. >> >> People use in everyday life many simplifications in used terms, >> as it is very practical for usual life. But it is a trap >> if we think more deeply about reality observation. >> >> Science is like a guy in one room, >> asking a guy-in-the-middle ( our sences and devices ) >> what is the girl in the other room like. >> >> The guy provides us with some information, >> used in creation of our mental model of the girl. > > I get that. But are those properties to be considered representative of > the features of the real girl? I would says representative of our model that has loose or strong relation to the real girl. Our model may say she is arrogant, proud and closed, while she is shy, injured and being afraid. Are the former mental properties representative of our model of her, or of her ? In my opinion, even if model is perfect, their are still primarily representative of the model, while there is equality of model and object parametrs. >> >> Are you sure the attributes of you mental cup image >> are attributes of the cup ? > > Certain? Absolutely not! > But is there a scientific assumption that the attributes of the mental > cup image DO correspond to real attributes of the cup? Absolutely. > Otherwise, it's just navel-gazing. Yes, they correspond to them. > > And I'm not claiming identity. I'm claiming strong relation, a > fundamental assumption of science. So do I. -- Poutnik ( the Czech word for a wanderer ) Knowledge makes great men humble, but small men arrogant.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-12-17 17:21 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <n4vg1a$bm3$1@speranza.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #539949 |
On 12/17/2015 4:22 PM, Poutnik wrote: > > But, some parameters of the reality model > may be right, within their errors, and some are wrong. > And again, how would you know which of them correspond to reality and which of them correspond only to a model that seems to work really well? Put it another way. Suppose you want to use science to create a thing that does a desired behavior. So you apply a model that says, if you arrange these things in a certain way, then you will observe that, in a certain circumstance, the system produces a desired behavior. And so you build it, presumably out of real things, and it did exactly what you designed it to do. Now the question is, did the model produce the outcome or did the real thing you built produce the outcome? And if the real thing did produce the outcome, can you say WHY it produced the outcome? Or do you just say, I have no real idea WHY it produced the outcome, I just know what the model predicts and I used that model? -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-12-20 09:44 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <n55pla$aon$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #539962 |
Dne 18/12/2015 v 00:21 Odd Bodkin napsal(a): > On 12/17/2015 4:22 PM, Poutnik wrote: > >> >> But, some parameters of the reality model >> may be right, within their errors, and some are wrong. >> > > And again, how would you know which of them correspond to reality and > which of them correspond only to a model that seems to work really well? They are part of model, which correspondsence to reality is better for some paremeters and worse in others. > > Put it another way. > Suppose you want to use science to create a thing that does a desired > behavior. So you apply a model that says, if you arrange these things in > a certain way, then you will observe that, in a certain circumstance, > the system produces a desired behavior. And so you build it, presumably > out of real things, and it did exactly what you designed it to do. Now > the question is, did the model produce the outcome or did the real thing > you built produce the outcome? And if the real thing did produce the > outcome, can you say WHY it produced the outcome? Or do you just say, I > have no real idea WHY it produced the outcome, I just know what the > model predicts and I used that model? > I am afraid you try to create B/W world. identity versus no relation. IMHO It is somewhere in the middle, as our models of reality say reality does not like extremes. :-) Let suppose it is a paper copy device. There are multiple models and several real objects. A model as an scientific idea about rules and relations, about how the reality "works". A model as an engineer idea how the device, giving desired behaviour, should be constructed. A model as a builder/robot feedback idea, how the device construction makes progress. A model as a device user's idea, what the device construction is like and works like, as a bigger part of his dynamic model of the world. According to the device user's model, if he interacts with an object detail, described by the device model as a document cover, and puts there an object, described in his world model as a par\per document if he interacts with another object detail, described in his device model as a big green button, then the reality object, produces other object, that your dynamic model of the world describes as a printed sheet of paper, looking almost identically as the original object, that hisa model of world describes as a paper document. -- Poutnik ( the Czech word for a wanderer ) Knowledge makes great men humble, but small men arrogant.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Y.Porat" <y.y.porat@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-12-20 01:26 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <df09ee55-bc11-45ad-b965-8319d80ca396@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #539926 |
On Thursday, December 17, 2015 at 11:46:58 PM UTC+2, Odd Bodkin wrote: > On 12/17/2015 3:03 PM, Poutnik wrote: > > But vacuum is not an object identical > > to object of our topological model of reality. > > No, I say there is zebra animal and math model of zebra animal. > > This is similar to a discussion I've had with Tom Roberts. > Is quantum mechanical spin a property of electrons or a property of our > model of electrons? > The purpose of building models is so that you can say you understand > something about the natural things that the model represents. So either > you'd be having to say that this is in fact FUTILE and science doesn't > actually give you any insight as to what natural things are like at all; > or you'd have to be making rather arbitrary decisions of the form, > "Well, this feature is a good description of reality, but this other > feature is only a feature of the model." If the latter, then I would > say, how do you know? > > As I said, light considered as a natural (actually existing) thing is > actually observed to bend as it passes near a material object, on its > path ==================== really !!!!!! and who told you that for the first time ?? ie curves to the direction of mass so who was the first one to claim that !!! cant you, nasty pig thief ,tell about the originator of that called Yehiel Porat ?? see my thred The mom3nt that curved space died !! 2 can someone else of the honest readers tell him about it because the pig is not going to answer it ?? TIA Y.Porat ==================================== from one material object to another material object. This is what I > would call a real behavior, or something that light can be said to > really do. (Of course, you have to define "bend" as stating that the > trajectories are not parallel in the asymptotic regions far from the > material body that is suppose to cause the effect.) Now the question is, > do you attribute that bend to a property in the mathematical model of > the vacuum, or do you attribute it to something in the real vacuum? If > the former, how does a mathematical model influence the behavior of real > light? Or said another way, is the metric property of the mathematical > model of the vacuum not supposed to represent something about the real > vacuum? > > > -- > Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-12-17 21:25 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <n4v5jo$qmu$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #539806 |
Dne 17/12/2015 v 16:13 Odd Bodkin napsal(a): > > The metric is a PROPERTY of the vacuum not a thing separate from the > vacuum. Just like permittivity is a property of the vacuum, not a think > separate from it. > I am not sure if physics considers 4 dimensional curved vacuum.... -- Poutnik ( the Czech word for a wanderer )
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-12-17 14:47 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <n4v708$n28$2@speranza.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #539892 |
On 12/17/2015 2:25 PM, Poutnik wrote: > Dne 17/12/2015 v 16:13 Odd Bodkin napsal(a): > >> >> The metric is a PROPERTY of the vacuum not a thing separate from the >> vacuum. Just like permittivity is a property of the vacuum, not a think >> separate from it. >> > I am not sure > if physics considers 4 dimensional curved vacuum.... > I believe it does, yes. -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-12-17 22:22 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <n4v8um$9jm$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #539899 |
Dne 17/12/2015 v 21:47 Odd Bodkin napsal(a): > On 12/17/2015 2:25 PM, Poutnik wrote: >> Dne 17/12/2015 v 16:13 Odd Bodkin napsal(a): >> >>> >>> The metric is a PROPERTY of the vacuum not a thing separate from the >>> vacuum. Just like permittivity is a property of the vacuum, not a think >>> separate from it. >>> >> I am not sure >> if physics considers 4 dimensional curved vacuum.... >> > > I believe it does, yes. In what units should be expressed the atomic density in vacuum in intergalactic space ? -- Poutnik ( the Czech word for a wanderer )
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-12-17 15:49 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <n4val4$v0r$2@speranza.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #539915 |
On 12/17/2015 3:22 PM, Poutnik wrote: > Dne 17/12/2015 v 21:47 Odd Bodkin napsal(a): >> On 12/17/2015 2:25 PM, Poutnik wrote: >>> Dne 17/12/2015 v 16:13 Odd Bodkin napsal(a): >>> >>>> >>>> The metric is a PROPERTY of the vacuum not a thing separate from the >>>> vacuum. Just like permittivity is a property of the vacuum, not a think >>>> separate from it. >>>> >>> I am not sure >>> if physics considers 4 dimensional curved vacuum.... >>> >> >> I believe it does, yes. > > In what units should be expressed > the atomic density in vacuum in intergalactic space ? > number per centimeters to the fourth power. Or number per seconds to the fourth power. Now, you can take a PROJECTION of that density to pertain to a particular instant in time (in a certain reference frame), which might have units number per centimeters to the third power. This is the same as the relationship between "length" and "interval". -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-12-17 22:58 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <n4vb0l$lfv$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #539928 |
Dne 17/12/2015 v 22:49 Odd Bodkin napsal(a): > On 12/17/2015 3:22 PM, Poutnik wrote: >> Dne 17/12/2015 v 21:47 Odd Bodkin napsal(a): >>> On 12/17/2015 2:25 PM, Poutnik wrote: >>>> Dne 17/12/2015 v 16:13 Odd Bodkin napsal(a): >>>> >>>>> >>>>> The metric is a PROPERTY of the vacuum not a thing separate from the >>>>> vacuum. Just like permittivity is a property of the vacuum, not a think >>>>> separate from it. >>>>> >>>> I am not sure >>>> if physics considers 4 dimensional curved vacuum.... >>>> >>> >>> I believe it does, yes. >> >> In what units should be expressed >> the atomic density in vacuum in intergalactic space ? >> > > number per centimeters to the fourth power. Or number per seconds to the > fourth power. > > Now, you can take a PROJECTION of that density to pertain to a > particular instant in time (in a certain reference frame), which might > have units number per centimeters to the third power. I would say the term vacuum is already reserved for this projection. > > This is the same as the relationship between "length" and "interval". > -- Poutnik ( the Czech word for a wanderer ) Knowledge makes great men humble, but small men arrogant.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Yousuf Khan <bbbl67@spammenot.yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-12-18 00:31 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <RbSdnZL4MNOOB-7LnZ2dnUU7-e2dnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #539806 |
On 17/12/2015 10:13 AM, Odd Bodkin wrote: > On 12/17/2015 1:34 AM, Yousuf Khan wrote: >> On 16/12/2015 9:54 AM, Poutnik wrote: >>> There is need to be distinguished the space and the space metric. >> >> The space metric is just yet another property of spacetime. Before, in >> Newton's time, it was considered spacetime itself, but now it's >> considered just a property of a far more complex spacetime. Spacetime as >> object. >> >> Yousuf Khan > > The metric is a PROPERTY of the vacuum not a thing separate from the > vacuum. Just like permittivity is a property of the vacuum, not a think > separate from it. Exactly. So what do you think I said differently? Yousuf Khan
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-12-18 08:00 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <n50aq9$vnh$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #539990 |
Dne 18/12/2015 v 06:31 Yousuf Khan napsal(a): > On 17/12/2015 10:13 AM, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> On 12/17/2015 1:34 AM, Yousuf Khan wrote: >>> On 16/12/2015 9:54 AM, Poutnik wrote: >>>> There is need to be distinguished the space and the space metric. >>> >>> The space metric is just yet another property of spacetime. Before, in >>> Newton's time, it was considered spacetime itself, but now it's >>> considered just a property of a far more complex spacetime. Spacetime as >>> object. >>> >>> Yousuf Khan >> >> The metric is a PROPERTY of the vacuum not a thing separate from the >> vacuum. Just like permittivity is a property of the vacuum, not a think >> separate from it. > > Exactly. So what do you think I said differently? > > Yousuf Khan The metric is a property of the space-time not a thing separate from the space-time. Just like permittivity is a property of the vacuum, not a thing separate from it. EM radiation,virtual particles , fermion and boson fields are part of vacuum, but not of space-time. Vacuum is what remains in space-time when we remove matter with mass from it. Or rather from space as the geometry of the world, that we originally modelled by natural 3D space, then flat space-time, then curved space-time and then perhaps by some multidimensional string space. Light is not bended in space-time. Light is bended in our 3D perception of space, that is bended wrt 3D space-time projection. -- Poutnik ( the Czech word for a wanderer ) Knowledge makes great men humble, but small men arrogant.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-12-18 07:50 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <n512uj$qeq$3@speranza.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #539997 |
On 12/18/2015 1:00 AM, Poutnik wrote: > Vacuum is what remains in space-time > when we remove matter with mass from it. If space-time is a MODEL, then how can a real vacuum live in it? If space-time is something real, then what is the physical distinction between the vacuum and spacetime? -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ezra Farrow <ezrafa@dubtechno.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-12-18 15:12 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <n517o7$72f$1@speranza.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #540022 |
Odd Bodkin wrote: > On 12/18/2015 1:00 AM, Poutnik wrote: >> Vacuum is what remains in space-time when we remove matter with mass >> from it. > > If space-time is a MODEL, then how can a real vacuum live in it? > If space-time is something real, then what is the physical distinction > between the vacuum and spacetime? Absence of pressure. Spacetime assumes one atm pressure (does not forbids it). Pressure comes only due the neighbourhood of matter. Hence you cannot have a spacetime. Wrong product declaration.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-12-18 08:16 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <490360b1-4c6b-4687-91ec-86644c82bafd@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #540032 |
> On 12/18/2015 1:00 AM, Poutnik wrote: >> Vacuum is what remains in space-time when we remove matter with mass >> from it. Odd wrote > If space-time is a MODEL, then how can a real vacuum live in it? > If space-time is something real, then what is the physical distinction > between the vacuum and spacetime? Ezra said -Absence of pressure. Spacetime assumes one - atm pressure (does not forbids -it). Pressure comes only due the neighbourhood -of matter. Hence you cannot -have a spacetime. Wrong product declaration. Matter is releasing energy in all directions as well as absorbing from all directions. It is the pressure from matter that causes Gravity and inertia and all the other "attributes" of Spacetime. But when you take away all the matter you can see, you are not left with Nothing (Odd's God). You are left with all the matter that you can't see. You can't remove everything that is there!! How do you remove ALL the smaller energy manifestations when you can't even see/detect them? Ridiculous!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 3 of 9 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics
csiph-web