Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics > #569572 > unrolled thread
| Started by | john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2016-04-10 17:20 -0700 |
| Last post | 2016-04-14 12:38 -0700 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 145 — 15 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.physics
Odd, explain equal universal acceleration john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-04-10 17:20 -0700
Odd, explain equal universal acceleration HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-04-11 03:27 -0700
Re: Odd, explain equal universal acceleration Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-04-11 07:12 -0500
Re: Odd, explain equal universal acceleration john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-04-11 06:21 -0700
Re: Odd, explain equal universal acceleration john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-04-11 07:19 -0700
Re: Odd, explain equal universal acceleration HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-04-11 07:24 -0700
Re: Odd, explain equal universal acceleration "hanson" <hanson@quick.net> - 2016-04-11 08:22 -0700
Re: Odd, explain equal universal acceleration john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-04-11 08:34 -0700
Re: Odd, explain equal universal acceleration moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-04-11 21:05 +0000
Re: Odd, explain equal universal acceleration Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-04-11 16:23 -0500
Re: Odd, explain equal universal acceleration jay moseley <jaymoseley@hotmail.com> - 2016-04-11 17:40 -0700
Re: Odd, explain equal universal acceleration Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-04-12 08:06 -0500
Re: Odd, explain equal universal acceleration jay moseley <jaymoseley@hotmail.com> - 2016-04-12 08:08 -0700
Re: Odd, explain equal universal acceleration Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-04-12 15:31 -0500
Re: Odd, explain equal universal acceleration jay moseley <jaymoseley@hotmail.com> - 2016-04-12 14:11 -0700
Re: Odd, explain equal universal acceleration Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-04-12 16:54 -0500
Re: Odd, explain equal universal acceleration jay moseley <jaymoseley@hotmail.com> - 2016-04-12 15:16 -0700
Re: Odd, explain equal universal acceleration Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-04-12 20:50 -0500
Re: Odd, explain equal universal acceleration jay moseley <jaymoseley@hotmail.com> - 2016-04-12 23:16 -0700
Re: Odd, explain equal universal acceleration benj <none@gmail.com> - 2016-04-13 03:38 -0400
Re: Odd, explain equal universal acceleration Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-04-13 12:45 -0500
Re: Odd, explain equal universal acceleration jay moseley <jaymoseley@hotmail.com> - 2016-04-14 01:01 -0700
Re: Odd, explain equal universal acceleration HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-04-14 01:05 -0700
Re: Odd, explain equal universal acceleration benj <none@gmail.com> - 2016-04-14 04:49 -0400
Re: Odd, explain equal universal acceleration moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-04-14 14:31 +0000
Re: Odd, explain equal universal acceleration benj <none@gmail.com> - 2016-04-14 13:45 -0400
Re: Odd, explain equal universal acceleration moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-04-14 18:33 +0000
Re: Odd, explain equal universal acceleration Mahipal <mahipal7638@gmail.com> - 2016-04-14 03:16 -0700
Re: Odd, explain equal universal acceleration HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-04-14 04:27 -0700
Re: Odd, explain equal universal acceleration Mahipal <mahipal7638@gmail.com> - 2016-04-14 05:57 -0700
Re: Odd, explain equal universal acceleration moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-04-14 14:41 +0000
Re: Odd, explain equal universal acceleration HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-04-14 07:45 -0700
Re: Odd, explain equal universal acceleration Mahipal <mahipal7638@gmail.com> - 2016-04-14 08:11 -0700
Re: Odd, explain equal universal acceleration HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-04-14 08:22 -0700
Re: Odd, explain equal universal acceleration benj <none@gmail.com> - 2016-04-14 13:03 -0400
Re: Odd, explain equal universal acceleration benj <none@gmail.com> - 2016-04-14 12:31 -0400
Re: Odd, explain equal universal acceleration benj <none@gmail.com> - 2016-04-14 04:56 -0400
Re: Odd, explain equal universal acceleration jay moseley <jaymoseley@hotmail.com> - 2016-04-14 01:40 -0700
Re: Odd, explain equal universal acceleration benj <none@gmail.com> - 2016-04-14 13:22 -0400
Re: Odd, explain equal universal acceleration john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-04-13 06:48 -0700
Re: Odd, explain equal universal acceleration HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-04-13 06:57 -0700
Re: Odd, explain equal universal acceleration john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-04-13 07:23 -0700
Re: Odd, explain equal universal acceleration HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-04-13 07:35 -0700
Re: Odd, explain equal universal acceleration john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-04-13 08:06 -0700
Re: Odd, explain equal universal acceleration HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-04-13 08:25 -0700
Re: Odd, explain equal universal acceleration john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-04-13 09:50 -0700
Re: Odd, explain equal universal acceleration HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-04-13 10:29 -0700
Re: Odd, explain equal universal acceleration Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-04-13 12:49 -0500
Re: Odd, explain equal universal acceleration benj <none@gmail.com> - 2016-04-13 12:16 -0400
Re: Odd, explain equal universal acceleration noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2016-04-13 13:20 -0700
Re: Odd, explain equal universal acceleration Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-04-13 12:48 -0500
Re: Odd, explain equal universal acceleration benj <none@gmail.com> - 2016-04-13 12:13 -0400
Re: Odd, explain equal universal acceleration Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-04-13 12:47 -0500
Re: Odd, explain equal universal acceleration Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-04-13 12:26 -0500
Re: Odd, explain equal universal acceleration jay moseley <jaymoseley@hotmail.com> - 2016-04-14 00:52 -0700
Re: Odd, explain equal universal acceleration benj <none@gmail.com> - 2016-04-14 05:03 -0400
Re: Odd, explain equal universal acceleration Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-04-14 09:23 -0500
Re: Odd, explain equal universal acceleration noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2016-04-13 13:18 -0700
Re: Odd, explain equal universal acceleration Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-04-13 12:27 -0500
Re: Odd, explain equal universal acceleration jay moseley <jaymoseley@hotmail.com> - 2016-04-14 01:09 -0700
Re: Odd, explain equal universal acceleration benj <none@gmail.com> - 2016-04-14 04:51 -0400
Re: Odd, explain equal universal acceleration Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-04-13 12:33 -0500
Re: Odd, explain equal universal acceleration Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-04-13 12:05 -0500
Re: Odd, explain equal universal acceleration benj <none@gmail.com> - 2016-04-13 14:44 -0400
Re: Odd, explain equal universal acceleration john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-04-13 15:19 -0700
Re: Odd, explain equal universal acceleration HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-04-13 15:36 -0700
Re: Odd, explain equal universal acceleration benj <none@gmail.com> - 2016-04-14 02:41 -0400
Re: Odd, explain equal universal acceleration noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2016-04-13 17:32 -0700
Re: Odd, explain equal universal acceleration noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2016-04-12 16:01 -0700
Re: Odd, explain equal universal acceleration john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-04-12 05:34 -0700
Re: Odd, explain equal universal acceleration Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-04-12 08:12 -0500
Re: Odd, explain equal universal acceleration moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-04-12 13:39 +0000
Re: Odd, explain equal universal acceleration Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-04-12 08:54 -0500
Re: Odd, explain equal universal acceleration Mahipal <mahipal7638@gmail.com> - 2016-04-12 07:05 -0700
Re: Odd, explain equal universal acceleration john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-04-12 07:44 -0700
Re: Odd, explain equal universal acceleration Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-04-13 12:02 -0500
Re: Odd, explain equal universal acceleration "hanson" <hanson@quick.net> - 2016-04-12 08:44 -0700
Re: Odd, explain equal universal acceleration Mahipal <mahipal7638@gmail.com> - 2016-04-12 10:49 -0700
Re: Odd, explain equal universal acceleration john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-04-12 12:37 -0700
Re: Odd, explain equal universal acceleration Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-04-13 12:10 -0500
Re: Odd, explain equal universal acceleration benj <none@gmail.com> - 2016-04-13 14:58 -0400
Re: Odd, explain equal universal acceleration "hanson" <hanson@quick.net> - 2016-04-13 16:45 -0700
Re: Odd, explain equal universal acceleration Mahipal <mahipal7638@gmail.com> - 2016-04-14 04:59 -0700
Re: Odd, explain equal universal acceleration benj <none@gmail.com> - 2016-04-14 12:15 -0400
Re: Odd, explain equal universal acceleration HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-04-12 09:16 -0700
Re: Odd, explain equal universal acceleration benj <none@gmail.com> - 2016-04-12 12:56 -0400
Re: Odd, explain equal universal acceleration Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-04-12 15:34 -0500
Re: Odd, explain equal universal acceleration HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-04-12 13:49 -0700
Re: Odd, explain equal universal acceleration benj <none@gmail.com> - 2016-04-12 23:00 -0400
Re: Odd, explain equal universal acceleration Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-04-12 08:51 -0500
Re: Odd, explain equal universal acceleration benj <none@gmail.com> - 2016-04-12 13:02 -0400
Re: Odd, explain equal universal acceleration Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-04-13 12:09 -0500
Re: Odd, explain equal universal acceleration benj <none@gmail.com> - 2016-04-13 14:54 -0400
Re: Odd, explain equal universal acceleration Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-04-12 15:35 -0500
Re: Odd, explain equal universal acceleration HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-04-11 09:01 -0700
Re: Odd, explain equal universal acceleration "hanson" <hanson@quick.net> - 2016-04-11 09:33 -0700
Re: Odd, explain equal universal acceleration HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-04-11 09:52 -0700
Re: Odd, explain equal universal acceleration "hanson" <hanson@quick.net> - 2016-04-11 10:33 -0700
Re: Odd, explain equal universal acceleration benj <none@gmail.com> - 2016-04-11 13:47 -0400
Re: Odd, explain equal universal acceleration benj <none@gmail.com> - 2016-04-11 13:11 -0400
Re: Odd, explain equal universal acceleration benj <none@gmail.com> - 2016-04-11 13:09 -0400
Re: Odd, explain equal universal acceleration benj <none@gmail.com> - 2016-04-11 13:05 -0400
Re: Odd, explain equal universal acceleration Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-04-11 11:12 -0500
Re: Odd, explain equal universal acceleration moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-04-11 14:23 +0000
Re: Odd, explain equal universal acceleration john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-04-11 07:44 -0700
Re: Odd, explain equal universal acceleration moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-04-11 15:06 +0000
Re: Odd, explain equal universal acceleration "hanson" <hanson@quick.net> - 2016-04-11 09:04 -0700
Re: Odd, explain equal universal acceleration john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-04-11 09:07 -0700
Re: Odd, explain equal universal acceleration HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-04-11 09:45 -0700
Gravity/eXergy evaporates away, never to return. HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-04-11 10:14 -0700
Re: Gravity/eXergy evaporates away, never to return. benj <none@gmail.com> - 2016-04-11 13:49 -0400
Re: Odd, explain equal universal acceleration "hanson" <hanson@quick.net> - 2016-04-11 10:12 -0700
Re: Odd, explain equal universal acceleration benj <none@gmail.com> - 2016-04-11 13:45 -0400
Re: Odd, explain equal universal acceleration Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-04-11 13:58 -0500
Re: Odd, explain equal universal acceleration benj <none@gmail.com> - 2016-04-11 21:14 -0400
Re: Odd, explain equal universal acceleration Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-04-12 08:08 -0500
the box noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2016-04-12 16:07 -0700
Re: Gravity/eXergy evaporates away, never to return. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-04-11 18:32 +0000
Re: SpaceTime grows as the cosmos evaporates. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-04-11 21:29 +0000
Re: SpaceTime grows as the cosmos evaporates. benj <none@gmail.com> - 2016-04-11 21:17 -0400
Re: SpaceTime grows as the cosmos evaporates. Nadegda <nad318b404@gmail.invalid> - 2016-04-12 05:49 +0000
Re: I'm confident you'll continue to advertize my ideas. benj <none@gmail.com> - 2016-04-12 03:39 -0400
Re: I'm confident you'll continue to advertize my ideas. Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2016-04-12 09:53 +0200
Re: I'm confident you'll continue to advertize my ideas. chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2016-04-12 10:17 -0500
Re: Odd, explain equal universal acceleration Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-04-11 11:15 -0500
Re: Odd, explain equal universal acceleration Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-04-11 11:19 -0500
Re: Odd, explain equal universal acceleration john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-04-11 09:48 -0700
Re: Odd, explain equal universal acceleration john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-04-11 09:55 -0700
Re: Odd, explain equal universal acceleration john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-04-11 10:08 -0700
Re: Odd, explain equal universal acceleration Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-04-11 13:57 -0500
spatial (two p.t's noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2016-04-11 13:54 -0700
Re: Odd, explain equal universal acceleration Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-04-11 13:54 -0500
Re: Odd, explain equal universal acceleration Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-04-11 13:52 -0500
Re: Odd, explain equal universal acceleration edprochak@gmail.com - 2016-04-13 12:46 -0700
Re: Odd, explain equal universal acceleration john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-04-11 07:34 -0700
Re: Odd, explain equal universal acceleration Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-04-11 11:13 -0500
Re: Odd, explain equal universal acceleration john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-04-11 09:24 -0700
Re: Odd, explain equal universal acceleration Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-04-11 11:29 -0500
Re: Odd, explain equal universal acceleration Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-04-11 11:30 -0500
Re: Odd, explain equal universal acceleration Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-04-11 11:10 -0500
Re: Odd, explain equal universal acceleration edprochak@gmail.com - 2016-04-13 11:46 -0700
Re: Odd, explain equal universal acceleration "reber g=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> - 2016-04-14 10:57 -0700
Re: Odd, explain equal universal acceleration "hanson" <hanson@quick.net> - 2016-04-14 12:32 -0700
Re: Odd, explain equal universal acceleration "reber g=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> - 2016-04-14 11:03 -0700
Re: Odd, explain equal universal acceleration "hanson" <hanson@quick.net> - 2016-04-14 12:38 -0700
Page 7 of 8 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 5 6 [7] 8 Next page →
| From | Nadegda <nad318b404@gmail.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-12 05:49 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: SpaceTime grows as the cosmos evaporates. |
| Message-ID | <nei297$965$80@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #569839 |
On Mon, 11 Apr 2016 21:17:00 -0400, benj wrote: > On 04/11/2016 03:16 PM, Jeff-Relf.Me wrote: >> >> >> SpaceTime, as measured by standard yardSticks/Clocks, grows as a >> (notional) black hole evaporates; likewise, SpaceTime grows as the >> cosmos evaporates. >> >> Once a thing is gone, evaporated away, its gravity is gone too; so >> "gravity" ( "eXergy", energy that can do work ) evaporates away, >> never to return. >> >> Randomness is just ignorance, nothing more. The future is just as >> immutable as the past. The TimeScape is static. >> >> For any given location, only its "now" is real. >> >> Subjectively, we define "Life" as that program, running in our >> heads, telling us to breathe, drink, etc. >> >> SemiRandom breeding leads to SemiRandom killing; that's how >> nature/evolution works. >> >> Google "Heat Death of the Universe" and Google says: ＜＜ >> >> The heat death of the universe is a historically suggested >> theory of the ultimate fate of the universe in which the >> universe has diminished to a state of no thermodynamic free >> energy and therefore can no longer sustain processes that >> consume energy (including computation and life). ＞＞ >> >> Sir Arthur Stanley Eddington wrote: ＜＜ >> >> If someone points out to you that >> your pet theory of the universe is >> in disagreement with Maxwell's equations -- then, so much the >> worse for Maxwell's equations. >> >> If it is found to be contradicted by observers -- well, these >> experimentalists do bungle things sometimes. >> >> But, if your theory is found to be >> against the second law of thermodynamics, I can give you no >> hope; there is nothing for it but to collapse in deepest >> humiliation. ＞＞ >> >> -- From "The Nature of the Physical World", 1915, chapter 4. > > Sure Rolf, Steam engines trump radios! You really have no clue, do you? > > Things have happened in physics since 1915 believe it or not. Thank you, benj, for bringing this to my attention. This seems to be a) a kook and b) an excellent candidate for April's Weird Science Award.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | benj <none@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-12 03:39 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: I'm confident you'll continue to advertize my ideas. |
| Message-ID | <4D1Py.5188$QO1.311@fx27.iad> |
| In reply to | #569867 |
On 04/12/2016 02:20 AM, Jeff-Relf.Me wrote:
>
>
> Thank you Nadegda and Ben Jacoby,
>
> I'm confident you'll continue to advertize me.
You bet we will, Rolf. You are such a kook and we do it only because we
love ya!
PS. Only ignorant ugly Americans who have attended dumb-down public
schools spell Advertise with a "z". You really are out of touch with
humanity down in your basemen "command center", aren't you? Go to
McDonalds and order a burger from the teen working there. It will be
good practice at social interactions for you.
--
___ ___ ___ ___
/\ \ /\ \ /\__\ /\ \
/::\ \ /::\ \ /::| | \:\ \
/:/\:\ \ /:/\:\ \ /:|:| | ___ /::\__\
/::\~\:\__\ /::\~\:\ \ /:/|:| |__ /\ /:/\/__/
/:/\:\ \:|__| /:/\:\ \:\__\ /:/ |:| /\__\ \:\/:/ /
\:\~\:\/:/ / \:\~\:\ \/__/ \/__|:|/:/ / \::/ /
\:\ \::/ / \:\ \:\__\ |:/:/ / \/__/
\:\/:/ / \:\ \/__/ |::/ /
\::/__/ \:\__\ /:/ /
~~ \/__/ \/__/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-12 09:53 +0200 |
| Subject | Re: I'm confident you'll continue to advertize my ideas. |
| Message-ID | <nei9c9$4m0$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #569877 |
benj wrote: > On 04/12/2016 02:20 AM, Jeff-Relf.Me wrote: >> >> >> Thank you Nadegda and Ben Jacoby, >> >> I'm confident you'll continue to advertize me. > > You bet we will, Rolf. You are such a kook and we do it only because we > love ya! > > PS. Only ignorant ugly Americans who have attended dumb-down public > schools spell Advertise with a "z". advertize (third-person singular simple present advertizes, present participle advertizing, simple past and past participle advertized) Alternative spelling of advertise > You really are out of touch with > humanity down in your basemen "command center", aren't you? Go to > McDonalds and order a burger from the teen working there. It will be > good practice at social interactions for you. > Idiot
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-12 10:17 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: I'm confident you'll continue to advertize my ideas. |
| Message-ID | <e04qgbpe0sgo215drspis32e0i6g7p3obn@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #569881 |
> benj wrote: >> >> Jeff-Relf.Me wrote: >>> >>> Thank you Nadegda and Ben Jacoby, >>> >>> I'm confident you'll continue to advertize me. >> >> You bet we will, Rolf. You are such a kook and we do it only because we >> love ya! Some of us would rather not see that cross-posting, HTML-posting sociopath's garbage, which is why your sorry ass is plonked, here. -- "If linux is so fast, powerful and efficient it's rather sad that Google needs to run a million servers just to stay functional." - trolling fsckwit "Ezekiel"
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-11 11:15 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <negiie$1ric$4@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #569705 |
On 4/11/2016 9:44 AM, john wrote: > Michael > Michael > You double the size of your box > in a certain time > and some parts of it > MUST accelerate at different rates. > > All I'm saying, is, how come WE see > the same rate in every direction? > Explain it VERY simply > Expansion rate is [distance increase] per [original distance] per [time]. This means that if you see a galaxy flying away from you at 200 km/sec and it's 500 million light years away, then a galaxy that is 750 million light years away will be flying away from you at 300 km/sec. That description right there is the SAME expansion rate. -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-11 11:19 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <negipo$1s4a$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #569705 |
On 4/11/2016 9:44 AM, john wrote: > Michael > Michael > You double the size of your box > in a certain time > and some parts of it > MUST accelerate at different rates. > > All I'm saying, is, how come WE see > the same rate in every direction? > Explain it VERY simply > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hubble's_law Look here for the Hubble constant. Look at the UNITS of the Hubble constant. You'll see (km/s)/(Mpc). That is [distance change] per [unit time] per [original distance]. Exactly what I told you. -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-11 09:48 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <2347c119-4c74-4d8c-b969-a698d73e0c29@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #569731 |
So, Idd, if the Universe were shaped like a long rod, then a doubling in size, resulting in HUGE accelerations in one direction and next to none in the other, would have the same red shifting affect?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-11 09:55 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <60559b96-9189-487b-b5ac-c4d13c99f624@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #569740 |
Plus, Idd, All these scenarios involve a SINGLE CENTER which would then be clearly discernible . Add one more Center and everything goes every which way. So
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-11 10:08 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <e5ff5818-69ea-4034-9fc6-7cff7182c3c4@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #569745 |
LOL Universal expansion works for a theoretical unbounded rod, (although the ends very quickly outrun lightspeed), but as soon as you let things go more than one way, stuff starts running into each other ESPECIALLY in 3D and there's no way it would show as uniform redshift. Just my opinion. Universal redshift is just tired light
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-11 13:57 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <negs21$dch$3@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #569751 |
On 4/11/2016 12:08 PM, john wrote: > LOL > Universal expansion works for > a theoretical unbounded rod, > (although the ends very quickly > outrun lightspeed), They do relative to us, but that's NOT A PROBLEM. There's a nice SciAm article from about 10 years ago that clears up that misconception for ordinary amateurs. > but as soon as you let things go > more than one way, stuff starts > running into each other Nope. Look at the example I gave of the balls on a grid. Nothing runs into anything else. > ESPECIALLY in 3D > and there's no way > it would show as uniform redshift. No, just the opposite. Stuff further away would be redshifted more. > Just my opinion. > Universal redshift is just tired light > -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-11 13:54 -0700 |
| Subject | spatial (two p.t's |
| Message-ID | <d958cfc1-814c-415f-aef1-0daadfd1598a@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #569778 |
the apparent diameter of Universe increases sttrictl as a function of telescopic resolution, which is easily apparent by the inherent blurriness of all high-redshift objects, and consistent with space actually consisting of a) atoms in free space > No, just the opposite. Stuff further away would be redshifted more. > > > Just my opinion. > > Universal redshift is just tired light > > > > > -- > Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-11 13:54 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <negrtj$dch$2@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #569745 |
On 4/11/2016 11:55 AM, john wrote: > Plus, Idd, > All these scenarios involve a > SINGLE CENTER No, they don't. NOWHERE in any of the scenarios I gave of the rod and the plate and the grid is it possible to discern a center. Remember for all of them, you cannot see the end of the rod, the edges of the plate, or the boundaries of the lattice. And you labeled the mark/dot/ball next to you by some arbitrary index. There is no center in anything I discussed. > which would then be clearly > discernible . > Add one more Center and everything > goes every which way. > So > -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-11 13:52 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <negrou$dch$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #569740 |
On 4/11/2016 11:48 AM, john wrote: > So, Idd, > if the Universe were shaped like > a long rod, > then a doubling in size, > resulting in HUGE accelerations in > one direction and next to none > in the other, > would have the same red shifting affect? > No, of course not. The ones furthest away from us are receding at FASTER rates -- [distance change] per [unit time] -- than the ones closest to us. So we would expect that the ones furthest away from us would be redshifted the most. And of course, that's what Hubble saw in the first place. -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | edprochak@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-13 12:46 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <375db0da-6fdb-4da8-802f-231779a74017@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #569705 |
On Monday, April 11, 2016 at 10:44:42 AM UTC-4, john wrote:
> Michael
> Michael
> You double the size of your box
> in a certain time
> and some parts of it
> MUST accelerate at different rates.
>
> All I'm saying, is, how come WE see
> the same rate in every direction?
> Explain it VERY simply
here I'll give you one more example in 2D.
From Earth we look out at a sphere centered
on earth.
let's look only at the objects
(I am going to call them stars) 1 unit away
A
BEC
D
You are about to say "WAIT! you left off the
diagonal points!"
but I cannot put those in because they are at a different distance. If you want me to put them
in the diagram, then you have to agree on measuring the distance by counting. So I'll add PQRS all at
1 unit away from earth.
Stars all exactly ONE UNIT away from E earth
at time zero
PAQ
BEC
RDS
Okay. Even though the image above is not a circle,
we are using a circle. So measuring distance in
this model requires counting from E. So distance
from E to
P=1, A=1, Q=1, B=1, C=1, R=1, D=1 and S=1.
Do you agree I am using a circle?
How do we get 1 unit of distance from earth?
We count the Character distance. So lets count
From E to A EA 1 unit
From E to C EC 1 unit
From E to Q EQ 1 unit
Do you agree?
If not stop here. and go to CIRCLES below
Because if we
cannot agree on how to model time zero, the next
step doesn't work. And the expansion step really
doesn't work. But bear with me a little if you
just slightly disagree.
All distances in this diagram must be measured
along lines that pass through earth E. IOW,
we assume the stars are distributed on the circle
so what appears to be opposite on teh diagram
really is opposite. (we can remove that limit
in the CIRCLES discussion below.)
Lets go to the one of the other stars, Q
The people at Q look out and measure,
from Q to E QE =1 (it better! :^)
QER happens to be a straight line or nearly so.
So Q measures
From Q to R QER =2
It is the diameter of teh earth centered circle
so it should be twice the radius.
Do you agree this is a CIRCLE? Because in fixed
point text I cannot draw the image any better.
because the line spacing is fixed I cannot draw
the image better. All the objects are ONE unit
away.
Now let the universe expand for one unit.
P.A.Q
.....
B.E.C
.....
R.D.S
We care about the motion relative to earth E
So lets count distance using the rules above.
From E to A is E.A 2 units
From E to C is E.C 2 units
From E to Q is E.Q 2 units
So all stars that began 1 unit away at zero
are 2 units away at the next time step.
CIRCLES
There is a better picture I would draw if I
could, but it's not possible in text only.
But you can do it for yourself.
If you want a better picture to see this then:
Get paper and a compass.
Draw point E at the center.
Set the compass for 1 unit.
Draw a 1 unit radius circle centered on E
Place some points on the circle.
(they do not have to be evenly spaced)
Put one pair, Q and R on opposite sides
along the diagonal.
Set the compass for 2 units.
Draw a circle of 2 unit radius centered at E
Draw lines from E to each star point and
extending past to the larger circle.
So on the line EQ where it meets the larger
circle, mark point Q'
Repeat for all the other points (stars)
Now you can see how they expand relative to E.
now you can also verify that Q and R expand
at double the rate.
The other points expand at proportional rates
as well. (So if you drew A 1 unit away from Q,
then A' will be 2 units away from Q'.)
Sometimes it just takes doing things for yourself.
i hope you start to see it after this.
ed
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-11 07:34 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <e61403bc-1252-4e6f-bdb4-856b00c649bc@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #569682 |
You know, I was just pondering your problem, Odd, and I think it has to do with getting your dimensions mixed up. Somehow, your whole way of thought has 2D mixed with 3D wherever you need it to be. And, because you can visualize something in 2D (sort of- like Michael's expanding balloon with its 3D/2D "surface"), you then feel you can apply it to 3D. You can't, Odd. You really need to put down the books and sort out all these beliefs you have. You need to THINK, Odd. Read less. THINK MORE.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-11 11:13 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <negied$1ric$3@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #569698 |
On 4/11/2016 9:34 AM, john wrote: > You know, I was just pondering your problem, > Odd, > and I think it has to do with getting your > dimensions mixed up. > Somehow, your whole way of > thought has 2D mixed with 3D wherever > you need it to be. > And, because you can visualize > something in 2D (sort of- like Michael's > expanding balloon with its 3D/2D > "surface"), > you then feel you can apply it to 3D. Oh, but it does work exactly the same way. I showed you how, with a rod, a plate, and a grid. Are you going to tell me that the rod, the plate, and the grid cannot possibly all behave that way described to you? > > You can't, Odd. > You really need to put down the books > and sort out all these beliefs you have. > You need to THINK, Odd. > > Read less. > THINK MORE. > -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-11 09:24 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <3c2ab173-d22f-4ddd-9b61-6c5f7c73eeb7@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #569728 |
Odd You said that two points, A and B, DOUBLED their distance in one time interval. And two points, A and C, also DOUBLED their distance in that same interval. The two distances are different: 1 and root2 (that's about 1.4, Odd) If I accelerate things for the same amount of time, and they go different distances, don't I have to use different accelerations? What new math is this?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-11 11:29 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <negjca$1ta6$2@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #569732 |
On 4/11/2016 11:24 AM, john wrote: > Odd > You said that two points, A and B, > DOUBLED their distance in one time > interval. > And two points, A and C, > also DOUBLED their distance in that same > interval. > The two distances are different: 1 and root2 > (that's about 1.4, Odd) I'll repeat this for you ONE MORE TIME, John. You keep thinking that expansion rate is [distance increase] per [unit time]. It ISN'T. Expansion rate (look at the units of the Hubble constant!!) is [distance increase] per [original distance] per [unit time]. > > If I accelerate things for the same > amount of time, and they go > different distances, > don't I have to use different accelerations? > What new math is this? > -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-11 11:30 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <negjf9$1ta6$3@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #569732 |
On 4/11/2016 11:24 AM, john wrote: > If I accelerate things for the same > amount of time, and they go > different distances, > don't I have to use different accelerations? > What new math is this? Two things that are separated by 90 light years will be accelerating from each other at 30 times the accelerating between two things that are separated by 3 light years. So freakin' what? The EXPANSION rate -- [distance increase] per [original distance] per [unit time] is the SAME for both pairs. -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-11 11:10 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <negi9p$1ric$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #569682 |
On 4/11/2016 8:21 AM, john wrote: > When I double the. size of > unitary box ABCD, > which is just 4 points at one unit distance > A and B separate at ONE, > while A and C separate at ONE POINT FOUR. > > WHERE's the "equal expansion"? Equal expansion means [change in distance] per [original distance] per [time unit] is the same. So let's take the points A, B for which the original locations are (-1,1) and (1, 1). Let's just say these are meters, though that's not important. The original distance between them is 2 m. When we come back a day later they are at (-2,2) and (2,2). Now the distance between them is 4 m. The change in distance is 2 m. So the expansion rate is [2 m] per [2 m] per [1 day]. That's equal to 1 m per m per day. (Take note of this number *) Now let's take the points A, C for which the original locations are (-1,1) and (-1,-1). The original distance between them is 2.8 m. (In case you're surprised; that's sqrt( 2^2 + 2^2 ) = sqrt 8 = 2.8.) Now a day later they are at (-2,2) and (-2,-2). Now the distance between them is 5.6, and the increase in distance is 2.8 m. So the expansion rate is [2.8 m] per [2.8 m] per [1 day]. That's equal to 1 m per m per day. That is the SAME value up above (*). I'll reiterate what I told you a couple days ago. When the Big Bang theory says that galaxies are receding from each other at equal rates, this does NOT mean that two galaxies separated by 3 million light years are receding from each other at the rate of 10,000 light years per century AND that two galaxies separated by 300 million light years are ALSO receding from each other at the rate of 10,000 light years per century. What you would instead expect is that the pair of galaxies that are 300 million light years apart are receding from each other at 100 times the rate of the pair that are 3 million light years apart. Get it now, John? > > And it doesn't matter how large or small > the box is. > WTF do you mean by "adjacent"? > ALL the points in the AC line are separating > at the same rate, which is 1.4 times > the AB rate. > > But, I know you don't want to > talk about it anymore- do you? > That's okay > -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 7 of 8 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 5 6 [7] 8 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics
csiph-web