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 1 of 8 [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next page →
| From | john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-10 17:20 -0700 |
| Subject | Odd, explain equal universal acceleration |
| Message-ID | <64dec951-5c0a-4d93-9b28-90c7ae1791c2@googlegroups.com> |
Odd, you did OneD expansion for me. I want to do 2D. Can we? You say that everything can be made to "expand outward" equally. Let's take a box 2 X 2. Shall we "double" it in size? To make it communicable, we'll center it at (0,0), okay? So- we have four points that start at (-1, 1), (1, 1), (1, -1), (-1, -1) and go to (-2, 2), (2, 2), (2, -2), (-2, -2) Alright? Call them ABCD in clockwise order. Now, in the time that the box took to double in size, two dimensionally, on the X-y axis, A and B separated by 2. So did B and C. So did C and D. AND goshdarnit, so did D and A!!! Well, Odd! Maybe all your points ARE expanding apart equally! But wait! :( What about A and C? Oh, oh, Odd. THEY separate not 2, but 2(root2), which is about 2.8!!! What's happening, Odd? And B is expanding from D at 2.8, also!! I thought they all expand away equally! Redshift doesn't depend on angle, does it? Please explain this as simply as you can?
[toc] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-11 03:27 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <2d7ed7e3-c718-4a89-b979-d4a03be6a5e8@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #569572 |
John.... Put down the pipe
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-11 07:12 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <neg4ao$utp$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #569572 |
On 4/10/2016 7:20 PM, john wrote: > Odd, you did OneD expansion for me. > I want to do 2D. I already did that. Just a few days ago. Can you please go look at the post where took some pains to do it in 1-D, then in 2-D, then in 3-D. Search for "plate" in your usenet reader. > Can we? > You say that everything > can be made to "expand outward" equally. > > Let's take a box 2 X 2. > Shall we "double" it in size? > To make it communicable, we'll center it at (0,0), > okay? > So- we have four points that start at > (-1, 1), (1, 1), (1, -1), (-1, -1) > and go to > (-2, 2), (2, 2), (2, -2), (-2, -2) > Alright? > Call them ABCD in clockwise order. > > Now, in the time that the box took to > double in size, two dimensionally, > on the X-y axis, A and B separated by 2. > So did B and C. So did C and D. AND > goshdarnit, so did D and A!!! > Well, Odd! Maybe all your points ARE > expanding apart equally! > > But wait! > :( > What about A and C? Already discussed this, John. Please, please do try to stay on track. The only points that separate an equal amount in equal time are ADJACENT points. A and B are adjacent. B and C are adjacent. A and C are not adjacent. If you want to compare points that are not adjacent then the uniform expansion rate is expressed as [change in distance] per [original distance] per [time interval]. If you do this, you will find this rate is the SAME for A and C as it is for A and B. I've ALREADY explained this to you in the last few days. I do not feel like elaborately repeating all this, when it's already there. Just sort your usenet reader by user and go through mine. > Oh, oh, Odd. > THEY separate not 2, but 2(root2), > which is about 2.8!!! > What's happening, Odd? > And B is expanding from D at 2.8, also!! > I thought they all expand away equally! > Redshift doesn't depend on angle, > does it? > Please explain this as simply as you can? > > -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-11 06:21 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <994c2888-0d6d-4474-8bee-be412f873372@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #569672 |
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"? 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
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-11 07:19 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <4e9229f5-03a1-4c82-8ff9-1a9e7de8b080@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #569682 |
Do you see now how "uniform universal expansion" is impossible, Odd? This is why snails and many other things spiral as they grow.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-11 07:24 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <289d8847-4b44-4dc1-9b99-a36788f5919d@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #569694 |
john Do you see now how "uniform universal expansion" is impossible, Odd? This is why snails and many other things spiral as they grow. ---------------- John what part of 'space itself is expanding' do you have trouble with? It isn't that difficult a concept
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "hanson" <hanson@quick.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-11 08:22 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <negfa7$440$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #569695 |
Harlow Campbell "HVAC" <mr.hvac@gmail.com> wrot: > <johnsefton288@gmail.com> wrote: > john > Do you see now how "uniform universal expansion" > is impossible, Odd? > This is why snails and many other > things spiral as they grow. > ---------------- > Harlow wrote: > John what part of 'space itself is expanding' > do you have trouble with? > It isn't that difficult a concept > hanson wrote: Excellent!. Now Harlow, explain to john what your 'space itself is expanding' INTO. > Tell him what that background is called that your expanding space is embedded in. It should be a breeze of ease for you to do.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-11 08:34 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <ce84e9ef-5e00-42b6-8c6a-a75e0c1dd153@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #569717 |
Michael Is "doubles" an acceleration? If the point at 90 degrees from another point travels 40% further IN THE SAME TIME, wouldn't point A see C accelerating away faster than B? So it's redshift couldn't be equal.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-11 21:05 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <neh3ic$eq2$1@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #569719 |
john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> writes: >Michael >Is "doubles" an acceleration? >If the point at 90 degrees from >another point travels 40% further >IN THE SAME TIME, >wouldn't point A see C accelerating >away faster than B? Yes. Would you try reading what Odd keeps telling you for once? Expansion is (increase/original distance)/(unit time). In your box example it's a doubling per unit time. Doubling 1 becomes 2, doubling sqrt(2) becomes 2*sqrt(2) etc. >So it's redshift couldn't be equal. Just like the observed universe! We see galaxies that are relatively close to be receding relatively slowly, and extremely distant galaxies are receding much faster. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redshift
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-11 16:23 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <neh4l1$tik$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #569805 |
On 4/11/2016 4:05 PM, Michael Moroney wrote: > john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> writes: > >> Michael >> Is "doubles" an acceleration? >> If the point at 90 degrees from >> another point travels 40% further >> IN THE SAME TIME, >> wouldn't point A see C accelerating >> away faster than B? > > Yes. Would you try reading what Odd keeps telling you for once? > Expansion is (increase/original distance)/(unit time). > In your box example it's a doubling per unit time. Doubling 1 becomes 2, > doubling sqrt(2) becomes 2*sqrt(2) etc. So to put it clearly, suppose there is a galaxy that is 50 Mpc from the Milky Way, and there is another galaxy that is 200 Mpc from the Milky Way. We will observe the nearer galaxy to be receding from the Milky Way at about 3500 km/s, which means that in one day, it will have receded by 302,000,000 km. We will observe the further galaxy to be receding from the Milky Way at about 14,000 km/s, which means that in one day, it will have receded by 1,210,000,000 km. These two galaxies recede different amounts in the same day, but they BOTH exhibit the same universe expansion rate of 70 (km/s)/Mpc, which is the Hubble constant. Both galaxies will be redshifted, but the further one will be MORE redshifted than the nearer one. > >> So it's redshift couldn't be equal. > > Just like the observed universe! We see galaxies that are relatively > close to be receding relatively slowly, and extremely distant galaxies > are receding much faster. > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redshift > -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jay moseley <jaymoseley@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-11 17:40 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <0e07994d-1cae-4203-9d48-04e3c19fdd8f@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #569813 |
Odd, your argument is based on a false premise. You say that a frequency decay over distance cannot explain where the energy is lost. Violating conservation of energy. But the BBT has the same accounting deficit. You cant explain where the energy came from to first create the big bang. Also you claim that energy is lost with frequency decay over distance. Where is your evidence for this? Are you not basing this on the assumption that a beam of light does not spread as it travels away from a source? Whereas this is untrue. It does spread. So if frequency decreases from a to b to c, one also has to compensate for beam spread. So at point c one has to measure energy received over a wider area in the same amount of time then at point b. Your argument incorrectly assumes that at c one measures energy received over the same area as at point b in the same time frame.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-12 08:06 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <neirrt$1et9$2@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #569834 |
On 4/11/2016 7:40 PM, jay moseley wrote: > Odd, your argument is based on a false premise. You say that a frequency > decay over distance cannot explain where the energy is lost. Violating > conservation of energy. But the BBT has the same accounting deficit. > You cant explain where the energy came from to first create the big bang. There is no absolute energy scale. You're up at the top of a building. Is your potential energy zero or some positive number up there? > > Also you claim that energy is lost with frequency decay over distance. No, I did not say this. > Where is your evidence for this? Are you not basing this on the assumption > that a beam of light does not spread as it travels away from a source? > Whereas this is untrue. It does spread. So if frequency decreases from > a to b to c, one also has to compensate for beam spread. So at point c one > has to measure energy received over a wider area in the same amount of > time then at point b. > Your argument incorrectly assumes that at c one measures energy received > over the same area as at point b in the same time frame. > -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jay moseley <jaymoseley@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-12 08:08 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <791762b5-44fd-47dd-ab06-991a75afe647@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #569895 |
Odd wrote... >>jay moseley wrote: > Odd, your argument is based on a false premise. You say that a frequency > decay over distance cannot explain where the energy is lost. Violating > conservation of energy. But the BBT has the same accounting deficit. > You cant explain where the energy came from to first create the big >>bang. >There is no absolute energy scale. >You're up at the top of a building. Is your potential energy zero or some positive number up there? If you cant explain where the BBT came from. You havent explained what causes the redshift any more than any tired light theory does. > > Also you claim that energy is lost with frequency decay over distance. >No, I did not say this. Not you personally obviously. But the argument Ive heard over and over from BBT supporters is that if the redshift is due to frequency decay over distance and not expansion, then an explanation as to where the *lost* energy went is needed. My point was simple. Why does any non expanding model need to explain where this lost energy went? No energy is lost if redshift is due to tired light. What evidence or argument do you ( BBT supporters) have that shows an explanation is even needed? Why should frequency decay over distance (rather than expansion) violate conservation of energy?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-12 15:31 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <maqdnYSxVbKGxpDKnZ2dnUU7-WGdnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #569908 |
On 4/12/16 10:08 AM, jay moseley wrote: > Not you personally obviously. But the argument Ive heard over and over > from BBT supporters is that if the redshift is due to frequency decay over distance > and not expansion, then an explanation as to where the*lost* energy went is > needed. Frequency-Wavelength shift due to the Doppler Effect is observed in earth satellite communications, laboratory controlled experiments, looking at the limbs of the rotating sun and countless observations including galactic rotation, velocities of galaxies in clusters, and the cosmic expansion. -- sci.physics is an unmoderated newsgroup dedicated to the discussion of physics, news from the physics community, and physics-related social issues.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jay moseley <jaymoseley@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-12 14:11 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <a80dae68-72d9-405b-81fb-555dfb280240@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #569970 |
Sam > Frequency-Wavelength shift due to the Doppler Effect is observed in earth satellite communications, laboratory controlled experiments, looking at the limbs of the rotating sun and countless observations including galactic rotation, velocities of galaxies in clusters, and the cosmic expansion. The frequency wavelength shift called the hubble redshift was observed to be distance dependent, not velocity dependent. Unlike the other doppler or velocity dependent redshifts you mention. It is only an assumption that the hubble shift is doppler related. And a silly one at that. The prime reason being to defend the idiocy of einsteins photon model. Because a photon cannot change frequency without some sort of energy loss ( which cannot be explained). Whereas a purely wave model of emr CAN change frequency over distance without losing energy. In other words the whole BBT farce was constructed, not to explain the redshift, but to protect the photon model and Albert Einsteins' acolytes reputations. A waste of time considering that emr has only ever been observed to have wave properties. And never ever to have actually been observed as a particle. Despite numerous lies to the contrary.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-12 16:54 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <maqdnYKxVbIe85DKnZ2dnUU7-WGdnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #569988 |
On 4/12/16 4:11 PM, jay moseley wrote: > The frequency wavelength shift called the hubble redshift was observed > to be distance dependent, not velocity dependent. DuckDuckGo is your friend -- look up Hubble's Law. Frequency-Wavelength shift due to the Doppler Effect is observed in earth satellite communications, laboratory controlled experiments, looking at the limbs of the rotating sun and countless observations including galactic rotation, velocities of galaxies in clusters, and the cosmic expansion. -- sci.physics is an unmoderated newsgroup dedicated to the discussion of physics, news from the physics community, and physics-related social issues.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jay moseley <jaymoseley@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-12 15:16 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <6bb2df88-a6ce-4be8-ac32-abac31ae6f3f@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #570004 |
Sam> >> On 4/12/16 4:11 PM, jay moseley wrote: > The frequency wavelength shift called the hubble redshift was observed > to be distance dependent, not velocity dependent. >DuckDuckGo is your friend.. Duck who? I ve never heard of him. Have you been smoking again? > -- look up Hubble's Law. Sam, when you learn to tell the difference between an observation and an assumption get back to me. The fact is that the hubble redshift was an observation that there was a greater redshift with apparent greater distance( ie smaller galaxies) This was compatible with a frequency decay in light over distance involving no conflict with energy conservation law. The problem was that einstein had fantasized that emr was particulate (never confirmed empirically) and therefore not compatible with energy loss over distance and unfortunately his acolytes had bought into the myth. So rather than admit they screwed up and lose their jobs ( like you) they fantasized an even bigger lie, the BBT, to get off the hook. And look at the mess you are in now. Today alone youve published two links to papers that show observations are not consistent with your big bang willy fantasy.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-12 20:50 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <b7Sdnb0Ob8JFOJDKnZ2dnUU7-QGdnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #570013 |
On 4/12/16 5:16 PM, jay moseley wrote: > > Sam, when you learn to tell the difference between an observation > and an assumption get back to me. Hubble's Law was derived from observations, Jay. You can look it up with DuckDuckGo. -- sci.physics is an unmoderated newsgroup dedicated to the discussion of physics, news from the physics community, and physics-related social issues.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jay moseley <jaymoseley@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-12 23:16 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <61de4eff-220f-4952-95b3-215fbe6309f4@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #570053 |
Sam > Hubble's Law was derived from observations, Jay. You can look it up with DuckDuckGo Ah, its a search engine.! I thought you were telling me to f off. But the spectral shift is an observation. It is only an *assumption* that shift observed for galaxies is doppler related. And this ignores the fact that the cosmological shift also is directly related to distance from earth. Whereas the shift within galaxies ( rotational curves) are directly related to the center of each galaxy. And THATS an observation that was ignored! It was einsteins photon model that prevented hubble at al to assume frequency decay. Too many reputations were at stake. So there is NO scientific basis to the *assumptions* made in hubbles law. Only hubris. And there was and still is no contravention of conservation law to allow frequency decay over distance for a wave only model of emr. Whereas there IS a contravention of conservation law to assume the BBT. Two counts of decisions made on an unscientific basis for Hubbles law and the BBT.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | benj <none@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-13 03:38 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <mImPy.6848$C94.1975@fx39.iad> |
| In reply to | #570108 |
On 04/13/2016 02:16 AM, jay moseley wrote:
> Sam
>> Hubble's Law was derived from observations, Jay. You can look it up with DuckDuckGo
>
> Ah, its a search engine.! I thought you were telling me to f off.
> But the spectral shift is an observation. It is only an *assumption*
> that shift observed for galaxies is doppler related. And this ignores
> the fact that the cosmological shift also is directly related to distance
> from earth. Whereas the shift within galaxies ( rotational curves)
> are directly related to the center of each galaxy. And THATS an
> observation that was ignored!
> It was einsteins photon model that prevented hubble at al to
> assume frequency decay. Too many reputations were at stake.
> So there is NO scientific basis to the *assumptions* made in hubbles
> law. Only hubris.
> And there was and still is no contravention of conservation law
> to allow frequency decay over distance for a wave only model of emr.
> Whereas there IS a contravention of conservation law to assume
> the BBT. Two counts of decisions made on an unscientific basis for
> Hubbles law and the BBT.
Jay has hit the nail on the head, although the "tired light" theory is
not quite correct. Sam just parrots his religious dogma. And that dogma
is based upon a major mistake. That mistake is to assume that the red
shifted star spectra are due to Doppler shift from velocity. But before
we get too far afield allow me to point out that there IS Doppler shift
due to velocity of sources. This makes for variation in light
frequencies due to relative motions of source and observer. But the key
is that the MAJOR red shift observed increasing with distance that is
assumed due to velocities imparted by the "Big Bang" is simply a big fat
mistake. That is not due to velocities.
A wonderful story has been concocted that plays great with the
breathless science shows on PBS, but sadly it's simply wrong. The "Big
Bang" is destined for the same dust bin as phlogiston and Maxwell
displacement currents.
--
___ ___ ___ ___
/\ \ /\ \ /\__\ /\ \
/::\ \ /::\ \ /::| | \:\ \
/:/\:\ \ /:/\:\ \ /:|:| | ___ /::\__\
/::\~\:\__\ /::\~\:\ \ /:/|:| |__ /\ /:/\/__/
/:/\:\ \:|__| /:/\:\ \:\__\ /:/ |:| /\__\ \:\/:/ /
\:\~\:\/:/ / \:\~\:\ \/__/ \/__|:|/:/ / \::/ /
\:\ \::/ / \:\ \:\__\ |:/:/ / \/__/
\:\/:/ / \:\ \/__/ |::/ /
\::/__/ \:\__\ /:/ /
~~ \/__/ \/__/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 1 of 8 [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics
csiph-web