Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics > #579460 > unrolled thread
| Started by | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2016-05-21 14:36 -0700 |
| Last post | 2016-05-26 14:15 -0400 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 106 — 11 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.physics
Questions for Eisteinians kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-05-21 14:36 -0700
Re: Questions for Eisteinians Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-05-21 16:45 -0500
Re: Questions for Eisteinians kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-05-21 15:53 -0700
Re: Questions for Eisteinians Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-05-21 18:54 -0500
Re: Questions for Eisteinians HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-05-21 17:22 -0700
Re: Questions for Eisteinians kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-05-22 05:51 -0700
Re: Questions for Eisteinians Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-05-22 08:06 -0500
Re: Questions for Eisteinians Double-A <double-a3@hush.com> - 2016-05-22 13:42 -0700
Re: Questions for Eisteinians Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-05-22 17:55 -0500
Re: Questions for Eisteinians Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-05-23 11:18 -0500
Re: Questions for Eisteinians "nuny@bid.nes" <Alien8752@gmail.com> - 2016-05-21 16:01 -0700
Re: Questions for Eisteinians kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-05-21 16:16 -0700
Re: Questions for Eisteinians Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-05-22 08:25 +0200
Re: Questions for Eisteinians kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-05-22 06:45 -0700
Re: Questions for Eisteinians Mikkel Haaheim <mikkelhaaheim@gmail.com> - 2016-05-22 04:56 -0700
Re: Questions for Eisteinians kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-05-22 05:22 -0700
Re: Questions for Eisteinians Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-05-22 08:15 -0500
Re: Questions for Eisteinians "nuny@bid.nes" <Alien8752@gmail.com> - 2016-05-22 15:39 -0700
Re: Questions for Eisteinians kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-05-23 07:34 -0700
Re: Questions for Eisteinians Mikkel Haaheim <mikkelhaaheim@gmail.com> - 2016-05-23 08:51 -0700
Re: Questions for Eisteinians kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-05-23 12:55 -0700
Re: Questions for Eisteinians Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-05-23 14:56 -0500
Re: Questions for Eisteinians Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-05-23 15:05 -0500
Re: Questions for Eisteinians kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-05-23 13:33 -0700
Re: Questions for Eisteinians moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-05-23 22:24 +0000
Re: Questions for Eisteinians kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-05-24 06:31 -0700
Re: Questions for Eisteinians Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-05-24 09:30 -0500
Re: Questions for Eisteinians moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-05-24 14:35 +0000
Re: Questions for Eisteinians Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-05-23 18:14 -0500
Re: Questions for Eisteinians kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-05-23 20:33 -0700
Re: Questions for Eisteinians Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-05-24 06:35 -0500
Re: Questions for Eisteinians kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-05-24 06:56 -0700
Re: Questions for Eisteinians Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-05-24 09:52 -0500
Re: Questions for Eisteinians kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-05-25 08:02 -0700
Re: Questions for Eisteinians Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-05-25 10:11 -0500
Re: Questions for Eisteinians Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-05-25 10:40 -0500
Re: Questions for Eisteinians kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-05-25 13:56 -0700
Re: Questions for Eisteinians Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-05-25 16:18 -0500
Re: Questions for Eisteinians HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-05-25 16:01 -0700
Re: Questions for Eisteinians Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-05-25 20:26 -0500
Re: Questions for Eisteinians benj <nobodyxx@gmail> - 2016-05-25 23:32 -0400
Re: Questions for Eisteinians Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-05-25 20:31 -0500
Re: Questions for Eisteinians benj <nobodyxx@gmail> - 2016-05-24 10:54 -0400
Re: Questions for Eisteinians Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-05-24 10:21 -0500
Re: Questions for Eisteinians benj <nobodyxx@gmail> - 2016-05-24 14:16 -0400
Re: Questions for Eisteinians Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-05-24 14:15 -0500
Re: Questions for Eisteinians HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-05-25 06:23 -0700
Re: Questions for Eisteinians benj <nobodyxx@gmail> - 2016-05-25 23:29 -0400
Re: Questions for Eisteinians HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-05-24 08:46 -0700
Re: Questions for Eisteinians benj <nobodyxx@gmail> - 2016-05-24 13:37 -0400
Re: Questions for Eisteinians kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-05-25 08:26 -0700
Re: Questions for Eisteinians Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-05-25 08:01 -0500
Re: Questions for Eisteinians kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-05-25 07:51 -0700
Re: Questions for Eisteinians Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-05-25 10:00 -0500
Re: Questions for Eisteinians Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-05-23 11:23 -0500
Re: Questions for Eisteinians kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-05-23 13:09 -0700
Re: Questions for Eisteinians Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-05-23 15:24 -0500
Re: Questions for Eisteinians Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-05-23 15:38 -0500
Re: Questions for Eisteinians moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-05-22 01:30 +0000
Re: Questions for Eisteinians kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-05-22 06:11 -0700
Re: Questions for Eisteinians Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-05-22 08:19 -0500
Re: Questions for Eisteinians kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-05-22 06:49 -0700
Re: Questions for Eisteinians Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-05-22 11:27 -0500
Re: Questions for Eisteinians Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-05-23 11:29 -0500
Re: Questions for Eisteinians moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-05-22 22:59 +0000
Re: Questions for Eisteinians kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-05-23 07:41 -0700
Re: Questions for Eisteinians moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-05-23 17:49 +0000
Re: Questions for Eisteinians kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-05-23 13:20 -0700
Re: Questions for Eisteinians Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-05-23 15:26 -0500
Re: Questions for Eisteinians moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-05-23 22:22 +0000
Re: Questions for Eisteinians kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-05-24 06:30 -0700
Re: Questions for Eisteinians moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-05-24 14:32 +0000
Re: Questions for Eisteinians Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-05-24 09:34 -0500
Re: Questions for Eisteinians Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-05-23 11:27 -0500
Re: Questions for Eisteinians kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-05-23 13:10 -0700
Re: Questions for Eisteinians Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-05-23 15:40 -0500
Re: Questions for Eisteinians Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-05-23 11:15 -0500
Re: Questions for Eisteinians kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-05-23 13:03 -0700
Re: Questions for Eisteinians Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-05-23 15:27 -0500
Re: Questions for Eisteinians Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-05-23 15:38 -0500
Re: Questions for Eisteinians kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-05-23 14:51 -0700
Re: Questions for Eisteinians Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-05-24 06:30 -0500
Re: Questions for Eisteinians kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-05-24 06:51 -0700
Re: Questions for Eisteinians Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-05-24 09:42 -0500
Re: Questions for Eisteinians kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-05-25 08:08 -0700
Re: Questions for Eisteinians Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-05-25 10:12 -0500
Re: Questions for Eisteinians Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-05-25 10:42 -0500
Re: Questions for Eisteinians Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-05-24 09:47 -0500
Re: Questions for Eisteinians Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-05-24 09:41 -0500
Re: Questions for Eisteinians kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-05-24 09:18 -0700
Re: Questions for Eisteinians Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-05-24 11:25 -0500
Re: Questions for Eisteinians kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-05-25 07:37 -0700
Re: Questions for Eisteinians Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-05-25 10:07 -0500
Re: Questions for Eisteinians Mikkel Haaheim <mikkelhaaheim@gmail.com> - 2016-05-24 11:50 -0700
Re: Questions for Eisteinians kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-05-25 08:23 -0700
Re: Questions for Eisteinians moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-05-25 16:50 +0000
Re: Questions for Eisteinians kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-05-25 13:58 -0700
Re: Questions for Eisteinians moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-05-25 21:39 +0000
Re: Questions for Eisteinians Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-05-25 17:11 -0500
Re: Questions for Eisteinians moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-05-26 02:53 +0000
Re: Questions for Eisteinians kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-05-26 09:42 -0700
Re: Questions for Eisteinians Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-05-26 11:51 -0500
Re: Questions for Eisteinians kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-05-26 09:32 -0700
Re: Questions for Eisteinians Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-05-26 12:02 -0500
Re: Questions for Eisteinians "reber g=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> - 2016-05-26 10:33 -0700
Re: Questions for Eisteinians benj <nobodyxx@gmail> - 2016-05-26 14:15 -0400
Page 2 of 6 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 Next page →
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-05-23 12:55 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <15c8fcfa-77c3-4dad-9259-7a1e09ec54db@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #579790 |
On Monday, May 23, 2016 at 11:51:57 AM UTC-4, Mikkel Haaheim wrote: > How are you defining 'ether'? Please read the following link for a description of my ether called the E-Matrix: http://www.modelmechanics.org/2015irt.pdf > The term was originally used to represent an unseen medium through which things moved. An actual substance, composed of some material. In Einsteinian theory, there is no such medium. Instead, 'spacetime' describes a direct relationship between objects in space, with no need for any special medium. Of course, if you prefer, you could say that this 'ether' is the 'fabric of spacetime composed of all those objects in space, and nothing else. Calling the ether as spacetime does not mean that there is no ether. >It would be correct because you are decribing the same phenomena, but with different terminology. However, this could easily be confused with older notions that have been disproven (they are inconsistent with actual >observations). The concept of ether never been dis[roved.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-05-23 14:56 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <QKydnSjz5Prg_d7KnZ2dnUU7-T-dnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #579864 |
On 5/23/16 2:55 PM, kenseto wrote: > The concept of ether never been dis[roved. The concept of ether is not needed for anything in relativity. -- 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 | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-05-23 15:05 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <nhvnqn$11c0$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #579864 |
On 5/23/2016 2:55 PM, kenseto wrote: > On Monday, May 23, 2016 at 11:51:57 AM UTC-4, Mikkel Haaheim wrote: >> How are you defining 'ether'? > > Please read the following link for a description of my ether called the E-Matrix: > http://www.modelmechanics.org/2015irt.pdf > >> The term was originally used to represent an unseen medium through which things moved. >> An actual substance, composed of some material. In Einsteinian theory, there is no such >> medium. Instead, 'spacetime' describes a direct relationship between objects in space, >> with no need for any special medium. Of course, if you prefer, you could say that this >> 'ether' is the 'fabric of spacetime composed of all those objects in space, and nothing else. > > Calling the ether as spacetime does not mean that there is no ether. As he just said, if you want to call spacetime ether instead, you can, but you gain nothing by relabeling the same concept. > >> It would be correct because you are decribing the same phenomena, but with different >> terminology. However, this could easily be confused with older notions that have been >> disproven (they are inconsistent with actual >observations). > > The concept of ether never been dis[roved. > Several different concepts of ether have been disproven by experiment. For example, the kind of ether that is stationary, and in which the speed of light is only c in that stationary frame, and through which the earth moves, has been disproven by experiment. A material ether which is materially stiff enough to support transverse waves (like light) has been disproven by experiment. -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-05-23 13:33 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <c7a0fdcf-083f-49d7-a4fe-131f9519d1d9@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #579872 |
On Monday, May 23, 2016 at 4:05:49 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > On 5/23/2016 2:55 PM, kenseto wrote: > > On Monday, May 23, 2016 at 11:51:57 AM UTC-4, Mikkel Haaheim wrote: > >> How are you defining 'ether'? > > > > Please read the following link for a description of my ether called the E-Matrix: > > http://www.modelmechanics.org/2015irt.pdf > > > >> The term was originally used to represent an unseen medium through which things moved. > >> An actual substance, composed of some material. In Einsteinian theory, there is no such > >> medium. Instead, 'spacetime' describes a direct relationship between objects in space, > >> with no need for any special medium. Of course, if you prefer, you could say that this > >> 'ether' is the 'fabric of spacetime composed of all those objects in space, and nothing else. > > > > Calling the ether as spacetime does not mean that there is no ether. > > As he just said, if you want to call spacetime ether instead, you can, > but you gain nothing by relabeling the same concept. The ether means a material medium. My ether is the E-Matrix. The E-Matrix is a structured and elastic stationary medium.....different speeds of a clock moving in the E-Matrix will effect the rate of accumulating of clock seconds. > > > > >> It would be correct because you are decribing the same phenomena, but with different > >> terminology. However, this could easily be confused with older notions that have been > >> disproven (they are inconsistent with actual >observations). > > > > The concept of ether never been dis[roved. > > > > Several different concepts of ether have been disproven by experiment. No not disproven the E-Matrix. > For example, the kind of ether that is stationary, and in which the > speed of light is only c in that stationary frame, and through which the > earth moves, has been disproven by experiment. The E-Matrix agrees with all past experiments. http://www.modelmechanics.org/2015experiment.pdf > > A material ether which is materially stiff enough to support transverse > waves (like light) has been disproven by experiment. The E-Matrix supports transverse waves. > > > > > -- > Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-05-23 22:24 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <nhvvu9$9v7$3@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #579880 |
kenseto <setoken@att.net> writes: >On Monday, May 23, 2016 at 4:05:49 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> Several different concepts of ether have been disproven by experiment. >> >> A material ether which is materially stiff enough to support transverse >> waves (like light) has been disproven by experiment. >The E-Matrix supports transverse waves. So the E-Matrix has been disproven by experiment.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-05-24 06:31 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <d72f86f0-b90d-4299-9793-a94a3fd13520@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #579921 |
On Monday, May 23, 2016 at 6:24:48 PM UTC-4, Michael Moroney wrote: > kenseto <setoken@att.net> writes: > > >On Monday, May 23, 2016 at 4:05:49 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > > >> Several different concepts of ether have been disproven by experiment. > > >> > >> A material ether which is materially stiff enough to support transverse > >> waves (like light) has been disproven by experiment. > > >The E-Matrix supports transverse waves. Gee you are stupid. > > So the E-Matrix has been disproven by experiment.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-05-24 09:30 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <2uWdncohTrMV-NnKnZ2dnUU7-IudnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #580048 |
On 5/24/16 8:31 AM, kenseto wrote: > Gee you are stupid. Ken, spell "pig" backwards and say "funny". I think that is the level you are at when calling people idiots and stupid. -- 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 | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-05-24 14:35 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <ni1os5$5c8$2@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #580048 |
kenseto <setoken@att.net> writes: >On Monday, May 23, 2016 at 6:24:48 PM UTC-4, Michael Moroney wrote: >> kenseto <setoken@att.net> writes: >> >> >On Monday, May 23, 2016 at 4:05:49 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> >> >> Several different concepts of ether have been disproven by experiment. >> >> >> >> >> A material ether which is materially stiff enough to support transverse >> >> waves (like light) has been disproven by experiment. >> >> >The E-Matrix supports transverse waves. >Gee you are stupid. >> >> So the E-Matrix has been disproven by experiment. No, it is quite straightforward. If it has been disproven that there is any sort of aether that supports transverse waves of light, and you claim your E-Matrix supports transverse waves, then the E-Matrix has been disproven.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-05-23 18:14 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <QKydnV7z5PpQE97KnZ2dnUU7-T-dnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #579880 |
The Elastodynamics of the Spacetime Continuum as a Framework for Strained Spacetime > http://www.ptep-online.com/index_files/2013/PP-32-08.PDF > > We derive the elastodynamics of the spacetime continuum by applying > continuum mechanical results to strained spacetime. Based on this > model, a stress-strain relation is derived for the spacetime > continuum. From the kinematic relations and the equilibrium dynamic > equation of the spacetime continuum, we derive a series of wave > equations: the displacement, dilatational, rotational and strain wave > equations. Hence energy propa- gates in the spacetime continuum as > wave-like deformations which can be decomposed into dilatations and > distortions. Dilatations involve an invariant change in volume of the > spacetime continuum which is the source of the associated rest-mass > energy density of the deformation, while distortions correspond to a > change of shape of the space-time continuum without a change in > volume and are thus massless. The deformations propagate in the > continuum by longitudinal and transverse wave displacements. This is > somewhat reminiscent of wave-particle duality, with the transverse > mode corresponding to the wave aspects and the longitudinal mode > corresponding to the particle aspects. A continuity equation for > deformations of the spacetime continuum is derived, where the > gradient of the massive volume dilatation acts as a source term. The > nature of the spacetime continuum volume force and the inhomogeneous > wave equations need further investigation. -- 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 | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-05-23 20:33 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <40b2e290-0fc6-4e9f-9ac7-2fe6554787d2@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #579934 |
On Monday, May 23, 2016 at 7:14:24 PM UTC-4, Sam Wormley wrote: > The Elastodynamics of the Spacetime Continuum as a Framework for > Strained Spacetime > > http://www.ptep-online.com/index_files/2013/PP-32-08.PDF You can't strain spacetime if it is not a material medium as you Srians claimed. > > > > > > We derive the elastodynamics of the spacetime continuum by applying > > continuum mechanical results to strained spacetime. Based on this > > model, a stress-strain relation is derived for the spacetime > > continuum. From the kinematic relations and the equilibrium dynamic > > equation of the spacetime continuum, we derive a series of wave > > equations: the displacement, dilatational, rotational and strain wave > > equations. Hence energy propa- gates in the spacetime continuum as > > wave-like deformations which can be decomposed into dilatations and > > distortions. Dilatations involve an invariant change in volume of the > > spacetime continuum which is the source of the associated rest-mass > > energy density of the deformation, while distortions correspond to a > > change of shape of the space-time continuum without a change in > > volume and are thus massless. The deformations propagate in the > > continuum by longitudinal and transverse wave displacements. This is > > somewhat reminiscent of wave-particle duality, with the transverse > > mode corresponding to the wave aspects and the longitudinal mode > > corresponding to the particle aspects. A continuity equation for > > deformations of the spacetime continuum is derived, where the > > gradient of the massive volume dilatation acts as a source term. The > > nature of the spacetime continuum volume force and the inhomogeneous > > wave equations need further investigation. > > > -- > > 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 | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-05-24 06:35 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <ni1e9t$13ru$9@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #579992 |
On 5/23/2016 10:33 PM, kenseto wrote: > You can't strain spacetime if it is not a material medium as you Srians claimed. Well that's what you think. You only recognize material stuff as real and anything that's not material you don't think is real. -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-05-24 06:56 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <10c67936-74ed-4b31-84f2-50e744875661@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #580037 |
On Tuesday, May 24, 2016 at 7:35:30 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > On 5/23/2016 10:33 PM, kenseto wrote: > > You can't strain spacetime if it is not a material medium as you Srians claimed. > > Well that's what you think. You only recognize material stuff as real > and anything that's not material you don't think is real. Idiot....you can't apply a force to nothingness to create a strain. The normal definition of strain requires some sort of material medium.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-05-24 09:52 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <ni1pr5$1p8i$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #580053 |
On 5/24/2016 8:56 AM, kenseto wrote: > On Tuesday, May 24, 2016 at 7:35:30 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> On 5/23/2016 10:33 PM, kenseto wrote: >>> You can't strain spacetime if it is not a material medium as you Srians claimed. >> >> Well that's what you think. You only recognize material stuff as real >> and anything that's not material you don't think is real. > > Idiot....you can't apply a force to nothingness to create a strain. Spacetime isn't "nothingness". Spacetime has physical properties. You have this weird notion that only material things can have physical properties. > The normal > definition of strain requires some sort of material medium. No, Ken, that's YOUR idea. Physicists do not care what you think is a "normal definition". If you want to do physics, you have to use the definitions that physicists use. -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-05-25 08:02 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <b458c1ca-f060-4745-b692-5bb6d0034055@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #580072 |
On Tuesday, May 24, 2016 at 10:52:26 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > On 5/24/2016 8:56 AM, kenseto wrote: > > On Tuesday, May 24, 2016 at 7:35:30 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >> On 5/23/2016 10:33 PM, kenseto wrote: > >>> You can't strain spacetime if it is not a material medium as you Srians claimed. > >> > >> Well that's what you think. You only recognize material stuff as real > >> and anything that's not material you don't think is real. > > > > Idiot....you can't apply a force to nothingness to create a strain. > > Spacetime isn't "nothingness". Spacetime has physical properties. You > have this weird notion that only material things can have physical > properties. This means that you renamed the ether (the E-Matrix) as spacetime. You said that spacetime can have properties like any material medium but you deny that spacetime is a material medium. Sad.... > > > The normal > > definition of strain requires some sort of material medium. > > No, Ken, that's YOUR idea. Physicists do not care what you think is a > "normal definition". If you want to do physics, you have to use the > definitions that physicists use.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-05-25 10:11 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <MpKdndSlUbAbXdjKnZ2dnUU7-aOdnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #580364 |
On 5/25/16 10:02 AM, kenseto wrote: > This means that you renamed the ether (the E-Matrix) as spacetime. You said that spacetime can have properties like any material medium but you deny that spacetime is a material medium. Sad.... Forget this e-matrix shit, Seto. Relativity works exquisitely well and remains a most fruitful tool of physics. Just because to can't understand relativity is no reason to disparage it. -- 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 | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-05-25 10:40 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <ni4h0h$1kqp$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #580364 |
On 5/25/2016 10:02 AM, kenseto wrote: > On Tuesday, May 24, 2016 at 10:52:26 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> On 5/24/2016 8:56 AM, kenseto wrote: >>> On Tuesday, May 24, 2016 at 7:35:30 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>> On 5/23/2016 10:33 PM, kenseto wrote: >>>>> You can't strain spacetime if it is not a material medium as you Srians claimed. >>>> >>>> Well that's what you think. You only recognize material stuff as real >>>> and anything that's not material you don't think is real. >>> >>> Idiot....you can't apply a force to nothingness to create a strain. >> >> Spacetime isn't "nothingness". Spacetime has physical properties. You >> have this weird notion that only material things can have physical >> properties. > > This means that you renamed the ether (the E-Matrix) as spacetime. Uh, no. The concept of spacetime has been on the books since 1908, Ken. That is long, long, long before your E-matrix was dreamed up. If anyone did any renaming, it was you that renamed spacetime to be the E-matrix. > You said that spacetime > can have properties like any material medium And other nonmaterial things can have properties too. > but you deny that spacetime is a material medium. > Sad.... Not particularly sad that both material things and nonmaterial things have physical properties. Just because spacetime is one of the nonmaterial things that has properties, like a bunch of other nonmaterial things, isn't sad at all. > >> >>> The normal >>> definition of strain requires some sort of material medium. >> >> No, Ken, that's YOUR idea. Physicists do not care what you think is a >> "normal definition". If you want to do physics, you have to use the >> definitions that physicists use. > -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-05-25 13:56 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <0753d028-26e1-4c0d-9bef-3b08c785bfc3@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #580373 |
On Wednesday, May 25, 2016 at 11:40:07 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > On 5/25/2016 10:02 AM, kenseto wrote: > > On Tuesday, May 24, 2016 at 10:52:26 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >> On 5/24/2016 8:56 AM, kenseto wrote: > >>> On Tuesday, May 24, 2016 at 7:35:30 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >>>> On 5/23/2016 10:33 PM, kenseto wrote: > >>>>> You can't strain spacetime if it is not a material medium as you Srians claimed. > >>>> > >>>> Well that's what you think. You only recognize material stuff as real > >>>> and anything that's not material you don't think is real. > >>> > >>> Idiot....you can't apply a force to nothingness to create a strain. > >> > >> Spacetime isn't "nothingness". Spacetime has physical properties. You > >> have this weird notion that only material things can have physical > >> properties. > > > > This means that you renamed the ether (the E-Matrix) as spacetime. > > Uh, no. The concept of spacetime has been on the books since 1908, Ken. The concept of the ether is centuries before 1908....so what is your point? > That is long, long, long before your E-matrix was dreamed up. > If anyone did any renaming, it was you that renamed spacetime to be the > E-matrix. The E Matrix is a form of ether.....so what is your point? > > > You said that spacetime > > can have properties like any material medium > > And other nonmaterial things can have properties too. > > > but you deny that spacetime is a material medium. > > Sad.... > > Not particularly sad that both material things and nonmaterial things > have physical properties. Just because spacetime is one of the > nonmaterial things that has properties, like a bunch of other > nonmaterial things, isn't sad at all. You don't want to admit that spacetime is a material thing that have properties so you invented that spacetime is a nonmaterial thing that have properties. Can you give me another example of a nonmaterial thing that have properties? > > > > >> > >>> The normal > >>> definition of strain requires some sort of material medium. > >> > >> No, Ken, that's YOUR idea. Physicists do not care what you think is a > >> "normal definition". If you want to do physics, you have to use the > >> definitions that physicists use. > > > > > -- > Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-05-25 16:18 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <ni54q5$ovc$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #580479 |
On 5/25/2016 3:56 PM, kenseto wrote: > On Wednesday, May 25, 2016 at 11:40:07 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> On 5/25/2016 10:02 AM, kenseto wrote: >>> On Tuesday, May 24, 2016 at 10:52:26 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>> On 5/24/2016 8:56 AM, kenseto wrote: >>>>> On Tuesday, May 24, 2016 at 7:35:30 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>>>> On 5/23/2016 10:33 PM, kenseto wrote: >>>>>>> You can't strain spacetime if it is not a material medium as you Srians claimed. >>>>>> >>>>>> Well that's what you think. You only recognize material stuff as real >>>>>> and anything that's not material you don't think is real. >>>>> >>>>> Idiot....you can't apply a force to nothingness to create a strain. >>>> >>>> Spacetime isn't "nothingness". Spacetime has physical properties. You >>>> have this weird notion that only material things can have physical >>>> properties. >>> >>> This means that you renamed the ether (the E-Matrix) as spacetime. >> >> Uh, no. The concept of spacetime has been on the books since 1908, Ken. > > The concept of the ether is centuries before 1908....so what is your point? The ether of pre-1908 is different than your E-matrix. > >> That is long, long, long before your E-matrix was dreamed up. >> If anyone did any renaming, it was you that renamed spacetime to be the >> E-matrix. > > The E Matrix is a form of ether.....so what is your point? A different ether than the pre-1908 ether. > >> >>> You said that spacetime >>> can have properties like any material medium >> >> And other nonmaterial things can have properties too. >> >>> but you deny that spacetime is a material medium. >>> Sad.... >> >> Not particularly sad that both material things and nonmaterial things >> have physical properties. Just because spacetime is one of the >> nonmaterial things that has properties, like a bunch of other >> nonmaterial things, isn't sad at all. > > You don't want to admit that spacetime is a material thing that have > properties so you invented that spacetime is a nonmaterial thing that > have properties. No, I didn't invent that. That was put forward in 1908 for spacetime. Other nonmaterial things with properties have been around for two or three centuries. > Can you give me another example of a nonmaterial > thing that have properties? Sure. Energy. Electric fields. Light. Magnetic fields. X-rays. Heat. Gluons. Where have you been? >> >>> >>>> >>>>> The normal >>>>> definition of strain requires some sort of material medium. >>>> >>>> No, Ken, that's YOUR idea. Physicists do not care what you think is a >>>> "normal definition". If you want to do physics, you have to use the >>>> definitions that physicists use. >>> >> >> >> -- >> Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables > -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-05-25 16:01 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <491317e1-30d8-460e-a9af-8697dc89f5fb@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #580495 |
Odd Bodkin On 5/25/2016 3:56 PM, kenseto wrote: > On Wednesday, May 25, 2016 at 11:40:07 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> On 5/25/2016 10:02 AM, kenseto wrote: >>> On Tuesday, May 24, 2016 at 10:52:26 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>> On 5/24/2016 8:56 AM, kenseto wrote: >>>>> On Tuesday, May 24, 2016 at 7:35:30 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>>>> On 5/23/2016 10:33 PM, kenseto wrote: >>>>>>> You can't strain spacetime if it is not a material medium as you Srians claimed. >>>>>> >>>>>> Well that's what you think. You only recognize material stuff as real >>>>>> and anything that's not material you don't think is real. >>>>> >>>>> Idiot....you can't apply a force to nothingness to create a strain. >>>> >>>> Spacetime isn't "nothingness". Spacetime has physical properties. You >>>> have this weird notion that only material things can have physical >>>> properties. >>> >>> This means that you renamed the ether (the E-Matrix) as spacetime. >> >> Uh, no. The concept of spacetime has been on the books since 1908, Ken. > > The concept of the ether is centuries before 1908....so what is your point? The ether of pre-1908 is different than your E-matrix. > >> That is long, long, long before your E-matrix was dreamed up. >> If anyone did any renaming, it was you that renamed spacetime to be the >> E-matrix. > > The E Matrix is a form of ether.....so what is your point? A different ether than the pre-1908 ether. > >> >>> You said that spacetime >>> can have properties like any material medium >> >> And other nonmaterial things can have properties too. >> >>> but you deny that spacetime is a material medium. >>> Sad.... >> >> Not particularly sad that both material things and nonmaterial things >> have physical properties. Just because spacetime is one of the >> nonmaterial things that has properties, like a bunch of other >> nonmaterial things, isn't sad at all. > > You don't want to admit that spacetime is a material thing that have > properties so you invented that spacetime is a nonmaterial thing that > have properties. No, I didn't invent that. That was put forward in 1908 for spacetime. Other nonmaterial things with properties have been around for two or three centuries. > Can you give me another example of a nonmaterial > thing that have properties? Sure. Energy. Electric fields. Light. Magnetic fields. X-rays. Heat. Gluons. Where have you been? ---------- Hey Odd What is your definition of material and what is your definition of thing?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-05-25 20:26 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <ni5jbp$18j0$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #580511 |
On 5/25/2016 6:01 PM, HVAC wrote: > > Hey Odd > What is your definition of material and what is your definition of thing? > A material thing is composed of interacting fermions. Customarily matter occupies volume and has mass. A thing is something that is treated in physics as a player in a physical system, a player that can be characterized by physical properties. -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 2 of 6 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics
csiph-web