Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics > #590116 > unrolled thread
| Started by | "reber g=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2016-07-20 12:16 -0700 |
| Last post | 2016-08-15 11:38 -0700 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 93 — 11 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.physics
Gravity Force Has No Speed "reber g=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> - 2016-07-20 12:16 -0700
Re: Gravity Force Has No Speed mapou001@gmail.com - 2016-07-20 13:52 -0700
Re: Gravity Force Has No Speed Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-20 16:47 -0500
Re: Gravity Force Has No Speed HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-07-20 15:08 -0700
Re: Gravity Force Has No Speed benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2016-07-20 20:34 -0400
Re: Gravity Force Has No Speed HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-07-21 05:58 -0700
Re: Gravity Force Has No Speed mapou001@gmail.com - 2016-07-20 17:57 -0700
Re: Re: Gravity Force Has No Speed Michael J. Strickland <michael06582@comcast.net> - 2016-07-21 02:52 -0400
Re: Re: Gravity Force Has No Speed mapou001@gmail.com - 2016-07-21 09:04 -0700
Re: Gravity Force Has No Speed Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-21 11:34 -0500
Re: Gravity Force Has No Speed mapou001@gmail.com - 2016-07-21 10:00 -0700
Re: Gravity Force Has No Speed Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-21 12:09 -0500
Re: Re: Re: Gravity Force Has No Speed Michael J. Strickland <michael06582@comcast.net> - 2016-07-22 02:05 -0400
Re: Re: Re: Gravity Force Has No Speed mapou001@gmail.com - 2016-07-22 07:50 -0700
Re: Gravity Force Has No Speed Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-22 10:03 -0500
Re: Gravity Force Has No Speed mapou001@gmail.com - 2016-07-22 08:07 -0700
Re: Gravity Force Has No Speed Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-22 10:53 -0500
Re: Gravity Force Has No Speed mapou001@gmail.com - 2016-07-22 09:03 -0700
Re: Re: Re: Re: Gravity Force Has No Speed Michael J. Strickland <michael06582@comcast.net> - 2016-07-23 04:52 -0400
Re: Re: Re: Re: Gravity Force Has No Speed mapou001@gmail.com - 2016-07-23 14:48 -0700
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Gravity Force Has No Speed Michael J. Strickland <michael06582@comcast.net> - 2016-08-08 15:43 -0400
Re: Re: Gravity Force Has No Speed Michael J. Strickland <michael06582@comcast.net> - 2016-07-21 02:56 -0400
Re: Re: Gravity Force Has No Speed mapou001@gmail.com - 2016-07-21 09:19 -0700
Re: Gravity Force Has No Speed Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-21 11:37 -0500
Re: Gravity Force Has No Speed mapou001@gmail.com - 2016-07-21 10:01 -0700
Re: Gravity Force Has No Speed Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-21 12:11 -0500
Re: Gravity Force Has No Speed mapou001@gmail.com - 2016-07-21 11:33 -0700
Re: Re: Re: Gravity Force Has No Speed Michael J. Strickland <michael06582@comcast.net> - 2016-07-22 01:55 -0400
Re: Re: Re: Gravity Force Has No Speed mapou001@gmail.com - 2016-07-22 09:01 -0700
Re: Re: Re: Gravity Force Has No Speed john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-07-22 09:15 -0700
Re: Re: Re: Gravity Force Has No Speed mapou001@gmail.com - 2016-07-22 09:37 -0700
Re: Gravity Force Has No Speed Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-22 12:18 -0500
Re: Gravity Force Has No Speed mapou001@gmail.com - 2016-07-22 10:50 -0700
Re: Gravity Force Has No Speed Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-22 13:42 -0500
Re: Gravity Force Has No Speed mapou001@gmail.com - 2016-07-22 11:44 -0700
Re: Gravity Force Has No Speed Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-22 13:52 -0500
Re: Gravity Force Has No Speed mapou001@gmail.com - 2016-07-22 11:57 -0700
Re: Gravity Force Has No Speed Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-22 14:14 -0500
Re: Gravity Force Has No Speed Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-22 14:32 -0500
Re: Gravity Force Has No Speed mapou001@gmail.com - 2016-07-22 13:00 -0700
Re: Gravity Force Has No Speed Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-22 17:02 -0500
Re: Gravity Force Has No Speed mapou001@gmail.com - 2016-07-22 15:30 -0700
Re: Gravity Force Has No Speed Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-23 10:49 -0500
Re: Gravity Force Has No Speed mapou001@gmail.com - 2016-07-23 09:31 -0700
Re: Gravity Force Has No Speed Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-23 11:39 -0500
Re: Gravity Force Has No Speed mapou001@gmail.com - 2016-07-23 16:53 -0700
Re: Gravity Force Has No Speed Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-24 15:13 -0500
Re: Gravity Force Has No Speed mapou001@gmail.com - 2016-07-24 14:19 -0700
Re: Gravity Force Has No Speed Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-25 07:58 -0500
Re: Gravity Force Has No Speed mapou001@gmail.com - 2016-07-25 13:08 -0700
Re: Gravity Force Has No Speed Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-25 15:56 -0500
Re: Gravity Force Has No Speed mapou001@gmail.com - 2016-07-25 14:14 -0700
Re: Gravity Force Has No Speed benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2016-07-22 17:01 -0400
Re: Gravity Force Has No Speed Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-22 12:15 -0500
Re: Gravity Force Has No Speed mapou001@gmail.com - 2016-07-22 10:48 -0700
Re: Gravity Force Has No Speed Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-22 13:36 -0500
Re: Gravity Force Has No Speed mapou001@gmail.com - 2016-07-22 11:37 -0700
Re: Gravity Force Has No Speed Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-22 13:51 -0500
Re: Re: Re: Re: Gravity Force Has No Speed Michael J. Strickland <michael06582@comcast.net> - 2016-07-23 05:09 -0400
Electric field (was: Re: Re: Gravity Force Has No Speed) Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-07-25 07:43 +0200
Re: Electric field (was: Re: Re: Gravity Force Has No Speed) mapou001@gmail.com - 2016-07-24 23:12 -0700
Re: Electric field Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-25 08:26 -0500
Re: Electric field mapou001@gmail.com - 2016-07-25 13:08 -0700
Re: Electric field Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-07-25 18:43 +0200
Re: Electric field mapou001@gmail.com - 2016-07-25 12:16 -0700
Re: Electric field Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-07-25 22:27 +0200
Re: Electric field mapou001@gmail.com - 2016-07-25 18:02 -0700
Re: Electric field Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-07-26 07:14 +0200
Re: Electric field Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-25 15:51 -0500
Re: Gravity Force Has No Speed "reber g=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> - 2016-07-21 09:36 -0700
Re: Gravity Force Has No Speed "reber g=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> - 2016-07-22 17:59 -0700
Re: Gravity Force Has No Speed benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2016-07-23 17:37 -0400
Re: Gravity Force Has No Speed "reber g=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> - 2016-07-27 10:44 -0700
Re: Gravity Force Has No Speed "reber g=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> - 2016-08-10 12:57 -0700
Re: Gravity Force Has No Speed "hanson" <hanson@quick.net> - 2016-08-10 16:38 -0700
Re: Re: Gravity Force Has No Speed Michael J. Strickland <michael06582@comcast.net> - 2016-08-11 04:30 -0400
Re: Gravity Force Has No Speed bartekltg <bartekltg@gmail.com> - 2016-08-11 15:03 +0200
Re: Re: Gravity Force Has No Speed Michael J. Strickland <michael06582@comcast.net> - 2016-08-12 05:48 -0400
Re: Gravity Force Has No Speed bartekltg <bartekltg@gmail.com> - 2016-08-12 14:01 +0200
Re: Gravity Force Has No Speed LIGO Fraud Investigator <mapou001@gmail.com> - 2016-08-12 09:16 -0700
Re: Gravity Force Has No Speed bartekltg <bartekltg@gmail.com> - 2016-08-13 12:40 +0200
Re: Gravity Force Has No Speed LIGO Fraud Investigator <mapou001@gmail.com> - 2016-08-14 12:30 -0700
Re: Gravity Force Has No Speed bartekltg <bartekltg@gmail.com> - 2016-08-10 23:11 +0200
Re: Gravity Force Has No Speed LIGO Fraud Investigator <mapou001@gmail.com> - 2016-08-10 15:47 -0700
Re: Gravity Force Has No Speed bartekltg <bartekltg@gmail.com> - 2016-08-11 15:28 +0200
Re: Gravity Force Has No Speed LIGO Fraud Investigator <mapou001@gmail.com> - 2016-08-14 12:23 -0700
Re: Gravity Force Has No Speed Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-08-15 08:27 -0500
Re: Gravity Force Has No Speed Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-08-11 09:17 -0500
Re: Gravity Force Has No Speed LIGO Fraud Investigator <mapou001@gmail.com> - 2016-08-12 12:53 -0700
Re: Gravity Force Has No Speed bartekltg <bartekltg@gmail.com> - 2016-08-13 11:23 +0200
Re: Gravity Force Has No Speed LIGO Fraud Investigator <mapou001@gmail.com> - 2016-08-14 12:24 -0700
Re: Gravity Force Has No Speed Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-08-15 08:28 -0500
Re: Gravity Force Has No Speed LIGO Fraud Investigator <mapou001@gmail.com> - 2016-08-15 11:38 -0700
Page 1 of 5 [1] 2 3 4 5 Next page →
| From | "reber g=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-20 12:16 -0700 |
| Subject | Gravity Force Has No Speed |
| Message-ID | <2c08a470-417d-41ab-9d63-f2bb74ba7b8e@googlegroups.com> |
No lab is trying to measure the speed of gravity for that reason.Einstein said it was at c.He had no reason to think that.I have a reason to think its force is always there,and I have two good reasons as I type this for this thinking.Might think of more ways to back up this claim too.Treb I know will help. TreBert
[toc] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mapou001@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-20 13:52 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <88f27f84-4d50-4952-8912-8c85536b0d1c@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #590116 |
On Wednesday, July 20, 2016 at 12:16:49 PM UTC-7, reber g=emc^2 wrote: > No lab is trying to measure the speed of gravity for that reason.Einstein said it was at c.He had no reason to think that.I have a reason to think its force is always there,and I have two good reasons as I type this for this thinking.Might think of more ways to back up this claim too.Treb I know will help. TreBert You're absolutely right. I agree that gravity does not propagate. It is instantaneous just as Newton assumed. Gravity is a nonlocal phenomenon resulting from energy conservation. Einstein was 100% wrong about the speed of gravity and LIGO is a big fucking scam that will come back and bite the fraudsters in the ass. Hell, even the electrostatic field is instantaneous. The physics community is so fucking clueless about fundamental aspects of nature, I cringe when I think about it. For more on gravity, read: "Why Steven Carlip Is Mistaken about the Speed of Gravity or Why LIGO Is Still a Scam" http://rebelscience.blogspot.com/2016/06/why-steven-carlip-is-mistaken-about.html
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-20 16:47 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <nmorhg$bsn$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #590123 |
On 7/20/2016 3:52 PM, mapou001@gmail.com wrote: > You're absolutely right. I agree that gravity does not propagate. > It is instantaneous just as Newton assumed. And what would be the experimental test to show this hypothesis is correct? Or not correct? > Gravity is a nonlocal phenomenon resulting from energy conservation. > Einstein was 100% wrong about the speed of gravity and LIGO is a big > fucking scam that will come back and bite the fraudsters in the ass. Evidence that it's a scam? > Hell, even the electrostatic field is instantaneous. Can you cite experimental evidence of this? > The physics community is so fucking clueless about fundamental aspects > of nature, I cringe when I think about it. So when you have hypotheses about the "fundamental aspects of nature", how do you know they are right? How do you test that? In other words, how do you do science, Louis? -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-20 15:08 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <a3507581-3455-41f5-95be-6d38023f3a88@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #590127 |
Odd Bodkin On 7/20/2016 3:52 PM, mapo...@gmail.com wrote: > You're absolutely right. I agree that gravity does not propagate. > It is instantaneous just as Newton assumed. And what would be the experimental test to show this hypothesis is correct? Or not correct? > Gravity is a nonlocal phenomenon resulting from energy conservation. > Einstein was 100% wrong about the speed of gravity and LIGO is a big > fucking scam that will come back and bite the fraudsters in the ass. Evidence that it's a scam? > Hell, even the electrostatic field is instantaneous. Can you cite experimental evidence of this? > The physics community is so fucking clueless about fundamental aspects > of nature, I cringe when I think about it. So when you have hypotheses about the "fundamental aspects of nature", how do you know they are right ------------ Bet you a beer this dude believes in esp and ghosts just like BJ
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | benj <benj@nobody.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-20 20:34 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <579018b6$0$31281$c3e8da3$dd9697d2@news.astraweb.com> |
| In reply to | #590132 |
On 7/20/2016 6:08 PM, HVAC wrote: > Odd Bodkin > On 7/20/2016 3:52 PM, mapo...@gmail.com wrote: >> You're absolutely right. I agree that gravity does not propagate. >> It is instantaneous just as Newton assumed. > > And what would be the experimental test to show this hypothesis is > correct? Or not correct? > >> Gravity is a nonlocal phenomenon resulting from energy conservation. >> Einstein was 100% wrong about the speed of gravity and LIGO is a big >> fucking scam that will come back and bite the fraudsters in the ass. > > Evidence that it's a scam? > >> Hell, even the electrostatic field is instantaneous. > > Can you cite experimental evidence of this? > >> The physics community is so fucking clueless about fundamental aspects >> of nature, I cringe when I think about it. > > So when you have hypotheses about the "fundamental aspects of nature", > how do you know they are right > ------------ > > Bet you a beer this dude believes in esp and ghosts just like BJ > HVAC believes in non-local phenomena...which is his "proof" that ghosts and ESP exist. Hey, HVAC why not give us your views on the Bell theorem instead of just babbing on again about ghosts and ESP. (You forgot to repeat how I was fired from my janitor job and now an bitter) HVAC you are STILL a loser.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-21 05:58 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <b7a6138e-076f-4217-a109-dc69248aeb9c@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #590155 |
BJ quacked HVAC you are STILL a loser. --------- Since you believe in everything from ghosts to the 9/11 conspiracy, I will give your opinion of me all the attention it deserves
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mapou001@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-20 17:57 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <2c0462b2-a477-4721-aab1-14acddac1b4f@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #590132 |
On Wednesday, July 20, 2016 at 3:08:14 PM UTC-7, HVAC wrote: > Odd Bodkin > On 7/20/2016 3:52 PM, mapo...@gmail.com wrote: > > You're absolutely right. I agree that gravity does not propagate. > > It is instantaneous just as Newton assumed. > > And what would be the experimental test to show this hypothesis is > correct? Or not correct? > > > Gravity is a nonlocal phenomenon resulting from energy conservation. > > Einstein was 100% wrong about the speed of gravity and LIGO is a big > > fucking scam that will come back and bite the fraudsters in the ass. > > Evidence that it's a scam? > > > Hell, even the electrostatic field is instantaneous. > > Can you cite experimental evidence of this? > > > The physics community is so fucking clueless about fundamental aspects > > of nature, I cringe when I think about it. > > So when you have hypotheses about the "fundamental aspects of nature", > how do you know they are right > ------------ > > Bet you a beer this dude believes in esp and ghosts just like BJ What a bunch of brain-dead and gutless morons. Why are relativists so fucking stupid and gutless? The experimental evidence already shows that both gravity and the electrostatic force are instantaneous. Even Carlip admits it: http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/GR/grav_speed.html But the Einstein Big Brother machine will have none of that. Einstein said spooky action at a distance was an abomination and, by golly, Einstein must be right. So what the imbeciles do? They created a mountain of crap to show that there is a way to have gravity and the electric force move at c and still behave as if it were instantaneous? Say what? Here it is from the Carlip's own mouth: "The net result is that the effect of propagation delay is almost exactly cancelled, and general relativity very nearly reproduces the newtonian result." What a con artist! Of course, there is no way to test their pseudoscience. Especially since it requires that the gravitational source or electrostatic source must communicate their position and velocity relative to all other bodies in the universe. Haysoos fucking Martinez! How in the fuck did they pull this kinda foul smelling crap out of their asses and get away with it? One must never underestimate the political power and deviousness of the Big Brother Relativity (BBR). What is my point? My point is this. Fuck all of you. And the fucking mules you sleep with. That is my fucking point. ahahahaha...AHAHAHAHA...ahahahaha...
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Michael J. Strickland <michael06582@comcast.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-21 02:52 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <g5s0pb53gfnnrpehj649jerro0f9f9sfsd@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #590123 |
On Wed, 20 Jul 2016 13:52:35 -0700 (PDT), mapou001@gmail.com wrote: ... >You're absolutely right. I agree that gravity does not propagate. It is instantaneous just as Newton assumed. I don't recall Newton saying anything about the speed of gravity. Do you have a reference or are you just aserting this? Mike --------------------------------------------------- Michael J. Strickland Reston, VA ---------------------------------------------------
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mapou001@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-21 09:04 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <7d03f2bd-f607-48a0-9048-f269ddc02de2@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #590178 |
On Wednesday, July 20, 2016 at 11:52:25 PM UTC-7, Michael Strickland wrote: > On Wed, 20 Jul 2016 13:52:35 -0700 (PDT), mapou001@gmail.com wrote: > > ... > >You're absolutely right. I agree that gravity does not propagate. It is instantaneous just as Newton assumed. > > I don't recall Newton saying anything about the speed of gravity. > > Do you have a reference or are you just aserting this? Newton did not say anything about the speed of gravity because Newtonian gravity does not posit that gravity propagates at all. That's what instantaneous means. The gravitational field of a body should be seen as part of the body. It moves with it. In fact, the inverse square law predicts a perfectly symmetrical gravitational field around the source. This is what is observed. The field would not be symmetrical around a moving body if gravity propagated at c.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-21 11:34 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <nmqti7$12qg$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #590195 |
On 7/21/2016 11:04 AM, mapou001@gmail.com wrote: > In fact, the inverse square law predicts a perfectly symmetrical gravitational field around > the source. This is what is observed. The field would not be symmetrical around a moving body > if gravity propagated at c. Can you specifically cite the observations whereby a lack of symmetry due to propagation at c (according to general relativity) would be noticed, and where they rule that out? -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mapou001@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-21 10:00 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <9a405d30-a2c9-4249-ab46-871f0ec5adf3@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #590197 |
On Thursday, July 21, 2016 at 9:34:21 AM UTC-7, Odd Bodkin wrote: > On 7/21/2016 11:04 AM, mapou001@gmail.com wrote: > > In fact, the inverse square law predicts a perfectly symmetrical gravitational field around > > the source. This is what is observed. The field would not be symmetrical around a moving body > > if gravity propagated at c. > > Can you specifically cite the observations whereby a lack of symmetry > due to propagation at c (according to general relativity) would be > noticed, and where they rule that out? Fuck you. ahahaha...AHAHAHA...ahahaha...
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-21 12:09 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <nmqvjn$162b$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #590203 |
On 7/21/2016 12:00 PM, mapou001@gmail.com wrote: > On Thursday, July 21, 2016 at 9:34:21 AM UTC-7, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> On 7/21/2016 11:04 AM, mapou001@gmail.com wrote: >>> In fact, the inverse square law predicts a perfectly symmetrical gravitational field around >>> the source. This is what is observed. The field would not be symmetrical around a moving body >>> if gravity propagated at c. >> >> Can you specifically cite the observations whereby a lack of symmetry >> due to propagation at c (according to general relativity) would be >> noticed, and where they rule that out? > > Fuck you. So that's a no. And you are making claims that you believe gravity propagation is ruled out by observation, but they are empty and unsubstantiated claims. That's fine if that's where you want to leave it. > > ahahaha...AHAHAHA...ahahaha... > -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Michael J. Strickland <michael06582@comcast.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-22 02:05 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <5ed3pblv0rkdgctit2e8kouuut4t6btjf6@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #590195 |
On Thu, 21 Jul 2016 09:04:07 -0700 (PDT), mapou001@gmail.com wrote: >On Wednesday, July 20, 2016 at 11:52:25 PM UTC-7, Michael Strickland wrote: >> On Wed, 20 Jul 2016 13:52:35 -0700 (PDT), mapou001@gmail.com wrote: >> >> ... >> >You're absolutely right. I agree that gravity does not propagate. It is instantaneous just as Newton assumed. >> >> I don't recall Newton saying anything about the speed of gravity. >> >> Do you have a reference or are you just aserting this? > >Newton did not say anything about the speed of gravity because Newtonian gravity does not posit that gravity propagates at all. That's what instantaneous means. The gravitational field of a body should be seen as part of the body. It moves with it. > >In fact, the inverse square law predicts a perfectly symmetrical gravitational field around the source. This is what is observed. The field would not be symmetrical around a moving body if gravity propagated at c. That's right it is not symmetric unless the other body is moving in sync with the source (i.e. stationary with respect to it). Do you really think anything moves instantaneously? I guess its difficult to measure since most objects have been around longer than the light travel time to where you measure their gravity field. When an electron and positron annihilate, do you really think the edge of the universe 15 billion light years away feels the gravity change immediately? Do you think every mass has infinite extent and its gravitational field is part of it? --------------------------------------------------- Michael J. Strickland Reston, VA ---------------------------------------------------
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mapou001@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-22 07:50 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <e3076c55-f1b5-4a84-ac4b-6e6efcd1f27e@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #590282 |
On Thursday, July 21, 2016 at 11:05:58 PM UTC-7, Michael Strickland wrote: > On Thu, 21 Jul 2016 09:04:07 -0700 (PDT), mapou001@gmail.com wrote: > > >On Wednesday, July 20, 2016 at 11:52:25 PM UTC-7, Michael Strickland wrote: > >> On Wed, 20 Jul 2016 13:52:35 -0700 (PDT), mapou001@gmail.com wrote: > >> > >> ... > >> >You're absolutely right. I agree that gravity does not propagate. It is instantaneous just as Newton assumed. > >> > >> I don't recall Newton saying anything about the speed of gravity. > >> > >> Do you have a reference or are you just aserting this? > > > >Newton did not say anything about the speed of gravity because Newtonian gravity does not posit that gravity propagates at all. That's what instantaneous means. The gravitational field of a body should be seen as part of the body. It moves with it. > > > >In fact, the inverse square law predicts a perfectly symmetrical gravitational field around the source. This is what is observed. The field would not be symmetrical around a moving body if gravity propagated at c. > > That's right it is not symmetric unless the other body is moving in > sync with the source (i.e. stationary with respect to it). > > Do you really think anything moves instantaneously? > > I guess its difficult to measure since most objects have been around > longer than the light travel time to where you measure their gravity > field. > > When an electron and positron annihilate, do you really think the edge > of the universe 15 billion light years away feels the gravity change > immediately? > > Do you think every mass has infinite extent and its gravitational > field is part of it? > > --------------------------------------------------- > Michael J. Strickland Reston, VA > --------------------------------------------------- I believe the gravitational field of the earth moves with the earth regardless of how far one is from the earth. There is no lag because there is no propagation. It is a nonlocal phenomenon. Otherwise the field would not be symmetrical and Newtonian gravity would not work at all. I don't believe in infinity; it's a religion of cretins. The universe is finite and discrete. I also believe that the electrostatic field of an electron moves with it regardless of how far one is from the electron. This is true even though the field is mediated by photons that travel at c. Electrostatic photons adjust their position in tandem with the source, regardless of how far away they are from it. Otherwise, the symmetry would be broken. The field symmetry must be conserved otherwise we would have an imbalanced or lopsided universe. Einstein did not believe in spooky action at a distance but he was dead wrong. Nonlocality is a proven fact. Nobody tells the universe how to behave. Einstein's view on nonlocality is a form of prejudice based on faulty logic. He was a classical physicist who believed in a billiard ball universe in the Newtonian tradition. But just because one cannot imagine how nonlocality works does not make it false or impossible.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-22 10:03 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <nmtcja$dc0$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #590295 |
On 7/22/2016 9:50 AM, mapou001@gmail.com wrote: > I believe the gravitational field of the earth moves with the earth regardless of how > far one is from the earth. There is no lag because there is no propagation. It is a > nonlocal phenomenon. Otherwise the field would not be symmetrical and Newtonian gravity > would not work at all. > > I don't believe in infinity; it's a religion of cretins. The universe is finite and discrete. > I also believe that the electrostatic field of an electron moves with it regardless of how > far one is from the electron. This is true even though the field is mediated by photons > that travel at c. Electrostatic photons adjust their position in tandem with the source, > regardless of how far away they are from it. Otherwise, the symmetry would be broken. The > field symmetry must be conserved otherwise we would have an imbalanced or lopsided universe. > > Nobody tells the universe how to behave. The irony of the last quoted statement, mixed in with your previous "beliefs" that are actually not supportable with data, is of mammoth proportions. I mean, we're talking Mount Irony here. -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mapou001@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-22 08:07 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <eaa62b68-a029-4ddc-96b6-5d9e8db2ad1e@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #590296 |
On Friday, July 22, 2016 at 8:03:11 AM UTC-7, Odd Bodkin wrote: > On 7/22/2016 9:50 AM, mapou001@gmail.com wrote: > > I believe the gravitational field of the earth moves with the earth regardless of how > > far one is from the earth. There is no lag because there is no propagation. It is a > > nonlocal phenomenon. Otherwise the field would not be symmetrical and Newtonian gravity > > would not work at all. > > > > I don't believe in infinity; it's a religion of cretins. The universe is finite and discrete. > > I also believe that the electrostatic field of an electron moves with it regardless of how > > far one is from the electron. This is true even though the field is mediated by photons > > that travel at c. Electrostatic photons adjust their position in tandem with the source, > > regardless of how far away they are from it. Otherwise, the symmetry would be broken. The > > field symmetry must be conserved otherwise we would have an imbalanced or lopsided universe. > > > > Nobody tells the universe how to behave. > > The irony of the last quoted statement, mixed in with your previous > "beliefs" that are actually not supportable with data, is of mammoth > proportions. I mean, we're talking Mount Irony here. > > -- > Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables Fuck you. ahahaha...AHAHAHA...ahahaha...
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-22 10:53 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <nmtfib$i8l$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #590297 |
On 7/22/2016 10:07 AM, mapou001@gmail.com wrote: > On Friday, July 22, 2016 at 8:03:11 AM UTC-7, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> On 7/22/2016 9:50 AM, mapou001@gmail.com wrote: >>> I believe the gravitational field of the earth moves with the earth regardless of how >>> far one is from the earth. There is no lag because there is no propagation. It is a >>> nonlocal phenomenon. Otherwise the field would not be symmetrical and Newtonian gravity >>> would not work at all. >>> >>> I don't believe in infinity; it's a religion of cretins. The universe is finite and discrete. >>> I also believe that the electrostatic field of an electron moves with it regardless of how >>> far one is from the electron. This is true even though the field is mediated by photons >>> that travel at c. Electrostatic photons adjust their position in tandem with the source, >>> regardless of how far away they are from it. Otherwise, the symmetry would be broken. The >>> field symmetry must be conserved otherwise we would have an imbalanced or lopsided universe. >>> >>> Nobody tells the universe how to behave. >> >> The irony of the last quoted statement, mixed in with your previous >> "beliefs" that are actually not supportable with data, is of mammoth >> proportions. I mean, we're talking Mount Irony here. >> >> -- >> Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables > > Fuck you. > > ahahaha...AHAHAHA...ahahaha... > Lovely pattern, don't you think? You say something stupid and uninformed, coupled with the editorial comment that physicists are blind idiots for not understanding your stupid and uninformed comments. It is pointed out by others that your comment was stupid and uninformed. You say, "Fuck you". Repeat cycle. -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mapou001@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-22 09:03 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <03d9ad8f-7123-46d8-bb2f-1b009dcbb8c9@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #590301 |
On Friday, July 22, 2016 at 8:53:51 AM UTC-7, Odd Bodkin wrote: > On 7/22/2016 10:07 AM, mapou001@gmail.com wrote: > > On Friday, July 22, 2016 at 8:03:11 AM UTC-7, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >> On 7/22/2016 9:50 AM, mapou001@gmail.com wrote: > >>> I believe the gravitational field of the earth moves with the earth regardless of how > >>> far one is from the earth. There is no lag because there is no propagation. It is a > >>> nonlocal phenomenon. Otherwise the field would not be symmetrical and Newtonian gravity > >>> would not work at all. > >>> > >>> I don't believe in infinity; it's a religion of cretins. The universe is finite and discrete. > >>> I also believe that the electrostatic field of an electron moves with it regardless of how > >>> far one is from the electron. This is true even though the field is mediated by photons > >>> that travel at c. Electrostatic photons adjust their position in tandem with the source, > >>> regardless of how far away they are from it. Otherwise, the symmetry would be broken. The > >>> field symmetry must be conserved otherwise we would have an imbalanced or lopsided universe. > >>> > >>> Nobody tells the universe how to behave. > >> > >> The irony of the last quoted statement, mixed in with your previous > >> "beliefs" that are actually not supportable with data, is of mammoth > >> proportions. I mean, we're talking Mount Irony here. > >> > >> -- > >> Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables > > > > Fuck you. > > > > ahahaha...AHAHAHA...ahahaha... > > > > Lovely pattern, don't you think? > > You say something stupid and uninformed, coupled with the editorial > comment that physicists are blind idiots for not understanding your > stupid and uninformed comments. > > It is pointed out by others that your comment was stupid and uninformed. > > You say, "Fuck you". > > Repeat cycle. > > -- > Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables Your momma. ahahahaha...AHAHAHAHA...ahahahaha...
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Michael J. Strickland <michael06582@comcast.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-23 04:52 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <fn86pb56fnn0itdu9714tbb6tlce88ktl6@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #590295 |
>I believe the gravitational field of the earth moves with the earth regardless of how far one is from the earth. There is no lag because there is no propagation. It is a nonlocal phenomenon. Otherwise the field would not be symmetrical and Newtonian gravity would not work at all. How would Newtonian gravity not work if a gravitational field propagated or (updated as a result of motion) at v = c? ... > Electrostatic photons adjust their position in tandem with the source, regardless of how far away they are from it. Once an electrostatic photon is emitted, how can it adjust anything to its emission source? Is there some "super-photonlet" emitted by the source charge to "tell" the photon that it must change course in order to preserve its "tandemness" - lol? Otherwise, the symmetry would be broken. The field symmetry must be conserved otherwise we would have an imbalanced or lopsided universe. Static symmetry is always broken by motion. The symmetry only remains for something moving in tandem with the source (i.e. at rest with respect to it). >... Nonlocality is a proven fact. Are you referring to entanglement? > Nobody tells the universe how to behave. Einstein's view on nonlocality is a form of prejudice based on faulty logic. He was a classical physicist who believed in a billiard ball universe in the Newtonian tradition. Are you referring to the photoelectric effect? That's his only billiard ball model that I heard of. Mostly he tried to get around action at a distance with his field theory. > But just because one cannot imagine how nonlocality works does not make it false or impossible. Agreed, but I can say the same about both static fields and changing fields propagating at the speed of light as opposed to instantaneously. --------------------------------------------------- Michael J. Strickland Reston, VA ---------------------------------------------------
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mapou001@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-23 14:48 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <a368fde1-241a-46ab-b7ca-c24441ad1e3a@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #590443 |
On Saturday, July 23, 2016 at 1:52:07 AM UTC-7, Michael Strickland wrote: > >I believe the gravitational field of the earth moves with the earth regardless of how far one is from the earth. There is no lag because there is no propagation. It is a nonlocal phenomenon. Otherwise the field would not be symmetrical and Newtonian gravity would not work at all. > > How would Newtonian gravity not work if a gravitational field > propagated or (updated as a result of motion) at v = c? Are you a physicist or do you just play one on usenet? See you around, Sir Isaac. ahahahaha...AHAHAHAHA...ahahahahaha...
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 1 of 5 [1] 2 3 4 5 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics
csiph-web