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 2 of 5 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 5 Next page →
| From | Michael J. Strickland <michael06582@comcast.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-08 15:43 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <t5ohqb9se9mqtsk7jbq41h7nbvepcgebie@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #590443 |
On Sat, 23 Jul 2016 04:52:01 -0400, Michael J. Strickland <michael06582@comcast.net> 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? >... >> 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. Please ignore above paragraph. I don't remember writing it. >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 >--------------------------------------------------- --------------------------------------------------- Michael J. Strickland Reston, VA ---------------------------------------------------
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Michael J. Strickland <michael06582@comcast.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-21 02:56 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <qas0pb5cj0jvua8p2ca4gcip7dj0rg56vv@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #590123 |
On Wed, 20 Jul 2016 13:52:35 -0700 (PDT), mapou001@gmail.com wrote: >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. Wrong. EM radiation (which is just the oscillation of the electrostatic field) propagates at the speed of light and not instantaneously. Not many, if any, phenomenon propagate instantaneously since that usually requires infinite power. Mike --------------------------------------------------- Michael J. Strickland Reston, VA ---------------------------------------------------
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mapou001@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-21 09:19 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <4272c61e-d89b-4fb4-9f99-1c770604e4f1@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #590179 |
On Wednesday, July 20, 2016 at 11:56:13 PM UTC-7, Michael Strickland wrote: > On Wed, 20 Jul 2016 13:52:35 -0700 (PDT), mapou001@gmail.com wrote: > > >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. > > Wrong. EM radiation (which is just the oscillation of the > electrostatic field) propagates at the speed of light and not > instantaneously. I never said anything about EM radiation or oscillation of the electrostatic field. Photons do travel at c. > Not many, if any, phenomenon propagate instantaneously since that > usually requires infinite power. There is no propagation of the field. It is a nonlocal phenomenon caused by nature correcting violations to some conservation principle. The electrostatic field must remain symmetrical around its source in order to obey Coulomb's inverse square law. The electrostatic field around a charged particle are caused by photons emanating from it. In order for the field to remain symmetrical, the photons must move in unison with the particle regardless of how far apart they are. Again,it's a nonlocal phenomenon. All the nonsense about charge particles broadcasting information about their relative velocities and positions into space is pure hogwash from the clueless physics community. No particle has information about its velocity relative to anything else. Steven Carlip is a crackpot and he should repent from his crackpottery. Hell, the entire Big Brother Relativity community should self-flagellate and don sackcloths and ashes. ahahahaha...AHAHAHAHA...ahahahaha...
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-21 11:37 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <nmqtoi$1391$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #590196 |
On 7/21/2016 11:19 AM, mapou001@gmail.com wrote: > There is no propagation of the field. It is a nonlocal phenomenon caused by nature > correcting violations to some conservation principle. The electrostatic field must > remain symmetrical around its source in order to obey Coulomb's inverse square law. > The electrostatic field around a charged particle are caused by photons emanating > from it. In order for the field to remain symmetrical, the photons must move in unison > with the particle regardless of how far apart they are. Again,it's a nonlocal phenomenon. > > All the nonsense about charge particles broadcasting information about their relative > velocities and positions into space is pure hogwash from the clueless physics community. > No particle has information about its velocity relative to anything else. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Retarded_potential This is a direct result of Maxwell's equations, of which Coulomb's law is one. Tell me again how this is incompatible with Coulomb's law? -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mapou001@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-21 10:01 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <462797fc-7d91-4662-954e-1da08c927ec7@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #590199 |
On Thursday, July 21, 2016 at 9:37:47 AM UTC-7, Odd Bodkin wrote: > On 7/21/2016 11:19 AM, mapou001@gmail.com wrote: > > There is no propagation of the field. It is a nonlocal phenomenon caused by nature > > correcting violations to some conservation principle. The electrostatic field must > > remain symmetrical around its source in order to obey Coulomb's inverse square law. > > The electrostatic field around a charged particle are caused by photons emanating > > from it. In order for the field to remain symmetrical, the photons must move in unison > > with the particle regardless of how far apart they are. Again,it's a nonlocal phenomenon. > > > > All the nonsense about charge particles broadcasting information about their relative > > velocities and positions into space is pure hogwash from the clueless physics community. > > No particle has information about its velocity relative to anything else. > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Retarded_potential > This is a direct result of Maxwell's equations, of which Coulomb's law > is one. > Tell me again how this is incompatible with Coulomb's law? Why don't you eat your own shit and see if I give a shit? ahahaha...AHAHAHAHA...ahahahaha...
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-21 12:11 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <nmqvnn$162b$2@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #590204 |
On 7/21/2016 12:01 PM, mapou001@gmail.com wrote: > On Thursday, July 21, 2016 at 9:37:47 AM UTC-7, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> On 7/21/2016 11:19 AM, mapou001@gmail.com wrote: >>> There is no propagation of the field. It is a nonlocal phenomenon caused by nature >>> correcting violations to some conservation principle. The electrostatic field must >>> remain symmetrical around its source in order to obey Coulomb's inverse square law. >>> The electrostatic field around a charged particle are caused by photons emanating >>> from it. In order for the field to remain symmetrical, the photons must move in unison >>> with the particle regardless of how far apart they are. Again,it's a nonlocal phenomenon. >>> >>> All the nonsense about charge particles broadcasting information about their relative >>> velocities and positions into space is pure hogwash from the clueless physics community. >>> No particle has information about its velocity relative to anything else. >> >> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Retarded_potential >> This is a direct result of Maxwell's equations, of which Coulomb's law >> is one. >> Tell me again how this is incompatible with Coulomb's law? > > Why don't you eat your own shit and see if I give a shit? So you don't give a shit that you are making statements that you can't back up and are easily shown to be in conflict with documented evidence. Fine, make your ass-fool statements that are OBVIOUSLY trash and then tell everybody to fuck off if they don't buy them. > > ahahaha...AHAHAHAHA...ahahahaha... > -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mapou001@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-21 11:33 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <860adefa-3a62-4cdd-ba73-48f6bb45a09c@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #590207 |
On Thursday, July 21, 2016 at 10:11:23 AM UTC-7, Odd Bodkin wrote: > On 7/21/2016 12:01 PM, mapou001@gmail.com wrote: > > On Thursday, July 21, 2016 at 9:37:47 AM UTC-7, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >> On 7/21/2016 11:19 AM, mapou001@gmail.com wrote: > >>> There is no propagation of the field. It is a nonlocal phenomenon caused by nature > >>> correcting violations to some conservation principle. The electrostatic field must > >>> remain symmetrical around its source in order to obey Coulomb's inverse square law. > >>> The electrostatic field around a charged particle are caused by photons emanating > >>> from it. In order for the field to remain symmetrical, the photons must move in unison > >>> with the particle regardless of how far apart they are. Again,it's a nonlocal phenomenon. > >>> > >>> All the nonsense about charge particles broadcasting information about their relative > >>> velocities and positions into space is pure hogwash from the clueless physics community. > >>> No particle has information about its velocity relative to anything else. > >> > >> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Retarded_potential > >> This is a direct result of Maxwell's equations, of which Coulomb's law > >> is one. > >> Tell me again how this is incompatible with Coulomb's law? > > > > Why don't you eat your own shit and see if I give a shit? > > So you don't give a shit that you are making statements that you can't > back up and are easily shown to be in conflict with documented evidence. > > Fine, make your ass-fool statements that are OBVIOUSLY trash and then > tell everybody to fuck off if they don't buy them. Pound sand till it hurts, asshole. ahahaha...AHAHAHAHA...ahahahaha...
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Michael J. Strickland <michael06582@comcast.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-22 01:55 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <k4c3pbhgss9el7mhib6jblvdmh6otfl0sj@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #590196 |
On Thu, 21 Jul 2016 09:19:07 -0700 (PDT), mapou001@gmail.com wrote: >On Wednesday, July 20, 2016 at 11:56:13 PM UTC-7, Michael Strickland wrote: >> On Wed, 20 Jul 2016 13:52:35 -0700 (PDT), mapou001@gmail.com wrote: >> >> >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. >> >> Wrong. EM radiation (which is just the oscillation of the >> electrostatic field) propagates at the speed of light and not >> instantaneously. > >I never said anything about EM radiation or oscillation of the electrostatic field. Photons do travel at c. > >> Not many, if any, phenomenon propagate instantaneously since that >> usually requires infinite power. > >There is no propagation of the field. It is a nonlocal phenomenon caused by nature correcting violations to some conservation principle. The electrostatic field must remain symmetrical around its source in order to obey Coulomb's inverse square law. The electrostatic field around a charged particle are caused by photons emanating from it. In order for the field to remain symmetrical, the photons must move in unison with the particle regardless of how far apart they are. Again,it's a nonlocal phenomenon. That field around the stationary charge "caused by photons" propagates at v = c (as do photons). > >All the nonsense about charge particles broadcasting information about their relative velocities and positions into space is pure hogwash from the clueless physics community. No particle has information about its velocity relative to anything else. Moving charges are constantly "broadcasting" because their "virtual photonic" flux is seen to change at different points in space around them as they move. With the wave theory, the static potential field radiated by the source charge acquires different vector values as the source charge moves due to its distance and position changes relative to any given point in space at which you may wish to measure it. E = (kq_s * q_t) / r^2 and F = Eq where: F = Force E = electric field (vector) k = Coulomb's constant q_s = source charge q_t = test charge r = distance vector The change in electrostatic force (direction and magnitude) your distant test charge " feels" is delayed by the light travel time between the moving source charge and your test charge.. When charges move in a sinusoidal pattern (e.g. accelerating sinusoidally up and down in an antenna wire) this flux change takes the form of a sinusoidal EM wave. --------------------------------------------------- Michael J. Strickland Reston, VA ---------------------------------------------------
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mapou001@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-22 09:01 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <79576b43-9605-4b30-ab72-b88fe37a36e2@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #590277 |
On Thursday, July 21, 2016 at 10:55:48 PM UTC-7, Michael Strickland wrote: > On Thu, 21 Jul 2016 09:19:07 -0700 (PDT), mapou001@gmail.com wrote: > > >On Wednesday, July 20, 2016 at 11:56:13 PM UTC-7, Michael Strickland wrote: > >> On Wed, 20 Jul 2016 13:52:35 -0700 (PDT), mapou001@gmail.com wrote: > >> > >> >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. > >> > >> Wrong. EM radiation (which is just the oscillation of the > >> electrostatic field) propagates at the speed of light and not > >> instantaneously. > > > >I never said anything about EM radiation or oscillation of the electrostatic field. Photons do travel at c. > > > >> Not many, if any, phenomenon propagate instantaneously since that > >> usually requires infinite power. > > > >There is no propagation of the field. It is a nonlocal phenomenon caused by nature correcting violations to some conservation principle. The electrostatic field must remain symmetrical around its source in order to obey Coulomb's inverse square law. The electrostatic field around a charged particle are caused by photons emanating from it. In order for the field to remain symmetrical, the photons must move in unison with the particle regardless of how far apart they are. Again,it's a nonlocal phenomenon. > > That field around the stationary charge "caused by photons" propagates > at v = c (as do photons). > > > > >All the nonsense about charge particles broadcasting information about their relative velocities and positions into space is pure hogwash from the clueless physics community. No particle has information about its velocity relative to anything else. > > Moving charges are constantly "broadcasting" because their "virtual > photonic" flux is seen to change at different points in space around > them as they move. With the wave theory, the static potential field > radiated by the source charge acquires different vector values as the > source charge moves due to its distance and position changes relative > to any given point in space at which you may wish to measure it. Yes. Moving charge are constantly broadcasting with photons emanating from the charge and moving away from the charge at c. I have no problem with that. I do have a problem with the idea advanced by Steven Carlip and others that charges are continually broadcasting information about their positions and velocity out into space. This is ridiculous, stupid and absurd. No particle has any access to its position relative to anything else let alone its velocity. Carlip falsely attributes the observed instantaneous behavior of the electrostatic field to this broadcasting. > E = (kq_s * q_t) / r^2 and F = Eq > > where: > F = Force > E = electric field (vector) > k = Coulomb's constant > q_s = source charge > q_t = test charge > r = distance vector > > The change in electrostatic force (direction and magnitude) your > distant test charge " feels" is delayed by the light travel time > between the moving source charge and your test charge.. This is not observed, something that Carlip himself admits. The electrostatic field is observed to behave as if it were instantaneous. But Arlip is a diehard relativist. Einstein is always right in his view. He cannot accept spooky action at a distance because Einstein said it was impossible. So he and his fellow relativist crackpots invents a stinking pile of BS about broadcasting information re velocity and position to explain the observation so as not to falsify the Einsteinian model. It's devious, stupid and gutless. Steven Carlip and his band of lying relativists are gutless crackpots and con artists. They need to repent from this crap. Otherwise, fuck them.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-22 09:15 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <6e8fbe00-1c52-4b40-9517-96f5f8d4ad9e@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #590302 |
Mali said "This is not observed, something that Carlip himself admits. The electrostatic field is observed to behave as if it were instantaneous." Who observed? What were the error bars? Could it have just been, say, 9X faster?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mapou001@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-22 09:37 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <93421d54-8154-4b2b-a7be-0407a2ae6833@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #590306 |
On Friday, July 22, 2016 at 9:15:10 AM UTC-7, john wrote: > Mali said > "This is not observed, something that Carlip himself admits. The electrostatic field is observed to behave as if it were instantaneous." > Who observed? > What were the error bars? I'm taking Carlip's word on this since he's using it to defend his lame hypothesis that claims (without any kind of falsifiability) that both charges and masses broadcast information about their velocity and position. Here's what he wrote: Link: http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/GR/grav_speed.html [Begin quote] If a charged particle is moving at a constant velocity, it exerts a force that points toward its present position, not its retarded position, even though electromagnetic interactions certainly move at the speed of light. [End quote] > Could it have just been, say, 9X faster? You mean faster than c? No. Nothing moves faster than c. It's an instantaneous or nonlocal phenomenon. The changes are not propagated. They are manifested everywhere in the field instantly. Like I said. Carlip needs to come clean on this and recant his stupid BS. Otherwise, he's a lying asshole in my book. But then again, the physics community is filled with those.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-22 12:18 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <nmtkha$q2r$2@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #590307 |
On 7/22/2016 11:37 AM, mapou001@gmail.com wrote: > I'm taking Carlip's word on this And that's your problem, Louis. You are operating on soundbites and soundbites only. When you jump on a soundbite and misread it, then the obvious remedy is to READ SOMETHING more detailed than the soundbite. Misinterpreting soundbites as a vehicle for criticizing modern physics is a fool's errand. Your momma. -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mapou001@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-22 10:50 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <10d5c0ed-198a-4a0f-8fcc-1ac925fc35ac@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #590311 |
On Friday, July 22, 2016 at 10:18:39 AM UTC-7, Odd Bodkin wrote: > On 7/22/2016 11:37 AM, mapou001@gmail.com wrote: > > I'm taking Carlip's word on this > > And that's your problem, Louis. You are operating on soundbites and > soundbites only. When you jump on a soundbite and misread it, then the > obvious remedy is to READ SOMETHING more detailed than the soundbite. > > Misinterpreting soundbites as a vehicle for criticizing modern physics > is a fool's errand. Your momma. > > -- > Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables Your momma sucks cock in hell. ahahaha...AHAHAHAH...ahahahaha...
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-22 13:42 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <nmtpeo$11nj$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #590315 |
On 7/22/2016 12:50 PM, mapou001@gmail.com wrote: > On Friday, July 22, 2016 at 10:18:39 AM UTC-7, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> On 7/22/2016 11:37 AM, mapou001@gmail.com wrote: >>> I'm taking Carlip's word on this >> >> And that's your problem, Louis. You are operating on soundbites and >> soundbites only. When you jump on a soundbite and misread it, then the >> obvious remedy is to READ SOMETHING more detailed than the soundbite. >> >> Misinterpreting soundbites as a vehicle for criticizing modern physics >> is a fool's errand. Your momma. >> >> -- >> Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables > > Your momma sucks cock in hell. Maybe. She's dead. What she's up to now, I'm not sure. Did you have a point? > > ahahaha...AHAHAHAH...ahahahaha... > -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mapou001@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-22 11:44 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <c59f6976-49d0-4263-bebb-770b6d259aa1@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #590326 |
On Friday, July 22, 2016 at 11:42:37 AM UTC-7, Odd Bodkin wrote: > On 7/22/2016 12:50 PM, mapou001@gmail.com wrote: > > On Friday, July 22, 2016 at 10:18:39 AM UTC-7, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >> On 7/22/2016 11:37 AM, mapou001@gmail.com wrote: > >>> I'm taking Carlip's word on this > >> > >> And that's your problem, Louis. You are operating on soundbites and > >> soundbites only. When you jump on a soundbite and misread it, then the > >> obvious remedy is to READ SOMETHING more detailed than the soundbite. > >> > >> Misinterpreting soundbites as a vehicle for criticizing modern physics > >> is a fool's errand. Your momma. > >> > >> -- > >> Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables > > > > Your momma sucks cock in hell. > > Maybe. She's dead. What she's up to now, I'm not sure. > Did you have a point? > > > > > ahahaha...AHAHAHAH...ahahahaha... > > > > > -- > Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables Pound sand up your ass and see if I give a shit. ahahaha...AHAHAHAHA...ahahahaha...
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-22 13:52 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <nmtq1m$12hq$2@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #590327 |
On 7/22/2016 1:44 PM, mapou001@gmail.com wrote: > On Friday, July 22, 2016 at 11:42:37 AM UTC-7, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> On 7/22/2016 12:50 PM, mapou001@gmail.com wrote: >>> On Friday, July 22, 2016 at 10:18:39 AM UTC-7, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>> On 7/22/2016 11:37 AM, mapou001@gmail.com wrote: >>>>> I'm taking Carlip's word on this >>>> >>>> And that's your problem, Louis. You are operating on soundbites and >>>> soundbites only. When you jump on a soundbite and misread it, then the >>>> obvious remedy is to READ SOMETHING more detailed than the soundbite. >>>> >>>> Misinterpreting soundbites as a vehicle for criticizing modern physics >>>> is a fool's errand. Your momma. >>>> >>>> -- >>>> Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables >>> >>> Your momma sucks cock in hell. >> >> Maybe. She's dead. What she's up to now, I'm not sure. >> Did you have a point? >> >>> >>> ahahaha...AHAHAHAH...ahahahaha... >>> >> >> >> -- >> Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables > > Pound sand up your ass and see if I give a shit. OK, so no point. That's what I thought. Just checking. > > ahahaha...AHAHAHAHA...ahahahaha... > -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mapou001@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-22 11:57 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <051c4300-4ed7-4da8-813b-3e32fb596a00@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #590330 |
On Friday, July 22, 2016 at 11:52:43 AM UTC-7, Odd Bodkin wrote: > On 7/22/2016 1:44 PM, mapou001@gmail.com wrote: > > On Friday, July 22, 2016 at 11:42:37 AM UTC-7, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >> On 7/22/2016 12:50 PM, mapou001@gmail.com wrote: > >>> On Friday, July 22, 2016 at 10:18:39 AM UTC-7, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >>>> On 7/22/2016 11:37 AM, mapou001@gmail.com wrote: > >>>>> I'm taking Carlip's word on this > >>>> > >>>> And that's your problem, Louis. You are operating on soundbites and > >>>> soundbites only. When you jump on a soundbite and misread it, then the > >>>> obvious remedy is to READ SOMETHING more detailed than the soundbite. > >>>> > >>>> Misinterpreting soundbites as a vehicle for criticizing modern physics > >>>> is a fool's errand. Your momma. > >>>> > >>>> -- > >>>> Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables > >>> > >>> Your momma sucks cock in hell. > >> > >> Maybe. She's dead. What she's up to now, I'm not sure. > >> Did you have a point? > >> > >>> > >>> ahahaha...AHAHAHAH...ahahahaha... > >>> > >> > >> > >> -- > >> Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables > > > > Pound sand up your ass and see if I give a shit. > > OK, so no point. That's what I thought. Just checking. > > > > > ahahaha...AHAHAHAHA...ahahahaha... > > > > > -- > Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables Fuck you and the mule you sleep with. ahahaha...AHAHAHAHA...ahahahaha...
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-22 14:14 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <nmtrau$14h7$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #590331 |
On 7/22/2016 1:57 PM, mapou001@gmail.com wrote: > > Fuck you and the mule you sleep with. > > ahahaha...AHAHAHAHA...ahahahaha... > Fun! If I were to jump from your ego to your intelligence, I would die of old age before landing. -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-22 14:32 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <nmtscq$161b$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #590327 |
On 7/22/2016 1:44 PM, mapou001@gmail.com wrote: > Pound sand up your ass and see if I give a shit. Oh you can do better than that. You lie beneath beneath beneath beneath beneath bottom. You smell like ranch dressing. I'd call you a cunt, but you lack the warmth and depth. Your ass must be jealous of the amount of shit that comes out of your mouth. I'd say you know nothing, but that'd be denying the existence of negative numbers. I'd explain things to you again, but frankly I don't have the time or the crayons. The Richter scale was invented to measure your father's disappointment. So, how do things look on the other side of the Bell curve? Oooh, your face looks like it was on fire and somebody tried to put it out with a wet brick. You are Comic Sans personified. If you were any more inbred, you'd be a sandwich. -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mapou001@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-22 13:00 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <8f6105b4-4759-47ba-ad65-bed21a127b3f@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #590343 |
On Friday, July 22, 2016 at 12:32:47 PM UTC-7, Odd Bodkin wrote: > On 7/22/2016 1:44 PM, mapou001@gmail.com wrote: > > Pound sand up your ass and see if I give a shit. > > Oh you can do better than that. > > You lie beneath beneath beneath beneath beneath bottom. > > You smell like ranch dressing. > > I'd call you a cunt, but you lack the warmth and depth. > > Your ass must be jealous of the amount of shit that comes out of your mouth. > > I'd say you know nothing, but that'd be denying the existence of > negative numbers. > > I'd explain things to you again, but frankly I don't have the time or > the crayons. > > The Richter scale was invented to measure your father's disappointment. > > So, how do things look on the other side of the Bell curve? > > Oooh, your face looks like it was on fire and somebody tried to put it > out with a wet brick. > > You are Comic Sans personified. > > If you were any more inbred, you'd be a sandwich. > > > > -- > Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables Fuck you. ahahaha...AHAHAHAHA...ahahahaha...
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 2 of 5 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 5 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics
csiph-web