Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics > #693253 > unrolled thread
| Started by | poraty6@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| First post | 2018-07-08 23:08 -0700 |
| Last post | 2018-07-10 07:46 -0700 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 47 — 6 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.physics
SPACE IS NOT CURVED AND NOT ..there is something elese poraty6@gmail.com - 2018-07-08 23:08 -0700
Re: SPACE IS NOT CURVED AND NOT ..there is something elese Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-07-09 10:20 +0000
Re: SPACE IS NOT CURVED AND NOT ..there is something elese poraty6@gmail.com - 2018-07-09 06:03 -0700
Re: SPACE IS NOT CURVED AND NOT ..there is something elese Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-07-09 13:15 +0000
Re: SPACE IS NOT CURVED AND NOT ..there is something elese poraty6@gmail.com - 2018-07-09 10:09 -0700
Re: SPACE IS NOT CURVED AND NOT ..there is something elese Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-07-09 22:17 +0000
Re: SPACE IS NOT CURVED AND NOT ..there is something elese mitchrae3323@gmail.com - 2018-07-09 15:36 -0700
Re: SPACE IS NOT CURVED AND NOT ..there is something elese poraty6@gmail.com - 2018-07-09 16:43 -0700
Re: SPACE IS NOT CURVED AND NOT ..there is something elese mitchrae3323@gmail.com - 2018-07-09 16:47 -0700
Re: SPACE IS NOT CURVED AND NOT ..there is something elese Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-07-11 10:54 -0500
Re: SPACE IS NOT CURVED AND NOT ..there is something elese poraty6@gmail.com - 2018-07-11 09:32 -0700
Re: SPACE IS NOT CURVED AND NOT ..there is something elese mitchrae3323@gmail.com - 2018-07-11 21:59 -0700
Re: SPACE IS NOT CURVED AND NOT ..there is something elese poraty6@gmail.com - 2018-07-11 23:48 -0700
Re: SPACE IS NOT CURVED AND NOT ..there is something elese poraty6@gmail.com - 2018-07-09 16:38 -0700
Re: SPACE IS NOT CURVED AND NOT ..there is something elese poraty6@gmail.com - 2018-07-09 17:24 -0700
Re: SPACE IS NOT CURVED AND NOT ..there is something elese poraty6@gmail.com - 2018-07-09 18:20 -0700
Re: SPACE IS NOT CURVED AND NOT ..there is something elese Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-07-10 03:05 +0000
Re: SPACE IS NOT CURVED AND NOT ..there is something elese poraty6@gmail.com - 2018-07-09 21:00 -0700
Re: SPACE IS NOT CURVED AND NOT ..there is something elese Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-07-10 04:19 +0000
Re: SPACE IS NOT CURVED AND NOT ..there is something elese poraty6@gmail.com - 2018-07-10 00:50 -0700
Re: SPACE IS NOT CURVED AND NOT ..there is something elese poraty6@gmail.com - 2018-07-10 02:22 -0700
Re: SPACE IS NOT CURVED AND NOT ..there is something elese Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-07-10 10:09 +0000
Re: SPACE IS NOT CURVED AND NOT ..there is something elese poraty6@gmail.com - 2018-07-10 03:58 -0700
Re: SPACE IS NOT CURVED AND NOT ..there is something elese Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-07-10 11:14 +0000
Re: SPACE IS NOT CURVED AND NOT ..there is something elese poraty6@gmail.com - 2018-07-10 07:59 -0700
Re: SPACE IS NOT CURVED AND NOT ..there is something elese Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-07-10 17:43 +0000
Re: SPACE IS NOT CURVED AND NOT ..there is something elese Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-07-10 17:45 +0000
Re: SPACE IS NOT CURVED AND NOT ..there is something elese mitchrae3323@gmail.com - 2018-07-10 12:33 -0700
Re: SPACE IS NOT CURVED AND NOT ..there is something elese poraty6@gmail.com - 2018-07-10 16:23 -0700
Re: SPACE IS NOT CURVED AND NOT ..there is something elese Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-07-10 23:29 +0000
Re: SPACE IS NOT CURVED AND NOT ..there is something elese poraty6@gmail.com - 2018-07-10 16:50 -0700
Re: SPACE IS NOT CURVED AND NOT ..there is something elese poraty6@gmail.com - 2018-07-10 18:18 -0700
Re: SPACE IS NOT CURVED AND NOT ..there is something elese Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-07-11 03:36 +0000
Re: SPACE IS NOT CURVED AND NOT ..there is something elese poraty6@gmail.com - 2018-07-10 23:48 -0700
Re: SPACE IS NOT CURVED AND NOT ..there is something elese poraty6@gmail.com - 2018-07-11 00:17 -0700
Re: SPACE IS NOT CURVED AND NOT ..there is something elese Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-07-11 09:39 +0000
Re: SPACE IS NOT CURVED AND NOT ..there is something elese Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-07-11 09:39 +0000
Re: SPACE IS NOT CURVED AND NOT ..there is something elese poraty6@gmail.com - 2018-07-11 05:42 -0700
Re: SPACE IS NOT CURVED AND NOT ..there is something elese Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-07-11 12:51 +0000
Re: SPACE IS NOT CURVED AND NOT ..there is something elese poraty6@gmail.com - 2018-07-11 08:25 -0700
Re: SPACE IS NOT CURVED AND NOT ..there is something elese Rod Chesterson <invalid@example.com> - 2018-07-11 21:21 -0700
Re: SPACE IS NOT CURVED AND NOT ..there is something elese poraty6@gmail.com - 2018-07-11 21:48 -0700
Re: SPACE IS NOT CURVED AND NOT ..there is something elese Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-07-11 03:36 +0000
Re: SPACE IS NOT CURVED AND NOT ..there is something elese poraty6@gmail.com - 2018-07-10 16:37 -0700
Re: SPACE IS NOT CURVED AND NOT ..there is something elese Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-07-11 03:36 +0000
Re: SPACE IS NOT CURVED AND NOT ..there is something elese Dave Smith <invalid@example.com> - 2018-07-10 07:22 -0700
Re: SPACE IS NOT CURVED AND NOT ..there is something elese poraty6@gmail.com - 2018-07-10 07:46 -0700
Page 2 of 3 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 Next page →
| From | poraty6@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-07-10 02:22 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: SPACE IS NOT CURVED AND NOT ..there is something elese |
| Message-ID | <225d3f28-3156-4922-81b7-77ca052d25e9@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #693436 |
On Tuesday, July 10, 2018 at 10:50:22 AM UTC+3, por...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Tuesday, July 10, 2018 at 7:19:06 AM UTC+3, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> > <poraty6@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On Tuesday, July 10, 2018 at 6:05:15 AM UTC+3, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> > >> <poraty6@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >>> On Tuesday, July 10, 2018 at 1:17:36 AM UTC+3, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> > >>>> <poraty6@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >>>>> On Monday, July 9, 2018 at 4:15:50 PM UTC+3, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> > >>>>>> <poraty6@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >>>>>>> On Monday, July 9, 2018 at 1:20:04 PM UTC+3, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> > >>>>>>>> <poraty6@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >>>>>>>>> space has not curvature and no 'schmervature ''
> > >>>>>>>>> space is nothing and has no properties whatsoever
> > >>>>>>>>> EXCEPT - HOSTONG MASS !!!
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>> I m so happy for you that God whispered this information to you, a prophet,
> > >>>>>>>> and that you need no experimental test to know that it is true.
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>> while mass is the main 'hero' of physics
> > >>>>>>>>> it has some unknown yet
> > >>>>>>>>> sub particles -
> > >>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>> -THAT MOVE 'NATURALLY' IN CURVED LINES !!
> > >>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>> if you want to get a little hint for it
> > >>>>>>>>> see
> > >>>>>>>>> the 'force lines of a magnet
> > >>>>>>>>> Michel Faraday was the first one to start revealing them
> > >>>>>>>>> by his famous
> > >>>>>>>>> magnet lines force makers
> > >>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>> in that ingenious experiment
> > >>>>>>>>> he enabled us the first time
> > >>>>>>>>> to literally ** see*; them/get a hint/get a new idea
> > >>>>>>>>> about that big unknown yet WORLD/'continent '''
> > >>>>>>>>> and that was just the first only tangible experiment
> > >>>>>>>>> 2
> > >>>>>>>>> indirectly
> > >>>>>>>>> we can more than guess about it
> > >>>>>>>>> by knowing about gravitation facts !!
> > >>>>>>>>> ie
> > >>>>>>>>> in which points/locations it exist
> > >>>>>>>>> and in which points it does not
> > >>>>>>>>> (stronger and weaker
> > >>>>>>>>> more dense and less dense
> > >>>>>>>>> or not at all etc. )!
> > >>>>>>>>> =====> > TIA
> > >>>>>>>>> Y.Porat
> > >>>>>>>>> ========================
> > >>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>> --
> > >>>>>>>> Odd Bodkin Maker of fine toys, tools, tables
> > >>>>>>> =======================(:-)
> > >>>>>>> thank you for your interest in me
> > >>>>>>> are you envy
> > >>>>>>> 2
> > >>>>>>> I explained things quite a few times
> > >>>>>>> and it seems that you didn't follow
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>> I asked In that ng
> > >>>>>>> a question
> > >>>>>>> that is based on **observations**
> > >>>>>>> bus a little need for the gray stuff in our skulls
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>> Not a good idea. Just thinking about things without reference to data is
> > >>>>>> a fool s prescription. Your description of space is not consistent with
> > >>>>>> data.
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> ====================I thought once that you are at least a gentleman...
> > >>>>> do you what to change my idea about you ??
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> who is the fool ?
> > >>>>> that is how a real scientist talk
> > >>>>> or a fish market merchant talk ?
> > >>>>> 2
> > >>>>> now genius smarty
> > >>>>> I am going to ask you a little question :
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> we realize that there is some connection between
> > >>>>> mass and forces
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> now my question to you as a great scalar''
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> what is more reasonable to you
> > >>>>> 1
> > >>>>> forces are creating masses ??
> > >>>>> 2
> > >>>>> masses are creating forces ??
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Neither.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Odd Bodkin Maker of fine toys, tools, tables
> > >>> ==================(:-) !!!
> > >>> Neither ??
> > >>>
> > >>> so I will ask it differently
> > >>>
> > >>> wha1
> > >>> t is more likely :
> > >>>
> > >>> conglomeration of masses
> > >>> are creating forces
> > >>> 2
> > >>> conglomeration of forces
> > >>> or any forces
> > >>> are/is creating conglomeration of masses ??
> > >>> =====TIA
> > >>> Y.Porat
> > >>> ======================> >
> > >>
> > >> You re still missing pieces. And your still living in classical Newtonian
> > >> physics.
> > >>
> > >> --
> > >> Odd Bodkin Maker of fine toys, tools, tables
> > > ==============wrong !!
> > > you still don't get my
> > > Y Circlon ad y circlon mechanism !!
> > >
> > > they circlon
> > > is a very basic particle
> > > that
> > > MOVES NATURALLY IN A CURVED LINE !
> > >
> > > not because f en curved space
> > > but that is how' it was born ''
> > > ie
> > > a new basic assumption !!
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > not like Newton that claims ,movement in a straight line !!!
> > > now you can ask:
> > > there is still movement in a straight line
> > > so how come ??
> > > I say
> > > no contradiction :
> > > the circlon moves I n a closed o not closed circular
> > > path
> > > yet
> > > its *center POINT* of movement -can move
> > > in a straight line !!
> > > ie
> > > ACOMPOSITE MOVEMENT !!
> > > difficult for a mathematician ??
> > > but not difficult for a creative experienced mind
> > > the through is that I didn't get it at once
> > > it took me years of thinking
> > > as a 3D experienced engineer
> > > while I say
> > > I didn't think about it all along the day...
> > > of those years
> > > but from time to time at my free time
> > > if not buddy in other troubles of life &.
> > > (that are not missing me as an old goat of 80 years
> > > that is still walking about 8 km a day..
> > > with his head on his shoulders (:-)
> > > and thinking about anything in our troubles world &
> > > yet no ne
> > > can take away from me
> > > my unprecedented achievements
> > > because my good teachers thought me
> > > DONT BE A PARROT !!!!!!
> > >
> > > it is not my say
> > > it is a say of one of my good teachers !!
> > > and that was
> > > how I behaved while designing
> > > about 70 bridges (I forgot hoe many ==many of them with unprecedented innovations !!
> > > not only in physics
> > > that I invested in
> > > studying physics may years as well
> > > including writing a book !!
> > > including learning from people even
> > > in that ng as well !!
> > > --
> > > if not clear
> > > just ask more
> >
> > None of the above has anything to do with your weird claim that space has
> > no physical properties except hosting mass, a claim you have not
> > substantiated with data.
> >
> > =================
> ("-)
>
> substantiated with data ???
>
> if space is empty
> what does it mean empty ???
>
> empty is nothing
> and no properties at all
> the fact that ''you ' invented properties to space
> is not a prove
> it is ''fitting facts''(manipulating ) to some thing that is nothing more than a guess !!
> 2
> another thing to understand
>
> if energy is mass in motion
> that motion OF MASS must be …….RECICLED !!!!!!
> or else ….!!!!!
> just guess what will be then
> (if it will not be recycled ??!!
> I don't what to spoon feed you at that problem/point
> I would like to here it from you !!
> =====
> TIA
> Y.Porat
> =======================================
>
> btw
> our current discussion is very important ….
> =========================================
and another fact
does all the specialist of ''curved space
know that
curved space '' story
DOES NOT APPLY THE STRONG FORCES OF THE NUCLEUS ???!!
so
we have special curved space to/for big object
and another curved space or another ''patent
or no curved space at all
for protons electrons ??
if so ??
how is the mechanism of tiny protons electrons etc work
or/for other very tiny objects/masses ???!!!
=====================
TIA
Y.Porat
===========================
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-07-10 10:09 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: SPACE IS NOT CURVED AND NOT ..there is something elese |
| Message-ID | <pi20l7$711$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #693436 |
<poraty6@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tuesday, July 10, 2018 at 7:19:06 AM UTC+3, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>> <poraty6@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Tuesday, July 10, 2018 at 6:05:15 AM UTC+3, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>>>> <poraty6@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> On Tuesday, July 10, 2018 at 1:17:36 AM UTC+3, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>>>>>> <poraty6@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> On Monday, July 9, 2018 at 4:15:50 PM UTC+3, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>>>>>>>> <poraty6@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Monday, July 9, 2018 at 1:20:04 PM UTC+3, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> <poraty6@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> space has not curvature and no 'schmervature ''
>>>>>>>>>>> space is nothing and has no properties whatsoever
>>>>>>>>>>> EXCEPT - HOSTONG MASS !!!
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I m so happy for you that God whispered this information to you, a prophet,
>>>>>>>>>> and that you need no experimental test to know that it is true.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> while mass is the main 'hero' of physics
>>>>>>>>>>> it has some unknown yet
>>>>>>>>>>> sub particles -
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> -THAT MOVE 'NATURALLY' IN CURVED LINES !!
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> if you want to get a little hint for it
>>>>>>>>>>> see
>>>>>>>>>>> the 'force lines of a magnet
>>>>>>>>>>> Michel Faraday was the first one to start revealing them
>>>>>>>>>>> by his famous
>>>>>>>>>>> magnet lines force makers
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> in that ingenious experiment
>>>>>>>>>>> he enabled us the first time
>>>>>>>>>>> to literally ** see*; them/get a hint/get a new idea
>>>>>>>>>>> about that big unknown yet WORLD/'continent '''
>>>>>>>>>>> and that was just the first only tangible experiment
>>>>>>>>>>> 2
>>>>>>>>>>> indirectly
>>>>>>>>>>> we can more than guess about it
>>>>>>>>>>> by knowing about gravitation facts !!
>>>>>>>>>>> ie
>>>>>>>>>>> in which points/locations it exist
>>>>>>>>>>> and in which points it does not
>>>>>>>>>>> (stronger and weaker
>>>>>>>>>>> more dense and less dense
>>>>>>>>>>> or not at all etc. )!
>>>>>>>>>>> =====> > TIA
>>>>>>>>>>> Y.Porat
>>>>>>>>>>> ========================
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>>> Odd Bodkin Maker of fine toys, tools, tables
>>>>>>>>> =======================(:-)
>>>>>>>>> thank you for your interest in me
>>>>>>>>> are you envy
>>>>>>>>> 2
>>>>>>>>> I explained things quite a few times
>>>>>>>>> and it seems that you didn't follow
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I asked In that ng
>>>>>>>>> a question
>>>>>>>>> that is based on **observations**
>>>>>>>>> bus a little need for the gray stuff in our skulls
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Not a good idea. Just thinking about things without reference to data is
>>>>>>>> a fool s prescription. Your description of space is not consistent with
>>>>>>>> data.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> ====================I thought once that you are at least a gentleman...
>>>>>>> do you what to change my idea about you ??
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> who is the fool ?
>>>>>>> that is how a real scientist talk
>>>>>>> or a fish market merchant talk ?
>>>>>>> 2
>>>>>>> now genius smarty
>>>>>>> I am going to ask you a little question :
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> we realize that there is some connection between
>>>>>>> mass and forces
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> now my question to you as a great scalar''
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> what is more reasonable to you
>>>>>>> 1
>>>>>>> forces are creating masses ??
>>>>>>> 2
>>>>>>> masses are creating forces ??
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Neither.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Odd Bodkin Maker of fine toys, tools, tables
>>>>> ==================(:-) !!!
>>>>> Neither ??
>>>>>
>>>>> so I will ask it differently
>>>>>
>>>>> wha1
>>>>> t is more likely :
>>>>>
>>>>> conglomeration of masses
>>>>> are creating forces
>>>>> 2
>>>>> conglomeration of forces
>>>>> or any forces
>>>>> are/is creating conglomeration of masses ??
>>>>> =====TIA
>>>>> Y.Porat
>>>>> ======================> >
>>>>
>>>> You re still missing pieces. And your still living in classical Newtonian
>>>> physics.
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Odd Bodkin Maker of fine toys, tools, tables
>>> ==============wrong !!
>>> you still don't get my
>>> Y Circlon ad y circlon mechanism !!
>>>
>>> they circlon
>>> is a very basic particle
>>> that
>>> MOVES NATURALLY IN A CURVED LINE !
>>>
>>> not because f en curved space
>>> but that is how' it was born ''
>>> ie
>>> a new basic assumption !!
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> not like Newton that claims ,movement in a straight line !!!
>>> now you can ask:
>>> there is still movement in a straight line
>>> so how come ??
>>> I say
>>> no contradiction :
>>> the circlon moves I n a closed o not closed circular
>>> path
>>> yet
>>> its *center POINT* of movement -can move
>>> in a straight line !!
>>> ie
>>> ACOMPOSITE MOVEMENT !!
>>> difficult for a mathematician ??
>>> but not difficult for a creative experienced mind
>>> the through is that I didn't get it at once
>>> it took me years of thinking
>>> as a 3D experienced engineer
>>> while I say
>>> I didn't think about it all along the day...
>>> of those years
>>> but from time to time at my free time
>>> if not buddy in other troubles of life &.
>>> (that are not missing me as an old goat of 80 years
>>> that is still walking about 8 km a day..
>>> with his head on his shoulders (:-)
>>> and thinking about anything in our troubles world &
>>> yet no ne
>>> can take away from me
>>> my unprecedented achievements
>>> because my good teachers thought me
>>> DONT BE A PARROT !!!!!!
>>>
>>> it is not my say
>>> it is a say of one of my good teachers !!
>>> and that was
>>> how I behaved while designing
>>> about 70 bridges (I forgot hoe many ==many of them with unprecedented innovations !!
>>> not only in physics
>>> that I invested in
>>> studying physics may years as well
>>> including writing a book !!
>>> including learning from people even
>>> in that ng as well !!
>>> --
>>> if not clear
>>> just ask more
>>
>> None of the above has anything to do with your weird claim that space has
>> no physical properties except hosting mass, a claim you have not
>> substantiated with data.
>>
>> ================("-)
>
> substantiated with data ???
Yes.
>
> if space is empty
> what does it mean empty ???
It doesn’t mean what you think it means. It means there is a volume with no
persistent matter within it. That’s all.
Most of all, human words and human definitions of those words never dictate
to nature what it is. Nature is what it is, and we determine what it is by
observational data, and then and only then do we decide which of our human
words we should use to describe it.
>
> empty is nothing
> and no properties at all
No sir. That is not what it means. Data first, then you choose the right
words to describe what is suggested by the data.
> the fact that ''you ' invented properties to space
Nobody invented the properties of space. Those properties were DISCOVERED.
> is not a prove
> it is ''fitting facts''(manipulating ) to some thing that is nothing more than a guess !!
> 2
> another thing to understand
>
> if energy is mass in motion
And again you have made a mistake. That is not the correct definition of
energy. For example, do you know the meaning of potential energy? If so,
please share your recollection of the definition of that term.
> that motion OF MASS must be &&.RECICLED !!!!!!
> or else &.!!!!!
> just guess what will be then
> (if it will not be recycled ??!!
> I don't what to spoon feed you at that problem/point
> I would like to here it from you !!
> ====TIA
> Y.Porat
> ======================================
> btw
> our current discussion is very important &.
> ========================================
>
--
Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | poraty6@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-07-10 03:58 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: SPACE IS NOT CURVED AND NOT ..there is something elese |
| Message-ID | <e1008863-66cd-4540-a199-6557bff835e2@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #693444 |
On Tuesday, July 10, 2018 at 1:09:48 PM UTC+3, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> <poraty6@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Tuesday, July 10, 2018 at 7:19:06 AM UTC+3, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> >> <poraty6@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>> On Tuesday, July 10, 2018 at 6:05:15 AM UTC+3, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> >>>> <poraty6@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>> On Tuesday, July 10, 2018 at 1:17:36 AM UTC+3, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> >>>>>> <poraty6@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>> On Monday, July 9, 2018 at 4:15:50 PM UTC+3, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> >>>>>>>> <poraty6@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> On Monday, July 9, 2018 at 1:20:04 PM UTC+3, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>> <poraty6@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>> space has not curvature and no 'schmervature ''
> >>>>>>>>>>> space is nothing and has no properties whatsoever
> >>>>>>>>>>> EXCEPT - HOSTONG MASS !!!
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> I m so happy for you that God whispered this information to you, a prophet,
> >>>>>>>>>> and that you need no experimental test to know that it is true.
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> while mass is the main 'hero' of physics
> >>>>>>>>>>> it has some unknown yet
> >>>>>>>>>>> sub particles -
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> -THAT MOVE 'NATURALLY' IN CURVED LINES !!
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> if you want to get a little hint for it
> >>>>>>>>>>> see
> >>>>>>>>>>> the 'force lines of a magnet
> >>>>>>>>>>> Michel Faraday was the first one to start revealing them
> >>>>>>>>>>> by his famous
> >>>>>>>>>>> magnet lines force makers
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> in that ingenious experiment
> >>>>>>>>>>> he enabled us the first time
> >>>>>>>>>>> to literally ** see*; them/get a hint/get a new idea
> >>>>>>>>>>> about that big unknown yet WORLD/'continent '''
> >>>>>>>>>>> and that was just the first only tangible experiment
> >>>>>>>>>>> 2
> >>>>>>>>>>> indirectly
> >>>>>>>>>>> we can more than guess about it
> >>>>>>>>>>> by knowing about gravitation facts !!
> >>>>>>>>>>> ie
> >>>>>>>>>>> in which points/locations it exist
> >>>>>>>>>>> and in which points it does not
> >>>>>>>>>>> (stronger and weaker
> >>>>>>>>>>> more dense and less dense
> >>>>>>>>>>> or not at all etc. )!
> >>>>>>>>>>> =====> > TIA
> >>>>>>>>>>> Y.Porat
> >>>>>>>>>>> ========================
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> --
> >>>>>>>>>> Odd Bodkin Maker of fine toys, tools, tables
> >>>>>>>>> =======================(:-)
> >>>>>>>>> thank you for your interest in me
> >>>>>>>>> are you envy
> >>>>>>>>> 2
> >>>>>>>>> I explained things quite a few times
> >>>>>>>>> and it seems that you didn't follow
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> I asked In that ng
> >>>>>>>>> a question
> >>>>>>>>> that is based on **observations**
> >>>>>>>>> bus a little need for the gray stuff in our skulls
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Not a good idea. Just thinking about things without reference to data is
> >>>>>>>> a fool s prescription. Your description of space is not consistent with
> >>>>>>>> data.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> ====================I thought once that you are at least a gentleman...
> >>>>>>> do you what to change my idea about you ??
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> who is the fool ?
> >>>>>>> that is how a real scientist talk
> >>>>>>> or a fish market merchant talk ?
> >>>>>>> 2
> >>>>>>> now genius smarty
> >>>>>>> I am going to ask you a little question :
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> we realize that there is some connection between
> >>>>>>> mass and forces
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> now my question to you as a great scalar''
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> what is more reasonable to you
> >>>>>>> 1
> >>>>>>> forces are creating masses ??
> >>>>>>> 2
> >>>>>>> masses are creating forces ??
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Neither.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Odd Bodkin Maker of fine toys, tools, tables
> >>>>> ==================(:-) !!!
> >>>>> Neither ??
> >>>>>
> >>>>> so I will ask it differently
> >>>>>
> >>>>> wha1
> >>>>> t is more likely :
> >>>>>
> >>>>> conglomeration of masses
> >>>>> are creating forces
> >>>>> 2
> >>>>> conglomeration of forces
> >>>>> or any forces
> >>>>> are/is creating conglomeration of masses ??
> >>>>> =====TIA
> >>>>> Y.Porat
> >>>>> ======================> >
> >>>>
> >>>> You re still missing pieces. And your still living in classical Newtonian
> >>>> physics.
> >>>>
> >>>> --
> >>>> Odd Bodkin Maker of fine toys, tools, tables
> >>> ==============wrong !!
> >>> you still don't get my
> >>> Y Circlon ad y circlon mechanism !!
> >>>
> >>> they circlon
> >>> is a very basic particle
> >>> that
> >>> MOVES NATURALLY IN A CURVED LINE !
> >>>
> >>> not because f en curved space
> >>> but that is how' it was born ''
> >>> ie
> >>> a new basic assumption !!
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> not like Newton that claims ,movement in a straight line !!!
> >>> now you can ask:
> >>> there is still movement in a straight line
> >>> so how come ??
> >>> I say
> >>> no contradiction :
> >>> the circlon moves I n a closed o not closed circular
> >>> path
> >>> yet
> >>> its *center POINT* of movement -can move
> >>> in a straight line !!
> >>> ie
> >>> ACOMPOSITE MOVEMENT !!
> >>> difficult for a mathematician ??
> >>> but not difficult for a creative experienced mind
> >>> the through is that I didn't get it at once
> >>> it took me years of thinking
> >>> as a 3D experienced engineer
> >>> while I say
> >>> I didn't think about it all along the day...
> >>> of those years
> >>> but from time to time at my free time
> >>> if not buddy in other troubles of life &.
> >>> (that are not missing me as an old goat of 80 years
> >>> that is still walking about 8 km a day..
> >>> with his head on his shoulders (:-)
> >>> and thinking about anything in our troubles world &
> >>> yet no ne
> >>> can take away from me
> >>> my unprecedented achievements
> >>> because my good teachers thought me
> >>> DONT BE A PARROT !!!!!!
> >>>
> >>> it is not my say
> >>> it is a say of one of my good teachers !!
> >>> and that was
> >>> how I behaved while designing
> >>> about 70 bridges (I forgot hoe many ==many of them with unprecedented innovations !!
> >>> not only in physics
> >>> that I invested in
> >>> studying physics may years as well
> >>> including writing a book !!
> >>> including learning from people even
> >>> in that ng as well !!
> >>> --
> >>> if not clear
> >>> just ask more
> >>
> >> None of the above has anything to do with your weird claim that space has
> >> no physical properties except hosting mass, a claim you have not
> >> substantiated with data.
> >>
> >> ================("-)
> >
> > substantiated with data ???
>
> Yes.
>
> >
> > if space is empty
> > what does it mean empty ???
>
> It doesn’t mean what you think it means. It means there is a volume with no
> persistent matter within it. That’s all.
=========
no persistent matter ?
so what else ?? absolute nothing ??
so
wHAT can absolute nothing - DO act
react ?????
in short as if it was not there at all !!???
>
> Most of all, human words and human definitions of those words never dictate
> to nature
--
? so it is as if it was not said at all !!??
if so
why to say it
termine what it is by
??
==
> observational data, and then and only then do we decide which of our human
> words we should use to describe it.
>====
better not to do it before opening our mouth
> >
> > empty is nothing
> > and no properties at all
>
> No sir. That is not what it means. Data first, then you choose the right
> words to describe what is suggested by the data.
ok
what is your data about empty space ??
====
>
> > the fact that ''you ' invented properties to space
>
> Nobody invented the properties of space.
did I suggested something Those properties
of empty space
quite the opposite
that is what I say all along
JUST FORGET ABOUT EMPTY SPACE
AS HAVING ANY PRASCTICAL EANING
in other words
let s forget about empty space as something that means
something to physics
and ore important
le us look for something at does !! act
and really**makes the gravitation
DISCOVERED.
>
> > is not a prove
> > it is ''fitting facts''(manipulating ) to some thing that is nothing more than a guess !!
> > 2
> > another thing to understand
> >
> > if energy is mass in motion
>
> And again you have made a mistake. That is not the correct definition of
> energy. For example, do you know the meaning of potential energy?
==================
=we are not with potential energy
that is obfuscation !!!
If so,
> please share your recollection of the definition of that term.
????
==
>
> > that motion OF MASS must be &&.RECICLED !!!!!!
> > or else &.!!!!!
> > just guess what will be then
> > (if it will not be recycled ??!!
> > I don't want to spoon feed t that problem/point
> > I would like to here it from you !!
> > ====TIA
> > Y.Porat
> > ======================================
>
> --
> Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables
=====================
YIA
y Porat
===================
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-07-10 11:14 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: SPACE IS NOT CURVED AND NOT ..there is something elese |
| Message-ID | <pi24fa$e95$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #693446 |
<poraty6@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tuesday, July 10, 2018 at 1:09:48 PM UTC+3, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>> <poraty6@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Tuesday, July 10, 2018 at 7:19:06 AM UTC+3, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>>>> <poraty6@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> On Tuesday, July 10, 2018 at 6:05:15 AM UTC+3, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>>>>>> <poraty6@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> On Tuesday, July 10, 2018 at 1:17:36 AM UTC+3, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>>>>>>>> <poraty6@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Monday, July 9, 2018 at 4:15:50 PM UTC+3, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> <poraty6@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On Monday, July 9, 2018 at 1:20:04 PM UTC+3, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> <poraty6@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> space has not curvature and no 'schmervature ''
>>>>>>>>>>>>> space is nothing and has no properties whatsoever
>>>>>>>>>>>>> EXCEPT - HOSTONG MASS !!!
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> I m so happy for you that God whispered this information to you, a prophet,
>>>>>>>>>>>> and that you need no experimental test to know that it is true.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> while mass is the main 'hero' of physics
>>>>>>>>>>>>> it has some unknown yet
>>>>>>>>>>>>> sub particles -
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> -THAT MOVE 'NATURALLY' IN CURVED LINES !!
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> if you want to get a little hint for it
>>>>>>>>>>>>> see
>>>>>>>>>>>>> the 'force lines of a magnet
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Michel Faraday was the first one to start revealing them
>>>>>>>>>>>>> by his famous
>>>>>>>>>>>>> magnet lines force makers
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> in that ingenious experiment
>>>>>>>>>>>>> he enabled us the first time
>>>>>>>>>>>>> to literally ** see*; them/get a hint/get a new idea
>>>>>>>>>>>>> about that big unknown yet WORLD/'continent '''
>>>>>>>>>>>>> and that was just the first only tangible experiment
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2
>>>>>>>>>>>>> indirectly
>>>>>>>>>>>>> we can more than guess about it
>>>>>>>>>>>>> by knowing about gravitation facts !!
>>>>>>>>>>>>> ie
>>>>>>>>>>>>> in which points/locations it exist
>>>>>>>>>>>>> and in which points it does not
>>>>>>>>>>>>> (stronger and weaker
>>>>>>>>>>>>> more dense and less dense
>>>>>>>>>>>>> or not at all etc. )!
>>>>>>>>>>>>> =====> > TIA
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Y.Porat
>>>>>>>>>>>>> ========================
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>>>>> Odd Bodkin Maker of fine toys, tools, tables
>>>>>>>>>>> =======================(:-)
>>>>>>>>>>> thank you for your interest in me
>>>>>>>>>>> are you envy
>>>>>>>>>>> 2
>>>>>>>>>>> I explained things quite a few times
>>>>>>>>>>> and it seems that you didn't follow
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> I asked In that ng
>>>>>>>>>>> a question
>>>>>>>>>>> that is based on **observations**
>>>>>>>>>>> bus a little need for the gray stuff in our skulls
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Not a good idea. Just thinking about things without reference to data is
>>>>>>>>>> a fool s prescription. Your description of space is not consistent with
>>>>>>>>>> data.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> ====================I thought once that you are at least a gentleman...
>>>>>>>>> do you what to change my idea about you ??
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> who is the fool ?
>>>>>>>>> that is how a real scientist talk
>>>>>>>>> or a fish market merchant talk ?
>>>>>>>>> 2
>>>>>>>>> now genius smarty
>>>>>>>>> I am going to ask you a little question :
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> we realize that there is some connection between
>>>>>>>>> mass and forces
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> now my question to you as a great scalar''
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> what is more reasonable to you
>>>>>>>>> 1
>>>>>>>>> forces are creating masses ??
>>>>>>>>> 2
>>>>>>>>> masses are creating forces ??
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Neither.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Odd Bodkin Maker of fine toys, tools, tables
>>>>>>> ==================(:-) !!!
>>>>>>> Neither ??
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> so I will ask it differently
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> wha1
>>>>>>> t is more likely :
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> conglomeration of masses
>>>>>>> are creating forces
>>>>>>> 2
>>>>>>> conglomeration of forces
>>>>>>> or any forces
>>>>>>> are/is creating conglomeration of masses ??
>>>>>>> =====TIA
>>>>>>> Y.Porat
>>>>>>> ======================> >
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You re still missing pieces. And your still living in classical Newtonian
>>>>>> physics.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> --
>>>>>> Odd Bodkin Maker of fine toys, tools, tables
>>>>> ==============wrong !!
>>>>> you still don't get my
>>>>> Y Circlon ad y circlon mechanism !!
>>>>>
>>>>> they circlon
>>>>> is a very basic particle
>>>>> that
>>>>> MOVES NATURALLY IN A CURVED LINE !
>>>>>
>>>>> not because f en curved space
>>>>> but that is how' it was born ''
>>>>> ie
>>>>> a new basic assumption !!
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> not like Newton that claims ,movement in a straight line !!!
>>>>> now you can ask:
>>>>> there is still movement in a straight line
>>>>> so how come ??
>>>>> I say
>>>>> no contradiction :
>>>>> the circlon moves I n a closed o not closed circular
>>>>> path
>>>>> yet
>>>>> its *center POINT* of movement -can move
>>>>> in a straight line !!
>>>>> ie
>>>>> ACOMPOSITE MOVEMENT !!
>>>>> difficult for a mathematician ??
>>>>> but not difficult for a creative experienced mind
>>>>> the through is that I didn't get it at once
>>>>> it took me years of thinking
>>>>> as a 3D experienced engineer
>>>>> while I say
>>>>> I didn't think about it all along the day...
>>>>> of those years
>>>>> but from time to time at my free time
>>>>> if not buddy in other troubles of life &.
>>>>> (that are not missing me as an old goat of 80 years
>>>>> that is still walking about 8 km a day..
>>>>> with his head on his shoulders (:-)
>>>>> and thinking about anything in our troubles world &
>>>>> yet no ne
>>>>> can take away from me
>>>>> my unprecedented achievements
>>>>> because my good teachers thought me
>>>>> DONT BE A PARROT !!!!!!
>>>>>
>>>>> it is not my say
>>>>> it is a say of one of my good teachers !!
>>>>> and that was
>>>>> how I behaved while designing
>>>>> about 70 bridges (I forgot hoe many ==many of them with unprecedented innovations !!
>>>>> not only in physics
>>>>> that I invested in
>>>>> studying physics may years as well
>>>>> including writing a book !!
>>>>> including learning from people even
>>>>> in that ng as well !!
>>>>> --
>>>>> if not clear
>>>>> just ask more
>>>>
>>>> None of the above has anything to do with your weird claim that space has
>>>> no physical properties except hosting mass, a claim you have not
>>>> substantiated with data.
>>>>
>>>> ================("-)
>>>
>>> substantiated with data ???
>>
>> Yes.
>>
>>>
>>> if space is empty
>>> what does it mean empty ???
>>
>> It doesnt mean what you think it means. It means there is a volume with no
>> persistent matter within it. Thats all.
> ========no persistent matter ?
> so what else ?? absolute nothing ??
Empty space is not absolute nothing. That is not what the term means. You
are assigning the wrong words to it.
> so
> wHAT can absolute nothing - DO act
> react ?????
> in short as if it was not there at all !!???
>
>>
>> Most of all, human words and human definitions of those words never dictate
>> to nature
> --
> ? so it is as if it was not said at all !!??
> if so
> why to say it
> termine what it is by
> ??
I already told you. The words come AFTER observational data. The data tells
you what it is, and THEN you choose right words to describe it. Not the
other way around.
> => observational data, and then and only then do we decide which of our human
>> words we should use to describe it.
>> ===better not to do it before opening our mouth
>>>
>>> empty is nothing
>>> and no properties at all
>>
>> No sir. That is not what it means. Data first, then you choose the right
>> words to describe what is suggested by the data.
> ok
> what is your data about empty space ??
Not my data. Physicists’ data.
Data having to do with length contraction, time dilation, frame dragging,
gravitational lensing, Doppler shift, rapidity distributions, impedance of
empty space, Shapiro delay, waves of empty space, and so on and on and on.
Try reading.
> ====
>>
>>> the fact that ''you ' invented properties to space
>>
>> Nobody invented the properties of space.
>
> did I suggested something Those properties
> of empty space
> quite the opposite
> that is what I say all along
> JUST FORGET ABOUT EMPTY SPACE
> AS HAVING ANY PRASCTICAL EANING
But why forget it when it has a crucial physical role? It does no good to
try to invent reasons to ignore it.
> in other words
>
> let s forget about empty space as something that means
> something to physics
> and ore important
> le us look for something at does !! act
> and really**makes the gravitation
>
> DISCOVERED.
>>
>>> is not a prove
>>> it is ''fitting facts''(manipulating ) to some thing that is nothing
>>> more than a guess !!
>>> 2
>>> another thing to understand
>>>
>>> if energy is mass in motion
>>
>> And again you have made a mistake. That is not the correct definition of
>> energy. For example, do you know the meaning of potential energy?
> ==================we are not with potential energy
> that is obfuscation !!!
Potential energy is a class of energy. It also has nothing to do with mass
in motion. Therefore it is simply wrong to say that energy (of any class)
is mass in motion.
>
> If so,
>> please share your recollection of the definition of that term.
> ????
What is the meaning of potential energy, if you can remember it?
> =>
>>> that motion OF MASS must be &&.RECICLED !!!!!!
>>> or else &.!!!!!
>>> just guess what will be then
>>> (if it will not be recycled ??!!
>
>>> I don't want to spoon feed t that problem/point
>>> I would like to here it from you !!
>>> ====TIA
>>> Y.Porat
>>> =====================================
>>
>> --
>> Odd Bodkin Maker of fine toys, tools, tables
> ====================YIA
> y Porat
> ==================
>
--
Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | poraty6@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-07-10 07:59 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: SPACE IS NOT CURVED AND NOT ..there is something elese |
| Message-ID | <62b7dbe5-9902-4861-95dc-021b93067134@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #693447 |
On Tuesday, July 10, 2018 at 2:14:56 PM UTC+3, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> <poraty6@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Tuesday, July 10, 2018 at 1:09:48 PM UTC+3, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> >> <poraty6@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>> On Tuesday, July 10, 2018 at 7:19:06 AM UTC+3, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> >>>> <poraty6@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>> On Tuesday, July 10, 2018 at 6:05:15 AM UTC+3, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> >>>>>> <poraty6@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>> On Tuesday, July 10, 2018 at 1:17:36 AM UTC+3, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> >>>>>>>> <poraty6@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> On Monday, July 9, 2018 at 4:15:50 PM UTC+3, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>> <poraty6@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>> On Monday, July 9, 2018 at 1:20:04 PM UTC+3, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>> <poraty6@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> space has not curvature and no 'schmervature ''
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> space is nothing and has no properties whatsoever
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> EXCEPT - HOSTONG MASS !!!
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> I m so happy for you that God whispered this information to you, a prophet,
> >>>>>>>>>>>> and that you need no experimental test to know that it is true.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> while mass is the main 'hero' of physics
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> it has some unknown yet
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> sub particles -
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> -THAT MOVE 'NATURALLY' IN CURVED LINES !!
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> if you want to get a little hint for it
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> see
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> the 'force lines of a magnet
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Michel Faraday was the first one to start revealing them
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> by his famous
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> magnet lines force makers
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> in that ingenious experiment
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> he enabled us the first time
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> to literally ** see*; them/get a hint/get a new idea
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> about that big unknown yet WORLD/'continent '''
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> and that was just the first only tangible experiment
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> 2
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> indirectly
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> we can more than guess about it
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> by knowing about gravitation facts !!
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> ie
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> in which points/locations it exist
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> and in which points it does not
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> (stronger and weaker
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> more dense and less dense
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> or not at all etc. )!
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> =====> > TIA
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Y.Porat
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> ========================
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> --
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Odd Bodkin Maker of fine toys, tools, tables
> >>>>>>>>>>> =======================(:-)
> >>>>>>>>>>> thank you for your interest in me
> >>>>>>>>>>> are you envy
> >>>>>>>>>>> 2
> >>>>>>>>>>> I explained things quite a few times
> >>>>>>>>>>> and it seems that you didn't follow
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> I asked In that ng
> >>>>>>>>>>> a question
> >>>>>>>>>>> that is based on **observations**
> >>>>>>>>>>> bus a little need for the gray stuff in our skulls
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> Not a good idea. Just thinking about things without reference to data is
> >>>>>>>>>> a fool s prescription. Your description of space is not consistent with
> >>>>>>>>>> data.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> ====================I thought once that you are at least a gentleman...
> >>>>>>>>> do you what to change my idea about you ??
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> who is the fool ?
> >>>>>>>>> that is how a real scientist talk
> >>>>>>>>> or a fish market merchant talk ?
> >>>>>>>>> 2
> >>>>>>>>> now genius smarty
> >>>>>>>>> I am going to ask you a little question :
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> we realize that there is some connection between
> >>>>>>>>> mass and forces
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> now my question to you as a great scalar''
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> what is more reasonable to you
> >>>>>>>>> 1
> >>>>>>>>> forces are creating masses ??
> >>>>>>>>> 2
> >>>>>>>>> masses are creating forces ??
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Neither.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Odd Bodkin Maker of fine toys, tools, tables
> >>>>>>> ==================(:-) !!!
> >>>>>>> Neither ??
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> so I will ask it differently
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> wha1
> >>>>>>> t is more likely :
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> conglomeration of masses
> >>>>>>> are creating forces
> >>>>>>> 2
> >>>>>>> conglomeration of forces
> >>>>>>> or any forces
> >>>>>>> are/is creating conglomeration of masses ??
> >>>>>>> =====TIA
> >>>>>>> Y.Porat
> >>>>>>> ======================> >
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> You re still missing pieces. And your still living in classical Newtonian
> >>>>>> physics.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> --
> >>>>>> Odd Bodkin Maker of fine toys, tools, tables
> >>>>> ==============wrong !!
> >>>>> you still don't get my
> >>>>> Y Circlon ad y circlon mechanism !!
> >>>>>
> >>>>> they circlon
> >>>>> is a very basic particle
> >>>>> that
> >>>>> MOVES NATURALLY IN A CURVED LINE !
> >>>>>
> >>>>> not because f en curved space
> >>>>> but that is how' it was born ''
> >>>>> ie
> >>>>> a new basic assumption !!
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> not like Newton that claims ,movement in a straight line !!!
> >>>>> now you can ask:
> >>>>> there is still movement in a straight line
> >>>>> so how come ??
> >>>>> I say
> >>>>> no contradiction :
> >>>>> the circlon moves I n a closed o not closed circular
> >>>>> path
> >>>>> yet
> >>>>> its *center POINT* of movement -can move
> >>>>> in a straight line !!
> >>>>> ie
> >>>>> ACOMPOSITE MOVEMENT !!
> >>>>> difficult for a mathematician ??
> >>>>> but not difficult for a creative experienced mind
> >>>>> the through is that I didn't get it at once
> >>>>> it took me years of thinking
> >>>>> as a 3D experienced engineer
> >>>>> while I say
> >>>>> I didn't think about it all along the day...
> >>>>> of those years
> >>>>> but from time to time at my free time
> >>>>> if not buddy in other troubles of life &.
> >>>>> (that are not missing me as an old goat of 80 years
> >>>>> that is still walking about 8 km a day..
> >>>>> with his head on his shoulders (:-)
> >>>>> and thinking about anything in our troubles world &
> >>>>> yet no ne
> >>>>> can take away from me
> >>>>> my unprecedented achievements
> >>>>> because my good teachers thought me
> >>>>> DONT BE A PARROT !!!!!!
> >>>>>
> >>>>> it is not my say
> >>>>> it is a say of one of my good teachers !!
> >>>>> and that was
> >>>>> how I behaved while designing
> >>>>> about 70 bridges (I forgot hoe many ==many of them with unprecedented innovations !!
> >>>>> not only in physics
> >>>>> that I invested in
> >>>>> studying physics may years as well
> >>>>> including writing a book !!
> >>>>> including learning from people even
> >>>>> in that ng as well !!
> >>>>> --
> >>>>> if not clear
> >>>>> just ask more
> >>>>
> >>>> None of the above has anything to do with your weird claim that space has
> >>>> no physical properties except hosting mass, a claim you have not
> >>>> substantiated with data.
> >>>>
> >>>> ================("-)
> >>>
> >>> substantiated with data ???
> >>
> >> Yes.
> >>
> >>>
> >>> if space is empty
> >>> what does it mean empty ???
> >>
> >> It doesn t mean what you think it means. It means there is a volume with no
> >> persistent matter within it. That s all.
> > ========no persistent matter ?
> > so what else ?? absolute nothing ??
>
> Empty space is not absolute nothing. That is not what the term means. You
> are assigning the wrong words to it.
>
> > so
> > wHAT can absolute nothing - DO act
> > react ?????
> > in short as if it was not there at all !!???
> >
> >>
> >> Most of all, human words and human definitions of those words never dictate
> >> to nature
> > --
> > ? so it is as if it was not said at all !!??
> > if so
> > why to say it
> > termine what it is by
> > ??
>
> I already told you. The words come AFTER observational data. The data tells
> you what it is, and THEN you choose right words to describe it. Not the
> other way around.
>
> > => observational data, and then and only then do we decide which of our human
> >> words we should use to describe it.
> >> ===better not to do it before opening our mouth
> >>>
> >>> empty is nothing
> >>> and no properties at all
> >>
> >> No sir. That is not what it means. Data first, then you choose the right
> >> words to describe what is suggested by the data.
> > ok
> > what is your data about empty space ??
>
> Not my data. Physicists’ data.
> Data having to do with length contraction, time dilation, frame dragging,
> gravitational lensing, Doppler shift, rapidity distributions, impedance of
> empty space, Shapiro delay, waves of empty space, and so on and on and on.
> Try reading.
>
> > ====
> >>
> >>> the fact that ''you ' invented properties to space
> >>
> >> Nobody invented the properties of space.
> >
> > did I suggested something Those properties
> > of empty space
> > quite the opposite
> > that is what I say all along
> > JUST FORGET ABOUT EMPTY SPACE
> > AS HAVING ANY PRASCTICAL EANING
>
> But why forget it when it has a crucial physical role? It does no good to
> try to invent reasons to ignore it.
>
> > in other words
> >
> > let s forget about empty space as something that means
> > something to physics
> > and ore important
> > le us look for something at does !! act
> > and really**makes the gravitation
> >
> > DISCOVERED.
> >>
> >>> is not a prove
> >>> it is ''fitting facts''(manipulating ) to some thing that is nothing
> >>> more than a guess !!
> >>> 2
> >>> another thing to understand
> >>>
> >>> if energy is mass in motion
> >>
> >> And again you have made a mistake. That is not the correct definition of
> >> energy. For example, do you know the meaning of potential energy?
> > ==================we are not with potential energy
> > that is obfuscation !!!
>
===> Potential energy is a class of energy. It also has nothing to do with mass
======
(:-)
please give us the dimensions of
potential energy ...!!
==============
> in motion. Therefore it is simply wrong to say that energy (of any class)
> is mass in motion.
>====
again
what are the physical dimensions of energy
======
> >
> > If so,
> >> please share your recollection of the definition of that term.
> > ????
>
> What is the meaning of potential energy, if you can remember it?
>
> =========
> >>> that motion OF MASS must be &&.RECICLED !!!!!!
> >>> or else &.!!!!!
> >>> just guess what will be then
> >>> (if it will not be recycled ??!!
=======================d
Bod
YOU DID NOT ANSWER THE ABOVE crucial QUESTION !!
==============================
> >
> >>> I don't want to spoon feed t that problem/point
> >>> I would like to here it from you !!
> >>> ====TIA
> >>> Y.Porat
> >>> =====================================
> > > ==================
> >
>
another question that you dint answer :
do you know
that ***curved space ''
does not apply -to say
the strong forces of protons/
neutrons -
in the nucleus
WHY ???!!!
==
TIA
Y.Porat
======================
>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-07-10 17:43 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: SPACE IS NOT CURVED AND NOT ..there is something elese |
| Message-ID | <pi2r74$1rl5$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #693466 |
<poraty6@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tuesday, July 10, 2018 at 2:14:56 PM UTC+3, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>> <poraty6@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Tuesday, July 10, 2018 at 1:09:48 PM UTC+3, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>>>> <poraty6@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> On Tuesday, July 10, 2018 at 7:19:06 AM UTC+3, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>>>>>> <poraty6@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> On Tuesday, July 10, 2018 at 6:05:15 AM UTC+3, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>>>>>>>> <poraty6@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Tuesday, July 10, 2018 at 1:17:36 AM UTC+3, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> <poraty6@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On Monday, July 9, 2018 at 4:15:50 PM UTC+3, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> <poraty6@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Monday, July 9, 2018 at 1:20:04 PM UTC+3, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <poraty6@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> space has not curvature and no 'schmervature ''
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> space is nothing and has no properties whatsoever
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> EXCEPT - HOSTONG MASS !!!
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I m so happy for you that God whispered this information to you, a prophet,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and that you need no experimental test to know that it is true.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> while mass is the main 'hero' of physics
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it has some unknown yet
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sub particles -
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> -THAT MOVE 'NATURALLY' IN CURVED LINES !!
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> if you want to get a little hint for it
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> see
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the 'force lines of a magnet
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Michel Faraday was the first one to start revealing them
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> by his famous
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> magnet lines force makers
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in that ingenious experiment
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> he enabled us the first time
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to literally ** see*; them/get a hint/get a new idea
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> about that big unknown yet WORLD/'continent '''
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and that was just the first only tangible experiment
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> indirectly
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> we can more than guess about it
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> by knowing about gravitation facts !!
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ie
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in which points/locations it exist
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and in which points it does not
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (stronger and weaker
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> more dense and less dense
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> or not at all etc. )!
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> =====> > TIA
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Y.Porat
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ========================
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Odd Bodkin Maker of fine toys, tools, tables
>>>>>>>>>>>>> =======================(:-)
>>>>>>>>>>>>> thank you for your interest in me
>>>>>>>>>>>>> are you envy
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2
>>>>>>>>>>>>> I explained things quite a few times
>>>>>>>>>>>>> and it seems that you didn't follow
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> I asked In that ng
>>>>>>>>>>>>> a question
>>>>>>>>>>>>> that is based on **observations**
>>>>>>>>>>>>> bus a little need for the gray stuff in our skulls
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Not a good idea. Just thinking about things without reference to data is
>>>>>>>>>>>> a fool s prescription. Your description of space is not consistent with
>>>>>>>>>>>> data.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> ====================I thought once that you are at least a gentleman...
>>>>>>>>>>> do you what to change my idea about you ??
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> who is the fool ?
>>>>>>>>>>> that is how a real scientist talk
>>>>>>>>>>> or a fish market merchant talk ?
>>>>>>>>>>> 2
>>>>>>>>>>> now genius smarty
>>>>>>>>>>> I am going to ask you a little question :
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> we realize that there is some connection between
>>>>>>>>>>> mass and forces
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> now my question to you as a great scalar''
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> what is more reasonable to you
>>>>>>>>>>> 1
>>>>>>>>>>> forces are creating masses ??
>>>>>>>>>>> 2
>>>>>>>>>>> masses are creating forces ??
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Neither.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Odd Bodkin Maker of fine toys, tools, tables
>>>>>>>>> ==================(:-) !!!
>>>>>>>>> Neither ??
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> so I will ask it differently
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> wha1
>>>>>>>>> t is more likely :
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> conglomeration of masses
>>>>>>>>> are creating forces
>>>>>>>>> 2
>>>>>>>>> conglomeration of forces
>>>>>>>>> or any forces
>>>>>>>>> are/is creating conglomeration of masses ??
>>>>>>>>> =====TIA
>>>>>>>>> Y.Porat
>>>>>>>>> ======================> >
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> You re still missing pieces. And your still living in classical Newtonian
>>>>>>>> physics.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>> Odd Bodkin Maker of fine toys, tools, tables
>>>>>>> ==============wrong !!
>>>>>>> you still don't get my
>>>>>>> Y Circlon ad y circlon mechanism !!
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> they circlon
>>>>>>> is a very basic particle
>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>> MOVES NATURALLY IN A CURVED LINE !
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> not because f en curved space
>>>>>>> but that is how' it was born ''
>>>>>>> ie
>>>>>>> a new basic assumption !!
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> not like Newton that claims ,movement in a straight line !!!
>>>>>>> now you can ask:
>>>>>>> there is still movement in a straight line
>>>>>>> so how come ??
>>>>>>> I say
>>>>>>> no contradiction :
>>>>>>> the circlon moves I n a closed o not closed circular
>>>>>>> path
>>>>>>> yet
>>>>>>> its *center POINT* of movement -can move
>>>>>>> in a straight line !!
>>>>>>> ie
>>>>>>> ACOMPOSITE MOVEMENT !!
>>>>>>> difficult for a mathematician ??
>>>>>>> but not difficult for a creative experienced mind
>>>>>>> the through is that I didn't get it at once
>>>>>>> it took me years of thinking
>>>>>>> as a 3D experienced engineer
>>>>>>> while I say
>>>>>>> I didn't think about it all along the day...
>>>>>>> of those years
>>>>>>> but from time to time at my free time
>>>>>>> if not buddy in other troubles of life &.
>>>>>>> (that are not missing me as an old goat of 80 years
>>>>>>> that is still walking about 8 km a day..
>>>>>>> with his head on his shoulders (:-)
>>>>>>> and thinking about anything in our troubles world &
>>>>>>> yet no ne
>>>>>>> can take away from me
>>>>>>> my unprecedented achievements
>>>>>>> because my good teachers thought me
>>>>>>> DONT BE A PARROT !!!!!!
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> it is not my say
>>>>>>> it is a say of one of my good teachers !!
>>>>>>> and that was
>>>>>>> how I behaved while designing
>>>>>>> about 70 bridges (I forgot hoe many ==many of them with
>>>>>>> unprecedented innovations !!
>>>>>>> not only in physics
>>>>>>> that I invested in
>>>>>>> studying physics may years as well
>>>>>>> including writing a book !!
>>>>>>> including learning from people even
>>>>>>> in that ng as well !!
>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>> if not clear
>>>>>>> just ask more
>>>>>>
>>>>>> None of the above has anything to do with your weird claim that space has
>>>>>> no physical properties except hosting mass, a claim you have not
>>>>>> substantiated with data.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ================("-)
>>>>>
>>>>> substantiated with data ???
>>>>
>>>> Yes.
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> if space is empty
>>>>> what does it mean empty ???
>>>>
>>>> It doesn t mean what you think it means. It means there is a volume with no
>>>> persistent matter within it. That s all.
>>> ========no persistent matter ?
>>> so what else ?? absolute nothing ??
>>
>> Empty space is not absolute nothing. That is not what the term means. You
>> are assigning the wrong words to it.
>>
>>> so
>>> wHAT can absolute nothing - DO act
>>> react ?????
>>> in short as if it was not there at all !!???
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Most of all, human words and human definitions of those words never dictate
>>>> to nature
>>> --
>>> ? so it is as if it was not said at all !!??
>>> if so
>>> why to say it
>>> termine what it is by
>>> ??
>>
>> I already told you. The words come AFTER observational data. The data tells
>> you what it is, and THEN you choose right words to describe it. Not the
>> other way around.
>>
>>> => observational data, and then and only then do we decide which of our human
>>>> words we should use to describe it.
>>>> ===better not to do it before opening our mouth
>>>>>
>>>>> empty is nothing
>>>>> and no properties at all
>>>>
>>>> No sir. That is not what it means. Data first, then you choose the right
>>>> words to describe what is suggested by the data.
>>> ok
>>> what is your data about empty space ??
>>
>> Not my data. Physicists’ data.
>> Data having to do with length contraction, time dilation, frame dragging,
>> gravitational lensing, Doppler shift, rapidity distributions, impedance of
>> empty space, Shapiro delay, waves of empty space, and so on and on and on.
>> Try reading.
>>
>>> ====
>>>>
>>>>> the fact that ''you ' invented properties to space
>>>>
>>>> Nobody invented the properties of space.
>>>
>>> did I suggested something Those properties
>>> of empty space
>>> quite the opposite
>>> that is what I say all along
>>> JUST FORGET ABOUT EMPTY SPACE
>>> AS HAVING ANY PRASCTICAL EANING
>>
>> But why forget it when it has a crucial physical role? It does no good to
>> try to invent reasons to ignore it.
>>
>>> in other words
>>>
>>> let s forget about empty space as something that means
>>> something to physics
>>> and ore important
>>> le us look for something at does !! act
>>> and really**makes the gravitation
>>>
>>> DISCOVERED.
>>>>
>>>>> is not a prove
>>>>> it is ''fitting facts''(manipulating ) to some thing that is nothing
>>>>> more than a guess !!
>>>>> 2
>>>>> another thing to understand
>>>>>
>>>>> if energy is mass in motion
>>>>
>>>> And again you have made a mistake. That is not the correct definition of
>>>> energy. For example, do you know the meaning of potential energy?
>>> ==================we are not with potential energy
>>> that is obfuscation !!!
>>
> ===> Potential energy is a class of energy. It also has nothing to do with mass
> ======
> (:-)
>
> please give us the dimensions of
> potential energy ...!!
> ==============
>
>> in motion. Therefore it is simply wrong to say that energy (of any class)
>> is mass in motion.
>> ====
> again
> what are the physical dimensions of energy
> ======
>>>
>>> If so,
>>>> please share your recollection of the definition of that term.
>>> ????
>>
>> What is the meaning of potential energy, if you can remember it?
>>
>> =========
>>>>> that motion OF MASS must be &&.RECICLED !!!!!!
>>>>> or else &.!!!!!
>>>>> just guess what will be then
>>>>> (if it will not be recycled ??!!
> =======================d
> Bod
> YOU DID NOT ANSWER THE ABOVE crucial QUESTION !!
> ==============================
>>>
>>>>> I don't want to spoon feed t that problem/point
>>>>> I would like to here it from you !!
>>>>> ====TIA
>>>>> Y.Porat
>>>>> =====================================
>>>> ==================
>>>
>>
> another question that you dint answer :
>
> do you know
> that ***curved space ''
> does not apply -to say
> the strong forces of protons/
> neutrons -
> in the nucleus
> WHY ???!!!
> ==
> TIA
> Y.Porat
> ======================
>>
>
Potential energy is energy associated with position. It has units
newtons*meters.
--
Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-07-10 17:45 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: SPACE IS NOT CURVED AND NOT ..there is something elese |
| Message-ID | <pi2rcg$1s2l$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #693482 |
Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> wrote:
> <poraty6@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Tuesday, July 10, 2018 at 2:14:56 PM UTC+3, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>>> <poraty6@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> On Tuesday, July 10, 2018 at 1:09:48 PM UTC+3, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>>>>> <poraty6@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>> On Tuesday, July 10, 2018 at 7:19:06 AM UTC+3, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>>>>>>> <poraty6@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Tuesday, July 10, 2018 at 6:05:15 AM UTC+3, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>>>>>>>>> <poraty6@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On Tuesday, July 10, 2018 at 1:17:36 AM UTC+3, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> <poraty6@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On Monday, July 9, 2018 at 4:15:50 PM UTC+3, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> <poraty6@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Monday, July 9, 2018 at 1:20:04 PM UTC+3, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <poraty6@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> space has not curvature and no 'schmervature ''
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> space is nothing and has no properties whatsoever
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> EXCEPT - HOSTONG MASS !!!
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I m so happy for you that God whispered this information to you, a prophet,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and that you need no experimental test to know that it is true.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> while mass is the main 'hero' of physics
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it has some unknown yet
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sub particles -
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> -THAT MOVE 'NATURALLY' IN CURVED LINES !!
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> if you want to get a little hint for it
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> see
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the 'force lines of a magnet
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Michel Faraday was the first one to start revealing them
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> by his famous
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> magnet lines force makers
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in that ingenious experiment
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> he enabled us the first time
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to literally ** see*; them/get a hint/get a new idea
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> about that big unknown yet WORLD/'continent '''
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and that was just the first only tangible experiment
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> indirectly
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> we can more than guess about it
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> by knowing about gravitation facts !!
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ie
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in which points/locations it exist
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and in which points it does not
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (stronger and weaker
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> more dense and less dense
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> or not at all etc. )!
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> =====> > TIA
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Y.Porat
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ========================
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Odd Bodkin Maker of fine toys, tools, tables
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> =======================(:-)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> thank you for your interest in me
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> are you envy
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I explained things quite a few times
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and it seems that you didn't follow
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I asked In that ng
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a question
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that is based on **observations**
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> bus a little need for the gray stuff in our skulls
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Not a good idea. Just thinking about things without reference to data is
>>>>>>>>>>>>> a fool s prescription. Your description of space is not consistent with
>>>>>>>>>>>>> data.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> ====================I thought once that you are at least a gentleman...
>>>>>>>>>>>> do you what to change my idea about you ??
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> who is the fool ?
>>>>>>>>>>>> that is how a real scientist talk
>>>>>>>>>>>> or a fish market merchant talk ?
>>>>>>>>>>>> 2
>>>>>>>>>>>> now genius smarty
>>>>>>>>>>>> I am going to ask you a little question :
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> we realize that there is some connection between
>>>>>>>>>>>> mass and forces
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> now my question to you as a great scalar''
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> what is more reasonable to you
>>>>>>>>>>>> 1
>>>>>>>>>>>> forces are creating masses ??
>>>>>>>>>>>> 2
>>>>>>>>>>>> masses are creating forces ??
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Neither.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Odd Bodkin Maker of fine toys, tools, tables
>>>>>>>>>> ==================(:-) !!!
>>>>>>>>>> Neither ??
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> so I will ask it differently
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> wha1
>>>>>>>>>> t is more likely :
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> conglomeration of masses
>>>>>>>>>> are creating forces
>>>>>>>>>> 2
>>>>>>>>>> conglomeration of forces
>>>>>>>>>> or any forces
>>>>>>>>>> are/is creating conglomeration of masses ??
>>>>>>>>>> =====TIA
>>>>>>>>>> Y.Porat
>>>>>>>>>> ======================> >
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> You re still missing pieces. And your still living in classical Newtonian
>>>>>>>>> physics.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>> Odd Bodkin Maker of fine toys, tools, tables
>>>>>>>> ==============wrong !!
>>>>>>>> you still don't get my
>>>>>>>> Y Circlon ad y circlon mechanism !!
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> they circlon
>>>>>>>> is a very basic particle
>>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>>> MOVES NATURALLY IN A CURVED LINE !
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> not because f en curved space
>>>>>>>> but that is how' it was born ''
>>>>>>>> ie
>>>>>>>> a new basic assumption !!
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> not like Newton that claims ,movement in a straight line !!!
>>>>>>>> now you can ask:
>>>>>>>> there is still movement in a straight line
>>>>>>>> so how come ??
>>>>>>>> I say
>>>>>>>> no contradiction :
>>>>>>>> the circlon moves I n a closed o not closed circular
>>>>>>>> path
>>>>>>>> yet
>>>>>>>> its *center POINT* of movement -can move
>>>>>>>> in a straight line !!
>>>>>>>> ie
>>>>>>>> ACOMPOSITE MOVEMENT !!
>>>>>>>> difficult for a mathematician ??
>>>>>>>> but not difficult for a creative experienced mind
>>>>>>>> the through is that I didn't get it at once
>>>>>>>> it took me years of thinking
>>>>>>>> as a 3D experienced engineer
>>>>>>>> while I say
>>>>>>>> I didn't think about it all along the day...
>>>>>>>> of those years
>>>>>>>> but from time to time at my free time
>>>>>>>> if not buddy in other troubles of life &.
>>>>>>>> (that are not missing me as an old goat of 80 years
>>>>>>>> that is still walking about 8 km a day..
>>>>>>>> with his head on his shoulders (:-)
>>>>>>>> and thinking about anything in our troubles world &
>>>>>>>> yet no ne
>>>>>>>> can take away from me
>>>>>>>> my unprecedented achievements
>>>>>>>> because my good teachers thought me
>>>>>>>> DONT BE A PARROT !!!!!!
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> it is not my say
>>>>>>>> it is a say of one of my good teachers !!
>>>>>>>> and that was
>>>>>>>> how I behaved while designing
>>>>>>>> about 70 bridges (I forgot hoe many ==many of them with
>>>>>>>> unprecedented innovations !!
>>>>>>>> not only in physics
>>>>>>>> that I invested in
>>>>>>>> studying physics may years as well
>>>>>>>> including writing a book !!
>>>>>>>> including learning from people even
>>>>>>>> in that ng as well !!
>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>> if not clear
>>>>>>>> just ask more
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> None of the above has anything to do with your weird claim that space has
>>>>>>> no physical properties except hosting mass, a claim you have not
>>>>>>> substantiated with data.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> ================("-)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> substantiated with data ???
>>>>>
>>>>> Yes.
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> if space is empty
>>>>>> what does it mean empty ???
>>>>>
>>>>> It doesn t mean what you think it means. It means there is a volume with no
>>>>> persistent matter within it. That s all.
>>>> ========no persistent matter ?
>>>> so what else ?? absolute nothing ??
>>>
>>> Empty space is not absolute nothing. That is not what the term means. You
>>> are assigning the wrong words to it.
>>>
>>>> so
>>>> wHAT can absolute nothing - DO act
>>>> react ?????
>>>> in short as if it was not there at all !!???
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Most of all, human words and human definitions of those words never dictate
>>>>> to nature
>>>> --
>>>> ? so it is as if it was not said at all !!??
>>>> if so
>>>> why to say it
>>>> termine what it is by
>>>> ??
>>>
>>> I already told you. The words come AFTER observational data. The data tells
>>> you what it is, and THEN you choose right words to describe it. Not the
>>> other way around.
>>>
>>>> => observational data, and then and only then do we decide which of our human
>>>>> words we should use to describe it.
>>>>> ===better not to do it before opening our mouth
>>>>>>
>>>>>> empty is nothing
>>>>>> and no properties at all
>>>>>
>>>>> No sir. That is not what it means. Data first, then you choose the right
>>>>> words to describe what is suggested by the data.
>>>> ok
>>>> what is your data about empty space ??
>>>
>>> Not my data. Physicists’ data.
>>> Data having to do with length contraction, time dilation, frame dragging,
>>> gravitational lensing, Doppler shift, rapidity distributions, impedance of
>>> empty space, Shapiro delay, waves of empty space, and so on and on and on.
>>> Try reading.
>>>
>>>> ====
>>>>>
>>>>>> the fact that ''you ' invented properties to space
>>>>>
>>>>> Nobody invented the properties of space.
>>>>
>>>> did I suggested something Those properties
>>>> of empty space
>>>> quite the opposite
>>>> that is what I say all along
>>>> JUST FORGET ABOUT EMPTY SPACE
>>>> AS HAVING ANY PRASCTICAL EANING
>>>
>>> But why forget it when it has a crucial physical role? It does no good to
>>> try to invent reasons to ignore it.
>>>
>>>> in other words
>>>>
>>>> let s forget about empty space as something that means
>>>> something to physics
>>>> and ore important
>>>> le us look for something at does !! act
>>>> and really**makes the gravitation
>>>>
>>>> DISCOVERED.
>>>>>
>>>>>> is not a prove
>>>>>> it is ''fitting facts''(manipulating ) to some thing that is nothing
>>>>>> more than a guess !!
>>>>>> 2
>>>>>> another thing to understand
>>>>>>
>>>>>> if energy is mass in motion
>>>>>
>>>>> And again you have made a mistake. That is not the correct definition of
>>>>> energy. For example, do you know the meaning of potential energy?
>>>> ==================we are not with potential energy
>>>> that is obfuscation !!!
>>>
>> ===> Potential energy is a class of energy. It also has nothing to do with mass
>> ======
>> (:-)
>>
>> please give us the dimensions of
>> potential energy ...!!
>> ==============
>>
>>> in motion. Therefore it is simply wrong to say that energy (of any class)
>>> is mass in motion.
>>> ====
>> again
>> what are the physical dimensions of energy
>> ======
>>>>
>>>> If so,
>>>>> please share your recollection of the definition of that term.
>>>> ????
>>>
>>> What is the meaning of potential energy, if you can remember it?
>>>
>>> =========
>>>>>> that motion OF MASS must be &&.RECICLED !!!!!!
>>>>>> or else &.!!!!!
>>>>>> just guess what will be then
>>>>>> (if it will not be recycled ??!!
>> =======================d
>> Bod
>> YOU DID NOT ANSWER THE ABOVE crucial QUESTION !!
>> ==============================
>>>>
>>>>>> I don't want to spoon feed t that problem/point
>>>>>> I would like to here it from you !!
>>>>>> ====TIA
>>>>>> Y.Porat
>>>>>> =====================================
>>>>> ==================
>>>>
>>>
>> another question that you dint answer :
>>
>> do you know
>> that ***curved space ''
>> does not apply -to say
>> the strong forces of protons/
>> neutrons -
>> in the nucleus
>> WHY ???!!!
>> ==
>> TIA
>> Y.Porat
>> ======================
>>>
>>
>
> Potential energy is energy associated with position. It has units
> newtons*meters.
>
And the string force is a force distinct from gravitation. Completely
different.
--
Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mitchrae3323@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-07-10 12:33 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: SPACE IS NOT CURVED AND NOT ..there is something elese |
| Message-ID | <a02b8d5f-4e08-4907-9fc7-1c863572c428@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #693483 |
On Tuesday, July 10, 2018 at 10:45:57 AM UTC-7, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> wrote:
> > <poraty6@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> On Tuesday, July 10, 2018 at 2:14:56 PM UTC+3, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> >>> <poraty6@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>> On Tuesday, July 10, 2018 at 1:09:48 PM UTC+3, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> >>>>> <poraty6@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>>> On Tuesday, July 10, 2018 at 7:19:06 AM UTC+3, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> >>>>>>> <poraty6@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>>> On Tuesday, July 10, 2018 at 6:05:15 AM UTC+3, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> <poraty6@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>> On Tuesday, July 10, 2018 at 1:17:36 AM UTC+3, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>> <poraty6@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>> On Monday, July 9, 2018 at 4:15:50 PM UTC+3, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> <poraty6@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Monday, July 9, 2018 at 1:20:04 PM UTC+3, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <poraty6@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> space has not curvature and no 'schmervature ''
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> space is nothing and has no properties whatsoever
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> EXCEPT - HOSTONG MASS !!!
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I m so happy for you that God whispered this information to you, a prophet,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and that you need no experimental test to know that it is true.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> while mass is the main 'hero' of physics
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it has some unknown yet
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sub particles -
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> -THAT MOVE 'NATURALLY' IN CURVED LINES !!
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> if you want to get a little hint for it
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> see
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the 'force lines of a magnet
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Michel Faraday was the first one to start revealing them
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> by his famous
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> magnet lines force makers
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in that ingenious experiment
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> he enabled us the first time
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to literally ** see*; them/get a hint/get a new idea
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> about that big unknown yet WORLD/'continent '''
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and that was just the first only tangible experiment
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> indirectly
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> we can more than guess about it
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> by knowing about gravitation facts !!
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ie
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in which points/locations it exist
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and in which points it does not
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (stronger and weaker
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> more dense and less dense
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> or not at all etc. )!
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> =====> > TIA
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Y.Porat
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ========================
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> --
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Odd Bodkin Maker of fine toys, tools, tables
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> =======================(:-)
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> thank you for your interest in me
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> are you envy
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> I explained things quite a few times
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> and it seems that you didn't follow
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> I asked In that ng
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> a question
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> that is based on **observations**
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> bus a little need for the gray stuff in our skulls
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Not a good idea. Just thinking about things without reference to data is
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> a fool s prescription. Your description of space is not consistent with
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> data.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> ====================I thought once that you are at least a gentleman...
> >>>>>>>>>>>> do you what to change my idea about you ??
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> who is the fool ?
> >>>>>>>>>>>> that is how a real scientist talk
> >>>>>>>>>>>> or a fish market merchant talk ?
> >>>>>>>>>>>> 2
> >>>>>>>>>>>> now genius smarty
> >>>>>>>>>>>> I am going to ask you a little question :
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> we realize that there is some connection between
> >>>>>>>>>>>> mass and forces
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> now my question to you as a great scalar''
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> what is more reasonable to you
> >>>>>>>>>>>> 1
> >>>>>>>>>>>> forces are creating masses ??
> >>>>>>>>>>>> 2
> >>>>>>>>>>>> masses are creating forces ??
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> Neither.
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> Odd Bodkin Maker of fine toys, tools, tables
> >>>>>>>>>> ==================(:-) !!!
> >>>>>>>>>> Neither ??
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> so I will ask it differently
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> wha1
> >>>>>>>>>> t is more likely :
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> conglomeration of masses
> >>>>>>>>>> are creating forces
> >>>>>>>>>> 2
> >>>>>>>>>> conglomeration of forces
> >>>>>>>>>> or any forces
> >>>>>>>>>> are/is creating conglomeration of masses ??
> >>>>>>>>>> =====TIA
> >>>>>>>>>> Y.Porat
> >>>>>>>>>> ======================> >
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> You re still missing pieces. And your still living in classical Newtonian
> >>>>>>>>> physics.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> --
> >>>>>>>>> Odd Bodkin Maker of fine toys, tools, tables
> >>>>>>>> ==============wrong !!
> >>>>>>>> you still don't get my
> >>>>>>>> Y Circlon ad y circlon mechanism !!
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> they circlon
> >>>>>>>> is a very basic particle
> >>>>>>>> that
> >>>>>>>> MOVES NATURALLY IN A CURVED LINE !
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> not because f en curved space
> >>>>>>>> but that is how' it was born ''
> >>>>>>>> ie
> >>>>>>>> a new basic assumption !!
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> not like Newton that claims ,movement in a straight line !!!
> >>>>>>>> now you can ask:
> >>>>>>>> there is still movement in a straight line
> >>>>>>>> so how come ??
> >>>>>>>> I say
> >>>>>>>> no contradiction :
> >>>>>>>> the circlon moves I n a closed o not closed circular
> >>>>>>>> path
> >>>>>>>> yet
> >>>>>>>> its *center POINT* of movement -can move
> >>>>>>>> in a straight line !!
> >>>>>>>> ie
> >>>>>>>> ACOMPOSITE MOVEMENT !!
> >>>>>>>> difficult for a mathematician ??
> >>>>>>>> but not difficult for a creative experienced mind
> >>>>>>>> the through is that I didn't get it at once
> >>>>>>>> it took me years of thinking
> >>>>>>>> as a 3D experienced engineer
> >>>>>>>> while I say
> >>>>>>>> I didn't think about it all along the day...
> >>>>>>>> of those years
> >>>>>>>> but from time to time at my free time
> >>>>>>>> if not buddy in other troubles of life &.
> >>>>>>>> (that are not missing me as an old goat of 80 years
> >>>>>>>> that is still walking about 8 km a day..
> >>>>>>>> with his head on his shoulders (:-)
> >>>>>>>> and thinking about anything in our troubles world &
> >>>>>>>> yet no ne
> >>>>>>>> can take away from me
> >>>>>>>> my unprecedented achievements
> >>>>>>>> because my good teachers thought me
> >>>>>>>> DONT BE A PARROT !!!!!!
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> it is not my say
> >>>>>>>> it is a say of one of my good teachers !!
> >>>>>>>> and that was
> >>>>>>>> how I behaved while designing
> >>>>>>>> about 70 bridges (I forgot hoe many ==many of them with
> >>>>>>>> unprecedented innovations !!
> >>>>>>>> not only in physics
> >>>>>>>> that I invested in
> >>>>>>>> studying physics may years as well
> >>>>>>>> including writing a book !!
> >>>>>>>> including learning from people even
> >>>>>>>> in that ng as well !!
> >>>>>>>> --
> >>>>>>>> if not clear
> >>>>>>>> just ask more
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> None of the above has anything to do with your weird claim that space has
> >>>>>>> no physical properties except hosting mass, a claim you have not
> >>>>>>> substantiated with data.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> ================("-)
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> substantiated with data ???
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Yes.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> if space is empty
> >>>>>> what does it mean empty ???
> >>>>>
> >>>>> It doesn t mean what you think it means. It means there is a volume with no
> >>>>> persistent matter within it. That s all.
> >>>> ========no persistent matter ?
> >>>> so what else ?? absolute nothing ??
> >>>
> >>> Empty space is not absolute nothing. That is not what the term means. You
> >>> are assigning the wrong words to it.
> >>>
> >>>> so
> >>>> wHAT can absolute nothing - DO act
> >>>> react ?????
> >>>> in short as if it was not there at all !!???
> >>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Most of all, human words and human definitions of those words never dictate
> >>>>> to nature
> >>>> --
> >>>> ? so it is as if it was not said at all !!??
> >>>> if so
> >>>> why to say it
> >>>> termine what it is by
> >>>> ??
> >>>
> >>> I already told you. The words come AFTER observational data. The data tells
> >>> you what it is, and THEN you choose right words to describe it. Not the
> >>> other way around.
> >>>
> >>>> => observational data, and then and only then do we decide which of our human
> >>>>> words we should use to describe it.
> >>>>> ===better not to do it before opening our mouth
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> empty is nothing
> >>>>>> and no properties at all
> >>>>>
> >>>>> No sir. That is not what it means. Data first, then you choose the right
> >>>>> words to describe what is suggested by the data.
> >>>> ok
> >>>> what is your data about empty space ??
> >>>
> >>> Not my data. Physicists’ data.
> >>> Data having to do with length contraction, time dilation, frame dragging,
> >>> gravitational lensing, Doppler shift, rapidity distributions, impedance of
> >>> empty space, Shapiro delay, waves of empty space, and so on and on and on.
> >>> Try reading.
> >>>
> >>>> ====
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> the fact that ''you ' invented properties to space
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Nobody invented the properties of space.
> >>>>
> >>>> did I suggested something Those properties
> >>>> of empty space
> >>>> quite the opposite
> >>>> that is what I say all along
> >>>> JUST FORGET ABOUT EMPTY SPACE
> >>>> AS HAVING ANY PRASCTICAL EANING
> >>>
> >>> But why forget it when it has a crucial physical role? It does no good to
> >>> try to invent reasons to ignore it.
> >>>
> >>>> in other words
> >>>>
> >>>> let s forget about empty space as something that means
> >>>> something to physics
> >>>> and ore important
> >>>> le us look for something at does !! act
> >>>> and really**makes the gravitation
> >>>>
> >>>> DISCOVERED.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> is not a prove
> >>>>>> it is ''fitting facts''(manipulating ) to some thing that is nothing
> >>>>>> more than a guess !!
> >>>>>> 2
> >>>>>> another thing to understand
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> if energy is mass in motion
> >>>>>
> >>>>> And again you have made a mistake. That is not the correct definition of
> >>>>> energy. For example, do you know the meaning of potential energy?
> >>>> ==================we are not with potential energy
> >>>> that is obfuscation !!!
> >>>
> >> ===> Potential energy is a class of energy. It also has nothing to do with mass
> >> ======
> >> (:-)
> >>
> >> please give us the dimensions of
> >> potential energy ...!!
> >> ==============
> >>
> >>> in motion. Therefore it is simply wrong to say that energy (of any class)
> >>> is mass in motion.
> >>> ====
> >> again
> >> what are the physical dimensions of energy
> >> ======
> >>>>
> >>>> If so,
> >>>>> please share your recollection of the definition of that term.
> >>>> ????
> >>>
> >>> What is the meaning of potential energy, if you can remember it?
> >>>
> >>> =========
> >>>>>> that motion OF MASS must be &&.RECICLED !!!!!!
> >>>>>> or else &.!!!!!
> >>>>>> just guess what will be then
> >>>>>> (if it will not be recycled ??!!
> >> =======================d
> >> Bod
> >> YOU DID NOT ANSWER THE ABOVE crucial QUESTION !!
> >> ==============================
> >>>>
> >>>>>> I don't want to spoon feed t that problem/point
> >>>>>> I would like to here it from you !!
> >>>>>> ====TIA
> >>>>>> Y.Porat
> >>>>>> =====================================
> >>>>> ==================
> >>>>
> >>>
> >> another question that you dint answer :
> >>
> >> do you know
> >> that ***curved space ''
> >> does not apply -to say
> >> the strong forces of protons/
> >> neutrons -
> >> in the nucleus
> >> WHY ???!!!
> >> ==
> >> TIA
> >> Y.Porat
> >> ======================
> >>>
> >>
> >
> > Potential energy is energy associated with position. It has units
> > newtons*meters.
> >
>
> And the string force is a force distinct from gravitation. Completely
> different.
>
> --
> Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables
There is gravity energy.
Mitchell Raemsch
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | poraty6@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-07-10 16:23 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: SPACE IS NOT CURVED AND NOT ..there is something elese |
| Message-ID | <1b9e4691-243f-4732-acb5-cdc5e761a57d@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #693483 |
On Tuesday, July 10, 2018 at 8:45:57 PM UTC+3, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> wrote:
> > <poraty6@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> On Tuesday, July 10, 2018 at 2:14:56 PM UTC+3, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> >>> <poraty6@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>> On Tuesday, July 10, 2018 at 1:09:48 PM UTC+3, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> >>>>> <poraty6@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>>> On Tuesday, July 10, 2018 at 7:19:06 AM UTC+3, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> >>>>>>> <poraty6@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>>> On Tuesday, July 10, 2018 at 6:05:15 AM UTC+3, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> <poraty6@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>> On Tuesday, July 10, 2018 at 1:17:36 AM UTC+3, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>> <poraty6@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>> On Monday, July 9, 2018 at 4:15:50 PM UTC+3, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> <poraty6@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Monday, July 9, 2018 at 1:20:04 PM UTC+3, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <poraty6@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> space has not curvature and no 'schmervature ''
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> space is nothing and has no properties whatsoever
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> EXCEPT - HOSTONG MASS !!!
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I m so happy for you that God whispered this information to you, a prophet,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and that you need no experimental test to know that it is true.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> while mass is the main 'hero' of physics
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it has some unknown yet
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sub particles -
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> -THAT MOVE 'NATURALLY' IN CURVED LINES !!
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> if you want to get a little hint for it
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> see
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the 'force lines of a magnet
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Michel Faraday was the first one to start revealing them
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> by his famous
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> magnet lines force makers
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in that ingenious experiment
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> he enabled us the first time
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to literally ** see*; them/get a hint/get a new idea
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> about that big unknown yet WORLD/'continent '''
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and that was just the first only tangible experiment
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> indirectly
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> we can more than guess about it
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> by knowing about gravitation facts !!
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ie
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in which points/locations it exist
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and in which points it does not
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (stronger and weaker
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> more dense and less dense
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> or not at all etc. )!
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> =====> > TIA
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Y.Porat
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ========================
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> --
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Odd Bodkin Maker of fine toys, tools, tables
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> =======================(:-)
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> thank you for your interest in me
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> are you envy
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> I explained things quite a few times
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> and it seems that you didn't follow
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> I asked In that ng
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> a question
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> that is based on **observations**
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> bus a little need for the gray stuff in our skulls
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Not a good idea. Just thinking about things without reference to data is
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> a fool s prescription. Your description of space is not consistent with
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> data.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> ====================I thought once that you are at least a gentleman...
> >>>>>>>>>>>> do you what to change my idea about you ??
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> who is the fool ?
> >>>>>>>>>>>> that is how a real scientist talk
> >>>>>>>>>>>> or a fish market merchant talk ?
> >>>>>>>>>>>> 2
> >>>>>>>>>>>> now genius smarty
> >>>>>>>>>>>> I am going to ask you a little question :
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> we realize that there is some connection between
> >>>>>>>>>>>> mass and forces
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> now my question to you as a great scalar''
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> what is more reasonable to you
> >>>>>>>>>>>> 1
> >>>>>>>>>>>> forces are creating masses ??
> >>>>>>>>>>>> 2
> >>>>>>>>>>>> masses are creating forces ??
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> Neither.
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> Odd Bodkin Maker of fine toys, tools, tables
> >>>>>>>>>> ==================(:-) !!!
> >>>>>>>>>> Neither ??
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> so I will ask it differently
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> wha1
> >>>>>>>>>> t is more likely :
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> conglomeration of masses
> >>>>>>>>>> are creating forces
> >>>>>>>>>> 2
> >>>>>>>>>> conglomeration of forces
> >>>>>>>>>> or any forces
> >>>>>>>>>> are/is creating conglomeration of masses ??
> >>>>>>>>>> =====TIA
> >>>>>>>>>> Y.Porat
> >>>>>>>>>> ======================> >
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> You re still missing pieces. And your still living in classical Newtonian
> >>>>>>>>> physics.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> --
> >>>>>>>>> Odd Bodkin Maker of fine toys, tools, tables
> >>>>>>>> ==============wrong !!
> >>>>>>>> you still don't get my
> >>>>>>>> Y Circlon ad y circlon mechanism !!
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> they circlon
> >>>>>>>> is a very basic particle
> >>>>>>>> that
> >>>>>>>> MOVES NATURALLY IN A CURVED LINE !
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> not because f en curved space
> >>>>>>>> but that is how' it was born ''
> >>>>>>>> ie
> >>>>>>>> a new basic assumption !!
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> not like Newton that claims ,movement in a straight line !!!
> >>>>>>>> now you can ask:
> >>>>>>>> there is still movement in a straight line
> >>>>>>>> so how come ??
> >>>>>>>> I say
> >>>>>>>> no contradiction :
> >>>>>>>> the circlon moves I n a closed o not closed circular
> >>>>>>>> path
> >>>>>>>> yet
> >>>>>>>> its *center POINT* of movement -can move
> >>>>>>>> in a straight line !!
> >>>>>>>> ie
> >>>>>>>> ACOMPOSITE MOVEMENT !!
> >>>>>>>> difficult for a mathematician ??
> >>>>>>>> but not difficult for a creative experienced mind
> >>>>>>>> the through is that I didn't get it at once
> >>>>>>>> it took me years of thinking
> >>>>>>>> as a 3D experienced engineer
> >>>>>>>> while I say
> >>>>>>>> I didn't think about it all along the day...
> >>>>>>>> of those years
> >>>>>>>> but from time to time at my free time
> >>>>>>>> if not buddy in other troubles of life &.
> >>>>>>>> (that are not missing me as an old goat of 80 years
> >>>>>>>> that is still walking about 8 km a day..
> >>>>>>>> with his head on his shoulders (:-)
> >>>>>>>> and thinking about anything in our troubles world &
> >>>>>>>> yet no ne
> >>>>>>>> can take away from me
> >>>>>>>> my unprecedented achievements
> >>>>>>>> because my good teachers thought me
> >>>>>>>> DONT BE A PARROT !!!!!!
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> it is not my say
> >>>>>>>> it is a say of one of my good teachers !!
> >>>>>>>> and that was
> >>>>>>>> how I behaved while designing
> >>>>>>>> about 70 bridges (I forgot hoe many ==many of them with
> >>>>>>>> unprecedented innovations !!
> >>>>>>>> not only in physics
> >>>>>>>> that I invested in
> >>>>>>>> studying physics may years as well
> >>>>>>>> including writing a book !!
> >>>>>>>> including learning from people even
> >>>>>>>> in that ng as well !!
> >>>>>>>> --
> >>>>>>>> if not clear
> >>>>>>>> just ask more
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> None of the above has anything to do with your weird claim that space has
> >>>>>>> no physical properties except hosting mass, a claim you have not
> >>>>>>> substantiated with data.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> ================("-)
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> substantiated with data ???
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Yes.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> if space is empty
> >>>>>> what does it mean empty ???
> >>>>>
> >>>>> It doesn t mean what you think it means. It means there is a volume with no
> >>>>> persistent matter within it. That s all.
> >>>> ========no persistent matter ?
> >>>> so what else ?? absolute nothing ??
> >>>
> >>> Empty space is not absolute nothing. That is not what the term means. You
> >>> are assigning the wrong words to it.
> >>>
> >>>> so
> >>>> wHAT can absolute nothing - DO act
> >>>> react ?????
> >>>> in short as if it was not there at all !!???
> >>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Most of all, human words and human definitions of those words never dictate
> >>>>> to nature
> >>>> --
> >>>> ? so it is as if it was not said at all !!??
> >>>> if so
> >>>> why to say it
> >>>> termine what it is by
> >>>> ??
> >>>
> >>> I already told you. The words come AFTER observational data. The data tells
> >>> you what it is, and THEN you choose right words to describe it. Not the
> >>> other way around.
> >>>
> >>>> => observational data, and then and only then do we decide which of our human
> >>>>> words we should use to describe it.
> >>>>> ===better not to do it before opening our mouth
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> empty is nothing
> >>>>>> and no properties at all
> >>>>>
> >>>>> No sir. That is not what it means. Data first, then you choose the right
> >>>>> words to describe what is suggested by the data.
> >>>> ok
> >>>> what is your data about empty space ??
> >>>
> >>> Not my data. Physicists’ data.
> >>> Data having to do with length contraction, time dilation, frame dragging,
> >>> gravitational lensing, Doppler shift, rapidity distributions, impedance of
> >>> empty space, Shapiro delay, waves of empty space, and so on and on and on.
> >>> Try reading.
> >>>
> >>>> ====
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> the fact that ''you ' invented properties to space
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Nobody invented the properties of space.
> >>>>
> >>>> did I suggested something Those properties
> >>>> of empty space
> >>>> quite the opposite
> >>>> that is what I say all along
> >>>> JUST FORGET ABOUT EMPTY SPACE
> >>>> AS HAVING ANY PRASCTICAL EANING
> >>>
> >>> But why forget it when it has a crucial physical role? It does no good to
> >>> try to invent reasons to ignore it.
> >>>
> >>>> in other words
> >>>>
> >>>> let s forget about empty space as something that means
> >>>> something to physics
> >>>> and ore important
> >>>> le us look for something at does !! act
> >>>> and really**makes the gravitation
> >>>>
> >>>> DISCOVERED.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> is not a prove
> >>>>>> it is ''fitting facts''(manipulating ) to some thing that is nothing
> >>>>>> more than a guess !!
> >>>>>> 2
> >>>>>> another thing to understand
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> if energy is mass in motion
> >>>>>
> >>>>> And again you have made a mistake. That is not the correct definition of
> >>>>> energy. For example, do you know the meaning of potential energy?
> >>>> ==================we are not with potential energy
> >>>> that is obfuscation !!!
> >>>
> >> ===> Potential energy is a class of energy. It also has nothing to do with mass
> >> ======
> >> (:-)
> >>
> >> please give us the dimensions of
> >> potential energy ...!!
> >> ==============
> >>
> >>> in motion. Therefore it is simply wrong to say that energy (of any class)
> >>> is mass in motion.
> >>> ====
> >> again
> >> what are the physical dimensions of energy
> >> ======
> >>>>
> >>>> If so,
> >>>>> please share your recollection of the definition of that term.
> >>>> ????
> >>>
> >>> What is the meaning of potential energy, if you can remember it?
> >>>
> >>> =========
> >>>>>> that motion OF MASS must be &&.RECICLED !!!!!!
> >>>>>> or else &.!!!!!
> >>>>>> just guess what will be then
> >>>>>> (if it will not be recycled ??!!
> >> =======================d
> >> Bod
> >> YOU DID NOT ANSWER THE ABOVE crucial QUESTION !!
> >> ==============================
> >>>>
> >>>>>> I don't want to spoon feed t that problem/point
> >>>>>> I would like to here it from you !!
> >>>>>> ====TIA
> >>>>>> Y.Porat
> >>>>>> =====================================
> >>>>> ==================
> >>>>
> >>>
> >> another question that you dint answer :
> >>
> >> do you know
> >> that ***curved space ''
> >> does not apply -to say
> >> the strong forces of protons/
> >> neutrons -
> >> in the nucleus
> >> WHY ???!!!
> >> ==
> >> TIA
> >> Y.Porat
> >> ======================
Bodkin
did not answer that question
why curved space
does not apply to the strong forces
==========================
> >>>
> >>
> >
> > Potential energy is energy associated with position. It has units
> > newtons*meters.
========
Newton meter
is good enough to make insert forces ???!!>
any force ??? >
> And the string force
9strng force ???
is a force distinct from gravitation. Completely
> different.
======================
not aclear sentence !!!
=====================
and another question of mine
CAN YOU TELL APPRIORY
TO WHICH DIRECTION SPACE WILL CURVE ??!
=========
2
why curved space
does not apply to the strong forces ??
======
TIA
Y.P
========================
>
>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-07-10 23:29 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: SPACE IS NOT CURVED AND NOT ..there is something elese |
| Message-ID | <pi3fh3$vaq$2@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #693521 |
<poraty6@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tuesday, July 10, 2018 at 8:45:57 PM UTC+3, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>> Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> <poraty6@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> On Tuesday, July 10, 2018 at 2:14:56 PM UTC+3, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>>>>> <poraty6@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>> On Tuesday, July 10, 2018 at 1:09:48 PM UTC+3, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>>>>>>> <poraty6@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Tuesday, July 10, 2018 at 7:19:06 AM UTC+3, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>>>>>>>>> <poraty6@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On Tuesday, July 10, 2018 at 6:05:15 AM UTC+3, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> <poraty6@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tuesday, July 10, 2018 at 1:17:36 AM UTC+3, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> <poraty6@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Monday, July 9, 2018 at 4:15:50 PM UTC+3, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <poraty6@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Monday, July 9, 2018 at 1:20:04 PM UTC+3, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <poraty6@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> space has not curvature and no 'schmervature ''
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> space is nothing and has no properties whatsoever
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> EXCEPT - HOSTONG MASS !!!
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I m so happy for you that God whispered this information to you, a prophet,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and that you need no experimental test to know that it is true.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> while mass is the main 'hero' of physics
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it has some unknown yet
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sub particles -
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> -THAT MOVE 'NATURALLY' IN CURVED LINES !!
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> if you want to get a little hint for it
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> see
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the 'force lines of a magnet
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Michel Faraday was the first one to start revealing them
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> by his famous
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> magnet lines force makers
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in that ingenious experiment
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> he enabled us the first time
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to literally ** see*; them/get a hint/get a new idea
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> about that big unknown yet WORLD/'continent '''
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and that was just the first only tangible experiment
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> indirectly
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> we can more than guess about it
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> by knowing about gravitation facts !!
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ie
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in which points/locations it exist
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and in which points it does not
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (stronger and weaker
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> more dense and less dense
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> or not at all etc. )!
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> =====> > TIA
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Y.Porat
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ========================
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Odd Bodkin Maker of fine toys, tools, tables
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> =======================(:-)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> thank you for your interest in me
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> are you envy
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I explained things quite a few times
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and it seems that you didn't follow
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I asked In that ng
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a question
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that is based on **observations**
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> bus a little need for the gray stuff in our skulls
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Not a good idea. Just thinking about things without reference to data is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a fool s prescription. Your description of space is not consistent with
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> data.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ====================I thought once that you are at least a gentleman...
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> do you what to change my idea about you ??
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> who is the fool ?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that is how a real scientist talk
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> or a fish market merchant talk ?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> now genius smarty
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I am going to ask you a little question :
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> we realize that there is some connection between
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> mass and forces
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> now my question to you as a great scalar''
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> what is more reasonable to you
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 1
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> forces are creating masses ??
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> masses are creating forces ??
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Neither.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Odd Bodkin Maker of fine toys, tools, tables
>>>>>>>>>>>> ==================(:-) !!!
>>>>>>>>>>>> Neither ??
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> so I will ask it differently
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> wha1
>>>>>>>>>>>> t is more likely :
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> conglomeration of masses
>>>>>>>>>>>> are creating forces
>>>>>>>>>>>> 2
>>>>>>>>>>>> conglomeration of forces
>>>>>>>>>>>> or any forces
>>>>>>>>>>>> are/is creating conglomeration of masses ??
>>>>>>>>>>>> =====TIA
>>>>>>>>>>>> Y.Porat
>>>>>>>>>>>> ======================> >
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> You re still missing pieces. And your still living in classical Newtonian
>>>>>>>>>>> physics.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>>>> Odd Bodkin Maker of fine toys, tools, tables
>>>>>>>>>> ==============wrong !!
>>>>>>>>>> you still don't get my
>>>>>>>>>> Y Circlon ad y circlon mechanism !!
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> they circlon
>>>>>>>>>> is a very basic particle
>>>>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>>>>> MOVES NATURALLY IN A CURVED LINE !
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> not because f en curved space
>>>>>>>>>> but that is how' it was born ''
>>>>>>>>>> ie
>>>>>>>>>> a new basic assumption !!
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> not like Newton that claims ,movement in a straight line !!!
>>>>>>>>>> now you can ask:
>>>>>>>>>> there is still movement in a straight line
>>>>>>>>>> so how come ??
>>>>>>>>>> I say
>>>>>>>>>> no contradiction :
>>>>>>>>>> the circlon moves I n a closed o not closed circular
>>>>>>>>>> path
>>>>>>>>>> yet
>>>>>>>>>> its *center POINT* of movement -can move
>>>>>>>>>> in a straight line !!
>>>>>>>>>> ie
>>>>>>>>>> ACOMPOSITE MOVEMENT !!
>>>>>>>>>> difficult for a mathematician ??
>>>>>>>>>> but not difficult for a creative experienced mind
>>>>>>>>>> the through is that I didn't get it at once
>>>>>>>>>> it took me years of thinking
>>>>>>>>>> as a 3D experienced engineer
>>>>>>>>>> while I say
>>>>>>>>>> I didn't think about it all along the day...
>>>>>>>>>> of those years
>>>>>>>>>> but from time to time at my free time
>>>>>>>>>> if not buddy in other troubles of life &.
>>>>>>>>>> (that are not missing me as an old goat of 80 years
>>>>>>>>>> that is still walking about 8 km a day..
>>>>>>>>>> with his head on his shoulders (:-)
>>>>>>>>>> and thinking about anything in our troubles world &
>>>>>>>>>> yet no ne
>>>>>>>>>> can take away from me
>>>>>>>>>> my unprecedented achievements
>>>>>>>>>> because my good teachers thought me
>>>>>>>>>> DONT BE A PARROT !!!!!!
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> it is not my say
>>>>>>>>>> it is a say of one of my good teachers !!
>>>>>>>>>> and that was
>>>>>>>>>> how I behaved while designing
>>>>>>>>>> about 70 bridges (I forgot hoe many ==many of them with
>>>>>>>>>> unprecedented innovations !!
>>>>>>>>>> not only in physics
>>>>>>>>>> that I invested in
>>>>>>>>>> studying physics may years as well
>>>>>>>>>> including writing a book !!
>>>>>>>>>> including learning from people even
>>>>>>>>>> in that ng as well !!
>>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>>> if not clear
>>>>>>>>>> just ask more
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> None of the above has anything to do with your weird claim that space has
>>>>>>>>> no physical properties except hosting mass, a claim you have not
>>>>>>>>> substantiated with data.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> ================("-)
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> substantiated with data ???
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Yes.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> if space is empty
>>>>>>>> what does it mean empty ???
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It doesn t mean what you think it means. It means there is a volume with no
>>>>>>> persistent matter within it. That s all.
>>>>>> ========no persistent matter ?
>>>>>> so what else ?? absolute nothing ??
>>>>>
>>>>> Empty space is not absolute nothing. That is not what the term means. You
>>>>> are assigning the wrong words to it.
>>>>>
>>>>>> so
>>>>>> wHAT can absolute nothing - DO act
>>>>>> react ?????
>>>>>> in short as if it was not there at all !!???
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Most of all, human words and human definitions of those words never dictate
>>>>>>> to nature
>>>>>> --
>>>>>> ? so it is as if it was not said at all !!??
>>>>>> if so
>>>>>> why to say it
>>>>>> termine what it is by
>>>>>> ??
>>>>>
>>>>> I already told you. The words come AFTER observational data. The data tells
>>>>> you what it is, and THEN you choose right words to describe it. Not the
>>>>> other way around.
>>>>>
>>>>>> => observational data, and then and only then do we decide which of our human
>>>>>>> words we should use to describe it.
>>>>>>> ===better not to do it before opening our mouth
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> empty is nothing
>>>>>>>> and no properties at all
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> No sir. That is not what it means. Data first, then you choose the right
>>>>>>> words to describe what is suggested by the data.
>>>>>> ok
>>>>>> what is your data about empty space ??
>>>>>
>>>>> Not my data. Physicists’ data.
>>>>> Data having to do with length contraction, time dilation, frame dragging,
>>>>> gravitational lensing, Doppler shift, rapidity distributions, impedance of
>>>>> empty space, Shapiro delay, waves of empty space, and so on and on and on.
>>>>> Try reading.
>>>>>
>>>>>> ====
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> the fact that ''you ' invented properties to space
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Nobody invented the properties of space.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> did I suggested something Those properties
>>>>>> of empty space
>>>>>> quite the opposite
>>>>>> that is what I say all along
>>>>>> JUST FORGET ABOUT EMPTY SPACE
>>>>>> AS HAVING ANY PRASCTICAL EANING
>>>>>
>>>>> But why forget it when it has a crucial physical role? It does no good to
>>>>> try to invent reasons to ignore it.
>>>>>
>>>>>> in other words
>>>>>>
>>>>>> let s forget about empty space as something that means
>>>>>> something to physics
>>>>>> and ore important
>>>>>> le us look for something at does !! act
>>>>>> and really**makes the gravitation
>>>>>>
>>>>>> DISCOVERED.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> is not a prove
>>>>>>>> it is ''fitting facts''(manipulating ) to some thing that is nothing
>>>>>>>> more than a guess !!
>>>>>>>> 2
>>>>>>>> another thing to understand
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> if energy is mass in motion
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> And again you have made a mistake. That is not the correct definition of
>>>>>>> energy. For example, do you know the meaning of potential energy?
>>>>>> ==================we are not with potential energy
>>>>>> that is obfuscation !!!
>>>>>
>>>> ===> Potential energy is a class of energy. It also has nothing to do with mass
>>>> ======
>>>> (:-)
>>>>
>>>> please give us the dimensions of
>>>> potential energy ...!!
>>>> ==============
>>>>
>>>>> in motion. Therefore it is simply wrong to say that energy (of any class)
>>>>> is mass in motion.
>>>>> ====
>>>> again
>>>> what are the physical dimensions of energy
>>>> ======
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If so,
>>>>>>> please share your recollection of the definition of that term.
>>>>>> ????
>>>>>
>>>>> What is the meaning of potential energy, if you can remember it?
>>>>>
>>>>> =========
>>>>>>>> that motion OF MASS must be &&.RECICLED !!!!!!
>>>>>>>> or else &.!!!!!
>>>>>>>> just guess what will be then
>>>>>>>> (if it will not be recycled ??!!
>>>> =======================d
>>>> Bod
>>>> YOU DID NOT ANSWER THE ABOVE crucial QUESTION !!
>>>> ==============================
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I don't want to spoon feed t that problem/point
>>>>>>>> I would like to here it from you !!
>>>>>>>> ====TIA
>>>>>>>> Y.Porat
>>>>>>>> =====================================
>>>>>>> ==================
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> another question that you dint answer :
>>>>
>>>> do you know
>>>> that ***curved space ''
>>>> does not apply -to say
>>>> the strong forces of protons/
>>>> neutrons -
>>>> in the nucleus
>>>> WHY ???!!!
>>>> ==
>>>> TIA
>>>> Y.Porat
>>>> ======================
>
> Bodkin
> did not answer that question
> why curved space
> does not apply to the strong forces
Yes I did.
>
> ==========================
>
>
>
>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> Potential energy is energy associated with position. It has units
>>> newtons*meters.
> ========
> Newton meter
> is good enough to make insert forces ???!!>
> any force ??? >
Any conservative force yes.
>
>> And the string force
> 9strng force ???
>
>
>
>
> is a force distinct from gravitation. Completely
>> different.
> ======================
> not aclear sentence !!!
It is to me.
>
> =====================
> and another question of mine
>
> CAN YOU TELL APPRIORY
> TO WHICH DIRECTION SPACE WILL CURVE ??!
Yes.
> =========
>
> 2
> why curved space
> does not apply to the strong forces ??
Because curved space is a theory of gravity only. It has nothing to do with
electromagnetic or weak or strong interactions.
>
> ======
> TIA
> Y.P
> ========================
>
>
>
>>
>>
>
--
Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | poraty6@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-07-10 16:50 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: SPACE IS NOT CURVED AND NOT ..there is something elese |
| Message-ID | <12f60d6f-1af1-41a3-9a90-42e2ec6bffa8@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #693523 |
On Wednesday, July 11, 2018 at 2:29:45 AM UTC+3, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> <poraty6@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Tuesday, July 10, 2018 at 8:45:57 PM UTC+3, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> >> Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>> <poraty6@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>> On Tuesday, July 10, 2018 at 2:14:56 PM UTC+3, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> >>>>> <poraty6@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>>> On Tuesday, July 10, 2018 at 1:09:48 PM UTC+3, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> >>>>>>> <poraty6@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>>> On Tuesday, July 10, 2018 at 7:19:06 AM UTC+3, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> <poraty6@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>> On Tuesday, July 10, 2018 at 6:05:15 AM UTC+3, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>> <poraty6@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>> On Tuesday, July 10, 2018 at 1:17:36 AM UTC+3, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> <poraty6@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Monday, July 9, 2018 at 4:15:50 PM UTC+3, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <poraty6@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Monday, July 9, 2018 at 1:20:04 PM UTC+3, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <poraty6@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> space has not curvature and no 'schmervature ''
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> space is nothing and has no properties whatsoever
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> EXCEPT - HOSTONG MASS !!!
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I m so happy for you that God whispered this information to you, a prophet,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and that you need no experimental test to know that it is true.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> while mass is the main 'hero' of physics
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it has some unknown yet
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sub particles -
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> -THAT MOVE 'NATURALLY' IN CURVED LINES !!
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> if you want to get a little hint for it
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> see
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the 'force lines of a magnet
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Michel Faraday was the first one to start revealing them
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> by his famous
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> magnet lines force makers
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in that ingenious experiment
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> he enabled us the first time
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to literally ** see*; them/get a hint/get a new idea
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> about that big unknown yet WORLD/'continent '''
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and that was just the first only tangible experiment
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> indirectly
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> we can more than guess about it
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> by knowing about gravitation facts !!
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ie
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in which points/locations it exist
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and in which points it does not
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (stronger and weaker
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> more dense and less dense
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> or not at all etc. )!
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> =====> > TIA
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Y.Porat
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ========================
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> --
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Odd Bodkin Maker of fine toys, tools, tables
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> =======================(:-)
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> thank you for your interest in me
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> are you envy
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I explained things quite a few times
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and it seems that you didn't follow
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I asked In that ng
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a question
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that is based on **observations**
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> bus a little need for the gray stuff in our skulls
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Not a good idea. Just thinking about things without reference to data is
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a fool s prescription. Your description of space is not consistent with
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> data.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> ====================I thought once that you are at least a gentleman...
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> do you what to change my idea about you ??
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> who is the fool ?
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> that is how a real scientist talk
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> or a fish market merchant talk ?
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> now genius smarty
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> I am going to ask you a little question :
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> we realize that there is some connection between
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> mass and forces
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> now my question to you as a great scalar''
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> what is more reasonable to you
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> 1
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> forces are creating masses ??
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> masses are creating forces ??
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Neither.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Odd Bodkin Maker of fine toys, tools, tables
> >>>>>>>>>>>> ==================(:-) !!!
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Neither ??
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> so I will ask it differently
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> wha1
> >>>>>>>>>>>> t is more likely :
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> conglomeration of masses
> >>>>>>>>>>>> are creating forces
> >>>>>>>>>>>> 2
> >>>>>>>>>>>> conglomeration of forces
> >>>>>>>>>>>> or any forces
> >>>>>>>>>>>> are/is creating conglomeration of masses ??
> >>>>>>>>>>>> =====TIA
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Y.Porat
> >>>>>>>>>>>> ======================> >
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> You re still missing pieces. And your still living in classical Newtonian
> >>>>>>>>>>> physics.
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> --
> >>>>>>>>>>> Odd Bodkin Maker of fine toys, tools, tables
> >>>>>>>>>> ==============wrong !!
> >>>>>>>>>> you still don't get my
> >>>>>>>>>> Y Circlon ad y circlon mechanism !!
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> they circlon
> >>>>>>>>>> is a very basic particle
> >>>>>>>>>> that
> >>>>>>>>>> MOVES NATURALLY IN A CURVED LINE !
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> not because f en curved space
> >>>>>>>>>> but that is how' it was born ''
> >>>>>>>>>> ie
> >>>>>>>>>> a new basic assumption !!
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> not like Newton that claims ,movement in a straight line !!!
> >>>>>>>>>> now you can ask:
> >>>>>>>>>> there is still movement in a straight line
> >>>>>>>>>> so how come ??
> >>>>>>>>>> I say
> >>>>>>>>>> no contradiction :
> >>>>>>>>>> the circlon moves I n a closed o not closed circular
> >>>>>>>>>> path
> >>>>>>>>>> yet
> >>>>>>>>>> its *center POINT* of movement -can move
> >>>>>>>>>> in a straight line !!
> >>>>>>>>>> ie
> >>>>>>>>>> ACOMPOSITE MOVEMENT !!
> >>>>>>>>>> difficult for a mathematician ??
> >>>>>>>>>> but not difficult for a creative experienced mind
> >>>>>>>>>> the through is that I didn't get it at once
> >>>>>>>>>> it took me years of thinking
> >>>>>>>>>> as a 3D experienced engineer
> >>>>>>>>>> while I say
> >>>>>>>>>> I didn't think about it all along the day...
> >>>>>>>>>> of those years
> >>>>>>>>>> but from time to time at my free time
> >>>>>>>>>> if not buddy in other troubles of life &.
> >>>>>>>>>> (that are not missing me as an old goat of 80 years
> >>>>>>>>>> that is still walking about 8 km a day..
> >>>>>>>>>> with his head on his shoulders (:-)
> >>>>>>>>>> and thinking about anything in our troubles world &
> >>>>>>>>>> yet no ne
> >>>>>>>>>> can take away from me
> >>>>>>>>>> my unprecedented achievements
> >>>>>>>>>> because my good teachers thought me
> >>>>>>>>>> DONT BE A PARROT !!!!!!
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> it is not my say
> >>>>>>>>>> it is a say of one of my good teachers !!
> >>>>>>>>>> and that was
> >>>>>>>>>> how I behaved while designing
> >>>>>>>>>> about 70 bridges (I forgot hoe many ==many of them with
> >>>>>>>>>> unprecedented innovations !!
> >>>>>>>>>> not only in physics
> >>>>>>>>>> that I invested in
> >>>>>>>>>> studying physics may years as well
> >>>>>>>>>> including writing a book !!
> >>>>>>>>>> including learning from people even
> >>>>>>>>>> in that ng as well !!
> >>>>>>>>>> --
> >>>>>>>>>> if not clear
> >>>>>>>>>> just ask more
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> None of the above has anything to do with your weird claim that space has
> >>>>>>>>> no physical properties except hosting mass, a claim you have not
> >>>>>>>>> substantiated with data.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> ================("-)
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> substantiated with data ???
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Yes.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> if space is empty
> >>>>>>>> what does it mean empty ???
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> It doesn t mean what you think it means. It means there is a volume with no
> >>>>>>> persistent matter within it. That s all.
> >>>>>> ========no persistent matter ?
> >>>>>> so what else ?? absolute nothing ??
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Empty space is not absolute nothing. That is not what the term means. You
> >>>>> are assigning the wrong words to it.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> so
> >>>>>> wHAT can absolute nothing - DO act
> >>>>>> react ?????
> >>>>>> in short as if it was not there at all !!???
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Most of all, human words and human definitions of those words never dictate
> >>>>>>> to nature
> >>>>>> --
> >>>>>> ? so it is as if it was not said at all !!??
> >>>>>> if so
> >>>>>> why to say it
> >>>>>> termine what it is by
> >>>>>> ??
> >>>>>
> >>>>> I already told you. The words come AFTER observational data. The data tells
> >>>>> you what it is, and THEN you choose right words to describe it. Not the
> >>>>> other way around.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> => observational data, and then and only then do we decide which of our human
> >>>>>>> words we should use to describe it.
> >>>>>>> ===better not to do it before opening our mouth
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> empty is nothing
> >>>>>>>> and no properties at all
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> No sir. That is not what it means. Data first, then you choose the right
> >>>>>>> words to describe what is suggested by the data.
> >>>>>> ok
> >>>>>> what is your data about empty space ??
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Not my data. Physicists’ data.
> >>>>> Data having to do with length contraction, time dilation, frame dragging,
> >>>>> gravitational lensing, Doppler shift, rapidity distributions, impedance of
> >>>>> empty space, Shapiro delay, waves of empty space, and so on and on and on.
> >>>>> Try reading.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> ====
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> the fact that ''you ' invented properties to space
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Nobody invented the properties of space.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> did I suggested something Those properties
> >>>>>> of empty space
> >>>>>> quite the opposite
> >>>>>> that is what I say all along
> >>>>>> JUST FORGET ABOUT EMPTY SPACE
> >>>>>> AS HAVING ANY PRASCTICAL EANING
> >>>>>
> >>>>> But why forget it when it has a crucial physical role? It does no good to
> >>>>> try to invent reasons to ignore it.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> in other words
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> let s forget about empty space as something that means
> >>>>>> something to physics
> >>>>>> and ore important
> >>>>>> le us look for something at does !! act
> >>>>>> and really**makes the gravitation
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> DISCOVERED.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> is not a prove
> >>>>>>>> it is ''fitting facts''(manipulating ) to some thing that is nothing
> >>>>>>>> more than a guess !!
> >>>>>>>> 2
> >>>>>>>> another thing to understand
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> if energy is mass in motion
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> And again you have made a mistake. That is not the correct definition of
> >>>>>>> energy. For example, do you know the meaning of potential energy?
> >>>>>> ==================we are not with potential energy
> >>>>>> that is obfuscation !!!
> >>>>>
> >>>> ===> Potential energy is a class of energy. It also has nothing to do with mass
> >>>> ======
> >>>> (:-)
> >>>>
> >>>> please give us the dimensions of
> >>>> potential energy ...!!
> >>>> ==============
> >>>>
> >>>>> in motion. Therefore it is simply wrong to say that energy (of any class)
> >>>>> is mass in motion.
> >>>>> ====
> >>>> again
> >>>> what are the physical dimensions of energy
> >>>> ======
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> If so,
> >>>>>>> please share your recollection of the definition of that term.
> >>>>>> ????
> >>>>>
> >>>>> What is the meaning of potential energy, if you can remember it?
> >>>>>
> >>>>> =========
> >>>>>>>> that motion OF MASS must be &&.RECICLED !!!!!!
> >>>>>>>> or else &.!!!!!
> >>>>>>>> just guess what will be then
> >>>>>>>> (if it will not be recycled ??!!
> >>>> =======================d
> >>>> Bod
> >>>> YOU DID NOT ANSWER THE ABOVE crucial QUESTION !!
> >>>> ==============================
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> I don't want to spoon feed t that problem/point
> >>>>>>>> I would like to here it from you !!
> >>>>>>>> ====TIA
> >>>>>>>> Y.Porat
> >>>>>>>> =====================================
> >>>>>>> ==================
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>> another question that you dint answer :
> >>>>
> >>>> do you know
> >>>> that ***curved space ''
> >>>> does not apply -to say
> >>>> the strong forces of protons/
> >>>> neutrons -
> >>>> in the nucleus
> >>>> WHY ???!!!
> >>>> ==
> >>>> TIA
> >>>> Y.Porat
> >>>> ======================
> >
> > Bodkin
> > did not answer that question
> > why curved space
> > does not apply to the strong forces
>
> Yes I did.
=========================
as usual
you mumbled something
that
gravity is a special force
a force is a force
that must have the basics of force
or else
it is nice hand waving's
mumblings
=======
Y.P
====================
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | poraty6@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-07-10 18:18 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: SPACE IS NOT CURVED AND NOT ..there is something elese |
| Message-ID | <4a7c0cca-9633-4ed5-9ed9-f03e05b9fb7f@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #693527 |
let us hear it again BTW Bodkin has a 'nice way' of obfuscation he keeps **tons** of previous quoting until no one can find there his ''hands and legs'' that is not accidental IT IS A SYSTEM OF OBFUSCATION ! so I will ask him again === to which direction space will curve ?? to those once who don't get it curvature(by definition!!! has a direction of curvature so I ask Bodkin again to which direction space should curve ? there are infinite possibilities for the possible directions and ''infinite directions'' are of course not a scientific answer !! TIA Y.Porat ============================
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-07-11 03:36 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: SPACE IS NOT CURVED AND NOT ..there is something elese |
| Message-ID | <pi3u06$1ilu$3@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #693533 |
<poraty6@gmail.com> wrote: > let us hear it again > BTW > Bodkin has a 'nice way' of obfuscation > he keeps **tons** of previous quoting > until no one can find there his ''hands and legs'' > that is not accidental > > IT IS A SYSTEM OF OBFUSCATION ! > so I will ask him again > === > to which direction space will curve ?? In the direction that is the solution of the field equations. This is not any different than solving F=ma and thereby knowing which way an object will travel. > > > to those once who don't get it > curvature(by definition!!! > has a direction of curvature > so > I ask Bodkin again > to which direction space should curve ? > > there are infinite possibilities for the possible directions > and ''infinite directions'' > are of course not a scientific answer !! You solve the equations to find the curvature. The same way you solve Newtons 2nd law to find the motion. You know how to do that, right? > TIA > Y.Porat > ============================ > > > > > > > -- Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | poraty6@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-07-10 23:48 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: SPACE IS NOT CURVED AND NOT ..there is something elese |
| Message-ID | <26d9cdc6-db91-4f76-a014-00b26048463c@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #693545 |
On Wednesday, July 11, 2018 at 6:36:41 AM UTC+3, Odd Bodkin wrote: > <poraty6@gmail.com> wrote: > > let us hear it again > > BTW > > Bodkin has a 'nice way' of obfuscation > > he keeps **tons** of previous quoting > > until no one can find there his ''hands and legs'' > > that is not accidental > > > > IT IS A SYSTEM OF OBFUSCATION ! > > so I will ask him again > > === > > to which direction space will curve ?? > > In the direction that is the solution of the field equations. ========================== again a master of smart guying makes yourself a big scientist ?? more than you really are ?? !! cant you say simply it will curve == IN THE DIRECTION OF IN WHICH** MASS *** IS LOCATED !! full stop !! ------ do you think that more 'mysterious you pose the bigger scientist it will make ??!! or it will give you more abilities ''to turn our globe around your finger'' why not say IT (THE DIRECTION OF CURVATURE ) WILL DIRECT ITSELF TO THE DIRECTION IN WICH** MASS or masses IS/are LOCATED !! do you agree ??( for me as a start.. ) ==== it is not a matter of semantics it is looking for coming closer to reality and truth ==== btw for me non of it is right because space is nothing and has no curvature and no schmervature but it will be less idiotic /parroting than relating at all to space but to …. ...something else that should be now on our table …. ==== > > This is not any different than solving F=ma and thereby knowing which way > an object will travel. ============================ wrong again !! F - ma is a general solution for may cases OTHOA on the other hand === curvature ** is a very specific geometric term !! with no endless possibilities kipping in mind that that''' your'' gravity must / is pretending to solve/ be specific to each case for itself !! and connected to that specific curvature !! AND SHOW THE UNEQUIVICAL CONNECTION TO THAT SPECIFIC CURVED SAPACE > > > > > > to those once who don't get it > > curvature(by definition!!! > > has a direction of curvature > > so > > I ask Bodkin again > > to which direction space should curve ? > > > > there are infinite possibilities for the possible directions > > and ''infinite directions'' > > are of course not a scientific answer !! > > You solve the equations to find the curvature. The same way you solve > Newtons 2nd law to find the motion. You know how to do that, right? =============== wrong !! to involve here F=ma is a master of another obfuscation ====== ATB Y.Porat =============================
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | poraty6@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-07-11 00:17 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: SPACE IS NOT CURVED AND NOT ..there is something elese |
| Message-ID | <d1519c61-658d-4505-9a41-3ddf76382216@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #693559 |
On Wednesday, July 11, 2018 at 9:48:20 AM UTC+3, por...@gmail.com wrote: > On Wednesday, July 11, 2018 at 6:36:41 AM UTC+3, Odd Bodkin wrote: > > <poraty6@gmail.com> wrote: > > > let us hear it again > > > BTW > > > Bodkin has a 'nice way' of obfuscation > > > he keeps **tons** of previous quoting > > > until no one can find there his ''hands and legs'' > > > that is not accidental > > > > > > IT IS A SYSTEM OF OBFUSCATION ! > > > so I will ask him again > > > === > > > to which direction space will curve ?? > > > > In the direction that is the solution of the field equations. > > ========================== > again a master of smart guying > makes yourself a big scientist ?? > > more than you really are ?? > !! > > cant you say simply > it will curve == > > IN THE DIRECTION OF IN WHICH** MASS *** IS LOCATED !! > full stop !! > ------ > do you think that more 'mysterious you pose > the bigger scientist it will make ??!! > or it will give you more abilities > ''to turn our globe > around your finger'' > why not say > > IT (THE DIRECTION OF CURVATURE ) > WILL DIRECT ITSELF TO THE DIRECTION IN WICH** MASS > or masses IS/are LOCATED !! > do you agree ??( for me as a start.. ) > ==== > it is not a matter of semantics > it is looking for coming closer to reality and truth > > ==== > btw > for me non of it is right > because > space is nothing > and has no curvature and no schmervature > but it will be less idiotic /parroting > than relating at all to space > but to …. > ...something else > that should be now on our table …. > ==== > > > > This is not any different than solving F=ma and thereby knowing which way > > an object will travel. > ============================ > wrong again !! > F - ma > is a general solution for may cases > OTHOA on the other hand > === > curvature ** > is a very specific geometric term !! > with no endless possibilities > kipping in mind that > that''' your'' gravity must / is pretending to solve/ be specific to each case for itself !! > and connected to that specific curvature !! > > AND SHOW > THE UNEQUIVICAL CONNECTION TO THAT > SPECIFIC CURVED SAPACE > > > > > > > > > > to those once who don't get it > > > curvature(by definition!!! > > > has a direction of curvature > > > so > > > I ask Bodkin again > > > to which direction space should curve ? > > > > > > there are infinite possibilities for the possible directions > > > and ''infinite directions'' > > > are of course not a scientific answer !! > > > > You solve the equations to find the curvature. The same way you solve > > Newtons 2nd law to find the motion. You know how to do that, right? > > =============== > wrong !! > to involve here > F=ma > is a master of another obfuscation > ====== > ATB > Y.Porat > ============================= and another question you say /agree it will curve in the direction of masses'' now my question: where from is that ''smell power ' of empty!! space to' smell where are mases located ??! TIA Y.P ===========================
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-07-11 09:39 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: SPACE IS NOT CURVED AND NOT ..there is something elese |
| Message-ID | <pi4j97$op9$2@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #693562 |
<poraty6@gmail.com> wrote: > On Wednesday, July 11, 2018 at 9:48:20 AM UTC+3, por...@gmail.com wrote: >> On Wednesday, July 11, 2018 at 6:36:41 AM UTC+3, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>> <poraty6@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> let us hear it again >>>> BTW >>>> Bodkin has a 'nice way' of obfuscation >>>> he keeps **tons** of previous quoting >>>> until no one can find there his ''hands and legs'' >>>> that is not accidental >>>> >>>> IT IS A SYSTEM OF OBFUSCATION ! >>>> so I will ask him again >>>> ==> > > to which direction space will curve ?? >>> >>> In the direction that is the solution of the field equations. >> >> =========================> again a master of smart guying >> makes yourself a big scientist ?? >> >> more than you really are ?? >> !! >> >> cant you say simply >> it will curve => >> IN THE DIRECTION OF IN WHICH** MASS *** IS LOCATED !! >> full stop !! >> ------ >> do you think that more 'mysterious you pose >> the bigger scientist it will make ??!! >> or it will give you more abilities >> ''to turn our globe >> around your finger'' >> why not say >> >> IT (THE DIRECTION OF CURVATURE ) >> WILL DIRECT ITSELF TO THE DIRECTION IN WICH** MASS >> or masses IS/are LOCATED !! >> do you agree ??( for me as a start.. ) >> ===> it is not a matter of semantics >> it is looking for coming closer to reality and truth >> >> ===> btw >> for me non of it is right >> because >> space is nothing >> and has no curvature and no schmervature >> but it will be less idiotic /parroting >> than relating at all to space >> but to &. >> ...something else >> that should be now on our table &. >> ===> > >>> This is not any different than solving F=ma and thereby knowing which way >>> an object will travel. >> ===========================> wrong again !! >> F - ma >> is a general solution for may cases >> OTHOA on the other hand >> ==> curvature ** >> is a very specific geometric term !! >> with no endless possibilities >> kipping in mind that >> that''' your'' gravity must / is pretending to solve/ be specific to >> each case for itself !! >> and connected to that specific curvature !! >> >> AND SHOW >> THE UNEQUIVICAL CONNECTION TO THAT >> SPECIFIC CURVED SAPACE >> >>>> >>>> >>>> to those once who don't get it >>>> curvature(by definition!!! >>>> has a direction of curvature >>>> so >>>> I ask Bodkin again >>>> to which direction space should curve ? >>>> >>>> there are infinite possibilities for the possible directions >>>> and ''infinite directions'' >>>> are of course not a scientific answer !! >>> >>> You solve the equations to find the curvature. The same way you solve >>> Newtons 2nd law to find the motion. You know how to do that, right? >> >> ==============> wrong !! >> to involve here >> F=ma >> is a master of another obfuscation >> =====> ATB >> Y.Porat >> ============================ > and another question > > you say /agree > it will curve > in the direction of masses'' No that is what YOU say and it is incorrect. > > now my question: > > where from is that ''smell power ' > of empty!! space > to' smell where are mases located ??! > > TIA > Y.P > ========================== > -- Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-07-11 09:39 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: SPACE IS NOT CURVED AND NOT ..there is something elese |
| Message-ID | <pi4j96$op9$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #693559 |
<poraty6@gmail.com> wrote: > On Wednesday, July 11, 2018 at 6:36:41 AM UTC+3, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> <poraty6@gmail.com> wrote: >>> let us hear it again >>> BTW >>> Bodkin has a 'nice way' of obfuscation >>> he keeps **tons** of previous quoting >>> until no one can find there his ''hands and legs'' >>> that is not accidental >>> >>> IT IS A SYSTEM OF OBFUSCATION ! >>> so I will ask him again >>> ==> > to which direction space will curve ?? >> >> In the direction that is the solution of the field equations. > > =========================again a master of smart guying > makes yourself a big scientist ?? > > more than you really are ?? > !! > > cant you say simply > it will curve = > IN THE DIRECTION OF IN WHICH** MASS *** IS LOCATED !! > full stop !! > ------ > do you think that more 'mysterious you pose > the bigger scientist it will make ??!! > or it will give you more abilities > ''to turn our globe > around your finger'' > why not say > > IT (THE DIRECTION OF CURVATURE ) > WILL DIRECT ITSELF TO THE DIRECTION IN WICH** MASS > or masses IS/are LOCATED !! No that is not correct. > do you agree ??( for me as a start.. ) > === it is not a matter of semantics > it is looking for coming closer to reality and truth > > ===btw > for me non of it is right > because > space is nothing That claim right there is not substantiated by data. Space is not nothing. > and has no curvature and no schmervature > but it will be less idiotic /parroting > than relating at all to space > but to &. > ...something else > that should be now on our table &. > ===> >> This is not any different than solving F=ma and thereby knowing which way >> an object will travel. > ===========================wrong again !! > F - ma > is a general solution for may cases Yes that is true. > OTHOA on the other hand > ==curvature ** > is a very specific geometric term !! > with no endless possibilities No that is wrong. The field equations are also a general solution for many cases. It does only apply to gravity but there are many configurations the same equation applies to. > kipping in mind that > that''' your'' gravity must / is pretending to solve/ be specific to > each case for itself !! > and connected to that specific curvature !! And for any specific set of forces, F=ma provides ONE solution for the motion. It’s the same kind of thing! > > AND SHOW > THE UNEQUIVICAL CONNECTION TO THAT > SPECIFIC CURVED SAPACE > >>> >>> >>> to those once who don't get it >>> curvature(by definition!!! >>> has a direction of curvature >>> so >>> I ask Bodkin again >>> to which direction space should curve ? >>> >>> there are infinite possibilities for the possible directions >>> and ''infinite directions'' >>> are of course not a scientific answer !! >> >> You solve the equations to find the curvature. The same way you solve >> Newtons 2nd law to find the motion. You know how to do that, right? > > ==============wrong !! > to involve here > F=ma > is a master of another obfuscation > =====ATB > Y.Porat > ============================ -- Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | poraty6@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-07-11 05:42 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: SPACE IS NOT CURVED AND NOT ..there is something elese |
| Message-ID | <c0dd68c6-2869-41bb-851e-5952720cb69f@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #693571 |
On Wednesday, July 11, 2018 at 12:39:55 PM UTC+3, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> <poraty6@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Wednesday, July 11, 2018 at 6:36:41 AM UTC+3, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> >> <poraty6@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>> let us hear it again
> >>> BTW
> >>> Bodkin has a 'nice way' of obfuscation
> >>> he keeps **tons** of previous quoting
> >>> until no one can find there his ''hands and legs''
> >>> that is not accidental
> >>>
> >>> IT IS A SYSTEM OF OBFUSCATION !
> >>> so I will ask him again
> >>> ==> > to which direction space will curve ??
> >>
> >> In the direction that is the solution of the field equations.
> >
> > =========================again a master of smart guying
> > makes yourself a big scientist ??
> >
> > more than you really are ??
> > !!
> >
> > cant you say simply
> > it will curve =
> > IN THE DIRECTION OF IN WHICH** MASS *** IS LOCATED !!
> > full stop !!
> > ------
> > do you think that more 'mysterious you pose
> > the bigger scientist it will make ??!!
> > or it will give you more abilities
> > ''to turn our globe
> > around your finger''
> > why not say
> >
> > IT (THE DIRECTION OF CURVATURE )
> > WILL DIRECT ITSELF TO THE DIRECTION IN WICH** MASS
> > or masses IS/are LOCATED !!
>
> No that is not correct.
====
not correct ??
so what is correct ?
=====
>
> > do you agree ??( for me as a start.. )
> > === it is not a matter of semantics
> > it is looking for coming closer to reality and truth
> >
> > ===btw
> > for me non of it is right
> > because
> > space is nothing
>
> That claim right there is not substantiated by data. Space is not nothing.
>
> > and has no curvature and no schmervature
> > but it will be less idiotic /parroting
> > than relating at all to space
> > but to &.
> > ...something else
> > that should be now on our table &.
> > ===>
> >> This is not any different than solving F=ma and thereby knowing which way
> >> an object will travel.
> > ===========================wrong again !!
> > F - ma
> > is a general solution for may cases
>
> Yes that is true.
>
> > OTHOA on the other hand
> > ==curvature **
> > is a very specific geometric term !!
> > with no endless possibilities
>
> No that is wrong. The field equations are also a general solution for many
> cases. It does only apply to gravity but there are many configurations the
> same equation applies to.
>
> > kipping in mind that
> > that''' your'' gravity must / is pretending to solve/ be specific to
> > each case for itself !!
> > and connected to that specific curvature !!
>
> And for any specific set of forces, F=ma provides ONE solution for the
> motion. It’s the same kind of thing!
>
> >
> > AND SHOW
> > THE UNEQUIVICAL CONNECTION TO THAT
> > SPECIFIC CURVED SAPACE
> >
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> to those once who don't get it
> >>> curvature(by definition!!!
> >>> has a direction of curvature
> >>> so
> >>> I ask Bodkin again
> >>> to which direction space should curve ?
> >>>
> >>> there are infinite possibilities for the possible directions
> >>> and ''infinite directions''
> >>> are of course not a scientific answer !!
> >>
> >> You solve the equations to find the curvature. The same way you solve
> >> Newtons 2nd law to find the motion. You know how to do that, right?
> >
> > ==============wrong !!
> > to involve here
> > F=ma
> > is a master of another obfuscation
> > =====ATB
> > Y.Porat
> > ============================
> now
let us see something more
you caim that that EMPTY AGAIN EMPTY ..
space
has some mysterious smells sense ''
to detect WHERE MASS IS FOUND''
now instead of being parrots
let us try something shocking 'revolutionary
w about that
it in not the 'mysterious of empty space
TO ''SMELL WHERE MAS IS FOUNG
I is right the opposite !!
now sit still in your chair..
IT IS NOT THE NYSTERIOUS ''SMELL ABILITY'' OF
EMPTY SOACE
BUT RATHER
BELONG TO ANY ***MASS* !!!!!!!
------
is it not more reasonable now to us
after all analysis we did until now ??
how about that??
don't you want t make some history ??
==================
11/7/2018
TIA
Y.Porat
==========================
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-07-11 12:51 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: SPACE IS NOT CURVED AND NOT ..there is something elese |
| Message-ID | <pi4ufr$1g4p$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #693582 |
<poraty6@gmail.com> wrote: > On Wednesday, July 11, 2018 at 12:39:55 PM UTC+3, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> <poraty6@gmail.com> wrote: >>> On Wednesday, July 11, 2018 at 6:36:41 AM UTC+3, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>> <poraty6@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>> let us hear it again >>>>> BTW >>>>> Bodkin has a 'nice way' of obfuscation >>>>> he keeps **tons** of previous quoting >>>>> until no one can find there his ''hands and legs'' >>>>> that is not accidental >>>>> >>>>> IT IS A SYSTEM OF OBFUSCATION ! >>>>> so I will ask him again >>>>> ==> > to which direction space will curve ?? >>>> >>>> In the direction that is the solution of the field equations. >>> >>> =========================again a master of smart guying >>> makes yourself a big scientist ?? >>> >>> more than you really are ?? >>> !! >>> >>> cant you say simply >>> it will curve > > IN THE DIRECTION OF IN WHICH** MASS *** IS LOCATED !! >>> full stop !! >>> ------ >>> do you think that more 'mysterious you pose >>> the bigger scientist it will make ??!! >>> or it will give you more abilities >>> ''to turn our globe >>> around your finger'' >>> why not say >>> >>> IT (THE DIRECTION OF CURVATURE ) >>> WILL DIRECT ITSELF TO THE DIRECTION IN WICH** MASS >>> or masses IS/are LOCATED !! >> >> No that is not correct. > > ===not correct ?? > so what is correct ? What I already told you. The solution to the field equations for that sutuation. > ==== >> >>> do you agree ??( for me as a start.. ) >>> === it is not a matter of semantics >>> it is looking for coming closer to reality and truth >>> >>> ===btw >>> for me non of it is right >>> because >>> space is nothing >> >> That claim right there is not substantiated by data. Space is not nothing. >> >>> and has no curvature and no schmervature >>> but it will be less idiotic /parroting >>> than relating at all to space >>> but to &. >>> ...something else >>> that should be now on our table &. >>> ===> >>>> This is not any different than solving F=ma and thereby knowing which way >>>> an object will travel. >>> ===========================wrong again !! >>> F - ma >>> is a general solution for may cases >> >> Yes that is true. >> >>> OTHOA on the other hand >>> ==curvature ** >>> is a very specific geometric term !! >>> with no endless possibilities >> >> No that is wrong. The field equations are also a general solution for many >> cases. It does only apply to gravity but there are many configurations the >> same equation applies to. >> >>> kipping in mind that >>> that''' your'' gravity must / is pretending to solve/ be specific to >>> each case for itself !! >>> and connected to that specific curvature !! >> >> And for any specific set of forces, F=ma provides ONE solution for the >> motion. Its the same kind of thing! >> >>> >>> AND SHOW >>> THE UNEQUIVICAL CONNECTION TO THAT >>> SPECIFIC CURVED SAPACE >>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> to those once who don't get it >>>>> curvature(by definition!!! >>>>> has a direction of curvature >>>>> so >>>>> I ask Bodkin again >>>>> to which direction space should curve ? >>>>> >>>>> there are infinite possibilities for the possible directions >>>>> and ''infinite directions'' >>>>> are of course not a scientific answer !! >>>> >>>> You solve the equations to find the curvature. The same way you solve >>>> Newtons 2nd law to find the motion. You know how to do that, right? >>> >>> ==============wrong !! >>> to involve here >>> F=ma >>> is a master of another obfuscation >>> =====ATB >>> Y.Porat >>> ===========================> now > let us see something more > you caim that that EMPTY AGAIN EMPTY .. > space > has some mysterious smells sense '' > to detect WHERE MASS IS FOUND'' No, not just mass. That’s a mistake. > > now instead of being parrots > let us try something shocking 'revolutionary > w about that > it in not the 'mysterious of empty space > TO ''SMELL WHERE MAS IS FOUNG > > > I is right the opposite !! > > now sit still in your chair.. > > IT IS NOT THE NYSTERIOUS ''SMELL ABILITY'' OF > EMPTY SOACE > > BUT RATHER > BELONG TO ANY ***MASS* !!!!!!! Nope that’s still wrong. It might be better for you to get a better grip on what general relativity actually says. > ------ > is it not more reasonable now to us > after all analysis we did until now ?? > how about that?? > don't you want t make some history ?? I don’t need to be original and wrong. > =================11/7/2018 > TIA > Y.Porat > ========================= > > -- Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | poraty6@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-07-11 08:25 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: SPACE IS NOT CURVED AND NOT ..there is something elese |
| Message-ID | <2e9a3274-ad51-4a2f-a893-1011845ddcbb@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #693583 |
On Wednesday, July 11, 2018 at 3:51:12 PM UTC+3, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> <poraty6@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Wednesday, July 11, 2018 at 12:39:55 PM UTC+3, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> >> <poraty6@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>> On Wednesday, July 11, 2018 at 6:36:41 AM UTC+3, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> >>>> <poraty6@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>> let us hear it again
> >>>>> BTW
> >>>>> Bodkin has a 'nice way' of obfuscation
> >>>>> he keeps **tons** of previous quoting
> >>>>> until no one can find there his ''hands and legs''
> >>>>> that is not accidental
> >>>>>
> >>>>> IT IS A SYSTEM OF OBFUSCATION !
> >>>>> so I will ask him again
> >>>>> ==> > to which direction space will curve ??
> >>>>
> >>>> In the direction that is the solution of the field equations.
> >>>
> >>> =========================again a master of smart guying
> >>> makes yourself a big scientist ??
> >>>
> >>> more than you really are ??
> >>> !!
> >>>
> >>> cant you say simply
> >>> it will curve > > IN THE DIRECTION OF IN WHICH** MASS *** IS LOCATED !!
> >>> full stop !!
> >>> ------
> >>> do you think that more 'mysterious you pose
> >>> the bigger scientist it will make ??!!
> >>> or it will give you more abilities
> >>> ''to turn our globe
> >>> around your finger''
> >>> why not say
> >>>
> >>> IT (THE DIRECTION OF CURVATURE )
> >>> WILL DIRECT ITSELF TO THE DIRECTION IN WICH** MASS
> >>> or masses IS/are LOCATED !!
> >>
> >> No that is not correct.
> >
> > ===not correct ??
> > so what is correct ?
>
> What I already told you. The solution to the field equations for that
> sutuation.
>
> > ====
> >>
> >>> do you agree ??( for me as a start.. )
> >>> === it is not a matter of semantics
> >>> it is looking for coming closer to reality and truth
> >>>
> >>> ===btw
> >>> for me non of it is right
> >>> because
> >>> space is nothing
> >>
> >> That claim right there is not substantiated by data. Space is not nothing.
> >>
> >>> and has no curvature and no schmervature
> >>> but it will be less idiotic /parroting
> >>> than relating at all to space
> >>> but to &.
> >>> ...something else
> >>> that should be now on our table &.
> >>> ===>
> >>>> This is not any different than solving F=ma and thereby knowing which way
> >>>> an object will travel.
> >>> ===========================wrong again !!
> >>> F - ma
> >>> is a general solution for may cases
> >>
> >> Yes that is true.
> >>
> >>> OTHOA on the other hand
> >>> ==curvature **
> >>> is a very specific geometric term !!
> >>> with no endless possibilities
> >>
> >> No that is wrong. The field equations are also a general solution for many
> >> cases. It does only apply to gravity but there are many configurations the
> >> same equation applies to.
> >>
> >>> kipping in mind that
> >>> that''' your'' gravity must / is pretending to solve/ be specific to
> >>> each case for itself !!
> >>> and connected to that specific curvature !!
> >>
> >> And for any specific set of forces, F=ma provides ONE solution for the
> >> motion. It s the same kind of thing!
> >>
> >>>
> >>> AND SHOW
> >>> THE UNEQUIVICAL CONNECTION TO THAT
> >>> SPECIFIC CURVED SAPACE
> >>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> to those once who don't get it
> >>>>> curvature(by definition!!!
> >>>>> has a direction of curvature
> >>>>> so
> >>>>> I ask Bodkin again
> >>>>> to which direction space should curve ?
> >>>>>
> >>>>> there are infinite possibilities for the possible directions
> >>>>> and ''infinite directions''
> >>>>> are of course not a scientific answer !!
> >>>>
> >>>> You solve the equations to find the curvature. The same way you solve
> >>>> Newtons 2nd law to find the motion. You know how to do that, right?
> >>>
> >>> ==============wrong !!
> >>> to involve here
> >>> F=ma
> >>> is a master of another obfuscation
> >>> =====ATB
> >>> Y.Porat
> >>> ===========================> now
> > let us see something more
> > you caim that that EMPTY AGAIN EMPTY ..
> > space
> > has some mysterious smells sense ''
> > to detect WHERE MASS IS FOUND''
>
> No, not just mass. That’s a mistake.
>
> >
> > now instead of being parrots
> > let us try something shocking 'revolutionary
> > w about that
> > it in not the 'mysterious of empty space
> > TO ''SMELL WHERE MAS IS FOUNG
> >
> >
> > I is right the opposite !!
> >
> > now sit still in your chair..
> >
> > IT IS NOT THE NYSTERIOUS ''SMELL ABILITY'' OF
> > EMPTY SOACE
> >
> > BUT RATHER
> > BELONG TO ANY ***MASS* !!!!!!!
>
> Nope that’s still wrong. It might be better for you to get a better grip on
> what general relativity actually says.
>
> > ------
> > is it not more reasonable now to us
> > after all analysis we did until now ??
> > how about that??
> > don't you want t make some history ??
=========================
so
you lost a chance in your life
because of 'Hubris
that is now your problem
not mine
=
2
are you A A ?..
if youor anyone else want to see it a bit more ''tangible''
see
at the *appendix*of my abstract
http://sites.google.com/site/theyporatmodel/an-abstract
=======
Y.P
=====================
> I don’t need to be original and wrong.
>
=================11/7/2018
==================
> > TIA
> > Y.Porat
> > =========================
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 2 of 3 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics
csiph-web