Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > sci.physics > #699171 > unrolled thread

From first principles what is the definition of spacetime?

Back to article view | Back to sci.physics

Contents

  From first principles what is the definition of spacetime? Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2018-08-18 23:08 -0700
    Re: From first principles what is the definition of spacetime? Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2018-08-19 16:19 +1000
      Re: From first principles what is the definition of spacetime? Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2018-08-19 00:05 -0700
        Re: From first principles what is the definition of spacetime? Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2018-08-19 19:00 +1000
          Re: From first principles what is the definition of spacetime? poraty149@gmail.com - 2018-08-19 02:39 -0700
            Re: From first principles what is the definition of spacetime? poraty149@gmail.com - 2018-08-19 02:43 -0700
          Re: From first principles what is the definition of spacetime? Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2018-08-19 06:21 -0700
            Re: From first principles what is the definition of spacetime? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-08-19 14:01 +0000
              Re: From first principles what is the definition of spacetime? benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-08-19 12:45 -0400
                Re: From first principles what is the definition of spacetime? john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2018-08-19 09:53 -0700
                  Re: From first principles what is the definition of spacetime? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-08-19 20:47 +0000
                Re: From first principles what is the definition of spacetime? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-08-19 18:26 +0000
              Re: From first principles what is the definition of spacetime? Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2018-08-19 17:45 -0700
          Re: From first principles what is the definition of spacetime? benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-08-19 12:29 -0400
        Re: From first principles what is the definition of spacetime? benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-08-19 12:26 -0400
      Re: From first principles what is the definition of spacetime? benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-08-19 12:23 -0400
        Re: From first principles what is the definition of spacetime? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-08-19 18:26 +0000
          Re: From first principles what is the definition of spacetime? john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2018-08-19 12:05 -0700
            Re: From first principles what is the definition of spacetime? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-08-19 20:47 +0000
              Re: From first principles what is the definition of spacetime? john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2018-08-19 14:19 -0700
    From first principles what is the definition of spacetime? Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2018-08-19 05:39 -0700
      Re: From first principles what is the definition of spacetime? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-08-19 14:01 +0000
        Re: From first principles what is the definition of spacetime? benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-08-19 12:41 -0400
          Re: From first principles what is the definition of spacetime? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-08-19 18:26 +0000
        Re: From first principles what is the definition of spacetime? Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2018-08-19 17:32 -0700
          Re: From first principles what is the definition of spacetime? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-08-20 14:17 +0000
      Re: From first principles what is the definition of spacetime? Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-08-19 13:37 -0500
        Re: From first principles what is the definition of spacetime? benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-08-20 14:18 -0400
          Re: From first principles what is the definition of spacetime? Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-08-21 13:38 -0500
        Re: From first principles what is the definition of spacetime? Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2018-08-21 18:56 -0700
    Re: From first principles what is the definition of spacetime? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-08-19 14:01 +0000
      Re: From first principles what is the definition of spacetime? Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2018-08-19 17:29 -0700
        Re: From first principles what is the definition of spacetime? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-08-20 13:38 +0000
          Re: From first principles what is the definition of spacetime? john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2018-08-20 07:01 -0700
            Re: From first principles what is the definition of spacetime? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-08-20 14:29 +0000
          Re: From first principles what is the definition of spacetime? Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2018-08-20 16:06 -0700
            Re: From first principles what is the definition of spacetime? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-08-21 00:43 +0000
              Re: From first principles what is the definition of spacetime? Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2018-08-20 18:25 -0700
      Re: From first principles what is the definition of spacetime? poraty149@gmail.com - 2018-08-20 18:33 -0700
        Re: From first principles what is the definition of spacetime? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-08-21 12:52 +0000
          Re: From first principles what is the definition of spacetime? poraty149@gmail.com - 2018-08-21 11:10 -0700
            Re: From first principles what is the definition of spacetime? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-08-21 18:56 +0000
            Re: From first principles what is the definition of spacetime? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-08-21 18:59 +0000
              Re: From first principles what is the definition of spacetime? poraty149@gmail.com - 2018-08-21 19:44 -0700
                Re: From first principles what is the definition of spacetime? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-08-22 12:21 +0000
                  Re: From first principles what is the definition of spacetime? john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2018-08-22 07:10 -0700
                    Re: From first principles what is the definition of spacetime? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-08-22 14:39 +0000
                  Re: From first principles what is the definition of spacetime? poraty149@gmail.com - 2018-08-22 11:23 -0700
                    Re: From first principles what is the definition of spacetime? poraty149@gmail.com - 2018-08-22 11:42 -0700
                    Re: From first principles what is the definition of spacetime? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-08-22 20:43 +0000
                      Re: From first principles what is the definition of spacetime? poraty149@gmail.com - 2018-08-22 20:17 -0700
            Re: From first principles what is the definition of spacetime? Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-08-21 15:06 -0500
              Re: From first principles what is the definition of spacetime? poraty149@gmail.com - 2018-08-21 19:58 -0700
            Re: From first principles what is the definition of spacetime? "reber G=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> - 2018-08-21 19:28 -0700
    From first principles what is the definition of spacetime? john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2018-08-19 10:14 -0700
    Re: From first principles what is the definition of spacetime? Alan Folmsbee <omnilobe@gmail.com> - 2018-08-19 12:24 -0700
      Re: From first principles what is the definition of spacetime? john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2018-08-19 13:07 -0700
    Re: From first principles what is the definition of spacetime? mitchrae3323@gmail.com - 2018-08-21 13:02 -0700

Page 2 of 3 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3  Next page →

#699196

All waves need mass for progression and existence for all waves are disturbances of mass

Thus spacetime has to be the same as aether as it carries electromagnetic waves and gravity waved if they can exist!

And aether is the fine solid mass filling the infinite universe through which all larger masses pass as sieves through water.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#699207

Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> wrote:
> All waves need mass for progression and existence for all waves are disturbances of mass

This is an untrue statement. 

> 
> Thus spacetime has to be the same as aether as it carries electromagnetic
> waves and gravity waved if they can exist!
> 
> And aether is the fine solid mass filling the infinite universe through
> which all larger masses pass as sieves through water.
> 



-- 
Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#699221

On 8/19/2018 10:01 AM, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> wrote:
>> All waves need mass for progression and existence for all waves are disturbances of mass
> 
> This is an untrue statement.

And the way you know that waves can propagate in "nothing at all" is?

Superpowers, I presume?

Idiot.

>>
>> Thus spacetime has to be the same as aether as it carries electromagnetic
>> waves and gravity waved if they can exist!
>>
>> And aether is the fine solid mass filling the infinite universe through
>> which all larger masses pass as sieves through water.
>>
> 
> 
> 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#699242

benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 8/19/2018 10:01 AM, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>> Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> All waves need mass for progression and existence for all waves are disturbances of mass
>> 
>> This is an untrue statement.
> 
> And the way you know that waves can propagate in "nothing at all" is?

I didn’t say waves propagate in nothing at all. You did. Don’t put your
words in my mouth. 

> 
> Superpowers, I presume?
> 
> Idiot.
> 
>>> 
>>> Thus spacetime has to be the same as aether as it carries electromagnetic
>>> waves and gravity waved if they can exist!
>>> 
>>> And aether is the fine solid mass filling the infinite universe through
>>> which all larger masses pass as sieves through water.
>>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
> 
> 



-- 
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#699276

On Monday, 20 August 2018 00:01:47 UTC+10, Odd Bodkin  wrote:
> Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> wrote:
> > All waves need mass for progression and existence for all waves are disturbances of mass
> 
> This is an untrue statement. 

Yours is a dogmatic and wrong statement. 


My statement is perfectly true for
- water waves need water (a mass) for progression
- Mexican waves need Mexicans/equivalents (a mass) for progression
- sound waves need air/solid/water (all masses) for progression. They cannot travel in vacuum
- thus electromagnetic waves need mass for progression, as ONLY mass can make their progression possible.


Cheers,
Arindam Banerjee
> 
> > 
> > Thus spacetime has to be the same as aether as it carries electromagnetic
> > waves and gravity waved if they can exist!
> > 
> > And aether is the fine solid mass filling the infinite universe through
> > which all larger masses pass as sieves through water.
> > 
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#699316

Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Monday, 20 August 2018 00:01:47 UTC+10, Odd Bodkin  wrote:
>> Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> All waves need mass for progression and existence for all waves are disturbances of mass
>> 
>> This is an untrue statement. 
> 
> Yours is a dogmatic and wrong statement. 
> 
> 
> My statement is perfectly true for
> - water waves need water (a mass) for progression
> - Mexican waves need Mexicans/equivalents (a mass) for progression
> - sound waves need air/solid/water (all masses) for progression. They
> cannot travel in vacuum

And so on the basis of three examples, you naturally conclude that it is a
universal truth. 

Let’s look at the supposition that all mammals give live birth to their
young. Example include humans, cows, dogs, whales, bats, tigers, wolves,
pigs and a plethora of others. Then someone holds up an echidna and the
conjecture is shot to hell, because though living live birth is a popular
trait, it is not the defining characteristic of being a mammal. 

In the same way, though the presence of a material medium is a popular
trait in systems exhibiting wave behavior, that is not the defining
characteristic. 

Of course, I’m aware that there are nutjobs on the internet that have such
implacable faith in their preconceptions that they will deny that echidnas
are classed as mammals, or deny that they exist, or say that there is no
compelling evidence echidnas lay eggs, or announce that they have a
revolutionary new theory of biology in which echidnas are not mammals. 

Likewise, there are uneducable boobs on the internet who will insist that
if physicists do not recognize the unbreakable connection between waves and
material media, then this is a sure sign that physics has lost its way. 

> - thus electromagnetic waves need mass for progression, as ONLY mass can
> make their progression possible.
> 
> 
> Cheers,
> Arindam Banerjee
>> 
>>> 
>>> Thus spacetime has to be the same as aether as it carries electromagnetic
>>> waves and gravity waved if they can exist!
>>> 
>>> And aether is the fine solid mass filling the infinite universe through
>>> which all larger masses pass as sieves through water.
>>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> -- 
>> Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables
> 
> 



-- 
Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#699245

On 8/19/2018 7:39 AM, Arindam Banerjee wrote:
> All waves need mass for progression 

not EM waves, see maxwell, no aether needed,

>and existence for all waves are disturbances of mass


mass is needed for initiation of them, but EM waves are self supporting
no mass or aether required.  It has been proven, so shall it be done.


> 
> Thus spacetime has to be the same as aether as it carries electromagnetic waves and gravity waved if they can exist!
> 
> And aether is the fine solid mass filling the infinite universe through which all larger masses pass as sieves through water.

someone needs to clean up that aether mess, all that dirt plugging up
the universe.
> 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#699334

On 8/19/2018 2:37 PM, Sergio wrote:
> On 8/19/2018 7:39 AM, Arindam Banerjee wrote:
>> All waves need mass for progression
> 
> not EM waves, see maxwell, no aether needed,
> 
>> and existence for all waves are disturbances of mass
> 
> 
> mass is needed for initiation of them, but EM waves are self supporting
> no mass or aether required.  It has been proven, so shall it be done.

Sorry Sergio but if there is no medium then there can be no waves by the 
very definition of a wave. That would mean that EM energy propagates by 
something else. And it has been proven that EM waves are not 
"self-supporting" and no, E and H are NOT 90 degrees out of phase. (go 
look it up...or maybe ask Odd since he knows everything)


>>
>> Thus spacetime has to be the same as aether as it carries electromagnetic waves and gravity waved if they can exist!
>>
>> And aether is the fine solid mass filling the infinite universe through which all larger masses pass as sieves through water.
> 
> someone needs to clean up that aether mess, all that dirt plugging up
> the universe.

Bad idea, have you forgotten that we are "dirt"? (see bible)

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#699465

On 8/20/2018 1:18 PM, benj wrote:
> On 8/19/2018 2:37 PM, Sergio wrote:
>> On 8/19/2018 7:39 AM, Arindam Banerjee wrote:
>>> All waves need mass for progression
>>
>> not EM waves, see maxwell, no aether needed,
>>
>>> and existence for all waves are disturbances of mass
>>
>>
>> mass is needed for initiation of them, but EM waves are self supporting
>> no mass or aether required.  It has been proven, so shall it be done.
> 
> Sorry Sergio but if there is no medium then there can be no waves by the
> very definition of a wave. That would mean that EM energy propagates by
> something else. And it has been proven that EM waves are not
> "self-supporting" and no, E and H are NOT 90 degrees out of phase. (go
> look it up...or maybe ask Odd since he knows everything)
> 

ok, that means that somehow light uses "wiggley stuff" (WS)  and gets
through from here to there (by adding a t on the front), and WS could be
aether, so if your flashlight don't shine, its not the batteries, just
toss a handful of aether in front of it, so the light can get out, and
it will shine brightly!

(1 cubic foot of pure Hawaii's gold home grown Aether, seedless, for
only $250! send $$$ to makemerich@paypal.com and I'll send a box right
over)


> 
>>>
>>> Thus spacetime has to be the same as aether as it carries
>>> electromagnetic waves and gravity waved if they can exist!
>>>
>>> And aether is the fine solid mass filling the infinite universe
>>> through which all larger masses pass as sieves through water.
>>
>> someone needs to clean up that aether mess, all that dirt plugging up
>> the universe.
> 
> Bad idea, have you forgotten that we are "dirt"? (see bible)
> 

for some reason I'm thinking how Germany let in the immgrents and is now
a third world country, and the Germans hate it.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#699514

On Monday, 20 August 2018 04:37:13 UTC+10, Sergio  wrote:
> On 8/19/2018 7:39 AM, Arindam Banerjee wrote:
> > All waves need mass for progression 
> 
> not EM waves, see maxwell, no aether needed,

Ignoring the existence of aether does not mean it does not exist.

In the antenna, the varying electric field is caused by the varying current which needs mass/matter
This disturbance (of the electrons) rubs on to the aether, which is matter, and this disturbance is propagated in space (filled with aether).
Of course we can neglect the presence of aether as the medium for em, but that does not mean it does not exist. For it has to, since all waves are disturbances, and you cannot have any disturbance of nothing - so there has to be matter filling the universe.

Besides, one of my video experiments give the direct evidence of the existence of aether. After the rail gun fires and the armature exits, the capacitor bank gets charged up FROM NO SOURCE AT ALL EVIDENTLY. Some matter is there to hold the field energy for the charge- up, and this matter is aether as there can be nothing else.

For thus proving the direct existence of aether I most definitely deserve a Nobel Prize in Physics.  Maybe I will get it one day.  Maybe more, for upodating Newton's laws by finding from experiment that the Lorenz force does not have a reaction.

Looked another way, the fact that air carries sound is something we neglect in our day to day life. Does not mean air does not exist.

As for aether's properties, certainly it has electric permittivity and magnetic permeability, which vary as per the medium. It carries em energy, and can store them locally also, enough to charge up a capacitor bank. Capacitor energy is the energy stored by the aether within the charged plates of the capacitor.

Cheers,
Arindam Banerjee

> 
> >and existence for all waves are disturbances of mass
> 
> 
> mass is needed for initiation of them, but EM waves are self supporting
> no mass or aether required.  It has been proven, so shall it be done.
> 
> 
> > 
> > Thus spacetime has to be the same as aether as it carries electromagnetic waves and gravity waved if they can exist!
> > 
> > And aether is the fine solid mass filling the infinite universe through which all larger masses pass as sieves through water.
> 
> someone needs to clean up that aether mess, all that dirt plugging up
> the universe.
> >

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#699206

Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> wrote:
> From first principles what is the definition of spacetime?
> 
> How does it support the transmission of light?
> 
> No mathematical blah, please.
> 
> Just follow the scientific methods.
> 
> State your axioms, and build upon them to form a theory.  Then validate
> that theory with experiment. Make valid predictions with the theory.
> 

I believe there is 113 years of literature doing exactly that. You want
that replicated in a newsgroup? Why???

-- 
Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#699275

On Monday, 20 August 2018 00:01:46 UTC+10, Odd Bodkin  wrote:
> Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> wrote:
> > From first principles what is the definition of spacetime?
> > 
> > How does it support the transmission of light?
> > 
> > No mathematical blah, please.
> > 
> > Just follow the scientific methods.
> > 
> > State your axioms, and build upon them to form a theory.  Then validate
> > that theory with experiment. Make valid predictions with the theory.
> > 
> 
> I believe there is 113 years of literature doing exactly that. You want
> that replicated in a newsgroup? Why???

If you can't do it, okay. Maybe others can. As for the literature you talk about, who cares. If it cannot be expressed briefly and clearly and honestly, making sense, it is worth nothing. 


As for the "why", public money is used to fund projects worth many billions of dollars in the spacetime research ranging from finding black holes to gravity waves, creating black holes!, an many such projects which do not have any practical value.


Surely any taxpayer may ask simple questions about how public money is spent, about the basics behind the research. Spacetime is the basis. What is it? How does it make any sense? 
So the "why" - why should not we question the basics behind so much spending.


> -- 
> Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#699313

Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Monday, 20 August 2018 00:01:46 UTC+10, Odd Bodkin  wrote:
>> Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> From first principles what is the definition of spacetime?
>>> 
>>> How does it support the transmission of light?
>>> 
>>> No mathematical blah, please.
>>> 
>>> Just follow the scientific methods.
>>> 
>>> State your axioms, and build upon them to form a theory.  Then validate
>>> that theory with experiment. Make valid predictions with the theory.
>>> 
>> 
>> I believe there is 113 years of literature doing exactly that. You want
>> that replicated in a newsgroup? Why???
> 
> If you can't do it, okay. Maybe others can. As for the literature you
> talk about, who cares. If it cannot be expressed briefly and clearly and
> honestly, making sense, it is worth nothing. 

How many times have I heard that from the terminally lazy on this
newsgroup. 

As though anything worthwhile has no depth or complexity. 

> 
> 
> As for the "why", public money is used to fund projects worth many
> billions of dollars in the spacetime research ranging from finding black
> holes to gravity waves, creating black holes!, an many such projects
> which do not have any practical value.

EXACTLY the point of fundamental research — exploration and knowledge with
no emphasis on practicality. Engineers have a hard time understanding the
value of this. 

> 
> 
> Surely any taxpayer may ask simple questions about how public money is
> spent, about the basics behind the research. Spacetime is the basis. What
> is it? How does it make any sense? 
> So the "why" - why should not we question the basics behind so much spending.

Feel free to question. There are oodles of books on the subject. 

Just don’t expect, like so many hacks, that a clear explication of the
theory and the experimental evidence will be forthcoming in a few simple
paragraphs on Usenet. That can’t be done for Newtonian mechanics or quantum
mechanics or plate tectonics or evolution either. 

> 
> 
>> -- 
>> Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables
> 
> 



-- 
Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#699315

Odd
“ If it cannot be expressed briefly and clearly and 
> honestly, making sense, it is worth nothing. 

How many times have I heard that from the terminally lazy on this 
newsgroup. ”
It is the lazy way to settle for hand waving.
If you can’t explain it simply- in MULTIPLE ways- in English or any language- or draw it.........
you’re fooling yourself that you know it- you don’t

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#699318

john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> wrote:
> Odd
> “ If it cannot be expressed briefly and clearly and 
>> honestly, making sense, it is worth nothing. 
> 
> How many times have I heard that from the terminally lazy on this 
> newsgroup. ”
> It is the lazy way to settle for hand waving.
> If you can’t explain it simply- in MULTIPLE ways- in English or any
> language- or draw it.........
> you’re fooling yourself that you know it- you don’t
> 

Sorry John. You just have it backwards. Specialized disciplines do not owe
it to the uneducated to explain the concepts in ways that are
understandable to them. Instead, the interested are expected to learn
prerequisite language and concepts and skills. 

I know you HATE this, and you have lots of propaganda to express your
dissatisfaction with it, but it’s a fact of life. 

-- 
Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#699380

On Monday, 20 August 2018 23:38:30 UTC+10, Odd Bodkin  wrote:
> Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Monday, 20 August 2018 00:01:46 UTC+10, Odd Bodkin  wrote:
> >> Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>> From first principles what is the definition of spacetime?
> >>> 
> >>> How does it support the transmission of light?
> >>> 
> >>> No mathematical blah, please.
> >>> 
> >>> Just follow the scientific methods.
> >>> 
> >>> State your axioms, and build upon them to form a theory.  Then validate
> >>> that theory with experiment. Make valid predictions with the theory.
> >>> 
> >> 
> >> I believe there is 113 years of literature doing exactly that. You want
> >> that replicated in a newsgroup? Why???
> > 
> > If you can't do it, okay. Maybe others can. As for the literature you
> > talk about, who cares. If it cannot be expressed briefly and clearly and
> > honestly, making sense, it is worth nothing. 
> 
> How many times have I heard that from the terminally lazy on this
> newsgroup. 

So no modern physicist can do the simple job every priest or classical physicist can do about his set of dogmas and definitions.

Which means that the whole thing is a hoax. They will point to 113 years of nonsense publications and then go for your pocket for more public funding. 
> 
> As though anything worthwhile has no depth or complexity. 

Anything worthwhile needs to be defined in brief, then elaborated in depth, with as much complexity as required.


> 
> > 
> > 
> > As for the "why", public money is used to fund projects worth many
> > billions of dollars in the spacetime research ranging from finding black
> > holes to gravity waves, creating black holes!, an many such projects
> > which do not have any practical value.
> 
> EXACTLY the point of fundamental research — exploration and knowledge with
> no emphasis on practicality. Engineers have a hard time understanding the
> value of this. 

Most certainly there has been no value in ALL the bullshit modern physics research - from fusion (supposed to have practical value but has none whatsoever after billions of dollars and decades of labour by thousands) to all the useless stuff about black holes and dark matter.


The engineer needs good and sound physics to do practical work. When money is wasted upon pseudo-physics that is not just a waste, it is a denial of research money for good, sound, new physics. 


As public money is being thus wasted, the engineer is correct to declare such spending as fraudulent, and those involved, criminals.
> 
> > 
> > 
> > Surely any taxpayer may ask simple questions about how public money is
> > spent, about the basics behind the research. Spacetime is the basis. What
> > is it? How does it make any sense? 
> > So the "why" - why should not we question the basics behind so much spending.
> 
> Feel free to question. There are oodles of books on the subject.


The goal should be to stop such wasteful spending. And do the spending upon making new motors, based upon my new physics. 

The goal should be to completely revise the whole subject of physics. e=mcc=hv physics should be thrown out, along with outdated notions such as entropy. The Newtonian laws of motion have to be updated.


Such are the basics, in brief, upon which future physics research have to be based with far greater depth and complexity (in the correct, meaningful, logical sense following the true scientific methods) than ever done before.


Cheers,
Arindam Banerjee 
> 
> Just don’t expect, like so many hacks, that a clear explication of the
> theory and the experimental evidence will be forthcoming in a few simple
> paragraphs on Usenet. That can’t be done for Newtonian mechanics or quantum
> mechanics or plate tectonics or evolution either. 
> 
> > 
> > 
> >> -- 
> >> Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables
> > 
> > 
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#699381

Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Monday, 20 August 2018 23:38:30 UTC+10, Odd Bodkin  wrote:
>> Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Monday, 20 August 2018 00:01:46 UTC+10, Odd Bodkin  wrote:
>>>> Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> From first principles what is the definition of spacetime?
>>>>> 
>>>>> How does it support the transmission of light?
>>>>> 
>>>>> No mathematical blah, please.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Just follow the scientific methods.
>>>>> 
>>>>> State your axioms, and build upon them to form a theory.  Then validate
>>>>> that theory with experiment. Make valid predictions with the theory.
>>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> I believe there is 113 years of literature doing exactly that. You want
>>>> that replicated in a newsgroup? Why???
>>> 
>>> If you can't do it, okay. Maybe others can. As for the literature you
>>> talk about, who cares. If it cannot be expressed briefly and clearly and
>>> honestly, making sense, it is worth nothing. 
>> 
>> How many times have I heard that from the terminally lazy on this
>> newsgroup. 
> 
> So no modern physicist can do the simple job every priest or classical
> physicist can do about his set of dogmas and definitions.

See below. Can’t be done for classical mechanics either. 

> 
> Which means that the whole thing is a hoax. They will point to 113 years
> of nonsense publications and then go for your pocket for more public funding. 

Not nonsense. Very understandable. Nothing too hard. Just not brief. 

>> 
>> As though anything worthwhile has no depth or complexity. 
> 
> Anything worthwhile needs to be defined in brief, 

I don’t think so. Try doing that for antenna theory. I’ll wait here. 

> then elaborated in depth, with as much complexity as required.
> 
> 
>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> As for the "why", public money is used to fund projects worth many
>>> billions of dollars in the spacetime research ranging from finding black
>>> holes to gravity waves, creating black holes!, an many such projects
>>> which do not have any practical value.
>> 
>> EXACTLY the point of fundamental research — exploration and knowledge with
>> no emphasis on practicality. Engineers have a hard time understanding the
>> value of this. 
> 
> Most certainly there has been no value in ALL the bullshit modern physics
> research - from fusion (supposed to have practical value but has none
> whatsoever after billions of dollars and decades of labour by thousands)
> to all the useless stuff about black holes and dark matter.

And no practical value is being sought in the work. As stated already. 

> 
> 
> The engineer needs good and sound physics to do practical work. When
> money is wasted upon pseudo-physics that is not just a waste, it is a
> denial of research money for good, sound, new physics. 

Nah. Everyone can compete for same resources. Just different purpose. 

> 
> 
> As public money is being thus wasted, the engineer is correct to declare
> such spending as fraudulent, and those involved, criminals.

You can claim that but the population finds value in fundamental research
without application. That’s why they fund it. 

>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Surely any taxpayer may ask simple questions about how public money is
>>> spent, about the basics behind the research. Spacetime is the basis. What
>>> is it? How does it make any sense? 
>>> So the "why" - why should not we question the basics behind so much spending.
>> 
>> Feel free to question. There are oodles of books on the subject.
> 
> 
> The goal should be to stop such wasteful spending. And do the spending
> upon making new motors, based upon my new physics. 

Sorry but your elbowing for attention is counterproductive to your cause. 

> 
> The goal should be to completely revise the whole subject of physics.
> e=mcc=hv physics should be thrown out, along with outdated notions such
> as entropy. The Newtonian laws of motion have to be updated.
> 
> 
> Such are the basics, in brief, upon which future physics research have to
> be based with far greater depth and complexity (in the correct,
> meaningful, logical sense following the true scientific methods) than ever done before.

What do you mean “true scientific methods”. Asked twice now. 

> 
> 
> Cheers,
> Arindam Banerjee 
>> 
>> Just don’t expect, like so many hacks, that a clear explication of the
>> theory and the experimental evidence will be forthcoming in a few simple
>> paragraphs on Usenet. That can’t be done for Newtonian mechanics or quantum
>> mechanics or plate tectonics or evolution either. 

Note this. 

>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>>> -- 
>>>> Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables
>>> 
>>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> -- 
>> Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables
> 
> 



-- 
Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#699386

On Tuesday, 21 August 2018 10:43:47 UTC+10, Odd Bodkin  wrote:
> Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Monday, 20 August 2018 23:38:30 UTC+10, Odd Bodkin  wrote:
> >> Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>> On Monday, 20 August 2018 00:01:46 UTC+10, Odd Bodkin  wrote:
> >>>> Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>> From first principles what is the definition of spacetime?
> >>>>> 
> >>>>> How does it support the transmission of light?
> >>>>> 
> >>>>> No mathematical blah, please.
> >>>>> 
> >>>>> Just follow the scientific methods.
> >>>>> 
> >>>>> State your axioms, and build upon them to form a theory.  Then validate
> >>>>> that theory with experiment. Make valid predictions with the theory.
> >>>>> 
> >>>> 
> >>>> I believe there is 113 years of literature doing exactly that. You want
> >>>> that replicated in a newsgroup? Why???
> >>> 
> >>> If you can't do it, okay. Maybe others can. As for the literature you
> >>> talk about, who cares. If it cannot be expressed briefly and clearly and
> >>> honestly, making sense, it is worth nothing. 
> >> 
> >> How many times have I heard that from the terminally lazy on this
> >> newsgroup. 
> > 
> > So no modern physicist can do the simple job every priest or classical
> > physicist can do about his set of dogmas and definitions.
> 
> See below. Can’t be done for classical mechanics either. 

Rubbish. Classical mechanics is taught at school following Newton's laws of motion which leads to f=ma and faction = - freaction. 
> 
> > 
> > Which means that the whole thing is a hoax. They will point to 113 years
> > of nonsense publications and then go for your pocket for more public funding. 
> 
> Not nonsense. Very understandable. Nothing too hard. Just not brief. 

It is absolute nonsense, for it is based upon the lie of the speed of light being invariant. A lot of math hocus-pocus follows, for 113 years. The greatest confidence trick in history.
> 
> >> 
> >> As though anything worthwhile has no depth or complexity. 
> > 
> > Anything worthwhile needs to be defined in brief, 
> 
> I don’t think so. Try doing that for antenna theory. I’ll wait here.


See my aphorisms. I posted them in this ng some moons ago. Not just antennas, but a lot more.

And my video films will take only a few minutes each to see.


Based upon them, we can go to any level of depth and complexity, since these have solid foundations. 
> 
> > then elaborated in depth, with as much complexity as required.
> > 
> > 
> >> 
> >>> 
> >>> 
> >>> As for the "why", public money is used to fund projects worth many
> >>> billions of dollars in the spacetime research ranging from finding black
> >>> holes to gravity waves, creating black holes!, an many such projects
> >>> which do not have any practical value.
> >> 
> >> EXACTLY the point of fundamental research — exploration and knowledge with
> >> no emphasis on practicality. Engineers have a hard time understanding the
> >> value of this. 
> > 
> > Most certainly there has been no value in ALL the bullshit modern physics
> > research - from fusion (supposed to have practical value but has none
> > whatsoever after billions of dollars and decades of labour by thousands)
> > to all the useless stuff about black holes and dark matter.
> 
> And no practical value is being sought in the work. As stated already. 
> 
> > 
> > 
> > The engineer needs good and sound physics to do practical work. When
> > money is wasted upon pseudo-physics that is not just a waste, it is a
> > denial of research money for good, sound, new physics. 
> 
> Nah. Everyone can compete for same resources. Just different purpose. 
> 
> > 
> > 
> > As public money is being thus wasted, the engineer is correct to declare
> > such spending as fraudulent, and those involved, criminals.
> 
> You can claim that but the population finds value in fundamental research
> without application. That’s why they fund it. 
> 
> >> 
> >>> 
> >>> 
> >>> Surely any taxpayer may ask simple questions about how public money is
> >>> spent, about the basics behind the research. Spacetime is the basis. What
> >>> is it? How does it make any sense? 
> >>> So the "why" - why should not we question the basics behind so much spending.
> >> 
> >> Feel free to question. There are oodles of books on the subject.
> > 
> > 
> > The goal should be to stop such wasteful spending. And do the spending
> > upon making new motors, based upon my new physics. 
> 
> Sorry but your elbowing for attention is counterproductive to your cause. 
> 
> > 
> > The goal should be to completely revise the whole subject of physics.
> > e=mcc=hv physics should be thrown out, along with outdated notions such
> > as entropy. The Newtonian laws of motion have to be updated.
> > 
> > 
> > Such are the basics, in brief, upon which future physics research have to
> > be based with far greater depth and complexity (in the correct,
> > meaningful, logical sense following the true scientific methods) than ever done before.
> 
> What do you mean “true scientific methods”. Asked twice now. 
> 
> > 
> > 
> > Cheers,
> > Arindam Banerjee 
> >> 
> >> Just don’t expect, like so many hacks, that a clear explication of the
> >> theory and the experimental evidence will be forthcoming in a few simple
> >> paragraphs on Usenet. That can’t be done for Newtonian mechanics or quantum
> >> mechanics or plate tectonics or evolution either. 
> 
> Note this. 
> 
> >> 
> >>> 
> >>> 
> >>>> -- 
> >>>> Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables
> >>> 
> >>> 
> >> 
> >> 
> >> 
> >> -- 
> >> Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables
> > 
> > 
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#699387

On Sunday, August 19, 2018 at 5:01:46 PM UTC+3, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> wrote:
> > From first principles what is the definition of spacetime?
> > 
> > How does it support the transmission of light?
> > 
> > No mathematical blah, please.
> > 
> > Just follow the scientific methods.
> > 
> > State your axioms, and build upon them to form a theory.  Then validate
> > that theory with experiment. Make valid predictions with the theory.
> > 
> 
> I believe there is 113 years of literature doing exactly that. You want
> that replicated in a newsgroup? Why???
>==============================
(:-)
the crock   Bodkin
js a member  of a publishing  company
of publishing books ...!!! 
> -- 
> Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables

now that is all the story of
curved  space 

TOO MANY  PEOPLE ARE MAKING THEIR** LIVING** 
FROM THAT f EN CORRUPTED STORY OF 'CURVES SPACE 
AND TOO LONG  NAIVE IDIOTS BELIEVE IN THAT
IDIOTIC CORRUPTED  STORY 
space has no curvature and no   schmervature 
it is just nothing and can **do ** nothing!
===================================================

MASS *IS THE CREATOR OF ALL FORCES INCLUDING GRAVITY !
==================================================== 
   i proved it simply by the example of
the magnetic force of a permanent magnet 
is it from curvers apce '??

just heatthat magnet 
and the magnetism of it is gon !!
so dear readers 
if the magnetism of a n iron magnet is gone by
 heating  it
so where is that f en curved space gon ??
so 
wake up idiot parrots 
dont let those shameless   crock s 
to waist your precious  time and money 
--===
ATB
Y.Porat 
==================================

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#699437

<poraty149@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sunday, August 19, 2018 at 5:01:46 PM UTC+3, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>> Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> From first principles what is the definition of spacetime?
>>> 
>>> How does it support the transmission of light?
>>> 
>>> No mathematical blah, please.
>>> 
>>> Just follow the scientific methods.
>>> 
>>> State your axioms, and build upon them to form a theory.  Then validate
>>> that theory with experiment. Make valid predictions with the theory.
>>> 
>> 
>> I believe there is 113 years of literature doing exactly that. You want
>> that replicated in a newsgroup? Why???
>> =============================(:-)
> the crock   Bodkin
> js a member  of a publishing  company
> of publishing books ...!!! 

No sir. This is a repeated error. Retract. 

>> -- 
>> Odd Bodkin  Maker of fine toys, tools, tables
> 
> now that is all the story of
> curved  space 
> 
> TOO MANY  PEOPLE ARE MAKING THEIR** LIVING** 
> FROM THAT f EN CORRUPTED STORY OF 'CURVES SPACE 
> AND TOO LONG  NAIVE IDIOTS BELIEVE IN THAT
> IDIOTIC CORRUPTED  STORY 
> space has no curvature and no   schmervature 
> it is just nothing and can **do ** nothing!

That’s your claim but it’s wrong and you have no evidence whatsoever that
space is nothing. 

> ==================================================
> MASS *IS THE CREATOR OF ALL FORCES INCLUDING GRAVITY !
> ==================================================== 
>    i proved it simply by the example of
> the magnetic force of a permanent magnet 
> is it from curvers apce '??
> 
> just heatthat magnet 
> and the magnetism of it is gon !!
> so dear readers 
> if the magnetism of a n iron magnet is gone by
>  heating  it
> so where is that f en curved space gon ??
> so 
> wake up idiot parrots 
> dont let those shameless   crock s 
> to waist your precious  time and money 
> --==ATB
> Y.Porat 
> =================================



-- 
Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 2 of 3 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | sci.physics

csiph-web