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

Groups > sci.physics > #710187 > unrolled thread

Curved space and fields

Back to article view | Back to sci.physics

Contents

  Curved space and fields john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2018-10-29 05:50 -0700
    Re: Curved space and fields Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-10-29 14:34 +0000
      Re: Curved space and fields moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-10-29 14:43 +0000
        Re: Curved space and fields yporat08@gmail.com - 2018-10-29 09:07 -0700
      Re: Curved space and fields pnalsing@gmail.com - 2018-10-29 09:59 -0700
        Re: Curved space and fields "reber G=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> - 2018-10-29 10:04 -0700
        Re: Curved space and fields Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-10-29 17:32 +0000
          Re: Curved space and fields pnalsing@gmail.com - 2018-10-29 23:32 -0700
        Re: Curved space and fields Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-10-29 12:34 -0500
        Re: Curved space and fields yporat08@gmail.com - 2018-10-29 23:03 -0700
          Re: Curved space and fields Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-10-30 12:12 +0000
            Re: Curved space and fields yporat08@gmail.com - 2018-10-31 17:44 -0700
              Re: Curved space and fields Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-11-01 14:36 +0000
                Re: Curved space and fields yporat08@gmail.com - 2018-11-01 08:21 -0700
                  Re: Curved space and fields Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-11-01 16:11 +0000
                    Re: Curved space and fields yporat08@gmail.com - 2018-11-01 10:44 -0700
                      Re: Curved space and fields yporat08@gmail.com - 2018-11-01 11:52 -0700
                        Re: Curved space and fields Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-11-01 19:59 +0000
                          Re: Curved space and fields Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-11-01 20:03 +0000
                          Re: Curved space and fields yporat08@gmail.com - 2018-11-01 18:42 -0700
                            Re: Curved space and fields Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-11-02 11:34 +0000
                              Re: Curved space and fields yporat08@gmail.com - 2018-11-02 04:57 -0700
                                Re: Curved space and fields Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-11-02 12:10 +0000
          Re: Curved space and fields Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-10-30 06:35 -0700
    Re: Curved space and fields mitchrae3323@gmail.com - 2018-10-29 11:16 -0700
      Re: Curved space and fields Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-10-29 14:12 -0500
        Re: Curved space and fields "reber G=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> - 2018-10-30 08:19 -0700
          Re: Curved space and fields Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-10-30 11:00 -0500
        Re: Curved space and fields mitchrae3323@gmail.com - 2018-10-30 14:02 -0700
    Re: Curved space and fields Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-10-29 12:26 -0700
      Re: Curved space and fields Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> - 2018-10-29 23:45 -0400
        Re: Curved space and fields Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-10-30 06:29 -0700
          Re: Curved space and fields Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-10-30 11:10 -0500
            Re: Curved space and fields "reber G=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> - 2018-10-30 11:35 -0700
            Re: Curved space and fields Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-10-30 12:42 -0700

Page 2 of 2 — ← Prev page 1 [2]

#710983

<yporat08@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thursday, November 1, 2018 at 9:59:20 PM UTC+2, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>> <yporat08@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Thursday, November 1, 2018 at 7:44:07 PM UTC+2, ypor...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>> On Thursday, November 1, 2018 at 6:11:43 PM UTC+2, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>>>>> <yporat08@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>> On Thursday, November 1, 2018 at 4:36:35 PM UTC+2, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>>>>>>> <yporat08@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Tuesday, October 30, 2018 at 2:12:46 PM UTC+2, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>>>>>>>>> <yporat08@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On Monday, October 29, 2018 at 6:59:53 PM UTC+2, pnal...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> Well, loosely speaking, aren't we all interstellar beings?
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> ================================> > 
>>>>>>>>>> If so 
>>>>>>>>>> why NASA  does not use 
>>>>>>>>>> curved space ''
>>>>>>>>>> in its interstellar    calculations ??!!!
>>>>>>>>>> => > TIA
>>>>>>>>>> Y.P
>>>>>>>>>> =============================================> > 
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> Because the approximation is good enough. 
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> -- 
>>>>>>>>> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
>>>>>>>> ================================(:-)
>>>>>>>> ok !!
>>>>>>>> IF SO please   show us 
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> WAHT    IS THE REAL CALCULATION
>>>>>>>> AND WHAT IS THE APROXIMATION &.CALCULATION 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Calculation of what, exactly. You seem to think that there is one GR
>>>>>>> calculation and one Newtonian calculation for every NASA trajectory they
>>>>>>> investigate. Really???
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> I THNK YOU KNOW just mumbling is not good enough ..in  science 
>>>>>>>> (after all I think you are a physics teacher )   
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> I m not a physics teacher, and coming here to beg to be taught physics is
>>>>>>> silly. This isn t the place to learn physics. Concentrated study is. 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> You didn t become an engineer by asking to be taught engineering in a
>>>>>>> newsgroup, did you?
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> -- 
>>>>>>> Odd Bodkin   Maker of fine toys, tools, tables
>>>>>> =======================common!!
>>>>>> if you say that the proximation is good enough 
>>>>>> means   that***** you*** know what about what you are talking   talking !!!
>>>>>> and you  know what is the approximation
>>>>>> and you know what is the exactly 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> what   is right and what is not right 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> Yes. And the differences between the two models depend on the application!
>>>>> Of course!!
>>>>> 
>>>>> And you come here and rant day after day about GR when you don t have the
>>>>> foggiest idea how to do one calculation with it! For that matter, I m
>>>>> pretty sure you couldn t calculate a Newtonian orbit either. 
>>>> ==================> AND  YOU CAN CALCULLE CURVED SPACE basic PROBOLMS
>>>> ??
>>>> 
>>>> LET   US SEE:
>>>> 
>>>> pleas tell  us what is the RADIUS  OF CURVETURE
>>>> ""OF CURVED SPACE** 
>>>> AROND OUR GLOBE ???
>>>> 
>>>> (a modest basic request isn't it so  !!!!!)
>>>> 
>>>> is  it not a modest request ??for a  physicist like you 
>>>> ??
>>>> that is pretending to know
>>>> more than me !!
>>>> 
>>>> => TIA
>>>> Y.P
>>>> ============> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>>> or else you are mumbling  irresponsibly about  things that
>>>>>> you don't know ???!!!!!
>>>>>> or may be an imposter ??!
>>>>>> we are not here in children's games 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> or else yo are just a parrot !!
>>>>>> in shot
>>>>>> if you know**
>>>>>> say I know exactly about  what  i am talking 
>>>>>> and if you dint know
>>>>>> say 
>>>>>> honestly
>>>>>> I have no idea what is done there 
>>>>>> and have no idea   
>>>>>> why ]
>>>>>> curved   space is neglected there 
>>>>>> and   even worse
>>>>>> you exactly don't   know wat  is going on there 
>>>>>> if so 
>>>>>> be honest and say 
>>>>>> I don't know what are their considerations there 
>>>>>> and what is that they know\or not 
>>>>>> all   along the way from  earth
>>>>>> to  Mars !!
>>>>>> or may be    they think that
>>>>>> curved space'' is not relevant for them and why ??
>>>>>> or not relevant to**any*  actual    possible project
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> of NASSA  
>>>>>> or may be YOU tell us 
>>>>>> in which project it might be RELEVANT 
>>>>>> and if you don't  know
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> say
>>>>>> I DONT    KNOW !!!!!
>>>>>> or may be 
>>>>>> iow
>>>>>> nonsense physics with   zero  use to anything !!??
>>>>>> TIA
>>>>>> Y.P
>>>>>> ============================================no Bodkin as usual 
>>> is fading away !!!
>>> actually 
>>> not me and even  not Bodkin have to  know  
>>> the calculations of s
>>> sending a human   being to mars 
>>> it is NASA job 
>>> not forr us
>>> and yet
>>> even as a standing aside
>>> 
>>> with some commonsense 
>>> even by standing by side 
>>> the known facts are good enough foe us  semi intelligent  people  
>>> that are not just parrots
>>> to realize that
>>> CURVED SPACE'' IS NOT USED A BIT !!!
>>> 
>>> in that Marrs job !!!
>>> and not anywhere 
>>> 
>>> much worse ::
>>> 
>>> IT IS GOOD FOR NOTHING  PRACTIALY!! 
>>> only for  professors  getting payed 
>>> for teaching poor students 
>>> about ''CURVED SPACE'' 
>>> ===TIA
>>> Y.Porat
>>> ===================> 
>> Is fading away.... 
>> lol. You have the patience of a two year old. You dont get a reply in an
>> hour and you think youve chased people away. Some people have a life away
>> from the newsgroup. 
>> 
>> The radius of curvature of SPACETIME (not space) is about 31 billion feet. 
>> 
>> You can calculate this just by taking a trajectory of a thrown ball that
>> covers 30 horizontal feet in about a second, rising about 4 feet to the
>> apex of its trajectory. A second of time is a billion nanoseconds or about
>> a billion feet of time, using natural units. For a curved trajectory, the
>> sagitta s and the chord length c are related to the radius of curvature r
>> by a simple geometric relation: c^2 = 8sr. 
>> 
>> In Newtonian physics, the curvature of space is zero. The curvature of the
>> surface of the earth has absolutely nothing to do with the curvature of
>> space. 
>> 
>> Now, in case this doesnt clear things up for you, let me point out that
>> there are plenty people in this newsgroup who do know how to do this simple
>> calculations even if you dont. If the calculations Ive just described are
>> still Greek to you, just take that as an indicator of how much remedial
>> info you have to learn before you can talk about GR intelligently. 
>> 
>> -- 
>> Odd Bodkin  Maker of fine toys, tools, tables
> =====================We don't  need your
> 'many people' knowing how to use curved  space 
> even  just onem of them that will 
> do it  right is enough !!
> but the fact is that though all  those 
> pompous mumblings of yours and others 
> -no one even  NASA does not and did not
> ever- use it !

Well, the engineers who built GPS use it. 

But I’ll repeat my earlier comment that the value of a scientific theory is
not housed in how much practical use is made of it. That’s not what science
is for. That’s what engineering is for. Don’t confuse science and
engineering. 

> and will  never use it
> and no one will proving using it 
> because 
> it is one of the biggest ''flops
> in the history of science !!
> not to mansion
> anyone to use it
> in   practical   life !!!
> 
> (NASSA use and will use
> the ordinary   Newtonian physics 
> not bull shit physics 
> 2
> ====================================MASS** IS THE CREATOR OF ALL FORCES  
> INCULDING    GRAVITY !! 
> ==============================
> no curvature and no schmervature of space !!
> =================Y.Porat
> ===================
>  ==========



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

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

#710984

On Friday, November 2, 2018 at 1:34:12 PM UTC+2, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> <yporat08@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Thursday, November 1, 2018 at 9:59:20 PM UTC+2, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> >> <yporat08@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>> On Thursday, November 1, 2018 at 7:44:07 PM UTC+2, ypor...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>>> On Thursday, November 1, 2018 at 6:11:43 PM UTC+2, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> >>>>> <yporat08@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>>> On Thursday, November 1, 2018 at 4:36:35 PM UTC+2, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> >>>>>>> <yporat08@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>>> On Tuesday, October 30, 2018 at 2:12:46 PM UTC+2, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> <yporat08@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>> On Monday, October 29, 2018 at 6:59:53 PM UTC+2, pnal...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>> Well, loosely speaking, aren't we all interstellar beings?
> >>>>>>>>>> 
> >>>>>>>>>> ================================> > 
> >>>>>>>>>> If so 
> >>>>>>>>>> why NASA  does not use 
> >>>>>>>>>> curved space ''
> >>>>>>>>>> in its interstellar    calculations ??!!!
> >>>>>>>>>> => > TIA
> >>>>>>>>>> Y.P
> >>>>>>>>>> =============================================> > 
> >>>>>>>>>> 
> >>>>>>>>>> 
> >>>>>>>>> 
> >>>>>>>>> Because the approximation is good enough. 
> >>>>>>>>> 
> >>>>>>>>> -- 
> >>>>>>>>> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
> >>>>>>>> ================================(:-)
> >>>>>>>> ok !!
> >>>>>>>> IF SO please   show us 
> >>>>>>>> 
> >>>>>>>> WAHT    IS THE REAL CALCULATION
> >>>>>>>> AND WHAT IS THE APROXIMATION &.CALCULATION 
> >>>>>>> 
> >>>>>>> Calculation of what, exactly. You seem to think that there is one GR
> >>>>>>> calculation and one Newtonian calculation for every NASA trajectory they
> >>>>>>> investigate. Really???
> >>>>>>> 
> >>>>>>>> 
> >>>>>>>> 
> >>>>>>>> I THNK YOU KNOW just mumbling is not good enough ..in  science 
> >>>>>>>> (after all I think you are a physics teacher )   
> >>>>>>>> 
> >>>>>>> 
> >>>>>>> I m not a physics teacher, and coming here to beg to be taught physics is
> >>>>>>> silly. This isn t the place to learn physics. Concentrated study is. 
> >>>>>>> 
> >>>>>>> You didn t become an engineer by asking to be taught engineering in a
> >>>>>>> newsgroup, did you?
> >>>>>>> 
> >>>>>>> 
> >>>>>>> -- 
> >>>>>>> Odd Bodkin   Maker of fine toys, tools, tables
> >>>>>> =======================common!!
> >>>>>> if you say that the proximation is good enough 
> >>>>>> means   that***** you*** know what about what you are talking   talking !!!
> >>>>>> and you  know what is the approximation
> >>>>>> and you know what is the exactly 
> >>>>>> 
> >>>>>> what   is right and what is not right 
> >>>>> 
> >>>>> 
> >>>>> Yes. And the differences between the two models depend on the application!
> >>>>> Of course!!
> >>>>> 
> >>>>> And you come here and rant day after day about GR when you don t have the
> >>>>> foggiest idea how to do one calculation with it! For that matter, I m
> >>>>> pretty sure you couldn t calculate a Newtonian orbit either. 
> >>>> ==================> AND  YOU CAN CALCULLE CURVED SPACE basic PROBOLMS
> >>>> ??
> >>>> 
> >>>> LET   US SEE:
> >>>> 
> >>>> pleas tell  us what is the RADIUS  OF CURVETURE
> >>>> ""OF CURVED SPACE** 
> >>>> AROND OUR GLOBE ???
> >>>> 
> >>>> (a modest basic request isn't it so  !!!!!)
> >>>> 
> >>>> is  it not a modest request ??for a  physicist like you 
> >>>> ??
> >>>> that is pretending to know
> >>>> more than me !!
> >>>> 
> >>>> => TIA
> >>>> Y.P
> >>>> ============> 
> >>>> 
> >>>> 
> >>>>> 
> >>>>>> or else you are mumbling  irresponsibly about  things that
> >>>>>> you don't know ???!!!!!
> >>>>>> or may be an imposter ??!
> >>>>>> we are not here in children's games 
> >>>>>> 
> >>>>>> or else yo are just a parrot !!
> >>>>>> in shot
> >>>>>> if you know**
> >>>>>> say I know exactly about  what  i am talking 
> >>>>>> and if you dint know
> >>>>>> say 
> >>>>>> honestly
> >>>>>> I have no idea what is done there 
> >>>>>> and have no idea   
> >>>>>> why ]
> >>>>>> curved   space is neglected there 
> >>>>>> and   even worse
> >>>>>> you exactly don't   know wat  is going on there 
> >>>>>> if so 
> >>>>>> be honest and say 
> >>>>>> I don't know what are their considerations there 
> >>>>>> and what is that they know\or not 
> >>>>>> all   along the way from  earth
> >>>>>> to  Mars !!
> >>>>>> or may be    they think that
> >>>>>> curved space'' is not relevant for them and why ??
> >>>>>> or not relevant to**any*  actual    possible project
> >>>>>> 
> >>>>>> of NASSA  
> >>>>>> or may be YOU tell us 
> >>>>>> in which project it might be RELEVANT 
> >>>>>> and if you don't  know
> >>>>>> 
> >>>>>> say
> >>>>>> I DONT    KNOW !!!!!
> >>>>>> or may be 
> >>>>>> iow
> >>>>>> nonsense physics with   zero  use to anything !!??
> >>>>>> TIA
> >>>>>> Y.P
> >>>>>> ============================================no Bodkin as usual 
> >>> is fading away !!!
> >>> actually 
> >>> not me and even  not Bodkin have to  know  
> >>> the calculations of s
> >>> sending a human   being to mars 
> >>> it is NASA job 
> >>> not forr us
> >>> and yet
> >>> even as a standing aside
> >>> 
> >>> with some commonsense 
> >>> even by standing by side 
> >>> the known facts are good enough foe us  semi intelligent  people  
> >>> that are not just parrots
> >>> to realize that
> >>> CURVED SPACE'' IS NOT USED A BIT !!!
> >>> 
> >>> in that Marrs job !!!
> >>> and not anywhere 
> >>> 
> >>> much worse ::
> >>> 
> >>> IT IS GOOD FOR NOTHING  PRACTIALY!! 
> >>> only for  professors  getting payed 
> >>> for teaching poor students 
> >>> about ''CURVED SPACE'' 
> >>> ===TIA
> >>> Y.Porat
> >>> ===================> 
> >> Is fading away.... 
> >> lol. You have the patience of a two year old. You don t get a reply in an
> >> hour and you think you ve chased people away. Some people have a life away
> >> from the newsgroup. 
> >> 
> >> The radius of curvature of SPACETIME (not space) is about 31 billion feet. 
> >> 
> >> You can calculate this just by taking a trajectory of a thrown ball that
> >> covers 30 horizontal feet in about a second, rising about 4 feet to the
> >> apex of its trajectory. A second of time is a billion nanoseconds or about
> >> a billion feet of time, using natural units. For a curved trajectory, the
> >> sagitta s and the chord length c are related to the radius of curvature r
> >> by a simple geometric relation: c^2 = 8sr. 
> >> 
> >> In Newtonian physics, the curvature of space is zero. The curvature of the
> >> surface of the earth has absolutely nothing to do with the curvature of
> >> space. 
> >> 
> >> Now, in case this doesn t clear things up for you, let me point out that
> >> there are plenty people in this newsgroup who do know how to do this simple
> >> calculations even if you don t. If the calculations I ve just described are
> >> still Greek to you, just take that as an indicator of how much remedial
> >> info you have to learn before you can talk about GR intelligently. 
> >> 
> >> -- 
> >> Odd Bodkin   Maker of fine toys, tools, tables
> > =====================We don't  need your
> > 'many people' knowing how to use curved  space 
> > even  just onem of them that will 
> > do it  right is enough !!
> > but the fact is that though all  those 
> > pompous mumblings of yours and others 
> > -no one even  NASA does not and did not
> > ever- use it !
> 
> Well, the engineers who built GPS use it. 
===================================================
you are  cheating from your imagination 
bring evidence prove !!!
================================================
> 
> But I’ll repeat my earlier comment that the value of a scientific theory is
> not housed in how much practical use is made of it. That’s not what science

====================================
that is what you Bodkin say !!
that is for philosophy not for science  
counties   are not waisting  investing billions of public money  
for abstract  knowledge 
the goal of science is at  the end
of the day 
 to make practical  life-- easier 
to  save  resources to use them more efficiently
we are not
at  THE AINCIENT TIME OF APLATON  AND SOCRATUS !
ti get   'wisdom for just  abstact wisdom 
in short you are cheating   
and that is why we waist billions
for fake science !!
==================  

> is for. That’s what engineering is for. Don’t confuse science and
> engineering. 
=
I am   not   confusing
you are   maliciously confusing !!

> > and will  never use it
> > and no one will proving using it 
> > because 
> > it is one of the biggest ''flops
> > in the history of science !!
> > not to mansion
> > anyone to use it
> > in   practical   life !!!
> > 
> > (NASSA use and will use
> > the ordinary   Newtonian physics 
> > not bull shit physics 
> > 2
> > ====================================MASS** IS THE CREATOR OF ALL FORCES  
> > INCULDING    GRAVITY !! 
> > ==============================
> > no curvature and no schmervature of space !!
> > =================Y.Porat
> > ===================
> >  ==========
> 
> 

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

#710985

<yporat08@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Friday, November 2, 2018 at 1:34:12 PM UTC+2, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>> <yporat08@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Thursday, November 1, 2018 at 9:59:20 PM UTC+2, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>>>> <yporat08@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> On Thursday, November 1, 2018 at 7:44:07 PM UTC+2, ypor...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>> On Thursday, November 1, 2018 at 6:11:43 PM UTC+2, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>>>>>>> <yporat08@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Thursday, November 1, 2018 at 4:36:35 PM UTC+2, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>>>>>>>>> <yporat08@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On Tuesday, October 30, 2018 at 2:12:46 PM UTC+2, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> <yporat08@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On Monday, October 29, 2018 at 6:59:53 PM UTC+2, pnal...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Well, loosely speaking, aren't we all interstellar beings?
>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>> ================================> > 
>>>>>>>>>>>> If so 
>>>>>>>>>>>> why NASA  does not use 
>>>>>>>>>>>> curved space ''
>>>>>>>>>>>> in its interstellar    calculations ??!!!
>>>>>>>>>>>> => > TIA
>>>>>>>>>>>> Y.P
>>>>>>>>>>>> =============================================> > 
>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> Because the approximation is good enough. 
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> -- 
>>>>>>>>>>> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
>>>>>>>>>> ================================(:-)
>>>>>>>>>> ok !!
>>>>>>>>>> IF SO please   show us 
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> WAHT    IS THE REAL CALCULATION
>>>>>>>>>> AND WHAT IS THE APROXIMATION &.CALCULATION 
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> Calculation of what, exactly. You seem to think that there is one GR
>>>>>>>>> calculation and one Newtonian calculation for every NASA trajectory they
>>>>>>>>> investigate. Really???
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> I THNK YOU KNOW just mumbling is not good enough ..in  science 
>>>>>>>>>> (after all I think you are a physics teacher )   
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> I m not a physics teacher, and coming here to beg to be taught physics is
>>>>>>>>> silly. This isn t the place to learn physics. Concentrated study is. 
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> You didn t become an engineer by asking to be taught engineering in a
>>>>>>>>> newsgroup, did you?
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> -- 
>>>>>>>>> Odd Bodkin   Maker of fine toys, tools, tables
>>>>>>>> =======================common!!
>>>>>>>> if you say that the proximation is good enough 
>>>>>>>> means   that***** you*** know what about what you are talking   talking !!!
>>>>>>>> and you  know what is the approximation
>>>>>>>> and you know what is the exactly 
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> what   is right and what is not right 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Yes. And the differences between the two models depend on the application!
>>>>>>> Of course!!
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> And you come here and rant day after day about GR when you don t have the
>>>>>>> foggiest idea how to do one calculation with it! For that matter, I m
>>>>>>> pretty sure you couldn t calculate a Newtonian orbit either. 
>>>>>> ==================> AND  YOU CAN CALCULLE CURVED SPACE basic PROBOLMS
>>>>>> ??
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> LET   US SEE:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> pleas tell  us what is the RADIUS  OF CURVETURE
>>>>>> ""OF CURVED SPACE** 
>>>>>> AROND OUR GLOBE ???
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> (a modest basic request isn't it so  !!!!!)
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> is  it not a modest request ??for a  physicist like you 
>>>>>> ??
>>>>>> that is pretending to know
>>>>>> more than me !!
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> => TIA
>>>>>> Y.P
>>>>>> ============> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> or else you are mumbling  irresponsibly about  things that
>>>>>>>> you don't know ???!!!!!
>>>>>>>> or may be an imposter ??!
>>>>>>>> we are not here in children's games 
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> or else yo are just a parrot !!
>>>>>>>> in shot
>>>>>>>> if you know**
>>>>>>>> say I know exactly about  what  i am talking 
>>>>>>>> and if you dint know
>>>>>>>> say 
>>>>>>>> honestly
>>>>>>>> I have no idea what is done there 
>>>>>>>> and have no idea   
>>>>>>>> why ]
>>>>>>>> curved   space is neglected there 
>>>>>>>> and   even worse
>>>>>>>> you exactly don't   know wat  is going on there 
>>>>>>>> if so 
>>>>>>>> be honest and say 
>>>>>>>> I don't know what are their considerations there 
>>>>>>>> and what is that they know\or not 
>>>>>>>> all   along the way from  earth
>>>>>>>> to  Mars !!
>>>>>>>> or may be    they think that
>>>>>>>> curved space'' is not relevant for them and why ??
>>>>>>>> or not relevant to**any*  actual    possible project
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> of NASSA  
>>>>>>>> or may be YOU tell us 
>>>>>>>> in which project it might be RELEVANT 
>>>>>>>> and if you don't  know
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> say
>>>>>>>> I DONT    KNOW !!!!!
>>>>>>>> or may be 
>>>>>>>> iow
>>>>>>>> nonsense physics with   zero  use to anything !!??
>>>>>>>> TIA
>>>>>>>> Y.P
>>>>>>>> ============================================no Bodkin as usual 
>>>>> is fading away !!!
>>>>> actually 
>>>>> not me and even  not Bodkin have to  know  
>>>>> the calculations of s
>>>>> sending a human   being to mars 
>>>>> it is NASA job 
>>>>> not forr us
>>>>> and yet
>>>>> even as a standing aside
>>>>> 
>>>>> with some commonsense 
>>>>> even by standing by side 
>>>>> the known facts are good enough foe us  semi intelligent  people  
>>>>> that are not just parrots
>>>>> to realize that
>>>>> CURVED SPACE'' IS NOT USED A BIT !!!
>>>>> 
>>>>> in that Marrs job !!!
>>>>> and not anywhere 
>>>>> 
>>>>> much worse ::
>>>>> 
>>>>> IT IS GOOD FOR NOTHING  PRACTIALY!! 
>>>>> only for  professors  getting payed 
>>>>> for teaching poor students 
>>>>> about ''CURVED SPACE'' 
>>>>> ===TIA
>>>>> Y.Porat
>>>>> ===================> 
>>>> Is fading away.... 
>>>> lol. You have the patience of a two year old. You don t get a reply in an
>>>> hour and you think you ve chased people away. Some people have a life away
>>>> from the newsgroup. 
>>>> 
>>>> The radius of curvature of SPACETIME (not space) is about 31 billion feet. 
>>>> 
>>>> You can calculate this just by taking a trajectory of a thrown ball that
>>>> covers 30 horizontal feet in about a second, rising about 4 feet to the
>>>> apex of its trajectory. A second of time is a billion nanoseconds or about
>>>> a billion feet of time, using natural units. For a curved trajectory, the
>>>> sagitta s and the chord length c are related to the radius of curvature r
>>>> by a simple geometric relation: c^2 = 8sr. 
>>>> 
>>>> In Newtonian physics, the curvature of space is zero. The curvature of the
>>>> surface of the earth has absolutely nothing to do with the curvature of
>>>> space. 
>>>> 
>>>> Now, in case this doesn t clear things up for you, let me point out that
>>>> there are plenty people in this newsgroup who do know how to do this simple
>>>> calculations even if you don t. If the calculations I ve just described are
>>>> still Greek to you, just take that as an indicator of how much remedial
>>>> info you have to learn before you can talk about GR intelligently. 
>>>> 
>>>> -- 
>>>> Odd Bodkin   Maker of fine toys, tools, tables
>>> =====================We don't  need your
>>> 'many people' knowing how to use curved  space 
>>> even  just onem of them that will 
>>> do it  right is enough !!
>>> but the fact is that though all  those 
>>> pompous mumblings of yours and others 
>>> -no one even  NASA does not and did not
>>> ever- use it !
>> 
>> Well, the engineers who built GPS use it. 
> ==================================================you are  cheating from your imagination 
> bring evidence prove !!!

The GPS specs are public record. A google search pops it right up. You know
how to do this, right?

> ===============================================> 
>> But Ill repeat my earlier comment that the value of a scientific theory is
>> not housed in how much practical use is made of it. Thats not what science
> 
> ===================================that is what you Bodkin say !!
> that is for philosophy not for science  
> counties   are not waisting  investing billions of public money  
> for abstract  knowledge 

Yes they are! That’s exactly the point! Fundamental science is funded for
basic exploration PERIOD, without any expectation of practical benefit! 

There is no practical benefit to zoology, to paleontology, to astronomy, to
continental drift geology, to particle physics, to interplanetary probes.
Nor does there need to be. 

Don’t look at science through the lens of engineering!

> the goal of science is at  the end
> of the day 
>  to make practical  life-- easier 
> to  save  resources to use them more efficiently
> we are not
> at  THE AINCIENT TIME OF APLATON  AND SOCRATUS !
> ti get   'wisdom for just  abstact wisdom 
> in short you are cheating   
> and that is why we waist billions
> for fake science !!
> ==================  
> 
>> is for. Thats what engineering is for. Dont confuse science and
>> engineering. 
> I am   not   confusing
> you are   maliciously confusing !!
> 
>>> and will  never use it
>>> and no one will proving using it 
>>> because 
>>> it is one of the biggest ''flops
>>> in the history of science !!
>>> not to mansion
>>> anyone to use it
>>> in   practical   life !!!
>>> 
>>> (NASSA use and will use
>>> the ordinary   Newtonian physics 
>>> not bull shit physics 
>>> 2
>>> ====================================MASS** IS THE CREATOR OF ALL FORCES  
>>> INCULDING    GRAVITY !! 
>>> =============================> > no curvature and no schmervature of space !!
>>> =================Y.Porat
>>> ==================> >  =========> 
>> 
> 



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

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

#710319

On Tuesday, October 30, 2018 at 2:03:50 AM UTC-4, ypor...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Monday, October 29, 2018 at 6:59:53 PM UTC+2, pnal...@gmail.com wrote:
> > Well, loosely speaking, aren't we all interstellar beings?
> 
> =================================
> 
> If so 
> why NASA  does not use 
> curved space ''
> in its interstellar    calculations ??!!!
> ==
> TIA
> Y.P
> ==============================================

The do use Relativistic equations for interstellar calculations
such as positions of stars over time.

Except for the Voyager 1 probe, nothing humans have done has reached
interstellar space.
https://voyager.jpl.nasa.gov/mission/interstellar-mission/

 Ed

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

#710233

Magnetism is a curved force like gravity. The atomic forces are also curved.

All forces are round.

Mitchell Raemsch

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

#710235

On 10/29/2018 1:16 PM, mitchrae3323@gmail.com wrote:
> Magnetism is a curved force like gravity. The atomic forces are also curved.
> 
> All forces are round.
> 
> Mitchell Raemsch
> 

step on the gas in a car makes it go stright, not round.
It does make the wheels go round.

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

#710357

On Monday, October 29, 2018 at 12:12:51 PM UTC-7, Sergio wrote:
> On 10/29/2018 1:16 PM, mitchrae3323@gmail.com wrote:
> > Magnetism is a curved force like gravity. The atomic forces are also curved.
> > 
> > All forces are round.
> > 
> > Mitchell Raemsch
> > 
> 
> step on the gas in a car makes it go stright, not round.
> It does make the wheels go round.

Car moves on a curved Earth surface.Bert

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

#710373

On 10/30/2018 10:19 AM, reber G=emc^2 wrote:
> On Monday, October 29, 2018 at 12:12:51 PM UTC-7, Sergio wrote:
>> On 10/29/2018 1:16 PM, mitchrae3323@gmail.com wrote:
>>> Magnetism is a curved force like gravity. The atomic forces are also curved.
>>>
>>> All forces are round.
>>>
>>> Mitchell Raemsch
>>>
>>
>> step on the gas in a car makes it go stright, not round.
>> It does make the wheels go round.
> 
> Car moves on a curved Earth surface.Bert
> 

yea, my car goes around curves as well.

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

#710435

On Monday, October 29, 2018 at 12:12:51 PM UTC-7, Sergio wrote:
> On 10/29/2018 1:16 PM, mitchrae3323@gmail.com wrote:
> > Magnetism is a curved force like gravity. The atomic forces are also curved.
> > 
> > All forces are round.
> > 
> > Mitchell Raemsch
> > 
> 
> step on the gas in a car makes it go stright, not round.
> It does make the wheels go round.

The ideal road is only as flat as the flat Earth Roy Masters...

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

#710237

On Monday, October 29, 2018 at 8:50:20 AM UTC-4, john wrote:
> Fodder for much interstellar humor

Yes you are!

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

#710293

On Mon, 29 Oct 2018 12:26:30 -0700 (PDT), Edward Prochak wrote:

>On Monday, October 29, 2018 at 8:50:20 AM UTC-4, john wrote:
>> Fodder for much interstellar humor
>
>Yes you are!

Who said this isn't the place for ad homs?

And who chided another for personal attacks?

Let's talk physics: mirrors, and how it takes a special mirror to see
ourselves as other see us:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-reversing_mirror

That's how to discuss physics without an agenda, right? 

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

#710318

On Monday, October 29, 2018 at 11:45:46 PM UTC-4, Wally W. wrote:
> On Mon, 29 Oct 2018 12:26:30 -0700 (PDT), Edward Prochak wrote:
> 
> >On Monday, October 29, 2018 at 8:50:20 AM UTC-4, john wrote:
> >> Fodder for much interstellar humor
> >
> >Yes you are!
> 
> Who said this isn't the place for ad homs?

You caught me. I am so ashamed.

> 
> And who chided another for personal attacks?

yes I did. I deserve this.

> 
> Let's talk physics: mirrors, and how it takes a special mirror to see
> ourselves as other see us:
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-reversing_mirror
> 
> That's how to discuss physics without an agenda, right?

Nice touch! cool transition.

Such properties of mirror surfaces are used in highly
reflective materials by extending the 90 degree reflection
to 3 dimensions.  A little physics that makes life safer
by making road signs more visible, and (to get back to
John's topic) even making tests of gravity possible.

https://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2004/21jul_llr

"Here's how it works: A laser pulse shoots out of a telescope
 on Earth, crosses the Earth-moon divide, and hits the array.
 Because the mirrors are "corner-cube reflectors," they send
 the pulse straight back where it came from. "It's like hitting
 a ball into the corner of a squash court," explains Alley. Back
 on Earth, telescopes intercept the returning pulse--"usually
 just a single photon," he [University of Maryland physics professor
 Carroll Alley] marvels.

 The round-trip travel time pinpoints the moon's distance with
 staggering precision: better than a few centimeters out of
 385,000 km, typically."

Thanks for bring us back on track Wally.

Enjoy,
Ed

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

#710375

On 10/30/2018 8:29 AM, Edward Prochak wrote:
> On Monday, October 29, 2018 at 11:45:46 PM UTC-4, Wally W. wrote:
>> On Mon, 29 Oct 2018 12:26:30 -0700 (PDT), Edward Prochak wrote:
>>
>>> On Monday, October 29, 2018 at 8:50:20 AM UTC-4, john wrote:
>>>> Fodder for much interstellar humor
>>>
>>> Yes you are!
>>
>> Who said this isn't the place for ad homs?
> 
> You caught me. I am so ashamed.
> 
>>
>> And who chided another for personal attacks?
> 
> yes I did. I deserve this.
> 
>>
>> Let's talk physics: mirrors, and how it takes a special mirror to see
>> ourselves as other see us:
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-reversing_mirror
>>
>> That's how to discuss physics without an agenda, right?
> 
> Nice touch! cool transition.
> 
> Such properties of mirror surfaces are used in highly
> reflective materials by extending the 90 degree reflection
> to 3 dimensions.  A little physics that makes life safer
> by making road signs more visible, and (to get back to
> John's topic) even making tests of gravity possible.
> 
> https://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2004/21jul_llr
> 
> "Here's how it works: A laser pulse shoots out of a telescope
>  on Earth, crosses the Earth-moon divide, and hits the array.
>  Because the mirrors are "corner-cube reflectors," they send
>  the pulse straight back where it came from. "It's like hitting
>  a ball into the corner of a squash court," explains Alley. Back
>  on Earth, telescopes intercept the returning pulse--"usually
>  just a single photon," he [University of Maryland physics professor
>  Carroll Alley] marvels.
> 
>  The round-trip travel time pinpoints the moon's distance with
>  staggering precision: better than a few centimeters out of
>  385,000 km, typically."
> 
> Thanks for bring us back on track Wally.
> 
> Enjoy,
> Ed
> 

corner cubes have a divergence metric too, how much the spread the beam
out. also there are two types, one is single piece of glass, the other 3
first surface mirrors (less lossy).  Also the laser uses long train of
pulses to average, improving SNR.


looks like it got axed in 2009;
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2009/jun/21/mcdonald-observatory-space-laser-funding

another place (not sure if this is right, still have laser divergance)

"Scientists use laser range-finding to measure the distance to the moon
with great accuracy. A brief laser pulse is fired at the moon, then the
time interval is measured until the "echo" is seen by a telescope. A
laser beam spreads out as it travels because it diffracts through a
circular exit as it leaves the laser. In order for the reflected light
to be bright enough to detect, the laser spot on the moon must be no
more than 1.0 in diameter. Staying within this diameter is accomplished
by using a special large-diameter laser."


check this out, using your own camera;
https://phys.org/news/2014-05-distance-moon.html

basic Math here;
http://scienceblogs.com/builtonfacts/2010/12/16/all-right-im-gonna-delay/

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

#710414

On Tuesday, October 30, 2018 at 9:10:10 AM UTC-7, Sergio wrote:
> On 10/30/2018 8:29 AM, Edward Prochak wrote:
> > On Monday, October 29, 2018 at 11:45:46 PM UTC-4, Wally W. wrote:
> >> On Mon, 29 Oct 2018 12:26:30 -0700 (PDT), Edward Prochak wrote:
> >>
> >>> On Monday, October 29, 2018 at 8:50:20 AM UTC-4, john wrote:
> >>>> Fodder for much interstellar humor
> >>>
> >>> Yes you are!
> >>
> >> Who said this isn't the place for ad homs?
> > 
> > You caught me. I am so ashamed.
> > 
> >>
> >> And who chided another for personal attacks?
> > 
> > yes I did. I deserve this.
> > 
> >>
> >> Let's talk physics: mirrors, and how it takes a special mirror to see
> >> ourselves as other see us:
> >> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-reversing_mirror
> >>
> >> That's how to discuss physics without an agenda, right?
> > 
> > Nice touch! cool transition.
> > 
> > Such properties of mirror surfaces are used in highly
> > reflective materials by extending the 90 degree reflection
> > to 3 dimensions.  A little physics that makes life safer
> > by making road signs more visible, and (to get back to
> > John's topic) even making tests of gravity possible.
> > 
> > https://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2004/21jul_llr
> > 
> > "Here's how it works: A laser pulse shoots out of a telescope
> >  on Earth, crosses the Earth-moon divide, and hits the array.
> >  Because the mirrors are "corner-cube reflectors," they send
> >  the pulse straight back where it came from. "It's like hitting
> >  a ball into the corner of a squash court," explains Alley. Back
> >  on Earth, telescopes intercept the returning pulse--"usually
> >  just a single photon," he [University of Maryland physics professor
> >  Carroll Alley] marvels.
> > 
> >  The round-trip travel time pinpoints the moon's distance with
> >  staggering precision: better than a few centimeters out of
> >  385,000 km, typically."
> > 
> > Thanks for bring us back on track Wally.
> > 
> > Enjoy,
> > Ed
> > 
> 
> corner cubes have a divergence metric too, how much the spread the beam
> out. also there are two types, one is single piece of glass, the other 3
> first surface mirrors (less lossy).  Also the laser uses long train of
> pulses to average, improving SNR.
> 
> 
> looks like it got axed in 2009;
> https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2009/jun/21/mcdonald-observatory-space-laser-funding
> 
> another place (not sure if this is right, still have laser divergance)
> 
> "Scientists use laser range-finding to measure the distance to the moon
> with great accuracy. A brief laser pulse is fired at the moon, then the
> time interval is measured until the "echo" is seen by a telescope. A
> laser beam spreads out as it travels because it diffracts through a
> circular exit as it leaves the laser. In order for the reflected light
> to be bright enough to detect, the laser spot on the moon must be no
> more than 1.0 in diameter. Staying within this diameter is accomplished
> by using a special large-diameter laser."
> 
> 
> check this out, using your own camera;
> https://phys.org/news/2014-05-distance-moon.html
> 
> basic Math here;
> http://scienceblogs.com/builtonfacts/2010/12/16/all-right-im-gonna-delay/

Car taking a sharp curve proves inertia and gravity are two sides to the same coin.This is what Einstein and I talked about in 1952 One on One Bert

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

#710427

On Tuesday, October 30, 2018 at 12:10:10 PM UTC-4, Sergio wrote:
> On 10/30/2018 8:29 AM, Edward Prochak wrote:
> > On Monday, October 29, 2018 at 11:45:46 PM UTC-4, Wally W. wrote:
> >> On Mon, 29 Oct 2018 12:26:30 -0700 (PDT), Edward Prochak wrote:
> >>
> >>> On Monday, October 29, 2018 at 8:50:20 AM UTC-4, john wrote:
> >>>> Fodder for much interstellar humor
> >>>
> >>> Yes you are!
> >>
> >> Who said this isn't the place for ad homs?
> > 
> > You caught me. I am so ashamed.
> > 
> >>
> >> And who chided another for personal attacks?
> > 
> > yes I did. I deserve this.
> > 
> >>
> >> Let's talk physics: mirrors, and how it takes a special mirror to see
> >> ourselves as other see us:
> >> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-reversing_mirror
> >>
> >> That's how to discuss physics without an agenda, right?
> > 
> > Nice touch! cool transition.
> > 
> > Such properties of mirror surfaces are used in highly
> > reflective materials by extending the 90 degree reflection
> > to 3 dimensions.  A little physics that makes life safer
> > by making road signs more visible, and (to get back to
> > John's topic) even making tests of gravity possible.
> > 
> > https://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2004/21jul_llr
> > 
> > "Here's how it works: A laser pulse shoots out of a telescope
> >  on Earth, crosses the Earth-moon divide, and hits the array.
> >  Because the mirrors are "corner-cube reflectors," they send
> >  the pulse straight back where it came from. "It's like hitting
> >  a ball into the corner of a squash court," explains Alley. Back
> >  on Earth, telescopes intercept the returning pulse--"usually
> >  just a single photon," he [University of Maryland physics professor
> >  Carroll Alley] marvels.
> > 
> >  The round-trip travel time pinpoints the moon's distance with
> >  staggering precision: better than a few centimeters out of
> >  385,000 km, typically."
> > 
> > Thanks for bring us back on track Wally.
> > 
> > Enjoy,
> > Ed
> > 
> 
> corner cubes have a divergence metric too, how much the spread the beam
> out. also there are two types, one is single piece of glass, the other 3
> first surface mirrors (less lossy).  Also the laser uses long train of
> pulses to average, improving SNR.
> 
> 
> looks like it got axed in 2009;
> https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2009/jun/21/mcdonald-observatory-space-laser-funding
> 
> another place (not sure if this is right, still have laser divergance)
> 
> "Scientists use laser range-finding to measure the distance to the moon
> with great accuracy. A brief laser pulse is fired at the moon, then the
> time interval is measured until the "echo" is seen by a telescope. A
> laser beam spreads out as it travels because it diffracts through a
> circular exit as it leaves the laser. In order for the reflected light
> to be bright enough to detect, the laser spot on the moon must be no
> more than 1.0 in diameter. Staying within this diameter is accomplished
> by using a special large-diameter laser."
> 
> 
> check this out, using your own camera;
> https://phys.org/news/2014-05-distance-moon.html
> 
> basic Math here;
> http://scienceblogs.com/builtonfacts/2010/12/16/all-right-im-gonna-delay/

Cool. I may have to try that. Now where is that tripod? ...

Ed

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Page 2 of 2 — ← Prev page 1 [2]

Back to top | Article view | sci.physics

csiph-web