Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #386631
| From | Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | sci.physics.relativity |
| Subject | Re: Time and Gravity |
| Date | 2016-06-25 05:02 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <dt6ai5F6l8jU1@mid.individual.net> (permalink) |
| References | (18 earlier) <nkhivm$af$1@gioia.aioe.org> <dt3tksFmdbvU1@mid.individual.net> <nkja87$ii7$1@gioia.aioe.org> <dt5226FtkphU1@mid.individual.net> <nkjteu$1l25$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
Am 24.06.2016 20:17, schrieb Odd Bodkin:
>>>>> Sir, please start thinking.
>>>>> If I am a satellite system that has orbits on a sphere in space,
>>>>> then I
>>>>> know the location of the center of that sphere. (If you walked in a
>>>>> large circle, measuring your distance of travel, you would know the
>>>>> circumference of the circle you walked in. Knowing the circumference
>>>>> and
>>>>> dividing by 2*pi, you now know the radius of the circle from your
>>>>> measured distance of travel. Now that you know the radius, you know
>>>>> the
>>>>> exact location of the center of the circle you traveled in, even
>>>>> though
>>>>> it may be in the middle of a mountain.) The center of that sphere
>>>>> coincides with the center of the earth, even though I cannot see the
>>>>> center of the earth. The radius of this sphere is therefore a measured
>>>>> value R.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> This too funny, since what you cannot do in orbit, that is measure the
>>>> distance travelled by kind of odometer. (You DON'T walk in space!)
>>>
>>> I did not mean to suggest that satellites measure the circumference of
>>> their travel. They know the dimensions of the sphere they are on by
>>> different means (radar ranging, effectively). The point of my
>>> illustration of walking in a circle is to point out that you do not need
>>> to be able to see the center of a circle to know where it is, even when
>>> walking around a mountain.
>>
>> The point is this statement:
>>
>> "They know the dimensions of the sphere..."
>>
>> But what if they try to measure changes of this sphere?
>
> The sphere of the orbit of the satellites does not change, even if the
> earth is growing. Why would it? That is strictly governed by the
> strength of the gravitational field out at that orbit, which is NOT
> CHANGING.
Since the mass of the Earth assumed to increase, the gravity of Earth
would change, too.
This would make the distance to the Sun larger and the year longer.
Also the Earth Moon distance would increase.
This is a feature of angular momentum, since if the planet gains mass,
the rotational velocity would decrease.
>>
>> How would they do that?
>>
>> You said, the GPS system measures the diameter of the Earth,
>
> No, I didn't say that. I said the GPS system measures the diameter of
> the sphere of their orbit. The earth is well inside this orbital sphere.
>
> I'll reiterate this: The GPS satellites range relative to each other.
> Where the ground is underneath them is irrelevant for this determination.
The GPS satelites measure the distance to each other?
Well, maybe, but as non-expert in this field I will not insist on my
opinion about how the system functions.
So possibly you are in fact right and the GPS satelites could measure,
whether or not the Earth would grow.
But do you actually think, the US-military would tell, if they would
measure such a growth?
...
>>>>
>>>> No!
>>>> I wrote, that movement of plates is caused by growth.
>>>>
>>>> What cannot possibly work is the mechanism, which Plate tectonic
>>>> assumes.
>>>>
>>>> PT has a constant size of the planet as axiom. Under this condition
>>>> plates cannot move at all.
>>>>
>>>> PT uses, in violation of facts, a plane model of plates.
>>>
>>> I don't think so, no. I don't know where you got the impression that it
>>
>>
>> A belt is flat and rectangular. It has two main dimensions: length and
>> width.
>
> That is NOT what plate tectonics presumes. If you have seen a comparison
> of tectonic plates with a conveyor belt, and you took that illustration
> to mean that tectonic plates are flat and rectangular, then you
> over-literalized that illustration. The illustration is intended for
> children.
>
> Plate tectonics does NOT assume a plane model of plates.
Sure they do.
A conveyor belt is actually (almost) two-dimensional and flat. And pt
uses the conveyor belt as model for the movement of plates.
As Earth is roughly a ball, the crust is a spherical shell about this ball.
If you regard plates a kind of tiles, you need a model, which completely
covers the ball of the planet by such tiles.
Relatively close is a soccer ball and its typical pattern of hexagonal
shapes ('tiles').
If these tiles would move from one side of the hexagon towards the
other, they would need to stretch towards the middle and then compress
again.
And this a completely impossible process and something not observed.
But a tile in constant form and size cannot move about the ball, since
the ball is completely covered. So a moving tile would soon run into
another tile and then stop.
>>
>> It has also thickness, but we could ignore this in these circumstances.
>>
>> A belt has a feature, that tectonic plates cannot have: belts have
>> constant width.
>>
>> A tectonic plate could be approximated with a large hexagon.
>
> That is not accurate either and is as bad as the flat, rectangular
No. A soccer ball is quite a good example. But also a ball created from
flat hexagons would be much more ball-like than the cube, you could
actually construct from rectangular 'plates'.
>> The one
>> side is the spreading zone, from where it originates and on the opposite
>> side we have the subduction zone.
>>
>> But in between these zones, the 'belt' is changing width.
>>
>> And such a feature of tectonic plates is not seen in reality. And such a
>> process would definitely not stay unnoticed, since if such a plate would
>> stretch significantly and subsequently would be squeezed together, we
>> would expect tremendous 'ripples' in the landscape, which are simply not
>> there .
>>
>> Plate tectonic ignores this problem by using the flat model of a
>> conveyor belt, while sweeping the problem of different width under the
>> rug.
>>
>> The other problem ignored is the spherical form. This is significantly
>> different to the form of a belt, which could be approximated by a sheet
>> or plane.
>
> You have mistaken a child's analogy of a conveyor belt for a literal
> description of tectonic plates. Good grief.
I used, what plate tectonic provides and that is this 'conveyor belt'
analogy.
Actually I try to prove 'Growing Earth', hence think, that PT is wrong.
>>>>
>>>> Avocados are not spherical.
>>>
>>> Nor is a watermelon. Objection irrelevant.
>>
>> Well, no. A melon is quite close to a ball. A pumpkin would also be a
>> possible example. But fruits with soft and thin skin are not possible.
>
> I believe now you are arguing for the sake of arguing.
Not true. What I actually try to prove is something different than
Growing Earth. That is the concept I have developed I call 'structured
spacetime', which is essentially something about matter and what that
might be.
In case you don't have that link already, here it comes again:
https://docs.google.com/present/view?id=dd8jz2tx_3gfzvqgd6
Since I have spent a terrible lot of time on this 'book', I feel kind of
disappointed about nobody reading it.
So I try to find proof, that my concept is actually correct and growing
Earth would provide evidence.
TH
Back to sci.physics.relativity | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread
Time and Gravity Alan Folmsbee <omnilobe@gmail.com> - 2016-06-03 11:09 -0700
Re: Time and Gravity "David (Time Lord) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-06-03 15:38 -0700
Re: Time and Gravity Alan Folmsbee <omnilobe@gmail.com> - 2016-06-04 09:35 -0700
Re: Time and Gravity "David (Time Lord) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-06-05 13:20 -0700
Re: Time and Gravity Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-06-04 06:34 +0200
Re: Time and Gravity "David (Time Lord) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-06-04 09:36 -0700
Re: Time and Gravity Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-06-05 05:03 +0200
Re: Time and Gravity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-06-05 15:35 -0500
Re: Time and Gravity Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-06-07 15:52 +0200
Re: Time and Gravity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-06-07 11:26 -0500
Re: Time and Gravity Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-06-08 10:42 +0200
Re: Time and Gravity mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-06-08 01:55 -0700
Re: Time and Gravity Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-06-08 22:24 +0200
Re: Time and Gravity mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-06-08 23:24 -0700
Re: Time and Gravity The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-06-10 01:24 -0700
Re: Time and Gravity Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-06-12 10:19 +0200
Re: Time and Gravity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-06-08 08:17 -0500
Re: Time and Gravity Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-06-08 22:39 +0200
Re: Time and Gravity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-06-08 15:52 -0500
Re: Time and Gravity Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-06-09 05:13 +0200
Re: Time and Gravity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-06-09 11:39 -0500
Re: Time and Gravity Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-06-10 07:23 +0200
Re: Time and Gravity Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-06-10 13:14 -0500
Re: Time and Gravity Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-06-11 06:35 +0200
Re: Time and Gravity Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-06-17 11:09 +0200
Re: Time and Gravity Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-06-18 06:46 +0200
Re: Time and Gravity Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-06-19 12:02 -0500
Re: Time and Gravity "David (Time Lord) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-06-19 14:17 -0700
Re: Time and Gravity Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-06-20 05:59 +0200
Re: Time and Gravity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-06-20 15:45 -0500
Re: Time and Gravity Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-06-23 22:39 +0200
Re: Time and Gravity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-06-23 16:06 -0500
Re: Time and Gravity Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-06-24 07:09 +0200
Re: Time and Gravity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-06-24 07:49 -0500
Re: Time and Gravity Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-06-24 09:52 -0500
Re: Time and Gravity Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-06-24 17:31 +0200
Re: Time and Gravity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-06-24 13:17 -0500
Re: Time and Gravity A Nony Mouse <abc@cef.ghi> - 2016-06-24 12:57 -0600
Re: Time and Gravity alsor@interia.pl - 2016-06-24 12:08 -0700
Re: Time and Gravity Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-06-25 04:35 +0200
Re: Time and Gravity "David (Time Lord) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-06-24 20:12 -0700
Re: Time and Gravity "David (Time Lord) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-06-24 20:31 -0700
Re: Time and Gravity Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-06-24 23:48 -0500
Re: Time and Gravity Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-06-25 08:13 +0200
Re: Time and Gravity "David (Time Lord) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-06-25 09:04 -0700
Re: Time and Gravity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-06-25 13:33 -0500
Re: Time and Gravity Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-06-26 03:34 +0200
Re: Time and Gravity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-06-27 15:33 -0500
Re: Time and Gravity Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-06-27 23:58 +0200
Re: Time and Gravity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-06-28 08:26 -0500
Re: Time and Gravity Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-07-11 06:30 +0200
Re: Time and Gravity Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-07-13 09:50 +0200
Re: Time and Gravity "David (Time Lord) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-07-13 07:40 -0700
Re: Time and Gravity Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-07-14 07:14 +0200
Re: Time and Gravity "David (Time Lord) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-07-19 05:54 -0700
Re: Time and Gravity "David (Time Lord) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-07-19 06:04 -0700
Re: Time and Gravity "David (Time Lord) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-07-19 07:03 -0700
Re: Time and Gravity Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-06-25 14:00 +0200
Re: Time and Gravity "Dr. Bob John" <drbobjohn@hotmail.org> - 2016-06-25 18:31 +0000
Re: Time and Gravity Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-06-25 05:02 +0200
Re: Time and Gravity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-06-25 13:32 -0500
Re: Time and Gravity Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-07-12 06:30 +0200
Re: Time and Gravity "David (Time Lord) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-07-12 08:27 -0700
Re: Time and Gravity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-13 09:07 -0500
Re: Time and Gravity "David (Time Lord) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-06-24 07:23 -0700
Re: Time and Gravity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-06-20 14:14 -0500
Re: Time and Gravity Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-06-26 03:24 +0200
Re: Time and Gravity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-06-26 15:59 -0500
Re: Time and Gravity Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-06-27 04:25 +0200
Re: Time and Gravity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-06-27 14:27 -0500
Re: Time and Gravity Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-06-28 00:43 +0200
Re: Time and Gravity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-06-28 08:43 -0500
Re: Time and Gravity Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-06-28 22:10 +0200
Re: Time and Gravity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-06-28 16:22 -0500
Re: Time and Gravity Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-06-29 08:06 +0200
Re: Time and Gravity paparios <paparios@gmail.com> - 2016-06-29 05:47 -0700
Re: Time and Gravity Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-06-29 19:18 +0200
Re: Time and Gravity paparios <paparios@gmail.com> - 2016-06-29 10:28 -0700
Re: Time and Gravity Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-07-08 09:36 +0200
Silliness about "growing earth" Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-07-08 10:45 -0500
Re: Silliness about "growing earth" Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-07-09 07:10 +0200
Re: Time and Gravity Alejandro Bellucci <alejb@yahoo.info> - 2016-07-08 17:49 +0000
Re: Time and Gravity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-06-29 08:08 -0500
Re: Time and Gravity Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-06-29 18:46 +0200
Re: Time and Gravity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-06-29 12:17 -0500
Re: Time and Gravity Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-06-29 19:45 +0200
Re: Time and Gravity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-06-29 13:02 -0500
Re: Time and Gravity Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-06-30 07:41 +0200
Re: Time and Gravity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-06-30 08:14 -0500
Re: Time and Gravity Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-07-01 05:12 +0200
Re: Time and Gravity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-01 07:46 -0500
Re: Time and Gravity Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-07-01 22:16 +0200
Re: Time and Gravity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-01 15:54 -0500
Re: Time and Gravity Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-07-02 07:25 +0200
Re: Time and Gravity Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-07-06 04:18 +0200
Re: Time and Gravity "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2016-07-05 23:28 -0700
Re: Time and Gravity Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-07-06 23:10 +0200
Re: Time and Gravity "David (Time Lord) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-06-09 10:23 -0700
Re: Time and Gravity "David (Time Lord) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-06-09 10:36 -0700
Re: Time and Gravity Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-06-09 13:18 -0500
Re: Time and Gravity "David (Time Lord) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-06-09 11:25 -0700
Re: Time and Gravity Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-06-10 07:05 +0200
Re: Time and Gravity "David (Time Lord) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-06-05 13:41 -0700
Re: Time and Gravity Alan Folmsbee <omnilobe@gmail.com> - 2016-06-06 08:54 -0700
Re: Time and Gravity "David (Time Lord) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-06-06 09:17 -0700
Re: Time and Gravity "David (Time Lord) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-06-06 09:37 -0700
Re: Time and Gravity "David (Time Lord) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-06-06 11:11 -0700
Re: Time and Gravity Carl Susumu <numbernumber1212@gmail.com> - 2016-06-24 10:13 -0700
csiph-web