Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #386656
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | sci.physics.relativity |
| Subject | Re: Time and Gravity |
| Date | 2016-06-25 13:32 -0500 |
| Organization | Aioe.org NNTP Server |
| Message-ID | <nkmimr$1fn8$1@gioia.aioe.org> (permalink) |
| References | (19 earlier) <dt3tksFmdbvU1@mid.individual.net> <nkja87$ii7$1@gioia.aioe.org> <dt5226FtkphU1@mid.individual.net> <nkjteu$1l25$1@gioia.aioe.org> <dt6ai5F6l8jU1@mid.individual.net> |
On 6/24/2016 10:02 PM, Thomas Heger wrote:
> 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.
And if this happened, then the radar ranging between satellites would
INCREASE measurably. But that has not happened.
>
> 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.
Are you quite sure of that? See Equation 581 here:
http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/301/lectures/node155.html
>
>
>>>
>>> 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?
Yes!
>
> 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.
Thank you! And this is precisely what is used to measure the height of
mountains.
>
> But do you actually think, the US-military would tell, if they would
> measure such a growth?
The GPS measurements needed to measure mountain elevations are not
mil-grade and are not dependent on the military to publish it.
>
>
> ...
>
>>>>>
>>>>> 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.
No, it really doesn't. It may in a child's illustration, but not in the
real scientific model.
What is your reference source material for plate tectonics theory?
>
> 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'.
Sorry, but no. That is not anywhere close to the shape of the tectonic
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.
What reference for plate tectonics are you using????
>
> 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.
This is common among self-published cranks.
>
> So I try to find proof, that my concept is actually correct and growing
> Earth would provide evidence.
>
>
> TH
--
Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
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