| Topic: |
Science > Physics |
| User: |
"=?UTF-8?Q?Jeff=E2=80=A6Relf?=" |
| Date: |
30 May 2006 04:21:34 PM |
| Object: |
Like a lit match... worse than a monkey's uncle. |
Hi Double_A, G_EMC_2_Glazier and Luigi_Caselli,
Who really wants to work for someone else ?
It's one dollar one vote... but why care if others vote for you or not ?
I've got a voice via powerful labs on campus, for CPP_files/Usenet/Web.
....I can tutor for tobacco money, rolling my own.
I know plenty of people who refuse to work, remaining homeless,
and going on the Food_Stamp program, or eating whatever they find.
Homeless people can't own anything... nowhere to put it;
yet their homes are _Everywhere_ to a large extent.
They are rich because their society is rich... shades of Marxism ?
Temperature is the fifth _Spatial_ dimension because
no spacetime event lacks a _Local_ temperature,
....just as no place lacks a _Local_ time.
You can imagine 5D Temperature_Time_Space as a 2D plane,
with temperature on one axis and 4D spacetime on the other.
The standard model of cosmology, Lambda_CDM, _Requires_ a fifth dimension.
Temperature is relativistic, the temperature of a cosmic ray, for example,
is it's Relativitic_Mass... it's energy.
13.7 billion years ago in cosmic-time,
....more acturately called cosmic-temperature...,
is when our Meta_Cosmos first fell below Planck_Temperature,
thus becoming, for the first time, _Observable_.
But nature is not limited by our ability to observe it.
Thanks to 2006 reports from WMAP and SNLS,
the cosmological constant is known to have been constant for
at least the last 8 billion years.
That means that our universe is probably going from infinite density/heat
to infinite vacuity/coldness... and here we sit in the middle of that,
at a temperature/density where life/water exists,
....with the sun orbiting us, the center of _Our_ universe... ha ha.
Gravitomagnatism and frame dragging,
....if sped up to near the speed of light in a thought_Experiment...,
looks a lot like electromagnatism.
So there you have it, where gravity came from... and where it's going.
None chose to be born, and the more you consume the faster your are consumed,
....like a lit match... worse than a monkey's uncle.
.
|
|
| User: "T Wake" |
|
| Title: Re: Like a lit match... worse than a monkey's uncle. |
30 May 2006 04:31:57 PM |
|
|
"Jeff.Relf" <Jeff_Relf@Yahoo.COM> wrote in message
news:Jeff_Relf_2006_May_30_3P7Z@Cotse.NET...
Temperature is the fifth _Spatial_ dimension because
no spacetime event lacks a _Local_ temperature,
...just as no place lacks a _Local_ time.
You repeatedly post this, I assume simply to show the world you dont
understand what spatial dimensions are.
What is the temperature of a photon, proton, neutron, electron? (Take your
pick - answer in K)
Can two objects exist in the same space-time co-ordinates as long as they
have different temperatures (how different does the temperature have to be?)
How do you explain the strong force, gravity, even the standard candles used
in cosmology, if there are not 3 spatial dimensions?
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Double-A" |
|
| Title: Re: Like a lit match... worse than a monkey's uncle. |
31 May 2006 08:20:43 AM |
|
|
Jeff...Relf wrote:
Hi Double_A, G_EMC_2_Glazier and Luigi_Caselli,
Who really wants to work for someone else ?
It's one dollar one vote... but why care if others vote for you or not ?
I've got a voice via powerful labs on campus, for CPP_files/Usenet/Web.
...I can tutor for tobacco money, rolling my own.
I know plenty of people who refuse to work, remaining homeless,
and going on the Food_Stamp program, or eating whatever they find.
Homeless people can't own anything... nowhere to put it;
yet their homes are _Everywhere_ to a large extent.
They are rich because their society is rich... shades of Marxism ?
Hi Jeff,
I'm one step away from homelessness myself, Jeff. I may have to get
some advice from you on learning the ropes.
Temperature is the fifth _Spatial_ dimension because
no spacetime event lacks a _Local_ temperature,
...just as no place lacks a _Local_ time.
You can imagine 5D Temperature_Time_Space as a 2D plane,
with temperature on one axis and 4D spacetime on the other.
The standard model of cosmology, Lambda_CDM, _Requires_ a fifth dimension.
Temperature is relativistic, the temperature of a cosmic ray, for example,
is it's Relativitic_Mass... it's energy.
I think temperature may better be described as part of the time
dimension. Heat involves the motion or vibration of particles. If you
stop time, there is no motion. Therefore time is the dimension, not
temperature. That's my take on it anyway.
Take care,
Double-A
13.7 billion years ago in cosmic-time,
...more acturately called cosmic-temperature...,
is when our Meta_Cosmos first fell below Planck_Temperature,
thus becoming, for the first time, _Observable_.
But nature is not limited by our ability to observe it.
Thanks to 2006 reports from WMAP and SNLS,
the cosmological constant is known to have been constant for
at least the last 8 billion years.
That means that our universe is probably going from infinite density/heat
to infinite vacuity/coldness... and here we sit in the middle of that,
at a temperature/density where life/water exists,
...with the sun orbiting us, the center of _Our_ universe... ha ha.
Gravitomagnatism and frame dragging,
...if sped up to near the speed of light in a thought_Experiment...,
looks a lot like electromagnatism.
So there you have it, where gravity came from... and where it's going.
None chose to be born, and the more you consume the faster your are consumed,
...like a lit match... worse than a monkey's uncle.
.
|
|
|
| User: "=?UTF-8?Q?Jeff=E2=80=A6Relf?=" |
|
| Title: Take a unique space-time event and follow it over cosmic-time... |
01 Jun 2006 07:32:25 PM |
|
|
Hi Double_A, You told me:
I'm one step away from homelessness myself, Jeff.
I may have to get some advice from you on learning the ropes.
I'm sure you'd be a quick learner.
All power was out in my 9 block area for many hours,
so I strolled over to a lab on campus to use my newsreader there.
The labs have Visual_Studio_2005, my favorite Editor/C_Compiler/Debugger,
but I didn't have my own login so I wasn't allowed to fully configure it.
I know students who'd give me a login if I asked.
I talked again to my UPS driver and his supervisor.
My last delivery of 20 cartons of cigs was stolen, probably traded for crack.
Why else would he have signed it over so someone loitering in the halls
instead of knocking on my door like he did at my last residence ?
UPS refused to honor my claim because the crack dealer signed for it,
....go figure. I'm now telling them:
Shout_Loudly_Or_Phone, Customer_Signature_Is_Required.
Most of the drivers have personal cell phones, not issed by UPS,
but won't use them unless you ask.
Thanks to the internet, I'm paying 65 cents a pack instead of USD 7.50 a pack.
I buy 100 mm cigs with extra long filters.
Handing them out makes me quite popular sometimes.
You told me:
I think temperature may better be described as part of the time dimension.
Heat involves the motion or vibration of particles. If you stop time,
there is no motion. Therefore time is the dimension, not temperature.
That's my take on it anyway.
The time dimension doesn't tell you how much energy is in your local frame,
nor is it enough to describe the constant acceleration in the expansion
of ever-flat spacetime over cosmic-time.
Temperature_Time_Space ( i.e. the five local, spatial dimensions )
is hyperbolic, like a 2D hyperbola or a 3D horn
with, metaphysically, and infinitely long mouthpiece and flange.
Take a unique space-time event and follow it over cosmic-time...
According to the well confirmed standard model of cosmology, Lambda_CDM,
it's going from above Planck_Temperature to absolute zero.
What, other than a fifth dimension, could describe that ?
.
|
|
|
| User: "T Wake" |
|
| Title: Re: Take a unique space-time event and follow it over cosmic-time... |
02 Jun 2006 03:15:20 AM |
|
|
"Jeff.Relf" <Jeff_Relf@Yahoo.COM> wrote in message
news:Jeff_Relf_2006_Jun_1_ZKve@Cotse.NET...
<snip innane crap which belongs on a blog>
Temperature_Time_Space ( i.e. the five local, spatial dimensions )
See Jeff. There you go again. You are wrong. You have not even attempted to
answer my questions, but you still post this nonsense.
Why is that? Are you aware how wrong you are but choose to remain with your
head in the sand?
<snip remaining crap>
.
|
|
|
| User: "=?UTF-8?Q?Jeff=E2=80=A6Relf?=" |
|
| Title: T_Wake the bar bouncer doesn't get it... shock. |
02 Jun 2006 03:34:57 AM |
|
|
Hi T_Wake, You ask me the same questions, over and over again,
sometimes I attempt to explain it to you... but not always... it's tiresome.
What is your profession anyways ? a bar bouncer ?
no wonder you fail to grasp what I'm saying.
.
|
|
|
| User: "T Wake" |
|
| Title: Re: T_Wake the bar bouncer doesn't get it... shock. |
02 Jun 2006 01:59:11 PM |
|
|
"Jeff.Relf" <Jeff_Relf@Yahoo.COM> wrote in message
news:Jeff_Relf_2006_Jun_2_q0LK@Cotse.NET...
Hi T_Wake, You ask me the same questions, over and over again,
sometimes I attempt to explain it to you... but not always... it's
tiresome.
You have never tried to explain it. You dont understand the concept you are
espousing which is why you dont try to explain it.
You claim there are five spatial dimensions (three normal, you have changed
time into a spatial dimension and the fifth is either "temperature" or
"entropy" depending on your mood) yet you dont understand the ramifications
of that. I have offered to explain it to you but you refuse. Oh well.
Despite this lack of understanding on your behalf, you continue to claim
there are five spatial dimensions, when asked to clarify, you simply scrape
some semi-relevant post of Wikipedia and surround it with your gibberish.
Why cant we just go for the simple answers:
1 - if "everything has a temperature," what is the temperature of a single
neutron.
2 - If there are five spatial dimensions, why does the strong force, gravity
even the way we use supernovae to determine distances, _all_ imply there are
actually THREE spatial dimensions?
What is your profession anyways ? a bar bouncer ?
We have had this debate. Why is it that cranks obsess about asking real
world details. You have no way of verifing what I say, and based on the fact
you believe everything Frazir says, I may as well tell you I am an
international arms dealer.
no wonder you fail to grasp what I'm saying.
No. You fail to grasp what you are claiming...
.
|
|
|
| User: "Art Deco" |
|
| Title: Re: T_Wake the bar bouncer doesn't get it... shock. |
02 Jun 2006 08:45:36 PM |
|
|
T Wake <Usenet.es7AT@gishpuppy.com> wrote:
"Jeff.Relf" <Jeff_Relf@Yahoo.COM> wrote in message
news:Jeff_Relf_2006_Jun_2_q0LK@Cotse.NET...
Hi T_Wake, You ask me the same questions, over and over again,
sometimes I attempt to explain it to you... but not always... it's
tiresome.
You have never tried to explain it. You dont understand the concept you are
espousing which is why you dont try to explain it.
You claim there are five spatial dimensions (three normal, you have changed
time into a spatial dimension and the fifth is either "temperature" or
"entropy" depending on your mood) yet you dont understand the ramifications
of that. I have offered to explain it to you but you refuse. Oh well.
Despite this lack of understanding on your behalf, you continue to claim
there are five spatial dimensions, when asked to clarify, you simply scrape
some semi-relevant post of Wikipedia and surround it with your gibberish.
Why cant we just go for the simple answers:
1 - if "everything has a temperature," what is the temperature of a single
neutron.
2 - If there are five spatial dimensions, why does the strong force, gravity
even the way we use supernovae to determine distances, _all_ imply there are
actually THREE spatial dimensions?
What is your profession anyways ? a bar bouncer ?
We have had this debate. Why is it that cranks obsess about asking real
world details. You have no way of verifing what I say, and based on the fact
you believe everything Frazir says, I may as well tell you I am an
international arms dealer.
no wonder you fail to grasp what I'm saying.
No. You fail to grasp what you are claiming...
It would seem that Jeff.Relf is on-topic in alt.usenet.kooks.
--
Official Associate AFA-B Vote Rustler
Official Overseer of Kooks and Saucerheads in alt.astronomy
Co-Winner, alt.(f)lame Worst Flame War, December 2005
"And without accurate measuring techniques, how can they even
*call* quantum theory a "scientific" one? How can it possibly
be referred to as a "fundamental branch of physics"?"
-- Painsnuh the Lamer
"Well, orientals moved to the U.S. and did amazingly well on
their own, and the races are related (brown)."
-- "Honest" John pontificates on racial purity
"Significant new ideas have rarely come from the ranks of
the establishment."
-- Double-A on technology development
.
|
|
|
| User: "=?UTF-8?Q?Jeff=E2=80=A6Relf?=" |
|
| Title: T_Baked, do you sell legs as well ? |
02 Jun 2006 11:37:10 PM |
|
|
Hi Art_Deco and T_Wake, T_Baked asked:
Why can't we just go for the simple answers:
1. if " everything has a temperature,"
what is the temperature of a single neutron.
Every spacetime event has a relativistic temperature.
Our observered universe is known to be going from above planck temperature
to almost absolute zero, according to General_Realtivity's lambda,
....even as spacetime remains flat, with no center of gravity.
What, other than a fifth Spatial/Local dimension, could model that ?
The temperature of a single neutron, or cosmic ray is simply it's energy.
I look forward to re-answering this question another 50 times, T_Baked.
T_Backed continued:
2. If there are five spatial dimensions, why does the strong force,
gravity even the way we use supernovae to determine distances,
_all_ imply there are actually THREE spatial dimensions ?
Any astronomer/cosmologist will tell you that time is _Observed_
to be spatial at cosmic scales.
Time is pseudodirectional because randomness is always pseudorandom.
At the quantum level, where nothing is known a priori,
time is not only pseuodirectional, _Virtually_, it points backwards !
Positrons are probably _Virtual_ holes in some ground state.
T_Wake concluded: I may as well tell you I am an international arms dealer.
Do you sell legs as well ?
.
|
|
|
| User: "T Wake" |
|
| Title: Re: T_Baked, do you sell legs as well ? |
03 Jun 2006 04:07:49 AM |
|
|
"Jeff.Relf" <Jeff_Relf@Yahoo.COM> wrote in message
news:Jeff_Relf_2006_Jun_2_4kj9@Cotse.NET...
Hi Art_Deco and T_Wake, T_Baked asked:
Why can't we just go for the simple answers:
1. if " everything has a temperature,"
what is the temperature of a single neutron.
Every spacetime event has a relativistic temperature.
Our observered universe is known to be going from above planck temperature
to almost absolute zero, according to General_Realtivity's lambda,
...even as spacetime remains flat, with no center of gravity.
When you butcher quoted my post you missed this bit
"Despite this lack of understanding on your behalf, you continue to claim
there are five spatial dimensions, when asked to clarify, you simply scrape
some semi-relevant post of Wikipedia and surround it with your gibberish."
Here you have bypassed the wikipedia quote and just provided gibberish.
What, in Kelvin, is the temperature of a single neutron. Do you understand
what temperature is? Do you understand what the "cooling of the universe"
implies and how it functions?
GR makes no predictions about the universe cooling to zero kelvin.
What, other than a fifth Spatial/Local dimension, could model that ?
Lots of things. What you fail (as always) to understand is that FIVE spatial
dimensions would make all our measurements of cosmological size, the fine
structure constant etc., wrong.
The temperature of a single neutron, or cosmic ray is simply it's energy.
No it isnt. what is (as an example) 1MeV in Kelvin?
I look forward to re-answering this question another 50 times, T_Baked.
You havent answered. You have hand waved - as always.
T_Backed continued:
I thought it was "Baked" today.
2. If there are five spatial dimensions, why does the strong force,
gravity even the way we use supernovae to determine distances,
_all_ imply there are actually THREE spatial dimensions ?
Any astronomer/cosmologist will tell you that time is _Observed_
to be spatial at cosmic scales.
No they wont. My wife is an astronomer and my PhD was in Cosmology so I can
immediately falsify this. This morning I phoned a dozen other people I know
who work in astronomy and particle labs - all say you are wrong. Need I
continue.
Once more you highlight how little you understand about spatial dimensions.
If there are five spatial dimensions then using supernovae as "standard
candles" would be wrong. Yet the data from them agree with all our other
predictions, which in turn would mean all the theories were wrong.
Can you replace them or do you simply think _your_ pronouncement that there
are five spatial dimensions is sufficient?
Time is pseudodirectional because randomness is always pseudorandom.
Meaningless gibberish which doesnt answer the questions.
At the quantum level, where nothing is known a priori,
time is not only pseuodirectional, _Virtually_, it points backwards !
Positrons are probably _Virtual_ holes in some ground state.
Your lack of understanding is already on the record.
T_Wake concluded: I may as well tell you I am an international arms
dealer.
Do you sell legs as well ?
If you want me to.
.
|
|
|
| User: "=?UTF-8?Q?Jeff=E2=80=A6Relf?=" |
|
| Title: T_Wake, ask your buddies what the standard model of cosmology is. |
03 Jun 2006 05:04:25 AM |
|
|
Hi T_Wake, You told me:
My wife is an astronomer and my PhD was in Cosmology
so I can immediately falsify this. This morning I phoned
a dozen other people I know who work in astronomy and particle labs
- all say you are wrong. Need I continue.
Yet you sell arms for a living ? well done.
Your knowedge of Cosmology is dated at best, and not at all exercised here.
You don't know enough to frame a proper question to an active cosmologist.
Temperature/Entropy are the measures of the distribution of kinetic energy.
For a single cosmic ray it's energy is it's temperature, and it's relativistic.
In General_Reativity time is ct, making it merely Time_Like.
Go back 13.7 billion years ago in cosmic-time when our _Observable_ universe
first rose above planck length... what's the difference between that and
planck length, planck time, planck density and planck temperature ?
Call your friends if you need help with that one... but I doubt they'd know.
While you're on the phone, ask them what the standard model of cosmology is,
just to see if they actually know any post 1998 cosmology.
.
|
|
|
| User: "T Wake" |
|
| Title: Re: T_Wake, ask your buddies what the standard model of cosmology is. |
03 Jun 2006 10:04:44 AM |
|
|
"Jeff.Relf" <Jeff_Relf@Yahoo.COM> wrote in message
news:Jeff_Relf_2006_Jun_3_jRQP@Cotse.NET...
Hi T_Wake, You told me:
My wife is an astronomer and my PhD was in Cosmology
so I can immediately falsify this. This morning I phoned
a dozen other people I know who work in astronomy and particle labs
- all say you are wrong. Need I continue.
Yet you sell arms for a living ? well done.
I make more money on the legs. Selling hands turned out to be a pure
loss-maker.
Are you genuinely that stupid?
Your knowedge of Cosmology is dated at best, and not at all exercised
here.
It is not exercised in _any_ of your posts because you have no idea about
even the basics, let alone current thinking.
You don't know enough to frame a proper question to an active cosmologist.
Really? Once more, my irony meter is showing a massive reading.
Temperature/Entropy are the measures of the distribution of kinetic
energy.
Really? Why cant you tell me the temperature of a neutron in K then?
For a single cosmic ray it's energy is it's temperature, and it's
relativistic.
You love your "science-sounding" words dont you.
In General_Reativity time is ct, making it merely Time_Like.
Hahahahahaha. Fantastic.
Go back 13.7 billion years ago in cosmic-time when our _Observable_
universe
first rose above planck length... what's the difference between that and
planck length, planck time, planck density and planck temperature ?
Difference between what?
Call your friends if you need help with that one... but I doubt they'd
know.
No, because it is something _you_ made up.
While you're on the phone, ask them what the standard model of cosmology
is,
just to see if they actually know any post 1998 cosmology.
Well, my time at university was post 1998 and I was taught the standard
model. I also know that it uses the data which shows THREE spatial
dimensions.
Sadly, despite how much you rant on (and you get worse the more you are put
on the spot - it is funny), you still don't know how / why it is assumed
there are actually three spatial dimensions and its meaning to pretty much
all physics.
Give up, Jeff. Ask me to explain it to you and I will. I don't hold grudges.
.
|
|
|
| User: "=?UTF-8?Q?Jeff=E2=80=A6Relf?=" |
|
| Title: T_Wake was a bar bouncer while getting his PhD in cosmology ? |
03 Jun 2006 03:20:22 PM |
|
|
Hi T_Wake, I told you:
Temperature/Entropy are the measures of the distribution of kinetic energy.
For a single cosmic ray it's energy is it's temperature,
and it's relativistic.
and you asked: Why cant you tell me the temperature of a neutron in K then ?
Because you didn't provide a volume.
How much do cosmic rays heat up the moon ?
I wrote: In General_Reativity time is ct, making it merely Time_Like.
And you replied: Hahahahahaha. Fantastic.
Ok, I've been persuaded by your science, I was wrong... Not !
I wrote:
Go back 13.7 billion years ago in cosmic-time when our _Observable_ universe
first rose above planck length... what's the difference between that and
planck time, planck density and planck temperature ?
And you asked: Difference between what ?
Why do you, and dweebs like you, only talk about
the first few picoseconds after the start of the big bang ?
Why aren't you talking about the first few picometers
after our _Observable_ universe first rose above planck length ?
or the first time it cooled to below planck temperature ?
or the first time it dissipated to less than planck density ?
Are you able to frame such a question to your untutored friends ? no.
You told me:
My time at university was post 1998 and I was taught the standard model.
I also know that it uses the data which shows THREE spatial dimensions.
And you were a bar bouncer while getting you PhD in cosmology ?
It doesn't add up, you've shown no knowledge of cosmology.
.
|
|
|
| User: "T Wake" |
|
| Title: Re: T_Wake was a bar bouncer while getting his PhD in cosmology ? |
03 Jun 2006 03:40:58 PM |
|
|
In <Jeff_Relf_2006_Jun_3_T35l@Cotse.NET>, sent to sci.physics on Saturday 03
June 2006 21:20, Jeff…Relf (Jeff_Relf@Yahoo.COM) had a brainstorm and
wrote:
Hi T_Wake, I told you:
Temperature/Entropy are the measures of the distribution of kinetic
energy. For a single cosmic ray it's energy is it's temperature,
and it's relativistic.
and you asked: Why cant you tell me the temperature of a neutron in K
then ?
Because you didn't provide a volume.
Hahahaha. Brilliant.
Your lack of understanding increases by the second.
Did you take lessons from the loon spaceman about how to avoid answering
hard questions?
You are asserting that your postulate (everything has a temperature) is
true, yet at _every_ hurdle you avoid providing anything to support this
(ahem) *postulate*.
How much do cosmic rays heat up the moon ?
What on Earth (or the moon in this case) are you going on about?
I wrote: In General_Reativity time is ct, making it merely Time_Like.
And you replied: Hahahahahaha. Fantastic.
Ok, I've been persuaded by your science, I was wrong... Not !
Nothing could persuade you from your path of idiocy.
I wrote:
Go back 13.7 billion years ago in cosmic-time when our _Observable_
universe first rose above planck length... what's the difference between
that and planck time, planck density and planck temperature ?
And you asked: Difference between what ?
Why do you, and dweebs like you, only talk about
the first few picoseconds after the start of the big bang ?
Why aren't you talking about the first few picometers
after our _Observable_ universe first rose above planck length ?
or the first time it cooled to below planck temperature ?
or the first time it dissipated to less than planck density ?
Are you able to frame such a question to your untutored friends ? no.
What question? You just went off on one of your standard pseudo-science
babbles.
What does the "standard model of cosmology" describe about events before
about 1x10^-35 seconds after t=0?
When you determine the age of the (observable to satisfy your obsession)
universe as 1.4x10^10 years, you are required to assume there are three
spatial dimensions. Do you know why?
You told me:
My time at university was post 1998 and I was taught the standard model.
I also know that it uses the data which shows THREE spatial dimensions.
And you were a bar bouncer while getting you PhD in cosmology ?
I wish I could have greater insights into your mind set but as it stands, I
don't and you've lost me here.
It doesn't add up, you've shown no knowledge of cosmology.
You wouldn't know if I had or hadn't. I was never *brilliant* but I
completed my studies. You on the other hand are far from the level that
most 16 year olds reach.
--
T Wake
Usenet.es7 at gishpuppy.com
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Phineas T PuddleDuck" |
|
| Title: Re: T_Wake was a bar bouncer while getting his PhD in cosmology ? |
03 Jun 2006 03:25:16 PM |
|
|
In article <Jeff_Relf_2006_Jun_3_T35l@Cotse.NET>,
JeffŠRelf <Jeff_Relf@Yahoo.COM> wrote:
You told me:
My time at university was post 1998 and I was taught the standard model.
I also know that it uses the data which shows THREE spatial dimensions.
And you were a bar bouncer while getting you PhD in cosmology ?
It doesn't add up, you've shown no knowledge of cosmology.
And you have? BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA Perhpas you'd like to enlighten us on your
achievements bar a webpage from the 1860's?
--
The greatest enemy of science is psuedoscience.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Phineas T PuddleDuck" |
|
| Title: Re: T_Wake, ask your buddies what the standard model of cosmology is. |
03 Jun 2006 12:29:47 PM |
|
|
In article <yJWdnWtDydGEOBzZRVnyhw@pipex.net>,
"T Wake" <Usenet.es7AT@gishpuppy.com> wrote:
Sadly, despite how much you rant on (and you get worse the more you are put
on the spot - it is funny), you still don't know how / why it is assumed
there are actually three spatial dimensions and its meaning to pretty much
all physics.
Give up, Jeff. Ask me to explain it to you and I will. I don't hold grudges.
Why is he so fixated that temperature is a dimension? Because he claims every
point has a temperature? That makes it a scalar field...
I could make a new variable called Muffin that gives you the probability of a
muffin at each point Jeff - does this make Muffin a dimension?
--
The greatest enemy of science is psuedoscience.
.
|
|
|
| User: "T Wake" |
|
| Title: Re: T_Wake, ask your buddies what the standard model of cosmology is. |
03 Jun 2006 01:48:09 PM |
|
|
"Phineas T PuddleDuck" <phineaspuddleduck@googlemail.com_NOSPAM> wrote in
message news:4481c6db$0$15614$88260bb3@news-taz.teranews.com...
In article <yJWdnWtDydGEOBzZRVnyhw@pipex.net>,
"T Wake" <Usenet.es7AT@gishpuppy.com> wrote:
Sadly, despite how much you rant on (and you get worse the more you are
put
on the spot - it is funny), you still don't know how / why it is assumed
there are actually three spatial dimensions and its meaning to pretty
much
all physics.
Give up, Jeff. Ask me to explain it to you and I will. I don't hold
grudges.
Why is he so fixated that temperature is a dimension? Because he claims
every
point has a temperature? That makes it a scalar field...
I could make a new variable called Muffin that gives you the probability
of a
muffin at each point Jeff - does this make Muffin a dimension?
That is about as scientific as anything Jeff has produced to date.
.
|
|
|
| User: "=?UTF-8?Q?Jeff=E2=80=A6Relf?=" |
|
| Title: You can't model the cosmos using just four dimensions. |
03 Jun 2006 04:19:55 PM |
|
|
Hi T_Wake and T_PuddleDuck,
Quite unlike T_PuddleDuck's muffin dimension...
it's impossible to imagine a finite unit of spacetime
with absolutely _No_ temperature/entropy.
Our observable universe is a finite unit of Temperature_Time_Space.
13.7 billion years ago in cosmic-time, that unit was Planck length,
Planck temperature and Planck density.
You can't model the cosmos using just four dimensions.
.
|
|
|
| User: "T Wake" |
|
| Title: Re: You can't model the cosmos using just four dimensions. |
03 Jun 2006 06:24:25 PM |
|
|
In <Jeff_Relf_2006_Jun_3_RCyH@Cotse.NET>, sent to sci.physics on Saturday 03
June 2006 22:19, Jeff…Relf (Jeff_Relf@Yahoo.COM) had a brainstorm and
wrote:
Hi T_Wake and T_PuddleDuck,
Quite unlike T_PuddleDuck's muffin dimension...
it's impossible to imagine a finite unit of spacetime
with absolutely _No_ temperature/entropy.
You truly have no idea.
Our observable universe is a finite unit of Temperature_Time_Space.
13.7 billion years ago in cosmic-time, that unit was Planck length,
Planck temperature and Planck density.
More of your patented babble.
You can't model the cosmos using just four dimensions.
You really need to learn somethings. First of all, every model of the
universe implies three spatial dimensions. Just because you don't
understand what spatial dimensions are (and how not all dimensions are
spatial) doesn't mean everyone else is as thick as you are.
You also need to study what "models of the universe are." You seem to think
they dictate how the universe will behave - they don't. They describe what
we can observe. We observe the universe having *three* spatial dimensions.
Sadly your lack of understanding means you cant work this out. Your
stupidity means you refuse to learn.
Next, your sentence is immediately falsified by the fact that for many years
the universe was actually modeled in four dimensions (_three_ spatial and
one time). Just because you cant understand it doesn't mean no one else
can.
Why do you stop at five dimensions in _your_ version of things? Why not six,
seven or so on?
--
T Wake
Usenet.es7 at gishpuppy.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "=?UTF-8?Q?Jeff=E2=80=A6Relf?=" |
|
| Title: Re: You can't model the cosmos using just four dimensions. |
03 Jun 2006 08:26:41 PM |
|
|
Hi T_Wake, You asked me:
Why do you stop at five dimensions in _your_ version of things ?
Why not six, seven or so on ?
You can't model a 4D cosmos, much less 5... and you want me to add a sixth ?
I doubt you have a high school degree, much less a doctorate in scatology.
.
|
|
|
| User: "T Wake" |
|
| Title: Re: You can't model the cosmos using just four dimensions. |
04 Jun 2006 05:04:33 AM |
|
|
"Jeff.Relf" <Jeff_Relf@Yahoo.COM> wrote in message
news:Jeff_Relf_2006_Jun_3_JZS3@Cotse.NET...
Hi T_Wake, You asked me:
Why do you stop at five dimensions in _your_ version of things ?
Why not six, seven or so on ?
You can't model a 4D cosmos, much less 5... and you want me to add a sixth
?
I doubt you have a high school degree, much less a doctorate in scatology.
You are funny. You claim to have an understanding of technology and
computers, yet (in a manner similar to all the other cranks here) you think
that selectively trimming bits in your quotes means you can change the
context in which messages were sent.
Where did I ask you to add a sixth dimension? I asked why you stopped at
five. You have picked an arbitrary number and decided that is the correct
amount of dimensions in this universe. Then you have spent time trying to
work out what you can call this "fifth" dimension and created some
artificial reasoning for it.
More importantly, I notice you *still* ignore the reason science assumes
three spatial dimensions. You really don't get it do you?
Now, I have met lots of people from the US, so I know your education system
is not as bad as your knowledge implies, but generally speaking you lack
knowledge which is taught to 14 year olds in the UK. Did you really do so
badly at school?
.
|
|
|
| User: "=?UTF-8?Q?Jeff=E2=80=A6Relf?=" |
|
| Title: The U.S. has the Apollo moon landings, GlobalStar, Iridium... |
04 Jun 2006 09:38:26 PM |
|
|
Hi T_Wake, The U.S. has the Apollo moon landings, GlobalStar, Iridium,
GPS birds, WMAP and Gravity_Probe_B... What does the U.K. have ?
.
|
|
|
| User: "T Wake" |
|
| Title: Re: The U.S. has the Apollo moon landings, GlobalStar, Iridium... |
05 Jun 2006 11:04:41 AM |
|
|
"Jeff.Relf" <Jeff_Relf@Yahoo.COM> wrote in message
news:Jeff_Relf_2006_Jun_4_y8Lg@Cotse.NET...
Hi T_Wake, The U.S. has the Apollo moon landings, GlobalStar, Iridium,
GPS birds, WMAP and Gravity_Probe_B... What does the U.K. have ?
Well, we don't have you which is always a bonus.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Phineas T PuddleDuck" |
|
| Title: Re: The U.S. has the Apollo moon landings, GlobalStar, Iridium... |
05 Jun 2006 04:01:01 AM |
|
|
In article <Jeff_Relf_2006_Jun_4_y8Lg@Cotse.NET>,
JeffŠRelf <Jeff_Relf@Yahoo.COM> wrote:
Hi T_Wake, The U.S. has the Apollo moon landings, GlobalStar, Iridium,
GPS birds, WMAP and Gravity_Probe_B... What does the U.K. have ?
Part of ESA. Hence we've contributed science and scientists to Mars probes etc
etc. www.esa.int
--
The greatest enemy of science is psuedoscience.
"Time is pseudo-directional because randomness is always pseudo-random..."
Jeff revolutionises physics in sci.physics.
"Now there's two stuck naysay lose cannons and a third sick puppy on the way."
Brad tries to reason with the voices in his head...
"Now there's two stuck naysay lose cannons and a third sick puppy on the way."
Brad tries to reason with the voices in his head...
.
|
|
|
| User: "=?UTF-8?Q?Jeff=E2=80=A6Relf?=" |
|
| Title: The lack of Brits at ESA.INT. |
05 Jun 2006 09:40:09 PM |
|
|
Hi T_PuddleDuck, Re: The lack of Brits at ESA.INT,
From ESA.INT/SPECIALS/Careers_at_ESA/SEMLXEXO4HD_0.html#HR10
Where are ESA staff located ?
The vast majority of staff are located at ESA's four main establishments
in Paris in _France_; Noordwijk in the _Netherlands_, Frascati in _Italy_
and Darmstadt in _Germany_.
ESA also has a number of grounds stations, offices and outposts worldwide.
These include France (Toulouse, Les Mureaux, Evry and Cannes),
Germany (Cologne and Munich), Spain (Villafranca),
Belgium (Brussels and Redu), the United States
( Washington, Houston, Greenbelt, Baltimore and Pasadena ),
Switzerland (Geneva), Sweden (Kiruna), Russia (Moscow),
and Europe's launch site in Kourou, French Guiana.
In many of these locations, however, ESA has only a very limited presence.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Eric Gisse" |
|
| Title: Re: The U.S. has the Apollo moon landings, GlobalStar, Iridium... |
05 Jun 2006 07:45:25 AM |
|
|
Phineas T PuddleDuck wrote:
In article <Jeff_Relf_2006_Jun_4_y8Lg@Cotse.NET>,
Jeff=8ARelf <Jeff_Relf@Yahoo.COM> wrote:
Hi T_Wake, The U.S. has the Apollo moon landings, GlobalStar, Iridium,
GPS birds, WMAP and Gravity_Probe_B... What does the U.K. have ?
Part of ESA. Hence we've contributed science and scientists to Mars probe=
s etc
etc. www.esa.int
How can you expect someone whose education consists of highschool,
nothing for 20 years, then Wikipedia to know about the ESA?
--
The greatest enemy of science is psuedoscience.
"Time is pseudo-directional because randomness is always pseudo-random..."
Jeff revolutionises physics in sci.physics.
"Now there's two stuck naysay lose cannons and a third sick puppy on the =
way."
Brad tries to reason with the voices in his head...
"Now there's two stuck naysay lose cannons and a third sick puppy on the =
way."
Brad tries to reason with the voices in his head...
.
|
|
|
| User: "=?UTF-8?Q?Jeff=E2=80=A6Relf?=" |
|
| Title: Usenet first became fast back in 1991. |
05 Jun 2006 10:49:51 PM |
|
|
Hi Eric_Gisse and T_PuddleDuck, Usenet first became fast back in 1991,
when I started posting regularly... and I've been going strong ever since.
That's probably why you can't give me one hundreth the science I give you.
.
|
|
|
| User: "T Wake" |
|
| Title: Re: Usenet first became fast back in 1991. |
06 Jun 2006 02:04:48 AM |
|
|
"Jeff.Relf" <Jeff_Relf@Yahoo.COM> wrote in message
news:Jeff_Relf_2006_Jun_5_Ulvh@Cotse.NET...
Hi Eric_Gisse and T_PuddleDuck, Usenet first became fast back in 1991,
when I started posting regularly... and I've been going strong ever since.
That's probably why you can't give me one hundreth the science I give you.
Hahaha
You know nothing about science.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Usenet first became fast back in 1991. |
06 Jun 2006 04:27:39 AM |
|
|
In article <Jeff_Relf_2006_Jun_5_Ulvh@Cotse.NET>,
=?UTF-8?Q?Jeff=E2=80=A6Relf?= <Jeff_Relf@Yahoo.COM> wrote:
Hi Eric_Gisse and T_PuddleDuck, Usenet first became fast back in 1991,
<SNORT>
/BAH
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Roy L. Fuchs" |
|
| Title: Re: The U.S. has the Apollo moon landings, GlobalStar, Iridium... |
05 Jun 2006 02:08:24 AM |
|
|
On 5 Jun 2006 02:38:26 GMT, Jeff?Relf <Jeff_Relf@Yahoo.COM> Gave us:
Hi T_Wake, The U.S. has the Apollo moon landings, GlobalStar, Iridium,
GPS birds, WMAP and Gravity_Probe_B... What does the U.K. have ?
Royal subjects.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ken Oath" |
|
| Title: Re: The U.S. has the Apollo moon landings, GlobalStar, Iridium... |
05 Jun 2006 05:06:11 AM |
|
|
Roy L. Fuchs wrote:
On 5 Jun 2006 02:38:26 GMT, Jeff?Relf <Jeff_Relf@Yahoo.COM> Gave us:
Hi T_Wake, The U.S. has the Apollo moon landings, GlobalStar, Iridium,
GPS birds, WMAP and Gravity_Probe_B... What does the U.K. have ?
Royal subjects.
Sometimes known as Royal Fucks
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
