| Topic: |
Science > Physics |
| User: |
"Mr. QG" |
| Date: |
13 Mar 2006 05:21:51 PM |
| Object: |
Mental Aid to Comprehend GR (pls share yours) |
Let's share aid or mental guide to make skeptics comprehend GR
intuitively.
In the thread "Quantum Gravity and God" Traveler wrote:
On 13 Mar 2006 08:27:13 -0800, "uri" <danny99@bezeqint.net> wrote:
It's impossible to confuse sensory things with abstract mathematical
models. Geometry and algebra (which are the basics of mathematics) are
still useful though.
You meant to write "possible". Physicists confuse the abstract with
the physical all the time. That's how relativists have managed to fool
most everybody for a century with their geometrical interpretation of
gravity. It's chicken ***** physics taken to the extreme. In addition,
the physical does not necessarily has to be directly observed in order
to exist. It can be deduced through logic.
Louis Savain
Here's an aid to comprehend General Relativity.
Close your eyes. Think of space and time as mere
information and solid objects are just what your
brain interpretated. Then think of Equivalence Principle.
Think of Background Independence and how it must
describe reality because there is no fixed background
aether. Then because space/time is mere information,
if you combine Equivalence Principle + Background
Independence, Riemann's Geometry can be used to
model it. Why R. Geometry. It's one way to look at it
although there may be other way to model it but so
far Riemann's Geometry is as good as it gets.
Got it yetTraveller? Well. I hope folks adept in
GR can help our fellow Traveller get an intuitive
grasp of GR as well as give your version of how
you comprehend GR. Specifically. Explain why
space and time being separate thing is combined in the
Riemann's geometry and it causes gravity. For me.
space and time is related by information that's why
SR and GR works. It's like whenever there is space,
there is time. They are part of it. And somehow our
universe can be modelled by mathematical abstraction
because space and time is just information and
the universe has peculiar way of relating them.
QG
.
|
|
| User: "Spaceman" |
|
| Title: Re: Mental Aid to Comprehend GR (pls share yours) |
13 Mar 2006 05:32:08 PM |
|
|
"Mr. QG" <mrquantumgravity@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1142292111.048577.143270@i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
Here's an aid to comprehend General Relativity.
Close your eyes.
<snipped>
Yes,
Closing your eyes is the first step of most relativists..
Best not look at the universe as it is, and best look at it
as a big rubber sheet warped flat universe.
LOL.
.
|
|
|
| User: "T Wake" |
|
| Title: Re: Mental Aid to Comprehend GR (pls share yours) |
13 Mar 2006 05:42:00 PM |
|
|
"Spaceman" <Realspace@comcast.not> wrote in message
news:TpidnVOLZbxunYvZnZ2dnUVZ_sydnZ2d@comcast.com...
"Mr. QG" <mrquantumgravity@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1142292111.048577.143270@i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
Here's an aid to comprehend General Relativity.
Close your eyes.
<snipped>
Yes,
Closing your eyes is the first step of most relativists..
Best not look at the universe as it is, and best look at it
as a big rubber sheet warped flat universe.
Once more, have you realised your mistake over the "cosmological large scale
structures" yet? Or do you still think you can describe cosmological
recession using your garage understanding?
Have you worked out the Earth is not a good example yet? Or are you still
living in your seventeenth century closet?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Spaceman" |
|
| Title: Re: Mental Aid to Comprehend GR (pls share yours) |
13 Mar 2006 06:42:15 PM |
|
|
"T Wake" <taswakeAt@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:dNqdneHyV_fWnovZRVny1g@pipex.net...
"Spaceman" <Realspace@comcast.not> wrote in message
news:TpidnVOLZbxunYvZnZ2dnUVZ_sydnZ2d@comcast.com...
"Mr. QG" <mrquantumgravity@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1142292111.048577.143270@i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
Here's an aid to comprehend General Relativity.
Close your eyes.
<snipped>
Yes,
Closing your eyes is the first step of most relativists..
Best not look at the universe as it is, and best look at it
as a big rubber sheet warped flat universe.
Once more, have you realised your mistake over the "cosmological large
scale structures" yet? Or do you still think you can describe cosmological
recession using your garage understanding?
Have you worked out the Earth is not a good example yet? Or are you still
living in your seventeenth century closet?
Apparently you can not grasp that if 1 thing orbiting another
can both head in the same direction at some point. then the chances are
that larger things will also do such at some point also unless orbits
of galaxies are not actually orbits.
Do you think Galaxies do not travel in orbits of something?
But then again, you can't grasp anything that simple.
LOL
.
|
|
|
| User: "T Wake" |
|
| Title: Re: Mental Aid to Comprehend GR (pls share yours) |
14 Mar 2006 11:13:14 AM |
|
|
"Spaceman" <Realspace@comcast.not> wrote in message
news:TtudnawsRbf_jIvZnZ2dnUVZ_t6dnZ2d@comcast.com...
"T Wake" <taswakeAt@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:dNqdneHyV_fWnovZRVny1g@pipex.net...
"Spaceman" <Realspace@comcast.not> wrote in message
news:TpidnVOLZbxunYvZnZ2dnUVZ_sydnZ2d@comcast.com...
"Mr. QG" <mrquantumgravity@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1142292111.048577.143270@i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
Here's an aid to comprehend General Relativity.
Close your eyes.
<snipped>
Yes,
Closing your eyes is the first step of most relativists..
Best not look at the universe as it is, and best look at it
as a big rubber sheet warped flat universe.
Once more, have you realised your mistake over the "cosmological large
scale structures" yet? Or do you still think you can describe
cosmological recession using your garage understanding?
Have you worked out the Earth is not a good example yet? Or are you still
living in your seventeenth century closet?
Apparently you can not grasp that if 1 thing orbiting another
can both head in the same direction at some point. then the chances are
that larger things will also do such at some point also unless orbits
of galaxies are not actually orbits.
Do you think Galaxies do not travel in orbits of something?
But then again, you can't grasp anything that simple.
You are obviously missing the point drastically.
Recession is not orbital.
Can you show me any evidence that implies large scale structures move in an
orbital manner? Within the structure (galaxy for example) there are signs of
orbital motion etc., with good indications there is a "galactic centre."
There is no evidence to say the same on a larger scale and all galaxies
recess from each other.
I was careful with my terminology in the earlier conversations to see what
assumptions you would make. It appears that your total lack of understanding
and desire to troll meant you made the assumption that a "large scale
structure" in cosmological terms was something like the Solar System. You
were wrong.
Well, we can easily settle this. Can you show me ANY evidence that a large
scale cosmological structure is travelling in orbit of "something." You
don't even have to link this to the recession (which pretty much blows the
orbit away).
As it stands you are talking gibberish. Your lack of understanding is
highlighted in every post you make. Your desire to "redefine" physics in
your own image has blinded you to the evidence of events and scales beyond
what you can see in your garden.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Spaceman" |
|
| Title: Re: Mental Aid to Comprehend GR (pls share yours) |
14 Mar 2006 11:24:25 AM |
|
|
"T Wake" <taswakeAt@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:d_udnbvhE_oxZIvZRVnyvA@pipex.net...
"Spaceman" <Realspace@comcast.not> wrote in message
news:TtudnawsRbf_jIvZnZ2dnUVZ_t6dnZ2d@comcast.com...
"T Wake" <taswakeAt@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:dNqdneHyV_fWnovZRVny1g@pipex.net...
"Spaceman" <Realspace@comcast.not> wrote in message
news:TpidnVOLZbxunYvZnZ2dnUVZ_sydnZ2d@comcast.com...
"Mr. QG" <mrquantumgravity@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1142292111.048577.143270@i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
Here's an aid to comprehend General Relativity.
Close your eyes.
<snipped>
Yes,
Closing your eyes is the first step of most relativists..
Best not look at the universe as it is, and best look at it
as a big rubber sheet warped flat universe.
Once more, have you realised your mistake over the "cosmological large
scale structures" yet? Or do you still think you can describe
cosmological recession using your garage understanding?
Have you worked out the Earth is not a good example yet? Or are you
still living in your seventeenth century closet?
Apparently you can not grasp that if 1 thing orbiting another
can both head in the same direction at some point. then the chances are
that larger things will also do such at some point also unless orbits
of galaxies are not actually orbits.
Do you think Galaxies do not travel in orbits of something?
But then again, you can't grasp anything that simple.
You are obviously missing the point drastically.
No,
You are extracting a non orbital galaxy and ignoring
such a condition to come up with different directions for all.
Recession is not orbital.
I did not say it was.
Can you show me any evidence that implies large scale structures move in
an orbital manner? Within the structure (galaxy for example) there are
signs of orbital motion etc., with good indications there is a "galactic
centre." There is no evidence to say the same on a larger scale and all
galaxies recess from each other.
So you don't think galaxies are held in a universal orbit by gravity at all
then?
<snipped the rest of a non orbiting galaxy bologna>
.
|
|
|
| User: "T Wake" |
|
| Title: Re: Mental Aid to Comprehend GR (pls share yours) |
14 Mar 2006 11:39:16 AM |
|
|
"Spaceman" <Realspace@comcast.not> wrote in message
news:YuCdnd4RB_nfYYvZRVn-gw@comcast.com...
"T Wake" <taswakeAt@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:d_udnbvhE_oxZIvZRVnyvA@pipex.net...
You are obviously missing the point drastically.
No,
You are extracting a non orbital galaxy and ignoring
such a condition to come up with different directions for all.
Hahaha.
Gibberish. It doesnt even make sentences. Did you use a word generator for
that?
No one is "extracting a non orbital galaxy" from anything.
The data is freely available for you to check up on. Have a look and let me
know where in the universe is there any evidence of a large scale structure
that exhibits both recession and orbital motion.
Recession is not orbital.
I did not say it was.
However, that is what the question was about. Your response to my post a
while ago about recession was to try and posture that the Earth orbiting the
Sun was evidence that the standard theory was wrong.
In cosmological terms, recession is used to describe the increase in space
(in all three dimensions) between all large scale structures. There is no
orbit taking place for these structures.
Can you show me any evidence that implies large scale structures move in
an orbital manner? Within the structure (galaxy for example) there are
signs of orbital motion etc., with good indications there is a "galactic
centre." There is no evidence to say the same on a larger scale and all
galaxies recess from each other.
So you don't think galaxies are held in a universal orbit by gravity at
all then?
No. Do you?
Can you explain how recession takes place if the structures are being held
by gravity? A structure 1x10^10ly (approx 3x10^3 Mpc) from Earth is
recessing from "us" at approximately 240,000 km per second. The
gravitational interaction required to keep this object in orbit around the
same point would be phenomenal.
Most importantly, if there was a "universal" core around which everything
was orbiting, then the direction of large scale structures would be uniform.
It isn't.
Can you see the madness of your "universal orbit?"
<snipped the rest of a non orbiting galaxy bologna>
Why do you snip the bits you cant answer? For the record this is the bit you
have chosen to ignore. Note there was one question - you probably cant
answer it.
"I was careful with my terminology in the earlier conversations to see what
assumptions you would make. It appears that your total lack of understanding
and desire to troll meant you made the assumption that a "large scale
structure" in cosmological terms was something like the Solar System. You
were wrong.
Well, we can easily settle this. Can you show me ANY evidence that a large
scale cosmological structure is travelling in orbit of "something." You
don't even have to link this to the recession (which pretty much blows the
orbit away).
As it stands you are talking gibberish. Your lack of understanding is
highlighted in every post you make. Your desire to "redefine" physics in
your own image has blinded you to the evidence of events and scales beyond
what you can see in your garden. "
.
|
|
|
| User: "Spaceman" |
|
| Title: Re: Mental Aid to Comprehend GR (pls share yours) |
14 Mar 2006 11:46:38 AM |
|
|
"T Wake" <taswakeAt@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:WoidnYG5maxaYovZnZ2dnUVZ8qOdnZ2d@pipex.net...
Can you see the madness of your "universal orbit?"
I can, but it is not madness.
It is only madness to the brainwashed that can not think
on there own anymore like you.
Can you see the madness of your "non universal" orbits?
Why is at least one Galaxy heading towards the Milky way?
I think it has been named Andromeda.
Apparently, Andromeda thinks you are really stupid with your
"recession of all" crap you spout..
LOL!
.
|
|
|
| User: "T Wake" |
|
| Title: Re: Mental Aid to Comprehend GR (pls share yours) |
14 Mar 2006 12:20:57 PM |
|
|
"Spaceman" <Realspace@comcast.not> wrote in message
news:BKOdncZgX8bqnIrZnZ2dnUVZ_sSdnZ2d@comcast.com...
"T Wake" <taswakeAt@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:WoidnYG5maxaYovZnZ2dnUVZ8qOdnZ2d@pipex.net...
Can you see the madness of your "universal orbit?"
I can, but it is not madness.
Yes it is.
It is only madness to the brainwashed that can not think
on there own anymore like you.
This is your stock response when you are wrong.
Well done that man.
Can you see the madness of your "non universal" orbits?
Nope. Explain it?
Why is at least one Galaxy heading towards the Milky way?
You are still missing the point on structure scales. What has this got to do
with recession?
I think it has been named Andromeda.
Apparently, Andromeda thinks you are really stupid with your
"recession of all" crap you spout..
What lunatic thinks Galaxies think?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Spaceman" |
|
| Title: Re: Mental Aid to Comprehend GR (pls share yours) |
14 Mar 2006 12:33:44 PM |
|
|
"T Wake" <taswakeAt@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:Teydnd6vhLQWlIrZnZ2dnUVZ8tydnZ2d@pipex.net...
"Spaceman" <Realspace@comcast.not> wrote in message
news:BKOdncZgX8bqnIrZnZ2dnUVZ_sSdnZ2d@comcast.com...
Why is at least one Galaxy heading towards the Milky way?
You are still missing the point on structure scales. What has this got to
do with recession?
It is at least one physical proof your "recession of all" is incorrect.
I think it has been named Andromeda.
Apparently, Andromeda thinks you are really stupid with your
"recession of all" crap you spout..
What lunatic thinks Galaxies think?
Correct, the galaxies don't think you are a moron at all,
astronomers that know at least one "non recession" is occuring
think you are.
:)
.
|
|
|
| User: "T Wake" |
|
| Title: Re: Mental Aid to Comprehend GR (pls share yours) |
14 Mar 2006 01:01:54 PM |
|
|
"Spaceman" <Realspace@comcast.not> wrote in message
news:zsmdnXeyCbEckYrZRVn-rQ@comcast.com...
"T Wake" <taswakeAt@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:Teydnd6vhLQWlIrZnZ2dnUVZ8tydnZ2d@pipex.net...
"Spaceman" <Realspace@comcast.not> wrote in message
news:BKOdncZgX8bqnIrZnZ2dnUVZ_sSdnZ2d@comcast.com...
Why is at least one Galaxy heading towards the Milky way?
You are still missing the point on structure scales. What has this got to
do with recession?
It is at least one physical proof your "recession of all" is incorrect.
Your lack of understanding is widespread.
I think it has been named Andromeda.
Apparently, Andromeda thinks you are really stupid with your
"recession of all" crap you spout..
What lunatic thinks Galaxies think?
Correct, the galaxies don't think you are a moron at all,
Yet is is what you said.
astronomers that know at least one "non recession" is occuring
think you are.
Find one Astronomer who thinks cosmological recession isn't taking place.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "QCD Apprentice" |
|
| Title: Re: Mental Aid to Comprehend GR (pls share yours) |
14 Mar 2006 12:41:07 PM |
|
|
Spaceman wrote:
"T Wake" <taswakeAt@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:Teydnd6vhLQWlIrZnZ2dnUVZ8tydnZ2d@pipex.net...
"Spaceman" <Realspace@comcast.not> wrote in message
news:BKOdncZgX8bqnIrZnZ2dnUVZ_sSdnZ2d@comcast.com...
Why is at least one Galaxy heading towards the Milky way?
You are still missing the point on structure scales. What has this got to
do with recession?
It is at least one physical proof your "recession of all" is incorrect.
He said that there's recession of large scale structures,
not a recession of everything from everything else. Large
scale in this context means *much* larger than a single galaxy.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Spaceman" |
|
| Title: Re: Mental Aid to Comprehend GR (pls share yours) |
14 Mar 2006 12:49:21 PM |
|
|
"QCD Apprentice" <qcd.apprentice@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:dv72o2$2om$1@news.doit.wisc.edu...
Spaceman wrote:
"T Wake" <taswakeAt@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:Teydnd6vhLQWlIrZnZ2dnUVZ8tydnZ2d@pipex.net...
"Spaceman" <Realspace@comcast.not> wrote in message
news:BKOdncZgX8bqnIrZnZ2dnUVZ_sSdnZ2d@comcast.com...
Why is at least one Galaxy heading towards the Milky way?
You are still missing the point on structure scales. What has this got to
do with recession?
It is at least one physical proof your "recession of all" is incorrect.
He said that there's recession of large scale structures, not a recession
of everything from everything else.
Actually he said such in another thread and he will twist
around such statement as much as possible now since
I have given a fact about a recession not occuring between 2 galaxies.
Large scale in this context means *much* larger than a single galaxy.
Larger than a Galaxy?
What is your scientific name for the next step higher?
.
|
|
|
| User: "T Wake" |
|
| Title: Re: Mental Aid to Comprehend GR (pls share yours) |
14 Mar 2006 01:05:07 PM |
|
|
"Spaceman" <Realspace@comcast.not> wrote in message
news:_MWdnXfEloi0jYrZnZ2dnUVZ_sadnZ2d@comcast.com...
"QCD Apprentice" <qcd.apprentice@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:dv72o2$2om$1@news.doit.wisc.edu...
Spaceman wrote:
It is at least one physical proof your "recession of all" is incorrect.
He said that there's recession of large scale structures, not a recession
of everything from everything else.
Actually he said such in another thread and he will twist
around such statement as much as possible now since
I have given a fact about a recession not occuring between 2 galaxies.
Sadly, Spaceloon is correct here. In a different thread I did say
"everything is receeding from everything else" however at the time it was in
the correct context and where possible I have emphasised the fact I was
refering to large scale structures.
The saving grace is that Spaceloon's first defence against recession was
that the Sun and the Earth "sometimes travel in the same direction." As you
can see his grasp of large scale structure is lacking at the moment.
Large scale in this context means *much* larger than a single galaxy.
Larger than a Galaxy?
What is your scientific name for the next step higher?
Large scale structure.
Cosmological recession has been observationally verified. It points to no
"centre" of the universe and it provides a problem with your seventeenth
century understanding of sciences.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Spaceman" |
|
| Title: Re: Mental Aid to Comprehend GR (pls share yours) |
14 Mar 2006 01:18:56 PM |
|
|
"T Wake" <taswakeAt@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:ntednRcgHZR7jorZRVnysw@pipex.net...
"Spaceman" <Realspace@comcast.not> wrote in message
news:_MWdnXfEloi0jYrZnZ2dnUVZ_sadnZ2d@comcast.com...
"QCD Apprentice" <qcd.apprentice@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:dv72o2$2om$1@news.doit.wisc.edu...
Spaceman wrote:
It is at least one physical proof your "recession of all" is incorrect.
He said that there's recession of large scale structures, not a
recession of everything from everything else.
Actually he said such in another thread and he will twist
around such statement as much as possible now since
I have given a fact about a recession not occuring between 2 galaxies.
Sadly, Spaceloon is correct here. In a different thread I did say
"everything is receeding from everything else" however at the time it was
in the correct context and where possible I have emphasised the fact I was
refering to large scale structures.
The saving grace is that Spaceloon's first defence against recession was
that the Sun and the Earth "sometimes travel in the same direction." As
you can see his grasp of large scale structure is lacking at the moment.
Large scale in this context means *much* larger than a single galaxy.
Larger than a Galaxy?
What is your scientific name for the next step higher?
Large scale structure.
So, clusters of galaxies?
The cluster of galaxies that Andromeda is a part of are
also "heading this" way or Andormeda would not be.
Duh!
LOL
Or do you think Andromeda is the only galaxy that
is moving towards the Milky Way?
Your "ignorance" is amazing.
You interupted this thread for this ***** you spout
about me being supposedly wrong in another thread,
and ignored what was actually stated in this thread.
Apparently you think that if someone has one incorrect statement
(even though it was not incorrect) that all statements made about
anything else is also incorrect.
You sure are ignorant to the first degree.
LOL
I am glad you are so smart that you know all about the
Universe already and anything I would state is wrong
just because I might be wrong on one thing.
.
|
|
|
| User: "T Wake" |
|
| Title: Re: Mental Aid to Comprehend GR (pls share yours) |
14 Mar 2006 01:35:26 PM |
|
|
"Spaceman" <Realspace@comcast.not> wrote in message
news:Q5Sdnc1CAMuFiorZRVn-sQ@comcast.com...
"T Wake" <taswakeAt@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:ntednRcgHZR7jorZRVnysw@pipex.net...
"Spaceman" <Realspace@comcast.not> wrote in message
news:_MWdnXfEloi0jYrZnZ2dnUVZ_sadnZ2d@comcast.com...
What is your scientific name for the next step higher?
Large scale structure.
So, clusters of galaxies?
The cluster of galaxies that Andromeda is a part of are
also "heading this" way or Andormeda would not be.
Wrong. You can find out why yourself.
Or do you think Andromeda is the only galaxy that
is moving towards the Milky Way?
Nope.
Your "ignorance" is amazing.
Yes it is. There is an infinite amount of things I know nothing about. This
is not one of those things.
You interupted this thread for this ***** you spout
about me being supposedly wrong in another thread,
and ignored what was actually stated in this thread.
Your posts in this thread highlight your lack of any form of understanding
yet you continue to try and "change" the accepted theories. This is what I
was responding to. Due to your lack of understanding you dont realise how
each theory you "attack" (albeit in a childlike manner) is interconnected -
to the extent that in other threads you have used evidence which is based on
the theory you want to disprove.
Your nonsense annoys me. You spout idiocy on every thread you join, yet you
feel no compulsion to respond to legitimate questions. Your "theories" are
flawed yet you feel no need to respond to the evidence that proves that.
You were wrong with your idea about the Earth and Sun's orbit disproving
recession. You are wrong with your idea about Andromeda disproving
recession. You are wrong about the Universe having a centre.
You were wrong with your ideas about EM propagation (remember your water
analogies....)
You are wrong with your ideas about c.
Generally speaking, you are pretty much wrong every time you post. You
should put it as a disclaimer on each message.
Apparently you think that if someone has one incorrect statement
(even though it was not incorrect) that all statements made about
anything else is also incorrect.
I have yet to see you make one correct statement about something scientific.
You sure are ignorant to the first degree.
Yes. Maybe. I am still much more knowledgeable than you.
I am glad you are so smart that you know all about the
Universe already and anything I would state is wrong
just because I might be wrong on one thing.
Nope, you are wrong on most things. Learn the physics you want to re-write.
Bring yourself out of the seventeenth century. When you can grasp that the
theories scientists and engineers use day in and day out are interconnected
you will realise the fundamental mistake in your approach. Until that time
there is no point being civil with you, as you point blank refuse to accept
any form of education.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Spaceman" |
|
| Title: Re: Mental Aid to Comprehend GR (pls share yours) |
14 Mar 2006 01:54:46 PM |
|
|
"T Wake" <taswakeAt@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:hNmdnYjm2vechorZRVny1Q@pipex.net...
"Spaceman" <Realspace@comcast.not> wrote in message
news:Q5Sdnc1CAMuFiorZRVn-sQ@comcast.com...
"T Wake" <taswakeAt@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:ntednRcgHZR7jorZRVnysw@pipex.net...
"Spaceman" <Realspace@comcast.not> wrote in message
news:_MWdnXfEloi0jYrZnZ2dnUVZ_sadnZ2d@comcast.com...
What is your scientific name for the next step higher?
Large scale structure.
So, clusters of galaxies?
The cluster of galaxies that Andromeda is a part of are
also "heading this" way or Andormeda would not be.
Wrong. You can find out why yourself.
Great Proof!
LOL
Or do you think Andromeda is the only galaxy that
is moving towards the Milky Way?
Nope.
Your "ignorance" is amazing.
Yes it is. There is an infinite amount of things I know nothing about.
This is not one of those things.
You interupted this thread for this ***** you spout
about me being supposedly wrong in another thread,
and ignored what was actually stated in this thread.
Your posts in this thread highlight your lack of any form of understanding
yet you continue to try and "change" the accepted theories. This is what I
was responding to. Due to your lack of understanding you dont realise how
each theory you "attack" (albeit in a childlike manner) is
interconnected - to the extent that in other threads you have used
evidence which is based on the theory you want to disprove.
Your nonsense annoys me. You spout idiocy on every thread you join, yet
you feel no compulsion to respond to legitimate questions. Your "theories"
are flawed yet you feel no need to respond to the evidence that proves
that.
I don't respond to questions?
ROFLOL
You are the ***** that does that.
You answer every question posed with a question instead
of a valid answer at all.
You are a perfect case of a troll.
You change the subject and start your trolling each and everytime
you post.
You should really find something better to do.
It is only proving you don't think on your own at all and
just follow the basic of most trolls on usenet.
You were wrong with your idea about the Earth and Sun's orbit disproving
recession. You are wrong with your idea about Andromeda disproving
recession. You are wrong about the Universe having a centre.
You have no proof of any such "wrongness".
You simply troll by saying no to my yes and yes to my no.
You were wrong with your ideas about EM propagation (remember your water
analogies....)
Again, you had no proof and still just continue your
no to my yes and yes to my no trolling tactics.
You are ignorant to not see that anyone can read such by
simply looking at your posts.
You are wrong with your ideas about c.
Nope.
You have no proof yet again.
Generally speaking, you are pretty much wrong every time you post. You
should put it as a disclaimer on each message.
Generally speaking, you have not proven even one thing wrong yet.
You have simply stated no to my yes and yes to my no constantly.
You have no physical proof of anything I stated as being wrong.
You only have your own ignorance of stating it is wrong without
such proof at all.
Apparently you think that if someone has one incorrect statement
(even though it was not incorrect) that all statements made about
anything else is also incorrect.
I have yet to see you make one correct statement about something
scientific.
You seem to have that problem,
You should really find out why you don't seem to comprehend anything
I state.
Seems you have a "head" problem that you should have looked at.
Yes. Maybe. I am still much more knowledgeable than you.
Only in your little tiny insignificant mind.
Otherwise you have no proof of such at all as usual.
Nope, you are wrong on most things.
<snipped rest of the repetitive you are wrong without any proof needed
*****>
You truly need to Wake, up..
LOL
You are wrong about everything you stated I am wrong about.
and the same proof of such is the proff you have.. (none).
Screw Off T Wake.
You are proving to be just a troll and nothing more than such.
.
|
|
|
| User: "T Wake" |
|
| Title: Re: Mental Aid to Comprehend GR (pls share yours) |
14 Mar 2006 03:29:06 PM |
|
|
"Spaceman" <Realspace@comcast.not> wrote in message
news:5LCdnRMfP53jgorZRVn-sQ@comcast.com...
"T Wake" <taswakeAt@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:hNmdnYjm2vechorZRVny1Q@pipex.net...
"Spaceman" <Realspace@comcast.not> wrote in message
news:Q5Sdnc1CAMuFiorZRVn-sQ@comcast.com...
"T Wake" <taswakeAt@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:ntednRcgHZR7jorZRVnysw@pipex.net...
"Spaceman" <Realspace@comcast.not> wrote in message
news:_MWdnXfEloi0jYrZnZ2dnUVZ_sadnZ2d@comcast.com...
What is your scientific name for the next step higher?
Large scale structure.
So, clusters of galaxies?
The cluster of galaxies that Andromeda is a part of are
also "heading this" way or Andormeda would not be.
Wrong. You can find out why yourself.
Great Proof!
LOL
I tired of finding the evidence for you after I found the evidential data
for c being constant. You refuse to accept it so now I let you search for it
yourself.
As you can see the assumption you made was that Andromeda was a different
cluster to us - you had no reason to make that assumption other than you
wanted to try and prove cosmoligical recession wrong.
Your nonsense annoys me. You spout idiocy on every thread you join, yet
you feel no compulsion to respond to legitimate questions. Your
"theories" are flawed yet you feel no need to respond to the evidence
that proves that.
I don't respond to questions?
Not with answers anyway.
You are the ***** that does that.
So what? This doesnt mean you answer questions. You are allowing yourself to
fall for a logical fallacy.
You answer every question posed with a question instead
of a valid answer at all.
I have answered your questions when you have asked them. I provided
citations and references when you asked for them.
You are a perfect case of a troll.
Cool.
You change the subject and start your trolling each and everytime
you post.
When have I changed the subject? Are the voices in your head getting carried
away with their advice to you? Is the whole world bluring into one big voice
now?
Do you need to up your meds a bit?
You should really find something better to do.
I only hang out on USENET when I have lots of spare time. I find it
interesting, educational and enlightening - as well as entertaining.
You are simply entertainment. When I didnt have time to correct your (almost
constant) inaccuracies and mistakes I had you in the filter. At the moment I
have the time to remind you when you are wrong.
Isnt life great hey?
It is only proving you don't think on your own at all and
just follow the basic of most trolls on usenet.
This isnt a sentence. The basic what?
You were wrong with your idea about the Earth and Sun's orbit disproving
recession. You are wrong with your idea about Andromeda disproving
recession. You are wrong about the Universe having a centre.
You have no proof of any such "wrongness".
You simply troll by saying no to my yes and yes to my no.
What proof do you demand? Do you want proof you were wrong over recession?
Or the centre of the Universe?
I have no proof Santa Claus doesnt exist, so what? You like to rant on at
people about having GR as a religion yet you exist soley on that criteria.
You have no experimental evidence to support your ideas (in fact the
evidence is often opposed to them but you demand a re-interpretation) and
you make no testable predictions.
Your assertion the Universe has a centre simply because there is no proof
that you will accept to the contrary is amazing. Truly.
You were wrong with your ideas about EM propagation (remember your water
analogies....)
Again, you had no proof and still just continue your
no to my yes and yes to my no trolling tactics.
I have proof for all the assertions I made. You have no proof for yours.
Remember your crazy ideas about the doppler effect?
You are ignorant to not see that anyone can read such by
simply looking at your posts.
Yes. Fortunately anyone can read the archive of both our posts. Those that
dont have us kill filed that is.
You are wrong with your ideas about c.
Nope.
You have no proof yet again.
Ha. I even sent you the citations and had a friend carry out the test for
you. If you want his test published then you can pay a small fee and he will
bill the time to you.
Generally speaking, you are pretty much wrong every time you post. You
should put it as a disclaimer on each message.
Generally speaking, you have not proven even one thing wrong yet.
Only because you refuse to accept anything that goes against your ideas of
what the universe should be like.
You have simply stated no to my yes and yes to my no constantly.
Ok.
You have no physical proof of anything I stated as being wrong.
Yes I do. I sent you the references to that effect. 60 years of radar prove
one of your crackpot ideas wrong. Cosmic recession proves another few wrong.
Where does the list end?
You only have your own ignorance of stating it is wrong without
such proof at all.
What does this mean?
I have yet to see you make one correct statement about something
scientific.
You seem to have that problem,
Ok. I did have a few problems in my first year at university but that was
more down to having a preference for hangovers over lectures.
What is your excuse?
(Note: again you use the fallacy that accusing me of something means you
arent the same. No matter if my posts are worthy of a Nobel or not, your
posts are full of crap. My cat could write better science)
You should really find out why you don't seem to comprehend anything
I state.
I know why. It is because you post gibberish.
Seems you have a "head" problem that you should have looked at.
Thank you for your assessment. I am so glad you are a physicist, astronomer,
engineer and psychiatrist.
Yes. Maybe. I am still much more knowledgeable than you.
Only in your little tiny insignificant mind.
Otherwise you have no proof of such at all as usual.
Ok. You may be correct. Prove you know more physics than I do.
<snip boring, mewling, schoolgirl crying that is stereotypical of Spaceloon>
.
|
|
|
| User: "Spaceman" |
|
| Title: Re: Mental Aid to Comprehend GR (pls share yours) |
14 Mar 2006 04:05:21 PM |
|
|
"T Wake" <taswakeAt@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:IOadnexiQ-o4qIrZRVnyig@pipex.net...
I tired of finding the evidence for you after I found the evidential data
for c being constant.
You are now only proving you are a lying sack of ***** T Wake.
You have not provided proof when I asked for such,
you have merely stated yes to my no and no to my yes each
and everytime.
You still have not found an experiment that has the detector
moving towards the source proving this supposed silly invariant speed
you call a constant that can't be a constant according to relative motion
itself.
Sheesh!
.
|
|
|
| User: "T Wake" |
|
| Title: Re: Mental Aid to Comprehend GR (pls share yours) |
14 Mar 2006 04:29:00 PM |
|
|
"Spaceman" <Realspace@comcast.not> wrote in message
news:LqmdncSIXriEo4rZRVn-tQ@comcast.com...
You still have not found an experiment that has the detector
moving towards the source proving this supposed silly invariant speed
you call a constant that can't be a constant according to relative motion
itself.
Nonsense. I sent you the citation for that very experiment. I will type up
my copy if you will pay my hourly fees.
If you don't want to hire me as your researcher, then do your own research.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Spaceman" |
|
| Title: Re: Mental Aid to Comprehend GR (pls share yours) |
14 Mar 2006 04:32:08 PM |
|
|
"T Wake" <taswakeAt@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:JPedncn3N-Qs3orZRVnysQ@pipex.net...
"Spaceman" <Realspace@comcast.not> wrote in message
news:LqmdncSIXriEo4rZRVn-tQ@comcast.com...
You still have not found an experiment that has the detector
moving towards the source proving this supposed silly invariant speed
you call a constant that can't be a constant according to relative motion
itself.
Nonsense. I sent you the citation for that very experiment. I will type up
my copy if you will pay my hourly fees.
You did not.
You showed me experiments that never actually measure the
speed the light wave passes by at.
You truly are lost.
If you don't want to hire me as your researcher, then do your own
research.
I would not hire you to sweep my driveway, nevermind do research.
Your "research" is full of brainwashed logic that actually ignores
relative motion for lightwaves.
LOL
.
|
|
|
| User: "T Wake" |
|
| Title: Re: Mental Aid to Comprehend GR (pls share yours) |
14 Mar 2006 04:40:47 PM |
|
|
"Spaceman" <Realspace@comcast.not> wrote in message
news:6audnRdBUv792YrZnZ2dnUVZ_v-dnZ2d@comcast.com...
"T Wake" <taswakeAt@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:JPedncn3N-Qs3orZRVnysQ@pipex.net...
"Spaceman" <Realspace@comcast.not> wrote in message
news:LqmdncSIXriEo4rZRVn-tQ@comcast.com...
You still have not found an experiment that has the detector
moving towards the source proving this supposed silly invariant speed
you call a constant that can't be a constant according to relative
motion
itself.
Nonsense. I sent you the citation for that very experiment. I will type
up my copy if you will pay my hourly fees.
You did not.
You showed me experiments that never actually measure the
speed the light wave passes by at.
You truly are lost.
Nope, one citation I sent you had the detector at rest, then moving towards
the emitter. It also had the emitter moving towards a static detector and
both moving.
Feel free to re-read.
If you don't want to hire me as your researcher, then do your own
research.
I would not hire you to sweep my driveway, nevermind do research.
Your "research" is full of brainwashed logic that actually ignores
relative motion for lightwaves.
Ok. I wont find any more references or citations for you.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Spaceman" |
|
| Title: Re: Mental Aid to Comprehend GR (pls share yours) |
14 Mar 2006 04:50:27 PM |
|
|
"T Wake" <taswakeAt@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:mIydnYVb7fLu24rZRVny1w@pipex.net...
"Spaceman" <Realspace@comcast.not> wrote in message
news:6audnRdBUv792YrZnZ2dnUVZ_v-dnZ2d@comcast.com...
"T Wake" <taswakeAt@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:JPedncn3N-Qs3orZRVnysQ@pipex.net...
"Spaceman" <Realspace@comcast.not> wrote in message
news:LqmdncSIXriEo4rZRVn-tQ@comcast.com...
You still have not found an experiment that has the detector
moving towards the source proving this supposed silly invariant speed
you call a constant that can't be a constant according to relative
motion
itself.
Nonsense. I sent you the citation for that very experiment. I will type
up my copy if you will pay my hourly fees.
You did not.
You showed me experiments that never actually measure the
speed the light wave passes by at.
You truly are lost.
Nope, one citation I sent you had the detector at rest, then moving
towards the emitter. It also had the emitter moving towards a static
detector and both moving.
The citation had the final speed being deduced by the stupid
c= frequency*wavelength joke.
It did not "measure" the actual speed at all.
And there has not been any actual measurement of
such a relative speed at all.
See my new thread.
Tell me how the observer heading towards the 1 second light
pulse would be able to see the pulse for 1 second if heading
towards it at 0.5c.
You truly like to ignore such a relative speed fact huh?
.
|
|
|
| User: "T Wake" |
|
| Title: Re: Mental Aid to Comprehend GR (pls share yours) |
14 Mar 2006 04:57:45 PM |
|
|
"Spaceman" <Realspace@comcast.not> wrote in message
news:7eCdnca9EPA21YrZRVn-qg@comcast.com...
"T Wake" <taswakeAt@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:mIydnYVb7fLu24rZRVny1w@pipex.net...
Nope, one citation I sent you had the detector at rest, then moving
towards the emitter. It also had the emitter moving towards a static
detector and both moving.
The citation had the final speed being deduced by the stupid
c= frequency*wavelength joke.
Well if this is wrong then there are a lot of things that would stop
working.
Interestingly it may not describe the actual workings of the universe
perfectly, however it is correct for all the experiments we have ever
conducted and as such provides everything science needs from an equation.
You can provide nothing to replace it, just that you demand it be replaced.
It did not "measure" the actual speed at all.
And there has not been any actual measurement of
such a relative speed at all.
This is incredibly repetetive.
See my new thread.
Which one?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Spaceman" |
|
| Title: Re: Mental Aid to Comprehend GR (pls share yours) |
14 Mar 2006 05:11:41 PM |
|
|
"T Wake" <taswakeAt@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:YJGdnfvyfvvw14rZRVnyuA@pipex.net...
"Spaceman" <Realspace@comcast.not> wrote in message
news:7eCdnca9EPA21YrZRVn-qg@comcast.com...
"T Wake" <taswakeAt@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:mIydnYVb7fLu24rZRVny1w@pipex.net...
Nope, one citation I sent you had the detector at rest, then moving
towards the emitter. It also had the emitter moving towards a static
detector and both moving.
The citation had the final speed being deduced by the stupid
c= frequency*wavelength joke.
Well if this is wrong then there are a lot of things that would stop
working.
Name one thing that would not work if such was wrong.
.
|
|
|
| User: "T Wake" |
|
| Title: Re: Mental Aid to Comprehend GR (pls share yours) |
14 Mar 2006 05:13:38 PM |
|
|
"Spaceman" <Realspace@comcast.not> wrote in message
news:HKadnVszYog70IrZRVn-gw@comcast.com...
"T Wake" <taswakeAt@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:YJGdnfvyfvvw14rZRVnyuA@pipex.net...
"Spaceman" <Realspace@comcast.not> wrote in message
news:7eCdnca9EPA21YrZRVn-qg@comcast.com...
"T Wake" <taswakeAt@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:mIydnYVb7fLu24rZRVny1w@pipex.net...
Nope, one citation I sent you had the detector at rest, then moving
towards the emitter. It also had the emitter moving towards a static
detector and both moving.
The citation had the final speed being deduced by the stupid
c= frequency*wavelength joke.
Well if this is wrong then there are a lot of things that would stop
working.
Name one thing that would not work if such was wrong.
The correlation between blueshift / redshift and observed parallax.
Radars.
Etc.
I take it you have given up on the cosmological problems now then?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Spaceman" |
|
| Title: Re: Mental Aid to Comprehend GR (pls share yours) |
14 Mar 2006 05:25:10 PM |
|
|
"T Wake" <taswakeAt@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:iO6dnZzwyua704rZRVnyrA@pipex.net...
"Spaceman" <Realspace@comcast.not> wrote in message
news:HKadnVszYog70IrZRVn-gw@comcast.com...
"T Wake" <taswakeAt@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:YJGdnfvyfvvw14rZRVnyuA@pipex.net...
"Spaceman" <Realspace@comcast.not> wrote in message
news:7eCdnca9EPA21YrZRVn-qg@comcast.com...
"T Wake" <taswakeAt@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:mIydnYVb7fLu24rZRVny1w@pipex.net...
Nope, one citation I sent you had the detector at rest, then moving
towards the emitter. It also had the emitter moving towards a static
detector and both moving.
The citation had the final speed being deduced by the stupid
c= frequency*wavelength joke.
Well if this is wrong then there are a lot of things that would stop
working.
Name one thing that would not work if such was wrong.
The correlation between blueshift / redshift and observed parallax.
Nope
Radars.
Nope.
Etc.
Nope.
I take it you have given up on the cosmological problems now then?
I could care less about it, it is your problem, not mine.
The Big Bang would have a problem with it since
the Big Bang would have to have a "spot" where it
actually occured and that spot would need to be in the center
of all this "expansion".
:)
.
|
|
|
| User: "T Wake" |
|
| Title: Re: Mental Aid to Comprehend GR (pls share yours) |
14 Mar 2006 05:32:06 PM |
|
|
"Spaceman" <Realspace@comcast.not> wrote in message
news:L7-dnXRy46hTzYrZRVn-qg@comcast.com...
"T Wake" <taswakeAt@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:iO6dnZzwyua704rZRVnyrA@pipex.net...
The correlation between blueshift / redshift and observed parallax.
Nope
Care to elaborate?
Radars.
Nope.
Ditto.
Etc.
Nope.
Ditto.
I take it you have given up on the cosmological problems now then?
I could care less about it, it is your problem, not mine.
Actually it is *your* problem as the observed data matches the theories you
wish to dismantle. Because your understanding is limited, you are trying to
dismantle part of a theory without thinking about the consequences if you
were correct (fortunately for science, you are wrong).
The Big Bang would have a problem with it since
the Big Bang would have to have a "spot" where it
actually occured and that spot would need to be in the center
of all this "expansion".
The "Big Bang" isn't a person so I doubt it would have problems. Your
concept of the big bang as being similar to a chemical explosion on Earth is
simplistic.
Interestingly enough though, the big bang is just a possible way of
describing t=0. Not necessarily the "correct" one.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Spaceman" |
|
| Title: Re: Mental Aid to Comprehend GR (pls share yours) |
14 Mar 2006 05:38:52 PM |
|
|
"T Wake" <taswakeAt@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:foOdnUAqnc_kz4rZRVnyuw@pipex.net...
Actually it is *your* problem as the observed data matches the theories
you wish to dismantle. Because your understanding is limited, <snipped>
This seems to be your problem, you think my understanding is limited,
yet it is you that can only think one way, so therefore it is you that is
limited, not me.
My undertandings actually fit the current data.
The silly part is you don't understand how they could, or do, since
you are so limited in your thought processing.
LOL
.
|
|
|
| User: "T Wake" |
|
| Title: Re: Mental Aid to Comprehend GR (pls share yours) |
14 Mar 2006 05:41:07 PM |
|
|
"Spaceman" <Realspace@comcast.not> wrote in message
news:tt2dnXhG0t6ZyYrZ4p2dnA@comcast.com...
"T Wake" <taswakeAt@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:foOdnUAqnc_kz4rZRVnyuw@pipex.net...
Actually it is *your* problem as the observed data matches the theories
you wish to dismantle. Because your understanding is limited, <snipped>
This seems to be your problem, you think my understanding is limited,
yet it is you that can only think one way, so therefore it is you that is
limited, not me.
My undertandings actually fit the current data.
Nope.
The silly part is you don't understand how they could, or do, since
you are so limited in your thought processing.
Which is slang for you have no evidence but refuse to admit it.
Never mind Spaceman. I am sure, somewhere, there is someone who agrees with
you.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Cam Jones" |
|
| Title: Re: Mental Aid to Comprehend GR (pls share yours) |
14 Mar 2006 06:10:58 PM |
|
|
Excuse me, but the comment made about fourteen year olds is quite
insulting. I am twelve, and I do not consider myself an "idiot".
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
