In article <LCW24.421$Zj5.27122@nntp0.detroit.mi.ameritech.net>,
"Charles W. Mustain" <mustain@ameritech.net> wrote:
> I think the current idea is that no "real" motion drives this
> acceleration.
> The mass is somehow imbedded in its current space. Space expands
all
> around
> it (dilation everywhere between galaxies) so the distance continuously
> increases over time along the axis of observation. No "force"
is
> necessary
> since in the sense of F=MA no A has occurred.
>
> This leaves out the question of what force "embeds" the mass to a
> particular
> volume of space, however. I have never read of anyone saying
that
> expanding
> space "pushes" on the mass. Also, since space is also expanding
on
> all
> "sides" of the object, no net force pushing it away form an observer
> should
> be possible due to dilation. The distance simply increases
as
> observed.
> This is a piece of the standard model plugged in from observation,
not
> first
> principals. There are many such.
>
> Objects in deep space which are apparently receding at FTL are said
to
> have
> an apparent motion made up of that due to dilation + that caused
by
> attraction of some attractor (gravitational) along the axis of
> recession
> from the observer. I don't say I understand this, just that it is
what
> I
> have read.
Read: http://members.xoom.com/oppositon/
The following is a simple analogy, of course, but: Let's say
that the pre-Big Bang singularity was not the "size" of a flea
after all (as conventional physicists are fond of believing).
Let's say that instead it was as "big" as the "space"
into which our universe will eventually expand, and that
instead of exploding (outwardly) what really happened is
that its gravitons "imploded" (leaving "space" behind,
so-to-speak)and in a most complex manner after a while
(so that today matter--really only the shapes of things--
seem to be "shrinking" as it it were "in place").
We look out into the cosmos and interpret this complex "implosion"
as the opposite of what it really is (because we never notice
that matter is "shrinking" ... remember that it would have to be
interpreted as "shrinking in place"!). And, as a consequence of
the annoying idea of what could possibly be "pushing" (or giving
energy to the "expansion/explosion") we hint that "perhaps"
space is expanding in some weird way we cannot apprehend...
In any case, the matter is very transparently addressed in the text
at the url I mentioned above. Then, once you understand what really
is going on... you can at your own leisure reword it
in whatever ways it may sound more elegant to you (perhaps even
--God forbid--mathematically).
Just... understand it FIRST.
S D Rodrian
sdr@t-three.com
http://members.aol.com.prebigbang
*********************
From: sdrodrian@aol.com
Subject: Re: How can space be bent?
Date: 16 Jan 2000 00:00:00 GMT
Message-ID: <85tlbd$6e4$1@nnrp1.deja.com>
References: <38816B0F.6B1B@netvigator.com> <85sspq$7q2$2@bgtnsc01.worldnet.att.net>
X-Http-Proxy: 1.0 x39.deja.com:80 (Squid/1.1.22) for
client 38.26.139.162
Organization: Deja.com - Before you buy.
X-Article-Creation-Date: Sun Jan 16 23:48:00 2000 GMT
X-MyDeja-Info: XMYDJUIDsdrodrian
Newsgroups: alt.atheism,talk.atheism,gac.physics.astronomy,alt.chaos
X-Http-User-Agent: Mozilla/4.7 [en] (Win98; U)
In article <85sspq$7q2$2@bgtnsc01.worldnet.att.net>,
"genein" <genein@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>
> WONG <samuwong@netvigator.com> wrote in message
> news:38816B0F.6B1B@netvigator.com...
>> How can space be bent ?
>> Space and time are abstract ideas, concepts in our mind.
They are
>> not
>> real substances like metal rods . A straight metal rod can
be bent
>> and
>> become crooked with force, but how can space or the so-called
>> space-time be bent , or 'warped' ?
>> Has language been misused by some leading scientists ?
>
> language has not been misused it is simply inadequate...the problem
> lies in
> attempting to explain to the layman rather complex mathematical terms
> which at
> times defies explanation....we have the same problem with ordinary
> words,
> translations of chinese or japanese text (example) differ, at times
> putting a
> different spin on the original.
D O N ' T Y O U B E L I E V E I T !!!!!!!
If somebody can't express him/herself clearly
chances are he/she doesn't have a clear
understanding of what he/she is talking about.
Period.
S D Rodrian
sdr@t-three.com
http://members.aol.com/prebigbang
**********************************
From: sdrodrian@aol.com
Subject: Re: How can space be bent?
Date: 17 Jan 2000 00:00:00 GMT
Message-ID: <85viuu$hi9$1@nnrp1.deja.com>
References: <38816B0F.6B1B@netvigator.com> <85sspq$7q2$2@bgtnsc01.worldnet.att.net>
<85tl9o$6du$1@nnrp1.deja.com> <85tu15$6bb$1@news.hk.linkage.net>
X-Http-Proxy: 1.0 x22.deja.com:80 (Squid/1.1.22) for client 38.26.139.105
Organization: Deja.com - Before you buy.
X-Article-Creation-Date: Mon Jan 17 17:19:45 2000 GMT
X-MyDeja-Info: XMYDJUIDsdrodrian
Newsgroups: alt.astronomy,uk.sci.astronomy,sci.astro.amateur,alt.sci.physics
X-Http-User-Agent: Mozilla/4.7 [en] (Win98; U)
In article <85tu15$6bb$1@news.hk.linkage.net>,
"Steve O'Hagan" <sohagan@stanger.com.hk> wrote:
> <sdrodrian@aol.com> wrote in message
news:85tl9o$6du$1@nnrp1.deja.com...
>> D O N ' T Y O U B E L I E V E
I T !!!!!!!
>>
>> If somebody can't express him/herself clearly
>> chances are he/she doesn't have a clear
>> understanding of what he/she is talking about.
>>
>> Period.
>>
>> S D Rodrian
>
> They DO express themselves clearly - but they use the appropriate
> language
> to do it - Mathematics.
>
> Natural language explanations are at best analogies designed to give
> one an
> idea of the situation being described - that these analogies often
> work so
> well is remarkable - but that shouldn't delude one into thinking
every
> physical phenomena *must be* comprehensible in this way. That some
> results
> of the mathematical treatment of physical theories are
> counter-intuitive is
> hardly surprising.
>
> Regards,
>
> Steve O'Hagan
Ah! There, you see: Mr. O'Hagan's explanation above
is extremely clear and meaningful! This fellow knew
what he was talking about (above--it's, of course,
too much of a stretch to propose that just because
someone knows what he/she is talking about one day, that
he/she will always know what he/she is talking about).
SDR
sdr@t-three.com
http://members.aol.com/prebigbang
*****************
From: sdrodrian@aol.com
Subject: Re: How can space be bent?
Date: 17 Jan 2000 00:00:00 GMT
Message-ID: <8602ga$tjs$1@nnrp1.deja.com>
References: <38816B0F.6B1B@netvigator.com>
<85sspq$7q2$2@bgtnsc01.worldnet.att.net>
<85tl9o$6du$1@nnrp1.deja.com> <3882A21E.3050ED24@yahoo.com>
X-Http-Proxy: 1.0 x25.deja.com:80 (Squid/1.1.22) for
client 38.26.139.222
Organization: Deja.com - Before you buy.
X-Article-Creation-Date: Mon Jan 17 21:44:46 2000 GMT
X-MyDeja-Info: XMYDJUIDsdrodrian
Newsgroups: alt.astronomy,uk.sci.astronomy,sci.astro.amateur,alt.sci.physics
X-Http-User-Agent: Mozilla/4.7 [en] (Win98; U)
In article <3882A21E.3050ED24@yahoo.com>,
Zirb-Monkey <zirb_monkey@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> D O N ' T Y O U B E L I E V E
I T !!!!!!!
>>
>> If somebody can't express him/herself clearly
>> chances are he/she doesn't have a clear
>> understanding of what he/she is talking about.
>>
>> Period.
>
> Let me try to explain why we think space is bent.
>
> Gravity effects all things that have mass.
Better: Only two things exist: matter/space.
Gravity only concerns matter, not space.
> Added to this, the more
> mass an
> object has, the larger gravity's effect has on it.
Better: Space (spatial) can be infinitely massive (literally)
without having any matter in it. And none of it will
experience any of gravity's effects. Matter, on the other
hand, can be the size of a flea and still be able to exert
unimaginable magnitudes of gravity. Newton used the
word "mass" to indicate the quantity of inertia possessed
by a body--You can too, if you like: It will certainly
take you to all sorts of places & sights! (Such as finally
understanding the reality of x-space, or "expanding space.")
> This is why we
> weigh
> less on the moon than on earth.
Better: Because there is that much more matter
on the earth than on the moon. Size is irrelevant.
Although it might not be off-topic to include Einstein's
analogy as to how to understand why gravitation can
curve space (or more generally, space-time): "Imagine
an elevator in free space accelerating upward, from the
viewpoint of a woman in inertial space, at a rate numerically
equal to g, the gravitational field at the surface of the Earth.
Let this elevator have parallel windows on two sides, and let
the woman shine a brief pulse of light toward the windows.
She will see the photons enter close to the top of the near
window and exit near the bottom of the far window because
the elevator has accelerated upward in the interval it takes
light to travel across the elevator. For her, photons travel in
a straight line, and it is merely the acceleration of the elevator
that has caused the windows and floor of the elevator to curve
up to the flight path of the photons. Let there now be a man
standing inside the elevator. Because the floor of the elevator
accelerates him upward at a rate g, he may--if he chooses to
regard himself as stationary--think that he is standing still on
the surface of the Earth and is being pulled to the ground by
its gravitational field g. Indeed, in accordance with the
equivalence principle, without looking out the windows (the
outside is not part of his local environment), he cannot perform
any local experiment that would inform him otherwise. Let the
woman shine her pulse of light. The man sees, just like the
woman, that the photons enter near the top edge of one window
and exit near the bottom of the other. And just like the woman,
he knows that photons propagate in straight lines in free space.
(By the relativity principle, they must agree on the laws of
physics if they are both inertial observers.) However, since he
actually sees the photons follow a curved path relative to himself,
he concludes that they must be bent by the force of gravity. The
woman tries to tell him there is no such force at work; he is not an
inertial observer. Nonetheless, he has the solidity of the Earth
beneath him, so he insists on attributing his acceleration to the
force of gravity. According to Einstein, they are both right. There
is no need to distinguish locally between acceleration and gravity
--the two are in some sense equivalent. But if that is the case, then
it must be true that gravity--"real" gravity--can actually bend light."
End quote.
> Now let us think about something that
> has
> no mass, such as a photon.
Better: Let's wait until we can think with our brains
more than with our memory: If the photon exists, then
it is composed of matter (regardless how so).
> A photon is pure energy and has no mass at
> all.
"Energy" is not a different sort of matter: It is merely
a "potential" of "work" stored in something. If you
compress a spring you have created "energy" not
"matter." E=MC^2 just means, "There is a heck of a lot
of "work potential" in a given bit of matter." Whether
you manifest that potential in nuclear fusion/fission
or temperature, or ions rubbing against each other, or
rubberbands being stretched. The point is that the photon
consists "in reality" of matter, and is only spoken of as
"pure energy" in a sort of metaphorical manner. [By the
way, "energy" can neither be created nor destroyed: What
you did with the spring above was to store in the spring
energy you previously had stored in your muscles.]
>We then should expect that gravity should have no effect on it.
Vain expectation! Black holes: "Objects so massive
that not even light can escape their gravity."
> Now let's use Newton's law of motion, "An object in motion will stay
> in
> motion unless acted on by another force." All the forces we
know of
> don't
> affect photons.
The only force that exists, namely gravity, does.
(The other three forces are merely gravity manifesting
itself under circumstances other than when dealing with
stars & galaxies.)
> We just stated that photons aren't affected by
> gravity.
I head all you guys.
> We also know they aren't affected by electrical charges, magnetism,
or
> anything else we know of that can exist in a vacuum.
That's because you assume that gravity doesn't affect
celestial bodies and that there's an invisible magical sheet
of rubber spread out in space holding celestial bodies
together somehow (but one of these days you too will
discover there's no magic in the world and that everything
has an explanation... it's just that one has to wait until it's
found). Better: There is no true vacuum because all vacuums
stand between celestial bodies holding each other through
them & across them.
> It would
> therefore be
> apparent that a photon would have to travel in a strait line in a
> vacuum no
> matter what because no force can act on it, right?
Better: In a strait jacket, perhaps. (If no "force" acted on
the photon... why would it feel any need to follow ANY
logic?!?!? If no force were acting on the photon it would
describe all sorts of crazy inexplicable trajectories--Why not?!)
But the photon obeys Newton's laws of motion too.
> Now let's go to Einstein's famous experiment with the eclipse.
He
> made the
> claim that because space time is curved, a star seemingly behind
the
> sun
> can have it's light "bent" around by the huge mass of the sun making
> an
> otherwise hidden object apparent. When these stars were recorded
as
> being
> there during the eclipse, the only thing we had left was that space
> itself
> can be bent because no other force is acting on those photons of
the
> hidden
> star.
If we assume, as you do, that the photon is magical instead of
physical... you are right! But if the photon is a real/physical
phenomenon, then the massive gravitational fields around stars
and galaxies MUST affect it with as much reality as do glass
prisms. And... I prefer to believe that the photon is real and not
magical, therefore... it is "manipulated" by common ordinary,
everyday, real and physical gravitational fields & glass prisms.
> Because the path of the photon was affected, the only thing left over
> was
> that space-time is curved. It's all about logical deduction.
It's all about the past's mistaken assumptions being taken as gospel
today... and producing more and more errors as they are applied.
> Unless
> you
> know of a force in a vacuum
THINK! Realize: Gravity exists. Gravity communicates
between celestial bodies. Vacuums exist ONLY between
celestial bodies. [Repeat as many times as it takes this
to penetrate through the force field around your brain.]
If two bodies in space attract each other it is because THEY
KNOW OF EACH OTHER'S EXISTENCE, and not because
they happen to be riding magical invisible channels in the
"emptiness of space" which happen to cut a couple o curves
about each other!
> that CAN affect a photon, then space time
> curvature will always be the best explanation. I would like
to know
> of a
> better one.
Sure: It's called, "Sanity." Its the theory
that... even if one does not know
how the magician did his trick, one still knows
that it was a trick--and not magic.
Hope this really helps,
S D Rodrian
sdr@t-three.com
http://www.geocities.com/absoluterelativity
>
> I hope this helps.
It certainly helps me (as you are either very brave and/or
very, very foolhardy)...
************************
From: sdrodrian@aol.com
Subject: Re: How can space be bent?
Date: 18 Jan 2000 00:00:00 GMT
Message-ID: <862ru8$unl$1@nnrp1.deja.com>
References: <38816B0F.6B1B@netvigator.com>
<85sspq$7q2$2@bgtnsc01.worldnet.att.net>
<85tl9o$6du$1@nnrp1.deja.com> <3882A21E.3050ED24@yahoo.com>
<8602lc$tti$1@nnrp1.deja.com> <861d9n$ug@singer.cent.gla.ac.uk>
X-Http-Proxy: 1.0 x31.deja.com:80 (Squid/1.1.22) for
client 38.26.139.1
Organization: Deja.com - Before you buy.
X-Article-Creation-Date: Tue Jan 18 23:11:18 2000 GMT
X-MyDeja-Info: XMYDJUIDsdrodrian
Newsgroups: alt.atheism,talk.atheism,gac.physics.astronomy,alt.chaos
X-Http-User-Agent: Mozilla/4.7 [en] (Win98; U)
In article <861d9n$ug@singer.cent.gla.ac.uk>,
"David G Dick" <D.Dick@lib.gla.ac.uk> wrote:
>
> sdrodrian@aol.com wrote in message <8602lc$tti$1@nnrp1.deja.com>...
>>> Let me try to explain why we think space is bent.
>>>
>>> Gravity effects all things that have mass.
>>
>>Better: Only two things exist: matter/space.
>>Gravity only concerns matter, not space.
>
> Why do you not mention here the fact that gravitic interactions get
> weaker
> over longer distances? Does that not indicate that gravity
does have
> SOME
> concern with space?
Actually, I make (somewhere) a fun-
damental statement to the effect that "gravity
is the only force" and that the other "3" forces' manifestation
is a result of how gravity works within reduced volumes
... or some such. Do not guess--Read the text (with your brain).
>>> Added to this, the more
>>> mass an
>>> object has, the larger gravity's effect has on it.
>>
>>Better: Space (spatial) can be infinitely massive (literally)
>>without having any matter in it.
>
> I thought mass was a measurement that could only apply to matter?
Actually the thing that makes it difficult for a lot of people
to see how mass applies to "space" is the question of how
to "measure" space where there is no matter. In most normal
situations this is very neatly avoided (as when we think of
the universe itself as massive--and that also means there's
a lot of space in it): spatial mass may also be strictly theoretical
(an amount of space without it necessarily having any matter in it),
etc. So that "spatial mass" indeed contains no matter--Go figure!
>> And none of it will
>>experience any of gravity's effects. Matter, on the other
>>hand, can be the size of a flea and still be able to exert
>>unimaginable magnitudes of gravity. Newton used the
>>word "mass" to indicate the quantity of inertia possessed
>>by a body--You can too, if you like: It will certainly
>>take you to all sorts of places & sights! (Such as finally
>>understanding the reality of x-space, or "expanding space.")
>
> Einstein was probably a very smart guy, but if he couldn't
think of a
> more
> appropriate word to describe this 'spacial inertia' that doesn't
mean
> I have
> to accept his (and apparently your) usage of the word 'mass'.
Although Einstein must have been indeed an immensely smart guy,
it's not Einstein but Newton's usage: Newton's 1st Law of Motion deals
with what a "force" is, but in order to understand its strength one
must
think of a force in terms of producing an acceleration, say (to measure
its strength in terms of how much of an acceleration it produces).
Or,
in Asimov's succinct: "If we push a basketball along the ground with
a
constant force, it movers more and more quickly, and after 10 seconds
it moves with a velocity, let us say, of 2 m/sec. Its acceleration
is
2 m/sec divided by 10 seconds, or 0.2 sec^2. If you start from scratch
and do not push quite as hard, at the end of 10 seconds the basketball
may be moving only 1 m/sec; it will therefore have undergone an
acceleration of 0.1 m/sec^2. Since the acceleration is twice as great
in
the first case, it seems fair to suppose that the force was twice as
great in the first case as in the second. But if you were to apply
the
same forces to a solid connonball instead of a basketball, the
cannonball will not undergo anything like the previously noted
acceleration. It might well take every scrap of force you can exert
to
get the cannonball to move at all. Again, when a basketball is rolling
along at 2 m/sec, you can stop it easily enough. The velocity change
from 2 m/sec to 0 m/sec requires a force to bring it about, and you
can
feel yourself capable of exerting sufficient force to stop the
basketball. Or you can kick the basketball in mid-motion and cause
it to
veer in direction. A cannonball moving at 2 m/sec, however, can only
be
stopped by great exertion, and if it is kicked in mid-motion it will
change its direction by only a tiny amount. A cannonball, in other
words, behaves as though it possesses more inertia than a basketball
and
therefore requires correspondingly more force than a basketball for
the
production of a given acceleration. Newton used the word MASS to
indicate the quantity of inertia possessed by a body, and his second
law
of motion states: "The acceleration produced by a particular force
acting on a body is directly proportional to the magnitude of the force
and inversely proportional to the mass of the body." ... You may think
that if I say a cannonball is more massive than a basketball, I mean
that it is heavier. Actually, I do not. "Massive" is not the same as
"heavy," and "mass" is not the same as "weight." The "weight" of a
body
is the force with which it is attracted to the earth while the "mass"
of
a body is the quantity of inertia it possesses." Thus, a universe devoid
of matter would yet be infinitely massive. "By Newton's 2nd Law of
Motion m = f/a; it is a force divided by an acceleration. "Weight,"
which is a force, must by the same law be "a mass multiplied by an
acceleration." Again... The weight (w) of a body is equal to the mass
(m) of that body times the acceleration (g) due to the pull of the
earth." Etc.
> <snip>
>
>>> Now let us think about something that
>>> has
>>> no mass, such as a photon.
>>
>>Better: Let's wait until we can think with our brains
>>more than with our memory: If the photon exists, then
>>it is composed of matter (regardless how so).
>
> I take it then that you are going by the paradigm that energy is
to be
> regarded simply as another form of matter?
Do not guess: Read the text (below):
>>> A photon is pure energy and has no mass at
>>> all.
>>
>>"Energy" is not a different sort of matter: It is merely
>>a "potential" of "work" stored in something. If you
>>compress a spring you have created "energy" not
>>"matter." E=MC^2 just means, "There is a heck of a lot
>>of "work potential" in a given bit of matter." Whether
>>you manifest that potential in nuclear fusion/fission
>>or temperature, or ions rubbing against each other, or
>>rubberbands being stretched.
And don't forget that energy can't be created or destroyed
(only conserved): What you did with the spring above was
to convert the energy stored in your muscles into the energy
now stored in the spring. Just a reminder.
> I dont see how you can make that comparison. I dont know about
the
> whole
> ions thing, but AFAIK stretching a rubber band does not involve
> matter/energy conversion. Can you enlighten me?
Did you read the text?! Goodness! The text clearly speaks
about energy conservation, not about nuclear processes.
>> The point is that the photon
>>consists "in reality" of matter, and is only spoken of as
>>"pure energy" in a sort of metaphorical manner.
>
> I am reminded of the physics toy where an ultra-light crystal is
> floating in
> air, held aloft by nothing more than a laser beam. Aside
from being
> an
> interesting spectacle, this shows that photons must have mass,
> because a
> zero-mass particle cannot impart any force.
Hey! Where can I buy that toy? Money is
no object (I don't have any of it in front of me).
Drats!
> <snip>
>>
>>>We then should expect that gravity should have no effect on it.
>>
>>Vain expectation! Black holes: "Objects so massive
>>that not even light can escape their gravity."
>
> Indeed. But then, consider this : What is gravity?
You have said
> that
> only two things exist, matter and space. Gravity must
therefore be a
> manifestation of one of these. It must be matter, because
it affects
> the
> inertia of other bodies. And it appears that gravity travels
> instantly,
O my, where did you catch sight of this appearance?
> I
> believe this is the cause of the Calcutta Paradox.
Is this the one where 100,000,000 Indians live in one block?
> (which I admit I don't
> fully understand) Since it has infinite velocity, among other
> reasons, it
> follows that it must have zero mass. How can a zero-mass object
> impart a
> force on another body?
An idea has zero-mass (not in its rest frame in a brain
but when it is "jumping" into another brain, see "quantum
thinking" by Neils Bored). But, in any case, that is
something you must take up with SR/GR, not with me:
I only juggle things real, not theoretical.
> <snip>
>>> Unless
>>> you
>>> know of a force in a vacuum
>
> Ever heard of the theory of Zero-Point Energy and the Casimir Effect?
> A
> number of people believe that what we consider to be a zero energy
> state is
> actually not so. What we think of as 'total' vacuum may simply
be a
> comparatively low-energy state that we cannot yet see beyond.
A sort
> of
> 'Event Horizon' as far as energy is concerned.
Do you write for Star Trek? You could. (Hint: my text very explicitly
said I do not believe a perfect vacuum exists anywhere in our universe,
or that it can even exist.)
> <snip>
>
> --
> David G Dick
> "A man without religion is like a fish without a bicycle."
But a fish with a bicycle can confuse the sharks
long enough to peddle his way safely to Paradise.
S D Rodrian
sdr@t-three.com
http://www.geocities.com/absoluterelativity
*******************
From: sdrodrian@aol.com
Subject: Re: How can space be bent?
Date: 21 Jan 2000 00:00:00 GMT
Message-ID: <868ev5$36p$1@nnrp1.deja.com>
References: <38816B0F.6B1B@netvigator.com>
<85sspq$7q2$2@bgtnsc01.worldnet.att.net> <85tl9o$6du$1@nnrp1.deja.com>
<3882A21E.3050ED24@yahoo.com> <8602lc$tti$1@nnrp1.deja.com>
<861d9n$ug@singer.cent.gla.ac.uk> <862ru8$unl$1@nnrp1.deja.com>
<86415m$c0l@singer.cent.gla.ac.uk>
X-Http-Proxy: 1.0 x32.deja.com:80 (Squid/1.1.22) for
client 38.26.139.190
Organization: Deja.com - Before you buy.
X-Article-Creation-Date: Fri Jan 21 02:06:40 2000 GMT
X-MyDeja-Info: XMYDJUIDsdrodrian
Newsgroups: alt.atheism,talk.atheism,gac.physics.astronomy,alt.chaos
X-Http-User-Agent: Mozilla/4.7 [en] (Win98; U)
In article <86415m$c0l@singer.cent.gla.ac.uk>,
"David G Dick" <D.Dick@lib.gla.ac.uk> wrote:
>
> sdrodrian@aol.com wrote in message <862ru8$unl$1@nnrp1.deja.com>...
>>In article <861d9n$ug@singer.cent.gla.ac.uk>,
>>Actually, I make (somewhere) a fun-
>>damental statement to the effect that "gravity
>>is the only force" and that the other "3" forces' manifestation
>>is a result of how gravity works within reduced volumes
>>... or some such. Do not guess--Read the text (with your brain).
>
> That in no way, shape or form actually answers the actual question
I
> asked.
> You said "gravity only concerns matter, not space", but
now you are
> saying
> that gravity works within "volumes" - are you making some distinction
> between the two terms?
Nope. But, in spite of the fact that the earth's gravity is
stronger than the moon, when the astronauts were walking
on the moon they experienced a greater gravity effect from
the moon than from the earth. Well, then, it might no be
at all outside the range of possibilities that a bit of matter inside
quarks experience a greater "gravity effect" (although we
might call this effect in the quark "the strong force" of some
such)... than the same bit of matter might experience were it
to be floating by its lonesome in outer space. No?
>>> I thought mass was a measurement that could only apply to matter?
>
> <snip explanation>
>
> Fair enough I suppose...
>
>>> Einstein was probably a very smart guy, but if he couldn't
think
>>> of a
>>> more
>>> appropriate word to describe this 'spacial inertia' that doesn't
>>> mean
>>> I have
>>> to accept his (and apparently your) usage of the word 'mass'.
>
> <snip another explanation>
>
> Again, a reasonable enough explanation. I just think
that it is
> misleading
> to use the term 'mass' here. It isnt simply another word for
inertia
-
> inertia implies that a body is in motion compared to another body,
it
> includes both mass and energy. I don't believe that we should
all
> follow
> every word written by Einstein and Newton without question,
that's
> all I am
> saying.
>
>>> I take it then that you are going by the paradigm that energy
is to
>>> be
>>> regarded simply as another form of matter?
>>
>>Do not guess: Read the text (below):
>
> I did not guess, I asked a question. That punction mark
at the end
? should
> have indicated as such.
But I DID answer your question--You snipped it!
I agreed with you that energy is not another kind of
matter--It is not some miasmic Star Trek plasma or
some other such superstition. It is simply the "work"
"potential" in some one or another form of matter.
>>And don't forget that energy can't be created or destroyed
>>(only conserved): What you did with the spring above was
>>to convert the energy stored in your muscles into the energy
>>now stored in the spring. Just a reminder.
>
> I am well aware of that, but thanks anyway.
>
>>Did you read the text?! Goodness! The text clearly speaks
>>about energy conservation, not about nuclear processes.
>
> Did *you* read the text? Goodness! The text CLEARLY uses
the words
> "nuclear fusion/fission" which, as far as I am aware,
is a nuclear
> process. Stretching a rubber band, I believe, is
not. So I ask why
> you
> make the comparison including the two.
There are a zillion ways to store energy: In wood, in
your muscles, in all forms of life, in fact.... etc.
> Nuclear fusion CREATES energy
> from
> matter,
No it does not--It releases it. Read about
nuclear processes, et al.
> but stretching a rubber band CONSERVES energy,
It does that until it breaks or bounces back
returning the energy it stored.
> merely
> converting
> kinetic energy into potential energy. Hence I believe the two
are not
> of
> the same order. That is the point I am making.
All forms of energy are energy whether it's
the hot water in your pot or your chicken being
"rubbed" by the waves of your microwave over.
> Incidentally, "work" is not a plain measure of energy - it is
a
> measure of
> energy used over time. But I'm just a picky bugger that way...
Work works because it conveys the clear meaning
that if energy is incapable of doing something (even
theoretically as with just the equation E=MC^2 without
its being put to its most famous use) it doesn't exist.
>>Hey! Where can I buy that toy? Money is
>>no object (I don't have any of it in front of me).
>>Drats!
>
> Well, unless I picked up the April fools edition of Omni, (not
this
> month's, I read it many many moons ago) it's out there
> *Somewhere*....
They're selling it on the X-Files. Impressed.
>>O my, where did you catch sight of this appearance?
>>
>>> I
>>> believe this is the cause of the Calcutta Paradox.
>>
>>Is this the one where 100,000,000 Indians live in one block?
>
> Nice one. *Alternatively*... you could try looking into something
> before
> you make jokes about it. I can't explain it to you because
I don't
> understand it myself, but I'm sure you could find something about
it
> on a
> web search.
Maybe down the month....
>>An idea has zero-mass (not in its rest frame in a brain
>>but when it is "jumping" into another brain, see "quantum
>>thinking" by Neils Bored). But, in any case, that is
>>something you must take up with SR/GR, not with me:
>>I only juggle things real, not theoretical.
>
> Oh you mean like photons, and expanding space.
Space is not expanding--It's simply that it's easier
to visualize the imploding universe if one thinks of
space as expanding than if one thinks of "matter" as
shrinking--Try it both ways and see for yourself.
> Those are not
> theoretical
> at all. I suppose you have dissected a photon, and pulled
a bit of
> space
> open wider with your bare hands. Give me a break, just
about
> everything in
> physics is theoretical to some degree.
There are dreams, David, and then there are mental plans
and designs and such. There IS a distinction.
>>Do you write for Star Trek? You could. (Hint: my text very explicitly
>>said I do not believe a perfect vacuum exists anywhere in our
>>universe,
>>or that it can even exist.)
>
> Then we agree. (You may note by the attribution that at this
point I
> was
> responding to whomever you yourself replied to.)
I might have been responding to myself, what
with all these damns posts--Must be hundreds now!
>>> --
>>> David G Dick
>>> "A man without religion is like a fish without a bicycle."
>>
>>But a fish with a bicycle can confuse the sharks
>>long enough to peddle his way safely to Paradise.
>
> Is that Paradise, Virginia?
I think so. And if you get there and find Virginia
too crowed, try Orlando. Just as good.
S D Rodrian
sdr@t-three.com
http://www.geocities.com/absoluterelativity
*******************
From: sdrodrian@aol.com
Subject: Re: How can space be bent?
Date: 22 Jan 2000 00:00:00 GMT
Message-ID: <86bdu8$83k$1@nnrp1.deja.com>
References: <38816B0F.6B1B@netvigator.com>
<85sspq$7q2$2@bgtnsc01.worldnet.att.net> <85tl9o$6du$1@nnrp1.deja.com>
<3882A21E.3050ED24@yahoo.com> <8602lc$tti$1@nnrp1.deja.com>
<861d9n$ug@singer.cent.gla.ac.uk> <862ru8$unl$1@nnrp1.deja.com>
<86415m$c0l@singer.cent.gla.ac.uk> <868ev5$36p$1@nnrp1.deja.com>
<8698iq$l8r@singer.cent.gla.ac.uk>
X-Http-Proxy: 1.0 x42.deja.com:80 (Squid/1.1.22) for
client 38.26.139.138
Organization: Deja.com - Before you buy.
X-Article-Creation-Date: Sat Jan 22 05:07:25 2000 GMT
X-MyDeja-Info: XMYDJUIDsdrodrian
Newsgroups: alt.astronomy,uk.sci.astronomy,sci.astro.amateur,alt.sci.physics
X-Http-User-Agent: Mozilla/4.7 [en] (Win98; U)
In article <8698iq$l8r@singer.cent.gla.ac.uk>,
"David G Dick" <D.Dick@lib.gla.ac.uk> wrote:
>
> sdrodrian@aol.com wrote in message <868ev5$36p$1@nnrp1.deja.com>...
>>In article <86415m$c0l@singer.cent.gla.ac.uk>,
>>Nope. But, in spite of the fact that the earth's gravity is
>>stronger than the moon, when the astronauts were walking
>>on the moon they experienced a greater gravity effect from
>>the moon than from the earth. Well, then, it might no be
>>at all outside the range of possibilities that a bit of matter inside
>>quarks experience a greater "gravity effect" (although we
>>might call this effect in the quark "the strong force" of some
>>such)... than the same bit of matter might experience were it
>>to be floating by its lonesome in outer space. No?
>
> Well, quite, but that still doesn't address my point.
Do you still
> maintain that gravity does not concern space at all?
Your term, "concern" may lead to confusions by its generalization.
So I will not go the way it points. Instead let me put it this way
(and this is a simplification used here for the sake of a quicker
understanding)...
In the beginning of "our side" of the universe (not of the universe
itself, both of its "sides" considered)... all was ONLY infinite
(scalar) mass and there was no matter. How could its state have been
then one NOT of absolute rest? And that is when our side of the
universe begins (the moment Big-Bangers describe as the first few
instants after the big bang)... except that whereas the Big-Bangers
see it as an explosive instant which can never be explained, of
course (how could it?), now you and I understand that in reality
it was the first time the force of gravity manifested its first
few tender "graviton" buds (e.g. the repelling force which had
gripped the universe until then began to give way to the attracting
force).
I for one do not believe this was in any way a shocking, sudden
shift. Rather, from absolute rest, the universe very gently and very
slowly became necessarily one of motion because, unlike a universe
gripped by a repelling force, one gripped by an attracting force
would literally have to MOVE into itself... and, therefore, it became
a universe of energy being put to work (i.e. energy was at its highest
potential just before gravity manifested itself, and from there on
it begins to spend its "energy" in the actual work of attraction).
You can see that at its most fundamental our universe is one of
forces, not particles. However, as more and more energy is brought
to bear upon gravity... eventually (and this is probably a profoundly
long process), eventually gravity will manifest itself in generation
after generation after generation of particles (until we get stars
and
galaxies). What comes at the end of the process (after "energy"
is
all played out and spent)? I suspect you really wish to be told
what will become of "us" ("we" the ordinary "forms" of matter that
seem so everlasting and solid). Well, dear children, "we" shall
unravel into the nothingness "we" were all along... because even now
"we" are nothing but "forms" and not fundamental things, particles
or otherwise: Only gravity (and its opposite) are really fundamental
and they shall forever shift one to the other without end. Only in
this manner shall "we" live again and again and forever after. And
it's now only a question whether each instance of our universe is
unique and singular, or whether each manifestation of the universe
is exactly identical... to the last possible detail--In which case,
my
advice to you is to try your best to live a good life, as you will
be reliving it time without number and number without end.
>>> I did not guess, I asked a question. That punction
mark at the
>>> end
>>> should
>>> have indicated as such.
>>
>>But I DID answer your question--You snipped it!
>
> Sorry, I didn't say you didn't answer the question. I
was just a
> little
> offended by your suggestion that I was guessing.
You should have been grateful, as I gave you the benefit
of doubt; rather than damning you for not understanding
something expressed so simply.
> <snip>
>
>>> Nuclear fusion CREATES energy
>>> from
>>> matter,
>>
>>No it does not--It releases it. Read about
>>nuclear processes, et al.
>
> Point taken. I think I must be too used to debating with clueless
> fundies,
> dumbing down comes all too easily to me these days...
>
> <snip>
>
>>All forms of energy are energy whether it's
>>the hot water in your pot or your chicken being
>>"rubbed" by the waves of your microwave over.
>
> Yes indeed, but nuclear energy has the peculiar ability of
changing
> the
> fundamental properties of each atom it is stored in.
All forms of matter are but "forms." So it's really of little
consequence... whether one deforms a spring or an atom.
> As far as I am
> aware,
> no other form of energy can do that. Thus, I still don't
think that
> comparing nuclear fusion with potential energy is reasonable.
> OTOH, I have at the same time forgotten why I bothered objecting
to
> it in
> the first place.
That happens with age (and perhaps it is our forgetting
of the more trivial things in life that finally frees our brains
to work more efficiently... and therefore make us wiser).
S D Rodrian
sdr@t-three.com
http://members.aol.com/prebigbang
>>They're selling it on the X-Files. Impressed.
>
> LOL!
>
> <snip>
>
>>There are dreams, David, and then there are mental plans
>>and designs and such. There IS a distinction.
>
> Of course. The problem is where to make the distinction.
Galileo was
> considered a dreamer in his day.
>
>>I might have been responding to myself, what
>>with all these damns posts--Must be hundreds now!
>
> I know what you mean! :)
>
> PS sorry about snipping so much... my news server won't let me post
if
> there
> is more included text than new text... humbug.
>
> --
> David G Dick
> "A man without religion is like a fish without a bicycle."
>
>
**************
From: sdrodrian@aol.com
Subject: Re: How can space be bent?
Date: 24 Jan 2000 00:00:00 GMT
Message-ID: <86ibhd$v0e$1@nnrp1.deja.com>
References: <38816B0F.6B1B@netvigator.com>
<85sspq$7q2$2@bgtnsc01.worldnet.att.net> <85tl9o$6du$1@nnrp1.deja.com>
<3882A21E.3050ED24@yahoo.com> <8602lc$tti$1@nnrp1.deja.com>
<861d9n$ug@singer.cent.gla.ac.uk> <862ru8$unl$1@nnrp1.deja.com>
<86415m$c0l@singer.cent.gla.ac.uk> <868ev5$36p$1@nnrp1.deja.com>
<8698iq$l8r@singer.cent.gla.ac.uk> <86be1m$846$1@nnrp1.deja.com>
<388A8328.4C9B@attglobal.net> <D3Ii4.293$T%6.8065@wagner.videotron.net>
X-Http-Proxy: 1.0 x30.deja.com:80 (Squid/1.1.22) for
client 38.26.139.198
Organization: Deja.com - Before you buy.
X-Article-Creation-Date: Mon Jan 24 20:09:23 2000 GMT
X-MyDeja-Info: XMYDJUIDsdrodrian
Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity,de.sci.physik,sci.physics.alectromag,sci.logic
X-Http-User-Agent: Mozilla/4.7 [en] (Win98; U)
In article <D3Ii4.293$T%6.8065@wagner.videotron.net>,
Greg Neill <ynecgan@oops.inka.de> wrote:
> In sci.astro ande452@attglobal.net wrote:
> : sdrodrian@aol.com wrote:
> :>
>
> : [snip]
>
> : Can anyone tell me why my news server only shows
> : sdrodrian's postings in this thread and no postings
> : from ANYONE else?
>
> : John Anderson
>
> He's started talking to himself because no one else will?
> Greg Neill,
Great to talk to you again, Greg. Or should I say
"nobody"(?). Well, you know what you are.
Actually, Greg, now you bring up the matter: I believe I have
started only 3 original threads in these newsgroups. Every
last one of my other 78,897 posts (counting this one) have been
replies! (Wonder who holds the record for fewer threads started
vs most posts in other threads? As, I'm still posting replies.)
And, by the way, Greg: Those chaps who've stuck their heads in
the sand and removed themselves from the playing field... they are
irrelevant: They don't count. They are conceding the field to me,
in other words (and I love words, whether they are these ones or
many other ones)... or, they are conceding the field to whoever's
dancing with the Arabs all over the sands. Tra-la!
You can now stick your head back in now, Greg. And, rest ass-ured:
If no heads are anywhere to be seen across the sands... I shall be
be happy to pass the time meanwhile counting the (stuck-up) asses.
My word, but there's no end to those hereabouts!
(Oh, dear me, I've blundered into a pun!)
Yours truly,
S D Rodrian
sdr@t-three.com
http://members.aol.com/mrealms.470.htm
http://www.geocities.com/absoluterelativity
The pun is that they are REALLY asses, Greg (in case it
goes over your head, where you've got it... stuck).
*******
From: sdrodrian@aol.com
Subject: Re: How can space be bent?
Date: 20 Jan 2000 00:00:00 GMT
Message-ID: <867j1e$dtv$1@nnrp1.deja.com>
References: <38816B0F.6B1B@netvigator.com>
<85sspq$7q2$2@bgtnsc01.worldnet.att.net>
<85tl9o$6du$1@nnrp1.deja.com> <3882A21E.3050ED24@yahoo.com>
<m3k8l84f6k.fsf@pentium.marex.fi> <3884D58D.2029D380@azstarnet.com>
<388635EA.B050A55@yahoo.com>
X-Http-Proxy: 1.0 x42.deja.com:80 (Squid/1.1.22) for
client 38.26.139.48
Organization: Deja.com - Before you buy.
X-Article-Creation-Date: Thu Jan 20 18:10:05 2000 GMT
X-MyDeja-Info: XMYDJUIDsdrodrian
Newsgroups: alt.astronomy,uk.sci.astronomy,sci.astro.ameteur,alt.sci.physics
X-Http-User-Agent: Mozilla/4.7 [en] (Win98; U)
In article <388635EA.B050A55@yahoo.com>,
Zirb-Monkey <zirb_monkey@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> It seems to me that photons *must* have some mass,
>> albeit extremely tiny. Otherwise, how would the
>> tremendous gravitational forces result in keeping
>> light (photons) trapped within black holes? As
>> I understand it, something must have mass to be
>> affected by gravity.
>>
>> ~CT~
>
> If photons have mass, then they can be accelerated by Gravity, right?
> But when light bends by a star or black hole, it's speed does not
get
> faster or slower, it STAYS the SAME. The sped of light is a
CONSTANT
> 299,790,000 meters per second. If a photon did have some mass,
> gravity
> would be able to alter it's speed, but it doesn't. So, because
the
> photon acts as though it were traveling in a strait line by not
> speeding
> up or slowing down, it seems logical that it is SPACE that is curved.
> I
> hope this is a little more clear.
'Fraid it only makes clear you do not understand the basic facts
about the photon: It is not a baseball (notice that baseballs
can zip about at all sorts of different speeds). But:
In this our universe neither you nor anything else will EVER
measure the speed of the photon as either faster or slower
than the ole c constant (and this includes all those photons
manipulated by gravitational fields as well).
Therefore regardless of how a gravitational field may
affect a photon, it will yet continue merrily on at
186,282 miles per second... wherever it is going.
And if you wish to find out WHY it is that the speed of
light always has been, always is, and always will be
this constant, then you can read it at my site (the ONLY
place in all human experience where the reason is given).
Kindly,
S D Rodrian
sdr@t-three.com
http://www.geocities.com/absoluterelativity
******************
From: sdrodrian@aol.com
Subject: Re: How can space be bent?
Date: 22 Jan 2000 00:00:00 GMT
Message-ID: <86be7g$868$1@nnrp1.deja.com>
References: <38816B0F.6B1B@netvigator.com>
<85sspq$7q2$2@bgtnsc01.worldnet.att.net>
<85tl9o$6du$1@nnrp1.deja.com> <3882A21E.3050ED24@yahoo.com>
<m3k8l84f6k.fsf@pentium.marex.fi> <3884D58D.2029D380@azstarnet.com>
<388635EA.B050A55@yahoo.com> <867j1e$dtv$1@nnrp1.deja.com>
<38878AA9.B73CF16E@yahoo.com>
X-Http-Proxy: 1.0 x42.deja.com:80 (Squid/1.1.22) for
client 38.26.139.138
Organization: Deja.com - Before you buy.
X-Article-Creation-Date: Sat Jan 22 05:12:22 2000 GMT
X-MyDeja-Info: XMYDJUIDsdrodrian
Newsgroups: alt.astronomy,uk.sci.astronomy,sci.astro.amateur,alt.sci.physics
X-Http-User-Agent: Mozilla/4.7 [en] (Win98; U)
In article <38878AA9.B73CF16E@yahoo.com>,
Zirb-Monkey <zirb_monkey@yahoo.com> wrote:
> <!doctype html public "-//w3c//dtd html 4.0 transitional//en">
> <html>
>
>> 'Fraid it only makes clear you do not understand
>> the basic facts
>> about the photon: It is not a baseball (notice that baseballs
>> can zip about at all sorts of different speeds). But:
> Who ever claimed a photon acted like a baseball. I never did.
No, dear boy: I suggested that they don't act like photons.
> Can you read the part where I wrote "The speed of light is a CONSTANT
> 299,790,00
> meters per second"?
How far away are you holding it? I've already got my glasses
on the last notch.
> I obviously don't think baseballs have a
> constant
> speed, nor do I believe baseballs are made of pure energy and have
no
> mass.
Don't be too quick to assume that it's all that obvious
to others what may or may not be too far out
for you to be thinking it.
>> In this our universe neither you nor anything else
>> will EVER
>> measure the speed of the photon as either faster or slower
>> than the ole c constant (and this includes all those photons
>> manipulated by gravitational fields as well).
> We know why, and it is because time is relative. DUH! Hello?
Time doesn't exist outside the human mind, dude (so ANY and ALL
theories which depend upon its having existence out there... are
de facto FALSE and NULL and VOID)... and no matter whose
relative it is.
> remember someone called einstein?
Wasn't he the guy who was always going up and down all those
ships' gangplanks and waving to the cameras? (I think, like,
he was the captain of the Hindenburg or something, wasn't he?)
> Theory of general relativity?
> Nobel prize in Physics? Helped make the A-bomb so we could nuke the
> hell out of Japan? Had funny hair and never wore socks? Have
> you ever heard of him?
Wasn't he married to Marie Curie or somebody. I think I heard he
used to beat her up... and then he stabbed her and her waiter
one time--No, wait a minute, that was O.J.) Who did Einstein stab?
>> Therefore regardless of how a gravitational field may
>> affect a photon, it will yet continue merrily on at
>> 186,282 miles per second... wherever it is going.
> Umm, it isn't the gravitational field that affects the photon, because
> after all it has no mass, and therefore cannot be accelerated by
> gravity.
Well, it if had no mass then it was probably not Catholic.
Probably one of those Jewish photons at a bar mitzvah.
> Remember that quote? I wonder who said that one in a previous post?
> OH, it was ME!
Well, first: Try to remember why you might have said. "OH,
it was ME!" (Unless you meant to say, "OH, it was EM!")
>> And if you wish to find out WHY it is that the speed
>> of
>> light always has been, always is, and always will be
>> this constant, then you can read it at my site (the ONLY
>> place in all human experience where the reason is given).
>> "the ONLY place in all human experience where the reason is given"
> What a FUCKING pompous DICKHEAD you are!
Well, with a big DICK comes a big HEAD, I guess.
(I'm not complaining.)
> With a head as huge as
> yours,
> I can see
I think you have our heads mixed up in there somewhere
(look down: yours is the one attached to the weeny).
> how you never made it into a science classroom to learn how
> our
> world behaves in reality.
I was out learning how it really works (until somebody
suggested I might like to work myself, and that's when
I pulled up limping).
> Shall we all bow down to S D Rordian
> the Omniscient.
No. Just to S D Rodrian
> He is so fucking smart he is the
> ONLY one that knows why light speed is constant. Excuuuuuuuuuuuse
> ME!!!
Sure: I excuse you. As long as you now realize
whom you are corresponding with, we might even
make some progress in your education. Stranger things
have happened in this funny universe of ours, you know!
Actually little, if anything ever has to do with smarts.
(Would that you were smart enough to see this!) It is
all a matter of knowledge: Any idiot today knows
the earth orbits the Sun, while, before Copernicus
all the wise men in the world were convinced it was
the other way around: Knowledge, not smarts.
> I did not realize how vastly inferior my puny little brain
> was to your enormously huge EGO!!!!!
Better late than never.
> Please, forgive me for
> doubting you oh master. Pleeeease, do not smite me down with your
> powerful wrath. I wish not to offend such a great an powerful diety
I do like to watch my figure.
> such as you. Let me come and wash off your corn-covered feet for
> the reason of merely being able to touch the fungus covered toes
of
> the
> universe's new emperor. I bow down to you, and you alone!
I like what you have to say; although, frankly....
you'd make me feel better about it if you picked up
a bit of proper English usage before saying it.
> GET A FUCKING LIFE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Isn't that what we're all trying to get?
Really, you do so overstate the obvious!
> YOU MAKE ME WANT TO LAUGH OUT LOUD LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL ROFL ahhhhhhh
> hahahaahahahha.
> LOL LOL
> (loses breath and starts to cry due to the situation being so
> hilarious.)
> AH hahaha ahah ha ah ha ha ha ha
> (stops for a moment to catch his breath)
> AHHH HHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHA LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL ROFL ROFL ROFL ha ha
he
> he ha he ha
> he ha
> ha
> haaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
Dear me--Are you all right now? (I noticed that you referred to
yourself a couple of times in the third person: Was this because
one of your personalities was observing the one that was laughing?)
> Thanks for the good laugh.
> I needed it.
More than most, I think.
> Matt Zirbes
> P.S. your essay is boring, long, and stretched out. I had trouble
> trying not to skim over it and give up.
That was exactly my six-year old nephew's judgment too!
You and he must have a lot in common! Want his email?
>Try organizing it into
> something
> more readable, add a few diagrams or pictures,
And flying he-men & she-women? My God, man, those were
also my nephew's very suggestions! (How do you feel about
adding some funny-looking lovable anthropomorphic cartoon
characters too?... And, yes, I promised him I'd consider it too.)
> and for god's sake, GET
> A LIFE!
Being something of an amateur mental health enthusiast,
I can't help but draw your attention to the way you
repeat AND EMPHASIZE the above line (it may
interest you to know that this in all probability means
that the idea (of getting a life) is consuming you).
Remember: If you find yourself bringing up something
again and again... it means that your subconscious
is looking for excuses to bring it to your attention.
Just trying to help--Good luck dear boy,
S D Rodrian
sdr@t-three.com
http://members.aol.com/prebigbang
*****************
From: sdrodrian@aol.com
Subject: Re: How can space be bent?
Date: 22 Jan 2000 00:00:00 GMT
Message-ID: <86beti$8j9$1@nnrp1.deja.com>
References: <38816B0F.6B1B@netvigator.com>
<85sspq$7q2$2@bgtnsc01.worldnet.att.net>
<85tl9o$6du$1@nnrp1.deja.com> <3882A21E.3050ED24@yahoo.com>
<m3k8l84f6k.fsf@pentium.marex.fi> <3884D58D.2029D380@azstarnet.com>
<388635EA.B050A55@yahoo.com> <867j36$e0c$1@nnrp1.deja.com>
<Pine.LNX.4.10.10001201334030.20970-100000@sonora.phys.ualberta.ca>
X-Http-Proxy: 1.0 x41.deja.com:80 (Squid/1.1.22) for
client 38.26.139.138
Organization: Deja.com - Before you buy.
X-Article-Creation-Date: Sat Jan 22 05:24:11 2000 GMT
X-MyDeja-Info: XMYDJUIDsdrodrian
Newsgroups: alt.astronomy,uk.sci.astronomy,sci.astro.amateur,alt.sci.physics
X-Http-User-Agent: Mozilla/4.7 [en] (Win98; U)
In article
<Pine.LNX.4.10.10001201334030.20970-100000@sonora.phys.ualberta.ca>,
Jeff K deJong <jdejong@Phys.ualberta.ca> wrote:
> On 20 Jan 2000 sdrodrian@aol.com wrote:
>
>> In this our universe neither you nor anything else will EVER
>> measure the speed of the photon as either faster or slower
>> than the ole c constant (and this includes all those photons
>> manipulated by gravitational fields as well).
>>
>> Therefore regardless of how a gravitational field may
>> affect a photon, it will yet continue merrily on at
>> 186,282 miles per second... wherever it is going.
>
> *bzzzt* Thank you for playing we have some lovely parting gifts for
> you at
> the door. If the speed of light is constant how do you explain
> refraction,cerenkov radiation etc. While it is true that c is constant
> in
> a vacuum, it is not 300,000km/s in all materials especially those
> which
> have a large index of refaction where speed of light =c/n.
>
> Jeff
>
Sorry, for the sake of briefness, I often assume my correspondents
share that knowledge which comes with a general education and/or
having spent some time hanging around planet Earth (although
it is true that this does not include everyone). Let me be specific:
The speed of light is always constant in a given medium
(you pick the medium); AND in every medium which is identical
to that medium.... the speed of light is also always the same
as it is in that medium you picked.
Hope this settled the matter once & for all,
S D Rodrian
dr@t-three-com
http://www.geocities.com/absoluterelativity
*************
From: sdrodrian@aol.com
Subject: Re: How can space be bent?
Date: 23 Jan 2000 00:00:00 GMT
Message-ID: <86fhro$u5l$1@nnrp1.deja.com>
References: <86bepj$8ij$1@nnrp1.deja.com>
<16441-3889F914-44@storefull-166.iap.bryant.webtv.net>
X-Http-Proxy: 1.0 x21.deja.com:80 (Squid/1.1.22) for
client 38.26.139.199
Organization: Deja.com - Before you buy.
X-Article-Creation-Date: Sun Jan 23 18:38:49 2000 GMT
X-MyDeja-Info: XMYDJUIDsdrodrian
Newsgroups: alt.sci.physics.new-theories,alt.astronomy,gac.physics.astronomy,alt.philosohy.debate
X-Http-User-Agent: Mozilla/4.7 [en] (Win98; U)
In article <16441-3889F914-44@storefull-166.iap.bryant.webtv.net>,
herbertglazier@webtv.net (G=EMC^2 Glazier) wrote:
>
> --WebTV-Mail-31685-2502
> Content-Type: Text/Plain; Charset=US-ASCII
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit
>
> The only way it can be bent(curved) is gravity trying to pull
> eveything
> back to the starting place(center of the universe) This it can't
do
> because the structures have to much inertia( weight).The thing that
> realy bothers me is not just the structures moving away from each
> other,but space between them is being manufactured at an excellerating
> rate.
Worry no more: Space is only being manufactured by
the Big Bang universe--and that's strictly a fairy tale.
Our universe is really imploding! And, once you understand
this, you will understand enough to put an end to all worries
... except, of course, any worries which might crop up over
the itty-bitty fact that our universe is heading for inevitable
oblivion--but that's a small matter, really: nothing all that much
to worry about. Immediately upon our universe finishing
unravelling into nothingness: Worrying will become impossible..
S D Rodrian
sdr@t-three.com
http://www.geocities.com/absoluterelativity
> This space expansion does not have to worry about going faster
> than
> 'C' speed. to break its symmetry one would have to be outside the
> universe and create an implosion to stop the vacuum of spaces
> expansion
> Herb
>
****************
From: sdrodrian@aol.com
Subject: Re: How can space be bent?
Date: 23 Jan 2000 00:00:00 GMT
Message-ID: <86fmiv$1ma$1@nnrp1.deja.com>
References: <38816B0F.6B1B@netvigator.com>
<85sspq$7q2$2@bgtnsc01.worldnet.att.net> <85tl9o$6du$1@nnrp1.deja.com>
<3882A21E.3050ED24@yahoo.com> <m3k8l84f6k.fsf@pentium.marex.fi>
<3884D58D.2029D380@azstarnet.com> <388635EA.B050A55@yahoo.com>
<867k2d$elf$1@nnrp1.deja.com> <86b3js$1ut$1@brokaw.wa.com>
X-Http-Proxy: 1.0 x34.deja.com:80 (Squid/1.1.22) for
client 38.26.139.199
Organization: Deja.com - Before you buy.
X-Article-Creation-Date: Sun Jan 23 19:59:34 2000 GMT
X-MyDeja-Info: XMYDJUIDsdrodrian
Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity,de.sci.physik,sci.physics.electromag,sci.logic
X-Http-User-Agent: Mozilla/4.7 [en] (Win98; U)
In article <86b3js$1ut$1@brokaw.wa.com>,
"Jim Galasyn" <blackbox@bbox.com> wrote:
>
>> In this our universe neither you nor anything else will EVER
>> measure the speed of the photon as either faster or slower
>> than the ole c constant (and this includes all those photons
>> manipulated by gravitational fields as well).
>
> Not quite true -- c is simply the upper bound on the speed of photons.
> Harvard physicists recently slowed photons to 38 mph by passing them
> through
> Bose-Einstein condensate:
> http://www.news.harvard.edu/gazette/1999/02.18/light.html
>
> Jim Galasyn
Jim, I'm afraid the successful experiment you cite above
says more about the Bose-Einstein condensate medium than
about light. The fact remains that c will always be reported
a constant in identical mediums (in identical Bose-Einstein
condensate mediums it will always be reported at 38 mph etc.).
Consider a more critical factor about light: After it passed
(out) of the Bose-Einstein condensate medium (if)... did light's
"speed" remain 38 mph? No. It "instantaneously" went right back up
to its constant at 1 atmosphere. Why? There's the rub, for in that
wide-eyed wakening (which must follow the realization that our
universe is not an explosion but an implosion) what dreams now hold
our astrophysicists in a mortal coil of blindness... must pause, yield
(yada, yada, yada) and lose the name of action!
--Shakespeare. Well, sort of.
The only place you will find the answer for why this is so
(and why it will always be so) remains, at this date, my
web site at: http://members.aol.com/prebigbang
It is a most painfully elegant and self-evident solution
which results directly from the way our universe REALLY
works. And all that is required of you is but this: Pretend
that it's the early part of the last century (the 20th, if
you've lost count) and that somebody brings before you
two brand new theories about the nature of our universe.
In Einstein's theory (he's the white-haired gentleman)
c constancy is so inexplicable that he practically bases
it all (including his peculiar notion that although time
itself cannot "normally" be applied across the entirety
of the universe, it can be so done in "general" cases by
passing it through the "special" crucible/magic caldron
of c constancy)... While the other theory not only quite
selfevident explains the reason the "speed of light" is
constant, but it does so without having to resort to any
stretching/expanding of the creative imagination of anyone.
Then consider this: Einstein's theory predicts that light
(which he claims is a particle after all) will be affected by
gravitational fields. And ... when you try to dumbly ask
why he might think particles should not be affected by
gravitational fields, he will direct you into an aside about
"the photon not having mass," et al, so you nod knowingly
and say, "Aha!" And then you talk about something else.
Such as where "matter" comes from. "Let's talk about
something else." Such as? "Mercury's perihelion!" Well,
do we know whether the Sun's gravitational field may be
affecting that? "Let's talk about something else." Why should
the universe seem to be expanding? "I don't know, maybe
it blew up. What's this... Twenty Questions!?"] This is where
the other guy comes back in and claims his theory predicts
that, because the universe is imploding, the "only apparent"
expansion of the universe will also seem to be accelerating
(since it is being driven by gravity, and he cites Newton's text
on "forces" & Newton's laws of motion). "Nonsense," says
Einstein, "if the universe were imploding all the galaxies would
get "bunched up" at the center of the universe and you'd have
the Mother of all black holes!" Well, the other guy apologizes
to the old man (as he is a very humble guy), and points out
the fact that whereas Einstein guessed that some "forms" of
matter may be fundamental... in reality all "forms" of matter
are just that--just "forms" of matter. That no particles are
fundamental, "None!" And that at its most fundamental the
real nature of the universe is strictly one of a "force" of attraction
balanced against a repelling one (Newton)... that gravity (what
we locally know as gravity) is just that: local manifestations of
this fundamental force of attraction (which, by the way,
manifests itself not just in the earth's "pulls at" the moon, but
even in even much more "local" volumes than those... namely
the volumes of quarks and all other subparticles.
And, at the conclusion of this consideration of the two theories,
you will have to make the judgment between one theory which
fundamentally explains nothing and even goes against reason itself,
and another theory which explains everything and at every step
asks you only to use your own ability to reason it all out yourself
without even requiring that you have a genius' reasoning ability.
S D Rodrian
sdr@t-three.com
http://www.geocities.com/absoluterelativity
Well, if you expected me to make Einstein look good
against me... I am expecting you to make me come out
looking good against Einstein when you answer this post.
*****************
From: sdrodrian@aol.com
Subject: Re: How can space be bent?
Date: 19 Jan 2000 00:00:00 GMT
Message-ID: <864kvb$7nd$1@nnrp1.deja.com>
References: <38816B0F.6B1B@netvigator.com>
<85sspq$7q2$2@bgtnsc01.worldnet.att.net> <85tl9o$6du$1@nnrp1.deja.com>
<3882A21E.3050ED24@yahoo.com> <m3k8l84f6k.fsf@pentium.marex.fi>
<3884ECE9.7C590E9C@yahoo.com>
X-Http-Proxy: 1.0 x28.deja.com:80 (Squid/1.1.22) for
client 38.26.139.233
Organization: Deja.com - Before you buy.
X-Article-Creation-Date: Wed Jan 19 15:24:46 2000 GMT
X-MyDeja-Info: XMYDJUIDsdrodrian
Newsgroups: alt.astronomy,uk.sci.astronomy,sci.astro.amateur,alt.sci.physics
X-Http-User-Agent: Mozilla/4.7 [en] (Win98; U)
In article <3884ECE9.7C590E9C@yahoo.com>,
Zirb-Monkey <zirb_monkey@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Mika Luostarinen wrote:
>
>> Hmm, I always thought that it is so, that currently we haven't
>> measured any mass in photon. So we __believe__ it does not possess
>> any
>> mass.
The attitude, "If we can't do it it can't be done!"
Endearing as it may be... is only revealing of our
secret conviction that we are God after all. Guess again.
>> It's more like those neutrinos whose mass isn't known. Maybe photons
>> do have a _very_ _very_ _very_ small mass which ... shows up when
>> light really does go by of some massive object like sun.
>
> Well from Einstein's work, we know that any object that has a mass
can
> never
> reach the speed of light because an increase in speed results in
an
> increase in
> mass. Now that the mass has increased due to an increase in
speed, it
> takes more
> force to accelerate it to a greater speed.
But, on the other hand, what if... the photon were not
"speeding" up to c but actually decelerating! What then?
(Hint: This will involve thinking about this.)
> As this process is
> continued, it
> would take an infinite amount of force to push an object faster then
> light.
This is why Einstein's apostles the world over
start every day on their knees praying for their lives
that no one ever discovers anything anywhere
travelling faster than the so-called "speed of light."
> But
> because a photon DOES travel at the speed of light, it makes sense
> that it has no
> mass.
And now you know where the religion that "the photon
has no mass" comes from. You may now cross yourselves.
> So even if it had an incredibly small mass, it could never
> reach the speed
> of light.
Go to: http://www.geocities.com/absoluterelativity
and dicover why it's irrelevant to worry about photon mass
> We also know that mass can be converted to energy (E=mc^2), so I don't
> see why
> you insist on a photon having a mass at all when it doesn't.
It is by
> definition, pure energy.
Please note: Energy is not another form of matter.
It is merely a "potential" of "work" stored in something.
If you compress a spring you have created "energy" not
"matter." E=MC^2 just means, "There is a heck of a lot
of "work potential" in a given bit of matter." Whether
you manifest that potential in nuclear fusion/fission
or temperature, or ions rubbing against each other, or
rubberbands being stretched. And don't forget that energy
can't be created or destroyed (only conserved): What you
did with the spring above was to convert the energy stored
in your muscles into the energy now stored in the spring.
Now: Go & smell the flowers! (Not the flours, by the way.)
The photon, if it exists (and people claim they see it
all over the place)... is a form of matter (however much
energy/matter it holds/makes it up). And the universe, if
that also exists... consisted of all the energy it will ever have
at the instant of its manifestation (which I say 'twas gravity
and not nitroglycerin as the Big-Bangers believe).
> Another way to look at a photon is
With a photoelectric thing-a-ma-bob?
> it is
> merely a
> spatial fluctuation of electro-magnetism. A photon exists as
both a
> magnetic
> wave, and an electrical wave at the same time. It's like an
electric
> motor. Add
> electricity, you get a magnetic field that turns the shaft, but if
you
> turn the
> shaft, you get a magnetic field that creates electricity (electricity
> <-->
> magnetic field). I don't think of a photon as a particle at
all.
Then Einstein and Max Planck BOTH spit on you, sir!
> It
> is actually
> a wave, and a wave is energy. A wave does not have mass.
Ah! Ye olde "aether" believer! Every once in a while
one comes out of the grave. Makes my skin crawl!
> If fields
> and waves do
> have mass, have we calculated the mass of our magnetic field on planet
> earth, or
> the mass created by and electron traveling in a certain direction
(any
> movement
> of a charge creates a magnetic field). I don't see this argument
> working very
> well. What is your definition or a photon? Because it
must be
> different from
> mine because of where you led this argument.
>
>> BTW: Did you know that when they tried to prove the first time
this
>> effect the suns corona wasnt canceled out. So during the very first
>> eclipse when they made observations of starlight near the sun's
>> 'edge'
>> during the eclipse they measured almost the exact same amount of
>> shift
>> what the sun's corona caused and what the Einsteins theory
>> predicted. So hello there :)
Actually, if one could measure a difference in the spectrum
of light passing near the Sun during the famous eclipse experiment
one would then have a means of gauging with great precision the
gravitational fields of objects much, much farther way. Yes.
S D Rodrian
sdr@t-three.com
http://members.aol.com/prebigbang
> (Snip)
*************
From: sdrodrian@aol.com
Subject: Re: How can space be bent?
Date: 21 Jan 2000 00:00:00 GMT
Message-ID: <868dd8$1tt$1@nnrp1.deja.com>
References: <38816B0F.6B1B@netvigator.com>
<85sspq$7q2$2@bgtnsc01.worldnet.att.net> <85tl9o$6du$1@nnrp1.deja.com>
<3882A21E.3050ED24@yahoo.com> <m3k8l84f6k.fsf@pentium.marex.fi>
<3884ECE9.7C590E9C@yahoo.com> <864kvb$7nd$1@nnrp1.deja.com>
<388604CA.AC7A51E0@yahoo.com>
X-Http-Proxy: 1.0 x29.deja.com:80 (Squid/1.1.22) for
client 38.26.139.190
Organization: Deja.com - Before you buy.
X-Article-Creation-Date: Fri Jan 21 01:39:54 2000 GMT
X-MyDeja-Info: XMYDJUIDsdrodrian
Newsgroups: alt.astronomy,uk.sci.astronomy,sci.astro.amateur,alt.sci.physics
X-Http-User-Agent: Mozilla/4.7 [en] (Win98; U)
In article <388604CA.AC7A51E0@yahoo.com>,
Zirb-Monkey <zirb_monkey@yahoo.com> wrote:
> <!doctype html public "-//w3c//dtd html 4.0 transitional//en">
> <html>
>
>> The attitude, "If we can't do it it can't be
>> done!"
>> Endearing as it may be... is only revealing of our
>> secret conviction that we are God after all. Guess again.
> What does religion have to do with science. I never mentioned I
> thought
> I was God, so why are you implying that?
Because if your attitude is the same as God's, then
you are implying you're God. Simple, no? (Guess.)
> But, on the other hand, what if... the photon were
> not
> "speeding" up to c but actually decelerating! What then?
> (Hint: This will involve thinking about this.)
>
> decelerating! what is this????
Go to my web site. It's all explained there in just
a few short paragraphs... every one of which is
written so that anybody (who wishes to understand them)
may understand them.
> I thought all
> experiments done to find the speed of light have shown it to be a
> CONSTANT
> 2.9979x10^8 meters per second. Light never goes slower than
this.;
> I thought about it and I don't get it.
Do not guess--Read the text~!
> Please explain yourself, because
> I obviously have a far inferior brain compared to yours and need
help
> thinking
> on my own.
Fret not: When we're both dead, you will get your
revenge, as a brain with fewer miles on its odometer
is bound to fetch a higher selling price.
> This is why Einstein's apostles the world over
> start every day on their knees praying for their lives
> that no one ever discovers anything anywhere
> travelling faster than the so-called "speed of light."
> I always thought followers of Einstein have been searching for
> tacheons
> (faster than light particles) but have not found them so far.
You're studying the wrong apostles (those are the Star Trek devils).
> Why
> are you so bigoted against "apostles" of Einstein.
I love apostles of Einstein--I have kissed
(on the mouth) apostles of Einstein. In fact, I love
Einstein himself! Compared to him even I am handsome!
>Again you bring
> religion into the subject, and I don't see why you are labeling people
> zealots for agreeing with a well know physicist that has had nearly
> all
> of his theories scientifically proven.
I do have a bit of contempt for people who take things
strictly on faith instead of looking into the matter themselves:
These are lazy bastards in my estimation of it. (But some of them
do serve great coffee & tidbits... I'm available!)
> What did Einstien ever do
> to you?
Are you kidding?!?! Do you have any idea
how many professors I had to suck the brains of
just to keep them from going off somewhere to
work on hydrogen bombs in their cellars?!
>> And now you know where the religion that "the photon
>> has no mass" comes from. You may now cross yourselves.
> Again religion comes up. Why do you think we are zealots?
Because you stand blindly by your beliefs
when you should be questioning, challenging them,
forcing them to yield the truth... or to yield to it, sir!
>> The photon, if it exists (and people claim they see
>> it
>> all over the place)... is a form of matter (however much
>> energy/matter it holds/makes it up). And the universe, if
>> that also exists... consisted of all the energy it will ever have
>> at the instant of its manifestation (which I say 'twas gravity
>> and not nitroglycerin as the Big-Bangers believe).
> Now you attack believers of the Big-Bang.
I attack all things accepted merely on face value. Yes. And
I attack all who blindly believe when they should be
questioning with their eyes open. Believe that if nothing else.
> What is so unconvincing
> about the red shifts and background radiation.
It's nothing to do with the reality of those things.
What you fail to understand is that... there are
simpler and more reasonable, more logical explanations
for those observed facts. Read them at my site.
Or take some time away from your monastery whatever
and think about a few fundamental problems yourself
(just don't use as much imagination as knowledge of
reasonably-confirmed facts): Creativity is great
when doing art, but it's oftimes the greatest curse
in the history of science.
> You sure do like ripping
I'm an old rock fan from way back.
> theories down, but what theory would you like to replace it with?
DOUBLETAKE! (Hint: It's at my site.)
> I have yet to hear one that is as well supported by evidence as the
> Big-Bang.
If you'd really kept your ears open
you would've heard by now just how shaky
is all the support for Big Bang. About the ONLY
reason it hasn't been easy to discard is because
the better theory HAD not yet been developed.
Now it has, and you can find it at:
http://www.geocities.com/absoluterelativity
> Give the theory that proves the Big-Bang wrong
The BB is not "wrong." It's a misinterpretation.
It is incorrect. The correct theory is at my site.
> Then Einstein and Max Planck BOTH spit on you, sir!
> Thanks for spitting on we,
It wasn't "me" duing the spitting, dude, but "them" other guys.
> but please explain what I said wrong.
At this stage? At this stage my fingers hurt
from all the typing. And the only thing I want to do
is go take a hot bath.
> It's one think to tell me I'm wrong, and another to tell me why and
> what
> is correct. Don't just leave me wet from saliva, give me something
> to correct me from my errors!
Read my essay on Absolute Relativity: I guarantee you
this--Unlike with QM, et al, what you read at my site... you WILL
understand Absolute Relativity. And the only proviso is that you
actually WANT to understand it. Simple, no?
>> Ah! Ye olde "aether" believer! Every once in a while
>> one comes out of the grave. Makes my skin crawl!
> Yet again, you rip on me,
It's my guitar, dude: Goes off every once in a while
(I think it's just remembering the 60s or something)
by its lonesome.
> but me give no reason why I'm wrong or a better
> explanation or what a photon is.
Well--There I might not be able to help you much:
As much as I know about how the photon behaves
I know only as much as the next guy when it comes
to what the photon is--I'm afraid its "nature" is as
elusive to me as to everybody else that's looked at it.
> If you want to respond a second
> time, give me other theories to look at and decide from. Stop
ripping
> on people unless you have something better to add. Tell me why
I'm
> wrong, and use evidence to show me why your theory is correct.
> Matt Zirbes
You know, Matt, you have so many repetitions
in your post... I don't know whether it's a post or
lyrics to some country song or other--Keep truck'n!
Your buddy,
S D Rodrian
sdr@t-three.com
http://members.aol.com/prebigbang
****************
From: sdrodrian@aol.com
Subject: Re: How can space be bent?
Date: 22 Jan 2000 00:00:00 GMT
Message-ID: <86d0hk$90j$1@nnrp1.deja.com>
References: <38816B0F.6B1B@netvigator.com>
<85sspq$7q2$2@bgtnsc01.worldnet.att.net> <85tl9o$6du$1@nnrp1.deja.com>
<3882A21E.3050ED24@yahoo.com> <m3k8l84f6k.fsf@pentium.marex.fi>
<3884ECE9.7C590E9C@yahoo.com> <864kvb$7nd$1@nnrp1.deja.com>
<m3ln5kbkpj.fsf@pentium.marex.fi>
X-Http-Proxy: 1.0 x37.deja.com:80 (Squid/1.1.22) for
client 38.26.139.248
Organization: Deja.com - Before you buy.
X-Article-Creation-Date: Sat Jan 22 19:31:00 2000 GMT
X-MyDeja-Info: XMYDJUIDsdrodrian
Newsgroups: alt.astronomy,uk.sci.astronomy,sci.astro.amateur,alt.sci.physics
X-Http-User-Agent: Mozilla/4.7 [en] (Win98; U)
In article <m3ln5kbkpj.fsf@pentium.marex.fi>,
Mika Luostarinen <milu@pentium.marex.fi> wrote:
There are some misapprehensions of what Einstein and his
followers/predecessors said/think about the speed of light here:
[cut to the chase...]
> Eeeeerh, we dont _know_ that. We _believe_ that Einsteins theory is
> right and works the way it is said to work.
>
> But we haven't tested in real life what happens when we accelerate
> our spaceship towards the speed of light (or maybe we should say
> towards 300.000 km/s ).
We have, however, the evidence of particle accelerators
which find that, indeed, mass increases "with velocity."
This is a misinterpretation at a more fundamental level,
but not at the level of Einstein's theories.
> Sure, we have our cyclotrons but maybe there are some differences
how
> particles and bigger objects act when they move at or near a speed
of
> light.
Since rockets et al would have to be built of "particles"
it's reasonable to assume those particles would always behave
the same way regardless whether they were by themselves or
were part of a bigger group.
>>> Now that the mass has increased due to an increase in speed, it
>>> takes more
>>> force to accelerate it to a greater speed.
>>
>> But, on the other hand, what if... the photon were not
>> "speeding" up to c but actually decelerating! What then?
>> (Hint: This will involve thinking about this.)
>>
>>> As this process is
>>> continued, it
>>> would take an infinite amount of force to push an object faster
>>> then
>>> light.
>
> This is what Einstein says. And nobody has come up with better theory
> or nobody so far has pointed out some serious errors in Einsteins
> theory of relativistics etc. Because of that we _believe_ that Albert
> was right.
Go to: http://www.geocities.com/absoluterelativity
> Personally I dont understand why there would be some 'upperlimit'
to
> the speed of light. I really don't.
Here's Einstein's reason: He assumed that the "Fitzgerald contraction"
(that all matter contracts in the direction of its motion) was true.
Having assumed that, Einstein was faced with the "fact" that this
assumption demanded that matter could only contract "so much"
and then could not possibly contract any "mucher" (a reflection of
his state of mind, I imagine). ergo: The "numbers" told him that
at 7/8th the speed of light a 12-inch ruler would contract to 6 inches,
and so forth... until at the speed of light his ruler would have
contracted to zero--And, as it can then contract no further, Einstein
just wouldn't imagine any speed greater than that of light being
possible. Neat, eh! Unfortunately for Einstein, smart as he was,
the "facts" upon which he built his Grand Temple were rotten
and, eventually, it shall all tumble down, I'm afraid. (You will be
able to tell when this is likely to happen by keeping out an eye
for the number of rats leaving the edifice... and whether they
will be sauntering out, or scrambling like... rats).
> The question number one is: 'why would the speed of light be at
> maximum 300.000 km/s'.
Look up.
> The question number two is: 'does something break if the light wave
> moves at the speed of 350.000 km/s (in my _opinion_ it would not
break
> anything in nature, actually the world the universum and everything
> would not look any different what it is now).'
Yes. something breaks: Einstein's back (keep your ear out 4 it).
> The question number three is: 'IF there would be a wave of light or
> photon moving at the speed 350.000 km/s HOW would we see that light
?
Fundamental truth which should answer all your questions:
The "speed of light" will always be measured constant (in identical
medium) regardless of the speed of observer and/or source. Read why
this must forever remain so at my web site, forHeavensSake!
> I mean does it look more bluish when it moves towards us ?
Oddly enough: Yes! But its "speed" remains the same.
> or
> something... HOW is it different from light which traveles at the
> speed of 300.000 mk/s ?'
>
> Somebody wrote:
>>> But because a photon DOES travel at the speed of light, it makes
>>> sense
>>> that it has no mass.
Whoever wrote this, his brains were probably not "mucher"
than Einstein's.
> The photon is light. So it always travels 'at the speed of light'.
>
> Its the same kind of thing that saying 'the train travels at the
speed
> of train'. It always does ! :)
No: The train travels at the speed of only that train
(that train can travel at different speeds, and other trains
can travel wherever there are tracks--unless you happen to be
most unfortunate, and, catching sight of you parked next
to the tracks, it falls in love with you & flips over you
... parts of it landing on your sorry head, no less).
> When the photon travels in a fiberoptics cable or in water its speed
> is less than 300.000 mk/s.
Probably (I've never looked down one of these fibers).
> So does that mean that actually 'the speed of light' is never a
> constant ?
If all the fiberglass fibers it ever travels through are identical
then it will travel through them at the same identical speed
(however much slower that speed may be than the speed it travels at
when it travels through some more vacuumous medium).
> Does that mean that 'the speed of light' always varies
> depending in what medium it travels and what is the speed of the
light
> source.
Forget source (light always does). Keep medium in mind
(especially if ever you wish to know the future in future).
> That is, btw, exactly the OPPOSITE of what Albert says.
Who is this Albert? It's not Al Kabob, is it? I know this fellow
and he is a totally reprehensible and most untrustworthy guy: Never,
never purchase anything off the rear of his automobile I tell you!
> So the real question is: 'can the photon travel at 350.000 km/s or
> 450.000 mk/s ? If it can, how would the light look like then ? How
is
> it any different ? '.
The nature of the photon makes it highly unlikely it can travel
at any other speed than the one it travels at--but nothing's impossible.
> If the light can travel _slower_ than 300.000 km/s then why not can
> it travel faster than 300.000 km/s ?
Because light can only be slowed down just so much... then
it crashes (instead of "slowing down") against whatever you
tried to get it though using too much of whatever you're using.
> Maybe I'm just stupid but I see no point in the idea that the
> photon/light can't travel faster than 300.000 km/s .
You are not stupid--It is NEVER a question of intelligence
or lack thereof: It is ALWAYS a lack of knowledge: No matter
how intelligent Einstein was, and he was lots & lots, he could
not have put to good use those bits of knowledge he lacked.
(This should be simple to understand even by the really stupid.)
> Why would nature put an UPPERLIMIT to the speed of photon ?
That IS a present-day mystery (but not necessarily
a mystery for all time).
> What causes or creates this UPPERLIMIT ?
Re-read from the top for Einstein's "mushy" explanation. Or
venture to my web site to finally solidly understand THE
explanation in all its full elegance AND horror.
> Please people, don't referer to the old stuff '... because Einstein
> says...'.
>
> I know what Einstein says about these things.
>
> I just want to know why NATURE does not allow photons to travel at
the
> speed of, say, 350.000 km/s ?
>
> Is there anybody who can answer that question ?
http://members.aol.com/prebigbang
> -Mika Luostarinen
>
> PS.
>
> Light - a photon or a wave - is energy. So _maybe_ gravity affects
> energy too. Or near gravity part of the energy transforms to mass.
> Kind of 'gets mass'..
>
> These were just wild ideas ...
If you can grasp a distinction between the fact that
while energy is not matter, all there is to matter IS
that it has stored energy... there may yet be hope for you.
Get thee to my web side. It's ALL there. And, please, do not
take anything at face-value: Always do use your own brains!
> PS2.
>
> Nope, I'm not a scientist so I dont have a 'reputation' to lose ;)
I'm
> just a software engineer who is interested about nature, the universum
> and everything.
It's like that with every thinking man, woman & child out there.
> And I also have a tendency NOT to believe everything I hear or read :)
As long as you display some tendencies toward accepting
the evidence of your own solutions you'll be all right
... mostly.
Yours truly,
S D Rodrian
sdr@t-three.com
http://members.xoom.com/oppositon/
*****************
From: sdrodrian@aol.com
Subject: Re: How can space be bent?
Date: 23 Jan 2000 00:00:00 GMT
Message-ID: <86fp0l$3db$1@nnrp1.deja.com>
References: <38816B0F.6B1B@netvigator.com>
<85sspq$7q2$2@bgtnsc01.worldnet.att.net> <85tl9o$6du$1@nnrp1.deja.com>
<3882A21E.3050ED24@yahoo.com> <m3k8l84f6k.fsf@pentium.marex.fi>
<3884ECE9.7C590E9C@yahoo.com> <864kvb$7nd$1@nnrp1.deja.com>
<m3ln5kbkpj.fsf@pentium.marex.fi> <86d0ku$918$1@nnrp1.deja.com>
<388A0A73.11DD08EA@hate.spam.net>
X-Http-Proxy: 1.0 x24.deja.com:80 (Squid/1.1.22) for
client 38.26.139.199
Organization: Deja.com - Before you buy.
X-Article-Creation-Date: Sun Jan 23 20:40:55 2000 GMT
X-MyDeja-Info: XMYDJUIDsdrodrian
Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity,de.sci.physik,sci.physics.electromag,sci.logic
X-Http-User-Agent: Mozilla/4.7 [en] (Win98; U)
In article <388A0A73.11DD08EA@hate.spam.net>,
Uncle Al <UncleAl0@hate.spam.net> wrote:
>
>
> sdrodrian@aol.com wrote:
>>
>> In article <m3ln5kbkpj.fsf@pentium.marex.fi>,
>> Mika Luostarinen <milu@pentium.marex.fi> wrote:
>>
>> There are some misapprehensions of what Einstein and his
>> followers/predecessors said/think about the speed of light here:
>>
>> [cut to the chase...]
>>
>>> Eeeeerh, we dont _know_ that. We _believe_ that Einsteins theory
>>> is
>>> right and works the way it is said to work.
>>>
>>> But we haven't tested in real life what happens when we accelerate
>>> our spaceship towards the speed of light (or maybe we should
say
>>> towards 300.000 km/s ).
>>
>> We have, however, the evidence of particle accelerators
>> which find that, indeed, mass increases "with velocity."
>> This is a misinterpretation at a more fundamental level,
>> but not at the level of Einstein's theories.
>
> Atomic clocks have been taken aboard the Concorde in both directions,
> originally synchronized with identical ground clocks. Time
dilation
> works by the book, and in both directions re Sagnac Effect.
>
> Do you have a problem with physical meaurement, as opposed to
> unfounded philosophical maunder?
>
> [snip]
>
> --
> Uncle Al
Goodness me! Snippy Uncle Al, didn't they pull the chain on you
a while back? (Seems as if you've been "constantly" floating
in "your medium" at the same stall-ed velocity for what seems ages!)
But, in any case: What talks thou of? It appears as if you think
I refuse to accept the successful experiments you cite above!
Remove this from your mind, ole boy (along with several other
matters): The effect is real, your (the conventional) interpretation
of why this is so is where the error resides:
All linear accelerations in this our universe are IN REALITY
decelerations. ( See my web site at:
http://members.aol.com.prebigbang )
While it goes against logic that an acceleration of an atom
should "calm it down;" if, on the other hand, one "finally
realizes" that all linear accelerations in this our universe
are IN REALITY decelerations... then, and only then, does it
become self-evident WHY it must be that when one "decelerates"
an atom down closer and closer to absolute rest--which is what
you are REALLY doing to it when you "accelerate it linearly"
(and, it doesn't have to go all the way there, you know)... you
"calm it down" and then observe its processes becoming elongated,
and gentle, and slow (so that when you IN REALITY "speed it up"
again--by decelerating it linearly--it will report to you that
it has desynchonized itself from the atom which you kept pinned
to your lapel or wherever... while you were getting the other atom
as dizzy as I feel now after writing this paragraph, by the way,
accelerating it all over the joint while really decelerating it and
all that crazy stuff you were doing to it & with it, I dare say).
Sincerely hope this helped;
whether it did or didn't,
S D Rodrian
sdr@t-three.com
http://www.geocities.com/absoluterelativity
(Love them run-on sentences!)
*****************************
From: sdrodrian@aol.com
Subject: Re: How can space be bent?
Date: 25 Jan 2000 00:00:00 GMT
Message-ID: <86jc4k$n2o$1@nnrp1.deja.com>
References: <86d0ku$918$1@nnrp1.deja.com>
<388A0A73.11DD08EA@hate.spam.net> <86fov0$3bm$1@nnrp1.deja.com>
<86g9g7$rs3$1@news.fsu.edu>
X-Http-Proxy: 1.0 x24.deja.com:80 (Squid/1.1.22) for
client 38.26.139.33
Organization: Deja.com - Before you buy.
X-Article-Creation-Date: Tue Jan 25 05:25:44 2000 GMT
X-MyDeja-Info: XMYDJUIDsdrodrian
Newsgroups: alt.astronomy,uk.sci.astronomy,sci.astro.amateur,alt.sci.physics
X-Http-User-Agent: Mozilla/4.7 [en] (Win98; U)
In article <86g9g7$rs3$1@news.fsu.edu>,
jac@ibms48.scri.fsu.edu (Jim Carr) wrote:
[cut to the case...]
> In article <388A0A73.11DD08EA@hate.spam.net>,
> Uncle Al <UncleAl0@hate.spam.net> wrote:
Dear Jim, it would be nice if once in a blue moon
you decided to
A) not be such a blatant liar (after all, you're quoting
from documents which have been eternally enshrined
by DejaNews, and which anyone may find with a simple
search such as: "rodrian AND keyword AND keyword" ~!
B) actually bother to ascertain what it is you're actually
talking about (if all it is is that you're just a simpleton
who can't figure out the Dewey decimal system and
you just like to pick facts off the air, whether they
are
facts or delusions--perhaps you really believe this is
the
scientific approach (which would explain a lot about you).
Here, for the benefit of your sanity I have documented
with actual TRUTHS your childish lies about me below:
> } sdrodrian@aol.com wrote:
> } >
> } >> But we haven't tested in real life what happens when we
> } >> accelerate
> } >> our spaceship towards the speed of light (or maybe we should
say
> } >> towards 300.000 km/s ).
This was written not by me but by a Mika Luostarinen in this post:
http://x43.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=575485225&search=thread&CONTEXT=9487718
15.1661599773&HIT_CONTEXT=948771815.1661599773&HIT_NUM=1&hitnum=116
(Remember to enter the entire URL above into your browser.)
> } > We have, however, the evidence of particle accelerators
> } > which find that, indeed, mass increases "with velocity."
> } > This is a misinterpretation at a more fundamental level,
> } > but not at the level of Einstein's theories.
Please note that I said it is NOT at the level of Einstein's theories:
At the level of Einstein's theories mass is interpreted to increase
with increasing velocity (if you don't agree with Einstein on
this
take it up with him, not with me). However, Einstein did not know
that the universe is imploding, nor did he know that that NO "particle"
is really fundamental (i.e. his level of knowledge was superficial
compared to the one I am giving you through AR--pay attention):
Once you know that the universe is imploding and that all "forms"
of matter are only "forms & shapes" and not fundamental... you
then understand that all linear accelerations MUST be in reality
decelerations, since the speed at which the "forms" of matter are
"shrinking" IS the highest possible velocity being experienced by
them (the "forms" of matter). This highest possible velocity
is
linear only towards "shrinking" (therefore all other linear velocities
in our universe which are not also towards "shrinking" will go
against this linear "towards shrinking" velocity and that means that
they will--you guessed it--tend to cancel it out. ERGO: ALL linear
accelerations in our universe which are not towards "shrinking"
can only be away from the highest possible velocity at which
all "forms" of ordinary matter are moving... and that can only be
towards "canceling out" our velocity towards "shrinking." Duh.
In practice this means that in our universe ALL velocities we
interpret as accelerations the universe interprets as decelerations.
This is simple to understand once you understand that the
universe is imploding (not exploding) and that particles are NOT
fundamental but only "forms & shapes" (which is why they can
"shrink" without losing any cohesion/unity). And this is indeed
a more fundamental interpretation of reality than Einstein's very
superficial one about the universe being an on-going explosion.
> } Atomic clocks have been taken aboard the Concorde in both
> } directions,
> } originally synchronized with identical ground clocks. Time
dilation
> } works by the book, and in both directions re Sagnac Effect.
>
> All documented in the Relativity FAQ, by the way, along with
> other corrections to errors in the comments by "sdrodrian".
>
> } Do you have a problem with physical meaurement, as opposed to
> } unfounded philosophical maunder?
The above was authored by Uncle Al, and not me. Ask him.
> In article <86fov0$3bm$1@nnrp1.deja.com>
> sdrodrian@aol.com writes:
>>
>>Goodness me! Snippy Uncle Al, didn't they pull the chain on you
>>a while back? (Seems as if you've been "constantly" floating
>>in "your medium" at the same stall-ed velocity for what seems ages!)
>
> Cute ad hominem but not responsive.
That's because you are reading my personal salutation
to a beloved old character of these newsgroups (a salutation
is never intended to respond to any substantive matter, but only
and purely to the pleasure of meeting an old pal once more).
>>But, in any case: What talks thou of?
>
> Experiments such as those listed in the FAQ.
Dear Jim, my: "What talks thou of?" does not refer to any
ignorance on my part of whatever good experiments! It was
addressed to Uncle Al, as in: "What the Hell you talking about?"
Perhaps my archaic usage went over your head--but I used it to
emphasize how shocked I was that good old Uncle Al should have
committed the same abysmal gaffe you yourself committed just now
(namely, misinterpreting my pointing out that Einstein's interpretation
was true only superficially and not at the more fundamental
understanding of Absolute Relativity, which see).
>>I refuse to accept the successful experiments you cite above!
Dear, dear! Could I have possibly have said that?!?! Let's see...
> Feel free to deny reality, just don't expect anyone to join
> you in yours.
Goodness gracious, Jim! You are doing everything in your power
to prove yourself a pathetic little worm! And I am truly left
dumbfound by your incredible inability to see how easy it would be
for ANYONE to find you out!!!! I'm speechless (and that's
an almost impossible thing to accomplish, believe you me).
Your childish attempt to make it appear as if I said what you
wish others to believe I meant by your out of content quote
above is so piteous and sad that I can only conclude you have
developed some sort of psychosis about me personally!!!!
Jim, you're behaving like the two-year-old who swears he
didn't take the box of candies he's very painfully obviously
hiding behind his back. All one really needs to do is to go to
my original post (through DejaNews... it can be found at):
http://x43.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=576600701&search=thread&CONTEXT=9487718
15.1661599773&HIT_CONTEXT=948771815.1661599773&HIT_NUM=1&hitnum=131
And therein you will find my entire quote (namely):
" What talks thou of? It appears as if you think I refuse
to accept the successful experiments you cite above!
Remove this from your mind, ole boy (along with several
other matters): The effect is real, your (the
conventional)
interpretation of why this is so is where the error resides:
"
Dear Jim, I think... you might wish to consult with some
mental health professional about the very real probability
that it is you who are beginning to "deny reality." And I say
this with your well-being in mind, dear fellow. I really do!
I can appreciate any conventional physicist finding
my appearance before him/her extremely threatening.
My message to conventional physics DOES boil down to:
"Your God is a false god. Your religion is a fraud, and a
dangerous fraud that is actually hurting people--because
when your religion attempts to replace science with dogma
it is retarding human progress... whereas the principal aim
of every scientist should always be the advancement of
human progress, not... trying to stand in its way."
Jim, rather than merely trying to knock me down with
amazingly ineffective "tries" like your present one, why
don't you instead attempt to review the pros/cons of a
magical Big Bang vs my proposal of an evolved universe.
Consider that I have removed myself from my proposal.
I certainly do not ask you to accept AR because of me
(I give you not one hint of my credentials). And at every
turn I repeat and repeat: Judge the matter yourself. Never
take anything I say at face value! Consider me fool, idiot
and/or lunatic--It's irrelevant: Let AR stand or fall on its own
merits alone. I will never ask anyone to accept AR as a favor
to me: That is not science. And the advancement of science
is all I have ever sought regardless what may become of me.
Sincerely,
S D Rodrian
sdr@t-three.com
http://www.geocities.com/absoluterelativity
> --
> James A. Carr <jac@scri.fsu.edu>
*******************
From: S D Rodrian <sdrodrian@aol.com>
Subject: Re: How can space be bent?
Date: 08 Feb 2000 00:00:00 GMT
Message-ID: <87nv1s$k9h$1@nnrp1.deja.com>
References: <86fov0$3bm$1@nnrp1.deja.com>
<86g9g7$rs3$1@news.fsu.edu> <86jbvc$n0d$1@nnrp1.deja.com>
<87fvac$oct$1@news.fsu.edu>
X-Http-Proxy: 1.0 x33.deja.com:80 (Squid/1.1.22) for
client 38.26.139.12
Organization: Deja.com - Before you buy.
X-Article-Creation-Date: Tue Feb 08 02:29:20 2000 GMT
X-MyDeja-Info: XMYDJUIDsdrodrian
Newsgroups: alt.atheism,talk.atheism,alt.politics,alt.wisdom
X-Http-User-Agent: Mozilla/4.7 [en] (Win98; U)
In article <87fvac$oct$1@news.fsu.edu>,
jac@ibms48.scri.fsu.edu (Jim Carr) wrote:
>
> ... off-topic newsgroups snipped ...
>
> In article <86g9g7$rs3$1@news.fsu.edu>,
> jac@ibms48.scri.fsu.edu (Jim Carr) wrote:
> |
> | ... some off-topic newsgroups snipped, note followups ...
> |
> | In article <388A0A73.11DD08EA@hate.spam.net>,
> | Uncle Al <UncleAl0@hate.spam.net> wrote:
> | }
> | }
> | } sdrodrian@aol.com wrote:
> | } >
> | } >> But we haven't tested in real life what happens when we
accelerate
> | } >> our spaceship towards the speed of light (or maybe we should
say
> | } >> towards 300.000 km/s ).
> | } >
> | } > We have, however, the evidence of particle accelerators
> | } > which find that, indeed, mass increases "with velocity."
> | } > This is a misinterpretation at a more fundamental level,
> | } > but not at the level of Einstein's theories.
> | }
> | } Atomic clocks have been taken aboard the Concorde in both
directions,
> | } originally synchronized with identical ground clocks. Time
dilation
> | } works by the book, and in both directions re Sagnac Effect.
> |
> | All documented in the Relativity FAQ, by the way, along with
> | other corrections to errors in the comments by "sdrodrian".
> |
> | } Do you have a problem with physical meaurement, as opposed to
> | } unfounded philosophical maunder?
> |
> | In article <86fov0$3bm$1@nnrp1.deja.com>
> | sdrodrian@aol.com writes:
> | >
> | >Goodness me! Snippy Uncle Al, didn't they pull the chain on you
> | >a while back? (Seems as if you've been "constantly" floating
> | >in "your medium" at the same stall-ed velocity for what seems
ages!)
> |
> | Cute ad hominem but not responsive.
> |
> | >But, in any case: What talks thou of?
> |
> | Experiments such as those listed in the FAQ.
> |
> | >I refuse to accept the successful experiments you cite above!
> |
> | Feel free to deny reality, just don't expect anyone to join
> | you in yours.
>
> In article <86jbvc$n0d$1@nnrp1.deja.com>
> sdrodrian@aol.com writes:
>>
>>Dear Jim, it would be nice if once in a blue moon
>>you decided to
>>
>>A) not be such a blatant liar (after all, you're quoting
>> from documents which have been eternally enshrined
>> by DejaNews, and which anyone may find with a simple
>> search such as: "rodrian AND keyword AND keyword" ~!
>
> Sorry, but what I wrote in the article above is accurate.
In fact,
> the URLs you cite in your article show that it is accurate.
>
>>B) actually bother to ascertain what it is you're actually
>> talking about (if all it is is that you're just a simpleton
>> who can't figure out the Dewey decimal system and
>> you just like to pick facts off the air, whether they
are
>> facts or delusions--perhaps you really believe this
is the
>> scientific approach (which would explain a lot about
you).
>
> Your ad hominem remarks show how weak your argument is.
>
> I note that you did not address the simple fact that all physics
> cares about is the result of experiments such as those that
set
> an upper limit on the photon mass, not whether _you_ accept
them.
>
>>Here, for the benefit of your sanity I have documented
>>with actual TRUTHS your childish lies about me below:
>>
>>> } sdrodrian@aol.com wrote:
>>> } >
>>> } >> But we haven't tested in real life what happens when we
>>> } >> accelerate
>>> } >> our spaceship towards the speed of light (or maybe we should
say
>>> } >> towards 300.000 km/s ).
>>
>>This was written not by me but by a Mika Luostarinen in this
post:
>>
>
>http://x43.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=575485225&search=thread&CONTEXT=948771
8
>>15.1661599773&HIT_CONTEXT=948771815.1661599773&HIT_NUM=1&hitnum=116
>>
>>(Remember to enter the entire URL above into your browser.)
>
> That URL demonstrates that you did, indeed, quote Mika just
as
> I said you did. If you had cited
>
> http://www.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=576217364&fmt=text
>
> this would be even clearer. Anyone who is familiar with
Usenet
> quoting would figure this out and see how transparently wrong
> your observation was.
>
>>> } > We have, however, the evidence of particle accelerators
>>> } > which find that, indeed, mass increases "with velocity."
>>> } > This is a misinterpretation at a more fundamental level,
>>> } > but not at the level of Einstein's theories.
>>
>>Please note that I said it is NOT at the level of Einstein's
theories:
>>At the level of Einstein's theories mass is interpreted to increase
>>with increasing velocity (if you don't agree with Einstein
on this
>>take it up with him, not with me).
>
> Only Einstein did not say that. Read the FAQ as I suggested.
Ok, SO he accepted that: Big difference!
> There is a full statement from him saying the opposite of what
> you think he said. You see, you have much to learn.
Einstein rejected Lorentz's finding that the mass of a charged
particle increases with velocity?!?!?! That IS news to me!
>>> } Atomic clocks have been taken aboard the Concorde in both
>>> } directions,
>>> } originally synchronized with identical ground clocks.
Time
dilation
>>> } works by the book, and in both directions re Sagnac Effect.
>>>
>>> All documented in the Relativity FAQ, by the way, along
with
>>> other corrections to errors in the comments by "sdrodrian".
>>>
>>> } Do you have a problem with physical meaurement, as opposed to
>>> } unfounded philosophical maunder?
>>
>>The above was authored by Uncle Al, and not me. Ask him.
>
> I did not ask him any questions, I pointed out to you and others
> that what he wrote is documented at a specific place.
The
> question you refer to was one that Uncle Al asked you, and
> that you did not give a yes-or-no answer to.
Net nanny, net nanny, net nanny! That's basically
all I have time for this time, Jim.
Catch you later,
S D Rodrian
sdr@t-three.com
http://www.geocities.com/absoluterelativity
>>> In article <86fov0$3bm$1@nnrp1.deja.com>
>>> sdrodrian@aol.com writes:
>>>>
>>>>Goodness me! Snippy Uncle Al, didn't they pull the chain on you
>>>>a while back? (Seems as if you've been "constantly" floating
>>>>in "your medium" at the same stall-ed velocity for what seems
ages!)
>>>
>>> Cute ad hominem but not responsive.
>>
>>That's because you are reading my personal salutation
>>to a beloved old character of these newsgroups (a salutation
>>is never intended to respond to any substantive matter, but only
>>and purely to the pleasure of meeting an old pal once more).
>
> Still quite unresponsive.
>
>>>>But, in any case: What talks thou of?
>>>
>>> Experiments such as those listed in the FAQ.
>>
>>Dear Jim, my: "What talks thou of?" does not refer to any
>>ignorance on my part of whatever good experiments! It was
>>addressed to Uncle Al, as in: "What the Hell you talking about?"
>
> Which was precisely what I pointed out to you. The experiments.
> And that you did not answer his question.
>
>>>>I refuse to accept the successful experiments you cite above!
>>
>>Dear, dear! Could I have possibly have said that?!?! Let's see...
>
> Yep. http://www.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=576626277&fmt=text.
Jim: I am going to PASTE from that post the following:
" It appears as if you think
I refuse to accept the successful experiments you cite above!"
This CLEARLY says the direct opposite of what you suggest it says!
The above translates as: "I accept the successful experiments
you cite, although it appears you think I do not."
Do you suffer from intellectual dyslexia? It's possible!
I'n NOT looking into it, Jim, if I WEREN'T you.
>>> Feel free to deny reality, just don't expect anyone to join
>>> you in yours.
>>
>>Goodness gracious, Jim! You are doing everything in your power
>>to prove yourself a pathetic little worm! And I am truly left
>>dumbfound by your incredible inability to see how easy it would
be
>>for ANYONE to find you out!!!! I'm speechless (and that's
>>an almost impossible thing to accomplish, believe you me).
>
> Your ad hominems establish that you have no physics argument
> on your side, and that you would rather attack the messenger
> than admit that you rejected reality in the form of successful
> experiments in the article I replied to and cited again above.
>
> --
> James A. Carr <jac@scri.fsu.edu>
Are you a mathematician, Jim. If you are, here's a truism from
the S D Rodrian Bible (which you will NEVER understand
(much less accept, obviously)):
"Mathematicians don't count." Rodrian 14:3
**********************
From: sdrodrian@aol.com
Subject: Re: How can space be bent?
Date: 26 Jan 2000 00:00:00 GMT
Message-ID: <86lgnv$9ok$1@nnrp1.deja.com>
References: <86fov0$3bm$1@nnrp1.deja.com>
<86g9g7$rs3$1@news.fsu.edu> <86jc1o$n0n$1@nnrp1.deja.com>
<86kcrf$e4h$1@news.fsu.edu>
X-Http-Proxy: 1.0 x27.deja.com:80 (Squid/1.1.22) for
client 38.26.139.38
Organization: Deja.com - Before you buy.
X-Article-Creation-Date: Wed Jan 26 00:56:33 2000 GMT
X-MyDeja-Info: XMYDJUIDsdrodrian
Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity,de.sci.physik,sci.physics.electromag,sci.logic
X-Http-User-Agent: Mozilla/4.7 [en] (Win98; U)
In article <86kd0k$e4u$1@news.fsu.edu>,
jac@ibms48.scri.fsu.edu (Jim Carr) wrote:
> My last reply to "sdrodrian" in talk.origins follows:
Dear Mr. Carr, as you have proven yourself such a reprehensibly
dishonest individual, pardon me if I have no confidence whatever
in your cheap promise (above).
But let me just say this: I can be very patient with ignorance (most
of the time it is not a person's fault to be ignorant). I can even
be
patient with just plain sheer mind-blowing stupidity (also, mostly
never
the poor person's fault). But when you revealed yourself to be as
consumed with dishonesty as you are... you will understand if I showed
no patience whatever with you--at all. Nor will I show any in future.
> In article <86jc1o$n0n$1@nnrp1.deja.com>
> sdrodrian@aol.com writes:
>>
> ... concerning <86g9g7$rs3$1@news.fsu.edu> ...
>>
>>[cut to the case...]
>
> Cut enough and you can make up as many lies as you wish.
Amazing! Jim, your pathetic attempt above to suggest that I cut
something out of your post to quote you out-of-content only
strengthens the OBVIOUS fact that you are being dishonest!
I really am sorry for you, my man. But as long as you persist
in your sickness I must unmask you--Can't be helped. Now...
The only thing I "cut" was your announcement that you
would limit your posts to the relativity newsgroups. See:
http://www.deja.com/[ST_rn=if]/threadmsg_if.xp?AN=576722097&fmt=text
All these posts are in the archived public record, dear Jim.
Just as I proved your dishonesty by citing specific posts...
if I have lied anywhere it shall be only too easy to prove this.
>>Dear Jim, it would be nice if once in a blue moon
>>you decided to
>>
>>A) not be such a blatant liar (after all, you're quoting
>> from documents which have been eternally enshrined
>> by DejaNews, and which anyone may find with a simple
>> search such as: "rodrian AND keyword AND keyword" ~!
>
> As we can see below, I did not lie.
Let's see indeed.
>>Here, for the benefit of your sanity I have documented
>>with actual TRUTHS your childish lies about me below:
>>
>>> } sdrodrian@aol.com wrote:
>>> } >
>>> } >> But we haven't tested in real life what happens when we
>>> } >> accelerate
>>> } >> our spaceship towards the speed of light (or maybe we should
>>> } >> say
>>> } >> towards 300.000 km/s ).
>>
>>This was written not by me but by a Mika Luostarinen in this post:
http://x43.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=575485225&search=thread&CONTEXT=948771
815.1661599773&HIT_CONTEXT=948771815.1661599773&HIT_NUM=1&hitnum=116
>>(Remember to enter the entire URL above into your browser.)
>
> And I did not say you wrote the words you quote, only that
> you quoted them.
My God, Jim! You really have no shame at all, have you!
Here is what you wrote (note to whom you attribute comments):
"All documented in the Relativity FAQ, by the way, along with
other corrections to errors in the comments by "sdrodrian". "
Now try to find in your post ANY mention of my having
quoted any of the comments you try to lump together as
having been authored by me. Here is your post:
http://x24.deja.com/[ST_rn=if]/threadmsg_if.xp?thitnum=2&mhitnum=141&CON
TEXT=948838418.1510211619
If you would like to try to make others believe that I agree with
those comments by others which I quote in order to point out where
they are in error... you are very much sicker than I suspected!
This means you have lost contact with reality (Gee... I hope
you don't know where I live... closely as I guard this info!)
> And you did as can be seen in
>
> http://www.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=576214730&fmt=text
Dear Jim, the ONLY thing which can be clearly seen in the above
post is how many times I "corrected" misapprehensions by the
previous poster--That you are still trying to make others believe
it is otherwise WHEN IT IS SO EASY TO UNCOVER YOUR LIES tells me
that you are not playing with all your sexual items. In fact
I corrected misapprehensions about what Einstein said (rather than
also explaining where Einstein's sayings were also misapprehensions
fully--something which let Uncle Al to make the gaffe he made).
> which clearly shows that you _did_ write the text shown above
> with those ">" quote characters ... just as Uncle Al said you
did.
At this (your) stage (of mind)... it's hard to know what it is you
mean--if anything, Jim. However, I can be very patient with people
who are mentally ill. [For those who are having trouble following all
this insanity... Uncle Al assumed I was denying the validity of a
"good" experiment and the post mentioned above involves only my
correcting dear Uncle Al's false assumption.] Which see:
http://www.deja.com/[ST_rn=if]/threadmsg_if.xp?AN=576600701&fmt=text
> Please learn to read with more care.
Jim, wish you'd take your own advice! Albeit, I think at this point
it is painfully self-evident that you either have a tendency to read
into the text before you anything you believe... or you simply lack
any ability to understand what you read--Which might go a long ways
to explaining why it is you cannot understand how obvious it is that
your only purpose is to create a facile lie about me--I can't imagine
your purpose actually being to make yourself appear as petty, mean,
and right-down despicable as you've made yourself via all these silly
shenanigans! (Hell, at least when I'm being silly I'm very obviously
intentionally being silly!! That's the thing that keeps it humorous.)
> My replies to your comments about relativity will appear in
> response to articles posted by you to that newsgroup, if they
> have any content worth replying to.
I thought as much: All your replies to my post have been because
they were worth replying to and NOT because you had anything to reply
with! You just like to waste the time of people who post things
which are worth replying to... with your vapid, meaningless "replies!"
(But I am certainly glad that you are stupid enough to admit this here.)
Well, sir, consider thyself unmasked! (I said unmasked, by the way
--You can put your panties back on, if you don't mind.) Egads!
> Your future trolls in these off-topic newsgroups will be ignored.
Ah-Ha! So you'd like to see me unleash my poor future gnomes & trolls
in these off-topic newsgroups so you can then pounce upon them after
you've lulled me into a false sense of trust!
Well, good luck to you, sir!
(And I really mean that, Jim)
S D Rodrian
sdr@t-three.com
http://www.geocities.com/absoluterelativity
http://members.aol.com/mrealms/470.htm
>
> --
> James A. Carr <jac@scri.fsu.edu>
********************
From: sdrodrian@aol.com
Subject: Re: How can space be bent?
Date: 27 Jan 2000 00:00:00 GMT
Message-ID: <86ptrv$fod$1@nnrp1.deja.com>
References: <86fov0$3bm$1@nnrp1.deja.com>
<86g9g7$rs3$1@news.fsu.edu> <86jc34$n14$1@nnrp1.deja.com>
<86na2a$gsp$1@news.fsu.edu>
X-Http-Proxy: 1.0 x32.deja.com:80 (Squid/1.1.22) for
client 38.26.139.206
Organization: Deja.com - Before you buy.
X-Article-Creation-Date: Thu Jan 27 17:05:08 2000 GMT
X-MyDeja-Info: XMYDJUIDsdrodrian
Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity,de.sci.physic,sci.physics.electromag,sci.logic
X-Http-User-Agent: Mozilla/4.7 [en] (Win98; U)
In article <86na2a$gsp$1@news.fsu.edu>,
jac@ibms48.scri.fsu.edu (Jim Carr) wrote:
> In article <86jc34$n14$1@nnrp1.deja.com>
> sdrodrian@aol.com writes:
>>
>
> The same thing posted to other newsgroups yesterday, where
it
> was already answered. See my article
>
> http://www.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=577405138&fmt=text
And see mine at:
http://www.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=577173127&fmt=text
http://www.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=577567365&fmt=text
http://www.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=575784496&fmt=text
http://www.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=577054822&fmt=text
http://www.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=577580627&fmt=text
(This last one: Ok, I'm a naughty person--I admit. But you
can't say this last bit was altogether unwarranted, Jim!)
> and note followups. A glance at dejanews when confirming
this URL
> shows the "sdrobrian"
Ah! You make me feel so good that the above is a typical
example of how low, mean & petty you've cast yourself, Jim!
(You though I was going to say it made me sad to see you
being such a fuck, right? Some other fuck, Jim, but not you.)
> is obsessed with
I admit only to chocolate and napkins.
> spamming a set of false
> allegations
Jim: I said anything false about you, that's libel (and
you can collect a pretty penny from me). But, you, on
the other hand, can say anything pops in your head to say
about me: My hide's so thick the S.P.C.A.'s after me for
mistreating my fleas!
> to as many newsgroups as he can think of.
Dear Jim! Showing where you have been less than honest
is not defined in the dictionary as falsity--Your being dishonest:
That, on the other hand, very much qualifies as being false.
You just don't seem to get it, do you! A scientist can be dull
or brilliant, silly or grave; but the one thing he/she can NEVER be
is a dishonest individual. The reason this is so is because when
a scientist claims a successful experiment... it is crucial that the
scientist not be suspected of doctoring the results or out-right
cheating with the basic steps of his/her experiment.
I really don't know what position you have at Florida State, but
I cannot imagine that after you have PROVEN yourself to be
as dishonest as you have PROVEN yourself to be in these baseless
personal attacks upon me.... I can't imagine anyone at Florida State
even fully trusting that anything you do there is ever done with any
the least modicum of honesty. And I'm not saying this because
I know you are as dishonest in your scientific endeavors as you
are in the instances of your attacks against me. No. I am saying
this because it's simply human nature to be either honest or
dishonest... and it's very, very rare indeed when a person can wear
the blinders that would allow him/her to lead a successful double life
in all aspects of his or her life.
> If his own words did not discredit his ideas, his actions do.
Jim. Read what I wrote above again! Across the breadth of these
posts I have been dull or brilliant, silly or grave... but I have never
been dishonest. Nor would I ever dream of being so. Had I been
dishonest but once... I would never be so demanding of others
as to ask for anyone's trust ever again. Trust me on this. And
you know you can
regardless what you may write,
S D Rodrian
sdr@t-three.com
http://www.geocities.com/absoluterelativity
>
> --
> James A. Carr <jac@scri.fsu.edu>
********************
From: sdrodrian@aol.com
Subject: Re: How can space be bent?
Date: 17 Jan 2000 00:00:00 GMT
Message-ID: <85vhql$gla$1@nnrp1.deja.com>
References: <38816B0F.6B1B@netvigator.com>
<85sspq$7q2$2@bgtnsc01.worldnet.att.net>
<85tlda$6eg$1@nnrp1.deja.com> <38826e91@derwent.nt.tas.gov.au>
X-Http-Proxy: 1.0 x27.deja.com:80 (Squid/1.1.22) for
client 38.26.139.105
Organization: Deja.com - Before you buy.
X-Article-Creation-Date: Mon Jan 17 17:00:17 2000 GMT
X-MyDeja-Info: XMYDJUIDsdrodrian
Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity,de.sci.physik,sci.physics.electromag,sci.logic
X-Http-User-Agent: Mozilla/4.7 [en] (Win98; U)
In article <38826e91@derwent.nt.tas.gov.au>,
"Martin Crisp" <Spam.Bucket@tesseract.com.au> wrote:
>
> <sdrodrian@aol.com> wrote in message
news:85tlda$6eg$1@nnrp1.deja.com...
>>
>> D O N ' T Y O U B E L I E V E
I T !!!!!!!
>>
>> If somebody can't express him/herself clearly
>> chances are he/she doesn't have a clear
>> understanding of what he/she is talking about.
>>
>> Period.
>
> Please, explain Quantum Mechanics to me, be sure to use clear
> language.I'm
> particularly interested in a clear description of Bell's Inequality
> Theorem.
>
> Have Fun
> Martin
Dear Martin, has it really been that long
since you were out of school?! Dear me!
Here's a reminder: At some point SOMEBODY
explained it to you (in English?). And if that
is too hard for you to believe... go to your
corner bookstore and pick up "popular" books
on the subject (not the most advanced, but those
intended to introduce the subject to a more
general audience): They will all do this
quite niftily and to your satisfaction,
I'm sure:
S D Rodrian
sdr@t-three.com
http://members.aol.com/prebigbang
******************
From: sdrodrian@aol.com
Subject: Re: How can space be bent?
Date: 18 Jan 2000 00:00:00 GMT
Message-ID: <862qtv$u26$1@nnrp1.deja.com>
References: <38816B0F.6B1B@netvigator.com>
<85sspq$7q2$2@bgtnsc01.worldnet.att.net> <85tlda$6eg$1@nnrp1.deja.com>
<38826e91@derwent.nt.tas.gov.au> <85vi0t$gnh$1@nnrp1.deja.com>
<388388D8.A7B2D4B5@radix.net>
X-Http-Proxy: 1.0 x39.deja.com:80 (Squid/1.1.22) for
client 38.26.139.1
Organization: Deja.com - Before you buy.
X-Article-Creation-Date: Tue Jan 18 22:53:59 2000 GMT
X-MyDeja-Info: XMYDJUIDsdrodrian
Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity,de.sci.physik,sci.physics.electromag,sci.logic
X-Http-User-Agent: Mozilla/4.7 [en] (Win98; U)
In article <388388D8.A7B2D4B5@radix.net>,
lseubert@radix.net wrote:
> Nevertheless Mr Rodrian, as Richard Feynmann once said, "Mathematics
> is
> the language of physics."
Do I dispute that? No. Would I change that? No.
What I seek is for mathematicians to cease & desist
their insistence that their equations best mine eyes
at seeing what's in front of mine nose, that's all.
Is this too much? Added up yourself.
S D Rodrian
sdr@t-three.com
http://www.geocities.com/absoluterelativity
> Therefore, regarding your absolute relativity theory, I say to you,
> "Show me the equations!"
Sir! Cease & desist: All my AR essay says is:
"Open your eyes and look for yourself." (Albeit
I do use a few more words at my site... sorry.)
> Luke Seubert
>
> "God does not play dice with the Universe."
> - Albert Einstein
>
> "Einstein, quit telling God what to do."
> - Neils Bohr
Yeah, like Einstein's gonna do what anybody tell'im.
- S D Rodrian
[Not to mention: HE'S DEAD NOW.]
********************
From: sdrodrian@aol.com
Subject: Re: How can space be bent?
Date: 18 Jan 2000 00:00:00 GMT
Message-ID: <862ile$nt4$1@nnrp1.deja.com>
References: <38816B0F.6B1B@netvigator.com>
<85sspq$7q2$2@bgtnsc01.worldnet.att.net> <85tlda$6eg$1@nnrp1.deja.com>
<38826e91@derwent.nt.tas.gov.au> <85vhs3$glq$1@nnrp1.deja.com>
<38839865.94E9A84A@icsi.not.net>
X-Http-Proxy: 1.0 x33.deja.com:80 (Squid/1.1.22) for
client 38.26.139.185
Organization: Deja.com - Before you buy.
X-Article-Creation-Date: Tue Jan 18 20:32:47 2000 GMT
X-MyDeja-Info: XMYDJUIDsdrodrian
Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity,de.sci.physik,sci.physics.electromag,sci.logic
X-Http-User-Agent: Mozilla/4.7 [en] (Win98; U)
In article <38839865.94E9A84A@icsi.not.net>,
Morat <dragon@icsi.not.net> wrote:
>
>
> sdrodrian@aol.com wrote:
>>
>> In article <38826e91@derwent.nt.tas.gov.au>,
>> "Martin Crisp" <Spam.Bucket@tesseract.com.au> wrote:
>>>
>>> <sdrodrian@aol.com> wrote in message
>> news:85tlda$6eg$1@nnrp1.deja.com...
>>
>>>>
>>>> D O N ' T Y O U B E L I E V E
I T !!!!!!!
>>>>
>>>> If somebody can't express him/herself clearly
>>>> chances are he/she doesn't have a clear
>>>> understanding of what he/she is talking about.
>>>>
>>>> Period.
>>>
>>> Please, explain Quantum Mechanics to me, be sure to use clear
>>> language.I'm
>>> particularly interested in a clear description of Bell's
Inequality
>>> Theorem.
>>>
>>> Have Fun
>>> Martin
>>
>> Dear Martin, has it really been that long
>> since you were out of school?! Dear me!
>>
>> Here's a reminder: At some point SOMEBODY
>> explained it to you (in English?). And if that
>> is too hard for you to believe... go to your
>> corner bookstore and pick up "popular" books
>> on the subject (not the most advanced, but those
>> intended to introduce the subject to a more
>> general audience): They will all do this
>> quite niftily and to your satisfaction,
>>
> Actually, I'm willing to bet that when he got the real explanation,
> it was
> in mathematics.
I, on the other hand, am quite willing to bet that
when he first learned "a" language... his brain
was wired to use that language as the basis for understanding
any & all further languages he might/has learn/ed since.
( I wonder what might happen if a baby were introduced
to mathematics as its first, original language! But,
please: Don't try this at home!!!!! )
> You seem to be avioding the point. It's quite
> difficult, and
> sometimes impossible to render mathematical equations in english.
If they are meaningless in English
I concur with your death sentence, yes.
> Something
> always suffers.
And... somebody (usually the listeners).
> At the very least, it can turn an elegant and fairly
> simplistic equation into a few paragraphs of hard to comprehend
> English.
How could I doubt such a claim!?!?!?!
I myself have spent 30+ years trying to iron out
marvelous equations into neatly pressed meanings
only to end up mostly with emperors' clothes all
burnt-out-of-shape, torn to shreds, & everywhere
rotten & full of holes! (The emperors' clothes, not me.
--Well, me too, but that's another story.)
Nasty bit of work, really--
SDR
>> I'm sure:
>>
>> S D Rodrian
>> sdr@t-three.com
>> http://members.aol.com/prebigbang
*******************
From: sdrodrian@aol.com
Subject: Re: How can space be bent?
Date: 21 Jan 2000 00:00:00 GMT
Message-ID: <868avo$80$1@nnrp1.deja.com>
References: <38816B0F.6B1B@netvigator.com>
<85sspq$7q2$2@bgtnsc01.worldnet.att.net> <85tlda$6eg$1@nnrp1.deja.com>
<38826e91@derwent.nt.tas.gov.au> <85vhs3$glq$1@nnrp1.deja.com>
<38839865.94E9A84A@icsi.not.net> <862imu$nth$1@nnrp1.deja.com>
<3885ce58.14341521@newshost.breathemail.net> <38860615.B2BCC71B@spamcop.net>
X-Http-Proxy: 1.0 x37.deja.com:80 (Squid/1.1.22) for
client 38.26.139.150
Organization: Deja.com - Before you buy.
X-Article-Creation-Date: Fri Jan 21 00:58:39 2000 GMT
X-MyDeja-Info: XMYDJUIDsdrodrian
Newsgroups: alt.life.universe.everything,alt.lat.life.the-universe.and-everything,alt.oxford.talk,alt.duh
X-Http-User-Agent: Mozilla/4.7 [en] (Win98; U)
In article <38860615.B2BCC71B@spamcop.net>,
Michael Edelman <mje@spamcop.net> wrote:
> Of course, if the original poster understood enough physics to realize
> that, he wouldn't have posted such piffle in the first place ;-)
Dear Mikey,
If you'd invest half the time you waste speculating
about what people (you know not) know or know not
you'd really enrich yourself. And then you wouldn't
need to waste your time trying to pass yourself off
as some sort of know-it-all.
Just trying to help you,
SDR
RE:
In article <3885ce58.14341521@newshost.breathemail.net>,
pm.davis@spamless.net (Paul Davis) wrote:
> Hi .
>
> I just had a thought about your imploding Universe model and how
we
> can prove your theory is wrong.
Ah! Tosca, finalmente mia!
> The reason is redshift. You claim that matter/energy is shrinking
> rather than space expanding.
Sorry. You're guessing where you should have been
reading the text (at my web site): There will you find
that "matter" is not fundamental but only manifests
itself in certain "forms & shapes."
"Forms & shapes" shrink without any problem.
Read my analogy with the world composed of balloons
upon which are "painted/exist" two huge "shapes"
which shrink without knowing they're shrinking
as the balloons begin to pop off! You'll enjoy it!
> Logically this would mean we would only
> ever see blue shifted light. Why?
Again: Galaxies ARE receding. The red-shift is real.
If I denied the reality of something real... that's where
I'd get off the train right there! Read the text--Do not guess!
> You claimed that photons were shrinking.
Remarkably, this is true: As all "forms" of matter
are shrinking so too must the photon be "shrinking."
>This means that their
> wavelength is decreasing (blue shifting) whilst it crosses a static
> space.
Do not guess--Read the text: Photons are not in motion
with respect to absolute rest, only with respect to us!
(Actually it's both, but I don't want to confuse you
before you're even started trying to understand. This is
why at my site you will also find many mentions to the Big Bang
even when I really mean the Big Crunch. But you'll understand
once you stop guessing & actually read the text.)
> Indeed, as it shrinks, it has further to travel which would
> increase the wavelength (red shifting), but that is offset precisely
> by it's own shrinkage. Therefore you could only ever have unshifted,
> or blueshifted light.
You're getting closer and closer, but you will NEVER
actually get there until you actually go there (to my site)
and read the text... and, please: use your brain. Please!
> Your theory is demonstrably debunked.
Funny, I'm still in the bunker! You'd better take a second
peek through your telescope--that was a bit of a dud, ole boy!
S D Rodrian
sdr@t-three.com
http://members.aol.com/prebigbang
> >> Paul M. Davis
***********************
From: sdrodrian@aol.com
Subject: Re: How can space be bent?
Date: 23 Jan 2000 00:00:00 GMT
Message-ID: <86ftnn$6no$1@nnrp1.deja.com>
References: <38816B0F.6B1B@netvigator.com>
<85sspq$7q2$2@bgtnsc01.worldnet.att.net> <85tlda$6eg$1@nnrp1.deja.com>
<38826e91@derwent.nt.tas.gov.au> <85vhs3$glq$1@nnrp1.deja.com>
<38839865.94E9A84A@icsi.not.net> <862imu$nth$1@nnrp1.deja.com>
<3885ce58.14341521@newshost.breathemail.net> <Ofoi4.2118$PG6.29701@news2-hme0>
X-Http-Proxy: 1.0 x28.deja.com:80 (Squid/1.1.22) for
client 38.26.139.166
Organization: Deja.com - Before you buy.
X-Article-Creation-Date: Sun Jan 23 22:01:35 2000 GMT
X-MyDeja-Info: XMYDJUIDsdrodrian
Newsgroups: alt.astronomy,uk.sci.astronomy,sci.astro.amateur,alt.sci.physics
X-Http-User-Agent: Mozilla/4.7 [en] (Win98; U)
In article <Ofoi4.2118$PG6.29701@news2-hme0>,
"Al B" <al.b***@cwcom.net> wrote:
> ?????????
> doesn't the concept of all things shrinking also include the concept
> of
> maintained form. So even if the light 'shrank' then the form would
> remain
> unchanged - i.e. the wavelength of the photon and the frequency
> relative to
> all around it remains unaltered? I think.......I may just be talking
> garbage
> though...
Actually, no: It is indeed hard to "visualize" (which is why
I try to explain it in terms of analogies at my web site).
But, above all remember that all "forms" of matter, including
the photon... are "forms" and NOT fundamental particles:
a) The universe is indeed "shrinking" as a unit. But
the universe, as a particle, is not fundamental
but just a "form" its attracting "force" has taken.
b) All the "forms" of matter that make up the universe
are indeed "shrinking" individually. But none of them
are
fundamental particles either... just only "local" "forms"
the universe's attracting force has taken (and it is in
these "local" forms of matter and their interactions that
we
recognize and describe the universe's one true fundamental
force (that of attraction)... by/with the name of gravity.
c) No particle is fundamental. At its most fundamental
the universe of matter consists of an "attracting" force
only. (And if you understand Newton's idea of a force
then you understand why there must also be, at the
most fundamental lever, a "repelling" "force" as well.)
All this is why it may indeed be simpler to forget about matter
"shrinking" and instead consider it from the point of view of
"space" expanding from/at every imaginable coordinate. [This is
not what is happening, of course, but it will aid understanding.]
Now you will "see" the universe as forever its present "size"
while all around it AND inside every "particle" of matter... space
is "expanding." And all you need keep in mind is that all "forms"
of matter are but "forms" and not fundamental particles: All
the "forms" of matter in the universe are the ones "shrinking" but
because ALL THE FORMS shrink at the same rate/speed... none of the
"forms" (including "us," merely "forms" too, of course) notice this.
Just remember that the universe IS imploding at its most fundamental
level... with the effect that those "forms" of matter we call the
galaxies, because they are so distant from each other, will reflect
this implosive nature of our universe (even if but ever so slightly)
in their seeming to recede from each other (and naturally the more
distant from each other the "quicker" this receding effect will seem).
And ALWAYS couple this with the fact that galactic "forms" are also
forever "shrinking" as the universe maintains its "unity of form."
The reason for this effect (the universe seeming to expand, as
the galaxies REALLY DO "race" from each other) is that there is
greater gravitational pull exerted upon galaxies nearer the "center"
of the implosion than on galaxies further away. {And, by the way,
because this effect of gravity is eternally continuous --Newton--
the "apparent" "expansion" of our universe SHOULD tend to forever
appear to accelerate rather than to appear static or to even seem to
slow down. So you may wish to look for this too in the equation.]
Kindly,
S D Rodrian
sdr@t-three.com
http://members.aol.com/prebigbang
>
> --
> Clear Skies! :-)
>
> Al B
>
*****************
From: sdrodrian@aol.com
Subject: Re: How can space be bent?
Date: 21 Jan 2000 00:00:00 GMT
Message-ID: <8689fp$v8j$1@nnrp1.deja.com>
References: <38816B0F.6B1B@netvigator.com> <85sspq$7q2$2@bgtnsc01.worldnet.att.net>
<85tlda$6eg$1@nnrp1.deja.com> <38826e91@derwent.nt.tas.gov.au>
<85vhs3$glq$1@nnrp1.deja.com> <38839865.94E9A84A@icsi.not.net>
<862ijk$nsa$1@nnrp1.deja.com> <38863F72.67C9B038@icsi.not.net>
X-Http-Proxy: 1.0 x40.deja.com:80 (Squid/1.1.22) for
client 38.26.139.150
Organization: Deja.com - Before you buy.
X-Article-Creation-Date: Fri Jan 21 00:32:57 2000 GMT
X-MyDeja-Info: XMYDJUIDsdrodrian
Newsgroups: alt.atheism,talk.atheism,sci.logic,alt.philosophy.debate
X-Http-User-Agent: Mozilla/4.7 [en] (Win98; U)
In article <38863F72.67C9B038@icsi.not.net>,
Morat <dragon@icsi.not.net> wrote:
>
>
> sdrodrian@aol.com wrote:
>>
>> In article <38839865.94E9A84A@icsi.not.net>,
>> Morat <dragon@icsi.not.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> sdrodrian@aol.com wrote:
>>>>
>>>> In article <38826e91@derwent.nt.tas.gov.au>,
>>>> "Martin Crisp" <Spam.Bucket@tesseract.com.au>
wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> <sdrodrian@aol.com> wrote in message
>>>> news:85tlda$6eg$1@nnrp1.deja.com...
>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> D O N ' T Y O U B E L I E V E
I T !!!!!!!
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If somebody can't express him/herself clearly
>>>>>> chances are he/she doesn't have a clear
>>>>>> understanding of what he/she is talking about.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Period.
>>>>>
>>>>> Please, explain Quantum Mechanics to me, be sure to use clear
>>>>> language.I'm
>>>>> particularly interested in a clear description of Bell's
>>>>> Inequality
>>>>> Theorem.
>>>>>
>>>>> Have Fun
>>>>> Martin
>>>>
>>>> Dear Martin, has it really been that long
>>>> since you were out of school?! Dear me!
>>>>
>>>> Here's a reminder: At some point SOMEBODY
>>>> explained it to you (in English?). And if that
>>>> is too hard for you to believe... go to your
>>>> corner bookstore and pick up "popular" books
>>>> on the subject (not the most advanced, but those
>>>> intended to introduce the subject to a more
>>>> general audience): They will all do this
>>>> quite niftily and to your satisfaction,
>>>>
>>> Actually, I'm willing to bet that when he got the real
>>> explanation,
>>> it was
>>> in mathematics.
>>
>> I, on the other hand, am quite willing to bet that
>> when he first learned "a" language... his brain
>> was wired to use that language as the basis for understanding
>> any & all further languages he might/has learn/ed since.
>> ( I wonder what might happen if a baby were introduced
>> to mathematics as its first, original language! But,
>> please: Don't try this at home!!!!! )
>>
>
> Neatly avoiding the original point, which was that certain
> concepts,
> especially scientific ones, cannot be properly expressed in English
> (or
> Russian, or Spanish..or anything) but must be expressed, if full
> understanding is desired, in math.
While it is true that 1+1=2 can best be expressed "in math,"
it is at least as true that the expression above is a totally
meaningless abstraction with no application in this entire
universe... until one explains to folk what it is one has in
mind the numbers representing. And, at that point, unless
one can clearly express what one means by one's numbers
one's words will betray one's muddled thoughts all too well.
(And all these ones without any zeros---Zaouwee!)
>>> You seem to be avioding the point. It's quite
>>> difficult, and
>>> sometimes impossible to render mathematical equations in english.
>>
>> If they are meaningless in English
>> I concur with your death sentence, yes.
> Feel free to write up a nifty ten pages trying to explain some of
Hey, the use of "nifty" is strictly my own personal affectation!
> the
> more complicate equations (some of the QM ones spring to mind) in
> English.
My mind's spring's a little rusty (yours must be
plastic-based).
> Then ask someone to use your explanation to do a simple QM problem.
I've got enough problems asking people what time it is.
>>> Something
>>> always suffers.
>>
>> And... somebody (usually the listeners).
>>
> Of course. If they want to learn what's really being said, they're
> going
> to have to learn the language. Something is always lost, in any
> translation.
> (Except fot Tolstoy...I've been assured that some of his works *gain*
> something in translation...(grin)
Frown: I happen to be a Tolstoy afficionado.
>>> At the very least, it can turn an elegant and fairly
>>> simplistic equation into a few paragraphs of hard to comprehend
>>> English.
>>
>> How could I doubt such a claim!?!?!?!
>>
>> I myself have spent 30+ years trying to iron out
>> marvelous equations into neatly pressed meanings
>> only to end up mostly with emperors' clothes all
>> burnt-out-of-shape, torn to shreds, & everywhere
>> rotten & full of holes! (The emperors' clothes, not me.
>> --Well, me too, but that's another story.)
>>
>> Nasty bit of work, really--
>
> Lack of argument noted. I'm guessing you concede the point. Thanks
> for
> playing.
Sir, I have not yet begun to argue! (And this includes
whether I continue arguing or not.) As for conceding
the point: Sure! Why not? Am I not 1000s of points ahead?
(Don't answer that--It was merely rhetorical.)
SDR
>> SDR
>>
>>>> I'm sure:
>>>>
>>>> S D Rodrian
>>>> sdr@t-three.com
>>>> http://members.aol.com/prebigbang
***************
From: sdrodrian@aol.com
Subject: Re: How can space be bent?
Date: 18 Jan 2000 00:00:00 GMT
Message-ID: <862r9d$u6n$1@nnrp1.deja.com>
References: <38816B0F.6B1B@netvigator.com>
<85sspq$7q2$2@bgtnsc01.worldnet.att.net> <85tlda$6eg$1@nnrp1.deja.com>
<38826e91@derwent.nt.tas.gov.au> <85vhs3$glq$1@nnrp1.deja.com>
<spam.and.eggs-1801002339370001@dialup.tourism.tas.gov.au>
X-Http-Proxy: 1.0 x31.deja.com:80 (Squid/1.1.22) for
client 38.26.139.1
Organization: Deja.com - Before you buy.
X-Article-Creation-Date: Tue Jan 18 23:00:08 2000 GMT
X-MyDeja-Info: XMYDJUIDsdrodrian
Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity,de.sci.physik,sci.physics.electromag,sci.logic
X-Http-User-Agent: Mozilla/4.7 [en] (Win98; U)
In article <spam.and.eggs-1801002339370001@dialup.tourism.tas.gov.au>,
spam.and.eggs@tesseract.com.au (Martin Crisp) wrote:
> [alt.philosophy dropped due to server bitching at this end]
>
> In article <85vhs3$glq$1@nnrp1.deja.com>, sdrodrian@aol.com wrote:
>
>> In article <38826e91@derwent.nt.tas.gov.au>,
>> "Martin Crisp" <Spam.Bucket@tesseract.com.au> wrote:
>>>
>>> <sdrodrian@aol.com> wrote in message
>> news:85tlda$6eg$1@nnrp1.deja.com...
>>
>>>>
>>>> D O N ' T Y O U B E L I E V E
I T !!!!!!!
>>>>
>>>> If somebody can't express him/herself clearly
>>>> chances are he/she doesn't have a clear
>>>> understanding of what he/she is talking about.
>>>>
>>>> Period.
>>>
>>> Please, explain Quantum Mechanics to me, be sure to use clear
>>> language.I'm
>>> particularly interested in a clear description of Bell's
>>> Inequality
>>> Theorem.
>>>
>>> Have Fun
>>> Martin
>>
>> Dear Martin, has it really been that long
>> since you were out of school?! Dear me!
>
> I haven't ever attended a class in which quantum theory was explained,
My God! It was explained to me in Kindergarten (when
I told Teacher that I HAD been in class all day, and that
the reason why she hadn't known I'd been was because
she'd been trying to "know" where I was at the same time she
was trying to know "when" I'd been there). Didn't fly:
The damn woman could actually explain QM to me!!!!!!!!
> nor
> in which it was discussed in detail [I was enrolled in 1st Yr Uni
> Physics,
> but only rarely attended class...]. The nearest was chemistry,
> discussions
> of the energy levels of electrons.
I recommend Issac Asimov's primers.
> Unless I misunderstood one of the goals of my education, it was the
> ability to continue to teach myself after I parted ways with it (7
> years
> ago).
I tried to teach myself how to fly once.
(But I finally had to concede planes work better.)
>> Here's a reminder: At some point SOMEBODY
>> explained it to you (in English?). And if that
>
> No, they didn't. How can you presume to remind me of an event that
you
> could not be aware of even had it happened?
I will not presume in future
that you've ever bathed (or
gone to the can).
> Or, is this a hint that
> you do
> understand the implications of BIT and are being coy?
Coy?!?! Moi?!?!
> [although I
> doubt
> that even if you could exploit some of the possible implications
of
> BIT
> you could 'ESP' a fictional event]
I once saw a couple of huge shimmering blue balls
in the skies over Miami (in the 60s). Fortunately
when I got home & turned on the radio I found out
thousands of other people had also seen them (thus
sparing me an excursion through the American
Mental Health experience).
>> is too hard for you to believe... go to your
>> corner bookstore and pick up "popular" books
>> on the subject (not the most advanced, but those
>> intended to introduce the subject to a more
>> general audience): They will all do this
>> quite niftily and to your satisfaction,
>
> I doubt it somehow.
> The reason I brought up quantum mechanics is, in my layman's
> understanding, QM is involved in many contemporary cosmological
> theories.
So are eyeballs & telescopes. Look into these first.
> The site you reference suggests that these cosmological theories are
> wrong.
Simpler: Observations are correct; their interpretations
are warped by being processed through prejudiced brains.
> For you to assert this I assumed you would have intimate
> knowledge
> of QM.
Well, I have been screwed by it on occasions.
> If you had intimate knowledge of QM you would no doubt be aware of
its
> reputation as being inexplicable. You don't seem to be aware of that.
I
> find that ... intriguing.
I respect no reputation as much as I respect
First Hand Knowledge: You could never bring before me
anyone with enough of a reputation to convince me
if I jump off a 20-story building nothing bad can befall me.
> BTW: A quote from a book such as you suggest:
> Quantum theory cannot be /explained/.
> [their italics]
Try: To understand quantum theory one must accept
that a great deal of it involves accepting that one cannot
have direct, ultimate, first hand knowledge (examination) of
a number of its results/findings--It certainly doesn't imply
one can't still understand the damn theory!
> BTW2: The heading immediately preceeding that line is : "Further
> Reading"
Translation: "Buy our other books." [Not
necessarily kidding.]
> _Introducing Quantum Theory_ JP McEvoy & Oscar Zarate.
> A very light introduction.
There ya go! I love to read where there's a lot of light.
>
>> I'm sure:
>>
>> S D Rodrian
>> sdr@t-three.com
>> http://members.aol.com/prebigbang
>
> Have Fun
> Martin
*******************
From: sdrodrian@aol.com
Subject: Re: How can space be bent?
Date: 21 Jan 2000 00:00:00 GMT
Message-ID: <8688qh$uqn$1@nnrp1.deja.com>
References: <38816B0F.6B1B@netvigator.com>
<85sspq$7q2$2@bgtnsc01.worldnet.att.net> <85tlda$6eg$1@nnrp1.deja.com>
<38826e91@derwent.nt.tas.gov.au> <85vhs3$glq$1@nnrp1.deja.com>
<spam.and.eggs-1801002339370001@dialup.tourism.tas.gov.au>
<
862r7q$u66$1@nnrp1.deja.com> <spam.and.eggs-2001001341170001@dialup.tourism.tas.gov.au>
X-Http-Proxy: 1.0 x40.deja.com:80 (Squid/1.1.22) for
client 38.26.139.150
Organization: Deja.com - Before you buy.
X-Article-Creation-Date: Fri Jan 21 00:21:44 2000 GMT
X-MyDeja-Info: XMYDJUIDsdrodrian
Newsgroups: alt.bible,alt.religion,alt.religion.christian,alt.cynicism
X-Http-User-Agent: Mozilla/4.7 [en] (Win98; U)
In article <spam.and.eggs-2001001341170001@dialup.tourism.tas.gov.au>,
spam.and.eggs@tesseract.com.au (Martin Crisp) wrote:
> In article <862r7q$u66$1@nnrp1.deja.com>, sdrodrian@aol.com wrote:
>
>> In article
<spam.and.eggs-1801002339370001@dialup.tourism.tas.gov.au>,
>> spam.and.eggs@tesseract.com.au (Martin Crisp) wrote:
>>> [alt.philosophy dropped due to server bitching at this end]
>>>
>>> In article <85vhs3$glq$1@nnrp1.deja.com>, sdrodrian@aol.com
wrote:
>>>
>>>> In article <38826e91@derwent.nt.tas.gov.au>,
>>>> "Martin Crisp" <Spam.Bucket@tesseract.com.au>
wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> <sdrodrian@aol.com> wrote in message
>>>> news:85tlda$6eg$1@nnrp1.deja.com...
>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> D O N ' T Y O U B E L I E V E
I T !!!!!!!
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If somebody can't express him/herself clearly
>>>>>> chances are he/she doesn't have a clear
>>>>>> understanding of what he/she is talking about.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Period.
>>>>>
>>>>> Please, explain Quantum Mechanics to me, be sure to use clear
>>>>> language.I'm
>>>>> particularly interested in a clear description of Bell's
>>>>> Inequality
>>>>> Theorem.
>>>>>
>>>>> Have Fun
>>>>> Martin
>>>>
>>>> Dear Martin, has it really been that long
>>>> since you were out of school?! Dear me!
>>>
>>> I haven't ever attended a class in which quantum theory was
>>> explained,
>>
>> My God! It was explained to me in Kindergarten (when
>> I told Teacher that I HAD been in class all day, and that
>> the reason why she hadn't known I'd been was because
>> she'd been trying to "know" where I was at the same time she
>> was trying to know "when" I'd been there). Didn't fly:
>> The damn woman could actually explain QM to me!!!!!!!!
>
> You are, in all likelihood, a little bit too large to be influenced
by
> HUP
> to the extent that your velocity and position couldn't be measured
> simultaneously with acceptable accuracy. HUP is a requirement of
QM
> but it
> isn't QM, nor BIT.
All well & good. But, unfortunately, although I was quick
as a kid, I could never muster enough muster to get myself
up there near enough the speed of light to convince that
old broad that I might have been in her classroom without
her necessarily having seen me there! Rats!
>>> nor
>>> in which it was discussed in detail [I was enrolled in 1st Yr
Uni
>>> Physics,
>>> but only rarely attended class...]. The nearest was chemistry,
>>> discussions
>>> of the energy levels of electrons.
>>
>> I recommend Issac Asimov's primers.
>>
>>> Unless I misunderstood one of the goals of my education, it was
>>> the
>>> ability to continue to teach myself after I parted ways with
it (7
>>> years
>>> ago).
>>
>> I tried to teach myself how to fly once.
>> (But I finally had to concede planes work better.)
>
> Try again, jump from something higher, it'll give you a bit longer
to
> experiment
> :-)
>
>>>> Here's a reminder: At some point SOMEBODY
>>>> explained it to you (in English?). And if that
>>>
>>> No, they didn't. How can you presume to remind me of an event
that
>>> you
>>> could not be aware of even had it happened?
>>
>> I will not presume in future
>> that you've ever bathed (or
>> gone to the can).
>
> Given that I may have been born with colon cancer and used a bag
since
> birth, that would be a good idea. [perhaps in a parallel universe
I
> was??]
Cheech! The least you could've done was to take
a sponge bath every once in a while! (And, yes: Even if
you'd have to step into a parallel universe & sponged off that.)
> There is reasonable evidence available to you that I have bathed
> [various
> posts indicate I live in a semi-urban environment and have employment
> in
> an office block and have done for some time, it seems likely that
my
> employment would be threatened to some degree if my personal hygeine
> wasn't at least acceptable].
You failed to mentioned whether your fellow employees
were also pigs--In which case: Moot.
> There is none that I have been formally
> taught QM, nor any that I _understand_ QM.
I've never met pigs all that intelligent either.
> explanation n. explaining; declaration made with view to mutual
> understanding or reconciliation; statement or circumstance that
> explains.
> (Australian concise oxford dictionary)
Try an up & over dictionary.
> As I do not understand QM, it has never been _explained_ to me.
Don't bother: There's a lot of propositioning in QM
about things one can never really know ultimately.
Such as, "We don't know exactly where it is except it's
somewhere in there at this time," or, "We might not know
when it's in there, but we definitely know where it is!"
(By the way, the above quotes are not from a book on QM
but things my auto-repair man's said when I've phoned him
trying to pin him down on when/whether me car's fixed yet.)
> The
> _attempt_ at explanation of _some_ of QM has been made however,
> therefore
> I understand some of QM, and, as a corollary of Neils Bohr's comment
> "Anyone who can contemplate quantum mechanics without getting dizzy
> hasn't
> understood it", what I do understand tends to make me dizzy.
I knew a girl one time I also couldn't contemplate
without getting knocked off my feet--Wonder if it's the same.
(No it wasn't her boyfriend doing the knocking!)
>>> Or, is this a hint that
>>> you do
>>> understand the implications of BIT and are being coy?
>>
>> Coy?!?! Moi?!?!
>
> It was a long shot.
Ouch!
>>> [although I
>>> doubt
>>> that even if you could exploit some of the possible implications
>>> of
>>> BIT
>>> you could 'ESP' a fictional event]
>>
>> I once saw a couple of huge shimmering blue balls
>> in the skies over Miami (in the 60s). Fortunately
>> when I got home & turned on the radio I found out
>> thousands of other people had also seen them (thus
>> sparing me an excursion through the American
>> Mental Health experience).
>
> ESP & Voodoo, if ever shown to have validity, might be explainable
by
> BIT,
> as it seems to imply that 'action at a distance' is possible [but
> there
> are, apparently, other explanations].
Many, many people have the power of action
at a distance. I knew this gumba could just look at
somebody the wrong way and right way the guy he'd
done this to would turn up floating head down
in the river. It was really creepy!
> [But if you guard your ear-wax with care you don't need to worry about
> voodoo too much]
No kidding: I've heard of voodoo with blood and
candles, but with ear wax?!?!?! Wow! Live & learn.
>>>> is too hard for you to believe... go to your
>>>> corner bookstore and pick up "popular" books
>>>> on the subject (not the most advanced, but those
>>>> intended to introduce the subject to a more
>>>> general audience): They will all do this
>>>> quite niftily and to your satisfaction,
>>>
>>> I doubt it somehow.
>>> The reason I brought up quantum mechanics is, in my layman's
>>> understanding, QM is involved in many contemporary cosmological
>>> theories.
>>
>> So are eyeballs & telescopes. Look into these first.
>
> What does a gluon look like?
Like a wad of chewing gum's been in saliva 3 months, I hear.
> Does time pass uniformly for all people on earth?
No. Some people live & die; and lots others
can't seem to die no matter how many times
you shoot the sons-a-bitches.
> [Check your
> altitude]
> Would HUP allow particles to escape from a very small black hole,
even
> though doing so would mean they (by definition of black hole)
> travelled
> faster than c?
> Eyes aren't up to the task.
Well, very honest of youse to admit this.
>>> The site you reference suggests that these cosmological theories
>>> are
>>> wrong.
>>
>> Simpler: Observations are correct; their interpretations
>> are warped by being processed through prejudiced brains.
>
> Theories are tested explanations of observations, in physics they
are
> formally expressed mathematically.
Music is the most beautiful of all mathematical theories.
And, I dare say, probably the that will never be discredited.
>>> For you to assert this I assumed you would have intimate
>>> knowledge
>>> of QM.
>>
>> Well, I have been screwed by it on occasions.
>
> GIF!
> (Was it Schrödinger's cat?)
I saw screwed, not scratched.
>>> If you had intimate knowledge of QM you would no doubt be aware
of
>>> its
>>> reputation as being inexplicable. You don't seem to be aware
of
>>> that.
True: I am not aware of any explanation being inexplicable.
On the other hand, I am aware of many drunks giving out
quite easily explained explanations in utter gibberish!
>> I
>>> find that ... intriguing.
I look for "that" in the dictionary.
>> I respect no reputation as much as I respect
>> First Hand Knowledge: You could never bring before me
>> anyone with enough of a reputation to convince me
>> if I jump off a 20-story building nothing bad can befall me.
>
> Visit a hypnotist. You'll believe you can fly!
I already do! What I'm trying to do not is find one
who can learn me how to land!
>>> BTW: A quote from a book such as you suggest:
>>> Quantum theory cannot be /explained/.
>>> [their italics]
>>
>> Try: To understand quantum theory one must accept
>> that a great deal of it involves accepting that one cannot
>> have direct, ultimate, first hand knowledge (examination) of
>> a number of its results/findings--It certainly doesn't imply
>> one can't still understand the damn theory!
>
> "Physicists from Neils Bohr to Roger Penrose have admitted that it
> doesn't
> make sense.
Elitist bull--If they admitted a child could learn it
how could they justify their university salaries?
> What one /can/ do is discover how the ideas developed and
> how
> the theory is applied." [the continuation of my previous quote]
>
> So, do you go for superposition of states or the many-worlds
> interpretation?
Neither one: I go strictly for Chinese (although I'm
not averse to wolfing down a Whopper once in a while).
>>> BTW2: The heading immediately preceeding that line is : "Further
>>> Reading"
>>
>> Translation: "Buy our other books." [Not
>> necessarily kidding.]
>
> More Accurate Translation: This is the equivalent of a "Dummies guide
> to..." you need to read some other stuff, we think these will help...
The Grand Grand Master also speak of the merely Grand
Masters as dumies--It's only human.
> None of the books listed are by either of the authors, nor from the
> same
> publishers.
>
> Comments regarding quantum theory in _The Code Book_ (Simon Singh,
> 1999,
> Pub: 4th Estate) on quantum computers, quantum money & quantum
> cryptography back up the idea that although we can use the results
of
> quantum theory we cannot really understand it.
>
>>> _Introducing Quantum Theory_ JP McEvoy & Oscar Zarate.
>>> A very light introduction.
>>
>> There ya go! I love to read where there's a lot of light.
>
> It would be difficult otherwise ['completely' lightless rooms are
very
> difficult to read in -
I've read a couple of books would've been
improved by turning out the lights.
> one of the local tourist attractions (Port
> Arthur
> Penal Colony) has such a solitary confinement cell*, can't recall
what
> the
> max time in it used to be, 14 days I think, usually followed by a
stay
> in
> the prison hospital].
>
> <pedant mode>
> And, actually, you prefer to read where there is light of a particular
> range of wavelengths and only a moderate intensity - you would no
> doubt
> find it uncomfortable to read if you had a 5TW bulb illuminating
the
> reading material from a distance of a few feet.
> </pedant mode>
I prefer to mix my lights: Just one simple
neon light source gives me a headache.
> *It would take very fortuitous scattering to get a photon of visible
> light
> into the room from outside, the room is also well insulated wrt sound
> (several layers of sandstone blocks), about 8'x5' internally.
Try this: Go outside. Buy a flashlight. Bring it
inside & turn it on! Voila! You've done it!
> [alt.philosophy trimmed, again...]
Do they pay you for every single trim, or
do you have some sort of hairy contract with them?
Just curious,
S D Rodrian
sdr@t-three.com
http://member.aol.com/prebigbang
> Have Fun
> Martin
*******************
From: sdrodrian@aol.com
Subject: Re: How can space be bent?
Date: 21 Jan 2000 00:00:00 GMT
Message-ID: <86a3m2$8ud$1@nnrp1.deja.com>
References: <38816B0F.6B1B@netvigator.com>
<85sspq$7q2$2@bgtnsc01.worldnet.att.net> <85tlda$6eg$1@nnrp1.deja.com>
<38826e91@derwent.nt.tas.gov.au> <85vhs3$glq$1@nnrp1.deja.com>
<3885ddf9.24101726@news.prosurfr.com> <867ljg$g1c$1@nnrp1.deja.com>
<spam.and.eggs-2101001015330001@dialup.tourism.tas.gov.au>
X-Http-Proxy: 1.0 x32.deja.com:80 (Squid/1.1.22) for
client 38.26.139.202
Organization: Deja.com - Before you buy.
X-Article-Creation-Date: Fri Jan 21 17:06:22 2000 GMT
X-MyDeja-Info: XMYDJUIDsdrodrian
Newsgroups: alt.philosophy.debate,talk.philosophy.misc,alt.consciousness,sci.logic
X-Http-User-Agent: Mozilla/4.7 [en] (Win98; U)
In article <spam.and.eggs-2101001015330001@dialup.tourism.tas.gov.au>,
spam.and.eggs@tesseract.com.au (Martin Crisp) wrote:
[cut to the chase...]
>>> Oh, yes: I can explain Bell's Theorem. But that isn't the
>>> question.
>>> The question is: can you?
>>>
>>> John Savard (jsavard<at>ecn<dot>ab<dot>ca)
>>> http://www.ecn.ab.ca/~jsavard/crypto.htm
>>
>> Sure: Just give me a good reason I should...
>
> Because you claimed that if someone understands something then they
> can
> relate it clearly in English.
And here's the proof of it, then:
"something" = "A particular thing indefinitely conceived or
stated. Some portion or quantity."
Best me at it! However... show me where I claimed I could
explain anything & everything you'd care to propose I should
or ought to be able to explain even were I willing and able!
> (Or, at least, that is implicit when you
> claim that if someone cannot relate something clearly in English
then
> they
> do not understand it.)
Oh they might understand it, just not "clearly."
You have too absolutist a frame of mind, ole boy:
Start by getting rid of the word "implicit." Then
realize that however anybody explains Bell's Theorem
to you... it will always remain your prerogative to
either heap honors upon him/her, or manure. (Such
a gamble... few persons with any number of yet functioning
brains cells will ever decline to take.) Meself including.
> Some of us have indicated skepticism of that claim applied so
> universally.
Meself including... IF the claim is that "I" can explain
everything. However, mine remains a far humbler proposition:
That those things a person clearly understands, he/she
will be able to explain/express clearly. And this does not
mean that just because a person can clearly understand
and clearly explain the fine art of properly tying shoelaces
he or she will therefore be able to clearly understand
and clearly explain Bell's Theorem... or hot dog processing.
I hope I have more clearly explained/expressed myself (and
that thereby you do not still entertain any hopes of my
needing to explain what "little" I understand of Bell's Theorem).
Thank you in advance,
S D Rodrian
sdr@t-three.com
http://www.geocities.com/absoluterelativity
> If you understand BIT and your claim is valid then you should be able
> to
> demonstrate your claim.
>
> It won't prove your claim correct, but it will give it some badly
> needed weight.
> Have Fun
> Martin
*******************
From: sdrodrian@aol.com
Subject: Re: How can space be bent?
Date: 22 Jan 2000 00:00:00 GMT
Message-ID: <86d46b$bg3$1@nnrp1.deja.com>
Approved: tskirvin+hpo@crhc.uiuc.edu
References: <38816B0F.6B1B@netvigator.com> <85sspq$7q2$2@bgtnsc01.worldnet.att.net>
<85tlda$6eg$1@nnrp1.deja.com> <38826e91@derwent.nt.tas.gov.au>
<85vhs3$glq$1@nnrp1.deja.com> <3885ddf9.24101726@news.prosurfr.com>
<867ljg$g1c$1@nnrp1.deja.com> <spam.and.eggs-2101001015330001@dialup.tourism.tas.gov.au>
<86a3k7$8tu$1@nnrp1.deja.com> <388855d7.13703414@news.prosurfr.com>
X-Original-Date: Sat, 22 Jan 2000 20:33:15 GMT
X-Group-Homepage: <URL:http://www.uiuc.edu/~tskirvin/hpo/>
X-Original-To: humanities-philosophy-objectivism@moderators.isc.org
X-Submissions-To: tskirvin+hpo@crhc.uiuc.edu
X-Original-Path: not-for-mail
X-Mydeja-Info: XMYDJUIDsdrodrian
X-Organization: Deja.com - Before you buy.
NNTP-Posting-Date: 22 Jan 2000 20:33:27 GMT
X-Mail-Path: amber.crhc.uiuc.edu!alpha.math.uiuc.edu!moderated.news.pipex.net!mail.deja.com!nnrp1.deja.com!news@dejanews.com
X-Original-NNTP-Posting-Host: 38.26.139.248
X-ModBot: Mackie the HPO ModBot <tskirvin@uiuc.edu>
X-HTTP-User-Agent: Mozilla/4.7 [en] (Win98; U)
X-Complaints-To: usenet@crhc.uiuc.edu
Processed-By: Mackie the HPO ModBot <tskirvin@uiuc.edu>
X-HTTP-Proxy: 1.0 x28.deja.com:80 (Squid/1.1.22) for
client 38.26.139.248
X-Trace: sephiroth.crhc.uiuc.edu 948573207 1678 130.126.141.117
(22 Jan 2000 20:33:27 GMT)
Organization: VeriMod (<URL:http://www.uiuc.edu/~tskirvin/verimod/>)
X-Article-Creation-Date: Sat Jan 22 20:33:15 2000 GMT
X-Auth: PGPMoose V1.1 PGP humanities.philosophy.objectivism
iD8DBQE4ihQW6ocVLX0FGHsRAkWyAKCDn01CJG/eC+wyXYcCtv3n/wxAXACgiXn7 26YfD37Li+AxdciEtLNiCsY=
=Ckhc
Newsgroups: humanities.philosophy.objectivism
In article <388855d7.13703414@news.prosurfr.com>,
jsavard@domain.ctry (John Savard) wrote:
> sdrodrian@aol.com wrote, in part:
>
>>However, mine remains a far humbler proposition:
>>That those things a person clearly understands, he/she
>>will be able to explain/express clearly.
>
> Ah, but that does have controversial content, in the way you are
using
> it.
>
> You appear to assume that this humble claim implies that, because
some
> parts of physics really do require a considerable amount of
> complicated mathematics to fully explain, that these parts of physics
> are phony,
If that is what you thought I implied, your thoughts were
mistaken: Read your quote of what I said (above) again.
If, in order to clearly explain a mathematical matter, the use of
mathematics is required... why in the world would I find doing so
objectionable? I assure you I do not. My objection is to those
pronouncements in gibberish which the gibberish-chiseler
likes to wave in front of people "with the clear understanding"
that they cannot be further elucidated (as they would eventually
be discovered to be the gibberish they are): Unfortunately, any
nunber of gibberish-chiselers also like to pretend they really do
understand their gibberish! (A feeling which must not be far
removed from that one a person, while on a drug trip, gets...
that he/she has finally achieved contact with The Ultimate Meaning
of Life, or some other nonsense.)
> that the scientists who claim to deal with them don't
> really understand them themselves - because they can't explain them
in
> terms you can understand.
>
> I'm sorry, but your brain is not the yardstick by which the laws
of
> nature are judged.
If you believe that... then you go against the grain of all
human history: The reason your brain is able to understand
something (anything) is because it uses a language which
evolved to clearly express such understanding--Ours is,
very narrowly... a social brain (you think in your mother's
language). It's unimaginable to me what thoughts must
cross the mind of a human being who has NEVER had any
contact with any other human being... EVER; or even whether
thoughts (as we describe such things) are even possible at all!
Thinking good thoughts,
S D Rodrian
sdr@t-three.com
http://members.aol.com/prebigbang
> John Savard (jsavard<at>ecn<dot>ab<dot>ca)
> http://www.ecn.ab.ca/~jsavard/crypto.htm
>
>
**************
From: sdrodrian@aol.com
Subject: Re: How can space be bent?
Date: 17 Jan 2000 00:00:00 GMT
Message-ID: <85vh9i$g58$1@nnrp1.deja.com>
References: <38816B0F.6B1B@netvigator.com>
<85sspq$7q2$2@bgtnsc01.worldnet.att.net> <85tlda$6eg$1@nnrp1.deja.com>
<38831203.847AEFDC@icsi.not.net>
X-Http-Proxy: 1.0 x27.deja.com:80 (Squid/1.1.22) for
client 38.26.139.105
Organization: Deja.com - Before you buy.
X-Article-Creation-Date: Mon Jan 17 16:51:05 2000 GMT
X-MyDeja-Info: XMYDJUIDsdrodrian
Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity,de.sci.physik,sci.physics.electromag,sci.logic
X-Http-User-Agent: Mozilla/4.7 [en] (Win98; U)
In article <38831203.847AEFDC@icsi.not.net>,
Morat <dragon@icsi.not.net> wrote:
>
>
> sdrodrian@aol.com wrote:
>>
>> In article <85sspq$7q2$2@bgtnsc01.worldnet.att.net>,
>> "genein" <genein@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>>>
>>> WONG <samuwong@netvigator.com> wrote in message
>>> news:38816B0F.6B1B@netvigator.com...
>>>> How can space be bent ?
>>>> Space and time are abstract ideas, concepts in our mind.
They
>>>> are
>>>> not
>>>> real substances like metal rods . A straight metal rod
can be
>>>> bent
>>>> and
>>>> become crooked with force, but how can space or the so-called
>>>> space-time be bent , or 'warped' ?
>>>> Has language been misused by some leading scientists ?
>>>
>>> language has not been misused it is simply inadequate...the
>>> problem
>>> lies in
>>> attempting to explain to the layman rather complex mathematical
>>> terms
>>> which at
>>> times defies explanation....we have the same problem with ordinary
>>> words,
>>> translations of chinese or japanese text (example) differ, at
>>> times
>>> putting a
>>> different spin on the original.
>>
>> D O N ' T Y O U B E L I E V E
I T !!!!!!!
>>
>> If somebody can't express him/herself clearly
>> chances are he/she doesn't have a clear
>> understanding of what he/she is talking about.
>>
>
>Don't be an ass. All he said was "It's rather hard to explain without
>the math.". It's easy to explain if the person you're explaining it
to
>is
>familiar enough with math (say, at least 2-3 years of Calculus+ level
>math)
>and physics (B.S degree) what Einstein meant. It's implicit in his
>equations. Without the math, you're basically describing it, without
>every
>getting to an explanation.
D O N ' T Y O U B E L I E V E I T !!!!!!!
If somebody can't express him/herself clearly
chances are he/she doesn't have a clear
understanding of what he/she is talking about.
Sir, I shall be an ass if I so wish to be (now
explain that mathematically): The English Language
(which is the one I am most familiar with) is fully
capable of being the vehicle of any meaning you
may wish to convey clearly. I stand by my statement.
Mathematics is ALWAYS representational (this, if you
are not able to understand clearly what is meant)
means that... as much as it may agree with itself
it only agrees with REALITY (with the world) in those
instances in which there is a prior agreement
that it should do so:
2+2=4 is something all mathematicians will agree to.
But a "fair" 2+2=4 business transaction CAN NEVER be
carried out using strict mathematics (because in the
exchange of 2 prize bulls for 2 hamsters... somebody
is going to get screwed very badly every time).
This is what happens when one proposes to PROVE
reality mathematically, by the way. This is why
before Copernicus all the mathematicians on the earth
could PROVE that the entire universe orbited earth
(and predicted orbits quite "satisfactorily") with their
equations. And this is why the equations of Einstein
and his acolytes can also be used today to PROVE a lot of
things... without their reflecting the true nature
of a universe which stares us in the face and completely
contradicts everything the beautiful equations are
telling us we ought to be seeing when we look upon it.
Mathematics can model ANY universe/reality quite neatly:
Make up one with Santas & elves instead of stars & planets
and put mathematicians to work on it... eventually all the
equations will balance and all the math will be correct & you'll
be able to predict anything under the Sun you'd care to with'em
--With only the slight little problem that the Elves & Santa
Universe the equations modeled is a total fantasy, of course. But
the Math will be sound all around, and everywhere all the numbers
will agree with themselves! Bully!
This is what the pre-Copernicus mathematicians did; this is what
the Einsteinian mathematicians have done; and this is what
good little mathematicians are doing even now all over the world:
If in order to make their equations come out perfect they need to
toss in two or three additional dimensions, why not?! (After all,
Einstein's equations were all sexually-intercoursed... until he
threw in a fourth dimension. Why not keep up a grand tradition?)
Look at the world FIRST. See what its nature is. If you cannot see
something admit it. If you can see something, describe it (in English
or some other of the many human languages which humanity have
developeded to understand REALITY). Then, and only then (and only
for technical, NEVER for fundamental understanding)... play around
with your numbers, crunch'em one way, and then crunch'em another
way... and see what sort of half-baked crunchy/nutty cookies you can
delight us with. (Hopefully, perhaps even a sequel to Star Trek.)
Kindly,
S D Rodrian
sdr@t-three.com
http://www.geocities.com/absoluterelativity.
>> Period.
>>
>> S D Rodrian
>> sdr@t-three.com
>> http://members.aol.com/prebigbang
>>
***********
From: sdrodrian@aol.com
Subject: Re: How can space be bent?
Date: 23 Jan 2000 00:00:00 GMT
Message-ID: <86fuvp$7jm$1@nnrp1.deja.com>
Approved: robomod@ediacara.org
References: <38840b35.2686879@news.earthlink.net>
<38958cca.19172862@news.ij.net>
X-Authentication-Warning: backdraft.briar.org: smap set
sender to <news@dejanews.com> using -f
X-Http-User-Agent: Mozilla/4.7 [en] (Win98; U)
X-Http-Proxy: 1.0 x43.deja.com:80 (Squid/1.1.22) for
client 38.26.139.166
Organization: Deja.com - Before you buy.
X-Article-Creation-Date: Sun Jan 23 22:23:05 2000 GMT
X-MyDeja-Info: XMYDJUIDsdrodrian
Newsgroups: sci.logic,talk.origins,alt.philosophy,alt.wisdom
In article <38958cca.19172862@news.ij.net>,
gold@ij.net (Turiyan "I scare german chemistsTM" Gold) wrote:
> Its been done:
>
> Classic ufo design. Shell covers a disk which spins via a motor
in
> the middle. Now, place a gyroscope on the disk. Disk
spins creating
> a magnetic field to counter earths field which is how it flys.
The
> servo on the "wing" is kicked in which spins on its own motor within
> the gyroscope design which generates the "time machine" effect of
> warping both time and space.
>
> All the theorys on why time travel is impossible or impractical center
> around the flaw in logic that you would travel back and forth in
THIS
> time stream. Just change "lanes" and have fun. The hardest
part is:
>
> Figuring out how to navigate and end up in the exact same place you
> were before you left.
>
> And how to have an engine that runs long enough to allow you to do
all
> the things you'd like. Which no one has right now thats been
> declassified. It has to run on a nuclear motor. One thats
small
> enough to spin the disk fast enough and long enough. Otherwise
you'd
> use up all the gas on the earth.
>
> The real question is there a motherline? Do we have consciousness
in
> every time stream/dimension? If so that would make time travel
a
> metaphysical experience few could handle.
>
> Read up on this in _ How to build a ufo and other issues of
> speculative technology _.
>
> gold@ij.net
This method of time-traveling is much too complex and expensive.
The simplest method is to ring up Clark Kent and tell him
that if he does not piggy-back you to wherever the Hell in time
you wish to go.. you will tell Lois Lane on him!
WARNING: I know Superman is supposed to be a decent, honest
American & all, but watch out he doesn't just take you
into the future to a time when Lois already's figured out
he's Superman--he could turn out to be a little stinker!
Always glad to help out people who use their heads
(even if it's only to erase their minds),
S D Rodrian
sdr@t-three.com
http://members.aol.com/mrealms/470.htm
*********************
From: sdrodrian@aol.com
Subject: Re: How can space be bent?
Date: 19 Jan 2000 00:00:00 GMT
Message-ID: <864h41$4jh$1@nnrp1.deja.com>
References: <38816B0F.6B1B@netvigator.com>
<85sspq$7q2$2@bgtnsc01.worldnet.att.net> <85tlda$6eg$1@nnrp1.deja.com>
<38831203.847AEFDC@icsi.not.net> <85vhcr$g6r$1@nnrp1.deja.com>
<861auk$ek@singer.cent.gla.ac.uk>
X-Http-Proxy: 1.0 x40.deja.com:80 (Squid/1.1.22) for
client 38.26.139.76
Organization: Deja.com - Before you buy.
X-Article-Creation-Date: Wed Jan 19 14:18:57 2000 GMT
X-MyDeja-Info: XMYDJUIDsdrodrian
Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity,de.sci.physik,sci.physics.electromag,sci.logic
X-Http-User-Agent: Mozilla/4.7 [en] (Win98; U)
In article <861auk$ek@singer.cent.gla.ac.uk>,
"David G Dick" <D.Dick@lib.gla.ac.uk> wrote:
>
> sdrodrian@aol.com wrote in message <85vhcr$g6r$1@nnrp1.deja.com>...
>>
>>If somebody can't express him/herself clearly
>>chances are he/she doesn't have a clear
>>understanding of what he/she is talking about.
>
> OK then, pretend you have to explain the color blue to someone
who is
> blind, and cannot comprehend physics. How would you express
yourself
> clearly to them?
Sure: "Colors are like flavors; only, instead of being
identified by your tastebuds, they are identified by
the cones in the back of your eyeballs. You know how
every individual thing you taste has a distinct flavor?
Well, if you could see, every individual thing you saw
would also have its individual color... except people
because there's now a Law passed by the politically
correct laws-passers that one must be color-blind to
people, except when minorities are revelling in their
ethnicity, then it's of great pride to be a person of
whatever color that minority is (except "whites," if they
revel in their ethnicity, it's considered a hanging offense),
and... well, the truth is that every time you get politics
involved in anything even the simplest truths become
an infinite multiplicity of half-truths. Sue me!"
> --
> David G Dick
Say, who said I had to be the one to explain anything
clearly (or otherwise) to anybody?!
And now you can explain my pain in the ass mathematically.
S D Rodrian
sdr@t-three.com
http://www.geocities.com/absoluterelativity
***********************
From: sdrodrian@aol.com
Subject: Re: How can space be bent?
Date: 19 Jan 2000 00:00:00 GMT
Message-ID: <864ir1$5uq$1@nnrp1.deja.com>
References: <38816B0F.6B1B@netvigator.com>
<85sspq$7q2$2@bgtnsc01.worldnet.att.net> <85tlda$6eg$1@nnrp1.deja.com>
<38831203.847AEFDC@icsi.not.net> <85vhcr$g6r$1@nnrp1.deja.com>
<1c88e830.16ac4716@usw-ex0105-038.remarq.com>
X-Http-Proxy: 1.0 x24.deja.com:80 (Squid/1.1.22) for
client 38.26.139.76
Organization: Deja.com - Before you buy.
X-Article-Creation-Date: Wed Jan 19 14:48:07 2000 GMT
X-MyDeja-Info: XMYDJUIDsdrodrian
Newsgroups: talk.atheism,alt.atheism,gac.physics.astronomy,alt.chaos
X-Http-User-Agent: Mozilla/4.7 [en] (Win98; U)
In article <1c88e830.16ac4716@usw-ex0105-038.remarq.com>,
jon <ibalNOibSPAM@slip.net.invalid> wrote:
>> *This is why
>> before Copernicus all the mathematicians on the earth could PROVE
>> that
>> the entire universe orbited earth (and predicted orbits
>> quite "satisfactorily") with their equations.*
> Actually, it was the inability to "satisfactorily" predict orbits
> that drove the work of Copernicus, and later Kepler.
Just as it is the inability of the Big Bang model & Einstein
to predict "at all" that the so-called "expansion" of the
univese is accelerating... that drove my work; as it will drive
the work of those who will hereafter achieve more precise
models. Ah, that I should live to see them do it!
> No previous
> models
> could account for retrograde orbits. The models of Copernicus were
> closer to being accurate, but still not perfect. It took Kepler to
> surmise that the orbits were eliptical, rather than round.A theory
is
> a
> tentative answer to a question about observed phenomena. Absolute
> truth
> is not the issue, nor is a 1-to-1 correspondence ratio with "the
thing
> in itself"
My, you have a philosophical bent there
(I have a crick myself).
> A theory is only as good as it is useful, for the prediction of data.
I have a theory about the young lady next door,
but it hasn't helped me any.
> As far as the metal rod is concerned, can you produce one, bent or
> straight, that occupies zero time-space? Time-space is as real as
that
> rod will ever be.
Flash: 1) Time only exists in the human mind. And ANYTHING
constructed by the universe with it... also does not exist
outside the human mind. 2) Santa Claus only exists in the
human mind. And ANYTHING constructed by him... also
does not exist outside the human mind. 3) tattoo 1 and 2
on your forehead... backwards, so you can read it on a mirror.
Later: "Hey, Pop. How come you've got those two numbers
tattooed on your forehead... backwards?"
S D Rodrian
sdr@t-three.com
http://members.aol.com/prebigbang
******************
From: sdrodrian@aol.com
Subject: Re: How can space be bent?
Date: 20 Jan 2000 00:00:00 GMT
Message-ID: <867mhs$gtb$1@nnrp1.deja.com>
References: <38816B0F.6B1B@netvigator.com>
<85sspq$7q2$2@bgtnsc01.worldnet.att.net> <85tlda$6eg$1@nnrp1.deja.com>
<38831203.847AEFDC@icsi.not.net> <85vhcr$g6r$1@nnrp1.deja.com>
<1c88e830.16ac4716@usw-ex0105-038.remarq.com> <864ir1$5uq$1@nnrp1.deja.com>
<38a139f2.c3cf92da@usw-ex0104-028.remarq.com>
X-Http-Proxy: 1.0 x31.deja.com:80 (Squid/1.1.22) for
client 38.26.139.48
Organization: Deja.com - Before you buy.
X-Article-Creation-Date: Thu Jan 20 19:10:04 2000 GMT
X-MyDeja-Info: XMYDJUIDsdrodrian
Newsgroups: sci.logic,alt.philosophy.debate,talk.philosophy.misc,alt.consciousness
X-Http-User-Agent: Mozilla/4.7 [en] (Win98; U)
In article <38a139f2.c3cf92da@usw-ex0104-028.remarq.com>,
jon <ibalNOibSPAM@slip.net.invalid> wrote:
>> *Time-space is as real as that rod will ever be.
>>
>> Flash: 1) Time only exists in the human mind. And ANYTHING
>> constructed
>> by the universe with it...
>> also does not exist outside the human mind. 2) Santa Claus only
>> exists
>> in the human mind. And
>> ANYTHING constructed by him... also does not exist outside the human
>> mind. 3) tattoo 1 and 2 on
>> your forehead... backwards, so you can read it on a mirror.
>>
>> Later: "Hey, Pop. How come you've got those two numbers tattooed
on
>> your forehead...
>> backwards?"
>*-----My but that's patronizing. Especially in light of the
> fact that it basically reiterates my point.
If it was undeservedly patronizing, you have my apologies.
If it was patronizing & well-deserved, then I have all
those bows I take in my own mind when I do naughty/nutty
thing like that.
S D Rodrian
sdr@t-three.com
http://members.aol.com/mrealms/470.htm
(SEE: The Rules of Life at the above url)
*****************
From: sdrodrian@aol.com
Subject: Re: How can space be bent?
Date: 20 Jan 2000 00:00:00 GMT
Message-ID: <86867d$t22$1@nnrp1.deja.com>
References: <38816B0F.6B1B@netvigator.com>
<85sspq$7q2$2@bgtnsc01.worldnet.att.net> <85tlda$6eg$1@nnrp1.deja.com>
<38831203.847AEFDC@icsi.not.net> <85vhcr$g6r$1@nnrp1.deja.com>
<1c88e830.16ac4716@usw-ex0105-038.remarq.com> <864isn$5vd$1@nnrp1.deja.com>
<38864418.24157717@newshost.breathemail.net>
X-Http-Proxy: 1.0 x38.deja.com:80 (Squid/1.1.22) for
client 38.26.139.34
Organization: Deja.com - Before you buy.
X-Article-Creation-Date: Thu Jan 20 23:37:18 2000 GMT
X-MyDeja-Info: XMYDJUIDsdrodrian
Newsgroups: alt.astronomy,uk.sci.astronomy,sci.astro.amateur,alt.sci.physics
X-Http-User-Agent: Mozilla/4.7 [en] (Win98; U)
In article <38864418.24157717@newshost.breathemail.net>,
pm.davis@spamless.net (Paul Davis) wrote:
> On Wed, 19 Jan 2000 14:49:01 GMT, sdrodrian@aol.com wrote:
>
> >> Actually, it was the inability to "satisfactorily" predict
orbits
> >> that drove the work of Copernicus, and later Kepler.
> >
> >Just as it is the inability of the Big Bang model & Einstein
> >to predict "at all" that the so-called "expansion" of the
> >univese is accelerating... that drove my work; as it will
drive
> >the work of those who will hereafter achieve more precise
> >models. Ah, that I should live to see them do it!
>
> Which model of the Big bang are you talking about? Closed, open or
> flat?
> Or imploding? <chuckle>
Who says you don't have a sense of humor? (Shall we start
from your parents and child psychologist, or from some later
starting point in your life--?)
> Secondly, as far as I'm aware there is only one set of statistics
that
> suggest that the Universal expansion is speeding up, which IIRC,
is
> based on observations of distant supernovas. One swallow does not
a
> summer make. I'm certainly waiting for some corroborating evidence
> before I accept that scenario.
> Pray tell, what is the explanation within your theory?
Frankly: None. (How's that for honesty?)
1) If the universe's so-called expansion is NOT accelerating
then my proposal of an imploding universe cannot
draw
any "proof" from this: zero. BUT, just as you say,
it's too
early to really understand once & for all whether
a non-
accelerating "expansion" supports or tends to disprove
either an imploding or an exploding universe. [However,
consider--read my text--that I base my idea of an
imploding
universe not just on one observed fact but on many.
And,
as well, you might also have added that there have
also been
"suggestions" of cosmic phenomena exceeding the
"speed
of light" which, if they pan out, then basically
leaves my
Absolute Relativity Theory as the only viable one
left. Have
I ever asked anyone to take what I propose at faith
value?
No. My mantra is & remains forever... think
for yourself.]
> >> As far as the metal rod is concerned, can you produce one,
bent or
> >> straight, that occupies zero time-space? Time-space is as
real as
> >> that
> >> rod will ever be.
>
> >Flash: 1) Time only exists in the human mind. And ANYTHING
> >constructed by the universe with it... also does not exist
> >outside the human mind.
>
> Is that right? So, those photons now reaching earth that demonstrably
> left stars billions of years before the existence of the earth itself,
> didn't exist billions of years before we were here to label that
time
> span?
Sometimes writers & speakers assume a certain "bit" of knowledge
and/or common sense in their audiences. You have my apologies:
Our universe is made up of countless independent motions
which has nothing whatever to do with the human idea of time-
keeping: I repeat... TIME-KEEPING.
The human idea of time is one involving synchronizing two or
more independent motions. [So that they thereafter remain
interchangeable... to speak of one is to speak of the other one(s).]
The universe, however, is composed of independent motions
each of which moves at its own rate (independently of every other
motion in the universe).
Along comes man... and synchronizes the motion of his watch
with/to earth's revolutions, or the orbit of the earth about the Sun
... only to discover that while he himself can make his watch keep
ITS time, the revolutions of the earth are slowing down, and the
orbit of the earth also changes as all the universe's independent
motions continue at their own pace... winding down, by the way.
This is what I mean when I say that man's notion of time only
exists in the human mind. And this is what Einstein tried to
cover up when he glibly said that "time is relative."
It does not mean that, if we take the universe to be ONE
thing and ONE thing only, that the universe does not
undergo a history. But it does mean that if you and I try to
synchronize our watches to the universe... we shall not be
able to determine the universe's "time;" and the most we
will ever accomplish is to synchronize our watches to this or
that only very local motion--such "a motion" which is not only
running down, but which might even stop altogether (say, by
a planetoid destroying the earth, or a black hole swallowing
the Sun). Then won't we be left with egg on our faces! Not
to mention... where are we gonna unload all those watches
which used to say 24 revolutions per revolution (and all those
calendars which used to say 265 pages per orbit): "What
revolution? What orbit?" Shall object all our prostective buyers.
But the endearingly human idea of a past which ceased to
exist and of a future which will one day pop into existence...
that's just plain pooped-out poppycock: Existence is what
exists, all that exists, period. And Abe Lincoln, because he
existed, is still very much here with us (mummified, albeit).
And time-travel? How can one travel from here to a place
which does not exist (because all that exists has always
existed and will always exist... only "forms & shapes" change).
However, if you've got the money you can recreate the
"forms & shapes" of the past... and the boards & bricks
will never know the difference. And if you're God, you can
recreate Abe Lincoln down to the last molecule of his
memory, and then Abe'll look around and exclaim: "My
but the future is clean! Look, everyone: No horse puckies!"
> If time only exists in my mind, does that mean if I think hard ebough
> that time will ceae to exist? What will happen then? Your theories
> come true?
I suspect that if YOU think hard enough your brain shall become
quite indistinguishable from a brick--Which is to say, Paul:
You've been thinking too hard, ole buddy!
S D Rodrian
sdr@t-three.com
http://www.geocities.com/absoluterelativity
> >> Paul M. Davis
**************************
From: sdrodrian@aol.com
Subject: Re: How can space be bent?
Date: 18 Jan 2000 00:00:00 GMT
Message-ID: <862rit$ui0$1@nnrp1.deja.com>
References: <38816B0F.6B1B@netvigator.com>
<85sspq$7q2$2@bgtnsc01.worldnet.att.net> <85tlda$6eg$1@nnrp1.deja.com>
<38831203.847AEFDC@icsi.not.net> <85vh7s$g4o$1@nnrp1.deja.com>
<85vtcg$9an$1@nclient13-gui.server.virgin.net>
X-Http-Proxy: 1.0 x31.deja.com:80 (Squid/1.1.22) for
client 38.26.139.1
Organization: Deja.com - Before you buy.
X-Article-Creation-Date: Tue Jan 18 23:05:14 2000 GMT
X-MyDeja-Info: XMYDJUIDsdrodrian
Newsgroups: alt.astronomy,uk.sci.astronomy,sci.astro.amateur,alt.sci.physics
X-Http-User-Agent: Mozilla/4.7 [en] (Win98; U)
In article <85vtcg$9an$1@nclient13-gui.server.virgin.net>,
"Dave O'Neill" <david.o'neill2@vXrgXn.net> wrote:
>
> <sdrodrian@aol.com> wrote in message
news:85vh7s$g4o$1@nnrp1.deja.com...
>> In article <38831203.847AEFDC@icsi.not.net>,
>> Morat <dragon@icsi.not.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>
> SNIP!
>> Look at the world FIRST. See what its nature is. If you cannot
see
>> something admit it. If you can see something, describe it (in
>> English
>> or some other of the many human languages which humanity have
>> developeded to understand REALITY). Then, and only then (and only
>> for technical, NEVER for fundamental understanding)... play around
>> with your numbers, crunch'em one way, and then crunch'em another
>> way... and see what sort of half-baked crunchy/nutty cookies you
can
>> delight us with. (Hopefully, perhaps even a sequel to Star Trek.)
>
> I am interested in your explanation of gravitational lenses and
> relativisitic effects without warped space-time.
Do not guess-Read the text! Many & many a time have I
said that Einstein is not altogether, absolutely wrong!
Many times Einstein is just simply stating something in
an unnecessarily complex manner. The matter of gravity is
just one example... where instead of saying that Newton's
mechanics work with the proviso that the effects of strong
gravitational fields have to be taken into consideration, Einstein
starts to sprout about celestial bodies "bending space" around
them! It all comes out the same no matter how one speak of it,
but Einstein's needlessly confusing way of putting it causes
mathematicians & other cretins & sundry lunatics to elevate
the
simple phenomena to the level of holy magic. [Although, if it gets
them more money at the ole Physics Dept. can we blame them?]
I repeat: Gravitational lensing is REAL. But it's not that
a rod of light is bent as it "rests/travels" through "bent space,"
it's that a "shower" of photons which would have normally gone
over your head instead hits you in the face when the gravity of a
celestial body "pulls" the photons "down" (towards said body,
not powerfully enough to cause them to crash into it as would a
black hole, but) just enough to "lower" their trajectory. This is why
a "star" which is behind, say, the Sun, will "seem as if" it's beyond
the Sun's horizon (during the infamous eclipse experiments).
It's the same thing. It's just that it sounds like magic explained
one way, and perfectly reasonable explained my way:
Use your eyes first. Use your brains then. And only use your fingers
& toes & scratches on the wall... as a last resort.
S D Rodrian
sdr@t-three.com
http://members.aol.com/prebigbang
> Dave O'Neill
> (3rd man on cart)
Been there. Done that.
************************
From: sdrodrian@aol.com
Subject: Re: How can space be bent?
Date: 20 Jan 2000 00:00:00 GMT
Message-ID: <86831l$r19$1@nnrp1.deja.com>
References: <38816B0F.6B1B@netvigator.com>
<85sspq$7q2$2@bgtnsc01.worldnet.att.net> <85tlda$6eg$1@nnrp1.deja.com>
<
38831203.847AEFDC@icsi.not.net> <85vh7s$g4o$1@nnrp1.deja.com>
<85vtcg$9an$1@nclient13-gui.server.virgin.net>
<862rit$ui0$1@nnrp1.deja.com> <388643b6.24059676@newshost.breathemail.net>
X-Http-Proxy: 1.0 x32.deja.com:80 (Squid/1.1.22) for
client 38.26.139.117
Organization: Deja.com - Before you buy.
X-Article-Creation-Date: Thu Jan 20 22:43:03 2000 GMT
X-MyDeja-Info: XMYDJUIDsdrodrian
Newsgroups: alt.astronomy,uk.sci.astronomy,sci.astro.amateur,alt.sci.physics
X-Http-User-Agent: Mozilla/4.7 [en] (Win98; U)
In article <388643b6.24059676@newshost.breathemail.net>,
pm.davis@spamless.net (Paul Davis) wrote:
> On Tue, 18 Jan 2000 23:05:14 GMT, sdrodrian@aol.com wrote:
>
> >> SNIP!
>
> Indeed, I've thought about doing that to every one of your messages
as
> they are getting worse and worse.
Rats! I was hoping they were getting funnier & funnier.
But at least... now you understand how the great censors
and undemocratic autocrats of the past (and present) feel!
> How exactly did you get out of the
> asylum?
Drove them crazy in there! It's such a self-evident solution
it could only have occurred to someone who actually
uses his/her brains. Try it--You'll like it. (Or suffer where you are.)
> I figure if we say you're correct then you'll shut the hell up and
go
> away back to your little non-sensical hole in the ground.
O my God! Have I had you over for coffee?
Have I had you under for... something else?
> Yes, you're right and everything we've learned in the last 100 years
> is fable, and we were really waiting for the messiah of cosmology,
> sdrodrian@aol.com to come and show us the error of our ways.
Well, wait no more: 'Cause, Baby, here I is in the raw!
> I'm quite convinced that your next assay will be explaining why
"essay"
> continental drift (aka plate tectonics) is fallacy because in reality
"a.k.a."
> the world blew up like a balloon, how the aether is real because if it
"ether"
> wasn't photons wouldn't be able to get around, and that the reason we
"get off the ground"
> discarded phlogiston is that we wanted to unneccesarily complicate
Not that there's anything wrong if you discarded philogyny...
> things. I mean, it all means the same thing in the end doesn't it.
Say, when I invited you over to my hole in the ground
I didn't mean you could go through my computer files!
(How were you able to guess my password was GOD?)
> What next, the whereabouts of Lord Lucan?
You mean my next-door neighbor? He's right there!
> I suggest, Mr. Rodrian, or whoever the hell you are, that you go and
> have a serious think about what you have been trying to tell people
in
> here.
I suggest you keep making suggestions to me exactly the same way
you have being doing up to now... as not only are they quite amusing
they also help me to get in touch with the childish sense of the silly
in me!
> Your ideas simply do not add up,
I keep telling & telling people to keep their shoes on
and instead of using their fingers & toes to try to understand
them
... to use their brains instead! But do you heed me? No. I mean,
it's as if you didn't have any brains--Oh. ... ... ... Never mind.
>despite your vociferous insistence.
You can hear me?!?!?! Wow, no wonder my neighbors
are banging the walls--I though they were simply very
romantic people. Can you hear Shakespeare when you
read him too, or is this "gift" of yours only confined to
hearing things you read which are written by me?
Just curious,
S D Rodrian
sdr@t-three.com
http://members.aol.com/mrealms/470.htm
> >> Paul M. Davis
************************
From: sdrodrian@aol.com
Subject: Re: How can space be bent?
Date: 18 Jan 2000 00:00:00 GMT
Message-ID: <862qh0$tli$1@nnrp1.deja.com>
References: <38816B0F.6B1B@netvigator.com>
<85sspq$7q2$2@bgtnsc01.worldnet.att.net> <85tlda$6eg$1@nnrp1.deja.com>
<38831203.847AEFDC@icsi.not.net> <85vh7s$g4o$1@nnrp1.deja.com>
<3883c4d0@derwent.nt.tas.gov.au>
X-Http-Proxy: 1.0 x39.deja.com:80 (Squid/1.1.22) for
client 38.26.139.1
Organization: Deja.com - Before you buy.
X-Article-Creation-Date: Tue Jan 18 22:47:02 2000 GMT
X-MyDeja-Info: XMYDJUIDsdrodrian
Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity,de.sci.physik,sci.physics.electromag,sci.logic
X-Http-User-Agent: Mozilla/4.7 [en] (Win98; U)
In article <3883c4d0@derwent.nt.tas.gov.au>,
"Martin Crisp" <Spam.Bucket@tesseract.com.au> wrote:
>
> <sdrodrian@aol.com> wrote in message
news:85vh7s$g4o$1@nnrp1.deja.com...
>> In article <38831203.847AEFDC@icsi.not.net>,
>> Morat <dragon@icsi.not.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> sdrodrian@aol.com wrote:
>>>>
>>>> In article <85sspq$7q2$2@bgtnsc01.worldnet.att.net>,
>>>> "genein" <genein@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> WONG <samuwong@netvigator.com> wrote in message
>>>>> news:38816B0F.6B1B@netvigator.com...
>>>>>> How can space be bent ?
>>>>>> Space and time are abstract ideas, concepts in our mind.
>>>>>> They
>>>>>> are
>>>>>> not
>>>>>> real substances like metal rods . A straight metal
rod can
>>>>>> be
>>>>>> bent
>>>>>> and
>>>>>> become crooked with force, but how can space or the
>>>>>> so-called
>>>>>> space-time be bent , or 'warped' ?
>>>>>> Has language been misused by some leading scientists ?
>>>>>
>>>>> language has not been misused it is simply inadequate...the
>>>>> problem
>>>>> lies in
>>>>> attempting to explain to the layman rather complex
>>>>> mathematical
>>>>> terms
>>>>> which at
>>>>> times defies explanation....we have the same problem with
>>>>> ordinary
>>>>> words,
>>>>> translations of chinese or japanese text (example) differ,
at
>>>>> times
>>>>> putting a
>>>>> different spin on the original.
>>>>
>>>> D O N ' T Y O U B E L I E V E
I T !!!!!!!
>>>>
>>>> If somebody can't express him/herself clearly
>>>> chances are he/she doesn't have a clear
>>>> understanding of what he/she is talking about.
>>>>
>>>
>>>Don't be an ass. All he said was "It's rather hard to explain
>>>without
>>>the math.". It's easy to explain if the person you're explaining
it
>>>to
>>>is
>>>familiar enough with math (say, at least 2-3 years of Calculus+
>>>level
>>>math)
>>>and physics (B.S degree) what Einstein meant. It's implicit in
his
>>>equations. Without the math, you're basically describing it,
>>>without
>>>every
>>>getting to an explanation.
>>
>> D O N ' T Y O U B E L I E V E
I T !!!!!!!
>>
>> If somebody can't express him/herself clearly
>> chances are he/she doesn't have a clear
>> understanding of what he/she is talking about.
>>
>> Sir, I shall be an ass if I so wish to be (now
>> explain that mathematically): The English Language
>> (which is the one I am most familiar with) is fully
>> capable of being the vehicle of any meaning you
>> may wish to convey clearly. I stand by my statement.
>
> Then you are a fool.
FOOL: So! Mr. Bond, we meet again!
BOND: We've never met. I think I'd remember
a fat, ugly, hairy bastard like you.
FOOL: But I was a woman then, James. Remember
now? You knew me as Pussy Potent then.
BOND: Oh, my God! It all makes sense now....
FOOL: Wait! Where are you going?
BOND: I'm going to blow my brains out.
FOOL: But, James... this is only the first few
nanoseconds of the movie!
BOND: It's already too much for me! Bye!
> Although the following is inaccurate when written
> (except using some phonetic representation - which IS NOT English)
it
> conveys its meaning properly when spoken:
> There are three fours in the English language.
> There are three tos in the English language.
> There used to be two thes in the English language
> [and there are other examples]
>
> It's also possibly to strike the reverse situation, where something
> spoken
> is so ambiguous as to be unintelligible when spoken, but sensible
(if
> not
> *clear*) when written. [e.g. sentences where the word 'had' occurs
> consecutively 4 times]
>
> I also note that various translated works (from something else to
> English)
> note (occasionally) that certain source phrases cannot be accurately
> translated into English, implying that there are concepts that cannot
> be
> clearly described in English.
Here's Gilbert Highet's translation of a poem by Catullus,
followed by my own translation of it:
My woman says that she'd prefer to marry no one
but me, even if Jupiter asked for her love.
Ah yes: but what a woman says to an eager lover,
write it on running water, write it on air.
With lover's lips my woman says
that I'm the only one!
But what a lover swears today
tomorrow: it is gone.
Enthralled by passions she may write
that she is in Love's snare
--But what thus lover writes is writ
on water, in the air.
Hint: You've got to read the right translator.
>> Mathematics is ALWAYS representational (this, if you
>> are not able to understand clearly what is meant)
>> means that... as much as it may agree with itself
>> it only agrees with REALITY (with the world) in those
>> instances in which there is a prior agreement
>> that it should do so:
>>
>> 2+2=4 is something all mathematicians will agree to.
>
> [snip]
>
> 'All mathematicians' would only agree to the above if given a list
of
> the a
> priori assumptions that the equation depends on to be accurate.
Translation: "A whole lotta arguing in the vernacular must
first take place." I believe that was my point 2.
> There
> are at
> least 4 other possible values for the right hand side of the given
> equation,
> all equally valid, all dependent on aforementioned assumptions. Even
> if we
> assume the above is correct we need to know the assumptions before
the
> example can be extended to other equations.
>
> 2+2=0 (assuming modulo 4 arithmetic)
> 2+2=1 (assuming modulo 3 arithmetic)
> 2+2=10 (assuming base 4 arithmetic)
> 2+2=11 (assuming base 3 arithmetic)
> 2+2=4 (assuming some base greater than 4, assuming a modulus greater
> than 4
> or none at all. Perhaps by default assuming base 10 and non-modulo
> arithmetic)
And now you too--or somebody else reading this--will understand
why one always has to take all these numbers with a ton of salt.
Always having fun,
S D Rodrian
sdr@t-three.com
http://members.aol.com/prebigbang
> [alt.philosophy dropped from newsgroups line as it doesn't exist on
my
> server]
>
> Have Fun
> Martin
>
>
*****************
From: sdrodrian@aol.com
Subject: Re: How can space be bent?
Date: 19 Jan 2000 00:00:00 GMT
Message-ID: <864fos$3l4$1@nnrp1.deja.com>
References: <38816B0F.6B1B@netvigator.com>
<85sspq$7q2$2@bgtnsc01.worldnet.att.net> <85tlda$6eg$1@nnrp1.deja.com>
<38831203.847AEFDC@icsi.not.net> <85vh7s$g4o$1@nnrp1.deja.com>
<FTgh4.2944$sO5.37485@news.rdc1.tn.home.com>
X-Http-Proxy: 1.0 x42.deja.com:80 (Squid/1.1.22) for
client 38.26.139.76
Organization: Deja.com - Before you buy.
X-Article-Creation-Date: Wed Jan 19 13:55:47 2000 GMT
X-MyDeja-Info: XMYDJUIDsdrodrian
Newsgroups: alt.astronomy,uk.sci.astronomy,sci.astro.amateur,alt.sci.physics
X-Http-User-Agent: Mozilla/4.7 [en] (Win98; U)
In article <FTgh4.2944$sO5.37485@news.rdc1.tn.home.com>,
"Zippopotamongus" <noone@nomail.com> wrote:
> As much as I would like to skip this discussion,
> as the question was so incompetently presented
> it tempts a lack of response, the actual premise is
> quite compelling and caused Einstein himself a lot
> of concern.
>
> The problem as presented to Einstein upon his
> discovery of GR was thus:
>
> If "empty space" is to be defined as a vacuum,
> -the absence of substance- then how in fact
> could it have properties, such as curvature. How
> can nothing have properties.
>
> This is still, 80 years later, a significant problem.
> Though probably only to metaphysicist. But Einstein
> was in fact a metaphysicist at heart. Which is why he
> even gave a damn. This was also why he was such a
> good physicist. He was not only concerned with
> formulating equations that "worked", but equations
> that also unveiled a deeper, intuitive understanding
> of nature. This was the source of his inspiration. At
> least according to him.
>
> This is evident in the fact that he had the "idea" for GR
> long before he had the mathematical formalism, the
> Riemann Metric, to precisely define his idea, which is
> why he enlisted the help of a mathematician. Einstein
> had never even heard of Reimann when he first came up
> with the basic ideas of GR. It's the same with SR. The
> Lorentz transformations, the mathematical formalism for
> SR, were well known before Einstein made sense of them.
You know, oddly enough, you are not that far from the
truth: But give me a scientist who always tries to find
explanations for observed results every time. Those who
"create" "scenarios" and other "marvels of the imagination"
and then seek out NOTHING BUT those results that WILL
tend to support the products of their creativity... are
not scientists at all in my book. And the results shot this.
S D Rodrian
sdr@t-three.com
http://www.geocities.com/absoluterelativity
> And though this discussion probably belongs in the
> Metaphysics group, it still prompt some purely physics
> type speculation.
>
> Such as that perhaps the "vacuum" really
> isn't a vacuum at all...
>
> <sdrodrian@aol.com> wrote in message
news:85vh7s$g4o$1@nnrp1.deja.com...
>> In article <38831203.847AEFDC@icsi.not.net>,
>> Morat <dragon@icsi.not.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> sdrodrian@aol.com wrote:
>>>>
>>>> In article <85sspq$7q2$2@bgtnsc01.worldnet.att.net>,
>>>> "genein" <genein@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> WONG <samuwong@netvigator.com> wrote in message
>>>>> news:38816B0F.6B1B@netvigator.com...
>>>>>> How can space be bent ?
>>>>>> Space and time are abstract ideas, concepts in our mind.
They
>>>>>> are
>>>>>> not
>>>>>> real substances like metal rods . A straight metal
rod can
be
>>>>>> bent
>>>>>> and
>>>>>> become crooked with force, but how can space or the
so-called
>>>>>> space-time be bent , or 'warped' ?
>>>>>> Has language been misused by some leading scientists ?
>>>>>
>>>>> language has not been misused it is simply inadequate...the
>>>>> problem
>>>>> lies in
>>>>> attempting to explain to the layman rather complex
mathematical
>>>>> terms
>>>>> which at
>>>>> times defies explanation....we have the same problem with
ordinary
>>>>> words,
>>>>> translations of chinese or japanese text (example) differ,
at
>>>>> times
>>>>> putting a
>>>>> different spin on the original.
>>>>
>>>> D O N ' T Y O U B E L I E V E
I T !!!!!!!
>>>>
>>>> If somebody can't express him/herself clearly
>>>> chances are he/she doesn't have a clear
>>>> understanding of what he/she is talking about.
>>>>
>>>
>>>Don't be an ass. All he said was "It's rather hard to explain
without
>>>the math.". It's easy to explain if the person you're explaining
it
to
>>>is
>>>familiar enough with math (say, at least 2-3 years of Calculus+
level
>>>math)
>>>and physics (B.S degree) what Einstein meant. It's implicit in
his
>>>equations. Without the math, you're basically describing it,
without
>>>every
>>>getting to an explanation.
>>
>> D O N ' T Y O U B E L I E V E
I T !!!!!!!
>>
>> If somebody can't express him/herself clearly
>> chances are he/she doesn't have a clear
>> understanding of what he/she is talking about.
>>
>> Sir, I shall be an ass if I so wish to be (now
>> explain that mathematically): The English Language
>> (which is the one I am most familiar with) is fully
>> capable of being the vehicle of any meaning you
>> may wish to convey clearly. I stand by my statement.
>>
>> Mathematics is ALWAYS representational (this, if you
>> are not able to understand clearly what is meant)
>> means that... as much as it may agree with itself
>> it only agrees with REALITY (with the world) in those
>> instances in which there is a prior agreement
>> that it should do so:
>>
>> 2+2=4 is something all mathematicians will agree to.
>>
>> But a "fair" 2+2=4 business transaction CAN NEVER be
>> carried out using strict mathematics (because in the
>> exchange of 2 prize bulls for 2 hamsters... somebody
>> is going to get screwed very badly every time).
>>
>> This is what happens when one proposes to PROVE
>> reality mathematically, by the way. This is why
>> before Copernicus all the mathematicians on the earth
>> could PROVE that the entire universe orbited earth
>> (and predicted orbits quite "satisfactorily") with their
>> equations. And this is why the equations of Einstein
>> and his acolytes can also be used today to PROVE a lot of
>> things... without their reflecting the true nature
>> of a universe which stares us in the face and completely
>> contradicts everything the beautiful equations are
>> telling us we ought to be seeing when we look upon it.
>>
>> Mathematics can model ANY universe/reality quite neatly:
>> Make up one with Santas & elves instead of stars & planets
>> and put mathematicians to work on it... eventually all the
>> equations will balance and all the math will be correct & you'll
>> be able to predict anything under the Sun you'd care to with'em
>> --With only the slight little problem that the Elves & Santa
>> Universe the equations modeled is a total fantasy, of course. But
>> the Math will be sound all around, and everywhere all the numbers
>> will agree with themselves! Bully!
>>
>> This is what the pre-Copernicus mathematicians did; this is what
>> the Einsteinian mathematicians have done; and this is what
>> good little mathematicians are doing even now all over the world:
>> If in order to make their equations come out perfect they need
to
>> toss in two or three additional dimensions, why not?! (After all,
>> Einstein's equations were all sexually-intercoursed... until he
>> threw in a fourth dimension. Why not keep up a grand tradition?)
>>
>> Look at the world FIRST. See what its nature is. If you cannot
see
>> something admit it. If you can see something, describe it (in
English
>> or some other of the many human languages which humanity have
>> developeded to understand REALITY). Then, and only then (and only
>> for technical, NEVER for fundamental understanding)... play around
>> with your numbers, crunch'em one way, and then crunch'em another
>> way... and see what sort of half-baked crunchy/nutty cookies you
can
>> delight us with. (Hopefully, perhaps even a sequel to Star Trek.)
>>
>> Kindly,
>>
>> S D Rodrian
>> sdr@t-three.com
>> http://www.geocities.com/absoluterelativity.
>>
>>
>>>> Period.
>>>>
>>>> S D Rodrian
>>>> sdr@t-three.com
>>>> http://members.aol.com/prebigbang
>>>>
*********************
From: sdrodrian@aol.com
Subject: Re: How can space be bent?
Date: 19 Jan 2000 00:00:00 GMT
Message-ID: <864hmm$51s$1@nnrp1.deja.com>
References: <38816B0F.6B1B@netvigator.com>
<85sspq$7q2$2@bgtnsc01.worldnet.att.net> <85tlda$6eg$1@nnrp1.deja.com>
<yieh4.160$N%4.10894@nnrp1-w.snfc21.pbi.net>
X-Http-Proxy: 1.0 x40.deja.com:80 (Squid/1.1.22) for
client 38.26.139.76
Organization: Deja.com - Before you buy.
X-Article-Creation-Date: Wed Jan 19 14:28:57 2000 GMT
X-MyDeja-Info: XMYDJUIDsdrodrian
Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity,de.sci.physik,sci.physics.electromag.sci.logic
X-Http-User-Agent: Mozilla/4.7 [en] (Win98; U)
In article <yieh4.160$N%4.10894@nnrp1-w.snfc21.pbi.net>,
Mark Huber <mhuber@orie.cornell.com> wrote:
> Here's the problem with that: Newton's law of gravitation
> states that the force of gravity between two objects is
> proportional to the product of the masses of the two objects.
>
> Photons have zero mass, therefore under Newtonian gravitation,
> they should not be affected by gravity at all. The formula
doesn't
> work, and does not match observations. That's all.
>
> -mark
Here's the problem with that: No matter what ANYBODY sez
"photons have zero mass" is only an assumption (and people
HAVE erred in the past). It is far, far better to look
upon observed facts and try to square our beliefs with them
than to try to fit the observed facts into our beliefs.
S D Rodrian
sdr@t-three.com
http://members.aol.com/prebigbang
****************
From: sdrodrian@aol.com
Subject: Re: How can space be bent?
Date: 20 Jan 2000 00:00:00 GMT
Message-ID: <8681hl$pub$1@nnrp1.deja.com>
References: <38816B0F.6B1B@netvigator.com>
<85sspq$7q2$2@bgtnsc01.worldnet.att.net> <85tlda$6eg$1@nnrp1.deja.com>
<yieh4.160$N%4.10894@nnrp1-w.snfc21.pbi.net>
<864hoc$529$1@nnrp1.deja.com> <388643ee.24116139@newshost.breathemail.net>
X-Http-Proxy: 1.0 x27.deja.com:80 (Squid/1.1.22) for
client 38.26.139.117
Organization: Deja.com - Before you buy.
X-Article-Creation-Date: Thu Jan 20 22:17:42 2000 GMT
X-MyDeja-Info: XMYDJUIDsdrodrian
Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity,de.sci.physik,sci.physics.electromag,sci.logic
X-Http-User-Agent: Mozilla/4.7 [en] (Win98; U)
In article <388643ee.24116139@newshost.breathemail.net>,
pm.davis@spamless.net (Paul Davis) wrote:
> On Wed, 19 Jan 2000 14:29:51 GMT, sdrodrian@aol.com wrote:
>
> >> Here's the problem with that: Newton's law of gravitation
> >> states that the force of gravity between two objects is
> >> proportional to the product of the masses of the two objects.
> >>
> >> Photons have zero mass, therefore under Newtonian gravitation,
> >> they should not be affected by gravity at all. The
formula
> >> doesn't
> >> work, and does not match observations. That's all.
>
> >Here's the problem with that: No matter what ANYBODY sez
> >"photons have zero mass" is only an assumption (and people
> >HAVE erred in the past).
>
> Maybe you'd like to explain why we should discard this assumption?
> Because it fits your theory?
Maybe you'd like to explain why we should uphold this assumption?
Because it fits your theory?
> Please give a Newtonian explanation of the curvature of starlight
> around the sun which can be observed at every solar eclipse (as long
> as a star is close enough to the edge of the solar disc to pass
> through the stronger part of the suns gravitational field).
> Follow this up with an explanation using your own theory.
> And finally, finish with the GR solution.
Would you also like me to perform Les Miserable
by the use only of tapdancing? Another time perhaps.
Unless you'd care to explain Buddhism's concept of God.
Followed by the evolution in Western Philosophy
concerning concepts of being/non being from Aristotle
to Sartre. Followed by the logic of God's existence
with respect to Good/Evil. And finally, finish with
the (theological) Judeo-Christian solution. Timed.
>>It is far, far better to look
> >upon observed facts and try to square our beliefs with them
> >than to try to fit the observed facts into our beliefs.
>
> Physician, heal thyself.
Do not guess--Read the text. My model of an imploding
universe arises strictly out of observed facts (namely,
c constancy and a so-called "expanding" universe whose
expansion seems ot be accelerating). Do not guess/READ...
> Whilst you're healing, maybe you'd like to consider this scenario.
A
> photon has left the surface of a star. It has travelled for 4 billion
> years across the cosmos and ends up hitting a cone in my retina.
>
> Where was the photon 1 second before the event I will call "seeing"
> this photon?
Sure: IT was exactly 186,282 miles from your... cone:
Now, why can't all your questions only require of me
a second's reply? [ "traveled" only has one "l" ]
Do you have any idea how many replies I am being asked
to make in just this one thread?!?!?!
> How much more did I weigh as a result of seeing it?
You're too easy: You obviously remain as light-weight
as ever,
S D Rodrian
sdr@t-three.com
http://www.geocities.com/absoluterelativity
> >> Paul M. Davis
*************
From: sdrodrian@aol.com
Subject: Re: How can space be bent?
Date: 20 Jan 2000 00:00:00 GMT
Message-ID: <867vtb$oi9$1@nnrp1.deja.com>
References: <38816B0F.6B1B@netvigator.com>
<85sspq$7q2$2@bgtnsc01.worldnet.att.net> <85tlda$6eg$1@nnrp1.deja.com>
<yieh4.160$N%4.10894@nnrp1-w.snfc21.pbi.net> <
864hq9$53v$1@nnrp1.deja.com> <8651ps$kbv$1@joe.rice.edu>
X-Http-Proxy: 1.0 x23.deja.com:80 (Squid/1.1.22) for
client 38.26.139.117
Organization: Deja.com - Before you buy.
X-Article-Creation-Date: Thu Jan 20 21:49:37 2000 GMT
X-MyDeja-Info: XMYDJUIDsdrodrian
Newsgroups: alt.atheism,talk.atheism,gac.physics.astronomy,alt.chaos
X-Http-User-Agent: Mozilla/4.7 [en] (Win98; U)
In article <8651ps$kbv$1@joe.rice.edu>,
pww@spacsun.rice.edu (Peter Walker) wrote:
> sdrodrian@aol.com wrote:
> : In article <yieh4.160$N%4.10894@nnrp1-w.snfc21.pbi.net>,
> : Mark Huber <mhuber@orie.cornell.com> wrote:
> : > Here's the problem with that: Newton's law of gravitation
> : > states that the force of gravity between two objects is
> : > proportional to the product of the masses of the two objects.
> : >
> : > Photons have zero mass, therefore under Newtonian gravitation,
> : > they should not be affected by gravity at all. The formula
> : > doesn't
> : > work, and does not match observations. That's all.
>
> : Here's the problem with that: No matter what ANYBODY sez
> : "photons have zero mass" is only an assumption (and people
> : HAVE erred in the past).
>
> Of course, when one looks in a *real* science journal (the Phys Rev
D
> Particle Properties books, for example), what one sees listed is
the
> upper bound on the photon mass. Since it is *effectively* zero within
> the
> extremely fine limits of observation, and since there are strong
> theoretical
> predictions that it should be zero, one simply asserts it's zero
for
> the
> simple sake of parsimony.
The notion of photon "mass" is a confusing one,
Mr. Walker: You will not find anywhere in the essay
on Absolute Relativity at my site any statement to
the effect "photons have mass" or some such. On the
contrary I speculate there on "what-if + mass." What
I do know is that there are only two aspects to existence:
Things which exist and things which do not exist. And
if the photon exists... it is a form of matter (regardless
how "weird" its construct may prove to be).
Further... let me just take this opportunity to speculate
on it (as I have not fully done so at my site):
I also believe that the photon "may" well be
a "prehistoric" as well as a "bridge" particle:
The present day universe of galaxies succeded
a previous generation universe which was filled
with more primordial "particles." (These "sub" particles
are the same "short-lived" ones being resurrected
in today's particle accelerators.) And since I cannot
conceive of this "succession" from one universe to
the other one to have been either instantaneous or
magical, it leads me to propose that the transition
required one or more "bridging" particles (particles
which could exist in both universes with a measure of
stability). I posit the photon is one such particle.
Further, since I am convinced that the present-day
universe of galaxies will one day be succeeded by
another-generation universe devoid of them... there
ought to be now, in our present universe, one or more
"particles" which will also bridge the transition from
our universe of galaxies to whatever sort of universe
is coming after ours. And just as with the photon,
this once & future "bridging" particle will also need
to be stable in our universe as well as in that future
universe.
The only candidate I see on the horizon (so far) is the
black hole; although it certainly need not be the only
one (nor even The One, for that matter). But, if this
"very theoretical" scenario of mine works out as laid out
... then in that inevitable next phase of our universe, once
galaxies are no more, the black hole, say, might be as
interesting a particle there as the photon is here. And
whereas in our universe the weak/electromagnetic and
strong forces play crucial roles, one or more forces which
now play no role at all might there rule "their" laws of
physics (say, forces 5, 6, and/or 7). However, ONE THING
I am convinced of is that gravity will still be there as it is
here... the one and only, truly fundamental force of all.
The view of what was... is, of course, the result of
speculation about the "first instant after the Big Bang"
by others. But the view of what might be... is entirely
my own (as well as those concerning "bridging" particles,
et al). Should I have kept these views to myself because
they are so very speculative? (Should those who have
speculated about the first instants after BB have kept their
views strictly only to themselves?) I think not: I believe
that, true or false, one's serious points of view ought to be
shared, because although they may seem meaningless and
irrelevant to a (mostly meaningless and irrelevant) few... such
views may yet encourage truer & profounder insights in future.
> None of which helps crackpots and their pet net-published "theories"
> of
> cosmology.
"SDR Against The World!" By Heaven, I like those odds! And,
actually... it helps me immensely whenever you call me names
(it is a de facto acknowledgement that you cannot dispute me).
Kindly,
S D Rodrian
sdr@t-three.com
http://www.geocities.com/absoluterelativity
(And, by the way, the "absolute" part: That's Newton's.
And it would have been Einstein's, had Einstein known
what I know.) So eat your heart out, Mr. Walker.
******************
From: sdrodrian@aol.com
Subject: Re: How can space be bent?
Date: 24 Jan 2000 00:00:00 GMT
Message-ID: <86ign7$315$1@nnrp1.deja.com>
References: <864hq9$53v$1@nnrp1.deja.com>
<8651ps$kbv$1@joe.rice.edu> <86800o$orr$1@nnrp1.deja.com>
<86gb4l$se6$1@news.fsu.edu>
X-Http-Proxy: 1.0 x27.deja.com:80 (Squid/1.1.22) for
client 38.26.139.20
Organization: Deja.com - Before you buy.
X-Article-Creation-Date: Mon Jan 24 21:37:44 2000 GMT
X-MyDeja-Info: XMYDJUIDsdrodrian
Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity,de.sci.physik,sci.physics.electromag,sci.logic
X-Http-User-Agent: Mozilla/4.7 [en] (Win98; U)
Dear Mr. Carr,
Thank you for the extensive advertisements of your web sites.
However, as per your suggestion that we limit our terminologies
to those definitions in your FAQ, I must say that you seem
to have missed a small point... namely, that a great deal of
what we are discussing here revolves around whether the entire
conventional approach of physics --as embodied in that very FAQ--
is even valid at all and worth retaining. As such, it becomes
necessary at times for us to employ terms which, though not
defined/approved of in your FAQ as appropriate for a discussion
of conventional physics, are nevertheless, necessary in order to, as
I believe, to promote/advance the state of the art to another level.
You seem to be under some misapprehension that we are unaware
of the results of given experiments, as you plainly state in your
note. However, this is exclusively a misapprehension on your part,
no doubt caused by your not having kept up with our discussions
in these threads. Had you done so, you would know that we have
indeed discussed any number of such experiments, have agreed
that their results are valid, and have then gone on to argue further
whether the conventional interpretations of their "good" results
were correct or mistaken. Perhaps, you might care to review
the relevant threads from their beginnings (as they can be easily
found through DejaNews); otherwise one could hardly escape the
conclusion that you will insist on speaking in future about matters
& subjects you have no personal knowledge of... as if you did.
Specifically, in the post where I ask to have questions of photon
"mass" set aside (for the purposes of the points being touched upon
in that post)... the discussion was one of matter and/vs its absence;
in which case it was much more appropriate to speak of the photon
in terms of its either being "matter" or not. Introducing the matter
of "mass" into such a discussion could have only confused the matter.
As to the additional "matter" of crossposting: Whenever you post
your replies, simply make sure it's directed to those newsgroups
you feel are appropriate for your posts. Sometimes one of the posts
I am replying to will strike me as rather worthy of alt.lunatics and
there will I post my reply to it. If you then wish to reply to my
reply in some saner manner... simply remove alt.lunatics from your
reply. It's all quite simple, really.
Hope this helps,
S D Rodrian
sdr@t-three.com
http://members.aol.com/prebigbang
(If you wish to advertise your web sites
try to do so as I do... in moderation.)
RE:
In article <86gb4l$se6$1@news.fsu.edu>,
jac@ibms48.scri.fsu.edu (Jim Carr) wrote:
> First, my apologies. I have posted comments related to
the ideas
> presented in this thread that were cross-posted to talk.origins
> (where they are clearly off-topic) among other newsgroups with
> followups set to the appropriate newsgroup. I never saw
those,
> nor have I seen any robo-rejection note. Hence this post,
with a
> more restricted distribution list that includes the appropriate
> newsgroup and no followups set.
>
> That said, any replies from me in this thread will only go
to
> sci.physics.relativity.
>
> In article <86800o$orr$1@nnrp1.deja.com>
> sdrodrian@aol.com writes:
>>
>>The notion of photon "mass" is a confusing one,
>>Mr. Walker: ...
>
> Not at all. It is clearly described in the Relativity
FAQ.
>
> Discussing that topic, or others that you raise, without being
> aware of current terminology or such "details" as the experiments
> that verify the predictions of relativity and falsify a large
> number of alternative speculations, is a waste of time.
>
> FYI, and for the information of others who only read talk.origins,
> the Relativity FAQ is mirrored at many sites:
>
> USA:
> http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/relativity.html
>http://www.public.iastate.edu/~physics/sci.physics/faq/relativity.html
> http://www.weburbia.com/physics/relativity.html
> http://www.corepower.com/~relfaq/relativity.html
> UK:
> http://hepweb.rl.ac.uk/ppUK/PhysFAQ/relativity.html
> http://www.weburbia.demon.co.uk/physics/relativity.html
> Netherlands:
> http://www.xs4all.nl/~johanw/PhysFAQ/relativity.html
> Germany:
> http://www.desy.de/user/projects/Physics/relativity.html
> Australia:
> http://www.phys.unsw.edu.au/physoc/physics_faq/relativity.html
> Taiwan:
> http://www.phy.ncku.edu.tw/mirrors/physicsfaq/relativity.html
>
> --
> James A. Carr <jac@scri.fsu.edu>
***********************
From: sdrodrian@aol.com
Subject: Re: How can space be bent?
Date: 20 Jan 2000 00:00:00 GMT
Message-ID: <867oqb$iio$1@nnrp1.deja.com>
References: <38816B0F.6B1B@netvigator.com>
<85sspq$7q2$2@bgtnsc01.worldnet.att.net> <85tlda$6eg$1@nnrp1.deja.com>
<3885dbd7.23555541@news.prosurfr.com>
X-Http-Proxy: 1.0 x25.deja.com:80 (Squid/1.1.22) for
client 38.26.139.48
Organization: Deja.com - Before you buy.
X-Article-Creation-Date: Thu Jan 20 19:48:33 2000 GMT
X-MyDeja-Info: XMYDJUIDsdrodrian
Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity,de.sci.physik,sci.physics.electromag,sci.logic
X-Http-User-Agent: Mozilla/4.7 [en] (Win98; U)
In article <3885dbd7.23555541@news.prosurfr.com>,
jsavard@domain.ctry (John Savard) wrote:
(snipped!)
> That's quite true, but I think that in GR, it is legitimate to claim
> that space "really" is being bent.
>
>>D O N ' T Y O U B E L I E V E
I T !!!!!!!
>
>>If somebody can't express him/herself clearly
>>chances are he/she doesn't have a clear
>>understanding of what he/she is talking about.
>
>>Period.
>
> The people who understand General Relativity do understand it clearly,
> and they can understand a lot of other things more clearly than you
> appear to be able to.
>
> John Savard
Dear John,
No: Don't worry, we're not breaking up. In any case,
It is one thing to understand an error
clearly enough to understand it is an error,
and quite something else to understand an error
only clear enough to parrot all its mistakes
"in other words."
It doesn't help your couse one bit
how thoroughly familiar with SR/GR you are
if you cannot at the same time grasp its flaws.
Hoping for better for you in future,
S D Rodrian
sdr@t-three.com
http://membes.aol.com/prebigbang
********************
From: sdrodrian@aol.com
Subject: Re: How can space be bent?
Date: 20 Jan 2000 00:00:00 GMT
Message-ID: <8680bo$p0s$1@nnrp1.deja.com>
References: <38816B0F.6B1B@netvigator.com>
<85sspq$7q2$2@bgtnsc01.worldnet.att.net> <85tlda$6eg$1@nnrp1.deja.com>
<xruh4.100$pG1.4699@nnrp2-w.snfc21.pbi.net>
X-Http-Proxy: 1.0 x23.deja.com:80 (Squid/1.1.22) for
client 38.26.139.117
Organization: Deja.com - Before you buy.
X-Article-Creation-Date: Thu Jan 20 21:57:22 2000 GMT
X-MyDeja-Info: XMYDJUIDsdrodrian
Newsgroups: alt.bible,alt.religion,alt.religion.christian,alt.cynicism
X-Http-User-Agent: Mozilla/4.7 [en] (Win98; U)
In article <xruh4.100$pG1.4699@nnrp2-w.snfc21.pbi.net>,
Mark Huber <mhuber@orie.cornell.com> wrote:
> The upper mass of the photon can be bounded above by
> observing how close Coulomb's Law is to the inverse
> square. Although it does not prove that the mass is zero,
> it is small enough from observation to make the below
> argument still valid.
>
> -mark
QUOTE contains relevant reply:
In article <8651ps$kbv$1@joe.rice.edu>,
pww@spacsun.rice.edu (Peter Walker) wrote:
> sdrodrian@aol.com wrote:
> : In article <yieh4.160$N%4.10894@nnrp1-w.snfc21.pbi.net>,
> : Mark Huber <mhuber@orie.cornell.com> wrote:
> : > Here's the problem with that: Newton's law of gravitation
> : > states that the force of gravity between two objects is
> : > proportional to the product of the masses of the two objects.
> : >
> : > Photons have zero mass, therefore under Newtonian gravitation,
> : > they should not be affected by gravity at all. The formula
> : > doesn't
> : > work, and does not match observations. That's all.
>
> : Here's the problem with that: No matter what ANYBODY sez
> : "photons have zero mass" is only an assumption (and people
> : HAVE erred in the past).
>
> Of course, when one looks in a *real* science journal (the Phys Rev
D
> Particle Properties books, for example), what one sees listed is
the
> upper bound on the photon mass. Since it is *effectively* zero within
> the
> extremely fine limits of observation, and since there are strong
> theoretical
> predictions that it should be zero, one simply asserts it's zero
for
> the
> simple sake of parsimony.
The notion of photon "mass" is a confusing one,
Mr. Walker: You will not find anywhere in the essay
on Absolute Relativity at my site any statement to
the effect "photons have mass" or some such. What
I do know is that there are only two aspects to existence:
Things which exist and things which do not exist. And
if the photon exists... it is a form of matter (regardless
how "weird" its construct may prove to be).
Further... let me just take this opportunity to speculate
on it (as I have not fully done so at my site):
I also believe that the photon "may" well be
a "prehistoric" as well as a "bridge" particle:
The present day universe of galaxies succeded
a previous generation universe which was filled
with more primordial "particles." (These "sub" particles
are the same "short-lived" ones being resurrected
in today's particle accelerators.) And since I cannot
conceive of this "succession" from one universe to
the other one to have been either instantaneous or
magical, it leads me to propose that the transition
required one or more "bridging" particles (particles
which could exist in both universes with a measure of
stability). I posit the photon is one such particle.
Further, since I am convinced that the present-day
universe of galaxies will one day be succeeded by
another-generation universe devoid of them... there
ought to be now, in our present universe, one or more
"particles" which will also bridge the transition from
our universe of galaxies to whatever sort of universe
is coming after ours. And just as with the photon,
this once & future "bridging" particle will also need
to be stable in our universe as well as in that future
universe.
The only candidate I see on the horizon (so far) is the
black hole; although it certainly need not be the only
one (nor even The One, for that matter). But, if this
"very theoretical" scenario of mine works out as laid out
... then in that inevitable next phase of our universe, once
galaxies are no more, the black hole, say, might be as
interesting a particle there as the photon is here. And
whereas in our universe the weak/electromagnetic and
strong forces play crucial roles, one or more forces which
now play no role at all might there rule "their" laws of
physics (say, forces 5, 6, and/or 7). However, ONE THING
I am convinced of is that gravity will still be there as it is
here... the one and only, truly fundamental force of all.
The view of what was... is, of course, the result of
speculation about the "first instant after the Big Bang"
by others. But the view of what might be... is entirely
my own (as well as those concerning "bridging" particles,
et al). Should I have kept these views to myself because
they are so very speculative? (Should those who have
speculated about the first instants after BB have kept their
views strictly only to themselves?) I think not: I believe
that, true or false, one's serious points of view ought to be
shared, because although they may seem meaningless and
irrelevant to a (mostly meaningless and irrelevant) few... such
views may yet encourage truer & profounder insights in future.
> None of which helps crackpots and their pet net-published "theories"
> of
> cosmology.
"SDR Against The World!" By Heaven, I like those odds! And,
actually... it helps me immensely whenever you call me names
(it is a de facto acknowledgement that you cannot dispute me).
Kindly,
S D Rodrian
sdr@t-three.com
http://www.geocities.com/absoluterelativity
(And, by the way, the "absolute" part: That's Newton's.
And it would have been Einstein's, had Einstein known
what I know.) So eat your heart out, Mr. Walker.
**************