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 com