Ballistic Theory, Progress report...Suitable for 5yo Kids
in [Relativity]
|
Prev: OWLS is not equal to c
Next: Mathematical Inconsistencies in Einstein's Derivation of the Lorentz Transformation
From: donstockbauer on 3 Oct 2005 07:28 One cannot construct reality from an illusion unless one uses the correct model. ************************ I'm going to have to remember that one. If I want to get correct results from an illusion, I'd better model it correctly. Thanks!
From: "Androcles" <Androcles@ on 3 Oct 2005 08:35 "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen(a)hia.no> wrote in message news:1128330177.421954.210680(a)g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com... | Androcles wrote: | | > "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen(a)deletethishia.no> wrote in message news:dhm3i2$f75$1(a)dolly.uninett.no... | > | Androcles wrote: | > | > I think you have demonstrated that I was right when saying: | > | > "Having realized that you screwed up, you must find | > | > something else to talk about." | > | > How could you screw up such a simple case of elementary | > | > Roche limit and get it 3,000,000,000% wrong, tusselad? | > | | > | I am beginning to suspect that your stupidity is even | > | greater than I initially could bring myself to believe. | > | > I'm sure the opinion of a phuckwit is highly regarded by | > the other phuckwits, tusselad. | > | > | > | I now think it's so gigantic that you do NOT realize | > | how thoroughly you screw up when you claimed: | > | "If the Moon were a fluid | > | it would break apart like droplets of mercury." | > | > I preceeded that with "If", tusselad; how could you screw up | > such a simple case of elementary logic? Well, in your case how | > could you not screw it up? | | | I would like to say "nice try". | But I can't. | It was an extraordinary stupid attempt to divert | the attention from the fact that you have still | not realized that your statement: | "If the Moon were a fluid | it would break apart like droplets of mercury." | is factually wrong. The rings of Saturn are factually wrong, are they, tusselad? | | You must be a slow learner, though. | Because I told you: || You would have to bring the Moon very close to || the Earth before anything like that would happen. || The critical distance is the Roche limit. || The Roche limit for a liquid Moon is 2.86 Earth radii. And what is it for Algol, that you are trying to divert attention away from, tusselad? Algol is not a binary, is it, tusselad? But you want to draw attention to the Earth binary planet, don't you, tusselad, but Earth II is not a fluid, is it tusselad? You've fallen into the trap AGAIN, haven't you, tusselad? You ARE a slow learner, tusselad. | | Hilarious, no? :-) Androcles
From: jgreen on 3 Oct 2005 13:54 donstockbauer(a)hotmail.com wrote: > One cannot construct reality from an illusion unless one uses the > correct model. > > ************************ > > I'm going to have to remember that one. If I want to get correct > results from an illusion, I'd better model it correctly. Thanks! The "illusion" I believe Henri is referring to, is likened to an image altered by having the velocities of the photons carrying it altered, as seen by our eye/brain. For example: If the Milky Way is revolving once per 200,000yr , an object at distance 1.1 billion light years is actually 180 degrees from where it appears now. Do you not consider that to be an illusion?? So deep space mapping is about as usefull as using a modern world map featuring Gondwana Land. Jim G c'=c+v
From: "Androcles" <Androcles@ on 3 Oct 2005 14:16 <jgreen(a)seol.net.au> wrote in message news:1128362062.040446.210640(a)z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com... | | donstockbauer(a)hotmail.com wrote: | > One cannot construct reality from an illusion unless one uses the | > correct model. | > | > ************************ | > | > I'm going to have to remember that one. If I want to get correct | > results from an illusion, I'd better model it correctly. Thanks! | | The "illusion" I believe Henri is referring to, is likened to an image | altered by having the velocities of the photons carrying it altered, as | seen by our eye/brain. | For example: If the Milky Way is revolving once per 200,000yr , an | object at distance 1.1 billion light years is actually 180 degrees from | where it appears now. Do you not consider that to be an illusion?? So | deep space mapping is about as usefull as using a modern world map | featuring Gondwana Land. | | Jim G | c'=c+v I'm not sure here what H. Cool Wilson is referring to since the text has been snipped, Jim, but fig 3 in http://www.ebicom.net/~rsf1/sekerin.htm, written in 1987, the same year I wrote my first c+v program and back of the envelope sketch of fig 2 when the iron curtain was still a serious problem, was exemplified in July though October 1999 by http://www.britastro.org/vss/gifc/00918-ck.gif c' = c+v. Androcles.
From: Jeff Root on 3 Oct 2005 16:43
Jim Greenfield wrote: > If the Milky Way is revolving once per 200,000yr , an > object at distance 1.1 billion light years is actually > 180 degrees from where it appears now. You've said that before. It is extremely important if it is true. So it is worth money to know for sure. I'll pay you $8000 for an explanation of the effect, if you post it in sci.astro before the end of Saturday, October 15, 2005. Please note that using incorrect figures in your argument makes no difference, as long as the geometry and logic are essentially sound. If, for example, the angle actually turns out to be only 18 degrees rather than 180 degrees, but your explanation is basically sound, I will pay. The actual rotation period of the Milky Way at the Solar System is about 2,000,000 to 2,500,000 years. -- Jeff, in Minneapolis jeff5 (at) freemars (dot) org Jeff S. Root 48 27th Ave SE #4 Minneapolis, MN 55414 USA |