Cranks on the endangered species list
in [Relativity]
|
Prev: The spinor nature of spacetime - Fictitious motion in a Minkowski spacetime
Next: QCD Meson Mass Paper -- Full Draft
From: Tom Roberts on 22 Dec 2008 11:39 schoenfeld.one(a)gmail.com wrote: > facts if you are interested: Your so-called "facts" have never been demonstrated, much less established as fact. > [1] gravitational effects are superluminal. What God told you this? In PHYSICS, this is model dependent: in Newtonian gravitation, gravitational interactions are instantaneous; in GR and in the linear approximation to GR, gravitational effects propagate with speed c in any locally-inertial frame. Yet for many/most cases these models agree to much better than experimental accuracy, because in NG gravitation is a central force, but in GR and the linear approximation to GR gravity is NOT a central force. > [2] the "strong nuclear force" and "gravity" are aspects of the same > "effect". What God told you this? In PHYSICS, the relationship you claim has never been established. Indeed, there are many reasons to conclude that the strong fore is quite different from gravitation. > [... further claims that are even more ridiculous] Your claims of omniscience are not science, and are not believable. Tom Roberts
From: Strich.9 on 22 Dec 2008 12:41 On Dec 22, 11:39 am, Tom Roberts <tjroberts...(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: > schoenfeld....(a)gmail.com wrote: > > facts if you are interested: > > Your so-called "facts" have never been demonstrated, much less > established as fact. > > > [1] gravitational effects are superluminal. > > What God told you this? > > In PHYSICS, this is model dependent: in Newtonian gravitation, > gravitational interactions are instantaneous; in GR and in the linear > approximation to GR, gravitational effects propagate with speed c in any > locally-inertial frame. Yet for many/most cases these models agree to > much better than experimental accuracy, because in NG gravitation is a > central force, but in GR and the linear approximation to GR gravity is > NOT a central force. > Double talk. The LIGO that was supposed to detect gravitational waves propagating at c is conspicuously silent...
From: PD on 22 Dec 2008 13:01 On Dec 22, 11:41 am, "Strich.9" <strich.9...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Dec 22, 11:39 am, Tom Roberts <tjroberts...(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: > > > > > schoenfeld....(a)gmail.com wrote: > > > facts if you are interested: > > > Your so-called "facts" have never been demonstrated, much less > > established as fact. > > > > [1] gravitational effects are superluminal. > > > What God told you this? > > > In PHYSICS, this is model dependent: in Newtonian gravitation, > > gravitational interactions are instantaneous; in GR and in the linear > > approximation to GR, gravitational effects propagate with speed c in any > > locally-inertial frame. Yet for many/most cases these models agree to > > much better than experimental accuracy, because in NG gravitation is a > > central force, but in GR and the linear approximation to GR gravity is > > NOT a central force. > > Double talk. The LIGO that was supposed to detect gravitational waves > propagating at c is conspicuously silent... LIGO achieved design sensitivity in 2005. By design, the facility's odds for seeing an unambiguous event in a 5-year data-collection operation is 1 in 6. Why? At what rate did you expect LIGO to generate a result? And how did you arrive at that number? PD
From: PD on 22 Dec 2008 13:02 On Dec 22, 10:21 am, "Strich.9" <strich.9...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Dec 22, 10:27 am, PD <TheDraperFam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Dec 22, 9:22 am, "Strich.9" <strich.9...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Dec 22, 9:23 am, PD <TheDraperFam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Dec 21, 5:03 am, schoenfeld....(a)gmail.com wrote: > > > > > > > Tom Roberts > > > > > > Roberts knows only what he has been exposed to. > > > > > > Black ops people know the current physics is a bunch of nonsense as > > > > > far as it being "the truth", but it does have limited commercial > > > > > applications. > > > > > I believe the "black ops" comment tells us everything we need to know > > > > about your mental state, thanks very much. > > > > Your beliefs are irrelevant. Unless you speak from the inside, your > > > comments are worthless. > > > "Unless you speak from the inside...." > > Hmmm... > > > Well, Strich9, it's nice to see that at least the sedatives are > > kicking in this morning for you.- > > Are you desperately trying to imply you have clairvoyance, crackpot > PD? One doesn't need clairvoyance to detect incoherence, Strich9.
From: Strich.9 on 22 Dec 2008 14:50
On Dec 22, 1:01 pm, PD <TheDraperFam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Dec 22, 11:41 am, "Strich.9" <strich.9...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Dec 22, 11:39 am, Tom Roberts <tjroberts...(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: > > > > schoenfeld....(a)gmail.com wrote: > > > > facts if you are interested: > > > > Your so-called "facts" have never been demonstrated, much less > > > established as fact. > > > > > [1] gravitational effects are superluminal. > > > > What God told you this? > > > > In PHYSICS, this is model dependent: in Newtonian gravitation, > > > gravitational interactions are instantaneous; in GR and in the linear > > > approximation to GR, gravitational effects propagate with speed c in any > > > locally-inertial frame. Yet for many/most cases these models agree to > > > much better than experimental accuracy, because in NG gravitation is a > > > central force, but in GR and the linear approximation to GR gravity is > > > NOT a central force. > > > Double talk. The LIGO that was supposed to detect gravitational waves > > propagating at c is conspicuously silent... > > LIGO achieved design sensitivity in 2005. By design, the facility's > odds for seeing an unambiguous event in a 5-year data-collection > operation is 1 in 6. > Why? At what rate did you expect LIGO to generate a result? And how > did you arrive at that number? > > PD- Hogwash. Negative is NEGATIVE. Convulse all you want. The LIGO is silent. |