From: mpc755 on
On Jul 10, 12:23 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> On Jul 9, 6:17 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Jul 9, 6:54 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Jul 9, 5:25 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On Jul 9, 6:14 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > On Jul 9, 5:04 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > On Jul 9, 5:57 pm, eric gisse <jowr.pi.nos...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > Edward Green wrote:
> > > > > > > > On Jul 9, 1:04 am, Tom Roberts <tjroberts...(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> > > > > > > >> Edward Green wrote:
> > > > > > > >> >> On Jul 7, 10:06 pm, Tom Roberts wrote:
> > > > > > > >> >>> Yes, I know you claim the CMBR dipole=0 frame is the
> > > > > > > >> >>> ether frame. But that is not LET. Lorentz obviously had
> > > > > > > >> >>> no knowledge of the CMBR, and could not possibly have
> > > > > > > >> >>> put it into his theory. Moreover, while there might be
> > > > > > > >> >>> some merit to your claim if relative to that frame the
> > > > > > > >> >>> CMBR was isotropic, it isn't.
>
> > > > > > > >> > Really? That's very interesting. Would you care to elaborate?
>
> > > > > > > >> Wilson and Penzias discovered the CMBR in the 1960s; Lorentz died in
> > > > > > > >> 1928.
>
> > > > > > > >> The CMBR has a rich and varied multipole structure, as any good reference
> > > > > > > >> on it will show. There are maps of CMBR temperature in all directions,
> > > > > > > >> and they have LOTS of structure; ironically, they are invariably
> > > > > > > >> displayed in the dipole=0 frame (because otherwise the dipole would
> > > > > > > >> obscure the structure because the dipole is by far the largest multipole
> > > > > > > >> present). Selecting the frame in which its dipole moment is zero cannot
> > > > > > > >> cancel all the other multipoles, and thus it is not isotropic in that
> > > > > > > >> frame.
>
> > > > > > > > Well, that puts you at direct odds with Paul Stowe, who says the
> > > > > > > > multipoles are "s-l-i-g-h-t", i.e., on the level of 1 part in 100,000
> > > > > > > > -- however exactly that is quantified.
>
> > > > > > > Paul Stowe is stupid and does not understand basic observational fact,
> > > > > > > unfortunately neither personality defect stops him from commenting upon
> > > > > > > things.
>
> > > > > > > > BTW, what is "doubly special relativity"?
>
> > > > > > > A theory in which both c and h are invariant under Lorentz transformations.
>
> > > > > > Basic observations like the associated dark matter displacement wave a
> > > > > > moving particle has?
>
> > > > > Nobody cares, Michael P. Cavedon.
> > > > > Quit whoring for attention.
>
> > > > How does matter and dark matter, both of which consist of mass, occupy
> > > > the same point in three dimensional space simultaneously?
>
> > > > They don't.
>
> > > So say you. Because you say that it is a Natural Law by Divine
> > > Revelation that two things with mass cannot occupy the same space.
> > > This law, of course, did not come from anywhere but that creepy voice
> > > in your head, which you believe implicitly and which tells you that
> > > you have Special Insight.
>
> > > Furthermore, you have not read anywhere that matter and dark matter
> > > occupy the same POINT. Matter is defined as having mass and occupying
> > > VOLUME, which a point does not have. Secondly, mass is a *property*,
> > > not a stuff. So matter does not sit at a POINT. And also matter does
> > > not "consist of" mass; it has the property of mass. So your question
> > > should read instead: "How does matter and dark matter, both of which
> > > exhibit the property of mass, occupy the same volume in three
> > > dimensional space simultaneously?"
>
> > > And the answer to that is, "Easily."
> > > A mole of nitrogen gas (22.1 liters) does not displace a mole of
> > > oxygen gas (22.1 liters). They both occupy the same volume together
> > > (22.1 liters). This is a common phenomenon and you breath a mixture
> > > that is similar to this.
>
> > When nitrogen gas and oxygen gas both occupy the same volume together
> > the mass of the volume increases.
>
> Yes, and note that there IS NO DISPLACEMENT, counter to your claim two
> volumes of matter cannot occupy the same space without there being
> displacement.
> Back to the drawing board for you.
>

If matter and dark matter occupy the same volume simultaneously then
how do you explain the following:

'Hubble Finds Ghostly Ring of Dark Matter'
http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/hubble/news/dark_matter_ring_feature.html

"Astronomers using NASA’s Hubble Space Telescope got a first-hand view
of how dark matter behaves during a titanic collision between two
galaxy clusters. The wreck created a ripple of dark matter, which is
somewhat similar to a ripple formed in a pond when a rock hits the
water."

A rock creates a ripple by displacing the water in a pond.

The two galaxy cluster collision is analogous to a collision between
two boats. The two boats colliding creates a ripple in the water. The
ripple occurs because the boats displace water.

The galaxy cluster ripple occurs because the galaxy clusters displace
dark matter.

Matter displaces dark matter.

>
>
> > As the Earth moves through dark matter the mass of the Earth is not
> > continually increasing.
>
> > Your analogy is incorrect.
>
> > The nuclei which is the matter which is the Earth displaces dark
> > matter.
> > Dark matter is not at rest when displaced and displaces back.
> > Displaced dark matter exerts pressure towards the Earth.
> > Pressure exerted by displaced dark matter towards matter is gravity.
>
> > > An electric field can sit in vacuum or it can sit in a material
> > > substance without displacing anything. Turning on an electric field
> > > does not increase the volume of any material substance, and it doesn't
> > > push anything out of the way (which is what "displacement" MEANS). And
> > > the protons, electrons, and neutrons feel the electric field at the
> > > very place where they are sitting, which means that they do not push
> > > the electric field out of the way either.
>
> > > So the next time that creepy little voice in your head tells you these
> > > Natural Laws by Divine Revelation, I suggest you tell the voice that
> > > you'd better check a few facts before buying into what it says.
>
> > > > Dark matter is displaced by matter.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > > - Show quoted text -
>
>

From: G. L. Bradford on

"Paul Stowe" Wrote:

(snip)

[...] Since there is, NO! physical difference in the behavior of time or
space AND Lorentz
provides a physical casual behavior for said behavior there is only
wished for 'symmetry' in the mind of Tom. Thus, as I said before your
whole argument is, absurd!!

Paul Stowe

===================

Certainly there is a physical difference in behavior of time and space.
They are observably two rather than indistinguishably one.

Space, somewhat rubber-like, can unlimitedly contract and expand, or be
contracted and expanded. Also it has planes of cancellation and
renormalization which are, or can be, risen to or dropped from. That is,
cancellation of, and renormalization of physics from, those variable
contractions and expansions.

Time is a matter of variable light-time-histories (-),
light-time-distances (-), relative an invariable cosmological constant of
(0):

(-)
\/
(-) > (0) < (-)
/\
(-)

(The arrows are of course (+))
~~~~~~~~~~

(0)
/\
(0) < (-) > (0)
\/
(0)

(The arrows are of course (+))
~~~~~~~~~~

(0)
\/
(0) > (-) < (0)
/\
(0)

(The arrows are of course (-))
~~~~~~~~~~

(-)
/\
(-) < (0) > (-)
\/
(-)

(The arrows are of course (-))
~~~~~~~~~~

GLB

======================

From: Paul Stowe on
On Jul 10, 10:18 am, "G. L. Bradford" <glbra...(a)insightbb.com> wrote:
> "PaulStowe" Wrote:
>
> (snip)
>
> [...] Since there is, NO! physical difference in the behavior of time or
> space AND Lorentz
> provides a physical casual behavior for said behavior there is only
> wished for 'symmetry' in the mind of Tom.  Thus, as I said before your
> whole argument is, absurd!!
>
> PaulStowe
>
> ===================
>
>   Certainly there is a physical difference in behavior of time and space.
> They are observably two rather than indistinguishably one.
>
>   Space, somewhat rubber-like, can unlimitedly contract and expand, or be
> contracted and expanded. Also it has planes of cancellation and
> renormalization which are, or can be, risen to or dropped from. That is,
> cancellation of, and renormalization of physics from, those variable
> contractions and expansions.
>
>   Time is a matter of variable light-time-histories (-),
> light-time-distances (-), relative an invariable cosmological constant of
> (0):
>
>         (-)
>          \/
> (-) > (0) < (-)
>          /\
>         (-)
>
> (The arrows are of course (+))
> ~~~~~~~~~~
>
>         (0)
>          /\
> (0) < (-) > (0)
>          \/
>         (0)
>
> (The arrows are of course (+))
> ~~~~~~~~~~
>
>         (0)
>          \/
> (0) > (-) < (0)
>          /\
>         (0)
>
> (The arrows are of course (-))
> ~~~~~~~~~~
>
>         (-)
>          /\
> (-) < (0) > (-)
>          \/
>         (-)
>
> (The arrows are of course (-))
> ~~~~~~~~~~
>
> GLB
>
> ======================

Well, you're right, technically. What I meant (and, in the context of
the prior discussion should be obvious) was that there exist no
physically distinguishable differences between what Lorentz's model
says is observable/measurable to 'local' observers and what SR
predicts. In fact, the mathematical form (the LT) is identical.
thus, the so-called Lorentz group is applicable to both. Tom is
trying to create a distinction without any physical difference. That,
simply is not science, its religion. All Lorentz model does is go one
step further as says, the must be a physical foundation for this, and,
this is it... Again, since between any two moving frames only the
delta velocity affects the observational differences one can alway
renormalize to there local frame. It is however irrational & stupid
to worship this as some form of mathematical purity of symmetrical
form...
From: G. L. Bradford on

"Paul Stowe" <theaetherist(a)gmail.com> wrote in message
news:cc8b8c53-fe36-4c0f-88eb-95bdeede08f5(a)x18g2000pro.googlegroups.com...
On Jul 10, 10:18 am, "G. L. Bradford" <glbra...(a)insightbb.com> wrote:
> "PaulStowe" Wrote:
>
> (snip)
>
> [...] Since there is, NO! physical difference in the behavior of time or
> space AND Lorentz
> provides a physical casual behavior for said behavior there is only
> wished for 'symmetry' in the mind of Tom. Thus, as I said before your
> whole argument is, absurd!!
>
> PaulStowe
>
> ===================
>
> Certainly there is a physical difference in behavior of time and space.
> They are observably two rather than indistinguishably one.
>
> Space, somewhat rubber-like, can unlimitedly contract and expand, or be
> contracted and expanded. Also it has planes of cancellation and
> renormalization which are, or can be, risen to or dropped from. That is,
> cancellation of, and renormalization of physics from, those variable
> contractions and expansions.
>
> Time is a matter of variable light-time-histories (-),
> light-time-distances (-), relative an invariable cosmological constant of
> (0):
>
> (-)
> \/
> (-) > (0) < (-)
> /\
> (-)
>
> (The arrows are of course (+))
> ~~~~~~~~~~
>
> (0)
> /\
> (0) < (-) > (0)
> \/
> (0)
>
> (The arrows are of course (+))
> ~~~~~~~~~~
>
> (0)
> \/
> (0) > (-) < (0)
> /\
> (0)
>
> (The arrows are of course (-))
> ~~~~~~~~~~
>
> (-)
> /\
> (-) < (0) > (-)
> \/
> (-)
>
> (The arrows are of course (-))
> ~~~~~~~~~~
>
> GLB
>
> ======================

Well, you're right, technically. What I meant (and, in the context of
the prior discussion should be obvious) was that there exist no
physically distinguishable differences between what Lorentz's model
says is observable/measurable to 'local' observers and what SR
predicts. In fact, the mathematical form (the LT) is identical.
thus, the so-called Lorentz group is applicable to both. Tom is
trying to create a distinction without any physical difference. That,
simply is not science, its religion. All Lorentz model does is go one
step further as says, the must be a physical foundation for this, and,
this is it... Again, since between any two moving frames only the
delta velocity affects the observational differences one can alway
renormalize to there local frame. It is however irrational & stupid
to worship this as some form of mathematical purity of symmetrical
form...

=======================

Not to re-engagement here, I'm just appalled at the way my illustrations
changed, dropped, physical spacing! Even for your response I need to try to
correct the physical / perception error for those without any imagination to
realize the probably of the computer universe dropping bits, or bytes, or
boids, between points A and C:

.........(-).........
..........\/..........
(-) > (0) < (-)
........../\..........
.........(-).........

(Arrows (+))

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

.........(0).........
........../\..........
(0) < (-) > (0)
..........\/..........
.........(0)........

(Arrows (+))

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

.........(0).........
..........\/..........
(0) > (-) < (0)
........../\..........
.........(0).........

(Arrows (-))

~~~~~~~~~~~~~

.........(-).........
..........\/..........
(-) < (0) > (-)
........../\..........
.........(-).........

(Arrows (-))

GLB

=====================

From: G. L. Bradford on

"G. L. Bradford" <glbrad01(a)insightbb.com> wrote in message
news:RLqdnVavet9JXaXRnZ2dnUVZ_tWdnZ2d(a)insightbb.com...
>
> "Paul Stowe" <theaetherist(a)gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:cc8b8c53-fe36-4c0f-88eb-95bdeede08f5(a)x18g2000pro.googlegroups.com...
> On Jul 10, 10:18 am, "G. L. Bradford" <glbra...(a)insightbb.com> wrote:
>> "PaulStowe" Wrote:
>>
>> (snip)
>>
>> [...] Since there is, NO! physical difference in the behavior of time or
>> space AND Lorentz
>> provides a physical casual behavior for said behavior there is only
>> wished for 'symmetry' in the mind of Tom. Thus, as I said before your
>> whole argument is, absurd!!
>>
>> PaulStowe
>>
>> ===================
>>
>> Certainly there is a physical difference in behavior of time and space.
>> They are observably two rather than indistinguishably one.
>>
>> Space, somewhat rubber-like, can unlimitedly contract and expand, or be
>> contracted and expanded. Also it has planes of cancellation and
>> renormalization which are, or can be, risen to or dropped from. That is,
>> cancellation of, and renormalization of physics from, those variable
>> contractions and expansions.
>>
>> Time is a matter of variable light-time-histories (-),
>> light-time-distances (-), relative an invariable cosmological constant of
>> (0):
>>
>> (-)
>> \/
>> (-) > (0) < (-)
>> /\
>> (-)
>>
>> (The arrows are of course (+))
>> ~~~~~~~~~~
>>
>> (0)
>> /\
>> (0) < (-) > (0)
>> \/
>> (0)
>>
>> (The arrows are of course (+))
>> ~~~~~~~~~~
>>
>> (0)
>> \/
>> (0) > (-) < (0)
>> /\
>> (0)
>>
>> (The arrows are of course (-))
>> ~~~~~~~~~~
>>
>> (-)
>> /\
>> (-) < (0) > (-)
>> \/
>> (-)
>>
>> (The arrows are of course (-))
>> ~~~~~~~~~~
>>
>> GLB
>>
>> ======================
>
> Well, you're right, technically. What I meant (and, in the context of
> the prior discussion should be obvious) was that there exist no
> physically distinguishable differences between what Lorentz's model
> says is observable/measurable to 'local' observers and what SR
> predicts. In fact, the mathematical form (the LT) is identical.
> thus, the so-called Lorentz group is applicable to both. Tom is
> trying to create a distinction without any physical difference. That,
> simply is not science, its religion. All Lorentz model does is go one
> step further as says, the must be a physical foundation for this, and,
> this is it... Again, since between any two moving frames only the
> delta velocity affects the observational differences one can alway
> renormalize to there local frame. It is however irrational & stupid
> to worship this as some form of mathematical purity of symmetrical
> form...
>
> =======================
>
> Not to re-engagement here, I'm just appalled at the way my illustrations
> changed, dropped, physical spacing! Even for your response I need to try
> to correct the physical / perception error for those without any
> imagination to realize the probably of the computer universe dropping
> bits, or bytes, or boids, between points A and C:
>
> ........(-).........
> .........\/..........
> (-) > (0) < (-)
> ........./\..........
> ........(-).........
>
> (Arrows (+))
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> ........(0).........
> ........./\..........
> (0) < (-) > (0)
> .........\/..........
> ........(0)........
>
> (Arrows (+))
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> ........(0).........
> .........\/..........
> (0) > (-) < (0)
> ........./\..........
> ........(0).........
>
> (Arrows (-))
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> ........(-).........
> .........\/..........
> (-) < (0) > (-)
> ........./\..........
> ........(-).........
>
> (Arrows (-))
>
> GLB
>
> =====================

Son of a.....!!!

[.....]

.........(-).........
........../\..........
(-) < (0) > (-)
..........\/..........
.........(-).........

(Arrows (-))

GLB

=====================