Question about gravity
in [Physics]
|
From: kenseto on 22 Mar 2010 10:21 On Mar 21, 7:19 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > "kenseto" <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote in message > > news:57058832-83f4-455a-8385-d1543b3644fc(a)q15g2000yqj.googlegroups.com...> On Mar 20, 11:12 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >> On Mar 20, 7:31 am, kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote: > > [snip] > > >> > Yes....Only if empty space is just another name for the aether. If > >> > empty space means void of any enitity then it cannot have any > >> > property. > > >> No, sorry, Ken. If that's what you thought empty space meant -- devoid > >> of all physical properties -- then you were simply mistaken. > > > i didn't say that empty space is devoid of physical properties. I said > > that if empty space is void of any enitity then it cannot have any > > property. > > So it is *not* devoid of properties.. it just doesn't have any? Idiot. > > BAHAHaaaaa
From: kenseto on 22 Mar 2010 10:31 On Mar 21, 2:39 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Mar 21, 9:46 am, kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Mar 20, 11:12 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Mar 20, 7:31 am, kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > What I said is 100% correct. Stress exsts only in solids. I suggest > > > > > > > > > > > that you go to your freskman physics book and look it up. > > > > > > > > > > > Sure. I have the one you have. Please cite in your freshman physics > > > > > > > > > > text where it says that stress exists only in solids. > > > > > > > > > Please point out in your freshman book where it said that stresses can > > > > > > > > occur in liquid or gas. > > > > > > > > Or in space. > > > > > > > > In liquids, you can look up in the index shear modulus, which induces > > > > > > > a shear in the liquid. > > > > > > > That's not stress in liquid. > > > > > > Yes, it is. Shear is a stress. > > > > > Shear is the result of a force applied to a liquid. It is not a stress > > > > exists in a liquid. > > > > Ken, I gave you a direct link to *shear stress* in a liquid. Can you > > > not read? > > > It's also in your freshman physics book. > > > No you gave induced shear stress. We are takling about stress exist in > > a solid. > > Ken, you made a statement that stress exists in solids only and not in > liquids or gases. > I showed you explicitly and with an introductory link that stress is > found in liquids as well. > You could at least admit that you were wrong when you said there is no > stress in liquids. > If you cannot admit you are wrong when the truth is shoved under your > nose, you should at least admit that you have a severe personality > problem. There is no mistake on my part....Weinberg said that a field is stress in space sort of like a stress in solid. Clearly he did not mean induced stress in liquid. > > > > > > > > > > > > Do you need a pointer to a beginner's guide?http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shear_stress > > > > > > > > Are you thinking that the only things that physics deals with are > > > > > > > solids, liquids, and gases, and nothing else? Why would you think > > > > > > > that? See the index item permittivity of empty space. > > > > > > > So empty space is not empty. > > > > > > No, I did not say that. I said empty space has properties, even where > > > > > it has no matter in it, which is the meaning of "empty space". > > > > > So empty space is just a different nmae for the aether....Right? > > > > No. Because aether would be matter, and empty space is space that is > > > devoid of matter but still has properties. Empty space has never meant > > > that. Ever. > > > Sure it is ....since empty space possess all the properties of matter > > (the aether) then it is matter. > > I'm sorry, Ken, but this is like saying a lizard is a mammal because > it has four legs and a tail and two eyes, which are the unique > properties of mammals. It's a wrong statement, and the rationale for > making that statement is also wrong. ROTFLOL....so empty space is now a mammal? > > You made a mistake in thinking that stresses only exist in solids. I > showed you that was a mistake. > You are now making a mistake that physical properties only pertain to > matter. This is also a mistake. I said that permanent stress can only exist in solid. Ken Seto > > > > > > > > > > > > > It is a new entity (medium or aether) > > > > > > that can have stress and permittivity. So what is your point? > > > > > > Empty space, without any matter in it at all, can have stress and > > > > > permittivity and a whole bunch of other physical properties, and these > > > > > are listed in your freshman physics book, and Weinberg mentioned it as > > > > > well. That is my point. > > > > > Yes....Only if empty space is just another name for the aether. If > > > > empty space means void of any enitity then it cannot have any > > > > property. > > > > No, sorry, Ken. If that's what you thought empty space meant -- devoid > > > of all physical properties -- then you were simply mistaken. > > > i didn't say that empty space is devoid of physical properties. I said > > that if empty space is void of any enitity then it cannot have any > > property. > > Empty space means devoid of matter. > > > My point is that you called the ether as empty space > > No, I did not. Where did I say those words? Point out where I said > those exact words, or confess that you are a liar. It is the only > honorable thing to do, or you bring shame on your family. > > > > > and > > then proceeded to deny the existence of the ether---you tried to have > > your cake and eat it too...eh? > > > Ken Seto> > Ken Seto- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -
From: PD on 22 Mar 2010 12:10 On Mar 21, 5:06 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Mar 21, 2:32 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Mar 20, 8:16 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Mar 20, 12:17 am, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Mar 19, 8:14 pm, Esa Riihonen <e...(a)riihonen.net.not.invalid> > > > > wrote: > > > > > > mpc755 kirjoitti: > > > > > > >> If you choose not understand what causes your battery operated clock to > > > > > >> tick slower then has time change? > > > > > > Nope. And I can even measure that this is not a case. I could for example > > > > > compare how often I have to shave my beard and myriad other things to the > > > > > clock progression. > > > > > Instead of shaving your beard you are in a space ship and you measure > > > > where you are relative to the distant stars. > > > > > You are in a space ship orbiting the Earth. The associated aether > > > > pressure on the atomic clock in the space ship is less than a > > > > comparable clock on the Earth and the atomic clock in the space ship > > > > ticks faster than the comparable clock on the Earth. > > > > > Your space ship is in a geo-synchronous orbit and orbits at the same > > > > rate at which the Earth spins. > > > > > You stay in the space ship for one complete orbit around the Sun. You > > > > are in as close to the exact same position with respect to the distant > > > > stars as you were when the experiment began. > > > > > From your view of the surrounding distant stars, the Earth and the Sun > > > > you determine 365 and 1/4 days have passed. This is in exact agreement > > > > with the atomic clock on the Earth. > > > > > You started the experiment on January 1st 2009. > > > > > You have two atomic clocks on the space ship. One was altered to > > > > remain in sync with the atomic clock on the Earth. The other atomic > > > > clock was not altered. The altered atomic clock says 365 and 1/4 days > > > > have passed since the beginning of the experiment. The unaltered > > > > atomic clock on the space ship says 370 days have passed since the > > > > beginning of the experiment. > > > > > What day is it and how much time has passed since the beginning of the > > > > experiment? > > > > > It is January 1st 2010 and one year has passed since the beginning of > > > > the experiment. The unaltered atomic clock was not modified to tick > > > > according to the aether pressure it exists in. > > > > > Do you insist it is January 6th 2010 because that is what the > > > > unaltered atomic clock states the time to be? If so, how do you > > > > account for the fact that you have not yet passed the point in orbit > > > > around the Sun where you were on January 1st 2009 and in fact you are > > > > as close to the exact same point in orbit relative to the Sun based on > > > > your measurements against the distant stars as you were on January 1st > > > > 2009 as you are going to be? How is it not January 1st 2010? > > > > One complete orbit of the Sun by the Earth is one year, regardless of > > > the rate at which an atomic clock ticks. > > > This is what Spaceman thought, too. Then again, he thought the product > > of two negative numbers was a negative number. > > I realize when you watch a battery operated clock start to tick slower > you think time is actually changing. That depends. If it's ticking slower at the same rate as other clocks of different constructions and design principles, and all the rates of those clocks are as predicted by relativity, then I'd say what's going on is what relativity says is going on. It seems highly unlikely that different clocks and processes would all slow by the same amount, and at the amount predicted by relativity, if it were something else entirely that was affecting the clocks -- unless a coherent and quantitative theory of that something else were put forward, and that theory could explain HOW MUCH clocks should be expected to slow down and why it should be that much. > > You have a clock with a paddle for the second hand. You drop the clock > off the side of a boat. The further and further the clock drops into > the ocean the slower it 'ticks', as determined by a clock on the boat. > The clock 'ticks' slower because of the increase in the hydrostatic > pressure on the paddle. > > Since you refuse to believe in the existence of water you insist time > changes. > > You have an atomic clock on the space station. You 'drop' the clock > off the 'side' of the space station. The further and further the clock > 'drops' towards the Earth the slower it 'ticks', as determined by a > clock on the space station. The clock 'ticks' slower because of the > increase in the aether pressure on the clock. > > Since you refuse to believe in the existence of aether you insist time > changes.
From: PD on 22 Mar 2010 12:14 On Mar 22, 9:31 am, kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote: > On Mar 21, 2:39 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Mar 21, 9:46 am, kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote: > > > > On Mar 20, 11:12 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Mar 20, 7:31 am, kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > What I said is 100% correct. Stress exsts only in solids. I suggest > > > > > > > > > > > > that you go to your freskman physics book and look it up. > > > > > > > > > > > > Sure. I have the one you have. Please cite in your freshman physics > > > > > > > > > > > text where it says that stress exists only in solids. > > > > > > > > > > Please point out in your freshman book where it said that stresses can > > > > > > > > > occur in liquid or gas. > > > > > > > > > Or in space. > > > > > > > > > In liquids, you can look up in the index shear modulus, which induces > > > > > > > > a shear in the liquid. > > > > > > > > That's not stress in liquid. > > > > > > > Yes, it is. Shear is a stress. > > > > > > Shear is the result of a force applied to a liquid. It is not a stress > > > > > exists in a liquid. > > > > > Ken, I gave you a direct link to *shear stress* in a liquid. Can you > > > > not read? > > > > It's also in your freshman physics book. > > > > No you gave induced shear stress. We are takling about stress exist in > > > a solid. > > > Ken, you made a statement that stress exists in solids only and not in > > liquids or gases. > > I showed you explicitly and with an introductory link that stress is > > found in liquids as well. > > You could at least admit that you were wrong when you said there is no > > stress in liquids. > > If you cannot admit you are wrong when the truth is shoved under your > > nose, you should at least admit that you have a severe personality > > problem. > > There is no mistake on my part....Weinberg said that a field is stress > in space sort of like a stress in solid. Clearly he did not mean > induced stress in liquid. Nor did me mean that it was a stress in a solid. He said it was, as you just said, sort of like a stress in a solid --- but in empty space instead of a solid. > > > > > > > > > > > Do you need a pointer to a beginner's guide?http://en.wikipedia..org/wiki/Shear_stress > > > > > > > > > Are you thinking that the only things that physics deals with are > > > > > > > > solids, liquids, and gases, and nothing else? Why would you think > > > > > > > > that? See the index item permittivity of empty space. > > > > > > > > So empty space is not empty. > > > > > > > No, I did not say that. I said empty space has properties, even where > > > > > > it has no matter in it, which is the meaning of "empty space". > > > > > > So empty space is just a different nmae for the aether....Right? > > > > > No. Because aether would be matter, and empty space is space that is > > > > devoid of matter but still has properties. Empty space has never meant > > > > that. Ever. > > > > Sure it is ....since empty space possess all the properties of matter > > > (the aether) then it is matter. > > > I'm sorry, Ken, but this is like saying a lizard is a mammal because > > it has four legs and a tail and two eyes, which are the unique > > properties of mammals. It's a wrong statement, and the rationale for > > making that statement is also wrong. > > ROTFLOL....so empty space is now a mammal? Ken, do you understand that "this is like" does not mean the same thing as "this is"? Do you understand analogies? Apparently you do not. You got confused by mine, and you were confused by Weinberg's. No, I did not say empty space is a mammal. Nor did Weinberg say empty space is a solid. You must be working hard to appear so stupid. > > > > > You made a mistake in thinking that stresses only exist in solids. I > > showed you that was a mistake. > > You are now making a mistake that physical properties only pertain to > > matter. This is also a mistake. > > I said that permanent stress can only exist in solid. No, you did not say "permanent". Nor is an electric field "permanent". > > Ken Seto > > > > > > > > > > It is a new entity (medium or aether) > > > > > > > that can have stress and permittivity. So what is your point? > > > > > > > Empty space, without any matter in it at all, can have stress and > > > > > > permittivity and a whole bunch of other physical properties, and these > > > > > > are listed in your freshman physics book, and Weinberg mentioned it as > > > > > > well. That is my point. > > > > > > Yes....Only if empty space is just another name for the aether. If > > > > > empty space means void of any enitity then it cannot have any > > > > > property. > > > > > No, sorry, Ken. If that's what you thought empty space meant -- devoid > > > > of all physical properties -- then you were simply mistaken. > > > > i didn't say that empty space is devoid of physical properties. I said > > > that if empty space is void of any enitity then it cannot have any > > > property. > > > Empty space means devoid of matter. > > > > My point is that you called the ether as empty space > > > No, I did not. Where did I say those words? Point out where I said > > those exact words, or confess that you are a liar. It is the only > > honorable thing to do, or you bring shame on your family. > > > > and > > > then proceeded to deny the existence of the ether---you tried to have > > > your cake and eat it too...eh? > > > > Ken Seto> > Ken Seto- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text - > >
From: spudnik on 22 Mar 2010 12:44
wait a second ... there is no empty space, whatever; as soon as you mumble, "aether it is," you have added your last dying breath to the relative vacuum that was already there. just because Pascal thought that it was perfect, the moment that he wrote his experiment "up," proves nothing. Maxwell's daemon has no box that is good enough to defeat Heisenberg's principle! > > No, I did not say that. I said empty space has properties, even where > > it has no matter in it, which is the meaning of "empty space". thus: I like the acronym, ANTHROPOSCENIUM. now, most thumbnail dyscussions of "urban heat islands" are too academic, and almost totally off of the mark; the UNIPCC *says* that it has some sort of fudge-factor to take them into account -- such as they believe them to be -- but this is generally not apparent in any particular "journal." > Please compare the 2 graphs given below - > Global cooling, January 2002 to May 2008http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/originals/McL... > 1979 to 2010http://www.drroyspencer.com/2010/02/january-2010-uah-global-temperatu... --Light: A History! http://wlym.com |