FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups 
 ProfileProfile   PreferencesPreferences   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 
Forum index » Science and Technology » Physics » Relativity
Einstein said: Time is what the clock measure.
Post new topic   Reply to topic Page 3 of 15 [215 Posts] View previous topic :: View next topic
Goto page:  Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, ..., 13, 14, 15 Next
Author Message
Randy Poe
science forum Guru


Joined: 24 Mar 2005
Posts: 2485

PostPosted: Tue Jul 18, 2006 2:45 pm    Post subject: Re: Einstein said: Time is what the clock measure. Reply with quote

tomgee wrote:
Quote:
Randy Poe wrote:
tomgee wrote:
stephen@nomail.com wrote:
The
whole idea behind dark matter is that it is massive,
and it attracts other objects via gravity. That is the
definition of "dark matter". No one is assuming that
dark matter is massless, other than you. That is
the point I have been repeatedly trying to make. Nobody
thinks that dark matter has zero or negative mass. It
is in fact defined to have positive mass.

You're making up facts, now, aren't you?

You sure didn't take long to prove my thesis, did you?

"You're making that up" means somebody said something
you didn't personally read in your limited exposure to physics.

It's easy to see why you would believe something stupid
like that, but what makes you think anyone else but idiots
would believe that?

It would be a natural conclusion after seeing your words above
juxtaposed with a statement which is more or less common
knowledge.

- Randy
Back to top
tomgee1
science forum Guru


Joined: 31 Jan 2006
Posts: 750

PostPosted: Tue Jul 18, 2006 6:06 am    Post subject: Re: Einstein said: Time is what the clock measure. Reply with quote

PD wrote:
Quote:
tomgee wrote:
PD wrote:
tomgee wrote:
PD wrote:
tomgee wrote:

This is rich.

Nothing "rich" there. All I see is you grasping at strawmen.

Two posts ago, TomGee says:

Of course they do. Whatever gave you the idea our
own words don't count as support for our ideas? How
else can we explain what we mean?

And now he says:

Somewhere, somehow, someone
brainwashed you to think that your own words cannot support
your claims. If that were true, why explain anything? Just say
anything you want and if someone repeats it, that proves it's
true. Of course, there is no logic in that, is there?


In other words,

IOWs, you have to try to explain what you're talking about
here, since it looks for all the world to be only nonsense.

That's precisely right, and all I've done up to this point is quote
you. You're right, it looks for all the world to be only nonsense.

I don't see any real quotes, fool, only those you've made up, like
you make up physics. A physicist who don't know what quotes
are? Do you at least know what planet you're on?

You don't see any real quotes?
Here: let me put quotation marks around them and then show you where
you said them.
"Of course they do. Whatever gave you the idea our own words don't
count as support for our ideas? How else can we explain what we mean?"
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/msg/dbc5e07844c75407?hl=en&

"Somewhere, somehow, someone brainwashed you to think that your own
words cannot support your claims. If that were true, why explain
anything? Just say anything you want and if someone repeats it, that
proves it's true. Of course, there is no logic in that, is there?"
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/msg/0c73196ed903d588?hl=en&

Now, who's the fool who doesn't recall what he says and accuses others
of making this up?

You "IOWs" is what are not quotes from me, dumbbell. You posted

quotes from me and then you misinterpreted them completely
different from what they said. You really are the worst kind of crook;

the kind who twists the truth to suit their ends. Anyone who thinks
you silly interpretation is anywhere close to what I said is just as
stupid as you are, or perhaps more, if that's possible.

You lie and cheat your way through life, hating yourself for what
you are, for having to act the fool just to try to be seen as an
ordinary human being. You have your little minions kissing your
ass and going over the cliffs with you, but others here know you
for just exactly what you are, if only because your sordid behavior
is so transparent.
Quote:

TomGee is saying:
"My ideas are supported by *my* words. I know this because I am
convinced of them. On the other hand, your ideas are not supported by
*your* words. I know this because I am not convinced of them."

That's crock, PD; you're drowning.

In other words, TomGee wants desperately to play pick-up basketball
with the rest of the boys, but he can't dribble and he can't block. So
he says, "You have to play by *your* rules, but I only have to play by
*mine*, and that's still fair because I say it is."

Ya know any physics, PD?

A bit. You?

Yes, you do. A very, very, very little bit. Too bad you can't talk

about what little you do know about physics here because it
sounds more like you don't know what you're talking about. So
you resort to childish paraphrasing of what others say to show
how little you know and how little you can understand.
Back to top
tomgee1
science forum Guru


Joined: 31 Jan 2006
Posts: 750

PostPosted: Tue Jul 18, 2006 5:35 am    Post subject: Re: Einstein said: Time is what the clock measure. Reply with quote

stephen@nomail.com wrote:
Quote:
In sci.physics.relativity tomgee <tyropress@yahoo.com> wrote:
stephen@nomail.com wrote:
In sci.physics.relativity tomgee <tyropress@yahoo.com> wrote:
stephen@nomail.com wrote:
In sci.physics.relativity tomgee <tyropress@yahoo.com> wrote:
stephen@nomail.com wrote:
In sci.physics.relativity tomgee <tyropress@yahoo.com> wrote:

SNIP

You're making things up, or you're more confused than ever. I
did not say my words support that at all. I said I am the only
one who uses it that way, in agreement with your statements to
that effect.

Then what was the point of this sub thread? I said
"You forget that TomGee has is own personal definition of
'Dark Matter', which has nothing to do with the standard
definition."
You responded with
"Well, Stephen, you have made your bed, now you must lay in it
with all those cooties from the Stooges. Tell us, how is my
definition above different from the standard definition?"
Is this your way of agreeing with somebody? It sure does
not sound that way to me.

It is not my fault that you cannot understand what you read.

So anyway, now that you agree with my original statement,

No, you never gave a valid "std definition" at all, just your own

unsupported opinion, and so you lied about there being a such
a thing, and so why should I or anyone else agree with a lie?
Quote:

I see no point in continuing this discussion.

Neither do I, but for my own reasons.

Next time
you agree with a statement someone makes, you would save
a lot of time and effort if you just said, "yes, I agree with that",
or just say nothing at all.

I would have done that very thing if you had said something with

which I agreed.
Back to top
tomgee1
science forum Guru


Joined: 31 Jan 2006
Posts: 750

PostPosted: Tue Jul 18, 2006 5:16 am    Post subject: Re: Einstein said: Time is what the clock measure. Reply with quote

Randy Poe wrote:
Quote:
tomgee wrote:
stephen@nomail.com wrote:

The
whole idea behind dark matter is that it is massive,
and it attracts other objects via gravity. That is the
definition of "dark matter". No one is assuming that
dark matter is massless, other than you. That is
the point I have been repeatedly trying to make. Nobody
thinks that dark matter has zero or negative mass. It
is in fact defined to have positive mass.

You're making up facts, now, aren't you? If not, show us
that fact you claim exists where DM is defined to have
+mass.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_matter

Wiki-wiki? You're using wiki-wiki the editable-by-anyone online

website for unsupported opinions? Even now that Encarta is free
online? What kind of simpleton would prefer to use a source that
he does not have to use and that any fool can edit and say
whatever he wants to in it?
Quote:

"In cosmology, dark matter refers to matter particles, of unknown
composition, that do not emit or reflect enough electromagnetic
radiation (light) to be detected directly,"
"The dark matter component has vastly more mass than the
"visible" component of the universe"

Nobody is saying it doesn't reflect any light. Merely that it doesn't
reflect enough light to be seen by our telescopes.

Everyone else but W-W is saying that, and you believe it.

We can't see any brown dwarfs either.

We can't see the other side of the moon from here either,

so what? And the Stooge above said nothing about
telescopes - you just added that in to show us you are
still misinterpreting what you read.
Quote:

http://astro.berkeley.edu/~mwhite/darkmatter/dm.html
"When such velocity measurements are done on large scales, it turns out
that the amount of inferred mass is much more than can be explained by
the luminous stuff. Hence we infer that there is dark matter in the
Universe."


http://csep10.phys.utk.edu/astr162/lect/cosmology/darkmatter.html
"On smaller scales such as galaxies and clusters of galaxies, dynamical
estimates of the mass based on rotation curves or velocity dispersions
of galaxies indicate that 90% (not 99%) of the total mass is not seen
("sub-luminous"). This implies that the mass density of the Universe is
10% of the closure density. In this case, the sub-luminous mass could
be normal (baryonic) and be locked up in stellar remnants (white
dwarfs, neutron stars, black holes) or just in very dim stars called
"Brown Dwarfs"."

Plenty more stuff out there. Search for "dark matter" and pull up
any article on an EDU site, written by an astronomer. You will find
the same basic statements: that something like 90% of the MASS
of the universe is thought to be dark, that "dark matter" is the name
given to this MASS we can't see.

Note the list of candidates at the end of that last quote: white
dwarfs, neutron stars, black holes, brown dwarfs.

I see nothing in all those quotes about DM having positive mass.

Then show us how we can see through matter
that has +mass and +energy.

Who says we can see through it? Where are you getting this requirement
from?

The recent report I mentioned earlier shows that DM is everywhere

that RM is not, just like my model predicted. I will look for it again

and post the url here later. Sounds like you have some catching
up to do.
Quote:

Are you thinking that if it was opaque, we'd see a dark place in
the sky? The stuff we can see has gaps between it, you know. Look
at a picture of stars. Points of light, separated by black.

Yeah, but you can't see through those points of light, can you? We

can see RM objects by the light they emit or which is reflected from
them, but we cannot see through those objects, only through the
that comes from them.
Back to top
stephen@nomail.com
science forum Guru


Joined: 11 Sep 2005
Posts: 681

PostPosted: Tue Jul 18, 2006 4:50 am    Post subject: Re: Einstein said: Time is what the clock measure. Reply with quote

In sci.physics.relativity tomgee <tyropress@yahoo.com> wrote:

Quote:
stephen@nomail.com wrote:
In sci.physics.relativity tomgee <tyropress@yahoo.com> wrote:

stephen@nomail.com wrote:
In sci.physics.relativity PD <TheDraperFamily@gmail.com> wrote:

snip

In other words, TomGee wants desperately to play pick-up basketball
with the rest of the boys, but he can't dribble and he can't block. So
he says, "You have to play by *your* rules, but I only have to play by
*mine*, and that's still fair because I say it is."

PD

Did you see where he said that observations are not evidence?

Stephen

To you they're evidence, to real scientists they are observed
effects. More often than not, initial explanations for such
effects turn out to have been wrong. You still believe that the
earth is the center of the u., since the "evidence" proves that.

Observations are evidence. In fact, they are the only
evidence that counts in science. However in science,
evidence does not prove anything. It is entirely possible
for more than one theory to be consistent with the evidence.
The important thing is that a theory must be consistent
with all the evidence. I am aware of no theory that places
the earth at the center of the universe that is consistent
with all the observed evidence.

Of course not; at least, not anymore. At one time, there
was plenty of evidence that earth is the center of the
universe, because all one had to do to know that was to
observe the moon, the sun, and the stars moving around
the earth, which evidently stood still.

All the evidence that the earth was the center of the
Universe is still present. But in the meantime we
have discovered lots of other evidence that tell
us that the Earth is not the center of the Universe.
That is how science works. New evidence sometimes forces us
to modify our theories of the Universe. Sometimes new
evidence supports our current theories, but any new observation
has the potential of forcing us back to the drawing board.

Exactly how we modify our theories is bit more complicated. The whole
dark matter question is an interesting example. Observations
give us information about how stars move, and how light
is bent. Our gravitational theories tell us how much mass
is needed to match the observations. The amount of visible
mass is much less than the amount predicted by our theories.
There are several solutions to this problem:
1. assume that our theories of gravitation are correct,
and that therefore there must be additional matter that
we cannot see. The phrase 'dark matter' was coined
to describe this unseen matter. This is the prevalent
opinion among scientists today.
2. assume our theories of gravitation are incorrect.
This is the approach taken by some scientists. Modified
Newtonian dynamics is an example of a different theory
of gravitation.
3. assume that the motions of the stars are not determined
mainly by gravity, and instead suppose there is some
new and unknown force that affects the stars, and decide that
dark matter has negative energy despite that being totally
at odds with the definition of dark matter, etc. That is
your approach.
There has been more and more evidence found that favors
position 1, but position 2 has not been abandoned.
Nobody but you finds position 3 the slightest bit compelling.
I am sure there are other positions as well, but only 1 and 2
have any real support.

Stephen
Back to top
tomgee1
science forum Guru


Joined: 31 Jan 2006
Posts: 750

PostPosted: Tue Jul 18, 2006 4:43 am    Post subject: Re: Einstein said: Time is what the clock measure. Reply with quote

Randy Poe wrote:
Quote:
tomgee wrote:
stephen@nomail.com wrote:
The
whole idea behind dark matter is that it is massive,
and it attracts other objects via gravity. That is the
definition of "dark matter". No one is assuming that
dark matter is massless, other than you. That is
the point I have been repeatedly trying to make. Nobody
thinks that dark matter has zero or negative mass. It
is in fact defined to have positive mass.

You're making up facts, now, aren't you?

You sure didn't take long to prove my thesis, did you?

"You're making that up" means somebody said something
you didn't personally read in your limited exposure to physics.

It's easy to see why you would believe something stupid

like that, but what makes you think anyone else but idiots
would believe that?
Quote:

You're incapable of believing there might be things outside
the books you personally have read.

When someone who has read more books than me and also

attended a physics seminar says that, it must be true.
Back to top
stephen@nomail.com
science forum Guru


Joined: 11 Sep 2005
Posts: 681

PostPosted: Tue Jul 18, 2006 4:28 am    Post subject: Re: Einstein said: Time is what the clock measure. Reply with quote

In sci.physics.relativity tomgee <tyropress@yahoo.com> wrote:
Quote:
stephen@nomail.com wrote:
In sci.physics.relativity tomgee <tyropress@yahoo.com> wrote:
stephen@nomail.com wrote:
In sci.physics.relativity tomgee <tyropress@yahoo.com> wrote:
stephen@nomail.com wrote:
In sci.physics.relativity tomgee <tyropress@yahoo.com> wrote:

stephen@nomail.com wrote:
In sci.physics.relativity tomgee <tyropress@yahoo.com> wrote:

SNIP

Your own words can never provide support for whether
or not scientists use the words 'dark matter' to describe
matter with negative mass.

You're making things up, or you're more confused than ever. I
did not say my words support that at all. I said I am the only
one who uses it that way, in agreement with your statements to
that effect.

Then what was the point of this sub thread? I said
"You forget that TomGee has is own personal definition of
'Dark Matter', which has nothing to do with the standard
definition."
You responded with
"Well, Stephen, you have made your bed, now you must lay in it
with all those cooties from the Stooges. Tell us, how is my
definition above different from the standard definition?"
Is this your way of agreeing with somebody? It sure does
not sound that way to me.

So anyway, now that you agree with my original statement,
I see no point in continuing this discussion. Next time
you agree with a statement someone makes, you would save
a lot of time and effort if you just said, "yes, I agree with that",
or just say nothing at all.

Stephen
Back to top
Randy Poe
science forum Guru


Joined: 24 Mar 2005
Posts: 2485

PostPosted: Tue Jul 18, 2006 1:00 am    Post subject: Re: Einstein said: Time is what the clock measure. Reply with quote

tomgee wrote:
Quote:
stephen@nomail.com wrote:

The
whole idea behind dark matter is that it is massive,
and it attracts other objects via gravity. That is the
definition of "dark matter". No one is assuming that
dark matter is massless, other than you. That is
the point I have been repeatedly trying to make. Nobody
thinks that dark matter has zero or negative mass. It
is in fact defined to have positive mass.

You're making up facts, now, aren't you? If not, show us
that fact you claim exists where DM is defined to have
+mass.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_matter
"In cosmology, dark matter refers to matter particles, of unknown
composition, that do not emit or reflect enough electromagnetic
radiation (light) to be detected directly,"
"The dark matter component has vastly more mass than the
"visible" component of the universe"

Nobody is saying it doesn't reflect any light. Merely that it doesn't
reflect enough light to be seen by our telescopes.

We can't see any brown dwarfs either.

http://astro.berkeley.edu/~mwhite/darkmatter/dm.html
"When such velocity measurements are done on large scales, it turns out
that the amount of inferred mass is much more than can be explained by
the luminous stuff. Hence we infer that there is dark matter in the
Universe."


http://csep10.phys.utk.edu/astr162/lect/cosmology/darkmatter.html
"On smaller scales such as galaxies and clusters of galaxies, dynamical
estimates of the mass based on rotation curves or velocity dispersions
of galaxies indicate that 90% (not 99%) of the total mass is not seen
("sub-luminous"). This implies that the mass density of the Universe is
10% of the closure density. In this case, the sub-luminous mass could
be normal (baryonic) and be locked up in stellar remnants (white
dwarfs, neutron stars, black holes) or just in very dim stars called
"Brown Dwarfs"."

Plenty more stuff out there. Search for "dark matter" and pull up
any article on an EDU site, written by an astronomer. You will find
the same basic statements: that something like 90% of the MASS
of the universe is thought to be dark, that "dark matter" is the name
given to this MASS we can't see.

Note the list of candidates at the end of that last quote: white
dwarfs, neutron stars, black holes, brown dwarfs.

Quote:
Then show us how we can see through matter
that has +mass and +energy.

Who says we can see through it? Where are you getting this requirement
from?

Are you thinking that if it was opaque, we'd see a dark place in
the sky? The stuff we can see has gaps between it, you know. Look
at a picture of stars. Points of light, separated by black.

- Randy
Back to top
Randy Poe
science forum Guru


Joined: 24 Mar 2005
Posts: 2485

PostPosted: Tue Jul 18, 2006 12:47 am    Post subject: Re: Einstein said: Time is what the clock measure. Reply with quote

tomgee wrote:
Quote:
stephen@nomail.com wrote:
The
whole idea behind dark matter is that it is massive,
and it attracts other objects via gravity. That is the
definition of "dark matter". No one is assuming that
dark matter is massless, other than you. That is
the point I have been repeatedly trying to make. Nobody
thinks that dark matter has zero or negative mass. It
is in fact defined to have positive mass.

You're making up facts, now, aren't you?

You sure didn't take long to prove my thesis, did you?

"You're making that up" means somebody said something
you didn't personally read in your limited exposure to physics.

You're incapable of believing there might be things outside
the books you personally have read.

- Randy
Back to top
tomgee1
science forum Guru


Joined: 31 Jan 2006
Posts: 750

PostPosted: Mon Jul 17, 2006 11:41 pm    Post subject: Re: Einstein said: Time is what the clock measure. Reply with quote

stephen@nomail.com wrote:
Quote:
In sci.physics.relativity tomgee <tyropress@yahoo.com> wrote:

stephen@nomail.com wrote:
In sci.physics.relativity PD <TheDraperFamily@gmail.com> wrote:

snip

In other words, TomGee wants desperately to play pick-up basketball
with the rest of the boys, but he can't dribble and he can't block. So
he says, "You have to play by *your* rules, but I only have to play by
*mine*, and that's still fair because I say it is."

PD

Did you see where he said that observations are not evidence?

Stephen

To you they're evidence, to real scientists they are observed
effects. More often than not, initial explanations for such
effects turn out to have been wrong. You still believe that the
earth is the center of the u., since the "evidence" proves that.

Observations are evidence. In fact, they are the only
evidence that counts in science. However in science,
evidence does not prove anything. It is entirely possible
for more than one theory to be consistent with the evidence.
The important thing is that a theory must be consistent
with all the evidence. I am aware of no theory that places
the earth at the center of the universe that is consistent
with all the observed evidence.

Of course not; at least, not anymore. At one time, there

was plenty of evidence that earth is the center of the
universe, because all one had to do to know that was to
observe the moon, the sun, and the stars moving around
the earth, which evidently stood still.
Back to top
tomgee1
science forum Guru


Joined: 31 Jan 2006
Posts: 750

PostPosted: Mon Jul 17, 2006 11:31 pm    Post subject: Re: Einstein said: Time is what the clock measure. Reply with quote

stephen@nomail.com wrote:
Quote:
In sci.physics.relativity tomgee <tyropress@yahoo.com> wrote:
stephen@nomail.com wrote:
In sci.physics.relativity tomgee <tyropress@yahoo.com> wrote:
stephen@nomail.com wrote:
In sci.physics.relativity tomgee <tyropress@yahoo.com> wrote:

stephen@nomail.com wrote:
In sci.physics.relativity tomgee <tyropress@yahoo.com> wrote:

SNIP

Your own words can never provide support for whether
or not scientists use the words 'dark matter' to describe
matter with negative mass.

You're making things up, or you're more confused than ever. I

did not say my words support that at all. I said I am the only
one who uses it that way, in agreement with your statements to
that effect.
Quote:

You are not a scientist. If
you want to support an assertion about how scientists
use words, you need to cite some scientists using words.

You're the one arguing that, not me. You cite support for

that silly argument, if you wish to. Who cares about that
anyway?
Quote:

That scientists use the term dark matter
to describe the unseen matter needed to explain observed
gravitational phenomena?

No.

To what does your 'no' refer? It is obvious
and easily verified that scientists use the term
dark matter to describe the unseen matter needed to explain observed
gravitational phenomena.

To the part where you assert some gravitational phenomena is

explained by the term. You are trying to put your cart before
your burro. What is observed is phenomena that appears to be
based on gravitational effects, but it could well turn out to be
caused by other than gravitational effects, esp. since DM cannot
have the energy required to create the attractive effects of
gravitation as we know it. You are jumping to conclusions way
ahead of the facts. That's not a good thing to do in science.
Quote:

snip

That is close to the "std. explanation", except that we do not yet
know whether the influence is applied gravitationally, as he
evidently supposes it does, or if it is applied in some other way.

The presence of dark matter is detected by applying
the theory of gravitation. That is the only way it is
detected. If you assume that its affects are not gravitational,
then you are not talking about dark matter, but something else.

No, that's false. DM was predicted to exist on the basis of

unexplained motions of bodies and galaxies that appeared
to contradict what we know and assume about gravitation,
but it had not been claimed to have been detected until just
recently when some scientists have claimed to have mapped
certain portions of the universe with a new apparatus they
invented for that specific purpose. But you assumed all that
before it was achieved, on the basis of what you read, which
was all supposition then. You're too quick on the trigger, or
maybe your closed-eyes wishes came true, who knows?
Quote:

The adjacent image exhibits one recent
piece of evidence for undetected matter: the hot gas seen in
the X-ray spectrum would have dispersed if it were held in place
only the by gravity of the mass that is producing light in this
image (the so-called "luminous mass").

But "gravity" as we know it is applied only by visible and massive
objects, while DM is invisible, and it is so because it has no +mass
to it. So for his explanation to be valid, he has yet to show how
"gravity" could be applied to RM from a massless source.

No, that is just an unsupported assumption of yours.

Not so. My assumption is that DM may not have an attractive

force that explains the observed effects. My support for that is
my argument that gravitation requires positive mass having
+energy in order for it to be an attractive force. My support for
that argument is based on what we know about gravitation,
mass, and energy. More support for my claim is added by my
insistence that it must be shown how the same gravitational
effects we observe from RM, i. e., objects having +mass and
+energy, could occur from invisible massless objects having no
temperature and thus no +energy of their own.
Quote:

The
whole idea behind dark matter is that it is massive,
and it attracts other objects via gravity. That is the
definition of "dark matter". No one is assuming that
dark matter is massless, other than you. That is
the point I have been repeatedly trying to make. Nobody
thinks that dark matter has zero or negative mass. It
is in fact defined to have positive mass.

You're making up facts, now, aren't you? If not, show us

that fact you claim exists where DM is defined to have
+mass. Then show us how we can see through matter
that has +mass and +energy. There is no such aminal, as
such matter is not invisible to us and we cannot see through
it. Making up fantasies is the easy part; the hard part is
showing how they could be true. You should try that sometime.
Quote:

That is the definition of dark matter. Dark matter is matter
that attracts other matter.

Only fools will say that about something that has not yet been

shown to be true. And that definition above left out that DM
also does not reflect light, which tells you how little that author
knows about accurate reporting. It's the same ol' "publish or
perish" syndrome teachers exhibit in trying to keep up with the
unwarranted demands of their employers.
Quote:

We can surmise other things
to explain the observed phenomena, but we would not call
it dark matter.

I would, and I do.

SNIP

You are missing the whole point. It is not a question of
accepting what they say. It is simple a question of accepting
what they say the words mean. Scientists describe the invisible
positive matter that would explain observed gravitationl affects
as dark matter.

You are making up physics in ways that rival the Stooge PD,

whose ass you appear glad to kiss, and in a way that could
earn you the title of King Stooge. Show us where someone
other than me uses the term, "positive matter".
Quote:

The author does not ruin it by giving his opinion about what that mass
may consist of, since he could not support whatever he may think it is.
He keeps his unsupported opinions to himself and says only that there
must be something else out there that keeps those objects from flying
apart, and while he cannot say what that is at the moment, he agrees
to call it, "Dark Matter".

That is exactly what everyone is doing, except for you of course.

You have itexactly backwards. He does not say "positive matter"

as you claim they all do, but you do, even while almost in the
same breath you claim no one ever used positive or negative
terms to describe DM (which turned out to be a false statement
from you, remember?). You contradict yourself.
Quote:

Do you honestly believe that those two authors think that dark
matter has negative mass. How does negative mass resolve
the missing mass problem?

No, I don't think that at all. Why do you keep saying that even

after what I wrote just below? Do you only read parts of my
posts?
Quote:

snip

Nobody thinks
that dark matter has negative energy.

You do, apparently, since I never said that. You seem to be
the only one who thinks there is such a thing. If your ability
to comprehend what you read was better, you would have
seen where I disclaim believing in negative energy at this
point in time.

You claim that dark matter has negative mass, and that
it does not have positive energy. Nobody but you
think that dark matter has negative mass.

No one but Cristobal Columbo thought the world was

round, in his time. He had to convince a lot of people
that they would not fall off the edge of the world. He
would easily have been outvoted by your method of
determining what's right and what's wrong.
Quote:

Dirac and Gamow never
said anything about the stuff that scientists call dark matter.

Yes, they did. Dirac is well-known for his use of Pauli's
Exclusion Principle to explain the extraordinary state of an
electron that exists as negative mass. Google for it.

Dirac never called negative mass 'dark matter'.

Above, you said Dirac said nothing about "the stuff", and I

showed you are wrong about that. Now you have changed
that what you should have said in the first place. I never
said he called it that, anyway. That's just another one of
your incorrect assumptions.
Quote:

I have
googled for it, and there is nothing anywhere about Dirac
and 'dark matter'. Once again, nobody but you think
that 'dark matter' has negative mass, so Dirac's ideas
about negative mass are irrelevant in discussions of
'dark matter'.

I never said Dirac called it that. That was your assumption.

You are arguing who called what first, as if that is important
to this discussion. That is important only to you, since you
are the one having a hissy fit over that. Your belief that his
ideas are not relevant here shows you have little capacity
for objective thought, if any at all. Your logic stinks, as well.
Quote:

Negative mass may exist. Who knows, but that is not what the
words 'dark matter' refer to.

They do in my model.

That's what you believe wholeheartedly and to the very core of
your being - so be it. Who cares what you believe anyway? It
is clear you have read little and understand practically nothing.
Now if you can support your little opinion above with a quote or
some logic, someone may care what you say.

Can you provide a single quote of somebody other than
yourself saying that dark matter has negative mass?
If the words 'dark matter' do refer to negative mass,
as you insist, then don't you think that someone, somewhere
might have actually said that? But you cannot provide
a single instance of such an utterance.

Why is that so important to you? I have already said, and

you yourself have said, that I am the only one describing
DM as having negative mass, so why are you belaboring
the point? You sound like another Stooge I used to talk to
in these ngs who was so daft and got so confused it made
no sense after awhile to talk to him at all. You're not him,
are you?
Quote:

SNIP

Only by fools who should know better.


You believe in negative mass. You think that dark matter
has negative mass, despite the fact that nobody else
in the world does,

You continue to mouth falsehoods even after I proved

they are lies.
Quote:

and it is totally contrary to the
concept of dark matter.
Negative mass is not going to make
up for the missing mass. It would just make the problem worse.
The whole point of dark matter is to explain why gravity
acts as if there is more mass present than what we can observe,
not less.

I see now that you are totally confused about what I

am saying. Maybe this will help: There is no missing
mass. It has been found and they call it DM. It just
happens to be invisible to us because it has only neg.
mass and we can only observe objects that have
+mass and thus, +energy.
Back to top
stephen@nomail.com
science forum Guru


Joined: 11 Sep 2005
Posts: 681

PostPosted: Mon Jul 17, 2006 10:13 pm    Post subject: Re: Einstein said: Time is what the clock measure. Reply with quote

In sci.physics.relativity tomgee <tyropress@yahoo.com> wrote:

Quote:
To you they're evidence, to real scientists they are observed
effects. More often than not, initial explanations for such
effects turn out to have been wrong. You still believe that the
earth is the center of the u., since the "evidence" proves that.

By the way, how does the "evidence" prove that the center
of the Earth is the center of the universe? Would you care
to outline this supposed proof or yours? The fact that
the stars, planets, and Sun move across the sky is evidence
that either the stars, planets and Sun are all moving around
the Earth, or that the Earth itself is spinning. The simple
fact that the stars move across the sky proves neither one of
these alternatives.

Stephen
Back to top
Randy Poe
science forum Guru


Joined: 24 Mar 2005
Posts: 2485

PostPosted: Mon Jul 17, 2006 9:38 pm    Post subject: Re: Einstein said: Time is what the clock measure. Reply with quote

tomgee wrote:
Quote:
Randy Poe wrote:
tomgee wrote:
I don't see any real quotes, fool, only those you've made up, like
you make up physics.

Tom thinks anything he's never been exposed to must have
been made up.

Reality check, Tom. There are lots of courses you've never had,
lots of books you've never read.

That's true of me, but speaking of reality checks, there are none
you have not taken or read, right?

There are plenty.

Quote:
You've taken all the courses
there are to take and read all the books there are to read, right?

Evidence is that I've taken more physics courses and read more
physics books than you.

Hence there are things I've seen in physics that you haven't. It
is not required that I have read everything in order to have
read something you haven't.

- Randy
Back to top
PD
science forum Guru


Joined: 03 May 2005
Posts: 4363

PostPosted: Mon Jul 17, 2006 9:35 pm    Post subject: Re: Einstein said: Time is what the clock measure. Reply with quote

tomgee wrote:
Quote:
Randy Poe wrote:
tomgee wrote:
I don't see any real quotes, fool, only those you've made up, like
you make up physics.

Tom thinks anything he's never been exposed to must have
been made up.

Reality check, Tom. There are lots of courses you've never had,
lots of books you've never read.

That's true of me, but speaking of reality checks, there are none
you have not taken or read, right? You've taken all the courses
there are to take and read all the books there are to read, right?

There was once a boy and a man, and the boy had just finished his
second book and was convinced he now knew a lot. The man chuckled and
remarked that there were many, many books to read. "How many books have
you read, then?" asked the boy. The man again chuckled and said, "Oh, I
don't know for sure. Many hundreds, I suppose." "How many books do you
suppose there are?" pressed the boy. The man replied, "In all?
Millions, I'd say!" "Well then," said the impertiinent little boy, "you
know barely more than I do. And you laugh at me?"

Tom also supposes that when something is mentioned to him by a
scientist for the first time, then it is the first that it has occured
to science. This way, he can say, "But I thought of that last month
myself! And they haven't given me credit for originating the thought!"

PD
Back to top
PD
science forum Guru


Joined: 03 May 2005
Posts: 4363

PostPosted: Mon Jul 17, 2006 9:26 pm    Post subject: Re: Einstein said: Time is what the clock measure. Reply with quote

tomgee wrote:
Quote:
PD wrote:
tomgee wrote:
PD wrote:
tomgee wrote:

This is rich.

Nothing "rich" there. All I see is you grasping at strawmen.

Two posts ago, TomGee says:

Of course they do. Whatever gave you the idea our
own words don't count as support for our ideas? How
else can we explain what we mean?

And now he says:

Somewhere, somehow, someone
brainwashed you to think that your own words cannot support
your claims. If that were true, why explain anything? Just say
anything you want and if someone repeats it, that proves it's
true. Of course, there is no logic in that, is there?


In other words,

IOWs, you have to try to explain what you're talking about
here, since it looks for all the world to be only nonsense.

That's precisely right, and all I've done up to this point is quote
you. You're right, it looks for all the world to be only nonsense.

I don't see any real quotes, fool, only those you've made up, like
you make up physics. A physicist who don't know what quotes
are? Do you at least know what planet you're on?

You don't see any real quotes?
Here: let me put quotation marks around them and then show you where
you said them.
"Of course they do. Whatever gave you the idea our own words don't
count as support for our ideas? How else can we explain what we mean?"
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/msg/dbc5e07844c75407?hl=en&

"Somewhere, somehow, someone brainwashed you to think that your own
words cannot support your claims. If that were true, why explain
anything? Just say anything you want and if someone repeats it, that
proves it's true. Of course, there is no logic in that, is there?"
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/msg/0c73196ed903d588?hl=en&

Now, who's the fool who doesn't recall what he says and accuses others
of making this up?

Quote:

TomGee is saying:
"My ideas are supported by *my* words. I know this because I am
convinced of them. On the other hand, your ideas are not supported by
*your* words. I know this because I am not convinced of them."

That's crock, PD; you're drowning.

In other words, TomGee wants desperately to play pick-up basketball
with the rest of the boys, but he can't dribble and he can't block. So
he says, "You have to play by *your* rules, but I only have to play by
*mine*, and that's still fair because I say it is."

Ya know any physics, PD?

A bit. You?

A bit.

Yes, you do. A very, very, very little bit.

PD
Back to top
Google

Back to top
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic Page 3 of 15 [215 Posts] Goto page:  Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, ..., 13, 14, 15 Next
View previous topic :: View next topic
The time now is Sat Jun 27, 2015 5:27 am | All times are GMT
Forum index » Science and Technology » Physics » Relativity
Jump to:  

Similar Topics
Topic Author Forum Replies Last Post
No new posts For the Einstein worshipers and skeptics 3ality Relativity 3 Tue Oct 02, 2007 11:23 pm
No new posts Undestanding SR - examination time. Nicolaas Vroom Relativity 14 Thu Jul 20, 2006 4:00 pm
No new posts WHO KILLED PHYSICS: CLAUSIUS OR EINSTEIN? Pentcho Valev Relativity 7 Thu Jul 20, 2006 8:24 am
No new posts Space-time and time dilation Henry Haapalainen Relativity 40 Sun Jul 16, 2006 9:58 pm
No new posts Clock Properties dseppala@austin.rr.com Relativity 11 Sat Jul 15, 2006 11:24 pm

Copyright © 2004-2005 DeniX Solutions SRL
Other DeniX Solutions sites: Electronics forum |  Medicine forum |  Unix/Linux blog |  Unix/Linux documentation |  Unix/Linux forums  |  send newsletters
 


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
[ Time: 0.0630s ][ Queries: 16 (0.0055s) ][ GZIP on - Debug on ]