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
The Meaning Of Horizon, Including "c"
Post new topic   Reply to topic Page 1 of 1 [7 Posts] View previous topic :: View next topic
Author Message
glbrad01
science forum Guru Wannabe


Joined: 20 Mar 2005
Posts: 105

PostPosted: Mon Jul 10, 2006 10:02 am    Post subject: The Meaning Of Horizon, Including "c" Reply with quote

Horizon: 1. the line or circle that forms the apparent boundary between
earth and sky. 2. [Astron.] a. the small circle of the celestial sphere
whose plane is tangent to the earth at the position of a given observer, or
the plane of such a circle ([sensible horizon]). b. the great circle of the
celestial sphere whose plane passes through the center of the earth and is
paralle to the sensible horizon of a given position, or the plane of such a
circle ([celestial horizon]). 3. the limit or range of perception,
knowledge, or the like.

The like?! As in the limit of relativity. A distant horizon of
Relativity's collapse, Relativity's breakdown. What such horizon might look
like (might appear to be) from "here"....from "now." A universal constant?
Or more than one universal constant?

Horizon is something that is here, there, everywhere and nowhere at all,
completely meaningful, and completely meaningless. Are there any horizons in
physics?

The Big Bang Horizon. The Planck horizons. The horizons of Relativity's
collapse, Relativity's breakdown. Loss of Relativity and/or gain of
Relativity, the seams obviously being seams and yet obviously being
seamless. Opening before, and closing behind. In turning to and going in any
direction whatsoever (omni-directionally), opening before and closing
behind. "c" is such a limit (a constant horizon), the limit (the constant
horizon) of velocity. But as with all such constant horizons, being "here,
there, everywhere and nowhere at all." Being constant here, constant there,
constant everywhere and constant nowhere at all. Thus, "the speed of light
is constant in a vacuum." A velocity that encompasses the whole of all of an
infinity of velocities without any exception [is] the exception -- in this
case the 'epitome' of velocity -- displaced outside and independent of all
other velocities whatsoever. Thus "slowing down" is strictly a matter of
relativity. Thus "speeding up" is strictly a matter of relativity. Thus
"stopping" is strictly a matter of relativity. Thus "perpetual motion" is an
eternal constant in and of and by the Universe, the sole exceptions probably
being the Big Bang and Planck horizons (they being here, there, everywhere
and nowhere at all: "c", don't you know).

GLB
Back to top
Sorcerer1
science forum Guru


Joined: 09 Jun 2006
Posts: 410

PostPosted: Mon Jul 10, 2006 11:19 am    Post subject: Re: The Meaning Of Horizon, Including "c" Reply with quote

"G. L. Bradford" <glbrad01@insightbb.com> wrote in message
news:BPadnSCEdOs1uC_ZnZ2dnUVZ_rOdnZ2d@insightbb.com...
| Horizon: 1. the line or circle that forms the apparent boundary between
| earth and sky. 2. [Astron.] a. the small circle of the celestial sphere
| whose plane is tangent to the earth at the position of a given observer,
or
| the plane of such a circle ([sensible horizon]). b. the great circle of
the
| celestial sphere whose plane passes through the center of the earth and is
| paralle to the sensible horizon of a given position, or the plane of such
a
| circle ([celestial horizon]). 3. the limit or range of perception,
| knowledge, or the like.
|
| The like?! As in the limit of relativity. A distant horizon of
| Relativity's collapse, Relativity's breakdown. What such horizon might
look
| like (might appear to be) from "here"....from "now." A universal constant?
| Or more than one universal constant?
|
| Horizon is something that is here, there, everywhere and nowhere at all,
| completely meaningful, and completely meaningless. Are there any horizons
in
| physics?
|
| The Big Bang Horizon. The Planck horizons. The horizons of Relativity's
| collapse, Relativity's breakdown. Loss of Relativity and/or gain of
| Relativity, the seams obviously being seams and yet obviously being
| seamless. Opening before, and closing behind. In turning to and going in
any
| direction whatsoever (omni-directionally), opening before and closing
| behind. "c" is such a limit (a constant horizon), the limit (the constant
| horizon) of velocity. But as with all such constant horizons, being "here,
| there, everywhere and nowhere at all." Being constant here, constant
there,
| constant everywhere and constant nowhere at all. Thus, "the speed of light
| is constant in a vacuum." A velocity that encompasses the whole of all of
an
| infinity of velocities without any exception [is] the exception -- in this
| case the 'epitome' of velocity -- displaced outside and independent of all
| other velocities whatsoever. Thus "slowing down" is strictly a matter of
| relativity. Thus "speeding up" is strictly a matter of relativity. Thus
| "stopping" is strictly a matter of relativity. Thus "perpetual motion" is
an
| eternal constant in and of and by the Universe, the sole exceptions
probably
| being the Big Bang and Planck horizons (they being here, there, everywhere
| and nowhere at all: "c", don't you know).
|
| GLB
"the velocity of light in our theory plays the part, physically, of an
infinitely
great velocity". -- Einstein.
Please leave me out of "our theory", I'm not a shithead.
These are shitheads:
"This is PHYSICS, not math or logic, and "proof" is completely
irrelevant." -- Humpty Roberts,
co-author of relativity FAQs.
"Never mind the math, check the physics." - Dork Van de merde, general
all-round imbecile.

Androcles.
Back to top
xxein@bellsouth.net
science forum Guru Wannabe


Joined: 12 Sep 2005
Posts: 272

PostPosted: Tue Jul 11, 2006 5:16 am    Post subject: Re: The Meaning Of Horizon, Including "c" Reply with quote

Sorcerer wrote:
Quote:
"G. L. Bradford" <glbrad01@insightbb.com> wrote in message
news:BPadnSCEdOs1uC_ZnZ2dnUVZ_rOdnZ2d@insightbb.com...


Androcles.

Sorcerer wrote:
Quote:
"G. L. Bradford" ..

Androcles.

xxein: Do you ever consider anything beyond your make-believe
thoughts?

Believing never made anything true no matter how it is expressed to the
mathematic or the universe (or beyond)..

So, feel on par with Einstein, your antithetical protagonist. We don't
really care what you think because you are not open to rational
discussion. And if it could soothe your soul (as such?), a good many
people cannot accept the fluff of Einstein. But who would want to
enter into a discussion with a closed-minded person such as you?

I also entered this arena with a belief. I've had a good one since
1989. I knew there was something wrong with the Einsteinian since I
began my study in 1985 (my first real effort, as opposed to just going
along with and following the Einsteinian protocol).

This doesn't mean that anything or everything evidentiary supports my
belief (although it seems to), It just means that our present knowledge
of how things work is insufficient.

How do you view the quantum to be connected to the universe? We have
evidence that is predictive for each, you know. We struggle to put
them together (with no help from your belief, ---as a matter of fact,
your belief obstructs (will short-circuit) such an understanding the
same as the Einsteinian view does).

While this is an open forum (both for and against the group-name and
Einsteinian conclusions), there IS a relativity. But it is subjective
by the nature of the measure of it. While nature is strictly 'cause
and effect' wrt time, there are global and local patterns that seem to
emerge. This is what we make physical theory from. It is piecemeal.
It depends strictly on how strict we wish to view it --- quantum,
relative or astro.

It is strange that it might appear that 'relative' appears to be 'odd
man out' in the strict resolution of a physic, but that is where we
come from (relative). That is how it affects us. So why don't we let
physics be physics and the hell with our local measurement of it?
Can't we be objective?

Probably not. But does corn grow out of a mere subjective analysis, or
will it grow anyway? You may not like the considerations that go into
a physical theory (and I think they are deficient, also), but that
doesn't mean that things "have to' go as we might surmise in an
otherwise fashion.

Look! I am holding my temper here with both you and any otherwise
notion of a physic that is not completely objective. I may not even
know what truly objective is, but I am striving to find and understand
it because that is the only way a true reality can be realised in
accordance to non-arbitrary universal laws.

This does not escape a comprehension, it is just that most will direct
their attention to that which affects them. This is the subjectivity
aspect that infects physics to such a degree that almost no one can be
objective. And no one can recognise it.

I can foresee, someday in the future, when a bus schedule is deemed a
physical law just because it has a regularity to some version of
applicable science that has supplanted even our shaky knowledge.

Geez, Androc. Give up the wish-world and don't interfere with the
(so-called) science that is being conducted today. It is way beyond
you. Not correct, by any means, but still way beyond you.

Was I polite? Can you be?

(Otherwise, an alternate salutation = go f*** yourself. But that is
your solution. Are you having fun yet?)

In which way do you prefer to try to understand a science? Your
narrow-minded way or an open and thoughtful way? You remind me of the
Horgan article in some science news a few years back. Science is dead.
Everything is known. There is nothing new to discover. Such
short-sightedness would prevent the wheel!

When I examine theories, I go through several stages. Inherent limits
is not the first stage but proves as an invaluable workpiece to examine
the scope of a theory. But somehow I can examine theory with some kind
of a logical filter. It is not just a smattering of evidence but 'all'
evidence. I take a certain pride in remembering almost all 'empirical
evidence' of a theory be it an Einstein or a Van Flandren. But each
theory presents evidence in it's own light to support it. It is not to
be ignored because it doesn't support your thinking (theory).

Rather, it should be an addition to an arsenal of knowledge. How does
this incorporate into what I think? If you want to be selfish, you
will not consider any measurement that does not support your view.

It is rather common that views, such as yours, are expressed in more
profundity than scientific ones. It is easy to blurt out a statement
of belief, whereas a statement of science requires more thought. Let's
see. 'Pink elephants are more sexually provocative than purple ones.'
Let that be a law. Based upon what? What does a photon or electron
care?

Go with that thought and I won't give you any trouble (not that I would
bother myself with you anyway).

I just thought that I might give you some insight on a one-time basis.

Of course, you will make a response that will indicate that I am full
of sh**. So let's hear it.
Back to top
Sorcerer1
science forum Guru


Joined: 09 Jun 2006
Posts: 410

PostPosted: Tue Jul 11, 2006 10:03 am    Post subject: Re: The Meaning Of Horizon, Including "c" Reply with quote

<xxein@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:1152595000.452032.56090@p79g2000cwp.googlegroups.com...
|
| Sorcerer wrote:
| > "G. L. Bradford" <glbrad01@insightbb.com> wrote in message
| > news:BPadnSCEdOs1uC_ZnZ2dnUVZ_rOdnZ2d@insightbb.com...
|
| >
| > Androcles.
|
| Sorcerer wrote:
| > "G. L. Bradford" ..
| >
| > Androcles.
|
| xxein: Do you ever consider anything beyond your make-believe
| thoughts?

Yes. I'm considering what you are about to say.
|
| Believing never made anything true no matter how it is expressed to the
| mathematic or the universe (or beyond)..

I agree.


|
| So, feel on par with Einstein, your antithetical protagonist.

Oh! I'm considering you wish to start a flame war.
Am I right, you stupid ignorant cunt?



| We don't
| really care what you think because you are not open to rational
| discussion.

Who are "we", arsehole? You and who else? Have you looked in
the mirror lately? Is the antithetical protagonist you see there the
other half of "we", or are you a fucking wimp?



| And if it could soothe your soul (as such?), a good many
| people cannot accept the fluff of Einstein. But who would want to
| enter into a discussion with a closed-minded person such as you?

I really have no desire to enter into a flame war, but since you started
one... open my mind and I'll give consideration to your reply.


|
| I also entered this arena with a belief.

Did you? How nice for you.


I've had a good one since
| 1989.

Did you? How nice for you.


| I knew there was something wrong with the Einsteinian since I
| began my study in 1985 (my first real effort, as opposed to just going
| along with and following the Einsteinian protocol).

That late, huh? I knew something was wrong 40 years ago, but I had
a career to follow so I left it on the back burner to simmer until I could
get around to it. I've since found a round tuit.
|
| This doesn't mean that anything or everything evidentiary supports my
| belief (although it seems to), It just means that our present knowledge
| of how things work is insufficient.

I've considered that, and I agree. Do you ever consider anything beyond
your make-believe thoughts?



|
| How do you view the quantum to be connected to the universe?

Not a question I can answer, I don't understand your make-believe thoughts.



| We have
| evidence that is predictive for each, you know.


No, I don't know. Tell me about your make-believe evidence.

| We struggle to put
| them together (with no help from your belief, ---as a matter of fact,
| your belief obstructs (will short-circuit) such an understanding the
| same as the Einsteinian view does).

Considered... you are back to flaming again, you cunt.
Tell me about your make-believe evidence, arsehole, I'm not really
going to consider your insults, just hurl them back.

|
| While this is an open forum (both for and against the group-name and
| Einsteinian conclusions), there IS a relativity.

Of course.


| But it is subjective
| by the nature of the measure of it.


Considered. Since I've been saying that for ages, what the f*** are
you trying to tell me about it for?
Tell me about you make-believe evidence instead.




While nature is strictly 'cause
| and effect' wrt time, there are global and local patterns that seem to
| emerge. This is what we make physical theory from. It is piecemeal.
| It depends strictly on how strict we wish to view it --- quantum,
| relative or astro.

Are you going to tell me about your make-believe evidence, or rant?
I don't consider rants, you've got that part right.


|
| It is strange that it might appear that 'relative' appears to be 'odd
| man out' in the strict resolution of a physic, but that is where we
| come from (relative). That is how it affects us. So why don't we let
| physics be physics and the hell with our local measurement of it?
| Can't we be objective?

I can. We can't.
Are you going to tell me about your make-believe evidence, or rant?

|
| Probably not.

With what probability? zero? half? one?

See, I'm considering what you say, even though you haven't said
anything beyond a vague rant and some flames yet.


But does corn grow out of a mere subjective analysis, or
| will it grow anyway?

I'm not a farmer. I can't help you there.


| You may not like the considerations that go into
| a physical theory (and I think they are deficient, also), but that
| doesn't mean that things "have to' go as we might surmise in an
| otherwise fashion.

What do you want me to do about it? Consider it? Ok, it doesn't have to be.
Ptolemy's subjective epicycle corn grew and lasted for 1400 years.
It didn't have to be, but it happened. Consider it considered.


|
| Look! I am holding my temper here with both you and any otherwise
| notion of a physic that is not completely objective.

Looking. Your temper is subjective and you are feeding it yourself.
Hopefully I can calm it with objectivity couched in inflamatory words
to feed it and you'll come to realise I considered it.
Where is this fuckin' make-believe evidence you pratted on about?


| I may not even
| know what truly objective is, but I am striving to find and understand
| it because that is the only way a true reality can be realised in
| accordance to non-arbitrary universal laws.

If you dont know what it is, you'll find out eventually.
Evidence: stick in water
Subjective: The stick is bent.
Objective: The light we see it by is bent.



|
| This does not escape a comprehension, it is just that most will direct
| their attention to that which affects them. This is the subjectivity
| aspect that infects physics to such a degree that almost no one can be
| objective. And no one can recognise it.

Do you mean "we" when you say "no one"?


|
| I can foresee, someday in the future, when a bus schedule is deemed a
| physical law just because it has a regularity to some version of
| applicable science that has supplanted even our shaky knowledge.
|
| Geez, Androc. Give up the wish-world and don't interfere with the
| (so-called) science that is being conducted today. It is way beyond
| you. Not correct, by any means, but still way beyond you.
|
| Was I polite?

You are erratic. You began by flaming, almost lost your temper, now
you are polite.

| Can you be?

I usually remain consistent, changing with the correspondent.


|
| (Otherwise, an alternate salutation = go f*** yourself. But that is
| your solution. Are you having fun yet?)

Of course. I explain real evidence, some listen, some don't.
Those that don't listen can go f*** themselves.
You vaguely refer to make-believe evidence.

|
| In which way do you prefer to try to understand a science? Your
| narrow-minded way or an open and thoughtful way?

Real evidence, not your closed-minded stupid fucking crap that you refer
to and can't produce. Evidence like this:
Observation:
http://www.britastro.org/vss/gifc/00918-ck.gif
Explanation:
http://www.ebicom.net/~rsf1/sekerin.htm (fig 3)

Experiment:
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Copernicus.exe
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Synchronize/Synchronize.htm



You remind me of the
| Horgan article in some science news a few years back. Science is dead.
| Everything is known. There is nothing new to discover. Such
| short-sightedness would prevent the wheel!

Nature IS and we do not understand her yet. f*** the theories, you confuse
theoretical physics with science. You can't invent Nature with a theory.
Theoretical physics is a math game by failed mathematicians who don't
even know what a constant velocity is.



|
| When I examine theories, I go through several stages. Inherent limits
| is not the first stage but proves as an invaluable workpiece to examine
| the scope of a theory. But somehow I can examine theory with some kind
| of a logical filter. It is not just a smattering of evidence but 'all'
| evidence. I take a certain pride in remembering almost all 'empirical
| evidence' of a theory be it an Einstein or a Van Flandren. But each
| theory presents evidence in it's own light to support it. It is not to
| be ignored because it doesn't support your thinking (theory).

You must be drunk. Empirical evidence isn't interpretation by theory,
it is RAW data.
Empirical evidence: Sticks in water appear bent.
Use all the instruments and equipment at your disposal, they still appear
bent.
Science is discovering the reason they appear bent.
Observation, investigation, explanation, in that order.
Black holes are in reverse order.
Explanation by theory, investigation, then go trying to find one.


|
| Rather, it should be an addition to an arsenal of knowledge. How does
| this incorporate into what I think? If you want to be selfish, you
| will not consider any measurement that does not support your view.

You continue with personal attacks, you cunt. WHERE IS YOUR EVIDENCE?
All in your stupid closed mind!

|
| It is rather common that views, such as yours, are expressed in more
| profundity than scientific ones. It is easy to blurt out a statement
| of belief, whereas a statement of science requires more thought.

Then think (if you can).


Let's
| see. 'Pink elephants are more sexually provocative than purple ones.'
| Let that be a law. Based upon what?

Your say so. Your theory.


| What does a photon or electron
| care?

What IS a photon or an electron? Something you assume?
Something you've heard about? Ok, they exist. WHAT are they?
WHAT are they made of?


|
| Go with that thought and I won't give you any trouble (not that I would
| bother myself with you anyway).

f*** off, then.

| I just thought that I might give you some insight on a one-time basis.

All I've seen is a rant. f*** your insight, you have none, just a
subjective
point of view. A one-sided tirade of flames, non-evidence and ignorance
of science.


| Of course, you will make a response that will indicate that I am full
| of sh**. So let's hear it.

Ok, you are full of s**t, producing no evidence even though you speak
of it vaguely. So far the only valuable thing you've come up with is that
photons and electrons exist, and they don't care about the sexual
provocativeness of pink elephants (according to your valueless theory).
There is plenty of evidence that certain crackpots invent theories that
fools swallow hook, line and sinker and call "science". Go look
for your black holes. When you find one, see if there are any broken
eggshells inside, I'm looking for evidence that bright green flying
elephants lay eggs in them and my theory is science.
Androcles.

Androcles
Back to top
xxein@bellsouth.net
science forum Guru Wannabe


Joined: 12 Sep 2005
Posts: 272

PostPosted: Tue Jul 11, 2006 10:04 pm    Post subject: Re: The Meaning Of Horizon, Including "c" Reply with quote

Sorcerer wrote:
Quote:
xxein@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:1152595000.452032.56090@p79g2000cwp.googlegroups.com...
|
| Sorcerer wrote:
| > "G. L. Bradford" <glbrad01@insightbb.com> wrote in message
| > news:BPadnSCEdOs1uC_ZnZ2dnUVZ_rOdnZ2d@insightbb.com...
|
|
| > Androcles.
|
| Sorcerer wrote:
| > "G. L. Bradford" ..
|
| > Androcles.
|
| xxein: Do you ever consider anything beyond your make-believe
| thoughts?

Yes. I'm considering what you are about to say.
|
| Believing never made anything true no matter how it is expressed to the
| mathematic or the universe (or beyond)..

I agree.


|
| So, feel on par with Einstein, your antithetical protagonist.

Oh! I'm considering you wish to start a flame war.
Am I right, you stupid ignorant cunt?



| We don't
| really care what you think because you are not open to rational
| discussion.

Who are "we", arsehole? You and who else? Have you looked in
the mirror lately? Is the antithetical protagonist you see there the
other half of "we", or are you a fucking wimp?



| And if it could soothe your soul (as such?), a good many
| people cannot accept the fluff of Einstein. But who would want to
| enter into a discussion with a closed-minded person such as you?

I really have no desire to enter into a flame war, but since you started
one... open my mind and I'll give consideration to your reply.


|
| I also entered this arena with a belief.

Did you? How nice for you.


I've had a good one since
| 1989.

Did you? How nice for you.


| I knew there was something wrong with the Einsteinian since I
| began my study in 1985 (my first real effort, as opposed to just going
| along with and following the Einsteinian protocol).

That late, huh? I knew something was wrong 40 years ago, but I had
a career to follow so I left it on the back burner to simmer until I could
get around to it. I've since found a round tuit.
|
| This doesn't mean that anything or everything evidentiary supports my
| belief (although it seems to), It just means that our present knowledge
| of how things work is insufficient.

I've considered that, and I agree. Do you ever consider anything beyond
your make-believe thoughts?



|
| How do you view the quantum to be connected to the universe?

Not a question I can answer, I don't understand your make-believe thoughts.



| We have
| evidence that is predictive for each, you know.


No, I don't know. Tell me about your make-believe evidence.

| We struggle to put
| them together (with no help from your belief, ---as a matter of fact,
| your belief obstructs (will short-circuit) such an understanding the
| same as the Einsteinian view does).

Considered... you are back to flaming again, you cunt.
Tell me about your make-believe evidence, arsehole, I'm not really
going to consider your insults, just hurl them back.

|
| While this is an open forum (both for and against the group-name and
| Einsteinian conclusions), there IS a relativity.

Of course.


| But it is subjective
| by the nature of the measure of it.


Considered. Since I've been saying that for ages, what the f*** are
you trying to tell me about it for?
Tell me about you make-believe evidence instead.




While nature is strictly 'cause
| and effect' wrt time, there are global and local patterns that seem to
| emerge. This is what we make physical theory from. It is piecemeal.
| It depends strictly on how strict we wish to view it --- quantum,
| relative or astro.

Are you going to tell me about your make-believe evidence, or rant?
I don't consider rants, you've got that part right.


|
| It is strange that it might appear that 'relative' appears to be 'odd
| man out' in the strict resolution of a physic, but that is where we
| come from (relative). That is how it affects us. So why don't we let
| physics be physics and the hell with our local measurement of it?
| Can't we be objective?

I can. We can't.
Are you going to tell me about your make-believe evidence, or rant?

|
| Probably not.

With what probability? zero? half? one?

See, I'm considering what you say, even though you haven't said
anything beyond a vague rant and some flames yet.


But does corn grow out of a mere subjective analysis, or
| will it grow anyway?

I'm not a farmer. I can't help you there.


| You may not like the considerations that go into
| a physical theory (and I think they are deficient, also), but that
| doesn't mean that things "have to' go as we might surmise in an
| otherwise fashion.

What do you want me to do about it? Consider it? Ok, it doesn't have to be.
Ptolemy's subjective epicycle corn grew and lasted for 1400 years.
It didn't have to be, but it happened. Consider it considered.


|
| Look! I am holding my temper here with both you and any otherwise
| notion of a physic that is not completely objective.

Looking. Your temper is subjective and you are feeding it yourself.
Hopefully I can calm it with objectivity couched in inflamatory words
to feed it and you'll come to realise I considered it.
Where is this fuckin' make-believe evidence you pratted on about?


| I may not even
| know what truly objective is, but I am striving to find and understand
| it because that is the only way a true reality can be realised in
| accordance to non-arbitrary universal laws.

If you dont know what it is, you'll find out eventually.
Evidence: stick in water
Subjective: The stick is bent.
Objective: The light we see it by is bent.



|
| This does not escape a comprehension, it is just that most will direct
| their attention to that which affects them. This is the subjectivity
| aspect that infects physics to such a degree that almost no one can be
| objective. And no one can recognise it.

Do you mean "we" when you say "no one"?


|
| I can foresee, someday in the future, when a bus schedule is deemed a
| physical law just because it has a regularity to some version of
| applicable science that has supplanted even our shaky knowledge.
|
| Geez, Androc. Give up the wish-world and don't interfere with the
| (so-called) science that is being conducted today. It is way beyond
| you. Not correct, by any means, but still way beyond you.
|
| Was I polite?

You are erratic. You began by flaming, almost lost your temper, now
you are polite.

| Can you be?

I usually remain consistent, changing with the correspondent.


|
| (Otherwise, an alternate salutation = go f*** yourself. But that is
| your solution. Are you having fun yet?)

Of course. I explain real evidence, some listen, some don't.
Those that don't listen can go f*** themselves.
You vaguely refer to make-believe evidence.

|
| In which way do you prefer to try to understand a science? Your
| narrow-minded way or an open and thoughtful way?

Real evidence, not your closed-minded stupid fucking crap that you refer
to and can't produce. Evidence like this:
Observation:
http://www.britastro.org/vss/gifc/00918-ck.gif
Explanation:
http://www.ebicom.net/~rsf1/sekerin.htm (fig 3)

Experiment:
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Copernicus.exe
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Synchronize/Synchronize.htm



You remind me of the
| Horgan article in some science news a few years back. Science is dead.
| Everything is known. There is nothing new to discover. Such
| short-sightedness would prevent the wheel!

Nature IS and we do not understand her yet. f*** the theories, you confuse
theoretical physics with science. You can't invent Nature with a theory.
Theoretical physics is a math game by failed mathematicians who don't
even know what a constant velocity is.



|
| When I examine theories, I go through several stages. Inherent limits
| is not the first stage but proves as an invaluable workpiece to examine
| the scope of a theory. But somehow I can examine theory with some kind
| of a logical filter. It is not just a smattering of evidence but 'all'
| evidence. I take a certain pride in remembering almost all 'empirical
| evidence' of a theory be it an Einstein or a Van Flandren. But each
| theory presents evidence in it's own light to support it. It is not to
| be ignored because it doesn't support your thinking (theory).

You must be drunk. Empirical evidence isn't interpretation by theory,
it is RAW data.
Empirical evidence: Sticks in water appear bent.
Use all the instruments and equipment at your disposal, they still appear
bent.
Science is discovering the reason they appear bent.
Observation, investigation, explanation, in that order.
Black holes are in reverse order.
Explanation by theory, investigation, then go trying to find one.


|
| Rather, it should be an addition to an arsenal of knowledge. How does
| this incorporate into what I think? If you want to be selfish, you
| will not consider any measurement that does not support your view.

You continue with personal attacks, you cunt. WHERE IS YOUR EVIDENCE?
All in your stupid closed mind!

|
| It is rather common that views, such as yours, are expressed in more
| profundity than scientific ones. It is easy to blurt out a statement
| of belief, whereas a statement of science requires more thought.

Then think (if you can).


Let's
| see. 'Pink elephants are more sexually provocative than purple ones.'
| Let that be a law. Based upon what?

Your say so. Your theory.


| What does a photon or electron
| care?

What IS a photon or an electron? Something you assume?
Something you've heard about? Ok, they exist. WHAT are they?
WHAT are they made of?


|
| Go with that thought and I won't give you any trouble (not that I would
| bother myself with you anyway).

f*** off, then.

| I just thought that I might give you some insight on a one-time basis.

All I've seen is a rant. f*** your insight, you have none, just a
subjective
point of view. A one-sided tirade of flames, non-evidence and ignorance
of science.


| Of course, you will make a response that will indicate that I am full
| of sh**. So let's hear it.

Ok, you are full of s**t, producing no evidence even though you speak
of it vaguely. So far the only valuable thing you've come up with is that
photons and electrons exist, and they don't care about the sexual
provocativeness of pink elephants (according to your valueless theory).
There is plenty of evidence that certain crackpots invent theories that
fools swallow hook, line and sinker and call "science". Go look
for your black holes. When you find one, see if there are any broken
eggshells inside, I'm looking for evidence that bright green flying
elephants lay eggs in them and my theory is science.
Androcles.

Androcles


xxein:

"Empirical evidence isn't interpretation by theory,
it is RAW data." As measured by instruments that fly past it at half
the speed of light or only a quarter?
"Nature IS and we do not understand her yet. f*** the theories, you
confuse
theoretical physics with science. You can't invent Nature with a
theory.
Theoretical physics is a math game by failed mathematicians who don't
even know what a constant velocity is." If you don't understand her
yet, how do you make statements about her?
"They signify that the physical length of a rod remains the same in all
frames and that the light path length of a moving rod wrt the observer
is changing." Ah! Yes, but very primative. Do you think we
scientists don't know all about that observation? The problem is that
length measurement contracts along the moving axis for an additional
reason beyond this consideration of the light path from the observer to
the observed. Just another gamma beyond your knowledge, eh?

I won't bore you with the correct Lorentzian notion of a relativity.
You see, you are half way there in denouncing the Einsteinian version.
But there is a roadblock to your understanding. I think you are
spending way too much time eating s**t, fucking yourself and wishing
for cunt. Perhaps (just perhaps), if you spent a little more time on a
physical theory than being an obnoxious bore that tries to insult
anything you don't understand, maybe you can be considered a human too.

I feel sad that you are just a wart but there appears nothing I can do
about it. Wait a minute! I heard about this academy. I think it is
Hogwart. I hear that that they can deform reality. Oh! But I am not
sure that even they could or would wish to distort reality to suit your
wishes. Have you tried the wizard of OZ yet?

I'm only asking.

How about a brief interlude? "%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%"

Wow! That was great, huh?

See? We aren't so different after all.

xxx, ooo, sss, ccc, fff
Back to top
Sorcerer1
science forum Guru


Joined: 09 Jun 2006
Posts: 410

PostPosted: Wed Jul 12, 2006 12:09 am    Post subject: Re: The Meaning Of Horizon, Including "c" Reply with quote

<xxein@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:1152655484.111902.58600@s13g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
|
| Sorcerer wrote:
| > <xxein@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
| > news:1152595000.452032.56090@p79g2000cwp.googlegroups.com...
| > |
| > | Sorcerer wrote:
| > | > "G. L. Bradford" <glbrad01@insightbb.com> wrote in message
| > | > news:BPadnSCEdOs1uC_ZnZ2dnUVZ_rOdnZ2d@insightbb.com...
| > |
| > | >
| > | > Androcles.
| > |
| > | Sorcerer wrote:
| > | > "G. L. Bradford" ..
| > | >
| > | > Androcles.
| > |
| > | xxein: Do you ever consider anything beyond your make-believe
| > | thoughts?
| >
| > Yes. I'm considering what you are about to say.
| > |
| > | Believing never made anything true no matter how it is expressed to
the
| > | mathematic or the universe (or beyond)..
| >
| > I agree.
| >
| >
| > |
| > | So, feel on par with Einstein, your antithetical protagonist.
| >
| > Oh! I'm considering you wish to start a flame war.
| > Am I right, you stupid ignorant cunt?
| >
| >
| >
| > | We don't
| > | really care what you think because you are not open to rational
| > | discussion.
| >
| > Who are "we", arsehole? You and who else? Have you looked in
| > the mirror lately? Is the antithetical protagonist you see there the
| > other half of "we", or are you a fucking wimp?
| >
| >
| >
| > | And if it could soothe your soul (as such?), a good many
| > | people cannot accept the fluff of Einstein. But who would want to
| > | enter into a discussion with a closed-minded person such as you?
| >
| > I really have no desire to enter into a flame war, but since you started
| > one... open my mind and I'll give consideration to your reply.
| >
| >
| > |
| > | I also entered this arena with a belief.
| >
| > Did you? How nice for you.
| >
| >
| > I've had a good one since
| > | 1989.
| >
| > Did you? How nice for you.
| >
| >
| > | I knew there was something wrong with the Einsteinian since I
| > | began my study in 1985 (my first real effort, as opposed to just going
| > | along with and following the Einsteinian protocol).
| >
| > That late, huh? I knew something was wrong 40 years ago, but I had
| > a career to follow so I left it on the back burner to simmer until I
could
| > get around to it. I've since found a round tuit.
| > |
| > | This doesn't mean that anything or everything evidentiary supports my
| > | belief (although it seems to), It just means that our present
knowledge
| > | of how things work is insufficient.
| >
| > I've considered that, and I agree. Do you ever consider anything beyond
| > your make-believe thoughts?
| >
| >
| >
| > |
| > | How do you view the quantum to be connected to the universe?
| >
| > Not a question I can answer, I don't understand your make-believe
thoughts.
| >
| >
| >
| > | We have
| > | evidence that is predictive for each, you know.
| >
| >
| > No, I don't know. Tell me about your make-believe evidence.
| >
| > | We struggle to put
| > | them together (with no help from your belief, ---as a matter of fact,
| > | your belief obstructs (will short-circuit) such an understanding the
| > | same as the Einsteinian view does).
| >
| > Considered... you are back to flaming again, you cunt.
| > Tell me about your make-believe evidence, arsehole, I'm not really
| > going to consider your insults, just hurl them back.
| >
| > |
| > | While this is an open forum (both for and against the group-name and
| > | Einsteinian conclusions), there IS a relativity.
| >
| > Of course.
| >
| >
| > | But it is subjective
| > | by the nature of the measure of it.
| >
| >
| > Considered. Since I've been saying that for ages, what the f*** are
| > you trying to tell me about it for?
| > Tell me about you make-believe evidence instead.
| >
| >
| >
| >
| > While nature is strictly 'cause
| > | and effect' wrt time, there are global and local patterns that seem to
| > | emerge. This is what we make physical theory from. It is piecemeal.
| > | It depends strictly on how strict we wish to view it --- quantum,
| > | relative or astro.
| >
| > Are you going to tell me about your make-believe evidence, or rant?
| > I don't consider rants, you've got that part right.
| >
| >
| > |
| > | It is strange that it might appear that 'relative' appears to be 'odd
| > | man out' in the strict resolution of a physic, but that is where we
| > | come from (relative). That is how it affects us. So why don't we let
| > | physics be physics and the hell with our local measurement of it?
| > | Can't we be objective?
| >
| > I can. We can't.
| > Are you going to tell me about your make-believe evidence, or rant?
| >
| > |
| > | Probably not.
| >
| > With what probability? zero? half? one?
| >
| > See, I'm considering what you say, even though you haven't said
| > anything beyond a vague rant and some flames yet.
| >
| >
| > But does corn grow out of a mere subjective analysis, or
| > | will it grow anyway?
| >
| > I'm not a farmer. I can't help you there.
| >
| >
| > | You may not like the considerations that go into
| > | a physical theory (and I think they are deficient, also), but that
| > | doesn't mean that things "have to' go as we might surmise in an
| > | otherwise fashion.
| >
| > What do you want me to do about it? Consider it? Ok, it doesn't have to
be.
| > Ptolemy's subjective epicycle corn grew and lasted for 1400 years.
| > It didn't have to be, but it happened. Consider it considered.
| >
| >
| > |
| > | Look! I am holding my temper here with both you and any otherwise
| > | notion of a physic that is not completely objective.
| >
| > Looking. Your temper is subjective and you are feeding it yourself.
| > Hopefully I can calm it with objectivity couched in inflamatory words
| > to feed it and you'll come to realise I considered it.
| > Where is this fuckin' make-believe evidence you pratted on about?
| >
| >
| > | I may not even
| > | know what truly objective is, but I am striving to find and understand
| > | it because that is the only way a true reality can be realised in
| > | accordance to non-arbitrary universal laws.
| >
| > If you dont know what it is, you'll find out eventually.
| > Evidence: stick in water
| > Subjective: The stick is bent.
| > Objective: The light we see it by is bent.
| >
| >
| >
| > |
| > | This does not escape a comprehension, it is just that most will direct
| > | their attention to that which affects them. This is the subjectivity
| > | aspect that infects physics to such a degree that almost no one can be
| > | objective. And no one can recognise it.
| >
| > Do you mean "we" when you say "no one"?
| >
| >
| > |
| > | I can foresee, someday in the future, when a bus schedule is deemed a
| > | physical law just because it has a regularity to some version of
| > | applicable science that has supplanted even our shaky knowledge.
| > |
| > | Geez, Androc. Give up the wish-world and don't interfere with the
| > | (so-called) science that is being conducted today. It is way beyond
| > | you. Not correct, by any means, but still way beyond you.
| > |
| > | Was I polite?
| >
| > You are erratic. You began by flaming, almost lost your temper, now
| > you are polite.
| >
| > | Can you be?
| >
| > I usually remain consistent, changing with the correspondent.
| >
| >
| > |
| > | (Otherwise, an alternate salutation = go f*** yourself. But that is
| > | your solution. Are you having fun yet?)
| >
| > Of course. I explain real evidence, some listen, some don't.
| > Those that don't listen can go f*** themselves.
| > You vaguely refer to make-believe evidence.
| >
| > |
| > | In which way do you prefer to try to understand a science? Your
| > | narrow-minded way or an open and thoughtful way?
| >
| > Real evidence, not your closed-minded stupid fucking crap that you refer
| > to and can't produce. Evidence like this:
| > Observation:
| > http://www.britastro.org/vss/gifc/00918-ck.gif
| > Explanation:
| > http://www.ebicom.net/~rsf1/sekerin.htm (fig 3)
| >
| > Experiment:
| > http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Copernicus.exe
| > http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Synchronize/Synchronize.htm
| >
| >
| >
| > You remind me of the
| > | Horgan article in some science news a few years back. Science is
dead.
| > | Everything is known. There is nothing new to discover. Such
| > | short-sightedness would prevent the wheel!
| >
| > Nature IS and we do not understand her yet. f*** the theories, you
confuse
| > theoretical physics with science. You can't invent Nature with a theory.
| > Theoretical physics is a math game by failed mathematicians who don't
| > even know what a constant velocity is.
| >
| >
| >
| > |
| > | When I examine theories, I go through several stages. Inherent limits
| > | is not the first stage but proves as an invaluable workpiece to
examine
| > | the scope of a theory. But somehow I can examine theory with some
kind
| > | of a logical filter. It is not just a smattering of evidence but
'all'
| > | evidence. I take a certain pride in remembering almost all 'empirical
| > | evidence' of a theory be it an Einstein or a Van Flandren. But each
| > | theory presents evidence in it's own light to support it. It is not
to
| > | be ignored because it doesn't support your thinking (theory).
| >
| > You must be drunk. Empirical evidence isn't interpretation by theory,
| > it is RAW data.
| > Empirical evidence: Sticks in water appear bent.
| > Use all the instruments and equipment at your disposal, they still
appear
| > bent.
| > Science is discovering the reason they appear bent.
| > Observation, investigation, explanation, in that order.
| > Black holes are in reverse order.
| > Explanation by theory, investigation, then go trying to find one.
| >
| >
| > |
| > | Rather, it should be an addition to an arsenal of knowledge. How does
| > | this incorporate into what I think? If you want to be selfish, you
| > | will not consider any measurement that does not support your view.
| >
| > You continue with personal attacks, you cunt. WHERE IS YOUR EVIDENCE?
| > All in your stupid closed mind!
| >
| > |
| > | It is rather common that views, such as yours, are expressed in more
| > | profundity than scientific ones. It is easy to blurt out a statement
| > | of belief, whereas a statement of science requires more thought.
| >
| > Then think (if you can).
| >
| >
| > Let's
| > | see. 'Pink elephants are more sexually provocative than purple ones.'
| > | Let that be a law. Based upon what?
| >
| > Your say so. Your theory.
| >
| >
| > | What does a photon or electron
| > | care?
| >
| > What IS a photon or an electron? Something you assume?
| > Something you've heard about? Ok, they exist. WHAT are they?
| > WHAT are they made of?
| >
| >
| > |
| > | Go with that thought and I won't give you any trouble (not that I
would
| > | bother myself with you anyway).
| >
| > f*** off, then.
| >
| > | I just thought that I might give you some insight on a one-time basis.
| >
| > All I've seen is a rant. f*** your insight, you have none, just a
| > subjective
| > point of view. A one-sided tirade of flames, non-evidence and ignorance
| > of science.
| >
| >
| > | Of course, you will make a response that will indicate that I am full
| > | of sh**. So let's hear it.
| >
| > Ok, you are full of s**t, producing no evidence even though you speak
| > of it vaguely. So far the only valuable thing you've come up with is
that
| > photons and electrons exist, and they don't care about the sexual
| > provocativeness of pink elephants (according to your valueless theory).
| > There is plenty of evidence that certain crackpots invent theories that
| > fools swallow hook, line and sinker and call "science". Go look
| > for your black holes. When you find one, see if there are any broken
| > eggshells inside, I'm looking for evidence that bright green flying
| > elephants lay eggs in them and my theory is science.
| > Androcles.
| >
| > Androcles
|
|
| xxein:
|
| "Empirical evidence isn't interpretation by theory,
| it is RAW data." As measured by instruments that fly past it at half
| the speed of light or only a quarter?

Produce the evidence, that is make-believe. I'm not interested in fairy
tales
of half-the-speed-of-light fly-bys
Do you ever consider anything beyond your make-believe thoughts?
Do the experiment, produce the data.
An example of empirical evidence is that a stick appears bent in water.
Didn't I explain that above?
Yes, I did.
What are you, fucking stupid?
Yes, you are.



| "Nature IS and we do not understand her yet. f*** the theories, you
| confuse
| theoretical physics with science. You can't invent Nature with a
| theory.
| Theoretical physics is a math game by failed mathematicians who don't
| even know what a constant velocity is." If you don't understand her
| yet, how do you make statements about her?

Same way you do. Or perhaps you understand Nature completely
and forgot to tell anyone.
Do you ever consider anything beyond your make-believe thoughts?




| "They signify that the physical length of a rod remains the same in all
| frames and that the light path length of a moving rod wrt the observer
| is changing." Ah! Yes, but very primative. Do you think we
| scientists don't know all about that observation?

You? A "scientist"? Not by my definition. You are just an angry twit
with a bad temper trying to win an argument that you cannot succeed.
You can't even spell "primitive".
Do you ever consider anything beyond your make-believe thoughts?

| The problem is that
| length measurement contracts along the moving axis for an additional
| reason beyond this consideration of the light path from the observer to
| the observed.

Produce the evidence, not your make-believe thoughts. I'm willing to
listen to evidence.
Do you ever consider anything beyond your make-believe thoughts?



Just another gamma beyond your knowledge, eh?

Do you ever consider anything beyond your make-believe thoughts?


|
| I won't bore you with the correct Lorentzian notion of a relativity.

Do you ever consider anything beyond your make-believe thoughts?



| You see, you are half way there in denouncing the Einsteinian version.

Do you ever consider anything beyond your make-believe thoughts?


| But there is a roadblock to your understanding.

Do you ever consider anything beyond your make-believe thoughts?


| I think

Produce the evidence that you think. So far you've demonstrated your
cockamany half-speed-of-light flyby dreams.

Do you ever consider anything beyond your make-believe thoughts?



you are
| spending way too much time eating s**t, fucking yourself and wishing
| for cunt.

Do you ever consider anything beyond your make-believe thoughts?


| Perhaps (just perhaps), if you spent a little more time on a
| physical theory than being an obnoxious bore that tries to insult
| anything you don't understand, maybe you can be considered a human too.

If you are human, I'm glad I'm not considered by you to be so, you ape.
f*** off, I've had enough of your flames and obnoxiously boring ignorance.
*plonk*
Androcles.
Back to top
xxein@bellsouth.net
science forum Guru Wannabe


Joined: 12 Sep 2005
Posts: 272

PostPosted: Mon Jul 17, 2006 1:45 am    Post subject: Re: The Meaning Of Horizon, Including "c" Reply with quote

Sorcerer wrote:
Quote:
xxein@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:1152655484.111902.58600@s13g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
|
| Sorcerer wrote:
| > <xxein@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
| > news:1152595000.452032.56090@p79g2000cwp.googlegroups.com...
| > |
| > | Sorcerer wrote:
| > | > "G. L. Bradford" <glbrad01@insightbb.com> wrote in message
| > | > news:BPadnSCEdOs1uC_ZnZ2dnUVZ_rOdnZ2d@insightbb.com...
| > |
| > |
| > | > Androcles.
| > |
| > | Sorcerer wrote:
| > | > "G. L. Bradford" ..
| > |
| > | > Androcles.
| > |
| > | xxein: Do you ever consider anything beyond your make-believe
| > | thoughts?
|
Androcles.

xxein: There is approximately 25% of any population that will believe
in such things like the Earth is flat. Don't pride yourself with being
one whole percentile point away from that.

I'll give you credit for effort, but it is still demonstrably wrong on
the many accounts. Sit back for a while and glean a little deeper
understanding. Re-think with new knowledge. Learn the difference
between subjective and objective as it relates to relationships in a
theory.

No theory even CAN be objectively correct. It is a physical
impossibility. But what you can do is recognise this fact and try to
revise your act accordingly.
Back to top
Google

Back to top
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic Page 1 of 1 [7 Posts] View previous topic :: View next topic
The time now is Tue Jun 21, 2011 2:06 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 Horizon, BBC2, Thursday 13th of July 2006 Sorcerer1 Relativity 5 Thu Jul 13, 2006 10:22 pm
No new posts meaning of additivity when defining signed measure HopfZ Math 1 Thu Jul 06, 2006 12:36 pm
No new posts Total energy: E = gamma*m*c^2 (including potential energy) Peter Christensen Relativity 7 Mon Jul 03, 2006 1:40 pm
No new posts A 'brick wall' horizon? LEJ Brouwer Research 6 Mon Jun 19, 2006 10:53 pm
No new posts The True Meaning of Bayesianism Edward Green Math 5 Tue Jun 13, 2006 5:04 am

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: 2.1886s ][ Queries: 16 (2.1104s) ][ GZIP on - Debug on ]