Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Computing > Computer Support > Proving an Einstein theory

Reply
Thread Tools

Proving an Einstein theory

 
 
joevan
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      09-27-2010
On Mon, 27 Sep 2010 12:50:00 +0100, Desk Rabbit <(E-Mail Removed)>
wrote:

>On 27/09/2010 04:36, Dan C wrote:
>> On Mon, 27 Sep 2010 02:43:59 +0000, chuckcar wrote:
>>
>>> richard<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in
>>> news:(E-Mail Removed):
>>>
>>>> http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2010/...ster-upstairs/
>>>>
>>>> If this theory really is true consider this:
>>>>
>>> Of course it's *true*. That is to say special relativity is a law. In
>>> the physics sense. How *Fox* states it I'm not going to even try to
>>> unravel.
>>>
>>> <snip>
>>>
>>> nor am I going to try to work out some elementary school math problem
>>> that's used to try to allow Fox to understand such.
>>>
>>> The facts are:
>>> 1. You cannot go the *speed* of light. 1a. You could go faster than it,
>>> if there's a parallel for a complex number in the real world.
>>>
>>> 2. As you get faster to the speed of light, you mass increases
>>> exponentially reaching an asymtote at the speed of light. 2.a. As well
>>> your lenght in the direction of travel increases by the same formula in
>>> the direction of travel. 2.b. as well time for the rest of the universe
>>> moves faster from your perspective by the same formula. 2.c. The same
>>> affect is created by a large enough gravity field. 2.d. This formula is
>>> simple algebra and is called the Tau factor (after the greek letter).
>>>
>>> Look it up if you want to actually *understand* this strangeness. You
>>> simply cannot without looking at the math. That was true in 1915 and
>>> it's true now.

>>
>> Jesus you are one dumb ****.

>
>I'm disappointed, I thought you were going to tell him to format his
>brain. A clean start might be an improvement?

LOL
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Jordon
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      09-27-2010
Meat Plow wrote:
> On Sun, 26 Sep 2010 00:24:20 -0700, richard wrote:
>
>> If this theory really is true consider this:

>
> It's already been proven that satellites in orbit do not
> follow time on earth.


It's the very reason that GPS satellites in orbit have a time
correction built in that make them run slower prior to lift
off, so when they're in orbit and the clocks speed up, they
match clocks on the ground...

http://www.brighthub.com/science/spa...les/32969.aspx
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
chuckcar
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      09-27-2010
hwf <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in
news:i7p9em$soi$(E-Mail Removed):

> chuckcar <(E-Mail Removed)> pinched out a steaming pile
> of<Xns9DFFDFF433E7Cchuck@127.0.0.1>:
>
>>philo <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in
>>news:i7ncl4$dsj$(E-Mail Removed)-september.org:
>>
>>> On 09/26/2010 02:24 AM, richard wrote:
>>>> http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2010/...-moves-faster-

> upstairs/
>>>>

>>The universe is wierd. Wierder than any writer can imagine.
>>
>>That old saying about truth is stranger than fiction was understating

> a
>>universal truth. Do you know that if you create a good enough vacuum,
>>matter and anti-matter particles start being created in it
>>spontaneously?
>>

> CITE.
>

A Brief History of time. *if* you can't be bothered to learn what things
*really* mean and learn the math. There's no third option other than
other mentions of Penrose's (?) theory. And before you say it, the theory
is the mathematical *proof* and the law is after it's observed which it *has*
been in this case. My usage was strictly gramatical alone.

>
>>There is no *reason* for it that we know, it's the result of a side
>>effect of the mathematics that generated the theory.

>
> No, that would be mathe-magic.
>

In one sentence you *ask* you proof and the next you deny it's true.
Make up your mind.

>
>> Hell no one even
>>knows what gravity *is*.

>
> Einstein called it the "weak force"...it's dependent on some variables
> like the mass of an object or its size.
>

How is that an answer. And BTW, he never got the Unified field theory
working, so he absolutely didn't know.
>
>> Or matter really.

>
> Huh??? Physical compounds of a chemical nature which may be a liquid,
> solid or a gas???
>

That's merely a description of it's behaviors. It does nothing to
explain it.

Yes, but what's the smallest particle and why? And then there's the
nuclear molar force that holds protons together in the atom against
hugely powerful magetic forces forcing them all apart. what causes
*that*?

>> Or energy.

>
> Which type?
>

Show there's more than one. And BTW potential energy is *not* one. It's
merely a result of postion and forces. And yes, energy has the observed
affect of making sub-atomic particles move faster, but why *do* they?

--
(setq (chuck nil) car(chuck) )
 
Reply With Quote
 
chuckcar
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      09-27-2010
nhwf <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in
news:i7r5p8$aql$(E-Mail Removed):

> In message <Xns9E0075785815chuck@127.0.0.1>, chuckcar pondered the
> following:
>> hwf <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in
>> news:i7p9em$soi$(E-Mail Removed):
>>
>> > chuckcar <(E-Mail Removed)> pinched out a steaming pile
>> > of<Xns9DFFDFF433E7Cchuck@127.0.0.1>:


>> >>universal truth. Do you know that if you create a good enough
>> >>vacuum, matter and anti-matter particles start being created in it
>> >>spontaneously?
>> >>
>> > CITE.
>> >

>> A Brief History of time. *if* you can't be bothered to learn what
>> things *really* mean and learn the math. There's no third option
>> other than other mentions of Penrose's (?) theory. And before you say
>> it, the theory is the mathematical *proof* and the law is after it's
>> observed which it *has*
>> been in this case. My usage was strictly gramatical alone.
>>

>
> Really? Isnt that Steve Hawkings book?
>

You've never read it.

Of course he talks about other people. He even mentions the pope.

>> >
>> >>There is no *reason* for it that we know, it's the result of a side
>> >>effect of the mathematics that generated the theory.
>> >
>> > No, that would be mathe-magic.
>> >

>> In one sentence you *ask* you proof and the next you deny it's true.
>> Make up your mind.
>>

> Yer what now?
>

Telling you you can't read your own sentences perhaps.
>> >
>> >> Hell no one even
>> >>knows what gravity *is*.
>> >
>> > Einstein called it the "weak force"...it's dependent on some
>> > variables like the mass of an object or its size.
>> >

>> How is that an answer. And BTW, he never got the Unified field theory
>> working, so he absolutely didn't know.

>
> Dude, you totally pwned Einstein just now!
>
> Thats awesome.
>
>> >> Or matter really.
>> >
>> > Huh??? Physical compounds of a chemical nature which may be a
>> > liquid, solid or a gas???
>> >

>> That's merely a description of it's behaviors. It does nothing to
>> explain it.
>>

> Again with the "behaviors". Does god tell the little molecules what to
> do and where to go?
> THats meshuggneh!
>
>> Yes, but what's the smallest particle and why? And then there's the
>> nuclear molar force that holds protons together in the atom against
>> hugely powerful magetic forces forcing them all apart. what causes
>> *that*?
>>

> Dark matter and even *darker* matter...of the utmost darkestness!
>
> Totally.
>

Otherwise known as burned out stars and black holes. Hardly anything
interesting or new I'll bet.


--
(setq (chuck nil) car(chuck) )
 
Reply With Quote
 
freemont
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      09-28-2010
On Mon, 27 Sep 2010 12:50:00 +0100, Desk Rabbit writ:

> On 27/09/2010 04:36, Dan C wrote:
>> On Mon, 27 Sep 2010 02:43:59 +0000, chuckcar wrote:

[chucktard babble]
>>> Look it up if you want to actually *understand* this strangeness. You
>>> simply cannot without looking at the math. That was true in 1915 and
>>> it's true now.

>>
>> Jesus you are one dumb ****.

>
> I thought you were going to tell him to format his brain.


1) The format would fail. Too many bad blocks.

2) Chuck's brain will run only on the STUP32 filesystem.

3) Shouldn't take long to format a 2kB brain.

4) ...
--
⁂ "Because all you of Earth are idiots!"
⁂ Beware the 24hoursupport tards:
http://24hoursupport-tards.info
¯`·.¸¸.·´¯`·-> ※freemont※ <-·´¯`·.¸¸.·´¯
 
Reply With Quote
 
Tony
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      09-28-2010
I think Chuck got his brain from a freeware site.

freemont wrote:

> On Mon, 27 Sep 2010 12:50:00 +0100, Desk Rabbit writ:
>
> > On 27/09/2010 04:36, Dan C wrote:
> >> On Mon, 27 Sep 2010 02:43:59 +0000, chuckcar wrote:

> [chucktard babble]
> >>> Look it up if you want to actually *understand* this strangeness. You
> >>> simply cannot without looking at the math. That was true in 1915 and
> >>> it's true now.
> >>
> >> Jesus you are one dumb ****.

> >
> > I thought you were going to tell him to format his brain.

>
> 1) The format would fail. Too many bad blocks.
>
> 2) Chuck's brain will run only on the STUP32 filesystem.
>
> 3) Shouldn't take long to format a 2kB brain.
>
> 4) ...
> --
> ⁂ "Because all you of Earth are idiots!"
> ⁂ Beware the 24hoursupport tards:
> ⁂ http://24hoursupport-tards.info
> ¯`·.¸¸.·´¯`·-> ※freemont※ <-·´¯`·.¸¸.·´¯


--
The Grandmaster of the CyberFROG

Come get your ticket to CyberFROG city

Nay, Art thou decideth playeth ye simpleton games. *Some* of us know proper
manners

Very few. I used to take calls from *rank* noobs but got fired the first day
on the job for potty mouth,

Hamster isn't a newsreader it's a mistake!

El-Gonzo Jackson FROGS both me and Chuckcar

Master Juba was a black man imitating a white man imitating a black man

Using my technical prowess and computer abilities to answer questions beyond
the realm of understandability

Regards Tony... Making usenet better for everyone everyday


 
Reply With Quote
 
chuckcar
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      09-28-2010
hwf <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in
news:i7rs2o$17i$(E-Mail Removed):

> chuckcar <(E-Mail Removed)> pinched out a steaming pile
> of<Xns9E00C132E3FB0chuck@127.0.0.1>:
>
>>nhwf <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in
>>news:i7r5p8$aql$(E-Mail Removed):
>>
>>> In message <Xns9E0075785815chuck@127.0.0.1>, chuckcar pondered the
>>> following:
>>>> hwf <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote

> in
>>>> news:i7p9em$soi$(E-Mail Removed):
>>>>
>>>> > chuckcar <(E-Mail Removed)> pinched out a steaming pile
>>>> > of<Xns9DFFDFF433E7Cchuck@127.0.0.1>:

>>
>>>> >>universal truth. Do you know that if you create a good enough
>>>> >>vacuum, matter and anti-matter particles start being created in

> it
>>>> >>spontaneously?
>>>> >>
>>>> > CITE.
>>>> >
>>>> A Brief History of time. *if* you can't be bothered to learn what
>>>> things *really* mean and learn the math. There's no third option
>>>> other than other mentions of Penrose's (?) theory. And before you

> say
>>>> it, the theory is the mathematical *proof* and the law is after

> it's
>>>> observed which it *has*
>>>> been in this case. My usage was strictly gramatical alone.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Really? Isnt that Steve Hawkings book?
>>>

>>You've never read it.
>>

> That would be a correct statement.
>
>>Of course he talks about other people. He even mentions the pope.
>>

> Name dropper...
>
>>>> >
>>>> >>There is no *reason* for it that we know, it's the result of a

> side
>>>> >>effect of the mathematics that generated the theory.
>>>> >
>>>> > No, that would be mathe-magic.
>>>> >
>>>> In one sentence you *ask* you proof and the next you deny it's

> true.
>>>> Make up your mind.
>>>>
>>> Yer what now?
>>>

>>Telling you you can't read your own sentences perhaps.

>
> Aye aye, captain.
>
>>>> >
>>>> >> Hell no one even
>>>> >>knows what gravity *is*.
>>>> >
>>>> > Einstein called it the "weak force"...it's dependent on some
>>>> > variables like the mass of an object or its size.
>>>> >
>>>> How is that an answer. And BTW, he never got the Unified field

> theory
>>>> working, so he absolutely didn't know.
>>>
>>> Dude, you totally pwned Einstein just now!
>>>
>>> Thats awesome.
>>>
>>>> >> Or matter really.
>>>> >
>>>> > Huh??? Physical compounds of a chemical nature which may be a
>>>> > liquid, solid or a gas???
>>>> >
>>>> That's merely a description of it's behaviors. It does nothing to
>>>> explain it.
>>>>
>>> Again with the "behaviors". Does god tell the little molecules what

> to
>>> do and where to go?
>>> THats meshuggneh!
>>>
>>>> Yes, but what's the smallest particle and why? And then there's the
>>>> nuclear molar force that holds protons together in the atom against
>>>> hugely powerful magetic forces forcing them all apart. what causes
>>>> *that*?
>>>>
>>> Dark matter and even *darker* matter...of the utmost darkestness!
>>>
>>> Totally.
>>>

>>Otherwise known as burned out stars and black holes. Hardly anything
>>interesting or new I'll bet.
>>

> Ah, no. Dark matter is energy but not the same as neutron stars and
> singularities.
>

No, dark matter is matter which doesn't radiate it's presence in space.
Nothing more. In simpler terms, it can't be seen. By radio, ultraviolet,
infrared or gamma radiation. Hence the name.


--
(setq (chuck nil) car(chuck) )
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
wireless connection proving difficult =?Utf-8?B?bWljaGVhbA==?= Wireless Networking 4 07-13-2005 06:00 AM
Solving the Einstein's Riddle in Python Juha Haataja Python 10 05-25-2004 07:37 PM
New book on Information Theory and State-of-the-art Coding Theory David MacKay VOIP 0 11-05-2003 10:42 PM
Proving your an MCSE???? Ron Williams MCSE 1 08-07-2003 02:45 PM
Re: Proving your an MCSE???? Brendon MCSE 1 08-01-2003 05:24 AM



Advertisments