# Proving an Einstein theory

Discussion in 'Computer Support' started by richard, Sep 26, 2010.

1. ### richardGuest

http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2010/09/24/time-moves-faster-upstairs/

If this theory really is true consider this:

An astronaut is launced in a spaceship with the intent to travel 10 years
out and back. As he moves farther away from earth, will his clock be so far
off his mission goal may not have been reached?
Einstein though is saying that gravity effects clocks. So then if these
scientists are confirming his theory, then one can not set his timepiece to
the time shown on Big Ben in London England as that clock will be a second
or two off from those on the ground.
So when it strikes the hour, it is actually doing so in your future.

Now let's really test this theory. Put two clocks together at the base of
the Empire state building. Synchronize them perfectly tick for tick. Now
place on the roof and check again. According to Einstein, the roof top one
should be in the future.

At least digital clocks would not be effected.

richard, Sep 26, 2010

2. ### WhiskersGuest

On 2010-09-26, richard <> wrote:
> http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2010/09/24/time-moves-faster-upstairs/
>
> If this theory really is true consider this:
>
> An astronaut is launced in a spaceship with the intent to travel 10 years
> out and back. As he moves farther away from earth, will his clock be so far
> off his mission goal may not have been reached?

Only if he reaches the speed of light, or falls into a black hole, at which
moment time will stop for him but not for the people back on Earth. In
all other possible scenarios, his ten year trip will appear to last more
than ten years to the people bacvk home.

> Einstein though is saying that gravity effects clocks.

No. Einstein is saying that gravity affects the rate at which time
passes; clocks are merely familiar devices for measuring the passage of
time.

> So then if these
> scientists are confirming his theory, then one can not set his timepiece to
> the time shown on Big Ben in London England as that clock will be a second
> or two off from those on the ground.
> So when it strikes the hour, it is actually doing so in your future.

At the height of 'Big Ben', the difference is too small to have been
detectable at all until the latest most sensitive clocks were invented.
In any case, 'Big Ben' is carefully regulated to keep time within a small
margin of error compared with the network of 'standard' atomic clocks that
are used to define 'Earth time'. And you can be certain that any time you
hear the bong of the bell, the bell bonged in your (and its) past.

> Now let's really test this theory. Put two clocks together at the base of
> the Empire state building. Synchronize them perfectly tick for tick. Now
> place on the roof and check again. According to Einstein, the roof top one
> should be in the future.

No.

> At least digital clocks would not be effected.

The type of display fitted to a clock can make the clock immune to the
effects of 'time dilation'? Does that apply to the table the clock stands
on too, or not? What about the floor the table stands on?

--
-- ^^^^^^^^^^
-- Whiskers
-- ~~~~~~~~~~

Whiskers, Sep 26, 2010

3. ### philoGuest

On 09/26/2010 02:24 AM, richard wrote:
> http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2010/09/24/time-moves-faster-upstairs/
>
> If this theory really is true consider this:
>
> An astronaut is launced in a spaceship with the intent to travel 10 years
> out and back. As he moves farther away from earth, will his clock be so far
> off his mission goal may not have been reached?
> Einstein though is saying that gravity effects clocks. So then if these
> scientists are confirming his theory, then one can not set his timepiece to
> the time shown on Big Ben in London England as that clock will be a second
> or two off from those on the ground.
> So when it strikes the hour, it is actually doing so in your future.
>
> Now let's really test this theory. Put two clocks together at the base of
> the Empire state building. Synchronize them perfectly tick for tick. Now
> place on the roof and check again. According to Einstein, the roof top one
> should be in the future.
>
> At least digital clocks would not be effected.

The experiment has apparently been done with vessels orbiting the earth
and the theory was proven to be true...

but really...even though it's been explained to me it still does not
make sense.

Maybe someone here can explain it in language that I can understand...

philo, Sep 26, 2010
4. ### Meat PlowGuest

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

--
Live Fast, Die Young and Leave a Pretty Corpse

Meat Plow, Sep 26, 2010
5. ### §ñühw¤£fGuest

richard wrote:
> http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2010/09/24/time-moves-faster-upstairs/
>
> If this theory really is true consider this:
>
> An astronaut is launced in a spaceship with the intent to travel 10 years
> out and back. As he moves farther away from earth, will his clock be so far
> off his mission goal may not have been reached?

No. As long as he reaches his destination and returns successfully. Time
differences are factored in and will be expected.

> Einstein though is saying that gravity effects clocks.

GRavity (as in gravity wells) *affects* any physical object that
encounters them. So a large singularity would slow the clock (as
observed by the person holding it) as the event horizon is reached. Then
the stretching begins And as your molecules are torn apart you forget
why you gave a shit about clocks and "time" in the first place.

> So then if these
> scientists are confirming his theory, then one can not set his timepiece to
> the time shown on Big Ben in London England as that clock will be a second
> or two off from those on the ground.

Not by any appreciable amount. To get the real theoretical effect you
would have to have two watches sync'd: one on earth and one at say L5.
Now, in order to experience this phenom, spin the earth up a few hundred
years (earth time), now check the time peices. They would be off by a
small measure.

> So when it strikes the hour, it is actually doing so in your future.
>

All time is relative. Read up for moer better understandingses

> Now let's really test this theory. Put two clocks together at the base of
> the Empire state building. Synchronize them perfectly tick for tick. Now
> place on the roof and check again. According to Einstein, the roof top one
> should be in the future.
>

Not in any appreciable amount. But yes, if yer counting fractions of
nano-seconds. :/

> At least digital clocks would not be effected.

Uh....WTF?

Here, read this and edumacate yerself:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L5_Society

--
cageprisoners.com|www.snuhwolf.9f.com|www.eyeonpalin.org
_____ ____ ____ __ /\_/\ __ _ ______ _____
/ __/ |/ / / / / // // . . \\ \ |\ | / __ \ \ \ __\
_\ \/ / /_/ / _ / \ / \ \| \| \ \_\ \ \__\ _\
/___/_/|_/\____/_//_/ \_@_/ \__|\__|\____/\____\_\

§ñühw¤£f, Sep 26, 2010
6. ### chuckcarGuest

philo <> wrote in
news:i7ncl4\$dsj\$-september.org:

> On 09/26/2010 02:24 AM, richard wrote:
>> http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2010/09/24/time-moves-faster-upstairs/
>>
>> If this theory really is true consider this:
>>
>> An astronaut is launced in a spaceship with the intent to travel 10
>> years out and back. As he moves farther away from earth, will his
>> clock be so far off his mission goal may not have been reached?
>> Einstein though is saying that gravity effects clocks. So then if
>> these scientists are confirming his theory, then one can not set his
>> timepiece to the time shown on Big Ben in London England as that
>> clock will be a second or two off from those on the ground.
>> So when it strikes the hour, it is actually doing so in your future.
>>
>> Now let's really test this theory. Put two clocks together at the
>> base of the Empire state building. Synchronize them perfectly tick
>> for tick. Now place on the roof and check again. According to
>> Einstein, the roof top one should be in the future.
>>
>> At least digital clocks would not be effected.

>
>
> The experiment has apparently been done with vessels orbiting the
> earth and the theory was proven to be true...
>
> but really...even though it's been explained to me it still does not
> make sense.
>
> Maybe someone here can explain it in language that I can understand...
>
>

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?

There is no *reason* for it that we know, it's the result of a side
effect of the mathematics that generated the theory. Hell no one even
knows what gravity *is*. Or light. Or matter really. Or energy. They
just know how some of it behaves. Sometimes On a planet. And it was far
from a in physics in that regard either: Quantum Mechanics, Ernst Mach
stating that breaking the sound barrier was impossible and the absence
of a atomic nucleus are all things that were around or created while
Einstein was alive.

--
(setq (chuck nil) car(chuck) )

chuckcar, Sep 27, 2010
7. ### chuckcarGuest

richard <> wrote in
news::

> http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2010/09/24/time-moves-faster-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.

--
(setq (chuck nil) car(chuck) )

chuckcar, Sep 27, 2010
8. ### Dan CGuest

On Mon, 27 Sep 2010 02:43:59 +0000, chuckcar wrote:

> richard <> wrote in
> news::
>
>> http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2010/09/24/time-moves-faster-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 ****.

--
"Ubuntu" -- an African word, meaning "Slackware is too hard for me".
"Bother!" said Pooh, as he dropped the razor on his gonads.
Usenet Improvement Project: http://twovoyagers.com/improve-usenet.org/
Thanks, Obama: http://brandybuck.site40.net/pics/politica/thanks.jpg

Dan C, Sep 27, 2010
9. ### Desk RabbitGuest

On 26/09/2010 08:24, richard wrote:
> http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2010/09/24/time-moves-faster-upstairs/
>
> If this theory really is true consider this:
>
> An astronaut is launced in a spaceship with the intent to travel 10 years
> out and back. As he moves farther away from earth, will his clock be so far
> off his mission goal may not have been reached?
> Einstein though is saying that gravity effects clocks. So then if these
> scientists are confirming his theory, then one can not set his timepiece to
> the time shown on Big Ben in London England as that clock will be a second
> or two off from those on the ground.
> So when it strikes the hour, it is actually doing so in your future.
>
> Now let's really test this theory. Put two clocks together at the base of
> the Empire state building. Synchronize them perfectly tick for tick. Now
> place on the roof and check again. According to Einstein, the roof top one
> should be in the future.
>
> At least digital clocks would not be effected.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

Fucking hilarious!

You complete fucking brain dead moron.

Desk Rabbit, Sep 27, 2010
10. ### Desk RabbitGuest

On 27/09/2010 04:36, Dan C wrote:
> On Mon, 27 Sep 2010 02:43:59 +0000, chuckcar wrote:
>
>> richard<> wrote in
>> news::
>>
>>> http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2010/09/24/time-moves-faster-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?

Desk Rabbit, Sep 27, 2010
11. ### joevanGuest

On Mon, 27 Sep 2010 12:50:00 +0100, Desk Rabbit <>
wrote:

>On 27/09/2010 04:36, Dan C wrote:
>> On Mon, 27 Sep 2010 02:43:59 +0000, chuckcar wrote:
>>
>>> richard<> wrote in
>>> news::
>>>
>>>> http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2010/09/24/time-moves-faster-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

joevan, Sep 27, 2010
12. ### JordonGuest

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

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/space/articles/32969.aspx

Jordon, Sep 27, 2010
13. ### chuckcarGuest

§ñühw¤£f <> wrote in
news:i7p9em\$soi\$:

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

>
>> 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) )

chuckcar, Sep 27, 2010
14. ### chuckcarGuest

§nühw¤£f <> wrote in
news:i7r5p8\$aql\$:

> In message <Xns9E0075785815chuck@127.0.0.1>, chuckcar pondered the
> following:
>> §ñühw¤£f <> wrote in
>> news:i7p9em\$soi\$:
>>
>> > chuckcar <> 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?
>

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.
>>

> Yer what now?
>

>> >
>> >> 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) )

chuckcar, Sep 28, 2010
15. ### freemontGuest

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) ...
--
â‚ "Because all you of Earth are idiots!"
â‚ Beware the 24hoursupport tards:
â‚ http://24hoursupport-tards.info
Â¯`Â·.Â¸Â¸.Â·Â´Â¯`Â·-> â€»freemontâ€» <-Â·Â´Â¯`Â·.Â¸Â¸.Â·Â´Â¯

freemont, Sep 28, 2010
16. ### TonyGuest

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) ...
> --
> â‚ "Because all you of Earth are idiots!"
> â‚ Beware the 24hoursupport tards:
> â‚ http://24hoursupport-tards.info
> Â¯`Â·.Â¸Â¸.Â·Â´Â¯`Â·-> â€»freemontâ€» <-Â·Â´Â¯`Â·.Â¸Â¸.Â·Â´Â¯

--
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

Tony, Sep 28, 2010
17. ### chuckcarGuest

§ñühw¤£f <> wrote in
news:i7rs2o\$17i\$:

> chuckcar <> pinched out a steaming pile
> of<Xns9E00C132E3FB0chuck@127.0.0.1>:
>
>>§nühw¤£f <> wrote in
>>news:i7r5p8\$aql\$:
>>
>>> In message <Xns9E0075785815chuck@127.0.0.1>, chuckcar pondered the
>>> following:
>>>> §ñühw¤£f <> wrote

> in
>>>> news:i7p9em\$soi\$:
>>>>
>>>> > chuckcar <> 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?
>>>

>>

> 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.
>>>>
>>> Yer what now?
>>>

>
> 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) )

chuckcar, Sep 28, 2010