Proving an Einstein theory

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

  1. richard

    richard Guest

    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
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. richard

    Whiskers Guest

    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
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. richard

    philo Guest

    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
    #3
  4. richard

    Meat Plow Guest

    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.



    --
    Live Fast, Die Young and Leave a Pretty Corpse
    Meat Plow, Sep 26, 2010
    #4
  5. 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

    --
    www.skepticalscience.com|www.youtube.com/officialpeta
    cageprisoners.com|www.snuhwolf.9f.com|www.eyeonpalin.org
    _____ ____ ____ __ /\_/\ __ _ ______ _____
    / __/ |/ / / / / // // . . \\ \ |\ | / __ \ \ \ __\
    _\ \/ / /_/ / _ / \ / \ \| \| \ \_\ \ \__\ _\
    /___/_/|_/\____/_//_/ \_@_/ \__|\__|\____/\____\_\
    §ñühw¤£f, Sep 26, 2010
    #5
  6. richard

    chuckcar Guest

    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
    #6
  7. richard

    chuckcar Guest

    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
    #7
  8. richard

    Dan C Guest

    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
    #8
  9. richard

    Desk Rabbit Guest

    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
    #9
  10. richard

    Desk Rabbit Guest

    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
    #10
  11. richard

    joevan Guest

    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
    #11
  12. richard

    Jordon Guest

    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/space/articles/32969.aspx
    Jordon, Sep 27, 2010
    #12
  13. richard

    chuckcar Guest

    §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.
    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) )
    chuckcar, Sep 27, 2010
    #13
  14. richard

    chuckcar Guest

    §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?
    >

    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) )
    chuckcar, Sep 28, 2010
    #14
  15. richard

    freemont Guest

    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
    ¯`·.¸¸.·´¯`·-> ※freemont※ <-·´¯`·.¸¸.·´¯
    freemont, Sep 28, 2010
    #15
  16. richard

    Tony Guest

    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
    > ¯`·.¸¸.·´¯`·-> ※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
    Tony, Sep 28, 2010
    #16
  17. richard

    chuckcar Guest

    §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?
    >>>

    >>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) )
    chuckcar, Sep 28, 2010
    #17
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. =?Utf-8?B?bWljaGVhbA==?=

    wireless connection proving difficult

    =?Utf-8?B?bWljaGVhbA==?=, Jul 13, 2005, in forum: Wireless Networking
    Replies:
    4
    Views:
    2,688
    Michael Henry
    Jul 13, 2005
  2. Brendon

    Re: Proving your an MCSE????

    Brendon, Aug 1, 2003, in forum: MCSE
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    400
    Jesse
    Aug 1, 2003
  3. Ron Williams

    Proving your an MCSE????

    Ron Williams, Aug 6, 2003, in forum: MCSE
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    461
  4. David MacKay
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    701
    David MacKay
    Nov 5, 2003
  5. Dale

    string theory, M-theory etc.

    Dale, Nov 7, 2013, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    127
    Martin Leese
    Nov 7, 2013
Loading...

Share This Page