 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Natural Science Forum / Physics / General Physics / June 2008A finitely sized Universe with an infinite force? Hmmm
Why would a finitely sized Universe have an infinite force? Wouldn't that mean that part of the Universe is more Universal than the Universe itself? Here's a better solution: http://www.cloudmusiccompany.com/paper.htm Michael Helland <mobydikc@gmail.com> wrote in message bb9efeeb-83b9-464e-909a-4169c286f3b7@c65g2000hsa.googlegroups.com > Why would a finitely sized Universe have an infinite force? Because light with infinite wavelength fits into a match box. Dirk Vdm > Why would a finitely sized Universe have an infinite force? [snip crap] Why would a fish have a bicycle?  SignatureUncle Al http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/ (Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals) http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/lajos.htm#a2 > > Why would a finitely sized Universe have an infinite force? > > [snip crap] > > Why would a fish have a bicycle? Why do we observe a finite number of stars in a finitely sized space, and never question the infinite range of electromagnetic force? > > > Why would a finitely sized Universe have an infinite force? > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Why do we observe a finite number of stars in a finitely sized space, > and never question the infinite range of electromagnetic force? Electricity doesn't have an infinite range maybe not magnetism either. The range of gravity depends on mass though it may be universal. We never hear of electric force going very far. I think it must dwinndle to infinitely small rather quickly. We can't have a big enough charge for the electric charge to go really macroscopic. Mitch Raemsch; Falling light changes colour > > > > Why would a finitely sized Universe have an infinite force? > [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > We can't have a big enough charge for the electric charge to go really > macroscopic. You do realize the light (which we see coming from billions of light years away) is an electromagnetic wave, right? >>>>> Why would a finitely sized Universe have an infinite force? >> [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > You do realize the light (which we see coming from billions of light > years away) is an electromagnetic wave, right? But for all we know, that could be all the we can see and there could be bbillions of yrs further out there. We have no proof that lightwaves go on infinitely.a and of course, we can't actually prove that because we would have to travel an infinite amount of distance to do such. :) SignatureJames M Driscoll Jr Spaceman > > > > > Why would a finitely sized Universe have an infinite force? > [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > You do realize the light (which we see coming from billions of light > years away) is an electromagnetic wave, right? You do realize that you're addressing a poster that just randomly puts words together? > > > > > Why would a finitely sized Universe have an infinite force? > [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > > - Show quoted text - The EM field for matter has poles and charges. Light does not. Mitch Raemsch > > > Why would a finitely sized Universe have an infinite force? > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Why do we observe a finite number of stars in a finitely sized space, > and never question the infinite range of electromagnetic force? If you can come up with a model of the EM that has finite range and can agree with all observations about nature, you're welcome to do so. Inverse square fields suggest a massless gauge particle (photon). Even if the photon had a mass, the range would still be theoretically infinite, but would fall off fast enough to have an effective finite range. Such deviations from Maxwell's equations have yet to be detected, but it's certainly not for lack of trying. > > > > Why would a finitely sized Universe have an infinite force? > [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > range. Such deviations from Maxwell's equations have yet to be > detected, but it's certainly not for lack of trying. Hubble redshift is one such deviation. We step around it by inventing extra space for the light to travel through. But that's not really what's going on. More details: http://www.cloudmusiccompany.com/paper.htm > > > Why would a finitely sized Universe have an infinite force? > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Why do we observe a finite number of stars in a finitely sized space, > and never question the infinite range of electromagnetic force? Actually we do question it. It is, of course, intimately connected with the 1/r^2 dependence of the law. This is the same 1/r^2 dependence that appears in Newton's law of gravity, and the power of r is the ONLY part of the law that isn't an immediate implication of other laws. And in fact, Newton and Coulomb both ascertained that power via experimental evidence. However, precisely because the power is not obvious, this number 2 has been thoroughly tested to very high precision. While we still to this day do not have sound reason for it to be *exactly* 2, we have done enough tests to know that it is darn close to 2. And in fact it is closer to 2 than what would be suggested by the finite range of the observable universe. Some additional familiarity with the experimental evidence is in order. PD > Why would a finitely sized Universe have an infinite force? I'll assume you mean the gravitation and electromagnetic forces have no distance limit. Many "why" question are for philosophers. Science is pretty good at answering "how" questions. Why don't you make of study of some of the thing we are finding out! No Center http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/nocenter.html http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/infpoint.html Also see Ned Wright's Cosmology Tutorial http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmolog.htm http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmology_faq.html http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/CosmoCalc.html WMAP: Foundations of the Big Bang theory http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/m_uni.html WMAP: Tests of Big Bang Cosmology http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/m_uni/uni_101bbtest.html> > > Why would a finitely sized Universe have an infinite force? > > I'll assume you mean the gravitation and electromagnetic > forces have no distance limit. Many "why" question are for > philosophers. Science is pretty good at answering "how" > questions. Science is good at answering "What would happen if" types of scenarios. Hypotheticals. Use your imagination and tell me, what would happen if the EM force had a finite range? It actually died out there in the cosmos. What would the Universe look like? We'd see a finite number of stars in a space of a finite size. > Why don't you make of study of some of the thing we are > finding out! [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > WMAP: Tests of Big Bang Cosmology > http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/m_uni/uni_101bbtest.html> <snip> > Science is good at answering "What would happen if" types of > scenarios. Hypotheticals. > > Use your imagination and tell me, what would happen if the EM force > had a finite range? <snip> Mike science is not and never ever will be an exercise of imagination. It makes no difference what you imagine unless it matches observation. This is just further proof you have no right to post in physics groups. Especially when we combine this with you inability to solve Calculus 1 problems. Now please go away until you learn something or decide to grow even an infantile intellect. Cheers On Jun 19, 2:11 pm, jjs...@yahoo.com wrote: > <snip>> Science is good at answering "What would happen if" types of > > scenarios. Hypotheticals. [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > > Cheers I back Mike up. Who is to deny imagination? Albert Einstein didn't. As a matter of fact he said that it was more important than knowledge. On Jun 19, 6:15 pm, mitch.nicolas.raem...@gmail.com wrote: > On Jun 19, 2:11 pm, jjs...@yahoo.com wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > Albert Einstein didn't. As a matter of fact he said that it was more > important than knowledge. Congratulations you back up the physics group crank, great thing to put on your resume. Cheers On Jun 19, 3:11 pm, jjs...@yahoo.com wrote: > <snip>> Science is good at answering "What would happen if" types of > > scenarios. Hypotheticals. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > Mike science is not and never ever will be an exercise of imagination. > It makes no difference what you imagine unless it matches observation. Clue: in a Universe where light has a finite range, we would observe a finite number of galaxies in finite space. Light bulb: a finite range for the EM force does match observation! > On Jun 19, 3:11 pm, jjs...@yahoo.com wrote: >> <snip>> Science is good at answering "What would happen if" types of [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > Light bulb: a finite range for the EM force does match observation! No! Gravitation and the electromagnetic force have no range limits. Whether the Universe if infinite or not is unobservable. The observable universe has finite momentum-energy (i.e., a finite number of atoms, stars and galaxies). The WMAP data give the most precise values for the density of ordinary [baryonic] matter made of protons and neutrons: 0.4 yoctograms per cubic meter, and for the total of dark and baryonic matter: 2.5 yoctograms per cubic meter. These correspond to omega_b = 0.0224 +/- 0.0009 and omega_m = 0.135 +/- 0.009. > > On Jun 19, 3:11 pm, jjs...@yahoo.com wrote: > >> <snip>> Science is good at answering "What would happen if" types of [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > > - Show quoted text - We can't get a big enough electric charge for electric field range to become macroscopic. <snip> I reiterate you can't solve basic calc problems as evidenced here: <4d48f4ef-330d-455b-a9bd-777f92c8514b@26g2000hsk.googlegroups.com> I wonder can you even factor simple algebraic expressions? Why don't you give it a try. X^2+4x+4 Please Mike factor that expression for me. Or maybe you can provide me with the quadratic formula. Lets see if you can do basic algebra. If you can do that you'll be moving in the right direction with a long way to go. Or try this: In abstract algebra an equation in the form: ax+by=c Is the form of what type of equation? Hint: the answer words begin with L and D respectively. Of course since Calc 1 is beyond you. You really have no room to talk about physics and should confine you interests to things like basket weaving, knitting and other simplistic task for which you may be better suited. Cheers > On Jun 19, 3:11 pm, jjs...@yahoo.com wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > Light bulb: a finite range for the EM force does match observation! But even the lowly pith ball shoots down your assertion. How does an electrostatic field behave? > > > Why would a finitely sized Universe have an infinite force? > [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > > We'd see a finite number of stars in a space of a finite size. Forget about modeling a finite range EM force and trying to make it jibe with observation of the universe. It contradicts the results of practically any tabletop experiment you could perform already. No fantasies are required. > > > > Why would a finitely sized Universe have an infinite force? > [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > practically any tabletop experiment you could perform already. No > fantasies are required. If the range begins to die out after a few hundred million light years, it would require a pretty big table top to falsify the new model. > > > > > Why would a finitely sized Universe have an infinite force? > [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > years, it would require a pretty big table top to falsify the new > model. How would you know? You can't ascribe anything to your "model" past qualitative details that mean whatever you want them to mean. > > > > > > Why would a finitely sized Universe have an infinite force? > [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > > How would you know? Because I thought about it. I realize you're only authorized to think about what has been published in a peer review journal. But sometimes others ideas can make sense too. > You can't ascribe anything to your "model" past > qualitative details that mean whatever you want them to mean. > > > > > > > Why would a finitely sized Universe have an infinite force? > [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > > Because I thought about it. Have you thought enough about calculus to understand the basic mathematical description of light yet? Or are you still confounded by an integral of trig functions? > I realize you're only authorized to think about what has been > published in a peer review journal. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > You can't ascribe anything to your "model" past > > qualitative details that mean whatever you want them to mean. > > > > > Why would a finitely sized Universe have an infinite force? > [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > years, it would require a pretty big table top to falsify the new > model. But Maxwell's equations pass every test you can put to them on a fairly small table top. Deviations corresponding to finite photon mass do not seem to occur. And even though they may be there, it would probably only require stronger fields to detect them, providing they were there. Galactic sized table tops need not be necessary. > > > > > > Why would a finitely sized Universe have an infinite force? > [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] > would probably only require stronger fields to detect them, providing > they were there. Galactic sized table tops need not be necessary. Cue Mike claiming he accepts the massless photon, then repeats his nonsense. Com-f.cking-pletely oblivious to everything. For fun, ask him if he has ever solved Maxwell's equations. Or learned what spherical harmonics are. Or done an integral. > > On Jun 21, 2:28 pm, MichaelHelland<mobyd...@gmail.com> wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 40 lines] > For fun, ask him if he has ever solved Maxwell's equations. Or learned > what spherical harmonics are. Or done an integral. What I find to be amazing is that he claims to be a programmer and yet he has no idea of how to do basic calculus. Nor can he write a program to solve a basic calculus problem. It makes me think he really isn't a programmer, he's more of a pseudo programmer. Even so the fact that he is so lazy so as not to notice that there are websites that will solve that problem for you, it astounds me. Yet here is posting. Cheers > > > > > > Why would a finitely sized Universe have an infinite force? > [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > But Maxwell's equations pass every test you can put to them on a > fairly small table top. And Newton's equations pass every test within its domain of applicability. My claim is that Hubble redshift is not just a loss in frequency and energy, it's a loss in velocity. Hubble redshift doesn't appear locally. Local tests aren't enough to falsify cosmological models. In my model photon's don't have mass. That doesn't mean they have a mass of 0. It means mass doesn't apply to them. Here's my rough model: define class absolutePhoton as Custom x = 0 c = 10 totalEnergy = 10^5 function move this.x = this.x + this.c * As the photon moves it loses energy this.totalEnergy = this.totalEnergy - this.c if mod(this.totalEnergy, 10^4) = 0 and this.c > 0 this.c = this.c - 1 endif return enddefine As you can see, I've completely re-written the concepts of energy, inertia, space, time, and abandoned Newton's laws of physics. The above code not only describes the photon in a completely non- Newtonian framework (something no one else has done) but it predicts Hubble redshift (loss in the energy being delivered). It's not only the best quantum and relativistic model, it's the best cosmological model. The model suggests a deeper unification than what we previously anticipated. > And Newton's equations pass every test within its domain of > applicability. [quoted text clipped - 41 lines] > Newtonian framework (something no one else has done) but it predicts > Hubble redshift (loss in the energy being delivered). Dear Micheal, If the photon has a loss of energy, it is actually what a newtonian theory would predict. The medium required in a newtonian theory would slow it down at one point after all energy is distributed non linearly over the travel distance. (the -1) Just like sound loses it's "sound energy". and radio, lose it's energy over distance also. :) so... sorry. It is basically Newtonian still in your model also. :) SignatureJames M Driscoll Jr Spaceman [snip] People who can't learn calculus can't reinvent all of physics. > And Newton's equations pass every test within its domain of > applicability. And the universe better fits general relativity, not Newton. > My claim is that Hubble redshift is not just a loss in frequency and > energy, it's a loss in velocity. Your claim is with out merit--all observations and experiment side with constant velocity c. > Hubble redshift doesn't appear locally. Too small to measure locally. >> And Newton's equations pass every test within its domain of >> applicability. > > And the universe better fits general relativity, not Newton. LOL Where do you get such bullshit Sam? Both are equal in thier own domain. and sadly Relativity can't tell time! LOL SignatureJames M Driscoll Jr Spaceman >>> And Newton's equations pass every test within its domain of >>> applicability. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > Relativity can't tell time! > LOL Spaceshit: Newton was wrong ... You lose! :) Newton get many prediction so close that it's hard to tell when relative velocities are not too high and gravitation not too strong... >>>> And Newton's equations pass every test within its domain of >>>> applicability. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > Spaceshit: Newton was wrong ... You lose! :) He was only wrong to those that do not use his laws correctly Sam, That actually means he was not wrong in reality if you can't get that simple fact. :) You lost 100 yrs ago. and still keep losing. BTW: ever figure out why you had to have rubber rulers? Simple.. to not go FTL with bad clocks! LOL <snip> > As you can see, I've completely re-written the concepts of energy, > inertia, space, time, and abandoned Newton's laws of physics. How the hell can you? You can't even solve a basic calculus equation. > The above code not only describes the photon in a completely non- > Newtonian framework (something no one else has done) but it predicts > Hubble redshift (loss in the energy being delivered). Wrong wrong wrong.... and I ask again what would you know about what has and has not been done, since you have trouble with simple calculus problems? <snip, your model is crap and suggests nothing> Go learn calculus. Until then go away. Cheers > > > > > > > Why would a finitely sized Universe have an infinite force? > [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] > And Newton's equations pass every test within its domain of > applicability. Non Sequitor. > My claim is that Hubble redshift is not just a loss in frequency and > energy, it's a loss in velocity. That's hardly original. Look up the notion of "tired light" and find out where it all goes wrong. > Hubble redshift doesn't appear locally. > > Local tests aren't enough to falsify cosmological models. > In my model photon's don't have mass. Then they must move at c. > That doesn't mean they have a mass of 0. Now you just contradicted yourself. > It means mass doesn't apply to them. What the hell does that mean? > Here's my rough model: > [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > > enddefine That's hardly a model. It's a program. And trust me, as a subroutine in real nature, your program would crash every time. > As you can see, I've completely re-written the concepts of energy, > inertia, space, time, and abandoned Newton's laws of physics. What I cannot see is what exists in apace that could slow down a photon. Besides, photons are defined as moving at c. A massless particle has no choice. > The above code not only describes the photon in a completely non- > Newtonian framework (something no one else has done) but it predicts > Hubble redshift (loss in the energy being delivered). Apparently, what you fail to understand is that photons are already non-Newtonian. They're artifacts of quantum mechanics. > It's not only the best quantum and relativistic model, it's the best > cosmological model. Too bad it makes absolutely no sense. > The model suggests a deeper unification than what we previously > anticipated. Ugh. Maybe you should take a few real physics courses before you completely embarrass yourself. [...] > Ugh. Maybe you should take a few real physics courses before you > completely embarrass yourself. He doesn't care. > > > > > > > > Why would a finitely sized Universe have an infinite force? > [quoted text clipped - 31 lines] > > Non Sequitor. I'm saying that Hubble's redshift, despite our best efforts to avoid admitting it, are observations that show the limits of the EM force, arguing that Maxwell and Einstein are good theories but not Universal. > > My claim is that Hubble redshift is not just a loss in frequency and > > energy, it's a loss in velocity. > > That's hardly original. Look up the notion of "tired light" and find > out where it all goes wrong. False. Tired Light models argue light loses energy through some form of interaction in the cosmos. They never argue that light slows down. My suggestion is novel and leads to different consequences more similar to expansion, such as a fall off in surface brightness. > > Hubble redshift doesn't appear locally. > > > Local tests aren't enough to falsify cosmological models. > > In my model photon's don't have mass. > > Then they must move at c. In Einstein's physics. But I'm arguing that, like Newton's laws of motions, space-time as it stands is not Universally applicable. Hubble redshift being the observational evidence. > > That doesn't mean they have a mass of 0. > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > What the hell does that mean? Think of brane mechanics, and imagine the photon, like the graviton, existing in a different brane than ours. If "mass" is a measurement in our brane, and the photon's existence is rooted in the boson brane, then mass doesn't apply to the photon. This is a new framework for physical phenomena, better suited to hold both QM and relativity. As you can see below, there is a mathematical description for the motion of a photon that uses energy and motion in a very unconventional way, showing that inertia and conservation of energy of appear initially, but aren't true throughout the entire evolution of the algorithm. > > Here's my rough model: > [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > That's hardly a model. It's a program. And trust me, as a subroutine > in real nature, your program would crash every time. It doesn't crash when I run it. > > As you can see, I've completely re-written the concepts of energy, > > inertia, space, time, and abandoned Newton's laws of physics. > > What I cannot see is what exists in apace that could slow down a > photon. I appeal to the Anthropic principle. The Universe simply doesn't give us the tools to see all of infinity. It's more concerned about having the tools to support the problems that life encounters. > Besides, photons are defined as moving at c. A massless > particle has no choice. According to Einstein's physics. I'm not saying he's wrong. I'm just saying that he's not Universal, and Hubble redshift is an indication of a different physics. > > The above code not only describes the photon in a completely non- > > Newtonian framework (something no one else has done) but it predicts > > Hubble redshift (loss in the energy being delivered). > > Apparently, what you fail to understand is that photons are already > non-Newtonian. They're artifacts of quantum mechanics. Don't they obey the law of inertia? That sounds Newtonian to me. -- http://www.cloudmusiccompany.com/paper.htm > > > > > > > > > Why would a finitely sized Universe have an infinite force? > [quoted text clipped - 35 lines] > admitting it, are observations that show the limits of the EM force, > arguing that Maxwell and Einstein are good theories but not Universal. Except they are consistent with observation, regardless of whether they evade your ability to understand or not. You cannot coherently quantitatively describe either Maxwell's or Einstein's theories, nor have you shown any sign of digesting any of the observational evidence. Do you know what spherical harmonics are, or are you still stuck on the "learn calculus" step yet? > > > My claim is that Hubble redshift is not just a loss in frequency and > > > energy, it's a loss in velocity. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > False. Tired Light models argue light loses energy through some form > of interaction in the cosmos. Whereas you don't assume any interaction at all! You don't give a tinker's damn about conservation of energy or any basic physics concepts. > They never argue that light slows down. Bullshit. That was the ENTIRE POINT of tired light! > My suggestion is novel and leads to different consequences more > similar to expansion, such as a fall off in surface brightness. Who the f.ck do you think you are kidding, Mike? A few months ago when you started this latest wave of bullshit, I asked you about the Tolman surface brightness test. For a month or three, you admitted you didn't understand. Then suddenly you find an arXiv article that a naive reading suggests a (1+z)^-3 falloff in brightness. Then right around that time, curiously enough, you started claiming your theory produces a ~(1+z)^-3 falloff. You were quick to claim a point in your favor, since I was claiming that the falloff is as (1+z)^-4. But since you didn't read the article, you didn't understand the context of what was found. I then pointed out to you why you were wrong and stupid as hell, and you ran the hell away from that thread shortly after ignoring all my points and then repeating your same stupidities uncorrected. Then here you are again 3 weeks later claiming your model "predicts" a falloff in brightness similar to expansion. Imagine that - your "model" manages to "predict" whatever you want it to predict. Isn't it odd that practically EVERYTHING you know about cosmology has been taught to you by me? > > > Hubble redshift doesn't appear locally. > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > In Einstein's physics. Which you have not studied. > But I'm arguing that, like Newton's laws of motions, space-time as it > stands is not Universally applicable. You haven't studied Newton either. No, believing in a clockwork universe does not count. > Hubble redshift being the observational evidence. Of course any /other/ evidence that disagrees with you and confirms expansion will mysteriously either be ignored or will magically be "passed" by your "model". Did you finally give up on the CMBR, or are you not discussing it anymore because you are tired of me hammering home the fact that you don't even know what multipole moments are? > > > That doesn't mean they have a mass of 0. > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > If "mass" is a measurement in our brane, and the photon's existence is > rooted in the boson brane, then mass doesn't apply to the photon. Like you have any understanding of what you just regurgitated. What popularization did you read that crap from? > This is a new framework for physical phenomena, better suited to hold > both QM and relativity. You are incapable of judging as you can't even evaluate a simple trig integral, much less formally study QM or relativity. > As you can see below, there is a mathematical description for the > motion of a photon that uses energy and motion in a very > unconventional way, showing that inertia and conservation of energy of > appear initially, but aren't true throughout the entire evolution of > the algorithm. That is not math. That is idiotic Helland pseudocode that is completely meaningless. > > > Here's my rough model: > [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > > It doesn't crash when I run it. Woosh! The point goes right the f.ck over your head. > > > As you can see, I've completely re-written the concepts of energy, > > > inertia, space, time, and abandoned Newton's laws of physics. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > It's more concerned about having the tools to support the problems > that life encounters. Speaking of...hows your calculus going? > > Besides, photons are defined as moving at c. A massless > > particle has no choice. > > According to Einstein's physics. No, according to classical physics. Proca's equations are VERY f.cking EXPLICIT on the subject. > I'm not saying he's wrong. I'm just saying that he's not Universal, > and Hubble redshift is an indication of a different physics. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > Don't they obey the law of inertia? No. > That sounds Newtonian to me. Time for a new hobby, Mike. Or just go away - its' been like 4 months, and all you have accomplished is refining your delusions that you are educated. You still don't know what spherical harmonics are. Or the Tolman surface brightness test. Or any of the dozens of things that has went in one ear and went out the other because you are one dumb motherf..ker. > --http://www.cloudmusiccompany.com/paper.htm <snip, to save space> Thank you Eric I could not have said it better myself. Of course you know he is not going to go away, he's been doing this sh.t for years and hasn't learned or heard a single thing anyone has said to him. Cheers On Jun 23, 6:42 pm, jjs...@yahoo.com wrote: > <snip, to save space> > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Cheers He can, he just doesn't want to. Its' just easier to pretend. Every time I bring up a test he hasn't heard about that utterly demolishes his childish ideas, he tweaks the "mode" just enough to make himself believe it a.ses the test. Look at how he has pussyfooted around the Tolman surface brightness test. > Whereas you don't assume any interaction at all! You don't give a > tinker's damn about conservation of energy or any basic physics > concepts. Those are so Newtonian. Photons deserve to be something else. I have a mathematical description of what that something else is: define class absolutePhoton as Custom x = 0 c = 10 totalEnergy = 10^5 function move this.x = this.x + this.c * As the photon moves it loses energy this.totalEnergy = this.totalEnergy - this.c if mod(this.totalEnergy, 10^4) = 0 and this.c > 0 this.c = this.c - 1 endif return enddefine > > They never argue that light slows down. > > Bullshit. That was the ENTIRE POINT of tired light! False. This is one of the primary Tired Light papers: http://www.pnas.org/cgi/reprint/15/10/773.pdf It describes some way besides expansion for light to lose energy. It never mentions it loses velocity and dies. Face it. Slow Light is a new idea that I came up with. <snip> > Did you finally give up on the CMBR, or are you not discussing it > anymore because you are tired of me hammering home the fact that you > don't even know what multipole moments are? There are an infinite number of galaxies out there, but their light doesn't reach us because light has a finite range. The infinitude of galaxies near the end of that range produces the continuous smooth CMB, just above absolute 0 K. The CMB is most elegantly described by new properties of light, not the expansion of space which caused the Universe to grow out of a cosmic egg. -- http://www.cloudmusiccompany.com/paper.htm > > On Jun 23, 5:02 pm, MichaelHelland<mobyd...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Whereas you don't assume any interaction at all! You don't give a > > tinker's damn about conservation of energy or any basic physics > > concepts. > > Those are so Newtonian. How surprising you go from using Newton left and right, then as soon as it becomes obvious how dumb your being you change your tune. Try taking into account the conservation of energy and see what happens. > Photons deserve to be something else. Based on what? Your imagination and idol mind that hasn't done one iota of due diligence ever. > I have a mathematical description of what that something else is: <snip> Not math, pseudo code... waste of space, and physically painful to see... Int[{Sin[x]+Cos[x]}/Tan[x]] That is math— math for that matter you can't do, so what are you doing here? <snip, more oozing crap> > Slow Light is a new idea that I came up with. Not at all it is well know that light can be slowed in a variety of ways. The fact that you are ignorant does not make it novel. Your knowledge is not a test for novelty, since you have none. <snip, crap> Here inform yourself: http://arxiv.org/pdf/astro-ph/0106566 When you have master calculus you will be marginally more qualified to speak on these topics until then you have no qualification and are merely deceiving yourself. Cheers On Jun 24, 12:58 am, jjs...@yahoo.com wrote: > > > On Jun 23, 5:02 pm, MichaelHelland<mobyd...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > Whereas you don't assume any interaction at all! You don't give a [quoted text clipped - 30 lines] > ways. The fact that you are ignorant does not make it novel. Your > knowledge is not a test for novelty, since you have none. I'm talking about Slow Light in a vacuum. Since the code uses a constant value for c in distances less than a Megaparsec, my Slow Light model reduces to SR exactly at distances where Hubble Redshift is not observed. > <snip, crap> > > Here inform yourself:http://arxiv.org/pdf/astro-ph/0106566 That paper uses a reference to Zwicky's Tired Light paper that I cited: http://www.pnas.org/cgi/reprint/15/10/773.pdf It demolishes the hypothesis. But Zwicky suggests light loses energy through an interaction in the cosmos, and *never* considers that it has a finite range or loses velocity, the two innovations I've put forward. Slow Light is a *novel* hypothesis. > When you have master calculus you will be marginally more qualified to > speak on these topics until then you have no qualification and are > merely deceiving yourself. When you read Zwicky's paper, acknowledge that he never suggests that light slows down or has a finite range, you will be able to think more objectively about what I have to say. <snip, horseshit> Paper with finite range to EM force http://arxiv.org/pdf/math-ph/0702044 Of course this doesn't help you since you have admitted photons are massless. And this paper is not verified. http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/tiredlit.htm If photons are massless there is no reason for them to lose energy without interaction hence why light slows going through air. In space this is not the case, so until you can explain how the light looses energy, you've got nothing. Your idea suffers from the same pitfalls as tiered light theory yours is even more poorly thought out. So congrats on that. Cheers On Jun 24, 1:20 pm, jjs...@yahoo.com wrote: > <snip, horseshit> > > Paper with finite range to EM forcehttp://arxiv.org/pdf/math-ph/0702044 He never suggests this is the cause of Hubble redshift or makes any tie into cosmology in any way. Slow Light is a new cosmology, plain and simple. > Of course this doesn't help you since you have admitted photons are > massless. And this paper is not verified. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > this is not the case, so until you can explain how the light looses > energy, you've got nothing. Anthropic principle. Light exists for the Universe to produce life. Life needs to interact with its environment, and that happens through light (not to mention light also helping to hold atoms and molecules together). Life doesn't need to interact with all infinity, so the Universe rules those interactions out, almost as if its prioritizing its resources. Light doesn't travel forever, space-time is an approximation of the Universe at distances where Hubble redshift is not observed, but not the Universe itself. > Your idea suffers from the same pitfalls as tiered light theory yours > is even more poorly thought out. So congrats on that. No, the difference between Slow Light and Tired Light is decelerating light causes a delay in the time it takes for the light to travel the cosmological distances. That delay is not predicted by Tired Light, but is observed as a stronger falloff in surface area, and in light curves from supernova. > On Jun 24, 1:20 pm, jjs...@yahoo.com wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > He never suggests this is the cause of Hubble redshift or makes any > tie into cosmology in any way. Wow way to miss the point. Of course not having a clue about cosmology you wouldn't catch any tie-ins, and of course the fact that it is an example of limited range EM force, which you claim is your pioneering idea doesn't matter. <snip, crap> > > If photons are massless there is no reason for them to lose energy > > without interaction hence why light slows going through air. In space > > this is not the case, so until you can explain how the light looses > > energy, you've got nothing. > > Anthropic principle. Thats just weak.... unless you have some tests to back up your theory. Oh and hows the calculus coming? Manage to solve the problem I gave you? <snip weak crap> > > Your idea suffers from the same pitfalls as tiered light theory yours > > is even more poorly thought out. So congrats on that. > > No, the difference between Slow Light and Tired Light is decelerating > light causes a delay in the time it takes for the light to travel the > cosmological distances. Which is not observed this deceleration or energy loss, sorry no. Not to mention you haven't got an experiment to prove your idea. > That delay is not predicted by Tired Light, but is observed as a > stronger falloff in surface area, and in light curves from supernova. Do you even know what that means, that little regurgitated nugget there. Tired light is an alternated explanation for Red Shift. And any theory that makes claims as to energy loss likes yours runs into the issue that unless light is interacting with something such energy loss is not observed. Of course you can't seem to grasp the idea of massless. Nor provide me with why light loses velocity, besides to say it does. Cheers On Jun 24, 1:58 pm, jjs...@yahoo.com wrote: > > > On Jun 24, 3:15 pm, MichaelHelland<mobyd...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > <snip, horseshit> [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > example of limited range EM force, which you claim is your pioneering > idea doesn't matter. Which page? > > > If photons are massless there is no reason for them to lose energy > > > without interaction hence why light slows going through air. In space [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Thats just weak.... unless you have some tests to back up your theory. If old light differs from newly and locally emitted light in that the product of the old light's frequency and wavelength is less than c, until it's absorbed and re-emitted again, there must be some way to detect it. I haven't thought of it yet. > Oh and hows the calculus coming? Manage to solve the problem I gave > you? [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > Which is not observed this deceleration or energy loss, sorry no. Not > to mention you haven't got an experiment to prove your idea. Hubble redshift *is* energy loss. > > That delay is not predicted by Tired Light, but is observed as a > > stronger falloff in surface area, and in light curves from supernova. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > massless. Nor provide me with why light loses velocity, besides to say > it does. Because a photon energy and velocity is not classical, ie, doesn't follow any of Newton's laws of motion. This is how they work, confirmed by Hubble redshift: define class absolutePhoton as Custom x = 0 c = 10 totalEnergy = 10^5 function move this.x = this.x + this.c * As the photon moves it loses energy this.totalEnergy = this.totalEnergy - this.c if mod(this.totalEnergy, 10^4) = 0 and this.c > 0 this.c = this.c - 1 endif return enddefine Before the photon hits the threshold, it travels at the same speed and delivers the same amount of energy consistently. Which means this definition is consistent with SR and the conservation of energy in that domain. Beyond those thresholds the behavior of light changes, therefore our observations of space and time or, we can say the properties of space- time will have to change. <snip> > Which page? Read the paper understand the math. <snip> > > Thats just weak.... unless you have some tests to back up your theory. > > If old light differs from newly and locally emitted light in that the > product of the old light's frequency and wavelength is less than c, > until it's absorbed and re-emitted again, there must be some way to > detect it. Until you can test it its still the same steaming pile of crap it was when you first mentioned it. <snip> > > Which is not observed this deceleration or energy loss, sorry no. Not > > to mention you haven't got an experiment to prove your idea. > > Hubble redshift *is* energy loss. Its and increase in wavelength, try some self education. <snip> > Because a photon energy and velocity is not classical, ie, doesn't > follow any of Newton's laws of motion. Yet you say it slows down magically and magically has finite range. <snip, crap> > Before the photon hits the threshold, it travels at the same speed and > delivers the same amount of energy consistently. Why that threshold what determines the threshold prove the threshold exists. > Which means this definition is consistent with SR and the conservation > of energy in that domain. Thats meaningless bullshit. > Beyond those thresholds the behavior of light changes, therefore our > observations of space and time or, we can say the properties of space- > time will have to change. Based on what your ignorant ideas, please. ROFL Cheers On Jun 24, 4:43 pm, jjs...@yahoo.com wrote: > <snip> > > > Which page? > > Read the paper understand the math. So, essentially, the paper tries to undermine the expansion explanation of Hubble redshift, and by default, the big bang, but never mentions it directly. Either he's too afraid to take on the mainstream, or you're putting words in his mouth. Cute. > On Jun 24, 4:43 pm, jjs...@yahoo.com wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > Cute. Or c) It is just another paper that explores a "what if", without the added crank assumption of trying to "undermine" anything. You continually refuse to either understand or believe that there is no "mainstream" in physics that is above reproach. Cosmology has been in upheaval since day-f.cking-one when Galileo looked up at the sky and saw the moons of Jupiter. Eighty years ago people thought nebulae were confined to our galaxy, sixty years ago we had just figured out that fusion was the energy source of the sun, forty years ago the CMB was discovered, twenty years ago the anisotropies in the CMB were discovered, ten years ago gravitational lensing was finally being used as a mass probe, five years ago there was the WMAP data release that finally pinned down the major cosmological parameters, two years ago we had the bullet cluster royally piss off everyone who thought dark matter was bullshit. The ENTIRE SUM of humanity's knowledge is at your fingertips. You could teach yourself everything there is to know about cosmology from the information accessible on the internet and a reasonably stocked research library. Or just the internet if you are willing to pay for journal access. There is no excuse for you to be this ignorant except through laziness or stupidity. Everything I know about cosmology I have taught myself in the last few years, including general relativity. My physics education has made it much easier but that's not even close to a requirement. There is no reason you cannot do the same except for some personal reasons intrinsic to yourself and probably family. Are you going to pull your thumb out of your a.s and learn something? Or are you going to spend another four years spouting your intellectually bankrupt bullshit on this newsgroup while ignoring people like me hand you the knowledge on a silver goddamn platter? > > On Jun 24, 4:43 pm, jjs...@yahoo.com wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > Or c) It is just another paper that explores a "what if", without the > added crank assumption of trying to "undermine" anything. He is certainly trying to re-write the rules of electromagnetism. But not the big bang or expansion of the Universe. Finite Range of Light = Hubble Redshift That's an idea I came up with, and no one else. jj provided an article that talked about the left hand side, but not the complete idea. > You continually refuse to either understand or believe that there is > no "mainstream" in physics that is above reproach. [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > intellectually bankrupt bullshit on this newsgroup while ignoring > people like me hand you the knowledge on a silver goddamn platter? Your story is encouraging, and I wish that I could follow in your footsteps. I also wish that I didn't upset you so much, or that you upset me so much, but that's just life, I suppose. But really, the vast majority of my time is spent in the music business. Brings in more babes than physics does. http://www.cloudmusiccompany.com/ <snip> > He is certainly trying to re-write the rules of electromagnetism. > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > That's an idea I came up with, and no one else. Mike the paper helps you can't you see that if a Photon has mass then your ridiculous slowing down and finite range may work, you apparently don't grasp that. Your idea is riddled with holes and that is why nobody who actually knows physics has come up with it, since it is untenable if you understand the observational evidence. ie not a Crank... <snip> > Your story is encouraging, and I wish that I could follow in your > footsteps. Mike you don't have the mental discipline to do that if your last four years on this group tell us anything. <snip, maudlin crap> > But really, the vast majority of my time is spent in the music > business. Thus your in the wrong hobby... as I have suggested before basket weaving or knitting may work better for you. > Brings in more babes than physics does. Yeah, how would you know not being a physicist? Cheers On Jun 27, 1:03 pm, jjs...@yahoo.com wrote: > <snip> > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > your ridiculous slowing down and finite range may work, you apparently > don't grasp that. Mass is a classical concept, and doesn't apply to the photons in my model. Neither do other classical concepts. -- http://www.cloudmusiccompany.com/paper.htm > On Jun 27, 1:03 pm, jjs...@yahoo.com wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > > Neither do other classical concepts. Well that's clever. You can't understand much less refute the arguments so you instead claim they don't apply to you because somehow "mass" is a classical concept. Nevermind that photons are quantum objects which mass doesn't apply. Have you figured out the Tolman test yet Mike? > --http://www.cloudmusiccompany.com/paper.htm > > On Jun 27, 1:03 pm, jjs...@yahoo.com wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > "mass" is a classical concept. Nevermind that photons are quantum > objects which mass doesn't apply. Word salad. > Have you figured out the Tolman test yet Mike? Yes. Tired light predicts the wrong fall off in surface brightness. -- http://www.cloudmusiccompany.com/paper.htm <snip> > Word salad. <snip> Wow Mike is utterly defenseless he has nothing, his intellect is not even great enough to defend against insults. What an underprivileged person you must be. Again providing further proof of your fool status, when an argument is presented you can't deal with you run away or make some stupid comment or excuse. Cheers > > > On Jun 27, 1:03 pm, jjs...@yahoo.com wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > > Word salad. Just because you don't know what the words mean does not make it a word salad. Photons do not have mass - I do believe I have explained that to you before. > > Have you figured out the Tolman test yet Mike? > > Yes. Great, so I don't need to repeat myself again after this. You predict a (1+z)^-3 dependence on luminosity - observation for the Tolman test shows the (1+z)^-4 dependence is the correct representation in reality. The question is now either "Why do you continue to promote a model that is explicitly disproved by observation" or "Were you making sh.t up when I was giving you the references needed to understand the Tolman test?". I'm guessing the latter. You thought that the series of papers I gave you regarding the Tolman test showed that the fall off in luminosity goes as (1+z)^-3, and mysteriously enough your model manages to "predict" that much. What will your excuse be for why your model is correct even though observation says it isn't? > Tired light predicts the wrong fall off in surface brightness. Tired light? Who said anything about tired light? How many times have you whined that your theory isn't tired light? Explain the Tolman test and why your theory passes it in your own words. Do remember I have you quoted saying that the falloff in luminosity goes as (1+z)^-3. > --http://www.cloudmusiccompany.com/paper.htm > > > > On Jun 27, 1:03 pm, jjs...@yahoo.com wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 65 lines] > > - Show quoted text - Einstein questioned what he won the Nobel prize for. In the end he could not reconcile a particle and wave theory of light together. How many waves? One probability wave One electric wave One magnetic wave Three EM waves. Go figure? > Explain the Tolman test and why your theory passes it in your own > words. Do remember I have you quoted saying that the falloff in > luminosity goes as (1+z)^-3. Because the time it takes for decelerating light in steady space to reach its destination is a linear approximation to the time it takes for steady light in expanding space to reach its destination. The wikipedia suggested that the observable evidence is an exponent of -3. "The exponent found is not 4 as expected in the simplest expanding model, but 2.6 or 3.4, depending on the frequency band." Does my theory predict that? I don't know. But I do know that expansion models have been retrofitted to match any evidence that shows up, and that retrofitting models to match the evidence is not a unique quality of the big bang. > > Explain the Tolman test and why your theory passes it in your own > > words. Do remember I have you quoted saying that the falloff in [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > reach its destination is a linear approximation to the time it takes > for steady light in expanding space to reach its destination. You have no idea what you are talking about when you use the phrase "linear approximation". Save the big words for people who know how to use them. > The wikipedia suggested that the observable evidence is an exponent of > -3. Sure, if you only read what the wiki article author writes which is massively inconsistent with what the cited article says. Blind leading the blind. > "The exponent found is not 4 as expected in the simplest expanding > model, but 2.6 or 3.4, depending on the frequency band." The author of that article - like you - didn't even read the f.cking paper. There is exactly ONE reference on that page - Lubin & Sandage - which makes the process explicitly clear. Measuring surface brightness in a consistent manner across different galaxies at different redshifts is hard...etc. I'd explain it but I've already done it for you once before and it did no good. Plus it is explained IN THE PAPER. Unfortunately the paper requires a fair degree of technical knowledge, which means you won't understand it. > Does my theory predict that? > > I don't know. Liar. http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/b7236061e12bbf31?dmode =source "Deceleration predicts the third power (because it's lacking one of the effects of an expanding Universe)" You reference Wikipedia again - yet never actually read the article. Have you even downloaded the original source material off arXiv? > But I do know that expansion models have been retrofitted to match any > evidence that shows up, and that retrofitting models to match the > evidence is not a unique quality of the big bang. Liar. You have clearly not read any of the primary source material. Instead you rely on the clearly incorrect blather of the article author. The series of papers that do this are LONG, very technical, and assume a lot of knowledge. There are four of them - and I have only read the first and last in anything approaching a comprehensive fashion. These papers are difficult for me, so hearing you speak bullshit about "retrofitting" or any crap like that just irritates me. Not just because of the sheer hubris and chutzpah, but because a cursory understanding of the history and evidence blows this "retrofitting" bullshit so f.cking far out of the water that it surpasses that picture of the nuclear test that launched a navy cruiser into the air. You are clearly out of your depth, Mike. It shows every time you try to discuss this stuff with me - and my knowledge has gaps you could float an aircraft carrier through. >> Explain the Tolman test and why your theory passes it in your own >> words. Do remember I have you quoted saying that the falloff in >> luminosity goes as (1+z)^-3. > > Because the time it takes for decelerating light in steady space to "decelerating light" and "steady space" are either wrong or erroneous. No point in going on. <snip, piffle> http://arxiv.org/pdf/astro-ph/0106566 Mike try reading this paper. It relates Expansion and Surface brightness test along with more recent tests of expansion. It goes through much of what people have been telling you in technical detail. I have not gotten a chance to read it but from skimming it, I think it should serve the purpose. Cheers On Jun 28, 4:39 pm, jjs...@yahoo.com wrote: > <snip, piffle> > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > Cheers This is the paper Mike is ignoring. Its' actually one of four papers - I gave them all to Mike over a month ago. He still has not even downloaded them. > On Jun 28, 4:39 pm, jjs...@yahoo.com wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > Its' actually one of four papers - I gave them all to Mike over a > month ago. He still has not even downloaded them. The expansion of the universe is the expansion of an Hypersphere. Mitch Raemsch > On Jun 28, 4:39 pm, jjs...@yahoo.com wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > Its' actually one of four papers - I gave them all toMikeover a > month ago. He still has not even downloaded them. Yeah I thought it might be, but I figure what the hell, maybe the second time will be a charm and he'll maybe read it. Though if the past is a guide he'll look for keywords and try to say the paper either proves him or doesn't disprove him. No reasoning with fools like Mike. Cheers On Jun 28, 5:39 pm, jjs...@yahoo.com wrote: > <snip, piffle> > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > I have not gotten a chance to read it but from skimming it, I think it > should serve the purpose. On page 4 the paper uses Zwicky's Tired Light hypothesis from 1929 as the alternative. In Zwicky's papers, he never considers light that loses velocity, just energy. Turns out the idea of photon's that lose speed with energy (proposed be me, not Zwicky or any other tired light model) has some theoretical basis in loop quantum gravity, as Lee Smolin has been discussing photon's whose velocity are energy dependent: http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/smolin03/smolin03_print.html <quote> But there is another possibility. This is that the principle of relativity is preserved, but Einstein's special theory of relativity requires modification so as to allow photons to have a speed that depends on energy. The most shocking thing I have learned in the last year is that this is a real possibility. </quote> <snip> > On page 4 the paper uses Zwicky's Tired Light hypothesis from 1929 as > the alternative. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > basis in loop quantum gravity, as Lee Smolin has been discussing > photon's whose velocity are energy dependent: Mike try reading the whole paper for once. Instead of these keyword searches and platitudinous statements of utter ignorance, that you foist on me. Since you have no idea what quantum gravity is, you can make no claim of support form quantum gravity for your "theory". Not to mention I am sure that whatever argument Smolin makes would not be stumped and destroyed by simple questions like yours is. And I am sure Tolman Surface Brightness test would not be a problem for him. Oh and he knows basic calculus did you catch that? > http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/smolin03/smolin03_print.html Of course lest we forget this is a theory loop quantum gravity has a long way to go. Not to mention your theory is not constructed in a way to take advantage of this possibility. Since you can't even solve differential equations which would be part of any unification theory. Nor do you understand the basics of quantum mechanics. For example you have no clue what 1D harmonic oscillator is. > <quote> > But there is another possibility. This is that the principle of [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > year is that this is a real possibility. > </quote> So did you read the papers written on it (that Smolin mentions writing)? No, you just like to find anything you can twist into support for your idea not matter how silly, ridiculous and idiotic it is. Mike your model has no basis what so ever in Loop quantum gravity. You obiously never read the paper I gave you since you failed to grok what it said. You still haven't shown how you deal with Tolman Surface Brightness Test, the paper in question goes through in detail a proof for expansion. If you can disprove the paper fine, as it is you can't. Now I suggest you read the paper instead of trying to spew this at me. http://arxiv.org/pdf/hep-th/0406276 http://arxiv.org/pdf/hep-th/0306134 Please summarize these papers in your own words not leaving out the math (It being integral to the papers). Then please tell me what relation your theory has to this real science albeit unproven theory, but still a real scientific theory. Cheers > On Jun 28, 5:39 pm, jjs...@yahoo.com wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > On page 4 the paper uses Zwicky's Tired Light hypothesis from 1929 as > the alternative. No, /a/ alternative. There's a difference. > In Zwicky's papers, he never considers light that loses velocity, just > energy. Do we care? We both know your position by this point. > Turns out the idea of photon's that lose speed with energy (proposed > be me, not Zwicky or any other tired light model) has some theoretical > basis in loop quantum gravity, as Lee Smolin has been discussing > photon's whose velocity are energy dependent: Oh please - you don't know f.ck-all about LQG, especially since you don't know any fundamental physics at any level. What you suggest is not new and not interesting - energy dependent dispersion relations [the actual term for what you are describing] are horribly inconsistent with reality. > http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/smolin03/smolin03_print.html > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > year is that this is a real possibility. > </quote> So did you even read the paper under discussion yet, or will you continue to ignore it in pursuit of more things you do not understand? > > On Jun 28, 5:39 pm, jjs...@yahoo.com wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > No, /a/ alternative. There's a difference. On which page does the paper consider my alternative, deceleration? It doesn't. There is no paper that consider such an alternative, either for or against. Except this: http://www.cloudmusiccompany.com/paper.htm I can't wait for the next round of insults and put downs. That really makes me feel good. > > > On Jun 28, 5:39 pm, jjs...@yahoo.com wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > > That really makes me feel good. You won't get anymore, I'm done with you. <snip> Mike you don't want to learn or inform yourself about physics fine then don't whine about people making fun of your. You get what your posts merit. You are beyond anyones help so, have a nice life, of< |
Enable EMail Alerts
Start New Thread
Reply to this Message