Zigoteau wrote:
Hi, Cos_mo,


Well....
Hmm... how do I get it across, let's see. Suppose your son
asks you what is going on in the Minkowski 4d spacetime
geometry when the physical space is expanding from a
singularity. How would you answer it.


Been there, done that. He was "interested" in the gee-whiz aspects of
relativity but was not interested in doing the hard work to get to
grips with the math, and is now a technician, not a scientist. On the
bright side, that's better than a used-car salesman, or a drug-pusher,
or a soldier of fortune.

I see the point of knowing all the big words and understanding nothing.
It's called blinding with science, and there's a lot of it about, and I
think it stinks.

Cheers,

Zigoteau.

Gee. If your daughter asks you what is a stem cell. Would
you tell her to study genetics for 2 years to know the
answer. We have a priority of fields and have limited
lifespan to gain detailed knowledge of all things.

I'm just wondering how GR starts with an abstract Minkowski
geometry to model gravity and 4D curving and suddenly it
extends to the physical reality making Einstein modelled
space as literally malleable making him create the
cosmological constant concept which he later cancelled.
From that, space is no longer fixed and expandable. It's
even now inflatable like a baloon. I'm just interested to know
where to draw the line between 3D space malleability and 4D
Minkowski malleability and the stages of how he arrives at
each concept. Also supposed if there were no Einstein and no
Relativity. I wonder how Hubble would think when he measured
that the distant galaxies were moving away and space seemed
to be expanding. Would he think space is really expanding
or the galaxies are just moving away. Just wondering the
growth and stages of the thinking about a hundred years ago.

Well. It's ok if you don't wanna answer and instead tell
me to spend months or years studying relativity to know
the answer.

Someday, when you want to seek a medical advice for a
pain in your body. I hope someone would tell you to study
medicine to know the answer.


Cos_mo

"Cos_mo" wrote in message
oups.com...

Do all agree that space can really curve, expand, contract,
etc.??

Anyone got any problem with that concept??

If everyone agrees. Then what are the main arguments of
Anti-Relativists such as EL, Traveller, etc.

I'm a bit confused. What part of Relativity do you not
agree and what part do you agree. Is space being curvable,
expandable being one you all agree??

Relativistic Cosmology has so many empirical data from
gravitional lensing to black holes. At least space
being curvable, expandable is almost infallible, agree??

That means Time Dilation and other stuff are where you
don't agree with. Right??

Please elaborate and fill me in. Thanks.

Read the following link and you will have a better understanding of space
and grvaity:
http://www.geocities.com/kn_seto/2005Unification.pdf

Ken Seto

imbecil parrot
you ar enot even a witch doctor
you are a sucker (or a crook)
that is buying and selling nonsense

there are galaxies that move radially
in stright lines from the poit of big bang outwards
but in streight lines got it ****en parrot??
photons curve next to the sun because photons have mass ! go tit ****en
(assertive) parrot??

Y.Porat
--------------------

Y.Porat
-------------------


---------------------

Hi, Cos_mo,

Gee. If your daughter asks you what is a stem cell. Would
you tell her to study genetics for 2 years to know the
answer.


You are being offensive now. No, but I would expect her to be
interested in the subject, and not want her to learn things by rote, or
to limit her knowledge just to the buzzwords.


I'm just wondering how GR starts with an abstract Minkowski
geometry to model gravity and 4D curving and suddenly it
extends to the physical reality making Einstein modelled
space as literally malleable making him create the
cosmological constant concept which he later cancelled.
From that, space is no longer fixed and expandable. It's
even now inflatable like a baloon. I'm just interested to know
where to draw the line between 3D space malleability and 4D
Minkowski malleability and the stages of how he arrives at
each concept. Also supposed if there were no Einstein and no
Relativity. I wonder how Hubble would think when he measured
that the distant galaxies were moving away and space seemed
to be expanding. Would he think space is really expanding
or the galaxies are just moving away. Just wondering the
growth and stages of the thinking about a hundred years ago.

Well. It's ok if you don't wanna answer and instead tell
me to spend months or years studying relativity to know
the answer.

Someday, when you want to seek a medical advice for a
pain in your body. I hope someone would tell you to study
medicine to know the answer.


I don't think the two situations are comparable at all. For one thing,
you're not paying me money. For another, the answers to your questions
will be totally irrelevant to human endeavor for at least the next
thousand years. The reason I am telling you these things is that I
would like to impart my love of, and sense of excitement with, the
subject to someone else. If you only want to learn the buzzwords, or
read the executive summary, it's not worth the effort.

At the level at which you are asking your questions, you will not get
consensus from a group of experts, and certainly not contributors to
Usenet.

Cheers,

Zigoteau.

"Cos_mo" wrote in message
oups.com...

Do all agree that space can really curve, expand, contract,
etc.??
No.


Anyone got any problem with that concept??

Yes.

If everyone agrees. Then what are the main arguments of
Anti-Relativists such as EL, Traveller, etc.

They don't.

I'm a bit confused.

That shows.

What part of Relativity do you not
agree and what part do you agree.

Was that a question? If so, punctuate it as such.

I do not agree that the ``time'' required by light to travel from A to B
equals the ``time'' it requires to travel from B to A.

I consider it stupid.
Androcles.

Cos_mo:

Do all agree that space can really curve, expand, contract,
etc.??

Anyone got any problem with that concept??

A better way of stating is to ask why spacetime should be
flat or in any way be pre-determined to be a certain way,
since flat is just a particular case of curved.


If everyone agrees. Then what are the main arguments of
Anti-Relativists such as EL, Traveller, etc.

Ignorance and an inability to develop any conception of the
world beyond that which high school imprinted on them.

I'm a bit confused. What part of Relativity do you not
agree and what part do you agree. Is space being curvable,
expandable being one you all agree??

Relativistic Cosmology has so many empirical data from
gravitional lensing to black holes. At least space
being curvable, expandable is almost infallible, agree??

Unless you enjoy shoveling a great deal, I'm not sure you want
to know why the nutcases are nutcases. The only thing you'll
learn is the extent to which people will in abusing semantics
to support an untenable position in the face of the overwhelming
scientific evidence against them. It's like trying to convince
john edwards that he doesn't talk to dead people, except that
john edwards gets paid a lot of money to say he believes his
own bull****, which at least, makes his schtick logically
comprehensible.

Cos_mo:

So I guess there are two kinds of space shape shifting. One
a physical one, the other a curving of the 4D Einstein
Spacetime which is not physical.

What is not physical about it?

Bilge wrote:
Cos_mo:

Do all agree that space can really curve, expand, contract,
etc.??

Anyone got any problem with that concept??

A better way of stating is to ask why spacetime should be
flat or in any way be pre-determined to be a certain way,
since flat is just a particular case of curved.

right, the earth surface is flat

it is only ouer imperfect humans eyes which tricks us

from the international play station ouer earth appears
spherical, which is not only a illusion becus the space
curving the informations to ouer imperfected eyes

how would appear the earth seen from the international
play station to a fish for instance, what about a whale or
an octopus

anywaus, if you have something to say, write your code,
then if you have nothing to say, write an essay




If everyone agrees. Then what are the main arguments of
Anti-Relativists such as EL, Traveller, etc.

Ignorance and an inability to develop any conception of the
world beyond that which high school imprinted on them.

I'm a bit confused. What part of Relativity do you not
agree and what part do you agree. Is space being curvable,
expandable being one you all agree??

Relativistic Cosmology has so many empirical data from
gravitional lensing to black holes. At least space
being curvable, expandable is almost infallible, agree??

Unless you enjoy shoveling a great deal, I'm not sure you want
to know why the nutcases are nutcases. The only thing you'll
learn is the extent to which people will in abusing semantics
to support an untenable position in the face of the overwhelming
scientific evidence against them. It's like trying to convince
john edwards that he doesn't talk to dead people, except that
john edwards gets paid a lot of money to say he believes his
own bull****, which at least, makes his schtick logically
comprehensible.

How is it only a metafor? The magnet /is/ the solid that transmits
force.

The apple didn't fall on his head but on the ground beside him!

Edward, retards who can't spell his name can't disprove him or anything
either.