"Thomas Heger" wrote in message
...


[quote from myself]
With some geometry, you could see, that objects
with a bigger angle, seem to fall back from from the observer. He would
measure this, as if theese objects are pacing away in any direction,
faster
if more distant.
[end quote]



What does it mean: "objects with a bigger angle"?

-Howard

"Thomas Heger" wrote in message
...

"Dastardly Fiend"
(Fiend: devil; demon; evil; mischief maker; one who is crazy about, one
who is addicted to
Dastardly: adj. mean, sneaky; cowardly )

Yeah.. I proudly bear the name given me by Sleepyhead when he openly
admitted I had faulted his logic. I like a chap who can do that. I am sneaky
and devilish. I'm not a coward, though. It went down like this:


"Sleepyhead" wrote in message
oups.com...
Ah well I guess that's the problem with insults. As soon as you make a
mistake you're exposed for the idiotic pillock you truly are!

Just curious, you understand, but to whom are you addressing your remarks?
It seems a waste of a good insult if the recipient isn't aware...
Isn't that a mistake?
What did you say happens to those that make mistakes? Exposed...?
Androcles.

And it continues:
Just curious, you understand, but to whom are you addressing your
remarks?

They were levelled at Traveler. As far as I can tell he's the only
****** apart from me who's posting to this thread!

Ok... many people read threads and make no reply.


It seems a waste of a good insult if the recipient isn't aware...

Too true.

Isn't that a mistake?

Probably.

What did you say happens to those that make mistakes? Exposed...?

I did, I did. You dastardly fiend. You've tangled me in mine own logic
and now I am exposed as a fraud, and a fraud desperate for attention to
boot.

* sigh *

I know when I'm not wanted. ; )

Stick around, I like someone unafraid of logic, willing to accept a minor
point and grin. That closes the matter most excellently, it is a great
pity there are not more like you. Please include some form of address
next time. If posting from Google, you can select "show options" and
then "Reply", the original text will be included. Mozilla I can't help
with.

With regards,
Dastardly Fiend.


Hy Androcles
you made me happy. I tell you in April why
Thomas Heger

Now that is cowardly. I said ask Cassini the time NOW (and next late April).

Androcles.


It's crap...
Ask Cassini the time, now and next late April, and you'll see why.
Androcles.

"Dastardly Fiend" wrote in message ...

"Thomas Heger" wrote in message
...

"Dastardly Fiend"
(Fiend: devil; demon; evil; mischief maker; one who is crazy about, one
who is addicted to
Dastardly: adj. mean, sneaky; cowardly )

Yeah.. I proudly bear the name given me by Sleepyhead when he openly
admitted I had faulted his logic. I like a chap who can do that.

Androcles and logic:
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/di...Gibberish.html

Dirk Vdm

"Dastardly Fiend" schrieb im Newsbeitrag
...

"Thomas Heger" wrote in message
...

"Dastardly Fiend"
(Fiend: devil; demon; evil; mischief maker; one who is crazy about, one
who is addicted to
Dastardly: adj. mean, sneaky; cowardly )

Hy Androcles
thats what my online-translator spit out, I thought, You would like it ..
:-))

Yeah.. I proudly bear the name given me by Sleepyhead when he openly
admitted I had faulted his logic. I like a chap who can do that. I am
sneaky
and devilish. I'm not a coward, though. It went down like this:


"Sleepyhead" wrote in message
oups.com...
Ah well I guess that's the problem with insults. As soon as you make a
mistake you're exposed for the idiotic pillock you truly are!

Just curious, you understand, but to whom are you addressing your remarks?
It seems a waste of a good insult if the recipient isn't aware...
Isn't that a mistake?
What did you say happens to those that make mistakes? Exposed...?
Androcles.

Its very difficult, to get an imagination of a person, when you have only
written text as hint.
I try to scan pictures in my mind for one that fits. I have some ideas, but
don't want to discuss that here.

And it continues:
Just curious, you understand, but to whom are you addressing your
remarks?

They were levelled at Traveler. As far as I can tell he's the only
****** apart from me who's posting to this thread!

Ok... many people read threads and make no reply.


It seems a waste of a good insult if the recipient isn't aware...

Too true.

Isn't that a mistake?

Probably.

What did you say happens to those that make mistakes? Exposed...?

I did, I did. You dastardly fiend. You've tangled me in mine own logic
and now I am exposed as a fraud, and a fraud desperate for attention to
boot.

* sigh *

I know when I'm not wanted. ; )

Stick around, I like someone unafraid of logic, willing to accept a minor
point and grin. That closes the matter most excellently, it is a great
pity there are not more like you. Please include some form of address
next time. If posting from Google, you can select "show options" and
then "Reply", the original text will be included. Mozilla I can't help
with.

With regards,
Dastardly Fiend.


I'm using outlook-express, not very comfortable, but I'm used to that.
You can see me on one of my websites: www.mondrago.de
(there you can't find anything about physics, its just an older private
homepage)
One day, I want to publish something, but its not ready now.
An other website is www.hegus.de (about software, that I produce)

Hy Androcles
you made me happy. I tell you in April why
Thomas Heger

Now that is cowardly. I said ask Cassini the time NOW (and next late
April).

Androcles.

This is the magic of the internet. I had a difficult question and nobody
around to even understand it, typed it into this forum and got an answer a
few houres later. The question was: is the idea somehow new? When You regard
it as crap, so it is at least not common sense.
btw: what do You think about, what I have written?
I have no idea, what could mean, giving the 'space' four dimensions of time,
but it could solve my discomfort I had with Minkowski-space.

thomas heger

It's crap...
Ask Cassini the time, now and next late April, and you'll see why.
Androcles.

Dirk Van de moortel wrote:
"Dastardly Fiend" wrote in message ...

"Thomas Heger" wrote in message
...

"Dastardly Fiend"
(Fiend: devil; demon; evil; mischief maker; one who is crazy about, one
who is addicted to
Dastardly: adj. mean, sneaky; cowardly )

Yeah.. I proudly bear the name given me by Sleepyhead when he openly
admitted I had faulted his logic. I like a chap who can do that.

Androcles and logic:
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/di...Gibberish.html

Dirk Vdm

Hey imbecile Dork, I am waiting for your answer on another thread. I
see you are hidding here doing your usual routine: character
assasination.

You know why the "fumble" above will stay immortal? Because it was
correct and you wrong once more.

But I admit obne good thing about you: you are good in copy & paste
idiot

Mike

"Howard" schrieb im Newsbeitrag
...

"Thomas Heger" wrote in message
...


[quote from myself]
With some geometry, you could see, that objects
with a bigger angle, seem to fall back from from the observer. He would
measure this, as if theese objects are pacing away in any direction,
faster
if more distant.
[end quote]



What does it mean: "objects with a bigger angle"?

-Howard


Its a picture of a modell leaving out one (lenght) dimension. (It is too
difficult to imagine something in four dimensions):

the 'Minkowski-space' has in this picture the form of a cone. The tip of the
cone is heading to the starting point, apparently the 'big-bang'.
The observer is moving in the centre of that cone.
The point in time named 'now' defined by the observer, could be visualized
by the circle area at the end of the cone.

When an object moves through space and time, it drags a line (worldline). If
the theory of the big-bang is true, many world-lines would have the same
starting point. As time goes on, they are moving in strait lines apart,
having an angle according to their distance between them.
If the speed of light c is constant, the worldline of a distant object is
less fast compared to the observer (something like cos alpha, but a bit more
complicated), since it moves into an other direction (with light-speed).
When the object is recognized ( it reaches the level of the observation,
that is the time 'now', definded by the observer), it has moved a bit more
outside than expected (it had more time to go). That would an observer
interpret, as if the object is moving apart.


best regards

Thomas Heger

"Mike" wrote in message oups.com...

Dirk Van de moortel wrote:
"Dastardly Fiend" wrote in message ...

"Thomas Heger" wrote in message
...

"Dastardly Fiend"
(Fiend: devil; demon; evil; mischief maker; one who is crazy about, one
who is addicted to
Dastardly: adj. mean, sneaky; cowardly )

Yeah.. I proudly bear the name given me by Sleepyhead when he openly
admitted I had faulted his logic. I like a chap who can do that.

Androcles and logic:
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/di...Gibberish.html

Dirk Vdm

Hey imbecile Dork, I am waiting for your answer on another thread.

| Einstein (and Relativity): if x - c t = 0 AND x' - c t' = 0 then the
| transformation betweem the twe two is linear and given by:
|
| x' - c t' = L ( x - c t )
|
| Since Valev is too much of an imbecile and coward to make
| the exercises I gave him, here is an exercise for another imbecile
| and coward using the names Mike, Eleatis, Bill Smith, and Undeniable:
|
| Explain in detail the meanings of all the variables in the 3 equations
| you have just written down.

I'm waiting for you to make the exercise on that same thread ;-)

Dirk Vdm

"Thomas Heger" wrote in message
...

"Bill Hobba" schrieb im Newsbeitrag
...

"Thomas Heger" wrote in message
...


I distinguish between 'space' and 'the universe'.

The above is not physics - it is philosophy. The meaning of the terms
in physics is well understood.

Bill

Hallo Bill

what is bad about philosophy?


Nothing - but it is not physics. Unless it is specifically is about the
philosopshy of relativity here is not really the best place to post.
Physics has already decided what space and universe means so discussion
about it are pretty pointless as far a physics is concerned.


To find out, how they decided, I asked Wikipedia (as in most cases for the
first try)

[quote Wikipedia about universe]

.... A fundamental aspect of the Big Bang can be seen today in the
observation that the farther away from us galaxies are, the faster they
move away from us.

That is not the definition of Universe which is what you were discussing.
To be precise you stated. - 'The universe is something like an event, since
it started its existence very long ago, but in a finite
time. 'Space' is the stage for this event.' The formation of the universe
according to current theory can in some approximations be considered an
'event' - but that does not make the universe an event any more than the
fact a car is made in a factory makes a car a factory. Secondly when the
universe formed it created space and time - speace did not even exist to be
the stage for it.


[end quote]

[quote from myself]
With some geometry, you could see, that objects
with a bigger angle, seem to fall back from from the observer. He would
measure this, as if theese objects are pacing away in any direction,
faster
if more distant.
[end quote]

In my eyes, what I wrote could explain that. Are there other or better
explanations for that?

Explaatiopn for what?


I don't think you are wright, that physics has a clear concept about the
universe


Simply acquaint yourself with a dictionary -
Universe - All matter and energy, including the earth, the galaxies, and the
contents of intergalactic space, regarded as a whole.


[quote Wikipedia- 'the universe']
...
An important open question of cosmology is the shape of the universe.
Mathematically, which 3-manifold is the universe?

So?

Firstly, whether the universe is flat, i.e. whether the rules of Euclidean
geometry are valid on the largest scales, is unknown.

Astronomers are pretty sure the Universe is flat.
http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/que...php?number=171

But you believe the universe was an event. How can an event be flat?

Bill


...

[end quote]

best regards



thomas Heger

Bill Hobba wrote:
"Thomas Heger" wrote in message
...

"Bill Hobba" schrieb im Newsbeitrag
...

"Thomas Heger" wrote in message
...


I distinguish between 'space' and 'the universe'.

The above is not physics - it is philosophy. The meaning of the terms
in physics is well understood.

Bill

Hallo Bill

what is bad about philosophy?


Nothing - but it is not physics. Unless it is specifically is about the
philosopshy of relativity here is not really the best place to post.
Physics has already decided what space and universe means so discussion
about it are pretty pointless as far a physics is concerned.


To find out, how they decided, I asked Wikipedia (as in most cases for the
first try)

[quote Wikipedia about universe]

.... A fundamental aspect of the Big Bang can be seen today in the
observation that the farther away from us galaxies are, the faster they
move away from us.

That is not the definition of Universe which is what you were discussing.
To be precise you stated. - 'The universe is something like an event, since
it started its existence very long ago, but in a finite
time. 'Space' is the stage for this event.' The formation of the universe
according to current theory can in some approximations be considered an
'event' - but that does not make the universe an event any more than the
fact a car is made in a factory makes a car a factory. Secondly when the
universe formed it created space and time - speace did not even exist to be
the stage for it.


[end quote]

[quote from myself]
With some geometry, you could see, that objects
with a bigger angle, seem to fall back from from the observer. He would
measure this, as if theese objects are pacing away in any direction,
faster
if more distant.
[end quote]

In my eyes, what I wrote could explain that. Are there other or better
explanations for that?

for what?

for Explaatiopn



I don't think you are wright, that physics has a clear concept about the
universe


Simply acquaint yourself with a dictionary -
Universe - All matter and energy, including the earth, the galaxies, and the
contents of intergalactic space, regarded as a whole.


[quote Wikipedia- 'the universe']
...
An important open question of cosmology is the shape of the universe.
Mathematically, which 3-manifold is the universe?

So?

Firstly, whether the universe is flat, i.e. whether the rules of Euclidean
geometry are valid on the largest scales, is unknown.

Astronomers are pretty sure the Universe is flat.
http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/que...php?number=171

But you believe the universe was an event. How can an event be flat?

Bill


...

[end quote]

best regards



thomas Heger

"Thomas Heger" wrote in message
...

"Dastardly Fiend" schrieb im Newsbeitrag
...

"Thomas Heger" wrote in message
...

"Dastardly Fiend"
(Fiend: devil; demon; evil; mischief maker; one who is crazy about, one
who is addicted to
Dastardly: adj. mean, sneaky; cowardly )

Hy Androcles
thats what my online-translator spit out, I thought, You would like it ..
:-))

Yeah.. I proudly bear the name given me by Sleepyhead when he openly
admitted I had faulted his logic. I like a chap who can do that. I am
sneaky
and devilish. I'm not a coward, though. It went down like this:


"Sleepyhead" wrote in message
oups.com...
Ah well I guess that's the problem with insults. As soon as you make a
mistake you're exposed for the idiotic pillock you truly are!

Just curious, you understand, but to whom are you addressing your
remarks?
It seems a waste of a good insult if the recipient isn't aware...
Isn't that a mistake?
What did you say happens to those that make mistakes? Exposed...?
Androcles.

Its very difficult, to get an imagination of a person, when you have only
written text as hint.
I try to scan pictures in my mind for one that fits. I have some ideas,
but don't want to discuss that here.

And it continues:
Just curious, you understand, but to whom are you addressing your
remarks?

They were levelled at Traveler. As far as I can tell he's the only
****** apart from me who's posting to this thread!

Ok... many people read threads and make no reply.


It seems a waste of a good insult if the recipient isn't aware...

Too true.

Isn't that a mistake?

Probably.

What did you say happens to those that make mistakes? Exposed...?

I did, I did. You dastardly fiend. You've tangled me in mine own logic
and now I am exposed as a fraud, and a fraud desperate for attention to
boot.

* sigh *

I know when I'm not wanted. ; )

Stick around, I like someone unafraid of logic, willing to accept a minor
point and grin. That closes the matter most excellently, it is a great
pity there are not more like you. Please include some form of address
next time. If posting from Google, you can select "show options" and
then "Reply", the original text will be included. Mozilla I can't help
with.

With regards,
Dastardly Fiend.


I'm using outlook-express, not very comfortable, but I'm used to that.
You can see me on one of my websites: www.mondrago.de
(there you can't find anything about physics, its just an older private
homepage)
One day, I want to publish something, but its not ready now.
An other website is www.hegus.de (about software, that I produce)

Hy Androcles
you made me happy. I tell you in April why
Thomas Heger

Now that is cowardly. I said ask Cassini the time NOW (and next late
April).

Androcles.

This is the magic of the internet. I had a difficult question and nobody
around to even understand it, typed it into this forum and got an answer a
few houres later. The question was: is the idea somehow new? When You
regard it as crap, so it is at least not common sense.
btw: what do You think about, what I have written?
I have no idea, what could mean, giving the 'space' four dimensions of
time, but it could solve my discomfort I had with Minkowski-space.

thomas heger

Whatever you are dreaming, you'll have to express it mathematically.
Ask Cassini the time.
Start with "What is Cassini?"
Where is Cassini?

Androcles.





It's crap...
Ask Cassini the time, now and next late April, and you'll see why.
Androcles.