It is confusing and error prone therefore knowing that a linear chart
of redshfit observation vs distance(hubble) represents a fixed
expansion rate of space.

And knowing that instead if both curved ends (past & present ends) are
below the linear then it represents an accelerating expansion rate.

(linear means a chart with a linear straight slope increasing
gradually as it is plotted from present to past distances)

As above but instead:

1. What would a decelerating chart of the expansion rate look like?

2. What if the past distance is curved above the linear and the
present distance is curved below the linear?

3. What if both past and present are curved above the linear?

4. What if past is curved below and present curved above?

On Jul 4, 2:41 am, " wrote:
It is confusing and error prone therefore knowing that a linear chart
of redshfit observation vs distance(hubble) represents a fixed
expansion rate of space.

And knowing that instead if both curved ends (past & present ends) are
below the linear then it represents an accelerating expansion rate.

(linear means a chart with a linear straight slope increasing
gradually as it is plotted from present to past distances)

As above but instead:

1. What would a decelerating chart of the expansion rate look like?

2. What if the past distance is curved above the linear and the
present distance is curved below the linear?

3. What if both past and present are curved above the linear?

4. What if past is curved below and present curved above?

How much physics is there left for you to deliberately not understand?

On Jul 4, 8:07 am, Eric Gisse wrote:
On Jul 4, 2:41 am, " wrote:





It is confusing and error prone therefore knowing that a linear chart
of redshfit observation vs distance(hubble) represents a fixed
expansion rate of space.

And knowing that instead if both curved ends (past & present ends) are
below the linear then it represents an accelerating expansion rate.

(linear means a chart with a linear straight slope increasing
gradually as it is plotted from present to past distances)

As above but instead:

1. What would a decelerating chart of the expansion rate look like?

2. What if the past distance is curved above the linear and the
present distance is curved below the linear?

3. What if both past and present are curved above the linear?

4. What if past is curved below and present curved above?

How much physics is there left for you to deliberately not understand?- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I guess you can only throw insults since the only time you opend your
beak was about tempurature and tensors which me, others and Wikipedia
told you that you were incorrect.

On Jul 4, 8:54 pm, " wrote:
On Jul 4, 8:07 am, Eric Gisse wrote:





On Jul 4, 2:41 am, " wrote:

It is confusing and error prone therefore knowing that a linear chart
of redshfit observation vs distance(hubble) represents a fixed
expansion rate of space.

And knowing that instead if both curved ends (past & present ends) are
below the linear then it represents an accelerating expansion rate.

(linear means a chart with a linear straight slope increasing
gradually as it is plotted from present to past distances)

As above but instead:

1. What would a decelerating chart of the expansion rate look like?

2. What if the past distance is curved above the linear and the
present distance is curved below the linear?

3. What if both past and present are curved above the linear?

4. What if past is curved below and present curved above?

How much physics is there left for you to deliberately not understand?- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I guess you can only throw insults since the only time you opend your
beak was about tempurature and tensors which me, others and Wikipedia
told you that you were incorrect.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

By the way, you promised you would justify your incorrect belief on
temperature in July.

Let me conclude the reply to all the blind answers you will concure,
THERE IS BOTH AN INVARIANT AND RELATIVISTIC TEMPERATURE YOUR ERROR IS
YOU ARE TRYING TO INPUT YOUR DEDUCTION ON THE WRONG ONE OF THE TWO.

Even the spacetime manifold itself and mass are tensors.

On Jul 4, 5:16 pm, " wrote:
On Jul 4, 8:54 pm, " wrote:



On Jul 4, 8:07 am, wrote:

On Jul 4, 2:41 am, " wrote:

It is confusing and error prone therefore knowing that a linear chart
of redshfit observation vs distance(hubble) represents a fixed
expansion rate of space.

And knowing that instead if both curved ends (past & present ends) are
below the linear then it represents an accelerating expansion rate.

(linear means a chart with a linear straight slope increasing
gradually as it is plotted from present to past distances)

As above but instead:

1. What would a decelerating chart of the expansion rate look like?

2. What if the past distance is curved above the linear and the
present distance is curved below the linear?

3. What if both past and present are curved above the linear?

4. What if past is curved below and present curved above?

How much physics is there left for you to deliberately not understand?- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I guess you can only throw insults since the only time you opend your
beak was about tempurature and tensors which me, others and Wikipedia
told you that you were incorrect.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

By the way, you promised you would justify your incorrect belief on
temperature in July.

The argument is the same in July as it was in April.

http://groups.google.com/group/sci.p...2?dmode=source

Since not once in three months have you actually argued against my
line of reasoning, I will simply assume you don't know any
thermodynamics. That is consistent with your utter inability to
understand any other classical physics, or any modern physics.


Let me conclude the reply to all the blind answers you will concure,
THERE IS BOTH AN INVARIANT AND RELATIVISTIC TEMPERATURE YOUR ERROR IS
YOU ARE TRYING TO INPUT YOUR DEDUCTION ON THE WRONG ONE OF THE TWO.

Temperature is not an invariant, as the reference I gave you in April
explicitly explains and whose proof is derived from first principles.


Even the spacetime manifold itself and mass are tensors.

Knowing the words is not understanding the words. You are yet to
demonstrate any knowledge of the concepts behind what you routinely
attempt to discuss.

On Jul 4, 10:14 pm, Eric Gisse wrote:
On Jul 4, 5:16 pm, " wrote:





On Jul 4, 8:54 pm, " wrote:

On Jul 4, 8:07 am, wrote:

On Jul 4, 2:41 am, " wrote:

It is confusing and error prone therefore knowing that a linear chart
of redshfit observation vs distance(hubble) represents a fixed
expansion rate of space.

And knowing that instead if both curved ends (past & present ends) are
below the linear then it represents an accelerating expansion rate.

(linear means a chart with a linear straight slope increasing
gradually as it is plotted from present to past distances)

As above but instead:

1. What would a decelerating chart of the expansion rate look like?

2. What if the past distance is curved above the linear and the
present distance is curved below the linear?

3. What if both past and present are curved above the linear?

4. What if past is curved below and present curved above?

How much physics is there left for you to deliberately not understand?- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I guess you can only throw insults since the only time you opend your
beak was about tempurature and tensors which me, others and Wikipedia
told you that you were incorrect.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

By the way, you promised you would justify your incorrect belief on
temperature in July.

The argument is the same in July as it was in April.

http://groups.google.com/group/sci.p...sg/8ec41d88e75...

snip

Let me conclude the reply to all the blind answers you will concure,
THERE IS BOTH AN INVARIANT AND RELATIVISTIC TEMPERATURE YOUR ERROR IS
YOU ARE TRYING TO INPUT YOUR DEDUCTION ON THE WRONG ONE OF THE TWO.

Temperature is not an invariant, as the reference I gave you in April
explicitly explains and whose proof is derived from first principles.


Your words at the link you gave:
"Equating dS and dS' gives T' = sqrt(1 - v^2/c^2) T. A tensor is
invariant under a coordinate transformation - T does not qualify."

Likewise:

"Equating E and E' gives M' = sqrt(1 - v^2/c^2) M. Does this mean M
is not an invariant scalar under coordinate transformation? You're
taking drugs.

You will never admit to being wrong, you already lied that you never
said that Wikipedia was wrong. You're not arguing just with me, you
are arguing with Wikipedia which says Temperature (and Mass) is a rank
0 tensor.

THE VERY SUBJECT ON TENSORS (THEREFORE NOT JUST AN OFF TOPIC COMMENT)
SAYS:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tensor
Copied and Pasted Quote: "For example, mass, temperature, and other
scalar quantities are tensors of rank 0"

On Jul 4, 10:14 pm, Eric Gisse wrote:
On Jul 4, 5:16 pm, " wrote:





On Jul 4, 8:54 pm, " wrote:

On Jul 4, 8:07 am, wrote:

On Jul 4, 2:41 am, " wrote:

It is confusing and error prone therefore knowing that a linear chart
of redshfit observation vs distance(hubble) represents a fixed
expansion rate of space.

And knowing that instead if both curved ends (past & present ends) are
below the linear then it represents an accelerating expansion rate.

(linear means a chart with a linear straight slope increasing
gradually as it is plotted from present to past distances)

As above but instead:

1. What would a decelerating chart of the expansion rate look like?

2. What if the past distance is curved above the linear and the
present distance is curved below the linear?

3. What if both past and present are curved above the linear?

4. What if past is curved below and present curved above?

How much physics is there left for you to deliberately not understand?- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I guess you can only throw insults since the only time you opend your
beak was about tempurature and tensors which me, others and Wikipedia
told you that you were incorrect.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

By the way, you promised you would justify your incorrect belief on
temperature in July.

The argument is the same in July as it was in April.



I'm still laughing inside out. Ever since the broken magnets
thereafter you just kept insulting, like a dog who stopped looking and
for some reason that only you know why, the only time the dog started
sniffing around and actually reading was about the temperature /
tensor posting.

On Jul 4, 10:14 pm, Eric Gisse wrote:
On Jul 4, 5:16 pm, " wrote:

The argument is the same in July as it was in April.

http://groups.google.com/group/sci.p...sg/8ec41d88e75...


I'm still laughing inside out. Ever since the broken magnets
thereafter you just kept insulting, like a dog who stopped looking and
for some reason that only you know why, the only time the dog started
sniffing around and actually reading was about the temperature /
tensor posting.

On Jul 4, 10:14 pm, Eric Gisse wrote:


On Jul 4, 5:16 pm, " wrote:
The argument is the same in July as it was in April.

http://groups.google.com/group/sci.p...sg/8ec41d88e75...



I'm still laughing inside out. Ever since the broken magnets
thereafter you just kept insulting, like a dog who stopped looking and
for some reason that only you know why, the only time the dog started
sniffing around and actually reading was about the temperature /
tensor posting.

On Jul 5, 2:09 am, " wrote:
On Jul 4, 10:14 pm, Eric Gisse wrote:

On Jul 4, 5:16 pm, " wrote:

On Jul 4, 8:54 pm, " wrote:

On Jul 4, 8:07 am, wrote:

On Jul 4, 2:41 am, " wrote:

It is confusing and error prone therefore knowing that a linear chart
of redshfit observation vs distance(hubble) represents a fixed
expansion rate of space.

And knowing that instead if both curved ends (past & present ends) are
below the linear then it represents an accelerating expansion rate.

(linear means a chart with a linear straight slope increasing
gradually as it is plotted from present to past distances)

As above but instead:

1. What would a decelerating chart of the expansion rate look like?

2. What if the past distance is curved above the linear and the
present distance is curved below the linear?

3. What if both past and present are curved above the linear?

4. What if past is curved below and present curved above?

How much physics is there left for you to deliberately not understand?- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I guess you can only throw insults since the only time you opend your
beak was about tempurature and tensors which me, others and Wikipedia
told you that you were incorrect.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

By the way, you promised you would justify your incorrect belief on
temperature in July.

The argument is the same in July as it was in April.

http://groups.google.com/group/sci.p...sg/8ec41d88e75...

snip

Let me conclude the reply to all the blind answers you will concure,
THERE IS BOTH AN INVARIANT AND RELATIVISTIC TEMPERATURE YOUR ERROR IS
YOU ARE TRYING TO INPUT YOUR DEDUCTION ON THE WRONG ONE OF THE TWO.

Temperature is not an invariant, as the reference I gave you in April
explicitly explains and whose proof is derived from first principles.

Your words at the link you gave:
"Equating dS and dS' gives T' = sqrt(1 - v^2/c^2) T. A tensor is
invariant under a coordinate transformation - T does not qualify."

Likewise:

"Equating E and E' gives M' = sqrt(1 - v^2/c^2) M. Does this mean M
is not an invariant scalar under coordinate transformation? You're
taking drugs.

Why are you trying to make a statement about the invariance of an
object by comparing two frame dependent quantities?


You will never admit to being wrong, you already lied that you never
said that Wikipedia was wrong. You're not arguing just with me, you
are arguing with Wikipedia which says Temperature (and Mass) is a rank
0 tensor.

So what?

You have no education in physics.


THE VERY SUBJECT ON TENSORS (THEREFORE NOT JUST AN OFF TOPIC COMMENT)
SAYS:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tensor
Copied and Pasted Quote: "For example, mass, temperature, and other
scalar quantities are tensors of rank 0"

Wikipedia is wrong. It really isn't complicated.

I have edited it to be more clear on the subject.