Discussion:
'SPACE CANNOT EVEN BE **detected ** IF THERE IS NO some MASS IN IT !!' !!
(too old to reply)
Eleftherios Papageorgiou
2015-05-24 10:41:33 UTC
Permalink
'SPACE CANNOT EVEN BE **detected ** IF THERE IS NO some MASS IN IT !!'
!!'2 let us even FORGET ABOUT THINKING about **doing anything or
even something **done** with it
IF IT IS NOT BEEN DETECTED (without mass )
Wave around a big stick. If it doesn't hit anything, you've detected
some space.
Common error done by women. What you'll detect would be EMPTY space, or
very thin. As space and time exists everywhere. I hardly see where space
and time would end, except "black holes".
Eleftherios Papageorgiou
2015-05-24 10:45:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by Eleftherios Papageorgiou
'SPACE CANNOT EVEN BE **detected ** IF THERE IS NO some MASS IN IT !!'
!!'2 let us even FORGET ABOUT THINKING about **doing anything or
even something **done** with it
IF IT IS NOT BEEN DETECTED (without mass )
Wave around a big stick. If it doesn't hit anything, you've detected
some space.
Common error done by women. What you'll detect would be EMPTY space, or
very thin. As space and time exists everywhere. I hardly see where space
and time would end, except "black holes".
Actually not even there, but at the boundaries of the allegedly
postulated never observed singularities.
Y.Porat
2015-05-24 11:33:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by Eleftherios Papageorgiou
'SPACE CANNOT EVEN BE **detected ** IF THERE IS NO some MASS IN IT !!'
!!'2 let us even FORGET ABOUT THINKING about **doing anything or
even something **done** with it
IF IT IS NOT BEEN DETECTED (without mass )
Wave around a big stick. If it doesn't hit anything, you've detected
some space.
--------------------------
(:-)

what is a big stick doing there ??
a gig stick is make of ????
and BTW who is the one that is waving that stick
what is he made of ??....

BTW how old are yo (:-)
next !!!

ATB
Y.Porat
====================
Post by Eleftherios Papageorgiou
Common error done by women. What you'll detect would be EMPTY space, or
very thin. As space and time exists everywhere. I hardly see where space
and time would end, except "black holes".
Sylvia Else
2015-05-24 13:06:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by Eleftherios Papageorgiou
'SPACE CANNOT EVEN BE **detected ** IF THERE IS NO some MASS IN IT !!'
!!'2 let us even FORGET ABOUT THINKING about **doing anything or
even something **done** with it
IF IT IS NOT BEEN DETECTED (without mass )
Wave around a big stick. If it doesn't hit anything, you've detected
some space.
Common error done by women. What you'll detect would be EMPTY space,
Whereas you're offering yourself as an example of linguistic competence
in men?

Space would be detected, which contradicts "space cannot even be
detected..." as was my point.

Sylvia.
Y.Porat
2015-05-24 14:14:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by Sylvia Else
Post by Eleftherios Papageorgiou
'SPACE CANNOT EVEN BE **detected ** IF THERE IS NO some MASS IN IT !!'
!!'2 let us even FORGET ABOUT THINKING about **doing anything or
even something **done** with it
IF IT IS NOT BEEN DETECTED (without mass )
Wave around a big stick. If it doesn't hit anything, you've detected
some space.
Common error done by women. What you'll detect would be EMPTY space,
Whereas you're offering yourself as an example of linguistic competence
in men?
Space would be detected, which contradicts "space cannot even be
detected..." as was my point.
Sylvia.
=======================
thank you
yet now
please speak Physics arguments

TIA
Y.Porat
============================
nuny@bid.nes
2015-05-24 16:06:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by Sylvia Else
Post by Eleftherios Papageorgiou
'SPACE CANNOT EVEN BE **detected ** IF THERE IS NO some MASS IN IT !!'
!!'2 let us even FORGET ABOUT THINKING about **doing anything or
even something **done** with it
IF IT IS NOT BEEN DETECTED (without mass )
Wave around a big stick. If it doesn't hit anything, you've detected
some space.
Common error done by women. What you'll detect would be EMPTY space,
Whereas you're offering yourself as an example of linguistic competence
in men?
Nice anti-sexism smackdown, but irrelevant...
Post by Sylvia Else
Space would be detected, which contradicts "space cannot even be
detected..." as was my point.
You don't need a stick (which is mass, which I think was related to the claim you were disputing). Just pick two points, shine a light from one to the other, and time its passage. If it takes zero time there's no space; otherwise there is. No matter required.


Mark L. Fergerson
Y.Porat
2015-05-24 16:14:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by ***@bid.nes
Post by Sylvia Else
Post by Eleftherios Papageorgiou
'SPACE CANNOT EVEN BE **detected ** IF THERE IS NO some MASS IN IT !!'
!!'2 let us even FORGET ABOUT THINKING about **doing anything or
even something **done** with it
IF IT IS NOT BEEN DETECTED (without mass )
Wave around a big stick. If it doesn't hit anything, you've detected
some space.
Common error done by women. What you'll detect would be EMPTY space,
Whereas you're offering yourself as an example of linguistic competence
in men?
Nice anti-sexism smackdown, but irrelevant...
Post by Sylvia Else
Space would be detected, which contradicts "space cannot even be
detected..." as was my point.
You don't need a stick (which is mass, which I think was related to the claim you were disputing). Just pick two points,
===========================
(:-)
two point composed of what ??

TIA
Y.Porat
==============================


shine a light from one to the other, and time its passage. If it takes zero time there's no space; otherwise there is. No matter required.
Post by ***@bid.nes
Mark L. Fergerson
nuny@bid.nes
2015-05-24 20:16:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by Y.Porat
Post by ***@bid.nes
Post by Sylvia Else
Post by Eleftherios Papageorgiou
'SPACE CANNOT EVEN BE **detected ** IF THERE IS NO some MASS IN IT !!'
!!'2 let us even FORGET ABOUT THINKING about **doing anything or
even something **done** with it
IF IT IS NOT BEEN DETECTED (without mass )
Wave around a big stick. If it doesn't hit anything, you've detected
some space.
Common error done by women. What you'll detect would be EMPTY space,
Whereas you're offering yourself as an example of linguistic competence
in men?
Nice anti-sexism smackdown, but irrelevant...
Post by Sylvia Else
Space would be detected, which contradicts "space cannot even be
detected..." as was my point.
You don't need a stick (which is mass, which I think was related to the
claim you were disputing). Just pick two points,
===========================
(:-)
two point composed of what ??
"Two "points" here is shorthand for "two places".
Post by Y.Porat
shine a light from one to the other, and time its passage. If it takes zero
time there's no space; otherwise there is. No matter required.
If you pick two places on different sides of a transparent container from which all matter has been excluded (it's full of vacuum), then light will take the amount of time required to traverse the walls of the container (less than c depending on the refractive index of the container) plus the time required to cross the distance between the interior surfaces of the walls.

The bigger the container the longer light takes to traverse it, despite there being no matter within. That's detecting space.


Mark L. Fergerson
Y.Porat
2015-05-25 04:32:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by ***@bid.nes
Post by Y.Porat
Post by ***@bid.nes
Post by Sylvia Else
Post by Eleftherios Papageorgiou
'SPACE CANNOT EVEN BE **detected ** IF THERE IS NO some MASS IN IT !!'
!!'2 let us even FORGET ABOUT THINKING about **doing anything or
even something **done** with it
IF IT IS NOT BEEN DETECTED (without mass )
Wave around a big stick. If it doesn't hit anything, you've detected
some space.
Common error done by women. What you'll detect would be EMPTY space,
Whereas you're offering yourself as an example of linguistic competence
in men?
Nice anti-sexism smackdown, but irrelevant...
Post by Sylvia Else
Space would be detected, which contradicts "space cannot even be
detected..." as was my point.
You don't need a stick (which is mass, which I think was related to the
claim you were disputing). Just pick two points,
===========================
(:-)
two point composed of what ??
"Two "points" here is shorthand for "two places".
============================
dont you understand that without mass in space
you cnant measure anything ??
-----------
Post by ***@bid.nes
Post by Y.Porat
shine a light from one to the other, and time its passage. If it takes zero
==============
you cant even measure time
if there is no mass involved
Post by ***@bid.nes
Post by Y.Porat
time there's no space; otherwise there is. No matter required.
(:-)
Y.P
===================================
nuny@bid.nes
2015-05-25 09:47:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by Y.Porat
Post by ***@bid.nes
Post by Y.Porat
Post by ***@bid.nes
Post by Sylvia Else
Post by Eleftherios Papageorgiou
'SPACE CANNOT EVEN BE **detected ** IF THERE IS NO some MASS IN
IT !!'
!!'2 let us even FORGET ABOUT THINKING about **doing anything or
even something **done** with it
IF IT IS NOT BEEN DETECTED (without mass )
Wave around a big stick. If it doesn't hit anything, you've
detected some space.
Common error done by women. What you'll detect would be EMPTY space,
Whereas you're offering yourself as an example of linguistic
competence in men?
Nice anti-sexism smackdown, but irrelevant...
Post by Sylvia Else
Space would be detected, which contradicts "space cannot even be
detected..." as was my point.
You don't need a stick (which is mass, which I think was related to
the claim you were disputing). Just pick two points,
===========================
(:-)
two point composed of what ??
"Two "points" here is shorthand for "two places".
============================
dont you understand that without mass in space
you cnant measure anything ??
I understand your words but you are wrong.
Post by Y.Porat
Post by ***@bid.nes
Post by Y.Porat
shine a light from one to the other, and time its passage. If it takes zero
==============
you cant even measure time
if there is no mass involved
Of course I can measure how long light takes to pass between two places with no mass between them. Why do you insist that it's impossible?

If you were right, vacuum containers could not exist; as the contents were pumped out the container would have to collapse, and that doesn't happen if the container is engineered properly.

Do you believe there's no space between galaxies? There sure ain't much matter out there.
Post by Y.Porat
Post by ***@bid.nes
Post by Y.Porat
time there's no space; otherwise there is. No matter required.
Mark L. Fergerson
Y.Porat
2015-05-25 12:37:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by ***@bid.nes
Post by Y.Porat
Post by ***@bid.nes
Post by Y.Porat
Post by ***@bid.nes
Post by Sylvia Else
Post by Eleftherios Papageorgiou
'SPACE CANNOT EVEN BE **detected ** IF THERE IS NO some MASS IN
IT !!'
!!'2 let us even FORGET ABOUT THINKING about **doing anything or
even something **done** with it
IF IT IS NOT BEEN DETECTED (without mass )
Wave around a big stick. If it doesn't hit anything, you've
detected some space.
Common error done by women. What you'll detect would be EMPTY space,
Whereas you're offering yourself as an example of linguistic
competence in men?
Nice anti-sexism smackdown, but irrelevant...
Post by Sylvia Else
Space would be detected, which contradicts "space cannot even be
detected..." as was my point.
You don't need a stick (which is mass, which I think was related to
the claim you were disputing). Just pick two points,
===========================
(:-)
two point composed of what ??
"Two "points" here is shorthand for "two places".
============================
dont you understand that without mass in space
you cnant measure anything ??
I understand your words but you are wrong.
Post by Y.Porat
Post by ***@bid.nes
Post by Y.Porat
shine a light from one to the other, and time its passage. If it takes zero
==============
you cant even measure time
if there is no mass involved
Of course I can measure how long light takes to pass between two places with no mass between them. Why do you insist that it's impossible?
(:-_)

how can you detect places in space
that has no mass in it
you can measure the angle between two beams that

**you sent '
but you cant measure
THE DISTANCE FROM YOU TO THOSE 'PLACES ''

-if your beam will meet**nothing** on its way !

you see the problem with to many physicists here
that do not master the 3D world
(not thinking 3 D )

TIA
Y.Porat
====================
Post by ***@bid.nes
If you were right, vacuum containers could not exist; as the contents were pumped out the container would have to collapse, and that doesn't happen if the container is engineered properly.
Do you believe there's no space between galaxies? There sure ain't much matter out there.
=======================
did i say that the ''there is no space between galaxies ''??
that space can be detected **only because** those galaxies *******have mass*****
right ??
=====================

TIA
Y.Porat
=================================
Post by ***@bid.nes
Mark L. Fergerson
Y.Porat
2015-05-25 15:22:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by Y.Porat
Post by ***@bid.nes
Post by Y.Porat
Post by ***@bid.nes
Post by Y.Porat
Post by ***@bid.nes
Post by Sylvia Else
Post by Eleftherios Papageorgiou
'SPACE CANNOT EVEN BE **detected ** IF THERE IS NO some MASS IN
IT !!'
!!'2 let us even FORGET ABOUT THINKING about **doing anything or
even something **done** with it
IF IT IS NOT BEEN DETECTED (without mass )
Wave around a big stick. If it doesn't hit anything, you've
detected some space.
Common error done by women. What you'll detect would be EMPTY space,
Whereas you're offering yourself as an example of linguistic
competence in men?
Nice anti-sexism smackdown, but irrelevant...
Post by Sylvia Else
Space would be detected, which contradicts "space cannot even be
detected..." as was my point.
You don't need a stick (which is mass, which I think was related to
the claim you were disputing). Just pick two points,
===========================
(:-)
two point composed of what ??
"Two "points" here is shorthand for "two places".
============================
dont you understand that without mass in space
you cnant measure anything ??
I understand your words but you are wrong.
Post by Y.Porat
Post by ***@bid.nes
Post by Y.Porat
shine a light from one to the other, and time its passage. If it takes
zero
==============
you cant even measure time
if there is no mass involved
Of course I can measure how long light takes to pass between two places with no mass between them. Why do you insist that it's impossible?
(:-_)
how can you detect places in space
that has no mass in it
you can measure the angle between two beams that
**you sent '
but you cant measure
THE DISTANCE FROM YOU TO THOSE 'PLACES ''
-if your beam will meet**nothing** on its way !
you see the problem with to many physicists here
that do not master the 3D world
(not thinking 3 D )
TIA
Y.Porat
====================
Post by ***@bid.nes
If you were right, vacuum containers could not exist; as the contents were pumped out the container would have to collapse, and that doesn't happen if the container is engineered properly.
Do you believe there's no space between galaxies? There sure ain't much matter out there.
=======================
did i say that the ''there is no space between galaxies ''??
that space can be detected **only because** those galaxies *******have mass*****
right ??
=====================
TIA
Y.Porat
=================================
Post by ***@bid.nes
Mark L. Fergerson
========================
BTW Mark

DID IT OCCUR TO YOU THAT
THE PHOTONS IN THE ABOVE BEAMS
THAT YO USED FOR YOUR EXPERIMENT CLAIM

**HAS MASS ???(THE ONLY MASS .......!!!!!

so actually you used mass in space
even here
with out noticing it !!
===================================
NO MASS - THE ONLY MASS - NO REAL PHYSICS !
===========================================
will you remember that powerful new basic physics law ??

TIA
Y.Porat
=======================================
nuny@bid.nes
2015-05-25 23:03:04 UTC
Permalink
(snip because I'm tired of fixing Google Groups' screwing up the indents)
Post by ***@bid.nes
Post by ***@bid.nes
Post by Y.Porat
you cant even measure time
if there is no mass involved
Of course I can measure how long light takes to pass between two places
with no mass between them. Why do you insist that it's impossible?
how can you detect places in space
that has no mass in it
I'm not "detecting" them, I'm placing a light source at one and a detector at another.
Post by ***@bid.nes
you can measure the angle between two beams that
**you sent '
but you cant measure
Not two beams, just one.
Post by ***@bid.nes
THE DISTANCE FROM YOU TO THOSE 'PLACES ''
I don't have to, I can stand next to one of them.

The distance I'm measuring is between the source and detector.
Post by ***@bid.nes
-if your beam will meet**nothing** on its way !
I expect it to meet nothing, otherwise I wouldn't detect it.
Post by ***@bid.nes
you see the problem with to many physicists here
that do not master the 3D world
(not thinking 3 D )
3D thinking is not required here.
Post by ***@bid.nes
Post by ***@bid.nes
If you were right, vacuum containers could not exist; as the contents
were pumped out the container would have to collapse, and that doesn't
happen if the container is engineered properly.
Do you believe there's no space between galaxies? There sure ain't much
matter out there.
=======================
did i say that the ''there is no space between galaxies ''??
that space can be detected **only because** those galaxies *******have mass*****
So what? The light that we see them by passes through *empty space with no mass in it*, doesn't it? That's how we know there's space there.
Post by ***@bid.nes
right ??
No.


Mark L. Fergerson
Y.Porat
2015-05-26 04:44:47 UTC
Permalink
Post by ***@bid.nes
(snip because I'm tired of fixing Google Groups' screwing up the indents)
Post by ***@bid.nes
Post by ***@bid.nes
Post by Y.Porat
you cant even measure time
if there is no mass involved
Of course I can measure how long light takes to pass between two places
with no mass between them. Why do you insist that it's impossible?
how can you detect places in space
that has no mass in it
I'm not "detecting" them, I'm placing a light source at one and a detector at another.
Post by ***@bid.nes
you can measure the angle between two beams that
**you sent '
but you cant measure
Not two beams, just one.
Post by ***@bid.nes
THE DISTANCE FROM YOU TO THOSE 'PLACES ''
I don't have to, I can stand next to one of them.
The distance I'm measuring is between the source and detector.
Post by ***@bid.nes
-if your beam will meet**nothing** on its way !
I expect it to meet nothing, otherwise I wouldn't detect it.
Post by ***@bid.nes
you see the problem with to many physicists here
that do not master the 3D world
(not thinking 3 D )
3D thinking is not required here.
Post by ***@bid.nes
Post by ***@bid.nes
If you were right, vacuum containers could not exist; as the contents
were pumped out the container would have to collapse, and that doesn't
happen if the container is engineered properly.
Do you believe there's no space between galaxies? There sure ain't much
matter out there.
=======================
did i say that the ''there is no space between galaxies ''??
that space can be detected **only because** those galaxies *******have mass*****
So what? The light that we see them by passes through *empty space with no mass in it*, doesn't it? That's how we know there's space there.
Post by ***@bid.nes
right ??
No.
Mark L. Fergerson
=======================
Dear mark

DO YOU KNOW THAT THE LIGHT THAT YOU ARE USING FOR YOUR DETECTION OF SPACE
--HAS MASS ?? (AGAIN PHOTONS HAVE MASS !!)=
THE ONLY MASS ....
----------------------------
right ???

TIA
Y.Porat
==========================================
reber g=emc^2
2015-05-25 18:11:27 UTC
Permalink
Post by Y.Porat
Post by ***@bid.nes
Post by Y.Porat
Post by ***@bid.nes
Post by Sylvia Else
Post by Eleftherios Papageorgiou
'SPACE CANNOT EVEN BE **detected ** IF THERE IS NO some MASS IN IT !!'
!!'2 let us even FORGET ABOUT THINKING about **doing anything or
even something **done** with it
IF IT IS NOT BEEN DETECTED (without mass )
Wave around a big stick. If it doesn't hit anything, you've detected
some space.
Common error done by women. What you'll detect would be EMPTY space,
Whereas you're offering yourself as an example of linguistic competence
in men?
Nice anti-sexism smackdown, but irrelevant...
Post by Sylvia Else
Space would be detected, which contradicts "space cannot even be
detected..." as was my point.
You don't need a stick (which is mass, which I think was related to the
claim you were disputing). Just pick two points,
===========================
(:-)
two point composed of what ??
"Two "points" here is shorthand for "two places".
============================
dont you understand that without mass in space
you cnant measure anything ??
-----------
Post by ***@bid.nes
Post by Y.Porat
shine a light from one to the other, and time its passage. If it takes zero
==============
you cant even measure time
if there is no mass involved
Post by ***@bid.nes
Post by Y.Porat
time there's no space; otherwise there is. No matter required.
(:-)
Y.P
===================================
Photon's can have no mass and they are best for measuring.Porat try to kink before you post.TreBert
hanson
2015-05-25 19:23:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by reber g=emc^2
Post by Y.Porat
Post by ***@bid.nes
Post by Y.Porat
Post by ***@bid.nes
Post by Sylvia Else
Post by Eleftherios Papageorgiou
'SPACE CANNOT EVEN BE **detected ** IF THERE IS NO some MASS
IN IT !!'
!!'2 let us even FORGET ABOUT THINKING about **doing
anything or
even something **done** with it
IF IT IS NOT BEEN DETECTED (without mass )
Wave around a big stick. If it doesn't hit anything, you've
detected
some space.
Common error done by women. What you'll detect would be EMPTY space,
Whereas you're offering yourself as an example of linguistic competence
in men?
Nice anti-sexism smackdown, but irrelevant...
Post by Sylvia Else
Space would be detected, which contradicts "space cannot even be
detected..." as was my point.
You don't need a stick (which is mass, which I think was related to the
claim you were disputing). Just pick two points,
===========================
(:-)
two point composed of what ??
"Two "points" here is shorthand for "two places".
============================
dont you understand that without mass in space
you cnant measure anything ??
-----------
Post by ***@bid.nes
Post by Y.Porat
shine a light from one to the other, and time its passage. If it takes zero
==============
you cant even measure time
if there is no mass involved
Post by ***@bid.nes
Post by Y.Porat
time there's no space; otherwise there is. No matter required.
(:-)
Y.P
===================================
Photon's can have no mass and they are best for measuring.
Porat try to kink before you post.TreBert
hanson wrote:
Glazier you Swine, it is bad enough that your are kinky.
Don't tell others that they should become Face-shitters
and Graveyard Vandals like you are, you Swine.
Porat towers over you intellectually. He is self-sufficient
and has a House, while you are a Squatter, sleeping in
an old van, sponging off the govt, Food Stamps etc.
So, Glazier you Swine, you are the last one to give
advice to anybody, given that your own calling card says:
Un-American Swine Glazier wrote:
::B:: "I am a proud Jew with a Superiority complex &
::B:: an IQ of 122", & "I do know how every thing works,.."
::B:: "Being Jewish I know this is so very true" -- Bert.
::B:: ***** "Why am I not loved by all?" --- Bert *****
::B:: "Even the FBI has me as a trouble maker and
::B:: the FBI blocks my phone from calling them. "
::B:: "USA today is Nazi Germany 1937"
Y.Porat
2015-05-26 04:49:29 UTC
Permalink
On Monday, May 25, 2015 at 1 >> > > takes zero
Post by hanson
Post by reber g=emc^2
Post by Y.Porat
==============
you cant even measure time
if there is no mass involved
Post by ***@bid.nes
time there's no space; otherwise there is. No matter required.
(:-)
Y.P
===================================
Photon's can have no mass and they are best for measuring.
Porat try to kink before you post.TreBert
Glazier you Swine, it is bad enough that your are kinky.
Don't tell others that they should become Face-shitters
and Graveyard Vandals like you are, you Swine.
Porat towers over you intellectually. He is self-sufficient
and has a House, while you are a Squatter, sleeping in
an old van, sponging off the govt, Food Stamps etc.
So, Glazier you Swine, you are the last one to give
::B:: "I am a proud Jew with a Superiority complex &
::B:: an IQ of 122", & "I do know how every thing works,.."
::B:: "Being Jewish I know this is so very true" -- Bert.
::B:: ***** "Why am I not loved by all?" --- Bert *****
::B:: "Even the FBI has me as a trouble maker and
::B:: the FBI blocks my phone from calling them. "
::B:: "USA today is Nazi Germany 1937"
========================
thank you Hanson my fried
you are a brave Man
Y.Porat
=============================
HVAC
2015-05-26 10:43:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by reber g=emc^2
Photon's can have no mass and they are best for measuring.Porat try to kink before you post.TreBert
I always kink before I post. Just ask my girlfriend, Felony.
--
Cut off one head, two more shall take its place.
HAIL HYDRA!
http://youtu.be/FZcG5UOY224
benj
2015-05-24 16:45:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by ***@bid.nes
Post by Sylvia Else
Post by Eleftherios Papageorgiou
'SPACE CANNOT EVEN BE **detected ** IF THERE IS NO some MASS IN IT !!'
!!'2 let us even FORGET ABOUT THINKING about **doing anything or
even something **done** with it
IF IT IS NOT BEEN DETECTED (without mass )
Wave around a big stick. If it doesn't hit anything, you've detected
some space.
Common error done by women. What you'll detect would be EMPTY space,
Whereas you're offering yourself as an example of linguistic competence
in men?
Nice anti-sexism smackdown, but irrelevant...
Post by Sylvia Else
Space would be detected, which contradicts "space cannot even be
detected..." as was my point.
You don't need a stick (which is mass, which I think was related to the claim you were disputing). Just pick two points, shine a light from one to the other, and time its passage. If it takes zero time there's no space; otherwise there is. No matter required.
Mark L. Fergerson
Space is obviously detected by it's properties. Space has many
properties. Even Einstein said so.
--
___ ___ ___ ___
/\ \ /\ \ /\__\ /\ \
/::\ \ /::\ \ /::| | \:\ \
/:/\:\ \ /:/\:\ \ /:|:| | ___ /::\__\
/::\~\:\__\ /::\~\:\ \ /:/|:| |__ /\ /:/\/__/
/:/\:\ \:|__| /:/\:\ \:\__\ /:/ |:| /\__\ \:\/:/ /
\:\~\:\/:/ / \:\~\:\ \/__/ \/__|:|/:/ / \::/ /
\:\ \::/ / \:\ \:\__\ |:/:/ / \/__/
\:\/:/ / \:\ \/__/ |::/ /
\_:/__/ \:\__\ /:/ /
\/__/ \/__/
Y.Porat
2015-05-25 04:34:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by benj
Post by ***@bid.nes
Post by Sylvia Else
Post by Eleftherios Papageorgiou
'SPACE CANNOT EVEN BE **detected ** IF THERE IS NO some MASS IN IT !!'
!!'2 let us even FORGET ABOUT THINKING about **doing anything or
even something **done** with it
IF IT IS NOT BEEN DETECTED (without mass )
Wave around a big stick. If it doesn't hit anything, you've detected
some space.
Common error done by women. What you'll detect would be EMPTY space,
Whereas you're offering yourself as an example of linguistic competence
in men?
Nice anti-sexism smackdown, but irrelevant...
Post by Sylvia Else
Space would be detected, which contradicts "space cannot even be
detected..." as was my point.
You don't need a stick (which is mass, which I think was related to the claim you were disputing). Just pick two points, shine a light from one to the other, and time its passage. If it takes zero time there's no space; otherwise there is. No matter required.
Mark L. Fergerson
Space is obviously detected by it's properties. Space has many
properties. Even Einstein said so.
--
___ ___ ___ ___
/\ \ /\ \ /\__\ /\ \
/::\ \ /::\ \ /::| | \:\ \
/:/\:\ \ /:/\:\ \ /:|:| | ___ /::\__\
/::\~\:\__\ /::\~\:\ \ /:/|:| |__ /\ /:/\/__/
/:/\:\ \:|__| /:/\:\ \:\__\ /:/ |:| /\__\ \:\/:/ /
\:\~\:\/:/ / \:\~\:\ \/__/ \/__|:|/:/ / \::/ /
\:\ \::/ / \:\ \:\__\ |:/:/ / \/__/
\:\/:/ / \:\ \/__/ |::/ /
\_:/__/ \:\__\ /:/ /
\/__/ \/__/
====================
just be specific
dont hand wave
what are the properties of space
except hosting mass ??

TIA
Y.Porat
==========================
nuny@bid.nes
2015-05-25 09:53:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by ***@bid.nes
Post by ***@bid.nes
Post by Sylvia Else
Post by Eleftherios Papageorgiou
'SPACE CANNOT EVEN BE **detected ** IF THERE IS NO some MASS IN IT !!'
!!'2 let us even FORGET ABOUT THINKING about **doing anything or
even something **done** with it
IF IT IS NOT BEEN DETECTED (without mass )
Wave around a big stick. If it doesn't hit anything, you've detected
some space.
Common error done by women. What you'll detect would be EMPTY space,
Whereas you're offering yourself as an example of linguistic competence
in men?
Nice anti-sexism smackdown, but irrelevant...
Post by Sylvia Else
Space would be detected, which contradicts "space cannot even be
detected..." as was my point.
You don't need a stick (which is mass, which I think was related to the
claim you were disputing). Just pick two points, shine a light from one to
the other, and time its passage. If it takes zero time there's no space;
otherwise there is. No matter required.
Space is obviously detected by it's properties. Space has many
properties. Even Einstein said so.
Well sure; its dielectric constant and magnetic permeability can be independently measured too, as well as its gravitational constant (and of course more "exotic" properties). I just chose simple time-of-light-flight because it's too clear to misunderstand, and I wasn't sure how much of the other stuff, uh, some people might be able to grasp. Not you, I know that you know better.


Mark L. Fergerson
hanson
2015-05-25 15:58:01 UTC
Permalink
ahahahahaha... AAHAHAHA... ahahaha... ROTFLMAO
Fergerson "***@bid.nes" <***@gmail.com>
in which "Ferger" comes from the Medieval German
"Fergeher" and means "Petty Criminal", which is a
Yehiel .y.Porat wrote:
'SPACE CANNOT EVEN BE **detected **
IF THERE IS NO some MASS IN IT !!'
!!'2 let us even FORGET ABOUT THINKING about
**doing anything or even something **done** with it
IF IT IS NOT BEEN DETECTED (without mass )
Sylvia Else wrote:
Wave around a big stick. If it doesn't hit anything,
you've detected some space.
Eleftherios Papageorgiou wrote
Common error done by women.
What you'll detect would be EMPTY space,
Sylvia Else wrote:
Whereas you're offering yourself as an example of
linguistic competence in men?
Post by ***@bid.nes
Post by ***@bid.nes
Nice anti-sexism smackdown, but irrelevant...
Sylvia Else wrote:
Space would be detected, which contradicts
"space cannot even be detected..." as was my point.
Ferger wrote:
You don't need a stick (which is mass, which I think was related to the
Post by ***@bid.nes
claim you were disputing). Just pick two points, shine a light from one to
the other, and time its passage. If it takes zero time there's no space;
otherwise there is. No matter required.
hanson wrote:
You measured the DISTANCE between 2 points of mass,
the distance bewtween the massive light emitter and
the massive phonton recever, but
NOT a property of space. ROTFLMAO
Post by ***@bid.nes
Space is obviously detected by it's properties. Space has many
properties. Even Einstein said so.
hanson wrote:
Benj don't be so sarcastic. You confuse the Einstein
Dingleberries. Mentioning Einstein just adds to
to their psychotic & lunatic Belief system which
was a fad during the early 1900's when
. *** Einstein fucked with their minds, ***
and hypnotized them until they could no longer
distinguish whether something has already happened
or something is still going to happen. which Einstein
brilliantly accomplished with this tripe here:
||| AE:: "People like us, who _BELIEVE_ in physics,
||| AE:: know that the distinction between the
||| AE:: past, resent, and future is only a stubbornly
||| AE:: persistent illusion."
||| AE:: "Space & time are NOT conditions in which we
||| AE:: live; they are simply modes in which we think."
.... ahahahaha... brillant con! Great wool over their eyes!
Mark L. Fergerson wrote:
Well sure; its (space's) dielectric constant and magnetic permeability can
be independently measured too, as well as its gravitational constant (and of
course more "exotic" properties). I just chose simple time-of-light-flight
because it's too clear to misunderstand, and I wasn't sure how much of the
other stuff, uh, some people might be able to grasp. Not you, I know that
you know better.
hanson wrote:
e0 & /u0 measure the electric flux between 2 Masses IN space,
NOT the space.
With "G" one measures the Force between 2 Masses IN space.
Not the space.

--- [ Porat 1 -:- Einstein Dingleberries 0, zilch, nada ]--
benj
2015-05-25 18:05:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by ***@bid.nes
Post by ***@bid.nes
Post by ***@bid.nes
Post by Sylvia Else
Post by Eleftherios Papageorgiou
'SPACE CANNOT EVEN BE **detected ** IF THERE IS NO some MASS IN IT !!'
!!'2 let us even FORGET ABOUT THINKING about **doing anything or
even something **done** with it
IF IT IS NOT BEEN DETECTED (without mass )
Wave around a big stick. If it doesn't hit anything, you've detected
some space.
Common error done by women. What you'll detect would be EMPTY space,
Whereas you're offering yourself as an example of linguistic competence
in men?
Nice anti-sexism smackdown, but irrelevant...
Post by Sylvia Else
Space would be detected, which contradicts "space cannot even be
detected..." as was my point.
You don't need a stick (which is mass, which I think was related to the
claim you were disputing). Just pick two points, shine a light from one to
the other, and time its passage. If it takes zero time there's no space;
otherwise there is. No matter required.
Space is obviously detected by it's properties. Space has many
properties. Even Einstein said so.
Well sure; its dielectric constant and magnetic permeability can be independently measured too, as well as its gravitational constant (and of course more "exotic" properties). I just chose simple time-of-light-flight because it's too clear to misunderstand, and I wasn't sure how much of the other stuff, uh, some people might be able to grasp. Not you, I know that you know better.
Mark L. Fergerson
--
___ ___ ___ ___
/\ \ /\ \ /\__\ /\ \
/::\ \ /::\ \ /::| | \:\ \
/:/\:\ \ /:/\:\ \ /:|:| | ___ /::\__\
/::\~\:\__\ /::\~\:\ \ /:/|:| |__ /\ /:/\/__/
/:/\:\ \:|__| /:/\:\ \:\__\ /:/ |:| /\__\ \:\/:/ /
\:\~\:\/:/ / \:\~\:\ \/__/ \/__|:|/:/ / \::/ /
\:\ \::/ / \:\ \:\__\ |:/:/ / \/__/
\:\/:/ / \:\ \/__/ |::/ /
\_:/__/ \:\__\ /:/ /
\/__/ \/__/
benj
2015-05-25 18:08:25 UTC
Permalink
Post by ***@bid.nes
Post by ***@bid.nes
Post by ***@bid.nes
Post by Sylvia Else
Post by Eleftherios Papageorgiou
'SPACE CANNOT EVEN BE **detected ** IF THERE IS NO some MASS IN IT !!'
!!'2 let us even FORGET ABOUT THINKING about **doing anything or
even something **done** with it
IF IT IS NOT BEEN DETECTED (without mass )
Wave around a big stick. If it doesn't hit anything, you've detected
some space.
Common error done by women. What you'll detect would be EMPTY space,
Whereas you're offering yourself as an example of linguistic competence
in men?
Nice anti-sexism smackdown, but irrelevant...
Post by Sylvia Else
Space would be detected, which contradicts "space cannot even be
detected..." as was my point.
You don't need a stick (which is mass, which I think was related to the
claim you were disputing). Just pick two points, shine a light from one to
the other, and time its passage. If it takes zero time there's no space;
otherwise there is. No matter required.
Space is obviously detected by it's properties. Space has many
properties. Even Einstein said so.
Well sure; its dielectric constant and magnetic permeability can be independently measured too, as well as its gravitational constant (and of course more "exotic" properties). I just chose simple time-of-light-flight because it's too clear to misunderstand, and I wasn't sure how much of the other stuff, uh, some people might be able to grasp. Not you, I know that you know better.
And Einstein noted that it is the very existence of these properties
that is the very definition of an "aether" of space. Namely that which
possessed the properties. Of course most of "modern" physics today
believes in "behavior fields" where there is behavior with nothing doing
the behaving.
--
___ ___ ___ ___
/\ \ /\ \ /\__\ /\ \
/::\ \ /::\ \ /::| | \:\ \
/:/\:\ \ /:/\:\ \ /:|:| | ___ /::\__\
/::\~\:\__\ /::\~\:\ \ /:/|:| |__ /\ /:/\/__/
/:/\:\ \:|__| /:/\:\ \:\__\ /:/ |:| /\__\ \:\/:/ /
\:\~\:\/:/ / \:\~\:\ \/__/ \/__|:|/:/ / \::/ /
\:\ \::/ / \:\ \:\__\ |:/:/ / \/__/
\:\/:/ / \:\ \/__/ |::/ /
\_:/__/ \:\__\ /:/ /
\/__/ \/__/
HVAC
2015-05-25 18:24:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by benj
And Einstein noted that it is the very existence of these properties
that is the very definition of an "aether" of space. Namely that which
possessed the properties. Of course most of "modern" physics today
believes in "behavior fields" where there is behavior with nothing doing
the behaving.
You've got to understand what motivates your basic kook to believe in
ether. They see ether as the 'cause' of gravity. So all we need to do is
to block the ether and viola! Anti-gravity.
--
Cut off one head, two more shall take its place.
HAIL HYDRA!
http://youtu.be/FZcG5UOY224
benj
2015-05-26 05:42:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by HVAC
Post by benj
And Einstein noted that it is the very existence of these properties
that is the very definition of an "aether" of space. Namely that which
possessed the properties. Of course most of "modern" physics today
believes in "behavior fields" where there is behavior with nothing doing
the behaving.
You've got to understand what motivates your basic kook to believe in
ether. They see ether as the 'cause' of gravity. So all we need to do is
to block the ether and viola! Anti-gravity.
Are you saying that the gummint actually has that "anti-gravity paint"
that has been rumored for so many years? Well I never!
--
___ ___ ___ ___
/\ \ /\ \ /\__\ /\ \
/::\ \ /::\ \ /::| | \:\ \
/:/\:\ \ /:/\:\ \ /:|:| | ___ /::\__\
/::\~\:\__\ /::\~\:\ \ /:/|:| |__ /\ /:/\/__/
/:/\:\ \:|__| /:/\:\ \:\__\ /:/ |:| /\__\ \:\/:/ /
\:\~\:\/:/ / \:\~\:\ \/__/ \/__|:|/:/ / \::/ /
\:\ \::/ / \:\ \:\__\ |:/:/ / \/__/
\:\/:/ / \:\ \/__/ |::/ /
\_:/__/ \:\__\ /:/ /
\/__/ \/__/
Lofty Goat
2015-05-25 18:44:12 UTC
Permalink
... I just chose simple time-of-light-flight because
*it's too clear to misunderstand*....
[horse laugh]

For some, misunderstanding isn't a hobby or a pastime, it's a vocation.
Y.Porat
2015-05-26 05:50:59 UTC
Permalink
On Monday, May 25, 2015 a >
Post by ***@bid.nes
Post by benj
Space is obviously detected by it's properties. Space has many
properties. Even Einstein said so.
=====================
(:-)
------------------
Post by ***@bid.nes
Well sure; its dielectric constant and magnetic permeability can be independently measured too, as well as its gravitational constant (and of course more "exotic" properties). I just chose simple time-of-light-flight because it's too clear to misunderstand, and I wasn't sure how much of the other stuff, uh, some people might be able to grasp. Not you, I know that you know better.
Mark L. Fergerson
==================================
Dear Mark !!

did you know that
EVEN YOUR EYE SIGHT IS DUE TO
MASS - THE ONLY MASS !
THAT PHOTONS HAVE ??

TIA
Y.Porat
==================================
noTthaTguY
2015-05-24 18:33:56 UTC
Permalink
you are aping newton's non theory of light, the corpuscular one,
which seems to ape the error of Descartes with Snell's laW
Post by ***@bid.nes
Just pick two points, shine a light from one to the other, and time its passage. If it takes zero time there's no space; otherwise there is. No matter required.
"free space has an index of refraction of about 1.0003, but
it gets closer to one, as you go "up
nuny@bid.nes
2015-05-24 20:10:56 UTC
Permalink
On Sunday, May 24, 2015 at 11:33:59 AM UTC-7, noTthaTguY wrote:

Don't top post.
Post by noTthaTguY
you are aping newton's non theory of light, the corpuscular one,
which seems to ape the error of Descartes with Snell's laW
Post by ***@bid.nes
Just pick two points, shine a light from one to the other, and time its
passage. If it takes zero time there's no space; otherwise there is. No
matter required.
Not aping anything, just stating observable fact. It works whether you assume wave or corpuscular theory, or neither.
Post by noTthaTguY
"free space has an index of refraction of about 1.0003, but
it gets closer to one, as you go "up
"Free space" near Earth's surface isn't free, it has air in it.


Mark L. Fergerson
Y.Porat
2015-05-25 04:39:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by ***@bid.nes
Don't top post.
Post by noTthaTguY
you are aping newton's non theory of light, the corpuscular one,
which seems to ape the error of Descartes with Snell's laW
Post by ***@bid.nes
Just pick two points, shine a light from one to the other, and time its
passage. If it takes zero time there's no space; otherwise there is. No
matter required.
Not aping anything, just stating observable fact.
------------------------
jut tel me about something observable
fixed point
THAT HAS NO MASS ??

TIA
Y.Porat
====================================
nuny@bid.nes
2015-05-25 09:41:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by Y.Porat
Post by ***@bid.nes
Don't top post.
Post by noTthaTguY
you are aping newton's non theory of light, the corpuscular one,
which seems to ape the error of Descartes with Snell's laW
Post by ***@bid.nes
Just pick two points, shine a light from one to the other, and time its
passage. If it takes zero time there's no space; otherwise there is. No
matter required.
Not aping anything, just stating observable fact.
------------------------
jut tel me about something observable
fixed point
THAT HAS NO MASS ??
Sure. I have in front of me an evacuated glass bulb. At its center is a "place", a set of coordinates with no mass there. I can prove there's space inside that bulb by timing the passage of light through it.

WHAT PART OF THAT DO YOU NOT WANT TO UNDERSTAND ??

Yell at me and I will yell right back.


Mark L. Fergerson
benj
2015-05-25 18:03:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by ***@bid.nes
Post by Y.Porat
Post by ***@bid.nes
Don't top post.
Post by noTthaTguY
you are aping newton's non theory of light, the corpuscular one,
which seems to ape the error of Descartes with Snell's laW
Post by ***@bid.nes
Just pick two points, shine a light from one to the other, and time its
passage. If it takes zero time there's no space; otherwise there is. No
matter required.
Not aping anything, just stating observable fact.
------------------------
jut tel me about something observable
fixed point
THAT HAS NO MASS ??
Sure. I have in front of me an evacuated glass bulb. At its center is a "place", a set of coordinates with no mass there. I can prove there's space inside that bulb by timing the passage of light through it.
WHAT PART OF THAT DO YOU NOT WANT TO UNDERSTAND ??
Yell at me and I will yell right back.
Yelling is fun, no?

Obviously transmission of light is just ONE of the properties of space
that exists without any mass present. There are many more including the
permittivity and permeability of "empty" space.
--
___ ___ ___ ___
/\ \ /\ \ /\__\ /\ \
/::\ \ /::\ \ /::| | \:\ \
/:/\:\ \ /:/\:\ \ /:|:| | ___ /::\__\
/::\~\:\__\ /::\~\:\ \ /:/|:| |__ /\ /:/\/__/
/:/\:\ \:|__| /:/\:\ \:\__\ /:/ |:| /\__\ \:\/:/ /
\:\~\:\/:/ / \:\~\:\ \/__/ \/__|:|/:/ / \::/ /
\:\ \::/ / \:\ \:\__\ |:/:/ / \/__/
\:\/:/ / \:\ \/__/ |::/ /
\_:/__/ \:\__\ /:/ /
\/__/ \/__/
nuny@bid.nes
2015-05-25 23:11:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by benj
Post by ***@bid.nes
Post by Y.Porat
Post by ***@bid.nes
Don't top post.
Post by noTthaTguY
you are aping newton's non theory of light, the corpuscular one,
which seems to ape the error of Descartes with Snell's laW
Post by ***@bid.nes
Just pick two points, shine a light from one to the other, and time its
passage. If it takes zero time there's no space; otherwise there is. No
matter required.
Not aping anything, just stating observable fact.
------------------------
jut tel me about something observable
fixed point
THAT HAS NO MASS ??
Sure. I have in front of me an evacuated glass bulb. At its center is a
"place", a set of coordinates with no mass there. I can prove there's space
inside that bulb by timing the passage of light through it.
WHAT PART OF THAT DO YOU NOT WANT TO UNDERSTAND ??
Yell at me and I will yell right back.
Yelling is fun, no?
No, my COPD makes it exhausting!!!

Ahem.
Post by benj
Obviously transmission of light is just ONE of the properties of space
that exists without any mass present. There are many more including the
permittivity and permeability of "empty" space.
Yeah, I mention those in another post but..

The salient property here is extent; that by definition physical space is separation between objects. Porat seems not to want to recognize that and honestly, I don't see his problem with it.


Mark L. Fergerson
Y.Porat
2015-05-26 14:36:27 UTC
Permalink
On Monday, May 25, 2015 at 12:4 fact.
Post by ***@bid.nes
Post by Y.Porat
------------------------
jut tel me about something observable
fixed point
THAT HAS NO MASS ??
Sure. I have in front of me an evacuated glass bulb.
evacuated from what ??
did you evacuate it from photons
and had you evacuated it from photons
how do you know what is in there ??
-----------------
At its center is a "place", a set of coordinates
==========================================

):-(

coordinated relayed to what ??
to the galas -the glass has mass!!!
dont you think so
could you define that space without that
MASSIVE glass ???
------------------
with no mass there.
smarty
mass is around it !!!
----------------
I can prove there's space inside that bulb
by timing the passage of light through it.
=======================================
how can you prove ???!!

how ??
(do you** see** what is in that glass ??
(:-)

Mr genius
HOW CAN YOU SEE and measure ??
AND IF YOU **SEE**and measure
the light passing in it
you do it by photons that passing it
------------------
in short

you could define that space
only by the massive glas around it
and measure its volume by
2
=====
1
by the massive glass around it
2
by the massive photons that cam into your eyes
and your measuring tools

you see in your measuring tools
only due to massive photons that pass there in your tools an d your eyes
iow
without all those** massive elements**
you could know nothing about that space
---
complicated ??
so why doing all that lawyers tricks
we are in basic physics

========================================
NO MASS - THE ONLY MASS - NO REAL PHYSICS !!
==============================================

TIA
Y.Porat
=================================
Y.Porat
2015-05-27 05:07:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by Y.Porat
On Monday, May 25, 2015 at 12:4 fact.
Post by ***@bid.nes
Post by Y.Porat
------------------------
jut tel me about something observable
fixed point
THAT HAS NO MASS ??
Sure. I have in front of me an evacuated glass bulb.
evacuated from what ??
did you evacuate it from photons
and had you evacuated it from photons
how do you know what is in there ??
-----------------
At its center is a "place", a set of coordinates
==========================================
):-(
coordinated relayed to what ??
to the galas -the glass has mass!!!
dont you think so
could you define that space without that
MASSIVE glass ???
------------------
with no mass there.
smarty
mass is around it !!!
----------------
I can prove there's space inside that bulb
by timing the passage of light through it.
=======================================
how can you prove ???!!
how ??
(do you** see** what is in that glass ??
(:-)
Mr genius
HOW CAN YOU SEE and measure ??
AND IF YOU **SEE**and measure
the light passing in it
you do it by photons that passing it
------------------
in short
you could define that space
only by the massive glas around it
and measure its volume by
2
=====
1
by the massive glass around it
2
by the massive photons that cam into your eyes
and your measuring tools
you see in your measuring tools
only due to massive photons that pass there in your tools an d your eyes
iow
without all those** massive elements**
you could know nothing about that space
---
complicated ??
so why doing all that lawyers tricks
we are in basic physics
========================================
NO MASS - THE ONLY MASS - NO REAL PHYSICS !!
==============================================
TIA
Y.Porat
=================================
and can be much shorter !!

if there is no mass or electromagnetic waves there
you are completely lost there !!!

AND MIND YOU
EM WAVES - HAVE MASS THE ONLY MASS !!

old copyright
Y Porat

========================================
NO MASS - THE ONLY MASS - NO REAL PHYSICS !!
================================================
space has no properties except hosting mass
it is not curved and not schmerved !!
-----
Mass is the mother of all forces
including gravity!!
old copyright
Y.Porat
========================
noTthaTguY
2015-05-27 06:01:02 UTC
Permalink
light is waves through atoms of free space;
the curvature is simply a function of the density of atoms
in space, always more than no atoms
Post by Y.Porat
space has no properties except hosting mass
it is not curved and not schmerved !!
-----
Mass is the mother of all forces
including gravity!!
old copyright
Y.Porat
========================
Y.Porat
2015-05-27 09:22:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by noTthaTguY
light is waves through atoms of free space;
the curvature is simply a function of the density of atoms
in space, always more than no atoms
Post by Y.Porat
space has no properties except hosting mass
it is not curved and not schmerved !!
-----
Mass is the mother of all forces
including gravity!!
old copyright
Y.Porat
========================
congratulations !!
a last i hear from yo
a single word of physics
now a question for you :
to which direction your 'curved space'
is curving ??

TIA
Y.Porat
==================================
noTthaTguY
2015-05-27 15:19:07 UTC
Permalink
local max of curvature, is rrthly ... kinda obvious, but
decades of EinsteinmaniA have made it hard, to see that
Post by Y.Porat
Post by noTthaTguY
the curvature is simply a function of the density of atoms
in space, always more than no atoms
to which direction your 'curved space'
is curving ??
TIA
Y.Porat
==================================
Y.Porat
2015-05-28 04:56:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by noTthaTguY
local max of curvature, is rrthly ... kinda obvious, but
decades of EinsteinmaniA have made it hard, to see that
Post by Y.Porat
Post by noTthaTguY
the curvature is simply a function of the density of atoms
in space, always more than no atoms
to which direction your 'curved space'
is curving ??
TIA
Y.Porat
==================================
i asked you
can you tell the DIRECTION OF CURVATURE
a priory
(do you know the roman term a priory ??
Y.Porat
==================================
noTthaTguY
2015-05-28 17:32:20 UTC
Permalink
like she said, wave the stick around, enough, and you'll know
of the approx. density & thereby, the diameter of curvature ... sortof
Post by Y.Porat
Post by Y.Porat
Post by noTthaTguY
the curvature is simply a function of the density of atoms
in space, always more than no atoms
to which direction your 'curved space'
is curving ??
TIA
Y.Porat
==================================
i asked you
can you tell the DIRECTION OF CURVATURE
a priory
(do you know the roman term a priory ??
Y.Porat
==================================
Y.Porat
2015-05-29 02:20:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by noTthaTguY
like she said, wave the stick around, enough, and you'll know
of the approx. density & thereby, the diameter of curvature ... sortof
Post by Y.Porat
Post by Y.Porat
Post by noTthaTguY
the curvature is simply a function of the density of atoms
in space, always more than no atoms
to which direction your 'curved space'
is curving ??
TIA
Y.Porat
==================================
i asked you
can you tell the DIRECTION OF CURVATURE
a priory
(do you know the roman term a priory ??
Y.Porat
==================================
next !!

Y.P
=============================
noTthaTguY
2015-05-29 04:45:47 UTC
Permalink
look a)
at the header, then b)
under your foot;
teh only thing that is not curved,
is space ... perfect vacuum,
which does not exist, except in EinsteinmaniA (also,
NewtonmaniA, the idea that light is not waves in atoms
Post by Y.Porat
Y.P
=============================
nuny@bid.nes
2015-05-28 21:03:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by Y.Porat
Post by noTthaTguY
local max of curvature, is rrthly ... kinda obvious, but
decades of EinsteinmaniA have made it hard, to see that
Post by Y.Porat
Post by noTthaTguY
the curvature is simply a function of the density of atoms
in space, always more than no atoms
to which direction your 'curved space'
is curving ??
TIA
Y.Porat
==================================
i asked you
can you tell the DIRECTION OF CURVATURE
a priory
Monasteries generally utilize rectilinear architecture.
Post by Y.Porat
(do you know the roman term a priory ??
Oh, you mean Latin a priori.

Certainly, just whip out a gravitational gradiometer. Or hang two pendulums some distance apart and see if they're out of parallel. If they are, space is locally curved.


Mark L. Fergerson
hanson
2015-05-28 21:36:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by ***@bid.nes
Post by Y.Porat
Post by noTthaTguY
local max of curvature, is rrthly ... kinda obvious, but
decades of EinsteinmaniA have made it hard, to see that
Post by Y.Porat
Post by noTthaTguY
the curvature is simply a function of the density of atoms
in space, always more than no atoms
to which direction your 'curved space'
is curving ??
TIA
Y.Porat
==================================
i asked you
can you tell the DIRECTION OF CURVATURE
a priory
Monasteries generally utilize rectilinear architecture.
Post by Y.Porat
(do you know the roman term a priory ??
Oh, you mean Latin a priori.
Certainly, just whip out a gravitational gradiometer. Or hang two
pendulums some distance apart and see if they're out of parallel. If they
are, space is locally curved.
Mark L. Fergerson is a parrot whose brain is curved which
prevents him from seeing that the pendulums are angled
because of the curved SURFACE of the earth's mass &
not because of curved space.... What a moron!... AHAHA...
---- [ Porat 1 -:- Ferger 0, zilch, null, nada ] ---
noTthaTguY
2015-05-28 22:48:11 UTC
Permalink
haha finally gets the "point;
let us see,
how long it takes, for y.p to "get that
Post by hanson
Post by ***@bid.nes
Post by noTthaTguY
the curvature is simply a function of the density of atoms
in space, always more than no atoms
Certainly, just whip out a gravitational gradiometer. Or hang two
pendulums some distance apart and see if they're out of parallel. If they
are, space is locally curved.
because of the curved SURFACE of the earth's mass &
not because of curved space.... What a moron!... AHAHA...
---- [ Porat 1 -:- Ferger 0, zilch, null, nada ] ---
HVAC
2015-05-29 09:41:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by hanson
Post by ***@bid.nes
Post by Y.Porat
(do you know the roman term a priory ??
Oh, you mean Latin a priori.
Certainly, just whip out a gravitational gradiometer. Or hang two
pendulums some distance apart and see if they're out of parallel. If
they are, space is locally curved.
Mark L. Fergerson is a parrot whose brain is curved which
prevents him from seeing that the pendulums are angled
because of the curved SURFACE of the earth's mass &
not because of curved space.... What a moron!... AHAHA...
Mark is one of the few remaining shining lights of sci.physics
--
Cut off one head, two more shall take its place.
HAIL HYDRA!
http://youtu.be/FZcG5UOY224
Y.Porat
2015-05-29 10:18:53 UTC
Permalink
Post by HVAC
Post by hanson
Post by ***@bid.nes
Post by Y.Porat
(do you know the roman term a priory ??
Oh, you mean Latin a priori.
Certainly, just whip out a gravitational gradiometer. Or hang two
pendulums some distance apart and see if they're out of parallel. If
they are, space is locally curved.
Mark L. Fergerson is a parrot whose brain is curved which
prevents him from seeing that the pendulums are angled
because of the curved SURFACE of the earth's mass &
not because of curved space.... What a moron!... AHAHA...
Mark is one of the few remaining shining lights of sci.physics
========================
(:-)
i respect/ appreciate his trial to be constructive

yet
what can we do
if it is far from enough
b t w
i remember/ not to many years ago
that me and mark
had much more common language
about physics

Y.Porat
=================================
Post by HVAC
--
Cut off one head, two more shall take its place.
HAIL HYDRA!
http://youtu.be/FZcG5UOY224
hanson
2015-05-29 13:20:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by HVAC
Post by hanson
Post by ***@bid.nes
Certainly, just whip out a gravitational gradiometer. Or hang two
pendulums some distance apart and see if they're out of parallel. If
they are, space is locally curved.
Mark L. Fergerson is a parrot whose brain is curved which
prevents him from seeing that the pendulums are angled
because of the curved SURFACE of the earth's mass &
not because of curved space.... What a moron!... AHAHA...
Mark is one of the few remaining shining lights of sci.physics
hanson wrote:
... ahahahaha... only so for Ferger’s comments on
shining light bulbs & household electricity issues...
and for Mark being a shining example of being an
Einstein Dingleberry that worships Albert’s Sphincter
whereat Ferger’s mind got twisted and curved and
Ferger began to hallucinate as seen his comment
above at which time Ferger's light went DARK…
…. and Ferger came back with irrational & idiotic
beliefs and tales that Gold owed its yellow color
to (Baezian) SR’s relativistic electrons, when it is
OBVIOUS to rational people that Gold has as
many colors as the rainbow because
*** The color of gold is determined by the wave
lengths of light that is absorbed or reflected by
the diameter of the nanoparticles’ size in any item
of gold … and to see that with his own eyes
== Fergie, the fool, ought to visit any Jewelry
shop where they have a Hull Cell, which indicates
the plate thickness of Gold. He would see that
Gold when just a few mono-layers thick is BLACK,
and as the Au plating thickness increases it goes
via VIOLET,to BLUE to RED into YELLOW and
then into BROWN and finally into some dull yellow.
== Fergi, ought to go to a Gold Smith & see where
they pound & hammer Gold leaf, on a Sow bladder
or Bat skin, until it is so thin that it becomes translucent.
You can see through it as if it were GREEN sunglasses.
The same Green Gold can be seen in Vacuum Vapor
deposited Gold layers.. etc.
== Fergi ought to reduce/mix some colorless Gold
Chloride solution with some colorless Stannous
chloride and marvel over the PINK color of the Gold
particles that turn into a gorgeous PURPLE, deep
BLOOD RED color.
== Fergie ought to have a jigger of old fashioned
"Danziger Goldwasser" and before he gulps it marvel
at all the RAINBOW colors of the Gold flakes floating
therein... and then wonder why alloys of Copper with
Zinc or Tin aka Brass and Bronze show the same
color as Gold but lack and miss all the relativistic
Au Baez-shit electrons….
After that event sequence Ferger-Fergie got irate,
and ever since then he only peeks at me from the
safety of his kill file… like many other Einstein
Dingleberries do… to shelter themselves from me.
ahahahahaha… AHAHAHAHA….ROTFLMAO
Mahipal
2015-05-29 14:24:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by HVAC
Post by hanson
Post by ***@bid.nes
Certainly, just whip out a gravitational gradiometer. Or hang two
pendulums some distance apart and see if they're out of parallel. If
they are, space is locally curved.
Mark L. Fergerson is a parrot whose brain is curved which
prevents him from seeing that the pendulums are angled
because of the curved SURFACE of the earth's mass &
not because of curved space.... What a moron!... AHAHA...
Mark is one of the few remaining shining lights of sci.physics
Mark is a true gem Gem GEM! OTOH, hanson is a diamond in the rough.
... ahahahaha... only so for Ferger's comments on
shining light bulbs & household electricity issues...
and for Mark being a shining example of being an
Einstein Dingleberry that worships Albert's Sphincter
whereat Ferger's mind got twisted and curved and
Ferger began to hallucinate as seen his comment
above at which time Ferger's light went DARK...
.... and Ferger came back with irrational & idiotic
beliefs and tales that Gold owed its yellow color
to (Baezian) SR's relativistic electrons, when it is
OBVIOUS to rational people that Gold has as
many colors as the rainbow because
Mark merely discussing what exists out there, is Science.
*** The color of gold is determined by the wave
lengths of light that is absorbed or reflected by
the diameter of the nanoparticles' size in any item
of gold ... and to see that with his own eyes
== Fergie, the fool, ought to visit any Jewelry
shop where they have a Hull Cell, which indicates
the plate thickness of Gold. He would see that
Gold when just a few mono-layers thick is BLACK,
and as the Au plating thickness increases it goes
via VIOLET,to BLUE to RED into YELLOW and
then into BROWN and finally into some dull yellow.
== Fergi, ought to go to a Gold Smith & see where
they pound & hammer Gold leaf, on a Sow bladder
or Bat skin, until it is so thin that it becomes translucent.
You can see through it as if it were GREEN sunglasses.
The same Green Gold can be seen in Vacuum Vapor
deposited Gold layers.. etc.
My friend you hanson, I am going to read this as a great poem.
== Fergi ought to reduce/mix some colorless Gold
Chloride solution with some colorless Stannous
chloride and marvel over the PINK color of the Gold
particles that turn into a gorgeous PURPLE, deep
BLOOD RED color.
== Fergie ought to have a jigger of old fashioned
"Danziger Goldwasser" and before he gulps it marvel
at all the RAINBOW colors of the Gold flakes floating
therein... and then wonder why alloys of Copper with
Zinc or Tin aka Brass and Bronze show the same
color as Gold but lack and miss all the relativistic
Au Baez-shit electrons....
John Baez has gone mainstream now. Sucks it does.
After that event sequence Ferger-Fergie got irate,
and ever since then he only peeks at me from the
safety of his kill file... like many other Einstein
Dingleberries do... to shelter themselves from me.
ahahahahaha... AHAHAHAHA....ROTFLMAO
Mark's love of music makes him great Great GREAT 2 me c!

-- Mahipal 'I like you on Tuesdays but your Thursdays suck S(y)ndrome.'
Y.Porat
2015-05-29 06:11:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by ***@bid.nes
Post by Y.Porat
Post by noTthaTguY
local max of curvature, is rrthly ... kinda obvious, but
decades of EinsteinmaniA have made it hard, to see that
Post by Y.Porat
Post by noTthaTguY
the curvature is simply a function of the density of atoms
in space, always more than no atoms
to which direction your 'curved space'
is curving ??
TIA
Y.Porat
==================================
i asked you
can you tell the DIRECTION OF CURVATURE
a priory
Monasteries generally utilize rectilinear architecture.
Post by Y.Porat
(do you know the roman term a priory ??
Oh, you mean Latin a priori.
Certainly, just whip out a gravitational gradiometer. Or hang two pendulums some distance apart and see if they're out of parallel. If they are, space is locally curved.
Mark L. Fergerson
=============================
arrogant imbecile!!
did you noticed that you are doing all your silly
experiment
is in environment of mass every where
around ??
2
you still ldn t answer the op question:

if you are in complete Vacuum
to which direction your curved space
will curve
to no direction the same as a witch on a broom will not curve in any direction

BTW
smarty
it seems that Bodkin is a bit more quick and decent/cleaver than you
and he already admitted that
that space will 'always curve in direction of .......... mass !
does it tell you something intelligent for a change ??

Y.Porat
============================
Odd Bodkin
2015-05-29 12:00:53 UTC
Permalink
Post by Y.Porat
if you are in complete Vacuum
to which direction your curved space
will curve
to no direction the same as a witch on a broom will not curve in any direction
Empty vacuum with no matter ANYWHERE around does not curve.
But empty vacuum always has some matter SOMEWHERE around, even if it's a
parsec away. And that matter a parsec away causes the vacuum here to curve.
--
Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
hanson
2015-05-29 13:29:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by Y.Porat
if you are in complete Vacuum
to which direction your curved space
will curve
to no direction the same as a witch on a broom will not curve in any direction
Empty vacuum with no matter ANYWHERE around does not curve.
But empty vacuum always has some matter SOMEWHERE around, even if it's a
parsec away. And that matter a parsec away causes the vacuum here to curve
like it curved the mind of Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
Y.Porat
2015-05-29 14:33:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by Y.Porat
if you are in complete Vacuum
to which direction your curved space
will curve
to no direction the same as a witch on a broom will not curve in any direction
Empty vacuum with no matter ANYWHERE around does not curve.
But empty vacuum always has some matter SOMEWHERE around, even if it's a
parsec away. And that matter a parsec away causes the vacuum here to curve.
--
Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
====================
ok Body
but you try to hide the truth
the main point that you had to admit:

SPACE CURVES WARDS MASS !
FULL STOP
yet that is not enough !!
if we supposed to be intelligent honest produtivd people
we have to go
ONE STEP FUTTHER !
IE]
to ask ourselves

IF MASS IS DOING IT
---HOW DOES IT DOES IT !!

THAT IS THE BILLION $ QUESTION !!
so
how about the
Y Circlon mechanism !!!

TIA
Y.Porat
=============================
Odd Bodkin
2015-05-29 15:01:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by Y.Porat
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by Y.Porat
if you are in complete Vacuum
to which direction your curved space
will curve
to no direction the same as a witch on a broom will not curve in any direction
Empty vacuum with no matter ANYWHERE around does not curve.
But empty vacuum always has some matter SOMEWHERE around, even if it's a
parsec away. And that matter a parsec away causes the vacuum here to curve.
--
Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
====================
ok Body
but you try to hide the truth
SPACE CURVES WARDS MASS !
No, that's not what I said, and it's not accurate either.
Post by Y.Porat
FULL STOP
yet that is not enough !!
if we supposed to be intelligent honest produtivd people
we have to go
ONE STEP FUTTHER !
IE]
to ask ourselves
IF MASS IS DOING IT
---HOW DOES IT DOES IT !!
Yes, how does it do it?
Post by Y.Porat
THAT IS THE BILLION $ QUESTION !!
so
how about the
Y Circlon mechanism !!!
So then the vacuum is not empty, it is filled with circlons, according
to you. And so the action on the mass over HERE is not due to the mass
over THERE at all. It's due to the circlons over HERE.

So that's the question: Is it circlons that cause gravity or is it the
other mass??

Then there's another question: You say that vacuum's only role is to
host mass. So let's take away the mass over here and ask what's left. Is
it empty vacuum? Or is it a region filled with circlons? And do the
circlons have mass? If they do, then you didn't remove all the mass
until you remove the circlons!!!
Post by Y.Porat
TIA
Y.Porat
=============================
--
Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
reber g=emc^2
2015-05-28 22:45:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by Y.Porat
Post by noTthaTguY
local max of curvature, is rrthly ... kinda obvious, but
decades of EinsteinmaniA have made it hard, to see that
Post by Y.Porat
Post by noTthaTguY
the curvature is simply a function of the density of atoms
in space, always more than no atoms
to which direction your 'curved space'
is curving ??
TIA
Y.Porat
==================================
i asked you
can you tell the DIRECTION OF CURVATURE
a priory
(do you know the roman term a priory ??
Y.Porat
==================================
Nothing can be detected unless man's senses detect it. He builds stuff to detect.This man Casimir found away to detect space waves.Get the picture yet? TreBert
reber g=emc^2
2015-05-28 22:52:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by Y.Porat
Post by noTthaTguY
local max of curvature, is rrthly ... kinda obvious, but
decades of EinsteinmaniA have made it hard, to see that
Post by Y.Porat
Post by noTthaTguY
the curvature is simply a function of the density of atoms
in space, always more than no atoms
to which direction your 'curved space'
is curving ??
TIA
Y.Porat
==================================
i asked you
can you tell the DIRECTION OF CURVATURE
a priory
(do you know the roman term a priory ??
Y.Porat
==================================
Porat Space is concave & convex One curves in for gravity,and other curves out for expansion. That is part of my Concave & Convex space theory.It has two other parts. TreBert
Sam Wormley
2015-05-28 23:55:47 UTC
Permalink
Post by reber g=emc^2
Porat Space is concave & convex
Space on the cosmic scale is *measured* to be flat. Herb's
concave & convex is pure nonsense. Observation are in. Herb's
thinking is out.
--
sci.physics is an unmoderated newsgroup dedicated to the discussion
of physics, news from the physics community, and physics-related
social issues.
HVAC
2015-05-29 09:44:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by Sam Wormley
Post by reber g=emc^2
Porat Space is concave & convex
Space on the cosmic scale is *measured* to be flat. Herb's
concave & convex is pure nonsense. Observation are in. Herb's
thinking is out.
Bert is hit by the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune.
--
Cut off one head, two more shall take its place.
HAIL HYDRA!
http://youtu.be/FZcG5UOY224
Y.Porat
2015-05-29 10:21:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by Sam Wormley
Post by reber g=emc^2
Porat Space is concave & convex
Space on the cosmic scale is *measured* to be flat. Herb's
concave & convex is pure nonsense. Observation are in. Herb's
thinking is out.
--
sci.physics is an unmoderated newsgroup dedicated to the discussion
of physics, news from the physics community, and physics-related
social issues.
---------------
so while it curves
to direction which of the many possibilities does it curve ??!!!
Y.Porat
=====================================
Y.Porat
2015-05-28 07:49:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by noTthaTguY
local max of curvature, is rrthly ... kinda obvious, but
decades of EinsteinmaniA have made it hard, to see that
Post by Y.Porat
Post by noTthaTguY
the curvature is simply a function of the density of atoms
in space, always more than no atoms
to which direction your 'curved space'
is curving ??
TIA
Y.Porat
==================================
????
you still didnt answer my above question
(walking around the bush ??)
so
if you have no clear answer
(as should be in BASIC ) physics
of honest people :

just YOU should say

I DON T KNOW ' i have no answer for that !!
and no answer is an answer as well !!!
now let me make it easier for you :

NO ONE CAN ANSWER THAT
BECAUSE IT (curved space ) IS NONSENSE NON STARTER PHYSICS
------------------------------------

TIA
Y.Porat
=========================================
hanson
2015-05-28 08:22:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by Y.Porat
Post by noTthaTguY
local max of curvature, is rrthly ... kinda obvious, but
decades of EinsteinmaniA have made it hard, to see that
Post by Y.Porat
Post by noTthaTguY
the curvature is simply a function of the density of atoms
in space, always more than no atoms
to which direction your 'curved space'
is curving ??
TIA
Y.Porat
==================================
????
you still didnt answer my above question
(walking around the bush ??)
so
if you have no clear answer
(as should be in BASIC ) physics
just YOU should say
I DON T KNOW ' i have no answer for that !!
and no answer is an answer as well !!!
NO ONE CAN ANSWER THAT
BECAUSE IT (curved space ) IS NONSENSE NON STARTER PHYSICS
------------------------------------
TIA
Y.Porat
=========================================
hanson wrote:
of course curved space is nonsense.
but not to people whose mind was
twisted and curved until they began
to BELIEVE and parrot that space
is curved...
Porat, you will never convince them.
Even your great Ariel Sharon understood
that when he said in the epic...
<http://tinyurl.com/The-HW-Rosenthal-interview-XT>
||AS|| It's the US Yidds that are all twisted, etc
Sharon was right in many more aspects
then this, about the BELIEFS of the US kikes.
Porat keep asking:
Show me "space"... NOT what happens IN space.
Your line:
"space has no properties except for hosting mass"
is perfectly legits and rational!
Y.Porat
2015-05-28 16:50:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by hanson
Post by Y.Porat
Post by noTthaTguY
local max of curvature, is rrthly ... kinda obvious, but
decades of EinsteinmaniA have made it hard, to see that
Post by Y.Porat
Post by noTthaTguY
the curvature is simply a function of the density of atoms
in space, always more than no atoms
to which direction your 'curved space'
is curving ??
TIA
Y.Porat
==================================
????
you still didnt answer my above question
(walking around the bush ??)
so
if you have no clear answer
(as should be in BASIC ) physics
just YOU should say
I DON T KNOW ' i have no answer for that !!
and no answer is an answer as well !!!
NO ONE CAN ANSWER THAT
BECAUSE IT (curved space ) IS NONSENSE NON STARTER PHYSICS
------------------------------------
TIA
Y.Porat
=========================================
of course curved space is nonsense.
but not to people whose mind was
twisted and curved until they began
to BELIEVE and parrot that space
is curved...
Porat, you will never convince them.
Even your great Ariel Sharon understood
that when he said in the epic...
<http://tinyurl.com/The-HW-Rosenthal-interview-XT>
||AS|| It's the US Yidds that are all twisted, etc
Sharon was right in many more aspects
then this, about the BELIEFS of the US kikes.
Show me "space"... NOT what happens IN space.
"space has no properties except for hosting mass"
is perfectly legits and rational!
=====================
Thank you Hanson my fried !!

Y.Porat
==================================
noTthaTguY
2015-05-27 05:58:44 UTC
Permalink
that was a common term for air;
further out you go, the less dense it is, but
there are always plenty of atoms, in the way
of the expanding wavefront (secondpower of speed of light,
not directed velocity of rock tons
Post by ***@bid.nes
Not aping anything, just stating observable fact. It works whether you assume wave or corpuscular theory, or neither.
Post by noTthaTguY
"free space has an index of refraction of about 1.0003, but
it gets closer to one, as you go "up
"Free space" near Earth's surface isn't free, it has air in it.
Mark L. Fergerson
reber g=emc^2
2015-05-24 23:18:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by Eleftherios Papageorgiou
'SPACE CANNOT EVEN BE **detected ** IF THERE IS NO some MASS IN IT !!'
!!'2 let us even FORGET ABOUT THINKING about **doing anything or
even something **done** with it
IF IT IS NOT BEEN DETECTED (without mass )
Wave around a big stick. If it doesn't hit anything, you've detected
some space.
Common error done by women. What you'll detect would be EMPTY space, or
very thin. As space and time exists everywhere. I hardly see where space
and time would end, except "black holes".
A BH squeezes out space between all that enters.Neutron stars squeeze electrons into atoms nuclie. BH unite gluons into quarks creating a true "NOTHING" Time can't flow it has no ether. TreBert
HVAC
2015-05-25 09:14:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by reber g=emc^2
A BH squeezes out space between all that enters.Neutron stars squeeze
electrons into atoms nuclie. BH unite gluons into quarks creating a
true "NOTHING" Time can't flow it has no ether. TreBert
BJ believes in ether too Bert.
--
Cut off one head, two more shall take its place.
HAIL HYDRA!

reber g=emc^2
2015-05-27 15:49:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by Eleftherios Papageorgiou
'SPACE CANNOT EVEN BE **detected ** IF THERE IS NO some MASS IN IT !!'
!!'2 let us even FORGET ABOUT THINKING about **doing anything or
even something **done** with it
IF IT IS NOT BEEN DETECTED (without mass )
Wave around a big stick. If it doesn't hit anything, you've detected
some space.
Common error done by women. What you'll detect would be EMPTY space, or
very thin. As space and time exists everywhere. I hardly see where space
and time would end, except "black holes".
Einstein knew the space between the stars was the most dynamic part of the universe.That was 100 years ago.He gave us spacetime.GR has never been proven wrong. I have my concave & Convex space theory. We know how Casimir plates are showing us "SPACE ENERGY WAVES" If you think space is empty best you get your head out of the ground. TreBert
hanson
2015-05-28 05:43:16 UTC
Permalink
<***@gmail.com> Swine Glazier talked kack
again and even with "his head twisted out of the ground"
his GR aka "Glazier's Rant", was far worse then Einstein's
of 60+ years ago, who already back then
<http://tinyurl.com/Einstein-denied-his-SR-and-GR>
in which Albert concluded that:
______ SR is short for STUPID RANT _____ and
____ GR stands for GULLIBLE RECITAL _____.
which angered Glazier's sub, <***@.- --- -.dotat>
the Austrian Anti-Semite, Nazi "Helmut Wabnig" who
had his mouth "open wide" for Glazier's face shitting,
& he declared that the above was not harsh enough & so
Korporal Wabnigger expressed his ire with his customary
heel clicking, insisting that the true facts about SR/GR
were the following, which |||| HW ||| "Helmut Wabnig" had
already posted from May-2012 to 24-May-2014 when/where
|||HW said: "Relativity is wrong because Einstein was a Jew".
|||HW said: "Convert to the ONE & ONLY Religion of Relativity"
|||HW said: "I am an Einstein Dingleberry!
|||HW said: "GPS has a 38000 sec delay time"
|||HW said: "I have seen an UFO yesterday!"
|||HW said: "A ghost-driver is on the motorway!"
|||HW said: "demontage all Israel, Stone by stone, brick by brick"
|||HW said: "Judaism & Islam are consistent in that respect"
|||HW said: "Nobody on the internet knows that I am a dog"
and then ca 23-July-2014:
|||HW said: "Jews are a residue of failed evolution"
reber g=emc^2
2015-05-28 22:52:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by Eleftherios Papageorgiou
'SPACE CANNOT EVEN BE **detected ** IF THERE IS NO some MASS IN IT !!'
!!'2 let us even FORGET ABOUT THINKING about **doing anything or
even something **done** with it
IF IT IS NOT BEEN DETECTED (without mass )
Wave around a big stick. If it doesn't hit anything, you've detected
some space.
Common error done by women. What you'll detect would be EMPTY space, or
very thin. As space and time exists everywhere. I hardly see where space
and time would end, except "black holes".
Porat Space curves in for gravity,and out for ex
Sam Wormley
2015-05-28 23:57:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by reber g=emc^2
Porat Space curves in for gravity,and out for ex
Spacetime curves in the presence of momentum-energy, but on the
cosmic scale is observed to be flat. Never convex.
--
sci.physics is an unmoderated newsgroup dedicated to the discussion
of physics, news from the physics community, and physics-related
social issues.
noTthaTguY
2015-05-29 00:49:36 UTC
Permalink
which, is less-or-more, what Kepler dyscovered (and
Newton algebraized
Post by Sam Wormley
Spacetime curves in the presence of momentum-energy, but on the
cosmic scale is observed to be flat. Never convex.
--
sci.physics is an unmoderated newsgroup dedicated to the discussion
of physics, news from the physics community, and physics-related
social issues.
noTthaTguY
2015-05-30 01:49:28 UTC
Permalink
actually, he stole it from Hooke
(subject of the speaker at the ninth nonlinear science thing
Post by noTthaTguY
Newton algebraized
Post by Sam Wormley
Spacetime curves in the presence of momentum-energy, but on the
cosmic scale is observed to be flat. Never convex.
--
sci.physics is an unmoderated newsgroup dedicated to the discussion
of physics, news from the physics community, and physics-related
social issues.
Y.Porat
2015-05-29 14:40:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by Sam Wormley
Post by reber g=emc^2
Porat Space curves in for gravity,and out for ex
Spacetime curves in the presence of momentum-energy, but on the
cosmic scale is observed to be flat. Never convex.
--
sci.physics is an unmoderated newsgroup dedicated to the discussion
of physics, news from the physics community, and physics-related
social issues.
========================
you still dont ''hold the bull by his horns'' !!
never mind
we will do it right here
step by step
in your respectable creative N G !!2

B T W Sammi
when you are going to quote me
for a change ??

TIA
Y.Porat
================================
noTthaTguY
2015-05-29 21:35:21 UTC
Permalink
we cannot quote you, because a)
you are quite illiterate. anywy,
the curvature of rrth is teh way that we know,
that space is curved by the mere presence of matter
Post by Y.Porat
Post by Sam Wormley
Spacetime curves in the presence of momentum-energy, but on the
cosmic scale is observed to be flat. Never convex.
when you are going to quote me
for a change ??
TIA
Y.Porat
================================
Amanda Huggenkis
2015-05-30 00:49:34 UTC
Permalink
Learn how to English and brain getting
one for news posting no content idiot
blither circlon nonsense repeated.

"Y.Porat" wrote in message news:9f488e6a-2fa8-4d70-80be-***@googlegroups.com...
<Nothing>
benj
2015-05-29 03:44:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by reber g=emc^2
Post by Eleftherios Papageorgiou
'SPACE CANNOT EVEN BE **detected ** IF THERE IS NO some MASS IN IT !!'
!!'2 let us even FORGET ABOUT THINKING about **doing anything or
even something **done** with it
IF IT IS NOT BEEN DETECTED (without mass )
Wave around a big stick. If it doesn't hit anything, you've detected
some space.
Common error done by women. What you'll detect would be EMPTY space, or
very thin. As space and time exists everywhere. I hardly see where space
and time would end, except "black holes".
Porat Space curves in for gravity,and out for ex
Porat, it's the concave-convex theory! Get it?
--
___ ___ ___ ___
/\ \ /\ \ /\__\ /\ \
/::\ \ /::\ \ /::| | \:\ \
/:/\:\ \ /:/\:\ \ /:|:| | ___ /::\__\
/::\~\:\__\ /::\~\:\ \ /:/|:| |__ /\ /:/\/__/
/:/\:\ \:|__| /:/\:\ \:\__\ /:/ |:| /\__\ \:\/:/ /
\:\~\:\/:/ / \:\~\:\ \/__/ \/__|:|/:/ / \::/ /
\:\ \::/ / \:\ \:\__\ |:/:/ / \/__/
\:\/:/ / \:\ \/__/ |::/ /
\_:/__/ \:\__\ /:/ /
\/__/ \/__/
Loading...