Aether Foreshortning at c

On 2/28/2012 7:09 PM, Painius wrote:


YOU probably have no opinion as to whether or not you're a kook.

In some ways, yes, I'm eccentric.

That wasn't the question.










--
"OK you ****s, let's see what you can do now" -Hit Girl
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CjO7kBqTFqo

On 2/28/2012 7:15 PM, Painius wrote:



Wait...YOU'RE the one that said we were starting to bore you and
you were considering 'plonking' us.


What's up w/ that?

As usual you're so full of it that your eyes turn brown.

I never indicated that I would consider any plonks, FibberVAC.
As for your boring me, that's just because you don't seem to be able
to come up with anything fresh in this thread.

That's okay, because I have a job coming up and will be unable to post
for awhile. That will give you plenty of time to work on the way you
bore people. I fully expect to find you just as boring when I get
back as you are now.

What a great idea! Instead of facing the music or plonking
me, you can just run away and hide. Brilliant!


PS- While you're gone, read "Debating For Dummies".

Have a nice trip.


--
"OK you ****s, let's see what you can do now" -Hit Girl
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CjO7kBqTFqo

On 2/28/2012 7:53 PM, Painius wrote:

But if the entire
Universe *were* rotating, then its motion might be relative to
whatever it is that it originally expanded into

It didn't expand 'into' anything. Space simply expanded.
Again, for a layman, these concepts may be difficult.

From what I've read, this particular concept is difficult for anybody
to comprehend. Except you of course.


The only people that have difficulty with this truth are those who cling
to either a strict adherence to Newtonian physics or a belief
in god.










--
"OK you ****s, let's see what you can do now" -Hit Girl
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CjO7kBqTFqo

On 2/28/2012 7:53 PM, Painius wrote:


There is 'nothing' to define.

Precisely. Now define "nothing" without using the worn out "absence
of something" description. Holding my breath, ahhh-hump.


Nothing is not having something.

It's sort of a self-explanatory word.

No thing vs. Some thing.

See how easy?


My opinion of you? Are you sure you wanna know?


I already know what you think about me. (thanks)

I was asking your opinion on Bert's 'spin is in' (ahem) theory.


Just trying to present a truth-based counter weight to your
weird science.

No, you're just trying to counter my unscientific imprecision. No
fault, no blame.


Well, no. YOU were at fault and YOU were to blame.

I'm just trying to present a truth-based counter weight to your
weird science.




--
"OK you ****s, let's see what you can do now" -Hit Girl
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CjO7kBqTFqo

On 2/28/2012 8:01 PM, Painius wrote:


And don't you EVER get tired of getting your arse kicked?

No. Kicks by strawmen don't hurt.

Oh, and I have an opinion on EVERYTHING.

What is your opinion of agnostics?



Better than believers.








--
"OK you ****s, let's see what you can do now" -Hit Girl
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CjO7kBqTFqo

On 2/28/2012 8:28 PM, Painius wrote:


When asked if in your opinion, god exists...You can't even give
a yes or no answer? For an OPINION?

That's correct.

Daniel is wrong, you're not an agnostic...You're a politician.

since there is no scientific evidence one way or the other for there
existing a brown dwarf that orbits the Sun way out beyond the Oort
cloud, that may or may not be what knocks a comet toward the Sun every
now and then, what is your opinion regarding the existence of the
brown dwarf?

What? Another strawman?

Brown dwarfs exist. There is evidence for them. So, in my opinion,
they are real. However, there is ZERO evidence for one anywhere
near our solar system. It would have easily been spotted by any
perturbations in Oort cloud or Kuiper belt objects. So my opinion
is that there is no brown dwarf anywhere near our solar system.

FYI... *That* is an honorable answer.


Any such opinion either way is arbitrary, since there is no proof nor
hard evidence one way or the other. It has nothing to do with honor
or dishonor, you loon.


Pathetic.



--
"OK you ****s, let's see what you can do now" -Hit Girl
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CjO7kBqTFqo

On Tue, 28 Feb 2012 01:56:54 -0800, "Fidem Turbare, the non-existent atheist goddess"
wrote:

I never figured Lucifer for being anti-abortion.

How about anti freedom?

On Feb 28, 7:53*pm, Painius wrote:
On Tue, 28 Feb 2012 11:02:59 -0500, HVAC wrote:
On 2/28/2012 10:07 AM, Painius wrote:

But if the entire
Universe *were* rotating, then its motion might be relative to
whatever it is that it originally expanded into

It didn't expand 'into' anything. Space simply expanded.
Again, for a layman, these concepts may be difficult.

From what I've read, this particular concept is difficult for anybody
to comprehend. *Except you of course.

which is as yet
unknown and undefined by science.

There is 'nothing' to define.

Precisely. *Now define "nothing" without using the worn out "absence
of something" description. *Holding my breath, ahhh-hump.

'Spin is in' isn't a theory. It's just a throw-away term
coined by another kook.

...in your opinion, which to me, is taken with a grain of salt.

And what is YOUR opinion?
Ya, ya.. I know. You don't HAVE an opinion.

My opinion of you? *Are you sure you wanna know?

may appear to us that galaxies are moving away from each other IN THIS
decalennium (I just made up that word for a period of 10,000 years),

Kind of like how you assigned a billion years to 'eon'.
(note that this was never accepted by science)

The word "eon" is sometimes used to denote a billion years. *Yes, it
is an unscientific term because it can mean other periods of time, and
is therefore imprecise. *The way Bert used it when he wrote "eons", to
me, obviously meant "billions of years". *The fact that you make such
a big deal out of it again just shows how... Special... you really
are.

Just trying to present a truth-based counter weight to your
weird science.

No, you're just trying to counter my unscientific imprecision. *No
fault, no blame.

--
Indelibly yours,
Paine @http://astronomy.painellsworth.net/
"Unimaginative people find refuge in consistency."

Painius staying on subject my theory goes like this. "If macro space
can foreshorten so can micro space". TreBert

On 2012-Feb-29 03:40, HVAC wrote:
On 2/29/2012 12:01 AM, Fidem Turbare, the non-existent atheist goddess
wrote:

Which would you like me to break? Your leg or your neck?

I did not sense anger, but you clearly made a threat in the form of a
question, which may indicate an underlying psychopathic aspect of your
character. The fact that you're denying anger confirms that you have the
potential to be one of the more dangerous types of psychopaths (are you
sure that you really want to go down this ominous path?).

Painus made that statement out of anger and frustration.

Even if that's true (and it likely is), that still doesn't justify it.

Normally, he would never threaten anyone.

He's demonstrated that he's not normal on numerous occasions.

But it IS understandable under these conditions.

I don't agree with that.

Please allow me to extend an apology on Painus' behalf.

That's very nice of you, thank you, but Painius is responsibility for
his own behaviour.

--
Fidem Turbare, the non-existent atheist goddess
"Stop sending people to kill me, we've already captured five of them; if
you don't stop sending killers, I'll send one to Moscow ... and I won't
have to send a second."
-- Josip Broz Tito (addressed to Stalin)

On 2012-Feb-28 15:25, Painius wrote:
On Tue, 28 Feb 2012 02:08:28 -0800, "Fidem Turbare, the non-existent
atheist wrote:

On 2012-Feb-27 02:40, HVAC wrote:
On 2/26/2012 1:42 PM, Painius wrote:

Hmm. Perhaps you *are* ready to hear my alternate view of
gravitation. A first clue would be the answer to the following
question: What is the only known thing that can "escape" a black
hole?

Gravitation, of course. Not even light can escape it, but gravity
somehow manages to "easily slip through" the event horizon of a black
hole, which is fortunate because it gives astronomers a tool to be
able to find and study black holes.

So, as usual you proceed from a false premise, then wonder
why you get a false answer. This is the typical MO of someone
who uses strawman arguments. In YOUR case, however, you seemingly
use these against yourself. Somewhat bizarre, no?

Oh, and gravity doesn't 'easily slip through' a black hole.

Gravity is caused by the black hole.

My favourite part of that was the ridiculous claim that "... Not even
light can escape [gravitation], ..."

This is one of the main reasons that science is unable to consider
gravity to be a force anymore.


I'm glad you have finally accepted this truth which I have
been teaching you for quite some time now.

Good for you! Here, you can have one of Guth's gold stars....


If it were a force, and if it were
generated by the mass of a black hole, then there is no explanation
for how it would be able to get outside the black hole's event horizon
when even light cannot. So scientists favor that the mass of the
black hole is able to "curve space". Now if you like, you can go ask
a scientist that, if they don't think there's an ether, then what
precisely is "curving"? HVAC's answer has always been the sadly
wanting "space, you dummy, SPACE is curving" with no explanation as to
what it is about space that curves.


Well, I see that my work with you isn't quite finished.....

How about this definition?

"Space-time is the unbounded 4 dimensional expanse that
contains all material objects in the universe, and is distorted
by the presence of a mass".


To understand my own view of gravitation, it would be good to know
about an old theory that has been soundly refuted. It's known as the
Le Sage theory, and it is a "push" theory of gravity...


LOL! THIS is your cite?
Seriously, using false scientific ideas, how do you EVER come
up with a correct answer?


The problem with this theory is that any particles that would rain
down through an atmosphere such as Earth's would generate a lot of
heat, and this is not observed. We know more now than we did then,
for example in quantum mechanics we learn of "virtual particles".
Gravitation may very well be caused by virtual particles that flow
into matter. They would not generate the heat as did those particles
postulated by the Le Sage theory.


Can't you see the logical errors you make here?

Hopefully, but I don't believe he can because he appears to be crazy.

And you're fast appearing to be a POS imbecile.

The threats you made to me in a separate branch of this thread are
consistent with my observation of your appearing to be crazy.

Your ad hominem attack doesn't help your position, and demonstrates a
feeling of inferiority on your part.

--
Fidem Turbare, the non-existent atheist goddess
"Always forgive your enemies; nothing annoys them so much."
-- Oscar Wilde