Some questions on GR from a layman

PD says...

On Mar 7, 5:11=A0pm, Koobee Wublee wrote:

Curvature of space is all relative, and everyone sees his space as
flat. This should be a very fundamental principle in differential
geometry, and you will find all the three angles of a triangle always
add up to 180 degrees regardless how curved up space is around you
(relative to somebody else's space that is).

You sure about that?

Good grief, KW. I don't know if you can step in it any deeper.

He has no idea what he's talking about.

--
Daryl McCullough
Ithaca, NY

On Mar 7, 3:35 pm, PD wrote:
On Mar 7, 5:11 pm, Koobee Wublee wrote:

Ahahaha... Andro could not say any better than that.

“A sphere is not a 2D space; that's how so, you ****ing imbecile.”
--- Androcles, 2011

Curvature of space is all relative, and everyone sees his space as
flat. This should be a very fundamental principle in differential
geometry, and you will find all the three angles of a triangle always
add up to 180 degrees regardless how curved up space is around you
(relative to somebody else’s space that is). shrug

You sure about that?

Absolutely. shrug

Good grief, KW. I don't know if you can step in it any deeper.

Go ahead and make my day. shrug

This brings up why there is a preferred state for curvature in the
spacetime of GR. It turns out that the Minkowski spacetime equation,
derived from the Lorentz transform in which simultaneity is relative,
can be also derived from Larmor’s original transform in which
simultaneity is absolute. Notice what a drastic contradiction between
these two almost identical transforms. Thus, any spacetime equation
actually describes absolute space and time. Under GR, the difference
in gravitational time dilation between two adjacent points in space
(not spacetime) manifests gravity. shrug

On Mar 7, 5:00*pm, Koobee Wublee wrote:
On Mar 7, 3:35 pm, PD wrote:

On Mar 7, 5:11 pm, Koobee Wublee wrote:
Ahahaha... *Andro could not say any better than that.

“A sphere is not a 2D space; that's how so, you ****ing imbecile.”
--- Androcles, 2011

Curvature of space is all relative, and everyone sees his space as
flat. *This should be a very fundamental principle in differential
geometry, and you will find all the three angles of a triangle always
add up to 180 degrees regardless how curved up space is around you
(relative to somebody else’s space that is). *shrug

You sure about that?

Absolutely. *shrug

Yeah, why disappoint us by admitting error?

Not that you would admit error even if it meant this is something you
could figure out in about a minute with a protractor, beach ball,
marker, and a piece of string.

[...]

On Mar 7, 5:42 pm, Eric Gisse wrote:
On Mar 7, 5:11 pm, Koobee Wublee wrote:

Ahahaha... Andro could not say any better than that.

“A sphere is not a 2D space; that's how so, you ****ing imbecile.”
--- Androcles, 2011

Curvature of space is all relative, and everyone sees his space as
flat. This should be a very fundamental principle in differential
geometry, and you will find all the three angles of a triangle always
add up to 180 degrees regardless how curved up space is around you
(relative to somebody else’s space that is). shrug

Yeah, why disappoint us by admitting error?

What errors?

This brings up why there is a preferred state for curvature in the
spacetime of GR. It turns out that the Minkowski spacetime equation,
derived from the Lorentz transform in which simultaneity is relative,
can be also derived from Larmor’s original transform in which
simultaneity is absolute. Notice what a drastic contradiction between
these two almost identical transforms. Thus, any spacetime equation
actually describes absolute space and time. Under GR, the difference
in gravitational time dilation between two adjacent points in space
(not spacetime) manifests gravity. shrug

Not that you would admit error even if it meant this is something you
could figure out in about a minute with a protractor, beach ball,
marker, and a piece of string.

Just how can you get yourself connected into curved space with a
protractor, beach ball, marker, and a piece of string? Einstein
Dingleberries are getting desperate. It is just a matter of time
before their religion of SR and GR is considered absolute garbage.
shrug

On Mar 7, 5:50*pm, Koobee Wublee wrote:
On Mar 7, 5:42 pm, Eric Gisse wrote:

On Mar 7, 5:11 pm, Koobee Wublee wrote:
Ahahaha... *Andro could not say any better than that.

“A sphere is not a 2D space; that's how so, you ****ing imbecile.”
--- Androcles, 2011

Curvature of space is all relative, and everyone sees his space as
flat. *This should be a very fundamental principle in differential
geometry, and you will find all the three angles of a triangle always
add up to 180 degrees regardless how curved up space is around you
(relative to somebody else’s space that is). *shrug

Yeah, why disappoint us by admitting error?

What errors?

Why do you ask questions whose answers you are uninterested in?


This brings up why there is a preferred state for curvature in the
spacetime of GR. *It turns out that the Minkowski spacetime equation,
derived from the Lorentz transform in which simultaneity is relative,
can be also derived from Larmor’s original transform in which
simultaneity is absolute. *Notice what a drastic contradiction between
these two almost identical transforms. *Thus, any spacetime equation
actually describes absolute space and time. *Under GR, the difference
in gravitational time dilation between two adjacent points in space
(not spacetime) manifests gravity. *shrug

Not that you would admit error even if it meant this is something you
could figure out in about a minute with a protractor, beach ball,
marker, and a piece of string.

Just how can you get yourself connected into curved space with a
protractor, beach ball, marker, and a piece of string? *Einstein
Dingleberries are getting desperate. *It is just a matter of time
before their religion of SR and GR is considered absolute garbage.
shrug

Put down the Einstein obsession for a second and realize that you are
arguing about a rather basic topic that was entirely solved in the
19th century. You have heard of fellows like Riemann and Lobachevsky,
right?

Just take a ball, connect any three points with great circles, and
measure the angles. That's all you gotta do.

The angles add up to less than pi. There is nothing new about this,
and your stubborn refusal to grasp 150 year old knowledge (and what
surveyors know by heart) is nothing more than a reminder that you are
being a jagoff just for the sake of it.

But we both know you have no intellectual curiosity or honesty, so
please keep arguing something that even a child can see is wrong. Its'
fun.

"PD" wrote:
"hanson" wrote:
Paul "PD" wrote:
"hanson" wrote:
Polemic "Eric Gisse" at alt.morons, wrote:
"hanson" wrote:

Gisse wrote:
[snip another wall of barely coherent insults]
I see you agree that the surface of a sphere is flat.

hanson wrote:
ahahahaha... a 2D surface is by definition flat,

Paul wrote:
That's simply not true, hanson.
A little topology would be in order.
2 dimensions means two independent degrees
of freedom, period. There is *no* presumption of flatness.
The surface of an infinitely long cylinder is a 2D space,
for example.
You've just got the wrong idea of what 2D means.

hanson wrote:
Paul, that only seems to you to be this way because
for too long you have been dangling in the ass-hair
of Einstein's, as one of his cling-ons, where you have
worshipped Albert's rectum & awed: "That must be it.
It looks just like that space-time rubber trampoline
which Albert's cling-ons are talking about"... ahaha...

Paul wrote:
No sir. Nonflat 2D surfaces have been around a
WHOLE lot longer than Einstein.
Topology recognized a lot of these features in the
middle 19th century.
What you consider 2D space to be is just not quite right, hanson.
Sometimes when something is explained to you, it means letting
go of a preconceived notion.

hanson wrote:
Nice weaseling on your part, Paul: "Nonflat 2D surfaces
have been around"... but carry that to the full extreme
that "there are no flat surfaces at all, because no matter
how smooth you polish one, it will get grainy at the
nano and atomic level... BUT, no matter how hard
you try... no matter at which level, your curved 2D
nonflat space is always a 3D construct... AND then
go on with that mentation of yours in your abstract world
and soon even your entire field concept breaks down...
which, to no surprise, your non-buddy Einstein has
lamkented about:
::: AE:: "I consider it quite possible that physics cannot be based
::: AE:: on the field concept, i. e., on continuous structures. In that
::: AE:: case nothing remains of my entire castle in the air, gravitation
::: AE:: theory included, [and of] the rest of modern physics." . [ &
::: AE::elsewhere] "why would anyone be interested in getting
::: AE:: exact solutions of such an ephemeral set of equations?"

Your argument line, echoed by college drop out Eric
Gisse (for whose plight and misfortunate condition
you old fart teachers are guilt of) is like the argument
that a photon has no mass... but none of you splendid
math cling-ons have ever shown to be able to get rid of
the mass that is still required for the momentum of
the photon to exist...

Now read the rest of my previous post which continues
with "Now, show me, in the real world, where you see
a piece of space-time or an infinitely long cylinder....
and show me where in the real world "space by itself,
and time by itself, are doomed to fade away" ... ahaha...

Start with looking into "Geistige Umnachtung" caused
by "Gedanken experiments"... ahahahaha..... READ:

hanson wrote:
Now, show me, in the real world, where you see
a piece of space-time or an infinitely long cylinder.

Till then, Paul enjoy the farts from Einstein's sphincter
and enjoy the company of the mental patients who live
where "Henceforth space by itself, and time by itself,
are doomed to fade away into mere shadows, and only
a kind of union of the two will preserve an independent
reality," Minkowski declared in Cologne on September
21, 1908"... due to which he probably confused the
town & drank the whole bottle of his perfume instead...
which indeed was some "kind of union of the two"

Enjoy the reunion, Paul... ahahahaha... ahahahanson

BTW,
Gisse's notion of resurrecting & reviving the
old "mass-space theory" makes eminently more
sense then the space-time **** that was merley
a brain fart of Einstein, which got promoted by
the then Zionist establishment, which used it for
their own political agenda:
http://tinyurl.com/Zio-Politics-with-Relativity and / or
http://tinyurl.com/Alberts-Zio-Politics-w-SR-GR

Rem Paul: "No politics - No money - No physics".
Physics is a social enterprise, like it or not.

hanson wrote:
ahahahaha... a 2D surface is by definition flat,
if not then it acquires a 3rd dimension also by def.
What is it that you don't understand about that?

IOW, like KW said:
"The surface of a sphere by no means is curved"...

Curved space only exists in the mind of Einstein
Dingleberries when they worship Albert's rectum
and awe: "That must be it. Looks just like that
space-time rubber trampoline which Albert's
cling-ons are talking about"

Now, let us return and see whether you still
have some intellectual balls, or whether your
beytsyim fell off already and gummed up
your mentation:

----------------"Eric Gisse" wrote:

"hanson" wrote:
"Eric Gisse" wrote:

Eric wrote:

snip bantering with Porat
I've always liked to think the electron is a
topological defect in space, but I can't
reconcile that theory with the proton which
is an actual assemblage of parts which
has the opposite charge.

hanson wrote:
First things first. Forget the proton part
for now. The natural world is grainy &
discrete, with its obviously very large to
vanishingly small matter elements.
So, the question arises "why does the
current, real, universe have a lower cutoff
graininess that matches the size of the
electron's rest mass?... Did you answer
that ton you own satisfaction?

Eric weaseled and wrote:
Your muddled thinking and writing style hurts my mind.

hanson wrote:
ahaha... Anyways, what is the reasons in your
pain ridden mind why the electron mass should
be the basic defect in your topological space?

It has been known now for 200+ years that
the converters from 1D space to mass is
G/c^2 = r/m, or for 70 years that H^2/G = rho
(m-density) in the "outer limits", where you like
to muse & fantasize at.
So what is so new in your take Eric?

Put the cofactors like 2,3,4..., Pi and [a], the
fine structure constant, into any of the
r^(1 to 3) / m converters and you'll get
to what you want.

When you have found the numerical match,
interpret & discuss your equation, pontificate
and brag about it... instead of you cranking
Porat, who has a far deeper insight into his
physics then you have now into your own...

Eric, show that you have some intellectual
balls, .... ahahaha... ahahanson

..... ahahahaha... AHAHAHAHA... ahahahaha...
AHAHAHAHA... ahahahaha...AHAHAHAHA...

Prolog:
Eric, move into the real world:
Key words: = social = money = politics
Dude, you are no longer a spring chicken,
get a grip, man... Your baby-days are over.

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

To:
Eric Gisse, jowr (junior of whining relativists),
Inmate in the home for ugly & obese college drop outs,
Unemployment Plaza,
City of Fairbanks, ****** county, Alaska, USA,

.... cranked himself grievously, ******ed, and so...

"Eric Gisse" wrote:
"hanson" wrote:
Polemic "Eric Gisse" at alt.morons, wrote:
[snip another wall of barely coherent insults]
"hanson" wrote:

Eric wrote:
I see you agree that the surface of a sphere is flat.

hanson wrote:
ahahahaha... a 2D surface is by definition flat,
if not then it acquires a 3rd dimension, also by def.
What is it that you don't understand about that?

Polemic Eric wrote:
Incorrect.
No wonder you act like a hyena - you have no idea
what you are talking about. Not that it is easy to tell,
because reading your spew is *way* harder than it
needs to be.
Your X-Newsreader is Microsoft Outlook Express 6,
which is more than capable of posting readable messages.
So that means you *manually* **** up posts and write all
that stupid **** yourself. And you've been doing it for years.
Baffling.
[snip rest of muddled posting]

hanson wrote:
ahahaha... wonderful weaseling, Eric... Did all of
it come out? & did any of it get on you?....ahaha...

hanson repeats and wrote:
ahahahaha... a 2D surface is by definition flat,
if not then it acquires a 3rd dimension also by def.
What is it that you don't understand about that?

IOW, like KW said:
"The surface of a sphere by no means is curved"...

Curved space only exists in the mind of Einstein
Dingleberries when they worship Albert's rectum
and awe: "That must be it. It looks just like that
space-time rubber trampoline which Albert's
cling-ons are talking about"

Now, let us return and see whether you still
have some intellectual balls, or whether your
beytsyim fell off already and gummed up
your mentation:

----------------
"Eric Gisse" wrote:
"hanson" wrote:
"Eric Gisse" wrote:

Eric wrote:
snip bantering with Porat
I've always liked to think the electron is a
topological defect in space, but I can't
reconcile that theory with the proton which
is an actual assemblage of parts which
has the opposite charge.

hanson wrote:
First things first. Forget the proton part
for now. The natural world is grainy &
discrete, with its obviously very large to
vanishingly small matter elements.
So, the question arises "why does the
current, real, universe have a lower cutoff
graininess that matches the size of the
electron's rest mass?... Did you answer
that ton you own satisfaction?

Eric weaseled and wrote:
Your muddled thinking and writing style hurts my mind.

hanson wrote:
ahaha... Anyways, what is the reasons in your
pain ridden mind why the electron mass should
be the basic defect in your topological space?

It has been known now for 200+ years that
the converters from 1D space to mass is
G/c^2 = r/m, or for 70 years that H^2/G = rho
(m-density) in the "outer limits", where you like
to muse & fantasize at.

So what is so new in your take Eric?

Put the cofactors like 2,3,4..., Pi and [a], the
fine structure constant, into any of the
r^(1 to 3) / m converters and you'll get
to what you want.

When you have found the numerical match,
interpret & discuss your equation, pontificate
and brag about it... instead of you cranking
Porat, who has a far deeper insight into his
physics then you have now into your own...

Eric, show that you have some intellectual
balls, .... ahahaha... ahahanson

PS:
In a concurrent post to Paul Draper, hanson wrote:

BTW,
Gisse's notion of resurrecting & reviving the
old "mass-space theory" makes eminently more
sense then the space-time **** that was merley
a brain fart of Einstein, which got promoted by
the then Zionist establishment, which used it for
their own political agenda:
http://tinyurl.com/Zio-Politics-with-Relativity and / or
http://tinyurl.com/Alberts-Zio-Politics-w-SR-GR

Rem Paul: "No politics - No money - No physics".
Physics is a social enterprise, like it or not.

Eric, move into the real world:
Key words: = money = social = politics
Dude, you are no longer a spring chicken
get a grip, man... Your baby days are over.

On Mar 7, 6:38 pm, Eric Gisse wrote:
On Mar 7, 5:50 pm, Koobee Wublee wrote:

What errors?

Why do you ask questions whose answers you are uninterested in?

What type of discussion is that?

Just how can you get yourself connected into curved space with a
protractor, beach ball, marker, and a piece of string? Einstein
Dingleberries are getting desperate. It is just a matter of time
before their religion of SR and GR is considered absolute garbage.
shrug

Put down the Einstein obsession

Always. You are the one who is obsessed with Einstein the nitwit, the
plagiarist, and the liar. It can easily tell so whenever yours truly
mention Einstein the nitwit, the plagiarist, and the liar, and Gisse
just went berserk time after time. shrug

for a second and realize that you are
arguing about a rather basic topic that was entirely solved in the
19th century. You have heard of fellows like Riemann and Lobachevsky,
right?

shrug

Just take a ball, connect any three points with great circles, and
measure the angles. That's all you gotta do.

You get distorted triangles. shrug

The angles add up to less than pi. There is nothing new about this,
and your stubborn refusal to grasp 150 year old knowledge (and what
surveyors know by heart) is nothing more than a reminder that you are
being a jagoff just for the sake of it.

You got to be kidding. These are known, identifiable, and distorted
triangles without even invoking the curvature of space, and you insist
on them to have properties of actual triangles. You are the one who
is jerking off. Perhaps, you don’t know what a triangle is. shrug

But we both know you have no intellectual curiosity or honesty, so
please keep arguing something that even a child can see is wrong. Its'
fun.

Just how fun can that be when you are constantly reminded by yours
truly of your own ignorance. Don’ you think it is getting old to be a
perpetual college dropout? shrug

On Mar 7, 9:28*pm, Koobee Wublee wrote:

[snip]

Just take a ball, connect any three points with great circles, and
measure the angles. That's all you gotta do.

You get distorted triangles. *shrug

Whose angles do not add up to 180 degrees. Thanks for playing.

.... and that is how Gauss measured the curvature of space,
only he did it in Allsace-Lorraine for the French goment,
using his theodolite.