🚀 go-pugleaf

On May 19, 10:02 am, doug <x...@xx.com> wrote:
> Jack Sprat wrote:
> > xxe...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > [...]
>
> >>xxein:  If all these jerks were teaching physics to students, it's no
> >> wonder the students can't tie their shoelaces.  You impress me with
> >> your overall grasp of the state of the physic.  You speak it well ---
> >> more than I can manage to express for sure, but not more than I know
> >> for sure.  
>
> > They're a bunch of overinflated egoist idiots. Imagine them,
> > if you will, a chorus line of buffoons on a Gilbert & Sullivan
> > stage singing, "I'm a PhD and I know it all, know it all,
> > know it all......" in true comic opera fashion. Little so
> > they know that a PhD is a portal to learning, not a
> > destination.
>
> Your jealousy of the educated is pretty sad. Your ego must
> be pretty fragile.
>
>
>
> > The first sign of real understanding is standing in awe of
> > nature while realizing how little we actually know, then
> > putting their noses to the grindstone to fill in some measly
> > tidbit of knowledge we lack. That is a lifetime of work,
> > to come up with one new meaningful tidbit that no one else
> > has managed to do.
>
> It seems to make you happier to think other know as little
> as you. Try some study.
>
>
>
> > These big mouthed lunatics think they have arrived. Could
> > anything be funnier? "I studied out of books so I am better
> > than anyone else..." The better question is, "What original
> > work have you achieved?"
>
> Your jealousy just continues.
>
>
>
> > Now watch them scramble, grasping for some petty argument
> > that they think might restore their self-professed recently
> > invented grandeur.
>
> > You'd think that after a few decades of watching one wave
> > after another of almost identical idiots making identical
> > professions of their self-importance on usenet that we would
> > tire of the sameness.
>
> Yes, we watch waves of cranks come through and pity the ones
> who can't learn and laugh at those that won't learn.
>
>
>
> > But for some reason, every successive wave is as much fun
> > as a barrel of monkeys. That resemblance is remarkable, isn't
> > it?
>
> Yes, you cranks and self professed "experts" are pretty
> funny.
>
>
>
> > "Har Har Har. I plonked 7 people today, and 8 yesterday and
> > I told them off. I mean, I *really* told them off. I'm
> > really important, I am! Har Har Har....."
>
> Yes, you seem to think that makes you important.
>
>
>
> > Yes sir. You're important all right. You have plonking power!
> > And still, for some reason, you eat, sleep, shit, and pay
> > taxes, just like the rest of us. Let me know when you've
> > achieved immortality.
>
> Let us know when you have learned some physics.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

xxein:  For some reason in your mind, you seem to think you know
more?  I don't know Jack Sprat and he doesn't know me but we
instinctively know we don't have to discuss the hardcore of the physic
because we both know more than 99.9% of the physic that you and others
share as 10 to 50%.  The textbook on this hasn't been written yet and
it's not what you can imagine from your knowledge.

Why do you think everyone argues the minutia of such a basic
foundation of terms (G, M, R, V and the consequences)?  We can't even
measure the speed of light directly.  We end up relying on on a
subjective measurement caused by our being subjective to a real time
dilation and a real length contraction (despite the appearance of a
length contraction that also happens with movemental observations).
But too much has been assumed about the constancy of the speed of
light.

There is a constancy but how then do you explain a black hole with
that?  You can't!  Not until you get to the logical level of how the
physic works.  You can say that you know everything about gravity but
you cannot say you know why it exists physically nor what it
physically does.  You can only see and measure relations.

I don't know about Jack Sprat, but he at least smells the rotten
fish.  I know where they are, but more importantly, I know how to
discard them and clean the mess up.  It's really quite simple (not
really if you remain tainted) if you can allow yourself to abandon
previous beliefs and concentrate on the empiricals.  But...

While the universe is expanding as a whole, it tries to maintain a
local and contemporary equilibrium within itself as it does so.  It is
actually tumultuous.  We can see galaxies colliding but we can't
directly measure an incident lightspeed as being 11185 m/s faster than
a constant c as it approaches the surface of our earth.

Androcles (although in grade school) quotes me correctly on this.
"According to xxein (not a true dingleberry):
It is an artefactual/superficially imposed yin-yang of sorts.".  I
cannot call that statement untrue because there is a continuum.
Everything is connected with a gravity and the individual forces that
arise because of it or appear independent of gravity do exist and
perform this dance.  It is from the continuous change that does exist
that we attempt to draw a simple inertial scenario (Lorentz - SR).
The effort is not terrible in itself because of low velocities but GR
attempts to correct this in a foolhardy way.

More later if you wish.