From: NoEinstein on
On Aug 7, 3:36 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
Dear PD: GR "theory" (space-time... HA!) talks about a lot of
things. But only yours truly has figured out that the mechanism of
gravity isn't Einstein's concocted 4D metric, but simply flowing ether
which exerts a mass-proportional force on all objects; and the flow
can continue by virtue of the fact that the photon exchange between
the attracting bodies is transporting "hobo" ether back into space
between the emitted photons. — NoEinstein —
>
> On Aug 7, 12:04 pm, GSS <gurcharn_san...(a)yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > On Aug 6, 8:52 pm, Darwin123 <drosen0...(a)yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Jul 10, 12:57 pm, GSS <gurcharn_san...(a)yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > >>  "According to special theory of relativity, all motion is relative
> > >> and existence of any privileged or absolute inertial frame of
> > >> reference, which could be practically distinguished from all other
> > >> inertial frames, is ruled out. However, we may define an absolute or
> > >> universal reference frame as the one which is at rest with respect to
> > >> the center of mass of the universe and assume the speed c of
> > >> propagation of light to be an isotropic universal constant in that
> > >> frame.
>
> > >  There is not one unique center of mass for the entire universe. GR
> > > indicates that the center of mass of the universe doesn't have to be
> > > unique even in a finite universe.
>
> > GR considers the universe as embedded in 4-D spacetime, which is a
> > sort of 4-D 'block' view of the universe. In my opinion, this faulty
> > view of the universe has been created by wrongly treating the
> > 'spacetime' as a physical entity, instead of recognizing it as a
> > mathematical model used for simulating trajectories of particles.
> > Basically our dynamic universe is embedded in a 3-D Euclidean space
> > and its dynamic behavior or characteristic changes can be represented
> > with the use of an independent time coordinate. The notion of center
> > of mass can be associated with practically any spatial distribution of
> > mass in a 3-D space.
>
> Actually, GR does quite a bit more than this. The point of GR is that
> there IS NO fixed 4D metric, and that in fact, the metric is a
> *dynamical* property. Folks in quantum gravity call this feature of GR
> "background-free". The geometry is not an independent background upon
> which the laws of nature play. The geometry is *governed by* the laws
> of physics, which play out on a more fundamental basis.
>
> As for your claim that a center of mass can be associated with
> practically any spatial distribution of mass, this is true only if a)
> the distribution of mass is finite or b) is asymptotically zero
> density.
>
> PD- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

From: Autymn D. C. on
On Aug 11, 6:29 am, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote:
> On Aug 6, 7:37 am, "Autymn D. C." <lysde...(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Aug 3, 7:59 am, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> > > On Aug 2, 5:04 am, "Autymn D. C." <lysde...(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
> > > > On Aug 1, 4:54 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> > > > > On Aug 1, 9:27 am, "Autymn D. C." <lysde...(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
> > > > > > On Jul 28, 5:19 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > On Jul 26, 4:17 am, "Autymn D. C." <lysde...(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > Dear Aut...:  If I missed an important reply of yours, I'm sorry.
> > > > > > > Simply copy and paste it again.  —NE —
>
> > > > > > Don't write under my header, fuckwit, and go back in the thread and
> > > > > > read it.
>
> > > > > Dear Autymn:  You don't have the smarts to be making a '+new post'.
> > > > > Sorry if I offend your non-intellect.  — NoEinstein —
>
> > > > I made a new post not long ago, and earlier this year.  Stop thwartin
> > > > the thread, shyster cretin.  All of your arguments are nothing.
>
> > > > -Aut
>
> > > Dear Aut....:  And YOUR arguments contributing in any way the science
> > > are where?  — NoEinstein
>
> > in which
> How about right here on sci.physics, so the readers can see your
> shallowness.

I'm not your Google.

From: NoEinstein on
On Aug 12, 8:04 am, "Autymn D. C." <lysde...(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
Dear Aut....: Not only can't you read and write, you can't think
clearly. What in hell does "I'm not your Google” mean? Ha, ha, HA!
— NE —
>
> On Aug 11, 6:29 am, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> > On Aug 6, 7:37 am, "Autymn D. C." <lysde...(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
> > > On Aug 3, 7:59 am, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> > > > On Aug 2, 5:04 am, "Autymn D. C." <lysde...(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
> > > > > On Aug 1, 4:54 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> > > > > > On Aug 1, 9:27 am, "Autymn D. C." <lysde...(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > On Jul 28, 5:19 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > On Jul 26, 4:17 am, "Autymn D. C." <lysde...(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > Dear Aut...:  If I missed an important reply of yours, I'm sorry.
> > > > > > > > Simply copy and paste it again.  —NE —
>
> > > > > > > Don't write under my header, fuckwit, and go back in the thread and
> > > > > > > read it.
>
> > > > > > Dear Autymn:  You don't have the smarts to be making a '+new post'.
> > > > > > Sorry if I offend your non-intellect.  — NoEinstein —
>
> > > > > I made a new post not long ago, and earlier this year.  Stop thwartin
> > > > > the thread, shyster cretin.  All of your arguments are nothing.
>
> > > > > -Aut
>
> > > > Dear Aut....:  And YOUR arguments contributing in any way the science
> > > > are where?  — NoEinstein
>
> > > in which
> > How about right here on sci.physics, so the readers can see your
> > shallowness.
>
> I'm not your Google.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

From: BURT on
On Aug 12, 6:02 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote:
> On Aug 12, 8:04 am, "Autymn D. C." <lysde...(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
> Dear Aut....:  Not only can't you read and write, you can't think
> clearly.  What in hell does "I'm not your Google” mean?  Ha, ha, HA!
> — NE —
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Aug 11, 6:29 am, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> > > On Aug 6, 7:37 am, "Autymn D. C." <lysde...(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
> > > > On Aug 3, 7:59 am, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> > > > > On Aug 2, 5:04 am, "Autymn D. C." <lysde...(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
> > > > > > On Aug 1, 4:54 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > On Aug 1, 9:27 am, "Autymn D. C." <lysde...(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > On Jul 28, 5:19 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > On Jul 26, 4:17 am, "Autymn D. C." <lysde...(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > Dear Aut...:  If I missed an important reply of yours, I'm sorry.
> > > > > > > > > Simply copy and paste it again.  —NE —
>
> > > > > > > > Don't write under my header, fuckwit, and go back in the thread and
> > > > > > > > read it.
>
> > > > > > > Dear Autymn:  You don't have the smarts to be making a '+new post'.
> > > > > > > Sorry if I offend your non-intellect.  — NoEinstein —
>
> > > > > > I made a new post not long ago, and earlier this year.  Stop thwartin
> > > > > > the thread, shyster cretin.  All of your arguments are nothing.
>
> > > > > > -Aut
>
> > > > > Dear Aut....:  And YOUR arguments contributing in any way the science
> > > > > are where?  — NoEinstein
>
> > > > in which
> > > How about right here on sci.physics, so the readers can see your
> > > shallowness.
>
> > I'm not your Google.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Are you No Einstein because you are better than him?

Mitch Raemsch