On Wednesday, April 27, 2022 at 4:08:41 PM UTC-5, RichD wrote:
> On April 27, com wrote:
> > I'm just using LOGIC instead of mathematics,
> > because LOGIC is the basis for understanding.
> > WE are at the center of our "observable universe." We can see 13.8 billion
> > light years in all directions.
> Yes.
> > WE KNOW that the universe did not form around us, because that is
> > ILLOGICAL.
> We KNOW that? We SEE the universe expanding away from us,
> in all directions!

Yes, but we would ALSO see the same thing if the universe was expanding away
from some other point. I've explained that before. All that is needed is for the
Big Bang to expand like unleashing springs, instead of like an explosion. The
first springs released travel faster than the next springs. That will result in
every place in the observable universe to seem like everything is moving away
from that place.

>
> The problem is your DEFECTIVE logic, which is nought but your BELIEF
> that the center is "somewhere else". It is ILLOGICAL and ANTI-SCIENTIFIC.

It is totally logical and totally scientific. There are NO REMNANTS of anything
that could CAUSE everything else in the universe to move away from us.

> > No science supports such an idea.
> What?
> Science is based on OBSERVATION, that's how we contact REALITY.

Right. PLUS you need to UNDERSTAND what you see. There is nothing on
earth or near the sun that could push away the rest of the universe.

> > Therefore it MUST have begun somewhere else.
> > We see no POINT in our "observable universe"
> > which everything else is moving away from.
> What?
> The center point is the sun!

That is only an ILLUSION. People on planets around every star would see
the same thing.

> > Therefore the universe MUST have begun outside of our "observable universe."
> If your theory doesn't agree with experiment, it's WRONG.
> Your FANTASY.

This is my last posting session for this thread. I have better things to do than
the explain the same things over and over and over and over and over.

Ed

On Wednesday, April 27, 2022 at 4:20:08 PM UTC-5, Paparios wrote:
> El miércoles, 27 de abril de 2022 a las 15:52:29 UTC-4, escribió:
> > On Wednesday, April 27, 2022 at 12:48:19 PM UTC-5, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > > > There are plenty of textbooks that agree with me. I have a collection of
> > > > well over 100 college physics textbooks.
> > > A hundred TEXTBOOKS? I’d like a listing of the first 30 please.
> > > Note that Brian Greene’s The Fabric of the Cosmos is not a textbook.
> > > Hawking’s A Brief History of Time is not a textbook.
> > Here are about 70 that I have categorized as "textbooks." I could have
> > dozens more that I just categorized as "books":
> >
> <SNIP> list of books
> > > If you have five textbooks that you can point to that say that there is a
> > > definite center to the Big Bang, but that it lies outside the observability
> > > limit, then cite them.
> > I'd have to dig through them, and I see no point in doing that right now,
> > since you'd just argue that the book doesn't meet your standards for a
> > physics "textbook."
> >
> > But, I might do it when I find some spare time.
> >
> > Ed
> Edward approach is quite clear. He collects all these books (in pdf format) and then, using the pdf search tool, searches the book for the phrases he is interested on, such as "Einstein postulate" or "photon". He has never read any of those books (the same as he has not read Einstein 1905 paper past the first page).

You need to understand what "RESEARCH" means, Paparios. When doing research
on a subject, you do not read every book from cover to cover to see if it has anything
about the topic you are researching, you just read the PARTS ABOUT that topic.
You can research 500 books in the time it takes to read one book from cover to cover.

It is incredible that you do not understand that. Have you never done any research?

>
> He runs like hell from any mathematical symbol. It is funny he mentions the book Gravitation from Meisner, Thorne and Wheeler, which starts by using spacetime mathematics.

When it is relevant, I mention every book that I use in my research.

This will be my last response to you in this thread. I have a lot of other things
I need to do more than explaining things to you over and over and over.

Ed

On Wednesday, April 27, 2022 at 6:14:02 PM UTC-5, whodat wrote:
> On 4/27/2022 4:25 PM, Ed Lake wrote:
> > On Wednesday, April 27, 2022 at 3:29:10 PM UTC-5, whodat wrote:
> >> On 4/27/2022 12:12 PM, Ed Lake wrote:
> >>
> >>> We see no POINT in our "observable universe"
> >>> which everything else is moving away from. Therefore the universe MUST
> >>> have begun outside of our "observable universe."
> >>
> >>> It's basic UNDENIABLE LOGIC. And there are probably textbooks and
> >>> science books which support it.
>
> >> You need to think your way out of this. Remember "the further away
> >> things are from us the faster they are receding,"
> >
> > Yes, but that is true for everything we see. If you are on Alpha Centauri,
> > everything seems to be moving away from you. Nearly everything seems
> > to be moving away from everything else.
> >
> > BUT, if the point of the Big Bang was inside our observable universe,
> > we would be able to see that point. Everything would be moving away from
> > that point IN ADDITION TO seeming to move away from Earth.
> There's nothing incontrovertible indicating that is true.

Yes, there is. But illustrations are needed to assist in the explanation.
There are illustrations in my paper on "Logical vs Mathematical Universes":
https://vixra.org/pdf/2002.0072v2.pdf

This will be my last response to you in this thread. I have other things I
need to do.

Ed

On Thursday, April 28, 2022 at 7:58:15 AM UTC-5, Mikko wrote:
> On 2022-04-27 16:30:11 +0000, Ed Lake said:
>
> > What about the galaxies that are NOT part of our Local Group? And is
> > there a pattern to what we see in the Local Group? Are there MORE in
> > one direction than another.
> The most obvious pattern is that all blue shifted galaxies are near.
> They are all in the Virgo supercluster.
>
> In the M81 group there are several blueshifted galaxies:
> HS 117, M81, PGC 28529, PGC 28731, UGC 5428, UGC 5442, UGC 6456
> in directions 10h..12h.
>
> In the Maffei Group:
> Camelopardalis A, NGC 1560, NGC 1569, UGCA 92, Maffei 2
> in directions h4..5h
>
> There are blueshifted galaxies elsewhere, too, e.g.:
> NGC 404 in the direction 1h
> NGC 1313 in the direction 3h 18m
>
> In Virgo cluster there are more blueshinfted galaxies simply because
> it is the biggest cluster nearby.
>
> Mikko

This is another situation where an illustration is needed. When you need
to LOOK for a pattern, it helps to have something to look at.

Ed

Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> wrote:
> On Wednesday, April 27, 2022 at 3:29:10 PM UTC-5, whodat wrote:
>> On 4/27/2022 12:12 PM, Ed Lake wrote:
>>
>>> We see no POINT in our "observable universe"
>>> which everything else is moving away from. Therefore the universe MUST
>>> have begun outside of our "observable universe."
>>
>>> It's basic UNDENIABLE LOGIC. And there are probably textbooks and
>>> science books which support it.
>> You need to think your way out of this. Remember "the further away
>> things are from us the faster they are receding,"
>
> Yes, but that is true for EVERY place in the OBSERVABLE universe.
>
> If the point of the Big Bang was INSIDE our observable universe, we would
> see a big empty spot at that location, and everything would be moving away
> from that spot IN ADDITION to moving away from us. There is no such spot.

No, it’s not true that a Big Bang or even an ordinary explosion necessarily
puts a big empty spot in the middle. What you have in mind is a mental
assumption, that at the onset of this “explosion”, everything departs from
the center with roughly the same speed. That assumption WOULD produce
debris that occupies some shell of expanding radius, empty in the middle
and empty outside of it. That’s the kind of thing you see with designed
fireworks.

If on the other hand, everything has a flat spectrum of speeds leaving the
“explosion”, then some are slow and some are fast and the distribution is
even between the extremes. In this case there are certainly things that
have practically zero speed leaving the center, compared with the Milky
Way’s speed, and those would remain close to the center even today.

You see? So much of what you imagine is bound by your everyday experience,
and you assume that any “explosion” is going to be like explosions you’ve
see in everyday life. And those are bad assumptions. That’s not LOGIC
you’re applying, it’s contact with the everyday. LOGIC is what it is that I
described in the previous paragraph that shows how there could well be no
empty spot near the center of any “explosion”, LOGICALLY, even if it’s not
something you’re familiar with seeing.

>
> I've pointed this out before. I'm going to respond to the posts I see that
> are already in this blog this morning, and then I'm going to stop responding.
> I've got too many other things I need to work on.
>
> Ed
>

--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> wrote:
> On Wednesday, April 27, 2022 at 4:20:08 PM UTC-5, Paparios wrote:
>> El miércoles, 27 de abril de 2022 a las 15:52:29 UTC-4, escribió:
>>> On Wednesday, April 27, 2022 at 12:48:19 PM UTC-5, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>>>>> There are plenty of textbooks that agree with me. I have a collection of
>>>>> well over 100 college physics textbooks.
>>>> A hundred TEXTBOOKS? I’d like a listing of the first 30 please.
>>>> Note that Brian Greene’s The Fabric of the Cosmos is not a textbook.
>>>> Hawking’s A Brief History of Time is not a textbook.
>>> Here are about 70 that I have categorized as "textbooks." I could have
>>> dozens more that I just categorized as "books":
>>>
>> <SNIP> list of books
>>>> If you have five textbooks that you can point to that say that there is a
>>>> definite center to the Big Bang, but that it lies outside the observability
>>>> limit, then cite them.
>>> I'd have to dig through them, and I see no point in doing that right now,
>>> since you'd just argue that the book doesn't meet your standards for a
>>> physics "textbook."
>>>
>>> But, I might do it when I find some spare time.
>>>
>>> Ed
>> Edward approach is quite clear. He collects all these books (in pdf
>> format) and then, using the pdf search tool, searches the book for the
>> phrases he is interested on, such as "Einstein postulate" or "photon".
>> He has never read any of those books (the same as he has not read
>> Einstein 1905 paper past the first page).
>
> You need to understand what "RESEARCH" means, Paparios. When doing research
> on a subject, you do not read every book from cover to cover to see if it has anything
> about the topic you are researching, you just read the PARTS ABOUT that topic.
> You can research 500 books in the time it takes to read one book from cover to cover.

No, that’s a bad program for books. A REALLY bad idea. Books are not like
encyclopedias with little independent articles in them. If there is
something on page 198, it is implicit that you already understand the
material in pages 1-197 and it’s going to USE that implication in
presenting what’s on 198. It is IMPOSSIBLE in a book to understand
correctly what’s on page 198 unless you already know the stuff in pages
1-197.

If this is how you have modeled your “research”, then it is no wonder you
have absolutely no understanding of anything in books and the only things
you have absorbed are short web articles you’ve been able to digest as a
whole in a sitting.

>
> It is incredible that you do not understand that. Have you never done any research?
>
>>
>> He runs like hell from any mathematical symbol. It is funny he mentions
>> the book Gravitation from Meisner, Thorne and Wheeler, which starts by
>> using spacetime mathematics.
>
> When it is relevant, I mention every book that I use in my research.
>
> This will be my last response to you in this thread. I have a lot of other things
> I need to do more than explaining things to you over and over and over.
>
> Ed
>

--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

On Thursday, April 28, 2022 at 8:11:35 AM UTC-5, Ufonaut wrote:
> On Wednesday, April 27, 2022 at 1:30:47 AM UTC+10, wrote:
> > I understand the "concept of relative motion and reference frames in physics."
> > It is the CAUSE of many IDIOTIC BELIEFS.
> >
> > It takes ENERGY to make something move in our universe. Yet you argue
> > that due to "relative motion" it can be claimed that a rocket can be viewed as
> > moving away from the stationary earth, or you can view the earth as moving
> > away from a stationary rocket. That is MORONIC.
> OK, so what about these scenarios :
>
> 1) Alice is in a rocketship with engines turned off (so unpowered, coasting inertially).Through her window , she sees the earth moving with velocity v relative to her.
> So you would say that her rocketship is the one that is moving, obviously not the earth. Consequently, since time dilation is related to movement, you would also that therefore her rocketship's clocks are the ones that are are running slow - certainly slower than those on Earth.

Your comment is hopelessly muddled. EVERYTHING in our observable universe
is MOVING. To know whose clocks are running slower, you need to know the
DIRECTION of movement. The Hafele-Keating experiment demonstrated that.

If the rocket ship is moving in one direction and the earth in its orbit around the
sun is moving in the other direction, time should tick slower on earth. If the
rocket ship is moving in the same direction as the earth, clocks on the rocket
ship should run slower because the rocket ship is moving faster than the earth.

>
> 2) Let's take a bird's-eye view of the Solar System, from a point stationary relative to the Sun (say above its north pole). We can see the Earth moving along its orbit.
> Let's put Bob in a rocketship (again, powered off, just coasting inertially), also stationary relative to the sun, but on Earth's orbital path (or just to the side).
> So Bob looks through his window to see Earth approaching then receeding from him at (naturally enough) Earth's orbital velocity of v = 30 km/sec.
> So, since it is the Earth that is clearly the one that is moving in its orbit rather than Bob, then obviously you would say that it is the Earth's clocks that must be the ones that are time dilated - certainly slower than those positioned stationary relative to the Sun (such as those on Bob's rocketship).

As stated above, in that situation Bob in his rocket ship is moving faster around the
sun than the earth. So, Bob's clock would run slower.

>
> So do I understand your position correctly, that you agree with both (1) and (2) ?

No, I disagree with you on both.

(snip more of the same)

This is my final post on this thread. Bye bye.

Ed

On 4/28/2022 10:33 AM, Ed Lake wrote:

> This is my last posting session for this thread. I have better things to do than
> the explain the same things over and over and over and over and over.
>
> Ed

Run away!! Run away!!!!

On 4/28/2022 9:19 AM, Ed Lake wrote:
> On Wednesday, April 27, 2022 at 3:29:10 PM UTC-5, whodat wrote:
>> On 4/27/2022 12:12 PM, Ed Lake wrote:
>>
>>> We see no POINT in our "observable universe"
>>> which everything else is moving away from. Therefore the universe MUST
>>> have begun outside of our "observable universe."
>>
>>> It's basic UNDENIABLE LOGIC. And there are probably textbooks and
>>> science books which support it.
>> You need to think your way out of this. Remember "the further away
>> things are from us the faster they are receding,"
>
> Yes, but that is true for EVERY place in the OBSERVABLE universe.
>
> If the point of the Big Bang was INSIDE our observable universe, we would
> see a big empty spot at that location, and everything would be moving away
> from that spot IN ADDITION to moving away from us. There is no such spot.
>
> I've pointed this out before. I'm going to respond to the posts I see that
> are already in this blog this morning, and then I'm going to stop responding.
> I've got too many other things I need to work on.

So let me ask you this, if everything is moving away from us and we (the
earth) has been here for 4.53 billion years, why aren't we sitting in a
hole?

Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> wrote:
> On Wednesday, April 27, 2022 at 12:48:19 PM UTC-5, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>> Ed Lake wrote:
>>> On Wednesday, April 27, 2022 at 11:45:23 AM UTC-5, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>> Ed Lake wrote:
>
>>>>> You may be right, which shows the sorry state of college physics textbooks.
>>>> No, that’s not the right conclusion. If you find that every textbook
>>>> disagrees with something you think is true, then it is a mistake to believe
>>>> that you are right and every single textbook is wrong. What is a much
>>>> better strategy is to conclude that it is YOU that is not understanding
>>>> something correctly.
>>>
>>> There are plenty of textbooks that agree with me. I have a collection of
>>> well over 100 college physics textbooks.
>> A hundred TEXTBOOKS? I’d like a listing of the first 30 please.
>> Note that Brian Greene’s The Fabric of the Cosmos is not a textbook.
>> Hawking’s A Brief History of Time is not a textbook.
>
> Here are about 70 that I have categorized as "textbooks." I could have
> dozens more that I just categorized as "books":

OK, so let’s have a small moment of truth-telling here, Ed. You have
provided a listing of 70 books, but you fell short of claiming that these
are actually in your possession. I would have doubts without a link to a
photo of your bookshelf showing all of these. I can explain why I have
doubts. About 40 of the titles you list below are first-year introductory
physics books. None of those are available in PDF except illegally or at
costs close to print books, and they do not render at all well on Kindle
(and in fact are not available as official Kindle editions). You also cite
multiple editions of the same textbook, which is a lot to pay for
essentially the same content (what changes from edition to edition is
mostly the end-of-chapter problems and worked examples, which you do not
care about). The average storefront (online or bricks-and-mortar store)
price for each those introductory books ranges from $100 to $125. This
means that if indeed you had those 40 first-year textbooks on your shelf,
you’d have spent $4000 - $5000 on them, since the onset of your interest in
physics a couple years ago.

What would be particularly alarming about you spending $4000-$5000 on
introductory textbooks is that you have learned no introductory physics.

To cement this even more, it’s worth noting that first-year introductory
textbooks as a rule say next to nothing about any of the following
subjects: Big Bang cosmology, quantum fields, or anything like a
comprehensive view of the behavior of photons. To claim that ANY of those
introductory books would have anything to say in agreement with your
position about those topics is simply dishonest.

As for the non-introductory texts, it’s worth noting that a lot of those
ALSO will have nothing to say about Big Bang cosmology or quantum fields or
the behavior of photons. For example, the books by Thomas Young, Walter
Lewin, Nicholas Giordano, Daniel Kleppner and Robert Kolendow, A. P.
French, David Morin, David Griffiths, Herbert Goldstein and Charles Pool
and John Safko — none of these will have anything to do with those topics.

So, let’s get a bit real here, Ed. Using books that you ACTUALLY have in
your possession, which of them have substantive discussion (beyond a single
paragraph or a half page) on Big Bang cosmology or the behavior of quantum
fields or the behavior of photons? Do you actually know?

>
> A College Text-Book of Physics Arthur L. Kimball
> A Course of Lectures on Natural Philosophy and the Mechanical Arts Thomas Young
> A First Course in General Relativity Bernard F. Schultz
> A Primer of Special Relativity P. L. Sardesai
> A Source Book in Physics William Francis Magie
> An introduction to Mechanics Daniel Kleppner and Robert Kolenkow
> An Introduction to Relativity Jaylant V. Narlikar
> An Introduction to the Special Theory of Relativity Robert Katz
> Astrophysics for Physicists Arnab Rai Choudhuri
> Basic Physics: A self-teaching guide Karl F. Kuhn
> Classical Mechanics Herbert Goldstein, Charles P. Poole, John L. Safko
> College Physics Eugenia Etkina, Michael Gentile & Alan Van Heuvelen
> College Physics Hugh D. Young
> College Physics Paul Peter Urone & Roger Hinrichs
> College Physics – A Strategic Approach Randall D. Knight, Brian Jones, Stuart Field
> College Physics (Eighth Edition) Raymond A. Serway & Chris Vuille
> College Physics (Ninth Edition) Raymond A. Serway & Chris Vuille
> College Physics (Seventh Edition?) Raymond A. Serway, Jerry S. Faughn & Chris Vuille
> Computational Physics Nicholas J. Giordano
> Essential College Physics with Mastering Physics Andrew Rex & Richard Wolfson
> Essential Physics John Matolyak & Ajawad Haija
> For the Love of Physics Walter Lewin
> Foundations of Astronomy (Eleventh Edition) Michael A. Seeds, Dana E. Backman
> Fundamentals of College Physics Peter J. Nolan
> Fundamentals of Modern Physics Peter J. Nolan
> Fundamentals of Modern Physics Robert Martin Eisberg
> Fundamentals of Physics (Eighth Edition) Jearl Walker
> Fundamentals of Physics (Ninth Edition) Jearl Walker
> Fundamentals of Physics (Tenth Edition) Jearl Walker
> Fundamentals of Physics, Mechanics, Relativity and Thermodynamics R. Shankar
> Gravitation Charles W. Meisner, Kip S. Thorne, John Archibald Wheeler
> Handbook of Space-Time Abhay Ashtekar, Vesselin Petkov (Eds.)
> How Things Work: The Physics of Everyday Life Louis A. Bloomfield
> Introducing Einstein's Relativity Ray d'Inverno
> Introduction to Classical Mechanics A. P. French
> Introduction to Classical Mechanics – with Problems and Solutions David Morin
> Introduction to Electrodynamics David J. Griffiths
> Introduction to Modern Optics Grant R. Fowles
> Introduction to Special Relativity Robert Resnick
> Introduction to Special Relativity Wolfgang Rindler
> Modern Classical Physics: optics, fluids, plasmas, elasticity,
> relativity, and statistical physics Kip S. Thorne & Roger D. Blandford
> Modern Measurements: Fundamentals and Applications Alessandro Ferraro et al
> Modern Physics - 3rd edition Raymond A. Serway, Clement J. Moses, Curt A. Moyer
> Modern Physics (5th Edition) Paul A. Tipler, Ralph A. Llewellyn
> Modern Physics (6th edition) Paul A. Tipler, Ralph A. Llewellyn
> Modern Physics for Scientists and Engineers John R. Taylor, Chris D.
> Zafiratos & Michael A. Dubson
> Modern Physics for Scientists and Engineers Stephen T. Thornton and Andrew Rex
> Optics (4th Edition) Eugene Hecht
> Physics James S. Walker
> Physics - 2nd edition Alan Giambattista, Betty Richardson & Robert C. Richardson
> Physics – Principles with Applications (7th Edition) Douglas C. Giancoli
> Physics for Engineers and Scientists - 3rd edition – Volume 1 Hans C.
> Ohanian, John T. Markert
> Physics for Engineers and Scientists - 3rd edition – Volume 2 Hans C.
> Ohanian, John T. Markert
> Physics for Engineers and Scientists - 3rd edition – Volume 3 Hans C.
> Ohanian, John T. Markert
> Physics for Scientists & Engineers – 6th edition Raymond A. Serway & John W. Jewett
> Physics for Scientists & Engineers with Modern Physics Douglas C. Giancoli
> Physics for Scientists and Engineers – With Modern Physics - 3rd ed. Paul
> M Fishbane; Stephen Gasiorowicz; Stephen T Thornton
> Physics for Scientists and Engineers – With Modern Physics - 6th ed. Paul
> A. Tipler & Gene Mosca
> Physics for Scientists and Engineers: A Strategic Approach Randall D. Knight
> Physics: A Conceptual World View Larry Kirkpatric & Gregory Francis
> Physics: Principles with Applications (7th Edition) Douglas C. Giancoli
> Primer of Special Relativity, A P. L. Sardesai
> Relativity and its Roots Banesh Hoffmann
> Space and time in contemporary physics: an introduction to the theory of
> relativity and gravitation Moritz Schlick
> Space, Time and Einstein: An Introduction J. B. Kennedy
> Spacetime Physics: An Introduction to Special Relativity Edwin F. Taylor
> & John Archibald Wheeler
> Spacetime Physics: An Introduction to Special Relativity - 2nd ed. Edwin
> F. Taylor & John Archibald Wheeler
> The Fascination of Physics Jacqueline D. Spears & Dean Zollman
> The Geometry of Special Relativity Norbert Dragon
> Understanding Physics David Cassidy, Gerald Holton, James Rutherford
> Understanding Physics Karen Cummings, Priscilla W. Laws, Edward F. Redish
> and Patrick J. Cooney
> Understanding Physics Michael Mansfield and Colm O'Sullivan
> University Physics George Arfken
> University Physics -Volume 3 Samuel J. Ling et al.
> University Physics with Modern Physics - 12th ed. Hugh D. Young & Roger A. Freedman
> University Physics with Modern Physics - 14th ed. Hugh D. Young & Roger A. Freedman
>
> Here is a sample of some that I just categorize as "books":
>
> The Special Theory of Relativity David Bohm
> The Special Theory of Relativity H. Muirhead
> The Special Theory of Relativity J. Aharoni
> The Theory of Fundamental Processes Richard Feynman
> The Theory of Relativity C. Moller
> The Theory of Relativity Robert D. Carmichael
>
>> If you have five textbooks that you can point to that say that there is a
>> definite center to the Big Bang, but that it lies outside the observability
>> limit, then cite them.
>
> I'd have to dig through them, and I see no point in doing that right now,
> since you'd just argue that the book doesn't meet your standards for a
> physics "textbook."
>
> But, I might do it when I find some spare time.
>
> Ed
>

On 2022-04-28 16:26:11 +0000, whodat said:

> So let me ask you this, if everything is moving away from us and we (the
> earth) has been here for 4.53 billion years, why aren't we sitting in a
> hole?

Maybe we are. It looks like there is a region around Milky Way, known as
"Local Hole", where the density of galaxies is unusually low:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/KBC_Void

Mikko

Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> wrote:
> On Wednesday, April 27, 2022 at 3:29:10 PM UTC-5, whodat wrote:
>> On 4/27/2022 12:12 PM, Ed Lake wrote:
>>
>>> We see no POINT in our "observable universe"
>>> which everything else is moving away from. Therefore the universe MUST
>>> have begun outside of our "observable universe."
>>
>>> It's basic UNDENIABLE LOGIC. And there are probably textbooks and
>>> science books which support it.
>> You need to think your way out of this. Remember "the further away
>> things are from us the faster they are receding,"
>
> Yes, but that is true for everything we see. If you are on Alpha Centauri,
> everything seems to be moving away from you. Nearly everything seems
> to be moving away from everything else.
>
> BUT, if the point of the Big Bang was inside our observable universe,
> we would be able to see that point. Everything would be moving away from
> that point IN ADDITION TO seeming to move away from Earth.

And the fact that there is no such observed behavior does not mean that the
point does exist but it’s out of our observable universe.

>
> Draw a point with lines moving away from that point. Then pick a spot
> along one of the lines where Earth would be. Points on all the OTHER lines
> are moving away from Earth. If things move faster at the central point
> than at distant points, then even points in the Earth's line will appear to be
> moving away. The points ahead of us are moving faster than than we are,
> and the points behind us are moving slower and are dropping behind.
>
> Maybe the problem here is that people think of the Big Bang as being
> like a dynamite explosion. A big hole is left at the point of the explosion,
> and everything that was blown away traveled at the same speed.
>
> There was nothing to cause that kind of explosion. The Big Bang "explosion"
> would have been more like unleashing a mass of springs. The first springs
> travel faster than later springs because the first springs had more springs
> behind them pushing them.

OK, and note that it would be foolish to then say that if the Big Bang
happened inside our observable universe, then we’d look for the hole.
Because no hole would be expected. Right?

>
> The Big Bang resulted from everything being COMPRESSED too much,
> and it all just suddenly DECOMPRESSED. If everything eventually slows
> down, and gravity pulls everything back together again, we'll have another
> Big Bang.
>
> That's the way that makes sense. An "explosion" makes no sense.
> It's sometimes called "The Big Bounce Theory."
> https://www.popularmechanics.com/space/deep-space/a34941841/big-bounce-universe-theory/
>
> Ed
>

--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> wrote:
> On Wednesday, April 27, 2022 at 4:20:08 PM UTC-5, Paparios wrote:
>> El miércoles, 27 de abril de 2022 a las 15:52:29 UTC-4, escribió:
>>> On Wednesday, April 27, 2022 at 12:48:19 PM UTC-5, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>>>>> There are plenty of textbooks that agree with me. I have a collection of
>>>>> well over 100 college physics textbooks.
>>>> A hundred TEXTBOOKS? I’d like a listing of the first 30 please.
>>>> Note that Brian Greene’s The Fabric of the Cosmos is not a textbook.
>>>> Hawking’s A Brief History of Time is not a textbook.
>>> Here are about 70 that I have categorized as "textbooks." I could have
>>> dozens more that I just categorized as "books":
>>>
>> <SNIP> list of books
>>>> If you have five textbooks that you can point to that say that there is a
>>>> definite center to the Big Bang, but that it lies outside the observability
>>>> limit, then cite them.
>>> I'd have to dig through them, and I see no point in doing that right now,
>>> since you'd just argue that the book doesn't meet your standards for a
>>> physics "textbook."
>>>
>>> But, I might do it when I find some spare time.
>>>
>>> Ed
>> Edward approach is quite clear. He collects all these books (in pdf
>> format) and then, using the pdf search tool, searches the book for the
>> phrases he is interested on, such as "Einstein postulate" or "photon".
>> He has never read any of those books (the same as he has not read
>> Einstein 1905 paper past the first page).
>
> As usual, you don't know what you are talking about, Paparios. I've read Einstein's
> 1905 paper dozens of times. I've even tried to summarize it and simplify
> it, but I get bogged down in the second part.
>
> I read science books all the time. I have DOZENS in my Kindle and dozens
> more on bookshelves around me.

See my comment about your list of textbooks (70 or so), and how it seems
unlikely that these are actually on your bookshelf.

>
> Here's a passage from "Origin Story" by David Christian:
> "At the earliest moment for which we have some evidence, a split second
> after the big bang, the universe consisted of pure, random,
> undifferentiated, shapeless energy. We can think of energy as the
> potential for something to happen, the capacity to do things or change
> things. The energies inside the primeval atom were staggering, many
> trillions of degrees above absolute zero. There was a brief period of
> super-rapid expansion known as inflation. Expansion was so fast that much
> of the universe may have been projected far beyond anything we will ever
> see. That means that what we see today is probably just a tiny part of
> our entire universe."
>
> Note the last sentence.

Yes. That’s true. That does NOT mean that there IS a center to the Big Bang
at all, but that it is outside our observable universe.

>
> I do NOT sit down and read textbooks from cover to cover. There is too
> much in them that is of no immediate interest. So, I just search for and
> read the parts that are of current interest to me to answer some question.

And I commented on this as well. This is not a productive way to read
books. They aren’t encyclopedias.

>
> Ed
>
>>
>> He runs like hell from any mathematical symbol. It is funny he mentions
>> the book Gravitation from Meisner, Thorne and Wheeler, which starts by
>> using spacetime mathematics.
>

--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

On 4/28/2022 10:50 AM, Michael Moroney wrote:
> On 4/28/2022 10:33 AM, Ed Lake wrote:
>
>> This is my last posting session for this thread.  I have better things
>> to do than
>> the explain the same things over and over and over and over and over.
>>
>> Ed
>
> Run away!!  Run away!!!!

He is!! He is!!

Odd Bodkin wrote:
>
> Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> wrote:
> > On Wednesday, April 27, 2022 at 12:48:19 PM UTC-5, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> >> Ed Lake wrote:
> >>> On Wednesday, April 27, 2022 at 11:45:23 AM UTC-5, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>>> Ed Lake wrote:
> >
> >>>>> You may be right, which shows the sorry state of college physics textbooks.
> >>>> No, that’s not the right conclusion. If you find that every textbook
> >>>> disagrees with something you think is true, then it is a mistake to believe
> >>>> that you are right and every single textbook is wrong. What is a much
> >>>> better strategy is to conclude that it is YOU that is not understanding
> >>>> something correctly.
> >>>
> >>> There are plenty of textbooks that agree with me. I have a collection of
> >>> well over 100 college physics textbooks.
> >> A hundred TEXTBOOKS? I’d like a listing of the first 30 please.
> >> Note that Brian Greene’s The Fabric of the Cosmos is not a textbook.
> >> Hawking’s A Brief History of Time is not a textbook.
> >
> > Here are about 70 that I have categorized as "textbooks." I could have
> > dozens more that I just categorized as "books":
>
> OK, so let’s have a small moment of truth-telling here, Ed. You have
> provided a listing of 70 books, but you fell short of claiming that these
> are actually in your possession.

It turns out that I have 152 books in .pdf format, 11 books in .epub
format (which my computer can read to me, if I want), and 2 books in
..mobi format which I can theoretically read on my Kindle. I also see
that only 31 of the 152 books in .pdf format are non-searchable (I'll
explain later why that is important).

--
The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable,
to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable,
and challenge
the unchallengeable.

El jueves, 28 de abril de 2022 a las 10:40:54 UTC-4, det...@outlook.com escribió:
> On Wednesday, April 27, 2022 at 4:20:08 PM UTC-5, Paparios wrote:

> > Edward approach is quite clear. He collects all these books (in pdf format) and then, using the pdf search tool, searches the book for the phrases he is interested on, such as "Einstein postulate" or "photon". He has never read any of those books (the same as he has not read Einstein 1905 paper past the first page).

> You need to understand what "RESEARCH" means, Paparios. When doing research
> on a subject, you do not read every book from cover to cover to see if it has anything
> about the topic you are researching, you just read the PARTS ABOUT that topic.
> You can research 500 books in the time it takes to read one book from cover to cover.
>
> It is incredible that you do not understand that. Have you never done any research?

Actually yes! I have been doing research for over 45 years. My papers, reporting my research, are available in Google Scholar.

You, on the other hand, just write nonsensical "papers" which are "published" in a very low quality vixra.org web site.

The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> Odd Bodkin wrote:
>>
>> Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> wrote:
>>> On Wednesday, April 27, 2022 at 12:48:19 PM UTC-5, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>> Ed Lake wrote:
>>>>> On Wednesday, April 27, 2022 at 11:45:23 AM UTC-5, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>> Ed Lake wrote:
>>>
>>>>>>> You may be right, which shows the sorry state of college physics textbooks.
>>>>>> No, that’s not the right conclusion. If you find that every textbook
>>>>>> disagrees with something you think is true, then it is a mistake to believe
>>>>>> that you are right and every single textbook is wrong. What is a much
>>>>>> better strategy is to conclude that it is YOU that is not understanding
>>>>>> something correctly.
>>>>>
>>>>> There are plenty of textbooks that agree with me. I have a collection of
>>>>> well over 100 college physics textbooks.
>>>> A hundred TEXTBOOKS? I’d like a listing of the first 30 please.
>>>> Note that Brian Greene’s The Fabric of the Cosmos is not a textbook.
>>>> Hawking’s A Brief History of Time is not a textbook.
>>>
>>> Here are about 70 that I have categorized as "textbooks." I could have
>>> dozens more that I just categorized as "books":
>>
>> OK, so let’s have a small moment of truth-telling here, Ed. You have
>> provided a listing of 70 books, but you fell short of claiming that these
>> are actually in your possession.
>
>
> It turns out that I have 152 books in .pdf format, 11 books in .epub
> format (which my computer can read to me, if I want), and 2 books in
> .mobi format which I can theoretically read on my Kindle. I also see
> that only 31 of the 152 books in .pdf format are non-searchable (I'll
> explain later why that is important).
>

I have a few hundred trade books in ebook formats as well. But not
introductory college textbooks. There’s a reason why that is so.

--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

Odd Bodkin wrote:
>
> The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> > Odd Bodkin wrote:
> >>
> >> Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> wrote:
> >>> On Wednesday, April 27, 2022 at 12:48:19 PM UTC-5, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>>> Ed Lake wrote:
> >>>>> On Wednesday, April 27, 2022 at 11:45:23 AM UTC-5, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>>>>> Ed Lake wrote:
> >>>
> >>>>>>> You may be right, which shows the sorry state of college physics textbooks.
> >>>>>> No, that’s not the right conclusion. If you find that every textbook
> >>>>>> disagrees with something you think is true, then it is a mistake to believe
> >>>>>> that you are right and every single textbook is wrong. What is a much
> >>>>>> better strategy is to conclude that it is YOU that is not understanding
> >>>>>> something correctly.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> There are plenty of textbooks that agree with me. I have a collection of
> >>>>> well over 100 college physics textbooks.
> >>>> A hundred TEXTBOOKS? I’d like a listing of the first 30 please.
> >>>> Note that Brian Greene’s The Fabric of the Cosmos is not a textbook.
> >>>> Hawking’s A Brief History of Time is not a textbook.
> >>>
> >>> Here are about 70 that I have categorized as "textbooks." I could have
> >>> dozens more that I just categorized as "books":
> >>
> >> OK, so let’s have a small moment of truth-telling here, Ed. You have
> >> provided a listing of 70 books, but you fell short of claiming that these
> >> are actually in your possession.
> >
> >
> > It turns out that I have 152 books in .pdf format, 11 books in .epub
> > format (which my computer can read to me, if I want), and 2 books in
> > .mobi format which I can theoretically read on my Kindle. I also see
> > that only 31 of the 152 books in .pdf format are non-searchable (I'll
> > explain later why that is important).
> >
>
> I have a few hundred trade books in ebook formats as well. But not
> introductory college textbooks. There’s a reason why that is so.
>
> --
> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

I only posted what Ed Lake wrote:

> > It turns out that I have 152 books in .pdf format, 11 books in .epub
> > format (which my computer can read to me, if I want), and 2 books in
> > .mobi format which I can theoretically read on my Kindle. I also see
> > that only 31 of the 152 books in .pdf format are non-searchable (I'll
> > explain later why that is important).

--
The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable,
to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable,
and challenge
the unchallengeable.

The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> Odd Bodkin wrote:
>>
>> The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>>> Odd Bodkin wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> wrote:
>>>>> On Wednesday, April 27, 2022 at 12:48:19 PM UTC-5, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>> Ed Lake wrote:
>>>>>>> On Wednesday, April 27, 2022 at 11:45:23 AM UTC-5, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>>>> Ed Lake wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> You may be right, which shows the sorry state of college physics textbooks.
>>>>>>>> No, that’s not the right conclusion. If you find that every textbook
>>>>>>>> disagrees with something you think is true, then it is a mistake to believe
>>>>>>>> that you are right and every single textbook is wrong. What is a much
>>>>>>>> better strategy is to conclude that it is YOU that is not understanding
>>>>>>>> something correctly.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> There are plenty of textbooks that agree with me. I have a collection of
>>>>>>> well over 100 college physics textbooks.
>>>>>> A hundred TEXTBOOKS? I’d like a listing of the first 30 please.
>>>>>> Note that Brian Greene’s The Fabric of the Cosmos is not a textbook.
>>>>>> Hawking’s A Brief History of Time is not a textbook.
>>>>>
>>>>> Here are about 70 that I have categorized as "textbooks." I could have
>>>>> dozens more that I just categorized as "books":
>>>>
>>>> OK, so let’s have a small moment of truth-telling here, Ed. You have
>>>> provided a listing of 70 books, but you fell short of claiming that these
>>>> are actually in your possession.
>>>
>>>
>>> It turns out that I have 152 books in .pdf format, 11 books in .epub
>>> format (which my computer can read to me, if I want), and 2 books in
>>> .mobi format which I can theoretically read on my Kindle. I also see
>>> that only 31 of the 152 books in .pdf format are non-searchable (I'll
>>> explain later why that is important).
>>>
>>
>> I have a few hundred trade books in ebook formats as well. But not
>> introductory college textbooks. There’s a reason why that is so.
>>
>> --
>> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
>
>
>
> I only posted what Ed Lake wrote:

That I don’t doubt. I’m sure he has lots of ebooks. Just not the textbooks
he listed.
Kindle-native ebooks are trade books, usually, not textbooks. Free PDFs are
usually crap books self-published and posted for attention by loons.

I have no doubt he has lots of books that he can listen to in audio format.
For obvious reasons, those will not be physics textbooks.

>
>>> It turns out that I have 152 books in .pdf format, 11 books in .epub
>>> format (which my computer can read to me, if I want), and 2 books in
>>> .mobi format which I can theoretically read on my Kindle. I also see
>>> that only 31 of the 152 books in .pdf format are non-searchable (I'll
>>> explain later why that is important).
>

--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

Odd Bodkin wrote:
>
> The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> > Odd Bodkin wrote:
> >>
> >> The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> >>> Odd Bodkin wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> wrote:
> >>>>> On Wednesday, April 27, 2022 at 12:48:19 PM UTC-5, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>>>>> Ed Lake wrote:
> >>>>>>> On Wednesday, April 27, 2022 at 11:45:23 AM UTC-5, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>>>>>>> Ed Lake wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> You may be right, which shows the sorry state of college physics textbooks.
> >>>>>>>> No, that’s not the right conclusion. If you find that every textbook
> >>>>>>>> disagrees with something you think is true, then it is a mistake to believe
> >>>>>>>> that you are right and every single textbook is wrong. What is a much
> >>>>>>>> better strategy is to conclude that it is YOU that is not understanding
> >>>>>>>> something correctly.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> There are plenty of textbooks that agree with me. I have a collection of
> >>>>>>> well over 100 college physics textbooks.
> >>>>>> A hundred TEXTBOOKS? I’d like a listing of the first 30 please.
> >>>>>> Note that Brian Greene’s The Fabric of the Cosmos is not a textbook.
> >>>>>> Hawking’s A Brief History of Time is not a textbook.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Here are about 70 that I have categorized as "textbooks." I could have
> >>>>> dozens more that I just categorized as "books":
> >>>>
> >>>> OK, so let’s have a small moment of truth-telling here, Ed. You have
> >>>> provided a listing of 70 books, but you fell short of claiming that these
> >>>> are actually in your possession.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> It turns out that I have 152 books in .pdf format, 11 books in .epub
> >>> format (which my computer can read to me, if I want), and 2 books in
> >>> .mobi format which I can theoretically read on my Kindle. I also see
> >>> that only 31 of the 152 books in .pdf format are non-searchable (I'll
> >>> explain later why that is important).
> >>>
> >>
> >> I have a few hundred trade books in ebook formats as well. But not
> >> introductory college textbooks. There’s a reason why that is so.
> >>
> >> --
> >> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
> >
> >
> >
> > I only posted what Ed Lake wrote:
>
> That I don’t doubt. I’m sure he has lots of ebooks. Just not the textbooks
> he listed.

I'm a little confused about what you wrote: "...sure he has lots of ebooks. Just not the textbooks he listed."

Can you name a (one) title of an ebook he listed that you seem to believe he doesn't have it in ebook format? Just name one title..uno.

--
The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable,
to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable, and challenge
the unchallengeable.

The Starmaker wrote:
>
> Odd Bodkin wrote:
> >
> > The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> > > Odd Bodkin wrote:
> > >>
> > >> The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> > >>> Odd Bodkin wrote:
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> wrote:
> > >>>>> On Wednesday, April 27, 2022 at 12:48:19 PM UTC-5, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> > >>>>>> Ed Lake wrote:
> > >>>>>>> On Wednesday, April 27, 2022 at 11:45:23 AM UTC-5, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> > >>>>>>>> Ed Lake wrote:
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>> You may be right, which shows the sorry state of college physics textbooks.
> > >>>>>>>> No, that’s not the right conclusion. If you find that every textbook
> > >>>>>>>> disagrees with something you think is true, then it is a mistake to believe
> > >>>>>>>> that you are right and every single textbook is wrong. What is a much
> > >>>>>>>> better strategy is to conclude that it is YOU that is not understanding
> > >>>>>>>> something correctly.
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>> There are plenty of textbooks that agree with me. I have a collection of
> > >>>>>>> well over 100 college physics textbooks.
> > >>>>>> A hundred TEXTBOOKS? I’d like a listing of the first 30 please.
> > >>>>>> Note that Brian Greene’s The Fabric of the Cosmos is not a textbook.
> > >>>>>> Hawking’s A Brief History of Time is not a textbook.
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> Here are about 70 that I have categorized as "textbooks." I could have
> > >>>>> dozens more that I just categorized as "books":
> > >>>>
> > >>>> OK, so let’s have a small moment of truth-telling here, Ed. You have
> > >>>> provided a listing of 70 books, but you fell short of claiming that these
> > >>>> are actually in your possession.
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>> It turns out that I have 152 books in .pdf format, 11 books in .epub
> > >>> format (which my computer can read to me, if I want), and 2 books in
> > >>> .mobi format which I can theoretically read on my Kindle. I also see
> > >>> that only 31 of the 152 books in .pdf format are non-searchable (I'll
> > >>> explain later why that is important).
> > >>>
> > >>
> > >> I have a few hundred trade books in ebook formats as well. But not
> > >> introductory college textbooks. There’s a reason why that is so.
> > >>
> > >> --
> > >> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > I only posted what Ed Lake wrote:
> >
> > That I don’t doubt. I’m sure he has lots of ebooks. Just not the textbooks
> > he listed.
>
> I'm a little confused about what you wrote: "...sure he has lots of ebooks. Just not the textbooks he listed."
>
> Can you name a (one) title of an ebook he listed that you seem to believe he doesn't have it in ebook format? Just name one title..uno.

Or are you saying he has textbooks in ebook formats but not the kind you
open up like a real hardcover book with pages made of paper???

I'm confused.

I don't know how to read through hoops...

>
> --
> The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable,
> to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable, and challenge
> the unchallengeable.

--
The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable,
to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable,
and challenge
the unchallengeable.

On Friday, April 29, 2022 at 1:12:28 AM UTC+10, det...@outlook.com wrote:
>
> Your comment is hopelessly muddled. EVERYTHING in our observable universe
> is MOVING.
….
> This is my final post on this thread. Bye bye.
>
> Ed

OK, I’m going to reply, and we can continue next time you visit the board :)

You say MY comment is muddled ????? Not at all - my scenarios were clear and explicit; What you are seeing is the reflection of your muddled inconsistencies.

For example, you make the statement “EVERYTHING in our observable universe is MOVING. “ in your thread that you title (EMPHASIS mine) : “STATIONARY points in space”.

Do you honestly not see that claiming BOTH that “everything is moving” AND that there are “stationary points in space” is muddled contradiction ?

What IS true is the mainstream position - the ONLY thing we can talk about is RELATIVE motion between objects, and it is a mistake to ascribe any meaning to “stationary” except relative to something else. That is NOT muddled at all, and is fully consistent with all Einstein’s writings. Of course, such relative motion is reciprocal.

You then go on to say :

On Friday, April 29, 2022 at 1:12:28 AM UTC+10, det...@outlook.com wrote:
> On Thursday, April 28, 2022 at 8:11:35 AM UTC-5, Ufonaut wrote:

> > 2) … Let's put Bob in a rocketship (again, powered off, just coasting inertially), also stationary relative to the sun, but on Earth's orbital path (or just to the side).
…
> As stated above, in that situation Bob in his rocket ship is moving faster around the
> sun than the earth. So, Bob's clock would run slower.

So your response to a rocket ship that is EXPLICITLY stated to be “stationary relative to the sun” is that that “rocket ship is moving faster around the sun than the earth.”

What ?????? Again, it is not my scenario that is muddled, but your response.

And I note that you did not even attempt to state any position about Charles (who is sitting stationary at one of your “stationary points in space”) regards himself as stationary and the Earth moving, as the Earth is moving past that stationary point in space.

Still, let’s see what we have taken out of this. Previously, your statements have been :

On Wednesday, April 27, 2022 at 1:30:47 AM UTC+10, det...@outlook.com wrote:
> It takes ENERGY to make something move in our universe. Yet you argue
> that due to "relative motion" it can be claimed that a rocket can be viewed as
> moving away from the stationary earth, or you can view the earth as moving
> away from a stationary rocket. That is MORONIC.

However, you DO now accept that for at least some rocket ships, the clocks on Earth do tick slower than that rocket ship’s clocks. (*)

Would that not mean that for a passenger on such a rocket ship, it would be a perfectly valid (not MORONIC) view that it is the Earth (rather than his rocket ship) that is moving - which is why the Earth’s clocks are velocity-time-dilated ticking slower than his ? Ah well, next time.

(*) and for other readers, yes I know in SR this is reciprocal :)

The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> Odd Bodkin wrote:
>>
>> The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>>> Odd Bodkin wrote:
>>>>
>>>> The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>>>>> Odd Bodkin wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> On Wednesday, April 27, 2022 at 12:48:19 PM UTC-5, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>>>> Ed Lake wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Wednesday, April 27, 2022 at 11:45:23 AM UTC-5, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> Ed Lake wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> You may be right, which shows the sorry state of college physics textbooks.
>>>>>>>>>> No, that’s not the right conclusion. If you find that every textbook
>>>>>>>>>> disagrees with something you think is true, then it is a mistake to believe
>>>>>>>>>> that you are right and every single textbook is wrong. What is a much
>>>>>>>>>> better strategy is to conclude that it is YOU that is not understanding
>>>>>>>>>> something correctly.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> There are plenty of textbooks that agree with me. I have a collection of
>>>>>>>>> well over 100 college physics textbooks.
>>>>>>>> A hundred TEXTBOOKS? I’d like a listing of the first 30 please.
>>>>>>>> Note that Brian Greene’s The Fabric of the Cosmos is not a textbook.
>>>>>>>> Hawking’s A Brief History of Time is not a textbook.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Here are about 70 that I have categorized as "textbooks." I could have
>>>>>>> dozens more that I just categorized as "books":
>>>>>>
>>>>>> OK, so let’s have a small moment of truth-telling here, Ed. You have
>>>>>> provided a listing of 70 books, but you fell short of claiming that these
>>>>>> are actually in your possession.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> It turns out that I have 152 books in .pdf format, 11 books in .epub
>>>>> format (which my computer can read to me, if I want), and 2 books in
>>>>> .mobi format which I can theoretically read on my Kindle. I also see
>>>>> that only 31 of the 152 books in .pdf format are non-searchable (I'll
>>>>> explain later why that is important).
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I have a few hundred trade books in ebook formats as well. But not
>>>> introductory college textbooks. There’s a reason why that is so.
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> I only posted what Ed Lake wrote:
>>
>> That I don’t doubt. I’m sure he has lots of ebooks. Just not the textbooks
>> he listed.
>
> I'm a little confused about what you wrote: "...sure he has lots of
> ebooks. Just not the textbooks he listed."
>
>
>
> Can you name a (one) title of an ebook he listed

What ebooks did he list?

> that you seem to believe he doesn't have it in ebook format? Just name one title..uno.
>
>
>
>

--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

Odd Bodkin wrote:
>
> The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> > Odd Bodkin wrote:
> >>
> >> The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> >>> Odd Bodkin wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> >>>>> Odd Bodkin wrote:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>> On Wednesday, April 27, 2022 at 12:48:19 PM UTC-5, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>>>>>>> Ed Lake wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> On Wednesday, April 27, 2022 at 11:45:23 AM UTC-5, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>> Ed Lake wrote:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> You may be right, which shows the sorry state of college physics textbooks.
> >>>>>>>>>> No, that’s not the right conclusion. If you find that every textbook
> >>>>>>>>>> disagrees with something you think is true, then it is a mistake to believe
> >>>>>>>>>> that you are right and every single textbook is wrong. What is a much
> >>>>>>>>>> better strategy is to conclude that it is YOU that is not understanding
> >>>>>>>>>> something correctly.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> There are plenty of textbooks that agree with me. I have a collection of
> >>>>>>>>> well over 100 college physics textbooks.
> >>>>>>>> A hundred TEXTBOOKS? I’d like a listing of the first 30 please.
> >>>>>>>> Note that Brian Greene’s The Fabric of the Cosmos is not a textbook.
> >>>>>>>> Hawking’s A Brief History of Time is not a textbook.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Here are about 70 that I have categorized as "textbooks." I could have
> >>>>>>> dozens more that I just categorized as "books":
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> OK, so let’s have a small moment of truth-telling here, Ed. You have
> >>>>>> provided a listing of 70 books, but you fell short of claiming that these
> >>>>>> are actually in your possession.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> It turns out that I have 152 books in .pdf format, 11 books in .epub
> >>>>> format (which my computer can read to me, if I want), and 2 books in
> >>>>> .mobi format which I can theoretically read on my Kindle. I also see
> >>>>> that only 31 of the 152 books in .pdf format are non-searchable (I'll
> >>>>> explain later why that is important).
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> I have a few hundred trade books in ebook formats as well. But not
> >>>> introductory college textbooks. There’s a reason why that is so.
> >>>>
> >>>> --
> >>>> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> I only posted what Ed Lake wrote:
> >>
> >> That I don’t doubt. I’m sure he has lots of ebooks. Just not the textbooks
> >> he listed.
> >
> > I'm a little confused about what you wrote: "...sure he has lots of
> > ebooks. Just not the textbooks he listed."
> >
> >
> >
> > Can you name a (one) title of an ebook he listed
>
> What ebooks did he list?

It turns out that I have 152 books in .pdf format, 11 books in .epub
format (which my computer can read to me, if I want), and 2 books in
..mobi format which I can theoretically read on my Kindle. I also see
that only 31 of the 152 books in .pdf format are non-searchable (I'll
explain later why that is important).

I also have 238 articles in pdf format, which does not include 191
articles in .pdf format that I downloaded from arXiv.org over the years
(total: 429). Only 22 of the 429 articles in .pdf format are
non-searchable.

Another one of the things you can do when you have a spreadsheet list is
select out a portion of the list for conversion into html format, which
is the format for this web page. I can then display the first 50 books
on the list. Like so:

Title
Author(s)
100 Years of Relativity: Space-Time Structure: Einstein and Beyond
Abhay Ashtekar (Editor)
A Beginner's Guide to Reality Jim Baggott
A First Course in General Relativity Bernard F. Schultz
A Pocket Popper Karl Popper
A Sophisticate's Primer of Relativity P. W. Bridgman
Absurdities in Modern Physics Paul Marmet
All Life is Problem Solving Karl Popper
An introduction to Mechanics Daniel Kleppner and Robert Kolenkow
Aspects of Scientific Explanation and other Essays in the Philosophy of
Science Carl G. Hempel
Bankrupting Physics: How Today's Top Scientists are Gambling Away Their
Credibility Alexander Unzicker and Sheilla Jones
Begegnungen mit Einstein, von Laue und Planck Ilse Rosenthal-Schneider
Beyond Kuhn: Scientific Explanation, Theory Structure,
Incommensurability and Physical Necessity Edwin H.-C. Hung
Boyle on Fire: The Mechanical Revolution in Scientific Explanation
William R. Eaton
Causal Physics Chandrasekhar Roychoudhuri
Causality and Scientific Explanation William A. Wallace
College Physics (Eighth Edition) Raymond A. Serway & Chris Vuille
College Physics (Ninth Edition) Raymond A. Serway & Chris Vuille
College Physics (Seventh Edition?) Raymond A. Serway, Jerry S. Faughn &
Chris Vuille
Computational and Geometrical Aspects of on-the-fly Ambiguity
Resolution Hasanuddin Zainal Abidin
Cosmogenesis: The Growth of Order in the Universe
David Layzer
Cosmological Special Relativity: The Large-Scale Structure of Space,
Time and Velocity Moshe Carmeli
Einstein in 90 Minutes John & Mary Gribbin
Einstein versus Classical Mechanics Paul Marmet
Einstein's Lost Key: How we overlooked the best idea of the 20th
century Alexander Unzicker
Einstein's Miraculous Year: Five Papers That Changed the Face of
Physics Edited by John Stachel
Einstein's Space-Time: An Introduction to Special and General
Relativity Rafael Ferraro
Endophysics, Time, Quantum and the Subjective Edited by Rosolino
Buccheri et al.
Essential Relativity: Special, General and Cosmological (2nd ed)
Wolfgang Rindler
Everywhere and Everywhen: Adventures in Physics and Philosophy Nick
Huggett
Experiments in Modern Physics
Explanatory Unification and the Causal Structure of the World Philip
Kitcher
Farewell to Reality: How Modern Physics has Betrayed the Search for
Scientific Truth Jim Baggott
Fashion, Faith and Fantasy in the New Physics of the Universe Roger
Penrose
For the Love of Physics Walter Lewin
Foundations of Astronomy (Eleventh Edition) Michael A. Seeds, Dana E.
Backman
Foundations of Space-Time Theories Edited by John Earman, et al.
Foundations of Space-Time Theories: Relativistic Physics and Philosophy
of Science
Four Decades of Scientific Explanation Wesley C. Salmon
From Special Relativity to Feynman Diagrams Riccardo D’Auria and Mario
Trigiante
Fundamentals of College Physics Peter J. Nolan
Fundamentals of Modern Physics Peter J. Nolan
Fundamentals of Modern Physics Robert Martin Eisberg
Fundamentals of Physics (Eighth Edition) Jearl Walker
Fundamentals of Physics (Ninth Edition) Jearl Walker
Fundamentals of Physics (Tenth Edition) Jearl Walker
Galileo in 90 Minutes John & Mary Gribbin
General Relativity Benjamin Crowell
General Relativity and Relativistic Astrophysics Norbert Straumann
Global Positioning Systems Directorate Systems Engineering &
Integration

--
The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable,
to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable,
and challenge
the unchallengeable.

The Starmaker wrote:
>
> Odd Bodkin wrote:
> >
> > The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> > > Odd Bodkin wrote:
> > >>
> > >> The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> > >>> Odd Bodkin wrote:
> > >>>>
> > >>>> The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> > >>>>> Odd Bodkin wrote:
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> wrote:
> > >>>>>>> On Wednesday, April 27, 2022 at 12:48:19 PM UTC-5, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> > >>>>>>>> Ed Lake wrote:
> > >>>>>>>>> On Wednesday, April 27, 2022 at 11:45:23 AM UTC-5, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> > >>>>>>>>>> Ed Lake wrote:
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>> You may be right, which shows the sorry state of college physics textbooks.
> > >>>>>>>>>> No, that’s not the right conclusion. If you find that every textbook
> > >>>>>>>>>> disagrees with something you think is true, then it is a mistake to believe
> > >>>>>>>>>> that you are right and every single textbook is wrong. What is a much
> > >>>>>>>>>> better strategy is to conclude that it is YOU that is not understanding
> > >>>>>>>>>> something correctly.
> > >>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>> There are plenty of textbooks that agree with me. I have a collection of
> > >>>>>>>>> well over 100 college physics textbooks.
> > >>>>>>>> A hundred TEXTBOOKS? I’d like a listing of the first 30 please.
> > >>>>>>>> Note that Brian Greene’s The Fabric of the Cosmos is not a textbook.
> > >>>>>>>> Hawking’s A Brief History of Time is not a textbook.
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>> Here are about 70 that I have categorized as "textbooks." I could have
> > >>>>>>> dozens more that I just categorized as "books":
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> OK, so let’s have a small moment of truth-telling here, Ed. You have
> > >>>>>> provided a listing of 70 books, but you fell short of claiming that these
> > >>>>>> are actually in your possession.
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> It turns out that I have 152 books in .pdf format, 11 books in .epub
> > >>>>> format (which my computer can read to me, if I want), and 2 books in
> > >>>>> .mobi format which I can theoretically read on my Kindle. I also see
> > >>>>> that only 31 of the 152 books in .pdf format are non-searchable (I'll
> > >>>>> explain later why that is important).
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>> I have a few hundred trade books in ebook formats as well. But not
> > >>>> introductory college textbooks. There’s a reason why that is so.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> --
> > >>>> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>> I only posted what Ed Lake wrote:
> > >>
> > >> That I don’t doubt. I’m sure he has lots of ebooks. Just not the textbooks
> > >> he listed.
> > >
> > > I'm a little confused about what you wrote: "...sure he has lots of
> > > ebooks. Just not the textbooks he listed."
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Can you name a (one) title of an ebook he listed
> >
> > What ebooks did he list?
>
> It turns out that I have 152 books in .pdf format, 11 books in .epub
> format (which my computer can read to me, if I want), and 2 books in
> .mobi format which I can theoretically read on my Kindle. I also see
> that only 31 of the 152 books in .pdf format are non-searchable (I'll
> explain later why that is important).
>
> I also have 238 articles in pdf format, which does not include 191
> articles in .pdf format that I downloaded from arXiv.org over the years
> (total: 429). Only 22 of the 429 articles in .pdf format are
> non-searchable.
>
> Another one of the things you can do when you have a spreadsheet list is
> select out a portion of the list for conversion into html format, which
> is the format for this web page. I can then display the first 50 books
> on the list. Like so:
>
> Title
> Author(s)
> 100 Years of Relativity: Space-Time Structure: Einstein and Beyond
> Abhay Ashtekar (Editor)
> A Beginner's Guide to Reality Jim Baggott
> A First Course in General Relativity Bernard F. Schultz
> A Pocket Popper Karl Popper
> A Sophisticate's Primer of Relativity P. W. Bridgman
> Absurdities in Modern Physics Paul Marmet
> All Life is Problem Solving Karl Popper
> An introduction to Mechanics Daniel Kleppner and Robert Kolenkow
> Aspects of Scientific Explanation and other Essays in the Philosophy of
> Science Carl G. Hempel
> Bankrupting Physics: How Today's Top Scientists are Gambling Away Their
> Credibility Alexander Unzicker and Sheilla Jones
> Begegnungen mit Einstein, von Laue und Planck Ilse Rosenthal-Schneider
> Beyond Kuhn: Scientific Explanation, Theory Structure,
> Incommensurability and Physical Necessity Edwin H.-C. Hung
> Boyle on Fire: The Mechanical Revolution in Scientific Explanation
> William R. Eaton
> Causal Physics Chandrasekhar Roychoudhuri
> Causality and Scientific Explanation William A. Wallace
> College Physics (Eighth Edition) Raymond A. Serway & Chris Vuille
> College Physics (Ninth Edition) Raymond A. Serway & Chris Vuille
> College Physics (Seventh Edition?) Raymond A. Serway, Jerry S. Faughn &
> Chris Vuille
> Computational and Geometrical Aspects of on-the-fly Ambiguity
> Resolution Hasanuddin Zainal Abidin
> Cosmogenesis: The Growth of Order in the Universe
> David Layzer
> Cosmological Special Relativity: The Large-Scale Structure of Space,
> Time and Velocity Moshe Carmeli
> Einstein in 90 Minutes John & Mary Gribbin
> Einstein versus Classical Mechanics Paul Marmet
> Einstein's Lost Key: How we overlooked the best idea of the 20th
> century Alexander Unzicker
> Einstein's Miraculous Year: Five Papers That Changed the Face of
> Physics Edited by John Stachel
> Einstein's Space-Time: An Introduction to Special and General
> Relativity Rafael Ferraro
> Endophysics, Time, Quantum and the Subjective Edited by Rosolino
> Buccheri et al.
> Essential Relativity: Special, General and Cosmological (2nd ed)
> Wolfgang Rindler
> Everywhere and Everywhen: Adventures in Physics and Philosophy Nick
> Huggett
> Experiments in Modern Physics
> Explanatory Unification and the Causal Structure of the World Philip
> Kitcher
> Farewell to Reality: How Modern Physics has Betrayed the Search for
> Scientific Truth Jim Baggott
> Fashion, Faith and Fantasy in the New Physics of the Universe Roger
> Penrose
> For the Love of Physics Walter Lewin
> Foundations of Astronomy (Eleventh Edition) Michael A. Seeds, Dana E.
> Backman
> Foundations of Space-Time Theories Edited by John Earman, et al.
> Foundations of Space-Time Theories: Relativistic Physics and Philosophy
> of Science
> Four Decades of Scientific Explanation Wesley C. Salmon
> From Special Relativity to Feynman Diagrams Riccardo D’Auria and Mario
> Trigiante
> Fundamentals of College Physics Peter J. Nolan
> Fundamentals of Modern Physics Peter J. Nolan
> Fundamentals of Modern Physics Robert Martin Eisberg
> Fundamentals of Physics (Eighth Edition) Jearl Walker
> Fundamentals of Physics (Ninth Edition) Jearl Walker
> Fundamentals of Physics (Tenth Edition) Jearl Walker
> Galileo in 90 Minutes John & Mary Gribbin
> General Relativity Benjamin Crowell
> General Relativity and Relativistic Astrophysics Norbert Straumann
> Global Positioning Systems Directorate Systems Engineering &
> Integration