Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #391740 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2016-09-07 19:40 -0700 |
| Last post | 2016-09-08 11:30 -0500 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 163 — 8 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.physics.relativity
I was wrong Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-09-07 19:40 -0700
Re: I was wrong Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-09-08 13:10 +1000
Re: I was wrong Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-09-07 20:57 -0700
Re: I was wrong Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-09-08 14:02 +1000
Re: I was wrong Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-09-08 00:22 -0700
Re: I was wrong Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-09-08 02:06 -0700
Re: I was wrong Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-09-08 02:58 -0700
Re: I was wrong Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-09-08 03:48 -0700
Re: I was wrong John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2016-09-08 20:16 -0700
Re: I was wrong Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-09-08 21:05 -0700
Re: I was wrong Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-09-09 06:48 +0200
Re: I was wrong Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-09-09 07:18 +0200
Re: I was wrong Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-09-09 07:22 -0500
Re: I was wrong Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-09-08 21:16 -0700
Re: I was wrong Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-09-08 23:08 -0700
Re: I was wrong Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-09-09 09:00 +0200
Re: I was wrong Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-09-08 13:13 +0200
Re: I was wrong Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-09-08 11:36 -0500
Re: I was wrong Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-09-08 20:15 +1000
Re: I was wrong Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-09-08 11:35 -0500
Re: I was wrong Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-09-08 23:10 +0200
Re: I was wrong Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-09-08 21:20 -0700
Re: I was wrong Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-09-09 06:44 +0200
Re: I was wrong Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-09-08 07:11 +0200
Re: I was wrong Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-09-08 10:43 -0700
Re: I was wrong Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-09-08 20:12 +0200
Re: I was wrong Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-09-08 07:08 +0200
Re: I was wrong Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-09-08 03:05 -0700
Re: I was wrong Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-09-08 04:14 -0700
Re: I was wrong Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-09-08 04:27 -0700
Re: I was wrong RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> - 2016-09-14 10:10 -0700
Re: I was wrong Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-09-08 13:17 +0200
Re: I was wrong Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-09-08 11:45 -0500
Re: I was wrong Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-09-08 10:30 -0700
Re: I was wrong Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-09-08 12:58 -0500
Re: I was wrong Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-09-08 11:34 -0700
Re: I was wrong Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-09-08 13:37 -0500
Re: I was wrong Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-09-08 11:40 -0700
Re: I was wrong Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-09-08 13:42 -0500
Re: I was wrong Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-09-08 10:54 -0700
Re: I was wrong Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-09-08 12:59 -0500
Re: I was wrong Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-09-08 11:12 -0700
Re: I was wrong Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-09-08 13:33 -0500
Re: I was wrong Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-09-08 11:38 -0700
Re: I was wrong Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-09-08 14:27 -0500
Re: I was wrong Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-09-08 21:21 -0700
Re: I was wrong Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-09-09 07:23 -0500
Re: I was wrong Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-09-09 20:20 -0700
Re: I was wrong Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-09-10 07:45 +0200
Re: I was wrong Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-09-11 17:26 -0500
Re: I was wrong Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-09-09 21:20 -0700
Re: I was wrong Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-09-10 07:48 +0200
Re: I was wrong Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-09-10 03:16 -0700
Re: I was wrong Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-09-10 16:43 -0700
Re: I was wrong Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-09-10 21:06 -0700
Re: I was wrong Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-09-10 22:01 -0700
Re: I was wrong Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-09-10 23:18 -0700
Re: I was wrong Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-09-11 00:40 -0700
Re: I was wrong Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-09-11 10:09 +0200
Re: I was wrong Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-09-11 03:41 -0700
Re: I was wrong Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-09-11 12:50 +0200
Re: I was wrong Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-09-11 17:47 -0500
Re: I was wrong Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-09-11 17:51 -0500
Re: I was wrong Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-09-11 17:55 -0700
Re: I was wrong Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-09-11 20:03 -0500
Re: I was wrong Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-09-11 17:37 -0500
Re: I was wrong Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-09-10 08:21 +0200
Re: I was wrong Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-09-10 02:03 -0700
Re: I was wrong Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-09-10 23:56 +0200
Re: I was wrong Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-09-11 11:18 +0200
Re: I was wrong Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-09-11 03:42 -0700
Re: I was wrong Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-09-11 12:52 +0200
Re: I was wrong Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-09-11 05:49 -0700
Re: I was wrong Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-09-11 10:06 -0700
Re: I was wrong Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-09-11 17:40 -0700
Re: I was wrong Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-09-12 07:59 +0200
Re: I was wrong Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-09-11 17:45 -0500
Re: I was wrong Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-09-12 07:55 +0200
Re: I was wrong Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-09-10 03:11 -0700
Re: I was wrong Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-09-11 17:40 -0500
Re: I was wrong Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-09-11 17:50 -0700
Re: I was wrong Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-09-11 20:01 -0500
Re: I was wrong Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-09-11 21:26 -0700
Re: I was wrong Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-09-12 07:33 -0500
Re: I was wrong Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-09-12 15:39 -0700
Re: I was wrong Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-09-12 20:25 -0500
Re: I was wrong Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-09-12 18:51 -0700
Re: I was wrong Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-09-12 20:59 -0500
Re: I was wrong Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-09-13 01:28 -0700
Re: I was wrong Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-09-13 11:31 -0500
Re: I was wrong Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-09-13 22:04 -0700
Re: I was wrong Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-09-14 00:21 -0700
Re: I was wrong Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-09-14 01:00 -0700
Re: I was wrong Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-09-14 11:32 -0500
Re: I was wrong Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-09-14 01:25 -0700
Re: I was wrong Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-09-14 13:00 -0500
Re: I was wrong Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-09-14 16:56 -0700
Re: I was wrong Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-09-14 19:42 -0700
Re: I was wrong Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-09-15 01:28 -0700
Re: I was wrong Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-09-15 01:37 -0700
Re: I was wrong Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-09-15 10:33 -0500
Re: I was wrong Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-09-15 21:07 -0700
Re: I was wrong Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-09-16 07:36 -0500
Re: I was wrong Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-09-16 08:51 -0700
Re: I was wrong Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-09-16 12:24 -0500
Re: I was wrong Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-09-16 11:32 -0700
Re: I was wrong Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-09-16 21:37 -0700
Re: I was wrong Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-09-19 09:20 -0500
Re: I was wrong Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-09-19 11:10 -0700
Re: I was wrong Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-09-19 11:50 -0700
Re: I was wrong Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-09-19 16:47 -0700
Re: I was wrong Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-09-19 17:58 -0700
Re: I was wrong Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-09-20 08:37 -0500
Re: I was wrong Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-09-20 17:45 -0700
Re: I was wrong Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-09-20 07:19 -0500
Re: I was wrong Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-09-16 22:12 -0700
Re: I was wrong Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-09-19 09:22 -0500
Re: I was wrong Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-09-15 01:45 -0700
Re: I was wrong Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-09-15 11:15 +0200
Re: I was wrong Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-09-15 02:42 -0700
Re: I was wrong Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-09-15 12:38 +0200
Re: I was wrong Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-09-15 19:39 -0700
Re: I was wrong Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-09-16 10:34 +0200
Re: I was wrong Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-09-16 02:14 -0700
Re: I was wrong Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-09-16 12:10 +0200
Re: I was wrong mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-09-16 03:23 -0700
Re: I was wrong Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-09-16 04:24 -0700
Re: I was wrong mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-09-16 05:50 -0700
Re: I was wrong Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-09-16 18:12 -0700
Re: I was wrong Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-09-17 05:27 -0700
Re: I was wrong Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-09-17 18:37 -0700
Re: I was wrong Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-09-17 21:06 -0700
Re: I was wrong Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-09-17 22:58 -0700
Re: I was wrong Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-09-17 23:31 -0700
Re: I was wrong Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-09-18 03:03 -0700
Re: I was wrong Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-09-18 04:17 -0700
Re: I was wrong Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-09-18 08:14 -0500
Re: I was wrong Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-09-19 11:37 +0200
Re: I was wrong Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-09-19 11:26 -0700
Re: I was wrong Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-09-19 11:46 -0700
Re: I was wrong Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-09-19 18:04 -0700
Re: I was wrong Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-09-19 18:25 -0700
Re: I was wrong Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-09-19 19:05 -0700
Re: I was wrong Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-09-19 20:23 -0700
Re: I was wrong Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-09-20 00:02 -0700
Re: I was wrong Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-09-19 09:15 -0500
Re: I was wrong Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-09-16 15:04 +0200
Re: I was wrong mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-09-16 06:12 -0700
Re: I was wrong Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-09-15 10:27 -0500
Re: I was wrong Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-09-15 19:37 -0700
Re: I was wrong Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-09-16 10:31 +0200
Re: I was wrong Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-09-16 02:09 -0700
Re: I was wrong Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-09-16 12:30 +0200
Re: I was wrong Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-09-16 18:18 -0700
Re: I was wrong Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-09-16 07:38 -0500
Re: I was wrong Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-09-16 18:02 -0700
Re: I was wrong Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-09-19 09:13 -0500
Re: I was wrong Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-09-16 07:32 -0500
Re: I was wrong Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-09-16 18:08 -0700
Re: I was wrong Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-09-19 09:14 -0500
Re: I was wrong Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-09-13 07:39 +0200
Re: I was wrong Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-09-08 20:15 +0200
Re: I was wrong Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-09-08 11:30 -0500
Page 7 of 9 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 5 6 [7] 8 9 Next page →
| From | Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-15 12:38 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <nrdtn3$14h$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #392429 |
On 09/15/2016 11:42 AM, Peter Riedt wrote: > On Thursday, September 15, 2016 at 5:16:00 PM UTC+8, Poutnik wrote: >> On 09/15/2016 01:56 AM, Peter Riedt wrote: >>> GR has nothing do with your formula. The first part of it is based on the works of Kepler, Newton and Cavendish and the second part, the calculation of the eccentricity adjustment factor, cannot be found in any of the scientific papers of Kepler, Newton, Cavendish or Einstein. >> >> Results of mathematical analysis >> are seldom part of physical theories or papers. > > The purpose of physics is to provide an understanding of the laws of nature. These are defined by formulas which can be used to predict unrelated phenomena. The purpose of physics is to model and predict nature behaviour. Laws of nature expressed by formulas are not part of nature itself, but part of our nature models. > > GR does not understand gravity and cannot predict gravitational parameters or attributes. We still use today the laws of Kepler, Huygens and Newton to do it. > But this your innovative approach is not based on knowledge of GR.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-15 19:39 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <83e62947-6bec-4f0a-b7d5-efc4e295d224@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #392436 |
On Thursday, September 15, 2016 at 6:38:33 PM UTC+8, Poutnik wrote: > On 09/15/2016 11:42 AM, Peter Riedt wrote: > > On Thursday, September 15, 2016 at 5:16:00 PM UTC+8, Poutnik wrote: > >> On 09/15/2016 01:56 AM, Peter Riedt wrote: > >>> GR has nothing do with your formula. The first part of it is based on the works of Kepler, Newton and Cavendish and the second part, the calculation of the eccentricity adjustment factor, cannot be found in any of the scientific papers of Kepler, Newton, Cavendish or Einstein. > >> > >> Results of mathematical analysis > >> are seldom part of physical theories or papers. > > > > The purpose of physics is to provide an understanding of the laws of nature. These are defined by formulas which can be used to predict unrelated phenomena. > > The purpose of physics is to model and predict nature behaviour. > Laws of nature expressed by formulas > are not part of nature itself, > but part of our nature models. > > > > > GR does not understand gravity and cannot predict gravitational parameters or attributes. We still use today the laws of Kepler, Huygens and Newton to do it. > > > > But this your innovative approach is not based on knowledge of GR. Correct, it is not.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-16 10:34 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <nrgaq4$2rc$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #392526 |
On 09/16/2016 04:39 AM, Peter Riedt wrote: > On Thursday, September 15, 2016 at 6:38:33 PM UTC+8, Poutnik wrote: >>> >>> GR does not understand gravity and cannot predict gravitational parameters or attributes. We still use today the laws of Kepler, Huygens and Newton to do it. >>> >> But this your innovative approach is not based on knowledge of GR. > > Correct, it is not. So your statement about GR prediction abilities is not justified, as is in fact a lie. As you know that you do not know if GR is able to predict it or not.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-16 02:14 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <847872a1-07fc-459a-94de-7e83ec5ebbe5@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #392564 |
On Friday, September 16, 2016 at 4:34:19 PM UTC+8, Poutnik wrote: > On 09/16/2016 04:39 AM, Peter Riedt wrote: > > On Thursday, September 15, 2016 at 6:38:33 PM UTC+8, Poutnik wrote: > >>> > >>> GR does not understand gravity and cannot predict gravitational parameters or attributes. We still use today the laws of Kepler, Huygens and Newton to do it. > >>> > >> But this your innovative approach is not based on knowledge of GR. > > > > Correct, it is not. > > So your statement about GR prediction abilities > is not justified, as is in fact a lie. > > As you know that you do not know > if GR is able to predict it or not. If a semi major axis is 555,555,555,555,555km and the eccentricity of the orbit is 0.81111. what is the average orbital velocity? Calculate it using GR mathematics, not MacLaurin's.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-16 12:10 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <nrggdv$k9a$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #392568 |
On 09/16/2016 11:14 AM, Peter Riedt wrote: > On Friday, September 16, 2016 at 4:34:19 PM UTC+8, Poutnik wrote: >> On 09/16/2016 04:39 AM, Peter Riedt wrote: >>> On Thursday, September 15, 2016 at 6:38:33 PM UTC+8, Poutnik wrote: >>>>> >>>>> GR does not understand gravity and cannot predict gravitational parameters or attributes. We still use today the laws of Kepler, Huygens and Newton to do it. >>>>> >>>> But this your innovative approach is not based on knowledge of GR. >>> >>> Correct, it is not. >> >> So your statement about GR prediction abilities >> is not justified, as is in fact a lie. >> >> As you know that you do not know >> if GR is able to predict it or not. > > If a semi major axis is 555,555,555,555,555km and the eccentricity of the orbit is 0.81111. what is the average orbital velocity? Calculate it using GR mathematics, not MacLaurin's. > If GR was my theory, GR ability would depend on my ability. But as GR is not my theory, its ability does not depend on my ability. Therefore, GR ability evaluation based on my ability is wrong logic. What you do not realize is that all the scientists and mathematicians use the work of their predecessors. that is prefectly OK, it is science, not art, if they give them credit.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mlwozniak@wp.pl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-16 03:23 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <13bd2fe4-b60c-4f46-905c-1cf39a704716@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #392570 |
W dniu piątek, 16 września 2016 12:10:14 UTC+2 użytkownik Poutnik napisał: > What you do not realize is that all the scientists and mathematicians > use the work of their predecessors. Unless, of course, they're morons believing that common sense is a set of prejudices. If they are, they rather tend to reject it.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-16 04:24 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <b1e36b30-1a6a-4d32-bb2a-2437f478a764@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #392568 |
On Friday, September 16, 2016 at 4:14:17 AM UTC-5, Peter Riedt wrote: > > If a semi major axis is 555,555,555,555,555km and the eccentricity of the orbit is 0.81111. what is the average orbital velocity? Calculate it using GR mathematics, not MacLaurin's. So far you have not set forth any problems for when the GR solution is significantly different than the solution computed using Kepler/Newton methods. If you show me that you can calculate the anomalous precessions of Mercury, Venus, Earth, Mars, and Icarus, I will provide you with a computer program that will numerically integrate the radial motion equation of GR to show that GR can calculate these values as well. So long as you present us with problems for which the GR solution is virtually indistinguishable from the Kepler/Newton solution, there is no point.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mlwozniak@wp.pl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-16 05:50 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <5e8ce85f-5a5c-445b-a3ff-239d9a13b80b@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #392573 |
W dniu piątek, 16 września 2016 13:24:55 UTC+2 użytkownik Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog napisał: > Venus, Earth, Mars, and Icarus, I will provide you with a computer program that > will numerically integrate the radial motion equation of GR to show that GR can > calculate these values as well. You will rather show science is idiotproof and even your bunch of idiots can, at most, slow it.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-16 18:12 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <a4639ab8-2131-491f-9a72-32a4783b3eea@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #392573 |
On Friday, September 16, 2016 at 7:24:55 PM UTC+8, Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog wrote: > On Friday, September 16, 2016 at 4:14:17 AM UTC-5, Peter Riedt wrote: > > > > If a semi major axis is 555,555,555,555,555km and the eccentricity of the orbit is 0.81111. what is the average orbital velocity? Calculate it using GR mathematics, not MacLaurin's. > > So far you have not set forth any problems for when the GR solution is > significantly different than the solution computed using Kepler/Newton methods. > > If you show me that you can calculate the anomalous precessions of Mercury, > Venus, Earth, Mars, and Icarus, I will provide you with a computer program that > will numerically integrate the radial motion equation of GR to show that GR can > calculate these values as well. > > So long as you present us with problems for which the GR solution is virtually > indistinguishable from the Kepler/Newton solution, there is no point. I am not interested in precession problems but in the cause and mechanism of gravity. If GR produces the same results as Kepler it means it uses Kepler's laws.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-17 05:27 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <29a0286b-79d0-42a5-9cd6-021923e93ffb@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #392660 |
On Friday, September 16, 2016 at 8:12:43 PM UTC-5, Peter Riedt wrote: > On Friday, September 16, 2016 at 7:24:55 PM UTC+8, Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog wrote: > > So far you have not set forth any problems for when the GR solution is > > significantly different than the solution computed using Kepler/Newton methods. > > > > If you show me that you can calculate the anomalous precessions of Mercury, > > Venus, Earth, Mars, and Icarus, I will provide you with a computer program that > > will numerically integrate the radial motion equation of GR to show that GR can > > calculate these values as well. > > > > So long as you present us with problems for which the GR solution is virtually > > indistinguishable from the Kepler/Newton solution, there is no point. > > I am not interested in precession problems but in the cause and mechanism of gravity. If your theory cannot explain observed phenomena, it is lacking. > If GR produces the same results as Kepler it means it uses Kepler's laws. I said that in low fields, the results of GR are *indistinguishable* from those of Kepler/Newton. That does not mean that GR "uses" Kepler's laws. To illustrate: For a large class of problems, the results of Newton are indistinguishable from those of Kepler. However, Newton does not use Kepler's Laws, but explains them in terms of a deeper understanding. But calculations using Newton's laws are considerably more complex than using Kepler. Likewise, GR subsumes Newton as a special case. GR's range of applicability is far greater than Newton. But calculations using GR are considerably more complex than using Newton. So far, you have not shown your theory to have much applicability to anything. Can you compute a trajectory for sending an orbiter to the moon with your theory? Nah. You aren't interested in a theory that has practical applications.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-17 18:37 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <667a40ef-a9aa-44f0-8d5d-447a6e2303bd@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #392688 |
On Saturday, September 17, 2016 at 8:27:12 PM UTC+8, Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog wrote:
> Can you compute a trajectory for sending an orbiter to the moon with your
> theory?
>
> Nah. You aren't interested in a theory that has practical applications.
My calculations for the velocity of ICARUS using your MacLaurin series which you programmed to 10000 terms produced the following results for the given eccentricities:
adjusted perimeter v t ecc MacL factor
777,679,490,138 22015 409 0.8000 0.7674376
747,300,707,380 21155 409 0.8500 0.7374589
ICARUS actual ecc = 0.8227, actual v = 22910m/sec
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-17 21:06 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <471e63e0-c3b6-4fde-86d7-d17692e8751d@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #392781 |
On Saturday, September 17, 2016 at 8:37:07 PM UTC-5, Peter Riedt wrote: > On Saturday, September 17, 2016 at 8:27:12 PM UTC+8, Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog wrote: > > Can you compute a trajectory for sending an orbiter to the moon with your > > theory? > > > > Nah. You aren't interested in a theory that has practical applications. > > My calculations for the velocity of ICARUS using your MacLaurin series which you programmed to 10000 terms produced the following results for the given eccentricities: > > adjusted perimeter v t ecc MacL factor > 777,679,490,138 22015 409 0.8000 0.7674376 > 747,300,707,380 21155 409 0.8500 0.7374589 > > ICARUS actual ecc = 0.8227, actual v = 22910m/sec A major point of my earlier post was that the MacLaurin series expansion of the elliptic integral was inefficient for calculating the value of the integral for large e. Even with 100000 terms, I achieved only five significant digits of accuracy. Other evaluation methods are preferable for this range of e. Although it is likely that my evaluation of the integral was more accurate for smaller e, ***I DID NOT SUPPLY AN ERROR ANALYSIS***, and in the absence of such an analysis, one should not trust *any* of my computed results to more than five significant digits. Your numbers for "adjusted perimeter" and for "MacL factor" are cited with too many significant digits. You have a lot to learn about proper reporting of results.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-17 22:58 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <59be1917-8471-4187-8362-637e93a6ae26@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #392790 |
On Sunday, September 18, 2016 at 12:06:13 PM UTC+8, Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog wrote: > Your numbers for "adjusted perimeter" and for "MacL factor" are cited with too > many significant digits. > > You have a lot to learn about proper reporting of results. You qualified your MacLaurin factors by saying you reported too many digits. I can do the same. BTW, I calculated the ellipse perimeter of ICARUS by my theory as 809,307,260km.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-17 23:31 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <0458fe44-4345-4020-be3f-f9b0a9199283@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #392797 |
On Sunday, September 18, 2016 at 12:58:28 AM UTC-5, Peter Riedt wrote: > On Sunday, September 18, 2016 at 12:06:13 PM UTC+8, Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog wrote: > > > Your numbers for "adjusted perimeter" and for "MacL factor" are cited with too > > many significant digits. > > > > You have a lot to learn about proper reporting of results. > > You qualified your MacLaurin factors by saying you reported too many digits. I can do the same. BTW, I calculated the ellipse perimeter of ICARUS by my theory as 809,307,260km. The point of my post was to discuss the limitations of the MacLaurin series calculation of the elliptic integral. I displayed the raw, unadulterated output of my program to illustrate this point. *Your* intent, however, is entirely different. *You* are not engaged in a discussion of computational errors. *You* are presenting numbers which you purport to be an accurate calculation of the arclength of the orbit. By presenting far more digits than are justified by the data, *YOU* are, in effect, guilty of misrepresenting your results. You are lying, in other words.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-18 03:03 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <67e14b93-b892-4669-8d03-65a7654c4d01@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #392799 |
On Sunday, September 18, 2016 at 2:31:52 PM UTC+8, Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog wrote: > *Your* intent, however, is entirely different. *You* are not engaged in a > discussion of computational errors. *You* are presenting numbers which you > purport to be an accurate calculation of the arclength of the orbit. > > By presenting far more digits than are justified by the data, *YOU* are, in > effect, guilty of misrepresenting your results. You are lying, in other words. My intent is and was to discuss constructively our calculations. Your agenda however is to argue ad hom.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-18 04:17 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <20f88496-3c0b-4dd0-bc94-42501364a3fb@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #392810 |
On Sunday, September 18, 2016 at 5:03:41 AM UTC-5, Peter Riedt wrote:
> On Sunday, September 18, 2016 at 2:31:52 PM UTC+8, Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog wrote:
>
> > *Your* intent, however, is entirely different. *You* are not engaged in a
> > discussion of computational errors. *You* are presenting numbers which you
> > purport to be an accurate calculation of the arclength of the orbit.
> >
> > By presenting far more digits than are justified by the data, *YOU* are, in
> > effect, guilty of misrepresenting your results. You are lying, in other words.
>
> My intent is and was to discuss constructively our calculations. Your agenda however is to argue ad hom.
No, it is not an ad hom attack. I use intentionally harsh language to impress
upon you a fact that that you have undoubtedly never realized:
Over-representation of the precision of a computation
constitutes a form of scientific deception.
You understand that fudging the *value* of a computation or measurement is an unacceptable practice.
You must learn to understand that fudging the *precision* of a computation or
measurement *also* is an unacceptable practice.
Do you understand?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-18 08:14 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <nrm3us$l31$8@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #392810 |
On 9/18/2016 5:03 AM, Peter Riedt wrote: > On Sunday, September 18, 2016 at 2:31:52 PM UTC+8, Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog wrote: > >> *Your* intent, however, is entirely different. *You* are not engaged in a >> discussion of computational errors. *You* are presenting numbers which you >> purport to be an accurate calculation of the arclength of the orbit. >> >> By presenting far more digits than are justified by the data, *YOU* are, in >> effect, guilty of misrepresenting your results. You are lying, in other words. > > My intent is and was to discuss constructively our calculations. Your agenda however is to argue ad hom. > Pointing out a mistake you make repeatedly is not an ad hominem argument. Please look up what that means. -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-19 11:37 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <nrobl7$77q$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #392810 |
On 09/18/2016 12:03 PM, Peter Riedt wrote: > On Sunday, September 18, 2016 at 2:31:52 PM UTC+8, Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog wrote: > >> *Your* intent, however, is entirely different. *You* are not engaged in a >> discussion of computational errors. *You* are presenting numbers which you >> purport to be an accurate calculation of the arclength of the orbit. >> >> By presenting far more digits than are justified by the data, *YOU* are, in >> effect, guilty of misrepresenting your results. You are lying, in other words. > > My intent is and was to discuss constructively our calculations. Your agenda however is to argue ad hom. > There is no constructive discussion over the numbers, but over formulas producing them.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-19 11:26 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <086bd4fa-86c0-43c9-976f-10971d9e5765@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #392799 |
On Sunday, September 18, 2016 at 2:31:52 PM UTC+8, Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog wrote: > The point of my post was to discuss the limitations of the MacLaurin series > calculation of the elliptic integral. I displayed the raw, unadulterated output > of my program to illustrate this point. > You went to much effort to write a program to calculate the Maclaurin series to 10000 terms for the factors required to derive elliptical perimeters from circular perimeters. By your own admission you failed because of the significant digits problem. I believe you were successful in demonstrating that it is only possible to approximate the perimeters of ellipses.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-19 11:46 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <a17b8fa0-a487-44f6-8dd7-42c43045f5a4@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #392981 |
On Monday, September 19, 2016 at 1:26:17 PM UTC-5, Peter Riedt wrote: > On Sunday, September 18, 2016 at 2:31:52 PM UTC+8, Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog wrote: > > The point of my post was to discuss the limitations of the MacLaurin series > > calculation of the elliptic integral. I displayed the raw, unadulterated output > > of my program to illustrate this point. > > > You went to much effort to write a program to calculate the Maclaurin series to 10000 terms for the factors required to derive elliptical perimeters from circular perimeters. By your own admission you failed because of the significant digits problem. I believe you were successful in demonstrating that it is only possible to approximate the perimeters of ellipses. Absolutely not. I only demonstrated that the MacLaurin series approximation is problematical for large e. There are ***zillions*** of other methods for calculating the perimeter. Please note that the term "Elliptic integral" refers to three classes of integral that are all "related" to the original problem of figuring out the perimeter of an ellipse. I notice some pop-math sources on the web presenting the wrong integral. Incidentally, it was ***not*** much effort. I am a professional software developer, and for me, the effort to put together this program might be equivalent to the effort it would take Odd to turn the three legs of a stool on a wood lathe. If I were to attempt such a thing, my three legs would probably not match, I'd have a gouge or two, and my varnishing efforts would be all drippy. That's assuming I don't lose control of the chisel and have it flying across the shop...
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 7 of 9 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 5 6 [7] 8 9 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity
csiph-web