Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #363995 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Phil Bouchard <pbouchard8@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2015-09-13 13:03 -0400 |
| Last post | 2015-09-14 08:45 -0400 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 87 — 19 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.physics.relativity
Einstein's gravitational constant Phil Bouchard <pbouchard8@gmail.com> - 2015-09-13 13:03 -0400
Re: Einstein's gravitational constant alsor@interia.pl - 2015-09-13 10:50 -0700
Re: Einstein's gravitational constant kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> - 2015-09-13 15:41 -0400
Re: Einstein's gravitational constant Phil Bouchard <pbouchard8@gmail.com> - 2015-09-13 16:05 -0400
Re: Einstein's gravitational constant Alan Folmsbee <omnilobe@gmail.com> - 2015-09-13 13:01 -0700
Re: Einstein's gravitational constant kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> - 2015-09-13 16:06 -0400
Re: Einstein's gravitational constant alsor@interia.pl - 2015-09-13 14:03 -0700
Re: Einstein's gravitational constant fuller.david@hotmail.com - 2015-10-06 13:40 -0700
Re: Einstein's gravitational constant Katarina Bulakova <katabu@transmatric.org> - 2015-10-06 22:06 +0000
Re: Einstein's gravitational constant Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2015-09-13 16:37 -0500
Re: Einstein's gravitational constant Phil Bouchard <pbouchard8@gmail.com> - 2015-09-13 18:18 -0400
Re: Einstein's gravitational constant YBM <ybmess@noos.fr.invalid> - 2015-09-14 02:24 +0200
Re: Einstein's gravitational constant Phil Bouchard <pbouchard8@gmail.com> - 2015-09-13 21:10 -0400
Re: Einstein's gravitational constant YBM <ybmess@noos.fr.invalid> - 2015-09-14 03:37 +0200
Re: Einstein's gravitational constant Phil Bouchard <pbouchard8@gmail.com> - 2015-09-13 23:04 -0400
Re: Einstein's gravitational constant "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2015-09-13 23:35 -0700
Re: Einstein's gravitational constant Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2015-09-14 23:41 -0700
Re: Einstein's gravitational constant Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2015-09-15 11:32 -0500
Re: Einstein's gravitational constant Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2015-09-15 10:42 -0700
Re: Einstein's gravitational constant alsor@interia.pl - 2015-09-15 12:12 -0700
Re: Einstein's gravitational constant JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2015-09-15 12:16 -0700
Re: Einstein's gravitational constant Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2015-09-15 12:32 -0700
Re: Einstein's gravitational constant JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2015-09-15 12:49 -0700
Re: Einstein's gravitational constant Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2015-09-16 00:44 -0700
Re: Einstein's gravitational constant JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2015-09-16 10:25 -0700
Re: Einstein's gravitational constant Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2015-09-16 10:31 -0700
Re: Einstein's gravitational constant JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2015-09-16 10:42 -0700
Re: Einstein's gravitational constant Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2015-09-17 00:01 -0700
Re: Einstein's gravitational constant alsor@interia.pl - 2015-09-15 13:40 -0700
Re: Einstein's gravitational constant JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2015-09-15 14:50 -0700
Re: Einstein's gravitational constant alsor@interia.pl - 2015-09-17 05:07 -0700
Re: Einstein's gravitational constant Poutnik <Poutnik4NNTP@gmail.com> - 2015-09-17 14:22 +0200
Re: Einstein's gravitational constant alsor@interia.pl - 2015-09-17 05:43 -0700
Re: Einstein's gravitational constant Poutnik <Poutnik4NNTP@gmail.com> - 2015-09-17 15:44 +0200
Re: Einstein's gravitational constant alsor@interia.pl - 2015-09-17 06:54 -0700
Re: Einstein's gravitational constant Poutnik <Poutnik4NNTP@gmail.com> - 2015-09-17 16:05 +0200
Re: Einstein's gravitational constant alsor@interia.pl - 2015-09-17 09:31 -0700
Re: Einstein's gravitational constant Poutnik <Poutnik4NNTP@gmail.com> - 2015-09-17 18:42 +0200
Re: Einstein's gravitational constant Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2015-09-17 20:17 +0200
Re: Einstein's gravitational constant kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> - 2015-09-17 08:44 -0400
Re: Einstein's gravitational constant alsor@interia.pl - 2015-09-17 06:38 -0700
Re: Einstein's gravitational constant JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2015-09-18 20:45 -0700
Re: Einstein's gravitational constant Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2015-09-19 00:26 -0700
Re: Einstein's gravitational constant kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> - 2015-09-19 08:12 -0400
Re: Einstein's gravitational constant Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2015-09-19 05:33 -0700
Re: Einstein's gravitational constant kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> - 2015-09-19 10:38 -0400
Re: Einstein's gravitational constant Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2015-09-19 08:28 -0700
Re: Einstein's gravitational constant Jimmie Wynne <jimmwyn@metermap.org> - 2015-09-19 15:45 +0000
Re: Einstein's gravitational constant kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> - 2015-09-19 13:14 -0400
Re: Einstein's gravitational constant Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2015-09-19 12:00 -0700
Re: Einstein's gravitational constant kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> - 2015-09-19 16:09 -0400
Re: Einstein's gravitational constant Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-09-19 15:45 -0500
Re: Einstein's gravitational constant Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2015-09-19 14:28 -0700
Re: Einstein's gravitational constant pnalsing@gmail.com - 2015-09-19 17:41 -0700
Re: Einstein's gravitational constant kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> - 2015-09-19 22:30 -0400
Re: Einstein's gravitational constant pnalsing@gmail.com - 2015-09-19 20:42 -0700
Re: Einstein's gravitational constant kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> - 2015-09-20 00:23 -0400
Re: Einstein's gravitational constant pnalsing@gmail.com - 2015-09-19 21:44 -0700
Re: Einstein's gravitational constant Jimmie Wynne <jimmwyn@metermap.org> - 2015-09-22 17:55 +0000
Re: Einstein's gravitational constant alsor@interia.pl - 2015-09-19 06:25 -0700
Re: Einstein's gravitational constant alsor@interia.pl - 2015-09-19 05:52 -0700
Re: Einstein's gravitational constant kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> - 2015-09-19 10:39 -0400
Re: Einstein's gravitational constant alsor@interia.pl - 2015-09-20 10:07 -0700
Re: Einstein's gravitational constant kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> - 2015-09-20 13:46 -0400
Re: Einstein's gravitational constant alsor@interia.pl - 2015-09-20 14:31 -0700
Re: Einstein's gravitational constant kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> - 2015-09-15 21:26 -0400
Re: Einstein's gravitational constant Frances Espinosa <franesp@portio.org> - 2015-09-15 20:50 +0000
Re: Einstein's gravitational constant "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2015-09-16 14:11 +0200
Re: Einstein's gravitational constant kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> - 2015-09-16 08:35 -0400
Re: Einstein's gravitational constant Frances Espinosa <franesp@portio.org> - 2015-09-16 17:08 +0000
Re: Einstein's gravitational constant kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> - 2015-09-16 15:08 -0400
Re: Einstein's gravitational constant Jimmie Wynne <jimmwyn@metermap.org> - 2015-09-16 19:41 +0000
Re: Einstein's gravitational constant kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> - 2015-09-16 16:22 -0400
Re: Einstein's gravitational constant Frances Espinosa <franesp@portio.org> - 2015-09-16 17:01 +0000
Re: Einstein's gravitational constant "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2015-09-17 15:27 +0200
Re: Einstein's gravitational constant Jimmie Wynne <jimmwyn@metermap.org> - 2015-09-17 20:29 +0000
Re: Einstein's gravitational constant Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2015-09-17 23:32 -0700
Re: Einstein's gravitational constant Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2015-09-16 10:26 -0700
Re: Einstein's gravitational constant "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2015-09-17 15:30 +0200
Re: Einstein's gravitational constant Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2015-09-17 23:14 -0700
Re: Einstein's gravitational constant kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> - 2015-09-18 03:18 -0400
Re: Einstein's gravitational constant "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2015-09-18 10:43 +0200
Re: Einstein's gravitational constant Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2015-09-18 16:32 -0700
Re: Einstein's gravitational constant "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2015-09-20 15:19 +0200
Phil Bouchard proves again that he's an imbecile "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2015-09-13 18:59 -0700
Re: Einstein's gravitational constant JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2015-09-13 23:13 -0700
Re: Einstein's gravitational constant Phil Bouchard <pbouchard8@gmail.com> - 2015-09-14 08:45 -0400
Page 1 of 5 [1] 2 3 4 5 Next page →
| From | Phil Bouchard <pbouchard8@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-13 13:03 -0400 |
| Subject | Einstein's gravitational constant |
| Message-ID | <d5loi8Fr2tfU1@mid.individual.net> |
For those who didn't know Einstein's gravitational constant is derived statistically: http://www.digplanet.com/wiki/Einstein%27s_constant I proved here that this constant is in fact an inside-the-sphere gravitational potential distribution: http://cosmoquest.org/forum/showthread.php?137103-Finite-Theory-of-the-Universe-Dark-Matter-Disproof-and-Faster-Than-Light-Speed&p=2307613#post2307613 It is obvious Einstein fooled all of us for over a century. FT makes GR a joke. Thanks, -Phil
[toc] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | alsor@interia.pl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-13 10:50 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <fd04c9dd-fa5c-4b6f-a387-d2caab162fc9@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #363995 |
W dniu niedziela, 13 września 2015 19:03:08 UTC+2 użytkownik Phil Bouchard napisał: > For those who didn't know Einstein's gravitational constant is derived > statistically: > http://www.digplanet.com/wiki/Einstein%27s_constant Phehehe! Great discovery. Any combination of some constants is still a constant. > I proved here that this constant is in fact an inside-the-sphere > gravitational potential distribution: > http://cosmoquest.org/forum/showthread.php?137103-Finite-Theory-of-the-Universe-Dark-Matter-Disproof-and-Faster-Than-Light-Speed&p=2307613#post2307613 > > It is obvious Einstein fooled all of us for over a century. FT makes GR > a joke. Indeed.. a very stupid numerical improvistation.. besing on a recurence.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-13 15:41 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <0kjbva9llbc4q68h70irndnth93u0apsi6@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #363995 |
On Sun, 13 Sep 2015 13:03:03 -0400, Phil Bouchard <pbouchard8@gmail.com>
wrote:
>For those who didn't know Einstein's gravitational constant is derived
>statistically:
>http://www.digplanet.com/wiki/Einstein%27s_constant
>
>I proved here that this constant is in fact an inside-the-sphere
>gravitational potential distribution:
>http://cosmoquest.org/forum/showthread.php?137103-Finite-Theory-of-the-Universe-Dark-Matter-Disproof-and-Faster-Than-Light-Speed&p=2307613#post2307613
>
>It is obvious Einstein fooled all of us for over a century. FT makes GR
>a joke.
>
>Thanks,
>-Phil
No doubt you have fooled yourself, but obviously
you are an expert (at fooling yourself), there is not a
single thing in what you write that is rational physics.
Even thinking the amount of matter in the universe
(and worse yet, in the _visible_ universe) could have
anything at all to do with gravity, is just plain loony
and stupid.
As long as Euclidean space and the silly
Mach's inertia was still favored, even Einstein
may have had thoughts along the lines of a
static universe with a definite mass quantity.
But both Euclid and Mach are out the
window, all considerations of gravity are
strictly local.
Gravity has to exist no matter how much
or how little mass there is, and the gravitational
constant G is determined from experiments
with very small masses (relative to the mass
of even the Earth).
That you, or anybody even thinks (today)
that the mass of the universe should be part
of the field equations tells me nothing but that
you are the most stupid jerk in the world.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Phil Bouchard <pbouchard8@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-13 16:05 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <d5m37gFts0vU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #364006 |
On 09/13/2015 03:41 PM, kefischer wrote: > > That you, or anybody even thinks (today) > that the mass of the universe should be part > of the field equations tells me nothing but that > you are the most stupid jerk in the world. At least you understand the concept.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Alan Folmsbee <omnilobe@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-13 13:01 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <1ec047af-ff00-4894-9839-d18c8abc5088@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #363995 |
Newton's G is what Einstein copied. Here is my value for G, Newton's Gravitational Constant: G = 3.1 V^(.333) / t^(0.5) V is volume of proton t is 5ns t is the universal constant for conservation of continuum
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-13 16:06 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <kolbva56ov97hg448r9d50jrcirjjuhlrc@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #364008 |
On Sun, 13 Sep 2015 13:01:05 -0700 (PDT), Alan Folmsbee
<omnilobe@gmail.com> wrote:
>Newton's G is what Einstein copied.
>
>Here is my value for G, Newton's Gravitational Constant:
>
>G = 3.1 V^(.333) / t^(0.5)
>
>V is volume of proton
>t is 5ns
>t is the universal constant for conservation of continuum
You have a bad disease, continuum on the brain.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | alsor@interia.pl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-13 14:03 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <04016176-8b06-47fd-8bda-22e99536b580@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #364008 |
W dniu niedziela, 13 września 2015 22:01:09 UTC+2 użytkownik Alan Folmsbee napisał: > Newton's G is what Einstein copied. > > Here is my value for G, Newton's Gravitational Constant: > > G = 3.1 V^(.333) / t^(0.5) > > V is volume of proton > t is 5ns > t is the universal constant for conservation of continuum You should be aware: there is still trillions of better solutions... in the numerologicial science. for example: Phi^2 = Phi+1, is a giantic coincidence in the... pseudoscience! :)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | fuller.david@hotmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-06 13:40 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <e07449e5-ebb0-4003-ae77-c74a72182bdc@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #364008 |
Alan Folmsbee wrote: Newton's G is what Einstein copied. Here is my value for G, Newton's Gravitational Constant: G = 3.1 V^(.333) / t^(0.5) V is volume of proton t is 5ns t is the universal constant for conservation of continuum Look familiar ? ((pi/2)*((sqrt 5 + 1)/2))^8 = 1741.24602595 (^8) = octahedral 1/299792458 * ((sqrt 5 + 1)/2) = 5.39718043e-9 seconds
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Katarina Bulakova <katabu@transmatric.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-06 22:06 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <mv1glq$hp3$2@speranza.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #366346 |
Dear fuller.david, you wrote: > Look familiar ? > > ((pi/2)*((sqrt 5 + 1)/2))^8 = 1741.24602595 > > (^8) = octahedral > > 1/299792458 * ((sqrt 5 + 1)/2) = 5.39718043e-9 seconds Na zdorovye! Looks like Divergent Matter to me.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-13 16:37 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <Ididnad7YL4VcWjInZ2dnUU7_8ydnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #363995 |
On 9/13/15 9/13/15 12:03 PM, Phil Bouchard wrote: > For those who didn't know Einstein's gravitational constant is derived > statistically: > http://www.digplanet.com/wiki/Einstein%27s_constant That is JUST PLAIN WRONG. Didn't you even read your own reference???? It TELLS you how it was derived: by finding the Newtonian approximation to the field equation of GR, and requiring it to be the same as Newton's law of universal gravitation. How can you possibly think that an irrational (pi) could be "derived statistically"??? > I proved here that this constant is in fact an inside-the-sphere gravitational > potential distribution: It is QUITE CLEAR that you don't even know what those words ACTUALLY mean. Hint: a constant is NOT a "gravitational potential distribution". Those are incommensurate concepts. > It is obvious Einstein fooled all of us for over a century. FT makes GR a joke. The joke is essentially everything you write. Tom Roberts
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Phil Bouchard <pbouchard8@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-13 18:18 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <d5mb1bF1b6bU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #364020 |
On 09/13/2015 05:37 PM, Tom Roberts wrote: > On 9/13/15 9/13/15 12:03 PM, Phil Bouchard wrote: >> For those who didn't know Einstein's gravitational constant is derived >> statistically: >> http://www.digplanet.com/wiki/Einstein%27s_constant > > That is JUST PLAIN WRONG. Didn't you even read your own reference???? It > TELLS you how it was derived: by finding the Newtonian approximation to > the field equation of GR, and requiring it to be the same as Newton's > law of universal gravitation. > > How can you possibly think that an irrational (pi) could > be "derived statistically"??? > > >> I proved here that this constant is in fact an inside-the-sphere >> gravitational >> potential distribution: > > It is QUITE CLEAR that you don't even know what those words ACTUALLY mean. > > Hint: a constant is NOT a "gravitational potential distribution". > Those are incommensurate concepts. > > >> It is obvious Einstein fooled all of us for over a century. FT makes >> GR a joke. > > The joke is essentially everything you write. > > > Tom Roberts > "The Newton law will arise and its corollary Poisson's equation." The Poisson's equation is used in statistics AFAIK
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | YBM <ybmess@noos.fr.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-14 02:24 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <mt53s3$lai$1@speranza.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #364023 |
Le 14/09/2015 00:18, Phil Bouchard a écrit : > On 09/13/2015 05:37 PM, Tom Roberts wrote: >> On 9/13/15 9/13/15 12:03 PM, Phil Bouchard wrote: >>> For those who didn't know Einstein's gravitational constant is derived >>> statistically: >>> http://www.digplanet.com/wiki/Einstein%27s_constant >> >> That is JUST PLAIN WRONG. Didn't you even read your own reference???? It >> TELLS you how it was derived: by finding the Newtonian approximation to >> the field equation of GR, and requiring it to be the same as Newton's >> law of universal gravitation. >> >> How can you possibly think that an irrational (pi) could >> be "derived statistically"??? >> >> >>> I proved here that this constant is in fact an inside-the-sphere >>> gravitational >>> potential distribution: >> >> It is QUITE CLEAR that you don't even know what those words ACTUALLY >> mean. >> >> Hint: a constant is NOT a "gravitational potentequationial distribution". >> Those are incommensurate concepts. >> >> >>> It is obvious Einstein fooled all of us for over a century. FT makes >>> GR a joke. >> >> The joke is essentially everything you write. >> >> >> Tom Roberts >> > > "The Newton law will arise and its corollary Poisson's equation." > > The Poisson's equation is used in statistics AFAIK As far as you know is not much, poor demented crank... You are confusing Poisson's equation with Poisson's distribution. Poisson was a quite a skilled mathematician, he gaves his name to quite a few different things... You are making a fool of yourself, Phil, as usual...
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Phil Bouchard <pbouchard8@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-13 21:10 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <d5ml3gF3hgmU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #364031 |
On 09/13/2015 08:24 PM, YBM wrote: > Le 14/09/2015 00:18, Phil Bouchard a écrit : >> On 09/13/2015 05:37 PM, Tom Roberts wrote: >>> On 9/13/15 9/13/15 12:03 PM, Phil Bouchard wrote: >>>> For those who didn't know Einstein's gravitational constant is derived >>>> statistically: >>>> http://www.digplanet.com/wiki/Einstein%27s_constant >>> >>> That is JUST PLAIN WRONG. Didn't you even read your own reference???? It >>> TELLS you how it was derived: by finding the Newtonian approximation to >>> the field equation of GR, and requiring it to be the same as Newton's >>> law of universal gravitation. >>> >>> How can you possibly think that an irrational (pi) could >>> be "derived statistically"??? >>> >>> >>>> I proved here that this constant is in fact an inside-the-sphere >>>> gravitational >>>> potential distribution: >>> >>> It is QUITE CLEAR that you don't even know what those words ACTUALLY >>> mean. >>> >>> Hint: a constant is NOT a "gravitational potentequationial >>> distribution". >>> Those are incommensurate concepts. >>> >>> >>>> It is obvious Einstein fooled all of us for over a century. FT makes >>>> GR a joke. >>> >>> The joke is essentially everything you write. >>> >>> >>> Tom Roberts >>> >> >> "The Newton law will arise and its corollary Poisson's equation." >> >> The Poisson's equation is used in statistics AFAIK > > As far as you know is not much, poor demented crank... > > You are confusing Poisson's equation with Poisson's distribution. > > Poisson was a quite a skilled mathematician, he gaves his name to quite > a few different things... > > You are making a fool of yourself, Phil, as usual... > > It doesn't matter because Einstein still pulled out this constant out of nowhere and this makes all Einstein's followers look pretty unprofessional.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | YBM <ybmess@noos.fr.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-14 03:37 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <mt5866$sk8$2@speranza.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #364033 |
Le 14/09/2015 03:10, Phil Bouchard a écrit : > On 09/13/2015 08:24 PM, YBM wrote: ... >> Poisson was a quite a skilled mathematician, he gaves his name to quite >> a few different things... >> >> You are making a fool of yourself, Phil, as usual... >> >> > > It doesn't matter because Einstein still pulled out this constant out of > nowhere and this makes all Einstein's followers look pretty unprofessional. Yes it doesn't matter... Phil, you're right. Roll on the floor and whine as much as you want. You are pathetic, Phil.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Phil Bouchard <pbouchard8@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-13 23:04 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <d5mrq0F4u1sU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #364034 |
On 09/13/2015 09:37 PM, YBM wrote: > Le 14/09/2015 03:10, Phil Bouchard a écrit : >> On 09/13/2015 08:24 PM, YBM wrote: > ... >>> Poisson was a quite a skilled mathematician, he gaves his name to quite >>> a few different things... >>> >>> You are making a fool of yourself, Phil, as usual... >>> >>> >> >> It doesn't matter because Einstein still pulled out this constant out of >> nowhere and this makes all Einstein's followers look pretty >> unprofessional. > > Yes it doesn't matter... Phil, you're right. Roll on the floor and > whine as much as you want. > > You are pathetic, Phil. > > I don't whine I'm laughing at your beloved Einstein's heroic theory that turns out to be shenanigans.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-13 23:35 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <edb9bb1e-44c3-41c1-960d-bd6d8ebb1b05@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #364041 |
On Sunday, September 13, 2015 at 8:04:35 PM UTC-7, Phil Bouchard wrote: > On 09/13/2015 09:37 PM, YBM wrote: > > Le 14/09/2015 03:10, Phil Bouchard a écrit : > >> On 09/13/2015 08:24 PM, YBM wrote: > > ... > >>> Poisson was a quite a skilled mathematician, he gaves his name to quite > >>> a few different things... > >>> > >>> You are making a fool of yourself, Phil, as usual... > >>> > >>> > >> > >> It doesn't matter because Einstein still pulled out this constant out of > >> nowhere and this makes all Einstein's followers look pretty > >> unprofessional. > > > > Yes it doesn't matter... Phil, you're right. Roll on the floor and > > whine as much as you want. > > > > You are pathetic, Phil. > > > > > > I don't whine I'm laughing at your beloved Einstein's heroic theory that > turns out to be shenanigans. What makes you french (canadian) so stooopid? Is it the water?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-14 23:41 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <fcdd51d7-015a-4990-a58d-93e4f7e28ee9@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #364020 |
On Sunday, September 13, 2015 at 2:37:14 PM UTC-7, tjrob137 wrote: > On 9/13/15, 12:03 PM, Phil Bouchard wrote: > > http://www.digplanet.com/wiki/Einstein%27s_constant > > That is JUST PLAIN WRONG. Didn't you even read your own reference???? It TELLS > you how it was derived: by finding the Newtonian approximation to the field > equation of GR, and requiring it to be the same as Newton's law of universal > gravitation. However, this constant is very much sensitive to what the energy momentum tensor is. With that said, the energy momentum tensor is practically zero in every experiment not involving cosmology. So, we have no way to verify if any claimed constant is correct or not. <shrug> The best way to find out what this energy momentum tensor actually looks like. The following show demystify the situation somewhat. <shrug> https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.physics.relativity/bokj92djf8k/58k9dCVOzKkJ
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-15 11:32 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <iJqdnRFLTYyQ1WXInZ2dnUU7_82dnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #364150 |
On 9/15/15 9/15/15 - 1:41 AM, Koobee Wublee wrote:
> On Sunday, September 13, 2015 at 2:37:14 PM UTC-7, tjrob137 wrote:
>> [...] It TELLS you how it was derived: by finding the Newtonian
>> approximation to the field equation of GR, and requiring it to be the same
>> as Newton's law of universal gravitation.
>
> However, this constant is very much sensitive to what the energy momentum
> tensor is. With that said, the energy momentum tensor is practically zero in
> every experiment not involving cosmology. So, we have no way to verify if
> any claimed constant is correct or not.
NONSENSE!
All one does is COMPUTE the fall of a stone near earth using the appropriate
approximation to GR, and then compare to actual stones. Or one COMPUTES the
orbit of moon, or earth, or planets and comets, and compares to their actual
orbits. They agree to within the precision of the measurements (including quite
subtle effects, such as perihelion shifts).
Your claim is just mind-numbingly stupid -- nobody would accept
GR if this were not so. And it is LUDICROUS to claim that the
energy-momentum tensor of the earth is "practically zero". Ditto
for the sun.
Note to readers: Koobee Wublee is among the most persistent idiots
around here. He has been repeating this nonsense for many years,
without any attempt to learn the subject he tries to write about.
I reply to him only occasionally, as a service to readers who may
not recognize his mistakes. He has proven himself to be unable
and unwilling to learn anything.
Tom Roberts
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-15 10:42 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <3cebe538-8590-4dd2-bacd-75098b26654e@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #364191 |
On Tuesday, September 15, 2015 at 9:32:16 AM UTC-7, tjrob137 wrote: > On 9/15/15, 1:41 AM, Koobee Wublee wrote: > > On 9/13/15, 12:03 PM, Phil Bouchard wrote: > > > http://www.digplanet.com/wiki/Einstein%27s_constant > > > this constant is very much sensitive to what the energy momentum > > tensor is. With that said, the energy momentum tensor is practically > > zero in every experiment not involving cosmology. So, we have no > > way to verify if any claimed constant is correct or not. > > All one does is COMPUTE the fall of a stone near earth using the > appropriate approximation to GR, and then compare to actual stones. > Or one COMPUTES the orbit of moon, or earth, or planets and comets, > and compares to their actual orbits. The set of field equations describing the earth orbiting the sun, the moon orbiting the earth, or two binary stars orbiting each other has its energy momentum tensor of exactly zero because there is no mass density in vacuum. Thus, whatever this constant is still results in the null Ricci tensor. There is no way to verify this constant. <shrug> > Your claim is just mind-numbingly stupid -- nobody would accept > GR if this were not so. And it is LUDICROUS to claim that the > energy-momentum tensor of the earth is "practically zero". Ditto > for the sun. It looks like Tom did fail Newtonian stuff. Tom has no right to talk about GR. <shrug> > They agree to within the precision of the measurements (including > quite subtle effects, such as perihelion shifts). BLOODY NONSENSE! What an idiot! <shrug> > [rest of the usual personal attacks snipped]
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | alsor@interia.pl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-15 12:12 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <49795cdc-bbef-4e6c-8b5b-839bfc6891db@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #364191 |
W dniu wtorek, 15 września 2015 18:32:16 UTC+2 użytkownik tjrob137 napisał: > On 9/15/15 9/15/15 - 1:41 AM, Koobee Wublee wrote: > > On Sunday, September 13, 2015 at 2:37:14 PM UTC-7, tjrob137 wrote: > >> [...] It TELLS you how it was derived: by finding the Newtonian > >> approximation to the field equation of GR, and requiring it to be the same > >> as Newton's law of universal gravitation. > > > > However, this constant is very much sensitive to what the energy momentum > > tensor is. With that said, the energy momentum tensor is practically zero in > > every experiment not involving cosmology. So, we have no way to verify if > > any claimed constant is correct or not. > > NONSENSE! > > All one does is COMPUTE the fall of a stone near earth using the appropriate > approximation to GR, and then compare to actual stones. Or one COMPUTES the > orbit of moon, or earth, or planets and comets, and compares to their actual > orbits. They agree to within the precision of the measurements (including quite > subtle effects, such as perihelion shifts). > > Your claim is just mind-numbingly stupid -- nobody would accept > GR if this were not so. And it is LUDICROUS to claim that the > energy-momentum tensor of the earth is "practically zero". Ditto > for the sun. > > > Note to readers: Koobee Wublee is among the most persistent idiots > around here. He has been repeating this nonsense for many years, > without any attempt to learn the subject he tries to write about. > I reply to him only occasionally, as a service to readers who may > not recognize his mistakes. He has proven himself to be unable > and unwilling to learn anything. The Newtonian model is sufficient for any motion in the US. BTW. there are some anomalies in the lunar theory, which even the GR can't resolve. :) but... BTW2: there is much more surprisse: the GR shit is unable to resolve the famous precession of the Merscury! The 6piGM/p is just a stupid coincidence... here is a proof: 1. the Shapiro delay is inconsistent with GR, because the delay is too short about 4GM/c^2 = 20us. Therefore in the astronomy is used an 1-st order approximation only, which gives correct results. So, the 20us of error is ignored, simply. But the stupid 20us is just the same anomaly in fact like the the precession anomaly, because it's just exactly the same quantity, but in radians, insetead of secons. :) Concluding: the GR model provides just nothing, this is just a fantastic fallacy... like: pi = 3 / 1-e^2, for the Mercury's orbit... e = 0.206, thus: 3 / 1 - 0.206^2 = 3.133 =~ pi; almost perfect (0.3% of error only!)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 1 of 5 [1] 2 3 4 5 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity
csiph-web