Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #389815 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2016-08-11 19:31 -0700 |
| Last post | 2016-08-16 00:10 +0200 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 55 — 9 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.physics.relativity
GR cannot Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-08-11 19:31 -0700
Re: GR cannot Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-08-12 07:17 -0500
Re: GR cannot Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-08-12 17:26 -0700
Re: GR cannot Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-08-13 12:01 +1000
Re: GR cannot Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-08-12 20:51 -0700
Re: GR cannot Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-08-13 11:45 -0500
Re: GR cannot Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-08-13 17:32 -0700
Re: GR cannot Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-08-15 09:33 -0500
Re: GR cannot Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-08-14 14:34 +1000
Re: GR cannot Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-08-14 01:28 -0700
Re: GR cannot Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-08-15 12:41 +1000
Re: GR cannot Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-08-14 20:41 -0700
Re: GR cannot Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-08-15 14:55 +1000
Re: GR cannot Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-08-14 22:15 -0700
Re: GR cannot Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-08-15 16:04 +1000
Re: GR cannot Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-08-14 23:50 -0700
Re: GR cannot Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-08-15 17:03 +1000
Re: GR cannot Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-08-15 13:23 +0200
Re: GR cannot Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-08-15 15:15 +0200
Re: GR cannot Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-08-15 06:42 -0700
Re: GR cannot Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-08-15 20:26 +0200
Re: GR cannot Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-08-15 22:05 +0200
Re: GR cannot Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-08-16 00:19 +0200
Re: GR cannot mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-08-15 22:56 -0700
Re: GR cannot JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-08-16 14:31 -0700
Re: GR cannot Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-08-16 14:52 -0700
Re: GR cannot Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-08-17 08:33 +0200
Re: GR cannot JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-08-17 11:28 -0700
Re: GR cannot mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-08-17 23:39 -0700
Re: GR cannot Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-08-15 10:06 -0500
Re: GR cannot Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-08-15 10:04 -0500
Re: GR cannot Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-08-15 09:29 -0700
Re: GR cannot Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-08-15 11:44 -0500
Re: GR cannot Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-08-15 11:57 -0500
Re: GR cannot Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-08-15 10:08 -0700
Re: GR cannot Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-08-15 12:15 -0500
Re: GR cannot Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-08-15 20:29 +0200
Re: GR cannot Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-08-15 09:40 -0500
Re: GR cannot Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-08-15 09:58 -0700
Re: GR cannot Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-08-15 12:05 -0500
Re: GR cannot Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-08-15 10:11 -0700
Re: GR cannot Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-08-16 13:27 -0500
Re: GR cannot Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-08-16 20:16 -0700
Re: GR cannot Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-08-16 23:10 -0500
Re: GR cannot Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-08-16 22:48 -0700
Re: GR cannot Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-08-18 13:52 -0500
Re: GR cannot Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-08-15 12:09 -0500
Re: GR cannot Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-08-15 10:16 -0700
Re: GR cannot Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-08-16 13:27 -0500
Re: GR cannot Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-08-13 11:42 -0500
Re: GR cannot Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-08-13 17:28 -0700
Re: GR cannot Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-08-15 09:31 -0500
Re: GR cannot Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-08-15 09:33 -0700
Re: GR cannot Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-08-15 11:52 -0500
Re: GR cannot Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-08-16 00:10 +0200
Page 1 of 3 [1] 2 3 Next page →
| From | Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-11 19:31 -0700 |
| Subject | GR cannot |
| Message-ID | <b03951b8-7d90-44de-b0bf-4432a82d0fc0@googlegroups.com> |
GR cannot General relativity cannot predict or calculate anything, specifically the attributes G, g, M, m, GM, r, v, t and others of solar objects.
[toc] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-12 07:17 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <nokeoe$1535$2@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #389815 |
On 8/11/2016 9:31 PM, Peter Riedt wrote: > GR cannot > > General relativity cannot predict or calculate anything, specifically the > attributes G, g, M, m, GM, r, v, t and others of solar objects. > G, M, m are not predicted by the theory. But the trajectory parameters r, v, t are. -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-12 17:26 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <8b9f219c-3231-4d35-b44c-755ada3996c3@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #389840 |
On Friday, August 12, 2016 at 8:17:21 PM UTC+8, Odd Bodkin wrote: > On 8/11/2016 9:31 PM, Peter Riedt wrote: > > GR cannot > > > > General relativity cannot predict or calculate anything, specifically the > > attributes G, g, M, m, GM, r, v, t and others of solar objects. > > > > G, M, m are not predicted by the theory. > But the trajectory parameters r, v, t are. > > > -- > Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables If r=50000km what is the corresponding v under GR?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-13 12:01 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <e17dcpFi4hgU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #389897 |
On 13/08/2016 10:26 AM, Peter Riedt wrote: > On Friday, August 12, 2016 at 8:17:21 PM UTC+8, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> On 8/11/2016 9:31 PM, Peter Riedt wrote: >>> GR cannot >>> >>> General relativity cannot predict or calculate anything, specifically the >>> attributes G, g, M, m, GM, r, v, t and others of solar objects. >>> >> >> G, M, m are not predicted by the theory. >> But the trajectory parameters r, v, t are. >> >> >> -- >> Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables > > If r=50000km what is the corresponding v under GR? > That's insufficiently specified. You need to specify m, and then specify r and v as vectors at some point in time. GR then gives you v and r, again as vectors, for any other time. Sylvia.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-12 20:51 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <4d637f82-f3a3-4b66-a709-00fa549aa449@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #389900 |
On Saturday, August 13, 2016 at 10:02:04 AM UTC+8, Sylvia Else wrote: > On 13/08/2016 10:26 AM, Peter Riedt wrote: > > On Friday, August 12, 2016 at 8:17:21 PM UTC+8, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >> On 8/11/2016 9:31 PM, Peter Riedt wrote: > >>> GR cannot > >>> > >>> General relativity cannot predict or calculate anything, specifically the > >>> attributes G, g, M, m, GM, r, v, t and others of solar objects. > >>> > >> > >> G, M, m are not predicted by the theory. > >> But the trajectory parameters r, v, t are. > >> > >> > >> -- > >> Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables > > > > If r=50000km what is the corresponding v under GR? > > > > That's insufficiently specified. You need to specify m, and then specify > r and v as vectors at some point in time. GR then gives you v and r, > again as vectors, for any other time. > > Sylvia. My gravity theory can, GR cannot.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-13 11:45 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <noniqe$1kg7$4@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #389905 |
On 8/12/2016 10:51 PM, Peter Riedt wrote: > On Saturday, August 13, 2016 at 10:02:04 AM UTC+8, Sylvia Else wrote: >> On 13/08/2016 10:26 AM, Peter Riedt wrote: >>> On Friday, August 12, 2016 at 8:17:21 PM UTC+8, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>> On 8/11/2016 9:31 PM, Peter Riedt wrote: >>>>> GR cannot >>>>> >>>>> General relativity cannot predict or calculate anything, specifically the >>>>> attributes G, g, M, m, GM, r, v, t and others of solar objects. >>>>> >>>> >>>> G, M, m are not predicted by the theory. >>>> But the trajectory parameters r, v, t are. >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables >>> >>> If r=50000km what is the corresponding v under GR? >>> >> >> That's insufficiently specified. You need to specify m, and then specify >> r and v as vectors at some point in time. GR then gives you v and r, >> again as vectors, for any other time. >> >> Sylvia. > > My gravity theory can, GR cannot. > Prove it. Do it for the v at r=50,000km from Alpha Centauri. -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-13 17:32 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <afe967cd-4b00-4f07-b89a-1a4b10c3c7bf@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #389927 |
On Sunday, August 14, 2016 at 12:45:05 AM UTC+8, Odd Bodkin wrote: > On 8/12/2016 10:51 PM, Peter Riedt wrote: > > On Saturday, August 13, 2016 at 10:02:04 AM UTC+8, Sylvia Else wrote: > >> On 13/08/2016 10:26 AM, Peter Riedt wrote: > >>> On Friday, August 12, 2016 at 8:17:21 PM UTC+8, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >>>> On 8/11/2016 9:31 PM, Peter Riedt wrote: > >>>>> GR cannot > >>>>> > >>>>> General relativity cannot predict or calculate anything, specifically the > >>>>> attributes G, g, M, m, GM, r, v, t and others of solar objects. > >>>>> > >>>> > >>>> G, M, m are not predicted by the theory. > >>>> But the trajectory parameters r, v, t are. > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> -- > >>>> Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables > >>> > >>> If r=50000km what is the corresponding v under GR? > >>> > >> > >> That's insufficiently specified. You need to specify m, and then specify > >> r and v as vectors at some point in time. GR then gives you v and r, > >> again as vectors, for any other time. > >> > >> Sylvia. > > > > My gravity theory can, GR cannot. > > > > Prove it. Do it for the v at r=50,000km from Alpha Centauri. > > -- > Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables I would be happy to give you the t for any r in the solar system but please tell me first how GR can calculate r, v, t.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-15 09:33 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <nosjr0$aof$2@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #389958 |
On 8/13/2016 7:32 PM, Peter Riedt wrote: > On Sunday, August 14, 2016 at 12:45:05 AM UTC+8, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> On 8/12/2016 10:51 PM, Peter Riedt wrote: >>> On Saturday, August 13, 2016 at 10:02:04 AM UTC+8, Sylvia Else wrote: >>>> On 13/08/2016 10:26 AM, Peter Riedt wrote: >>>>> On Friday, August 12, 2016 at 8:17:21 PM UTC+8, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>>>> On 8/11/2016 9:31 PM, Peter Riedt wrote: >>>>>>> GR cannot >>>>>>> >>>>>>> General relativity cannot predict or calculate anything, specifically the >>>>>>> attributes G, g, M, m, GM, r, v, t and others of solar objects. >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> G, M, m are not predicted by the theory. >>>>>> But the trajectory parameters r, v, t are. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> -- >>>>>> Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables >>>>> >>>>> If r=50000km what is the corresponding v under GR? >>>>> >>>> >>>> That's insufficiently specified. You need to specify m, and then specify >>>> r and v as vectors at some point in time. GR then gives you v and r, >>>> again as vectors, for any other time. >>>> >>>> Sylvia. >>> >>> My gravity theory can, GR cannot. >>> >> >> Prove it. Do it for the v at r=50,000km from Alpha Centauri. >> >> -- >> Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables > > I would be happy to give you the t for any r in the solar system but please > tell me first how GR can calculate r, v, t. > I've done that. Now your theory: Any theory of gravity would not be limited to our solar system. This is why I asked you to do it for a star other than our own sun. -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-14 14:34 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <e1aanfF8h3oU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #389905 |
On 13/08/2016 1:51 PM, Peter Riedt wrote: > On Saturday, August 13, 2016 at 10:02:04 AM UTC+8, Sylvia Else wrote: >> On 13/08/2016 10:26 AM, Peter Riedt wrote: >>> On Friday, August 12, 2016 at 8:17:21 PM UTC+8, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>> On 8/11/2016 9:31 PM, Peter Riedt wrote: >>>>> GR cannot >>>>> >>>>> General relativity cannot predict or calculate anything, specifically the >>>>> attributes G, g, M, m, GM, r, v, t and others of solar objects. >>>>> >>>> >>>> G, M, m are not predicted by the theory. >>>> But the trajectory parameters r, v, t are. >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables >>> >>> If r=50000km what is the corresponding v under GR? >>> >> >> That's insufficiently specified. You need to specify m, and then specify >> r and v as vectors at some point in time. GR then gives you v and r, >> again as vectors, for any other time. >> >> Sylvia. > > My gravity theory can, GR cannot. > If I position myself 50,000km from the centre of the sun, then I'll be inside it. Not helpful. Let's say 50 million km from the centre, and at the instant in question, not moving relative to the sun. Now I can project an object at an arbitrary velocity in an arbitrary direction. One of three things can happen. a) The object disappears into interstellar space, never to be seen again. b) It follows a trajectory that impacts the sun. c) It orbits the sun along some ellipse, repeatedly returning to where I am. Clearly there are very many different velocities that can result in (c), so no valid theory can possibly give a single velocity, and any theory that purports to do so, such as yours, apparently, has to be wrong. Sylvia.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-14 01:28 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <575d4527-d5c5-4d79-b00c-d66fa5f844c2@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #389964 |
On Sunday, August 14, 2016 at 12:34:59 PM UTC+8, Sylvia Else wrote: > On 13/08/2016 1:51 PM, Peter Riedt wrote: > > On Saturday, August 13, 2016 at 10:02:04 AM UTC+8, Sylvia Else wrote: > >> On 13/08/2016 10:26 AM, Peter Riedt wrote: > >>> On Friday, August 12, 2016 at 8:17:21 PM UTC+8, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >>>> On 8/11/2016 9:31 PM, Peter Riedt wrote: > >>>>> GR cannot > >>>>> > >>>>> General relativity cannot predict or calculate anything, specifically the > >>>>> attributes G, g, M, m, GM, r, v, t and others of solar objects. > >>>>> > >>>> > >>>> G, M, m are not predicted by the theory. > >>>> But the trajectory parameters r, v, t are. > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> -- > >>>> Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables > >>> > >>> If r=50000km what is the corresponding v under GR? > >>> > >> > >> That's insufficiently specified. You need to specify m, and then specify > >> r and v as vectors at some point in time. GR then gives you v and r, > >> again as vectors, for any other time. > >> > >> Sylvia. > > > > My gravity theory can, GR cannot. > > > > If I position myself 50,000km from the centre of the sun, then I'll be > inside it. Not helpful. > > Let's say 50 million km from the centre, and at the instant in question, > not moving relative to the sun. > > Now I can project an object at an arbitrary velocity in an arbitrary > direction. One of three things can happen. > > a) The object disappears into interstellar space, never to be seen again. > > b) It follows a trajectory that impacts the sun. > > c) It orbits the sun along some ellipse, repeatedly returning to where I am. > > Clearly there are very many different velocities that can result in (c), > so no valid theory can possibly give a single velocity, and any theory > that purports to do so, such as yours, apparently, has to be wrong. > > Sylvia. Let's define specific parameters: An object is in orbit around the sun at say 50,000,000km or any other distance. My gravity theory can predict in what time t it will return to its original position. I am still waiting on Bod to tell me how GR can predict or calculate r, v, t of solar objects. I am of the opinion he can't.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-15 12:41 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <e1coelFqbqmU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #389968 |
On 14/08/2016 6:28 PM, Peter Riedt wrote: > On Sunday, August 14, 2016 at 12:34:59 PM UTC+8, Sylvia Else wrote: >> On 13/08/2016 1:51 PM, Peter Riedt wrote: >>> On Saturday, August 13, 2016 at 10:02:04 AM UTC+8, Sylvia Else wrote: >>>> On 13/08/2016 10:26 AM, Peter Riedt wrote: >>>>> On Friday, August 12, 2016 at 8:17:21 PM UTC+8, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>>>> On 8/11/2016 9:31 PM, Peter Riedt wrote: >>>>>>> GR cannot >>>>>>> >>>>>>> General relativity cannot predict or calculate anything, specifically the >>>>>>> attributes G, g, M, m, GM, r, v, t and others of solar objects. >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> G, M, m are not predicted by the theory. >>>>>> But the trajectory parameters r, v, t are. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> -- >>>>>> Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables >>>>> >>>>> If r=50000km what is the corresponding v under GR? >>>>> >>>> >>>> That's insufficiently specified. You need to specify m, and then specify >>>> r and v as vectors at some point in time. GR then gives you v and r, >>>> again as vectors, for any other time. >>>> >>>> Sylvia. >>> >>> My gravity theory can, GR cannot. >>> >> >> If I position myself 50,000km from the centre of the sun, then I'll be >> inside it. Not helpful. >> >> Let's say 50 million km from the centre, and at the instant in question, >> not moving relative to the sun. >> >> Now I can project an object at an arbitrary velocity in an arbitrary >> direction. One of three things can happen. >> >> a) The object disappears into interstellar space, never to be seen again. >> >> b) It follows a trajectory that impacts the sun. >> >> c) It orbits the sun along some ellipse, repeatedly returning to where I am. >> >> Clearly there are very many different velocities that can result in (c), >> so no valid theory can possibly give a single velocity, and any theory >> that purports to do so, such as yours, apparently, has to be wrong. >> >> Sylvia. > > Let's define specific parameters: An object is in orbit around the sun at say 50,000,000km or any other distance. My gravity theory can predict in what time t it will return to its original position. > > I am still waiting on Bod to tell me how GR can predict or calculate r, v, t of solar objects. I am of the opinion he can't. > I expect he can. For this situation, with an object with a mass small compared with that of the sun, GR reduces to Kepler's third law. Since your orbit is at a constant distance, it is circular, and the semi-major axis is 50,000,000km. Sylvia.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-14 20:41 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <7011a640-9658-4832-ac8b-7a94e9322d6e@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #390008 |
On Monday, August 15, 2016 at 10:41:30 AM UTC+8, Sylvia Else wrote: > On 14/08/2016 6:28 PM, Peter Riedt wrote: > > On Sunday, August 14, 2016 at 12:34:59 PM UTC+8, Sylvia Else wrote: > >> On 13/08/2016 1:51 PM, Peter Riedt wrote: > >>> On Saturday, August 13, 2016 at 10:02:04 AM UTC+8, Sylvia Else wrote: > >>>> On 13/08/2016 10:26 AM, Peter Riedt wrote: > >>>>> On Friday, August 12, 2016 at 8:17:21 PM UTC+8, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >>>>>> On 8/11/2016 9:31 PM, Peter Riedt wrote: > >>>>>>> GR cannot > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> General relativity cannot predict or calculate anything, specifically the > >>>>>>> attributes G, g, M, m, GM, r, v, t and others of solar objects. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> G, M, m are not predicted by the theory. > >>>>>> But the trajectory parameters r, v, t are. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> -- > >>>>>> Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables > >>>>> > >>>>> If r=50000km what is the corresponding v under GR? > >>>>> > >>>> > >>>> That's insufficiently specified. You need to specify m, and then specify > >>>> r and v as vectors at some point in time. GR then gives you v and r, > >>>> again as vectors, for any other time. > >>>> > >>>> Sylvia. > >>> > >>> My gravity theory can, GR cannot. > >>> > >> > >> If I position myself 50,000km from the centre of the sun, then I'll be > >> inside it. Not helpful. > >> > >> Let's say 50 million km from the centre, and at the instant in question, > >> not moving relative to the sun. > >> > >> Now I can project an object at an arbitrary velocity in an arbitrary > >> direction. One of three things can happen. > >> > >> a) The object disappears into interstellar space, never to be seen again. > >> > >> b) It follows a trajectory that impacts the sun. > >> > >> c) It orbits the sun along some ellipse, repeatedly returning to where I am. > >> > >> Clearly there are very many different velocities that can result in (c), > >> so no valid theory can possibly give a single velocity, and any theory > >> that purports to do so, such as yours, apparently, has to be wrong. > >> > >> Sylvia. > > > > Let's define specific parameters: An object is in orbit around the sun at say 50,000,000km or any other distance. My gravity theory can predict in what time t it will return to its original position. > > > > I am still waiting on Bod to tell me how GR can predict or calculate r, v, t of solar objects. I am of the opinion he can't. > > > > I expect he can. > > For this situation, with an object with a mass small compared with that > of the sun, GR reduces to Kepler's third law. Since your orbit is at a > constant distance, it is circular, and the semi-major axis is 50,000,000km. > > Sylvia. You are basically correct but the orbit is not necessarily circular and Bod's claim is refuted; GR cannot predict/calculate t nor v or r.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-15 14:55 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <e1d0a8FrtbvU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #390010 |
On 15/08/2016 1:41 PM, Peter Riedt wrote: > On Monday, August 15, 2016 at 10:41:30 AM UTC+8, Sylvia Else wrote: >> On 14/08/2016 6:28 PM, Peter Riedt wrote: >>> On Sunday, August 14, 2016 at 12:34:59 PM UTC+8, Sylvia Else wrote: >>>> On 13/08/2016 1:51 PM, Peter Riedt wrote: >>>>> On Saturday, August 13, 2016 at 10:02:04 AM UTC+8, Sylvia Else wrote: >>>>>> On 13/08/2016 10:26 AM, Peter Riedt wrote: >>>>>>> On Friday, August 12, 2016 at 8:17:21 PM UTC+8, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>>>>>> On 8/11/2016 9:31 PM, Peter Riedt wrote: >>>>>>>>> GR cannot >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> General relativity cannot predict or calculate anything, specifically the >>>>>>>>> attributes G, g, M, m, GM, r, v, t and others of solar objects. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> G, M, m are not predicted by the theory. >>>>>>>> But the trajectory parameters r, v, t are. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>> Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables >>>>>>> >>>>>>> If r=50000km what is the corresponding v under GR? >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> That's insufficiently specified. You need to specify m, and then specify >>>>>> r and v as vectors at some point in time. GR then gives you v and r, >>>>>> again as vectors, for any other time. >>>>>> >>>>>> Sylvia. >>>>> >>>>> My gravity theory can, GR cannot. >>>>> >>>> >>>> If I position myself 50,000km from the centre of the sun, then I'll be >>>> inside it. Not helpful. >>>> >>>> Let's say 50 million km from the centre, and at the instant in question, >>>> not moving relative to the sun. >>>> >>>> Now I can project an object at an arbitrary velocity in an arbitrary >>>> direction. One of three things can happen. >>>> >>>> a) The object disappears into interstellar space, never to be seen again. >>>> >>>> b) It follows a trajectory that impacts the sun. >>>> >>>> c) It orbits the sun along some ellipse, repeatedly returning to where I am. >>>> >>>> Clearly there are very many different velocities that can result in (c), >>>> so no valid theory can possibly give a single velocity, and any theory >>>> that purports to do so, such as yours, apparently, has to be wrong. >>>> >>>> Sylvia. >>> >>> Let's define specific parameters: An object is in orbit around the sun at say 50,000,000km or any other distance. My gravity theory can predict in what time t it will return to its original position. >>> >>> I am still waiting on Bod to tell me how GR can predict or calculate r, v, t of solar objects. I am of the opinion he can't. >>> >> >> I expect he can. >> >> For this situation, with an object with a mass small compared with that >> of the sun, GR reduces to Kepler's third law. Since your orbit is at a >> constant distance, it is circular, and the semi-major axis is 50,000,000km. >> >> Sylvia. > > You are basically correct but the orbit is not necessarily circular and Bod's claim is refuted; GR cannot predict/calculate t nor v or r. > If the orbit is not necessarily circular, then your statement that the object is in orbit around the sun at 50,000,000km makes no sense. Since GR reduces to Kepler's third law, and that law gives t, it follows GR tives t. The value of v is obtained by simple geometry (distance over time). I don't know what you intend by saying that it doesn't give r - r is an input to the calculation. Sylvia.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-14 22:15 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <caa50f4f-045b-4773-820d-5da0237b0e05@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #390011 |
On Monday, August 15, 2016 at 12:55:40 PM UTC+8, Sylvia Else wrote: > If the orbit is not necessarily circular, then your statement that the > object is in orbit around the sun at 50,000,000km makes no sense. > > Since GR reduces to Kepler's third law, and that law gives t, it follows > GR tives t. The value of v is obtained by simple geometry (distance over > time). I don't know what you intend by saying that it doesn't give r - r > is an input to the calculation. > > Sylvia. The object is at a distance from the sun of 50,000,000km which is the semi major axis of the object. All the planets have a fixed semi major axis and at the same time are elliptical. Kepler's third law gives t but GR does not. The phrase 'GR reduces to Kepler's third law' is ambiguous. It is either one or the other and it is not GR. Another request: Can you tell me what is t for a semi major axis of 50,000,000km?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-15 16:04 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <e1d4bgFspqrU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #390012 |
On 15/08/2016 3:15 PM, Peter Riedt wrote: > On Monday, August 15, 2016 at 12:55:40 PM UTC+8, Sylvia Else wrote: > >> If the orbit is not necessarily circular, then your statement that >> the object is in orbit around the sun at 50,000,000km makes no >> sense. >> >> Since GR reduces to Kepler's third law, and that law gives t, it >> follows GR tives t. The value of v is obtained by simple geometry >> (distance over time). I don't know what you intend by saying that >> it doesn't give r - r is an input to the calculation. >> >> Sylvia. > > The object is at a distance from the sun of 50,000,000km which is the > semi major axis of the object. All the planets have a fixed semi > major axis and at the same time are elliptical. If you intended semi-major axis, you should have said so. Why are you so imprecise in your wording? > > Kepler's third law gives t but GR does not. The phrase 'GR reduces to > Kepler's third law' is ambiguous. It is either one or the other and > it is not GR. A full expansion of the equations of relativity applied to this situation will include a large number of terms. Given the values of the Sun's mass, the object's mass (considered to be small compared with that of the Sun) and the distance involved, almost all of those terms will be vanishingly small, and can be ignored. What's left corresponds to Kepler's third law. > > Another request: Can you tell me what is t for a semi major axis of > 50,000,000km? > I can't be bothered. Plug the values into Kepler's third law formula if you want to know. Sylvia.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-14 23:50 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <a97d7261-abd7-4ea2-85f3-0b79694bc86f@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #390013 |
On Monday, August 15, 2016 at 2:04:35 PM UTC+8, Sylvia Else wrote: > > A full expansion of the equations of relativity applied to this > situation will include a large number of terms. Given the values of the > Sun's mass, the object's mass (considered to be small compared with that > of the Sun) and the distance involved, almost all of those terms will be > vanishingly small, and can be ignored. What's left corresponds to > Kepler's third law. It means GR is not necessary. It is superfluous. > > Another request: Can you tell me what is t for a semi major axis of > > 50,000,000km? > > > > I can't be bothered. Plug the values into Kepler's third law formula if > you want to know. > > Sylvia. The time for the orbit of an object at a distance from the sun of 50,000,000km is 70.58 days and the orbit may have an eccentricity range of e = 0 to .9999. GR could never predict/calculate this. Confirmed by you and the silence of Bod.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-15 17:03 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <e1d7r0FtidiU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #390015 |
On 15/08/2016 4:50 PM, Peter Riedt wrote: > On Monday, August 15, 2016 at 2:04:35 PM UTC+8, Sylvia Else wrote: > >> >> A full expansion of the equations of relativity applied to this >> situation will include a large number of terms. Given the values of the >> Sun's mass, the object's mass (considered to be small compared with that >> of the Sun) and the distance involved, almost all of those terms will be >> vanishingly small, and can be ignored. What's left corresponds to >> Kepler's third law. > > It means GR is not necessary. It is superfluous. In this situation. Go near a black hole, and you'll find that the other terms are not vanishingly small. > >>> Another request: Can you tell me what is t for a semi major axis of >>> 50,000,000km? >>> >> >> I can't be bothered. Plug the values into Kepler's third law formula if >> you want to know. >> >> Sylvia. > > The time for the orbit of an object at a distance from the sun of 50,000,000km > is 70.58 days and the orbit may have an eccentricity range of e = 0 to .9999. GR could never predict/calculate this. Confirmed by you and the silence of Bod. > If that's what Kepler's law says, then GR says pretty much the same thing (the difference lying in those vanishingly small terms). So it's manifestly incorrect to say that GR cannot predict this. Sylvia.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-15 13:23 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <nos8n4$ts1$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #390015 |
On 08/15/2016 08:50 AM, Peter Riedt wrote: > The time for the orbit of an object at a distance from the sun of 50,000,000km > is 70.58 days and the orbit may have an eccentricity range of e = 0 to .9999. GR could never predict/calculate this. Confirmed by you and the silence of Bod. > More honest would be to say you have no idea how to predict it by GR. ( Neither I have ) GR is to Kepler/Newton gravity like a parabolic function to linear function. Newton gravity as a special case of GR, as linear function is a special case of a parabolic one. Saying GR cannot address what a Keplers laws can as as rudiculous like saying there is no way to interpolate points in a line by a parabolic function.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-15 15:15 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <nosf9j$t0g$1@node1.news.atman.pl> |
| In reply to | #390018 |
Użytkownik "Poutnik" napisał w wiadomości grup dyskusyjnych:nos8n4$ts1$1@dont-email.me... |GR is to Kepler/Newton gravity |like a parabolic function to linear function. Bullshit, and you have no idea, what you are talking about. As expected from a fanatic moron.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-15 06:42 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <7c7ad54b-f447-43d2-892b-9f7aaac1a683@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #390029 |
On Monday, August 15, 2016 at 9:15:32 PM UTC+8, Maciej Woźniak wrote: > Użytkownik "Poutnik" napisał w wiadomości grup > dyskusyjnych:nos8n4$ts1$1@dont-email.me... > > |GR is to Kepler/Newton gravity > |like a parabolic function to linear function. > > Bullshit, and you have no idea, what you are > talking about. As expected from a fanatic > moron. I agree with Maciej.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 1 of 3 [1] 2 3 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity
csiph-web