Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #390093 > unrolled thread

The laws of gravity

Back to article view | Back to sci.physics.relativity

Contents

  The laws of gravity Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-08-15 20:45 -0700
    Re: The laws of gravity Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-08-16 07:44 +0200
      Re: The laws of gravity Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-08-15 22:54 -0700
        Re: The laws of gravity Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-08-16 08:43 +0200
          Re: The laws of gravity Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-08-16 08:46 +0200
            Re: The laws of gravity mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-08-15 23:52 -0700
            Re: The laws of gravity Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-08-16 00:10 -0700
              Re: The laws of gravity Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-08-16 11:01 +0200
                Re: The laws of gravity Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-08-16 19:26 -0700
                  Re: The laws of gravity Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-08-17 07:06 +0200
        Re: The laws of gravity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-08-17 07:07 -0500
    Re: The laws of gravity Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-08-16 08:54 +0200
    Re: The laws of gravity Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-08-16 20:20 +1000
      Re: The laws of gravity Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-08-16 19:29 -0700
        Re: The laws of gravity Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-08-17 12:44 +1000
          Re: The laws of gravity Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-08-16 20:51 -0700
            Re: The laws of gravity Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-08-17 14:49 +1000
              Re: The laws of gravity Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-08-17 00:34 -0700
                Re: The laws of gravity Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-08-17 11:11 +0200
                  Re: The laws of gravity Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-08-17 03:16 -0700
                    Re: The laws of gravity Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-08-17 14:35 +0200
                      Re: The laws of gravity Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-08-17 07:17 -0700
                        Re: The laws of gravity Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-08-17 20:22 +0200
                          Re: The laws of gravity Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-08-17 17:27 -0700
                            Re: The laws of gravity Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-08-18 07:30 +0200
                  Re: The laws of gravity Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-08-17 13:04 +0200
                Re: The laws of gravity Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-08-17 19:57 +1000
                  Re: The laws of gravity Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-08-17 03:31 -0700
                    Re: The laws of gravity Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-08-17 03:38 -0700
                    Re: The laws of gravity Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-08-17 14:37 +0200
                      Re: The laws of gravity Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-08-17 07:12 -0700
                        Re: The laws of gravity Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-08-18 12:14 +1000
                          Re: The laws of gravity Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-08-17 19:41 -0700
                            Re: The laws of gravity Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-08-17 20:50 -0700
                            Re: The laws of gravity Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-08-18 07:32 +0200
                    Re: The laws of gravity Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-08-18 12:17 +1000
                Re: The laws of gravity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-08-18 13:52 -0500
                  Re: The laws of gravity Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-08-18 21:08 +0200
                    Re: The laws of gravity Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-08-18 17:42 -0700
                      Re: The laws of gravity Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-08-19 12:30 +1000
                        Re: The laws of gravity Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-08-18 20:05 -0700
                          Re: The laws of gravity Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-08-18 20:20 -0700
                          Re: The laws of gravity Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-08-19 13:47 +1000
                            Re: The laws of gravity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-08-19 07:41 -0500
                          Re: The laws of gravity Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-08-19 06:16 +0200
                          Re: The laws of gravity Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-08-19 06:23 +0200
                          Re: The laws of gravity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-08-19 07:37 -0500
                      Re: The laws of gravity Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-08-19 06:15 +0200
                  Re: The laws of gravity Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-08-18 17:37 -0700
                    Re: The laws of gravity Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-08-19 14:02 +1000
                      Re: The laws of gravity Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-08-19 06:11 +0200
                    Re: The laws of gravity Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-08-19 06:10 +0200
                    Re: The laws of gravity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-08-19 07:22 -0500
                      Re: The laws of gravity mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-08-19 05:36 -0700
            Re: The laws of gravity Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-08-17 11:06 +0200
    Re: The laws of gravity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-08-17 07:06 -0500
      Re: The laws of gravity Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-08-17 14:40 +0200
      Re: The laws of gravity Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-08-17 07:20 -0700
        Re: The laws of gravity Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-08-17 20:24 +0200
          Re: The laws of gravity Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-08-17 17:47 -0700
            Re: The laws of gravity Virgil <VIRGIL@VIRGIL.com> - 2016-08-17 19:09 -0600
            Re: The laws of gravity Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-08-18 07:27 +0200
            Re: The laws of gravity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-08-18 08:37 -0500
              Re: The laws of gravity mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-08-18 06:51 -0700
            Re: The laws of gravity "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-08-22 06:36 -0700

Page 3 of 4 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4  Next page →

#390330

On Friday, August 19, 2016 at 10:30:42 AM UTC+8, Sylvia Else wrote:

> You haven't provided any calculations, just tables of numbers. The 
> alleged calculated values could just be the measured values with some 
> fudges to make them slightly different.
> 
> Until you provide the actual formulae, you haven't proved that these 
> values are calculated rather than just invented.
> 
> Sylvia.

They are not invented. However I have achieved my objective of exposing the inability of GR to calculate any gravity parameters; it has to go back to Newton to do so if at all. I will disclose my theory in the future and prove that I can predict/calculate a from t, t from a and v from the obtained a and t.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#390334

On Thursday, August 18, 2016 at 9:05:41 PM UTC-6, Peter Riedt wrote:
>
> On Friday, August 19, 2016 at 10:30:42 AM UTC+8, Sylvia Else wrote:
> >
> > You haven't provided any calculations, just tables of numbers. The 
> > alleged calculated values could just be the measured values with some 
> > fudges to make them slightly different.
> > 
> > Until you provide the actual formulae, you haven't proved that these 
> > values are calculated rather than just invented.
> > 
> > Sylvia.
> 
> They are not invented.

Of course they are!

> However I have achieved my objective of exposing the inability of GR to
> calculate any gravity parameters;

You prove yourself to be a delusional fool.

> it has to go back to Newton to do so if at all.

I showed you a relativistic equation and you completely ignored it.  Not
only are you a delusional fool, you are also abysmally dishonest.

> I will disclose my theory in the future and prove that I can
> predict/calculate a from t, t from a and v from the obtained a and t.

It will fail when applied to the Jupiter-and-moons case.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#390338

On 19/08/2016 1:05 PM, Peter Riedt wrote:
> On Friday, August 19, 2016 at 10:30:42 AM UTC+8, Sylvia Else wrote:
>
>> You haven't provided any calculations, just tables of numbers. The
>> alleged calculated values could just be the measured values with
>> some fudges to make them slightly different.
>>
>> Until you provide the actual formulae, you haven't proved that
>> these values are calculated rather than just invented.
>>
>> Sylvia.
>
> They are not invented. However I have achieved my objective of
> exposing the inability of GR to calculate any gravity parameters; it
> has to go back to Newton to do so if at all. I will disclose my
> theory in the future and prove that I can predict/calculate a from t,
> t from a and v from the obtained a and t.
>

I suspect it will turn out to be just Kepler's third law with the 
constant of proportionality derived from the measured solar planetary data.

As such it will predict the orbital periods of the solar planets given 
just the semi-major axis, but will fail horribly when applied to any 
other star system, or when applied to the motions of moons.

You derived periods for hypothetical planets of Alpha Centauri A, but 
that doesn't mean they're right.

Sylvia.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#390364

On 8/18/2016 10:47 PM, Sylvia Else wrote:
> I suspect it will turn out to be just Kepler's third law with the
> constant of proportionality derived from the measured solar planetary data.
>
> As such it will predict the orbital periods of the solar planets given
> just the semi-major axis, but will fail horribly when applied to any
> other star system, or when applied to the motions of moons.
>
> You derived periods for hypothetical planets of Alpha Centauri A, but
> that doesn't mean they're right.

No, in fact we know they are not right because they did not use the 
correct value for the mass of that star.

This is why I proposed he tries to do it for Jupiter's moons and 
Saturn's moons. Then simple tables of data would show that it doesn't work.

>
> Sylvia.


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

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#390343

Dne 19/08/2016 v 05:05 Peter Riedt napsal(a):
> On Friday, August 19, 2016 at 10:30:42 AM UTC+8, Sylvia Else wrote:
> 
>> You haven't provided any calculations, just tables of numbers. The 
>> alleged calculated values could just be the measured values with some 
>> fudges to make them slightly different.
>>
>> Until you provide the actual formulae, you haven't proved that these 
>> values are calculated rather than just invented.
>>
>> Sylvia.
> 
> They are not invented. However I have achieved my objective of exposing the inability of GR to calculate any gravity parameters; it has to go back to Newton to do so if at all. I will disclose my theory in the future and prove that I can predict/calculate a from t, t from a and v from the obtained a and t.
> 
You have just exposed you own inabilities....

-- 
Poutnik ( The Pilgrim, Der Wanderer )
Knowledge makes great men humble, but small men arrogant.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#390344

Dne 19/08/2016 v 05:05 Peter Riedt napsal(a):
> 
> ... However I have achieved my objective of exposing the inability of GR to calculate any gravity parameters....

To achieve that, you have to understand GR
and show that it cannot predict it.

As you have troubles even with Newton gravity,
I highly doubt it ever happens.

It cannot be based on fact
others did not show you GR predictions.

-- 
Poutnik ( The Pilgrim, Der Wanderer )
Knowledge makes great men humble, but small men arrogant.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#390362

On 8/18/2016 10:05 PM, Peter Riedt wrote:
> However I have achieved my objective of exposing the inability of GR to calculate any gravity parameters;

Refusing to open references that show how GR calculates orbital 
parameters does not entail achieving an exposure of anything, other than 
your inability to read.

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

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#390342

Dne 19/08/2016 v 02:42 Peter Riedt napsal(a):
> On Friday, August 19, 2016 at 3:08:50 AM UTC+8, Poutnik wrote:

>>
>> Peter's statemennt is similarly foolish
>> like if saying he can calculate
>> values y and z for given x in equation
>>
>> 	x^2 + y^2 + z^2 = 0
>>
>> and complaining the alternative theory cannot.
>>
>> Of course it cannot.
>> If it could, it would be wrong.
> 
> My calculations in the table I have given in my post 'GR challenge' prove that I can. The results are in line with the established values for a, t and v for nine planets in the solar system.
> 
No, you cannot.
Neither you seem to can realize, why you cannot..

Nobody can gain values
from a system with degrees of freedom
that do not match with the same number of restraining conditions.

By principle.

-- 
Poutnik ( The Pilgrim, Der Wanderer )
Knowledge makes great men humble, but small men arrogant.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#390313

On Friday, August 19, 2016 at 2:52:56 AM UTC+8, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> On 8/17/2016 2:34 AM, Peter Riedt wrote:
> 
> > I am talking about one star (Alpha Centauri A) and two assumed planets AC1 and AC2).
> > My theory can predict/calculate t and v of AC1 knowing r and r and v of AC2 knowing t.
> > Knowing M is not necessary.
> 
> Peter, you are saying that if there are two stars of completely 
> different mass, then two planets at the same radius away from the stars 
> would have the same orbital period. You know this conflicts with actual 
> data, don't you?
> 
> >
> > GR can neither. Bod and Roberts also cannot.
> >
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

I claim that the laws of nature are the same in any star system. If I am wrong tell me why.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#390339

On 19/08/2016 10:37 AM, Peter Riedt wrote:
> On Friday, August 19, 2016 at 2:52:56 AM UTC+8, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>> On 8/17/2016 2:34 AM, Peter Riedt wrote:
>>
>>> I am talking about one star (Alpha Centauri A) and two assumed planets AC1 and AC2).
>>> My theory can predict/calculate t and v of AC1 knowing r and r and v of AC2 knowing t.
>>> Knowing M is not necessary.
>>
>> Peter, you are saying that if there are two stars of completely
>> different mass, then two planets at the same radius away from the stars
>> would have the same orbital period. You know this conflicts with actual
>> data, don't you?
>>
>>>
>>> GR can neither. Bod and Roberts also cannot.
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
>
> I claim that the laws of nature are the same in any star system. If I am wrong tell me why.
>

The laws of nature include the mass. They remain the same because of 
that. If the mass were ignored, the laws of nature would seem to vary.

Sylvia.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#390341

Dne 19/08/2016 v 06:02 Sylvia Else napsal(a):
> On 19/08/2016 10:37 AM, Peter Riedt wrote:

>>
>> I claim that the laws of nature are the same in any star system. If I am wrong tell me why.
>>
> 
> The laws of nature include the mass. They remain the same because of 
> that. If the mass were ignored, the laws of nature would seem to vary.
> 
Well written. :)

-- 
Poutnik ( The Pilgrim, Der Wanderer )
Knowledge makes great men humble, but small men arrogant.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#390340

Dne 19/08/2016 v 02:37 Peter Riedt napsal(a):
> On Friday, August 19, 2016 at 2:52:56 AM UTC+8, Odd Bodkin wrote:

>>
>> Peter, you are saying that if there are two stars of completely 
>> different mass, then two planets at the same radius away from the stars 
>> would have the same orbital period. You know this conflicts with actual 
>> data, don't you?
>>>

> 
> I claim that the laws of nature are the same in any star system. If I am wrong tell me why.
> 
Yes, They are. But the point is, Kepler laws are laws just by name.
They are just rules, with validity in a single system.

Ratios of T^2 and a^3 make sense to be compared
just within the same system, with the same central mass.

And even within this single system,
the v_avg  cannot be determined without known excentricity.

as 4.a/T <= v_avg <= 2.pi.a/T

Why is it so difficult to understand ?

-- 
Poutnik ( The Pilgrim, Der Wanderer )
Knowledge makes great men humble, but small men arrogant.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#390357

On 8/18/2016 7:37 PM, Peter Riedt wrote:
> On Friday, August 19, 2016 at 2:52:56 AM UTC+8, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>> On 8/17/2016 2:34 AM, Peter Riedt wrote:
>>
>>> I am talking about one star (Alpha Centauri A) and two assumed planets AC1 and AC2).
>>> My theory can predict/calculate t and v of AC1 knowing r and r and v of AC2 knowing t.
>>> Knowing M is not necessary.
>>
>> Peter, you are saying that if there are two stars of completely
>> different mass, then two planets at the same radius away from the stars
>> would have the same orbital period. You know this conflicts with actual
>> data, don't you?
>>
>>>
>>> GR can neither. Bod and Roberts also cannot.
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
>
> I claim that the laws of nature are the same in any star system. If I am wrong tell me why.
>

Laws of nature are the same. The question is whether the same law is 
dependent on the gravitating mass or not. You say no. Data says yes.

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

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#390361

W dniu piątek, 19 sierpnia 2016 14:22:32 UTC+2 użytkownik Odd Bodkin napisał:

> Laws of nature are the same. 

"Laws of nature" is a self-refuting concept, poor idiot.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#390179

On 08/17/2016 05:51 AM, Peter Riedt wrote:
> On Wednesday, August 17, 2016 at 10:44:35 AM UTC+8, Sylvia Else wrote:

>>
>> Yet you didn't give the mass of the star. As Poutnik observed this
>> suggests that your theory doesn't require the mass. Since we know that
>> orbital speeds and times depend on the star's mass, your theory must be
>> wrong.
>>
>> Sylvia.
>
> Gravity is subject to the mass of a primary (star, planet or any other body a smaller body is attracted to). My theory is based on this fact but does not need G, M or GM to predict/calcualete vtr.
>

Until you reveal you formulas,
we cannot pointed out, where they are wrong.

As they ARE wrong if they need not G, M or G.M

For a small object on circular orbit of radius r and speed v,
the needed centripetal acceleration
a_cp = v^2 / r = (2.pi.r/ T)^2 / r  = 4.pi^2. r / T^2

For a small object orbiting on circular orbit the object of mass M,
the gravitational acceleration of classical gravity is
a_gr = G.M/r^2

As a_gr must be equal a_cp,

therefore for v:

v^2 / r = G.M/r^2
v = sqrt (G.M / r)

resp. for T >

4.pi^2. r / T^2 = G.M/r^2
4.pi^2. r^3 = G.M . T^2
T = sqrt ( 4.pi^2. r^3 / (G.M))


And now, tell us,
how can you calculate v or T from r without G and M or G.M..

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#390186

On 8/15/2016 10:45 PM, Peter Riedt wrote:
> The laws of gravity
>
> The laws of gravity apply equally in the solar system as well in every other star system. Alpha
> Centauri is a star with a radius of 853992km. Let us imagine it is orbited by two planets AC1 and
> AC2. AC1 is 75,000,000km distant from its primary and AC2 has an orbit period of 2500 days around
> its primary. What are the parameters t and v for AC1 and what are the parameters of r and v for
> AC2? These parameters cannot predicted/calculated by the mathematics of General Relativity

Oh, but they can. But you take the stance that they cannot unless you 
are proven wrong.

> but
> they can be by my theory of gravity.
>
> The orbital time t of AC1 around Alpha Centauri is 129.66 days and the velocity v is 42066m/sec.
> The distance r of AC2 from Alpha Centauri is 539,285,376,827km and the velocity v is 15687msec.
>


Would you care to show the work that led to these? In particular, I'm 
curious how you arrived at a number with 12 significant digits, when 
none of your input data has that precision.


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

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#390190

On 08/17/2016 02:06 PM, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> On 8/15/2016 10:45 PM, Peter Riedt wrote:

>>
>> The orbital time t of AC1 around Alpha Centauri is 129.66 days and the
>> velocity v is 42066m/sec.
>> The distance r of AC2 from Alpha Centauri is 539,285,376,827km and the
>> velocity v is 15687msec.
>>
>
>
> Would you care to show the work that led to these? In particular, I'm
> curious how you arrived at a number with 12 significant digits, when
> none of your input data has that precision.
>
>
It is the ussual Peter's game.

He is used to fiddling with numbers,
ignoring frequent physical invalidity of most of their digits,
and often having no idea
how ridiculous are his high precision results.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#390194

On Wednesday, August 17, 2016 at 8:06:52 PM UTC+8, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> On 8/15/2016 10:45 PM, Peter Riedt wrote:
> > The laws of gravity
> >
> > The laws of gravity apply equally in the solar system as well in every other star system. Alpha
> > Centauri is a star with a radius of 853992km. Let us imagine it is orbited by two planets AC1 and
> > AC2. AC1 is 75,000,000km distant from its primary and AC2 has an orbit period of 2500 days around
> > its primary. What are the parameters t and v for AC1 and what are the parameters of r and v for
> > AC2? These parameters cannot predicted/calculated by the mathematics of General Relativity
> 
> Oh, but they can. But you take the stance that they cannot unless you 
> are proven wrong.
> 
> > but
> > they can be by my theory of gravity.
> >
> > The orbital time t of AC1 around Alpha Centauri is 129.66 days and the velocity v is 42066m/sec.
> > The distance r of AC2 from Alpha Centauri is 539,285,376,827km and the velocity v is 15687msec.
> >
> 
> 
> Would you care to show the work that led to these? In particular, I'm 
> curious how you arrived at a number with 12 significant digits, when 
> none of your input data has that precision.
> 
> 
> -- 
> Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

Please ignore the extra digits, the excess is irrelevant in the context of my arguments. 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#390201

On 08/17/2016 04:20 PM, Peter Riedt wrote:
> On Wednesday, August 17, 2016 at 8:06:52 PM UTC+8, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>>
>> Would you care to show the work that led to these? In particular, I'm
>> curious how you arrived at a number with 12 significant digits, when
>> none of your input data has that precision.
>>
>
> Please ignore the extra digits, the excess is irrelevant in the context of my arguments.

Why not to use algebraic expressions in your posts,
as is common in science of last 400 years, instead of hard numbers ?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#390216

On Thursday, August 18, 2016 at 2:24:32 AM UTC+8, Poutnik wrote:
> On 08/17/2016 04:20 PM, Peter Riedt wrote:
> > On Wednesday, August 17, 2016 at 8:06:52 PM UTC+8, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> >>
> >> Would you care to show the work that led to these? In particular, I'm
> >> curious how you arrived at a number with 12 significant digits, when
> >> none of your input data has that precision.
> >>
> >
> > Please ignore the extra digits, the excess is irrelevant in the context of my arguments.
> 
> Why not to use algebraic expressions in your posts,
> as is common in science of last 400 years, instead of hard numbers ?

My objective is to challenge the supporters of GR to use the mathematics of GR to prove my gravity theory wrong by predicting/calculating different numbers to mine in respect of vtr or vta. I believe they cannot do this.(:-0

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 3 of 4 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity

csiph-web