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

Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #357476 > unrolled thread

Re: Einstein's mistake and Okun's delusion

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

This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.

Contents

  Re: Einstein's mistake and Okun's delusion kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> - 2015-07-16 17:00 -0400
    Re: Einstein's mistake and Okun's delusion khrapko_ri@hotmail.com - 2015-07-17 01:07 -0700
    Re: Einstein's mistake and Okun's delusion kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2015-07-17 04:52 -0700
      Re: Einstein's mistake and Okun's delusion Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-07-17 07:26 -0500
    Re: Einstein's mistake and Okun's delusion Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-07-17 07:06 -0500
    Re: Einstein's mistake and Okun's delusion Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-07-17 07:11 -0500

#357476 — Re: Einstein's mistake and Okun's delusion

On Thu, 16 Jul 2015 08:21:09 -0500, Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com>
wrote:

>On 7/15/2015 7:00 PM, kefischer wrote:
>> On Wed, 15 Jul 2015 16:55:44 -0500, Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On 7/15/2015 4:36 PM, kefischer wrote:
>>>>           What I was talking about is that a
>>>> globular cluster or the central disk of
>>>> a spiral galaxy has so many stars that
>>>> if there was mutual attraction, they would
>>>> all end up in one mass.
>>>
>>> I'm sorry, but I don't understand how you make statements like that.
>>
>>         If you could read, you would have a better
>> chance of understanding, see an ophthalmologist.
>
>Oh, I can read the statement. 

          Obviously, not correctly.


>I just don't know how you can make them.

         Because you are stupid, you know no physics
at all, all you know is what you read in books.


>>> What on earth gives you the idea that if there were mutual attraction,
>>> densely packed star regions wouldn't be seen?
>>
>>         I did not say anything even remotely like
>> that, I said they would all end up in one mass,
>
>Right, and after that happened, it wouldn't be a densely packed star 
>region any more, would it?

        I would be a region of violence and energy
production  so great, it would be obvious that
stars cannot "orbit" in all 3 axes, so there should
be a continuous accretion of stars into a single mass,
with more energy release than quasars or any
other known feature if Newton was even close
to correct.


>I have no idea why you think a densely packed star region is 
>inconsistent with a mutual attraction.

       Because "orbits" and mutual attraction
only are compatible in special circumstances.

       Newton works for the solar system
because everything is near the same plane,
and satellites work  because intersecting
orbits are avoided with great amounts of
care.
      But there has been one or more bad
collisions of man-made satellites even
though they were designed not to collide.
(One was intentional).


>> but I did not even suggest that all, or any  of
>> them would have already done so.
>>
>>
>>> Have you done any calculations to support that claim? No, of course you
>>> haven't.
>>>
>>> It's like claiming that there is no friction between tires and the road,
>>> because if there were, cars could not possibly travel at highway speeds.
>>> It's a claim pulled directly from the ass.
>>
>>         Orbiting binaries are interacting gravitationally,
>> and do appear to be moving toward merger, but
>> except for a few binary pairs where one is a
>> white dwarf, no mergers or collisions are
>> evident.
>
>Collisions aside from binaries are fairly common. You didn't know that?

         No.

          I specifically mentioned the galactic center,
where the density of stars is 50 million times
the density of stars in our region.

http://www.astronomy.ohio-state.edu/~ryden/ast162_7/notes31.html


>>        Another feature that might be a clue is,
>> how many triple or quadruple star systems
>> are there with close orbits?
>
>Quite a few.
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Star_system

"Most multiple star systems known are triple; for higher multiplicities,
the number of known systems with a given multiplicity decreases
exponentially with multiplicity.[8] For example, in the 1999 revision of
Tokovinin's catalog[3] of physical multiple stars, 551 out of the 728
systems described are triple. However, because of selection effects,
knowledge of these statistics is very incomplete.[9], §2.

Multiple-star systems can be divided into two main dynamical classes:
hierarchical systems which are stable and consist of nested orbits that
don't interact much and so each level of the hierarchy can be treated as
a Two-body problem, or the trapezia which have unstable strongly
interacting orbits and are modeled as an n-body problem, exhibiting
chaotic behavior."


>Why you open your mouth without checking first, is beyond me. It's a 
>terrible habit.

          Why don't you get those glasses, since
you haven't yet, you need to ask somebody
what "the number of known systems with a
given multiplicity decreases exponentially
 with multiplicity" means.


>>        Come back when you get the glasses.


         There is obviously a substantial ignored
issue here, no matter how far apart, mutual
attraction without tangent motion results
in aggregation, and tangent motion in
all axes means a high probability of
collisions, which are not just mergers.

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#357564

пятница, 17 июля 2015 г., 2:22:34 UTC+4 пользователь kefischer написал:
> On Thu, 16 Jul 2015 16:56:17 -0500, Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> 
> >On 7/16/2015 4:00 PM, kefischer wrote:
> >>           Because you are stupid, you know no physics
> >> at all, all you know is what you read in books.
> >
> >Physics books, yes.
> >As opposed to all the physics you know from NOT reading physics books.
> >Got it.
> 
>          Moron, the physics books are not gospel,
> they are opinions of the authors.
> 
>           You should really be posting in a lady's
> gossip group.

It is just gospel is silly opinions of the authors

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

#357576

On Thursday, July 16, 2015 at 6:33:43 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> On 7/16/2015 5:25 PM, kefischer wrote:
> > On Thu, 16 Jul 2015 16:57:33 -0500, Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> >> On 7/16/2015 4:00 PM, kefischer wrote:
> >>>> Right, and after that happened, it wouldn't be a densely packed star
> >>>>> region any more, would it?
> >>>           It would be a region of violence and energy
> >>> production  so great, it would be obvious that
> >>> stars cannot "orbit" in all 3 axes, so there should
> >>> be a continuous accretion of stars into a single mass,
> >>
> >> Prove that. Don't wave your hands. Prove it. Show the calculations.
> >
> >           You show the calculations for 50 million
> > stars in a cube with 100 light years sides.
> >
> 
> I showed you a calculation pal. Now you do one.
> 

That's a lie.....I showed you a calculation of your experiment and you refused to give me an SR calculation for your experiment.

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

#357585

On 7/17/2015 6:52 AM, kenseto wrote:
> On Thursday, July 16, 2015 at 6:33:43 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>> On 7/16/2015 5:25 PM, kefischer wrote:
>>> On Thu, 16 Jul 2015 16:57:33 -0500, Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 7/16/2015 4:00 PM, kefischer wrote:
>>>>>> Right, and after that happened, it wouldn't be a densely packed star
>>>>>>> region any more, would it?
>>>>>            It would be a region of violence and energy
>>>>> production  so great, it would be obvious that
>>>>> stars cannot "orbit" in all 3 axes, so there should
>>>>> be a continuous accretion of stars into a single mass,
>>>>
>>>> Prove that. Don't wave your hands. Prove it. Show the calculations.
>>>
>>>            You show the calculations for 50 million
>>> stars in a cube with 100 light years sides.
>>>
>>
>> I showed you a calculation pal. Now you do one.
>>
>
> That's a lie.....I showed you a calculation of your

Ken Seto, your mind is mush. This was a response to Ken Fischer, not to 
Ken Seto. You can't even keep track of who is replying to whom anymore.

You're no longer worth the time to bother replying to.

> experiment and you refused to give me an SR calculation for your experiment.
>


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

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

#357579

On 7/16/2015 6:42 PM, kefischer wrote:
> On Thu, 16 Jul 2015 17:32:06 -0500, Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> On 7/16/2015 5:22 PM, kefischer wrote:
>>> On Thu, 16 Jul 2015 16:56:17 -0500, Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 7/16/2015 4:00 PM, kefischer wrote:
>>>>>             Because you are stupid, you know no physics
>>>>> at all, all you know is what you read in books.
>>>>
>>>> Physics books, yes.
>>>> As opposed to all the physics you know from NOT reading physics books.
>>>> Got it.
>>>
>>>            Moron, the physics books are not gospel,
>>> they are opinions of the authors.
>>
>> Uh-huh. You believe that science textbooks express opinions?
>
>           Yes, stupid, that is exactly what I think
> any book consists of.

Aha. Good to know that's what you think.

>
>
>> And so since you have an opinion too, then your physics is as good as
>> anyone else's opinion... er... physics?
>
>             I have good reason to believe it is
> better than that of  most people.
>

That would be your opinion, right?

>
>> And a book on arithmetic. Is that full of opinions too?
>
>              Divert, divert, divert.

"That is exactly what I think any book consists of."

>
>
>> What about a book on plane geometry, full of this thing called "proofs"?
>> Are those not proofs but just opinions?
>
>              Divert, divert, divert.

"That is exactly what I think any book consists of."

>
>
>> And encyclopedias.... are they just multivolume compendia of opinions?
>
>               Divert, divert, divert.

"That is exactly what I think any book consists of."

>
>
>
>>>             You should really be posting in a lady's
>>> gossip group.
>


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

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

#357580

On 7/16/2015 6:54 PM, kefischer wrote:> On Thu, 16 Jul 2015 17:33:41 
-0500, Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com>
 > wrote:
 >
 >> On 7/16/2015 5:25 PM, kefischer wrote:
 >>> On Thu, 16 Jul 2015 16:57:33 -0500, Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com>
 >>> wrote:
 >>>
 >>>> On 7/16/2015 4:00 PM, kefischer wrote:
 >>>>>> Right, and after that happened, it wouldn't be a densely packed star
 >>>>>>> region any more, would it?
 >>>>>            It would be a region of violence and energy
 >>>>> production  so great, it would be obvious that
 >>>>> stars cannot "orbit" in all 3 axes, so there should
 >>>>> be a continuous accretion of stars into a single mass,
 >>>>
 >>>> Prove that. Don't wave your hands. Prove it. Show the calculations.
 >>>
 >>>            You show the calculations for 50 million
 >>> stars in a cube with 100 light years sides.
 >>>
 >>
 >> I showed you a calculation pal. Now you do one.
 >>
 >> Oh wait ....
 >
 >           No, get right to it, that cube is one million
 > cubic light years.
 >
 >           In our region there is about one star in
 > about every 10 light year cube.
 >
 >           I won't make any statement about how
 > many that would be, the link I posted and
 > which you always snip, told about how
 > many there are per cubic light year.

That's right, you won't make any statement about how many that would be, 
because even the 3rd grade math required to do it eludes you.

 >
 >
 >>>>> with more energy release than quasars or any
 >>>>> other known feature if Newton was even close
 >>>>> to correct.
 >>>>>
 >>>>
 >>>> Prove that too. Show the calculations.
 >>>>
 >>>> You're full of shit, you know that, right?
 >>>
 >>>             But I know mine stinks, you think
 >>> your's smells good.
 >>
 >> Ah, but you don't say yours stinks, do you? You say it is
 >> graduate-student-quality work.
 >
 >           Some is, but very crude and sloppy
 > work, I don't like doing the details.
 >
 >           The thing is, I enjoy doing original
 > work, even starting something and just
 > see where it leads.
 >
 >           I have a project going now with
 > more than $4000 invested, just to see
 > what develops, and I am way ahead
 > of where I expected to be.

Oh, I'm thrilled for you.

 >
 >
 >> If you said your ideas stank like shit a little more often, you'd be
 >> more on track.
 >
 >         How many times have I said that
 > Divergent Matter is crazy, insane or
 > absurd?

And it stinks.

 >
 >         But it is better than GR in many
 > ways,

And that stinks.

 > and I think is geometrically
 > just an inverse of General Relativity,
 > with time being an advancing well
 > defined parameter.

And that stinks too.

Or, as you say, crazy, insane, absurd.

 >
 >
 >
 >
 >


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


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

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

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

csiph-web