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 4 of 5 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4] 5 Next page →
| From | alsor@interia.pl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-19 05:52 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <4d93d5c6-74c1-4f5d-bfc8-4380c664eee0@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #364546 |
W dniu sobota, 19 września 2015 05:45:44 UTC+2 użytkownik JanPB napisał: > > It's impossible to publish so strong facts in the highly pathologized, > > nor pseudoscientific journals. > > That's the standard crank excuse. "They won't publish me because I'm right" > and other variations on that silly theme. I'm surprised you haven't brought > up the "They laughed at Galileo" line yet. These your standard is more crank, because it's not any pathalogised science already, because it's now a patholgised pseudoscience. :) curved expanding spacetime, Bhehehe! Hypernonsense...
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-19 10:39 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <kssqvadam8vfe4vg5t05io3ctlsmj6ejbg@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #364572 |
On Sat, 19 Sep 2015 05:52:15 -0700 (PDT), alsor@interia.pl wrote:
>W dniu sobota, 19 wrzesnia 2015 05:45:44 UTC+2 uzytkownik JanPB napisal:
>
>> > It's impossible to publish so strong facts in the highly pathologized,
>> > nor pseudoscientific journals.
>>
>> That's the standard crank excuse. "They won't publish me because I'm right"
>> and other variations on that silly theme. I'm surprised you haven't brought
>> up the "They laughed at Galileo" line yet.
>
>These your standard is more crank, because it's
>not any pathalogised science already,
>because it's now a patholgised pseudoscience. :)
>
>curved expanding spacetime, Bhehehe!
>Hypernonsense...
Spacetime does not expand.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | alsor@interia.pl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-20 10:07 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <778e10df-ccc6-4a52-83ea-fb6f705d23c6@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #364575 |
W dniu sobota, 19 września 2015 16:40:04 UTC+2 użytkownik kefischer napisał: > On Sat, 19 Sep 2015 05:52:15 -0700 (PDT), alsor@interia.pl wrote: > > >W dniu sobota, 19 wrzesnia 2015 05:45:44 UTC+2 uzytkownik JanPB napisal: > > > >> > It's impossible to publish so strong facts in the highly pathologized, > >> > nor pseudoscientific journals. > >> > >> That's the standard crank excuse. "They won't publish me because I'm right" > >> and other variations on that silly theme. I'm surprised you haven't brought > >> up the "They laughed at Galileo" line yet. > > > >These your standard is more crank, because it's > >not any pathalogised science already, > >because it's now a patholgised pseudoscience. :) > > > >curved expanding spacetime, Bhehehe! > >Hypernonsense... > > Spacetime does not expand. In the relativity there is a spacetime only, there not exists the space and time independently, thus if something expand there then the spacetime itself, and exactly, not more nor less: never the space alone, nor time, because such things don't exists in this 'theory'! You just still confuse, mix - due to the intuition, the old classical concepts with these new... quite non-intuitive, because fully relativistic. :) So, in the strict non-classical BB-expansion, described by Friedman and others... there is no space to space expand, because such entity, like space alone, doesn't exists in this model at all! There is none of a relativistic space idea in any theory... understand, babe?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-20 13:46 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <qurtvahh8eujmkvo8qe7oi70o4ph4fslhi@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #364727 |
On Sun, 20 Sep 2015 10:07:52 -0700 (PDT), alsor@interia.pl wrote:
>W dniu sobota, 19 wrzesnia 2015 16:40:04 UTC+2 uzytkownik kefischer napisal:
>> On Sat, 19 Sep 2015 05:52:15 -0700 (PDT), alsor@interia.pl wrote:
>>
>> >W dniu sobota, 19 wrzesnia 2015 05:45:44 UTC+2 uzytkownik JanPB napisal:
>> >
>> >> > It's impossible to publish so strong facts in the highly pathologized,
>> >> > nor pseudoscientific journals.
>> >>
>> >> That's the standard crank excuse. "They won't publish me because I'm right"
>> >> and other variations on that silly theme. I'm surprised you haven't brought
>> >> up the "They laughed at Galileo" line yet.
>> >
>> >These your standard is more crank, because it's
>> >not any pathalogised science already,
>> >because it's now a patholgised pseudoscience. :)
>> >
>> >curved expanding spacetime, Bhehehe!
>> >Hypernonsense...
>>
>> Spacetime does not expand.
>
>In the relativity there is a spacetime only,
>there not exists the space and time independently,
>thus if something expand there then the spacetime itself,
>and exactly, not more nor less: never the space alone, nor time,
>because such things don't exists in this 'theory'!
>
>You just still confuse, mix - due to the intuition,
>the old classical concepts with these new...
>quite non-intuitive, because fully relativistic. :)
>
>
>So, in the strict non-classical BB-expansion,
>described by Friedman and others... there is no space to space expand,
>because such entity, like space alone, doesn't exists in this model at all!
>
>There is none of a relativistic space idea in any theory... understand, babe?
Not really, I don't understand what you are
trying to say, but neither space or space-time
ever "expands", both are nothing and nothing
physical.
Distances between objects can increase
or decrease, even with an apparent acceleration
(in either Divergent Matter or General Relativity),
to say it is space or space-time expanding or
shrinking is just nonsense wording to try to
communicate with people the writer thinks
are stupid,
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | alsor@interia.pl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-20 14:31 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <13698335-bba4-4693-9dbc-97eb2fb2daf0@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #364732 |
W dniu niedziela, 20 września 2015 19:47:26 UTC+2 użytkownik kefischer napisał: > >There is none of a relativistic space idea in any theory... understand, babe? > > Not really, I don't understand what you are > trying to say, but neither space or space-time > ever "expands", both are nothing and nothing > physical. Of course... you can't. I just sometimes spontaneously talk naturally in my level, so, it's extremely, tremendously too advanced for any pseudoscientists. :) > Distances between objects can increase > or decrease, even with an apparent acceleration > (in either Divergent Matter or General Relativity), > to say it is space or space-time expanding or > shrinking is just nonsense wording to try to > communicate with people the writer thinks > are stupid, That is a quite other question... In my speech I only remanded the relativists, they should to keep their own principles, which they proclaim proudly to the... similar to them... orangutans.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-15 21:26 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <peghval3nokgtec8u3g5e54paqmllc7dck@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #364206 |
On Tue, 15 Sep 2015 12:16:51 -0700 (PDT), JanPB <filmart@gmail.com>
wrote:
>On Tuesday, September 15, 2015 at 12:12:25 PM UTC-7, al...@interia.pl wrote:
>> W dniu wtorek, 15 wrzesnia 2015 18:32:16 UTC+2 uzytkownik tjrob137 napisal:
>> > 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!)
>
>Let's now leave the Alice in Wonderland world al...@interia.pl lives in:
>http://relativity.livingreviews.org/Articles/lrr-2014-4/
>http://relativity.livingreviews.org/Articles/lrr-2014-4/download/lrr-2014-4Color.pdf
The Will paper is a great disappointment to me,
where he says;
:"2.1 The Einstein equivalence principle
:The principle of equivalence has historically played an important role in the development of
:gravitation theory. Newton regarded this principle as such a cornerstone of
:mechanics that he devoted the opening paragraph of the Principia to it."
That sounds like he considers Einstein's PoE
to be the same as Newton's and Galileo's equivalence
principle.
Is it, or is it NOT ?
Is there a difference between saying gravitation
is like acceleration and gravitational mass is equal
to inertial mass? You bet there is!
Einstein said he "united" gravitational mass and
inertial mass, does that mean both still exist in GR?
It looks to me like the Newtonian influence,
and the need of everybody to think forces act
on objects moving freely in space, only under
the influence of gravity.
The elegance and beauty of GR and the PoE
is that all motion in space is inertial motion, with
space-time NOT causing any of the apparent
coordinate and relative accelerations, space-time
is only the geometry that predicts and shows
what the motions will be.
Space-time is not a cause of anything,
matter is the only entity that can "cause" gravity,
and there is only one way matter can cause
the apparent motions and apparent change
of motion observed.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Frances Espinosa <franesp@portio.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-15 20:50 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <mta0bb$kgf$1@speranza.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #364191 |
Tom Roberts wrote: >> However, this constant is very much sensitive to what the energy >> momentum tensor is. With that said, the energy momentum tensor is >> practically zero in every experiment not involving cosmology. So, we >> have no way to verify if any claimed constant is correct or not. > > NONSENSE! > > All one does is COMPUTE the fall of a stone near earth using the > appropriate approximation to GR, and then compare to actual stones. Or > one COMPUTES the orbit of moon, or earth, or planets and comets, and > compares to their actual orbits. They agree to within the precision of > the measurements (including quite subtle effects, such as perihelion > shifts). You merely display your now legendary ignorance. Nobody ever use GR to approximate falling of stones near Earth. But predominately Newton differential equations are used. If you pretend otherwise, do it right now. Use GR to approximate the fall of a stone. Talk is cheap. Let me see your tensors in GR.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-16 14:11 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <mtbmaj$tlj$1@news.albasani.net> |
| In reply to | #364220 |
On 15.09.2015 22:50, Frances Espinosa wrote: > Tom Roberts wrote: >> >> 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). > > You merely display your now legendary ignorance. Nobody ever use GR to > approximate falling of stones near Earth. But predominately Newton > differential equations are used. > > If you pretend otherwise, do it right now. Use GR to approximate the fall > of a stone. Talk is cheap. Let me see your tensors in GR. http://relativity.livingreviews.org/Articles/lrr-2010-7/download/lrr-2010-7Color.pdf or: http://tinyurl.com/noslyzj http://arxiv.org/pdf/gr-qc/0509114v1 -- Paul https://paulba.no/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-16 08:35 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <j4oivape5ehdr0f5mm4hu5fuc4aog7g491@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #364268 |
On Wed, 16 Sep 2015 14:11:45 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen"
<relativity@paulba.no> wrote:
>On 15.09.2015 22:50, Frances Espinosa wrote:
>> Tom Roberts wrote:
>>>
>>> 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).
>>
>> You merely display your now legendary ignorance. Nobody ever use GR to
>> approximate falling of stones near Earth. But predominately Newton
>> differential equations are used.
>>
>> If you pretend otherwise, do it right now. Use GR to approximate the fall
>> of a stone. Talk is cheap. Let me see your tensors in GR.
>
>http://relativity.livingreviews.org/Articles/lrr-2010-7/download/lrr-2010-7Color.pdf
>or:
>http://tinyurl.com/noslyzj
>
>http://arxiv.org/pdf/gr-qc/0509114v1
I think it is unfortunate the stupid troll is right,
nothing falls due to gravity in GR.
Gravity is not a relative thing, if it was, the
relative motion would be the same regardless
of viewpoint, and it isn't, there is a proper
acceleration of the surface, and only a
coordinate acceleration if the (Newtonian)
falling objects.
The literature is full (or at least was full)
of descriptions and pictures of the surface
accelerating upward, or the elevator in space
being the same as a room on Earth.
There is no way this can be confused
with relative motion.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Frances Espinosa <franesp@portio.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-16 17:08 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <mtc7me$ebn$1@speranza.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #364271 |
kefischer wrote: > Gravity is not a relative thing, if it was, the > relative motion would be the same regardless of viewpoint, and it isn't, > there is a proper acceleration of the surface, and only a coordinate > acceleration if the (Newtonian) falling objects. Since you act knowledgeable by being stupid, here we go fishy. One stone 1 Kg, elevation 100 m. Use whatever you want to predict the elevation of the falling stone 1.6 sec later. You may use your toes and fingers. > The literature is full (or at least was full) > of descriptions and pictures of the surface accelerating upward, or the > elevator in space being the same as a room on Earth. > There is no way this can be confused > with relative motion. Has nothing to do with it, nor with anything, You know nothing about Divergent Matter.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-16 15:08 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <fffjva5du29qi5dvvc1oikg64ap114dh5t@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #364286 |
On Wed, 16 Sep 2015 17:08:31 +0000 (UTC), Frances Espinosa
<franesp@portio.org> wrote:
>kefischer wrote:
>
>> Gravity is not a relative thing, if it was, the
>> relative motion would be the same regardless of viewpoint, and it isn't,
>> there is a proper acceleration of the surface, and only a coordinate
>> acceleration if the (Newtonian) falling objects.
>
>Since you act knowledgeable by being stupid, here we go fishy. One stone 1
>Kg, elevation 100 m. Use whatever you want to predict the elevation of the
>falling stone 1.6 sec later. You may use your toes and fingers.
>
>> The literature is full (or at least was full)
>> of descriptions and pictures of the surface accelerating upward, or the
>> elevator in space being the same as a room on Earth.
>> There is no way this can be confused
>> with relative motion.
>
>Has nothing to do with it, nor with anything, You know nothing about
>Divergent Matter.
The stupid troll was funny til he started
trying to talk physics and showed just how
stupid he is.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jimmie Wynne <jimmwyn@metermap.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-16 19:41 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <mtcgl9$52h$1@speranza.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #364301 |
kefischer wrote: >>Since you act knowledgeable by being stupid, here we go fishy. One stone >>1 Kg, elevation 100 m. Use whatever you want to predict the elevation of >>the falling stone 1.6 sec later. You may use your toes and fingers. > > The stupid troll was funny til he started > trying to talk physics and showed just how stupid he is. You are not stupid, but rather crazy like a fox. He nicely gave you a chance to prove that you are not stealing Divergent Matter. Take it or leave it. You need to show how you did it anyway. Can you do it?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-16 16:22 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <fqjjval1epukdj8q3u71uprs35d38ogosq@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #364304 |
On Wed, 16 Sep 2015 19:41:33 +0000 (UTC), Jimmie Wynne
<jimmwyn@metermap.org> wrote:
>kefischer wrote:
>
>>>Since you act knowledgeable by being stupid, here we go fishy. One stone
>>>1 Kg, elevation 100 m. Use whatever you want to predict the elevation of
>>>the falling stone 1.6 sec later. You may use your toes and fingers.
>>
>> The stupid troll was funny til he started
>> trying to talk physics and showed just how stupid he is.
>
>You are not stupid, but rather crazy like a fox. He nicely gave you a
>chance to prove that you are not stealing Divergent Matter. Take it or
>leave it. You need to show how you did it anyway. Can you do it?
Wow! That was a fast name change.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Frances Espinosa <franesp@portio.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-16 17:01 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <mtc79u$dhg$1@speranza.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #364268 |
Paul B. Andersen wrote: > On 15.09.2015 22:50, Frances Espinosa wrote: >> Tom Roberts wrote: >>> >>> 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). >> >> You merely display your now legendary ignorance. Nobody ever use GR to >> approximate falling of stones near Earth. But predominately Newton >> differential equations are used. >> >> If you pretend otherwise, do it right now. Use GR to approximate the >> fall of a stone. Talk is cheap. Let me see your tensors in GR. > > http://relativity.livingreviews.org/Articles/lrr-2010-7/download/ lrr-2010-7Color.pdf > or: > http://tinyurl.com/noslyzj > http://arxiv.org/pdf/gr-qc/0509114v1 Hmm, seems impenetrably convoluted. Here it is, one stone 1 Kg, initial elevation 100 m. Use GR to approximate the falling stone at t = 1.5 sec. Let me see GR used to something useful, not only legends.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-17 15:27 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <mtef40$77c$1@news.albasani.net> |
| In reply to | #364285 |
On 16.09.2015 19:01, Frances Espinosa wrote: > Paul B. Andersen wrote: > >> On 15.09.2015 22:50, Frances Espinosa wrote: >>> Tom Roberts wrote: >>>> >>>> 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). >>> >>> You merely display your now legendary ignorance. Nobody ever use GR to >>> approximate falling of stones near Earth. But predominately Newton >>> differential equations are used. >>> >>> If you pretend otherwise, do it right now. Use GR to approximate the >>> fall of a stone. Talk is cheap. Let me see your tensors in GR. >> >> http://relativity.livingreviews.org/Articles/lrr-2010-7/download/ > lrr-2010-7Color.pdf >> or: >> http://tinyurl.com/noslyzj >> http://arxiv.org/pdf/gr-qc/0509114v1 This is part of Tom's statement which you objected to: "one COMPUTES the orbit of moon, or earth, or planets and comets, and compares to their actual orbits." > Hmm, seems impenetrably convoluted. Here it is, one stone 1 Kg, initial > elevation 100 m. Use GR to approximate the falling stone at t = 1.5 sec. > Let me see GR used to something useful, not only legends. The actual orbit of the free-falling stone the Moon is determined to cm precision by the Lunar Laser Ranging project, and this orbit is compared to the predictions of different theories. The predictions of GR are in accordance with the measurement, the predictions of Newton's gravitational theory ( and several other theories) are not, so it's falsified even if it is a 'good enough' approximation in most cases. So you were wrong. GR is used to predict the orbit of a falling stone. But talk is cheap. Here are the tensors in GR: (Look in the references of these papers:) http://tinyurl.com/noslyzj http://arxiv.org/pdf/gr-qc/0509114v1 -- Paul https://paulba.no/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jimmie Wynne <jimmwyn@metermap.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-17 20:29 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <mtf7s0$a0m$1@speranza.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #364364 |
Paul B. Andersen wrote: >> Hmm, seems impenetrably convoluted. Here it is, one stone 1 Kg, initial >> elevation 100 m. Use GR to approximate the falling stone at t = 1.5 >> sec. Let me see GR used to something useful, not only legends. > > The actual orbit of the free-falling stone the Moon is determined to cm > precision by the Lunar Laser Ranging project, and this orbit is compared > to the predictions of different theories. > The predictions of GR are in accordance with the measurement, > the predictions of Newton's gravitational theory ( and several other > theories) are not, so it's falsified even if it is a 'good enough' > approximation in most cases. > > So you were wrong. GR is used to predict the orbit of a falling stone. > But talk is cheap. Here are the tensors in GR: So you cant use your GR to predict that simple elevation. Nevermind. We dont need links. Just do it here, for morons like us to learn.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-17 23:32 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <150d98e3-bd19-40a5-b48a-09c37ecb002b@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #364364 |
On Thursday, September 17, 2015 at 6:27:29 AM, Paul B. Andersen wrote: > Paul B. Andersen wrote: > > http://relativity.livingreviews.org/Articles/lrr-2010-7/download/lrr-2010-7Color.pdf What does the above have anything to do with the constant found in the field equations? Paul must be really confused. <shrug> > The actual orbit of the free-falling stone the Moon is determined > to cm precision by the Lunar Laser Ranging project, and this orbit > is compared to the predictions of different theories. > The predictions of GR are in accordance with the measurement, > the predictions of Newton's gravitational theory ( and > several other theories) are not, so it's falsified even if > it is a 'good enough' approximation in most cases. <yawn> > So you were wrong. > GR is used to predict the orbit of a falling stone. It is better if Paul replaces "predict" with "fudge". <shrug> > But talk is cheap. Indeed. <shrug> > Here are the tensors in GR: > (Look in the references of these papers:) > http://tinyurl.com/noslyzj > http://arxiv.org/pdf/gr-qc/0509114v1 Where are the tensors that Paul has eluded us? Paul is stuck in SR using the version of the Lorentz transform that is valid only in the inertial frames of reference. <shrug>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-16 10:26 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <03c7f093-3972-4387-8002-023b5e5928f6@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #364268 |
On Wednesday, September 16, 2015 at 5:12:05 AM, Paul B. Andersen wrote: > On 15.09.2015 22:50, Frances Espinosa wrote: > > Nobody ever use GR to approximate falling of stones near Earth. But > > predominately Newton differential equations are used. > > http://relativity.livingreviews.org/Articles/lrr-2010-7/download/lrr-2010-7Color.pdf > or: > http://tinyurl.com/noslyzj > http://arxiv.org/pdf/gr-qc/0509114v1 You can only study gravity by looking at the system from the outside or very close to that. For example, Newton did so by observing how that apple behaved under gravity. In a gravitational system, by observing the orbit of a gravitated body is pretty much the only way. <shrug> Einstein the nitwit, the plagiarist, and the liar did so by pretending to be that falling apple. The nitwit's "Entwurf" did not go anywhere. <shrug> Similarly, examining the surface distances between the earth and the moon achieves nothing. Why? <shrug>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-17 15:30 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <mtef9b$77c$2@news.albasani.net> |
| In reply to | #364288 |
On 16.09.2015 19:26, Koobee Wublee wrote: > On Wednesday, September 16, 2015 at 5:12:05 AM, Paul B. Andersen wrote: >> >> http://relativity.livingreviews.org/Articles/lrr-2010-7/download/lrr-2010-7Color.pdf >> or: >> http://tinyurl.com/noslyzj >> http://arxiv.org/pdf/gr-qc/0509114v1 > > You can only study gravity by looking at the system from the outside or very close to that. For example, Newton did so by observing how that apple behaved under gravity. In a gravitational system, by observing the orbit of a gravitated body is pretty much the only way. <shrug> > > Einstein the nitwit, the plagiarist, and the liar did so by pretending to be that falling apple. The nitwit's "Entwurf" did not go anywhere. <shrug> > > Similarly, examining the surface distances between the earth and the moon achieves nothing. Why? <shrug> > Why indeed? :-D -- Paul https://paulba.no/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-17 23:14 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <70e428f2-52c2-45d4-bdb5-afc9862feddd@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #364365 |
On Thursday, September 17, 2015 at 6:30:21 AM, Paul B. Andersen wrote: > On 16.09.2015 19:26, Koobee Wublee wrote: > > On Wednesday, September 16, 2015, Paul B. Andersen wrote: > > > http://relativity.livingreviews.org/Articles/lrr-2010-7/download/lrr-2010-7Color.pdf > > > You can only study gravity by looking at the system from the outside > > or very close to that. For example, Newton did so by observing how > > that apple behaved under gravity. In a gravitational system, by > > observing the orbit of a gravitated body is pretty much the only way. > > <shrug> > > > Einstein the nitwit, the plagiarist, and the liar did so by pretending > > to be that falling apple. The nitwit's "Entwurf" did not go anywhere. > > <shrug> > > > Similarly, examining the surface distances between the earth and the > > moon achieves nothing. Why? <shrug> > > Why indeed? :-D Hint: If Paul even understands the Newtonian stuff, an effective gravitating distance is between the CENTERS of the bodies not the surfaces which are subjected to gravitational effect from each other. <shrug>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 4 of 5 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4] 5 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity
csiph-web