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 2 of 5 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 5 Next page →
| From | JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-15 12:16 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <48a88fa1-e1b9-4a43-96e0-b46c8717d0ce@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #364203 |
On Tuesday, September 15, 2015 at 12:12:25 PM UTC-7, al...@interia.pl wrote: > W dniu wtorek, 15 września 2015 18:32:16 UTC+2 użytkownik tjrob137 napisał: > > On 9/15/15 9/15/15 - 1:41 AM, Koobee Wublee wrote: > > > On Sunday, September 13, 2015 at 2:37:14 PM UTC-7, tjrob137 wrote: > > >> [...] It TELLS you how it was derived: by finding the Newtonian > > >> approximation to the field equation of GR, and requiring it to be the same > > >> as Newton's law of universal gravitation. > > > > > > However, this constant is very much sensitive to what the energy momentum > > > tensor is. With that said, the energy momentum tensor is practically zero in > > > every experiment not involving cosmology. So, we have no way to verify if > > > any claimed constant is correct or not. > > > > NONSENSE! > > > > All one does is COMPUTE the fall of a stone near earth using the appropriate > > approximation to GR, and then compare to actual stones. Or one COMPUTES the > > orbit of moon, or earth, or planets and comets, and compares to their actual > > orbits. They agree to within the precision of the measurements (including quite > > subtle effects, such as perihelion shifts). > > > > Your claim is just mind-numbingly stupid -- nobody would accept > > GR if this were not so. And it is LUDICROUS to claim that the > > energy-momentum tensor of the earth is "practically zero". Ditto > > for the sun. > > > > > > Note to readers: Koobee Wublee is among the most persistent idiots > > around here. He has been repeating this nonsense for many years, > > without any attempt to learn the subject he tries to write about. > > I reply to him only occasionally, as a service to readers who may > > not recognize his mistakes. He has proven himself to be unable > > and unwilling to learn anything. > > The Newtonian model is sufficient for any motion in the US. > > BTW. there are some anomalies in the lunar theory, > which even the GR can't resolve. :) > > but... > BTW2: > there is much more surprisse: > the GR shit is unable to resolve the famous precession of the Merscury! > > The 6piGM/p is just a stupid coincidence... > here is a proof: > > 1. the Shapiro delay is inconsistent with GR, > because the delay is too short about 4GM/c^2 = 20us. > Therefore in the astronomy is used an 1-st order approximation only, > which gives correct results. > > So, the 20us of error is ignored, simply. > > But the stupid 20us is just the same anomaly > in fact like the the precession anomaly, > because it's just exactly the same quantity, > but in radians, insetead of secons. :) > > Concluding: > the GR model provides just nothing, > this is just a fantastic fallacy... like: > > pi = 3 / 1-e^2, for the Mercury's orbit... > e = 0.206, thus: 3 / 1 - 0.206^2 = 3.133 =~ pi; > almost perfect (0.3% of error only!) 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 -- Jan
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-15 12:32 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <58660070-24c0-43ea-83b1-d35fad7ad755@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #364206 |
On Tuesday, September 15, 2015 at 12:16:54 PM UTC-7, JanPB wrote: > On Tuesday, September 15, 2015 at 12:12:25 PM UTC-7, al...@interia.pl wrote: > > The Newtonian model is sufficient for any motion in the US. > > Let's now leave the Alice in Wonderland world Sounds good to Koobee Wublee. <shrug> > http://relativity.livingreviews.org/Articles/lrr-2014-4/ > http://relativity.livingreviews.org/Articles/lrr-2014-4/download/lrr-2014-4Color.pdf But why does Jan still insist to stay in the Alice in Wonderland world? <shrug>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-15 12:49 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <5abf19aa-972f-4a68-985b-6604bfeea11c@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #364209 |
On Tuesday, September 15, 2015 at 12:33:02 PM UTC-7, Koobee Wublee wrote: > On Tuesday, September 15, 2015 at 12:16:54 PM UTC-7, JanPB wrote: > > On Tuesday, September 15, 2015 at 12:12:25 PM UTC-7, al...@interia.pl wrote: > > > > The Newtonian model is sufficient for any motion in the US. > > > > Let's now leave the Alice in Wonderland world > > Sounds good to Koobee Wublee. <shrug> > > > http://relativity.livingreviews.org/Articles/lrr-2014-4/ > > http://relativity.livingreviews.org/Articles/lrr-2014-4/download/lrr-2014-4Color.pdf > > But why does Jan still insist to stay in the Alice in Wonderland world? <shrug> No, you misunderstood. Just posting one line of funny text does not count. Clifford Will did his homework, why don't you? -- Jan
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-16 00:44 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <f2af0fff-a3ee-498c-bb5d-85a613010678@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #364211 |
On Tuesday, September 15, 2015 at 12:49:15 PM UTC-7, JanPB wrote: > On Tuesday, September 15, 2015 at 12:33:02 PM UTC-7, Koobee Wublee wrote: > > But why does Jan still insist to stay in the Alice in Wonderland world? > > <shrug> > > No, you misunderstood. Jan the relativistic moron is the one who has misunderstood. <shrug> > Just posting one line of funny text does not count. Jan the relativistic moron loves to post one or two lines of funny text. So, what's up with that? <shrug> > Clifford Will did his homework, why don't you? Anyone who has not studied the basics has not done any homework. <shrug>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-16 10:25 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <80254668-d4d8-42c3-a7d2-cd38e5a59a39@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #364262 |
On Wednesday, September 16, 2015 at 12:44:36 AM UTC-7, Koobee Wublee wrote: > On Tuesday, September 15, 2015 at 12:49:15 PM UTC-7, JanPB wrote: > > On Tuesday, September 15, 2015 at 12:33:02 PM UTC-7, Koobee Wublee wrote: > > > > But why does Jan still insist to stay in the Alice in Wonderland world? > > > <shrug> > > > > No, you misunderstood. > > Jan the relativistic moron is the one who has misunderstood. <shrug> > > > Just posting one line of funny text does not count. > > Jan the relativistic moron loves to post one or two lines of funny text. So, what's up with that? <shrug> That's because you are the one who is denying something and attempting a critique. I don't need to post detailed reasons why invisible fairies do not protect the Earth from the solar wind. > > Clifford Will did his homework, why don't you? > > Anyone who has not studied the basics has not done any homework. <shrug> Are you now saying Clifford Will has not studied the basics? You want me to ask you that question about the dx^2/x^4 + dy^2 metric again? :-) -- Jan
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-16 10:31 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <a9edef96-2140-4977-9d02-1f8205bcdb0a@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #364287 |
On Wednesday, September 16, 2015 at 10:25:07 AM UTC-7, JanPB wrote: > On Wednesday, September 16, 2015 at 12:44:36 AM, Koobee Wublee wrote: > > Jan the relativistic moron is the one who has misunderstood. > > <shrug> > > > Jan the relativistic moron loves to post one or two lines of funny > > text. So, what's up with that? <shrug> > > That's because you are the one who is denying something and attempting > a critique. This accusation is just wrong. <shrug> > I don't need to post detailed reasons why invisible fairies do not > protect the Earth from the solar wind. Off tangent, Jan the relativistic moron goes. <shrug> > > Anyone who has not studied the basics has not done any homework. > > <shrug> > > Are you now saying Clifford Will has not studied the basics? Where have you been? Koobee Wublee has posted so many basic fundamental flaws in both SR and GR. <shrug> > You want me to ask you that question about the dx^2/x^4 + dy^2 metric > again? :-) Irrelevant again. <shrug>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-16 10:42 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <ab735757-12cd-4996-9373-ec8ef86f66d3@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #364291 |
On Wednesday, September 16, 2015 at 10:31:40 AM UTC-7, Koobee Wublee wrote: > On Wednesday, September 16, 2015 at 10:25:07 AM UTC-7, JanPB wrote: > > On Wednesday, September 16, 2015 at 12:44:36 AM, Koobee Wublee wrote: > > > > Jan the relativistic moron is the one who has misunderstood. > > > <shrug> > > > > > Jan the relativistic moron loves to post one or two lines of funny > > > text. So, what's up with that? <shrug> > > > > That's because you are the one who is denying something and attempting > > a critique. > > This accusation is just wrong. <shrug> You are not denying relativity? You are not denying Einstein was the discoverer of relativity? (Let's just start with those two.) > > I don't need to post detailed reasons why invisible fairies do not > > protect the Earth from the solar wind. > > Off tangent, Jan the relativistic moron goes. <shrug> Looks like you get tripped up by analogies. So once again: it is not up to me disprove the negative. > > > Anyone who has not studied the basics has not done any homework. > > > <shrug> > > > > Are you now saying Clifford Will has not studied the basics? > > Where have you been? Koobee Wublee has posted so many basic fundamental flaws in both SR and GR. <shrug> You haven't. All you've posted are gross mathematical mistakes that would earn an F on a midterm in grad school. > > You want me to ask you that question about the dx^2/x^4 + dy^2 metric > > again? :-) > > Irrelevant again. <shrug> It's very relevant: if you cannot do simple problems in Riemannian geometry, how can you possibly criticise GR on technical ground, let alone Einstein?? -- Jan
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-17 00:01 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <ffbe13b5-6be4-4a6e-a580-1605fb29904a@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #364293 |
On Wednesday, September 16, 2015 at 10:42:18 AM UTC-7, JanPB wrote: > Koobee Wublee wrote: > > Jan the relativistic moron loves to post one or two lines of funny > > text. So, what's up with that? <shrug> > > You are not denying relativity? You are not denying Einstein was > the discoverer of relativity? (Let's just start with those two.) "denying" is not a vocabulary of science but a tall word with bully intentions. Jan the relativistic moron has not quite sunk in yet understanding when Koobee Wublee mentions Einstein the nitwit, the plagiarist, and the liar. Well, whenever Koobee Wublee has mentioned Einstein the nitwit, the plagiarist, and the liar, Koobee Wublee really means that historically Einstein the nitwit, the plagiarist, and a liar was nothing but a nitwit, a plagiarist, and a liar. Got it? <shrug> > > Off tangent, Jan the relativistic moron goes. <shrug> > > Looks like you get tripped up by analogies. So once again: > it is not up to me disprove the negative. Jan the relativistic moron insists to live in the Alice in the Wonderland world that Jan the relativistic moron invents. <shrug> > > Anyone who has not studied the basics has not done any homework. > > <shrug> > > You haven't. All you've posted are gross mathematical mistakes that > would earn an F on a midterm in grad school. Koobee Wublee does not expect Jan the relativistic moron has the authority to grade Koobee Wublee. If Jan the relativistic moron is so heart broken of Koobee Wublee's educational background and professional experiences, Jan the relativistic moron is very welcomed to follow Paul Draper's quest to lobby for Caltech to revoke all these degrees awarded to Koobee Wublee in the past. <shrug> > > Irrelevant again. <shrug> > > It's very relevant: if you cannot do simple problems in Riemannian geometry, > how can you possibly criticise GR on technical ground, let alone Einstein?? This is coming from an idiot who raised objections when Koobee Wublee had decided to describe an invariant geometry with a specific set of coordinate system. Make you Jan the relativistic moron mentions that Koobee Wublee has no right to choose a coordinate system to describe a geometry. <shrug> The nonsense from Jan the relativistic moron does not stop at the very basics of differential geometry. Jan has obviously confused the crucial roles of the metric and the coordinate system play in describing a geometry. Jan the relativistic moron managed to accuse Koobee Wublee of describing velocity with just the change of coordinate where the metric is missing. Jan the relativistic moron knows nothing. <shrug> Jan the relativistic moron manages to post hundreds of posts every day during working hours. As a third class citizen programming z transforms for the database guys in a biotech company, Jan certainly has a lot of free time to do so. What a job! <shrug>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | alsor@interia.pl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-15 13:40 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <be893b13-10f1-4d88-895b-7d5daadae202@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #364206 |
W dniu wtorek, 15 września 2015 21:16:54 UTC+2 użytkownik JanPB napisał: > 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 I read these numerical improvisations by many years... over 20thy. And finally I discovered it's just a fallacy... based on the coincidences type of: pi = 3 / 1-e^2, for the Mercury's orbit, there just: e = ~0.21; so, for Mercury it is: 2pi^2/a = 6pi / p; and just that discovered your numerologicial pseudoscience! g = 9.8 =~ pi^2; very nice coincidence... but there us still more surprise: g =~ 1 ly / year^2; more coriosity: the accaleration of the Moon-Earth is just: 1/365.25 m/s^2. So, the GR is suuces is just based on the numerologicial coincidences... If the dt = 4GM/c^3 = 20us is ignored, then any other GR effects must be ignored, because these all are just the same: 2pi dt x c = df = angle of preccesion, ect. Even this stupid SR model is more correct - general than the GR.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-15 14:50 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <29aa08e3-f948-4a6c-adea-62ce4f9467aa@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #364218 |
On Tuesday, September 15, 2015 at 1:40:28 PM UTC-7, al...@interia.pl wrote: > W dniu wtorek, 15 września 2015 21:16:54 UTC+2 użytkownik JanPB napisał: > > > 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 > > I read these numerical improvisations by many years... > over 20thy. > > And finally I discovered it's just a fallacy... > based on the coincidences type of: > pi = 3 / 1-e^2, for the Mercury's orbit, there just: e = ~0.21; > > so, for Mercury it is: 2pi^2/a = 6pi / p; > and just that discovered your numerologicial pseudoscience! > > g = 9.8 =~ pi^2; very nice coincidence... > but there us still more surprise: g =~ 1 ly / year^2; > > more coriosity: > the accaleration of the Moon-Earth is just: 1/365.25 m/s^2. > > So, the GR is suuces is just based on the numerologicial coincidences... > > If the dt = 4GM/c^3 = 20us is ignored, > then any other GR effects must be ignored, > because these all are just the same: > 2pi dt x c = df = angle of preccesion, ect. > > Even this stupid SR model is more correct - general than the GR. Publish your research. The above post is just hand waving junk. -- Jan
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | alsor@interia.pl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-17 05:07 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <80d51710-d2dc-4e2a-a2a6-78a782bf0ac4@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #364229 |
W dniu wtorek, 15 września 2015 23:50:30 UTC+2 użytkownik JanPB napisał: > > Even this stupid SR model is more correct - general than the GR. > > Publish your research. The above post is just hand waving junk. It's impossible to publish so strong facts in the highly pathologized, nor pseudoscientific journals. That strategy would be analogous to forcing in the orangutans 'science' they are inferior primitives only. :)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Poutnik <Poutnik4NNTP@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-17 14:22 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <mteb67$gd7$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #364357 |
On 09/17/2015 02:07 PM, alsor@interia.pl wrote: > W dniu wtorek, 15 września 2015 23:50:30 UTC+2 użytkownik JanPB napisał: > >>> Even this stupid SR model is more correct - general than the GR. >> >> Publish your research. The above post is just hand waving junk. > > It's impossible to publish so strong facts in the highly pathologized, > nor pseudoscientific journals. > > That strategy would be analogous to forcing in > the orangutans 'science' they are inferior primitives only. :) > Rather, this is a favourite strategy to avoid the challenge of claims and factoids. -- Poutnik ( the Czech word for a wanderer )
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | alsor@interia.pl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-17 05:43 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <6238674f-fd5c-41ed-a6ad-cf31e52a9329@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #364358 |
W dniu czwartek, 17 września 2015 14:22:20 UTC+2 użytkownik Poutnik napisał: > On 09/17/2015 02:07 PM, alsor@interia.pl wrote: > > W dniu wtorek, 15 września 2015 23:50:30 UTC+2 użytkownik JanPB napisał: > > > >>> Even this stupid SR model is more correct - general than the GR. > >> > >> Publish your research. The above post is just hand waving junk. > > > > It's impossible to publish so strong facts in the highly pathologized, > > nor pseudoscientific journals. > > > > That strategy would be analogous to forcing in > > the orangutans 'science' they are inferior primitives only. :) > > > > Rather, this is a favourite strategy > to avoid the challenge of claims and factoids. > > -- > Poutnik ( the Czech word for a wanderer ) I destroyed... hundred times, these stupid improvised at hoc called proudly as the mainstream pseudoscience... which names itself explicitly as the pseudo: pseudometics + pseudotensors = pseudogeometry: SR, GR; and the quantum idiocy is even more pathalogised: nonclassical probability theory... negative probabilities, fundamental/intrinsic distributions of probability, indeterminancy, the free will in determinism, hiperdeterminism, multiversum, nonsense, ect... Naked babes discovered the transcendent mathematics - expanding space, material time... still again.. :) I can even predict what they can to discovery very soon: the new continent, with indians... just the same the Columbus reached... instead of India. hehe!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Poutnik <Poutnik4NNTP@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-17 15:44 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <mteg0d$3h4$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #364359 |
On 09/17/2015 02:43 PM, alsor@interia.pl wrote: > > I destroyed... hundred times, these stupid improvised at hoc > called proudly as the mainstream pseudoscience... > which names itself explicitly as the pseudo: > pseudometics + pseudotensors = pseudogeometry: SR, GR; > No, you just think so. -- Poutnik ( the Czech word for a wanderer )
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | alsor@interia.pl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-17 06:54 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <1d952ff5-50cb-4674-8308-505bef16a4b6@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #364369 |
W dniu czwartek, 17 września 2015 15:44:33 UTC+2 użytkownik Poutnik napisał: > On 09/17/2015 02:43 PM, alsor@interia.pl wrote: > > > > > I destroyed... hundred times, these stupid improvised at hoc > > called proudly as the mainstream pseudoscience... > > which names itself explicitly as the pseudo: > > pseudometics + pseudotensors = pseudogeometry: SR, GR; > > > > No, you just think so. Indeed. Thinking is a basis in science only, but not in the pseudoscience, which is dominated by improvisation and interpretation... very common among clowns and fools and other primitives.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Poutnik <Poutnik4NNTP@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-17 16:05 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <mteh8f$8qq$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #364372 |
On 09/17/2015 03:54 PM, alsor@interia.pl wrote: > W dniu czwartek, 17 września 2015 15:44:33 UTC+2 użytkownik Poutnik napisał: >> On 09/17/2015 02:43 PM, alsor@interia.pl wrote: >> >>> >>> I destroyed... hundred times, these stupid improvised at hoc >>> called proudly as the mainstream pseudoscience... >>> which names itself explicitly as the pseudo: >>> pseudometics + pseudotensors = pseudogeometry: SR, GR; >>> >> >> No, you just think so. > > Indeed. > Thinking is a basis in science only, > but not in the pseudoscience, > which is dominated by improvisation and interpretation... > very common among clowns and fools and other primitives. > Shallow thinking and name calling is a basis of pseudoscience. Science is based aside of deep thinking also on model consistency checks, prediction making and experimental verification of predictions. -- Poutnik ( the Czech word for a wanderer )
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | alsor@interia.pl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-17 09:31 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <b67bf8fb-14c8-4ca8-a41a-f37d9c115378@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #364376 |
W dniu czwartek, 17 września 2015 16:05:55 UTC+2 użytkownik Poutnik napisał: > On 09/17/2015 03:54 PM, alsor@interia.pl wrote: > > W dniu czwartek, 17 września 2015 15:44:33 UTC+2 użytkownik Poutnik napisał: > >> On 09/17/2015 02:43 PM, alsor@interia.pl wrote: > >> > >>> > >>> I destroyed... hundred times, these stupid improvised at hoc > >>> called proudly as the mainstream pseudoscience... > >>> which names itself explicitly as the pseudo: > >>> pseudometics + pseudotensors = pseudogeometry: SR, GR; > >>> > >> > >> No, you just think so. > > > > Indeed. > > Thinking is a basis in science only, > > but not in the pseudoscience, > > which is dominated by improvisation and interpretation... > > very common among clowns and fools and other primitives. > > > > Shallow thinking and name calling is a basis of pseudoscience. > Science is based aside of deep thinking > also on model consistency checks, prediction making > and experimental verification of predictions. Of course! It's just the standard redundant tautology... very popular in the orangutan science, say: a curvature is the gravity, a gravity is the curve, ect. This type of science is just too deeply advanced, therefore it is unable to see... the naked babes... on beach. :)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Poutnik <Poutnik4NNTP@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-17 18:42 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <mteqe3$el2$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #364388 |
On 09/17/2015 06:31 PM, alsor@interia.pl wrote: > > Of course! > It's just the standard redundant tautology... > very popular in the orangutan science, say: > a curvature is the gravity, a gravity is the curve, ect. > > This type of science is just too deeply advanced, > therefore it is unable to see... the naked babes... on beach. :) People hate to confess they cannot get the advances of physics in last 115 years,, so instead of admitting they are out of their league, they just call them nonsenses to still feel clever. They do it all the time, not limiting this tactic to QM / SR / GR, but apply it to everything they do not understand. -- Poutnik ( the Czech word for a wanderer )
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-17 20:17 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <mtf041$3a9$1@node1.news.atman.pl> |
| In reply to | #364389 |
Użytkownik "Poutnik" napisał w wiadomości grup dyskusyjnych:mteqe3$el2$1@dont-email.me... |People hate to confess |they cannot get the advances of physics in last 115 years,, Yeah, poor idiot, praying to Great Guru and his Ingenious Shit is placing you on the Higher Level of Enlightenment, so far, far above common mortals... You can be sure about it.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-17 08:44 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <vmclvapm6o38dd1epoa3dikcu4cqaohsdv@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #364357 |
On Thu, 17 Sep 2015 05:07:31 -0700 (PDT), alsor@interia.pl wrote:
>W dniu wtorek, 15 wrzesnia 2015 23:50:30 UTC+2 uzytkownik JanPB napisal:
>
>> > Even this stupid SR model is more correct - general than the GR.
>>
>> Publish your research. The above post is just hand waving junk.
>
>It's impossible to publish so strong facts in the highly pathologized,
>nor pseudoscientific journals.
No, publishing is easy, and it is easier now
than ever before.
I "published" a small booklet in 1973, it was
very involved, I had to type the text on a typewriter,
any mistakes had to be corrected using white-out
tape, the printer had to set the type on a linotype
using molten lead.
And then the booklet was printed, and
collated, the cover printed, and it was then
all stapled together.
Now, with a word processor or good text
editor, the text is easier to correct and edit,
and the file sold on Amazon as an e-book.
>That strategy would be analogous to forcing in
>the orangutans 'science' they are inferior primitives only. :)
Any company can "sell" or include any
product they want in their "offering", why do
you think they should include what you want
them to include?
They have a limited amount of space
because their revenue only pays for so much,
and they have a designated policy they follow.
Whine all you want.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 2 of 5 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 5 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity
csiph-web