Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #391740 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2016-09-07 19:40 -0700 |
| Last post | 2016-09-08 11:30 -0500 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 163 — 8 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.physics.relativity
I was wrong Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-09-07 19:40 -0700
Re: I was wrong Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-09-08 13:10 +1000
Re: I was wrong Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-09-07 20:57 -0700
Re: I was wrong Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-09-08 14:02 +1000
Re: I was wrong Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-09-08 00:22 -0700
Re: I was wrong Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-09-08 02:06 -0700
Re: I was wrong Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-09-08 02:58 -0700
Re: I was wrong Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-09-08 03:48 -0700
Re: I was wrong John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2016-09-08 20:16 -0700
Re: I was wrong Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-09-08 21:05 -0700
Re: I was wrong Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-09-09 06:48 +0200
Re: I was wrong Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-09-09 07:18 +0200
Re: I was wrong Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-09-09 07:22 -0500
Re: I was wrong Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-09-08 21:16 -0700
Re: I was wrong Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-09-08 23:08 -0700
Re: I was wrong Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-09-09 09:00 +0200
Re: I was wrong Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-09-08 13:13 +0200
Re: I was wrong Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-09-08 11:36 -0500
Re: I was wrong Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-09-08 20:15 +1000
Re: I was wrong Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-09-08 11:35 -0500
Re: I was wrong Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-09-08 23:10 +0200
Re: I was wrong Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-09-08 21:20 -0700
Re: I was wrong Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-09-09 06:44 +0200
Re: I was wrong Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-09-08 07:11 +0200
Re: I was wrong Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-09-08 10:43 -0700
Re: I was wrong Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-09-08 20:12 +0200
Re: I was wrong Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-09-08 07:08 +0200
Re: I was wrong Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-09-08 03:05 -0700
Re: I was wrong Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-09-08 04:14 -0700
Re: I was wrong Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-09-08 04:27 -0700
Re: I was wrong RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> - 2016-09-14 10:10 -0700
Re: I was wrong Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-09-08 13:17 +0200
Re: I was wrong Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-09-08 11:45 -0500
Re: I was wrong Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-09-08 10:30 -0700
Re: I was wrong Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-09-08 12:58 -0500
Re: I was wrong Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-09-08 11:34 -0700
Re: I was wrong Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-09-08 13:37 -0500
Re: I was wrong Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-09-08 11:40 -0700
Re: I was wrong Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-09-08 13:42 -0500
Re: I was wrong Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-09-08 10:54 -0700
Re: I was wrong Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-09-08 12:59 -0500
Re: I was wrong Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-09-08 11:12 -0700
Re: I was wrong Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-09-08 13:33 -0500
Re: I was wrong Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-09-08 11:38 -0700
Re: I was wrong Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-09-08 14:27 -0500
Re: I was wrong Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-09-08 21:21 -0700
Re: I was wrong Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-09-09 07:23 -0500
Re: I was wrong Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-09-09 20:20 -0700
Re: I was wrong Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-09-10 07:45 +0200
Re: I was wrong Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-09-11 17:26 -0500
Re: I was wrong Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-09-09 21:20 -0700
Re: I was wrong Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-09-10 07:48 +0200
Re: I was wrong Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-09-10 03:16 -0700
Re: I was wrong Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-09-10 16:43 -0700
Re: I was wrong Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-09-10 21:06 -0700
Re: I was wrong Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-09-10 22:01 -0700
Re: I was wrong Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-09-10 23:18 -0700
Re: I was wrong Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-09-11 00:40 -0700
Re: I was wrong Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-09-11 10:09 +0200
Re: I was wrong Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-09-11 03:41 -0700
Re: I was wrong Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-09-11 12:50 +0200
Re: I was wrong Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-09-11 17:47 -0500
Re: I was wrong Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-09-11 17:51 -0500
Re: I was wrong Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-09-11 17:55 -0700
Re: I was wrong Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-09-11 20:03 -0500
Re: I was wrong Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-09-11 17:37 -0500
Re: I was wrong Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-09-10 08:21 +0200
Re: I was wrong Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-09-10 02:03 -0700
Re: I was wrong Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-09-10 23:56 +0200
Re: I was wrong Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-09-11 11:18 +0200
Re: I was wrong Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-09-11 03:42 -0700
Re: I was wrong Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-09-11 12:52 +0200
Re: I was wrong Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-09-11 05:49 -0700
Re: I was wrong Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-09-11 10:06 -0700
Re: I was wrong Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-09-11 17:40 -0700
Re: I was wrong Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-09-12 07:59 +0200
Re: I was wrong Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-09-11 17:45 -0500
Re: I was wrong Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-09-12 07:55 +0200
Re: I was wrong Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-09-10 03:11 -0700
Re: I was wrong Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-09-11 17:40 -0500
Re: I was wrong Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-09-11 17:50 -0700
Re: I was wrong Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-09-11 20:01 -0500
Re: I was wrong Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-09-11 21:26 -0700
Re: I was wrong Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-09-12 07:33 -0500
Re: I was wrong Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-09-12 15:39 -0700
Re: I was wrong Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-09-12 20:25 -0500
Re: I was wrong Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-09-12 18:51 -0700
Re: I was wrong Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-09-12 20:59 -0500
Re: I was wrong Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-09-13 01:28 -0700
Re: I was wrong Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-09-13 11:31 -0500
Re: I was wrong Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-09-13 22:04 -0700
Re: I was wrong Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-09-14 00:21 -0700
Re: I was wrong Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-09-14 01:00 -0700
Re: I was wrong Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-09-14 11:32 -0500
Re: I was wrong Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-09-14 01:25 -0700
Re: I was wrong Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-09-14 13:00 -0500
Re: I was wrong Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-09-14 16:56 -0700
Re: I was wrong Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-09-14 19:42 -0700
Re: I was wrong Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-09-15 01:28 -0700
Re: I was wrong Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-09-15 01:37 -0700
Re: I was wrong Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-09-15 10:33 -0500
Re: I was wrong Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-09-15 21:07 -0700
Re: I was wrong Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-09-16 07:36 -0500
Re: I was wrong Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-09-16 08:51 -0700
Re: I was wrong Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-09-16 12:24 -0500
Re: I was wrong Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-09-16 11:32 -0700
Re: I was wrong Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-09-16 21:37 -0700
Re: I was wrong Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-09-19 09:20 -0500
Re: I was wrong Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-09-19 11:10 -0700
Re: I was wrong Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-09-19 11:50 -0700
Re: I was wrong Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-09-19 16:47 -0700
Re: I was wrong Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-09-19 17:58 -0700
Re: I was wrong Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-09-20 08:37 -0500
Re: I was wrong Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-09-20 17:45 -0700
Re: I was wrong Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-09-20 07:19 -0500
Re: I was wrong Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-09-16 22:12 -0700
Re: I was wrong Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-09-19 09:22 -0500
Re: I was wrong Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-09-15 01:45 -0700
Re: I was wrong Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-09-15 11:15 +0200
Re: I was wrong Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-09-15 02:42 -0700
Re: I was wrong Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-09-15 12:38 +0200
Re: I was wrong Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-09-15 19:39 -0700
Re: I was wrong Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-09-16 10:34 +0200
Re: I was wrong Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-09-16 02:14 -0700
Re: I was wrong Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-09-16 12:10 +0200
Re: I was wrong mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-09-16 03:23 -0700
Re: I was wrong Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-09-16 04:24 -0700
Re: I was wrong mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-09-16 05:50 -0700
Re: I was wrong Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-09-16 18:12 -0700
Re: I was wrong Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-09-17 05:27 -0700
Re: I was wrong Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-09-17 18:37 -0700
Re: I was wrong Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-09-17 21:06 -0700
Re: I was wrong Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-09-17 22:58 -0700
Re: I was wrong Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-09-17 23:31 -0700
Re: I was wrong Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-09-18 03:03 -0700
Re: I was wrong Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-09-18 04:17 -0700
Re: I was wrong Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-09-18 08:14 -0500
Re: I was wrong Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-09-19 11:37 +0200
Re: I was wrong Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-09-19 11:26 -0700
Re: I was wrong Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-09-19 11:46 -0700
Re: I was wrong Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-09-19 18:04 -0700
Re: I was wrong Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-09-19 18:25 -0700
Re: I was wrong Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-09-19 19:05 -0700
Re: I was wrong Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-09-19 20:23 -0700
Re: I was wrong Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-09-20 00:02 -0700
Re: I was wrong Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-09-19 09:15 -0500
Re: I was wrong Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-09-16 15:04 +0200
Re: I was wrong mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-09-16 06:12 -0700
Re: I was wrong Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-09-15 10:27 -0500
Re: I was wrong Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-09-15 19:37 -0700
Re: I was wrong Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-09-16 10:31 +0200
Re: I was wrong Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-09-16 02:09 -0700
Re: I was wrong Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-09-16 12:30 +0200
Re: I was wrong Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-09-16 18:18 -0700
Re: I was wrong Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-09-16 07:38 -0500
Re: I was wrong Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-09-16 18:02 -0700
Re: I was wrong Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-09-19 09:13 -0500
Re: I was wrong Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-09-16 07:32 -0500
Re: I was wrong Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-09-16 18:08 -0700
Re: I was wrong Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-09-19 09:14 -0500
Re: I was wrong Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-09-13 07:39 +0200
Re: I was wrong Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-09-08 20:15 +0200
Re: I was wrong Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-09-08 11:30 -0500
Page 8 of 9 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 [8] 9 Next page →
| From | Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-19 18:04 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <757f620d-ae54-4bba-a30c-2a957df1a43d@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #392983 |
On Tuesday, September 20, 2016 at 2:46:30 AM UTC+8, Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog wrote: > On Monday, September 19, 2016 at 1:26:17 PM UTC-5, Peter Riedt wrote: > > On Sunday, September 18, 2016 at 2:31:52 PM UTC+8, Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog wrote: > > > The point of my post was to discuss the limitations of the MacLaurin series > > > calculation of the elliptic integral. I displayed the raw, unadulterated output > > > of my program to illustrate this point. > > > > > You went to much effort to write a program to calculate the Maclaurin series to 10000 terms for the factors required to derive elliptical perimeters from circular perimeters. By your own admission you failed because of the significant digits problem. I believe you were successful in demonstrating that it is only possible to approximate the perimeters of ellipses. > > Absolutely not. I only demonstrated that the MacLaurin series approximation > is problematical for large e. > > There are ***zillions*** of other methods for calculating the perimeter. > Any of these methods, including MacLaurin, only achieve approximations. The orbital velocities accepted by authorities for small eccentricities are identical to v=sqrt(GM/a).
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-19 18:25 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <7d629931-44e7-44a9-9c5f-2d6a2da965c9@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #393029 |
On Monday, September 19, 2016 at 8:04:37 PM UTC-5, Peter Riedt wrote: > On Tuesday, September 20, 2016 at 2:46:30 AM UTC+8, Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog wrote: > > On Monday, September 19, 2016 at 1:26:17 PM UTC-5, Peter Riedt wrote: > > > On Sunday, September 18, 2016 at 2:31:52 PM UTC+8, Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog wrote: > > > > The point of my post was to discuss the limitations of the MacLaurin series > > > > calculation of the elliptic integral. I displayed the raw, unadulterated output > > > > of my program to illustrate this point. > > > > > > > You went to much effort to write a program to calculate the Maclaurin series to 10000 terms for the factors required to derive elliptical perimeters from circular perimeters. By your own admission you failed because of the significant digits problem. I believe you were successful in demonstrating that it is only possible to approximate the perimeters of ellipses. > > > > Absolutely not. I only demonstrated that the MacLaurin series approximation > > is problematical for large e. > > > > There are ***zillions*** of other methods for calculating the perimeter. > > > Any of these methods, including MacLaurin, only achieve approximations. The orbital velocities accepted by authorities for small eccentricities are identical to v=sqrt(GM/a). The great majority of Solar System bodies have eccentricities such that corrections would be necessary, if you desire six significant figure accuracy or better. The MacLaurin series approximation is only presented in articles such as Wiki as a quick-and-dirty means for a person to hand-compute to a few significant figures of accuracy for orbits of low e. It is trivial to compute the values to 12 significant figures if you have even a tiny smidgen of expertise in calculus and computer programming. Let me spell that out: T R I V I A L.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-19 19:05 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <fe960155-d065-4a6d-accf-70d838de1bcc@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #393030 |
On Tuesday, September 20, 2016 at 9:25:54 AM UTC+8, Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog wrote: > On Monday, September 19, 2016 at 8:04:37 PM UTC-5, Peter Riedt wrote: > > On Tuesday, September 20, 2016 at 2:46:30 AM UTC+8, Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog wrote: > > > On Monday, September 19, 2016 at 1:26:17 PM UTC-5, Peter Riedt wrote: > > > > On Sunday, September 18, 2016 at 2:31:52 PM UTC+8, Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog wrote: > > > > > The point of my post was to discuss the limitations of the MacLaurin series > > > > > calculation of the elliptic integral. I displayed the raw, unadulterated output > > > > > of my program to illustrate this point. > > > > > > > > > You went to much effort to write a program to calculate the Maclaurin series to 10000 terms for the factors required to derive elliptical perimeters from circular perimeters. By your own admission you failed because of the significant digits problem. I believe you were successful in demonstrating that it is only possible to approximate the perimeters of ellipses. > > > > > > Absolutely not. I only demonstrated that the MacLaurin series approximation > > > is problematical for large e. > > > > > > There are ***zillions*** of other methods for calculating the perimeter. > > > > > Any of these methods, including MacLaurin, only achieve approximations. The orbital velocities accepted by authorities for small eccentricities are identical to v=sqrt(GM/a). > > The great majority of Solar System bodies have eccentricities such that > corrections would be necessary, if you desire six significant figure accuracy > or better. > > The MacLaurin series approximation is only presented in articles such as Wiki > as a quick-and-dirty means for a person to hand-compute to a few significant > figures of accuracy for orbits of low e. It is trivial to compute the values > to 12 significant figures if you have even a tiny smidgen of expertise in > calculus and computer programming. > > Let me spell that out: T R I V I A L. All parameters and attributes and measurements of solar and stellar objects are inaccurate. Different authorities quote different numbers. To insist on a particular method or set of numbers and claim it is the only true one is dogma akin to religion.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-19 20:23 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <b9b5a28d-d41d-4922-93da-d2eb7d43bdfe@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #393033 |
On Monday, September 19, 2016 at 9:05:30 PM UTC-5, Peter Riedt wrote: > On Tuesday, September 20, 2016 at 9:25:54 AM UTC+8, Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog wrote: > > > > The great majority of Solar System bodies have eccentricities such that > > corrections would be necessary, if you desire six significant figure accuracy > > or better. > > > > The MacLaurin series approximation is only presented in articles such as Wiki > > as a quick-and-dirty means for a person to hand-compute to a few significant > > figures of accuracy for orbits of low e. It is trivial to compute the values > > to 12 significant figures if you have even a tiny smidgen of expertise in > > calculus and computer programming. > > > > Let me spell that out: T R I V I A L. > > All parameters and attributes and measurements of solar and stellar objects are inaccurate. Different authorities quote different numbers. To insist on a particular method or set of numbers and claim it is the only true one is dogma > akin to religion. Most of the major discrepancies that you find on the internet are the result of copy-and-paste citations of older ground-based astrometric studies. In recent decades, space probes have enabled *vastly* improved calculations of the orbital elements. You need to be careful who you use as a source. Most internet sources do not count as "authorities".
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-20 00:02 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <fb3eac4b-da38-4e2c-ba84-b1c8d913d909@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #393047 |
On Tuesday, September 20, 2016 at 11:23:35 AM UTC+8, Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog wrote: > On Monday, September 19, 2016 at 9:05:30 PM UTC-5, Peter Riedt wrote: > > On Tuesday, September 20, 2016 at 9:25:54 AM UTC+8, Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog wrote: > > > > > > The great majority of Solar System bodies have eccentricities such that > > > corrections would be necessary, if you desire six significant figure accuracy > > > or better. > > > > > > The MacLaurin series approximation is only presented in articles such as Wiki > > > as a quick-and-dirty means for a person to hand-compute to a few significant > > > figures of accuracy for orbits of low e. It is trivial to compute the values > > > to 12 significant figures if you have even a tiny smidgen of expertise in > > > calculus and computer programming. > > > > > > Let me spell that out: T R I V I A L. > > > > All parameters and attributes and measurements of solar and stellar objects are inaccurate. Different authorities quote different numbers. To insist on a particular method or set of numbers and claim it is the only true one is dogma > > akin to religion. > > Most of the major discrepancies that you find on the internet are the result of > copy-and-paste citations of older ground-based astrometric studies. In recent > decades, space probes have enabled *vastly* improved calculations of the orbital > elements. You need to be careful who you use as a source. Most internet sources > do not count as "authorities". I agree.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-19 09:15 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <nrorud$120b$3@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #392660 |
On 9/16/2016 8:12 PM, Peter Riedt wrote: > I am not interested in precession problems but in the cause and mechanism of > gravity. If GR produces the same results as Kepler it means it uses Kepler's laws. No, it does NOT mean that. Two COMPLETELY DIFFERENT theories can make the same numerical results in particular applications. They HAVE TO. -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-16 15:04 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <nrgqju$l65$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #392568 |
On 09/16/2016 11:14 AM, Peter Riedt wrote: > On Friday, September 16, 2016 at 4:34:19 PM UTC+8, Poutnik wrote: >> On 09/16/2016 04:39 AM, Peter Riedt wrote: >>> On Thursday, September 15, 2016 at 6:38:33 PM UTC+8, Poutnik wrote: >>>>> >>>>> GR does not understand gravity and cannot predict gravitational parameters or attributes. We still use today the laws of Kepler, Huygens and Newton to do it. >>>>> >>>> But this your innovative approach is not based on knowledge of GR. >>> >>> Correct, it is not. >> >> So your statement about GR prediction abilities >> is not justified, as is in fact a lie. >> >> As you know that you do not know >> if GR is able to predict it or not. > > If a semi major axis is 555,555,555,555,555km and the eccentricity of the orbit is 0.81111. what is the average orbital velocity? Calculate it using GR mathematics, not MacLaurin's. > Hmm, calculate your numbers without addition, subtraction, multiplication and division. Purely with math of your theory, not using ideas of others.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mlwozniak@wp.pl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-16 06:12 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <53c754ca-0cb0-4059-b751-1abad1d140c4@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #392582 |
W dniu piątek, 16 września 2016 15:04:07 UTC+2 użytkownik Poutnik napisał: > Purely with math of your theory, > not using ideas of others. Purely with math of your Shit would be non-euclidean. Do you realize?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-15 10:27 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <nreekg$18do$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #392385 |
On 9/14/2016 6:56 PM, Peter Riedt wrote: > On Thursday, September 15, 2016 at 2:00:41 AM UTC+8, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> For which R is this? >> >> For e=0.85999, then (1-e^2/4-3*e^4/64-5*e^6/256) = 0.78156 >> For e=0.95999, then (1-e^2/4-3*e^4/64-5*e^6/256) = 0.71451 >> >> Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables > > Applying the eccentricity adjustment factors calculated by your formulas > [for e=0.85999, then (1-e^2/4-3*e^4/64-5*e^6/256) = 0.78156 and for e=0.95999, > then (1-e^2/4-3*e^4/64-5*e^6/256) = 0.71451] your average velocity for R1 is > 16640m/sec and for R2 is 8231m/sec. They compare with 16503m/sec and 7968m/sec > respectively of my calculations. PRO may have yet a third set of results. > > However I do not accept your statement "of how to calculate this in Newtonian physics or GR". > > GR has nothing do with your formula. The first part of it is based on the works of > Kepler, Newton and Cavendish and the second part, the calculation of the eccentricity > adjustment factor, cannot be found in any of the scientific papers of Kepler, Newton, > Cavendish or Einstein. > And that is wrong, Peter. Newton in Principia Mathematica explicitly showed that the orbits around a gravitating body are conic sections. Conic sections include circles, ellipses, parabolas, hyperbolas, and Newton solved all of them. The eccentricity parameter is zero for circles, 0<e<1 for ellipses, 1 for parabolas, and e>1 for hyperbolas. Einstein showed that general relativity replicates these results in the weak gravitational limit, which the solar system is an example of. You have not shown any method of your calculations. Newton and Einstein showed their calculation methods. -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-15 19:37 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <90c16cf9-e2f9-4204-a691-3aaf26cf7f01@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #392458 |
On Thursday, September 15, 2016 at 11:27:16 PM UTC+8, Odd Bodkin wrote: > And that is wrong, Peter. Newton in Principia Mathematica explicitly > showed that the orbits around a gravitating body are conic sections. > Conic sections include circles, ellipses, parabolas, hyperbolas, and > Newton solved all of them. The eccentricity parameter is zero for > circles, 0<e<1 for ellipses, 1 for parabolas, and e>1 for hyperbolas. > That is correct but Pro stated: "The adjustment factor represents the first few terms of the MacLaurin series expansion of the elliptic integral used for calculating the circumference of an ellipse. Understanding it requires calculus". Newton and Einstein had to wait for MacLaurin. They didn't know how to calculate the average orbital velocity of solar objects with high eccentric trajectories.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-16 10:31 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <nrgak2$2ao$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #392525 |
On 09/16/2016 04:37 AM, Peter Riedt wrote: > On Thursday, September 15, 2016 at 11:27:16 PM UTC+8, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >> And that is wrong, Peter. Newton in Principia Mathematica explicitly >> showed that the orbits around a gravitating body are conic sections. >> Conic sections include circles, ellipses, parabolas, hyperbolas, and >> Newton solved all of them. The eccentricity parameter is zero for >> circles, 0<e<1 for ellipses, 1 for parabolas, and e>1 for hyperbolas. >> > That is correct but Pro stated: "The adjustment factor represents the first few terms of the MacLaurin series expansion of the elliptic integral used for calculating the circumference of an ellipse. Understanding it requires calculus". > > Newton and Einstein had to wait for MacLaurin. They didn't know how to calculate the average orbital velocity of solar objects with high eccentric trajectories. > MacLaurin series are special case of Taylor series, and were used already by James Gregory (1638-1675) ( older then Newton ) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Gregory_%28mathematician%29
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-16 02:09 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <8765dd94-36b9-4de1-9ad5-f98bd649e25b@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #392563 |
On Friday, September 16, 2016 at 4:31:07 PM UTC+8, Poutnik wrote: > MacLaurin series are special case of Taylor series, and were used already > by James Gregory (1638-1675) ( older then Newton ) > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Gregory_%28mathematician%29 Correct. But GR cannot predict orbital velocities using GR mathematics. It has to use the works of others and then claims they are a subset of GR. The ultimate intellectual property theft.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-16 12:30 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <nrghj7$njr$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #392567 |
On 09/16/2016 11:09 AM, Peter Riedt wrote: > On Friday, September 16, 2016 at 4:31:07 PM UTC+8, Poutnik wrote: > >> MacLaurin series are special case of Taylor series, and were used already >> by James Gregory (1638-1675) ( older then Newton ) >> >> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Gregory_%28mathematician%29 > > Correct. But GR cannot predict orbital velocities using GR mathematics. It has to use the works of others and then claims they are a subset of GR. The ultimate intellectual property theft. You have no idea what GR can predict, neither why NM is subset of GR. It is not like what Kenseto say about SR being subset of his funny IRT. You have neither idea how science works. What you claim as "The ultimate intellectual property theft" is the way how science works. Science is not about patents and property, but about authorship and credits. GR does not deny its sources.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-16 18:18 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <5a23f5dd-c0cf-4524-a6b0-f98603bf5898@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #392572 |
On Friday, September 16, 2016 at 6:30:05 PM UTC+8, Poutnik wrote: > What you claim as "The ultimate intellectual property theft" > is the way how science works. > Science is not about patents and property, > but about authorship and credits. > You are spot on. I however believe to give credit where credit is due. We should not create heroes on the labours of others just as we should not allow a tiny minority to accumulate wealth that they steal from others.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-16 07:38 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <nrgp3t$psf$3@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #392567 |
On 9/16/2016 4:09 AM, Peter Riedt wrote: > On Friday, September 16, 2016 at 4:31:07 PM UTC+8, Poutnik wrote: > >> MacLaurin series are special case of Taylor series, and were used already >> by James Gregory (1638-1675) ( older then Newton ) >> >> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Gregory_%28mathematician%29 > > Correct. But GR cannot predict orbital velocities using GR mathematics. Yes, it can. But you won't read any of the books that show how to do it. Why you refuse to read is a mystery. > It has to use the works of others and then claims they are a subset of GR. > The ultimate intellectual property theft. > -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-16 18:02 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <6e026a08-cd21-47b3-a494-8a83bd9df24a@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #392579 |
On Friday, September 16, 2016 at 8:38:24 PM UTC+8, Odd Bodkin wrote: > On 9/16/2016 4:09 AM, Peter Riedt wrote: > > On Friday, September 16, 2016 at 4:31:07 PM UTC+8, Poutnik wrote: > > > >> MacLaurin series are special case of Taylor series, and were used already > >> by James Gregory (1638-1675) ( older then Newton ) > >> > >> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Gregory_%28mathematician%29 > > > > Correct. But GR cannot predict orbital velocities using GR mathematics. > > Yes, it can. But you won't read any of the books that show how to do it. > Why you refuse to read is a mystery. > > > It has to use the works of others and then claims they are a subset of GR. > > The ultimate intellectual property theft. > > > > > -- > Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables The books present a general method but do not provide actual examples of a solution. Secondly they use esoteric maths not understood by anybody even the author. Roberts: "To calculate with GR maths one needs to write a master's thesis".
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-19 09:13 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <nrorqi$120b$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #392656 |
On 9/16/2016 8:02 PM, Peter Riedt wrote: > > The books present a general method but do not provide actual examples of a > solution. In elementary texts, there are lots of worked problems with numerical answers. This is so that students get lots of practice working formulas without mistakes and to proper precision, skills you have not acquired or practiced. In more advanced books, the method and the algebra are shown, but numerical calculations are often left unsaid, because by the time readers get to those books, they are much better practiced at doing them. > Secondly they use esoteric maths not understood by anybody even > the author. Esoteric is in the eye of the beholder. It's esoteric to you because you don't know anything more advanced than +,-,*,/ and exponents. It's simply not true that the calculations are not understood by the author. > Roberts: "To calculate with GR maths one needs to write a master's > thesis". You may be aware, Peter, that most people who do calculations with GR have PhDs, so requiring a master's degree is not an issue. -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-16 07:32 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <nrgoon$psf$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #392525 |
On 9/15/2016 9:37 PM, Peter Riedt wrote: > On Thursday, September 15, 2016 at 11:27:16 PM UTC+8, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >> And that is wrong, Peter. Newton in Principia Mathematica explicitly >> showed that the orbits around a gravitating body are conic sections. >> Conic sections include circles, ellipses, parabolas, hyperbolas, and >> Newton solved all of them. The eccentricity parameter is zero for >> circles, 0<e<1 for ellipses, 1 for parabolas, and e>1 for hyperbolas. >> > That is correct but Pro stated: "The adjustment factor represents the first > few terms of the MacLaurin series expansion of the elliptic integral used for > calculating the circumference of an ellipse. Understanding it requires calculus". > > Newton and Einstein had to wait for MacLaurin. They didn't know how to > calculate the average orbital velocity of solar objects with high eccentric > trajectories. Peter, please don't make up stuff, because it makes you look silly. Maclaurin met Newton. Newton already was aware of Maclaurin's series before Maclaurin published the result, because he derived it himself. This was centuries before Einstein's birth. -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-16 18:08 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <bf3ba2c9-b090-4d8b-82ca-719acd584785@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #392576 |
On Friday, September 16, 2016 at 8:32:26 PM UTC+8, Odd Bodkin wrote: > On 9/15/2016 9:37 PM, Peter Riedt wrote: > > On Thursday, September 15, 2016 at 11:27:16 PM UTC+8, Odd Bodkin wrote: > > > >> And that is wrong, Peter. Newton in Principia Mathematica explicitly > >> showed that the orbits around a gravitating body are conic sections. > >> Conic sections include circles, ellipses, parabolas, hyperbolas, and > >> Newton solved all of them. The eccentricity parameter is zero for > >> circles, 0<e<1 for ellipses, 1 for parabolas, and e>1 for hyperbolas. > >> > > That is correct but Pro stated: "The adjustment factor represents the first > > few terms of the MacLaurin series expansion of the elliptic integral used for > > calculating the circumference of an ellipse. Understanding it requires calculus". > > > > Newton and Einstein had to wait for MacLaurin. They didn't know how to > > calculate the average orbital velocity of solar objects with high eccentric > > trajectories. > > Peter, please don't make up stuff, because it makes you look silly. > Maclaurin met Newton. Newton already was aware of Maclaurin's series > before Maclaurin published the result, because he derived it himself. > This was centuries before Einstein's birth. > > > -- > Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables You are correct in part but your assertion that Newton derived the series himself is just as wrong as claiming Newton invented calculus or the inverse square law or his science copied from Kepler, Hooke, Galileo and others. Same for Einstein.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-19 09:14 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <nrorsk$120b$2@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #392658 |
On 9/16/2016 8:08 PM, Peter Riedt wrote: > On Friday, September 16, 2016 at 8:32:26 PM UTC+8, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> On 9/15/2016 9:37 PM, Peter Riedt wrote: >>> On Thursday, September 15, 2016 at 11:27:16 PM UTC+8, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>> >>>> And that is wrong, Peter. Newton in Principia Mathematica explicitly >>>> showed that the orbits around a gravitating body are conic sections. >>>> Conic sections include circles, ellipses, parabolas, hyperbolas, and >>>> Newton solved all of them. The eccentricity parameter is zero for >>>> circles, 0<e<1 for ellipses, 1 for parabolas, and e>1 for hyperbolas. >>>> >>> That is correct but Pro stated: "The adjustment factor represents the first >>> few terms of the MacLaurin series expansion of the elliptic integral used for >>> calculating the circumference of an ellipse. Understanding it requires calculus". >>> >>> Newton and Einstein had to wait for MacLaurin. They didn't know how to >>> calculate the average orbital velocity of solar objects with high eccentric >>> trajectories. >> >> Peter, please don't make up stuff, because it makes you look silly. >> Maclaurin met Newton. Newton already was aware of Maclaurin's series >> before Maclaurin published the result, because he derived it himself. >> This was centuries before Einstein's birth. >> >> >> -- >> Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables > > You are correct in part but your assertion that Newton derived the series himself > is just as wrong as claiming Newton invented calculus or the inverse square law > or his science copied from Kepler, Hooke, Galileo and others. Same for Einstein. > EVERY scientist borrows from the work of predecessors. That's how it's SUPPOSED to work. And Newton acknowledged the work of his predecessors. -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 8 of 9 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 [8] 9 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity
csiph-web