Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #398980 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2016-11-19 15:14 -0800 |
| Last post | 2016-11-24 21:37 -0800 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 95 — 15 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.physics.relativity
The relationship G and g Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-11-19 15:14 -0800
Re: The relationship G and g moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-11-19 23:48 +0000
Re: The relationship G and g Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-11-19 19:35 -0800
Re: The relationship G and g moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-11-20 14:57 +0000
Re: The relationship G and g Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-11-20 16:10 -0800
Re: The relationship G and g "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-11-20 17:27 -0800
Re: The relationship G and g Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-11-20 22:06 +0100
Re: The relationship G and g Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-11-20 16:15 -0800
Re: The relationship G and g Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-11-20 15:19 -0600
Re: The relationship G and g Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-11-20 16:18 -0800
Re: The relationship G and g Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-11-20 21:22 -0800
Re: The relationship G and g Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-11-20 23:47 -0800
Re: The relationship G and g Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-11-21 05:22 -0800
Re: The relationship G and g Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-11-21 16:26 -0800
Re: The relationship G and g Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-11-21 17:28 -0800
Re: The relationship G and g Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-11-21 23:04 -0800
Re: The relationship G and g Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-11-22 05:05 -0800
Re: The relationship G and g Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-11-22 16:14 -0800
Re: The relationship G and g Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-11-22 17:42 -0800
Re: The relationship G and g "David (Lord Kronos) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-11-22 17:53 -0800
Re: The relationship G and g Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-11-22 19:17 -0800
Cretin Peter Riedt hard at work "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-11-22 19:31 -0800
Re: Cretin Peter Riedt hard at work "David (Lord Kronos) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-11-22 21:28 -0800
Re: Cretin Peter Riedt hard at work Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-11-22 22:44 -0800
Re: Cretin Peter Riedt hard at work Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-11-23 04:24 -0800
Re: Cretin Peter Riedt hard at work "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-11-23 06:26 -0800
Re: Cretin Peter Riedt hard at work Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-11-23 09:40 -0600
Re: The relationship G and g Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-11-23 04:21 -0800
Re: The relationship G and g Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-11-23 09:30 -0600
Re: The relationship G and g Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-11-23 16:24 -0800
Re: The relationship G and g Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-11-23 17:23 -0800
Re: The relationship G and g Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-11-23 18:40 -0800
Re: The relationship G and g "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-11-23 19:04 -0800
Re: The relationship G and g Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-11-23 19:35 -0800
Re: The relationship G and g "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-11-24 07:06 -0800
Re: The relationship G and g Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-11-23 19:12 -0800
Re: The relationship G and g Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-11-23 19:32 -0800
Re: The relationship G and g Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-11-23 20:19 -0800
Re: The relationship G and g Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-11-24 01:47 -0800
Cretin Peter Riedt perseveres "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-11-24 07:08 -0800
Re: The relationship G and g Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-11-24 08:42 -0800
Re: The relationship G and g Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-11-26 10:10 -0600
Re: The relationship G and g Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-11-26 14:29 -0800
Re: The relationship G and g Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-11-26 14:35 -0800
Re: The relationship G and g "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-11-26 14:49 -0800
Re: The relationship G and g xxein1@att.net - 2016-11-24 07:20 -0800
Re: The relationship G and g Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-11-24 18:05 -0800
Re: The relationship G and g Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-11-24 21:03 -0600
Re: The relationship G and g Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-11-24 19:46 -0800
Pathetic crank Peter Riedt perseveres in his imbecility "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-11-24 20:00 -0800
Re: The relationship G and g "David (Lord Kronos) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-11-24 20:15 -0800
Re: The relationship G and g "David (Lord Kronos) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-11-24 23:27 -0800
Re: The relationship G and g Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-11-25 03:12 -0800
Re: The relationship G and g Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-11-25 03:19 -0800
Re: The relationship G and g Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-11-25 06:36 -0800
Re: The relationship G and g Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-11-25 07:08 -0800
Re: The relationship G and g Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-11-25 18:30 -0800
Re: The relationship G and g Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-11-26 10:26 -0600
Re: The relationship G and g "David (Lord Kronos) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-11-26 08:47 -0800
Re: The relationship G and g Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-11-26 14:33 -0800
Re: The relationship G and g "David (Lord Kronos) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-11-24 19:18 -0800
Re: The relationship G and g Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-11-26 10:08 -0600
Re: The relationship G and g Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-11-27 01:55 -0800
Re: The relationship G and g Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-11-27 04:04 -0800
Peter Riedt discloses his new cretinisms "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-11-27 05:39 -0800
Cretin Peter Riedt hard at work embarrassing himself "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-11-23 17:36 -0800
Re: The relationship G and g Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-11-26 10:06 -0600
Re: The relationship G and g Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-11-26 14:27 -0800
Re: The relationship G and g "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-11-21 17:38 -0800
Re: The relationship G and g Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-11-21 22:57 -0800
Re: The relationship G and g Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-11-22 07:43 -0600
Re: The relationship G and g Maryann Tonn <libradaz@libradazert.info> - 2016-11-22 14:03 +0000
Re: The relationship G and g Alan Folmsbee <omnilobe@gmail.com> - 2016-11-22 08:57 -0800
Re: The relationship G and g Dusty Kollman <uberdriver@uberdriver.info> - 2016-11-22 17:23 +0000
Re: The relationship G and g Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-11-22 16:07 -0800
Re: The relationship G and g Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-11-23 09:28 -0600
Re: The relationship G and g Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-11-23 16:29 -0800
Re: The relationship G and g Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-11-22 07:09 -0600
Re: The relationship G and g Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-11-22 19:30 -0800
Re: The relationship G and g Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-11-23 09:33 -0600
Re: The relationship G and g "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-11-23 07:48 -0800
Re: The relationship G and g Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-11-23 10:25 -0600
Re: The relationship G and g "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-11-23 08:47 -0800
Re: The relationship G and g Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-11-21 08:08 -0600
Re: The relationship G and g Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-11-21 08:02 -0600
Re: The relationship G and g patdolan@comcast.net - 2016-11-19 15:55 -0800
Re: The relationship G and g "David (Lord Kronos) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-11-19 16:07 -0800
Re: The relationship G and g Alan Folmsbee <omnilobe@gmail.com> - 2016-11-19 17:07 -0800
Re: The relationship G and g Alan Folmsbee <omnilobe@gmail.com> - 2016-11-19 16:55 -0800
Re: The relationship G and g Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-11-20 15:17 -0600
Re: The relationship G and g Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-11-20 16:16 -0800
Re: The relationship G and g Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-11-21 08:01 -0600
Re: The relationship G and g "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-11-21 06:04 -0800
Re: The relationship G and g Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-11-25 15:19 +1100
Re: The relationship G and g "David (Lord Kronos) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-11-24 21:37 -0800
Page 1 of 5 [1] 2 3 4 5 Next page →
| From | Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-19 15:14 -0800 |
| Subject | The relationship G and g |
| Message-ID | <1cd49d6f-776b-454c-a2b5-7bba87067f57@googlegroups.com> |
The relationship G and g Can GR explain the relationship of G to g? Relationship or causes, not definition!
[toc] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-19 23:48 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <o0qobu$8mu$1@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #398980 |
Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> writes: >The relationship G and g >Can GR explain the relationship of G to g? Relationship or causes, not >definition! Ordinary physics can. Little 'g' is defined by big 'G', the mass of the earth and the radius of the earth.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-19 19:35 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <f12589d0-ca06-4e02-b06c-87334f20d0cf@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #398983 |
On Sunday, November 20, 2016 at 7:48:18 AM UTC+8, Michael Moroney wrote: > Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> writes: > > >The relationship G and g > > >Can GR explain the relationship of G to g? Relationship or causes, not > >definition! > > Ordinary physics can. Little 'g' is defined by big 'G', the mass of the > earth and the radius of the earth. Correct. Newton can, GR cannot.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-20 14:57 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <o0sdl9$apb$1@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #398993 |
Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> writes: >On Sunday, November 20, 2016 at 7:48:18 AM UTC+8, Michael Moroney wrote: >> Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> writes: >> >> >The relationship G and g >> >> >Can GR explain the relationship of G to g? Relationship or causes, not >> >definition! >> >> Ordinary physics can. Little 'g' is defined by big 'G', the mass of the >> earth and the radius of the earth. >Correct. Newton can, GR cannot. Why do you say that? Newton and GR agree on that.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-20 16:10 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <483ef346-a6e4-4498-a723-f498952ca462@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #399017 |
On Sunday, November 20, 2016 at 10:57:49 PM UTC+8, Michael Moroney wrote: > Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> writes: > > >On Sunday, November 20, 2016 at 7:48:18 AM UTC+8, Michael Moroney wrote: > >> Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> writes: > >> > >> >The relationship G and g > >> > >> >Can GR explain the relationship of G to g? Relationship or causes, not > >> >definition! > >> > >> Ordinary physics can. Little 'g' is defined by big 'G', the mass of the > >> earth and the radius of the earth. > > >Correct. Newton can, GR cannot. > > Why do you say that? Newton and GR agree on that. How does GR explain the relationship between G and g?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-20 17:27 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <df33e151-88dd-4604-bfd3-222b6199ee9a@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #399078 |
On Sunday, November 20, 2016 at 4:10:24 PM UTC-8, Peter Riedt wrote:
>
>
> How does GR explain the relationship between G and g?
Imbecile: [tex]g=\frac{GM}{r^2}[/tex]/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-20 22:06 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <o0t371$nl1$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #398993 |
Dne 20/11/2016 v 04:35 Peter Riedt napsal(a): > On Sunday, November 20, 2016 at 7:48:18 AM UTC+8, Michael Moroney wrote: >> Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> writes: >> >>> The relationship G and g >> >>> Can GR explain the relationship of G to g? Relationship or causes, not >>> definition! >> >> Ordinary physics can. Little 'g' is defined by big 'G', the mass of the >> earth and the radius of the earth. > > Correct. Newton can, GR cannot. > It is like "Can I get from A to B by a bus ?" "You can take a train." "Correct. So trains go to B, but buses do not." Do you see the nonsense in your logic ? Statement about the train says nothing about possibility of using a bus. -- Poutnik ( The Pilgrim, Der Wanderer ) A wise man guards words he says, as they say about him more, than he says about the subject.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-20 16:15 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <81009e57-fe18-4295-bbef-0ff8ea876731@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #399047 |
On Monday, November 21, 2016 at 5:06:13 AM UTC+8, Poutnik wrote: > Dne 20/11/2016 v 04:35 Peter Riedt napsal(a): > > On Sunday, November 20, 2016 at 7:48:18 AM UTC+8, Michael Moroney wrote: > >> Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> writes: > >> > >>> The relationship G and g > >> > >>> Can GR explain the relationship of G to g? Relationship or causes, not > >>> definition! > >> > >> Ordinary physics can. Little 'g' is defined by big 'G', the mass of the > >> earth and the radius of the earth. > > > > Correct. Newton can, GR cannot. > > > > It is like > "Can I get from A to B by a bus ?" > "You can take a train." > "Correct. So trains go to B, but buses do not." > > Do you see the nonsense in your logic ? > Statement about the train says nothing > about possibility of using a bus. > My logic is I want to see a timetable for the bus. I know the timetable for the train but not the bus. Your defence is evasion.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-20 15:19 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <o0t40k$177u$13@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #398993 |
On 11/19/2016 9:35 PM, Peter Riedt wrote: > On Sunday, November 20, 2016 at 7:48:18 AM UTC+8, Michael Moroney wrote: >> Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> writes: >> >>> The relationship G and g >> >>> Can GR explain the relationship of G to g? Relationship or causes, not >>> definition! >> >> Ordinary physics can. Little 'g' is defined by big 'G', the mass of the >> earth and the radius of the earth. > > Correct. Newton can, GR cannot. > Not true. GR can. To find out how, I can suggest several good books on GR. -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-20 16:18 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <b8fdc4a6-ec4a-4fa7-99cc-361778ad5ada@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #399059 |
On Monday, November 21, 2016 at 5:19:21 AM UTC+8, Odd Bodkin wrote: > On 11/19/2016 9:35 PM, Peter Riedt wrote: > > On Sunday, November 20, 2016 at 7:48:18 AM UTC+8, Michael Moroney wrote: > >> Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> writes: > >> > >>> The relationship G and g > >> > >>> Can GR explain the relationship of G to g? Relationship or causes, not > >>> definition! > >> > >> Ordinary physics can. Little 'g' is defined by big 'G', the mass of the > >> earth and the radius of the earth. > > > > Correct. Newton can, GR cannot. > > > > Not true. GR can. To find out how, I can suggest several good books on GR. > > -- > Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables You always can but you do not know yourself.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-20 21:22 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <02577949-50f6-4b23-8ee6-af1ca100c08e@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #399083 |
On Sunday, November 20, 2016 at 5:18:20 PM UTC-7, Peter Riedt wrote: > > On Monday, November 21, 2016 at 5:19:21 AM UTC+8, Odd Bodkin wrote: > > > > On 11/19/2016 9:35 PM, Peter Riedt wrote: > > > > > > On Sunday, November 20, 2016 at 7:48:18 AM UTC+8, Michael Moroney wrote: > > > > Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> writes: > > > > > Can GR explain the relationship of G to g? Relationship or causes, > > > > > not definition! > > > > > > > > Ordinary physics can. Little 'g' is defined by big 'G', the mass of the > > > > earth and the radius of the earth. > > > > > > Correct. Newton can, GR cannot. > > > > > > > Not true. GR can. To find out how, I can suggest several good books on GR. > > > > -- > > Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables > > You always can but you do not know yourself. From the book, "General Relativity and Gravitational Waves" by Joseph Weber, Interscience Publishers, Inc., NY, page 160. Retaining terms up to v/c, c^2*d^2x/ds^2 = Del[(GM/R)(1 + v∙R/cR) + terms involving acceleration. This equation was derived from the GR field equations. You will note that c/ds is the proper time differential, so the left-hand side is essentially your g. And you will note that the right-hand side is the Newtonian gravitation term IF velocity and acceleration are zero. Ergo, GR does indeed relate g to G, which refutes your claim that it does not.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-20 23:47 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <cf304888-a099-4a8a-b98f-4c090c60dfea@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #399106 |
On Monday, November 21, 2016 at 1:23:00 PM UTC+8, Gary Harnagel wrote: > > c^2*d^2x/ds^2 = Del[(GM/R)(1 + v∙R/cR) + terms involving acceleration. > Thank you. Please define c = d = x = ds = Del = R = v = terms involving acceleration =
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-21 05:22 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <ea580e43-81cb-42f1-b69b-aea105f49e75@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #399126 |
On Monday, November 21, 2016 at 12:47:46 AM UTC-7, Peter Riedt wrote: > > On Monday, November 21, 2016 at 1:23:00 PM UTC+8, Gary Harnagel wrote: > > > > c^2*d^2x/ds^2 = Del[(GM/R)(1 + v∙R/cR) + terms involving acceleration. > > > Thank you. Please define > c = You don't know what "c" is? > d = The differential operator, of course. > x = A distance, of course. > ds = Proper differential distance, of course > Del = You don't know what Del is? It's usually written as an inverted triangle and is equal to i*d/dx + j*d/dy + k*d/dz. > R = Distance of mass M from measuring point. > v = Velocity of mass M wrt test mass. > terms involving acceleration = They are basically unimportant and you're just being an autistic troll. What is IOTTMCO is that GR does indeed reduce to Newtonian gravity for masses that are moving slowly and aren't accelerating. Masses that are moving fast or are accelerating depart from NG, thus GR is a closer approximation to reality than NG. Instead of asking such stupid questions, why don't you get the book and find out for yourself like I did? https://www.bookdepository.com/General-Relativity-Gravitational-Waves-J-Weber/9780486438870 Or you can get it online and read for free for 30 days: https://www.scribd.com/book/271615496/General-Relativity-and-Gravitational-Waves
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-21 16:26 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <c4a1e465-5042-4b42-b4c6-96fb46354345@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #399158 |
On Monday, November 21, 2016 at 9:22:14 PM UTC+8, Gary Harnagel wrote: > On Monday, November 21, 2016 at 12:47:46 AM UTC-7, Peter Riedt wrote: > > > > On Monday, November 21, 2016 at 1:23:00 PM UTC+8, Gary Harnagel wrote: > > > > > > c^2*d^2x/ds^2 = Del[(GM/R)(1 + v∙R/cR) + terms involving acceleration. > > > > > Thank you. Please define > > c = > > You don't know what "c" is? > > > d = > > The differential operator, of course. > > > x = > > A distance, of course. > > > ds = > > Proper differential distance, of course > > > Del = > > You don't know what Del is? It's usually written as an inverted triangle > and is equal to i*d/dx + j*d/dy + k*d/dz. > > > R = > > Distance of mass M from measuring point. > > > v = > > Velocity of mass M wrt test mass. > > > terms involving acceleration = > > They are basically unimportant and you're just being an autistic troll. > What is IOTTMCO is that GR does indeed reduce to Newtonian gravity for > masses that are moving slowly and aren't accelerating. Masses that are > moving fast or are accelerating depart from NG, thus GR is a closer > approximation to reality than NG. > According to your definitions, the formula you quoted is useless gibberish and does not provide a formula to equate G with g. It is symptomatic of GR unable to answer simple questions of gravity.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-21 17:28 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <158f4c51-c2b1-4619-bb15-9f8af59f043e@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #399230 |
On Monday, November 21, 2016 at 5:26:06 PM UTC-7, Peter Riedt wrote: > > On Monday, November 21, 2016 at 9:22:14 PM UTC+8, Gary Harnagel wrote: > > > > On Monday, November 21, 2016 at 12:47:46 AM UTC-7, Peter Riedt wrote: > > > > > > On Monday, November 21, 2016 at 1:23:00 PM UTC+8, Gary Harnagel wrote: > > > > > > > > c^2*d^2x/ds^2 = Del[(GM/R)(1 + v∙R/cR) + terms involving acceleration. > > > > > > > Thank you. Please define > > > c = > > > > You don't know what "c" is? > > > > > d = > > > > The differential operator, of course. > > > > > x = > > > > A distance, of course. > > > > > ds = > > > > Proper differential distance, of course > > > > > Del = > > > > You don't know what Del is? It's usually written as an inverted triangle > > and is equal to i*d/dx + j*d/dy + k*d/dz. > > > > > R = > > > > Distance of mass M from measuring point. > > > > > v = > > > > Velocity of mass M wrt test mass. > > > > > terms involving acceleration = > > > > They are basically unimportant and you're just being an autistic troll. > > What is IOTTMCO is that GR does indeed reduce to Newtonian gravity for > > masses that are moving slowly and aren't accelerating. Masses that are > > moving fast or are accelerating depart from NG, thus GR is a closer > > approximation to reality than NG. > > > According to your definitions, It's not "my" definition, baloney spewer. It's not a "definition" at all. You are trying to set up a straw man argument in order to denigrate the importance of Weber's work. > the formula you quoted is useless gibberish and does not provide a formula > to equate G with g. It is symptomatic of GR unable to answer simple > questions of gravity. Says the abysmally-conflicted, slow-brained reality-denier. First of all, G and g are NOT "equated": they are RELATED. You keep trying and trying to obfuscate the situation. It will NEVER work. You kept saying that GR couldn't do what Newtonian gravity did and I proved that you were dead wrong. Stop weaseling around, stand up like a man, admit that you were wrong and stop spewing baloney. It makes you look really stupid. And the "formula" (you can't even use the correct erm: "equation") is NOT gibberish to anyone with the mathematical competency to understand it. “Relativity and quantum mechanics were not invented because someone thought it would be a good idea for the universe to obey these rules; rather, these revolutionary ideas were forced upon us by nature.” -- Lawrence M. Krauss
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-21 23:04 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <c87f2419-126b-49b3-b99c-1bceaaff0130@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #399243 |
On Tuesday, November 22, 2016 at 9:28:50 AM UTC+8, Gary Harnagel wrote: First of all, > G and g are NOT "equated": they are RELATED. You keep trying and trying to > obfuscate the situation. It will NEVER work. You kept saying that GR > couldn't do what Newtonian gravity did and I proved that you were dead > wrong. Stop weaseling around, stand up like a man, admit that you were > wrong and stop spewing baloney. It makes you look really stupid. > > And the "formula" (you can't even use the correct erm: "equation") is NOT > gibberish to anyone with the mathematical competency to understand it. > If an 'equation' exists that does not need higher mathematics why not use it?Kepler et al did. Occams razor applies.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-22 05:05 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <38bb46f1-32b0-408c-849d-5ae2b2efc2e2@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #399262 |
On Tuesday, November 22, 2016 at 12:04:47 AM UTC-7, Peter Riedt wrote: > > On Tuesday, November 22, 2016 at 9:28:50 AM UTC+8, Gary Harnagel wrote: > > > > First of all, > > G and g are NOT "equated": they are RELATED. You keep trying and trying to > > obfuscate the situation. It will NEVER work. You kept saying that GR > > couldn't do what Newtonian gravity did and I proved that you were dead > > wrong. Stop weaseling around, stand up like a man, admit that you were > > wrong and stop spewing baloney. It makes you look really stupid. > > > > And the "formula" (you can't even use the correct erm: "equation") is NOT > > gibberish to anyone with the mathematical competency to understand it. > > If an 'equation' exists that does not need higher mathematics why not use > it? Kepler et al did. So you continue trying to denigrate an approximate solution in a sorry attempt to justify your intentional ignorance. That solution proves that you were dead wrong about GR, yet here you are babbling dishonesties ... AGAIN! I have used that equation to show that the acceleration due to a mass undergoing relative velocity wrt a test mass points to where the mass WILL BE when the force reaches the test mass. I have also used it with the acceleration terms to study frame dragging. > Occams razor applies. Yes, it does, and I use Newtonian gravity theory when it is appropriate. But that's not the thrust of your initial claim, is it, dishonest one? People like you are dishonest through and through.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-22 16:14 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <8fa9b15a-634c-4f80-beb8-44a6ba3d0d02@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #399285 |
On Tuesday, November 22, 2016 at 9:05:08 PM UTC+8, Gary Harnagel wrote: > I have used that equation to show that the acceleration due to a mass > undergoing relative velocity wrt a test mass points to where the mass > WILL BE when the force reaches the test mass. I have also used it with > the acceleration terms to study frame dragging. > The question was and is how does g relate to G not >"...acceleration due to a mass > undergoing relative velocity wrt a test mass points to where the mass > WILL BE when the force reaches the test mass". Keep it simple.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-22 17:42 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <e0790b16-93e7-473a-94b5-20f7334cd1dd@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #399418 |
On Tuesday, November 22, 2016 at 5:14:35 PM UTC-7, Peter Riedt wrote: > > On Tuesday, November 22, 2016 at 9:05:08 PM UTC+8, Gary Harnagel wrote: > > > > I have used that equation to show that the acceleration due to a mass > > undergoing relative velocity wrt a test mass points to where the mass > > WILL BE when the force reaches the test mass. I have also used it with > > the acceleration terms to study frame dragging. > > > The question was and is how does g relate to G not > > >"...acceleration due to a mass > > undergoing relative velocity wrt a test mass points to where the mass > > WILL BE when the force reaches the test mass". Keep it simple. You imbecilic liar, g IS acceleration, you prevaricating numbskull!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "David (Lord Kronos) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-22 17:53 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <bc1ac310-cb94-4b31-a709-09c38df33ced@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #399426 |
On Tuesday, November 22, 2016 at 7:42:50 PM UTC-6, Gary Harnagel wrote: > On Tuesday, November 22, 2016 at 5:14:35 PM UTC-7, Peter Riedt wrote: > > > > On Tuesday, November 22, 2016 at 9:05:08 PM UTC+8, Gary Harnagel wrote: > > > > > > I have used that equation to show that the acceleration due to a mass > > > undergoing relative velocity wrt a test mass points to where the mass > > > WILL BE when the force reaches the test mass. I have also used it with > > > the acceleration terms to study frame dragging. > > > > > The question was and is how does g relate to G not > > > > >"...acceleration due to a mass > > > undergoing relative velocity wrt a test mass points to where the mass > > > WILL BE when the force reaches the test mass". Keep it simple. > > You imbecilic liar, g IS acceleration, you prevaricating numbskull! 5^2*2 = 50 = 1/(c*G) ((5^(1 / 2)) + 1 or -1) / 2 = 1.61803398875 or 0.61803398875 Gravity is Fibonacci = http://i60.tinypic.com/okmna0.jpg
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 1 of 5 [1] 2 3 4 5 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity
csiph-web