Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics > #560106 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Henry Wilson <HGW@home.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2016-03-07 20:34 +0000 |
| Last post | 2016-03-21 12:34 -0700 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 80 — 14 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.physics
The Einstein Conspiracy...Part 1. Henry Wilson <HGW@home.com> - 2016-03-07 20:34 +0000
Re: The Einstein Conspiracy...Part 1. François Theobaldus <fraop@sshimown.org> - 2016-03-07 21:16 +0000
Re: The Einstein Conspiracy...Part 1. Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-03-07 15:29 -0600
Re: The Einstein Conspiracy...Part 1. Henry Wilson <HGW@home.com> - 2016-03-08 17:15 +0000
Re: The Einstein Conspiracy...Part 1. Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-03-08 11:20 -0600
Re: The Einstein Conspiracy...Part 1. HGW <hw@...> - 2016-03-09 13:21 +1100
Re: The Einstein Conspiracy...Part 1. Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-03-08 22:12 -0600
Re: The Einstein Conspiracy...Part 1. Henry Wilson <HGW@home.com> - 2016-03-09 19:23 +0000
Re: The Einstein Conspiracy...Part 1. Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-03-17 19:29 +1100
Re: The Einstein Conspiracy...Part 1. Dingxiang Huizhong <dingx@consumerdomain.org> - 2016-03-17 16:23 +0000
Re: The Einstein Conspiracy...Part 1. Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-03-17 16:09 +1100
Re: The Einstein Conspiracy...Part 1. "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-03-07 22:42 +0100
Re: The Einstein Conspiracy...Part 1. Henry Wilson <HGW@home.com> - 2016-03-08 17:11 +0000
Re: The Einstein Conspiracy...Part 1. Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-03-08 22:15 -0600
Re: The Einstein Conspiracy...Part 1. HGW <hw@...> - 2016-03-09 19:10 +1100
Re: The Einstein Conspiracy...Part 1. Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-03-09 08:48 -0600
Re: The Einstein Conspiracy...Part 1. Luigi Durante <luigdu@jaccappo.org> - 2016-03-09 20:06 +0000
Re: The Einstein Conspiracy...Part 1. "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-03-09 21:59 +0100
Re: The Einstein Conspiracy...Part 1. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-03-09 15:07 -0600
Re: The Einstein Conspiracy...Part 1. HGW <hw@...> - 2016-03-10 09:15 +1100
Re: The Einstein Conspiracy...Part 1. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-03-09 16:34 -0600
Re: The Einstein Conspiracy...Part 1. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-03-10 09:32 -0600
Re: The Einstein Conspiracy...Part 1. Henry Wilson <HGW@home.com> - 2016-03-12 19:27 +0000
Re: The Einstein Conspiracy...Part 1. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-03-14 09:49 -0500
Re: The Einstein Conspiracy...Part 1. HGW <hgw@...> - 2016-03-15 11:14 +1100
Re: The Einstein Conspiracy...Part 1. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-03-15 07:53 -0500
Re: The Einstein Conspiracy...Part 1. Luigi Durante <luigdu@jaccappo.org> - 2016-03-09 21:14 +0000
Re: The Einstein Conspiracy...Part 1. HGW <hw@...> - 2016-03-10 09:09 +1100
Re: The Einstein Conspiracy...Part 1. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-03-09 16:13 -0600
Re: The Einstein Conspiracy...Part 1. "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-03-10 14:43 +0100
EinsteinmaniA (the ideal that gravity is a primary force noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2016-03-10 19:15 -0800
Re: EinsteinmaniA (the ideal that gravity is a primary force noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2016-03-10 23:01 -0800
Re: The Einstein Conspiracy...Part 1. Henry Wilson <HGW@home.com> - 2016-03-12 18:50 +0000
Re: The Einstein Conspiracy...Part 1. "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-03-13 20:43 +0100
Re: The Einstein Conspiracy...Part 1. HGW <hw@...> - 2016-03-14 09:59 +1100
Re: The Einstein Conspiracy...Part 1. "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-03-14 13:39 +0100
Re: The Einstein Conspiracy...Part 1. HGW <hgw@...> - 2016-03-15 11:23 +1100
'slunars noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2016-03-14 19:46 -0700
Re: The Einstein Conspiracy...Part 1. "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-03-15 23:20 +0100
Re: The Einstein Conspiracy...Part 1. HGW <hgw@...> - 2016-03-16 10:20 +1100
Re: The Einstein Conspiracy...Part 1. "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-03-17 11:08 +0100
a. precession noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2016-03-15 16:29 -0700
a.p noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2016-03-16 14:14 -0700
Re: The Einstein Conspiracy...Part 1. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-03-14 10:15 -0500
herr doktor-professor e. noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2016-03-14 12:30 -0700
Re: The Einstein Conspiracy...Part 1. Henry Wilson <HGW@home.com> - 2016-03-17 11:38 +0000
Re: The Einstein Conspiracy...Part 1. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-03-17 08:58 -0500
Re: The Einstein Conspiracy...Part 1. HGW <hgw@...> - 2016-03-18 10:16 +1100
Re: The Einstein Conspiracy...Part 1. Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-03-17 21:07 -0500
Re: The Einstein Conspiracy...Part 1. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-03-18 07:39 -0500
Re: The Einstein Conspiracy...Part 1. HGW <HGW@home.com> - 2016-03-19 06:15 +1100
Re: The Einstein Conspiracy...Part 1. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-03-18 15:37 -0500
Re: The Einstein Conspiracy...Part 1. HGW <HGW@home.com> - 2016-03-20 03:38 +1100
Re: The Einstein Conspiracy...Part 1. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-03-19 15:39 -0500
Re: The Einstein Conspiracy...Part 1. HGW <hw@...> - 2016-03-20 11:08 +1100
Re: The Einstein Conspiracy...Part 1. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-03-20 18:22 +0000
Re: The Einstein Conspiracy...Part 1. HGW <HGW@home.com> - 2016-03-21 06:43 +1100
Re: The Einstein Conspiracy...Part 1. Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-03-20 15:31 -0500
Re: The Einstein Conspiracy...Part 1. HGW <hw@...> - 2016-03-21 08:17 +1100
Re: The Einstein Conspiracy...Part 1. Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-03-20 16:39 -0500
Re: The Einstein Conspiracy...Part 1. Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-03-20 22:28 +0100
Re: The Einstein Conspiracy...Part 1. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-03-20 21:11 +0000
Re: The Einstein Conspiracy...Part 1. HGW <hw@...> - 2016-03-21 08:20 +1100
Re: The Einstein Conspiracy...Part 1. Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-03-20 16:42 -0500
Re: The Einstein Conspiracy...Part 1. HGW <hw@...> - 2016-03-21 12:15 +1100
Re: The Einstein Conspiracy...Part 1. Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-03-21 09:29 -0500
Re: The Einstein Conspiracy...Part 1. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-03-20 23:51 +0000
Re: The Einstein Conspiracy...Part 1. HGW <HGW@home.com> - 2016-03-22 21:17 +1100
Re: The Einstein Conspiracy...Part 1. noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2016-03-22 17:26 -0700
Re: The Einstein Conspiracy...Part 1. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-03-23 05:00 +0000
Re: The Einstein Conspiracy...Part 1. HGW <hgw@...> - 2016-03-23 20:11 +1100
Re: The Einstein Conspiracy...Part 1. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-03-23 13:40 +0000
Re: The Einstein Conspiracy...Part 1. noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2016-03-23 08:51 -0700
Re: The Einstein Conspiracy...Part 1. HGW <hw@...> - 2016-03-24 08:50 +1100
Re: The Einstein Conspiracy...Part 1. noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2016-03-23 17:15 -0700
Re: The Einstein Conspiracy...Part 1. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-03-24 15:11 +0000
Re: The Einstein Conspiracy...Part 1. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-03-21 09:42 -0500
Re: The Einstein Conspiracy...Part 1. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-03-21 09:27 -0500
Re: The Einstein Conspiracy...Part 1. noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2016-03-21 11:57 -0700
query noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2016-03-21 12:34 -0700
Page 1 of 4 [1] 2 3 4 Next page →
| From | Henry Wilson <HGW@home.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-07 20:34 +0000 |
| Subject | The Einstein Conspiracy...Part 1. |
| Message-ID | <nbkoli$jjc$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
If a conspiracy is to be mounted against an individual or group, its name must be continually associated with things bad. To favourably promote a name, it should be associated anything good. Conspiracies have been very common throughout history, not only in the political arena but also in civilian matters such as 'framing' a person...or spreading a rumour that a woman a witch or an innocent man a wife beater or a rapist. Probably the second most successful conspiracy of all time has been the promotion of the commo hippy Jesus Christ as being the son of some kind of imaginary 'god' thing. How could any kid not believe the story when it is written and stated so often and pictures and statues of the poor bugger strung up on a cross are as common as plastic bottles on the roadside...Women even dangle them from their necks, where every man looks. Surely the story must be true, with all that 'evidence'! -:) The promotion of Adolph Hitler was achieved through a massive and evil conspiracy. The Vietnam war was started by a US fabrication of facts...as was the recent destruction of Iraq. Associating kings, queens, various criminals, tax dodgers, corrupt officials and even demented US presidents with charitable organizations has also been very effective in giving people a clean image. However the promotion of the name Albert Einstein as the world's symbol of genius surpasses all other conspiracies by a long shot since it has fooled so many people who are undoubtedly a lot smarter than the man himself. Over the coming months, I will be discussing instances of the way in which name Einstein has been deviously linked to a long of important scientific issues. Today's subject will be a simple one...the precession of Mercury. For centuries, nobody could properly explain that precession. In reality, nobody could properly explain ANY planetary precession for the simple reason that it depends on the positions of other planets and is never constant but CHAOTIC in nature. Einstein stuck a factor of two in somewhere to make his predictions match the current rate of precession and was immediately accepted as someone who should be taken seriously.
[toc] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | François Theobaldus <fraop@sshimown.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-07 21:16 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <nbkr2t$nfi$2@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #560106 |
Henry Wilson wrote: > If a conspiracy is to be mounted against an individual or group, its > name must be continually associated with things bad. To favourably > promote a name, it should be associated anything good. Conspiracies have > been very common throughout history, not only in the political arena but > also in civilian matters such as 'framing' a person...or spreading a > rumour that a woman a witch or an innocent man a wife beater or a > rapist. Probably the second most successful conspiracy of all time has > been the promotion of the commo hippy Jesus Christ as being the son of > some kind of imaginary 'god' thing. How could any kid not believe the > story when it is written and stated so often and pictures and statues of > the poor bugger strung up on a cross are as common as plastic bottles on > the roadside...Women even dangle them from their necks, where every man > looks. Surely the story must be true, with all that 'evidence'! - You loose the point, Anrry. To understand that thing you have to start from the very beginning, and work your way up.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-07 15:29 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <I_udnb_4XMtYb0DLnZ2dnUU7-bOdnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #560106 |
On 3/7/16 2:34 PM, Henry Wilson wrote: > For centuries, nobody could properly explain that precession. In reality, > nobody could properly explain ANY planetary precession for the simple > reason that it depends on the positions of other planets and is never > constant but CHAOTIC in nature. Einstein stuck a factor of two in > somewhere to make his predictions match the current rate of precession > and was immediately accepted as someone who should be taken seriously. General relativity makes very specific predictions. There is no wiggle room. The theory is either right or wrong. General Relativity exactly predicted the precession of perihelion in Mercury's orbit. Every test of General Relativity to date, shows that nature is in agreement. The theory is correct and remains a fruitful too of physics. Tests of general relativity https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tests_of_general_relativity Tests of special relativity https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tests_of_special_relativity https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_dilation_of_moving_particles -- sci.physics is an unmoderated newsgroup dedicated to the discussion of physics, news from the physics community, and physics-related social issues.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Henry Wilson <HGW@home.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-08 17:15 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <nbn1bt$19g8$2@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #560134 |
On Mon, 07 Mar 2016 15:29:41 -0600, Sam Wormley wrote: > On 3/7/16 2:34 PM, Henry Wilson wrote: >> For centuries, nobody could properly explain that precession. In >> reality, >> nobody could properly explain ANY planetary precession for the simple >> reason that it depends on the positions of other planets and is never >> constant but CHAOTIC in nature. Einstein stuck a factor of two in >> somewhere to make his predictions match the current rate of precession >> and was immediately accepted as someone who should be taken seriously. > > > General relativity makes very specific predictions. There is no > wiggle room. The theory is either right or wrong. General Relativity > exactly predicted the precession of perihelion in Mercury's orbit. There is no way to predict chaotic behavior, idiot. Mercury's precession has no fixed value.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-08 11:20 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <L8SdnTStNfJklELLnZ2dnUU7-KWdnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #560367 |
On 3/8/16 11:15 AM, Henry Wilson wrote: > > There is no way to predict chaotic behavior, idiot. Mercury's precession > has no fixed value. > > Ralph, you best look up the data for the precession of perihelion in Mercury's orbit. General relativity makes very specific predictions. There is no wiggle room. The theory is either right or wrong. General Relativity exactly predicted the precession of perihelion in Mercury's orbit. Every test of General Relativity to date, shows that nature is in agreement. The theory is correct and remains a fruitful too of physics. Tests of general relativity https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tests_of_general_relativity Tests of special relativity https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tests_of_special_relativity https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_dilation_of_moving_particles -- sci.physics is an unmoderated newsgroup dedicated to the discussion of physics, news from the physics community, and physics-related social issues.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | HGW <hw@...> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-09 13:21 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <nbo1ba$rak$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #560369 |
On 09/03/16 04:20, Sam Wormley wrote: > On 3/8/16 11:15 AM, Henry Wilson wrote: >> >> There is no way to predict chaotic behavior, idiot. Mercury's precession >> has no fixed value. >> >> > > Ralph, you best look up the data for the precession of perihelion in > Mercury's orbit. > > General relativity makes very specific predictions. There is no > wiggle room. The theory is either right or wrong. General Relativity > exactly predicted the precession of perihelion in Mercury's orbit. Bullshit....pure bullshit.. There is no fixed value for the precession of Mercury....so how could any theory predict one? > Every test of General Relativity to date, shows that nature is > in agreement. The theory is correct and remains a fruitful too > of physics. > > Tests of general relativity > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tests_of_general_relativity > > Tests of special relativity > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tests_of_special_relativity > https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_dilation_of_moving_particles ...all part of the giant conspiracy....Not one of those experiments is believable.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-08 22:12 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <c8udnSnlg60hP0LLnZ2dnUU7-SmdnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #560605 |
On 3/8/16 8:21 PM, HGW wrote: > ...all part of the giant conspiracy....Not one of those experiments is > believable. General relativity makes very specific predictions. There is no wiggle room. The theory is either right or wrong. General Relativity exactly predicted the precession of perihelion in Mercury's orbit. Every test of General Relativity to date, shows that nature is in agreement. The theory is correct and remains a fruitful too of physics. Tests of general relativity https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tests_of_general_relativity Tests of special relativity https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tests_of_special_relativity https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_dilation_of_moving_particles -- sci.physics is an unmoderated newsgroup dedicated to the discussion of physics, news from the physics community, and physics-related social issues.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Henry Wilson <HGW@home.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-09 19:23 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <nbpt7d$1mun$2@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #560641 |
On Tue, 08 Mar 2016 22:12:44 -0600, Sam Wormley wrote: > On 3/8/16 8:21 PM, HGW wrote: >> ...all part of the giant conspiracy....Not one of those experiments is >> believable. > > > General relativity makes very specific predictions. There is no > wiggle room. The theory is either right or wrong. General Relativity > exactly predicted the precession of perihelion in Mercury's orbit. > > Every test of General Relativity to date, shows that nature is in > agreement. The theory is correct and remains a fruitful too of > physics. > > Tests of general relativity > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tests_of_general_relativity > > Tests of special relativity > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tests_of_special_relativity > https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_dilation_of_moving_particles Not an ounce of truth in any of them....all just part of the conspiracy...
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-17 19:29 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <dkv86tFf1b9U2@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #560873 |
On 10/03/2016 6:23 AM, Henry Wilson wrote: > On Tue, 08 Mar 2016 22:12:44 -0600, Sam Wormley wrote: > >> On 3/8/16 8:21 PM, HGW wrote: >>> ...all part of the giant conspiracy....Not one of those experiments is >>> believable. >> >> >> General relativity makes very specific predictions. There is no >> wiggle room. The theory is either right or wrong. General Relativity >> exactly predicted the precession of perihelion in Mercury's orbit. >> >> Every test of General Relativity to date, shows that nature is in >> agreement. The theory is correct and remains a fruitful too of >> physics. >> >> Tests of general relativity >> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tests_of_general_relativity >> >> Tests of special relativity >> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tests_of_special_relativity >> https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_dilation_of_moving_particles > > Not an ounce of truth in any of them....all just part of the conspiracy... > I've previously expressed the view that Henry is delusional in the mental illness sense. Nothing has changed. Sylvia.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Dingxiang Huizhong <dingx@consumerdomain.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-17 16:23 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <ncell8$1kk2$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #563039 |
Sylvia Else wrote: >> Not an ounce of truth in any of them....all just part of the >> conspiracy... > > I've previously expressed the view that Henry is delusional in the > mental illness sense. Nothing has changed. Sylvia. MIT Engineer disputes Relativity Theory Collapse-Part 1 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z8W-t57xnZg
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-17 16:09 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <dkusfuFc98iU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #560367 |
On 9/03/2016 4:15 AM, Henry Wilson wrote: > On Mon, 07 Mar 2016 15:29:41 -0600, Sam Wormley wrote: > >> On 3/7/16 2:34 PM, Henry Wilson wrote: >>> For centuries, nobody could properly explain that precession. In >>> reality, >>> nobody could properly explain ANY planetary precession for the simple >>> reason that it depends on the positions of other planets and is never >>> constant but CHAOTIC in nature. Einstein stuck a factor of two in >>> somewhere to make his predictions match the current rate of precession >>> and was immediately accepted as someone who should be taken seriously. >> >> >> General relativity makes very specific predictions. There is no >> wiggle room. The theory is either right or wrong. General Relativity >> exactly predicted the precession of perihelion in Mercury's orbit. > > There is no way to predict chaotic behavior, idiot. Mercury's precession > has no fixed value. > Orbits are chaotic in the very long term, but in the short term, the effects of the other planets can be taken into account. When that's done, Mercury's orbit still doesn't match theory unless general relativity is taken into account. Sylvia.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-07 22:42 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <nbksjg$r5r$1@news.albasani.net> |
| In reply to | #560106 |
On 07.03.2016 21:34, Henry Wilson wrote: > Today's subject will be a simple one...the precession > of Mercury. > > For centuries, nobody could properly explain that precession. But then came Einstein and got it right. https://paulba.no/paper/Clemence.pdf > Einstein stuck a factor of two in > somewhere to make his predictions match the current rate of precession > and was immediately accepted as someone who should be taken seriously. "Factor of two"? :-D Ralph is probably confusing the precession of the perihelion of Mercury with the gravitational deflection of light, where the correct prediction of Einstein is twice the wrong prediction of Newton. https://paulba.no/paper/PPN_gamma_Hipparcos.pdf https://paulba.no/paper/PPN_gamma_Cassini.pdf https://paulba.no/paper/Shapiro_2004.pdf https://paulba.no/paper/GravDeflection.pdf https://paulba.no/paper/Fomalont.pdf -- Paul https://paulba.no/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Henry Wilson <HGW@home.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-08 17:11 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <nbn13r$19g8$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #560138 |
On Mon, 07 Mar 2016 22:42:00 +0100, Paul B. Andersen wrote: > On 07.03.2016 21:34, Henry Wilson wrote: >> Today's subject will be a simple one...the precession of Mercury. >> >> For centuries, nobody could properly explain that precession. > > But then came Einstein and got it right. > https://paulba.no/paper/Clemence.pdf There is no 'right' answer. The precesssion is chaotic and unpredictable. It might even go backwards. The solar wind is also a factor to be considered in the case of highly elliptical orbits. Einstein explained nothing. His name was simply linked to planetary precession to make him look clever. >> Einstein stuck a factor of two in somewhere to make his predictions >> match the current rate of precession and was immediately accepted as >> someone who should be taken seriously. > > "Factor of two"? :-D > > Henry is probably confusing the precession of the perihelion of Mercury > with the gravitational deflection of light, where the correct prediction > of Einstein is twice the wrong prediction of Newton. That has never been proved. The Eddington expedition was a farce. It rained almost continuously only got a brief shot of a star. ...certainly not long enough to calculate its deflection. > https://paulba.no/paper/PPN_gamma_Hipparcos.pdf > https://paulba.no/paper/PPN_gamma_Cassini.pdf > https://paulba.no/paper/Shapiro_2004.pdf > https://paulba.no/paper/GravDeflection.pdf > https://paulba.no/paper/Fomalont.pdf ......More of Paul Bullshit Andersen's famous fairy tales....all part of the conspiracy...
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-08 22:15 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <c8udnSjlg63CPkLLnZ2dnUU7-SmdnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #560365 |
On 3/8/16 11:11 AM, Henry Wilson wrote: > That has never been proved. The Eddington expedition was a farce. It > rained almost continuously only got a brief shot of a star. ...certainly > not long enough to calculate its deflection. William Wallace Campbell (Lick Observatory) nailed it that Eddington was correct and Einstein's prediction of the bending a starlight by the sun was EXACTLY correct. 93 stars! Ref: http://www.encyclopedia.com/topic/William_Campbell.aspx > Campbell was a most careful observer and a designer of techniques of > observation and of reduction, and he put forth his findings with > confidence, irrespective of their accord with accepted theory. He did > not, however, hesitate to repeat his observations if he felt this > necessary, An example is his eclipse observations to detect the sun’s > deflection of light from the stars, which had been predicted by > Einstein. An attempt at the Russian eclipse of 1914 was thwarted by > weather. Although the eclipse equipment was kept in Russia because of > the war, a further attempt was made in 1918 at Goldendale, > Washington. The results were negative. When Eddington reported a > confirmation of Einstein’s predictions in 1919, Campbell returned to > the task and attempted with Trumpler to observe the predicted > deflection at the 1922 eclipse in Western Australia. This time the > results fully confirmed the predictions of the general theory. Ralph take note! -- sci.physics is an unmoderated newsgroup dedicated to the discussion of physics, news from the physics community, and physics-related social issues.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | HGW <hw@...> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-09 19:10 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <nbolqd$1j5g$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #560642 |
On 09/03/16 15:15, Sam Wormley wrote: > On 3/8/16 11:11 AM, Henry Wilson wrote: >> That has never been proved. The Eddington expedition was a farce. It >> rained almost continuously only got a brief shot of a star. ...certainly >> not long enough to calculate its deflection. > > > > William Wallace Campbell (Lick Observatory) nailed it that Eddington > was correct and Einstein's prediction of the bending a starlight by > the sun was EXACTLY correct. 93 stars! Campbell was a coward who switched sides when he suddenly feared that he might actually be missing out on an opportunity to become famous. > > Ref: http://www.encyclopedia.com/topic/William_Campbell.aspx > > > Campbell was a most careful observer and a designer of techniques of > > observation and of reduction, and he put forth his findings with > > confidence, irrespective of their accord with accepted theory. He did > > not, however, hesitate to repeat his observations if he felt this > > necessary, An example is his eclipse observations to detect the sun’s > > deflection of light from the stars, which had been predicted by > > Einstein. An attempt at the Russian eclipse of 1914 was thwarted by > > weather. Although the eclipse equipment was kept in Russia because of > > the war, a further attempt was made in 1918 at Goldendale, > > Washington. The results were negative. When Eddington reported a > > confirmation of Einstein’s predictions in 1919, Campbell returned to > > the task and attempted with Trumpler to observe the predicted > > deflection at the 1922 eclipse in Western Australia. This time the > > results fully confirmed the predictions of the general theory. > > > Henry take note! I have already taken note of the way the conspiracy operates...just link the name Einstein to anything that can't easily be proved wrong and the masses will lap it up. Why do you think we don't hear about similar experiments now? I'll tell you why...Because they all disagree with Einstein.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-09 08:48 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <WeOdnUrFp4dSqn3LnZ2dnUU7-XmdnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #560713 |
On 3/9/16 2:10 AM, HGW wrote: > Campbell was a coward who switched sides when he suddenly feared that he > might actually be missing out on an opportunity to become famous. Campbell's data confirmed Einstein prediction unequivocally. William Wallace Campbell (Lick Observatory) nailed it that Eddington was correct and Einstein's prediction of the bending a starlight by the sun was EXACTLY correct. 93 stars! Ref: http://www.encyclopedia.com/topic/William_Campbell.aspx > Campbell was a most careful observer and a designer of techniques of > observation and of reduction, and he put forth his findings with > confidence, irrespective of their accord with accepted theory. He did > not, however, hesitate to repeat his observations if he felt this > necessary, An example is his eclipse observations to detect the sun’s > deflection of light from the stars, which had been predicted by > Einstein. An attempt at the Russian eclipse of 1914 was thwarted by > weather. Although the eclipse equipment was kept in Russia because of > the war, a further attempt was made in 1918 at Goldendale, > Washington. The results were negative. When Eddington reported a > confirmation of Einstein’s predictions in 1919, Campbell returned to > the task and attempted with Trumpler to observe the predicted > deflection at the 1922 eclipse in Western Australia. This time the > results fully confirmed the predictions of the general theory. -- sci.physics is an unmoderated newsgroup dedicated to the discussion of physics, news from the physics community, and physics-related social issues.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Luigi Durante <luigdu@jaccappo.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-09 20:06 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <nbpvp1$1qmi$2@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #560748 |
Sam Wormley wrote: > On 3/9/16 2:10 AM, HGW wrote: >> Campbell was a coward who switched sides when he suddenly feared that >> he might actually be missing out on an opportunity to become famous. > > > Campbell's data confirmed Einstein prediction unequivocally. That's why confirmations are to be equivocally.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-09 21:59 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <nbq2r8$m37$1@news.albasani.net> |
| In reply to | #560365 |
On 08.03.2016 18:11, Henry Wilson wrote: > On Mon, 07 Mar 2016 22:42:00 +0100, Paul B. Andersen wrote: > >> On 07.03.2016 21:34, Henry Wilson wrote: >>> Today's subject will be a simple one...the precession of Mercury. >>> >>> For centuries, nobody could properly explain that precession. >> >> But then came Einstein and got it right. >> https://paulba.no/paper/Clemence.pdf > > There is no 'right' answer. The precesssion is chaotic and unpredictable. > It might even go backwards. The solar wind is also a factor to be > considered in the case of highly elliptical orbits. > Einstein explained nothing. His name was simply linked to planetary > precession to make him look clever. Clemence calculations were based on 175 years of observations of Mercury. (10,000+ observations!) It is a measured _fact_ that the precession of the perihelion was (5599.74 +/- 1.2) arcsecs per century during these 175 years. The prediction of GR is: Pull from the other planets: (5557.18 +/- 0.85) arcsecs per century Relativity effect: ( 43.03 +/- 0.03) arcsecs per century Sum: (5600.21 +/- 0.88) arcsecs per century The difference is 0.47 arcsecs per century, well within the error bar. It is true that the precession of the perihelion for each single orbit of Mercury will vary depending on the constellations of the planets. But the long term average precession, when all planets have made several orbits, will be pretty stable. And this average is predictable, calculable _and_ calculated. It is quite nonsensical to claim that the long term average precession is unpredictable when real measurements in the real world show that it is as predicted by GR. -- Paul https://paulba.no/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-09 15:07 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <nbq3au$2re$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #560922 |
On 3/9/2016 2:59 PM, Paul B. Andersen wrote: > On 08.03.2016 18:11, Henry Wilson wrote: >> On Mon, 07 Mar 2016 22:42:00 +0100, Paul B. Andersen wrote: >> >>> On 07.03.2016 21:34, Henry Wilson wrote: >>>> Today's subject will be a simple one...the precession of Mercury. >>>> >>>> For centuries, nobody could properly explain that precession. >>> >>> But then came Einstein and got it right. >>> https://paulba.no/paper/Clemence.pdf >> >> There is no 'right' answer. The precesssion is chaotic and unpredictable. >> It might even go backwards. The solar wind is also a factor to be >> considered in the case of highly elliptical orbits. >> Einstein explained nothing. His name was simply linked to planetary >> precession to make him look clever. > > Clemence calculations were based on 175 years of observations > of Mercury. (10,000+ observations!) > > It is a measured _fact_ that the precession of the perihelion > was (5599.74 +/- 1.2) arcsecs per century during these 175 years. Henry's position is that this measured result is impossible and therefore it doesn't exist or can't be trusted. According to Henry, that error bar must be wrong, because the precession was likely to be 5213 arcsec/century in one orbit, and 19348 arcsec/century in the next orbit, and -238 arcsec/century in the next orbit, and 1598 arcsec/century in the next orbit. Such a circumstance would make such a regular number as (5599.74 +/- 1.2) arcsecs/century patently absurd. It doesn't occur to Henry that the MEASURED regularity of the precession is much better than what he thinks it SHOULD be. And so no measurement can be made to overrule Henry's common sense. > > The prediction of GR is: > Pull from the other planets: (5557.18 +/- 0.85) arcsecs per century > Relativity effect: ( 43.03 +/- 0.03) arcsecs per century > Sum: (5600.21 +/- 0.88) arcsecs per century > > The difference is 0.47 arcsecs per century, well within the error bar. > > It is true that the precession of the perihelion for each single > orbit of Mercury will vary depending on the constellations of > the planets. But the long term average precession, when all > planets have made several orbits, will be pretty stable. > And this average is predictable, calculable _and_ calculated. > > It is quite nonsensical to claim that the long term average > precession is unpredictable when real measurements in > the real world show that it is as predicted by GR. > -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | HGW <hw@...> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-10 09:15 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <nbq79t$a6r$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #560926 |
On 10/03/16 08:07, Odd Bodkin wrote: > On 3/9/2016 2:59 PM, Paul B. Andersen wrote: >> Clemence calculations were based on 175 years of observations >> of Mercury. (10,000+ observations!) >> >> It is a measured _fact_ that the precession of the perihelion >> was (5599.74 +/- 1.2) arcsecs per century during these 175 years. > > Henry's position is that this measured result is impossible and > therefore it doesn't exist or can't be trusted. According to Henry, that > error bar must be wrong, because the precession was likely to be 5213 > arcsec/century in one orbit, and 19348 arcsec/century in the next orbit, > and -238 arcsec/century in the next orbit, and 1598 arcsec/century in > the next orbit. Such a circumstance would make such a regular number as > (5599.74 +/- 1.2) arcsecs/century patently absurd. Finally Bodkin saw the light.... It doesn't occur to > Henry that the MEASURED regularity of the precession is much better than > what he thinks it SHOULD be. And so no measurement can be made to > overrule Henry's common sense. It might be better but that doesn't make it constant. >> The prediction of GR is: >> Pull from the other planets: (5557.18 +/- 0.85) arcsecs per century >> Relativity effect: ( 43.03 +/- 0.03) arcsecs per century >> Sum: (5600.21 +/- 0.88) arcsecs per century What about the solar wind...and radiation pressure? It balances on the other half of the orbit but a shift of the axes has already occurred.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 1 of 4 [1] 2 3 4 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics
csiph-web