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 2 of 4 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 Next page →
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-09 16:34 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <nbq8ck$blc$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #560949 |
On 3/9/2016 4:15 PM, HGW wrote: > On 10/03/16 08:07, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> On 3/9/2016 2:59 PM, Paul B. Andersen wrote: > >>> Clemence calculations were based on 175 years of observations >>> of Mercury. (10,000+ observations!) >>> >>> It is a measured _fact_ that the precession of the perihelion >>> was (5599.74 +/- 1.2) arcsecs per century during these 175 years. >> >> Henry's position is that this measured result is impossible and >> therefore it doesn't exist or can't be trusted. According to Henry, that >> error bar must be wrong, because the precession was likely to be 5213 >> arcsec/century in one orbit, and 19348 arcsec/century in the next orbit, >> and -238 arcsec/century in the next orbit, and 1598 arcsec/century in >> the next orbit. Such a circumstance would make such a regular number as >> (5599.74 +/- 1.2) arcsecs/century patently absurd. > > Finally Bodkin saw the light.... And yet.... > > It doesn't occur to >> Henry that the MEASURED regularity of the precession is much better than >> what he thinks it SHOULD be. And so no measurement can be made to >> overrule Henry's common sense. > > It might be better but that doesn't make it constant. Nobody said constant. But pretty close to it. That's 1 part in 6000 uncertainty, Henry. Not something that varies all over the place. > >>> The prediction of GR is: >>> Pull from the other planets: (5557.18 +/- 0.85) arcsecs per century >>> Relativity effect: ( 43.03 +/- 0.03) arcsecs per century >>> Sum: (5600.21 +/- 0.88) arcsecs per century > > What about the solar wind...and radiation pressure? It balances on the > other half of the orbit but a shift of the axes has already occurred. > The number given is MEASURED. It's not all over the place. -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-10 09:32 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <nbs43a$u46$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #560949 |
On 3/9/2016 4:15 PM, HGW wrote: > 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. Let's do some statistical analysis, Henry, something you surely learned as an undergraduate in Australia. The orbital period of Mercury is 88 days. So in the interval of 175 years where the measurements were taken, that's about 725 orbits, which is the size of our sample to measure the precession. So let's say the 5599.74 +/- 1.2 arcsec/century is an average. Let's say that the precession varies chaotically from orbit to orbit with some standard deviation s. You claim s is large, so large in fact that in the course of 175 years, the precession value would surely have been negative at least once. But the relationship between the standard deviation s and the uncertainty in the mean is that the latter is s/sqrt(N) where N is the sample size. So s can at most be the uncertainty in the mean, multiplied by the square root of 725, or 27. So if the uncertainty in the mean is 1 part in 4700, then the standard deviation of the precession can be at most 1 part in 173, or about a half a percent. Given this, you can actually calculate the probability that the precession went negative at least once during the 175 years; that likelihood is about 1 in 38 trillion. Since you didn't bother to exercise any of the skills you were taught as an undergraduate when you made the claim that the precession is chaotic and completely unpredictable, then your comment is completely dismissible, as are (in fact) just about all of your comments. > >>> 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. > -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Henry Wilson <HGW@home.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-12 19:27 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <nc1qj3$10am$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #561142 |
On Thu, 10 Mar 2016 09:32:59 -0600, Silly old bugger Odd Bodkin wrote: >> 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. > > Let's do some statistical analysis, Henry, something you surely learned > as an undergraduate in Australia. > > The orbital period of Mercury is 88 days. So in the interval of 175 > years where the measurements were taken, that's about 725 orbits, which > is the size of our sample to measure the precession. > > So let's say the 5599.74 +/- 1.2 arcsec/century is an average. Let's say > that the precession varies chaotically from orbit to orbit with some > standard deviation s. You claim s is large, so large in fact that in the > course of 175 years, the precession value would surely have been > negative at least once. But the relationship between the standard > deviation s and the uncertainty in the mean is that the latter is > s/sqrt(N) where N is the sample size. So s can at most be the > uncertainty in the mean, multiplied by the square root of 725, or 27. So > if the uncertainty in the mean is 1 part in 4700, then the standard > deviation of the precession can be at most 1 part in 173, or about a > half a percent. Given this, you can actually calculate the probability > that the precession went negative at least once during the 175 years; > that likelihood is about 1 in 38 trillion. > > Since you didn't bother to exercise any of the skills you were taught as > an undergraduate when you made the claim that the precession is chaotic > and completely unpredictable, then your comment is completely > dismissible, as are (in fact) just about all of your comments. > > >>>> 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 Bodkin, you are sounding like a desperate man. Einstein knew nothing about chaotic behaviour and nor did anyone else at the time. The average value of Mercury's precession was based on a lot of readings that varied all over the place. The spread was believed to be due to measurement errors, not chaotic behaviour. Einstein claimed to be able to predict what he and his collaborators thought was a constant rate of precession. His equation is pure bullshit, designed to produce the answer he thought was correct. What in your opinion Bodkin , is the cause of planetary precession?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-14 09:49 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <nc6j1t$184n$2@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #561925 |
On 3/12/2016 1:27 PM, Henry Wilson wrote: > On Thu, 10 Mar 2016 09:32:59 -0600, Silly old bugger Odd Bodkin wrote: > > >>> 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. >> >> Let's do some statistical analysis, Henry, something you surely learned >> as an undergraduate in Australia. >> >> The orbital period of Mercury is 88 days. So in the interval of 175 >> years where the measurements were taken, that's about 725 orbits, which >> is the size of our sample to measure the precession. >> >> So let's say the 5599.74 +/- 1.2 arcsec/century is an average. Let's say >> that the precession varies chaotically from orbit to orbit with some >> standard deviation s. You claim s is large, so large in fact that in the >> course of 175 years, the precession value would surely have been >> negative at least once. But the relationship between the standard >> deviation s and the uncertainty in the mean is that the latter is >> s/sqrt(N) where N is the sample size. So s can at most be the >> uncertainty in the mean, multiplied by the square root of 725, or 27. So >> if the uncertainty in the mean is 1 part in 4700, then the standard >> deviation of the precession can be at most 1 part in 173, or about a >> half a percent. Given this, you can actually calculate the probability >> that the precession went negative at least once during the 175 years; >> that likelihood is about 1 in 38 trillion. >> >> Since you didn't bother to exercise any of the skills you were taught as >> an undergraduate when you made the claim that the precession is chaotic >> and completely unpredictable, then your comment is completely >> dismissible, as are (in fact) just about all of your comments. >> >> >>>>> 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 > > Bodkin, you are sounding like a desperate man. Einstein knew nothing > about chaotic behaviour and nor did anyone else at the time. Bullshit. Einstein's most cited work was statistical physics and the analysis of fluctuations. > The average > value of Mercury's precession was based on a lot of readings that varied > all over the place. Not so. See analysis above, which you ignored. That is, you ignored freshman-level statistical analysis. > The spread was believed to be due to measurement > errors, not chaotic behaviour. Einstein claimed to be able to predict > what he and his collaborators thought was a constant rate of precession. > His equation is pure bullshit, designed to produce the answer he thought > was correct. > > What in your opinion Bodkin , is the cause of planetary precession? > -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | HGW <hgw@...> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-15 11:14 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <nc7k54$11m1$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #562301 |
On 15/03/2016 1:49 AM, Odd Bodkin wrote: ...an unusually large heap of crap. Bodkin, instead of preaching your gospel, just produce the figures for Mercury's precession over the last 175 years and see how chaotic they are. >> The spread was believed to be due to measurement >> errors, not chaotic behaviour. Einstein claimed to be able to predict >> what he and his collaborators thought was a constant rate of precession. >> His equation is pure bullshit, designed to produce the answer he thought >> was correct. >> >> What in your opinion Bodkin , is the cause of planetary precession? ......No answer from the scientific ignoramus....
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-15 07:53 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <nc90jo$nn0$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #562467 |
On 3/14/2016 7:14 PM, HGW wrote: > On 15/03/2016 1:49 AM, Odd Bodkin wrote: > > ...an unusually large heap of crap. > > Bodkin, instead of preaching your gospel, just produce the figures for > Mercury's precession over the last 175 years and see how chaotic they are. Urbain LeVerrier, data set spanning 1697 to 1848. That's 750 data points. The maximal value of the spread in the values of those 750 data points is immediately inferrable from the quoted uncertainty in the mean, as I indicated. No amount of fussing that it just cannot be so will be convincing, Henry. If you want data, refer to Clemence, G. M. (1947). "The Relativity Effect in Planetary Motions". Reviews of Modern Physics 19 (4): 361–364. > >>> The spread was believed to be due to measurement >>> errors, not chaotic behaviour. Einstein claimed to be able to predict >>> what he and his collaborators thought was a constant rate of precession. >>> His equation is pure bullshit, designed to produce the answer he thought >>> was correct. >>> >>> What in your opinion Bodkin , is the cause of planetary precession? > > ......No answer from the scientific ignoramus.... > -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Luigi Durante <luigdu@jaccappo.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-09 21:14 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <nbq3nc$3l6$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #560922 |
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. That precision was unachievable at that time. You are indulging yourself. 1 degree = 1° = 1/360 of a circle 1 arcminute = 1' = 1/60 of a degree 1 arcsecond = 1" = 1/60 of an arcminute = 1/3600 of a degree > 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. You must be kidding, 0.47 measured by what and under what conditions? Indulging.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | HGW <hw@...> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-10 09:09 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <nbq6ub$9k4$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #560922 |
On 10/03/16 07:59, 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. ...an average, no doubt. > > 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. How about the difference between it and the other 175 years of observations...which were obviously all over the place? Any theory that claims to have produced a constant precession rate is obviously pure bullshit. Linking the name Einstein with Mercury was indeed a smart piece of salesmanship...nobody understood chaotic processes at that time so they lapped up the idea. > 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. Chaotic behavior is unpredictable. Mercury's precession has no constant value. GR is again shown to be nothing but a farce. >
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-09 16:13 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <nbq75p$9v0$2@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #560945 |
On 3/9/2016 4:09 PM, HGW wrote: > How about the difference between it and the other 175 years of > observations...which were obviously all over the place? Don't say obviously without the numbers, Ralph. Making things up and saying "Prove me wrong" is a children's game. -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-10 14:43 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <nbrtmi$34k$1@news.albasani.net> |
| In reply to | #560945 |
On 09.03.2016 23:09, HGW wrote: > On 10/03/16 07:59, 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. > > ...an average, no doubt. >> >> 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. > > How about the difference between it and the other 175 years of > observations...which were obviously all over the place? ??? :-D > Any theory that claims to have produced a constant precession rate is > obviously pure bullshit. Linking the name Einstein with Mercury was > indeed a smart piece of salesmanship...nobody understood chaotic > processes at that time so they lapped up the idea. Read this: >> 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. > > Chaotic behavior is unpredictable. Mercury's precession has no constant > value. GR is again shown to be nothing but a farce. You are really something, Ralph! :-D The facts are: The observed precession is: (5599.74 +/- 1.2) arcsecs per century The predicted precession is: (5600.21 +/- 0.88) arcsecs per century The difference is 0.47 arcsecs per century And from this you conclude: Chaotic behavior is unpredictable. Mercury's precession has no constant value. GR is again shown to be nothing but a farce. Well done Ralph! :-D -- Paul https://paulba.no/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-10 19:15 -0800 |
| Subject | EinsteinmaniA (the ideal that gravity is a primary force |
| Message-ID | <7108b783-1acc-4499-b109-fc8439070d87@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #561121 |
it's an interesting problem, since the pulls of teh larger or\and closer planets tend to integrate over time; iff you can do any calculations, just do that
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-10 23:01 -0800 |
| Subject | Re: EinsteinmaniA (the ideal that gravity is a primary force |
| Message-ID | <698da0b0-128e-4e36-a0c2-6e4794a2f5b4@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #561382 |
of course, there ae also rational periodicities with the mOOns and so on > the pulls of teh larger or\and closer planets tend
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Henry Wilson <HGW@home.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-12 18:50 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <nc1odo$r6b$2@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #561121 |
On Thu, 10 Mar 2016 14:43:36 +0100, Paul B. Andersen wrote: > On 09.03.2016 23:09, HGW wrote: >> ...an average, no doubt. >>> >>> 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. The only fact that matters is that Einstein and his collaborators knew the answer they wanted before they manufactured a result they thought would stun the scientific world. Chaotic behavior may have an average but no equation can predict each event. Einstein's claim is clearly a blatant example of scientific fraud. >> >> How about the difference between it and the other 175 years of >> observations...which were obviously all over the place? > > ??? :-D > >> Any theory that claims to have produced a constant precession rate is >> obviously pure bullshit. Linking the name Einstein with Mercury was >> indeed a smart piece of salesmanship...nobody understood chaotic >> processes at that time so they lapped up the idea. > > Read this: > >>> 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. Crap. Einstein and s collaborators believed it was constant. >>> 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. >> >> Chaotic behavior is unpredictable. Mercury's precession has no constant >> value. GR is again shown to be nothing but a farce. > > You are really something, Ralph! :-D > > The facts are: > The observed precession is: (5599.74 +/- 1.2) arcsecs per century The > predicted precession is: (5600.21 +/- 0.88) arcsecs per century The > difference is 0.47 arcsecs per century That is a measured average. Einstein believed it was constant and that his claim applied to each cycle. It is blatant fraud.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-13 20:43 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <nc4ft4$9qg$1@news.albasani.net> |
| In reply to | #561922 |
On 12.03.2016 19:50, Henry Wilson wrote: > >>> Paul B. Andersen wrote: >>>> >>>> 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. > > The only fact that matters is that Einstein and his collaborators knew > the answer they wanted before they manufactured a result they thought > would stun the scientific world. Your address is wrong! Einstein never calculated how the tug from the other planets would affect the precession of the perihelion of Mercury. It was Le Verrier who in 1859 calculated what the precession according to Newtonian mechanics should be, and it was Le Verrier who first analysed the observations of Mercury and found what the observed precession per century was. And despite the fact that he knew the answer he wanted, he didn't manufacture the result he though would stun the scientific world, quite the contrary, he published the fact that Newtonian mechanics predicted 38.3"/century less than what was observed. This is the famous "anomalous precession of the perihelion of Mercury". http://arxiv.org/pdf/1104.0548v1 In 1947 Clemence calculated this "anomaly" to be ~43"/century https://paulba.no/paper/Clemence.pdf And ever since have relativity deniers over and over recalculated what Newtonian mechanics predicts the precession should be, but nobody has ever succeeded to make the 'anomaly' go away, Newtonian mechanics predicts ~43"/per century to little. All Einstein did was to calculate what GR predicts the precession would be if the other planets weren't there, and GR's prediction is ~43"/century. And this prediction is recalculated over and over, also by relativity deniers who would like it to be wrong. There is no question about it, GR predicts ~43"/century which remove the 'anomaly'. > > Chaotic behavior may have an average but no equation can predict each > event. Einstein's claim is clearly a blatant example of scientific fraud Your address is still wrong! You are accusing Le Verrier and all the other scientists who calculated what Newtonian mechanics predicts for the precession for fraud, but they were no frauds and neither were they so stupid that they failed to understand that the precession of each orbit of Mercury depend on the constellation of the planets, and will change when the constellation changes. Of course "the precession per century" is an average of the precession of the 415 orbits during the century, nobody has ever claimed otherwise, and you have to be pretty stupid not to understand that much. The precession of the perihelion of Mercury per century is predictable, calculable and correctly predicted by Newtonian mechanics, but for the 43"/century which are explained by GR. -- Paul https://paulba.no/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | HGW <hw@...> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-14 09:59 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <nc4rd0$s22$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #562148 |
On 14/03/16 06:43, Paul B. Andersen wrote: > On 12.03.2016 19:50, Henry Wilson wrote: >> >>>> Paul B. Andersen wrote: > >> >> Chaotic behavior may have an average but no equation can predict each >> event. Einstein's claim is clearly a blatant example of scientific fraud > > Your address is still wrong! > You are accusing Le Verrier and all the other scientists who > calculated what Newtonian mechanics predicts for the precession > for fraud, but they were no frauds and neither were they so stupid > that they failed to understand that the precession of each orbit of > Mercury depend on the constellation of the planets, and will change > when the constellation changes. > > Of course "the precession per century" is an average of > the precession of the 415 orbits during the century, nobody > has ever claimed otherwise, and you have to be pretty stupid > not to understand that much. > > The precession of the perihelion of Mercury per century > is predictable, calculable and correctly predicted by Newtonian > mechanics, but for the 43"/century which are explained by GR. Wriggling wont help you. Einstein's equation gives one single answer. He thought Mercury's precession was constant. If I hadn't told YOU it was chaotic nobody here would have known. >
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-14 13:39 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <nc6beo$pio$1@news.albasani.net> |
| In reply to | #562168 |
On 13.03.2016 23:59, HGW wrote: > On 14/03/16 06:43, Paul B. Andersen wrote: >> On 12.03.2016 19:50, Henry Wilson wrote: >>> >>> The only fact that matters is that Einstein and his collaborators knew >>> the answer they wanted before they manufactured a result they thought >>> would stun the scientific world. >> >> Your address is wrong! >> Einstein never calculated how the tug from the other planets >> would affect the precession of the perihelion of Mercury. >> >> It was Le Verrier who in 1859 calculated what the precession >> according to Newtonian mechanics should be, and it was >> Le Verrier who first analysed the observations of Mercury >> and found what the observed precession per century was. >> And despite the fact that he knew the answer he wanted, >> he didn't manufacture the result he though would stun >> the scientific world, quite the contrary, he published >> the fact that Newtonian mechanics predicted 38.3"/century >> less than what was observed. >> This is the famous "anomalous precession of the perihelion >> of Mercury". >> http://arxiv.org/pdf/1104.0548v1 >> In 1947 Clemence calculated this "anomaly" to be ~43"/century >> https://paulba.no/paper/Clemence.pdf >> >> And ever since have relativity deniers over and over >> recalculated what Newtonian mechanics predicts the precession >> should be, but nobody has ever succeeded to make the 'anomaly' >> go away, Newtonian mechanics predicts ~43"/per century to little. >> >> All Einstein did was to calculate what GR predicts the precession >> would be if the other planets weren't there, and GR's prediction >> is ~43"/century. And this prediction is recalculated over and >> over, also by relativity deniers who would like it to be wrong. >> There is no question about it, GR predicts ~43"/century which >> remove the 'anomaly'. >> >>> Chaotic behavior may have an average but no equation can predict each >>> event. Einstein's claim is clearly a blatant example of scientific fraud >> >> Your address is still wrong! >> You are accusing Le Verrier and all the other scientists who >> calculated what Newtonian mechanics predicts for the precession >> for fraud, but they were no frauds and neither were they so stupid >> that they failed to understand that the precession of each orbit of >> Mercury depend on the constellation of the planets, and will change >> when the constellation changes. >> >> Of course "the precession per century" is an average of >> the precession of the 415 orbits during the century, nobody >> has ever claimed otherwise, and you have to be pretty stupid >> not to understand that much. >> >> The precession of the perihelion of Mercury per century >> is predictable, calculable and correctly predicted by Newtonian >> mechanics, but for the 43"/century which are explained by GR. > > Einstein's equation gives one single answer. Indeed it does. So you have realized that you were wrong when you stated: << The only fact that matters is that Einstein and his collaborators knew the answer they wanted before they manufactured a result they thought would stun the scientific world. >> Einstein didn't 'manufacture the answer he wanted', it isn't possible to make GR predict anything else than the ~43"/century which is missing in the Newtonian prediction for the precession caused by the pull from the planets. > He thought Mercury's precession was constant. Yes, indeed, and he was right. If the other planets weren't there, the precession of the perihelion of Mercury would indeed be a steady 43"/415 per orbit. Einstein didn't calculate any other precession. (But he knew about Le Verrier's Newtonian prediction for the influence of the other planets, of course.) > If I hadn't told YOU it was chaotic nobody here would have known. The precession of the perihelion of Mercury per century isn't chaotic, it is predictable, calculable and correctly predicted by Newtonian mechanics, but for the 43"/century which are explained by GR. You are indeed something, Ralph. :-D You keep insisting over and over that what is predicted and found to be in accordance with real measurements is unpredictable. :-D Do you never open your eyes and see what real measurements in the real world have to tell you? :-D -- Paul https://paulba.no/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | HGW <hgw@...> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-15 11:23 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <nc7klc$1288$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #562288 |
On 14/03/2016 11:39 PM, Paul B. Andersen wrote: > On 13.03.2016 23:59, HGW wrote: >>> >>> The precession of the perihelion of Mercury per century >>> is predictable, calculable and correctly predicted by Newtonian >>> mechanics, but for the 43"/century which are explained by GR. >> >> Einstein's equation gives one single answer. > > Indeed it does. > > So you have realized that you were wrong when you stated: > << > The only fact that matters is that Einstein and his > collaborators knew the answer they wanted before they > manufactured a result they thought would stun > the scientific world. > >> > > Einstein didn't 'manufacture the answer he wanted', > it isn't possible to make GR predict anything else > than the ~43"/century which is missing in > the Newtonian prediction for the precession caused > by the pull from the planets. > >> He thought Mercury's precession was constant. > > Yes, indeed, and he was right. > If the other planets weren't there, the precession of the perihelion > of Mercury would indeed be a steady 43"/415 per orbit. > Einstein didn't calculate any other precession. ...and what in your and Einstein's opinion causes that steady precession? > (But he knew about Le Verrier's Newtonian prediction for > the influence of the other planets, of course.) > >> If I hadn't told YOU it was chaotic nobody here would have known. > > The precession of the perihelion of Mercury per century isn't chaotic, > it is predictable, calculable and correctly predicted by Newtonian > mechanics, but for the 43"/century which are explained by GR. Figures please....175 years of them....where are they? > You keep insisting over and over that what is predicted > and found to be in accordance with real measurements > is unpredictable. :-D What was predicted was something that didn't actually happen but because nobody was in a position to argue, was sufficient to give Einstein's collaborators the publicity they were after. > Do you never open your eyes and see what real measurements > in the real world have to tell you? :-D Where are the figure, Paul B >
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-14 19:46 -0700 |
| Subject | 'slunars |
| Message-ID | <94875e7a-8ed0-48d2-934a-536c825f89eb@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #562470 |
it is not even a problem of celestial mechanics, since it would obviously tend to average out, in terms also of Mercuyy's effect upon all of the other planets (and their mOOns > Where are the figure, Paul B > >
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-15 23:20 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <nca1ru$uc8$1@news.albasani.net> |
| In reply to | #562470 |
On 15.03.2016 01:23, HGW wrote: > On 14/03/2016 11:39 PM, Paul B. Andersen wrote: >> On 13.03.2016 23:59, HGW wrote: >>> >>> Einstein's equation gives one single answer. >> >> Indeed it does. >> >> So you have realized that you were wrong when you stated: >> << >> The only fact that matters is that Einstein and his >> collaborators knew the answer they wanted before they >> manufactured a result they thought would stun >> the scientific world. >> >> >> >> Einstein didn't 'manufacture the answer he wanted', >> it isn't possible to make GR predict anything else >> than the ~43"/century which is missing in >> the Newtonian prediction for the precession caused >> by the pull from the planets. >> >>> He thought Mercury's precession was constant. >> >> Yes, indeed, and he was right. >> If the other planets weren't there, the precession of the perihelion >> of Mercury would indeed be a steady 43"/415 per orbit. >> Einstein didn't calculate any other precession. >> (But he knew about Le Verrier's Newtonian prediction for >> the influence of the other planets, of course.) >> >>> If I hadn't told YOU it was chaotic nobody here would have known. >> >> The precession of the perihelion of Mercury per century isn't chaotic, >> it is predictable, calculable and correctly predicted by Newtonian >> mechanics, but for the 43"/century which are explained by GR. > > Figures please....175 years of them....where are they? How ignorant are you? :-D At Greenwich they observed the meridian passages for just about every visible astronomical object, including planets, every night for centuries, and in later times the observations of the of all the planets are innumerable. You must be incredible stupid if you fail to understand that in 2016 the orbits of all the planets are extremely well known, and that includes their apsidal precession. The records are accessible for anybody who is interested. You are of course referring to the 175 years of observations of Mercury used by Clemence. https://paulba.no/paper/Clemence.pdf If you think Clemence faked the data, you are free to analyse the data yourself and show that his conclusions are wrong. The data are equally accessible for you as they were for Clemence, but I will not dig them up for you. >> You are indeed something, Ralph. :-D >> You keep insisting over and over that what is predicted >> and found to be in accordance with real measurements >> is unpredictable. :-D > > What was predicted was something that didn't actually happen but because > nobody was in a position to argue, was sufficient to give Einstein's > collaborators the publicity they were after. https://paulba.no/div/Ralph_listening.pdf >> Do you never open your eyes and see what real measurements >> in the real world have to tell you? :-D > > Where are the figure, Paul B http://tdc-www.harvard.edu/astro.data.html -- Paul https://paulba.no/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | HGW <hgw@...> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-16 10:20 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <nca5cd$lm8$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #562711 |
On 16/03/2016 9:20 AM, Paul B. Andersen wrote: > On 15.03.2016 01:23, HGW wrote: > > The records are accessible for anybody who is interested. > > You are of course referring to the 175 years of > observations of Mercury used by Clemence. > https://paulba.no/paper/Clemence.pdf What a blatant load of biased dingleberry crap. The only thing I learned from that paper is that it is virtually impossible to measure Mercury's precession with any certainty. > If you think Clemence faked the data, you are free to > analyse the data yourself and show that his conclusions > are wrong. The data are equally accessible for you > as they were for Clemence, but I will not dig them up for you. > > https://paulba.no/div/Ralph_listening.pdf http://www.scisite.info/paulsfactory.jpg >>> Do you never open your eyes and see what real measurements >>> in the real world have to tell you? :-D >> >> Where are the figure, Paul B > > http://tdc-www.harvard.edu/astro.data.html ...very funny Paul B.. >
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 2 of 4 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics
csiph-web