Re: Gravity field propagation
Y.Porat
> On Aug 25, 10:01 am, bert <herbertglazie...@msn.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Aug 24, 4:54 pm, Igor <thoov...@excite.com> wrote:
>
> > > BURT wrote:
> > > > On Aug 23, 3:11 pm, PD <thedraperfam...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > On Aug 23, 5:03 pm, BURT <macromi...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > On Aug 23, 2:27 pm, PD <thedraperfam...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > On Aug 23, 2:51 pm, BURT <macromi...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > On Aug 23, 12:48 pm, Igor <thoov...@excite.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > BURT wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > The gravity field of the Earth moves with the center of the Earth as
> > > > > > > > > > it moves through space. This spherical gravity domain remains
> > > > > > > > > > spherical
>
> > > > > > > > > Only to first approximation. The earth is NOT a billiard ball.
>
> > > > > > > > Earth may not be but its gravity is perfectly spherical. The force of
> > > > > > > > gravity is round not parabolic around mass.
>
> > > > > > > > Mitch Raemsch
>
> > > > > > > Nope, Mitch. Earth's gravity is not perfectly round.
> > > > > > > It's been measured:http://www.csr.utexas.edu/grace/gallery/animations/ggm01/ggm01_gif-20...
>
> > > > > > How accurate are measurements if there is no accurate gravitational
> > > > > > constant established to date?
>
> > > > > The variation is a lot greater than the uncertainty in the
> > > > > gravitational constant.
> > > > > We also don't know pi to an infinite number of digits, but we can tell
> > > > > when a ball is not perfectly round.
>
> > > > > > I don't thonk so.
>
> > > > > You don't think a lot of things, Mitch. But that doesn't mean much.
> > > > > Have you eaten today? When was the last time you were able to use
> > > > > soap?
>
> > > > > > Mitch Raemsch- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > > > - Show quoted text -
>
> > > > Science is not in the age to have made accurate measurements of
> > > > gravity.
> > > > I challenge that in the future spherical symmetry will be the way we
> > > > understand the force of gravity beginning at its center and radiating
> > > > outward.
>
> > > > If we do not know the gravitational constant then we cannot make
> > > > claims.
> > > > Give science many more years of measurement for right accuracy.
>
> > > For starters, you might want to look up the notion of a multipole
> > > expansion. That is, if you don't want to remain ignorant and wish to
> > > not keep posting your nonsense on usenet. But I know you won't.
> > > You'll just keep getting drunk on your own non sequiturs.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > - Show quoted text -
>
> > Gravity has no field Gravity has no wave. Time we faced reality.
> > TreBert- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> The center of gravity is surrounded by spherical geometry
> radiating outward concentrically. Einstein's curve is not
> a parabola but an expanding sphere.
>
> Mitch Raemsch
-----------------
Einstein s 'curved space'
is for retarded cheating physicists
gravity is a property of mass!!
NO MASS - THE ONLY MASS-
--NO REAL PHYSICS !!!
see better the Circlon idea
ATB
Y.Porat
-----------------------
BURT
>
> - Show quoted text -
Mass is one of two forms of energy that flow in two ways in space.
Mass is infinitely concentrated energy that weighs.
The spread out or continuous form of energy density never does.
The circlon idea is right. The Shells of the atom for electrons are
round.
Mitch Raemsch
Y.Porat
===========================
Thanks
you are the fist one to formally
and openly agree with me about that
IT IS INEVITABLE !!!
2
The Shells of the atom for electrons are
> round.
> ----------------------
with that i dont agree with you
the shells of electrons are extending from the nuc to a specific
direction and not all around!!
if all the Atom including the nuc are rotating--
you get the impression that
that they describe a circle
yet it is only while the whole Atom
(including the nuc.)
is rotating in the *gaseous* state !!!
> Mitch Raemsch
ATB
Y.Porat
-------------------------
BURT
>
> - Show quoted text -
Aether is round in gravity.
Mitch Raemsch
NoEinstein
Burt: It's round very close to the Earth, but is spiral, gradually,
from a mile or two up. Tell me, Burt: Why does the shape of the graph
of gravity forces matter so much to you? — NE —
BURT
>
> - Show quoted text -
Aether is round contiguously in gravity and ends at its range.
There space is flat.
Mitch Raemsch
BURT
>
> - Show quoted text -
I don't follow your question.
Mitch Raemsch
NoEinstein
>
No, Burt. Round gravity is what Newton proposed. But that didn't
predict the precession in the orbit of the planet Mercury. Einstein
spent a decade writing empirical formulas to match the Mercury orbit
data. Those became his GR equations. And they work for explaining
the GPS variances observed. But your round gravity misses the mark.
When something doesn't work, like round gravity, give it up, Burt. —
NoEinstein —
BURT
I have never heard Newton talking about gravity as round geometry.
Geometry came with Einstein. Why are you claiming this?
Aether wave-energy particles float in round gravity of orbit.
Mitch Raemsch
NoEinstein
>
Dear Burt: Have you ever heard of Newton's (supposed) Law of
Universal Gravitation? Under such law, the attractive forces increase
according to the inverse square law. For any c. to c. distance of
masses, the attractive force is round——actually, sphirical, "according
to Newton". But spherical forces didn't explain why the moons of
Jupiter were re appearing from the back side sooner than the orbital
period predicted. This was "optical" bending of light, that should
have had an equal speedup of disappearance on the "right" side that
corresponded to the speedup of re appearance on the "left" side. The
bending could not have been an atmospheric effect, because the gaseous
atmosphere of Jupiter is below the zone of observation. The effect
had to be due to gravity. But Newton's L. U. G required the left and
the right variances to be identical. I suspect it was the astronomer
who suggested to Einstein, his friend, that Einstein try to explain
the disparities. That astronomer probably also pointed out that the
orbit of the planet Mercury doesn't match the positions predicted my
Newton, either.
Einstein, the Moron, thought gravity was warped space and time. He
certainly didn't think the plots were spherical, because he spent a
decade writing an equation to match Mercury's orbit, which he knew
couldn't be explained by Newton. So, Burt, you're crediting Einstein,
the MORON with things science had attributed to Newton for about two
centuries. — NoEinstein —
Androcles
> Give the CORRECT explanation for this existing observation:
> http://www.britastro.org/vss/gifc/00918-ck.gif
> — NoAether —
Androcles: I looked at your white dots on the black background
graft. I would be happy to consider giving you an explanation, if you
would link me to the verbal data that should accompany the graph.
Thanks! YesAether, or — NoEinstein —
==============================================
http://www.britastro.org/
-- The British Astronomical Association or BAA.
V 1493 Aql -- the designation of a particular star.
JD -- the Julian Date between July through December 1999.
Vertical abscissa -- m = magnitude; the lower the number
the brighter the star is. Magnitude is logarithmic.
Not knowing that is like not knowing what a toothbrush
in the bathroom is for.
Hint: the toothbrush is for plaque removal, the hairbrush is for
lice removal, the loo brush is for shit removal-- you are incredibly
naive if you do not know this.
NoEinstein
OK, Burt. Then, answer this: Why do you claim that gravity
progression is "round" i.e., spherical, when that was disproved over a
century ago? All of the painfully slow work that Einstein did with GR
was to explain the "non spherical" observations for the moons of
Jupiter and the precession of the orbit of the planet Mercury. —
NoEinstein —
NoEinstein
>
Dear Burt: Newton never claimed that the mechanism of gravity is
warped space and time. Newton, like everyone before yours truly, had
zero idea what the mechanism of gravity is. The plots of the additive
equations that constitute GR will not be sphirical. If Einstein
accomplished anything, it was to show the variations from the
sphirical of his... warped (crazy) space-time. — NoEinstein —
PD
Actually, it was Newton who showed that elliptical orbits, hyperbolic
orbits, parabolic orbits, and other non-circular orbits are all
solutions of a spherically symmetric gravitational law. His law also
predicts that the elliptical orbit of a planet will precess, though it
didn't quite get the right number for that precessional rate for
Mercury.
Might do you some good to stop talking out of your hat. It only makes
you look quite a bit foolish.
PD
John Smith
> On Aug 30, 3:17 pm, NoEinstein<noeinst...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>> On Aug 29, 1:26 am, BURT<macromi...@yahoo.com> wrote:
...
...
> Actually, it was Newton who showed that elliptical orbits, hyperbolic
> orbits, parabolic orbits, and other non-circular orbits are all
> solutions of a spherically symmetric gravitational law. His law also
> predicts that the elliptical orbit of a planet will precess, though it
> didn't quite get the right number for that precessional rate for
> Mercury.
But I think NoEinstein has a much better theory for that. This Newton of
yours is just for eggheads that spend too much time in the library, in
my view..
> Might do you some good to stop talking out of your hat. It only makes
> you look quite a bit foolish.
Ehh.. yes, what is the problem?
All great minds are considered foolish by their mediocre contemporaries.
I'm sure NoEinstein knows exactly how to value their opinions!
--
John
PD
> On 8/30/2010 10:49 PM, PD wrote:> On Aug 30, 3:17 pm, NoEinstein<noeinst...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> >> On Aug 29, 1:26 am, BURT<macromi...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> ...
> ...
> ...
>
> > Actually, it was Newton who showed that elliptical orbits, hyperbolic
> > orbits, parabolic orbits, and other non-circular orbits are all
> > solutions of a spherically symmetric gravitational law. His law also
> > predicts that the elliptical orbit of a planet will precess, though it
> > didn't quite get the right number for that precessional rate for
> > Mercury.
>
> But I think NoEinstein has a much better theory for that.
And what's your metric for whether a theory is better or worse? I'm
just curious.
> This Newton of
> yours is just for eggheads that spend too much time in the library, in
> my view..
Well, ok, that's your view, but apparently you haven't spent any time
with investigators that actually make measurements and do experiments.
You don't do that in the library.
>
> > Might do you some good to stop talking out of your hat. It only makes
> > you look quite a bit foolish.
>
> Ehh.. yes, what is the problem?
>
> All great minds are considered foolish by their mediocre contemporaries.
> I'm sure NoEinstein knows exactly how to value their opinions!
It really doesn't matter how NoEinstein values their opinions. Just
because he's different doesn't automatically make him a great mind.
Park-bench mutterers are also different, but they ain't great minds,
either.
>
> --
> John
John Smith
> On Aug 30, 4:06 pm, John Smith<u...@example.net> wrote:
>> On 8/30/2010 10:49 PM, PD wrote:> On Aug 30, 3:17 pm, NoEinstein<noeinst...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>>>> On Aug 29, 1:26 am, BURT<macromi...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>> ...
>> ...
>> ...
>>
>>> Actually, it was Newton who showed that elliptical orbits, hyperbolic
>>> orbits, parabolic orbits, and other non-circular orbits are all
>>> solutions of a spherically symmetric gravitational law. His law also
>>> predicts that the elliptical orbit of a planet will precess, though it
>>> didn't quite get the right number for that precessional rate for
>>> Mercury.
>>
>> But I think NoEinstein has a much better theory for that.
>
> And what's your metric for whether a theory is better or worse? I'm
> just curious.
Strange.. It's so obvious! The better theories of course are not coming
from a moron like Einstein (NoEinstein explained that perfectly already)
and they certainly should not depend on fluxions or angels dancing on
needle points or other fairy tale fantasies. A simple nononsense
approach like noEinstein is using, that's a good theory!
...
>>> Might do you some good to stop talking out of your hat. It only makes
>>> you look quite a bit foolish.
>>
>> Ehh.. yes, what is the problem?
>>
>> All great minds are considered foolish by their mediocre contemporaries.
>> I'm sure NoEinstein knows exactly how to value their opinions!
>
> It really doesn't matter how NoEinstein values their opinions. Just
So, what is your metric for which things actually do matter, PD?
--
John
PD
> On 8/30/2010 11:19 PM, PD wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Aug 30, 4:06 pm, John Smith<u...@example.net> wrote:
> >> On 8/30/2010 10:49 PM, PD wrote:> On Aug 30, 3:17 pm, NoEinstein<noeinst...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> >>>> On Aug 29, 1:26 am, BURT<macromi...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >> ...
> >> ...
> >> ...
>
> >>> Actually, it was Newton who showed that elliptical orbits, hyperbolic
> >>> orbits, parabolic orbits, and other non-circular orbits are all
> >>> solutions of a spherically symmetric gravitational law. His law also
> >>> predicts that the elliptical orbit of a planet will precess, though it
> >>> didn't quite get the right number for that precessional rate for
> >>> Mercury.
>
> >> But I think NoEinstein has a much better theory for that.
>
> > And what's your metric for whether a theory is better or worse? I'm
> > just curious.
>
> Strange.. It's so obvious! The better theories of course are not coming
> from a moron like Einstein (NoEinstein explained that perfectly already)
> and they certainly should not depend on fluxions or angels dancing on
> needle points or other fairy tale fantasies. A simple nononsense
> approach like noEinstein is using, that's a good theory!
I see. So just to see if I have you right, it's your position that the
simpler a theory is, regardless whether it agrees with any
experimental result -- or hell, whether it predicts any quantitative
result at all -- the better it is. And the more it relies on
commonplace, everyday concepts, then the better it is.
And anybody who suggests that nature is not as simple as it first
appears, well, that person is a moron. Have I got it right?
>
> ...
>
> >>> Might do you some good to stop talking out of your hat. It only makes
> >>> you look quite a bit foolish.
>
> >> Ehh.. yes, what is the problem?
>
> >> All great minds are considered foolish by their mediocre contemporaries.
> >> I'm sure NoEinstein knows exactly how to value their opinions!
>
> > It really doesn't matter how NoEinstein values their opinions. Just
>
> So, what is your metric for which things actually do matter, PD?
In science, John, the usefulness of a theory is based on how well it
works in practice, how accurately it predicts the measurable outcomes
of things under the widest possible set of applications. While it is
essential that the proposer of the theory make clear where the
distinguishing measurable predictions of the theory are, it is others
who assess how well that works out, by doing independent, corroborated
measurements that test those predictions. It is never the proposer of
the idea who assesses the quality of the idea. It is those who use the
idea that determine its success.
That's NoEinstein's difficulty, you see. He declares himself a genius,
and he believes that everything he says is right, without benefit of
corroborated checking. This is a practice of megalomaniacs with severe
personality disorders. He knows this, but tries furiously to cover it
up.
It would help, John, before you judge scientists, if you knew how they
worked.
BURT
>
> - Show quoted text -
Scientsist's need to get intellactually honest.
Mitch Raemsch
NoEinstein
>
Wrong, PD! The spherical predictions did NOT explain the precession
on the orbit of the planet Mercury. Einstein spent a decade of his
life writing empirical equations that fit the precise orbit data. All
of those GPS anomalies are credited as being explained by GR. Sir
Isaac Newton doesn't get any of the credit, because his spherical
"Universal Law of Gravitation" is wrong! — NoEinstein —
NoEinstein
>
Dear John: How BRAVE you are! Agreeing with me in any wise is to
oppose the icon of "intellect", Albert Einstein. I feel a renewed
energy knowing that you, and perhaps other readers of my posts
recognize my detractors for what they are: jealous. — NoEinstein —
NoEinstein
>
> - Show quoted text -
... nor do detractors, just because they detract, have great minds! —
NoEinstein —
PD
That is of course, true.
However, I do not think that buffoons and braggarts should be stroked
and given positive encouragement.
You fault me for being negative.
But that is an APPROPRIATE response to you when you act the fool, the
pretender, and the egomaniac.
Stop being a fool, a pretender, a braggart, and an egomaniac, and you
will find that people's response to you in general will become quite a
bit more positive.
Please remember this: The negative reactions you so strongly elicit in
others, John, is a reaction to your fearsomely repulsive personality.
PD
PD
> On Aug 30, 4:49 pm, PD <thedraperfam...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Wrong, PD! The spherical predictions did NOT explain the precession
> on the orbit of the planet Mercury.
Oh, but they do predict a precession of the orbit of Mercury, just not
quite the right value.
> Einstein spent a decade of his
> life writing empirical equations that fit the precise orbit data. All
> of those GPS anomalies are credited as being explained by GR.
GPS has nothing to do with Mercury's orbit, John.
> Sir
> Isaac Newton doesn't get any of the credit, because his spherical
> "Universal Law of Gravitation" is wrong! — NoEinstein —
Well, in that case, GR must be right where Newton is wrong, because GR
gets the number right where Newton's theory gets it wrong.
Your idea doesn't get any number one way or the other, so it's not
deserving of any credit at all.
NoEinstein
>
Dear PD, the Parasite Dunce: One hint of how positive people are
responding to my ideas is how many thousands of people per week are
reading my posts. Unlike you, I don't shotgun replies all over the
groups. I don't understand how you can beat Google's time limit with
your many replies. In the past you have discounted the readership of
my posts, because sci.physics is unmoderated. The latter groups are
where the real science nut cases reply! If you dislike sci.physics
because there is no moderator, why do you pester me here, daily? It's
because you go where the intellect is, so that you can be a
detractor. Sad, very sad. — NE —
NoEinstein
Science Hill that I am the King of! — NoEinstein —
PD
> On Aug 31, 4:02 pm, PD <thedraperfam...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Dear PD, the Parasite Dunce: One hint of how positive people are
> responding to my ideas is how many thousands of people per week are
> reading my posts.
This is in your imagination. What on earth gives you the impression
that many people are reading your posts?
> Unlike you, I don't shotgun replies all over the
> groups. I don't understand how you can beat Google's time limit with
> your many replies. In the past you have discounted the readership of
> my posts, because sci.physics is unmoderated. The latter groups are
> where the real science nut cases reply! If you dislike sci.physics
> because there is no moderator, why do you pester me here, daily?
I pester you for the reason I told you. Buffoons, clowns, and idiots
who set fire to themselves draw spectators.
People like you are superb at self-justification. If you draw no
attention, then you take it as implicit endorsement. If you draw
attention, then you take it as touching a nerve and therefore you must
be right. You simply cannot fathom the possibility that the reaction
you get is because you don't know what you're talking about. Your
mental condition prevents the acknowledgment of that option.
> It's
> because you go where the intellect is, so that you can be a
> detractor. Sad, very sad. — NE —
I come here for entertainment and the occasional interesting
discussion. You are not involved in the interesting discussions, but
you are a good chunk of the entertainment.
PD
> On Aug 31, 4:02 pm, PD <thedraperfam...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Dear PD: ... As spoken by the mentally ill speck at the bottom of the
> Science Hill that I am the King of! — NoEinstein —
Just keep reciting "I know you are but what am I?" It works for 3rd
graders.
NoEinstein
>
PD, the Parasite Dunce, can't talk SCIENCE so he talks clowns. It
takes one to know one, doesn't it Folks? — NE —
NoEinstein
>
> - Show quoted text -
Did you ever graduate from 3rd grade, PD? — NE —
John Smith
> On Aug 30, 2:51 pm, PD<thedraperfam...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Aug 30, 4:38 pm, John Smith<u...@example.net> wrote:
...
>> It would help, John, before you judge scientists, if you knew how they
>> worked.- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
> Scientsist's need to get intellactually honest.
What do you mean with "Hide quoted text" and "Show quoted text". BURT?
And why do you forge those remarks into the text of PD's message??
Are you hiding something? That is not very scientific, I would say!
--
John
PD
> On Sep 1, 10:05 am, PD <thedraperfam...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> PD, the Parasite Dunce, can't talk SCIENCE so he talks clowns. It
> takes one to know one, doesn't it Folks? — NE —
>
>
You don't talk science, John. You talk about something you call New
Science.
But that isn't science at all, for the reasons I've mentioned to you.
And you agree that science is not an activity that you wish to engage
in.
You'd rather do your New Science.
That's fine, just as long as you and others know the difference.
NoEinstein
>
Dear Dunce: Status quo "science" assumes that anything ever taught is
correct. When it is shown that two major equations are wrong—
Coriolis's KE, and Einstein's SR—the fools supporting the disproved
equations start attacking the messenger. You should be attacking the
Law of the Conservation of Energy, not me. I have simply pointed out
what those guys, and all of you status quo physicists are too DUMB to
understand. I'll take my NEW and correct science every day, to your
smug and stupid status quo garbage. — NoEinstein —