Relativity and the Propaganda Machine III
Harold Ensle
that seemed to show an anisotropy in space, that is,
a local experiment that indicated the existence of an
absolute motion of the Earth.
Roberts (in the FAQ) states concerning this experiment:
"The experiments are marred by two clear instrumentation
effects: there is almost certainly feedback into the laser
in at least the first paper (and quite probably in the
others), and the multi-mode lasers employed could mimic
the effect seen due to the interrelationships among the
different modes."
My question was naturally, if the effect was a systematic
error, why was it dependent on the time of day? After all,
if the error corresponds to spacial orientation, then the
error itself would be demonstrating the anisotropy. And, I
did, in fact, ask him this. His response was: (from
Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity Date:
2000-11-19 11:35:23 PST)
"Perhaps. But by _BOTH_ Silvertooth's papers and Angel
Garcia's anecdotal description, THEY DID NOT DO THAT."
(Emphasis is Roberts')
But, reading the paper, they state:
"The magnitude D of the displacement x required
for phase reversal described varies with the
diurnal rotation of the Earth. A minimum
displacement D(0) occurs at 12-hr intervals,
with D becoming unmeasurably large at the
half-way points in between."
This is simply extraordinary as this anisotropy
is impossible to explain, regardless of the amount,
by anything other than what they claim.
Why did Roberts lie? Is he a member of a secret
organization, devoted to the inhibition of scientific
progress? Is he a member of a relativistic cult, which
must suppress any evidence that might expose the fraud of
their religion?
Why hasn't the experiment been repeated? Has a
secret organization conspired to prevent it? Has
the cult of SR grown so confident that experimental
evidence is of no consequence?
Tolstoy once said that you should never attribute
to conspiracy what can be explained by stupidity.
I guess, with this, I will leave it to the reader
to decide.
H.Ellis Ensle
[1]E.W.Silvertooth&C.K.Whitney,Phys.Essays 5,82(1992)
Bilge
>Why did Roberts lie? Is he a member of a secret
>organization, devoted to the inhibition of scientific
>progress?
No one is allowed to divulge his/her membership in the kabal.
>Is he a member of a relativistic cult, which must suppress any
>evidence that might expose the fraud of their religion?
No one is allowed to divulge his/her membership in the kabal.
>
>Why hasn't the experiment been repeated?
We here at the kabal felt that such knowledge in the hands of mere
peons was dangerous, so we decided to supress it.
>Has a secret organization conspired to prevent it?
You haven't been paying attention have you?
>Has the cult of SR grown so confident that experimental evidence is
>of no consequence?
No experiment is of consequence until the grand council of
relativistic poobahs places a stamp of approval on it and certifies
the information safe, bland, and pointless so that mere peons won't
upset the divine order as it is engraved on the golden tablets.
>Tolstoy once said that you should never attribute to conspiracy what
>can be explained by stupidity.
In this case, it's a konspiracy against stupidity.
>I guess, with this, I will leave it to the reader to decide.
We've already started rumors and innuendo to discredit you world wide.
Submit. Resistance is futile.
dlzc@aol.com (formerly)
"Harold Ensle" <hen...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:bf00h1$bso$1...@slb1.atl.mindspring.net...
...
> But, reading the paper, they state:
> "The magnitude D of the displacement x required
> for phase reversal described varies with the
> diurnal rotation of the Earth. A minimum
> displacement D(0) occurs at 12-hr intervals,
> with D becoming unmeasurably large at the
> half-way points in between."
physics/0305117 isotropic to within 1 part in 10^15
If you think about what Lorentz derived his equations for, you would stop
wasting your time looking for anisotropy. According to his derivation,
physical objects, who's structure is bound by forces the propagate at c,
will change shape to maintain a constant value for c.
...
> Why hasn't the experiment been repeated? Has a
> secret organization conspired to prevent it? Has
> the cult of SR grown so confident that experimental
> evidence is of no consequence?
It is being run, if you'd look.
> Tolstoy once said that you should never attribute
> to conspiracy what can be explained by stupidity.
The fact that anisotropy has not been detected in other setups, similar
setups, indicates that they had a screw up. It happens, to everyone. Look
at this post of yours for example.
You apparently want a different aether for light than for other EM
"transactions". What physical theory do you wish to present to back up
this claim?
David A. Smith
greywolf42
From dealing with Tom over the years, I don't believe that Tom is a knowing
liar. (Unlike many on this NG.) Tom really seems to be incapable of making
mental connections that are contrary to his particular worldview. Hence,
Tom is one of those relativists that treat SR and GR as a religion.
For years, Tom held forth on "LET" and it's identical mathematical basis
with SR. Finally he let slip that he'd never actually read Lorentz' 1904
work that defined "Lorentz Electrodynamic Theory (LET)". Tom had created a
doppelganger he called "Lorentz Ether Theory" from a mish-mash of various
posts made on these newsgroups. But he insisted that this was what Lorentz
had in mind.
Tom has since broken down and read Lorentz. But he still maintains that LET
is mathematically equivalent to SR, even though there are equations in
Lorentz' 1904 paper (i.e. equation 5) that do not exist in SR. Tom appear
to read, but he cannot seem to "connect" to writings that contradict his
worldview.
Hence, in the case of the Silvertooth experiment, above, I don't know
whether Tom has actually read the paper he referenced (as in his
authoritative statements concerning LET for years) ... or has read them and
just didn't "store" the statements you identified.
And no relativist will EVER contradict another so long as they both state
"support" for SR and GR.
> Why hasn't the experiment been repeated? Has a
> secret organization conspired to prevent it? Has
> the cult of SR grown so confident that experimental
> evidence is of no consequence?
>
> Tolstoy once said that you should never attribute
> to conspiracy what can be explained by stupidity.
>
> I guess, with this, I will leave it to the reader
> to decide.
>
> [1]E.W.Silvertooth&C.K.Whitney,Phys.Essays 5,82(1992)
Tolstoy's close in this case. I believe the real reason is simply
peer-review publishing. A paper cannot be published unless it is "new."
And repeats of experiment are, by definition, not "new." This requirement
cuts the heart out of the scientific method. It allows myth, deliberate
distortion and "religious" blindness to flourish.
greywolf42
ubi dubium ibi libertas
Martin Hogbin
"Bilge" <dub...@radioactivex.lebesque-al.net> wrote in message
news:slrnbh74ck....@radioactivex.lebesque-al.net...
> Harold Ensle:
>
> >Why did Roberts lie? Is he a member of a secret
> >organization, devoted to the inhibition of scientific
> >progress?
>
> No one is allowed to divulge his/her membership in the kabal.
>
> >Is he a member of a relativistic cult, which must suppress any
> >evidence that might expose the fraud of their religion?
>
> No one is allowed to divulge his/her membership in the kabal.
>
> >
> >Why hasn't the experiment been repeated?
>
> We here at the kabal felt that such knowledge in the hands of mere
> peons was dangerous, so we decided to supress it.
>
> >Has a secret organization conspired to prevent it?
>
> You haven't been paying attention have you?
>
> >Has the cult of SR grown so confident that experimental evidence is
> >of no consequence?
>
> No experiment is of consequence until the grand council of
> relativistic poobahs places a stamp of approval on it and certifies
> the information safe, bland, and pointless so that mere peons won't
> upset the divine order as it is engraved on the golden tablets.
You are seriously compromising the security of the grand council
by revealing this information. Please stick to the normal procedure
of persistent false argument and re-statement of the Kabal's
approved position until the questioner gives up.
Martin Hogbin
Dirk Van de moortel
"greywolf42" <min...@sim-ss.com> wrote in message news:vh75r7c...@corp.supernews.com...
>
[snip]
> From dealing with Tom over the years, I don't believe that Tom is a knowing
> liar. (Unlike many on this NG.)
Oh yes, we have some nasty liars here:
Gregory Hansen:
http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/YouLiar.html
Tom Roberts (yet you "don't believe that Tom is a knowing liar"):
http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/Deliberate.html
And me:
http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/BoldFace.html
We also have people who lie about having read something, and
then turn out to merely have read about it in some pathetic
error prone crackpot kookie book. So when asked about it,
they produce some kind of deafening silence:
http://groups.google.com/groups?&threadm=3eed1169...@news.gte.net
http://groups.google.com/groups?&threadm=3eeccd79...@news.gte.net
And we must certainly not forget to menstion our smokescreen
specialists:
http://groups.google.com/groups?&as_umsgid=vg0ndom...@corp.supernews.com
http://groups.google.com/groups?&as_umsgid=vfrn4g1...@corp.supernews.com
http://groups.google.com/groups?&as_umsgid=vfrlt15...@corp.supernews.com
http://groups.google.com/groups?&as_umsgid=vfgtonn...@corp.supernews.com
http://groups.google.com/groups?&as_umsgid=vfem054...@corp.supernews.com
http://groups.google.com/groups?&as_umsgid=vemlos4...@corp.supernews.com
Yes, it's a real zoo.
Dirk Vdm
greywolf42
dl...@aol.com (formerly) <dlzc1.cox@net> wrote in message
news:9gMQa.8431$u51.7992@fed1read05...
> Dear Harold Ensle:
>
> "Harold Ensle" <hen...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
> news:bf00h1$bso$1...@slb1.atl.mindspring.net...
> ...
> > But, reading the paper, they state:
> > "The magnitude D of the displacement x required
> > for phase reversal described varies with the
> > diurnal rotation of the Earth. A minimum
> > displacement D(0) occurs at 12-hr intervals,
> > with D becoming unmeasurably large at the
> > half-way points in between."
>
> physics/0305117 isotropic to within 1 part in 10^15
>
> If you think about what Lorentz derived his equations for, you would stop
> wasting your time looking for anisotropy. According to his derivation,
> physical objects, who's structure is bound by forces the propagate at c,
> will change shape to maintain a constant value for c.
You forgot the words, relative to the field. Lorentz' derivation (1904) was
anisotropic. That is, what relativists call the "Lorentz transforms" do not
apply to Lorentz' derivation.
> ...
> > Why hasn't the experiment been repeated? Has a
> > secret organization conspired to prevent it? Has
> > the cult of SR grown so confident that experimental
> > evidence is of no consequence?
>
> It is being run, if you'd look.
I see no references.
> > Tolstoy once said that you should never attribute
> > to conspiracy what can be explained by stupidity.
>
> The fact that anisotropy has not been detected in other setups, similar
> setups, indicates that they had a screw up. It happens, to everyone.
Look
> at this post of yours for example.
>
> You apparently want a different aether for light than for other EM
> "transactions". What physical theory do you wish to present to back up
> this claim?
What a mass of false statements and strawmen.
Dirk Van de moortel
"greywolf42" <min...@sim-ss.com> wrote in message news:vh8br93...@corp.supernews.com...
Try Beckman's book "Lorentz plus Nine", page 7.5
Dirk Vdm
greywolf42
Dirk Van de moortel <dirkvand...@ThankS-NO-SperM.hotmail.com> wrote in
message news:3%VQa.11362$F92....@afrodite.telenet-ops.be...
Hello again, coward. Still not up to taking those bets? Still can't manage
to address a single physics subject?
Harold Ensle
>
> "Harold Ensle" <hen...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
> news:bf00h1$bso$1...@slb1.atl.mindspring.net...
> ...
> > But, reading the paper, they state:
> > "The magnitude D of the displacement x required
> > for phase reversal described varies with the
> > diurnal rotation of the Earth. A minimum
> > displacement D(0) occurs at 12-hr intervals,
> > with D becoming unmeasurably large at the
> > half-way points in between."
[..........]
> The fact that anisotropy has not been detected in other setups, similar
> setups, indicates that they had a screw up
Well...you obviously don't know what you are talking about,
since there have been no similar experiments done.
So why did you reply when you actually didn't know anything?
H.Ellis Ensle
Jeff Krimmel
> Dirk Van de moortel <dirkvand...@ThankS-NO-SperM.hotmail.com> wrote in
> message news:3%VQa.11362$F92....@afrodite.telenet-ops.be...
>>
>> "greywolf42" <min...@sim-ss.com> wrote in message
> news:vh75r7c...@corp.supernews.com...
>>>
>>
>> [snip]
>>
>>> From dealing with Tom over the years, I don't believe that Tom is a
>>> knowing
>>> liar. (Unlike many on this NG.)
[...]
>> We also have people who lie about having read something, and
>> then turn out to merely have read about it in some pathetic
>> error prone crackpot kookie book. So when asked about it,
>> they produce some kind of deafening silence:
>> http://groups.google.com/groups?&threadm=3eed1169...@news.gte.net
>> http://groups.google.com/groups?&threadm=3eeccd79...@news.gte.net
[...]
> Hello again, coward. Still not up to taking those bets? Still can't manage
> to address a single physics subject?
I don't know if I would be talking about taking bets if I were you,
especially since _you_ were totally exposed in the two above posts and
have indeed met them with deafening silence.
I would likely keep doing what you have been doing and tuck my tail
between my legs and avoid those responses like the plague. You really
don't want to bringing more attention to all of that than you already
have.
Jeff
Dirk Van de moortel
"Jeff Krimmel" <mad_sci...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:pan.2003.07.16....@hotmail.com...
My guess is that he's going to call this a bold-faced lie.
Dirk Vdm
dlzc@aol.com (formerly)
I don't find your entire response on my server. Forgive me if I missed
some...
"greywolf42" <min...@sim-ss.com> wrote in message
news:vh8br93...@corp.supernews.com...
>
> dl...@aol.com (formerly) <dlzc1.cox@net> wrote in message
> news:9gMQa.8431$u51.7992@fed1read05...
...
> > If you think about what Lorentz derived his equations for, you would
stop
> > wasting your time looking for anisotropy. According to his derivation,
> > physical objects, who's structure is bound by forces the propagate at
c,
> > will change shape to maintain a constant value for c.
> You forgot the words, relative to the field. Lorentz' derivation (1904)
was
> anisotropic. That is, what relativists call the "Lorentz transforms" do
not
> apply to Lorentz' derivation.
The net-net is that both theories *expect* that anisotropy in the "real
world" is not detectable. One because it doesn't matter, and the other
because reality is shaped by the anisotropy.
...
> > It is being run, if you'd look.
>
> I see no references.
I provided a link to another MMX that was run (or reported) this year.
Perhaps you missed it?
David A. Smith
greywolf42
>
> > Dirk Van de moortel <dirkvand...@ThankS-NO-SperM.hotmail.com> wrote
in
> > message news:3%VQa.11362$F92....@afrodite.telenet-ops.be...
> >>
> >> "greywolf42" <min...@sim-ss.com> wrote in message
> > news:vh75r7c...@corp.supernews.com...
> >>>
> >>
> >> [snip]
> >>
> >>> From dealing with Tom over the years, I don't believe that Tom is a
> >>> knowing
> >>> liar. (Unlike many on this NG.)
>
> [...]
{the following from Dinky van der Tremble, ID snipped by Jeff}
> >> We also have people who lie about having read something, and
> >> then turn out to merely have read about it in some pathetic
> >> error prone crackpot kookie book.
There is one equation in that book that appears to have a typo. How you,
Jeff and Dinky, (who weren't posting in the thread) came to the conclusion
that this translates to a "pathetic error prone crackpot kookie book" shows
the depths of your dishonesty. Nothing more.
> >> So when asked about it,
> >> they produce some kind of deafening silence:
> >>
http://groups.google.com/groups?&threadm=3eed1169...@news.gte.net
> >>
http://groups.google.com/groups?&threadm=3eeccd79...@news.gte.net
Excuse me, Jeff, but my newsreader shows that Paul gave two answers those
two posts of Ed Stamm's. And I thought that Paul's answers were quite
sufficient. I don't feel the need to duplicate information.
Now, according to Google, the "dotted line" on Paul's last post does not
match up with Ed's last post. However, it does address Ed's issues.
What do YOU have a problem with?
>
> [...]
>
> > Hello again, coward. Still not up to taking those bets? Still can't
manage
> > to address a single physics subject?
>
> I don't know if I would be talking about taking bets if I were you,
> especially since _you_ were totally exposed in the two above posts and
> have indeed met them with deafening silence.
??? You define Paul's two posts to Ed as "silence?"
And I pointed this out to Dinky, before, in:
http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&selm=vfrbjp8odgq5b8%40cor
p.supernews.com
Where were you then? Did you maybe "miss" this post? So maybe I wasn't
"silent" after all? If YOU can sometimes miss a post, perhaps others might
miss one or two also?
> I would likely keep doing what you have been doing and tuck my tail
> between my legs and avoid those responses like the plague. You really
> don't want to bringing more attention to all of that than you already
> have.
Ready whenever you have a physics argument, Jeff. Please state your
opinion -- since you haven't done so before. (Please note that I will be
out of town from this afternoon for a few days. So take your time and get
your questions together.)
And be specific! Please state exactly equation and phrase from "Einstein
Plus Two" that you think is an error -- as opposed to a possible typo.
greywolf42
>
> "Jeff Krimmel" <mad_sci...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:pan.2003.07.16....@hotmail.com...
> > On Tue, 15 Jul 2003 19:09:37 -0700, greywolf42 wrote:
> >
> > > Dirk Van de moortel <dirkvand...@ThankS-NO-SperM.hotmail.com>
wrote in
> > > message news:3%VQa.11362$F92....@afrodite.telenet-ops.be...
{snip}
> > > Hello again, coward. Still not up to taking those bets? Still can't
manage
> > > to address a single physics subject?
> >
> > I don't know if I would be talking about taking bets if I were you,
> > especially since _you_ were totally exposed in the two above posts and
> > have indeed met them with deafening silence.
> >
> > I would likely keep doing what you have been doing and tuck my tail
> > between my legs and avoid those responses like the plague. You really
> > don't want to bringing more attention to all of that than you already
> > have.
>
> My guess is that he's going to call this a bold-faced lie.
I take it that's a "no," Mr. van der Tremble? ;)
I'm curious why you dodged the issue the last time you made this accusation.
Because big brother Ed or big brother Jeff wasn't around to argue for you?:
http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&selm=vfrbjp8odgq5b8%40cor
p.supernews.com
================================================
Dinky van der Tremble:
> We are waiting for a decent reply to
> http://groups.google.com/groups?&threadm=3eeccd79...@news.gte.net
greywolf42:
Who's "we" coward? You didn't even peek your head over the parapet. You
provided ZERO posts in the thread. And why are you "waiting"? Perhaps you
should read the "decent" response from Paul (June 15th):
http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&selm=bcj02g%24hec%241%40s
lb3.atl.mindspring.net
Dinky:
> and
> http://groups.google.com/groups?&threadm=3eed1169...@news.gte.net
greywolf42:
But, if you read the post immediately above, then you knew that your first
post had been responded to. Another bold-faced lie.
But according to my newsreader, even this last has been responded to (and
not replied to by Ed or yourself):
http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&selm=bcif8h%24iql%241%40s
lb2.atl.mindspring.net
So, what's your beef, oh cowardly lyin? Specifically, what are YOUR
questions?
================================================
And Sir Tremble kept his head well below the parapet, snipped the exchange,
and ran.
dlzc@aol.com (formerly)
"Harold Ensle" <hen...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:bf2jhb$3uq$1...@slb9.atl.mindspring.net...
>
> "dl...@aol.com (formerly)" <dlzc1.cox@net> wrote in message
> news:9gMQa.8431$u51.7992@fed1read05...
...
> > The fact that anisotropy has not been detected in other setups, similar
> > setups, indicates that they had a screw up
>
> Well...you obviously don't know what you are talking about,
> since there have been no similar experiments done.
> So why did you reply when you actually didn't know anything?
They have been done. I provided a link. So I'll ask you the same
question. Since you already know that anisotropy is undetectable under
both SR and LR (or LET), then why do you cling onto a failed experiment?
Don't you know anything, or are you hoping to find a seam in this
straight-jacket-of-a-Universe?
David A. Smith
Dirk Van de moortel
"greywolf42" <min...@sim-ss.com> wrote in message news:vhbklip...@corp.supernews.com...
>
> Dirk Van de moortel <dirkvand...@ThankS-NO-SperM.hotmail.com> wrote in
> message news:oqeRa.13714$F92....@afrodite.telenet-ops.be...
> >
> > "Jeff Krimmel" <mad_sci...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:pan.2003.07.16....@hotmail.com...
> > > On Tue, 15 Jul 2003 19:09:37 -0700, greywolf42 wrote:
> > >
> > > > Dirk Van de moortel <dirkvand...@ThankS-NO-SperM.hotmail.com>
> wrote in
> > > > message news:3%VQa.11362$F92....@afrodite.telenet-ops.be...
>
> {snip}
>
> > > > Hello again, coward. Still not up to taking those bets? Still can't
> manage
> > > > to address a single physics subject?
> > >
> > > I don't know if I would be talking about taking bets if I were you,
> > > especially since _you_ were totally exposed in the two above posts and
> > > have indeed met them with deafening silence.
> > >
> > > I would likely keep doing what you have been doing and tuck my tail
> > > between my legs and avoid those responses like the plague. You really
> > > don't want to bringing more attention to all of that than you already
> > > have.
> >
> > My guess is that he's going to call this a bold-faced lie.
[snip]
> greywolf42:
> But, if you read the post immediately above, then you knew that your first
> post had been responded to. Another bold-faced lie.
I guessed right. Another bold-faced lie ;-)
>
> But according to my newsreader, even this last has been responded to (and
> not replied to by Ed or yourself):
> http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&selm=bcif8h%24iql%241%40slb2.atl.mindspring.net
>
> So, what's your beef, oh cowardly lyin? Specifically, what are YOUR
> questions?
You silly little man.
The pointer you give is the same as this one:
http://groups.google.com/groups?&threadm=bcif8h$iql$1...@slb2.atl.mindspring.net
which is Paul's *second* useless reply to Ed's *first* reply on
the thread:
http://groups.google.com/groups?&threadm=3eeb967d....@news.gte.net
Just used your eyeballs and have them move over the 2 quoted
paragraphs.
There was *no* reply to Ed's last message:
http://groups.google.com/groups?&threadm=3eed1169...@news.gte.net
So *you* don't reply to something addressed to you:
http://groups.google.com/groups?&threadm=3eeccd79...@news.gte.net
but Paul does, but then gives up on you, and no one ends
up replying to:
http://groups.google.com/groups?&threadm=3eed1169...@news.gte.net
Caught with your pants down.
Fool.
Dirk Vdm
Robert J. Kolker
dl...@aol.com (formerly) wrote:
> I provided a link to another MMX that was run (or reported) this year.
> Perhaps you missed it?
Still no aether, right?
Bob Kolker
dlzc@aol.com (formerly)
"Robert J. Kolker" <bobk...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:clkRa.80778$H17.24678@sccrnsc02...
We'd never know it if there were. And no aether evident to 1 part in
10^15, in direct answer to your question.
David A. Smith
Robert J. Kolker
Robert J. Kolker
dl...@aol.com (formerly) wrote:
> We'd never know it if there were. And no aether evident to 1 part in
> 10^15, in direct answer to your question.
That is the way it is with the aether. If it exists you can't detect it
and if it doesn't exist you certainly can't detected. That is why aether
can be safely ignored in formulating physical theories. It is literally
a useless concept.
Bob Kolker
Robert J. Kolker
dl...@aol.com (formerly) wrote:
> I provided a link to another MMX that was run (or reported) this year.
> Perhaps you missed it?
Still no aether, right?
Bob Kolker
Harold Ensle
> Dear Harold Ensle:
>
> "Harold Ensle" <hen...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
> news:bf2jhb$3uq$1...@slb9.atl.mindspring.net...
> >
> > "dl...@aol.com (formerly)" <dlzc1.cox@net> wrote in message
> > news:9gMQa.8431$u51.7992@fed1read05...
> ...
> > > The fact that anisotropy has not been detected in other setups,
similar
> > > setups, indicates that they had a screw up
> >
> > Well...you obviously don't know what you are talking about,
> > since there have been no similar experiments done.
> > So why did you reply when you actually didn't know anything?
>
> They have been done. I provided a link.
You did?? I looked again and there was a link to a previous post
that had nothing to do with your claim. So no, there was not a
_relevant_ link.
>So I'll ask you the same
> question. Since you already know that anisotropy is undetectable under
> both SR and LR (or LET), then why do you cling onto a failed experiment?
You don't understand. Silvertooth's experiment was quite different.
Furthermore, it really is unscientific to dismiss experimental claims
because of current theory. If that were the usual method of science,
we still would be in the dark ages.
The only way to validly dismiss experimental results (after passing
catastrophic error) is by another experiment close enough to the
original to confirm that the claimed effect does not exist.
Interestingly enough, after Kantors (1962) non-null result relating to
light source dependence, Three similar experiments were done
within two years, all showing null results. This scientific diligence
was displayed even though there had been 70 years of experimental
evidence showing light source independence. But still, since
Kantor's experiment was a bit different than previous experiments,
scientists were duty bound to make sure.
But a mere 30 years later (1992) and pysicists had forgotten these
fundamental duties. Now it is just games...like who can
come up with the most outlandish theory.
[...]
H.Ellis Ensle
Harold Ensle
>
> Harold Ensle <hen...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
> news:bf00h1$bso$1...@slb1.atl.mindspring.net...
>
> Tolstoy's close in this case. I believe the real reason is simply
> peer-review publishing. A paper cannot be published unless it is "new."
> And repeats of experiment are, by definition, not "new." This requirement
> cuts the heart out of the scientific method. It allows myth, deliberate
> distortion and "religious" blindness to flourish.
I do not think this is the problem in itself. After Kantor's experiment,
3 experiments were done within two years and published. Because,
even after 70 years of light source independence, there were scientists
who still wanted to make sure.
A mere 40 years later and nobody cares. They are too busy playing
games..like who can make up the most counter-intuitive theory.
H.Ellis Ensle
greywolf42
> Jeff Krimmel <mad_sci...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:pan.2003.07.16....@hotmail.com...
> > On Tue, 15 Jul 2003 19:09:37 -0700, greywolf42 wrote:
> >
> > > Dirk Van de moortel <dirkvand...@ThankS-NO-SperM.hotmail.com>
wrote
> in
> > > message news:3%VQa.11362$F92....@afrodite.telenet-ops.be...
{snip}
Well, I'm back. So you can post a physics argument anytime you'd like to,
Jeff.
greywolf42
greywolf42
Dinky -- as usual -- creates a doiley out of the prior post. Snipping at
random, and thus reordering responses. I'll have to used dashed separators
for replacement.
{replacing snip}
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = == = =
greywolf42:
I take it that's a "no," Mr. van der Tremble? ;)
I'm curious why you dodged the issue the last time you made this accusation.
Because big brother Ed or big brother Jeff wasn't around to argue for you?:
http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&selm=vfrbjp8odgq5b8%40cor
p.supernews.com
================================================
Dinky van der Tremble:
> We are waiting for a decent reply to
> http://groups.google.com/groups?&threadm=3eeccd79...@news.gte.net
greywolf42:
Who's "we" coward? You didn't even peek your head over the parapet. You
provided ZERO posts in the thread. And why are you "waiting"? Perhaps you
should read the "decent" response from Paul (June 15th):
http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&selm=bcj02g%24hec%241%40s
lb3.atl.mindspring.net
Dinky:
> and
> http://groups.google.com/groups?&threadm=3eed1169...@news.gte.net
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
Well, it's pretty obvious why Dinky snipped here. Van der Tremble doesn't
want to admit that he's still running from bets, and dodging issues.
{note that the statement immediately following is contained within the
original excerpt}
> > greywolf42:
> > But, if you read the post immediately above, then you knew that your
first
> > post had been responded to. Another bold-faced lie.
>
> I guessed right. Another bold-faced lie ;-)
Sure, that's why you snipped the references. :) And why make this comment
NOW? This was an excerpt from a prior thread.
> >
> > But according to my newsreader, even this last has been responded to
(and
> > not replied to by Ed or yourself):
> >
http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&selm=bcif8h%24iql%241%40s
lb2.atl.mindspring.net
> >
> > So, what's your beef, oh cowardly lyin? Specifically, what are YOUR
> > questions?
{another snip replaced}
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
================================================
And Sir Tremble kept his head well below the parapet, snipped the exchange,
and ran.
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
Yep. Still running. And still snipping.
> You silly little man.
> The pointer you give is the same as this one:
>
http://groups.google.com/groups?&threadm=bcif8h$iql$1...@slb2.atl.mindspring.ne
t
> which is Paul's *second* useless reply to Ed's *first* reply on
> the thread:
> http://groups.google.com/groups?&threadm=3eeb967d....@news.gte.net
Excellent! You now admit that Paul provided two responses to Ed.
> Just used your eyeballs and have them move over the 2 quoted
> paragraphs.
>
> There was *no* reply to Ed's last message:
> http://groups.google.com/groups?&threadm=3eed1169...@news.gte.net
>
> So *you* don't reply to something addressed to you:
Uh, Dinky, posts are fair game to the GROUP. If Paul chose to answer Ed's
post, that's fine. Just like you jump into thread discussions.
> http://groups.google.com/groups?&threadm=3eeccd79...@news.gte.net
> but Paul does, but then gives up on you, and no one ends
> up replying to:
> http://groups.google.com/groups?&threadm=3eed1169...@news.gte.net
And I've twice now requested you to identify what you thought was not
answered. And you've snipped the request twice. So who's "hiding", coward?
> Caught with your pants down.
> Fool.
Goodness, Dinky. You STILL aren't willing to state what you think has not
yet been answered. The closest you came was to claim that Paul's reply to
Ed was "useless." Of course your original claim was that there was NO reply
to Ed. This, in a thread where you made exactly zero posts.
Now you claim that something in Ed's post had not been addressed. What is
that something? I predict you will continue to avoid posting any claim of
substance.
This isn't a game of "last tag," where the winner is the last to post a
dotted line.
Dirk Van de moortel
"greywolf42" <min...@sim-ss.com> wrote in message news:vhm4f6r...@corp.supernews.com...
[snip smokescreen #7]
> This isn't a game of "last tag," where the winner is the last to post a
> dotted line.
It is a game without winners but with one loser:
Liars:
http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/YouLiar.html
http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/Deliberate.html
http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/BoldFace.html
Idiots:
http://groups.google.com/groups?&threadm=3eed1169...@news.gte.net
http://groups.google.com/groups?&threadm=3eeccd79...@news.gte.net
Smokescreens:
http://groups.google.com/groups?&as_umsgid=vhm4f6r...@corp.supernews.com
http://groups.google.com/groups?&as_umsgid=vg0ndom...@corp.supernews.com
http://groups.google.com/groups?&as_umsgid=vfrn4g1...@corp.supernews.com
http://groups.google.com/groups?&as_umsgid=vfrlt15...@corp.supernews.com
http://groups.google.com/groups?&as_umsgid=vfgtonn...@corp.supernews.com
http://groups.google.com/groups?&as_umsgid=vfem054...@corp.supernews.com
http://groups.google.com/groups?&as_umsgid=vemlos4...@corp.supernews.com
Dirk Vdm
greywolf42
>
> "greywolf42" <min...@sim-ss.com> wrote in message
news:vhm4f6r...@corp.supernews.com...
>
> [snip smokescreen #7]
Ah, the coward does as expected.
>
> > This isn't a game of "last tag," where the winner is the last to post a
> > dotted line.
>
> It is a game without winners but with one loser:
Yep. Three strikes and you're out.
> Liars:
> http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/YouLiar.html
> http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/Deliberate.html
> http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/BoldFace.html
> Idiots:
> http://groups.google.com/groups?&threadm=3eed1169...@news.gte.net
> http://groups.google.com/groups?&threadm=3eeccd79...@news.gte.net
> Smokescreens:
>
http://groups.google.com/groups?&as_umsgid=vhm4f6r...@corp.supernews.com
>
http://groups.google.com/groups?&as_umsgid=vg0ndom...@corp.supernews.com
>
http://groups.google.com/groups?&as_umsgid=vfrn4g1...@corp.supernews.com
>
http://groups.google.com/groups?&as_umsgid=vfrlt15...@corp.supernews.com
>
http://groups.google.com/groups?&as_umsgid=vfgtonn...@corp.supernews.com
>
http://groups.google.com/groups?&as_umsgid=vfem054...@corp.supernews.com
>
http://groups.google.com/groups?&as_umsgid=vemlos4...@corp.supernews.com
>
I didn't think you had any actual points to discuss. Three times you've
snipped my request to identify a SINGLE issue that wasn't successfully
answered in the discussion Paul and I had with Ed. Bye in this thread,
lying coward.
Maybe your buddy Jeff will have the guts to post a real physics question.
Jeff Krimmel
[...]
> Maybe your buddy Jeff will have the guts to post a real physics question.
I certainly post physics questions, though there are many obvious reasons
why I pose no such questions to you. Your history of purposefully
convoluting discussions whenever you do not wish to make a real response
(i.e., by quibbling over the snipping of comments) coupled with your
distaste for honesty and rationality mean that discussions with you are
quickly relegated to the utterly pointless.
To be fair, you have your moments, but those moments are coming fewer and
farther between, and I simply do not have the time to involve myself in
the multitude of your shenanigans.
Jeff
Dirk Van de moortel
"greywolf42" <min...@sim-ss.com> wrote in message news:vhp4p0f...@corp.supernews.com...
Another goodbye in this thread:
http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/GoodBye.html
:-)
Dirk Vdm
greywolf42
And Jeff leaves the field -- but not until after he tries to imply that
there was some physics that wasn't addressed. Jeff-- if you didn't want to
discuss physics, why did you bother posting a charge that I'd "run" from a
thread in which you had never posted?
bye,
Jeff Krimmel
It's not that I don't want to discuss physics, you dishonest twit. It's
that I don't want to discuss physics _with you_, for _very obvious_
reasons. I bothered posting the charge that you ran from the thread
because you did! You didn't answer either of Mr. Stamm's final posts. Paul
has two replies, neither of which even addresses _anything_ in Ed's last
post!
From Ed's last post:
http://groups.google.com/groups?&as_umsgid=3eed1169...@news.gte.net
************
Now we see that Beckmann did exactly what I suspected he did, namely,
"modifying the distance between the charges by a factor (r'/c)". Of
course, this is a garbled way of expressing it... obviously you would not
apply a FACTOR of r'/c to the radial distance, or you would place the
Earth inside the Sun's radius. What the idiot Beckmann meant was that he
modified the distance is by the factor (1 - r'/c), just as I said 20 posts
ago, only to have Barry lie and claim Beckmann did no such thing.
Wow... you guys are something else.
Paul, just out of curiosity, why didn't you speak up when you saw Barry
lying about the (1 - r'/c) factor?
************
I see _absolutely_ no reply to the above, which in my world, can indeed be
described as "deafening silence", as Dirk explained.
You were exposed for the liar you are, not at all surprising. I would
definitely want to ignore that until everyone forgot it, much as you are
trying to do.
Good luck!
Jeff
Dirk Van de moortel
Prepare for the biggest smokescreen you have ever seen.
And he already said bye twice ;-)
Dirk Vdm
greywolf42
I did not "run" from the posts. It is not necessary for me to respond to
Ed, if someone else adequately answers the questions. You implied (and now
explicitly state) that "nothing" in Ed's last post was ever addressed.
> From Ed's last post:
> http://groups.google.com/groups?&as_umsgid=3eed1169...@news.gte.net
>
> ************
> Now we see that Beckmann did exactly what I suspected he did, namely,
> "modifying the distance between the charges by a factor (r'/c)". Of
> course, this is a garbled way of expressing it... obviously you would not
> apply a FACTOR of r'/c to the radial distance, or you would place the
> Earth inside the Sun's radius. What the idiot Beckmann meant was that he
> modified the distance is by the factor (1 - r'/c), just as I said 20 posts
> ago, only to have Barry lie and claim Beckmann did no such thing.
>
> Wow... you guys are something else.
>
> Paul, just out of curiosity, why didn't you speak up when you saw Barry
> lying about the (1 - r'/c) factor?
> ************
>
> I see _absolutely_ no reply to the above, which in my world, can indeed be
> described as "deafening silence", as Dirk explained.
In which case, I should assume that you and Dinky "run" from posts with
"deafening silence" whenever you tire of responding to someone's repeats of
the same old statement?
Perhaps it might be so considered, if Mr. Stamm's claim had not been
repeatedly addressed in prior posts. The thread "Gerber, Ed#1, and the
precession of Mercury" was created by me in order to try to nail down Ed's
apparently rambling arguments that were ravelling the thread "Tom Roberts...
Gerber and .. Precession of Mercury". As I noted in my posts of 6/11 and
6/12, Ed had been:
"... incapable of leaving the whole counter-argument intact. Invisibly
snipping without notice (in violation of the N.G. charter), reformatting and
reordering responses, and removing all arguments that he's lost, or doesn't
want to answer."
> You were exposed for the liar you are, not at all surprising. I would
> definitely want to ignore that until everyone forgot it, much as you are
> trying to do.
>
??? My repeatedly demanding that you back up your claim that there is some
substantive comment of Ed's that is as yet unanswered is making everyone
"forget?" LOL!
I do note the qualifier that Ed was finally reduced to: "Of course, this is
a garbled way of expressing it..." Quite simply, Ed was reduced to farcial
comments. Ed also made random snips in the arguments, in order to "improve"
his apparent standing in the discussion.
So I'm going to have to conclude that the only issue you don't think was
sufficiently addressed was Ed's (unsupported and erroneous) claim that "What
the idiot Beckmann meant was that he modified the distance is by the factor
(1 - r'/c)."
Mr. Stamm first made this claim in his first post of the prior thread:
"equation (8) contains only one power of (1 - r'/c) in the denominator,
whereas Gerber's potential (2) contains (1 - r'/c) SQUARED."
My reply (on 6/11):
"Yes. It appears that there is a typo in equation (8). Which can be seen
by following the derivation leading up to equation (8), and the following
use of equation (8), later in the section. Of course, since you snipped the
derivation, it does make it a little harder to see. ;)"
"We look to the statement by Beckmann (snipped by you) as to the source of
equation (8): 'The modified Newton Law taking into account delays is given
by (19), Sec. 1.8.' Looking in EP2, page 72, we find:"
"F = K / r^2 (1 - r'/c)^2 [r_0 (1 - beta^2) + beta Theta_0]."
"So we see that Beckmann DID have a square on the (1 - r'/c) term -- before
the apparent typographical error."
Mr. Stamm then repeated the claim (without significant modification) several
times. (Ed also liberally sprinkled a great variety of unrealated vitriolic
insults and unrelated charges.) I also replied to Ed on the 12th, 14th, and
15th. On the 14th, I had to start an entire new thread with Ed, because of:
"More relativist "invisible" snipping and avoidance techniques. Ed, I'm
getting a headache, trying to follow all the varied arguments you throw
around, through all the unmarked snips and reordering of both my arguments
and your arguments. You randomly snip (without notice) the start, middle
and end of paragraphs that you otherwise 'respond' to."
On the 15th, I again had to note:
"Even with simpler and much reduced subjects, Ed feels the need to perform
his invisible snipping at random points in the arguments and paragraphs."
After the 15th, I simply gave up trying to deal with Ed's constant need to
snip and reorder posts.
Now -- if you'd care to discuss the essence of Ed's claim, lets do so.
Otherwise the "obvious reason" that you don't want to "discuss physics" is
that you don't have a leg to stand on -- only insults.
Dirk Van de moortel
"greywolf42" <min...@sim-ss.com> wrote in message news:vhtma4h...@corp.supernews.com...
>
[snip anticipated smokescreen #8]
> Now -- if you'd care to discuss the essence of Ed's claim, lets do so.
> Otherwise the "obvious reason" that you don't want to "discuss physics" is
> that you don't have a leg to stand on -- only insults.
>
> greywolf42
> ubi dubium ibi libertas
Smokescreen #8 custom made to conceal deafening silence
after message 8:
http://groups.google.com/groups?&threadm=3eed1169...@news.gte.net
1 greywolf42 14 jun 2003
2 Ed Stamm 14 jun 2003
3 greywolf42 14 jun 2003
4 Ed Stamm 14 jun 2003
5 greywolf42 15 jun 2003
6 Ed Stamm 15 jun 2003 [no reply from Mingst]
7 pst...@ix.netcom.com 15 jun 2003
8 Ed Stamm 15 jun 2003 [no reply from Stowe or Mingst]
9 pst...@ix.netcom.com 15 jun 2003 [reply to message 2]
Pants down.
And it gets worse with every attempt to conceal it ;-)
Smokescreens:
#8 http://groups.google.com/groups?&as_umsgid=vhtma4h...@corp.supernews.com
#7 http://groups.google.com/groups?&as_umsgid=vhm4f6r...@corp.supernews.com
#6 http://groups.google.com/groups?&as_umsgid=vg0ndom...@corp.supernews.com
#5 http://groups.google.com/groups?&as_umsgid=vfrn4g1...@corp.supernews.com
#4 http://groups.google.com/groups?&as_umsgid=vfrlt15...@corp.supernews.com
#3 http://groups.google.com/groups?&as_umsgid=vfgtonn...@corp.supernews.com
#2 http://groups.google.com/groups?&as_umsgid=vfem054...@corp.supernews.com
#1 http://groups.google.com/groups?&as_umsgid=vemlos4...@corp.supernews.com
A few more and I can create my Immingstal Smokescreens page.
Dirk Vdm
Jeff Krimmel
> Jeff Krimmel <mad_sci...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:pan.2003.07.22....@hotmail.com...
[...]
>> From Ed's last post:
>> http://groups.google.com/groups?&as_umsgid=3eed1169...@news.gte.net
>>
>> ************
>> Now we see that Beckmann did exactly what I suspected he did, namely,
>> "modifying the distance between the charges by a factor (r'/c)". Of
>> course, this is a garbled way of expressing it... obviously you would
>> not apply a FACTOR of r'/c to the radial distance, or you would place
>> the Earth inside the Sun's radius. What the idiot Beckmann meant was
>> that he modified the distance is by the factor (1 - r'/c), just as I
>> said 20 posts ago, only to have Barry lie and claim Beckmann did no
>> such thing.
>>
>> Wow... you guys are something else.
>>
>> Paul, just out of curiosity, why didn't you speak up when you saw Barry
>> lying about the (1 - r'/c) factor?
>> ************
[...]
> Now -- if you'd care to discuss the essence of Ed's claim, lets do so.
> Otherwise the "obvious reason" that you don't want to "discuss physics"
> is that you don't have a leg to stand on -- only insults.
Okay, then let's start with another of Ed's post that most clearly shows
the nature of the problem:
http://groups.google.com/groups?&as_umsgid=3eeccd79...@news.gte.net
************
Presumably "Z" is the gravitational constant, like "K" in (19), so the
force law (or the acceleration law, since it's divided through by m)
corresponding to Gerber's potential is
_ _
F KM | / r'\2 / r \ / r"\ |
--- = - --- | 1 - 3(---- ) + 6( --- )( --- ) + ... | (A)
m r^2 |_ \ c / \ c / \ c / _|
Compare this with Beckmann's acceleration law from his (Eq. 19) in the
previous section:
_ _
F KM | r' / r'\2 |
--- = - ---- | 1 + 2 --- + 3 ( --- ) + ... | (B)
m r^2 |_ c \ c / _|
Note that the non-Newtonian precession in Gerber's force law (A) comes
from the rr" term, which is absent from Beckmann's force law (B). In
fact, the non-Newtonian characteristics of these two force (acceleration)
laws are completely different.
So, Barry, your claim is that the two force laws (A) and (B) (which of
course lead directly to the respective equations of motion) are the same.
My claim is that they are different.
************
The above post has one reply, from Paul Stowe. Paul's single reply is to
let Ed know that his assumption about r_o needed to be revised for the
specific equation set about which they were discussing. No other reply was
made to the substance of this post, specifically the two force laws.
Ed put it pretty clearly, but I will try to show you how Ed arrived at
each of the two above equations, (A) and (B). Ed explains that equation
(A) is Gerber's force law, which was shown by Beckmann in Section 3.2,
page 174, equations 10 through 12. I would hope that we can agree that
using Gerber's potential, the force law at which we should arrive is given
by equation 12 (with the appropriate substitution from equation 11).
Equation 11:
phi = 1 - (3/c^2)r'^2 + (6r/c^2)r''
Equation 12:
m(r'' - r*theta'^2) = -K/r^2 * (1 - phi)
where the left hand side of Equation 12 is simply a written out expression
for the total force. Equation 11 is likely another typographical error
from Beckmann (assuming the squared factor discussed in previous threads
is also a typographical error, which I do not agree with, but that doesn't
matter for the moment). The left hand side of equation 11 should be (1 -
phi) instead of just phi itself, but it's not a big deal here.
With this combination, Ed shows Gerber's force law to be given by his
above equation (A). This is rather trivial.
Now, equation (B) is Beckmann's force law, which is indeed quite different
from Gerber's. Looking at equation 19 in section 1.8 on page 72, we see
Beckmann give his force law as
_ _
K | |
F = --------------- |r_o(1 - B^2) + B(theta_o)| (Eq. 19)
r^2(1 - r'/c)^2 |_ _|
(note, the format of this equation was taken from one of Paul Stowe's
posts). If we perform a Taylor series expansion on the denominator of the
leading fraction, we arrive at Ed Stamm's equation (B), or Beckmann's
force law.
In this sense, we need not quibble about how the potentials are arranged,
whether there is indeed a squared factor of (1 - r'/c) missing from
Beckmann's potential, or any other such minor complications. We can simply
look at how Beckmann presents Gerber's force law [equation (A)] and how he
presents his own force law [equation (B)]. These two force laws are indeed
_very_ different, regardless of potential typographical errors relating to
either potential.
Finally, just to wrap the argument up, we can revisit Ed's last comment:
"Note that the non-Newtonian precession in Gerber's force law (A) comes
from the rr" term, which is absent from Beckmann's force law (B). In
fact, the non-Newtonian characteristics of these two force (acceleration)
laws are completely different."
Beckmann uses Gerber's potential/force law for all of the calculations he
subsequently performs, and it's absolutely no wonder that he arrives at
all of the same results Gerber did.
Jeff
greywolf42
> On Wed, 23 Jul 2003 11:49:50 -0700, greywolf42 wrote:
>
> > Jeff Krimmel <mad_sci...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:pan.2003.07.22....@hotmail.com...
>
> [...]
>
>
> [...]
>
> > Now -- if you'd care to discuss the essence of Ed's claim, lets do so.
> > Otherwise the "obvious reason" that you don't want to "discuss physics"
> > is that you don't have a leg to stand on -- only insults.
>
> Okay, then let's start with another of Ed's post that most clearly shows
> the nature of the problem:
Excellent! It matters not where the "problem" is clearest. So long as
you're willing to discuss the issue that bothers you. As I noted before,
the reason I gave up on Ed is that he kept snipping randomly within posts,
reordering posts, reformatting posts, all the while posting mutiple random
vitriolic tangents. And I got tired of spending time restoring the
arguments.
>
> http://groups.google.com/groups?&as_umsgid=3eeccd79...@news.gte.net
>
> ************
> Presumably "Z" is the gravitational constant, like "K" in (19), so the
> force law (or the acceleration law, since it's divided through by m)
> corresponding to Gerber's potential is
> _ _
> F KM | / r'\2 / r \ / r"\ |
> --- = - --- | 1 - 3(---- ) + 6( --- )( --- ) + ... | (A)
> m r^2 |_ \ c / \ c / \ c / _|
>
> Compare this with Beckmann's acceleration law from his (Eq. 19) in the
> previous section:
> _ _
> F KM | r' / r'\2 |
> --- = - ---- | 1 + 2 --- + 3 ( --- ) + ... | (B)
> m r^2 |_ c \ c / _|
>
> Note that the non-Newtonian precession in Gerber's force law (A) comes
> from the rr" term, which is absent from Beckmann's force law (B). In
> fact, the non-Newtonian characteristics of these two force (acceleration)
> laws are completely different.
>
> So, Barry, your claim is that the two force laws (A) and (B) (which of
> course lead directly to the respective equations of motion) are the same.
> My claim is that they are different.
> ************
I'll note in passing that I never made ANY such claim that force laws A and
B are the same. (Since this post of Ed's was the first appearance of force
laws A and B, how could I have made such a statement?) This was a pure
straw man from Ed.
> The above post has one reply, from Paul Stowe. Paul's single reply is to
> let Ed know that his assumption about r_o needed to be revised for the
> specific equation set about which they were discussing. No other reply was
> made to the substance of this post, specifically the two force laws.
Nor was any other reply needed, as I tired of Ed's constant rewrites and
vitriol. And the issue of numbers of reply is irrelvant to the physics
point, anyway.
> Ed put it pretty clearly, but I will try to show you how Ed arrived at
> each of the two above equations, (A) and (B). Ed explains that equation
> (A) is Gerber's force law,
And here is one of the primary problems. Ed's derivation from Gerber's
potential does not equate to "Gerber's force law." (See more below.)
> which was shown by Beckmann in Section 3.2,
> page 174, equations 10 through 12.
I never had a problem with Ed's derivation, per se. My problem was that it
WASN'T Beckmann's derivation. Ed's derivation depends upon some assumptions
that do not match the assumptions and statements of Beckmann. Based on Ed's
assumptions, Ed's derivation of a "force law" from a potential is correct.
However, as repeatedly snipped by Ed, Beckmann specifies the following on
page 173:
"This establishes the tool we shall use in a moment; next, let us check how
far the present theory is from Gerber's starting point (2). The modified
Newton Law taking into account delays is given by (19), Sec. 1.8; the delay
factor in the denominator of that expression must be incorporated in the
potential as given by (13) Sec. 1.6....."
The "delay factor" in the denominator (from equation 19, sec 1.8) is (1 -
r'/c)^2. Thus, when Beckmann moves from force to potential, a single factor
of "r" is "removed" from the force equation. When Stamm moves from force to
potential (actually vice versa), Ed "attaches" a factor of (1-r'/c) to the
factor of "r" that is to be removed from the force equation.
If this is clear, then we can begin a seperate discussion on whether
Beckmann's "conversion" is valid, according to Beckmann's theory.
> I would hope that we can agree that
> using Gerber's potential, the force law at which we should arrive is given
> by equation 12 (with the appropriate substitution from equation 11).
Equation 12 is not a "force law." It is an equation of motion. There is a
difference.
> Equation 11:
> phi = 1 - (3/c^2)r'^2 + (6r/c^2)r''
>
> Equation 12:
> m(r'' - r*theta'^2) = -K/r^2 * (1 - phi)
>
> where the left hand side of Equation 12 is simply a written out expression
> for the total force.
But it's not a "force law." Do you understand the difference between a
force law and an equation of motion?
> Equation 11 is likely another typographical error
> from Beckmann (assuming the squared factor discussed in previous threads
> is also a typographical error, which I do not agree with, but that doesn't
> matter for the moment). The left hand side of equation 11 should be (1 -
> phi) instead of just phi itself, but it's not a big deal here.
>
> With this combination, Ed shows Gerber's force law to be given by his
> above equation (A). This is rather trivial.
Excuse me, but you cannot claim that Ed's force law is "Gerber's force law".
Ed's force law (A) follows from Ed's assumptions. In truth, I do not know
what Gerber used for a "force law" -- if anything. I don't find "Gerber's
force law" listed in Beckmann, and according to Beckmann's statement
(above), Gerber's potential WAS Gerber's starting point. And I don't have a
copy of Roseveare ready to hand (to see if Gerber even included a "force
law" in his paper). Based on Pauli's complaints of a lack of supporting
theory, it's quite possible that Gerber never wrote down a "force law" for
his potential.
Again, Ed's derivation of "Ed's force law" from Gerber's potential is
fine -- using the assumptions that Ed uses. However, Beckmann is explicit
about using an assumption (or "assignment") that differs from Ed's
assumption (see quote above).
> Now, equation (B) is Beckmann's force law, which is indeed quite different
> from Gerber's.
It is quite possible that Beckmann's force law differs from Gerber's force
law (if Gerber even wrote one down). This might even be expected (if Gerber
actually had one), because Beckmann's theoretical derivation begins with a
force law -- and Gerber apparently either didn't have one, or had one that
was insufficient (according to Pauli).
The question -- of course -- is how one converts from force equation to
potential equation and vice versa. (As I noted to Ed many times.)
> Looking at equation 19 in section 1.8 on page 72, we see
> Beckmann give his force law as
>
> _ _
> K | |
> F = --------------- |r_o(1 - B^2) + B(theta_o)| (Eq. 19)
> r^2(1 - r'/c)^2 |_ _|
>
> (note, the format of this equation was taken from one of Paul Stowe's
> posts). If we perform a Taylor series expansion on the denominator of the
> leading fraction, we arrive at Ed Stamm's equation (B), or Beckmann's
> force law.
>
> In this sense, we need not quibble about how the potentials are arranged,
> whether there is indeed a squared factor of (1 - r'/c) missing from
> Beckmann's potential, or any other such minor complications.
???? One can't start with potentials, work backwards to force laws, then
claim that the potentials no longer matter!
> We can simply
> look at how Beckmann presents Gerber's force law [equation (A)]
Equation 19 is BECKMANN's force law. From this force law, Beckmann derived
a potential. Beckmann then compared Beckmann's potential to Gerber's
potential. (According to Beckmann, Gerber STARTED with Gerber's
potential -- sans force law.)
> and how he
> presents his own force law [equation (B)]. These two force laws are indeed
> _very_ different, regardless of potential typographical errors relating to
> either potential.
There is no reason -- per se -- that Beckmann's force law should be the same
as the force law that Ed "derived" from Gerber's potential. Ed and Beckmann
used different assumptions.
> Finally, just to wrap the argument up, we can revisit Ed's last comment:
>
> "Note that the non-Newtonian precession in Gerber's force law (A) comes
> from the rr" term, which is absent from Beckmann's force law (B). In
> fact, the non-Newtonian characteristics of these two force (acceleration)
> laws are completely different."
>
> Beckmann uses Gerber's potential/force law for all of the calculations he
> subsequently performs, and it's absolutely no wonder that he arrives at
> all of the same results Gerber did.
And Ed is still wrong. Beckmann uses Gerber's/Beckmann's potential in the
following calculation (no forces are used at all in the following
calculation). Beckmann does not use "Ed's force law" (or any other force
law for that matter). Regardless of whether Ed thinks Gerber "must also
have had" Ed's force law.
Once Beckmann obtains a potential that is essentially the same as Gerber's
potential -- the calculation proceeds to the inevitable conclusion. Though
Beckmann uses a convenient shortcut of perturbation theory, that eluded
Gerber (and Einstein).
Now, shall we discuss Beckmann's method of going from Beckmann's force
equation to the Gerber/Beckmann potential, versus the Stamm method of going
from the Gerber potential to the Stamm force equation? They differ by the
factor (1 - r'/c).
And please remember, a "force law" is not the same as an "equation of
motion" -- even if one can seem to find an "m a" term in the equation of
motion. If nothing else, calling an equation of motion a "force law" leads
to unnecessary confusion.
Dirk Van de moortel
"greywolf42" <min...@sim-ss.com> wrote in message news:vi2uvc4...@corp.supernews.com...
>
> Jeff Krimmel <mad_sci...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:pan.2003.07.25....@hotmail.com...
> > On Wed, 23 Jul 2003 11:49:50 -0700, greywolf42 wrote:
> >
> > > Jeff Krimmel <mad_sci...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > > news:pan.2003.07.22....@hotmail.com...
> >
> > [...]
> >
> {snip of "less clear" statement}
> >
> > [...]
> >
> > > Now -- if you'd care to discuss the essence of Ed's claim, lets do so.
> > > Otherwise the "obvious reason" that you don't want to "discuss physics"
> > > is that you don't have a leg to stand on -- only insults.
> >
> > Okay, then let's start with another of Ed's post that most clearly shows
> > the nature of the problem:
>
> Excellent! It matters not where the "problem" is clearest. So long as
> you're willing to discuss the issue that bothers you. As I noted before,
> the reason I gave up on Ed is that he kept snipping randomly within posts,
> reordering posts, reformatting posts, all the while posting mutiple random
> vitriolic tangents. And I got tired of spending time restoring the
> arguments.
The reason why you gave up on Ed, is because he stripped
the pants from your bottom and no smokescreen will make
that go away.
Poor little man.
Dirk Vdm
Jeff Krimmel
> Jeff Krimmel <mad_sci...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:pan.2003.07.25....@hotmail.com...
>>
>> On Wed, 23 Jul 2003 11:49:50 -0700, greywolf42 wrote:
>>
>> > Jeff Krimmel <mad_sci...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> > news:pan.2003.07.22....@hotmail.com...
[...]
>> > Now -- if you'd care to discuss the essence of Ed's claim, lets do
>> > so. Otherwise the "obvious reason" that you don't want to "discuss
>> > physics" is that you don't have a leg to stand on -- only insults.
>>
>> Okay, then let's start with another of Ed's post that most clearly
>> shows the nature of the problem:
>
> Excellent! It matters not where the "problem" is clearest. So long as
> you're willing to discuss the issue that bothers you. As I noted
> before, the reason I gave up on Ed is that he kept snipping randomly
> within posts, reordering posts, reformatting posts, all the while
> posting mutiple random vitriolic tangents. And I got tired of spending
> time restoring the arguments.
Okay, that sounds reasonable to me.
What I was trying to draw attention to was Beckmann's own force law, as
presented by Beckmann himself. He presents this equation on page 72 of
Section 1.8 as equation (19). The Taylor series expansion of the
denominator of the leading fraction in this equation (the (1 - r'/c)^2
term) leads _directly_ to equation (B) above. So, we need not rely on
anyone's derivation of any potential to get to a force law. Beckmann
provided the force law directly himself, and the Taylor series expansion
merely transforms it into a form that is more easy to compare with
Gerber's force law.
> However, as repeatedly snipped by Ed, Beckmann specifies the following
> on page 173:
>
> "This establishes the tool we shall use in a moment; next, let us check
> how far the present theory is from Gerber's starting point (2). The
> modified Newton Law taking into account delays is given by (19), Sec.
> 1.8; the delay factor in the denominator of that expression must be
> incorporated in the potential as given by (13) Sec. 1.6....."
>
> The "delay factor" in the denominator (from equation 19, sec 1.8) is (1
> - r'/c)^2. Thus, when Beckmann moves from force to potential, a single
> factor of "r" is "removed" from the force equation. When Stamm moves
> from force to potential (actually vice versa), Ed "attaches" a factor of
> (1-r'/c) to the factor of "r" that is to be removed from the force
> equation.
>
> If this is clear, then we can begin a seperate discussion on whether
> Beckmann's "conversion" is valid, according to Beckmann's theory.
I must admit that this is the one part of the story that confuses me most.
Beckmann mentions that he'll be using equation (19) from Section 1.8, and
he also mentions the incorporation into "the potential as given by (13)
Sec. 1.6...", but he immediately follows this text with a presentation of
his potential [equation (8) in section 3.2]. I am not sure what he means
by "the delay factor in the denominator of that expression must be
incorporated in the potential as given by (13) Sec. 1.6..."; that confuses
the integration, and that's why I am not sure if there really is a typo in
equation (8) or if the potential given in Sec. 1.6 is confusing the issue.
Regardless, Beckmann is kind enough to simply provide his force law for us
(equation (19) in section 1.8), and we can use this to compare against
Gerber's force law (as presented by Beckmann in section 3.2).
>> I would hope that we can agree that
>> using Gerber's potential, the force law at which we should arrive is
>> given by equation 12 (with the appropriate substitution from equation
>> 11).
>
> Equation 12 is not a "force law." It is an equation of motion. There
> is a difference.
>
>> Equation 11:
>> phi = 1 - (3/c^2)r'^2 + (6r/c^2)r''
>>
>> Equation 12:
>> m(r'' - r*theta'^2) = -K/r^2 * (1 - phi)
>>
>> where the left hand side of Equation 12 is simply a written out
>> expression for the total force.
>
> But it's not a "force law." Do you understand the difference between a
> force law and an equation of motion?
Not in this context, no.
>> Equation 11 is likely another typographical error from Beckmann
>> (assuming the squared factor discussed in previous threads is also a
>> typographical error, which I do not agree with, but that doesn't matter
>> for the moment). The left hand side of equation 11 should be (1 - phi)
>> instead of just phi itself, but it's not a big deal here.
>>
>> With this combination, Ed shows Gerber's force law to be given by his
>> above equation (A). This is rather trivial.
>
> Excuse me, but you cannot claim that Ed's force law is "Gerber's force
> law". Ed's force law (A) follows from Ed's assumptions. In truth, I do
> not know what Gerber used for a "force law" -- if anything. I don't
> find "Gerber's force law" listed in Beckmann, and according to
> Beckmann's statement (above), Gerber's potential WAS Gerber's starting
> point. And I don't have a copy of Roseveare ready to hand (to see if
> Gerber even included a "force law" in his paper). Based on Pauli's
> complaints of a lack of supporting theory, it's quite possible that
> Gerber never wrote down a "force law" for his potential.
>
> Again, Ed's derivation of "Ed's force law" from Gerber's potential is
> fine -- using the assumptions that Ed uses. However, Beckmann is
> explicit about using an assumption (or "assignment") that differs from
> Ed's assumption (see quote above).
Ah, but Beckmann does the work for us. We don't have to rely on any of
Ed's derivations at all. In section 3.2, Beckmann goes through the
derivation of Gerber's force law for us, which he presents (with the
appropriate substitutions) as equation (12). Granted, this is what you
mentioned you would rather call an equation of motion, so we can call it
whatever you like. This is the equation [equation (12)] that we need to
compare with Beckmann's own force law (equation (19) in section 1.8).
These two force laws (or equations of motion, if you prefer) are indeed
_very_ different, thus the incongruency.
>> Now, equation (B) is Beckmann's force law, which is indeed quite
>> different from Gerber's.
>
> It is quite possible that Beckmann's force law differs from Gerber's
> force law (if Gerber even wrote one down). This might even be expected
> (if Gerber actually had one), because Beckmann's theoretical derivation
> begins with a force law -- and Gerber apparently either didn't have one,
> or had one that was insufficient (according to Pauli).
>
> The question -- of course -- is how one converts from force equation to
> potential equation and vice versa. (As I noted to Ed many times.)
I can deal with this. But, there are a couple of issues with Beckmann's
potential that simply makes it easier to compare force laws. The one thing
that should be _extremely_ troubling to you is the fact that Beckmann
takes his own force law (equation (19) in section 1.8), integrates it to
arrive at a potential that he claims is indistinguishable from Gerber's,
and then uses Gerber's potential to find a _different_ force law. _This_
is the issue.
>> Looking at equation 19 in section 1.8 on page 72, we see Beckmann give
>> his force law as
>>
>> _ _
>> K | |
>> F = --------------- |r_o(1 - B^2) + B(theta_o)| (Eq. 19)
>> r^2(1 - r'/c)^2 |_ _|
>>
>> (note, the format of this equation was taken from one of Paul Stowe's
>> posts). If we perform a Taylor series expansion on the denominator of
>> the leading fraction, we arrive at Ed Stamm's equation (B), or
>> Beckmann's force law.
>>
>> In this sense, we need not quibble about how the potentials are
>> arranged, whether there is indeed a squared factor of (1 - r'/c)
>> missing from Beckmann's potential, or any other such minor
>> complications.
>
> ???? One can't start with potentials, work backwards to force laws, then
> claim that the potentials no longer matter!
I did not mean that the potentials no longer matter. I meant that we can
avoid the quibbling about typographical errors or faulty derivations by
comparing the force laws directly, because Beckmann provides both! The
only thing we have to do to get them in a form that is easy to compare is
to perform a Taylor series expansion on the delay factor in Beckmann's
force law. After this, you arrive at equations (A) and (B) that Ed
showed.
>> We can simply
>> look at how Beckmann presents Gerber's force law [equation (A)]
>
> Equation 19 is BECKMANN's force law. From this force law, Beckmann
> derived a potential. Beckmann then compared Beckmann's potential to
> Gerber's potential. (According to Beckmann, Gerber STARTED with
> Gerber's potential -- sans force law.)
And then, the one last step that is the most troubling. He compares the
two potentials, claims they are the same, and then uses Gerber's potential
to derive a _different_ force law.
>> and how he
>> presents his own force law [equation (B)]. These two force laws are
>> indeed _very_ different, regardless of potential typographical errors
>> relating to either potential.
>
> There is no reason -- per se -- that Beckmann's force law should be the
> same as the force law that Ed "derived" from Gerber's potential. Ed and
> Beckmann used different assumptions.
Two potentials that are the same should lead to the same force law. If you
integrate a force law, you can arrive at a potential. Beckmann's force law
and Gerber's force law are _different_, as explicitly shown by Beckmann
himself (unwittingly, granted). These two different force laws _cannot_ be
attributed to the _same_ potential. Beckmann's theory simply does not make
the predictions that Gerber's does.
See all of my previous discussion. It addresses your concerns here.
Jeff
Jeff Krimmel
I have a feeling that you're right, Dirk. I, unfortunately, went back
through all of Ed's posts from the two threads in question (and all of
Mingst's replies to all of Ed's posts), and I could not find any evience
of "reordering posts" or "reformatting posts". Ed did snip some of the
discussion, yes, and he certainly posted some insults, but I could not
find anything that directly impaired the legitmacy of the discussion (as
far as math or physics was concerned).
But, if Mingst is willing to rehash it now, then I guess it will have to do. I
am simply afraid of having it turn into a too monolithic discussion that is
horribly inaccessible for anyone who may want to read.
Jeff
Dirk Van de moortel
Beware, he'll do whatever it takes to make it as inaccessible
as possible again. It will be absolutely impossible to read.
Smokescreen Tactics is his middle name, remember?
Dirk Vdm
greywolf42
news:pan.2003.07.25....@hotmail.com...
> On Fri, 25 Jul 2003 11:03:55 -0700, greywolf42 wrote:
>
> > Jeff Krimmel <mad_sci...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:pan.2003.07.25....@hotmail.com...
> >>
> >> On Wed, 23 Jul 2003 11:49:50 -0700, greywolf42 wrote:
> >>
> >> > Jeff Krimmel <mad_sci...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> >> > news:pan.2003.07.22....@hotmail.com...
{snip two higher levels}
> >
> > Excellent! It matters not where the "problem" is clearest. So long as
> > you're willing to discuss the issue that bothers you. As I noted
> > before, the reason I gave up on Ed is that he kept snipping randomly
> > within posts, reordering posts, reformatting posts, all the while
> > posting mutiple random vitriolic tangents. And I got tired of spending
> > time restoring the arguments.
>
> Okay, that sounds reasonable to me.
>
{snip two levels, leaving in Ed's equations (A) and (B)
> >> F KM | / r'\2 / r \ / r"\ |
> >> --- = - --- | 1 - 3(---- ) + 6( --- )( --- ) + ... | (A)
> >> m r^2 |_ \ c / \ c / \ c / _|
> >>
> >> F KM | r' / r'\2 |
> >> --- = - ---- | 1 + 2 --- + 3 ( --- ) + ... | (B)
> >> m r^2 |_ c \ c / _|
> >>
> >
> >
> > I never had a problem with Ed's derivation, per se. My problem was that
> > it WASN'T Beckmann's derivation. Ed's derivation depends upon some
> > assumptions that do not match the assumptions and statements of
> > Beckmann. Based on Ed's assumptions, Ed's derivation of a "force law"
> > from a potential is correct.
>
> What I was trying to draw attention to was Beckmann's own force law, as
> presented by Beckmann himself. He presents this equation on page 72 of
> Section 1.8 as equation (19). The Taylor series expansion of the
> denominator of the leading fraction in this equation (the (1 - r'/c)^2
> term) leads _directly_ to equation (B) above. So, we need not rely on
> anyone's derivation of any potential to get to a force law. Beckmann
> provided the force law directly himself, and the Taylor series expansion
> merely transforms it into a form that is more easy to compare with
> Gerber's force law.
I have no problem "getting to" a force law. The issue was how Beckmann "got
to" his potential equation. The confusion appears to be your calling the
Gerber/Beckmann equation of motion "Gerber's force law." It isn't.
> > However, as repeatedly snipped by Ed, Beckmann specifies the following
> > on page 173:
> >
> > "This establishes the tool we shall use in a moment; next, let us check
> > how far the present theory is from Gerber's starting point (2). The
> > modified Newton Law taking into account delays is given by (19), Sec.
> > 1.8; the delay factor in the denominator of that expression must be
> > incorporated in the potential as given by (13) Sec. 1.6....."
> >
> > The "delay factor" in the denominator (from equation 19, sec 1.8) is (1
> > - r'/c)^2. Thus, when Beckmann moves from force to potential, a single
> > factor of "r" is "removed" from the force equation. When Stamm moves
> > from force to potential (actually vice versa), Ed "attaches" a factor of
> > (1-r'/c) to the factor of "r" that is to be removed from the force
> > equation.
> >
> > If this is clear, then we can begin a seperate discussion on whether
> > Beckmann's "conversion" is valid, according to Beckmann's theory.
>
> I must admit that this is the one part of the story that confuses me most.
> Beckmann mentions that he'll be using equation (19) from Section 1.8, and
> he also mentions the incorporation into "the potential as given by (13)
> Sec. 1.6...", but he immediately follows this text with a presentation of
> his potential [equation (8) in section 3.2]. I am not sure what he means
> by "the delay factor in the denominator of that expression must be
> incorporated in the potential as given by (13) Sec. 1.6..."; that confuses
> the integration, and that's why I am not sure if there really is a typo in
> equation (8) or if the potential given in Sec. 1.6 is confusing the issue.
A fair enough statement of non-clarity of either writing or understanding
(or both).
> Regardless, Beckmann is kind enough to simply provide his force law for us
> (equation (19) in section 1.8), and we can use this to compare against
> Gerber's force law (as presented by Beckmann in section 3.2).
Beckmann did not present "Gerber's force law" in section 3.2 ... or anywhere
else that I can see. Are you still attempting to call the equation of
motion (equation 12) a "force law?"
> >> I would hope that we can agree that
> >> using Gerber's potential, the force law at which we should arrive is
> >> given by equation 12 (with the appropriate substitution from equation
> >> 11).
> >
> > Equation 12 is not a "force law." It is an equation of motion. There
> > is a difference.
> >
> >> Equation 11:
> >> phi = 1 - (3/c^2)r'^2 + (6r/c^2)r''
> >>
> >> Equation 12:
> >> m(r'' - r*theta'^2) = -K/r^2 * (1 - phi)
> >>
> >> where the left hand side of Equation 12 is simply a written out
> >> expression for the total force.
> >
> > But it's not a "force law." Do you understand the difference between a
> > force law and an equation of motion?
>
> Not in this context, no.
???? Context is irrelevant. Please stop referring to equation 12 as a
"force law." It isn't a force law, and it just adds needless confusion.
For example, F=-kx is a force law. It is not an equation of motion.
F = - g m M / r^2 is a force law. It is not an equation of motion.
One converts the force law into a potential. Then one uses the Lagrangian
method to obtain an equation of motion.
This isn't a matter of terminology! A force law is NOT an equation of
motion. Equation 12 is an equation of motion. NOT a force law.
> This is the equation [equation (12)] that we need to
> compare with Beckmann's own force law (equation (19) in section 1.8).
> These two force laws (or equations of motion, if you prefer) are indeed
> _very_ different, thus the incongruency.
Force laws are not equations of motion. Oranges are not apples. There is
no need for the "force law" to be symbolically identical to an "equation of
motion."
> >> Now, equation (B) is Beckmann's force law, which is indeed quite
> >> different from Gerber's.
> >
> > It is quite possible that Beckmann's force law differs from Gerber's
> > force law (if Gerber even wrote one down). This might even be expected
> > (if Gerber actually had one), because Beckmann's theoretical derivation
> > begins with a force law -- and Gerber apparently either didn't have one,
> > or had one that was insufficient (according to Pauli).
> >
> > The question -- of course -- is how one converts from force equation to
> > potential equation and vice versa. (As I noted to Ed many times.)
>
> I can deal with this. But, there are a couple of issues with Beckmann's
> potential that simply makes it easier to compare force laws. The one thing
> that should be _extremely_ troubling to you is the fact that Beckmann
> takes his own force law (equation (19) in section 1.8), integrates it to
> arrive at a potential that he claims is indistinguishable from Gerber's,
> and then uses Gerber's potential to find a _different_ force law. _This_
> is the issue.
Apparently, this is your issue. However, a force law is STILL not an
equation of motion. No matter how you phrase it. Beckmann starts from a
force law (1.8-19), derives a potential (3.2-8) {corrected for the typo} and
then uses the potential to derive the equation of motion (3.2-12).
Now I think we agree that once one gets to Gerber's potential (3.2-8) {with
typo correction}, one gets to Gerber's equation of motion (Beckmann's
3.2-12). So, the question remains, how does one get from Beckmann's force
law (1.8-19) to Gerber's potential (3.2-8) {with typo correction}?
> >> Looking at equation 19 in section 1.8 on page 72, we see Beckmann give
> >> his force law as
> >> _ _
> >> K | |
> >> F = --------------- |r_o(1 - B^2) + B(theta_o)| (Eq. 19)
> >> r^2(1 - r'/c)^2 |_ _|
> >>
> >> (note, the format of this equation was taken from one of Paul Stowe's
> >> posts). If we perform a Taylor series expansion on the denominator of
> >> the leading fraction, we arrive at Ed Stamm's equation (B), or
> >> Beckmann's force law.
> >>
> >> In this sense, we need not quibble about how the potentials are
> >> arranged, whether there is indeed a squared factor of (1 - r'/c)
> >> missing from Beckmann's potential, or any other such minor
> >> complications.
> >
> > ???? One can't start with potentials, work backwards to force laws, then
> > claim that the potentials no longer matter!
>
> I did not mean that the potentials no longer matter. I meant that we can
> avoid the quibbling about typographical errors or faulty derivations by
> comparing the force laws directly, because Beckmann provides both!
Oh. I was confused by your calling an equation of motion a "force law."
Beckmann provides one force law and one equation of motion. Hence, getting
to the potential is still a concern.
> The
> only thing we have to do to get them in a form that is easy to compare is
> to perform a Taylor series expansion on the delay factor in Beckmann's
> force law. After this, you arrive at equations (A) and (B) that Ed
> showed.
Sigh. One does not just do a "series expansion on a delay factor" to get an
equation of motion. One uses the Lagrangian method. Like Gerber did. Like
Beckmann did. But Ed didn't do this. Ed did a series expansion on PART of
a force law. This does not produce an equation of motion.
> >> We can simply
> >> look at how Beckmann presents Gerber's force law [equation (A)]
> >
> > Equation 19 is BECKMANN's force law. From this force law, Beckmann
> > derived a potential. Beckmann then compared Beckmann's potential to
> > Gerber's potential. (According to Beckmann, Gerber STARTED with
> > Gerber's potential -- sans force law.)
>
> And then, the one last step that is the most troubling. He compares the
> two potentials, claims they are the same, and then uses Gerber's potential
> to derive a _different_ force law.
Again, please refrain from calling an equation of motion a "force law." You
are needlessly confusing the issue.
> >> and how he
> >> presents his own force law [equation (B)]. These two force laws are
> >> indeed _very_ different, regardless of potential typographical errors
> >> relating to either potential.
> >
> > There is no reason -- per se -- that Beckmann's force law should be the
> > same as the force law that Ed "derived" from Gerber's potential. Ed and
> > Beckmann used different assumptions.
>
> Two potentials that are the same should lead to the same force law.
There is only ONE potential equation. Ed makes a specific set of
assumptions to get to his force law. Beckmann uses a different set to get
to from his force law to the potential equation. Why such an effort to
avoid deriving the potential equation?
> If you
> integrate a force law, you can arrive at a potential. Beckmann's force law
> and Gerber's force law are _different_, as explicitly shown by Beckmann
> himself (unwittingly, granted). These two different force laws _cannot_
be
> attributed to the _same_ potential.
Sigh. Beckmann only has ONE force law. He also has an equation of motion.
The two are not symbolically identical.
> Beckmann's theory simply does not make
> the predictions that Gerber's does.
The above is a separate claim (and requires assuming Beckmann made no typo).
Can we table this until we resolve the issue about your calling an equation
of motion a force law?
I still think we need to discuss Beckmann's method of going from Beckmann's
force equation to the Gerber/Beckmann potential. If you could rephrase your
claims such that you aren't constantly claiming that an equation of motion
is a force law, I might be willing to bypass this point.
Jeff Krimmel
> Jeff Krimmel <mad_sci...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:pan.2003.07.25....@hotmail.com...
>> On Fri, 25 Jul 2003 11:03:55 -0700, greywolf42 wrote:
>>
>> > Jeff Krimmel <mad_sci...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> > news:pan.2003.07.25....@hotmail.com...
>> >>
>> >> On Wed, 23 Jul 2003 11:49:50 -0700, greywolf42 wrote:
>> >>
>> >> > Jeff Krimmel <mad_sci...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> >> > news:pan.2003.07.22....@hotmail.com...
[...]
So, assuming that the primary source for my confusion is my own
misunderstanding, could you please recreate Beckmann's integration from
his force law (equation 19 in section 1.8) and the potential given as
equation 13 in section 1.6 to arrive at his gravitational potential given
in section 3.2 (equation 8)? The reason I ask is because in section 3.2 he
merely states that he uses these two equations (1.8-19 and 1.6-13), and
takes a host of other factors as being constant, and then performs an
integration to arrive at his potential without showing any of the steps
involved. That would help me a great deal.
>> Regardless, Beckmann is kind enough to simply provide his force law for
>> us (equation (19) in section 1.8), and we can use this to compare
>> against Gerber's force law (as presented by Beckmann in section 3.2).
>
> Beckmann did not present "Gerber's force law" in section 3.2 ... or
> anywhere else that I can see. Are you still attempting to call the
> equation of motion (equation 12) a "force law?"
In section 3.2, Beckmann himself says "integrating his [Gerber's] equation
(12) will yield the corresponding potential...". So, yes, Beckmann himself
says you can take equation (12), integrate it, and arrive at a potential.
Whether you want to call this a "force law" or an "equation of motion" is
irrelevant to me, because you integrate it to get to a potential, and you
derive a potential to get to it. Call it whatever you like, it's obviously
analogous to equation 19 in section 1.8, and the trouble is that they're
different.
[...]
> ...Please stop referring to equation 12 as a "force law." It isn't a
> force law, and it just adds needless confusion.
[...]
> ...A force law is NOT an equation of
> motion. Equation 12 is an equation of motion. NOT a force law.
[...]
> Force laws are not equations of motion. Oranges are not apples. There
> is no need for the "force law" to be symbolically identical to an
> "equation of motion."
I left all of these comments in to show how much of your response relied
on the assumed difference between a "force law" and an "equation of
motion". I hope in the course of this post that I have cleared that up.
[...]
> ...However, a force law is STILL not an equation of motion. No matter
> how you phrase it. Beckmann starts from a force law (1.8-19), derives a
> potential (3.2-8) {corrected for the typo} and then uses the potential
> to derive the equation of motion (3.2-12).
But, like I said above, Beckmann admits in section 3.2 that "integrating
his [Gerber's] equation (12) will yield the corresponding potential...".
So, just as he uses his force law from section 1.8 to get to a potential,
he even admits you can integrate equation 12 and arrive at the same
potential. The problem is that 1.8-19 and 3.2-12 are different. This
should be very troubling indeed for Beckmann.
[...]
> Oh. I was confused by your calling an equation of motion a "force law."
[...]
>> The
>> only thing we have to do to get them in a form that is easy to compare
>> is to perform a Taylor series expansion on the delay factor in
>> Beckmann's force law. After this, you arrive at equations (A) and (B)
>> that Ed showed.
>
> Sigh. One does not just do a "series expansion on a delay factor" to
> get an equation of motion. One uses the Lagrangian method. Like Gerber
> did. Like Beckmann did. But Ed didn't do this. Ed did a series
> expansion on PART of a force law. This does not produce an equation of
> motion.
The point is the Beckmann himself admits that you can use equation 12 in
section 3.2 to arrive at a potential. Call it what you like, it's the
derivative of a potential. The left hand side of 3.2-12 is equivalent to
writing "F" (it's simply the "ma" part of F=ma), so if you substitute "F"
for the left hand side of equation 12, then you have something that is
_directly analogous_ to 1.8-19. The problem is, like I have been saying,
these two equations are different, and thus result from different
potentials.
[...]
> Again, please refrain from calling an equation of motion a "force law."
> You are needlessly confusing the issue.
>
>> >> and how he
>> >> presents his own force law [equation (B)]. These two force laws are
>> >> indeed _very_ different, regardless of potential typographical
>> >> errors relating to either potential.
>> >
>> > There is no reason -- per se -- that Beckmann's force law should be
>> > the same as the force law that Ed "derived" from Gerber's potential.
>> > Ed and Beckmann used different assumptions.
>>
>> Two potentials that are the same should lead to the same force law.
>
> There is only ONE potential equation. Ed makes a specific set of
> assumptions to get to his force law. Beckmann uses a different set to
> get to from his force law to the potential equation. Why such an effort
> to avoid deriving the potential equation?
This is part of the reason I asked you to recreate the integration (step
by step, please) that Beckmann glosses over with words (without showing
any math). If you showed me the math, it would help clarify some things
for me.
[...]
> Sigh. Beckmann only has ONE force law. He also has an equation of
> motion. The two are not symbolically identical.
>
>> Beckmann's theory simply does not make the predictions that Gerber's
>> does.
>
> The above is a separate claim (and requires assuming Beckmann made no
> typo). Can we table this until we resolve the issue about your calling
> an equation of motion a force law?
Certainly. I think I have showed why I think 1.8-19 and 3.2-12 are
comparable, but we can leave aside the issue of predictions, per se, until
later. Once we decide whether 1.8-19 and 3.2-12 are indeed directly
analogous (and thus comparable to each other), we will have de facto
decided if the predictions of the two theories are the same.
[...]
> I still think we need to discuss Beckmann's method of going from
> Beckmann's force equation to the Gerber/Beckmann potential. If you
> could rephrase your claims such that you aren't constantly claiming that
> an equation of motion is a force law, I might be willing to bypass this
> point.
Okay, just show me the derivation as you understand it (since I have
already admitted that I am unable to understand how Beckmann arrived at
his potential based on his description alone), and that will help me
understand where the confusion may lie.
Thanks,
Jeff
greywolf42
> On Sat, 26 Jul 2003 09:30:00 -0700, greywolf42 wrote:
>
> > Jeff Krimmel <mad_sci...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:pan.2003.07.25....@hotmail.com...
> >> On Fri, 25 Jul 2003 11:03:55 -0700, greywolf42 wrote:
{snip higher levels}
or poor writing on Beckmann's part (or both)
> could you please recreate Beckmann's integration from
> his force law (equation 19 in section 1.8) and the potential given as
> equation 13 in section 1.6 to arrive at his gravitational potential given
> in section 3.2 (equation 8)? The reason I ask is because in section 3.2 he
> merely states that he uses these two equations (1.8-19 and 1.6-13), and
> takes a host of other factors as being constant, and then performs an
> integration to arrive at his potential without showing any of the steps
> involved. That would help me a great deal.
Fair enough. I'll provide my reading of how Beckmann got to his equation 8
{corrected for the apparent typo}. Again, Beckmann repeatedly claims that
his equation 8 and Gerber's equation 2 are essentially identical.
See derivation below.
> >> Regardless, Beckmann is kind enough to simply provide his force law for
> >> us (equation (19) in section 1.8), and we can use this to compare
> >> against Gerber's force law (as presented by Beckmann in section 3.2).
> >
> > Beckmann did not present "Gerber's force law" in section 3.2 ... or
> > anywhere else that I can see. Are you still attempting to call the
> > equation of motion (equation 12) a "force law?"
>
> In section 3.2, Beckmann himself says "integrating his [Gerber's] equation
> (12) will yield the corresponding potential...". So, yes, Beckmann himself
> says you can take equation (12), integrate it, and arrive at a potential.
So what? Equation 12 is still not a force law.
> Whether you want to call this a "force law" or an "equation of motion" is
> irrelevant to me, because you integrate it to get to a potential, and you
> derive a potential to get to it.
Sigh. One DERIVES a force law. Then obtains a potential from the force
law.
> Call it whatever you like, it's obviously
> analogous to equation 19 in section 1.8, and the trouble is that they're
> different.
Analogous is not the same as identical.
{snip repetitions of claim that a force law is always identical to an
equation of motion}
> I left all of these comments in to show how much of your response relied
> on the assumed difference between a "force law" and an "equation of
> motion". I hope in the course of this post that I have cleared that up.
??? I was responding to your many repetitions of your sole claim that a
"force law" is the same as an "equation of motion." I agree we don't need
to address it more than once. You also snipped my examples. :(
But let's forge forward....
The definition of a potential is that the gradient of the (scalar) potential
gives the force: [See "Classical Dynamics of Particles and Systems",
Marion, 2nd edition, 1970, p 76]
grad phi == - force / m
Let's begin with the Beckmann force law, {equation 1.8-19}, and inferring
that K = G m M, and using Beckmann's statements on page 173 to direct the
process, I get:
Force = - K / r^2 (1 - r'/c)^2 [(1-beta^2) r_0 + beta theta_0]
grad phi = K / (1 - r'/c)^2 r^2 [(1-beta^2) r_0 + beta theta_0]
phi = INT {K / (1 - r'/c)^2 r^2 [(1-beta^2) r_0 + beta theta_0] } dr
phi = K/(1 - r'/c)^2 INT {1/r^2 [(1-beta^2) r_0 + beta theta_0] } dr
phi = K/(1 - r'/c)^2 INT {1/r^2 [(1-beta^2) r_0} + INT {1/ r^2 beta
theta_0] } dr
phi = K/(1 - r'/c)^2 {-1/r (cos beta) sqrt[1 / (1 - beta^2 sin^2 theta)] }
+ {0}
phi = - K / r (1 - r' / c)^2 (cos beta) sqrt[1 / (1 - beta^2 sin^2 theta)]
phi = - K / r (1 - r' / c)^2 sqrt[(1-beta)^2/ (1 - beta^2 sin^2 theta)]
The above equation is Beckmann's equation {3.2-8} -- with an extra power of
(1 - r'/c). Which again indicates a typographical error exists in Beckmanns
equation.
>
> [...]
>
> > ...However, a force law is STILL not an equation of motion. No matter
> > how you phrase it. Beckmann starts from a force law (1.8-19), derives a
> > potential (3.2-8) {corrected for the typo} and then uses the potential
> > to derive the equation of motion (3.2-12).
>
> But, like I said above, Beckmann admits in section 3.2 that "integrating
> his [Gerber's] equation (12) will yield the corresponding potential...".
> So, just as he uses his force law from section 1.8 to get to a potential,
> he even admits you can integrate equation 12 and arrive at the same
> potential. The problem is that 1.8-19 and 3.2-12 are different. This
> should be very troubling indeed for Beckmann.
Not in the least. Suppose we derive the Force equation (not the equation of
motion) that results from Gerber's potential. Obviously, these things have
to work both ways. i.e. force = - m grad phi (or whatever you'd care to
use):
Gerber's potential {Beckmann's 3.2-2}:
phi = - K / r (1 - r' / c)^2
grad phi = K / (1 - r'/c)^2 r^2
Force = - K / r^2 (1 - r'/c)^2
which is Beckmann's {1.8-19}, without Beckmann's theoretically-derived beta
terms.
Note that the above equation is not symbolically identical to
Beckmann/Gerber's {3.2-12}:
m(r'' -r theta'^2) = - K (1 - phi) / r^2
{snip}
> >> The
> >> only thing we have to do to get them in a form that is easy to compare
> >> is to perform a Taylor series expansion on the delay factor in
> >> Beckmann's force law. After this, you arrive at equations (A) and (B)
> >> that Ed showed.
> >
> > Sigh. One does not just do a "series expansion on a delay factor" to
> > get an equation of motion. One uses the Lagrangian method. Like Gerber
> > did. Like Beckmann did. But Ed didn't do this. Ed did a series
> > expansion on PART of a force law. This does not produce an equation of
> > motion.
>
> The point is the Beckmann himself admits that you can use equation 12 in
> section 3.2 to arrive at a potential. Call it what you like, it's the
> derivative of a potential.
The equation of motion is the output of a Lagrangian operator. It is MORE
than a simple derivative.
> The left hand side of 3.2-12 is equivalent to
> writing "F" (it's simply the "ma" part of F=ma), so if you substitute "F"
> for the left hand side of equation 12, then you have something that is
> _directly analogous_ to 1.8-19. The problem is, like I have been saying,
> these two equations are different, and thus result from different
> potentials.
But the LHS is not "m a"! It is m (r'' - r theta'^2)
{snip the repetition of the force law vs. equation of motion argument}
> > There is only ONE potential equation. Ed makes a specific set of
> > assumptions to get to his force law. Beckmann uses a different set to
> > get to from his force law to the potential equation. Why such an effort
> > to avoid deriving the potential equation?
>
> This is part of the reason I asked you to recreate the integration (step
> by step, please) that Beckmann glosses over with words (without showing
> any math). If you showed me the math, it would help clarify some things
> for me.
OK, done, above -- in both directions. Comments and suggestions?
{snip the repetition of the force law vs. equation of motion argument}
Jeff Krimmel
> Jeff Krimmel <mad_sci...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:pan.2003.07.28....@hotmail.com...
>>
>> On Sat, 26 Jul 2003 09:30:00 -0700, greywolf42 wrote:
>>
>> > Jeff Krimmel <mad_sci...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> > news:pan.2003.07.25....@hotmail.com...
>> >> On Fri, 25 Jul 2003 11:03:55 -0700, greywolf42 wrote:
[...]
>> So, assuming that the primary source for my confusion is my own
>> misunderstanding,
>
> or poor writing on Beckmann's part (or both)
>
>> could you please recreate Beckmann's integration from
>> his force law (equation 19 in section 1.8) and the potential given as
>> equation 13 in section 1.6 to arrive at his gravitational potential given
>> in section 3.2 (equation 8)? The reason I ask is because in section 3.2 he
>> merely states that he uses these two equations (1.8-19 and 1.6-13), and
>> takes a host of other factors as being constant, and then performs an
>> integration to arrive at his potential without showing any of the steps
>> involved. That would help me a great deal.
>
> Fair enough. I'll provide my reading of how Beckmann got to his equation 8
> {corrected for the apparent typo}. Again, Beckmann repeatedly claims that
> his equation 8 and Gerber's equation 2 are essentially identical.
>
> See derivation below.
Thanks. Noted.
>> >> Regardless, Beckmann is kind enough to simply provide his force law for
>> >> us (equation (19) in section 1.8), and we can use this to compare
>> >> against Gerber's force law (as presented by Beckmann in section 3.2).
>> >
>> > Beckmann did not present "Gerber's force law" in section 3.2 ... or
>> > anywhere else that I can see. Are you still attempting to call the
>> > equation of motion (equation 12) a "force law?"
>>
>> In section 3.2, Beckmann himself says "integrating his [Gerber's] equation
>> (12) will yield the corresponding potential...". So, yes, Beckmann himself
>> says you can take equation (12), integrate it, and arrive at a potential.
>
> So what? Equation 12 is still not a force law.
>
>> Whether you want to call this a "force law" or an "equation of motion" is
>> irrelevant to me, because you integrate it to get to a potential, and you
>> derive a potential to get to it.
>
> Sigh. One DERIVES a force law. Then obtains a potential from the force
> law.
>
>> Call it whatever you like, it's obviously
>> analogous to equation 19 in section 1.8, and the trouble is that they're
>> different.
>
> Analogous is not the same as identical.
Be careful here, because the concession of these two equations being
analogous will prove that Beckmann is wrong. If the two equations are
analogous, then they should be mathematically equivalent if they are both
arrived at from the same potential. Ed Stamm shows the two equations to be
(http://groups.google.com/groups?&as_umsgid=3eeccd79...@news.gte.net):
************
Presumably "Z" is the gravitational constant, like "K" in (19), so
the force law (or the acceleration law, since it's divided through
by m) corresponding to Gerber's potential is
_ _
F KM | / r'\2 / r \ / r"\ |
--- = - --- | 1 - 3(---- ) + 6( --- )( --- ) + ... | (A)
m r^2 |_ \ c / \ c / \ c / _|
Compare this with Beckmann's acceleration law from his (Eq. 19) in
the previous section:
_ _
F KM | r' / r'\2 |
--- = - ---- | 1 + 2 --- + 3 ( --- ) + ... | (B)
m r^2 |_ c \ c / _|
************
These two equations are _not_ mathematically equivalent. They are
analogous, in the sense that they are both arrived at from a potential,
but it's obvious that the potentials from which each arrive are _not_
equivalent. That's the argument, plain and simple.
[...]
> The definition of a potential is that the gradient of the (scalar) potential
> gives the force: [See "Classical Dynamics of Particles and Systems",
> Marion, 2nd edition, 1970, p 76]
> grad phi == - force / m
>
> Let's begin with the Beckmann force law, {equation 1.8-19}, and inferring
> that K = G m M, and using Beckmann's statements on page 173 to direct the
> process, I get:
>
> Force = - K / r^2 (1 - r'/c)^2 [(1-beta^2) r_0 + beta theta_0]
>
> grad phi = K / (1 - r'/c)^2 r^2 [(1-beta^2) r_0 + beta theta_0]
>
> phi = INT {K / (1 - r'/c)^2 r^2 [(1-beta^2) r_0 + beta theta_0] } dr
>
> phi = K/(1 - r'/c)^2 INT {1/r^2 [(1-beta^2) r_0 + beta theta_0] } dr
>
> phi = K/(1 - r'/c)^2 INT {1/r^2 [(1-beta^2) r_0} + INT {1/ r^2 beta
> theta_0] } dr
Okay, here is where I have some concerns. The "r_0" and "theta_0" in the
above equation are unit vectors. In your integration, you lose the "r_0"
unit vector, but you integrate the "theta_0" unit vector to reveal
"theta". The handling of these two unit vectors (as I understand Beckmann
to have defined them) is inconsistent.
Also, I am still puzzled by Beckmann's statement "the delay factor in the
denominator of that expression must be incorporated in the potential as
given by (13), Sec. 1.6". Where does this "incorporation" take place in
your sequence of integration?
Of course it's not, with the way you have written it. Include the
substitution for phi (given by equation 11 in section 3.2), and make the
appropriate simplifications, and it will be.
[...]
>> The left hand side of 3.2-12 is equivalent to
>> writing "F" (it's simply the "ma" part of F=ma), so if you substitute "F"
>> for the left hand side of equation 12, then you have something that is
>> _directly analogous_ to 1.8-19. The problem is, like I have been saying,
>> these two equations are different, and thus result from different
>> potentials.
>
> But the LHS is not "m a"! It is m (r'' - r theta'^2)
And what is (r'' - r theta'^2)? (Hint: the answer is "a")
[...]
Jeff
greywolf42
Sorry about the delay in responding. My newsreader didn't show your
message. I had to check google to see why things had gone silent. :(
> On Tue, 29 Jul 2003 11:10:41 -0700, greywolf42 wrote:
>
> > Jeff Krimmel <mad_sci...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:pan.2003.07.28....@hotmail.com...
> >>
> >> On Sat, 26 Jul 2003 09:30:00 -0700, greywolf42 wrote:
> >>
> >> > Jeff Krimmel <mad_sci...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> >> > news:pan.2003.07.25....@hotmail.com...
> >> >> On Fri, 25 Jul 2003 11:03:55 -0700, greywolf42 wrote:
{snip}
> >> could you please recreate Beckmann's integration from
> >> his force law (equation 19 in section 1.8) and the potential given as
> >> equation 13 in section 1.6 to arrive at his gravitational potential
given
> >> in section 3.2 (equation 8)? The reason I ask is because in section 3.2
he
> >> merely states that he uses these two equations (1.8-19 and 1.6-13), and
> >> takes a host of other factors as being constant, and then performs an
> >> integration to arrive at his potential without showing any of the steps
> >> involved. That would help me a great deal.
> >
> > Fair enough. I'll provide my reading of how Beckmann got to his
equation 8
> > {corrected for the apparent typo}. Again, Beckmann repeatedly claims
that
> > his equation 8 and Gerber's equation 2 are essentially identical.
> >
> > See derivation below.
>
> Thanks. Noted.
> Be careful here, because the concession of these two equations being
> analogous will prove that Beckmann is wrong. If the two equations are
> analogous, then they should be mathematically equivalent if they are both
> arrived at from the same potential.
'Analogous' is STILL not the same as 'identical.' 'Mathematically
equivalent' is the same as identical.
The two equations are related. They are not the same.
> Ed Stamm shows the two equations to be
>
(http://groups.google.com/groups?&as_umsgid=3eeccd79...@news.gte.net):
>
> ************
> Presumably "Z" is the gravitational constant, like "K" in (19), so
> the force law (or the acceleration law, since it's divided through
> by m) corresponding to Gerber's potential is
> _ _
> F KM | / r'\2 / r \ / r"\ |
> --- = - --- | 1 - 3(---- ) + 6( --- )( --- ) + ... | (A)
> m r^2 |_ \ c / \ c / \ c / _|
>
> Compare this with Beckmann's acceleration law from his (Eq. 19) in
> the previous section:
> _ _
> F KM | r' / r'\2 |
> --- = - ---- | 1 + 2 --- + 3 ( --- ) + ... | (B)
> m r^2 |_ c \ c / _|
> ************
>
> These two equations are _not_ mathematically equivalent. They are
> analogous, in the sense that they are both arrived at from a potential,
> but it's obvious that the potentials from which each arrive are _not_
> equivalent. That's the argument, plain and simple.
And the argument is still spurious. No matter how often it is repeated.
> [...]
>
> > The definition of a potential is that the gradient of the (scalar)
potential
> > gives the force: [See "Classical Dynamics of Particles and Systems",
> > Marion, 2nd edition, 1970, p 76]
> > grad phi == - force / m
> >
> > Let's begin with the Beckmann force law, {equation 1.8-19}, and
inferring
> > that K = G m M, and using Beckmann's statements on page 173 to direct
the
> > process, I get:
> >
> > Force = - K / r^2 (1 - r'/c)^2 [(1-beta^2) r_0 + beta theta_0]
> >
> > grad phi = K / (1 - r'/c)^2 r^2 [(1-beta^2) r_0 + beta theta_0]
> >
> > phi = INT {K / (1 - r'/c)^2 r^2 [(1-beta^2) r_0 + beta theta_0] } dr
> >
> > phi = K/(1 - r'/c)^2 INT {1/r^2 [(1-beta^2) r_0 + beta theta_0] } dr
> >
> > phi = K/(1 - r'/c)^2 INT {1/r^2 [(1-beta^2) r_0} + INT {1/ r^2 beta
> > theta_0] } dr
>
> Okay, here is where I have some concerns. The "r_0" and "theta_0" in the
> above equation are unit vectors. In your integration, you lose the "r_0"
> unit vector, but you integrate the "theta_0" unit vector to reveal
> "theta". The handling of these two unit vectors (as I understand Beckmann
> to have defined them) is inconsistent.
In what way is it inconsistent? Both theta_0 and r_0 'depart' from the
equation when the integral is taken. Neither is 'lost.'
> Also, I am still puzzled by Beckmann's statement "the delay factor in the
> denominator of that expression must be incorporated in the potential as
> given by (13), Sec. 1.6". Where does this "incorporation" take place in
> your sequence of integration?
In the first step. The rest is simply algebra and calculus. As I read it,
Beckmann's statement leads the reader into the derivation (specifically
going from the force equation derived long before to the potential equation
in the second step.)
> Of course it's not, with the way you have written it.
I derived it. I didn't just 'write' it.
> Include the
> substitution for phi (given by equation 11 in section 3.2), and make the
> appropriate simplifications, and it will be.
Feel free to demonstrate.
> [...]
>
> >> The left hand side of 3.2-12 is equivalent to
> >> writing "F" (it's simply the "ma" part of F=ma), so if you substitute
"F"
> >> for the left hand side of equation 12, then you have something that is
> >> _directly analogous_ to 1.8-19. The problem is, like I have been
saying,
> >> these two equations are different, and thus result from different
> >> potentials.
> >
> > But the LHS is not "m a"! It is m (r'' - r theta'^2)
>
> And what is (r'' - r theta'^2)? (Hint: the answer is "a")
Feel free to demonstrate.
>
> [...]
Jeff Krimmel
> Jeff Krimmel <mad_sci...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:<pan.2003.07.30....@hotmail.com>...
>
> Sorry about the delay in responding. My newsreader didn't show your
> message. I had to check google to see why things had gone silent. :(
No problem at all.
>> On Tue, 29 Jul 2003 11:10:41 -0700, greywolf42 wrote:
>>
>> > Jeff Krimmel <mad_sci...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> > news:pan.2003.07.28....@hotmail.com...
>> >>
>> >> On Sat, 26 Jul 2003 09:30:00 -0700, greywolf42 wrote:
[...]
>> > Sigh. One DERIVES a force law. Then obtains a potential from the
>> > force law.
>> >
>> >> Call it whatever you like, it's obviously analogous to equation 19
>> >> in section 1.8, and the trouble is that they're different.
>> >
>> > Analogous is not the same as identical.
>>
>> Be careful here, because the concession of these two equations being
>> analogous will prove that Beckmann is wrong. If the two equations are
>> analogous, then they should be mathematically equivalent if they are
>> both arrived at from the same potential.
>
> 'Analogous' is STILL not the same as 'identical.' 'Mathematically
> equivalent' is the same as identical.
I know, but what I mean by analogous is that each is arrived at from a
gravitational potential. If you concede this point, and if you concede
that the two equations are indeed different, then you have conceded the
entire argument. The two equations _are_ analogous (they are both arrived
at from a gravitational potential), yet they are _not_ mathematically
equivalent. Thus, these two equations do not arrive from the same
potential, and the conclusion is that Beckmann's and Gerber's potential
are different.
[...]
>> > The definition of a potential is that the gradient of the (scalar)
>> > potential
>> > gives the force: [See "Classical Dynamics of Particles and Systems",
>> > Marion, 2nd edition, 1970, p 76]
>> > grad phi == - force / m
>> >
>> > Let's begin with the Beckmann force law, {equation 1.8-19}, and
>> > inferring
>> > that K = G m M, and using Beckmann's statements on page 173 to direct
>> > the process, I get:
>> >
>> > Force = - K / r^2 (1 - r'/c)^2 [(1-beta^2) r_0 + beta theta_0]
>> >
>> > grad phi = K / (1 - r'/c)^2 r^2 [(1-beta^2) r_0 + beta theta_0]
>> >
>> > phi = INT {K / (1 - r'/c)^2 r^2 [(1-beta^2) r_0 + beta theta_0] } dr
>> >
>> > phi = K/(1 - r'/c)^2 INT {1/r^2 [(1-beta^2) r_0 + beta theta_0] }
>> > dr
>> >
>> > phi = K/(1 - r'/c)^2 INT {1/r^2 [(1-beta^2) r_0} + INT {1/ r^2
>> > beta theta_0] } dr
>>
>> Okay, here is where I have some concerns. The "r_0" and "theta_0" in
>> the above equation are unit vectors. In your integration, you lose the
>> "r_0" unit vector, but you integrate the "theta_0" unit vector to
>> reveal "theta". The handling of these two unit vectors (as I understand
>> Beckmann to have defined them) is inconsistent.
>
> In what way is it inconsistent? Both theta_0 and r_0 'depart' from the
> equation when the integral is taken. Neither is 'lost.'
I understand, but, when you integrated the unit vector "theta_0", you left
yourself the term "theta". When you integrated the unit vector "r_0", you
left yourself no such term. This is one of many complaints about the
incongruity in the integration that Beckmann believes transforms his force
law (or equation of motion) into Gerber's potential.
>> Also, I am still puzzled by Beckmann's statement "the delay factor in
>> the denominator of that expression must be incorporated in the
>> potential as given by (13), Sec. 1.6". Where does this "incorporation"
>> take place in your sequence of integration?
>
> In the first step. The rest is simply algebra and calculus. As I read
> it, Beckmann's statement leads the reader into the derivation
> (specifically going from the force equation derived long before to the
> potential equation in the second step.)
Have you seen equation 13 in section 1.6? How is that included in your
first step? I don't understand the significance of Beckmann's statement
that I reproduced in my previous post, because your integrations starts
explicitly from equation 19 in section 1.8 and moves from there.
[snip the rest of the integration, refer to the previous post if
necessary]
[...]
I started to go through the rest of the post, but Beckmann's book is much
too full of typos to have any sort of relevant mathematical discussion.
For example, if you look at equation 11 in section 3.2, you see
phi = 1 - (3/c^2)r'^2 + (6r/c^2)r''
but the right hand side of equation 12 in the same section is "1 - phi",
so that one is left with "F = -K/r^2 [(3/c^2)r'^2 + (6r/c^2)r'']".
Obviously this expression makes no sense. Likely, the expression for "phi"
should be missing the "1 - " terms that Beckmann introduced.
Regardless, I don't see much point in continuing this discussion.
Beckmann's book is hopelessly riddled with typos and in too many places is
incongruous, so much so that there's no way to have a worthwhile
discussion of the mathematics.
Jeff
greywolf42
> On Wed, 06 Aug 2003 11:36:11 -0700, greywolf42 wrote:
>
> > Jeff Krimmel <mad_sci...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:<pan.2003.07.30....@hotmail.com>...
> >
> > Sorry about the delay in responding. My newsreader didn't show your
> > message. I had to check google to see why things had gone silent. :(
>
> No problem at all.
>
> >> On Tue, 29 Jul 2003 11:10:41 -0700, greywolf42 wrote:
> >>
> >> > Jeff Krimmel <mad_sci...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> >> > news:pan.2003.07.28....@hotmail.com...
> >> >>
> >> >> On Sat, 26 Jul 2003 09:30:00 -0700, greywolf42 wrote:
>
> [...]
>
> >> > Sigh. One DERIVES a force law. Then obtains a potential from the
> >> > force law.
> >> >
> >> >> Call it whatever you like, it's obviously analogous to equation 19
> >> >> in section 1.8, and the trouble is that they're different.
> >> >
> >> > Analogous is not the same as identical.
> >>
> >> Be careful here, because the concession of these two equations being
> >> analogous will prove that Beckmann is wrong. If the two equations are
> >> analogous, then they should be mathematically equivalent if they are
> >> both arrived at from the same potential.
> >
> > 'Analogous' is STILL not the same as 'identical.' 'Mathematically
> > equivalent' is the same as identical.
>
> I know, but what I mean by analogous is that each is arrived at from a
> gravitational potential.
That does not necessarily make it either analogous or equivalent. That
simply states that one can start at a given point and get two different
equations -- doing different things to the original equation.
> If you concede this point, and if you concede
> that the two equations are indeed different, then you have conceded the
> entire argument. The two equations _are_ analogous (they are both arrived
> at from a gravitational potential), yet they are _not_ mathematically
> equivalent. Thus, these two equations do not arrive from the same
> potential, and the conclusion is that Beckmann's and Gerber's potential
> are different.
However, your odd, personal definition of analogous (based on source, rather
than on content of the equation) is not logically determinate (it is
open-ended, and has no single meaning).
It is also irrelevant. Let's see how you do on your contribution to the
mathematics that I requested ....
You snipped the denoument of the 'problem' you are discussing? Why did you
feel the need to make it more difficult to follow?
> >> Also, I am still puzzled by Beckmann's statement "the delay factor in
> >> the denominator of that expression must be incorporated in the
> >> potential as given by (13), Sec. 1.6". Where does this "incorporation"
> >> take place in your sequence of integration?
> >
> > In the first step. The rest is simply algebra and calculus. As I read
> > it, Beckmann's statement leads the reader into the derivation
> > (specifically going from the force equation derived long before to the
> > potential equation in the second step.)
>
> Have you seen equation 13 in section 1.6? How is that included in your
> first step? I don't understand the significance of Beckmann's statement
> that I reproduced in my previous post, because your integrations starts
> explicitly from equation 19 in section 1.8 and moves from there.
Yes. Reread my prior statement.
> [snip the rest of the integration, refer to the previous post if
> necessary]
There was no need for you to snip that which you claim contained an error.
If you have no problem up to the point above, then -- Rather than simply say
'Beckmann is wrong' -- please provide what you think the result of the next
step *should be.*
> [...]
>
> I started to go through the rest of the post, but Beckmann's book is much
> too full of typos to have any sort of relevant mathematical discussion.
Excuse me, but the original claim you were defending was that Beckmann's
book contained *no* typo. Now you claim the book is 'too full of typos'?
Is this a bait-and-switch?
> For example, if you look at equation 11 in section 3.2, you see
>
> phi = 1 - (3/c^2)r'^2 + (6r/c^2)r''
>
> but the right hand side of equation 12 in the same section is "1 - phi",
> so that one is left with "F = -K/r^2 [(3/c^2)r'^2 + (6r/c^2)r'']".
> Obviously this expression makes no sense. Likely, the expression for "phi"
> should be missing the "1 - " terms that Beckmann introduced.
I'll take a look.
> Regardless, I don't see much point in continuing this discussion.
> Beckmann's book is hopelessly riddled with typos and in too many places is
> incongruous, so much so that there's no way to have a worthwhile
> discussion of the mathematics.
When confronted with a relatively simple calculus derivation (and the
necessity of backing up his own claims), Jeff (invisibly) snipped the points
that it was 'his turn' to support his point with mathematics. And then
leaves with the claim that Beckmann's book was 'too full of typos' to
continue. The latter being hilarious, because Jeff was defending against
*my* claim that ONE of Beckmann's equations (3.2-8) contained an apparent
typo. Jeff was defending the insistence that Beckmann was *irrational* and
incapable of logic or because that *one* equation did not match another
equation (3.2-2).
{Here is the end of the 'disappered' section.}
===============================
Jeff:
> Include the
> substitution for phi (given by equation 11 in section 3.2), and make the
> appropriate simplifications, and it will be.
greywolf42:
Feel free to demonstrate.
Jeff:
> [...]
Jeff:
> >> The left hand side of 3.2-12 is equivalent to
> >> writing "F" (it's simply the "ma" part of F=ma), so if you substitute
"F"
> >> for the left hand side of equation 12, then you have something that is
> >> _directly analogous_ to 1.8-19. The problem is, like I have been
saying,
> >> these two equations are different, and thus result from different
> >> potentials.
greywolf42:
> > But the LHS is not "m a"! It is m (r'' - r theta'^2)
Jeff:
> And what is (r'' - r theta'^2)? (Hint: the answer is "a")
greywolf42:
Feel free to demonstrate.
===============================
It seems Jeff found that he couldn't actually demonstrate that which he
thought was obvious -- until he actually was faced with doing the math.
Then it became 'confusing' for him -- but only because he couldn't do what
he thought he could. So much for the claims against Beckmann's book. The
claims were -- as usual -- substance-free. The results of being so certain
that something couldn't be done, solely because it contradicts the dominant
paradigm.
A shame. For awhile there, Jeff seemed to be willing to actually discuss
the claims. Too bad it reduced to a pathetic 'redefinition' of the word
'analogous'.
Jeff Krimmel
[...]
>> I started to go through the rest of the post, but Beckmann's book is
>> much too full of typos to have any sort of relevant mathematical
>> discussion.
>
> Excuse me, but the original claim you were defending was that Beckmann's
> book contained *no* typo. Now you claim the book is 'too full of
> typos'? Is this a bait-and-switch?
Yes, this is much like you. Notice how there were two different contexts?
One was in Beckmann's reproduction of Gerber's potential, the other was in
an equation for phi. The reproduction of Gerber's potential is wrong; his
equation for phi is a typo (and more than one at that, or it is _even_
_more_ _wrong_ than the rest of his stuff). Either way, I see why you like
the book so much, it gives you the perfect opportunity to hide behind a
blanket of typos and missing math.
[...]
> When confronted with a relatively simple calculus derivation (and the
> necessity of backing up his own claims), Jeff (invisibly) snipped the
> points that it was 'his turn' to support his point with mathematics.
> And then leaves with the claim that Beckmann's book was 'too full of
> typos' to continue.
Indeed I did. I realized that you would not be up front with your lack of
integration (mishandling the two unit vectors is a perfect example). I
also realized that either Beckmann is quite a bit wrong and makes his fair
share of typographical errors, or Beckmann is _very_ wrong and still makes
a handful of typographical errors.
My time is simply much too valuable to sit here and keep re-reading
Beckmann's shoddy excuse for a mathematical treatise, and then try to
piece it together with the patch-work you call mathematics. Somehow
discussions with you tend to turn toward this route rather quickly, so I
suppose I should not be surprised that this one did as well. Oh well.
> The latter being hilarious, because Jeff was defending against *my*
> claim that ONE of Beckmann's equations (3.2-8) contained an apparent
> typo. Jeff was defending the insistence that Beckmann was *irrational*
> and incapable of logic or because that *one* equation did not match
> another equation (3.2-2).
"Incapable of logic"? Interesting, I don't remember saying quite that. I
do remember saying that Beckmann was wrong, that his reproduction of
Gerber's potential is wrong, and that his equation for phi (among other
equations throughout the book) houses a typo. It seems like Beckmann was
in a giving mood when he wrote this book; whenever he could gracelessly
leap over the logic of mathematics or introduce a handful of typos to
further confuse the issue, he did just that.
[...]
> {Here is the end of the 'disappered' section.}
> ===============================
[and watch it disappear again]
[...]
> It seems Jeff found that he couldn't actually demonstrate that which he
> thought was obvious -- until he actually was faced with doing the math.
> Then it became 'confusing' for him -- but only because he couldn't do
> what he thought he could. So much for the claims against Beckmann's
> book. The claims were -- as usual -- substance-free. The results of
> being so certain that something couldn't be done, solely because it
> contradicts the dominant paradigm.
Haha! This is better than good theatre. It was precisely because I had to
redo the mathematics at which you failed so miserably that I realized how
horribly unapproachable Beckmann's entire book is. It's too wrong in too
many places, that there's no better place to begin than any other. I see
why Mr. Stamm said what he did and left it at that -- trying to explain
(especially to someone like you) in how many ways Mr. Beckmann is wrong
would take a lifetime. I am extremely surprised at how many errors Mr.
Beckmann could introduce in such a short book (be them typograhical,
mathematical, or physical).
> A shame. For awhile there, Jeff seemed to be willing to actually
> discuss the claims. Too bad it reduced to a pathetic 'redefinition' of
> the word 'analogous'.
Haha! Again, better than good theatre. Your dishonesty knows no bounds,
does it Barry? That's okay, I've known this for quite some time now. Going
through this brief discussion with you has shown me a lot about why you
like this book, and what your approach to science/mathematics truly is. It
would take a full book to outline all of the problems Beckmann seems to be
having in _Einstein Plus Two_, and it would likely attract a similar
following (which is, as far as I can tell, practically none at all).
There is a reason Mr. Beckmann's book is as little-known (and practically
ignored) as it is. It simply is bad science. There's nothing wrong with
that, per se. Plenty of people perform bad science. Most people who
perform science that badly, though, don't get to publish a book about it.
And, frankly, I do not have the time to wade through all of the books that
might tickle your fancy and follow in Mr. Beckmann's error-prone
footsteps.
So, thanks again for revealing what conversations with you are typically
like. I will certainly keep this in mind for the future.
Good day,
Jeff
greywolf42
newsgroup database. :(
> [...]
The snip-and-ignore is the standard Relativist method of avoiding
unpleasant situations. At least Jeff is honest in noting the
deletions.
I won't belabor the various points that Jeff has dropped. However, I
will put back the main point under discussion here. Specifically,
that Jeff keeps claiming that Beckmann made an error or multiple
errors in a derivation or derivation. But won't or can't provide the
'correct' answer -- when faced with a single line of calculus:
==============================
greywolf42 (in response to a prior snip of a derivation):
There was no need for you to snip that which you claim contained an
error.
If you have no problem up to the point above, then -- Rather than
simply say
'Beckmann is wrong' -- please provide what you think the result of the
next
step *should be.*
==============================
And that's the simple fact. Jeff continues to claim that specific
derivation steps are 'wrong.' But he either can't or won't provide
what is 'right' for that specific step.
> >> I started to go through the rest of the post, but Beckmann's book is
> >> much too full of typos to have any sort of relevant mathematical
> >> discussion.
> >
> > Excuse me, but the original claim you were defending was that Beckmann's
> > book contained *no* typo. Now you claim the book is 'too full of
> > typos'? Is this a bait-and-switch?
>
> Yes, this is much like you.
Picking up David Evan's kindergarten style?
> Notice how there were two different contexts?
> One was in Beckmann's reproduction of Gerber's potential, the other was in
> an equation for phi.
The claim of a typo in 'phi' was not made by you prior to your 8/10
post. Hence, this is pure misdirection by you.
> The reproduction of Gerber's potential is wrong;
That is your claim. That Beckmann 'had no typo', but was merely
'wrong.' However, this is the point you refuse to back up with math.
Per your request, I have repeatedly provided derivations produced
within and as indicated by the book. You identified a single step
wherein you claim the following step is 'wrong.' But you refuse to
provide the 'right' next step (which would shoe Beckmann incorrect).
You merely repeat that Beckmann is 'wrong' and snip my repeated
requests to provide the 'correct' next step.
Thus, your new claim that Beckmann's book is 'full of typos' is a
hilarious reversal of your position.
> his
> equation for phi is a typo (and more than one at that, or it is _even_
> _more_ _wrong_ than the rest of his stuff).
We aren't discussing Beckmann's equation for phi. Beckmann's equation
for phi is totally irrelevant to his derviation of potential -- and to
your provision of the 'correct' next step in the derivation (where you
say Beckmann and I go wrong).
> Either way, I see why you like
> the book so much, it gives you the perfect opportunity to hide behind a
> blanket of typos and missing math.
What a convolution! The only 'missing math' here is the next step
that you refuse to provide.
>
> [...]
Again, I won't belabor the various issues except the one immediately
preceding my statement:
===============================
Jeff:
Regardless, I don't see much point in continuing this discussion.
Beckmann's book is hopelessly riddled with typos and in too many
places is
incongruous, so much so that there's no way to have a worthwhile
discussion of the mathematics.
===============================
> > When confronted with a relatively simple calculus derivation (and the
> > necessity of backing up his own claims), Jeff (invisibly) snipped the
> > points that it was 'his turn' to support his point with mathematics.
> > And then leaves with the claim that Beckmann's book was 'too full of
> > typos' to continue.
>
> Indeed I did. I realized that you would not be up front with your lack of
> integration (mishandling the two unit vectors is a perfect example).
??? I *was* up front. I provided my integration in black and white.
And although you called one step 'wrong', you refused to provide the
'correct' next step.
> I
> also realized that either Beckmann is quite a bit wrong and makes his fair
> share of typographical errors, or Beckmann is _very_ wrong and still makes
> a handful of typographical errors.
I'm glad to see that you realized your initial claims that Beckmann
had produced zero typos was incorrect. :) It's too bad that you
still make your claims vague and non-specific.
> My time is simply much too valuable to sit here and keep re-reading
> Beckmann's shoddy excuse for a mathematical treatise,
Excuse me? We were down to one -- just one -- line of calculus that
didn't exist in Beckmann's book. That you claimed was the point of
error. But for which you still refuse to provide the 'correct' next
step. You had no need to 'reread Beckmann's book'. That's just an
excuse.
> and then try to
> piece it together with the patch-work you call mathematics.
All you needed was one equation. If you were right, then I'd happily
concede that I made an error. However, I'm less than impressed with
someone who can only chant 'it's wrong' -- without providing the
correct answer.
> Somehow
> discussions with you tend to turn toward this route rather quickly, so I
> suppose I should not be surprised that this one did as well. Oh well.
That's probably because most such discussions are prompted by vague
statements of error -- that the author (you in this case) refuses to
back up. In this case, I provided my math. Where's yours?
> > The latter being hilarious, because Jeff was defending against *my*
> > claim that ONE of Beckmann's equations (3.2-8) contained an apparent
> > typo. Jeff was defending the insistence that Beckmann was *irrational*
> > and incapable of logic or because that *one* equation did not match
> > another equation (3.2-2).
>
> "Incapable of logic"? Interesting, I don't remember saying quite that. I
> do remember saying that Beckmann was wrong, that his reproduction of
> Gerber's potential is wrong, and that his equation for phi (among other
> equations throughout the book) houses a typo. It seems like Beckmann was
> in a giving mood when he wrote this book; whenever he could gracelessly
> leap over the logic of mathematics or introduce a handful of typos to
> further confuse the issue, he did just that.
Another slime-statement. Devoid of content.
>
> [...]
> > {Here is the end of the 'disappered' section.}
> > ===============================
>
> [and watch it disappear again]
>
> [...]
Of course you 'disappeared' it again! It had the words 'feel free to
demonstrate.' I.O.W. it was your 'turn.' And you are dodging and
running.
> > It seems Jeff found that he couldn't actually demonstrate that which he
> > thought was obvious -- until he actually was faced with doing the math.
> > Then it became 'confusing' for him -- but only because he couldn't do
> > what he thought he could. So much for the claims against Beckmann's
> > book. The claims were -- as usual -- substance-free. The results of
> > being so certain that something couldn't be done, solely because it
> > contradicts the dominant paradigm.
>
> Haha! This is better than good theatre. It was precisely because I had to
> redo the mathematics at which you failed so miserably that I realized how
> horribly unapproachable Beckmann's entire book is. It's too wrong in too
> many places, that there's no better place to begin than any other. I see
> why Mr. Stamm said what he did and left it at that -- trying to explain
> (especially to someone like you) in how many ways Mr. Beckmann is wrong
> would take a lifetime. I am extremely surprised at how many errors Mr.
> Beckmann could introduce in such a short book (be them typograhical,
> mathematical, or physical).
It would have been simplicity itself to show one or two errors, if
they were that common. I think it much more likely that neither Jeff
nor Ed bothered to read or skim the prior portions of the book -- and
simply misunderstood what they were reading.
> > A shame. For awhile there, Jeff seemed to be willing to actually
> > discuss the claims. Too bad it reduced to a pathetic 'redefinition' of
> > the word 'analogous'.
>
> Haha! Again, better than good theatre. Your dishonesty knows no bounds,
> does it Barry?
Here comes the projection and ad hominem attack.
> That's okay, I've known this for quite some time now. Going
> through this brief discussion with you has shown me a lot about why you
> like this book, and what your approach to science/mathematics truly is. It
> would take a full book to outline all of the problems Beckmann seems to be
> having in _Einstein Plus Two_, and it would likely attract a similar
> following (which is, as far as I can tell, practically none at all).
>
> There is a reason Mr. Beckmann's book is as little-known (and practically
> ignored) as it is. It simply is bad science. There's nothing wrong with
> that, per se. Plenty of people perform bad science. Most people who
> perform science that badly, though, don't get to publish a book about it.
> And, frankly, I do not have the time to wade through all of the books that
> might tickle your fancy and follow in Mr. Beckmann's error-prone
> footsteps.
So much need to write self-justifying crap. Just to avoid one line of
calculus!
> So, thanks again for revealing what conversations with you are typically
> like. I will certainly keep this in mind for the future.
Yep. Stay clear of greywolf42 ... he'll insist that if you claim a
line of calculus is 'wrong' that you provide the line of calculus that
you think is 'right.' And THEN you might just be shown to be wrong.
Dirk Van de moortel
"greywolf42" <min...@sim-ss.com> wrote in message news:6ffd15bd.03081...@posting.google.com...
Smokescreen #10
#10 http://groups.google.com/groups?&as_umsgid=6ffd15bd.03081...@posting.google.com
#9 http://groups.google.com/groups?&as_umsgid=vibm425...@corp.supernews.com
#8 http://groups.google.com/groups?&as_umsgid=vhtma4h...@corp.supernews.com
#7 http://groups.google.com/groups?&as_umsgid=vhm4f6r...@corp.supernews.com
#6 http://groups.google.com/groups?&as_umsgid=vg0ndom...@corp.supernews.com
#5 http://groups.google.com/groups?&as_umsgid=vfrn4g1...@corp.supernews.com
#4 http://groups.google.com/groups?&as_umsgid=vfrlt15...@corp.supernews.com
#3 http://groups.google.com/groups?&as_umsgid=vfgtonn...@corp.supernews.com
#2 http://groups.google.com/groups?&as_umsgid=vfem054...@corp.supernews.com
#1 http://groups.google.com/groups?&as_umsgid=vemlos4...@corp.supernews.com
Dirk Vdm
greywolf42
>
> "greywolf42" <min...@sim-ss.com> wrote in message
news:6ffd15bd.03081...@posting.google.com...
>
> Smokescreen #10
>
> #10
ing.google.com
> #9
http://groups.google.com/groups?&as_umsgid=vibm425...@corp.supernews.com
> #8
http://groups.google.com/groups?&as_umsgid=vhtma4h...@corp.supernews.com
> #7
http://groups.google.com/groups?&as_umsgid=vhm4f6r...@corp.supernews.com
> #6
http://groups.google.com/groups?&as_umsgid=vg0ndom...@corp.supernews.com
> #5
http://groups.google.com/groups?&as_umsgid=vfrn4g1...@corp.supernews.com
> #4
http://groups.google.com/groups?&as_umsgid=vfrlt15...@corp.supernews.com
> #3
http://groups.google.com/groups?&as_umsgid=vfgtonn...@corp.supernews.com
> #2
http://groups.google.com/groups?&as_umsgid=vfem054...@corp.supernews.com
> #1
http://groups.google.com/groups?&as_umsgid=vemlos4...@corp.supernews.com
>
> Dirk Vdm
>
Hey! The coward's back!
Dinky, how about taking those bets now?
Or how about posting some physics?
I didn't think so. Bye.