general relativity curvature of space = metaphor?

[kqui...@yahoo.com]

Colbert last night had a theoretical physicist (who he said wanted to be a real one soon arf arf) who at Colbert's request formulated general relativity in no-holds-barred language, which I didn't understand of course except that I got the impression that it all boiled down to objects obeying Newton's Law of Motion.

Consider that objects also move in curved paths in response to EM forces. Why is that not equivalent to another curvature of space - that caused by EM forces? And so on. All motion is the result of forces applied to objects. Does every force 'curve space'?

Why isn't the 'curvature of space', this brilliant insight, merely taking an easy way out? It doesn't really explain anything, it merely puts Newton's Law of Gravitation into other words. It's appealing - as poetry. I'm not sure what
additional information it conveys about the real nature of gravity. It's just one of those brilliant insights we have that we later (if we have common sense and are able to look critically at our own thoughts) regretfully abandon. Maybe like this very post!

Is this gravitationally induced curvature of space different from some general univeral curvature of space, in which the whole universe has for example negative or positive curvature (not sure what that means)?

This post is merely an attempt at debunking. But I'm really curious about my last question because it could be asked even if the 'curvature of space' caused by gravity was real.

[Y.Porat]

=================================
see the Y Circlon mechanism '

one picture is worth a thousand words ...
ATB
Y.Porat
===========================

[kqui...@yahoo.com]

Thanks for the reply. Interesting idea. It does sort of violate Occam's Razor by adding another entity into the equation (Do Not Unnecessarily Add Entities). I'll read it in more detail.

My point was sort of that curved space doesn't add real understanding to gravity - in the Unified Field Theory sense. I didn't express it clearly, or maybe even at all.

Maybe there is no understanding other than Newton's Law (or its more complex modern equivalent which introduces not entities but more generalized mathematical structures). Same with particle physics. The math is kind of all there is, right?

[john]

They are lost in the math

[kqui...@yahoo.com]

On Thursday, November 12, 2015 at 9:53:20 AM UTC-5, john wrote:
> They are lost in the math

something I don't know would be helpful

[jay moseley]

kqui...@yahoo.com

>Colbert last night had a theoretical physicist(who hesaid wanted to bea realonesoon arfarf) who atColbert's request formulated general relativity in no-holds->barred language, which I didn't understand of course except that I got the impression that it all boiled down to objects obeying Newton's Law of Motion.

>Consider that objects also move in curved paths in response to EM forces. Why is that not equivalent to another curvature of space - that caused by EM >orces

Who is Colbert?
My advice is ignore curvature of space. Its a dead end theory.
My understanding is that even nasa doesnt use GR to calculate
trajectories. The problem with Newtons accounting rules is that
it assumes all the mass of the system is at a theoretical point
at the center. This is why it cant model preccession. But if one
does a n> 3 body calculation it would take into account the fact
that the mass of the sun is spread across its volume. The closer
one gets to the sun the wider the suns mass is in arc seconds.
Of course doing an accurate n> 3 body calculation is not possible.
But a close enough approximation was made by Urbain le Verrier
way back before albert was born. He came up with vulcan, which
of course doesnt exist. But he showed with a crude n3 body calculation
that by spreading the mass of the sun across a small region around the
suns center would give the observed preccession. Einstein on the other hand
faked it. He took newtons formula and added in the observed preccession.
And then claimed his mathematical fiddle was due to curved space.

[kqui...@yahoo.com]

Colbert is Steve Colbert the replacement for Dave Letterman on the Late Show (CBS).

Thanks for your reply.

Do you have any references for your position? I understand some of it, and it all sounds good to me, and I'd embrace it with a little more backup.

Additionally or alternatively, can anyone else weigh in on jay moseley's post?

If you can, try to watch the Colbert episode (it's on CBS) from last night - 11/11/15. I have Comcast and it's on On Demand for free. This physicist guest jams the real math (I guess) into about 30 seconds and is worth a listen-to look-see. Kind of a tour-de-force.

It's towards the end of the show and you'll have to wade thru the leadup (you're clearly not a fan) but it's worth it I think).

[reber g=emc^2]

It gives great action,and meaning to space and time.It gives answers that Newton never dreamed of.Think Mercury.Think action over distance.Think black holes.Think inertia and gravity two sides to the same coin.Its will always amaze me that Einstein did not get a Nobel for all of this.It proves what many said at the time "bigoty rules" It is even around today.Hard to believe TreBert

[Sam Wormley]

On 11/12/15 11:30 AM, reber g=emc^2 wrote:
> Its will always amaze me that Einstein did not get a Nobel for all of this.

Don't be a fool, reber. Einstein did get a Nobel Prize in 1921
"for his services to Theoretical Physics, and especially for
his discovery of the law of the photoelectric effect".


--

sci.physics is an unmoderated newsgroup dedicated
to the discussion of physics, news from the physics
community, and physics-related social issues.

[Odd Bodkin]

On 11/12/2015 11:05 AM, jay moseley wrote:
> Who is Colbert?
> My advice is ignore curvature of space. Its a dead end theory.
> My understanding is that even nasa doesnt use GR to calculate
> trajectories. The problem with Newtons accounting rules is that
> it assumes all the mass of the system is at a theoretical point
> at the center. This is why it cant model preccession. But if one
> does a n> 3 body calculation it would take into account the fact
> that the mass of the sun is spread across its volume. The closer
> one gets to the sun the wider the suns mass is in arc seconds.
> Of course doing an accurate n> 3 body calculation is not possible.
> But a close enough approximation was made by Urbain le Verrier
> way back before albert was born. He came up with vulcan, which
> of course doesnt exist. But he showed with a crude n3 body calculation
> that by spreading the mass of the sun across a small region around the
> suns center would give the observed preccession. Einstein on the other hand
> faked it. He took newtons formula and added in the observed preccession.
> And then claimed his mathematical fiddle was due to curved space.

Anyone want to take a shot at adding up the mistakes in this paragraph?

--
Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

[Jeff-Relf.Me]

 
A five-dimensional being sees your (4D) TIMEscape 
(from birth to death) all at once, like a video file.

Light pluses are how we measure time and space;
and, when it falls into a gravity well, it's blue_shifted 
-- i.e. there are more pulses, more clock ticks.

Locally, here and now, "the speed of time" (the pulse rate)
is static, constant, immutable.

Spacetime is like a rubber sheet, space by time, x by t.

Absent gravity, or any other forces, 
you continually move _straight_ forward in time
on this sheet, never curving (into space).

Earth warps this (still flat) "rubber spacetime sheet";
so your notionally "straight" path is actually curved.

"Time Curvature" ( into space ) is the (Newtonian) "1g"
we know so well, here on earth; i.e. moving forward in time,
as we do, means moving down, spatially.

Here on earth, "Space Curvature" ( into time ) is negligible.
Near the sun, it makes Mercury "spiral" (precess);
i.e. over time, "down" morphs.

[kqui...@yahoo.com]

Well I can weight in with what I think is NOT a mistake - that Newton DOES assume the mass is concentrated at a point in the center of mass. This is true, no?

[jay moseley]

kqui..yahoo wrote....

> Do you have any references for your position? I understand some of it, and it all sounds good to me, and I'd embrace it with a little more backup.

References? Im assuming you dont mean references as in a resume.
You can check pretty well everything Ive said online at links like wiki.
For instance ...Urbain le Verrier, Vulcan, n>3 body calculations, Nasa
using newton to calculate trajectories, Newtons formula using a hypothetical
point source for mass is something you have to arrive at by looking at
the equations and asking yourself, where in the equation is the mass
defined as being spread out in the volume. ( it isnt).
As for einstein fiddling the preccession. Depends on how much maths
you want to wade through. Look up his derivation for the preccession
online and youll get various pages giving various amount of detail. Try to
get one that works through the calculations. My guess is he worked
backwards. Started with newton and the added observed preccession. He
then got someone else to work it up with the new field equations to
make it look complicated

>If you can, try to watch the Colbert episode (it's on CBS) from last night - 11/11/15. I have Comcast and it's on On Demand for free. This physicist guest jams >the real math (I guess) into about 30 seconds and is worth a listen-to look-see.Kind of a tour-de-force.

>it's towards the end of the show and you'll have to wade thru the leadup (you're clearly not a fan) but it's worth it I think)

Its not that Im not a fan. Ive just never heard of him. I dont watch tv, except if
maybe a good movie is on. Which isnt often.

[jay moseley]

Odd bodkin wrote...

> Anyone want to take a shot at adding up the mistakes in this paragraph?

Obviously you cant.

[Odd Bodkin]

For some applications yes. Not for rotational dynamics, for example,
which is Newtonian mechanics.

[benj]

Actually Herb, he never got a Nobel for all that because his
photoelectric stuff was correct but the relativity stuff was not and the
committee knew that and didn't want to embarrass the prize.

Still trying to play the Jew card? Don't you know that today it's the
BLACK CARD that is the only acceptable one.

Why don't you refuse to post until the moderator of Sci.physics resigns?

--

___ ___ ___ ___
/\ \ /\ \ /\__\ /\ \
/::\ \ /::\ \ /::| | \:\ \
/:/\:\ \ /:/\:\ \ /:|:| | ___ /::\__\
/::\~\:\__\ /::\~\:\ \ /:/|:| |__ /\ /:/\/__/
/:/\:\ \:|__| /:/\:\ \:\__\ /:/ |:| /\__\ \:\/:/ /
\:\~\:\/:/ / \:\~\:\ \/__/ \/__|:|/:/ / \::/ /
\:\ \::/ / \:\ \:\__\ |:/:/ / \/__/
\:\/:/ / \:\ \/__/ |::/ /
\::/__/ \:\__\ /:/ /
~~ \/__/ \/__/

[benj]

On 11/12/2015 12:35 PM, Sam Wormley wrote:
> On 11/12/15 11:30 AM, reber g=emc^2 wrote:
>> Its will always amaze me that Einstein did not get a Nobel for all of
>> this.
>
>
> Don't be a fool, reber. Einstein did get a Nobel Prize in 1921
> "for his services to Theoretical Physics, and especially for
> his discovery of the law of the photoelectric effect".
>

In other words, Sammy, the Nobel committee KNEW his theories were crap
so kept it to his photoelectric work!

You need to listen to Herb's theories! SPIN IS IN! Now THAT is Nobel
level thinking!

[Sam Wormley]

Albert Einstein Documentary HD
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NyK5SG9rwWI

> The best Albert Einstein documentary. If you only watch one Einstein
> documentary this is the one! One of my personal favorite things to
> watch ever. Features comments from Neil deGrasse Tyson and more.

[Sam Wormley]

On 11/12/15 12:14 PM, kqui...@yahoo.com wrote:
> Newton DOES assume the mass is concentrated at a point in the center of mass. This is true, no?

## #
## #
#########################################
#########################################
## ######
## ##########
############
##############
#############
#############
##############
#############
##############
#############
##############
############# #
############# #
#########################################
#########################################
#

########
###############
##################
#####################
#### ####
## ##
## ##
## ##
## ###
## ##
#### ####
#####################
##################
###############
########


Newton realized that for the sake of *some* calculations, one can
assume that the mass is concentrated at the center of mass.

[jay moseley]

kqui..yahoo got a reply from.odd bodkin...

> For some applications yes. Not for rotational dynamics, for example, which is Newtonian mechanic

Dont pay attention to this reply. Odd is trying to confuse you. Rotational
dynamics is rigid body systems. Not the same as gravitational formula
you were inquiring about.
The formula in question has r which is distance between
the two centers of mass. In other words all the mass is located at one
theoretical central point for each body. Odd cant bring himself to admit
this so like all good relativists... he talks about something else.

[kqui...@yahoo.com]

I don't mean to be pushy but it's worth this maybe 40 minute stint just to see that 30 second rapid-fire dump of the math behind general relativity. Not having the background I can't give a review of the accuracy of the dump but it sure is impressive to the untutored. The audience loved it too. I'd be interested in your and other reviews of the actual physics he laid out.

[jay moseley]

Sam wrote...

> Newton realized that for the sake of *some* calculations, one can assume that the mass is concentrated at the center of mass.

Which is why it cant model the observed preccession. That needs a n> 3 body
calculation which as Ive already said isnt possible. But a good approximation
can be a n3 body calculation which le Verrier did do. And it works. Spread
the mass of the sun out a bit across its volume.
In fact this is also the reason why rotational curves of galaxies dont
match predicted curves. Because the predictions of orbital speeds of
stars assumes the entire mass of the galaxy, within the orbital radius
of the star in question, is concentrated at the very center of mass of the
galaxy!!! What a bunch of idiots. And not only that, they ignore any gravitational
effects of all the stellar mass outside said orbital radius.

[Mahipal]

On Thursday, November 12, 2015 at 12:35:44 PM UTC-5, Sam Wormley wrote:
> On 11/12/15 11:30 AM, reber g=emc^2 wrote:
> > Its will always amaze me that Einstein did not get a Nobel for all of this.

Its will? What is this It that has a will?

> Don't be a fool, reber. Einstein did get a Nobel Prize in 1921
> "for his services to Theoretical Physics, and especially for
> his discovery of the law of the photoelectric effect".

That's why h is called The Planck's Constant in E=hf! Makes sense.

"First recognized by Max Planck in 1900, it was originally the
proportionality constant between the minimal increment of energy, E,
of a hypothetical electrically charged oscillator in a cavity that
contained black body radiation, and the frequency, f, of its
associated electromagnetic wave." -- I cut and pasted this quote.

P^\mu = \left(\frac{E}{c}, \vec{p}\right) = \hbar K^\mu =
\hbar\left(\frac{\omega}{c}, \vec{k}\right)

If you can't wow them with words, they've heard them all, then
scramble their bird brians by CGI of slowly drifting rotating 4D
mathematical equations. Wrong color, just change the colors!
No, not that font either. Oye... Amateurs. Use... Larger Squared.

-- Mahipal "IPMM, do learn to read, write and speak their language."

[omni...@gmail.com]

From kqui,

"Consider that objects also move in curved paths in response to EM forces. Why is that not equivalent to another curvature of space - that caused by EM forces? And so on. All motion is the result of forces applied to objects. Does every force 'curve space'?  Why isn't the 'curvature of space', this brilliant insight, merely taking an easy way out? It doesn't really explain anything,"

Hello kqui,

The answer is :

A curve is a general term for a way to represent a function. The General Theory is Relativity is only for generalized curves because Einstein ddid not know the cause of gravity. His curved spacetime is just a correct wording concerning a General Idea, not a specific physic.

Yes, EM forces "curve" the 4D Electricity Continuum. That is relative to the 4D Gravity Continuum and that is relative to matter. Matter is protons and neutrons. Einstein never heard of protons for his theory because they were not named until 1920.

Yes, they took the easy way out. They generalized curves, but without specific knowledge of protons and neutrons shrinking space and growing time. The conservation of 8D continuum Rules.

[Yousuf Khan]

On 12/11/2015 8:52 AM, kqui...@yahoo.com wrote:
> Colbert last night had a theoretical physicist (who he said wanted to
> be a real one soon arf arf) who at Colbert's request formulated
> general relativity in no-holds-barred language, which I didn't
> understand of course except that I got the impression that it all
> boiled down to objects obeying Newton's Law of Motion.

Things usually get simplified down to Newton's Laws because it's easier
for us to picture gravity like a force (something like a string pulling
on a ball), than it is for us to picture gravity as a curvature of
space. But Newton's laws are an approximation, because gravity is not a
force like all of the other forces, it's probably not even right to call
it a force, I'll call it a pseudo-force, because it fools us into
thinking that it's a force.

> Consider that objects also move in curved paths in response to EM
> forces. Why is that not equivalent to another curvature of space -
> that caused by EM forces? And so on. All motion is the result of
> forces applied to objects. Does every force 'curve space'?

Because EM is actually a force, unlike gravity. EM doesn't curve space,
it merely travels through space, and makes use of space as its medium of
travel. But in the presence of strong gravitational source, like a star,
EM actually gets all mangled up and twisted in ways that weren't ever
envisioned by the classical laws of EM. That's because EM is dependent
on space, and if space itself is all curved up and mangled, then EM also
gets all curved up and mangled.

How to tell the difference between a force and a pseudo-force? Forces
are transmitted by carrier particles. EM by photons, Strong Nuclear
force by gluons, and the Weak Nuclear by W & Z bosons. Gravity? No
carrier particles, just space itself.

There is a hypothesis that gravity's carrier particle is something
called a graviton. But no one has ever been able to detect a graviton,
so without some observable evidence, it can't be called a theory, it can
only be called a hypothesis. The idea behind the graviton was to make
gravity behave like a standard quantum force like EM, Strong or Weak
forces. But gravity most scientists don't think gravity is a quantum
force, because it's not a force at all. So the idea of a graviton might
be completely misguided.

> Why isn't the 'curvature of space', this brilliant insight, merely
> taking an easy way out? It doesn't really explain anything, it merely
> puts Newton's Law of Gravitation into other words. It's appealing -
> as poetry. I'm not sure what additional information it conveys about
> the real nature of gravity. It's just one of those brilliant insights
> we have that we later (if we have common sense and are able to look
> critically at our own thoughts) regretfully abandon. Maybe like this
> very post!

Because those are not other words for Newton's Laws, Newton's Laws are
merely an approximation of the real deal which is that gravity is a
curvature of spacetime. Why does gravitation seem similar to the EM
force, in that they both drop off in strength with the square of the
distance between objects? It turns out it's merely because that's they
way forces act in a 3-dimensional space universe. If our space was 4
dimensional instead, then the forces might have dropped off by a factor
of distance cubed instead. So initially we were fooled into thinking
that gravity and EM might be related to each other because they both
followed the inverse distance squared rule, but that was merely a
coincidence.

When you get to some really large sources of gravity, then the inverse
square law doesn't apply as much, and gravity starts to act really
strange. An example of this is the planet Mercury's orbit around the
Sun. It's orbit cannot be predicted Newton's laws, only General
Relativity works for it.

> Is this gravitationally induced curvature of space different from
> some general univeral curvature of space, in which the whole universe
> has for example negative or positive curvature (not sure what that
> means)?

All of the curvatures of space are caused by the objects sitting inside it.

Yousuf Khan

[benj]

On 11/12/2015 01:11 PM, Jeff-Relf.Me wrote:
>
> A five-dimensional being sees your (4D) TIMEscape
> (from birth to death) all at once, like a video file.

Rolf, you are thinking in the right direction but as usual like all Libs
you are wandering in circles. Time is seen as all at once only for
beings out side of time. Your mistake is you think that the space-time
mathematical fantasy is real. It is no more real that thinking
space-temperature warps cause global warming.

> Light pluses are how we measure time and space;
> and, when it falls into a gravity well, it's blue_shifted
> -- i.e. there are more pulses, more clock ticks.

We use the velocity of light to measure time because the speed of light
is the "velocity of consciousness". Or what one might term the "velocity
of truth". This speed appears immutable because the speed of light in
"empty" aether is fixed. The speed of light changes when other things
are present (matter).

> Locally, here and now, "the speed of time" (the pulse rate)
> is static, constant, immutable.

Because the velocity of consciousness travels at the propagation speed
of empty aether.

> Spacetime is like a rubber sheet, space by time, x by t.

Spacetime is a mathematical fantasy of no significance. I can make up
ANY such fantasy. It proves nothing.

> Absent gravity, or any other forces,
> you continually move _straight_ forward in time
> on this sheet, never curving (into space).

Universe is curved. However light (EM waves) does not follow the curve.
This is what creates the Redshift and all the myriad errors that have
gone with it.

> Earth warps this (still flat) "rubber spacetime sheet";
> so your notionally "straight" path is actually curved.

No.

> "Time Curvature" ( into space ) is the (Newtonian) "1g"
> we know so well, here on earth; i.e. moving forward in time,
> as we do, means moving down, spatially.

No.

> Here on earth, "Space Curvature" ( into time ) is negligible.
> Near the sun, it makes Mercury "spiral" (precess);
> i.e. over time, "down" morphs.

You are wandering in the wilderness. You might as well be "explaining"
how the "big bang" created everything from nothing by chance.

[Yousuf Khan]

Spoken like a true kook!

[Y.Porat]

========================
Welcome
one of the main points that i revealed is that
sine you cant tell in advance to which side
'space will curve''
(those who know basic 3D geometry understand it
at once 'as bread and butter in basic geometry)
so
since no one can tell 'a priory ' to which direction
space will curves
than
AT THAT MOMENT -SPACE CANNOT BE AN ACTIVE FACTOR
IN FORCE MAKING
IT CAN BE AT MOST
A PASSIVE CAUSE TO GRAVITY
WHILE IT IS RATHER MASS THAT IS 'THE MAIN HERO IN THAT 'STORY '

and in a second deeper thought -
(after recovering from the 'shock '
you find that if so
curved space is actually
A NONSTARTER NONSENSE PHYSICS !!
ie an insult for mankind intelligence -that
didn t get it along more than 100 years !!!

ATB
Y.Porat
=======================================

[Y.Porat]

========================
bravo !!
well said
i can see some slight movement to another new direction of that
huge battle ship 'that is called 'modern' sci physics

(wow how difficult is to move her anything
to some new direction
it shows that too many egoistic private
business interests are involved in it
and sticking it still
-----------------------------
ATB
Y.Porat
==========================================

[Y.Porat]

===========================
nasty gangster pig (P D)
a shameless criminal against mankind !!!
you are going to be punished for that
(not necessarily by me
History will do it !!
by others who really will find who really you are
and what are your real motivations !!!
--------------------
Y.Porat
====================================

[kqui...@yahoo.com]

On Thursday, November 12, 2015 at 8:52:30 AM UTC-5, kqui...@yahoo.com wrote:
> Colbert last night had a theoretical physicist (who he said wanted to be a real one soon arf arf) who at Colbert's request formulated general relativity in no-holds-barred language, which I didn't understand of course except that I got the impression that it all boiled down to objects obeying Newton's Law of Motion.
>
> Consider that objects also move in curved paths in response to EM forces. Why is that not equivalent to another curvature of space - that caused by EM forces? And so on. All motion is the result of forces applied to objects. Does every force 'curve space'?
>
> Why isn't the 'curvature of space', this brilliant insight, merely taking an easy way out? It doesn't really explain anything, it merely puts Newton's Law of Gravitation into other words. It's appealing - as poetry. I'm not sure what
> additional information it conveys about the real nature of gravity. It's just one of those brilliant insights we have that we later (if we have common sense and are able to look critically at our own thoughts) regretfully abandon. Maybe like this very post!
>
> Is this gravitationally induced curvature of space different from some general univeral curvature of space, in which the whole universe has for example negative or positive curvature (not sure what that means)?
>
> This post is merely an attempt at debunking. But I'm really curious about my last question because it could be asked even if the 'curvature of space' caused by gravity was real.

OK, this is a transcript that I made of the 30-second description, by the physicist Brian Greene, on the Steven Colbert Late Show episode from a few days ago, of general relativity:

space-time is a 4-dimensional Hausdorff differentiable manifold on which a metric tensor is imposed that solves Einstein's field equation; and that metric tensor gives rise to geodesics; any object that is not experiencing any other force moves along the geodesics described by that metric.

First, I have this vague sense that this is really saying nothing more than Newton's equations for the force of gravity; and that Newton's equations also give rise to geodesics that affect objects exactly the same as above.

"gives rise to geodesics" - doesn't Newton's equation "give rise to geodesics"?

I might be wrong though, in thinking that a geodesic is simply a constrained path.

Do people think that Brian Towne gave an accurate (for a 30-second talk) description of general relativity? And do they think that what it describes has more 'content' than Newton's equations?

What I can't seem to get explained here in this thread is exactly why saying space is curved by gravity is any different from saying objects under the effect of Newton's law move, if you will, in geodesics? It's just a poetic way of saying the same thing. Oh wow space is curved. Nah. You could look at that way but it doesn't add anything to the discussion but a metaphor. It's cute though. Makes a splash at cocktail parties.

Wasn't Jay Moseley right in saying that things like the precession are explainable by 'integrating' gravity over the entire Sun from the center out?

Maybe somebody could respond to Odd Bodkin's "anyone want to take a shot at [adding up] describing the mistakes in this paragraph?"

[kqui...@yahoo.com]

OK, Mercury's orbit, Newton's Law, and Jay Moseley's comments which I copy below:

"Which is why it cant model the observed preccession. That needs a n> 3 body calculation which as Ive already said isnt possible. But a good approximation can be a n3 body calculation which le Verrier did do. And it works. Spread the mass of the sun out a bit across its volume.
In fact this is also the reason why rotational curves of galaxies dont
match predicted curves. Because the predictions of orbital speeds of
stars assumes the entire mass of the galaxy, within the orbital radius
of the star in question, is concentrated at the very center of mass of the
galaxy!!! What a bunch of idiots. And not only that, they ignore any gravitational effects of all the stellar mass outside said orbital radius."

So you disagree with the above, that taking into account the effect of other bodies on the Sun/Mercury 'relationship', and ignoring the size of the Sun and how gravity is actually exerted by each part of the Sun, not some weight concentration in the center (or does the integration of all the parts of the Sun's gravity 'add up' to acting as thought it was all concentrated in the center), will explain the precession? Aren't these things calculable to a reasonable degree of accuracy?

(But it seems that for an object so close to the Sun, the fact that the Sun is not actually a point mass might be significant. What about these large planets that orbit even closer to their Suns than Mercury? Do they also exhibit this precession, and is it explainable by Einstein's equations?)

Anyway thanks for your reasoned reply.

Ken Quirici

[Odd Bodkin]

On 11/13/2015 8:19 AM, kqui...@yahoo.com wrote:
> OK, this is a transcript that I made of the 30-second description, by the physicist Brian Greene, on
> the Steven Colbert Late Show episode from a few days ago, of general relativity:
>
> space-time is a 4-dimensional Hausdorff differentiable manifold on which a metric tensor is imposed that
> solves Einstein's field equation; and that metric tensor gives rise to geodesics; any object that is not
> experiencing any other force moves along the geodesics described by that metric.
>
> First, I have this vague sense that this is really saying nothing more than Newton's equations for the force
> of gravity; and that Newton's equations also give rise to geodesics that affect objects exactly the same as above.

No, that's incorrect. Newton's equations of gravity and Einstein's
equations of gravity give slightly different predictions, but the
difference between the predictions are in fact discernible in
measurement, and the measurements have been done and agree with
Einstein's equations and disagree with Newton's equations.

[kqui...@yahoo.com]

OK. on the other point, is Greene's description of general relativity's version of space-time, in your opinion, correct?

[jay moseley]

Odd bodkin wrote...

> No, that's incorrect. Newton's equations of gravity and Einstein's equations of gravity give slightly different predictions, but the difference between the predictions are in fact discernible in measurement, and the measurements have been done and agree with Einstein's equations and disagree with Newton's equations.

Thats a pretty general sweeping statement. Name one example specifically.

If its mercury preccession, GR only got it right because Einstein took newtons
equation, and added in the observed preccession.
He couldnt help but get it right. But he couldnt have made GR work
if he didnt have the already observed preccession to fiddle his calculations with.
Ive seen it described as a " correction term" added by albert. Tagged onto
the newtonian/ keplerian solution.
Its all covered up with field and differential equations to make it look like
GR actually does something novel other then just fake the results with a
mathematical sleight of hand.

[Jeff-Relf.Me]

 
@kquirici, to understand "Greene's description of general relativity"
_you_ have to study (and understand) General Relativity.

I already explained curved spaceTIME to you:

  "The speed of time" (the pulse rate).
  Jeff-R...@Nov.12{10.11A.Seattle.2015}
  https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.physics/K3-DI6qpUTE/HWnCf04rDgAJ

If _you_ don't understand it,
then _you_ are wrong, not Einstein.

[Odd Bodkin]

On 11/13/2015 12:14 PM, jay moseley wrote:
> Odd bodkin wrote...
>> No, that's incorrect. Newton's equations of gravity and Einstein's equations of
>> gravity give slightly different predictions, but the difference between the predictions
>> are in fact discernible in measurement, and the measurements have been done and agree
>> with Einstein's equations and disagree with Newton's equations.
>
> Thats a pretty general sweeping statement. Name one example specifically.
>
> If its mercury preccession, GR only got it right because Einstein took newtons
> equation, and added in the observed preccession.

That is a blatantly false claim. Read the history here. The book by Pais
is a pretty good starting point, with tons of references.

But that's not the only place where there are differences. Gravitational
bending of light is another. Shapiro delay is another.

> He couldnt help but get it right. But he couldnt have made GR work
> if he didnt have the already observed preccession to fiddle his calculations with.
> Ive seen it described as a " correction term" added by albert. Tagged onto
> the newtonian/ keplerian solution.

Nope. If you've seen it, then cite where you saw it. If you don't
remember where you saw it, then you likely don't remember clearly what
you read either.

> Its all covered up with field and differential equations to make it look like
> GR actually does something novel other then just fake the results with a
> mathematical sleight of hand.

It's not sleight of hand. It's all followable. Magic is only magical to
people who can't follow the magician's hands. Do you have difficulty
following the math?

[Sam Wormley]

On 11/13/15 12:14 PM, jay moseley wrote:
> Thats a pretty general sweeping statement. Name one example specifically.

Campbell's observation of star locations distorted by the Sun's
gravitation and observations of the perihelion precession of Mercury's
orbit match Einsteins predictions and not Newton's.

[noTthaTguY]

it's just a matter of a)
optics (second-power equationary

[kqui...@yahoo.com]

It seems like you're saying Greene's description of general relativity is in your opinion accurate (even if somewhat abbreviated). Is that true?

[kqui...@yahoo.com]

On Friday, November 13, 2015 at 2:41:02 PM UTC-5, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> On 11/13/2015 12:14 PM, jay moseley wrote:
> > Odd bodkin wrote...
> >> No, that's incorrect. Newton's equations of gravity and Einstein's equations of
> >> gravity give slightly different predictions, but the difference between the predictions
> >> are in fact discernible in measurement, and the measurements have been done and agree
> >> with Einstein's equations and disagree with Newton's equations.
> >
> > Thats a pretty general sweeping statement. Name one example specifically.
> >
> > If its mercury preccession, GR only got it right because Einstein took newtons
> > equation, and added in the observed preccession.
>
> That is a blatantly false claim. Read the history here. The book by Pais

Is this the book you mean:

The Genius of Science: A portrait gallery (Oxford University Press, 2000)

[kqui...@yahoo.com]

On Friday, November 13, 2015 at 2:41:02 PM UTC-5, Odd Bodkin wrote:

> On 11/13/2015 12:14 PM, jay moseley wrote:
> > Odd bodkin wrote...
> >> No, that's incorrect. Newton's equations of gravity and Einstein's equations of
> >> gravity give slightly different predictions, but the difference between the predictions
> >> are in fact discernible in measurement, and the measurements have been done and agree
> >> with Einstein's equations and disagree with Newton's equations.
> >
> > Thats a pretty general sweeping statement. Name one example specifically.
> >
> > If its mercury preccession, GR only got it right because Einstein took newtons
> > equation, and added in the observed preccession.
>
> That is a blatantly false claim. Read the history here. The book by Pais

You must mean Subtle is the Lord, right?

[Odd Bodkin]

On 11/13/2015 3:33 PM, kqui...@yahoo.com wrote:
> On Friday, November 13, 2015 at 2:41:02 PM UTC-5, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>> On 11/13/2015 12:14 PM, jay moseley wrote:
>>> Odd bodkin wrote...
>>>> No, that's incorrect. Newton's equations of gravity and Einstein's equations of
>>>> gravity give slightly different predictions, but the difference between the predictions
>>>> are in fact discernible in measurement, and the measurements have been done and agree
>>>> with Einstein's equations and disagree with Newton's equations.
>>>
>>> Thats a pretty general sweeping statement. Name one example specifically.
>>>
>>> If its mercury preccession, GR only got it right because Einstein took newtons
>>> equation, and added in the observed preccession.
>>
>> That is a blatantly false claim. Read the history here. The book by Pais
>
> Is this the book you mean:

No. Subtle Is The Lord, by Pais.

>
> The Genius of Science: A portrait gallery (Oxford University Press, 2000)
>
>> is a pretty good starting point, with tons of references.
>>
>>

[Odd Bodkin]

On 11/13/2015 3:34 PM, kqui...@yahoo.com wrote:
> On Friday, November 13, 2015 at 2:41:02 PM UTC-5, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>> On 11/13/2015 12:14 PM, jay moseley wrote:
>>> Odd bodkin wrote...
>>>> No, that's incorrect. Newton's equations of gravity and Einstein's equations of
>>>> gravity give slightly different predictions, but the difference between the predictions
>>>> are in fact discernible in measurement, and the measurements have been done and agree
>>>> with Einstein's equations and disagree with Newton's equations.
>>>
>>> Thats a pretty general sweeping statement. Name one example specifically.
>>>
>>> If its mercury preccession, GR only got it right because Einstein took newtons
>>> equation, and added in the observed preccession.
>>
>> That is a blatantly false claim. Read the history here. The book by Pais
>
> You must mean Subtle is the Lord, right?

Yes.

>
>> is a pretty good starting point, with tons of references.
>>
>> But that's not the only place where there are differences. Gravitational
>> bending of light is another. Shapiro delay is another.
>>

[kqui...@yahoo.com]

Thanks. I ordered a used copy from Amazon. $6 hardcover.

[jay moseley]

Odd bodkin wrote...

> > Its all covered up with field and differential equations to make it look like > GR actually does something novel other then just fake the results with a > >>mathematical sleight of hand.

> It's not sleight of hand. It's all followable. Magic is only magical to people who can't follow the magician's hands. Do you have difficulty following the math?

Do you have difficulty following the math? I bet youve never been
near the equations in question nor could work them out if you tried.
Are they complicated? Yes. Beyond most in the physics community.
Both of us included
Beyond even rhe fool albert. Ive read he had to get someone else
To work them up.
Does that mean they were not a sleight of hand. Wrong.
They are. And another mistake you make is to pretend
that when I said "sleight of hand" , I meant magic. Only a fool
thinks sleight of hand is magic.

[jay moseley]

Odd bodkin wrote...

>> its mercury preccession, GR only got it right because Einstein took newtons > equation, and added in the observed preccession.

>that is a blatantly false claim. Read the history here. The book by Pais is a pretty good starting point, with tons of references.

I cant copy calculations or urls, onto this page but if you google' 24 steps to calculate
preccession of mercury' you should get a long list of calculations. Now
these are very complex for me or you to follow and there is not
sufficient reference as to what a lot of the terms are or where they
come from... but...it mentions a correction which I had read somewhere else.
At around Step 20- 24. Is it not the case that the author of this page admits
plugging back in the observed anomaly to the GR correction?

>But that's not the only place where there are differences. Gravitational bending of light is another. Shapiro delay isanother.

Typical BS from a relativist. .....Does emr travel at different speeds
In different mediums? Yes. Is this a relativistic effect? No. Are there different
densities of medium around planets or stars like the sun? Yes. Are these different
densities caused or solely explained as relativistic effects? No. Can emr
then travel at different speeds through these denser mediums and thus
give time delays without having to resort to GR for an explanation?
Yes. Has anyone ever measured these different densities of medium
in situ to rule out a classical explanation? No. Have relativistic zealots
fabricated imaginary densities of said mediums to fake results that
rule out a clasiccal explanation? YES.

[HVAC]

One of the best posts I've ever seen here. Thank you Mr Kahn

[reber g=emc^2]

Curve is space fabric curve made by the weight of mass.More weight more curve.That is why heavy lead ball on rubber sheet gives it a big curve.In directly that is why are feet are flat. TreBert

[noTthaTguY]

gOOd pointS

[Y.Porat]

===========================
shameless pig crock !

the f EN mathematical derivation was done by
trial and error endless corrections

--TO FIT IT TO THE Experimental RESULTS !!

without really understanding what is really going there PHYSICALLY !!!
got it idiot crock ?? no chance !!

IT DOES NOT FIT TO THE BOOKS THAT CROCK
PAUL DRAPER P D (ANONYMOUS
IS SELLING
ie
if it will be found nonsense
all his books has to be thrown to garbage ...

do you get it people ??......
--------------------------------
Y.Porat
==================================

[noTthaTguY]

blah = halb

[Double-A]

Is that how you got out of the army?

Double-A

[Odd Bodkin]

On 11/14/2015 7:38 AM, jay moseley wrote:
> Odd bodkin wrote...
>>> Its all covered up with field and differential equations to make it look like
>>> GR actually does something novel other then just fake the results with a
>>>mathematical sleight of hand.
>
>> It's not sleight of hand. It's all followable. Magic is only magical to people
>> who can't follow the magician's hands. Do you have difficulty following the math?
>
> Do you have difficulty following the math? I bet youve never been
> near the equations in question nor could work them out if you tried.

Don't be so sure.

> Are they complicated? Yes. Beyond most in the physics community.

That's simply not true.

> Both of us included

Sorry, but no. Speak for yourself.

> Beyond even rhe fool albert. Ive read he had to get someone else
> To work them up.

This is counter to historical record. Please stop making stuff up. If
you can't remember where you think you read this, then you don't
remember what was actually written.

> Does that mean they were not a sleight of hand. Wrong.
> They are. And another mistake you make is to pretend
> that when I said "sleight of hand" , I meant magic. Only a fool
> thinks sleight of hand is magic.
>

They're not sleight of hand, either. They're pretty easy to follow if
you do the work.

[Odd Bodkin]

On 11/14/2015 8:21 AM, jay moseley wrote:
> Odd bodkin wrote...
>>> its mercury preccession, GR only got it right because Einstein took newtons > equation, and added in the observed preccession.
>
>> that is a blatantly false claim. Read the history here. The book by Pais is a pretty good starting point, with tons of references.
>
> I cant copy calculations or urls, onto this page but if you google' 24 steps to calculate
> preccession of mercury' you should get a long list of calculations. Now
> these are very complex for me or you to follow and there is not
> sufficient reference as to what a lot of the terms are or where they
> come from... but...it mentions a correction which I had read somewhere else.
> At around Step 20- 24. Is it not the case that the author of this page admits
> plugging back in the observed anomaly to the GR correction?

I really don't care what you've been able to find on Google with your
limited search abilities, and how you managed to get confused by what
you found.

I mentioned a book by Pais, which I do recommend. You will find that
books explain things better than web pages.

>
>
>> But that's not the only place where there are differences. Gravitational bending of light is another. Shapiro delay isanother.
>
> Typical BS from a relativist. .....Does emr travel at different speeds
> In different mediums? Yes.

Yes. But that has nothing to do with relativity, and absolutely nothing
to do with the differences between Newtonian and Einsteinian gravity.

> Is this a relativistic effect? No. Are there different
> densities of medium around planets or stars like the sun? Yes. Are these different
> densities caused or solely explained as relativistic effects? No. Can emr
> then travel at different speeds through these denser mediums and thus
> give time delays without having to resort to GR for an explanation?

Shapiro delay doesn't have anything do with light traveling through a
material medium. Neither does the gravitational bending of light.

> Yes. Has anyone ever measured these different densities of medium
> in situ to rule out a classical explanation? No. Have relativistic zealots
> fabricated imaginary densities of said mediums to fake results that
> rule out a clasiccal explanation? YES.
>

[Sam Wormley]

On 11/14/15 7:38 AM, jay moseley wrote:
> Beyond even rhe fool albert. Ive read he had to get someone else
> To work them up.

Such as?

[benj]

Hey, Jay, don't you know Boinker knows everything about science and can
do ANY math! Yes, he's really that smart! Just ask him. That's why he
makes and sells "fine" wooden toys. No demand for scientific truth these
days.



--

___ ___ ___ ___
/\ \ /\ \ /\__\ /\ \
/::\ \ /::\ \ /::| | \:\ \
/:/\:\ \ /:/\:\ \ /:|:| | ___ /::\__\
/::\~\:\__\ /::\~\:\ \ /:/|:| |__ /\ /:/\/__/
/:/\:\ \:|__| /:/\:\ \:\__\ /:/ |:| /\__\ \:\/:/ /
\:\~\:\/:/ / \:\~\:\ \/__/ \/__|:|/:/ / \::/ /
\:\ \::/ / \:\ \:\__\ |:/:/ / \/__/
\:\/:/ / \:\ \/__/ |::/ /
\::/__/ \:\__\ /:/ /
~~ \/__/ \/__/

[Odd Bodkin]

On 11/16/2015 11:55 AM, benj wrote:
> Hey, Jay, don't you know Boinker knows everything about science and can
> do ANY math! Yes, he's really that smart! Just ask him. That's why he
> makes and sells "fine" wooden toys. No demand for scientific truth these
> days.
>

It doesn't take smarts to do a little reading and learn the math. All it
takes is persistence and interest.

I find it fascinating that you believe that someone who does X for a
living can only learn X and can't possibly also learn Y.

[jay moseley]

Odd wrote...
>> > sufficient reference as to what a lot of the terms are or where they > come from... but...it mentions a correction which I had read somewhere else. > At >>round Step 20- 24. Is it not the case that the author of this page admits > plugging back in the observed anomaly to the GR correction?

>I really don't care what you've been able to find on Google with your limited search abilities, and how you managed to get confused by what you found.

>I mentioned a book by Pais, which I do recommend. You will find that books explain things better than web pages.

If you cant do the maths then maybe you can get a friend to help you
with this question I have.

If U3- U2 is the only difference beteen GR and Newtonian calculations. And
U=2m/r, and U3= 1-( U1+U2). Then it seems that all albert does (or was it
his secretary? Maybe Sam might know who helped him)is calculate the
extra preccessionfrom the difference between the two observed values
of U? Sounds like hes added in the preccession to newton and pretended
its caused by space time bending in the twilight zone.

> > >> But that's not the only place where there are differences. Gravitational bending of light is another. Shapiro delay isanother. > > Typical BS from a relativist. .....Does emr travel at different speeds > In different mediums? Yes.

>Yes. But that has nothing to do with relativity, and absolutely nothing to do with the differences between Newtonian and Einsteinian gravity.

Im glad youve admitted that refraction of emr and its associated time delays
have nothing to do with GR.

>> Is this a relativistic effect? No. Are there different > densities of medium around planets or stars like the sun? Yes. Are these different > densities caused or solely explained as relativistic effects? No. Can emr > then travel at different speeds through these denser mediums and thus > give time delays without having to resort to GR for an explanation?

>Shapiro delay doesn't have anything do with light traveling through a material medium. Neither does the gravitational bending of light

So emr doesnt travel at different speeds in different mediums?
Hmmm. Looks like all your books might need updating with this
new " discovery" you just made.

[Sam Wormley]

On 11/16/15 2:25 PM, jay moseley wrote:
> Maybe Sam might know who helped him

Einstein got help and insight from friends, colleagues and students,
but the creation of special and general relativity was the sole
creation of one man, Albert Einstein.

Einstein discovered/derived the final form of his field equations
on his own. Hilbert also derived the same equations within days of
Einstein. Hilbert, gentleman that he was, said, "this is Einstein's
theory and he deserves all the credit."

Walter Isaacson's researched this detail and published the same in
his biography of Einstein.

When Einstein did the non-trivial calculations applying general
relativity to the orbital perihelion precession of Mercury, and
the prediction was exactly right--it was like the universe had
opened up to him. Can you imagine how Einstein must have felt.
Holly Shit! He even experienced heart palpitations.

[Odd Bodkin]

On 11/16/2015 2:25 PM, jay moseley wrote:

>> I mentioned a book by Pais, which I do recommend. You will find that books explain things better than web pages.
>
> If you cant do the maths then maybe you can get a friend to help you
> with this question I have.
>
> If U3- U2 is the only difference beteen GR and Newtonian calculations. And
> U=2m/r, and U3= 1-( U1+U2). Then it seems that all albert does (or was it
> his secretary? Maybe Sam might know who helped him)is calculate the
> extra preccessionfrom the difference between the two observed values
> of U? Sounds like hes added in the preccession to newton and pretended
> its caused by space time bending in the twilight zone.

Try reading the book. You'll see.

>
>>>>> But that's not the only place where there are differences. Gravitational bending of
>>>> light is another. Shapiro delay isanother.

> > Typical BS from a relativist. .....Does emr travel at different speeds > In different mediums? Yes.
>
>> Yes. But that has nothing to do with relativity, and absolutely nothing to do with the differences
>> between Newtonian and Einsteinian gravity.
>
> Im glad youve admitted that refraction of emr and its associated time delays
> have nothing to do with GR.

Now you're not just being stupid but obnoxiously stupid. Refraction and
slowing of light can happen in a material medium. They ALSO happen when
there is no material medium. Similar qualitative symptom, completely
different reason. And the quantitative behavior of the refraction and
slowing is completely different in the two cases.

Your comment is like saying time dilation of clocks is due to rust in
the clocks, because rust in clocks also slows clocks.

Idiot.

[noTthaTguY]

it is is solely the index of refraction (Snell's laW,
which embodies Fermat's principle of least-time

[jay moseley]

Od bodkin wrote...
> > > If U3- U2 is the only difference beteen GR and Newtonian calculations. And > U=2m/r, and U3= 1-( U1+U2). Then it seems that all albert does (or was it > >>his secretary? Maybe Sam might know who helped him)is calculate the > extra preccessionfrom the difference between the two observed values > of U? >>sounds like hes added in the preccession to newton and pretended > its caused by space time bending in the twilight zone.

> try reading the book. You'll see.

You say lets can talk about the maths. And when I do, you cant answer.

Look at the correction in the derivative. Its only distinguishing factor
from the newtonian solution is u3. And it uses u1&2 from newton to calculate u 3.
U3=1-(U1+U2). U3 is essentially the difference between observed and
predicted (from newtons equations). Is this true or false?

> >>>>> But that's not the only place where there are differences. Gravitational bending of >>>> light is another. Shapiro delay isanother.

> > Typical BS from a relativist. .....Does emr travel at different speeds > In different mediums? Yes. > >> Yes. But that has nothing to do with relativity, and absolutely nothing to do with the differences >> between Newtonian and Einsteinian gravity. > > Im glad youve admitted that refraction of emr and its associated time delays > have nothing to do with GR.

>Now you're not just being stupid but obnoxiously stupid. Refraction and slowing of light can happen in a material medium. They ALSO happen when there is >no material medium. Similar qualitative symptom, completely different reason. And the quantitative behavior of the refraction and slowing is completely >different in the two cases.

Light travels at different speeds in different mediums. This a well documented
phenomena that doesnt need a relativistic explanation.
If light travelling from the less dense ISM travels through the more
dense medium around the star. It will travel slower and produce
a time delay. Its called the shapiro effect. You dont need GR.

>Your comment is like saying time dilation of clocks is due to rust in the clocks, because rust in clocks also slows clocks.

A lousy analogy. I never mentioned clocks. But if you want to talk
about "time dilation" in atomic clocks. Then its easy to explain
this observed effect classically by treating the atom as a resonating
system. And resonating systems will, when subjected to a directional
force like gravity, change their resonant frequencies.
As observed in atomic clocks.
No GR neccessary.

[Steven Carlip]

In article <99013d69-da41-4847...@googlegroups.com>,
"kqui...@yahoo.com" <kqui...@yahoo.com> wrote:

[...]

> Consider that objects also move in curved paths in response to EM forces. Why
> is that not equivalent to another curvature of space - that caused by EM
> forces? And so on. All motion is the result of forces applied to objects.
> Does every force 'curve space'?

This is a good question, and the answer should
help explain why general relativity describes
gravity as geometry.

Two different objects in an electric field will,
in general, react very differently. Positively
and negatively charged particles will accelerate
in opposite directions. Two positively charged
particles with different charges or masses will
undergo different accelerations. So while an
electric field determines "curves" -- paths of
particles -- they're different curves for each
type of particle. That is, the paths are really
characteristics of the particles, not the space.

The same is true of almost all other interactions.
But gravity is different. An enormous collection
of observations and measurements (together summarized
as the "principle of equivalence") show that any
two objects in a gravitational field will follow
the same path, regardless of their mass, composition,
shape, or any other feature. So gravity really
determines a set of paths, independent of what is
moving on those paths.

Mathematically, such a set of preferred paths is,
by definition, a geometry. Ordinary Euclidean
geometry is completely determined by giving the
straight lines and their mutual relationships. The
spherical geometry of the surface of the Earth is
determined by giving the great circles. Whether
or not you want to think of gravity as "really"
being geometry, the principle of equivalence
guarantees that it can be given a geometrical
description.

(There's one subtlety here -- you have to think
about paths in spacetime rather than space. The
path of an object in three-dimensional space depends
on its initial velocity, so it's not really unique.
But different initial velocities also affect the
time it takes for the object to move from one
point to another.

In Euclidean geometry, you get a unique straight
line by giving an initial and final endpoint.
In a gravitational field, if you only give an
initial and final *spatial* point, you don't
get a unique path. You could, for example, drop
a coin to the floor, or throw it straight up in
the air, and it would end at the same place. But
if you give an initial and final position *and
time*, the path is unique.)

There have been lots of efforts to give similar
geometric descriptions to other interactions.
But these require extra structure. For example,
you can "geometrize" electromagnetism by going
to more than four spacetime dimensions -- the
"momentum" in an extra dimension can mimic the
effect of different charges. But these models
involve extra assumptions, and are still pretty
speculative.

> Why isn't the 'curvature of space', this brilliant
> insight, merely taking an easy way out? It doesn't

> really explain anything, it merely puts Newton's Law
> of Gravitation into other words. It's appealing - as
> poetry. I'm not sure what additional information it
> conveys about the real nature of gravity.

Well, for one thing, if you work out the details of
the math of curved spacetime, you get modifications
of Newtonian gravity, which can be tested. So far,
these tests have all confirmed general relativity.

(More concretely, if you assume curved spacetime,
an "action principle," and that gravity is *only*
due to spacetime curvature with no extra structures,
you get an almost unique set of equations for gravity,
the Einstein field equations. It's already a bit of
a miracle that these give back Newton's inverse square
law as a very good approximation. The fact that they
also predict small modifications which then match
observation is a pretty good argument that the picture
is probably correct.)

Steve Carlip

[Ross A. Finlayson]

On Thursday, November 12, 2015 at 10:14:49 AM UTC-8, kqui...@yahoo.com wrote:
> On Thursday, November 12, 2015 at 12:54:59 PM UTC-5, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> > On 11/12/2015 11:05 AM, jay moseley wrote:
> > > Who is Colbert?
> > > My advice is ignore curvature of space. Its a dead end theory.
> > > My understanding is that even nasa doesnt use GR to calculate
> > > trajectories. The problem with Newtons accounting rules is that
> > > it assumes all the mass of the system is at a theoretical point
> > > at the center. This is why it cant model preccession. But if one
> > > does a n> 3 body calculation it would take into account the fact
> > > that the mass of the sun is spread across its volume. The closer
> > > one gets to the sun the wider the suns mass is in arc seconds.
> > > Of course doing an accurate n> 3 body calculation is not possible.
> > > But a close enough approximation was made by Urbain le Verrier
> > > way back before albert was born. He came up with vulcan, which
> > > of course doesnt exist. But he showed with a crude n3 body calculation
> > > that by spreading the mass of the sun across a small region around the
> > > suns center would give the observed preccession. Einstein on the other hand
> > > faked it. He took newtons formula and added in the observed preccession.
> > > And then claimed his mathematical fiddle was due to curved space.
> >
> > Anyone want to take a shot at adding up the mistakes in this paragraph?

> >
> > --
> > Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
>

> Well I can weight in with what I think is NOT a mistake - that Newton DOES assume the mass is concentrated at a point in the center of mass. This is true, no?

It's like a light and shadow model,
but it is more like a darkness and
shade model.

[Ross A. Finlayson]

What you're looking for there is
a "strong metonymy", where the model
must hold, and metaphor eventually fails.

This is for usually a "Theory of
Everything".

There would, uh, only be the one of those.

To each their own.

[Odd Bodkin]

On 11/17/2015 11:47 AM, jay moseley wrote:
> Od bodkin wrote...
>>>> If U3- U2 is the only difference beteen GR and Newtonian calculations. And > U=2m/r,
>>>> and U3= 1-( U1+U2). Then it seems that all albert does (or was it > >>his secretary?
>>>> Maybe Sam might know who helped him)is calculate the > extra preccessionfrom the difference
>>>> between the two observed values > of U? >>sounds like hes added in the preccession to
>>>> newton and pretended > its caused by space time bending in the twilight zone.
>
>> try reading the book. You'll see.
>
> You say lets can talk about the maths. And when I do, you cant answer.
>
> Look at the correction in the derivative. Its only distinguishing factor
> from the newtonian solution is u3. And it uses u1&2 from newton to calculate u 3.
> U3=1-(U1+U2). U3 is essentially the difference between observed and
> predicted (from newtons equations). Is this true or false?

This notation (U1, U2, U3) is not in the original paper, nor is it in
the book I referenced. I have no idea where you pulled it from, nor did
you reference it.

>
>
>
> Light travels at different speeds in different mediums. This a well documented
> phenomena that doesnt need a relativistic explanation.

Yes, of course.

> If light travelling from the less dense ISM travels through the more
> dense medium around the star. It will travel slower and produce
> a time delay. Its called the shapiro effect. You dont need GR.

No, the Shapiro effect is a time delay that occurs even when the light
does NOT pass through the dense medium around the star.
Two different effects, similar symptom.

>
>
>> Your comment is like saying time dilation of clocks is due to rust in the clocks, because rust in clocks
>> also slows clocks.
>
> A lousy analogy. I never mentioned clocks. But if you want to talk
> about "time dilation" in atomic clocks. Then its easy to explain
> this observed effect classically by treating the atom as a resonating
> system.

Show you get the same NUMBERS, and you've got an argument. No numbers,
no theory.

> And resonating systems will, when subjected to a directional
> force like gravity, change their resonant frequencies.
> As observed in atomic clocks.
> No GR neccessary.
>

[Sam Wormley]

Thank You -- Nice Explanation.

[Steven Carlip]

In article <f394d783-22df-43a6...@googlegroups.com>,

jay moseley <jaymo...@hotmail.com> wrote:

> Odd bodkin wrote...
> > No, that's incorrect. Newton's equations of gravity and Einstein's
> > equations of gravity give slightly different predictions, but the
> > difference between the predictions are in fact discernible in measurement,
> > and the measurements have been done and agree with Einstein's equations and
> > disagree with Newton's equations.

> Thats a pretty general sweeping statement. Name one example specifically.

Precession of the perihelia of Mercury, Mars, and Icarus
Precession of the periastra of at least ten binary star systems
and several binary pulsars
Deflection of light by the Sun, at elongation angles ranging
from grazing the Sun to more than 90 degrees
Deflection of light by Jupiter
Deflection of light by galaxies (comparing mass from velocity
dispersion to mass from light deflection)
Shapiro time delay
Gravitational time dilation
de Sitter precession of the Earth-Moon system
Nordtvedt effect (gravitational mass of gravitational energy)
Frame-dragging (as seen by LAGEOS and Gravity Probe B)
Orbital decay of several binary pulsar systems
Orbital decays of two pulsar-white dwarf binaries

> If its mercury preccession, GR only got it right because Einstein
> took newtons equation, and added in the observed preccession.

That's simply not true. The field equations of general
relativity have no adjustable parameters that would change
the predicted behavior of Mercury's perihelion, and there
are no other, alternative field equations involving only
the spacetime metric that are self-consistent and that
would give a different answer for Mercury's perihelion.

The idea that the field equations of general relativity
are obtained by "tak[ing] Newton's equation" and adding
anything could only be made by someone who hasn't actually
studied GR. Where, exactly, do you think the metric is
in "Newton's equation"? Where's the curvature tensor?
Where's the stress-energy tensor? Where are the geodesics?
Where are the nonlinear terms?

Steve Carlip

[Y.Porat]

On Thursday, November 12, 2015 at 3:52:30 PM UTC+2, kqui...@yahoo.com wrote:
> Colbert last night had a theoretical physicist (who he said wanted to be a real one soon arf arf) who at Colbert's request formulated general relativity in no-holds-barred language, which I didn't understand of course except that I got the impression that it all boiled down to objects obeying Newton's Law of Motion.

>
> Consider that objects also move in curved paths in response to EM forces. Why is that not equivalent to another curvature of space - that caused by EM forces? And so on. All motion is the result of forces applied to objects. Does every force 'curve space'?
>

> Why isn't the 'curvature of space', this brilliant insight, merely taking an easy way out? It doesn't really explain anything, it merely puts Newton's Law of Gravitation into other words. It's appealing - as poetry. I'm not sure what

> additional information it conveys about the real nature of gravity. It's just one of those brilliant insights we have that we later (if we have common sense and are able to look critically at our own thoughts) regretfully abandon. Maybe like this very post!
>
> Is this gravitationally induced curvature of space different from some general univeral curvature of space, in which the whole universe has for example negative or positive curvature (not sure what that means)?
>
> This post is merely an attempt at debunking. But I'm really curious about my last question because it could be asked even if the 'curvature of space' caused by gravity was real.

==================================
MASS IS THE MOTHER OF ALL FORCES - INCLUDING GRAVITY!!

SEE
THE Y CIRCLON MECHANISM
SEE google
THE MO0MENT THAT CURVED SPACE DIED ''

===========================================
NO MASS **THE ONLY** MASS - NO REAL PHYSICS !!
==============================================
ATB
Y.Porat
===========================================

[Y.Porat]

======================
**anonymous** Bodkin - Paul Draper P D
is a shameless lire pig criminal against mankind !!
====================
Y.Porat
==========================

[Y.Porat]

===========================
the SHAMELESS crock Draper Paul
has only one thing in his mind

TO SELL HIS BOOKS
'COME WHAT COME MAY' !!!
and no matter what will be his harm to
some real advance of physics !!!
==================

Y.Porat
=====================================

[Y.Porat]

=================================
so why dont you say dead simple that

=================================================
MASS(the only mass !!) IS THE MOTHER OF ALL FORCES -INCLUDING GRAVITY
====================================================

ATB
Y.Porat

[jay moseley]

Oddbod wrote...

>>> from the newtonian solution is u3. And it uses u1&2 from newton to calculate u 3. > U3=1-(U1+U2). U3 is essentially the difference between observed and >> predicted (from newtons equations). Is this true or false?

>This notation (U1, U2, U3) is not in the original paper, nor is it in the book I referenced. I have no idea where you pulled it from, nor did you reference it.

I told you already a few posts ago. You couldnt be assed to check. It seems
to be written differently each time depending on the reference which is a sign
of how complex mathematically it is. Even the people on math pages, wiki
Physicsstack, etc. All seem to find it difficult. Like yourself.
But from what I can glean from the BS accounting tricks available online
...Its called the relativistic correction.
Is that in your books. Or are you still on the first installment of Harry potter?
U=2m/r according to some pages. Others dont mention it. Presumably
Its just just notated as 2m /r in those cases. Dont ask me why. Just another
jackoff moron mathematician trying to fake the results and keep his highly
paid but underdeserved position in the physics department.
U is the reciprocal radius variable. In newton its incorporated into
the calculation as two radius variables. One at apogee one at perigee.
The relativistic correction is tagged onto the end of the classical
newtonian solution. Itt appears to be calculated using a third value
of u from this...u3 = 1(u1+u2) The u 1&2 being the two seperate
reciprocal radius variables from apogee and perigee which essentially
define the newtonian solution as far as I cantell.
So far Ive seen two contradictory descriptions of the so called
"relativistic correction". One is...
-GML^2/(mc^2r^2)
and the other...
-3GM/c^2.U3

Maybe U3 is plugged into r in the first? Who knows. Its all bs anyways.
From what I can see and what various sources seem to stress is that
the relativistic correction takes u3 and by factoring it in with the term
-3GM/c^2 ....makes it a very small amount thats added onto the newtonian
solution to give the final observed value. Essentially this correction is the
so called anomalous preccession.
But to me all thats happened is the observed 2m/ r for apogee and perigee
in newton is added together and with a bit of fiddling, divide GM by c^2
to make it really small,...hmm still doest fit the observed anomaly albert.
"Oh hold it" says his cleaner. "Mr Einstein, why dont you multiply it by 3?
That should make it the right amount almost. And because its based
on observed r values and constants it should give a correct solution
for all other orbitals ".
There you have it Odd. The relativistic derivation for the preccession of
backcalculated from the observed values! As worked out by his cleaner.
Remarkeable.
And then albert can pretend its proof that all that nonsense about
spacetime he was droning on about, was what explained it all.

>>If light travelling from the less dense ISM travels through the more > dense medium around the star. It will travel slower and produce > a time delay. Its >>called the shapiro effect. You dont need GR.

>No, the Shapiro effect is a time delay that occurs even when the light does NOT pass through the dense medium around the star. Two different effects, >similar symptom.

Pull the other one. Where is the observation of light travelling to the
observor that passes very close to a star or planet that even at that
close proximity to said body is surrounded by a perfect vacuum?
No such observation has been made. It is a * made up * observation
relativists pretend to have made. Even Pluto, thought to be lifeless,
has just been discovered to have an atmosphere.

[jay moseley]

Odd...

> >> Your comment is like saying time dilation of clocks is due to rust in the clocks, because rust in clocks >> also slows clocks. > > A lousy analogy. I never mentioned clocks. But if you want to talk > about "time dilation" in atomic clocks. Then its easy to explain > this observed effect classically by treating the atom as a resonating > system.

>Show you get the same NUMBERS, and you've got an argument. No numbers, no theory.

True, I havent got any numbers to show you. Does that prove
that resonating systems dont change their natural resonant
frequency when dubject to a directional force like g?
No.
Are atoms not subject to g force.?
No.
Are atoms not proven to be resonating systems?
No.
Tell you what Odd. You supply me the numbers that show that
g does not supply a directional force to atoms that alters the
atoms resonant frequency by the amount observed. And maybe
I might accept your argument, flawed as it is.

[Odd Bodkin]

On 11/18/2015 7:52 AM, jay moseley wrote:
> Oddbod wrote...
>>>> from the newtonian solution is u3. And it uses u1&2 from newton to calculate u 3.
>>>> U3=1-(U1+U2). U3 is essentially the difference between observed and
>>>> predicted (from newtons equations). Is this true or false?
>
>> This notation (U1, U2, U3) is not in the original paper, nor is it in the book I
>> referenced. I have no idea where you pulled it from, nor did you reference it.
>
> I told you already a few posts ago. You couldnt be assed to check.

No you didn't. You told me a Google search phrase to use.
If you can't tell me the URL you have in mind....

> It seems
> to be written differently each time depending on the reference which is a sign
> of how complex mathematically it is.

Sorry, but no. Mathematics is a language. There is more than one way to
say the same thing, just like you can say the same thing differently
with words. But people who understand the language can follow and see it
says the same thing.

> Even the people on math pages, wiki
> Physicsstack, etc. All seem to find it difficult. Like yourself.

It's not complicated. Don't project your own confusion on others.

> But from what I can glean from the BS accounting tricks available online
> ...Its called the relativistic correction.

Sorry, but no. If you can't follow the math, that's your problem.

> Is that in your books. Or are you still on the first installment of Harry potter?
> U=2m/r according to some pages. Others dont mention it. Presumably
> Its just just notated as 2m /r in those cases. Dont ask me why. Just another
> jackoff moron mathematician trying to fake the results and keep his highly
> paid but underdeserved position in the physics department.

Sorry, but your not being able to follow math does not imply that
someone is trying to fend you off to protect their job. It's nobody's
fault that you can't follow math but yours.

The Shapiro delay, and the bending of light, is observed for light that
is NOT passing very close to a star or planet.

> No such observation has been made. It is a * made up * observation
> relativists pretend to have made. Even Pluto, thought to be lifeless,
> has just been discovered to have an atmosphere.

[Odd Bodkin]

On 11/18/2015 8:06 AM, jay moseley wrote:
> Odd...

>
>> Show you get the same NUMBERS, and you've got an argument. No numbers, no theory.
>
> True, I havent got any numbers to show you.

Then you don't have a theory.

> Does that prove
> that resonating systems dont change their natural resonant
> frequency when dubject to a directional force like g?

Nobody owes a disproof of a claim that isn't even a theory.
What you have is an EMPTY SPECULATION. Empty speculations can't be
proven wrong, but they're still EMPTY SPECULATIONS and so worthless.
When it becomes a theory, then (and only then) would it draw any serious
attention.

> No.
> Are atoms not subject to g force.?
> No.
> Are atoms not proven to be resonating systems?
> No.
> Tell you what Odd. You supply me the numbers that show that
> g does not supply a directional force to atoms that alters the
> atoms resonant frequency by the amount observed. And maybe
> I might accept your argument, flawed as it is.
>

[jay moseley]

Steve Carlip wrote..
> recession of the perihelia of Mercury, Mars, and Icarus Precession of the periastra of at least ten binary star systems and several binary pulsars Deflection of >light by the Sun, at elongation angles ranging from grazing the Sun to more than 90 degrees Deflection of light by Jupiter Deflection of light by galaxies >comparing mass from velocity dispersion to mass from light deflection) Shapiro time delay Gravitational time dilation de Sitter precession of the Earth-Moon >ystem Nordtvedt effect (gravitational mass of gravitational energy) Frame-dragging (as seen by LAGEOS and Gravity Probe B) Orbital decay of several binary >pulsar systems Orbital decays of two pulsar-white dwarf binaries

Frame dragging as seen by gravity probe b. Thats a contentious claim. Ill seperate
It out and look it up more but if its the recently announced one Its debateble at best
as to what they measured

Otherwise, every example you mentioned can be explained classically.
Disagree? Im sure you do. Then choose any one for sake of brevity.
And Ill show you how a classical model can explain it. Not with numbers
but with scientific precedence. If you want to to take the lazy, foolish way out
like Odd does, then ask me for numbers. But you will ignore observed
precedence.
For instance.. preccession. Le Verrier showed that an n3 body calculation
can explain the anomaly. How can you be so sure that an n>3 body
calculation cannot explain it? After all it would CORRECTLY model the
mass of the sun as spread across its volume. Compared to the incorrect
newtonian and relativistic calculation which spuriously assumes that all
the atoms in the sun have no mass. Except for the atom at the center of
gravity which has ALL the mass. !? Such a ridiculously stupid assumption
made by newton.

>> If its mercury preccession, GR only got it right because Einstein > took newtons equation, and added in the observed preccession.

>that's simply not true. The field equations of general relativity have no adjustable parameters that would change the predicted behavior of Mercury's >perihelion, and there are no other, alternative field equations involving only the spacetime metric that are self-consistent and that would give a different >answer for Mercury's perihelion.

>the idea that the field equations of general relativity are obtained by "tak[ing] Newton's equation" and adding anything could only be made by someone who >hasn't actually studied GR. Where, exactly, do you think the metric is in "Newton's equation"? Where's the curvature tensor? Where's the stress-energy >tensor? Where are the geodesics? Where are the nonlinear terms?

Answer me this. Is it not true that the anomalous preccession is calculated in
GR by calculating the newtonian solution and then adding or subtracting in the
anomaly using a "relativistic correction "?
Thats what most online reference suggests. Are you, like Odd,
saying this is untrue and that no calculations anywhere in relativistic solutions
uses a correction term?
I dont have paper reference and use only online. Wiki, physics stack etc..
They are all wrong. No such thing as a correction term?
If so then you had better contact all the different university and online reference
sites about their mistakes.

[Odd Bodkin]

On 11/18/2015 8:34 AM, jay moseley wrote:
> Otherwise, every example you mentioned can be explained classically.
> Disagree? Im sure you do. Then choose any one for sake of brevity.
> And Ill show you how a classical model can explain it. Not with numbers
> but with scientific precedence. If you want to to take the lazy, foolish way out
> like Odd does, then ask me for numbers. But you will ignore observed
> precedence.
> For instance.. preccession. Le Verrier showed that an n3 body calculation
> can explain the anomaly. How can you be so sure that an n>3 body
> calculation cannot explain it? After all it would CORRECTLY model the
> mass of the sun as spread across its volume. Compared to the incorrect
> newtonian and relativistic calculation which spuriously assumes that all
> the atoms in the sun have no mass. Except for the atom at the center of
> gravity which has ALL the mass. !? Such a ridiculously stupid assumption
> made by newton.

Numbers matter in physics, Jay.
Qualitative explanations "by precedence" don't have the value you think
they have.
Newton's model does predict precession of the perihelion of Mercury and
other bodies. The problem is that it gets the number wrong.
Einstein's model also predicts the precession of the perihelion of
Mercury and other bodies. And it gets the number right.

As for your claim that the n-body problem would be solvable by
distributing the mass, I think you should check Newtonian physics.
Newtonian gravity makes the firm AND TESTABLE prediction that gravity at
some distance r from the center of a spherical distribution of matter
with radius R (where r>R) is completely independent of R or even whether
the density varies between 0 and R. Your claim that it should matter is
completely counter to both Newtonian physics AND to measurements. If you
think Newtonian physics is WRONG, and that the mass distribution DOES
matter, then your argument isn't with Einstein, it's with Newton.

[jay moseley]

Odd wrote...

>> But from what I can glean from the BS accounting tricks available online > ...Its called the relativistic correction.

>Sorry, but no. If you can't follow the math, that's your problem

It seems you are the one unable to follow the maths. So far you have supplied
0 maths to back up your argument. Plus you erroneously claim that there
is no relativistic correction in the GR calculations of the anomaly.
Try googling 'relativistic correction for preccession of mercury'.
Then contact all the various sites and tell them they have all got it wrong.
It should take you a while. Universities, wiki etc. Wow! Whoever told all these
guys that there is such a thing as a relativistic correction? Jeez. If only theyd
talked to that carpenter genius guy before they built those sites...

>>Is that in your books. Or are you still on the first installment of Harry potter? > U=2m/r according to some pages. Others dont mention it. Presumably > Its >>ust just notated as 2m /r in those cases. Dont ask me why. Just another > jackoff moron mathematician trying to fake the results and keep his highly > paid >>but underdeserved position in the physics department.

>sorry, but your not being able to follow math does not imply that someone is trying to fend you off to protect their job. It's nobody's fault that you can't >follow math but yours. The Shapiro delay, and the bending of light, is observed for light that is NOT passing very close to a star or planet.

I can follow more of the maths then you can. So far you have been unable
to type a single number let alone an equation.
And regarding the shapiro delay not very near a planet. Its amuch smaller
delay then that measured near a planet. Which makes sense as the medium
Is less dense. But I can assure you. . Nowhere in the solar system is there
a perfect vacuum. Contrary to your protestations there is. And where there
is a medium with different densities, small as the differences may be. There
will be speed variations. Explained classically.
If you disagree, show me the numbers that prove this is not possible.
I want maths Odd! Not waffles.

[Sam Wormley]

On 11/18/15 9:27 AM, jay moseley wrote:
> And regarding the shapiro delay not very near a planet. Its amuch smaller
> delay then that measured near a planet.

Calculate Shapiro Delay
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shapiro_delay#Calculating_time_delay

∆t = 2GM log of (1 - R·x) / c^3

Here R is the unit vector pointing from the observer to the source,
and x is the unit vector pointing from the observer to the
gravitating mass M. The dot denotes the usual Euclidean dot product.

Plug in the numbers Jay and calculate the Shapiro Delay

[Sam Wormley]

On 11/18/15 9:40 AM, Sam Wormley wrote:
> On 11/18/15 9:27 AM, jay moseley wrote:
>> And regarding the shapiro delay not very near a planet. Its amuch
>> smaller
>> delay then that measured near a planet.
>
>
> Calculate Shapiro Delay
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shapiro_delay#Calculating_time_delay
>
> ∆t = 2GM log of (1 - R·x) / c^3
>
> Here R is the unit vector pointing from the observer to the source,
> and x is the unit vector pointing from the observer to the
> gravitating mass M. The dot denotes the usual Euclidean dot product.
>
> Plug in the numbers Jay and calculate the Shapiro Delay
>

If you want a more challenging math exercise, DERIVE, the Shapiro
delay equation.

[Odd Bodkin]

On 11/18/2015 9:27 AM, jay moseley wrote:
> Odd wrote...
>>> But from what I can glean from the BS accounting tricks available online
>>> ...Its called the relativistic correction.
>
>> Sorry, but no. If you can't follow the math, that's your problem
>
> It seems you are the one unable to follow the maths. So far you have supplied
> 0 maths to back up your argument.

Why should I present it here when it's well documented in books.

> Plus you erroneously claim that there
> is no relativistic correction in the GR calculations of the anomaly.
> Try googling 'relativistic correction for preccession of mercury'.

There is not a relativistic correction for the precession of Mercury.
There is a relativistic TREATMENT of gravity, which predicts a certain
value for the precession of the perihelion of Mercury.

> Then contact all the various sites and tell them they have all got it wrong.

Or -- and here's a novel thought -- why don't you stop looking at crappy
websites of dubious quality and start opening books that are of higher
quality.

You get what you pay for. You want to complain about the quality of
materials available for free, have at it. Nobody owes you a clean web.

> It should take you a while. Universities, wiki etc. Wow! Whoever told all these
> guys that there is such a thing as a relativistic correction? Jeez. If only theyd
> talked to that carpenter genius guy before they built those sites...

Or you could look in books.

>
>>> Is that in your books. Or are you still on the first installment of Harry potter?
>>> U=2m/r according to some pages. Others dont mention it. Presumably > Its
>>> ust just notated as 2m /r in those cases. Dont ask me why. Just another
>>> jackoff moron mathematician trying to fake the results and keep his highly > paid
>>>but underdeserved position in the physics department.
>
>> sorry, but your not being able to follow math does not imply that someone is trying
>> to fend you off to protect their job. It's nobody's fault that you can't >follow math
>> but yours. The Shapiro delay, and the bending of light, is observed for light that is
>> NOT passing very close to a star or planet.
>
> I can follow more of the maths then you can. So far you have been unable
> to type a single number let alone an equation.

Let's work through a book together then.

> And regarding the shapiro delay not very near a planet. Its amuch smaller
> delay then that measured near a planet. Which makes sense as the medium
> Is less dense. But I can assure you. . Nowhere in the solar system is there
> a perfect vacuum. Contrary to your protestations there is. And where there
> is a medium with different densities, small as the differences may be. There
> will be speed variations. Explained classically.

I never said there is a perfect vacuum. What I said is that the
relativistic effects occur in regions where the variation of density is
NOT ENOUGH to account for the observed values. This is listed in the
books, complete with calculations and numbers.

> If you disagree, show me the numbers that prove this is not possible.
> I want maths Odd! Not waffles.
>

[Odd Bodkin]

On 11/18/2015 9:27 AM, jay moseley wrote:

> I can follow more of the maths then you can. So far you have been unable
> to type a single number let alone an equation.

What I see is someone whose knowledge of physics stems from browsing web
pages; who has not done any study of the subject from books; who
blusters a lot about his own math competence but openly declares that he
has no calculations to offer and says that the math he's seen online
looks complicated; who is spectacularly uninformed about the actual
numbers from measurements and the results of the theoretical
calculations that are compared with them; who claims that everything is
explainable classically until it is demonstrated to you that that's not so.

Here's my thought on that. If you are interested in physics, you will
study it from quality materials, which means both an investment of time
and money and effort. If you are not willing to spend time and money and
effort, then this is a true measure of your real interest level. And if
you have no demonstrably real interest, then I don't see why anyone
would go to great lengths to cram anything down your throat, just
because you're cheeping with mouth agape like a baby bird. The yappings
of a baby bird are moving only to the bird's mother. So go ask your mother.

[Steven Carlip]

In article <b2cd67fd-9052-4b07...@googlegroups.com>,
jay moseley <jaymo...@hotmail.com> wrote:

> Steve Carlip wrote..
[...]

> >> If its mercury preccession, GR only got it right because Einstein
> >> took newtons equation, and added in the observed preccession.

> >That's simply not true. The field equations of general relativity

> >have no adjustable parameters that would change the predicted
> >behavior of Mercury's perihelion, and there are no other,
> >alternative field equations involving only the spacetime metric
> >that are self-consistent and that would give a different answer
> >for Mercury's perihelion.

> >the idea that the field equations of general relativity are
> >obtained by "tak[ing] Newton's equation" and adding anything
> >could only be made by someone who >hasn't actually studied GR.
> >Where, exactly, do you think the metric is in "Newton's equation"?
> >Where's the curvature tensor? Where's the stress-energy tensor?
> >Where are the geodesics? Where are the nonlinear terms?

> Answer me this. Is it not true that the anomalous preccession
> is calculated in GR by calculating the newtonian solution and
> then adding or subtracting in the anomaly using a "relativistic
> correction "?

It's almost completely not true. The anomalous precession is
calculated in GR by first solving the field equations for a
spherically symmetric mass (this gives the Schwarzschild metric,
which is the only solution with that symmetry); then writing
out the equation for geodesics in this metric; then solving
those equations.

It's true that *after* you've done all of this, you get an
equation that looks like the Newtonian equation with an extra
term. This is no surprise, since Newtonian gravity is observably
nearly correct, so any theory of gravity that didn't give
Newtonian gravity as an approximation would be clearly wrong.

But the "relativistic correction" is *not* obtained by starting
with Newtonian gravity. The opposite is true -- Newtonian
gravity itself, plus the correction, is obtained by starting
with the field equations of GR. And as I said, there's no
flexibility here, no adjustable parameters, nothing you can
fiddle with to change the answer. The GR field equations are
unique and "rigid," and the "relativistic correction" to orbital
motion is equally unique.

In other words, either the field equations of GR could give
the right answer (which they do), or they could give the wrong
answer, in which case the entire approach would have to be
thrown out.

Steve Carlip

[Steven Carlip]

In article <b2cd67fd-9052-4b07...@googlegroups.com>,
jay moseley <jaymo...@hotmail.com> wrote:

[...]

> Otherwise, every example you mentioned can be explained
> classically. Disagree? Im sure you do. Then choose any one
> for sake of brevity. And Ill show you how a classical model
> can explain it. Not with numbers but with scientific
> precedence.

OK, let's take the deflection of light. Here are the
observations for you to explain:

1. The amount of deflection is the same for all frequencies.
Note that this is unlike refraction in any known medium or
"atmosphere" -- the amount of refraction depends strongly
on frequency. (This is, after all, how a prism works.)

2. The "elongation angle" of a star is the angle between
the line of sight to the star and the Sun. Deflection is
observed for elongation angles ranging from nearly zero
(light grazing the surface of the Sun) to more than 90
degrees (light coming from a direction perpendicular to
the Sun). The amount of deflection is much smaller for
large elongation angles, of course, but it's measurable
with VLBI.

3. Deflection is also observed for light passing Jupiter
and light passing galaxies.

4. Finally, the numbers matter. The amount of deflection
agrees with the amount predicted by general relativity,
with an accuracy of about .01%. Note that this is not
just a prediction of a single number. As I said, the
amount of deflection depends on the elongation angle, and
GR gives a formula for this dependence, which is observed
to hold. Similarly, the amount of deflection by Jupiter,
and by 15 elliptical galaxies, agrees with the predictions
of GR.

Steve Carlip

[jay moseley]

>Newton's model does predict precession of the perihelion of Mercury and other bodies. The problem is that it gets the number wrong. Einstein's model also >predicts the precession of the perihelion of Mercury and other bodies. And it gets the number right.

>As for your claim that the n-body problem would be solvable by distributing the mass, I think you should check Newtonian physics. Newtonian gravity makes >the firm AND TESTABLE prediction that gravity at some distance r from the center of a spherical distribution of matter with radius R (where r>R) is >completely independent of R or even whether the density varies between 0 and R. Your claim that it should matter is completely counter to both Newtonian >physics AND to measurements. If you think Newtonian physics is WRONG, and that the mass distribution DOES matter, then your argument isn't with >einstein, it's with Newton

These are fair points to make and yes ,I do also have an argument with Newton
on this. I have tried to express this previously. If Newton was correct and did
make firm and testable predictions then he would have got the preccession
correct! But he didnt. He must have got it wrong somewhere. And the
obvious weak point was his insistance on g being all at center mass. So
technically, one cant claim that newtonian makes firm and testable predictions.
Because he didnt, vis a vis mercury.

Yet Verrier did get it right. Why did Verrier get it right? Because he spread the
mass of the sun across a volume using a very simple but effective n3 body
calculation. His mistake was to not realize that his maths had TWO interpretations.
One being vulcan, the second being that Newton was wrong about assuming putting
all the mass at the center.

[jay moseley]

Steve Carlip wrote...

>OK, let's take the deflection of light. Here are the observations for you to explain:

1. The amount of deflection is the same for all frequencies. Note that this is unlike refraction in any known medium or "atmosphere" -- the amount of refraction depends strongly on frequency. (This is, after all, how a prism works.)

2. The "elongation angle" of a star is the angle between the line of sight to the star and the Sun. Deflection is observed for elongation angles ranging from nearly zero (light grazing the surface of the Sun) to more than 90 degrees (light coming from a direction perpendicular to the Sun). The amount of deflection is much smaller for large elongation angles, of course, but it's measurable with VLBI.

3. Deflection is also observed for light passing Jupiter and light passing galaxies.

4. Finally, the numbers matter. The amount of deflection agrees with the amount predicted by general relativity, with an accuracy of about .01%. Note that this is not just a prediction of a single number. As I said, the amount of deflection depends on the elongation angle, and GR gives a formula for this >dependence, which is observed to hold. Similarly, the amount of deflection by Jupiter, and by 15 elliptical galaxies, agrees with the predictions of GR.

>Steve Carlip

I thank you for your civilized posting style.
I am familiar with the argument about it not being frequency dependent.
But Im afraid there is a deep flaw in it that I have yet to be seen addressed.
How is it that detections of the same source at the same time from the
same location for different frequencies can be made? Its impossible.
You want multiple detections from visible to radio from the *same location
At the same time* to prove that it is frequency independent.
And we havent got them. You have forgotten that it is only an assumption,
not a set of observations that the relativistic argument rests on.

Ive also read the argument about deflection. Once again, not only
is refraction not being tested for, even IF one uses GR there
are still the extenuating factors of ISM, solar wind and of course
all the associated error margins. I bet anything that the GR prediction
assumes a perfect vacuum. Which is not the case.
What is the density of the ISM and solar wind? Unknown. What is the density
variation across any given sample? Unknown. And when this information becomes
available for scrutiny....Then we check the predicted relativistic deflection to
see if its within error margins of variability of density of said medium.
Its going to be a long time before we can prove that refraction can be ruled
out. So its not a case of GR being right or wrong. Its a case of being able
to definitely rule out refraction. Dont forget...we know refraction occurs.
We only assume the relativistic effects are happening. It seems logical
to rule out the unknown knowns before ruling in the unknown unknowns.

I think you know as well as anyone how little we know about ISM, solar
wind, stellar and planetary atmospheric mediums. Didnt they just discover
Pluto had a significant atmosphere? Was that expected? I dont think so.

[Y.Porat]

On Wednesday, November 18, 2015 at 5:1 > matter, then your argument isn't with Einstein, it's with Newton.
>
==============================================
imbecile crook idiot walking damage

the problem of Gravity

IS NOT A MATHEMATICAL PROBLEM !!

IT IS SHOULD BE A NEW REVOLUTIONARY **PHYSICS*
OF NEW BASIC CONCEPTS !!!!!
========================================================
MASS IS THE MOTHER OF AL **** FORCES INCLUDING GRAVITY
=======================================================

and not the F en curved space
that is already dead (not long ago by me
in the thread
--
'THE MOMENT THAT CURVED SPACE DIED
====================================
AT THE GOOD;; CASE
IT CANNOT BE THE ACTIVE PLAYER

at the real case
that is an insult to human intelligence
it is a F en nonstarter physics !!
(for decent cleaver human beings

ATB
Y.Porat
========================================

[jay moseley]

Odd bodkin wrote..
>There is not a relativistic correction for the preccession of mercury...

Try scrolling down the following link. Not only does it say there is a
relativistic correction.They even supply the shortform for you and I
to discuss if you want. It looks very similar to the two I already posted
to you.

http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/336k/Newtonhtml/node116.html

Looks like the university of texas is on your list of crappy unreliable institutions.

>I never said that there is a perfect vacuum. I said the variation in the
>density of the medium is not enough to account for the observed values.

This is an assumption only. No one has ever measured the density of
the medium in question. Not only that, but the relativistic predictions
are made.... with the erroneous assumption that there is no medium
to effect the observations. In case you dont understand; GR predictions
assume a perfect vacuum.
A perfectly laughable bit of pseudoscience from the greatest of all snake
oil salesman Einstein.

[Odd Bodkin]

On 11/19/2015 5:59 AM, jay moseley wrote:
> Odd bodkin wrote..
>> There is not a relativistic correction for the preccession of mercury...
>
> Try scrolling down the following link. Not only does it say there is a
> relativistic correction.They even supply the shortform for you and I
> to discuss if you want. It looks very similar to the two I already posted
> to you.
>
> http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/336k/Newtonhtml/node116.html

This page gives the result of what more than one person has told you.
The calculation is not done as a modification of Newtonian gravity. You
do the calculation with a relativistic treatment and you get an
expression that can be expanded to several terms. The first term gives
an answer that coincides with a Newtonian treatment (even though you
never did anything with a Newtonian treatment when you did the
relativistic treatment). The second term gives a prediction of how far
WRONG the Newtonian treatment is expected to be. And in fact, the
Newtonian treatment is indeed wrong by that much.

>
> Looks like the university of texas is on your list of crappy unreliable institutions.
>
>> I never said that there is a perfect vacuum. I said the variation in the
>> density of the medium is not enough to account for the observed values.
>
> This is an assumption only. No one has ever measured the density of
> the medium in question.

Don't be ridiculous. You're claiming we don't know the density of
interstellar space?

Have you not read ANYTHING on the subject?

> Not only that, but the relativistic predictions
> are made.... with the erroneous assumption that there is no medium
> to effect the observations. In case you dont understand; GR predictions
> assume a perfect vacuum.

No, they don't. The GR predictions specify the size of the GRAVITATIONAL
effect to the bending. If you want to know the contribution to the
bending from interstellar material refraction, you do that with a
NONgravitational calculation. Then you COMBINE the two separate
contributions to see what the total effect is. Now, doing the second
calculation is easy because both the density of matter in interstellar
space and the gradient of that are KNOWN from measurements. When you do
this, you find out the second contribution is SMALL compared to the
gravitational one when you're far away from the star or planet. This is
why the gravitational effect accounts for the answer very well in that
region.

I can't help it if you are completely oblivious to the actual numbers here.

> A perfectly laughable bit of pseudoscience from the greatest of all snake
> oil salesman Einstein.
>
>

[Ross A. Finlayson]

That seems a well-reasoned
opinion, and I would expect
any proper development to
make good sense here.

There are some alternatives
and addenda in these notions
of the computations of gravitic
or gravific effects, of the
universal propensity or force
that appears to immediately
reflect changes in the distance
of material things even as
"change in the geometry" itself.

This is where c caps speed in
the universe, but that the
"absolute distance" is constantly
and immmediately evaluated for
all gravitic effects (then here
that it is neatly enough the
establishment of straight paths
for matter and energy in space,
or the geodesics / world lines).

[Ross A. Finlayson]

I'm looking into how "Fall Gravity"
might be, so commenting inline....

On Wednesday, November 18, 2015 at 10:13:55 PM UTC-8, Steven Carlip wrote:
> In article <b2cd67fd-9052-4b07...@googlegroups.com>,
> jay moseley <jaymo...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> [...]
> > Otherwise, every example you mentioned can be explained
> > classically. Disagree? Im sure you do. Then choose any one
> > for sake of brevity. And Ill show you how a classical model
> > can explain it. Not with numbers but with scientific
> > precedence.
>
> OK, let's take the deflection of light. Here are the
> observations for you to explain:
>
> 1. The amount of deflection is the same for all frequencies.
> Note that this is unlike refraction in any known medium or
> "atmosphere" -- the amount of refraction depends strongly
> on frequency. (This is, after all, how a prism works.)
>

What about "optical lensing"? What if lensing
is Fresnel (or "Fresnel-like") instead of actually
bending all the straight lines including those
orthogonal to those and not having any straight lines?

This is for variously "wave and geometric optics",
that geometric optics reflect without refraction
(or diffraction).

There is a usual expectation that the etymologies
are consistent, for marking out where they're not.

> 2. The "elongation angle" of a star is the angle between
> the line of sight to the star and the Sun. Deflection is
> observed for elongation angles ranging from nearly zero
> (light grazing the surface of the Sun) to more than 90
> degrees (light coming from a direction perpendicular to
> the Sun). The amount of deflection is much smaller for
> large elongation angles, of course, but it's measurable
> with VLBI.
>

Again there's a notion that the
astronomical bodies are establishing
lensing as of optically a "Fresnel-like
diffraction pattern" as that also their
gravity affects matter.

Here this is about that having gravity
as a "total pressure force" or "Fall
Gravity" or a "super-leSageian gravity"
in the study of "gravification" or
"gravific" effects would have to explain
solar lensing and correspondingly lensing
about black holes and other as of solar
and astronomial bodies that are the usual
setting for data of large-scale objects
and effects in scale.

Then, optical lensing as for example a
Fresnel plate printed on a transparency
brings lensing, about that large objects
are standing out as discrete bright or
dark objects in the continuous field of
vision.

> 3. Deflection is also observed for light passing Jupiter
> and light passing galaxies.
>

This is about a usual explanation or
complement of effect.

> 4. Finally, the numbers matter. The amount of deflection
> agrees with the amount predicted by general relativity,
> with an accuracy of about .01%. Note that this is not
> just a prediction of a single number. As I said, the
> amount of deflection depends on the elongation angle, and
> GR gives a formula for this dependence, which is observed
> to hold. Similarly, the amount of deflection by Jupiter,
> and by 15 elliptical galaxies, agrees with the predictions
> of GR.
>
> Steve Carlip

That is very neatly key and very much a
strength of the predictive ability of the
model, then that of course its suitability
follows from that it also applies without
modfication to some next "random" data set.



Basically I am having found in a mathematical
theory that "discretizing" or picking a point
on the line from the points in the line,
"doubles" the "sides" of the point. Similarly
picking a point on the plane from points in
the plane (of a continuum of a spiral space-
filling curve) is of finding 3/4/5/ sides of
otherwise the point of the disc of the plane.

So, then I am looking to continuous fields in
physics where the measurement/observation in
effect discretizes a point from the field, and
why that would double or otherwise work up
these simple integer factors simply via
acknowledgment of the "numerical effect".

[jay moseley]

Odd bodkin wrote...

> > Don't be ridiculous. You're claiming we don't know the density of interstellar space?

Cite me the reference that shows we have accurately measured densities of the ISM or
the solar wind. I notice your post doesnt actually even pretend to claim we have.

[jay moseley]

Odd wrote..
> This page gives the result of what more than one person has told you. The calculation is not done as a modification of Newtonian gravity. You do the calculation with a relativistic treatment and you get an expression that can be expanded to several terms. The first term gives an answer that coincides with a Newtonian treatment (even though you never did anything with a Newtonian treatment when you did the relativistic treatment). The second term givesa prediction of how far WRONG the Newtonian treatment is expected to be. And in fact, the Newtonian treatment is indeed wrong by that much.

Oh!, suddenly you do admit there is a correction.
I like the way you try to wriggle out of admitting that the first part is the newtonian
solution and the second part is an additional relativistic correction.
You say it isnt newtonian... it "coincides" with a newtonian treatment!.. Wow.
And then .... instead of admitting it is a relativistic correction you say...
its a prediction of how much wrong the newtonian treatment is!!.
Good stuff odd. Worthy of the slimiest of political spin doctors.
You arent a carpenter, noooo,.. its just that your conceptual and mechanical
Endeavors with metal tools happen to coincide with pieces of wood that
happen to be lying in the nearby vicinity.

[Y.Porat]

======================================
very easy to prove that there must be abso0lute emptiness :

HAD THERE BEEN NO ABSOLUTE EMPTINESS -
NO MOTION WHATSOEVER COULD BE DONE !!
-does it need to be a genius in order to understand it ??!
2
if you still don t understand it
just ask why !!!

another Historic copyright
by
Y.Porat
======================

[Odd Bodkin]

http://adsabs.harvard.edu/full/1984AJ.....89.1022P7
http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/BF00749006
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/full/1967AJ.....72..219D
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/full/1978ApJ...224..132B
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/full/1983A%26A...128..212M
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/full/1985ApJ...290L..21S
http://www.aanda.org/articles/aa/full/2002/10/aah3107/node6.html

This is just a sampling of 136,000 search returns from a search of
"interstellar matter density" in scholar.google.com

As mentioned earlier, your profound ignorance of experimental
measurements and their comparison with theoretical predictions is
nobody's problem but yours.

[Odd Bodkin]

On 11/19/2015 12:06 PM, jay moseley wrote:
> Odd wrote..
>> This page gives the result of what more than one person has told you. The calculation is
>> not done as a modification of Newtonian gravity. You do the calculation with a relativistic
>> treatment and you get an expression that can be expanded to several terms. The first term
>> gives an answer that coincides with a Newtonian treatment (even though you never did anything
>> with a Newtonian treatment when you did the relativistic treatment). The second term gives a
>> prediction of how far WRONG the Newtonian treatment is expected to be. And in fact, the
>> Newtonian treatment is indeed wrong by that much.
>
> Oh!, suddenly you do admit there is a correction.

No, I did NOT say that. If you cannot read without distortion, I can't
help you. What I actually wrote is written above.

> I like the way you try to wriggle out of admitting that the first part is the newtonian
> solution and the second part is an additional relativistic correction.

Nor did I say that. Again, if you read something and interpret it to
mean something other than what it actually says, then it's no wonder you
have a very distorted view of history.

> You say it isnt newtonian... it "coincides" with a newtonian treatment!.. Wow.
> And then .... instead of admitting it is a relativistic correction you say...
> its a prediction of how much wrong the newtonian treatment is!!.
> Good stuff odd. Worthy of the slimiest of political spin doctors.
> You arent a carpenter, noooo,.. its just that your conceptual and mechanical
> Endeavors with metal tools happen to coincide with pieces of wood that
> happen to be lying in the nearby vicinity.
>

[jay moseley]

Steve Carlip wrote...
> But the "relativistic correction" is *not* obtained by starting with Newtonian gravity. The opposite is true -- Newtonian gravity itself, plus the correction, is obtained by starting with the field equations of GR. And as I said, there's no flexibility here, no adjustable parameters, nothing you can fiddle with to change the answer. The GR field equationsare unique and "rigid," and the "relativistic correction" to orbital motion is equally unique.

Im sorry Steve but this above statement is arrogant. How do you know
that Einstein or whoever wrote it didnt start with Newtonian solution
and tack on the relativistic correction.Are you suggesting that they were
unaware if Newtons work and just HAPPENED to come up with a solution
that happened to be the same. And then, before they checked to see if
the part of there new relativistic equation that happened to coincide with
Newtons matched the observed total preccession( it doesnt.) They just
happened through sheer spontaneous exuberance to decide that the
first bit they had done wasnt quite right and it needed an extra term.
Im sorry Steve, you are a nice guy and polite, but your argument is
too oddwellian.
The truth is... Einstein was aware of Newtons work, and he was aware of
the difference between observed and predicted preccession.
And you can see this because when the equations are worked down
as in the online ref I cited to Odd, you can see that there is a Newtonian
section and an additional term called a relativistic correction which
adds on the difference. I didnt make that up. Its in the maths.
Anyone who tries to solve the derivation ends up with the same
result....You cant change history. Einstein knew how much Newton
predicted. And he knew by how much it was off. BEFORE he created his
derivation.
He worked backwards from the observed data. You have no proof to
the contrary. And his equations are the convicting evidence. If
you or Odd were right the equations would not work down to
a Newtonian first 3 sections and an additional 4th correction term.

[jay moseley]

Odd wrote...

http://adsabs.harvard.edu/full/1978ApJ...224..132B
>this is just a sampling of scholarly articles...

I cant get my browser to paste all your links. But
Odd! These arent measurements of the ISM.
These are assumptions etc. No one has sampled
The ISM. So its not measured nor is it
homogenous. Take for instance your claim
based on any of the articles you mention.
Now assume the ISM around a nearby galaxy is as your
articles predicted. How does that square up with the thread
just recently created by Sam where whole low brightness
companion galaxies have been discovered around visible
galaxies. According to your thesis there should only be just
thin almost nonexistent traces of various gases. Instead
as Sams thread shows, .. there are groups of low brightness
galaxies. The assumptions in your papers are so far
off its unbelievable .

The only point that is worth noting is the solar wind.
I just checked and they seem maybe to be a bit more
detailed then I give credit. Of course even there one has
to be hesitant. I remember only a couple of years ago reading
that new measurements of solar wind densities had confounded
earlier understandings. It was much more dense then expected.