Disproving Einstein's General Relativity (GR)
qubit
Einstein's General Relativity (GR) theory is wrong and inconsistent.
I will prove it with GR's own methods and it's own well known
public data sets.
On this Friday or the weekend I will post the proof here.
Sam Wormley
You keep jumping out of my kill file... must be a lot of work
climbing out over and over.... Too bad I won't be reading your
rubbish on Friday or the weekend. *Plonk*
Dono
Q-shit
Go away, go away, little shit.
Pmb
"qubit" <johnq...@nospamorg.org> wrote in message
news:fb57k6$dva$1...@aioe.org...
Will you also post an explaination of why it has worked so well so far?
Pete
Jeckyl
That should be good for a laugh.
Uncle Al
Idiot.
<http://relativity.livingreviews.org/Articles/lrr-2001-4/index.html>
http://arXiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0311039
<http://www.physics.adelaide.edu.au/~dkoks/Faq/Relativity/SR/experiments.html>
Experimental constraints on General Relativity
You'd have to study to be incompetent.
<http://tycho.usno.navy.mil/ptti/ptti2002/paper20.pdf>
Nature 425 374 (2003)
http://www.eftaylor.com/pub/projecta.pdf
<http://www.public.asu.edu/~rjjacob/Lecture16.pdf>
<http://relativity.livingreviews.org/Articles/lrr-2003-1/index.html>
Relativity in the GPS system
<http://relativity.livingreviews.org/open?pubNo=lrr-2003-1&page=node5.html>
Relativistic effects on orbital clocks
http://arXiv.org/abs/gr-qc/9909014
Amer. J. Phys. 71 770 (2003)
Phys. Rev. Lett. 92 121101 (2004)
falling light
Fucking imbecile.
http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0609417
http://www.oakland.edu/physics/mog29/mog29.pdf
16.8995 deg/yr periastron advance PSR J0737-3039A/B
Deeply relativistic neutron star binaries
Idiot.
--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/lajos.htm#a2
Eric Gisse
wrote:
>I hereby announce to the world that I'm able to prove that
>Einstein's General Relativity (GR) theory is wrong and inconsistent.
An impressive achievement for someone who does not understand high
school calculus.
>I will prove it with GR's own methods and it's own well known
>public data sets.
I can't wait to see which common misunderstanding you will base your
"proof" off of.
>On this Friday or the weekend I will post the proof here.
Since the outcome has been predetermined, I don't see why you should
wait until the weekend. Post it now.
JanPB
> Einstein's General Relativity (GR) theory is wrong and inconsistent.
"Wrong" means you have an experimental result that contradicts it.
"Inconsistent" - forget it. As far as consistency goes GR results from
a PDE on a 4D manifold. You might as well try to prove inconsistency
of calculus. Good luck.
> I will prove it with GR's own methods and it's own well known
> public data sets.
> On this Friday or the weekend I will post the proof here.
I'm sorry but I'm going swimming naked in a lake this weekend. And I
need to grill chicken this Friday.
--
Jan Bielawski
JM Albuquerque
"qubit" <johnq...@nospamorg.org> escreveu na mensagem
news:fb57k6$dva$1...@aioe.org...
>I hereby announce to the world that I'm able to prove that
> Einstein's General Relativity (GR) theory is wrong and inconsistent.
Only a clear and irrefutable experiment can prove GR wrong.
Figure out a good experiment, find the money and do it.
Otherwise its only a brain exercise, like many others.
You are not the first one and you won't be the last.
I've already seen lots of then, much better then you, I mean
really very good guys, but didn't make it.
You can always try.
I've already tried and I've learned a lot (of crap).
BTW, GR is good for what?
SR and GR is useless.
I could have GPS clocks synchronised without GR. All that
it requires is enough data acquisition, its analysis and then
calculate what correction should be made.
Astronomy is showing every day so many strange things,
well far beyond the reach of GR, that it will take decades
to explain what is going on. I'm not concerned with SR
and GR spookiness anymore. Astronomy is showing
things by far much more spooky then SR and GR.
Actually, I guess that we will find out soon that our
Physics is local and only works here (local).
Nevertheless, everything is an evolutive process.
All that can happen is an evolution of the actual equations
that Physics have. Einstein equations are so deeply
implemented that nothing but an evolution can occur.
Perhaps new postulates and a new understanding
can be made as long as the evolution is going on.
New experiments, or discovers shape that evolution.
Bill Hobba
"JM Albuquerque" <jmD...@clix.pt> wrote in message
news:5jmu35...@mid.individual.net...
>
> "qubit" <johnq...@nospamorg.org> escreveu na mensagem
> news:fb57k6$dva$1...@aioe.org...
>
>>I hereby announce to the world that I'm able to prove that
>> Einstein's General Relativity (GR) theory is wrong and inconsistent.
>
> Only a clear and irrefutable experiment can prove GR wrong.
> Figure out a good experiment, find the money and do it.
> Otherwise its only a brain exercise, like many others.
> You are not the first one and you won't be the last.
> I've already seen lots of then, much better then you, I mean
> really very good guys, but didn't make it.
> You can always try.
> I've already tried and I've learned a lot (of crap).
>
> BTW, GR is good for what?
As Landau said, anyone who is not struck by the incredible elegance and
beauty of GR is neither a mathematician or physicist.
> SR and GR is useless.
Yep - the same as the Mona Lisa is.
> I could have GPS clocks synchronised without GR. All that
> it requires is enough data acquisition, its analysis and then
> calculate what correction should be made.
>
> Astronomy is showing every day so many strange things,
> well far beyond the reach of GR, that it will take decades
> to explain what is going on. I'm not concerned with SR
> and GR spookiness anymore. Astronomy is showing
> things by far much more spooky then SR and GR.
Yep.
> Actually, I guess that we will find out soon that our
> Physics is local and only works here (local).
Maybe, maybe not.
>
> Nevertheless, everything is an evolutive process.
> All that can happen is an evolution of the actual equations
> that Physics have. Einstein equations are so deeply
> implemented that nothing but an evolution can occur.
> Perhaps new postulates and a new understanding
> can be made as long as the evolution is going on.
My bet is some variant of STM
http://astro.uwaterloo.ca/~wesson/
>
> New experiments, or discovers shape that evolution.
>
As always. But, most importantly, as Pias says - asking just the right
question. The question I would ask is - what purely quantum symmetreis can
we find? String theory is a first attempt. We need to investigate others.
Thanks
Bill
>
>
JM Albuquerque
"Bill Hobba" <rub...@junk.com> escreveu na mensagem
news:AmtBi.28296$4A1....@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
>> BTW, GR is good for what?
>
> As Landau said, anyone who is not struck by the incredible elegance and
> beauty of GR is neither a mathematician or physicist.
I'm not so sure about such elegance and beauty.
Yes, I got struck, but not by elegance or beauty.
My opinion is that nobody understands it.
I've tried several times to see such elegance and beauty but
no one around could satisfy my elegance and beauty criteria.
Many, if not all of them, have changed their minds.
Actually is funny to see how opinions about several
"paradox" around SR and GR change in decades.
Vanity, is definitely relativists greatest sin.
Eric Gisse
wrote:
>
>"qubit" <johnq...@nospamorg.org> escreveu na mensagem
>news:fb57k6$dva$1...@aioe.org...
>
>>I hereby announce to the world that I'm able to prove that
>> Einstein's General Relativity (GR) theory is wrong and inconsistent.
>
>Only a clear and irrefutable experiment can prove GR wrong.
>Figure out a good experiment, find the money and do it.
>Otherwise its only a brain exercise, like many others.
>You are not the first one and you won't be the last.
>I've already seen lots of then, much better then you, I mean
>really very good guys, but didn't make it.
>You can always try.
>I've already tried and I've learned a lot (of crap).
>
>BTW, GR is good for what?
GPS? Gravitational lensing? Shapiro effect?
>SR and GR is useless.
To you, maybe.
>I could have GPS clocks synchronised without GR. All that
>it requires is enough data acquisition, its analysis and then
>calculate what correction should be made.
Or someone could take the weekend to compute what the correction needs
to be, rather than spend several years designing the experiments to
collect the data then spend one or two processing the data and then
discover that oh yes it /IS/ simpler to use GR.
>
>Astronomy is showing every day so many strange things,
>well far beyond the reach of GR, that it will take decades
>to explain what is going on. I'm not concerned with SR
>and GR spookiness anymore. Astronomy is showing
>things by far much more spooky then SR and GR.
Oh, really? How do you think astronomy is doing these things?
How many of these things would not be observable if gravitational
lensing were unavailable?
How many of these things actually /don't/ fit into the framework of
relativity?
>Actually, I guess that we will find out soon that our
>Physics is local and only works here (local).
Yes, the guess of the layman is often better than the guess of the
educated professional. Thanks!
>
>Nevertheless, everything is an evolutive process.
>All that can happen is an evolution of the actual equations
>that Physics have. Einstein equations are so deeply
>implemented that nothing but an evolution can occur.
I wonder if you have ever solved Einstein's equations in any context.
It seems far more likely that your criticism, like so much else here,
is completely uninformed.
Eric Gisse
wrote:
>
>"Bill Hobba" <rub...@junk.com> escreveu na mensagem
>news:AmtBi.28296$4A1....@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
>>
>> "JM Albuquerque" <jmD...@clix.pt> wrote in message
>> news:5jmu35...@mid.individual.net...
>
>>> BTW, GR is good for what?
>>
>> As Landau said, anyone who is not struck by the incredible elegance and
>> beauty of GR is neither a mathematician or physicist.
>
>I'm not so sure about such elegance and beauty.
>Yes, I got struck, but not by elegance or beauty.
>
>My opinion is that nobody understands it.
...and your opinion is based on what, exactly? Failing to understand
GR just like you failed to understand classical mechanics?
By the way, how's that sojurn into classical mechanics going? Are you
still befuddled by Euler's equations of motion for a rigid body?
>I've tried several times to see such elegance and beauty but
>no one around could satisfy my elegance and beauty criteria.
If the fog of misunderstanding cleared up, you would see things
differently.
>Many, if not all of them, have changed their minds.
>Actually is funny to see how opinions about several
>"paradox" around SR and GR change in decades.
>
>Vanity, is definitely relativists greatest sin.
Is stupidity a sin?
Actually...hubris is actually more appropriate here. You are not
educated in the art and are completely unqualified to judge.
>
Alvin d.C. Lopez
There is no such thing as a wrong and inconsistent theory. Every
principle or theory which has endured its validity within a long
period of time has a significant use to an industry or field which
abides by it. The GR and the SR are a set of rules which, if you
abide with, can do so much but if disbelieved, can do nothing. The
way you judge it is relative to the angle in which you see it. You may
have an angle which coincides with the GR, or you may have a different
one depending upon your methods. That is a very important lesson you
should learn, the same basic principle from which Einstein founded his
Relativity Theories. And, remember this fellow, only an open minded
scientist could well deserve the respect of others.
Jeckyl
news:1188458944.8...@e9g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
> On Aug 30, 9:46 am, "qubit" <johnqsm...@nospamorg.org> wrote:
>> I hereby announce to the world that I'm able to prove that
>> Einstein's General Relativity (GR) theory is wrong and inconsistent.
>> I will prove it with GR's own methods and it's own well known
>> public data sets.
>> On this Friday or the weekend I will post the proof here.
>
> There is no such thing as a wrong and inconsistent theory.
Well .. I'm afraid you're wrong there.
What there is NOT such a thing as, is a proven correct theory (in science at
least) .. only theories that have not be proven wrong.
Randy Poe
> On Aug 30, 9:46 am, "qubit" <johnqsm...@nospamorg.org> wrote:
>
> > I hereby announce to the world that I'm able to prove that
> > Einstein's General Relativity (GR) theory is wrong and inconsistent.
> > I will prove it with GR's own methods and it's own well known
> > public data sets.
> > On this Friday or the weekend I will post the proof here.
>
> There is no such thing as a wrong and inconsistent theory.
Qbit is going to announce one this weekend. It will be a
hodge-podge of misunderstood and misapplied equations
from GR plus some additional assumptions, he will call
it "GR" though it bears no resemblance to what other people
call by that name, and he will no doubt show it is indeed
inconsistent and wrong.
> Every
> principle or theory which has endured its validity within a long
> period of time has a significant use to an industry or field which
> abides by it.
Ok, I'll by that. Qbit's "GR" theory will be introduced and
shown invalid in the same thread, so it won't qualify as "enduring".
- Randy
Pmb
"Bill Hobba" <rub...@junk.com> wrote in message
news:AmtBi.28296$4A1....@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
>
> "JM Albuquerque" <jmD...@clix.pt> wrote in message
> news:5jmu35...@mid.individual.net...
>>
>> "qubit" <johnq...@nospamorg.org> escreveu na mensagem
>> news:fb57k6$dva$1...@aioe.org...
>>
>>>I hereby announce to the world that I'm able to prove that
>>> Einstein's General Relativity (GR) theory is wrong and inconsistent.
>>
>> Only a clear and irrefutable experiment can prove GR wrong.
>> Figure out a good experiment, find the money and do it.
>> Otherwise its only a brain exercise, like many others.
>> You are not the first one and you won't be the last.
>> I've already seen lots of then, much better then you, I mean
>> really very good guys, but didn't make it.
>> You can always try.
>> I've already tried and I've learned a lot (of crap).
>>
>> BTW, GR is good for what?
>
> As Landau said, anyone who is not struck by the incredible elegance and
> beauty of GR is neither a mathematician or physicist.
I must be a good physicist then. :) Then again all of physics and the laws
of nature and nature itself is of great beauty to me. Can you tell me where
Landau said that Bill? Thanks!
>> SR and GR is useless.
>
> Yep - the same as the Mona Lisa is.
Imagine how many more people would have died during the current war if we
didn't have the precision for dropping weapons that the GPS system allows
us. And of course the system wouldn't work unless we knew GR and build it
into the system (synchronization of clocks in g-field etc).
Pete
G. L. Bradford
Special Relativity is severely limited right off the bat in that it does
not ask or answer the question, "Where is the train (or whatever) right now
in space and time?" SR's preoccupation is with where was the train? It is
not concerned with objects, also called sources. It couldn't care less about
them. It is concerned with events, most particularly events' space-time, or
light time, horizons. Many a notable professional physicist, never mind any
of us interested lay people for one reason or another, have badly mistaken
what it is concerned with.
Light is event moment orientated, as is light time. Gravity, on the other
hand, is space orientated, broad and levels deep space orientated. It is
[current in time] all the way in the Universe, through and through. Since,
as I've noted elsewhere, there is no such thing as absolute 0-g, there is no
space, thus no [where] in the material universe, not associated with gravity
(not gravitied to some degree). Space and gravity are inseparably
associated. Even closer than that, they are inseparably joined.
Moment to moment in time, universally, gravity is up-to-date. So is the
physical of light. Not so, light time as an event moment orientation. It
will inexorably fall behind currency. It does appear to have a maximum time
limit, though. A maximum time limit of about 13.7 billion years. That time
limit is a timeless constant. The time limit is a timeless constant because
of a physic. The horizon point or line, or flat, of maximized smearing or
smoothing out of feature or difference -- chaos maximized -- in common to
three horizons that quite probably are one and the same "self-similar"
horizon. The so-called Big Bang horizon (macroscopic universe), the Planck
horizon (microscopic universe), and the horizon of the speed of light (c).
And because just about everything else in the material universe is
conserved (matter/mass, energy), I'd think gravity goes right with those
other conservations, as a conserved force.
Now, with string theory around, there is talk of "leakage into extra
dimensions," such as gravity's leakage in extra dimensions. Well there is
another way of seeing it. I more than once have talked of constant boost
(acceleration / deceleration) through the levels of the universe
(interplanetary space, interstellar space, intergalactic space, these
altogether and more, inter....universe space -- up through or down through)
being the highway to innumerable parallel universes. As it is, even in this
solar system alone, every "local" is parallel.
Einstein put the speed of light in two ways, "constant in vacuo" at c,
and, I just read yesterday, "infinitely faster" than any other velocity.
"How could it be both ways at once?!" If you ask such a question you don't
yet understand anything about a "universal constant!"
None of the above is anything new. It's all actually old news and the
stuff of thousands of sci-fi books and movies written by, or made with the
help of, some professional physicist with deep insight. Some have that deep
insight, but so many don't, It parallels the uneven quality of just about
every field extant. Just nature being nature.
Concerning "evolution," if I read you right, like so many of the
brainwashed today you haven't a clue about the [varying] realities of
evolution. There isn't a single path evolution doesn't take. It takes every
path there is, always out to fill every nook and cranny there is, every way,
shape and form that it can. It would spontaneously re-evolve Stone Age Man,
or the dinosaurs, or even Nazis or Maoists or whatever, tomorrow if it gets
the slightest chance to: if it gets the right conditions within which to do
it.
GLB
Dirk Van de moortel
"Randy Poe" <poespa...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:1188469820.4...@o80g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
> On Aug 30, 3:29 am, "Alvin d.C. Lopez" <aclopez...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Aug 30, 9:46 am, "qubit" <johnqsm...@nospamorg.org> wrote:
>>
>> > I hereby announce to the world that I'm able to prove that
>> > Einstein's General Relativity (GR) theory is wrong and inconsistent.
>> > I will prove it with GR's own methods and it's own well known
>> > public data sets.
>> > On this Friday or the weekend I will post the proof here.
>>
>> There is no such thing as a wrong and inconsistent theory.
>
> Qbit is going to announce one this weekend. It will be a
> hodge-podge of misunderstood and misapplied equations
> from GR plus some additional assumptions, he will call
> it "GR" though it bears no resemblance to what other people
> call by that name, and he will no doubt show it is indeed
> inconsistent and wrong.
<Smiling Out Loud>
Dirk Vdm
Androcles
"JanPB" <fil...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1188445647.8...@y42g2000hsy.googlegroups.com...
: On Aug 29, 6:46 pm, "qubit" <johnqsm...@nospamorg.org> wrote:
: > I hereby announce to the world that I'm able to prove that
: > Einstein's General Relativity (GR) theory is wrong and inconsistent.
:
: "Wrong" means you have an experimental result that contradicts it.
Bright green flying elephants lay their eggs in black holes.
"Wrong" means you have an experimental result that contradicts it.
"Fuckhead" means Jan Bielawski.
: "Inconsistent" - forget it.
" "If at the point A of space there is a clock..." - the clock
sits there and does not move. It's important."-- JanPB
"In the stationary K frame the point A _moves_" -- JanPB
"Inconsistent" - remember it.
"Assistant light-bulb changer" means Jan Bielawski.
How many Poles does it take to change a light-bulb?
Androcles
"Alvin d.C. Lopez" <aclop...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1188458944.8...@e9g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
: > I hereby announce to the world that I'm able to prove that
: > Einstein's General Relativity (GR) theory is wrong and inconsistent.
: > I will prove it with GR's own methods and it's own well known
: > public data sets.
: > On this Friday or the weekend I will post the proof here.
:
: There is no such thing as a wrong and inconsistent theory. Every
: principle or theory which has endured its validity within a long
: period of time has a significant use to an industry or field which
: abides by it.
Sagnac is used for gyroscopes. <shrug>
Androcles
"Randy Poe" <poespa...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1188469820.4...@o80g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
: > On Aug 30, 9:46 am, "qubit" <johnqsm...@nospamorg.org> wrote:
: >
: > > I hereby announce to the world that I'm able to prove that
: > > Einstein's General Relativity (GR) theory is wrong and inconsistent.
: > > I will prove it with GR's own methods and it's own well known
: > > public data sets.
: > > On this Friday or the weekend I will post the proof here.
: >
: > There is no such thing as a wrong and inconsistent theory.
:
: Qbit is going to announce one this weekend. It will be a
: hodge-podge of misunderstood and misapplied equations
: from GR plus some additional assumptions, he will call
: it "GR" though it bears no resemblance to what other people
: call by that name, and he will no doubt show it is indeed
: inconsistent and wrong.
:
: > Every
: > principle or theory which has endured its validity within a long
: > period of time has a significant use to an industry or field which
: > abides by it.
:
: Ok, I'll by that.
I don't ***buy*** it, illiterate troll.
JM Albuquerque
"Eric Gisse" <jowr.pi...@gmail-nospam.com> escreveu na mensagem
news:05rcd3ln9jlfcl7e3...@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 30 Aug 2007 05:06:48 +0100, "JM Albuquerque" <jmD...@clix.pt>
> wrote:
>
>>
>>"qubit" <johnq...@nospamorg.org> escreveu na mensagem
>>news:fb57k6$dva$1...@aioe.org...
>>
>>>I hereby announce to the world that I'm able to prove that
>>> Einstein's General Relativity (GR) theory is wrong and inconsistent.
>>
>>Only a clear and irrefutable experiment can prove GR wrong.
>>Figure out a good experiment, find the money and do it.
>>Otherwise its only a brain exercise, like many others.
>>You are not the first one and you won't be the last.
>>I've already seen lots of then, much better then you, I mean
>>really very good guys, but didn't make it.
>>You can always try.
>>I've already tried and I've learned a lot (of crap).
>>
>>BTW, GR is good for what?
>
> GPS? Gravitational lensing? Shapiro effect?
>
>>SR and GR is useless.
>
> To you, maybe.
Yes, to me and 99.99999999% people here on earth
SR and GR is good only for grants and to feed many.
>>I could have GPS clocks synchronised without GR. All that
>>it requires is enough data acquisition, its analysis and then
>>calculate what correction should be made.
>
> Or someone could take the weekend to compute what the correction needs
> to be, rather than spend several years designing the experiments to
> collect the data then spend one or two processing the data and then
> discover that oh yes it /IS/ simpler to use GR.
You are a blind man.
>>Astronomy is showing every day so many strange things,
>>well far beyond the reach of GR, that it will take decades
>>to explain what is going on. I'm not concerned with SR
>>and GR spookiness anymore. Astronomy is showing
>>things by far much more spooky then SR and GR.
>
> Oh, really? How do you think astronomy is doing these things?
For sure not with SR or GR.
> How many of these things would not be observable if gravitational
> lensing were unavailable?
All of them.
Gravitational lensing only complicates the observation.
What is magic about gravitational lensing Doc?
> How many of these things actually /don't/ fit into the framework of
> relativity?
Lots of then:
Galaxy rotation curves.
AGN's
No gravitational waves.
Gamma Ray Bursts.
>>Actually, I guess that we will find out soon that our
>>Physics is local and only works here (local).
>
> Yes, the guess of the layman is often better than the guess of the
> educated professional. Thanks!
You are being paid to do your job.
Your opinion depends on the money you receive.
JM Albuquerque
> On Thu, 30 Aug 2007 08:02:35 +0100, "JM Albuquerque" <jmD...@clix.pt>
> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Bill Hobba" <rub...@junk.com> escreveu na mensagem
>>news:AmtBi.28296$4A1....@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
>>>
>>> "JM Albuquerque" <jmD...@clix.pt> wrote in message
>>> news:5jmu35...@mid.individual.net...
>>
>>>> BTW, GR is good for what?
>>>
>>> As Landau said, anyone who is not struck by the incredible elegance and
>>> beauty of GR is neither a mathematician or physicist.
>>
>>I'm not so sure about such elegance and beauty.
>>Yes, I got struck, but not by elegance or beauty.
>>
>>My opinion is that nobody understands it.
>
> ...and your opinion is based on what, exactly? Failing to understand
> GR just like you failed to understand classical mechanics?
Based on personal experience.
Why do you presume that I've failed to understand classical
mechanics, or else GR? Hubris?
> By the way, how's that sojurn into classical mechanics going? Are you
> still befuddled by Euler's equations of motion for a rigid body?
Nope, I've already told you that Euler's equation of motion doesn't
have a solution.
You failed to show me a solution (numerical solution is nothing).
All you do is talking, talking, and...pufff...nothing as usual.
Also I've told you that I've solved the problem with Newton
and Lagrange approach.
(All based on David Morin book from Harvard = 98% of the
work need is there and I've already decided that I'm going to
talk with David Morin when the time comes.)
>>I've tried several times to see such elegance and beauty but
>>no one around could satisfy my elegance and beauty criteria.
>
> If the fog of misunderstanding cleared up, you would see things
> differently.
So, there is fog on the GR elegance and beauty?
And you cannot clear up that fog?
Even so you believe it's just fog?
How does SR and GR handle spin? Doc.
(In sci.physics.research Eric Gisse is wondering about
that little spin problem)
>>Many, if not all of them, have changed their minds.
>>Actually is funny to see how opinions about several
>>"paradox" around SR and GR change in decades.
>>
>>Vanity, is definitely relativists greatest sin.
>
> Is stupidity a sin?
Yes, vanity causes stupidity.
> Actually...hubris is actually more appropriate here. You are not
> educated in the art and are completely unqualified to judge.
Who judges? You?
Vanity and hubris is your greatest sin, definitely!
Dono
> BTW, GR is good for what?
> SR and GR is useless.
> I could have GPS clocks synchronised without GR. All that
> it requires is enough data acquisition, its analysis and then
> calculate what correction should be made.
>
Another idiot that repeats the same idiocies as Koobee-Wublee.
Randy Poe
> "Eric Gisse" <jowr.pi.nos...@gmail-nospam.com> escreveu na mensagemnews:05rcd3ln9jlfcl7e3...@4ax.com...
>
>
>
> > On Thu, 30 Aug 2007 05:06:48 +0100, "JM Albuquerque" <jmDO...@clix.pt>
> > wrote:
>
> >>"qubit" <johnqsm...@nospamorg.org> escreveu na mensagem
> >>news:fb57k6$dva$1...@aioe.org...
>
> >>>I hereby announce to the world that I'm able to prove that
> >>> Einstein's General Relativity (GR) theory is wrong and inconsistent.
>
> >>Only a clear and irrefutable experiment can prove GR wrong.
> >>Figure out a good experiment, find the money and do it.
> >>Otherwise its only a brain exercise, like many others.
> >>You are not the first one and you won't be the last.
> >>I've already seen lots of then, much better then you, I mean
> >>really very good guys, but didn't make it.
> >>You can always try.
> >>I've already tried and I've learned a lot (of crap).
>
> >>BTW, GR is good for what?
>
> > GPS? Gravitational lensing? Shapiro effect?
>
> >>SR and GR is useless.
>
> > To you, maybe.
>
> Yes, to me and 99.99999999% people here on earth
> SR and GR is good only for grants and to feed many.
Those people don't have to worry about such esoterica
as how to design a world-wide time standard. But
there are people who do design such things, large
parts of the economy depend on them existing, and
that existence depends on GR.
> >>I could have GPS clocks synchronised without GR. All that
> >>it requires is enough data acquisition, its analysis and then
> >>calculate what correction should be made.
>
The actual engineers who designed and built the system,
found otherwise. The GR corrections made it possible
to keep world time down to the nanosecond, which
not so long ago would have been thought impossible.
- Randy
JM Albuquerque
"Dono" <sa...@comcast.net> escreveu na mensagem
news:1188493520....@i38g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
Dono wrote:
Nothing.
Care to explain why?
Dono
> "Dono" <sa...@comcast.net> escreveu na mensagemnews:1188493520....@i38g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
Randy already explaibed that to you, idiot:
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/851294db6237c970?dmode=source
hanson
"Bill Hobba" <rub...@junk.com> wrote in message
news:AmtBi.28296$4A1....@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
>
>
in the mind and imagination of Einstein's Dingleberries...
... ahahahaha
>
[Hobba's Rubbish ]
As Landau said, anyone who is not struck by the incredible
elegance and beauty of GR is neither a mathematician
or physicist.
>
"As Landau said" in his ode of praise from one self-
aggrandizing Jew to/about another one: the "beauty
of GR is" NOT existing without Newton's G in any
and all of its solutions, ... which strikes only a
mathematician or physicist as being of "incredible
elegance and beauty" because he is nothing more
then one of Einstein's Dingleberries.
>
Facts, not physico-religious believes is what physics
is supposed to be, Bill. Everything else it is rubbish..
which Einstein himself concluded shortly before his death
when Einstein confessed, in 1954, to Besso:
>
::: "I consider it quite possible that physics cannot be based
::: on the field concept, i. e., on continuous structures. In that
::: case nothing remains of my entire castle in the air, gravitation
::: theory included, [and of] the rest of modern physics." -- A.E.
>
because Einstein finally admitted and saw the wisdom of is
mentor Max Planck who said
>
=== "Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our
=== disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination."
:::: [Max Planck, ~1894]
>
... that was 11 years before Albert published that 1905 manuscript
which he stole from his wife Mileva Maric & paids her hush money
for... Einstein's "The secret to creativity is knowing how to hide
your sources."... come to mind.... ahahaha.. See more here:
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/c317bb71e593ff8b?hl=en&
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/msg/c317bb71e593ff8b?hl=en&
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/msg/3519d92d18984b8c?hl=en& ...
>
ahahaha... ahahahanson
Daryl McCullough
>"Bill Hobba" wrote:
>> As Landau said, anyone who is not struck by the incredible elegance and
>> beauty of GR is neither a mathematician or physicist.
>
>I'm not so sure about such elegance and beauty.
>Yes, I got struck, but not by elegance or beauty.
Landau didn't say that *everyone* would be struck with
its elegance and beauty. He specifically said mathematicians
and physicists.
--
Daryl McCullough
Ithaca, NY
JM Albuquerque
"G. L. Bradford" <glbr...@insightbb.com> escreveu na mensagem
news:ob2dnXx3lYj4L0vb...@insightbb.com...
Nice reading. Thank you.
I agree with you 100%
I can't see why we seem to diverge.
Maybe because I don't take religion to serious, like many do about SR
and GR ($USD).
Things are what they are, nothing more, nothing less.
You are very good.
Igor
> I hereby announce to the world that I'm able to prove that
> Einstein's General Relativity (GR) theory is wrong and inconsistent.
> public data sets.
> On this Friday or the weekend I will post the proof here.
Why wait so long for something that's just going to be ripped to
shreds anyway?
JM Albuquerque
"Randy Poe" <poespa...@yahoo.com> escreveu na mensagem
news:1188493771.6...@50g2000hsm.googlegroups.com...
Believe it, or not, time only depends the way your
define it.
Time was defined to be light speed dependent, so
no surprise: Time is indeed light speed dependent.
Nevertheless, what really counts is the Sun motion.
According to relativity if the Sun exploded we will
notice that 8 minutes later (the maximum speed of
gravity cannot exceed that of light).
However, according to Newton which holds 100%
at sun-earth relative speeds, if gravity is delayed
earth will wave been stopped long time ago, which
he didn't.
Androcles
Lying troll.
:
: > >>I could have GPS clocks synchronised without GR. All that
: > >>it requires is enough data acquisition, its analysis and then
: > >>calculate what correction should be made.
: >
:
: The actual engineers who designed and built the system,
: found otherwise. The GR corrections made it possible
: to keep world time down to the nanosecond, which
: not so long ago would have been thought impossible.
:
Lying troll. Don't include engineers with your bullshit.
Dirk Van de moortel
"JM Albuquerque" <jmD...@clix.pt> wrote in message news:5jog10...@mid.individual.net...
>
> "Randy Poe" <poespa...@yahoo.com> escreveu na mensagem
> news:1188493771.6...@50g2000hsm.googlegroups.com...
[snip]
>> The actual engineers who designed and built the system,
>> found otherwise. The GR corrections made it possible
>> to keep world time down to the nanosecond, which
>> not so long ago would have been thought impossible.
>>
>> - Randy
>
>
> Believe it, or not, time only depends the way your
> define it.
> Time was defined to be light speed dependent, so
> no surprise: Time is indeed light speed dependent.
Where is the light speed dependency in
http://physics.nist.gov/cuu/Units/second.html
| The second is the duration of 9192631770 periods of the
| radiation corresponding to the transition between the two
| hyperfine levels of the ground state of the cesium 133 atom.
?
Dirk Vdm
Greg Neill
news:5jog10...@mid.individual.net...
> Believe it, or not, time only depends the way your
> define it.
> Time was defined to be light speed dependent, so
> no surprise: Time is indeed light speed dependent.
What??? The second is defined as the duration of a
specific count of cycles of the emissions for a
particular transition from a particular atomic
species. Where is the light speed dependence in
that?
>
> Nevertheless, what really counts is the Sun motion.
>
> According to relativity if the Sun exploded we will
> notice that 8 minutes later (the maximum speed of
> gravity cannot exceed that of light).
> However, according to Newton which holds 100%
> at sun-earth relative speeds,
No, it doesn't hold 100%. It's just that it's good
enough for most practical purposes (i.e. the
discrepancy is all but negligible).
> if gravity is delayed
> earth will wave been stopped long time ago, which
> he didn't.
I cannot parse that last bit.
Randy Poe
> "Randy Poe" <poespam-t...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> : The actual engineers who designed and built the system,
> : found otherwise. The GR corrections made it possible
> : to keep world time down to the nanosecond, which
> : not so long ago would have been thought impossible.
> :
>
> Lying troll. Don't include engineers with your bullshit.
Androcles believes no engineers were involved in
designing or building the GPS system?
- Randy
Randy Poe
> "Randy Poe" <poespam-t...@yahoo.com> escreveu na mensagemnews:1188493771.6...@50g2000hsm.googlegroups.com...
> define it.
> Time was defined to be light speed dependent, so
> no surprise: Time is indeed light speed dependent.
>
> Nevertheless, what really counts is the Sun motion.
>
> According to relativity if the Sun exploded we will
> notice that 8 minutes later (the maximum speed of
> gravity cannot exceed that of light).
> However, according to Newton which holds 100%
> at sun-earth relative speeds, if gravity is delayed
> earth will wave been stopped long time ago, which
> he didn't.
I think you're claiming that according to Newton,
if gravitational effects propagated at the speed
of light, the earth would not be in rotation
around the sun.
Can you back that belief up, if that is what you're
saying? Why do you believe this?
Some more things that 99.99% of the population
doesn't need to know anything about:
- high-voltage circuit breakers
- water main repair
- subway tunneling
- coal mining
- trapeze flying
- how to do a heart transplant
Should we eliminate everything whose inner workings
are only known to a very specialized few? Shouldn't
the measure be how many people use the products
of the specialists?
- Randy
Dirk Van de moortel
"Greg Neill" <gnei...@OVEsympatico.ca> wrote in message news:46d70f43$0$22098$9a6e...@news.newshosting.com...
> "JM Albuquerque" <jmD...@clix.pt> wrote in message
> news:5jog10...@mid.individual.net...
>
>> Believe it, or not, time only depends the way your
>> define it.
>> Time was defined to be light speed dependent, so
>> no surprise: Time is indeed light speed dependent.
>
> What??? The second is defined as the duration of a
> specific count of cycles of the emissions for a
> particular transition from a particular atomic
> species. Where is the light speed dependence in
> that?
echo :-)
Dirk Vdm
JM Albuquerque
"Dirk Van de moortel" <dirkvand...@ThankS-NO-SperM.hotmail.com>
escreveu na mensagem news:Z_DBi.79602$9I4.3...@phobos.telenet-ops.be...
Radiation.
Does the term "radiation" means anything to you?
It's an electromagnetic clock!
Get it?
Dirk Van de moortel
"Randy Poe" <poespa...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:1188499560.9...@m37g2000prh.googlegroups.com...
Certainly no "Electronic Engineers, professionally!"
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/Engineer.html
Dirk Vdm
Dirk Van de moortel
"JM Albuquerque" <jmD...@clix.pt> wrote in message news:5joihg...@mid.individual.net...
>
> Get it?
Does the term "counting something" mean anything to you?
Dirk Vdm
JM Albuquerque
It is the case that I don't believe on that.
I know it for sure!
Simply notice that 8 minutes delay means that if
gravity goes in straight line it will miss earth.
From this on it's a trivial force balance calculation.
> Some more things that 99.99% of the population
> doesn't need to know anything about:
> - high-voltage circuit breakers
> - water main repair
> - subway tunneling
> - coal mining
> - trapeze flying
> - how to do a heart transplant
>
> Should we eliminate everything whose inner workings
> are only known to a very specialized few? Shouldn't
> the measure be how many people use the products
> of the specialists?
I agree.
JM Albuquerque
Well.
It looks like you don't get it.
Clock means "counting something".
Randy Poe
> "Dirk Van de moortel" <dirkvandemoor...@ThankS-NO-SperM.hotmail.com>
> escreveu na mensagemnews:Z_DBi.79602$9I4.3...@phobos.telenet-ops.be...
>
>
>
>
>
> > "JM Albuquerque" <jmDO...@clix.pt> wrote in message
> >news:5jog10...@mid.individual.net...
>
> >> "Randy Poe" <poespam-t...@yahoo.com> escreveu na mensagem
> >>news:1188493771.6...@50g2000hsm.googlegroups.com...
>
> > [snip]
>
> >>> The actual engineers who designed and built the system,
> >>> found otherwise. The GR corrections made it possible
> >>> to keep world time down to the nanosecond, which
> >>> not so long ago would have been thought impossible.
>
> >>> - Randy
>
> >> Believe it, or not, time only depends the way your
> >> define it.
> >> Time was defined to be light speed dependent, so
> >> no surprise: Time is indeed light speed dependent.
>
> > Where is the light speed dependency in
> >http://physics.nist.gov/cuu/Units/second.html
> > | The second is the duration of 9192631770 periods of the | radiation
> > corresponding to the transition between the two | hyperfine levels of the
> > ground state of the cesium 133 atom.
>
> Radiation.
> Does the term "radiation" means anything to you?
>
> It's an electromagnetic clock!
The second doesn't define a specific clock. It
defines the number of periods of a certain periodic
event, which happens to be electromagnetic in
nature.
Where does the speed of propagation come into this?
If I define an hour as 3600 ticks of my wristwatch,
does this depend on the speed of sound?
- Randy
Androcles
Without the receiver there is no "system" and there are millions
of them, many of which are designed by Japanese engineers who
have never studied GR or even intend to, they don't need it.
Engineers know GPS receivers need no "clock", save an oscillator
to run the digital computer portion and the IF strip in the radio
receiver portion. They do commonly refer to the oscillator as a
"clock", although it lacks a counter, just as laymen refer to dampers
as "shock absorbers", which they are not, the springs as tyres
absorb shock and the dampers prevent oscillation. Engineers
and bus drivers know buses can stop sooner than a car.
Androcles doesn't believe engineers use any crackpot "GR correction"
or that they "found otherwise", Androcles is an engineering manager
(retired).
Blind Poe is not and never was an engineer, he is a lying troll
and unemployable in engineering.
He couldn't design a superhet or a computer or a computer program
and doesn't know the first thing about GR either, he's just another
sheep bleating the same "baa" he's heard the other sheep bleat.
In short, a non-thinking gossip monger.
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/SR.GIF
--
'we establish by definition that the "time" required by
light to travel from A to B equals the "time" it requires
to travel from B to A' because I SAY SO and you have to
agree because I'm the great genius, STOOOPID, don't you
dare question it. -- Rabbi Albert Einstein
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Smart/tAB=tBA.gif
'we establish by definition that the "time" required by
light to travel from A to B doesn't equal the "time" it requires
to travel from B to A in the stationary system, obviously.' --
Heretic Jan Bielawski, assistant light-bulb changer.
Ref: news:1188363019....@k79g2000hse.googlegroups.com
"What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without
evidence." -- Uncle Stooopid.
"Counterfactual assumptions yield nonsense.
If such a thing were actually observed, reliably and reproducibly, then
relativity would immediately need a major overhaul if not a complete
replacement." -- Humpty Roberts.
Rabbi Albert Einstein in 1895 failed an examination that would
have allowed him to study for a diploma as an electrical engineer
at the Eidgenössische Technische Hochschule in Zurich
(couldn't even pass the SATs).
According to Phuckwit Duck it was geography and history that Einstein
failed on, as if Eidgenössische Technische Hochschule would give a
damn. That tells you the lengths these lying bastards will go to to
protect their tin god, but its always a laugh when they slip up.
Trolls, the lot of them.
"This is PHYSICS, not math or logic, and "proof" is completely
irrelevant." -- Humpty Roberts.
JM Albuquerque
> If I define an hour as 3600 ticks of my wristwatch,
> does this depend on the speed of sound?
Of course it does.
It will clearly depend if you are in motion or not.
If your speed is above the sound speed, time
will start to be reversed for you.
The same reason an electromagnetic clock
depends on the speed of light, because
Maxwell equations say so and they clearly
depende on "c" value.
Randy Poe
> "Randy Poe" <poespam-t...@yahoo.com> escreveu na mensagemnews:1188499984.7...@q5g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
> > I think you're claiming that according to Newton,
> > if gravitational effects propagated at the speed
> > of light, the earth would not be in rotation
> > around the sun.
>
> > Can you back that belief up, if that is what you're
> > saying? Why do you believe this?
>
> It is the case that I don't believe on that.
> I know it for sure!
>
> Simply notice that 8 minutes delay means that if
> gravity goes in straight line it will miss earth.
How do you figure that?
Do you mean that right now, while the sun is
pulling on the earth, it can't simultaneously
exert influence in another direction?
In a gravitational field, the influence is
simultaneously in all directions, and is constant.
It won't "miss earth". The gravity in this location
8 minutes ago is the same magnitude as the gravity
right now, and 24 hours from now. It's essentially
as constant as the sun's mass.
You seem to have some very strange model of
gravity as bullets that have to be very carefully
aimed one at a time, and that can miss.
- Randy
JM Albuquerque
Wait, don't miss the point.
If I have direct phone number with God and
God calls me and say that the Sun had just
exploded and I'm about to die, I will have
8 minutes still left to give my girl the fuck
of the century before everybody dies.
Well, everybody knows that Newton's
theory is based on an infinite speed of light.
Newton reasoned that sun-earth gravity
pull equals the fictitious centrifugal force
that both have due to the fact that earth
spins around the sun. Infinite speed for
gravity and Newton's hold 100% correct
within earth-sun relative speed.
Now, figure out gravity and light going
side-by-side at the speed of light.
The earth moves at 30km/s around the sun.
Within 8 minutes the earth travels 14,400 km
Since the earth is about 12,000 km in diameter
it is clear that gravity will miss the earth, like
light does so by means of aberration.
>
> - Randy
>
Dirk Van de moortel
"JM Albuquerque" <jmD...@clix.pt> wrote in message news:5joivt...@mid.individual.net...
Well, despite your reduced brain capacity, it looks
like you learned something after all. Congratulations.
Dirk Vdm
Randy Poe
> "Randy Poe" <poespam-t...@yahoo.com> escreveu na mensagemnews:1188502700....@z24g2000prh.googlegroups.com...
Or more. If it is hot matter that is going to fry you,
it need not be moving close to the speed of light.
On the other hand, if it is the EM radiation, yes you
have 8 minutes.
> Well, everybody knows that Newton's
> theory is based on an infinite speed of light.
Newton's theory of gravity did not use light.
> Newton reasoned that sun-earth gravity
> pull equals the fictitious centrifugal force
> that both have due to the fact that earth
> spins around the sun. Infinite speed for
> gravity and Newton's hold 100% correct
> within earth-sun relative speed.
Since the sun's and earth's mass are both constant,
how could you tell the difference between whether we
are feeling the sun's pull from its mass right now, or
its mass 8 minutes ago?
> Now, figure out gravity and light going
> side-by-side at the speed of light.
Both propagating outward in all directions of the
sphere, more or less uniformly.
> The earth moves at 30km/s around the sun.
> Within 8 minutes the earth travels 14,400 km
> Since the earth is about 12,000 km in diameter
> it is clear that gravity will miss the earth, like
> light does so by means of aberration.
No, the light does not miss the earth. Didn't you know
that you can see the sun from earth?
The light and gravity both propagate at every direction
of the sphere. You can't miss. They're everywhere.
- Randy
JM Albuquerque
Yes, hot matter, but also the gravity unbalance.
Your simply fly off the earth after 8 minutes.
> On the other hand, if it is the EM radiation, yes you
> have 8 minutes.
>
>> Well, everybody knows that Newton's
>> theory is based on an infinite speed of light.
>
> Newton's theory of gravity did not use light.
Sorry, please read "gravity" instead of "light".
>> Newton reasoned that sun-earth gravity
>> pull equals the fictitious centrifugal force
>> that both have due to the fact that earth
>> spins around the sun. Infinite speed for
>> gravity and Newton's hold 100% correct
>> within earth-sun relative speed.
>
> Since the sun's and earth's mass are both constant,
> how could you tell the difference between whether we
> are feeling the sun's pull from its mass right now, or
> its mass 8 minutes ago?
Aberration.
Gravity aberrations causes a back-pull on earth
motion which will have stopped earth long time ago
and send earth towards the Sun.
Angular momentum conservation requires that
every object reacts instantaneously to every
possible position change over time.
>> Now, figure out gravity and light going
>> side-by-side at the speed of light.
>
> Both propagating outward in all directions of the
> sphere, more or less uniformly.
Yes.
>> The earth moves at 30km/s around the sun.
>> Within 8 minutes the earth travels 14,400 km
>> Since the earth is about 12,000 km in diameter
>> it is clear that gravity will miss the earth, like
>> light does so by means of aberration.
>
> No, the light does not miss the earth. Didn't you know
> that you can see the sun from earth?
There is aberration, isn't it?
Gravity is a central force in Newton's Physics.
Other then infinite speed causes aberration.
It is not the case that we can't see the Sun,
it is the fact that central forces are central
forces and if a force is delayed it will
cause unbalances.
> The light and gravity both propagate at every direction
> of the sphere. You can't miss. They're everywhere.
Yes, but with aberration.
Eric Gisse
wrote:
>
>"Eric Gisse" <jowr.pi...@gmail-nospam.com> escreveu na mensagem
>news:05rcd3ln9jlfcl7e3...@4ax.com...
>> On Thu, 30 Aug 2007 05:06:48 +0100, "JM Albuquerque" <jmD...@clix.pt>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>"qubit" <johnq...@nospamorg.org> escreveu na mensagem
>>>news:fb57k6$dva$1...@aioe.org...
>>>
>>>>I hereby announce to the world that I'm able to prove that
>>>> Einstein's General Relativity (GR) theory is wrong and inconsistent.
>>>
>>>Only a clear and irrefutable experiment can prove GR wrong.
>>>Figure out a good experiment, find the money and do it.
>>>Otherwise its only a brain exercise, like many others.
>>>You are not the first one and you won't be the last.
>>>I've already seen lots of then, much better then you, I mean
>>>really very good guys, but didn't make it.
>>>You can always try.
>>>I've already tried and I've learned a lot (of crap).
>>>
>>>BTW, GR is good for what?
>>
>> GPS? Gravitational lensing? Shapiro effect?
>>
>>>SR and GR is useless.
>>
>> To you, maybe.
>
>Yes, to me and 99.99999999% people here on earth
>SR and GR is good only for grants and to feed many.
So GPS is useless?
Weak gravitational lensing which is discovering much about the
universe...also useless?
Shapiro delay, whose understanding makes accurate positioning of
objects in the solar system via radar ranging more
accurate....useless?
SR? If you ever get cancer, I hope you will refuse all treatments
based upon particle accelerator technology. No anti-protons for you.
>
>
>>>I could have GPS clocks synchronised without GR. All that
>>>it requires is enough data acquisition, its analysis and then
>>>calculate what correction should be made.
>>
>> Or someone could take the weekend to compute what the correction needs
>> to be, rather than spend several years designing the experiments to
>> collect the data then spend one or two processing the data and then
>> discover that oh yes it /IS/ simpler to use GR.
>
>You are a blind man.
So that's why I keep bumping into shit at night...
>
>
>>>Astronomy is showing every day so many strange things,
>>>well far beyond the reach of GR, that it will take decades
>>>to explain what is going on. I'm not concerned with SR
>>>and GR spookiness anymore. Astronomy is showing
>>>things by far much more spooky then SR and GR.
>>
>> Oh, really? How do you think astronomy is doing these things?
>
>For sure not with SR or GR.
>
>
>> How many of these things would not be observable if gravitational
>> lensing were unavailable?
>
>All of them.
>Gravitational lensing only complicates the observation.
It'd probably help if you understood what gravitational lensing was.
>What is magic about gravitational lensing Doc?
Magic in science is reserved for those too young or too stupid to
understand what is actually going on. Which are you?
>
>
>> How many of these things actually /don't/ fit into the framework of
>> relativity?
>
>Lots of then:
>Galaxy rotation curves.
...started the search for dark matter, which has been massively aided
through the use of weak gravitational lensing. Dark matter has been
directly mapped and the race is on to identify what the substance is.
This doesn't count.
>AGN's
...are powered through near-extremal Kerr black holes with Keplerian
masses that range between one and ten million solar masses.
This most especially does not count.
>No gravitational waves.
PSR B1913+16 decays as if gravitational waves exist.
http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0407149
Both PSR J0737-3039A and B decay as if gravitational waves exist.
http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0609417
LIGO/GEO600/VISAR has not, as of yet, detected any gravitational
waves. However, VISAR only recently came on line, and GEO600/LIGO only
recently reached design sensitivity. The most recent LIGO data to be
published is from the S3 run, which is a full two runs away from the
design sensitivity.
>Gamma Ray Bursts.
Um, what? How does this support your anti-relativity ranting?
Explainations for GRBs range from Hypernovae from Wolf-Rayet stars to
my personal favorite, superradiant scattering of electromagnetic
radiation against a huge Kerr black hole and the highly charged plasma
torus of the core of an AGN.
>
>
>>>Actually, I guess that we will find out soon that our
>>>Physics is local and only works here (local).
>>
>> Yes, the guess of the layman is often better than the guess of the
>> educated professional. Thanks!
>
>You are being paid to do your job.
>Your opinion depends on the money you receive.
The layman now offers his opinion on how my education and job work,
even though he knows nothing of either. Unsurprisingly, he isn't even
close to being correct.
>
>
>
JM Albuquerque
No, GR is useless
> Weak gravitational lensing which is discovering much about the
> universe...also useless?
>
> Shapiro delay, whose understanding makes accurate positioning of
> objects in the solar system via radar ranging more
> accurate....useless?
>
> SR? If you ever get cancer, I hope you will refuse all treatments
> based upon particle accelerator technology. No anti-protons for you.
Is this the best you can do?
Why don't you start from the beginning and answer my
other posts in this thead based on classic mechanics?
>>>>I could have GPS clocks synchronised without GR. All that
>>>>it requires is enough data acquisition, its analysis and then
>>>>calculate what correction should be made.
>>>
>>> Or someone could take the weekend to compute what the correction needs
>>> to be, rather than spend several years designing the experiments to
>>> collect the data then spend one or two processing the data and then
>>> discover that oh yes it /IS/ simpler to use GR.
>>
>>You are a blind man.
>
> So that's why I keep bumping into shit at night...
It happens to every blind man.
Things are what they are and you can't change them.
>>>>Astronomy is showing every day so many strange things,
>>>>well far beyond the reach of GR, that it will take decades
>>>>to explain what is going on. I'm not concerned with SR
>>>>and GR spookiness anymore. Astronomy is showing
>>>>things by far much more spooky then SR and GR.
>>>
>>> Oh, really? How do you think astronomy is doing these things?
>>
>>For sure not with SR or GR.
>>
>>
>>> How many of these things would not be observable if gravitational
>>> lensing were unavailable?
>>
>>All of them.
>>Gravitational lensing only complicates the observation.
>
> It'd probably help if you understood what gravitational lensing was.
What makes you think I don't understand what gravitational
lensing is?
It is so trivial that anybody understands it.
It's the gravity effect upon energy.
>>What is magic about gravitational lensing Doc?
>
> Magic in science is reserved for those too young or too stupid to
> understand what is actually going on. Which are you?
I've asked:
What's so important in gravitational lensing?
But you are so blind and pissed that you coudn't get it.
Relax, don't get to nervous.
I ask you again:
What's so important in gravitational lensing?
>>> How many of these things actually /don't/ fit into the framework of
>>> relativity?
>>
>>Lots of then:
>>Galaxy rotation curves.
>
> ...started the search for dark matter, which has been massively aided
> through the use of weak gravitational lensing. Dark matter has been
> directly mapped and the race is on to identify what the substance is.
I'm gonna tell you a secret:
Dark matter is a direct measurent of GR error.
Actually a very huge error, right is excess of 90%.
> This doesn't count.
>
>>AGN's
>
> ...are powered through near-extremal Kerr black holes with Keplerian
> masses that range between one and ten million solar masses.
Again those rotating black holes.
Did you ever imagine how such huge rotating black hole
results in light of classic mechanics?
Does the term "inertia" means anything to you, other then
the equivalence principle?
> This most especially does not count.
>
>>No gravitational waves.
>
> PSR B1913+16 decays as if gravitational waves exist.
> http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0407149
>
> Both PSR J0737-3039A and B decay as if gravitational waves exist.
> http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0609417
>
> LIGO/GEO600/VISAR has not, as of yet, detected any gravitational
> waves. However, VISAR only recently came on line, and GEO600/LIGO only
> recently reached design sensitivity. The most recent LIGO data to be
> published is from the S3 run, which is a full two runs away from the
> design sensitivity.
So, you agree:
No gravitational waves.
>>Gamma Ray Bursts.
>
> Um, what? How does this support your anti-relativity ranting?
>
> Explainations for GRBs range from Hypernovae from Wolf-Rayet stars to
> my personal favorite, superradiant scattering of electromagnetic
> radiation against a huge Kerr black hole and the highly charged plasma
> torus of the core of an AGN.
Not the GRB explanation, but this:
http://blog.sciam.com/index.php?title=hints_of_a_breakdown_of_relativity_theor&more=1&c=1&tb=1&pb=1&sc=WR_20070829
I know uou have already read it, since you've replied
today 8am.
news:s0rcd3lilq27tfjrv...@4ax.com
Do you have a bad memory problem?
Eric Gisse
wrote:
>
>"Eric Gisse" <jowr.pi...@gmail-nospam.com> escreveu na mensagem
>news:fmrcd313sn5qjrln8...@4ax.com...
>> On Thu, 30 Aug 2007 08:02:35 +0100, "JM Albuquerque" <jmD...@clix.pt>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>"Bill Hobba" <rub...@junk.com> escreveu na mensagem
>>>news:AmtBi.28296$4A1....@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
>>>>
>>>> "JM Albuquerque" <jmD...@clix.pt> wrote in message
>>>> news:5jmu35...@mid.individual.net...
>>>
>>>>> BTW, GR is good for what?
>>>>
>>>> As Landau said, anyone who is not struck by the incredible elegance and
>>>> beauty of GR is neither a mathematician or physicist.
>>>
>>>I'm not so sure about such elegance and beauty.
>>>Yes, I got struck, but not by elegance or beauty.
>>>
>>>My opinion is that nobody understands it.
>>
>> ...and your opinion is based on what, exactly? Failing to understand
>> GR just like you failed to understand classical mechanics?
>
>Based on personal experience.
But not as a scientist.
>Why do you presume that I've failed to understand classical
>mechanics, or else GR? Hubris?
...becuase you deny that solutions exist to a system of first order
differential equations, despite the system being solved in any
classical mechanics textbook that touches on the kinematics of rigid
motion and because the existence of solutions has been mathematically
proven.
>
>
>> By the way, how's that sojurn into classical mechanics going? Are you
>> still befuddled by Euler's equations of motion for a rigid body?
>
>Nope, I've already told you that Euler's equation of motion doesn't
>have a solution.
>You failed to show me a solution (numerical solution is nothing).
>All you do is talking, talking, and...pufff...nothing as usual.
I guess you couldn't be bothered to open up any of the textbooks I
suggested.
Chapter 11 of _Mechanics_ 3rd ed., Symon has several worked solutions
and has several more in the exercises.
Chapter 5 of _Classical Mechanics_ 3rd ed., Goldstein has more of the
same.
If you don't have these textbooks, and can't be bothered to go to the
library to look at them, why should I waste my time summarizing the
arguments for you?
>
>Also I've told you that I've solved the problem with Newton
>and Lagrange approach.
So? The formalisms are 100% equivalent.
>(All based on David Morin book from Harvard = 98% of the
>work need is there and I've already decided that I'm going to
>talk with David Morin when the time comes.)
Do keep us updated on your quest to right the wrongs of classical
mechanics.
>
>
>>>I've tried several times to see such elegance and beauty but
>>>no one around could satisfy my elegance and beauty criteria.
>>
>> If the fog of misunderstanding cleared up, you would see things
>> differently.
>
>So, there is fog on the GR elegance and beauty?
>And you cannot clear up that fog?
>Even so you believe it's just fog?
I was talking about you, dumbass.
>
>How does SR and GR handle spin? Doc.
>(In sci.physics.research Eric Gisse is wondering about
>that little spin problem)
You read but you do not comprehend.
[snip remaining]
Kenneth Doyle
@mid.individual.net:
>>> The earth moves at 30km/s around the sun.
>>> Within 8 minutes the earth travels 14,400 km
>>> Since the earth is about 12,000 km in diameter
>>> it is clear that gravity will miss the earth, like
>>> light does so by means of aberration.
>>
>> No, the light does not miss the earth. Didn't you know
>> that you can see the sun from earth?
>
> There is aberration, isn't it?
> Gravity is a central force in Newton's Physics.
> Other then infinite speed causes aberration.
> It is not the case that we can't see the Sun,
> it is the fact that central forces are central
> forces and if a force is delayed it will
> cause unbalances.
>
Look at it this way: We happen to be in exactly the right position now, to
feel the effects of both light and gravity that had been emitted from the
sun eight minutes ago.
gdew...@gmail.com
you mean you are not exited like everyone else?
JM Albuquerque
Solutions exist?
Solved?
Is the gyroscope solved? Where? How? By Whom?
I'm gonna repeat again:
Those three differential equations are non-linear and are dependent
one from each other.
Without any major assumption (simplification) they don't
have a solution. That's the point.
If they have a solution one should be able to describe
the motion of a gyroscope where torque is applied in its
both precession axis and also motion exists in its both
precession axis, besides the constant spin of the gyroscopic
mass.
Now I have a question for you, smartass:
You have a school gyroscope where you place a gravity mass
and starts precessing. The mass doesn't fall as you know
and the gyroscope undergo precession. Trivial.
Where does the precession kinetic energy came from?
I mean, the gyroscope is precessing, so it has kinetic
energy on its precession motion. The question is:
Where did the required energy came from?
[snip remaining]
Eric Gisse
wrote:
So GPS is useless?
The functionality of GPS relies on relativity.
http://npoesslib.ipo.noaa.gov/IPOarchive/MAN/doc165.pdf
I fail to see what has convinced you that your opinion on relativity
outweighs the entire scientific community. Why don't you take a few
minutes and tell me about your education.
>
>
>> Weak gravitational lensing which is discovering much about the
>> universe...also useless?
>>
>> Shapiro delay, whose understanding makes accurate positioning of
>> objects in the solar system via radar ranging more
>> accurate....useless?
>>
>> SR? If you ever get cancer, I hope you will refuse all treatments
>> based upon particle accelerator technology. No anti-protons for you.
>
>Is this the best you can do?
You claim SR and GR are useless. I give you some simple
counterexamples.
You have four options:
a) Deny my counterexamples are useful.
b) Deny the existence of the counterexamples.
c) Ignore the counterexamples.
d) Admit I am correct and change your mind.
Which option will you go with? I'd like to see "d" for a change of
pace, but your behavior suggests "a" will be the course of choice.
>
>Why don't you start from the beginning and answer my
>other posts in this thead based on classic mechanics?
Why don't you open up a textbook on classical mechanics, like the two
I referenced you?
[...]
>>
>> It'd probably help if you understood what gravitational lensing was.
>
>What makes you think I don't understand what gravitational
>lensing is?
Certain sets of knowledge follow from other sets of knowledge. You
don't understand classical mechanics, and your position is explicitly
disproven in every classical mechanics textbook EVER.
If you are making mistakes like this, what are the odds you fully
understand anything about general relativity?
>It is so trivial that anybody understands it.
>It's the gravity effect upon energy.
A sound bite is not a demonstration of understanding. How about
explaining the difference between weak and strong lensing, and explain
why weak lensing has only become available as an observational method
in the last 15 years or so.
>
>
>>>What is magic about gravitational lensing Doc?
>>
>> Magic in science is reserved for those too young or too stupid to
>> understand what is actually going on. Which are you?
>
>I've asked:
>What's so important in gravitational lensing?
No, that is not what you asked. You asked: "What is magic about
gravitational lensing Doc?"
I'm educated, and know the difference between words like "magic" and
"important". Specifically, I don't treat them as synonyms.
>
>But you are so blind and pissed that you coudn't get it.
>Relax, don't get to nervous.
>
>I ask you again:
>What's so important in gravitational lensing?
It is the only direct method of mapping mass.
If you have to ask, you won't appreciate the significance of the
answer.
>
>
>>>> How many of these things actually /don't/ fit into the framework of
>>>> relativity?
>>>
>>>Lots of then:
>>>Galaxy rotation curves.
>>
>> ...started the search for dark matter, which has been massively aided
>> through the use of weak gravitational lensing. Dark matter has been
>> directly mapped and the race is on to identify what the substance is.
>
>
>I'm gonna tell you a secret:
>Dark matter is a direct measurent of GR error.
>Actually a very huge error, right is excess of 90%.
Then how come gravitational lensing has revealed the existence of dark
matter?
You might want to catch up to current research. The "rotation curves
mean GR is wrong!" position went to shit in the most direct way around
a year ago.
Repeating discredited opinions does not make you insightful. It just
makes you look stupid.
>
>
>
>> This doesn't count.
>>
>>>AGN's
>>
>> ...are powered through near-extremal Kerr black holes with Keplerian
>> masses that range between one and ten million solar masses.
>
>
>Again those rotating black holes.
>Did you ever imagine how such huge rotating black hole
>results in light of classic mechanics?
No, because these objects cannot classically exist.
>Does the term "inertia" means anything to you, other then
>the equivalence principle?
Try to remember your speaking to someone who actually studies
gravitation and cosmology. Your bullshit random word tosses won't work
on me.
http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/ApJ/journal/issues/ApJ/v652n1/65488/brief/65488.abstract.html
Spend the hour or so and read the fucking article.
>
>
>> This most especially does not count.
>>
>>>No gravitational waves.
>>
>> PSR B1913+16 decays as if gravitational waves exist.
>> http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0407149
>>
>> Both PSR J0737-3039A and B decay as if gravitational waves exist.
>> http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0609417
>>
>> LIGO/GEO600/VISAR has not, as of yet, detected any gravitational
>> waves. However, VISAR only recently came on line, and GEO600/LIGO only
>> recently reached design sensitivity. The most recent LIGO data to be
>> published is from the S3 run, which is a full two runs away from the
>> design sensitivity.
>
>
>So, you agree:
>No gravitational waves.
Confirmation bias. You ignore the pulsar measurements that are
consistent with gravitational radiation and skip over the fact that
the analysis isn't even done yet on the S4 and S5 LIGO runs and focus
purely on "we haven't seen anything yet".
>
>
>>>Gamma Ray Bursts.
>>
>> Um, what? How does this support your anti-relativity ranting?
>>
>> Explainations for GRBs range from Hypernovae from Wolf-Rayet stars to
>> my personal favorite, superradiant scattering of electromagnetic
>> radiation against a huge Kerr black hole and the highly charged plasma
>> torus of the core of an AGN.
>
>
>Not the GRB explanation, but this:
>http://blog.sciam.com/index.php?title=hints_of_a_breakdown_of_relativity_theor&more=1&c=1&tb=1&pb=1&sc=WR_20070829
>I know uou have already read it, since you've replied
>today 8am.
>news:s0rcd3lilq27tfjrv...@4ax.com
>
>Do you have a bad memory problem?
>
Be explicit or shut the fuck up. Gamma ray bursts are a specific class
of objects. Don't cry because I couldn't divine that you actually
meant "timing information from GRBs".
Since you already read the reply - and referenced it here - you can
see why I'm skeptical.
Furthermore:
http://backreaction.blogspot.com/2007/08/magics-observation-of-gamma-ray-bursts.html
Since this lady does quantum gravity for a living, I'll defer to her
opinion.
Eric Gisse
wrote:
Read a book and not look stupid?
>
>Is the gyroscope solved? Where? How? By Whom?
Page 454, Symon. "The symmetrical top".
Consider studying some classical mechanics.
>
>I'm gonna repeat again:
>Those three differential equations are non-linear and are dependent
>one from each other.
So?
Nonlinearity does not mean "unsolvable". Did you know GR is highly
nonlinear?
>
>Without any major assumption (simplification) they don't
>have a solution. That's the point.
...and it is idiotic. So what if no analytic solutions exist in the
full nonlinearized set of equations? You can solve them numerically.
The solutions exist in the mathematically-proven-to-exist type of
existence. Numerical methods for ODEs are rather simple - I can
program them myself or I could use one of many prepackaged methods.
The three body problem is analyitically unsolvable, but that does not
mean it is useless. Ditto for quantum chemistry, and such.
>
>If they have a solution one should be able to describe
>the motion of a gyroscope where torque is applied in its
>both precession axis and also motion exists in its both
>precession axis, besides the constant spin of the gyroscopic
>mass.
Yea - Symon, page 454. Consider reading it. Extending the example to
include torque is trivial by inclusion of the relevant generalized
forces into Lagrange's equations.
You can use Euler's equations by tossing on the torque into the right
hand side of the equations but that makes the huge assumption that you
will be able to do it. The principle inertial axis might not be the
best one.
>
>Now I have a question for you, smartass:
>You have a school gyroscope where you place a gravity mass
>and starts precessing. The mass doesn't fall as you know
>and the gyroscope undergo precession. Trivial.
The analysis is most certainly not trivial.
>
>Where does the precession kinetic energy came from?
>I mean, the gyroscope is precessing, so it has kinetic
>energy on its precession motion. The question is:
>Where did the required energy came from?
From the initial rotation of the body.
I hope you will extend your misunderstanding of classical mechanics by
saying that the energy came from nowhere and that you could build a
perpetual motion machine from the spinning top.
>
>[snip remaining]
>
JM Albuquerque
"Kenneth Doyle" <nob...@notmail.com> escreveu na mensagem
news:Xns999D74604B643...@61.9.191.5...
It's a good point, but fact is that it's refuted by experiment.
The facts are:
Light aberration exists, so we cannot be exactly in the right
position now, otherwise aberration shouldn't be measured.
Jeckyl
news:5jpcer...@mid.individual.net...
> "Kenneth Doyle" <nob...@notmail.com> escreveu na mensagem
> news:Xns999D74604B643...@61.9.191.5...
>> to
>> feel the effects of both light and gravity that had been emitted from the
>> sun eight minutes ago.
>
> It's a good point, but fact is that it's refuted by experiment.
So we do not feel the effects of both light and gravity from the sun?
What planet are YOU on?
JM Albuquerque
>>Solutions exist?
>>Solved?
>
> Read a book and not look stupid?
>
>>
>>Is the gyroscope solved? Where? How? By Whom?
>
> Page 454, Symon. "The symmetrical top".
>
> Consider studying some classical mechanics.
>
>>
>>I'm gonna repeat again:
>>Those three differential equations are non-linear and are dependent
>>one from each other.
>
> So?
>
> Nonlinearity does not mean "unsolvable". Did you know GR is highly
> nonlinear?
The problem is not the nonlinearity.
The problem is that they are dependent one from each other,
which renders it impossible to solve mathematically.
>>Without any major assumption (simplification) they don't
>>have a solution. That's the point.
>
> ...and it is idiotic. So what if no analytic solutions exist in the
> full nonlinearized set of equations? You can solve them numerically.
Numerically is no good for my standards.
I've told you that what really counts is understanding.
> The solutions exist in the mathematically-proven-to-exist type of
> existence. Numerical methods for ODEs are rather simple - I can
> program them myself or I could use one of many prepackaged methods.
>
> The three body problem is analyitically unsolvable, but that does not
> mean it is useless. Ditto for quantum chemistry, and such.
Now you say the three body problem is analytically unsolvable.
If you haven't notice, Euler's equations of motion talk about
3 inertia moments that undergo rotation around principal axis.
>>If they have a solution one should be able to describe
>>the motion of a gyroscope where torque is applied in its
>>both precession axis and also motion exists in its both
>>precession axis, besides the constant spin of the gyroscopic
>>mass.
>
> Yea - Symon, page 454. Consider reading it. Extending the example to
> include torque is trivial by inclusion of the relevant generalized
> forces into Lagrange's equations.
Thank you, I already have all that I need.
I bet torque was tossed out, didn't it?
> You can use Euler's equations by tossing on the torque into the right
> hand side of the equations but that makes the huge assumption that you
> will be able to do it. The principle inertial axis might not be the
> best one.
I don't want to toss on the torque.
Torque must be applied, always.
An due to torque (on both precession axis, motion also
exists on both precession axis).
>>Now I have a question for you, smartass:
>>You have a school gyroscope where you place a gravity mass
>>and starts precessing. The mass doesn't fall as you know
>>and the gyroscope undergo precession. Trivial.
>
> The analysis is most certainly not trivial.
For sure.
I took about one Year, full time, 12 hours a day, 365 days
a Year.
>>Where does the precession kinetic energy came from?
>>I mean, the gyroscope is precessing, so it has kinetic
>>energy on its precession motion. The question is:
>>Where did the required energy came from?
>
> From the initial rotation of the body.
Wrong!
Try again.
The rotation of the gyroscopic spinning mass is done
over bearings and in no way there is a redution on
the main spinning mass to acount for the required energy.
> I hope you will extend your misunderstanding of classical mechanics by
> saying that the energy came from nowhere and that you could build a
> perpetual motion machine from the spinning top.
Nope.
The gyroscope works based on the energy conservation law.
No power can be dissipated on a gyroscope.
What goes in must come out.
>
>>
>>[snip remaining]
>>
Eric Gisse
wrote:
>
>"Eric Gisse" <jowr.pi...@gmail-nospam.com> escreveu na mensagem
>news:scted3hh4le23s7a2...@4ax.com...
>> On Fri, 31 Aug 2007 02:47:08 +0100, "JM Albuquerque" <jmD...@clix.pt>
>> wrote:
>
>
>>>Solutions exist?
>>>Solved?
>>
>> Read a book and not look stupid?
>>
>>>
>>>Is the gyroscope solved? Where? How? By Whom?
>>
>> Page 454, Symon. "The symmetrical top".
>>
>> Consider studying some classical mechanics.
>>
>>>
>>>I'm gonna repeat again:
>>>Those three differential equations are non-linear and are dependent
>>>one from each other.
>>
>> So?
>>
>> Nonlinearity does not mean "unsolvable". Did you know GR is highly
>> nonlinear?
>
>The problem is not the nonlinearity.
>The problem is that they are dependent one from each other,
>which renders it impossible to solve mathematically.
Is this system of differential equations impossible to solve?
dx/dt + y = 0
dy/dt + x = 0
>
>
>>>Without any major assumption (simplification) they don't
>>>have a solution. That's the point.
>>
>> ...and it is idiotic. So what if no analytic solutions exist in the
>> full nonlinearized set of equations? You can solve them numerically.
>
>Numerically is no good for my standards.
Who cares?
*Real* scientists use numerical solutions almost exclusively.
>I've told you that what really counts is understanding.
Talk to a computational physicist some time. It will be enlightening.
>
>
>> The solutions exist in the mathematically-proven-to-exist type of
>> existence. Numerical methods for ODEs are rather simple - I can
>> program them myself or I could use one of many prepackaged methods.
>>
>> The three body problem is analyitically unsolvable, but that does not
>> mean it is useless. Ditto for quantum chemistry, and such.
>
>Now you say the three body problem is analytically unsolvable.
>If you haven't notice, Euler's equations of motion talk about
>3 inertia moments that undergo rotation around principal axis.
>
>
>>>If they have a solution one should be able to describe
>>>the motion of a gyroscope where torque is applied in its
>>>both precession axis and also motion exists in its both
>>>precession axis, besides the constant spin of the gyroscopic
>>>mass.
>>
>> Yea - Symon, page 454. Consider reading it. Extending the example to
>> include torque is trivial by inclusion of the relevant generalized
>> forces into Lagrange's equations.
>
>Thank you, I already have all that I need.
>I bet torque was tossed out, didn't it?
Yep, but as I said extending it to include torque is trivial. That
situation is one of the homework exercises in Symon.
>
>
>> You can use Euler's equations by tossing on the torque into the right
>> hand side of the equations but that makes the huge assumption that you
>> will be able to do it. The principle inertial axis might not be the
>> best one.
>
>I don't want to toss on the torque.
>Torque must be applied, always.
That's nice.
>An due to torque (on both precession axis, motion also
>exists on both precession axis).
>
>
>>>Now I have a question for you, smartass:
>>>You have a school gyroscope where you place a gravity mass
>>>and starts precessing. The mass doesn't fall as you know
>>>and the gyroscope undergo precession. Trivial.
>>
>> The analysis is most certainly not trivial.
>
>For sure.
>I took about one Year, full time, 12 hours a day, 365 days
>a Year.
Hm, the analysis took a few days of lecture time and is 7 pages in
Symon.
Perhaps physics isn't for you?
>
>
>>>Where does the precession kinetic energy came from?
>>>I mean, the gyroscope is precessing, so it has kinetic
>>>energy on its precession motion. The question is:
>>>Where did the required energy came from?
>>
>> From the initial rotation of the body.
>
>Wrong!
>Try again.
Your welcome to prove otherwise.
>
>The rotation of the gyroscopic spinning mass is done
>over bearings and in no way there is a redution on
>the main spinning mass to acount for the required energy.
Why?
Spend a few minutes playing with a compound pendulum.
>
>
>
>> I hope you will extend your misunderstanding of classical mechanics by
>> saying that the energy came from nowhere and that you could build a
>> perpetual motion machine from the spinning top.
>
>Nope.
>The gyroscope works based on the energy conservation law.
Define energy in terms of the system.
JM Albuquerque
> On Fri, 31 Aug 2007 03:40:40 +0100, "JM Albuquerque" <jmD...@clix.pt>
> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Eric Gisse" <jowr.pi...@gmail-nospam.com> escreveu na mensagem
>>news:scted3hh4le23s7a2...@4ax.com...
>>> On Fri, 31 Aug 2007 02:47:08 +0100, "JM Albuquerque" <jmD...@clix.pt>
>>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>>Solutions exist?
>>>>Solved?
>>>
>>> Read a book and not look stupid?
>>>
>>>>
>>>>Is the gyroscope solved? Where? How? By Whom?
>>>
>>> Page 454, Symon. "The symmetrical top".
>>>
>>> Consider studying some classical mechanics.
>>>
>>>>
>>>>I'm gonna repeat again:
>>>>Those three differential equations are non-linear and are dependent
>>>>one from each other.
>>>
>>> So?
>>>
>>> Nonlinearity does not mean "unsolvable". Did you know GR is highly
>>> nonlinear?
>>
>>The problem is not the nonlinearity.
>>The problem is that they are dependent one from each other,
>>which renders it impossible to solve mathematically.
>
> Is this system of differential equations impossible to solve?
>
> dx/dt + y = 0
> dy/dt + x = 0
No, it is not impossible.
d^2x/dt^2+x=0
is a trivial second order differential equation.
>>>>Without any major assumption (simplification) they don't
>>>>have a solution. That's the point.
>>>
>>> ...and it is idiotic. So what if no analytic solutions exist in the
>>> full nonlinearized set of equations? You can solve them numerically.
>>
>>Numerically is no good for my standards.
>
> Who cares?
I care.
> *Real* scientists use numerical solutions almost exclusively.
What's a *real* scientist to you?
>>I've told you that what really counts is understanding.
>
> Talk to a computational physicist some time. It will be enlightening.
I guess so.
I don't like computer talking.
I'm talking about understanding Physics.
>>> The solutions exist in the mathematically-proven-to-exist type of
>>> existence. Numerical methods for ODEs are rather simple - I can
>>> program them myself or I could use one of many prepackaged methods.
>>>
>>> The three body problem is analyitically unsolvable, but that does not
>>> mean it is useless. Ditto for quantum chemistry, and such.
>>
>>Now you say the three body problem is analytically unsolvable.
>>If you haven't notice, Euler's equations of motion talk about
>>3 inertia moments that undergo rotation around principal axis.
>>
>>
>>>>If they have a solution one should be able to describe
>>>>the motion of a gyroscope where torque is applied in its
>>>>both precession axis and also motion exists in its both
>>>>precession axis, besides the constant spin of the gyroscopic
>>>>mass.
>>>
>>> Yea - Symon, page 454. Consider reading it. Extending the example to
>>> include torque is trivial by inclusion of the relevant generalized
>>> forces into Lagrange's equations.
>>
>>Thank you, I already have all that I need.
>>I bet torque was tossed out, didn't it?
>
> Yep, but as I said extending it to include torque is trivial. That
> situation is one of the homework exercises in Symon.
Yes, yes.
...homework exercise...
>>> You can use Euler's equations by tossing on the torque into the right
>>> hand side of the equations but that makes the huge assumption that you
>>> will be able to do it. The principle inertial axis might not be the
>>> best one.
>>
>>I don't want to toss on the torque.
>>Torque must be applied, always.
>
> That's nice.
>
>>An due to torque (on both precession axis, motion also
>>exists on both precession axis).
>>
>>
>>>>Now I have a question for you, smartass:
>>>>You have a school gyroscope where you place a gravity mass
>>>>and starts precessing. The mass doesn't fall as you know
>>>>and the gyroscope undergo precession. Trivial.
>>>
>>> The analysis is most certainly not trivial.
>>
>>For sure.
>>I took about one Year, full time, 12 hours a day, 365 days
>>a Year.
>
> Hm, the analysis took a few days of lecture time and is 7 pages in
> Symon.
Good for your.
The fact is that you have shown your ignorance about the
problem on the "precession energy of the gyroscope" which
concerns the book you have.
> Perhaps physics isn't for you?
Not your blind computational physics without a clue.
>>>>Where does the precession kinetic energy came from?
>>>>I mean, the gyroscope is precessing, so it has kinetic
>>>>energy on its precession motion. The question is:
>>>>Where did the required energy came from?
>>>
>>> From the initial rotation of the body.
>>
>>Wrong!
>>Try again.
>
> Your welcome to prove otherwise.
Well, my fees are about $200 an hour and I
presume I will take about a year or so.
Call me if you are interested, or else show me that
the energy comes from the initial rotation of the
gyroscopic mass
You still have one more try.
>>The rotation of the gyroscopic spinning mass is done
>>over bearings and in no way there is a redution on
>>the main spinning mass to acount for the required energy.
>
> Why?
Why what?
The bearing are there and make them ideal (no friction)
Experiments show that no reduction in the initial
spining mass occurs, that's why.
I will tell you tomorrow. Meanwhile show us your
ignorance about the topic which you have claimed
to be a scientist, and me just a plain layman.
> Spend a few minutes playing with a compound pendulum.
I do that for breakfast.
Now I'm gonna sleep Doc.
>>> I hope you will extend your misunderstanding of classical mechanics by
>>> saying that the energy came from nowhere and that you could build a
>>> perpetual motion machine from the spinning top.
>>
>>Nope.
>>The gyroscope works based on the energy conservation law.
>
> Define energy in terms of the system.
There is no solution in terms of energy.
The solution is in terms of a power balance.
By "Energy Conservation Law" I mean the "Energy
Conservation Law". Do you know any other "Energy
Conservation Law"?
Dono
> "Eric Gisse" <jowr.pi.nos...@gmail-nospam.com> escreveu na mensagemnews:8m0fd3d5vivquj19a...@4ax.com...
>
>
>
> > On Fri, 31 Aug 2007 03:40:40 +0100, "JM Albuquerque" <jmDO...@clix.pt>
> > wrote:
>
> >>"Eric Gisse" <jowr.pi.nos...@gmail-nospam.com> escreveu na mensagem
> >>news:scted3hh4le23s7a2...@4ax.com...
> >>> On Fri, 31 Aug 2007 02:47:08 +0100, "JM Albuquerque" <jmDO...@clix.pt>
> >>> wrote:
>
> >>>>Solutions exist?
> >>>>Solved?
>
> >>> Read a book and not look stupid?
>
> >>>>Is the gyroscope solved? Where? How? By Whom?
>
> >>> Page 454, Symon. "The symmetrical top".
>
> >>> Consider studying some classical mechanics.
>
> >>>>I'm gonna repeat again:
> >>>>Those three differential equations are non-linear and are dependent
> >>>>one from each other.
>
> >>> So?
>
> >>> Nonlinearity does not mean "unsolvable". Did you know GR is highly
> >>> nonlinear?
>
> >>The problem is not the nonlinearity.
> >>The problem is that they are dependent one from each other,
> >>which renders it impossible to solve mathematically.
>
> > Is this system of differential equations impossible to solve?
>
> > dx/dt + y = 0
> > dy/dt + x = 0
>
> No, it is not impossible.
>
> d^2x/dt^2+x=0
> is a trivial second order differential equation.
You surely meant -d^2x/dt^2+x=0, idiot.
Eric Gisse
It doesn't matter. The point flew so far over his head that he would
need a SAM battery to hit it.
Dono
wrote:
I know, where do all these idiots come from? First Juan from Spain and
now this one from Portugal. Is it the air that makes them so dumb?
Bill Hobba
>
> "Bill Hobba" <rub...@junk.com> escreveu na mensagem
> news:AmtBi.28296$4A1....@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
>>
>
>>> BTW, GR is good for what?
>>
>> As Landau said, anyone who is not struck by the incredible elegance and
>> beauty of GR is neither a mathematician or physicist.
>
> I'm not so sure about such elegance and beauty.
Which is a sure indication you don't understand it.
> Yes, I got struck, but not by elegance or beauty.
See above.
>
> My opinion is that nobody understands it.
>
Right. Those that pass PhD orals on it are doing exactly what when they
answer questions about it?
> I've tried several times to see such elegance and beauty but
> no one around could satisfy my elegance and beauty criteria.
> Many, if not all of them, have changed their minds.
> Actually is funny to see how opinions about several
> "paradox" around SR and GR change in decades.
>
> Vanity, is definitely relativists greatest sin.
The greatest sin I see is guys who don't understand something and think
those that do must somehow be fooling themselves.
Bill
Bill Hobba
"Pmb" <som...@somewhere.net> wrote in message
news:dNWdnYvPlNofA0vb...@comcast.com...
>
> "Bill Hobba" <rub...@junk.com> wrote in message
>>
>> "JM Albuquerque" <jmD...@clix.pt> wrote in message
>> news:5jmu35...@mid.individual.net...
>>>
>>> news:fb57k6$dva$1...@aioe.org...
>>>
>>>>I hereby announce to the world that I'm able to prove that
>>>> Einstein's General Relativity (GR) theory is wrong and inconsistent.
>>>
>>> Only a clear and irrefutable experiment can prove GR wrong.
>>> Figure out a good experiment, find the money and do it.
>>> Otherwise its only a brain exercise, like many others.
>>> You are not the first one and you won't be the last.
>>> I've already seen lots of then, much better then you, I mean
>>> really very good guys, but didn't make it.
>>> You can always try.
>>> I've already tried and I've learned a lot (of crap).
>>>
>>
>> As Landau said, anyone who is not struck by the incredible elegance and
>> beauty of GR is neither a mathematician or physicist.
>
> laws of nature and nature itself is of great beauty to me. Can you tell me
> where Landau said that Bill? Thanks!
Hmmmm. After a bit of thought I suspected it was in the introduction to
Mechanics so I had a look there. I didn't find the exact quote I gave but
did find the following - which is basically the same thing: (page 11 -
Landau - Mechanics):
'Later he used to describe how at that time he was amazed by the incredible
beauty of the general theory of relativity - sometimes he even would declare
that such a rapture on first making ones acquittance with the theory should
be a characteristic of any borne theoretical physicist.'
Thanks
Bill
>
>>> SR and GR is useless.
>>
>> Yep - the same as the Mona Lisa is.
>
> Imagine how many more people would have died during the current war if we
> didn't have the precision for dropping weapons that the GPS system allows
> us. And of course the system wouldn't work unless we knew GR and build it
> into the system (synchronization of clocks in g-field etc).
>
> Pete
Bill Hobba
"hanson" <han...@quick.net> wrote in message
news:hsDBi.3320$xg.510@trnddc05...
>
> "Bill Hobba" <rub...@junk.com> wrote in message
> news:AmtBi.28296$4A1....@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
>>
>> "JM Albuquerque" <jmD...@clix.pt> wrote in message
>> news:5jmu35...@mid.individual.net...
>>
> in the mind and imagination of Einstein's Dingleberries...
> ... ahahahaha
>>
> [Hobba's Rubbish ]
> As Landau said, anyone who is not struck by the incredible
> elegance and beauty of GR is neither a mathematician
> or physicist.
>>
> "As Landau said" in his ode of praise from one self-
> aggrandizing Jew to/about another one: the "beauty
> of GR is" NOT existing without Newton's G in any
> and all of its solutions, ... which strikes only a
> mathematician or physicist as being of "incredible
> elegance and beauty" because he is nothing more
> then one of Einstein's Dingleberries.
>>
> Facts, not physico-religious believes is what physics
> is supposed to be, Bill.
Physics is about correspondence with experiment - not just 'facts'. This
implies one need to understand a theory before one can judge how well it
fits experiment.
> Everything else it is rubbish..
Exactly as someone who does not understand the theory would say.
Bill
> which Einstein himself concluded shortly before his death
> when Einstein confessed, in 1954, to Besso:
>>
> ::: "I consider it quite possible that physics cannot be based
> ::: on the field concept, i. e., on continuous structures. In that
> ::: case nothing remains of my entire castle in the air, gravitation
> ::: theory included, [and of] the rest of modern physics." -- A.E.
>>
> because Einstein finally admitted and saw the wisdom of is
> mentor Max Planck who said
>>
> === "Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our
> === disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination."
> :::: [Max Planck, ~1894]
>>
> ... that was 11 years before Albert published that 1905 manuscript
> which he stole from his wife Mileva Maric & paids her hush money
> for... Einstein's "The secret to creativity is knowing how to hide
> your sources."... come to mind.... ahahaha.. See more here:
> http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/c317bb71e593ff8b?hl=en&
> http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/msg/c317bb71e593ff8b?hl=en&
> http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/msg/3519d92d18984b8c?hl=en& ...
>>
> ahahaha... ahahahanson
>
>
>
>
>
Al in Dallas
<jowr.pi...@gmail-nospam.com> wrote:
[snip]
>You might want to catch up to current research. The "rotation curves
>mean GR is wrong!" position went to shit in the most direct way around
>a year ago.
>
>Repeating discredited opinions does not make you insightful. It just
>makes you look stupid.
Can you point to an article or paper suitable for a non-expert in GR?
[snip down to GRB discussion]]
>Furthermore:
>
>http://backreaction.blogspot.com/2007/08/magics-observation-of-gamma-ray-bursts.html
>
>Since this lady does quantum gravity for a living, I'll defer to her
>opinion.
Thanks, that was interesting.
--
Al in St. Lou
JM Albuquerque
>> Vanity, is definitely relativists greatest sin.
>
> The greatest sin I see is guys who don't understand something and think
> those that do must somehow be fooling themselves.
How are you, Bill Hobba?
My point is that people who claim to understand SR and GR should
be able to answer trivial questions like those of our everyday live.
I've pointed out quite a few here, in this same thread.
More or less, 24 hours have passed and none of those
so-called scientists could answer. Basically, no-answer at all.
Do you want me to spell them for you, in case that you are
to lazy to search them?
Dirk Van de moortel
"JM Albuquerque" <jmD...@clix.pt> wrote in message news:5jqip3...@mid.individual.net...
I don't think that you are interested in the answers, even if you
*would* have the intelligence to understand them. The fact that
apparently you learned that little thing yesterday, was probably
a freak accident, so I have to retract my congratulations.
Ah well, what else is new?
Dirk Vdm
JM Albuquerque
"Dono" <sa...@comcast.net> escreveu na mensagem
news:1188540067.1...@q3g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
> I know, where do all these idiots come from? First Juan from Spain and
> now this one from Portugal. Is it the air that makes them so dumb?
I've noticed that most of the people here have a pet.
I guess you must be Eric Gisse's pet.
So, please ask you master if he already knows where
the precession kinetic energy comes from.
Next I want to ask him why the gravity mass doesn't fall?
Sam Wormley
> I could have GPS clocks synchronised without GR. All that
> it requires is enough data acquisition, its analysis and then
> calculate what correction should be made.
>
One really cool thing about GTR is that it is a pretty good model
of space time and gravitation... why it even accurately predicts
the behavior of satellite clocks, which are at the heart of the
GPS. Understanding, not trial and error prevailed.
JM Albuquerque
"Sam Wormley" <swor...@mchsi.com> escreveu na mensagem
news:IzVBi.81336$Fc.8081@attbi_s21...
That's good and I agree with you.
GRT is very good within its validity limitations.
If all GRT validity requirements are fulfilled, then it
works just fine. Great.
(I really want to believe so).
What happens is that most of the people doesn't understand
what the limitation are. When the only tool you have is a hammer,
every problem looks like nails.
Dono
> "Dono" <sa...@comcast.net> escreveu na mensagemnews:1188540067.1...@q3g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
Shithead,
take your pseudoscience elswhere.
Dono
> "Sam Wormley" <sworml...@mchsi.com> escreveu na mensagemnews:IzVBi.81336$Fc.8081@attbi_s21...
But shithead,
You don't understand basic physics, let alone GR. So how do you expect
any of us to believe that you have anu clue about "GR limitations",
you fake ?
hanson
"Bill Hobba" <rub...@junk.com> wrote in messages
news:xHQBi.28896$4A1....@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
news:AmtBi.28296$4A1....@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
>
> "JM Albuquerque" <jmD...@clix.pt> wrote in message
> news:5jmu35...@mid.individual.net...
BTW, GR is good for what?
>
... for NOTHING except for dreams, fantasies & delusions
in the mind and imagination of Einstein's Dingleberries...
... ahahahaha
>
[Hobba's Rubbish ]
As Landau said, anyone who is not struck by the incredible
elegance and beauty of GR is neither a mathematician
or physicist.
>
[hanson cleaning up Bill's rubbish]
"As Landau said" in his ode of praise from one self-
aggrandizing Jew to/about another one: the "beauty
of GR is" NOT existing without Newton's G in any
and all of its solutions, ... which strikes only a
mathematician or physicist as being of "incredible
elegance and beauty" because he is nothing more
then one of Einstein's Dingleberries.
>
Facts, not physico-religious believes is what physics
which Einstein himself concluded shortly before his death
when Einstein confessed, in 1954, to Besso:
>
::: "I consider it quite possible that physics cannot be based
::: on the field concept, i. e., on continuous structures. In that
::: case nothing remains of my entire castle in the air, gravitation
::: theory included, [and of] the rest of modern physics." -- A.E.
>
because Einstein finally admitted and saw the wisdom of is
mentor Max Planck who said
>
=== "Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our
=== disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination."
:::: [Max Planck, ~1894]
>
... that was 11 years before Albert published that 1905 manuscript
which he stole from his wife Mileva Maric & paids her hush money
for... Einstein's "The secret to creativity is knowing how to hide
your sources."... come to mind.... ahahaha.. See more here:
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/c317bb71e593ff8b?hl=en&
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/msg/c317bb71e593ff8b?hl=en&
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/msg/3519d92d18984b8c?hl=en& ...
>
> Physics is about correspondence with experiment - not just 'facts'. This
> implies one need to understand a theory before one can
> judge how well it fits experiment.
> Bill
>
ahahaha... HAHAHAHA... Where's the beef, Bill? Where are all
your inventions and patents that came out of your judgment and
your "understanding of theory?" ... Name'em, Bill...
Theories are only **tales & fables** which feebly explain to the
next generation facts & events what someone had already done.
>
Bill, you sing like a quintessential Einstein Dingleberry who when
light is shine upon it argues against Planck, the physicist whose
wisdom Einstein acknowledged. But Bill Hobba knows better...
... AHAHAHAHA... ahahahaha...
>
Thanks for the laughs, hubba, hubba, Hobba... ahahaha...
ahahaha.. ahahahanson
hanson
news:IzVBi.81336$Fc.8081@attbi_s21...
> JM Albuquerque wrote:
>> I could have GPS clocks synchronised without GR. All that
>> it requires is enough data acquisition, its analysis and then
>> calculate what correction should be made.
>>
> One really cool thing about GTR is that it is a pretty good model
> of space time and gravitation... why it even accurately predicts
> the behavior of satellite clocks, which are at the heart of the
> GPS. Understanding, not trial and error prevailed.
>
AHAHAHA..."Understanding, not trial and error prevailed"...
ahahahaha.. JM is right of course and so are you, Sam... BUT
the behavior of satellite clocks as explained by the Einstein
Dingleberries, like Ashy, takes 39 (!!!) equation to GUESS
something that is not needed and worse, says Ashy, in (40ff)
that it is not used.... Actually, for GPS OPERATIONS, that
4.4E-10 s/s = 38 usec/day is NOT needed at all.
>
How GPS operates in the REAL world is shown by Androcles
in his website:
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/GPS/GPS.htm
>
The Einstein Dingleberries' fixation and obsession with
relativistic correction of clocks comes from the NEWTONIAN
GPS SYSTEM PARAMETER REQUIREMENT EQUATION
****** (m_e/h) * 2G/c^2 ........ 4.4E-10 s/s ******
which is ONE single strictly NEWTONIAN equation for a freq.
shift that is valid only here for m_e = mass of earth & h being
the orbital SV height, ~20'000 km above the earth surface.
... and this system characterization is purposely and uselessly
obfuscated, complicated and convoluted to continue to confuse
and con the minds of adolescent students about the fables and
lies of Einstein...
Most students who graduate and do to have a PRODUCTIVE
careers and lives will never hear about SR/GR again.
Relativity is a useless con which is why it is practiced these
days only as follows, where:
>
== mil/indust. Eng, R&D....................."does not need REL shit"
== *.edu and grantology ..................."does need REL - No shit"
== Promo, Sales & Movies..............."loves REL by the shitload"
== Jews protect it as cultural heritage whether "REL is shit or not".
>
Take care, Sam
ahahaha... ahahahanson
hanson
>
> "Dono" <sa...@comcast.net> escreveu na mensagem
> news:1188540067.1...@q3g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
>
>> I know, where do all these idiots come from? First Juan from Spain and
>> now this one from Portugal. Is it the air that makes them so dumb?
>
> I've noticed that most of the people here have a pet.
> I guess you must be Eric Gisse's pet.
> the precession kinetic energy comes from.
> Next I want to ask him why the gravity mass doesn't fall?
ahahaha... JM, notice that Homo Dono aka "Don't know"
nothing except to exhibit is stereotypical racism, hatred
and bigotry which is classical for his ilk as is shown here
where you can see the Dono aka Karandash type in his
natural environment:
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=e1842edc4f
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2O9W3UsdRyM
>
AFA, Gisse. JM, give him some slack. He ain't a bad kid.
He, being only 23, is simply honing his debating skill
here which may come in handy for him, should he elect
to get his Ph.D. via verbal examination instead of
doing a time consuming dissertation.
>
Carry on JM. You do good work. I like your posts.
hanso
Androcles
:
: "Bill Hobba" <rub...@junk.com> wrote in messages
: news:xHQBi.28896$4A1....@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
: news:AmtBi.28296$4A1....@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
: >
: > "JM Albuquerque" <jmD...@clix.pt> wrote in message
: > news:5jmu35...@mid.individual.net...
: BTW, GR is good for what?
: >
: ... for NOTHING except for dreams, fantasies & delusions
: in the mind and imagination of Einstein's Dingleberries...
: ... ahahahaha
: >
: [Hobba's Rubbish ]
: As Landau said, anyone who is not struck by the incredible
: elegance and beauty of GR is neither a mathematician
: or physicist.
Hare Krisha, Hairy Krishnow, Hubba Crash-now, Hare Hubba.
Hare Rama, Hare Rama, Rama, Rama, Hairy Hobba.
: >
: [hanson cleaning up Bill's rubbish]
:
:
:
T.M. Sommers
> On Thu, 30 Aug 2007 18:02:21 +0100, "JM Albuquerque" <jmD...@clix.pt>
> wrote:
>
>>Nope, I've already told you that Euler's equation of motion doesn't
>>have a solution.
>>You failed to show me a solution (numerical solution is nothing).
>>All you do is talking, talking, and...pufff...nothing as usual.
>
> I guess you couldn't be bothered to open up any of the textbooks I
> suggested.
>
> Chapter 11 of _Mechanics_ 3rd ed., Symon has several worked solutions
> and has several more in the exercises.
>
> Chapter 5 of _Classical Mechanics_ 3rd ed., Goldstein has more of the
> same.
Aaaaiiiieeeee! The polhode and the herpelhode! Run away! Run away!
--
Thomas M. Sommers -- t...@nj.net -- AB2SB
JM Albuquerque
Well, you want to play?
OK, I promise to tell you one limitation about the use of GR
in the GPS system if you can be able to show me that you
can have a discussion about physics.
Please have any intelligent comment about any of my posts
and I tell one limitation and how can I have GPS system to
disprove GR because the lake of that limitation.
Until then, not.
Sam Wormley
> "Dono" <sa...@comcast.net> escreveu na mensagem
>>
>> You don't understand basic physics, let alone GR. So how do you expect
>> any of us to believe that you have anu clue about "GR limitations",
>> you fake ?
>
> Well, you want to play?
> OK, I promise to tell you one limitation about the use of GR
> in the GPS system if you can be able to show me that you
> can have a discussion about physics.
>
> Please have any intelligent comment about any of my posts
> and I tell one limitation and how can I have GPS system to
> disprove GR because the lake of that limitation.
> Until then, not.
>
>
GTR and observables in the GPS agree beautifully!
PD
> I hereby announce to the world that I'm able to prove that
> Einstein's General Relativity (GR) theory is wrong and inconsistent.
I'll bet all you prove is that you're missing something.
> I will prove it with GR's own methods and it's own well known
> public data sets.
And you are the FIRST to look seriously at it, right?
> On this Friday or the weekend I will post the proof here.
Good. I'll turn off the TV, wake the kids and call the neighbors over.
Would popcorn be appropriate?
PD
Androcles
"PD" <TheDrap...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1188591524.3...@r29g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
: On Aug 29, 8:46 pm, "qubit" <johnqsm...@nospamorg.org> wrote:
: > I hereby announce to the world that I'm able to prove that
: > Einstein's General Relativity (GR) theory is wrong and inconsistent.
:
: I'll bet all you prove is that you're missing something.
No you won't. You don't have the balls or the honesty to make an
honourable wager, nor would you pay up.
If you two want to wager then agree the exact terms, the judge and
the closing date, give me the money, I'll pay the winner (less
10% commission fee for me and any expenses of course).
I'll be fair, qbit has made several errors in the recent past and
if he fails to show inconsistency you'll win. I'm equally prejudiced
against both of you, qbit is an aetherialist.
"Wrong" will not be considered, it is too vague.
Rule 1) The judge's decision is final
Rule 2) See rule 1.
--
'we establish by definition that the "time" required by
light to travel from A to B equals the "time" it requires
to travel from B to A' because I SAY SO and you have to
agree because I'm the great genius, STOOOPID, don't you
dare question it. -- Rabbi Albert Einstein
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Smart/tAB=tBA.gif
'we establish by definition that the "time" required by
light to travel from A to B doesn't equal the "time" it requires
to travel from B to A in the stationary system, obviously.' --
Heretic Jan Bielawski, assistant light-bulb changer.
Ref: news:1188363019....@k79g2000hse.googlegroups.com
"What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without
evidence." -- Uncle Stooopid.
"Counterfactual assumptions yield nonsense.
If such a thing were actually observed, reliably and reproducibly, then
relativity would immediately need a major overhaul if not a complete
replacement." -- Humpty Roberts.
Rabbi Albert Einstein in 1895 failed an examination that would
have allowed him to study for a diploma as an electrical engineer
at the Eidgenössische Technische Hochschule in Zurich
(couldn't even pass the SATs).
According to Phuckwit Duck it was geography and history that Einstein
failed on, as if Eidgenössische Technische Hochschule would give a
damn. That tells you the lengths these lying bastards will go to to
protect their tin god, but its always a laugh when they slip up.
Trolls, the lot of them.
"This is PHYSICS, not math or logic, and "proof" is completely
irrelevant." -- Humpty Roberts.
PD
> "PD" <TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:1188591524.3...@r29g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
> : On Aug 29, 8:46 pm, "qubit" <johnqsm...@nospamorg.org> wrote:
> : > I hereby announce to the world that I'm able to prove that
> : > Einstein's General Relativity (GR) theory is wrong and inconsistent.
> :
> : I'll bet all you prove is that you're missing something.
>
> No you won't. You don't have the balls or the honesty to make an
> honourable wager, nor would you pay up.
>
Phewww! What's that SMELL???
Oh, I see... stinkbait.
PD
Androcles
Have to set out stinkbait to catch stinkers (and ducks). <shrug>
JM Albuquerque
Yes, I agree.
But the new point now is about GRT limitations.
I mean a new situation outside GRT limits where GRT
must fail.
Are there any ideas?
Eric Gisse
<alfar...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>On Thu, 30 Aug 2007 17:47:10 -0800, Eric Gisse
><jowr.pi...@gmail-nospam.com> wrote:
>
>[snip]
>
>>You might want to catch up to current research. The "rotation curves
>>mean GR is wrong!" position went to shit in the most direct way around
>>a year ago.
>>
>>Repeating discredited opinions does not make you insightful. It just
>>makes you look stupid.
>
>Can you point to an article or paper suitable for a non-expert in GR?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bullet_cluster
The article is good, and it contains all the papers I would link to
you anyway.
The discussion by Sean Carroll is interesting as well, and is a bit
less technical.
http://cosmicvariance.com/2006/08/21/dark-matter-exists/
JM Albuquerque
"JM Albuquerque" <jmD...@clix.pt> escreveu na mensagem
news:5jpggl...@mid.individual.net...
>
> "Eric Gisse" <jowr.pi...@gmail-nospam.com> escreveu na mensagem
> news:8m0fd3d5vivquj19a...@4ax.com...
>>>>>Now I have a question for you, smartass:
>>>>>You have a school gyroscope where you place a gravity mass
>>>>>and starts precessing. The mass doesn't fall as you know
>>>>>and the gyroscope undergo precession. Trivial.
>>>>
>>>> The analysis is most certainly not trivial.
>>>
>>>For sure.
>>>I took about one Year, full time, 12 hours a day, 365 days
>>>a Year.
>>
>> Hm, the analysis took a few days of lecture time and is 7 pages in
>> Symon.
>
> Good for your.
> The fact is that you have shown your ignorance about the
> problem on the "precession energy of the gyroscope" which
> concerns the book you have.
>
>
>> Perhaps physics isn't for you?
>
> Not your blind computational physics without a clue.
>
>
>
>>>>>Where does the precession kinetic energy came from?
>>>>>I mean, the gyroscope is precessing, so it has kinetic
>>>>>energy on its precession motion. The question is:
>>>>>Where did the required energy came from?
>>>>
>>>> From the initial rotation of the body.
>>>
>>>Wrong!
>>>Try again.
>>
>> Your welcome to prove otherwise.
>
> Well, my fees are about $200 an hour and I
> presume I will take about a year or so.
> Call me if you are interested, or else show me that
> the energy comes from the initial rotation of the
> gyroscopic mass
>
> You still have one more try.
>
>
>>>The rotation of the gyroscopic spinning mass is done
>>>over bearings and in no way there is a redution on
>>>the main spinning mass to acount for the required energy.
>>
>> Why?
>
> Why what?
> The bearing are there and make them ideal (no friction)
> Experiments show that no reduction in the initial
> spining mass occurs, that's why.
>
> I will tell you tomorrow. Meanwhile show us your
> ignorance about the topic which you have claimed
> to be a scientist, and me just a plain layman.
Since Eric Gisse didn't answer correctly at first, and
almost 24 hours late still doesn't have any clue to
provide another explanation, and I've promised to
give the answer today, I'm gonna do it.
The question is:
Where does the gyroscope precession kinetic
energy come from?
Answer:
From the mass potential energy (due to gravity
in the proposed situation).
How? You may ask. Since the mass doesn't
fall where is the potential energy change?
The mass doesn't fall once the gyroscope is
under final and constant precession speed.
But when the gyroscope is stopped and the
mass is applied at t=0, the mass does fall
a distance whose potential energy change
mg(h1-h2) equals the actual precession
kinetic energy.
Proved by experiment plus calculations.
That's all.
JM Albuquerque
"hanson" <han...@quick.net> escreveu na mensagem
news:3eYBi.27$eD5.21@trnddc07...
> How GPS operates in the REAL world is shown by Androcles
> in his website:
> http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/GPS/GPS.htm
Well, it looks good for a start.
Of course, it will take a lot of time to check if everything
is OK. And now I don't have that time.
What have been the main critics?
But it misses the all data.
Where is the data to check the equations?
It looks like the impossible mission.
All that it seams that Androcles have is the mathematical model.
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence and
I cannot see any evidence in Androcles website.
Eric Gisse
wrote:
>
>"hanson" <han...@quick.net> escreveu na mensagem
>news:3eYBi.27$eD5.21@trnddc07...
>
>
>> How GPS operates in the REAL world is shown by Androcles
>> in his website:
>> http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/GPS/GPS.htm
>
>Well, it looks good for a start.
Are you high?
[...]
JM Albuquerque
Yes, I guess so.
I've looked diagonal, now I've started to read and I've
changed my mind.
Sorry.
hanson
news:v6ehd3hkf2u9eca5u...@4ax.com...
news:IzVBi.81336$Fc.8081@attbi_s21...
>
> JM Albuquerque wrote:
>> I could have GPS clocks synchronised without GR. All that
>> it requires is enough data acquisition, its analysis and then
>> calculate what correction should be made.
>>
[Sam]
> One really cool thing about GTR is that it is a pretty good model
> of space time and gravitation... why it even accurately predicts
> the behavior of satellite clocks, which are at the heart of the
> GPS. Understanding, not trial and error prevailed.
>
[hanson]
AHAHAHA..."Understanding, not trial and error prevailed"...
ahahahaha.. JM is right of course and so are you, Sam... BUT
the behavior of satellite clocks as explained by the Einstein
Dingleberries, like Ashy, takes 39 (!!!) equation to GUESS
something that is not needed and worse, says Ashy, in (40ff)
that it is not used.... Actually, for GPS OPERATIONS, that
4.4E-10 s/s = 38 usec/day is NOT needed at all.
>
in his website:
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/GPS/GPS.htm
>
relativistic correction of clocks comes from the NEWTONIAN
GPS SYSTEM PARAMETER REQUIREMENT EQUATION
****** (m_e/h) * 2G/c^2 ........ 4.4E-10 s/s ******
which is ONE single strictly NEWTONIAN equation for a freq.
shift that is valid only here for m_e = mass of earth & h being
the orbital SV height, ~20'000 km above the earth surface.
... and this system characterization is purposely and uselessly
obfuscated, complicated and convoluted to continue to confuse
and con the minds of adolescent students about the fables and
lies of Einstein...
Most students who graduate and do to have a PRODUCTIVE
careers and lives will never hear about SR/GR again.
Relativity is a useless con which is why it is practiced these
days only as follows, where:
>
== mil/indust. Eng, R&D....................."does not need REL shit"
== *.edu and grantology ..................."does need REL - No shit"
== Promo, Sales & Movies..............."loves REL by the shitload"
== Jews protect it as cultural heritage whether "REL is shit or not".
>
>
JM Albuquerque wrote/quotes:
>>> How GPS operates in the REAL world is shown by Androcles
>>> in his website:
>>> http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/GPS/GPS.htm
>>
> "JM Albuquerque" <jmD...@clix.pt> wrote
>>Well, it looks good for a start.
>
[Gisse to JM]
> Are you high?
>
[hanson]
.... ahahahaha... Be smooth and not so transparent on your
last few days of summer vacc, Eric. Your comment obviously
and blatantly shows that you have a high hard-on for Androcles
who is cramping your style on every occasion.... ahahaha...
Good luck to you for your trip to get your B.Sc.
hanson
Androcles
:
: "hanson" <han...@quick.net> escreveu na mensagem
: news:3eYBi.27$eD5.21@trnddc07...
:
:
: > How GPS operates in the REAL world is shown by Androcles
: > in his website:
: > http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/GPS/GPS.htm
:
: Well, it looks good for a start.
:
: Of course, it will take a lot of time to check if everything
: is OK. And now I don't have that time.
HAHAHAHAHA!
Androcles
: "Eric Gisse" <jowr.pi...@gmail-nospam.com> wrote in message
Gisse is so constipated he doesn't give a shit.
I crapped in my pants when I saw this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BEHoaYMsP9Q
and this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-kHa3WNerjU
At least I had NOTHING to do with the second one,
I still wonder if it was flying on GPS.
The first... scary. I put effort into that plane long before
I went into the simulation business. Not much, it's true,
all I did was design a test rig for the analogue computers.
At least they didn't fail.
Beware of those that don't give a shit, it's your life they
don't give a shit about.
hanson
news:FF3Ci.32147$g.1...@fe1.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
>
> "JM Albuquerque" <jmD...@clix.pt> wrote in message
> news:5jrr8rF...@mid.individual.net...
> :
> : "hanson" <han...@quick.net> escreveu na mensagem
> : news:3eYBi.27$eD5.21@trnddc07...
> :
> : > How GPS operates in the REAL world is shown by Androcles
> : > in his website:
> : > http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/GPS/GPS.htm
> :
> : Well, it looks good for a start.
> : Of course, it will take a lot of time to check if everything
> : is OK. And now I don't have that time.
>
> HAHAHAHAHA!
> http://www.online-literature.com/aesop/aesops-fables/31/
>
[hanson]
... ahahaha.. yeah, I wondered too after JM's retorts/answers
in his last few posts. His ego seems to undergo cosmic
inflation. It may be, he being/posting from Portugal, that he
may not get the finer emotional/humoristic/sarcastic
nuances of cyber/ASCII English. So, we'll see... ahahaha....
>
... but sure enough, "JM Albuquerque", the lodo, said in his:
in message news:5jrs4qF...@mid.individual.net...
>
[Gisse to JM]
>> Are you [JM] high?
>
[JM to Gisse]
> Yes, I guess so.
> I've looked diagonal, [at Andro's Web site] now I've started
> to read and I've changed my mind.
> Sorry.
>
AHAHAHAHA... ahahahaha... ahahanson