Paul "PD" wrote:
On Aug 27, 6:02 pm, BURT wrote:
On Aug 27, 9:01 am, PD wrote:
On Aug 26, 9:34 pm, BURT wrote:
On Aug 26, 1:08 am, "Androcles" wrote:
"hanson" wrote:

| || hanson wrote:
| http://tinyurl.com/hanson-d2G-Question
| wherein hanson asks for intergration of d2(1/rho)dt^2 = G
|
| | | Androcles wrote:
| http://tinyurl.com/Andro-d2G-integral-solution
| wherein Androcles says:
| Ok.
| 1/rho = 1/2 Gt^2 + kt
| d(1/rho)dt = Gt + k.
| d2(1/rho)dt^2 = G... [1], which was the given original.
| || hanson wrote:

| Thank you, Androcles!
| | Androcles wrote:

Androcles wrote:
| You are welcome, although what you think it means is not clear.

hanson wrote:
| Right, Andro, but it'll become clear. It is interesting to view
| Newton's G from another, (the above [1]), aspect then from
| the usual G = F*r^2/mM ... (from F=GmM/r^2).
|
| Looking at "G" from the aspect of [1]: G = d2(1/rho)dt^2,
| it shows that Gravitation (modeled with [1]) is NOT a force, ...
| just like in GR, that came 300 years later sayin the same.
| IOW, Newton anticipated GR 300 years b4 the plagiarizer
| Einstein came along with his bent & curved space crap...
| on his netted rubber trampolines...ahahaha... not to speak
| of Black Holes which are nothing more then the Barycenters
| of n-body systems, .... with millions & billions of bodies...
|
| Einstein relativity fails, whereas Newton's Gravitation
| explains, with d2(1/rho)dt^2 = G, how and why there are
| observed, different rotation rates in the various galactic
| regions with their non-Keplerian rotation speeds...
|
| Furthermore, had Newton known in his corpuscular light theory
| the existence and size of e^2 = hbar*a*c, he would have been
| able to calculate the ultimate limit of/for power transmission,
| P = dE/dt, from system to system,... with the use of rho and
| hbar as |||| P = rho * G * hbar ||||, [2], which leads directly to
| the HUP, dE*dt = hbar,.... when [2] is expanded by time, t.
| (See, how in [2] that **rho and G** combo surfaces again)
| It is not clear to me, at this time, whether the P[2] equation
| above is/contains the long sought after unit for Quantum gravity.
|
| As can be seen Newton had insights that go far beyond the
| feeble and twisted mentation of that late19/early20th century
| crowd, lead by Einstein who contributed to physics what Picasso
| had contributed to Painting: USELESS **** with Dingleberries.
|
| Newton still towers over these late 9th-early 20th century turds
| with their spacetime that no-one has ever seen and mouch less
| to curve, with their rigid rods for which there is no earthly
construction
| material and with their younger Twin who has no known address...
| ahahaha..
| So, Andro, if you can see in these Newton equations [1] & [2]
| what I can, then use them with gusto to keep on cranking all
| those Einstein Dingleberries.... with Newton's Glory!!!...
| ahahaha... Have fun, dude... ahahaha... ahahahanson
|
Burt Mitch Raemsch wrote:
The gravitational constant is known not to be accurate
to the degree of 60 percent up and down.

Paul Draper wrote:
That's just plain wrong.
The gravitational constant is known to one part in ten thousand.
That is 0.01% up or down, not 60% up or down.

Burt Mitch Raemsch wrote:
How can we say we have mastered gravity?
We do not know that constant to much accuracy at all.

Paul Draper wrote:
But we do. It's been measured to much much better than 60% for
centuries.

Burt Mitch Raemsch wrote:
You are being dishonest about what you consider
to be right science. Science is not close to accuracy.

Paul Draper wrote:
I'm sorry, Mitch, but that just isn't so. We may know more in the
future than what we know now, but this doesn't mean that we
don't know anything now. You're too consumed by humility, too
obsessed with thinking that we know nothing at all, so much
so that you discount what we do know.

hanson wrote:
To Paul: Mitch might be enamored with the thought that we
are able to measure the product of m*G to great accuracy,
wheres we are NOT so for the size of G itself... and so he
blames G ahahaha.... Also consider, that Mitch's Humility
stems from his heavy religious baggage, well, that cross,
that he carries.... ahahaha...
AFA your wishful thinking that "we may know more in the
future", you have conditioned it wisely with the word "may".
Since physics happens to be a social enterprise, physics
is only as stable as are the thin veneers of society, culture &
civilisation. There were plenty of dark ages in history where
"we" knew less in the future then we knew in the past...
Thanks for the laughs, guys... ahahaha... ahahahanson


--- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: ---