Editor of Physical Review A, Dr Gordon W.F. Drake does WRONGsubtraction of 8th Class mathematics.

On Oct 3, 6:59 pm, ajay wrote:

AJAY SHARMA 02 October 2009


So you tried to publish a paper full of the same mistakes that you
have made over and over again and you wonder why you were ridiculed?
You mistake the trivial change in a system's momentum for an
"increase in mass"Remember to check your units. Mass does have the
same units as momentum. You simply do not understand one of the basic
laws of physics:the law of conservation of momentum which is
conspicously absent from your so-called "discovery" Have you ever
wonder why a simply change in the direction of motion of a wave in
your theory you can either gain or lose mass? Oops!

You are so clueless that you missed the sarcasm in a user name
iaminpain (I am in pain)

Your mommycalled and said that if you didn't do your homework
correctly you would have to go home and do it over again and again
until you got it right.

On Oct 4, 6:15*am, yourmommycalled wrote:

Your mommycalled and said that if you didn't do your homework
correctly you would have to go home and do it over again and again
until you got it right.

All that spiel about 'yourmommycalled' as a courageous means to
counter the detractor of Starlord ,that was funny and just as
fictional as all the other stuff you promote.One of the attributes of
an astronomer is to retain and use information but it appears that
most people here have heads like sieves and can't remember what they
said a week before -

http://groups.google.ie/group/sci.as...5a3e11c1?hl=en

I am sure the guy is impressed with the 'conservation of momentum'
empirical junk you conjure up to impress others who know no better,the
core of these things once served great avenues of speculation until
Isaac hijacked the approach which tried to link terrestrial affects
with astronomical causes and distorted it into a monstrosity it is
today.

Oh,for people similar to Wallis and Boyle !, -

http://books.google.com/books?id=RyB...0dayes&f=false

On Oct 4, 10:15*am, yourmommycalled wrote:
On Oct 3, 6:59 pm, ajay wrote:



AJAY SHARMA * * *02 October 2009

So you tried to publish a paper full of the same mistakes that you
have made over and over again and you wonder why you were ridiculed?
You *mistake the trivial change in a system's momentum for an
"increase in mass"Remember to check your units. Mass does have the
same units as momentum. You simply do not understand one of the basic
laws of physics:the law of conservation of momentum which is
conspicously absent from your so-called "discovery" Have you ever
wonder why a simply change in the direction of motion of a wave in
your theory you can either gain or lose mass? Oops!

You are so clueless that you missed the sarcasm in a user name
iaminpain (I am in pain)

Your mommycalled and said that if you didn't do your homework
correctly you would have to go home and do it over again and again
until you got it right.

----------
(a) I never related in any of my peer reviewed published papers
that 'increase in mass' is due to 'change in momentum'. In Einstein's
Sep 1905 derivation, for 'change in mass' there are 'separate
equations'. If I did kindly quote
(i) name of journal,
(ii) title of my paper
(iii) page /section /equation number
It is basic fact that mass and momentum have different units and
dimensions and hence cannot be equated. I never said these are same.
There are constant misunderstandings from you end; unfortunately you
don’t want to read the peer reviewed papers and to remove doubts.
My work is available at www.AjayOnLine.us

My work is published in PEER REVIEWED JOURNALS if you feel it is
incorrect then, you are welcome to contradict it in journals. That is
the established method. I did so for Einstein's work in broad day
light.
ONLY then understand the worth of your ideas or you will keep on
revolving in loop.

The law of conservation of momentum states that momentum of
system is conserved
in an isolated system. It is simple. It is justified and taken
in account in peer reviewed papers published in journals.

(b) I never said that 'change in direction of motion of light', result
in loose or gain in mass.
Kindly quote the details from my peer reviewed papers if it is so.

See my peer reviewed published work:
(i) In Sep. 1905 derivation, under SPECIAL CONDITIONS of parameters
Einstein derived, when light energy is emitted the 'mass of body
decreases'.

Mass after emission = Mass before emission – positive quantity (1)

(ii) Einstein's same derivation under GENERAL CONDITIONS of parameters
implies when body emits light energy the mass of body must increase.
Mathematically,

Mass after emission = Mass before emission + positive quantity (2)

For details visit www.AjayOnLine.us
It is not justified, as it contradicts Law of Conservation of Matter.
See my peer reviewed published work

(c) I again and again, drew the attention of Editor Dr Gordon W.F.
Drake: , 001-631-591-4000, this issue (increase in mass
under GENERAL CONDITIONS), he remained silent on the issue .

Then Dr Gordon W.F.Drake invented so-called cyclic process to ,
then he subtracted algebraic equation doing 8th class math wrong on 19
June 2008 . When I pointed out
then on 11 July 2008 , he asked me not discuss issue in public as it
is private correspondence.

Editor Dr Gordon W.F. Drake: , 001-631-591-4000, should
clarify all issues himself.

AJAY SHARMA www.AjayOnLine.us

On Oct 4, 10:15*am, yourmommycalled wrote:
On Oct 3, 6:59 pm, ajay wrote:



AJAY SHARMA * * *02 October 2009

So you tried to publish a paper full of the same mistakes that you
have made over and over again and you wonder why you were ridiculed?
You *mistake the trivial change in a system's momentum for an
"increase in mass"Remember to check your units. Mass does have the
same units as momentum. You simply do not understand one of the basic
laws of physics:the law of conservation of momentum which is
conspicously absent from your so-called "discovery" Have you ever
wonder why a simply change in the direction of motion of a wave in
your theory you can either gain or lose mass? Oops!

You are so clueless that you missed the sarcasm in a user name
iaminpain (I am in pain)

Your mommycalled and said that if you didn't do your homework
correctly you would have to go home and do it over again and again
until you got it right.

(a) I never related in any of my peer reviewed published papers
that 'increase in mass' is due to 'change in momentum'. In Einstein's
Sep 1905 derivation, for 'change in mass' there are 'separate
equations'. If I did kindly quote
(i) name of journal,
(ii) title of my paper
(iii) page /section /equation number
It is basic fact that mass and momentum have different units and
dimensions and hence cannot be equated. I never said these are same.
There are constant misunderstandings from you end; unfortunately you
don’t want to read the peer reviewed papers and to remove doubts.
My work is available at www.AjayOnLine.us

My work is published in PEER REVIEWED JOURNALS if you feel it is
incorrect then, you are welcome to contradict it in journals. That is
the established method. I did so for Einstein's work in broad day
light.
ONLY then understand the worth of your ideas or you will keep on
revolving in loop.

The law of conservation of momentum states that momentum of
system is conserved
in an isolated system. It is simple. It is justified and taken
in account in peer reviewed papers published in journals.

(b) I never said that 'change in direction of motion of light', result
in loose or gain in mass.
Kindly quote the details from my peer reviewed papers if it is so.

See my peer reviewed published work:
(i) In Sep. 1905 derivation, under SPECIAL CONDITIONS of parameters
Einstein derived, when light energy is emitted the 'mass of body
decreases'.

Mass after emission = Mass before emission – positive quantity (1)

(ii) Einstein's same derivation under GENERAL CONDITIONS of parameters
implies when body emits light energy the mass of body must increase.
Mathematically,

Mass after emission = Mass before emission + positive quantity (2)

For details visit www.AjayOnLine.us
It is not justified, as it contradicts Law of Conservation of Matter.
See my peer reviewed published work

(c) I again and again, drew the attention of Editor Dr Gordon W.F.
Drake: , 001-631-591-4000, this issue (increase in mass
under GENERAL CONDITIONS), he remained silent on the issue .

Then Dr Gordon W.F.Drake invented so-called cyclic process to ,
then he subtracted algebraic equation doing 8th class math wrong on 19
June 2008 . When I pointed out
then on 11 July 2008 , he asked me not discuss issue in public as it
is private correspondence.

Editor Dr Gordon W.F. Drake: , 001-631-591-4000, should
clarify all issues himself.

AJAY SHARMA www.AjayOnLine.us

On Oct 4, 10:15*am, yourmommycalled wrote:
On Oct 3, 6:59 pm, ajay wrote:



AJAY SHARMA * * *02 October 2009

So you tried to publish a paper full of the same mistakes that you
have made over and over again and you wonder why you were ridiculed?
You *mistake the trivial change in a system's momentum for an
"increase in mass"Remember to check your units. Mass does have the
same units as momentum. You simply do not understand one of the basic
laws of physics:the law of conservation of momentum which is
conspicously absent from your so-called "discovery" Have you ever
wonder why a simply change in the direction of motion of a wave in
your theory you can either gain or lose mass? Oops!

You are so clueless that you missed the sarcasm in a user name
iaminpain (I am in pain)

Your mommycalled and said that if you didn't do your homework
correctly you would have to go home and do it over again and again
until you got it right.
---
(a) I never related in any of my peer reviewed published papers
that 'increase in mass' is due to 'change in momentum'. In Einstein's
Sep 1905 derivation, for 'change in mass' there are 'separate
equations'. If I did kindly quote
(i) name of journal,
(ii) title of my paper
(iii) page /section /equation number
It is basic fact that mass and momentum have different units and
dimensions and hence cannot be equated. I never said these are same.
There are constant misunderstandings from you end; unfortunately you
don’t want to read the peer reviewed papers and to remove doubts.
My work is available at www.AjayOnLine.us

My work is published in PEER REVIEWED JOURNALS if you feel it is
incorrect then, you are welcome to contradict it in journals. That is
the established method. I did so for Einstein's work in broad day
light.
ONLY then understand the worth of your ideas or you will keep on
revolving in loop.

The law of conservation of momentum states that momentum of
system is conserved
in an isolated system. It is simple. It is justified and taken
in account in peer reviewed papers published in journals.

(b) I never said that 'change in direction of motion of light', result
in loose or gain in mass.
Kindly quote the details from my peer reviewed papers if it is so.

See my peer reviewed published work:
(i) In Sep. 1905 derivation, under SPECIAL CONDITIONS of parameters
Einstein derived, when light energy is emitted the 'mass of body
decreases'.

Mass after emission = Mass before emission – positive quantity (1)

(ii) Einstein's same derivation under GENERAL CONDITIONS of parameters
implies when body emits light energy the mass of body must increase.
Mathematically,

Mass after emission = Mass before emission + positive quantity (2)

For details visit www.AjayOnLine.us
It is not justified, as it contradicts Law of Conservation of Matter.
See my peer reviewed published work

(c) I again and again, drew the attention of Editor Dr Gordon W.F.
Drake: , 001-631-591-4000, this issue (increase in mass
under GENERAL CONDITIONS), he remained silent on the issue .

Then Dr Gordon W.F.Drake invented so-called cyclic process to ,
then he subtracted algebraic equation doing 8th class math wrong on 19
June 2008 . When I pointed out
then on 11 July 2008 , he asked me not discuss issue in public as it
is private correspondence.

Editor Dr Gordon W.F. Drake: , 001-631-591-4000, should
clarify all issues himself.

AJAY SHARMA www.AjayOnLine.us

On Oct 8, 2:49*am, ajay wrote:
On Oct 7, 8:52*pm, oriel36 wrote:

-------
OREL36

The theme of discussion is

See that I pasted HOW Dr Drake simply did 8th class math wrong in
previous post.
comment on it.

My research shows Einstein's paper is VALID under SPECIAL CONDITIONS
of parameters.
Einstein's paper is available at

A. Einstein, * Annalen. der Physik *17, 891-921 *(1905).http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/E_mc2/www/


I look at empiricist's relativity, its popularity and those who follow
it as proponents and opponents from the point of view of an astronomer
and at its core is still the mistake of Flamsteed which attempted to
explain planetary rotational dynamics by way of right ascension
thereby severing the connection between planetary dimensions ,
rotational characteristics ,the actual value of 24 hours and all the
consequences that follow from getting it wrong.Isaac ran with the
error in attempting to force planetary orbital dynamics into
terrestrial ballistics or the 'universal theory of gravity' as it is
known by grafting in the calendar based Ra/Dec framework as the link
between predictions and experimental science.In case people think I am
engaging in bluffing and 'sidereal time' is far removed from
relativity,here we have Albert waxing lyrical in such a cheerful way
about it and by now the participants in saa should immediately
recognise it when they see it -

http://www.bartleby.com/173/4.html

No astronomer from antiquity to the time of Copernicus,Kepler and even
up to the time of Huygens,ever attempted to explain the astronomical
cycles and planetary dynamics by way of the rotation of constellations
around Polaris and that is where the error occured via Flamsteed,the
error Albert cheerfully follows and inherited from Newton by equating
a rotating celestial sphere with a stationary Earth and its obverse -
a rotating Earth with a celestial sphere framework - no wonder they
came up with warped space,big bang and the utterly ridiculous every-
valid-point-is-the-center-of-the-universe.

The zone of discussion for relativity is not what Albert did to
Isaac's absolute/relative definitions but how Isaac distorted the
astronomical methods and insights of genuine astronomers by exploiting
the calendar based convenience of Ra/Dec.The idea is not to bury
people in the details but to free up the enormous bottlenecks which
exist and especially the incredible opportunity afforded by modern
imaging power and data and that means dynamicists are going to have
to remove themselves from the edifice Newton created,and work with
astronomical causes and terrestrial effects in a more streamlined and
intimate way rather than these huge sweeping statements which mean
nothing and I assure them that they will eventually enjoy the
different approach.










Under general conditions that value of value A (COEFFICIENT OF
PROPORTIONALITY) is different from unity i.e. A1 or A1.
Editors found this work correct and published. It is simple.

Dr Gordon W.F. Drake: * , 001-631-591-4000,
* * * * * * Should explain why he did 8th class math wrong.
Ajay Sharma * * * * * *www.AjayOnLine.us

On Oct 8, 10:51*am, oriel36 wrote:
On Oct 8, 2:49*am, ajay wrote:





On Oct 7, 8:52*pm, oriel36 wrote:
-------
OREL36

The theme of discussion is

See that I pasted HOW Dr Drake simply did 8th class math wrong in
previous post.
comment on it.

My research shows Einstein's paper is VALID under SPECIAL CONDITIONS
of parameters.
Einstein's paper is available at

A. Einstein, * Annalen. der Physik *17, 891-921 *(1905).http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/E_mc2/www/

I look at empiricist's relativity, its popularity and those who follow
it as proponents and opponents from the point of view of an astronomer
and at its core is still the mistake of Flamsteed which attempted to
explain planetary rotational dynamics by way of right ascension
thereby severing the connection between planetary *dimensions ,
rotational characteristics ,the actual value of 24 hours and all the
consequences that follow from getting it wrong.Isaac ran with the
error in attempting to force planetary orbital dynamics into
terrestrial ballistics or the 'universal theory of gravity' *as it is
known by grafting in the calendar based Ra/Dec framework as the link
between predictions and experimental science.In case people think I am
engaging in bluffing and 'sidereal time' is far removed from
relativity,here we have Albert waxing lyrical in such a cheerful way
about it and by now the participants in saa should immediately
recognise it when they see it -

http://www.bartleby.com/173/4.html

No astronomer from antiquity to the time of Copernicus,Kepler and even
up to the time of Huygens,ever attempted to explain the astronomical
cycles and planetary dynamics by way of the rotation of constellations
around Polaris and that is where the error occured via Flamsteed,the
error Albert cheerfully follows and inherited from Newton by equating
a rotating celestial sphere with a stationary Earth and its obverse -
a rotating Earth with a celestial sphere framework - no wonder they
came up with warped space,big bang and the utterly ridiculous every-
valid-point-is-the-center-of-the-universe.

The zone of discussion for relativity is not what Albert did to
Isaac's absolute/relative definitions but how Isaac distorted the
astronomical methods and insights of genuine astronomers by exploiting
the calendar based convenience of Ra/Dec.The idea is not to bury
people in the details but to free up the enormous bottlenecks which
exist and especially the incredible opportunity afforded by modern
imaging power and data *and that means dynamicists are going to have
to remove themselves from the edifice Newton created,and work with
astronomical causes and terrestrial effects in a more streamlined and
intimate way rather than these huge sweeping statements which mean
nothing and I assure them that they will eventually enjoy the
different approach.



Under general conditions that value of value A (COEFFICIENT OF
PROPORTIONALITY) is different from unity i.e. A1 or A1.
Editors found this work correct and published. It is simple.

Dr Gordon W.F. Drake: * , 001-631-591-4000,
* * * * * * Should explain why he did 8th class math wrong.
Ajay Sharma * * * * * *www.AjayOnLine.us- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

----------
Oriel36

In general you are right but here a specific and current issue is
being discusued.
INERTIAL

See my previous post.
Dr Drake has done 8th class math wrong.

Dr Gordon W.F. Drake: , 001-631-591-4000 to clarify

AJAY SHARMA www.AjayOnLine.us

On Oct 8, 9:05*am, ajay wrote:
On Oct 8, 10:51*am, oriel36 wrote:





On Oct 8, 2:49*am, ajay wrote:

On Oct 7, 8:52*pm, oriel36 wrote:
-------
OREL36

The theme of discussion is

See that I pasted HOW Dr Drake simply did 8th class math wrong in
previous post.
comment on it.

My research shows Einstein's paper is VALID under SPECIAL CONDITIONS
of parameters.
Einstein's paper is available at

A. Einstein, * Annalen. der Physik *17, 891-921 *(1905).http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/E_mc2/www/

I look at empiricist's relativity, its popularity and those who follow
it as proponents and opponents from the point of view of an astronomer
and at its core is still the mistake of Flamsteed which attempted to
explain planetary rotational dynamics by way of right ascension
thereby severing the connection between planetary *dimensions ,
rotational characteristics ,the actual value of 24 hours and all the
consequences that follow from getting it wrong.Isaac ran with the
error in attempting to force planetary orbital dynamics into
terrestrial ballistics or the 'universal theory of gravity' *as it is
known by grafting in the calendar based Ra/Dec framework as the link
between predictions and experimental science.In case people think I am
engaging in bluffing and 'sidereal time' is far removed from
relativity,here we have Albert waxing lyrical in such a cheerful way
about it and by now the participants in saa should immediately
recognise it when they see it -

http://www.bartleby.com/173/4.html

No astronomer from antiquity to the time of Copernicus,Kepler and even
up to the time of Huygens,ever attempted to explain the astronomical
cycles and planetary dynamics by way of the rotation of constellations
around Polaris and that is where the error occured via Flamsteed,the
error Albert cheerfully follows and inherited from Newton by equating
a rotating celestial sphere with a stationary Earth and its obverse -
a rotating Earth with a celestial sphere framework - no wonder they
came up with warped space,big bang and the utterly ridiculous every-
valid-point-is-the-center-of-the-universe.

The zone of discussion for relativity is not what Albert did to
Isaac's absolute/relative definitions but how Isaac distorted the
astronomical methods and insights of genuine astronomers by exploiting
the calendar based convenience of Ra/Dec.The idea is not to bury
people in the details but to free up the enormous bottlenecks which
exist and especially the incredible opportunity afforded by modern
imaging power and data *and that means dynamicists are going to have
to remove themselves from the edifice Newton created,and work with
astronomical causes and terrestrial effects in a more streamlined and
intimate way rather than these huge sweeping statements which mean
nothing and I assure them that they will eventually enjoy the
different approach.

Under general conditions that value of value A (COEFFICIENT OF
PROPORTIONALITY) is different from unity i.e. A1 or A1.
Editors found this work correct and published. It is simple.

Dr Gordon W.F. Drake: * , 001-631-591-4000,
* * * * * * Should explain why he did 8th class math wrong.
Ajay Sharma * * * * * *www.AjayOnLine.us-Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

----------
Oriel36

In general you are right but here a specific and current issue is
being discusued.
INERTIAL


Is that supposed to constitute some sort of response ?.

Not if you were all here for another 100 years could you figure out,at
least those who are genuinely interested,what went wrong between the
emergence of planetary dynamics and the distortions introduced by
Newton and this is a great tragedy for everyone apart from a minority
who make a living by keeping that empirical corpse dancing.

So,continue on believing that the link between
predictions,experimental sciences and planetary dynamics work as
proposed by Isaac but only those who actually like science can know
the intellectual desolation at the core of it all -

"It is indeed a matter of great difficulty to discover, and
effectually to distinguish, the true motion of particular bodies from
the apparent; because the parts of that absolute space, in which those
motions are performed, do by no means come under the observation of
our senses. Yet the thing is not altogether desperate; for we have
some arguments to guide us, partly from the apparent motions, which
are the differences of the true motions; partly from the forces, which
are the causes and effects of the true motion." Newton

The acceptance of relativity is really a capitulation to Newton and
with it the loss of authority,the merit system and all the
consequences which emerged from not dealing properly with the original
errors and distortions that occured in the late 17th century so that
today we inherit the worst possible scenario where the power of modern
imaging and data pouring in,there is no authority or individual
courage to interpret and put this data in context.The temporary
triumph of the 'wikipedia generation' where facts are flexible to
suit a conclusion,such as turning carbon dioxide into a global
temperature dial to the exclusion of all else has its roots in the
manner in which Newton managed to subvert astronomical methods and
insights to suit his conclusions that attempt to link planetary
dynamics directly with experimental sciences.

I survive on the hope that men will eventually come to their senses
and act responsibly for a change but presently there appears to be no
light at the end of that particular tunnel.



See my previous post.
Dr Drake has done 8th class math wrong.

Dr Gordon W.F. Drake: * , 001-631-591-4000 to clarify

AJAY SHARMA * * * * * * * *www.AjayOnLine.us

On Oct 8, 1:36*pm, oriel36 wrote:
On Oct 8, 9:05*am, ajay wrote:





On Oct 8, 10:51*am, oriel36 wrote:

On Oct 8, 2:49*am, ajay wrote:

On Oct 7, 8:52*pm, oriel36 wrote:
-------
OREL36

The theme of discussion is

See that I pasted HOW Dr Drake simply did 8th class math wrong in
previous post.
comment on it.

My research shows Einstein's paper is VALID under SPECIAL CONDITIONS
of parameters.
Einstein's paper is available at

A. Einstein, * Annalen. der Physik *17, 891-921 *(1905).http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/E_mc2/www/

I look at empiricist's relativity, its popularity and those who follow
it as proponents and opponents from the point of view of an astronomer
and at its core is still the mistake of Flamsteed which attempted to
explain planetary rotational dynamics by way of right ascension
thereby severing the connection between planetary *dimensions ,
rotational characteristics ,the actual value of 24 hours and all the
consequences that follow from getting it wrong.Isaac ran with the
error in attempting to force planetary orbital dynamics into
terrestrial ballistics or the 'universal theory of gravity' *as it is
known by grafting in the calendar based Ra/Dec framework as the link
between predictions and experimental science.In case people think I am
engaging in bluffing and 'sidereal time' is far removed from
relativity,here we have Albert waxing lyrical in such a cheerful way
about it and by now the participants in saa should immediately
recognise it when they see it -

http://www.bartleby.com/173/4.html

No astronomer from antiquity to the time of Copernicus,Kepler and even
up to the time of Huygens,ever attempted to explain the astronomical
cycles and planetary dynamics by way of the rotation of constellations
around Polaris and that is where the error occured via Flamsteed,the
error Albert cheerfully follows and inherited from Newton by equating
a rotating celestial sphere with a stationary Earth and its obverse -
a rotating Earth with a celestial sphere framework - no wonder they
came up with warped space,big bang and the utterly ridiculous every-
valid-point-is-the-center-of-the-universe.

The zone of discussion for relativity is not what Albert did to
Isaac's absolute/relative definitions but how Isaac distorted the
astronomical methods and insights of genuine astronomers by exploiting
the calendar based convenience of Ra/Dec.The idea is not to bury
people in the details but to free up the enormous bottlenecks which
exist and especially the incredible opportunity afforded by modern
imaging power and data *and that means dynamicists are going to have
to remove themselves from the edifice Newton created,and work with
astronomical causes and terrestrial effects in a more streamlined and
intimate way rather than these huge sweeping statements which mean
nothing and I assure them that they will eventually enjoy the
different approach.

Under general conditions that value of value A (COEFFICIENT OF
PROPORTIONALITY) is different from unity i.e. A1 or A1.
Editors found this work correct and published. It is simple.

Dr Gordon W.F. Drake: * , 001-631-591-4000,
* * * * * * Should explain why he did 8th class math wrong.
Ajay Sharma * * * * * *www.AjayOnLine.us-Hidequoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

----------
Oriel36

In general you are right but here a specific and current issue is
being discusued.
INERTIAL

Is that supposed to constitute some sort of response ?.

Not if you were all here for another 100 years could you figure out,at
least those who are genuinely interested,what went wrong between the
emergence of planetary dynamics and the distortions introduced by
Newton and this is a great tragedy for everyone apart from a minority
who make a living by keeping that empirical corpse dancing.

So,continue on believing that the link between
predictions,experimental sciences and planetary dynamics work as
proposed by Isaac but only those who actually like science can know
the intellectual desolation at the core of it all -

"It is indeed a matter of great difficulty to discover, and
effectually to distinguish, the true motion of particular bodies from
the apparent; because the parts of that absolute space, in which those
motions are performed, do by no means come under the observation of
our senses. Yet the thing is not altogether desperate; for we have
some arguments to guide us, partly from the apparent motions, which
are the differences of the true motions; partly from the forces, which
are the causes and effects of the true motion." *Newton

The acceptance of relativity is really a capitulation to Newton and
with it the loss of authority,the merit system and all the
consequences which emerged from not dealing properly with the original
errors and distortions that occured in the late 17th century so that
today we inherit the worst possible scenario where the power of modern
imaging and data pouring in,there is no authority or individual
courage to interpret and put this data in context.The *temporary
triumph of the 'wikipedia generation' *where facts are flexible to
suit a conclusion,such as turning carbon dioxide into a global
temperature dial to the exclusion *of all else has its roots in the
manner in which Newton managed to subvert astronomical methods and
insights to suit his conclusions that attempt to link planetary
dynamics directly with experimental sciences.

I survive on the hope that men will eventually come to their senses
and act responsibly for a change but presently there appears to be no
light at the end of that particular tunnel.



See my previous post.
Dr Drake has done 8th class math wrong.

Dr Gordon W.F. Drake: * , 001-631-591-4000 to clarify

AJAY SHARMA * * * * * * * *www.AjayOnLine.us- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

--------
Oriel 36

Your views are correct.
Here central theme of discussion is that Dr Gordon W.F.Drake has done
8th class math wrong.

See my previous post.
Dr Gordon W.F. Drake, Editor Physical Review, American Physical
Society , New Yok: , 001-631-591-4000,
Should explain why he did 8th class math wrong.

Ajay Sharma www.AjayOnLine.us

On Oct 8, 2:17*pm, ajay wrote:
On Oct 8, 1:36*pm, oriel36 wrote:





On Oct 8, 9:05*am, ajay wrote:

On Oct 8, 10:51*am, oriel36 wrote:

On Oct 8, 2:49*am, ajay wrote:

On Oct 7, 8:52*pm, oriel36 wrote:
-------
OREL36

The theme of discussion is

See that I pasted HOW Dr Drake simply did 8th class math wrong in
previous post.
comment on it.

My research shows Einstein's paper is VALID under SPECIAL CONDITIONS
of parameters.
Einstein's paper is available at

A. Einstein, * Annalen. der Physik *17, 891-921 *(1905).http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/E_mc2/www/

I look at empiricist's relativity, its popularity and those who follow
it as proponents and opponents from the point of view of an astronomer
and at its core is still the mistake of Flamsteed which attempted to
explain planetary rotational dynamics by way of right ascension
thereby severing the connection between planetary *dimensions ,
rotational characteristics ,the actual value of 24 hours and all the
consequences that follow from getting it wrong.Isaac ran with the
error in attempting to force planetary orbital dynamics into
terrestrial ballistics or the 'universal theory of gravity' *as it is
known by grafting in the calendar based Ra/Dec framework as the link
between predictions and experimental science.In case people think I am
engaging in bluffing and 'sidereal time' is far removed from
relativity,here we have Albert waxing lyrical in such a cheerful way
about it and by now the participants in saa should immediately
recognise it when they see it -

http://www.bartleby.com/173/4.html

No astronomer from antiquity to the time of Copernicus,Kepler and even
up to the time of Huygens,ever attempted to explain the astronomical
cycles and planetary dynamics by way of the rotation of constellations
around Polaris and that is where the error occured via Flamsteed,the
error Albert cheerfully follows and inherited from Newton by equating
a rotating celestial sphere with a stationary Earth and its obverse -
a rotating Earth with a celestial sphere framework - no wonder they
came up with warped space,big bang and the utterly ridiculous every-
valid-point-is-the-center-of-the-universe.

The zone of discussion for relativity is not what Albert did to
Isaac's absolute/relative definitions but how Isaac distorted the
astronomical methods and insights of genuine astronomers by exploiting
the calendar based convenience of Ra/Dec.The idea is not to bury
people in the details but to free up the enormous bottlenecks which
exist and especially the incredible opportunity afforded by modern
imaging power and data *and that means dynamicists are going to have
to remove themselves from the edifice Newton created,and work with
astronomical causes and terrestrial effects in a more streamlined and
intimate way rather than these huge sweeping statements which mean
nothing and I assure them that they will eventually enjoy the
different approach.

Under general conditions that value of value A (COEFFICIENT OF
PROPORTIONALITY) is different from unity i.e. A1 or A1.
Editors found this work correct and published. It is simple.

Dr Gordon W.F. Drake: * , 001-631-591-4000,
* * * * * * Should explain why he did 8th class math wrong.
Ajay Sharma * * * * * *www.AjayOnLine.us-Hidequotedtext -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

----------
Oriel36

In general you are right but here a specific and current issue is
being discusued.
INERTIAL

Is that supposed to constitute some sort of response ?.

Not if you were all here for another 100 years could you figure out,at
least those who are genuinely interested,what went wrong between the
emergence of planetary dynamics and the distortions introduced by
Newton and this is a great tragedy for everyone apart from a minority
who make a living by keeping that empirical corpse dancing.

So,continue on believing that the link between
predictions,experimental sciences and planetary dynamics work as
proposed by Isaac but only those who actually like science can know
the intellectual desolation at the core of it all -

"It is indeed a matter of great difficulty to discover, and
effectually to distinguish, the true motion of particular bodies from
the apparent; because the parts of that absolute space, in which those
motions are performed, do by no means come under the observation of
our senses. Yet the thing is not altogether desperate; for we have
some arguments to guide us, partly from the apparent motions, which
are the differences of the true motions; partly from the forces, which
are the causes and effects of the true motion." *Newton

The acceptance of relativity is really a capitulation to Newton and
with it the loss of authority,the merit system and all the
consequences which emerged from not dealing properly with the original
errors and distortions that occured in the late 17th century so that
today we inherit the worst possible scenario where the power of modern
imaging and data pouring in,there is no authority or individual
courage to interpret and put this data in context.The *temporary
triumph of the 'wikipedia generation' *where facts are flexible to
suit a conclusion,such as turning carbon dioxide into a global
temperature dial to the exclusion *of all else has its roots in the
manner in which Newton managed to subvert astronomical methods and
insights to suit his conclusions that attempt to link planetary
dynamics directly with experimental sciences.

I survive on the hope that men will eventually come to their senses
and act responsibly for a change but presently there appears to be no
light at the end of that particular tunnel.

See my previous post.
Dr Drake has done 8th class math wrong.

Dr Gordon W.F. Drake: * , 001-631-591-4000 to clarify

AJAY SHARMA * * * * * * * *www.AjayOnLine.us-Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

--------
Oriel 36

Your views are correct.

All astronomical observations make mincemeat out of that contrived
ideology which entered astronomy through Newton and while that guy is
at least interesting in how the elaborate scheme appeared to
work,albeit that it is junk,there is nothing interesting about the
many minions that follow his silly attempt to use the predictive
convenience of Ra/Dec as a bridge to experimental science.If one high
profile figure,and I can't think of one at the moment who would appeal
to your kind,had the guts to deal with what Newton actually did,at
least there would be some redemption from the mess we inherit but too
many livelihoods and scam artists are dependent on the junk dumped
into the celestial arena under the name of astronomy.

These guys think I am tedious for explaining what nobody else has ever
done,what actually was wrong with a late 17th century conclusion that
was made with very basic data.




Here central theme of discussion is that Dr Gordon W.F.Drake has done
8th class math wrong.

See my previous post.
Dr Gordon W.F. Drake, Editor Physical Review, American Physical
Society , New Yok: * , 001-631-591-4000,
* * * * * * Should explain why he did 8th class math wrong.

Ajay Sharma * * * * * *www.AjayOnLine.us