A Space & astronomy forum. SpaceBanter.com

Go Back   Home » SpaceBanter.com forum » Astronomy and Astrophysics » Astronomy Misc
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Einstein's biggest mistakes



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #51  
Old June 12th 13, 11:55 PM posted to sci.physics.relativity,sci.physics,sci.astro
hanson
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,934
Default spacetime is just a simple phase space, not "curved"

Harlow "HVAC" wrote:

Quincy @ "1treePetrifiedForestLane" wrote:
I shrug the body electric
harlow, it's your intelligence plus a zillionths (how's that?)
why folks feel the need to "have an aether,"
when atoms are prepared to do "electronics;
how thing works just say, atoms are aetheric, and use it.
Harlow, do you have an "aether theory that allevieates
the need for electronic orbital conventions?"

Harlow wrote:
Quincy, did they ever put a name on
the mental disability you suffer from?
Quincy, I think you left your brain in the petrified forest.

hanson write:
.... ahahahaha.. AHAHAHAHAHA... ahahaha...

"Brian Quincy Hutchings" resides in Santa Monica,
CA, at "1treePetrifiedForestLane", from where he
was a door-to-door salesman for the Encyclopedia
Britannica.
Having been unsuccessful at that Quincy became
a Rest-room attendant-apprentice at UCLA with/thru
which Quincy strenuously tries to create the impression
that he is one of those eternal students at UCLA, who
never graduate, not even with a B.A.... ahahahaha...

To Quincy's credit though, he has perfectly acquired
UCLA's freshman slang to demonstrate & exhibit his
sub-intellectual prowess, by strutting around with an
Einstein hair mop under his donated JR Oppenheimer
hat, which he conned out of the sales-girl at the Goodwill
store in Santa Monica, him claiming to be a refugee from
Madagascar & a "bona fide Pascalian relative per se"
so Quincy said.



  #52  
Old June 13th 13, 07:53 AM posted to sci.physics.relativity,sci.physics,sci.astro
Paul B. Andersen[_7_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 70
Default Einstein's biggest mistakes

On 12.06.2013 21:54, Koobee Wublee wrote:

The true bottom line is that there has been no such observation on the
anomaly to Mercury’s orbit since 150 years ago.


Since you know better, this is a blatant lie.
http://www.gethome.no/paulba/pdf/Clemence.pdf

The reason is most likely that the measurement just does not
agree with the Schwarzschild metric.


If you want to prove your claim, I suggest you make a new study
of the perihelion advance of Mercury.
The data are available for anybody who wants them.

From
http://ssd.jpl.nasa.gov/?ephemerides#planets
and a number of other sources.

--
Paul

http://www.gethome.no/paulba/
  #53  
Old June 13th 13, 09:26 AM posted to sci.physics.relativity,sci.physics,sci.astro
Koobee Wublee
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 815
Default Einstein's biggest mistakes

On Jun 12, 11:53 pm, "Paul B. Andersen" wrote:
On 12.06.2013 21:54, Koobee Wublee wrote:


The true bottom line is that there has been no such observation on the
anomaly to Mercury’s orbit since 150 years ago.


Since you know better, this is a blatant lie.
http://www.gethome.no/paulba/pdf/Clemence.pdf


The result is nothing new. Kip Thorne’s Gravitation already cited
Clemence’s work to justify how precise the Schwarzschild metric is
able to predict anything. All thanks to Paul though for bringing up
the source, the above article did not offer anything new. In fact, it
shows that Clemence did not make any observations himself but instead
recycled Le Verrier’s data for the 1850’s or 1860’s. Clemence merely
added such ungodly precision to Le Verrier’s numbers in which Le
Verrier did not brag about the divine act. shrug

Realizing Koobee Wublee is correct, Paul quickly brought out a paper
with a formula able to predict the precession of the equinoxes from
1800 to 2200. shrug

http://syrte.obspm.fr/iau2006/aa03_412_P03.pdf

Taking merit of the paper, Koobee Wublee dug into it until Paul
pointed out a few subtle hints that the prediction is actually a
linear function with exactly 0.22” increase every 10 years. The
authors were simply trying to showcase their second order finding, but
the first order result is merely to draw a straight line from what Le
Verrier knew to today’s more precise measurement of 25772 years period
of this precession. Of course, you are going to arrive at Le Verrier,
or perhaps Newcomb’s, number every single time which would justify
GR’s prediction of Mercury’s orbital anomaly if assuming all other
parameters are right on. Duh! shrug

The reason is most likely that the measurement just does not
agree with the Schwarzschild metric.


If you want to prove your claim, I suggest you make a new study
of the perihelion advance of Mercury.
The data are available for anybody who wants them.

Fromhttp://ssd.jpl.nasa.gov/?ephemerides#planets
and a number of other sources.


What is that, Paul? JPL’s resume? Perhaps you should be the one
taking up on that since you are no longer employed --- as a professor
of electrical engineering at the University of Trondheim in Norway.
shrug

In the meantime, the fact remains. The so-called precise measurements
on Mercury’s orbital anomaly are still more than 150 years old where
no new data has come forth to support the Schwarzschild metric. In
1947, Clemence regurgitated Le Verrier’s findings from the middle of
the 19th century by placing tremendous precisions to them where the
self-styled physicists since then have mistook (most likely
deliberately) for new data with great precision. shrug

Also, all these effects on Mercury’s orbit (namely gravitational pull
from other planets) including GR one if indeed exist are not linearly
additive. Any parameter will affect the final outcome depending on
what other anomalies are. You will realize this if you actually study
the differential equations involved in which Paul has refused to do so
in very attempt by Koobee Wublee. Paul Gerber simplified the system
as linear, and Koobee Wublee thinks Gerber was wrong, and the only way
to address this issue is to do:

** The actual measurement which has more than 100 years of data

** Simulation on the entire system

In the meantime, take a nap, Paul. You went to sleep thinking about
Koobee Wublee’s post, and Koobee Wublee bet you did not have a good
night’s sleep. Don’t you want to live to brag about being the oldest
man ever lived? shrug

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jiroemon_Kimura

Well, licking up every droppings of Einstein the nitwit, the
plagiarist, and the liar is certainly not a good way to start. It
will create nightmares just like last night for Paul. shrug


  #54  
Old June 13th 13, 11:58 AM posted to sci.physics.relativity,sci.physics,sci.astro
Henry Wilson DSc.
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 451
Default Einstein's biggest mistakes

On Thu, 13 Jun 2013 08:53:04 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen"
wrote:

On 12.06.2013 21:54, Koobee Wublee wrote:

The true bottom line is that there has been no such observation on the
anomaly to Mercury’s orbit since 150 years ago.


Since you know better, this is a blatant lie.
http://www.gethome.no/paulba/pdf/Clemence.pdf

The reason is most likely that the measurement just does not
agree with the Schwarzschild metric.


If you want to prove your claim, I suggest you make a new study
of the perihelion advance of Mercury.
The data are available for anybody who wants them.

From
http://ssd.jpl.nasa.gov/?ephemerides#planets
and a number of other sources.


Of everything written in this paper, I find this statement the most revealing,
"Although mean orbital elements are also available for planetary satellites,
you are strongly discouraged from using them to generate your own ephemerides,
as they will be highly inaccurate for many bodies. "

Say no more.....

Henry Wilson DSc.
  #55  
Old June 13th 13, 07:32 PM posted to sci.physics.relativity,sci.physics,sci.astro
Paul B. Andersen[_7_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 70
Default Einstein's biggest mistakes

On 13.06.2013 12:58, Henry Wilson DSc. wrote:
On Thu, 13 Jun 2013 08:53:04 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen"
wrote:
On 12.06.2013 21:54, Koobee Wublee wrote:
The reason is most likely that the measurement just does not
agree with the Schwarzschild metric.


If you want to prove your claim, I suggest you make a new study
of the perihelion advance of Mercury.
The data are available for anybody who wants them.

From
http://ssd.jpl.nasa.gov/?ephemerides#planets
and a number of other sources.


Of everything written in this paper, I find this statement the most revealing,
"Although mean orbital elements are also available for planetary satellites,
you are strongly discouraged from using them to generate your own ephemerides,
as they will be highly inaccurate for many bodies. "


And what does it reveal?

--
Paul

http://www.gethome.no/paulba/
  #56  
Old June 14th 13, 02:15 AM posted to sci.physics.relativity,sci.physics,sci.astro
1treePetrifiedForestLane
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 974
Default can anyone show the epicycle for precession of equinoxes; thank you

what is a "mean orbital element" do?

"Although mean orbital elements are also available for planetary satellites,
you are strongly discouraged from using them to generate your own ephemerides,
as they will be highly inaccurate for many bodies. "

  #57  
Old June 14th 13, 08:37 AM posted to sci.physics.relativity,sci.physics,sci.astro
Koobee Wublee
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 815
Default Einstein's biggest mistakes

On Jun 13, 11:32 am, "Paul B. Andersen" wrote:
On 13.06.2013 12:58, Henry Wilson DSc. wrote:


Of everything written in this paper, I find this statement the most revealing,
"Although mean orbital elements are also available for planetary satellites,
you are strongly discouraged from using them to generate your own ephemerides,
as they will be highly inaccurate for many bodies. "


And what does it reveal?


As Mr. Wilson has pointed out, the sun-Jupiter system has a common
barycenter that is just outside the sun, and almost all others
including the earth orbit around the sun (slight off the center but
nevertheless so). This all cause a slight but significant for
scientific interests on the observed orbits of all planets including
the Mercury. shrug

All the planets do not orbit a common center around the sun. Jupiter
and the sun orbit a common center outside of the sun as Mr. Wilson has
pointed out, and each planet negotiates a common center which is
closer to the center of the sun. The system is not quite Copernicus.
shrug

Naturally, any orbit especially Mercury can be quite chaotic as Mr.
Wilson has pointed out, and this is what is revealed, Paul. So,
essentially, no planet orbits around any inertial coordinate ---
according to SR’s jargon. shrug
  #58  
Old June 14th 13, 08:56 AM posted to alt.astronomy,sci.physics,sci.physics.relativity,rec.arts.sf.written,sci.astro
oriel36[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 8,478
Default Einstein's biggest mistakes

On Jun 14, 8:37*am, Koobee Wublee wrote:
On Jun 13, 11:32 am, "Paul B. Andersen" wrote:

On 13.06.2013 12:58, Henry Wilson DSc. wrote:
Of everything written in this paper, I find this statement the most revealing,
"Although mean orbital elements are also available for planetary satellites,
you are strongly discouraged from using them to generate your own ephemerides,
as they will be highly inaccurate for many bodies. "


And what does it reveal?


As Mr. Wilson has pointed out, the sun-Jupiter system has a common
barycenter that is just outside the sun, and almost all others
including the earth orbit around the sun (slight off the center but
nevertheless so). *This all cause a slight but significant for
scientific interests on the observed orbits of all planets including
the Mercury. *shrug

All the planets do not orbit a common center around the sun. *Jupiter
and the sun orbit a common center outside of the sun as Mr. Wilson has
pointed out, and each planet negotiates a common center which is
closer to the center of the sun. *The system is not quite Copernicus.
shrug



This cracks me up,the motions of the planets and even the stars are
line-of-sight observations but because the dummies in the late 17th
century created a homocentric spinning celestial sphere framework
known as the equatorial coordinate system,the line of sight
observations were lost to parallax -

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Parallax_Example.svg

The reference for the orbital cycle was based on the disappearance of
Sirius behind the glare of the Sun due to the orbital motion of the
Earth,the Egyptians spotted that the reappearance of Sirius from
behind the glare of the Sun coincided with the flooding of the Nile
hence we have the system of timekeeping reflecting 1461 days to 4
annual cycles or the dynamical equivalent of 1461 rotations to 4
orbital circuits.

".. that the year of 360 days and the 5 days added to their end, so
one day shall be from this day after every 4 years added to the 5
epagomenae before the new year, whereby all men shall learn, that what
was a little defective in the order as regards the seasons and the
year, as also the opinions which are contained in the rules of the
learned on the heavenly orbits," Canopus decree

The ephemerides system is based on homocentricity in that it tries to
squeeze the daily and orbital motions of the Earth into a projection
of the Earth's rotation into space.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oQZp0lEEpsc

It is a shame that there is nobody around to see the whole point of
relativity ,whether people are for or against it,in that it is really
protecting Sir Isaac and his late 17th century mob who didn't know
enough about astronomy to spot the flaw in Flamsteed's coordinate
system -

"... our clocks kept so good a correspondence with the Heavens that I
doubt it not but they would prove the revolutions of the Earth to be
constant.." Flamsteed

Ah,a bunch of mathematicians flailing around with astronomical terms
was bound to cause serious mischief yet it is not without hope.You
should listen to Leibniz guys,you really should -

"These are the imaginings of incomplete- notions-philosophers who make
space an absolute reality. Such notions are apt to be fudged up by
devotees of pure mathematics, whose whole subject- matter is the
playthings of imagination, but they are destroyed by higher reasoning"
Leibniz

I need participators and not half dead spectators who rely on the guys
in the early 20th century and who was right and who was wrong,this is
the 21st century and I suggest readers join me in the 21st century as
though our generation is the most important in these affairs and it
truly is.
  #59  
Old June 14th 13, 11:08 AM posted to alt.astronomy,sci.physics,sci.physics.relativity,rec.arts.sf.written,sci.astro
oriel36[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 8,478
Default Einstein's biggest mistakes

On Jun 14, 10:30*am, Henry Wilson DSc. hw@.... wrote:
On Fri, 14 Jun 2013 00:56:12 -0700 (PDT), oriel36
wrote:



I need participators and not half dead spectators who rely on the guys
in the early 20th century and who was right and who was wrong,this is
the 21st century and I suggest readers join me in the 21st century as
though our generation is the most important in these affairs and it
truly is.


When are you going to contribute something positive instead of quoting
history?

Henry Wilson DSc.


You unfortunate people are lost in a labyrinth that is not of your own
making but what is certain is that history will record you are the
spinning celestial sphere cult that began with Flamsteed,snowballed
with Sir Isaac's agenda and made worse by the early 20th century guys.

Rule number one - Do not,I repeat,do not reference the motion of the
stellar background through parallax like so -

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Parallax_Example.svg

The line of sight observation for the orbital cycle uses a reference
that does not go through the central Sun and your entire ephemerides
data does exactly the wrong thing in this respect.The quote from the
Egyptians which gives you ungrateful people the whole basis for human
timekeeping involves the apparent motion of Sirius as it is lost
annually behind the glare of the Sun and reappears -

" on account of the precession of the rising of the Divine Sirius by
one day in the course of 4 years ..therefore it shall be, that the
year of 360 days and the 5 days added to their end, so one day shall
be from this day after every 4 years added to the 5 epagomenae before
the New Year, whereby all men shall learn, that what was a little
defective in the order as regards the seasons and the year, as also
the opinions which are contained in the rules of the learned on the
heavenly orbits, are now corrected and improved" Canopus decree

It is a gift to be capable of putting references in order instead of
mixing them like you poor mathematicians,kind of like those eidetic
memories where you can 'see' the motions in front of you as those they
were as real as you see the motions of all objects.I don't blame the
guys in the early 20th century for trying to escape Newton's rotating
celestial sphere agenda while retaining its 'predictive' value but
this generation are merely voodoo chanters ,one no better than the
other.

The empirical community/cult doesn't like hearing dictates from
genuine astronomers and will try to muddle on believing they have some
insight into the celestial arena but ultimately it is a spinning
celestial sphere culture without merit,integrity,intelligence or any
of the positive attributes of human endeavor.

Sorry.


  #60  
Old June 14th 13, 06:45 PM posted to sci.physics.relativity,sci.physics,sci.astro
hanson
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,934
Default Einstein's biggest mistakes


"Koobee Wublee" wrote:

Henry Wilson DSc. wrote:
Of everything written in this paper, I find this statement the most
revealing,
"Although mean orbital elements are also available for planetary
satellites,
you are strongly discouraged from using them to generate your own
ephemerides,
as they will be highly inaccurate for many bodies. "


"Paul B. Andersen" wrote:
And what does it reveal?

"Koobee Wublee" wrote:
As Mr. Wilson has pointed out, the sun-Jupiter system has a common
barycenter that is just outside the sun, and almost all others
including the earth orbit around the sun (slight off the center but
nevertheless so). This all cause a slight but significant for
scientific interests on the observed orbits of all planets including
the Mercury. shrug

All the planets do not orbit a common center around the sun. Jupiter
and the sun orbit a common center outside of the sun as Mr. Wilson has
pointed out, and each planet negotiates a common center which is
closer to the center of the sun. The system is not quite Copernicus.
shrug

Naturally, any orbit especially Mercury can be quite chaotic as Mr.
Wilson has pointed out, and this is what is revealed, Paul. So,
essentially, no planet orbits around any inertial coordinate ---
according to SR’s jargon. shrug

hanson wrote:
A few years back, some one, either KW or Wilson posted
a link to a website which gave detailed calculations, using
Newtonian physics, including the barycenter concept, which
produced the precise Perihelion amount of Mercury.

Taking the same barycenter idea into account one can make
a case that black holes nothing more then a Newtonian
description of stellar or galactic n-body problem using
D'Alembert's approach. No Einstein crap nor convoluted
metrics, Schwartzschild or otherwise needed.

 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
EINSTEIN'S 'BIGGEST BLUNDER' TURNS OUT TO BE RIGHT cjcountess Astronomy Misc 5 December 22nd 10 05:39 PM
Einstein Biggest Blunder G=EMC^2 Glazier[_1_] Misc 14 April 9th 07 08:51 AM
Einstein's Mistakes brian a m stuckless Policy 0 January 19th 06 11:55 AM
Einstein's Mistakes brian a m stuckless Astronomy Misc 0 January 19th 06 11:55 AM
Was Einstein's 'biggest blunder' a stellar success? (Forwarded) Andrew Yee News 0 November 23rd 05 05:56 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 12:26 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 SpaceBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.