Do I understand this correctly?

On Feb 5, 10:25*pm, "Tom Potter" wrote:
"Sam Wormley" wrote in message

...

On 2/5/11 2:44 AM, Tom Potter wrote:
Considering that my pal Sammy implies that he
is privy to the powerful General Relativity model
I trust that he will demonstrate how
General Relativity applies to a few useful, real-world situations,
by working a few practical, real-world "problem sets".

* Cranky Potter, Google canned
* Relativity he can not understand
* * At crank dot net
* * Registered, you bet
* His postings decay into swampland

I am saddened to see that my pal Sam Wormley
who claims to be a teacher on the public dole
and knowledgeable with the Relativity Models,
refuses to help folks "understand" Relativity
by working a few practical, real-world "problem sets".
using General Relativity.

As students of science history know,
soon after Newton introduced his "Model of the World",
England sent ships all over the world with standard pendulums
to measure the acceleration of gravity
( The Earth's mass affect on the period of the pendulums.)

Not as much as the variation in air temperature and humidity affect
the air resistance of the pendulum. And what about the accuracy of
the clocks under varying atmospheric conditions? Not much... science
in such measurements. — NoEinstein —

and Newton used his primitive model
and hand calculated the mass of the Moon,
the shape of the Earth, and most importantly
to England, the tides in many places.

It would help folks not knowledgeable with the Relativity Models,
as my pal Sam Wormley is to "understand" and appreciate
Relativity if Sammy would work out a few
practical, real-world "problem sets" using General Relativity.

This should be a piece of cake, what with Einstein's
superior model, powerful computers, and Relativity algorithms.

--
Tom Potter
-----------------http://www.prioritize.biz/http://voices.yuku.com/forums/66http://tdp1001.wiki.zoho.com/siteindex.zhtmlhttp://xrl.in/63g4http://www.tompotter.ushttp://tdp1001.wiki.zoho.com

On Feb 5, 10:24*pm, "Tom Potter" wrote:
"Peter Webb" wrote in message

u...











"Tom Potter" wrote in message
...

"Sam Wormley" wrote in message
. ..
On 2/2/11 10:25 PM, Tom Potter wrote:
Here is a simplier "problem set" Sammy,

use Relativity to compute the tides in a few places
and see how your results compare to those
computed by Newton centuries ago
using his primitive model and hand calculation.

Betcha don't have the capability to use Relativity to compute the tides
like Newton did!

* Potter blusters, froths and sometimes cries
* Cannot compute tide's lows or highs
* * *The only recognition Potter will get
* * *is registration at crank dot net
* Relativity he knows not when it applies

It is disappointing to hear that Relativity "does not apply"
when computing tides, and considering that it is
rarely, if ever, used to model, engineer and maintain
mechanical, electrical, magnetic and living systems,
like the Newton, Maxwell and the Watson/Crick DNA models
that are used millions of times every day to make life
better for mankind,

one has to wonder why Relativity and Einstein get so much attention

Because many of the results are counter-intuitive, and profoundly affect
the way we view space and time.

and why the Mass Media declared Einstein to be the "Man of the Century".

It was because of his contributions in so many areas - Special Relativity,
Quantum Mechanics (for which he won his Nobel prize), General Relativity
and Statistical Mechanics. No one scientist has provided such a huge body
of work since Newton.

Considering that my pal Sammy implies that he
is privy to the powerful General Relativity model
I trust that he will demonstrate how
General Relativity applies to a few useful, real-world situations,
by working a few practical, real-world "problem sets".

This is done every day. GPS units rely on it, as do many astronomical
observations and calculations. They do however rely on somewhat
sophisticated maths (eg Tensors) , which are not accessible to
non-specialists. The same could be said of much of the physics of the last
century or two; Quantum Mechanics is used extensively in (for example)
electronic circuit design, but the maths in QM (eg operators) mean that
you can't really show non-scientists "worked examples" of it being used..

--
Tom Potter

I hope this answers your questions satisfactorily. If you have any others,
please feel free to ask.

I am saddened to see that my pal "Peter Webb"
is completely ignorant of the utility and history of physics,
and that like most people, he has been conditioned by the
Mass Media, who made Einstein their Poster Boy
to rationalize why the Jewish Culture was vastly inferior
to the cultures of Egypt, Persia, China, India, Greece, Rome,
Europe, etc. and to create the impression that Jews came into
conflict with all of their neighbors throughout history,
because their neighbors were stupid brutes who
were envious of the superior Jews.

As any serious student of physics knows, Einstein
harmed, rather *than helped the progress of *Quantum Mechanics
when he corrupted Max Planck's QUANTUM of action
and with the aid of the Mass Media managed to brainwash
most people to believe that energy, rather than action, was quantized,

( The quanta of action is "Planck's constant.There is NO quanta of energy..)

and as folks knowledgeable in history know, Einstein fought Quantum
Mechanics tooth and nail for years
and came up with such challenges as the EPR paradox
in his effort to discredit Quantum Mechanics.

It is sad also that my pal "Peter Webb" does not comprehend
that Einstein also set back the understanding of
cause and effect when he tried to rip off Maxwell's Statistics
by taking credit for Bose's model of "verb statistics".

As can be seen from the history of physics,
after Bose created the statistics of verbs (Bosons)
and Einstein with the help of the Mass Media
made a mountain out of a mole hill,

Fermi was forced to introduce a statistics of nouns (Fermions)
to get things back on track to where they were
before Einstein began to waste time, money and minds
with one of his Towers of Babel..

The fact that ALL languages, like Maxwell's Statistics
feature nouns and verbs, clearly indicates that
although it in interesting to know that many verbs (Bosons)
can apply to a single noun (Fermion)
and many nouns can apply to a single verb,
that more emphasis must be placed on Maxwell's Statistics
when dealing with sentient beings and the real world.

My pal "Peter Webb" did raise a good point when he observed
that Einstein ripped off the model (Stresses and strains)
and the tools (Tensors) of the stress analysis gurus of the 1800's
and tried to apply a model that works well on uninhabited structures
to structures inhabited by sentient beings.

My pal "Peter Webb" also raised a good point when he observed
that Charlatans on the public dole, and members of the Einstein Cult
try to con the public with their propagation of the Urban Legend that
Relativity was essential to the GPS System.

It is interesting to see that this Urban Legend can be traced to the work
of one Guru on the public dole who used 17 Newtonian and Maxwellian hacks
of the GPS data to get the data to fit Special and General Relativity,
and that ignorant and impressionable people are bamboozled by the
babble and equate the babble to powerful, esoteric knowledge,
just as ignorant people have done down through the ages.

A mind is a terrble thing to waste.

--
Tom Potter
-----------------http://www.prioritize.biz/http://voices.yuku.com/forums/66http://tdp1001.wiki.zoho.com/siteindex.zhtmlhttp://xrl.in/63g4http://www.tompotter.ushttp://tdp1001.wiki.zoho.com

Tom: You are as smart as always. That Chinese food must be good for
you. Or is it your beautiful bride. — NoEinstein —

On Feb 5, 11:49*pm, Sam Wormley wrote:
On 2/5/11 9:25 PM, Tom Potter wrote:











"Sam Wormley" wrote in message
.. .
On 2/5/11 2:44 AM, Tom Potter wrote:
Considering that my pal Sammy implies that he
is privy to the powerful General Relativity model
I trust that he will demonstrate how
General Relativity applies to a few useful, real-world situations,
by working a few practical, real-world "problem sets".

* Cranky Potter, Google canned
* Relativity he can not understand
* * At crank dot net
* * Registered, you bet
* His postings decay into swampland

I am saddened to see that my pal Sam Wormley
who claims to be a teacher on the public dole
and knowledgeable with the Relativity Models,
refuses to help folks "understand" Relativity
by working a few practical, real-world "problem sets".
using General Relativity.

* *Bluster on, Potter, bluster some more! Froth at the mouth! Whatever!

"Truths are the POISON of liars!" — NoEinstein —

On Feb 7, 5:12*pm, Sam Wormley wrote:
On 2/7/11 10:44 AM, oriel36 wrote:

I stand my ground as any intelligent man would as the alternative is a
holocaust of the worst kind.

* *Rotation is absolute in this universe. Most bodies have some
* *intrinsic rotation including the sun, moon and earth.


* *Sun * * *24.47 days

The Sun has differential rotation across all latitudes hence a single
value is meaningless -

http://www.physics.hku.hk/~nature/CD...1/rotation.gif

As all viscous celestial compositions in rotation display differential
rotation where maximum equatorial speed correlates with spherical
deviation,there is no reason to exempt the Earth's fluid dynamics
beneath the thin and fractured crust from differential rotation in
generating its 26 mile spherical deviation and as a mechanism for
crustal evolution and motion.



* *Earth * *23 hr 56 min 4.1 sec

All known principles and especially the ones which relate clocks to
planetary geometry via the resolution of the longitude problem
determine an equatorial rate of 1037.5 miles per hour as the planet
turns a full equatorial circumference in 24 hours.this value then
determines an orbital period of 365 days 5 hours 49 minutes with no
more than a full 365 rotations in a year and the proportional
relationship between daily rotation and orbital motion across the
calendar system being close enough to 1461:4 as a representation of
365 1/4:1.

The first really accurate watch by John Harrison is based on rotation
once in 24 hours while his many opponents acted with the same
obstinacy because Isaac declared that longitude was not to be found by
a watch,any reader can comprehend immediately how 1 degree of
geographical separation corresponds to 4 minutes of time in the words
of the great inventor himself who create the caged roller
bearing,bimetallic strip and escapement reflecting a sound knowledge
between invention and astronomy -

http://books.google.ie/books?id=8roA...ge &q&f=false

You read it as if it meant nothing insofar as you attach an
unnecessary conclusion which tags along with the arithmetical
progression of days within the calendar system.


* *Moon * * 27.321582 days,

The Earth has an intrinsic rotation meaning it has a maximum
equatorial speed reducing to zero at the polar coordinates and this
rotation can be seen from any point in space including the side of the
moon that always faces the Earth -

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YXCnxoixb-s

The only person ever to propose intrinsic rotation was Newton in the
page after he gives Venus a rotational period of 23 hours,the Earth 24
hours and then goes on to propose lunar rotation -

http://books.google.ie/books?id=gB2-...page&q&f=false

So you propose three basic facts and the last one you can dispose of
by simply looking out your window,interpreting the moon orbiting the
Earth and drawing the only conclusion possible.I have remarked that
over the centuries there were people who strongly objected to that
dumb lunar rotation ideology but nothing ever happens in empirical
circles once Isaac declares it,not even after we have the
technological know how to land men on the moon and can truly determine
that an astronaut once he sees the Earth will remain in view
because,you guessed it,the moon doesn't rotate -

http://books.google.ie/books?id=MfU3...g e&q&f=false

My time on the Usenet is short so all these arguments will eventually
be lost like the tide coming in to wash away footprints and there is
no hostility on my side but there is an overwhelming sense of dismay
that people could choose to believe in things which are not
technically,observationally or historically possible.You can and can
do so without objection.

On Feb 6, 1:12*pm, maxwell wrote:
On Feb 5, 11:54*pm, oriel36 wrote:









On Feb 6, 3:25*am, "Tom Potter" wrote:

"Sam Wormley" wrote in message

.. .

On 2/5/11 2:44 AM, Tom Potter wrote:
Considering that my pal Sammy implies that he
is privy to the powerful General Relativity model
I trust that he will demonstrate how
General Relativity applies to a few useful, real-world situations,
by working a few practical, real-world "problem sets".

* Cranky Potter, Google canned
* Relativity he can not understand
* * At crank dot net
* * Registered, you bet
* His postings decay into swampland

I am saddened to see that my pal Sam Wormley
who claims to be a teacher on the public dole
and knowledgeable with the Relativity Models,
refuses to help folks "understand" Relativity
by working a few practical, real-world "problem sets".
using General Relativity.

As students of science history know,
soon after Newton introduced his "Model of the World",
England sent ships all over the world with standard pendulums
to measure the acceleration of gravity
( The Earth's mass affect on the period of the pendulums.)

and Newton used his primitive model
and hand calculated the mass of the Moon,
the shape of the Earth, and most importantly
to England, the tides in many places.

When you have a feel for astronomy, and that includes planetary
dynamics and its effects,a person can generally consider concepts on
their own merits whereas those who don't have that feel for what is
going *merely rearrange observations to suit themselves and come up
with conclusions which go from 'nice try but wrong' to outright
hilarious.It goes to show that impression of information can go badly
wrong if the recipient of that information is prone to accept facts
with thinking things through themselves and especially in empirical
circles which trend towards what is popular and sanctioned by peer
review rather than whether individuals find merit in the proposals
themselves.

What you are trying to express is found here -

http://books.google.ie/books?id=gB2-...q=newton+moon+...

Newton throws around the 'periodic times' *term like confetti and
applies it to diurnal rotation no less hence the previous comment of
having no feel for astronomy and its methods.The periodic times is
strictly an orbital term *and reader must become familiar with its
exact usage as the original astronomers understood it -

'Finally by what arguments do you prove that the centre of the Sun
which is at the midpoint of the planetary spheres and bears their
whole system - does not revolve in some annual movement,as Brahe
wishes,but in accordance with Copernicus sticks immobile in one
place,while the center of the Earth revolves in an annual movement.'

Argument 10
" The 10th argument,taken from the periodic times, is as follows; the
apparent movement of the Sun has 365 days which is the mean measure
between Venus' period of 225 days and Mars' period of 687
days.Therefore does not the nature of things shout out loud that the
circuits in which those 365 days are taken up has a mean position
between the circuits of Mars and Venus around the Sun and thus this
is
not the circuit of the Sun around the Earth -for none of the primary
planets has its orbit arranged around the Earth,as Brahe admits,but
the circuit of the Earth around the resting Sun,just as the other
planets,namely Mars and Venus,complete their own periods by running
around the Sun." Epitome Of Copernican Astronomy by Johannes Kepler

It is so funny so see Newton do something which is common today,at
least in terms of desperately trying to force carbon dioxide as a sole
driver of global temperature variations or trying to force a
conclusion into the orbit of Mercury,he did it with pendulums -

http://books.google.ie/books?id=gB2-...q=newton+moon+...

I could spend days correcting these things with modern imaging and
techniques,an individual pursuit which doesn't pander to any agenda
and simply because I can.That is the thing,it is not the large scale
direction of people blindly following others in some communal *and
lucrative pursuit,it is the sheer enjoyment and thrill of working
through things with confidence in giving greater outlines
here,removing obstacles there and things like that so there is no
fretting about some agenda imposed from the outside but the
development of a deeper,clearer and streamlined view that you seem
intent in denying yourselves.

Newton was an enemy of genuine empiricism,in his greed he robbed a
genuine approach to cause and effect of its value by imposing
analogies directly on to astronomical insights and methods that did
not belong to him,you are followers of that greed but do not have to
live with it.

Please continue to edify we few students of the history of physics.
You provide "we happy few" with valuable information. *Thank you.

You see correctly, Maxwell. If only ‘James C. Maxwell’ had known
this: "If ether can DRAG light, then there would be no light from the
heavens reaching the Earth, and no life of any kind could exist in the
Universe." Maxwell started mental-lightweight, Michelson, on a quest
to detect the (impossible) slowing of light by the ether. When that M-
M experiment obviously FAILED, Lorentz concocted his non-science
"rubber ruler" to explain the nil results. Einstein picked up the
varying ruler and called that space-time, or Special Relativity—which
has totally screwed up "science" for over a century. All of that...
MESS, because of a man named... Maxwell——bless his ignorant soul. —
NoEinstein —

On Feb 6, 4:26*pm, oriel36 wrote:
On Feb 6, 6:12*pm, maxwell wrote:









On Feb 5, 11:54*pm, oriel36 wrote:

On Feb 6, 3:25*am, "Tom Potter" wrote:

"Sam Wormley" wrote in message

.. .

On 2/5/11 2:44 AM, Tom Potter wrote:
Considering that my pal Sammy implies that he
is privy to the powerful General Relativity model
I trust that he will demonstrate how
General Relativity applies to a few useful, real-world situations,
by working a few practical, real-world "problem sets".

* Cranky Potter, Google canned
* Relativity he can not understand
* * At crank dot net
* * Registered, you bet
* His postings decay into swampland

I am saddened to see that my pal Sam Wormley
who claims to be a teacher on the public dole
and knowledgeable with the Relativity Models,
refuses to help folks "understand" Relativity
by working a few practical, real-world "problem sets".
using General Relativity.

As students of science history know,
soon after Newton introduced his "Model of the World",
England sent ships all over the world with standard pendulums
to measure the acceleration of gravity
( The Earth's mass affect on the period of the pendulums.)

and Newton used his primitive model
and hand calculated the mass of the Moon,
the shape of the Earth, and most importantly
to England, the tides in many places.

When you have a feel for astronomy, and that includes planetary
dynamics and its effects,a person can generally consider concepts on
their own merits whereas those who don't have that feel for what is
going *merely rearrange observations to suit themselves and come up
with conclusions which go from 'nice try but wrong' to outright
hilarious.It goes to show that impression of information can go badly
wrong if the recipient of that information is prone to accept facts
with thinking things through themselves and especially in empirical
circles which trend towards what is popular and sanctioned by peer
review rather than whether individuals find merit in the proposals
themselves.

What you are trying to express is found here -

http://books.google.ie/books?id=gB2-...q=newton+moon+...

Newton throws around the 'periodic times' *term like confetti and
applies it to diurnal rotation no less hence the previous comment of
having no feel for astronomy and its methods.The periodic times is
strictly an orbital term *and reader must become familiar with its
exact usage as the original astronomers understood it -

'Finally by what arguments do you prove that the centre of the Sun
which is at the midpoint of the planetary spheres and bears their
whole system - does not revolve in some annual movement,as Brahe
wishes,but in accordance with Copernicus sticks immobile in one
place,while the center of the Earth revolves in an annual movement.'

Argument 10
" The 10th argument,taken from the periodic times, is as follows; the
apparent movement of the Sun has 365 days which is the mean measure
between Venus' period of 225 days and Mars' period of 687
days.Therefore does not the nature of things shout out loud that the
circuits in which those 365 days are taken up has a mean position
between the circuits of Mars and Venus around the Sun and thus this
is
not the circuit of the Sun around the Earth -for none of the primary
planets has its orbit arranged around the Earth,as Brahe admits,but
the circuit of the Earth around the resting Sun,just as the other
planets,namely Mars and Venus,complete their own periods by running
around the Sun." Epitome Of Copernican Astronomy by Johannes Kepler

It is so funny so see Newton do something which is common today,at
least in terms of desperately trying to force carbon dioxide as a sole
driver of global temperature variations or trying to force a
conclusion into the orbit of Mercury,he did it with pendulums -

http://books.google.ie/books?id=gB2-...q=newton+moon+...

I could spend days correcting these things with modern imaging and
techniques,an individual pursuit which doesn't pander to any agenda
and simply because I can.That is the thing,it is not the large scale
direction of people blindly following others in some communal *and
lucrative pursuit,it is the sheer enjoyment and thrill of working
through things with confidence in giving greater outlines
here,removing obstacles there and things like that so there is no
fretting about some agenda imposed from the outside but the
development of a deeper,clearer and streamlined view that you seem
intent in denying yourselves.

Newton was an enemy of genuine empiricism,in his greed he robbed a
genuine approach to cause and effect of its value by imposing
analogies directly on to astronomical insights and methods that did
not belong to him,you are followers of that greed but do not have to
live with it.

Please continue to edify we few students of the history of physics.
You provide "we happy few" with valuable information. *Thank you.

I apologize for my poor proofreading but considering the tangle of
different measures and geometry involved along with the different
systems stretching back to antiquity,I sometimes don't blame people
for taking shortcuts.

I remember now where I read about the issue over planetary geography
as it applies to dynamics and effects,it was a very dedicated
investigator called Livio Stecchini,I believe he had some off color
ideas but essentially his commentaries on Erathostenes and his
contemporaries makes sense in context of the revisionism that suits
the empirical history we inherited as though this is the way it is and
always was -

http://www.metrum.org/measures/measurements.htm

I don't envy those who gloss over intricate correspondences that they
can choose to ignore and while it is fine to take a broad view of
technical and historical views sometimes,it is a lot more enjoyable
delving into the issues as being still on the table rather than being
resolved.

I went of see a really good movie called 'The King's Speech' a few
weeks ago and enjoyed the story,the newspapers harp on about the
historical inaccuracies but they miss the point apart from
entertaining the audience with a good story,it drew the audience's
attention to things they probably didn't know or consider before and
that is why I am not so harsh with relativity as it hints of a wider
story and a wider stage behind it rather than the one dimensional
story many accept without question.

Funny I should meet a civil person near the end of my time on the
Usenet.

Dear oriel 36: In science, the "enjoyment of the story" isn't as
important as the correctness of the story. Since I have disproved
Einstein, and thus disproved Relativity, I don't cut those ignorant
Einsteiniac *******s any slack. They have repressed World Progress
long enough! — NoEinstein —

On Feb 6, 5:41*pm, oriel36 wrote:
On Feb 6, 10:03*pm, Sam Wormley wrote:

On 2/6/11 3:26 PM, oriel36 wrote:

Funny I should meet a civil person near the end of my time on the
Usenet.

* *Why thank you Gerald!

You are right Sam,you too are civil but on the technical issues you
are firmly stuck with the idea of 'periodic times' as denoting right
ascension and ultimately the flawed reasoning which is generating a
nonsensical 366 1/4 rotations per orbital circuit.

The averaging process which creates 24 hours of rotation corresponding
to one day/night cycle when transfered to the calendar system allows
the orbital motion of the Earth to drift ahead by roughly 6 hours and
a 1/4 rotation every year,at the end of the 4th circuit it picks up
the 1/4 rotation as one full 24 hour rotation on Feb 29th to make up
the orbital distance corresponding to a proportion *of 1461 rotations
to 4 orbital circuits or 365 1/4 rotations to 1 orbital circuit.

What is the point of astronomy or anything else if you find an
imbalance between 24 hours of rotation and a day/night cycle as cause
and effect,it is great discussing the fine points of astronomy at
whatever level and in whatever era is appropriate but not even
reaching that basic fact is dismaying in the extreme just to support a
fictional history that glosses over fundamental facts.I have gone out
of my way to talk up the productive elements of empiricism by moving
it towards a less severe form which tried to bypass interpretative
astronomy ,its insights and its methods but you will retort with a
stock reply that has no thought to it.I have discovered that the
people who are least interested in the history of physics are those
who outwardly are its proponents whether they are civil or not.

Hoo, Huum... — NE —

On Feb 7, 7:19*am, "Chris" wrote:
I do not know what mass is. It exists. That is all I can say and it has
properies such as inertia, gravity and weight.

I understand it only inasmuch that my senses can appreciate it.

I see, feel, smell, hear and relate and therefore I understand. However I do
not know how I understand, I just do. I think it has something to do with my
brain and without it I would no know.

For example if you drop 500 g of lead on your big toe you will know about it
a short time after impact.

Or if you throw a 60 g stone at a window and break it you will know when the
owner emerges with his gun.

Or if you light a firework rocket and watch as it roars away you will know
about the rocket equation.

Understanding and knowing is about seeing, feeling, hearing and smelling.

One cannot know absolutes....

....unless one is analytical, open-minded, observant, patient, and
clear headed. That's how my New Science, which defines how the entire
Universe is constructed, was postulated. — NoEinstein —

On Feb 7, 10:31*am, oriel36 wrote:
On Feb 7, 2:13*pm, Sam Wormley wrote:









On 2/7/11 5:05 AM, oriel36 wrote:

On Feb 6, 11:37 pm, Sam *wrote:
*Not just an idea, Gerald, but an observable fact that there are
*366.24+ earth rotations per astronomical year (one orbital period).

An appreciation of natural celestial and terrestrial phenomena depends
on a healthy disrespect for history...

* *It is not disrespect of history that an idea was wrong. The history
* *of science show a general convergence toward better and more accurate
* *models. Isaac Newton contributed greatly to the foundations of
* *celestial mechanics.

* *The true arbiter of accurate models is the empirical data of
* *observation and experiment.

* *History, in your case Gerald, has clouded your mind and rendered
* *you unable to learn reality. It is not just an idea, Gerald, but
* *an observable fact that there are 366.24+ earth rotations per
* *astronomical year (one orbital period).

Safe intellectual mode for any cause and effect where astronomy and
terrestrial sciences mesh has to be that 24 hours of planetary
rotation corresponds to a single day/night cycle so despite all the
empirical slogan chanting about observation and experiment,it shows
this area of science *is in particularly desperate shape when it comes
to observation and experience.A *technical discussion on this topic
reduces the arithmetical progression of 24 hour rotations in groups of
365 and 366 day/night cycles across Mar 1st 2008 until Feb 29th 2012
to an overall total of 1461 rotations for 4 orbital circuit which
reduces to a proportion of 365 1/4 rotations for each circuit would
normally not draw anything other than affirmation but as you can see,I
have yet to see an individual object to the inexplicable 366 1/4
rotations least it offend the late 17th century guys from whence it
came.

If you can say that a 24 hour rotation does not correspond to a day/
night cycle then you can have your nonsensical 366 1/4 rotations but
considering that when we arrive at that point where the basic cause
and effect is being contended with and all without the slightest sign
of objection,the correspondence between science and intelligence
becomes a myth.

I do not know what they call those things -
panels,tribunals,commissions or some other type of responsible
investigation but giving these matters serious thought hasn't even
begun yet as it requires people concerned about depth of understanding
as almost a requirement before serious direction is regained.It can
happen that defiance is an attribute,so is that slight disrespect for
history which moves things along but what is not an attribute is being
unreasonable at a level that defies both common sense and experience
for no good reason for these things make holocaust ideologies.

I believe from reading the newspapers that they have converging models
that make people believe they can control the planet's temperature on
account of a minor atmospheric gas and that Sam is not genuine science
or true power,that is tyranny of the worst possible kind and we are
living that nightmare.That is where the original agenda of Newton led
to,the models which make people feel guilty about weather began with
the misuse of the calendar system as something other than the
predictive convenience that it is so when you find yourself believing
366 1/4 rotations in a circuit,you will find yourself capable of
believing anything and everything and that is not freedom,that is
slavery.

Dear Oriel 36: The depletion of the ozone layer over Earth's poles is
measurable. The increase in UV radiation will cause more skin
cancers, and kill off many kinds of plants. Any reduction in plants
will raise Earth's temperature, and let the oceans flood-out major
coastal cities. NYC is just one "perfect storm" from being flooded-
out, NOW. Hating Al Gore is anyone's prerogative. But denying the
threat of global warming is science ignorance of the worst kind. Even
so, you are one of the top "writers" based on "writing" alone, on the
groups. Top Potter is pretty damn good, too. Sam Wormley has little
or nothing to recommend him. — No Einstein —

On Feb 7, 6:58*pm, NoEinstein wrote:
On Feb 6, 4:26*pm, oriel36 wrote:









On Feb 6, 6:12*pm, maxwell wrote:

On Feb 5, 11:54*pm, oriel36 wrote:

On Feb 6, 3:25*am, "Tom Potter" wrote:

"Sam Wormley" wrote in message

.. .

On 2/5/11 2:44 AM, Tom Potter wrote:
Considering that my pal Sammy implies that he
is privy to the powerful General Relativity model
I trust that he will demonstrate how
General Relativity applies to a few useful, real-world situations,
by working a few practical, real-world "problem sets".

* Cranky Potter, Google canned
* Relativity he can not understand
* * At crank dot net
* * Registered, you bet
* His postings decay into swampland

I am saddened to see that my pal Sam Wormley
who claims to be a teacher on the public dole
and knowledgeable with the Relativity Models,
refuses to help folks "understand" Relativity
by working a few practical, real-world "problem sets".
using General Relativity.

As students of science history know,
soon after Newton introduced his "Model of the World",
England sent ships all over the world with standard pendulums
to measure the acceleration of gravity
( The Earth's mass affect on the period of the pendulums.)

and Newton used his primitive model
and hand calculated the mass of the Moon,
the shape of the Earth, and most importantly
to England, the tides in many places.

When you have a feel for astronomy, and that includes planetary
dynamics and its effects,a person can generally consider concepts on
their own merits whereas those who don't have that feel for what is
going *merely rearrange observations to suit themselves and come up
with conclusions which go from 'nice try but wrong' to outright
hilarious.It goes to show that impression of information can go badly
wrong if the recipient of that information is prone to accept facts
with thinking things through themselves and especially in empirical
circles which trend towards what is popular and sanctioned by peer
review rather than whether individuals find merit in the proposals
themselves.

What you are trying to express is found here -

http://books.google.ie/books?id=gB2-...q=newton+moon+...

Newton throws around the 'periodic times' *term like confetti and
applies it to diurnal rotation no less hence the previous comment of
having no feel for astronomy and its methods.The periodic times is
strictly an orbital term *and reader must become familiar with its
exact usage as the original astronomers understood it -

'Finally by what arguments do you prove that the centre of the Sun
which is at the midpoint of the planetary spheres and bears their
whole system - does not revolve in some annual movement,as Brahe
wishes,but in accordance with Copernicus sticks immobile in one
place,while the center of the Earth revolves in an annual movement.'

Argument 10
" The 10th argument,taken from the periodic times, is as follows; the
apparent movement of the Sun has 365 days which is the mean measure
between Venus' period of 225 days and Mars' period of 687
days.Therefore does not the nature of things shout out loud that the
circuits in which those 365 days are taken up has a mean position
between the circuits of Mars and Venus around the Sun and thus this
is
not the circuit of the Sun around the Earth -for none of the primary
planets has its orbit arranged around the Earth,as Brahe admits,but
the circuit of the Earth around the resting Sun,just as the other
planets,namely Mars and Venus,complete their own periods by running
around the Sun." Epitome Of Copernican Astronomy by Johannes Kepler

It is so funny so see Newton do something which is common today,at
least in terms of desperately trying to force carbon dioxide as a sole
driver of global temperature variations or trying to force a
conclusion into the orbit of Mercury,he did it with pendulums -

http://books.google.ie/books?id=gB2-...q=newton+moon+...

I could spend days correcting these things with modern imaging and
techniques,an individual pursuit which doesn't pander to any agenda
and simply because I can.That is the thing,it is not the large scale
direction of people blindly following others in some communal *and
lucrative pursuit,it is the sheer enjoyment and thrill of working
through things with confidence in giving greater outlines
here,removing obstacles there and things like that so there is no
fretting about some agenda imposed from the outside but the
development of a deeper,clearer and streamlined view that you seem
intent in denying yourselves.

Newton was an enemy of genuine empiricism,in his greed he robbed a
genuine approach to cause and effect of its value by imposing
analogies directly on to astronomical insights and methods that did
not belong to him,you are followers of that greed but do not have to
live with it.

Please continue to edify we few students of the history of physics.
You provide "we happy few" with valuable information. *Thank you.

I apologize for my poor proofreading but considering the tangle of
different measures and geometry involved along with the different
systems stretching back to antiquity,I sometimes don't blame people
for taking shortcuts.

I remember now where I read about the issue over planetary geography
as it applies to dynamics and effects,it was a very dedicated
investigator called Livio Stecchini,I believe he had some off color
ideas but essentially his commentaries on Erathostenes and his
contemporaries makes sense in context of the revisionism that suits
the empirical history we inherited as though this is the way it is and
always was -

http://www.metrum.org/measures/measurements.htm

I don't envy those who gloss over intricate correspondences that they
can choose to ignore and while it is fine to take a broad view of
technical and historical views sometimes,it is a lot more enjoyable
delving into the issues as being still on the table rather than being
resolved.

I went of see a really good movie called 'The King's Speech' a few
weeks ago and enjoyed the story,the newspapers harp on about the
historical inaccuracies but they miss the point apart from
entertaining the audience with a good story,it drew the audience's
attention to things they probably didn't know or consider before and
that is why I am not so harsh with relativity as it hints of a wider
story and a wider stage behind it rather than the one dimensional
story many accept without question.

Funny I should meet a civil person near the end of my time on the
Usenet.

Dear oriel 36: In science, the "enjoyment of the story" isn't as
important as the correctness of the story. *Since I have disproved
Einstein, and thus disproved Relativity, I don't cut those ignorant
Einsteiniac *******s any slack. *They have repressed World Progress
long enough! *— NoEinstein —

Ease up lad,this is not about disproving anything or anyone but more
or less about getting the story straight and ,of course,there is
always going to be a small audience for something like that.You
probably want to know where 'aether' fits in as Albert Einstein and
almost everyone else believes Newton's 'absolute space' substitutes
for aether -

" In order to be able to look upon the rotation of the system, at
least formally, as something real, Newton objectivises space. Since
he
classes his absolute space together with real things, for him rotation
relative to an absolute space is also something real. Newton might no
less well have called his absolute space ``Ether''; "Albert

The thing about this is that Isaac was fairly explicit about an aether/
medium so it is not possible to reject something he already rejected
for good or for bad,remember I am not an empiricist in this matter and
I am only commenting on what proponents and opponents of relativity
believe or don't believe -

"The fictitious matter which is imagined as filling the whole of space
is of no use for explaining the phenomena of Nature, since the motions
of the planets and comets are better explained without it, by means of
gravity; and it has never yet been explained how this matter accounts
for gravity. The only thing which matter of this sort could do, would
be to interfere with and slow down the motions of those large
celestial bodies, and weaken the order of Nature; and in the
microscopic pores of bodies, it would put a stop to the vibrations of
their parts which their heat and all their active force consists in.
Further, since matter of this sort is not only completely useless, but
would actually interfere with the operations of Nature, and weaken
them, there is no solid reason why we should believe in any such
matter at all. Consequently, it is to be utterly rejected." Newton,
Optics 1704

A curious person is therefore free to consider what Isaac was doing
with absolute/ relative space and motion as it can be compared to the
methods and insights of Copernicus and Kepler and is a million miles
away from what Einstein and his contemporaries tried to make it out to
be.I often wonder what goes through the minds of empiricists when they
see Isaac speaking like that,after all,in the mid 19th century they
found themselves hamstrung by Newton in going along with him in terms
of his gravitational agenda without an aether but couldn't imagine the
Sun illuminating the Earth without a medium -

http://www.bodley.ox.ac.uk/cgi-bin/i...5 4.336.x.425

The correct story is also the enjoyable story but you live off the
surface story you inherited and never get to where the real substance
is back at Newton,Flamsteed and the beginning of that toxic strain of
Royal Society empiricism.