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

Newton still towers over Einstein



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old August 26th 10, 09:08 AM posted to sci.physics,sci.physics.relativity,sci.astro
Androcles[_33_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 369
Default Newton still towers over Einstein


"hanson" wrote in message
...
| was A New Limit on Photon Mass
|
| "Androcles" wrote:
| "hanson" wrote in message
| | "Androcles" wrote:
| | "hanson" wrote:
| | "Androcles" wrote:
| |
| hanson wrote:
| http://tinyurl.com/hanson-d2G-Question
| wherein hanson asks for intergration of d2(1/rho)dt^2 = G
| |
| Androcles wrote:
| http://tinyurl.com/Andro-d2G-integral-solution
| wherein Androcles says:
| Ok.
| 1/rho = 1/2 Gt^2 + kt
| d(1/rho)dt = Gt + k.
| d2(1/rho)dt^2 = G... [1], which was the given original.
| |
| hanson wrote:
| Thank you, Androcles!
|
| Androcles wrote:
| You are welcome, although what you think it means is not clear.
|
| hanson wrote:
| Right, Andro, but it'll become clear. It is interesting to view
| Newton's G from another, (the above [1]), aspect then from
| the usual G = F*r^2/mM ... (from F=GmM/r^2).
|
| Looking at "G" from the aspect of [1]: G = d2(1/rho)dt^2,
| it shows that Gravitation (modeled with [1]) is NOT a force, ...
| just like in GR, that came 300 years later sayin the same.
| IOW, Newton anticipated GR 300 years b4 the plagiarizer
| Einstein came along with his bent & curved space crap...
| on his netted rubber trampolines...ahahaha... not to speak
| of Black Holes which are nothing more then the Barycenters
| of n-body systems, .... with millions & billions of bodies...
|
| Einstein relativity fails, whereas Newton's Gravitation
| explains, with d2(1/rho)dt^2 = G, how and why there are
| observed, different rotation rates in the various galactic
| regions with their non-Keplerian rotation speeds...

The difficulty with that lies in the observation of light from
those regions and the assumption that it arrives "on time".
If the galaxy is observed face-on then no useful Doppler
shift is available to betray the velocity of any star within
the galaxy, it has no motion in our direction.
http://zoo1.galaxyzoo.org/images/tut..._on_spiral.jpg

If the galaxy is observed edge-on then we can know the speed of
the stars toward and away from us from Doppler shift but we do not
know the region from which the light comes from.
http://samsastro.com/images/deepsky/NGC0891bLG.jpg

Ideally, then, the galaxy should be inclined to the line-of-sight by 45
degrees,
http://www.ee.columbia.edu/~shane/img/hst_galaxy.jpg
but...
because the speed of light from any star is source dependent, it
takes longer to reach us when the star is moving away than it does
when the star is approaching. So we see stars on one side of
the galaxy sooner than we would expect (and hence in an
advanced position), and on the other side we see them later
than we would expect, in a retarded position. In other words
they do not and CANNOT APPEAR to obey Kepler's 2nd law.
This is the plot for ONE star:
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Doolin'sStar.GIF
I created it for Droolin' Doolin but he's a hopeless case.

This difficulty is further compounded by the frequency of
the emitted light, for it seems that x-ray and UV is faster than
optical light which in turn is faster than infra-red or microwave
radiation.
http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap070411.html
If we assume (ugh) that the entire galaxy rotates 45 degrees
in 1,000,000 years and is 21million ly distant, and IR takes
22 million years to reach us while UV only takes 20 million
years, then we are seeing now the galaxy as it was 22 million
years ago in IR and 20 million years ago in UV, hence the
superimposed rotation of 90 degrees with optical light at
45 degrees from 21 million years ago.
We cannot rely on the intuition to believe what we see or sticks
really would bend in water.
Hence we have no empirical evidence of galaxies failing to obey
Kepler's laws, but plenty of wrong assumptions.

|
| Furthermore, had Newton known in his corpuscular light theory
| the existence and size of e^2 = hbar*a*c, he would have been
| able to calculate the ultimate limit of/for power transmission,
| P = dE/dt, from system to system,... with the use of rho and
| hbar as |||| P = rho * G * hbar ||||, [2], which leads directly to
| the HUP, dE*dt = hbar,.... when [2] is expanded by time, t.
| (See, how in [2] that **rho and G** combo surfaces again)
| It is not clear to me, at this time, whether the P[2] equation
| above is/contains the long sought after unit for Quantum gravity.
|
| As can be seen Newton had insights that go far beyond the
| feeble and twisted mentation of that late19/early20th century
| crowd, lead by Einstein who contributed to physics what Picasso
| had contributed to Painting: USELESS **** with Dingleberries.
|
| Newton still towers over these late 9th-early 20th century turds
| with their spacetime that no-one has ever seen and mouch less
| to curve, with their rigid rods for which there is no earthly construction
| material and with their younger Twin who has no known address...
| ahahaha..
|
| So, Andro, if you can see in these Newton equations [1] & [2]
| what I can, then use them with gusto to keep on cranking all
| those Einstein Dingleberries.... with Newton's Glory!!!...
| ahahaha... Have fun, dude... ahahaha... ahahahanson
|
It's your baby, you run with it. Androcles walks alone.

  #2  
Old August 27th 10, 03:34 AM posted to sci.physics,sci.physics.relativity,sci.astro
BURT
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 371
Default Newton still towers over Einstein

On Aug 26, 1:08*am, "Androcles"
wrote:
"hanson" wrote in message

...
| was A New Limit on Photon Mass
| | "Androcles" wrote:

| "hanson" wrote in message
| | "Androcles" wrote:
| | "hanson" wrote:
| | "Androcles" wrote:
| || hanson wrote:

| http://tinyurl.com/hanson-d2G-Question
| wherein hanson asks for intergration of d2(1/rho)dt^2 = G
| | | Androcles wrote:

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

| Thank you, Androcles!
| | Androcles wrote:

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

| Right, Andro, but *it'll become clear. It is interesting to view
| Newton's G from another, (the above [1]), aspect then from
| the usual * G = F*r^2/mM ... * (from F=GmM/r^2).
|
| Looking at "G" from the aspect of *[1]: G = d2(1/rho)dt^2,
| it shows that Gravitation (modeled with [1]) is NOT a force, ...
| just like in GR, that came 300 years later sayin the same.
| IOW, Newton anticipated GR 300 years b4 the plagiarizer
| Einstein came along with his bent & curved space crap...
| on his netted rubber trampolines...ahahaha... not to speak
| of Black Holes which are nothing more then the Barycenters
| of n-body systems, .... with millions & billions of bodies...
|
| Einstein relativity fails, whereas Newton's Gravitation
| explains, with d2(1/rho)dt^2 = G, how and why there are
| observed, different rotation rates in the various galactic
| regions with their non-Keplerian rotation speeds...

The difficulty with that lies in the observation of light from
those regions and the assumption that it arrives "on time".
If the galaxy is observed face-on then no useful Doppler
shift is available to betray the velocity of any star within
the galaxy, it has no motion in our direction.
*http://zoo1.galaxyzoo.org/images/tut..._on_spiral.jpg

If the galaxy is observed edge-on then we can know the speed of
the stars toward and away from us from Doppler shift but we do not
know the region from which the light comes from.
*http://samsastro.com/images/deepsky/NGC0891bLG.jpg

Ideally, then, the galaxy should be inclined to the line-of-sight by 45
degrees,
*http://www.ee.columbia.edu/~shane/img/hst_galaxy.jpg
but...
because the speed of light from any star is source dependent, it
takes longer to reach us when the star is moving away than it does
when the star is approaching. So we see stars on one side of
the galaxy sooner than we would expect (and hence in an
advanced position), and on the other side we see them later
than we would expect, in a retarded position. In other words
they do not and CANNOT APPEAR to obey Kepler's 2nd law.
This is the plot for ONE star:
*http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Doolin'sStar.GIF
I created it for Droolin' Doolin but he's a hopeless case.

This difficulty is further compounded by the frequency of
the emitted light, for it seems that x-ray and UV is faster than
optical light which in turn is faster than infra-red or microwave
radiation.
*http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap070411.html
If we assume (ugh) that the entire galaxy rotates 45 degrees
in 1,000,000 years and is 21million ly distant, and IR takes
22 million years to reach us while UV only takes 20 million
years, then we are seeing now the galaxy as it was 22 million
years ago in IR and 20 million years ago in UV, hence the
superimposed rotation of 90 degrees with optical light at
45 degrees from 21 million years ago.
We cannot rely on the intuition to believe what we see or sticks
really would bend in water.
Hence we have no empirical evidence of galaxies failing to obey
Kepler's laws, but plenty of wrong assumptions.

|
| Furthermore, had Newton known in his corpuscular light theory
| the existence and size of e^2 = hbar*a*c, he would have been
| able to calculate the ultimate limit of/for power transmission,
| P = dE/dt, from system to system,... with the use of rho and
| hbar as |||| P = rho * G * hbar ||||, [2], *which leads directly to
| the HUP, dE*dt = hbar,.... *when [2] is expanded by time, t.
| (See, how in [2] *that **rho and G** combo surfaces again)
| It is not clear to me, at this time, whether the P[2] equation
| above is/contains the long sought after unit for Quantum gravity.
|
| As can be seen Newton had insights that go far beyond the
| feeble and twisted mentation of that late19/early20th century
| crowd, lead by Einstein who contributed to physics what Picasso
| had contributed to Painting: USELESS **** with Dingleberries.
|
| Newton still towers over these late 9th-early 20th century turds
| with their spacetime that no-one has ever seen and mouch less
| to curve, with their rigid rods for which there is no earthly construction
| material and with their younger Twin who has no known address...
| ahahaha..
|
| So, Andro, if you can see in these Newton equations [1] & [2]
| what I can, then use them with gusto to keep on cranking all
| those Einstein Dingleberries.... *with Newton's Glory!!!...
| ahahaha... Have fun, dude... ahahaha... ahahahanson
|
It's your baby, you run with it. Androcles walks alone.


The gravitational constant is known not to be accurate to the degree
of 60 percent up and down. How can we say we have mastered gravity?

Mitch Raemsch
  #3  
Old August 27th 10, 05:01 PM posted to sci.physics,sci.physics.relativity,sci.astro
PD
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,572
Default Newton still towers over Einstein

On Aug 26, 9:34*pm, BURT wrote:
On Aug 26, 1:08*am, "Androcles"
wrote:



"hanson" wrote in message


...
| was A New Limit on Photon Mass
| | "Androcles" wrote:


| "hanson" wrote in message
| | "Androcles" wrote:
| | "hanson" wrote:
| | "Androcles" wrote:
| || hanson wrote:


| http://tinyurl.com/hanson-d2G-Question
| wherein hanson asks for intergration of d2(1/rho)dt^2 = G
| | | Androcles wrote:


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


| Thank you, Androcles!
| | Androcles wrote:


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


| Right, Andro, but *it'll become clear. It is interesting to view
| Newton's G from another, (the above [1]), aspect then from
| the usual * G = F*r^2/mM ... * (from F=GmM/r^2).
|
| Looking at "G" from the aspect of *[1]: G = d2(1/rho)dt^2,
| it shows that Gravitation (modeled with [1]) is NOT a force, ...
| just like in GR, that came 300 years later sayin the same.
| IOW, Newton anticipated GR 300 years b4 the plagiarizer
| Einstein came along with his bent & curved space crap...
| on his netted rubber trampolines...ahahaha... not to speak
| of Black Holes which are nothing more then the Barycenters
| of n-body systems, .... with millions & billions of bodies...
|
| Einstein relativity fails, whereas Newton's Gravitation
| explains, with d2(1/rho)dt^2 = G, how and why there are
| observed, different rotation rates in the various galactic
| regions with their non-Keplerian rotation speeds...


The difficulty with that lies in the observation of light from
those regions and the assumption that it arrives "on time".
If the galaxy is observed face-on then no useful Doppler
shift is available to betray the velocity of any star within
the galaxy, it has no motion in our direction.
*http://zoo1.galaxyzoo.org/images/tut..._on_spiral.jpg


If the galaxy is observed edge-on then we can know the speed of
the stars toward and away from us from Doppler shift but we do not
know the region from which the light comes from.
*http://samsastro.com/images/deepsky/NGC0891bLG.jpg


Ideally, then, the galaxy should be inclined to the line-of-sight by 45
degrees,
*http://www.ee.columbia.edu/~shane/img/hst_galaxy.jpg
but...
because the speed of light from any star is source dependent, it
takes longer to reach us when the star is moving away than it does
when the star is approaching. So we see stars on one side of
the galaxy sooner than we would expect (and hence in an
advanced position), and on the other side we see them later
than we would expect, in a retarded position. In other words
they do not and CANNOT APPEAR to obey Kepler's 2nd law.
This is the plot for ONE star:
*http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Doolin'sStar.GIF
I created it for Droolin' Doolin but he's a hopeless case.


This difficulty is further compounded by the frequency of
the emitted light, for it seems that x-ray and UV is faster than
optical light which in turn is faster than infra-red or microwave
radiation.
*http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap070411.html
If we assume (ugh) that the entire galaxy rotates 45 degrees
in 1,000,000 years and is 21million ly distant, and IR takes
22 million years to reach us while UV only takes 20 million
years, then we are seeing now the galaxy as it was 22 million
years ago in IR and 20 million years ago in UV, hence the
superimposed rotation of 90 degrees with optical light at
45 degrees from 21 million years ago.
We cannot rely on the intuition to believe what we see or sticks
really would bend in water.
Hence we have no empirical evidence of galaxies failing to obey
Kepler's laws, but plenty of wrong assumptions.


|
| Furthermore, had Newton known in his corpuscular light theory
| the existence and size of e^2 = hbar*a*c, he would have been
| able to calculate the ultimate limit of/for power transmission,
| P = dE/dt, from system to system,... with the use of rho and
| hbar as |||| P = rho * G * hbar ||||, [2], *which leads directly to
| the HUP, dE*dt = hbar,.... *when [2] is expanded by time, t.
| (See, how in [2] *that **rho and G** combo surfaces again)
| It is not clear to me, at this time, whether the P[2] equation
| above is/contains the long sought after unit for Quantum gravity.
|
| As can be seen Newton had insights that go far beyond the
| feeble and twisted mentation of that late19/early20th century
| crowd, lead by Einstein who contributed to physics what Picasso
| had contributed to Painting: USELESS **** with Dingleberries.
|
| Newton still towers over these late 9th-early 20th century turds
| with their spacetime that no-one has ever seen and mouch less
| to curve, with their rigid rods for which there is no earthly construction
| material and with their younger Twin who has no known address...
| ahahaha..
|
| So, Andro, if you can see in these Newton equations [1] & [2]
| what I can, then use them with gusto to keep on cranking all
| those Einstein Dingleberries.... *with Newton's Glory!!!...
| ahahaha... Have fun, dude... ahahaha... ahahahanson
|
It's your baby, you run with it. Androcles walks alone.


The gravitational constant is known not to be accurate to the degree
of 60 percent up and down.


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

How can we say we have mastered gravity?

Mitch Raemsch


  #4  
Old August 27th 10, 09:26 PM posted to sci.physics,sci.physics.relativity,sci.astro
spudnik
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 220
Default Newton still stands on the shoulders of Hooke, the physical dwarf

my Word, I hadn't expected teeheehanson to be a member
of the Second Church of England, secular, but
I'd like to see an extrapolation of the idea of a barycenter,
being all that a black hole is.

anyway, he stole the inverse second-power law (algebraization
of Kepler's orbital constraints) from Hooke.

thus:
"hobo aether," I like that;
reminds me of Descartes ad hoc metaphors
to explain refraction (http://wlym.com .-)

thus: you begged the question about trigona, again!... of course,
the desire to make "the" new "math" is a requisite, but
monsieur seems to be totally pre-impressed
with his "new" math, or his imagination.
I am quite comfortable in my own well established reality


thus: Bill's assertion about layfolk intuition is the best,
I've seen, so far, as *raison d'etre*
for contradictive induction. but,
I didn't get what he said about "nonconstructive"
contradictive induction.
anyway, you'll have to rent your own broom,
going or coming to the Magic Kingdom;
I don't take passengers!

--les ducs d'Enron!
http://tarpley.net

--Light, A History!
http://wlym.com
  #5  
Old August 28th 10, 12:02 AM posted to sci.physics,sci.physics.relativity,sci.astro
BURT
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 371
Default Newton still towers over Einstein

On Aug 27, 9:01*am, PD wrote:
On Aug 26, 9:34*pm, BURT wrote:





On Aug 26, 1:08*am, "Androcles"
wrote:


"hanson" wrote in message


...
| was A New Limit on Photon Mass
| | "Androcles" wrote:


| "hanson" wrote in message
| | "Androcles" wrote:
| | "hanson" wrote:
| | "Androcles" wrote:
| || hanson wrote:


| http://tinyurl.com/hanson-d2G-Question
| wherein hanson asks for intergration of d2(1/rho)dt^2 = G
| | | Androcles wrote:


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


| Thank you, Androcles!
| | Androcles wrote:


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


| Right, Andro, but *it'll become clear. It is interesting to view
| Newton's G from another, (the above [1]), aspect then from
| the usual * G = F*r^2/mM ... * (from F=GmM/r^2).
|
| Looking at "G" from the aspect of *[1]: G = d2(1/rho)dt^2,
| it shows that Gravitation (modeled with [1]) is NOT a force, ...
| just like in GR, that came 300 years later sayin the same.
| IOW, Newton anticipated GR 300 years b4 the plagiarizer
| Einstein came along with his bent & curved space crap...
| on his netted rubber trampolines...ahahaha... not to speak
| of Black Holes which are nothing more then the Barycenters
| of n-body systems, .... with millions & billions of bodies...
|
| Einstein relativity fails, whereas Newton's Gravitation
| explains, with d2(1/rho)dt^2 = G, how and why there are
| observed, different rotation rates in the various galactic
| regions with their non-Keplerian rotation speeds...


The difficulty with that lies in the observation of light from
those regions and the assumption that it arrives "on time".
If the galaxy is observed face-on then no useful Doppler
shift is available to betray the velocity of any star within
the galaxy, it has no motion in our direction.
*http://zoo1.galaxyzoo.org/images/tut..._on_spiral.jpg


If the galaxy is observed edge-on then we can know the speed of
the stars toward and away from us from Doppler shift but we do not
know the region from which the light comes from.
*http://samsastro.com/images/deepsky/NGC0891bLG.jpg


Ideally, then, the galaxy should be inclined to the line-of-sight by 45
degrees,
*http://www.ee.columbia.edu/~shane/img/hst_galaxy.jpg
but...
because the speed of light from any star is source dependent, it
takes longer to reach us when the star is moving away than it does
when the star is approaching. So we see stars on one side of
the galaxy sooner than we would expect (and hence in an
advanced position), and on the other side we see them later
than we would expect, in a retarded position. In other words
they do not and CANNOT APPEAR to obey Kepler's 2nd law.
This is the plot for ONE star:
*http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Doolin'sStar.GIF
I created it for Droolin' Doolin but he's a hopeless case.


This difficulty is further compounded by the frequency of
the emitted light, for it seems that x-ray and UV is faster than
optical light which in turn is faster than infra-red or microwave
radiation.
*http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap070411.html
If we assume (ugh) that the entire galaxy rotates 45 degrees
in 1,000,000 years and is 21million ly distant, and IR takes
22 million years to reach us while UV only takes 20 million
years, then we are seeing now the galaxy as it was 22 million
years ago in IR and 20 million years ago in UV, hence the
superimposed rotation of 90 degrees with optical light at
45 degrees from 21 million years ago.
We cannot rely on the intuition to believe what we see or sticks
really would bend in water.
Hence we have no empirical evidence of galaxies failing to obey
Kepler's laws, but plenty of wrong assumptions.


|
| Furthermore, had Newton known in his corpuscular light theory
| the existence and size of e^2 = hbar*a*c, he would have been
| able to calculate the ultimate limit of/for power transmission,
| P = dE/dt, from system to system,... with the use of rho and
| hbar as |||| P = rho * G * hbar ||||, [2], *which leads directly to
| the HUP, dE*dt = hbar,.... *when [2] is expanded by time, t.
| (See, how in [2] *that **rho and G** combo surfaces again)
| It is not clear to me, at this time, whether the P[2] equation
| above is/contains the long sought after unit for Quantum gravity.
|
| As can be seen Newton had insights that go far beyond the
| feeble and twisted mentation of that late19/early20th century
| crowd, lead by Einstein who contributed to physics what Picasso
| had contributed to Painting: USELESS **** with Dingleberries.
|
| Newton still towers over these late 9th-early 20th century turds
| with their spacetime that no-one has ever seen and mouch less
| to curve, with their rigid rods for which there is no earthly construction
| material and with their younger Twin who has no known address...
| ahahaha..
|
| So, Andro, if you can see in these Newton equations [1] & [2]
| what I can, then use them with gusto to keep on cranking all
| those Einstein Dingleberries.... *with Newton's Glory!!!...
| ahahaha... Have fun, dude... ahahaha... ahahahanson
|
It's your baby, you run with it. Androcles walks alone.


The gravitational constant is known not to be accurate to the degree
of 60 percent up and down.


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



How can we say we have mastered gravity?


Mitch Raemsch- Hide quoted text -


- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -


We do not know that constant to much accuracy at all.
You are being dishonest about what you consider
to be right science. Science is not close to accuracy.

Mitch Raemsch
  #6  
Old August 28th 10, 10:41 AM posted to sci.physics,sci.physics.relativity,sci.astro
hanson
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,934
Default Newton still towers over Einstein

Lyndon LaRouche jr. "spudnik" wrote:
Newton still stands on the shoulders of Hooke, the physical dwarf

hanson wrote:
http://tinyurl.com/d2G-Barycenter-BH

Lydon jr. wrote:
I'd like to see an extrapolation of the idea of a
barycenter, being all that a black hole is.

hanson wrote:
.... very good. Do that extrapolation then. I am not here
to teach. However, I lamented about it in several posts
in the past. ... I am here for fun... ahahahaha...

Lydon jr. wrote:
anyway, Newton stole the inverse second-power law
(algebraization of Kepler's orbital constraints) from Hooke.

hanson wrote:
You may be right. That period 1650-1750 was a century
just like ~1850-1950. Both periods had cliques of thinkers
and tinkerers that were were plagiarizing off each other. In
the case I discussed in the link above your comments about
R. Hooke's anticipating of Newton's gravitational modeling,
nicely adds to the already well known story of Einstein's
plagiary. Thanks, "dood", ... ahahahaha... ahahahanson

Lydon jr. wrote:
thus: [snipped cryptic crap]


--- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: ---
  #7  
Old August 28th 10, 02:57 PM posted to sci.physics,sci.physics.relativity,sci.astro
PD
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,572
Default Newton still towers over Einstein

On Aug 27, 6:02*pm, BURT wrote:
On Aug 27, 9:01*am, PD wrote:



On Aug 26, 9:34*pm, BURT wrote:


On Aug 26, 1:08*am, "Androcles"
wrote:


"hanson" wrote in message


...
| was A New Limit on Photon Mass
| | "Androcles" wrote:


| "hanson" wrote in message
| | "Androcles" wrote:
| | "hanson" wrote:
| | "Androcles" wrote:
| || hanson wrote:


| http://tinyurl.com/hanson-d2G-Question
| wherein hanson asks for intergration of d2(1/rho)dt^2 = G
| | | Androcles wrote:


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


| Thank you, Androcles!
| | Androcles wrote:


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


| Right, Andro, but *it'll become clear. It is interesting to view
| Newton's G from another, (the above [1]), aspect then from
| the usual * G = F*r^2/mM ... * (from F=GmM/r^2).
|
| Looking at "G" from the aspect of *[1]: G = d2(1/rho)dt^2,
| it shows that Gravitation (modeled with [1]) is NOT a force, ...
| just like in GR, that came 300 years later sayin the same.
| IOW, Newton anticipated GR 300 years b4 the plagiarizer
| Einstein came along with his bent & curved space crap...
| on his netted rubber trampolines...ahahaha... not to speak
| of Black Holes which are nothing more then the Barycenters
| of n-body systems, .... with millions & billions of bodies...
|
| Einstein relativity fails, whereas Newton's Gravitation
| explains, with d2(1/rho)dt^2 = G, how and why there are
| observed, different rotation rates in the various galactic
| regions with their non-Keplerian rotation speeds...


The difficulty with that lies in the observation of light from
those regions and the assumption that it arrives "on time".
If the galaxy is observed face-on then no useful Doppler
shift is available to betray the velocity of any star within
the galaxy, it has no motion in our direction.
*http://zoo1.galaxyzoo.org/images/tut...on_spiral..jpg


If the galaxy is observed edge-on then we can know the speed of
the stars toward and away from us from Doppler shift but we do not
know the region from which the light comes from.
*http://samsastro.com/images/deepsky/NGC0891bLG.jpg


Ideally, then, the galaxy should be inclined to the line-of-sight by 45
degrees,
*http://www.ee.columbia.edu/~shane/img/hst_galaxy.jpg
but...
because the speed of light from any star is source dependent, it
takes longer to reach us when the star is moving away than it does
when the star is approaching. So we see stars on one side of
the galaxy sooner than we would expect (and hence in an
advanced position), and on the other side we see them later
than we would expect, in a retarded position. In other words
they do not and CANNOT APPEAR to obey Kepler's 2nd law.
This is the plot for ONE star:
*http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Doolin'sStar.GIF
I created it for Droolin' Doolin but he's a hopeless case.


This difficulty is further compounded by the frequency of
the emitted light, for it seems that x-ray and UV is faster than
optical light which in turn is faster than infra-red or microwave
radiation.
*http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap070411.html
If we assume (ugh) that the entire galaxy rotates 45 degrees
in 1,000,000 years and is 21million ly distant, and IR takes
22 million years to reach us while UV only takes 20 million
years, then we are seeing now the galaxy as it was 22 million
years ago in IR and 20 million years ago in UV, hence the
superimposed rotation of 90 degrees with optical light at
45 degrees from 21 million years ago.
We cannot rely on the intuition to believe what we see or sticks
really would bend in water.
Hence we have no empirical evidence of galaxies failing to obey
Kepler's laws, but plenty of wrong assumptions.


|
| Furthermore, had Newton known in his corpuscular light theory
| the existence and size of e^2 = hbar*a*c, he would have been
| able to calculate the ultimate limit of/for power transmission,
| P = dE/dt, from system to system,... with the use of rho and
| hbar as |||| P = rho * G * hbar ||||, [2], *which leads directly to
| the HUP, dE*dt = hbar,.... *when [2] is expanded by time, t.
| (See, how in [2] *that **rho and G** combo surfaces again)
| It is not clear to me, at this time, whether the P[2] equation
| above is/contains the long sought after unit for Quantum gravity.
|
| As can be seen Newton had insights that go far beyond the
| feeble and twisted mentation of that late19/early20th century
| crowd, lead by Einstein who contributed to physics what Picasso
| had contributed to Painting: USELESS **** with Dingleberries.
|
| Newton still towers over these late 9th-early 20th century turds
| with their spacetime that no-one has ever seen and mouch less
| to curve, with their rigid rods for which there is no earthly construction
| material and with their younger Twin who has no known address...
| ahahaha..
|
| So, Andro, if you can see in these Newton equations [1] & [2]
| what I can, then use them with gusto to keep on cranking all
| those Einstein Dingleberries.... *with Newton's Glory!!!...
| ahahaha... Have fun, dude... ahahaha... ahahahanson
|
It's your baby, you run with it. Androcles walks alone.


The gravitational constant is known not to be accurate to the degree
of 60 percent up and down.


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


How can we say we have mastered gravity?


Mitch Raemsch- Hide quoted text -


- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -


- Show quoted text -


We do not know that constant to much accuracy at all.


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

You are being dishonest about what you consider
to be right science. Science is not close to accuracy.


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


Mitch Raemsch


  #8  
Old August 28th 10, 07:00 PM posted to sci.physics,sci.physics.relativity,sci.astro
hanson
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,934
Default Newton still towers over Einstein


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


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


| Thank you, Androcles!
| | Androcles wrote:


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


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

Burt Mitch Raemsch wrote:
The gravitational constant is known not to be accurate
to the degree of 60 percent up and down.


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


Burt Mitch Raemsch wrote:
How can we say we have mastered gravity?

We do not know that constant to much accuracy at all.


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

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


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

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


--- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: ---
  #9  
Old August 28th 10, 07:11 PM posted to sci.physics,sci.physics.relativity,sci.astro
Androcles[_33_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 369
Default Newton still towers over Einstein


"hanson" wrote in message
...
|
| Paul "PD" wrote:
| On Aug 27, 6:02 pm, BURT wrote:
| On Aug 27, 9:01 am, PD wrote:
| On Aug 26, 9:34 pm, BURT wrote:
| On Aug 26, 1:08 am, "Androcles" wrote:
| "hanson" wrote:
|
| | || hanson wrote:
| | http://tinyurl.com/hanson-d2G-Question
| | wherein hanson asks for intergration of d2(1/rho)dt^2 = G
| |
| | | | Androcles wrote:
| | http://tinyurl.com/Andro-d2G-integral-solution
| | wherein Androcles says:
| | Ok.
| | 1/rho = 1/2 Gt^2 + kt
| | d(1/rho)dt = Gt + k.
| | d2(1/rho)dt^2 = G... [1], which was the given original.
| | || hanson wrote:
|
| | Thank you, Androcles!
| | | Androcles wrote:
|
| Androcles wrote:
| | You are welcome, although what you think it means is not clear.
|
| hanson wrote:
| | Right, Andro, but it'll become clear. It is interesting to view
| | Newton's G from another, (the above [1]), aspect then from
| | the usual G = F*r^2/mM ... (from F=GmM/r^2).
| |
| | Looking at "G" from the aspect of [1]: G = d2(1/rho)dt^2,
| | it shows that Gravitation (modeled with [1]) is NOT a force, ...
| | just like in GR, that came 300 years later sayin the same.
| | IOW, Newton anticipated GR 300 years b4 the plagiarizer
| | Einstein came along with his bent & curved space crap...
| | on his netted rubber trampolines...ahahaha... not to speak
| | of Black Holes which are nothing more then the Barycenters
| | of n-body systems, .... with millions & billions of bodies...
| |
| | Einstein relativity fails, whereas Newton's Gravitation
| | explains, with d2(1/rho)dt^2 = G, how and why there are
| | observed, different rotation rates in the various galactic
| | regions with their non-Keplerian rotation speeds...
| |
| | Furthermore, had Newton known in his corpuscular light theory
| | the existence and size of e^2 = hbar*a*c, he would have been
| | able to calculate the ultimate limit of/for power transmission,
| | P = dE/dt, from system to system,... with the use of rho and
| | hbar as |||| P = rho * G * hbar ||||, [2], which leads directly
to
| | the HUP, dE*dt = hbar,.... when [2] is expanded by time, t.
| | (See, how in [2] that **rho and G** combo surfaces again)
| | It is not clear to me, at this time, whether the P[2] equation
| | above is/contains the long sought after unit for Quantum
gravity.
| |
| | As can be seen Newton had insights that go far beyond the
| | feeble and twisted mentation of that late19/early20th century
| | crowd, lead by Einstein who contributed to physics what Picasso
| | had contributed to Painting: USELESS **** with Dingleberries.
| |
| | Newton still towers over these late 9th-early 20th century turds
| | with their spacetime that no-one has ever seen and mouch less
| | to curve, with their rigid rods for which there is no earthly
| construction
| | material and with their younger Twin who has no known address...
| | ahahaha..
| | So, Andro, if you can see in these Newton equations [1] & [2]
| | what I can, then use them with gusto to keep on cranking all
| | those Einstein Dingleberries.... with Newton's Glory!!!...
| | ahahaha... Have fun, dude... ahahaha... ahahahanson
| |
| Burt Mitch Raemsch wrote:
| The gravitational constant is known not to be accurate
| to the degree of 60 percent up and down.
|
| Paul Draper wrote:
| That's just plain wrong.
| The gravitational constant is known to one part in ten thousand.
| That is 0.01% up or down, not 60% up or down.
|
| Burt Mitch Raemsch wrote:
| How can we say we have mastered gravity?
| We do not know that constant to much accuracy at all.
|
| Paul Draper wrote:
| But we do. It's been measured to much much better than 60% for
| centuries.
|
| Burt Mitch Raemsch wrote:
| You are being dishonest about what you consider
| to be right science. Science is not close to accuracy.
|
| Paul Draper wrote:
| I'm sorry, Mitch, but that just isn't so. We may know more in the
| future than what we know now, but this doesn't mean that we
| don't know anything now. You're too consumed by humility, too
| obsessed with thinking that we know nothing at all, so much
| so that you discount what we do know.
|
| hanson wrote:
| To Paul: Mitch might be enamored with the thought that we
| are able to measure the product of m*G to great accuracy,
| wheres we are NOT so for the size of G itself... and so he
| blames G ahahaha.... Also consider, that Mitch's Humility
| stems from his heavy religious baggage, well, that cross,
| that he carries.... ahahaha...
| AFA your wishful thinking that "we may know more in the
| future", you have conditioned it wisely with the word "may".
| Since physics happens to be a social enterprise, physics
| is only as stable as are the thin veneers of society, culture &
| civilisation. There were plenty of dark ages in history where
| "we" knew less in the future then we knew in the past...
| Thanks for the laughs, guys... ahahaha... ahahahanson
|
Phuckwit Duck likes to tie his negatives up in (k)nots and say nothing...

"We may know more in the future than what we know now, but this does NOT
mean that we do NOT know anything now. "
We may know more in the future than what we know now, but this does NOT mean
that sausages are a dog's breakfast.

What DOES it mean, Phuckwit Duck?

We may know more in the future than what we know now, but this does mean
that Phuckwit Duck knows nothing now.




  #10  
Old September 2nd 10, 02:51 AM posted to sci.physics,sci.physics.relativity,sci.astro
spudnik
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 220
Default Newton still towers over Hooke -- laying down!

wow; never done a proof by contradiction, Andormorph?

thus:
wow, that is exemplary, dood. (of course,
it's in the M&M paper, that they most certainly did
n o t find "no results," however slight .-)

You cannot have an aether that is
at rest with any one body. If the earth
were at rest with the aether at any
point, then every other galaxy that is
accelerating away from earth would
experience an aether flow towards earth,
and *their* light would be affected.

Therefore the aether must be
moving in all directions wrt ALL bodies equally.

M and M simply disproved something
that could not be possible in the first place.


thus: Bjorn's change-of-heart could've been predicted, since
1st espoused his views in a Holy Economist guest editorial
-- the only thing that is ever signed by an author in it. so,
naturally, he is a proponent of bpTM's old KyotoTM cap&tradeTM,
and my Rep. Waxman's and my California Assemblywoman's
(now Senator) cap&trade derivatives, a.k.a. "free-er trade
on the free market -- free beer &or freedom!"
and, of course, one of Bjorn's telltales is that
cold generally leads to more deaths than heat,
per annum.

thus: he stole that from Hooke, then burnt all
of his portraits -- "ahahaha,
on the shoulders of that clever little dwarf!" (viz,
Sir I., the plagiarist, Freemason, alchemist-
who-burnt-his-"Principles"-in-an-accident-and-
had-it-"reconstructed"-by-the-RS-with-the-dydx-rectangle
etc. ad vomitorium .-)

thus: Euclid's proof is so simple, that
it takes a truly linguistically challenged individual
to dyss it; after all, all
of math problems are, really, wordproblemmas!

thus: as for ordinary spatial finite elements,
you really need tetrahedronometry; eh?

--les ducs d'Enron!
http://tarpley.net

--Light, A History!
http://wlym.com/~animations/fermat/index.html
 




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
Newton still towers over Einstein Androcles[_33_] Astronomy Misc 2 August 28th 10 09:33 PM
EINSTEIN AGAINST MAXWELL AND NEWTON Pentcho Valev Astronomy Misc 9 December 11th 09 03:04 PM
HOW EINSTEIN OUTDID NEWTON Pentcho Valev Astronomy Misc 3 February 6th 09 06:38 PM
BEYOND EINSTEIN: EISENSTAEDT AND NEWTON Pentcho Valev Astronomy Misc 3 October 3rd 08 09:38 AM
FROM NEWTON TO EINSTEIN OR FROM EINSTEIN TO NEWTON? Pentcho Valev Astronomy Misc 3 September 1st 07 01:07 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 12:03 PM.


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.