Psychotic Humpty Roberts places foot in mouth (again).

On May 3, 6:58 pm, "Androcles"
wrote:
We seem to have drifted off the thread topic with all the snipping that antiquated
senile ****wit trolls do because they cannot concentrate on the issue.

We never left the point. But we all know you have comprehension
problems.

Here it is again, try to answer each point.

"Nonsense. GR obtains essentially the same answer as Newtonian mechanics
for this physical situation. The difference is far below measurement
accuracy." -- Humpty Roberts
)

This point was responded to by Tom Roberts. "This physical
situation" did not refer to the perihelion of Mercury.

For the advance of perihelion of Mercury, predicted
by Newtonian Mechanics to within 43 arc seconds per century
(= 415 orbits) which is

415 orbits * 360 degrees = 149400 degrees
149400 degrees * 60 arc minutes = 8964000 arc minutes
8964000 arc minutes * 60 arc seconds = 537840000 arc seconds.

43
-------------------------------- x 100 = 0.00000799494273389855719%
537840000

The difference is far below ANY measurement accuracy.
Einstein with his 4-figure log tables and 3-figure sliderule
could not be that accurate and was not an astronomer.

As far as I can tell THIS is your point, and the point you seem
to be trying to make (repeated several times since) is that there
is no way that 1911 math could have calculated the perihelion
drift accurately enough to tell whether Newtonian predictions
are inconsistent with observations.

I have made the point repeatedly, that not only were 1911
math and observation each sufficient to show the two numbers
are inconsistent (i.e. their error bars do not overlap), but
1859 math and science were. The situation in 1911 would have
been better on both counts than the situation in 1859.

However, I have been relying on second hand accounts of
what le Verrier did to draw the conclusion in 1859. So I welcome
the opportunity to go to the original source, which I'm now doing.

There didn't seem to be any other questions or points, just
a bunch of random quotes.

- Randy

"Randy Poe" wrote in message oups.com...
On May 3, 6:58 pm, "Androcles"
wrote:
We seem to have drifted off the thread topic with all the snipping that antiquated
senile ****wit trolls do because they cannot concentrate on the issue.

We never left the point. But we all know you have comprehension
problems.

As far as you can tell I do have comprehension problems. That's why I want
a recapitulation of the situation to clear up any comprehension or miscomprehension
problems about Psychotic Humpty Roberts being the subject of discussion, as we all know, having
read the thread title.


Here it is again, try to answer each point.

"Nonsense. GR obtains essentially the same answer as Newtonian mechanics
for this physical situation. The difference is far below measurement
accuracy." -- Humpty Roberts
)

This point was responded to by Tom Roberts. "This physical
situation" did not refer to the perihelion of Mercury.

Psychotic Humpty Roberts is the subject, yes, and we have another "is not".
You, Draper and Roberts are all experts in what things are not. It's what they
ARE that matters, and Humpty Roberts is empirically psychotic.

Is there any physical situation GR *does* refer to?
Angels dancing on the head of a pin?
Clocks on Venus's south pole running faster than clocks on the Sun?
Does Venus have a South Pole?
Never mind how far can you tell, but how can you tell at all?


For the advance of perihelion of Mercury, predicted
by Newtonian Mechanics to within 43 arc seconds per century
(= 415 orbits) which is

415 orbits * 360 degrees = 149400 degrees
149400 degrees * 60 arc minutes = 8964000 arc minutes
8964000 arc minutes * 60 arc seconds = 537840000 arc seconds.

43
-------------------------------- x 100 = 0.00000799494273389855719%
537840000

The difference is far below ANY measurement accuracy.
Einstein with his 4-figure log tables and 3-figure sliderule
could not be that accurate and was not an astronomer.

As far as I can tell


Just how far can you tell, poor illiterate cliché driven Poe?
Can you tell at a distance of 3 metres?
Try this test to find out how far you can tell:
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/SRvNM.htm

We all know you can tell lies about what other people believe out to
infinity, can't you?
How far you can tell is not relevant to any physics discussion, is it?
Do you often hallucinate anyone is interested in how far you can tell?

THIS is your point, and the point you seem
to be trying to make (repeated several times since) is that there
is no way that 1911 math could have calculated the perihelion
drift accurately enough to tell whether Newtonian predictions
are inconsistent with observations.

Correct, you've understood something.

But what "drift" are you babbling about? One average Mercury orbit is
360 degrees and 14 arc seconds, there is no drift, if you get my drift.
See, I used a cliché for you.
Humpty Roberts let out a great sigh.
" sigh", he said.
"The nuances of English. I was discussing the usage of words and
not the concepts they represent."

The rest of "us" use a dictionary, "we all know" words represent concepts.
What concept does "drift" represent, poor illiterate psychotic cliché driven Poe?



I have made the point repeatedly, that not only were 1911
math and observation each sufficient to show the two numbers
are inconsistent (i.e. their error bars do not overlap), but
1859 math and science were.

Your *point* is blunt, poor innumerate Poe. You have repeatedly confused
the period of Mercury's orbit with an Earth year and then with an Earth
century to avoid discussing Roberts' psychosis. This is because you share
his psychosis. Ewe are a sheep, Poe. The period is not relevant, ignorant Poe.

On 27/1/2005 Mercury had traveled 360 degrees and 22 arc seconds
from aphelion to aphelion, but one orbit later on 23/4/2005 it only travel
360 degrees and 10 arc seconds from aphelion to aphelion. Why is
that, poor astrologer Poe?


The situation in 1911 would have
been better on both counts than the situation in 1859.

Situation in 1911, poor antiquated Poe?
How about the situation in 2005?
Just how far can you tell, poor psychotic Poe? 3 meters?

However, I have been relying on second hand accounts of
what le Verrier did to draw the conclusion in 1859. So I welcome
the opportunity to go to the original source, which I'm now doing.


Real research instead of lies? Well done, poor antiquated Poe.

There didn't seem

You are good at "seem" and good at ignoring facts, poor cliché driven
antiquated knuckle-dragging blind Neanderthal, and I've rattled your cage,
I can tell. In fact, I can tell the truth even further than you can tell lies.


Have a look at this:
http://nso0.livjm.ac.uk/uninow/orrery/
as well as Le Verrier's antiquated papers, poor antiquated Poe.
Let me know if it contains any GR psychosis.


to be any other questions or points, just
a bunch of random quotes.

As far as you can tell, that is.
Can you tell at 3 metres, poor blind lying ****headed knuckle-dragging Neanderthal?
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/SRvNM.htm