Anisotropy in the gravity force, and Mercury.

On May 23, 7:30 am, rbwinn wrote:
On May 22, 9:07?pm, Eric Gisse wrote:



On May 22, 8:19 pm, rbwinn wrote:

On May 21, 1:49?pm, Eric Gisse wrote:

On May 21, 5:56 am, rbwinn wrote:
[...]

We are really seeing a flurry of mathematics out of college graduates
today.
Robert B. Winn

What would be the point? You won't understand and there isn't anything
we can say that has not been tried at least once in the past ten
****ing years of you posting your inanities. Go away, idiot welder.

Another attempt at mathematics from a college graduate. ?This one even
attempted subtraction.
Robert B. Winn

Why do you continue to whine about lack of math? You wouldn't
understand any of it even if I were to present it to you.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Sure I would, Eric. College graduates cannot show any set of
transformation equations using t' not equal to t in which there is not
a distance contraction. Galileo, on the other hand has an equation in
his transformation equations which says t'=t. That means there is no
distance contraction in his transformation equations. I know that
this seems like heresy to you Harry Potter fans, but it happens to
coincide with reality.

Do you define "reality" as something other than "the results of
experimental tests?"

There is nothing in existence that gets
shorter just because it moves.

Empirical evidence is against your declaration of faith.

- Randy

Never mind ranting at Winnie the Pooh, Blind Poe, where are the GR
calculations
for the advance of longitude of perihelion/aphelion of Mercury?

A newborn child is 19" tall, a 10-year-old is 55" tall.
Therefore human beings grow at a rate of 30 feet per century.
Empirical evidence is against your declaration of faith, ****head.



"Randy Poe" wrote in message
oups.com...
: On May 23, 7:30 am, rbwinn wrote:
: On May 22, 9:07?pm, Eric Gisse wrote:
:
:
:
: On May 22, 8:19 pm, rbwinn wrote:
:
: On May 21, 1:49?pm, Eric Gisse wrote:
:
: On May 21, 5:56 am, rbwinn wrote:
: [...]
:
: We are really seeing a flurry of mathematics out of college
graduates
: today.
: Robert B. Winn
:
: What would be the point? You won't understand and there isn't
anything
: we can say that has not been tried at least once in the past ten
: ****ing years of you posting your inanities. Go away, idiot
welder.
:
: Another attempt at mathematics from a college graduate. ?This one
even
: attempted subtraction.
: Robert B. Winn
:
: Why do you continue to whine about lack of math? You wouldn't
: understand any of it even if I were to present it to you.- Hide quoted
text -
:
: - Show quoted text -
:
: Sure I would, Eric. College graduates cannot show any set of
: transformation equations using t' not equal to t in which there is not
: a distance contraction. Galileo, on the other hand has an equation in
: his transformation equations which says t'=t. That means there is no
: distance contraction in his transformation equations. I know that
: this seems like heresy to you Harry Potter fans, but it happens to
: coincide with reality.
:
: Do you define "reality" as something other than "the results of
: experimental tests?"
:
: There is nothing in existence that gets
: shorter just because it moves.
:
: Empirical evidence is against your declaration of faith.
:
: - Randy
:

On May 23, 5:20 pm, rbwinn wrote:
On May 23, 6:32?am, Randy Poe wrote:



On May 23, 7:30 am, rbwinn wrote:

On May 22, 9:07?pm, Eric Gisse wrote:

On May 22, 8:19 pm, rbwinn wrote:

On May 21, 1:49?pm, Eric Gisse wrote:

On May 21, 5:56 am, rbwinn wrote:
[...]

We are really seeing a flurry of mathematics out of college graduates
today.
Robert B. Winn

What would be the point? You won't understand and there isn't anything
we can say that has not been tried at least once in the past ten
****ing years of you posting your inanities. Go away, idiot welder.

Another attempt at mathematics from a college graduate. ?This one even
attempted subtraction.
Robert B. Winn

Why do you continue to whine about lack of math? You wouldn't
understand any of it even if I were to present it to you.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Sure I would, Eric. College graduates cannot show any set of
transformation equations using t' not equal to t in which there is not
a distance contraction. Galileo, on the other hand has an equation in
his transformation equations which says t'=t. That means there is no
distance contraction in his transformation equations. I know that
this seems like heresy to you Harry Potter fans, but it happens to
coincide with reality.

Do you define "reality" as something other than "the results of
experimental tests?"

There is nothing in existence that gets
shorter just because it moves.

Empirical evidence is against your declaration of faith.

Well, no, Randy. Why would the Galilean transformation equations
disagree with reality? They do not have a distance contraction.

But reality does. That's where they differ.

- Randy

On May 23, 2:57?pm, Randy Poe wrote:
On May 23, 5:20 pm, rbwinn wrote:





On May 23, 6:32?am, Randy Poe wrote:

On May 23, 7:30 am, rbwinn wrote:

On May 22, 9:07?pm, Eric Gisse wrote:

On May 22, 8:19 pm, rbwinn wrote:

On May 21, 1:49?pm, Eric Gisse wrote:

On May 21, 5:56 am, rbwinn wrote:
[...]

We are really seeing a flurry of mathematics out of college graduates
today.
Robert B. Winn

What would be the point? You won't understand and there isn't anything
we can say that has not been tried at least once in the past ten
****ing years of you posting your inanities. Go away, idiot welder.

Another attempt at mathematics from a college graduate. ?This one even
attempted subtraction.
Robert B. Winn

Why do you continue to whine about lack of math? You wouldn't
understand any of it even if I were to present it to you.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Sure I would, Eric. College graduates cannot show any set of
transformation equations using t' not equal to t in which there is not
a distance contraction. Galileo, on the other hand has an equation in
his transformation equations which says t'=t. That means there is no
distance contraction in his transformation equations. I know that
this seems like heresy to you Harry Potter fans, but it happens to
coincide with reality.

Do you define "reality" as something other than "the results of
experimental tests?"

There is nothing in existence that gets
shorter just because it moves.

Empirical evidence is against your declaration of faith.

Well, no, Randy. Why would the Galilean transformation equations
disagree with reality? They do not have a distance contraction.

But reality does. That's where they differ.

Well, I don't really think so, Randy. If you want to believe in a
distance contraction, that would be up to you, but experience in
reality indicates that a distance contraction does not exist.
Experience in reality indicates that Galileo's equations are correct,
and that the reason why a clock in a satellite runs slower is because
the cesium atoms in the satellite have slower transitions as compared
to the rotation of the earth. Galilleo's equations were based on the
rotation of the earth. The earth rotates the same amount as compared
to a moving system as it does compared to a system at rest. Galileo's
equations are using transitions of the earth instead of transitions of
a cesium isotope molecule. Dirk van de Moortel object to transitions
of the earth because they are not as accurate or as easy to measure as
transitions of a molecule, but in theory, they do not have to be
measured, they just have to exist. One transition of the earth is one
rotation on its axis. If you scientists have problems measuring this,
that still does not mean it does not exist.
Robert B. Winn