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

The Motion of the Perihelion of Mercury



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #91  
Old January 6th 09, 10:33 PM posted to sci.physics,sci.physics.relativity,sci.astro
Koobee Wublee
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 815
Default The Motion of the Perihelion of Mercury

On Jan 6, 12:26 am, George Hammond wrote:
Koobee Wublee wrote:


** ds1^2 = c^2 (1 – K / r) dt^2 – dr^2 / (1 – K / r) – r^2 dO^2


** ds2^2 = c^2 (1 – K / R) dt^2 – dR^2 / (1 – K / R) – R^2 dO^2


In that case, they are still very different where (R = r + K).


** (r, theta, phi)
** (R, theta, phi)


Where


** R = r + k


NO.... the metrics are NOT different. They both describe
the SAME physical space with the same metrical distances.


OK, I will go for that:

** The coordinates are different.
** The metrics are the same.

The space described by (r,theta, phi) is IDENTICAL to the
space described by (R,theta,phi) because the METRICS are
identical, irregardless of what K is...


This is where your logic is failing you. The coordinate systems are
not the same.

For example, we want to measure two displacements of some sort. In
one instance, we use inches, and the other one, we use millimeters.
For analogy, let’s say both instances we measure the same number 10
(the same metric). Since the first instance, the number 10 describes
inches. Therefore, this length is 10 inches. Since the second
instance, the number 10 describes mm. Thus, the other length is 10
mm. Obviously, both lengths are not the same after reporting the same
metric (10 in this example) and different coordinate system (inches
versus mm).

a Titleist golf ball
is exactly the same diameter and shape whether it is
described by R or r...


Of course, the geometry of a golf ball is invariant. shrug

in fact both spaces are identically
Schwarchild space.


Logically, this cannot be. shrug

Obviously you have no credentials in
Physics.


This is not about physics but geometry. Obvious, you have not passed
the first course in geometry. Grade school stuff. shrug

This shows all Einstein Dingleberries discuss science with faiths.
There is no logic in them. shrug


  #92  
Old January 6th 09, 10:35 PM posted to sci.physics,sci.physics.relativity,sci.astro
Eric Gisse
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,465
Default The Motion of the Perihelion of Mercury

On Jan 6, 12:33*pm, Koobee Wublee wrote:
[snip]

in fact both spaces are identically
Schwarchild space.


Logically, this cannot be. *shrug


Why not?

ds^2 = dR^2 + (R+K)^2 (d\theta^2 + sin^2(\theta) d\phi^2)
ds^2 = dr^2 + r^2 (d\theta^2 + sin^2(\theta) d\phi^2)

Do these or do these not describe the same manifold?

[snip]
  #93  
Old January 6th 09, 10:43 PM posted to sci.physics,sci.physics.relativity,sci.astro
PD
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,572
Default The Motion of the Perihelion of Mercury

On Jan 6, 3:33*pm, Koobee Wublee wrote:
On Jan 6, 12:26 am, George Hammond wrote:
* *NO.... the metrics are NOT different. *They both describe
the SAME physical space with the same metrical distances.


OK, I will go for that:

** *The coordinates are different.
** *The metrics are the same.

The space described by (r,theta, phi) is IDENTICAL to the
space described by (R,theta,phi) because the METRICS are
identical, irregardless of what K is...


This is where your logic is failing you. *The coordinate systems are
not the same.


The above is what I love about KW.

"The metrics are NOT different. They both describe the SAME physical
space with the same metrical distances."
"OK, I will go for that that."
"The space described by (r,theta,phi) is IDENTICAL to the space
described by (R,theta,phi) because the METRICS are identical.."
"This is where your logic is failing you. The coordinate systems are
not the same."

Indeed, a logical failure is at work here.

PD
  #94  
Old January 6th 09, 10:48 PM posted to sci.physics,sci.physics.relativity,sci.astro
Eric Gisse
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,465
Default The Motion of the Perihelion of Mercury

On Jan 6, 12:43*pm, PD wrote:
On Jan 6, 3:33*pm, Koobee Wublee wrote:



On Jan 6, 12:26 am, George Hammond wrote:
* *NO.... the metrics are NOT different. *They both describe
the SAME physical space with the same metrical distances.


OK, I will go for that:


** *The coordinates are different.
** *The metrics are the same.


The space described by (r,theta, phi) is IDENTICAL to the
space described by (R,theta,phi) because the METRICS are
identical, irregardless of what K is...


This is where your logic is failing you. *The coordinate systems are
not the same.


The above is what I love about KW.

"The metrics are NOT different. *They both describe the SAME physical
space with the same metrical distances."
"OK, I will go for that that."
"The space described by (r,theta,phi) is IDENTICAL to the space
described by (R,theta,phi) because the METRICS are identical.."
"This is where your logic is failing you. The coordinate systems are
not the same."

Indeed, a logical failure is at work here.

PD


He writes out the transformation, and then screams that it is not a
transformation.

One cannot help but wonder what he is trying to do here.
  #95  
Old January 6th 09, 11:09 PM posted to sci.physics,sci.physics.relativity,sci.astro
PD
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,572
Default The Motion of the Perihelion of Mercury

On Jan 6, 3:33*pm, Koobee Wublee wrote:


For example, we want to measure two displacements of some sort. *In
one instance, we use inches, and the other one, we use millimeters.
For analogy, let’s say both instances we measure the same number 10
(the same metric). *Since the first instance, the number 10 describes
inches. *Therefore, this length is 10 inches. *Since the second
instance, the number 10 describes mm. *Thus, the other length is 10
mm. *Obviously, both lengths are not the same after reporting the same
metric (10 in this example) and different coordinate system (inches
versus mm).


False analog. The proper one is that you want to measure ONE
displacement of some sort. In one coordinate system, that displacement
is 10 inches. In another coordinate system, that displacement is 254
mm. However, despite the different values of coordinates in the two
coordinate systems, it is a *common* geometry being measured.

PD
  #96  
Old January 7th 09, 01:42 AM posted to sci.physics,sci.physics.relativity,sci.astro
George Hammond[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 22
Default The Motion of the Perihelion of Mercury

On Mon, 5 Jan 2009 23:54:30 -0800 (PST), Koobee Wublee
wrote:

On Jan 5, 11:48 pm, George Hammond wrote:
Koobee Wublee wrote:


No, you can say “SUBSTITUTE” (r + K) for R. shrug


In that case, the two said geometries of spacetime a


** ds1^2 = c^2 (1 – K / r) dt^2 – dr^2 / (1 – K / r) – r^2 dO^2


** ds2^2 = c^2 (1 – K / R) dt^2 – dR^2 / (1 – K / R) – R^2 dO^2


In that case, they are still very different where (R = r + K).


[Hammond]
The COORDINATES are different, but the METRIC is the same.


No, the coordinates are different:

** (r, theta, phi)
** (R, theta, phi)

Where

** R = r + k

The metric is the Schwarzchild metric in BOTH cases.
You don't know the difference.


No, the metrics are also different. This is basic mathematics.

[Hammond]
You don't know what you're talking about.
Whether you use (r,theta,phi) or (x,y,z) makes absolutely
no difference to the diameter, circumference, area or volume
of a Titleist Golf Ball in Schwarchild Space, Flat Space,
curved space or any other space, because the golf ball does
not change location, orientation or shape by virtue of a
coordinate transformation. A coordinate transformation has
NO PHYSICAL EFFECT on the space being described or the
objects in it.
Neither does it matter whether you use a "Kooby
Coordinate Transformation" R=r+k since the Metric still has
the identical SAME geometric properties and will give the
same diameter, circumference, area and volume of a physical
object in that space!
Again, you don't know what you're talking about.
=====================================
HAMMOND'S PROOF OF GOD WEBSITE
http://geocities.com/scientific_proof_of_god
mirror site:
http://proof-of-god.freewebsitehosting.com
GOD=G_uv (a folk song on mp3)
http://interrobang.jwgh.org/songs/hammond.mp3
=====================================

  #97  
Old January 7th 09, 02:02 AM posted to sci.physics,sci.physics.relativity,sci.astro
George Hammond[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 22
Default The Motion of the Perihelion of Mercury

On Tue, 06 Jan 2009 19:42:47 -0500, George Hammond
wrote:

On Mon, 5 Jan 2009 23:54:30 -0800 (PST), Koobee Wublee
wrote:

On Jan 5, 11:48 pm, George Hammond wrote:
Koobee Wublee wrote:


No, you can say “SUBSTITUTE” (r + K) for R. shrug

In that case, the two said geometries of spacetime a

** ds1^2 = c^2 (1 – K / r) dt^2 – dr^2 / (1 – K / r) – r^2 dO^2

** ds2^2 = c^2 (1 – K / R) dt^2 – dR^2 / (1 – K / R) – R^2 dO^2

In that case, they are still very different where (R = r + K).

[Hammond]
The COORDINATES are different, but the METRIC is the same.


No, the coordinates are different:

** (r, theta, phi)
** (R, theta, phi)

Where

** R = r + k

The metric is the Schwarzchild metric in BOTH cases.
You don't know the difference.


No, the metrics are also different. This is basic mathematics.

[Hammond]
You don't know what you're talking about.
Whether you use (r,theta,phi) or (x,y,z) makes absolutely
no difference to the diameter, circumference, area or volume
of a Titleist Golf Ball in Schwarchild Space, Flat Space,
curved space or any other space, because the golf ball does
not change location, orientation or shape by virtue of a
coordinate transformation. A coordinate transformation has
NO PHYSICAL EFFECT on the space being described or the
objects in it.
Neither does it matter whether you use a "Kooby
Coordinate Transformation" R=r+k since the Metric still has
the identical SAME geometric properties and will give the
same diameter, circumference, area and volume of a physical
object in that space!
Again, you don't know what you're talking about.

[Hammond, post script]
While changing the coordinates has absolutely no physical
effect on the golf ball, changing the metric DOES. For
instance if you add a few terms, invert a few terms, square
a few terms etc... you will suddenly notice the golf ball
becoming lop sided, or grow in size, or the dimples on one
side might blow up while becoming smaller on the other side
etc.
changing the coordinates does nothing.... changing the
metric will physically ALTER the shape of the golf ball!
=====================================
HAMMOND'S PROOF OF GOD WEBSITE
http://geocities.com/scientific_proof_of_god
mirror site:
http://proof-of-god.freewebsitehosting.com
GOD=G_uv (a folk song on mp3)
http://interrobang.jwgh.org/songs/hammond.mp3
=====================================

  #98  
Old January 7th 09, 08:26 AM posted to sci.physics,sci.physics.relativity,sci.astro
Koobee Wublee
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 815
Default The Motion of the Perihelion of Mercury

This post is an overall reply to the three stooges. They are the so-
called professor Draper, the reverend Hammond, and the college drop-
out multi-year super-senior Gisse.

The following are indeed two of the infinite number of solutions to
the Einstein field equations. They are static, spherically symmetric,
and asymptotically flat.

** ds1^2 = c^2 (1 – K / r) dt^2 – dr^2 / (1 – K / r) – r^2 dO^2

** ds2^2 = c^2 dt^2 / (1 + K / r) – (1 + K / r) dr^2 – (r + K)^2 dO^2

The coordinate system is the same for both. However, since they are
all solutions to the field equations, they related through Koobee
Wublee’s theorem or the theorem of Generality that says the following
is a solution with the same coordinate system where u(r) is any
function of r.

** ds^2 = c^2 dt^2 / (1 + K / u) – (1 + K / u) (du/dr)^2 dr^2 – (u +
K)^2 dO^2

The three stooges immediately notice that ds2^2 can be written as
follows which is very correct.

** ds2^2 = c^2 (1 – K / R) dt^2 – dr^2 / (1 - K / R) – R^2 dO^2

Or

** ds2^2 = c^2 (1 – K / R) dt^2 – dR^2 / (1 - K / R) – R^2 dO^2

However, the assumption afterwards is very idiotic as if these three
stooges never did pass the grade school mathematics. They somehow are
able to convince themselves that (ds1 = ds2) while (R = r + K).

We will leave this post up to the next generations to laugh at the
stupidities of the three stooges. Again, one is a professor who tries
to teach lies, one is a college drop-out who regurgitates the same
nonsense fed to him, and the last one is a reverend who thinks
everything lead to godhood. This is what 100 years of education in
the Einsteinian crap brings us. sigh
  #99  
Old January 7th 09, 02:09 PM posted to sci.physics,sci.physics.relativity,sci.astro
Eric Gisse
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,465
Default The Motion of the Perihelion of Mercury

On Jan 6, 10:26*pm, Koobee Wublee wrote:
This post is an overall reply to the three stooges. *They are the so-
called professor Draper, the reverend Hammond, and the college drop-
out multi-year super-senior Gisse.


Now I'm a dropout? Remarkable how descriptive cranks can get about
someone who has not explained **** **** all to them. It must be
comforting to know you can lie all you want about other people so long
as you post behind your pseudonym.


The following are indeed two of the infinite number of solutions to
the Einstein field equations. *They are static, spherically symmetric,
and asymptotically flat.

** *ds1^2 = c^2 (1 – K / r) dt^2 – dr^2 / (1 – K / r) – r^2 dO^2

** *ds2^2 = c^2 dt^2 / (1 + K / r) – (1 + K / r) dr^2 – (r + K)^2 dO^2

The coordinate system is the same for both.


No, they aren't. Write the basis vectors. Calculate the surface area
of a sphere.


*However, since they are
all solutions to the field equations, they related through Koobee
Wublee’s theorem or the theorem of Generality that says the following
is a solution with the same coordinate system where u(r) is any
function of r.


This is like watching an idiot reinvent the wheel, one concept at a
time.

Currently the idiot is working on the concept of the "coordinate
transformation" in which a quantity in one coordinate system is
expressed in another coordinate system.


** *ds^2 = c^2 dt^2 / (1 + K / u) – (1 + K / u) (du/dr)^2 dr^2 – (u +
K)^2 dO^2


You didn't even transform the metric correctly. Try again.


The three stooges immediately notice that ds2^2 can be written as
follows which is very correct.

** *ds2^2 = c^2 (1 – K / R) dt^2 – dr^2 / (1 - K / R) – R^2 dO^2

Or

** *ds2^2 = c^2 (1 – K / R) dt^2 – dR^2 / (1 - K / R) – R^2 dO^2

However, the assumption afterwards is very idiotic as if these three
stooges never did pass the grade school mathematics. *They somehow are
able to convince themselves that (ds1 = ds2) while (R = r + K).


Use the grade school mathematics you insist are correct and CALCULATE
THE ANSWER.

I have noticed that while you have been arguing about this stuff for
several years now, you still do not know how to calculate anything. In
fact, whenever you try to calculate something you inevitably get it
wrong.

[snip predictable lies and insults]
  #100  
Old January 7th 09, 06:51 PM posted to sci.physics,sci.physics.relativity,sci.astro
George Hammond[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 22
Default The Motion of the Perihelion of Mercury

On Tue, 6 Jan 2009 23:26:14 -0800 (PST), Koobee Wublee
wrote:



The following are indeed two of the infinite number of solutions to
the Einstein field equations.

[Hammond]
There are an "infinite number" of COORDINATE SYSTEMS but
there is only ONE SOLUTION and that is the Schwarzchild
solution as Birkhoff's theorem proves.
Changing coordinates has NO PHYSICAL EFFECT WHATSOEVER on
the space. You're too ignorant to realize it.


They are static, spherically symmetric,
and asymptotically flat.

** ds1^2 = c^2 (1 – K / r) dt^2 – dr^2 / (1 – K / r) – r^2 dO^2

** ds2^2 = c^2 dt^2 / (1 + K / r) – (1 + K / r) dr^2 – (r + K)^2 dO^2

[Hammond]
They are BOTH the Schwarzchild Metric with a pointless
coordinate transformation (r=R+K) between them.
There is NO PHYSICAL DIFFERENCE between the two metrics as
half a dozen people have told you... including Birkhoff.
You're just an envious incompetent stooge who has become
logically incapacitated by excruciating testicular pain over
Einstein's historic status.
What can I tell you Nummy Nuts? That's just the way the
cookie crumbles.
=====================================
HAMMOND'S PROOF OF GOD WEBSITE
http://geocities.com/scientific_proof_of_god
mirror site:
http://proof-of-god.freewebsitehosting.com
GOD=G_uv (a folk song on mp3)
http://interrobang.jwgh.org/songs/hammond.mp3
=====================================

 




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
Perihelion Advance of Mercury. [email protected] Astronomy Misc 25 November 18th 08 12:12 PM
The Advance of the Perihelion of Mercury Double-A[_2_] Misc 8 June 18th 08 04:00 PM
Perihelion of Mercury question Sorcerer Astronomy Misc 13 January 6th 07 10:24 PM
Perihelion of Mercury question Sorcerer Astronomy Misc 114 January 2nd 07 12:36 AM
Perihelion of Mercury with classical mechanics ? [email protected] Astronomy Misc 34 April 28th 05 06:57 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 10:08 AM.


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