|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#51
|
|||
|
|||
spacetime is just a simple phase space, not "curved"
Harlow "HVAC" wrote:
Quincy @ "1treePetrifiedForestLane" wrote: I shrug the body electric harlow, it's your intelligence plus a zillionths (how's that?) why folks feel the need to "have an aether," when atoms are prepared to do "electronics; how thing works just say, atoms are aetheric, and use it. Harlow, do you have an "aether theory that allevieates the need for electronic orbital conventions?" Harlow wrote: Quincy, did they ever put a name on the mental disability you suffer from? Quincy, I think you left your brain in the petrified forest. hanson write: .... ahahahaha.. AHAHAHAHAHA... ahahaha... "Brian Quincy Hutchings" resides in Santa Monica, CA, at "1treePetrifiedForestLane", from where he was a door-to-door salesman for the Encyclopedia Britannica. Having been unsuccessful at that Quincy became a Rest-room attendant-apprentice at UCLA with/thru which Quincy strenuously tries to create the impression that he is one of those eternal students at UCLA, who never graduate, not even with a B.A.... ahahahaha... To Quincy's credit though, he has perfectly acquired UCLA's freshman slang to demonstrate & exhibit his sub-intellectual prowess, by strutting around with an Einstein hair mop under his donated JR Oppenheimer hat, which he conned out of the sales-girl at the Goodwill store in Santa Monica, him claiming to be a refugee from Madagascar & a "bona fide Pascalian relative per se" so Quincy said. |
#52
|
|||
|
|||
Einstein's biggest mistakes
On 12.06.2013 21:54, Koobee Wublee wrote:
The true bottom line is that there has been no such observation on the anomaly to Mercury’s orbit since 150 years ago. Since you know better, this is a blatant lie. http://www.gethome.no/paulba/pdf/Clemence.pdf The reason is most likely that the measurement just does not agree with the Schwarzschild metric. If you want to prove your claim, I suggest you make a new study of the perihelion advance of Mercury. The data are available for anybody who wants them. From http://ssd.jpl.nasa.gov/?ephemerides#planets and a number of other sources. -- Paul http://www.gethome.no/paulba/ |
#53
|
|||
|
|||
Einstein's biggest mistakes
On Jun 12, 11:53 pm, "Paul B. Andersen" wrote:
On 12.06.2013 21:54, Koobee Wublee wrote: The true bottom line is that there has been no such observation on the anomaly to Mercury’s orbit since 150 years ago. Since you know better, this is a blatant lie. http://www.gethome.no/paulba/pdf/Clemence.pdf The result is nothing new. Kip Thorne’s Gravitation already cited Clemence’s work to justify how precise the Schwarzschild metric is able to predict anything. All thanks to Paul though for bringing up the source, the above article did not offer anything new. In fact, it shows that Clemence did not make any observations himself but instead recycled Le Verrier’s data for the 1850’s or 1860’s. Clemence merely added such ungodly precision to Le Verrier’s numbers in which Le Verrier did not brag about the divine act. shrug Realizing Koobee Wublee is correct, Paul quickly brought out a paper with a formula able to predict the precession of the equinoxes from 1800 to 2200. shrug http://syrte.obspm.fr/iau2006/aa03_412_P03.pdf Taking merit of the paper, Koobee Wublee dug into it until Paul pointed out a few subtle hints that the prediction is actually a linear function with exactly 0.22” increase every 10 years. The authors were simply trying to showcase their second order finding, but the first order result is merely to draw a straight line from what Le Verrier knew to today’s more precise measurement of 25772 years period of this precession. Of course, you are going to arrive at Le Verrier, or perhaps Newcomb’s, number every single time which would justify GR’s prediction of Mercury’s orbital anomaly if assuming all other parameters are right on. Duh! shrug The reason is most likely that the measurement just does not agree with the Schwarzschild metric. If you want to prove your claim, I suggest you make a new study of the perihelion advance of Mercury. The data are available for anybody who wants them. Fromhttp://ssd.jpl.nasa.gov/?ephemerides#planets and a number of other sources. What is that, Paul? JPL’s resume? Perhaps you should be the one taking up on that since you are no longer employed --- as a professor of electrical engineering at the University of Trondheim in Norway. shrug In the meantime, the fact remains. The so-called precise measurements on Mercury’s orbital anomaly are still more than 150 years old where no new data has come forth to support the Schwarzschild metric. In 1947, Clemence regurgitated Le Verrier’s findings from the middle of the 19th century by placing tremendous precisions to them where the self-styled physicists since then have mistook (most likely deliberately) for new data with great precision. shrug Also, all these effects on Mercury’s orbit (namely gravitational pull from other planets) including GR one if indeed exist are not linearly additive. Any parameter will affect the final outcome depending on what other anomalies are. You will realize this if you actually study the differential equations involved in which Paul has refused to do so in very attempt by Koobee Wublee. Paul Gerber simplified the system as linear, and Koobee Wublee thinks Gerber was wrong, and the only way to address this issue is to do: ** The actual measurement which has more than 100 years of data ** Simulation on the entire system In the meantime, take a nap, Paul. You went to sleep thinking about Koobee Wublee’s post, and Koobee Wublee bet you did not have a good night’s sleep. Don’t you want to live to brag about being the oldest man ever lived? shrug http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jiroemon_Kimura Well, licking up every droppings of Einstein the nitwit, the plagiarist, and the liar is certainly not a good way to start. It will create nightmares just like last night for Paul. shrug |
#54
|
|||
|
|||
Einstein's biggest mistakes
On Thu, 13 Jun 2013 08:53:04 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen"
wrote: On 12.06.2013 21:54, Koobee Wublee wrote: The true bottom line is that there has been no such observation on the anomaly to Mercury’s orbit since 150 years ago. Since you know better, this is a blatant lie. http://www.gethome.no/paulba/pdf/Clemence.pdf The reason is most likely that the measurement just does not agree with the Schwarzschild metric. If you want to prove your claim, I suggest you make a new study of the perihelion advance of Mercury. The data are available for anybody who wants them. From http://ssd.jpl.nasa.gov/?ephemerides#planets and a number of other sources. Of everything written in this paper, I find this statement the most revealing, "Although mean orbital elements are also available for planetary satellites, you are strongly discouraged from using them to generate your own ephemerides, as they will be highly inaccurate for many bodies. " Say no more..... Henry Wilson DSc. |
#55
|
|||
|
|||
Einstein's biggest mistakes
On 13.06.2013 12:58, Henry Wilson DSc. wrote:
On Thu, 13 Jun 2013 08:53:04 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen" wrote: On 12.06.2013 21:54, Koobee Wublee wrote: The reason is most likely that the measurement just does not agree with the Schwarzschild metric. If you want to prove your claim, I suggest you make a new study of the perihelion advance of Mercury. The data are available for anybody who wants them. From http://ssd.jpl.nasa.gov/?ephemerides#planets and a number of other sources. Of everything written in this paper, I find this statement the most revealing, "Although mean orbital elements are also available for planetary satellites, you are strongly discouraged from using them to generate your own ephemerides, as they will be highly inaccurate for many bodies. " And what does it reveal? -- Paul http://www.gethome.no/paulba/ |
#56
|
|||
|
|||
can anyone show the epicycle for precession of equinoxes; thank you
what is a "mean orbital element" do?
"Although mean orbital elements are also available for planetary satellites, you are strongly discouraged from using them to generate your own ephemerides, as they will be highly inaccurate for many bodies. " |
#57
|
|||
|
|||
Einstein's biggest mistakes
On Jun 13, 11:32 am, "Paul B. Andersen" wrote:
On 13.06.2013 12:58, Henry Wilson DSc. wrote: Of everything written in this paper, I find this statement the most revealing, "Although mean orbital elements are also available for planetary satellites, you are strongly discouraged from using them to generate your own ephemerides, as they will be highly inaccurate for many bodies. " And what does it reveal? As Mr. Wilson has pointed out, the sun-Jupiter system has a common barycenter that is just outside the sun, and almost all others including the earth orbit around the sun (slight off the center but nevertheless so). This all cause a slight but significant for scientific interests on the observed orbits of all planets including the Mercury. shrug All the planets do not orbit a common center around the sun. Jupiter and the sun orbit a common center outside of the sun as Mr. Wilson has pointed out, and each planet negotiates a common center which is closer to the center of the sun. The system is not quite Copernicus. shrug Naturally, any orbit especially Mercury can be quite chaotic as Mr. Wilson has pointed out, and this is what is revealed, Paul. So, essentially, no planet orbits around any inertial coordinate --- according to SR’s jargon. shrug |
#58
|
|||
|
|||
Einstein's biggest mistakes
On Jun 14, 8:37*am, Koobee Wublee wrote:
On Jun 13, 11:32 am, "Paul B. Andersen" wrote: On 13.06.2013 12:58, Henry Wilson DSc. wrote: Of everything written in this paper, I find this statement the most revealing, "Although mean orbital elements are also available for planetary satellites, you are strongly discouraged from using them to generate your own ephemerides, as they will be highly inaccurate for many bodies. " And what does it reveal? As Mr. Wilson has pointed out, the sun-Jupiter system has a common barycenter that is just outside the sun, and almost all others including the earth orbit around the sun (slight off the center but nevertheless so). *This all cause a slight but significant for scientific interests on the observed orbits of all planets including the Mercury. *shrug All the planets do not orbit a common center around the sun. *Jupiter and the sun orbit a common center outside of the sun as Mr. Wilson has pointed out, and each planet negotiates a common center which is closer to the center of the sun. *The system is not quite Copernicus. shrug This cracks me up,the motions of the planets and even the stars are line-of-sight observations but because the dummies in the late 17th century created a homocentric spinning celestial sphere framework known as the equatorial coordinate system,the line of sight observations were lost to parallax - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Parallax_Example.svg The reference for the orbital cycle was based on the disappearance of Sirius behind the glare of the Sun due to the orbital motion of the Earth,the Egyptians spotted that the reappearance of Sirius from behind the glare of the Sun coincided with the flooding of the Nile hence we have the system of timekeeping reflecting 1461 days to 4 annual cycles or the dynamical equivalent of 1461 rotations to 4 orbital circuits. ".. that the year of 360 days and the 5 days added to their end, so one day shall be from this day after every 4 years added to the 5 epagomenae before the new year, whereby all men shall learn, that what was a little defective in the order as regards the seasons and the year, as also the opinions which are contained in the rules of the learned on the heavenly orbits," Canopus decree The ephemerides system is based on homocentricity in that it tries to squeeze the daily and orbital motions of the Earth into a projection of the Earth's rotation into space. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oQZp0lEEpsc It is a shame that there is nobody around to see the whole point of relativity ,whether people are for or against it,in that it is really protecting Sir Isaac and his late 17th century mob who didn't know enough about astronomy to spot the flaw in Flamsteed's coordinate system - "... our clocks kept so good a correspondence with the Heavens that I doubt it not but they would prove the revolutions of the Earth to be constant.." Flamsteed Ah,a bunch of mathematicians flailing around with astronomical terms was bound to cause serious mischief yet it is not without hope.You should listen to Leibniz guys,you really should - "These are the imaginings of incomplete- notions-philosophers who make space an absolute reality. Such notions are apt to be fudged up by devotees of pure mathematics, whose whole subject- matter is the playthings of imagination, but they are destroyed by higher reasoning" Leibniz I need participators and not half dead spectators who rely on the guys in the early 20th century and who was right and who was wrong,this is the 21st century and I suggest readers join me in the 21st century as though our generation is the most important in these affairs and it truly is. |
#59
|
|||
|
|||
Einstein's biggest mistakes
On Jun 14, 10:30*am, Henry Wilson DSc. hw@.... wrote:
On Fri, 14 Jun 2013 00:56:12 -0700 (PDT), oriel36 wrote: I need participators and not half dead spectators who rely on the guys in the early 20th century and who was right and who was wrong,this is the 21st century and I suggest readers join me in the 21st century as though our generation is the most important in these affairs and it truly is. When are you going to contribute something positive instead of quoting history? Henry Wilson DSc. You unfortunate people are lost in a labyrinth that is not of your own making but what is certain is that history will record you are the spinning celestial sphere cult that began with Flamsteed,snowballed with Sir Isaac's agenda and made worse by the early 20th century guys. Rule number one - Do not,I repeat,do not reference the motion of the stellar background through parallax like so - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Parallax_Example.svg The line of sight observation for the orbital cycle uses a reference that does not go through the central Sun and your entire ephemerides data does exactly the wrong thing in this respect.The quote from the Egyptians which gives you ungrateful people the whole basis for human timekeeping involves the apparent motion of Sirius as it is lost annually behind the glare of the Sun and reappears - " on account of the precession of the rising of the Divine Sirius by one day in the course of 4 years ..therefore it shall be, that the year of 360 days and the 5 days added to their end, so one day shall be from this day after every 4 years added to the 5 epagomenae before the New Year, whereby all men shall learn, that what was a little defective in the order as regards the seasons and the year, as also the opinions which are contained in the rules of the learned on the heavenly orbits, are now corrected and improved" Canopus decree It is a gift to be capable of putting references in order instead of mixing them like you poor mathematicians,kind of like those eidetic memories where you can 'see' the motions in front of you as those they were as real as you see the motions of all objects.I don't blame the guys in the early 20th century for trying to escape Newton's rotating celestial sphere agenda while retaining its 'predictive' value but this generation are merely voodoo chanters ,one no better than the other. The empirical community/cult doesn't like hearing dictates from genuine astronomers and will try to muddle on believing they have some insight into the celestial arena but ultimately it is a spinning celestial sphere culture without merit,integrity,intelligence or any of the positive attributes of human endeavor. Sorry. |
#60
|
|||
|
|||
Einstein's biggest mistakes
"Koobee Wublee" wrote: Henry Wilson DSc. wrote: Of everything written in this paper, I find this statement the most revealing, "Although mean orbital elements are also available for planetary satellites, you are strongly discouraged from using them to generate your own ephemerides, as they will be highly inaccurate for many bodies. " "Paul B. Andersen" wrote: And what does it reveal? "Koobee Wublee" wrote: As Mr. Wilson has pointed out, the sun-Jupiter system has a common barycenter that is just outside the sun, and almost all others including the earth orbit around the sun (slight off the center but nevertheless so). This all cause a slight but significant for scientific interests on the observed orbits of all planets including the Mercury. shrug All the planets do not orbit a common center around the sun. Jupiter and the sun orbit a common center outside of the sun as Mr. Wilson has pointed out, and each planet negotiates a common center which is closer to the center of the sun. The system is not quite Copernicus. shrug Naturally, any orbit especially Mercury can be quite chaotic as Mr. Wilson has pointed out, and this is what is revealed, Paul. So, essentially, no planet orbits around any inertial coordinate --- according to SR’s jargon. shrug hanson wrote: A few years back, some one, either KW or Wilson posted a link to a website which gave detailed calculations, using Newtonian physics, including the barycenter concept, which produced the precise Perihelion amount of Mercury. Taking the same barycenter idea into account one can make a case that black holes nothing more then a Newtonian description of stellar or galactic n-body problem using D'Alembert's approach. No Einstein crap nor convoluted metrics, Schwartzschild or otherwise needed. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
EINSTEIN'S 'BIGGEST BLUNDER' TURNS OUT TO BE RIGHT | cjcountess | Astronomy Misc | 5 | December 22nd 10 04:39 PM |
Einstein Biggest Blunder | G=EMC^2 Glazier[_1_] | Misc | 14 | April 9th 07 08:51 AM |
Einstein's Mistakes | brian a m stuckless | Policy | 0 | January 19th 06 10:55 AM |
Einstein's Mistakes | brian a m stuckless | Astronomy Misc | 0 | January 19th 06 10:55 AM |
Was Einstein's 'biggest blunder' a stellar success? (Forwarded) | Andrew Yee | News | 0 | November 23rd 05 04:56 AM |