|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#61
|
|||
|
|||
Einstein's biggest mistakes
On 6/14/2013 12:45 PM, hanson wrote:
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. hearsay so far. can you cite the link or the post that cited the link? |
#62
|
|||
|
|||
Einstein's biggest mistakes
Fatso lamented "Absolutely Vertical"
when he wrote : 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. Fatso wrote: hearsay so far. can you cite the link or the post that cited the link? hanson wrote: Fatso, you lazy *******, do your own research. But I give you kudos that you have shown an interest that reaches past your standard old text book crap-repeats. There is hope for you, Fatso. Carry on. |
#63
|
|||
|
|||
Einstein's biggest mistakes
On 6/14/2013 1:26 PM, hanson wrote:
Fatso lamented "Absolutely Vertical" when he wrote : 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. Fatso wrote: hearsay so far. can you cite the link or the post that cited the link? hanson wrote: Fatso, you lazy *******, do your own research. But I give you kudos that you have shown an interest that reaches past your standard old text book crap-repeats. There is hope for you, Fatso. Carry on. so you can't back up your statement. well, say anything then. like guppies have hooves -- prove me wrong! well, since there are lots and lots and lots of links that point to the newtonian calculation done correctly (and which leads to the anomaly that is filled by general relativity), then it is harder to find the link that does the calculation incorrectly. but this may be it: http://www.newtonphysics.on.ca/mercury/ now -- since the web pages that have the correct calculations are much easier to find than this one, then it shouldn't be too difficult to identify the location of the error, and that's left as an exercise to you. of course, you can also take the approach that, since both correct and incorrect web pages can be found and nobody has policed the web to remove the incorrect one, then it must still be a controversial topic. much like the flat earth society, the young-earth creationists, the apollo-hoax conspiracy fans, etc. |
#64
|
|||
|
|||
Einstein's biggest mistakes
Even when it is possible to see orbital dynamics directly and the need
to partition the effects of local solar system dynamics from galactic orbital dynamics you cut each other to pieces over a rotating celestial sphere ideology that is effectively a train wreck. http://astro.berkeley.edu/~echiang/fomalhaut/fom.html Circular orbits may be back on the menu by virtue of a default geometry partitioning the solar system's galactic orbital motion from internal dynamics of the planets with variations in orbital speeds a consequence of electromagnetic signatures just as two like poles of a magnet being brought close to each other would cause an acceleration due to repulsion. Of course this is speculative but imaging is on my side presently that there is orbital partitioning. |
#65
|
|||
|
|||
Einstein's biggest mistakes
: oriel36
: Even when it is possible to see orbital dynamics directly and the need : to partition the effects of local solar system dynamics from galactic : orbital dynamics you cut each other to pieces over a rotating : celestial sphere ideology that is effectively a train wreck. The funny thing here is, that origel is the one who uses a "rotating celestial sphere" in practical terms. Specifically, he claims the earth's axis makes a rotation (which he calls "precession") once a year. The only way that can be so is if the stars rotate at exactly the same rate. Even more amusing, origel makes the same claim about Uranus' axis. That is rotates once a Uranian year. But that's only true in a frame in which the "celestial sphere" also rotates once a Uranian year. So, the celestial sphere rotates at entirely different rates (according to origel; he may not recognize it, but it's an inevitable implication of his claims about axial precession) for different planets, all at the same time. All in the name of removing Newtonian (and subsequent) "complications" and/or "obvious mistakes". Even more amusing than that, in the frame in which the earth's axis precesses once a year, earth has no orbital velocity. All these trivial implications of origel's bafflegab apparently whoosh right over his head. Newton, Einstein, and everybody sensible, supposes that the "celestial sphere" (an abstract construct with the distant stars projected to a spherical surface) does in fact *not* rotate. |
#66
|
|||
|
|||
Einstein's biggest mistakes
doesn't quite parse; but,
I would be happy to see precession fitted to barycenters. 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. |
#67
|
|||
|
|||
Einstein's biggest mistakes
Einstein Dingleberry, Fatso, kept on lamenting "Absolutely Vertical" & vigorously fanatical when he wrote: 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. Fatso wrote: hearsay so far. can you cite the link or the post that cited the link? hanson wrote: Fatso, you lazy *******, do your own research. But I give you kudos that you have shown an interest that reaches past your standard old text book crap-repeats. There is hope for you, Fatso. Carry on. Fatso wrote: so you can't back up your statement. hanson wrote: ..... Fatso, you just extinguished the candle of hope I had for you. Fatso, there is a incisive and decisive difference between "can't" & "won't", yet you sorry sad sack "can't" see the difference...snipped some more of Fatso's tripe to save him embarrassment Fatso wrote:. .... anything then ... is filled by general relativity... hanson wrote: Fatso, GR does not fill anything, except that it drowns your senile brain in Gedanken farts, which you proselytize for, religiously, even now, 60+ years after _ Einstein himself became a SR/GR Relativity denier _ http://tinyurl.com/Einstein-denied-his-SR-and-GR Fatso wrote: .... this link ...may be it: http://www.newtonphysics.on.ca/mercury/ hanson wrote: While I am glad that you are given still a modicum of curiosity in your nether world of textbook crap, your link is not what I was referring to. The article in question only dealt, elegantly, with the Barycenter-including Newtonian calcs which give the observed result. Hopefully, the OP who posted it will come forth to help and show you, but since you **** off most folks, he might let you dangle as the Einstein Dingleberry that you are, & let you sway in the warm breeze of Einstein's useless farts: http://tinyurl.com/Einstein-denied-his-SR-and-GR snipped the rest of Fatso's silly exculpation attempts where Fatso sings about "the flat earth society, the young-earth creationists & the apollo-hoax conspiracy fans" ... ahahaha... Fatso listen, get a hold of yourself and carry on searching. And... Fatso, you are always good for a chuckle. Thanks... ahahahaha... ahahahanson |
#68
|
|||
|
|||
biggest mistake was reifying Newton's untheory of light, andMinkowski's simplest phase-space
ahaha; Kepler uncovered teh cosmical curvature, although
it took Gauss to put the idea into mathematical practice (curvature is the reciprocal of diameter, or the product of two orhtogonal (linear curve).curvatures. |
#69
|
|||
|
|||
Einstein's biggest mistakes
"Brian Quincy Hutchings" resides in Santa Monica,
CA, at "1treePetrifiedForestLane", from where he was once an unsuccessful door-to-door salesman for the Encyclopedia Britannica. So, Quincy switched jobs and became a promising 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 saying stuff like: :::: "a wave is a wave; is wavey" and "I would be :::: happy to see precession fitted to barycenters. [1] & then he strutts around with an Einstein hair mop under his beat up 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"... Quincy said. [1]: "Quincy, put your 5 gallon cardboard box of wine that you have guzzled today back into the reefer, and ask the posters who know, nicely.. and Quincy the Barycenter do not fit into any precession. That only seems to you to be that way because your head is heavy and feels like spinning... AHAHAHA... |
#70
|
|||
|
|||
Einstein's biggest mistakes
The June 13 - 2013 Edition Of weezer919.com Has Been Published ......
http://weezer919.com/ ...... Please Take A Few Moments To Visit This Website ...... Please Read This Website ...... Please Click The ...... (((Facebook))) ...... (((SHARE))) ...... Button At The Top Of The weezer919.com Homepage ...... Please Email This Website To Your Friends ...... ----------------------------------------- If You Know How To Build Websites ...... Please Copy And Re-Publish This Website ...... You Can Call It ... "Your Website" ...... I Do Not Care ...... All I Want Is A Voice ...... ----------------------------------------- Undermine Their Pompous Authority ...... Reject Their Moral Standards ...... Make Anarchy And Disorder Your Trademarks ...... Cause As Much Chaos And Disruption As Possible ...... But Don't Let Them Take You ALIVE. Sid Vicious |
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 05:39 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 11:55 AM |
Einstein's Mistakes | brian a m stuckless | Astronomy Misc | 0 | January 19th 06 11:55 AM |
Was Einstein's 'biggest blunder' a stellar success? (Forwarded) | Andrew Yee | News | 0 | November 23rd 05 05:56 AM |