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

Einstein's biggest mistakes



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #61  
Old June 14th 13, 06:52 PM posted to sci.physics.relativity,sci.physics,sci.astro
Absolutely Vertical
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 37
Default 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  
Old June 14th 13, 07:26 PM posted to sci.physics.relativity,sci.physics,sci.astro
hanson
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,934
Default 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  
Old June 14th 13, 08:37 PM posted to sci.physics.relativity,sci.physics,sci.astro
Absolutely Vertical
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 37
Default 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  
Old June 14th 13, 10:18 PM posted to alt.astronomy,sci.physics,sci.physics.relativity,rec.arts.sf.written,sci.astro
oriel36[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 8,478
Default 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  
Old June 14th 13, 11:24 PM posted to alt.astronomy,sci.physics,sci.physics.relativity,rec.arts.sf.written,sci.astro
Wayne Throop
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,062
Default 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  
Old June 15th 13, 05:04 AM posted to sci.physics.relativity,sci.physics,sci.astro
1treePetrifiedForestLane
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 974
Default 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  
Old June 15th 13, 05:13 AM posted to sci.physics.relativity,sci.physics,sci.astro
hanson
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,934
Default 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  
Old June 15th 13, 05:37 AM posted to sci.physics.relativity,sci.physics,sci.astro
1treePetrifiedForestLane
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 974
Default 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  
Old June 15th 13, 05:41 AM posted to sci.physics.relativity,sci.physics,sci.astro
hanson
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,934
Default 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  
Old June 15th 13, 06:16 AM posted to sci.physics.relativity,sci.physics,sci.astro
weezer919.com (=) (=) weezer919.com (=) (=) weezer919.com
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1
Default 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

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
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


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 09:25 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.