🚀 go-pugleaf

On Feb 9, 9:34 am, Randy Poe <poespam-t...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Feb 9, 10:38 am, rbwinn <rbwi...@juno.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Feb 9, 6:37 am, Randy Poe <poespam-t...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Feb 9, 5:29 am, rbwinn <rbwi...@juno.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On Feb 6, 12:15�pm, Randy Poe <poespam-t...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > On Feb 6, 2:00 pm, Albertito <albertito1...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > On 6 feb, 18:54, Randy Poe <poespam-t...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > On Feb 6, 12:39 pm, Albertito <albertito1...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > On 6 feb, 16:48, "Androcles" <Headmas...@Hogwarts.physics> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > <srp2...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> > > > > > > > >news:4695358e-db97-4485-94b4-06f417a451d4@i7g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
> > > > > > > > > On 6 f�v, 02:34, Pentcho Valev <pva...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > >http://philipball.blogspot.com/2007/09/arthur-eddington-was-innocent-...
> > > > > > > > > > "With the technology then available, measuring the bending of
> > > > > > > > > > starlight was very challenging. And contrary to popular belief,
> > > > > > > > > > Newtonian physics did not predict that light would remain undeflected
> > > > > > > > > > - Einstein himself pointed out in 1911 that Newtonian gravity should
> > > > > > > > > > cause some deviation too. So the matter was not that of an all-or-
> > > > > > > > > > nothing shift in stars' positions, but hinged on the exact numbers."
>
> > > > > > > > > | Right.
>
> > > > > > > > > | Classical Newtonian mechanics predicts that light will bend with
> > > > > > > > > | twice the angle observed.
>
> > > > > > > > > How?
>
> > > > > > > > I'll tell you how. In order to see how newtonian gravity can
> > > > > > > > bend the trajectory of a photon, relativists fake it. They
> > > > > > > > magically tranform a photon with energy E into a particle
> > > > > > > > with mass m = E/2c^2, it is saying �half the mass in E = mc^2.
> > > > > > > > Then, relativists assume that particle passes by the massive
> > > > > > > > body from infinity travelling locally at c, and then they can
> > > > > > > > apply newtonian gravity to see how its trajectory is deflected
> > > > > > > > into a hyperbolic one. As a result there is a deflection angle
> > > > > > > > twice the observed one. A particle with mass m = E/c^2,
> > > > > > > > travelling locally at c from infinity, would be deflected in
> > > > > > > > the correct angle, under newtonian gravity.
>
> > > > > > > Why don't you do the Newtonian calculation before
> > > > > > > making this claim?
>
> > > > > > > � � � � � - Randy
>
> > > > > > The calculations have been already done by you relativists,http://www.theory.caltech.edu/people/patricia/obsertop.html
>
> > > > > Correct.
>
> > > > > > I'm only witness of that, and I see that if we double the mass
> > > > > > assumed for a photon we attain the correct answer.
>
> > > > > There are a great many assumptions in those
> > > > > equations which you are not aware of. You are trying
> > > > > to change the meaning of the symbols midstream.
>
> > > > > Here's what those orbital mechanics equations look like for
> > > > > planetary orbits:http://www.go.ednet.ns.ca/~larry/orbits/kepler.html
> > > > > Note that E is the sum of kinetic energy and potential
> > > > > energy. So what are you going to use for this E? Do
> > > > > you really want to use mc^2 and claim it's a Newtonian
> > > > > model?
>
> > > > > If you were doing Newtonian gravitation the way Newton
> > > > > did it to calculate the planetary orbits, you'd say
> > > > > the kinetic energy is (1/2)*mc^2, and the potential
> > > > > energy is -GMm/r. Then you'd find out that the mass m
> > > > > drops out, that is the parameter E/m = [c^2/2 - GM/r]
> > > > > does not depend on m.
>
> > > > > Let's start from the basics: What is the initial velocity,
> > > > > what is the acceleration, what is the result?
>
> > > > > Start out with a velocity c, mass m, distance R
> > > > > as it passes near mass M.
>
> > > > > The acceleration experienced by the mass m is
> > > > > GM/R^2. That is what you would apply to the velocity
> > > > > vector to get the change in velocity. It does not
> > > > > depend on m.
>
> > > > > Trajectories of small bodies through solar systems do
> > > > > not depend on mass.
>
> > > > > � � � � � � - Randy- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > > > - Show quoted text -
>
> > > > Well, you are also using the concept of absolute time if you say
> > > > this.
>
> > > If I'm doing a Newtonian calculation, I do it with Newtonian
> > > physics.
>
> > > > But according to scientists, they have proven that a clock in
> > > > S' will run slower than a clock in S, so my question is, What does
> > > > that do to Newton's equations?
>
> > > Whatever it does (and I have no interest in your nonsense),
> > > the result is not Newtonian physics. Call it something else.
> > > If you want to ask, "what does pure Newtonian physics predict"
> > > then the answer is done with Newtonian physics, not some
> > > hybrid.
>
> > >               - Randy- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > - Show quoted text -
>
> > Well, OK, Randy, let's use pure Newtonian physics.  Newton is sitting
> > under a tree trying to figure out the orbit of the moon, and an apple
> > falls and hits him on the head.  So Newton remembers Galileo's
> > experiment with the two different size rocks on the leaning tower or
> > Pisa and decides that the moon is falling toward the earth at a rate
> > that keeps it always at the same altitude.  So he uses Kepler's
> > equation for the radius of an orbit and figures the force required.
>
> Garbled. But at any rate, in Newtonian physics we can write the
> equation
>     GMm/r^2 = d^2/dt^2 [m*x ]
>
> and calculate the behavior of mass m in the presence of mass M.
>
> >     All I asked was how a slower clock on the moon would apply to the
> > equations.
>
> Didn't you start this post with this statement:
> "let's use pure Newtonian physics."?
>
> There's no "slower clock on the moon" in pure Newtonian
> physics.
>
> > You people were the ones who said that a clock on the moon
> > would be running slower.
>
> Faster, actually. In the theory called GR. Not in
> "pure Newtonian physics".
>
> > Now you have all of these GPS satellites,
> > etc.  How do the times on the clocks in those satellites relate to
> > their orbits?
>
> Well, that's a different question. Did you want to ask
> a question about satellite orbits in GR or in Newtonian
> mechanics? Don't say "Newtonian" and then ask a GR question.
>
> I'm going to try to make an analogy with a subject you
> might understand: welding. If I weld the left half of
> a Mercedes-Benz to the right half of a Volkswagon Beetle,
> and find this creates all sorts of problems, does this
> tell me that the Benz is poorly designed?
>
> OK, OK, let's just talk about the pure Benz and how
> poorly it handles. I took my welded Benz-Beetle out
> for a drive and found... what's that? That's not a pure
> Benz anymore? What's wrong with you? I'm just trying
> to ask you a question about handling of the Mercedes
> Benz!
>
> >      You keep claiming that the equations that Newton used are
> > scripture of some kind.
>
> No, I'm claiming that if you want to claim you're
> doing Newtonian mechanics, you should be using the
> Newtonian physics. If you want to throw something else
> in there, you can certainly do it, there's no law against
> it. But it's no longer Newtonian physics.
>
> What, is the Mercedes Benz some holy grail that I'm
> not allowed to weld onto? Was it created by St. Peter
> or something? What's wrong with my welding job? Just
> answer the question about why the handling of the
> Mercedes is so bad, based on my experiments with
> my welded vehicle!
>
> > Kepler's number was just an approximation.
>
> What number?
>
> > It did not exactly match the orbit of anything from the start.
>
> But Newton's equations matched the behavior astonishingly
> well, and could even be extended to model the interaction
> of multiple bodies with high accuracy. To the extent that
> NASA still uses them, and so does every agency which
> tracks the thousands of bits of spacecraft and rubble
> traveling around the earth.
>
> > It was
> > just an average taken from the orbits that could be observed.
>
> That's nice, but we were talking about Newton's theory,
> not Kepler's. Newton explained Kepler's Laws, and also
> in what way they are an approximation.
>
> >       Maybe if clock time was used instead of absolute time, Kepler's
> > calculation of the orbits would be closer, maybe it would be less
> > accurate.  I have no way of determining any of this.  I have no time
> > to run an experiment of that kind.  I have to work every day welding.
> >       So I ask a scientist.  No, Newton's equations are scripture.
>
> If you ask me about Newton's equations, then those are
> the equations I'm going to use. You've dragged both
> pre-Newton and post-Newton science into this discussion.
> Are you asking about Newton's equations or not?
>
> What the hell is wrong with this Mercedes Benz
> anyway? It's just a terrible car.
>
> > You cannot use them any way except the way Newton did.
>
> I can use them any way I want. And I can even change
> them. But then I have to say they aren't Newton's
> equations any more.
>
> What's wrong with saying that? Why do you want to
> change them and then pretend they're unchanged?
> You want to explore the welded theory, let's do it.
>
>              - Randy- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

OK, so you do not believe Kepler had a number.  Kepler thought that he
did.  It was R^3/T^2 = 3.353, more or less.
Newton used Kepler's number in his equation for the centripetal force
on a planet.

                       F=4(pi)^2 Km/R^2

Now I don't know what you are saying about welding.  So is this
equation used according to time on a clock on earth a Mercedes Benz
and this equation used according to time on a clock in a satellite a
Volkswagen?
Well, all right.  But the fact remains that you get two different
values for the centripetal force on the satellite.  That means you
will get two different values for a gravitational constant, depending
on which clock you use.  Now here is something you may not realize
about welding.  Just because you have a Mercedes Benz and a
Volkswagen, it does not mean you have to cut both cars in half and
weld them together.  You could leave both cars in their original
condition.  I do not know if you ever considered two cars this way.
Anyway, it is something you might want to consider, just leaving the
Mercedex Benz as a Mercedes Benz and the Volkswagen as a Volkswagen.
But, then, if your religious beliefs require you to cut the cars in
half, who am I to criticize?
Robert B. Winn