🚀 go-pugleaf

On Feb 10, 4:01 pm, srp2...@gmail.com wrote:
> On 9 fév, 23:46, rbwinn <rbwi...@juno.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Feb 9, 8:42�pm, Randy Poe <poespam-t...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Feb 9, 7:53 pm, rbwinn <rbwi...@juno.com> wrote:
>
> > > > OK, so you do not believe Kepler had a number.
>
> > > I didn't say whether I believed Kepler had a number of not.
> > > I asked you what number you were referring to.
>
> > > > Kepler thought that he
> > > > did. �It was R^3/T^2 = 3.353, more or less.
>
> > > OK, that's a number. What about it?
>
> > > > Newton used Kepler's number in his equation for the centripetal force
> > > > on a planet.
>
> > > No, Newton didn't "use Kepler's number". Newton
> > > proved why R and T have this relation from more fundamental
> > > considerations.
>
> > > > Now I don't know what you are saying about welding.
>
> > > I'm asking you what theory you want to talk about.
>
> > > (1) Newton's theory, which would be the theory that, you know,
> > > was Newton's. I will only insist on sticking to Newton physics
> > > if you say that we are having a "pure Newtonian" discussion.
> > > That would be what is implied by the words "Newtonian"
> > > and "pure".
>
> > > (2) GR, where time is affected by gravitational potential
> > > and orbits are geodesics, or
>
> > > (3) Some theory where you have welded GR results with
> > > Newtonian equations, which is neither GR nor Newton but
> > > a hybrid monster, and possibly not drivable.
>
> > > I'm happy to talk about one, but you have to pick. Don't
> > > say you're talking about (1) and then immediately switch
> > > to (3).
>
> > > You have some question about the GR effect of time
> > > and gravitational fields. So we're in either (2) or
> > > (3). Which is it, and what's your question?
>
> > > � � � � - Randy
>
> > I don't really have any questions any more.  I had a question about 20
> > years ago which I posted in this newsgroup which was about the two
> > little equations Einstein extracted from the Lorentz equations, x=ct,
> > x'=ct'.   After years and years of nonsense, I finally figured out the
> > answer to my question.  Einstein's two little equations were wrong.
> > The Lorentz equations were not the correct equations for what Einstein
> > said he was doing.
> >      What I was discussing with you was the difference that according
> > to scientists exists in Newton's equations if you use time from a
> > clock in a satellite as compared with time from a clock on earth.
> > Newton knew of no such time difference, so he never considered it.
> > According to you, since Newton never considered it, it does not apply
> > to his equations, and it would be "impure" in some way to compare this
> > difference.
> >        I say that if Newton's equations are applied using clock times
> > from two different frames of reference, and two different
> > gravitational constants are found, then one or the other or something
> > in between must be the actual constant, since two different answers
> > are not constant.
> >    As for whether or not Newton used Kepler's ratio, I was basing what
> > I said on what is said in a physics book, "Newton explained many years
> > later that he was led to the correct force law by working backwards
> > from Kepler's third law."
> > So the fact of the matter is that either Newton did use Kepler's ratio
> > R^3/T^2 or else the writers of that physics book lied about it.
>
> Your quote is correct. Georges Gamow even explained how Newton
> mathematically proceeded in his small book "Gravity", Science
> Study Series, Doubleday, 1962, chapters 2, 3 and 4.
>
> André Michaud
>
>
>
> > It
> > does not matter to me.  Kepler's ratio definitely fits into Newton's
> > equation, whether the writers of that physics book lied about Newton
> > using it or not.  Scientists lie all the time.  Possibly the writers
> > of that book did lie as you are claiming, or maybe they just came to a
> > wrong conclusion because it seemed logical to them.  Perhaps we will
> > never know.  Why was it so important to you that Newton got his
> > equation from somewhere else than Kepler's third law?
> > Robert B. Winn- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Thank you for clearing that up, Andre.
Robert B. Winn