🚀 go-pugleaf

On Feb 10, 5:12 am, rbwinn <rbwi...@juno.com> wrote:
> On Feb 10, 4:40 am, Eric Gisse <jowr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Feb 9, 7:46 pm, 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.
>
> > 20 years and you still don't understand? Nice.
>
> Well, yes, I do understand, Eric.  If you had read the entire post,
> you would have read the sentence that said, Scientists lie all the
> time.  As I recall, you were going to prove that these equations are
> wrong.  Just take a few minutes and show all of these scientists how
> well you understand.

What chance do I have of making you understand anything through 20+
years of failure?

Go back to whatever it was you were doing before you decided to
pollute USENET with your shitposting.

>
>                         x'=x-vt
>                         y'=y
>                         z'=z
>                         t'=t
>
>                         w=velocity of light
>                         x=wt
>                         x'=wn'
>                         wn'=wt-vt
>                          n'=t(1-v/w)
>
> Robert B. Winn