🚀 go-pugleaf

"Australopithecus Afarensis" <fossil.lucy@cox.net> wrote in message
news:NDsFc.35394$6r1.24565@fed1read06...
> I am not disputing what GR predicts.  If it has not, no one would be so
> vehemently defending it.  I don't dispute the gravitational red shift
either
> which is not even covered by Newtonian law of gravity despite some
prominent
> scientists try to explain that one with the gravitational potential
energy.
> The weakness lies in photons having no rest mass.  However, these are
> experimental results.  They are also subject to interpretations.
>
> Does GR predict gravitational sling shots which all modern deep space
probes
> incorporate to save energy?  It does.  How about the gravitational sling
> shot equivalence of a photon?  I mean the exchange of energy.
>
> Does GR leave room for other discoveries on the orbital advance of
Mercury?
> It does not.  Dicke's Bulge is an example.
>
> Does GR predict recent finding in cosmology?  You can argue it does by
> introducing Band-Aids such as inflation, expansion of space, cosmological
> constant, etc.  Yet, all these violate the 1st Law of Thermodynamics
> (conservation of observed energy) and the conservation of observed
momentum.

Come again.  Modern theories predict the negative energy of gravity and the
positive energy of particles etc balance to give no energy.  This is a very
appealing state of affairs.

Thanks
Bill

>
> Let's not get into the subject of singularities.
>
> On the subject of Kepler, you are not giving him enough credit.  Although
> today we don't think very much going from circles to ellipses, Kepler had
no
> help from any mathematical tools nor physical understandings.  He did not
> have calculus as a tool.  Consider what he had to work with, he had done a
> more than superb of a job.  This is unlike Einstein that he has all the
> tools, consultants, and other's previous works to go on.  I think Kepler's
> work is a lot more original than Einstein's and also not to mention the
> relative difficulty level.  The last point on this subject which I
mentioned
> already was Kepler's data points as courtesy of Brahe.  That is the only
> thing Kepler has to work with.
>
> I also do not dispute that Newton is the greatest physicist of all time.
I
> was just surprised that you would pick Newton over Einstein.
>
> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: "Robert J. Kolker" <robert_kolker@hotmail.com>
> Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity,it.scienza
> Sent: Friday, July 02, 2004 05:24 AM
> Subject: Re: Einstein, Dirac and so on....
>
> Australopithecus Afarensis wrote:
>
> > I am surprised you would rate Newton over Einstein, but I do agree with
> you
> > that Newton is the greatest physicist of all time.  The next one is
> Maxwell.
> > Einstein would not even rank the top 100 in my list.
>
> Nonsense. His theory of gravity assures his immortality. His lesser
> works on brownian motion help establish atomic theory once and for all.
> In the early part of the 20-th century there were still physicists, like
> Ernst Mach, who regarded atoms as hypothetical bojums and mere
> heuristic. Then Einstien's work on the photo-electric effect help revive
> interest in Planck's quanta. Einstein made quanta general, the substance
> of radiation, rather than a quirk of radiation from solids, as did Planck.
>
> Einstein wandered off the paths of righteousness into never-never land
> when he committed his life and labor to unified field theory. Also his
> opposition to quantum theory as more than a heuristic alienated him from
> the physics community. Einstein did to quantum theory what Mach did to
> atomic theory, i.e. he relegated it to a gimmic that worked as far as it
> went.
>
> > One genius who did not have anybody's work to build on besides data
points
> > but came up with something very respectable is Kepler.  Another one who
> has
> > his works covering hundred of volumes is Euler.  Euler won out by
> quantity.
>
> Kepler was a mystic ( a Platonic-Pythagorian) and he happened to hit
> lucky on fitting the orbits of planets to ellipses (which is really not
> right). The planets do NOT go in elliptical orbits even with Newtonian
> gravity. If Tycho had a telescope and could determine the ephemeris to
> four more orders of magnitude, Kepler would not have been able to get a
> curve fit.
>
> In fact Newton pointed out in -De Motu- that applying the n-body
> interaction of three or more bodies gravitationaly guaranteed that the
> orbits were not even closed. The fact that Newton understood the
> consequences of n-body interactions (although he did not use that
> terminology) is proof of his towering genius.
>
> Did you know that Newton also attacked a special case of fluid dynamics
> to determine what shape vessel a drip-clock would require to guarantee
> equal time between drips? It was a special case of the Navier-Stokes
> equation he formulated. He was not successful in solving it. But the
> fact that he attacked fluid dynamics at the base is again proof of his
> towering intellect.
>
> > Einstein would be a great physicist if his General Relativity is not
based
> > on the following two assumptions.
> >
> > **  Speed of light being the same every where
> > **  No inertial frame of reference
>
> Expermintally established.
> >
> > He has no excuse to make those assumptions, the Michelson-Morley
> Experiment
> > hinted against his assumptions:
>
> MMX null result supported his assumptions completely. MMX failed to find
> an aether as did the Trouton-Noble experiment. That is one of the
> reasons why Einstein did not assume an aether in his theories.
> >
> > **  Relative speed of light being lowered through time dilation
> > **  More inertial frame of reference through causality of photons
> > (simultaneity of events)
>
> The speed of light is the same in all inertial frames of reference.
> There is experimental evidence to support that hypothesis.
>
> Bob Kolker
>
> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: "Robert J. Kolker" <robert_kolker@hotmail.com>
> Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity,it.scienza
> Sent: Friday, July 02, 2004 05:32 AM
> Subject: Re: Einstein, Dirac and so on....
>
>
> Australopithecus Afarensis wrote:
>
> > The following top topics that elevated Einstein into a Demigod needs to
be
> > examined again.  Einstein knew the answers and fudged GR to meet the
first
> > of the following.
> >
> > **  Mercury's orbit of advance
>
> Totally false. Einsteins theory of gravity flows exclusively from the
> equivalence principle. He made three predictions:
>
> 1. The correct amount of light bending around the sun (twice as large as
> the Newtonian reconing.
>
> 2. The anomalous precession of the perihelia of planets. Mercury was the
> easist to observe but it is the case for all planets. Again he got a
> better reckoning that could be had from Newton's Law of Graviation.
> Newton knew that the orbits of the planets did not close.
>
> 3. The gravitational red-shift of light. This is something that Newton
> could not have gotten.
>
> All three follow from the equivalence principle. Einstein did not do
> simple curve fits.
>
> Planck did that to get a fit to the black body curve. From this curve
> fit Planck got the inspiration for the quantum of radiational energy and
> the first estimate of what is now called Planck's Constant.
>
> And this was Einstein's major work. In his "minor" works in invented the
> quantum of light to account for the photoelectric effect and in his
> paper he came up with another way of estimating Avagadro's number.
>
> In his later career he also did researches that established the basis of
> lasers and he predicted that the universe is expanding. Unfortunately he
> got cold feet with this prediction. Had he stayed the course, he would
> have predicted what Hubble found empirically. So even Einstein's
> "errors" were fruitful
>
> Bob Kolker
>
>