Science > Physics > Psychotic Humpty Roberts places foot in mouth (again).
| Topic: |
Science > Physics |
| User: |
"Androcles" |
| Date: |
29 Apr 2007 09:53:14 AM |
| Object: |
Psychotic Humpty Roberts places foot in mouth (again). |
"Nonsense. GR obtains essentially the same answer as Newtonian mechanics =
for this physical situation. The difference is far below measurement=20
accuracy." -- Humpty Roberts
( news:OL1Zh.3789$H_.241@newssvr21.news.prodigy.net )
For the advance of perihelion of Mercury, predicted
by Newtonian Mechanics to within 43 arc seconds per century=20
(=3D 415 orbits) which is
415 orbits * 360 degrees =3D 149400 degrees
149400 degrees * 60 arc minutes =3D 8964000 arc minutes
8964000 arc minutes * 60 arc seconds =3D 537840000 arc seconds.
43
-------------------------------- x 100 =3D 0.00000799494273389855719%
537840000
The difference is far below ANY measurement accuracy. =20
Einstein with his 4-figure log tables and 3-figure sliderule
could not be that accurate and was not an astronomer.=20
"This is PHYSICS, not math or logic, and "proof" is completely =
irrelevant."
"But physics is not math, and we often use approximations. SR is
approximately valid when the curvature of the manifold is negligible
over the region of interest compared to one's measurement accuracy. That
is, if gravity is negligible (or compensated for), SR can probably be
used." -- Humpty Roberts
"Amateurs look at data, professionals look at errorbars." -- Humpty =
Roberts=20
Humpty Roberts sat on a wall,
Humpty Roberts had a great fall.
All Lucent technology, Lucent's best men
Couldn't put Humpty together again.
"Everything should be as psychotic as possible, but not simpler." -- =
Einstein.
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/
.
|
|
| User: "Tom Roberts" |
|
| Title: Re: Psychotic Humpty Roberts places foot in mouth (again). |
29 Apr 2007 06:27:45 PM |
|
|
Androcles wrote:
Tom Roberts wrote:
"Nonsense. GR obtains essentially the same answer as Newtonian mechanics
for this physical situation. The difference is far below measurement
accuracy."
That was in reference to tides on earth, not the perihelion shift of
Mercury.
Tom Roberts
.
|
|
|
| User: "Androcles" |
|
| Title: Re: Psychotic Humpty Roberts places foot in mouth (again). |
30 Apr 2007 02:18:04 AM |
|
|
"Tom Roberts" <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message =
news:XR9Zh.1974$tp5.360@newssvr23.news.prodigy.net...
Androcles wrote:
Tom Roberts wrote:
"Nonsense. GR obtains essentially the same answer as Newtonian =
mechanics=20
for this physical situation. The difference is far below measurement=20
accuracy."
=20
That was in reference to tides on earth, not the perihelion shift of=20
Mercury.
"This is PHYSICS, not math or logic, and "proof" is completely =
irrelevant." - Humpty Roberts.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Randy Poe" |
|
| Title: Re: Psychotic Humpty Roberts places foot in mouth (again). |
29 Apr 2007 11:18:52 AM |
|
|
On Apr 29, 10:53 am, "Androcles" <Engin...@hogwarts.physics.co.uk>
wrote:
"Nonsense. GR obtains essentially the same answer as Newtonian mechanics
for this physical situation. The difference is far below measurement
accuracy." -- Humpty Roberts
(news:OL1Zh.3789$H_.241@newssvr21.news.prodigy.net)
For the advance of perihelion of Mercury, predicted
by Newtonian Mechanics to within 43 arc seconds per century
(= 415 orbits) which is
415 orbits * 360 degrees = 149400 degrees
149400 degrees * 60 arc minutes = 8964000 arc minutes
8964000 arc minutes * 60 arc seconds = 537840000 arc seconds.
43
-------------------------------- x 100 = 0.00000799494273389855719%
537840000
The difference is far below ANY measurement accuracy.
Poor antiquated Androcles, stuck somewhere pre-1850, doesn't
understand just how good 19th-century measurement accuracy
was. The accuracy of astronomy was indeed good enough to
know that (a) the precession over the entire history of observations
of Mercury was about 5600 arcsec/century (with some error
bar), and (b) this figure was known well enough to know that it
didn't match the Newtonian figure of 5557 arc sec/century.
Le Verrier was able in 1859, based on existing astronomical
observations,
to estimate the discrepancy as 38 arcsec/century. His estimate
wasn't perfect, but it was only off by 13% from the best 21-st
century figures. He had already successfully predicted the
position of Neptune based on anomalous precession of Uranus,
so not only was mid-19th century astronomy accurate enough
to detect precession to this precision, but mathematics was
sufficiently precise to use it to calculate the existence, mass,
and orbit of another planet.
Einstein with his 4-figure log tables and 3-figure sliderule
could not be that accurate and was not an astronomer.
It isn't Einstein who observed the anomalous precession,
it was astronomers long before Einstein was born. The
effect was known. There were decades of theories to
attempt to explain it (le Verrier thought there should be
a planet Vulcan within the orbit of Mercury). All
Einstein did was come up with one more theory, one
which did not require the presence of Vulcan and one
which fit other observations as well.
So since you think it was impossible to observe
anomalous precession in 1911, what do you think of
the 50 years or so of discussion of anomalous
precession OBSERVATIONS before 1911, 20 years
of which predated Einstein's birth?
- Randy
.
|
|
|
| User: "Androcles" |
|
| Title: Re: Psychotic Humpty Roberts places foot in mouth (again). |
29 Apr 2007 12:22:33 PM |
|
|
"Randy Poe" <poespam-trap@yahoo.com> wrote in message =
news:1177863532.728932.264240@u30g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
On Apr 29, 10:53 am, "Androcles" <Engin...@hogwarts.physics.co.uk>
wrote:
"Nonsense. GR obtains essentially the same answer as Newtonian =
mechanics
for this physical situation. The difference is far below measurement
accuracy." -- Humpty Roberts
(news:OL1Zh.3789$H_.241@newssvr21.news.prodigy.net)
For the advance of perihelion of Mercury, predicted
by Newtonian Mechanics to within 43 arc seconds per century
(=3D 415 orbits) which is
415 orbits * 360 degrees =3D 149400 degrees
149400 degrees * 60 arc minutes =3D 8964000 arc minutes
8964000 arc minutes * 60 arc seconds =3D 537840000 arc seconds.
43
-------------------------------- x 100 =3D =
0.00000799494273389855719%
537840000
The difference is far below ANY measurement accuracy.
=20
Poor antiquated Androcles, stuck somewhere pre-1850, doesn't
understand just how good 19th-century measurement accuracy
was. The accuracy of astronomy was indeed good enough to
know that (a) the precession over the entire history of observations
of Mercury was about 5600 arcsec/century (with some error
bar), and (b) this figure was known well enough to know that it
didn't match the Newtonian figure of 5557 arc sec/century.
Poor fuckheaded Poe, can't produce a single calculation and=20
mutters only what he reads.
Google: gravitational constant =3D 6.67300 =D7 10-11 m3 kg-1 s-2=20
(four figure accuracy)
See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_constant
"The gravitational constant is perhaps the most difficult =
physical constant to measure."
(no better)
=20
=20
Le Verrier was able in 1859, based on existing astronomical
observations,
to estimate the discrepancy as 38 arcsec/century. His estimate
wasn't perfect, but it was only off by 13% from the best 21-st
century figures.=20
Poor imbecile Poe, the best 21st century figure is=20
0.00000799494273389855719% and the nitwit Einstein left
out Venus, Earth and Jupiter.
He had already successfully predicted the
position of Neptune based on anomalous precession of Uranus,
so not only was mid-19th century astronomy accurate enough
to detect precession to this precision, but mathematics was
sufficiently precise to use it to calculate the existence, mass,
and orbit of another planet.
=20
Einstein with his 4-figure log tables and 3-figure sliderule
could not be that accurate and was not an astronomer.
=20
It isn't Einstein who observed the anomalous precession,
it was astronomers long before Einstein was born.=20
Poor idiot Poe, nobody is disputing data. It was Einstein who
came up with a crackpot theory that cannot be verified any better
than the Newtonian.
The
effect was known. There were decades of theories to
attempt to explain it (le Verrier thought there should be
a planet Vulcan within the orbit of Mercury). All
Einstein did was come up with one more theory, one
which did not require the presence of Vulcan and one
which fit other observations as well.
Hiding behind imprecise CALCULATIONS, poor idiot Poe
is easily suckered into believing in Einstein. The question is,=20
does Einstein believe in poor cretin Poe?
=20
So since you think it was impossible to observe
anomalous precession in 1911,
Poor bullshitting moronic Poe, I have NEVER disputed empirical data,=20
arsehole.=20
what do you think of
the 50 years or so of discussion of anomalous
precession OBSERVATIONS before 1911, 20 years
of which predated Einstein's birth?
Doesn't apply, I have never stated what you claim, you lying tord,
and I resent any insinuation that I did. The observations are=20
reasonably accurate, the theory is garbage.
Some orbits the precession is greater, other orbits less, depending
on the relative positions of the other planets. That alone knocks=20
Einstein's crackpottery into a cocked hat, according to the moron=20
it should be 0.43 arc seconds per year, 0.1 arc seconds per orbit; and =
it isn't.
Now get your computer out, model ALL the observations of planetary =
position
and use the data to more accurately tell us the gravitational constant =
according
to Newton.
Poor antiquated Poe, stuck somewhere in 1915 without a computer.
=20
What is Kepler's equation, poor misguided Poe?
Without that you don't have a prayer, and it is transcendental.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Randy Poe" |
|
| Title: Re: Psychotic Humpty Roberts places foot in mouth (again). |
29 Apr 2007 08:36:06 PM |
|
|
On Apr 29, 1:22 pm, "Androcles" <Engin...@hogwarts.physics.co.uk>
wrote:
"Randy Poe" <poespam-t...@yahoo.com> wrote in messagenews:1177863532.7289=
32.264240@u30g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
On Apr 29, 10:53 am, "Androcles" <Engin...@hogwarts.physics.co.uk>
wrote:
"Nonsense. GR obtains essentially the same answer as Newtonian mechani=
cs
for this physical situation. The difference is far below measurement
accuracy." -- Humpty Roberts
(news:OL1Zh.3789$H_.241@newssvr21.news.prodigy.net)
For the advance of perihelion of Mercury, predicted
by Newtonian Mechanics to within 43 arc seconds per century
(=3D 415 orbits) which is
415 orbits * 360 degrees =3D 149400 degrees
149400 degrees * 60 arc minutes =3D 8964000 arc minutes
8964000 arc minutes * 60 arc seconds =3D 537840000 arc seconds.
43
-------------------------------- x 100 =3D 0.00000799494273389855719%
537840000
The difference is far below ANY measurement accuracy.
Poor antiquated Androcles, stuck somewhere pre-1850, doesn't
understand just how good 19th-century measurement accuracy
was. The accuracy of astronomy was indeed good enough to
know that (a) the precession over the entire history of observations
of Mercury was about 5600 arcsec/century (with some error
bar), and (b) this figure was known well enough to know that it
didn't match the Newtonian figure of 5557 arc sec/century.
Poor fuckheaded Poe, can't produce a single calculation and
mutters only what he reads.
Google: gravitational constant =3D 6.67300 =D7 10-11 m3 kg-1 s-2
(four figure accuracy)
Seehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_constant
"The gravitational constant is perhaps the most difficult physica=
l constant to measure."
(no better)
Le Verrier was able in 1859, based on existing astronomical
observations,
to estimate the discrepancy as 38 arcsec/century. His estimate
wasn't perfect, but it was only off by 13% from the best 21-st
century figures.
Poor imbecile Poe, the best 21st century figure is
0.00000799494273389855719% and the nitwit Einstein left
out Venus, Earth and Jupiter.
He had already successfully predicted the
position of Neptune based on anomalous precession of Uranus,
so not only was mid-19th century astronomy accurate enough
to detect precession to this precision, but mathematics was
sufficiently precise to use it to calculate the existence, mass,
and orbit of another planet.
Einstein with his 4-figure log tables and 3-figure sliderule
could not be that accurate and was not an astronomer.
It isn't Einstein who observed the anomalous precession,
it was astronomers long before Einstein was born.
Poor idiot Poe, nobody is disputing data. It was Einstein who
came up with a crackpot theory that cannot be verified any better
than the Newtonian.
The
effect was known. There were decades of theories to
attempt to explain it (le Verrier thought there should be
a planet Vulcan within the orbit of Mercury). All
Einstein did was come up with one more theory, one
which did not require the presence of Vulcan and one
which fit other observations as well.
Hiding behind imprecise CALCULATIONS, poor idiot Poe
is easily suckered into believing in Einstein. The question is,
does Einstein believe in poor cretin Poe?
So since you think it was impossible to observe
anomalous precession in 1911,
Poor bullshitting moronic Poe, I have NEVER disputed empirical data,
arsehole.
No?
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/43c42245274c5258
That's what you said the last time I brought up le Verrier.
what do you think of
the 50 years or so of discussion of anomalous
precession OBSERVATIONS before 1911, 20 years
of which predated Einstein's birth?
Doesn't apply, I have never stated what you claim, you lying tord,
and I resent any insinuation that I did. The observations are
reasonably accurate, the theory is garbage.
So when you say
"The difference is far below ANY measurement accuracy."
You AREN'T saying that the claimed precession difference
is impossible to measure?
Strange, that looks like a statement about measurement, not
theory to me. I see that word beginning with "m" and all.
- Randy
.
|
|
|
| User: "Androcles" |
|
| Title: Re: Psychotic Humpty Roberts places foot in mouth (again). |
30 Apr 2007 02:38:05 AM |
|
|
"Randy Poe" <poespam-trap@yahoo.com> wrote in message =
news:1177896966.591222.284200@y80g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
On Apr 29, 1:22 pm, "Androcles" <Engin...@hogwarts.physics.co.uk>
wrote:
"Randy Poe" <poespam-t...@yahoo.com> wrote in =
messagenews:1177863532.728932.264240@u30g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
On Apr 29, 10:53 am, "Androcles" <Engin...@hogwarts.physics.co.uk>
wrote:
"Nonsense. GR obtains essentially the same answer as Newtonian =
mechanics
for this physical situation. The difference is far below =
measurement
accuracy." -- Humpty Roberts
(news:OL1Zh.3789$H_.241@newssvr21.news.prodigy.net)
For the advance of perihelion of Mercury, predicted
by Newtonian Mechanics to within 43 arc seconds per century
(=3D 415 orbits) which is
415 orbits * 360 degrees =3D 149400 degrees
149400 degrees * 60 arc minutes =3D 8964000 arc minutes
8964000 arc minutes * 60 arc seconds =3D 537840000 arc seconds.
43
-------------------------------- x 100 =3D =
0.00000799494273389855719%
537840000
The difference is far below ANY measurement accuracy.
Poor antiquated Androcles, stuck somewhere pre-1850, doesn't
understand just how good 19th-century measurement accuracy
was. The accuracy of astronomy was indeed good enough to
know that (a) the precession over the entire history of observations
of Mercury was about 5600 arcsec/century (with some error
bar), and (b) this figure was known well enough to know that it
didn't match the Newtonian figure of 5557 arc sec/century.
Poor fuckheaded Poe, can't produce a single calculation and
mutters only what he reads.
Google: gravitational constant =3D 6.67300 =D7 10-11 m3 kg-1 s-2
(four figure accuracy)
Seehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_constant
"The gravitational constant is perhaps the most difficult =
physical constant to measure."
(no better)
Le Verrier was able in 1859, based on existing astronomical
observations,
to estimate the discrepancy as 38 arcsec/century. His estimate
wasn't perfect, but it was only off by 13% from the best 21-st
century figures.
Poor imbecile Poe, the best 21st century figure is
0.00000799494273389855719% and the nitwit Einstein left
out Venus, Earth and Jupiter.
He had already successfully predicted the
position of Neptune based on anomalous precession of Uranus,
so not only was mid-19th century astronomy accurate enough
to detect precession to this precision, but mathematics was
sufficiently precise to use it to calculate the existence, mass,
and orbit of another planet.
Einstein with his 4-figure log tables and 3-figure sliderule
could not be that accurate and was not an astronomer.
It isn't Einstein who observed the anomalous precession,
it was astronomers long before Einstein was born.
Poor idiot Poe, nobody is disputing data. It was Einstein who
came up with a crackpot theory that cannot be verified any better
than the Newtonian.
The
effect was known. There were decades of theories to
attempt to explain it (le Verrier thought there should be
a planet Vulcan within the orbit of Mercury). All
Einstein did was come up with one more theory, one
which did not require the presence of Vulcan and one
which fit other observations as well.
Hiding behind imprecise CALCULATIONS, poor idiot Poe
is easily suckered into believing in Einstein. The question is,
does Einstein believe in poor cretin Poe?
So since you think it was impossible to observe
anomalous precession in 1911,
Poor bullshitting moronic Poe, I have NEVER disputed empirical data,
arsehole.
No?
NEVER, poor illiterate Poe.
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/43c42245274c52=
58
That's what you said the last time I brought up le Verrier.
We all know you can't read, poor illiterate Poe. Show where I disputed =
empirical data.
what do you think of
the 50 years or so of discussion of anomalous
precession OBSERVATIONS before 1911, 20 years
of which predated Einstein's birth?
Doesn't apply, I have never stated what you claim, you lying tord,
and I resent any insinuation that I did. The observations are
reasonably accurate, the theory is garbage.
So when you say
"The difference is far below ANY measurement accuracy."
Those are Humpty's words, poor illiterate stoooopid Poe.
You AREN'T saying that the claimed precession difference
is impossible to measure?
Doesn't apply, I have never stated what you claim, you lying tord,
and I resent any insinuation that I did. The observations are
reasonably accurate, the theory is garbage.
Strange, that looks like a statement about measurement, not
theory to me. I see that word beginning with "m" and all.
Your certainly are strange. See Humpty Roberts, those are his 'm' words.
Here's a nice phrase with the 'm'-word in it:
"But the ray moves relatively to the initial point of k, when measured =
in the stationary system, with the velocity c-v"
So when YOU say=20
"But the ray moves relatively to the initial point of k, when measured =
in the stationary system, with the velocity c-v"
YOU aren't saying that the velocity of light is c in all inertial frames =
of reference?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Randy Poe" |
|
| Title: Re: Psychotic Humpty Roberts places foot in mouth (again). |
30 Apr 2007 07:23:42 AM |
|
|
On Apr 30, 3:38 am, "Androcles" <Engin...@hogwarts.physics.co.uk>
wrote:
"Randy Poe" <poespam-t...@yahoo.com> wrote in messagenews:1177896966.5912=
22.284200@y80g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
On Apr 29, 1:22 pm, "Androcles" <Engin...@hogwarts.physics.co.uk>
wrote:
"Randy Poe" <poespam-t...@yahoo.com> wrote in messagenews:1177863532.72=
8932.264240@u30g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
On Apr 29, 10:53 am, "Androcles" <Engin...@hogwarts.physics.co.uk>
wrote:
"Nonsense. GR obtains essentially the same answer as Newtonian mecha=
nics
for this physical situation. The difference is far below measurement
accuracy." -- Humpty Roberts
(news:OL1Zh.3789$H_.241@newssvr21.news.prodigy.net)
For the advance of perihelion of Mercury, predicted
by Newtonian Mechanics to within 43 arc seconds per century
(=3D 415 orbits) which is
415 orbits * 360 degrees =3D 149400 degrees
149400 degrees * 60 arc minutes =3D 8964000 arc minutes
8964000 arc minutes * 60 arc seconds =3D 537840000 arc seconds.
43
-------------------------------- x 100 =3D 0.0000079949427338985571=
9%
537840000
The difference is far below ANY measurement accuracy.
Poor antiquated Androcles, stuck somewhere pre-1850, doesn't
understand just how good 19th-century measurement accuracy
was. The accuracy of astronomy was indeed good enough to
know that (a) the precession over the entire history of observations
of Mercury was about 5600 arcsec/century (with some error
bar), and (b) this figure was known well enough to know that it
didn't match the Newtonian figure of 5557 arc sec/century.
Poor fuckheaded Poe, can't produce a single calculation and
mutters only what he reads.
Google: gravitational constant =3D 6.67300 =D7 10-11 m3 kg-1 s-2
(four figure accuracy)
Seehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_constant
"The gravitational constant is perhaps the most difficult physi=
cal constant to measure."
(no better)
Le Verrier was able in 1859, based on existing astronomical
observations,
to estimate the discrepancy as 38 arcsec/century. His estimate
wasn't perfect, but it was only off by 13% from the best 21-st
century figures.
Poor imbecile Poe, the best 21st century figure is
0.00000799494273389855719% and the nitwit Einstein left
out Venus, Earth and Jupiter.
He had already successfully predicted the
position of Neptune based on anomalous precession of Uranus,
so not only was mid-19th century astronomy accurate enough
to detect precession to this precision, but mathematics was
sufficiently precise to use it to calculate the existence, mass,
and orbit of another planet.
Einstein with his 4-figure log tables and 3-figure sliderule
could not be that accurate and was not an astronomer.
It isn't Einstein who observed the anomalous precession,
it was astronomers long before Einstein was born.
Poor idiot Poe, nobody is disputing data. It was Einstein who
came up with a crackpot theory that cannot be verified any better
than the Newtonian.
The
effect was known. There were decades of theories to
attempt to explain it (le Verrier thought there should be
a planet Vulcan within the orbit of Mercury). All
Einstein did was come up with one more theory, one
which did not require the presence of Vulcan and one
which fit other observations as well.
Hiding behind imprecise CALCULATIONS, poor idiot Poe
is easily suckered into believing in Einstein. The question is,
does Einstein believe in poor cretin Poe?
So since you think it was impossible to observe
anomalous precession in 1911,
Poor bullshitting moronic Poe, I have NEVER disputed empirical data,
arsehole.
No?
NEVER, poor illiterate Poe.
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/43c42245274...
That's what you said the last time I brought up le Verrier.
We all know you can't read, poor illiterate Poe. Show where I disputed em=
pirical data.
Place number 1.
"Androcles believes that it was impossible for Urban Le Verrier
to observe that the precession of Mercury was 566 arcsec
per century"
Correct, Urbain Le Verrier (1811-1877) didn't observe for a century,
he was dead after 66 years. Therefore it was impossible.
Place number 2.
"Androcles believes that it was impossible for Le Verrier to
calculate a theoretical precession of Mercury of 527 arcsec
per century in 1859 from Newtonian theory."
Correct, he had 4-figure log tables and no computer.
I want better than 0.000007995%
Place number 3.
"Androcles believes that it was impossible for Le Verrier to
subtract 527 from 566 to obtain a discrepancy of 39 arcsec
per century in 1859."
Ah, so his first observations were in 1759. He wasn't born until
1811, he must have had a time machine.
You are quite correct, Blind Poe, I don't believe a fuckin' word of it.
That's quite clear, I'm afraid. Your reaction to the le Verrier paper
of 1859 was "I don't believe a fuckin' word of it".
what do you think of
the 50 years or so of discussion of anomalous
precession OBSERVATIONS before 1911, 20 years
of which predated Einstein's birth?
Doesn't apply, I have never stated what you claim, you lying tord,
and I resent any insinuation that I did. The observations are
reasonably accurate, the theory is garbage.
So when you say
"The difference is far below ANY measurement accuracy."
Those are Humpty's words, poor illiterate stoooopid Poe.
You don't lay claim to this paragraph in the opening message of
this thread?
"The difference is far below ANY measurement accuracy.
Einstein with his 4-figure log tables and 3-figure sliderule
could not be that accurate and was not an astronomer. "
Would it be fair to characterize your position this way?
1=2E That lying cheat Einstein could not possibly have been able
to determine that the difference between the actual precession of
Mercury's orbit and the Newtonian prediction is 43 arc seconds
per century. That accuracy is beyond the arithmetic and science
of 1911.
2=2E That brilliant scientist le Verrier could easily have determined
that the difference between the actual precession of Mercury's
orbit and the Newtonian prediction is about 38 arc seconds per
century. That accuracy is well within the arithmetic and science
of 1859.
You AREN'T saying that the claimed precession difference
is impossible to measure?
Doesn't apply, I have never stated what you claim, you lying tord,
and I resent any insinuation that I did. The observations are
reasonably accurate, the theory is garbage.
What is the point of this bit of Androcles-arithmetic involving
observational
numbers:
415 orbits * 360 degrees =3D 149400 degrees
149400 degrees * 60 arc minutes =3D 8964000 arc minutes
8964000 arc minutes * 60 arc seconds =3D 537840000 arc seconds.
43
-------------------------------- x 100 =3D 0.00000799494273389855719%
537840000
- Randy
.
|
|
|
| User: "Androcles" |
|
| Title: Re: Psychotic Humpty Roberts places foot in mouth (again). |
30 Apr 2007 11:59:31 AM |
|
|
"Randy Poe" <poespam-trap@yahoo.com> wrote in message =
news:1177935822.077487.120540@p77g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
On Apr 30, 3:38 am, "Androcles" <Engin...@hogwarts.physics.co.uk>
wrote:
"Randy Poe" <poespam-t...@yahoo.com> wrote in =
messagenews:1177896966.591222.284200@y80g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
On Apr 29, 1:22 pm, "Androcles" <Engin...@hogwarts.physics.co.uk>
wrote:
"Randy Poe" <poespam-t...@yahoo.com> wrote in =
messagenews:1177863532.728932.264240@u30g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
On Apr 29, 10:53 am, "Androcles" <Engin...@hogwarts.physics.co.uk>
wrote:
"Nonsense. GR obtains essentially the same answer as Newtonian =
mechanics
for this physical situation. The difference is far below =
measurement
accuracy." -- Humpty Roberts
(news:OL1Zh.3789$H_.241@newssvr21.news.prodigy.net)
For the advance of perihelion of Mercury, predicted
by Newtonian Mechanics to within 43 arc seconds per century
(=3D 415 orbits) which is
415 orbits * 360 degrees =3D 149400 degrees
149400 degrees * 60 arc minutes =3D 8964000 arc minutes
8964000 arc minutes * 60 arc seconds =3D 537840000 arc seconds.
43
-------------------------------- x 100 =3D =
0.00000799494273389855719%
537840000
The difference is far below ANY measurement accuracy.
Poor antiquated Androcles, stuck somewhere pre-1850, doesn't
understand just how good 19th-century measurement accuracy
was. The accuracy of astronomy was indeed good enough to
know that (a) the precession over the entire history of =
observations
of Mercury was about 5600 arcsec/century (with some error
bar), and (b) this figure was known well enough to know that it
didn't match the Newtonian figure of 5557 arc sec/century.
Poor fuckheaded Poe, can't produce a single calculation and
mutters only what he reads.
Google: gravitational constant =3D 6.67300 =D7 10-11 m3 kg-1 s-2
(four figure accuracy)
Seehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_constant
"The gravitational constant is perhaps the most difficult =
physical constant to measure."
(no better)
Le Verrier was able in 1859, based on existing astronomical
observations,
to estimate the discrepancy as 38 arcsec/century. His estimate
wasn't perfect, but it was only off by 13% from the best 21-st
century figures.
Poor imbecile Poe, the best 21st century figure is
0.00000799494273389855719% and the nitwit Einstein left
out Venus, Earth and Jupiter.
He had already successfully predicted the
position of Neptune based on anomalous precession of Uranus,
so not only was mid-19th century astronomy accurate enough
to detect precession to this precision, but mathematics was
sufficiently precise to use it to calculate the existence, mass,
and orbit of another planet.
Einstein with his 4-figure log tables and 3-figure sliderule
could not be that accurate and was not an astronomer.
It isn't Einstein who observed the anomalous precession,
it was astronomers long before Einstein was born.
Poor idiot Poe, nobody is disputing data. It was Einstein who
came up with a crackpot theory that cannot be verified any better
than the Newtonian.
The
effect was known. There were decades of theories to
attempt to explain it (le Verrier thought there should be
a planet Vulcan within the orbit of Mercury). All
Einstein did was come up with one more theory, one
which did not require the presence of Vulcan and one
which fit other observations as well.
Hiding behind imprecise CALCULATIONS, poor idiot Poe
is easily suckered into believing in Einstein. The question is,
does Einstein believe in poor cretin Poe?
So since you think it was impossible to observe
anomalous precession in 1911,
Poor bullshitting moronic Poe, I have NEVER disputed empirical data,
arsehole.
No?
NEVER, poor illiterate Poe.
=
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/43c42245274...=
That's what you said the last time I brought up le Verrier.
We all know you can't read, poor illiterate Poe. Show where I disputed =
empirical data.
Place number 1.
"Androcles believes that it was impossible for Urban Le Verrier
to observe that the precession of Mercury was 566 arcsec
per century"
Correct, Urbain Le Verrier (1811-1877) didn't observe for a century,
he was dead after 66 years. Therefore it was impossible.
I see no tables, no notes, no positions of Mercury written down.
There is no empirical data there to deny.
Poor illiterate Poe doesn't know what "empirical" means.
We all know you can't read, poor illiterate Poe. Show where I disputed =
empirical data.
Place number 2.
"Androcles believes that it was impossible for Le Verrier to
calculate a theoretical precession of Mercury of 527 arcsec
per century in 1859 from Newtonian theory."
Correct, he had 4-figure log tables and no computer.
I want better than 0.000007995%
I see no tables, no notes, no positions of Mercury written down.
There is no empirical data there to deny.
Poor illiterate Poe doesn't know what "empirical" means.
We all know you can't read, poor illiterate Poe. Show where I disputed =
empirical data.
Place number 3.
"Androcles believes that it was impossible for Le Verrier to
subtract 527 from 566 to obtain a discrepancy of 39 arcsec
per century in 1859."
Ah, so his first observations were in 1759. He wasn't born until
1811, he must have had a time machine.
You are quite correct, Blind Poe, I don't believe a fuckin' word of =
it.
That's quite clear, I'm afraid. Your reaction to the le Verrier paper
of 1859 was "I don't believe a fuckin' word of it".
Poor illiterate Poe doesn't know what "empirical" means.
We all know you can't read, poor illiterate Poe. Show where I disputed =
empirical data.
what do you think of
the 50 years or so of discussion of anomalous
precession OBSERVATIONS before 1911, 20 years
of which predated Einstein's birth?
Doesn't apply, I have never stated what you claim, you lying tord,
and I resent any insinuation that I did. The observations are
reasonably accurate, the theory is garbage.
So when you say
"The difference is far below ANY measurement accuracy."
Those are Humpty's words, poor illiterate stoooopid Poe.
You don't lay claim to this paragraph in the opening message of
this thread?
Poor illiterate Poe doesn't know what "empirical" means.
We all know you can't read, poor illiterate Poe. Show where I disputed =
empirical data.
"The difference is far below ANY measurement accuracy.
Einstein with his 4-figure log tables and 3-figure sliderule
could not be that accurate and was not an astronomer. "
Would it be fair to characterize your position this way?
Poor illiterate Poe doesn't know what "empirical" means.
We all know you can't read, poor illiterate Poe. Show where I disputed =
empirical data.
1. That lying cheat Einstein could not possibly have been able
to determine that the difference between the actual precession of
Mercury's orbit and the Newtonian prediction is 43 arc seconds
per century. That accuracy is beyond the arithmetic and science
of 1911.
Poor illiterate Poe doesn't know what "empirical" means.
We all know you can't read, poor illiterate Poe. Show where I disputed =
empirical data.
2. That brilliant scientist le Verrier could easily have determined
that the difference between the actual precession of Mercury's
orbit and the Newtonian prediction is about 38 arc seconds per
century. That accuracy is well within the arithmetic and science
of 1859.
Poor illiterate Poe doesn't know what "empirical" means.
We all know you can't read, poor illiterate Poe. Show where I disputed =
empirical data.
You AREN'T saying that the claimed precession difference
is impossible to measure?
Doesn't apply, I have never stated what you claim, you lying tord,
and I resent any insinuation that I did. The observations are
reasonably accurate, the theory is garbage.
What is the point of this bit of Androcles-arithmetic involving
observational
numbers:
415 orbits * 360 degrees =3D 149400 degrees
149400 degrees * 60 arc minutes =3D 8964000 arc minutes
8964000 arc minutes * 60 arc seconds =3D 537840000 arc seconds.
43
-------------------------------- x 100 =3D 0.00000799494273389855719%
537840000
- Randy
Poor illiterate Poe doesn't know what "empirical" means.
We all know you can't read, poor illiterate Poe. Show where I disputed =
empirical data.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Randy Poe" |
|
| Title: Re: Psychotic Humpty Roberts places foot in mouth (again). |
30 Apr 2007 12:55:55 PM |
|
|
On Apr 30, 12:59 pm, "Androcles" <Engin...@hogwarts.physics.co.uk>
wrote:
"Randy Poe" <poespam-t...@yahoo.com> wrote in messagenews:1177935822.077487.120540@p77g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
"Androcles believes that it was impossible for Urban Le Verrier
to observe that the precession of Mercury was 566 arcsec
per century"
Correct, Urbain Le Verrier (1811-1877) didn't observe for a century,
he was dead after 66 years. Therefore it was impossible.
I see no tables, no notes, no positions of Mercury written down.
There is no empirical data there to deny.
No, only the conclusion from the empirical data.
So what is your position. Be coherent. Is it that it was impossible
for le Verrier to observe this rate of precession? Or that it
was possible.
Today you say
Doesn't apply, I have never stated what you claim, you lying tord,
and I resent any insinuation that I did. The observations are
reasonably accurate, the theory is garbage.
Do you mean LE VERRIER'S observations are reasonably
accurate?
Because a couple of weeks ago you said Le Verrier's 1859
paper was garbage.
So which one is your position on the Le Verrier paper?
- Randy
.
|
|
|
| User: "Androcles" |
|
| Title: Re: Psychotic Humpty Roberts places foot in mouth (again). |
30 Apr 2007 02:08:04 PM |
|
|
"Randy Poe" <poespam-trap@yahoo.com> wrote in message =
news:1177955755.265712.107510@q75g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
On Apr 30, 12:59 pm, "Androcles" <Engin...@hogwarts.physics.co.uk>
wrote:
"Randy Poe" <poespam-t...@yahoo.com> wrote in =
messagenews:1177935822.077487.120540@p77g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
=20
"Androcles believes that it was impossible for Urban Le Verrier
to observe that the precession of Mercury was 566 arcsec
per century"
Correct, Urbain Le Verrier (1811-1877) didn't observe for a =
century,
he was dead after 66 years. Therefore it was impossible.
I see no tables, no notes, no positions of Mercury written down.
There is no empirical data there to deny.
=20
No, only the conclusion from the empirical data.
You accused me of disputing empirical data and used the above as
an example, stooopid illiterate blind Poe.=20
I want the EMPIRICAL data to run through my computer, then=20
I can check Urbain Le Verrier's calculations.=20
Withdraw your accusation, libellous fuckhead.
=20
So what is your position. Be coherent. Is it that it was impossible
for le Verrier to observe this rate of precession? Or that it
was possible.
=20
Today you say
=20
Doesn't apply, I have never stated what you claim, you lying tord,
and I resent any insinuation that I did. The observations are
reasonably accurate, the theory is garbage.
=20
Do you mean LE VERRIER'S observations are reasonably
accurate?
I don't have his observations but I anticipate they are reasonable, poor =
stooopid illiterate tord.=20
If Urbain Le Verrier claims Mercury was at such and such Right Ascension
and Declination on a specified date and time then I'll not dispute it, I =
have
no reason to. Of course, I want to know what clock he used as well when=20
he timed his observation. I might dispute that.
I do not dispute empirical data. Never have, never will.=20
Give me Urbain Le Verrier's observations (a photostat copy of his =
handwriting will do),
I want to check his mathematics and his conclusion. I have no reason to =
suppose
Urbain Le Verrier was not a conscientious and honourable man (which is =
more than
I can say for you) but he could have made a simple error which my =
computer will not.
That's known as data reduction, poor ignorant Poe.
=20
Because a couple of weeks ago you said Le Verrier's 1859
paper was garbage.
=20
So which one is your position on the Le Verrier paper?
The conclusion you claim for it is garbage, Le Verrier couldn't possibly =
solve=20
Kepler's equation to any reasonable accuracy without a computer, and =
certainly
not to within 0.1 arc seconds per orbit. =20
My computer in 1990 was running at 12 MHz and it took 1/2
an hour to run one complete orbit, so I sacrificed accuracy. =20
Much faster today, of course. It would take Urbain Le Verrier
a million years to obtain the same accuracy, poor ignorant stooopid=20
bullshitting tord. =20
I have NEVER disputed empirical data. I dispute reduced data
quite often. Retract your accusation, poor ignorant libellous fuckhead.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Randy Poe" |
|
| Title: Re: Psychotic Humpty Roberts places foot in mouth (again). |
30 Apr 2007 08:50:22 PM |
|
|
On Apr 30, 3:08 pm, "Androcles" <Engin...@hogwarts.physics.co.uk>
wrote:
"Randy Poe" <poespam-t...@yahoo.com> wrote in messagenews:1177955755.265712.107510@q75g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
On Apr 30, 12:59 pm, "Androcles" <Engin...@hogwarts.physics.co.uk>
wrote:
"Randy Poe" <poespam-t...@yahoo.com> wrote in messagenews:1177935822.077487.120540@p77g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
"Androcles believes that it was impossible for Urban Le Verrier
to observe that the precession of Mercury was 566 arcsec
per century"
Correct, Urbain Le Verrier (1811-1877) didn't observe for a century,
he was dead after 66 years. Therefore it was impossible.
I see no tables, no notes, no positions of Mercury written down.
There is no empirical data there to deny.
No, only the conclusion from the empirical data.
You accused me of disputing empirical data and used the above as
an example, stooopid illiterate blind Poe.
I want the EMPIRICAL data to run through my computer, then
I can check Urbain Le Verrier's calculations.
Withdraw your accusation, libellous fuckhead.
So what is your position. Be coherent. Is it that it was impossible
for le Verrier to observe this rate of precession? Or that it
was possible.
Today you say
Doesn't apply, I have never stated what you claim, you lying tord,
and I resent any insinuation that I did. The observations are
reasonably accurate, the theory is garbage.
Do you mean LE VERRIER'S observations are reasonably
accurate?
I don't have his observations but I anticipate they are reasonable, poor
stooopid illiterate tord.
If Urbain Le Verrier claims Mercury was at such and such Right Ascension
and Declination on a specified date and time then I'll not dispute it, I have
no reason to. Of course, I want to know what clock he used as well when
he timed his observation. I might dispute that.
I do not dispute empirical data. Never have, never will.
Give me Urbain Le Verrier's observations (a photostat copy of his handwriting will do),
I want to check his mathematics and his conclusion. I have no reason to suppose
Urbain Le Verrier was not a conscientious and honourable man (which is more than
I can say for you) but he could have made a simple error which my computer will not.
That's known as data reduction, poor ignorant Poe.
Because a couple of weeks ago you said Le Verrier's 1859
paper was garbage.
So which one is your position on the Le Verrier paper?
The conclusion you claim for it is garbage,
So you think le Verrier couldn't possibly have claimed there was
such a thing as "anomalous precession of Mercury" in 1859, and
that the ensuing 50 years of controversy could not have occurred.
But it did occur. So what exactly do you think le Verrier's
conclusions were that started that controversy? Why do you think
he proposed the existence of the inner planet Vulcan?
Le Verrier couldn't possibly solve
Kepler's equation to any reasonable accuracy without a computer, and certainly
not to within 0.1 arc seconds per orbit.
Ah but he wouldn't need to, and I know this is the source of
your disbelief.
Just because you couldn't figure out a way, doesn't mean some
eminent 19th-century mathematician couldn't. Long before there
were computers, mathematicians were wrestling with ways to get
high accuracy with paper and pencil. There is no limit on the
number of places in a hand square root, a long division, or a
multiplication, you know.
In this case, the answer to the dilemna is what are called
"perturbation
methods", which were invented for precisely such problems and
which work very well. Given that x(t) is a solution for some
differential equation with force F(x), you pose this question: Suppose
I replace F with slightly-different force F+dF, giving rise to a
slightly
different solution x + dx. Can I get an equation just for the part
dx(t) that interests me?
The answer is yes. You don't need to solve for the whole solution.
You just solve the perturbation equation for the amount of
perturbation.
My computer in 1990 was running at 12 MHz and it took 1/2
an hour to run one complete orbit, so I sacrificed accuracy.
You may not be God's gift to numerical methods. Somewhere
around 1985 I was generating complete orbits with 4th-order
Runge-Kutta methods with Pascal code that ran in a few
seconds. And I didn't need to sacrifice accuracy.
I'm not claiming any great brilliance in programming, but perhaps
you weren't aware of the most accurate and efficient methods
for numerical solution of differential equations. As it happens,
I had enough education to know of the existence of such
methods, and so all a colleague had to do was say "Runge-
Kutta" and I had what I needed to pull an algorithm out of a
numerical analysis textbook.
Much faster today, of course. It would take Urbain Le Verrier
a million years to obtain the same accuracy, poor ignorant stooopid
bullshitting tord.
But of course he wouldn't need to.
Are you forgetting that he successfully told the astronomers where
to find Neptune? Just how much perturbation do you think Neptune
causes on Uranus?
I have NEVER disputed empirical data. I dispute reduced data
quite often. Retract your accusation, poor ignorant libellous fuckhead.
You have disputed that 19-th century astronomers were able to
measure an EMPIRICALLY OBSERVED drift in the EMPIRICALLY
OBSERVED perihelion to within a few arc sec per century of
slope. There is nothing theoretical about this. It's pure EMPIRICAL
data. You put it on graph paper, you draw a line, you measure
the slope of that line. You dispute that the perihelion OBSERVATIONS
were accurate enough to do so.
- Randy
.
|
|
|
| User: "Androcles" |
|
| Title: Re: Psychotic Humpty Roberts places foot in mouth (again). |
01 May 2007 03:14:27 AM |
|
|
"Randy Poe" <poespam-trap@yahoo.com> wrote in message =
news:1177984222.477586.302940@c35g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
On Apr 30, 3:08 pm, "Androcles" <Engin...@hogwarts.physics.co.uk>
wrote:
"Randy Poe" <poespam-t...@yahoo.com> wrote in =
messagenews:1177955755.265712.107510@q75g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
On Apr 30, 12:59 pm, "Androcles" <Engin...@hogwarts.physics.co.uk>
wrote:
"Randy Poe" <poespam-t...@yahoo.com> wrote in =
messagenews:1177935822.077487.120540@p77g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
"Androcles believes that it was impossible for Urban Le Verrier
to observe that the precession of Mercury was 566 arcsec
per century"
Correct, Urbain Le Verrier (1811-1877) didn't observe for a =
century,
he was dead after 66 years. Therefore it was impossible.
I see no tables, no notes, no positions of Mercury written down.
There is no empirical data there to deny.
No, only the conclusion from the empirical data.
You accused me of disputing empirical data and used the above as
an example, stooopid illiterate blind Poe.
I want the EMPIRICAL data to run through my computer, then
I can check Urbain Le Verrier's calculations.
Withdraw your accusation, libellous fuckhead.
So what is your position. Be coherent. Is it that it was impossible
for le Verrier to observe this rate of precession? Or that it
was possible.
Today you say
Doesn't apply, I have never stated what you claim, you lying =
tord,
and I resent any insinuation that I did. The observations are
reasonably accurate, the theory is garbage.
Do you mean LE VERRIER'S observations are reasonably
accurate?
I don't have his observations but I anticipate they are reasonable, =
poor
stooopid illiterate tord.
If Urbain Le Verrier claims Mercury was at such and such Right =
Ascension
and Declination on a specified date and time then I'll not dispute =
it, I have
no reason to. Of course, I want to know what clock he used as well =
when
he timed his observation. I might dispute that.
I do not dispute empirical data. Never have, never will.
Give me Urbain Le Verrier's observations (a photostat copy of his =
handwriting will do),
I want to check his mathematics and his conclusion. I have no reason =
to suppose
Urbain Le Verrier was not a conscientious and honourable man (which =
is more than
I can say for you) but he could have made a simple error which my =
computer will not.
That's known as data reduction, poor ignorant Poe.
Because a couple of weeks ago you said Le Verrier's 1859
paper was garbage.
So which one is your position on the Le Verrier paper?
The conclusion you claim for it is garbage,
=20
So you think
Never mind what I think, fuckhead, you've been caught lying.
You accused me of rejecting empirical evidence.
Produce the evidence, you sick *****.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Randy Poe" |
|
| Title: Re: Psychotic Humpty Roberts places foot in mouth (again). |
01 May 2007 06:40:39 AM |
|
|
On May 1, 4:14 am, "Androcles" <Engin...@hogwarts.physics.co.uk>
wrote:
"Randy Poe" <poespam-t...@yahoo.com> wrote in messagenews:1177984222.477586.302940@c35g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
On Apr 30, 3:08 pm, "Androcles" <Engin...@hogwarts.physics.co.uk>
wrote:
"Randy Poe" <poespam-t...@yahoo.com> wrote in messagenews:1177955755.265712.107510@q75g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
On Apr 30, 12:59 pm, "Androcles" <Engin...@hogwarts.physics.co.uk>
wrote:
"Randy Poe" <poespam-t...@yahoo.com> wrote in messagenews:1177935822.077487.120540@p77g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
"Androcles believes that it was impossible for Urban Le Verrier
to observe that the precession of Mercury was 566 arcsec
per century"
Correct, Urbain Le Verrier (1811-1877) didn't observe for a century,
he was dead after 66 years. Therefore it was impossible.
I see no tables, no notes, no positions of Mercury written down.
There is no empirical data there to deny.
No, only the conclusion from the empirical data.
You accused me of disputing empirical data and used the above as
an example, stooopid illiterate blind Poe.
I want the EMPIRICAL data to run through my computer, then
I can check Urbain Le Verrier's calculations.
Withdraw your accusation, libellous fuckhead.
So what is your position. Be coherent. Is it that it was impossible
for le Verrier to observe this rate of precession? Or that it
was possible.
Today you say
Doesn't apply, I have never stated what you claim, you lying tord,
and I resent any insinuation that I did. The observations are
reasonably accurate, the theory is garbage.
Do you mean LE VERRIER'S observations are reasonably
accurate?
I don't have his observations but I anticipate they are reasonable, poor
stooopid illiterate tord.
If Urbain Le Verrier claims Mercury was at such and such Right Ascension
and Declination on a specified date and time then I'll not dispute it, I have
no reason to. Of course, I want to know what clock he used as well when
he timed his observation. I might dispute that.
I do not dispute empirical data. Never have, never will.
Give me Urbain Le Verrier's observations (a photostat copy of his handwriting will do),
I want to check his mathematics and his conclusion. I have no reason to suppose
Urbain Le Verrier was not a conscientious and honourable man (which is more than
I can say for you) but he could have made a simple error which my computer will not.
That's known as data reduction, poor ignorant Poe.
Because a couple of weeks ago you said Le Verrier's 1859
paper was garbage.
So which one is your position on the Le Verrier paper?
The conclusion you claim for it is garbage,
So you think
Never mind what I think, fuckhead, you've been caught lying.
You accused me of rejecting empirical evidence.
Produce the evidence, you sick *****.
1. Astronomers have empirical observations showing a drift rate
of 56 arc sec per year in the perihelion of Mercury (as observed
from earth).
2. Androcles says no, they don't.
That was easy.
- Randy
.
|
|
|
| User: "Androcles" |
|
| Title: Re: Psychotic Humpty Roberts places foot in mouth (again). |
01 May 2007 10:37:05 AM |
|
|
"Randy Poe" <poespam-trap@yahoo.com> wrote in message =
news:1178019639.149010.241900@y5g2000hsa.googlegroups.com...
On May 1, 4:14 am, "Androcles" <Engin...@hogwarts.physics.co.uk>
wrote:
"Randy Poe" <poespam-t...@yahoo.com> wrote in =
messagenews:1177984222.477586.302940@c35g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
On Apr 30, 3:08 pm, "Androcles" <Engin...@hogwarts.physics.co.uk>
wrote:
"Randy Poe" <poespam-t...@yahoo.com> wrote in =
messagenews:1177955755.265712.107510@q75g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
On Apr 30, 12:59 pm, "Androcles" =
<Engin...@hogwarts.physics.co.uk>
wrote:
"Randy Poe" <poespam-t...@yahoo.com> wrote in =
messagenews:1177935822.077487.120540@p77g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
"Androcles believes that it was impossible for Urban Le =
Verrier
to observe that the precession of Mercury was 566 arcsec
per century"
Correct, Urbain Le Verrier (1811-1877) didn't observe for a =
century,
he was dead after 66 years. Therefore it was impossible.
I see no tables, no notes, no positions of Mercury written =
down.
There is no empirical data there to deny.
No, only the conclusion from the empirical data.
You accused me of disputing empirical data and used the above as
an example, stooopid illiterate blind Poe.
I want the EMPIRICAL data to run through my computer, then
I can check Urbain Le Verrier's calculations.
Withdraw your accusation, libellous fuckhead.
So what is your position. Be coherent. Is it that it was =
impossible
for le Verrier to observe this rate of precession? Or that it
was possible.
Today you say
Doesn't apply, I have never stated what you claim, you lying =
tord,
and I resent any insinuation that I did. The observations are
reasonably accurate, the theory is garbage.
Do you mean LE VERRIER'S observations are reasonably
accurate?
I don't have his observations but I anticipate they are =
reasonable, poor
stooopid illiterate tord.
If Urbain Le Verrier claims Mercury was at such and such Right =
Ascension
and Declination on a specified date and time then I'll not dispute =
it, I have
no reason to. Of course, I want to know what clock he used as well =
when
he timed his observation. I might dispute that.
I do not dispute empirical data. Never have, never will.
Give me Urbain Le Verrier's observations (a photostat copy of his =
handwriting will do),
I want to check his mathematics and his conclusion. I have no =
reason to suppose
Urbain Le Verrier was not a conscientious and honourable man =
(which is more than
I can say for you) but he could have made a simple error which my =
computer will not.
That's known as data reduction, poor ignorant Poe.
Because a couple of weeks ago you said Le Verrier's 1859
paper was garbage.
So which one is your position on the Le Verrier paper?
The conclusion you claim for it is garbage,
So you think
Never mind what I think, fuckhead, you've been caught lying.
You accused me of rejecting empirical evidence.
Produce the evidence, you sick *****.
=20
1. Astronomers have empirical observations showing a drift rate
of 56 arc sec per year in the perihelion of Mercury (as observed
from earth).
Yes, and NM calculations agree with that to within 43 arc seconds per =
century,=20
or 0.00000799494273389855719%.
NM agrees with empirical observation.
A GR calculation gets it hopelessly wrong, 2.502 degrees a year (four =
figure accuracy).
GR does not agree with empirical observation.
GR is fucked.
2. Androcles says no, they don't.
Fucking liar.
Produce the evidence, you poor sick stooopid whacko *****.
That was easy.
Yes, it certain was, moron.
=20
.
|
|
|
| User: "Randy Poe" |
|
| Title: Re: Psychotic Humpty Roberts places foot in mouth (again). |
01 May 2007 02:58:35 PM |
|
|
On May 1, 11:37 am, "Androcles" <Engin...@hogwarts.physics.co.uk>
wrote:
"Randy Poe" <poespam-t...@yahoo.com> wrote in messagenews:1178019639.149010.241900@y5g2000hsa.googlegroups.com...
On May 1, 4:14 am, "Androcles" <Engin...@hogwarts.physics.co.uk>
wrote:
"Randy Poe" <poespam-t...@yahoo.com> wrote in messagenews:1177984222.477586.302940@c35g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
On Apr 30, 3:08 pm, "Androcles" <Engin...@hogwarts.physics.co.uk>
wrote:
"Randy Poe" <poespam-t...@yahoo.com> wrote in messagenews:1177955755.265712.107510@q75g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
On Apr 30, 12:59 pm, "Androcles" <Engin...@hogwarts.physics.co.uk>
wrote:
"Randy Poe" <poespam-t...@yahoo.com> wrote in messagenews:1177935822.077487.120540@p77g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
"Androcles believes that it was impossible for Urban Le Verrier
to observe that the precession of Mercury was 566 arcsec
per century"
Correct, Urbain Le Verrier (1811-1877) didn't observe for a century,
he was dead after 66 years. Therefore it was impossible.
I see no tables, no notes, no positions of Mercury written down.
There is no empirical data there to deny.
No, only the conclusion from the empirical data.
You accused me of disputing empirical data and used the above as
an example, stooopid illiterate blind Poe.
I want the EMPIRICAL data to run through my computer, then
I can check Urbain Le Verrier's calculations.
Withdraw your accusation, libellous fuckhead.
So what is your position. Be coherent. Is it that it was impossible
for le Verrier to observe this rate of precession? Or that it
was possible.
Today you say
Doesn't apply, I have never stated what you claim, you lying tord,
and I resent any insinuation that I did. The observations are
reasonably accurate, the theory is garbage.
Do you mean LE VERRIER'S observations are reasonably
accurate?
I don't have his observations but I anticipate they are reasonable, poor
stooopid illiterate tord.
If Urbain Le Verrier claims Mercury was at such and such Right Ascension
and Declination on a specified date and time then I'll not dispute it, I have
no reason to. Of course, I want to know what clock he used as well when
he timed his observation. I might dispute that.
I do not dispute empirical data. Never have, never will.
Give me Urbain Le Verrier's observations (a photostat copy of his handwriting will do),
I want to check his mathematics and his conclusion. I have no reason to suppose
Urbain Le Verrier was not a conscientious and honourable man (which is more than
I can say for you) but he could have made a simple error which my computer will not.
That's known as data reduction, poor ignorant Poe.
Because a couple of weeks ago you said Le Verrier's 1859
paper was garbage.
So which one is your position on the Le Verrier paper?
The conclusion you claim for it is garbage,
So you think
Never mind what I think, fuckhead, you've been caught lying.
You accused me of rejecting empirical evidence.
Produce the evidence, you sick *****.
1. Astronomers have empirical observations showing a drift rate
of 56 arc sec per year in the perihelion of Mercury (as observed
from earth).
Yes, and NM calculations agree with that to within 43 arc seconds per century,
or 0.00000799494273389855719%.
NM agrees with empirical observation.
I see I went too fast.
1. Astronomers have empirical observations showing a drift rate
of 56+-0.1 arc sec per year in the perihelion of Mercury (as observed
from earth).
Perturbation method with a Newtonian model predicts 55.57
arcsec per year drift.
55.57 is inconsistent with 56+-0.1.
2. Androcles denies that the observations are 56+-0.1.
- Randy
.
|
|
|
| User: "Androcles" |
|
| Title: Re: Psychotic Humpty Roberts places foot in mouth (again). |
03 May 2007 11:22:12 AM |
|
|
"Randy Poe" <poespam-trap@yahoo.com> wrote in message =
news:1178049515.641090.226420@n76g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
On May 1, 11:37 am, "Androcles" <Engin...@hogwarts.physics.co.uk>
wrote:
"Randy Poe" <poespam-t...@yahoo.com> wrote in =
messagenews:1178019639.149010.241900@y5g2000hsa.googlegroups.com...
On May 1, 4:14 am, "Androcles" <Engin...@hogwarts.physics.co.uk>
wrote:
"Randy Poe" <poespam-t...@yahoo.com> wrote in =
messagenews:1177984222.477586.302940@c35g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
On Apr 30, 3:08 pm, "Androcles" =
<Engin...@hogwarts.physics.co.uk>
wrote:
"Randy Poe" <poespam-t...@yahoo.com> wrote in =
messagenews:1177955755.265712.107510@q75g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
On Apr 30, 12:59 pm, "Androcles" =
<Engin...@hogwarts.physics.co.uk>
wrote:
"Randy Poe" <poespam-t...@yahoo.com> wrote in =
messagenews:1177935822.077487.120540@p77g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
"Androcles believes that it was impossible for Urban Le =
Verrier
to observe that the precession of Mercury was 566 arcsec
per century"
Correct, Urbain Le Verrier (1811-1877) didn't observe for =
a century,
he was dead after 66 years. Therefore it was impossible.
I see no tables, no notes, no positions of Mercury written =
down.
There is no empirical data there to deny.
No, only the conclusion from the empirical data.
You accused me of disputing empirical data and used the above =
as
an example, stooopid illiterate blind Poe.
I want the EMPIRICAL data to run through my computer, then
I can check Urbain Le Verrier's calculations.
Withdraw your accusation, libellous fuckhead.
So what is your position. Be coherent. Is it that it was =
impossible
for le Verrier to observe this rate of precession? Or that it
was possible.
Today you say
Doesn't apply, I have never stated what you claim, you =
lying tord,
and I resent any insinuation that I did. The observations =
are
reasonably accurate, the theory is garbage.
Do you mean LE VERRIER'S observations are reasonably
accurate?
I don't have his observations but I anticipate they are =
reasonable, poor
stooopid illiterate tord.
If Urbain Le Verrier claims Mercury was at such and such Right =
Ascension
and Declination on a specified date and time then I'll not =
dispute it, I have
no reason to. Of course, I want to know what clock he used as =
well when
he timed his observation. I might dispute that.
I do not dispute empirical data. Never have, never will.
Give me Urbain Le Verrier's observations (a photostat copy of =
his handwriting will do),
I want to check his mathematics and his conclusion. I have no =
reason to suppose
Urbain Le Verrier was not a conscientious and honourable man =
(which is more than
I can say for you) but he could have made a simple error which =
my computer will not.
That's known as data reduction, poor ignorant Poe.
Because a couple of weeks ago you said Le Verrier's 1859
paper was garbage.
So which one is your position on the Le Verrier paper?
The conclusion you claim for it is garbage,
So you think
Never mind what I think, fuckhead, you've been caught lying.
You accused me of rejecting empirical evidence.
Produce the evidence, you sick *****.
1. Astronomers have empirical observations showing a drift rate
of 56 arc sec per year in the perihelion of Mercury (as observed
from earth).
Yes, and NM calculations agree with that to within 43 arc seconds per =
century,
or 0.00000799494273389855719%.
NM agrees with empirical observation.
=20
I see
No you don't, you are blind, you lying tord.
I went too fast.
I see you are fucking stupid, you've been answered and caught lying, you =
sick *****.
=20
1. Astronomers have empirical observations showing a drift rate
of 56+-0.1 arc sec per year in the perihelion of Mercury (as observed
from earth).
=20
Perturbation method with a Newtonian model predicts 55.57
arcsec per year drift.
Longitude of aphelion with a Newtonian model predicts 360 degrees
and 14 arc seconds per orbit, no drift, learn to calculate.
Perturbation method with a Einsteinian model predicts 2.506 DEGREES
per year "drift".
=20
55.57 is inconsistent with 56+-0.1.
360 degrees and 14 arc seconds per orbit agrees with observation.
What do you keep referring to an Earth year for, poor innumerate Poe?
This is Mercury we are discussing, not Earth, ***** bag.
The GR figure of 2.506 degrees is inconsistent with observation.
2. Androcles denies that the observations are 56+-0.1.
Poe is a disgusting and libellous liar, Androcles has NEVER denied=20
empirical data, especially since it agrees with Newtonian calculations.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Randy Poe" |
|
| Title: Re: Psychotic Humpty Roberts places foot in mouth (again). |
03 May 2007 12:30:22 PM |
|
|
On May 3, 12:22 pm, "Androcles" <Engin...@hogwarts.physics.co.uk>
wrote:
"Randy Poe" <poespam-t...@yahoo.com> wrote in messagenews:1178049515.641090.226420@n76g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
On May 1, 11:37 am, "Androcles" <Engin...@hogwarts.physics.co.uk>
wrote:
"Randy Poe" <poespam-t...@yahoo.com> wrote in messagenews:1178019639.149010.241900@y5g2000hsa.googlegroups.com...
On May 1, 4:14 am, "Androcles" <Engin...@hogwarts.physics.co.uk>
wrote:
"Randy Poe" <poespam-t...@yahoo.com> wrote in messagenews:1177984222.477586.302940@c35g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
On Apr 30, 3:08 pm, "Androcles" <Engin...@hogwarts.physics.co.uk>
wrote:
"Randy Poe" <poespam-t...@yahoo.com> wrote in messagenews:1177955755.265712.107510@q75g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
On Apr 30, 12:59 pm, "Androcles" <Engin...@hogwarts.physics.co.uk>
wrote:
"Randy Poe" <poespam-t...@yahoo.com> wrote in messagenews:1177935822.077487.120540@p77g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
"Androcles believes that it was impossible for Urban Le Verrier
to observe that the precession of Mercury was 566 arcsec
per century"
Correct, Urbain Le Verrier (1811-1877) didn't observe for a century,
he was dead after 66 years. Therefore it was impossible.
I see no tables, no notes, no positions of Mercury written down.
There is no empirical data there to deny.
No, only the conclusion from the empirical data.
You accused me of disputing empirical data and used the above as
an example, stooopid illiterate blind Poe.
I want the EMPIRICAL data to run through my computer, then
I can check Urbain Le Verrier's calculations.
Withdraw your accusation, libellous fuckhead.
So what is your position. Be coherent. Is it that it was impossible
for le Verrier to observe this rate of precession? Or that it
was possible.
Today you say
Doesn't apply, I have never stated what you claim, you lying tord,
and I resent any insinuation that I did. The observations are
reasonably accurate, the theory is garbage.
Do you mean LE VERRIER'S observations are reasonably
accurate?
I don't have his observations but I anticipate they are reasonable, poor
stooopid illiterate tord.
If Urbain Le Verrier claims Mercury was at such and such Right Ascension
and Declination on a specified date and time then I'll not dispute it, I have
no reason to. Of course, I want to know what clock he used as well when
he timed his observation. I might dispute that.
I do not dispute empirical data. Never have, never will.
Give me Urbain Le Verrier's observations (a photostat copy of his handwriting will do),
I want to check his mathematics and his conclusion. I have no reason to suppose
Urbain Le Verrier was not a conscientious and honourable man (which is more than
I can say for you) but he could have made a simple error which my computer will not.
That's known as data reduction, poor ignorant Poe.
Because a couple of weeks ago you said Le Verrier's 1859
paper was garbage.
So which one is your position on the Le Verrier paper?
The conclusion you claim for it is garbage,
So you think
Never mind what I think, fuckhead, you've been caught lying.
You accused me of rejecting empirical evidence.
Produce the evidence, you sick *****.
1. Astronomers have empirical observations showing a drift rate
of 56 arc sec per year in the perihelion of Mercury (as observed
from earth).
Yes, and NM calculations agree with that to within 43 arc seconds per century,
or 0.00000799494273389855719%.
NM agrees with empirical observation.
I see
No you don't, you are blind, you lying tord.
I went too fast.
I see you are fucking stupid, you've been answered and caught lying, you sick *****.
1. Astronomers have empirical observations showing a drift rate
of 56+-0.1 arc sec per year in the perihelion of Mercury (as observed
from earth).
Perturbation method with a Newtonian model predicts 55.57
arcsec per year drift.
Longitude of aphelion with a Newtonian model predicts 360 degrees
and 14 arc seconds per orbit, no drift, learn to calculate.
Perturbation method with a Einsteinian model predicts 2.506 DEGREES
per year "drift".
55.57 is inconsistent with 56+-0.1.
360 degrees and 14 arc seconds per orbit agrees with observation.
What do you keep referring to an Earth year for, poor innumerate Poe?
This is Mercury we are discussing, not Earth, ***** bag.
The GR figure of 2.506 degrees is inconsistent with observation.
2. Androcles denies that the observations are 56+-0.1.
Poe is a disgusting and libellous liar, Androcles has NEVER denied
empirical data, especially since it agrees with Newtonian calculations.
Poor antiquated confused Androcles. Wanted this thread to
be a GR dig, an anti-Einstein rant, and doesn't understand that
the statement "Observations of Mercury's orbit are inconsistent
with Newtonian calculations" was:
- first made in 1859, and
- never disputed in the remainder of the 19th century
or since, though scientists argued about the REASON for
the inconsistency.
Androcles just can't understand that he puts himself in a
pre-1859 model of the world with the statement "empirical
data agrees with Newtonian calculations". The opposite has
been an established fact since 1859.
- Randy
.
|
|
|
| User: "Androcles" |
|
| Title: Re: Psychotic Humpty Roberts places foot in mouth (again). |
03 May 2007 12:39:14 PM |
|
|
"Randy Poe" <poespam-trap@yahoo.com> wrote in message =
news:1178213421.962370.174130@n76g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
On May 3, 12:22 pm, "Androcles" <Engin...@hogwarts.physics.co.uk>
wrote:
"Randy Poe" <poespam-t...@yahoo.com> wrote in =
messagenews:1178049515.641090.226420@n76g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
On May 1, 11:37 am, "Androcles" <Engin...@hogwarts.physics.co.uk>
wrote:
"Randy Poe" <poespam-t...@yahoo.com> wrote in =
messagenews:1178019639.149010.241900@y5g2000hsa.googlegroups.com...
On May 1, 4:14 am, "Androcles" <Engin...@hogwarts.physics.co.uk>
wrote:
"Randy Poe" <poespam-t...@yahoo.com> wrote in =
messagenews:1177984222.477586.302940@c35g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
On Apr 30, 3:08 pm, "Androcles" =
<Engin...@hogwarts.physics.co.uk>
wrote:
"Randy Poe" <poespam-t...@yahoo.com> wrote in =
messagenews:1177955755.265712.107510@q75g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
On Apr 30, 12:59 pm, "Androcles" =
<Engin...@hogwarts.physics.co.uk>
wrote:
"Randy Poe" <poespam-t...@yahoo.com> wrote in =
messagenews:1177935822.077487.120540@p77g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
"Androcles believes that it was impossible for Urban =
Le Verrier
to observe that the precession of Mercury was 566 =
arcsec
per century"
Correct, Urbain Le Verrier (1811-1877) didn't observe =
for a century,
he was dead after 66 years. Therefore it was =
impossible.
I see no tables, no notes, no positions of Mercury =
written down.
There is no empirical data there to deny.
No, only the conclusion from the empirical data.
You accused me of disputing empirical data and used the =
above as
an example, stooopid illiterate blind Poe.
I want the EMPIRICAL data to run through my computer, then
I can check Urbain Le Verrier's calculations.
Withdraw your accusation, libellous fuckhead.
So what is your position. Be coherent. Is it that it was =
impossible
for le Verrier to observe this rate of precession? Or that =
it
was possible.
Today you say
Doesn't apply, I have never stated what you claim, you =
lying tord,
and I resent any insinuation that I did. The =
observations are
reasonably accurate, the theory is garbage.
Do you mean LE VERRIER'S observations are reasonably
accurate?
I don't have his observations but I anticipate they are =
reasonable, poor
stooopid illiterate tord.
If Urbain Le Verrier claims Mercury was at such and such =
Right Ascension
and Declination on a specified date and time then I'll not =
dispute it, I have
no reason to. Of course, I want to know what clock he used =
as well when
he timed his observation. I might dispute that.
I do not dispute empirical data. Never have, never will.
Give me Urbain Le Verrier's observations (a photostat copy =
of his handwriting will do),
I want to check his mathematics and his conclusion. I have =
no reason to suppose
Urbain Le Verrier was not a conscientious and honourable man =
(which is more than
I can say for you) but he could have made a simple error =
which my computer will not.
That's known as data reduction, poor ignorant Poe.
Because a couple of weeks ago you said Le Verrier's 1859
paper was garbage.
So which one is your position on the Le Verrier paper?
The conclusion you claim for it is garbage,
So you think
Never mind what I think, fuckhead, you've been caught lying.
You accused me of rejecting empirical evidence.
Produce the evidence, you sick *****.
1. Astronomers have empirical observations showing a drift rate
of 56 arc sec per year in the perihelion of Mercury (as observed
from earth).
Yes, and NM calculations agree with that to within 43 arc seconds =
per century,
or 0.00000799494273389855719%.
NM agrees with empirical observation.
I see
No you don't, you are blind, you lying tord.
I went too fast.
I see you are fucking stupid, you've been answered and caught lying, =
you sick *****.
1. Astronomers have empirical observations showing a drift rate
of 56+-0.1 arc sec per year in the perihelion of Mercury (as =
observed
from earth).
Perturbation method with a Newtonian model predicts 55.57
arcsec per year drift.
Longitude of aphelion with a Newtonian model predicts 360 degrees
and 14 arc seconds per orbit, no drift, learn to calculate.
Perturbation method with a Einsteinian model predicts 2.506 DEGREES
per year "drift".
55.57 is inconsistent with 56+-0.1.
360 degrees and 14 arc seconds per orbit agrees with observation.
What do you keep referring to an Earth year for, poor innumerate Poe?
This is Mercury we are discussing, not Earth, ***** bag.
The GR figure of 2.506 degrees is inconsistent with observation.
2. Androcles denies that the observations are 56+-0.1.
Poe is a disgusting and libellous liar, Androcles has NEVER denied
empirical data, especially since it agrees with Newtonian =
calculations.
=20
Poor antiquated confused Androcles.=20
Poor antiquated fuckhead Poe is a libellous ***** who fails to answer the =
challenge and tries to win an argument by telling lies about people.
What do you keep referring to an Earth year for, poor innumerate Poe?
This is Mercury we are discussing, not Earth, ***** bag.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Randy Poe" |
|
| Title: Re: Psychotic Humpty Roberts places foot in mouth (again). |
03 May 2007 01:15:35 PM |
|
|
On May 3, 1:39 pm, "Androcles" <Engin...@hogwarts.physics.co.uk>
wrote:
"Randy Poe" <poespam-t...@yahoo.com> wrote in messagenews:1178213421.962370.174130@n76g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
On May 3, 12:22 pm, "Androcles" <Engin...@hogwarts.physics.co.uk>
wrote:
"Randy Poe" <poespam-t...@yahoo.com> wrote in messagenews:1178049515.641090.226420@n76g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
On May 1, 11:37 am, "Androcles" <Engin...@hogwarts.physics.co.uk>
wrote:
"Randy Poe" <poespam-t...@yahoo.com> wrote in messagenews:1178019639.149010.241900@y5g2000hsa.googlegroups.com...
On May 1, 4:14 am, "Androcles" <Engin...@hogwarts.physics.co.uk>
wrote:
"Randy Poe" <poespam-t...@yahoo.com> wrote in messagenews:1177984222.477586.302940@c35g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
On Apr 30, 3:08 pm, "Androcles" <Engin...@hogwarts.physics.co.uk>
wrote:
"Randy Poe" <poespam-t...@yahoo.com> wrote in messagenews:1177955755.265712.107510@q75g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
On Apr 30, 12:59 pm, "Androcles" <Engin...@hogwarts.physics.co.uk>
wrote:
"Randy Poe" <poespam-t...@yahoo.com> wrote in messagenews:1177935822.077487.120540@p77g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
"Androcles believes that it was impossible for Urban Le Verrier
to observe that the precession of Mercury was 566 arcsec
per century"
Correct, Urbain Le Verrier (1811-1877) didn't observe for a century,
he was dead after 66 years. Therefore it was impossible.
I see no tables, no notes, no positions of Mercury written down.
There is no empirical data there to deny.
No, only the conclusion from the empirical | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
