On May 3, 10:56*am, Smooth John wrote:
On May 3, 3:57 pm, Mike wrote:





On May 2, 7:00 pm, Eric Gisse wrote:

On May 2, 2:34 pm, Mike wrote:

On May 1, 5:24 pm, Eric Gisse wrote:

Make claims about the actual rigorous derivation in chapter 6.-

Yes, I will make claims. He writes on page 166:

"We will treat the motion of the stars in the Newtonian approximation,
where we can discuss their orbit just as Kepler would have. Circular
orbits are most easily characterized by equating the force due to
gravity to the outward “centrifugal” force"

Then he uses Newtoniam Mechanics in a somewhat wrong way and makes
referece to centrifugal forces in equations 6.86 and 6.87.

The man cannot modelk a circular orbit using GR. He must revert to
simpel Newtonian Mechanics by making first the unproved claim that GR
converges to Newtonian limit.

You think this is physics. I think it is deception.

Making about 17 assumptions to get to Newtonian limit is not physics..
It is called circus.

Mike

Why are you complaining? That was an /application/ of the Newtonian
approximation.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Idiot, such "application" was never proven in the paper. It is just
assumed. Nowhere in the paper it is proved that in GR a centripetal
force must be equal to a centrifugal force in a circular orbit. This
is know only from Newtoniam Mechanics.

Furthermore, nowehere in GR the term centrifugal force comes about
unless one has read Newtonian Mechanics.

You idiot, give the GR equatiuons to a genious (not to you stupid) who
never studied Newtonian mechanics. He will never be able to write that
equation you fool. He will get nothing out of GR equations. Jusr non-
sense at the weak field limit.

http://www.albinoblacksheep.com/flash/youare

Mike

Some people would say that you protest a bit too much, are you gay?


Why don't you ask your girlfriend. She's got opinion about that.

Mike


- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -