"Oriel36" wrote in message om...
"Dirk Van de moortel" wrote in message
...
"Paul B. Andersen" wrote in message ...
"Oriel36" skrev i melding
om...
Einstein:
"According to Newton's theory, a planet moves round the sun in an
ellipse, which would permanently maintain its position with respect to
the fixed stars, if we could disregard the motion of the fixed stars,
themselves and the action of the other planets under consideration.
Thus, if we correct the observed motion of the planets for these two
influences, and if Newton's theory be strictly correct, we ought to
obtain for the orbit of the planet an ellipse, which is fixed with
reference to the fixed stars"
http://www.bartleby.com/173/29.html
If you ever stop laughing at the influence of the "motion of the fixed
stars" on the motion of Mercury (btw "fixed star" motion is
circumpolar motion which is, after all, a property of the axial
rotation of the Earth)perhaps you will see why things are truly dire,I
mean for goodness sake this guy is talking geocentricity openly.
You mean Oriel36 is talking geocentricity openly?
Einstein makes no reference to the motion of the stars
as observed in the Earth frame. Quite the contrary.
The expression "fixed stars" is obsolete, it is from a time
when all bright heavenly bodies were called stars, and
"fixed stars" and "moving stars" were what we now would
call stars and planets.
You are laughing at your own ignorance of the meaning
of the expression "fixed star".
If we skip the obsolete and redundant "fixed" from Einstein's text,
it becomes:
" .. planet moves round the sun in an ellipse, which would
permanently maintain its position with respect to
the stars, if we could disregard the motion of the stars
themselves and the action of the other planets under consideration."
You must rather stupid to think that "the motion of the stars
themselves" is a reference to the circumpolar motion in the Earth
fixed frame. It is obviously a recognition of the fact that stars are
NOT fixed, but are moving relative to each other.
But if we ignore this relative motion of the stars, we can consider
the stars to define a non rotating frame of reference - which was
Einstein's obvious point with his statement.
And of course this statement does not include any
reference to "the influence of the 'motion of the fixed
stars' on the motion of Mercury". It is clearly the other
planets that has an influence on Mercury's orbit.
("the action of the other planets")
Hashanah!
What a stupid misunderstanding!
Even multiple misunderstanding!
Of such a simple text!
Paul, not finished laughing
You will also soon find out that Oriel36 will not be
finished misunderstanding. It is Gerald Kelleher's
private way of life, his mission, you just witnessed.
Dirk Vdm
Well if it is'nt Speicher's dog.
So you made a mistake and did'nt recognise the passage from the
kinematics rubbish of the 1905 paper,all the same your fumble or
whatever you call these things is funny.
The relativistic rubbish never made sense anyway,it just came at an
astronomical quiet period before the scale of the cosmos was
discovered in terms of galaxies,people don't care and those that do
are into multiple universes,balloon universes and heaven knows
what.People could'nt care less what you lot come up with next and you
can only correspond with idiots whoes only enjoyment is to follow the
same linguistic hopscotch as Albert in his hatchet job on astronomy
via Newton.
Here is that fumble that should have made it into your own site,cheer
up Dirk,it could be worse but not by much -
__________________________________________________ ____________________________
"Oriel36" wrote in message om...
Let us take a system of co-ordinates in which the equations of
Newtonian mechanics hold good. In order to render our presentation
more precise and to distinguish this system of co-ordinates verbally
from others which will be introduced hereafter, we call it the
``stationary system.''
What is this?
Some kind of quote of some post?
An introduction to the **** you produce later on?
**** that you expect someone will bother reading?
DVM
__________________________________________________ _____________________________
You still don't seem to understand why I asked you
these 4 questions.
So let me try to explain in simple words.
Let's have a close look at the message you are referring
to he
http://groups.google.com/groups?&thr... ng.google.com
I will literally take over what you wrote:
| Let us take a system of co-ordinates in which the equations of
| Newtonian mechanics hold good.2 In order to render our presentation
| more precise and to distinguish this system of co-ordinates verbally
| from others which will be introduced hereafter, we call it the
| ``stationary system.''
|
| Dear Al,
| ...
This is what you gave us.
As you see,
- There is something severely wrong with the format.
- If this was a quotation from Einstein, you left out the quotes.
- You write a paragraph followed by "Dear Al..."
- In what you have included here, you have reformatted
and left out the failed introduction "Dear Al'.
So I will kindly ask again, and I will clarify what I mean:
1) What is this?
2) Some kind of quote of some post?
Clarification:
Something you want us to believe you invented?
Something you found somewhere?
Something you want to tell us?
Something you want to tell us something about?
Something you forgot to delete when you started
with the beginning of your message "Dear Al,"?
3) An introduction to the **** you produce later on?
4) **** that you expect someone will bother reading?
Clarification:
The '****' in question 4 is a reprise of the '****' in
question 3. This is what we call a 'style figure'.
Didn't they teach you to write English in Germany?
How old are you?
Dirk Vdm