In article ,
Randy Poe wrote:
On Mon, 13 Oct 2003 21:16:41 GMT, wrote:

In article ,
(Randy Poe) writes:
You realize that Newtonian theory is measurably
incorrect for describing a pendulum, right?

Pendulum? How so (I mean, other than relativistic corrections)?

I had in mind the simple-harmonic description when I wrote that.

Don't blame Newtonian theory for the incorrectness of the simple-hamonic
description of the motion of a pendulum when the amplitude is large.
Newtonian theory correctly predicts the motion of the pendulum if you
don't make the small-angle approximation that leads to simple harmonic
motion (and if you're not in a regime that requires GR, of course).

--
Jon Bell Presbyterian College
Dept. of Physics and Computer Science Clinton, South Carolina USA

In article , Randy Poe writes:
On Mon, 13 Oct 2003 21:16:41 GMT, wrote:

In article , (Randy Poe) writes:
You realize that Newtonian theory is measurably
incorrect for describing a pendulum, right?

Pendulum? How so (I mean, other than relativistic corrections)?

I had in mind the simple-harmonic description when I wrote that.

Ahh, thought so. But then, it is not any problem with Newtonian
mechanics, just of using an approximation instead of the exact
potential.

Mati Meron | "When you argue with a fool,
| chances are he is doing just the same"

On Tue, 14 Oct 2003 03:52:33 +0000 (UTC), (Jon
Bell) wrote:
In article ,
Randy Poe wrote:
On Mon, 13 Oct 2003 21:16:41 GMT, wrote:

In article ,
(Randy Poe) writes:
You realize that Newtonian theory is measurably
incorrect for describing a pendulum, right?

Pendulum? How so (I mean, other than relativistic corrections)?

I had in mind the simple-harmonic description when I wrote that.

Don't blame Newtonian theory for the incorrectness of the simple-hamonic
description of the motion of a pendulum when the amplitude is large.
Newtonian theory correctly predicts the motion of the pendulum if you
don't make the small-angle approximation that leads to simple harmonic
motion (and if you're not in a regime that requires GR, of course).

The problem with not making the small angle approximation is that you
get an equation with no actual solution, which precludes getting the
exact prediction, just like Newtonian gravity doesn't have solutions
in non-trivial scenarios.


-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----

"Randy Poe" wrote in message
m...
"Harry" wrote in message
...
"Big Bird" wrote in message
om...
There's a certain type person who'll retain this way of thinking all
their life -- everything is just dogma and the very idea of seeing
something by themselves is far from their capabilities.

To such a person, it is important to discredit the *person* who
figured something out that they don't like. They cannot grasp that
reality is independent of the people who write about it, that
relativity is a fact even if Einstein were a child molestor. That the
authority of people is worthless in physics.

I think you are right about that; except that it works both ways!
To people who see Einstein as their prophet of science who revealed his
Knowledge to them, any other opinion is dangerous for their reality
feeling.

I have not seen anyone I would characterize that way. Those who
believe that relativity is a so-far-correct theory do so on
the only basis that can possibly exist: It fits the data
so far.

The result is that there are fanatics in this newsgroup on both sides of
the
scientific debate.

My guess is you are characterizing anybody who is pro-relativity
as a "fanatic", "seeing Einstein as their prophet who revealed
his Knowledge", etc. I don't know of anybody who thinks
relativity will last forever as the last description
of the gravitation, space, and time.

You are not a good guesser!

A number of books are available that are written by scientists who
propose
alternatives to Einstein's version of SRT.

Alternative theories can be offered on scientific grounds,
and tested against the same standard: Mother Nature. The
kinds of "alternate" theories that show up in spr are not
scientific theories, they are almagamations of mishmash
without equations or logic.

You forgot LET?

Harald

Australopithecus Afarensis wrote:

Well, I don't want to name any one, but I will give you a hint.


translation: you can't find one.

Look for blah blah blah says how great Einstein is through quotes after
quotes from books after books.


I can't find any of these. I think you need to look up the meaning of
"ubiquitous".

-E

* * *

"EjP" wrote in message
...
Australopithecus Afarensis wrote:


You have a very good observation. However, your research has missed these
ubiquitous posts worshipping Einstein.


Since they are "ubiquitous", perhaps you can give an example of one.
Try as I might, I can only find either explanations, mathematical
derivations, or citations to experimental evidence. Nothing I would
personally categorize as "worship".

-E


One particular cult from the desert
of the Southwest even patiently combs through all the literature ever
created by man from "The Iliad" to "Gravity" to determine if it is OK to
wipe their asses after taking a dump. If Einstein did not say to do so,
they won't do so.

* * *

"Nathaniel A. A. Hill" wrote in message
om...
I haven't actually read any of these posts or articles but, I'm wondering

if

anyone can enlighten me as to their raison d'etre. It seems like the
sci.physics tree has been infested with said articles.

While I'm certainly not opposed to questioning Einsteins postulates it

seems

that these are particularly juvenile; half seem to originate from the
aol.com domain and the others are just as farcical, claiming the they are
"silly", "violations of common sense" and "illogical".

(David Evens) writes:

On Tue, 14 Oct 2003 03:52:33 +0000 (UTC), (Jon
Bell) wrote:
In article ,
Randy Poe wrote:
On Mon, 13 Oct 2003 21:16:41 GMT, wrote:

In article ,
(Randy Poe) writes:
You realize that Newtonian theory is measurably
incorrect for describing a pendulum, right?

Pendulum? How so (I mean, other than relativistic corrections)?

I had in mind the simple-harmonic description when I wrote that.

Don't blame Newtonian theory for the incorrectness of the simple-hamonic
description of the motion of a pendulum when the amplitude is large.
Newtonian theory correctly predicts the motion of the pendulum if you
don't make the small-angle approximation that leads to simple harmonic
motion (and if you're not in a regime that requires GR, of course).

The problem with not making the small angle approximation is that you
get an equation with no actual solution, which precludes getting the
exact prediction, just like Newtonian gravity doesn't have solutions
in non-trivial scenarios.

Last time I checked, the solution to the Newtonian "pendulum" problem w/out
small-angle approx. (but still assuming a rigid rod) could be obtained in
closed form in terms of elliptic functions --- which are not only "exact,"
but have entire chapters and even _books_ written about their properties and uses.
So it what sense do you mean the equation has "no actual solution" ???

Perhaps you have confused the simple Newtonian pendulum with a chaotic system,
such as the double pendulum or driven pendulum ???


-- Gordon D. Pusch

perl -e '$_ = \n"; s/NO\.//; s/SPAM\.//; print;'

In article ,
David Evens wrote:
On Tue, 14 Oct 2003 03:52:33 +0000 (UTC), (Jon
Bell) wrote:
In article ,
Randy Poe wrote:
On Mon, 13 Oct 2003 21:16:41 GMT, wrote:

In article ,
(Randy Poe) writes:
You realize that Newtonian theory is measurably
incorrect for describing a pendulum, right?

Pendulum? How so (I mean, other than relativistic corrections)?

I had in mind the simple-harmonic description when I wrote that.

Don't blame Newtonian theory for the incorrectness of the simple-hamonic
description of the motion of a pendulum when the amplitude is large.
Newtonian theory correctly predicts the motion of the pendulum if you
don't make the small-angle approximation that leads to simple harmonic
motion (and if you're not in a regime that requires GR, of course).

The problem with not making the small angle approximation is that you
get an equation with no actual solution, which precludes getting the
exact prediction, just like Newtonian gravity doesn't have solutions
in non-trivial scenarios.

Would you feel better if the solution were in terms of some trig
functions? Except for an angle that is a multiple of pi/4, they're not
exact either, in the sense that we can't write down an answer as a finite
polynomial, a terminating decimal, or symbols like pi or sqrt(2) that save
us the embarassment of not being able to write down a termiinating
decimal.

But when you have an elliptic integral the problem is as good as solved
because it gives you orthogonality relations, integral and derivative
relations, and other exact properties, and like trig functions you can
get a number out of it to arbitrary precision.

--
"Let us learn to dream, gentlemen, then perhaps we shall find the
truth... But let us beware of publishing our dreams before they have been
put to the proof by the waking understanding." -- Friedrich August Kekulé

"Harry" wrote in message ...
"Randy Poe" wrote in message
m...

My guess is you are characterizing anybody who is pro-relativity
as a "fanatic", "seeing Einstein as their prophet who revealed
his Knowledge", etc. I don't know of anybody who thinks
relativity will last forever as the last description
of the gravitation, space, and time.

Your entire response:

You are not a good guesser!
You forgot LET?

An unsurprising lack of substance. Post flame-bait,
get responses, say nothing in return.

Perhaps you're not a troll, but it certainly looks
like that so far.

- Randy

In article , (David Evens) writes:
On Tue, 14 Oct 2003 03:52:33 +0000 (UTC), (Jon
Bell) wrote:
In article ,
Randy Poe wrote:
On Mon, 13 Oct 2003 21:16:41 GMT, wrote:

In article ,
(Randy Poe) writes:
You realize that Newtonian theory is measurably
incorrect for describing a pendulum, right?

Pendulum? How so (I mean, other than relativistic corrections)?

I had in mind the simple-harmonic description when I wrote that.

Don't blame Newtonian theory for the incorrectness of the simple-hamonic
description of the motion of a pendulum when the amplitude is large.
Newtonian theory correctly predicts the motion of the pendulum if you
don't make the small-angle approximation that leads to simple harmonic
motion (and if you're not in a regime that requires GR, of course).

The problem with not making the small angle approximation is that you
get an equation with no actual solution, which precludes getting the
exact prediction, just like Newtonian gravity doesn't have solutions
in non-trivial scenarios.

That's separate from "problems in Newtonian theory". Most problems
don't have exact, closed form solution and we resort to approximations
and numerical techniques. Not new, but not the theory's fault.

Mati Meron | "When you argue with a fool,
| chances are he is doing just the same"

"Australopithecus Afarensis" wrote in message news:D0Kib.63524$vj2.34505@fed1read06...
Well, I don't want to name any one, but I will give you a hint.

Look for blah blah blah says how great Einstein is through quotes after
quotes from books after books.

I still can't think of who this might refer to, but at
any rate "quoting from the writings of" does not equate
to "religiously worshipping".

There's a distinction between "admire" and "view as
infallible and godlike" that you and others seem unable
to make.

Besides, I think there are plenty of people who would argue
that Newton's contributions to physics were greater or more
ingenious than Einstein's, but we still believe his theories
were ultimately incorrect.

- Randy