Australopithecus Afarensis wrote:
: 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.

: * * *

Yes, there is a poster who does quote books saying how
great Einstein is. But have you noticed the reception he
receives by the "SRians" is not very positive? He often
gets as much abuse as the folks "challenging" relativity.

Stephen

Very well put.
Androcles

On 14 Oct 2003 08:31:53 -0500, (Gordon D.
Pusch) wrote:

(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,"

Well, so long as you ignore the mass and non-rigidity of the string,
the finite distribution of the swinging mass, air currents,
temperature fluctuations, friction at the apex and from the air, etc.

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 ???

The only point I was trying to make is that it is silly to bring GR to
bear on a problem to get things "right" to 20 decimal places, when
there are many other, classical effects swamping the GR corrections.
Elsewhere I make the analogy to precision fabrication machinery being
used in ordinary carpentry. Potter is attempting to say that if you
can't use X cheaply and easily for ordinary household tasks, it
obviously has no purpose in the universe.

- Randy

"Nathaniel A. A. Hill" wrote in message m...
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".

Nate, by now you have seen the degree of support from the DHRists, and
at first glance the arrogance and condescension shown towards
dissenters of "The Belief" might be inclined to sway you towards their
position. But have a closer look at their arguements and agendas, and
generally a different picture emerges. These are the type of people
who would have held as strong a view of their beliefs had they been
raised and taught as devout Muslims, Christians, Brahmins, etc. Also,
in many cases their livelihoods and reputations are inexorably
entwined in the desperate need to maintain "The Theory". A Cardinal
isn't about to get up before the congregation, and say, "Sorry, on
further thought on the theory of Christ's Resurrection, I've changed
my mind". Neither can a DHR whose life depends on it, review the
faulty maths and mind pictures of AE, and declare terminal error.
The scary part is that zealots of the calibre of Gordon P, not content
with blanket censorship of that which would enlighten an
un-brainwashed mind, is intent on burning at the stake anyone with the
imagination and intelligence to see and point to the contradictions in
AE's work.

"Open minds"
Jim G

PS: Although AOLs may appear from 'observers' in the northern
hemisphere to be standing on our heads, it is only to make it easier
for arrogant and abusive DHR's the better to kiss our arse!

(Gregory L. Hansen) wrote in message ...
In article ,
David Evens wrote:
....
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.

Ah ... I was going to answer in the same vein, but much more vaguely.


The equation certainly has actual solutions, which is demonstrated by
any real pendulum's ability to move through large amplitudes ... and
you point out, it even has mathematically tamed solutions.

In sci.physics.particle Gregory L. Hansen wrote:

: 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.

Last time I checked, sin(pi/6) and cos(pi/3) were rational numbers. Has
something happened in the world of trigonometry since I was in high school?

-----
Richard Schultz
Department of Chemistry, Bar-Ilan University, Ramat-Gan, Israel
Opinions expressed are mine alone, and not those of Bar-Ilan University
-----
"Logic is a wreath of pretty flowers which smell bad."

In article ,
Randy Poe wrote:
snip

The only point I was trying to make is that it is silly to bring GR to
bear on a problem to get things "right" to 20 decimal places, when
there are many other, classical effects swamping the GR corrections.
Elsewhere I make the analogy to precision fabrication machinery being
used in ordinary carpentry.

That was a very nice write-up. I liked the approach.

.. Potter is attempting to say that if you
can't use X cheaply and easily for ordinary household tasks, it
obviously has no purpose in the universe.

If I use Potter's logic, then I must conclude that he has
no purpose in the universe.

/BAH

Subtract a hundred and four for e-mail.

"Jim Greenfield" wrote in message om...
"Nathaniel A. A. Hill" wrote in message m...
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".

Nate, by now you have seen the degree of support from the DHRists,

I wonder why you so suddenly stopped responding to the
rather interesting chat we had on thread
enet-ops.be

Dirk Vdm

Actually, I thought that it was you dropped the ball.
Give me time to get through some interesting stuff on "Popping the Big Bang",
and I'll get back to you

Jim G

(Jim Greenfield) wrote in message . com...
"Nathaniel A. A. Hill" wrote in message m...
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".

Nate, by now you have seen the degree of support from the DHRists, and
at first glance the arrogance and condescension shown towards
dissenters of "The Belief" might be inclined to sway you towards their
position. But have a closer look at their arguements and agendas, and
generally a different picture emerges. These are the type of people
who would have held as strong a view of their beliefs had they been
raised and taught as devout Muslims, Christians, Brahmins, etc. Also,
in many cases their livelihoods and reputations are inexorably
entwined in the desperate need to maintain "The Theory". A Cardinal
isn't about to get up before the congregation, and say, "Sorry, on
further thought on the theory of Christ's Resurrection, I've changed
my mind".

Perhaps not. However, a researcher, who makes his reputation
by the newness of his ideas, would become an instant star
if he were to stand up at a conference, proclaim errors
in relativity, and then provide rigorous proof.

Neither can a DHR whose life depends on it, review the
faulty maths and mind pictures of AE,

There is nobody in scientific research whose "life depends"
on holding up progress. However, if they were to stand
up and claim "faulty maths of AE" and then "illustrate" their
proof with an incoherent series of trivial algebra
mistakes, they would indeed lose their livelihood. Rightly
so.

The problem is not in criticism per se, in other words,
but in the sanity of the criticism. You have nothing
to say. Just because you are not the right person to
find any faults in relativity does not mean relativity
is perfect.

- Randy