Starship Asterisk*

Jim, I am really getting tired with this,

JimJast wrote:I think that it will be more efficient if you just read from the internet my popular "Gravitation for everyone" ("Explanation for high school students and astrophysicists why thing fall").

I did read that to some extent, and there is pretty much same situaton (ungrounded assumptions in every 2nd paragraph). Here, we cant even deal with one simple formula you claim to be valid, so how could you seriously want us to discuss each and every statement from myriads you wrote there? Under current rate of meaningful responses on your part, It would take many months if not years

It seems to me that you think, if your work is titled "gravity for everyone, explanation for high-school students", it is perfectly ok to use bad math, because noone notices and noone cares how do you get to your results. Unfortunately, we do, so I have diffent suggestion here for you. Why dont you write "gravitation for mainstream scientists, explanation for clean math fans", where you would do your best to use bullet-proof math method to derive your results, and THEN put that up for discussion?

Chris Peterson wrote:Newtonian mechanics makes no assumption at all about the "what" or "why" behind the force. It doesn't matter. What matters is that you have a theory, and you have observations. You can apply the theory, and reliably predict the observations (within the non-relativistic regime, of course). It's a simple as that.

Here is a fragment of "The Einsteinian Gravitation For Poets and Science Teachers" that clarifies the reasons why you are wrong:

The Einsteinian Gravitation wrote:A mathematical theory is of course the same thing as magical spell that has been used by magicians in pre-scientific times to produce desired results. The ancient magicians, similarly as physicists that were using Newtonian Gravitation a century ago, didn't have any idea why their spells worked. When an ancient magician pointed at the right time to the eastern part of the horizon uttering three times "abracadabra" the sun started rising from below the horizon (the horizon was a straight line then because the earth was flat then). The spell worked every time. The formula that three "abracadabras" at right time equal sunrise was tested and worked every day. It is the same with calculation of a trajectory of a missile using Newtonian formula for the nonexistent, as we know now, gravitational attractive force between the missile and the earth. The Newtonian formula works every time and only those who understand Einsteinian Gravitation know why. A group that might soon include the reader (if he/she does not fall asleep before the author gets to the point).

JimJast wrote:Here is a fragment of "The Einsteinian Gravitation For Poets and Science Teachers" that clarifies the reasons why you are wrong:

The Einsteinian Gravitation wrote:A mathematical theory is of course the same thing as magical spell that has been used by magicians in pre-scientific times to produce desired results....

I'm afraid that clarifies nothing for me. It only suggests that the author has no understanding at all of modern science.

The Einsteinian Gravitation wrote:A mathematical theory is of course the same thing as magical spell that has been used by magicians in pre-scientific times to produce desired results....

Reminds me Clarke's law #3:

Clarke wrote:Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.

makc wrote:Jim, I am really getting tired with this

If you are getting tired it might influence your clear thinking so we may put it off for a while and returne to it later. I think that my aim: to teach in the high school, and in Physics 1 at universities, Einstein's physics instead of Newton's math only, is an important issue that should be approached rationally and with clear mind.

makc wrote:It seems to me that you think, if your work is titled "gravity for everyone, explanation for high-school students", it is perfectly ok to use bad math, because no one notices and no one cares how do you get to your results. Unfortunately, we do, so I have diffent suggestion here for you. Why don't you write "gravitation for mainstream scientists, explanation for clean math fans", where you would do your best to use bullet-proof math method to derive your results, and THEN put that up for discussion?

This is not what I think. I think that Newton's math is sufficient for gravitation as long as it does not contradict the curvature of space (correct me if I'm wrong). So Newton's math can be kept but physics must be Einstein's and students should first of all understand the physics Only then we may have new Newtons, Einsteins, and Feynmans who understand physics. Math may be done by computers.
We see what math without physics did to science: mysticism and creationism in science without any carring how the real world works since in our society things are controlled rather by money than by rational thinking. Do you honestly believe that energy can be created out of nothing as BB people wants us to believe? Neither Einstein nor Feynman believed in it so why should we, having no observations to suggest it even remotly?

(again) Feynman wrote:Let me also say something that people who worry about mathematical proofs and inconsistencies seem not to know. There is no way of showing mathematically that a physical conclusion is wrong or inconsistent. All that can be shown is that the mathematical assumptions are wrong. If we find that certain mathematical assumptions lead to a logically inconsistent description of Nature, we change the assumptions, not nature.

aristarchusinexile wrote:

Chris Peterson wrote:

harry wrote:When the control of information is determined by one party thats when science goes out of balance.

Science wouldn't work if that ever became the case. Fortunately, things don't work that way.

Right .. and grants aren't allocated by people who once were in control of burning people at the stake.

I do not even contemplate something from nothing.. unless a another dimension is making atoms bigger. we can not understand atoms getting bigger cos they grow without detection, everything grows relative. What law states that space time expands and that matter (like planets and stars) do not expand also?

Mark

mark swain wrote:we can not understand atoms getting bigger cos they grow without detection, everything grows relative. What law states that space time expands and that matter (like planets and stars) do not expand also?

well if that was the case - everything growing in proportion - you couldnt possibly notice any expansion. the common explanation I keep hearing is that normal forces like gravity and electromagnetism are much stronger at this scale and keep matter surrounding us together against the expansion

So gravity is getting weaker. Nice.. And explains An awful lot. This needs looking into,,,,

mark

mark swain wrote:So gravity is getting weaker.

well yes, it kinda does:

notice r^2 in denominator

I very much doubt it has been written that gravity is getting weaker. but it tells me why this creature needed a 36 foot wing span: http://www.enchantedlearning.com/subjec ... tlus.shtml

Mark

I mean it is getting weaker with distance.

mark swain wrote:it tells me why this creature needed a 36 foot wing span

say have you seen this creature:

Compare the weight, to each. There are missing pounds...

http://www.aerosports.net/intermediate.html
http://www.enchantedlearning.com/subjec ... tlus.shtml

don,t forget nature finds the easy way to fly not the hard way.

And we are only talking a few hundred million years? how long has expansion been going on? (gravity getting weaker)

mark

mark swain wrote:don,t forget nature finds the easy way to fly not the hard way.

Nature (evolution) does not find the easy way to do anything. It gets to where it gets because selection pressures direct a certain route. One seldom finds particularly efficient or "easy" designs in nature.

And we are only talking a few hundred million years? how long has expansion been going on? (gravity getting weaker)

Well, since gravity isn't getting weaker, the question is rather pointless, isn't it?

mark swain wrote:Compare the weight, to each.

ok, let's do so using your links:

• deltaplane Discus 160, wing span 33.8ft weight (glider + pilot) 157 kg
• Quetzalcoatlus, wing span 36ft weight 135 kg

what's the big difference? all numbers are roughly the same, minor differences are perfectly explained by different wing/body shapes and/or quetzalcoatlus estimates errors, imho.

Chris said:
Well, since gravity isn't getting weaker, the question is rather pointless, isn't it?

No...prove me wrong Chris. Gold fish small pond, small gold fish... Gold fish,,, big lake,,, huge gold fish....

Now explain this big puppy: http://www.cabazondinosaurs.com/dinnyrex.jpg

Mark

mark swain wrote:No...prove me wrong Chris. Gold fish small pond, small gold fish... Gold fish,,, big lake,,, huge gold fish....

I don't know what you mean.

Gravity isn't like some kind of soup, that gets diluted. It's a curvature of spacetime caused by mass. Locally, it is strong enough to prevent mass from expanding with the Universe. While gravitational fields weaken with distance, the strength of gravity itself is defined by the universal gravitational constant, and as well as anybody can determine, that isn't changing, and hasn't changed during the evolution of the Universe. (There are theories that argue it has changed, and people have looked for signs of such change, but so far, it appears that G is a true constant.)

Now explain this big puppy: http://www.cabazondinosaurs.com/dinnyrex.jpg

Explain what?

Chris Peterson wrote:

mark swain wrote:No...prove me wrong Chris. Gold fish small pond, small gold fish... Gold fish,,, big lake,,, huge gold fish....

I don't know what you mean.

Probably this or similar effect (note that there is inverse process too)

makc wrote:

mark swain wrote:Compare the weight, to each.

ok, let's do so using your links:

• deltaplane Discus 160, wing span 33.8ft weight (glider + pilot) 157 kg
• Quetzalcoatlus, wing span 36ft weight 135 kg

what's the big difference? all numbers are roughly the same, minor differences are perfectly explained by different wing/body shapes and/or quetzalcoatlus estimates errors, imho.

That,s not right... At max there is a 50 lbs discrepancy .... and 4 foot short of the total wing span. That adds on to the weight in flight. we work harder cos we have no choice we get bigger. the bigger we get life gets even harder, so we get bigger. And predators enforce this.......... and i am wasting my time... nobody gives a dam which any way.

mark swain wrote:
Now explain this big puppy: http://www.cabazondinosaurs.com/dinnyrex.jpg

Mark

Here is an interesting take on "this big puppy"
http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg2 ... o-big.html

G'day from the land of ozzzzzzz

Does gravity alter during a supernova ?

Does gravity alter during a jet formation from a so called black hole?

If matter is ejected from a black hole, we would expect a change in gravity.

Can we use a tool to find such a change?

makc wrote:It seems to me that you think ... it is perfectly ok to use bad math

Switching back from dinos (probably more interesting than BB) back to BB, I thought that all my math is good (even perfect ). Could you give me an example of "bad math" from my article so I could replace it by good math?

I'm improving this article periodically and I'm trying to clear all its problems. If you found any bad math over there it surely doesn't belong there. Please help me to keep the math good by stating clearly what you mean. Any help will be appreciated and I'll acknowledge your contribution (as I did in my "Errors in Jim's texts on illusion of expanding space" with other readers and referees who were of different opinion than mine). Of course it makes no sense to write articles that aren't true and can be proved wrong so I'm trying to avoid that. I'll stop wasting my time and writing this stuff the moment you are able to prove me wrong about the BB. It makes me tired too to explain to astrophysicists what they should learn in their "Physics 1" or even better in high school. I'm not a physics teacher but a sculptor (probably with overgrown social conscience).

I hope you think that it is a good idea to write a textbook on gravitation for high school students and astrophysicists that would explain also the creationist aspects of contemporary cosmology (abandoning of the principle of conservation of energy to justify the possibility of divine creation of the universe, suggested eg. by MTW's "Gravitation", page 1218 ).

JimJast wrote:Could you give me an example of "bad math" from my article so I could replace it by good math?

Just a quote at random:

JimJast wrote:Since half of this angle comes from the curvature of space and the other half from the change in speed of light across the light ray we take φ = Θ / 2

makc wrote:

JimJast wrote:Could you give me an example of "bad math" from my article so I could replace it by good math?

Just a quote at random:

JimJast wrote:Since half of this angle comes from the curvature of space and the other half from the change in speed of light across the light ray we take φ = Θ / 2

I don't understand: Isn't Θ / 2 the same as "half" of Θ ? This is this "bad math"? What "half" means in your English (which apparently I don't understand)?

Jim, this is bullshіt tactics, like a page ago when you asserted that my quote was directed at BB theorists, when it was crystal clear that in fact it was addressed to you. You know perfectly well how this Θ was "derived", and why the above /2 doesnt make any sense.