Re: Newton and Einstein

Koobee Wublee wrote:
> "Eric Gisse" <jowr.pi@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
> news:1134035228.226469.206660@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
> You are ignoring the experimental results. <shrug> Better
gripe to Dr.
> Roberts.
>
> Ok.
>
> What results?
>
> The results that I metioned within this thread.
>
Unfortunately, the only "result" that you mentioned is your inability
to accept the results of the Lorentz transformations. Physics doesn't
have to ask you before a theory becomes accepted.

>
> Try not to make classical mistakes such as using results that are
> described perfectly well by GR and use them as evidence against
SR...
>
> Don't worry. I don't make classical mistakes. You on the other
hand do not
> make curved mistakes.
>
> Since we can go back and forth on this forever without making any
> progress, why not just show me the paper where he derives the effect
in
> the fashion you describe?
>
> www.google.com "how to use google"
>
> Does that sound familiar?
>
> You made the claim, you support it.
>
> Since you have realized the importance of field equations and
especially the
> Schwarzschild metric to solve Mercury's orbital anomaly, below shows
how
> Einstein was able to do so without Schwarzschild metric. Most would
hail
> Einstein's achievement as extremity in genius. Some would call
Einstein's
> fudging BS. Well, brace yourself. Here comes the first shocker of
your
> life and more to come.
>
> http://www.schulphysik.de/physik/perihel/Perihel.htm
>
Yeesh, and I thought the modern formalism was confusing.

I have never seen this derivation before in any GR text. I dare say
for
good reason, what a goddamn mess. ***, the equations themselves are
hardly readable so I cannot even check the result.

I repeat, because it bears repeating: This derivation is *not* used in
modern texts, despite your claims. In fact, I do not even understand
where the theory of GR as I know it even enters into the derivation.

[snip]

.

Quantcast