Re: Wilsonian EM Control Frames.

On Jun 3, 1:39 am, Eric Gisse <jowr...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Jun 2, 9:35 pm, Jerry <Cephalobus_alie...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:





On Jun 2, 2:59 pm, Eric Gisse <jowr...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Jun 2, 7:04 am, Jerry <Cephalobus_alie...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

[...]

I'm told that the Verlet method is superior for orbital
simulations, fyi.

The fifth order Runge-Kutta was sufficiently accurate for
my brother to achieve his goals. He wanted to see if he
could model the precession of Mercury with sufficient
accuracy to detect anomalous precession using "brute force"
calculation of its orbit as opposed to using perturbation
methods. Crackpots can -maybe- understand a brute force
calculation; they certainly can't understand a perturbation
method like Encke's method and would reject any conclusions
using math that they can't understand.

...and "using math that they can't understand" means anything beyond
elementary algebra.

Anything higher gets argued to death, or flat out denied. Cranks
continually whine that I don't use math, but when I break out in a
technical discussion using actual math, it is either denied or simply
not responded to. Henri Wilson and Kubee Wublee are two favorite
examples of such folks.

I have yet to see someone with a comprehensive understanding of
mathematics be a crank on this newsgroup. The closest was Kubee
Wubblee, but it was simply a veneer - no actual understanding.

You're a riot. I have yet to see anyone in this group who understands
higher math who isn't a crank. I might grant a partial exception for
Tom Roberts because he isn't an *** like the rest of you seem to
be. I have yet to see anyone period in this group who isn't a crank
(Title based upon at least one incorrect belief), with the possible
exception of Sue, who is regarded by you to be on equal footing with
me. Yeah, we're both cranks, or so you believe. But the feeling is
mutual, and I'm sure I speak for Sue as well.

You know, even Einstein had the foresight to know that his theories
would eventually be supplanted, and that at some future date they
might even seem as absurd as Ptolemy's theory. You on the other hand
have convinced yourself that phsycis is absolutely complete, ignoring
glaring incongruities, even calling those who point them out cranks
because that's easier for you than actually thinking. If it had been
left up to people such as yourself we'd still be wearing sheepskin
diapers and worshipping the fire god, or wiped out because we didn't
know how not to be assholes.



.

Quantcast