Re: Test2 SPF

Thanks JRY for cutting me some slack.
(I'm a bit nuttier on Sunday).

On Sep 28, 9:29 pm, "Ken S. Tucker" <dynam...@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Sep 27, 3:05 pm, "Juan R." González-Álvarez

<juanREM...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Ken S. Tucker wrote on Sat, 27 Sep 2008 09:08:01 -0600:

Precisely the main criticism done on GR is in the ill-defined character
of several fundamental aspects (energy, equivalence principle), its
conflict with rest of physics (no unification), and its strong
dependence in a set of non-observables: g_ab, geodesics...

Juan
GR is very secure with an observable "geodesic".

Ken, in GR the geodesic are not observables because are coordinate
dependent. Coordinate dependent quantities are also named "unmeasurable
quantities" [1].

Correction in Celestrial Mechanics: Use the ratios of orbits,
and therefore coordinate free invariants. It's a "convenience"
to use adopt coordinates.

See "advance of
perihelion of Mercury's orbit".

Do not mix apples and oranges; the concept "Advance of perihelion" is
different from "geodesic".

Then what is a geodesic?

I've worked out the orbit myself using GR, and sim'd it on computers.

Do not confound computers with Nature!

LOL, in place of calculations what do you recommend,
tea leaves, or sheep entrails?

I know people who also simulated
wavefunctions using computers but none of them would claim wavefunctions
are observables just because displayed in monitor.

That's could be true, the pix of a fella with a 48 inch
penis is likely not an observable.

I strongly recommend you put effort into understanding GR prior to
making what are clearly erroneous statements.

Thanks

You're welcome
Ken S. Tucker

======================================= MODERATOR'S COMMENT:
Ken, approved, but let's try to keep it clean. ;-) JRY

Ok, no more sheep entrail comments ;-).
I definitely think we are an extremely fortunate
generation, speaking for myself at age 55, to go
from slide rule, to calculator, to digital computer
to simulate physics, and GR orbital anomally's,
for instance, a small 1/r^3 quantity as predicted
by AE's GR does account for the 43" arc/century
of the semi-major axis rotation of Mercury's orbit.

You may be interested to see that all of those
"periods" can be expressed as ratio's, such that
Period1/Period2 = scalar invariant, where the
"periods" themselves are usually measured in
seconds etc. but the unit of time cancels.
Best Regards
Ken S. Tucker
.

Relevant Pages

  • Nonlocality Point-Set Anomaly vs PI
    ... Nonlocality Point-Set Anomaly vs PI ... Copyright By Owner Osher Doctorow Ph.D. ... dependent but not locality. ... By their own standards of physics, ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: When Did Mathmatics Come About
    ... It's physics and chemicals and ... such all in motion and dependent on many things. ... Well human invention is based on logic and physical assets. ... before the universe or earth event. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Photon, Momentum, Mass
    ... not dependent on the physical processes taking place in the source ... non-sequitur indicates that you and mr. kennaugh need to find new hobbies. ... physics is so superficial that even the simplest physics eludes your ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Photon, Momentum, Mass
    ... so there must be some reason for it being ... there is nothing physical which can take part in a physical process. ... simply if the speed of light is not dependent on the physical processes ... That is modern scientific gobbledegook to justify the fact that now maths is accepted as a 'physics theory' when no one has the faintest idea what they are describing. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)