Re: Implicit expressions of speed of gravity within Newtonian mechanics

On Jan 31, 4:34 am, Albertito <albertito1...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Jan 31, 12:32 pm, Eric Gisse <jowr...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Jan 31, 2:11 am, Albertito <albertito1...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
[snip]

David Rosen is nearly right, I'm always happy, regardless your
obscenities :-)

Ignorance is bliss.

Sure? Ignorance is bliss? That's a false statement,
based of the ignorance of its author. I'd rather say
that "Wisdom is bliss", although the way to wisdom
may be hard and painful, because it often involves
effort, sacrifice and some renounces, but once achieved
it is a bliss at the end of the day :-)

As I said, ignorance is bliss. You continue to be ignorant of all
aspects of modern physics, while having learned nothing since you
started posting here.

Are you a winer or a loser? If you are a winner then
you can grasp what I'm talking about. If you are a loser
then your "ignorance is bliss" is your consolation.

I'm educated in two technical fields that I enjoy. I'll go with
"winner".




Speaking of ignorance, I am yet to see you actually show why quantum
mechanical relations are valid in classical mechanics.

I never said that quantum mechanical relations were valid
in classical mechanics.

A trivial point that is obviously wrong but meaningless in light of
the fact you never actually talked about Newtonian gravitation, much
less calculated the speed of gravitation.

What I'm proposing in this thread
is that some classical mechanics relations have encoded
some aspects of quantum relations, but only a complete
quantum picture should give us the right answers, not the
approximated answers that classical mechanics gives us.

That would be an insight it it wasn't directly parroted from the
introductory paragraph of any undergraduate modern physics textbook.
Not the first part through - that's obviously wrong, as quantum
mechanics was built upon classical mechanics.




You are wrong every time you put forth a new idea. Perhaps it is time
to get a better education, or find a different hobby?

Thanks for the flowers, I'm very proud you can acknowledge
I have a lot of new ideas, because I'm a very creative,
bright and inquisitive guy :-)

One for three. You are creative, but stupid and intellectually lazy.

You keep spamming your idiotic ideas in the face of literature
references and arguments that you have no defense against. You are a
nice little crank snowflake, unique but unimportant.
.

Relevant Pages