SkipCaptcha, Automoderated users, edit
3,266
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 1,036:
Line 1,036: + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
Conservapedia:Community Portal (view source)
Revision as of 07:05, April 16, 2015
, 07:05, April 16, 2015→SamHB: relativity
I think SamHB is sick. He wants to do battle with ''me'' instead of misinformation, like you would expect a ''scientist'' to do. Why don't we join forces, Sam, and fight distortions in what is understood together? Don't be like [[Stephen Hawking]] who says today's physics is too advanced to be subjected to any kind of accounting. [[User:VargasMilan|VargasMilan]] 22:54, 12 April 2015 (EDT)
I think SamHB is sick. He wants to do battle with ''me'' instead of misinformation, like you would expect a ''scientist'' to do. Why don't we join forces, Sam, and fight distortions in what is understood together? Don't be like [[Stephen Hawking]] who says today's physics is too advanced to be subjected to any kind of accounting. [[User:VargasMilan|VargasMilan]] 22:54, 12 April 2015 (EDT)
:OK, VM. I'll take you at your word that you want to collaborate rather than fight. I won't make the long message that I threatened (on the other page) to make about "relativity, science, personal insults, sycophancy, "mall cop" behavior, etc. etc. etc." It would be a waste of my time to write, and of your time to read. Though we do need to discuss the subject matter. I believe you are badly mistaken in your edit comment (23:45, 11 April) "Why not? It would make it easier for scientists to indoctrinate students to their worldview." But if you no longer hold to that, that's fine with me. We can move on.
:I accept your apology for saying what you said [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Main_Page&diff=1110820&oldid=1110819 here], and for saying, just above, that I am "sick". I will withdraw my "sycophancy" / "spider sense" comment about physics being "subjected to any kind of accounting". I don't know what you were talking about there.
:But about relativity, and your edit of 23:45, 11 April, you removed several things of mine, most importantly the statement that scientists do not choose theories knowing that they are wrong, just because the mathematics is easier. The idea that the Newcomb-Hall hypothesis was "disfavored by mathematicians due to its inelegance in integrating" is just all wrong. It's been in the article for years, and I decided it was time for it to go. (If you're not familiar with the Newcomb-Hall hypothesis, please do your homework. It's been written about extensively, mostly by me, for years. The earliest reference I can find is just 56 days after your account was created.) Now there's another problem that I removed and you put back in---that "one of the other explanations" (beside relativity or Newcomb-Hall) involved "factoring in the pull of the other planets". No. The correction from the other planets was already taken into account, before relativity or Newcomb-Hall. That correction is much larger than the "anomalous precession" that is in dispute. I believe the gravitational perturbations are something like 5500 seconds, vs. 43 seconds for the "anomalous" precession. Everyone agrees on the gravitational perturbations.
:Now here's the deal: The straight Newtonian calculation is indeed simple. It can be (and was!) solved by Isaac Newton. That's the "elegance in integrating". The gravitational perturbation stuff was messy, but Newton, Lagrange, and Gauss could deal with it. Both relativity and Newcomb-Hall are messy. They can be solved numerically, but not, as far as I know, in closed form. I won't do the relativity stuff; you can look it up. But I did work out the Newcomb-Hall earlier today. The orbital equation is
:<math>\frac{d^2 r}{d\theta^2} + r = \frac{G M r^\delta}{L^2}</math>
:where <math>\delta\,</math> is the Newcomb-Hall correction. Something like .000000157.
:But Newcomb-Hall doesn't work! The correction given above makes Mercury behave correctly, but is wrong for the moon and the other planets. In fact, because of the wrong prediction for the moon, Newcomb-Hall was dropped almost immediately, around the beginning of the 20th century.
:The real problem I have with your edit is the claim that the "simple", "elegant" differential equation (straight Newtonian) is favored over Newcomb-Hall because it is easy. This would be a case of adopting a theory that one knows to be wrong. Sort of like the old joke about searching for your keys under the lamp-post because the light is better there, even though it isn't where you dropped them.
:Anyone advocating the "elegance in integrating" idea must be taking the position that the '''anomalous precession simply does not occur''', even though it has been known, and accurately measured, for over 150 years.
:So I have no idea what "worldview" you are referring to when you say "It would make it easier for scientists to indoctrinate students to their worldview." What worldview is that? One that says that anomalous precession does not occur? Can you name one scientist, textbook, or teacher (beyond junior high school, of course) that holds to such a worldview and tries to indoctrinate students to it?
:[[User:SamHB|SamHB]] 03:05, 16 April 2015 (EDT)