SkipCaptcha, Automoderated users, edit
3,266
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 1,043:
Line 1,043: − + + + Line 1,065:
Line 1,067: − + + + + + + + + +
Conservapedia:Community Portal (view source)
Revision as of 02:19, April 18, 2015
, 02:19, April 18, 2015→SamHB
: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.
: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
: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 equation earlier today. It is
:<math>\frac{d^2 r}{d\theta^2} + r = \frac{G M r^\delta}{L^2}</math>
:<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.
:where <math>\delta\,</math> is the Newcomb-Hall correction. Something like .000000157.
:When <math>\delta\, = 0</math> this reduces to the classic equation (the one that made Isaac Newton famous) for a planet without precession.
: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.
: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.
:::"give you the benefit of the doubt that you had further reasons." --- no, I have no further reasons, beyond what I stated above. Were they not sufficient?
:::"give you the benefit of the doubt that you had further reasons." --- no, I have no further reasons, beyond what I stated above. Were they not sufficient?
:::"grounds for me for rejection" and "didn't sustain the rejection" --- you make it sound like an executive vs. legislative issue, where you veto something, and I decide to override the veto or sustain it. That's not the way Conservapedia works. We collaborate. Sometime we argue. Respectfully, or course. We try not to use word like "rejection".
:::"grounds for me for rejection" and "didn't sustain the rejection" --- you make it sound like an executive vs. legislative issue, where you veto something, and I decide whether to try to override the veto or let it stand, and you can unilaterally "sustain" it if you still disagree. That's not the way Conservapedia works. We collaborate. Sometimes we argue. Respectfully, or course. We try not to use words like "rejection".
:::"I can't help noticing you are contradicting what Andy said" --- Yes. I am. This is a complicated issue, but it was an open-and-shut case. Or, as Andy likes to put it "two plus two equals four". I need to give you a long explanation of why I sometimes feel justified in reverting Andy. It's a long story. No time for it now; gotta run. But, basically, we trust each other. [[User:SamHB|SamHB]] 12:56, 17 April 2015 (EDT)
:::"I can't help noticing you are contradicting what Andy said" --- Yes. I am. This is a complicated issue, but it was an open-and-shut case. Or, as Andy likes to put it "two plus two equals four". I need to give you a long explanation of why I sometimes feel justified in reverting Andy. It's a long story. No time for it now; gotta run. But, basically, we trust each other. [[User:SamHB|SamHB]] 12:56, 17 April 2015 (EDT)
:::Sorry to leave these questions hanging. I'll be back in a few hours. [[User:SamHB|SamHB]] 12:58, 17 April 2015 (EDT)
:::Sorry to leave these questions hanging. I'll be back in a few hours. [[User:SamHB|SamHB]] 12:58, 17 April 2015 (EDT)
:::I'm back. Here's the deal on relativity. I recognize that this is Andy's wiki, and that his position stands, even though I totally disagree. If I chose to, I could make edits designed to make him look stupid. But I don't. I want CP's stance on relativity to be expressed as clearly as possible. As such, I collaborate with Andy on making the [[Theory of relativity]], [[Counterexamples to Relativity]], and [[Essay:Rebuttal to Counterexamples to Relativity]] articles to be the best that they can be. They are flagship articles. To be the best it can be, the relativity article should not list the gravitational effects of other planets as one of the hypotheses that was put forth to try to explain the anomalous precession, because it's just not true. The gravitational effects were the first thing that was tried. It was the '''anomalous''' precession that was left over that caused the problem. Also, the idea that scientists rejected Newcomb-Hall simply because the equation was harder is just wrong. If you want the simple equation, you have to go with plain Newtonian (the delta=0 case above) which means that you posit that the anomalous precession is zero. Which it isn't. Hence my "Scientists don't choose wrong theories over right ones just because the math is easier." edit comment. I believe Andy's current stance on the situation is that neither Newcomb-Hall nor relativity explains the anomalous precession correctly, so the true cause of the precession is unknown. A completely wrong position, but at least stated in an understandable way.
:::Now, a little more on the subject, that might help you to understand my "I recommend that you not get into a battle over relativity, unless you have really done your homework, which you haven't." comment. The comment was indeed brusque and rude. But I've been deeply involved in this stuff more most of my 8 year tenure here. I believe that there are only 3 people who know their way around the CP relativity articles in depth: Andy, me, and AugustO. (There have been others in the past, like KSorenson and JacobB, but they're long gone.) When I see someone appear to parrot Andy's position, it gets my spider-sense tingling. I am incredulous that someone else could hold the same view. If you do hold the same view, you should try to explain it in your own words.
:::'''Andy does not need you to defend or protect him.''' He has been taking on all comers for years, and doing a good job of it. And '''that''' is what I meant by "doing your homework".
:::Do I hold myself to be above reproach or scrutiny? Of course not. And I object to the implication that I do. [[User:SamHB|SamHB]] 22:19, 17 April 2015 (EDT)