Back to Home

God & Science Forum Message

Forums: Atm · Astrophotography · Blackholes · Blackholes2 · CCD · Celestron · Domes · Education
Eyepieces · Meade · Misc. · God and Science · SETI · Software · UFO · XEphem
RSS Button

Home | Discussion Forums | God and Science | Post
Login

Be the first pioneers to continue the Astronomy Discussions at our new Astronomy meeting place...
The Space and Astronomy Agora
I Just Had To Look!

Forum List | Follow Ups | Post Message | Back to Thread Topics
Posted by Richard D. Stafford, Ph.D. on June 5, 2003 00:56:59 UTC

Well, checking to see if Yanniru had answered my last post, I discovered 63 new posts on the forum and only four with Bruce, Whomi and Harvy hidden. I was very curious as to what you all were talking about so I logged out to take a look. I have three comments.

With regard to Bruce's fabricated information that I claim Newton's solution to Mercury's orbit is correct, the FACT that I have never said any such thing can be seen by anyone who can read English. In Chapter 3 of my paper, Mercury's orbit is calculated with my analytically constructed mental image and the solution is explicitly shown as equation 3.29. Included is the statement that it is exactly the same as Schwarzschild's solution to the Einstein field equations except for one additional term in square brackets. Immediately following that I also show (in equation 3.30) exactly how Newton's solution appears when expressed in terms of the variables Schwarzschild and I use. To see that there are in fact three very different solutions given there does not require anything beyond being able to read English.

I say again that Bruce's suggestion that my work does not yield precession of Mercury's orbit is "a simple out and out uninformed lie"! My work yields a result only slightly different from Einstein's as it includes the term Einstein's approach adds to Newtons solution plus another slight correction.

The fact that Yanniru agrees with him shows either that Yanniru is totally incompetent at mathematical physics or that he is intentionally misrepresenting the facts. I am afraid I am beginning to think that it must be the latter as he has refused to post an answer directly to me but instead chooses to throw bricks with the crowd.

Whomi, I apologize, I had no intention to put your posts in the same class with these others. You may often make posts which are over my head with their intellectual subtlety but I have never seen any evidence of you attempting to actually mislead people. Harv, I don't know about you, I have always thought you were trying to be honest but your current comments seem to be pretty venomous for a person confident of his intellectual position.

If the rest of you are taken in by this behavior, I am sorry for you.

Have fun -- Dick

Follow Ups:

Login to Post
Additional Information
Google
 
Web www.astronomy.net
DayNightLine
About Astronomy Net | Advertise on Astronomy Net | Contact & Comments | Privacy Policy
Unless otherwise specified, web site content Copyright 1994-2022 John Huggins All Rights Reserved
Forum posts are Copyright their authors as specified in the heading above the post.
"dbHTML," "AstroGuide," "ASTRONOMY.NET" & "VA.NET"
are trademarks of John Huggins