 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Natural Science Forum / Physics / General Physics / August 2007The Exact Value of Newton's Gravitational Constant G
Look what I've found at the NASA site http://ssd.jpl.nasa.gov/?constants#ref " gravitational constant G = 6.67259 (± 0.00030) x 10^-11 " That's exactly my calculated value of G ! I claim to have calculated even the exact value of G ! My G = 6.67259496511601429861570358962... x 10^-11 And some idiots had laughed about my finding! Now it's time for me to laugh back: Haaahhahhaaaahhh!!!! :-))))))) Haaahhahhaaaahhh!!!! :-))))))) Haaahhahhaaaahhh!!!! :-))))))) ROTFL! :-) PS: I know also the true exact value of c !... :-) NIST/CODATA have many constants wrong, maybe intentionally... > Look what I've found at the NASA sitehttp://ssd.jpl.nasa.gov/?constants#ref > " [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > > NIST/CODATA have many constants wrong, maybe intentionally... How old are you? > Look what I've found at the NASA site > http://ssd.jpl.nasa.gov/?constants#ref [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > > NIST/CODATA have many constants wrong, maybe intentionally... at what altitude? and where on the surface of earth ? Remember that G is not exact. > "q-bit" <johnsmith@nospamorg.org> wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > at what altitude? and where on the surface of earth ? > Remember that G is not exact. G is exact. The Earth, and all other celestial objects, are not exact because they are not perfect spheres, and they obviously also don't have a uniform mass distribution... >> "q-bit" <johnsmith@nospamorg.org> wrote in message >> [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > because they are not perfect spheres, and they obviously also don't have a > uniform mass distribution... And when you step up one level to put into play the celestial object of the Milky Way galaxy down? GLB >> "q-bit" <johnsmith@nospamorg.org> wrote in message >> [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > because they are not perfect spheres, and they obviously also don't have a > uniform mass distribution... therefore, G is not exact, depends upon where you measure it, dufus. > > "q-bit" <johnsmith@nospamorg.org> wrote in message > > [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > because they are not perfect spheres, and they obviously also don't have a > uniform mass distribution... <http://www.npl.washington.edu/eotwash/publications/pdf/prl85-2869.pdf> <http://www.npl.washington.edu/eotwash/publications/pdf/mst10-454.pdf> <http://www.npl.washington.edu/eotwash/publications/pdf/prd54-1256R.pdf> f.cking imbecile.  SignatureUncle Al http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/ (Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals) http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/lajos.htm#a2 > q-bit wrote: > > > "q-bit" <johnsmith@nospamorg.org> wrote in message [quoted text clipped - 33 lines] > > f.cking imbecile. You are maybe just too dumb to realize that all the old methods of the past of trying to measure the value of the universal gravitational constant G has become obsolote. Because now G is exactly determined by this simple formula: G = pi / (e * sqrt(3)) x 10^-10 Ie. no need anymore for any such experiments. Any local differences of G are due to anomalies of the location itself, ie. due to the non-unique distribution of mass (water, earth, metals) under the crust; I'm talking of the universal constant G valid for the whole universe, not of any local anomalies in your neighbourhood, or in your head :-) > You are maybe just too dumb to realize that all the old methods of the > past > of trying to measure the value of the universal gravitational constant G > has become obsolote. Because now G is exactly determined by this > simple formula: G = pi / (e * sqrt(3)) x 10^-10 Well,... I pull out my hat. A combination of the three most important parameters of rotation (circular motion) very close to G. Where did you get this out? > "q-bit" <johnsmith@nospamorg.org> wrote > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > (circular motion) very close to G. > Where did you get this out? Some deep thinking and analysis of course :-) > > > all the old methods of the past of trying to measure the value > > > of the universal gravitational constant G have become obsolote. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > Some deep thinking and analysis of course :-) Is there meaning for the sqrt(3)? Why the factor of 10^-10? Dwib > On Aug 28, 12:33 pm, "q-bit" <johnsm...@nospamorg.org> wrote: > > > "q-bit" <johnsm...@nospamorg.org> wrote [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > Is there meaning for the sqrt(3)? > Why the factor of 10^-10? This was already discussed. See the other postings in this thread. > > > > "q-bit" <johnsm...@nospamorg.org> wrote > [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > > This was already discussed. See the other postings in this thread. That is to say, "no". - Randy [snip crap] Nothing. Big G has dimensions: L^3/MT^2. Big G has units. The numerical value of Big G depends on the system of measurements. A unitless numerical constant recipe has no dimensions. You are an a.s. BTW, a.shole, if somebody reads you the literature <http://www.npl.washington.edu/eotwash/publications/pdf/prl85-2869.pdf> <http://www.npl.washington.edu/eotwash/publications/pdf/mst10-454.pdf> <http://www.npl.washington.edu/eotwash/publications/pdf/prd54-1256R.pdf> you will note that the Eot-Wash group used *perfect* solid homogeneous isotropic spheres as their attractors. The detector didn't move while performing its detection. f.cking imbecile. SignatureUncle Al http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/ (Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals) http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/lajos.htm#a2 [snip wet fart] Hey Ewe! Drink downstream of the rest of the flock. http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/SR.GIF Signature'we establish by definition that the "time" required by light to travel from A to B equals the "time" it requires to travel from B to A' because I SAY SO and you have to agree because I'm the great genius, STOOOPID, don't you dare question it. -- Rabbi Albert Einstein http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Smart/tAB=tBA.gif 'we establish by definition that the "time" required by light to travel from A to B doesn't equal the "time" it requires to travel from B to A in the stationary system, obviously.' -- Heretic Jan Bielawski, assistant light-bulb changer. Ref: news:1188363019.673281.67710@k79g2000hse.googlegroups.com "What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence." -- Uncle Stooopid. "Counterfactual assumptions yield nonsense. If such a thing were actually observed, reliably and reproducibly, then relativity would immediately need a major overhaul if not a complete replacement." -- Humpty Roberts. Rabbi Albert Einstein in 1895 failed an examination that would have allowed him to study for a diploma as an electrical engineer at the Eidgenössische Technische Hochschule in Zurich (couldn't even pass the SATs). According to Phuckwit Duck it was geography and history that Einstein failed on, as if Eidgenössische Technische Hochschule would give a damn. That tells you the lengths these lying bastards will go to to protect their tin god, but its always a laugh when they slip up. Trolls, the lot of them. "This is PHYSICS, not math or logic, and "proof" is completely irrelevant." -- Humpty Roberts. > According to Phuckwit Duck it was geography and history that Einstein > failed on, as if Eidgen?ssische Technische Hochschule would give a > damn. That tells you the lengths these lying bastards will go to to > protect their tin god, but its always a laugh when they slip up. > Trolls, the lot of them. According to several of his biographers, he was examined in political and literary history, German, French, biology, mathematics, descriptive geometry, chemistry, physics, and drawing. He also had to write an essay. He failed the test in Zurich overall, though he did well in the math and sciences, according to ETH records. Whether you find it incredulous that ETH would be interested in those subjects is completely irrelevant. You are free to now call the ETH a bunch of lying bastards. PD On Aug 29, 7:48 pm, "Androcles" <Engin...@hogwarts.physics> wrote: > According to Phuckwit Duck it was geography and history that Einstein > failed on, as if Eidgenössische Technische Hochschule would give a > damn. That tells you the lengths these lying bastards will go to to > protect their tin god, but its always a laugh when they slip up. > Trolls, the lot of them. According to several of his biographers, he was examined in political and literary history, German, French, biology, mathematics, descriptive geometry, chemistry, physics, and drawing. He also had to write an essay. He failed the test That's all we need, thanks. Einstein was outstanding at reading sci-fi, loved H.G. Wells' "The Time Machine", published in the same year the teenager Einstein failed because he wasn't revising his lessons properly. Born in 1879, he was 16 years old in 1985 and as gullible as any teenager. Obviously Wells was the source of his "inspiration". "Assume" -- 14 hits in http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/ "Assumption" - 4 hits. Assume Phuckwit Duck is an idiot. Therefore Phuckwit Duck is an idiot. 'Really, this is what is meant by the Fourth Dimension, though some people who talk about the Fourth Dimension do not know they mean it. It is only another way of looking at Time. There is no difference between Time and any of the three dimensions of Space except that our consciousness moves along with it.' -- Herbert George Wells - "The Time Machine" - 1895. "The secret to creativity is knowing how to hide your sources." --Einstein. Signature'we establish by definition that the "time" required by light to travel from A to B equals the "time" it requires to travel from B to A' because I SAY SO and you have to agree because I'm the great genius, STOOOPID, don't you dare question it. -- Rabbi Albert Einstein http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Smart/tAB=tBA.gif 'we establish by definition that the "time" required by light to travel from A to B doesn't equal the "time" it requires to travel from B to A in the stationary system, obviously.' -- Heretic Jan Bielawski, assistant light-bulb changer. Ref: news:1188363019.673281.67710@k79g2000hse.googlegroups.com "What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence." -- Uncle Stooopid. "Counterfactual assumptions yield nonsense. If such a thing were actually observed, reliably and reproducibly, then relativity would immediately need a major overhaul if not a complete replacement." -- Humpty Roberts. Rabbi Albert Einstein in 1895 failed an examination that would have allowed him to study for a diploma as an electrical engineer at the Eidgenössische Technische Hochschule in Zurich (couldn't even pass the SATs). According to Phuckwit Duck it was geography and history that Einstein failed on, as if Eidgenössische Technische Hochschule would give a damn. That tells you the lengths these lying bastards will go to to protect their tin god, but its always a laugh when they slip up. Trolls, the lot of them. "This is PHYSICS, not math or logic, and "proof" is completely irrelevant." -- Humpty Roberts. ahahahaha... AHAHAHAHA.... Good ONE! ... ahahaha > Born in 1879, he was 16 years old in 1985 and > as gullible as any teenager. [hanson] ... was that because (a) he suffered from some relativistic time dilation or (b) are you perhaps referring paradoxically to his relativ/istic twin, or (c) are you talking about one of his many illegitimate grandkids, reincarnates, stand-ins, wanna-bees, impersonators or even his Dingleberries? Thanks for the laughs flowing from your humor of your willfully intended dyslexic typo, Andro... ahaha... .... ahahahaha... ahahahanson ---------------- > According to Phuckwit Duck it was geography and history that Einstein > failed on, as if Eidgenössische Technische Hochschule would give a > damn. That tells you the lengths these lying bastards will go to to > protect their tin god, but its always a laugh when they slip up. > Trolls, the lot of them. According to several of his biographers, he was examined in political and literary history, German, French, biology, mathematics, descriptive geometry, chemistry, physics, and drawing. He also had to write an essay. He failed the test That's all we need, thanks. Einstein was outstanding at reading sci-fi, loved H.G. Wells' "The Time Machine", published in the same year the teenager Einstein failed because he wasn't revising his lessons properly. Born in 1879, he was 16 years old in 1985 and as gullible as any teenager. Obviously Wells was the source of his "inspiration". "Assume" -- 14 hits in http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/ "Assumption" - 4 hits. Assume Phuckwit Duck is an idiot. Therefore Phuckwit Duck is an idiot. 'Really, this is what is meant by the Fourth Dimension, though some people who talk about the Fourth Dimension do not know they mean it. It is only another way of looking at Time. There is no difference between Time and any of the three dimensions of Space except that our consciousness moves along with it.' -- Herbert George Wells - "The Time Machine" - 1895. "The secret to creativity is knowing how to hide your sources." --Einstein. Signature'we establish by definition that the "time" required by light to travel from A to B equals the "time" it requires to travel from B to A' because I SAY SO and you have to agree because I'm the great genius, STOOOPID, don't you dare question it. -- Rabbi Albert Einstein http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Smart/tAB=tBA.gif 'we establish by definition that the "time" required by light to travel from A to B doesn't equal the "time" it requires to travel from B to A in the stationary system, obviously.' -- Heretic Jan Bielawski, assistant light-bulb changer. Ref: news:1188363019.673281.67710@k79g2000hse.googlegroups.com "What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence." -- Uncle Stooopid. "Counterfactual assumptions yield nonsense. If such a thing were actually observed, reliably and reproducibly, then relativity would immediately need a major overhaul if not a complete replacement." -- Humpty Roberts. Rabbi Albert Einstein in 1895 failed an examination that would have allowed him to study for a diploma as an electrical engineer at the Eidgenössische Technische Hochschule in Zurich (couldn't even pass the SATs). According to Phuckwit Duck it was geography and history that Einstein failed on, as if Eidgenössische Technische Hochschule would give a damn. That tells you the lengths these lying bastards will go to to protect their tin god, but its always a laugh when they slip up. Trolls, the lot of them. "This is PHYSICS, not math or logic, and "proof" is completely irrelevant." -- Humpty Roberts. : ahahahaha... AHAHAHAHA.... Good ONE! ... ahahaha : > [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] : your willfully intended dyslexic typo, Andro... ahaha... : .... ahahahaha... ahahahanson You like, huh? Now see the dingleberries say I can't do arithmetic. The real sport is with Jan Bilewacky, he's a dingleberry that doesn't know his constipation from his diarrhea. " "If at the point A of space there is a clock..." - the clock sits there and does not move. It's important."-- JanPB "In the stationary K frame the point A _moves_" -- JanPB Gisse doesn't give a sh.t. : > According to Phuckwit Duck it was geography and history that Einstein : > failed on, as if Eidgenössische Technische Hochschule would give a [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] : : "The secret to creativity is knowing how to hide your sources." --Einstein. > [snip wet fart] Big G has dimensions: L^3/MT^2. Big G has units. The numerical value of Big G depends on the system of measurements. A unitless numerical constant recipe has no dimensions. You are an a.s. BTW, a.shole, if somebody reads you the literature <http://www.npl.washington.edu/eotwash/publications/pdf/prl85-2869.pdf> <http://www.npl.washington.edu/eotwash/publications/pdf/mst10-454.pdf> <http://www.npl.washington.edu/eotwash/publications/pdf/prd54-1256R.pdf> you will note that the Eot-Wash group used *perfect* solid homogeneous isotropic spheres as their attractors. The detector didn't move while performing its detection. f.cking imbecile. > -- > 'we establish by definition that the "time" required by > light to travel from A to B equals the "time" it requires > to travel from B to A' because I SAY SO and you have to > agree because I'm the great genius, STOOOPID, don't you > dare question it. -- Rabbi Albert Einstein Facts in evidence. Androclitty failed his Head Start class. He was shaving before they cut him loose. SignatureUncle Al http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/ (Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals) http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/lajos.htm#a2 : > [snip wet fart] : : Big G is "Gerald McCafferty", a villain in Ian Rankin's "Inspector Rebus" novels. "Assume" -- 14 hits in "On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies". "Assumption" -- 4 hits. "What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence." -- Uncle Stooopid. 'we establish by definition that the "time" required by light to travel from A to B equals the "time" it requires to travel from B to A' because I SAY SO and you have to agree because I'm the great genius, STOOOPID, don't you dare question it. -- Rabbi Albert Einstein http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Smart/tAB=tBA.gif 'we establish by definition that the "time" required by light to travel from A to B doesn't equal the "time" it requires to travel from B to A in the stationary system, obviously.' -- Heretic Jan Bielawski, assistant light-bulb changer. Ref: news:1188363019.673281.67710@k79g2000hse.googlegroups.com "What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence." -- Uncle Stooopid. "Counterfactual assumptions yield nonsense. If such a thing were actually observed, reliably and reproducibly, then relativity would immediately need a major overhaul if not a complete replacement." -- Humpty Roberts. Rabbi Albert Einstein in 1895 failed an examination that would have allowed him to study for a diploma as an electrical engineer at the Eidgenössische Technische Hochschule in Zurich (couldn't even pass the SATs). According to Phuckwit Duck it was geography and history that Einstein failed on, as if Eidgenössische Technische Hochschule would give a damn. That tells you the lengths these lying bastards will go to to protect their tin god, but its always a laugh when they slip up. Trolls, the lot of them. "This is PHYSICS, not math or logic, and "proof" is completely irrelevant." -- Humpty Roberts. > Big G has dimensions: L^3/MT^2. Big G has units. The numerical value > of Big G depends on the system of measurements. A unitless numerical > constant recipe has no dimensions. You are an a.s. Humph! Well writ! As they say in comics.... "N'uff said!" >> On Aug 28, 12:33 pm, "q-bit" <johnsm...@nospamorg.org> wrote: >> > > "q-bit" <johnsm...@nospamorg.org> wrote [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > > This was already discussed. See the other postings in this thread. Look q-bit, the fact that a combination of three of the most important parameters of rotation gets close to G doesn't mean nothing. The above equation cannot have any Physical meaning because in such equation none of the parameters has any kind of Physical meaning. Those parameters relate only to circumferences and only to circular geometry. SR is a kind of geometry and you don't seem to like that much Physics based on geometry. Gravity is some how circular, but notice that a circular motion always carries centrifugal forces with it (no matter if it is fictitious or not, the centrifugal force kills), so it cannot produce an inward force like gravity. > > > > "q-bit" <johnsm...@nospamorg.org> wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 37 lines] > has become obsolote. Because now G is exactly determined by this > simple formula: G = pi / (e * sqrt(3)) x 10^-10 Well, let's try it. The gravitational constant is 9.1398e-007 shaku^3 stone^(-1) min^(-1). Your calculation yields 0.6673 * 10^-10, and has no units. No, that doesn't seem to match up very well. - Randy > > > > > "q-bit" <johnsm...@nospamorg.org> wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 41 lines] > > The gravitational constant is 9.1398e-007 shaku^3 stone^(-1) min^(-1). Oops, that's wrong. The correct value is 5.4839e-5 shaku^3 stone^(-1) min^(-2). > Your calculation yields 0.6673 * 10^-10, and has no units. > > No, that doesn't seem to match up very well. Still doesn't match up. - Randy Look what I've found at the NASA site http://ssd.jpl.nasa.gov/?constants#ref >> > > > " gravitational constant G = 6.67259 (± 0.00030) x 10^-11 >> > > > " That's exactly my calculated value of G ! Because now G is exactly determined by this simple formula: G = pi / (e * sqrt(3)) x 10^-10 I claim to have calculated even the exact value of G ! My G = 6.67259496511601429861570358962... x 10^-11 And some idiots had laughed about my finding! Now it's time for me to laugh back: [hanson] Hodidoh!... Not so fast, John Smith... ahahaha... G is NOT [6.67...] --- G is [6.67...m^3/(kg*s^2)] All you found was a number. NAKED digits!... that could be 6.67... of anything from apples to zebras including your G. Now, you will have a case if you can show that your (pi, e, and sqrt) do produce the dimensions of [m^3/(kg*s^2)] . When you do show that to be the case THEN "it's time for you to laugh back" So, in anticipation... ahahahaha... ahahahanson > Now, you will have a case if you > can show that your (pi, e, and sqrt) do produce the > dimensions of [m^3/(kg*s^2)] . Volume times the square of the linear velocity divided by the inertia moment, gives you: Kg^-1 m^3 s^-2 Pi relates to the sphere volume. The linear velocity is the tangential velocity, which describes a circle, related to e^iwt. The inertia moment relates to mass, obviously. >> Now, you will have a case if you >> can show that your (pi, e, and sqrt) do produce the [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > describes a circle, related to e^iwt. > The inertia moment relates to mass, obviously. Perhaps I can give you a better one. Since the linear tangential velocity is given by radius times the angular velocity, it can be reduced to: Volume[m^3]*Angular velocity^2[(rad/s)^2]/mass[kg] = [Kg^-1 m^3 s^-2] - Pi relates to the sphere volume; - e relates to circular motion (the trivial e^i(wt)); - sqrt(3) is the magic number of 3-phase generators that work based on the most basic Universal concept: That is, "harmonic oscillations" with a potential energy at right angles with the kinetic energy, seen in light, all over the electromagnetism, Maxwell equations, a mass- -spring system, and so on. sqrt(3) = rotation all over. and in news:5jj638F3pol7iU1@mid.individual.net... >>> Now, you will have a case if you >>> can show that your (pi, e, and sqrt) do produce the >>> dimensions of [m^3/(kg*s^2)] . [JM] >> Volume times the square of the linear velocity divided by >> the inertia moment, gives you: Kg^-1 m^3 s^-2 [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >> describes a circle, related to e^iwt. >> The inertia moment relates to mass, obviously. [hanson] .... ahahaha.. obviously you, JM, do now with dimensions just what John Smith did with numbers... ahahahaha.... All you found was a dimensional configuration!... that could be [m^3/(kg*s^2)] of ANY NUMBER, including that of G. Now, you will have a case if you can show that your NUMBER AND the dimensions of [m^3/(kg*s^2)] do form THAT constant G and nothing else . When you do show that to be the case THEN "it's time for you to laugh back" So, in anticipation... ahahahaha... ahahahanson [JM] > Perhaps I can give you a better one. > Since the linear tangential velocity is given by radius [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > the electromagnetism, Maxwell equations, a mass- > -spring system, and so on. sqrt(3) = rotation all over. [hanson] You are still doing the same useless trip of generalizing. ... Of course everything is connected to everything else. You can be seen from first principle, to reiterations, to self-similarities to scaling laws, to Emergent complexity that all is tied together, intuitively and obviously.... BUT .... physics is about *measurement* of how many times one of our arbitrarily chosen units fits into the measured observed quantity.. which brings a **unique**, one and only result. Everything else is poetry and imagination, which you can see in your and in these musings belwo on the same subject... Been there done that.... ahahahaha... ".... the gravity/ational constant G may be described as the second derivative, (a max/min point) of the change of the mass density (rho [gr/cm^3]) of a system when it us undergoing an acceleration (1/t^2), formalized in the equation G = d2(1/rho) / dt^2, (d are the differentials)" http://groups.google.com/group/alt.sci.physics.new-theories/msg/fe304393e8c79b95 ?hl=en& http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/msg/b024e82e09d4af87?hl=en& http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/msg/81aedb8a0bac9b9a?hl=en& http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/msg/0745fc143a883e9c?hl=en& http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/msg/b7eabea0c3599939?hl=en& http://groups.google.com/group/alt.philosophy/msg/3a49c856abf11d7d?hl=en& Have fun and carry on, dudes. Nothing ventured -- Nothing gained..... along with No Pain!... No Gain!.... ahahahaha... ahahaha... ahahahanson : and in news:5jj638F3pol7iU1@mid.individual.net... : >> [quoted text clipped - 57 lines] : us undergoing an acceleration (1/t^2), formalized in the : equation G = d2(1/rho) / dt^2, (d are the differentials)" http://groups.google.com/group/alt.sci.physics.new-theories/msg/fe304393e8c79b95 ?hl=en& : http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/msg/b024e82e09d4af87?hl=en& : http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/msg/81aedb8a0bac9b9a?hl=en& [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] : gained..... along with No Pain!... No Gain!.... ahahahaha... : ahahaha... ahahahanson A while ago someone claimed radians were not units... > A while ago someone claimed radians were not units... You probably heard wrong. Radians are unitless, meaning they are treated as dimensionless numbers. Example: the angle subtended by a distant object, the moon for example, is given by (diameter of object) divided by (distance to object, in same units). (To good approximation, if that angle is small, say 0.01 radians or less. The smaller the angle the better the approximation). This is a ratio, with no units. It is also the magnitude of the angle, in radians. - Randy : > A while ago someone claimed radians were not units... : : You probably heard wrong. Radians are unitless, meaning : they are treated as dimensionless numbers. Oh, it was the snipping troll Blind Poe, was it? "Buses can't stop as quickly as cars, DOT said so." -- Blind Poe. "This is PHYSICS, not math or logic, and "proof" is completely irrelevant." -- Humpty Roberts. Signature'we establish by definition that the "time" required by light to travel from A to B equals the "time" it requires to travel from B to A' because I SAY SO and you have to agree because I'm the great genius, STOOOPID, don't you dare question it. -- Rabbi Albert Einstein http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Smart/tAB=tBA.gif "What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence." -- Uncle Stooopid. "Counterfactual assumptions yield nonsense. If such a thing were actually observed, reliably and reproducibly, then relativity would immediately need a major overhaul if not a complete replacement." -- Humpty Roberts. Rabbi Albert Einstein in 1895 failed an examination that would have allowed him to study for a diploma as an electrical engineer at the Eidgenössische Technische Hochschule in Zurich (couldn't even pass the SATs). According to Phuckwit Duck it was geography and history that Einstein failed on, as if Eidgenössische Technische Hochschule would give a damn. That tells you the lengths these lying bastards will go to to protect their tin god, but its always a laugh when they slip up. Trolls, the lot of them. > : > A while ago someone claimed radians were not units... > : [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > "Buses can't stop as quickly as cars, DOT said so." -- Blind Poe. Data trumps numbers pulled from your rectum, Androcles. Even data collected by government agencies. I knew you wouldn't have the attention span to read what I wrote. I don't write responses to your threads with the expectation you will read or understand what I say, it's for other people. Congratulations on getting through two sentences, though. That's a real improvement. Have yourself a cookie. You can feel proud. - Randy : > : > A while ago someone claimed radians were not units... : > : [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] : : Data trumps numbers pulled from your rectum, Androcles. This is physics, not a card game out of your arse, trolling Blind Poe. > : > : > A while ago someone claimed radians were not units... > : > : [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > This is physics, not a card game out of your arse, trolling Blind Poe. And the test of physical theories is what, Androcles? Would it be experimental data, or numbers ab recto? - Randy : > : > : > A while ago someone claimed radians were not units... : > : > : [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] : And the test of physical theories is what, Androcles? Would it : be experimental data, or numbers ab recto? In your case the number of times you lied, troll. Miles are unitless but there are 5280 feet to each one. Hours are unitless but there are 60 minutes to each one. Degrees are unitless but there are 1/360 circles to each one. Radians are unitless but there are 1/(2pi) circles to each one. Logic trumps illogic pulled from your arse, Fuckhead Poe. > : > : > : > A while ago someone claimed radians were not units... > : > : > : [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > : > In your case the number of times you lied, troll. Name one. > Miles are unitless but there are 5280 feet to each one. > Hours are unitless but there are 60 minutes to each one. > Degrees are unitless but there are 1/360 circles to each one. Poor confused Androcles. No, these things are not unitless. The existence of one unitless quantity does not force all quantities to be unitless. > Radians are unitless but there are 1/(2pi) circles to each one. Yes, radians are unitless. An angular frequency in rad/sec can also be treated as being in 1/sec, with no conversion needed. I knew this would make you froth, but nevertheless that is a fact. No, I don't expect to convince you. Nor do I expect to convince you that human vision is based on chemical transduction, or that signals from parabolic antennas get weaker with distance. Don't sweat it. Live in your own world where your knowledge or lack of it in these matters does not affect other people. - Randy : > : > : > : > A while ago someone claimed radians were not units... : > : > : > : [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] : : Name one. I will, you'll snip without reading or comprehending. Androcles: So you admit to being a troll, Blind Poe: No, I admit to having abandoned any hope of rational conversation with *you*. I'm trolling *you*, if you like. Poor Blind stupid incoherent raving lunatic Poe is not a troll but he admits to trolling. Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity, sci.astro From: "Randy Poe" <poespam-t...@yahoo.com> - Find messages by this author Date: 14 Dec 2005 12:30:59 -0800 Local: Wed, Dec 14 2005 8:30 pm Subject: Re: Excitement in high energy physics, really high energy Androcles wrote: > > Androcles wrote: > >> > Just now I can get a blind rage over anything to do with > >> > the sign of sqrt(2), or the concept of "round-trip travel time". > >> I never get in a rage, I write what I write deliberately to stir you > >> up. > Ok, so f.ck off. Poor Blind stupid Poe: You mean that in a non-angry way of course. > > I don't have a killfile, so the answer is no. What it means is > > that I couldn't see any amusement value in answering. > So you admit to being a troll, Poor Blind stupid Poe: No, I admit to having abandoned any hope of rational conversation with *you*. I'm trolling *you*, if you like. My responses to others are still with the intent of conveying substance and exchanging ideas. > Of course. I'm taking the piss out of you, phuckwit, and gaining > ground as hanson can clearly see. Poor Blind stupid Poe: Yes, your choice of the sock-puppet name "Black Knight" from "Monty Python and the Holy Grail" is a clear choice of what it means to you to "gain ground". > He knows I like a joke and so does Sue. Right now you are the > easiest target to pick on since Schwartz ran away, but you are not [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > wHot! is yer quest? (To seek the Thorney Kipper) > wHot! is the air speed velocity of an AFRICAN swallow? Poor Blind stupid Poe: You need new material. > And I KNOW I've stirred you up when you say things like > "Negative" means "real and less than zero" (less commonly, some authors > mean "less than or equal to zero"). - Blind Poe. > Blind Poe says some authors mean zero is negative. Poor Blind stupid Poe: Yep. Also the word "positive" sometimes is used to mean x >= 0, and those authors would use the term "strictly positive" to describe the set x > 0. I prefer the usage that "positive" means x > 0, and x >= 0 is called "non-negative". > Who is going to swallow that? Poor Blind stupid Poe: Certainly not you. But you have a deep abiding suspicion that everything looking like mathematics is part of the worldwide relativity conspiracy, so I know you won't swallow the idea that there are conventions on any mathematical term, including "positive". > > The only time you actually got a rise out of me was when you > > accused me of dishonesty. > You ARE dishonest. Poor Blind stupid Poe: Nope, told you. You need new material. > You are a f.cking liar, a cheat, a charlatan, a rogue, not even funny and > above all dishonest. Poor Blind stupid Poe: And you mean that in a non-angry way, of course. > Poe can't read, Jim. You are wasting your time. > Einstein: [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Proof Poe cannot read: > "Where in that equation did (c+v) occur?" -- Poe the blind man. Poor Blind stupid Poe: "Honest" Androcles knows that he had to snip the equation and the comment from two different posts, since my comment did not occur in a post where that equation did. > > But I will make you a serious offer. If you really want to go > > through the mosquito point by point again, I'll do it and point > > out where I claim you're going astray. > You'll be in trouble. > I derive the cuckoo transforms from it, which is the target you seek. > Here is the derivation, extracted from a summary of the document. > 1) > Define t = x'/(c-v) = x'/(c+v) Poor Blind stupid Poe: Oops. Blew it already with the first definition of variables. See what I mean? Signature'we establish by definition that the "time" required by light to travel from A to B equals the "time" it requires to travel from B to A' because I SAY SO and you have to agree because I'm the great genius, STOOOPID, don't you dare question it. -- Rabbi Albert Einstein http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Smart/tAB=tBA.gif 'we establish by definition that the "time" required by light to travel from A to B doesn't equal the "time" it requires to travel from B to A in the stationary system, obviously.' -- Heretic Jan Bielawski, assistant light-bulb changer. Ref: news:1188363019.673281.67710@k79g2000hse.googlegroups.com "What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence." -- Uncle Stooopid. "Counterfactual assumptions yield nonsense. If such a thing were actually observed, reliably and reproducibly, then relativity would immediately need a major overhaul if not a complete replacement." -- Humpty Roberts. Rabbi Albert Einstein in 1895 failed an examination that would have allowed him to study for a diploma as an electrical engineer at the Eidgenössische Technische Hochschule in Zurich (couldn't even pass the SATs). According to Phuckwit Duck it was geography and history that Einstein failed on, as if Eidgenössische Technische Hochschule would give a damn. That tells you the lengths these lying bastards will go to to protect their tin god, but its always a laugh when they slip up. Trolls, the lot of them. "This is PHYSICS, not math or logic, and "proof" is completely irrelevant." -- Humpty Roberts. >> "Randy Poe" <poespam-t...@yahoo.com> wrote in message >> >> Miles are unitless but there are 5280 feet to each one. >> Hours are unitless but there are 60 minutes to each one. >> Degrees are unitless but there are 1/360 circles to each one. >Poor confused Androcles. No, these things are not unitless. >The existence of one unitless quantity does not force all >quantities to be unitless. >> Radians are unitless but there are 1/(2pi) circles to each one. >Yes, radians are unitless. An angular frequency in >rad/sec can also be treated as being in 1/sec, with no >conversion needed. While it's plain that miles and hours have units, wouldn't degrees be unitless? After all, there are pi/180 unitless radians in each degree. On Aug 29, 10:59 am, moro...@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) wrote: > >> "Randy Poe" <poespam-t...@yahoo.com> wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > While it's plain that miles and hours have units, wouldn't degrees be > unitless? After all, there are pi/180 unitless radians in each degree. I debated that one internally for a few seconds. I decided that I would consider degrees to have units because I have to include a conversion factor when I use them, while the same is not true of radians. For instance, as I mentioned in an earlier post, the angle subtended by a distant object is (in radians) equal to the ratio of diameter to distance. It's a point on which honest people can disagree. - Randy : On Aug 29, 10:59 am, moro...@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) : wrote: [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] : : I debated that one internally for a few seconds. And came up with the wrong answer. : I decided : that I would consider degrees to have units because I have : to include a conversion factor when I use them, pi is is not a conversion factor because YOU decided, poor incoherent raving lunatic Poe? : while : the same is not true of radians. For instance, as I mentioned : in an earlier post, the angle subtended by a distant object : is (in radians) equal to the ratio of diameter to distance. : : It's a point on which honest people can disagree. But you are not honest, Poe. You are not a troll that trolls. "I'm trolling *you*, if you like"- Poe the lying troll, 14 Dec 2005 "hanson" <hanson@quick.net> wrote in message news:1E_Ai.365$Zg.351@trnddc08... ahahaha... "JM Albuquerque" <jmDOTa2@clix.pt> wrote in message news:5jj88fF3tcv91U1@mid.individual.net... and in news:5jj638F3pol7iU1@mid.individual.net... "hanson" <hanson@quick.net> escreveu na mensagem news:X4ZAi.15$5h.7@trnddc03... Now, you will have a case if you can show that your (pi, e, and sqrt) do produce the dimensions of [m^3/(kg*s^2)] . [JM] Volume times the square of the linear velocity divided by the inertia moment, gives you: Kg^-1 m^3 s^-2 Pi relates to the sphere volume. The linear velocity is the tangential velocity, which describes a circle, related to e^iwt. The inertia moment relates to mass, obviously. [hanson] .... ahahaha.. obviously you, JM, do now with dimensions just what John Smith did with numbers... ahahahaha.... All you found was a dimensional configuration!... that could be [m^3/(kg*s^2)] of ANY NUMBER, including that of G. Now, you will have a case if you can show that your NUMBER AND the dimensions of [m^3/(kg*s^2)] do form THAT constant G and nothing else . When you do show that to be the case THEN "it's time for you to laugh back" So, in anticipation... ahahahaha... ahahahanson [JM] Perhaps I can give you a better one. Since the linear tangential velocity is given by radius times the angular velocity, it can be reduced to: Volume[m^3]*Angular velocity^2[(rad/s)^2]/mass[kg] = [Kg^-1 m^3 s^-2] - Pi relates to the sphere volume; - e relates to circular motion (the trivial e^i(wt)); - sqrt(3) is the magic number of 3-phase generators that work based on the most basic Universal concept: That is, "harmonic oscillations" with a potential energy at right angles with the kinetic energy, seen in light, all over the electromagnetism, Maxwell equations, a mass- -spring system, and so on. sqrt(3) = rotation all over. [hanson] You are still doing the same useless trip of generalizing. ... Of course everything is connected to everything else. You can be seen from first principle, to reiterations, to self-similarities to scaling laws, to Emergent complexity that all is tied together, intuitively and obviously.... BUT .... physics is about *measurement* of how many times one of our arbitrarily chosen units fits into the measured observed quantity.. which brings a **unique**, one and only result. Everything else is poetry and imagination, which you can see in your and in these musings belwo on the same subject... Been there done that.... ahahahaha... ".... the gravity/ational constant G may be described as the second derivative, (a max/min point) of the change of the mass density (rho [gr/cm^3]) of a system when it us undergoing an acceleration (1/t^2), formalized in the equation G = d2(1/rho) / dt^2, (d are the differentials)" http://groups.google.com/group/alt.sci.physics.new-theories/msg/fe304393e8c79b95 ?hl=en& http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/msg/b024e82e09d4af87?hl=en& http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/msg/81aedb8a0bac9b9a?hl=en& http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/msg/0745fc143a883e9c?hl=en& http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/msg/b7eabea0c3599939?hl=en& http://groups.google.com/group/alt.philosophy/msg/3a49c856abf11d7d?hl=en& Have fun and carry on, dudes. Nothing ventured -- Nothing gained..... along with No Pain!... No Gain!.... ahahahaha... ahahaha... ahahahanson [Andro] > A while ago someone claimed radians were not units... [hanson] ahahahaha... Hey, don't bag on that someone. In his world the circle is a unit, the perfect one. And if you slice that unit, the resulting slices (radians) are no longer a unit... See, there are so many ways to skin the cat.... ahahaha... Thanks for the laughs... ahahahaha.. PS: your dogging of rect-Al's tripe is so hilarious. If you keep it up, it is just a question of time until he cusses and curses his **River of sh.t**... again... http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/msg/5c268853e1425b5f?hl=en& and leaves... to my chagrin... ahahaha...ahahanson >>> Now, you will have a case if you >>> can show that your (pi, e, and sqrt) do produce the [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > the electromagnetism, Maxwell equations, a mass- > -spring system, and so on. sqrt(3) = rotation all over. Moreover: Time can be defined as the inverse of the angular velocity: t = 1/w [s] "w" is the angular velocity [rad/s] So, taking time out of the problem, what is the 10^-10 factor? The factor 10^-10 can be a scale factor defined by the ratio amount volume and mass (the remaining pieces of the above equation). volume/mass = 1/density So, maybe the factor 10^-10 can be regarded as a scale factor that accounts for density, which is the ratio among a volume and a mass. So, the equation relates with mass, time and volume and has a factor scale in it, required to balance the mass and volume terms. >>>> Now, you will have a case if you >>>> can show that your (pi, e, and sqrt) do produce the [quoted text clipped - 43 lines] > and has a factor scale in it, required to balance the > mass and volume terms. And finally, what is G? G = pi / (e * sqrt(3)) x 10^-10 G = Volume*Angular velocity^2 / mass G is related to uniform circular motion of a given volume, rotating at a rate "w = omega", which carries a given mass, so that the inward acceleration is given w^2 (omega squared). So the Universal Constant G derives from the uniform rotation of a spherical volume which gives to an external object a gravity acceleration = w^2 (omega squared). And the term "e = 2.718281..." also relates to one stone pillar in Physics: Euler's equality: e^[i(pi)] = -1 Which means that: sin^2+cos^2=1 (circular motion again) Rotation all over the place. How about that? AHAHAHA... Keep on convincing yourself, JM!... hahahaha... It's good for you. We've all been there & done that.... ahahaha... It's great and once done, you will look back with joy... for these great moments will never return to you. That nothing came of it is utterly immaterial. See here news:1E_Ai.365$Zg.351@trnddc08... about such examples of **musings** on physics. Now carry on and provide joy for yourself and laughs for others.... ahahaha... Thanks for the laughs.... ahahahaha.... ahahanson ------------------------------------ >>>>> Now, you will have a case if you >>>>> can show that your (pi, e, and sqrt) do produce the [quoted text clipped - 66 lines] > Rotation all over the place. > How about that? > AHAHAHA... Keep on convincing yourself, JM!... hahahaha... It looks like I didn't convinced you. It's funny to play with physics. You should try it. I'm gonna tell you the secret: All I have is a rotating hammer, hence every problem looks like a rotating nail to me. Can't you see the rotating funny in a gravity field, all going down the drain? Just brain exercise, just brain exercise. All laughs are welcome. I almost fooled you, didn't I? I've pulled all that out of my hat in a hour or two. : > AHAHAHA... Keep on convincing yourself, JM!... hahahaha... : : It looks like I didn't convinced you. : It's funny to play with physics. : You should try it. HAHAHAHA! You just found that out, huh? : AHAHAHA... Keep on convincing yourself, JM!... hahahaha... : It's good for you. We've all been there & done that.... ahahaha... [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] : and provide joy for yourself and laughs for others.... ahahaha... : Thanks for the laughs.... ahahahaha.... ahahanson Ya gotta love the way he keeps writing to himself. : ------------------------------------ : > [quoted text clipped - 68 lines] : > Rotation all over the place. : > How about that? NUMEROLOGY "q-bit" <johnsmith@nospamorg.org> wrote in message news:fb1i85$bhe$1@aioe.org... Look what I've found at the NASA site http://ssd.jpl.nasa.gov/?constants#ref >> > > > " gravitational constant G = 6.67259 (± 0.00030) x 10^-11 >> > > > " That's exactly my calculated value of G ! Because now G is exactly determined by this simple formula: G = pi / (e * sqrt(3)) x 10^-10 I claim to have calculated even the exact value of G ! My G = 6.67259496511601429861570358962... x 10^-11 And some idiots had laughed about my finding! Now it's time for me to laugh back: "hanson" <hanson@quick.net> escreveu na mensagem > news:X4ZAi.15$5h.7@trnddc03... Hodidoh!... Not so fast, John Smith... ahahaha... G is NOT [6.67...] --- G is [6.67...m^3/(kg*s^2)] All you found was a number. NAKED digits!... that could be 6.67... of anything from apples to zebras including your G. Now, you will have a case if you can show that your (pi, e, and sqrt) do produce the dimensions of [m^3/(kg*s^2)] . When you do show that to be the case THEN "it's time for you to laugh back" So, in anticipation... ahahahaha... ahahahanson [JM] Volume times the square of the linear velocity divided by the inertia moment, gives you: Kg^-1 m^3 s^-2 Pi relates to the sphere volume. The linear velocity is the tangential velocity, which describes a circle, related to e^iwt. The inertia moment relates to mass, obviously. [hanson] .... ahahaha.. obviously you, JM, do now with dimensions just what John Smith did with numbers... ahahahaha.... All you found was a dimensional configuration!... that could be [m^3/(kg*s^2)] of ANY NUMBER, including that of G. Now, you will have a case if you can show that your NUMBER AND the dimensions of [m^3/(kg*s^2)] do form THAT constant G and nothing else . When you do show that to be the case THEN "it's time for you to laugh back" So, in anticipation... ahahahaha... ahahahanson > > "q-bit" <johnsmith@nospamorg.org> wrote > > [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > that to be the case THEN "it's time for you to laugh back" > So, in anticipation... ahahahaha... ahahahanson For me G is just a dimensionless universal scalar constant. Case closed! :-) Next please :-) > > > "q-bit" <johnsm...@nospamorg.org> wrote > [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > Case closed! :-) > Next please :-) So I don't need to have my masses in kg and my distances in meters in order to use your dimensionless G constant? No matter what units I express M, m and R in, I'll get the right answer for F in F = GMm/R^2? What units will F be in? Do you even understand the issue? - Randy > On Aug 28, 2:39 pm, "q-bit" <johnsm...@nospamorg.org> wrote: > > > "q-bit" <johnsm...@nospamorg.org> wrote [quoted text clipped - 35 lines] > > Do you even understand the issue? Yes. It has nothing to do with G itself. It's an "application" issue, ie. a definition issue. Here you can chose the unit which fits your case best, or just create your own: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_constant Why don't you ask which unit pi has ? :-) Think of G being in the same 'category' like pi... > > > > "q-bit" <johnsm...@nospamorg.org> wrote > [quoted text clipped - 38 lines] > ie. a definition issue. Here you can chose the unit which > fits your case best, or just create your own:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_constant Yes, the actual gravitational constant has units. The value depends on the units. But yours doesn't. > Why don't you ask which unit pi has ? :-) pi has no units. > Think of G being in the same 'category' like pi... OK. Using your magical value of G, can you tell me what the force is between a mass of 10 lb and a mass of 20 stone, if they are separated by 3 furlongs? - Randy : > On Aug 28, 2:39 pm, "q-bit" <johnsm...@nospamorg.org> wrote: : > > > "q-bit" <johnsm...@nospamorg.org> wrote [quoted text clipped - 41 lines] : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_constant : Why don't you ask which unit pi has ? :-) pi is half a circle. There are 2 pi radians to a circle, just as there are 14 lbs to a stone, 5 toes to a foot and 3600 seconds to an hour. A circle is a whole unit just as a stone, a foot or an hour is a whole unit. 12 inches = 35 barleycorns = 5 toes, there being 3 barleycorns to the inch, but one fell in the crack in the floor boards that were 1 foot wide. : Think of G being in the same 'category' like pi... Ok, pi has units of half circles. What are the units of G? For that matter, what are the units of toes? How many toes are there crushed in a stone when you drop one on your foot under gravity (G)? You don't need to shoot yourself in the foot, but you just did. Firing from the hip does that. .... ahahahaha... Right on, John! Carry on!... AHAHAHAHAHA... >> > "q-bit" <johnsmith@nospamorg.org> wrote >> > [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > Case closed! :-) > Next please :-) .... ahahahaha... Right on, John! Carry on!... AHAHAHAHAHA... Thanks for the laughs... ahahahaha... ahahahanson : > > "q-bit" <johnsmith@nospamorg.org> wrote : > > [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] : Case closed! :-) : Next please :-) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dimensional_analysis http://www.glenbrook.k12.il.us/gbssci/Phys/Class/circles/u6l4a.html Our understanding of the elliptical motion of planets about the Sun spanned several years and included contributions from many scientists. a. Which scientist is credited with the collection of the data necessary to support the planet's elliptical motion? b. Which scientist is credited with the long and difficult task of analyzing the data? c. Which scientist is credited with the accurate explanation of the data? : Look what I've found at the NASA site : http://ssd.jpl.nasa.gov/?constants#ref [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] : > : All you found was a number. Yeah, a hotel room number in the name of Mr. and Mr. John Smith : NAKED digits!... Yeah, that's right. Mr. and Mr. Smith should get a room, not too many of us want to see their naked digits or their balls either in room o1o. I knew a John Smythe, he actually changed the spelling of his name by deed poll so as not to appear suspicious. Then he ran into trouble answering the phone. "ring ring..." John Smythe: "Hello" Caller: "Can I speak to Mr. Sm-eye-th please? " John Smythe: "Aye, I'm Mr. Smith, can I help?" Caller: "Could you put me through to Mr. Sm=eye-th?" John Smythe: "He's not here, f.ck off." Ok, I made the last sentence up, John Smythe was polite. He actually said "I'm John (smith), spelt "S-m-y-t-h-e" " and instantly embarrassed the caller, gaining what the Chinese call "face", the crafty bastard. that : could be 6.67... of anything from apples to zebras : including your G. Now, you will have a case if you : can show that your (pi, e, and sqrt) do produce the : dimensions of [m^3/(kg*s^2)] . When you do show : that to be the case THEN "it's time for you to laugh back" : So, in anticipation... ahahahaha... ahahahanson > > > > "q-bit" <johnsm...@nospamorg.org> wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 37 lines] > has become obsolote. Because now G is exactly determined by this > simple formula: G = pi / (e * sqrt(3)) x 10^-10 Ah, yes, well.... That pi is there for a reason, obviously. Same is true for e. The sqrt(3) seems a little implausible, but it's simple enough that there's possibly a good argument for it. But that 10^-10, that makes no sense at all. Why on Earth would there be a 10^-10 in a fundamental theory of gravity? Would you be so kind as to explain the argument for this arrangement of constants? > Ie. no need anymore for any such experiments. > Any local differences of G are due to anomalies of the location itself, [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > - Show quoted text - > On Aug 28, 11:23 am, "q-bit" <johnsm...@nospamorg.org> wrote: > > > q-bit wrote: [quoted text clipped - 41 lines] > Would you be so kind as to explain the argument for this arrangement > of constants? A good question. The simple answer is: it is just so due to the interrelation to other constants; ie. it is just a man made "scaling". See for example also the definitions of these constants: eps0 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vacuum_permittivity mu0 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vacuum_permeability Can you answer why eps0 uses 10^-12 and why mu0 uses10^-7 ?... Ie. same kind of useless argumentation... > > Ie. no need anymore for any such experiments. > > Any local differences of G are due to anomalies of the location itself, > > ie. due to the non-unique distribution of mass (water, earth, metals) under the crust; > > I'm talking of the universal constant G valid for the whole universe, > > not of any local anomalies in your neighbourhood, or in your head :-) > > > > q-bit wrote: > > > > > > "q-bit" <johnsm...@nospamorg.org> wrote in message [quoted text clipped - 48 lines] > Can you answer why eps0 uses 10^-12 and why mu0 uses10^-7 ?... > Ie. same kind of useless argumentation... Then why is the scaling only in powers of 10? There is nothing special about the number 10 other than it is the number of fingers we have. How do you know that the factor of sqrt(3) has a physical basis and isn't part of man made scaling? > > > Ie. no need anymore for any such experiments. > > > Any local differences of G are due to anomalies of the location itself, [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > - Show quoted text - > "q-bit" <johnsm...@nospamorg.org> wrote > > > "PD" <TheDraperFamily@gmail.com> wrote [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > Then why is the scaling only in powers of 10? There is nothing special > about the number 10 other than it is the number of fingers we have. Right :-) We would save much storage space and paper if we used base64 or base96 etc. instead of base10 :-) > How do you know that the factor of sqrt(3) has a physical basis and > isn't part of man made scaling? Hmm. I would say 3 is the most important number of the universe. This is due to the quantum mechanical structure of our universe. Think of QM's qubit, ie. a three-state "bit": http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qubit 3 is IMO even more important than pi in our quantized universe. I have a hobby research project for everybody interessted: It is said that the following relation holds: eps0 * mu0 * c^2 = 1 (see for example: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vacuum_permeability ) The above relation is IMO BS as c does not fit well into this equation. I think there must exist a much more important formula which looks like this: eps0 * mu0 * x0 = 1 Your task: find x0 and document it. It is obviously a fundamental property of the space, much like eps0 and mu0; see above links etc. If that is found than we have got our 3 numbers completed... :-) > > > > "PD" <TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote > > > > > "q-bit" <johnsm...@nospamorg.org> wrote [quoted text clipped - 30 lines] > > Hmm. I would say 3 is the most important number of the universe. Gee, I dunno. The Golden Ratio appears in nature a whole lot more than the number 3 and you haven't used it at all. Sure looks like a man made scaling factor to me. > This is due to the quantum mechanical structure of our universe. > Think of QM's qubit, ie. a three-state "bit":http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qubit [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > eps0 * mu0 * x0 = 1 > Your task: find x0 and document it. By golly, you're right. And if you solve the electrodynamic equations to produce a traveling solution, you'll find that it travels with speed sqrt(x0). Document that. > It is obviously a fundamental property of the space, much like eps0 and mu0; see above links etc. > If that is found than we have got our 3 numbers completed... :-)- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - > > q-bit wrote: > > > > "q-bit" <johnsmith@nospamorg.org> wrote in message [quoted text clipped - 39 lines] > simple formula: G = pi / (e * sqrt(3)) x 10^-10 > Ie. no need anymore for any such experiments. [snip more crap] "It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn't matter how smart you are. If it doesn't agree with experiment, it's wrong," Richard P. Feynman. <http://www.npl.washington.edu/eotwash/publications/pdf/prl85-2869.pdf> <http://www.npl.washington.edu/eotwash/publications/pdf/mst10-454.pdf> <http://www.npl.washington.edu/eotwash/publications/pdf/prd54-1256R.pdf> f.cking imbecile. The ratio of the circumference of a circle to its diameter is not pi on the surface of the Earch. No triangle on the Earth has its interior angles sum to exactly 180 degrees - a 540 degree triangle is entirely OK. A mile square is not square mile. Do you have a problem with Euclid, boy? f.cking imbecile. Idiot. Waste of flesh. Mind nigger. SignatureUncle Al http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/ (Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals) http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/lajos.htm#a2 Hey EWE! Signature'we establish by definition that the "time" required by light to travel from A to B equals the "time" it requires to travel from B to A' because I SAY SO and you have to agree because I'm the great genius, STOOOPID, don't you dare question it. -- Rabbi Albert Einstein http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Smart/tAB=tBA.gif "What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence." -- Uncle Stooopid. "Counterfactual assumptions yield nonsense. If such a thing were actually observed, reliably and reproducibly, then relativity would immediately need a major overhaul if not a complete replacement." -- Humpty Roberts. Rabbi Albert Einstein in 1895 failed an examination that would have allowed him to study for a diploma as an electrical engineer at the Eidgenössische Technische Hochschule in Zurich (couldn't even pass the SATs). According to Phuckwit Duck it was geography and history that Einstein failed on, as if Eidgenössische Technische Hochschule would give a damn. That tells you the lengths these lying bastards will go to to protect their tin god, but its always a laugh when they slip up. Trolls, the lot of them. "This is PHYSICS, not math or logic, and "proof" is completely irrelevant." -- Humpty Roberts. [snip] Nothing. Science has ab initio, semi-empirical, in vitro, in silico, in vivo... Androclitty has ab recto, http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/sunshine.jpg An idiot is not half way to being an idiot-savant. Uncle Al is intolerant of stupidity and those who are proud of it. Ignorance is not a form of knowing things. SignatureUncle Al http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/ (Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals) http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/lajos.htm#a2 : [snip] : Nothing. "What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence." -- Uncle Stooopid. Back in your fuckface, fuckheaded baboon troll. Signature'we establish by definition that the "time" required by light to travel from A to B equals the "time" it requires to travel from B to A' because I SAY SO and you have to agree because I'm the great genius, STOOOPID, don't you dare question it. -- Rabbi Albert Einstein http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Smart/tAB=tBA.gif 'we establish by definition that the "time" required by light to travel from A to B doesn't equal the "time" it requires to travel from B to A in the stationary system, obviously.' -- Heretic Jan Bielawski, assistant light-bulb changer. Ref: news:1188363019.673281.67710@k79g2000hse.googlegroups.com "What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence." -- Uncle Stooopid. "Counterfactual assumptions yield nonsense. If such a thing were actually observed, reliably and reproducibly, then relativity would immediately need a major overhaul if not a complete replacement." -- Humpty Roberts. Rabbi Albert Einstein in 1895 failed an examination that would have allowed him to study for a diploma as an electrical engineer at the Eidgenössische Technische Hochschule in Zurich (couldn't even pass the SATs). According to Phuckwit Duck it was geography and history that Einstein failed on, as if Eidgenössische Technische Hochschule would give a damn. That tells you the lengths these lying bastards will go to to protect their tin god, but its always a laugh when they slip up. Trolls, the lot of them. "This is PHYSICS, not math or logic, and "proof" is completely irrelevant." -- Humpty Roberts. >: [snip] >: Nothing. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > >Back in your fuckface, fuckheaded baboon troll. Absolutely wrong, Andro. The clock has to move together with A and B, like the light source, receiver and the mirrors in a laboratory. You are deliberately mis-presenting the experimental setup to support your anti-relativistic lies, Andro. Watching a moving system passing by a stationary clock requires a way to transmit data from A and B and A' to the clock. Your "God's view" graphics demo is blatantly wrong. BTW, this is the standard error #1 of ALL the anti-relativikers, displaying relativistic experiments in a Galieian world. Androcles, that you fail at such a low level of comprehension, disappoints me deeply, there is more verve in hanson's lies, than in yours, hanson is the better liar, why don't you learn from hanson the hanson way: Avoid any physics statement, just diffame everybody! ##########...THE ANDROCLES LAW...##################### We establish by definition that the "time" required by light to travel from A to B is different from the "time" it requires to travel from B to A' because ANDROCLES SAYS SO and you have to agree because HE, the great genius, STOOOPID, don't you dare question it. -- Oberrabbiner ANDROCLES. ######################################################### w. (ANDRO): >'we establish by definition that the "time" required by >light to travel from A to B doesn't equal the "time" it requires [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] >"This is PHYSICS, not math or logic, and "proof" is completely >irrelevant." -- Humpty Roberts. SignatureAn Empirical Question for the anti-relativists: What is the GPS carrier modulation signal frequency? [ ] 1.023000000000 MHz (theor. unaffected) [ ] 1.022999999543 MHz (rel. corrected) [x ] (example for Androcles and hanson) hahahahahaha... ahahaha.... Hi, Homo! You just can't get me out of you mind, can't you, ... Armer Warmer Schwuler "Helmutt. Wabnig" <.... .-- .. --. @ .- --- -. dot .- ->, the homo, who is coming onto me again, yearning in his message message news:li4bd3hbd85776j9tsq9b8gsl45d5j77q9@4ax.com... > Androcles, that you fail at such a low level of comprehension, > disappoints me deeply, there is more verve in hanson's lies, > than in yours, hanson is the better liar, > why don't you learn from hanson the hanson way: > Avoid any physics statement, just diffame everybody! [hanson] Yo, Homo-Heilmutt... you sound so angry and irate since you have been rejected, and now you bark and whine loudly. But Heilmutt what is this "everybody" you identify yourself with? That is typical Einstein Dingleberry self aggrandizing and ED megalomania on your part, Hellmut! You are not even part of everybody. You are, like you said yourself, just a mutt without any fame whatsoever... ... in case you mean by your "diffame", "de-fame"... ahaha.. ahahaha... what is there to defame about a Köter like you? [hanson] http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/msg/35fbe7776e1102ef?hl=en& http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/msg/837f20bf349547a6?hl=en& Helmutt, the Homo, wants to meet me in the Blue Grotta. http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/msg/f5b4328ff5863c89?hl=en& Here's more about your cooing, Schwuler Drooler, Wabnig... ahahaha... Helmutt is one the 3 stooges: http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/msg/9cd8833b93759d73?hl=en& Graveyard molester Wabnig, who want to see me dead: http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/msg/1585613f01cedac5?hl=en& Here, Wabbie, here is more to crank yourself with... ahahahaha: http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/0fa95396e4df591e?hl=en& http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/msg/ebb4c40dbbd7c985?hl=en& http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/msg/2720a9712ce34fe1?hl=en& http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/msg/dc13892af456cc63?hl=en& [Wabnigger's poof, standing in for his proof, says]. A Question for the anti-relativists: What is the GPS carrier modulation signal frequency? [ ] 1.023000000000 MHz (theor. unaffected) [ ] 1.022999999543 MHz (rel. corrected) [x ] (example for Androcles and hanson) [hanson] .... ahahahaha... But you Armer Warmer Wabnigger you are falsifying and debunking yourself with relativistic simultaneity... and hence you must be reminded AGAIN about: http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/0fa95396e4df591e?hl=en wherein you, Wabnig, admit (in your own words) to be retarded saying news:ats3c3l3tna34udp1ndh18lapl566il7l6@4ax.com... or http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/8a40e7579ab36fb9?hl=en& "Oh yes, hanson, I [Wabnig], am that much **rückständig**... to which hanson kindly reminded Wabie: >h> Wabnigger, what is it that you do not understand in: >h> That "1.02.. proposal" of yours, Wabie, was harped over, >h> considered & answered as "immaterial" by dozens of >h> posters, including Einstein proponents. [hanson's new insert for Helmut's benefit] ... listen, rückständiger Köter, your pathological fixation about the 1.0229/1023 Mhz freq. shift, about which you have read somewhere, but did not understand, comes from the GPS SYSTEM PARAMETER REQUIREMENT EQUATION ****** (m_e/h) * 2G/c^2 ........ 4.4E-10 s/s a freq. shift that is valid only here for m_e = mass of earth & h being the orbital Space vehicle height, ~20'000, kms above the earth surface. It is strictly NEWTONIAN and has nothing to do with SR nor GR. There is no relativistic correction except in the retarded, fanatical imaginations of Einstein Dingleberries. Strictly, for GPS OPERATIONS, that 4.4E-10 s/s = 38 usec/day are NOT needed at all. The whole GPS situation of how GPS operates in the REAL world is shown by Androcles in his website: http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/GPS/GPS.htm [hanson] Obviously your vast experience of Wabniggering, "forward and reverse", in your relativistic movements in Einstein's sphincter have caused a Hemorrhoid in that Einstein Ring. Now Wabnig can take credit for being the creator of the EINSTEIN HEMMORHOID! Wabie listen, your tripes are as intelligent as is your favorite postscript in which you brag ever so proudly: "Thank God, that I, Wabnig, am an atheist"... ... and your Einstein Dingleberry accolades are as silly as is your insistence that, "Nobody on the internet knows that I, Helmutt, am a dog".... ahahahaha... Thanks for the laughs, you wooley woofter and poofter... ... ahahaha.... ahahahanson The woolly woofter is disappointed deeply; what a shame his dick isn't long enough to go deep. "Impenetrability", that's what I say! -- Humpty Dumpty in Lewis Carroll's "Alice Through the Looking Glass". http://www.cs.indiana.edu/metastuff/looking/ch6.html.gz |
Enable EMail Alerts
Start New Thread
Reply to this Message