Helio vs geo centrism

[josephpalazzo]

I was quoting from a perfectly legitimate physics book ...

And which book would that be? FYI, the only theory that explains Mercury is GR. There have been numerous attempts, and there's a lot of people using pseudo-science claiming they have, but none are in any way convincing as GR is.

[Baruch]

FIFY

Once we get into this approximates that ... Katy bar the door ;-)  The physical reasoning behind different approximations, if it exists at all, can be radically different.  Non-Relativistic ... isn't just high velocity vs low velocity ... but also the idea that space-time is one entity, not two.  I assume you mean the latter.  In QM however ... one discards physical reasoning in favor of equation kabuki ... because prima facie, QM can't be understood, just known ... and in most cases you can't even do the calculation for realistic scenarios.  Approximate/perturbation methods have to be used to get any results.  And now we circle back to my first sentence.

Convincing as GR?  Are you religious?  Yes, GR convinces because it is a general theory ... just like Newton.  Being a general theory isn't a panacea.  If you want to do a perturbative calculation on a 1/r^n law where n is slightly greater than two ... be my guest.  But yes, ordinary perturbative calculate as per Newton n=2 doesn't work.  But n lightly great than two  ... given the solar mass ... works.  An exponent of two is self-reinforcing vs parhelion shift, a resonance.  Non-integer exponents let us approach chaos ... something Newton didn't want in his system.  Dogmatism doesn't become you.

[josephpalazzo]

Convincing as GR?  Are you religious?

This is as idiotic as it can be. GR reigns not because it's a religion but because it can explain certain natural observation, which  no other theory can. It's not magic, it's not mysterious, neither god-given. It's simple: evidence,  therefore valid theory; can't explain observation then not a valid theory.

As I said before you're a clown, everything for you is a joke by your own admission. And then you really think I will take anything you say as serious. Get a reality check. Your posts are just a big farce to me. Don't be surprise if I ignore your posts. It's not that I'm rude... oh wait, maybe I am being rude...

[Baruch]

This is as idiotic as it can be. GR reigns not because it's a religion but because it can explain certain natural observation, which  no other theory can. It's not magic, it's not mysterious, neither god-given. It's simple: evidence,  therefore valid theory; can't explain observation then not a valid theory.

As I said before you're a clown, everything for you is a joke by your own admission. And then you really think I will take anything you say as serious. Get a reality check. Your posts are just a big farce to me. Don't be surprise if I ignore your posts. It's not that I'm rude... oh wait, maybe I am being rude...

Well it can get pretty lonely in that faculty lounge, with just you and Hakurei the Statistician ;-)  "GR reigns ..." ... GR isn't a king, it isn't even a person.  It is a physical/mathematical system that is useful in some circumstances, just like any other successful theory, like Newtonian gravity for example.  The dogmatism I am referring to, wasn't about GR, it was about you.  Theories aren't dogmatic, people are ... but if you weren't being dogmatic ... then my apologies.

I am confused by all the times you are reasonable ... and yet there are times when you are not.  We all have bad days I guess.  One could build a 2-D simulation of a planetary orbit, in Excel ... and applying reasonable numerical controls, like making sure the Lagrangian is minimized ... and setting the parameters so that there was sufficient parhelion advance after say two orbits, so that our granularity wouldn't hide it ... you would see that it is a bit like a lazy Spirograph ... a slightly stronger than 1/r^2 law will cause the shift.  I don't have to quote a book ... but I do trust it enough to think that this can be demonstrated.  And if we were in a classical physics class together, it would be worth the time.  Only a small part of the shift is caused by the speed of Mercury ... mostly it is because of the metric distortion in the space part of the space-time continuum ... so that the circumference of a circle is a bit off from 2*pi* r.  Mercury arrives a bit later at parhelion than expected.

[Hakurei Reimu]

Well it can get pretty lonely in that faculty lounge, with just you and Hakurei the Statistician ;-)

I am a master of many things, Baruch. More than you.

"GR reigns ..." ... GR isn't a king, it isn't even a person.  It is a physical/mathematical system that is useful in some circumstances, just like any other successful theory, like Newtonian gravity for example.

And obviously the word "metaphor" is alien to you. I would say that you need a dictionary, but I'm afraid you'd use it to make a paper samurai helmet.

[Baruch]

I am a master of many things, Baruch. More than you.
And obviously the word "metaphor" is alien to you. I would say that you need a dictionary, but I'm afraid you'd use it to make a paper samurai helmet.

But scientists and statisticians don't use metaphorical reasoning.  They only use hard numbers or repeatable physical measurement ... or make up math or physics theories to explain those things.  They don't do poetry, or if they do, they don't mix it with their science.

It matters not to me, who is master or who is disciple.  You are both Sith to me ... not really.  But you do always come in two.

[stromboli]

FIFY

But...but... I have relatives. Granted most of them are dead.....

[josephpalazzo]

But...but... I have relatives. Granted most of them are dead.....

I would say for your dead relatives, RIP, but coming from an atheist, I don't know if that is appropriate...

At least, strom, I can tell when you are serious and when you are just joking around. One poster here is also joking around, even when he pretends to be serious. Problem: he doesn't know the difference. 

[josephpalazzo]

I am confused by all the times you are reasonable ... and yet there are times when you are not.  We all have bad days I guess.  One could build a 2-D simulation of a planetary orbit, in Excel ... and applying reasonable numerical controls, like making sure the Lagrangian is minimized ... and setting the parameters so that there was sufficient parhelion advance after say two orbits, so that our granularity wouldn't hide it ... you would see that it is a bit like a lazy Spirograph ... a slightly stronger than 1/r^2 law will cause the shift.  I don't have to quote a book ... but I do trust it enough to think that this can be demonstrated.  And if we were in a classical physics class together, it would be worth the time.  Only a small part of the shift is caused by the speed of Mercury ... mostly it is because of the metric distortion in the space part of the space-time continuum ... so that the circumference of a circle is a bit off from 2*pi* r.  Mercury arrives a bit later at parhelion than expected.

You're confused because you know sweet fuck all about science. I can write any functions that will give you any answer you want. You want the answer to be 3.532111, I can write a gazillion of functions that will give you that answer. You want the answer to be -56.902, I can you give a gazillion of functions that gives that answer also. But that's not science. OTOH, Einstein never wrote a theory to explain the anomaly in Mercury's recession. He had other stuff in mind, which I have explored a lot more than you ever did in your life. Check the three thought experiments in my blog,The Essential General Relativity , that preoccupied the mind of Einstein. From there he developed his field equations, and from those equations, he was able to explain Mercury's anomaly. That's real science. Not what you are proposing, a function that you can judge the parameters in order to get a particular answer, just because you might have read something along that line, somewhere in some book or online website. But you don't have the knowledge, the expertise to judge that what you read is legitimate science. You're a joke, an intellectual fraud, a clown that likes to entertain. Sure, you fool many people, including many members of this forum. But you don't fool me, and neither do you fool Hakurei.

[josephpalazzo]

I am a master of many things, Baruch. More than you.
And obviously the word "metaphor" is alien to you. I would say that you need a dictionary, but I'm afraid you'd use it to make a paper samurai helmet.

Most of the times, Baruch doesn't really reply to your post but to those who in his mind will be entertained. And no matter how much you put him to the test, even with insults, it's like spitting on him, only for him to react as if you have given him liquid to offset his thirst. He's not here for any redeeming quality except to make fun of whatever. Notice he posts in practically every single thread. He is the poster boy for the saying, someone who has an opinion on everything has no worthwhile opinion.

[stromboli]

My experience with philosophers generally is that they make a lot of references to a topic that tend to obscure the point if you are not familiar with the references or the sources. Pretty much what Baruch does. As I've said before, my last job was as a Technical Editor. The whole point is clarity of communication. I  try to get my point across with as full an understanding while using the least amount of references, and cite the references where necessary to bolster any argument I'm making.

I'm lousy at math and math related subjects and only frankly have a dim layperson understanding. I understand biology/zoology better than other sciences because I have a deeper interest and more intimate connection with them. Physics, especially quantum physics, I understand only generally. So I joke about it and math because I would be found out pretty quick if I tried to fake it.

What bothers me about Baruch is he makes concluding statements without supporting citation or links, and assumes we agree or something. He might be right, might even be the smartest guy in the room, but without clarification and explaining why he arrived at that conclusion, he merely muddies his own text and makes it confusing.

[josephpalazzo]

My experience with philosophers generally is that they make a lot of references to a topic that tend to obscure the point if you are not familiar with the references or the sources. Pretty much what Baruch does. As I've said before, my last job was as a Technical Editor. The whole point is clarity of communication. I  try to get my point across with as full an understanding while using the least amount of references, and cite the references where necessary to bolster any argument I'm making.

I'm lousy at math and math related subjects and only frankly have a dim layperson understanding. I understand biology/zoology better than other sciences because I have a deeper interest and more intimate connection with them. Physics, especially quantum physics, I understand only generally. So I joke about it and math because I would be found out pretty quick if I tried to fake it.

What bothers me about Baruch is he makes concluding statements without supporting citation or links, and assumes we agree or something. He might be right, might even be the smartest guy in the room, but without clarification and explaining why he arrived at that conclusion, he merely muddies his own text and makes it confusing.

We all have our knowledge and life experiences that we can share. And where you feel more comfortable, that's where you will contribute more.

But as to Baruch, the guy is a clown - muddying anything that is posted is his agenda. And since a lot people enjoy this kind of entertainment, he gets a pass. There are a lot of threads for entertainments, and that's fine, many members come here to relax and perhaps get some steam off by either ranting or get some solace. But do we need to turn everything into entertainment and leave no space for serious discussion? I'm pretty sure he'll come back to this thread and try to give a stinger irrelevant reply by ignoring any objections we made about him, or totally ignored what we said while keeping up his usual trolling.

[stromboli]

We all have our knowledge and life experiences that we can share. And where you feel more comfortable, that's where you will contribute more.

But as to Baruch, the guy is a clown - muddying anything that is posted is his agenda. And since a lot people enjoy this kind of entertainment, he gets a pass. There are a lot of threads for entertainments, and that's fine, many members come here to relax and perhaps get some steam off by either ranting or get some solace. But do we need to turn everything into entertainment and leave no space for serious discussion? I'm pretty sure he'll come back to this thread and try to give a stinger irrelevant reply by ignoring any objections we made about him, or totally ignored what we said while keeping up his usual trolling.

Yes. What he does amounts to trolling, whatever his objective(s).

[Baruch]

Yes. What he does amounts to trolling, whatever his objective(s).

Sorry ... but when I give a particular and technical response or suggestion to these two ... they are very good at ignoring them ... but respond with ... I have god-like-technical-powers so STFU ... I had hoped for better, so I could actually ask them questions relevant to my own research ... but that will be for a different forum, where you have actual helpful people present.  They are under no obligation to come out of the faculty lounge or even be helpful.

My posting style is a reflection of how my brain works, and no, this isn't technical writing.  If you want scholarly submissions, y'all will have to change a lot of the decor around here, and I will never have time for that.  To each their own.  If you want to label it ... it is a free world.  I have stated several times, exactly why I find this forum interesting and therapeutic.  If my honesty is more than y'all can take ... you can always "ignore".  It hurts, particularly when it is someone I really admire like Shoe, but I am a big boy.

[josephpalazzo]

they are very good at ignoring them ... but respond with ... I have god-like-technical-powers so STFU ...

Perhaps that is the result of your own doing - like your habitual knack of turning everything into a joke or some irrelevant remark, stringing a whole bunch of unrelated facts/ideas, rambling on as if you're drunk or goofing because of meth or whatever you get high from... Stop pleading for some respect when your demeanor is that of a court jester. There are times that I joked around, when the context is appropriate for light humor. In your case, you don't seem to know or want to know if the discussion is on a serious note or it has veered to humor. You just plunge in senselessly as if your only concern is to draw a laugh or two of some undetermined audience that lurks in your mind. I'm pretty sure you're going to answer back with a half-assed response that I'm CIA, a communist, a defender of Stormfront, or whatever insane idea that comes to the fore.