Put up, or shut up eh! :)

o> On 27/05/2021 21:04, Dono. wrote:
> snip cretinisms<

unsnip. "cretinisms"
On 18/03/2021 19:18, Keith Stein wrote:
>
>>> Program "N Gravitationally Interacting Bodies

Newtonian constant of gravitation = 6.671281903 x 10^-11 m^3/kg-s^2

> N = 2
>
> For i = 1 to N
> READ Name$(i),m(i),x(i),y(i),z(i),rx(i),ry(i),rz(i)
> Next
> DATA Sun,?mass,0,0,0,0,0,0
> DATA Earth,?mass,?radorb-asx,0,0,0,?vorb,0

Programming is like riding a bike, in that you can't learn how to do it
from reading a book, so if you want to program you should load some high
level computer language, and start programming. It's fun, but also
surprisingly frustrating trying to get the machine to do what you want.
Surprising because it always does EXACTLY what you tell it, and it's not
the fault of the machine if that isn't what you wanted.

Of course one can understand "Classical Physics" without understanding
how to program,so do not despair if programming is really not your
thing, after all no classical physicist from NEWTON to MAXWELL could
program, so it can't really be essential, but it makes classical physics
much easier to understand when you understand how to program, i think.

keith stein

e

Den 01.06.2021 20:39, skrev Keith Stein:
>
> Of course one can understand "Classical Physics" without understanding
> how to program,so do not despair if programming is really not your
> thing, after all no classical physicist from NEWTON to MAXWELL could
> program, so it can't really be essential, but it makes classical physics
> much easier to understand when you understand how to program, i think.
>
> keith stein
>

Why do you think so?

--
Paul

https://paulba.no/

On 01/06/2021 20:13, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
>
>
> Den 01.06.2021 20:39, skrev Keith Stein:
>>
>> Of course one can understand "Classical Physics" without understanding
>> how to program,so do not despair if programming is really not your
>> thing, after all no classical physicist from NEWTON to MAXWELL could
>> program, so it can't really be essential, but it makes classical
>> physics much easier to understand when you understand how to program,
>> i think.
>>
>> keith stein
>>
>
> Why do you think so?

Try solving this without your computer, Mr.Andersen
"N Gravitationally Interacting Bodies".
Impossible even for Newton eh!, whereas even you could
write the program to solve for that, as you know Paul.

Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 01/06/2021 20:13, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
>>
>>
>> Den 01.06.2021 20:39, skrev Keith Stein:
>>>
>>> Of course one can understand "Classical Physics" without understanding
>>> how to program,so do not despair if programming is really not your
>>> thing, after all no classical physicist from NEWTON to MAXWELL could
>>> program, so it can't really be essential, but it makes classical
>>> physics much easier to understand when you understand how to program,
>>> i think.
>>>
>>> keith stein
>>>
>>
>> Why do you think so?
>
>
>
> Try solving this without your computer, Mr.Andersen
> "N Gravitationally Interacting Bodies".
> Impossible even for Newton eh!, whereas even you could
> write the program to solve for that, as you know Paul.
>
>

What does being able to do a complex calculation have to do with making
“classical physics much easier to understand”, Mr Stein?

--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

On 6/1/2021 2:28 PM, Keith Stein wrote:
> On 01/06/2021 20:13, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
>>
>>
>> Den 01.06.2021 20:39, skrev Keith Stein:
>>>
>>> Of course one can understand "Classical Physics" without
>>> understanding how to program,so do not despair if programming is
>>> really not your thing, after all no classical physicist from NEWTON
>>> to MAXWELL could
>>> program, so it can't really be essential, but it makes classical
>>> physics much easier to understand when you understand how to program,
>>> i think.
>>>
>>> keith stein
>>>
>>
>> Why do you think so?
>
>
>
> Try solving this without your computer, Mr.Andersen
>       "N Gravitationally Interacting Bodies".
> Impossible even for Newton eh!, whereas even you could
> write the program to solve for that, as you know Paul.
>

Fwiw, here is a very crude vector field I created (source/sink), this is
in 2d:

http://fractallife247.com/test/vfield

Here is an experimental DLA algorihtm I coded up that uses my vector field:

http://fractallife247.com/fdla
(you can click around and create new attractors)

Now, my vector field is n-ary so it can easily handle 3d:

https://youtu.be/BUbMJJyj7AU

https://youtu.be/skGUAXAx6eg

On 6/1/2021 4:01 PM, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
> On 6/1/2021 2:28 PM, Keith Stein wrote:
>> On 01/06/2021 20:13, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> Den 01.06.2021 20:39, skrev Keith Stein:
>>>>
>>>> Of course one can understand "Classical Physics" without
>>>> understanding how to program,so do not despair if programming is
>>>> really not your thing, after all no classical physicist from NEWTON
>>>> to MAXWELL could
>>>> program, so it can't really be essential, but it makes classical
>>>> physics much easier to understand when you understand how to
>>>> program, i think.
>>>>
>>>> keith stein
>>>>
>>>
>>> Why do you think so?
>>
>>
>>
>> Try solving this without your computer, Mr.Andersen
>>        "N Gravitationally Interacting Bodies".
>> Impossible even for Newton eh!, whereas even you could
>> write the program to solve for that, as you know Paul.
>>
>
> Fwiw, here is a very crude vector field I created (source/sink), this is
> in 2d:
>
> http://fractallife247.com/test/vfield

I forgot to mention that a user can click around in the field to create
new field lines in yellow.

>
> Here is an experimental DLA algorihtm I coded up that uses my vector field:
>
> http://fractallife247.com/fdla
> (you can click around and create new attractors)
>
> Now, my vector field is n-ary so it can easily handle 3d:
>
> https://youtu.be/BUbMJJyj7AU
>
> https://youtu.be/skGUAXAx6eg

Den 01.06.2021 23:28, skrev Keith Stein:
> On 01/06/2021 20:13, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
>>
>>
>> Den 01.06.2021 20:39, skrev Keith Stein:
>>>
>>> Of course one can understand "Classical Physics" without
>>> understanding how to program,so do not despair if programming is
>>> really not your thing, after all no classical physicist from NEWTON
>>> to MAXWELL could
>>> program, so it can't really be essential, but it makes classical
>>> physics much easier to understand when you understand how to program,
>>> i think.
>>>
>>> keith stein
>>>
>>
>> Why do you think so?
>
>
>
> Try solving this without your computer, Mr.Andersen
>       "N Gravitationally Interacting Bodies".
> Impossible even for Newton eh!, whereas even you could
> write the program to solve for that, as you know Paul.
>

The question was:
Why do you think that understanding how to program
makes classical physics much easier to understand?

It's the other way around.
You have no chance of making a program simulating
"N Gravitationally Interacting Bodies" according
to Newton, if you don't understand Newtonian mechanics
and Newton's law of gravitation.

Obviously!

--
Paul

https://paulba.no/

On 01/06/2021 22:36, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 01/06/2021 20:13, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> Den 01.06.2021 20:39, skrev Keith Stein:
>>>>
>>>> Of course one can understand "Classical Physics" without understanding
>>>> how to program,so do not despair if programming is really not your
>>>> thing, after all no classical physicist from NEWTON to MAXWELL could
>>>> program, so it can't really be essential, but it makes classical
>>>> physics much easier to understand when you understand how to program,
>>>> i think.

>>> Why do you think so?

>> Try solving this without your computer, Mr.Andersen
>> "N Gravitationally Interacting Bodies".
>> Impossible even for Newton eh!, whereas even you could
>> write the program to solve for that, as you know Paul.

> What does being able to do a complex calculation have to do with making
> “classical physics much easier to understand”, Mr Stein?

Do you understand Einstein's General theory of Relativity, Mr.Bodkin ?

If based on Einstein's warped space-time bullshit you can write a
computer program for simulating "N Gravitationally Interacting Bodies",
then you really do understand the bullshite, but if your model gives
more accurate predictions for the perihelion advance of Mercury then
let's see how well it predicts the perihelion advance of Earth ?

Show us Einstein's program/model.... to convince us you understand it.

keith stein

On 02/06/2021 07:46, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
>
>
> Den 01.06.2021 23:28, skrev Keith Stein:
>> On 01/06/2021 20:13, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> Den 01.06.2021 20:39, skrev Keith Stein:
>>>>
>>>> Of course one can understand "Classical Physics" without
>>>> understanding how to program,so do not despair if programming is
>>>> really not your thing, after all no classical physicist from NEWTON
>>>> to MAXWELL could
>>>> program, so it can't really be essential, but it makes classical
>>>> physics much easier to understand when you understand how to
>>>> program, i think.
>>>>
>>>> keith stein

>>> Why do you think so?

>> Try solving this without your computer, Mr.Andersen
>>        "N Gravitationally Interacting Bodies".
>> Impossible even for Newton eh!, whereas even you could
>> write the program to solve for that, as you know Paul.

> The question was:
> Why do you think that understanding how to program
> makes classical physics much easier to understand?
>
>
> It's the other way around.
> You have no chance of making a program simulating
> "N Gravitationally Interacting Bodies" according
> to Newton, if you don't understand Newtonian mechanics
> and Newton's law of gravitation.

I think, " perhaps you are right ", Mr.Andersen,
and for sure it is also true that:
"You have no chance of making a program simulating
"N Gravitationally Interacting Bodies" according to EINSTEIN,
if you don't understand Einstein's General Theory of Relativity"
We agree on that, at least, Mr.Andersen.....:)

keith stein

> Obviously!
>

On 02/06/2021 01:36, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
> On 6/1/2021 4:01 PM, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
>> On 6/1/2021 2:28 PM, Keith Stein wrote:
>>> On 01/06/2021 20:13, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
>>>> Den 01.06.2021 20:39, skrev Keith Stein:

>>>>> Of course one can understand "Classical Physics" without
>>>>> understanding how to program,so do not despair if programming is
>>>>> really not your thing, after all no classical physicist from NEWTON
>>>>> to MAXWELL could program, so it can't really be essential, but it makes classical
>>>>> physics much easier to understand when you understand how to > program, i think.

>>>> Why do you think so?

>>> Try solving this without your computer, Mr.Andersen
>>>        "N Gravitationally Interacting Bodies".
>>> Impossible even for Newton eh!, whereas even you could
>>> write the program to solve for that, as you know Paul.

>> Fwiw, here is a very crude vector field I created (source/sink), this
>> is in 2d:
>>
>> http://fractallife247.com/test/vfield
>
> I forgot to mention that a user can click around in the field to create
> new field lines in yellow.

Thank you Mr Thomasson. I had missed that.....
My additions in yellow distracted me i remember...
hypnotic links eh!

>
>>I
>> Here is an experimental DLA algorihtm I coded up that uses my vector
>> field:
>>
>> http://fractallife247.com/fdla
>> (you can click around and create new attractors)
>>
>> Now, my vector field is n-ary so it can easily handle 3d:
>>
>> https://youtu.be/BUbMJJyj7AU
>>
>> https://youtu.be/skGUAXAx6eg
>

Thanks Mr.Thomasson. " Invitation to Other Worlds eh!"

Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 01/06/2021 22:36, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>> Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On 01/06/2021 20:13, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Den 01.06.2021 20:39, skrev Keith Stein:
>>>>>
>>>>> Of course one can understand "Classical Physics" without understanding
>>>>> how to program,so do not despair if programming is really not your
>>>>> thing, after all no classical physicist from NEWTON to MAXWELL could
>>>>> program, so it can't really be essential, but it makes classical
>>>>> physics much easier to understand when you understand how to program,
>>>>> i think.
>
>>>> Why do you think so?
>
>>> Try solving this without your computer, Mr.Andersen
>>> "N Gravitationally Interacting Bodies".
>>> Impossible even for Newton eh!, whereas even you could
>>> write the program to solve for that, as you know Paul.
>
>> What does being able to do a complex calculation have to do with making
>> “classical physics much easier to understand”, Mr Stein?
>
>
> Do you understand Einstein's General theory of Relativity, Mr.Bodkin ?

Yes, I think so.

>
> If based on Einstein's warped space-time bullshit you can write a
> computer program for simulating "N Gravitationally Interacting Bodies",
> then you really do understand the bullshite, but if your model gives
> more accurate predictions for the perihelion advance of Mercury then
> let's see how well it predicts the perihelion advance of Earth ?
>
> Show us Einstein's program/model.... to convince us you understand it.

Again, you are posing doing calculations with complicated systems as being
the measure or the proof of understanding a subject, but you’ve not
bothered to explain why you think that’s the measure.

Do you believe that understanding the ideal gas law is proven by doing a
calculation with a computer model of 3.2 moles (3.2 x 6.022 x 10^23
particles) of gas molecules, all spinning and vibrating to boot?

>
> keith stein
>
>
>

--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

Den 02.06.2021 09:57, skrev Keith Stein:
> On 02/06/2021 07:46, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
>>
>>
>> Den 01.06.2021 23:28, skrev Keith Stein:
>>> On 01/06/2021 20:13, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Den 01.06.2021 20:39, skrev Keith Stein:
>>>>>
>>>>> Of course one can understand "Classical Physics" without
>>>>> understanding how to program,so do not despair if programming is
>>>>> really not your thing, after all no classical physicist from NEWTON
>>>>> to MAXWELL could
>>>>> program, so it can't really be essential, but it makes classical
>>>>> physics much easier to understand when you understand how to
>>>>> program, i think.
>>>>>
>>>>> keith stein
>
>>>> Why do you think so?
>
>>> Try solving this without your computer, Mr.Andersen
>>>        "N Gravitationally Interacting Bodies".
>>> Impossible even for Newton eh!, whereas even you could
>>> write the program to solve for that, as you know Paul.
>
>> The question was:
>> Why do you think that understanding how to program
>> makes classical physics much easier to understand?
>>
>>
>> It's the other way around.
>> You have no chance of making a program simulating
>> "N Gravitationally Interacting Bodies" according
>> to Newton, if you don't understand Newtonian mechanics
>> and Newton's law of gravitation.
>
> I think, " perhaps you are right ", Mr.Andersen,
>  and for sure it is also true that:
>  "You have no chance of making a program simulating
>   "N Gravitationally Interacting Bodies" according to EINSTEIN,
>  if you don't understand Einstein's General Theory of Relativity"
> We agree on that, at least, Mr.Andersen.....:)
>

Does that mean that we agree on the following?
"You have no chance of making a program simulating
something if you don't understand the physics of
what you are simulating."

Can we also agree on that the following statement is false?
"Understanding how to program makes relativistic physics much
easier to understand".

But back to the issue:
Do you still claim that the following statement is true?
"Understanding how to program makes classical physics much
easier to understand."

--
Paul

https://paulba.no/

On 02/06/2021 20:30, Paul B. Andersen wrote:> Den 02.06.2021 09:57,
skrev Keith Stein:>> On 02/06/2021 07:46, Paul B. Andersen wrote:>>> Den
01.06.2021 23:28, skrev Keith Stein:>>>> On 01/06/2021 20:13, Paul B.
Andersen wrote:>>>>> Den 01.06.2021 20:39, skrev Keith Stein:
>>>>>> Of course one can understand "Classical Physics" without
>>>>>> understanding how to program,so do not despair if programming is
>>>>>> really not your thing, after all no classical physicist from
>>>>>> NEWTON to MAXWELL could
>>>>>> program, so it can't really be essential, but it makes classical
>>>>>> physics much easier to understand when you understand how to
>>>>>> program, i think.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> keith stein
>>
>>>>> Why do you think so?
>>
>>>> Try solving this without your computer, Mr.Andersen
>>>>        "N Gravitationally Interacting Bodies".
>>>> Impossible even for Newton eh!, whereas even you could
>>>> write the program to solve for that, as you know Paul.
>>
>>> The question was:
>>> Why do you think that understanding how to program
>>> makes classical physics much easier to understand?
>>>
>>>
>>> It's the other way around.
>>> You have no chance of making a program simulating
>>> "N Gravitationally Interacting Bodies" according
>>> to Newton, if you don't understand Newtonian mechanics
>>> and Newton's law of gravitation.
>>
>> I think, " perhaps you are right ", Mr.Andersen,
>>   and for sure it is also true that:
>>   "You have no chance of making a program simulating
>>    "N Gravitationally Interacting Bodies" according to EINSTEIN,
>>   if you don't understand Einstein's General Theory of Relativity"
>> We agree on that, at least, Mr.Andersen.....:)
>>
>
> Does that mean that we agree on the following?
>  "You have no chance of making a program simulating
>   something if you don't understand the physics of
>   what you are simulating."
>

>> I think, " perhaps you are right ", Mr.Andersen,
>> and for sure it is also true that:
>> "You have no chance of making a program simulating
>> "N Gravitationally Interacting Bodies" according to EINSTEIN,
>> if you don't understand Einstein's General Theory of Relativity"

> Can we also agree on that the following statement is false?
> "Understanding how to program makes relativistic physics much
>  easier to understand".

Yes Mr.Andersen we can agree on that too. No amount of programming
is going to make Einstein's space-time nonsense more understandable.

> But back to the issue:
> Do you still claim that the following statement is true?
> "Understanding how to program makes classical physics much
>  easier to understand."

Well truth is Paul i still don't understand how those old classical
physicists managed to work out the perihelion shift of Mercury without
the use of computers, but for sure they must of managed that somehow,
and they obtained almost exactly the same value you obtained with your
program. Have you looked at the effect of reducing the speed of gravity
yet Mr.Andersen ?

keith stein

Den 03.06.2021 13:33, skrev Keith Stein:
> On 02/06/2021 20:30, Paul B. Andersen wrote:> Den 02.06.2021 09:57,
>> Can we also agree on that the following statement is false?
>> "Understanding how to program makes relativistic physics much
>>   easier to understand".
>
> Yes Mr.Andersen we can agree on that too. No amount of programming
> is going to make Einstein's space-time nonsense more understandable.
>
>> But back to the issue:
>> Do you still claim that the following statement is true?
>> "Understanding how to program makes classical physics much
>>   easier to understand."
>
> Well truth is Paul i still don't understand how those old classical
> physicists managed to work out the perihelion shift of Mercury without
> the use of computers, but for sure they must of managed that somehow,
> and they obtained almost exactly the same value you obtained with your
> program.

I take that to mean that you have realized that the statement is false.

--
Paul

https://paulba.no/

Have you looked at the effect of reducing the speed of gravity yet
Mr.Andersen ?

keith stein

On Thursday, June 3, 2021 at 4:33:09 AM UTC-7, Keith Stein wrote:
>
> Yes Mr.Andersen we can agree on that too. No amount of programming
> is going to make Einstein's space-time nonsense more understandable.

It is "nonsense" for cretins like Keith "RocksFerBrains: Stein.

On 03/06/2021 15:41, Dono. wrote:
> On Thursday, June 3, 2021 at 4:33:09 AM UTC-7, Keith Stein wrote:
>>
>> Yes Mr.Andersen we can agree on that too. No amount of programming
>> is going to make Einstein's space-time nonsense more understandable.
>
> It is "nonsense" for cretins like Keith "RocksFerBrains: Stein.
>

RELATIVITY THE SPECIAL AND GENERAL THEORY
BY
ALBERT EINSTEIN, Ph.D.

https://www.ibiblio.org/ebooks/Einstein/Einstein_Relativity.pdf

"Every description of events in space involves the
use of a rigid body to which such events have to be
referred. The resulting relationship takes for
granted that the laws of Euclidean geometry hold
for “distances,” the “distance” being represented
physically by means of the convention of two
marks on a rigid body."

"If K is a Galileian co-ordinate system, then
every other co-ordinate system K' is a Galileian
one, when, in relation to K, it is in a condition of
uniform motion of translation. Relative to K'
the mechanical laws of Galilei-Newton hold good
exactly as they do with respect to K."

"..............................If, relative to
K, K' is a uniformly moving co-ordinate system
devoid of rotation, then natural phenomena run
their course with respect to K' according to
exactly the same general laws as with respect to
K. This statement is called the principle of
relativity (in the restricted sense).
As long as one was convinced that all natural
phenomena were capable of representation with
the help of classical mechanics, there was no need
to doubt the validity of this principle of relativity."

Indeed no need to doubt any of the above...,
but here comes Einstein's Elementary Error:

"But in view of the more recent development of
electrodynamics and optics it became more and
more evident that classical mechanics affords an
insufficient foundation for the physical description
of all natural phenomena."

In fact there is no conflict between "electrodynamics
and optics" and "classical mechanics"....

"Even though classical mechanics does not supply us
with a sufficiently broad basis for the theoretical
presentation of all physical phenomena, still we
must grant it a considerable measure of “truth,”
since it supplies us with the actual motions of the
heavenly bodies with a delicacy of detail little
short of wonderful. The principle of relativity
must therefore apply with great accuracy in the
domain of mechanics. But that a principle of
such broad generality should hold with such
exactness in one domain of phenomena, and yet
should be invalid for another, is a priori not very
probable."

" THE APPARENT INCOMPATIBILITY OF THE
LAW OF PROPAGATION OF LIGHT WITH
THE PRINCIPLE OF RELATIVITY "

"THERE is hardly a simpler law in physics
than that according to which light is propa-
gated in empty space. Every child at school
knows, or believes he knows, that this propagation
takes place in straight lines with a velocity
c = 300,000 km./sec."

Space is not empty Dono. It is filled with
a very low pressure gas, and the velocity of
light waves in space are relative to this low pressure
gas. Providing one does not ignore this 'medium',
which always exists for any waves, then the conflict
which Einstein perceives, between electrodynamics
and classical mechanics, disappears.

keith stein