Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tuesday, December 14, 2021 at 1:42:06 AM UTC-3, Sylvia Else wrote:
>> On 14-Dec-21 3:15 pm, Richard Hertz wrote:
>>> On Monday, December 13, 2021 at 11:46:01 PM UTC-3, Sylvia Else wrote:
>>>> On 14-Dec-21 2:12 am, Richard Hertz wrote:
>>>>> On Monday, December 13, 2021 at 2:58:21 AM UTC-3, JanPB wrote:
>>>>>> On Sunday, December 12, 2021 at 8:47:34 PM UTC-8, Richard Hertz wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> <snip>
>>>>>
>>>>>>> F = GMm/r²,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> which works almost perfectly, for instance, to measure your weight.
>>>>>
>>>>>> Except it's false.
>>>>>
>>>>> Ignorant negationist.
>>>>>
>>>>> A scale or balance is a device to measure weight or mass, and there
>>>>> are hundred of millions worldwide.
>>>>>
>>>>> The force F = GMm/r² = m d²r/dt² = m.g (Kg m/s² or Newton) is known
>>>>> as your weight when m is your mass.
>>>>>
>>>>> The correct expression Kg-force has degenerated into Kg (mass), as it
>>>>> was popularized as being a natural unit
>>>>> to express the force of gravity on Earth's surface.
>>>>>
>>>>> You don't need psychiatric help. You just need a big African adult
>>>>> male to put you in place, resented.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> Your weight is the actual force, not the force predicted by an equation.
>>>> The point of the equation is to predict the actual force. Newton's
>>>> formula does a pretty good job, but it is not exact.
>>>>
>>>> Sylvia.
>>>
>>> Actually, NIST CODATA shows the value of g, at average ground height,
>>> is g(NIST) = 9.806 65 m/s², with a standard
>>> uncertainty of 0.000 32.5 m/s². Given an accuracy of 4 decimal digits,
>>> supported by the precision that NIST brings,
>>> I think that using such value to calculate weight is close to 0.01%
>>> accuracy, applying the same precision to mass.
>>>
>>> Averaging an error of 1% in commercial balances, I'm more than
>>> satisfied with my measure of weight in Newtons.
>>>
>>> But, relativists will jump to say NO!, you have to verify it up to 10
>>> decimal digits. Our GR theory is that exact.
>>>
>>> After all, we verified our theory up to 1 part in 1.25011E+07 when we
>>> apply it to Mercury's perihelion advance (theoretically).
>>>
>>> Which one is more exact: Newton or Einstein formulae?
>>>
>>> About the fact that I weight what I weight, it's really a fiction, as
>>> balances are calibrated to give 1 Newton per theoretical Newton
>>> within the full range of values for which the balance is certified.
>>>
>> There is no question that for everyday purposes, and indeed for moving
>> around the solar system, Newton's formula is more than adequate.
>>
>> But that is no reason to say that we should just leave matters there.
>> For other purposes, such as precise predictions of Mercury's orbit, or
>> how events unfold near to a black hole, Newton's formula doesn't cut it,
>> and we need the modifications provided by Einstein in general relativity.
>>
>> This does not impose on us the complexity of general relativity for
>> everyday use - we know that the corrections are negligible for these
>> purposes, and are far below the limits of accuracy in our measurements
>> anyway. So we just use Newton's formula.
>>
>> You seem to be saying that we should ignore general relativity because
>> you personally don't need it.
>>
>> Sylvia.
>
> Regarding singularities and black holes, the last concept went out of proportions
> thanks to relativity theologians, who wasted and still waste their lives looking for
> some occult meaning within the 300+ formulae of GR, like those religion theologians
> looking for some occult secrets encoded within the sacred books: The Talmud, the
> versions of the Bible, the Quran and many other religious Books of Faith.
>
> I have nothing about religion theologians, even when I don't understand why they
> invest almost their entire adult existence looking for messages or predictions, but
> I'm totally against theologians of science (if such qualification can be applied to them),
> because I believe that they are possessed by a mystical conviction that there are hidden
> meanings in the interpretation of second and higher orders of approximations in functions
> or in their singularities.
>
> In mathematics, a singularity is a point at which a given mathematical
> object is not defined,
> or a point where the mathematical object ceases to be well-behaved in some particular way,
> such as by lacking differentiability or analyticity (Wikipedia).
>
> The case of black holes history, and the interpretations of the
> singularities of Schwarzschild-Hilbert
> metrics, which the original 1915 metric hasn't, always have irritated me big time.
>
> To give a physical interpretation of the meaning of a function when
> approaching a singularity,
> either by the negative or the positive side toward infinity, makes me
> believe that one of two
> things happens: either they are mentally ill or they are opportunistic
> charlatans who seek fame
> and a sounding name in the community. Worse, yet, are those indoctrinated followers of the
> initiator of the movement (kind of cult), who stop questioning about
> sanity and start believing
> that such interpretations have real physical meaning.
>
> For instance, Newton's theories are plagued with infinities, starting
> with the Universal Law of Gravitation,
> which are trivial, or with the equation for planetary motion:
>
> N(x) = dx/dɸ)² = 2A/B² + α/B² x − x², with roots α₁, α₂ and x = 1/r ,
> which solutions has been (for 200+ years)
>
> Φ = ∫ dx/√N(x) = ∫ dx/[√[- (x - α₁) (x – α₂)], between α₁= 1/AP and α₂ = 1/PE.
>
> Nobody, in 250 years, questioned the singularities of 1/√N(x). They took
> it as what they are: FAILURES OF CALCULUS.
>
> Even in the case of Einstein, for the next 50 years since 1915, nobody
> questioned the meaning of the third singularity
> introduced with his modification of Newton's formulae that day of Nov.
> 18. 1915, when he lectured his paper to the
> Prussian Academy of Science. The third singularity was there that day, at
> plain sight for a moment, until Einstein got
> rid of it by his approximation:
>
> Φ = ∫ dx/√E(x) = K ∫ dx/[√[- (x - α₁) (x – α₂) (1 – α x)], between α₁= 1/AP and α₂ = 1/PE
>
> There it was, 1/α = Rs = 2GM/c²
>
> Einstein didn't care about it, Schwarzschild did care even less, and this
> equation or the re-development through the
> Schwarzschild-Hilbert metric (1917) brought any attention to it for almost 50 years.
>
> Suddenly, in the '50s, a retarded physicists without nothing else to do,
> started to propose that such singularity was
> REAL and HAD A PHYSICAL MEANING.
>
> After a decade invested in spreading such subcult, and even with the mock
> of Hoyle coining the term Black Hole,
> new generations of IMBECILES, looking a HOLE in physics theories were
> they COULD HIDE, such idiocy took
> momentum and, 20 years later and a new generations of physicists avid of
> fame and glory, the absurdity was
> PLANTED in some other equally insane but ambitious minds, that knew how
> to get the first page in newspapers.
>
> For any RATIONAL MIND, a singularity at 1/(x - 1/α) is JUST A FLOP OF THE
> POORLY DEVELOPED BRANCH OF CALCULUS,
> which is completely avoidable if you make a change of variables and
> coordinates (s, z transforms, any kind of polar coordinate, etc.).
>
> But, when you have a RETARDED OR ROTTEN MIND, you don't want that to
> happen. You want to profit in many ways
> from your stand keeping the singularity and building a fortress of
> sophistry to defend and spread your position.
>
> This vision of mine about science is not applied only to relativity or
> physics, but to any other field where such kind of flops happen.
>
> Remember what Feynman and other founders of QED did with singularities
> and their renormalization. They were much more
> practical, not science theologians. Physics engineers is the best
> description. They took apart the singularities and put the expected
> value in their place. IT'S WRONG BUT IT WORKS, Feynman justified.
>
> But not such a thing happened with GR theologians. They were, are and
> always will be seeking hidden secrets in the result of
> the infinite number of solutions for the final set of 200+ non linear
> differential equations.
>
> And the number of solutions is INFINITE, because you have 10 complex
> equations out of 16 (4x4), which left 6 sets free to
> promote infinite alternate solutions. This is a problem with no end, and
> is one of the roots of the crappy use of GR in cosmology.
>
>

So, your religious faith is that nature cannot exhibit anything that
resembles a mathematical singularity, because it offends your sense of
continuity and Excel-calculability. Any treatment that exhibits anything
like a singularity is just a failure of mathematics, because you need
something to blame for the offense.

And yet you also say that nature is incomprehensible, held only by God and
out of the domain of human understanding.

Fascinating that you hold both religious beliefs simultaneously.

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