Re: Arindam's cyberdogs know better physics than the Nobel prizewinners.

On 04/26/2024 06:47 PM, Jim Pennino wrote:

In sci.physics Physfitfreak <physfitfreak@gmail.com> wrote:

On 4/26/24 00:41, bertietaylor wrote:

Penisnino's Law: Smaller the penis, greater the pee.

>
>
>
Hehe :) Penis? Penis is something "Pennino"s of this land of the brave
look up to and never reach, so they just become their groupies.

>
Yep, the Dunning-Kruger poster boy's insults are grade school level at
best, i.e. about the time he stopped learning things and started making
them up instead.
>

Who knows... maybe they really do have something like the equivalent
of physics or mathematics or engineering degrees of the science
variety, and their juvenile delinquency is really just so much
so how the academic journals and learned treatises and the application
and driving the world and making their very smart phones, should be,
that really it's that learned, educated, genteel people should
act more like them, than the other way around.
Nah, that's ridiculous, they're idiots and incompetents of the pest variety.
You know, bathing in cold water really does cause the
scrotum to withdraw a bit, the function of the scrotum
is to keep the testicles a few degrees cooler than usual
body heat, because being too hot is bad for spermatozoa.
Then, to scrutinize, is a word meaning to very thoroughly
inspect, for example "you better look like your balls
depend on it". The inscrutable then means "don't trust it".
"There are only twelve, or maybe thirteen,
jokes in the world. Five or more of these
are too dirty to tell: and everybody's
known them all since third grade."
"Gee, Gus, ..., shouldn't we go to dinner first?"
It's kind of like "Uncle Al" used to say.
Well, Uncle Al said Eotvos experiment wouldn't have a negative result,
then as with regards to whether it was accelerating, ....
I suppose of course they took that into account.
You know they got that Cavendish lab bit thing
going on again these days, ....
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5253802/
"Because the three parts of the Einstein equivalence principle discussed
above are so very different in their empirical consequences, it is
tempting to regard them as independent theoretical principles. On the
other hand, any complete and self-consistent gravitation theory must
possess suffcient [sic] mathematical machinery to make predictions for
the outcomes of experiments that test each principle, and because there
are limits to the number of ways that gravitation can be meshed with the
special relativistic laws of physics, one might not be surprised if
there were theoretical connections between the three sub-principles."
"If Schiff’s conjecture is correct, then Eötvös experiments may be seen
as the direct empirical foundation for EEP, hence for the interpretation
of gravity as a curved-spacetime phenomenon. Of course, a rigorous proof
of such a conjecture is impossible (indeed, some special
counter-examples are known), yet a number of powerful “plausibility”
arguments can be formulated."
Yeah, yeah, I know. "Caca".
You know if you cup your hand in your armpit
and flap your arm you can make music? Also,
there's an easy way to test your IQ, just see
if you hand is as big as your face by placing
it on your face.
Also, there's, "so, so, suck, your toe:
all the way to Mexico". (I forget the rest.)
Said to people who say "so" too much, ...,
which isn't wrong, ....
That and, "that", ....
"These limits are sufficiently tight to rule out a number of non-metric
theories of gravity thought previously to be viable."
The, uh nerd fight or idiot fight, this is a good one,
what you do is sort of put arm over arm, and put the lower
arm's hand, on your face, so the other arm is your free hand.
So what you do is both sides assume idiot fight stance
then go at it. Whoever removes their hand from their face loses.
Won't be finding that on Wiki, ..., they've invented many new ones.
(The retard fight.) Of course both parties have to giggle freely
throughout the match.
"The consensus at present is that there is no credible experimental
evidence for a fifth force of nature."
"Nevertheless, theoretical evidence continues to mount that EEP is
likely to be violated at some level, whether by quantum gravity effects,
by effects arising from string theory, or by hitherto undetected
interactions, albeit at levels well below those that motivated the
fifth-force searches. Roughly speaking, in addition to the pure
Einsteinian gravitational interaction, which respects EEP, theories such
as string theory predict other interactions which do not. In string
theory, for example, the existence of such EEP-violating fields is
assured, but the theory is not yet mature enough to enable calculation
of their strength (relative to gravity), or their range (whether they
are long range, like gravity, or short range, like the nuclear and weak
interactions, and thus too short-range to be detectable)."
"Therefore for the remainder of this article, we shall turn our
attention exclusively to metric theories of gravity, which assume that
(i) there exists a symmetric metric, (ii) test bodies follow geodesics
of the metric, and (iii) in local Lorentz frames, the non-gravitational
laws of physics are those of special relativity."
Well you see now Lorentz-Fitzgerald frames are different
than "SR-local Lorentz frames". This is a "GR first" theory.
"What distinguishes one metric theory from another, therefore, is the
number and kind of gravitational fields it contains in addition to the
metric, and the equations that determine the structure and evolution of
these fields. From this viewpoint, one can divide all metric theories of
gravity into two fundamental classes: “purely dynamical” and
“prior-geometric”."
So, the electrical field and contraction effects, in it,
that's again sort of courtesy FitzGerald now with Maxwell,
it's a space-contraction bit.
GR first: it's a space-contraction bit. SR is "local".
Gravity with a metric theory thus Lorentzian?
Sure, ..., Lorentz-Galileo, Lorentz-Fitzgerald,
bit of Lorentz-Fitzgerald-Maxwell, ....
And what does Einstein say? Einstein says,
"gravity is down, straight down,
and you can call it curved."
"By discussing metric theories of gravity from this broad point of view,
it is possible to draw some general conclusions about the nature of
gravity in different metric theories, conclusions that are reminiscent
of the Einstein equivalence principle, but that are subsumed under the
name “strong equivalence principle”."
Of course in science there's not "conjectures verified",
it's "theory's falsified".
"Thus the metric and the equations of motion for matter become the
primary entities for calculating observable effects, and all that
distinguishes one metric theory from another is the particular way in
which matter and possibly other gravitational fields generate the metric."
"In the current version of the PPN formalism, summarized in Box 2, ten
parameters are used, chosen in such a manner that they measure or
indicate general properties of metric theories of gravity (Table ​
(Table2).2). Under reasonable assumptions about the kinds of potentials
that can be present at post-Newtonian order (basically only Poisson-like
potentials), one finds that ten PPN parameters exhaust the possibilities."
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5253802/table/Tab2/?report=objectonly
"The framework uses a nearly globally Lorentz coordinate system in which
the coordinates are (t, x1, x2, x3). Three-dimensional, Euclidean vector
notation is used throughout."
"A large number of alternative theories of gravity predict gravitational
wave emission substantially different from that of general relativity,
in strong disagreement with observations of the binary pulsar (see Sec. 7)."
"Because the scalar fields are generally massive, the potentials in the
post-Newtonian limit will be modified by Yukawa-like terms."
"General relativity: The metric g is the sole dynamical field, and the
theory contains no arbitrary functions or parameters, apart from the
value of the Newtonian coupling constant G, which is measurable in
laboratory experiments."
That's a pretty great little survey, "The Confrontation
between General Relativity and Experiment".
"It is interesting to note that the classic derivations of the
deflection of light that use only the principle of equivalence or the
corpuscular theory of light yield only the “1/2” part of the coefficient
in front of the expression in Eq. (30). But the result of these
calculations is the deflection of light relative to local straight
lines, as established for example by rigid rods; however, because of
space curvature around the Sun, determined by the PPN parameter γ, local
straight lines are bent relative to asymptotic straight lines far from
the Sun by just enough to yield the remaining factor “γ/2”. The first
factor “1/2” holds in any metric theory, the second “γ/2” varies from
theory to theory. Thus, calculations that purport to derive the full
deflection using the equivalence principle alone are incorrect."
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5253802/figure/Fig5/
Hey thanks, NCBI NLM NIH gov.
Now, the measured perihelion shift of Mercury is known accurately: After
the perturbing effects of the other planets have been accounted for, the
excess shift is known to about 0.1 percent from radar observations of
Mercury between 1966 and 1990 [116]. Analysis of data taken since 1990
could improve the accuracy. The solar oblateness effect is smaller than
the observational error, so we obtain the PPN bound |2γ−β−1|<3×10-3.
Thanks PPN. The article really helps establish that the Earth's
ephemeris and what's in it, is courtesy PPN, theory, and its
many, fudgy constants.
... "without tidal effects", "not including tidal effects",
"again not including tidal effects", "without complicated
tidal effects", ....
You know, that's actually pretty great, that's one of the
greater surveys on General Relativity that I've scanned,
Clifford Will's "The Confrontation between General Relativity
and Experiment".