Firstly, given the fact you are unfamiliar with vector calculus or basic geometry you are not explaining the scenario you have in your head with sufficient accuracy that anyone can do anything specific with it.
Vectorcalculus as used in developing the shell integral was totally improper as was made clear by Newton - gravity forces are instantaneous, or conservatively, the speed of gravity Vg > 10^10(c). There has never been a reported observation of a gravity wave, much less an actual instance of a transfer of a scintilla force of gravity. Gauss' law, while clever and has its proper place, is inappropriate here regarding the distribution of gravitational forces. There aren’t any “gravity fields’ or ‘force fields’, orthogonal to the x-axis that require eliminating,. Two anti-parallel forces,| F+| = ||F-| are tied to a common center with force of ‘1000’ each will not result in a net zero force on the object tied to, the net will be 2000 force units. As a mathematician, you think anything mathematically possible equates over to the physical analogue following beautifully in step.
So, there is no observed necessity that the forces you calculate are needing amputation. Wow, just think if you had gone to medical school.
All the forces eliminated via the vector’s knife were physically pointing in the direction of m. You have eliminated the possibility of applied torques being applied, and have limited m-M total force distribution and exchanges.. I am no astronomer, but I can make a slam dunk guarantee that those astronomers counting total mass forces that have vectored away a significant amount of the total force of which they are dealing, that if they are being overwhelmed by dark matter that reattaching the amputated forces, that some “dirty (or is it “dark”) matter” will be exposed for what it ahs always been, scientific ignorance, and hence they would be relieved of some silly useless tasks. The equilibrium of the heavens is not in a state of imbalance, it is the disequilibrium of astronomers that keeps us in the dark, pun intended, but not seriously.
For stellar bodies as close a the moon-earth system the force distributions of both bodies extend extends over exposed surfaces and into the depths – the forces do not exist in infinitely thin lines of force between the respective COMs; further, there has never been an observed instance of moon size mass being concentrated in a point of singularity at their COM or anywhere else.
http://metaresearch.org/cosmology/speed_of_gravity.asp
Read it AN you may learn something.
Secondly, you admit to 'not having done the calculations', in fact you are incapable of doing the calculations because you don't know the maths and you refuse to spend any time trying to learn said maths, and yet you think that surely you must be right. You have no maths knowledge and clearly very little physics knowledge so your intuition is hardly something you should put much faith in this.
I admit I am no angel, I’ve led a full life, drinking and gambling, and once, I talked back to my first wife, but I never admitted to not knowing vector calculus, or that I never made the calculations, but you are correct, I do believe myself right, and my intuition is rather finely tuned, a talent we all have, but, that only eine gelegentlich Ausländer Bewegungen, vertlict?
Thirdly, the consistency of the concept of special relativity is as consistent as basic geometry, because it is geometry. Special relativity is not inconsistent. You can only get special relativity removed from mainstream physics by obtaining experimental evidence which contradicts it. The notion of special relativity is perfectly valid. The application to the real world is a different matter. You are trying to attack its consistency, not its applicability.
I don’t remember doing anything specifically to do with SRT, other than responding to a couple of sentences I read in, “The Handbook of Astronautical Engineering’, Ed. Koelle, First Edition, 1961, with forward by Werner von Braun, Mcgraw-Hill.
1. The postulate of relativity. It is impossible to measure or detect the unaccelerated translatory motion of a system through free space.
2. The postulate of the constancy of the free space. of light. The velocity of light in free space is the same for all observers, independent of the relative velocity of the source of the light and the observer.
From this I ran the opening thread up the flag pole and guess who saluted? I must say of all the responses, yours is the only one that has that old familiar, but very sweet sound, of a panicked political orator.
Here is basically what I said:
The A and b inertial frames are moving as indicated and the times of certain events, emission and absorption (transponders) of light pulses, that included the times of entry and exit into the respective transponders. It is given, for you especially AN, that the clocks are synchronized .
Code:
A t0
----->|-----------d1------------->|<------B
| --t2|<-----------d2-------|t1
|---------------->| t3
At t0, A emits a pulse with the signal ‘emitted at t0’ embedded.
At t1, B receives the signal and his transponder replies instantly ‘rec’d/emitted at t1’.
At t2, A receives the B signal, hence now A has enough information to calculate the distance the A frame moved between t0 and t2.
Simply find the difference between the d1 and d2 to find the distance A traveled in the time t2 – t0.
Which you should see is sufficient to calculate the delta_x/delta_t which is the A frame velocity. Therefore, A and B knowing Vab, the relative AB relative velocity. Vab, and when expressed as Va – Vb, then Vb = Va – Vab.
And Humpty is back together again.
Where do you see attack?
Other responding here discussed the matter of synchronicity of the clocks, which have had their intrinsic clock rate replaced by a common pulsar tick rate. If each frame then broadcast a steady stream of their unique times-of-day correlated with the exchanged information were able to agree on the TOD. This was achieved only just before the experiment above began.
You can only get special relativity removed from mainstream physics by obtaining experimental evidence which contradicts it. The notion of special relativity is perfectly valid. The application to the real world is a different matter. You are trying to attack its consistency, not its applicability.
Fourthly, why can't you do the calculations yourself? Oh yeah, because you don't know any relevant material. You burn huge quantities of time trying ton 'falsify' Newton's Shell Theorem on consistency grounds or special relativity grounds and yet you do not learn the language in which they are phrased. And the same applied for the Shell Theorem, it is perfectly mathematically consistent. You can only remove it from physics by showing via experiment that it’s a mathematical concept which doesn't model the real world correctly.
Fifth, you are not someone I would wish to meet, never mind have a meal with.
Sixth, I do not personally know Hawking, I have attended Cambridge university and been in seminars he's given, been taught by people who work with him and know a few people who do know him.
Why don't you stop spending so much of your time reading the wordy sections of a 40+ year old textbook and spend a few weeks learning basic calculus and geometry. In a total of 24 hours of lectures and 10 1 hour problem classes most 18 year old maths students can go from high school level understanding to know how to do basic vector calculus, differential equations and linear algebra. That's enough to grasp the basic methods and procedures used in relativity. And yet you haven't. You've been whining for years and you've learnt nothing. Just like your pal QQ.
You and he whine about how current ideas are holding us back yet at the same time you personify deliberate ignorance. You refuse to learn the basics of what you whine about. No one denies the possiblity that maybe one day relativity will be falsified by experiment but its certain it won't be along the lines of the crap you whine about. If 1st year students who are hungover and had less than 3 hours sleep can grasp this stuff in a 9am problems class why the hell can't you?
Everything you have offered here is, in scientific terms, bullshit. You don't even know how to insult, are you Lituanian, perhaps?
I was older than the eighteen year olds who with hangovers and less than 3 hours of sleep can grasp etc…. when I learned of that which you speak and then spent a number of years unlearning silliness.
AN are you telling us that when your SRT profs told you that ‘ you must divest yourself of notions of logic, reason and appearances, that you must unlearn what you believed, that you had no clue you were taken for a ride? Is this your story? If so it is one of , if not the saddest tale of heartbreak, disappointment and despair I have ever heard. I bet they even told you that, “Nobody, but nobody gets to see the Wizard”. I was going to take you to lunch and introduce you to her, but if that’s your attitude, O.K..
