A Surfeit of Theories

Non Relativistic and Relativistic Angular Momenta

April 10, 2017

Many thanks again! The non relativistic angular momentum is a constant of motion but the relativistic angular momentum is not. What does the orbit look like with a relativistic angular momentum? These results are very important because the use only the lagrangian and definition of angular momentum.”

This is becoming confusing for the handful of non-loonies who take an interest in Ron and his works: first it was pure torsion, rather than general-relativistic curvature,  that was supposedly causing precession. Then it was special-relativistic orbital velocity considerations that were a factor (this is, in fact, accepted … but why did it take genius-Ron so long to catch up). Now he has re-introduced an all-pervading fluid which is even more viscous than the already-undetectable classical ‘aether’. Each of the theories is claimed to give the observed precessional anomaly exactly and directly, without having to eliminate all of the conventional causes such as other orbiting bodies. (Newton himself, followed-up by Clairaut, showed that just about any mathematical fiddling with the simple Kepler orbit will cause precession). How do each of Ron’s theories give precise results ‘without treading on each other’s toes’? Or is Ron admitting that he is making a series of failed attempts at explaining precession without Einstein?


4 Responses to “A Surfeit of Theories”

  1. Harry Hab Says:

    Yes, it is confusing! As for how these incompatible ideas can all live alongside each other in Ron’s head, the obvious flippant answer is that there must be plenty of room up in there. It’s the Dunning-Kruger effect working for your tax dollars!

    • crackpotwatch Says:

      We always think of his brain as being a fractal-like image of the entire lunatic fringe. Have you noticed that members of that fringe are never critical of each other.

      • Harry Hab Says:

        Indeed, they are not, even if they should be, like the flies in A Budget of Paradoxes:

        “If I had before me a fly and an elephant, having never seen more than one such magnitude of either kind; and if the fly were to endeavor to persuade me that he was larger than the elephant, I might by possibility be placed in a difficulty. The apparently little creature might use such arguments about the effect of distance, and might appeal to such laws of sight and hearing as I, if unlearned in those things, might be unable wholly to reject. But if there were a thousand flies, all buzzing, to appearance, about the great creature; and, to a fly, declaring, each one for himself, that he was bigger than the quadruped; and all giving different and frequently contradictory reasons; and each one despising and opposing the reasons of the others—I should feel quite at my ease. I should certainly say, My little friends, the case of each one of you is destroyed by the rest.”

        That last bit “My little friends…” could be the motto of AIAS, or viXra, etc.

        • crackpotwatch Says:

          Ah, the inimitable first skeptic, De Morgan. What a pity that he never saw his own budget, and never got to write the sequel which would have hammered the perpetual-motion paradoxers. A pity too that all skeptics seem to have one foot-of-clay; his was a belief in ghosts.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: