Beyond Our Ron

Huge Discrepancy between Cornell and Stanford in Periastron Velocity

April 13, 2017

This comes to light when using the velocity formula:

v squared = MG (2 / r – 1/ a)

at the periastron, where r = 2.6885 ten power 8 metres ( This site gives the semi major axis a as 7.0225 ten power 8 metres. Using the reduced mass for M (the effective mass at the centre of gravity, M is about 1.4 ten power 30 kilograms. Using G = 6.6741 ten power minus 11 m cubed per kilogram per seconds squared gives the orbital velocity v at the periastron to be 23.71 ten power five metres per second. The Cornell site is found by googling “Hulse Taylor binary pulsar” third site from astronomy at Cornell, my former University. The Cornell site gives 3 x ten power five metres per second. I am very glad that these discrepancies have at last been discovered because they destroy the credibility of the dogmatists completely. They show that ECE2 is badly needed. There are at least two cases where Einstein fails completely, the Hulse Taylor binary pulsar and the whirlpool galaxy.”

You know, Ron, someone (like yourself) who had to query recently whether they meant Earth-hours or local hours is perhaps not best placed to question his betters. You are trying to apply your fatuous theory to a very extreme system, and think that you can get away with a schoolboy-level appreciation of the concepts involved. Everything has to be re-examined under such conditions. So you have grasped that there must be a special-relativistic correction to the orbit. Ooh, well done. But Ron, one cannot treat these bodies as points, as is usual in school textbooks. What about torques due to the extended nature of the bodies? What about tidal effects (a topic which is never addressed in your amateurish adumbrations)*?   And how can you discuss mass without taking account of the fact that the huge gravitational field here itself possesses mass? And what about the effect of gravitational radiation from the system? By the way, general-relativistic prediction of gravitational radiation for Hulse-Taylor is accurate to 0.5%. Face it, Ron, you are not mentally equipped to ask cogent questions … let alone answer them.

*Although, upon reflection, tidal effects are probably not significant in such a system.


2 Responses to “Beyond Our Ron”

  1. Harry Hab Says:

    You mention mental equipment which is really the key notion here. Consider the non-crackpot with a decent mathematical maturity who wants to enter a new field, attracted perhaps by some intriguing problem. There will almost certainly be some element of irrational optimism or arrogance, otherwise they’d probably give it a miss. But there will also be an element of humility, which is an awareness of the sort of tools that will be required, and the level of sophistication to which these have already been developed by others. It is this same humility which sends the non-crank back to the drawing board when encountering difficulties that cannot be surmounted with the present toolbox. That is all “equipment” in the sense of having a realistic idea of the tools requirement. Then there is mental equipment in the sense of having a big enough toolbox in the first place, i.e. an ability to master the requisite material in a reasonable amount of time. We can agree that Ron scores a spectacular zero on each of these counts. But is he ever going to see the light? Is he ever going to develop the humility that makes him appreciate the scope of the vast “mental equipment” gap he’s facing? Unlikely — so I wonder at my morbid fascination with watching you hounding him down all his silly rabbit holes. He is nasty self-inflated toad, but for all that, he is academically a soft target. Still, I applaud your efforts to strip Ron of his CLP, since it is a likely conduit between con artists and public funds, and more generally a symptom of how scientific illiteracy at the government level leads to support for pseudoscience.

    • crackpotwatch Says:

      We have admitted sometimes that it is like shooting fish in a barrel, and there is little doubt that his inability to hang onto a job was due to his character and behaviour, rather than to scientific ideology. But as that American convict said, “even the worst of us can serve as a bad example”. Our ultimate target is not really the pension, but the poor public understanding of (and respect for) science which made its award possible: a strategy which was obviously not sufficiently well hidden! What better way is there of avoiding all of the philosophical/ sociological guff surrounding ‘the demarcation problem’ than to use the worst cranks to detect unsuspected scientific incompetence in others. In fact, Searl is a better stalking-horse in that regard: his levitating perpetual-motion machine gets mentioned at high-level astronautical conferences … and not as a joke! But he is a completely unqualified and unskilled (except in eerie deception) sciolist, so Ron is needed in order to undermine the academic world in his position as a ‘paradoxer’ (in De Morgan’s terminology).

Leave a Reply

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

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

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ 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 )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: