4 ms·

General Relativity is not needed to explain elliptical orbits. This is a very clever reformulation of classical mechanics, and certainly not horseshit.

ebbv 12y ago
I could "very clever"-ly reformulate Newtonian physics as a series of invisible frogs who push things around by jumping into them. It's still horse shit. This article about a "weird fourth dimension" that's "like time but not time" certainly seems like horse shit to me.
- subnaught 12y ago
  So it's horseshit because it "seems like horseshit" to you? In fact, coordinate transformations are at the heart of the modern conception of classical mechanics: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lagrangian_mechanics http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lagrangian_mechanics
- ozankabak 12y ago
  Your "invisible frogs" would not be a reformulation of Newtonian Mechanics (NM). A reformulation needs to make the exact same predictions as the original theory. There are many reformulations of both NM and GR, and they are quite useful (and interesting) in various contexts. This is a solid, interesting work that does not deserve being dubbed "horse shit" by a person who does not even have a formal training in the field.
- apalmer 12y ago
  As stated in the top portion of the thread, the original paper is completely not horsesh!t. It is a reformulation of a 3 dimensional problem in 4 dimensions that significantly simplifies the specific calculations/relationships of interest.
- mbrubeck 12y ago
  The author could instead have used only abstract mathematical language (like "a configuration space with a basis of cardinality 4" and "parameter s defined by s = ..."), but this would be accessible to fewer readers. If you prefer dryer language, read the second half of the article, or the other resources it links to. Using a configuration space that is a good fit for a specific system is not unusual in math or physics. It's the same thing that astrophysicists do when they work in orbital elements, or that engineers and programmers do when they make calculations in Fourier space. It's worth understanding these concepts even if you're not a physicist. Configuration spaces are so fundamental and useful that they are introduced in the very first lecture on classical mechanics in Leornard Susskind's excellent series of Stanford physics courses: http://theoreticalminimum.com/courses http://theoreticalminimum.com/courses (Neal Stephenson's novel Anathem also has a simple introduction to configuration spaces in an appendix, because that's the sort of thing that ends up in a Neal Stephenson novel.)
pqomdv 12y ago
Ebbv might be referring to problems with orbital precession, which was explained completely by general relativity.
zamalek 12y ago
Also, General Relativity is 4 dimensional.

ebbv 12y ago

I could "very clever"-ly reformulate Newtonian physics as a series of invisible frogs who push things around by jumping into them. It's still horse shit. This article about a "weird fourth dimension" that's "like time but not time" certainly seems like horse shit to me.

subnaught 12y ago
So it's horseshit because it "seems like horseshit" to you? In fact, coordinate transformations are at the heart of the modern conception of classical mechanics: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lagrangian_mechanics http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lagrangian_mechanics
ozankabak 12y ago
Your "invisible frogs" would not be a reformulation of Newtonian Mechanics (NM). A reformulation needs to make the exact same predictions as the original theory. There are many reformulations of both NM and GR, and they are quite useful (and interesting) in various contexts. This is a solid, interesting work that does not deserve being dubbed "horse shit" by a person who does not even have a formal training in the field.
apalmer 12y ago
As stated in the top portion of the thread, the original paper is completely not horsesh!t. It is a reformulation of a 3 dimensional problem in 4 dimensions that significantly simplifies the specific calculations/relationships of interest.
mbrubeck 12y ago
The author could instead have used only abstract mathematical language (like "a configuration space with a basis of cardinality 4" and "parameter s defined by s = ..."), but this would be accessible to fewer readers. If you prefer dryer language, read the second half of the article, or the other resources it links to. Using a configuration space that is a good fit for a specific system is not unusual in math or physics. It's the same thing that astrophysicists do when they work in orbital elements, or that engineers and programmers do when they make calculations in Fourier space. It's worth understanding these concepts even if you're not a physicist. Configuration spaces are so fundamental and useful that they are introduced in the very first lecture on classical mechanics in Leornard Susskind's excellent series of Stanford physics courses: http://theoreticalminimum.com/courses http://theoreticalminimum.com/courses (Neal Stephenson's novel Anathem also has a simple introduction to configuration spaces in an appendix, because that's the sort of thing that ends up in a Neal Stephenson novel.)

pqomdv 12y ago

Ebbv might be referring to problems with orbital precession, which was explained completely by general relativity.

zamalek 12y ago

Also, General Relativity is 4 dimensional.