Bad Astronomy and Universe Today Forum - View Single Post

tusenfem · #13 (**permalink**) 07-May-2007, 07:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by elas

tusenfem

And then you change 2r into the DeBrogli wavelength,

I do no such thing. I do show that at a constant speed, at the mass values predicted by CLF; that are within the margin of error of the mass values found by experiment; deBroglie's equation produces a wavelength equal to 2r. I do not simply exchange one for the other, there are two distinctly separate calculations that produce the same answer.

that is easily described by Newton's equations.
Now look up Newton's own graph for a gravitational force field without a central mass, I believe you will find it in his book.

Well, as you neatly deleted the page from your site I cannot look at it again, this is already fishy. So I guess we cannot discuss that anymore.

And you are very good at NOT ANSWERING questions. Pointing to another board, to a thread that has no relation to what is being asked. I said that the relationship between mass and gravity is given by Newton's laws, and he probably drew something in his book. I am not going to look it up. What I asked was:

1. What do you mean by drawing the force field
2. Why do you call your idea a force when it clearly does not have the units of a force.
3. Why do you think that eeisemceesquared has something to do with directional motion? And why do you think that E = m should be the equation for a body in rest, where clearly the units of your equations do not match up.
4. Please give a quote that Einstein did not like his ceesquared.