# What is the use of General Relativity

Again, you focus on irrelevancies in relation to the meat of the argument between river and I and of course Kit...And as usual wrong to boot anyway.
Why is that? Do I really have that much of an affect on younger?
Are you that burdened that you are unable to say I am right?
It's easy! Here let me show you!
"river, you are wrong: The earth's orbit around the Sun is not a perfect circle: paddoboy is correct when he says that variations in distance, between Aphelion and Perhelion, is around 5 million kms"

You are right in the context that orbit is not circle. Mathematically for circle eccentricity e = 0 but for earth orbit it is very small, that is closer to 0.

Secondly you do not understand motion under force or simulated mechanism. For example, take a circular rim, consider a point on its diameter, (not on center and neither on periphery. Now tie a ball with elastic (spring nature) string, one end of string fixed to that point on diameter and another to the ball on rim periphery. Now move the ball to cover the entire circle of rim. This is circular motion with different perihelion and aphelion with respect to that point. So in general your showing your lack of maths. But then we know what you know about sphere volume. Don't we?

Now move the ball to cover the entire circle of rim. This is circular motion with different perihelion and aphelion with respect to that point.
Your center of your circle will have to move to maintain an orbit.
The thing orbiting will be scribing some sort of spiral.
Alex

But then maths is fun...
Leave that, it seems its difficult for you to get it that there is no perfect or imperfect qualifiers for circle or sphere in maths. Loosely speaking yes.

There is no "perfect or imperfect" qualifiers for a circle... only a singular one...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circle
A circle is a simple closed shape in Euclidean geometry. It is the set of all points in a plane that are at a given distance from a given point, the centre; equivalently it is the curve traced out by a point that moves so that its distance from a given point is constant.

A circle may also be defined as a special kind of ellipse in which the two foci are coincident and the eccentricity is 0, or the two-dimensional shape enclosing the most area per unit perimeter squared, using calculus of variations.

Thus, if the eccentricity =/= zero, it isn't a circle. It's a pretty simple distinction to make. Mathematically speaking, it is an important distinction to make.

There is no "perfect or imperfect" qualifiers for a circle... only a singular one...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circle

Thus, if the eccentricity =/= zero, it isn't a circle. It's a pretty simple distinction to make. Mathematically speaking, it is an important distinction to make.

#161 of mine talks of eccentricity = 0 for circle. So its circle if e = 0 otherwise it is not. There is no question of perfect or imperfect circle. Matter closed.

Your center of your circle will have to move to maintain an orbit.
The thing orbiting will be scribing some sort of spiral.
Alex

See, the complexity will creep in as we will have to talk about central forces and conserved forces. So in nutshell orbit around sun is not circle, its ellipse (ignoring the wobbles)..And then around Galactic center, its helix (your cork screw)...poser for you, the entire Milky Way is traversing at very high speed towards great attractor...so what is earth locus with reference to CMB? Ellipse, then helix and then what?

#161 of mine talks of eccentricity = 0 for circle. So its circle if e = 0 otherwise it is not. There is no question of perfect or imperfect circle. Matter closed.

So, then, you can see the problem with your initial quip:

River said:
The Earth orbit around the Sun is near perfect ; circular , though .

Paddoboy replied with a factually accurate correction:
The differences between Aphelion and perhelion is around 5 million KMS from memory.

River responded:
So the Earth is in perfect orbit around the Sun .

The orbit is elliptical and the differences between Aphelion and perhelion is around 5 million kms.

You replied with:
Wow, which memory?

I replied to river:
... I can't tell if you simply don't understand basic orbital mechanics, or if you are attempting to be incredibly intellectually dishonest with this...

No, obviously it is NOT a perfect orbit (at least according to your previous post):

It is elliptical, and by quite a bit.

I hope that helps clear things up?

You responded with:
Since you are not talking about wobbles, an orbit is orbit, there is no qualifier as perfect or imperfect.

Earth orbit (around Sun only, otherwise helix) is surely elliptical with eccentricity at 0.016, that makes it 'quite a bit' circular rather than 'quite a bit' ellipse.

For emphasis:
...an orbit is orbit, there is no qualifier as perfect or imperfect.

... that makes it 'quite a bit' circular...

You also stated:
Again a circle is a circle. There is no qualifier as perfect circle or imperfect circle.

Now, you are apparently backpedaling...

#161 of mine talks of eccentricity = 0 for circle. So its circle if e = 0 otherwise it is not. There is no question of perfect or imperfect circle. Matter closed.

so, which is it - are you claiming Earths orbit is, in fact, a circle, or is it not a circle. A circle is a mathematically defined thing... anything that is "sort of" like one, isn't one.

No doubt I'm not alone in seeing your posts as being nothing more than an attempt at obtaining/creating conflict where none exists... obfuscation and such...

Kittamaru;

Where do you see back peddling? I said there is no qualifier with circle, you only were pushing perfect circle or quite a bit of ellipse etc. I just pointed that to you.

Regarding Paddoboy 5 mkms figure, I just pointed out that, knowing him it could not have been from memory, he googled..did a small subtraction 152-147 and got 5 mkms and boasted it off. That's why I humored which memory?

Belated PS : don't you think you should avoid heavy stuff in science / maths sub forum? Your expertise lies somewhere else.

Last edited:
Where do you see back peddling? I said there is no qualifier with circle, you only were pushing perfect circle or quite a bit of ellipse etc. I just pointed that to you.

In other words, you were attempting to be pedantic, except what I had said was, by definition, correct... got it.

Regarding Paddoboy 5 mkms figure, I just pointed out that, knowing him it could not have been from memory, he googled..did a small subtraction 152-147 and got 5 mkms and boasted it off. That's why I humored which memory?

I wasn't aware you had a direct uplink to Paddoboy's brain that allowed you to know what facts he did or did not know by memory...

In other words, you were attempting to be pedantic, except what I had said was, by definition, correct... got it.

I wasn't aware you had a direct uplink to Paddoboy's brain that allowed you to know what facts he did or did not know by memory...

There is nothing wrong in being pedantic to those who are not aware of nitty gritty..in fact its educating.

Ask paddoboy, its fact that he googled and found out 5 mkms, it was not from memory, he just stated to create an impression, I can bet on that. PADDOBOY be a sport and tell the truth pl..

Secondly you do not understand motion under force or simulated mechanism. For example, take a circular rim, consider a point on its diameter, (not on center and neither on periphery. Now tie a ball with elastic (spring nature) string, one end of string fixed to that point on diameter and another to the ball on rim periphery. Now move the ball to cover the entire circle of rim. This is circular motion with different perihelion and aphelion with respect to that point. So in general your showing your lack of maths.
That example has nothing to do with orbital motion.

1) Springs obey a different relation between distance and force than gravity obeys.
2) The circular track constrains the system in a way not seen in nature or Kepler's laws.
3) If you can't work out what the equations of motion are for your system, then you have no basis to say your model relates to the behavior of reality and
4) If you don't work out what the equations of motion are for your system, then you have shot yourself in the foot in your pointless ad hominem whinge about the other side not bringing math to the table.

But then we know what you know about sphere volume. Don't we?
[Mod Note: You aren't scoring any points here, when moderation already intervened to clean up this thread of your poisonous obsession with paddoboy.]

L
That example has nothing to do with orbital motion.

1) Springs obey a different rehlation between distance and force than gravity obeys.
2) The circular track constrains the system in a way not seen in nature or Kepler's laws.
3) If you can't work out what the equations of motion are for your system, then you have no basis to say your model relates to the behavior of reality and
4) If you don't work out what the equations of motion are for your system, then you have shot yourself in the foot in your pointless ad hominem whinge about the other side not bringing math to the table.

[Mod Note: You aren't scoring any points here, when moderation already intervened to clean up this thread of your poisonous obsession with paddoboy.]

True. I stated about central forces and conserved forces.

I have no poisonous obsession with him, you have seen his acerbic reaction when you called him boorish, you had to provide your unsolicited resume to salvage yourself. You ignore him, but I continue to get entertained.

There is nothing wrong in being pedantic to those who are not aware of nitty gritty..in fact its educating.

Sure it can be educating when you are correcting someone... but you were being pedantic about already factually correct (and in fact, very nearly pedantic itself) information. There was nothing "educating" about it.

Ask paddoboy, its fact that he googled and found out 5 mkms, it was not from memory, he just stated to create an impression, I can bet on that. PADDOBOY be a sport and tell the truth pl..

And here your utter fascination with Paddoboy is showing through yet again...

...but I continue to get entertained.

EUREKA! And we arrive at the crux of the situation - you are not here for science, facts, or even mutual, honest discussion...

You are here to TROLL, for your own amusement, and nothing more.

Now, you are apparently backpedaling...
Our friend makes a great habit of back peddling and being obtuse and obfuscating, rather then admit he, like river is wrong.

No doubt I'm not alone in seeing your posts as being nothing more than an attempt at obtaining/creating conflict where none exists... obfuscation and such...
Certainly true in most fabricated conflict where the god takes part.
And part of the reason why near all his threads end in the sewer.

Ask paddoboy, its fact that he googled and found out 5 mkms, it was not from memory, he just stated to create an impression, I can bet on that. PADDOBOY be a sport and tell the truth pl..

And as usual you are wrong. Like I said, from memory [which is still pretty good for my age] 5 million kms between Aphelion and Perhelion, which turns out I see to be right on the mark!
ps: A word of advice my friend......we have an old saying in Australia, re engaging brain before opening mouth: You need to think long and hard on that fact.

You are here to TROLL, for your own amusement, and nothing more.

He will never admit it - as you said HE IS A TROLL.

Why in the hell do you let him hang around. Is it because he is like one of those horrible rude and belligerent people on reality TV that result in high ratings?

He will never admit it - as you said HE IS A TROLL.

Why in the hell do you let him hang around. Is it because he is like one of those horrible rude and belligerent people on reality TV that result in high ratings?

I have no good answer to that, beyond it was a deficiency of mine that is to be rectified... regardless of the eventual outcome.

Truth be told, his actions in vilifying Alex should have been cause enough. His continued crusade against certain members is not unnoticed, for better or worse.

Last edited:
I have no good answer to that, beyond it was a deficiency of mine that is to be rectified... regardless of the eventual outcome.

Truth be told, his actions in vilifying Alex should have been cause enough. His continued crusade against certain members is not unnoticed, for better or worse.
Now that The God has gone on 'holiday' , Rejesh Trivedi will be back and busy.

Now that The God has gone on 'holiday' , Rejesh Trivedi will be back and busy.
Well if nothing else we get rid of that terrible title.
Is it a holiday or more.
This phone does not show ban duration.
Even though I am an atheist I think calling oneself the god is disrespectful to those who are believers and is not very nice.

Alex

Even though I am an atheist I think calling oneself the god is disrespectful to those who are believers and is not very nice.
Alex
Calling himself "the god" is just his weird way of getting a raise out of people, as he is constantly shown to be wrong, as in this thread. Other such self grandeur claims as "I'm never wrong" are also obviously used to get similar raises out of people. :shrug: Each to there own I suppose.

Calling himself "the god" is just his weird way of getting a raise out of people, as he is constantly shown to be wrong, as in this thread. Other such self grandeur claims as "I'm never wrong" are also obviously used to get similar raises out of people. :shrug: Each to there own I suppose.

Well, he is gone for a month with this last infraction... I was sorely tempted to say fuck it and make it permanent, given that he's had no less than two dozen infractions in a years time.

Anyway, is there any rational argument/debate left in this thread?