Re: Kepler ,Newton and orbital geometry

On Sep 7, 1:00 pm, Quadibloc <jsav...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
oriel36 wrote:
On Sep 7, 4:23 am, Quadibloc <jsav...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
They don't need to fight. They're free to hop to a Galactic center
frame any time they need to.
It is for dynamicists to decide whether to revist Keplerian orbital
geometries with an eye to other physical considerations such as the
'ice age' cycles from climatology and geology rather than be slaves
to the zodiacal framework which Newton built on.They are not free and
never will be free so long as that awful error created by Flamsteed
remains but for my part,it is not really my business what they do and
believe among themselves ,it is their problem to deal with.

But I should also have added that if they don't have the use of the
law of universal gravitation any longer, it doesn't matter what
reference frame they hop to, they will not be able to do anything when
they get there. Except passively observe.

If Newton's law of gravity were giving them wrong answers, they would
take action. And, indeed, the contribution of the General Theory of
Relativity to the understanding of the motions of Mercury is accepted
and appreciated.


The guys in the middle of the 19th century struggled to escape
Newton's framework but could not recognise the zodiacal framewwork at
its core,the efforts of Mach to determine absolute/relative
definitions as rubbish also failed for the same reasons that nobody
understood what they meant.

I have taught the dynanicists exactly what absolute/relative means in
terms of retrogrades and their resolution and there is nothing I can
do about it if they wish to remain in a celestial sphere framework.I
have been explicit that it is a matter for them to decide in their own
way how to progress even if it is extremely rude to not recognise the
effort involved in removing the Newtonian nonsense.

This business of making a huge effort while encountering halfwits
like yourself is done,the open forum has always been great through
history for thrashing out ideas and what they mean,especially the
modern usenet forums,but ultimately the channels for productive work
are still through the educational network.That the educational
network is dominated by numbskulls when it comes to astronomy makes
the effort through the forums the only possible way but I have had
enough of trying to appeal to genuine and honest people for a while
and besides it does take an enormous toll.







God forbid any of you had to bear the stress of trying to promote the
achievements of timekeeping and structural astronomers and discover
that nobody wants to hear what they have to say but that is what all
this has amounted to.Not one of you will click on the link showing
Huygens treatise and what can I do beyond that -

http://www.xs4all.nl/~adcs/Huygens/06/kort-E.html

I did follow that link, but although I read what was there, I could
not see how it presented a different way to understand the heavens.

John Savard

http://www.xs4all.nl/~adcs/Huygens/06/kort-E.html

Anybody who makes the effort to appreciate the Equation of Time
system,its relationship between the axial cycle and terrestrial
longitudes would never have faulted my effort to expunge the
incredibly silly error in attaching axial rotation to the return of a
star in 23 hours 56 minutes 04 seconds.That work is a jewel of my
astronomical heritage and to see no object is far more heartbreaking
than the joy of watching an astronomical master like Huygens at work.

I had the respoinsibility of presenting the genuine 243 hours/360
degree principles and not to see them cut to pieces by halfwits who
believe in a silly alternative value with its own idiosyncratic
methods -

http://hypertextbook.com/facts/1999/JennyChen.shtml

Whatever victory there is in remaining silent on a terrible ,terrible
situation I do not know but that is the way it has ended up,at least
so far.

.