Re: An astronomer's view of mechanics

On Oct 6, 3:10 am, Quadibloc <jsav...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
oriel36 wrote:
The bottleneck which was created in the late 17th century by Flamsteed
first and Newton later spun itself off into a vocabulary all of its
own and still used today -

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inertial_frame_of_reference

The created bottleneck where no new data can pass productively exists
as a consequence of the work of two individuals yet it can be
presented in terms of absolute space and absolute time of Newton.

Absolute/relative time is simply the false perception that the 'fixed
stars ' provide a means to determine axial and orbital motion and is
the basis for Newton's treatment of Keplerian geometries.

Absolute/relative space is the false approach and resolution of
retrogrades and opposed to Coipernican reasoning,an idiosyncratic
version by Newton which is counter-productive on all counts and has no
precedence in pre-Copernican and heliocentric astronomies.

Many attempts were made to deal with time and space conceptions and
especially by the Germans such as Mach -

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mach's_principle

For an astronomer with the neccessary intutive intelligence it is
possible to identify the double errors which eluded many people for
centuries and for the most part show how it is possible to re-align
most of the astronomical principles back to 'safe mode'.

I thank you for attempting here to explain in more detail what it is
you find troubling about the current understanding of Solar System
motions.


The dominance of astrologers in astronomy can be problematic,I will
admit this,however this can change as genuine people who have self
respect can now easily comprehend the dual errors which led to
outlandish concepts which emerged last century,as the outward symptoms
of an internal intellectual disease.They can actually understand the
absurdity of absolute/relative time and space that was denied others
in the preceding centuries but this time against the work of
Copernicus and Kepler .

http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/image/0112/JuSa2000_tezel.gif

The Earth seen overtaking the outer planets affirms our own orbital
motion and that is all,no hypothetical observer on the Sun and no
absolute/relative space which is tagged on to that false way to
approach and resolve apparent retrogrades -

" For to the earth planetary motions appear sometimes direct,
sometimes stationary, nay, and sometimes retrograde. But from the sun
they are always seen direct," Newton









If indeed, though, no one has yet come up with "true" principles of
time and space - Mach's principle being an unsuccessful attempt - and
what we have to do is discard Newton and limit ourselves only to what
Copernicus and Kepler knew, thus being in a more limited world - like
going into "safe mode" in the Microsoft Windows operating system -
people will be understandably reluctant to do that without a good
reason.


It is all highly focused,the bottleneck created by Flamsteed contains
the difference between the correct major astronomical achievements and
the later ones which folowed from Newton and extend into the last
century.Nobody has expressed surprise that it can all be condensed
into two fundamental errors,one created by Flamsteed and the other by
Newton but that is the way it stands.




And given the impressive success of computations based on Newton in
guiding space probes to the distant planets, or predicting the
complicated motions of the Moon to a high accuracy, it would seem that
this would be avoiding things that are *known* to work and *proven* by
experience - simply because they are somehow inaesthetic. At least
from your point of view.


Technically impossible,trying to fit the axial and orbital motion
cycles into a constellational system of 3 years of 365 days and 1
year of 366 days is impossible,that it has all the traits of a
'predictive' clockwork system would normally have somebody wide-eyed
with disbelief but I have yet to see one person grasp the easy to
follow reasoning.If a star returns constantly to a location and it
requires an additionalleap day every 4th year it should follow that
you are not dealing with a concept of 365 days 5 hours 49 minutes but
rather the calendrical convenience of 365/366 days.







As an example of one point that baffles me is that even if one doesn't
want to use the fixed stars as a reference, if one admits Venus moves
faster, the Earth more slowly, and Mars more slowly yet, in the same
direction around the Sun, then isn't one also admitting that a year is
approximately the period of the Earth's revolution around the Sun?

And, of course, _that_ admission leads directly to 1/day + 1/year = 1/
(23 hours, 56 minutes, 4 seconds) which you find particularly
problematic, as well as indicating that the fixed stars really are
approximately fixed. This is why you seem to us to be contradicting
yourself.


I do not have a problem with 23 hours 56 minutes 04 seconds,it merely
shows how a star returns in that time within a 24 hour period based on
a 1461 day cycle of 3 years of 365 days and 1 year of 366 days.Any
person who wishes to tie axial and orbital motion to that value and
builds concepts on them is no better or worse than astrologers or
creationists who will happily build their concepts on similar
foundations.










Of course, I know you may feel that we are so indoctrinated with
empiricism that the intuition has just been beaten out of us - and if
that weren't true, you wouldn't need to explain further, we would see
what is obvious to you.

John Savard- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

The images and texts which support correct astronomical principles as
opposed to the awful alternative concepts which emerged in the late
17th century is obvious to many people,they have already taken a wider
view whereas you remain stuck in that narrow view which is causing
enormous problems in matters such as climate studies and how the
motions of the Earth condition climate and weather patterns.

"When we wish to correct with advantage and to show another that he
errs, we must notice from what side he views the matter, for on that
side it is usually true, and admit that truth to him, but reveal to
him the side on which it is false. He is satisfied with that, for he
sees that he was not mistaken and that he only failed to see all
sides. Now, no one is offended at not seeing everything; but one does
not like to be mistaken, and that perhaps arises from the fact that
man naturally cannot see everything, and that naturally he cannot err
in the side he looks at, since the perceptions of our senses are
always true.

People are generally better persuaded by the reasons which they have
themselves discovered than by those which have come into the mind of
others." Pascal






.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Kook warning, Oriel36
    ... orbital motion being influenced by the greater motion of the entire ... Newton celestial mechanics was indeed good for its time but ultimately ... galactic orbital motion and its influences then I have outline exactly ... "And since these stars are liable to no sensible parallax from ...
    (sci.geo.geology)
  • Re: Maxwells and Faradays formulations of induction
    ... >> orbital motion as a single sidereal motion. ... Newton was quasi-geocentric in a much more damaging way.In the ... theorists think mathematics is nature itself!. ... perspectives and basically leapfrog Newtonian ballistics as a basis to ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: This is for Kepler
    ... the heliocentric faster Earth taking an inner orbital circuit.The toys ... >>stationary Earth but an orbitally motion Earth. ... Newton was a peevish freak who cared little for the exquisite reasoning ... If you feel the need to travel to the Sun to account for retrogrades ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Sourse dependency (for genius only)
    ... >> direct, and to proceed with a motion nearly uniform, that is to say, ... This a noted proposition among astronomers, ... >> A genius cannot tolerate inferiority or insincerity and Newton ... > A novel approach is to determine that Keplerian motion can be derived ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Maxwells and Faradays formulations of induction
    ... >>I am not to have a quote mining war on account of Newton ... Classical mechanics or celestial motion reduced to terrestial ... > Descartes who tried to formulate mechanical laws, ... investiagating astronomy and the underlying geometry between observed ...
    (sci.physics)