Re: Kook warning, Oriel36
From: Oriel36 (geraldkelleher_at_hotmail.com)
Date: 09/20/04
- Next message: rick++: "Re: Gas reserves deep in the Earth? - New research"
- Previous message: Otis Brown: "Re: What Darwin Wrote About THE EYE (Aye, Aye, Aye!)"
- In reply to: Sergey Karavashkin: "Re: Kook warning, Oriel36"
- Next in thread: Carsten Troelsgaard: "Re: Kook warning, Oriel36"
- Reply: Carsten Troelsgaard: "Re: Kook warning, Oriel36"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: 20 Sep 2004 08:45:45 -0700
selftrans@yandex.ru (Sergey Karavashkin) wrote in message news:<a42650fc.0409181115.42b161c3@posting.google.com>...
> Dear Oriel,
>
> The more I read your posts the more I experience a strange feeling to
> your statements. On one hand, you undoubtedly show an erudition; you
> were able to rise the lath of our dialogue, which is impossible for
> most habitants of forums. But you have this lath hanged in some
> strange position, when you yourself are non-adequate to the statements
> on which you are basing.
>
> In particular, you gave a long and quite thoughtful citation from
> Pascal; but have you attentively read it yourself before opposing the
> opponents' statements with its meaning? I'm afraid, not at all. It
> seems, you admired his phrases of intuition but omitted one important
> point of Pascal:
>
> >Now the omission of one
> >principle leads to error; thus one must have very clear sight to see
> >all the principles and, in the next place, an accurate mind not to
> >draw false deductions from known principles.
>
> Let us look on your statements in this view. You are stating,
>
> >The only sensible thing that occured in astronomy in the last 300
> >years was the association between ice ages and variations in orbital
> >motion,the concept is correct hence the mechanism for that change
> that
> >I give you.
>
> At the same time in your posts to me in sci.physics you admitted as
> important the discovery of galactic motion of the Earth, did not you?
> And the motion of galaxy? And the structure of galaxies? And radio
> emission of stars, nebulae and galaxies? And nucleosynthesis? And
> many, many other things which you simply "forgot" to mention, pursuing
> a pretty scholasticism of Pascal.
>
Sergey
It may simply be too thorny of a problem for astronomical descriptions
still retain the celestial sphere as a template for galaxies beyond
our own such as 'M82 in Ursa Major'.
http://www.ast.cam.ac.uk/~ipswich/Observations/Ursa_Major.jpg
http://www.jfmto.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/m82galax.htm
People will recognise the Big Dipper in the first image but it is an
illusion created by the axial rotation of the Earth.
http://www.astroabel.de/polaris.jpg
Contemporary astronomical descriptions make no attempt to sort out the
illusions from actual motions,in other words,once you see the
constellations ursa major,orion or any other it amounts to a celestial
sphere where the absurd ' every point is the valid center of the
universe' is generated.
It is no mean feat to consider that the stars in a constellation are
individual stars of the Milky Way and determine that in principle,
their rotation around the Milky Way axis would change their
orientation to M82 just as we would view it from a galactic size
carousel.The timescales for the changing orientation within a person's
lifetime are so small that it can only really be appreceated in
principle but that does not prevent cosmological modelling of
cosmological structure and motion from our point of view on Earth.
> Next, you are stating so:
>
> >Basically physicists shook the astronomical geometry out of the
> >algebra and to be fair to Newton,even though he formatted his
> >astronomical template incorrectly by assuming mean Earth/Sun
> distances
> >and orbital equivalencies,it is easy to correct his procedure for
> >deriving Keplerian motion as he originally framed it.These are fiddly
> >bits that you are entirely oblivious to and it shows.
>
> Since I am a physicist, I am not shocked of astronomical geometry
> without algebra. Simply I know that geometrical methods are limited,
> and earlier or later, merely geometrical calculations of trajectories
> have to lead astronomers to study the cause of path deviation. Not in
> vain the cause was traditionally sought in stars able to deviate a
> celestial body in its motion. Again, you are speaking of some
> gravitation. What for do you need it? This is not geometry. ;-) You
> are speaking of ice ages - and this also is not geometry!
The ice ages most certainly do rely on geometry Sergev for in an ice
age,the Equation of Time which differentiates between constant axial
rotation and variable orbital motion changes from its present
value.Astronomically speaking,a longer Northern hemisphere summer
boils down to a slower orbital motion at the aphelion where constant
axial rotation passing through the slower orbital motion registers as
a longer period of direct sunlight when taken from the equinoxes
through the aphelion and a lesser period in its orbital shadow taken
from the position of the equinoxes through the perihelion.
http://ircamera.as.arizona.edu/NatSci102/lectures/kepler.htm
I already
> wrote you before, merely geometrical calculations were typical for
> past centuries, and if you remained inherent in geometric calculations
> without algebra, this is you, not me, who stayed in past centuries.
>
The astronomical framework for Newton's calculations are based on
Flamsteed's axial rotational/stellar circumpolar framework from
1676,nobody makes a pretense of it these days but your difficulties
become greater than mine Sergey for the relativists managed to dump
aether back into Newton as 'absolute space' and used Newtonian
'absolute time' (the sidereal value of 23 hours 56 min 04 sec ) as an
excuse to fabricate the opposition to a light carrying medium via the
MMX.If this was not bad enough they re-introduced a medium in gr as a
geometric property of 'warped space' so who is kidding who ?.People
who do not have the capacity to defend themselves against this tidal
wave of bull are expected to just sit there and take somebody else's
word that it was a human achievement when it is little more than a
mathematical cartoon .
The original intent of Newton was to switch the value for axial
rotation from the Equation of Time format to the more convenient and
calendrical sidereal format and have you any idea just what
astronomical damage was done ?.You get the convenience of combining
axial and orbital motion into a single sidereal motion,great if you
want to be a celestial peeping tom but otherwise destructive for
cosmological modelling.Even if you wish to consider a medium for
electromagnetic purposes,the relativist is going to cut you to pieces
for you never fully got those Newtonian terms straight and it appears
have no intention of doing so.
> I hope, if you think attentively and make your statements consistent
> with theses on which you are basing, you will essentially change the
> course of your mind and your attitude to colleagues. ;-)
>
> Kind regards,
>
> Sergey
Some things are better appreceated by virtue of simplicity rather than
the complexity to which they tend,it does not matter if the Copernican
or Keplerian methods are intricate but that their insights can be
appreceated by going outside every moment of our existence and
enjoying the great stately motions of the Earth rather than the
Newtonian view of Sun around the Earth is equivalent to the Earth
around the Sun,if I had to explain further I would be losing.
In any case,my stopover in sci.geology is finished and thank you for
your accurate summation that it is possible to bring out
points,however unpleasent and discuss them like men.I have noted that
even the most rabid participant in sci.physics always receives a
courteous response from you and indeed it is that dignity which is
most prized in a world that no longer seems to have any.
Regards
Gerald
- Next message: rick++: "Re: Gas reserves deep in the Earth? - New research"
- Previous message: Otis Brown: "Re: What Darwin Wrote About THE EYE (Aye, Aye, Aye!)"
- In reply to: Sergey Karavashkin: "Re: Kook warning, Oriel36"
- Next in thread: Carsten Troelsgaard: "Re: Kook warning, Oriel36"
- Reply: Carsten Troelsgaard: "Re: Kook warning, Oriel36"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
