Re: There is nothing as easy as this.

The problem is Don that the 'Gravity' solution Newton provided for
planetary motion would never have worked to begin with,for in putting
all his eggs in one basket and isolating the solar system from the rest
of the visible Universe * he applied the same reasoning for
trajectories of orbits of planets as for cannon balls,apples falling or
basically - terrestial balistics.

What affords geologists an incredible opportunity is that in bypassing
terrestial ballistics and planetary motion as one and the same causes
or universal gravitation as it was called,in that a more flexible
approach to the inter-relationship between simultaneously motions of
the Earth can be applied in any number of ways,geology makes astronomy
more relevent which in turn feeds back into developmental geology.

I'm sure that while all are on bended kneee when the word 'gravity'
and Newton appears it matters little to me conceptually as it should to
geologists for Copernicus and Kepler knew that Earth spins on its axis
and orbits the Sun without a desperate need to attribute a
cause,gravitational or otherwise.It is actually far easier to
understand changes in elliptical orbital geometry by incorporating the
greater rotation around the Milky Way axis and simultaneously around
the Sun as an antidote to Newtonian ballistics and the souless
mechanical motion of his so-called 'universal law of gravitation'.


Your first commandment definitely belongs in the camp which has now
painted itself into a conceptual corner which can't get the Earth's
rotation as a factor in terrestial surface development.You are correct
however that in their thinking, a flat and stationary Earth is just as
valid as a round and rotating one but this is what happens when you
give yourself a geocentric/heliocentric choice you really do not have
**

* Cor. 2. And since these stars are liable to no sensible parallax
from
the annual motion of the earth, they can have no force, because of
their immense distance, to produce any sensible effect in our system.
Not to mention that the fixed stars, every where promiscuously
dispersed in the heavens, by their contrary actions destroy their
mutual actions, by Prop. LXX, Book I." Principia

*** "PHÆNOMENON IV.
That the fixed stars being at rest, the periodic times of the five
primary planets, and (whether of the sun about the earth, or) of the
earth about the sun, are in the sesquiplicate proportion of their mean
distances from the sun.

This proportion, first observed by Kepler, is now received by all
astronomers; for the periodic times are the same, and the dimensions
of the orbits are the same, whether the sun revolves about the earth,
or the earth about the sun. And as to the measures of the periodic
times, all astronomers are agreed about them. But for the dimensions
of the orbits, Kepler and Bullialdus, above all others, have
determined them from observations with the greatest accuracy; and the
mean distances corresponding to the periodic times differ but
insensibly from those which they have assigned, and for the most part
fall in between them; as we may see from the following table."

http://members.tripod.com/~gravitee/phaenomena.htm

That paragraph from Newton is an outright lie and a shocking
stomachturning fudge,Kepler knew of the Ptolomaic Equant from which his
second law is derived but the manner in which he made those
observations is based on mean motions based on the view of the motion
of Mars seen from Earth (Panis quadragesimalis) and not on mean
distances between Sun and planet ***.You simply cannot apply Newtonian
geometry to planetary motion for it would mean the Earth would travel
faster at the aphelion by applying the stretching and shortening of
distances from mean Sun/Earth distances while acknowledging a constant
..986 degree orbital displacement.


LOOK,you cannot fit Newton's conception into an elliptical framework,it
is not that difficult to see where it is wrong and you can see that
the sidereal format makes no allwoances for independent axial and
orbital motion -

http://astrosun2.astro.cornell.edu/academics/courses/astro201/images/sidereal_day.gif



***"The proportion existing between the periodic times of any two
planets
is exactly the sesquiplicate proportion of the mean distances of the
orbits, or as generally given,the squares of the periodic times are
proportional to the cubes of the mean distances." Kepler

If you take you chance with gravitational considerations within the
Newtonian framework which is causing this enormous impasse you may as
well join the guys with their stationary Earth and their blustering and
bluffing.I really could'nt care less if they know or don't know what
went wrong over 300 years ago but even a tiny recognition of a basic
error which may be difficult to spot initially should allow some
flexibility in grafting in the necessary connection between
astronomical motions and terrestial surface features,whatever the
outcome.

.

Quantcast