Re: Gravitational potential - A challenge to Paul Anderson (and to SR)

From: Oriel36 (geraldkelleher_at_hotmail.com)
Date: 08/30/04 

Date: 30 Aug 2004 03:33:37 -0700

"Androcles" <androc1es@nospamblueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message news:<14pYc.1069$mE6.13484224@news-text.cableinet.net>...
> "Oriel36" <geraldkelleher@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:273f8e06.0408290227.11671422@posting.google.com...
> | "Androcles" <androc1es@nospamblueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:<bh%Xc.355$Jl.4555830@news-text.cableinet.net>...
> | > "Oriel36" <geraldkelleher@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> | > news:273f8e06.0408280356.7a6f61d3@posting.google.com...
> | > | "Androcles" <androc1es@nospamblueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:<7uGXc.1672$Wk5.19402968@news-text.cableinet.net>...
> | > | > "Oriel36" <geraldkelleher@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> | > | > news:273f8e06.0408270218.4f022029@posting.google.com...
> | > | > | "Androcles" <androc1es@nospamblueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:<eOoXc.1246$xl4.13905129@news-text.cableinet.net>...
> | > | > | > "Oriel36" <geraldkelleher@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> | > | > | > news:273f8e06.0408260550.7e3462f@posting.google.com...
> | > | > | > | "Androcles" <androc1es@nospamblueyonder.co.uk> wrote in
> message
> news:<bR0Xc.479$AD7.5425329@news-text.cableinet.net>...
> | > | > | > | > "Oriel36" <geraldkelleher@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> | > | > | > | > news:273f8e06.0408250406.19f3dd6b@posting.google.com...
> | > | > | > | > | "Harry" <harald.vanlintel@epfl.ch> wrote in message
> news:<412b0f24$1@epflnews.epfl.ch>...
> | > | > | > | > | > John, just to point out once more what may have gotten
> lost
> in
> | > | > the
> | > | > noise:
> | > | > | > | > | >
> | > | > | > | > | > "John Kennaugh" <JKNG@kennaugh2435hex.freeserve.co.uk>
> wrote
> | > in
> | > message
> | > | > | > | > | > news:yiQ4tnY3XlKBFwaw@kennaugh2435hex.freeserve.co.uk...
> | > | > | > | > | > SNIP
> | > | > | > | > | > > >> I reproduced Scott Murray's arguments [3] which
> concluded
> | > | > "The
> | > | > surface
> | > | > | > | > | > > >> of the geoid - mean sea level..... is now (and
> always
> has
> | > | > been)
> | > | > a
> | > | > | > | > | > > >> unipotential surface world-wide".
> | > | > | > | > | > > >>
> | > | > | > | > | > > >> Another reference, confirms Murrays conclusion:
> | > | > | > | > | > > >>
> http://www.geo.cornell.edu/geology/classes/isacks/geoid.pdf
> | > | > | > | > | > > >> States:
> | > | > | > | > | > > >>
> | > | > | > | > | > > >> "Potentials are especially useful in analysis of
> the
> earth's
> | > | > | > shape
> | > | > | > and
> | > | > | > | > | > > >> gravity field. The idea of an equi-potential
> surface, a
> surface
> | > | > | > on
> | > | > | > which
> | > | > | > | > | > > >> the gravitational potential is everywhere the same,
> is
> | > the
> | > key
> | > | > | > idea
> | > | > | > in
> | > | > | > | > | > > >> defining the global-scale shape of the earth. If
> the
> | > oceans
> | > were
> | > | > | > | > | > > >> homogeneous in composition and temperature and did
> not
> | > have
> | > currents,
> | > | > | > | > | > > >> sea level would be a perfect equipotential surface.
> It
> | > is
> | > not a
> | > | > | > bad
> | > | > | > one
> | > | > | > | > | > > >> even in the real world."
> | > | > | > | > | > >
> | > | > | > | > | > > ######### Note this bit
> #################################
> | > | > | > | > | > > >>
> | > | > | > | > | > > >> Paul's response may be summarised by saying that it
> is
> | > the
> | > combined
> | > | > | > | > | > > >> gravitational and centrifugal potential which is
> the
> | > same
> | > everywhere on
> | > | > | > | > | > > >> the geoid and the gravitational potential which
> Cocke
> is
> | > | > | > talking
> | > | > | > about
> | > | > | > | > | > > >> is not affected by the centrifugal potential.
> | > | > | > | > | > >
> | > | > | > | > | > >
> ##################################################################
> | > | > | > | > | >
> | > | > | > | > | > I now fully agree on this with Paul. But to point it out
> | > more
> | > sharply:
> | > | > | > | > | > The earth/ocean surface is consisdered to be about
> equipotential
> | > | > in
> | > | > the
> | > | > | > | > | > *rotating* frame of the earth.
> | > | > | > | > | > In the ECI frame it is definitely *not* equipotential,
> as
> there
> | > | > is
> | > | > kinetic
> | > | > | > | > | > energy that should be balanced by additional potential
> | > energy -
> | > just
> | > | > | > as
> | > | > | > in
> | > | > | > | > | > the rotating bucket (the wall of the bucket corresponds
> to
> the
> | > | > water
> | > | > that
> | > | > | > | > | > pushes from the other side of the earth).
> | > | > | > | > | >
> | > | > | > | > | > Cheers.
> | > | > | > | > | > Harald
> | > | > | > | > |
> | > | > | > | > | I don't know what all the fuss is about,Keplerian motion
> | > could'nt
> | > be
> | > | > | > | > | explained until the latter half of the 1920's with the
> introduction of
> | > | > | > | > | the motion of the solar system around the Milky Way axis
> and
> the
> | > | > | > | > | conditioning effect of that motion drawn from the Sun's
> | > orbital
> | > center
> | > | > | > | > | with the planets moving with and against galactic orbital
> | > motion
> | > while
> | > | > | > | > | simultaneously orbiting the Sun at some distance from the
> Sun's
> | > | > | > | > | center.In short,move up another rotation and things look
> | > better
> | > than
> | > | > | > | > | imagining that planetary motion can be explained
> completely by
> | > | > | > | > | treating the solar system as an isolated system.
> | > | > | > | > |
> | > | > | > | > | Now even the greatest dullard is going to determine why
> | > isolating
> | > the
> | > | > | > | > | solar system from the motion of the other stars around the
> galactic
> | > | > | > | > | axis is not a very good idea.
> | > | > | > | >
> | > | > | > | > Noted that Kellerher feels a projectile fired from a
> Kalashnikov
> | > in
> | > Siberia
> | > | > | > | > sensibly affects the path of
> | > | > | > | >
> | > | > | > | >
> | > | > | > | >
> | > | > | > | > |
> | > | > | > | > | "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]
> | > | > | > | > |
> | > | > | > | > | As for the water and bucket experiment you are all
> obsessed
> with.Your
> | > | > | > | > | planetary orbital geodesics are derived from a transfer of
> | > aether
> | > to
> | > | > | > | > | the geometric properties that space does not
> have,basically
> Albert
> | > | > | > | > | dumps aether on Newton whether Newton wants it or not and
> it
> | > works
> | > as
> | > | > | > | > | long as it treats planetary motion as being isolated to
> the
> solar
> | > | > | > | > | system and having no other external influences hence
> Albert's
> spiel -
> | > | > | > | > |
> | > | > | > | > | http://www.mountainman.com.au/aether_0.html
> | > | > | > | > |
> | > | > | > | > | Now you have guys applying the same bucket and water
> principle
> to
> | > | > | > | > | galactic structure and motion and omitting the influence
> on
> galactic
> | > | > | > | > | motion of the solar system on planetary motion where
> heliocentric
> | > | > | > | > | orbital motion is dominant but is influenced by the
> greater
> rotation
> | > | > | > | > | about the galactic axis.
> | > | > | > | > |
> | > | > | > | > | Accepting in principle that the solar system's motion
> about
> | > the
> | > Milky
> | > | > | > | > | Way axis conditions the behavior of the motion of planets
> in
> | > | > | > | > | accordance with Keplerian motion is a natural progression
> into
> | > | > | > | > | explaining those motions without having to appeal to local
> | > | > | > | > | causes,coming as it does with the acceptance of a greater
> axis
> of
> | > | > | > | > | motion and a greater rotation.
> | > | > | > | > |
> | > | > | > | > | Stick with your buckets and water, be it Newtonian or
> later
> concepts,
> | > | > | > | > | but all it does is highlight the inadequacy of
> constructing
> concepts
> | > | > | > | > | based on incomplete information,in this case investigation
> into
> | > | > | > | > | elliptical motion with variations in speed of planetary
> motion
> could
> | > | > | > | > | only really begin in the 1930's.
> | > | > | > | > |
> | > | > | > | > | Again,I don't see what all the fuss is about.
> | > | > | > | >
> | > | > | > | >
> | > | > | > | > Noted that Kellerher feels a projectile fired from a
> Kalashnikov
> | > in
> | > Siberia
> | > | > | > | > sensibly affects the path of snowball hurled by a child in
> the
> | > | > Rockies,
> | > | > by
> | > | > | > | > dint of the gravitational attraction between the two. I fail
> to
> see
> | > | > the
> | > | > fuss
> | > | > | > | > he is creating. <Yawn>.
> | > | > | > | > Androcles.
> | > | > | > |
> | > | > | > | Yawn this !.
> | > | > | > |
> | > | > | > | "Hitherto I have laid down the definitions of such words as
> are
> less
> | > | > | > | known, and explained the sense in which I would have them to
> be
> | > | > | > | understood in the following discourse. I do not define time,
> space,
> | > | > | > | place and motion, as being well known to all. Only I must
> observe,
> | > | > | > | that the vulgar conceive those quantities under no other
> notions
> but
> | > | > | > | from the relation they bear to sensible objects. And thence
> arise
> | > | > | > | certain prejudices, for the removing of which, it will be
> convenient
> | > | > | > | to distinguish them into absolute and relative, true and
> apparent,
> | > | > | > | mathematical and common."
> | > | > | > |
> | > | > | > | http://members.tripod.com/~gravitee/definitions.htm#time
> | > | > | > |
> | > | > | > | Oldest trick in the book,tell you readers that the vulgar
> don't
> | > | > | > | understand space and time which infers that he does and then
> go on
> to
> | > | > | > | create the most contrived notions possible or "in which I
> would
> have
> | > | > | > | them to be understood ".
> | > | > | > |
> | > | > | > | "THE NON-MATHEMATICIAN is seized by a mysterious shuddering
> when
> he
> | > | > | > | hears of "four-dimensional" things, by a feeling not unlike
> that
> | > | > | > | awakened by thoughts of the occult. And yet there is no more
> | > | > | > | common-place statement than that the world in which we live is
> a
> | > | > | > | four-dimensional space-time continuum."
> | > | > | > |
> | > | > | > | http://www.bartleby.com/173/17.html
> | > | > | > |
> | > | > | > | Amounts to the same thing,
> | > | > | >
> | > | > | > Oh, no it does not. Newton is providing the reason why
> definitions
> are
> | > | > | > required.
> | > | > |
> | > | > | Sure he is !,if he did'nt come up with those contrived definitions
> and
> | > | > | distinctions his gravitational take on Keplerian motion would look
> the
> | > | > | same as Hooke's outlines in Lectiones Cutlerianae (1678).
> | > | > |
> | > | > | "I likewise call attractions and impulses, in the same sense,
> | > | > | accelerative, and motive; and use the words attraction, impulse or
> | > | > | propensity of any sort towards a centre, promiscuously, and
> | > | > | indifferently, one for another; considering those forces not
> | > | > | physically, but mathematically: wherefore, the reader is not to
> | > | > | imagine, that by those words, I anywhere take upon me to define
> the
> | > | > | kind, or the manner of any action, the causes or the physical
> reason
> | > | > | thereof, or that I attribute forces, in a true and physical sense,
> to
> | > | > | certain centres (which are only mathematical points); when at any
> time
> | > | > | I happen to speak of centres as attracting, or as endued with
> | > | > | attractive powers."
> | > | > |
> | > | > | http://members.tripod.com/~gravitee/definitions.htm#time
> | > | > |
> | > | > | Poor Isaac,he should'nt have tried so hard to be original for the
> | > | > | above agenda is just about right until he tried his hand at
> astronomy.
> | > | > |
> | > | > |
> | > | > |
> | > | > |
> | > | > |
> | > | > |
> | > | > | > That is very different from the "thoughts of the occult", a word
> meaning
> | > | > | > eclipse more than it does supernatural, and the predestination
> indicated
> | > | > | > below
> | > | > | > "For it is composed of individual events, each of which is
> described
> | > by
> | > four
> | > | > | > numbers, namely, three space co-ordinates x, y, z and a time
> co-ordinate,
> | > | > | > the time-value t." is all too obvious.
> | > | > | > Minkowski is claiming fortune-telling is possible through
> mathematics.
> | > | > | >
> | > | > |
> | > | > | When I seen what Newton was up to I burst out laughing,not only
> | > | > | technically but in context of Hookes work.The above excerpt from
> the
> | > | > | Principia is fine for working on the effects of solar system
> motion
> | > | > | about the galactic axis on planetary heliocentric orbital motion
> but
> | > | > | go beyond it into Newton's hilarious astronomical framework and
> you
> | > | > | are into mesmerism and suchlike.
> | > | >
> | > | >
> | > | > Well, clearly you are mesmerised.
> | > | > |
> | > | > |
> | > | > | >
> | > | > | > | play to elitism and you manipulate people
> | > | > | > | like toys that is why none of you and your opinions account
> for
> | > | > | > | anything.How does it feel to be Newton's plaything ?.
> | > | > | >
> | > | > | > You didn't sensibly respond to the counter-example I gave in re
> your
> | > | > | > negation of "planetary motion can be explained completely by
> | > treating
> | > the
> | > | > | > solar system as an isolated system", did you? That is partly why
> your
> | > | > | > opinions count for nothing. The other part is that like Tycho
> Brahe,
> you
> | > | > | > believe the Earth is the centre of the Universe yet the planets
> | > orbit
> | > the
> | > | > | > sun. Hence your 24 hour day and your images of the night sky in
> which
> | > | > | > Polaris is the stationary object . Since nobody will believe
> you,
> Newton
> | > | > | > come under your attack. I'm afraid your words are understood yet
> rejected,
> | > | > | > no matter how often you quote the Principia.
> | > | > | > Androcles
> | > | > |
> | > | > | It's not my fault Newton stuck you with an geocentric/heliocentric
> | > | > | orbital equivalency or that he mangles Roemer's method for
> | > | > | determining finite light distance with Kepler's method for
> discerning
> | > | > | planetary orbital motion.No wonder you poor buggers can't figure
> out
> | > | > | what went wrong no more than they could in the 1840's.
> | > | >
> | > | > It is not my fault you cannot explain your point in simple language
> that
> is
> | > | > comprehensible to all. Perhaps if you used shorter sentences and a
> | > | > step-by-step approach with some explanatory equations some people
> might
> | > | > discover what the hell you are going on about, instead of your
> garbled
> | > | > complaints that Newton was wrong, your repetitive quotations the
> meaning
> of
> | > | > which is clear to others but not to yourself.
> | > | >
> | > |
> | > | Newton's data would have been pathetically inadequate to answer the
> | > | question on planetary orbital motion .
> | > |
> | > | Keplerian motion is best understood by incorporating the solar
> | > | system's galactic orbital motion as a conditioning factor on the
> | > | dominant orbital heliocentric motion.
> | > |
> So you have nothing to offer but assertion.
> | > |
> | > |
> | > |
> | > | > |
> | > | > | This is what happens when mathematicians and cataloguers pretend
> to
> | > | > | be astronomers.There is no difference between you and Reany as you
> are
> | > | > | both like squirrels running round the astronomical cage Newton
> | > | > | builtfor you.Even as the more perceptive would naturally see the
> | > | > | appeal of getting out of that cage and work on determining the
> affects
> | > | > | of solar system galactic orbital motion on planetary heliocentric
> | > | > | orbital motion you are content to remain in an indoctrination that
> | > | > | began in 1687 -
> | > | > |
> | > | > | "Only I must observe, that the vulgar conceive those quantities
> under
> | > | > | no other notions but from the relation they bear to sensible
> objects.
> | > | > | And thence arise certain prejudices, for the removing of which, it
> | > | > | will be convenient to distinguish them into absolute and relative,
> | > | > | true and apparent, mathematical and common."
> | > | > |
> | > | > |
> | > | > |
> | > | > | There you go Mr Farter,that is how to put people at a disadvantage
> | > | > | while promoting elitism,great if you have a revenge agenda but
> lethal
> | > | > | to astronomy and subsequently humanity's understanding of it.
> | > | >
> | > | > I fail to see how insult promotes understanding, Herr Killerhump,
> but if
> it
> | > | > works for you, then have one in return. You are an arsehole.
> | > | > Androcles
> | > |
> | > | Call me what you will,I make no attempt to appeal to this primitive
> | > | bunch here who don't know a scam when they see it.I'm sure you wish to
> | > | preserve the image of Newton as a genius but it turns out that he was
> | > | just another opportunist and not a very original one at that.
> | > |
> | > | The good news is that astronomy remains intact despite a few hundred
> | > | years of gravitational hoopla generated by cataloguers and
> | > | theorists.
> | >
> | > If you consider "light is always propagated in empty space with a
> definite
> | > velocity c which is independent of the state of motion of the emitting
> body"
> | > (no matter who said it) as "intact" then you and I have very different
> views
> | > on
> | > the cohesive properties of bull***.
> | > Androcles
> |
> | It takes about 2 minutes to figure out that Newton is mixing Roemer's
> | method with Kepler,like a grinning fool trying to make sense of both
> | he ends up comprehending neither.
> |
> | "For to the earth they appear sometimes direct, sometimes stationary,
> | nay, and sometimes retrograde. But from the sun they are always seen
> | direct, and to proceed with a motion nearly uniform, that is to say, a
> | little swifter in the perihelion and a little slower in the aphelion
> | distances, so as to maintain an equality in the description of the
> | areas. This a noted proposition among astronomers, and particularly
> | demonstrable in Jupiter, from the eclipses of his satellites; by the
> | help of which eclipses, as we have said, the heliocentric longitudes
> | of that planet, and its distances from the sun, are determined."
> | Principia"
> |
> | http://members.tripod.com/~gravitee/phaenomena.htm
> |
> | The poor man mixes up the fact that as the Earth moves slower towards
> | the aphelion,in addition to the increasing distance between the Earth
> | and the Sun a very slight slowing due to finite light distance will be
> | observed to occur at natural observed noon over and above Keplerian
> | elliptical motion and a slight speeding up as it moves towards the
> | perihelion,again,over and above Keplerian motion.Then he goes on to
> | say -
> |
> | "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."
> |
> | http://members.tripod.com/~gravitee/phaenomena.htm
> |
> | It is just easier to go back to Keplerian motion and graft in the
> | solar system's motion around the galactic axis as a conditioning
> | factor on heliocentric orbital motion than try and reconcile that
> | Newtonian garbage.
> |
> Then provide the equations.
> Androcles.|

Sure,don't mix up the Equation of Time with the Equation of Light like
Newton did by mangling Kepler with Roemer methods and insights.

Let's dismantle Newton.

"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."

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

Simple enough,you have a geocentric/heliocentric orbital equivalency
based on the idea that a line drawn through the Earth's heliocentric
orbital motion is equivalent to a line drawn through the Sun
geocentric orbital motion.Graphically it looks like this.

http://www.eumetsat.de/en/mtp/images/sidereal.gif

Newton morphed Flamsteed's axial rotational/stellar circumpolar
equivalency into an orbital equivalency notwithstanding the the
Earth's orbital mechanics do not follow its axial rotational
orientation.In short,don't mix independent axial rotation with
independent orbital motion as per the sidereal framework.

Because of the idiosyncratic Newtonian framework you have no
possibility of drawing a line through the Sun's (and by association
the solar system) galactic orbital motion much as Kepler, in the
tradition of astronomers,drew a line through the planet's orbital
center of motion and calculated the motion of Mars from there.Newton
takes it as the mean distance from the Sun and uses Roemer to fill in
the difference which is why you have this peculiar view.

"For to the earth they appear sometimes direct, sometimes stationary,
nay, and sometimes retrograde. But from the sun they are always seen
direct, and to proceed with a motion nearly uniform, that is to say, a
little swifter in the perihelion and a little slower in the aphelion
distances, so as to maintain an equality in the description of the
areas. This a noted proposition among astronomers, and particularly
demonstrable in Jupiter, from the eclipses of his satellites; by the
help of which eclipses, as we have said, the heliocentric longitudes
of that planet, and its distances from the sun, are determined."
Principia"

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

To keep things current,everyone here recognises that a line drawn
through the Sun's galactic orbital path is a variation on the ideas of
Copernicus and Kepler's planetary orbital path.You assume a mean
galactic orbital path for the solar system but permit it to veer
towards an inner galactic orbit and an outer galactic orbit off that
mean.This variation is marked by the Milankovitch cycle for the
transition from circular to elliptical orbits and back again.

If you wish to remain with a Newtonian geocentric/heliocentric orbital
equivalency,good for you and you can use as many equations as you like
to support it.If you have little regard for the Equation of Time and
more importantly the Equation of Light which reflect astronomical
adjustments you are more than welcome to your equations which managed
to mangle the two.

> |
> |
> |
> | >
> | > | You have kept the thing going until the galaxies showed up
> | > | and now we can resume with the dormant astronomical methods and
> | > | insights such as Roemer's and Kepler's and apply them appropriately
> | > | within the galactic setting.
> | > |
> | > | Have a ball with Lorentz and Albert,it should keep you happy for
> | > | another 100 years !.

Loading