Re: Michelson-Morley & Miller

From: xxein (xxein_at_bellsouth.net)
Date: 10/22/04 

Date: 21 Oct 2004 19:53:12 -0700

geraldkelleher@hotmail.com (Oriel36) wrote in message news:<273f8e06.0410180304.5a20dc1@posting.google.com>...
> xxein@bellsouth.net (xxein) wrote in message news:<cce403e3.0410171249.3d61c82d@posting.google.com>...
> > geraldkelleher@hotmail.com (Oriel36) wrote in message news:<273f8e06.0410140305.37f0a1dc@posting.google.com>...
> > > "greywolf42" <mingstb@marssim-ss.com> wrote in message news:<JMfbd.20587$pM5.11378@news.flashnewsgroups.com>...
> > > > "Oriel36" <geraldkelleher@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > > > news:273f8e06.0410130612.6e5e7661@posting.google.com...
> > > > > "greywolf42" <mingstb@marssim-ss.com> wrote in message
> news:<WiVad.15766$pM5.10652@news.flashnewsgroups.com>...
> > > > > > "xxein" <xxein@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
> > > > > > news:cce403e3.0410111842.6476c575@posting.google.com...
> > > >
> > > > {snip higher levels}
> > > >
> > > > > > > We might not agree ALL that much but what is your notion of gravity?
> > > > > > > I don't think I have seen it.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > My notion of gravity is Maxwell's superfluid aether as the foundation of
> > > > > > a Le Sagian gravitational mechanism. Several derivations can be found
> > > > > > in the book "Pushing Gravity" ("Deriving Newton's Gravitational Law
> > > > > > from a Le Sage Mechanism").
> > > > >
> > > > > Wonderful!,LeSage is popular with geocentrists the world over .
> > > >
> > > > I'm not a geocentrist, myself.
> > > >
> > >
> > > Aetherists are Newtonian quasi-geocentrists while relativists are
> > > Newtonian homocentrists.
> > >
> > > A quasi-geocentrist adheres to the Newtonian framework of mean
> > > Sun/Earth distances via Flamsteed's sidereal determination for
> > > constant axial rotation.
> > >
> > > http://astrosun2.astro.cornell.edu/academics/courses//astro201/sidereal.htm
> > >
> > > The error is horrifying for its simplicity rather than complexity as
> > > it is basically a two stage process that begins with Flamsteed's
> > > stellar circumpolar/axial rotational equivalency which was
> > > subsequently morphed by Newton into a geocentric/heliocentric orbital
> > > equivalency.
> > >
> > > The only thing stopping men from correcting this obvious error is fear
> > > of looking ridiculous to the general public.The truth of the matter is
> > > that the general population does'nt really care anyway and would
> > > probably be relieved with seeing those contrived notions of the late
> > > 19th and early 20th century disappear without much fuss.
> > >
> > > Given the enormous amount of observational data that has built up for
> > > a century,I am swamped with incorporating the greater motion of the
> > > solar system around the galactic axis and its effects on planetary
> > > heliocentric motion for the purpose of climatological modelling but
> > > there are hundreds and hundreds of exciting avenues that have yet to
> > > be explored.
> > >
> > xxein: So are you then satisfied that you can trace the origin of
> > stars and their build-ups within some concept of gravity that is
> > necessarily real and true instead of a wishful concept?
> >
>
> I am satisfied that I have passed through this newsgroup with a
> better appreceation of astronomers and astronomical methods prior to
> the Flamsteed/Newtonian astronomical format and insofar as it may be
> little consolation that I no longer have to suffer the blustering or
> bluffing of those who attempt to reduce observed celestial motion to
> terrestial ballistics (Newtonian/relativistic agendas),at least I am
> satisfied to have come across the foundations of the errors common to
> aetherists and relativists alike.
>
> > I am more than willing to give you your co-ordinate system if you can
> > show that gravity does not cause it to move into a distortion against
> > the background of a truly empty space in which your precious starfield
> > still has movement other than an outward expansion.
>
> Some things stand in naked and simple beauty.
>
> Keplerian motion is not just a property of heliocentric orbital motion
> but is conditioned by the solar system's galactic orbital motion.Once
> seen it is impossible to go back to an isolated solar system and a
> Newtonian perspective -
>
> "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]
>
> If you are slow to pick up on these things perhaps a quick word is
> necessary to clarify why Newtonian ballistics based on an isolated
> solar system is extremely limited in scope for explaining heliocentric
> orbital motion.
>
>
> If you accept that the solar system along with the visible local Milky
> Way stars are circling the Milky Way axis then you can see
> instanteously that Newton is incorrect,if it is necessary to explain
> further it would be condescending.
>
> Again,Keplerian motion has its roots in dual orbital motions,the Earth
> around the Sun and the Earth and Sun around the galactic axis.
>
> http://ircamera.as.arizona.edu/NatSci102/lectures/kepler.htm
>
> Variations in the solar system's galactic orbital motion generate
> planetary heliocentric motions to be more circular as the solar system
> moves periodically to an inner galactic orbital path and more
> elliptical when it moves periodically to an outer galactic path.
>
> Forget Newtonian ballistics !,it was fine for its era but it now can
> only be a conceptual and perceptual obstacle in an era when galactic
> orbital motion is known and observed.It is incredible that 80 years
> have passed and nobody has got round to incorporating the influence
> of the solar system's galactic orbital motion on planetary
> heliocentric motion,it is not just incredible,it is extremely
> embarrasing.
>
> No offense Xxein,some parts of this are simple and others are
> complicated and intricate but for all the overheated vocabulary of
> relativity/qm,all appear to have adopted the wrong rotation rate for
> the Earth's axial rotation in order to give it a compound sidereal
> motion.This is not very good for explaining the Earth's motions as
> independent motions such as axial rotational,heliocentric orbital or
> galactic orbital motions.Again,the error in Newtonian ballistics is
> frightening because of its simplicity rather than its complexity.

xxein: I pretty much agree with you already (slang). Damn! I would
have sworn I already posted a reply to this. Oh well. You know the
routine here --- some think a theory is etched in stone, others not.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Michelson-Morley & Miller
    ... >> Newtonian homocentrists. ... >> a century,I am swamped with incorporating the greater motion of the ... >> solar system around the galactic axis and its effects on planetary ... Keplerian motion is not just a property of heliocentric orbital motion ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Gravitational potential - A challenge to Paul Anderson (and to SR)
    ... >> I don't know what all the fuss is about,Keplerian motion could'nt be ... >> with the planets moving with and against galactic orbital motion while ... >> treating the solar system as an isolated system. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Gravity and Magnetism
    ... > motion about the galactic axis.It is clear enough how Newton viewed ... > the effect that the other stars had on the solar system and to each ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Sourse dependency (for genius only)
    ... >> You lost precision immediately,the solar system has a huge galactic ... >> orbital period therefore the turning arc is almost entirely absent ... >> for the period of one annual heliocentric orbital motion of the ... If two stars in two different galaxies are observed to be going ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Gravitational potential - A challenge to Paul Anderson (and to SR)
    ... |> | distinctions his gravitational take on Keplerian motion would look the ... |> | above agenda is just about right until he tried his hand at astronomy. ... |> | It's not my fault Newton stuck you with an geocentric/heliocentric ... | question on planetary orbital motion. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)