Re: Michelson-Morley & Miller

From: xxein (xxein_at_bellsouth.net)
Date: 10/23/04 

Date: 22 Oct 2004 19:13:12 -0700

geraldkelleher@hotmail.com (Oriel36) wrote in message news:<273f8e06.0410220734.bcfa5b2@posting.google.com>...
> xxein@bellsouth.net (xxein) wrote in message news:<cce403e3.0410211853.34453e1a@posting.google.com>...
> > 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.
>
> There is nothing in your reply that would necessitate a response
> however just to repeat how the Newtonian error is most notable when
> you compare his astronomical framework with Kepler's.
>
> "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." Newton
>
> "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
>
>
> The Newtonian error in the excerpt above is barely discernible
> however the only means to acquire mean Sun/Earth distances is to adapt
> Flamsteed's axial/stellar rotational equivalency to an
> geocentric/heliocentric orbital equivalency.
>
> http://astrosun2.astro.cornell.edu/academics/courses//astro201/sidereal.htm
>
> Ultimately Newton left a bubble universe for his disciples to follow
> and relativistic homocentricity made it worse again in the early
> 1900's.Somehow it is the easiest thing in the world to recognise where
> Newton is clearly wrong in respect to the local Milky Way stars but
> it may not be so obvious to recognise where he is wrong in respect to
> the influences working the motion of the planets around the Sun and
> simultaneously around the galactic axis.
>
>
> "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."
>
>
> In any case,this is all astronomical forensics and it is unlikely that
> in an atmosphere of relativistic apologetics that men would really
> enjoy the exact trajectory of this intellectual disaster we inherited.
>
> Again,the mistake occurs at Newton via Flamsteed,far from being a dull
> endeavor it is most enjoyable for anyone who cares to take the journey
> and it all begins with clocks,geometry,astronomy and the Longitude
> problem.

xxein: I said that I agreed to the difference of measurement
(coordinate system) that might be necessary. I also agreed to a
terminal effect that all gravity is pervasive into each coordinate
system regardless of which. What you do not seem to understand is
that the universe is the GREAT system into which all our beliefs and
scientific explanations must apply. You are not quite there, yet.
Close, maybe.

The point I will try to make is that no one can make a theory without
describing the evolutionary events that would cause it to be so.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Gravitational potential - A challenge to Paul Anderson (and to SR)
    ... But from the sun they are always seen ... > | distances, so as to maintain an equality in the description of the ... Newton did by mangling Kepler with Roemer methods and insights. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Q question about relativity
    ... > That is incorrect Andre,Kepler said that but Newton altered it. ... > earth about the sun, are in the sesquiplicate proportion of their mean ... > is exactly the sesquiplicate proportion of the mean distances of the ... M is the mass of the central body ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: AU other than Astronomical Units?
    ... circular orbit about the Sun at 1 AU takes a year. ... Newton unethically tranfered mean motion along planetary orbits to ... are in the sesquiplicate proportion of their mean ... distances from the sun. " Newton ...
    (uk.sci.astronomy)
  • Re: Q question about relativity
    ... > That is incorrect Andre,Kepler said that but Newton altered it. ... > earth about the sun, are in the sesquiplicate proportion of their mean ... > is exactly the sesquiplicate proportion of the mean distances of the ... M is the mass of the central body ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: The princile of the relativity.
    ... Newton needed to fit planetary motion into the Ra/Dec system by ... Try the actual periodic times argumenty of Kepler known as the 10th ... apparent movement of the Sun has 365 days which is the mean measure ... "Relativity made the odler concepts of absolute space and absolute time ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)