Re: Sourse dependency (for genius only)

From: Androcles (Androcles_at_)
Date: 02/22/05 

Date: Tue, 22 Feb 2005 13:36:04 GMT

"Oriel36" <geraldkelleher@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:273f8e06.0502220446.3d6d346a@posting.google.com...
> "Tom Capizzi" <etianshrdlu@verizon.net> wrote in message
> news:<vkoSd.28439$ya6.1325@trndny01>...
>> "Oriel36" <geraldkelleher@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:273f8e06.0502210411.657a92ad@posting.google.com...
>> > "Tom Capizzi" <etianshrdlu@verizon.net> wrote in message
>> > news:<B95Sd.38159$t46.33230@trndny04>...
>> >> <geraldkelleher@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> >> news:1108905817.989251.247420@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>> >>
>> >> [begin quote]
>> >>
>> >> The following astronomical description by Newton is the single
>> >> greatest
>> >> indication that he unfortunately scrambled the insight of
>> >> Roemer with
>> >> Keplerian motion hence the tangle every time contemporaries
>> >> open
>> >> their
>> >> mouth on finite light distance.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> PHÆNOMENON V.
>> >> Then the primary planets, by radii drawn to the earth,
>> >> describe areas
>> >> no wise proportional to the times; but that the areas which
>> >> they
>> >> describe by radii drawn to the sun are proportional to the
>> >> times of
>> >> description.
>> >>
>> >> 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."
>> >>
>> >> http://members.tripod.com/~gravitee/phaenomena.htm
>> >>
>> >> A genius cannot tolerate inferiority or insincerity and Newton
>> >> displays
>> >> both attributes in abundance.He is a theorist who imagines he
>> >> is an
>> >> astronomer as are all those who follow the empirical cult.
>> >>
>> >> There is no crisis in cosmology as some would have it for
>> >> basically
>> >> you
>> >> are reaping what was sowed a few hundred years ago,by not
>> >> co-operating
>> >> with me or among yourselves you managed to create a
>> >> particularly
>> >> nasty
>> >> situation for the first time in the history of the
>> >> investigation of
>> >> natural phenomena and threaten to take down everything with
>> >> the
>> >> scientific umbrella.
>> >>
>> >> Btw,Knowing exactly what Isaac did wrong is far more enjoyable
>> >> than
>> >> the
>> >> early 20th century trash which is simply an exotic festering
>> >> of the
>> >> Newtonian picture.So far,all anyone does is run around the
>> >> Newtonian
>> >> cage like squirrels.
>> >>
>> >> [end quote]
>> >>
>> >> So exactly what did Isaac get wrong, according to you?
>> >
>> > A novel approach is to determine that Keplerian motion can be
>> > derived
>> > from the sum of the planet's heliocentric orbital motion and the
>> > planet's galactic orbital motion (from a line drawn through the
>> > center
>> > of the Sun's galactic orbital path).
>> >
>> > Newton astronomically set things up on the basis of terrestial
>> > ballistics and an isolated solar system with no external influences
>> > acting on the Sun or planets,not only that,he used an astronomical
>> > shortcut based on Flamsteed's erroneous isochronical proof.
>> >
>> >
>> > "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]
>> >
>> > The mechanism for the change in orbital shape of the Earth from
>> > more
>> > to less elliptical and subsequently climatological change is
>> > wrapped
>> > up in the cyclical changes in the solar system's galactic orbital
>> > trajectory whereas there is no facility within the Newtonian system
>> > for the change from less circular to more elliptical.Considering
>> > Keplerian geometry and motion in light of the solar system's
>> > galactic
>> > orbital motion is attractive for it retains the second and third
>> > laws
>> > even while orbital shape changes.
>> >
>> > I have provided supporting statements to demonstrate that Newton
>> > was
>> > mixing Keplerian insights on planetary motion with Roemerian
>> > insights
>> > and coming up with a botched job that would have made very little
>> > difference in his era but not in ours.
>> >
>> > " Some inequalities of time may arise from the Excentricities of
>> > the
>> > Orbs of the Satellites; [etc.]... But this inequality has no
>> > respect
>> > to the position of the Earth, and in the three interior Satellites
>> > is
>> > insensible, as I find by computation from the Theory of their
>> > Gravity."
>> >
>> > http://dibinst.mit.edu/BURNDY/OnlinePubs/Roemer/chapter3(part2).html
>> >
>> > A genius,at the very least,is expected to recognise that Newton is
>> > scrambling the astronomical picture and does'nt really have a good
>> > grasp of the Roemerian insight on finite light distance.You can
>> > argue
>> > in circles forever about source dependency and bluff and bluster a
>> > way
>> > to get the early 20th century concepts to fly but the arguments
>> > were
>> > lost centuries ago with Newtonian statements like the one above.
>> >
>> > Thanks for being civil in this matter.
>>
>> According to my search, the Milky Way Galaxy has a 200,000,000 year
>> orbital period. I don't think it is unreasonable to ignore this in
>> making
>> observations within the Solar System over a couple of centuries, let
>> alone over a couple of years. Considering that several of the outer
>> planets were discovered because of their effects on the orbits of
>> inner
>> planets, it would seem far more logical to look at these for sources
>> of
>> orbital change. As far as I know, the n-body problem has no explicit
>> solution, so it is not correct to assume the shape of earth's orbit
>> should
>> be absolutely the same for all time.
>
> 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
> Earth,in other words while acknowledging that the solar system has a
> turning arc, the motion of the Sun and planets can be considered as a
> straight line in one direction about the galactic axis even before
> including planetary heliocentric motion.
>
> An easier and more satisfactory solution to the cyclical change in
> the shape of the planet's orbit from more to less circular would
> emerge from a change in the solar system's galactic orbital trajectory
> from inner to outer galactic paths.
>
> From a line drawn through the center of the Sun's galactic orbital
> path,as the solar system moves to a slightly inner path and
> subsequently from a faster galactic orbital motion to a slower
> motion,the effect is to render the planetary orbits more circular
> while a return to an outer galactic trajectory for the solar system
> renders the orbits more elliptical.All this while retaining the second
> and third laws of Keplerian motion.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>> Further, you allude to climate change as a result of the galactic
>> orbit. I
>> am reasonably certain that variations in climate have been documented
>> to take place over periods that are several orders of magnitude
>> shorter
>> than the galactic cycle. Variability in the sun's output is far more
>> significant in causing climate change than galactic position.
>
> It stands to reason that as the planet's orbital geometry changes to
> more elliptical while retaining Kepler's second law,the relationship
> between constant axial rotation and variable orbital motion
> changes.Even in brief outlines,Southern hemisphere conditions would be
> far more severe during ice ages as the Earth's orbital motion moves
> quicker tio the perihelion and slower through the aphelion during an
> ice age.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> After all,
>> a significant correlation exists between sunspot maxima and warmer
>> temperatures that occurs on an 11 year cycle.
>> Your reply was light on specifics and heavy on opinions. It didn't
>> really answer my question, but only raised new ones. If you want to
>> be obtuse, that's fine. Just don't expect any converts.
>
> I don't need or want converts,what would be nice would be recognition
> of the limitations of Newton's astronomical view which was made worse
> through the early 20th century concepts.
>
> It really does'nt matter how you approach Keplerian motion through a
> more significant use of existing observations that have been around
> since the 1920's,for example,I am more interested in mid latitude
> glaciation and its effects on terrestial surface features through
> astronomical causes than I am on considerations on the Earth's
> constant axial rotation as the sum of greater rotations acting on it.I
> have counted about a dozen different avenues so far for investigation
> without going crazy on finding causes such as Newton's original
> gravitational agenda.
>
> Whoever smashes Newton's celestial sphere and starts to incorporate
> the motion of the solar system and the other local stars as an
> influence on planetary heliocentric motion will be doing themselves
> and the rest of humanity a huge favor.I have done no more than point
> out where the obstacles exist.

Yeah, bring back astrology, all is forgiven.
Your horoscope is correct, I tell you. Your fortune is in the stars.

LOL!

Androcles.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Sourse dependency (for genius only)
    ... >> observations within the Solar System over a couple of centuries, ... > orbital period therefore the turning arc is almost entirely absent ... > for the period of one annual heliocentric orbital motion of the ... of the universe and the size of earth's orbit around the sun. ...
    (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: 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: How can I tell if F is a string or if it is a number?
    ... that obeys Newton's laws and physicists start their derivation from ... Orbits are computed with formulas that do not contain force terms. ... force deflects rectilinear motion into curved orbits. ... F_ma is proportional to *acceleration*, which is a very different thing ...
    (comp.theory)
  • Re: Gravity and Magnetism
    ... >> gauge that calculating heliocentric motion of the primary planets ... >> 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 ... >> axis or indeed the independent axial rotation of the Earth within ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)