Re: Anybody knows this kook


Nicolaas Vroom wrote:
"dda1" <rangeravenger@xxxxxxxxx> schreef in bericht
news:1151588865.428200.268460@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Nicolaas Vroom wrote:
"dda1" <rangeravenger@xxxxxxxxx> schreef in bericht
news:1151566684.891446.247310@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
I just picked this one up, it is precious . Dingle redivivus:

http://www.wbabin.net/science/ricker11.pdf


The guy is nuts. Certified. Anybody knows him from elswhere?


Do a Google http://www.google.be/ search with:
"Harry H. Ricker" or "Herbert Dingle"
http://www.google.be/search?hl=nl&q=%22Herbert+Dingle%22&meta=

One of the documents you get is:
http://www.heretical.com/science/dingle1.html

Very interesting stuff
or
is it all wrong ?

Nicolaas Vroom
http://users.pandora.be/nicvroom/

Yep, sorry to disappoint you Nicholas, it is all wrong. Kooks writing
about a major kook (Dingle)


You do not disappoint me by claiming that Dingle, Ricker (?) and Ballard (?)
are all wrong.

You disappoint me by your short reply.

Nicolaas Vroom

You disappoint me because you are an intelligent man,at least in the
past as I have known you from your responses.

Nobody ever bothers to consider a mirage as real or unreal,it may be an
illusion due to atmospheric or meteorological factors but its effects
are fairly predictable.

The Mora Luminis of Roemer falls into the same category insofar as
finite light speed appears to generates an anomalous motion in
Io,Jupiter's satellite, there is very little in the way of causual
effect that can be derived from the illusion.Only the variations in
orbital distances between Earth and Jupiter satisfies the resolution
for the predictable motion of Io and that is how to treat light
speed,no more and no less.

So what if Newton mangled or bundled the Keplerian and Roemerian
insight into one package * in order to introduce his 'perturbations'
into observed motions of the planets,the local gravitational solutions
now looks like a pathetic attempt to explain planetary motion through
terrestial ballistics and everything else be damned.

Newton's mutation of Copernican heliocentric principles based on a
idiosyncratic absolute/relative space was always wrong,that the early
20th century guys expanded the error rather than resolved it should not
deter contemporaries from actually going back to Newton and discerning
what he actually did and why it was wrong.

I hope you pursue this avenue Nicolas.



* 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. Newton

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Anybody knows this kook
    ... Nicolaas Vroom wrote: ... Kooks writing ... You do not disappoint me by claiming that Dingle, ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Anybody knows this kook
    ... Nicolaas Vroom wrote: ... Yep, sorry to disappoint you Nicholas, it is all wrong. ... Kooks writing ... You do not disappoint me by claiming that Dingle, ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Anybody knows this kook
    ... Nicolaas Vroom wrote: ... Yep, sorry to disappoint you Nicholas, it is all wrong. ... You do not disappoint me by claiming that Dingle, ... DINGLE WAS A KOOK. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)