Re: The princile of the relativity.

You seem like a nice man,so let me help you along with what Newtoin was
really up to.The fact that it is intricate but not convoluted should
make it a pleasent endeavor but it requires that you set the early 20th
century fables aside and match Newton up with Kepler rather than refer
his ideas with the 20th century fables.

Newton needed to fit planetary motion into the Ra/Dec system by
switching from astronomical working principles based on orbital
comparisons to mean Sun/Earth distances, a fraudulent and destructive
switch when proposed as the working principles of Kepler .To do this,he
made use of Flamsteed's celestial sphere geometry which falsely tied
axial rotation to the celestial sphere as a 'periodic times'
argument.Over the centuries and finally in the early 20th century,axial
rotation to the celestial sphere morphed into orbital motion to
aether/absolute space and from there into the wild and exotic
relativistic symptoms.The symptoms of the disease are simply severe
reading disabilities rather than anything substantive for nobody who
reads Newton's rejection of an aether in Opticks (1704) will hardly
dump it back on him as 'absolute space' and then reject it all over
again.

Try the actual periodic times argumenty of Kepler known as the 10th
argument for heliocentricity,the main arguemnt Newton hijacked and
fraudulently reworked -

Epitome Of Copernican Astronomy by JOHANNES KEPLER


Finally by what arguments do you prove that the centre of the Sun which
is at the midpoint of the planetary spheres and bears their whole
system - does not revolve in some annual movement,as Brahe wishes,but
in accordance with Copernicus sticks immobile in one place,while the
centre of the Earth revolves in an annual movement.


Argument 10


" The 10th argument,taken from the periodic times, is as follows; the
apparent movement of the Sun has 365 days which is the mean measure
between Venus' period of 225 days and Mars' period of 687
days.Therefore does not the nature of things shout out loud that the
circuits in which those 365 days are taken up has a mean position
between the circuits of Mars and Venus around the Sun and thus this is
not the circuit of the Sun around the Earth -for none of the primary
planets has its orbit arranged around the Earth,as Brahe admits,but the
circuit of the Earth around the resting Sun,just as the other
planets,namely Mars and Venus,complete their own periods by running
around the Sun."

Johannes Kepler

After than sparkling argument based on orbital comparisons and the
slotting of the Earth's orbital motion between Venus and Mars you can
then see how Newton hijacked the argument and rendered it into a
convoluted and meaningless passage that reveals nothing and reveals
that he could not care less for astronomy,its working principles and
its insights -

PHENOMENON 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.


This proportion, first observed by Kepler, is now received by all
astronomers; for the periodic times are the same, and the dimensions of
the orbits are the same, whether the sun revolves about the earth, or
the earth about the sun. And as to the measures of the periodic times,
all astronomers are agreed about them. But for the dimensions of the
orbits, Kepler and Bullialdus, above all others, have determined them
from observations with the greatest accuracy; and the mean distances
corresponding to the periodic times differ but insensibly from those
which they have assigned, and for the most part fall in between them;
as we may see from the following table." newton


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

In short,if you wish to insult yourselves then that is fine but that
Newton is still pulling the strings is remarkable and in some ways
frightening considering the dominance of this thing.As for me,well
Newton is my plaything,a man who got greedy in an era without
astronomers.

















harry wrote:
"Bill Hobba" <rubbish@xxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:DeR3h.60222$rP1.29517@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

"harry" <harald.vanlintelButNotThis@xxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1162802113_449@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

"Bill Hobba" <rubbish@xxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:WJv3h.59630$rP1.22698@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

"Stamenin" <tasko.s@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1162707951.190749.240750@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
SNIP
As you see and I recognize that Newton's definition about the absolute
system of coordinates and the Einstein's definition about his Galilaian
system of coordinates have the same content but are impossible to be
used practicaly.
SNIP

You have no idea what an absolute coordinate system is. It is a
coordinate system in which the laws of physics are different.

Sorry to jump in, but that's wrong; for a good definition, see for
example Newton's Principia.


Oh? - please describe the experiment that detected it and provide
references to the professional journal it was published in. Unless you
can do that then what you are talking about is 'hot air' - just like
Newton's vacuous definition of an absolute frame. If you don't believe me
that it is vacuous describe to be how to detect a frame that 'stays in the
cosmos' whatever that may mean. And if you can't do that what makes you
think it is of any value?

Bill, we have both participated in these same discussions for years now.
Probably you confuse Newtons' metaphysical "absolute coordinate system" with
"preferred frame" theories. The latter are dependent on the first, but not
inversely: Newton didn't make a logical error on that matter eventhough
Bilge claims so. Premises of a theory can't be "detected"; theories are
judged on their predictive power.

Newton's principia is so old and outdated be very careful what you take
from it. What I said above is in fact correct.

His concept is not ambiguous and is the classical reference of that term.
It's incompatible with yours: with his concept no measurement of absolute
motion is possible. That you can see for yourself by reading his natural
philosophy as explained by himself: http://tinyurl.com/yz245z

Thus it's in fact you who has no idea what ithe term means

I beg to differ. I have very carefully explained exactly what it means.
Some knowdgeable posters do not 100% agree with me but I know and
understand their concerns and the issue of disagreement is quite minor.
For a full discussion on the matter see the following excellent post by
Timo as well as follow ups:
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_frm/thread/13ecfde2f80aebe4/07fbb2e45180a599?tvc=1&q=timo+griffith#07fbb2e45180a599

Nice - of course, the focus was on Timo's remark:

"At first, we will simply assume that all the
reference frames are in uniform relative motion (ie unaccelerating
and no rotational motion), and later, when some physics is introduced,
we will introduce the inertiality. "

--despite many past explanations in this NG.

Not by the knowledgeable professional physicists such as Tom Roberts who
regulalry post here
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/7d1663aad8c0cfbe

I agree for100% with that posting by him. He also made a good write-up for
this group about theories that are experimentally indistinguishable from SR.

Nor by modern autoriative authors and aknowloged experts such as Wofgang
Rindler. From his standard text 'Introduction To Speciual Relativity'
page 51:
"Relativity made the odler concepts of absolute space and absolute time
untenable and yet they had served as a deeply ingrained framework in our
minds on which to 'hang' the rest of physics.'

Thanks for citing the cause of your confusion. Space measurements have
always been "relative" as also Newton explained; his absolute space concept
was simply postulated. Whatever may have been the reason for Rindler's
claim, it was not based on experimental physics. This was also explained by
Einstein and Tom Roberts combined (and I claim that neither of them was
confused on these issues):

"Newton might no less well have called his absolute space ``Ether''; what is
essential is merely that besides observable objects, another thing, which is
not perceptible, inust be looked upon as real, to enable acceleration or
rotation to be looked upon as something real."
-Albert Einstein, 1920

"One can pick _any_ inertial frame whatsoever, call it the "ether frame"
and apply LET using that "ether frame" and obtain the same computations
and predictions as in SR"
-Tom Roberts,
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/f46b785e80425dd7

Newton's absolute space was certainly *not* "a coordinate system in which
the laws of physics are different", and Tom explained rather well why this
has not changed with SRT.

You mentioned in another post you were a newbie. I strongly suggest
getting the facts before making definitive assertions at odds with well
known physics.

Bill

I hope this helped.

Regards,
Harald

<Rest cut, as it's based on an erroneous premise>

Harald




.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Second Newtonian Axiom
    ... mathematician (I'm sure he doesn't think of himself that way, ... Sounds great but the really wonderful trick Newton used was to graft ... Finally by what arguments do you prove that the centre of the Sun which ... " The 10th argument,taken from the periodic times, is as follows; ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: Poincare conjecture
    ... centre of the Earth revolves in an annual movement. ... " The 10th argument,taken from the periodic times, is as follows; ... apparent movement of the Sun has 365 days which is the mean measure ... Below Newton discussed *phenomema*. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Contraction of Length Measurements in SR? No, not possible.
    ... All you ever do is come here and imitate Newton but whereas Newton's ... Newton created the illusion that Keplerian orbital distances working ... That the fixed stars being at rest, the periodic times of the five ... earth about the sun, are in the sesquiplicate proportion of their mean ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Poincare conjecture
    ... centre of the Earth revolves in an annual movement. ... " The 10th argument,taken from the periodic times, is as follows; ... apparent movement of the Sun has 365 days which is the mean measure ... Below Newton discussed *phenomema*. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: ASTRO SAA: Aristarchus and the heliocentric hypothesis
    ... But from the sun ... they are always seen direct," Newton ... heliocentrism was in the Psammites, by Archimedes, ...     wherein it appears, as a consequence of assumptions made, that the ...
    (sci.astro.amateur)