Re: Anomalous geniuses of physcis

On Feb 8, 8:28 am, Koobee Wublee <koobee.wub...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Feb 7, 6:14 am, PD <TheDraperFam...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:





On Feb 5, 12:15 pm, Albertito wrote:
Let us see how actual geniuses of physics can find
brilliant solutions to famous anomalies:

1. Accelerated expansion of the universe? -> Dark energy.
2. Galaxy rotation curves? -> Dark matter.

    What's next?

3. Pioner anomaly? ->   "Dark Cuckoo Box"?.
4. Flyby anomaly?   ->   "Dark Flies"?.
5. Increase of the Astronomical Unit? -> "Dark Handle"?.

Why all this nonsense?. Because GR must be preserved
at any cost. That's all.

That's not quite how it works.
I'll give you an example.
You see Newton's 2nd law: F=ma.
You try applying it to a chair on casters by pushing the chair across
the floor. You observe that, sure enough, the chair accelerates an
amount that is commensurate with the force you applied. That is, you
get about the right a=F/m.
But then you see the chair stop after it rolls for about 30 feet. This
makes you scratch your head, because you're no longer pushing the
chair, and according to F=ma, when the force stops there should be no
further acceleration, which means the chair should continue with the
same velocity without change, which isn't what was observed.

Now, someone who was suspicious that Newton was being revered as a
religious idol MIGHT conclude that F=ma is obviously wrong. But it
MIGHT also be that this is a case of "garbage in, garbage out" and
that you haven't located all the forces acting on the chair. At this
point, some bright fella might mutter something about friction.
Nevertheless, someone who is VERY suspicious that Newtonian mechanics
is a religion MIGHT then cry that friction is just being invented to
preserve F=ma at all costs.

This is an excuse of yours.  Let's see.

1.  GR cannot explain Dark Energy.  The introduction of the
Cosmological constant (negative mass density in the vacuum) can act
like Dark Energy only under the Newtonian law of gravity.  In GR,
particularly with the FLRW metric, the Cosmological constant does
nothing.

2.  GR cannot explain Dark Matter other than ordinary gravitating
matter that is dark and cold.

3.  GR cannot explain Pioneer's anomaly.

GR is based on the geodesic model where each geodesic path follows the
least amount of accumulated spacetime or proper time.  This is utterly
nonsense right from the very start.  This means GR is broke right from
the very start but not Newton's (F = M A).  <shrug>- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Petr Beckmann was right,Newton's take on Keplerian motion is in the
language of geometry and even if he manipulated Kepler's insights
towards his own idiosyncratic view,at least it is possible to see
where and how he did it.Great making large sweeping statements about
F= ma but it is all in the technical details when compared to
Kepler's method and insight.

"PHÆNOMENON 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." Newton


The above statement is the sound of the AU being forged (with a
twist),it creates an impression that Kepler worked off mean distances
from the Sun and the Earth and applied them to the other planets.I do
not expect anyone here to grasp how annual orbital times transfer to
orbital distances from the Sun ,mainly because nobody seems to enjoy
how Kepler actually approached the matter by comparing orbital times
and then transfering them to distances.In short,there is no geocentric/
heliocentric orbital equivalency of " (whether of the sun about the
earth, or) of the earth about the sun,".

"But it is absolutely certain and exact that the ratio which exists
between the periodic times of any two planets is precisely the ratio
of the 3/2th power of the mean distances, i.e., of the spheres
themselves; provided, however, that the arithmetic mean between both
diameters of the elliptic orbit be slightly less than the longer
diameter. And so if any one take the period, say, of the Earth, which
is one year, and the period of Saturn, which is thirty years, and
extract the cube roots of this ratio and then square the ensuing ratio
by squaring the cube roots, he will have as his numerical products the
most just ratio of the distances of the Earth and Saturn from the sun.
1 For the cube root of 1 is 1, and the square of it is 1; and the cube
root of 30 is greater than 3, and therefore the square of it is
greater than 9. And Saturn, at its mean distance from the sun, is
slightly higher than nine times the mean distance of the Earth from
the sun." Kepler

Although I thoroughly enjoy the remarkable wheeling and dealing of
Newton in his attempt to mesh terrestrial ballistics with planetary
motion,I do so only by comprehending what is correct and much of what
he did was not.Rather than condemn dynamicists or tell them they are
wasting their time and energy,the new tool of modern
imaging,sequencial imaging or time lapse footage causes Newton's
approach to disintegrate before your eyes.The very idea that Kepler
was picking up traces of the solar system's galactic orbital motion
via heliocentric planetary motion should make some difference to
dynamicists ,I find it astonishing but that is coming from someone who
has little concern for a causual agenda.




.