Science > Physics > Absolute/relative space as opposed to Copernican heliocentricity
| Topic: |
Science > Physics |
| User: |
"oriel36" |
| Date: |
28 Feb 2006 07:29:19 AM |
| Object: |
Absolute/relative space as opposed to Copernican heliocentricity |
Newton misjudged what plotted retrogrades represent for they were
common to both Ptolemaic and Copernican astrononomers.The ptolemaics
rendered the plotted retrogrades as periodic looping motions seen from
a stationary Earth while Copernicans accurately concluded that it is
the faster Earth in an inner orbital circuit overtakung the slower
moving outer planets -
http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/image/0112/JuSa2000_tezel.gif
Newton made a mess of it by wrongly assuming that retrogrades and
Ptolemaic looping motions are the same thing when clearly the
Ptolemaics had extracted observed planetary motion from the stellar
background just as the Copernican heliocentrists did however theorists
still fail to grasp the Newtonian misjudgement that led to this nasty
quasi-geocentric outlook -
"For to the earth planetary motions appear sometimes direct, sometimes
stationary, nay, and sometimes retrograde. But from the sun they are
always seen direct.." Isaac Newton
http://members.tripod.com/~gravitee/phaenomena.htm
For those who care,and it most certainly ties in with absolute/relative
space, this is one of the rare cases where a correct fact emerges with
no roots in Copernican heliocentricity and its later Keplerian
refinement.
Put it another way,you are all wasting your time in the most cruel
fashion.Anyone who wishes to admire the correct Copernican reasoning
can extract it from the Copernicus, Galileo , Kepler and Rheticus -
http://homepages.wmich.edu/~mcgrew/chain.htm
Then and only then can the Newtonian absolute/relative error can be
tackled.
.
|
|
| User: "Sam Wormley" |
|
| Title: Re: Absolute/relative space as opposed to Copernican heliocentricity |
28 Feb 2006 08:16:16 AM |
|
|
oriel36 wrote:
Newton misjudged what plotted retrogrades represent for they were
common to both Ptolemaic and Copernican astrononomers.The ptolemaics
rendered the plotted retrogrades as periodic looping motions seen from
a stationary Earth while Copernicans accurately concluded that it is
the faster Earth in an inner orbital circuit overtakung the slower
moving outer planets -
Kelleher is wrong here.
When I look at anything else you've written or published, Kelleher,
I have noted your lack of understanding of both classical (Newtonian)
and modern physics. Therefore, I'm not likely to waste my time with
your nonsense.
.
|
|
|
| User: "oriel36" |
|
| Title: Re: Absolute/relative space as opposed to Copernican heliocentricity |
28 Feb 2006 01:42:42 PM |
|
|
Sam
Time lapse footage of Jupiter and Saturn is now an invaluable way to
appreceate the original Copernican insight and even the antecedent
Ptolemaic view -
http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/image/0112/JuSa2000_tezel.gif
It is also an excellent way for physicists to finally come to grips
with Newton's wayward conception of absolute/relative space as a
quasi-geocentric way to approach planetary motion,having no roots in
Copernican heliocentricity nor Ptolemaic geocentricity.
The upshot of Ptolemaic geocentricity and Copernican heliocentricity is
that planetary motions are seen directly from Earth and even though
there is a dramatic difference in conclusions between Ptolemaics and
Copernican astronomers they never doubted that the planets were
seperate to the stellar background.
Newton took a drastic shortcut (and he had his reasons) and lumped
plotted retrogrades in with Ptolemaic geocentric conclusions which is
unfair to those people and even worse for the insights of Copernicus
and Kepler.
"For to the earth planetary motions appear sometimes direct, sometimes
stationary, nay, and sometimes retrograde. But from the sun they are
always seen direct, " Isaac Newton
So Sam,it is not a matter of incorrectness but of becoming fluent in
the astronomical methods of Copernican heliocentrists,Ptlomemaic
geocentrists and their shared data of plotted retrogrades.Theorists,at
least the genuine ones are due a huge boost once they become accustomed
to the productive methods of Copernicus and Kepler in their description
of planetary motions seen from an orbitally moving Earth rather than
retaining the celestial sphere/calendar clockwork system of Newton.
No use in saying that it is an enormous task for I certainly feel the
weight of things bearing down in this,a most crucial era in the
investigation of natural phenomena.There you go Sam,that is as much as
I have complained over the years.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sam Wormley" |
|
| Title: Re: Absolute/relative space as opposed to Copernican heliocentricity |
28 Feb 2006 02:25:29 PM |
|
|
oriel36 wrote:
Sam
Time lapse footage of Jupiter and Saturn is now an invaluable way to
appreceate the original Copernican insight and even the antecedent
Ptolemaic view -
...and it's Newtonian Mechanics that *precisely* predicts where those
planets appear with respect to the background sky for any particular
observing point on the surface of the earth! Get a life Kelleher.
.
|
|
|
| User: "oriel36" |
|
| Title: Re: Absolute/relative space as opposed to Copernican heliocentricity |
01 Mar 2006 07:24:20 AM |
|
|
To spare theorists from being caught up in Newton's clockwork
calendrically driven celestial sphere is no small endeavor .Considering
that the 17th century working principles are highly unsuitable for 21st
century data where cosmological motion and structure is concerned along
with geological and climatological investigations based on the accurate
relationship between axial and orbital motion.
It was fine to guess that the Earth's shape deviates from a perfect
sphere off the axis of rotation,it is quite another thing to consider
the mantle dynamics of that deviation along with providing a more
accurate mechanism for motion of the component fractured plates,one of
which you are presently standing on.In context of 21st century data,the
easiest thing to consider is latitude dependent differential rotation
in the mantle however this only as a brief illustration of moving away
from notions of 17th century theorists and their clockwork notions.
There is so much productive work ahead updating ideas without hammering
things through the empirical method for that now only appears like a
mantra for those who have nothing better to do.The intutive abilities
,which everyone has in some measure,naturally enjoy reasoning about
natural phenomena without the constraints of programmed thinking just
as those abilities enjoy art ,music and faith and it must take an
enormous effort to stiffle the ability to work with the intuitive
faculty and substitute it will 'facts' which may or may not be
appropriate.
Newton's idea that retrogrades can be resolved by jumping to the Sun is
a 'fact' without any reference to the original Copernican reasoning or
the Keplerian refinement as an example of where facts can lead people
astray and waste their valuable time and energies.At least theorists
stand a chance of finally coming to grips with what absolute/relative
space is in terms of his mangling of the Copernican resolution for
retrogrades or maybe they never reach that level where there realise
that great destruction follows the ad hoc Newtonian solution for
Keplerian orbital geometry.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mike" |
|
| Title: Re: Absolute/relative space as opposed to Copernican heliocentricity |
28 Feb 2006 07:41:52 AM |
|
|
oriel36 wrote:
Newton misjudged what plotted retrogrades represent for they were
common to both Ptolemaic and Copernican astrononomers.The ptolemaics
rendered the plotted retrogrades as periodic looping motions seen from
a stationary Earth while Copernicans accurately concluded that it is
the faster Earth in an inner orbital circuit overtakung the slower
moving outer planets -
http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/image/0112/JuSa2000_tezel.gif
Newton made a mess of it by wrongly assuming that retrogrades and
Ptolemaic looping motions are the same thing when clearly the
Ptolemaics had extracted observed planetary motion from the stellar
background just as the Copernican heliocentrists did however theorists
still fail to grasp the Newtonian misjudgement that led to this nasty
quasi-geocentric outlook -
"For to the earth planetary motions appear sometimes direct, sometimes
stationary, nay, and sometimes retrograde. But from the sun they are
always seen direct.." Isaac Newton
Why do you think this is a "nasty quasiu-geocentric outlook"? Newton is
absolutely correct, I think the problem is you are to biased to digest
it.
http://members.tripod.com/~gravitee/phaenomena.htm
For those who care,and it most certainly ties in with absolute/relative
space, this is one of the rare cases where a correct fact emerges with
no roots in Copernican heliocentricity and its later Keplerian
refinement.
What fact? You have presented no fact.
Put it another way,you are all wasting your time in the most cruel
fashion.Anyone who wishes to admire the correct Copernican reasoning
can extract it from the Copernicus, Galileo , Kepler and Rheticus -
http://homepages.wmich.edu/~mcgrew/chain.htm
Then and only then can the Newtonian absolute/relative error can be
tackled.
No, you do not understand the issues involved. Kinematically, both
Ptolemaic and Copernican systems are equivalent. Only through dynamics
a choice of one over the other can be made. Newtonian mechanics makes
an obvious choice. General Relativity casts doubts on NM choice by
offering an alternative dynamical view.
You offer no alternative dynamical view, nevertheless you want to
challange. You are not resting on the shoulders of giants. You lie
underneath their shoes.
Mike
.
|
|
|
| User: "oriel36" |
|
| Title: Re: Absolute/relative space as opposed to Copernican heliocentricity |
28 Feb 2006 01:24:16 PM |
|
|
The working principles by which Newton overlaid the empirical ballistic
agenda on Keplerian motion is indeed quasi-geocentric or what amounts
to the same thing - retaining the stelar background for planetary
heliocentric motion along with the " Sun around the Earth" -
"PH=C6NOMENON 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." Isaac Newton
http://members.tripod.com/~gravitee/phaenomena.htm
Most here imagine that they gained a new set of working principles from
the early 20th century guys but none of you ever left Newton's ad hoc
solution for Keplerian motion.I have indeed offered to restructure the
material to allow theorists to find more productive avenues but they
seem content to dither around with the erroneous Newtonian conception
for the resolution of plotted retrogrades leading to his idiosyncratic
conceptions of absolute/relative space.
I assure you that it takes a great deal of effort to wade through
botched astronomical conceptions and do the neccessary forensics and
particularly that amazing way the calendrically driven system replaced
the astronomical method of keeping axial and orbital motion seperate.
You have no reason to complain,Newton may have misjudged or misused
astronomical insights but he was successful in burying the details
under a blizzard of linguistic fireworks and he manipulation of the
original Keplerian statement is impressive,at least up to a point -
"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
There is too much talk of the shoulder of giants and not enough focus
on the technical details of what went wrong and how to set it right
without starting from scratch.The ad hoc Newtonian solution which set
empiricism in motion now exists as an albatross for it generates more
and more ad hoc solutions with no roots anywhere and no attachment to
the wider cosmos.For my part,I have done the hard yards and now take a
less hostile view of theorists,most of which are victims of a very
clever man.Considering how he worked Kepler's insight into a view which
is extremely difficult to detect for its error,I have a great deal of
sympathy towards those who waste their lives trying to juggle poor
Newtonian working principles.
"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."
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
