XPost: sci.physics, comp.lang.prolog   
   From: PointedEars@web.de   
      
   Ross Finlayson wrote:   
   > notions like Kepler's banishment of epicycles and as   
   > after about Bode's law   
      
   The _Titius–Bode_ law (1766/1772) was proposed much later than Kepler (16th   
   century), obviously.  And to date nobody understands why it approximately   
   works for the Sol System:   
      
      
      
   > then as for inverse square the Keplerian geometric way   
      
   Yes, Kepler's idea was that the "harmonics of the world" would be   
   represented by inscribed Platonic solids to determine the distances between   
   the orbits of the Planets.  However, he was scientist enough to accept   
   eventually that, given Tycho Brahe's detailed observations, the circular   
   orbits that resulted from that would not work: ellipses were required.   
      
      
      
   > then that the Newtonian "System of the World" after   
   > the Keplerian "System of the World" or Harmonisches Mundi   
      
   _/harmonices mundi/_ (Latin for "_harmonics_ of the world")   
      
   > after the Muslim "System of the Heavens"   
      
   Doubtful.  Kepler was a devout Christian who sought to discover/understand   
   "God's design of the Universe".   
      
   > and that, that, in the solar system today,   
   > the force vector of gravity always points at the   
   > source not the image,   
      
   What is that supposed to mean?   
      
   > so, it's quite Newtonian   
      
   Only approximately, and that is where General Relativity fills the gap in   
   our understanding.  So far, only GR can explain, and predict very precisely,   
   the additional motion of the perihelion of orbits as, 200 years after   
   Newton, eventually become measurable with the orbit of Mercury.   
      
   > and even Galilean the current state of the solar system,   
      
   No.   
      
   > while it is yet so that space-contraction-linear and   
   > space-contraction-rotational are in effect,   
      
   Nonsense.   
      
   > as with regards to a notion like "fall-gravity" of course.   
   >   
   > I.e., Einstein's later "attack on Newton" is a matter   
   > of mechanics itself as much as about relativity and   
   > mass-energy-equivalency, getting into why the gyroscopic   
   > effects as of the kinematic up after "pseudo"-momentum   
   > and the space-contraction-rotational, has that Einstein's   
   > second and much-less-well-known mass-energy-equivalency   
   > derivation, about the centrally symmetric, helps establish   
   > the concern overall as, "un-linear", for a potentialistic   
   > theory and sum-of-potentials and revisiting the Lagrangian   
   > the severe abstraction the mechanical reduction.   
      
   Pseudo-scientific word salad.   
      
   Sadly, your mind is still very confused.   
      
   F'up2 sci.physics.relativity   
   --   
   PointedEars   
      
   Twitter: @PointedEars2   
   Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)