From: starmaker@ix.netcom.com   
      
   On Fri, 5 Dec 2025 15:22:16 -0800, Ross Finlayson   
    wrote:   
      
   >On 12/05/2025 02:56 PM, Ross Finlayson wrote:   
   >> On 12/03/2025 06:30 PM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:   
   >>> 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 became 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   
   >>>   
   >>   
   >> It reminds me of what Sedov writes in "Macroscopic Theory ...",   
   >> since there's always a gyroscopic term, and a continuity law.   
   >>   
   >> The idea of Einstein's attack on Newton and the centrally symmetric,   
   >> makes for the derivation of Einstein's "second mass-energy equivalency",   
   >> for example as from "Out of My Later Years",   
   >> since it's established that a usual Newton's laws after Galileo's   
   >> (equal/opposite motion/rest), has that those are un-realized ideals,   
   >> after immovable/unstoppable, about motion, and since Zeno.   
   >>   
   >>   
   >> Perhaps you're familiar with Magnus effect, which intends to   
   >> describe why rotating/spinning bodies don't obey the usual   
   >> Galilean parabolic trajectory, then perhaps you're familiar   
   >> with that there are well-known empirical effects not explained   
   >> by the usual idea of Magnus effect, helping not explain why   
   >> bodies imparted rotation essentially are imbued "heft".   
   >>   
   >>   
   >> So, ..., the "un-linear", ....   
   >>   
   >>   
   >> About the solar system, the force vector of apparent gravity   
   >> is clearly not according to light-speed, since the force vector   
   >> of apparent gravity always points at the source the body itself   
   >> its real position, not the apparent position of the image   
   >> currently arriving. That's well-known of course.   
   >>   
   >> Einstein's theory with "motion is relative" (i.e., to zero)   
   >> then the L-principle (light's speed being a constant), here is   
   >> for something like Aristotle's "no un-moved mover" yet "circular   
   >> movement is eternal", and, for the fact that all measurements of   
   >> light speed as of the terrestrial, have seen various sorts of   
   >> satellite setups like Lense-Thirring and Parker, to help explain   
   >> why then the notion of aether-theory making for light's speed as   
   >> just "half velocity of absolute motion" helps explain why Einstein's   
   >> theory of relativity with "relative motion" and "L-principle: a   
   >> finite constant" live in one theory along with fall-gravity.   
   >>   
   >> motion absolute <-> light-speed = half   
   >> motion relative <-> light-speed constant   
   >>   
   >> You know, giving a reason why physical constants are what they are, ....   
   >>   
   >>   
   >> Of course you know that "dark matter" and "dark energy" have long   
   >> ago falsified usual cosmological models, yet, "Magnus heft" has   
   >> long ago falsified Galilean motion.   
   >>   
   >> Then, for the linear, it's quite well Galilean, which you'll notice   
   >> also makes for a simple Lorentzian, in the linear, as you may imagine   
   >> Einstein also noticed and for the "paradoxes" as he put it of the   
   >> "centrally symmetric", then for things like DesCartes' and Kelbin's   
   >> and for Helmholtz and so on, "spiral-waves", vis-a-vis usual wave   
   >> models, makes for "the un-linear" and "worlds turn".   
   >>   
   >> I'd aver that my usual scrivenings are both _scientific_ and   
   >> a very nutritious _word soup_.   
   >>   
   >> I readily convince the AI bots of these things, including   
   >> quite thoroughly.   
   >>   
   >>   
   >   
   >See, making for free-rotating-frames about space-contraction-rotational,   
   >explains away dark matter, while about the   
   >red-shift bias or red-shift distortion as it's called these   
   >days, instead of needing something like Finlay-Freundlich's   
   >"tired light", instead it's rather as of Fresnel's and light   
   >just going around indeed another aspect of "the un-linear",   
   >explaining away dark energy.   
   >   
   >Otherwise, of course, standard cosmology by standard relativity   
   >theory is merely broken and wrong, ....   
   >   
   >Of course, you will agree that 1) the solar system is in a geodesy   
   >that's always instantaneously evaluated everywhere its orbifold,   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)