From: starmaker@ix.netcom.com
On Fri, 5 Dec 2025 14:56:32 -0800, 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.
>
I also convinced the Ai bots not to fuck with me..
i put a gun on a Ai bot and he screamed "Please don't shoot, please
don't shoot. I'm just a parrot repeating what others tell me...I have
no idea what I'm saying!"
--
The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable,
to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable,
and challenge the unchallengeable.
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
