From: starmaker@ix.netcom.com
On Sat, 06 Dec 2025 14:57:50 -0800, The Starmaker
wrote:
>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!"
I would tell a parrot joke but that would just be repeating what
someone else said.
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
