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!"   
      
      
   A woman who has a pet parrot also has a problem with her plumbing, so   
   she calls a plumber. While she is waiting for him, she decides she   
   needs some items from the store. She thinks she can probably make it   
   to the store and back before the plumber arrives, so off she goes.   
      
   Shortly after she leaves, the plumber arrives and knocks on the door.   
   From inside, he hears "Who is it"? He replies," It's the plumber".   
      
   He waits a few minutes for the door to open and when it does not, he   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)