On May 8, 11:22 pm, thro...@sheol.org (Wayne Throop) wrote:
> : oriel36 <kelleher.ger...@gmail.com>
> : You live on the surface narrative of a history that was created to
> : make it appear empiricism is a natural extension of astronomy and
> : terrestrial sciences and to be fair, it was once a productive facet
> : for a very short while
> And it's highly productive to this very day. Without newtonian
> mechanics, we wouldn't have a clue what's going on with Saturn's rings,
> to name just one thing among hundreds.
The 'theory of gravity' is pretty much the same as 'global warming
theory' for the latter can answer why floods and droughts happen,why
heatwaves and severe cold snaps happen or indeed any known weather
event can be explained by mentioning global warming and from there
into how humans can control the planet's temperature.No doubt group
conviction substitutes for a lack of individual confidence even when
the individual inherently knows that the path of groupthink is wrong
but goes along with it anyway and that is how holocausts are made.
I really like Edgar Allan Poe's comments on the same issue that found
later expression with Rouse Ball in that nobody could trace the method
that appeared to give the 'theory of gravity' so much influence and
you merely repeat today.To find confident people who can breakaway
from the usual mantras is so difficult yet the fact is that some
people did -
"To explain: The Newtonian Gravity a law of Nature a law whose
existence as such no one out of Bedlam questions a law whose
admission as such enables us to account for nine-tenths of the
Universal phęnomena a law which, merely because it does so enable
us
to account for these phęnomena, we are perfectly willing, without
reference to any other considerations, to admit, and cannot help
admitting, as a law a law, nevertheless, of which neither the
principle nor the modus operandi of the principle, has ever yet been
traced by the human analysis a law, in short, which, neither in its
detail nor in its generality, has been found susceptible of
explanation at all is at length seen to be at every point thoroughly
explicable, provided we only yield our assent to what? To an
hypothesis? Why if an hypothesis if the merest hypothesis if an
hypothesis for whose assumption as in the case of that pure
hypothesis the Newtonian law itself no shadow of ą priori reason
could be assigned if an hypothesis, even so absolute as all this
implies, would enable us to perceive a principle for the Newtonian law
would enable us to understand as satisfied, conditions so
miraculously so ineffably complex and seemingly irreconcileable as
those involved in the relations of which Gravity tells us, what
rational being could so expose his fatuity as to call even this
absolute hypothesis an hypothesis any longer unless, indeed, he
were
to persist in so calling it, with the understanding that he did so,
simply for the sake of consistency in words?" Allan Poe
Poe certainly got it right,when a conviction arises that explains so
much with so little then there is something radically amiss.I traced
the technical details of Newton's 'theory of gravity' which nobody has
ever done before and where its gets its predictive' power from yet
haven't found individuals with confidence and common sense to deal
with it as though it matters,all I see is the usual dreary Newton's
mechanics does this or does that as though that meant something.
On May 9, 3:34 pm, thro...@sheol.org (Wayne Throop) wrote:
> : oriel36 <kelleher.ger...@gmail.com>
> : The 'theory of gravity'
> works, and works well, in astronomy. Neptune, for example.
> Saturn's rings, for another.
The predictive system of Ra/Dec which uses a rotating celestial sphere
to gauge the relationship between different celestial objects and
predicts things like transits and solar/lunar eclipses as days and
dates within the calendar system is a discontinuous system which means
that there is an 11 minute orbital drift between daily and orbital
motions each year and why Uranus did not show up where predicted,the
same with the Equation of Time as that too is a discontinuous system.
The geometric language of astronomy is many,many magnitudes more
complicated and intricate than any software system because its
geometric language does not allow for the same type of reasoning as
programming and it can't be replicated by any program.When readers
come across astronomical software they are simply looking at a program
developed around a watch and a rotating celestial sphere,great if all
you want to do is pinpoint objects or tell when an eclipse will occur
but cannot tell you anything about the cause and effect.
All these trillions of dollars of equipment and contemporary
technological know-how is not worth a damn if you can't use the
information properly or even know what information to look for and
where.You can all probably congratulate yourselves that you are stuck
with the powdered wigs in the late 17th century and their unfortunate
habit of trying to do too much with too little but that merely makes
you dull and dreary.Go ahead and praise the 'theory of gravity' or
even relativity as an outrigger of it but all that represents is a
form of self-deceit of an empirical drone - the most uncool people who
ever lived.
On May 9, 11:01 am, oriel36 <kelleher.ger...@gmail.com> wrote:
> You can all probably congratulate yourselves that you are stuck
> with the powdered wigs in the late 17th century and their unfortunate
> habit of trying to do too much with too little but that merely makes
> you dull and dreary.
Hey, you never know until you try - so failure is something that
happens unless you never do anything. But we remember Newton for what
scientists tried to do and _succeeded_ by building on his triumphs,
not for the failures - and so they *did* succeed, and what they had
was not "too little" for what they *did* achieve.
On May 9, 10:42 am, The Starmaker <starma...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> Did they ask Einstein "Did you just make it up?"
Plenty of people doubted Einstein at first.
But he didn't just make things up - he gave _reasons_ for his
theories; one might not agree that this is how nature would work, but
it was at least a logically consistent and reasonable possibility that
the best explanation for the apparent inconsistency in Maxwell's
equations was that the speed of light was actually a universal
constant, with all of its logical consequences, no matter how bizarre
they might seem from the standpoint of our normal experience.
And his theories have stood the test of time and experiment, which is
why we know now that they were right.,
In message <4FAACCAC.5...@ix.netcom.com>, The Starmaker <starma...@ix.netcom.com> writes
>Wayne Throop wrote:
>> : The Starmaker <starma...@ix.netcom.com>
>> : The rings haven't ...fallen.
>> Nonsense. They are always falling. They simply miss Saturn.
>> Bad aim, perhaps.
>I don't see the Moon falling.
Yes you do, you see it falling all the time. It simply has enough angular momentum that it keeps missing.
>The rocks in Saturn's ring is no different from Earth's moon.
The rings have a different composition to the moon, they are mainly ice. The moon,s composition is unique it seems to be light mantel rocks thrown off by the collision between Earth and Theia.
-- Great Internet Mersenne Prime Search http://www.mersenne.org/prime.htm Livejournal http://brett-dunbar.livejournal.com/ Brett Dunbar
> : The Starmaker <starma...@ix.netcom.com>
> : I don't see the Moon falling.
> Sure you do. Everybody (who looks at the moon) does.
> You're just to blinded by your preconceptions to recognize what it's doing.
Is the universe horizontal or verticle? From where you're standing it
looks like it's falling..
I already mention it's on a merry-go-around, not a ferris wheel.
On May 9, 4:53 pm, thro...@sheol.org (Wayne Throop) wrote:
> I have. The solar system isn't one. For a multitude of reasons,
> for one example, things on a merry go round don't follow Kepler's laws.
In fact, that's Oriel's problem too. He thinks the solar system is
some kind of fancy merry-go-round that *does* let the planets follow
Kepler's laws - fancy gearing on the crytal spheres or something like
that - and this is why our efforts to attribute *gravity* and
*momentum* and all those things to the planets are misguided.
> On May 9, 3:34 pm, thro...@sheol.org (Wayne Throop) wrote:
> > : oriel36 <kelleher.ger...@gmail.com>
> > : The 'theory of gravity'
> > works, and works well, in astronomy. Neptune, for example.
> > Saturn's rings, for another.
> The predictive system of Ra/Dec which uses a rotating celestial sphere
> to gauge the relationship between different celestial objects and
> predicts things like transits and solar/lunar eclipses as days and
> dates within the calendar system is a discontinuous system which means
> that there is an 11 minute orbital drift between daily and orbital
> motions each year and why Uranus did not show up where predicted,the
> same with the Equation of Time as that too is a discontinuous system.
> The geometric language of astronomy is many,many magnitudes more
> complicated and intricate than any software system because its
> geometric language does not allow for the same type of reasoning as
> programming and it can't be replicated by any program.When readers
> come across astronomical software they are simply looking at a program
> developed around a watch and a rotating celestial sphere,great if all
> you want to do is pinpoint objects or tell when an eclipse will occur
> but cannot tell you anything about the cause and effect.
> All these trillions of dollars of equipment and contemporary
> technological know-how is not worth a damn if you can't use the
> information properly or even know what information to look for and
> where.You can all probably congratulate yourselves that you are stuck
> with the powdered wigs in the late 17th century and their unfortunate
> habit of trying to do too much with too little but that merely makes
> you dull and dreary.Go ahead and praise the 'theory of gravity' or
> even relativity as an outrigger of it but all that represents is a
> form of self-deceit of an empirical drone - the most uncool people who
> ever lived.
Oh, sure; and you can tell us why the Earth remains at a relatively
constant distance from the Sun, and why stars appear to move through
the sky en masse, and why the Moon stays at a relatively constant
distance from Earth, and why one side of the Moon constantly faces the
Earth, and why Saturn has rings, and why it seems to circle the Sun
slower than Earth does, all *without* using words like "mass" or
"force" or "momentum" or "time" or "speed" or "direction".
Why don't you just go ahead and do that? You're *absolutely* sure
nobody will understand you and agree with you, is that why you haven't
done it yet? Well, don't you think that *eventually* somebody will?
If nothing else, you should seek credit for originality. Don't think
of it as an effort on your part to convince anyone reading you now,
post your explanation for posterity, so they won't think they thought
of it first.
> On May 9, 10:01 am, oriel36 <kelleher.ger...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On May 9, 3:34 pm, thro...@sheol.org (Wayne Throop) wrote:
> > > : oriel36 <kelleher.ger...@gmail.com>
> > > : The 'theory of gravity'
> > > works, and works well, in astronomy. Neptune, for example.
> > > Saturn's rings, for another.
> > The predictive system of Ra/Dec which uses a rotating celestial sphere
> > to gauge the relationship between different celestial objects and
> > predicts things like transits and solar/lunar eclipses as days and
> > dates within the calendar system is a discontinuous system which means
> > that there is an 11 minute orbital drift between daily and orbital
> > motions each year and why Uranus did not show up where predicted,the
> > same with the Equation of Time as that too is a discontinuous system.
> > The geometric language of astronomy is many,many magnitudes more
> > complicated and intricate than any software system because its
> > geometric language does not allow for the same type of reasoning as
> > programming and it can't be replicated by any program.When readers
> > come across astronomical software they are simply looking at a program
> > developed around a watch and a rotating celestial sphere,great if all
> > you want to do is pinpoint objects or tell when an eclipse will occur
> > but cannot tell you anything about the cause and effect.
> > All these trillions of dollars of equipment and contemporary
> > technological know-how is not worth a damn if you can't use the
> > information properly or even know what information to look for and
> > where.You can all probably congratulate yourselves that you are stuck
> > with the powdered wigs in the late 17th century and their unfortunate
> > habit of trying to do too much with too little but that merely makes
> > you dull and dreary.Go ahead and praise the 'theory of gravity' or
> > even relativity as an outrigger of it but all that represents is a
> > form of self-deceit of an empirical drone - the most uncool people who
> > ever lived.
> Oh, sure; and you can tell us why the Earth remains at a relatively
> constant distance from the Sun, and why stars appear to move through
> the sky en masse, and why the Moon stays at a relatively constant
> distance from Earth, and why one side of the Moon constantly faces the
> Earth, and why Saturn has rings, and why it seems to circle the Sun
> slower than Earth does, all *without* using words like "mass" or
> "force" or "momentum" or "time" or "speed" or "direction".
> Why don't you just go ahead and do that? You're *absolutely* sure
> nobody will understand you and agree with you, is that why you haven't
> done it yet? Well, don't you think that *eventually* somebody will?
> If nothing else, you should seek credit for originality. Don't think
> of it as an effort on your part to convince anyone reading you now,
> post your explanation for posterity, so they won't think they thought
> of it first.
> Go right ahead, feel free.
> Mark L. Fergerson
You know,I marvel at those who are proficient at programming just as I
do at somebody who can hit a golf ball close to a pin,a person playing
a piano or any other person who makes something look easy that I would
struggle over yet when it comes to the type of astronomy that requires
spacial awareness I find it so easy and see how others struggle where
I do not.
The equatorial rings of planets are not the same thing as the moon
orbiting the Earth as the rings run parallel with a planet's equator
while a moon does not besides there are planets with moon's and
equatorial rings such as Uranus where the rings not only wobble but it
is possible to see the planet's quasi-rotation to the central Sun as
the polar coordinates act like a beacon for the East to West motion
as the polar coordinates turn in a circle/cycle to the Sun -
Again,no point in having all this technology if you can't use it and
while you all go around like powdered wigs from the late 17th century
equating the behavior of an object at a human level with the motions
of moons and planets,a more contemporary view is to rearrange
observations with causes and effects arising from imaging
power,planetary comparisons,time lapse footage and normal things like
that instead of tortured wordplays that go nowhere.
It is notable that one reader in this thread accused another of
challenging Newton as though it were a crime and that is where the
vast majority are content to remain,considering I know exactly what
Newton was trying to do ,not just technically,but in the overall
scheme of things ,you don't so much challenge Newton as look at him as
a symbol for compliance and an unthinking mind.
> > On May 8, 5:00 pm, The Starmaker <starma...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> > > Saturn's rings is a result from a planet that exploded into pieces.
> > > Newton didn't know that...
> > If that _were_ true, though, we would have found it out because of
> > what Newton told us.
> > However, I haven't heard of this. Did you just make it up?
> Did they ask Einstein "Did you just make it up?"
In the beginning, God created the heavens and the Earth...
then along came the scientist and said..
"What the fuck is this one earth business?!?" We gotta tweak the numbers!"
And so the mad scientists created a billion earths..and called them..."Super-Earth"s.
Now, every fukin grain of sand that happens to pass a sun is a superearth.
: The Starmaker <starma...@ix.netcom.com>
: In the beginning, God created the heavens and the Earth... then along
: came the scientist and said.. "What the fuck is this one earth
: business?!?" We gotta tweak the numbers!"
: : And so the mad scientists created a billion earths..and called
: them..."Super-Earth"s. : : Now, every fukin grain of sand that happens to pass a sun is a
: superearth. : : No people or blue oceans, no boats, planes or trains... but they
: say...it's "like Earth", or "Earth like"
: http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2012/05/120510-light-super-ea... : : The mendacity...
Yes, you *are* pretty mendacious, aren't you Starmaker?
