O'Barr: The purpose of science.
Gerald L. O'Barr
Gerald L. O'Barr (globarr)
The very purpose of science, and the research
associated with science, is to make our reality
understandable. When things are seen that do not
make sense, then science is used to make them make
sense. This is what progress is all about.
These things that do not make sense might all be
facts, but just because they are known facts do not
mean they make sense. Whether it is the sun that
comes up every morning, or tides, any fact can be
mysterious or unexplainable. Science is used to
bring understanding and comprehension to our minds so
that they are no more mysterious.
Take a pencil that 'bends' when you stick it into
a glass of water. What is observed is a fact, but
just because it is an observed fact, it is physically
impossible. Water does not have the power to bend a
pencil as it appears to be bent. So we expect an
explanation. We demand an explanation! And if
anyone cannot give an explanation that is
understandable, then we know that they do not know
what they are talking about!
And if in SR, there are things that are mysterious
or impossible, we expect an explanation! We do not
get an explanation from SR experts. We get even more
mystery than what originally existed. It does not
make sense. Therefore, it is obvious that SR experts
do not know what they are talking about.
There is no such thing as a 4-D spacetime
continuum, as a physical cause of anything. Thus, SR
expert are fooling us. They are mainly fooling
themselves.
Take an inertial reference line upon which two
observers are moving with relative velocity between
them. Let a photon pass along this line from one end
to the other. The actual relative velocities between
this one photon with each of these observers have to
be different. Any and all independent observers will
confirm this. Logic demands it. Yet, in SR, these
two observers will each measure the velocity of the
photon going by them to be the same. This is not
logical. This is not reasonable. This is a mystery
that needs to be explained and justified. And no SR
expert has the means to explain it.
The only thing that an SR expert can say is that
this is what will be measured. No physical
explanation can be given. Thus, SR is a weak theory.
It has no power to explain. It is, in fact, a sick
theory. It needs to be replaced! QED
Thanks for reading.
Gerald L. O'Barr <globarr...@yahoo.com>
+ Remove 3 dots for e-mail.
P.S. In LET, there are full and complete
explanations that are offered. And everything is
done in simple 3-D space. There is no mystery at all
as to why these moving observers measure what they
measure.
Now I do not really care if SR experts like their
own theory. I think they like it because it is
mysterious and impossible. They have the right to be
as dumb as they might want to be. But they are
unscientific when they are not willing to admit the
reasonableness of LET. They are being, in fact,
evil, not to allow LET to be seen as a scientific
theory that gives explainable and correct predictions
for our reality!
David Canzi -- non-mailable
Gerald L. O'Barr <glo...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>O'Barr: The purpose of science.
>Gerald L. O'Barr (globarr)
>
> The very purpose of science, and the research
>associated with science, is to make our reality
>understandable.
Science doesn't have a purpose. Scientists have purposes. One purpose
that motivates some scientists is understanding reality. One purpose
that probably doesn't motivate any scientist anywhere in the world
is making reality understandable by you.
--
David Canzi
Bilge
>Gerald L. O'Barr (globarr)
>
> The very purpose of science, and the research
>associated with science, is to make our reality
>understandable.
Therein lies your first misconception. The purpose of doing
science is to try and understand nature. If nature is hard to
understand, you'll just have to get over it, since nature isn't
going to change for your sake. Studying science is about making
what scienists discover about nature understandable.
>When things are seen that do not make sense, then science is used
>to make them make sense. This is what progress is all about.
Therein lies your second misconception. Scientists don't decide
for nature what makes sense. Nature tells scientists what makes
sense. Progress is all about being able to overcome preconceptions
and accept what nature did rather than insist that nature cave in
to your misconceptions.
> These things that do not make sense might all be
>facts, but just because they are known facts do not
>mean they make sense.
Therein lies your third misconception. If you find that facts
don't make sense, the answer is not to try and change the facts
to fit your idea of what makes sense, but to change your idea
of what makes sense to fit the facts.
>Whether it is the sun that comes up every morning, or tides, any
>fact can be mysterious or unexplainable.
Especially if you want to play scientist without having studied any
science.
[*usual drivel snipped*]
Dirk Van de moortel
"Bilge" <dub...@radioactivex.lebesque-al.net> wrote in message news:slrnd9teot...@radioactivex.lebesque-al.net...
Neat.
http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Gems/Misconceptions.html
Dirk Vdm
Gerald L. O'Barr
David Canzi wrote:
>In <1117688742.668121.284...@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
>Gerald L. O'Barr <globarr...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>O'Barr: The purpose of science.
>>Gerald L. O'Barr (globarr)
>>
>> The very purpose of science, and the research
>>associated with science, is to make our reality
David Canzi wrote:
>Science doesn't have a purpose.
O'Barr comments:
This is certainly true in that science itself is
not an entity that has a choice. But science is used
by man. And as used by man, science is used for a
purpose. We used science to go to the moon. That
was a purpose!
David Canzi wrote:
>Scientists have purposes.
O'Barr comments:
Correct! And so this fact can be extended to
having a purpose for science! Men do not generally
do things unless there is a purpose.
David Canzi wrote:
>One purpose that motivates some scientists is
>understanding reality.
O'Barr comments:
Exactly! It used to be what motivated all
scientists. Today, too many scientists have had
their brains rotted out!
David Canzi wrote:
>One purpose that probably doesn't motivate any
>scientist anywhere in the world is making reality
>understandable by you.
O'Barr comments:
Well, thanks a lot! But I do have a few friends
in science. It is important to them that I
understand what they are doing. And I have a few
sons that do scientific research.
I am not really sure that anyone needs to help me
in understanding things in science. As if anyone
cares, I was the first to design an infinitely
variable, positive drive system. My name did not get
attached to such a system, but it was my system, and
it is now in use. We even have a tank that uses this
system, but I believe some of this might still be
classified.
I notice that you did not address any of the
science that was included in my post? Why was this?
Is it because you do not understand the science? I
am sorry about that. Maybe next time you will take
the trouble to talk about the science being
discussed, and not all this small talk!
Thanks for reading.
Gerald L. O'Barr ( globarr )
Dirk Van de moortel
"Gerald L. O'Barr" <glo...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:1117747918....@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
[snip]
> Well, thanks a lot! But I do have a few friends
> in science. It is important to them that I
> understand what they are doing. And I have a few
> sons that do scientific research.
I think that your friends and your sons have been playing
a very cruel game with you.
You better watch out.
Dirk Vdm
Bill Hobba
"David Canzi -- non-mailable" <dmc...@remulak.ads.uwaterloo.ca> wrote in
message news:d7m98o$jon$1...@rumours.uwaterloo.ca...
> In article <1117688742.6...@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
> Gerald L. O'Barr <glo...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >O'Barr: The purpose of science.
> >Gerald L. O'Barr (globarr)
> >
> > The very purpose of science, and the research
> >associated with science, is to make our reality
> >understandable.
>
> Science doesn't have a purpose.
Absolutely - science is a methodology based on correspondence with
observation/experiment.
> Scientists have purposes.
Absolutely.
> One purpose
> that motivates some scientists is understanding reality. One purpose
> that probably doesn't motivate any scientist anywhere in the world
> is making reality understandable by you.
True. Which is why people need to expend effort to understand it.
Thanks
Bill
>
> --
> David Canzi
David Canzi -- non-mailable
Gerald L. O'Barr <glo...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> I notice that you did not address any of the
>science that was included in my post? Why was this?
An argument of a thousand lines is refuted at a single step.
--
David Canzi
Gerald L. O'Barr
Bilge wrote:
>Gerald L. O'Barr (globarr) wrote:
>>O'Barr: The purpose of science.
>> Gerald L. O'Barr (globarr)
>>
>> The very purpose of science, and the research
>> associated with science, is to make our reality
>> understandable.
Bilge wrote:
> Therein lies your first misconception. The purpose
>of doing science is to try and understand nature. If
>nature is hard to understand, you'll just have to
>get over it, since nature isn't going to change for
>your sake. Studying science is about making what
>scienists discover about nature understandable.
O'Barr comments:
Thank you, Bilge, for saying what I said. It is
always nice to be in support of each other. Your
statement: 'The purpose of doing science is to try
and understand nature' is perfect. And your
statement: 'Studying science is about making what
scienists discover about nature understandable' is
perfect! All of these are important points! Thanks,
thanks, thanks! And the purpose of all this
understanding is to allow us to control our reality,
to improve our lives, and the lives of others. Thank
you for your insights!
O'Barr wrote:
>> When things are seen that do not make sense, then
>> science is used to make them make sense. This is
>> what progress is all about.
Bilge wrote:
> Therein lies your second misconception. Scientists
>don't decide for nature what makes sense. Nature
>tells scientists what makes sense. Progress is all
>about being able to overcome preconceptions and
>accept what nature did rather than insist that
>nature cave in to your misconceptions.
O'Barr comments:
It has been my experience, that in all fields of
science, we have always found that nature is as
logical as it can be, once we come to fully
understand her. Of course, nature often does not
make much sense when we are ignorant of what nature
is fully doing. Thus, those who say they believe in
SR, as if it were a religion, they are ignorant of a
lot of what nature really is, and thus nothing makes
sense to them. But you knew that already.
O'Barr wrote:
>> These things that do not make sense might all be
>>facts, but just because they are known facts do not
>>mean they make sense.
Bilge wrote:
> Therein lies your third misconception. If you find
>that facts don't make sense, the answer is not to
>try and change the facts to fit your idea of what
>makes sense, but to change your idea of what makes
>sense to fit the facts.
O'Barr comments:
Only a man who is defeated would say such a silly
thing. Why should we give up understanding nature,
when we ourselves are part of nature? I have not yet
seen anything that would cause me to give up. Why
are you so helpless that you are now ready to just
let things be, no matter how silly they might seem to
be? That is not the way an intelligent man would
react! Shame on you! I have full faith that when
all is known, everything will make perfect sense!
In fact, this will be one key to the fact that we
know everything, when everything begins to make
sense. You have lost the power of being an
intelligent being!
O'Barr wrote:
>> Whether it is the sun that comes up every morning,
>> or tides, any fact can be mysterious or
>> unexplainable.
Bilge wrote:
> Especially if you want to play scientist without
>having studied any science.
>
> [*usual drivel snipped*]
O'Barr comments:
I appreciate the compliment. It is easy to tell
when a man is defeated, both by what he says, and by
what he does not say. For example, I said the
following in the post you are responding to:
*************************************
Take an inertial reference line upon which two
observers are moving with relative velocity between
them. Let a photon pass along this line from one end
to the other. The actual relative velocities between
this one photon with each of these observers have to
be different. Any and all independent observers will
confirm this. Logic demands it. Yet, in SR, these
two observers will each measure the velocity of the
photon going by them to be the same. This is not
logical. This is not reasonable. This is a mystery
that needs to be explained and justified. And no SR
expert has the means to explain it.
**************************************
Now I said more than this, but your failure to
address any of the important things that were
presented by me shows to me that you have agreed to
all these point. And you have agreed to these points
because there is no way you can argue against them.
So I appreciate your last response. It tells me that
you are again defeated, and all you can do is pick at
unimportant points that have little to do with the
substance I am presenting. Therefore, I thank you
again, Bilge, for being wise enough not to fight
against the prick! You know a lost cause when you
see it, and LET is superior to SR in all ways. You
are a loser! And SR is a loser. And you know it!
Harry
SNIP
> *************************************
> Take an inertial reference line upon which two
> observers are moving with relative velocity between
> them. Let a photon pass along this line from one end
> to the other. The actual relative velocities between
> this one photon with each of these observers have to
> be different. Any and all independent observers will
> confirm this. Logic demands it. Yet, in SR, these
> two observers will each measure the velocity of the
> photon going by them to be the same. This is not
> logical. This is not reasonable. This is a mystery
> that needs to be explained and justified. And no SR
> expert has the means to explain it.
> **************************************
I had not seen that. O'Barr, what do you mean with "SR expert"?
I find that hard to believe, as I know of several SR experts who are dead
now, and who did explain it in peer reviewed journals.
For example Builder, who in 1957 showed how SRT can be extended to
accelerated frames.
Harald
Harry
What did you think that you refuted? The use of the word "science" in a
context where "scientists" would be better?
Hey you know, he even made a logical error when speaking about logic:
"just because it is an observed fact, it is physically impossible".
Nevertheless, most readers are intelligent enough to auto-correct such
errors, just as they do wioth spellng errors. ;-)
Harald
Gerald L. O'Barr
Harry <harald.vanlin...@epfl.ch> wrote:
>David Canzi wrote:
>> Gerald L. O'Barr <globarr...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>> I notice that you did not address any of the
>>> science that was included in my post? Why was
>>> this?
David Canzi wrote:
>> An argument of a thousand lines is refuted at a
>> single step.
Harald wrote:
>What did you think that you refuted? The use of the
>word "science" in a context where "scientists" would
>be better?
Gerald L. O'Barr <globarr...@yahoo.com> comments:
There is no need to argue. If he had anything
scientific to say, he would have said it. It is a
waste of time with most of these people. They like
to make comments, where comments are upon some small
point of disagreement as to how to say something.
But in terms of substance, they hide. LET is able to
explain why different moving observers can get the
same measured velocity of c, but SR cannot do this.
SR can only say that that is just the way it is. And
this of course is right, but it is not an
explanation! Thus, SR is a weak theory, especially
it is weak when it is compared to LET.
Harold wrote:
>Hey you know, he even made a logical error when
>speaking about logic:
> "just because it is an observed fact, it is
>physically impossible". Nevertheless, most readers
>are intelligent enough to auto-correct such errors,
>just as they do wioth spellng errors. ;-)
Gerald L. O'Barr <globarr...@yahoo.com> comments:
Thanks for trying to stick up for me. But I assume
that things, even facts, if they are not understood,
then they are impossible to us, impossible to our
understanding. I do not and I did not mean anything
more than this. Until we correctly understand
things, then it is impossible for us to explain it!
It is impossible for us know all the whys and hows.
To put it more carefully, one could say: 'just
because it is an observed fact, this does not change
the fact that it is still impossible for
us to physically explain it.'
Thanks for reading.
Gerald L. O'Barr <globarr...@yahoo.com>
Gerald L. O'Barr
Harry <harald.vanlin...@epfl.ch> wrote:
>Gerald L. O'Barr <globarr...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
SNIP
O'Barr wrote:
>> *************************************
>> Take an inertial reference line upon which two
>> observers are moving with relative velocity
>> between
>> them. Let a photon pass along this line from one
>> end to the other. The actual relative velocities
>> between this one photon with each of these
>> observers have to be different. Any and all
>> independent observers will confirm this.
>> Logic demands it. Yet, in SR, these two
>> observers will each measure the velocity of the
>> photon going by them to be the same. This is not
>> logical. This is not reasonable. This is a
>> mystery that needs to be explained and justified.
>> And no SR expert has the means to explain it.
>> **************************************
Harald wrote:
>I had not seen that. O'Barr, what do you mean with
>"SR expert"? I find that hard to believe, as I know
>of several SR experts who are dead now, and who did
>explain it in peer reviewed journals. For example
>Builder, who in 1957 showed how SRT can be extended
>to accelerated frames.
O'Barr comments:
The problem being presented has nothing at all to
do with acceleration. I fully support the concept
that SR can handle acceleration. LET can do it, so
SR has to be able to do as well, being the same math.
The problem being presented up above is simple:
it is clear that logic requires the actual velocity
of light past these two observers to be different,
but yet they both each measure the same velocity for
the same photon. Thus, an answer must be provided to
explain this lack of logic. And SR cannot do this!
SR math only says it happens, it does not tell us why
it happens! Only LET provides to us a physical
understanding of this situation!
Thus, it is obvious that SR is a very weak theory.
It does not have the power to explain. In fact, it
can not explain at any time what actually happens.
All it can do is tell us what is measured! Thus, it
is weak! Only LET has the power to tell us what is
happening.
Bilge
>Bilge wrote:
>>Gerald L. O'Barr (globarr) wrote:
>>>O'Barr: The purpose of science.
>>> Gerald L. O'Barr (globarr)
>>>
>>> The very purpose of science, and the research
>>> associated with science, is to make our reality
>>> understandable.
>
>Bilge wrote:
>> Therein lies your first misconception. The purpose
>>of doing science is to try and understand nature. If
>>nature is hard to understand, you'll just have to
>>get over it, since nature isn't going to change for
>>your sake. Studying science is about making what
>>scienists discover about nature understandable.
>
>O'Barr comments:
> Thank you, Bilge, for saying what I said.
I didn't say what you said. I deliberately eliminated the strawman
you set up.
>It is always nice to be in support of each other. Your
>statement: 'The purpose of doing science is to try and
>understand nature' is perfect.
>And your statement: 'Studying science is about making what scienists
>discover about nature understandable' is perfect! All of these are
>important points! Thanks, thanks, thanks! And the purpose of all this
If you think those are important points, why do you refuse to
study science?
[...]
>Bilge wrote:
>> Therein lies your second misconception. Scientists
>>don't decide for nature what makes sense. Nature
>>tells scientists what makes sense. Progress is all
>>about being able to overcome preconceptions and
>>accept what nature did rather than insist that
>>nature cave in to your misconceptions.
>
>O'Barr comments:
> It has been my experience, that in all fields of
>science, we have always found that nature is as
>logical as it can be, once we come to fully
>understand her.
Unfortunatel, because you failed to follow through on the
point above and decided to not study science, you are never
going to see just how much sense nature makes.
[...]
>Bilge wrote:
>> Therein lies your third misconception. If you find
>>that facts don't make sense, the answer is not to
>>try and change the facts to fit your idea of what
>>makes sense, but to change your idea of what makes
>>sense to fit the facts.
>
>O'Barr comments:
> Only a man who is defeated would say such a silly
>thing.
Seriously? Which facts do you think you can change? Does nature
consult you regularly to see if you'd like something about the
universe changed?
>Why should we give up understanding nature,
``We'' haven't. You have.
David Canzi -- non-mailable
Harry <harald.v...@epfl.ch> wrote:
>
>"David Canzi -- non-mailable" <dmc...@remulak.ads.uwaterloo.ca> wrote in
>message news:d7ob7i$pll$1...@rumours.uwaterloo.ca...
>> In article <1117747918....@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com>,
>> Gerald L. O'Barr <glo...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> > I notice that you did not address any of the
>> >science that was included in my post? Why was this?
>>
>> An argument of a thousand lines is refuted at a single step.
>
>What did you think that you refuted? The use of the word "science" in a
>context where "scientists" would be better?
Once we remove the illusion that science has an intrinsic purpose
separate from the purposes of human beings, we can see that what
Gerald describes as "the purpose of science" is just the purpose
Gerald wants science to serve.
What Gerald wants does not create any obligation for others.
--
David Canzi
Gerald L. O'Barr
>>Bilge wrote:
>>>Gerald L. O'Barr (globarr) wrote:
>>>>O'Barr: The purpose of science.
>>>> Gerald L. O'Barr (globarr)
>>>>
>>>> The very purpose of science, and the research
>>>> associated with science, is to make our reality
>>>> understandable.
>>
>>Bilge wrote:
>>> Therein lies your first misconception. The
>>>purpose of doing science is to try and understand
>>>nature. If nature is hard to understand, you'll
>>>just have to get over it, since nature isn't going
>>>to change for your sake. Studying science is
>>>about making what scienists discover about nature
>>>understandable.
>>
>>O'Barr comments:
>> Thank you, Bilge, for saying what I said.
Bilge wrote:
> I didn't say what you said. I deliberately
>eliminated the strawman you set up.
O'Barr comments:
I am glad that you can see that there are things I
can do. Too bad it has nothing to do with this
situation. You are like a little kid. You refuse to
talk about the important points. You just run away
and hide in all these unimportant comments about the
purposes of science, rather than talk about the
problems that exist in SR. You are not worth talking
to. You are a shame to every person on this net.
Might I suggest that you re-read the original post
and talk about the science, not how you can play word
games.
O'Barr wrote:
>>It is always nice to be in support of each other.
>>Your statement: 'The purpose of doing science is to
>>try and understand nature' is perfect.
>>And your statement: 'Studying science is about
>>making what scientists discover about nature
>>understandable' is perfect! All of these are
>>important points! Thanks, thanks, thanks! ...
Bilge wrote:
> If you think those are important points, why do
>you refuse to study science?
O'Barr comments:
And like the kid you are, you are again running
away from the problem. You try to make it my problem
(with absolutely no proof), even here where we agree
with each other. Well go ahead, Bilge, and run away
just as fast as your two little legs can take you.
Don't you dare address the actual points being made!
SR cannot and has not been able to explain why c is
always a measured constant, even when logic demands
that the actual velocity is different! Therefore, SR
is a weak theory, and can no longer be the accepted
theory for us today. LET has no problems with such a
simple request! Only SR fails, and it fails totally!
It is a mess!
[...]
>>Bilge wrote:
>>>Therein lies your second misconception. Scientists
>>>don't decide for nature what makes sense. Nature
>>>tells scientists what makes sense. Progress is all
>>>about being able to overcome preconceptions and
>>>accept what nature did rather than insist that
>>>nature cave in to your misconceptions.
>>
>>O'Barr comments:
>> It has been my experience, that in all fields of
>>science, we have always found that nature is as
>>logical as it can be, once we come to fully
>>understand her.
Bilge wrote:
> Unfortunatel, because you failed to follow through
>on the point above and decided to not study science,
>you are never going to see just how much sense
>nature makes.
O'Barr comments:
I evidently make too much sense for you to be able
or willing to address it, Bilge! You have a theory,
SR, that has no common sense. It has no physical
explanations. It only tells us what is measured, it
cannot and has never been able to tell anyone why
things are measured the way they are measured. It
cannot tell us why c is a constant, no matter how
fast we move this way or that way. It cannot tell us
anything as to what actually happens. It can only
tell us what will be measured to have happened.
For all these things, SR is a weak theory. It is
especially weak when compared to LET, which does
provide us with explanations. And you will not
address these questions. No, all you want to do is
talk about what you think are my personal weaknesses,
and this keeps you from having to address the science
that is at hand! You are a shame to everyone!
[...]
>Bilge wrote:
>>>Therein lies your third misconception. If you find
>>>that facts don't make sense, the answer is not to
>>>try and change the facts to fit your idea of what
>>>makes sense, but to change your idea of what makes
>>>sense to fit the facts.
>>
>>O'Barr comments:
>> Only a man who is defeated would say such a
>>silly thing.
Bilge wrote:
> Seriously? Which facts do you think you can
>change? Does nature consult you regularly to see if
>you'd like something about the universe changed?
O'Barr comments:
You try to infer that I am trying to change the
facts of nature, while all I have said was that we
need to change or increase our knowledge of nature so
that the facts of nature become logical and
understandable. But whether you misunderstood any of
this or not, you have no right to ignore the science
being presented. You are only running away from
this, and you make yourself to be a sick individual
for making so much out of nothing, just so you can
ignore the subject.
O'Barr wrote:
>>Why should we give up understanding nature,
Bilge wrote>
> ``We'' haven't. You have.
O'Barr comments:
It is obvious that you do not understand as simple
of a thing that SR cannot provide to us an
understanding of why c is a constant. And this is
not anything bad in itself. But what is bad is that
you are not willing to accept the fact that LET can
do this, while SR cannot. Shame, shame, shame!
harry
Nor did I intend to suggest that. I referred to the label "SR expert",
as I made clear in my question.
SNIP irrelevant comments.
Oops! You did not reply my question..
Harald
harry
Hmm, here you missed the boat. A main purpose of many scientists,
perhaps even the majority the famous ones, corresponded to that of
O'Barr. Thus he did not merely describe what he wants but what should
be described as one objective that science stands for. Of course
scientists have other objectives as well, notably that of making
predictions.
Harald
geraldk...@hotmail.com
Most theorists, beginning with Newton, make too much fuss out of what
the observer can and cannot measure.The distinctive illusion generated
by finite light speed can be resolved by applying a heliocentric
solution between the orbits of the Earth and Jupiter to the illusion
of anomalous motion of the Io. The whole problem of source dependency
originates with Newton's failure to grasp the difference between
distances calculated between planetary orbits and distances calculated
from the Sun *.
http://www.is.wayne.edu/mnissani/a&s/light2.gif
Newton simply ,if unethically, mixed the insight of Ole Roemer on
finite light distance with Keplerian planetary motion ** and the
resulting mangling of astronomical insights may have played well in the
17th century,it not presents a rather large millstone for everyone in
the 21st century.
Relativity,as a homocentric expansion of Newtonian quasi-geocentricity,
has really nothing to do with natural phenomena and is more or less a
concept to shift control from the highly intuitive aspects of astronomy
to theoretical speculative approaches,what Newton did not mangle and
destroy relativity finished off.
This forum is a testament to Newton rather than any later concept
(aether of relativity),and those who favor one concept over another are
really wasting their time and are being pretensious with material that
does not suffer the incompetent to approach it.
* "Some inequalities of time may arise from the Excentricities of
the Orbs of the Satellites; [etc.]... But this inequality has no
respect to the position of the Earth, and in the three interior
Satellites is insensible, as I find by computation from the Theory of
their Gravity."
http://dibinst.mit.edu/BURNDY/OnlinePubs/Roemer/index.html
** "Then the primary planets, by radii drawn to the earth, describe
areas no wise proportional to the times; but that the areas which they
describe by radii drawn to the sun are proportional to the times of
description.
For to the earth they appear sometimes direct, sometimes stationary,
nay, and sometimes retrograde. But from the sun they are always seen
direct, and to proceed with a motion nearly uniform, that is to say, a
little swifter in the perihelion and a little slower in the aphelion
distances, so as to maintain an equality in the description of the
areas. This a noted proposition among astronomers, and particularly
demonstrable in Jupiter, from the eclipses of his satellites; by the
help of which eclipses, as we have said, the heliocentric longitudes of
that planet, and its distances from the sun, are determined."