On Jan 8, 4:02*pm, Andrew Smallshaw wrote:
On 2011-01-08, Androcles wrote:



"Andrew Smallshaw" wrote in message
. ..
| On 2011-01-07, Androcles wrote:
|
| *"An observer who is sitting eccentrically on the disc
| K' is sensible of a force which acts outwards in a radial direction" --
|
| Nobody is ever thrown off a roundabout radially.
|
Would you care to explain why you snip the attribution?
Or even why you snip text at all?
Is it to deliberately confuse others or just because you are an idiot?

Try reading any guide on netiquette. *No one needs to read the same
stuff over and over, particuarly when it is half baked rubbish such
as this.

Now, do you have a substantive reply or are your ad hominem arguments
an admission you don't have one. *For that matter, try explaining
the difference between an overly simplistic mathematical model
which point masses with a more thorough treatment that handles the
forces within realistic, non-point masses. *Those are the forces
the observer directly feels and is what Einsteind was getting at.

--
Andrew Smallshaw


Here is the statement which is supposed to link Kepler's proposals for
variable orbital speed and elliptical orbital geometry with
experimental sciences,at least as Isaac Newton saw it -

'PHÆNOMENON IV.'
"That the fixed stars being at rest, the periodic times of the five
primary planets, and (whether of the sun about the earth, or) of the
earth about the sun, are in the sesquiplicate proportion of their mean
distances from the sun. This proportion, first observed by Kepler, is
now received by all astronomers; for the periodic times are the same,
and the dimensions of the orbits are the same, whether the sun
revolves about the earth.." Isaac Newton

What Isaac was trying to do with Kepler's 'periodic times argument' is
make the Ra/Dec framework a common denominator for observations and
modeling which may sound fine to a theorist or those who predict and
compute celestial paths based on the calendar system,after all,we can
predict when a lunar or solar eclipse occurs as a date within a
calendar system but as this technique runs everything off right
ascension,basically trying to force the Earth's orbital motion into
the calendar framework,what might look a good idea will soon start to
show cracks which will turn into canyons.

There is a lovely intimacy to all this that is far removed from the
screaming that goes on here in these forums and even though I am not
an empiricist, I can see that even for Einstein,the relationship
between Newton's and Kepler's work was more important than what the
world thought of him,in some ways he redeems himself that way -

http://books.google.ie/books?id=oiED...ge&q&f= false

Far from lying,I think Einstein's generation just got fed up with the
system inherited from Newton and they had good reason to as the
'predictive' element of Newton's system is the misuse of the calendar
system.Now I realize that mathematicians would rather die a thousand
deaths than deal with interpretative astronomy where all this gets
sorted out but seemingly their is a natural intransigence anyway to
alter judgments when the whole point of the exercise was to shift
emphasis away from the geometrical language of astronomy to a less
accurate treatment by forces,masses,ect.