"Heliocentrism"

"Rick Sobie" wrote in message
news:Trb5c.806320$X%5.186331@pd7tw2no...
I am not aversed to telling people how it is that you abandon Newton,
because the moon does not spin on its center of mass gravity
as it should , and Einstein would falter if you mentioned the
tides, and he would mumble something about gravitons,
and then Feynman would begin to throw pillows at
Hawking who would begin the head nodding process.

All the while, frame dragging is the cause of the tides,
and if you examine that gravity waves are a form of dark energy,
that ALL elements emit,


Let me ask you a question. If someone were to ask you to
place on a table, weigh and define the position of
the property that causes market systems to
self-tune, could you do it?

Of course not, but that property exists and has
tangible effects that we can observe.

Now you know why dark matter/energy is
so elusive. It is not a tangible object, it's a system
property.


There was a point in time when the universe
self-organized, when it bloomed. The entire
universe did so at the same time.

A Quintessential Introduction to Dark Energy
http://feynman.princeton.edu/~steinh/royal.pdf

http://feynman.princeton.edu/~steinh/



then you can see, that the push
from the gravity waves, is what affects the tides, and
GR and SR are still valid in all reference frames,


And completely useless for understanding anything
that directly effects us. How have those concepts
helped us avoid a storm, or raise a family? How
have they helped us understand each other or
navigate at sea?

and the principle of equalivalence, is preserved.


Space-time evolves. The coincidence problem
in physics makes clear that the universal constants are
not constant. They self-tune as a market does, or as nature
finds the optimum. The laws for all these systems are
the same. When the static and chaotic attractors for
all these systems are in an unstable equilibrium with
each other, the whole becomes greater than the sum
of its parts.

That 'difference' is market forces, dark energy, nature and
intelligence. The source of all structure and creation is
everywhere the same, and nowhere to be found.


Jonathan



This world is not conclusion;
A sequel stands beyond,
Invisible, as music,
But positive, as sound.
It beckons and it baffles;
Philosophies don't know,
And through a riddle, at the last,
Sagacity must go.
To guess it puzzles scholars;
To gain it, men have shown
Contempt of generations,
And crucifixion known.



By Emily Dickinson


s

















"Axel Harvey" wrote in message
om...
"jonathan" wrote:

We choose ideas based on which better predicts the future.
Based on which allows us to find the higher points on our
perceived fitness landscape.

Nematodes and tigers may find it easy to discover the high points of
their fitness landscape, but humans with their impoverished instincts
need to think about it. There must be cases where the choice of a
coordinate system will simplify calculations, and the choice then is
made for mathematical reasons - when a different choice might lead to
equivalent correct predictions while creating unnecessary difficulties
of computation. (I am *not* referring to Copernicus here, just
suggesting a general idea.)

A propos, Albert Einstein and Leopold Infeld wrote in _The_Evolution_
_of_Physics_ (1938):

Can we formulate physical laws so that they are valid for all
C[oordinate] S[ystems], not only those moving uniformly, but also
those moving quite arbitrarily, relative to each other? If this can
be done, our troubles will be over. We shall then be able to apply the
laws of nature to any CS. The struggle, so violent in the early days
of science, between the views of Ptolemy and Copernicus would then be
quite meaningless. Either CS could be used with equal justification.
The two sentences, "the sun is at rest and the earth moves," or "the
sun moves and the earth is at rest," would simply mean two different
conventions concerning two different CS. Could we build a real
relativistic physics valid in all CS; a physics in which there would
be no place for absolute, but only for relative motion? This is indeed
possible!

(End of quotation).