|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
Theory explained in 3 parts
On Saturday, 16 September 2017 12:18:37 UTC+2, Gerald Kelleher wrote:
On Saturday, September 16, 2017 at 6:51:26 AM UTC+1, Chris.B wrote: You too get a chance to explain the opinion (theory) how universal attraction between objections or fluids and objects (tides/moon) acts for both the fall of an apple and orbital motion of the planets using the original assertions of Newton. Get it out of your system but mark well there is a good reason the Brit contributors never respond to you and your histrionics. Again, if you have something to say about the historical and technical details then do it now or remain with conformist views and the mediocrity that breeds it. This is not a platform for your squaking but if you have to do it then restrict it to this thread. I have never knowingly squaked at anyone! ;-) The onus of proof of any assertion is on the oddball. Consider yourself nominated. You do the maths. Newton could. What's your excuse? |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
Theory explained in 3 parts
On Saturday, September 16, 2017 at 6:33:18 PM UTC+1, Chris.B wrote:
The next few threads, when I post them , do not invite those who can't explain their own opinions so get on with it. Newton asserted a proposal based on mutual attraction and this is fine until you have to place it in an astronomical setting. Now go ahead and present the graphics and all the imaging that is currently available to support his contention that the fall of an apple scales all the way up to orbital dynamics. If you want to be someone's else's dog then that is okay but you certainly achieved what you aimed for. |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
Theory explained in 3 parts
On Saturday, 16 September 2017 20:03:54 UTC+2, Gerald Kelleher wrote:
If you want to be someone's else's dog then that is okay but you certainly achieved what you aimed for. Okay, I'll do the [simple] maths: IA + E = 1461^[HBS] Ignorant Assertion + Evasion = Your Habitual Bull****. QED? |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
Theory explained in 3 parts
On Sunday, September 17, 2017 at 9:27:18 AM UTC+1, Chris.B wrote:
On Saturday, 16 September 2017 20:03:54 UTC+2, Gerald Kelleher wrote: If you want to be someone's else's dog then that is okay but you certainly achieved what you aimed for. Okay, I'll do the [simple] maths: IA + E = 1461^[HBS] Ignorant Assertion + Evasion = Your Habitual Bull****. QED? If that is the best you can do then stick to your constant attempt to be accepted but I can read these mutt comments in the Telegraph or Mail comment sections any day. Empirical followers deal in protest politics and talk down society as a means to distinguish themselves but that is merely noise. The fact is that what Newton tried to do is interesting and involves the incorporation of RA/Dec into the idea of mutual attraction that some call 'gravity', however, once his idiosyncratic opinions are identified, people see them as disruptive. I can do no more with you. |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
Theory explained in 3 parts
On Sunday, September 17, 2017 at 2:43:48 AM UTC-6, Gerald Kelleher wrote:
The fact is that what Newton tried to do is interesting and involves the incorporation of RA/Dec into the idea of mutual attraction that some call 'gravity', however, once his idiosyncratic opinions are identified, people see them as disruptive. "people" Anyone besides yourself yet has come to see what Newton did as "disruptive"? John Savard |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
Theory explained in 3 parts
You all have your chance to present diagrams, graphics and imaging to support the assertions of Newton for the first time since he presented an opinion (theory) of scaled up mutual attraction. It hasn't been done before -
"The demonstrations throughout the book [Principia] are geometrical, but to readers of ordinary ability are rendered unnecessarily difficult by the absence of illustrations and explanations, and by the fact that no clue is given to the method by which Newton arrived at his results. The reason why it was presented in a geometrical form appears to have been that the infinitesimal calculus was then unknown, and, had Newton used it to demonstrate results which were in themselves opposed to the prevalent philosophy of the time, the controversy as to the truth of his results would have been hampered by a dispute concerning the validity of the methods used in proving them. He therefore cast the whole reasoning into a geometrical shape" Rouse Ball 1908 Neither cowardice nor stupidity can manage to do anything other than affirm what that mathematician correctly identifies so this thread is designed specifically to keep the usual nuisances from interfering further and exposes the corrupt nature of everyone else. |
#27
|
|||
|
|||
Theory explained in 3 parts
On Sun, 17 Sep 2017 10:53:30 -0700 (PDT), Gerald Kelleher wrote:
You all have your chance to present diagrams, graphics and imaging to support the assertions of Newton for the first time since he presented an opinion (theory) of scaled up mutual attraction. It hasn't been done before - You're not offering any a damn thing other than a chance to "entertain" you... to be your "whore". NO THANK YOU! -- Email address is a Spam trap. |
#28
|
|||
|
|||
Theory explained in 3 parts
On Sunday, September 17, 2017 at 9:45:34 PM UTC+1, Bill wrote:
On Sun, 17 Sep 2017 10:53:30 -0700 (PDT), Gerald Kelleher wrote: You all have your chance to present diagrams, graphics and imaging to support the assertions of Newton for the first time since he presented an opinion (theory) of scaled up mutual attraction. It hasn't been done before - You're not offering any a damn thing other than a chance to "entertain" you... to be your "whore". NO THANK YOU! I am giving you all a chance to render into graphics or images the notion where mutual attraction converts into astronomical observations and orbital dynamics in Newton's words - "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, or the earth about the sun." Newton It doesn't matter if someone has a partial clue or none at all, Newton's unethical form of double modelling can't be represented and only serves the purpose of demonstrating deficiencies in the actual approaches of the original Sun centered astronomers. Cowardice and stupidity is going to restricted to this thread if no attempt is made to explain your own theories/opinions as followers of Newton. |
#29
|
|||
|
|||
Theory explained in 3 parts
On Sunday, September 17, 2017 at 10:41:40 PM UTC+1, Gerald Kelleher wrote:
On Sunday, September 17, 2017 at 9:45:34 PM UTC+1, Bill wrote: On Sun, 17 Sep 2017 10:53:30 -0700 (PDT), Gerald Kelleher wrote: You all have your chance to present diagrams, graphics and imaging to support the assertions of Newton for the first time since he presented an opinion (theory) of scaled up mutual attraction. It hasn't been done before - You're not offering any a damn thing other than a chance to "entertain" you... to be your "whore". NO THANK YOU! I am giving you all a chance to render into graphics or images the notion where mutual attraction converts into astronomical observations and orbital dynamics in Newton's words - "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, or the earth about the sun." Newton It doesn't matter if someone has a partial clue or none at all, Newton's unethical form of double modelling can't be represented and only serves the purpose of demonstrating deficiencies in the actual approaches of the original Sun centered astronomers. double modelling? -- what's that about? .... and besides, wasn't there a whole bunch of diagrams and graphics already included in his last book, "the system of the world", (the one that he wrote after he were dead?) Cowardice and stupidity is going to restricted to this thread if no attempt is made to explain your own theories/opinions as followers of Newton. |
#30
|
|||
|
|||
Theory explained in 3 parts
On Sun, 17 Sep 2017 14:41:37 -0700 (PDT), Gerald Kelleher wrote:
I am giving you all a chance to render into graphics or images the notion where mutual attraction converts into astronomical observations and orbital dynamics in Newton's words So you alone can adjudicate the issue! You're just a manipulative jerk. -- Email address is a Spam trap. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
plane of ecliptic better explained Chapt14 Dirac's Ocean of Positrons= Space (and tells us what gravity is) #106 Atom Totality theory 5th ed. | Archimedes Plutonium[_2_] | Astronomy Misc | 0 | December 2nd 11 08:33 AM |
Pluto's 17 degree tilt explained as magnetic electric motorinstability? #158; 3rd ed; Atom Totality (Atom Universe) theory | Archimedes Plutonium[_2_] | Astronomy Misc | 1 | August 19th 09 07:49 PM |
magnetic fields of planets explained by Positron-Space-gravity #140;3rd ed; Atom Totality (Atom Universe) theory | Archimedes Plutonium[_2_] | Astronomy Misc | 1 | August 12th 09 06:37 AM |
"The Dawning of Gauge Theory" - supersymmetry breaking explained | Jack Sarfatti | Astronomy Misc | 0 | May 20th 07 09:48 PM |
E-Paper. Variable Star Brightness Explained by Ballistic Theory. | HenriWilson | Astronomy Misc | 289 | May 19th 04 01:36 AM |