Seven Year WMAP Results

Seven Year WMAP Results
http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmolog.htm#News

25 Jan 2010 - The seven year data sets and papers from WMAP are posted
on LAMBDA. Luckily for me, the default parameters in my Cosmology
Calculator taken from the first year results are still a good fit to all
the data. The image on the right shows a map of the anisotropy of the
Cosmic Microwave Background in the three highest frequency bands
measured by WMAP: 41, 61 and 94 GHz. Click on the thumbnail for a larger
version.

References:
http://wmap.gsfc.nasa.gov/
http://lambda.gsfc.nasa.gov/

http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/CosmoCalc.html

On Jan 26, 5:05*pm, Sam Wormley wrote:
Seven Year WMAP Results
* *http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmolog.htm#News

25 Jan 2010 - The seven year data sets and papers from WMAP are posted
on LAMBDA. Luckily for me, the default parameters in my Cosmology
Calculator taken from the first year results are still a good fit to all
the data. The image on the right shows a map of the anisotropy of the
Cosmic Microwave Background in the three highest frequency bands
measured by WMAP: 41, 61 and 94 GHz. Click on the thumbnail for a larger
version.

References:
* *http://wmap.gsfc.nasa.gov/
* *http://lambda.gsfc.nasa.gov/

* *http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/CosmoCalc.html

That is really,really embarrassing from an organisation (NASA) which
once focused on space adventure.

Tell me Sam,who do you inform in that public organisation,once the
most admired on the planet,that they are chasing rainbows that exist
only in the imagination of mathematicians.

And wherever anyone would be, he would believe himself to be at the
center.Therefore, merge these different imaginative pictures so that
the center is the zenith and vice versa. Thereupon you will see--
through the intellect..that the world and its motion and shape cannot
be apprehended. For [the world] will appear as a wheel in a wheel and
a sphere in a sphere-- having its center and circumference
nowhere. . . " Archbishop Cusa

Men like Cusa,the benefactor of Copernicus,were searching for the
arguments which eventually led to planetary dynamics so how it came to
be that 6 centuries later there is an entire race of numbskulls
positively tripping over themselves to explain the 'every-valid-point-
is-the-center' thingie even though it should horrify anyone with the
slightest shred of intelligence.

Anyone out there who can guess why the wmap signal shows a strong
correlation with the Earth's orbital plane -

"But when you look at CMB map, you also see that the structure that is
observed, is in fact, in a weird way, correlated with the plane of the
earth around the sun. Is this Copernicus coming back to haunt us?
That's crazy. We're looking out at the whole universe. There's no way
there should be a correlation of structure with our motion of the
earth around the sun — the plane of the earth around the sun — the
ecliptic. That would say we are truly the center of the universe." An
empiricist trying to understand the wmap data

'Big Bang' is a logical conclusion of the Ra/Dec framework which has
infected everything since Flamsteed jumped to the wrong conclusion.

On Jan 26, 8:06*pm, oriel36 wrote:

Go back to sci.relativity and devise those wordplays which entertain
you and your buddies,after all,it is all you have.

Oriel "One Trick" Kelleher calling the kettle black? yawn

On Jan 26, 10:40*am, oriel36 wrote:
On Jan 26, 5:05*pm, Sam Wormley wrote:



Seven Year WMAP Results
* *http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmolog.htm#News

25 Jan 2010 - The seven year data sets and papers from WMAP are posted
on LAMBDA. Luckily for me, the default parameters in my Cosmology
Calculator taken from the first year results are still a good fit to all
the data. The image on the right shows a map of the anisotropy of the
Cosmic Microwave Background in the three highest frequency bands
measured by WMAP: 41, 61 and 94 GHz. Click on the thumbnail for a larger
version.

References:
* *http://wmap.gsfc.nasa.gov/
* *http://lambda.gsfc.nasa.gov/

* *http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/CosmoCalc.html

That is really,really embarrassing from an organisation (NASA) which
once focused on space adventure.

Tell me Sam,who do you inform in that public organisation,once the
most admired on the planet,that they are chasing rainbows that exist
only in the imagination of mathematicians.

And wherever anyone would be, he would believe himself to be at the
center.Therefore, merge these different imaginative pictures so that
the center is the zenith and vice versa. Thereupon you will see--
through the intellect..that the world and its motion and shape cannot
be apprehended. For [the world] will appear as a wheel in a wheel and
a sphere in a sphere-- having its center and circumference
nowhere. . . " Archbishop Cusa

Men like Cusa,the benefactor of Copernicus,were searching for the
arguments which eventually led to planetary dynamics so how it came to
be that 6 centuries later there is an entire race of numbskulls
positively tripping over themselves to explain the 'every-valid-point-
is-the-center' thingie even though it should horrify anyone with the
slightest shred of intelligence.

Anyone out there who can guess why the wmap signal shows a strong
correlation with the Earth's orbital plane -

"But when you look at CMB map, you also see that the structure that is
observed, is in fact, in a weird way, correlated with the plane of the
earth around the sun. Is this Copernicus coming back to haunt us?
That's crazy. We're looking out at the whole universe. There's no way
there should be a correlation of structure with our motion of the
earth around the sun — the plane of the earth around the sun — the
ecliptic. That would say we are truly the center of the universe." An
empiricist trying to understand the wmap data

'Big Bang' is a logical conclusion of the Ra/Dec framework which has
infected everything since Flamsteed jumped to the wrong conclusion.

The WMAP map is an 'equal area' Mollweide projection. Note that
the same projection of the Earth in the above noted reference site
shows that any place other than central Africa is distorted, and
those places other than C. Africa, especially those places near the
pole are greatly distorted. So it is critical that 'what 'space' of
the
universe one places at the center of this projection is crucial to
what is distorted and what is not.

Regardless how one cuts it, the 'official' WAMP team is using a
distorted map to study the dipole anisotropy.

In other words; not only is the WAMP team mistaking the map with
the territory, it's using a really distorted map.

My posts in the thread titled 'A simple Q, but not a simple A' in this
newsgroup may help in alleviating some of the conundrums that you
may have. Furthermore, this subject of the dipole anisotropy is
addressed in detail in my treatise titled: The Search for Reality and
the Truths.

So hang in there, and don't let the 'little minds' get you down.

D.Y. Kadoshima

On Mon, 1 Feb 2010 18:38:05 -0800 (PST), wrote:

Regardless how one cuts it, the 'official' WAMP team is using a
distorted map to study the dipole anisotropy.

Actually, they aren't using a map projection at all. The data that
people are working with is an array of numeric values- signal(RA, dec),
with the native gridding determined by the instrument. The decision to
use any particular projection to produce an image for release has
nothing at all to do with how the actual data gets processed by those
using it for research.
_________________________________________________

Chris L Peterson
Cloudbait Observatory
http://www.cloudbait.com

On Feb 2, 3:38*am, wrote:

So hang in there, and don't *let the 'little minds' get you down.

D.Y. Kadoshima

There are no such thing as 'little minds' and if you refer to
empiricists who follow Newton, well, they don't bother me apart from
the fact that their knowledge killing ideologies which have been
temporarily dominant for 3 centuries are on the wane.The direction
change will be away from ideologies which hold your attention and you
consider important to more satisfying things like why we experience
the daylight/darkness cycle,an experience which relies on an accurate
value for daily rotation ,why we experience the seasons which relies
on the specifics of orbital motion in tandem with daily rotation,the
internal rotational mechanism behind planetary shape/crustal motion
and evolution and many things like that.

The guys in the late 19th and early 20th centuries took it for granted
that Newton's agenda was sacrosanct,at least the agenda centered
around the ideology that experimental sciences can be transfered
directly into the celestial arena just as the original one had used
the predictive convenience of Ra/Dec to bridge the difference between
planetary dynamics and solar system structure with experimental
sciences.I have gone out of my way to demonstrate that while
investigators,especially in England,had been productively attempting
to link planetary dynamics with terrestrial effects,Newton short
circuited this approach by using an elaborate scheme or hoax built on
Flamsteed's equatorial coordinate system by attempting to force the
orbital dynamic of the Earth into the calendar based right ascension.I
even suggested that rather than scrap the entire agenda,it is possible
to bypass it by looking at things from a 1668 perspective,sort of a
'system restore' to a very unstable situation we have inherited -

http://books.google.com/books?id=RyB...0dayes&f=false

Anyone can see how these men were looking at things such as the tides
and planetary dynamics inherent in the 'equation of time' and that is
absolutely fine but what happened 20 years after this is
unconscionable -the attempt to rope the great astronomers and their
insights into the experimental method by gross distortions and crude
conclusions.

The astronomy of planetary dynamics and their terrestrial effects is
spectacular with the aid of modern imaging which distinguishes it from
the original empirical hoax which tried to bypass interpretation and
go straight from observation into modelling/predictions by using a
hypothetical 'absolute space' for modelling and observations within
the Ra/Dec system as 'relative space'.I have found that followers of
Newton neither know nor care how he got his elaborate scheme up and
running at the price of destroying the works of the great astronomers
in structural and timekeeping astronomies.

As far as I am concerned the worst has past after the recent attempt
to force through a conclusion based on carbon dioxide as a global
temperature dial has failed or rather,the success of modern
communication systems in preventing such a hideous conclusion based on
fear as a weapon for social policies and laws,what remains is to
revisit the original hoax where Newton forced a conclusion between
experimental science and planetary dynamics which never worked and led
to the worst excesses of speculation the planet has ever known.

On Feb 1, 7:39 pm, Chris L Peterson wrote:

On Mon, 1 Feb 2010 18:38:05 -0800 (PST), wrote:
Regardless how one cuts it, the 'official' WAMP team is using a
distorted map to study the dipole anisotropy.

Actually, they aren't using a map projection at all. The data that
people are working with is an array of numeric values- signal(RA, dec),
with the native gridding determined by the instrument. The decision to
use any particular projection to produce an image for release has
nothing at all to do with how the actual data gets processed by those
using it for research.

I’m sure C. L. Peterson knows some of this stuff I state
below, but there are some critical issues that he and
mainline cosmology do not even consider.

The CMBR was predicted by Alpher, Herman, and Gamov,
and they maintained that this should uniform. The team of
Drs. Wilkinson (for whom the MAP was renamed WMAP),
Roll, and Pebbles, led by Dr. Robert H. Dicke was already
looking for this when they were beaten to its discovery
when Penzias and Wilson serendipitously ‘found’ the ‘static
noise’ in the signals from all quadrants (in every direction)
of outer space that Penzias and Wilson could not explain.
Nevertheless, subsequent studies indicated that the CMBR
is not uniform, with some claiming that is a dipole (with one
side greater than the other), whereas others claimed
the CMBR to be a quadrupole (i.e., a pattern with 2 high
sides and 2 low sides).
Dr. George Smoot (a graduate student of Dr. P.J.E. Pebbles
at this particular time) had a special interest in the CMBR
because Dr. Pebbles predicted the CMBR to be a dipole.
The dipole anisotropy was confirmed by Smoot, and
positively verified by the COBE Project that preceded the
WMAP.
Dr. Smoot made a lot of predictions of the nature and
dynamic properties the Local Group of Galaxies based on
the dipole anisotropy findings of the COBE project that do
have a great impact on the nature and properties of the
universe. Mainline science does not accept some of his
conclusions, because it still prefers to ‘use the snake-oil
approach to cosmology’.

The important issue that I would like to bring up is that
the WAMP team seems to have lost their focus on the prime
reason for the WAMP.
This was the find and determine the DIPOLE ANISOTROPY
(asymmetric) properties of the CMBR and the impact of this
on our understanding of the universe.

Perhaps the finer resolution afforded by the WMAP over the
COBE probe blinded the WMAP team to concentrate on the
little details so much that they cannot see the ‘forest for
the trees’.

The NASA seems to me, to be concentrating on the 'ripples'
within the CMBR and how isotropic (uniform) the CMBR
apparently is, and other such details that are important,
but not as important as the dipole anisotropy and the exact
nature of the asymmetry.

Anyway; the original Y2003 report was summarized by the
team (not me) as:

"...the geometry you learned in high school applies over
the largest distances in the universe," and some other
stuff.

This (correctly in the philosophy that I follow) implies
that the mathematics of General Relativity (i.e.,
non-Euclidean Geometry) does not apply to the understanding
of the universe!

The Y2006 report dropped this sentence and amended the
others, and declared, quote:

The universe is flat.

(So does this mean that space is not curved as maintained
by Einstein and Relativity?)

The universe is 13.7 billion years old.

(The WMAP team seems to have averaged the distance/
velocity/age measurements of the Hubble Law that
indicates the universe is ~8-12 billon years old, and the
stellar evolution theory that suggests the universe is
~15-18 billion years old.
Is the 13.7 billon value true, and derived from WMAP data,
or just a chicken s--t way out?)

The Hubble constant is 73.5+/- 3.2 (km/sec)/Mpc if only the
WMAP data is considered; estimated as 70.8 (km/sec)/Mpc
If combined with other cosmological data and the tolerance
Is +/- 1.6 if the universe is spatially flat, but this
uncertainty Is +/- 4 if not.

(Again I say this a lot of BS to just comply with the
‘screwed up map’ of modern cosmology that Dr Pebbles
stated is a snake-oil approach. Cosmology extended the
‘exclusion zone’ in which Hubble Law does not apply from
the extremities of the Milky Way to the extremities of the
Local Group of Galaxies as more was learned, and some
expanded the ‘exclusion zone’ to extend out the extremities
of the Local Cluster of Local Groups.
I maintain that the ‘exclusion zone’ within which the Hubble
Law does not apply must extend out to the extremities of
the known universe. Excluding the Hubble Law means that
the age of the universe is modeled by the stellar evolution
theory, and is roughly 15-18 billion years old. The
importance of this is addressed in my manuscript.)

The content of the universe is:
4% Atoms, 23% Cold Dark Matter, and Dark Energy.

(Again I say BS. The content of the universe is the real
physical matter [mass, stuff, i.e., atoms, isotopes, free
electrons, nuclei, etc.] AND all the nonphysical qualities
that humans cannot understand.
This does no include the Cold Dark Matter or Dark Energy,
that are just artifacts due to placing credence in the
Philosophy of Idealism. I expose the very silly idea that
there even is a need for Dark matter/energy as pure BS!
The whole need for Dark Matter and/or Dark Energy is
due to not truly understanding true Newtonian Mechanics
and the truth of Newton’s Law of the Universal Mutual
Gravitational Attraction [that mainline science managed
to screw up], and mistaking the map with the territory.)

And now the WMAP team gives credibility to inflation (i.e.,
the rate of expansion of the infant universe just after the
Big Bang exceeded the speed of light), and some other
pure BS, and a lot of self back patting based on these silly
ideas.

I justify this notion that the Hubble Law does not apply to
the understanding of the nature of the universe, that any
notion of any inflation is unnecessary if the astrophysicists
correctly employ any notion of the relativity of time during
the ‘first 3 minutes after the Big Bang’; and that the
neutrinos are nonphysical forces, not massless particles
in my treatise; but mostly if the ideas of Dr. Smoot are
verified to the extent that the WMAP is capable, it will
also demonstrate that:

There is a center (of mass) to the universe, and that the
Solar System, so the Earth just lucked out and is very, very
close (in cosmological terms) to this point in the universe
that is also the point in space of the Big Bang.


D.Y. Kadoshima

On Feb 2, 1:14*am, oriel36 wrote:

There are no such thing as 'little minds'

First of all, I would like to correct an impression that I may have
left on the readers of this newsgroup with the words 'little minds'.

As I stated in another thread in response to a post by Uncle Al:

There are those that are smart and those that are not.
There are many that are very smart, and those very few that
are exceptionally smart.
And all make mistakes!
Then there are those that are so dumb that they think they are
smart.

It’s this last group to which I was referring.

So to continue:

A wise old sage said:

1. To find the truths, one must verify the ones you have.
2. The first step to knowledge is understanding the meaning of
the words.
3. The truth that you can put into words and pictures is not the
absolute truth.

So I postulate (i.e., state without further justification in the
vernacular of physics) that there a

1. The Conditional truths, that are true under a specific set of
conditions and/or during a specific event at a particular point
in time, but false under others.
2. The Relative truths, that are true from a particular point of view
and/or a specific frame of reference, but untrue from others.
3. The Generalized truths, that are statistically (mathematically)
more probable to be true than not (i.e., 'educated guesses').
4. The Fundamental truths, that are the underlying truths upon
which all the other truths are based, and that are true all of the
time, under all conditions, and within or from any and all
perspectives, points of view, and/or frames of reference.

I see by your post that you have ABSOLUTELY no idea what
Newton meant by ‘absolute, true and mathematical time’; and
More relevant to this post, ‘absolute space and relative space’.
Please do not interpret the emphasis on the word absolute as
an attempt to belittle you. Your interpretation of the word
absolute is just correct and valid as Newton’s, but what I’m
trying to do is to point out that your interpretation does not
apply in Newtonian mechanics.

I am searching for the truths, and I feel that pointing out the
dogmas within mainline science greatly assists others to
understand the truths I have found. That is; Newton did not use
the common dictionary definition, or that used mainline science
and Einstein.
In other words; Newton’s absolute and relative space, time, etc.,
are alternatives to the frame of reference or point of view of a
human observer mandated by the Philosophy of Idealism. So
Newton’s absolute space, etc., just do not apply within Einstein
Theories of Relativity, and Newton did not ever employ the
notion of a frame of reference in his discourse, except to point
out that the point of view from a rotating frame of reference
cannot logically UNDERSTAND and/or EXPLAIN the true effects
of inertia. Put another way; Newton felt that a frame of reference
and/or point of view will not lead to understanding the workings
(dynamics) of the natural universe.

That’s why he put these words in the section called
DEFINTIONS. Furthermore, Newton gives his reason why he
did not define his absolute time and /or space, and relative
space as he did the Latin word motu. This is because; “ I
(Newton) do not define time, space, place, and motion, as
being well known to all.”
In other words; Newton states right here that the common
notions are not what his absolute time, absolute space,
relative space, and absolute motion are all about.
(Newton wrote Principia in Latin. The Latin word motu was
mistranslated as motion by Motte, rather than the correct
translation as momentum, and all the subsequent translators
continued this error. So conventional Newtonian Mechanics
has ‘the 3 laws of motion’ rather than the Three Laws of
Momentum. (See the thread ‘A simple Q, but not a simple A’,
for why I can truly state that the Classical Newtonian
Mechanics of mainline science is so screwed up that
mainline science will not ever get the dynamics of the
universe correct.

Mainline science connotes Newton’s absolute space as that
‘single and immutable volume enclosed by the universe’. This
is ABSOLUTELY (i.e., using the dictionary definition) not
what Newton was trying to say or explain.

Newton wrote, quote:

I. Absolute, true and mathematical time …

II. Absolute space in its own nature, without relation to
anything external, remains always similar and immovable.
Relative space is some movable dimension or measure of
the absolute spaces; (Note that spaces is in the plural. If he
meant the space occupied by the whole universe, this would
be singular, i.e., just ‘space’, as there is but one universe,
and continues with) which our senses determine by its
position … determined by its position in respect of the earth.
Absolute and relative are the same in figure and magnitude;
but they do not remain always numerically the same …

IV. Absolute motion is the translation of a body from one
absolute place into another; and relative motion, the
translation from one relative place into another…
(and Newton uses an example of a ship under sail to explain
what all the ramifications of correctly comprehending his
‘absolutes’, ‘relatives’ ,’true’ etc., have on the understanding
of the dynamics (i.e., the change or changes to the state of
inertia [i.e., the momentum and/or the moment of inertia])
that the mechanics of Newton presented in Principia are all
about.

All this is in the 1st section of Principia that Newton called
DEFINITIONS for anyone to study.

So the current notion that Newton believed in a single absolute
space that encompasses the universe, and that he maintained
a Solar System centric concept of the universe is gravely wrong.

The Ptolemaic universe is a geocentric concept, wherein the
celestial bodies move in perfectly circular deferent motions
about the central stationary Earth, and the planets move in
perfectly circular epicyclical motions about the perfectly
circular deferent motions.

The Hubble Laws also proposes a geocentric universe, except
that the motions of the distant luminous bodies are perfectly
straight paths in a direct radial direction in respect to the
Earth. No celestial body ever moves in a direct radial direction
in respect to the Earth or in a straight line for more than an
instant due to all the continually fluctuating nonphysical
gravitational forces of all the constantly moving bodies acting
upon this particular body of interest within the universe that
can empirically be seen to be moving every which way, and
always in a nonlinear manner.

As modern cosmology embraces the Hubble Law, and with it
the silly Hubble Constant, Prof. P.J.E. Pebbles is certainly
correct when he maintains that: “science is following the
snake-oil approach to cosmology.”

Isn’t it ironic that the Earth Centered Universe initially
conceived by the arrogance of the human mind, although a
heuristic notion, assuming that the Earth is at the center of
the universe, while not absolutely true or precise, is for all
practical purposes, correct, as proposed by the findings of
the WMAP team.

All this and much more are addressed in greater detail in
my copyrighted treatise titled: The Search for Reality and
the Truths.


D.Y. Kadoshima

On Feb 4, 3:47*am, wrote:


I see by your post that you have ABSOLUTELY no idea what
Newton meant by ‘absolute, true and mathematical time’; and
More relevant to this post, ‘absolute space and relative space’.
Please do not interpret the emphasis on the word absolute as
an attempt to belittle you. Your interpretation of the word
absolute is just *correct and valid as Newton’s, but what I’m
trying to do is to point out that your interpretation does not
apply in Newtonian mechanics.


What I wouldn't give to find a decent and intelligent person who can
work with cause and effect such as what causes the daylight/darkness
cycle based on the rotation of the Earth once in 24 hours or any given
location rotating at 15 degrees per hour but I can't due to the
dominance of people who follow Ra/Dec or 'sidereal time' reasoning.

Here is Huygen's expression of the difference between the variations
in the natural noon cycle and the human devised average of the 24 hour
cycle or what Isaac described as absolute/relative time -

"Here take notice, that the Sun or the Earth passeth the 12. Signes,
or makes an entire revolution in the Ecliptick in 365 days, 5 hours 49
min. or there about, and that those days, reckon'd from noon to noon,
are of different lenghts; as is known to all that are vers'd in
Astronomy. Now between the longest and the shortest of those days, a
day may be taken of such a length, as 365 such days, 5. hours &c. (the
same numbers as before) make up, or are equall to that revolution: And
this is call'd the Equal or Mean day, according to which the Watches
are to be set;." Huygens

http://www.xs4all.nl/~adcs/Huygens/06/kort-E.html

I should have no need to explain further that Newton was dithering
around with the same observation in terms of absolute/relative time -

"Absolute time, in astronomy, is distinguished from relative, by the
equation or correlation of the vulgar time. For the natural days are
truly unequal, though they are commonly considered as equal and used
for a measure of time; astronomers correct this inequality for their
more accurate deducing of the celestial motions" Newton

The obfuscation of Newton eventually ends up with mathematicians
linking daily rotation directly to the circumpolar motion of the
constellations in 'sidereal time' while,in actuality, there is no
external reference for daily rotation through 360 degrees.There is no
scandal greater than a race that can no longer supply the most basic
astronomical fact which contains information on the planet's geometry
and geography,a fact encapsulated by the 24 hour value for rotation
and rather than treat the matter seriously,I have found that people
would rather lounge around with unintelligent 'analemma' junk or
convoluted explanations which attempt to explain away planetary
dynamics using timekeeping averages.















I am searching for the truths, and I feel that pointing out the
dogmas within mainline science greatly assists others to
understand the truths I have found. That is; Newton did not use
the common dictionary definition, or that used mainline science
and Einstein.
In other words; Newton’s absolute and relative space, time, etc.,
are alternatives to the frame of reference or point of view of a
human observer mandated by the Philosophy of Idealism. So
Newton’s absolute space, etc., just do not apply within Einstein
Theories of Relativity, and Newton did not ever employ the
notion of a frame of reference in his discourse, except to point
out that the point of view from a rotating frame of reference
cannot logically UNDERSTAND and/or EXPLAIN the true effects
of inertia. Put another way; Newton felt that a frame of reference
and/or point of view will not lead to understanding the workings
(dynamics) of the natural universe.

That’s why he put these words in the section called
DEFINTIONS. Furthermore, Newton gives his reason why he
did not define his absolute time and /or space, and relative
space as he did the Latin word motu. This is because; “ I
(Newton) do not define time, space, place, and motion, as
being well known to all.”
In other words; Newton states right here that the common
notions are not what his absolute time, absolute space,
relative space, and absolute motion are all about.
(Newton wrote Principia in Latin. The Latin word motu was
mistranslated as motion by Motte, rather than the correct
translation as momentum, and all the subsequent translators
continued this error. So conventional Newtonian Mechanics
has ‘the 3 laws of motion’ rather than the Three Laws of
Momentum. (See the thread ‘A simple Q, but not a simple A’,
for why I can truly state that the Classical Newtonian
Mechanics of mainline science is so screwed up that
mainline science will not ever get the dynamics of the
universe correct.

Mainline science connotes Newton’s absolute space as that
‘single and immutable volume enclosed by the universe’. This
is ABSOLUTELY (i.e., using the dictionary definition) not
what Newton was trying to say or explain.

Newton wrote, quote:

* *I. Absolute, true and mathematical time …

* *II. Absolute space in its own nature, without relation to
anything external, remains always similar and immovable.
Relative space is some movable dimension or measure of
the absolute spaces; (Note that spaces is in the plural. If he
meant the space occupied by the whole universe, this would
be singular, i.e., just ‘space’, *as there is but one universe,
and continues with) which our senses determine by its
position … determined by its position in respect of the earth.
Absolute and relative are the same in figure and magnitude;
but they do not remain always numerically the same …

* * IV. Absolute motion is the translation of a body from one
absolute place into another; and relative motion, the
translation from one relative place into another…
(and Newton uses an example of a ship under sail to explain
what all the ramifications of correctly comprehending his
‘absolutes’, ‘relatives’ ,’true’ etc., have on the understanding
of the dynamics (i.e., the change or changes to the state of
inertia [i.e., the momentum and/or the moment of inertia])
that the mechanics of Newton presented in Principia are all
about.

All this is in the 1st section of Principia that Newton called
DEFINITIONS for anyone to study.

So the current notion that Newton believed in a single absolute
space that encompasses the universe, and that he maintained
a Solar System centric concept of the universe is gravely wrong.

The Ptolemaic universe is a geocentric concept, wherein the
celestial bodies move in perfectly circular deferent motions
about the central stationary Earth, and the planets move in
perfectly circular epicyclical motions about the perfectly
circular deferent motions.

The Hubble Laws also proposes a geocentric universe, except
that the motions of the distant luminous bodies are perfectly
straight paths in a direct radial direction in respect to the
Earth. No celestial body ever moves in a direct radial direction
in respect to the Earth or in a straight line for more than an
instant due to all the continually fluctuating nonphysical
gravitational forces of all the constantly moving bodies acting
upon this particular body of interest within the universe that
can empirically be seen to be moving every which way, and
always in a nonlinear manner.

As modern cosmology embraces the Hubble Law, and with it
the silly Hubble Constant, Prof. P.J.E. Pebbles is certainly
correct when he maintains that: “science is following the
snake-oil approach to cosmology.”

Isn’t it ironic that the Earth Centered Universe initially
conceived by the arrogance of the human mind, although a
heuristic notion, assuming that the Earth is at the center of
the universe, while not absolutely true or precise, is for all
practical purposes, correct, as proposed by the findings of
the WMAP team.

All this and much more are addressed in greater detail in
my copyrighted treatise titled: The Search for Reality and
the Truths.

D.Y. Kadoshima

On Feb 4, 3:47*am, wrote:

Mainline science connotes Newton’s absolute space as that
‘single and immutable volume enclosed by the universe’. This
is ABSOLUTELY (i.e., using the dictionary definition) not
what Newton was trying to say or explain.


Mainline science indeed !,more like empirical science both exploiting
and ignoring what Newton was doing and as far as I am aware,few have
the necessary intelligence to work through the elaborate scheme from
the point of view of the correct astronomical principles even though
contemporary imaging power and time lapse footage makes it a fairly
comfortable endeavor.

I already explained that relative space in Newton's ideology
represents observed motions of planets whereas 'absolute space' is the
modelling/predictions agenda based on a hypothetical observer on the
Sun hence his attempt to use Ra/Dec as a bridge between observations
and modelling by jettisoning interpretation -

"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,
or the earth about the sun." Newton

I have no doubt you have little sense of what was done and how this
prediction/modelling agenda has nearly destroyed a civilization,the
recent attempt to model global temperature levels using a minor
atmospheric gas being one example of the original reckless attempt to
model solar system structure using timekeeping averages yet these
things are as clear to me as they are abstruse and obscure to you.

The guys in the early 20th century basically capitulated to Newton's
obfuscation and expanded all the worse parts so that 100 years later
there are people who still promote 'time travel' as something actual
and all because they can's figure out where Newton was getting his
absolute/relative time from by assuming Flamsteed's 'proof' for
constant daily rotation linked directly to circumpolar motion was
correct.


Newton wrote, quote:

* *I. Absolute, true and mathematical time …

* *II. Absolute space in its own nature, without relation to
anything external, remains always similar and immovable.
Relative space is some movable dimension or measure of
the absolute spaces; (Note that spaces is in the plural. If he
meant the space occupied by the whole universe, this would
be singular, i.e., just ‘space’, *as there is but one universe,
and continues with) which our senses determine by its
position … determined by its position in respect of the earth.
Absolute and relative are the same in figure and magnitude;
but they do not remain always numerically the same …

How terrible for our race to be stuck in the middle of a 17th century
wordplay that set the modelling/predictive agenda going at the expense
of genuine astronomy and the great timekeeping systems but it all
boils down to one simple set of images organised into time lapse
footage and the incorrect resolution which Newton imposed on those
images -

http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ima...2000_tezel.gif

"For to the earth planetary motions appear sometimes direct, sometimes
stationary, nay, and sometimes retrograde. But from the sun they are
always seen direct, " Newton

An astronomer need only recognize the Earth's orbital motion to
resolve the apparent backward/forward motion of the other planets as
we overtake them in our common orbit around the Sun and not by a
creation of hypothetical observer on the Sun which began that 'frames
of reference' junk.The full explanation for retrogrades can be viewed
in those APOD images -

http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap011220.html





D.Y. Kadoshima