The theory of gravity

On Thursday, July 6, 2017 at 9:46:13 AM UTC+1, Martin Brown wrote:


He is a clueless mathophobe devoted to inane hand waving. There is no
possibility of him understanding anything about astronomy or physics.

--
Regards,
Martin Brown

All you have done is chant a few worthless slogans in my direction but I have no interest in what any of you think as I already know none of you would dare promote what you were forced to believe without getting cut to pieces.

Ultimately imaging and graphics will shine through the empirical nightmare experienced by humanity for centuries.

On Thursday, July 6, 2017 at 8:50:05 AM UTC-7, Gerald Kelleher wrote:

You are too stupid to realize that any prediction for eclipses or transits (clockwork solar system) is made using the calendar system which formats observations in such a way that one year does not correspond to one orbit of the Earth, after all the Earth does not rotate 365 times for 3 cycles and 1 cycle of 366 rotations.

And yet, those predictions are highly accurate. How can this be?

You don't know even a small fraction of what you think you know, and that is not likely to change anytime soon, and you of all people have no business calling *anyone* stupid.

You will always remain unteachable and unable to understand the even simplest of astronomical concepts, like, for example, the sidereal day.

On Thursday, July 6, 2017 at 11:09:25 AM UTC-6, Gerald Kelleher wrote:

Ultimately imaging and graphics will shine through the empirical
nightmare experienced by humanity for centuries.

How can you expect *facts* to demolish a way of thinking based on
accepting facts and placing them first, before our own wishes and
fancies?

John Savard

On Thursday, July 6, 2017 at 11:08:34 PM UTC+1, palsing wrote:
On Thursday, July 6, 2017 at 8:50:05 AM UTC-7, Gerald Kelleher wrote:

You are too stupid to realize that any prediction for eclipses or transits (clockwork solar system) is made using the calendar system which formats observations in such a way that one year does not correspond to one orbit of the Earth, after all the Earth does not rotate 365 times for 3 cycles and 1 cycle of 366 rotations.

And yet, those predictions are highly accurate. How can this be?


Predictive astronomy is a child of the calendar system and especially the late 17th century emergence of RA/Dec which combined modelling with newly developed watches with the antecedent geocentric framework to give homocentrity. Put two sticks in any direction use a watch to time the return of a star and you get the same answer - that is homocentricity which is at variance with the Lat/Long system where people lose their senses and can no longer express the maximum Equatorial speed of the Earth.

Guys like Brown live in a bubble and are best left to their own devices , the posts here are not meant for empiricists but are simply open explanations of forensics on one side and the real joy of astronomy on the other where imaging and graphics express new narratives.

On Thursday, July 6, 2017 at 11:08:34 PM UTC+1, palsing wrote:

You don't know even a small fraction of what you think you know, and that is not likely to change anytime soon, and you of all people have no business calling *anyone* stupid.

You will always remain unteachable and unable to understand the even simplest of astronomical concepts, like, for example, the sidereal day.

Those who can't be inspired/ inspiring wouldn't experience the background conditions for creative and productive work and are incredibly lazy and careless with what is already known.

Who can claim to be an astronomer with a belief that one 24 hour weekday doesn't equate to one complete rotation of the Earth ?. The fact that you can is more a conversation you should have with yourself as there is nothing more silly even though the entire scheme of Newton is built on that lamentable stellar circumpolar conclusion via Ra/Dec. I shrug and point to the fact of timekeeping and its limitations when modelling and predictions but in a spiritless atmosphere of a clockwork solar system such subtleties are not grasped.

There are only a few works in existence that I enjoy reading, some from poets others from scientists themselves even though they didn't think of themselves as such. The better ones admitted that nobody can actually explain the 'universal theory of gravity' that has been sorted in the direction that it is not a theory but rather a doctrine that experimental sciences and practitioners displace astronomers and proper astronomy. This group is supported by magnification hobbyists who have no pretense other than to identify objects in a celestial sphere framework or the clockwork solar system of RA/Dec.

For all it strengths and deficiencies I always liked Poe's description -

"To explain: The Newtonian Gravity -- a law of Nature -- a law whose existence as such no one out of Bedlam questions -- a law whose admission as such enables us to account for nine-tenths of the Universal phaenomena -- a law which, merely because it does so enable us to account for these phaenomena, we are perfectly willing, without reference to any other considerations, to admit, and cannot help admitting, as a law -- a law, nevertheless, of which neither the principle nor the modus operandi of the principle, has ever yet been traced by the human analysis -- a law, in short, which, neither in its detail nor in its generality, has been found susceptible of explanation at all -- is at length seen to be at every point thoroughly explicable, provided we only yield our assent to -- what? To an hypothesis? Why if an hypothesis -- if the merest hypothesis -- if an hypothesis for whose assumption -- as in the case of that pure hypothesis the Newtonian law itself -- no shadow of a priori reason could be assigned -- if an hypothesis, even so absolute as all this implies, would enable us to perceive a principle for the Newtonian law -- would enable us to understand as satisfied, conditions so miraculously -- so ineffably complex and seemingly irreconcileable as those involved in the relations of which Gravity tells us, -- what rational being Could so expose his fatuity as to call even this absolute hypothesis an hypothesis any longer -- unless, indeed, he were to persist in so calling it, with the understanding that he did so, simply for the sake of consistency in words?" Edgar Allan Poe

http://xroads.virginia.edu/~hyper/poe/eureka.html


Those who live in an empirical wordplay bubble are unlikely to grasp the import of those words and their meaning as the technical and historical details pretty much cover scientific investigation since remote antiquity when the timekeeping systems emerged. Today's people are all heat and no light yet the living are the only people who can change things to initiate a productive and creative atmosphere for research and exploration .

On Sunday, July 9, 2017 at 5:35:12 AM UTC-6, Gerald Kelleher wrote:

For all it strengths and deficiencies I always liked Poe's description -

Word salad.

Followed your link; Wikipedia has kind things to say about Poe's
Eureka, but I'm not surprised it was "poorly received in its day",
I'm amazed that it's any better received now.

John Savard

On Sunday, July 9, 2017 at 4:20:28 PM UTC+1, Quadibloc wrote:

John Savard

I have to laugh that you and the other contributors to this thread understand that Newton was talking about timekeeping and especially the facility known as the Equation of Time, something those unfortunates didn't understand a century ago -

"Absolute time, in astronomy, is distinguished from relative, by the equation of 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...The necessity of which equation, for determining the times of a phænomenon, is evinced as well from the experiments of the pendulum clock, as by eclipses of the satellites of Jupiter." Principia

Normally a person would be driven insane in trying to square supporting relativity with Newton's idiosyncratic absolute/relative time (Equation of Time) but the thing is so devalued anyway that the whole achievement is actually understanding what went wrong starting at the Galileo affair.

On Sunday, July 9, 2017 at 10:18:47 AM UTC-6, Gerald Kelleher wrote:

Normally a person would be driven insane in trying to square
supporting relativity with Newton's idiosyncratic
absolute/relative time (Equation of Time)

Moving from taking sundial time uncritically to regarding
mechanical clock time as primary... was a very important step to
take.

It's a step that could hardly be avoided if people want to design
steam engines, airplanes, or radios.

And it's only after that step is taken that one has the foundation
to see that it isn't the last word. That time can speed up or slow
down - not because of where the Earth is in relation to the Sun,
but because time has to be affected by motion... in order for the
laws connecting electricity with magnetism to be independent of
absolute motion.

Special Relativity is at odds with our common-sense view of the
world formed from everyday experience. So it was highly
controversial at the time it was first presented. But that doesn't
mean it has to drive people crazy.

Quantum Mechanics, after all, is much worse. But we have no right
to assume the world is going to be as easy to understand as we
would like.

John Savard

On Sunday, July 9, 2017 at 5:31:33 PM UTC+1, Quadibloc wrote:

You are willing to affirm that absolute/relative time of Newton is the Equation of Time so now you know more than Mach who couldn't understand Newton wasn't defining time but dithering around a timekeeping facility -


"This absolute time can be measured by comparison with no motion; it
has therefore neither a practical nor a scientific value; and no one
is justified in saying that he knows aught about it. It is an idle
metaphysical conception." Mach, Analyse der Empfindungen, 6th ed

So here we are in the 21st century with not only the Equation of Time explained in terms of the dual surface rotations of the Earth but the crap of relativity reduced to the nonsense that it always was.

Go ahead and explain what relative time is in relation to absolute time with the principles of the Equation of Time before you and the rest will hate you . It shows them up for fools in case you didn't know.