|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
There is no such thing as...
Royal society empiricists never understood their own system let alone
the original astronomical methods and insights that got mangled,mainly through Isaac Newton's strain of empiricism.I can't say I am an indifferent observer as it does effect how the rest of the world views astronomy,as it is the dominant view,but I have always been slightly surprised that readers have not understood what Isaac was trying to do and how he did it.Despite appearances,there is no such thing as pro or anti-relativists,just mainly people lost in Newton's maze which I have explained umpteen times to no effect or so it seems. Briefly,retrogrades are an illusion caused by the Earth's orbital motion,in the following time lapse footage the Earth overtakes the slower moving Jupiter and Saturn in our and their respective orbits and distances from the Sun,the closer Jupiter has a longer retrograde arc as it takes longer to overtake than Saturn,the luminosity variations are greater as the Earth approaches the planets and all the signatures of a moving Earth around the central Sun - http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap011220.html I do not know what you people think you are doing,but this happens to be the main,I repeat,the main argument for the Earth's orbital motion once retrogrades are understood for the type of illusion they are. What Isaac Newton tried to do was split retrogrades into Earthbound observations that are resolved by modeling,specifically a hypothetical observer on the Sun and anyone who accepts the resolution without thinking the matter through is as loathsome as the resolution itself - "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 What he tried to do was make the Ra/Dec framework common for his relative space and motion (Earth observations) and his absolute space and motion (modeling/hypothetical observer) by misusing the predictive convenience of the calendar based equatorial coordinate system which attempts to shove the Earth's daily and orbital motions into right ascension. I look at all these threads where people cut themselves to pieces on account of the guys 100 years ago who were just not good enough to figure out what Isaac was doing,exploited the worst distortions Newton already introduced and snap at each other over a wordplay that goes nowhere.I don't think much of those who can't work through the geometric distortions Newton introduced,never cared if they ever understood the astronomical implications of what they believe,or rather imagine but that stuff is childsplay for an astronomer with familiarity. Relativity indeed !,the idea of human control over time is best left on the science fiction section of the bookstore where it came from in 1898. |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
There is no such thing as...
On Jan 5, 4:14*pm, oriel36 wrote:
Royal society empiricists never understood their own system let alone the original astronomical methods ..." Much of Gerrie's silly and mistaken foolishness snipped. You know...I don't visit poor old s.a.a. often anymore. I do stop by once in a while, though. I can't help but hope I'll hit it on a day when the spammers and psychotics have taken a holiday. Alas, that never happens. See y'all on the flip-flop. ;-) |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
There is no such thing as...
On Jan 5, 3:14*pm, oriel36 wrote:
Royal society empiricists never understood their own system Are you sure? After all, since they are presumably the people best equipped to understand it, if it was their own, isn't this an admission that you, at least, don't understand it? I suppose, instead, that you are claiming to understand it, and to know that it was self-contradictory and that they failed to follow it properly for that reason. John Savard |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
There is no such thing as...
On 1/5/11 4:14 PM, oriel36 wrote:
Relativity indeed !,the idea of human control over time is best left on the science fiction section of the bookstore where it came from in 1898. Relativity is an observational fact, Gerald. We measure the effects with our space probe to other planets. Consider persons with identical clocks. Call them A and B. Let ∆t_A be an interval of proper time in the inertial frame of reference of A, say one second. Let ∆t_A' be A's time interval as measured by an observer, B. Using special relativity ∆t_A' = γ ∆t_A Where v is the relative velocity between muon and Earth Surface and γ = 1/√(1-v^2/c^2) _________________ Let ∆t_B be an interval of proper time in the inertial frame of reference of B, say one second. Let ∆t_B' be B's time interval as measured by an observer, A. Using special relativity ∆t_B' = γ ∆t_B Where v is the relative velocity between muon and Earth Surface and γ = 1/√(1-v^2/c^2) |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
The thing is... | John Crane[_2_] | Policy | 4 | February 4th 10 10:34 PM |
The thing is... | David Spain | History | 2 | February 4th 10 01:01 PM |
One more other thing! | Ragin' Steve Chaney | Misc | 1 | February 3rd 07 07:49 PM |
What is that thing? | Steve | Amateur Astronomy | 9 | November 26th 03 05:45 AM |
What is this thing on the 747? | Chuck Stewart | Space Shuttle | 29 | September 11th 03 04:41 AM |