Coming full circle

One of the greatest instruments astronomers have at their disposal is the use of analogies and especially when describing the observed motions we see from a moving Earth. In this respect the racetrack analogies work well in paritioning perspectives between the faster moving inner planets and the slower moving outer planets.


In a more limited role analogies can be applied to cause in order to entertain speculative approaches where the presence of influences cannot be seen such as planetary orbital motions, solar system/galactic system structure or the internal fluid motions of planets such as our own. These analogies were used with good effect, even in Royal Society circles, until empiricists overstepped the boundaries and equated analogies at the experimental level directly with a celestial scale -

"Rule III. The qualities of bodies, which admit neither [intensification] nor remission of degrees, and which are found to belong to all bodies within the reach of our experiments, are to be esteemed the universal qualities of all bodies whatsoever." Newton

The notion became known as the 'scientific method' and came in under the radar as the theory of gravity as proposed by Newton. It didn't matter that the absurd 20th century notion merely buried the wider population further into the untenable link between experimental sciences at a human scale and celestial structures and their motions as long as it retain experiments even a 'thought experiment' (otherwise known as an opinion) all was happy in the empirical universe.

Now things are changing -

https://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/07/o...sics.html?_r=0

There is no crisis,there is the inevitable limitations reached by the theorists and not much can be said. Perhaps an enterprising soul will eventually clue in to the fact that analogies are great when they are applied appropriately but force them into experiments and then reapply them directly to observations always was a non-starter.

On Wednesday, April 26, 2017 at 1:54:29 AM UTC-6, Gerald Kelleher wrote:
These analogies were used with good effect, even in Royal Society circles,
until empiricists overstepped the boundaries and equated analogies at the
experimental level directly with a celestial scale -

"Rule III. The qualities of bodies, which admit neither [intensification] nor
remission of degrees, and which are found to belong to all bodies within the
reach of our experiments, are to be esteemed the universal qualities of all
bodies whatsoever." Newton

Exactly *what* boundaries did they overstep?

This worked - applying mechanical laws, including Newton's law of universal
gravitation, to the orbit of Uranus led to the discovery of Neptune, showing
that the discipline of Celestial Mechanics was valid.

This is why your desire to replace empiricism with narrative fails to attract
interest.

John Savard

On Wednesday, April 26, 2017 at 3:00:22 PM UTC+1, Quadibloc wrote:

If I need information on 'girl genius' or some other kiddies comic I will let you know otherwise it is all grafitti.

One of the greatest instruments astronomers have at their disposal is the use of analogies and especially when describing the observed motions we see from a moving Earth. In this respect the racetrack analogies work well in paritioning perspectives between the faster moving inner planets and the slower moving outer planets.


In a more limited role analogies can be applied to cause in order to entertain speculative approaches where the presence of influences cannot be seen such as planetary orbital motions, solar system/galactic system structure or the internal fluid motions of planets such as our own. These analogies were used with good effect, even in Royal Society circles, until empiricists overstepped the boundaries and equated analogies at the experimental level directly with a celestial scale -

"Rule III. The qualities of bodies, which admit neither [intensification] nor remission of degrees, and which are found to belong to all bodies within the reach of our experiments, are to be esteemed the universal qualities of all bodies whatsoever." Newton

The notion became known as the 'scientific method' and came in under the radar as the theory of gravity as proposed by Newton. It didn't matter that the absurd 20th century notion merely buried the wider population further into the untenable link between experimental sciences at a human scale and celestial structures and their motions as long as it retain experiments even a 'thought experiment' (otherwise known as an opinion) all was happy in the empirical universe.

Now things are changing -

https://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/07/o...sics.html?_r=0

There is no crisis,there is the inevitable limitations reached by the theorists and not much can be said. Perhaps an enterprising soul will eventually clue in to the fact that analogies are great when they are applied appropriately but force them into experiments and then reapply them directly to large scale celestial observations always was a non-starter.

There is not a single contributor here that is worth discussing the matter with but I always thought that was made clear for such a long time anyway.

On Wednesday, April 26, 2017 at 10:10:04 AM UTC-6, Gerald Kelleher wrote:
otherwise it is all grafitti.

I am standing before you as a witness to the truth that you are willfully
neglecting. To the fact that you are unjustly maligning Newton and his works
because of laziness and egotism on your part.

Your beliefs include a belief that you will someday stand accountable for that
sort of thing.

John Savard

On Wednesday, April 26, 2017 at 9:42:05 AM UTC-7, Gerald Kelleher wrote:

There is not a single contributor here that is worth discussing the matter with but I always thought that was made clear for such a long time anyway.

So... leave already, no one is forcing you to post here.

Nothing here for you from others, nothing here for others from you. Divorce is the logical option.

Before you can go full circle you have to get out of the starting
gate... where you've been stuck for a couple of decades.

On Thursday, April 27, 2017 at 2:26:24 AM UTC+1, Chris L Peterson wrote:
Before you can go full circle you have to get out of the starting
gate... where you've been stuck for a couple of decades.

Don't be offended, my posts run off imaging for the most part and contributors here rarely show an interest or have an aptitude for what is in front of them. In this respect,take away the voodoo and there is nothing left of empiricism but I did grant you the satisfaction of actually seeing where the ideology was arrived at by infecting astronomy like a virus. The real problem is that is pushed through the education system as an achievement hence you are not to blame for your condition, merely a result of contrived notions made up as Newton went along.


There was no such thing as absolute/relative space and motion to begin with, this idea was intended to create a false distinction between 'apparent and true ' motions. There are only actual motions which account for the behavior of the other planets in a stationary Sun centered system so the major advancement of Copernicus was and remains accounting for the motions of the outer planets when they fall behind in view as the faster Earth overtakes them -

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

When I can get a contributor to make it this far then a discussion can begin but so far it didn't happen and I have no interest in mental drones, no offence again. It does allow me to post what I want anyway without paying attention to the mental fluff that occupies so many here including you.

On Thursday, April 27, 2017 at 12:40:22 AM UTC+1, palsing wrote:
On Wednesday, April 26, 2017 at 9:42:05 AM UTC-7, Gerald Kelleher wrote:

There is not a single contributor here that is worth discussing the matter with but I always thought that was made clear for such a long time anyway.

So... leave already, no one is forcing you to post here.

Nothing here for you from others, nothing here for others from you. Divorce is the logical option.

Are you kidding me !, I have a ball posting images and putting them into context so that even you can come to understand things like how an evening appearance of a planet places it to the left of the Sun and a dawn appearance to the right of the Sun. Previously you couldn't understand this basic principle but now you do even if you are ungrateful. The same goes for the background stars due to the orbital motion of the Earth.

Its like learning how to dance, a person feels awkward first and tries to concentrate too much on different aspects of their movement but once they loosen up they get into the flow of things and then they start to improvise and innovate. It doesn't matter if it takes decades, eventually a few will start to explore imaging and create these wonderful narratives to share. Whining and opinions are from those who never make it out to the dance floor.

On Thursday, April 27, 2017 at 6:59:56 AM UTC+1, Gerald Kelleher wrote:
my posts run off imaging for the most part

No, your posts run off your delusions of genius - the images you repeatedly post are just cherry-picked examples which you misunderstand badly enough to think they do not contradict your idées fixes.