Antisemitic ramblings against Einstein

On May 15, 5:09*am, Marvin the Martian wrote:
On Sun, 15 May 2011 12:45:31 +1000, Peter Webb wrote:
"Marvin the Martian" wrote in message
It is clear you don't know the difference between mechanics and
Kinematics. They are vastly different. Kinematics just describes
motion. Mechanics, invented by Newton, considers mass, force, energy
and momentum... it is VASTLY different and more useful.

We were talking about Newton's law of gravity. It is identical
mathematically to Kepler's third law of planetary motion.

Often appears in Calc II courses.

Good grief. I explained that one was Mechanics, one Kinematics. I showed
how one used forces, mass, energy, and momentum, and the other only
describes motion.

You're going to stick to your failed argument that they two are
"identically mathematically" which is total bull****. F=dp/dt doesn't
appear anywhere in Kepler's laws.


Settle down,everything can be worked out geometrically and to good
effect as long as readers give up the pretense that all things are in
order and that Newton's toxic strain of empiricism worked in the first
place.It is great making generalized statements without backing them
up with diagrams,the original texts and especially modern imaging but
this can e done and provide something new to the Usenet as it relies
on working through the difficulties rather than working against each
other.Of course,it is not for the intellectually timid or for the
drones who pursue a lucrative agenda but simply the solitude of
intellectual satisfaction,something far more valuable than consensual
backslapping.I don't normally go out of my way to do this anymore but
your statement raises good enough points to merit the details which
distinguish Kepler's method and insight from the attempt to homogenize
all orbits to trajectories found at an experimental level.All orbits
are not equal as the behavior of the moon's circuit of the Earth is
completely different to the characteristics of the Earth's orbit of
the Sun so this stuff is important.

People get frightened when they see the original statements and
although I only require to expand on Kepler's flawed insight,it does
no harm to match it with Newton's statement as the latter has so much
of a racket which follows roughly what you said.

"The proportion existing between the periodic times of any two planets
is exactly the sesquiplicate proportion of the mean distances of the
orbits, or as generally given,the squares of the periodic times are
proportional to the cubes of the mean distances." Kepler

"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. " Newton

This should clear out the vast majority of readers and leave only a
few who probably fear that both statements are impenetrable but that
fear is unwarranted and if they get something of the geometric
points,they will fully understand what Newton means by absolute/
relative space,time and motion and then compare it with the early 20th
century ideologies.I have endeavored to adjust an explanation towards
the empirical audience in such a way that it leaves the approach open
but removes the severity which Newton introduced by lunging at a
solution which applies to all objects and people should know better
than suppose that celestial systems compare with objects at a human
level.

The following important diagram,probably next in importance to the
Copernican arrangement of the solar system ,is crucial in
comprehending what Kepler was doing by making orbital comparisons
between a moving Earth and a moving Mars and basically explains what
Newton was trying to do -

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Ke...retrograde.jpg

Putting the computer cursor on the retrograde image basically mimics
Kepler's representation made centuries ago as the moving Earth and the
moving Mars move through the field of stars,there is no such thing as
a geocentric description as the Wiki article implies yet it does
provide a hint of what Isaac was doing and still supported by his
followers,albeit unwittingly.

http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap080511.html

To be as concise as possible,what Isaac tried to do was make the
background stars a common denominator for observing planetary motions
and the conversion of those motions into a heliocentric equivalent
hence his screwed up resolution for retrogrades -

"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

Again,there is a solitude in understanding which is delightful yet it
really comes into play as the curtain rises on the genuine
astronomical insights as the empirical mutations are untangled,most
here would simply ignore what is correct from the manipulations and
wouldn't have it any other way but there will be always those who spot
something new or bring them up to speed on issues which were vague and
unfamiliar before and that is not such a bad thing.The story gets more
interesting in terms of the details but unfortunately few can even get
this far and that is not self-congratulation but simply something that
is part and parcel of being a genuine astronomer.












I can see you are just being silly about this.