A Space & astronomy forum. SpaceBanter.com

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » SpaceBanter.com forum » Astronomy and Astrophysics » Amateur Astronomy
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Theory explained in 3 parts



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old September 13th 17, 09:26 AM posted to sci.astro.amateur
Gerald Kelleher
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 869
Default Theory explained in 3 parts

Newton's idea was the Earth attracts an apple, the moon attracts the tides,the Earth attracts the moon and ultimately the Sun attracts the Earth hence the 'universal theory of gravitation'. The upscale from the fall of an apple to planetary motion was done via Kepler's assertion that planetary orbital periods are loosely correlated to distance from the Sun but within Newton's scheme there are a number of things going on, most notably the attempt to connect small scale experimentation with astronomy via the 'scientific method'.





Ads
  #2  
Old September 14th 17, 04:47 PM posted to sci.astro.amateur
Mike Collins[_4_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,725
Default Theory explained in 3 parts

Gerald Kelleher wrote:
Newton's idea was the Earth attracts an apple, the moon attracts the
tides,the Earth attracts the moon and ultimately the Sun attracts the
Earth hence the 'universal theory of gravitation'. The upscale from the
fall of an apple to planetary motion was done via Kepler's assertion that
planetary orbital periods are loosely correlated to distance from the Sun
but within Newton's scheme there are a number of things going on, most
notably the attempt to connect small scale experimentation with astronomy
via the 'scientific method'.

To show just how eight Newton was you just need to look at Apollo 11.

The command module pilot gave this explanation to his five year old son so
it might be simple enough for you.

ttp://www.americaspace.com/2012/07/15/totally-different-moon-the-arrival-of-apollo-11/


Twenty-six hours into the mission, and almost 175,000 km from home, the
Service Propulsion System (SPS) engine of the command and service module
Columbia roared silently into the void for three seconds in what flight
controllers lauded as an “absolutely nominal” firing. In his autobiography,
Collins related that, for those few seconds, he was in active control.
Several months earlier, his five-year-old son had asked who was ‘driving’
Apollo 8 to the Moon: was it Mr Borman, the ship’s commander? No, Collins
replied, it was Sir Isaac Newton – or, at least, the influences of Sun,
Earth and Moon, which affected the spacecraft’s path just as the great
English scientist’s law of universal gravitation had helped predict three
centuries before.



  #3  
Old September 14th 17, 05:46 PM posted to sci.astro.amateur
Gerald Kelleher
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 869
Default Theory explained in 3 parts

On Thursday, September 14, 2017 at 4:47:37 PM UTC+1, Mike Collins wrote:


To show just how eight Newton was you just need to look at Apollo 11.


I am answering any objections in this thread. Apollo 11, washing machines, computers are all engineering sciences much like medical sciences while this is an astronomy/terrestrial science forum where the motions of the Earth and the arrangement of the solar system affects experiences and life on the surface. The idea that the fall of an apples can upscale to planetary orbital motion is through a sequence of precepts outlined in the original presentation in this thread. It is fine saying that objects attract each other but Newton had to apply it to astronomical methods and insights and that is where it disappears in a cloud of slogan chanting, stock phrases, voodoo and bluffing.
  #4  
Old September 14th 17, 06:14 PM posted to sci.astro.amateur
Quadibloc
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 6,608
Default Theory explained in 3 parts

On Thursday, September 14, 2017 at 10:48:25 AM UTC-6, Gerald Kelleher wrote:

Apollo 11,


are all engineering sciences


The idea that the fall of an apples can upscale to planetary orbital motion


It is fine saying that objects attract each other but Newton had to apply it
to astronomical methods and insights and that is where it disappears in a
cloud of slogan chanting, stock phrases, voodoo and bluffing.


The Apollo 11 spacecraft, during part of its flight, orbited the Earth, and
during another part of its flight, orbited the Moon.

The Moon orbits the Earth.

If what you're saying is that Isaac Newton's gravitation applies to artificial
objects like the Apollo 11 spacecraft, or communications satellites like Early
Bird or Telstar...

but *not* to the Moon,

you have to explain why both the Moon and a satellite do the same thing - orbit
the Earth - for completely different reasons.

There are *reasons* why people here are not open to the new ideas you're trying
to present.

John Savard
  #5  
Old September 14th 17, 06:21 PM posted to sci.astro.amateur
Gerald Kelleher
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 869
Default Theory explained in 3 parts

On Thursday, September 14, 2017 at 6:14:24 PM UTC+1, Quadibloc wrote:

You,by your nature, are excluded from all discourse so form your own thread .
  #6  
Old September 14th 17, 06:35 PM posted to sci.astro.amateur
Gerald Kelleher
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 869
Default Theory explained in 3 parts

The 'universal theory of gravity' is a byword for many things including the assumption that experimental sciences scale up to orbital dynamics -

"Lastly, if it universally appears, by experiments and astronomical observations, that all bodies about the earth gravitate towards the earth, and that in proportion to the quantity of matter which they severally contain, that the moon likewise, according to the quantity or its matter, gravitates towards the earth, that, on the other hand, our sea gravitates towards the moon, and all the planets mutually one towards another, and the comets in like manner towards the sun, we must, in consequence or this rule, universally allow that all bodies whatsoever are endowed with a principle of mutual gravitation. ." Newton

That assertion sits on its own without any relevance to astronomical methods and insights that preceded it even though an attempt was made to make it appear that he was following astronomical discipline.

This is an entirely different thread than any other insofar as any objectors cannot rely on engineering propaganda but must detail exactly, using Newton's own descriptions how the mutual attraction of the apple and the Earth is brought into the realm of astronomical observations, methods and insights and specifically that the planets demonstrate variable orbital speed as they orbit the Sun.







  #7  
Old September 14th 17, 06:42 PM posted to sci.astro.amateur
Gerald Kelleher
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 869
Default Theory explained in 3 parts

On Thursday, September 14, 2017 at 4:47:37 PM UTC+1, Mike Collins wrote:
No, Collins
replied, it was Sir Isaac Newton – or, at least, the influences of Sun,
Earth and Moon, which affected the spacecraft’s path just as the great
English scientist’s law of universal gravitation had helped predict three
centuries before.


You,and this means you, have to use diagrams,graphics or whatever else is at your disposal to render mutual attraction into orbital dynamics, something Newton didn't do nor any of his followers. I know you can't do it and that makes you a walking corpse in terms of astronomy and terrestrial sciences.. Stock phrases and slogans don't cut it anymore so get used to it.

  #8  
Old September 14th 17, 07:20 PM posted to sci.astro.amateur
Bill[_9_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 262
Default Theory explained in 3 parts

On Thu, 14 Sep 2017 10:21:25 -0700 (PDT), Gerald Kelleher wrote:

On Thursday, September 14, 2017 at 6:14:24 PM UTC+1, Quadibloc wrote:

You,by your nature, are excluded from all discourse so form your own thread .


In case you truly don't get it: It's easy to dismiss and, and all, of
us with a wave of your keyboard; but it's going to be rather difficult
for you to ever wash that "stain" off of yourself.


--
Email address is a Spam trap.
  #9  
Old September 14th 17, 07:52 PM posted to sci.astro.amateur
Mike Collins[_4_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,725
Default Theory explained in 3 parts

On Thursday, 14 September 2017 17:48:25 UTC+1, Gerald Kelleher wrote:
On Thursday, September 14, 2017 at 4:47:37 PM UTC+1, Mike Collins wrote:


To show just how eight Newton was you just need to look at Apollo 11.


I am answering any objections in this thread. Apollo 11, washing machines, computers are all engineering sciences much like medical sciences while this is an astronomy/terrestrial science forum where the motions of the Earth and the arrangement of the solar system affects experiences and life on the surface. The idea that the fall of an apples can upscale to planetary orbital motion is through a sequence of precepts outlined in the original presentation in this thread. It is fine saying that objects attract each other but Newton had to apply it to astronomical methods and insights and that is where it disappears in a cloud of slogan chanting, stock phrases, voodoo and bluffing.


Are we to take it that from now on you will stick to your own threads?
If not:
Twenty-six hours into the mission, and almost 175,000 km from home, the
Service Propulsion System (SPS) engine of the command and service module
Columbia roared silently into the void for three seconds in what flight
controllers lauded as an “absolutely nominal” firing. In his autobiography,
Collins related that, for those few seconds, he was in active control.
Several months earlier, his five-year-old son had asked who was ‘driving’
Apollo 8 to the Moon: was it Mr Borman, the ship’s commander? No, Collins
replied, it was Sir Isaac Newton – or, at least, the influences of Sun,
Earth and Moon, which affected the spacecraft’s path just as the great
English scientist’s law of universal gravitation had helped predict three
centuries before.
  #10  
Old September 14th 17, 07:53 PM posted to sci.astro.amateur
Mike Collins[_4_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,725
Default Theory explained in 3 parts

On Thursday, 14 September 2017 18:21:29 UTC+1, Gerald Kelleher wrote:
On Thursday, September 14, 2017 at 6:14:24 PM UTC+1, Quadibloc wrote:

You,by your nature, are excluded from all discourse so form your own thread .


Are we to take it that from now on you will stick to your own threads?
If not:
Twenty-six hours into the mission, and almost 175,000 km from home, the
Service Propulsion System (SPS) engine of the command and service module
Columbia roared silently into the void for three seconds in what flight
controllers lauded as an “absolutely nominal” firing. In his autobiography,
Collins related that, for those few seconds, he was in active control.
Several months earlier, his five-year-old son had asked who was ‘driving’
Apollo 8 to the Moon: was it Mr Borman, the ship’s commander? No, Collins
replied, it was Sir Isaac Newton – or, at least, the influences of Sun,
Earth and Moon, which affected the spacecraft’s path just as the great
English scientist’s law of universal gravitation had helped predict three
centuries before.
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
plane of ecliptic better explained Chapt14 Dirac's Ocean of Positrons= Space (and tells us what gravity is) #106 Atom Totality theory 5th ed. Archimedes Plutonium[_2_] Astronomy Misc 0 December 2nd 11 08:33 AM
Pluto's 17 degree tilt explained as magnetic electric motorinstability? #158; 3rd ed; Atom Totality (Atom Universe) theory Archimedes Plutonium[_2_] Astronomy Misc 1 August 19th 09 07:49 PM
magnetic fields of planets explained by Positron-Space-gravity #140;3rd ed; Atom Totality (Atom Universe) theory Archimedes Plutonium[_2_] Astronomy Misc 1 August 12th 09 06:37 AM
"The Dawning of Gauge Theory" - supersymmetry breaking explained Jack Sarfatti Astronomy Misc 0 May 20th 07 09:48 PM
E-Paper. Variable Star Brightness Explained by Ballistic Theory. HenriWilson Astronomy Misc 289 May 19th 04 01:36 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 01:50 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004-2017 SpaceBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.