Gravitational potential for fun and profit

I saw a neat article in "The Physics Teacher" last month that had a
nice plot of the gravitational potential within the inner solar
system.

So, I decided to play. For my troubles, I got a better understanding
of just what the heck a potential is in the first place--at least in
the one dimensional case--and made some cool plots.

Here's the result.
http://home.alltel.net/trapezium/Essays/GravPot.htm

Corrections invited, as always.
--
Dave

On Nov 6, 7:47*am, Dave Typinski wrote:
I saw a neat article in "The Physics Teacher" last month that had a
nice plot of the gravitational potential within the inner solar
system.

So, I decided to play. *For my troubles, I got a better understanding
of just what the heck a potential is in the first place--at least in
the one dimensional case--and made some cool plots.

Here's the result.http://home.alltel.net/trapezium/Essays/GravPot.htm

Corrections invited, as always.
--
Dave

Well,for a start,the premises and conclusions are all wrong and for
people who haven't a clue what Newton did or those who know no
better,let me explain a few things.

Lets look at what he said about orbital motion -

'PHÆNOMENON IV. '
"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

To an empiricist it does not matter whether it is junk and it is
junk,it only matters that the underpinning astronomical arguments are
gotten rid of so that planetary motion can be treated like the
behavior of an apple.The actual statement of Kepler is quite different
and for an astronomer,quite a joy to behold -

"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

A more gentle version is one almost anyone can understand -

"But it is absolutely certain and exact that the ratio which exists
between the periodic times of any two planets is precisely the ratio
of the 3/2th power of the mean distances, i.e., of the spheres
themselves; provided, however, that the arithmetic mean between both
diameters of the elliptic orbit be slightly less than the longer
diameter. And so if any one take the period, say, of the Earth, which
is one year, and the period of Saturn, which is thirty years, and
extract the cube roots of this ratio and then square the ensuing ratio
by squaring the cube roots, he will have as his numerical products the
most just ratio of the distances of the Earth and Saturn from the sun.
1 For the cube root of 1 is 1, and the square of it is 1; and the cube
root of 30 is greater than 3, and therefore the square of it is
greater than 9. And Saturn, at its mean distance from the sun, is
slightly higher than nine times the mean distance of the Earth from
the sun." Kepler

Astronomers work with geometric precision whereas the victory of
empiricism is promoting the idea that an equational treatment based on
loss correlations are accurate when they are not.How many here have
heard the statement - f=ma,well Newton never said it,to quote a
participant -

"I challenge anyone to quote a single, solitary place where Newton in
the Principia or elsewhere said F=ma. He was much too careful a man to
assume the constancy of mass and never, but never, went beyond F =
d(mv)/dt
and never took the m out of the parenthesis as constant. That was done
by the guesswork-loving intuitive physicists who lived after him. Of
course, the Principia are not written in the language of algebra, but
of geometry." Petr Beckmann

The language of Astronomy is first and foremost geometry,as a person
can see,the insight and correlation Kepler drew in respect to orbital
periods and distance from the Sun is both easy to understand and
enjoyable whereas the contrived version by Newton is basically
stitched together with the hope that nobody will notice that it is
rubbish or know much about the original insights of astronomers.

The thing about this is that there is a tremendous amount of work for
dynamicists but they cannot find themselves out of the labyrinth they
created and I can only point out so many time where they jump the
tracks,take the wrong turn,apply an inappropriate analogy such as
apple/Earth and the myriad of different things which dull astronomy.

On 6 nov, 06:27, oriel36 wrote:
On Nov 6, 7:47*am, Dave Typinski wrote:

I saw a neat article in "The Physics Teacher" last month that had a
nice plot of the gravitational potential within the inner solar
system.

So, I decided to play. *For my troubles, I got a better understanding
of just what the heck a potential is in the first place--at least in
the one dimensional case--and made some cool plots.

Here's the result.http://home.alltel.net/trapezium/Essays/GravPot.htm

Corrections invited, as always.
--
Dave

Well,for a start,the premises and conclusions are all wrong and for
people who haven't a clue what Newton did or those who know no
better,let me explain a few things.

Lets look at what he said about orbital motion -

'PHÆNOMENON IV. '
"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

To an empiricist it does not matter whether it is junk and it is
junk,it only matters that the underpinning astronomical arguments are
gotten rid of so that planetary motion can be treated like the
behavior of an apple.The actual statement of Kepler is quite different
and for an astronomer,quite a joy to behold -

"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

A more gentle version is one almost anyone can understand -

"But it is absolutely certain and exact that the ratio which exists
between the periodic times of any two planets is precisely the ratio
of the 3/2th power of the mean distances, i.e., of the spheres
themselves; provided, however, that the arithmetic mean between both
diameters of the elliptic orbit be slightly less than the longer
diameter. And so if any one take the period, say, of the Earth, which
is one year, and the period of Saturn, which is thirty years, and
extract the cube roots of this ratio and then square the ensuing ratio
by squaring the cube roots, he will have as his numerical products the
most just ratio of the distances of the Earth and Saturn from the sun.
1 For the cube root of 1 is 1, and the square of it is 1; and the cube
root of 30 is greater than 3, and therefore the square of it is
greater than 9. And Saturn, at its mean distance from the sun, is
slightly higher *than nine times the mean distance of the Earth from
the sun." Kepler

Astronomers work with geometric precision whereas the victory of
empiricism is promoting the idea that an equational treatment based on
loss correlations are accurate when they are not.How many here have
heard the statement - f=ma,well Newton never said it,to quote a
participant -

"I challenge anyone to quote a single, solitary place where Newton in
the Principia or elsewhere said F=ma. He was much too careful a man to
assume the constancy of mass and never, but never, went beyond F =
d(mv)/dt
and never took the m out of the parenthesis as constant.

You are absolutely right on this issue.

Even in a precursor manuscript work "De gravitatione" written
between 1665 and 1670 he stated in Definition 15. "Bodies are
denser when their inertia is more intense and less so when
their inertia is weaker."

Apparently, from the get go he never assumed constancy of
mass.

Among other interesting precursor ideas, he also considered
the possibility that light could maybe cause a body to move
as the wind causes windmills sails to move.

André Michaud

That was done
by the guesswork-loving intuitive physicists who lived after him. Of
course, the Principia are not written in the language of algebra, but
of geometry." Petr Beckmann

*The language of Astronomy is first and foremost geometry,as a person
can see,the insight and correlation Kepler drew in respect to orbital
periods and distance from the Sun is both easy to understand and
enjoyable whereas the contrived version by Newton is basically
stitched together with the hope that nobody will notice that it is
rubbish or know much about the original insights of astronomers.

The thing about this is that there is a tremendous amount of work for
dynamicists but they cannot find themselves out of the labyrinth they
created and I can only point out so many time where they jump the
tracks,take the wrong turn,apply an *inappropriate analogy such as
apple/Earth and the myriad of different things which dull astronomy.

On Nov 6, 2:39*pm, wrote:
On 6 nov, 06:27, oriel36 wrote:



On Nov 6, 7:47*am, Dave Typinski wrote:

I saw a neat article in "The Physics Teacher" last month that had a
nice plot of the gravitational potential within the inner solar
system.

So, I decided to play. *For my troubles, I got a better understanding
of just what the heck a potential is in the first place--at least in
the one dimensional case--and made some cool plots.

Here's the result.http://home.alltel.net/trapezium/Essays/GravPot.htm

Corrections invited, as always.
--
Dave

Well,for a start,the premises and conclusions are all wrong and for
people who haven't a clue what Newton did or those who know no
better,let me explain a few things.

Lets look at what he said about orbital motion -

'PHÆNOMENON IV. '
"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

To an empiricist it does not matter whether it is junk and it is
junk,it only matters that the underpinning astronomical arguments are
gotten rid of so that planetary motion can be treated like the
behavior of an apple.The actual statement of Kepler is quite different
and for an astronomer,quite a joy to behold -

"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

A more gentle version is one almost anyone can understand -

"But it is absolutely certain and exact that the ratio which exists
between the periodic times of any two planets is precisely the ratio
of the 3/2th power of the mean distances, i.e., of the spheres
themselves; provided, however, that the arithmetic mean between both
diameters of the elliptic orbit be slightly less than the longer
diameter. And so if any one take the period, say, of the Earth, which
is one year, and the period of Saturn, which is thirty years, and
extract the cube roots of this ratio and then square the ensuing ratio
by squaring the cube roots, he will have as his numerical products the
most just ratio of the distances of the Earth and Saturn from the sun.
1 For the cube root of 1 is 1, and the square of it is 1; and the cube
root of 30 is greater than 3, and therefore the square of it is
greater than 9. And Saturn, at its mean distance from the sun, is
slightly higher *than nine times the mean distance of the Earth from
the sun." Kepler

Astronomers work with geometric precision whereas the victory of
empiricism is promoting the idea that an equational treatment based on
loss correlations are accurate when they are not.How many here have
heard the statement - f=ma,well Newton never said it,to quote a
participant -

"I challenge anyone to quote a single, solitary place where Newton in
the Principia or elsewhere said F=ma. He was much too careful a man to
assume the constancy of mass and never, but never, went beyond F =
d(mv)/dt
and never took the m out of the parenthesis as constant.

You are absolutely right on this issue.

Even in a precursor manuscript work "De gravitatione" written
between 1665 and 1670 he stated in Definition 15. "Bodies are
denser when their inertia is more intense and less so when
their inertia is weaker."

Apparently, from the get go he never assumed constancy of
mass.

Among other interesting precursor ideas, he also considered
the possibility that light could maybe cause a body to move
as the wind causes windmills sails to move.

André Michaud



You all hang around Newton as if he accomplished something when that
numbskull basically mutilated astronomy and I would have as much
interest in dealing with his stupidity as I would a flat-Earther which
is why the response is designed around making genuine people aware of
exactly what Kepler did and how he did it.

What Newton did was rob the great astronomers of their
insights ,dilute the reasoning behind the difference between
geocentricity and the motions of the Earth and insert a weak argument
based on forces and what have you -

"It is indeed a matter of great difficulty to discover, and
effectually to distinguish, the true motion of particular bodies from
the apparent; because the parts of that absolute space, in which those
motions are performed, do by no means come under the observation of
our senses. Yet the thing is not altogether desperate; for we have
some arguments to guide us, partly from the apparent motions, which
are the differences of the true motions; partly from the forces, which
are the causes and effects of the true motion." Newton

http://members.tripod.com/~gravitee/...tions.htm#time

I have news for you Andre,the main argument which distinguishes
apparent retrograde motion (apparent motions) from the actual motions
based on an orbitally moving Earth is very much easy to see hence
Newton's false premise and conclusion based on the difference between
apparent motions and actual motions -

"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

Let me make things very simple and this is not addressed to you as I
know you thoughts on Newton ,when Newton give himself that illegal
choice of observer on Earth and the Sun to resolve retrogrades and
his views became dominant,astronomy withered as a pursuit.In the early
20th century they expanded on that illegal choice of the late 17th
century to an unlimited amount of choices (relativity) thereby the
symptoms of the disease truly became manifest.

I can go through all the details with ease but now prefer to stick
with new and productive things that people can use,trying to bring
fresh air to the poisoned discipline of astronomy.Carry on with your
hero worship of Newton,humanity has now powerful imaging and time
lapse footage to undo most of the damage that numbskull caused and
particularly in the dilution of the merit system and what
accomplishment really are.






That was done
by the guesswork-loving intuitive physicists who lived after him. Of
course, the Principia are not written in the language of algebra, but
of geometry." Petr Beckmann

*The language of Astronomy is first and foremost geometry,as a person
can see,the insight and correlation Kepler drew in respect to orbital
periods and distance from the Sun is both easy to understand and
enjoyable whereas the contrived version by Newton is basically
stitched together with the hope that nobody will notice that it is
rubbish or know much about the original insights of astronomers.

The thing about this is that there is a tremendous amount of work for
dynamicists but they cannot find themselves out of the labyrinth they
created and I can only point out so many time where they jump the
tracks,take the wrong turn,apply an *inappropriate analogy such as
apple/Earth and the myriad of different things which dull astronomy.

On 6 nov, 13:52, oriel36 wrote:
On Nov 6, 2:39*pm, wrote:



On 6 nov, 06:27, oriel36 wrote:

On Nov 6, 7:47*am, Dave Typinski wrote:

I saw a neat article in "The Physics Teacher" last month that had a
nice plot of the gravitational potential within the inner solar
system.

So, I decided to play. *For my troubles, I got a better understanding
of just what the heck a potential is in the first place--at least in
the one dimensional case--and made some cool plots.

Here's the result.http://home.alltel.net/trapezium/Essays/GravPot.htm

Corrections invited, as always.
--
Dave

Well,for a start,the premises and conclusions are all wrong and for
people who haven't a clue what Newton did or those who know no
better,let me explain a few things.

Lets look at what he said about orbital motion -

'PHÆNOMENON IV. '
"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

To an empiricist it does not matter whether it is junk and it is
junk,it only matters that the underpinning astronomical arguments are
gotten rid of so that planetary motion can be treated like the
behavior of an apple.The actual statement of Kepler is quite different
and for an astronomer,quite a joy to behold -

"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

A more gentle version is one almost anyone can understand -

"But it is absolutely certain and exact that the ratio which exists
between the periodic times of any two planets is precisely the ratio
of the 3/2th power of the mean distances, i.e., of the spheres
themselves; provided, however, that the arithmetic mean between both
diameters of the elliptic orbit be slightly less than the longer
diameter. And so if any one take the period, say, of the Earth, which
is one year, and the period of Saturn, which is thirty years, and
extract the cube roots of this ratio and then square the ensuing ratio
by squaring the cube roots, he will have as his numerical products the
most just ratio of the distances of the Earth and Saturn from the sun..
1 For the cube root of 1 is 1, and the square of it is 1; and the cube
root of 30 is greater than 3, and therefore the square of it is
greater than 9. And Saturn, at its mean distance from the sun, is
slightly higher *than nine times the mean distance of the Earth from
the sun." Kepler

Astronomers work with geometric precision whereas the victory of
empiricism is promoting the idea that an equational treatment based on
loss correlations are accurate when they are not.How many here have
heard the statement - f=ma,well Newton never said it,to quote a
participant -

"I challenge anyone to quote a single, solitary place where Newton in
the Principia or elsewhere said F=ma. He was much too careful a man to
assume the constancy of mass and never, but never, went beyond F =
d(mv)/dt
and never took the m out of the parenthesis as constant.

You are absolutely right on this issue.

Even in a precursor manuscript work "De gravitatione" written
between 1665 and 1670 he stated in Definition 15. "Bodies are
denser when their inertia is more intense and less so when
their inertia is weaker."

Apparently, from the get go he never assumed constancy of
mass.

Among other interesting precursor ideas, he also considered
the possibility that light could maybe cause a body to move
as the wind causes windmills sails to move.

André Michaud

You all hang around Newton as if he accomplished something when that
numbskull basically mutilated astronomy and I would have as much
interest in dealing with his stupidity as I would a flat-Earther which
is why the response *is designed around making genuine people aware of
exactly what Kepler did and how he did it.

What Newton did was rob the great astronomers of their
insights ,dilute the reasoning behind the difference between
geocentricity and the motions of the Earth and insert a weak argument
based on forces and what have you -

"It is indeed a matter of great difficulty to discover, and
effectually to distinguish, the true motion of particular bodies from
the apparent; because the parts of that absolute space, in which those
motions are performed, do by no means come under the observation of
our senses. Yet the thing is not altogether desperate; for we have
some arguments to guide us, partly from the apparent motions, which
are the differences of the true motions; partly from the forces, which
are the causes and effects of the true motion." Newton

http://members.tripod.com/~gravitee/...tions.htm#time

I have news for you Andre,the main argument which distinguishes
apparent retrograde motion (apparent motions) from the actual motions
based on an orbitally moving Earth is very much easy to see hence
Newton's false premise and conclusion based on the difference between
apparent motions and actual motions -

"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

Let me make things very simple and this is not addressed to you as I
know you thoughts on Newton ,when Newton give himself that illegal
choice of observer on Earth and the Sun to resolve retrogrades *and
his views became dominant,astronomy withered as a pursuit.In the early
20th century they expanded on that illegal choice of the late 17th
century to an unlimited amount of choices (relativity) thereby the
symptoms of the disease truly became manifest.

I can go through all the details with ease but now prefer to stick
with new and productive things that people can use,trying to bring
fresh air to the poisoned *discipline of astronomy.Carry on with your
hero worship of Newton,humanity has now powerful imaging and time
lapse footage to undo most of the damage that numbskull caused and
particularly in the dilution of the merit system and what
accomplishment really are.

I have no idea why you think I worship Newton as a hero. To me he
is just one of the many discoverers of the past. I take from all of
them
all info that seamlessly integrates together and leave the rest as
garbage. I do not even really care who discovered this or that. I care
only for overall consistency with observed physical reality.

André Michaud

That was done
by the guesswork-loving intuitive physicists who lived after him. Of
course, the Principia are not written in the language of algebra, but
of geometry." Petr Beckmann

*The language of Astronomy is first and foremost geometry,as a person
can see,the insight and correlation Kepler drew in respect to orbital
periods and distance from the Sun is both easy to understand and
enjoyable whereas the contrived version by Newton is basically
stitched together with the hope that nobody will notice that it is
rubbish or know much about the original insights of astronomers.

The thing about this is that there is a tremendous amount of work for
dynamicists but they cannot find themselves out of the labyrinth they
created and I can only point out so many time where they jump the
tracks,take the wrong turn,apply an *inappropriate analogy such as
apple/Earth and the myriad of different things which dull astronomy.

On Nov 6, 9:51*pm, wrote:
On 6 nov, 13:52, oriel36 wrote:



On Nov 6, 2:39*pm, wrote:

On 6 nov, 06:27, oriel36 wrote:

On Nov 6, 7:47*am, Dave Typinski wrote:

I saw a neat article in "The Physics Teacher" last month that had a
nice plot of the gravitational potential within the inner solar
system.

So, I decided to play. *For my troubles, I got a better understanding
of just what the heck a potential is in the first place--at least in
the one dimensional case--and made some cool plots.

Here's the result.http://home.alltel.net/trapezium/Essays/GravPot..htm

Corrections invited, as always.
--
Dave

Well,for a start,the premises and conclusions are all wrong and for
people who haven't a clue what Newton did or those who know no
better,let me explain a few things.

Lets look at what he said about orbital motion -

'PHÆNOMENON IV. '
"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

To an empiricist it does not matter whether it is junk and it is
junk,it only matters that the underpinning astronomical arguments are
gotten rid of so that planetary motion can be treated like the
behavior of an apple.The actual statement of Kepler is quite different
and for an astronomer,quite a joy to behold -

"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

A more gentle version is one almost anyone can understand -

"But it is absolutely certain and exact that the ratio which exists
between the periodic times of any two planets is precisely the ratio
of the 3/2th power of the mean distances, i.e., of the spheres
themselves; provided, however, that the arithmetic mean between both
diameters of the elliptic orbit be slightly less than the longer
diameter. And so if any one take the period, say, of the Earth, which
is one year, and the period of Saturn, which is thirty years, and
extract the cube roots of this ratio and then square the ensuing ratio
by squaring the cube roots, he will have as his numerical products the
most just ratio of the distances of the Earth and Saturn from the sun.
1 For the cube root of 1 is 1, and the square of it is 1; and the cube
root of 30 is greater than 3, and therefore the square of it is
greater than 9. And Saturn, at its mean distance from the sun, is
slightly higher *than nine times the mean distance of the Earth from
the sun." Kepler

Astronomers work with geometric precision whereas the victory of
empiricism is promoting the idea that an equational treatment based on
loss correlations are accurate when they are not.How many here have
heard the statement - f=ma,well Newton never said it,to quote a
participant -

"I challenge anyone to quote a single, solitary place where Newton in
the Principia or elsewhere said F=ma. He was much too careful a man to
assume the constancy of mass and never, but never, went beyond F =
d(mv)/dt
and never took the m out of the parenthesis as constant.

You are absolutely right on this issue.

Even in a precursor manuscript work "De gravitatione" written
between 1665 and 1670 he stated in Definition 15. "Bodies are
denser when their inertia is more intense and less so when
their inertia is weaker."

Apparently, from the get go he never assumed constancy of
mass.

Among other interesting precursor ideas, he also considered
the possibility that light could maybe cause a body to move
as the wind causes windmills sails to move.

André Michaud

You all hang around Newton as if he accomplished something when that
numbskull basically mutilated astronomy and I would have as much
interest in dealing with his stupidity as I would a flat-Earther which
is why the response *is designed around making genuine people aware of
exactly what Kepler did and how he did it.

What Newton did was rob the great astronomers of their
insights ,dilute the reasoning behind the difference between
geocentricity and the motions of the Earth and insert a weak argument
based on forces and what have you -

"It is indeed a matter of great difficulty to discover, and
effectually to distinguish, the true motion of particular bodies from
the apparent; because the parts of that absolute space, in which those
motions are performed, do by no means come under the observation of
our senses. Yet the thing is not altogether desperate; for we have
some arguments to guide us, partly from the apparent motions, which
are the differences of the true motions; partly from the forces, which
are the causes and effects of the true motion." Newton

http://members.tripod.com/~gravitee/...tions.htm#time

I have news for you Andre,the main argument which distinguishes
apparent retrograde motion (apparent motions) from the actual motions
based on an orbitally moving Earth is very much easy to see hence
Newton's false premise and conclusion based on the difference between
apparent motions and actual motions -

"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

Let me make things very simple and this is not addressed to you as I
know you thoughts on Newton ,when Newton give himself that illegal
choice of observer on Earth and the Sun to resolve retrogrades *and
his views became dominant,astronomy withered as a pursuit.In the early
20th century they expanded on that illegal choice of the late 17th
century to an unlimited amount of choices (relativity) thereby the
symptoms of the disease truly became manifest.

I can go through all the details with ease but now prefer to stick
with new and productive things that people can use,trying to bring
fresh air to the poisoned *discipline of astronomy.Carry on with your
hero worship of Newton,humanity has now powerful imaging and time
lapse footage to undo most of the damage that numbskull caused and
particularly in the dilution of the merit system and what
accomplishment really are.

I have no idea why you think I worship Newton as a hero. To me he
is just one of the many discoverers of the past.


Newton is little more than junk merchant who knew his audience so
forget about his 'discoveries',whatever they are he had no competence
in astronomy,its methods and its insights and you will not dare argue
with me point for point on even basic astronomical precepts,premises
and conclusions.

I take from all of
them
all info that seamlessly integrates together and leave the rest as
garbage.

The garbage preceded Newton,specifically the so-called 'predictive'
Equatorial coordinate system created by John Flamsteed and on which
Isaac hung his forces/laws agenda ,a nasty astrological framework that
bypasses geocentricity in its descent into a dull dismal place as
remote from astronomy as a person or line of reasoning can possibly
get.



I do not even really care who discovered this or that. I care
only for overall consistency with observed physical reality.


Fine word that 'reality',it gets thrown around quite a bit but I have
little use for anything only geometric arguments and sadly,your
responses do not contain any.If I ask you the most basic astronomical
question you will give the wrong answer such as what is the value for
daily rotation through 360 degrees ?.


André Michaud


You are welcome to remain in the late 17th century with Isaac but this
21st century person doesn't think much of musty 'universal laws of
gravitation',an astrological concept that appeals to the vacuous or
the outright dumb who know no better.



That was done
by the guesswork-loving intuitive physicists who lived after him. Of
course, the Principia are not written in the language of algebra, but
of geometry." Petr Beckmann

*The language of Astronomy is first and foremost geometry,as a person
can see,the insight and correlation Kepler drew in respect to orbital
periods and distance from the Sun is both easy to understand and
enjoyable whereas the contrived version by Newton is basically
stitched together with the hope that nobody will notice that it is
rubbish or know much about the original insights of astronomers.

The thing about this is that there is a tremendous amount of work for
dynamicists but they cannot find themselves out of the labyrinth they
created and I can only point out so many time where they jump the
tracks,take the wrong turn,apply an *inappropriate analogy such as
apple/Earth and the myriad of different things which dull astronomy..

On 6 nov, 16:21, oriel36 wrote:
On Nov 6, 9:51*pm, wrote:



On 6 nov, 13:52, oriel36 wrote:

On Nov 6, 2:39*pm, wrote:

On 6 nov, 06:27, oriel36 wrote:

On Nov 6, 7:47*am, Dave Typinski wrote:

I saw a neat article in "The Physics Teacher" last month that had a
nice plot of the gravitational potential within the inner solar
system.

So, I decided to play. *For my troubles, I got a better understanding
of just what the heck a potential is in the first place--at least in
the one dimensional case--and made some cool plots.

Here's the result.http://home.alltel.net/trapezium/Essays/GravPot.htm

Corrections invited, as always.
--
Dave

Well,for a start,the premises and conclusions are all wrong and for
people who haven't a clue what Newton did or those who know no
better,let me explain a few things.

Lets look at what he said about orbital motion -

'PHÆNOMENON IV. '
"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

To an empiricist it does not matter whether it is junk and it is
junk,it only matters that the underpinning astronomical arguments are
gotten rid of so that planetary motion can be treated like the
behavior of an apple.The actual statement of Kepler is quite different
and for an astronomer,quite a joy to behold -

"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

A more gentle version is one almost anyone can understand -

"But it is absolutely certain and exact that the ratio which exists
between the periodic times of any two planets is precisely the ratio
of the 3/2th power of the mean distances, i.e., of the spheres
themselves; provided, however, that the arithmetic mean between both
diameters of the elliptic orbit be slightly less than the longer
diameter. And so if any one take the period, say, of the Earth, which
is one year, and the period of Saturn, which is thirty years, and
extract the cube roots of this ratio and then square the ensuing ratio
by squaring the cube roots, he will have as his numerical products the
most just ratio of the distances of the Earth and Saturn from the sun.
1 For the cube root of 1 is 1, and the square of it is 1; and the cube
root of 30 is greater than 3, and therefore the square of it is
greater than 9. And Saturn, at its mean distance from the sun, is
slightly higher *than nine times the mean distance of the Earth from
the sun." Kepler

Astronomers work with geometric precision whereas the victory of
empiricism is promoting the idea that an equational treatment based on
loss correlations are accurate when they are not.How many here have
heard the statement - f=ma,well Newton never said it,to quote a
participant -

"I challenge anyone to quote a single, solitary place where Newton in
the Principia or elsewhere said F=ma. He was much too careful a man to
assume the constancy of mass and never, but never, went beyond F =
d(mv)/dt
and never took the m out of the parenthesis as constant.

You are absolutely right on this issue.

Even in a precursor manuscript work "De gravitatione" written
between 1665 and 1670 he stated in Definition 15. "Bodies are
denser when their inertia is more intense and less so when
their inertia is weaker."

Apparently, from the get go he never assumed constancy of
mass.

Among other interesting precursor ideas, he also considered
the possibility that light could maybe cause a body to move
as the wind causes windmills sails to move.

André Michaud

You all hang around Newton as if he accomplished something when that
numbskull basically mutilated astronomy and I would have as much
interest in dealing with his stupidity as I would a flat-Earther which
is why the response *is designed around making genuine people aware of
exactly what Kepler did and how he did it.

What Newton did was rob the great astronomers of their
insights ,dilute the reasoning behind the difference between
geocentricity and the motions of the Earth and insert a weak argument
based on forces and what have you -

"It is indeed a matter of great difficulty to discover, and
effectually to distinguish, the true motion of particular bodies from
the apparent; because the parts of that absolute space, in which those
motions are performed, do by no means come under the observation of
our senses. Yet the thing is not altogether desperate; for we have
some arguments to guide us, partly from the apparent motions, which
are the differences of the true motions; partly from the forces, which
are the causes and effects of the true motion." Newton

http://members.tripod.com/~gravitee/...tions.htm#time

I have news for you Andre,the main argument which distinguishes
apparent retrograde motion (apparent motions) from the actual motions
based on an orbitally moving Earth is very much easy to see hence
Newton's false premise and conclusion based on the difference between
apparent motions and actual motions -

"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

Let me make things very simple and this is not addressed to you as I
know you thoughts on Newton ,when Newton give himself that illegal
choice of observer on Earth and the Sun to resolve retrogrades *and
his views became dominant,astronomy withered as a pursuit.In the early
20th century they expanded on that illegal choice of the late 17th
century to an unlimited amount of choices (relativity) thereby the
symptoms of the disease truly became manifest.

I can go through all the details with ease but now prefer to stick
with new and productive things that people can use,trying to bring
fresh air to the poisoned *discipline of astronomy.Carry on with your
hero worship of Newton,humanity has now powerful imaging and time
lapse footage to undo most of the damage that numbskull caused and
particularly in the dilution of the merit system and what
accomplishment really are.

I have no idea why you think I worship Newton as a hero. To me he
is just one of the many discoverers of the past.

Newton is little more than *junk merchant who knew his audience so
forget about his 'discoveries',whatever they are he had no competence
in astronomy,its methods and its insights and you will not dare argue
with me point for point on even basic astronomical precepts,premises
and conclusions.

I take from all of

them
all info that seamlessly integrates together and leave the rest as
garbage.

The garbage preceded Newton,specifically the so-called *'predictive'
Equatorial coordinate system created by John Flamsteed and on which
Isaac hung his forces/laws agenda ,a nasty astrological framework that
bypasses geocentricity in its descent into a dull dismal place as
remote from astronomy as a person or line of reasoning can possibly
get.

*I do not even really care who discovered this or that. I care

only for overall consistency with observed physical reality.

Fine word that 'reality',it gets thrown around *quite a bit but I have
little use for anything only geometric arguments and sadly,your
responses do not contain any. If I ask you the most basic astronomical
question you will give the wrong answer such as what is the value for
daily rotation through 360 degrees ?.

André Michaud

You are welcome to remain in the late 17th century with Isaac but this
21st century person doesn't think much of musty 'universal laws of
gravitation',an astrological concept that appeals to the vacuous or
the outright dumb who know no better.

I don't understand why you are so angry. To me there is no
universal law of gravitation. There is only electromagnetic
interaction
between fundamental elementary scatterable particles. Nothing
else is required in the 3-spaces geometry to explain everything.

From my perspective, there is no discontinuity between the
fundamental elementary scatterable particles level and the
macro level. So-called "universal law of gravitation" is just
a macro perspective of what happens at the elementary
particles level.

I care only for what seems coherent, and leave argument
about who is right or wrong to others.

Well, I don't expect you understand what I am talking about
anyway.

André Michaud



That was done
by the guesswork-loving intuitive physicists who lived after him. Of
course, the Principia are not written in the language of algebra, but
of geometry." Petr Beckmann

*The language of Astronomy is first and foremost geometry,as a person
can see,the insight and correlation Kepler drew in respect to orbital
periods and distance from the Sun is both easy to understand and
enjoyable whereas the contrived version by Newton is basically
stitched together with the hope that nobody will notice that it is
rubbish or know much about the original insights of astronomers.

The thing about this is that there is a tremendous amount of work for
dynamicists but they cannot find themselves out of the labyrinth they
created and I can only point out so many time where they jump the
tracks,take the wrong turn,apply an *inappropriate analogy such as
apple/Earth and the myriad of different things which dull astronomy.

On Nov 6, 11:15*pm, wrote:
On 6 nov, 16:21, oriel36 wrote:



On Nov 6, 9:51*pm, wrote:

On 6 nov, 13:52, oriel36 wrote:

On Nov 6, 2:39*pm, wrote:

On 6 nov, 06:27, oriel36 wrote:

On Nov 6, 7:47*am, Dave Typinski wrote:

I saw a neat article in "The Physics Teacher" last month that had a
nice plot of the gravitational potential within the inner solar
system.

So, I decided to play. *For my troubles, I got a better understanding
of just what the heck a potential is in the first place--at least in
the one dimensional case--and made some cool plots.

Here's the result.http://home.alltel.net/trapezium/Essays/GravPot.htm

Corrections invited, as always.
--
Dave

Well,for a start,the premises and conclusions are all wrong and for
people who haven't a clue what Newton did or those who know no
better,let me explain a few things.

Lets look at what he said about orbital motion -

'PHÆNOMENON IV. '
"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

To an empiricist it does not matter whether it is junk and it is
junk,it only matters that the underpinning astronomical arguments are
gotten rid of so that planetary motion can be treated like the
behavior of an apple.The actual statement of Kepler is quite different
and for an astronomer,quite a joy to behold -

"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

A more gentle version is one almost anyone can understand -

"But it is absolutely certain and exact that the ratio which exists
between the periodic times of any two planets is precisely the ratio
of the 3/2th power of the mean distances, i.e., of the spheres
themselves; provided, however, that the arithmetic mean between both
diameters of the elliptic orbit be slightly less than the longer
diameter. And so if any one take the period, say, of the Earth, which
is one year, and the period of Saturn, which is thirty years, and
extract the cube roots of this ratio and then square the ensuing ratio
by squaring the cube roots, he will have as his numerical products the
most just ratio of the distances of the Earth and Saturn from the sun.
1 For the cube root of 1 is 1, and the square of it is 1; and the cube
root of 30 is greater than 3, and therefore the square of it is
greater than 9. And Saturn, at its mean distance from the sun, is
slightly higher *than nine times the mean distance of the Earth from
the sun." Kepler

Astronomers work with geometric precision whereas the victory of
empiricism is promoting the idea that an equational treatment based on
loss correlations are accurate when they are not.How many here have
heard the statement - f=ma,well Newton never said it,to quote a
participant -

"I challenge anyone to quote a single, solitary place where Newton in
the Principia or elsewhere said F=ma. He was much too careful a man to
assume the constancy of mass and never, but never, went beyond F =
d(mv)/dt
and never took the m out of the parenthesis as constant.

You are absolutely right on this issue.

Even in a precursor manuscript work "De gravitatione" written
between 1665 and 1670 he stated in Definition 15. "Bodies are
denser when their inertia is more intense and less so when
their inertia is weaker."

Apparently, from the get go he never assumed constancy of
mass.

Among other interesting precursor ideas, he also considered
the possibility that light could maybe cause a body to move
as the wind causes windmills sails to move.

André Michaud

You all hang around Newton as if he accomplished something when that
numbskull basically mutilated astronomy and I would have as much
interest in dealing with his stupidity as I would a flat-Earther which
is why the response *is designed around making genuine people aware of
exactly what Kepler did and how he did it.

What Newton did was rob the great astronomers of their
insights ,dilute the reasoning behind the difference between
geocentricity and the motions of the Earth and insert a weak argument
based on forces and what have you -

"It is indeed a matter of great difficulty to discover, and
effectually to distinguish, the true motion of particular bodies from
the apparent; because the parts of that absolute space, in which those
motions are performed, do by no means come under the observation of
our senses. Yet the thing is not altogether desperate; for we have
some arguments to guide us, partly from the apparent motions, which
are the differences of the true motions; partly from the forces, which
are the causes and effects of the true motion." Newton

http://members.tripod.com/~gravitee/...tions.htm#time

I have news for you Andre,the main argument which distinguishes
apparent retrograde motion (apparent motions) from the actual motions
based on an orbitally moving Earth is very much easy to see hence
Newton's false premise and conclusion based on the difference between
apparent motions and actual motions -

"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

Let me make things very simple and this is not addressed to you as I
know you thoughts on Newton ,when Newton give himself that illegal
choice of observer on Earth and the Sun to resolve retrogrades *and
his views became dominant,astronomy withered as a pursuit.In the early
20th century they expanded on that illegal choice of the late 17th
century to an unlimited amount of choices (relativity) thereby the
symptoms of the disease truly became manifest.

I can go through all the details with ease but now prefer to stick
with new and productive things that people can use,trying to bring
fresh air to the poisoned *discipline of astronomy.Carry on with your
hero worship of Newton,humanity has now powerful imaging and time
lapse footage to undo most of the damage that numbskull caused and
particularly in the dilution of the merit system and what
accomplishment really are.

I have no idea why you think I worship Newton as a hero. To me he
is just one of the many discoverers of the past.

Newton is little more than *junk merchant who knew his audience so
forget about his 'discoveries',whatever they are he had no competence
in astronomy,its methods and its insights and you will not dare argue
with me point for point on even basic astronomical precepts,premises
and conclusions.

I take from all of

them
all info that seamlessly integrates together and leave the rest as
garbage.

The garbage preceded Newton,specifically the so-called *'predictive'
Equatorial coordinate system created by John Flamsteed and on which
Isaac hung his forces/laws agenda ,a nasty astrological framework that
bypasses geocentricity in its descent into a dull dismal place as
remote from astronomy as a person or line of reasoning can possibly
get.

*I do not even really care who discovered this or that. I care

only for overall consistency with observed physical reality.

Fine word that 'reality',it gets thrown around *quite a bit but I have
little use for anything only geometric arguments and sadly,your
responses do not contain any. If I ask you the most basic astronomical
question you will give the wrong answer such as what is the value for
daily rotation through 360 degrees ?.

André Michaud

You are welcome to remain in the late 17th century with Isaac but this
21st century person doesn't think much of musty 'universal laws of
gravitation',an astrological concept that appeals to the vacuous or
the outright dumb who know no better.

I don't understand why you are so angry. To me there is no
universal law of gravitation

Good,there was nothing to build on except an astrological 'prediction'
system ,just an artifice of the calendar system where Isaac tried to
squeeze the celestial arena and the motions of the Earth into the
equable 365/366 day system instead of the astronomically correct 365
days 5 hours 49 minutes.

The guys in sci.astro.amateur have been boxed in for years with
nothing to say while the rest of the forum is seeing the original
astronomical insights restored using modern imaging,graphics and
whatever else is at hand,they can even add a new motion the Earth with
respect to the central Sun.





André Michaud



That was done
by the guesswork-loving intuitive physicists who lived after him. Of
course, the Principia are not written in the language of algebra, but
of geometry." Petr Beckmann

*The language of Astronomy is first and foremost

...

read more »