|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Next Einstein Giovanni Amelino-Camelia against Original Einstein(Divine Albert) | Pentcho Valev | Astronomy Misc | 2 | October 25th 11 01:00 AM |
Antisemitic ramblings against Einstein | jacob navia[_5_] | Astronomy Misc | 207 | May 25th 11 11:12 AM |
Antisemitic ramblings against Einstein | Koobee Wublee | Astronomy Misc | 0 | May 13th 11 07:51 AM |
Is the New Testament Antisemitic? | Mighty Thor | History | 0 | December 10th 07 01:23 PM |
Einstein was an atheist. ACTUALLY EINSTEIN WAS AN IDIOT | 46erjoe | Misc | 964 | March 10th 07 06:10 AM |