|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Seven Year WMAP Results
Seven Year WMAP Results
http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmolog.htm#News 25 Jan 2010 - The seven year data sets and papers from WMAP are posted on LAMBDA. Luckily for me, the default parameters in my Cosmology Calculator taken from the first year results are still a good fit to all the data. The image on the right shows a map of the anisotropy of the Cosmic Microwave Background in the three highest frequency bands measured by WMAP: 41, 61 and 94 GHz. Click on the thumbnail for a larger version. References: http://wmap.gsfc.nasa.gov/ http://lambda.gsfc.nasa.gov/ http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/CosmoCalc.html |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Seven Year WMAP Results
On Jan 26, 5:05*pm, Sam Wormley wrote:
Seven Year WMAP Results * *http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmolog.htm#News 25 Jan 2010 - The seven year data sets and papers from WMAP are posted on LAMBDA. Luckily for me, the default parameters in my Cosmology Calculator taken from the first year results are still a good fit to all the data. The image on the right shows a map of the anisotropy of the Cosmic Microwave Background in the three highest frequency bands measured by WMAP: 41, 61 and 94 GHz. Click on the thumbnail for a larger version. References: * *http://wmap.gsfc.nasa.gov/ * *http://lambda.gsfc.nasa.gov/ * *http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/CosmoCalc.html That is really,really embarrassing from an organisation (NASA) which once focused on space adventure. Tell me Sam,who do you inform in that public organisation,once the most admired on the planet,that they are chasing rainbows that exist only in the imagination of mathematicians. And wherever anyone would be, he would believe himself to be at the center.Therefore, merge these different imaginative pictures so that the center is the zenith and vice versa. Thereupon you will see-- through the intellect..that the world and its motion and shape cannot be apprehended. For [the world] will appear as a wheel in a wheel and a sphere in a sphere-- having its center and circumference nowhere. . . " Archbishop Cusa Men like Cusa,the benefactor of Copernicus,were searching for the arguments which eventually led to planetary dynamics so how it came to be that 6 centuries later there is an entire race of numbskulls positively tripping over themselves to explain the 'every-valid-point- is-the-center' thingie even though it should horrify anyone with the slightest shred of intelligence. Anyone out there who can guess why the wmap signal shows a strong correlation with the Earth's orbital plane - "But when you look at CMB map, you also see that the structure that is observed, is in fact, in a weird way, correlated with the plane of the earth around the sun. Is this Copernicus coming back to haunt us? That's crazy. We're looking out at the whole universe. There's no way there should be a correlation of structure with our motion of the earth around the sun — the plane of the earth around the sun — the ecliptic. That would say we are truly the center of the universe." An empiricist trying to understand the wmap data 'Big Bang' is a logical conclusion of the Ra/Dec framework which has infected everything since Flamsteed jumped to the wrong conclusion. |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Seven Year WMAP Results
On Jan 26, 8:06*pm, oriel36 wrote:
Go back to sci.relativity and devise those wordplays which entertain you and your buddies,after all,it is all you have. Oriel "One Trick" Kelleher calling the kettle black? yawn |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Seven Year WMAP Results
On Jan 26, 10:40*am, oriel36 wrote:
On Jan 26, 5:05*pm, Sam Wormley wrote: Seven Year WMAP Results * *http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmolog.htm#News 25 Jan 2010 - The seven year data sets and papers from WMAP are posted on LAMBDA. Luckily for me, the default parameters in my Cosmology Calculator taken from the first year results are still a good fit to all the data. The image on the right shows a map of the anisotropy of the Cosmic Microwave Background in the three highest frequency bands measured by WMAP: 41, 61 and 94 GHz. Click on the thumbnail for a larger version. References: * *http://wmap.gsfc.nasa.gov/ * *http://lambda.gsfc.nasa.gov/ * *http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/CosmoCalc.html That is really,really embarrassing from an organisation (NASA) which once focused on space adventure. Tell me Sam,who do you inform in that public organisation,once the most admired on the planet,that they are chasing rainbows that exist only in the imagination of mathematicians. And wherever anyone would be, he would believe himself to be at the center.Therefore, merge these different imaginative pictures so that the center is the zenith and vice versa. Thereupon you will see-- through the intellect..that the world and its motion and shape cannot be apprehended. For [the world] will appear as a wheel in a wheel and a sphere in a sphere-- having its center and circumference nowhere. . . " Archbishop Cusa Men like Cusa,the benefactor of Copernicus,were searching for the arguments which eventually led to planetary dynamics so how it came to be that 6 centuries later there is an entire race of numbskulls positively tripping over themselves to explain the 'every-valid-point- is-the-center' thingie even though it should horrify anyone with the slightest shred of intelligence. Anyone out there who can guess why the wmap signal shows a strong correlation with the Earth's orbital plane - "But when you look at CMB map, you also see that the structure that is observed, is in fact, in a weird way, correlated with the plane of the earth around the sun. Is this Copernicus coming back to haunt us? That's crazy. We're looking out at the whole universe. There's no way there should be a correlation of structure with our motion of the earth around the sun — the plane of the earth around the sun — the ecliptic. That would say we are truly the center of the universe." An empiricist trying to understand the wmap data 'Big Bang' is a logical conclusion of the Ra/Dec framework which has infected everything since Flamsteed jumped to the wrong conclusion. The WMAP map is an 'equal area' Mollweide projection. Note that the same projection of the Earth in the above noted reference site shows that any place other than central Africa is distorted, and those places other than C. Africa, especially those places near the pole are greatly distorted. So it is critical that 'what 'space' of the universe one places at the center of this projection is crucial to what is distorted and what is not. Regardless how one cuts it, the 'official' WAMP team is using a distorted map to study the dipole anisotropy. In other words; not only is the WAMP team mistaking the map with the territory, it's using a really distorted map. My posts in the thread titled 'A simple Q, but not a simple A' in this newsgroup may help in alleviating some of the conundrums that you may have. Furthermore, this subject of the dipole anisotropy is addressed in detail in my treatise titled: The Search for Reality and the Truths. So hang in there, and don't let the 'little minds' get you down. D.Y. Kadoshima |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Seven Year WMAP Results
On Feb 2, 3:38*am, wrote:
So hang in there, and don't *let the 'little minds' get you down. D.Y. Kadoshima There are no such thing as 'little minds' and if you refer to empiricists who follow Newton, well, they don't bother me apart from the fact that their knowledge killing ideologies which have been temporarily dominant for 3 centuries are on the wane.The direction change will be away from ideologies which hold your attention and you consider important to more satisfying things like why we experience the daylight/darkness cycle,an experience which relies on an accurate value for daily rotation ,why we experience the seasons which relies on the specifics of orbital motion in tandem with daily rotation,the internal rotational mechanism behind planetary shape/crustal motion and evolution and many things like that. The guys in the late 19th and early 20th centuries took it for granted that Newton's agenda was sacrosanct,at least the agenda centered around the ideology that experimental sciences can be transfered directly into the celestial arena just as the original one had used the predictive convenience of Ra/Dec to bridge the difference between planetary dynamics and solar system structure with experimental sciences.I have gone out of my way to demonstrate that while investigators,especially in England,had been productively attempting to link planetary dynamics with terrestrial effects,Newton short circuited this approach by using an elaborate scheme or hoax built on Flamsteed's equatorial coordinate system by attempting to force the orbital dynamic of the Earth into the calendar based right ascension.I even suggested that rather than scrap the entire agenda,it is possible to bypass it by looking at things from a 1668 perspective,sort of a 'system restore' to a very unstable situation we have inherited - http://books.google.com/books?id=RyB...0dayes&f=false Anyone can see how these men were looking at things such as the tides and planetary dynamics inherent in the 'equation of time' and that is absolutely fine but what happened 20 years after this is unconscionable -the attempt to rope the great astronomers and their insights into the experimental method by gross distortions and crude conclusions. The astronomy of planetary dynamics and their terrestrial effects is spectacular with the aid of modern imaging which distinguishes it from the original empirical hoax which tried to bypass interpretation and go straight from observation into modelling/predictions by using a hypothetical 'absolute space' for modelling and observations within the Ra/Dec system as 'relative space'.I have found that followers of Newton neither know nor care how he got his elaborate scheme up and running at the price of destroying the works of the great astronomers in structural and timekeeping astronomies. As far as I am concerned the worst has past after the recent attempt to force through a conclusion based on carbon dioxide as a global temperature dial has failed or rather,the success of modern communication systems in preventing such a hideous conclusion based on fear as a weapon for social policies and laws,what remains is to revisit the original hoax where Newton forced a conclusion between experimental science and planetary dynamics which never worked and led to the worst excesses of speculation the planet has ever known. |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Seven Year WMAP Results
On Feb 1, 7:39 pm, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Mon, 1 Feb 2010 18:38:05 -0800 (PST), wrote: Regardless how one cuts it, the 'official' WAMP team is using a distorted map to study the dipole anisotropy. Actually, they aren't using a map projection at all. The data that people are working with is an array of numeric values- signal(RA, dec), with the native gridding determined by the instrument. The decision to use any particular projection to produce an image for release has nothing at all to do with how the actual data gets processed by those using it for research. I’m sure C. L. Peterson knows some of this stuff I state below, but there are some critical issues that he and mainline cosmology do not even consider. The CMBR was predicted by Alpher, Herman, and Gamov, and they maintained that this should uniform. The team of Drs. Wilkinson (for whom the MAP was renamed WMAP), Roll, and Pebbles, led by Dr. Robert H. Dicke was already looking for this when they were beaten to its discovery when Penzias and Wilson serendipitously ‘found’ the ‘static noise’ in the signals from all quadrants (in every direction) of outer space that Penzias and Wilson could not explain. Nevertheless, subsequent studies indicated that the CMBR is not uniform, with some claiming that is a dipole (with one side greater than the other), whereas others claimed the CMBR to be a quadrupole (i.e., a pattern with 2 high sides and 2 low sides). Dr. George Smoot (a graduate student of Dr. P.J.E. Pebbles at this particular time) had a special interest in the CMBR because Dr. Pebbles predicted the CMBR to be a dipole. The dipole anisotropy was confirmed by Smoot, and positively verified by the COBE Project that preceded the WMAP. Dr. Smoot made a lot of predictions of the nature and dynamic properties the Local Group of Galaxies based on the dipole anisotropy findings of the COBE project that do have a great impact on the nature and properties of the universe. Mainline science does not accept some of his conclusions, because it still prefers to ‘use the snake-oil approach to cosmology’. The important issue that I would like to bring up is that the WAMP team seems to have lost their focus on the prime reason for the WAMP. This was the find and determine the DIPOLE ANISOTROPY (asymmetric) properties of the CMBR and the impact of this on our understanding of the universe. Perhaps the finer resolution afforded by the WMAP over the COBE probe blinded the WMAP team to concentrate on the little details so much that they cannot see the ‘forest for the trees’. The NASA seems to me, to be concentrating on the 'ripples' within the CMBR and how isotropic (uniform) the CMBR apparently is, and other such details that are important, but not as important as the dipole anisotropy and the exact nature of the asymmetry. Anyway; the original Y2003 report was summarized by the team (not me) as: "...the geometry you learned in high school applies over the largest distances in the universe," and some other stuff. This (correctly in the philosophy that I follow) implies that the mathematics of General Relativity (i.e., non-Euclidean Geometry) does not apply to the understanding of the universe! The Y2006 report dropped this sentence and amended the others, and declared, quote: The universe is flat. (So does this mean that space is not curved as maintained by Einstein and Relativity?) The universe is 13.7 billion years old. (The WMAP team seems to have averaged the distance/ velocity/age measurements of the Hubble Law that indicates the universe is ~8-12 billon years old, and the stellar evolution theory that suggests the universe is ~15-18 billion years old. Is the 13.7 billon value true, and derived from WMAP data, or just a chicken s--t way out?) The Hubble constant is 73.5+/- 3.2 (km/sec)/Mpc if only the WMAP data is considered; estimated as 70.8 (km/sec)/Mpc If combined with other cosmological data and the tolerance Is +/- 1.6 if the universe is spatially flat, but this uncertainty Is +/- 4 if not. (Again I say this a lot of BS to just comply with the ‘screwed up map’ of modern cosmology that Dr Pebbles stated is a snake-oil approach. Cosmology extended the ‘exclusion zone’ in which Hubble Law does not apply from the extremities of the Milky Way to the extremities of the Local Group of Galaxies as more was learned, and some expanded the ‘exclusion zone’ to extend out the extremities of the Local Cluster of Local Groups. I maintain that the ‘exclusion zone’ within which the Hubble Law does not apply must extend out to the extremities of the known universe. Excluding the Hubble Law means that the age of the universe is modeled by the stellar evolution theory, and is roughly 15-18 billion years old. The importance of this is addressed in my manuscript.) The content of the universe is: 4% Atoms, 23% Cold Dark Matter, and Dark Energy. (Again I say BS. The content of the universe is the real physical matter [mass, stuff, i.e., atoms, isotopes, free electrons, nuclei, etc.] AND all the nonphysical qualities that humans cannot understand. This does no include the Cold Dark Matter or Dark Energy, that are just artifacts due to placing credence in the Philosophy of Idealism. I expose the very silly idea that there even is a need for Dark matter/energy as pure BS! The whole need for Dark Matter and/or Dark Energy is due to not truly understanding true Newtonian Mechanics and the truth of Newton’s Law of the Universal Mutual Gravitational Attraction [that mainline science managed to screw up], and mistaking the map with the territory.) And now the WMAP team gives credibility to inflation (i.e., the rate of expansion of the infant universe just after the Big Bang exceeded the speed of light), and some other pure BS, and a lot of self back patting based on these silly ideas. I justify this notion that the Hubble Law does not apply to the understanding of the nature of the universe, that any notion of any inflation is unnecessary if the astrophysicists correctly employ any notion of the relativity of time during the ‘first 3 minutes after the Big Bang’; and that the neutrinos are nonphysical forces, not massless particles in my treatise; but mostly if the ideas of Dr. Smoot are verified to the extent that the WMAP is capable, it will also demonstrate that: There is a center (of mass) to the universe, and that the Solar System, so the Earth just lucked out and is very, very close (in cosmological terms) to this point in the universe that is also the point in space of the Big Bang. D.Y. Kadoshima |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Seven Year WMAP Results
On Feb 2, 1:14*am, oriel36 wrote:
There are no such thing as 'little minds' First of all, I would like to correct an impression that I may have left on the readers of this newsgroup with the words 'little minds'. As I stated in another thread in response to a post by Uncle Al: There are those that are smart and those that are not. There are many that are very smart, and those very few that are exceptionally smart. And all make mistakes! Then there are those that are so dumb that they think they are smart. It’s this last group to which I was referring. So to continue: A wise old sage said: 1. To find the truths, one must verify the ones you have. 2. The first step to knowledge is understanding the meaning of the words. 3. The truth that you can put into words and pictures is not the absolute truth. So I postulate (i.e., state without further justification in the vernacular of physics) that there a 1. The Conditional truths, that are true under a specific set of conditions and/or during a specific event at a particular point in time, but false under others. 2. The Relative truths, that are true from a particular point of view and/or a specific frame of reference, but untrue from others. 3. The Generalized truths, that are statistically (mathematically) more probable to be true than not (i.e., 'educated guesses'). 4. The Fundamental truths, that are the underlying truths upon which all the other truths are based, and that are true all of the time, under all conditions, and within or from any and all perspectives, points of view, and/or frames of reference. I see by your post that you have ABSOLUTELY no idea what Newton meant by ‘absolute, true and mathematical time’; and More relevant to this post, ‘absolute space and relative space’. Please do not interpret the emphasis on the word absolute as an attempt to belittle you. Your interpretation of the word absolute is just correct and valid as Newton’s, but what I’m trying to do is to point out that your interpretation does not apply in Newtonian mechanics. I am searching for the truths, and I feel that pointing out the dogmas within mainline science greatly assists others to understand the truths I have found. That is; Newton did not use the common dictionary definition, or that used mainline science and Einstein. In other words; Newton’s absolute and relative space, time, etc., are alternatives to the frame of reference or point of view of a human observer mandated by the Philosophy of Idealism. So Newton’s absolute space, etc., just do not apply within Einstein Theories of Relativity, and Newton did not ever employ the notion of a frame of reference in his discourse, except to point out that the point of view from a rotating frame of reference cannot logically UNDERSTAND and/or EXPLAIN the true effects of inertia. Put another way; Newton felt that a frame of reference and/or point of view will not lead to understanding the workings (dynamics) of the natural universe. That’s why he put these words in the section called DEFINTIONS. Furthermore, Newton gives his reason why he did not define his absolute time and /or space, and relative space as he did the Latin word motu. This is because; “ I (Newton) do not define time, space, place, and motion, as being well known to all.” In other words; Newton states right here that the common notions are not what his absolute time, absolute space, relative space, and absolute motion are all about. (Newton wrote Principia in Latin. The Latin word motu was mistranslated as motion by Motte, rather than the correct translation as momentum, and all the subsequent translators continued this error. So conventional Newtonian Mechanics has ‘the 3 laws of motion’ rather than the Three Laws of Momentum. (See the thread ‘A simple Q, but not a simple A’, for why I can truly state that the Classical Newtonian Mechanics of mainline science is so screwed up that mainline science will not ever get the dynamics of the universe correct. Mainline science connotes Newton’s absolute space as that ‘single and immutable volume enclosed by the universe’. This is ABSOLUTELY (i.e., using the dictionary definition) not what Newton was trying to say or explain. Newton wrote, quote: I. Absolute, true and mathematical time … II. Absolute space in its own nature, without relation to anything external, remains always similar and immovable. Relative space is some movable dimension or measure of the absolute spaces; (Note that spaces is in the plural. If he meant the space occupied by the whole universe, this would be singular, i.e., just ‘space’, as there is but one universe, and continues with) which our senses determine by its position … determined by its position in respect of the earth. Absolute and relative are the same in figure and magnitude; but they do not remain always numerically the same … IV. Absolute motion is the translation of a body from one absolute place into another; and relative motion, the translation from one relative place into another… (and Newton uses an example of a ship under sail to explain what all the ramifications of correctly comprehending his ‘absolutes’, ‘relatives’ ,’true’ etc., have on the understanding of the dynamics (i.e., the change or changes to the state of inertia [i.e., the momentum and/or the moment of inertia]) that the mechanics of Newton presented in Principia are all about. All this is in the 1st section of Principia that Newton called DEFINITIONS for anyone to study. So the current notion that Newton believed in a single absolute space that encompasses the universe, and that he maintained a Solar System centric concept of the universe is gravely wrong. The Ptolemaic universe is a geocentric concept, wherein the celestial bodies move in perfectly circular deferent motions about the central stationary Earth, and the planets move in perfectly circular epicyclical motions about the perfectly circular deferent motions. The Hubble Laws also proposes a geocentric universe, except that the motions of the distant luminous bodies are perfectly straight paths in a direct radial direction in respect to the Earth. No celestial body ever moves in a direct radial direction in respect to the Earth or in a straight line for more than an instant due to all the continually fluctuating nonphysical gravitational forces of all the constantly moving bodies acting upon this particular body of interest within the universe that can empirically be seen to be moving every which way, and always in a nonlinear manner. As modern cosmology embraces the Hubble Law, and with it the silly Hubble Constant, Prof. P.J.E. Pebbles is certainly correct when he maintains that: “science is following the snake-oil approach to cosmology.” Isn’t it ironic that the Earth Centered Universe initially conceived by the arrogance of the human mind, although a heuristic notion, assuming that the Earth is at the center of the universe, while not absolutely true or precise, is for all practical purposes, correct, as proposed by the findings of the WMAP team. All this and much more are addressed in greater detail in my copyrighted treatise titled: The Search for Reality and the Truths. D.Y. Kadoshima |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Seven Year WMAP Results
On Feb 4, 3:47*am, wrote:
I see by your post that you have ABSOLUTELY no idea what Newton meant by ‘absolute, true and mathematical time’; and More relevant to this post, ‘absolute space and relative space’. Please do not interpret the emphasis on the word absolute as an attempt to belittle you. Your interpretation of the word absolute is just *correct and valid as Newton’s, but what I’m trying to do is to point out that your interpretation does not apply in Newtonian mechanics. What I wouldn't give to find a decent and intelligent person who can work with cause and effect such as what causes the daylight/darkness cycle based on the rotation of the Earth once in 24 hours or any given location rotating at 15 degrees per hour but I can't due to the dominance of people who follow Ra/Dec or 'sidereal time' reasoning. Here is Huygen's expression of the difference between the variations in the natural noon cycle and the human devised average of the 24 hour cycle or what Isaac described as absolute/relative time - "Here take notice, that the Sun or the Earth passeth the 12. Signes, or makes an entire revolution in the Ecliptick in 365 days, 5 hours 49 min. or there about, and that those days, reckon'd from noon to noon, are of different lenghts; as is known to all that are vers'd in Astronomy. Now between the longest and the shortest of those days, a day may be taken of such a length, as 365 such days, 5. hours &c. (the same numbers as before) make up, or are equall to that revolution: And this is call'd the Equal or Mean day, according to which the Watches are to be set;." Huygens http://www.xs4all.nl/~adcs/Huygens/06/kort-E.html I should have no need to explain further that Newton was dithering around with the same observation in terms of absolute/relative time - "Absolute time, in astronomy, is distinguished from relative, by the equation or correlation of the vulgar time. For the natural days are truly unequal, though they are commonly considered as equal and used for a measure of time; astronomers correct this inequality for their more accurate deducing of the celestial motions" Newton The obfuscation of Newton eventually ends up with mathematicians linking daily rotation directly to the circumpolar motion of the constellations in 'sidereal time' while,in actuality, there is no external reference for daily rotation through 360 degrees.There is no scandal greater than a race that can no longer supply the most basic astronomical fact which contains information on the planet's geometry and geography,a fact encapsulated by the 24 hour value for rotation and rather than treat the matter seriously,I have found that people would rather lounge around with unintelligent 'analemma' junk or convoluted explanations which attempt to explain away planetary dynamics using timekeeping averages. I am searching for the truths, and I feel that pointing out the dogmas within mainline science greatly assists others to understand the truths I have found. That is; Newton did not use the common dictionary definition, or that used mainline science and Einstein. In other words; Newton’s absolute and relative space, time, etc., are alternatives to the frame of reference or point of view of a human observer mandated by the Philosophy of Idealism. So Newton’s absolute space, etc., just do not apply within Einstein Theories of Relativity, and Newton did not ever employ the notion of a frame of reference in his discourse, except to point out that the point of view from a rotating frame of reference cannot logically UNDERSTAND and/or EXPLAIN the true effects of inertia. Put another way; Newton felt that a frame of reference and/or point of view will not lead to understanding the workings (dynamics) of the natural universe. That’s why he put these words in the section called DEFINTIONS. Furthermore, Newton gives his reason why he did not define his absolute time and /or space, and relative space as he did the Latin word motu. This is because; “ I (Newton) do not define time, space, place, and motion, as being well known to all.” In other words; Newton states right here that the common notions are not what his absolute time, absolute space, relative space, and absolute motion are all about. (Newton wrote Principia in Latin. The Latin word motu was mistranslated as motion by Motte, rather than the correct translation as momentum, and all the subsequent translators continued this error. So conventional Newtonian Mechanics has ‘the 3 laws of motion’ rather than the Three Laws of Momentum. (See the thread ‘A simple Q, but not a simple A’, for why I can truly state that the Classical Newtonian Mechanics of mainline science is so screwed up that mainline science will not ever get the dynamics of the universe correct. Mainline science connotes Newton’s absolute space as that ‘single and immutable volume enclosed by the universe’. This is ABSOLUTELY (i.e., using the dictionary definition) not what Newton was trying to say or explain. Newton wrote, quote: * *I. Absolute, true and mathematical time … * *II. Absolute space in its own nature, without relation to anything external, remains always similar and immovable. Relative space is some movable dimension or measure of the absolute spaces; (Note that spaces is in the plural. If he meant the space occupied by the whole universe, this would be singular, i.e., just ‘space’, *as there is but one universe, and continues with) which our senses determine by its position … determined by its position in respect of the earth. Absolute and relative are the same in figure and magnitude; but they do not remain always numerically the same … * * IV. Absolute motion is the translation of a body from one absolute place into another; and relative motion, the translation from one relative place into another… (and Newton uses an example of a ship under sail to explain what all the ramifications of correctly comprehending his ‘absolutes’, ‘relatives’ ,’true’ etc., have on the understanding of the dynamics (i.e., the change or changes to the state of inertia [i.e., the momentum and/or the moment of inertia]) that the mechanics of Newton presented in Principia are all about. All this is in the 1st section of Principia that Newton called DEFINITIONS for anyone to study. So the current notion that Newton believed in a single absolute space that encompasses the universe, and that he maintained a Solar System centric concept of the universe is gravely wrong. The Ptolemaic universe is a geocentric concept, wherein the celestial bodies move in perfectly circular deferent motions about the central stationary Earth, and the planets move in perfectly circular epicyclical motions about the perfectly circular deferent motions. The Hubble Laws also proposes a geocentric universe, except that the motions of the distant luminous bodies are perfectly straight paths in a direct radial direction in respect to the Earth. No celestial body ever moves in a direct radial direction in respect to the Earth or in a straight line for more than an instant due to all the continually fluctuating nonphysical gravitational forces of all the constantly moving bodies acting upon this particular body of interest within the universe that can empirically be seen to be moving every which way, and always in a nonlinear manner. As modern cosmology embraces the Hubble Law, and with it the silly Hubble Constant, Prof. P.J.E. Pebbles is certainly correct when he maintains that: “science is following the snake-oil approach to cosmology.” Isn’t it ironic that the Earth Centered Universe initially conceived by the arrogance of the human mind, although a heuristic notion, assuming that the Earth is at the center of the universe, while not absolutely true or precise, is for all practical purposes, correct, as proposed by the findings of the WMAP team. All this and much more are addressed in greater detail in my copyrighted treatise titled: The Search for Reality and the Truths. D.Y. Kadoshima |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
Seven Year WMAP Results
On Feb 4, 3:47*am, wrote:
Mainline science connotes Newton’s absolute space as that ‘single and immutable volume enclosed by the universe’. This is ABSOLUTELY (i.e., using the dictionary definition) not what Newton was trying to say or explain. Mainline science indeed !,more like empirical science both exploiting and ignoring what Newton was doing and as far as I am aware,few have the necessary intelligence to work through the elaborate scheme from the point of view of the correct astronomical principles even though contemporary imaging power and time lapse footage makes it a fairly comfortable endeavor. I already explained that relative space in Newton's ideology represents observed motions of planets whereas 'absolute space' is the modelling/predictions agenda based on a hypothetical observer on the Sun hence his attempt to use Ra/Dec as a bridge between observations and modelling by jettisoning interpretation - "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. This proportion, first observed by Kepler, is now received by all astronomers; for the periodic times are the same, and the dimensions of the orbits are the same, whether the sun revolves about the earth, or the earth about the sun." Newton I have no doubt you have little sense of what was done and how this prediction/modelling agenda has nearly destroyed a civilization,the recent attempt to model global temperature levels using a minor atmospheric gas being one example of the original reckless attempt to model solar system structure using timekeeping averages yet these things are as clear to me as they are abstruse and obscure to you. The guys in the early 20th century basically capitulated to Newton's obfuscation and expanded all the worse parts so that 100 years later there are people who still promote 'time travel' as something actual and all because they can's figure out where Newton was getting his absolute/relative time from by assuming Flamsteed's 'proof' for constant daily rotation linked directly to circumpolar motion was correct. Newton wrote, quote: * *I. Absolute, true and mathematical time … * *II. Absolute space in its own nature, without relation to anything external, remains always similar and immovable. Relative space is some movable dimension or measure of the absolute spaces; (Note that spaces is in the plural. If he meant the space occupied by the whole universe, this would be singular, i.e., just ‘space’, *as there is but one universe, and continues with) which our senses determine by its position … determined by its position in respect of the earth. Absolute and relative are the same in figure and magnitude; but they do not remain always numerically the same … How terrible for our race to be stuck in the middle of a 17th century wordplay that set the modelling/predictive agenda going at the expense of genuine astronomy and the great timekeeping systems but it all boils down to one simple set of images organised into time lapse footage and the incorrect resolution which Newton imposed on those images - http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ima...2000_tezel.gif "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 An astronomer need only recognize the Earth's orbital motion to resolve the apparent backward/forward motion of the other planets as we overtake them in our common orbit around the Sun and not by a creation of hypothetical observer on the Sun which began that 'frames of reference' junk.The full explanation for retrogrades can be viewed in those APOD images - http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap011220.html D.Y. Kadoshima |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
WMAP data reinterpreted with different starting assumptions yielddifferent results | Hannu Poropudas | Astronomy Misc | 5 | November 3rd 09 08:38 AM |
WMAP data reinterpreted with different starting assumptions yielddifferent results | Yousuf Khan | Astronomy Misc | 40 | June 24th 09 08:01 PM |
Results of 3 year study of oldest light in the Universe, only 1million years after the big bang | gb[_3_] | Astronomy Misc | 0 | April 16th 08 09:39 PM |
Mean value of WMAP maps | Mike Drummond | Research | 2 | October 3rd 07 06:56 PM |
WMAP data release | Ole Petter Dybvik | Astronomy Misc | 0 | October 2nd 04 02:27 PM |