A Space & astronomy forum. SpaceBanter.com

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

The theory of gravity



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old July 4th 17, 06:47 PM posted to sci.astro.amateur
Gerald Kelleher
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,551
Default The theory of gravity

It was always going to be a natural development arising from the reasoning for a Sun centred system that speculative notions would emerge as to why smaller celestial objects orbit larger ones. Kepler was one of the first to do so and this view with a strong indication to a strong electromagnetic influence survived up to the late 17th century -

"The Sun and the Earth rotate on their own axes...The purpose of this
motion is to confer motion on the planets located around them;on the
six primary planets in the case of the Sun,and on the moon in the case
of the Earth.On the other hand the moon does not rotate on the axis of
its own body,as its spots prove " Kepler

Newton didn't propose a theory of gravity, he proposed an ideology that experimental sciences scale up to a planetary or lunar level -

"Rule III. The qualities of bodies, which admit neither [intensification] nor remission of degrees, and which are found to belong to all bodies within the reach of our experiments, are to be esteemed the universal qualities of all bodies whatsoever." Newton

Easy enough to see that overreaching train wreck in action with climate change as much as orbital motion where a greenhouse is scaled up to the planet's atmosphere -

http://www.met.ie/education/pdfs_eng...e%20Change.pdf

There is no pleasure in coming to a forum and dominating a conversation on empirical forensics while knowing right well readers here can't compete in this area never mind the productive and creative side of genuine astronomy.

" You cannot teach a man anything, you can only help him find it within himself" Galileo

Such is the difference between the hapless mathematicians of today and genuine astronomers.



  #2  
Old July 4th 17, 08:53 PM posted to sci.astro.amateur
Quadibloc
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 7,018
Default The theory of gravity

On Tuesday, July 4, 2017 at 11:47:12 AM UTC-6, Gerald Kelleher wrote:

Newton didn't propose a theory of gravity, he proposed an ideology that
experimental sciences scale up to a planetary or lunar level -


"Rule III. The qualities of bodies, which admit neither
[intensification] nor remission of degrees, and which are found to
belong to all bodies within the reach of our experiments, are to be
esteemed the universal qualities of all bodies whatsoever." Newton


Experience has found, though, that this principle he put forward seems
to be valid. This is, for example, what brought about perturbation
theory, which let astronomers deduce the presence of Neptune from small
irregularities in the orbits of the previously-known planets.

So you seem to be telling us we should reject Newton because *you*
_don't like_ what he said for some reason. That's hardly going to be
enough to encourage the world's astronomers to change their ways and
take your advice.

John Savard
  #3  
Old July 4th 17, 09:05 PM posted to sci.astro.amateur
Gerald Kelleher
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,551
Default The theory of gravity

On Tuesday, July 4, 2017 at 8:53:16 PM UTC+1, Quadibloc wrote:

You are the fool who support's Newton's idiosyncratic absolute/ relative time (Equation 0f Time) so let the others suffer you as I see only incompetent graffiti.

Btw, 'perturbation theory' is a consequence of RA/Dec being calendar based and a proper accounting of the precession of the equinoxes as an extension of the leap day correction takes care of that nonsense.

I do need walking corpses , only people with common sense who can manage contemporary imaging.
  #4  
Old July 4th 17, 09:09 PM posted to sci.astro.amateur
Gerald Kelleher
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,551
Default The theory of gravity

I do not need walking corpses and the cruel adulation of the anti-spiritual.

These posts are standalone comments and don't beg attention from the usual half-wits.


  #5  
Old July 5th 17, 08:22 AM posted to sci.astro.amateur
Gerald Kelleher
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,551
Default The theory of gravity

Newton proposed no theory of gravity but rather introduced a hypothetical bonanza for experimentalists and although I see the attraction for mathematicians, it rendered the astronomical arena incidental to their notions and it remains so to this day.

The empirical agenda assumed there was nothing more to add to solar system structure after Kepler however when the solar system's galactic orbital motion was discovered it should have created a wider perspective . Although one hundred years later it is better now than never.

The Sun has a forward motion through space and is no longer stationary, at least in respect to its galactic motion so that the planets spend half their orbits travelling with the direction of the Sun through space and the other half of their orbits travelling in the opposite direction. As planets travel faster the closer to the Sun and sometimes a planet is nearer the Sun (perihelion) it stands to reason that the faster speed of a planet at that point may show signatures of the galactic orbital component. Revisiting the older theory of gravity where rotation of larger objects impart orbital on smaller objects, a complex compound picture emerges.

Equating planetary motion with the fall of an apple may have appeared fashionable in the late 17th century but unsuitable for 21st century observational data which requires astronomers to interpret and not mathematical theorists or experimentalists.


  #6  
Old July 6th 17, 09:46 AM posted to sci.astro.amateur
Martin Brown[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 189
Default The theory of gravity

On 04/07/2017 20:53, Quadibloc wrote:
On Tuesday, July 4, 2017 at 11:47:12 AM UTC-6, Gerald Kelleher wrote:

Newton didn't propose a theory of gravity, he proposed an ideology that
experimental sciences scale up to a planetary or lunar level -


To be fair to poor old Hooke - he proposed the inverse square law of
gravitation but lacked the mathematical finesse to prove it himself.

Newton used calculus to solve the equations and then back constructed a
fairly opaque proof using classical geometry of conic sections which he
published and gained all the credit.

"Rule III. The qualities of bodies, which admit neither
[intensification] nor remission of degrees, and which are found to
belong to all bodies within the reach of our experiments, are to be
esteemed the universal qualities of all bodies whatsoever." Newton


Experience has found, though, that this principle he put forward seems
to be valid. This is, for example, what brought about perturbation
theory, which let astronomers deduce the presence of Neptune from small
irregularities in the orbits of the previously-known planets.


It is one of the most tested theories in existence with predictive
powers for future events that can also be checked against historic
eclipses. Since the time of Newton precise predictions of future
eclipses and transits became possible (not just via ad hoc rules).

A copy of Ferdinand Verbeists prediction of a lunar eclipse for the
Chinese court is on sale at Abes books at the moment for a cool £75k.

https://www.abebooks.co.uk/Typus-ecl.../6140726536/bd

So you seem to be telling us we should reject Newton because *you*
_don't like_ what he said for some reason. That's hardly going to be
enough to encourage the world's astronomers to change their ways and
take your advice.


He is a clueless mathophobe devoted to inane hand waving. There is no
possibility of him understanding anything about astronomy or physics.

--
Regards,
Martin Brown
  #7  
Old July 6th 17, 12:38 PM posted to sci.astro.amateur
Gerald Kelleher
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,551
Default The theory of gravity

On Thursday, July 6, 2017 at 9:46:13 AM UTC+1, Martin Brown wrote:
On 04/07/2017 20:53, Quadibloc wrote:
On Tuesday, July 4, 2017 at 11:47:12 AM UTC-6, Gerald Kelleher wrote:

Newton didn't propose a theory of gravity, he proposed an ideology that
experimental sciences scale up to a planetary or lunar level -


To be fair to poor old Hooke - he proposed the inverse square law of
gravitation but lacked the mathematical finesse to prove it himself.

Newton used calculus to solve the equations and then back constructed a
fairly opaque proof using classical geometry of conic sections which he
published and gained all the credit.


Nobody believes that nonsense anymore but so many are intellectually weak that they can't discuss the actual technical or historical details either. Only Rouse Ball and a few others accurately expressed Newton's blurry details of astronomy and until I arrived nobody could trace what Sir Isaac tried to do -

"The demonstrations throughout the book [Principia] are geometrical, but to readers of ordinary ability are rendered unnecessarily difficult by the absence of illustrations and explanations, and by the fact that no clue is given to the method by which Newton arrived at his results. The reason why it was presented in a geometrical form appears to have been that the infinitesimal calculus was then unknown, and, had Newton used it to demonstrate results which were in themselves opposed to the prevalent philosophy of the time, the controversy as to the truth of his results would have been hampered by a dispute concerning the validity of the methods used in proving them. He therefore cast the whole reasoning into a geometrical shape" Rouse Ball 1908

A genuine astronomer can discuss what Newton tried to do in general or in detail whereas an empiricist can neither discuss astronomy nor what Newton tried to do.



  #8  
Old July 6th 17, 04:44 PM posted to sci.astro.amateur
Gerald Kelleher
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,551
Default The theory of gravity

On Thursday, July 6, 2017 at 9:46:13 AM UTC+1, Martin Brown wrote:


Experience has found, though, that this principle he put forward seems
to be valid. This is, for example, what brought about perturbation
theory, which let astronomers deduce the presence of Neptune from small
irregularities in the orbits of the previously-known planets.


It is one of the most tested theories in existence with predictive
powers for future events that can also be checked against historic
eclipses. Since the time of Newton precise predictions of future
eclipses and transits became possible (not just via ad hoc rules).

A copy of Ferdinand Verbeists prediction of a lunar eclipse for the
Chinese court is on sale at Abes books at the moment for a cool £75k..

https://www.abebooks.co.uk/Typus-ecl.../6140726536/bd

So you seem to be telling us we should reject Newton because *you*
_don't like_ what he said for some reason. That's hardly going to be
enough to encourage the world's astronomers to change their ways and
take your advice.


He is a clueless mathophobe devoted to inane hand waving. There is no
possibility of him understanding anything about astronomy or physics.

--
Regards,
Martin Brown


  #9  
Old July 6th 17, 04:50 PM posted to sci.astro.amateur
Gerald Kelleher
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,551
Default The theory of gravity

On Thursday, July 6, 2017 at 9:46:13 AM UTC+1, Martin Brown wrote:


Experience has found, though, that this principle he put forward seems
to be valid. This is, for example, what brought about perturbation
theory, which let astronomers deduce the presence of Neptune from small
irregularities in the orbits of the previously-known planets.


It is one of the most tested theories in existence with predictive
powers for future events that can also be checked against historic
eclipses. Since the time of Newton precise predictions of future
eclipses and transits became possible (not just via ad hoc rules).

--
Regards,
Martin Brown


You are too stupid to realize that any prediction for eclipses or transits (clockwork solar system) is made using the calendar system which formats observations in such a way that one year does not correspond to one orbit of the Earth, after all the Earth does not rotate 365 times for 3 cycles and 1 cycle of 366 rotations.

At least you stuck your neck out but that won't happen again as experience shows.
  #10  
Old July 6th 17, 05:39 PM posted to sci.astro.amateur
Quadibloc
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 7,018
Default The theory of gravity

On Thursday, July 6, 2017 at 5:38:58 AM UTC-6, Gerald Kelleher wrote:

Nobody believes that nonsense anymore


Oh, you are so wrong. What Newton did commands an intense faith, based
on practical experience, among virtually all the world's scientists!

John Savard
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

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

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

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Improved Relativity Theory (IRT) and Doppler Theory of Gravity (DTG) kenseto[_1_] Astronomy Misc 159 March 17th 11 08:50 PM
Tesla's Dynamic Theory of Gravity: Gravity Is a Downward Push! Double-A[_3_] Misc 10 June 9th 10 06:29 PM
Improved Relativity Theory and Doppler Theory of Gravity kenseto[_1_] Astronomy Misc 38 October 23rd 07 11:07 PM
Dark energy, gravity, gravity pressure, gravity bubbles, a theory [email protected] Astronomy Misc 0 January 4th 07 12:03 AM
NASA Gravity Probe B Mission, Testing Einstein's Theory of Gravity Completes First Year in Space Jacques van Oene News 0 May 4th 05 10:07 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 01:29 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 SpaceBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.