| |
Main
Date: 02 Sep 2007 08:56:51
From: oriel36
Subject: Kepler ,Newton and orbital geometry
|
The Wikipedia article is being quite honest but the chain of reasoning
Newton applied to Keplerian orbits are technically present and can be
dealt with easily,at least for people who are familiar with
astronomical methods -
"Newton's actual historical chain of reasoning is not known with
certainty, because in his writing he tended to erase any traces of how
he had reached his conclusions." Kepler's third law
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kepler's_laws_of_planetary_motion
'PH=C6NOMENON 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."
http://members.tripod.com/~gravitee/phaenomena.htm
Rather than go through the details,and they are intricate,perhaps it
is best to demonstrate why it is neccessary to revisit the explanation
for Keplerian orbital geometries and how the late 17th century
shortcuts creates multiple problems elsewhere such as the pressing
need to modify the cause for the seasons by concentrating on the
orbital motion of the Earth and Keplerian orbital geometry.
|
|
| |
Date: 07 Sep 2007 09:50:42
From: oriel36
Subject: Re: Kepler ,Newton and orbital geometry
|
On Sep 7, 1:00 pm, Quadibloc <jsav...@ecn.ab.ca > wrote:
> oriel36 wrote:
> > On Sep 7, 4:23 am, Quadibloc <jsav...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
> > > They don't need to fight. They're free to hop to a Galactic center
> > > frame any time they need to.
> > It is for dynamicists to decide whether to revist Keplerian orbital
> > geometries with an eye to other physical considerations such as the
> > 'ice age' cycles from climatology and geology rather than be slaves
> > to the zodiacal framework which Newton built on.They are not free and
> > never will be free so long as that awful error created by Flamsteed
> > remains but for my part,it is not really my business what they do and
> > believe among themselves ,it is their problem to deal with.
>
> But I should also have added that if they don't have the use of the
> law of universal gravitation any longer, it doesn't matter what
> reference frame they hop to, they will not be able to do anything when
> they get there. Except passively observe.
>
> If Newton's law of gravity were giving them wrong answers, they would
> take action. And, indeed, the contribution of the General Theory of
> Relativity to the understanding of the motions of Mercury is accepted
> and appreciated.
>
The guys in the middle of the 19th century struggled to escape
Newton's framework but could not recognise the zodiacal framewwork at
its core,the efforts of Mach to determine absolute/relative
definitions as rubbish also failed for the same reasons that nobody
understood what they meant.
I have taught the dynanicists exactly what absolute/relative means in
terms of retrogrades and their resolution and there is nothing I can
do about it if they wish to remain in a celestial sphere framework.I
have been explicit that it is a matter for them to decide in their own
way how to progress even if it is extremely rude to not recognise the
effort involved in removing the Newtonian nonsense.
This business of making a huge effort while encountering halfwits
like yourself is done,the open forum has always been great through
history for thrashing out ideas and what they mean,especially the
modern usenet forums,but ultimately the channels for productive work
are still through the educational network.That the educational
network is dominated by numbskulls when it comes to astronomy makes
the effort through the forums the only possible way but I have had
enough of trying to appeal to genuine and honest people for a while
and besides it does take an enormous toll.
> > God forbid any of you had to bear the stress of trying to promote the
> > achievements of timekeeping and structural astronomers and discover
> > that nobody wants to hear what they have to say but that is what all
> > this has amounted to.Not one of you will click on the link showing
> > Huygens treatise and what can I do beyond that -
>
> >http://www.xs4all.nl/~adcs/Huygens/06/kort-E.html
>
> I did follow that link, but although I read what was there, I could
> not see how it presented a different way to understand the heavens.
>
> John Savard
http://www.xs4all.nl/~adcs/Huygens/06/kort-E.html
Anybody who makes the effort to appreciate the Equation of Time
system,its relationship between the axial cycle and terrestrial
longitudes would never have faulted my effort to expunge the
incredibly silly error in attaching axial rotation to the return of a
star in 23 hours 56 minutes 04 seconds.That work is a jewel of my
astronomical heritage and to see no object is far more heartbreaking
than the joy of watching an astronomical master like Huygens at work.
I had the respoinsibility of presenting the genuine 243 hours/360
degree principles and not to see them cut to pieces by halfwits who
believe in a silly alternative value with its own idiosyncratic
methods -
http://hypertextbook.com/facts/1999/JennyChen.shtml
Whatever victory there is in remaining silent on a terrible ,terrible
situation I do not know but that is the way it has ended up,at least
so far.
|
| |
Date: 07 Sep 2007 08:55:48
From: oriel36
Subject: Re: Kepler ,Newton and orbital geometry
|
On Sep 7, 1:00 pm, Quadibloc <jsav...@ecn.ab.ca > wrote:
> oriel36 wrote:
> > On Sep 7, 4:23 am, Quadibloc <jsav...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
> > > They don't need to fight. They're free to hop to a Galactic center
> > > frame any time they need to.
> > It is for dynamicists to decide whether to revist Keplerian orbital
> > geometries with an eye to other physical considerations such as the
> > 'ice age' cycles from climatology and geology rather than be slaves
> > to the zodiacal framework which Newton built on.They are not free and
> > never will be free so long as that awful error created by Flamsteed
> > remains but for my part,it is not really my business what they do and
> > believe among themselves ,it is their problem to deal with.
>
> But I should also have added that if they don't have the use of the
> law of universal gravitation any longer, it doesn't matter what
> reference frame they hop to, they will not be able to do anything when
> they get there. Except passively observe.
>
> If Newton's law of gravity were giving them wrong answers, they would
> take action. And, indeed, the contribution of the General Theory of
> Relativity to the understanding of the motions of Mercury is accepted
> and appreciated.
>
> > God forbid any of you had to bear the stress of trying to promote the
> > achievements of timekeeping and structural astronomers and discover
> > that nobody wants to hear what they have to say but that is what all
> > this has amounted to.Not one of you will click on the link showing
> > Huygens treatise and what can I do beyond that -
>
> >http://www.xs4all.nl/~adcs/Huygens/06/kort-E.html
>
> I did follow that link, but although I read what was there, I could
> not see how it presented a different way to understand the heavens.
>
> John Savard
'Period Of Rotation'
"The actual value is 23 hours, 56 minutes and 4 seconds. This is the
length of a "sidereal" day. It is the actual time it takes the Earth
to rotate 360 degrees. The term "sidereal" (pronounced sigh-dear'-
real) refers to the rotation of the Earth being measured relative to
the stars. There ARE 24 hours in a "solar day". This is the time it
takes from one noon (sun overhead) to the next noon. The difference in
the two "days" arises from the fact that during a day the Earth also
travels nearly a degree further on its yearly trek around the Sun. "
http://liftoff.msfc.nasa.gov/academy/rocket_sci/orbmech/period.html
http://hypertextbook.com/facts/1999/JennyChen.shtml
This is a Nasa website,it is the same in every reference book and all
trying to make the fictional difference between 'solar time and
sidereal time fit,try the NNM where the clocks of Harrison reside -
http://www.nmm.ac.uk/server/show/nav.3116
What are you doing to yourselves ? the actual principles which keeps
clocks in sync with the axial cycle are lovely and easy to understand
as a facet of heliocentric reasoning -
http://www.xs4all.nl/~adcs/Huygens/06/kort-E.html
I will say this for the last time,I thought with the treatise of
Huygens showing how clocks,the axial cycle and terrestrial longitudes
mesh that you empirical cult was finally in trouble with this
'sidereal time/solar time ' hoax,it turns out that I am in trouble in
terms of the unfolding horror in watching nobody support the most
basic astronomical fact of all in terms of clocks and axial rotation.
These people in s.a.a now belong to you.
|
| |
Date: 07 Sep 2007 05:00:18
From: Quadibloc
Subject: Re: Kepler ,Newton and orbital geometry
|
oriel36 wrote:
> On Sep 7, 4:23 am, Quadibloc <jsav...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
> > They don't need to fight. They're free to hop to a Galactic center
> > frame any time they need to.
> It is for dynamicists to decide whether to revist Keplerian orbital
> geometries with an eye to other physical considerations such as the
> 'ice age' cycles from climatology and geology rather than be slaves
> to the zodiacal framework which Newton built on.They are not free and
> never will be free so long as that awful error created by Flamsteed
> remains but for my part,it is not really my business what they do and
> believe among themselves ,it is their problem to deal with.
But I should also have added that if they don't have the use of the
law of universal gravitation any longer, it doesn't matter what
reference frame they hop to, they will not be able to do anything when
they get there. Except passively observe.
If Newton's law of gravity were giving them wrong answers, they would
take action. And, indeed, the contribution of the General Theory of
Relativity to the understanding of the motions of Mercury is accepted
and appreciated.
> God forbid any of you had to bear the stress of trying to promote the
> achievements of timekeeping and structural astronomers and discover
> that nobody wants to hear what they have to say but that is what all
> this has amounted to.Not one of you will click on the link showing
> Huygens treatise and what can I do beyond that -
>
> http://www.xs4all.nl/~adcs/Huygens/06/kort-E.html
I did follow that link, but although I read what was there, I could
not see how it presented a different way to understand the heavens.
John Savard
|
| |
Date: 07 Sep 2007 04:15:43
From: oriel36
Subject: Re: Kepler ,Newton and orbital geometry
|
On Sep 7, 4:23 am, Quadibloc <jsav...@ecn.ab.ca > wrote:
> oriel36 wrote:
> > The forward motion of the Sun may influence heliocentric
> > orbital geometry from that perspective which is why dynamicists should
> > be fighting tooth and nail to get out of the 'fixed stars'
> > astrological framework Newton locked them into.
>
> They don't need to fight. They're free to hop to a Galactic center
> frame any time they need to.
>
> John Savard
It is for dynamicists to decide whether to revist Keplerian orbital
geometries with an eye to other physical considerations such as the
'ice age' cycles from climatology and geology rather than be slaves
to the zodiacal framework which Newton built on.They are not free and
never will be free so long as that awful error created by Flamsteed
remains but for my part,it is not really my business what they do and
believe among themselves ,it is their problem to deal with.
I do mind that honest people can stay quiet on the matter of a basic
fact which created so many practical and astronomical uses .A star
returning in 23 hours 56 minutes 04 seconds demonstrates the
incredible usefullness of the calendar system or the observational
convenience of the Ra/Dec system but nothing else and certainly not
justifying axial and orbital motion.Isolating axial rotation from
variations in orbital motion has never been done and you cannot do it
without first recognising how clocks,the axial cycle and terrestrial
longitudes mesh as a stable system,that it is fairly easy to grasp is
what makes all this heartbreaking,that good people would choose to
ignore it and adopt an alternative view.
God forbid any of you had to bear the stress of trying to promote the
achievements of timekeeping and structural astronomers and discover
that nobody wants to hear what they have to say but that is what all
this has amounted to.Not one of you will click on the link showing
Huygens treatise and what can I do beyond that -
http://www.xs4all.nl/~adcs/Huygens/06/kort-E.html
|
| |
Date: 06 Sep 2007 20:23:30
From: Quadibloc
Subject: Re: Kepler ,Newton and orbital geometry
|
oriel36 wrote:
> The forward motion of the Sun may influence heliocentric
> orbital geometry from that perspective which is why dynamicists should
> be fighting tooth and nail to get out of the 'fixed stars'
> astrological framework Newton locked them into.
They don't need to fight. They're free to hop to a Galactic center
frame any time they need to.
John Savard
|
| |
Date: 05 Sep 2007 04:53:05
From: oriel36
Subject: Re: Kepler ,Newton and orbital geometry
|
On Sep 4, 1:31 pm, Quadibloc <jsav...@ecn.ab.ca > wrote:
> oriel36 wrote:
> > In the end you are just another empiricist giving yourself a choice
> > Oncve you give yourself the choice or develop the jargon of 'reference
> > frames' you develop thinking that is alien to astronomical methods and
> > insights.You develop ideas like the reference frame of the Earth ,the
> > Sun returns to noon in 24 hours and the stars return in 23 hours 56
> > minutes 04 seconds therefore orbital motion must explain the
> > difference between the two -
>
> >http://liftoff.msfc.nasa.gov/academy/rocket_sci/orbmech/period.html
> > It is Newton's manner of building on that
> > framework that has cost humanity so much and especially in this era
> > when climatological concerns require an immediate effort to understand
> > what is going on and it is here that the 'frames of reference ' jargon
> > costs so much.
>
> Thinking of a compound motion in terms of individual simple motions,
> and starting from the state of motion which best permits the compound
> motions to be disentangled, is not a "choice" except as one chooses to
> allow the necessary calculations to determine motions to be freed from
> needless and unnecessary complication.
>
> John Savard
You see John,despite all the choices you can give yourselves (that was
all taken care off by permitting 'framehopping') you still are
trapped inside the astrological framework of Flamsteed,whether you
know it or not or care to know it or not.I enjoy the freedom of
considering compound orbital motions as affecting orbital geometries
or galactic structure - just like the shape of a hurricane is supplied
by a greater rotation acting on a localised system -
http://www.etymonline.com/columns/hurricane-galaxy.jpg
For all the arbitrary choices you allow yourselves,it turns out that
you are bound to conclusions based on a limiting
framework,specifically the celestial sphere framework .You have to
invent ' dark matter' to keep galactic structure and invent 'dark
energy' to explain what you see as something else. I am content to
allow greater cycles speak for themselves and then consider how
compound motions influences things like heliocentric orbital
geometries and structures such as Galaxies by moving up and down in
cyclical scale. Insofar as Newton's attempt to apply terrestrial
ballistics to planetary motion is valid,he was working off zodiacal
geometry and that's what makes it limiting and unhealthy.
On a seperate matter .
I read an interesting article on sporgery in Wiki yesterday and its
historical roots -
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sporgery
I still have to make up my own mind on this matter but it will take
some time.
|
| |
Date: 05 Sep 2007 02:47:39
From: oriel36
Subject: Re: Kepler ,Newton and orbital geometry
|
On Sep 5, 7:17 am, "Peter Webb" <webbfam...@DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au >
wrote:
> > "Cor. 2. And since these stars are liable to no sensible parallax from
> > the annual motion of the earth, they can have no force, because of
> > their immense distance, to produce any sensible effect in our system.
> > Not to mention that the fixed stars, every where promiscuously
> > dispersed in the heavens, by their contrary actions destroy their
> > mutual actions, by Prop. LXX, Book I."
>
> What is wrong with that statement? It looks perfectly fine to me.
>
No doubt you never heard that stars are organised and move around a
central point -
http://www.badastronomy.com/pix/bablog/2006/ngc1309.jpg
> > That is the way people would looked at the solar system and the other
> > stars until the middle of the 1920's
>
> And its still how people look at the solar system, unless they are looking
> for the 6th or 7th decimal place in the precession of Mercury's orbit.
>
So I have noticed,the fact is that the framework on which Newton built
his agenda is not a willy nilly scattering of stars but rather an
astrological one -
http://www.opencourse.info/astronomy/introduction/02.motion_stars_sun/celestial_sphere_anim.gif
You want to justify the axial and orbital motion of the Earth using
the return of a star and that is what you get.
> >but grow up,we are involved in
> > compound orbital motions and it is time to take that motion into
> > account rather than stick with localised solutions.
>
> What motion?
What motion indeed !.
The Sun has a forward motion along with the rest of the Milky Way
stars in one direction around a central axis so that the planets of
the solar system spend months travelling in the direction of Galactic
orbital motion with the Sun and months travelling in the opposite
direction.The forward motion of the Sun may influence heliocentric
orbital geometry from that perspective which is why dynamicists should
be fighting tooth and nail to get out of the 'fixed stars'
astrological framework Newton locked them into.
|
| |
Date: 04 Sep 2007 05:31:55
From: Quadibloc
Subject: Re: Kepler ,Newton and orbital geometry
|
oriel36 wrote:
> In the end you are just another empiricist giving yourself a choice
> Oncve you give yourself the choice or develop the jargon of 'reference
> frames' you develop thinking that is alien to astronomical methods and
> insights.You develop ideas like the reference frame of the Earth ,the
> Sun returns to noon in 24 hours and the stars return in 23 hours 56
> minutes 04 seconds therefore orbital motion must explain the
> difference between the two -
>
> http://liftoff.msfc.nasa.gov/academy/rocket_sci/orbmech/period.html
> It is Newton's manner of building on that
> framework that has cost humanity so much and especially in this era
> when climatological concerns require an immediate effort to understand
> what is going on and it is here that the 'frames of reference ' jargon
> costs so much.
Thinking of a compound motion in terms of individual simple motions,
and starting from the state of motion which best permits the compound
motions to be disentangled, is not a "choice" except as one chooses to
allow the necessary calculations to determine motions to be freed from
needless and unnecessary complication.
John Savard
|
| |
Date: 04 Sep 2007 03:23:28
From: oriel36
Subject: Re: Kepler ,Newton and orbital geometry
|
On Sep 4, 7:17 am, Margo Schulter <mschul...@web1.calweb.com > wrote:
> Anyway, I don't see why we can't approach the idea of a heliocentric Solar
> System and planetary motions in more than one way: either using modern
> imaging to illustrate Kepler's explanation of apparent retrograde motion,
> or using Newton's heliocentric reference frame (to me, a fine thought
> experiment). We're hardly limited to one frame of reference, and I'd
> consider it elegant to use two or more, rather like having alternative
> proofs for a theorem of whatever.
>
> Most appreciatively,
>
> Margo Schulter
> mschul...@calweb.com
> Lat. 38.566 Long. -121.430
In the end you are just another empiricist giving yourself a choice
you do not have.the physical considerations involved in explaining
apparent retrogrades by using the orbital motion of the Earth between
Venus and Mars to account for the observed behavior directly leads to
the physical conclusioon that axial rotation causes the daily
cycle.From there you witness the enormous advance where the Equation
of Time system was adapted to the axial cycle and terrestrial
longitudes as a 24 hour/360 degree correlation.
Oncve you give yourself the choice or develop the jargon of 'reference
frames' you develop thinking that is alien to astronomical methods and
insights.You develop ideas like the reference frame of the Earth ,the
Sun returns to noon in 24 hours and the stars return in 23 hours 56
minutes 04 seconds therefore orbital motion must explain the
difference between the two -
http://liftoff.msfc.nasa.gov/academy/rocket_sci/orbmech/period.html
By its very intricate nature,astronomy lends itself to more abuse
than any other discipline and it is for good reason that I can rightly
point out that the disgust with which genuine investigators looked on
Piltdown man should apply here by many degrees of magnitude -
"deliberate malice could hardly have been more successful than the
hazards of deposition in so breaking the fossils as to give free scope
to individual judgment in fitting the parts together." G S Miller
I have stopped short at calling the misconduct perpetrated on
astronomy as outright fraud,the orginal mistake by Flamsteed appears
to be a genuine error by forgetting that you cannot justify axial
rotation as constant by using the return of a star to a location
using a 24 hour clock.It is Newton's manner of building on that
framework that has cost humanity so much and especially in this era
when climatological concerns require an immediate effort to understand
what is going on and it is here that the 'frames of reference ' jargon
costs so much.
|
| |
Date: 03 Sep 2007 08:23:13
From: oriel36
Subject: Re: Kepler ,Newton and orbital geometry
|
On Sep 3, 3:10 pm, Quadibloc <jsav...@ecn.ab.ca > wrote:
> oriel36 wrote:
> >it is strictly the ability to affirm Copernican/
> > Keplerian reasoning using 21st century imaging technology by
> > discerning the axial and orbital geometry from space and then
> > applying them to geological and especially climatological disciplines.
>
> > You can actually see how the orbital motion of the Earth causes the
> > solar radiation/orbital shadow boundary to alter in accordance with
> > Keplerian orbital geometry by looking down at the Earth from space and
> > from there into climatological/meteorological influences.
>
> Were it not for Newton, we would not be able to launch these devices
> into space to take pictures.
>
> > in order to
> > bypass the Equation of Time system and extract axial rotation by
> > appealing to the return of a star.in 23 hours 56 minutes 04 seconds.
> > You convince yourself of whatever you need to,you will even swear
> > blind that the natural noon cycles are 24 hours exactly in order to
> > justify axial rotation through 360 degrees in 23 hours 56 minutes 04
> > seconds or that retrogrades are resolved by a hypothetical observer on
> > the Sun,neither of these are true but are the basis for the Newtonian
> > framework.
>
> http://www.quadibloc.com/science/eot.htm
>
> I know the natural noon cycles are not 24 hours exactly. But to
> explain the Equation of time in a simple manner, so that it is not
> confusing, I have to begin from a motion that is regular, and the
> return of a star in 23 hours, 56 minutes, and 4 seconds is just that
> solid place I have to stand on in order to begin.
>
> > They no longer send men to the moon,they send satellites to
> > theoretical Langrange points as if they were real -
>
> The gravity of the Sun, the Moon, and the Earth is real.
>
> > Maybe some dynamicists would wish to consider that the solar system's
> > galactic orbital motion may influence the shape of planetary
> > heliocentric motion insofar as it represents compound motions,instead
> > the Newtonian numbskulls are still treating the solar system as
> > isolated as Newton once did -
>
> They know the Sun is part of a galaxy, and they know when the gravity
> of other stars may be safely ignored, just as they know when the
> effects given by Einstein's Special and General theories of relativity
> may be safely ignored, for they know the sizes of these things.
>
I have nothing to say about the diseased symptoms of Newton's agenda
that emerged in the early 20th century,the fact is that in isolating
the solar system in order to apply terrestrial ballistics to planetary
motion,the astrological and geocentric framework Newton used cuts
off the ability to work with compound motions -
"Cor. 2. And since these stars are liable to no sensible parallax from
the annual motion of the earth, they can have no force, because of
their immense distance, to produce any sensible effect in our system.
Not to mention that the fixed stars, every where promiscuously
dispersed in the heavens, by their contrary actions destroy their
mutual actions, by Prop. LXX, Book I."
That is the way people would looked at the solar system and the other
stars until the middle of the 1920's but grow up,we are involved in
compound orbital motions and it is time to take that motion into
account rather than stick with localised solutions.
> > The free flowing astronomical methods of Copernicus and Kepler based
> > on orbital comparisons will allow dynamicists to work with compound
> > orbital motions whereas the celestial sphere framework of Newton makes
> > the whole thing wither.
>
> Compound motions are made simplest to work with when they are
> disentangled, when one begins by standing on a solid footing. Whether
> that is, to an approximation, the sphere of the stars, or to a better
> approximation, when needed, the sphere of the distant galaxies or the
> sphere of the anisotropies in the cosmic background radiation.
>
> John Savard
You either like the idea or you do not,the idea that the Earth is
travelling with the Sun in the direction of galactic orbital motion
for months and travelling in the opposite direction.Another way of
putting it is that the Sun has a forward motion in one direction
whereas the planets are subject to compound motions around the Sun and
with and against the galactic orbital motion of the solar system.
It is something that has been here since the mid-1920's when galaxies
and galactic rotation was observationally seen.It is about time
dynamicists revisted Keplerian orbital geometry rather than being
lazy with Newton's localised solution.
|
| | |
Date: 05 Sep 2007 16:17:05
From: Peter Webb
Subject: Re: Kepler ,Newton and orbital geometry
|
> "Cor. 2. And since these stars are liable to no sensible parallax from
> the annual motion of the earth, they can have no force, because of
> their immense distance, to produce any sensible effect in our system.
> Not to mention that the fixed stars, every where promiscuously
> dispersed in the heavens, by their contrary actions destroy their
> mutual actions, by Prop. LXX, Book I."
>
What is wrong with that statement? It looks perfectly fine to me.
> That is the way people would looked at the solar system and the other
> stars until the middle of the 1920's
And its still how people look at the solar system, unless they are looking
for the 6th or 7th decimal place in the precession of Mercury's orbit.
>but grow up,we are involved in
> compound orbital motions and it is time to take that motion into
> account rather than stick with localised solutions.
What motion?
|
| |
Date: 03 Sep 2007 07:10:46
From: Quadibloc
Subject: Re: Kepler ,Newton and orbital geometry
|
oriel36 wrote:
>it is strictly the ability to affirm Copernican/
> Keplerian reasoning using 21st century imaging technology by
> discerning the axial and orbital geometry from space and then
> applying them to geological and especially climatological disciplines.
>
> You can actually see how the orbital motion of the Earth causes the
> solar radiation/orbital shadow boundary to alter in accordance with
> Keplerian orbital geometry by looking down at the Earth from space and
> from there into climatological/meteorological influences.
Were it not for Newton, we would not be able to launch these devices
into space to take pictures.
> in order to
> bypass the Equation of Time system and extract axial rotation by
> appealing to the return of a star.in 23 hours 56 minutes 04 seconds.
> You convince yourself of whatever you need to,you will even swear
> blind that the natural noon cycles are 24 hours exactly in order to
> justify axial rotation through 360 degrees in 23 hours 56 minutes 04
> seconds or that retrogrades are resolved by a hypothetical observer on
> the Sun,neither of these are true but are the basis for the Newtonian
> framework.
http://www.quadibloc.com/science/eot.htm
I know the natural noon cycles are not 24 hours exactly. But to
explain the Equation of time in a simple manner, so that it is not
confusing, I have to begin from a motion that is regular, and the
return of a star in 23 hours, 56 minutes, and 4 seconds is just that
solid place I have to stand on in order to begin.
> They no longer send men to the moon,they send satellites to
> theoretical Langrange points as if they were real -
The gravity of the Sun, the Moon, and the Earth is real.
> Maybe some dynamicists would wish to consider that the solar system's
> galactic orbital motion may influence the shape of planetary
> heliocentric motion insofar as it represents compound motions,instead
> the Newtonian numbskulls are still treating the solar system as
> isolated as Newton once did -
They know the Sun is part of a galaxy, and they know when the gravity
of other stars may be safely ignored, just as they know when the
effects given by Einstein's Special and General theories of relativity
may be safely ignored, for they know the sizes of these things.
> The free flowing astronomical methods of Copernicus and Kepler based
> on orbital comparisons will allow dynamicists to work with compound
> orbital motions whereas the celestial sphere framework of Newton makes
> the whole thing wither.
Compound motions are made simplest to work with when they are
disentangled, when one begins by standing on a solid footing. Whether
that is, to an approximation, the sphere of the stars, or to a better
approximation, when needed, the sphere of the distant galaxies or the
sphere of the anisotropies in the cosmic background radiation.
John Savard
|
| | |
Date: 04 Sep 2007 06:17:20
From: Margo Schulter
Subject: Re: Kepler ,Newton and orbital geometry
|
Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca > wrote:
> They know the Sun is part of a galaxy, and they know when the gravity
> of other stars may be safely ignored, just as they know when the
> effects given by Einstein's Special and General theories of relativity
> may be safely ignored, for they know the sizes of these things.
Hi, everyone.
With this statement I would agree. It reminds me of when I was studying
a bit of calculus -- and I could use a refresher! -- and considering
free-fall problems. The two obvious considerations were the acceleration
of gravity near the Earth's surface, usually taken as a constant in these
problems, and also atmospheric drag or wind resistance.
However, if one wanted to be more precise, then it would also be necessary
to consider that according to Newton's equation, the acceleration of gravity
is _not_ a constant, but will slightly change as the distance between the
falling body and the Earth's center decreases!
Similarly, strictly speaking, all motion is "relativistic," and once I had
fun calculating how much time dilation I may have experienced during a
long walk from the frame of reference of an observer stationary with respect
to the Earth. The result was a fraction of a picosecond (10^-12 second), as
I recall. This result nicely illustrated why for most purposes, indeed,
a Newtonian approach is more than accurate enough.
Anyway, I don't see why we can't approach the idea of a heliocentric Solar
System and planetary motions in more than one way: either using modern
imaging to illustrate Kepler's explanation of apparent retrograde motion,
or using Newton's heliocentric reference frame (to me, a fine thought
experiment). We're hardly limited to one frame of reference, and I'd
consider it elegant to use two or more, rather like having alternative
proofs for a theorem of whatever.
Most appreciatively,
Margo Schulter
mschulter@calweb.com
Lat. 38.566 Long. -121.430
|
| |
Date: 03 Sep 2007 03:21:05
From: oriel36
Subject: Re: Kepler ,Newton and orbital geometry
|
On Sep 3, 6:03 am, Quadibloc <jsav...@ecn.ab.ca > wrote:
> oriel36 wrote:
> > Rather than go through the details,and they are intricate,perhaps it
> > is best to demonstrate why it is neccessary to revisit the explanation
> > for Keplerian orbital geometries and how the late 17th century
> > shortcuts creates multiple problems elsewhere such as the pressing
> > need to modify the cause for the seasons by concentrating on the
> > orbital motion of the Earth and Keplerian orbital geometry.
>
> Newton did not take shortcuts, and except for failing to come up with
> the Special and General Theory of Relativity, nothing is lacking in
> Newtonian mechanics.
>
I am not concerned with whether Newton took shortcuts or created
conceptual monsters based on an astrological framework,it is the total
lack of appreciating of the actual working astronomical principles in
structural and timekeeping astronomy.It is not about how Isaac and
Flamsteed were wrong,it is strictly the ability to affirm Copernican/
Keplerian reasoning using 21st century imaging technology by
discerning the axial and orbital geometry from space and then
applying them to geological and especially climatological disciplines.
You can actually see how the orbital motion of the Earth causes the
solar radiation/orbital shadow boundary to alter in accordance with
Keplerian orbital geometry by looking down at the Earth from space and
from there into climatological/meteorological influences .As a
champion of 21st century imaging,I am not bound to late 17th century
notions that introduced a hemispherical pseudo-dynamic of variable
axial tilt introduced by Flamsteed and built on by Newton in order to
bypass the Equation of Time system and extract axial rotation by
appealing to the return of a star.in 23 hours 56 minutes 04 seconds.
> The truth of Newton's mechanics, of the inverse-square law of
> gravitation,
When faced with the actual texts of Kepler describing how he uses the
orbital periods of the Earth and Saturn to discern distances from the
Sun it should be an occasion for pride among astronomers but instead
it is directed to an awful geocentric/heliocentric orbital equivalency
of Newton that does not make sense, -
"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
The very framework which the earthbound Flamsteed/Newton built is now
destroying the ability to work productively with imaging of the Earth
from space and far from asking readers to actually sort out the
differences between Kepler and Newton's contrived mess,I direct them
towards imaging which speaks for itself.The key Equation of Time
principle which expresses the rate of change of orbital orientation by
means of the noon cycle and axial rotation is crucial to making the
neccessary modifications for climatological purposes.
of the conservation of angular momentum, is reaffirmed
> countless times in the workings of our machines, and especially in the
> paths of automated space probes launched to photograph the planets of
> our solar systems.
>
You convince yourself of whatever you need to,you will even swear
blind that the natural noon cycles are 24 hours exactly in order to
justify axial rotation through 360 degrees in 23 hours 56 minutes 04
seconds or that retrogrades are resolved by a hypothetical observer on
the Sun,neither of these are true but are the basis for the Newtonian
framework.
> If Newton were wrong, the Apollo astronauts would not have made it
> back home.
>
> John Savard
You have no idea what it feels like to witness the dominance of the
astronomical discipline by mathematicians who have little regard for
what is involved in appreciating the great cycles which make existence
possible.They no longer send men to the moon,they send satellites to
theoretical Langrange points as if they were real -
http://www.jwst.nasa.gov/orbit.html
Maybe some dynamicists would wish to consider that the solar system's
galactic orbital motion may influence the shape of planetary
heliocentric motion insofar as it represents compound motions,instead
the Newtonian numbskulls are still treating the solar system as
isolated as Newton once did -
"Cor. 2. And since these stars are liable to no sensible parallax from
the annual motion of the earth, they can have no force, because of
their immense distance, to produce any sensible effect in our system.
Not to mention that the fixed stars, every where promiscuously
dispersed in the heavens, by their contrary actions destroy their
mutual actions, by Prop. LXX, Book I."
The free flowing astronomical methods of Copernicus and Kepler based
on orbital comparisons will allow dynamicists to work with compound
orbital motions whereas the celestial sphere framework of Newton makes
the whole thing wither.
|
| |
Date: 03 Sep 2007 01:09:30
From: Isaac
Subject: Re: Kepler ,Newton and orbital geometry
|
Duroc.
oriel36 wrote:
> The Wikipedia article is being quite honest but the chain of reasoning
> Newton applied to Keplerian orbits are technically present and can be
> dealt with easily,at least for people who are familiar with
> astronomical methods -
>
> "Newton's actual historical chain of reasoning is not known with
> certainty, because in his writing he tended to erase any traces of how
> he had reached his conclusions." Kepler's third law
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kepler's_laws_of_planetary_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.
>
> 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."
>
> http://members.tripod.com/~gravitee/phaenomena.htm
>
> Rather than go through the details,and they are intricate,perhaps it
> is best to demonstrate why it is neccessary to revisit the explanation
> for Keplerian orbital geometries and how the late 17th century
> shortcuts creates multiple problems elsewhere such as the pressing
> need to modify the cause for the seasons by concentrating on the
> orbital motion of the Earth and Keplerian orbital geometry.
|
| |
Date: 02 Sep 2007 22:03:29
From: Quadibloc
Subject: Re: Kepler ,Newton and orbital geometry
|
oriel36 wrote:
> Rather than go through the details,and they are intricate,perhaps it
> is best to demonstrate why it is neccessary to revisit the explanation
> for Keplerian orbital geometries and how the late 17th century
> shortcuts creates multiple problems elsewhere such as the pressing
> need to modify the cause for the seasons by concentrating on the
> orbital motion of the Earth and Keplerian orbital geometry.
Newton did not take shortcuts, and except for failing to come up with
the Special and General Theory of Relativity, nothing is lacking in
Newtonian mechanics.
The truth of Newton's mechanics, of the inverse-square law of
gravitation, of the conservation of angular momentum, is reaffirmed
countless times in the workings of our machines, and especially in the
paths of automated space probes launched to photograph the planets of
our solar systems.
If Newton were wrong, the Apollo astronauts would not have made it
back home.
John Savard
|
|
