MemberlistThe Library Index  FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   RegisterRegister   ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 
Newton's (F)laws (Astrophysics)
Reply to topic Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4 ... 9, 10, 11  Next
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Ishmael


In: Toronto
View user's profile
Reply with quote

Komorikid wrote:
No, Kepler noted that planets and the Moon... moved slower in WINTER and faster in SUMMER.


huh?
Send private message
Ishmael


In: Toronto
View user's profile
Reply with quote

Brian Ambrose wrote:
What puzzles me is that, given Newton's glaring errors, how we ever manage to hit those specks of dirt in the vast distances of space with our spacecraft.


Exactly my thinking.

I believe Komorikid is arguing with a straw man.

Kepler and Newton did not say what he claims they said. Their theories have very limited applicability: Perhaps the chief limitation being that they can't be used to model any orbital relationship more complex than two bodies. It is my understanding that, once a third body is added to the mix, no model as yet can accurately predict the motion (this is known as the third-body problem).

Komorikid is talking about planetary orbits in relation to a Sun which is in orbit around a third center of gravity and this is not something Kepler or Newton addressed. Their equations require us to first assume the Sun is stationary -- but those equations work quite adequately for short periods of time (is the astronomical sense) given the vast disparity of mass between the Sun and the surrounding planets. This is also why Newton is adequate to send satellites into orbit around the Earth or to intercept passing comets.

(This would be impossible were Newtonian physics subject to the kind of enormous error -- two whole days missing from the Earth's orbit! -- that Komrokid seems to be suggesting)

Interactions between Earth, Moon, Sun and the other planets are much more complex, however. Newtonian physics is thus far inadequate to the task: It can predict with accuracy the relationship between an Earth-sized object and a moon-sized object; it can predict with accuracy the relationship between an Earth-sized object and a Sun-sized object; it can predict only with relative accuracy the relationship between an Earth-sized object, Moon-sized object and Sun-sized object.

It strikes me as more than ridiculous that science has turned its attention to distant stars -- where facts are hard to come by and theories are impossible to refute -- before addressing these basic shortcomings with Newtonian physics (for all the praise heaped on Einstein for overturning Newton, his work did nothing to address the three body problem).

It is my hope that a certain model of orbit I have been developing will lead to overcoming the three-body problem, once I can again turn my attention back to these matters.

Most puzzling in Komorikid's posts is this repeated reference to "planets" moving faster in one season than in another.
Send private message
Ishmael


In: Toronto
View user's profile
Reply with quote

Komorikid wrote:
And yes I did write it.


Question 2: Is this your original argument or are you arguing on behalf of someone else's theory?
Send private message
Ishmael


In: Toronto
View user's profile
Reply with quote

admin wrote:
May I remind you all of our firm rule NOT to attack new theories. If you must reprove, do it in the most encouraging way you can.


When I see a theory, I will encourage it.

So far, I have seen only repeated assertions supported with nothing.
Send private message
Ishmael


In: Toronto
View user's profile
Reply with quote

Komorokid wrote:
The Earth in its orbit is travelling in the same direction to the Sun for half its orbit and against the direction of the Sun for the other half of its orbit.


In point of fact, the Earth actually isn't traveling with and against the Sun's direction of motion around the galactic core. The axis of the Solar System is tipped perpendicular to the axis of the Galaxy.
Send private message
Ishmael


In: Toronto
View user's profile
Reply with quote

Komorikid wrote:
Let me make this as simple as I can.


Once again, you appear to display the same habit: Concluding that a contradictory statement indicates stupidity on the part of your opponent.

Brain is pointing out that, according to your own rules of absolute motion, a planet moving "backward" with respect to the motion of the Sun is not moving backward at all -- it continues to move in the same direction as the Sun but more slowly in that direction. Thus, the orbits of the Earth and Sun can be seen as a game of leap-frog (if we presume the solar disk to be oriented the way you imagine it to be -- which it is not): The Earth moves faster than the Sun on the outside then moves to the inside and slows to allow the Sun to overtake it -- but all bodies continue to move in the same direction.

I encourage you to digest this before concluding that I am incorrect and in need of enlightenment.

Yes they are both moving very slowly to the left in relation to the Milky Way but the Earth orbit is determined by the Sun not the galaxy they are both embedded in.


What reason is there for this law?

In point of fact, the orbit of the Earth is determined by every other object in the universe. In fact, your objection to Newton et al appears to rest on your realization that their theories isolate the Sun from the rest of the galaxy.
Send private message
Ishmael


In: Toronto
View user's profile
Reply with quote

Komorikid wrote:
It was called the Cold War....You honestly think the Russians were going to blab about finding an error in celestial mechanics as their enemy were planning a manned mission to the Moon.


KK. What happened to you? You used to be such a rational man!
Send private message
admin
Librarian


View user's profile
Reply with quote

May I remind you all of our firm rule NOT to attack new theories. If you must reprove, do it in the most encouraging way you can.

When I see a theory, I will encourage it. So far, I have seen only repeated assertions supported with nothing.

This is disingenuous, You will keep a civil tongue in your head. However, under the circumstances, if Komorikid says he doesn't mind, the invective may continue at the current level. But any rise in the temperature will provoke sanctions.
Send private message
Ishmael


In: Toronto
View user's profile
Reply with quote

Komorikid wrote:
Perihelion to aphelion = 184 days
Aphelion to perihelion = 181 days
Summer Solstice to Winter Solstice = 183 days
Winter Solstice to Summer Solstice = 181 days


This is the first fact I have seen brought to bear in support of any claim here made by Komorikid.

What I can't accept is his assertion that Newton and Kepler were ignorant of these facts -- or that these facts have a material bearing upon the models Kepler and Newton constructed.

Their models only work with perfection in a perfect universe. They are meant to describe underlying principles behind reality. You can't use Newton to predict the position of Jupiter 200 years hence as the equations can account only for the interactions between two bodies -- and many other bodies influence the position of Jupiter other than the Sun.

What Komorikid here shows is that the orbit of the Earth around the Sun is distorted from the perfect ellipse assumed by Kepler's model. We answer this with, "of course!"; for Kepler's ellipses are modeled in isolation of all other influences (and Kepler lacked a theory of gravity). What Komorikid can't possibly believe is that he is the first to notice this disparity. On what basis then does he pretend the disparity sufficient to refute the whole of Newtonian physics? Does he not think it more likely he has a most basic misunderstanding of the implications?

This distortion does not break Kepler's rule, that equal areas be subscribed in equal times. It would do so -- ironically for Komorikid -- only if the perfection of the ellipse were preserved. The difference in time is a consequence (at least in part) of the ellipse not being of a symmetric shape -- the journey is a longer one on the one side than the other.

I have some hesitancy arguing in this area. Despite having spent a year or more heavily invested in self-teaching myself much of this material, I'm not as familiar with it as I ought to be and I have not been focused in the area for almost two years. I fear I shall make an error, the more I say. Yet I am very hesitant to have Komori's assertions go unanswered and have casual readers imagine this the position of the A.E. in its collective. Komorikid's posts in this area appear to me an embarrassing combination of ignorance, unjustifiable rage and an unmerited degree of arrogance.
Send private message
Brian Ambrose



View user's profile
Reply with quote

I don't have any problem with the apparent solstice discrepancy - as I said previously, these are not aligned with perihelion and aphelion, and so the difference in days is perfectly understandable (draw an ellipse with the sun in it, and draw a line through the sun - where that line hits the ellipse can represent the solstices, and unless you were very careful you will find that one half of the pie is bigger than the other - ie the areas are not equal - and by Kepler therefore, the orbital times must be different).

However, I do think KK has a point (and perhaps it's a shame he didn't just start with this fact) when it comes to Perihelion and Aphelion times being different. Three days is a lot to explain away (even given 3rd party influences, Sun's movement, etc.) when they ought to be equal.
Send private message
Ishmael


In: Toronto
View user's profile
Reply with quote

Brian Ambrose wrote:
However, I do think KK has a point (and perhaps it's a shame he didn't just start with this fact) when it comes to Perihelion and Aphelion times being different. Three days is a lot to explain away (even given 3rd party influences, Sun's movement, etc.) when they ought to be equal.


They ought to be equal in a perfect universe where the Earth alone orbits the Sun.

What is the position of orthodoxy regarding this phenomenon?
Send private message
Chad


In: Ramsbottom
View user's profile
Reply with quote

Komorikid wrote:
Perihelion to aphelion = 184 days
Aphelion to perihelion = 181 days

These figures are misleading.

They were true for 2007 but two years later in 2009 the figures were:

Perihelion to aphelion = 180 days
Aphelion to perihelion = 185 days

The main reason for this turn-around, is that the Earth does not orbit the Sun in isolation, but as part of the Earth/Moon binary... and these figures are based on the distance from Sun to Earth... whereas Kepler's Law would require the distance from the Sun to the centre of gravity of the Earth/Moon binary to be the critical distance.

Obviously the situation will change from year to year, depending on the relative positions of the Earth and Moon.
Send private message
DPCrisp


In: Bedfordshire
View user's profile
Reply with quote

Someone better gets the facts straightened out first. The way I heard it, perihelion is about January 3rd and aphelion about July 4th, making the two 'halves' about equal.
Send private message
DPCrisp


In: Bedfordshire
View user's profile
Reply with quote

I can see the influence of the Moon accounting for the fluctuations, but KomoriKid would appear to hold that this by itself proves that perfect ellipses do not exist and Kepler's laws are therefore valueless.
Send private message
Ishmael


In: Toronto
View user's profile
Reply with quote

DPCrisp wrote:
I can see the influence of the Moon accounting for the fluctuations, but KomoriKid would appear to hold that this by itself proves that perfect ellipses do not exist and Kepler's laws are therefore valueless.


The perfect ellipse does not exist.

But that doesn't mean the laws are "valueless".
Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Reply to topic Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4 ... 9, 10, 11  Next

Jump to:  
Page 3 of 11

MemberlistThe Library Index  FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   RegisterRegister   ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group